37268 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 14, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

available for evaluation. Because of the

uncharacteristic fruit in the 1998–1999

season and the short crop in the 1999–

2000 season the Committee wanted to

suspend the minimum net weight

requirement for another year of

evaluation. Therefore, at its February 24,

2000, meeting, the Committee, once

again, unanimously recommended

continuing the suspension of

§ 920.302(a)(4)(iii) for another season,

the 2000–2001 season. This suspension

will be in effect until July 31, 2001, and

is expected to reduce handler packing

costs, increase grower returns, and

enable handlers to compete more

effectively in the marketplace.

These changes address the marketing

and shipping needs of the kiwifruit

industry and are in the interest of

handlers, growers, buyers, and

consumers. The impact of these changes

is expected to be beneficial to all

handlers and growers regardless of size.

The Committee discussed alternatives

to this change, including indefinitely

suspending these requirements. While

the industry continues to believe that

the suspensions have helped handlers

reduce packing costs and compete more

effectively in the marketplace, it is not

yet ready to recommend permanent

suspension for the 2000–2001 and

future seasons. Both the 1998–1999 and

1999–2000 seasons were abnormal in

some respects, and the Committee

wanted to study the results of the

suspensions during a normal season.

Thus, the Committee unanimously

agreed to suspend these requirements

for the 2000–2001 season.

This rule relaxes inspection and pack

requirements under the kiwifruit

marketing order. Accordingly, this

action will not impose any additional

reporting or recordkeeping requirements

on either small or large kiwifruit

handlers. As with all Federal marketing

order programs, reports and forms are

periodically reviewed to reduce

information requirements and

duplication by industry and public

sector agencies.

As noted in the initial regulatory

flexibility analysis, the Department has

not identified any relevant Federal rules

that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with

this final rule.

In addition, the Committee’s meetings

were widely publicized throughout the

kiwifruit industry and all interested

persons were invited to attend the

meetings and participate in Committee

deliberations. Like all Committee

meetings, the February 24, 2000,

meeting was a public meeting and all

entities, both large and small, were able

to express their views on this issue.

A proposed rule concerning this

action was published in the Federal

Register on April 24, 2000 (65 FR

21668). Copies of the rule were mailed

or sent via facsimile to all Committee

members and kiwifruit handlers.

Finally, the rule was made available

through the Internet by the Office of the

Federal Register. A 30-day comment

period ending May 24, 2000, was

provided to allow interested persons to

respond to the proposal. No comments

were received.

A small business guide on complying

with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop

marketing agreements and orders may

be viewed at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/

fv/moab.html. Any questions about the

compliance guide should be sent to Jay

Guerber at the previously mentioned

address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section.

After consideration of all relevant

matter presented, including the

information and recommendation

submitted by the Committee and other

available information, it is hereby found

that this rule, as hereinafter set forth,

will tend to effectuate the declared

policy of the Act.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 920

Kiwifruit, Marketing agreements,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, 7 CFR part 920 is amended as

follows:

PART 920—KIWIFRUIT GROWN IN

CALIFORNIA

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR

part 920 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674.

§ 920.155 [Suspended]

2. In part 920, § 920.155 is suspended

in its entirety effective August 1, 2000,

through July 31, 2001.

§ 920.302 [Suspended in part]

3. In § 920.302, paragraph (a)(4)(iii) is

suspended effective August 1, 2000,

through July 31, 2001.

Dated: June 8, 2000.

James R. Frazier,

Acting Deputy Administrator, Fruit and

Vegetable Programs.

[FR Doc. 00–15015 Filed 6–13–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service

9 CFR Part 94

[Docket No. 98–095–3]

Pork and Pork Products from Mexico

Transiting the United States

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: We are amending the

regulations for the importation of

animal products to allow fresh (chilled

or frozen) pork and pork products from

the Mexican States of Baja California

Sur, Campeche, Coahuila, Nuevo Leon,

Quintana Roo, and Sinaloa to transit the

United States, under certain conditions,

for export to another country. We are

taking this action because there has

been no outbreak of hog cholera in any

of these States since 1993, and we are

confident that fresh (chilled or frozen)

pork and pork products from each of the

above States could transit the United

States under seal with a negligible risk

of introducing hog cholera.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 14, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

Michael David, Senior Staff

Veterinarian, Animals Program,

National Center for Import and Export,

VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 39,

Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 734–8364.

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 certain animal diseases.

Section 94.9 of the regulations prohibits

the importation of pork and pork

products into the United States from

countries where hog cholera exists,

unless the pork or pork products have

been treated in one of several ways, all

of which involve heating or curing and

drying.

Because hog cholera exists in certain

areas in Mexico, pork and pork products

from most Mexican States must meet the

requirements of § 94.9 to be imported

into the United States. Section 94.20

provides an exception, allowing the

importation of fresh (chilled or frozen)

pork and pork products from the

Mexican States of Sonora and Yucatan.

Under § 94.15, pork and pork

products that are from certain Mexican

States and that are not eligible for entry

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 14, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 37269

into the United States in accordance

with the regulations in § 94.9 or § 94.20

may transit the United States for

immediate export if certain conditions

are met. These provisions were added to

the regulations in 1992, following a

United States Department of Agriculture

investigation of the hog cholera

situation in Sonora, Mexico, and a

determination that pork and pork

products from Sonora could transit the

United States, under certain conditions,

with minimal risk of introducing hog

cholera. Final rules published in the

Federal Register in 1995, 1996, and

1997 extended the provisions to

Chihuahua, Yucatan, and Baja

California, respectively.

On July 19, 1999, we published in the

Federal Register (64 FR 38599–38603,

Docket No. 98–095–1) a proposed rule

to allow fresh (chilled or frozen) pork

and pork products from the Mexican

States of Baja California Sur, Campeche,

Coahuila, Nuevo Leon, Quintana Roo,

Sinaloa, and Tamaulipas to transit the

United States, under these same

conditions, for export to another

country. We then published another

document in the Federal Register on

September 15, 1999 (64 FR 50014–

50015, Docket No. 98–095–2), that

amended our proposal to clarify that the

transit of pork be allowed via land

border ports only. We extended the

comment period on our original

proposal to allow the public enough

time to comment on the amendment as

it related to the proposed rule. We

received three comments on the

proposed rule, all of which generally

supported the rule. One of the

commenters requested a change in the

list of States, and one raised another

issue. Their concerns are addressed

below.

Comment: The Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service (APHIS)

should remove the Mexican State of

Tamaulipas from the list of States

eligible to transit pork through the

United States due to an outbreak of hog

cholera in Tamaulipas in August of

1999.

Response: Mexico confirmed that an

outbreak of hog cholera occurred in

Tamaulipas in August of 1999 and has

taken efforts to control and eradicate it

in that State. Because of the outbreak,

we are not including Tamaulipas in this

final rule.

Comment: APHIS should describe

how it plans to monitor for compliance

with the pork transit regulations.

Response: We intend to monitor

compliance with the transit restrictions

for shipments of pork from Baja

California Sur, Campeche, Coahuila,

Nuevo Leon, Quintana Roo, and Sinaloa

in the same manner we have monitored

transiting shipments of pork from Baja

California, Chihuahua, Sonora, and

Yucatan in the past. When pork

transiting the United States for export to

another country arrives at the U.S.-

Mexico border, APHIS inspectors check

to make sure that the seal number on the

container holding the pork and the seal

number on the health certificate

accompanying the shipment of pork

match. If the original seal on the

container has been broken, a second seal

must be in place, and the reason(s) for

breaking the original seal must be

explained in detail on the certificate

accompanying the pork. If the original

seal is broken and a second seal and/or

proper documentation do not

accompany the pork, the container is

refused entry into the United States.

APHIS also conducts spot checks at the

port of export in the United States to

ensure that the seals remain intact

during their movement through the

United States.

Comment: APHIS should develop a

procedure to allow additions to the list

of Mexican States without having to go

through rulemaking each time. This

would speed up the response time to

requests by Mexico to relieve

restrictions.

Response: We make every effort to

respond promptly to requests made by

foreign governments to relieve

restrictions; however, APHIS must do so

in accordance with applicable laws and

executive orders, including the

Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C.

551 et seq.) and Executive Order 12866,

among others.

Changes to the Proposed Rule

We stated in the preamble to our

proposed rule that pork from Mexico

that is eligible to transit the United

States under § 94.15 must be processed

and packaged in Tipo Inspeccio ́n

Federal (TIF) plants approved by the

Mexican Government. TIF plants are

subject to strict Federal supervision to

ensure that international health

standards are maintained. Our proposed

rule did not include this requirement as

a condition of transit. However, we

believe it is important and are,

therefore, adding it to § 94.15(b)(2) in

this final rule.

Also, § 94.15 has required that the

pork be moved in transit in leakproof

containers sealed with serially

numbered seals approved by APHIS. We

are changing that requirement in this

final rule to reflect that such containers

must be sealed with serially numbered

seals of the Government of Mexico. We

are making this change because APHIS

does not formally ‘‘approve’’ the seals

used by Mexico. APHIS simply

recognizes that the Mexican seals are

acceptable for the purposes of this rule.

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 rule has been reviewed under

Executive Order 12866. The 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 5 U.S.C. 604, we

have performed a final regulatory

flexibility analysis, which is set out

below, regarding the economic effects of

this rule on small entities.

This rule will allow fresh (chilled or

frozen) pork and pork products from the

Mexican States of Baja California Sur,

Campeche, Coahuila, Nuevo Leon,

Quintana Roo, and Sinaloa to transit the

United States, under certain conditions,

for export to another country. There

appears to be little risk of hog cholera

exposure from shipments of pork and

pork products from these States

transiting the United States. Assuming

that proper risk management techniques

continue to be applied in Mexico, and

that accident and exposure risk are

minimized by proper handling during

transport, the risk of exposure to hog

cholera from pork in transit from

Mexico through the United States will

be negligible.

This rule will have no direct effect on

U.S. producers and consumers of pork

because Mexican pork will only transit

the United States and will not enter U.S.

marketing channels. Neither the

quantity or price of pork traded in U.S.

domestic markets, nor U.S. consumer or

producer surplus will be affected by this

rule. Therefore, this rule will have no

economic effects on small entities,

except as discussed below.

Effects on Small Transport Firms

This rule could directly affect U.S.

trucking companies in the border states

of Texas and California. These

companies may benefit from

transporting an estimated 5,000 to 6,000

metric tons annually of Mexican pork

and pork products from U.S. land

border ports to U.S. maritime ports.

Additional annual revenues generated

by this rule would range from $2,000 to

$3,000 for California transport firms

(based on an additional 5 to 7 trips

annually), and from $10,000 to $57,000

for Texas transport firms (based on an

additional 15 to 18 trips annually). The

37270 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 14, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

majority (98 percent) of trucking firms

in Texas and California meet the Small

Business Administration’s definition of

a small firm (less than $18.5 million in

receipts annually). However, based on

the limited number of trips and

negligible amount of revenue generated

by these trips, it is safe to conclude that

this rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small trucking firms.

Effects on U.S. Pork Exporters

The extent to which this rule will

affect U.S. pork exporters is unclear,

but, based on historical data on Mexican

pork exports, it appears that the overall

effect of the rule will be to increase the

quantity of Mexican pork destined for

the Japanese frozen pork market.

According to Japanese import statistics,

Japan imported 382,000 metric tons of

frozen swine cuts valued at roughly $1.9

billion in 1997. Denmark, Taiwan, and

the United States were the top three

suppliers, but Mexico and Canada, who

are relative newcomers to the Japanese

frozen pork market, have gained market

share in recent years. As discussed

above, we estimate that an additional

5,000 to 6,000 metric tons of frozen pork

from Mexico would transit the United

States for Japan annually after the

effective date of this rule. This is

roughly 1.4 percent of the total quantity

imported by Japan in 1997.

During the period 1996 through 1997,

Mexican frozen pork exports to Japan

increased from 12,953 metric tons

(valued at $76 million) to 24,408 metric

tons (valued at $122 million). During

the same period, U.S. frozen pork

exports to Japan decreased from 64,500

metric tons valued at $360 million to

48,000 metric tons valued at $244

million. Analysts cite price advantage

and the willingness of Mexican packers

to tailor pork cuts to Japanese

specifications as key reasons for

Mexico’s increased market share in

1997.

Since this rule simply allows pork

from additional Mexican States to

transit the United States for immediate

export, it is unclear whether this rule

will result in increased volumes of

Mexican exports to foreign regions (e.g.,

Japan), although it will likely result in

increased volumes of pork transiting the

United States. It is possible that the

volume of Mexico’s total pork exports

will remain constant, though the

volume of pork in transit through the

United States will increase. This

scenario will likely have a minimal

economic effect on U.S. pork exporters,

whether small or large. However, since

we are unable to determine whether this

rule will result in increased volumes of

Mexican pork exports, we cannot

determine the effect of this rule on U.S.

pork exporters, whether small or large.

Trade Relations

This rule removes some restrictions

on the importation of pork and pork

products from Mexico and attempts to

encourage a positive trading

environment between the United States

and Mexico and other regions where

hog cholera is considered to exist by

stimulating economic activity and

providing export opportunities to

foreign pork processing industries.

This rule contains information

collection requirements that have been

approved by the Office of Management

and Budget (see ‘‘Paperwork Reduction

Act,’’ below).

Executive Order 12988

This final 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

In accordance with the Paperwork

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

et seq.), the information collection or

recordkeeping requirements included in

this rule have been approved by the

Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) under OMB control number

0579–0145.

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 are amending 9 CFR

part 94 as follows:

PART 94—RINDERPEST, FOOT-ANDMOUTH DISEASE, FOWL PEST (FOWL

PLAGUE), EXOTIC NEWCASTLE

DISEASE, AFRICAN SWINE FEVER,

HOG CHOLERA, 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. 147a, 150ee, 161, 162,

and 450; 19 U.S.C. 1306; 21 U.S.C. 111, 114a,

134a, 134b, 134c, 134f, 136, and 136a; 31

U.S.C. 9701; 42 U.S.C. 4331 and 4332; 7 CFR

2.22, 2.80, and 371.2(d).

2. In § 94.15, paragraph (b)

introductory text and paragraph (b)(2)

are revised to read as follows:

§ 94.15 Animal products and materials;

movement and handling.

* * * * *

(b) Pork and pork products from Baja

California, Baja California Sur,

Campeche, Chihuahua, Coahuila, Nuevo

Leon, Quintana Roo, Sinaloa, Sonora,

and Yucatan, Mexico, that are not

eligible for entry into the United States

in accordance with this part may transit

the United States via land border ports

for immediate export if the following

conditions are met:

* * * * *

(2) The pork or pork products are

packaged at a Tipo Inspeccio ́n Federal

plant in Baja California, Baja California

Sur, Campeche, Chihuahua, Coahuila,

Nuevo Leon, Quintana Roo, Sinaloa,

Sonora, or Yucatan, Mexico, in

leakproof containers and sealed with

serially numbered seals of the

Government of Mexico, and the

containers remain sealed during the

entire time they are in transit across

Mexico and the United States.

* * * * *

Done in Washington, DC, this 9th day of

June 2000.

Bobby R. Acord,

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service.

[FR Doc. 00–15012 Filed 6–13–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3140–34–P

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service

9 CFR Part 94

[Docket No. 98–029–3]

Change in Disease Status of the

Republic of South Africa Because of

Foot-and-Mouth Disease and

Rinderpest; Correction

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

SUMMARY: We are correcting an error in

the instructions for insertion of the

regulatory text of the final rule

published in the Federal Register on

April 17, 2000 (65 FR 20333–20337,

Docket No. 98–029–2), and effective on

May 2, 2000.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 14, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

Glen I. Garris, Supervisory Staff Officer,

Regionalization Evaluation Services

Staff, National Center for Import and

Export, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road

Unit 39, Riverdale, MD 20737–1231;

(302) 734–4356.