All USDA Animal Care Policies is available at
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ac/polman.html
Expired Medical Materials
Pharmaceutical-Grade Compounds in Research
Surgery
Pre- and Post-Procedural Care
Program of Veterinary Care
Health Records
Euthanasia
References: AWA Section 13 and 9 CFR, Part 2, Sections 2.31,
2.32, 2.33, 2.40 and 9 CFR, Part 3, Section 3.110
History: Provides requested guidance. Replaces memoranda dated
May 31, 1990, November 29, 1991, April 6, 1992, and September
25, 1992. The previous version of this policy released on April
14, 1997, has been modified to include "Health Records."
Justification: The Animal Welfare Act (AWA) requires that all
regulated animals be provided adequate veterinary care.
Policy:
Expired Medical Materials
The use of expired medical materials such as drugs, fluids, or
sutures on regulated animals is not considered to be acceptable
veterinary practice and does not constitute adequate veterinary
care as required by the regulations promulgated under the Animal
Welfare Act. All expired medical materials found in a licensed
or registered facility are to be brought to the attention of the
responsible official. The facility must either dispose of all
such materials or segregate them in an appropriately labeled,
physically separate location from non-expired medical materials.
The Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has no
jurisdiction over facilities using expired medical materials for
non-regulated animals or non-regulated activities. For acute terminal
procedures, APHIS does not oppose the use of expired medical materials
if their use does not adversely affect the animal's well-being
or compromise the validity of the scientific study. Proper anesthesia,
analgesia, and euthanasia are required for all such procedures.
Drugs administered to relieve pain or distress and emergency drugs
must not be used beyond their expiration date. Facilities allowing
the use of expired medical materials in acute terminal procedures
should have a policy covering the use of such materials and/or
require investigators to describe in their animal activity proposals
the intended use of expired materials. The attending veterinarian
and the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) are
responsible for ensuring that proposed animal activities avoid
or minimize discomfort, distress, and pain to the animal. These
responsibilities cannot be met unless the veterinarian and the
IACUC maintain control over the use of expired medical materials.
Pharmaceutical-Grade Compounds in Research
Investigators are expected to use pharmaceutical-grade medications
whenever they are available, even in acute procedures. Non-pharmaceutical-grade
chemical compounds should only be used in regulated animals after
specific review and approval by the IACUC for reasons such as
scientific necessity or non-availability of an acceptable veterinary
or human pharmaceutical-grade product. Cost savings alone are
not an adequate justification for using non-pharmaceutical-grade
compounds in regulated animals.
Surgery
AWA regulations require that survival surgeries be performed using
aseptic techniques and that major operative procedures on nonrodents
be performed only in dedicated surgical facilities. Nonsurvival
surgeries require neither aseptic techniques nor dedicated facilities
if the subjects are not anesthetized long enough to show evidence
of infection. Research facilities doing surgical demonstrations
while traveling must use aseptic techniques and dedicated surgical
facilities. Motel meeting rooms and auditoriums do not qualify
as dedicated surgical facilities. Nonsurvival surgeries not performed
aseptically or in a dedicated facility must at least be performed
in a clean area, free of clutter, and using acceptable veterinary
sanitation practices analogous to those used in a standard examination/treatment
room. Personnel present in the area must observe reasonable cleanliness
practices for both themselves and the animals. Eating, drinking,
or smoking are not acceptable in surgery areas, and locations
used for food handling purposes do not qualify as acceptable areas
for performing surgeries.
Pre- and Post-Procedural Care
All animal activity proposals involving surgery must provide specific
details of pre- through post-procedural care and relief of pain
and distress. The specific details must be approved by the attending
veterinarian or his/her designee. However, the attending veterinarian
retains the authority to change post-operative care as necessary
to ensure the comfort of the animal. The withholding of pain and/or
distress relieving care must be scientifically justified in writing
and approved by the IACUC. The appropriate use of drugs to relieve
pain and/or distress must be specified in the animal activity
proposal to avoid possible delays due to investigator concerns
that a treatment regimen may interfere with the study. Furthermore,
the specified drugs for relief of pain and/or distress must be
readily available for use as described in the proposal. While
an animal is under post-surgical care, the ownership of the animal
is not to change. If the animal is taken to an off-site location,
such as a farm, for post-operative care, that location should
be identified as a site of the research facility. An animal is
not to be taken to an off-site location before it fully recovers
from anesthesia unless justified in the animal activity proposal.
Appropriate post-operative records must be maintained in accordance
with professionally accepted veterinary procedures regardless
of the location of the animal.
Program of Veterinary Care
Facilities which do not have a full-time attending veterinarian
must have a written Program of Veterinary Care (PVC). This Program
must consist of a properly completed APHIS Form 7002 or an equivalent
format providing all of the information required by the APHIS
form. The attending veterinarian must visit the facility on a
regular basis, i.e., often enough to provide adequate oversight
of the facility's care and use of animals but no less than annually.
The PVC must be reviewed annually and updated whenever necessary
(e.g., as a new species of animal or a new attending veterinarian
is obtained, or the preventive medical program changes). It must
be initialed and dated by both the attending veterinarian and
the facility representative whenever it is changed or reviewed
without change. The preventive medical program described in the
PVC is expected to be in accordance with common good veterinary
practices (e.g., appropriate vaccinations, diagnostic testing).
It should include zoonotic disease prevention measures and, if
necessary, special dietary prescriptions.
Health Records
Health records are meant to convey necessary information to all
people involved in an animal's care. Every facility is expected
to have a system of health records sufficiently comprehensive
to demonstrate the delivery of adequate health care. For those
facilities that employ one or more full-time veterinarians, it
is expected there will be an established health records system
consistent with professional standards that meets and probably
exceeds, the minimum requirements set forth in this policy. For
facilities that do not employ a full-time veterinarian, it is
suggested the health records system be explained as part of the
written PVC, to ensure involvement of the attending veterinarian
in developing the system. For all facilities, health records must
be current, legible, and include, at a minimum, the following
information:
Examples of procedures which should be adequately documented
in health records include, but are not limited to, vaccinations,
fecal examinations, radiographs, surgeries, and necropsies. Routine
husbandry and preventive medical procedures (e.g., vaccinations
and dewormings) performed on a group of animals may be recorded
on herd-health-type records. However, individual treatment of
an animal must be on an entry specific to that animal. As long
as all required information is readily available, records may
be kept in any format convenient to the licensee/registrant (e.g.,
on cage cards for rodents).
Health records may be held by the licensee/registrant (including,
but not limited to, the investigators at research facilities)
or the attending veterinarian or divided between both (if appropriately
cross-referenced), but it is the responsibility of the licensee/registrant
to ensure that all components of the records are readily available
and that the record as a whole meets the requirements listed above.
An animal's health records must be held for at least 1 year after
its disposition or death. (Note: Some records may need to be held
longer to comply with other applicable laws or policies.) When
an animal is transferred to another party or location, a copy
of the animal's health record must be transferred with the animal.
The transferred record should contain the animal's individual
medical history, information on any chronic or ongoing health
problems, and information on the most current preventive medical
procedures (for example, the most recent vaccinations and dewormings).
For traveling exhibitors, information on any chronic or ongoing
health problems and information on the most current preventive
medical procedures must accompany any traveling animals, but the
individual medical history records may be maintained at the home
site.
Euthanasia
The method of euthanasia must be consistent with the current Report
of the AVMA Panel on Euthanasia. Gunshot is not an acceptable
method of routine euthanasia for any animal. Gunshot as a routine
method of euthanasia not only endangers surrounding animals, buildings,
and personnel, but it is likely to cause distress to other animals.
It should only be used in situations where other forms of acceptable
euthanasia cannot be used (such as emergency or field conditions
where the animal cannot be appropriately restrained) or in cases
where gunshot will reduce danger to other animals or humans. Only
personnel skilled in the use of firearms, using appropriate firearms,
and familiar with the "kill point" of an animal should
perform the euthanasia. If the firearm is not aimed so that the
projectile enters the brain and causes rapid unconsciousness and
subsequent death without evidence of pain or distress, this method
does not meet the definition of euthanasia. (All State and local
laws relevant to gunshot must also be met.)
References: AWA Section 16 (a) and
9 CFR, Part 2, Sections 2.38(b), 2.1
History: Provides requested guidance. Replaces letter dated July
5, 1991.
Justification: The Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service
(APHIS) must have access to inspect all covered animals at a regulated
facility to ensure compliance with the Animal Welfare Act (AWA).
Policy:
Animals housed in barrier facilities are required to be maintained
in accordance with the AWA's regulations and standards.
In some cases, APHIS inspections of bonafide barrier facilities
may be performed by analysis of environmental records, visual
inspection through an adequate viewing window, and random selection
of animals to be visually inspected. Various non-entry methods,
such as video viewing from outside the barrier room, may substitute
for an inadequate viewing window.
If the APHIS inspector determines it is necessary to enter a barrier
room to adequately complete an inspection or to resolve a suspected
problem, the inspector may, by following entry procedures normally
used by facility personnel, enter and complete the inspection.
The inspector cannot be expected to comply with procedures not
used by facility employees. The facility must supply a copy of
their barrier entry procedures upon request. The facility will
need to provide the inspector with protective clothing and items
needed to complete the inspection (pens, paper, tape measure,
flashlight, etc.).
Prior to an inspection of a barrier facility, the facility may
ask the inspector (as part of the standard entry procedure) to
verify that he/she has not been in contact with, or exposed to,
certain animals for a specified time period.
Such verification is acceptable. Generally, barrier facilities
require a period of no animal or specific species contact for
72 hours.
The APHIS inspector will not sign any statement in which he or
she accepts responsibility for the health of the animals in that
barrier facility.
References: AWA Sections 13(a)(3), 13(a)(7), 13(e)(2, 3) and 9
CFR, Part 2, Sections
2.31(d)(1)(i,ii,iii,iv), 2.31(e)(4), 2.33(b)(4) and 9 CFR, Part
3, Section 3.6(b)(5,6,7)
History: Replaces letters dated May 8, 1992, November 7, 1991,
November 9, 1990, and
March 1, 1990.
Justification: Provides requested guidance. Procedures involving
animals will avoid or
minimize discomfort, distress and/or pain.
Policy:
A painful procedure is defined as any procedure that would reasonably
be expected to cause more than slight or momentary pain and/or
distress in a human being to which that procedure is applied.
The Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) is responsible
for ensuring that investigators have appropriately considered
alternatives to any procedures that may cause more than slight
or momentary pain or distress. A written narrative description
of the methods and sources used to search for alternatives must
be provided. Where specific testing procedures are required by
Federal law, the CFR references or other legal guidelines requiring
them should be noted.
Examples of procedures that can be expected to cause more than
momentary or slight pain include, but are not limited to, the
following:
Examples of procedures that may cause more than momentary or slight distress include, but are not limited to, the following:
Many procedures, including any of those in the lists above,
may cause both pain and distress.
An example of a procedure that can be expected to cause more than
momentary or slight pain as well as distress would be a study
involving extensive irradiation.
Animals exhibiting signs of pain, discomfort, or distress such
as decreased appetite/activity level, adverse reactions to touching
inoculated areas, open sores/necrotic skin lesions, abscesses,
lameness, conjunctivitis, corneal edema, and photophobia are expected
to receive appropriate relief unless written scientific justification
is provided in the animal activity proposal and approved by the
IACUC.
Research facilities must have a mechanism in place for ensuring
that animals are reported in the appropriate pain category on
the annual report (APHIS Form 7023). Individual animals that do
not experience pain/distress from testing procedures should be
reported in column C. Individual animals experiencing pain/distress
which is alleviated with anesthetics, analgesics, sedatives and/or
tranquilizers should be reported in column D. This category includes
terminal surgery under anesthesia. Individual animals in which
needed anesthetics, analgesics, sedatives, and/or tranquilizers
are withheld should be reported in column E. For all column E
animals, a written justification, approved by the IACUC, must
be provided, including CFR references or other guidelines if appropriate.
References: AWA Section 13(a)(3)(B), 9 CFR, Part 2, Section
2.31 (d)(1)(ii)and (e), 9 CFR, Part 2, Section 2.32 (c)(2) and
(5)(ii), Animal Welfare Information Center
History: Provides guidance on the requirement to provide a written
narrative of the consideration of alternatives to painful and
distressful procedures. Replaces Policy #12 dated April 14, 1997.
Justification: The Animal Welfare Act (AWA) regulations require
principal investigators to consider alternatives to procedures
that may cause more than momentary or slight pain or distress
to the animals and provide a written narrative of the methods
used and sources consulted to determine the availability of alternatives,
including refinements, reductions, and replacements.
Policy:
Alternatives or alternative methods are generally regarded as
those that incorporate some aspect of replacement, reduction,
or refinement of animal use in pursuit of the minimization of
animal pain and distress consistent with the goals of the research.
These include methods that use non-animal systems or less sentient
animal species to partially or fully replace animals (for example,
the use of an in vitro or insect model to replace a mammalian
model), methods that reduce the number of animals to the minimum
required to obtain scientifically valid data, and methods that
refine animal use by lessening or eliminating pain or distress
and, thereby, enhancing animal well-being. Potential alternatives
that do not allow the attainment of the goals of the research
are not, by definition, alternatives.
A fundamental goal of the AWA and the accompanying regulations
is the minimization of animal pain and distress via the consideration
of alternatives and alternative methods. Toward this end, the
regulations state that any proposed animal activity, or significant
changes to an ongoing animal activity, must include:
1. a rationale for involving animals, the appropriateness of the
species, and the number of animals to be used;
2. a description of procedures or methods designed to assure that
discomfort and pain to animals will be limited to that which is
unavoidable in the conduct of scientifically valuable research,
and that analgesic, anesthetic, and tranquilizing drugs will be
used where indicated and appropriate to minimize discomfort and
pain to animals;
3. a written narrative description of the methods and sources
used to consider alternatives to procedures that may cause more
than momentary or slight pain or distress to the animals; and
4. the written assurance that the activities do not unnecessarily
duplicate previous experiments.
We believe that the performance of a database search remains the
most effective and efficient method for demonstrating compliance
with the requirement to consider alternatives to painful/distressful
procedures. However, in some circumstances (as in highly specialized
fields of study), conferences, colloquia, subject expert consultants,
or other sources may provide relevant and up-to-date information
regarding alternatives in lieu of, or in addition to, a database
search. When other sources are the primary means of considering
alternatives, the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee
(IACUC) and the inspecting Veterinary Medical Officer should closely
scrutinize the results. Sufficient documentation, such as the
consultant's name and qualifications and the date and content
of the consult, should be provided to the IACUC to demonstrate
the expert's knowledge of the availability of alternatives in
the specific field of study. For example, an immunologist cited
as a subject expert may or may not possess expertise concerning
alternatives to in vivo antibody production.
When a database search is the primary means of meeting this requirement,
the narrative must, at a minimum, include:
1. the names of the databases searched;
2. the date the search was performed;
3. the period covered by the search; and
4. the key words and/or the search strategy used.
The Animal Welfare Information Center (AWIC) is an information
service of the National Agricultural Library specifically established
to provide information about alternatives. AWIC offers expertise
in formulation of the search strategy and selection of key words
and databases, access to unique databases, on- and off-site training
of institute personnel in conducting effective alternatives searches,
and is able to perform no-cost or low-cost electronic database
searches. AWIC can be contacted at (301) 504-6212, Contact us: http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/contact.php
,
or via its web site at
http://awic.nal.usda.gov.
Other excellent resources for assistance with alternative searches
are available and may be equally acceptable.
Regardless of the alternatives sources(s) used, the written narrative
should include adequate information for the IACUC to assess that
a reasonable and good faith effort was made to determine the availability
of alternatives or alternative methods. If a database search or
other source identifies a bona fide alternative method (one that
could be used to accomplish the goals of the animal use proposal),
the written narrative should justify why this alternative was
not used.
The written narrative for federally-mandated animal testing (for
example, testing product safety/efficacy/potency) needs only to
include a citation of the appropriate government agency's regulation
and guidance documents. Mandating agency guidelines should be
consulted since they may provide alternatives (for example, refinements
such as humane endpoints or replacements such as the Murine Local
Lymph Node Assay) that are not included in the Code of Federal
Regulations. If a mandating agency-accepted alternative is not
used, the principal investigator should explain the reason in
the written narrative.
Alternatives should be considered in the planning phase of the
animal use proposal. When a proposal is modified during its performance,
significant changes are subject to prior review by the IACUC,
including the review of the implications of those changes concerning
the availability of alternatives. Although additional attempts
to identify alternatives or alternative methods are not required
by Animal Care at the time of each annual review of the animal
protocol, Animal Care would normally expect the principal investigator
to reconsider alternatives at least once every 3 years, consistent
with the triennial review requirements of the Public Health Service
Policy (IV,C,5).
References: AWA Section 13(a)(3)(D,E)
and 9 CFR, Part 2, Section 2.31 (d)(1)(x)
History: Provides requested guidance. Replaces letters dated April
21, 1992 and June 5, 1990.
Justification: No animal is to be used in more than one major
survival operative procedure except in cases of scientific necessity
or veterinary care.
Policy:
No animal assigned to a proposal is to be used in more than one
major survival operative procedure unless the multiple procedures
are included within one proposal, justified for scientific reasons
by the Principal Investigator, and preapproved by the Institutional
Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC). However, an animal that
has an emergency major operative procedure as part of proper veterinary
care may still be used in a proposal that requires a major survival
operative procedure.
A major survival operative procedure must not be performed a second
time on an animal in a separate proposal. In order to comply with
the intent of the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), animals surviving
a major operative procedure must be identified (written documentation)
to prevent their use in a second major survival operative procedure.
The AWA and its regulations allow an exemption to limiting animals
from being used in only one proposal with a major survival operative
procedure. The Institutional Official of the research facility
should make the exemption request to the appropriate Animal Care
Regional Director, who forwards it to the Animal Care Assistant
Deputy Administrator for review and recommendation to the Deputy
Administrator. The request for exemption should include the following
information:
The Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) may respond
to the formal request by approving the request as written, granting
a portion of the request, imposing additional limitations, or
denying the request. An annual IACUC evaluation of the exemption
is required, which consists of an IACUC assessment of the animals
and the effectiveness and soundness of the methods and procedures
used. This information is to be included in the report of the
IACUC functions. Considerations for the renewal or continuation
of the exemption will be based on the IACUC's recommendations
following their review. The exemption must be included in the
Annual Report (APHIS Form 7023).
References: AWA Section 13(b)(1) and
9 CFR, Part 2, Section 2.31(b)(2,3)
History: Provides requested guidance. Replaces letters dated June
6, 1994 and October 23, 1992.
Justification: To provide clarification of specified individual
roles in the Animal Care and Use Program at research facilities.
Policy:
For Animal Welfare Act (AWA) enforcement purposes, the nonaffiliated
member of the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC)
is to "provide representation for general community interests."
The outside nonaffiliated member cannot be a laboratory animal
user at any research facility. Compensation of the nonaffiliated
member is permissible only when it does not jeopardize the member's
status as a nonaffiliated member. Compensation varies but is normally
limited to payment for travel and related expenses, such as parking
and meals, to modest monetary payments for participation. The
dollar amount of compensation, if any, should not be so substantial
as to be considered an important source of income or to influence
voting on the IACUC.
The regulations provide for four specific roles within the Animal
Care and Use Program:
These positions are meant to provide
a system of checks and balances which is not normally achieved
if any one person fills more than one of these roles. While the
regulations do not specifically prohibit one person from filling
more than one role, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
(APHIS) strongly discourages such assignments because of the potential
for conflicts of interest and/or undue influence by one person
over the facility's program. However, a veterinarian who is not
the attending veterinarian may assume any one of the other program
positions.
No IACUC member can review his/her own proposal.
References: AWA Section 13, 9 CFR, Part 3, Subpart F
History: Clarifies existing internal policy
Justification: The Animal Welfare Act (AWA) regulations cover
farm animals that are used in activities that are regulated by
the AWA.
Policy:
Farm animals, such as domestic cattle, horses, sheep, swine, and
goats that are used for traditional, production agricultural purposes
are exempt from coverage by the AWA. Traditional production agricultural
purposes includes use as food and fiber, for improvement of animal
nutrition, breeding, management, or production efficiency, or
for improvement of the quality of food or fiber.
Farm animals that are used to manufacture and test veterinary
biological products intended for use in the diagnosis, treatment,
or prevention of diseases in agricultural animals are, therefore,
exempt from U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) regulatory
authority under the AWA. USDA considers this use to be agricultural
research, thus, not a regulated activity.
Farm animals that are used to test and produce biologicals for
nonagricultural or nonproduction animals are covered by Part 3,
Subpart F of the regulations. We consider this to be nonagricultural
research and testing that is covered by the AWA and the regulations.
As such, when farm animals are used to test or manufacture vaccines,
bacterins, toxoids, and other related veterinary biologicals that
will be used exclusively in nonproduction animals such as dogs
and cats and other pet animals, or in both nonproduction, as well
as, farm animals, they are regulated and monitored for compliance
with the regulations. An example of the latter may include rabies
vaccine or other product that has a multi-species label recommendation.
Farm animals that are used as models for human subjects in order
to test or manufacture biologicals that will ultimately be used
in humans are also regulated. USDA considers this to be biomedical
research which is a regulated activity.
References: AWA Section 2, 13, 9 CFR, Part 3, Subpart F
History: This is a new policy. Farm animals used in activities
regulated under the AWA are maintained in both agricultural and
nonagricultural environments. Animal Care inspectors, the research
and exhibition communities, as well as other members of the public,
have requested that we provide more specific guidance than what
the regulations contain for the humane care of farm animals used
in regulated activities.
Justification: The AWA authorizes APHIS to regulate farm animals,
such as cattle, sheep,pigs, and goats, when the animals are used
for biomedical or other nonagricultural research or nonagricultural
exhibition. In light of the increased use of farm animals for
covered purposes and because the needs of farm animals can be
different from other kinds of animals typically used in research
and exhibition, we developed this policy.
Policy:
This policy offers guidance on how regulated entities can comply
with the standards in the regulations as they apply to farm animals.
Animal Care has adopted two guides, the Guide for the Care
and Use of Agricultural Animals in Agricultural Research and Teaching,
published by the Federation of Animal Science Societies, and the
Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, published
by the Institute for Laboratory Animal Research (ILAR). The two
publications are commonly known as the Ag Guide and the
ILAR Guide, respectively.
We adopted these two specific guides because they represent the
most current scientific information available on handling, housing,
care, treatment, and transportation of farm animals for nonagricultural
purposes. They are widely used, are the most complete guides available,
are relatively inexpensive and easily obtained, and are being
used by most institutions that receive funding from the Public
Health Service or are accredited by the Association for Assessment
and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care International (AAALAC
International).
The Ag Guide contains recommendations to ensure the humane
care of farm animals that are maintained in agricultural or typical
farm-like settings. It contains principles that apply to all farm
animals, as well as species specific recommendations. The ILAR
Guide is a general guide that recommends practices that may
be applied to the care and use of farm animals when they are housed
in typical laboratory settings.
Regulated entities may use applicable sections of the guides to
supplement their understanding of how to meet the standards in
the regulations. Use of these guides should help ensure consistent
enforcement by Animal Care inspectors.
Adoption of these guides is intended only as additional guidance
on how to meet the already existing standards in the regulations.
They are to be used only to supplement or interpret the regulations.
Both guides contain recommendations concerning animals such as
poultry and areas such as environmental enhancement and individual
animal identification that are not covered or required under the
regulations. Those portions of the guides that do not relate to
or support the current standards in the regulations cannot be
enforced by Animal Care inspectors. At the same time, nothing
in the guides will be used to reduce or lessen any of the requirements
in the current regulations.
As there are other published guides, as well as other sources
of information that provide recommendations on the humane care
of farm animals in various settings, licensees and registrants
may use recommendations from other sources, as long as the chosen
practice satisfies the standards in the regulations.
All Animal Care inspectors have been provided these guides; however,
since they are not published by APHIS, we cannot provide copies
to the public. To obtain a copy of the Ag Guide and ILAR
Guide
contact the following:
Ag Guide--Federation of Animal Science Societies, 111 North
Dunlap Avenue 2101, Savory, IL 61874, phone: 217-356-3182 ($10
per copy)
ILAR Guide--National Academy Press, Constitution Avenue
NW, Lock Box 285, Washington, DC 20055, phone: 1-800-624-6242
or 202-334-3313 ($9.95 per copy)
Return to:
Title Page |
Main Contents |
Last updated February 22, 2001