77370 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 246 / Monday, December 23, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

seat on the Board for the State of 

Arkansas. 

With regard to alternatives, the Board 

reviewed the peanut distribution for all 

the minor peanut-producing States, and 

determined that Arkansas was the only 

current minor State that met the Order’s 

requirement for a 3-year average peanut 

production of at least 10,000 tons. 

In accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 

Chapter 35), the background form, 

which represents the information 

collection and recordkeeping 

requirements that may be imposed by 

this proposed rule, was previously 

approved under OMB control number 

0505–0001. 

Adding a producer member and 

alternate member representing the State 

of Arkansas for the Board means that 

four additional producers would be 

required to submit background forms to 

USDA in order to be considered for 

appointment to the Board. Four 

producers would be affected because 

two names must be submitted to the 

Secretary for consideration for each 

position on the Board (two members 

and two alternates). The public 

reporting burden is estimated to 

increase by an average 0.5 hours per 

response for each of the four producers. 

This additional burden would be 

included in the existing information 

collections approved for use under OMB 

control number 0505–0001. The 

estimated annual cost of providing the 

information by the four producers 

would be $66.00 or $16.50 per producer. 

However, serving on the Board is 

optional, and the burden of submitting 

the background form would be offset by 

the benefits of serving on the Board. 

As with all Federal promotion 

programs, reports and forms are 

periodically reviewed to reduce 

information requirements and 

duplication by industry and public 

sector agencies. Finally, USDA has not 

identified any relevant Federal rules 

that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with 

this proposed rule. 

AMS is committed to complying with 

the E-Government Act, to promote the 

use of the Internet and other 

information technologies to provide 

increased opportunities for citizen 

access to Government information and 

services, and for other purposes. 

In regards to outreach efforts, the 

Board discussed Arkansas peanut 

production level at its November 27–30, 

2012, meeting. The Board notified the 

major peanut-producing States (Georgia, 

Alabama, Florida, Texas, North 

Carolina, South Carolina, Mississippi, 

Virginia, Oklahoma, and New Mexico) 

of Arkansas production numbers by 

disseminating information through the 

Board’s weekly newsletter which is 

titled News in a Nutshell. The Board 

also sent out notification about 

Arkansas’ increased production 

numbers to the peanut industry through 

its Peanut Quarterly newsletter. In 

addition, Arkansas’s increased 

production numbers in the year 2012 to 

present date were widely published in 

trade publications. The Board met in 

April 2013 and recommended adding 

the State of Arkansas as a primary 

peanut-producing State. All of the 

Board’s meetings are open to the public 

and interested persons are invited to 

participate and express their views. 

We have performed this initial RFA 

regarding the impact of this proposed 

action on small entities and we invite 

comments concerning potential effects 

of this action on small businesses. 

While this proposed rule set forth 

below has not yet received the approval 

of USDA, it has been determined that it 

is consistent with and would effectuate 

the purposes of the 1996 Act. 

A 30-day comment period is provided 

to allow interested persons to respond 

to this proposal. Thirty days is deemed 

appropriate so that the proposed 

amendments, if adopted, may be 

implemented for the next nomination 

process which begins early in spring 

2014. If this process is not in effect by 

spring 2014, then Arkansas would not 

have representation on the Board until 

the year 2015. All written comments 

received in response to this proposed 

rule will be considered prior to 

finalizing this action. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1216 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Advertising, Consumer 

information, Marketing agreements, 

Peanut promotion, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, 7 CFR part 1216 is proposed 

to be amended as follows: 

PART 1216—PEANUT PROMOTION, 

RESEARCH, AND INFORMATION 

ORDER 

■ 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR 

part 1216 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7411–7425; 7 U.S.C. 

7401. 

■ 2. Section 1216.15 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 1216.15 Minor peanut-producing states. 

Minor peanut-producing states means 

all peanut-producing states with the 

exception of Alabama, Arkansas, 

Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, New 

Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, 

South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia. 

■ 3. Section 1216.21 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 1216.21 Primary peanut-producing 

states. 

Primary peanut-producing states 

means Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, 

Georgia, Mississippi, New Mexico, 

North Carolina, Oklahoma, South 

Carolina, Texas, and Virginia, Provided, 

these states maintain a 3-year average 

production of at least 10,000 tons of 

peanuts. 

■ 4. Section 1216.40, paragraph (a) 

introductory text and (a)(1) are revised 

to read as follows: 

§ 1216.40 Establishment and membership. 

(a) Establishment of a National 

Peanut Board. There is hereby 

established a National Peanut Board, 

hereinafter called the Board, composed 

of no more than 12 peanut producers 

and alternates, appointed by the 

Secretary from nominations as follows: 

(1) Eleven members and alternates. 

One member and one alternate shall be 

appointed from each primary peanutproducing state, who are producers and 

whose nominations have been 

submitted by certified peanut producer 

organizations within a primary peanutproducing state. 

* * * * * 

Dated: December 17, 2013. 

Rex A. Barnes, 

Associate Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2013–30416 Filed 12–20–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

9 CFR Part 94 

[Docket No. APHIS–2009–0017] 

RIN 0579–AD41 

Importation of Beef From a Region in 

Brazil 

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: We are proposing to amend 

the regulations governing the 

importation of certain animals, meat, 

and other animal products by allowing, 

under certain conditions, the 

importation of fresh (chilled or frozen) 

beef from a region in Brazil (the States 

of Bahia, Distrito Federal, Espirito 

Santo, Goias, Mato Grosso, Mato Grosso 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 246 / Monday, December 23, 2013 / Proposed Rules 77371 

1The provisions allowing the importation of 

ovine meat from Uruguay were added in a final rule 

published in the Federal Register (78 FR 68327– 

68331) on November 14, 2013, and effective on 

November 29, 2013. 

2 Instructions on accessing Regulations.gov and 

information on the location and hours of the 

reading room may be found at the beginning of this 

document under ADDRESSES. You may also request 

paper copies of the risk analysis by calling or 

writing the person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

do Sul, Minas Gerais, Parana, Rio 

Grande do Sul, Rio de Janeiro, 

Rondonia, Sao Paulo, Sergipe, and 

Tocantins). Based on the evidence in a 

recent risk assessment, we have 

determined that fresh (chilled or frozen) 

beef can be safely imported from those 

Brazilian States provided certain 

conditions are met. This action would 

provide for the importation of beef from 

the designated region in Brazil into the 

United States while continuing to 

protect the United States against the 

introduction of foot-and-mouth disease. 

DATES: We will consider all comments 

that we receive on or before February 

21, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by either of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov/ 

#!documentDetail;D=APHIS-2009-0017- 

0001. 

• Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: 

Send your comment to Docket No. 

APHIS–2009–0017, Regulatory Analysis 

and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 

3A–03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, 

Riverdale, MD 20737–1238. 

Supporting documents and any 

comments we receive on this docket 

may be viewed at http:// 

www.regulations.gov/ 

#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2009-0017 or 

in our reading room, which is located in 

room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 

14th Street and Independence Avenue 

SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading 

room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except 

holidays. To be sure someone is there to 

help you, please call (202) 799–7039 

before coming. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Silvia Kreindel, Senior Staff 

Veterinarian, Regional Evaluation 

Services Staff, National Center for 

Import and Export, VS, APHIS, 4700 

River Road Unit 38, Riverdale, MD 

20737–1231; (301) 851–3313. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The regulations in 9 CFR part 94 

(referred to below as the regulations) 

prohibit or restrict the importation of 

certain animals and animal products 

into the United States to prevent the 

introduction of various animal diseases, 

including rinderpest, foot-and-mouth 

disease (FMD), African swine fever, 

classical swine fever, and swine 

vesicular disease. These are dangerous 

and destructive communicable diseases 

of ruminants and swine. Section 94.1 of 

the regulations contains criteria for 

recognition by the Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of 

foreign regions as free of rinderpest or 

free of both rinderpest and FMD. 

Section 94.11 restricts the importation 

of ruminants and swine and their meat 

and certain other products from regions 

that are declared free of rinderpest and 

FMD but that nonetheless present a 

disease risk because of the regions’ 

proximity to or trading relationships 

with regions affected with rinderpest or 

FMD. Regions APHIS has declared free 

of FMD and/or rinderpest, and regions 

declared free of FMD and rinderpest 

that are subject to the restrictions in 

§ 94.11, are listed on the APHIS Web 

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

import_export/animals/ 

animal_disease_status.shtml. 

APHIS considers rinderpest or FMD 

to exist in all regions of the world not 

listed as free of those diseases on the 

Web site. On November 16, 2010, we 

published in the Federal Register (75 

FR 69851–69857, Docket No. APHIS– 

2009–0034) a final rule that, among 

other things, recognized the Brazilian 

State of Santa Catarina as free of 

rinderpest and FMD. APHIS does not 

consider the rest of Brazil to be free of 

FMD because Brazil vaccinates against 

FMD. 

With few exceptions, the regulations 

prohibit the importation of fresh 

(chilled or frozen) meat of ruminants or 

swine that originates in or transits a 

region where FMD is considered to 

exist. One such exception is beef and 

ovine meat 1 from Uruguay. The 

regulations allow the importation of 

fresh beef and ovine meat from Uruguay 

into the United States provided that the 

following additional conditions have 

been met: 

• The meat is beef or ovine meat from 

animals born, raised, and slaughtered in 

Uruguay. 

• Foot-and-mouth disease has not 

been diagnosed in Uruguay within the 

previous 12 months. 

• The meat comes from bovines or 

sheep that originated from premises 

where FMD had not been present during 

the lifetime of any bovines or sheep 

slaughtered for the export of beef and 

ovine meat to the United States. 

• The meat comes from bovines or 

sheep that were moved directly from the 

premises of origin to the slaughtering 

establishment without any contact with 

other animals. 

• The meat comes from bovines or 

sheep that received ante-mortem and 

post-mortem veterinary inspections, 

paying particular attention to the head 

and feet, at the slaughtering 

establishment, with no evidence found 

of vesicular disease. 

• The meat consists only of bovine or 

ovine parts that are, by standard 

practice, part of the animal’s carcass 

that is placed in a chiller for maturation 

after slaughter. The bovine and ovine 

parts that may not be imported include 

all parts of the head, feet, hump, hooves, 

and internal organs. 

• All bone and visually identifiable 

blood clots and lymphoid tissue have 

been removed from the meat. 

• The meat has not been in contact 

with meat from regions other than those 

listed in the regulations as free of 

rinderpest and FMD. 

• The meat comes from carcasses that 

were allowed to maturate at 40 to 50 °F 

(4 to 10 °C) for a minimum of 24 hours 

after slaughter and that reached a pH of 

below 6.0 the loin muscle at the end of 

the maturation period. Measurements 

for pH must be taken at the middle of 

both longissimus dorsi muscles. Any 

carcass in which the pH does not reach 

less than 6.0 may be allowed to 

maturate an additional 24 hours and be 

retested, and, if the carcass still has not 

reached a pH of less than 6.0 after 48 

hours, the meat from the carcass may 

not be exported to the United States. 

• An authorized veterinary official of 

the Government of Uruguay certifies on 

the foreign meat inspection certificate 

that the above conditions have been 

met. 

• The establishment in which the 

bovines and sheep are slaughtered 

allows periodic on-site evaluation and 

subsequent inspection of its facilities, 

records, and operations by an APHIS 

representative. 

