This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains regulatory documents having general

applicability and legal effect, most of which

are keyed to and codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations, which is published under

50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by

the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of

new books are listed in the first FEDERAL

REGISTER issue of each week.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

19077 

Vol. 78, No. 61 

Friday, March 29, 2013 

1EOIR receives and adjudicates asylum 

applications submitted directly to the immigration 

judge (known as defensive asylum applications) 

and those that are referred for consideration in 

proceedings before an immigration judge after 

initially being adjudicated through DHS USCIS’ 

affirmative asylum process (known as affirmative 

asylum applications). We note that the regulations 

at 8 CFR 1208.1(a)(1) provide, in part, that subpart 

A of part 1208 ‘‘shall apply to all applications for 

asylum under section 208 of the Immigration and 

Nationality Act (Act) or for withholding of 

deportation or withholding of removal under 

section 241(b)(3) of the Act, or under the 

Convention Against Torture.’’ Thus, the terms 

‘‘asylum application’’ or ‘‘application for asylum,’’ 

as used in the current regulations and in this final 

rule, refer to an application for: (1) Asylum under 

section 208 of the Act; (2) withholding of removal 

under section 241(b)(3) of the Act; (3) withholding 

or deferral of removal under the Convention 

Against Torture as provided in 8 CFR 1208.16 and 

1208.17; and (4) withholding of deportation under 

former section 243(h) of the Act. 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Executive Office for Immigration 

Review 

8 CFR Parts 1208 and 1240 

[EOIR Docket No. 173; AG Order No. 3375– 

2013] 

RIN 1125–AA65 

Forwarding of Asylum Applications to 

the Department of State 

AGENCY: Executive Office for 

Immigration Review, Department of 

Justice. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule adopts without 

substantive change the proposed rule 

with request for comments published in 

the Federal Register on October 31, 

2011, and includes several nonsubstantive, technical corrections. The 

Department of Justice (Department) is 

amending its regulations to alter the 

process by which the Executive Office 

for Immigration Review (EOIR) forwards 

asylum applications for consideration 

by the Department of State (DOS), 

Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, 

and Labor. Currently, EOIR forwards to 

DOS all asylum applications that are 

submitted initially in removal 

proceedings before an immigration 

judge. The final rule amends the 

regulations to provide for sending 

asylum applications to DOS on a 

discretionary basis. For example, EOIR 

may forward an application in order to 

ascertain whether DOS has information 

relevant to the applicant’s eligibility for 

asylum. This change increases the 

efficiency of DOS’ review of asylum 

applications and is consistent with 

similar changes already made by U.S. 

Citizenship and Immigration Services 

(USCIS), Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS). 

DATES: This rule is effective April 29, 

2013. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff 

Rosenblum, General Counsel, Executive 

Office for Immigration Review, 5107 

Leesburg Pike, Suite 2600, Falls Church, 

VA 22041, telephone (703) 305–0470 

(not a toll-free call). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Public Participation 

On October 31, 2011, the Department 

published in the Federal Register a rule 

proposing to amend EOIR’s regulations 

by removing the mandatory submission 

of all asylum applications to DOS. See 

76 FR 67099 (Oct. 31, 2011). The 

comment period ended December 30, 

2011. The Department received three 

public comments. As explained below, 

the Department is adopting all 

amendments in the proposed rule, as 

well as making several non-substantive, 

technical corrections. 

II. Background 

The current regulations require that 

EOIR send a copy of all defensive 

asylum applications to DOS.1 The 

Department is amending the regulations 

at 8 CFR 1208.11, 1240.11, 1240.33, and 

1240.49 in order to remove this 

mandatory requirement. Under this rule, 

an immigration court has the discretion 

to forward a defensively filed asylum 

application to DOS, but is not required 

to do so. For example, EOIR may 

forward an application in order to 

ascertain whether DOS has information 

relevant to the adjudication of a 

particular case or type of claims. By 

consolidating certain paragraphs, the 

final rule also removes redundant 

references to the types of information 

that DOS may provide to EOIR. These 

amendments increase the efficiency of 

DOS’ review of asylum applications and 

are consistent with similar changes 

USCIS has already made. See 74 FR 

15367 (Apr. 6, 2009). 

EOIR’s changes to the regulations do 

not require additional resources, either 

in the hiring of personnel at EOIR or 

DOS or in the expenditure of material or 

financial resources. Amending the 

regulations permits both EOIR and DOS 

to conserve resources. EOIR will no 

longer be required to expend resources 

on mailing to DOS every properly filed 

defensive asylum application it 

receives. Rather, an immigration judge 

may request, in his or her discretion, 

specific comments from DOS regarding 

individual cases or types of claims 

under consideration, or other 

information the immigration judge 

deems appropriate. By focusing on 

select cases forwarded by EOIR, DOS 

officers can better utilize their time and 

resources toward accomplishing their 

asylum responsibilities. These 

regulatory changes will also result in 

resource savings for asylum applicants, 

as an applicant will no longer be 

required to make an extra copy of his or 

her application for EOIR to forward to 

DOS, pursuant to current instructions to 

the Form I–589, Application for Asylum 

and for Withholding of Removal. 

Under this rule, the types of 

comments that DOS may provide will 

not change. At its option, DOS may 

provide detailed country conditions 

information relevant to the applicant’s 

eligibility for asylum and withholding 

of removal. DOS may also provide an 

assessment of the accuracy of the 

applicant’s assertions about conditions 

in the applicant’s country of nationality 

or habitual residence and the 

applicant’s particular situation, 

information about whether persons who 

are similarly situated to the applicant 

are persecuted or tortured in the 

applicant’s country of nationality or 

habitual residence and the frequency of 

such persecution or torture, or such 

other information as DOS deems 

relevant. 

Additionally, these regulatory 

amendments are consistent with 

changes effected by implementation of 

the Homeland Security Act of 2002. The 

Homeland Security Act authorized the 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
19078 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 61 / Friday, March 29, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

creation of DHS and transferred the 

functions of the former Immigration and 

Naturalization Service (INS) to DHS, 

while retaining EOIR under the 

authority of the Attorney General. In 

order to accommodate these changes, 

title 8 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations was reorganized into 

separate chapters, chapter I for DHS and 

chapter V for the Department of Justice. 

See 68 FR 9824, 9834 (Feb. 28, 2003). 

The provisions governing procedures for 

asylum and withholding of removal in 

part 208 were duplicated into a new 

part 1208. As a result, part 208 governs 

asylum adjudications before DHS’s 

USCIS and part 1208 governs asylum 

adjudications before EOIR. As this final 

rule only addresses submissions of 

asylum applications from EOIR to DOS, 

it is limited to amending 8 CFR 1208.11, 

1240.11, 1240.33, and 1240.49. To be 

consistent with changes that effected 

implementation of the Homeland 

Security Act, references in EOIR’s 

regulations to ‘‘The Service’’ and USCIS 

‘‘asylum officers’’ forwarding asylum 

applications to DOS are removed, as 

those matters are now governed by the 

DHS regulations at 8 CFR 208.11. 

III. Technical Corrections 

This rule also includes several 

technical corrections. The regulations 

currently refer to 8 U.S.C. 1101 and 

Title VII of Public Law 110–229 as 

authority for 8 CFR part 1208. The 

proposed rule that was published on 

October 31, 2011, inadvertently omitted 

citations to 8 U.S.C. 1101 and Title VII 

of Public Law 110–229 in the authority 

section of 8 CFR part 1208. The 

proposed rule did not intend to remove 

those references. This final rule corrects 

these typographical omissions and 

includes citations to 8 U.S.C. 1101 and 

Title VII of Public Law 110–229 in the 

authority section of 8 CFR part 1208. 

The regulations currently refer to 8 

U.S.C. 1224, 1251, 1252a, 1228 as 

authority for 8 CFR part 1240, but 8 

U.S.C. 1224 is no longer directly 

applicable to part 1240 following the 

creation of DHS and related changes in 

the regulations. Sections 1251 and 

1252a have been transferred to 8 U.S.C. 

1227 and 1228, respectively, and 8 

U.S.C. 1252b has been repealed. 

Additionally, the regulations currently 

do not include the following authorities, 

which are applicable to part 1240: 8 

U.S.C. 1158, 1186b, 1229a, 1229b, 

1229c, and 1361. This final rule updates 

the authority for 8 CFR part 1240 to 

reflect these changes. This final rule 

also includes two minor, nonsubstantive changes to 8 CFR 

1208.11(a): Deleting the words ‘‘such’’ 

and ‘‘as an’’ and inserting the word 

‘‘the’’ before ‘‘immigration judge.’’ 

Additionally, 8 CFR 1208.11(b)(3) is 

revised to duplicate 8 CFR 208.11(b)(3) 

by deleting the words ‘‘their respective’’ 

and inserting the words ‘‘the 

applicant’s.’’ 8 CFR 1208.11(c) is also 

revised to change the word ‘‘the’’ to the 

word ‘‘an’’ before ‘‘applicable Executive 

Order.’’ The regulations at 8 CFR 

1240.11(c)(2), 1240.33(b), and 

1240.49(c)(3) are also revised to change 

the word ‘‘the’’ to the word ‘‘an’’ before 

‘‘applicable Executive Order.’’ As 

announced in the proposed rule, the 

Department is also amending part 1240 

to cite to the correct regulatory 

provision regarding filing of an asylum 

application as provided in 8 CFR 

1208.4(b). The regulations at 8 CFR 

1240.11(c)(2) and 8 CFR 1240.33(b) are 

corrected to cite to 8 CFR 1208.4(b). 

This change is consistent with 8 CFR 

1240.49(c)(3). These amendments are 

technical corrections and do not make 

any substantive changes to parts 1208 

and 1240. 

IV. Responses to Comments 

The Department of Justice provided 

an opportunity for comment, which 

ended on December 30, 2011. The 

Department received three comments: 

One from an anonymous individual; one 

from a candidate for a Master of Social 

Work degree; and one from a candidate 

for a juris doctor degree. The 

Department considered these comments 

in preparing this final rule. The 

comments are numbered one through 

three in order of receipt. All comments 

and other docket materials are available 

for viewing by making arrangements 

with the EOIR Office of the General 

Counsel as discussed above. 

The first comment is general in nature 

and expresses the view that the United 

States should withdraw from its 

international protection obligations 

towards applicants for asylum and 

withholding of removal and should, 

instead, impose a general immigration 

moratorium. As this comment does not 

address the changes set forth in the 

proposed rule, the comment does not 

require a response. 

The second commenter supports this 

rulemaking initiative. The commenter 

notes that while the DOS serves as an 

informational resource tool for 

immigration judges, the information 

provided by DOS is not normally 

dispositive of the outcome of a given 

case. This commenter recognizes EOIR’s 

proposed regulatory changes will allow 

both the Department and the DOS to 

utilize DOS as an information resource 

and ‘‘not as a storage locker for 

thousands of filed defensive 

applications; many of which they are 

unable to review in a reasonably timely 

manner.’’ The commenter also expresses 

concern that the existing regulatory 

construct requiring DOS mandatory 

review of all defensive asylum and 

withholding applications filed with 

EOIR creates system inefficiencies, 

duplication of effort, and delays that 

may inadvertently extend the time an 

asylum applicant must remain in 

immigration detention during his or her 

immigration proceedings before EOIR. 

The commenter notes that the 

efficiencies to be gained by these 

regulatory changes outweigh possible 

negative considerations. Finally, the 

commenter notes that the direct and 

indirect cost savings to the government 

agencies directly affected by the 

regulation, as well as the cost savings to 

the public, allow for ‘‘a redirecting of 

tax dollars to other areas in need.’’ The 

Department agrees with this commenter 

that the proposed regulatory changes 

will make the DOS asylum application 

review process more economical and 

efficient. 

The third commenter opposes this 

rulemaking initiative. The commenter 

asserts that the proposed cost savings do 

not outweigh the possible harm to 

defensive asylum and withholding 

applicants. This commenter views the 

mandatory submission to DOS of all 

defensively received applications for 

asylum and withholding of removal as 

a safeguard against possible abuses of 

discretion by immigration judges 

making credibility determinations on 

asylum applicants’ protection claims. 

The commenter notes that asylum 

applicants often suffer from some form 

of post-traumatic stress or depression 

that affects long-term memory, making 

credibility determinations very difficult 

and prone to error. The commenter 

further notes that DOS’ cultural and 

country condition information may 

safeguard against immigration judges 

making incorrect adverse credibility 

determinations based upon asylum 

applicants’ behavior and information 

that does not easily transfer across 

cultures. 

The Department appreciates this 

commenter’s concerns. However, EOIR 

provides training to its adjudicators on 

cultural sensitivity and makes available 

numerous resources on country 

condition information, which more 

directly address the commenter’s 

concerns. Moreover, continuing the 

current mandatory submission of all 

defensively filed asylum and 

withholding applications is not 

sustainable. DOS is tasked with 

numerous reporting and country 

condition responsibilities. DOS’ review 

and comment on defensive asylum and 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 61 / Friday, March 29, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 19079 

withholding applications is a small part 

of its overall mission. Revising the 

regulations to allow for immigration 

judges to exercise their discretion to 

request DOS review and comment on 

specific protection claims will allow 

DOS to better focus its limited 

resources. The existing process is 

neither efficient nor efficacious in 

producing the results originally 

contemplated by the regulation. In a 

time of dwindling resources, both 

human and monetary, the Department 

has determined that it is best to amend 

the regulations to provide immigration 

judges with the discretion to determine 

when and for which cases to seek DOS 

review. The final rule also provides 

DOS with the ability to focus its 

resources on providing review and 

comment for the cases that immigration 

judges have identified as most in need 

of DOS’ expertise. Additionally, DOS is 

required to provide to Congress 

annually Country Reports on Human 

Rights Practices and International 

Religious Freedom Reports, which 

provide world-wide country conditions 

information that continue to be useful to 

the adjudication of asylum applications. 

This rule does not alter these DOS 

responsibilities, nor affect how 

immigration judges utilize these DOS 

country condition resources. 

Accordingly, the Department is 

adopting as a final rule the proposed 

rule amending 8 CFR parts 1208 and 

1240 that was published on October 31, 

2011, including the non-substantive, 

technical corrections discussed in this 

rule. 

V. Regulatory Requirements 

A. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Department has reviewed this 

regulation in accordance with the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 

605(b)) and has determined that this 

rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities for the 

following reason: This rule affects only 

the process by which EOIR forwards 

and DOS receives asylum applications. 

The rule will not regulate ‘‘small 

entities’’ as that term is defined in 5 

U.S.C. 601(6). 

B. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

This rule will not result in the 

expenditure by state, local and tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of $100 million or more 

in any one year, and it will not 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. Therefore, no actions were 

deemed necessary under the provisions 

of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995. 

C. Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 

This rule is not a major rule as 

defined by section 251 of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996. 5 U.S.C. 804. This 

rule will not result in an annual effect 

on the economy of $100 million or 

more; a major increase in costs or prices; 

or significant adverse effects on 

competition, employment, investment, 

productivity, innovation, or on the 

ability of the United States-based 

companies to compete with foreignbased companies in domestic and 

export markets. 

D. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

The Department has determined that 

this rule is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ under Executive Order 12866, 

section 3(f), Regulatory Planning and 

Review, and Executive Order 13563. 

Accordingly, this rule has not been 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget for review. Nevertheless, the 

Department certifies that this regulation 

has been drafted in accordance with the 

principles of Executive Order 12866, 

section 1(b), and Executive Order 13563. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This rule will not have substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the National 

Government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. Therefore, in 

accordance with section 6 of Executive 

Order 13132, it is determined that this 

rule does not have sufficient federalism 

implications to warrant the preparation 

of a federalism summary impact 

statement. 

F. Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice 

Reform 

This rule meets the applicable 

standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 

3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988. 

G. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The provisions of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104– 

13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, and its 

implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 

1320, apply to this rule. The 

information collection requirement 

(Form I–589, Application for Asylum 

and for Withholding of Removal) 

discussed in this rule has been 

previously approved by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB. No. 

1615–0067) as provided by the 

Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule will 

require revisions to the existing 

information collection. The Form I–589 

instructions will be revised to reduce 

the number of form copies that must be 

submitted by applicants on and after the 

effective date of these regulations. Once 

a final rule is issued, EOIR and USCIS 

will work to modify the instructions to 

the Form I–589 to reflect the changes. 

List of Subjects 

8 CFR Part 1208 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Aliens, Immigration, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

8 CFR Part 1240 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Aliens. 

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth 

in the preamble, part 1208 and part 

1240 of chapter V of title 8 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations are amended as 

follows: 

PART 1208—PROCEDURES FOR 

ASYLUM AND WITHHOLDING OF 

REMOVAL 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 1208 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1158, 

1225, 1231, 1282; Title VII of Public Law 

110–229. 

■ 2. Revise § 1208.11 to read as follows: 

§ 1208.11 Comments from the Department 

of State. 

(a) The immigration judge may 

request, in his or her discretion, specific 

comments from the Department of State 

regarding individual cases or types of 

claims under consideration, or other 

information the immigration judge 

deems appropriate. 

(b) With respect to any asylum 

application, the Department of State 

may provide, at its discretion, to the 

Immigration Court: 

(1) Detailed country conditions 

information relevant to eligibility for 

asylum, withholding of removal under 

section 241(b)(3) of the Act, and 

withholding of removal under the 

Convention Against Torture; 

(2) An assessment of the accuracy of 

the applicant’s assertions about 

conditions in the applicant’s country of 

nationality or habitual residence and the 

applicant’s particular situation; 

(3) Information about whether persons 

who are similarly situated to the 

applicant are persecuted or tortured in 

the applicant’s country of nationality or 

habitual residence and the frequency of 

such persecution or torture; or 

(4) Such other information as it deems 

relevant. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
19080 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 61 / Friday, March 29, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

1Regulations for importing hatching eggs are 

included in §§ 93.104, 93.205, and 93.209. 

2To view the proposed rule and the comments 

we received, go to http://www.regulations.gov/ 

#!docketDetail;D=APHIS–2009–0094. 

(c) Any comments received pursuant 

to paragraph (b) of this section shall be 

made part of the record. Unless the 

comments are classified under an 

applicable Executive Order, the 

applicant shall be provided an 

opportunity to review and respond to 

such comments prior to the issuance of 

any decision to deny the application. 

PART 1240—PROCEEDINGS TO 

DETERMINE REMOVABILITY OF 

ALIENS IN THE UNITED STATES 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 1240 

is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1103, 1158, 1182, 

1186a, 1186b, 1225, 1226, 1227, 1228, 1229a, 

1229b, 1229c, 1252 note, 1361, 1362; secs. 

202 and 203, Pub. L. 105–100 (111 Stat. 2160, 

2193); sec. 902, Pub. L. 105–277 (112 Stat. 

2681). 

■ 4. Amend § 1240.11 by revising 

paragraph (c)(2) to read as follows: 

§ 1240.11 Ancillary matters, applications. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(2) An application for asylum or 

withholding of removal must be filed 

with the Immigration Court, pursuant to 

§ 1208.4(b) of this chapter. Upon receipt 

of an application, the Immigration Court 

may forward a copy to the Department 

of State pursuant to § 1208.11 of this 

chapter and shall calendar the case for 

a hearing. The reply, if any, from the 

Department of State, unless classified 

under an applicable Executive Order, 

shall be given to both the alien and to 

DHS counsel and shall be included in 

the record. 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Amend § 1240.33 by revising 

paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 1240.33 Applications for asylum or 

withholding of deportation. 

* * * * * 

(b) An application for asylum or 

withholding of deportation must be 

filed with the Immigration Court, 

pursuant to § 1208.4(b) of this chapter. 

Upon receipt of an application, the 

Immigration Court may forward a copy 

to the Department of State pursuant to 

§ 1208.11 of this chapter and shall 

calendar the case for a hearing. The 

reply, if any, from the Department of 

State, unless classified under an 

applicable Executive Order, shall be 

given to both the applicant and to DHS 

counsel and shall be included in the 

record. 

* * * * * 

■ 6. Amend § 1240.49 by revising 

paragraph (c)(3) to read as follows: 

§ 1240.49 Ancillary matters, applications. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(3) An application for asylum or 

withholding of deportation must be 

filed with the Immigration Court, 

pursuant to § 1208.4(b) of this chapter. 

Upon receipt of an application, the 

Immigration Court may forward a copy 

to the Department of State pursuant to 

§ 1208.11 of this chapter and shall 

calendar the case for a hearing. The 

reply, if any, of the Department of State, 

unless classified under an applicable 

Executive Order, shall be given to both 

the applicant and to DHS counsel and 

shall be included in the record. 

* * * * * 

Dated: March 22, 2013. 

Eric H. Holder, Jr., 

Attorney General. 

[FR Doc. 2013–07252 Filed 3–28–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–30–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

9 CFR Parts 53, 71, 82, 93, 94, 95, and 

104 

[Docket No. APHIS–2009–0094] 

RIN 0579–AD45 

Importation of Live Birds and Poultry, 

Poultry Meat, and Poultry Products 

From a Region in the European Union 

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are amending the 

regulations governing the importation of 

animals and animal products by 

recognizing 25 Member States of the 

European Union (EU) as the Animal and 

Plant Health Inspection Service 

(APHIS)-defined EU poultry trade 

region and adding it to the list of regions 

we consider to be free of Newcastle 

disease. We are taking this action based 

on a risk evaluation that we prepared in 

which we determined that the region 

meets our requirements for being 

considered free of Newcastle disease. 

We also determined that the region 

meets our requirements for being 

considered free of highly pathogenic 

avian influenza (HPAI). In addition, we 

are establishing requirements governing 

the importation of live birds and poultry 

and poultry meat and products from the 

APHIS-defined EU poultry trade region 

and updating avian disease terms and 

definitions. We are also allowing 

importation from the APHIS-defined EU 

poultry trade region of hatching eggs 

under official seal, including those that 

have transited a restricted zone 

established because of detection of 

HPAI within the boundaries of the 

APHIS-defined EU poultry trade region. 

These actions will facilitate the 

importation of live birds and poultry, 

including hatching eggs, and poultry 

meat and products from the APHISdefined EU poultry trade region while 

maintaining safeguards to protect the 

United States from the introduction of 

communicable avian diseases. 

DATES: Effective Date: April 15, 2013. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Javier Vargas, Case Manager, 

Regionalization and Evaluation, 

National Center for Import and Export, 

Veterinary Services, APHIS, 4700 River 

Road Unit 38, Riverdale, MD 20737– 

1231; (301) 851–3300. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service (APHIS) regulations 

in title 9 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR), parts 93, 94, and 95, 

govern the importation into the United 

States of specified animals and animal 

products and byproducts to prevent the 

introduction of various animal diseases, 

including Newcastle disease and highly 

pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI). 

These are dangerous and destructive 

communicable diseases of birds and 

poultry. The regulations in § 94.6 

restrict the importation of carcasses, 

parts of products of carcasses, and eggs 

(other than hatching eggs) 1 of poultry, 

game birds, and other birds, from all 

regions where Newcastle disease or any 

subtype of HPAI are considered to exist. 

On July 19, 2011, we published in the 

Federal Register (76 FR 42595–42602, 

Docket No. APHIS–2009–0094) a 

proposal 2 to amend the regulations 

governing the importation of live birds 

and poultry, and poultry meat and 

products, by recognizing 25 Member 

States of the European Union (EU) as 

the APHIS-defined EU poultry trade 

region and adding it to the list of regions 

we consider to be free of Newcastle 

disease. We also determined that the 

region meets our requirements for being 

considered free of HPAI. In addition, we 

proposed to establish requirements for 

the importation of live birds and 

poultry, including hatching eggs, and 

poultry meat and products to the United 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES