This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains documents other than rules or

proposed rules that are applicable to the

public. Notices of hearings and investigations,

committee meetings, agency decisions and

rulings, delegations of authority, filing of

petitions and applications and agency

statements of organization and functions are

examples of documents appearing in this

section.

Notices Federal Register

16616 

Vol. 80, No. 60 

Monday, March 30, 2015 

1To view the notice, the assessment, and the 

comments we received, go to http://www.

regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2014- 

0013. 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

[Docket No. APHIS–2014–0013] 

Notice of Determination of the African 

Horse Sickness Status of Saudi Arabia 

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: We are advising the public of 

our determination that Saudi Arabia is 

free of African horse sickness (AHS). 

Based on our evaluation of the animal 

health status of Saudi Arabia, which we 

made available to the public for review 

and comment through a previous notice, 

the Administrator has determined that 

AHS is not present in Saudi Arabia and 

that the importation of horses, mules, 

zebras, and other equids from Saudi 

Arabia presents a low risk of 

introducing AHS into the United States. 

DATES: Effective March 30, 2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Chip Wells, Senior Staff Veterinarian, 

Regionalization Evaluation Services, 

Sanitary Trade Issues Team, National 

Import Export Services, VS, APHIS, 

4700 River Road Unit 38, Riverdale, MD 

20737–1231; (301) 851–3300. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

regulations in 9 CFR part 93 (referred to 

below as the regulations) prescribe the 

conditions for the importation into the 

United States of specified animals to 

prevent the introduction of various 

animal diseases, including African 

horse sickness (AHS). AHS is a fatal 

viral equine disease that is not known 

to exist in the United States. 

Within part 93, § 93.308 contains 

requirements governing the importation 

of horses, mules, zebras, and other 

equids from regions where AHS exists 

in order to prevent the introduction of 

AHS into the United States. Equids from 

countries where AHS exists are eligible 

for importation into the United States 

only after undergoing a 60-day 

quarantine. 

The regulations in 9 CFR part 92, 

§ 92.2 (hereafter referred to as the 

‘‘regulations’’), contain requirements for 

requesting the recognition of the animal 

health status of a region or for the 

approval of the export of a particular 

type of animal or animal product to the 

United States from a foreign region. If, 

after review and evaluation of the 

information submitted in support of the 

request the Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service (APHIS) believes the 

request can be safely granted, APHIS 

will make its evaluation available for 

public comment through a notice 

published in the Federal Register. 

Following the close of the comment 

period, APHIS will review all comments 

received and will make a final 

determination regarding the request that 

will be detailed in another notice 

published in the Federal Register. 

On June 12, 2014, we published in the 

Federal Register (79 FR 33714–33715, 

Docket No. APHIS–2014–0013) a 

notice 1 in which we announced the 

availability for review and comment of 

our evaluation of the animal health 

status of Saudi Arabia relative to AHS. 

In that document, titled ‘‘APHIS 

Evaluation of the African Horse 

Sickness (AHS) Status of the Kingdom 

of Saudi Arabia’’ (November 2013), we 

presented the results of our evaluation 

of the risk of introducing AHS into the 

United States via the importation of 

equids from Saudi Arabia. 

We solicited comments on the notice 

for 60 days ending on August 11, 2014. 

We received 11 comments by that date, 

from industry groups and State 

departments of agriculture. The 

comments we received are discussed 

below by topic. 

Disease Status 

The majority of commenters 

expressed concern regarding APHIS’ 

recognition of Saudi Arabia as free of 

AHS because the World Organization of 

Animal Health (OIE) does not currently 

recognize Saudi Arabia as free of AHS. 

Two commenters asked whether Saudi 

Arabia has petitioned OIE to be 

recognized as free of AHS. 

APHIS evaluations of animal disease 

status of countries are conducted 

independently of OIE evaluations in 

accordance with OIE standards for 

importing countries. Upon request by 

the Government of Saudi Arabia, APHIS 

conducted an import risk assessment 

using the guidelines established in the 

regulations. As a result of that 

assessment, APHIS concluded that 

Saudi Arabia is free of AHS. 

OIE only recently (May 2014) began 

official recognition of the AHS status of 

regions in the world. Countries must 

formally request OIE recognition and 

submit a dossier of supporting 

information. APHIS’ evaluation of Saudi 

Arabia was completed prior to May 

2014 when OIE first published its list of 

regions recognized as AHS-free. APHIS 

has been informed by Saudi Arabian 

Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) officials 

that Saudi Arabia intends within the 

next few months to submit 

documentation to OIE requesting AHSfree recognition. 

Several commenters expressed 

concern regarding the adequacy of the 

research leading to our conclusion that 

Saudi Arabia is free of AHS. Four 

commenters noted that the information 

used to support that conclusion was 

provided by Saudi Arabia. 

APHIS evaluates the best available 

information in accordance with our 

regulations and with international 

standards set by the OIE under chapter 

2.1 of their Terrestrial Animal Health 

Code. Often the best and only 

information available is supplied by the 

requesting country, although, whenever 

possible, APHIS considers third party 

information that is reliable and in 

accord with current scientific thinking. 

This practice is consistent with United 

States Government obligations under 

applicable international treaties 

governing trade. 

One commenter was concerned that 

AHS has previously been present within 

Saudi Arabia. 

The last case of AHS in Saudi Arabia 

was in 1989 and no further outbreaks 

have been reported since that time. The 

international standard for AHS-freedom 

set by OIE is 2 years without an 

outbreak. Saudi Arabia exceeds this 

time standard by more than 23 years. 

Furthermore, multiple surveillance 

studies since 1992 have not 

demonstrated the presence of AHS virus 

in the country. Saudi Arabian law 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 60 / Monday, March 30, 2015 / Notices 16617 

requires mandatory notification of AHS 

virus throughout the country and AHS 

vaccination is prohibited. Based on 

these and other factors described in the 

risk assessment, APHIS has concluded 

that Saudi Arabia is free of AHS. 

Surveillance and Control Measures 

Many commenters stated that they 

had no confidence in Saudi Arabia’s 

surveillance and control measures for 

AHS given its limited number of 

veterinarians and/or clinics in relation 

to the country’s size or the size of its 

equid population. Two commenters 

expressed concern whether 

veterinarians in Saudi Arabia are 

qualified to diagnose cases of AHS. 

APHIS evaluated the veterinary 

infrastructure of Saudi Arabia and 

concluded that it has a sufficient 

number of competent veterinarians to 

effectively manage its import/export 

surveillance and AHS disease control 

responsibilities. Saudi Arabia is roughly 

one fifth the size of the United States. 

However, most of the country is 

uninhabited desert. Therefore, its horse 

population is concentrated in several 

small areas, particularly the cities of 

Taif and Riyadh where most major 

equestrian events and races occur. In 

addition, the horse population of Saudi 

Arabia is estimated to be 16,500, which 

is relatively small in comparison to the 

estimated 9 million horses in the United 

States. 

Saudi Arabia’s MOA has an office 

within each of Saudi Arabia’s 13 

provinces, as well as over 190 branch 

offices and veterinary clinics in local 

communities throughout the kingdom. 

A total of 389 veterinarians and 210 

veterinary assistants work under the 

MOA. These branch offices provide 

veterinary services for treatment of farm 

and pet animals in addition to official 

animal health control measures such as 

vaccination, sampling, and agriculture 

extension work. The Ministry also 

operates 39 mobile veterinary clinics 

out of the provincial or branch offices 

throughout the kingdom. There are also 

80 private veterinary clinics in the 

kingdom. 

There are two veterinary colleges in 

Saudi Arabia: King Faisal University in 

Al-Hofouf and King Saud University in 

Al Qassim. APHIS reviewed 

documentation of the AHS training 

program offered by the MOA to Saudi 

Arabian veterinarians in cooperation 

with these colleges and concluded that 

the content was comparable to training 

offered in the United States and is 

taught by well-qualified, internationally 

credentialed veterinary school faculty. 

Several commenters expressed 

concern that the methodology behind 

AHS surveillance in Saudi Arabia was 

not explained in more detail and 

suggested that more surveillance be 

conducted. Two commenters stated that, 

although our evaluation cites the 

sampling of 750 horses and donkeys 

between 1997 and 2009, it fails to 

explain how animals were chosen for 

sampling or how the survey was 

conducted. 

