0479 Final Rule 20-101 Federal Register Notice

68533

Rules and Regulations

Federal Register
Vol. 86, No. 230
Friday, December 3, 2021

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains regulatory documents having general
applicability and legal effect, most of which
are keyed to and codified in the Code of
Federal Regulations, which is published under
50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by
the Superintendent of Documents.

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND
BUDGET
2 CFR Part 200
Uniform Administrative Requirements,
Cost Principles, and Audit
Requirements
Office of Management and
Budget.
ACTION: Guidance.
AGENCY:

This document announces the
availability of the first of two 2021
Compliance Supplement Addenda
(2021 Addendum 1) for the Office of
Management and Budget’s uniform
administrative requirements, cost
principles, and audit requirements
regulations. This document also offers
interested parties an opportunity to
comment on the 2021 Addendum 1.
DATES: The 2021 Addendum 1 serves as
a complement to the 2021 Compliance
Supplement published on August 13,
2021 (FR Doc. 2021–17363) and applies
to fiscal year audits beginning after June
30, 2020. All comments to the 2021
Addendum 1 must be in writing and
received by January 3, 2022. Late
comments will be considered to the
extent practicable.
ADDRESSES: Comments will be reviewed
and addressed, when appropriate, in the
2022 Compliance Supplement.
Electronic mail comments may be
submitted to: http://
www.regulations.gov. Please include ‘‘2
CFR part 200 Subpart F—Audit
Requirements, Appendix XI—
Compliance Supplement Addendum—
2021 1’’ in the subject line and the full
body of your comments in the text of the
electronic message and as an
attachment. Please include your name,
title, organization, postal address,
telephone number, and email address in
the text of the message. Comments may
also be sent to: GrantsTeam@
omb.eop.gov.
Please note that all public comments
received are subject to the Freedom of

jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1

SUMMARY:

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 02, 2021

Jkt 256001

Information Act and will be posted in
their entirety, including any personal
and/or business confidential
information provided. Do not include
any information you would not like to
be made publically available.
The 2021 Addendum 1 with Part 4 of
the two American Rescue Plan Act
(ARP) programs is available online on
the CFO homepage at https://
www.cfo.gov/policies-and-guidance/.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Recipients and auditors should contact
their cognizant or oversight agency for
audit, or Federal awarding agency, as
appropriate under the circumstances.
The Federal agency contacts are listed
in appendix III of the Supplement.
Subrecipients should contact their passthrough entity. Federal agencies should
contact Gil Tran at Hai_M._Tran@
omb.eop.gov or (202) 395–3052 or the
OMB Grants team at GrantsTeam@
omb.eop.gov.
The 2021
Addendum 1 (2 CFR part 200, subpart
F, appendix XI) adds audit guidance for
two new ARP programs to Part 4 of the
2021 Compliance Supplement. The
programs are: (1) Treasury’s Coronavirus
State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds
(assistance listing number 21.027), and
(2) Education’s Education Stabilization
Fund (assistance listing number 84.425).
Other Parts of the 2021 Compliance
Supplement remain unchanged.
As Federal awarding agencies are
implementing additional ARP programs,
OMB will continue to work with them
to identify the new ARP programs that
have special compliance and reporting
requirements. When completed by the
agencies and reviewed by OMB, these
audit guides will be published as on the
CFO.gov website as Addendum 2 to the
2021 Compliance Supplement.
Agencies have identified the
following potential programs for
Addendum 2.
USDA 10.542—Pandemic EBT—Food
Benefits
USDA 10.649—Pandemic EBT—Admin
Costs
HHS 93.575—Child Care and
Development Block Grant
HHS 93.499—Low Income Household
Water Assistance Program
HHS 93.558—TANF
HUD 14.871—Section 8 Housing Choice
Vouchers

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

PO 00000

Frm 00001

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

DOT 20.315—National Railroad
Passenger Corporation Grants
Deidre A. Harrison,
Acting Controller.
[FR Doc. 2021–26238 Filed 12–2–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3110–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service
9 CFR Part 2
[Docket No. APHIS–2020–0101]
RIN 0579–AC69

Handling of Animals; Contingency
Plans
Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:

The Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service issued a final rule on
December 31, 2012, to establish
regulations under which research
facilities and dealers, exhibitors,
intermediate handlers, and carriers must
meet certain requirements for
contingency planning and training of
personnel. Implementation of the final
rule was stayed on July 31, 2013, so that
the agency could conduct additional
review to further consider the impact of
contingency plan requirements on
regulated entities. Since that time, we
have conducted such a review, and the
2021 Congressional Appropriations Act
has required us to propose to lift the
stay. We are therefore lifting the stay
and making minor revisions to the
requirements in order to update
compliance dates and clarify intent. The
lifting of the stay and proposed
revisions will better ensure that entities
responsible for animals regulated under
the Animal Welfare Act are prepared to
safeguard the health and welfare of such
animals in the event of possible
emergencies or disasters.
DATES: Effective January 3, 2022.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.
Elizabeth Theodorson, DVM, MPH,
Assistant Deputy Administrator, Animal
Care, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 86,
Riverdale, MD 20737; (970) 494–7473.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:

E:\FR\FM\03DER1.SGM

03DER1

jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1

68534

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 230 / Friday, December 3, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

Background
Under the Animal Welfare Act (AWA)
(7 U.S.C. 2131 et seq.), the Secretary of
Agriculture is authorized to promulgate
standards and other requirements
governing the humane handling, care,
treatment, and transportation of certain
animals by dealers, research facilities,
exhibitors, carriers, and intermediate
handlers. The Secretary has delegated
authority for administering the AWA to
the Administrator of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s)
Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service (APHIS). Within APHIS, the
responsibility for administering the
AWA has been delegated to the Deputy
Administrator for APHIS’ Animal Care
program (AC). Regulations and
standards established under the AWA
are contained in 9 CFR parts 1, 2, and
3 (referred to below as the regulations).
Following the events experienced
during the 2005 hurricane season, AC
concluded that entities responsible for
animals covered by the AWA could
better safeguard the health and welfare
of their animals by developing
contingency plans for possible
emergencies or disasters. Consequently,
on December 31, 2012, APHIS
published in the Federal Register (77
FR 76815–76824, Docket No. APHIS–
2006–0159) a final rule 1 establishing
regulations under which research
facilities and dealers, exhibitors,
intermediate handlers, and carriers of
animals regulated under the AWA must
meet certain requirements for
developing contingency plans and
training personnel in their role and
responsibilities related to the
contingency plan.
After learning that a number of small
entities considered the requirements of
these regulations excessive for their
specific cases, and determining there to
be validity to such a claim, on July 31,
2013, we published in the Federal
Register (78 FR 46255, Docket No.
APHIS–2006–0159) a stay 2 of the
regulations to reexamine any unique
circumstances and costs that may vary
by the type and size of businesses
affected by the final rule.
Since that time, APHIS has issued de
minimis exemptions to animal licensure
that we believe address the concerns
that led to the stay. Additionally, on
December 27, 2020, the 2021
Congressional Appropriations Act (Pub.
L. 116–260) required APHIS to propose
1 To view the final rule, go to https://
www.regulations.gov/document/APHIS-2006-01590209.
2 To view the stay of the regulations, go to https://
www.regulations.gov/document/APHIS-2006-01590214.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 02, 2021

Jkt 256001

to lift the stay on the final rule
establishing contingency plan
requirements within 180 days of
issuance of that Act.
On June 25, 2021, we published in the
Federal Register (86 FR 33567–33570,
Docket No. APHIS–2020–0101) a
proposal 3 to lift the stay and make
minor changes to the contingency plan
regulations. These changes included
updating the compliance dates by which
regulated entities must create their
contingency plans to 180 days after the
effective date of this final rule;
modifying the dates regarding when
regulated entities must provide training
to personnel to 60 days after the
contingency plan being put in place;
removing an extraneous reference to
additional requirements for marine
mammals to minimize confusion;
removing the requirement that facilities
as well as dealers, exhibitors,
intermediate handlers, and carriers
document their personnel’s
participation in requisite trainings; and
adding a reference to a new optional
form that entities may use to develop
and document a contingency plan.
We solicited comments concerning
our proposal for 60 days ending August
24, 2021. We received 140 submissions
representing 35,654 comments by that
date (one of the submissions had
35,000-plus form comments in support
of the rule attached). They were from
non-profit organizations; businesses; an
association of research centers; national
and state associations for biomedical
research; associations of zoos,
aquariums, and marine parks; veterinary
associations; animal welfare
organizations; and members of the
public.
Of the 140 submissions, 138
supported the rule, and most exhorted
us to finalize it without change to the
rule or supporting documents. The
comments that we received are
discussed below by topic.
Contingency Plans
One commenter claimed that creating
a contingency plan would be impossible
for them because they had too many
animals spread over too much acreage to
shelter them in one location in the event
of an emergency. The commenter noted
that their animals used scattered
shelters in extreme weather and that
their geographical location was not at
risk of flooding.
The regulations require entities to
identify potential emergencies or
3 To view the proposed rule, the comments we
received, and supporting documents go to
www.regulations.gov and type APHIS–2020–0101
into the Search field.

PO 00000

Frm 00002

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

disasters they are likely to experience
and outline specific tasks to take (such
as evacuation or shelter-in-place
instructions) in the event that these
situations occur.
The use of scattered shelters in
extreme weather is an example of what
could be an appropriate response to a
potential emergency or disaster
depending on an entity’s circumstances.
As such, the regulations authorize their
use, if a regulated entity considers them
appropriate based on the entity’s unique
circumstances. The regulations also do
not require an entity to plan a response
to flooding if flooding could not
reasonably be anticipated.
Another commenter suggested that,
instead of requiring entities to create
contingency plans, USDA should
provide yearly educational coaching on
best practices for facility management
and animal care.
While USDA inspectors will provide
advice on facility management and
animal care during inspections, such
advice is not a sufficient replacement
for this rule. The adverse events due to
lack of planning detailed in the
proposed rule and its supporting
economic analysis outline the need for
regulatory action. Accordingly, APHIS
maintains that regulations are necessary
to ensure the safety and well-being of
animals under the care of regulated
entities in compliance with the AWA.
Four commenters suggested APHIS
provide additional resources for entities
creating contingency plans, such as
training materials, webinars, or links for
further reading.
APHIS AC will conduct internal and
external webinars regarding contingency
planning and provide outreach
materials on the APHIS website such as
Frequently Asked Questions, aids,
resources for further reading, and
contact information in case entities have
further questions.
Another commenter suggested that
USDA develop sample templates,
provide training for USDA inspectors
who will help entities develop
contingency plans, and obtain funding
for this training.
As stated in the proposed rule, APHIS
has provided an optional form that
regulated entities may use as a template.
This template was published alongside
the proposed rule and will be available
on the APHIS website. The APHIS
website will also include various
outreach materials to assist with
contingency planning. AC’s Center for
Animal Welfare has developed a plan to
implement the contingency planning
regulations and has trained its
personnel accordingly. This training is
possible without additional funding

E:\FR\FM\03DER1.SGM

03DER1

jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 230 / Friday, December 3, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
apart from that appropriated by
Congress for AC’s ongoing operations.
Another commenter asked for the
contingency requirements to be more
prescriptive. Specifically, the
commenter wanted APHIS to require
entities to create contingency plans for
the potential death of an owner and heat
waves.
The regulations require a regulated
entity to identify emergencies or
disasters that could reasonably be
anticipated and that would be
detrimental to the well-being of their
animals. We expect that, for most
entities, it would be difficult to
reasonably anticipate death.
If an entity determines that they are
located in an area prone to heat waves
that could be reasonably anticipated to
be harmful to their animals, they would
need to address heat waves in their
contingency plans. However, an entity
located in an extremely temperate
climate may assess climatic conditions
and determine a heat wave to be
unlikely. APHIS believes that regulated
entities themselves are best suited to
make such determinations, and
therefore will not provide a one-sizefits-all list of emergencies or disasters
that all entities must plan for.
Another commenter requested
explicit acknowledgement that plans
developed for compliance with The
Guide for the Care and Use of
Laboratory Animals (The Guide) comply
with this rule’s contingency plan
regulations.
Contingency plans developed using
The Guide are acceptable so long as they
fulfill the requirements laid out in the
regulations.
The commenter also requested
assurance that APHIS will not view
deviations from contingency plans in
emergency situations as violations, but
as on-the-ground efforts to tailor the
plan to specific events and
opportunities to improve the
contingency plan.
APHIS agrees with the commenter
that the actual response may vary from
the written contingency plan in an
emergency situation, and that these
variations can serve as a basis for
updating and improving a contingency
plan. If an entity varies its response
from its written contingency plan in
order to better meet the needs of an
unfolding emergency situation, this
would not necessarily be viewed as a
violation. In such situations, APHIS
would determine whether or not a
violation has occurred on a case-by-case
basis, based on whether the deviation
furthers the purpose of the regulation,
which is to safeguard the health and

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 02, 2021

Jkt 256001

welfare of animals in the event of
possible emergencies or disasters.
One commenter suggested requiring
regulated entities to submit their
contingency plans to USDA for review.
We are making no changes in
response to the commenter. Submitting
a plan to APHIS is not the sole means
to demonstrate that a plan has been
developed and satisfies the
requirements of the regulations, and
would impose a significant resource
constraint on AC to receive and compile
the plans and ensure their
confidentiality. Rather, AC will ensure
compliance with this rule through
reviewing the entity’s plan during
announced and unannounced
inspections. We believe that this
method of enforcing the requirements
provides sufficient assurance that the
contingency planning requirements are
being met while minimizing regulatory
burden on entities and more efficiently
allocating agency resources.
One commenter urged APHIS to take
further action to ensure that an entity’s
contingency plans are kept confidential.
APHIS will not maintain the plans.
Therefore, this rule does not raise
confidentiality concerns.
Training
A commenter wrote that the
regulatory text should overtly state that
it is up to the regulated entity to
determine who needs to be trained and
how.
The entity is responsible for including
all personnel encompassed by the plan
in the training and is responsible for the
content and delivery of the training. We
do not believe it is necessary to add this
statement into the regulatory text, as the
regulations do not state or imply
otherwise.
The commenter also asked that the
regulatory text clarify that only
substantive changes to a contingency
plan would necessitate updated
training.
We agree with the commenter that
non-substantive changes, which could
include revisions as minor as reordering
of instructions or grammatical
corrections, do not necessitate updated
training, and have made this change in
§§ 2.38(l)(3) and 2.134(c). Our intent
was that only substantive changes, that
is, changes that materially alter the plan,
would require updated training.
The commenter also asked that the
60- or 30-day training deadlines that we
proposed be extended to 90 days for
both initial and subsequent training of
personnel.
We are making no changes in
response to this comment. Training
required by the regulations entails

PO 00000

Frm 00003

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

68535

familiarizing personnel with their roles
and responsibilities as outlined in the
contingency plan. APHIS believes the
deadlines in the proposed rule (60 days
for initial training and 30 days for new
employees and updates to the
contingency plan) are sufficient time to
provide this basic training, and the
commenter did not provide information
suggesting this basic training could not
be accomplished within that time
period.
As noted above, we proposed to
remove a requirement from the stayed
final rule that facilities as well as
dealers, exhibitors, intermediate
handlers, and carriers document their
personnel’s participation in requisite
trainings. Seven commenters disagreed
with our proposed removal and asked
for it to be reinstated.
APHIS does not believe that requiring
entities to keep training records would
significantly increase compliance with
the training requirements, but it would
increase burden on regulated entities.
Rather than require documentation,
we will evaluate compliance with the
training requirement through
discussions with the licensee or
registrant during announced and
unannounced inspections. APHIS AC
successfully enforces other training
requirements in this manner, and is
confident that this model will work for
the regulations promulgated in this rule
as well. Therefore, we are making no
change in response to the commenters.
Economic Analysis
Two commenters stated that our
estimates for the time it will take
entities to create contingency plans and
train personnel are too low.
Our estimates are averages based on
the varying sizes of the entities and the
optional fillable template the agency is
providing. Some entities may require
less time, and some will require more.
Additionally, based on the comments
received, it appears that most entities
will not be formulating their plans de
novo. Several commenters who were
regulated entities themselves opined
that it would be difficult for a regulated
entity to remain operational without at
least some contingency planning, and a
few commenters stated that the
regulated entities they represented
already have contingency plans in place
that meet the requirements of the rule.
Indeed, one of the commenters who
stated that our estimates were too low
also stated that the entities that it
represents already have plans in place
and should not incur new costs as a
result of the rule.
Based on the comments received, we
believe that the 1-to-2-hours for plan

E:\FR\FM\03DER1.SGM

03DER1

68536

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 230 / Friday, December 3, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

creation and 1 hour for training
estimates, relative to the current plans
maintained and training conducted by
the entity, are reasonable.
One commenter stated that costs are
unlikely to drop to zero after the first
year.
We are not assuming that there will be
no reoccurring annual costs after the
first year of the implementation of the
rule. We believe that the costs after the
first year of developing and
implementing contingency plans will
decrease for existing entities as they
would have already incurred the initial
development and implementation costs.
The commenter also stated that, while
they agree that capital costs will vary
between entities, these costs will not be
minimal.
The proposed rule did not prescribe
any capital investments that entities
must make. The entities vary by size
and type and will have different
requirements in terms of equipment.
While some entities may incur costs to
purchase equipment, others may already
have equipment as a part of their
business operations. We also note that
the same commenter stated that the
entities it represents had already
assumed those costs apart from this rule
as a cost of doing business.
Environmental Analysis
One commenter questioned why an
environmental analysis was prepared,
since they expected contingency plans
to have only a positive impact on the
environment.
APHIS conducted an environmental
assessment based on the Council on
Environmental Quality’s (CEQ’s) newly
revised implementing procedures. The
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) reviews all potential impacts,
not just those with negative
implications (40 CFR 1508.1(g)(1)).
Other Comments
A commenter asked that contingency
plan regulations for marine mammals in
9 CFR 3.101(b) be eliminated.
This is outside of this rule’s scope.
A commenter stated that there was a
lack of a clear definition for the term
‘‘breeding female’’ as used in AWA
regulations.
This is also outside of this rule’s
scope.
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1

Miscellaneous
Finally, in reviewing the proposed
rule with an eye toward
implementation, we noticed that the
explanations of training deadlines in
§§ 2.38(l)(3) and 2.134(c) were
ambiguous and did not clearly reflect
APHIS’ intent in drafting the proposed

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 02, 2021

Jkt 256001

rule. We intended to state that if an
employee was hired before or up to 30
days after a facility has its plan in place,
that employee would have to be trained
within 60 days of the plan being in
place, whereas, if an employee was
hired after that date, the facility would
have 30 days to train the employee.
However, the proposed rule could be
read to suggest that employees hired at
least 30 days before the plan is put in
place must be trained by the time the
plan is put in place, which would
require training in the provisions of the
plan before the plan itself was finalized.
Requiring training in a plan that is not
yet finalized and in place could be
logistically problematic for regulated
entities and, again, was not APHIS’
intent. We have revised the paragraphs
accordingly to make our intent clearer.
Therefore, for the reasons given in the
proposed rule and in this document, we
are adopting the proposed rule as a final
rule, with the changes discussed in this
document.
Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory
Flexibility Act
This final rule has been determined to
be not significant for the purposes of
Executive Order 12866 and, therefore,
has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 604, we
have performed a final regulatory
flexibility analysis, which is
summarized below, regarding the
economic effects of this rule on small
entities. Copies of the full analysis are
available on the Regulations.gov website
(see footnote 3 in this document for a
link to Regulations.gov) or by contacting
the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
We are amending the AWA
regulations to implement contingency
plans for the handling of animals during
emergencies. In December 2012, the
USDA’s APHIS published a final rule
requiring all dealers, exhibitors,
intermediate handlers, carriers, research
facilities, and other entities regulated
under the AWA to take steps to be better
prepared for potential emergencies and
disasters (situations which could
reasonably be anticipated and expected
to be detrimental to the good health and
well-being of the animals in the
regulated entity’s possession). In July
2013, USDA issued a stay of the
Contingency Plan Regulation in order to
undertake a review of its requirements.
In June of 2021, we published a
proposed rule to lift the stay on the
December 2012 rulemaking along with
other minor administrative changes.
This final rule will codify the provisions

PO 00000

Frm 00004

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

of the proposed rule and lift the stay on
the 2012 final rule.
While it is difficult to quantify the
benefits of contingency planning, they
are numerous. First, contingency
planning can prevent loss of animal life
and any resulting undisposed carcasses
that pose a threat to public health.
Second, loss of valuable research
resources and income can be mitigated
with contingency planning. Third,
having a contingency plan can reduce
the time of recovery from disasters and
thus provide cost savings to the affected
businesses and organizations and allow
for business continuity. Finally,
required contingency planning will
reassure the general public that facilities
have measures in place to ensure the
welfare of the animals in times of
catastrophic and common emergencies.
APHIS’ AC program will be providing
a fillable form that can be used to
develop and document the contingency
plan; however, entities that have
contingency plans in place may use
those. For example, we believe that U.S.
Public Health Service-funded research
facilities and AZA zoos and aquariums
have already developed contingency
plans; they will not need to adopt the
template. The template is intended to
aid entities currently without a written
contingency plan, and we estimate it
will take on average 1–2 hours per
entity to complete the plan, which
includes the time to collect and
document the required information. We
anticipate that the use of this form will
improve compliance and expedite the
time for annual review by regulated
entities of the plan. APHIS also
estimates it will take, on average, 1 hour
to train employees on the operations of
the plan, which consists of familiarizing
employees with their roles and
responsibilities as outlined in the plan.
We estimated lower and upper range
estimates of costs for licensees and
registrants to develop contingency plans
in the first year. As noted above, we
assume an average of 1 to 2 hours is
required to prepare and implement a
contingency plan using the form and 1
hour for employee training in the first
year. We multiplied this time by the
average industry-specific wage rate of
the entities. Our estimate of the total
one-time cost to develop the
contingency plans across all affected
entity categories ranges from about
$185,000 to about $370,000 and
$185,000 for employee training, as well
as possible capital costs, which will
differ from entity to entity and which
we accordingly are not able to estimate
in aggregate. These estimates may be
high, given our inclusion of entities that
may currently have comparable

E:\FR\FM\03DER1.SGM

03DER1

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 230 / Friday, December 3, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
contingency plans and already provide
employee training, but for which we
lack verifying information.
The 1 to 2 hours that we assume
would be required to develop a
contingency plan includes the time
needed to identify resources for the
plan’s preparation and documentation.
The 1-hour training estimate for all
current and new employees considers
the time it would take an employee to
become familiar with their roles and
responsibilities as outlined in the plan.
The costs included in this analysis
reflect training for the first year only.
Contingency planning also requires
record keeping, ensuring that the
contingency plans are kept current, and
employee training. The type of training
and type of contingency plan required
may differ depending on the type of
organization or business, as well as its
location and the location’s climate
history.
Executive Order 12372
This program/activity is listed in the
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
under No. 10.025 and is subject to
Executive Order 12372, which requires
intergovernmental consultation with
State and local officials. (See 2 CFR
chapter IV.)

jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1

Executive Order 12988
This final rule has been reviewed
under Executive Order 12988, Civil
Justice Reform. It is not intended to
have retroactive effect. The Act does not
provide administrative procedures
which must be exhausted prior to a
judicial challenge to the provisions of
this rule.
National Environmental Policy Act
An environmental assessment and
finding of no significant impact have
been prepared for this final rule. The
environmental assessment provides a
basis for the conclusion that the creation
of contingency plans will not have a
significant impact on the quality of the
human environment. Based on the
finding of no significant impact, the
Administrator of the Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service has
determined that an environmental
impact statement need not be prepared.
The environmental assessment and
finding of no significant impact were
prepared in accordance with: (1) NEPA,
as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), (2)
regulations of the CEQ for implementing
the procedural provisions of NEPA (40
CFR parts 1500–1508), (3) USDA
regulations implementing NEPA (7 CFR
part 1b), and (4) APHIS’ NEPA
Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part
372).

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 02, 2021

Jkt 256001

The environmental assessment and
finding of no significant impact may be
viewed on the Regulations.gov website.4
Copies of the environmental assessment
and finding of no significant impact are
also available for public inspection at
USDA, Room 1620, South Building,
14th Street and Independence Avenue
SW, Washington, DC, between 8 a.m.
and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except holidays. Persons wishing to
inspect copies are requested to call
ahead on (202) 799–7039 to facilitate
entry into the reading room. In addition,
copies may be obtained by writing to the
individual listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
Congressional Review Act
Pursuant to the Congressional Review
Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs
designated this rule as not a major rule,
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with Section 3507(d) of
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the information
collection or recordkeeping
requirements included in this final rule
have been submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for
approval under control number 0579–
0479. When OMB notifies us of its
decision, if approval is denied, we will
publish a document in the Federal
Register providing notice of what action
we plan to take.
E-Government Act Compliance
The Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service is committed to
compliance with the E-Government Act
to promote the use of the internet and
other information technologies, to
provide increased opportunities for
citizen access to Government
information and services, and for other
purposes. For information pertinent to
E-Government Act compliance related
to this rule, please contact Mr. Joseph
Moxey, APHIS’ Paperwork Reduction
Act Coordinator, at (301) 851–2483.
List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 2
Animal welfare, Pets, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Research.
Accordingly, we are amending 9 CFR
part 2 as follows:
PART 2—REGULATIONS
1. The authority citation for part 2
continues to read as follows:

■

4 Go to www.regulations.gov. Enter APHIS–2020–
0101 in the Search field. The environmental
assessment and finding of no significant impact will
appear in the list of documents.

PO 00000

Frm 00005

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

68537

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 2131–2159; 7 CFR
2.22, 2.80, and 371.7.

2. Amend § 2.38:
a. By lifting the stay on paragraph (l)
published at July 31, 2013 (78 FR
46255);
■ b. In paragraph (l)(2):
■ i. In the first sentence by removing the
date ‘‘July 29, 2013’’ and adding ‘‘July
5, 2022’’ in its place;
■ ii. In the fifth sentence by removing
the words ‘‘and training records’’; and
■ iii. By revising the last sentence; and
■ c. By revising paragraph (l)(3); and
■ d. By adding an OMB citation at the
end of the section.
The revisions and addition read as
follows:
■
■

§ 2.38

Miscellaneous.

*

*
*
*
*
(l) * * *
(2) * * * The APHIS Contingency
Plan form may be used to keep and
maintain the information required by
paragraph (l)(1) and (2) of this section.
(3) The facility must provide training
for its personnel regarding their roles
and responsibilities as outlined in the
plan. For current registrants, training of
facility personnel must be completed
within 60 days of the research facility
putting their plan in place; for research
facilities registered after July 5, 2022,
training of facility personnel must be
completed within 60 days of the facility
putting its contingency plan in place.
This deadline applies to employees
hired before and up to 30 days after the
facility puts its contingency plan in
place. For employees hired more than
30 days after the facility puts its
contingency plan in place, training must
be conducted within 30 days of their
start date. Any substantive changes to
the plan as a result of the annual review
must be communicated to employees
through training which must be
conducted within 30 days of making the
changes.
(Approved by the Office of Management and
Budget under control number 0579–0479)

3. Amend § 2.134:
a. By lifting the stay on the section
published July 31, 2013 (78 FR 46255);
■ b. In paragraph (b):
■ i. In the first sentence by removing the
date ‘‘July 29, 2013’’ and adding ‘‘July
5, 2022’’ in its place;
■ ii. In the fifth sentence by removing
the words ‘‘and training records’’; and
■ iii. By revising the last sentence; and
■ c. By revising paragraph (c); and
■ d. By adding an OMB citation at the
end of the section.
The revisions and addition read as
follows:
■
■

§ 2.134

*

E:\FR\FM\03DER1.SGM

Contingency planning.

*

*

03DER1

*

*

68538

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 230 / Friday, December 3, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

(b) * * * The APHIS Contingency
Plan form may be used to keep and
maintain the information required by
§ 2.38(l)(1) and (2).
(c) Dealers, exhibitors, intermediate
handlers, and carriers must provide
training for their personnel regarding
their roles and responsibilities as
outlined in the plan. For current
licensees and registrants, training of
dealer, exhibitor, intermediate handler,
and carrier personnel must be
completed within 60 days of the
licensee and registrant putting their
contingency plan in place; for new
dealers, exhibitors, intermediate
handlers, or carriers licensed or
registered after July 5, 2022, training of
personnel must be completed within 60
days of the dealer, exhibitor,
intermediate handler, or carrier putting
their contingency plan in place. This
deadline applies to employees hired
before and up to 30 days after the date
the licensee or registrant puts its
contingency plan in place. For
employees hired more than 30 days after
the date the licensee or registrant puts
its contingency plan in place, training
must be conducted within 30 days of
their start date. Any substantive changes
to the plan as a result of the annual
review must be communicated to
employees through training which must
be conducted within 30 days of making
the changes.
(Approved by the Office of Management and
Budget under control number 0579–0479)
Done in Washington, DC, this 26th day of
November 2021.
Mark Davidson,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 2021–26174 Filed 12–2–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–34–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 71
[Docket No. FAA–2021–0801; Airspace
Docket No. 20–ASO–29]
RIN 2120–AA66

Establishment of Class E Airspace;
Fulton, KY
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.

jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1

AGENCY:

This action establishes Class
E airspace extending upward from 700
feet above the surface for Fulton
Airport, Fulton, KY, to accommodate
new area navigation (RNAV) global

SUMMARY:

VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:37 Dec 02, 2021

Jkt 256001

positioning system (GPS) standard
instrument approach procedures
(SIAPs) serving this airport. Controlled
airspace is necessary for the safety and
management of instrument flight rules
(IFR) operations in the area.
DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, January 27,
2022. The Director of the Federal
Register approves this incorporation by
reference action under 1 CFR part 51,
subject to the annual revision of FAA
Order JO 7400.11 and publication of
conforming amendments.
ADDRESSES: FAA Order JO 7400.11F,
Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can
be viewed online at https://
www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/.
For further information, you can contact
the Airspace Policy Group, Federal
Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington,
DC 20591; Telephone: (202) 267–8783.
The Order is also available for
inspection at the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of FAA
Order JO 7400.11F at NARA, email
[email protected] or go to https://
www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/
ibr-locations.html.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John
Fornito, Operations Support Group,
Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation
Administration, 1701 Columbia Ave.,
College Park, GA 30337; Telephone
(404) 305–6364.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Authority for This Rulemaking
The FAA’s authority to issue rules
regarding aviation safety is found in
Title 49 of the United States Code.
Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator.
Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the
agency’s authority. This rulemaking is
promulgated under the authority
described in Subtitle VII, Part A,
Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that
section, the FAA is charged with
prescribing regulations to assign the use
of airspace necessary to ensure the
safety of aircraft and the efficient use of
airspace. This regulation is within the
scope of that authority as it establishes
Class E airspace for Fulton Airport,
Fulton, KY.
History
The FAA published a notice of
proposed rulemaking in the Federal
Register (86 FR 52622, September 22,
2021) for Docket No. FAA–2021–0801 to
establish Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface
for Fulton Airport, Fulton, KY.

PO 00000

Frm 00006

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

Interested parties were invited to
participate in this rulemaking effort by
submitting written comments on the
proposal to the FAA. No comments
were received.
Class E airspace designations are
published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA
Order JO 7400.11F, dated August 10,
2021, and effective September 15, 2021,
which is incorporated by reference in 14
CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace
designations listed in this document
will be published subsequently in the
FAA Order JO 7400.11.
Availability and Summary of
Documents for Incorporation by
Reference
This document amends FAA Order JO
7400.11F, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 10,
2021, and effective September 15, 2021.
FAA Order JO 7400.11F is publicly
available as listed in the ADDRESSES
section of this document. FAA Order JO
7400.11F lists Class A, B, C, D, and E
airspace areas, air traffic routes, and
reporting points.
The Rule
The FAA is amending 14 CFR part 71
by establishing Class E airspace
extending upward from 700 feet above
the surface within a 7.3-mile radius at
Fulton Airport, Fulton, KY, to
accommodate new area navigation
(RNAV) global positioning system (GPS)
standard instrument approach
procedures (SIAPs) serving this airport.
These changes are necessary for
continued safety and management of
IFR operations in the area.
FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on
September 15.
Regulatory Notices and Analyses
The FAA has determined that this
regulation only involves an established
body of technical regulations for which
frequent and routine amendments are
necessary to keep them operationally
current. It, therefore: (1) Is not a
‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a
‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44
FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3)
does not warrant preparation of a
regulatory evaluation as the anticipated
impact is minimal. Since this is a
routine matter that only affects air traffic
procedures an air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when
promulgated, does not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

E:\FR\FM\03DER1.SGM

03DER1