In response to a request from the 

Government of Brazil that we allow 

fresh (chilled or frozen) beef to be 

imported into the United States from a 

region within that country, we 

conducted a risk analysis of that region, 

which can be viewed on the Internet on 

the Regulations.gov Web site or in our 

reading room.2 For the risk analysis, we 

evaluated information provided by 

Brazil’s Ministry of Agriculture, 

Livestock and Food Supply (MAPA) in 

accordance with § 92.2 regarding the 

country’s FMD status, reviewed 

published scientific literature, and 

conducted five site visits to the 

proposed exporting region. We 

concluded that Brazil has infrastructure 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
77372 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 246 / Monday, December 23, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

3Prior to 2012, § 92.2(b) listed 11 factors. In 2012, 

APHIS consolidated the 11 factors into 8 in order 

to simplify the regulations and facilitate the 

application process. Since the evaluation of the 

proposed exporting region of Brazil began before 

the consolidation, however, the risk assessment 

follows the 11-factor format. The topics addressed 

by the 11 factors are encapsulated in the 8. 

Appendix II of the risk assessment describes the 

similarities between the 8 and 11 factors. 

Observations and information collected during the 

site visits were considered in the risk assessment 

as well. 

and emergency response capabilities 

adequate to effectively contain and 

eradicate FMD in the event of an 

outbreak and to comply with U.S. 

import restrictions on products from 

affected areas. Based on the evidence 

documented in our recent risk 

assessment, we believe that fresh 

(chilled or frozen) beef can be safely 

imported from the region in Brazil 

composed of the States of Bahia, Distrito 

Federal, Espirito Santo, Goias, Mato 

Grosso, Mato Grosso do Sul, Minas 

Gerais, Parana, Rio Grande do Sul, Rio 

de Janeiro, Rondonia, Sao Paulo, 

Sergipe, and Tocantins, provided 

certain conditions are met. Accordingly, 

we are proposing to amend the 

regulations in § 94.22 to allow the 

importation of fresh beef from that 

region in Brazil. Under this proposed 

rule, fresh beef from that region of Brazil 

would be subject to the same import 

conditions under § 94.22 as beef and 

ovine meat from Uruguay. 

In this proposed rule, we are also 

giving notice that we would add Brazil 

to the list of regions that we recognize 

as free of rinderpest, which can be 

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

import_export/animals/animal_import/ 

animal_imports_rinderpest.shtml. 

Historically, rinderpest virus has never 

become established in North America, 

Central America, the Caribbean Islands, 

or South America. A brief incursion into 

Brazil occurred in 1921 but was limited 

in scope and quickly eradicated. 

Miscellaneous 

Our proposed addition of the 

exporting region of Brazil to the 

regulations in § 94.22 necessitates a few 

minor editorial changes to § 94.1, where, 

currently, reference is made to the 

importation of fresh beef and ovine meat 

from Uruguay under § 94.22. 

Risk Analysis 

Drawing on data submitted by the 

Government of Brazil and observations 

from our site visits to the region under 

consideration, we have conducted a risk 

analysis of the animal health status of 

that region relative to FMD. Our risk 

analysis was conducted according to the 

eight factors identified in § 92.2, 

‘‘Application for recognition of the 

animal health status of a region’’: The 

scope of the evaluation being requested, 

veterinary control and oversight, disease 

history and vaccination practices, 

livestock demographics and traceability, 

epidemiological separation from 

potential sources of infection, 

surveillance, diagnostic laboratory 

capabilities, and emergency 

preparedness and response.3

A summary evaluation of each factor 

is discussed below. Based on our 

analysis of these factors, we have 

determined that fresh (chilled or 

frozen), maturated, deboned beef can be 

safely imported into the United States 

from this region in Brazil. 

Scope of the Evaluation Being 

Requested 

We conducted our risk analysis in 

response to an official request from 

Brazil that APHIS allow the importation 

of fresh (chilled or frozen), maturated, 

deboned beef into the United States 

from a designated region consisting of 

14 Brazilian States. The region includes 

the States of Bahia, Distrito Federal, 

Espı ́rito Santo, Goia ́s, Mato Grosso, 

Mato Grosso do Sul, Minas Gerais, 

Parana ́, Rio Grande do Sul, Rio de 

Janeiro, Rondoˆnia, Sa ̃o Paulo, Sergipe, 

and Tocantins. 

Given the history of FMD in Brazil 

and the fact that Brazil vaccinates its 

cattle population in most States against 

FMD, APHIS conducted this risk 

analysis to evaluate the potential for 

FMD introduction and establishment 

through importation of beef from Brazil. 

Data and background information were 

obtained from Brazilian animal health 

officials. Much of the supporting 

information for this analysis consists of 

records obtained from MAPA. In 

addition, APHIS conducted five site 

visits to Brazil, in 2002, 2003, 2006, 

2008, and 2013, to verify and 

complement the information provided 

by Brazil. 

Veterinary Control and Oversight 

APHIS reviewed Brazil’s FMD control 

and eradication program during its site 

visits in 2002, 2003, 2006, 2008, and 

2013, and concluded that the program is 

effective at the local and national levels. 

We determined that MAPA could detect 

disease quickly, limit its spread, and 

report it promptly. This capacity was in 

evidence in the FMD outbreaks in 2005 

and 2006, when the cases were quickly 

identified, disease was contained, and 

international authorities were notified 

in a timely manner. 

APHIS considers that MAPA has 

sufficient legal authority to carry out 

official control, eradication, and 

quarantine activities. MAPA has a 

system of official veterinarians and 

support staff in place for carrying out 

field programs and for import controls 

and animal quarantine. Field activities 

are coordinated through the State 

Agricultural Secretariat offices. Review 

of veterinary infrastructure with MAPA 

officials demonstrated an infrastructure 

adequate for rapid detection of FMD and 

for carrying out surveillance and 

eradication programs. Field offices 

appeared to be adequately staffed for the 

regions covered. The technical 

infrastructure is adequate, and advanced 

technologies are utilized in conducting 

several animal health programs, 

including the FMD program. Import 

controls are sufficient to protect 

international borders at principal 

crossing points, and sufficient controls 

exist to prevent the introduction of 

international waste into the country. 

Field personnel appeared to be 

adequately trained in or to have had 

some experience with clinical signs of 

FMD. It is expected that they would 

suspect FMD if they were to see clinical 

signs of it. With regard to indemnity 

procedures, we concluded that 

sufficient funds may be available to 

compensate owners for depopulated 

animals and that indemnity provisions 

can be extended to exposed animals. 

Generally, we were favorably impressed 

with the census information, coverage of 

premises in the export region, the 

recordkeeping for individual premises, 

the control of vaccination, and the 

movement controls documented at the 

local level. 

Disease History and Vaccination 

Practices 

Outbreaks of FMD occurred in the 

Brazilian States of Rio Grande Do Sul in 

2000–2001 and in Parana ́ and Matto 

Grosso do Sul in 2005–2006. In the 

course of evaluating the potential 

disease risk posed by importation of 

fresh beef from the export region into 

the United States, we did not detect any 

evidence to suggest that active outbreaks 

of FMD exist in the proposed exporting 

region. 

Vaccination of cattle and buffalo is 

mandatory in the proposed export 

region. Other species are not vaccinated 

on a regular basis in Brazil. Vaccination 

coverage was reported to range between 

76 and 99.9 percent in the export region. 

The vaccine used is an inactivated, 

trivalent, oil-based vaccine. All FMD 

vaccines produced or used in Brazil 

must be tested for quality and safety by 

the official service. Quality control tests 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 246 / Monday, December 23, 2013 / Proposed Rules 77373 

of each batch of the vaccine are 

conducted in two laboratories, located 

in Recife (Pernambuco State) and Porto 

Alegre, and strictly follow international 

standards as set by the World 

Organization for Animal Health (OIE). 

We concluded that Brazil conducts its 

FMD vaccine production programs 

appropriately and in accordance with 

international standards. There is a 

system of controls to ensure compliance 

with vaccination calendars through 

matching vaccination records to 

movement permits and census data, and 

through field inspections. There is also 

a system in place for levying fines for 

noncompliance. 

Livestock Demographics and 

Traceability 

Agriculture in Brazil supports the 

economy, and agricultural commodities 

constitute 37 percent of total exports. 

The domestic animal population 

consists of 183,000,000 cattle, 1,100,000 

buffaloes, 14,800,000 sheep, 12,100,000 

goats, and 33,000,000 pigs. Of these 

amounts, 84 percent of the cattle 

population and the premises that hold 

them are located within the proposed 

export area. 

We did not identify significant risk 

pathways that would cause us to 

consider commercial operations in the 

proposed export region as a likely 

source for introducing FMD into the 

United States. The larger commercial 

operations are likely to be the source of 

beef exports from the export region. 

APHIS considers the beef industry in 

the export region to be well-organized 

and committed to the production of 

quality product and to preventing FMD 

outbreaks. 

Brazil has an efficient and effective 

traceability system, which includes a 

voluntary national identification system 

for cattle and buffalo being exported to 

different countries, including the 

European Union (EU). A unique 17-digit 

identification code is given to each 

animal and is registered in a national 

database managed by MAPA. The use of 

this national identification system 

enhances Brazil’s ability to certify the 

origin of animals entering the export 

channels. 

The auction system in the country is 

well-organized and tightly controlled by 

the official service. In addition, there is 

no evidence to suggest that major 

movements of animals into export 

channels occur through the auction 

system. 

Adequate controls and inspection 

measures exist at slaughter facilities in 

Brazil. Ante-mortem and post-mortem 

inspections are carried out satisfactorily. 

APHIS evaluated pH controls, 

maturation, and deboning procedures at 

three plants in the proposed export zone 

that export to the EU and elsewhere. 

Every carcass destined for the EU is 

tested to ensure that the pH is not 

greater than 5.9, which is the EU 

requirement. If greater, the carcass is 

diverted to local consumption. APHIS 

examined maturation records and 

verified actual rejected and approved 

seals. APHIS considers pH testing and 

calibration of pH meters to be critical 

mitigation measures in assessing the 

risk of importing the FMD virus in beef 

from Brazil. 

The biosecurity measures applied at 

the facilities APHIS visited were 

adequate, and there is a high level of 

awareness of and compliance with these 

measures. In addition, processing 

facilities are integrated within these 

operations and are under adequate 

official control and inspection. 

We concluded that Brazil has 

adequate control of inspection activities 

in slaughter facilities and can certify 

compliance with our import 

requirements. A comparable system for 

control of commercial shipments also 

exists and is considered adequate to 

control import and export of beef 

products. 

Epidemiological Separation From 

Potential Sources of Infection 

Adjacent regions that were considered 

in our risk analysis were an affected 

zone in Brazil adjacent to the export 

region and the neighboring countries of 

Paraguay, Uruguay, Bolivia, and 

Argentina. The most recent outbreak in 

the adjacent region of Brazil occurred in 

June 2004 in the State of Para ́, Monte 

Alegre district. APHIS does not consider 

the countries of South America to be 

FMD-free, with the exception of Chile. 

Outbreaks have occurred in Argentina, 

Uruguay, and Paraguay, all countries 

that had been classified by the OIE as 

‘‘free without vaccination’’ or ‘‘free with 

vaccination’’ prior to the outbreaks. 

FMD has not been eradicated from 

Colombia, Bolivia, Ecuador, Venezuela, 

and Peru. 

There is a history of introduction of 

disease into Brazil from neighboring 

countries (2000–2002). According to 

Brazilian officials, illegal movement of 

animals from neighboring countries, as 

well as mechanical transmission of the 

virus resulted in introducing the disease 

into Brazil. In 2000 and 2001, Brazil 

became vulnerable to the introduction 

of the disease due its presence in 

Argentina. Brazil successfully instituted 

emergency measures in 2002 when an 

outbreak occurred in Paraguay near its 

border with Brazil. Similar actions in 

2003 appear to have resulted in 

preventing the introduction of the 

disease from Argentina and Paraguay 

and in 2011 from Paraguay. APHIS 

concluded that as long as FMD is 

endemic in the overall region in South 

America, there is a risk of 

reintroduction from adjacent areas into 

the proposed exporting region. 

Domestic movement controls within 

Brazil are stringent. MAPA requires that 

all cattle owners identify their animals 

with a unique brand. Sheep and swine 

are identified by a brand in the ear. 

There is a system of permits in place to 

control animal movement, which works 

well at the local level. Movement 

controls are linked to vaccination 

records, and vaccination coverage in the 

export region evaluated by APHIS is 

relatively high, as noted above. 

There is good cooperation between 

Brazilian Federal agencies and their 

international counterparts at land 

border crossings. At some border 

locations, authorities from Brazil and 

the neighboring countries were present, 

which increased efficiency and 

effectiveness in controlling movement 

of animals and animal products. 

Movement controls at international 

land checkpoints appear to be adequate. 

Movement control measures and 

biosecurity at airports and seaports were 

impressive. 

APHIS attempts to target the riskiest 

border crossings (and other areas) 

during site visits as an example of a type 

of ‘‘maximized risk scenario,’’ in order 

to address similar, but theoretically 

lower, risks in the remainder of the 

export region. APHIS assumes that if the 

riskiest pathways are sufficiently 

mitigated, the overall spectrum of risk 

issues should be acceptable. Using this 

assumption and visiting the areas of 

highest risk in the export region, APHIS 

concluded that movement control 

measures for live animals are relatively 

robust at both domestic and 

international checkpoints. 

Surveillance 

The animal health service in Brazil 

has a surveillance system that covers all 

national territory. All official service 

field staff, community participants, and 

private sector veterinarians are trained 

and required to look for signs of 

vesicular diseases. If FMD is suspected, 

it must be immediately reported to the 

local unit or to the veterinary authority 

that would notify the local unit. Cattle 

and buffaloes are inspected every 6 

months by vaccinators and official 

veterinarians, when the bovines gather 

in corrals for vaccination. Local 

veterinary unit personnel carry out 

special visits to certain herds that are 

classified as ‘‘risky’’ by the official 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
77374 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 246 / Monday, December 23, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

service. Animals are individually 

inspected by personnel from the official 

service for signs of vesicular disease 

before slaughtering. Other body parts, 

including the tongue and feet, are 

examined during post-mortem 

inspection. All animals coming into 

fairs, auctions, or exhibitions are 

clinically inspected by the official 

veterinarians. The clinical inspection of 

animals in transit is carried out at 

checkpoints and border control points 

by official personnel. The conditions 

under which animals move are based on 

the sanitary status of the State of origin 

or the country sharing borders with the 

export region. 

Brazil has a two-phase surveillance 

system that effectively uses active and 

passive surveillance. Phase I relies on 

active surveillance to document 

freedom from disease. Active 

surveillance is carried out by means of 

targeted sero-epidemiological surveys in 

specific ‘‘high-risk’’ areas within the 

zone that the Brazilian Department of 

Animal Health considers FMD-free. The 

surveys aim to prove that the zone 

remains free of viral activity. Serological 

testing is also conducted whenever 

there is a suspicion of disease. Phase II 

begins once freedom from infection has 

been established. The main goals in this 

phase are to prevent the reintroduction 

of the disease, maintain good sanitary 

conditions, and provide technical 

grounds to demonstrate the continual 

absence of disease and viral activity in 

the zone. Passive surveillance is the 

primary type employed in Phase II, 

although active surveillance is also 

used. Passive surveillance activities 

include observations made during: (1) 

Animal movement control activities and 

trade of animal products, (2) farm 

inspections, (3) slaughterhouse 

inspection, and (4) inspections during 

livestock fairs. Data on the above 

activities are collected annually. Passive 

surveillance takes advantage of the 

community structure in Brazil and relies 

heavily on the participation of the 

community. Brazilian animal health 

officials have carefully and 

methodically thought about each 

component of their surveillance system, 

and their two-stage cluster sampling 

design is appropriate, efficient, 

scientifically valid, and simple to 

implement. All technical aspects of that 

design were addressed properly. 

Observations made during recent site 

visits to Brazil led APHIS to conclude 

that the Brazilians were particularly 

effective in their FMD educational 

campaigns and that the country’s FMD 

eradication strategy and surveillance 

practices have been fully 

communicated, understood, and 

embraced by all animal health officials 

in the country. This was evident by the 

high degree of consistency in 

implementation and execution of the 

program at every local veterinary unit 

visited. In addition, the serological 

surveillance plan, updated in August 

2010, appears well designed and 

executed. 

Diagnostic Laboratory Capabilities 

MAPA has four laboratories under its 

direct supervision that perform 

diagnostic tests for FMD and other 

vesicular diseases. These laboratories 

are located in the States of Rio Grande 

do Sul, Para ́, Minas Gerais, and 

Pernambuco. In addition, the PanAmerican Foot-and-Mouth Disease 

Center Laboratory (PANAFTOSA) in Rio 

de Janeiro is the reference laboratory for 

FMD in Brazil and neighboring 

countries. At the time of our 2013 site 

visit, only the laboratory in Para ́

processed infectious material. 

PANAFTOSA’s laboratory work 

involving any infectious material is 

performed at the Para ́ laboratory. 

Based on laboratory site visits 

conducted in 2002, 2008, and 2013, we 

concluded that Brazil has the diagnostic 

capability to adequately test samples for 

the presence of the FMD virus. The 

laboratories in Rio Grande do Sul, Para ́, 

Minas Gerais, and Pernambuco have 

adequate quality control activities; 

adequate laboratory equipment, which 

is routinely monitored and calibrated; 

sufficient staff; and an effective and 

efficient recordkeeping system for 

storage and retrieval of data. The tests 

used to investigate evidence of viral 

activity are consistent with OIE 

guidelines. The staff members at the 

facilities visited in 2002, 2008, and 2013 

were well-trained and motivated. 

Samples are turned around quickly. 

Emergency Preparedness and Response 

Brazil’s efficient and effective 

traceability system is an important 

component of its emergency response 

capacity. As noted above, Brazil uses a 

voluntary national identification 

system, which includes individual 

animal identification numbers, for cattle 

and buffalo that are destined for export. 

In addition, Brazil uses a mandatory 

identification system to track the entire 

animal population of the country by lot. 

That system proved to be extremely 

effective during the 2005–2006 FMD 

outbreaks in the traceback of all 

contacts. 

Brazil relies heavily on community 

notification of FMD outbreaks, as that 

tends to be the most efficient way to 

locate disease. Once notification occurs, 

the Federal contingency plan for FMD is 

extensive and thorough, and a 

significant degree of necessary 

autonomy is built in at the State level. 

APHIS concluded that adequate legal 

authority, funding, personnel, and 

resources exist at both the State and 

Federal levels to carry out emergency 

response measures. The emergency 

response is both rapid and effective, as 

shown following the FMD outbreaks in 

Rio Grande do Sul in 2000–2001 and 

Mato Grosso do Sul and Parana in 2005– 

2006. 

The above findings are detailed in the 

risk analysis document summarized 

above. The risk analysis explains the 

factors that have led us to conclude that 

fresh (chilled or frozen) beef may be 

safely imported from a region of Brazil 

under the conditions enumerated above. 

It also establishes that Brazil has 

adequate veterinary infrastructures in 

place to prevent, control, and manage 

FMD and outbreaks. Therefore, we are 

proposing to amend § 94.22 to allow the 

importation of fresh beef from a region 

of Brazil under the conditions described 

above. 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

This proposed rule has been 

determined to be significant for the 

purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, 

therefore, has been reviewed by the 

Office of Management and Budget. 

We have prepared an economic 

analysis for this rule. The economic 

analysis provides a cost-benefit analysis, 

as required by Executive Orders 12866 

and 13563, which direct agencies to 

assess all costs and benefits of available 

regulatory alternatives and, if regulation 

is necessary, to select regulatory 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety 

effects, and equity). Executive Order 

13563 emphasizes the importance of 

quantifying both costs and benefits, of 

reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, 

and of promoting flexibility. The 

economic analysis also provides an 

initial regulatory flexibility analysis that 

examines the potential economic effects 

of this rule on small entities, as required 

by the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The 

economic analysis is summarized 

below. Copies of the full analysis are 

available by contacting the person listed 

under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT or on the Regulations.gov Web 

site (see ADDRESSES above for 

instructions for accessing 

Regulations.gov). 

Based on the information we have, 

there is no reason to conclude that 

adoption of this proposed rule would 

result in any significant economic effect 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 246 / Monday, December 23, 2013 / Proposed Rules 77375 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. However, we do not currently 

have all of the data necessary for a 

comprehensive analysis of the effects of 

this proposed rule on small entities. 

Therefore, we are inviting comments on 

potential effects. In particular, we are 

interested in determining the number 

and kind of small entities that may 

incur benefits or costs from the 

implementation of this proposed rule. 

This proposed rule would amend the 

regulations governing the importation of 

certain animals, meat, and other animal 

products by allowing, under certain 

conditions, the importation of fresh 

(chilled or frozen) beef from a region in 

Brazil composed of the States of Bahia, 

Distrito Federal, Espı ́rito Santo, Goia ́s, 

Mato Grosso, Mato Grosso do Sul, Minas 

Gerais, Parana ́, Rio Grande do Sul, Rio 

de Janeiro, Rondoˆnia, Sa ̃o Paulo, 

Sergipe, and Tocantins. 

Effects of the proposed rule are 

estimated using a partial equilibrium 

model of the U.S. agricultural sector. 

Economic impacts are estimated based 

on interactions among the grain, 

livestock, and livestock product sectors. 

Annual imports of fresh (chilled or 

frozen) beef from Brazil are expected to 

range between 20,000 and 65,000 metric 

tons (MT), with volumes averaging 

40,000 MT. Quantity, price, and welfare 

changes are estimated for these three 

import scenarios. The results are 

presented as average annual effects for 

the 5-year period 2014–2018. The model 

indicates that about two-thirds of the 

beef imported from Brazil would 

displace beef that would otherwise be 

imported from other countries. Thus, 

the net increase in beef imports would 

correspond to about one-third of the 

quantity supplied by Brazil under each 

of the three scenarios. 

The model shows that if the United 

States were to import 40,000 MT of beef 

from Brazil, total U.S. beef imports 

would increase by less than 1 percent. 