The MOA conducted six AHS 

surveillance surveys between 1997 and 

2009. Surveys were conducted in 1997, 

1999, 2001–2002, 2005, 2008, and 2009. 

APHIS evaluated the surveillance data 

and summarized their results in our 

evaluation. Several commenters 

incorrectly stated that 750 samples were 

collected during the period of 1997– 

2009. As mentioned in our evaluation of 

the animal health status of Saudi Arabia 

relative to AHS, a total of 750 animals 

(460 donkeys and 290 horses) in Saudi 

Arabia, out of an approximate 

population of 13,000, were sampled in 

1997 alone. That number was chosen to 

provide 99 percent confidence of 

detecting AHS infection at a prevalence 

level of 1 percent. Samples were 

randomly selected with no more than 

five samples collected in any single 

stable or village and were collected in 

all regions of the country. However, a 

greater emphasis was placed on 

targeting samples, especially in 

donkeys, in the southwestern AHS 

control zone. Donkeys were targeted for 

increased sampling since that species 

would have an increased likelihood of 

subclinical infection and their 

population was higher in the AHS 

control zone. The AHS control zone is 

a region in the southwestern portion of 

Saudi Arabia bordering Yemen that acts 

as a buffer to separate the area where 

reintroduction of AHS would most 

likely occur. No equids from the control 

zone are allowed entry into the rest of 

Saudi Arabia and no equids from 

Yemen are allowed into Saudi Arabia. 

Test results indicated that no active 

AHS infection was present in the 

sampled animals. 

Subsequent surveys collected 

additional samples in both nationwide 

and regionally targeted surveys. In 1999, 

the MOA conducted a smaller 

nationwide AHS statistical survey as a 

follow-up to the 1997 survey. In that 

survey, 250 samples were randomly 

collected from all regions of the country. 

The 2001–2002 survey collected 324 

samples and targeted both animals in 

the AHS control zone and competition 

horses primarily stabled in the Riyadh 

area. The 2005 survey, which tested 79 

samples, was conducted only in the 

southwest AHS control zone. The 2008 

and 2009 surveys, both of which also 

focused on animals in the AHS control 

zone, collected 167 and 125 samples 

respectively. None of the surveys found 

evidence of viral activity. Animals that 

showed low level titers on the initial 

screening were retested after 30 and 60 

days and titers were found to be either 

stable, decreased, or absent. Therefore, 

APHIS concluded that the surveys were 

statistically valid and sufficiently 

demonstrated AHS freedom. 

In addition to these surveys, active 

surveillance data was collected from the 

pre-export testing of horses leaving 

Saudi Arabia. A total of 4,055 horses 

tested negative for AHS before being 

exported from Saudi Arabia between 

1999 and 2011. All imported equids 

must test negative for AHS before being 

admitted into the country. 

Two commenters expressed concern 

regarding Saudi Arabia’s lack of a 

written emergency response plan to deal 

with a potential AHS outbreak. The 

commenters asked how, without a 

written emergency response plan, MOA 

can ensure that passive surveillance is 

done correctly and adheres to all MOA 

rules and regulations. The commenters 

further asked how MOA can maintain 

that Saudi Arabia is AHS free when 

horses could show clinical signs of AHS 

and be euthanized and buried without 

the MOA ever knowing about it. 

As mentioned in the risk assessment, 

APHIS recommended to the MOA that 

Saudi Arabia would benefit by having a 

written AHS emergency response plan, 

along with periodic training and 

scenario exercises to simulate its 

implementation even though AHS virus 

has been absent in the country for a 

quarter century. APHIS believes that a 

written emergency plan would enhance 

Saudi Arabia’s ability to quickly 

respond in the event of reintroduction 

of AHS. A quick response to detect, 

contain, and eradicate any AHS 

reintroduction would minimize 

disruption of trade. However, APHIS 

concludes that the lack of a written 

response plan does not preclude 

removal of Saudi Arabia from the list of 

regions APHIS considers affected with 

AHS. Reoccurrence of AHS in the 

country would result in suspension of 

equine trade. Resumption of trade 

would be dependent on subsequent 

control and eradication. APHIS believes 

that if the MOA has a written AHS 

emergency response plan then the 

length of time needed for this process 

would be minimized. 

Compulsory notification of AHS 

suspicion and an effective veterinary 

infrastructure are necessary components 

of an AHS passive surveillance system. 

Saudi Arabian law requires notification 

of AHS suspicion. Based on 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

16618 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 60 / Monday, March 30, 2015 / Notices 

observations cited in our evaluation, 

APHIS concludes that the MOA is an 

effective central veterinary authority 

and provides veterinary services at the 

regional and local levels. Specifically, 

APHIS cites MOA’s strategy of directly 

providing veterinary services though 

government operated veterinary clinics. 

The MOA employs a total of 389 

veterinarians and 210 veterinary 

assistants and operates 39 mobile 

veterinary clinics. APHIS believes this 

practice encourages horse owners to call 

and report suspicious signs and 

symptoms of illness to ministry 

officials. In addition to the MOA 

veterinary clinics, there are 80 private 

veterinary clinics operating in Saudi 

Arabia. Similar to the United States, 

professional ethics and standards 

encourage compliance with the 

notification requirement for AHS 

suspicion. 

While it is possible that AHS-infected 

horses could be euthanized and buried 

without being reported to the MOA, this 

possibility exists for any country in the 

world and APHIS believes it to be an 

unlikely scenario. Reintroduction of 

AHS into Saudi Arabia would likely 

result in multiple cases with high 

mortality, an event that would be 

difficult to keep hidden. Because 

vaccination has been illegal for over 11 

years, Saudi Arabia now has a large 

number of AHS-susceptible equids. 

These animals functionally serve as 

sentinels for the disease. APHIS believes 

the number of unvaccinated equids is 

sufficiently high that AHS would be 

observed if it were present. 

Border Controls 

Many commenters expressed their 

belief that Saudi Arabia’s borders are 

‘‘porous.’’ The commenters expressed 

concerns that equids, including feral 

horses and donkeys, could enter Saudi 

Arabia from neighboring countries such 

as Oman and Yemen that are not free of 

AHS and subsequently enter the United 

States without being subject to the 60- 

day quarantine or potentially infect 

other equids that could enter the United 

States without being subject to the 60- 

day quarantine. Two commenters asked 

for evidence that MOA has conducted 

active surveillance of the country’s feral 

population of non-horse equids to 

establish their freedom from evidence of 

AHS. 

APHIS evaluated Saudi Arabia’s 

border controls, including those along 

its southern border with Yemen and 

Oman where illegal entry of equids 

could pose a pathway for AHS 

introduction. APHIS recognizes the 

potential for illegal smuggling along 

many international borders where land 

crossing is possible. However, the 

extremely harsh desert along Saudi 

Arabia’s border with Oman and much of 

Yemen provides a natural barrier that is 

considered to be sufficient to prevent 

the illegal entry of equids into Saudi 

Arabia. In addition, Saudi Arabia’s 

southwest border with Yemen is very 

mountainous and contains a very 

limited number of potential routes for 

horses and donkeys to cross into Saudi 

Arabia. These mountain passes are 

regularly patrolled by Saudi Arabia’s AlMujahedeen (border guards). APHIS 

considers the potential of being caught 

by these border patrols and the resultant 

consequences to be sufficient to deter 

the illegal smuggling of horses and 

donkeys into the southwestern region of 

Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, as stated 

previously, this southwest region is 

included in the AHS control zone from 

which movement of equids to the 

remainder of Saudi Arabia, as well as to 

any third country, is prohibited. Thus 

the AHS control zone provides a second 

layer of movement controls. Saudi 

Arabia lacks feral equid populations. 

Therefore, surveillance of these 

populations is not necessary or possible. 

In addition, as stated previously, all 

equids must test negative for AHS 

before being imported into Saudi 

Arabia. For these reasons, APHIS 

considers the illegal movement of 

horses from Oman and Yemen to the 

United States via Saudi Arabia 

extremely unlikely. 

As mentioned in our evaluation, the 

MOA operates a border inspection post 

on King Fahad’s causeway, which 

connects Saudi Arabia with Bahrain. 

That causeway is the only land crossing 

between the two countries. Two 

commenters expressed concern 

regarding oversight of the diplomatic 

lane on the causeway that is reserved for 

use by royal families and high 

government officials, citing the illegal 

movement of eight horses from Bahrain 

through this lane. The commenters 

asked how long the horses were in 

Saudi Arabia before it was determined 

they were imported illegally, how many 

other horses they came into contact 

with, and whether the incident led to 

greater oversight or a change in 

regulations regarding the diplomatic 

lane. 

All horses, regardless of consignee, 

entering Saudi Arabia are required to 

have an import permit and are required 

to stop at the border inspection station 

for document review and inspection. At 

the time of the cited incident, Saudi 

Arabia prohibited the importation of 

equids from Bahrain due to an outbreak 

of glanders in that country. Despite 

these movement restrictions, 

individuals illegally moved eight horses 

into Saudi Arabia by taking advantage of 

diplomatic courtesies. However, 

secondary safeguards that regulate and 

control animal identification and 

internal movement resulted in prompt 

detection and seizure of these eight 

horses within 1 day, upon arrival at 

their intended destination in the Riyadh 

area. Lacking proper documentation of 

border inspection, these animals were 

promptly seized and quarantined before 

having contact with any other horses. 

MOA officials indicated that the 

Government of Saudi Arabia has been in 

discussions with the Government of 

Bahrain regarding the misuse of the 

diplomatic lanes. APHIS considers this 

quick response to be evidence of the 

efficacy of Saudi Arabia’s animal 

movement controls and gives us 

confidence in Saudi Arabia’s 

commitment and ability to enforce its 

import regulations. 

Vectors 

Many commenters expressed concern 

regarding the possibility of AHS being 

introduced into Saudi Arabia via windborne insect vectors from regions where 

AHS is present. Two commenters asked 

how APHIS can consider the desert 

along Saudi Arabia’s southern border an 

effective natural barrier against the 

introduction of AHS when AHS vectors 

can cross the Bab el-Mandeb, a 20 mile 

wide strait separating Djibouti and 

Yemen. 

APHIS acknowledges the presence of 

competent AHS vectors in Saudi Arabia. 

However despite their presence, 

surveillance over an extended period of 

time has not detected the presence of 

the AHS virus in the country. Although 

theoretically plausible, the introduction 

of AHS into Saudi Arabia from endemic 

areas of Africa via windblown virusinfected vectors has never been 

documented. The southwestern corner 

of Saudi Arabia is approximately 160 

miles from Eritrea. Furthermore, the 

southwestern coastal region of Saudi 

Arabia is separated from the remainder 

of the country by a mountain range that 

is sufficiently high to be considered a 

natural barrier for spread of the insect 

vectors capable of transmitting the AHS 

virus. As described in our evaluation, 

this region is incorporated into Saudi 

Arabia’s AHS control zone from which 

equine movement to the remainder of 

the country is prohibited and is an area 

of intensified AHS surveillance. APHIS 

considers surveillance conducted in this 

region reasonable to detect potential 

AHS reintroduction. The remainder of 

Saudi Arabia’s southern border with 

Yemen and Oman is also protected by 

a natural barrier. The Rub al Khali, or 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 60 / Monday, March 30, 2015 / Notices 16619 

‘‘Empty Quarter,’’ is a vast uninhabited 

desert where conditions are 

inhospitable for life. 

Historical incursions of AHS have 

been associated with the movement of 

infected horses. Because the focus of the 

evaluation was on Saudi Arabia, APHIS 

did not mention, but does consider, Bab 

el Mandeb to be a natural barrier for 

equid movements between Djibouti and 

Yemen. While APHIS considers 

Djibouti, as well as most of the African 

continent, to be AHS-affected, Djibouti 

has never reported outbreaks of AHS to 

the OIE. AHS is endemic in central and 

southern Africa and periodically 

spreads to northern Africa and countries 

around the Mediterranean. Saudi Arabia 

is separated from Africa by the Red Sea, 

which also serves as a natural barrier for 

equid movement. Equine movement 

restrictions and the natural barrier of the 

mountains and desert significantly 

reduce the risk of spreading AHS virus 

into other areas of the country. 

Benefits and Impacts 

Several commenters noted that only 

eight horses were imported into the 

United States from Saudi Arabia 

between 1999 and 2011. Given the low 

number of horse imports, the 

commenters questioned the benefit of 

increased trade with Saudi Arabia 

relative to the potential risk. 

APHIS believes that the low number 

of imports reflects the trade barrier 

created by the current 60-day quarantine 

requirement. We assessed the risk and 

found no scientific basis justifying the 

continued listing of Saudi Arabia as a 

region affected by AHS. Therefore, in 

accordance with United States 

obligations under the OIE’s Sanitary and 

Phytosanitary Agreement, APHIS is 

taking the action to remove Saudi 

Arabia from this list. As a result of this 

action, APHIS estimates the most likely 

effect will be an increase in the 

temporary movement of horses between 

Saudi Arabia and the United States for 

racing, competitions, and breeding. The 

current 60-day arrival quarantine 

required for horses entering the United 

States from Saudi Arabia is costly to 

horse owners (including U.S. owners) 

and creates hardships for maintaining 

the conditioning of competitive animals 

and care of breeding mares with foals. 

Horses currently move in and out of 

Saudi Arabia to the European Union 

and Arabian Gulf States for racing, 

competition, and breeding. Saudi horse 

owners have expressed the desire to 

compete in races and other equestrian 

competitions in the United States, as 

well as transport horses for breeding, 

but are inhibited by the cost and 

limitations of the current quarantine. 

APHIS cannot estimate with certainty 

the number of horse movements to and 

from Saudi Arabia that will result from 

this action. However, we believe the 

number to be relatively low. 

Budget 

Table 1 in our evaluation shows the 

total budget for MOA’s Animal and 

Plant Quarantine Department from 2011 

to 2014. Saudi Arabia’s animal disease 

control activities, including for AHS, are 

reflected in that budget. Two 

commenters noted that the budget for 

the Animal and Plant Quarantine 

Department increased by $4,571,259 

since 2011 and asked how APHIS can be 

certain that the increase went to fund 

AHS control and surveillance activities. 

The commenters also asked what Saudi 

Arabia’s Animal and Plant Quarantine 

Department’s budget was in 2009 and 

2010. 

The budget figures cited in Table 1 of 

the evaluation reflect the total budget 

for MOA’s Animal and Plant Quarantine 

Department. Each of those three annual 

budgets includes a line item of 

$3,999,465 specifically earmarked as a 

contingency fund to respond to any 

foreign animal disease (FAD) 

emergency, including AHS. In addition, 

MOA officials have the option to request 

supplemental funding if emergency 

response costs exceed the appropriated 

contingency funds. The increase in the 

budgets over the 3 years reflects 

increases in the appropriations for 

veterinary personnel. Our evaluation 

reviewed the budgets for the 3 most 

current years and we believe that was 

sufficient to determine Saudi Arabia’s 

ability to respond to an outbreak of 

AHS. 

Impacts 

Many commenters expressed concern 

regarding the potential impacts to the 

U.S. horse industry if AHS were to enter 

the United States, including job losses, 

high mortality, and the potential 

destruction of the horse industry. 

Several commenters questioned whether 

APHIS has the resources to deal with a 

potential AHS outbreak in the United 

States. 

While APHIS agrees that the 

consequences of an AHS introduction 

into the United States could be severe, 

we do not believe that an outbreak 

would result in the catastrophic 

consequences the commenters describe. 

Such catastrophic consequences would 

be more likely associated with a highly 

contagious disease or one that spreads 

widely before detection. As stated in our 

evaluation, AHS is an infectious, but 

non-contagious, insect-transmitted, viral 

disease with high mortality in horses 

and mules. Recent history indicates that 

AHS outbreaks in other countries have 

not resulted in widespread infection, 

including the 1989 outbreak in Saudi 

Arabia which was limited to affecting 

three horses. Disease controls currently 

available, such as diagnostic 

capabilities, vector controls, and 

vaccination, likely contribute to limiting 

the spread of AHS outbreaks. APHIS 

believes that an introduction of AHS 

into the United States would be quickly 

detected, contained, and eradicated. In 

the evaluation, APHIS considered the 

consequences of an AHS introduction 

along with the exposure and release 

risks and concluded the overall risk of 

introducing AHS into the United States 

via the importation of horses from Saudi 

Arabia to be very low. 

APHIS has resources and is prepared 

to respond to potential FAD outbreaks, 

including outbreaks of AHS. APHIS has 

established the Foreign Animal Disease 

Preparedness and Response Plan (FAD 

PReP) to provide a framework for FAD 

preparedness and response. This 

document provides the response 

strategies, zone and premises 

designations, and critical activities for 

controlling, containing, and eradicating 

an FAD. It is available on our Web site 

at: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_

health/emergency_management/

downloads/documents_manuals/

fadprep_manual_2.pdf. A companion 

document, the APHIS Foreign Animal 

Disease Framework: Roles and 

Coordination, provides an overview of 

FAD PReP, Federal roles, APHIS 

authorities and funding process, 

incident management, and 

communication strategy. This document 

is available at: http://www.aphis.usda.

gov/animal_health/emergency_

management/downloads/documents_

manuals/fadprep_manual_1.pdf. 

Additional APHIS FAD emergency 

management documents may be found 

at: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/wps/

portal/aphis/ourfocus/animalhealth

?1dmy&urile=wcm%3apath%3a%2

Faphis_content_library%2Fsa_our_

focus%2Fsa_animal_health%2Fsa_

emergency_management%2Fct_

fadprep. 

Our evaluation cites the statistic that 

the mortality rate for horses infected 

with AHS is 70 to 95 percent. Two 

commenters asked how APHIS can be 

sure of these numbers. 

The numbers cited come from the 

consensus of global scientific 

knowledge regarding the mortality rates 

described in our evaluation. 

Specifically, the mortality rate for 

horses infected with AHS was taken 

from the OIE Web site (http://www.oie.

int/fileadmin/Home/eng/Animal_

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

16620 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 60 / Monday, March 30, 2015 / Notices 

1To view the notice, pest list, RMD, and 

comments we received, go to http://www.

regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2014- 

0008. 

Health_in_the_World/docs/pdf/Disease_

cards/AFRICAN_HORSE_

SICKNESS.pdf) and the Iowa State 

University: The Center for Food 

Security & Public Health Web site 

(http://www.cfsph.iastate.edu/

Factsheets/pdfs/african_horse_

sickness.pdf). 

Compensation 

Two commenters asked whether 

APHIS would be able to provide 

compensation for horses that may need 

to be euthanized for AHS. 

APHIS has the authority to provide 

indemnity in the case of an FAD 

outbreak. In the event of an FAD 

outbreak such as AHS, APHIS may 

consider indemnity funding. Specific 

decisions regarding indemnity would 

depend on the situation and available 

funding sources. 

Based on the evaluation and the 

reasons given in this document in 

response to comments, we are 

recognizing Saudi Arabia as free of AHS 

and removing it from the list of regions 

considered affected with AHS which is 

found on the APHIS Web site at 

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/wps/portal/

aphis/ourfocus/importexport and 

following the link to ‘‘Animal or Animal 

Product.’’ Copies of the list are also 

available via postal mail, fax, or email 

from the person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1622 and 8301–8317; 

21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 

CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4. 

Done in Washington, DC, this 24th day of 

March 2015. 

Jere L. Dick, 

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 2015–07212 Filed 3–27–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

[Docket No. APHIS–2014–0008] 

Notice of Decision To Authorize the 

Importation of Fresh Figs From Mexico 

Into the Continental United States 

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: We are advising the public of 

our decision to authorize the 

importation of fresh figs from Mexico 

into the continental United States. 

Based on the findings of a pest risk 

analysis, which we made available to 

the public to review and comment 

through a previous notice, we have 

concluded that the application of one or 

more designated phytosanitary 

measures will be sufficient to mitigate 

the risks of introducing or disseminating 

plant pests or noxious weeds via the 

importation of fresh figs from Mexico. 

DATES: Effective March 30, 2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

George Apgar Balady, Senior Regulatory 

Policy Specialist, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 

River Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 

20737–1231; (301) 851–2240. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the 

regulations in ‘‘Subpart—Fruits and 

Vegetables’’ (7 CFR 319.56–1 through 

319.56–71, referred to below as the 

regulations), the Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service (APHIS) 

prohibits or restricts the importation of 

fruits and vegetables into the United 

States from certain parts of the world to 

prevent plant pests from being 

introduced into or disseminated within 

the United States. 

Section 319.56–4 contains a 

performance-based process for 

approving the importation of 

commodities that, based on the findings 

of a pest risk analysis, can be safely 

imported subject to one or more of the 

designated phytosanitary measures 

listed in paragraph (b) of that section. 

In accordance with that process, we 

published a notice 1 in the Federal 

Register on June 12, 2014 (79 FR 33716– 

33717, Docket No. APHIS–2014–0008), 

in which we announced the availability, 

for review and comment, of a pest list 

and risk management document (RMD) 

regarding the risks associated with the 

importation into the continental United 

States of fresh figs from Mexico. 

We solicited comments on the pest 

list and RMD for 60 days, ending on 

August 11, 2014. We received three 

comments by that date, from an 

exporter, an organization of State plant 

regulatory agencies, and a State 

department of agriculture. The 

comments are discussed below. 

The pest list identified six quarantine 

pests that are likely to follow the 

pathway of fresh figs imported from 

Mexico into the continental United 

States: Anastrepha fraterculus, A. 

ludens, A. serpentina, Ceratitis capitata, 

Maconellicoccus hirsutus, and 

Nipaecoccus viridis. 

Two commenters acknowledged that 

the mitigation measures described in the 

RMD would likely be enough to mitigate 

the risks of all six quarantine pests, but 

requested that figs from Mexico not be 

distributed in Florida due to the risk of 

an accidental or incidental introduction 

of quarantine pests into the State. 

As described in the RMD, we are 

requiring figs from Mexico to be treated 

with irradiation to neutralize all plant 

pests of the class Insecta. Section 305.9 

specifies the requirements for the 

irradiation of imported commodities. 

These requirements provide effective 

safeguards for articles irradiated either 

prior to or after arrival in the United 

States. In addition, each consignment is 

subject to inspection at the U.S. ports of 

entry and must be found free of all 

quarantine pests. We are confident that 

these requirements will adequately 

mitigate the risks associated with the 

importation of fresh figs from Mexico. 

One commenter asked what 

phytosanitary measures would apply to 

figs exported from fruit fly-free areas of 

Mexico and whether those treatments 

will negate the figs’ organic status. 

Under § 319.56–5, certain fruits and 

vegetables may be imported into the 

United States provided that the fruits or 

vegetables originate from an area that is 

free of a specific pest or pests. As such, 

figs produced in fruit fly-free areas of 

Mexico would be eligible for 

importation into the United States 

without treatment for fruit flies. 

However, the figs would be subject to 

the labeling, certification, and 

safeguarding requirements of 

§ 319.56–5(e), the general requirements 

in § 319.56–3, and would have to be 

inspected and found free of M. hirsutus 

and N. viridis. 

Therefore, in accordance with 

§ 319.56–4(c)(2)(ii), we are announcing 

our decision to authorize the 

importation of fresh figs from Mexico 

into the continental United States 

subject to the following phytosanitary 

measures: 

• The figs may be imported into the 

continental United States in commercial 

consignments only. 

• The figs must be irradiated in 

accordance with 7 CFR part 305 with a 

minimum absorbed dose of 150 Gy. 

• If irradiation treatment is applied 

outside the United States, each 

consignment of fruit must be jointly 

inspected by APHIS and the national 

plant protection organization (NPPO) of 

Mexico and accompanied by a 

phytosanitary certificate (PC) attesting 

that the fruit received the required 

irradiation treatment. The PC must also 

include an additional declaration stating 

that the consignment was inspected and 

found free of M. hirsutus and N. viridis. 

• If irradiation treatment is applied 

upon arrival in the United States, each 

consignment of fruit must be inspected 

by the NPPO of Mexico prior to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES