Importation of Animals and Animal Products

SUMMARY: We are establishing procedures for recognizing regions, rather

than only countries, for the purpose of the importation of animals and

animal products into the United States. We are also establishing

procedures by which regions may request permission to export animals

and animal products to the United States under specified conditions,

based on the regions' disease status. These changes to the regulations

are in accordance with international trade agreements entered into by

the United States. We are also allowing, under certain conditions, the

unloading and reloading at the port of arrival of meat and other animal

products otherwise prohibited entry into the United States. This change

is warranted because it removes unnecessary restrictions on the

transiting of meat and other animal products through the United States,

without increasing the likelihood that the meat or other products will

introduce diseases of livestock or poultry. Additionally, we are

removing the requirement that cattle from Canada be tested for

brucellosis before being imported into the United States. This change

is warranted because the risk that cattle imported from Canada will be

infected with brucellosis is slight. We are also making other minor

changes in our requirements for importing animals and animal products

that will relieve some import restrictions while continuing to protect

U.S. livestock and poultry from foreign animal diseases.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 28, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Gary Colgrove, Chief Staff

Veterinarian, National Center for Import and Export, VS, APHIS, 4700

River Road Unit 38, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231, (301) 734-8590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), United

States Department of Agriculture (USDA), has promulgated regulations

regarding the importation of animals and animal products in order to

guard against the introduction into the United States of animal

diseases not currently present or prevalent in this country. These

regulations are set forth in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR),

title 9, chapter 1.

On April 18, 1996, we published in the Federal Register (61 FR

16978-17105, Docket No. 94-106-1) a proposed rule to revise the

regulations in six different parts of 9 CFR, chapter I, to establish

importation criteria for ruminants and swine, and their products, based

on the level of disease risk in specified geographical regions.

We solicited comments concerning our proposal for 90 days ending

July 17, 1996. During the comment period, several commenters requested

that we extend the period during which we would accept comments. In

response to these requests, on July 11, 1996, we published in the

Federal Register a notice that we would consider comments on the

proposed rule for an additional 60 days ending September 16, 1996 (61

FR 36520, Docket No. 94-106-4). During the comment period, we conducted

four public hearings at which we accepted oral and written comments

from the public. These public hearings were held in Riverdale, MD;

Atlanta, GA; Kansas City, MO; and Denver, CO.

We received 113 comments on the proposed rule on or before

September 16, 1996. These comments came from representatives of State

and foreign governments, international economic and political

organizations, veterinary associations, State departments of

agriculture, livestock industry associations and other agricultural

organizations, importing and exporting associations, members of

academia and the research community, brokerage firms, exhibitors,

animal welfare organizations, and other members of the public.

Based on our evaluation of the information submitted by commenters,

we are making changes to the proposed rule in this final rule. We

discuss below the issues raised by commenters and the changes we are

making to the rule as proposed.

What We Proposed

Broadly speaking, in the proposed rule, we set forth the following

items regarding the importation of ruminants and swine, and their

products:

A list of restricted disease agents, including restricted

disease vectors;

Criteria for identifying regions;

Criteria for classifying regions as to level of risk for

specific disease agents;

Procedures for applying for risk classification;

Risk classifications for individual countries and other

regions;

Import conditions applicable to particular commodities

from particular regions, based on the risk posed by specific diseases;

and

Changes in terminology throughout the ruminant and swine

and ruminant and swine product import regulations to refer to

``regions'' rather than to countries.

We proposed to classify all countries of the world into one of six

categories for each restricted disease agent. The six risk categories

ranged from Risk Class RN (negligible risk), to Risk Class R1 (slight

risk), Risk Class R2 (low risk), Risk Class R3 (moderate risk), Risk

Class R4 (high risk), and Risk Class RU (unknown risk). We used what we

termed ``qualitative criteria'' to assign risk categories--i.e., we

examined certain pre-assigned criteria to determine what level of risk

the importation of ruminants, swine, or their products from a

particular region would present for a particular disease if no

restrictions were placed on the importations. We also proposed, as an

alternative to qualitative risk assessment, to allow potential

exporting regions to demonstrate by means of a ``quantitative'' risk

assessment that they should be assigned to a particular risk category

because of a demonstrated quantitative risk of disease introduction due

to unrestricted importation from that region.

Once we proposed to classify all countries of the world for each

restricted disease agent (although the proposal allowed for regional

status, in all cases but one we classified only countries, pending

future requests for specific regions), we set forth the conditions each

region assigned to a particular risk category would have to meet in

order to import ruminants, swine, or their products into the United

States. Under our proposal, all regions assigned to the same risk

category for a particular disease and commodity would have been subject

to the same import conditions.

Public Involvement in the Rulemaking Process

A number of commenters requested that we extend the comment period

during which comments would be accepted on the proposed rule. As noted

above, we extended the initial 90-day comment period by 60 days to

accommodate commenter requests. In addition, we accepted public comment

[[Page 56001]]

at four public hearings held in different areas of the United States.

Therefore, we believe the public was given adequate time to comment on

the proposed rule.

Some commenters recommended that the proposed rule be withdrawn,

and a revised proposal be published following review and revision in

consultation with groups outside the Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service (APHIS). Other commenters requested that APHIS hold meetings to

explain the science that went into the proposal's development. Several

commenter's recommended that the regulations provide for an open public

hearing process to allow U.S. producers the opportunity to evaluate how

APHIS will determine risk levels and the status of foreign animal

health programs. One commenter recommended that APHIS take into account

evaluations conducted by other countries, the International Office of

Epizootics (OIE), and the European Union (EU). We believe that each of

these requests for more public involvement in the process of

regionalization and risk assessment is addressed by the changes we are

making to the final rule, and by the policy we intend to follow

regarding requests for regionalization. We discuss these rule changes

and policy in this Supplementary Information below, under the heading

``APHIS Response to General Concerns.'' General Concerns with APHIS'

Proposed Approach to Regionalization and Risk Assessment .

Although the proposal generated significant support from the public

for the concepts of regionalization and levels of risk, a number of

commenters expressed concern with the approach we proposed to take to

implement those concepts.

The commenters who objected to our proposed approach focused on two

broad areas: (1) The criteria, procedures, and risk classifications we

proposed in assigning regions to one of the six risk categories; and

(2) the conditions regions would have to meet, based on their risk

classification, in order to export specific commodities. We discuss

below first the broad objections to our proposed method of classifying

regions, then the broad objections to the system of conditions that we

proposed to apply to importations.

Concerns Regarding Risk Classification Approach

A number of commenters stated that the proposed rule would not be

``transparent'' to U.S. producers and to our trading partners, and that

its complexity would cause it to be ineffective. These commenters

expressed concern that the proposed six categories of risk would be too

many to administer effectively. Some commenters recommended that APHIS

simply amend the current import requirements to allow for recognition

of regions, without incorporating provisions for classification by risk

level.

A number of commenters stated that the use of scientific criteria

is not evident in the proposed risk classifications of various

countries/regions. Some commenters stated that the proposed regulations

lacked transparency as to how evaluations of regions based on the

qualitative risk criteria would be done. Other commenters stated that

the risk categories did not take into account factors such as mode of

transmission, economic consequences, zoonosis, and clustering of

infected populations.

Some commenters questioned the validity of using arbitrarily

selected prevalence thresholds for assigning risk categories. Some

commenters questioned how what they termed ``information uncertainty''

would be dealt with.

A number of commenters stated that application for recognition of

risk classification would demand an exhaustive process. Other

commenters expressed concern that outbreaks of disease in restricted

areas may not be readily regionalized.

Concerns Regarding Proposed Import Conditions Based on Risk

Classifications

Some commenters objected to the specificity of the proposed import

conditions, stating that the World Trade Organization Agreement on the

Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (WTO-SPS) states

that a country must accept the sanitary measures imposed by other

members as equivalent measures, even when they differ from those in the

importing country, if the exporting member objectively demonstrates to

the importing member that its actions provide the health protection

required by the importing country. The commenters stated that the

proposed import conditions did not adhere to this requirement.

Some commenters expressed concern that what they viewed as the

``rigidity'' of the proposed provisions would result in unnecessary

difficulties in access to the U.S. market for commodities from

acceptable exporting regions.

APHIS Response to General Concerns

When we drafted the proposed rule, our overriding goal was to

create a mechanism for regionalized, risk-based import requirements,

consistent with the obligations of the WTO-SPS Agreement, that would

continue to protect livestock in the United States with the level of

security provided by the current regulations. The principles of the

WTO-SPS Agreement do require that SPS measures be equitably applied,

scientifically sound, guided by international standards, transparent,

taken in recognition that equal levels of risk mitigation can be

achieved by applying differing sanitary measures, risk-assessment

based, and applicable on a regional basis. If the principles of the

WTO-SPS Agreement are fulfilled without discrimination and unjustified

differences, nations may impose those sanitary requirements necessary

to protect their livestock, poultry, wildlife, and human populations

from disease.

We developed the proposed rule with the multiple aims of providing

for regionalization, recognizing gradations of risk, and making it

clear that we would impose identical import restrictions on regions

with identical risk situations. In order to give potential importers

advance notice of the type of import conditions they would face if they

intended to import ruminants or swine, or their products, we included

in the proposal a tentative risk classification for each country of the

world for each restricted disease agent. Where current regulations

existed regarding a particular country, commodity, and disease, our

general approach was to apply the same import conditions applicable

under the current regulations. Where the current regulations were

silent on a restricted disease agent, we either assigned a Risk Class

RU (unknown risk) classification to the country, or we tentatively

assigned the country a risk classification based on the literature and

other information available to us. The public was invited to comment on

the proposed risk classifications.

There are many possible ways to categorize the varying levels of

risk posed by different areas of the world for different diseases.

Levels of risk can be described by a minimal number of categories, as

under the current regulations (which recognize, generally, countries as

``free,'' ``free with restrictions (modified free),'' and ``not

free''), or by an expansive spectrum of levels that recognizes

extremely slight differences in risk among areas.

In developing the proposal, we arrived at the proposed number of

risk classifications after a review of the continuum of possible risks,

from negligible risk to unknown risk. One of the options we considered

was proposing fewer than six risk

[[Page 56002]]

classifications. The six classifications we did propose represented a

series of increasing risk situations, from what we considered to be a

negligible risk, to slight risk, low risk, moderate risk, high risk,

and unknown risk. It would have been possible to broadly divide the

risk categories into ``low risk'' (to include the proposed

classifications of negligible risk, slight risk, and low risk), ``high

risk'' (to include the proposed classifications of moderate risk and

high risk), and ``unknown risk.'' However, we rejected a three-category

option, for the following reasons. First, under such an option, the

``high risk'' classification would not differentiate between a region

affected with a high prevalence of a disease and a region that is

affected with the disease but that has a strong control program and a

low prevalence of infection. Grouping the classifications of moderate

and high risk together would not have allowed for importations from

regions that are at a low-prevalence level and are likely to remain so.

The three proposed risk classifications that could have been

broadly grouped under ``low risk'' are also distinguishable. Of the

countries considered ``free'' of certain diseases under the current

regulations, some are subject to additional restrictions because they

either supplement their national meat supply with fresh (chilled or

frozen) meat from countries affected diseases of concern, share a

common border with such countries, or have trading practices less

restrictive than what we consider acceptable to prevent the

introduction of such animal diseases.

Under the current regulations, APHIS does not recognize a country

as free of certain diseases if that country carries out vaccination for

those diseases. However, the OIE International Animal Health Code

(Code) recognizes a category of ``free with vaccination.'' To achieve

equivalency with the OIE Code, we proposed a ``free with vaccination''

(low risk) classification.

Therefore, we considered it appropriate to propose classifications

of regions ``free'' of specific diseases that ranged, in ascending

order of risk, from (1) those where the disease is deemed never to have

existed or is deemed to have been eradicated, to (2) those that have

had a sufficient period of absence of the disease, but present some

risk due to trade or adjacency with affected regions, to (3) those that

are recently free of a disease, with some risk of residual infection.

We considered the number of risk categories we proposed to be small

enough to be manageable, but broad enough to recognize differences in

risk discernible on a practical level.

We continue to believe that the number of risk categories we

proposed represent a functional approach to characterizing risk.

However, after evaluating the practical implications of the proposed

regulations based on information submitted by commenters, we have

reassessed the benefits of applying the exact same pre-assigned import

conditions to all regions grouped in the same risk classification. We

have determined that what is gained by making it clear to a region from

the outset what it must do to export a particular commodity to the

United States is outweighed by a loss of flexibility in customizing

import conditions to the particular situation of each region. Further,

based on commenter responses to our tentative proposed classification

of regions, we believe our characterization of the risk level of a

region and the assigned import conditions can be most appropriately

determined after the region itself has submitted sufficient data to

APHIS to allow us to conduct an assessment of the risk presented by

potential imports from the region.

Therefore, in this document we are not making final the system we

proposed that would have applied the same import restrictions to each

region assigned to one of six risk categories. Instead, as proposed and

in accordance with the trade agreements entered into by the United

States, we are amending the current regulations to provide for

recognition of regions, rather than only countries, for the purpose of

importation of animals and animal products. In Sec. 92.1 of this rule,

we provide that a region may consist of any of the following:

A national entity (country);

Part of a national entity (zone, county, department,

municipality, parish, Province, State, etc.);

Parts of several national entities combined into an area;

or

A group of national entities (countries) combined into a

single area.

In a companion document we are publishing in this issue of the

Federal Register (APHIS Docket No. 94-106-8, ``APHIS Policy Regarding

Importation of Animals and Animal Products''), we give notice of the

policy we will follow in recognizing regions, assessing the risk

presented by potential imports from a region, and determining

appropriate import conditions. Our policy will be to determine on a

case-by-case basis what import conditions will reduce the risk

associated with importations from a particular region to a negligible

level. Because levels of risk exist upon a continuum, instead of pre-

assigning import conditions based on risk classifications, we will, as

a policy, use risk categories as benchmarks to assist regions in

evaluating where they can expect to fall on a spectrum of risk levels

and what general import conditions may apply.

Reformatting of Current Regulations

In this final rule, we are setting forth the procedures for

requesting recognition of a region and for requesting that APHIS assess

the risk presented by a particular commodity from a recognized region

and establish appropriate import conditions. In order to accommodate

these procedures in 9 CFR, chapter I, we are moving the provisions of

current part 92, ``Importation of Certain Animals, Birds, and Poultry,

and Certain Animal, Bird, and Poultry Products; Requirements for Means

of Conveyance and Shipping Containers,'' to part 93, and are setting

forth the procedures for requesting regionalization and risk assessment

in the vacated part 92. The provisions in current part 93 regarding the

importation of elephants, hippopotami, rhinoceroses, and tapirs, are

redesignated as Secs. 93.800 through 93.807.

Procedures for Requesting Recognition of Regions and Risk

Assessment

As set forth in Sec. 92.2 of this final rule, we will, in general,

process applications for regionalization and risk assessment according

to the following procedures.

The official of the national government of any country who has the

authority in that country to request such a change may submit a request

to the Administrator that all or part of the country be recognized as a

region, be included within an adjacent previously recognized region, or

be made part of a region larger than the country.

Each request for approval to export a particular type of animal or

animal product commodity to the United States from a foreign region

must be made to the Administrator, and must include, in English, the

following information about the region:

1. The authority, organization, and infrastructure of the

veterinary services organization in the region.

2. Disease status--i.e., is the restricted disease agent known to

exist in the region? If ``yes,'' at what prevalence? If ``no,'' when

was the most recent diagnosis?

3. The status of adjacent regions with respect to the agent.

4. The extent of an active disease control program, if any, if the

agent is known to exist in the region.

[[Page 56003]]

5. The vaccination status of the region. When was the last

vaccination? What is the extent of vaccination if it is currently used,

and what vaccine is being used?

6. The degree to which the region is separated from regions of

higher risk through physical or other barriers.

7. The extent to which movement of animals and animal products is

controlled from regions of higher risk, and the level of biosecurity

regarding such movements.

8. Livestock demographics and marketing practices in the region.

9. The type and extent of disease surveillance in the region--e.g.,

is it passive and/or active; what is the quantity and quality of

sampling and testing?

10. Diagnostic laboratory capabilities.

11. Policies and infrastructure for animal disease control in the

region--i.e., emergency response capacity.

The above information will be made available to the public prior to

our initiating any rulemaking action on the request.

Once we have received from a potential exporting region the

information necessary to conduct a risk assessment, and have evaluated

the risk, we will determine under what conditions an importation can be

safely allowed. If we believe the importation can be safely allowed, we

will propose in the Federal Register to allow such importations, and

the conditions under which the importations would be allowed, along

with a discussion of the basis for our proposal. We will then provide a

period of time during which the public may comment on our proposal.

During the comment period, the public will have access, both in hard

copy and electronically, to the information upon which we based our

risk analysis, as well as to our methodology in conducting the

analysis. Once we have reviewed all comments received, we will make a

final decision about whether and under what conditions the requested

importation may be allowed. If our decision is to allow the

importation, we will publish the conditions for importation in a final

rule in the Federal Register.

Recent rulemakings have provided examples of how the regulations

may be amended under the provisions of this final rule. On May 9, 1997,

we published in the Federal Register a final rule (62 FR 25439-25443,

Docket No. 94-106-6) to allow, under certain conditions, the

importation of fresh (chilled or frozen) pork from the State of Sonora,

Mexico. On June 26, 1997, we published in the Federal Register a final

rule (62 FR 34385-34394, Docket No. 94-106-5), amended for

clarification on August 11, 1997 (62 FR 42899-42900, Docket No. 94-106-

7), allowing, under specified conditions, the importation of fresh

(chilled or frozen) beef from Argentina, where vaccination for foot-

and-mouth disease is still carried out. Although that final rule

applied to an entire country, it exemplified the opportunity for a

foreign region to request of APHIS an assessment of whether specific

import conditions can bring the risk of importation of animals or

animal products from that region to a negligible level. As noted above,

our policy for assessing risk is outlined in a policy statement we are

publishing elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.

Additionally, on June 12, 1997, we published in the Federal Register a

proposal (62 FR 32051-32053, Docket No. 97-002-1) to regionalize Italy

by considering all of Italy except the island of Sardinia free of

African swine fever.

As stated above, this final rule allows for the recognition of

regions with regard to the importation of animals and animal products.

As defined in this final rule, a region need not be an entire, single

national entity (country), though it can be. Until we receive requests

for regionalization on a case-by-case basis under the provisions of

this final rule, we will continue to apply the current regulations to

the importation of animals and animal products from foreign countries.

Scope of This Final Rule

In response to our proposed rule, several commenters objected to

the fact that the proposed provisions applied only to ruminants and

swine, and their products. The commenters recommended that the concept

of regionalization also be applied to other animals governed by the

regulations, including poultry and equine species.

In the Supplementary Information section of our proposed rule, we

stated that it was our intent to extend, in the future, the

regionalized, risk class approach to the importation of all animals and

animal products that are subject to the import regulations in 9 CFR,

chapter I. We limited the scope of the proposal to ruminants and swine

in the interests of timeliness--i.e., the fact that our proposed

approach involved rewriting large parts of 9 CFR part 92 made it

advisable to finalize the regionalization changes in several stages.

However, the approach we are taking in this final rule involves

significantly less rewriting of the current regulations than did the

approach set forth in our proposed rule. Because the principles and

procedures regarding regionalization and risk assessment that are

applicable to the importation of ruminants and swine, and their

products, are equally applicable to the importation of other animal

species governed by the regulations, we consider it appropriate to

extend the principles of regionalization in this final rule to all

animals and animal products subject to the import regulations in 9 CFR,

chapter I, including poultry, birds, and equines.

Concerns that Regionalization Will Increase the Risk of Disease

Introduction

Some commenters expressed general concern that the provisions we

proposed for regionalization and levels of risk would increase the risk

of animal diseases being introduced into the United States. Other

commenters expressed particular concern about the possibility of the

introduction into the United States of emerging diseases, such as

bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE). We are acutely aware of the

concern of the U.S. public that livestock in this country continue to

be protected from disease introduction. As noted above, until APHIS

receives a request for regionalization, the imports into the United

States will continue to be governed by the current regulations. When

requests for regionalization are received, APHIS will evaluate them on

a case-by-case basis, and determine what, if any, import conditions can

bring the disease risk presented by the imports to a negligible level.

Throughout the process of analyzing any request for regionalization,

APHIS will provide the public the opportunity to evaluate the

information the region has submitted to APHIS in requesting

regionalization. The public will then be given a formal opportunity to

comment on the proposed action. No request for regionalization will be

made final until APHIS has taken into consideration all comments

submitted by the public during the comment period.

Several commenters stated that attention needs to be paid to

identifying diseases that do not exist in the United States, but that

may put the livestock population at risk. The commenters stated that as

major diseases such as foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) or classical swine

fever (hog cholera) are confined to limited areas of countries, or are

eradicated, it will no longer be possible to rely on import

restrictions due to the presence of these diseases to guard against the

importation of other diseases of concern. Consequently, said the

commenters, it will become increasingly important for APHIS to have the

appropriate resources,

[[Page 56004]]

diagnostic capabilities, and expertise to determine what other diseases

are potential risks. The commenters cited examples of diseases of

potential concern. We agree with the commenters and concur that

changing disease and trade conditions require a broad view regarding

what diseases require regulation. We address this broadened concern in

our notice of policy regarding regionalization and risk assessment, set

forth elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.

Several commenters stated that the list of diseases of concern

should include all disease subject to a control or eradication program

in the United States. We share the commenters' view that import

restrictions should be in place to guard against the movement into this

country of diseases that currently exist in the United States but that

are subject to a domestic control or eradication program. These

diseases of concern are addressed by the current regulations and by the

policy statement we are publishing elsewhere in this issue of the

Federal Register.

Some commenters stated that a comprehensive emergency plan should

be in place prior to implementation of the revised regulations.

Currently, the Secretary of Agriculture has the authority to implement

necessary measures to control and eradicate animal disease in this

country. APHIS has had in place for a number of years resources and

procedures for responding to disease outbreaks on an emergency basis.

One commenter recommended that the regulations specifically state

that APHIS has the option to restrict imports because of new or

emerging diseases. We do not consider it necessary to include such a

statement in the regulations. For years, APHIS has enforced import

restrictions on new or emerging diseases, and we will continue to do

so.

Some commenters stated that the regulations should contain

provisions for relaxing emergency measures when they are no longer

warranted. Just as it does under the current regulations when a disease

risk has been eliminated, APHIS will take action through rulemaking,

subject to public comment, to relieve restrictions that no longer

appear warranted.

A number of commenters expressed concern that implementation of the

proposed regulations would represent a huge and costly workload for

APHIS, and that administrative problems in implementing the proposal

would create barriers to trade. The commenters stated that APHIS lacks

the budget and infrastructure to administer the proposal in a timely

manner consistent with sound animal health intervention and exclusion

strategies. Other commenters stated that the provisions of the proposed

rule were ill-equipped to deal with developing situations, that it will

be difficult for APHIS to maintain current information on countries'

importing practices, and that the information regarding risk

classification will always be months or years out of date. As an

alternative to the ``notice-and-comment'' procedures currently followed

by APHIS under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 551 et

seq.), some commenters suggested that all regional disease

classifications and decisions be made available electronically, with

the CFR merely establishing authority to classify and methods to

classify and make changes. According to the commenters, requests for a

change in status could be updated by a press release available

electronically and comments could be solicited in like manner. Several

commenters recommended that the regulations allow the United States to

accept on a provisional basis new risk classifications established by

other countries, pending U.S. verification.

We believe that a number of the concerns raised by the commenters

are addressed by the changes we are making to the proposal in this

final rule. As noted above, we will continue to apply the current

regulations until we receive requests for regionalization. We are not

making final our proposed system of assigning each foreign region to

one of six risk classifications. Under this final rule, we will not

attempt to assess the risk of importations from a region until the

region itself has provided all of the information necessary for

conducting such an assessment, although we will take into account any

information available to us from other sources.

Because this final rule provides options not available under the

current regulations, APHIS recognizes that, especially initially, it

will face an increased workload when this rule is made effective. A

major impetus to the publication of this final regulation is the U.S.

commitment under the North American Free Trade Agreement and the WTO-

SPS Agreement. As a signatory of these agreements, the United States

has agreed to accept the principle of regionalization and to allow the

importation of animals and animal products from regions of low disease

prevalence, subject to whatever mitigating measures are necessary to

safeguard livestock in the United States.

We are committed to implementing, where appropriate,

regionalization in individual cases as quickly as possible once we have

received and reviewed sufficient valid data from and about the

requesting region, and have conducted a risk assessment of the

importation requested. However, because of the potentially broad

interest regarding importations of animals and animal products, we

consider it necessary to ensure that all members of the public are made

aware of potential changes through rulemaking.

Under the APA, APHIS must, in most cases, provide public notice of

proposed changes to the regulations through publication of a proposed

rule in the Federal Register, and provide interested persons an

opportunity to participate in the rulemaking through submission of

written data, views, or arguments. Within these requirements, APHIS is

examining ways to streamline the review process, including the

development of a data-handling mechanism to receive and store

information related to animal health and veterinary infrastructure.

Additionally, APHIS plans to increase its resources in the area of risk

assessment. With regard to electronic notification of proposed

rulemaking, APHIS currently notifies the public electronically of

various actions taken by the Agency. However, Administrative Procedure

Act requirements for notice and comment rulemaking are not fulfilled

until the action is published in the Federal Register.

Recognition of Equivalency and Foreign Regionalization

One commenter recommended that the regulations allow the

Administrator of APHIS to enter into an agreement with a foreign

country to recognize the equivalency of that country's rules. We

consider the concept of equivalency to be provided for in this rule. It

allows the United States, based on information made available to it by

its trading partners and other sources, to identify, along with those

trading partners, specified risks from a region on a disease-by-disease

and commodity-by-commodity basis, and identify mutually agreeable risk

management measures to reduce risk to a negligible level. Equivalency

exists when countries agree that each others' risk management measures

are appropriate and when they identify commodities for which import

measures that may not be identical for the same commodity are needed to

address the differences in prevalence of restricted agents, geographic

or demographic factors, or animal health infrastructure.

It is the responsibility of the exporting region to demonstrate to

the importing country that the region meets standards

[[Page 56005]]

equivalent to the importing country's standards or other acceptable

standards. Certainly, in those cases where the United States and some

other country have historically developed animal health standards for

common diseases, there is no reason to expect that such interaction

will not continue.

Among the comments received was the recommendation that the United

States should recognize regions that are created and maintained up-to-

date by other bodies, such as the European Community (EC). The comment

stated that the EC has been divided into many regions for various

diseases and, because the areas are constantly achieving results in

disease eradication, the areas recognized by the EC as free are

constantly expanding. Because of this, the commenters expressed concern

that U.S. regulations would quickly become out of date. The commenters

recommended that a region be defined as the area recognized by the EC

as being free from a particular disease in accordance with accepted

criteria, pending U.S. examination of the matter.

As discussed above, our overriding goals in implementing

regionalization are to facilitate trade in accordance with

international agreements while maintaining the level of biosecurity

afforded by the current regulations. We believe the provisions of this

final rule, and our policy toward regionalization and risk assessment

published in this issue of the Federal Register, meet these dual goals.

As discussed above, however, APHIS rulemaking must be carried out in

accordance with the APA, with an opportunity provided for public

comment on changes to the regulations. At present, APHIS is developing

a proposal to recognize regions established by the EC with regard to

disease status, based on information submitted in a request by the EC.

Some commenters recommended that, to make the regulations more

transparent, procedures should be set forth for situations where there

are no specific requirements stated. As noted above, the companion

policy statement we are publishing in this issue of the Federal

Register outlines the procedures we intend to take in evaluating

requests for regionalization and importation of animals and animal

products. As we discussed, we will conduct such evaluations in a

transparent manner open to public review and comment.

Several commenters recommended that APHIS review what the

commenters referred to as internationally accepted guidelines for

regionalization, risk analysis, and risk assessment. The commenters

specifically referred to the following documents: (1) Cane, B.G., ``The

Concept of Regionalization in Establishing Disease-Free Areas,'' OIE

comprehensive reports on technical items presented to the international

committee or to regional commissions, 1994; (2) Kellar, J.A., ``The

Application of Risk Analysis to International Trade in Animals and

Animal Products,'' OIE comprehensive reports on technical items

presented to the international committee or to regional commissions,

1992; (3) Morley, R.S., Acree, J., Williams, S., ``Animal Import Risk

Analysis (AIRA): Harmonizing our Approach,'' OIE comprehensive reports

on technical items presented to the international committee or to

regional commissions, 1990-1991; and (4) ``OIE International Health

Code,'' Section 1.4, chapters 1.4.1-1.4.5, 1994 updates. In the process

of developing the proposed rule, APHIS reviewed all of the sources

cited. Wherever possible, concepts from these references were

incorporated into the proposal. We have also incorporated concepts from

these references into the policy on regionalization and risk assessment

we are giving notice of in this issue of the Federal Register.

Comments on Information Considered in Assessing Risk

Among the requirements set forth in the proposal for applying for

recognition of risk classification for a region was the requirement

that the Chief Veterinary Officer of the region submit to APHIS a

completed questionnaire relating to the specific disease in question.

Several commenters requested that this questionnaire be published in

the regulations. Several commenters asked for clarification of how the

United States would expect regions to demonstrate freedom from

restricted disease agents. One commenter requested that APHIS publish

the procedures it will use to communicate with nations so that

countries will have the opportunity to document their animal disease

situation in order to gain the appropriate classification. As stated

above, we are not making final our proposed system of risk

classification, but we are setting forth in Sec. 92.1 of the

regulations procedures for applying for regionalization, for assessment

of the risk presented by imports from a region, and for determination

of appropriate import conditions.

Some commenters stated that the proposed rule placed undue emphasis

on the influence that neighboring regions have on each other's disease

status. According to the commenters, although border controls are often

necessary, they are not as important in cases where the epidemiology of

disease agents, combined with differing husbandry factors, effectively

prevents establishment of a disease in a neighboring region. Although

we consider proximity between regions generally of importance with

regard to contagious diseases, we agree that in some cases the

proximity of one region to another is irrelevant because of varying

climatic or other ecological factors. This is true in the United States

with a disease such as bluetongue, which has never become established

in the northeastern part of the country due to ecological factors,

despite a lack of interstate movement controls. Given equivalent

factors, however, vector-borne diseases might readily move across

regional boundaries in spite of border controls. For this reason,

proximity to affected regions must be considered a factor in

determining disease risk, and is included in the information we are

requesting under this rule in applications for regionalization. Under

the approach we have adopted in this final rule and our policy toward

regionalization, proximity will be considered as a factor in assessing

the risk of disease introduction, but will not be given a predetermined

weight in the assessment process.

In related comments, some commenters stated that, because many

diseases listed on the OIE ``List B'' can easily be contained within a

herd or flock, the status of a contiguous region is not relevant for

many List B diseases in determining the risk class of the region under

consideration, particularly when effective border control barriers are

in place. As we stated above with regard to the issue of proximity, the

status of a contiguous region will be considered as a factor in

assessing the risk of disease introduction, but will not be given a

predetermined weight in the assessment process. As implied by the

commenters, the concern about contiguous regions is not necessarily

about the ability of the disease agent itself to be transmitted across

the border, but more so about the possibility of undeclared illegal

movements of infected animals or products, or the straying of loose

animals or carrier wildlife across the border. While effective border

controls are a crucial consideration in assessing the risk posed by

importations from a region, we do not consider them alone to be a

guarantee that the movement of disease from a contiguous region will be

eliminated.

