Importation of Live Swine, Swine Semen, Pork, and Pork Products From the Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

[Federal Register: February 12, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 28)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 6490-6499]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr12fe07-20]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
9 CFR Parts 92, 93, 94, and 98
[Docket No. APHIS-2006-0106]
RIN 0579-AC33

Importation of Live Swine, Swine Semen, Pork, and Pork Products
From the Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are proposing to amend the regulations governing the
importation of animals and animal products to add the Czech Republic,
Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland to the region of the European Union that
we recognize as low risk for classical swine fever (CSF). We are also
proposing to add the Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland to
the list of regions we consider free from swine vesicular disease (SVD)
and to add Latvia and Lithuania to the list of regions considered free
from foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) and rinderpest. These proposed
actions would relieve some restrictions on the importation into the
United States of certain animals and animal products from those
regions, while continuing to protect against the introduction of CSF,
SVD, and FMD, and rinderpest into the United States.

DATES: We will consider all comments that we receive on or before April
13, 2007.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov,
select ``Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service'' from the agency
drop-down menu, then click ``Submit.'' In the Docket ID column, select
APHIS-2006-0106 to submit or view public comments and to view
supporting and related materials available electronically. Information
on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing
documents, submitting comments, and viewing the docket after the close
of the comment period, is available through the site's ``User Tips'' link.
? Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Please send four copies
of your comment (an original and three copies) to Docket No. APHIS-
2006-0106, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-
03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state
that your comment refers to Docket No. APHIS-2006-0106.
Reading Room: You may read any comments that we receive on this
docket in our reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 of
the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to
help you, please call (202) 690-2817 before coming.
Other Information: Additional information about APHIS and its
programs is available on the Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Kelly Rhodes, Regionalization and
Evaluation Services, Import, Sanitary Trade Issues Team, National
Center for Import and Export, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 38,
Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 734-4356.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) regulates the
importation of animals and animal products into the United States to
guard against the introduction of animal diseases not currently present
or prevalent in this country. The regulations in 9 CFR part 94
(referred to below as the regulations) prohibit or restrict the
importation of specified animals and animal products to prevent the
introduction into the United States of various animal diseases,
including classical swine fever (CSF), foot-and-mouth disease (FMD),
and swine vesicular disease (SVD). These are dangerous and destructive
communicable diseases of ruminants and swine.
In a final rule published in the Federal Register on May 19, 2006
(71 FR 29061-29072, Docket No. 02-046-2), we amended the regulations to
recognize a region consisting of the 15 Member States of the European
Union (EU) that comprised the EU as of April 30, 2004 (the EU-15), as a
single region of low risk for CSF. The EU-15 consists of those Member
States that we had recognized as a single region regarding CSF in a
final rule published in the Federal Register on April 7, 2003 (68 FR
16922-16941, Docket No. 98-090-5), plus additional Member States. The
May 19, 2006, final rule established a uniform set of importation
requirements related to CSF for the EU-15.
Sections 94.9 and 94.10 of the regulations list regions of the
world that are declared free of or low-risk for CSF. The EU-15 is
currently the only region considered low-risk for CSF; Sec. Sec. 94.24
and 98.38 specify restrictions necessary to mitigate the risk of
introducing CSF into the United States via pork, pork products, live
swine, and swine semen from the EU-15.
Section 94.12 of the regulations lists regions that are declared
free of SVD. Section 94.13 of the regulations lists regions that have
been determined to be free of SVD, but that are subject to certain
restrictions because of their proximity to or trading relationships
with SVD-affected regions.
Section 94.1 of the regulations lists regions of the world that are
declared free of rinderpest or free of both rinderpest and FMD. Section
94.11 of the regulations lists regions that have been determined to be
free of rinderpest and FMD, but that are subject to certain
restrictions because of their proximity to or trading relationships
with rinderpest-or FMD-affected regions.
On May 1, 2004, the Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland,
along with six other countries, became new Member States of the EU. As
part of the accession process, these new EU Member States adopted the
legislation of the European Commission (EC) \1\ regarding animal
health, welfare, and identification, including legislation

[[Page 6491]]

pertaining to CSF, FMD, and SVD. This legislation became the basis for
new standard operating procedures for domestic animal health matters in
the Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland by the time of their
accession. The Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland also
adopted the harmonized EC legislation regarding sanitary measures
applicable to import and trade in live animals and animal products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ The EC is the EU institution responsible for representing
the EU as a whole. It proposes legislation, policies, and programs
of acton and implements decisions of the EU Parliament and Council.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In 2003, the Governments of Lithuania and Poland requested that
APHIS evaluate their animal health status with respect to CSF and SVD
and provided information in support of these requests in accordance
with 9 CFR part 92, ``Importation of Animals and Animal Products;
Procedures for Requesting Recognition of Regions.'' In addition, the
Government of Lithuania requested that APHIS evaluate Lithuania's
animal health status with respect to FMD. In 2004 and 2005, the
Governments of Latvia and the Czech Republic also requested that APHIS
evaluate their animal health status with respect to CSF and SVD. In
addition, the Government of Latvia requested that APHIS evaluate
Latvia's animal health status with respect to FMD. Because rinderpest
has not been diagnosed in Latvia since 1921 and has never been reported
in Lithuania, we are proposing to recognize these countries as free of
rinderpest.
As part of our evaluation of their disease status, APHIS identified
the smallest administrative units (AUs) within each of these EU Member
States that we would consider ``regions'' in the event of future animal
disease outbreaks. See the discussion of those AUs under the section
entitled ``Administrative Units.''
Our determinations concerning these requests with regard to CSF and
SVD in the Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland, and FMD in
Latvia and Lithuania are set forth below.

Summary of Proposed Changes

In this document, we are proposing to add the Czech Republic,
Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland to the region of the EU (currently
referred to in the regulations as the EU-15) that we currently
recognize as a low-risk region for CSF and from which breeding swine,
swine semen, and pork and pork products may be imported into the United
States under certain conditions. In order to provide flexibility in the
event that additional Member States may be added to this region in the
future, we would amend the regulations to refer to this region as the
``APHIS-defined EU CSF region.''
We are also proposing to add the Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania,
and Poland to the list of regions recognized as free of SVD, and to the
list of SVD-free regions whose exports of pork and pork products to the
United States are subject to certain restrictions to prevent the
introduction of SVD into this country.
Additionally, we are proposing to add Latvia and Lithuania to the
list of regions recognized as free of FMD and rinderpest. We are also
proposing to add Latvia and Lithuania to the list of FMD and
rinderpest-free regions whose exports of ruminant and swine meat and
products to the United States are subject to certain restrictions to
prevent the introduction of FMD and rinderpest into this country.

Risk Analyses

APHIS conducted risk analyses to examine the risk of introducing
CSF or SVD from the importation of swine and swine products from the
Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland and the risk of
introducing FMD from the importation of swine, ruminants, and swine and
ruminant products from Latvia and Lithuania. These risk analyses were
completed early in 2006 and may be viewed on the Regulations.gov Web
site or in our reading room. (Instructions for accessing
Regulations.gov and information on the location and hours of the
reading room are provided under the heading ADDRESSES at the beginning
of this proposed rule.) The risk analyses may also be viewed at
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ncie/reg-request.html by following the
link for ``Information previously submitted by Regions requesting export
approval and their supporting documentation.'' In the following
paragraphs, we summarize our findings for each of the 11 factors set
out in our procedures for requesting recognition of regions in 9 CFR
92.2 and summarize our risk considerations of these findings following
our discussion of the factors.

Authority, Organization, and Veterinary Infrastructure

As stated above, the Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland
adopted the legislation of the EC regarding animal health, welfare, and
identification, as well as sanitary measures applicable to import and
trade in live animals and animal products. At the time of accession,
Commission Decisions and Regulations concerning CSF, SVD, and FMD
became directly applicable in the new EU Member States, whereas Council
Directives were implemented in national legislation. During APHIS site
visits, it appeared that official veterinarians of each country were
familiar with and able to effectively implement the provisions of
pertinent EC and national legislation.
APHIS concluded that the official veterinary services of these new
EU Member States have sufficient legal authority, personnel, and
financial resources to carry out animal health activities quickly and
efficiently. Regular training is conducted for official veterinarians.
In addition, all offices visited by APHIS site visit teams were
generally in good condition, with some undergoing renovations, and were
outfitted with computers with both Internet and Intranet connections.
The official veterinary services are hierarchically organized and
appear to have clear lines of command and reporting, with sufficient
autonomy at the local level to carry out the tasks assigned. Internal
and external auditing practices are adequate to ensure compliance with
the provisions of pertinent animal health legislation.

Disease History

CSF: CSF was last reported in domestic swine in the Czech Republic
in 1997, in Latvia in 1996, in Lithuania in 1992, and in Poland in
1994. No CSF outbreaks have occurred in wild boar in recent years in
Latvia, Lithuania, or Poland. CSF virus was last detected in wild boar
in the Czech Republic in November 1999. Serologic surveillance
indicates that the virus is present in segments of the wild boar
population in the Czech Republic along its borders with Austria and
Slovakia, albeit at very low and decreasing levels.
In addition, veterinary officials indicated that most small swine
producers keep pigs indoors, which limits potential exposure to CSF in
wild boar populations, and that most of the larger farms are
confinement operations with restricted access. Biosecurity practices on
large swine confinement operations, from which exports to the United
States from the Czech Republic would most likely be derived, are
sufficient to prevent direct or indirect exposure of domestic swine to
wild boar.
SVD: SVD has never been reported in the Czech Republic, Latvia, or
Lithuania. The last reported case of SVD in Poland occurred in 1972 in
domestic swine (SVD has never been reported in wild boar in Poland).
FMD: FMD was last reported in Latvia and Lithuania in 1987 and
1982, respectively.

[[Page 6492]]

Disease Status of Adjacent Regions

CSF: Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland all share land borders with non-
EU countries that APHIS considers affected with CSF, namely Russia,
Belarus, and/or Ukraine. (APHIS considers all countries affected until
the disease status of a specific country is evaluated at the request of
that foreign country and we determine otherwise. The governments of
Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine have not requested such evaluation.)
Belarus last reported a CSF outbreak in August 1995 and Ukraine in July
2001; CSF is endemic in parts of Russia and outbreaks continue to occur.
The Czech Republic and Poland also border other EU Member States
such as Germany, Estonia, and Slovakia. Germany is part of the EU
region that APHIS considers low risk for CSF under Sec. Sec. 94.9 and
94.10, but CSF is endemic in segments of its wild boar population. CSF
is also endemic in wild boar in regions of Slovakia that border the
Czech Republic. APHIS is currently evaluating the CSF status of
Slovakia and Estonia (which borders Latvia).
Due to the proximity of affected or potentially affected regions,
the risk analyses concluded that the potential exists for introduction
of CSF into the Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, or Poland via wild
boar, incoming vehicular or human traffic, smuggled swine products, or
other routes discussed below.
SVD: APHIS considers SVD to exist in Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine
since we have not evaluated their status with regard to this disease.
However, SVD has never been reported in Russia or Belarus, and was last
reported in Ukraine in 1977. The Czech Republic, Latvia, and Poland
each border either Slovakia or Estonia, which APHIS is currently
evaluating for SVD status, but which have never reported an SVD
outbreak. The Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland also share
borders with one another, with each bordering at least one of the other
three. The risk analyses concluded that the likelihood of introduction
of SVD into these four Member States from neighboring regions is low.
FMD: Latvia and Lithuania border Russia and Belarus, which APHIS
does not consider free of FMD. Belarus last reported an FMD outbreak in
1982; sporadic FMD outbreaks continue to occur in Russia. Latvia and
Lithuania also border each other. Due to the proximity of affected or
potentially affected regions, the risk analyses concluded that the
potential exists for introduction of FMD into Latvia or Lithuania via
wild animals, incoming vehicular or human traffic, smuggled animal
products, or other routes discussed below.

Degree of Separation From Adjacent Regions

The Czech Republic is entirely surrounded by other EU Member
States. In addition, although parts of Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland
border the Baltic Sea, they are not separated from regions of higher
risk by a uniform physical barrier, therefore few impediments exist to
introduction of CSF, SVD, or FMD via natural movement of wild animals
or human traffic.
The primary wild animals within these four EU Member States and
neighboring countries that are susceptible to CSF and SVD are wild
boar. In addition, wild boar and ruminants such as deer are also
susceptible to FMD. These species are not considered to be migratory in
nature, but individual animals are known to travel substantial
distances in search of food, during mating season, or in response to
hunting or other habitat disruptions.

Extent of an Active Disease Control Program

None of the four countries have active disease control programs in
place for CSF or SVD, and Latvia and Lithuania do not have active
disease control programs in place for FMD, since these diseases have
not been reported for many years. Surveillance for these diseases is
discussed in more detail below.

Vaccination

The last vaccination against CSF occurred in the Czech Republic in
1992, in Latvia in 1998, in Lithuania in 2000, and in Poland in 1996.
Vaccination against CSF is now prohibited in all four countries,
although official contingency plans allow for emergency vaccination
against CSF. None of these countries has ever vaccinated against SVD
and such vaccination is also now prohibited. In addition, vaccination
against FMD is prohibited in Latvia and Lithuania, although as with
CSF, the official contingency plans for FMD for both countries allow
for emergency vaccination if sanctioned by the EC.

Movement Control From Higher Risk Regions

Some forms of CSF, SVD, and FMD are difficult to detect in live
animals or on post-mortem examination without laboratory testing, and
in some instances detection may be delayed due to deficiencies in
active surveillance or diagnostic testing capabilities. Any such delay
in detection of an outbreak could increase the export risk to the
United States. Consequently, the risk analyses examined potential
pathways for disease introduction into the Czech Republic, Latvia,
Lithuania, and Poland such as importation and intra-Community trade in
live animals and animal products, vehicular and human traffic, and
commodities for personal consumption.
Import controls: Import of live animals and animal products into
the Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland from non-EU countries
occurs at certain road, rail, air, and/or sea ports through a border
inspection post (BIP) that has been approved by the EC. The EC conducts
a rigorous inspection of each BIP prior to approval and carries out
regular audits to monitor the efficacy of sanitary controls. Each BIP
visited by APHIS appeared sufficiently able to keep up with required
levels of inspection.
Swine, ruminants, and derived products such as meat, meat products,
and genetic material are harmonized commodities under EC legislation,
which means that the requirements for import from non-EU countries are
standardized across all EU Member States. Binding EC legislation lists
the non-EU countries, and establishments within those countries, that
are approved for export of certain commodities to the EU.
Slaughterhouses, cutting plants, semen collection centers, and other
exporting establishments are subject to inspection prior to approval.
Veterinary certificates required for export to the EU outline
comprehensive animal health and testing requirements and must be
endorsed by an official veterinarian of the exporting country.
APHIS recognizes all of the countries approved for export of live
swine and swine semen to the EU as free of SVD (although some are
subject to the restrictions specified in Sec. 94.13) and all but
Switzerland as free of CSF. APHIS also considers these countries free
of FMD, although some are subject to the restrictions in Sec. 94.11.
However, although import practices in the Czech Republic, Latvia,
Lithuania, and Poland have largely been protective with regard to CSF,
SVD, and FMD, EC legislation allows EU Member States to import fresh
pork and pork products derived from swine from several regions that
APHIS has not evaluated and therefore regards as affected with these
diseases. EU Member States may also import bovine embryos and meat and
meat products from both domestic and wild ruminants from regions that
APHIS considers affected with FMD.

[[Page 6493]]

Veterinary inspectors at the entry BIP check that the documentation
accompanying imported commodities is in order, including appropriate
health certificates and other movement control documents, and that the
shipment is properly identified and the identification matches the
documentation. Veterinary inspectors also physically examine and sample
a percentage of incoming shipments as prescribed by EC legislation.
The risk analyses concluded EC legislation imposes less stringent
restrictions on sourcing of imported ruminants and swine than do APHIS
requirements, resulting in some risk of introducing CSF, SVD, or FMD
into the Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, or other EU Member
States via imported animals or animal products. However, this risk is
substantially mitigated by factors such as veterinary inspection of
live animals prior to shipment, approval of establishments for export
of animal products, certification of disease status by an official
veterinarian, and veterinary inspection at the point of entry into the EU.
Trade controls: As EU Member States, the Czech Republic, Latvia,
Lithuania, and Poland may engage in intra-Community trade with other
Member States as governed by EC legislation that was transposed into
national legislation prior to accession. Live animals and animal
products must be accompanied by an appropriate health certificate
signed by an official veterinarian of the country of origin. Intra-
Community trade in swine and swine products, including semen and
embryos, from CSF or SVD affected regions of EU Member States is
prohibited. There are no trade restrictions based on FMD since there
are currently no outbreaks reported in the EU.
Establishments such as slaughterhouses, cutting plants, milk
processing plants, and semen collection centers must be approved by the
Member State in which they reside according to criteria similar to
those for exporting establishments in non-EU countries. The EC and the
official veterinary services of the Member State conduct periodic
audits to monitor compliance with approval criteria and certification
requirements. The risk analyses concluded that the likelihood of
introducing SVD or FMD via intra-Community trade was low and, although
the likelihood of introducing CSF was slightly higher, this risk was
largely mitigated by the factors described above.
Veterinary control of passenger traffic: In the Czech Republic,
Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland, the majority of border crossings from
non-EU countries are controlled by the Customs Service, without
official veterinary control. Posters are prominently displayed at
border crossings to promote public awareness of prohibited meat, milk,
and meat and milk products. However, the EC permits personal
consignments of products that could carry live CSF, SVD, and/or FMD
virus from countries that APHIS has not evaluated and regards as
affected with these diseases. In some instances, there is considerable
local passenger and commercial traffic to and from neighboring non-EU
countries that APHIS does not consider free of CSF, SVD, and/or FMD.
Veterinary officials indicated that individuals attempting to cross the
border with agricultural products at a checkpoint without veterinary
inspection are redirected to a BIP or the products are confiscated.
However, the percentage of incoming traffic that is inspected for
prohibited agricultural commodities varies among border crossings. The
risk analyses concluded that, although the likelihood of introduction
of such commodities by this route is relatively high, existing
production and biosecurity measures substantially reduce the associated
export risk to the United States.

Livestock Demographics

As stated above, the Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland
have adopted the EC legislation with regard to animal identification.
Each country has in place or is implementing herd registration and
animal identification plans for ruminants and swine that include
movement tracking through a central computerized database. Health
certificates and/or a movement authorization form are required for
internal movement of ruminants and swine.
Small swine holdings predominate in each of these countries, and
there is considerable overlap in distribution with wild boar, although
veterinary authorities indicated that the majority of pigs are raised
indoors. Production and slaughter systems in each country are such that
large confinement operations (up to 30,000 pigs) are the most likely
source of swine and swine products for export. APHIS site visit teams
noted biosecurity measures on the confinement operations that would
effectively prevent direct or indirect contact with wild boar, and
limit the likelihood of CSF, SVD, or FMD introduction by other routes.
The risk analyses concluded that commercial production and biosecurity
practices in these countries serve to mitigate potential export risk to
the United States.
Cattle are distributed throughout Latvia and Lithuania; agriculture
in these two countries has traditionally included dairy-beef husbandry.
There are few sheep or goats and these are generally distributed in
small numbers on individual farms. Biosecurity measures on ruminant
operations are generally not sufficient to prevent direct and/or
indirect contact with wildlife or contact with live virus on clothing
or vehicles. However, exports to the United States will likely be
derived from the larger cattle operations, which are closely monitored
by the official veterinary services.

Disease Surveillance

CSF: The Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland all have
national surveillance programs in place for CSF in domestic swine and
wild boar. Active surveillance is primarily based on serology for
antibodies to the CSF virus, as is common throughout the world. Since
antibodies occur late in CSF infection, serological surveillance would
likely miss an early infection (e.g., in the first 21 days). In each
country, training and national simulation exercises aid in passive
surveillance for CSF by developing and maintaining the ability to
quickly detect these diseases. Passive surveillance is likely
sufficient to detect overt clinical signs of CSF, but detection may be
delayed in the case of moderate or low virulence strains. In some
instances, lack of incentive for hunters to sample wild boar and
underreporting of wild boar found dead may also hinder detection.
SVD: The Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland each conduct
serological surveillance for SVD in domestic swine at a considerably
lower level than for CSF, and rely more on passive surveillance for
this disease. Consequently, detection may be delayed in the absence of
overt clinical signs, although serological surveillance would
eventually detect the historical presence of the disease.
FMD: Lithuania conducts serological surveillance for FMD in cattle,
domestic swine, wild boar, and deer at a relatively low level.
Surveillance is not routinely conducted in reservoir populations such
as sheep and goats. Latvia conducted serological surveillance for FMD
in cattle and domestic swine, although not small ruminants or
susceptible wild animals, through 2003; active surveillance is no
longer conducted. Both countries rely heavily on passive surveillance for

[[Page 6494]]

FMD, which may delay detection in the absence of overt clinical signs.

Diagnostic Capabilities

The Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland all have
established accredited national reference laboratories (NRL) for animal
diseases, including CSF, SVD, and FMD. Overall, the laboratories are
well organized and equipped, with experienced scientific and technical
staff. Standard operating procedures and quality control measures are
in place throughout. Laboratory biosecurity practices are adequate to
prevent the escape of live virus.
CSF: In each country, the NRL provides a full range of diagnostic
tests for the diagnosis and confirmation of CSF. Tests have all been
validated and include well-regarded commercial test kits used in many
countries and tests developed in-house that are performed using
standard methodology. An APHIS site visit team expressed concern
regarding the sensitivity of the ELISA test used for screening for CSF
in Lithuania. Laboratory officials indicated they are addressing this
issue by phasing in more sensitive tests for the detection of CSF and
are also working to expand the diagnostic capabilities for SVD and FMD.
The risk analyses concluded that an index case of CSF would be
diagnosed by these laboratories if proper samples were submitted.
SVD and FMD: The NRL of each country provides a moderate spectrum
of diagnostic testing for SVD and, in Latvia and Lithuania, for FMD as
well. The risk analyses concluded that each NRL has the competence to
make a presumptive diagnosis of SVD or FMD; however, diagnostic
capabilities are limited by reliance on serology, and samples would be
sent to the reference laboratory in Pirbright, UK, for confirmatory
testing, which would result in a slight delay in confirming an outbreak.

Emergency Response Capacity

The Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland have contingency
plans in place and supporting legislation to control and eradicate CSF,
SVD, and/or FMD outbreaks. These contingency plans conform closely to
the provisions of EC legislation. The EC has a ``stamping out'' policy
with regard to CSF, SVD, and FMD. Eradication is carried out by
compulsory destruction of all animals on the affected premises with
burial or incineration of the carcasses. All live animals, animal
products, and genetic material moved off of an affected premises during
the time between disease introduction and detection of the outbreak
must be traced and destroyed. Additionally, protection zones of at
least a 3-kilometer radius and surveillance zones of at least a 10-
kilometer radius from the affected premises, respectively, are
established, and the movement of live animals, animal products, and
genetic material is suspended until the restrictions are lifted.

Release Assessment Conclusions

APHIS considers the potential for introduction of CSF, SVD, and/or
FMD into the Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, or Poland to be greater
than the potential for the introduction of CSF, SVD, and/or FMD from
the Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland into the United
States. This is due to the fact that these countries share common land
borders with several regions APHIS does not consider to be free of
these diseases, because they engage in free trade with other EU Member
States that import live animals or animal commodities from such
regions, and because, under harmonized EC legislation, they could
directly import live swine or swine commodities from such regions.
Following our analysis, we have concluded that the risk profiles
for the Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland with regard to
CSF are equivalent in CSF risk to the EU-15. The EU-15 is considered a
low-risk region for CSF in Sec. Sec. 94.9 and 94.10 and is subject to
the import restrictions specified in Sec. 94.24 for live swine, pork,
and pork products, and Sec. 98.38 for swine semen. Therefore, we are
proposing to include the Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland
along with the other countries that comprise the low-risk region for
CSF currently referred to in our regulations as the EU-15. As noted
previously, to reflect the addition of those four countries to that
region, and to accommodate possible future additions to that region, we
would amend the regulations by replacing references to the ``EU-15''
with references to the ``APHIS-defined EU CSF region'' wherever they
appear in parts 93, 94, and 98.
We are proposing to recognize the Czech Republic, Latvia,
Lithuania, and Poland as free of SVD and to recognize Latvia and
Lithuania as free of FMD. In addition to proposing to include the Czech
Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland in the list in Sec. 94.12(a)
of regions declared free of SVD, and Latvia and Lithuania to the list
in Sec. 94.1(a)(2) of regions declared free of both rinderpest and
FMD, we are also proposing to add the Czech Republic, Latvia,
Lithuania, and Poland to the list in Sec. 94.13 of regions declared
free of SVD whose exports of pork and pork products are also subject to
restrictions and to add Latvia and Lithuania to the list in Sec.
94.11(a) of regions declared free of rinderpest and FMD whose exports
of meat and other animal products to the United States are nevertheless
subject to certain restrictions.

Administrative Units

On October 28, 1997, we published in the Federal Register a final
rule (62 FR 56000-56026, Docket No. 94-106-9) and a policy statement
(62 FR 56027-56033, Docket No. 94-106-8) that established procedures
for recognizing regions and levels of risk for the purpose of
regulating the importation of animals and animal products. With the
establishment of those procedures, APHIS can consider requests to allow
importations from regions based on levels of risk, as well as to
recognize entire countries free of a disease. In subsequent rules, we
identified the smallest administrative jurisdictions in the EU-15 that
we would use to regionalize those Member States in the event of future
animal disease outbreaks. As discussed in those documents, we believe
that each of those jurisdictions is the smallest that can be
demonstrated to have effective oversight of normal animal movements
into, out of, and within that Member State, and that, in association
with national authorities, if necessary, has effective control over
animal movements and animal diseases locally.
We have identified the following AUs for each country: Czech
Republic-region, Latvia-district, Lithuania-county, Poland-district.
Further information on each AU and why we chose it is available in
the risk analysis for each Member State. If we receive no substantive
comments regarding our identification of AUs for these Member States
and we finalize this proposed rule, following the effective date of the
final rule, these AUs will be used to regionalize those Member States
in the event of future animal disease outbreaks.

Miscellaneous

We are also proposing to revise the definition of European Union in
Sec. 92.1 to update its list of EU Member States. There are currently
25 Member States of the EU, 10 more than when that definition was added
to the regulations. In part 92, the European Union is referred to in
Sec. 92.3, which states: ``Whenever the European Commission (EC)
establishes a quarantine for a

[[Page 6495]]

disease in the European Union in a region the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service recognizes as one in which the disease is not known
to exist and the EC imposes prohibitions or other restrictions on the
movement of animals or animal products from the quarantined area in the
European Union, such animals and animal products are prohibited
importation into the United States.'' Therefore, it is necessary to
update the definition of European Union to ensure that this provision
applies to all EU Member States.
We are further proposing to remove Sec. 94.1a, ``Criteria for
determining the separate status of a territory or possession as to
rinderpest and foot-and-mouth disease,'' from the regulations. Those
provisions, which were established in 1974, were rendered unnecessary
when we added the current provisions for the recognition of regions in
9 CFR part 92.
Finally, in Sec. 98.38(f), we are proposing to remove a reference
to the Office International des Epizooties and to refer instead to the
World Organization for Animal Health, as this is the current,
internationally recognized name for that organization.

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act

This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866.
The rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of
Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the
Office of Management and Budget.
We are proposing to amend the regulations governing the importation
of animals and animal products to add the Czech Republic, Latvia,
Lithuania, and Poland to the region of the European Union that we
recognize as low risk for CSF. We are also proposing to add the Czech
Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland to the list of regions we
consider free from SVD and to add Latvia and Lithuania to the list of
regions considered free from FMD and rinderpest.

The U.S. Swine Industry

The U.S. swine industry plays an important role in the U.S.
economy. Cash receipts from marketing meat animals were about $15
billion in 2005 (the average between 2001 and 2005 was $12.4
billion).\2\ Additionally, swine and related product exports generated
over $2.1 billion in sales that year. Other agricultural and
nonagricultural sectors are dependent on the swine industry for their
economic activity. At present, international trade in U.S. livestock
proceeds without CSF or SVD related restrictions. Maintaining such
favorable conditions depends in part on continued aggressive efforts to
prevent transmission of foreign diseases to U.S. swine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ USDA/NASS, Meat Animal Production, Disposition, and Income:
2005 Summary, April 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As shown in table 1, U.S. pork production increased from 7,764,000
metric tons (MT) in 1996 to 9,392,000 MT in 2005, an annual growth rate
of about 2.1 percent. Similarly, consumption increased from 7,619 MT to
8,671 MT. During the same period, U.S. exports increased from 440,000
MT to 1,207,000 MT, by far outpacing imports. Net exports increased
from 159,000 MT to 743,000 MT.

Table 1.--U.S. Pork Production, Consumption, Price, Exports, and Imports, 1996-2005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Production Consumption Exports Imports Net exports
Year (1,000 MT) (1,000 MT) Price per MT (1,000 MT) (1,000 MT) (1,000 MT)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996.................................................... 7,764 7,619 $1,596 440 281 159
1997.................................................... 7,835 7,631 1,562 473 288 185
1998.................................................... 8,623 8,305 1,170 558 320 238
1999.................................................... 8,758 8,594 1,178 582 375 207
2000.................................................... 8,596 8,455 1,413 584 438 146
2001.................................................... 8,691 8,389 1,473 707 431 276
2002.................................................... 8,929 8,685 1,179 731 486 245
2003.................................................... 9,056 8,816 1,298 779 538 241
2004.................................................... 9,312 8,817 1,621 989 499 490
2005.................................................... 9,392 8,671 1,562 1,207 464 743
5-year average (2001-2005).............................. 9,076 8,676 1,427 883 484 399
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources: USDA/FAS, PS&D Online, 1996-2005, http://www.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/psdquery.aspx;
prices, reported as $/100 pounds for yearly pork carcass cut- out values, are converted to dollars per metric ton,
and are taken from Red Meat Yearbook (94006), http://usda.manlib.cornelledu/ers/94006/wholesaleprices.xls;
net exports are calculated as the difference between exports and imports for each year.

The Swine Industry in the Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland

The four countries (the Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, and
Poland) together produced an average of 2.522 million MT of pig meat
between 2001 and 2005. They are net importers of pork, which is the
focus of this analysis. They had a 5-year (2001-2005) average level of
pork exports of 130,030 MT and an average level of imports of 152,954
MT, yielding an average net export of a negative 22,823 MT. The Czech
Republic and Poland accounted for 95 percent of production and export
of the above total.

Potential Costs of Classical Swine Fever, Swine Vesicular Disease, and
Foot and Mouth Disease

CSF, also known as hog cholera or swine plague, is a highly
contagious and often fatal disease of pigs. Young animals are more
severely affected than older animals. Mortality rates may reach up to
90 percent among young pigs. SVD is less severe and does not usually
cause death. The overall cost of control and eradication depends on the
mitigation methods used to control and eradicate the two diseases.
Potential costs include disease control measures such as imposing
quarantine measures and movement controls, indemnity payments,
vaccination costs, surveillance, and laboratory testing. CSF was
eradicated from the United States in 1976 at a cost of about $550
million in 2006 dollars. Several EU countries experienced small-and-
large scale CSF outbreaks between 1990 and 1997 and suffered heavy
economic losses. One large outbreak cost producers $917.6 million, the
national governments

[[Page 6496]]

$296.9 million, and the EU $1,040.6 million in 2006 dollars. The cost
of a small scale outbreak was $14 million and the cost of the medium-
scale outbreak was $268.8 million.\3\ The above costs are direct costs
of disease outbreaks and do not include indirect costs such as losses
caused by trade restrictions. Little information exists on the cost of
control and eradication of SVD in a previously free region.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ Saatkamp, H. W., P. B. M. Berentsen et al. ``Economic
aspects of the control of classical swine fever outbreaks in the
European Union,'' Vet Microbiology 73 (2000): 221-237; Stegeman, A.,
A. Elbers et al., ``The 1997-98 epidemic of classical swine fever in
the Netherlands,'' Vet Microbiology, 73 (2000): 183-196.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

FMD is a contagious viral disease that affects cloven-hoofed
animals. Cattle, pigs, sheep and goats are highly susceptible to FMD.
Although the death rates are low, it has serious lasting negative
effects on infected animals that survive the disease. It causes
decreased milk production, decreased pregnancy rates, weight loss, and
lameness. In addition to these losses, an FMD outbreak can lead to
economic sanctions, including the loss of export markets. Any outbreak
of FMD in the United States could result in a loss of billions of
dollars for agriculture and related industries as indicated by the most
recent FMD outbreak in the United Kingdom (UK). According to the World
Organization for Animal Health (OIE), over 6 million cattle, sheep,
swine, and goats were slaughtered to stop the spread of the disease and
the epidemic is estimated to have cost the UK economy about $12.9
billion.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ D. Thompson, P. Muriel, D. Russell, P. Osborne, A. Bromley,
M. Rowland, S. Creigh-Tyte, and C. Brown, ``Economic losses of foot
and mouth disease outbreak in the U.K,'' Rev. sci. tech. int. epiz.,
21 (2002): 675-687.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Impact of Potential Pork Imports

In this section, we estimate the impact of pork imports from the
Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland on U.S. production,
consumption, and prices using a net trade welfare model.\5\ The
baseline data used are as shown in the last row of table 1. The demand
and supply elasticities used are -0.86 and 1, respectively.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ The data used were obtained from Foreign Agricultural
Service (FAS), Production, Supply and Distribution database
(http://www.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/psdquery.aspx;) USDA/ERS, Red Meat Yearbook (94006)
(http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/ers/wholesaleprices.xls); The Global
Trade Atlas: Global Trade Information Services, Inc., country Edition,
June 2006; and UN/FAO, FAO stat data (http://faostat.fao.org).
\6\ John Sullivan, John Wainio, Vernon Roningen, A Database for
Trade Liberalization Studies, #AGES89-12, March 1989.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Based on the four countries' combined average annual global exports
of 130,130 MT (2001-2005), we model three potential levels of pork
exports to the United States from the Czech Republic, Latvia,
Lithuania, and Poland: (1) An amount proportional to the percentage of
the EU-15's pork exports sent to the United States (1.87 percent); (2)
an amount proportional to the percentage of Denmark's \7\ pork exports
sent to the United States (3.99 percent); and (3) an amount equal to 10
percent of the global pork exports by the four countries. Amounts of
pork shipped to the United States under the three scenarios would be
2,433 MT, 5,192 MT, and 13,013 MT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ Exports from Denmark to the United States are used as an
upper range estimate of possible exports from these countries.
Denmark's pork industry is export oriented, and it is the second
largest supplier of pork products to the United States, after
Canada. Using the proportion of its global pork exports that are
shipped to the United States as an estimate of possible imports from
the four countries likely overstates potential shipments to the
United States from these countries.

Table 2.--The Impact of Pork Imports From the Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland on the United States
Economy
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Import Import Import
Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assumed pork imports, MT........................................ \1\ 2,433 \2\ 5,192 \3\ 13,013
Change in U.S. consumption, MT.................................. 1,160 2,475 6,202
Change in U.S. production, MT................................... -1,273 -2,717 -6,811
Change in wholesale price of pork, dollars per MT............... -$0.22 -$0.47 -$1.19
Change in consumer welfare...................................... $1,924,230 $4,106,610 $10,294,830
Change in producer welfare...................................... -$1,817,020 -$3,877,160 -$9,715,120
Annual net benefit.............................................. $107,210 $229,450 $579,710
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Welfare and benefit are used interchangeably. The baseline data used is a 5-year annual average for
production, consumption, price, exports and imports as reported in the last row of table 1. The demand and
supply elasticities used are -0.86 and 1, respectively (John Sullivan, John Wainio, Vernon Roningen, A
Database for Trade Liberalization Studies, #AGES89-12, March 1989).
\1\ Calculated by multiplying the total global exports of the Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland,
130,130 MT, by the proportion (1.87 percent) of EU-15's global export sent to the U.S. EU-15 countries
including Denmark exported 50,742 MT to the United States from their global exports of 2,719,698 MT.
\2\ Calculated by multiplying total global exports of the Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland by the
proportion (3.99 percent) of Denmark exports sent to the United States, 43,037 MT out of 1,077,986 MT.
\3\ Calculated by multiplying total global exports of the Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland by 10
percent.

Table 2 presents the changes resulting from the assumed U.S. pork
imports from the Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland. These
include annual changes in U.S. consumption, production, wholesale
price, consumer welfare, producer welfare, and net welfare. Our medium
level of pork imports of 5,192 MT (import scenario 2, assuming pork
imports proportional to those received from Denmark) would result in a
decline of $0.47 per metric ton in the wholesale price of pork and a
fall in U.S. production of 2,717 MT. Consumption would increase by
2,475 MT. Producer welfare would decline by $3.9 million and consumer
welfare would increase by $4.1 million, yielding an annual net benefit
of about $230,000.
Import scenario 1 presents impacts assuming a more likely level of
pork imports (proportional to those received from the EU-15). In this
case, price would decrease by $0.22 per metric ton, production would
decline by 1,273 MT, and consumption would increase by 1,160 MT.
Consumer welfare would increase by $1.9 million and producer welfare
would decline by $1.8 million. The annual net benefit would be about
$107,000.
Finally, import scenario 3 presents a case of expanded trade, with
pork imports by the United States assumed to equal 10 percent of global
exports by the four countries. The wholesale price of pork would
decline by $1.19 per metric ton, production would decline by 6,811 MT,
and consumption would increase

[[Page 6497]]

by 6,202 MT. Consumer welfare would increase by $10.3 million, while
producer welfare would decline by $9.7 million. The annual net benefit
would be about $580,000.
In all cases consumer welfare gains would outweigh producer welfare
losses. The decline in producer welfare, even in the last scenario,
would represent less than one-tenth of 1 percent of cash receipts
received from the sale of domestic hogs and pork products.\8\ Thus, our
analysis indicates that U.S. entities are unlikely to be significantly
affected by this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ $9.7 million divided by $12.4 billion equals 0.08 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Small Business Administration (SBA) has established guidelines
for determining which types of firms are to be considered small under
the Regulatory Flexibility Act. This rule could affect importers of
live animals or animal products and swine operations with sales.
Meat processing entities (NAICS 311612) and meat and meat product
merchant wholesalers (NAICS 424470) may be affected by this rule. Under
SBA standards, meat processing establishments with no more than 500
employees and meat and meat product wholesalers with no more than 100
employees are considered small. In 2002, there were 1,335 companies in
the United States that processed and sold meat. More than 97 percent of
these establishments are considered to be small entities and had
average sales of $15.4 million, while large meat processors had average
sales of $188 million. In 2002, there were 2,535 meat and meat product
wholesalers in the United States. Of these establishments, 2,456 (97
percent) employed not more than 100 employees and are, thus, considered
small by SBA standards. Small wholesalers had average sales of $9.3
million, while large entities had average sales of $131 million.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\9\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census: Manufacturing--
Industries Series, Wholesale Trade--Subject Series and
Transportation and Warehousing--Subject Series, issued August 2006;
and SBA, Small business Size Standards matched to North American
Industry Classification System 2002, effective July 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other entities that could theoretically be affected include
refrigerated long-distance trucking firms (NAICS 484230), freight
forwarders (NAICS 488510), and deep sea freight transport companies
(NAICS 483111). The SBA classifies trucking firms as small if their
annual receipts are not more than $23.5 million; freight forwarding
firms are small if their annual receipts are not more than $6.5
million, and deep sea freight transport firms are small if they have
not more than 500 workers. According to the 2002 Economic Census, there
were 3,429 trucking firms, 3,827 freight forwarders, and 195 deep sea
freight transport companies. Over 99 percent of trucking firms, 96
percent freight forwarders, and 97 percent of deep sea freight
transport firms are considered to be small. Thus, predominant numbers
of meat processors, wholesale traders, and transport firms that could
be affected by the rule are considered to be small by SBA standards.
Average sales of even the smallest packers and wholesalers are large
compared to the amount of pork expected to be imported from the four
countries.
U.S. swine and pork producers (NAICS 112210) might be potentially
affected by the proposed rule. According to the 2002 Census of
Agriculture, there were 82,028 hog and pig operations with sales of
184,997,686 hogs and pigs valued at $12.4 billion. These facilities are
considered to be small if their annual receipts are not more than
$750,000. Over 83 percent of these operations (or 68,083) are
considered to be small and had sales of fewer than 2,000 hogs and pigs.
Small operations had a total inventory of 16,297,158 (8.81 percent)
with an average inventory of 237 hogs, while large operations (or
13,945) had sales of 168,700,528 (91.19 percent) with an average
inventory of 12,714 hogs. Based on inventory share, small operations
had annual sales of $1.3 billion and an average income of about
$19,400, while large operations had sales of $11 billion with an
average income of about $834,000. As shown in table 3, the impact of
potential pork imports on U.S. producers as a result of this rule would
be small. The decrease in producer welfare per small entity is less
than $133 or about 0.6 percent of average annual sales of small
entities when we assume that 10 percent of combined global pork exports
by the four countries would be sent to the United States.

Table 3.--The Economic Impact of Potential Pork Imports From the Czech
Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland on U.S. Small Entities, Assuming
10 Percent of Combined Global Pork Exports by the Four Countries Are
Sent to the United States, 2005 Dollars
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total decline in producer welfare \1\...................... $9,715,120
Decrease in welfare incurred by small entities \2\......... 855,902
Average decrease per head of inventory, small entities \3\. 0.05
Average decrease per small entity \4\...................... 124
Average decrease as percentage of average sales, small 0.6%
entities \5\..............................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ From table 2. The change in producer welfare is negative indicating
a decline.
\2\ Change in producer welfare multiplied by 8.81 percent from the above
text. We assume that the change in producer welfare would be
proportional to inventory share.
\3\ Decrease in producer welfare for small entities divided by
16,297,158 (see text above).
\4\ Average decrease per head of inventory multiplied by 237 (see text
above).
\5\ Average decrease per small entity divided by $19,400 (see text above).

Because quantities of swine, swine semen, ruminants, and ruminant
products imported from these countries, if such imports were to occur,
are likely to be very small, effects of the rule with respect to these
commodities are not included in the analysis.
The amounts of pork shipped to the United States under the three
scenarios discussed above would be 2,433 MT, 5,192 MT, and 13,013 MT.
Even when the largest import quantity is assumed, the welfare effect
for U.S. small-entity producers would be equivalent to less than 1
percent of their average revenue.
Predominant numbers of producers, meat processors, and wholesale
traders are considered to be small entities. Other small entities that
could theoretically be affected by the proposed rule include
refrigerated long-distance trucking firms, freight forwarders, and deep
sea freight transport companies. In all cases, any effects of the
proposed rule for these types of businesses are expected to be very minor.

[[Page 6498]]

Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action would
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.

Executive Order 12988

This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988,
Civil Justice Reform. If this proposed rule is adopted: (1) All State
and local laws and regulations that are inconsistent with this rule
will be preempted; (2) no retroactive effect will be given to this
rule; and (3) administrative proceedings will not be required before
parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.

National Environmental Policy Act

To provide the public with documentation of APHIS' review and
analysis of any potential environmental impacts associated with the
proposed addition of the Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland
to the list of EU countries considered to be low risk for CSF and to
the list of regions recognized as free of SVD, but that are subject to
certain import restrictions, and the addition of Latvia and Lithuania
to the list of regions recognized as free of FMD and rinderpest, but
that are subject to certain import restrictions, we have prepared
environmental assessments for each country.
The environmental assessments were prepared in July or August 2006
and in accordance with: (1) The National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), (2) regulations of
the Council on Environmental Quality for implementing the procedural
provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), (3) USDA regulations
implementing NEPA (7 CFR part 1b), and (4) APHIS' NEPA Implementing
Procedures (7 CFR part 372).
The environmental assessments may be viewed on the Regulations.gov
Web site or in our reading room. We invite the public to comment on
those environmental assessments. Comments on the environmental
assessments may be submitted using the same process as comments on the
proposed rule. (Instructions for accessing Regulations.gov and for
submitting comments, and information on the location and hours of the
reading room are provided under the heading ADDRESSES at the beginning
of this proposed rule. In addition, copies may be obtained by calling
or writing to the individual listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This proposed rule contains no information collection or
recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

List of Subjects

9 CFR Part 92

Animal diseases, Imports, Livestock, Poultry and poultry products,
Region, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

9 CFR Part 93

Animal diseases, Imports, Livestock, Poultry and poultry products,
Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

9 CFR Part 94

Animal diseases, Imports, Livestock, Meat and meat products, Milk,
Poultry and poultry products, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

9 CFR Part 98

Animal diseases, Imports.
Accordingly, we propose to amend 9 CFR parts 92, 93, 94, and 98 as
follows:

PART 92--IMPORTATION OF ANIMALS AND ANIMAL PRODUCTS: PROCEDURES FOR
REQUESTING RECOGNITION OF REGIONS

1. The authority citation for part 92 would continue to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1622 and 8301-8317; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a;
31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.

2. In Sec. 92.1, the definition of European Union would be revised
to read as follows:

Sec. 92.1 Definitions.

* * * * *
European Union. The organization of Member States consisting of
Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia,
Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania,
Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia,
Slovenia, Republic of Ireland, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom
(England, Scotland, Wales, the Isle of Man, and Northern Ireland).
* * * * *

PART 93--IMPORTATION OF CERTAIN ANIMALS, BIRDS, FISH, AND POULTRY,
AND CERTAIN ANIMAL, BIRD, AND POULTRY PRODUCTS; REQUIREMENTS FOR
MEANS OF CONVEYANCE AND SHIPPING CONTAINERS

3. The authority citation for part 93 would continue to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1622 and 8301-8317; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a;
31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.

4. In Sec. 93.500, the definition of European Union-15 (EU-15)
would be removed and a definition of APHIS-defined EU CSF region would
be added, in alphabetical order, to read as follows:

Sec. 93.500 Definitions.

* * * * *
APHIS-defined EU CSF region. The European Union Member States of
Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France,
Germany, Greece, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands,
Poland, Portugal, Republic of Ireland, Spain, Sweden, and the United
Kingdom (England, Scotland, Wales, the Isle of Man, and Northern Ireland).
* * * * *

Sec. 93.505 [Amended]

5. In Sec. 93.505, paragraph (a), the words ``region consisting of
the EU-15 for the purposes of classical swine fever'' would be removed
and the words ``APHIS-defined EU CSF region'' would be added in their
place, and the note at the end of the paragraph would be removed.

PART 94--RINDERPEST, FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE, FOWL PEST (FOWL
PLAGUE), EXOTIC NEWCASTLE DISEASE, AFRICAN SWINE FEVER, CLASSICAL
SWINE FEVER, AND BOVINE SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY: PROHIBITED AND
RESTRICTED IMPORTATIONS

6. The authority citation for part 94 would continue to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 450, 7701-7772, 7781-7786, and 8301-8317; 21
U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.
7. In Sec. 94.0, the definition of European Union-15 (EU-15) would
be removed and a definition of APHIS-defined EU CSF region would be
added, in alphabetical order, to read as follows:

Sec. 94.0 Definitions.

* * * * *
APHIS-defined EU CSF region. The European Union Member States of
Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic,

[[Page 6499]]

Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania,
Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Ireland,
Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom (England, Scotland, Wales, the
Isle of Man, and Northern Ireland).
* * * * *

Sec. 94.1 [Amended]

8. In Sec. 94.1, paragraph (a)(2) would be amended by adding the
words ``Latvia, Lithuania,'' immediately after the word ``Japan,''.

Sec. 94.1a [Removed]

9. Section 94.1a would be removed.

Sec. 94.9 [Amended]

10. In Sec. 94.9, paragraphs (b) and (c), the words ``EU-15''
would be removed and the words ``APHIS-defined EU CSF region'' added in
their place.

Sec. 94.10 [Amended]

11. In Sec. 94.10, paragraphs (b) and (c), the words ``EU-15''
would be removed and the words ``APHIS-defined EU CSF region'' added in
their place.

Sec. 94.11 [Amended]

12. In Sec. 94.11, paragraph (a) would be amended by adding the
words ``Latvia, Lithuania,'' immediately after the word ``Japan,''.
13. In Sec. 94.12, paragraph (a) would be revised to read as follows:

Sec. 94.12 Pork and pork products from regions where swine vesicular
disease exists.

(a) Swine vesicular disease is considered to exist in all regions
of the world except Australia, Austria, the Bahamas, Belgium, Bulgaria,
Canada, Central American countries, Chile, the Czech Republic, Denmark,
Dominican Republic, Fiji, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Greenland,
Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mexico, the
Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Poland, Portugal, Republic of
Ireland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Trust Territories of the
Pacific, the United Kingdom (England, Scotland, Wales, the Isle of Man,
and Northern Ireland), Yugoslavia, and the Regions in Italy of Friuli,
Liguria, Marche, and Valle d'Aosta.
* * * * *
14. In Sec. 94.13, in the introductory text of the section, the
first sentence would be revised to read as follows:

Sec. 94.13 Restrictions on importation of pork or pork products from
specified regions.

Austria, the Bahamas, Belgium, Bulgaria, Chile, the Czech Republic,
Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the
Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Ireland, Spain, Switzerland,
the United Kingdom (England, Scotland, Wales, the Isle of Man, and
Northern Ireland), Yugoslavia, and the Regions in Italy of Friuli,
Liguria, Marche, and Valle d'Aosta are declared free of swine vesicular
disease in Sec. 94.12(a) of this part. * * *
* * * * *

Sec. 94.24 [Amended]

15. Section 94.24 would be amended as follows:
a. In the section heading, by removing the words ``EU-15'' and
adding the words ``APHIS-defined EU CSF region'' in their place.
b. In paragraph (a), introductory text, and paragraph (a)(1)(i), by
removing the words ``EU-15'' and adding the words ``APHIS-defined EU
CSF region'' in their place.
c. In paragraphs (a)(1)(ii) and (a)(1)(iii), by removing the words
``the EU-15'' and adding the words ``the APHIS-defined EU CSF region''
in their place and by removing the words ``an EU-15'' and adding the
word ``the'' in their place.
d. In paragraph (a)(5), by removing the words ``EU-15'' and adding
the words ``APHIS-defined EU CSF region'' in their place.
e. In paragraph (b), introductory text, and paragraph (b)(2)(i), by
removing the words ``EU-15'' and adding the words ``APHIS-defined EU
CSF region'' in their place.
f. In paragraph (b)(2)(ii) and (b)(2)(iii), by removing the words
``the EU-15'' and adding the words ``the APHIS-defined EU CSF region''
in their place and by removing the words ``an EU-15'' and adding the
word ``the'' in their place.
g. In paragraph (b)(6), by removing the words ``EU-15'' and adding
the words ``APHIS-defined EU CSF region'' in their place.

PART 98--IMPORTATION OF CERTAIN ANIMAL EMBRYOS AND ANIMAL SEMEN

16. The authority citation for part 98 would continue to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1622 and 8301-8317; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a;
31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.

17. In Sec. 98.30, the definition of European Union-15 (EU-15)
would be removed and a definition of APHIS-defined EU CSF region would
be added, in alphabetical order, to read as follows:

Sec. 98.30 Definitions.

Sec. 98.38 [Amended]

18. Section 98.38 would be amended as follows:
a. In the section heading, by removing the words ``EU-15'' and
adding the words ``APHIS-defined EU CSF region'' in their place.
b. In the introductory text of the section, paragraph (a), and
paragraph (b)(1), by removing the words ``EU-15'' and adding the words
``APHIS-defined EU CSF region'' in their place.
c. In paragraph (b)(2), by removing the words ``the EU-15'' and
adding the words ``the APHIS-defined EU CSF region'' in their place and
by removing the words ``an EU-15'' and adding the word ``the'' in their
place.
d. In paragraph (b)(3), by removing the words ``EU-15 established''
and adding the words ``APHIS-defined EU CSF region established `` in
their place and by removing the words ``EU-15'' immediately before the
word ``Member''.
e. In paragraph (f), by removing the words ``Office International
des Epizooties'' and the parentheses surrounding the words ``World
Organization for Animal Health''.
f. In paragraph (i), by removing the words ``EU-15'' and adding the
words ``APHIS-defined EU CSF region'' in their place.

Done in Washington, DC, this 6th day of February 2007.
Kevin Shea,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. E7-2327 Filed 2-9-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P

Notices For
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994

Importation of Live Swine, Swine Semen, Pork, and Pork Products From the Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland

Local Navigation