Comment on FR Doc # E8-01666

Comments on draft regulations ? 216.27 Paragraph (a) The components of a health certificate should include: A veterinary certification statement that: The animal is fit to travel by whatever means of transportation are going to be utilized. That the animal is in sufficient body condition for release. That the clinical laboratory values do not preclude release. That any conditions set forth by NMFS with regard to release criteria have been met. The method of transport should be listed in the certificate. There should be a place to add a consignee if the animal has to travel some distance to another organization/venue prior to release. ? 216.27(b) The need to facilitate scientific research: Most scientific studies have been conducted with Tursiops at public display venues or at the few research venues equipped to house cetaceans. By comparison, there is virtually nothing known about the other 65 species of toothed whales. With the intent to further knowledge on cetacean species, there should be a very high preferential priority placed upon requests by research facilities to hold, either temporarily or for long term, stranded cetaceans which would otherwise be released, go into public display, or be euthanized. Animals should be able to be preferentially diverted to such use by means of a non-releasable or postponed release determination. ? 216.27(c) Standardized Method for Making Disposition Decisions These determinations should be able to be made in a short time frame, involve the NMFS Office of Protected Resources Coordinators, and be able to circumvent most impediments to achieve a rapid determination. A suggestion is that special consideration be given to those researchers or facilities holding a special research designation. Such a special research designation would entail a new category of research permit which, once granted, would allow opportunistic research under the auspices of the research institution?s own IACUC without the usual requirement for de-novo review by NMFS for each instance or opportunity afforded by a stranding event. Under the current system, a research permit would have to be written in advance predicting all the conceivable events and opportunities which might conceivably present themselves. In addition, under the current system, these stranded animals would immediately become research animals even though they had recently stranded. These animals have a high risk health status for several months or longer post stranding. By comparison, in captive display, a newborn cetacean is not even added to the national database until it is six months old because of the high cetacean neonatal mortality rate. A research permit for these special facilities would have to recognize the nature of the health challenges that stranded animals present. By illustration, marine mammal stranding centers which treat stranded animals are not given ?take? numbers. A cetacean research/rehabilitation facility should be considered in the same light. In ? 216.27(c)(6), Does NMFS need to further define or clarify what activities would qualify as intrusive research on a marine mammal undergoing rehabilitation, based on the definition in ? 216.3, or qualify the procedures for making this determination for animals undergoing rehabilitation? See comments immediately below concerning IACUCs IACUC oversight: Should NMFS require Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) review before intrusive research occurs on animals in rehabilitation? An Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) is a USDA registered Committee charged with the institutional oversight of animals and animal care personnel. USDA veterinarians regularly inspect registered facilities to assure compliance with animal regulations. The purpose of IACUC is to certify the proper care and use of animals as guided by the Animal Welfare Act. When discharging its oversight mission, an IACUC will actively engage to ensure that all institutional personnel are in compliance with permits, protocols and applicable guidelines for the humane care of animals. USDA registration and a properly constituted IACUC insure the legitimacy and humanness of research. If a rehabilitation facility is USDA registered research facility, it should be allowed to make the determination within the institution?s IACUC whether a procedure is intrusive research or is simply medically warranted. In many cases the answer is ambiguous. NMFS should rely upon the institution?s IACUC to make these determinations. At institutions which are not research registered with the USDA and have no IACUC, it is more complicated. A facility with only an animal care committee, for instance, does not have the same legal liability as a USDA registered facility. Registered facilities have strictly defined roles for IACUC membership and administrative oversight culminating in the Institutional Official who is criminally liable for failure to comply with federal regulations. NMFS desires to explore the requirement for IACUCs in the care of animals in rehabilitation. The key to understanding the effectiveness of IACUCs is to realize that it is dependent upon the very real liability of an Institutional Official who is him/herself able, by virtue of his/her position to discipline, sanction, and/or halt any activity in question. For institutions which are not registered as research facilities with the USDA, NMFS should explore providing an optional proxy IACUC comprised of participants in the NMFS national stranding network, which would report directly to the NMFS Office of Protected Resources. This proxy IACUC could provide service to stranding networks which do not have USDA research registration. The Institutional Official would, in effect, be replaced by the Stranding Network Coordinator, who has the power to move the agency towards revocation of a letter of agreement. This arrangement would provide consistency, affordability, and expertise in the determination of whether procedures are intrusive research or medically warranted. IACUCs can perform very quickly utilizing a process of ?Designated Member Review? that need not be explained in this text. ? 216.27(c)(5), Should marine mammals undergoing rehabilitation or pending disposition determination be subject to public viewing? It should be the decision of the institution whether animals under rehabilitation are available for public viewing. However, should the decision be made to allow public viewing, then the animals must be held to public display regulations. Any deviations from public display regulations must comply with 9 CFR: (Text from :9 CFR ?3.104) Space requirements: (a) General. Marine mammals must be housed in primary enclosures that comply with the minimum space requirements prescribed by this part. These enclosures must be constructed and maintained so that the animals contained within are provided sufficient space, both horizontally and vertically, to be able to make normal postural and social adjustments with adequate freedom of movement, in or out of the water. (An exception to these requirements is provided in ?3.110(b) for isolation or separation for medical treatment and/or medical training.) Enclosures smaller than required by the standards may be temporarily used for nonmedical training, breeding, holding, and transfer purposes. If maintenance in such enclosures for nonmedical training, breeding, or holding is to last longer than 2 weeks, such extension must be justified in writing by the attending veterinarian on a weekly basis. If maintenance in such enclosures for transfer is to last longer than 1 week, such extension must be justified in writing by the attending veterinarian on a weekly basis. Any enclosure that does not meet the minimum space requirement for primary enclosures (including, but not limited to, medical pools or enclosures, holding pools or enclosures, and gated side pools smaller than the minimum space requirements) may not be used for permanent housing purposes. Rotating animals between enclosures that meet the minimum space requirements and enclosures that do not is not an acceptable means of complying with the minimum space requirements for primary enclosures. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.