Standards for Permanent, Privately Owned Horse Quarantine Facilities, 31582-31601 [E9-15509]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
• Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 126 (Thursday, July 2, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31582-31601]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-15509]



[[Page 31582]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

9 CFR Part 93

[Docket No. APHIS-2006-0013]
RIN 0579-AC00


Standards for Permanent, Privately Owned Horse Quarantine 
Facilities

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We are amending the regulations pertaining to the importation 
of horses to establish standards for the approval of permanent, 
privately owned quarantine facilities for horses. We are taking this 
action because regional and seasonal demand for quarantine services for 
horses often exceeds the space available at existing facilities. 
Allowing imported horses to be quarantined in permanent, privately 
owned quarantine facilities that meet the criteria established in this 
rule will facilitate the importation of horses while continuing to 
protect against the introduction of communicable diseases of horses.

DATES: Effective Date: August 3, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Ellen Buck, Staff Veterinary 
Medical Officer, Equine Imports, National Center for Import and Export, 
VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 39, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 
734-8364.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The regulations in 9 CFR part 93 govern the importation of 
specified animals and animal products in order to prevent the 
introduction of various animal diseases into the United States. The 
regulations in part 93 require that some of these animals be 
quarantined upon arrival in the United States as a condition of entry. 
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) operates animal 
quarantine facilities and authorizes the use of privately owned 
quarantine facilities for certain animal importations. The regulations 
in subpart C of part 93 (9 CFR 93.300 through 93.326) pertain to the 
importation of horses and include requirements for privately owned 
quarantine facilities for horses. Prior to this final rule, these 
requirements applied solely to the approval and establishment of 
temporary quarantine facilities for the purpose of quarantining 
imported horses for a specific event. However, APHIS did authorize the 
operation of one permanent, privately owned quarantine facility for 
horses, located in Los Angeles County, CA.
    On December 13, 2006, we published in the Federal Register (71 FR 
74827-74847; Docket No. APHIS-2006-0013) a proposal\1\ to amend the 
regulations by establishing standards for the approval of permanent, 
privately owned horse quarantine facilities. We stated that such 
facilities, if constructed and operated using the proper safeguards, 
would provide an effective and efficient means of bringing horses into 
the United States without compromising our ability to protect against 
the introduction of communicable diseases of horses. In that proposal, 
we also withdrew an earlier proposal, published in the Federal Register 
on July 1, 2002 (67 FR 44097-44111, Docket No. 99-012-1), which would 
have established differing requirements in the regulations for the 
approval and operation of such permanent facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ To view the proposal and the comments we received, go to 
https://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS-2006-0013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We solicited comments concerning our proposal for 60 days ending 
February 12, 2007. We received 15 comments by that date. They were from 
horse owners, breeders, members of Congress, State agricultural 
agencies, equine industry groups, the operators of a quarantine 
facility, and several private citizens. They are discussed in the 
sections below, by topic.

General Comments on the 2006 Proposed Rule

    One commenter suggested that establishing standards for privately 
owned horse quarantine facilities was unnecessary. Citing the absence 
of any diseased horses that have passed through the one currently 
operating permanent, privately owned quarantine facility into the 
domestic horse population, the commenter stated that this facility has 
demonstrated adequate biological security measures to prevent the 
introduction of communicable diseases of horses into the United States. 
The commenter suggested that the biosecurity requirements of the 
proposed rule were disproportionate to the actual disease risk 
associated with quarantining horses at the facility.
    Although the biosecurity measures in place at that particular 
facility may serve to mitigate the risk of disease spread from that 
site, we still consider the biosecurity requirements described in our 
proposal to be necessary. This is because APHIS based the requirements 
on our experience in mitigating the risk of disease introduction via 
imported horses. We modeled the proposed risk mitigation measures on 
those in place at APHIS-operated and -approved facilities, after 
assessing them for adequacy and general applicability. We determined 
such an approach to be necessary in order to create national standards 
for such facilities.
    The fact that no equine diseases are known to have passed through 
the one privately owned facility currently in operation into the 
domestic horse population does not in itself address the potential 
disease risks that other quarantine facilities elsewhere in the United 
States could encounter.
    Two commenters suggested that private ownership of permanent horse 
quarantine facilities presents an unavoidable and irresolvable conflict 
of interest, inasmuch as we allow a private entity to operate a 
Federally regulated facility. One of these commenters recommended that 
APHIS withdraw the proposed rule, and assume management of all horse 
quarantine facilities. If that is not feasible, the commenter suggested 
exclusive oversight of the facilities should be delegated to public 
agencies, including universities, agricultural colleges, and other 
institutions under contract or cooperative agreement with APHIS.
    We do not consider private ownership of an equine quarantine 
facility to present an irresolvable conflict of interest, provided that 
the facility operates under adequate Federal oversight. We consider the 
degree of APHIS oversight of private facilities required by this rule 
to be sufficient to mitigate this potential conflict of interest.
    A more extensive discussion of APHIS oversight of permanent, 
privately owned equine quarantine facilities is found below, in the 
section titled ``Changes and Clarifications with Regard to APHIS 
Oversight.''
    Several commenters questioned APHIS' intent in establishing 
standards for privately owned quarantine facilities. One suggested that 
APHIS will use the rule to expedite the slaughter of horses, while 
another stated that the rule constitutes collusion with the parimutuel 
horseracing industry to facilitate gambling. Accordingly, both 
commenters suggested we withdraw the rule.
    As explained in the proposed rule, our reasons for developing 
standards for permanent, privately owned equine quarantine facilities 
were the increased demand for import quarantine facilities that has 
arisen in the last 20 years, the geographic distribution of the 
currently operating horse quarantine facilities,

[[Page 31583]]

which can make it difficult or costly to import horses to some areas, 
and the inability, because of the nature of their construction and 
operation, of temporary, privately owned quarantine facilities to fill 
the continual demand for import quarantine services.
    One commenter stated that the proposed rule lacked sufficient 
safeguards to protect the health of the domestic horse population. The 
commenter pointed out that the rule does not establish a ``follow-up'' 
system for horses once they are released from quarantine and does not 
address diseases of horses endemic to the United States.
    The purpose of horse quarantine facilities is to observe imported 
horses for any sign of communicable equine diseases, in order to 
prevent the introduction or further dissemination of those diseases 
within the United States. In this regard, it is worth noting that no 
permanent equine quarantine facility, whether privately or Federally 
operated, currently has a ``follow-up'' system such as that suggested 
by the commenter. Instead, APHIS conducts tracebacks during animal 
disease events to determine the premises of origin of the outbreak, and 
also administers various domestic surveillance, control and eradication 
programs for equine diseases. Among these programs are our surveillance 
and vaccination efforts to prevent the spread of West Nile equine 
encephalomyelitis and our surveillance and control program for 
contagious equine metritis (CEM).
    The aim of the proposed rule was to create standards and protocols 
for permanent, privately owned quarantine facilities in order to 
prevent such diseases from being transmitted through these facilities 
and into the domestic horse population. Thus, establishing ongoing 
surveillance of horses of foreign origin and addressing diseases of 
horses endemic to the United States both fall outside of the scope of 
this rulemaking.
    One commenter asked whether an approved facility, if vacant, could 
be used to house and quarantine domestic horses in transit from a 
disaster area, provided that the horses are subject to the same 
quarantine operations as horses imported into the United States.
    Establishing rules for such an alternate use of permanent horse 
quarantine facilities falls outside of the scope of this rulemaking. 
However, in the event of an animal disease outbreak or a natural 
disaster, APHIS may consult with the operators of a quarantine facility 
in order to facilitate emergency operations, including emergency 
housing and quarantines.
    Finally, one commenter asked whether we intend to gradually phase 
out existing APHIS-operated and -approved quarantine facilities as a 
result of the rule, while another suggested that we build another 
APHIS-operated facility on the west coast.
    We will maintain the APHIS-operated facilities that presently 
exist. However, we have no current plans to build additional 
facilities.

Changes and Clarifications With Regard to APHIS Oversight

    In the proposed rule, we stated that permanent, privately owned 
horse quarantine facilities would be subject to oversight by APHIS 
representatives, would operate under continuous APHIS oversight, and 
would have at least one APHIS representative overseeing the care of all 
horses in quarantine. We also proposed that quarantine operations, the 
disposal of wastes, and cleaning and disinfection procedures at the 
facility would occur under the oversight of APHIS representatives, and 
further specified that incineration activities, whether onsite or 
offsite, would occur under direct APHIS oversight. We stated that APHIS 
would furnish services related to maintenance of the facility and daily 
care of horses under quarantine if the operator of the facility failed 
to do so as provided in the proposed rule, but did not provide further 
criteria by which we would evaluate facilities in this regard. Finally, 
we proposed that the handling, washing, and disposal of soiled and 
contaminated clothing at the facility would have to occur in a manner 
approved by APHIS.
    Many commenters expressed concern regarding these proposed 
provisions. One considered continual oversight unnecessary. Others 
stated that we should reevaluate the need for ongoing and direct APHIS 
oversight of cleaning and disinfection procedures and incineration 
activities.
    Several commenters asserted that we failed to adequately define 
``oversight.'' As a result, these commenters were uncertain whether 
APHIS oversight consisted of direct and continual supervision only of 
quarantine operations, of quarantine operations and other related 
procedures, or of all operations within the quarantine facility. If we 
intended APHIS oversight to be only of quarantine operations, the 
commenters stated, it was unclear whether we intended quarantine 
operations to take place during normal working hours or continually 
throughout the day. If we intended oversight to cover other procedures, 
the commenters were uncertain to what degree APHIS representatives 
would oversee them and when they would occur. Finally, several 
commenters asked how much APHIS oversight would cost.
    We regard APHIS oversight of the facility to be necessary in order 
for us to carry out our responsibility under the Animal Health 
Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 8301 et seq., AHPA) to ensure that imported 
horses released from a quarantine facility are free of communicable 
equine diseases.
    However, we have revisited the proposed rule in light of the 
commenters' concerns and appreciate the opportunity to clarify the 
nature of APHIS oversight. In our proposal, we used the term ``APHIS 
oversight'' in two different ways. In certain instances, it meant the 
responsibilities and duties that require APHIS to assume ultimate 
accountability for the biological security of the facility and the 
welfare of horses onsite, without usually being physically present at 
the facility. If we determine that either biosecurity or animal welfare 
is being jeopardized at the facility, this oversight may require us to 
be physically present at the facility to provide services to safeguard 
either biosecurity or welfare of the horses. Additionally, APHIS may 
withdraw approval of the facility. However, APHIS often exercises this 
type of oversight by developing care plans and compliance agreements 
with entities, and by conducting subsequent spot audits in order to 
ensure that the terms of these plans and agreements are followed.
    In other instances within the proposed rule, ``APHIS oversight'' 
meant those occasions when APHIS representatives must be physically 
present at the facility to carry out a particular function. Those 
occasions will vary somewhat from facility to facility, and may even 
vary within the facility from importation to importation. Nonetheless, 
we have determined that APHIS representatives must be present at a 
facility to monitor import quarantine operations whenever they occur, 
and to provide other technical services related to biological security. 
Technical services include, but are not limited to, those measures 
necessary to prevent or limit the spread of disease within the facility 
if a horse in quarantine has been determined to be affected with an 
equine disease.
    To clarify this distinction, we have modified several paragraphs in 
Sec.  93.308 from our proposal to make the occasions that will 
necessitate our physical presence at the facility more explicit:
     In the proposed rule, paragraph (c)(1)(ii)(C) stated that, 
in order for a

[[Page 31584]]

facility to be approved, the Administrator must determine that 
sufficient APHIS personnel are available to serve as representatives at 
the facility and to provide continuous oversight over import quarantine 
operations and other technical services related to biological security 
of the facility. In this final rule, that paragraph now states that, if 
a facility is approved, APHIS representatives will be present at all 
import quarantine operations to monitor them and will be present to 
provide technical services to ensure the biological security of the 
facility. It also specifies that these technical services include 
overseeing the disposition of an infected or exposed horse at the 
facility, in accordance with paragraph (c)(4)(v)(H). Import quarantine 
operations include, but are not limited to, visual inspection of the 
animal on arrival, identification of the animal with its accompanying 
import certificate, serological testing, and monitoring of routine 
diagnostic tests.
     In the proposed rule, paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(B) stated that 
the compliance agreement that the operator of a privately owned 
facility or the operator's agent and the Administrator must execute 
must provide that the facility's quarantine operations are subject to 
the oversight of APHIS representatives. In this final rule, as part of 
the agreement, the operator now must agree to have APHIS 
representatives present at all import quarantine operations at the 
facility in order to monitor the import quarantine operations.
     In the proposed rule, paragraph (c)(4)(i)(A) stated that, 
as part of the operating procedures at the facility, the quarantine of 
horses at the facility are subject to the oversight of APHIS 
representatives authorized to perform the services required by the rule 
and by the compliance agreement. In this final rule, that paragraph now 
specifies that APHIS representatives will be physically present at and 
monitor all import quarantine operations at the facility.
     In the proposed rule, paragraph (c)(4)(v)(H) stated that 
should a horse be determined to be infected with or exposed to a 
communicable disease of horses, the final disposition of the horse must 
occur under the direct oversight of APHIS representatives. In this 
final rule, that paragraph now states that APHIS representatives must 
be physically present at and directly monitor the disposition of the 
horse.
     In the proposed rule, we referred throughout Sec.  93.308 
to ``quarantine operations.'' In this final rule, to better delineate 
those procedures for which APHIS representatives will maintain a 
physical presence at quarantine facilities, we have changed every such 
reference to ``import quarantine operations.''
    As part of the reevaluation that led to these clarifications, we 
also examined whether the maintenance of the facility, the daily care 
of horses under quarantine, the disposal of wastes, cleaning and 
disinfection procedures, incineration activities, and the handling, 
washing, and disposal of soiled and contaminated clothing at the 
facility could be performed without APHIS personnel being physically 
present on each occasion. We have determined that these activities and 
procedures need APHIS oversight, but that it is not necessary for APHIS 
representatives to maintain physical presence at them and direct or 
continual monitoring of them, unless we have reason to believe that 
these activities are being neglected or carried out in a manner that 
compromises either the biological security of the facility or the 
welfare of horses onsite.
    In order for APHIS to allow these practices to be conducted without 
our physical presence, however, we have determined that we must possess 
adequate knowledge of the standard practices that the operator of the 
facility will employ regarding these activities prior to APHIS' initial 
approval of the facility. We have also determined that we must possess 
some mechanism whereby we can evaluate the operator's adherence to 
these practices once the site is operational and, if necessary, take 
remedial measures to address any failure to comply with these 
standards.
    As a result of this determination, in Sec.  93.308, we have 
modified proposed paragraph (c)(2)(ii), which sets forth requirements 
for the compliance agreement that an operator of a facility or his or 
her agent must execute prior to APHIS approval of the facility, to 
specify that each compliance agreement must provide that the operator 
agrees to demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the Administrator, that 
the routine cleaning and maintenance of the facility, the daily care of 
animals in quarantine, the disposal of wastes at the facility, the 
cleaning and disinfection procedures employed by the facility, the 
handling, washing, and disposal of soiled and contaminated clothing 
worn within the facility, and the disposal of dead horses, whether 
onsite or offsite, adhere to the best practices of biological security 
and animal care; and provide that the operator agrees to random spot 
audits by APHIS representatives to determine whether employees and 
other personnel are complying with these practices.\2\ These two 
requirements are found in subparagraphs (E) and (F) of paragraph 
(c)(2)(ii) in Sec.  93.308 of this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Best practices for biological security and animal care are 
those employed at our Federally maintained quarantine facilities or 
otherwise specified within operational memoranda issued by APHIS' 
Veterinary Services division. APHIS will facilitate the operator's 
access to these best practices prior to the execution of the 
compliance agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, proposed paragraph (c)(4)(i)(B) of Sec.  93.308, which 
pertained to the maintenance of the facility and the daily care of 
animals in quarantine, has been modified to reflect these changes to 
the compliance agreement. In this final rule, the paragraph provides 
that, if, as the result of a spot audit, or for any other reason, APHIS 
determines that the operator has failed to properly care for, feed, or 
handle quarantined horses as required by this final rule or in 
accordance with the terms of the compliance agreement, or has failed to 
maintain and operate the facility as provided in the rule or in 
accordance with the terms of the compliance agreement, APHIS 
representatives will furnish such services, will make arrangements for 
the sale or disposal of quarantined horses at the quarantine facility 
owner's expense, or will begin the process for withdrawal of approval 
of the quarantine facility. In the proposed rule, this paragraph did 
not mention either spot audits or the compliance agreement, and did not 
state that nonadherence to the provisions of the rule could result in 
withdrawal of approval.
    In this final rule, the following paragraphs have been modified to 
specify that the procedures detailed in the paragraphs must be carried 
out in accordance with the term of the compliance agreement, and to 
state that the procedures are therefore subject to spot audits:
     Paragraph (c)(3)(iii)(F), which pertains to the disposal 
of wastes at the facility;
     Paragraph (c)(3)(iii)(H), which pertains to incineration 
activities;
     Proposed (c)(3)(iv)(F), which pertains to the disposal of 
wastes at the facility;
     Paragraph (c)(4)(iv)(C), which pertains to the handling, 
washing, and disposal of soiled and contaminated clothing worn within 
the quarantine facility;
     Paragraph (c)(4)(iv)(D), which pertains to cleaning and 
disinfection procedures for equipment used in the quarantine area;
     Paragraph (c)(4)(iv)(E), which pertains to cleaning and 
disinfection

[[Page 31585]]

procedures for vehicles entering and exiting the quarantine area; and
     Paragraph (c)(4)(iv)(G), which pertains to cleaning and 
disinfection procedures for lot-holding areas.
    If, at any time, an APHIS representative discovers that employees 
or other authorized personnel are not following the terms of the 
compliance agreement, he or she may issue additional instructions 
regarding the measures that these individuals must take while import 
quarantine operations are being conducted at the facility (paragraph 
(c)(4)(ii)(C) of Sec.  93.308). If employees do not follow these 
additional instructions, APHIS representatives may require the operator 
to bar these personnel from the facility (paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(D) of 
Sec.  93.308). Finally, in this final rule, both paragraphs 
(c)(1)(iv)(C)(1) and (c)(4)(i)(B) of Sec.  93.308 provide that 
nonadherence to the terms of this rule or the compliance agreement by 
the operator or his or her employees may result in withdrawal of 
approval of the quarantine facility.
    In response to the commenters' questions regarding when APHIS would 
exercise oversight of the facility, APHIS representatives will 
ordinarily render their services during their normal tour of duty as 
APHIS employees. An APHIS employee's tour of duty may vary, but always 
excludes Sundays and holidays. If circumstances require an APHIS 
employee to be present at the facility outside of his or her tour of 
duty, we will charge an overtime rate for those services. This rate is 
found in 9 CFR 130.30(b).
    Similarly, in response to the commenters' questions regarding the 
cost associated with APHIS oversight, in the proposed rule, we stated 
that we will charge for APHIS' inspection of a facility at the hourly 
rates listed in 9 CFR 130.30. We also stated that the operator of the 
facility would be charged for the services APHIS representatives 
provide in accordance with 9 CFR part 130.
    In a related matter, as we mentioned above, proposed Sec.  
93.308(c)(1)(ii)(C) stated that part of APHIS' initial evaluation of an 
application for approval of a facility would be a determination of 
whether sufficient APHIS personnel are available to serve as APHIS 
representatives at the facility, in order to provide continuous 
oversight of import quarantine operations and other technical services 
pertaining to biological security.
    Several commenters expressed concern regarding this paragraph. One 
commenter stated that APHIS does not currently have sufficient 
personnel at existing APHIS-operated quarantine facilities, and thus 
cannot assume oversight of privately owned facilities. Another stated 
that recent outbreaks of equine herpes virus (EHV-1) at an APHIS-
operated quarantine facility suggest that the biological security risks 
associated with horse quarantine facilities have increased and 
necessitate that more personnel be assigned to the facility than APHIS 
can provide. A third commenter stated that it is unlikely that APHIS 
personnel will be available to continually staff the facilities, and we 
should therefore consider providing funding opportunities through 
cooperative agreements for State animal health officials to provide 
health inspection services at the facilities. A fourth commenter 
suggested that, in the event of a lack of adequate personnel, APHIS 
should delegate supervision of certain quarantine operations, such as 
the collection of blood samples, to private practitioners.
    Those commenters who stated that APHIS does not have sufficient 
personnel to serve as representatives at or to provide continual 
oversight of a quarantine facility appear to have based their 
evaluation, in large part, on an expansive understanding of ``APHIS 
oversight.'' We consider the clarifications and amendments we have made 
to the proposed rule regarding the nature of this oversight to be 
sufficient to address this aspect of the commenters' concerns.
    In addition, by making a determination that APHIS must have 
sufficient personnel to serve as representatives to a facility one of 
the conditions for the Administrator's initial approval of the 
facility, we are afforded the opportunity to evaluate both the extent 
to which such approval could have a detrimental impact on existing 
import quarantine operations at APHIS-operated facilities, and the 
likelihood that a future outbreak of a foreign animal disease would 
cause us to have insufficient personnel to oversee import quarantine 
operations and assure biosecurity at any facility, whether privately 
operated or maintained by APHIS. If the Administrator determines that 
approval of a privately operated facility would jeopardize import 
quarantine operations or biosecurity at an existing quarantine 
facility, he or she will not grant such approval.
    We consider APHIS oversight of import quarantine operations and 
other related services conducted at a facility to be necessary for us 
to carry out our responsibility under the AHPA to prevent the 
introduction of a foreign communicable disease of horses into the 
domestic equine population. We do not consider it appropriate to 
delegate this responsibility to private practitioners or State animal 
health officials. However, this rule does not amend or supplant the 
existing regulations in 9 CFR part 93 that pertain to the various 
operations that accredited veterinarians and State animal health 
officials may conduct in order to provide care for imported horses or 
in order to prevent the spread of communicable equine diseases.
    We address the commenter's concerns regarding the biological 
security of equine quarantine facilities in light of the 2006 outbreak 
of EHV-1 in the section below titled ``Comments on Construction 
Requirements.''

Comment Regarding the Role of State Departments of Agriculture

    One commenter asked whether APHIS oversight involves parallel 
supervision of the quarantine facility by State departments of 
agriculture, State veterinarians, and State animal health agencies. If 
it does not, the commenter suggested the final rule authorize such 
entities to be consulted and have some authority in the approval of the 
facility, in any decision regarding the location of the facility, in 
approval of contingency plans for emergency medical care of quarantined 
horses and possible disposal of all horses housed at the facility, in 
the granting of variances from the terms of the rule, and in the 
decisionmaking process for denying or withdrawing approval of the 
facility.
    As we mentioned above, it is APHIS' responsibility under the AHPA 
to prevent the introduction of foreign communicable diseases of horses 
into the domestic equine population. As part of this duty, it is 
necessary for us to make the ultimate determination in those areas 
described by the commenter. Therefore, we do not consider it possible 
to delegate responsibility to or share responsibility with State animal 
health authorities for these determinations in the manner requested by 
the commenter.
    However, our responsibility does not preclude APHIS from asking 
State authorities to provide guidance regarding the approval of a 
proposed facility. Indeed, on many occasions, we may have to solicit 
such input in order to determine whether a proposed facility meets 
local and State environmental regulations. Such a determination is 
required in paragraph (c)(5) of Sec.  93.308.
    In addition, APHIS has recently undertaken an initiative to 
facilitate greater communication with State agricultural agencies, and 
to establish greater collaboration among Federal and State officials in 
the development of

[[Page 31586]]

effective strategies to respond to animal disease events and emergency 
situations at the State and local levels. We will implement this rule 
in a manner that is consistent with that initiative, especially in 
matters pertaining to the biosecurity of the facility and the health of 
livestock in the area of the facility.

Comment Regarding Temporary, Privately Owned Quarantine Facilities

    In our proposal, we proposed to amend paragraphs (b) and (c) of 
Sec.  93.308 by combining the two paragraphs, which contained 
requirements for temporary, privately owned horse quarantine 
facilities, into a single paragraph (b), and by making several 
nonsubstantive changes to the text of these paragraphs.
    One commenter asked whether these changes established new 
regulations for such temporary facilities. In the commenter's 
estimation, it would prove impracticable to have temporary facilities 
adhere to the same standards as permanent facilities.
    We are maintaining the existing provisions for temporary, privately 
owned quarantine facilities. This rule establishes standards solely for 
permanent facilities.

Comments Regarding Denial or Withdrawal of APHIS Approval

    In Sec.  93.308, proposed paragraph (c)(1)(iv) set forth a protocol 
for denying or withdrawing approval of a permanent, privately owned 
horse quarantine facility, and reasons for APHIS to deny or withdraw 
such approval. Among other reasons, we stated that, if the operator or 
a person responsibly connected with the business of the quarantine 
facility acts as a paid agent (broker) for the importation or 
subsequent sale of a horse, APHIS could deny or withdraw approval of a 
privately owned horse quarantine facility.
    We deemed a person to be responsibly connected with the business of 
the quarantine facility if that person has an ownership, mortgage, or 
lease interest in the facility's physical plant, or if that person is a 
partner, officer, director, holder, or owner of 10 percent or more of 
its voting stock, or is an employee in a managerial or executive 
capacity. We included these provisions in our December 2006 proposal in 
response to comments that we received regarding our July 2002 proposal. 
The commenters on the earlier proposal suggested that an operator who 
also acted as a broker would face conflicts of interest while housing, 
treating, and caring for horses imported by other brokers.
    We received two comments regarding these provisions. Both 
commenters considered the measure to be overly restrictive, and 
suggested that a person engaged in both operation of the facility and 
import brokerage would not necessarily encounter a substantive and 
irresoluble conflict of interest. One of these commenters asserted that 
the one permanent, privately owned horse quarantine facility currently 
in operation has functioned as an import broker almost since its 
establishment, without incident or complaint. In lieu of these 
provisions, the commenters suggested that APHIS forbid operators from 
discriminating against any importer or agent, under penalty of fines or 
withdrawal of approval.
    We are making no changes to the proposed rule in response to these 
comments. If an operator acts as a broker, this may not necessarily 
lead to conscious discrimination against the horses of other brokers, 
or in favor of one's own horses. However, it does predispose the 
operator to act in a manner that serves, or at least preserves, his or 
her economic interest in the horses under quarantine, and creates an 
incentive for the operator to discriminate in favor of his or her own 
horses, those of a family member, or those belonging to an individual 
who has a business relationship with the operator. Prohibiting 
operators from acting as brokers is necessary to prevent these 
conflicts.
    Another commenter suggested that APHIS could largely resolve this 
conflict of interest and make this provision unnecessary by privatizing 
all existing Federal horse quarantine facilities. The commenter did not 
explicitly state why such privatization would attenuate this conflict 
of interest, but appeared to suggest that this action would provide an 
opportunity for other brokers to assume ownership of these Federal 
facilities.
    Such privatization would not remove the conflict of interest, since 
it would still allow operators to act as brokers.
    The same commenter suggested that, if we do not pursue 
privatization, these provisions are insufficient. The commenter pointed 
out that the one currently operating permanent, privately owned horse 
quarantine facility not only engages in import brokerage, but also 
functions as a retailer in the shipping industry. The commenter 
suggested that operators who act as shippers may encounter similar 
conflicts to those who act as brokers. Therefore, the commenter asked 
that, if we do not pursue privatization, we should consider prohibiting 
operators not only from brokerage, but also from retail shipping.
    Operators do not possess as immediate and substantive an economic 
interest in the horses they ship as they do in those horses for which 
they act as brokers. If an operator assumes brokerage of a horse, the 
economic interest that the operator gains in the horse necessarily 
creates incentives for the individual to use his or her position as an 
operator in order to preserve and, if possible, increase the value of 
the horse, or conversely, to use that position to create competitive 
disadvantages for other brokers utilizing his or her facility. If an 
operator becomes the shipping agent for a horse, but does not function 
as the horse's broker, the economic interest that the operator has lies 
not in the horse itself, but in conveyance of the animal to or from the 
quarantine facility. This sort of interest creates only tangential or 
incidental incentives for the individual to use his or her position as 
an operator to maintain or increase the value of the animal to be 
shipped. For this reason, we do not consider the potential conflicts 
associated with retail shipping equivalent to those associated with 
brokerage, and are therefore not including shipping of horses as a 
reason to deny or withdraw approval of a permanent, privately owned 
quarantine facility in this final rule.

Comments Regarding the Compliance Agreement for Permanent Facilities

    In Sec.  93.308, proposed paragraph (c)(2) stated that the operator 
of the facility or his or her agent would have to execute a compliance 
agreement with the Administrator. In the proposal, we specified that 
the compliance agreement would have to provide that the facility would 
have to meet all applicable requirements of proposed Sec.  93.308 and 
that the facility's quarantine operations would be subject to the 
oversight of APHIS representatives. The compliance agreement also 
stated that the operator of the facility would be responsible for:
     The cost of the facility;
     All costs associated with the facility's maintenance and 
operation;
     All costs associated with the hiring of employees and 
other personnel to attend to the horses as well as to maintain and 
operate the facility;
     All costs associated with the care of quarantined horses, 
such as feed, bedding, medicines, inspections, testing, laboratory 
procedures, and necropsy examinations; and
     All APHIS charges for the services of APHIS 
representatives in accordance with Sec.  93.308 and 9 CFR part 130.
    The compliance agreement would further provide that the operator 
would

[[Page 31587]]

agree to bar from the facility any employee or other personnel at the 
facility who fails to comply with the standards governing permanent, 
privately owned quarantine facilities, found in paragraph (c) of Sec.  
93.308, with other provisions of 9 CFR part 93, with any terms of the 
compliance agreement, or with any related instructions from APHIS 
representatives.
    Two commenters expressed concern regarding the section of the 
compliance agreement in which the operator agrees to pay all charges 
for services rendered by APHIS representatives assigned to the 
facility. One of the commenters stated that this stipulation is at odds 
with the procedures in place at the one permanent, privately owned 
quarantine facility currently in operation, and is inconsistent with 
the practices of APHIS-operated quarantine facilities. The commenter 
stated that at such facilities the importer of record or the shipping 
agent is responsible for all fees for APHIS services.
    The fees that APHIS assesses on importers and shipping agents at 
the quarantine facilities that we operate are for services rendered 
directly on behalf of the importer or shipping agent, such as meeting 
the importer or agent at the port of entry in order to facilitate 
transportation of the animal to the quarantine facility, or drawing 
blood for routine serological tests once import quarantine operations 
have been completed.
    In contrast, the services that APHIS employees will provide at 
privately owned equine quarantine facilities will be directly related 
to conducting import quarantine operations and maintaining biosecurity 
for all horses at the facility, and are thus properly rendered on 
behalf of the operator of the facility, rather than on behalf of a 
specific importer or agent. Therefore, it is reasonable that the 
operator of the facility should agree to pay all charges for such 
services. This provision is consistent with the standards currently in 
place for temporary, privately owned quarantine facilities, which 
require the operator of the facility to bear all maintenance and 
operation costs.
    Finally, it is important to note that this rule does not prohibit 
the operator of a privately owned equine quarantine facility from 
passing on the costs of APHIS' services to the importer of record or 
the shipping agent.
    Another commenter asked if pricing structures for the services 
rendered at the privately owned facilities will correspond to those 
already in place for APHIS-operated quarantine facilities.
    As we mentioned in the proposed rule, APHIS will charge for its 
services according to 9 CFR part 130. We will not regulate the amount 
that the operators of a facility may charge for services that they 
themselves provide.

Comments Regarding Location Requirements

    In Sec.  93.308, proposed paragraph (c)(3)(i) set forth location 
requirements for permanent, privately owned quarantine facilities. 
These required that the quarantine facility must be located in 
proximity to a port authorized under paragraph (e) of Sec.  93.303 of 
the regulations, and that the site and the specific routes for the 
movement of horses from the port to the site must be approved by the 
Administrator based on consideration of whether the site or routes 
would put the horses in a position that could result in the 
transmission of communicable diseases to domestic horses. In both our 
December 2006 proposal and our July 2002 proposal, we decided not to 
specify a maximum distance that a facility could be located from a port 
of entry. In each proposal, we cited the diversity of locations of 
possible ports of entry as a reason for not setting such a distance: 
Some may be located in large metropolitan areas, with the nearest 
concentration of livestock many miles away, while others may be in 
towns with rural areas and high concentrations of livestock within a 
very short distance of the port.
    Two commenters asked that APHIS add provisions to specify a maximum 
distance that a quarantine facility can be from a port of entry. One of 
these commenters stated that, if a quarantine facility were located 
many miles from a port of entry, a horse refused entry at one of the 
quarantine facilities would have to be transported a great distance 
before being exported from the United States. In the commenter's 
estimation, transporting a diseased horse for such a period of time, 
even under the most stringent biological security measures, would pose 
a substantial risk of disease spread through third-party vectors, such 
as flies and gnats.
    We do not consider it possible to set a maximum distance that a 
quarantine facility can be located from a port of entry. In light of 
the diversity of places in which persons may consider locating a 
permanent facility, and the possibly substantive variations among 
different ports of entry, setting specific distances may result in 
regulations that are too stringent for some facilities, and too lax for 
others.
    In a similar matter, in our July 2002 proposal, we proposed to 
require that the facility be located at least one-half mile from 
premises holding livestock or horses. In response to a commenter who 
suggested that other requirements in our proposal established adequate 
biosecurity to render such a requirement unnecessary, we reevaluated 
the need for this requirement, and removed it from our December 2006 
proposal. Instead, we specified that the site would have to be approved 
by the Administrator as described above. The Administrator will take 
into consideration the proximity of the quarantine facility to the 
nearest port of entry, and the disease risks posed by transit of an 
infected horse from the port to the facility, in making his or her 
determination whether to approve the construction of the facility.
    A commenter on the December 2006 proposal suggested that mandating 
a minimum distance that a facility can be constructed from the 
surrounding horse population greatly reduces the likelihood of disease 
spread to that population and the possibility of a subsequent equine 
disease outbreak in the vicinity of the facility, and such a 
requirement ought to be included in the final rule.
    We have evaluated the biosecurity requirements we described in the 
proposed rule, and determined that they are adequate to mitigate the 
possibility of disease spread. Therefore, if all other procedures 
described in this rule are followed at a private, permanently owned 
quarantine facility, a distance requirement is unnecessary.
    We note, however, that we are requiring that each application for 
approval of a quarantine facility must specify the location and street 
address of the facility. This requirement affords the Administrator the 
opportunity to assess the specific risks posed by that location, in 
accordance with paragraph (c)(3)(i) of Sec.  93.308, and to specify 
additional biological security measures, beyond those specified in the 
rule, that the facility must adopt in order to address these risks and 
prevent disease spread. As specified in paragraph (c)(1)(ii)(B) of 
Sec.  93.308, the Administrator may impose such additional requirements 
within the terms of the compliance agreement.
    If the Administrator decides that the disease risks associated with 
a particular location are insurmountable, even with the imposition of 
such additional biosecurity requirements, he or she will not approve 
the location of the facility.

Comments Regarding Construction Requirements

    In Sec.  93.308, proposed paragraph (c)(3)(ii) set forth 
construction requirements for permanent, privately

[[Page 31588]]

owned horse quarantine facilities. The proposed basic standards for the 
facility addressed perimeter fencing, entrances and exits, windows, 
lighting, loading docks, surfaces, horse stalls, aisleways, isolation 
stalls, showers, APHIS space, necropsy areas, storage space, restrooms, 
ventilation, climate control, fire alarms, and communications systems.
    Our July 2002 proposed rule included several specific construction 
requirements for lot-holding areas. These areas, which we defined as 
``areas within a permanent, privately owned quarantine facility in 
which lots of horses are held,'' would have had separate drainage and 
heating, ventilation, air conditioning systems, and physical barriers. 
Our December 2006 proposed rule retained the provisions regarding lot-
holding areas, but provided more options for operators to provide 
biological security within these areas, such as cleaning and 
disinfection after each use of an area.
    One commenter suggested that APHIS remove those additional options 
for lot-holding areas and return to the more stringent requirements 
presented in the July 2002 proposed rule. The commenter cited the 2006 
outbreak of a neurotropic EHV-1 mutation in a lot of horses at a 
permanent, APHIS-operated quarantine facility as evidence of the 
significant disease risks that may arise at a quarantine facility, and 
suggested that the revisions to lot-holding areas set forth in our 
December 2006 proposal did not take these risks into adequate account. 
The commenter therefore suggested that APHIS reevaluate the 
construction standards proposed for these areas in light of the 
outbreak.
    We are making no change in response to this comment. The 
construction standards in the December 2006 proposal called for 
physical barriers to be erected to separate different lots of horses at 
the facility, so that horses in one lot cannot have physical contact 
with horses in another lot, their excrement, or their discharges. In 
addition, the sanitary standards in the 2006 proposal stated that each 
lot-holding area of the facility would have to be thoroughly cleaned 
with a disinfectant upon release of a lot of horses before a new lot of 
horses can enter the lot-holding area. APHIS has determined that these 
safeguards, which are comparable to those at APHIS-operated facilities, 
effectively limit the spread of communicable diseases of horses between 
lots of horses at a facility. We note, in this regard, that the 
biological security measures in place at the quarantine facility that 
was the site of the EHV-1 outbreak limited the spread of the disease to 
one lot of horses--neither lots in adjacent holding areas nor 
subsequent lots at the quarantine facility tested positive for the 
virus.
    Finally, if a disease of horses, whether foreign or endemic to the 
United States, spreads within a particular lot of horses, the horses in 
that lot are subject to the provisions of paragraph (c)(4)(v)(H) of 
Sec.  93.308, which sets forth requirements regarding the final 
disposition of horses infected with or exposed to a communicable 
disease of horses.
    Another commenter stated that the construction requirements 
presented in the December 2006 proposed rule were not sufficiently 
delineated. The commenter asserted that, instead of creating objective 
and unilaterally binding specifications, APHIS had made standards 
primarily dependent on the judgment of APHIS representatives who 
inspect and approve the facility. In the commenter's opinion, this 
could result in wide deviations regarding the biological security of 
various facilities, and would necessarily make it difficult for a third 
party to determine the criteria by which the representative has 
evaluated a facility. The commenter suggested that, at a minimum, the 
final rule provide more detailed criteria for the construction of 
drainage and heating systems, ventilation, air conditioning systems, 
physical barriers, and material used in the construction of floors and 
walls within the quarantined area.
    We are making no change in response to this comment. Our June 2002 
proposed rule contained more specific construction criteria for lot-
holding areas, floor drains, physical barriers, showering areas, areas 
for breaks and meals, and heating and ventilation units within the 
facility. In response to those proposed requirements, several 
commenters pointed out that some of these requirements were more 
restrictive than the design of various APHIS-operated facilities. Other 
commenters suggested that we generally amend the construction 
requirements to allow operators as many design variations as possible. 
Accordingly, in drafting our December 2006 proposal, we reevaluated the 
construction requirements that we proposed in 2002 and determined that, 
on certain occasions, the requirements of our 2002 proposal were indeed 
inconsistent with those at APHIS-approved facilities. On other 
occasions, we determined that the requirements could be adjusted to 
allow operators more options to provide adequate biological security at 
the facility. This led us to modify the construction requirements 
mentioned by the commenter.
    The APHIS approval process will ensure that all permanent, 
privately owned facilities are constructed in a manner adequate to 
prevent the transmission of disease between lot-holding areas, thus 
preventing any wide deviations with regard to biosecurity. In addition, 
we note that, under paragraph (c)(1)(ii)(B) of Sec.  93.308, the 
Administrator may impose additional construction requirements within 
the terms of the compliance agreement, beyond those specified in the 
rule, if he or she determines these requirements to be necessary to 
prevent the transmission of diseases into, within, or from the 
facility.
    Several commenters suggested that the construction standards be 
modified to allow or require exercise equipment or ``turn-out'' pens 
for horses in quarantine. Such accommodations, the commenters stated, 
would allow horses under quarantine to maintain muscle tone and general 
overall health.
    Allowing a horse under quarantine to be separated from its lot and 
released for exercise to an area of the facility outside the lot-
holding area, whether indoor or outdoor, presents an unacceptable risk 
of disease spread. We note, in this regard, that horses that are 
required under the regulations to be quarantined for extended periods 
of time after their importation often have been imported from regions 
where a communicable equine disease is known to exist, or from regions 
that engage in trade with such regions and do not require testing or 
vaccination for that disease.
    We recognize, however, that it may be possible to place exercise 
equipment in the stalls or in other parts of the lot-holding areas, 
depending on the size or construction of such areas. Therefore, we have 
modified proposed paragraph (c)(3)(i)(G) of Sec.  93.308, which stated 
that the stalls in which horses are kept would have to be large enough 
to allow each animal to make normal postural and social adjustments 
with adequate freedom of movement, to further state that exercise 
equipment for horses may be kept in the stalls, provided that there 
will still be sufficient space within the stall for the horses to move 
freely once the equipment is installed.
    Moreover, the regulations in this final rule allow exercise 
equipment to be kept in the lot-holding areas themselves. Any such 
equipment would, however, be subject to the cleaning and disinfection 
procedures required for lot-holding areas. To clarify this provision, 
we have modified proposed paragraph (c)(4)(iv)(D), which contained 
cleaning and disinfection requirements for equipment used within the 
quarantine area of the facility, to specify that these

[[Page 31589]]

requirements also pertain to exercise equipment located within the 
quarantine area.

Comment Regarding Requirements for Isolation Stalls

    In Sec.  93.308, proposed paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(I) addressed 
requirements for the means of isolation within permanent, privately 
owned facilities. We stated that the facility must have physical 
barriers to separate different lots of horses at the facility, so that 
horses in one lot cannot have physical contact with horses in another 
lot, or their excrement or discharges. We also stated that the facility 
must have stalls capable of isolating any horses exhibiting signs of 
illness.
    One commenter pointed out that we did not specify a location for 
these stalls. As a result, the commenter was uncertain whether APHIS 
intended stalls to be constructed in a separate building or merely in 
such a manner that the horse does not have direct contact with other 
horses in its lot.
    An isolation stall may be constructed in a separate building or 
within the quarantine area, provided that, in the estimation of the 
Administrator, the stall is able to physically isolate the horse from 
other horses at the facility.

Comment Regarding Requirements for Necropsy Areas and Carcass Removal

    In Sec.  93.308, proposed paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(L) set forth 
construction requirements for necropsy areas used by permanent, 
privately owned quarantine facilities. These required that all 
facilities must either have an area for conducting necropsies onsite, 
or must have designated an alternate facility, approved by the 
Administrator, at which a suitable necropsy area is available. In 
proposed paragraph (c)(3)(iii)(G) of Sec.  93.308, which set forth 
sanitation requirements for permanent, privately owned quarantine 
facilities, we stated that each facility must have the capability to 
dispose of horse carcasses in a manner approved by the Administrator 
and under conditions that minimize the risk of disease spread.
    One commenter stated that the carcass disposal requirements appear 
to be based on the quarantine facility's use of an onsite necropsy 
area. If the quarantine facility utilizes an alternate facility for 
necropsies, however, the commenter suggested that these disposal 
requirements no longer apply, since the sanitary disposal of the 
carcass after necropsy would become the responsibility of this other 
facility.
    We are making no change in response to this comment. When a horse 
dies at a permanent, privately owned facility, the operator assumes 
ultimate responsibility for the disposal of its carcass in a manner 
acceptable to the Administrator, and under direct oversight of APHIS, 
whether the necropsy is conducted onsite or at another facility. The 
location of the necropsy, then, has no bearing on the disposal 
requirements.

Comment Regarding Security Requirements

    In proposed paragraph (c)(3)(iv) of Sec.  93.308, we set forth 
security requirements for permanent, privately owned facilities. We 
proposed that the facility and premises be kept locked and secure at 
all times. We also proposed to require that the facility and premises 
must have signs indicating that the facility is a quarantine area and 
no visitors are allowed.
    Further, we proposed to require that the facility and premises 
either be guarded at all times by representatives of a bonded security 
company or, alternatively, have an electronic security system that 
indicates the entry of unauthorized persons into the facility.
    Finally, we proposed to require that the operator of the facility 
notify the designated APHIS representative whenever a breach of 
security occurs or is suspected of having occurred. Further, if a 
disease is diagnosed in quarantined horses, we stated that the 
Administrator may require the operator to have the facility guarded by 
a bonded security company in a manner that the Administrator deems 
necessary to ensure the biological security of the facility.
    One commenter stated that these provisions appear to prohibit any 
individual, including authorized personnel, from entering the facility, 
except in the presence of an APHIS representative. During all other 
times, it appeared to the commenter as if the facility would have to be 
locked and the entrances to it guarded, protected by alarm, barred, or 
sealed.
    Paragraph (c)(4)(iii) grants authorized employees and other 
personnel assigned to work at the facility access to the facility 
premises as well as the quarantine area, even in the absence of an 
APHIS representative. This provision addresses the commenter's 
concerns.

Comment Regarding Personnel Requirements

    In proposed paragraph (c)(4)(ii) of Sec.  93.308, we set forth 
personnel requirements for permanent, privately owned quarantine 
facilities. Among other provisions, these proposed that:
     The operator of the facility would have to provide APHIS 
with a continually updated list of all personnel who have access to the 
facility; and
     The operator of the facility would have to provide APHIS 
with signed statements from every employee and any other personnel 
hired by the operator and working at the facility in which the person 
agrees to comply with all regulations governing permanent, privately 
owned horse quarantine facilities, other applicable provisions of 9 CFR 
part 93, all terms of the compliance agreement, and any related 
instructions from APHIS representatives pertaining to quarantine 
operations.
    One commenter stated that both the list of personnel and the signed 
compliance statements appear to be unnecessary, if APHIS 
representatives will be physically present at all times to oversee the 
facility.
    As discussed earlier, APHIS will ordinarily only maintain a 
physical presence at and direct supervision of import quarantine 
operations and certain technical services related to the biological 
security of the facility. Therefore, in order to ensure the general 
biological security of the facility, it is important that APHIS 
representatives have a continually updated list of all personnel with 
access to the facility, one that takes into consideration employee 
turnover at the facility itself and at any company with access to the 
facility. It is also important that all personnel agree to adhere to 
the biological security measures set forth within the rule and the 
compliance agreement.
    That said, we do recognize that the proposed rule could be 
construed to suggest that, although APHIS personnel will be physically 
present at the facility, compliance agreements and signed statements 
from personnel must be submitted to APHIS employees at an off-site 
location, rather than to the personnel assigned to the facility, for 
review. This is not the case. The operator may submit such records to 
APHIS personnel assigned to the facility. The records will then be 
forwarded to the appropriate area veterinarian-in-charge office.

Comments Regarding Showering Requirements

    In Sec.  93.308, proposed paragraph (c)(4)(iv) set forth sanitation 
requirements for permanent, privately owned facilities. Proposed 
(c)(4)(iv)(A)(1) and (2) included provisions requiring that all persons 
granted access to the quarantine area shower when entering and leaving 
that area, and that all persons shower when leaving the necropsy area 
if a necropsy is in the process of being performed or

[[Page 31590]]

has just been completed, and portions of the animal remain exposed.
    One commenter stated that these provisions were not the practice of 
the one permanent, privately owned horse quarantine facility currently 
in operation. The commenter suggested that the facility's standards, 
which require personnel to wash their overalls and shower before 
leaving work, would provide a less burdensome alternative to the 
provisions of our proposal.
    ``Shower in/shower out'' is considered a cornerstone of 
biosecurity, and is recognized and recommended by government, academia, 
and industry to prevent the spread of disease agents into or from live 
animal facilities. Accordingly, APHIS has determined that showering 
reduces the risk of disease spread from quarantine or necropsy areas, 
and may, in certain instances, remove a pathway for the transmission of 
a communicable disease of horses. Therefore, these provisions represent 
the practices of APHIS-operated facilities. They have thus been 
evaluated for efficacy and general applicability. Conversely, the 
commenter provided no data suggesting that the practices of the one 
permanent, privately owned horse quarantine facility currently in 
operation are equally effective risk-mitigation measures.
    The same commenter stated that showering requirements, in 
themselves, do not adequately address the risk of the spread of 
communicable diseases of horses, since they do not preclude the 
movement of waste material from a quarantined area.
    The rule provides multiple safeguards to prevent the movement of 
waste material from the quarantine area. In Sec.  93.308, paragraphs 
(c)(4)(iv)(A)(3) through (5) require that personnel at the facility who 
enter or leave the quarantine area must wear protective work clothing 
and footwear upon entering the area and must change this clothing if it 
becomes soiled or contaminated. Paragraph (c)(4)(iv)(C) stipulates that 
the operator of the facility must handle, wash, or dispose of this 
soiled and contaminated clothing in accordance with the terms of the 
compliance agreement, and thus in a manner approved by the 
Administrator as consistent with the best practices of biological 
security. Paragraphs (c)(4)(iv)(D), (E), (F), and (G) establish 
cleaning and disinfection protocols for equipment and vehicles used 
within the facility, loading docks, and lot-holding areas. Thus, our 
proposed showering requirements were simply one of several sanitary 
practices that the facility would have to employ to address, among 
other things, the risk associated with the movement of waste material 
from the quarantine area.
    Finally, the commenter asserted that the sanitary requirements of 
the proposed rule do not prevent grooms, owners, and other personnel 
who have traveled with a diseased horse from its country of origin from 
moving freely throughout the United States once they have disembarked. 
The commenter suggested that, if such individuals became exposed to a 
communicable equine disease, they could spread the disease throughout 
the United States.
    APHIS personnel and employees of the Department of Homeland 
Security's Bureau of Customs and Border Protection may inspect 
individuals, their clothing, and their articles at ports of entry in 
order to prevent the introduction of a communicable equine disease into 
the domestic equine population.

Comments Regarding Requirements for the Handling of Horses Under 
Quarantine

    In Sec.  93.308, proposed paragraph (c)(4)(v) set forth 
requirements for the handling of horses in quarantine at a permanent, 
privately opera