## ![](media/image1.jpeg){width="0.6361111111111111in" height="0.8590277777777777in"}PET INDUSTRY JOINT 

**ADVISORY COUNCIL**

1220 19^th^ Street, N.W., Suite 400

Washington, DC 20036

Tel: 202-452-1525

Fax: 202-293-4377

# PRESIDENT

Robert Devine

The Hartz Mountain Corp., Secaucus, NJ

# FIRST VICE-PRESIDENT

Elywn Segrest

Segrest Farms, Gibsonton, FL

# SECOND VICE-PRESIDENT

Frank Koch

Natural Balance Pet Foods, Pacoima, CA

# 

# SECRETARY/TREASURER

Jeff Sutherland

Central Pet, Walnut Creek, CA

# 

# DIRECTORS

Bill Brant

The Gourmet Rodent, Archer, FL

Ken Hall

PETsMART, Inc., Phoenix, AZ

James P. Heim

Central Garden & Pet, Walnut Creek, CA

Roger E. Lambert

Lambriar Inc., Mahaska, KS

Chuck Latham

Chuck Latham Associates, Aurora, CO

Bob Merar

General Pet Supply, Milwaukee, WI

Mark Pustizzi

NEMA, Inc., Arlington, MA

Jim Seidewand

Pet World, Inc., West Henrietta, NY

Gerry Tomas

Tomas Sales & Marketing, Lockport, IL

Kevin Whalen

PETCO Inc., San Diego, CA

# 

# ASSOCIATION REPRESENTATIVES

Robert Bray, PhD (WWPIA)

Claremont, CA

Bob Merar (PIDA)

General Pet Supply, Milwaukee, WI

Charles Miller (APPMA)

Jungle Laboratories, Cibolo, TX

W. Paul Norton (FTFFA)

Norton's Fisheries, Ruskin, FL

# 

# PAST PRESIDENTS

Neill J. Hines

Central Garden & Pet, Algona, WA

Timothy A. Hovanec, PhD

Aquaria, Inc, Moorpark, CA

Allan Levey

The Hartz Mountain Corp., Secaucus, NJ

Joel Martin

Aquarium Pharmaceuticals, Chalfont, PA

Alexandre G. Perrinelle

Pet Center, Inc., Los Angeles, CA

# 

# EXECUTIVE VICE-PRESIDENT

# AND GENERAL COUNSEL

N. Marshall Meyers

PIJAC has long joined USDA and the many states in promoting high
standards in the professional pet trade, participating in rulemakings
and facilitating among its membership effective administration of
international, federal and state statutes and regulations affecting
commercial wild harvesting, breeding, import, export, shipping and sale
of companion animals, including aquatic organisms. Historically PIJAC
has worked with the USDA, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Centers for
Disease Control, and other affected federal agencies, as well as
corresponding state agencies, to ensure effective responses to outbreaks
of disease among pet (terrestrial and aquatic) animal populations and
imposition of controls that reduce the risk of disease outbreaks.
Moreover, PIJAC has historically been involved with the invasive species
issue and currently serves on the Invasive Species Advisory Committee.
Recognizing the important role of our industry in minimizing the risk of
introducing invasive species, including foreign animals diseases, PIJAC,
in collaboration with the US Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA launched
a national outreach campaign \--*Habitattitude^tm^* -- to educate
consumers on how to properly deal with unwanted aquatic organisms.[^1]

PIJAC and its members desire to ensure that appropriate standards are
observed at all stages of the import process and strongly support
rational regulatory standards at the federal, state and local level. By
the same token, PIJAC opposes excessive or unnecessary regulation that
represents an undue hardship on regulated entities and would restrict or
eliminate trade without commensurate benefit to the public.

PIJAC member importers recognize that implementation of the SVC import
protocols will adversely impact their businesses and urge the Department
to continually monitor the implementation process to ascertain if future
modifications can be adopted that would achieve better efficiencies and
cost savings. Having to separate out SVC susceptible fish from other
imported ornamentals will result in significant cost impacts. In most
instances this will result in doubling US Fish and Wildlife and Customs
fees and transport costs -- a significant cost impact apparently not
taken into account in the Department's anaylsis. Therefore, PIJAC would
be interested in meeting with the Department on a periodic basis to
review the efficacy and cost effectiveness of the new procedures with
the ultimate aim of APHIS bring able to reduce permit costs and other
handling fees over time as it was able achieve under its Avian Import
program.

**The Health Certificate Protocol Is the Appropriate Safeguard**

PIJAC endorses requiring health certificates for SVC-susceptible
species. Inasmuch as OIE and the European Union have had in place for
some time a standardized health certificate for SVC, PIJAC urges APHIS
to adopt one international standard rather than creating a slightly
modified Health Certificate for US imports. Utilization of a
standardized international certificate reduces the likelihood of an
exporter inadvertently using the wrong certificate for a US shipment.
Nowhere has APHIS indicated why it is unable to utilize the OIE
certificate.

**The Permit System is Unduly Burdensome**

While PIJAC is not opposed to the creation of a permit system to
identify importers of aquatic organisms susceptible to SVC, PIJAC is
opposed to the establishment of a mechanism requiring a permit for each
shipment, a process which is overly burdensome, costly, inefficient, and
likely to result in inadvertent "violations."

The Interim Rule requires importers to

(1) obtain an import permit for each shipment of SVC susceptible fish
    within 30 days of the planned importation,

(2) send the permit to the exporter as a condition precedent to
    shipment,

(3) ensure that the **original** permit accompanies the shipment and is
    able to be presented for inspection when the shipment arrives at a
    designated port,

(4) notify APHIS not less than 72 hours of the planned arrival[^2], and

(5) quarantine suspect shipments pursuant to criteria set forth in the
    new rules.

Will APHIS have in place an expedited permit processing mechanism? Will
the Permit System evolve into an online e-permit system to expedite
processing, especially for larger importers handling multiple shipments
per week? Is APHIS capable of handling permit applications from
throughout the US from importers who import multiple shipments per week?
Will APHIS have adequately trained staff at the ports to inspect fish
shipments in a timely fashion, let alone be able to identify SVC?

Would it not be more efficient for APHIS to issue Annual Permits which
would identify importers and their import patterns? Any changes thereto
would require an amendment to identify pattern changes. By such a
mechanism, APHIS would be able to track importers, conduct random
checks, etc. and rely on Health Certificates as the primary import
control.

Under the APHIS proposal, once an import permit for a specific shipment
is received, the importer will be compelled to send the permit via an
expedited process (FedEx, DHL, etc) not via FAX or electronically to the
exporter. This requirement reflects an added cost apparently ignored in
the Department's cost impact analysis.

Moreover, requiring that the original permit must accompany the shipment
is problematic at best. History has demonstrated that paperwork
accompanying shipments periodically encounter "misplacement" while in
the carriers' hands. If a shipment arrives in the US minus the "original
permit" through no fault of the exporter or the importer, will the
shipment have to be destroyed? Therefore, PIJAC recommends that if such
paperwork must accompany the shipment that a facsimile of the permit
keyed to the shipment be deemed acceptable as long as the "original
permit" could be made available at the port of entry by the importer or
its agent in the event the permit becomes detached from the shipment.

Inasmuch as each shipment would have to be accompanied with a conforming
Health Certificate from countries that meet the other criteria set forth
in the Interim Rule, requiring individual permits for each shipment is
burdensome, redundant, and costly. PIJAC recommends that APHIS adopt a
permit system similar to the Fish and Wildlife Service's annual permit
system.

**Inspection Process Needs to be Revisited**

The inspection process needs to be as streamlined as soon as possible to
minimize undue delays and stress for all perishable shipments. Incoming
shipments currently experience a number of built-in delays including 2-4
hours before shipments become available for USFWS inspection in the
carriers' cargo sheds. That coupled with additional delays while
coordinating an APHIS inspection and forwarding all of the completed
paperwork to Customs for clearance and release will result in
unnecessary delays and stress. Inasmuch as APHIS inspector availability
at many designated ports may be limited due to other port priorities,
the industry expects that it will experience increased morbidity and
mortality as an unintended result.

Moreover, PIJAC questions the capacity of APHIS inspectors to detect SVC
with visual inspections. Requiring Health Certificates is the primary
safeguard.

Finally, PIJAC has received a number of inquiries as to why APHIS is
detaining numerous shipments that do not contain **any** species
susceptible to SVC. PIJAC urges APHIS to issue a clear VS Memo outlining
rules and procedures for implementing the new safeguards.

Therefore, PIJAC urges APHIS to monitor closely the inspection process
and meet with industry within the next few months to ascertain what, if
any, modifications could be made to expedite the process and ensure that
there are timely, cost effective and meaningful inspections
(particularly in light of the fact that an inspector is unlikely to have
the capacity to identify the presence pf SVC).

**Designated Ports List Needs to be Expanded**

While the larger importers of aquatic organisms import via the ports
listed in Sections 93.902(a)(1)-(3), there are numerous small importers,
normally individual pet/aquarium stores, that import and clear small
shipments on a regular basis at international ports of entry such as
Dulles International Airport. Inasmuch as most international ports of
entry have USDA inspectors on duty, PIJAC urges the Department to expand
its list of "designated ports." Absent such amendments, numerous small
importers will be prohibited from importing due to logistical and cost
implications of compelling them to buy only through large importers or
by incurring the cost of traveling to other cities to clear and pick-up
their shipments. For example, there are several small retailers in the
Washington, DC area that import small shipments of Koi and/or fancy
goldfish on a weekly basis. In addition to the impact of the new permit
processing and inspection fees, these importers would be compelled to
divert their imports to Newark or JFK.

PIJAC recommends therefore that the designated list of international
airports be expanded.

**Conclusion**

PIJAC supports the goals and objectives of the Interim Rule and is
committed to working with the Department to attain industry
understanding, support and compliance. While the objectives are
important to the ornamental fish industry (domestic producers and
importers alike) and the regulations are fundamentally well designed,
PIJAC predicts that certain segments of the ornamental fish industry
will still endure significant supply disruption and economic harm,
especially during the initial transition period. Smaller importers, such
as Koi and fancy goldfish specialty retailers and wholesalers, may well
be foreclosed from importing -- those attempting to remain in the
marketplace will experience significantly increased costs by having to
seek supply from large importers or traveling greater distances to clear
shipments at a new international airport.

In support thereof, PIJAC recommends that APHIS modify the process by

-   Establishing an annual permit system in lieu of a permit for each
    shipment

-   Allowing the permit holder in the event individual permits are
    required for each shipment to maintain the original permits in the
    United States for submission to APHIS on import, if needed

-   Expanding the designated ports to include all international airport
    ports of entry, such as Dulles International Airport

-   Revisiting the port inspection process to minimize unnecessary
    delays

-   Limiting inspections of "ornamentals" only to shipments of Carp
    (i.e. common goldfish, fancy goldfish and Koi) to avoid disrupting
    the movement of tropical fish[^3]

-   Modifying protocols and processes to parallel the OIE and European
    standardized mechanisms to minimize inadvertent errors by exporters
    who would be compelled to comply with multiple SVC control
    mechanisms

Finally, PIJAC questions the reliability of the data regarding market
size and the cost impact on the ornamental trade. PIJAC believes that
the number of shipments is significantly understated due to the way such
data for non-dutiable or non-CITES species are captured by other Federal
agencies. Therefore, PIJAC would be willing to work with APHIS in
surveying PIJAC-member importers to develop more reliable data, data
which might help APHIS and the industry to work on implementing changes
that could lead to increased efficiencies and lower costs for all
concerned.

PIJAC looks forward to further discussions with APHIS as this program
moves forward.

> Respectfully submitted,
>
> N. Marshall Meyers
>
> Executive Vice President
>
> and General Counsel

# 

[^1]: APHIS participation in the campaign is under discussion.

[^2]: Each permit application, as a condition precedent to issuance,
    would have to include specifics as to the exact number of specimens
    by species, the route of travel (air carrier's routing including all
    stops en route), actual date of arrival, etc. Importation of living
    organisms is far different than importing manufactured widgets and
    the precise number of specimens per shipment may vary, air carrier
    lift and routing and actual date of arrival are not always under the
    control of the exporter and/or the importer. PIJAC assumes that
    APHIS will exercise discretion in handling such imports when such
    operational deviations occur that are beyond the control of either
    the exporter and/or the importer.

[^3]: Such a procedure would not preclude random inspections to ensure
    compliance.