The July 2002 proposed rule would not have required the application letter to include a contingency plan for horses needing emergency veterinary care. We believe having such a plan is important to the success of a quarantine facility at preventing the transmission of diseases of horses, and therefore we have included that requirement in this reproposal.

If APHIS determines that a submitted application is complete and merits further consideration, we would require that the person applying for facility approval enter into a service agreement with APHIS wherein the applicant agrees to pay the cost of all APHIS services \1\ associated with APHIS' evaluation of the application and facility. This service agreement would apply only to fees accrued during the application process. If the facility is approved by APHIS, facility owners would have to enter into a new compliance agreement in accordance with Sec. 93.308(c)(2) of the proposed regulations. \1\ APHIS charges for evaluation services at hourly rates listed in 9 CFR Sec. 130.30.

Requests for approval would have to be submitted to APHIS at least 120 days prior to the date of application for local building permits in order to ensure that APHIS has adequate time to evaluate the plans for the facility, assess potential environmental effects, and determine that adequate APHIS personnel are available to staff the facility.

Requests for approval of a proposed facility would be evaluated on a firstcome, firstserved basis.

Approval Requirements

Proposed Sec. 93.308(c)(1)(ii) lists the basic criteria that a permanent facility would have to meet to be approved by APHIS. A permanent facility would have to meet all the requirements in Sec. 93.308(c). The facility would also have to meet any additional requirements that may be imposed by the Administrator to ensure that the quarantine is adequate to determine the horses' health status and to prevent the transmission of diseases into, within, and from the facility. These additional requirements would be specified in the compliance agreement that would be required under proposed Sec. 93.308(c)(2). Finally, we are proposing that, to be approved as a permanent facility, the Administrator must determine that sufficient APHIS personnel (including
[[Page 74832]]
veterinarians and animal health technicians) are available to ensure the biological security of the facility. This determination would be based on the expected size and frequency of shipments to the facility, as described in the application for approval of a permanent facility, as well as any other pertinent information in the application. Only if a facility met all of the other proposed requirements and APHIS personnel were available would APHIS approve the facility and assign personnel to it. Because the assignment of APHIS personnel would be handled on a ``firstcome, firstserved'' basis, the deployment of APHIS personnel at one permanent facility might result in another facility not being approved for lack of necessary APHIS personnel. The Administrator would have sole discretion in determining the number of APHIS personnel to be assigned to the facility.

One commenter on the July 2002 proposed rule objected to the requirement that approval be contingent upon the availability of sufficient APHIS personnel. The commenter doubted that, given perceived staffing shortages, any APHIS personnel would be available to serve at these facilities and suggested that this would constitute a barrier to entry for persons applying to own or operate permanent facilities. The commenter further asserted that the presence of APHIS personnel at a permanent facility was unnecessary to ensure the safety of the horses.

While we realize that there may not be enough APHIS personnel available to serve every permanent, privately owned horse quarantine facility that persons may wish to operate, we believe that APHIS personnel must be present at these facilities in order to provide continuous oversight and other technical services, as needed, to ensure the biological security of the facility. Therefore, we would only approve facilities for which sufficient APHIS personnel would be available to ensure the biological security of the facility.

Proposed Sec. 93.308(c)(1)(iii) would require that the operator of a permanent, privately owned horse quarantine facility continue to comply with the requirements of proposed Sec. 93.308(c) and the terms of the compliance agreement executed in accordance with proposed Sec. 93.308(c)(2) in order to maintain APHIS approval.

Proposed Sec. 93.308(c)(1)(iv) sets out procedures for denying or withdrawing approval of permanent facilities. This paragraph would also establish due process procedures regarding a denial or withdrawal of approval and an opportunity for a hearing when there is a dispute of material fact regarding the denial or withdrawal and would provide that the withdrawal of approval for an existing facility will become effective prior to a final disposition of the matter when the Administrator determines it necessary to protect animal health or the public health, interest, or safety. This paragraph would also provide for approval to be withdrawn automatically by the Administrator when the owner notifies, in writing, the Veterinarian in Charge for the State in which the facility is located that the facility is no longer in operation.

Under the proposed regulations, the approval of a permanent facility may be denied or withdrawn if:

The proposed regulations would provide that a person is responsibly connected with the business of the permanent facility if the person has an ownership, mortgage, or lease interest in the facility's physical plant, or if such person is a partner, officer, director, holder or owner of 10 percent or more of its voting stock, or an employee in a managerial or executive capacity for the operation of the permanent facility.

The July 2002 proposed rule did not include any provisions that would have prohibited the operator or a person responsibly connected with the business of the permanent facility from acting as a paid agent or broker for the importation or subsequent sale of horses. We have added this prohibition to the reproposal in response to a request from four of the commenters on the July 2002 proposal. These commenters asserted that a person holding both these positions would face conflicts of interest while housing, treating, and caring for horses imported by other brokers.

We agree that the potential for conflicts of interest is a concern. It is possible that an owner of a permanent, privately owned horse quarantine facility who also engaged in the sale and transport of horses for profit might block a competitor from using the owner's quarantine space, or cancel the competitor's reservations if the owner determined that the competitor's imports would affect the profitability of the owner's brokering business. Similarly, an owner of a permanent, privately owned horse quarantine facility who also is engaged in the sale and transport of horses might choose to weaken competitors in the brokerage business by charging exorbitant fees for quarantine space that could not be obtained elsewhere, as USDA quarantine facilities are filled most of the time; the owner would have even greater leverage if the quarantine facility in question was operating in a geographical area not served by other facilities.

Compliance Agreement

Proposed Sec. 93.308(c)(2) would require permanent facilities to operate in accordance with a compliance agreement executed by the owner and by the APHIS Administrator that must be renewed on an annual basis. The compliance agreement would provide that the facility is required to meet all applicable requirements of Sec. 93.308 of the regulations and that the facility's quarantine operations are subject to the oversight of APHIS representatives. The compliance agreement would also state that the operator of the facility agrees to be responsible for all the costs associated with operating a permanent facility, including:

representatives in accordance with 9 CFR part 130.

The compliance agreement would also state that the operator agrees to bar from the facility any employee or other personnel at the facility who fail to comply with the proposed regulations
[[Page 74833]]
in Sec. 93.308(c), other regulations in 9 CFR part 93, any terms of the compliance agreement, or related instructions from APHIS representatives.

These proposed requirements are identical to those in the July 2002 proposed rule.

Physical Plant Requirements

Proposed Sec. 93.308(c)(3) sets out physical plant requirements. The proposed requirements for the physical plant of permanent facilities are designed to ensure that permanent facilities are capable of preventing the spread of diseases to horses outside the facility. A permanent facility would have to meet these requirements before horses were admitted to the facility.

Location

To minimize the risk of disease introduction from imported horses moving from the port of entry to the permanent facility, proposed Sec. 93.308(c)(3)(i) would require that the facility be located in proximity to a port authorized under Sec. 93.303(e). While requiring that a permanent facility be located in proximity to the port, we decided for several reasons not to require that the port and the facility be located within a certain distance of one another. Some ports will be in large metropolitan areas with the nearest concentration of livestock many miles away. Other ports may be in towns with rural areas and concentrations of livestock within a very short distance of the port. Considering the diversity of places in which persons may consider locating permanent facilities, it would be difficult to stipulate a maximum distance from the port of entry.

The specific routes for the movement of horses from the port to the permanent facility would have to be approved by the Administrator. In evaluating the suitability of a particular site for a permanent facility, the Administrator would consider whether the site of the proposed facility or the routes for movement of horses from the port of entry to the proposed facility would put the animals in a position that could result in the transmission of communicable diseases.

In the July 2002 proposed rule, we proposed to require that the facility be located at least onehalf mile from any premises holding livestock or horses. One commenter stated that the other safeguards in the proposed rule provide adequate biological security to mitigate the risk that a communicable disease of horses might be transmitted into the domestic horse population from horses in the quarantine facility.

We agree that the distance requirement would be unnecessary if all other procedures described in this proposed rule were followed at a private, permanently owned horse quarantine facility. In addition, just as the diversity of places in which persons may consider locating permanent facilities makes it difficult to stipulate a maximum distance from the port of entry, that diversity also makes it difficult to stipulate a minimum distance from existing horse populations. Therefore, we are not including in this reproposal a requirement that a permanent, privately owned horse quarantine facility must be located at least onehalf mile from any premises holding livestock or horses from this reproposal, and we have indicated in this reproposal that the location would simply have to be approved by the Administrator in advance based on consideration of whether the site would put the horses in a position that could result in the transmission of communicable diseases to domestic horses.

Construction

Proposed requirements for facility construction would be contained in Sec. 93.308(c)(3)(ii). We are proposing to require that the facility be of sound construction, in good repair, and properly designed to prevent the escape of horses from quarantine. The facility would be required to have the capacity to receive and house shipments of horses as lots on an ``allin, allout'' basis, whereby separate lots could be received and housed without contact with any other lots being quarantined at the facility.

We would also require that the facility be enclosed by a security fence of sufficient height and design to prevent unauthorized persons, horses, and other animals from outside the facility from having contact with horses quarantined in the facility. One commenter on the July 2002 proposed rule questioned the need for a security fence, stating that sound horse fencing should be used and that the entrance should be gated to prevent public access in lieu of a security fence. However, the fence enclosing the facility is intended to ensure not only that horses do not escape quarantine but also to prevent the unauthorized entry of persons, horses, and other animals. Sound horse fencing would not provide adequate protection against unauthorized entry.

We would also require that all entryways into the nonquarantine area of the facility be equipped with a secure and lockable door. Further, while horses are in quarantine, all access to the quarantine area for horses would have to be from within the building, and each such entryway to the quarantine area would have to be equipped with a series of solid selfclosing double doors. Emergency exits would be permitted in the quarantine area, but such exits would have to be constructed so as to permit their being opened only from the inside of the facility in order to ensure the security of the horses in quarantine and the integrity of quarantine operations.

The July 2002 proposed rule included a requirement that entryways to each lotholding area be equipped with a solid, lockable door. We are not including that provision in this reproposal, for the reasons discussed earlier in this document under the heading ``Changes in Our Approach With Respect to LotHolding Areas.''

We propose to require that the facility be constructed so that any windows or other openings in the quarantine area are doublescreened with screening of sufficient gauge and mesh to prevent the entry or exit of insects and other vectors of diseases of horses and to provide ventilation sufficient to ensure the comfort and safety of all horses in the facility. The interior and exterior screens would have to be separated by at least 3 inches (7.62 cm). The screens would have to be easily removable for cleaning, but otherwise remain locked and secure at all times in a manner satisfactory to APHIS representatives to ensure the biological security of the facility.

In response to the July 2002 proposed rule, one commenter recommended that we amend the proposed specifications for windows or other openings in the quarantine area to require adequate ventilation. In this reproposal, we have included the requirement that the window screens would have to provide ventilation sufficient to ensure the comfort and health of all horses in the facility. We believe this language will ensure that windows in permanent facilities provide sufficient ventilation to prevent horses from becoming uncomfortable or suffering injury for that reason.

The entire facility, including its stalls and hallways, would have to have adequate lighting to ensure that horses are moved and kept safely and that permanent facility employees can safely do their work.

Proposed paragraph Sec. 93.308 (c)(3)(ii)(E) would provide that a facility must have separate loading docks for receiving and releasing animals and for general receiving and pickup, unless a single dock used for both purposes is cleaned and disinfected after each use [[Page 74834]]
according to the procedures set out in proposed paragraph Sec. 93.308(c)(4)(iv)(F). That paragraph states that if the facility has a single loading dock, the loading dock would have to be immediately cleaned and disinfected after each use under the oversight of an APHIS representative with a disinfectant authorized in 9 CFR part 71 or otherwise approved by the Administrator. (Disinfectants are currently approved in 9 CFR part 71 under Sec. Sec. 71.10, 71.11, and 71.12.)

The July 2002 proposed rule would have required that the facility have two separate loading docks. One would have been part of the quarantine area and would have been used for receiving and releasing horses, and one would have been part of the nonquarantine area and would have been used for general receiving and pickup. One commenter on the July 2002 proposed rule suggested that separate docks would be unnecessary; if a single dock were properly cleaned and disinfected after each use, the facility would achieve adequate protection against the risk that communicable diseases of horses might be transmitted. We agree with this comment and have modified the July 2002 proposed rule as suggested by the commenter. We believe this proposed requirement would adequately protect against the transmission of communicable diseases of horses while providing facility owners with greater flexibility.

We would require that the facility be constructed so that the floor surfaces with which horses have contact in the facility are nonslip and wearresistant. All floor surfaces with which the horses, their excrement, or discharges have contact would have to provide for adequate drainage. All floor and wall surfaces with which the horses, their excrement, or discharges have contact would have to be impervious to moisture and be able to withstand frequent cleaning and disinfection without deterioration. Ceilings and wall surfaces with which the horses, their excrement, or discharges do not have contact would have to be able to withstand cleaning and disinfection between shipments of horses. The cleaning and disinfection of all of these surfaces would help ensure that disease agents would not be spread from one lot of horses to another. We would further require that surfaces with which the horses could have contact must not have any sharp edges that could cause injury to the horses.

The July 2002 proposed rule would have additionally required floor surfaces to have drains of at least 8 inches in diameter. One commenter suggested that it was unnecessary for us to specify the required diameter for the floor drains, since the proposed rule prescribed that all floor surfaces must provide for adequate drainage. We agree that it would be better to allow facility designers flexibility to achieve the adequate drainage requirement, and we are not including a specific diameter requirement for the floor drains in these facilities in this reproposal.

In proposed Sec. 93.308(c)(3)(ii)(G), we would require that the stalls in which horses are held be large enough to allow each animal to make normal postural and social adjustments (including turning around and making way for other humans or horses) with adequate freedom of movement. Horses that do not have adequate space for movement could be at risk for poor conditioning due to lack of movement, malnutrition due to refusal to eat, rapid weight loss, increased stress, depression, or abnormal behavior patterns. These could increase the likelihood of the horses exhibiting clinical symptoms of disease or, if disease is present, transmitting or becoming infected with disease. The stall size requirement would also allow the stalls to be cleaned more easily by facilitating access to the stalls for quarantine facility personnel.

To help prevent transmission of disease between horses in permanent facilities, we would require that the aisleways used by horses within the quarantine area be wide enough to provide for safe movement of horses, including allowing horses to turn around in the aisleway, to prevent horses in facing stalls from coming into contact with horses in the aisleway, and to adequately ventilate the stalls. Narrow aisleways can lead to injury to horses and personnel and can allow direct physical contact between horses, which could facilitate the spread of disease.

The facility would have to be constructed so that different lots of horses held at the facility at the same time would be separated by physical barriers in such a manner that horses in one lot could not have physical contact with horses in another lot or with the excrement or discharges of horses in another lot. In addition, we would require that permanent facilities include stalls capable of isolating any horses exhibiting signs of illness. This provision would help ensure that horses infected with or exposed to disease do not spread the disease or expose other horses in the facility to the disease.

To prevent dissemination of disease via persons at the facility, we are proposing to require that the facility contain showers for use before entering and after exiting the quarantine area. A shower would also be needed at the entrance to the necropsy area if necropsies will be conducted onsite. (The proposed requirements for the necropsy area are described in greater detail later in this document.) We would also require that a clothesstorage and clotheschanging area be provided at each end of each shower area, and that there be one or more receptacles near each shower so that clothing that has been worn into the quarantine area can be deposited in a receptacle prior to entering the shower.

The July 2002 proposed rule would have required that the facility have showers at the entrance to each lotholding area in a facility in which it is not possible to move to any lotholding area except by first passing through another lotholding area. It would also have required that all persons granted access to the quarantine area shower before entering a lotholding area if previously exposed from access to another lotholding area. This reproposal removes these proposed requirements, for the reasons discussed earlier in this document under the heading ``Changes in Our Approach With Respect to LotHolding Areas.''

Because of the need for APHIS representatives assigned to a permanent facility to examine horses and draw samples for testing, we would require that permanent facilities contain adequate space for these purposes and that the space include equipment to provide for the safe inspection of horses. In this reproposal, we are also proposing to require that the space provided to conduct examinations and testing include a refrigeratorfreezer in which to store samples, which would facilitate conducting disease tests. The facility would have to include adequate storage space for the necessary equipment and supplies, work space for preparing and packaging samples for mailing, and storage space for duplicate samples. We would further require that the facility include a secure, lockable office space with enough room to contain a desk, chair, and filing cabinet for APHIS use.

Proposed Sec. 93.308(c)(3)(ii)(L) would require that the facility either have a necropsy area or designate an alternate facility for conducting necropsies. A necropsy area would be necessary to perform post mortem inspection of horses that die in the permanent facility and to collect samples for laboratory diagnosis. These actions would be needed to determine whether the death of a horse was associated with a disease, or if it was caused by other factors, such as colic or physical injury.

[[Page 74835]]

If the facility has a necropsy area, it would have to be of sufficient size to perform necropsies on horses and be equipped with adequate lighting, hot and cold running water, a drain, a cabinet for storing instruments, a refrigeratorfreezer for storing specimens, and an autoclave to sterilize veterinary equipment. If the facility does not have such an area, it would have to specify an alternate facility at which a suitable necropsy area is available, a route from the quarantine facility to the alternate facility's necropsy area, and the safeguards that will be in place to ensure that communicable diseases of horses are not spread during transit. This alternate facility and transport methodology would have to be approved by the Administrator under the procedures for requesting variances in these proposed regulations for permanent facilities as outlined in Sec. 93.308(c)(6). This provision would require the operator to submit a request for a variance from the requirements for the construction of the facility prior to approval of the facility; because facilities would generally be required to have a necropsy area onsite, a request to designate an alternate facility for necropsies would be a request for a variance from the facility construction requirements.

If a facility did not have either a necropsy area that met the requirements of proposed Sec. 93.308(c)(3)(ii)(L) or an alternate facility approved under the variances provision in proposed Sec. 93.308(c)(6), it would not be approved.

The July 2002 proposed rule did not provide for the use of an alternative facility to perform necropsies. Three commenters asserted that requiring the construction of a necropsy area onsite at a permanent facility would be excessively costly, since the necropsy area would be expected to be used only rarely. Two commenters expressed a desire to designate an alternate facility at which necropsies and carcass incineration could be performed if necessary. We agree that, if carried out with the proper safeguards and notification, an alternate facility for necropsies could be used, and we have added provisions for designating an alternate facility, as described above. We believe that this change to the July 2002 proposed rule will ensure that biological security is maintained while allowing owners and operators some flexibility in design and construction of permanent, privately owned horse quarantine facilities.

These commenters also stated that the construction of a carcass incinerating facility should not be required; however, neither the July 2002 proposed rule nor this reproposal would require the construction of a carcass incinerating facility, but instead would require that the facility have the capability to dispose of carcasses safely and without spreading disease.

We are also proposing to require that the facility have sufficient storage space for equipment and supplies used in quarantine operations. Storage space would have to include separate, secure storage for pesticides and for medical and other biological supplies, as well as a separate verminproof storage area for feed and bedding, if feed and bedding are to be stored at the facility.

We are proposing to require that separate storage space be provided for each lotholding area for any reusable equipment and supplies that are not disinfected after each use in accordance with 9 CFR part 71. The July 2002 proposed rule included a provision that each lotholding area have separate storage space for equipment and supplies; we are not including this requirement in this reproposal, for the reasons discussed earlier in this document under the heading ``Changes in Our Approach With Respect to LotHolding Areas.''

We are proposing to require that the facility have an area for washing and drying clothes, linens, and towels and an area for cleaning and disinfecting equipment used in the facility. The facility would also have to include a work area for the repair of equipment. These areas are essential to ensure the continuity of quarantine operations.

The facility would have to have permanent restrooms in both the quarantine and nonquarantine areas of the facility so that persons do not need to leave or enter the quarantine area simply to use a restroom. Leaving the quarantine area would necessitate the person showering prior to entering the nonquarantine area, and then again upon reentering the quarantine area.

The July 2002 proposed rule included a provision that the facility have an area within the quarantine area for breaks and meals in order to eliminate the need for workers to leave the quarantine area for breaks. One commenter on the July 2002 proposed rule opposed this requirement, stating that a break area in the quarantine area would not play any role in providing biological security and should not be mandatory. We agree with this comment; additionally, we recognize that, unlike use of the restroom, movement into and out of the quarantined area for breaks could be planned to some extent. Therefore, we have removed the break area requirement from this reproposal.

We would also require that the facility be constructed with an air handling system capable of controlling and maintaining the ambient temperature, air quality, humidity, and odor at levels that are not injurious or harmful to the health of horses in quarantine. We would prohibit air supplied to the quarantine areas from being recirculated or reused for other ventilation needs. Further, air handling systems for quarantine areas would have to be separate from air handling systems for other operational and administrative areas of the facility in order to ensure that air from the quarantine areas is not diverted into nonquarantine areas of the facility.

The July 2002 proposed rule would have specifically required the facility to have a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system. In this reproposal, rather than refer to an HVAC system, we refer to an ``air handling system.'' This change is intended to indicate that any air handling system may be used provided that it is capable of controlling and maintaining the ambient temperature, air quality, humidity, and odor at levels that are not injurious or harmful to the health of horses in quarantine. In some cases, an HVAC system may be necessary to fulfill this requirement; the less specific language, however, provides us with the flexibility to decide that matter on a casebycase basis.

The July 2002 proposed rule would have required that each lot holding area within the quarantine facility have its own separate HVAC system. For the reasons discussed earlier in this document under the heading ``Changes in Our Approach With Respect to LotHolding Areas,'' this reproposal would require that the air handling system be adequate to ensure that there is no crosscontamination of air between the separate lotholding areas. This would provide protection against transmission of communicable diseases of horses without placing an undue burden on facility operators.

One commenter maintained that if the necropsy room is enclosed, it should have a separate air handling system to prevent the possible transmission of disease from carcasses to live horses.

As discussed above, air inside the quarantine area would not be recirculated, but rather ventilated directly to the outside; thus, any airborne disease agents would be vented from inside the quarantine area. Therefore, we believe that requiring a separate air handling system for the necropsy area would not appreciably enhance the biological security at quarantine facilities.

[[Page 74836]]

The facility, including the lotholding areas, would have to be equipped with a fire alarm voice communication system so that personnel working in those areas can be readily warned of any potential emergency and can warn other personnel.

The July 2002 proposed rule would have required that the facility also have a television monitoring system or other arrangement sufficient to provide a full view of the quarantine area or areas, excluding the clotheschanging area. One commenter questioned the necessity of the television monitoring system given that the proposed rule also would have required that a fulltime security service monitor the facility or that an electronic alarm system be used to indicate the entry of unauthorized persons into the facility. The proposed requirement for a television monitoring system was intended to facilitate surveillance within the quarantine facility, so that any persons attempting to gain unauthorized access could be detected. We believe the commenter is correct in stating that the television monitoring system would be unnecessary given the other proposed requirements, and we have not included a requirement for a television monitoring system in this reproposal.

The facility would also have to have a communication system between the nonquarantine and quarantine areas of the facility. Such a system would allow persons working in the quarantine area to communicate with persons working in the nonquarantine area and vice versa without moving from one area to the other.

Sanitation

To ensure that proper animal health and biological security measures are observed, proposed Sec. 93.308(c)(3)(iii) would require that permanent facilities have the equipment and supplies necessary to maintain the facility in clean and sanitary condition, including pest control equipment and supplies and cleaning and disinfecting equipment with adequate capacity to disinfect the facility and equipment.

We would require that any reusable equipment and supplies that are not disinfected after each use in accordance with 9 CFR part 71 be kept separately for each lot of horses. The July 2002 proposed rule would have required that facilities keep separate equipment and supplies for each lot of horses; we are not including this requirement in this reproposal for the reasons discussed earlier in this document under the heading ``Changes in Our Approach With Respect to LotHolding Areas.''

Equipment and supplies to be used in the quarantine area would have to be maintained separately from equipment and supplies used in the nonquarantine area.

We would require facilities to maintain a supply of potable water adequate to meet all watering and cleaning needs at the facility. We would require that water faucets for hoses be located throughout the facility to ensure that personnel would not need to drag hoses across areas that have already been cleaned and disinfected. We would also require that an emergency supply of water for horses in quarantine be maintained at the facility.

Facilities would also need to maintain a stock of disinfectant authorized in 9 CFR part 71, or otherwise approved by the
Administrator, sufficient to disinfect the entire facility.

We would also require permanent facilities to have the capability to dispose of wastes, including manure, urine, and used bedding, by means of burial, incineration, or public sewer. Facilities would have to handle other waste material in a manner that minimizes spoilage and the attraction of pests and would have to dispose of the waste material by incineration, public sewer, or other preapproved manner that prevents the spread of disease. Disposal of wastes would have to be carried out under the oversight of APHIS representatives.

We would further require permanent facilities to 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 from carcasses. This requirement is necessary to prevent the dissemination of any disease agents that may be present in horse carcasses.

For incineration to be carried out at the facility, the facility would have to have incineration equipment that is detached from other facility structures and is capable of burning animal waste and refuse. We would require the incineration site to include an area sufficient for solid waste holding. Incineration could also take place at a local site away from the facility premises. Furthermore, we would require all incineration activities to be carried out under the direct oversight of APHIS representatives, even if conducted offsite.

We would require the facility to have the capability to control surface drainage and effluent into, within, and from the facility in a manner that prevents the spread of disease into, within, or from the facility. If the facility was approved to handle more than one lot of horses at the same time, the drainage system would have to be adequate to ensure that there would be no crosscontamination between lot holding areas.

The July 2002 proposed rule would have required that each lot holding area have a separate drainage system to prevent cross contamination. We have modified this requirement in this reproposal for reasons discussed earlier in this document under the heading ``Changes in Our Approach With Respect to LotHolding Areas.'' We believe this changed requirement would provide protection against transmission of communicable diseases of horses without placing an undue burden on facility operators.

Security

Proposed Sec. 93.308(c)(3)(iv) would require that the facility and premises be kept locked and secure at all times to ensure the integrity of quarantine operations. We would also require the facility and premises to have signs indicating that the facility is a quarantine area and no visitors are allowed.

The facility and premises would also have to be guarded at all times by one or more representatives of a bonded security company or, alternatively, would have to have an electronic security system that would indicate the entry of unauthorized persons into the facility.

We would require that such an electronic security system be coordinated either through or with the local police so that the quarantine facility is monitored whenever APHIS representatives are not at the facility. We would also require that such an electronic security system be of the ``silent type'' and must

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT Dr. Freeda Isaac, Staff Veterinarian, National Center for Import and Export, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 39, Riverdale, MD 207371231; (301) 7348364.