One commenter expressed concern about what the commenter considered

a lack of specific criteria for how we

[[Page 56006]]

would evaluate the veterinary infrastructure in the exporting region.

We believe this issue relates to the information, discussed above, that

will be required regarding the authority, organization, and

infrastructure of the veterinary services in a region. We consider the

evaluation of infrastructure in any region to necessarily be somewhat

subjective. Until the OIE or some other organization develops an

objective measure of infrastructure, we believe the best way to

evaluate infrastructure is on a case-by-case basis, by means that, in

some cases, will include on-site visits.

Concerns Regarding the Effect of Regionalization on Wildlife

One commenter expressed concern about the potential effect of the

proposed risk classification system on wildlife. The commenter was

concerned that some countries might contain or eliminate wild animals

in order to ensure that there are no pockets of disease that might

prevent the countries from attaining a particular risk classification.

We consider the commenter's concerns to be addressed in large measure

by our decision not to make final the system of establishing a risk

classification system based on pre-defined criteria. However, each

country must make its own decisions concerning such matters. APHIS will

prepare an environmental assessment specific to the region in question

prior to promulgating a final rule to create a region.

Comments Addressing Specific Conditions for the Importation of Animals

Some commenters stated that, under the proposed regulations, cases

would arise where animals would be required to undergo quarantine

simply to eliminate the presence of a bacterial disease. According to

the commenters, in these cases, the full quarantine regimen should not

be necessary, and the regulations should allow for equivalent

alternative mitigating measures. The commenters suggested as

possibilities the conduct of additional tests in the country of origin,

followed by isolation and testing in the United States. It is not clear

to us from the comments whether the commenters are recommending

elimination of certain of the quarantine requirements in place under

the current regulations. Historically, we have found the post-

importation period of quarantine in the United States necessary as a

period for observing the imported animals for disease, and we do not

consider it advisable to eliminate these requirements at this time.

Several commenters stated that the proposed 15-day importation

quarantine period was insufficient to allow for incubation of diseases

of concern. It is not clear to us from the comments exactly which

proposed importation requirements the commenters are referring to in

each case. Under the current regulations, except for cattle from

Central America and the West Indies, which may be quarantined for 7

days under certain conditions, and except for cattle and certain other

ruminants from Canada and Mexico, all ruminants imported into the

United States must be quarantined for not less than 30 days from the

date of arrival at the port of entry. Under the current regulations,

swine must be quarantined for not less than 15 days from the date of

arrival at the port of entry. Based on our experience enforcing the

regulations, we consider these quarantine requirements adequate and are

retaining them in this final rule.

Several commenters expressed concern that transhipments of animals

and animal products through high risk areas could cause contamination

of the products or animals. Some commenters stated that developing

countries have insufficient resources to monitor many of the most

serious foreign animal diseases of concern. The commenters expressed

concern that, in many countries, the illegal movement of livestock from

higher-risk to lower-risk regions would be hard to detect, control, and

prevent. Each of these concerns focuses on two of the key factors on

which we will request information under the procedures for applying for

regionalization--border controls and the infrastructure necessary to

monitor and enforce the movement of animals and products from, into, or

through the region. We will be obliged to characterize a requesting

region a high risk or an unknown risk if the country in question lacks

the infrastructure, or does not have access to the resources necessary,

to enforce sanitary provisions that would support regionalization or to

monitor for animal diseases of concern to the United States.

A number of commenters expressed concern that imported animals may

serve as a source for emerging diseases or those of long incubation. To

facilitate tracking of animals, commenters recommended that a permanent

identification be placed on imported animals. We do not consider the

risk of disease introduction to be any greater under this final rule

than under the existing regulations. Under the current regulations, in

most cases we do not require either permanent identification of

imported animals or a permanent record of their final destination. The

feasibility of heightening identification and tracking of imported

animals is under review by APHIS. In the meantime, we support the

efforts of the livestock industry to develop a system of identification

that meets its needs.

Commenters argued both for and against including destination

factors in determining import conditions. Some commenters stated that

considering destination risk is required by the WTO-SPS agreement, and

that failure to consider destination risk makes it illogical for the

United States to impose post-importation conditions on animals and

animal products if those conditions do not also apply to native U.S.

animals. Commenters cited the need to assess the risk of animal

importations in which vector-borne disease agents represent hazards,

and, in particular, the duration of viraemia and competence of vectors.

The commenters also stated that factors to be considered should include

the exposure of domestic animals to infected products, modes of

transmission, and the amount of infectious agent present that is

sufficient to cause infection. Conversely, some commenters supported

the premise that any importation of a restricted agent is undesirable.

The general policy we have followed under the current regulations is to

require import conditions to reduce any risk of introduction of a

disease of concern at importation to a negligible level. We are

retaining this policy under this final rule.

Some commenters recommended that diagnostic tests approved by the

OIE automatically be approved, under the regulations, for use on

animals being imported. The commenters also stated that, to ensure

openness and consistency, any other tests that would be accepted be

published in the rule. Tests approved by the OIE would generally meet

the scientific validity requirements for an equivalent approved test.

However, we consider it necessary for the APHIS Administrator to have

the flexibility to not use any test if evidence shows that it is not

valid, even though it might currently be included in the OIE list of

approved tests. Also, the Administrator must have the flexibility to

use new tests when deemed appropriate, even if they have not been added

to the approved list for OIE. Therefore, we have decided not to publish

in the regulations a list of tests approved for use on animals imported

or to be imported into the United States.

Several commenters recommended that the maximum time allowed for

imported animals to be moved to

[[Page 56007]]

slaughter be reduced from 2 weeks to as little as 48 hours. The policy

of allowing up to 2 weeks for movement to slaughter is not new to the

proposed rule. It exists in and has been followed under the existing

regulations. Although we are making no changes based on these comments

at this time, we will further examine the commenters' recommendation

and take whatever action we deem appropriate.

Several commenters questioned the need for import permits as a

requirement for importation. The commenters stated that such permits

serve no purpose. Some commenters stated that if import permits can be

withdrawn without notice or explanation, such practice would be

contrary to SPS Article 7. As we explained in the Supplementary

Information section of our proposed rule, the primary purpose of import

permits is to assure that there is space at a quarantine center for

imported animals that must be transported by air or sea to the United

States. Such import permits are necessary to avoid problems, both

economically and with regard to the humane treatment of animals, in

refusing entry to a shipload of animals that have arrived at a port

without prior notice and without a reservation for space.

One commenter asked for clarification of the term ``restricted use

and movement,'' as used in the Supplementary Information section of the

proposed rule when discussing risk mitigation measures. In general,

restricted use and movement is used primarily to reduce potential

losses should a disease agent be introduced. By restricting the

distribution of potentially infected animals, the number and

distribution of native animals that could be exposed is limited. An

example of how we have used, and continue to use, this mitigation

measure is in the importation of amimals from a country where a

particular disease exists, solely for residence at approved zoos where

their movement is restricted.

One commenter stated that opportunities for electronic

certification should be considered. We are not certain what the

commenter meant by ``electronic certification.'' We assume the

commenter was referring to electronic transmission of health

certificates. Although to date we have not received a request to accept

electronic health certification for imports into the United States, we

are receptive to suggestions we might receive from the public regarding

the use of such certification.

One commenter stated that the capacity and costs of quarantine

centers, particularly the Harry S Truman Animal Import Center (HSTAIC),

should not become a trade barrier. Importation though HSTAIC is a

method of allowing the importation of animals from certain high-risk

situations that would otherwise require total prohibition of the

importation. APHIS recommends that importers consider importing

breeding material through embryos or semen whenever possible, to avoid

the extra costs and potential delays that use of HSTAIC entails.

Some commenters stated that, depending on the commodity under

consideration, only the viremic state of a disease might be of concern,

with the incubatory and convalescent states representing negligible

risk. We agree that the situation described by the commenters is true

for some diseases, depending on the mode(s) of transmission. However,

we do not agree that an animal in the incubatory stage represents a

negligible risk. Because diagnosis at the incubatory stage is often

difficult, making a distinction among the stages when determining

disease risk will have little practical effect on establishing import

conditions.

In our proposed regulations we used the term herd. In the

``Definitions'' section to the regulations regarding ruminants and

swine, we included no period of time that animals would need to remain

together to be considered a herd. Some commenters stated that the

definition of ``herd'' should indicate that, to constitute a herd, the

animals must have been together for a specified minimum period of time.

We do not consider it advisable to make such a change. In certain

situations, how long the animals have been together is less important

than the origin of the animals in the group. For instance, if all

animals in the group have been assembled from herds certified free of a

disease under a disease eradication program, the length of time the

animals have been together is not significant.

Some commenters addressed the requirement in proposed

Secs. 93.415(d)(3) and (4) that ruminants from regions proposed to be

classified as Risk Class R3 or R4 for FMD undergo pre-embarkation

quarantine under APHIS supervision in a facility approved by the

Administrator. The commenters stated that this requirement shows an

unwarranted disregard for the scientific, ethical, and certifying

ability of the veterinary authorities in exporting countries. Although

this final rule does not categorize regions as Risk Class R3 or R4, and

does not require APHIS supervision of pre-embarkation quarantine, it

retains the requirement of the current regulations that ruminants and

swine imported from countries not considered free of FMD be quarantined

in a pre-embarkation quarantine facility approved by the Administrator.

Although we agree that, in many cases, reliance on the veterinary

authorities in an exporting country would provide adequate approval and

inspection of a facility, we consider it necessary for the

Administrator to have authority to ensure that in all cases the

facilities in question meet adequate standards.

Several commenters stated that APHIS should consider implementing

recommendations from the ``Border States Consensus Document.'' The

document referred to represents a consensus by U.S. States that share a

border with Mexico regarding recognition of efforts within Mexico to

eradicate Mycobacterium bovis (tuberculosis). The recommendations of

the consensus document, including recognition of certain States in

Mexico as being free of tuberculosis, can be accommodated by the

procedures for requesting recognition of regions set forth in this

rule.

A number of commenters addressed the issue of how camelids should

be addressed in the regulations. Some commenters recommended that they

be removed from the definition of ``ruminants.'' The commenters stated

that camelids are not true ruminants, that marked anatomic and

physiologic differences between camelids and ruminants exist in many

organ systems, and that llamas and alpacas appear to be resistant to

and unlikely to spread several important livestock diseases, including

FMD, M. bovis, and Brucella abortus. Other commenters expressed concern

regarding the potential disease risk posed by camelids.

``Webster's New International Dictionary'' defines Ruminantia as

follows: ``A division of even-toed hoofed animals including those that

chew the cud, as the oxen, sheep, goats, antelopes, deer, chevrotains,

and camels. They are divided into three groups; the Pectora or true

ruminants * * * the Tylopada, or camels and llama * * * and the

Chevrotains.'' We have many of the same disease concerns with camelids

as with other ruminants. However, we agree with the commenters that

there may be some practical disease risk differences between camelids

and cattle. Although we are making no changes to this final rule in

response to these comments, we are reviewing this issue and are

considering addressing it in future rulemaking.

[[Page 56008]]

Comments Addressing Regulations Governing the Importation of Meat and

Meat Products

A small number of commenters expressed concern that the import

conditions for meat products from certain of the proposed risk class

regions required that the backbone be removed from the carcass of the

animal, even though the meat grading standards of the Department's

Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) require foreign beef to have a

country-of-origin mark on the carcass 4 inches from the backbone.

Because we are not making final the import conditions based on risk

classifications, in a number of cases the provisions the commenters are

referring to are not set forth as general requirements. However, we

consider the requirement that a carcass be deboned an important one in

reducing the risk of FMD-transmission from meat, and expect to apply it

to future importations as appropriate. For example, in our June 26,

1997, final rule regarding the importation of fresh, chilled or frozen,

beef from Argentina, one of the requirements for importation of the

meat was that it be deboned. The AMS standards in 7 CFR 54.4 et seq.

state that grading is done only on carcasses and is voluntary. We

consider concerns regarding disease risk to take precedence over

grading standards for meat, which could be done on the carcass before

the meat is deboned.

One commenter stated that, in Sec. 94.15 of the proposal, regarding

cancellation of compliance agreements, the regulations indicated that

certain actions by APHIS will be taken ``as promptly as circumstances

allow.'' The commenter requested that the time allowed for action by

APHIS be specified. The provisions referred to by the commenter are set

forth in the current regulations. Based on our experience enforcing the

regulations, we consider the actions taken by APHIS to have been taken

in a timely manner and do not consider it necessary to revise the

provisions in question at this time.

In Secs. 94.1 (e) and (g) of the proposed regulations, we set forth

proposed requirements for the importation of fresh (chilled or frozen)

meat from ruminants and swine from regions classified as Risk Class R2

or R3 for FMD. Among the proposed import conditions was the requirement

that the meat reach a pH of 6.0 or less in the loin muscle. In the

Supplementary Information section of our proposed rule, we stated that

acidic or alkaline conditions readily kill the FMD virus. One commenter

took issue with this statement, stating that research has shown that

although a pH below 6.0 or above 11.5 will inactivate the FMD virus,

the virus resident in the micro-environment of animal tissue--such as

lymphatic tissue, bone marrow, or coagulated blood--is resistant to

inactivation over a practical pH range.

The proposed requirements referenced by the commenter are not

included in this final rule because they were import conditions

particular to two risk categories that we are not including in this

rule. However, maturation of meat to an appropriate pH level is a

proven method of killing the FMD virus, and is one of the conditions we

set forth in our June 26, 1997, final rule for the importation of fresh

(chilled or frozen) meat from Argentina. In the Supplementary

Information section of that final rule, we stated that although we

agreed with the commenter, the regulations as proposed already

addressed the concerns raised. We stated that we assumed that by

``micro-environment'' the commenter was referring to those areas of the

meat in the carcass that are in the immediate area of the bones,

lymphatic tissue, or coagulated blood, and noted that one of the

proposed conditions for importing fresh (chilled or frozen) meat from

Argentina was that all bone, blood clots, and lymphoid tissue be

removed from the meat. However, in that final rule, based on the

comment and the literature available to us, we amended the regulations

as proposed to require that a pH level of 5.8 or less be reached before

the meat may be imported.

The proposed importation requirements for cured or cooked meat from

regions classified as Risk Class R3, R4, or RU for certain diseases

included the requirement that the meat be deboned. This requirement for

deboning is also included in the current regulations. Some commenters,

addressing the proposal, stated that deboning should not be required

for cured or cooked meat because such treatment already reduces the

disease risk from the meat to an acceptable level. We do not agree with

the commenters that removal of bones is not necessary in meat that is

otherwise cured or cooked in accordance with the regulations. The

presence of the bone in the meat makes it difficult to determine

whether the bone has been treated throughout to the extent necessary to

destroy the restricted disease agent. For example, in the case of FMD,

unless some way is developed to determine the temperature level within

the bone, there is no way of determining whether the entire piece of

meat, including the bone, has been heated to the temperature necessary

to kill the FMD virus.

Comments Regarding Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy

Some commenters took issue with our statement in the Supplementary

Information section of our proposal that bovine spongiform

encephalopathy (BSE) ``is thought to have been introduced into cattle

from scrapie-infected sheep brains that were included in rendered

protein meal added to cattle feed.'' The commenters stated that the

original source of BSE is unknown, and that it would be more accurate

to say that the BSE epidemic seems to be the result of a single source

infection resulting from BSE-infected meat and bone meal. The statement

we included in our proposed rule was based on the information available

to us at the time the proposal was developed. At this time, we agree

with the commenters as to the limits of what can be concluded regarding

the origins of BSE.

One commenter questioned the rationale for allowing the importation

of embryos from BSE-affected regions, while, according to the

commenter, the OIE takes a cautious approach. The commenter apparently

misread the proposed regulations. Embryos from countries affected with

BSE are currently not permitted importation into the United States, and

the proposed regulations did not include provisions allowing the

importation of such embryos.

Several commenters stated that because transmissible encephalopathy

occurs in cervidae in the United States, a ban on the feeding of

ruminant protein should be in force in the United States. Other

commenters stated that such a ban would eliminate the possibility that

an infected animal, even if imported, could transmit the disease to

another. Although APHIS does not have the authority to ban the feeding

of ruminant protein, it should be noted that in a final rule published

on June 5, 1997 (62 FR 30936-30978, Docket No. 96N-0135), the United

States Department of Health and Human Service, Food and Drug

Administration, established regulations controlling the use of animal

protein derived from mammalian tissue in ruminant feed.

Proposed Provisions Not Being Made Final

A large number of the issues raised by commenters regarding our

proposed rule addressed provisions of the proposed rule that are not

included in either the current regulations or in this final rule.

Therefore, pending future requests for regionalization, many of the

concerns raised regarding the proposed

[[Page 56009]]

rule are no longer relevant. These include concerns raised by

commenters regarding the following: Differences between the current

regulations and the proposed rule regarding import requirements for

animals and animal products, including the concern that the proposed

regulations would, in some cases, be more restrictive than the current

regulations; the relationship between the ``qualitative'' and

``quantitative'' options for assessing risk under the proposed rule;

criteria for assigning regions to particular risk classifications;

whether the quantitative risk assessment option could be scientifically

supported; differences between the proposed import requirements and the

standards of the OIE Code; differences between the proposed import

requirements and requirements governing U.S. interstate movement;

classification as ``restricted disease agents'' of agents not included

on the OIE ``A'' or ``B'' list of diseases; concerns that the proposed

import requirements would not allow consideration of ``equivalency''

with an importing region's mitigation measures; that criteria for

border controls of regions were too rigid; importation requirements

relating to specific disease agents, including ectoparasites; whether

the proposed import requirements would preempt State requirements; that

certain terms used in the proposed rule were unclear and required

definitions; that the proposed restricted disease agents did not seem

to be treated differently based on potential impact; and the risk

classification of certain countries.

Similarly, commenters made several requests that are no longer

relevant. These include: That the regulations clarify which animals

would be considered in determining the risk classification of a region;

that embryos from ``high-risk'' areas be considered ``low-risk'' if

treated in accordance with internationally recognized treatment

standards; that the practice of vaccination not necessarily affect a

region's risk classification; that the United States evaluate its own

status and programs with regard to the requirements of the proposal;

and that APHIS publish risk analysis documentation to support the

prohibition of meat, embryos, and semen from certain risk class

categories.

Other Proposed Changes to the Regulations Being Made Final

We proposed to make a number of changes to the regulations that

were not directly related to the concepts of regionalization or risk

assessment. In all cases but one, we received no comments regarding

these proposed changes. We discuss below the amendments we proposed,

any comments we received, and actions we are taking on the proposed

changes in this final rule.

We proposed to consider the entire country of Canada as presenting

a slight risk for the introduction of Brucella abortus and as a

negligible risk for B. melitensis. Under the proposed import conditions

for such a risk classification, no testing for these diseases would be

required for cattle from Canada from provinces free of brucellosis. We

continue to consider it warranted to allow cattle from Canada from

brucellosis certified-free provinces or herds to enter the United

States without brucellosis testing, and are amending Sec. 92.418 of the

current regulations to provide that such testing is not necessary.

We are adding to Sec. 94.0, ``Definitions,'' the definitions we

proposed for Cervid, Contact, Pink juice test, Region, Ruminants, and

Veterinarian in charge.

Current Sec. 94.7 includes provisions for the disposal of animals,

meats, and other articles ineligible for importation under the

regulations regarding rinderpest and FMD in current Sec. 94.1. We

proposed to expand the disposal regulations so that they refer to

African swine fever, hog cholera, swine vesicular disease, and BSE, as

well as to rinderpest and FMD. In this rule, we are making final those

expanded provisions.

We are making final at Sec. 94.12(b)(1)(iii)(B) of the regulations

the provision we proposed that pork or pork products consigned from the

port of arrival to an approved establishment must be moved under

Customs or USDA seal, and must be otherwise handled as the

Administrator may direct in order to guard against the introduction and

dissemination of swine vesicular disease. The required seals may not be

broken except by persons authorized by the Administrator to do so.

We proposed under Sec. 94.9 to allow the limited transiting of meat

and other animal products not otherwise eligible for entry into the

United States, to allow for offloading from one means of conveyance at

the port of arrival onto a second means of conveyance scheduled for

immediate departure from the United States. One of the conditions for

such limited movement was that the meat or other animal product not be

stored for more than 24 hours at the maritime or airport port of

arrival. Commenters requested that the allowable time for holding or

storage be extended to 48 hours, to allow for cargo movement logistical

problems. We agree with the commenters that a longer period of time at

the port is sometimes necessary to make connections between ships. As

long as the meat and other animal products are securely contained

aboard the carrier or while being offloaded, and as long as their

overland movement in the United States is confined to that port of

arrival, we believe it is warranted to allow the meat or other animal

products to be held at the port up to 72 hours. We are adding

provisions for such limited transit at Sec. 94.15(d) of this final

rule.

We are making final the change we proposed to Sec. 94.16(b)(2) of

the current regulations to remove the requirement that certain dry milk

and dry milk products intended for importation be processed for human

food. The provisions that require that dry milk or dry milk products

intended for importation from countries in which rinderpest or FMD

exists be processed for human food also require that the dry milk or

dry milk products be processed in a manner approved by the

Administrator as adequate to prevent the introduction or dissemination

of livestock diseases into the United States. Dry milk or dry milk

products that are processed in a manner adequate to prevent disease can

be safely processed for uses other than human food.

We are making final at Sec. 96.10 our proposed removal of

references to specific cities in which casings that arrive in the

United States without certification may be disinfected, and are

providing that such casings may be forwarded to a USDA-approved

facility for disinfection. We are making this change because the

facilities in the cities specified are no longer in operation.

Currently, all casings entering the United States under 9 CFR part 96

are entering in accordance with Sec. 96.4, which allows the casings to

be entered if the casings are accompanied by certification that they

were derived from healthy animals that were inspected ante- and post-

mortem. In the event of an intended importation of casings that would

need to be disinfected in the United States, such disinfection could be

done at any facility approved by APHIS.

As proposed, we are removing current Secs. 96.15 and 96.16, because

they specify administrative procedures that have been discontinued for

a number of years.

Clarification of Final Rule Regarding the Importation of Pork from

Sonora

As noted above, on May 9, 1997, we published in the Federal

Register a final rule to allow the importation of fresh (chilled or

frozen) pork from the State

[[Page 56010]]

of Sonora, Mexico. The provisions allowing this importation were added

at a new Sec. 94.20. At Sec. 94.20(a), we specified that the pork must

be meat from swine that have been raised and slaughtered in Sonora. It

was also our intent that the swine from which the meat comes have been

born in Sonora. In this final rule, we are amending Sec. 94.20(a) to

clarify this intent.

Clarification of Terminology

In current part 94, we refer in a number of cases to meat that is

``fresh, chilled, or frozen.'' The intent of this phrase is to refer to

fresh meat that is either chilled or frozen. We are making

nonsubstantive punctuation changes in part 94 to clarify this intent by

using the wording: ``fresh (chilled or frozen).''

Regulatory Reform

This action is part of the President's Regulatory Reform

Initiative, which, among other things, directs agencies to remove

obsolete and unnecessary regulations and to find less burdensome ways

to achieve regulatory goals.

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. The rule

has been determined to be significant for purposes of Executive Order

12866 and, therefore, has been reviewed by the Office of Management and

Budget.

In this rule, we are establishing procedures for recognizing

regions, rather than only countries, for the purpose of the importation

of animals and animal products into the United States. We are also

establishing procedures by which regions may request permission to

export animals and animal products to the United States under specified

conditions, based on the regions' disease status. These changes to the

regulations are in accordance with international trade agreements

entered into by the United States. We are also allowing, under certain

conditions, the unloading and reloading at the port of arrival of meat

and other animal products otherwise prohibited entry into the United

States. Additionally, we are removing the requirement that cattle from

brucellosis certified-free herds, provinces, and territories in Canada

be tested for brucellosis before being imported into the United States,

and are making several minor changes in our requirements for importing

animals and animal products that will relieve or clarify some import

restrictions while continuing to protect U.S. livestock and poultry

from foreign animal diseases.

Regionalization

The fundamental purpose of the changes we are making to the

regulations with respect to regionalization--primarily changing the

word ``country'' to ``region'' and setting out the procedures that a

region must follow to be recognized as a region--is to establish a

framework for a regional approach to the importation of animals and

animal products and, thereby, fulfill U.S. commitments under

international trade agreements. In developing this rule and the policy

statement published elsewhere in this same issue of the Federal

Register, we have explicitly recognized that there are identifiable and

measurable gradations of risk presented by animals and animal products

and that these gradations are often tied more to factors such as

geography, ecosystems, epidemiological surveillance, and the

effectiveness of disease control programs than to national political

boundaries. Accordingly, we have adopted an approach that assesses risk

along a continuum and responds to the risks presented from an

importation on a case-by-case basis.

Because this framework will not be fully implemented until we

receive a new request to allow the importation of animals or animal

products into the United States, and because we do not know the number

or sources of requests we will receive in the future, we cannot

estimate the economic impact of this rule as stipulated in E.O. 12866.

We are therefore committed to performing a risk assessment and cost-

benefit analysis on a case-by-case basis for each request we receive in

the near future.

Removal of Requirement for Brucellosis Testing of Cattle From

Canada

We are making final a provision to allow cattle from certified

brucellosis-free herds, provinces, or territories in Canada to enter

the United States without brucellosis testing.

All domestic herds in Canada are free of brucellosis, and therefore

no brucellosis testing would be required for any cattle imported to the

United States. Expected cost savings can be estimated using the number

of breeding cattle imported from Canada in Fiscal Year 1996: 29,340

head. Assuming a laboratory cost of $3 to $4 per test (based on USDA

National Veterinary Services Laboratories user fees), Canadian

operations exporting breeding cattle to the United States may save a

total of between $88,020 and $117,360. (Other costs associated with

assembling of the cattle at the time of testing will remain, since

physical inspections will still take place.)

The cost savings are very small compared to the average value of

the cattle. In 1996, the average price per animal of cattle imported

from Canada that weighed 200-320 kg was $332. (Based on the way the

price data is made available, this price includes the value of both

slaughter and non-slaughter animals. Under the current regulations,

cattle intended for immediate slaughter are not required to be

tested.). The average price of nonslaughter cattle (not including

purebreds) weighing more than 320 kg was $1,152. Thus, the savings

represent no more than 1 cent of every dollar of the smaller animals'

average cost, and about 3 cents of every 10 dollars of the larger

animals' average cost. The average price of purebred cattle imported

from Canada in 1996 was $810, of which the cost savings represents less

than 5 cents of every 10 dollars. The fraction of this savings, if any,

that may be realized by U.S. livestock buyers, would be smaller still.

The economic impact for U.S. entities will be negligible.

Transiting of Certain Animal Products

This rule allows the unloading and reloading at the port of arrival

of meat and other animal products otherwise prohibited entry into the

United States. Under certain conditions, such products may be unloaded

from a means of conveyance and be held at a port for up to 72 hours

before reshipment from the same port by a second means of conveyance.

U.S. imports would not be affected by this rule change.

Consequently, the only U.S. entities for which there could be impacts

would be ones taking part in the marine or air transshipments, by

providing shipping or temporary storage of the transshipped products.

As an example, under this rule, meat from Europe prohibited by the

United States but eligible for entry to particular Caribbean or South

American countries, could be transshipped at U.S. ports. This could

result in cost savings for shipping companies, depending on shipping

logistics, as well as additional business for the ports providing

transshipment services.

According to available information, in 1994 there were 129 U.S.

firms in the SIC category ``Deep Sea Foreign Transportation of

Freight.'' Nearly 90 percent (115 firms) were small entities by the

Small Business Administration's definition of fewer than 500 employees.

There were also 577 U.S. firms in 1994 in the category, ``Marine Cargo

Handling.'' For this industry, designation as a small entity is

[[Page 56011]]

determined by annual receipts of less than $18.5 million. An estimated

80 to 90 percent of U.S. firms handling marine cargo are small

entities.

With respect to firms that could be involved in air transshipments,

in 1994 there were 520 U.S. firms classified under ``Scheduled Air

Transportation'' and 1,475 U.S. firms classified under ``Nonscheduled

Air Transportation''. Of these firms, 86 percent and 95 percent,

respectively, had less than 500 employees. For both SIC categories, the

Small Business Administration's definition of a small entity is one

with fewer than 1,500 employees. There were also 2,864 U.S. firms in

1994 comprising the category, ``Airports, Flying Fields, and Airport

Terminal Services.'' An estimated 85 percent of these firms are small

entities, as determined by annual receipts of less than $5 million.

If U.S. shipping and cargo handling firms were to be affected by

this regulation, it is likely that at least some of them would be small

entities. However, because the transshipment that would be allowed by

this rule change currently does not take place, there is no record upon

which to base an estimation of impacts. Commodities and volumes that

would be transshipped are not known, let alone the number of U.S. firms

(as opposed to foreign firms) that would be affected or the amount by

which they might benefit through lower shipping costs or additional

temporary storage consignments.

Total estimated receipts of U.S. firms in these industries in 1994

were as follows: ``Deep Sea Foreign Transportation of Freight,'' $8.7

billion; ``Marine Cargo Handling,'' $6.2 billion; ``Scheduled and

Nonscheduled Air Transportation,'' $121.5 billion; and ``Airports,

Flying Fields, and Airport Terminal Services, $7.6 billion.'' Possible

benefits from transshipments at U.S. ports as allowed by this rule

change would likely be very slight compared to industry incomes.

Disposal of Animals

We are expanding the regulations regarding the disposal of animals,

meats, and other articles ineligible for importation to refer to such

products affected by African swine fever, swine vesicular disease, hog

cholera, and BSE, as well as those products affected by rinderpest and

FMD.

This change is expected to have no economic impact. In practice,

disposal provisions for animals and meat having African swine fever,

hog cholera, swine vesicular disease, or BSE are already the same as

for rinderpest or FMD. Specification of these diseases will simply

clarify existing provisions.

Movement of Pork and Pork Products

We are revising the current import regulations regarding the

movement of certain pork and pork products from a port of arrival to an

approved U.S. establishment for treatment because of swine vesicular

disease, to require that such movement be done under Customs or USDA

seal. This change is a clarification to make the regulations in

question consistent with similar import requirements with regard to

treatment for other diseases. We expect no economic impact from this

change, because, currently, there are no such approved establishments

in the United States.

Dry Milk Products

We are removing the requirement that certain dry milk products

intended for importation be processed for human food. The provisions in

current Sec. 94.16(b)(2) that require that dry milk products intended

for importation from countries in which rinderpest or FMD exists be

processed for human food, also require that the dry milk products be

processed in a manner approved by the Administrator as adequate to

prevent the introduction or dissemination of livestock diseases into

the United States. Dry milk products that are processed in a manner

adequate to prevent disease can be safely processed for uses other than

human food. We expect no increase or decrease in the amount of imported

dry milk or dry milk products due to this change, and expect no change

in the manner in which such products are processed.

Casings

We are removing the requirement that casings imported without

certification under Sec. 96.4 be moved to specific cities for

disinfection. We expect no economic impact from this change. At

present, there are no facilities in any U.S. cities where disinfection

of casings is performed, and all casings entering the United States

under 9 CFR part 96 are entering in accordance with the certification

requirements of Sec. 96.4, which allows the casings to be entered if

the casings are accompanied by certification that they were derived

from healthy animals that were inspected ante-and post-mortem. In the

event of an intended importation of casings that would need to be

disinfected in the United States, such disinfection could be done at

any facility approved by APHIS.

Executive Order 12988

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil

Justice Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts all State and local laws that

are inconsistent with this rule; (2) has no retroactive effect; and (3)

does not require administrative proceedings before parties may file

suit in court challenging this rule.

National Environmental Policy Act

An environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact

have been prepared for this rule. The assessment provides a basis for

the conclusion that the actions required or authorized by this rule

will not present a significant risk of introducing or disseminating

animal disease agents into the United States and will not have a

significant impact on the quality of the human environment. Based on

the finding of no significant impact, the Administrator of the Animal

and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that an

environmental impact statement need not be prepared.

The environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact

were prepared in accordance with: (1) The National Environmental Policy

Act of 1969 (NEPA) (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).

Copies of the environmental assessment and finding of no

significant impact are available for public inspection at USDA, room

1141, South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW,

Washington, DC, between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except holidays. Persons wishing to inspect copies are requested to

call ahead on (202) 690-2817 to facilitate entry into the reading room.

In addition, copies may be obtained by writing to the individual listed

under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection burden expected to be imposed by 9 CFR

parts 92, 93, and 98 of this rule is 1,809 burden hours for animal

importations, which is 176,875 burden hours less than the proposed

rule. Although this final rule provides a mechanism for

regionalization, it does not assign individual regions to specific risk

categories, as did the proposed rule. Because the provisions of the

current regulations will continue to be followed

[[Page 56012]]

until we receive requests for regionalization, the burden expected is

much less than what was expected under the proposed rule. In accordance

with section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq.), the information collection requirements of this final

rule have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB). When OMB notifies us of its decision, we will publish a

document in the Federal Register providing notice of the assigned OMB

control number for parts 92, 93, and 98, or, if approval is denied,

providing notice of what action we plan to take.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, the information

collection or recordkeeping requirements included in this rule under 9

CFR parts 94, 95, and 96 have been approved by the Office of Management

and Budget (OMB). The assigned OMB control number is 0579-0015.

This rule contains no new information collection or recordkeeping

requirements under 9 CFR parts 97 and 130.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public

Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the

effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, tribal

governments, and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,

APHIS generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-

benefit analysis, for proposed and final rule with ``Federal mandates''

that may result in expenditures by State, local, or tribal governments,

in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in

any one year. When such a statement is needed for a rule, section 205

of the UMRA generally requires APHIS to identify and consider a

reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least

costly, more cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that

achieves the objectives of the rule.

This rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory

provisions of Title II of the UMRA) that may result in expenditures by

State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the

private sector, or $100 million or more in any one year. Thus, this

rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the

UMRA.

List of Subjects

9 CFR Part 92

Animal diseases, Imports, Livestock, Poultry and poultry products,

Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

9 CFR Part 93

Animal diseases, Imports, 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 95

Animal feeds, Hay, Imports, Livestock, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Straw, Transportation.

9 CFR Part 96

Imports, Livestock, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

9 CFR Part 97

Exports, Government employees, Imports, Livestock, Poultry and

poultry products, Travel and transportation expenses.

9 CFR Part 98

Animal diseases, Imports.

9 CFR Part 130

Animals, Birds, Diagnostic reagents, Exports, Imports, Poultry,

Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Tests.

Accordingly, under the authority provided in 5 U.S.C. 5542; 7

U.S.C. 147a, 150ee, 161, 162, 450, 1622, 2260; 19 U.S.C. 1306; 21

U.S.C. 102-105, 111, 114, 114a, 134a, 134b, 134c, 134d, 134f, 135, 136,

136a; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 42 U.S.C. 4331, 4332; 49 U.S.C. 1741; 7 CFR 2.22,

2.80, and 371.2(d), we are amending 9 CFR, chapter I, subchapter D, as

follows:

PART 93--[AMENDED]

Secs. 93.1-93.8 [Redesignated as Secs. 93.800-93.807]

1. Part 93 is amended by redesignating Secs. 93.1 through 93.8 as

Secs. 93.800 through 93.807, and designating these sections as Subpart

H--Elephants, Hippopotami, Rhinoceroses, and Tapirs.

PART 92--[REDESIGNATED AS PART 93]

2. In Part 92, subparts A through G (Secs. 92.100 through 92.707)

are redesignated as part 93, subparts A through G, and part 92 is

vacated.

3. A new part 92 is added to read as follows:

PART 92-- IMPORTATION OF ANIMALS AND ANIMAL PRODUCTS: PROCEDURES

FOR REQUESTING RECOGNITION OF REGIONS

Sec.

92.1 Definitions.

92.2 Application for recognition of the animal health status of a

region.

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1622; 19 U.S.C. 1306; 21 U.S.C. 102-105,

111, 114a, 134a, 134b, 134c, 134d, 134f, 135, 136, and 136a; 31

U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.2(d).

Sec. 92.1 Definitions.

Active surveillance. Sample collection using a systematic or

statistically designed survey methodology to actively seek out and find

cases of animals with a restricted disease agent, or to determine the

prevalence of the restricted disease agent in the population.

Adjacent region. Any geographic land area, whether or not

identifiable by geological, political or surveyed boundaries, that

shares common boundaries with any region.

Administrator. The Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service or any other employee of the Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service, United States Department of Agriculture, delegated

to act in the Administrator's stead.

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). The Animal and

Plant Health Inspection Service of the United States Department of

Agriculture.

Animals. All species of the animal kingdom, except man, including:

Cattle, sheep, goats, other ruminants, swine, horses, asses, mules,

zebras, dogs, poultry, and birds that are susceptible to communicable

diseases of livestock and poultry or capable of being carriers of those

diseases or their arthropod vectors.

Communicable disease. Any contagious or infectious disease of

animals. It can be transmitted either directly or indirectly to a

susceptible animal from an infected animal, vector, inanimate source,

or other sources.

Contagious disease. Any communicable disease transmitted from one

animal to another by direct contact or by feed, water, aerosol, or

contaminated objects.

Disease agent. A virus, bacterium, or other organism that causes

disease in animals.

Import (imported, importation) into the United States. To bring

into the territorial limits of the United States.

Passive surveillance. A surveillance system that does not depend on

active

[[Page 56013]]

participation by the responsible agency to seek out and monitor a

restricted disease agent. The system relies on mandatory reporting, a

pool of trained investigators, diagnostic submission procedures and

laboratory support, and periodic public information and continuing

education programs on diseases.

Prevalence. The number of cases of a disease in existence at a

given time in a designated area.

Region. Any defined geographic land region identifiable by

geological, political or surveyed boundaries. A region may consist of

any of the following:

(1) A national entity (country);

(2) Part of a national entity ( zone, county, department,

municipality, parish, Province, State, etc.);

(3) Parts of several national entities combined into an area; or

(4) A group of national entities (countries) combined into a single

area.

Restricted disease agent. Any communicable disease agent or its

vector not known to exist in the United States or that is subject to a

Federal or cooperative Federal/State control or eradication program

within the United States.

Surveillance. Systems to find, monitor, and confirm the existence

or absence of a restricted disease agent or agents in livestock,

poultry and other animals. Surveillance may be passive or active.

United States. All of the States of the United States, the District

of Columbia, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, the

Virgin Islands of the United States, and all other territories and

possessions of the United States.

Vector-borne disease. A disease transmitted to an animal through an

intermediate arthropod vector, including ticks or insects.

Sec. 92.2 Application for recognition of the animal health status of a

region.

(a)(1) The representative of the national government(s) of any

country or countries who has the authority to request such a change may

request at any time that all or part of the country or countries be

recognized as a region, be included within an adjacent previously

recognized region, or be made part of a region larger than an

individual country. Requests for recognition of a region must be sent

to the Administrator, in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section.

(b) Each request for approval to export a particular type of animal

or animal product to the United States from a foreign region must be

made to the Administrator, in accordance with paragraph (c) of this

section, and must include, in English, the following information about

the region:

(1) The authority, organization, and infrastructure of the

veterinary services organization in the region.

(2) Disease status--i.e., is the restricted disease agent known to

exist in the region? If ``yes,'' at what prevalence? If ``no,'' when

was the most recent diagnosis?

(3) The status of adjacent regions with respect to the agent.

(4) The extent of an active disease control program, if any, if the

agent is known to exist in the region.

(5) The vaccination status of the region. When was the last

vaccination? What is the extent of vaccination if it is currently used,

and what vaccine is being used?

(6) The degree to which the region is separated from adjacent

regions of higher risk through physical or other barriers.

(7) The extent to which movement of animals and animal products is

controlled from regions of higher risk, and the level of biosecurity

regarding such movements.

(8) Livestock demographics and marketing practices in the region.

(9) The type and extent of disease surveillance in the region--

e.g., is it passive and/or active; what is the quantity and quality of

sampling and testing?

(10) Diagnostic laboratory capabilities.

(11) Policies and infrastructure for animal disease control in the

region--i.e., emergency response capacity.

(c) Requests for recognition of a region or for approval to export

animals or animal products to the United States from a region,

including the information required by this section, must be sent to the

Administrator, c/o National Center for Import and Export, VS, APHIS,

4700 River Road Unit 38, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231. (Where possible,

include a copy of the request and accompanying information on a 3.5-

inch floppy disk in ASCII or a word processing format.)

(d) The information submitted in accordance with paragraph (b) of

this section will be made available to the public prior to initiation

by APHIS of any rulemaking action on the request.

(e) If, after review of the information submitted, APHIS believes

the requested importation can be safely allowed, APHIS will publish a

proposed rule in the Federal Register to allow the importation, and the

conditions under which the importation would be allowed, along with a

discussion of the basis for the proposal.

(f) APHIS will provide a period of time during which the public may

comment on the proposal. During the comment period, the public will

have access to the information upon which APHIS based its analysis of

the risk of such importation, as well as to its methodology in

conducting the analysis. Once APHIS has reviewed all comments received,

it will make a final decision on what conditions will be necessary to

allow the importation in question, and will publish the conditions for

import in the Federal Register.

4. The heading of part 93 is revised to read as follows:

PART 93--IMPORTATION OF CERTAIN ANIMALS, BIRDS, AND POULTRY, AND

CERTAIN ANIMAL, BIRD, AND POULTRY PRODUCTS; REQUIREMENTS FOR MEANS

OF CONVEYANCE AND SHIPPING CONTAINERS

5. The authority citation for part 93 is revised to read as

follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1622; 19 U.S.C. 1306; 21 U.S.C. 102-105,

111, 114a, 134a, 134b, 134c, 134d, 134f, 135, 136, and 136a; 31

U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.2(d).

Subpart A--Birds

6. Newly designated Sec. 93.100 is amended by revising the

definition of Licensed veterinarian and adding a definition of Region,

in alphabetical order, to read as follows:

Sec. 93.100 Definitions.

* * * * *

Licensed veterinarian. Any person licensed by any region or

political subdivision thereof to practice veterinary medicine.

* * * * *

Region. Any defined geographic land area identifiable by

geological, political, or surveyed boundaries. A region may consist of

any of the following:

(1) A national entity (country);

(2) Part of a national entity (zone, county, department,

municipality, parish, Province, State, etc.);

(3) Parts of several national entities combined into an area; or

(4) A group of national entities (countries) combined into a single

area.

* * * * *

Sec. 93.101 [Amended]

7. Newly designated Sec. 93.101 is amended as follows:

a. In paragraph (a), footnote 1 is amended by removing the word

``countries'' and adding in its place the word ``regions''.

b. By removing the word ``country'' each time it appears and

adding in its place each time the word ``region'' in the following

places:

i. Paragraph (b)(3)(iii).

[[Page 56014]]

ii. Paragraph (b)(3)(v).

iii. Paragraph (b)(3)(vi).

iv. Paragraph (b)(3)(vii).

v. Paragraph (b)(3)(viii).

vi. Paragraph (b)(3)(ix).

vii. Paragraph (b)(3)(x).

viii. Paragraph (b)(3)(xi).

ix. Paragraph (c)(2)(i).

x. Paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(A).

xi. Paragraph (c)(3)(i).

xii. Paragraph (d), introductory text.

c. In paragraph (b)(1), by removing the reference to

``Secs. 92.205, 92.214, and 92.216'' and adding in its place a

reference to ``Secs. 93.205, 93.214, and 93.216''.

d. In paragraph (b)(3), introductory text, by removing the

reference to ``Sec. 92.107'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.107''.

e. In paragraph (b)(3)(ii), by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.103(a)(2)(iv)'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.103(a)(2)(iv)''.

f. In paragraph (b)(3)(ix), by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.103(a)(2)(iv)'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.103(a)(2)(iv)''.

g. In paragraph (b)(3)(x), by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.104(a)'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.104(a)''.

h. In paragraph (b)(3)(xi), by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.104(a)'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.104(a)''.

i. In paragraph (c)(1), by removing the reference to

``Secs. 92.102 or 92.203'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Secs. 93.103 or 93.203'', and by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.105'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.105''.

j. In paragraph (c)(2)(i), by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.101(c)(1)'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.101(c)(1)''.

k. In paragraph (c)(3), the introductory text, by removing the

reference to ``Sec. 92.102(a)'' and adding in its place a reference

to ``Sec. 93.102(a)''.

l. In paragraph (c)(3)(ii), by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.103(a)(3)'' each time it appears and adding in its place

each time a reference to ``Sec. 93.103(a)(3)'', and by removing the

reference to ``Sec. 92.102(a)'' each time it appears and adding in

its place each time a reference to ``93.102(a)''.

m. In paragraph (c)(3)(iv), by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.106(a)'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.106(a)''.

n. In paragraph (c)(3)(v), by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.210'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.210''.

o. In paragraph (d), the introductory text, by removing the

reference to ``Sec. 92.103'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.103''.

p. In paragraph (d)(1)(ii), by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.103(c)'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.103(c)''.

q. In paragraph (e), by removing the reference to

``Secs. 92.102(a), 92.103, 92.104, 92.105(a), and 92.106(a)'' and

adding in its place a reference to ``Secs. 93.102(a), 93.103,

93.104, 93.105(a), and 93.106(a)''.

r. In paragraph (f), by removing the reference to ``Sec. 92.102

or 92.203'' and adding in its place a reference to ``Sec. 93.102 or

93.203'', and by removing the reference to ``Sec. 92.103'' and

adding in its place a reference to ``Sec. 93.103''.

Sec. 93.102 [Amended]

8. Newly designated Sec. 93.102 is amended as follows:

a. In paragraph (a), by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.101(c)'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.101(c)'', and by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.101(f)'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.101(f)''.

b. In paragraph (c), by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.105'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.105''.

c. In paragraph (d), by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.101(c)(1) or (2)'' each time it appears and adding in its

place a reference to ``Sec. 93.101(c)(1) or (2)'', and by removing

the reference to ``Sec. 92.101(f)'' and adding in its place a

reference to ``Sec. 93.101(f)'.

Sec. 93.103 [Amended]

9. Newly designated Sec. 93.103 is amended as follows:

a. By removing the word ``country'' each time it appears and

adding in its place the word ``region'' in the following places:

i. Paragraph (a)(1)(vi).

ii. Paragraph (a)(1)(viii).

iii. Paragraph (a)(2)(ii), introductory text.

iv. Paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(B).

v. Paragraph (a)(2)(v).

vi. Paragraph (b), second sentence.

vii. Paragraph (c)(1)(ii).

viii. Paragraph (c)(1)(iv).

ix. Paragraph (c)(2)(ii).

x. Paragraph (c)(2)(iv).

b. In paragraph (a)(1), by removing the reference to

``Secs. 92.101 (b) and (c), 92.103(c), and 92.107(b)'' and adding in

its place a reference to ``Secs. 93.101(b) and (c), 93.103(c), and

93.107(b)''.

c. In paragraph (a)(1)(x), by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.106(c)(5)'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.106(c)(5)''.

d. In paragraph (a)(1)(xii), by removing the reference to

``Secs. 92.100 through 92.107'' and adding in its place a reference

to ``Secs. 93.100 through 93.107''.

e. In paragraph (a)(1)(xiii), by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.107'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.107''.

f. In paragraph (a)(2)(i), by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.106(c)'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.106(c)''.

g. In paragraph (a)(2)(iii), by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.107'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.107''.

h. In paragraph (a)(2)(iv), by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.107'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.107''.

i. In paragraph (a)(2)(v), by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.101(b)(3)'' each time it appears and adding in its place a

reference to ``Sec. 93.101(b)(3)''.

Sec. 93.104 [Amended]

10. Newly designated Sec. 93.104 is amended as follows:

a. In paragraph (a), by removing the word ``country'' each time

it appears and adding in its place the word ``region''.

b. In paragraph (a), by removing the reference to ``Sec. 92.101

(b) and (c)'' and adding in its place a reference to ``Sec. 93.101

(b) and (c)''.

c. In paragraph (c)(2), by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.107'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.107''.

d. In paragraph (c)(8), by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.107'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.107''.

e. In paragraph (c)(13), by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.101(b)(3)(ix)'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.101(b)(3)(ix)''.

f. In paragraph (c)(14), by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.101(b)(3)'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.101(b)(3)''.

g. In paragraph (c)(15), by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.107'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.107''.

h. In paragraph (d)(2), by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.107'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.107''.

i. In paragraph (d)(9), by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.101(b)(3)(ix)'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.101(b)(3)(ix)''.

j. In paragraph (d)(10), by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.101(b)(3)'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.101(b)(3)''.

k. In paragraph (d)(11), by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.107'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.107''.

Sec. 93.105 [Amended]

11. Newly designated Sec. 93.105 is amended as follows:

a. In paragraph (a), by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.107(c)'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.107(c)''.

b. In paragraph (b), by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.101(c)(2)'' each time it appears and adding in its place a

reference to ``Sec. 93.101(c)(2)''; by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.102(a)'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.102(a)''; and by removing the reference to ``Sec. 92.102

and 92.203'' and adding in its place a reference to ``Secs. 93.102

and 93.203''.

c. In paragraph (c), by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.107(b)'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.107(b)''.

Sec. 93.106 [Amended]

12. Newly designated Sec. 93.106 is amended as follows:

a. In paragraph (c)(5)(iii), the Cooperative and Trust Fund

Agreement, the second paragraph, which begins with ``Whereas, the

Importer'', by removing the word ``countries'' and adding in its

place the word ``regions''.

b. In paragraph (c)(5)(iii), the Cooperative and Trust Fund

Agreement, paragraph (B)(5), by removing the word ``country'' and

adding in its place the word ``region''.

c. In paragraph (a), by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.101(c)'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.101(c)'', and by removing the reference to ``Sec. 92.103''

and adding in its place a reference to ``Sec. 93.103''.

d. In paragraph (b)(1), by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.107'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.107'', and by removing the reference to ``Sec. 92.103''

and adding in its place a reference to ``Sec. 93.103''.

e. In paragraph (b)(2), by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.107'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.107''.

f. In paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(L), by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.103'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.103''.

g. In paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(M), by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.103'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.103''.

[[Page 56015]]

h. In paragraph (c)(5)(iii), the Cooperative and Trust Fund

Agreement, paragraph (A)(4), by removing the reference to ``part

92'' and adding in its place a reference to ``part 93'' each time it

appears.

i. In paragraph (c)(5)(iii), the Cooperative and Trust Fund

Agreement, paragraph (A)(5), by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.106(c)'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.106(c)''.

j. In paragraph (c)(5)(iii), the Cooperative and Trust Fund

Agreement, paragraph (A)(13), by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.106(c)(3)(ii)(C)'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.106(c)(3)(ii)(C)''.

k. In paragraph (c)(5)(iii), the Cooperative and Trust Fund

Agreement, paragraph (A)(20), by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.106(c)'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.106(c)''.

l. In subpart A, footnote 13, by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.107'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.107''.

Sec. 93.107 [Amended]

13. Newly designated Sec. 93.107 is amended as follows:

a. In paragraph (a), by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.103'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.103'', and by removing the reference to ``Sec. 92.101''

and adding in its place a reference to ``Sec. 93.101''.

b. In paragraph (b)(3), by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.203(b)'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.203(b)''.

c. In paragraph (b)(4), by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.104(c)(8)'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.104(c)(8)''.

d. In paragraph (c)(2), by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.105(a)'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.105(a)''.

e. In paragraph (c)(3), by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.203(b)'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.203(b)''.

Subpart B--Poultry

14. Newly designated Sec. 93.200 is amended by revising the

definition of Operator and adding a definition of Region, in

alphabetical order, to read as follows:

Sec. 93.200 Definitions.

* * * * *

Operator. For the purpose of Sec. 93.209, any person operating an

approved quarantine facility.

* * * * *

Region. Any defined geographic land area identifiable by

geological, political, or surveyed boundaries. A region may consist of

any of the following:

(1) A national entity (country);

(2) Part of a national entity (zone, county, department,

municipality, parish, Province, State, etc.)

(3) Parts of several national entities combined into an area; or

(4) A group of national entities (countries) combined into a single

area.

* * * * *

Sec. 93.201 [Amended]

15. Newly designated Sec. 93.201 is amended as follows:

a. In paragraph (a), footnote 2, by removing the word

``countries'' and adding in its place the word ``regions''.

b. In paragraph (b), introductory text, by removing the word

``country'' and adding in its place the word ``region''.

c. In paragraph (b), introductory text, by removing the

reference to ``part 92'' and adding in its place a reference to

``part 93'', and by removing the reference to ``Sec. 92.204'' and

adding in its place a reference to ``Sec. 93.204''.

d. In paragraph (b)(1)(ii), by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.204(c)'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.204(c)''.

e. In paragraph (c), by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.203'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.203'', and by removing the reference to ``Sec. 92.204''

and adding in its place a reference to ``Sec. 93.204''.

Sec. 93.202 [Amended]

16. In newly designated Sec. 93.202, paragraph (a) is amended by

removing the word ``country'' and adding in its place the word

``region''.

Sec. 93.204 [Amended]

17. Newly designated Sec. 93.204 is amended as follows:

a. In paragraph (a)(1), by removing the reference to

``Secs. 92.204(c), 92.214, 92.217, and 92.218'' and adding in its

place a reference to ``Secs. 93.204(c), 93.214, 93.217, and

93.218''.

b. In paragraph (a)(2), by removing the word ``countries'' and

adding in its place the word ``regions''.

c. By removing the word ``country'' each time it appears and

adding in its place the word ``region'' in the following places:

i. Paragraph (a)(1).

ii. Paragraph (a)(2).

iii. Paragraph (b).

iv. Paragraph (c)(1)(iii).

v. Paragraph (c)(1)(v).

vi. Paragraph (c)(2)(ii.)

vii. Paragraph (c)(2)(iv).

Sec. 93.205 [Amended]

18. Newly designated Sec. 93.205 is amended by removing the word

``country'' each time it appears and adding in its place the word

``region''.

93.207 [Amended]

19. Newly designated Sec. 93.207 is amended by removing the

reference to ``Secs. 92.215 and 92.220'' and adding in its place a

reference to ``Secs. 93.215 and 93.220''.

Sec. 93.209 [Amended]

20. Newly designated Sec. 93.209 is amended as follows:

a. In paragraph (a), by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.216'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.216''.

b. In paragraph (b), by removing the word ``countries'' and

adding in its place the word ``regions''.

21. Preceding newly designated Sec. 93.214, in the undesignated

center heading ``CANADA \6\'', footnote 6 is amended by removing the

reference to ``Secs. 92.214 to 92.216'' and adding in its place a

reference to ``Secs. 93.214 to 93.216''.

Sec. 93.214 [Amended]

22. Newly designated Sec. 93.214 is amended as follows:

a. In paragraph (a), by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.204'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.204'', and by removing the reference to ``Sec. 92.203(b)''

and adding in its place a reference to ``Sec. 93.203(b)''.

b. In paragraph (b), by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.206'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.206''.

Sec. 93.215 [Amended]

23. Newly designated Sec. 93.215 is amended as follows:

a. In paragraph (a)(1), by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.204'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.204'', and by removing the reference to ``Sec. 92.201''

and adding in its place a reference to ``Sec. 93.201''.

b. In paragraph (b), by removing the word ``country'' and adding

in its place the word ``region''.

Sec. 93.216 [Amended]

24. Newly designated Sec. 93.216 is amended by removing the

reference to ``Sec. 92.209'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.209''.

25. In subpart B, the undesignated heading preceding newly

designated Sec. 93.217 is revised to read ``CENTRAL AMERICA AND THE

WEST INDIES 7'', and footnote 7 is amended by removing the

reference to ``Sec. 92.217'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.217'' and by removing the word ``countries'' and adding in

its place the word ``regions''.

Sec. 93.217 [Amended]

26. Newly designated Sec. 93.217 is amended as follows:

a. By removing the word ``countries'' and adding in its place

the word ``regions'' in the following places:

i. Paragraph (a).

ii. Paragraph (b).

iii. Paragraph (c).

b. In paragraph (a), by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.204'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.204''.

c. In paragraph (b), by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.206'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.206''.

d. In paragraph (c), by removing the reference to

``Secs. 92.205, 92.207, 92.209, and 92.210'' and adding in its place

a reference to ``Sec. 93.205, 93.207, 93.209, and 93.210''.

27. Preceding newly designated Sec. 93.218, in the undesignated

center

[[Page 56016]]

heading ``MEXICO 8'', footnote 8 is amended by removing the

reference to ``Secs. 92.218 to 92.220'' and adding in its place a

reference to ``Secs. 93.218 to 93.220''.

Sec. 93.218 [Amended]

28. In newly designated Sec. 93.218, paragraph (a) is amended by

removing the reference to ``Sec. 92.204'' and adding in its place a

reference to ``Sec. 93.204''.

Sec. 93.219 [Amended]

29. Newly designated Sec. 93.219 is amended by removing the

reference to ``Sec. 92.206'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.206''.

Sec. 93.220 [Amended]

30. In newly designated Sec. 93.220, paragraph (b) is amended by

removing the reference to ``Sec. 92.203'' and adding in its place a

reference to ``Sec. 93.203''.

Subpart C--Horses

31. Newly designated Sec. 93.300 is amended as follows:

a. In the definition of Code of Practice, by removing the word

``country'' and adding in its place the word ``region.''

b. By revising the definition of Licensed veterinarian and by

adding a definition of Region, in alphabetical order, to read as

follows:

Sec. 93.300 Definitions.

* * * * *

Licensed Veterinarian. Any person licensed by any country or

political subdivision thereof to practice veterinary medicine.

* * * * *

Region. Any defined geographic land area identifiable by

geological, political, or surveyed boundaries. A region may consist of

any of the following:

(1) A national entity (country);

(2) Part of a national entity (zone, county, department,

municipality, parish, Province, State, etc.)

(3) Parts of several national entities combined into an area; or

(4) A group of national entities (countries) combined into a single

area.

* * * * *

Sec. 93.301 [Amended]

32. Newly designated Sec. 93.301 is amended as follows:

a. By removing the word ``country'' each time it appears and

adding in its place the word ``region'' in the following places:

i. Paragraph (b), introductory text.

ii. Paragraph (c)(1).

iii. Paragraph (c)(2)(viii).

iv. Paragraph (d)(1)(ii)(E).

v. Paragraph (d)(2).

vi. Paragraph (e)(1), introductory text.

vii. Paragraph (e)(1)(iii).

viii. Paragraph (e)(1)(v).

ix. Paragraph (e)(1)(vi).

x. In the heading of paragraph (g), and introductory text.

xi. Paragraph (g)(1), introductory text.

xii. Paragraph (g)(1)(iii).

xiii. Paragraph (g)(1)(iv).

xiv. Paragraph (h), introductory text.

b. By removing the word ``countries'' each time it appears and

adding in its place the word ``regions'' in the following places:

i. Paragraph (a), footnote 3.

ii. Paragraph (c)(1).

iii. In the heading of paragraph (e).

iv. Paragraph (h)(5).

c. In paragraph (b), introductory text, by removing the

reference to ``part 92'' and adding in its place a reference to

``part 93'', and by removing the reference to ``Sec. 92.304'' and

adding in its place a reference to ``Sec. 93.304''.

d. In paragraph (c)(2)(iii), by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.314(a)'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.314(a)''.

e. In paragraph (c)(2)(iv), by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.301(a)'' and adding in its place would be removed and a

reference to ``Sec. 93.301(a)''.

f. In paragraph (d)(1)(i), by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.304'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.304''.

g. In paragraph (d)(1)(ii), by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.314(a)'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.314(a)'' each time it appears.

h. In paragraph (d)(3), by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.308'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.308'' each time it appears.

i. In paragraph (e)(1)(i), by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.304'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.304'', and by removing the reference to ``Sec. 92.308''

and adding in its place a reference to ``Sec. 93.308''.

j. In paragraph (e)(1)(ii), by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.314(a)'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.314(a)''.

k. In paragraph (e)(2)(i), by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.308'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.308''.

l. In paragraph (f)(1), by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.304'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.304''.

m. In paragraph (f)(4), by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.304'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.304''.

n. In paragraph (f)(6)(i), by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.304'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.304''.

o. In paragraph (g)(1), introductory text, by removing the

reference to ``Sec. 92.314(a)'' and adding in its place a reference

to ``Sec. 93.314(a)''.

p. In paragraph (g)(2), by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.304'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.304''.

q. In paragraph (g)(5), by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.308'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.308''.

Sec. 93.302 [Amended]

33. In newly designated Sec. 93.302, paragraph (a) is amended by

removing the word ``country'' and adding in its place the word

``region''.

Sec. 93.303 [Amended]

34. Newly designated Sec. 93.303 is amended as follows:

a. In paragraph (a), by removing the reference to

``Secs. 92.308(a), (b), and (c) and 92.317'' and adding in its place

a reference to ``Secs. 93.308(a), (b), and (c) and 93.317''.

b. In paragraph (e), by removing the reference to

``Secs. 92.301(c), 92.304(a), 92.306, 92.308(a), (b), and (c), and

92.314'' and adding in its place a reference to ``Secs. 93.301(c),

93.304(a), 93.306, 93.308(a), (b), and (c), and 93.314''.

c. In paragraph (e), by removing the word ``country'' and adding

in its place the word ``region'', and in footnote 12, by removing

the word ``countries'' and adding in its place the word ``regions''.

Sec. 93.304 [Amended]

35. Newly designated Sec. 93.304 is amended as follows:

a. By removing the word ``countries'' each time it appears and

adding in its place the word ``regions'' in the following places:

i. The section heading.

ii. Paragraph (a)(1)(i).

iii. Paragraph (a)(2).

b. By removing the word ``country'' each time it appears and

adding in its place the word ``region'' in the following places:

i. Paragraph (a)(1)(i).

ii. Paragraph (a)(2).

iii. Paragraph (b)(1).

c. In paragraph (a)(1)(i), by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.301(c)(1)'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.301(c)(1)'', and by removing the reference to

``Secs. 92.315, 92.319, and 92.321'' and adding in its place a

reference to ``Secs. 93.315, 93.319, and 93.321''.

d. In paragraph (a)(1)(ii), introductory text, by removing the

reference to ``Sec. 92.301(f)'' each time it appears and adding in

its place a reference to ``Sec. 93.301(f)''.

e. In paragraph (a)(1)(iii), by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.301(f)'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.301(f)''.

f. In paragraph (a)(2), by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.301(c)(1)'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.301(c)(1)''.

Sec. 93.306 [Amended]

36. In newly designated Sec. 93.306, paragraph (a) is amended by

removing the reference to ``Secs. 92.318 and 92.323'' and adding in its

place a reference to ``Secs. 93.318 and 93.323''.

Sec. 93.308 [Amended]

37. Newly designated Sec. 93.308 is amended as follows:

a. In paragraph (a), introductory text, by removing the

reference to ``Sec. 92.324'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.324'', and by removing the reference to ``Sec. 92.303''

and adding in its place a reference to ``Sec. 93.303''.

b. In paragraph (a)(1), by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.317'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.317'', and by removing the reference to ``Sec. 92.303''

and adding in its place a reference to ``Sec. 93.303''.

c. In paragraph (a)(2), by removing the word ``countries'' each

time it appears and

[[Page 56017]]

adding in its place the word ``regions'', and by removing the word

``country and adding in its place the word ``region.''.

d. In paragraph (b), by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.303(e)'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.303(e)''.

e. In paragraph (c)(4)(ii), by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.308(a)'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.308(a)''.

Sec. 93.314 [Amended]

38. Newly designated Sec. 92.314 is amended as follows:

a. By removing the word ``country'' each time it appears and

adding in its place the word ``region'' in the following places:

i. In paragraph (a), introductory text.

ii. In paragraph (a)(1).

iii. In paragraph (a)(5)(i).

iv. In paragraph (a)(5)(ii).

v. In paragraph (b).

b. In paragraph (a)(5)(iv), by removing the word ``countries''

and adding in its place the word ``regions''.

c. In paragraph (a)(5), introductory text, by removing the

reference to ``Sec. 92.301(g)'' and adding in its place a reference

to ``Sec. 93.301(g)''.

d. In paragraph (a)(5)(i), by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.301(c)(1)'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.301(c)(1)''.

e. In paragraph (c), by removing the reference to reference to

``Sec. 92.306'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.306''.

39. Preceding newly designated Sec. 93.315, in the undesignated

center heading ``CANADA\16\'', footnote 16 is amended by removing the

reference to ``Secs. 92.315, 92.316, 92.317 and 92.318'' and adding in

its place a reference to ``Secs. 93.315, 93.316, 93.317 and 93.318''.

Sec. 93.315 [Amended]

40. Newly designated Sec. 93.315 is amended by removing the

reference to ``Sec. 92.305'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.305''.

Sec. 93.316 [Amended]

41. Newly designated Sec. 93.316 is amended by removing the

reference to ``Sec. 92.306'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.306''.

Sec. 93.317 [Amended]

42. In newly designated Sec. 93.317, paragraph (a) is amended by

removing the reference to ``Sec. 92.306'' and adding in its place a

reference to ``Sec. 93.306'', and by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.314'' each time it appears and adding in its place a

reference to ``Sec. 93.314''.

Sec. 93.318 [Amended]

43. Newly designated Sec. 93.318 is amended as follows:

a. In paragraph (a)(1), by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.304'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.304'', and by removing the reference to ``Sec. 92.301''

and adding in its place a reference to ``Sec. 93.301''.

b. In paragraph (b), by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.317(b)'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.317(b)''.

c. In paragraph (b), by removing the word ``country'' and adding

in its place the word ``region''.

44. The undesignated center heading immediately preceding

Sec. 93.319 is revised to read ``CENTRAL AMERICA AND THE WEST

INDIES\17\'', and footnote 17 is amended by removing word ``countries''

and adding in its place the word ``regions'', and by removing the

reference to ``Secs. 92.319 and 92.320'' and adding in its place a

reference to ``Secs. 93.319 and 93.320''.

Sec. 93.319 [Amended]

45. Newly designated Sec. 93.319 is amended by removing the word

``countries'' and adding in its place the word ``regions'', and by

removing the reference to ``Sec. 92.305'' and adding in its place a

reference to ``Sec. 93.305''.

Sec. 93.320 [Amended]

46. Newly designated Sec. 93.320 is amended by removing the

reference to ``Sec. 92.306'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.306'', by removing the reference to ``Sec. 92.314'' and

adding in its place a reference to ``Sec. 93.314'', and by removing the

reference to ``Sec. 92.308 (a), (b) and (c)'' and adding in its place a

reference to ``Sec. 93.308 (a), (b), and (c)''.

47. Preceding newly designated Sec. 93.321, in the undesignated

center heading ``MEXICO\18\'', footnote 18 is amended by removing the

reference to ``Secs. 92.321 to 92.326'' and adding in its place a

reference to ``Secs. 93.321 to 93.326''.

Sec. 93.322 [Amended]

48. Newly designated Sec. 93.322 is amended by removing the

reference to ``Sec. 92.305'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.305''.

Sec. 93.323 [Amended]

49. In newly designated Sec. 93.323, paragraphs (a) and (b) are

amended by removing the references to ``Sec. 92.324'' and adding in

their place a reference to ``Sec. 93.324''.

Sec. 93.324 [Amended]

50. Newly designated Sec. 93.324 is amended by removing the

reference to ``Sec. 92.303(a)'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.303(a)''.

Sec. 93.325 [Amended]

51. Newly designated Sec. 93.325 is amended by removing the

reference to ``Secs. 92.306 and 92.323'' and adding in its place a

reference to ``Secs. 93.306 and 93.323'', by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.314'' and adding in its place a reference to ``93.314'', and

by removing the reference to ``Sec. 92.324'' and adding in its place a

reference to ``Sec. 93.324''.

Sec. 93.326 [Amended]

52. Newly designated Sec. 93.326 is amended by removing the

reference to ``Secs. 92.321, 92.322, 92.323, and 92.324'' and adding in

its place a reference to ``Secs. 93.321, 93.322, 93.323, and 93.324'',

and by removing the words ``in Sec. 92.324'' and adding in their place

the words ``in Sec. 93.324''.

Subpart D--Ruminants

53. In newly designated Sec. 93.400, the definition of Brucellosis

certified free province and territories of Canada is revised, and a new

definition of Region is added, in alphabetical order, to read as

follows:

Sec. 93.400 Definitions.

* * * * *

Brucellosis certified-free province or territory of Canada. A

province or territory of Canada in which all herds of cattle are

brucellosis certified free. The brucellosis certified free provinces

and territories of Canada are Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, New

Brunswick, Newfoundland (including Labrador), Northwest Territories,

Nova Scotia, Ontario, Quebec, Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan, and

Yukon Territory.

* * * * *

Region. Any defined geographic land area identifiable by

geological, political, or surveyed boundaries. A region may consist of

any of the following:

(1) A national entity (country);

(2) Part of a national entity (zone, county, department,

municipality, parish, Province, State, etc.);

(3) Parts of several national entities combined into an area; or

(4) A group of national entities (countries) combined into a single

area.

* * * * *

Sec. 93.401 [Amended]

54. Newly designated Sec. 93.401 is amended as follows:

a. In paragraph (a), footnote 3, by removing the word

``countries'' and adding the word ``regions'' in its place;

b. In paragraph (b), introductory text, by removing the word

``country'' and adding the word ``region'' in its place, and by

removing the reference to ``Sec. 92.404'' and adding in its place a

reference to ``Sec. 93.404''.

Sec. 93.402 [Amended]

55. In newly designated Sec. 93.402, paragraph (a) is amended by

removing the word ``country'' and adding the word ``region'' in its

place.

Sec. 93.403 [Amended]

56. In newly designated Sec. 93.403, paragraph (g), the references

to

[[Page 56018]]

``Secs. 92.401, 92.404(a), 92.407, 92.408, 92.433, and 92.434'' are

removed, and references to ``Secs. 93.401, 93.404(a), 93.407, 93.408,

93.433, and 93.434'' are added in their place.

Sec. 93.404 [Amended]

57. Newly designated Sec. 93.404 is amended as follows:

a. In paragraph (a)(1), by removing the reference to

``Secs. 92.417, 92.422, and 92.424'' and adding in its place a

reference to ``Secs. 93.417, 93.422, and 93.424''.

b. In paragraph (a)(2), by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.430'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.430''.

c. In paragraph (c)(4), ``Agreement for the Importation,

Quarantine and Exhibition of Certain Wild Ruminants and Wild

Swine'', paragraph 2, the first sentence, by removing the words

``this country'' and adding in their place the words ``the United

States''.

d. By removing the word ``country'' each time it appears and

adding in its place the word ``region'' in the following places:

i. Paragraph (a)(1).

ii. Paragraph (a)(2).

iii. Paragraph (a)(3).

iv. Paragraph (b).

v. Paragraph (c)(4), in the ``Agreement for the Importation,

Quarantine and Exhibition of Certain Ruminants and Swine'', in the

introductory text and in paragraph (1) and paragraph (2).

e. By removing the word ``countries'' each time it appears and

adding in its place the word ``regions'' in the following places:

i. Paragraph (a)(3).

ii. Paragraph (c), the heading and the introductory text.

f. In paragraph (c)(4), the ``Agreement for the Importation,

Quarantine and Exhibition of Certain Ruminants and Swine'',

introductory text, by removing the reference to ``part 92'' and

adding in its place a reference to ``part 93''.

Sec. 93.405 [Amended]

58. Newly designated Sec. 93.405 is amended as follows:

a. In paragraph (a), by removing the reference to

``Secs. 92.418(a), 92.419(a), 92.423(c), and 92.428(d)'' and adding

in its place a reference to ``Secs. 93.418(a), 93.419(a), 93.423(c),

and 93.428(d)''.

b. By removing the word ``country'' each time it appears and

adding in its place the word ``region'' in the following places:

i. Paragraph (a), introductory text.

ii. Paragraph (a)(1).

iii. Paragraph (a)(2).

iv. Paragraph (c)(3).

c. In paragraph (b)(2)(ii), by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.435(a)'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.435(a)''.

d. In paragraph (c)(3), by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.435(a)'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.435(a)''.

Sec. 93.406 [Amended]

59. Newly designated Sec. 93.406 is amended as follows:

a. In paragraph (a), by removing the reference to

``Secs. 92.418, 92.427(c) and (d), and 92.432'' and adding in its

place a reference to ``Secs. 93.418, 93.427(c) and (d), and

93.432'', and by removing the word ``country'' and adding the word

``region'' in its place.

b. In paragraph (b), by removing the reference to ``Secs. 92.419

and 92.428(b)'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Secs. 93.419 and 93.428(b),'' and by removing the word ``country''

and adding in its place the word ``region'.

c. In paragraph (c), by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.411'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.411''.

Sec. 93.408 [Amended]

60. Newly designated Sec. 93.408 is amended by removing the

reference to ``Secs. 92.421 and 92.426'' and adding in its place a

reference to ``Secs. 93.421 and 93.426'', and by removing the reference

to ``Secs. 92.423(c) and 92.427(a)'' and adding in its place a

reference to ``Secs. 93.423(c) and 93.427(a)''.

61. Preceding newly designated Sec. 93.417, in the undesignated

center heading ``CANADA \7\'', footnote 7 is amended by removing the

reference to ``Secs. 92.417 to 92.421'' and adding in its place a

reference to ``Secs. 93.417 to 93.421''.

Sec. 93.417 [Amended]

62. Newly designated Sec. 93.417 is amended as follows:

a. In paragraph (a), introductory text, by removing the

reference to ``Sec. 92.404'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.404'', and by removing the reference to ``Sec. 92.403(b)''

and adding in its place a reference to ``Sec. 93.403(b)''.

b. In paragraph (a)(3)(i) and paragraph (a)(3)(ii), by removing

the word ``country'' and adding in its place the word ``region'.

c. In paragraph (b), by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.407'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.407''.

63. Newly designated Sec. 93.418 is amended as follows:

a. In paragraph (a), by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.420'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.420'', and by removing the reference to ``Sec. 92.405(a)''

and adding in its place a reference to ``Sec. 93.405(a)'.

b. In paragraph (b)(2)(i), by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.420'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.420''.

c. By revising paragraph (c) to read as set forth below.

d. In paragraph (d)(4), by removing the reference to ``paragraph

(c)(5)'' and adding in its place a reference to ``paragraph

(c)(2)(ii)(C)''.

Sec. 93.418 Cattle from Canada.

* * * * *

(c) Brucellosis test or vaccination certificates. (1) Cattle from

Canada from a herd in which any cattle have been determined to have

brucellosis may not be imported into the United States;

(2) Except for cattle prohibited from importation into the United

States under paragraph (c)(1) of this section, cattle 6 months of age

or older from Canada may be imported into the United States if the

following conditions are met:

(i) The cattle are imported for slaughter in accordance with

Sec. 92.420;

(ii) The cattle are steers; or

(iii) The cattle are accompanied by a certificate issued or

endorsed by a salaried veterinarian of the Canadian government showing:

(A) That the cattle are from a brucellosis certified-free herd,

province, or territory; or

(B) The date and place the cattle were last tested for brucellosis;

that the cattle were found negative for brucellosis on such test; and

that such test was performed within 30 days preceding the arrival of

the cattle at the port of entry; or

(C) That the female cattle under 18 months of age were vaccinated

against brucellosis in accordance with Canadian regulations.

* * * * *

Sec. 93.419 [Amended]

64. In newly designated Sec. 93.419, paragraph (a) is amended by

removing the reference to ``Sec. 92.420'' and adding in its place a

reference to Sec. 93.420''; and by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.405'' and adding in its place a reference to ``Sec. 93.405''.

Sec. 93.420 [Amended]

65. Newly designated Sec. 92.420 is amended by removing the

reference to ``Sec. 92.408'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.408''.

Sec. 93.421 [Amended]

66. Newly designated Sec. 93.421 is amended as follows:

a. In paragraph (a)(1), by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.404'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.404'', and by removing the reference to ``Sec. 92.401''

and adding in its place a reference to ``Sec. 93.401''.

b. In paragraph (b), by removing the word ``country'' and adding

in its place the word ``region''.

67. Preceding newly designated Sec. 93.422, the undesignated center

heading ``COUNTRIES OF CENTRAL AMERICA AND WEST INDIES8'' is

revised to read ``CENTRAL AMERICA AND WEST INDIES8'', and

footnote 8 is amended by removing the word ``countries'' and adding in

its place the word ``regions'', and by removing the reference to

``Secs. 92.422 and 92.423'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Secs. 93.422 and 93.423''.

[[Page 56019]]

Sec. 93.422 [Amended]

68. Newly designated Sec. 93.422 is amended as follows:

a. In paragraph (a), by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.404'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.404'', and by removing the reference to ``Sec. 92.423''

and adding in its place a reference to ``Sec. 93.423''.

b. In paragraph (b), by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.407'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.407''.

69. In newly designated Sec. 93.422, paragraphs (a) and (b) are

amended by removing the word ``countries'' and adding in its place the

word ``regions''.

Sec. 93.423 [Amended]

70. Newly designated Sec. 93.423 is amended as follows:

a. In paragraph (a), by removing the word ``country'' each time

it appears and adding in its place the word ``region''; by removing

the reference to ``Sec. 92.405(a)'' and adding in its place a

reference to ``Sec. 93.405(a)''; and by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.420'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.420''.

b. In paragraph (b), by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.405'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.405''.

c. In paragraph (c), by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.403(d)'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.403(d)''.

71. Preceding newly designated Sec. 93.424, in the undesignated

center heading ``MEXICO 9'', footnote 9 is amended by

removing the reference to ``Secs. 92.424 to 92.429,'' and adding in its

place a reference to ``Secs. 93.424 to 93.429''.

Sec. 93.424 [Amended]

72. Newly designated ``Sec. 93.424'' is amended as follows:

a. In paragraph (a), introductory text, by removing the

reference to ``Sec. 92.404'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.404''; and by removing the reference to ``Sec. 92.403(c)''

and adding in its place a reference to ``Sec. 93.403(c)''.

b. In paragraph (a)(3)(i) and paragraph (a)(3)(ii), by removing

the word ``country'' each time it appears and adding in its place

the word ``region''.

c. In paragraph (a)(3)(iii), by removing the word ``countries''

and adding in its place the word ``regions''.

d. In paragraph (b), by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.427(d)'' each time it appears and adding in its place a

reference to ``Sec. 93.427(d)''.

Sec. 93.425 [Amended]

73. Newly designated Sec. 93.425 is amended by removing the

reference to ``Sec. 92.407'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.407''.

Sec. 93.426 [Amended]

74. Newly designated Sec. 93.426 is amended as follows:

a. In paragraph (a), by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.427'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.427''.

b. In paragraph (b), by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.403'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.403''.

Sec. 93.427 [Amended]

75. Newly designated Sec. 93.427 is amended as follows:

a. By removing the reference to ``Sec. 92.405(a)'' and adding in

its place a reference to Sec. 93.405(a) in the following places:

i. Paragraph (b)(1).

ii. Paragraph (b)(2)(i).

iii. Paragraph (b)(2)(ii).

iv. Paragraph (c)(1).

v. Paragraph (d)(1), introductory text.

b. In paragraph (b)(2), introductory text, by removing the

reference to ``Sec. 92.403(c)'' and adding in its place a reference

to ``Sec. 93.403(c)''.

c. In paragraph (c)(1), by removing the word ``country's'' and

adding in its place the word ``region's''.

d. In paragraph (c)(1) and paragraph (c)(2), by removing the

reference to ``Sec. 92.429'' each time it appears and adding in its

place a reference to ``Sec. 93.429''.

e. In paragraph (c)(2), by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.427(e)'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.427(e)''.

Sec. 93.428 [Amended]

76. Newly designated Sec. 93.428 is amended as follows:

a. In paragraph (a), by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.405'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.405'', and by removing the reference to ``Sec. 92.427(a)''

and adding in its place a reference to ``Sec. 93.427(a)''.

b. In paragraph (b), by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.427'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.427''.

c. In paragraph (d), by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.426'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.426''.

Sec. 93.429 [Amended]

77. Newly designated Sec. 93.429 is amended by removing the

reference to ``Secs. 92.424, 92.425, 92.426, and 92.427(b)(2)'' and

adding in its place a reference to ``Secs. 93.424, 93.425, 93.426, and

93.427(b)(2)'', and by removing the reference to ``Sec. 92.405(a)'' and

adding in its place a reference to ``Sec. 93.405(a)''.

Sec. 93.430 [Amended]

78. Newly designated Sec. 92.430 is amended as follows:

a. By removing the word ``country'' each time it appears and

adding in its place the word ``region'' in the following places:

i. Paragraph (c)(1).

ii. Paragraph (d), ``Cooperative Services Agreement Between

(Name of Importer) and the United States Department of Agriculture,

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service'', under ``The importer

agrees:'', paragraph 4.

iii. Paragraph (d), ``Cooperative Services Agreement Between

(Name of Importer) and the United States Department of Agriculture,

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service'', under ``Both parties

agree:'', paragraph 4.

b. In paragraph (d), ``Cooperative Services Agreement Between

(Name of Importer) and the United States Department of Agriculture,

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service'', under ``The importer

agrees:'', paragraph 7, by removing the reference to ``9 CFR

92.431'' and adding in its place a reference to ``9 CFR 93.431''.

Sec. 93.431 [Amended]

79. Newly designated Sec. 93.431 is amended as follows:

a. In paragraph (a)(4), by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.430(d)'' both times it appears and adding in its place a

reference to ``Sec. 93.430(d)''.

b. In paragraph (b)(2)(iv) and paragraph (b)(4), by removing the

word ``country'' and adding in its place the word ``region''.

Sec. 93.432 [Amended]

80. Newly designated Sec. 93.432 is amended as follows:

a. In paragraph (a), by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.432(c)'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.432(c)''.

b. In paragraph (b)(2), introductory text, by removing the

reference to ``Sec. 92.432(c)(1)'' and adding in its place a

reference to ``Sec. 93.432(c)(1)''.

Sec. 93.434 [Amended]

81. Newly designated Sec. 93.434 is amended as follows:

a. In paragraph (a) and the introductory text of paragraph (b),

by removing the reference to ``Sec. 92.412'' each time it appears

and adding in its place a reference to ``Sec. 93.412''.

b. In paragraph (b)(2)(i)(A), by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.403(g)'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.403(g)''.

Sec. 93.435 [Amended]

82. Newly designated Sec. 93.435 is amended as follows:

a. In paragraph (b)(2), by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.405(b)(2)(ii)'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.405(b)(2)(ii)''.

b. By removing the word ``country'' and adding in its place the

word ``region'' in the following places:

i Paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3).

ii. Paragraph (d).

iii. Paragraph (e).

iv. Paragraph (g)(2)(i) and (g)(2)(ii).

c. In paragraph (b)(3), by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.405(c)(3)'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.405(c)(3)''.

d. In paragraph (b)(6), by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.404(c)'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.404(c)''.

Subpart E--Swine

83. Newly designated 93.500 is amended by adding a definition of

[[Page 56020]]

Region, in alphabetical order, to read as follows:

Sec. 93.500 Definitions.

* * * * *

Region. Any defined geographic land area identifiable by

geological, political, or surveyed boundaries. A region may consist of

any of the following:

(1) A national entity (country);

(2) Part of a national entity (zone, county, department,

municipality, parish, Province, State, etc.);

(3) Parts of several national entities combined into an area; or

(4) A group of national entities (countries) combined into a single

area.

* * * * *

Sec. 93.501 [Amended]

84. In newly designated Sec. 93.501, paragraph (b), the

introductory text is amended by removing the reference to ``part 92''

and adding in its place a reference to ``part 93''; by removing the

word ``country'' and adding in its place the word ``region''; and by

removing the reference to ``Sec. 92.504'' and adding in its place a

reference to ``Sec. 93.504''.

Sec. 93.502 [Amended]

85. In newly designated Sec. 93.502, paragraph (a) is amended by

removing the word ``country'' and adding in its place the word

``region''.

Sec. 93.504 [Amended]

86. Newly designated Sec. 93.504 is amended as follows:

a. By removing the word ``country'' each time it appears and

adding in its place the word ``region'' in the following places:

i. Paragraph (a)(1).

ii. Paragraph (a)(2).

iii. Paragraph (a)(3).

iv. Paragraph (b).

v. Paragraph (c)(4), ``Agreement for the Importation, Quarantine

and Exhibition of Certain Wild Ruminants and Wild Swine'', in the

introductory text, paragraph (1), and paragraph (2).

b. In paragraph (a)(1), by removing the reference to

``Secs. 92.516 and 92.520'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Secs. 93.516 and 93.520''.

c. In paragraph (a)(2), by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.522'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.522''.

d. By removing the word ``countries'' and replacing it with the

word ``regions'' in the following places:

i. Paragraph (a)(3).

ii. Paragraph (c) in the heading and in the introductory text.

e. In paragraph (c)(4), ``Agreement for the Importation,

Quarantine and Exhibition of Certain Wild Ruminants and Wild Swine,

introductory text, by removing the reference to ``part 92'' and

adding in its place a reference to ``part 93''.

Sec. 93.505 [Amended]

87. In newly designated Sec. 93.505, paragraph (a) is amended by

removing the reference to Sec. 92.517'' and adding in its place a

reference to ``Sec. 93.517'', and by removing the word ``country'' each

time it appears and adding in its place the word ``region'.

Sec. 93.507 [Amended]

88. Newly designated Sec. 93.507 is amended by removing the

reference to ``Sec. 92.519'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.519''.

89. Preceding newly designated Sec. 93.516, in the undesignated

center heading ``CANADA\7\'', footnote 7 is amended by removing the

reference to ``Secs. 92.516 to 92.519'' and adding in its place a

reference to ``Secs. 93.516 to 93.519''.

Sec. 93.516 [Amended]

90. Newly designated Sec. 93.516 is amended as follows:

a. In paragraph (a), introductory text, by removing the

reference to ``Sec. 92.504'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.504'', and by removing the reference to ``Sec. 92.503(b)''

and adding in its place a reference to ``Sec. 93.503(b)''.

b. In paragraph (a)(1) and paragraph (a)(2), by removing the

word ``country'' each time it appears and adding in its place the

word ``region''.

c. In paragraph (b), by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.506'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.506''.

Sec. 93.517 [Amended]

91. In newly designated Sec. 93.517, paragraph (b) is amended by

removing the reference to Sec. 92.507, 92.516, and 92.518'' and adding

in its place a reference to ``Secs. 93.507, 93.516, and 93.518''.

Sec. 93.519 [Amended]

92. Newly designated Sec. 93.519 is amended as follows:

a. In paragraph (a)(1), by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.504'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.504'', and by removing the reference to ``Sec. 92.501''

and adding in its place a reference to ``Sec. 93.501''.

b. In paragraph (b), by removing the word ``country'' and adding

in its place the word ``region''.

93. Preceding newly designated Sec. 93.520, the undesignated center

heading ``COUNTRIES OF CENTRAL AMERICA AND WEST INDIES\8\'' is revised

to read ``CENTRAL AMERICA AND WEST INDIES\8\'', and footnote 8 is

amended by removing the word ``countries'' and adding in its place the

word ``regions'', and by removing the reference to ``Secs. 92.520 to

92.522'' and adding in its place a reference to ``Secs. 93.520 to

93.522.''

Sec. 93.520 [Amended]

94. Newly designated Sec. 93.520 is amended by removing the

reference to ``Sec. 92.506'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.506''.

95. Preceding newly designated Sec. 93.521, in the undesignated

center heading ``MEXICO\9\'', footnote 9 is amended by removing the

reference to ``Sec. 92.521'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.521''.

Sec. 93.521 [Amended]

96. Newly designated Sec. 93.521 is amended by removing the

reference to ``Sec. 92.506'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.506''.

Sec. 93.522 [Amended]

97. Newly designated Sec. 93.522 is amended as follows:

a. In paragraph (c)(1), by removing the words ``country or

area'' and adding in their place the word ``region''.

b. By removing the word ``country'' each time it appears and

adding in its place the word ``region'' in the following places:

i. Paragraph (c)(3).

ii. Paragraph (d), ``Cooperative-Services Agreement Between

(Name of Importer) and the United States Department of Agriculture,

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service'', under ``The importer

agrees:'', paragraph 4.

iii. Paragraph (d), ``Cooperative-Services Agreement Between

(Name of Importer) and the United States Department of Agriculture,

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service'', under ``Both parties

agree:'', paragraph 4.

c. In paragraph (d), ``Cooperative-Services Agreement Between

(Name of Importer) and the United States Department of Agriculture,

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service'', under ``The importer

agrees:'', paragraph 7, by removing the reference to ``Sec. 92.523''

and adding in its place a reference to ``Sec. 93.523''.

Sec. 93.523 [Amended]

98. Newly designated Sec. 93.523 is amended as follows:

a. In paragraph (a)(4), by removing the reference to

``Sec. 92.522(d)'' both times it appears and adding in its place a

reference to ``Sec. 93.522(d)''.

b. By removing the word ``country'' each time it appears and

adding in its place the word ``region'' in the following places:

i. Paragraph (b)(2)(iv).

ii. Paragraph (b)(2)(viii).

iii. Paragraph (b)(4)

Subpart F--Dogs

Sec. 93.600 [Amended]

99. Newly designated Sec. 93.600 is amended by removing the word

``countries'' and adding in its place the word ``regions''.

[[Page 56021]]

Subpart G--Miscellaneous Animals

100. In newly designated Sec. 93.700, a definition of Region is

added, in alphabetical order, to read as follows:

Sec. 93.700 Definitions.

* * * * *

Region. Any defined geographic land area identifiable by

geological, political, or surveyed boundaries. A region may consist of

any of the following:

(1) A national entity (country);

(2) Part of a national entity (zone, county, department,

municipality, parish, Province, State, etc.)

(3) Parts of several national entities combined into an area; or

(4) A group of national entities (countries) combined into a single

area.

* * * * *

Sec. 93.701 [Amended]

101. Newly designated Sec. 93.701 is amended by removing the word

``country'' both times it appears and adding in its place the word

``region'.

Sec. 93.702 [Amended]

102. Newly designated Sec. 93.702 is amended by removing the

reference to ``Sec. 92.701'' and adding in its place a reference to

``Sec. 93.701''.

Sec. 93.704 [Amended]

103. Newly designated Sec. 93.704 is amended by removing the word

``country'' each time it appears and adding in its place the word

``region'' in the paragraph (c)(1) and paragraph (c)(4).

Sec. 93.705 [Amended]

104. Newly designated Sec. 93.705 is amended by removing the word

``country'' each time it appears and adding in its place the word

``region'' in the following places:

a. Paragraph (a), introductory text.

b. Paragraph (a)(1).

c. Paragraph (a)(2).

d. Paragraph (a)(3).

Subpart H--Elephants, Hippopotami, Rhinoceroses, and Tapirs

105. Newly designated Sec. 93.800 is amended by adding a definition

of Region, in alphabetical order, to read as follows:

Sec. 93.800 Definitions.

* * * * *

Region. Any defined geographic land area identifiable by

geological, political, or surveyed boundaries. A region may consist of

any of the following:

(1) A national entity (country);

(2) Part of a national entity (zone, county, department,

municipality, parish, Province, State, etc.)

(3) Parts of several national entities combined into an area; or

(4) A group of national entities (countries) combined into a single

area.

* * * * *

Sec. 93.803 [Amended]

106. In newly designated Sec. 93.803, paragraph (a), the

introductory text is amended by removing the word ``country'' each time

it appears and adding in its place the word ``region'.

Sec. 93.804 [Amended]

107. In newly designated Sec. 93.804, paragraph (g) is amended by

removing the word ``country'' and adding in its place the word

``region''.

PART 94--RINDERPEST, FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE, FOWL PEST (FOWL

PLAGUE), EXOTIC NEWCASTLE DISEASE, AFRICAN SWINE FEVER, HOG

CHOLERA, AND BOVINE SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY: PROHIBITED AND

RESTRICTED IMPORTATIONS

108. The authority citation for part 94 continues to read as

follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 147a, 150ee, 161, 162, 450; 19 U.S.C. 1306;

21 U.S.C. 111, 114a, 134a, 134b, 134c, 134f, 136, and 136a; 31

U.S.C. 9701; 42 U.S.C. 4331 and 4332; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and

371.2(d).

109. In Sec. 94.0, the definition of Country of origin is removed

and definitions of Cervid, Contact, Pink juice test, Region, Region of

origin, Ruminants, and Veterinarian in charge are added, in

alphabetical order, to read as follows:

Sec. 94.0 Definitions.

* * * * *

Cervid. All species of deer, elk, and moose.

* * * * *

Contact. Known or potential commingling of products during

processing or storage, or while being transported from any point to any

other point. Contact includes the simultaneo

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.