Due to the increase in supply, it is 

estimated that the wholesale price of 

beef, the retail price of beef, and the 

price of cattle (steers) would decline by 

0.11 percent, 0.04 percent, and 0.14 

percent, respectively. Changes in U.S. 

beef production, consumption, and 

exports in response to these very small 

price declines would be 

inconsequential: Beef production would 

decrease by 0.01 percent, beef 

consumption would increase by 0.06 

percent, and beef exports would 

increase by 0.11 percent. The 20,000 MT 

and 65,000 MT import scenarios show 

similarly small quantity and price 

effects. 

The fall in beef prices and resulting 

decline in U.S. production would 

translate into reduced returns for 

producers in the livestock and beef 

processing sectors. Under the 40,000 

MT import scenario, cattle producers 

and beef processors are estimated to 

incur declines in welfare of 0.68 percent 

and 0.14 percent, respectively. 

The shift by consumers to beef due to 

the price decline would cause 

downward pressure on the prices of 

pork and other meats. The largest of 

these market declines, though still very 

small, would be for swine and pork. It 

is estimated for the 40,000 MT import 

scenario that the welfare of swine 

producers and pork processors would 

decline by 0.02 percent and 0.01 

percent, respectively. 

The decline in beef prices because of 

imports from Brazil would benefit 

consumers. It is estimated for the 40,000 

MT import scenario that the welfare of 

beef consumers would increase by 0.16 

percent. Consumers of pork and other 

animal products would benefit 

negligibly. 

The model indicates that, when the 

gains of beef consumers and the losses 

of producers are accounted for, the net 

welfare gain would be equivalent to 

about $185 million, whereas pork 

producer welfare losses would slightly 

outweigh pork consumer gains. For all 

modeled sectors, the net welfare change 

would be positive, with consumer gains 

of $354 million outweighing producer 

losses of $165 million. 

Welfare effects for the 20,000 MT and 

65,000 MT import scenarios are similar 

to those described. For all three 

scenarios, welfare gains are shown to be 

greater than welfare losses, with the net 

benefits increasing broadly in 

proportion to the quantity of beef 

imported from Brazil. The greater the 

volume of imports, the greater the 

welfare benefits would be for consumers 

and the greater the losses for producers. 

While most of the establishments 

affected by this rule would be small 

entities, based on the results of this 

analysis, APHIS does not expect the 

impacts to be significant. APHIS 

welcomes information that the public 

may provide regarding potential 

economic effects of the proposed rule. 

Executive Order 12988 

This proposed rule has been reviewed 

under Executive Order 12988, Civil 

Justice Reform. If this proposed rule is 

adopted: (1) All State and local laws and 

regulations that are inconsistent with 

this rule will be preempted; (2) no 

retroactive effect will be given to this 

rule; and (3) administrative proceedings 

will not be required before parties may 

file suit in court challenging this rule. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

To provide the public with 

documentation of APHIS’ review and 

analysis of any potential environmental 

impacts associated with the importation 

of fresh (chilled or frozen) beef from a 

region in Brazil, we have prepared an 

environmental assessment. The 

environmental assessment was prepared 

in accordance with: (1) The National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 

seq.), (2) regulations of the Council on 

Environmental Quality for 

implementing the procedural provisions 

of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500–1508), (3) 

USDA regulations implementing NEPA 

(7 CFR part 1b), and (4) APHIS’ NEPA 

Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 

372). 

The environmental assessment may 

be viewed on the Regulations.gov Web 

site or in our reading room. (A link to 

Regulations.gov and information on the 

location and hours of the reading room 

are provided under the heading 

ADDRESSES at the beginning of this 

proposed rule.) In addition, copies may 

be obtained by calling or writing to the 

individual listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

In accordance with section 3507(d) of 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

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

collection or recordkeeping 

requirements included in this proposed 

rule have been submitted for approval to 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB). Please send written comments 

to the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attention: 

Desk Officer for APHIS, Washington, DC 

20503. Please state that your comments 

refer to Docket No. APHIS–2009–0017. 

Please send a copy of your comments to: 

(1) Docket No. APHIS–2009–0017, 

Regulatory Analysis and Development, 

PPD, APHIS, Station 3A–03.8, 4700 

River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 

20737–1238, and (2) Clearance Officer, 

OCIO, USDA, room 404–W, 14th Street 

and Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20250. A comment to 

OMB is best assured of having its full 

effect if OMB receives it within 30 days 

of publication of this proposed rule. 

Currently, APHIS allows imports of 

fresh (chilled or frozen) beef and ovine 

meat from Uruguay, provided that the 

meat is imported subject to conditions 

specified in 9 CFR 94.22. Under § 94.22, 

APHIS must collect information, 

prepared by an authorized certified 

official of the Government of Uruguay, 

certifying that specific conditions for 

importation have been met. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
77376 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 246 / Monday, December 23, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

This proposed rule would allow the 

importation of fresh (chilled or frozen) 

beef from a region in Brazil (the States 

of Bahia, Distrito Federal, Espı ́rito 

Santo, Goia ́s, Mato Grosso, Mato Grosso 

do Sul, Minas Gerais, Parana ́, Rio 

Grande do Sul, Rio de Janeiro, 

Rondoˆnia, Sa ̃o Paulo, Sergipe, and 

Tocantins) under the same conditions 

currently applied to Uruguay. 

APHIS is asking OMB to approve its 

use of this information collection 

activity to facilitate its ability to ensure 

that beef products from Brazil can be 

imported safely into the United States. 

We are soliciting comments from the 

public (as well as affected agencies) 

concerning our proposed information 

collection and recordkeeping 

requirements. These comments will 

help us: 

(1) Evaluate whether the proposed 

information collection is necessary for 

the proper performance of our agency’s 

functions, including whether the 

information will have practical utility; 

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our 

estimate of the burden of the proposed 

information collection, including the 

validity of the methodology and 

assumptions used; 

(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and 

(4) Minimize the burden of the 

information collection on those who are 

to respond (such as through the use of 

appropriate automated, electronic, 

mechanical, or other technological 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology; e.g., permitting 

electronic submission of responses). 

Estimate of burden: Public reporting 

burden for this collection of information 

is estimated to average 1 hour per 

response. 

Respondents: Authorized veterinary 

officials employed by the Government 

of Brazil. 

Estimated annual number of 

respondents: 1,606. 

Estimated annual number of 

responses per respondent: 1. 

Estimated annual number of 

responses: 1,606. 

Estimated total annual burden on 

respondents: 1,606 hours. (Due to 

averaging, the total annual burden hours 

may not equal the product of the annual 

number of responses multiplied by the 

reporting burden per response.) 

Copies of this information collection 

can be obtained from Mrs. Celeste 

Sickles, APHIS’ Information Collection 

Coordinator, at (301) 851–2908. 

E-Government Act Compliance 

The Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service is committed to 

compliance with the E-Government Act 

to promote the use of the Internet and 

other information technologies, to 

provide increased opportunities for 

citizen access to Government 

information and services, and for other 

purposes. For information pertinent to 

E-Government Act compliance related 

to this proposed rule, please contact 

Mrs. Celeste Sickles, APHIS’ 

Information Collection Coordinator, at 

(301) 851–2908. 

List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 94 

Animal diseases, Imports, Livestock, 

Meat and meat products, Milk, Poultry 

and poultry products, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Accordingly, we propose to amend 9 

CFR part 94 as follows: 

PART 94–RINDERPEST, FOOT–AND– 

MOUTH DISEASE, NEWCASTLE 

DISEASE, HIGHLY PATHOGENIC 

AVIAN INFLUENZA, AFRICAN SWINE 

FEVER, CLASSICAL SWINE FEVER, 

SWINE VESICULAR DISEASE, AND 

BOVINE SPONGIFORM 

ENCEPHALOPATHY: PROHIBITED 

AND RESTRICTED IMPORTATIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 94 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 450, 7701–7772, 7781– 

7786, and 8301–8317; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 

136a; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 

371.4. 

§ 94.1 [Amended] 

■ 2. Section 94.1 is amended as follows: 

■ a. In paragraph (b)(4), by removing the 

words ‘‘from Uruguay’’. 

■ b. In paragraph (d), introductory text, 

by removing the words ‘‘from Uruguay’’. 

■ 3. Section 94.22 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 94.22 Restrictions on importation of 

fresh (chilled or frozen) beef from Brazil and 

fresh beef and ovine meat from Uruguay. 

Notwithstanding any other provisions 

of this part, fresh (chilled or frozen) beef 

from a region in Brazil composed of the 

States of Bahia, Distrito Federal, Espı ́rito 

Santo, Goia ́s, Mato Grosso, Mato Grosso 

do Sul, Minas Gerais, Parana ́, Rio 

Grande do Sul, Rio de Janeiro, 

Rondoˆnia, Sa ̃o Paulo, Sergipe, and 

Tocantins, and fresh (chilled or frozen) 

beef and ovine meat from Uruguay may 

be exported to the United States under 

the following conditions: 

(a) The meat is beef or ovine meat 

from animals that have been born, 

raised, and slaughtered in the exporting 

region of Brazil or in Uruguay. 

(b) Foot-and-mouth disease has not 

been diagnosed in the exporting region 

of Brazil or in Uruguay within the 

previous 12 months. 

(c) The meat comes from bovines or 

sheep that originated from premises 

where foot-and-mouth disease has not 

been present during the lifetime of any 

bovines and sheep slaughtered for the 

export of beef and ovine meat to the 

United States. 

(d) The meat comes from bovines or 

sheep that were moved directly from the 

premises of origin to the slaughtering 

establishment without any contact with 

other animals. 

(e) The meat comes from bovines or 

sheep that received ante-mortem and 

post-mortem veterinary inspections, 

paying particular attention to the head 

and feet, at the slaughtering 

establishment, with no evidence found 

of vesicular disease. 

(f) The meat consists only of bovine 

parts or ovine parts that are, by standard 

practice, part of the animal’s carcass 

that is placed in a chiller for maturation 

after slaughter. The bovine and ovine 

parts that may not be imported include 

all parts of the head, feet, hump, hooves, 

and internal organs. 

(g) All bone and visually identifiable 

blood clots and lymphoid tissue have 

been removed from the meat. 

(h) The meat has not been in contact 

with meat from regions other than those 

listed under § 94.1(a). 

(i) The meat comes from carcasses 

that were allowed to maturate at 40 to 

50 °F (4 to 10 °C) for a minimum of 24 

hours after slaughter and that reached a 

pH below 6.0 in the loin muscle at the 

end of the maturation period. 

Measurements for pH must be taken at 

the middle of both longissimus dorsi 

muscles. Any carcass in which the pH 

does not reach less than 6.0 may be 

allowed to maturate an additional 24 

hours and be retested, and, if the carcass 

still has not reached a pH of less than 

6.0 after 48 hours, the meat from the 

carcass may not be exported to the 

United States. 

(j) An authorized veterinary official of 

the government of the exporting region 

certifies on the foreign meat inspection 

certificate that the above conditions 

have been met. 

(k) The establishment in which the 

bovines and sheep are slaughtered 

allows periodic on-site evaluation and 

subsequent inspection of its facilities, 

records, and operations by an APHIS 

representative. 

Done in Washington, DC, this 13th day of 

December 2013. 

Edward Avalos, 

Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory 

Programs. 

[FR Doc. 2013–30464 Filed 12–18–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS