52544 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

assisted spread of ELC to noninfested 

areas. Under these circumstances, the 

Administrator has determined that prior 

notice and opportunity for public 

comment are contrary to the public 

interest and that there is good cause 

under 5 U.S.C. 553 for making this rule 

effective less than 30 days after 

publication in the Federal Register. 

We will consider comments we 

receive during the comment period for 

this interim rule (see DATES above). 

After the comment period closes, we 

will publish another document in the 

Federal Register. The document will 

include a discussion of any comments 

we receive and any amendments we are 

making to the rule. 

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

This interim rule is subject to 

Executive Order 12866. However, for 

this action, the Office of Management 

and Budget has waived its review under 

Executive Order 12866. 

In accordance with the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, we have analyzed the 

potential economic effects of this action 

on small entities. 

Maine has expanded its intrastate ELC 

quarantine to include the townships of 

Beddington, Boothbay, South Bristol, 

T24 Middle Division Bingham’s 

Penobscot Purchase, and T25 Middle 

Division Bingham’s Penobscot Purchase. 

This interim rule amends our domestic 

ELC quarantine regulations to include 

additional those areas in Maine and to 

correct some misidentifications of 

previously listed regulated areas. 

The only small entities in the newly 

federally regulated townships that may 

be affected are forestry operations. The 

number of these operations in the 5 

townships has ranged between 8 and 18 

over the past 5 years. It is estimated that 

the annual value of harvested larch sold 

from the newly quarantined areas 

averages about $375. Any potential 

impact of the rule is further minimized 

by the opportunity for forestry 

operations to enter into compliance 

agreements with lumber mills to process 

larch from quarantined areas. 

Under these circumstances, the 

Administrator of the Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service has 

determined that this action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Executive Order 12372 

This program/activity is listed in the 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

under No. 10.025 and is subject to 

Executive Order 12372, which requires 

intergovernmental consultation with 

State and local officials. (See 7 CFR part 

3015, subpart V.) 

Executive Order 12988 

This rule has been reviewed under 

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 

Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts all State 

and local laws and regulations that are 

inconsistent with this rule; (2) has no 

retroactive effect; and (3) does not 

require administrative proceedings 

before parties may file suit in court 

challenging this rule. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This rule contains no new 

information collection or recordkeeping 

requirements under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 

et seq.). 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 301 

Agricultural commodities, Plant 

diseases and pests, Quarantine, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Transportation. 

Accordingly, we are amending 7 CFR 

part 301 as follows: 

PART 301—DOMESTIC QUARANTINE 

NOTICES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 301 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7701–7772 and 7781– 

7786; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3. 

Section 301.75–15 issued under Sec. 204, 

Title II, Public Law 106–113, 113 Stat. 1501 

A–293; sections 301.75–15 and 301.75–16 

issued under Sec. 203, Title II, Public Law 

106–224, 114 Stat. 400 (7 U.S.C. 1421 note). 

■ 2. In § 301.91–3, paragraph (c), the 

entry for Maine is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 301.91–3 Regulated areas. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

Maine 

Hancock County. The entire 

townships of Gouldsboro, Sorrento, 

Sullivan, T7 SD, T9 SD, T10 SD, and 

T16 MD, and Winter Harbor. 

Knox County. The entire townships of 

Appleton, Camden, Cushing, 

Friendship, Hope, Owls Head, 

Rockland, Rockport, Saint George, 

South Thomaston, Thomaston, Union, 

Warren, and Washington. 

Lincoln County. The entire townships 

of Alna, Boothbay, Boothbay Harbor, 

Bremen, Bristol, Damariscotta, 

Edgecomb, Jefferson, Newcastle, 

Nobleboro, Somerville, South Bristol, 

Southport, Waldoboro, Westport Island, 

and Wiscasset. 

Waldo County. The entire townships 

of Lincolnville and Searsmont. 

Washington County. The entire 

townships of Addison, Baring 

Plantation, Beals, Beddington, Berry 

Township, Calais, Cathance Township, 

Centerville Township, Charlotte, 

Cherryfield, Columbia, Columbia Falls, 

Cooper, Cutler, Deblois, Dennysville, 

East Machias, Eastport, Edmunds 

Township, Harrington, Jonesboro, 

Jonesport, Lubec, Machias, Machiasport, 

Marion Township, Marshfield, 

Meddybemps, Milbridge, Northfield, 

Pembroke, Perry, Robbinston, Roque 

Bluffs, Steuben, T18 MD BPP, T19 MD 

BPP, T24 MD BPP, T25 MD BPP, 

Trescott Township, Whiting, and 

Whitneyville. 

Done in Washington, DC, this 17th day of 

August 2011. 

Gregory L. Parham, 

Administrator, Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–21519 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

7 CFR Part 319 

[Docket No. APHIS–2010–0002] 

RIN 0579–AD16 

Importation of Peppers From Panama 

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are amending the 

regulations to allow, under certain 

conditions, the importation of 

commercial shipments of peppers from 

Panama into the United States without 

treatment. Conditions of entry to which 

the peppers will be subject include 

trapping, pre-harvest inspection, and 

shipping procedures. This action will 

allow for the importation of peppers 

from Panama into the United States 

while continuing to provide protection 

against the introduction of quarantine 

pests. 

DATES: Effective Date: September 22, 

2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

David Lamb, Import Specialist, 

Regulatory Coordination and 

Compliance, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River 

Road, Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737– 

1236; (301) 734–0627. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The regulations in ‘‘Subpart—Fruits 

and Vegetables’’ (7 CFR 319.56–1 


rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 52545 

1To view the proposed rule and the comments 

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

fdmspublic/component/ 

main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS-2010-0002. 

through 319.56–51, referred to below as 

the regulations) prohibit or restrict the 

importation of fruits and vegetables into 

the United States from certain parts of 

the world to prevent the introduction 

and dissemination of plant pests that are 

new to or not widely distributed within 

the United States. 

On June 1, 2010, we published in the 

Federal Register (75 FR 30303–30305, 

Docket No. APHIS–2010–0002) a 

proposal 1 to amend the regulations in 

§ 319.56–40 by allowing, under certain 

conditions, the importation of 

commercial shipments of peppers from 

Panama into the United States without 

treatment. We also proposed to add two 

additional pests to the list of pests for 

which inspection is required: Bacterial 

wilt and tomato severe leaf curl virus. 

Finally, we proposed removing two 

pests from the list of pests for which 

peppers from Central America must be 

inspected: The banana moth (Opogona 

sacchari) and tomato yellow mosaic 

virus. 

We solicited comments concerning 

our proposal for 60 days ending August 

2, 2010. We received five comments by 

that date. They were from producers, 

representatives of State and foreign 

governments, and private individuals. 

The issues raised in those comments are 

discussed below by topic. 

Pest List 

Section 319.56–40 requires the 

national plant protection organizations 

(NPPOs) of Central American countries 

exporting peppers to the United States 

to inspect growing sites or greenhouses 

for certain pests prior to harvest. We 

proposed to add Panama to the list of 

countries eligible to export peppers 

under these conditions. Among the 

pests listed in § 319.56–40 are the 

weevil Faustinus ovatipennis, bacterial 

wilt, Andean potato mottle virus, 

Lantana mealybug, Passionvine 

mealybug, and the rust fungus Puccinia 

pampeana. 

One commenter pointed out that there 

was no record of the presence of any of 

these pests in Panama; therefore, the 

NPPO of Panama should not be required 

to inspect for them. 

Because the pest risk assessment 

(PRA) completed in relation to the 

importation of peppers from certain 

Central American countries was a 

regional PRA, the pest list includes 

those 12 pests of quarantine significance 

present in Central America, including 

Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, 

Honduras, Panama, and Nicaragua. We 

recognize that not all of the pests listed 

in the regulations may be present in 

each of those countries. The systems 

approach for the importation of peppers 

from each country includes the 

submission of a bilateral workplan to 

the Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service (APHIS) by the NPPO of each 

exporting country. That workplan will 

include the specific pests of concern for 

which inspection will be required as 

listed by country in the PRA. In this 

final rule, we are amending paragraphs 

(a)(2), (b)(3)(v), and (c)(3)(v) of the 

regulations, which provide for the preharvest inspections, to reflect this 

process. 

Mitigation Measures for Pea Leafminer 

One of the pests of concern listed in 

§ 319.56–40 is pea leafminer (Liriomyza 

huidobrensis). A commenter suggested 

that this pest is of particular concern for 

purposes of potential infestation and 

detection for several reasons: Larvae in 

this family are typically not identified 

beyond the family level, thus leaving 

them indistinguishable from other pests 

in this family during early stages of 

development; the 1.6 mm screening 

required to be placed across all 

openings in the pest-exclusionary 

greenhouses might not be sufficiently 

small to exclude the insect; and the pea 

leafminer’s early larval stages and 

associated mines are relatively small, 

therefore making their potential 

detection via inspection at origin and 

destination problematic. 

For those varieties of peppers that are 

listed in the regulations and imported 

from areas in which Mediterranean fruit 

fly (Medfly, Ceratitis capitata) and/or 

Mexican fruit fly (Mexfly, Anastrepha 

ludens) are considered to exist, 

production sites must consist of pestexclusionary greenhouses, which must 

have double self-closing doors and have 

all other openings and vents covered 

with 1.6 mm (or less) screening. The 

screening requirements listed in the 

regulations are intended only to provide 

protection from infestation by Medfly or 

Mexfly. However, the other mitigation 

measures established in the systems 

approach provide protection against a 

number of pests, including pea 

leafminer. Those measures include preharvest inspection, shipping 

procedures, and port-of-entry 

inspection, which provide an 

appropriate cumulative level of 

protection. 

In reference to the commenter’s 

concern about the difficulty of detecting 

the presence of pea leafminer based on 

visual inspection, we are confident that 

pre-harvest inspections coupled with 

port-of-entry inspections will prove 

effective. In addition, pea leafminer 

infestations principally occur in the 

leaves and not the fruit of the pepper 

plant, reducing the risk that imported 

peppers will be infested with pea 

leafminer. Finally, the systems approach 

was established in 2004 to allow for the 

importation of peppers from Costa Rica, 

El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and 

Nicaragua. Based on our experience 

inspecting for pea leafminer in 

shipments of peppers from those 

countries, we are confident that we will 

continue to successfully prevent the 

entry of any infested shipments. 

Inspection 

The regulations require that pepper 

production sites and shipments be 

inspected prior to harvest by the NPPO 

for pests of concern. One commenter 

wanted to know what sort of training 

the inspectors in Panama were required 

to undergo. 

APHIS has audited Panama’s export 

program, including its inspector 

training, and has found it is sufficient to 

meet the conditions set forth in the 

systems approach in § 319.56–40. In 

addition, it should be noted that 

peppers from Panama will be inspected 

at the port of entry into the United 

States, providing a check on the efficacy 

of the inspection in Panama as well as 

another layer of phytosanitary 

protection. 

Another commenter opposed the 

proposal, stating that, since sampling for 

inspection purposes will not be 

conducted on all of the peppers in each 

given shipment, the associated risk of 

pest entry into the United States is too 

great. 

We disagree. The rate at which 

sampling is conducted has been 

determined to detect a 1 to 2 percent 

level of infestation with a 95 percent 

rate of confidence. Further, inspection 

of samples of peppers is only one 

element of the established systems 

approach. We are confident that the 

systems approach in § 319.56–40 will 

effectively mitigate the risk associated 

with peppers imported from Panama. 

General Comments 

One commenter asked what specific 

measures would be enacted to ensure 

that the phytosanitary requirements for 

shipments of peppers from Panama 

would be properly monitored and met. 

For those areas where Medfly or 

Mexfly are considered to exist, the 

systems approach provides that APHIS 

will maintain oversight of the program 

by participating in the approval and 

monitoring of production sites and by 

reviewing the trapping records that 


rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with RULES
52546 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

must be maintained for each site. For 

shipments of peppers from those areas 

that are free of Medfly or Mexfly, portof-entry inspections will be conducted. 

If, through trapping records, site visits, 

or port-of-entry inspections, we find 

that any of the required mitigation 

measures are not being properly 

administered, we will suspend 

shipments from the offending sites. 

Another commenter observed that the 

measures established as elements of the 

systems approach were not individually 

preventative. An additional commenter 

stated that APHIS should not allow any 

commodities to enter the United States 

without treatment. 

Under a systems approach, a set of 

phytosanitary conditions, at least two of 

which have an independent effect in 

mitigating the pest risk associated with 

the movement of commodities, is 

specified. Accordingly, each individual 

measure assigned under a systems 

approach is designed to work in concert 

with at least one other element of the 

systems approach to achieve the 

appropriate level of phytosanitary 

security. We are confident that the 

systems approach in § 319.56–40 will 

effectively mitigate the risk associated 

with peppers imported from Panama, as 

it has for peppers from Costa Rica, El 

Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and 

Nicaragua. 

One commenter, from the Florida 

Department of Agriculture and 

Consumer Services, Division of Plant 

Industry, stated that U.S. stakeholders 

from those areas potentially affected by 

any pest or disease outbreak from 

imported commodities should be 

invited to participate in site visits prior 

to the proposal of any rulemakings such 

as the one finalized by this document. 

APHIS is committed to a transparent 

process and an inclusive role for 

stakeholders in our risk analysis 

process. To that end, we are currently 

considering ways to facilitate further 

stakeholder involvement, including site 

visits, during the initial stages of the 

development of PRAs. However, since 

this comment relates to the structure of 

APHIS’s overall risk analysis process, 

and not to the importation of peppers 

from Panama, it is outside the scope of 

the current rulemaking. 

Therefore, for the reasons given in the 

proposed rule and in this document, we 

are adopting the proposed rule as a final 

rule, with the changes discussed in this 

document. 

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

This final rule has been determined to 

be not significant for the purposes of 

Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, 

has not been reviewed by the Office of 

Management and Budget. 

In accordance with the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, we have analyzed the 

potential economic effects of this action 

on small entities. The analysis is 

summarized below. Copies of the full 

analysis are available on the 

Regulations.gov Web site (see footnote 1 

in this document for a link to 

Regulations.gov) or by contacting the 

person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Panama exported an average of about 

20 metric tons (MT) of peppers to the 

United States annually from 1998 to 

2001. The United States has not 

imported peppers from Panama since 

2001. In the economic analysis, we 

model three levels of pepper exports to 

the United States from Panama, of 

increasing magnitude: (i) 20 MT; (ii) the 

maximum annual quantity exported by 

Panama to all countries in the most 

recent years it had export data (29 MT); 

and (iii) 10 times the maximum quantity 

exported (290 MT). The largest assumed 

level of U.S. imports is less than 0.02 

percent of average annual U.S. 

consumption. Even when assuming the 

largest import quantity and no 

displacement of imports from other 

countries, the welfare loss for U.S. 

small-entity producers would be 

equivalent to less than 0.05 percent of 

their average revenue. U.S. producers of 

peppers are predominantly small. Other 

small entities that could be affected by 

the rule include fresh pepper importers. 

Under these circumstances, the 

Administrator of the Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service has 

determined that this action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Executive Order 12988 

This final rule allows peppers to be 

imported into the United States from 

Panama. State and local laws and 

regulations regarding peppers imported 

under this rule will be preempted while 

the fruit is in foreign commerce. Fresh 

fruits and vegetables are generally 

imported for immediate distribution and 

sale to the consuming public, and 

remain in foreign commerce until sold 

to the ultimate consumer. The question 

of when foreign commerce ceases in 

other cases must be addressed on a caseby-case basis. No retroactive effect will 

be given to this rule, and this rule will 

not require administrative proceedings 

before parties may file suit in court 

challenging this rule. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This final rule contains no new 

information collection or recordkeeping 

requirements under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 

et seq.). 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 319 

Coffee, Cotton, Fruits, Imports, Logs, 

Nursery stock, Plant diseases and pests, 

Quarantine, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Rice, 

Vegetables. 

Accordingly, we are amending 7 CFR 

part 319 as follows: 

PART 319—FOREIGN QUARANTINE 

NOTICES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 319 

continues to read as follows: 

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

7781–7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR 

2.22, 2.80, and 371.3. 

■ 2. Section 319.56–40 is amended by 

revising the introductory text and 

paragraphs (a)(2), (b)(3)(v), and (c)(3)(v) 

to read as follows: 

§ 319.56–40 Peppers from certain Central 

American countries. 

Fresh peppers (Capsicum spp.) may 

be imported into the United States from 

Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, 

Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama only 

under the following conditions and in 

accordance with all other applicable 

provisions of this subpart: 

(a) * * * 

(2) A pre-harvest inspection of the 

growing site must be conducted by the 

national plant protection organization 

(NPPO) of the exporting country for 

those pests listed in the bilateral 

workplan provided to APHIS by the 

NPPO of the exporting country, 

including any of the following pests: 

The weevil Faustinus ovatipennis, pea 

leafminer, tomato fruit borer, lantana 

mealybug, passionvine mealybug, melon 

thrips, bacterial wilt, the rust fungus 

Puccinia pampeana, Andean potato 

mottle virus, and tomato severe leaf curl 

virus. If any of the pests listed in the 

workplan are found to be generally 

infesting the growing site, the NPPO 

may not allow export from that 

production site until the NPPO has 

determined that risk mitigation has been 

achieved. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(v) The greenhouse must be inspected 

prior to harvest for those pests listed in 

the bilateral workplan provided to 

APHIS by the NPPO of the exporting 

country, including any of the following 

pests: The weevil Faustinus 

ovatipennis, pea leafminer, tomato fruit 

borer, lantana mealybug, passionvine 


rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 52547 

mealybug, melon thrips, bacterial wilt, 

the rust fungus Puccinia pampeana, 

Andean potato mottle virus, and tomato 

severe leaf curl virus. If any of pests 

listed in the workplan, or other 

quarantine pests, are found to be 

generally infesting the greenhouse, 

export from that production site will be 

halted until the exporting country’s 

NPPO determines that the pest risk has 

been mitigated. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(v) The greenhouse must be inspected 

prior to harvest for those pests listed in 

the bilateral workplan provided to 

APHIS by the NPPO of the exporting 

country, including any of the following 

pests: The weevil Faustinus 

ovatipennis, pea leafminer, tomato fruit 

borer, lantana mealybug, passionvine 

mealybug, melon thrips bacterial wilt, 

the rust fungus Puccinia pampeana, 

Andean potato mottle virus, and tomato 

severe leaf curl virus. If any of the pests 

listed in the workplan, or other 

quarantine pests, are found to be 

generally infesting the greenhouse, 

export from that production site will be 

halted until the exporting country’s 

NPPO determines that the pest risk has 

been mitigated. 

* * * * * 

Done in Washington, DC, this 17th day of 

August 2011. 

Gregory L. Parham, 

Administrator, Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–21522 Filed 8–22–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

9 CFR Part 93 

[Docket No. APHIS–2008–0112] 

RIN 0579–AD31 

Importation of Horses From 

Contagious Equine Metritis-Affected 

Countries 

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Interim rule; delay of 

enforcement and reopening of comment 

period. 

SUMMARY: We are reopening the 

comment period for an interim rule that 

amended the regulations regarding the 

testing requirements for importation of 

horses from countries affected with 

contagious equine metritis. We are also 

delaying the enforcement of all 

provisions of the interim rule until a 

final rule is published and effective. 

This action will allow interested 

persons additional time to comment on 

the interim rule and provide the Animal 

and Plant Health Inspection Service 

with time to make adjustments to the 

interim rule that may be necessary in 

order to successfully implement it. 

DATES: Enforcement of the interim rule 

amending 9 CFR part 93, published at 

76 FR 16683–16686 on March 25, 2011, 

and delayed until July 25, 2011, in a 

document published at 76 FR 31220– 

31221 on May 31, 2011, is delayed until 

further notice. We will consider all 

comments that we receive on or before 

September 7, 2011. APHIS will publish 

a document in the Federal Register 

announcing any future action. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by either of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov/ 

#!documentDetail;D=APHIS-2008-0112- 

0020. 

• Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: 

Send your comment to Docket No. 

APHIS–2008–0112, 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-2008-0112 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) 690–2817 

before coming. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Ellen Buck, Senior Staff Veterinarian, 

Equine Imports, National Center for 

Import and Export, VS, APHIS, 4700 

River Road Unit 39, Riverdale, MD 

20737–1231; (301) 734–8364. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The regulations in 9 CFR part 93 

(referred to below as the regulations) 

prohibit or restrict the importation of 

certain animals into the United States to 

prevent the introduction of 

communicable diseases of livestock and 

poultry. ‘‘Subpart C—Horses,’’ §§ 93.300 

through 93.326, pertains to the 

importation of horses into the United 

States. Sections 93.301 and 93.304 of 

the regulations contain specific 

provisions for the importation of horses 

from regions affected with contagious 

equine metritis (CEM), which is a highly 

contagious venereal disease of horses 

and other equines caused by an 

infection with the bacterium Taylorella 

equigenitalis. 

On March 25, 2011, we published an 

interim rule in the Federal Register (76 

FR 16683–16686, Docket No. APHIS– 

2008–0112) to amend the regulations 

regarding the importation of horses from 

countries affected with CEM by 

incorporating an additional certification 

requirement for imported horses 731 

days of age or less and adding new 

testing protocols for test mares and 

imported stallions and mares more than 

731 days of age. The provisions of the 

interim rule became effective upon 

publication. 

On May 31, 2011, we published a 

document in the Federal Register (76 

FR 31220–31221, Docket No. APHIS– 

2008–0112) to delay the enforcement of 

the interim rule until July 25, 2011. This 

action was taken after a request was 

made by affected entities to allow them 

additional time to adjust their operation 

procedures. 

Delay of Enforcement 

Based on comments received 

following the March 2011 interim rule, 

we are considering two changes to the 

interim rule. The interim rule required 

that three sets of cultures from imported 

stallions be collected for the detection of 

the CEM organism, with negative results 

obtained from at least two sets prior to 

test breeding. However, based on the 

comments received, we are considering 

amending the requirement so that only 

one set of cultures would be collected 

from an imported stallion with negative 

results prior to test breeding. The 

purpose of culturing a stallion prior to 

test breeding is to reduce the risk of 

infecting a test mare. Therefore, test 

breeding should not take place until 

negative culture results have been 

reported. Under the regulations, a 

stallion may be released from CEM 

quarantine only if all cultures and tests 

of specimens from the mares used for 

test breeding are negative for CEM and 

all cultures performed on specimens 

taken from the stallion are negative for 

CEM. 

The interim rule also required that 

three sets of cultures be collected from 

imported mares and test mares with an 

additional culture sample taken from 

either the distal cervix or the 

endometrium. Based on the comments 

received, we are considering replacing 

that requirement with a provision that 

would require a culture to be collected 

from the distal cervix or the 


rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with RULES