This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains regulatory documents having general

applicability and legal effect, most of which

are keyed to and codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations, which is published under

50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by

the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of

new books are listed in the first FEDERAL

REGISTER issue of each week.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

48653 

Vol. 79, No. 159 

Monday, August 18, 2014 

1To view the proposed rule and the comments 

we received, go to http://www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2009-0053. 

2Under the AWA, as amended, dogs imported for 

resale include dogs imported for the purpose of 

transferring ownership or control to a research 

facility or to a veterinarian for veterinary treatment. 

However, because research and veterinary treatment 

are not commonly considered resale purposes, we 

separately identify each of these activities as 

context requires. 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

9 CFR Part 2 

[Docket No. APHIS–2009–0053] 

RIN 0579–AD23 

Animal Welfare; Importation of Live 

Dogs 

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are amending the 

regulations to implement an amendment 

to the Animal Welfare Act (AWA). The 

Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 

2008 added a new section to the AWA 

to restrict the importation of certain live 

dogs. Consistent with this amendment, 

this rule prohibits the importation of 

dogs, with limited exceptions, from any 

part of the world into the continental 

United States or Hawaii for purposes of 

resale, research, or veterinary treatment, 

unless the dogs are in good health, have 

received all necessary vaccinations, and 

are at least 6 months of age. This action 

is necessary to implement the 

amendment to the AWA and will help 

to ensure the welfare of imported dogs. 

DATES: Effective date: November 17, 

2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Gerald Rushin, Veterinary Medical 

Officer, Animal Care, APHIS, 4700 River 

Road Unit 84, Riverdale, MD 20737– 

1236; (301) 851–3740. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Under the Animal Welfare Act (AWA 

or the Act, 7 U.S.C. 2131 et seq.), the 

Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to 

promulgate standards and other 

requirements governing the humane 

handling, care, treatment, and 

transportation of certain animals by 

dealers, research facilities, exhibitors, 

operators of auction sales, and carriers 

and intermediate handlers. The 

Secretary has delegated responsibility 

for administering the AWA to the 

Administrator of U.S. Department of 

Agriculture’s (USDA) Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service (APHIS). 

Within APHIS, the responsibility for 

administering the AWA has been 

delegated to the Deputy Administrator 

for Animal Care (AC). Regulations and 

standards are established under the 

AWA and are contained in the Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR) in 9 CFR 

parts 1, 2, and 3 (referred to below as 

the regulations). Part 2 provides 

administrative requirements and sets 

forth institutional responsibilities for 

regulated parties. 

The Food, Conservation, and Energy 

Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110–246, signed 

into law on June 18, 2008) added a new 

section 18 to the Animal Welfare Act (7 

U.S.C. 2148) to restrict the importation 

of certain live dogs. As amended, the 

AWA now prohibits the importation of 

dogs into the United States for resale 

purposes, unless the Secretary 

determines that the dogs are in good 

health, have received all necessary 

vaccinations, and are at least 6 months 

of age. Section 18 of the AWA includes 

a scoping definition for the term 

‘‘resale.’’ When read in context of the 

requirements of that section, the term 

‘‘resale’’ includes, but is not limited to, 

any transfer of ownership or control of 

imported dogs to another person, for 

more than de minimis consideration. 

The AWA further provides that the 

Secretary, by regulation, must provide 

an exception to these requirements in 

any case in which a dog is imported for 

research purposes or veterinary 

treatment. The AWA also provides an 

exception to the at least 6-month age 

requirement for dogs that are lawfully 

imported into Hawaii from the British 

Isles, Australia, Guam, or New Zealand 

in compliance with the applicable 

regulations of Hawaii, provided the dogs 

are not transported out of Hawaii for 

purposes of resale at less than 6 months 

of age. 

The AWA provides that any importer 

who fails to comply with these 

provisions is subject to penalties under 

7 U.S.C. 2149 and must provide for the 

care (including appropriate veterinary 

care), forfeiture, and adoption of each 

applicable dog, at his or her expense. 

On September 1, 2011, we published 

in the Federal Register (76 FR 54392– 

54397, Docket No. APHIS–2009–0053) a 

proposed rule 1 to add requirements 

concerning the importation of certain 

live dogs as required by the Food, 

Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. 

We proposed, with limited 

exceptions, to prohibit the importation 

of any dog for resale, veterinary 

treatment, or research 2 unless the dog is 

in good health; has received 

vaccinations for rabies and distemper, 

hepatitis, leptospirosis, parvovirus, and 

parainfluenza virus (DHLPP); and is at 

least 6 months of age. We proposed to 

require that the dog be accompanied by 

an import permit issued by APHIS and 

a health certificate and rabies 

vaccination certificate issued by a 

veterinarian with a valid license to 

practice veterinary medicine in the 

country of export. We proposed to allow 

exceptions to health, vaccination, and 

age requirements for dogs imported for 

veterinary treatment that cannot be 

obtained in the exporting country and 

for dogs imported for use in research, 

tests, or experiments if the requirement 

would interfere with a research protocol 

approved by the research facility’s 

Institutional Animal Care and Use 

Committee (IACUC). Additionally, we 

proposed that dogs less than 6 months 

old could be lawfully imported into 

Hawaii from the British Isles, Australia, 

Guam, or New Zealand as long as the 

dog was not transported from Hawaii for 

resale purposes at less than 6 months of 

age. 

We solicited comments for 60 days 

ending October 31, 2011. We received a 

total of 74,218 comments. These 

included 382 unique comments from 

animal welfare associations, private 

breeders, veterinarians, foreign 

exporters, domestic importers, and other 

individuals. Two animal welfare 

associations mailed an additional 

73,836 comments that had been 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
48654 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 159 / Monday, August 18, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

submitted directly to them. Issues raised 

by the commenters are discussed by 

topic below. 

Applicability of the Rule 

Several commenters asked that we 

define the term ‘‘resale’’ in the 

regulations to clarify which imports are 

subject to the new restrictions regarding 

dogs imported for resale. 

As used in section 18 of the AWA, the 

term ‘‘dogs imported for resale’’ 

includes dogs imported for sale in 

wholesale channels, at retail, and for 

adoption after arrival in the United 

States, as well as dogs imported for 

other purposes involving transfer of 

ownership or control of the dog to 

another person for more than de 

minimis consideration after the dog’s 

arrival in the United States. With 

limited exceptions for dogs lawfully 

imported into Hawaii, and for dogs 

imported for veterinary treatment or 

research, the restrictions regarding 

health, vaccinations, and age apply to 

all such imported dogs. 

