[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 177 (Wednesday, September 14, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-22719]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: September 14, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
9 CFR Part 92
[Docket No. 92-162-2]
RIN 0579-AA57
Quarantine Facilities for Birds
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are revising the bird importation regulations to allow
imported birds to be quarantined upon arrival in the United States at
any privately owned bird quarantine facility located near an
international airport or land-border port served by U.S. Customs,
provided the facility meets the standards of the Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service. The importation system that allowed bird
importations through a limited number of ``approved quarantine
facilities'' lacked flexibility, and no longer appears necessary.
We are also establishing standards for incubator/hatcher areas and
bird holding areas in quarantine facilities for hatching eggs of
ratites. These standards will protect U.S. birds and poultry from
disease without requiring importers of hatching eggs of ratites to
comply with the more stringent standards appropriate for imported
birds.
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 14, 1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Keith A. Hand, Senior Staff
Veterinarian, Import-Export Animals Staff, National Center for Import-
Export, Veterinary Services, APHIS, USDA, room 768, Federal Building,
6505 Belcrest Road, Hyattsville, MD 20782, 301-436-5097.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The regulations in 9 CFR Secs. 92.100 through 92.107, ``Subpart A--
Birds'' (referred to below as the regulations), regulate the
importation of birds to prevent the introduction of communicable
diseases of poultry and other domestic livestock into the United
States. As a condition of importation, all imported birds must be
quarantined for a minimum of 30 days upon their arrival in the United
States. The birds must be quarantined in either a U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) quarantine facility or in a privately owned facility
approved by the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service (APHIS).
On August 3, 1993, we published in the Federal Register (58 FR
41204-41210, Docket No. 92-162-1) a proposal to amend the regulations
by allowing imported birds to be quarantined upon arrival in the United
States at any privately owned bird quarantine facility located near an
international airport or land-border port served by U.S. Customs,
provided the facility meets APHIS standards. Our proposal also
specified standards and handling procedures for incubator/hatcher areas
and chick holding areas in privately owned bird quarantine facilities
for hatching eggs of ratites.
We solicited comments concerning our proposal for a 60-day comment
period ending October 4, 1993. We received 214 comments by that date.
They were from breeders, importers, humane organizations, industry
associations, and representatives of State and Federal agencies. We
carefully considered all of the comments we received, and discuss them
below, by topic.
Bird Import Permit Issuance; Inspection
A number of commenters stated that APHIS has insufficient personnel
to provide services in conjunction with the avian import program, and
expressed concern that the proposed provisions would exacerbate the
problems that already exist. Several commenters expressed concern
regarding the provision in our proposed rule that lack of APHIS
personnel would be a condition for denial of a permit to import birds
or ratite hatching eggs, and also with the provision that permits would
be granted for ports of entry on a ``first-come-first-served'' basis.
One commenter stated that such a policy places an unreasonable
financial burden on importers, and suggested that when applications for
permits converge, APHIS charge additional fees to provide the
additional services. Another commenter expressed concern that the
demand for APHIS personnel would lead to a lottery system that would
destroy the ability of bird importers to operate in a normal business
environment.
We are making no changes based on these comments. Because the
geographical distribution of privately operated quarantine facilities
for birds is expected to be broader under this rule than under the
existing regulations, we anticipate that no one sector of APHIS
personnel will be excessively impacted. In those occasional cases where
sufficent personnel are not available in an area, we will make an
effort to accommodate each importer. In some cases, this may require
redistribution of APHIS personnel resources. Further, as we stated in
our proposed rule, and discuss below, we anticipate a decline in the
number of birds intended for importation into the United States.
A small number of commenters stated that issuing permits on a
``first-come-first-served'' basis would not take into account which
facilities are the most qualified or most experienced in handling
birds. We are making no changes based on these comments. Our statutory
authority does not empower us to favor one facility over another,
provided each facility is capable of meeting, and does meet, the
requirements of the regulations. Owners of birds intended for
importation into the United States will have the option of choosing
among quarantine facilities capable of complying with the regulations.
In our proposed rule, we included the requirement that an applicant
for an import permit submit a $10,000 deposit, along with a Cooperative
and Trust Fund Agreement, to cover the cost of APHIS services provided
during one quarantine and any additional costs that might be incurred
due to unexpected schedule changes or extensions of the quarantine
period. Several commenters supported the provision as proposed. One
commenter, however, stated that $10,000 was unreasonable for some
importers--for instance, zoological parks and aquariums that do not
import large numbers of birds at any single time and that are unlikely
to incur $10,000 in costs per importation. In reviewing the provision
in question, we agree with the commenter that, because of the range of
costs that might be incurred during a quarantine, it is difficult to
set one figure that will be equitable to all importers and still cover
the costs of services provided by APHIS. In some cases, the cost for
APHIS services has been considerably more than $10,000. Therefore, we
are providing in Sec. 92.106(c)(5)(i) that, in conjunction with a
Cooperative and Trust Fund Agreement, an importer shall deposit with
the Administrator a money order or cashier's check in an amount
determined by the Administrator to be sufficient to cover all costs
incurred by the Department in providing services in accordance with the
provisions of the Cooperative and Trust Fund Agreement. We are also
making corresponding changes in Secs. 92.106(c)(5)(ii) and (c)(19).
Also, we are adding language to Sec. 92.106(c)(19) to clarify that
importers will be billed for costs that exceed the amount deposited,
and are adding language to Sec. 92.103(a)(2)(ii) to clarify that an
applicant for an import permit may be denied an import permit or have
an import permit withdrawn if the applicant has any outstanding debts
to APHIS that were not paid when due. (See 9 CFR 130.51, ``Penalties
for nonpayment or late payment of user fees.'')
In our proposed rule, we stated that we expected a drop in the
number of bird import permit applications, due to a reduction in the
number of importable birds under the Wild Bird Conservation Act of 1992
(Pub. L. 102-440; the Act), which became effective on October 22, 1993.
A number of commenters stated that anticipating a drop in bird imports
due to the Act was premature, either because the moratoria on affected
species could be lifted if certain conditions are met, or because there
will likely be an increase in applications to import birds that are
eligible for importation.
We are making no changes based on these comments. Under the Act,
during most of Fiscal Year 1993 there was an importation quota, set at
Fiscal Year 1991 levels, on all species of wild birds listed in the
appendices to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES). According to APHIS records,
during Fiscal Year 1993, 133,435 birds were imported into the United
States. This was a decrease from 271,913 birds in fiscal year 1992.
Although we do not have official figures for the number of birds
imported during Fiscal Year 1994 to date, unofficial reports from APHIS
officials indicate that the number is significantly lower than the
number imported during the same period during Fiscal Year 1993.
Although we agree that certain moratoria could be lifted, we consider
it unlikely that any will be lifted in the foreseeable future. If, in
the future, that situation should change, we will review the situation
to determine what action, if any, is appropriate.
Denial or Withdrawal of Import Permits
In Sec. 92.103 of the proposed rule, we set forth conditions for
denial of an import permit based on an importer's having breached the
integrity we consider necessary to carry out the importation of birds.
These conditions appear in the existing regulations in Sec. 92.106, but
apply there to denial of approval of privately owned bird quarantine
facilities based on a breach of integrity by the operator or other
person responsibly connected with the business. Following publication
of our proposed rule, we published an interim rule in the Federal
Register on March 8, 1994 (59 FR 10729-10734, Docket No. 93-137-1),
that set forth in Sec. 92.103 conditions for the denial or withdrawal
of a permit to import ratites or hatching eggs of ratites. Certain of
these conditions also contained provisions regarding the integrity
necessary for the conduct of operations affecting an importation, and
are duplicative of the provisions set forth in our proposed rule.
Therefore, in this rule, we are revising certain of the proposed
provisions to eliminate this duplication.
Additionally, certain of the provisions in our interim rule
regarding denial or withdrawal of a permit to import ratites and
hatching eggs of ratites expanded on the provisions in our proposal.
For instance, in Sec. 92.103(a)(2)(vii) of our interim rule, we
provided for an opportunity for a hearing in cases where the denial or
withdrawal of a permit involves a dispute of material facts. To make
our regulations consistent, in this rule we are extending these
provisions to apply to import permits for all birds, not just for
ratites and hatching eggs of ratites. Also, consistent with the
expressed intent of our proposal to enter into contractual agreements
solely with the importer, we are providing in Sec. 92.103(a)(2)(vii)
that notification of denial or withdrawal of an import permit will be
given only to the importer.
Our proposed rule addressed only the ``denial'' of a permit to
import birds. However, the provisions in the existing regulations
regarding ratites and hatching eggs of ratites, including those added
by our interim rule, address both the denial and withdrawal of an
import permit. There is no reason the provisions regarding all birds
should differ in this case from those for ratites and hatching eggs of
ratites. Therefore, in this rule, we refer to both the denial and
withdrawal of import permits for birds.
A number of commenters suggested that the proposed regulations too
narrowly limited the circumstances under which APHIS might deny or
withdraw an import permit. One commenter stated that harassment of
APHIS employees should constitute grounds for denial or withdrawal of
an import permit. We agree with the commenter, and have revised
Sec. 92.103(a)(2)(i) (redesignated as Sec. 92.103(a)(2)(ii) in this
rule) to provide for denial or withdrawal of an import permit if any
person responsibly connected with an importation threatens to forcibly
assault or forcibly assaults, intimidates, or interferes with any APHIS
representative or employee in, or on account of, the performance of his
or her official duties, unless, promptly upon the incident being
brought to the importer's attention by the authorized supervisor of the
APHIS representative or employee, and to the satisfaction of that
supervisor, the importer (1) justifies the incident, (2) takes
effective steps to prevent a recurrence, or (3) provides acceptable
assurance that there will not be any recurrences.
Ports of Entry
Several commenters noted that bird importers are subject to the
regulations of the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), U.S. Department of
the Interior, as well as to APHIS regulations. This is correct, and a
footnote citing those permit requirements is provided in Sec. 92.103 of
the regulations.
Several commenters noted that, under Fish and Wildlife Service
regulations, wild birds may be imported only through FWS-designated
ports. The commenters stated that if APHIS allows birds to be
quarantined at facilities throughout the country, long-distance
shipping of birds from FWS-designated ports to quarantine facilities is
likely. The commenters stated that such shipping would promote disease
and subject birds to stress, increasing morbidity and mortality. We are
making no changes based on these comments. Our experience under the
current regulations is that such shipping occurs rarely. When it does
occur, it is carried out by means of chartered aircraft. In most cases,
as an alternative to such shipping, arrangements are made with FWS to
allow importation of the birds through a port serviced by a quarantine
facility meeting APHIS requirements.
Standards for Quarantine Facilities
In our proposal, we inadvertently omitted a requirement that a
quarantine facility be inspected by an APHIS representative, and be
found to comply with the standards set forth in the regulations, before
any permit will be issued. Such a requirement had been provided for in
Sec. 92.106(c)(5)(vi), ``Selection of applicants for consideration for
approval of bird quarantine facilities,'' which is being removed in
this rulemaking. Several commenters stated that this apparent
relaxation of standards for privately owned bird quarantine facilities
was inappropriate. We agree that such a relaxation would be
inappropriate, and regret the confusion caused by our inadvertent
omission of the requirement. To prevent future confusion, we are adding
this requirement both to the section that sets forth import permit
requirements, at Sec. 92.103(a)(2)(i), and to the section that sets
forth construction requirements, at Sec. 92.106(c)(2)(ii)(M).
One commenter recommended that the regulations provide that a
permit will not be issued prior to the completion of construction at
the quarantine facility. We agree that, in order for us to conduct an
adequate inspection of a quarantine facility, all construction must be
completed, and are requiring at both Sec. 92.103(a) and
Sec. 92.106(c)(2)(ii)(L) that such construction be completed before an
application for a permit is submitted.
One commenter supported our intent to enter into a contractual
agreement with the importer, but stated that both the importer and the
facility operator should be held liable for any failure to comply with
the regulations. We are making no change based on this comment. It is
the policy of Veterinary Services, APHIS, to enter into each
contractual agreement with a single legal entity (``person'') only. In
this case, we expect the importer to ensure that the quarantine
facility operates in accordance with the regulations.
Disease Risk
A number of commenters expressed concern that imported ratite
hatching eggs will introduce viscerotropic velogenic Newcastle disease,
avian influenza, salmonella enteriditis phage type 4, or unknown
diseases unique to ratites, into the United States. We are making no
changes based on these comments. We have determined that, under the
unrevised regulations, using the worst case scenario, the likely
frequency of importing and releasing a lot of infected ratite hatching
eggs is 1 every 74 years. Under the revised regulations, the worst case
estimate is that, due to a potential increase in imported ratite
hatching eggs, this frequency will increase to approximately 1 such
importation every 25 years. However, the most likely frequency under
the revised regulations is 1 every 5,000 years (``Probability of VVND,
HPAI, or SE4 in Imported Ostrich Eggs,'' APHIS, USDA, March, 1994).
Therefore, we disagree with commenters who contend that under this rule
ratite hatching eggs will present a significant disease risk to U.S.
birds and poultry.
One commenter stated that privately owned quarantine facilities for
birds should be required to post a $10 million bond, in case a disease
spreads from a bird quarantined at that facility to domestic ranches.
We are making no changes based on this comment. The requirements in the
existing regulations for approved privately owned bird quarantine
facilities were essentially incorporated into the proposed requirements
for privately owned facilities. Based on our experience enforcing the
regulations, we consider these requirements adequate to prevent the
spread of disease from quarantine facilities.
A small number of commenters expressed concern that the high
mortality rate for imported ostrich eggs might be disease-related. The
commenters stated that additional quarantine facilities should not be
allowed until the problem of high mortality is solved. We are making no
changes based on these comments. We know of no evidence to indicate
that the high mortality rate for imported hatching eggs is due to
disease. While the mortality rate for imported hatching eggs has been
very high, it is slowly improving. At the time our proposal was
published, only 14.2 percent of ratite hatching eggs imported into the
United States since 1991 had been released from quarantine as live
chicks. However, during Fiscal Year 1993, the percentage of live chicks
released was 22.1 percent. We believe that this improvement is the
result of improved management practices, and we expect further
improvement as more experience is gained in the importation of ratite
hatching eggs.
One commenter questioned why we proposed to remove from the
regulations the provision that the same quarantine facility may have
multiple units for handling separate lots of birds, provided each unit
is at least 1/2 mile from any other unit. We removed this provision
because, under the regulations as proposed, it is no longer necessary.
What used to be referred to as multiple units will under this rule be
considered separate facilities.
One commenter requested that the regulations clarify that chicks
may not be transferred from one facility to another until release from
quarantine. We consider this restriction to be clear in
Sec. 92.106(c)(3)(ii) of the current regulations, and are making no
changes based on this comment.
Special Provisions for Facilities for Ratite Hatching Eggs
Instead of allowing hatching eggs of ratites comprising a single
lot to be added to the quarantine facility in stages for up to 15 days
after the arrival of the first shipment, as proposed, several
commenters stated that we could make APHIS personnel available who
would otherwise be constrained by the extended quarantines, if we
reduced this period to 7 or 8 days. As we stated in the proposed rule,
experience has shown that the 15-day period for incremental shipments
affords importers the flexibility that they need. Therefore, we are
making no changes as a result of these comments.
One commenter recommended that the regulations require that the
bird (chick) holding area in any facility for hatching eggs of ratites
be of a size large enough to accommodate the capacity of the incubator.
We agree that adequate space is necessary for the health of the hatched
chicks and are including at Sec. 92.106(c)(2)(ii)(O) of this rule that
the bird (chick) holding area must be large enough to provide 10 square
feet per chick for 75 percent of the eggs in the incubator. Based on
our experience enforcing the regulations, we consider 75 percent to be
the maximum percentage of eggs likely to hatch in a lot, and 10 square
feet to be the minimum amount of space necessary per hatched chick.
Several commenters stated that in a sun room where double-mesh
screening is used, one layer of the double mesh should be impervious to
biting insects, such as mosquitoes and gnats. We agree, and have added
this requirement to Secs. 92.106(c)(2)(ii) (P)(1) and (2) of this rule.
One commenter expressed concern that in quarantine facilities with
a sun room for chicks, the chicks would be quarantined in an ``open
area.'' Other commenters expressed concern that it would be difficult
to ensure that birds are not removed from the quarantine facility in
violation of the regulations.
While a sun room by nature is intended to allow birds sunlight, it
was not our intention that the area be without security measures. A
number of security features were included in the proposed rule. For
instance, the sun room must have a roof that is both impervious to
free-flying birds and capable of preventing contact between chicks and
free-flying birds. Additionally, if any of the walls of the room are
made of mesh, a 6-foot-high, chain-link fence with barbed wire at the
top, or equivalent security system, must be located at least 10 feet
from the screening. Our proposal, however, did not specify how high the
walls of the sun room must be. While this omission would not create a
significant security problem in those cases where the walls are made of
mesh, due to the requirement for the perimeter fence described above,
it could present a security problem if the walls are not made of mesh.
Therefore, in this rule, we are requiring in Sec. 92.106(c)(2)(ii)(P)
that walls of the sun room must be at least 8 feet high. We consider
this height sufficient to discourage attempts at illegal entry into the
sun room.
One commenter questioned the proposed provision that would prevent
personnel from working with a second lot of eggs until 3 days after the
release of the first lot from quarantine. If the birds can safely
mingle with domestic flocks immediately after release from quarantine,
this commenter asked, why would the personnel who worked with them
present a disease risk? We agree with the commenter that the 3-day
delay is unnecessary following a completed quarantine, and are removing
this provision from Secs. 92.106 (c)(3)(i)(A)(4) and (c)(5)(iii)(A)(3).
One commenter questioned the need for a \1/2\-mile separation
between quarantine facilities, in light of the fact that the same
facility can have separate areas for ratite hatching eggs and chicks.
We are making no changes based on this comment. In those facilities
with areas for both hatching eggs and chicks, the first lot of chicks
will be released from the facility before the eggs are hatched. This
might not be the case if eggs in different facilities are hatching on
different schedules. If separate facilities, each containing chicks,
are not at least \1/2\ mile apart, there could be a risk of airborne
transmission of disease.
Economic Analysis
We included in our proposed rule an analysis of the potential
economic impact of the proposed regulations. As part of our analysis,
we included estimates of the number of ostrich farmers and adult
ostriches in the United States (between 2,000 and 3,000 farmers with
between 2 and 200 ostriches each). A number of commenters disagreed
with our estimates, stating that we underestimated the number of
ostrich farms in the United States. Many of these commenters stated
that our economic analysis should have considered all ratite farms, not
just ostrich farms.
We agree that any economic impact this rule might have could affect
ratite owners other than ostrich owners. However, as we stated in our
proposed rule, our records indicate that entities in the ratite
hatching egg industry concentrate on ostrich eggs. Because ratites
other than hatching eggs are not allowed to be quarantined in privately
owned facilities, importers of ratites other than hatching eggs will
not be affected by this rule.
We also agree that our estimates of the number of ostrich farms in
the United States is probably low, partly because of the time that has
passed since we developed the economic analysis in the proposal.
However, none of the commenters who questioned our estimates included
published documents to substantiate their estimates. Estimates supplied
by the commenters of the number of ratite farms ranged from 3,500
ostrich farms to 10,000 ratite farms. Estimates of the number of adult
ostriches in the United States ranged from 20,000 to 50,000. Because of
this wide range of estimates, and because we are unaware of a reliable
published census of ratite farms in this country, we are not including
an estimate of the number of ratite owners or ratites in the economic
analysis of this rule.
Miscellaneous
Several commenters stated that this rulemaking will conflict with
or preempt State laws. After a review of State laws brought to our
attention, we do not believe that this revision will result in a
conflict with any State laws.
In Sec. 92.103(a)(1) of the proposed rule, we stated that
applicants using an APHIS form to apply for a permit to import birds
other than ratites or hatching eggs of ratites should use VS form 12-
129. That is not the appropriate form for such applications, and we are
including a reference to the appropriate form, VS form 17-20, in this
final rule.
Also, one commenter stated that we should specify how soon
following receipt of an application for a permit to import birds or
hatching eggs of ratites we will issue a permit. We agree that knowing
the time necessary for issuance of a permit will help importers better
plan their importations. Therefore, we are providing in
Sec. 92.106(c)(5)(iii)(B)(2) of this rule that we will issue permits to
import birds and hatching eggs of ratites 3 working days following
receipt of the permit application, depending upon the availability of
APHIS personnel to provide the necessary services at the quarantine
facility (discussed in this Supplementary Information, above, under the
heading ``Bird Import Permit Issuance; Inspection'') and upon the
results of an APHIS representative's inspection of the quarantine
facility.
We are also making several nonsubstantive changes to correct a
typographical error, to make a provision read more clearly, to make it
clear that this rule refers only to quarantine facilities for birds,
and to redesignate footnote references in accordance with Federal
Register guidelines.
Additional Comments
A number of commenters addressed issues that were not raised in our
proposed rule. Among these, many commenters expressed concern that any
importation of ratites or hatching eggs of ratites, even if conducted
under the existing regulations, poses a disease risk to domestic ratite
and poultry flocks. Commenters also questioned the efficacy of current
testing, necropsy, recordkeeping, surveillance, construction, and
security requirements for approved bird quarantine facilities. Other
issues raised included: permanent identification of ratites or hatched
ratite chicks entering or leaving quarantine; quarantine duration;
post-quarantine tracking of hatched ratite chicks; genetic criteria for
ratite hatching eggs; interstate movement restrictions; local building
codes; indiscriminate breeding; smuggled birds; ratite susceptibility
to airborne diseases; and the economic advisability of providing for
the importation of increased numbers of ratite hatching eggs. Although
we are taking no action based on these comments at this time, we have
reviewed each of them and will consider them in determining what
action, if any, is appropriate in the future.
Therefore, based on the rationale set forth in the proposed rule
and in this document, we are adopting the provisions of the proposal as
a final rule, with the changes discussed in this document.
Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act
This rule has been determined to be significant for the purposes of
Executive Order 12866 and therefore has been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget.
While these regulations will promote competition in the bird
importation industry in the United States, the Wild Bird Conservation
Act of 1992 prohibits importations of certain exotic birds into the
United States. During the transition year from October 23, 1992,
through October 22, 1993, an importation quota, set at Fiscal Year 1991
import levels, applied to all species of exotic birds listed in the
Appendices to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES). Effective October 22, 1993,
the importation of all wild-caught exotic birds (species listed in the
CITES Appendices) has been prohibited.
Cockatiels and budgerigars are among the few exotic birds that are
not listed in the Appendices to CITES and are imported into the United
States. Because these birds breed well in captivity, and are therefore
readily available in the United States, they are imported in very low
volumes.
Hatching eggs of ostriches and other ratites are unaffected by the
Wild Bird Conservation Act of 1992. Therefore, potential importers of
these eggs are likely to benefit from easier access to privately owned
bird quarantine facilities. Our records indicate that entities involved
in the hatching egg industry concentrate on ostrich eggs; we therefore
expect this rule to affect primarily the ostrich egg industry. Because
ratites other than hatching eggs are not allowed to be quarantined in
privately owned facilities, importers of ratites other than hatching
eggs will not be affected by this proposed rule.
Of the approximately 69 USDA-approved bird quarantine facilities
now operating, fewer than 45 are equipped with hatcheries able to
facilitate the importation and incubation of ratite hatching eggs. This
rule might double, or possibly triple, this number. However, because
the number of eggs available for import is limited, not least by the
export restrictions of other countries, a significant increase in the
total number of ostrich egg importations appears unlikely. Further
limiting the domestic effects of increased importations is the poor
success rate of imported hatching eggs. Of ratite hatching eggs
imported into the United States during Fiscal Year 1992, no more than
22.1 percent were released from quarantine as live chicks.
Domestic ratite production has grown rapidly in recent years.
However, we are unaware of any reliable census of the number of ratite
farms and adult ratites in this country.
In the short run, domestic ostrich producers could experience a
minor adverse economic impact if more ostrich hatching eggs are
imported and domestic prices decline as a result. This will depend on
whether demand continues to increase faster than supply, and on the
corresponding effect on prices. In the long run, the domestic ratite
industry is expected to benefit from increased imports. An expanded
domestic supply will cause U.S. prices for ratites and ratite products
to drop, allowing more people access to the industry. It is anticipated
that reduced prices will lead to larger domestic populations of
ostriches, a change that will benefit consumers and at the same time
enhance the economic viability of commercial ratite breeding,
slaughter, feather, and leather markets.
While easing access to quarantine facilities could, in the short
term, increase the number of ostrich egg importations, the effect on
the U.S. supply of ostriches is not expected to be significant, based
on the current success rate for hatching imported ratite eggs.
Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
Executive Order 12778
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12778, Civil
Justice Reform: This rule: (1) Preempts all State and local laws and
regulations that are in conflict with this rule; (2) has no retroactive
effect; and (3) does not require administrative proceedings before
parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.
Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.), the information collection or recordkeeping requirements
included in this final rule will be submitted for approval to the
Office of Management and Budget.
List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 92
Animal diseases, Imports, Livestock, Poultry and poultry products,
Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 9 CFR part 92 is amended as follows:
PART 92--IMPORTATION OF CERTAIN ANIMALS AND POULTRY AND CERTAIN
ANIMAL AND POULTRY PRODUCTS; INSPECTION AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS FOR
CERTAIN MEANS OF CONVEYANCE AND SHIPPING CONTAINERS THEREON
1. The authority citation for part 92 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1622; 19 U.S.C. 1306; 21 U.S.C. 102-105,
111, 114a, 134a, 134b, 134c, 134d, 134f, 135, 136, and 136a; 31
U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.17, 2.51, and 371.2(d).
Subpart A--[Amended]
2. In part 92, Subpart A--Birds, footnotes 11 and 13 are removed,
footnote 12 is redesignated as footnote 11, the first footnote 14 is
redesignated as footnote 12, and the second footnote 14 is redesignated
as footnote 13.
Sec. 92.100 [Amended]
3. In Sec. 92.100, the definition of ``Operator'' is removed.
Sec. 92.101 [Amended]
4. In Sec. 92.101, paragraphs (b)(3)(i)(B) and (b)(3)(i)(I) are
amended by removing the reference to ``Sec. 92.103(a)(2)(iii)'' in each
of those paragraphs and adding ``Sec. 92.103(a)(2)(iv)'' in its place.
5. Section 92.103 is amended as follows:
a. In the heading, the footnote is removed.
b. In paragraph (a), introductory text is added, to read as set
forth below.
c. Paragraph (a)(1) is revised to read as set forth below.
d. Paragraph (a)(2)(v) is removed; paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through
(a)(2)(iv) are redesignated as paragraphs (a)(2)(ii) through (a)(2)(v),
respectively; newly redesignated paragraph (a)(2)(ii) is revised;
paragraph (a)(2)(vi) is revised; and new paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and
(a)(2)(viii) are added, to read as set forth below.
e. In paragraph (a)(2)(vii), the second, fourth, and fifth
sentences are amended by removing the words ``or the operator of the
farm of the flock of origin'' in each of those sentences.
Sec. 92.103 Import permits for birds; and reservation fees for space
at quarantine facilities maintained by APHIS.
(a) * * * Before any permit application is submitted, all
construction at the quarantine facility must be completed.
(1) For pet birds, commercial birds, research birds, zoological
birds, and performing or theatrical birds, intended for importation
into the United States, except as otherwise provided in Secs. 92.101
(b) and (c), 92.103(c), and 92.214, the importer shall first apply for
and obtain an import permit. The importer (permit applicant) shall
submit a completed VS form 17-128 for ratites or hatching eggs of
ratites; or, for other birds, a completed VS form 17-20; or shall
submit a document that states that it is an application for a permit to
import ratites, hatching eggs of ratites, or birds other than ratites
or hatching eggs of ratites. The application\8\ must include the
following information:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\VS import permit application forms are available from local
offices of Veterinary Services, which are listed in telephone
directories, or from the Administrator, c/o National Center for
Import-Export, VS, APHIS, USDA, Federal Building, 6505 Belcrest
Road, Hyattsville, MD 20782. For other permit requirements for
birds, the regulations issued by the U.S. Department of the Interior
(title 50, Code of Federal Regulations, parts 14 and 17) should be
consulted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) The name, address, and telephone number of the importer;
(ii) The status of the importer, such as individual, partnership,
or corporation (if incorporated, include State where incorporated and
date of incorporation);
(iii) Name and address of the quarantine facility;
(iv) Date of intended quarantine;
(v) The purpose of the importation;
(vi) The country of origin;
(vii) The name and address of the exporter;
(viii) The port of embarkation in the foreign country;
(ix) The mode of transportation, route of travel, and port of entry
in the United States;
(x) The name and location of the quarantine facility in the United
States to which delivery will be made from the port of entry, in
accordance with Sec. 92.106(c)(5);
(xi) A drawing of the floor plan for the facility showing the
location of the bird holding area; equipment storage areas; office
areas; clothes storage and change areas; feed storage areas; necropsy
areas (showing entry and refrigeration); washing areas for equipment;
shower areas; ventilation arrangements; and entries and exits; and, for
a facility for hatching eggs of ratites in which the hatching eggs of
one lot may be quarantined at the same time as the hatched chicks from
a previously quarantined lot, the incubation/hatcher and bird (chick)
holding areas; and
(xii) Date and certification, by signature of the importer (permit
applicant), after the following language:
I certify that the information provided herein is true and correct
to the best of my knowledge and belief, and agree to comply with the
applicable regulations in title 9, Code of Federal Regulations,
Secs. 92.100 through 92.107;
(xiii) In addition, the application for a permit to import ratites
or hatching eggs of ratites shall specify the number of ratites or
hatching eggs intended for importation, the size of the flock of
origin, and the location of the premises where the flock of origin is
kept; and shall state that, from the date of application through the
date of export, APHIS representatives shall be granted access to the
premises where the flock of origin is kept. (For ratites intended for
importation as zoological birds, the flock of origin shall be the
ratites intended for importation.)
(2)(i) An import permit will be issued only after an APHIS
representative has inspected the quarantine facility identified on the
permit application, and has determined that it meets the standards set
forth in Sec. 92.106(c) of this part.
(ii) An application for a permit to import pet birds, commercial
birds, research birds, zoological birds, and performing or theatrical
birds, may be denied or withdrawn because of: Communicable disease
conditions in the area or country of origin, or in a country where the
shipment has been or will be held or through which the shipment has
been or will be transported; deficiencies in the regulatory programs
for the control or eradication of animal diseases and the
unavailability of veterinary services in the above mentioned countries;
the importer's failure to provide satisfactory evidence concerning the
origin, history, and health status of the animals; the lack of
satisfactory information necessary to determine that the importation
will not be likely to transmit any communicable disease to livestock or
poultry of the United States; the lack of APHIS personnel; any
outstanding debts to APHIS the permit applicant has not paid when due;
or any other circumstances which the Administrator believes require
such denial or withdrawal to prevent the dissemination of any
communicable disease of livestock or poultry into the United States,
such as if:
(A) Any requirement of this subpart is not complied with;
(B) The importer (permit applicant) or any person responsibly
connected with the importer's business, any person responsibly
connected with the privately owned bird quarantine facility through
which the importation is intended, or, in the case of the importation
of ratites or ratite hatching eggs, the operator of the flock of origin
or a person responsibly connected with the owner of the flock of
origin, has been convicted of any crime under any law regarding the
import or export of goods, regarding the quarantine of any animal or
bird, or the illegal movement of goods within a country, or involving
fraud, bribery, extortion, or of any other crime involving lack of the
integrity needed for the conduct of operations affecting the
importation of birds;
(C) The importer (permit applicant) or any person responsibly
connected with the importer's business, any person responsibly
connected with the privately owned bird quarantine facility intended
for use for the importation, or, in the case of the importation of
ratites or ratite hatching eggs, the operator of the flock of origin or
a person responsibly connected with the owner of the flock of origin,
threatens to forcibly assault or forcibly assaults, intimidates, or
interferes with any APHIS representative or employee in or on account
of the performance of his or her official duties, unless, promptly upon
the incident being brought to the importer's attention by the
authorized supervisor of the APHIS representative or employee, and to
the satisfaction of that supervisor, the importer justifies the
incident, takes effective steps to prevent a recurrence, or provides
acceptable assurance that there will not be any recurrences; or
(D) For any violation of the regulations in this subpart.
* * * * *
(vi) For the purposes of this section, a person shall be deemed to
be responsibly connected with an importer's business, a privately owned
bird quarantine facility, or an owner of a flock of origin, if such
person has an ownership, mortgage, or lease interest in the physical
plant of the importer's business, the privately owned bird quarantine
facility, or the farm of the flock of origin, or if such person is a
partner, officer, director, holder or owner of 10 per centum or more of
the voting stock of the importer's business, the privately owned bird
quarantine facility, or the farm of the flock of origin, or is an
employee of the importer's business, the privately owned bird
quarantine facility, or the owner of the flock of origin.
* * * * *
(viii) If APHIS receives more than one application for a permit to
import birds through a specified port of entry at approximately the
same time, such that APHIS personnel could provide services to only one
importer (permit applicant) who requests them, APHIS will issue the
permit to the first importer who meets the requirements of this subpart
to deposit, with the Administrator, the completed cooperative and trust
fund agreement, accompanied by the required deposit.
* * * * *
6. In Sec. 92.105, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 92.105 Inspection at the port of entry.
(a) All commercial birds, zoological birds, and research birds,
including hatching eggs of ratites, but excluding other ratites,
imported into the United States, must be inspected by the port
veterinarian at the Customs port of entry, which may be any
international airport, or any land-border port within 20 miles of an
international airport, serviced by Customs. However, hatching eggs of
ratites may be shipped, in bond, from the port of first arrival to the
Customs port of entry at which they will be quarantined, for inspection
at that port.
* * * * *
7. Section 92.106 is amended as follows:
a. In paragraph (a), the first sentence is revised to read as set
forth below.
b. In paragraph (a), the third sentence is amended by removing the
term ``Veterinary Services,''.
c. In paragraph (a), the sixth sentence is amended by removing the
term ``an approved quarantine facility'' and adding the term ``a
privately owned quarantine facility'' in its place, and by removing the
words ``operator of the facility'' and adding the word ``importer'' in
their place.
d. In paragraph (a), the seventh sentence is removed.
e. In paragraph (b)(2), the second sentence is amended by removing
the words ``approved by the Administrator in accordance with'' and
adding the words ``that meets the requirements of'' in their place.
f. In paragraph (b)(4), the first sentence is amended by adding the
word ``of'' after the word ``free''.
g. In paragraph (c), the heading and introductory text are revised
to read as set forth below.
h. Paragraph (c)(1), the introductory text to paragraph (c)(2)(i),
paragraph (c)(2)(i)(A) and (c)(2)(i)(B), and the introductory text to
paragraph (c)(2)(ii) are revised to read as set forth below.
i. Paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(K) is amended by removing the period at the
end of the sentence and adding a semicolon in its place.
j. New paragraphs (c)(2)(ii)(L), (M), (N), (O), and (P) are added
to read as set forth below.
k. In paragraph (c)(3), the heading and introductory text are
revised to read as set forth below.
l. Paragraphs (c)(3)(i)(A) and (A)(1) are amended by adding the
term ``or the incubator/hatcher area'' after the term ``bird holding
area'' each time it appears.
m. Paragraph (c)(3)(i)(A)(3) is revised to read as set forth below.
n. A new paragraph (c)(3)(i)(A)(4) is added to read as set forth
below.
o. Paragraph (c)(3)(i)(B) is amended by removing the term
``operator of the facility'' and adding the term ``importer'' in its
place.
p. New paragraphs (c)(3)(ii)(A)(1) and (A)(2) are added to read as
set forth below.
q. Paragraphs (c)(3)(ii)(D) and (E) are amended by removing the
term ``facility operator'' each time it appears, and adding the term
``importer'' in its place.
r. Paragraph (c)(3)(iii) is amended by removing the term ``operator
of the facility'' both times it appears, and adding the term
``importer'' in its place.
s. Paragraphs (c)(5) and (c)(6) are removed, and paragraph (c)(7)
is redesignated as paragraph (c)(5).
t. In newly redesignated paragraph (c)(5), the introductory text
and paragraphs (c)(5)(i) and (c)(5)(ii) are revised to read as set
forth below.
u. In newly redesignated paragraph (c)(5)(iii), the heading of the
Cooperative And Trust Fund Agreement is amended by removing the word
``OPERATOR'' and adding the word ``IMPORTER'' in its place, and by
removing the word ``Services'' and adding the word ``Service'' in its
place.
v. In newly redesignated paragraph (c)(5)(iii), the first
undesignated paragraph is amended by removing the word ``operator'' and
adding the word ``importer'' in its place, and by removing the word
``Cooperator'' and adding the word ``Importer'' in its place.
w. Newly redesignated paragraph (c)(5)(iii) is amended by removing
the word ``approved'' in the following places:
i. First undesignated paragraph.
ii. Paragraphs (A)(1), (A)(3), (A)(5), (A)(6), and (A)(8).
iii. Paragraph (A)(20) both times it appears.
iv. Paragraph (B)(6).
v. Paragraph (C)(1) both times it appears.
x. In newly redesignated paragraph (c)(5)(iii), the second
undesignated paragraph is amended by removing the phrase ``Cooperator
represents parties'' and adding the phrase ``Importer is'' in its
place.
y. In newly redesignated paragraph (c)(5)(iii), the third
undesignated paragraph is amended by removing the phrase ``quarantine
facilities approved in accordance with part 92, 9 CFR, for use in
importing birds'' and adding the phrase ``a bird quarantine facility
that meets the requirements of paragraph (c) of this section'' in its
place.
z. Newly redesignated paragraph (c)(5)(iii) is amended by removing
the word ``Cooperator'' and adding the word ``Importer'' in its place,
in the following places:
i. In the third and fourth undesignated paragraphs.
ii. Paragraphs (A), (A)(2), (A)(3), and (A)(4) each time it
appears.
iii. Paragraph (A)(14) each time it appears.
iv. Paragraph (A)(18).
v. Paragraph (B)(2) each time it appears.
vi. Paragraph (B)(4).
vii. Paragraph (B)(6) each time it appears.
viii. Paragraph (B)(7) each time it appears.
ix. Paragraph (C)(3).
x. After paragraph (C)(5), below the first signature line.
aa. In newly redesignated paragraph (c)(5)(iii)(A)(2), the first
sentence is amended by removing the phrase ``a quarantine period'' and
adding the phrase ``the quarantine period'' in its place.
bb. In newly redesignated paragraph (c)(5)(iii)(A)(3), the last
sentence is revised to read as follows: ``This restriction ceases to
apply on the date the birds are released from quarantine.''
cc. Newly redesignated paragraph (c)(5)(iii)(A)(5) is amended by
removing the reference ``92.109(c)'' and adding the reference
``92.106(c)'' in its place.
dd. In newly designated paragraph (c)(5)(iii)(A)(18), the word
``Cooperator's'' is removed and the word ``Importer's'' is added in its
place.
ee. Newly redesignated paragraph (c)(5)(iii)(A)(19) is revised to
read as set forth below.
ff. Newly redesignated paragraph (c)(5)(iii)(A)(20) is amended by
removing the words ``as provided in part 92 of 9 CFR'' at the end of
the paragraph, and by adding the words ``contained in title 9, Code of
Federal Regulations, Sec. 92.106(c)'' in their place.
gg. Newly redesignated paragraphs (c)(5)(iii)(B)(2) and (B)(3) are
redesignated as, respectively, paragraphs (c)(5)(iii)(B)(3) and (B)(2).
hh. Newly redesignated paragraph (c)(5)(iii)(B)(2) is revised to
read as set forth below.
jj. Newly redesignated paragraph (c)(5)(iii)(B)(3) is amended by
removing the words ``on a quarterly basis, or''.
kk. In newly redesignated paragraph (c)(5)(iii)(B)(6), the third
sentence is amended by removing the words ``the designated shall'' and
adding the words ``the designated employee shall'' in their place.
ll. In newly redesignated paragraph (c)(5)(iii)(C)(2), the
reference ``(c)(7)(iii)(A)(16)'' is removed and the reference
``(c)(5)(iii)(A)(16)'' is added in its place.
mm. In newly redesignated paragraph (c)(5)(iii)(c)(3), newly
redesignated footnote 12 is amended by removing the term ``operator of
a bird quarantine facility'' and adding the word ``importer'' in its
place.
nn. In newly redesignated paragraph (c)(5)(iii)(C)(5), the first
sentence is amended by removing the word ``indefinitely'' and adding
the words ``until the permitted lot of birds is released from
quarantine'' in its place.
oo. In paragraph (d), the introductory language is amended by
removing the word ``operator'' and adding the word ``importer'' in its
place, and by removing the reference ``paragraph (d)'' and adding the
reference ``paragraph (c)'' in its place.
Sec. 92.106 Quarantine requirements.
(a) Birds other than ratites and hatching eggs of ratites. Each lot
of pet birds, except as provided for in Sec. 92.101(c) of this part;
research birds; and commercial birds and zoological birds, except
ratites and hatching eggs of ratites, imported into the United States
shall be quarantined for a minimum of 30 days, and for such longer
period as may be required by the Administrator, in any specific case,
on an ``all-in, all-out'' basis, at a Customs port of entry, at a USDA
quarantine facility when arrangements have been made in advance by the
importer and approval is granted in the permit described in
Sec. 92.103, or in facilities that meet the requirements of paragraph
(c) of this section. * * *
* * * * *
(c) Standards for privately owned bird quarantine facilities and
handling procedures for importation of birds. Before the Administrator
will issue an import permit for a lot of birds, the Administrator must
determine that the privately owned bird quarantine facility to be used
to quarantine birds imported into the United States (the facility) and
its maintenance and operation meet the minimum requirements of
paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(5) of this section, that adequate APHIS
personnel are available to provide services required by the facility,
and that a Cooperative and Trust Fund Agreement between the importer
and the Department has been executed, and the required funds have been
deposited, in accordance with that agreement. The cost of the facility
and all costs associated with its maintenance and operation must be
borne by the importer, in accordance with the provisions of paragraph
(e) of this section.
(1) Supervision of the facility. The facility shall be maintained
under the supervision of the port veterinarian at the Customs port of
entry.
(2) * * *
(i) Location. Each privately owned bird quarantine facility shall
be located:
(A) Within the immediate metropolitan area of the port of entry to
prevent the imported birds, while in transit to the quarantine
facility, from introducing or disseminating disease to domestic poultry
or livestock.
(B) At least one-half mile from any concentration of avian species,
such as, but not limited to, poultry processing plants, poultry or bird
farms, pigeon lofts, or other bird quarantine facilities. Factors such
as prevailing winds, the efficiency of the air filtration system of the
quarantine facility, possible exposure to poultry or birds moving in
local traffic, etc., shall be taken into consideration.
(ii) Construction. Each quarantine facility shall consist of a
single, self-contained building, which shall:
* * * * *
(L) All construction must be completed before any permit
application is submitted in accordance with Sec. 92.103.
(M) An APHIS representative shall inspect the facility to determine
whether the facility complies with the standards set forth in this
section before any permit is issued in accordance with Sec. 92.103.
Inspections shall take place at least once each year.
(N) In addition, a facility for hatching eggs of ratites, in which
the hatching eggs of one lot may be quarantined at the same time as the
hatched chicks from the previously quarantined lot, shall:
(1) Have a wall or a wall with a lockable door separating the
incubator/hatcher area from the bird (chick) holding area, and this
wall or wall-with-door shall provide an airtight seal between the two
areas, shall be impervious to water, and shall be able to withstand
continued cleaning and disinfection;
(2) Have a necropsy or sample collection area in both the
incubator/hatcher area and the bird (chick) holding area; and
(3) Have separate entrances, showers, toilets, and dressing room
facilities for the exclusive use of personnel working in the incubator/
hatcher area and the bird (chick) holding area.
(O) The bird (chick) holding area in any facility for hatching eggs
of ratites shall be of a size large enough to accommodate 75 percent of
the incubator capacity, with a minimum of 10 square feet per egg.
(P) If a facility for hatching eggs of ratites has a sun room, the
sun room shall be connected to the chick holding area by a wall with a
lockable door. This wall; the other walls, if any; and the flooring,
must be impervious to water and able to withstand continued cleaning
and disinfection. All walls of the sun room must be at least 8 feet
high.
(1) Double-mesh screening impervious to biting insects (such as
gnats or mosquitoes), or its equivalent, set in a concrete or concrete-
block curb may replace any of the exterior walls, provided this curb is
at least 12 inches high, impermeable to water, and able to prevent the
escape of water, manure, and debris to the surrounding area. A 6-foot-
high, chain-link fence with barbed wire at the top, or equivalent
security system, must be located at least 10 feet from the double-mesh
screening; this peripheral area must be vegetation-free.
(2) The sun room shall have a roof, such as a double-mesh-screened
roof or a glass roof, that is both impervious to free-flying birds and
biting insects (such as gnats or mosquitoes) and capable of preventing
contact between chicks and free-flying birds.
(3) Be attended by personnel working in the bird (chick) holding
area whenever chicks are in the sun room.
* * * * *
(3) Operational procedures. The following procedures shall be
observed at the facility at all times.
(i) * * *
(A) * * *
(3) Shower when entering and leaving any bird holding area, any
incubator/hatcher area, and any necropsy area. Showering when moving
between the incubator/hatcher area and the bird holding area is not
required when the eggs in the hatching area and the chicks in the
holding area are part of the same lot;
(4) Work exclusively with one lot of birds until the lot's release
from quarantine, and have no contact with other birds or poultry until
the release date.
* * * * *
(ii) * * *
(A) * * *
(1) Hatching eggs of ratites comprising a single lot may be added
to the facility in stages, provided the entire lot has been placed in
the facility no later than 15 days after the arrival of the first
shipment.
(2) If hatching eggs of ratites begin to hatch in the incubator/
hatcher area while ratite chicks from the previously quarantined lot
remain in the bird (chick) holding area, then the separate lots assume
the status of a single lot, and will be released from quarantine in
accordance with paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(A) of this section.
* * * * *
(5) Cooperative and Trust Fund Agreement for services required by
importer at a privately owned bird quarantine facility.
(i) When the Administrator determines that a privately owned bird
quarantine facility meets the requirements set forth in paragraph (c)
of this section, the Department and the importer shall execute a
Cooperative and Trust Fund Agreement, as specified in paragraph
(c)(5)(iii) of this section. In conjunction with the Cooperative and
Trust Fund Agreement, the importer shall deposit with the Administrator
a money order or cashier's check in an amount determined by the
Administrator to cover all costs incurred by the Department in
providing services in accordance with the provisions of the Cooperative
and Trust Fund Agreement. Any unobligated funds will, upon request, be
returned to the importer, after the birds' release from quarantine.
(ii) The Administrator may provide services required by the
importer at a privately owned quarantine facility for the importation
of birds on a first come, first served basis, if adequate APHIS
personnel are available to provide those services, upon determining
that the importer has executed a Cooperative and Trust Fund Agreement,
and has deposited funds in an amount determined by the Administrator to
be sufficient to cover all costs incurred by the Department in
providing services in accordance with that agreement, as specified in
paragraph (c)(5)(iii) of this section.
(iii) * * *
(A) * * *
(19) To deposit with the Service, upon execution of this
agreement, a money order or cashier's check, in an amount determined
by the Administrator to be sufficient to defray all costs incurred
by the Service in providing services required. If such costs exceed
the deposited amount, the importer will pay for additional costs
incurred, based on official accounting records, within 14 days of
receipt of the bill showing the balance due.
* * * * *
(B) * * *
(2) To issue permits 3 working days following receipt of the
permit application, depending upon the availability of personnel to
provide the services required for quarantine and the results of an
APHIS representative's inspection of the quarantine facility.
* * * * *
Done in Washington, DC, this 9th day of September 1994.
Terry L. Medley,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 94-22719 Filed 9-13-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P