700 Kipling Street, Suite 4000
Lakewood, CO 80215-8000
303-239-4100  Fax 303-239-4125
www.colorado.gov/ag
John T. Salazar, Commissioner
Ron P. Carleton, Deputy Commissioner
John Hickenlooper
Governor
May 13, 2014
Regulatory Analysis on the Repeal and Re-enactment of “Rules and Regulations
Pertaining to the Administration and Enforcement of the Pet Animal Care and
Facilities Act.”
I) The classes of persons affected by the proposed rule are regulated facilities including
retail aquarium, cat breeder, common bird breeder, dog breeder, network pet boarding,
pet animal rescue, pet animal shelter, pet boarding/training, pet grooming, pet handler,
pet retail/wholesale, single retail events, small animal breeders, and uncommon bird
breeders. Those classes of persons that will bear costs as a result of increased license
fees include dog breeders, network pet boarding facilities, pet animal rescues that do not
have non-profit designation, large pet animal shelters, pet boarding/training, pet
retail/wholesale, and small animal breeders. All classes of regulated entities will benefit
from the proposed rule because it is easier to read and understand, and the inspection
process is streamlined with a consolidated rule that is easier for inspectors to use with an
inspection checklist for use by facilities and inspectors.
II) The qualitative and quantitative economic impact of the proposed rule on affected
regulated businesses will be generally positive. The purpose of the proposed rule
revision is to improve wording in the definitions for clarification, to remove redundant
language from the rule, and to amend the language in some sections to clarify the
requirements. The new format of the rule will be based on the species of pet animal
rather than on the type of facilities. Overall, the rule repeal and re-enactment achieves
the Governor’s directive to all state agencies to periodically review regulations to ensure
they are effective, efficient, and essential. Because PACFA’s rule had not been through a
review and overhaul since its initial drafting and adoption in 1995, the rule has become
unwieldy, inefficient, and ineffective, costing the regulated community and the
Department dollars and work hours.
Increased fees provide revenue to increase quantity and quality of inspections as well as
enhance database management and program transparency. The public and the regulated
classes benefit economically from consistent regulation and enforcement of minimum
standards. This increases consumer confidence and provides an equal competitive field
for regulated facilities.
The proposed rule makes changes in a few areas that will affect most licensees, but
overall simply removes redundant language and consolidates the existing rule into
Division of Animal Industry
700 Kipling Street, Suite 4000, Lakewood, CO 80215  303-239-4161  303-239-4164 Fax
violation sections rather than license categories. Three areas in particular could result in
costs to the business.
The first is an increase in the size of primary enclosures for dogs. The rule, 12.00 A.,
will address enclosure size according to the length of time a dog spends at a facility. The
maximum size increase represents a 30% increase from the previous rule and will affect
businesses that house dogs longer than 6 months. Compliance with the larger size will
result in construction and remodeling costs for businesses that are unable to provide
exercise. The rule still provides a provision for smaller enclosures if the dog is exercised
during a 24 hour period. The business owner can choose which option works better for
their facility and business model. Based on a survey conducted by the program more
than a year ago, all of licensees responding already exceed the size requirement for dog
enclosures and will meet the new required sizes without further modification, especially
when the space requirements are calculated for multiple dogs in an enclosure. Up to five
dogs can be housed in one enclosure. With the exercise option licensees may choose not
to incur construction costs but to manage exercise requirements with staff.
The second change, 12.00 A. 8. a., requires those facilities currently using coated wire
flooring in dog enclosures to provide a solid resting surface sufficient to allow all the
dogs in the enclosure to occupy it at the same time. This provides a choice in substrate
for the dogs in the enclosure. The requirement is that the surface be solid and be easily
cleaned and sanitized. This allows for a variety of surfaces from hard plastic or wood to
padded bedding, which can be washed between uses. The surface need not be permanent,
so new construction will not be necessary for compliance. Survey results indicated all
facilities currently using coated wire already provide the sort of solid resting surface
contemplated by this change.
The third change, 18.00 T. 2. and 3., develops some regulations surrounding the use of
pools and would require that dogs in pools be supervised. Because pools are used
similarly to the way exercise areas are used, facilities using pools would fall under the
same regulations for co-mingling dogs during exercise. Supervisors are already required
to be present for co-mingled groups of dogs, so no additional costs should be incurred
unless the pool area is completely separate from the exercise area and cannot be
monitored by the same person. A facility is currently required to be constructed and
maintained in good repair, protect animals kept there from injury, ensure containment of
pet animals within the property, and restrict the entry of other animals and humans from
outside the property. The new language applies this same standard to pools requiring the
pool be constructed to protect animals from injury and illness. Recently, an
administrative law judge has opined that this rule does not impose strict liability
standards of care on a facility. Facilities are not required to have pools; the rule simply
provides regulation to those facilities that already have a pool or that may build a pool in
the future.
III) Consolidation of the rule will help facilitate consistent inspections and cause the
inspection process to be expedited due to the ease of use of the rule and the creation of a
check list for inspection. This check list will also be available to regulated classes to
enhance their understanding of the inspection process and the requirements of their
business. There is no anticipated effect on state revenues.
IV) Making no changes to the existing rule would increase the administrative cost for the
program due to increased inspection times and more difficult regulation and enforcement
of the rule as it exists as well as increased costs to implement database modifications due
to the complexity of the rule. Existing license holders would be affected negatively due
to the inability of the program to respond to the needs of stakeholders through more
consistent and regular inspections as well as continued improvements to data
management fostering program transparency. Further, should no changes be made to the
existing rule in the three areas of this response – enclosure size, solid resting surfaces,
and pools – the legislature has indicated it would be interested in addressing these issues
by statutory amendment. This would ultimately cause the license holder to incur the
same or greater cost because the Commissioner has less control over the language of
statutory amendments that result in requirements thereby possibly leading to less flexible
regulation.
V) Costs for regulation continue to rise and cash funded programs must anticipate
expenses to make timely adjustments to revenue. The regulated community agreed to the
structure of the program and asked the Department to provide the service. The program
has not raised fees for 5 years by managing to the revenue provided; however, there are
deficiencies evident, some of which must be addressed through staffing and increased
efficiencies in data management. The regulated classes will bear the cost of this in the
form of fees for licensure. The regulatory program is well established and respected; in
order to continue providing the best service and consistent inspections fees must increase.
The proposed rule in bulk is simply a consolidation and clarification of language from the
existing rule which will prove to be cost saving. The exceptions are the fee increase for
some classes of licenses, and the three major amendments as described above.
VI) The Department considered and rejected making amendments to the existing rule as
it would cause the same costs as would changing the entire rule so the cost versus
benefits would be neutral compared to repealing and re-enacting. The current rule could
be amended to address the three areas of change and would result in the same costs to the
license holder as if the current rule were amended. The real cost to exercising this option,
however, is the same as noted above: an increase to the administrative cost for the
program due to increased inspection times and more difficult regulation and enforcement
of the rule as it exists as well as increased costs to implement database modifications due
to the complexity of the rule. Existing license holders would be affected negatively due
to the inability of the program to respond to the needs of stakeholders.