Many of the comments submitted 

through an animal welfare association 

and some others supported the 

proposed rule with an exception for 

imports for rescue purposes. They said 

the rule should not prevent puppies 

rescued from disasters, neglect, or 

foreign puppy mills in foreign countries 

from being imported into the United 

States for adoption. Some said that the 

adoption fee charged by many nonprofit 

rescue groups should be viewed as de 

minimis consideration under the rule. A 

number of other commenters stated that 

the rule should apply to dogs imported 

as ‘‘rescues’’ as these dogs are often in 

poor health and present a risk of 

transmitting diseases to dogs in the 

United States. 

The AWA does not provide for 

exceptions to age, vaccination, or health 

requirements for dogs rescued in foreign 

countries and brought into the United 

States for subsequent placement. We 

consider de minimis to have the 

standard dictionary meaning, which, 

according to Merriam-Webster, is 

‘‘lacking significance or importance; so 

minor as to merit disregard.’’ Similarly, 

we consider ‘‘consideration’’ to have the 

standard dictionary meaning, which is 

defined by Merriam-Webster as ‘‘the 

inducement to a contract or other legal 

transaction; specifically: An act or 

forbearance or the promise thereof done 

or given by one party in return for the 

act or promise of another.’’ While we 

recognize that adoption fees charged by 

some nonprofits may not recover all of 

the costs incurred by the organization to 

rescue and care for the dog prior to 

adoption, we do not consider the fee to 

be de minimis consideration. The rule 

does not, therefore, provide a specific 

exception for rescue dogs. 

Many commenters were concerned 

that this rule would prohibit the 

importation of dogs less than 6 months 

of age for personal use, including as 

pets, for sport, for shows or 

competitions, or for breeding. One 

commenter said the proposal did not 

take into account dogs imported for 

semen collection. A number of other 

commenters expressed concern that the 

rule would prohibit them from 

importing puppies into training 

programs for working dogs, including 

dogs to be used as service dogs, for 

search and rescue, or for police work. 

This rule does not apply when there 

is no transfer of ownership or control of 

a dog to another person for more than 

de minimis consideration after the dog’s 

importation into the United States. 

Therefore, dogs imported by a person 

who will use the dog as a personal pet, 

for sport, for shows or competitions, or 

for breeding or semen collection are not 

subject to the 6-month age restriction or 

any other requirements of this rule. 

Additionally, we do not consider dogs 

imported for training as working dogs to 

be imported for purposes of resale. 

Thus, the rule will not apply to puppies 

imported by legitimate training 

organizations for the purpose of training 

the dog to be a working dog. 

All dogs imported into the United 

States may, however, be subject to other 

laws and regulations. For example, dogs 

imported from regions of the world 

where screwworm is considered to exist 

must meet requirements in 9 CFR part 

93, § 93.600, to ensure their freedom 

from screwworm, and dogs imported 

from any part of the world except 

Canada, Mexico, and regions of Central 

America and the West Indies that are to 

be used in the handling of livestock 

must meet requirements in § 93.600 to 

mitigate the risk of tapeworm. In 

addition, the Centers for Disease Control 

and Prevention (CDC) have 

requirements for importing dogs that 

must be met for a dog to be cleared for 

entry into the United States. These 

requirements may include a rabies 

vaccination certificate or a confinement 

agreement if a dog is too young to 

receive the rabies vaccine. 

A few commenters expressed concern 

about whether a dog imported for 

personal use or into a working dog 

training program and did not work out 

in the home or program could be placed 

elsewhere without violating the 

regulations. Some asked whether a dog 

had to be kept for any specific length of 

time before it could be rehomed. 

This rule does not require that such 

dogs be kept for any specific length of 

time before ownership or control may be 

transferred, including through sale. 

APHIS understands that dogs imported 

in good faith for personal use or special 

training programs sometimes do not 

meet the needs for which they were 

imported and have to be placed 

elsewhere. We will still consider the 

dogs to have been imported for personal 

use or training. However, we expect 

such transfers of ownership or control, 

particularly relatively close to the time 

of importation, will be infrequent. If we 

have reason to believe that dogs were 

imported into the continental United 

States or Hawaii for resale without 

import permits or without meeting other 

requirements of the regulations, we may 

initiate an investigation to ascertain the 

purpose of the importation and whether 

there may have been a violation of the 

regulations. 

A few commenters asked if this rule 

applies to U.S. territories. They 

expressed concern that an importer 

could bring dogs into a U.S. territory for 

subsequent resale elsewhere in the 

United States. One commenter asked 

whether the rule will affect persons in 

Puerto Rico who sell puppies to the U.S. 

mainland. 

This rule applies to dogs imported 

into the continental United States and 

Hawaii from any other location, 

including Puerto Rico and any of the 

other U.S. territories (American Samoa, 

the Federated States of Micronesia, 

Guam, the Midway Islands, the 

Northern Mariana Islands, the Republic 

of Palau, the Republic of the Marshall 

Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands). 

Thus, while an importer may bring a 

dog into a U.S. territory for resale, 

research, or veterinary treatment 

without the dog meeting the 

requirements of this rule, dogs 

originating in a foreign country or any 

U.S. territory may not be shipped from 

a U.S. territory into the continental 

United States or Hawaii for any of those 

purposes except as provided in this 

rule. Any person intending to import 

such a dog into the continental United 

States or Hawaii, or his or her agent, 

must present the required import permit 

and any applicable certifications and 

veterinary treatment agreement required 

by this rule to the collector of customs 

at the port of first arrival. 

One commenter asked whether the 

regulations apply to dogs labeled ‘‘wild 

animal.’’ 

The AWA regulations in 9 CFR part 

1 define ‘‘dog’’ to mean any dog of the 

species Canis familiaris (C. familiaris) 

or any dog-hybrid cross. Therefore, this 

rule applies to any dog of the species C. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 159 / Monday, August 18, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 48655 

familiaris or any dog-hybrid cross. Any 

such dog that is imported for purposes 

of resale, research, or veterinary 

treatment, even if labeled ‘‘wild 

animal,’’ will be subject to the 

regulations. 

Some commenters stated that there 

should be no exceptions to the 6-month 

age requirement and that it should be 

applicable to all imported dogs. 

Section 18 of the AWA applies only 

to live dogs imported for resale, 

veterinary treatment, or research. It 

specifically provides an exception to the 

age requirement for certain dogs legally 

imported into Hawaii, provided the 

dogs are not transported from Hawaii for 

resale purposes at less than 6 months of 

age. It also requires us to provide 

exceptions to health, vaccination, and 

age requirements for dogs imported for 

research purposes or veterinary 

treatment. 

Identification of Dogs 

A few commenters suggested that we 

require microchips or tattoos to ensure 

that dogs imported under permit are the 

same ones listed on the import permit. 

We proposed to require that dogs 

imported for resale, veterinary 

treatment, or research be identified on 

permit applications, health certificates, 

and rabies vaccination certificates by 

breed, sex, age, color, markings, and 

other identifying information. Other 

identifying information would include 

microchip numbers or tattoos if a dog 

has them, but the rule does not require 

them. We believe this information is 

sufficient to verify the identity of dogs 

presented for importation. This is the 

same information that CDC requires on 

rabies vaccination certificates for 

imported dogs. 

One commenter recommended that 

we require all imported dogs to be 

microchipped so that we would be able 

to track the dogs and see where they end 

up. 

APHIS believes that such a 

requirement is beyond the intent of the 

AWA, as amended. 

Intended Use of Imported Dogs 

Some commenters questioned how 

officials at a port of entry would 

determine whether imported dogs were 

intended for resale or personal use. A 

few expressed concern that dogs 

imported for personal use, and thus 

arriving without a permit, might be 

seized at the port of entry. 

Dogs imported for personal use, 

without transfer of ownership or control 

after arrival in the United States, are not 

subject to this rule and will not be 

refused entry or seized because they 

arrive without a permit. If APHIS has 

reason to believe that a person is 

importing dogs for resale, research, or 

veterinary treatment without meeting 

the requirements of this rule, we may 

initiate an investigation and take 

appropriate action based on the results 

of that investigation. 

Several commenters expressed 

concern that entities importing dogs less 

than 6 months of age for resale could 

circumvent the new requirements by not 

providing an import permit and 

claiming the dogs are for personal use. 

Commenters suggested a variety of 

actions to prevent such occurrences, 

including requiring that dogs be issued 

identification numbers, which would 

have to be shown on import permits; 

requiring the use of transit permits for 

all imported dogs that would include a 

statement of purpose of the import; 

requiring importers to provide a sworn 

statement that dogs imported without a 

permit are not for resale; limiting the 

number of imported dogs of less than 6 

months of age that a person may import 

a year for personal use; and establishing 

an import notification system that 

would allow APHIS to notify authorities 

at the ports of entry that a dog import 

is expected and having the import 

documents sent to APHIS upon arrival 

for verification. 

APHIS appreciates the suggestions 

from commenters on ways to help 

prevent fraud, and we have considered 

them all. Requiring dogs imported for 

resale to have numerical identification 

and to include the numbers on the 

permit would not prevent an importer 

from fraudulently claiming a dog is 

imported for his or her personal use. 

Importers wishing to circumvent this 

rule could also falsify statements of 

purpose. Similarly, if we limited the 

number of dogs that could be imported 

for personal use, either per shipment or 

per year, importers wishing to 

circumvent this rule could get around 

these restrictions, too, by breaking up 

shipments or importing under different 

names. Regarding port of entry 

notifications and APHIS verification of 

import documents, the rule already 

requires importers or their agents to 

present the import permit and other 

required documents for dogs covered by 

this rule to the collector of customs at 

the port of first arrival in the continental 

United States or Hawaii. Inspectors with 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection will 

review the paperwork to ensure the 

shipment is in compliance with the 

regulations; there would be no added 

benefit in sending the paperwork to 

APHIS for verification. Advance 

notifications would only provide earlier 

notice of shipments of dogs already 

identified as being imported for resale, 

research, or veterinary treatment. 

We are developing guidance for port 

inspectors to use to identify potentially 

fraudulent imports and report them to 

APHIS. If it appears that a person is 

importing dogs for resale, research, or 

veterinary treatment without meeting 

the requirements of this rule, we may 

initiate an investigation and take 

appropriate action based on the results 

of that investigation. 

Import Permits 

Some commenters suggested that the 

requirement for an import permit would 

increase the cost of importation for the 

importer and exporter as a result of the 

additional time needed to receive an 

import permit. The commenters also 

said that obtaining an import permit 

could delay a sick dog from receiving 

medical attention. 

We expect that any time-related costs 

associated with obtaining an import 

permit will be minimal. There is no 

charge for the permit itself. 

Permit applications must include 

basic information that should be readily 

available to the importer: The name and 

address of the person intending to 

export the dog; the name and address of 

the importer; the number of dogs to be 

imported and their breed, sex, age, 

color, markings, and other identifying 

information; the purpose of the 

importation; the port of embarkation 

and mode of transportation; the port of 

entry in the United States; the proposed 

date of arrival in the continental United 

States or Hawaii; the name and address 

of the person who will take delivery of 

the dogs; and, if the dogs will be used 

for research, the USDA registration 

number of the research facility. APHIS 

anticipates that it will need 7 to 10 days 

to process a permit application once it 

is received. Thus, in most cases, dogs 

can be shipped within 2 weeks of the 

importer submitting an application for 

permit. Upon request, APHIS will 

attempt to expedite permit processing 

for dogs requiring urgent veterinary 

medical attention in the United States. 

One commenter objected to the 

proposed requirement that dogs be 

accompanied by an original import 

permit. The commenter stated that few 

original documents are required at ports 

of entry as systems move to electronic 

documentation and that requiring a hard 

copy of the import permit is 

unnecessary and will only increase the 

likelihood that imported dogs will be 

forfeited or returned to their country of 

export due to missing or erroneous 

originals. Another commenter stated 

that we should not require originals of 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
48656 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 159 / Monday, August 18, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

any document to be presented at the 

port of arrival. 

Our rule requires an original health 

certificate. This requirement will 

prevent copies of a health certificate 

from being used for multiple shipments 

and thus reduce fraud. Our rule does 

not require an original import permit, 

and, as explained in the preamble to the 

proposed rule, we will accept a copy of 

the rabies vaccination certificate 

required by the Public Health Service 

regulations in 42 CFR 71.51. 

Vaccinations 

A few commenters asked that we 

clarify the requirement in proposed 

§ 2.151(a)(1)(iv) that dogs be vaccinated 

in accordance with currently accepted 

practices as cited in veterinary medicine 

reference guides. They expressed 

concern that there may be conflicting 

consensus on vaccination requirements 

and practices. One commenter provided 

a list of reference guides and 

encouraged us to include them in the 

regulations. 

We acknowledge that there are 

various accepted vaccination practices 

cited in veterinary medicine reference 

guides used in the United States and 

foreign countries. It is not our intention 

to specify one or another, which is why 

we worded the requirement in this way. 

Rather, we will rely on the veterinarians 

who are signing the health certificates to 

make good decisions on behalf of the 

dog’s welfare. 

Several commenters stated that our 

list of required vaccinations is 

inconsistent with the list provided by 

American Veterinary Medical 

Association. They were specifically 

concerned about our proposed 

requirements for leptospirosis and 

parainfluenza vaccination, stating that 

they are unnecessary and may be 

harmful. One commenter said that 

leptospirosis vaccines may cause life 

threatening reactions in some small 

breeds of dogs. 

Leptospirosis is a bacterium that can 

cause liver disease, kidney failure, and 

even death. While leptospirosis is less 

likely to occur in urban areas of the 

country, it is still a disease of concern 

in many areas of the United States. 

Parainfluenza, also a disease of concern 

in the United States, is a highly 

contagious respiratory infection that can 

lead to pneumonia and even death. 

Veterinarians routinely administer these 

vaccinations to dogs to prevent infection 

and spread of those diseases. Small 

breed dogs, as well as other breeds, can 

receive the leptospirosis vaccination, 

which may need to be administered 

under the direction and/or supervision 

of a veterinarian. 

Several commenters objected to our 

proposed requirement for rabies 

vaccination. One commenter suggested 

that additional studies be performed to 

evaluate the source of rabies outbreaks 

in the United States to analyze the 

necessity for rabies vaccines prior to 

importation. Another commenter asked 

that dogs imported from rabies-free 

countries be exempt from the rabies 

certification requirement to decrease the 

time and cost of importation for those 

dogs. The commenter also expressed 

concern that some States may not 

recognize rabies vaccinations given in 

other countries. 

We consider rabies vaccination 

necessary not only to ensure that 

imported dogs do not have rabies, but 

also to ensure that they are protected 

from rabies after they arrive in the 

United States. Rabies exists in the 

United States, primarily in wildlife such 

as raccoons, skunks, foxes, and coyotes. 

It is transmissible, usually through the 

bite of an infected animal, to other 

mammals, including humans and 

unvaccinated dogs. The rabies virus 

infects the central nervous system, 

ultimately causing disease in the brain 

and death. For this reason, the rabies 

vaccine is one of the core vaccinations 

given to dogs in the United States as 

part of a national rabies prevention and 

control program. It should be noted that 

the CDC also requires most dogs, 

regardless of age or purpose of 

importation, to be accompanied by 

proof of rabies vaccination or a 

confinement agreement if a dog is too 

young to have received a rabies vaccine 

prior to entry into the United States. If 

a State does not accept rabies 

vaccination given in a foreign country, 

the importer may have several options, 

including petitioning the State to accept 

serologic testing of the vaccinated dog 

as proof of immunological protection or 

having the dog revaccinated after 

consultation with his or her 

veterinarian. 

One commenter suggested that we 

add Bordetella bronchiseptica to the list 

of required vaccinations. 

APHIS believes that the current 

vaccination protocol provides adequate 

immunity protection for the health and 

well-being of dogs imported into the 

United States for resale. In addition, 

importers in consultation with their 

veterinarians can elect to include 

Bordetella or other vaccines in their 

dog’s vaccination regimen before or after 

import. 

One commenter stated that we 

overestimated the cost of vaccinations 

in our economic analysis. The 

commenter suggested that most 

commercial breeders purchase vaccines 

from suppliers and administer the 

vaccines themselves at a cost of less 

than $5 per injection. 

We acknowledge that this may be the 

case. Our estimates of the vaccination 

costs were based on costs of 

vaccinations performed at veterinary 

clinics. The economic analysis did state 

that breeders in the United States 

typically administer the vaccinations 

themselves. If the vaccination costs are 

lower, the overall costs associated with 

this rule will be lower. 

Veterinary Inspection 

Several commenters asked if dogs 

imported for resale, research, or 

veterinary treatment will be inspected 

by a veterinarian at the port of entry to 

verify the age and condition of the 

animals listed on the health certificate. 

Several commenters recommended 

veterinary inspection upon arrival and 

further recommended that importation 

of the dogs be limited to certain ports of 

entry where veterinary inspectors are 

available and where dogs can receive 

veterinary care if they arrive in poor 

health. 

Under this rule, dogs imported for 

resale, veterinary treatment, or research 

must be examined by a veterinarian 

licensed in the country of export prior 

to shipment to the United States. 

Inspectors with U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection will check shipments, 

including health and vaccination 

certifications for the dogs, upon their 

arrival in the United States for 

compliance with this rule. Our rule does 

not require additional veterinary 

inspection upon arrival. If officials at 

the port of entry observe sick or injured 

dogs in a shipment, they will notify 

Animal Care, which can arrange for 

appropriate veterinary care if needed. 

Parasites 

One commenter stated that our rule 

should require proof of flea, tick, and 

parasite treatment prior to importation. 

In addition, the commenter 

recommended that dogs found to be 

infected or sick at the port of entry 

should be placed in a quarantine facility 

before returning to the country of origin. 

While this rule does not require dogs 

to be treated for parasites prior to 

importation, it does require that a 

veterinarian in the country of export 

attest on the health certificate that the 

dog is in good health, which includes 

freedom from parasitic infections. Dogs 

that are imported for resale purposes 

and found to be infested with parasites 

or to be ill upon arrival are subject to 

the provisions in § 2.153 of this rule, 

which include being seized and placed 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 159 / Monday, August 18, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 48657 

for veterinary care at the importer’s 

expense. 

Exceptions for Veterinary Treatment 

One commenter stated that our rule 

should contain requirements for the 

transportation and housing of dogs 

imported for veterinary treatment, 

including a determination that it would 

not be harmful for a dog to travel. 

Under this rule, dogs may be 

imported for veterinary treatment 

without meeting all of the age, health, 

and vaccination requirements only if a 

licensed veterinarian in the country of 

export certifies that the dog is in need 

of veterinary treatment that cannot be 

obtained in the country of export. 

Additionally, the importer must have 

completed a veterinary treatment 

agreement with Animal Care and 

confine the dog until the conditions 

specified in the agreement have been 

met. Confinement entails maintaining 

the dog in isolation from other animals 

and from people other than those 

necessary to provide for its care. If taken 

from the building or other enclosure 

where it is housed, the dog should be 

leashed. Confinement must continue 

until all terms of the veterinary 

treatment agreement are met. These may 

include determinations by the licensed 

veterinarian in the United States that 

the dog is in good health, has been 

adequately vaccinated against DHLPP 

and rabies, and is at least 6 months of 

age. 

Regarding the suggestion that we 

require certification that it would not be 

harmful for a dog to travel, we believe 

it would be very difficult for a 

veterinarian to make such a statement, 

particularly for a dog in need of 

veterinary treatment. Rather, we expect 

that veterinarians who refer a dog to a 

U.S. veterinarian for treatment will use 

their professional judgment to weigh the 

benefits of treatment for the dog in the 

United States with the risks associated 

with the dog traveling to the United 

States before issuing a health certificate 

for the dog. 

One commenter stated that the 

regulations should prohibit dogs 

imported for veterinary treatment from 

being sold after treatment. 

As explained above, the regulations 

provide exceptions to age, health, and 

vaccination requirements for dogs 

imported for veterinary treatment only 

when veterinary treatment for that dog 

cannot be obtained in the country of 

export. We anticipate that relatively few 

dogs will be imported into the United 

States under these circumstances, as 

veterinary care for most conditions 

affecting dogs will be available in the 

country of export and the costs for 

importing a dog into the United States 

for specialized treatment are likely to be 

quite high. If a dog is imported into the 

United States under this rule for 

veterinary care and is maintained in 

confinement until all conditions of the 

veterinary treatment agreement are met, 

the dog may be transferred to another 

person in the United States through a 

sale or otherwise. 

One commenter said that, as a 

veterinarian working in foreign 

countries, he had often referred dogs to 

U.S. veterinarians for treatment. He 

expressed concern that this rule could 

prevent such referrals from being a 

treatment option. 

This rule allows exceptions to be 

made to age, vaccination, and health 

requirements for dogs to be imported for 

veterinary treatment that is not available 

to the dogs in the foreign country. 

One commenter said that the 

proposed rule did not take into account 

dogs imported ‘‘for dentals, orthopedics, 

or other procedures.’’ 

We consider these procedures to be 

veterinary treatment. 

Penalties 

One commenter suggested that the 

rule include notice that violators of the 

rule are subject to penalties under 

section 19 of the AWA (7 U.S.C. 2149). 

The AWA, as amended, provides that 

any importer that fails to comply with 

the requirements regarding the 

importation of live dogs shall be subject 

to penalties under section 19 and shall 

be responsible for the care (including 

appropriate veterinary care), forfeiture, 

and adoption of each applicable dog, at 

the expense of the importer. Section 

2149 provides for criminal and civil 

penalties for violations of the AWA, 

including civil penalties of up to 

$10,000 for each violation. Any person 

who violates our regulations will be 

subject to these penalties. The 

regulations include a citation to the 

AWA in the authority citation at the 

beginning of part 2. We do not believe 

it is necessary to include the language 

of the statute in the regulations. 

Miscellaneous 

One commenter suggested that the 

estimate of 17,000 dogs imported 

annually seems low. 

This estimate of 17,000 imported dogs 

is an annual average for 2005 through 

2010 from the foreign trade statistics 

compiled by the U.S. Census Bureau. 

Since the publication of the proposed 

rule, the U.S. Census Bureau has 

released updated foreign trade statistics 

that state that 8,634 dogs were imported 

each year between 2009 and 2013. We 

have revised the regulatory impact 

analysis to include these updated 

numbers. This data source contains all 

shipments brought into the United 

States with a fair market value of at least 

$2,000. The CDC estimated that about 

287,000 dogs were brought into the 

United States in 2006. However, this 

total covers all types of dogs, including 

companion animals that are not 

intended for resale. Because this rule 

primarily covers dogs imported for 

resale, we focused our cost estimates on 

the import number reported by the U.S. 

Census Bureau. 

One commenter suggested that these 

regulations would make the practice of 

brokerage illegal and put people out of 

business. 

Brokers who import dogs will still be 

allowed to do so, but they must abide 

by these regulations to ensure the dogs 

they are importing for resale are in good 

health and meet vaccination and age 

requirements. Brokers who have been 

dealing exclusively or in large part in 

puppies under the age of 6 months will 

be affected by the rule and may have to 

change their business model. 

Several commenters stated that 

requiring puppies to be at least 6 

months of age before they can be 

imported into the United States will 

eliminate free commerce, eliminate jobs 

in the United States, and cause an 

increase in the cost of puppies for the 

ultimate buyer. 

Those businesses that have been 

dependent on income related to 

imported puppies less than 6 months of 

age for resale will have to change or may 

go out of business. The rule should have 

very little effect on competition in the 

market for dogs, however. While the 

cost of imported puppies may increase 

because of the minimum age 

requirement, the overall effect on 

competition in the United States should 

be very small. Imported dogs comprise 

a very small fraction of the U.S. dog 

population. The upper-end estimate of 

287,000 dogs entering the United States 

annually (including companion animals 

in addition to those intended for resale) 

represents less than four-tenths of one 

percent of the U.S. dog population. 

Buyers who want to purchase a dog 

under 6 months of age will still be able 

to do so from domestic sources. 

Domestic breeders and wholesalers are 

likely to see increased volumes of 

business, serving customers who 

currently rely on foreign suppliers. 

Some current importers are also 

domestic breeders and will likely shift 

from sales of imported puppies to sales 

of puppies bred at their own domestic 

facilities. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
48658 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 159 / Monday, August 18, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

3U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, 

2007 Economic Census. 

Nonsubstantive Change 

We are making a minor editorial 

change to the language in proposed 

§ 2.153 to make it consistent with the 

language in the AWA. Specifically, we 

are removing the words ‘‘the cost of’’ in 

the phrase ‘‘. . . any person intending 

to import the dog shall provide for the 

cost of the care . . . at his or her 

expense.’’ 

Therefore, for the reasons given in the 

proposed rule and in this document, we 

are adopting the proposed rule as a final 

rule, with the change discussed in this 

document. 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

This final rule has been determined to 

be significant for the purposes of 

Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, 

has been reviewed by the Office of 

Management and Budget. 

We have prepared an economic 

analysis for this rule. The economic 

analysis provides a cost-benefit analysis, 

as required by Executive Orders 12866 

and 13563, which direct agencies to 

assess all costs and benefits of available 

regulatory alternatives and, if regulation 

is necessary, to select regulatory 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety 

effects, and equity). Executive Order 

13563 emphasizes the importance of 

quantifying both costs and benefits, of 

reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, 

and of promoting flexibility. The 

economic analysis also examines the 

potential economic effects of this rule 

on small entities, as required by the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act. The 

economic analysis is summarized 

below. Copies of the full analysis are 

available on the Regulations.gov Web 

site (see footnote 1 in this document for 

a link to Regulations.gov) or by 

contacting the person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

The analysis examines impacts of a 

rule that amends the Animal Welfare 

regulations to prohibit, with certain 

exceptions, the importation of dogs for 

purposes of resale, research, or 

veterinary treatment, unless they are in 

good health, have all necessary 

vaccinations, and are 6 months of age or 

older. The vaccinations are rabies 

vaccination (which is already required 

by the CDC for imported dogs in most 

instances) and DHLPP vaccination. The 

rule includes limited exceptions for (1) 

dogs imported for certain research 

studies or veterinary treatment, and (2) 

dogs lawfully imported into the State of 

Hawaii from the British Isles, Australia, 

Guam, or New Zealand in compliance 

with applicable regulations of the State 

of Hawaii, provided the dogs are not 

transported out of the State of Hawaii 

for resale at less than 6 months of age. 

The rule promotes the humane 

treatment of certain imported dogs and 

benefits most U.S. dog importers and 

dealers by ensuring that these dogs are 

in good health, vaccinated, and not too 

young. The benefits of these changes 

include an unquantifiable enhancement 

of animal welfare. The benefits also 

include the avoided costs of a potential 

disease outbreak. In addition, there 

could be a positive economic impact for 

U.S. commercial dog breeding facilities, 

given that puppies currently imported at 

less than 6 months of age compete for 

the same market, but at lower prices. 

The only entities that may be adversely 

affected are those that currently import 

dogs, or purchase imported dogs, that 

do not meet the new requirements. 

There may be a reduction in importers’ 

volume of business, to the extent to 

which the importation of dogs that are 

6 months of age or older does not 

replace the importation of younger dogs. 

APHIS does not have information about 

the demand for imported dogs that are 

younger than 6 months compared to the 

demand for older imported dogs. Buyers 

who want to purchase a dog under 6 

months will still be able to do so from 

domestic sources. Domestic breeders 

and wholesalers are likely to see 

increased volumes of business, serving 

customers who currently rely on foreign 

suppliers. Some current importers are 

also domestic breeders and will likely 

shift from sales of imported puppies to 

sales of puppies bred at their own 

domestic facilities. 

The requirements of this rule may 

mean additional costs related to 

vaccines, veterinary care, and 

paperwork for some entities. The cost of 

a complete series of rabies and DHLPP 

vaccinations can range between $60 and 

$124 per dog. Veterinary care and 

vaccinations are regular responsibilities 

of owning a companion animal in the 

United States and these requirements of 

the rule are therefore normal for the care 

of a dog. 

Importers will face increased 

vaccination and care costs abroad, 

unless they already vaccinate or they 

qualify for the narrow exceptions for 

dogs imported for certain research 

studies or veterinary treatment. We note 

that while this rule specifies that dogs 

imported for resale must be vaccinated 

against rabies prior to entry into the 

United States, rabies vaccinations are 

already required by CDC for dogs 

imported into the United States but may 

occur either before or after arrival under 

those rules. Therefore, most of the 

additional vaccination costs associated 

with this rule are likely to fall on those 

importers that do not already provide 

DHLPP vaccinations prior to entry. 

Assuming that all imported dogs need 

both rabies and DHLPP vaccinations, 

and all are at least 6 months of age, the 

total cost of providing the DHLPP 

vaccinations for imported dogs could 

range from $518,000 to $1.07 million 

annually, based on the average number 

of dogs imported from 2009 through 

2013, as recorded in the U.S. Census 

Bureau’s foreign trade statistics. 

Although DHLPP vaccination is 

expected to represent the single largest 

cost of the rule (there may be costs to 

obtaining a health certificate as well), 

APHIS believes that many imported 

dogs already receive this vaccination 

prior to entry. Dogs imported for resale 

are covered in U.S. Census Bureau 

statistics. However, these statistics may 

understate the total number of dogs 

affected by the rule, particularly since 

they do not include shipments with a 

fair market value of less than $2,000. 

Any increase in costs for importers 

may be wholly or partially passed on to 

entities buying the imported dogs. On 

the other hand, such entities may be 

positively affected due to the greater 

assurance that an imported dog is in 

good health and of legal minimum age. 

The Small Business Administration 

(SBA) has established guidelines for 

determining firms considered to be 

small under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act. Importers of live dogs for resale, 

research, and veterinary treatment will 

be directly affected by this rule. While 

the exact number and size of affected 

entities is not known, in 2007 there 

were about 12,600 establishments in the 

generalized category of ‘‘other 

miscellaneous nondurable goods 

merchant wholesalers’’ (NAICS 424990), 

which includes importers of dogs, and 

about 99 percent of those establishments 

were considered small in 2007.3

Theoretically, any change in the 

number of imported dogs into the 

United States could affect the demand 

for foreign veterinary services and 

domestic veterinary services, dog 

products and dog food. However, we 

expect that any impact of the rule on 

these industries will be negligible. 

Imported dogs comprise a very small 

fraction of the U.S. dog population, well 

under 1 percent. It is therefore highly 

unlikely that any change because of this 

rule in the number of imported dogs 

will significantly affect those domestic 

markets. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 159 / Monday, August 18, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 48659 

6Alternatively, this requirement can be met by 

providing an exact copy of the rabies vaccination 

certificate if so required under the Public Health 

Service regulations in 42 CFR 71.51. 

We believe that the benefits of this 

rule, including the unquantifiable 

enhancement of animal welfare, justify 

the costs. Benefits of the rule include 

promoting the humane treatment of 

covered imported dogs in keeping with 

the requirements of the Animal Welfare 

Act and with standard health practices 

for dogs in the United States. The rule 

could also yield benefits in preventing 

the spread of communicable diseases by 

unvaccinated, imported dogs to other 

dogs or humans in the United States. 

Executive Order 12988 

This final rule has been reviewed 

under Executive Order 12988, Civil 

Justice Reform. It is not intended to 

have retroactive effect. The Act does not 

provide administrative procedures 

which must be exhausted prior to a 

judicial challenge to the provisions of 

this rule. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

In accordance with section 3507(d) of 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the information 

collection or recordkeeping 

requirements included in this final rule, 

which were filed under 0579–0379, 

have been submitted for approval to the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB). When OMB notifies us of its 

decision, if approval is denied, we will 

publish a document in the Federal 

Register providing notice of what action 

we plan to take. 

E-Government Act Compliance 

The Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service is committed to 

compliance with the E-Government Act 

to promote the use of the Internet and 

other information technologies, to 

provide increased opportunities for 

citizen access to Government 

information and services, and for other 

purposes. For information pertinent to 

E-Government Act compliance related 

to this rule, please contact Mrs. Celeste 

Sickles, APHIS’ Information Collection 

Coordinator, at (301) 851–2908. 

List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 2 

Animal welfare, Pets, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Research. 

Accordingly, we are amending 9 CFR 

part 2 as follows: 

PART 2—REGULATIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 2 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 2131–2159; 7 CFR 

2.22, 2.80, and 371.7. 

■ 2. Subpart J, consisting of §§ 2.150 

through 2.153, is added to read as 

follows: 

Subpart J—Importation of Live Dogs 

Sec. 

2.150 Import permit. 

2.151 Certifications. 

2.152 Notification of arrival. 

2.153 Dogs refused entry. 

Subpart J—Importation of Live Dogs 

§ 2.150 Import permit. 

(a) No person shall import a live dog 

from any part of the world into the 

continental United States or Hawaii for 

purposes of resale, research, or 

veterinary treatment unless the dog is 

accompanied by an import permit 

issued by APHIS and is imported into 

the continental United States or Hawaii 

within 30 days after the proposed date 

of arrival stated in the import permit. 

(b) An application for an import 

permit must be submitted to the Animal 

and Plant Health Inspection Service, 

Animal Care, 4700 River Road Unit 84, 

Riverdale, MD 20737–1234 or though 

Animal Care’s Web site (http://

www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/). 

Application forms for import permits 

may be obtained from Animal Care at 

the address listed above. 

(c) The completed application must 

include the following information: 

(1) The name and address of the 

person intending to export the dog(s) to 

the continental United States or Hawaii; 

(2) The name and address of the 

person intending to import the dog(s) 

into the continental United States or 

Hawaii; 

(3) The number of dogs to be imported 

and the breed, sex, age, color, markings, 

and other identifying information of 

each dog; 

(4) The purpose of the importation; 

(5) The port of embarkation and the 

mode of transportation; 

(6) The port of entry in the United 

States; 

(7) The proposed date of arrival in the 

continental United States or Hawaii; 

and 

(8) The name and address of the 

person to whom the dog(s) will be 

delivered in the continental United 

States or Hawaii and, if the dog(s) is or 

are imported for research purposes, the 

USDA registration number of the 

research facility where the dog will be 

used for research, tests, or experiments. 

(d) After receipt and review of the 

application by APHIS, an import permit 

indicating the applicable conditions for 

importation under this subpart may be 

issued for the importation of the dog(s) 

described in the application if such 

dog(s) appears to be eligible to be 

imported. Even though an import permit 

has been issued for the importation of 

a dog, the dog may only be imported if 

all applicable requirements of this 

subpart and any other applicable 

regulations of this subchapter and any 

other statute or regulation of any State 

or of the United States are met. 

(Approved by the Office of 

Management and Budget under control 

number 0579–0379) 

§ 2.151 Certifications. 

(a) Required certificates. Except as 

provided in paragraph (b) of this 

section, no person shall import a live 

dog from any part of the world into the 

continental United States or Hawaii for 

purposes of resale, research, or 

veterinary treatment unless the 

following conditions are met: 

(1) Health certificate. Each dog is 

accompanied by an original health 

certificate issued in English by a 

licensed veterinarian with a valid 

license to practice veterinary medicine 

in the country of export that: 

(i) Specifies the name and address of 

the person intending to import the dog 

into the continental United States or 

Hawaii; 

(ii) Identifies the dog on the basis of 

breed, sex, age, color, markings, and 

other identifying information; 

(iii) States that the dog is at least 6 

months of age; 

(iv) States that the dog was 

vaccinated, not more than 12 months 

before the date of arrival at the U.S. 

port, for distemper, hepatitis, 

leptospirosis, parvovirus, and 

parainfluenza virus (DHLPP) at a 

frequency that provides continuous 

protection of the dog from those 

diseases and is in accordance with 

currently accepted practices as cited in 

veterinary medicine reference guides; 

(v) States that the dog is in good 

health (i.e., free of any infectious 

disease or physical abnormality which 

would endanger the dog or other 

animals or endanger public health, 

including, but not limited to, parasitic 

infection, emaciation, lesions of the 

skin, nervous system disturbances, 

jaundice, or diarrhea); and 

(vi) Bears the signature and the 

license number of the veterinarian 

issuing the certificate. 

(2) Rabies vaccination certificate. 

Each dog is accompanied by a valid 

rabies vaccination certificate 6 that was 

issued in English by a licensed 

veterinarian with a valid license to 

practice veterinary medicine in the 

country of export for the dog not less 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
48660 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 159 / Monday, August 18, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

than 3 months of age at the time of 

vaccination that: 

(i) Specifies the name and address of 

the person intending to import the dog 

into the continental United States or 

Hawaii; 

(ii) Identifies the dog on the basis of 

breed, sex, age, color, markings, and 

other identifying information; 

(iii) Specifies a date of rabies 

vaccination at least 30 days before the 

date of arrival of the dog at a U.S. port; 

(iv) Specifies a date of expiration of 

the vaccination which is after the date 

of arrival of the dog at a U.S. port. If no 

date of expiration is specified, then the 

date of vaccination shall be no more 

than 12 months before the date of arrival 

at a U.S. port; and 

(v) Bears the signature and the license 

number of the veterinarian issuing the 

certificate. 

(b) Exceptions. (1) Research. The 

provisions of paragraphs (a)(1)(iii), 

(a)(1)(iv), (a)(1)(v), and/or (a)(2) of this 

section do not apply to any person who 

imports a live dog from any part of the 

world into the continental United States 

or Hawaii for use in research, tests, or 

experiments at a research facility, 

provided that: Such person submits 

satisfactory evidence to Animal Care at 

the time of his or her application for an 

import permit that the specific 

provision(s) would interfere with the 

dog’s use in such research, tests, or 

experiments in accordance with a 

research proposal and the proposal has 

been approved by the research facility 

IACUC. 

(2) Veterinary care. The provisions of 

paragraphs (a)(1)(iii) through (a)(1)(v) 

and (a)(2) of this section do not apply 

to any person who imports a live dog 

from any part of the world into the 

continental United States or Hawaii for 

veterinary treatment by a licensed 

veterinarian, provided that: 

(i) The original health certificate 

required in paragraph (a)(1) of this 

section states that the dog is in need of 

veterinary treatment that cannot be 

obtained in the country of export and 

states the name and address of the 

licensed veterinarian in the United 

States who intends to provide the dog 

such veterinary treatment; and 

(ii) The person who imports the dog 

completes a veterinary treatment 

agreement with Animal Care at the time 

of application for an import permit and 

confines the animal until the conditions 

specified in the agreement are met. Such 

conditions may include determinations 

by the licensed veterinarian in the 

United States that the dog is in good 

health, has been adequately vaccinated 

against DHLPP and rabies, and is at least 

6 months of age. The person importing 

the dog shall bear the expense of 

veterinary treatment and confinement. 

(3) Dogs imported into Hawaii from 

the British Isles, Australia, Guam, or 

New Zealand. The provisions of 

paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of this section do 

not apply to any person who lawfully 

imports a live dog into the State of 

Hawaii from the British Isles, Australia, 

Guam, or New Zealand in compliance 

with the applicable regulations of the 

State of Hawaii, provided that the dog 

is not transported out of the State of 

Hawaii for purposes of resale at less 

than 6 months of age. 

(Approved by the Office of Management 

and Budget under control number 0579– 

0379) 

§ 2.152 Notification of arrival. 

Upon the arrival of a dog at the port 

of first arrival in the continental United 

States or Hawaii, the person intending 

to import the dog, or his or her agent, 

must present the import permit and any 

applicable certifications and veterinary 

treatment agreement required by this 

subpart to the collector of customs for 

use at that port. 

§ 2.153 Dogs refused entry. 

Any dog refused entry into the 

continental United States or Hawaii for 

noncompliance with the requirements 

of this subpart may be removed from the 

continental United States or Hawaii or 

may be seized and the person intending 

to import the dog shall provide for the 

care (including appropriate veterinary 

care), forfeiture, and adoption of the 

dog, at his or her expense. 

Done in Washington, DC, this 12th day of 

August 2014. 

Gary Woodward, 

Deputy Under Secretary for Marketing and 

Regulatory Programs. 

[FR Doc. 2014–19515 Filed 8–15–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Bureau of Industry and Security 

15 CFR Parts 740, 742, and 758 

[Docket No. 140221165–4621–02] 

RIN 0694–AG11 

Corrections and Clarifications to the 

Export Administration Regulations; 

Correction 

AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and 

Security, Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule; correcting 

amendments. 

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Industry and 

Security (BIS) is correcting certain 

provisions of the Export Administration 

Regulations that were amended by two 

final rules appearing in the Federal 

Register on June 5, 2014 and on May 13, 

2014. Both rules amended a number of 

the same provisions of the Export 

Administration Regulations, and certain 

language was either removed or changed 

inadvertently. This final rule corrects 

those provisions to accurately reflect the 

revisions made by both rules. 

DATES: This rule is effective August 18, 

2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Timothy Mooney, Regulatory Policy 

Division, Bureau of Industry and 

Security, Department of Commerce, 

Phone: (202) 482–2440, Fax: (202) 482– 

3355, Email: rpd2@bis.doc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Bureau of Industry and Security 

(BIS) publishes this final rule to make 

corrections to certain provisions of the 

Export Administration Regulations that 

were amended by two final rules 

appearing in the Federal Register on 

June 5, 2014 (79 FR 32612) and on May 

13, 2014 (79 FR 27417). These two rules 

were drafted and finalized 

simultaneously, however they 

separately revised some of the same 

provisions of the Export Administration 

Regulations and certain language was 

either removed or changed 

inadvertently. This final rule corrects 

those provisions to accurately reflect the 

revisions made by both rules. These 

corrections include reinserting two 

sentences inadvertently removed 

because of an incorrect instruction in 

the June 5 rule, and reinserting a phrase 

inadvertently removed by the May 13 

rule, which did not reflect a correction 

made in a final rule published on 

October 3, 2013 (78 FR 61745). 

Rulemaking Requirements 

1. Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 

direct agencies to assess all costs and 

benefits of available regulatory 

alternatives and, if regulation is 

necessary, to select regulatory 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety 

effects, distribute impacts, and equity). 

Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the 

importance of quantifying both costs 

and benefits, of reducing costs, of 

harmonizing rules, and of promoting 

flexibility. This final rule, which is a 

consolidation of corrections and 

clarifications of final rules published in 

2013 and 2014, has been determined to 

be not significant for purposes of 

Executive Order 12866. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES