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

74555 

Vol. 77, No. 242 

Monday, December 17, 2012 

1To view the proposed rule, supporting 

documents, or the comments we received, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov/ 

#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2008-0043. 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

9 CFR Part 98 

[Docket No. APHIS–2008–0043] 

RIN 0579–AD20 

Importation of Live Swine, Swine 

Semen, Pork, and Pork Products; 

Estonia, Hungary, Slovakia, and 

Slovenia 

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: APHIS is amending the 

regulations governing the importation of 

certain animal embryos and animal 

semen by removing one of the 

conditions for the importation of swine 

semen from the APHIS-defined 

European CSF region, a region of Europe 

that we recognize as a single low-risk 

region for classical swine fever. We have 

determined that the 40-day holding 

period for swine semen and donor boars 

after the collection of swine semen is 

unnecessary. We are also announcing 

the addition of Estonia, Hungary, 

Slovakia, and Slovenia to the APHISdefined European CSF region, the 

addition of Estonia, Slovakia, and 

Slovenia to the list of regions APHIS 

considers free of swine vesicular disease 

(SVD), and the addition of Slovakia and 

Slovenia to the list of regions APHIS 

considers free of foot-and-mouth disease 

(FMD) and rinderpest. These actions 

will relieve some restrictions on the 

importation into the United States of 

certain animals and animal products 

from those regions, while continuing to 

protect against the introduction of CSF, 

SVD, FMD, and rinderpest into the 

United States. 

DATES: Effective Date: January 16, 2013. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Donald Link, Import Risk Analyst, 

Regionalization Evaluation Services, 

National Center for Import and Export, 

VS, APHIS, 920 Main Campus Drive, 

Suite 200, Raleigh, NC 27606; (919) 

855–7731. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service (APHIS) of the 

United States Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) regulates the importation of 

animals and animal products into the 

United States to guard against the 

introduction of animal diseases not 

currently present or prevalent in this 

country. 

The regulations in 9 CFR part 94 

(referred to below as the regulations) 

prohibit or restrict the importation of 

specified animals and animal products 

to prevent the introduction into the 

United States of various animal 

diseases, including classical swine fever 

(CSF), foot-and-mouth disease (FMD), 

swine vesicular disease (SVD), and 

rinderpest. These are dangerous and 

communicable diseases of ruminants 

and swine. 

The regulations in 9 CFR part 98 

govern the importation of animal 

germplasm to prevent the introduction 

of contagious diseases of livestock and 

poultry into the United States. Subparts 

A and B of part 98 apply to animal 

embryos, and subpart C (§§ 98.30 

through 98.38) applies to animal semen. 

Sections 94.0, 94.9, and 94.10 of the 

regulations provide for the listing of 

regions of the world that APHIS 

considers free of, or low-risk for, CSF. 

The APHIS-defined European CSF 

region, consisting of countries of Europe 

that we currently recognize as a single 

region with regard to CSF, is currently 

the only region we consider low-risk for 

CSF. Sections 94.24 and 98.38 specify 

restrictions necessary to mitigate the 

risk of introducing CSF into the United 

States via pork, pork products, live 

swine, and swine semen from that 

region. 

Section 94.12 of the regulations 

provides for the listing of regions that 

are declared free of SVD, and § 94.13 of 

the regulations provides for the listing 

of regions that have been determined to 

be free of SVD, but that are subject to 

certain restrictions because of their 

proximity to or trading relationships 

with SVD-affected regions. 

Section 94.1 of the regulations 

provides for the listing of regions of the 

world that are declared free of 

rinderpest or free of both rinderpest and 

FMD. Section 94.11 of the regulations 

provides for the listing of regions that 

have been determined to be free of 

rinderpest and FMD, but that are subject 

to certain restrictions because of their 

proximity to or trading relationships 

with rinderpest- or FMD-affected 

regions. 

On February 11, 2011, we published 

in the Federal Register a proposed rule 1

(76 FR 7721–7731, Docket No. APHIS– 

2008–0043) to add Estonia, Hungary, 

Slovakia, and Slovenia to the APHISdefined EU CSF region. (NOTE: In a 

final rule published on November 10, 

2011 [76 FR 70037–70040, Docket No. 

APHIS–2009–0093], APHIS changed the 

term ‘‘APHIS-defined EU CSF region’’ to 

‘‘APHIS-defined European CSF region.’’) 

We also proposed to add Estonia, 

Slovakia, and Slovenia to the list of 

regions we consider free of SVD and to 

add Slovakia and Slovenia to the list of 

regions considered free of FMD and 

rinderpest. Finally, we proposed to 

amend § 98.38 to remove the 40-day 

post-collection holding period for swine 

semen and donor boars prior to export 

of swine semen from the APHIS-defined 

EU CSF region to the United States. 

Except for semen collected from swine 

in Denmark, Finland, the Republic of 

Ireland, Sweden, or the United 

Kingdom, we required that, before 

swine semen may be exported to the 

United States, the semen and donor 

boars be held at the semen collection 

center for at least 40 days following 

collection of the semen, and that the 

donor boars, along with all other swine 

at the semen collection center, exhibit 

no clinical signs of CSF. 

We solicited comments concerning 

the proposed rule for 60 days ending 

April 12, 2011, and received three 

comments by that date. They were from 

an organization representing the pork 

industry within the United States and 

two private citizens. These comments 

are discussed below by topic. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with 
74556 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 242 / Monday, December 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

2The European Commission is the EU institution 

responsible for representing the EU as a whole. It 

proposes legislation, policies, and programs of 

action and implements decisions of the EU 

Parliament and Council. 

Comments Regarding Evaluations of 

Animal Disease Status in Support of the 

Proposed Rule 

In order for APHIS to evaluate the 

CSF, SVD, FMD, and/or rinderpest 

status of their respective countries, the 

Governments of Estonia, Hungary, 

Slovakia, and Slovenia provided us with 

information regarding the authority, 

organization, and infrastructure of the 

official veterinary services in their 

countries; the status of their countries 

and adjacent regions with regard to the 

disease(s) under evaluation; the degree 

to which their countries are separated 

from regions of higher risk; and 

livestock demographics and marketing 

practices. They also provided 

information regarding vaccination 

against the disease(s) of interest; the 

extent of active disease control 

programs for the diseases; movement 

controls and biosecurity for movement 

from higher risk regions; disease 

surveillance; diagnostic laboratory 

capabilities; and emergency response 

capacity. 

Based on this information, a site visit 

to each country, and other publicly 

available information, APHIS prepared 

an evaluation regarding the CSF and 

SVD status of Estonia; an evaluation 

regarding the CSF status of Hungary; an 

evaluation regarding the CSF, SVD, 

FMD, and rinderpest status of Slovakia; 

and an evaluation regarding the CSF, 

SVD, FMD, and rinderpest status of 

Slovenia. The conclusions in these 

evaluations led us to issue the proposed 

rule. 

One commenter stated that, since the 

evaluations were finalized, FMD has 

been detected in Bulgaria. The 

commenter stated that European 

Commission 2 (EC) regulations regarding 

FMD are adequate to monitor, detect, 

control, and eradicate the disease in 

Member States, but also suggested that 

the introduction of FMD into Bulgaria 

was due to that country’s failure to 

adhere to EC regulations regarding 

passive surveillance and disease 

reporting. The commenter suggested 

that this failure may be indicative of the 

potential for similar failures in passive 

surveillance and disease reporting in 

Estonia, Hungary, Slovakia, and 

Slovenia. Accordingly, the commenter 

requested that we not finalize the 

proposed rule until the EC finishes its 

review of the outbreaks in Bulgaria and 

implements corrective actions to make 

certain that all EU Member States are 

conducting adequate passive 

surveillance for FMD, and until we 

prepare new evaluations to take those 

additional measures into consideration 

insofar as they pertain to Estonia, 

Hungary, Slovakia, and Slovenia. 

Because Bulgaria is an EU Member 

State, and thus eligible for intraCommunity trade, APHIS concurs with 

the commenter that the outbreaks of 

FMD in Bulgaria are an issue of concern, 

and accordingly has been monitoring 

the disease situation in that country. 

The EC has provided APHIS officials 

stationed within the EU with regular 

updates regarding the outbreaks, and 

has posted updated outbreak 

information for the general public at the 

Web site for its Standing Committee on 

the Food Chain and Animal Health. 

To summarize, on January 4, 2011, 

FMD was detected in a single wild boar 

in Bulgaria. Since then, there have been 

multiple outbreaks, primarily along the 

border between Bulgaria and Turkey. In 

response to the outbreaks, Bulgarian 

officials implemented measures to 

delineate the scope of the outbreaks and 

to control and eradicate the disease in 

domestic livestock within the country. 

To date, we have no evidence that 

domestic ruminant populations in other 

Member States should be considered 

exposed to or potentially affected with 

FMD. Indeed, the EC recently reduced 

the restricted area of Bulgaria that is 

covered by EC measures designed to 

prevent the spread of FMD. 

Furthermore, as the commenter 

conceded, current EC regulations, if 

adhered to, are sufficient to detect, 

control, and eradicate FMD whenever it 

occurs within a Member State. 

Based on the information provided to 

us by Estonia, Hungary, Slovakia, and 

Slovenia, as corroborated by our site 

visits to the countries, we believe the 

countries have implemented the 

relevant EC legislation regarding 

surveillance for CSF, SVD, FMD and/or 

rinderpest, and that producers in these 

countries can recognize clinical signs of 

the diseases and report any such 

potentially affected animals in a timely 

manner. Therefore, we are not granting 

the commenter’s request. We will, 

however, continue to closely monitor 

the current FMD situation in Bulgaria. 

The same commenter asserted that 

our conclusion—that live swine, swine 

semen, pork, and pork products may 

safely be imported into the United 

States from Estonia, Hungary, Slovakia, 

and Slovenia, subject to the restrictions 

of the regulations—was based on the 

absence of FMD within the EU. 

Accordingly, the commenter requested 

that we not finalize the proposed rule 

until we prepare new assessments that 

take into consideration the presence of 

FMD in Bulgaria. Similarly, another 

commenter asked what information had 

been taken into consideration in 

reaching our conclusions. 

As noted above, our conclusions were 

based on an evaluation of the 

information supplied by Estonia, 

Hungary, Slovakia, and Slovenia 

regarding the authority, organization, 

and infrastructure of the veterinary 

services in their countries; the status of 

their countries and adjacent regions 

with regard to the disease(s) under 

evaluation; the degree to which their 

countries are separated from regions of 

higher risk; livestock demographics and 

marketing practices; vaccination against 

the disease(s) of interest; the extent of 

active disease control programs for the 

diseases; movement controls and 

biosecurity for movement from higher 

risk regions; disease surveillance; 

diagnostic laboratory capabilities; and 

emergency response capacity. 

Cumulatively, this information 

demonstrated the countries’ compliance 

with existing EC regulations, which 

mitigate the likelihood that CSF, SVD, 

FMD, and/or rinderpest will be 

introduced into the domestic swine 

populations within the countries, and 

led to our conclusion that, by applying 

the restrictions of the regulations, 

swine, swine semen, pork, and pork 

products may safely be imported from 

Estonia, Hungary, Slovakia, or Slovenia 

into the United States. 

In addition, we note that Estonia and 

Hungary have been listed under § 94.11 

since 2002 and 1994, respectively, as 

regions that are free of FMD but subject 

to certain restrictions because of their 

trading relationships with FMD-affected 

countries. 

A commenter pointed out that, in our 

evaluation of Slovakia with regard to 

CSF, SVD, FMD, and rinderpest, we 

noted that Slovakian veterinary 

inspectors are not stationed at every 

border crossing into the country to 

inspect passenger baggage. The 

commenter also pointed out that, at 

those crossings where inspectors are 

stationed, there are certain hours 

throughout the day when the crossings 

are unattended by the inspectors. The 

commenter suggested that Slovakia 

needed to position inspectors at all 

ports of entry and needed to expand 

inspection coverage beyond normal 

working hours. Additionally, the 

commenter pointed out that, in the 

evaluation of Hungary with regard to 

CSF, we noted that posters alerting 

travelers to prohibitions on the 

importation of certain animal products 

in personal baggage were not displayed 

at several of the border inspection posts 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 242 / Monday, December 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 74557 

3Available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/

LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:077:

0001:0019:EN:pdf. Accessed on May 6, 2011. 

(BIPs) in the country. As a result, the 

commenter questioned our basis for 

concluding that the risk posed by the 

importation of contaminated animal 

products in passenger baggage is 

sufficiently mitigated at ports of entry 

into these two countries and stated that 

we had not provided sufficient evidence 

to support this conclusion. 

Slovakia has stationed inspectors at 

the busiest border crossings during 

those hours of the day when the most 

travelers enter the country through these 

border crossings. Slovakia’s actions are 

consistent with EC regulation (EC) 206/ 

2009, which allows a country to utilize 

a risk-based approach to establishing 

controls at ports of entry to minimize 

the likelihood that animal products 

imported into the country in personal 

baggage will serve as fomites for 

diseases affecting livestock.3 Our 

determination that the risk posed by the 

importation of contaminated animal 

products in passenger baggage is 

sufficiently mitigated at ports of entry 

into Slovakia was based on this 

consistency, on the physical and 

technological infrastructure of the BIPs, 

on the apparent volume of passenger 

baggage entering through these BIPs at 

the time of our site visit, on the number 

of inspectors employed at the BIPs and 

the training afforded to these inspectors, 

and on the auditing and monitoring of 

inspections conducted by the State 

Veterinary and Food Administration of 

the Slovak Republic, the veterinary 

authority for Slovakia. 

Requiring Slovakia to station 

inspectors at all ports of entry and 

beyond normal business hours would be 

significantly more stringent than EC 

standards, and is not necessary to reach 

a determination that the risk that 

contaminated products will enter the 

country in passenger baggage has been 

sufficiently mitigated. 

We agree with the commenter that 

posters alerting travelers to prohibitions 

and restrictions on the importation of 

animal products in personal baggage 

help to reduce the risk that 

contaminated products may enter 

Hungary in such baggage, and should be 

fully incorporated into their controls at 

all ports of entry into the country. 

However, the presence or absence of 

such posters was not our sole 

consideration in determining whether 

Hungary has sufficiently mitigated the 

risk that contaminated products will 

enter Hungary in passenger baggage. As 

we did for Slovakia, we evaluated the 

physical and technological 

infrastructure of the BIPs, the number of 

inspectors stationed at BIPs and other 

border crossings, the degree to which 

these inspectors have been trained to 

inspect personal baggage, the volume of 

passenger baggage entering the country, 

the number of random and targeted 

luggage searches, and the reporting and 

monitoring requirements governing 

these inspections that have been 

imposed by the veterinary authority for 

Hungary. Collectively, the results of 

these evaluations led us to conclude 

that the risk that contaminated products 

will enter Hungary in passenger baggage 

is sufficiently mitigated. 

The same commenter pointed out 

that, in our evaluation of Slovakia, we 

noted that the majority of swine 

holdings in the country are small, and 

that biosecurity on those farms is 

somewhat lacking in comparison to 

biosecurity standards at larger, 

commercially maintained premises 

within the country. The commenter 

further pointed out that we conceded 

that these swine have more of a risk of 

exposure to CSF, SVD, FMD, and 

rinderpest, and that the primary 

mitigation we cited was the lack of 

movement of swine from these facilities 

or the movement only for custom 

slaughter. The commenter suggested 

that access to a lucrative market such as 

the United States could change these 

production practices, and increase the 

likelihood that such producers will 

instead choose to export their swine. 

The commenter suggested that this, in 

turn, could increase the risk that swine 

or pork products contaminated with 

CSF, SVD, FMD, or rinderpest virus 

could be imported to the United States 

from Slovakia. Accordingly, the 

commenter requested that we prepare a 

new evaluation that takes this possible 

change in marketing practices into 

consideration. 

We do not consider a new evaluation 

to be necessary. Such producers have 

had access to foreign markets within the 

EU and throughout the world for an 

extended period of time, and have not 

changed their marketing practices. 

Moreover, even if these marketing 

practices were to change in the manner 

suggested by the commenter, all such 

animals and animal products would still 

be subject to EC regulations and U.S. 

import requirements, which we 

consider to be effective in mitigating the 

risk of importation of affected swine 

and/or contaminated products into the 

United States. 

Comment Regarding the Removal of the 

40-Day Post-Collection Holding Period 

for Swine Semen Imported From the 

APHIS-Defined EU CSF Region 

As noted above, we proposed to 

remove one of the conditions for the 

importation of swine semen from the 

APHIS-defined EU CSF region, which 

required, with limited exceptions, that 

before swine semen may be exported to 

the United States, the semen and donor 

boars be held at the semen collection 

center for at least 40 days following 

collection of the semen, and that the 

donor boars, along with all other swine 

at the semen collection center, exhibit 

no clinical signs of CSF. We proposed 

to remove this requirement on the 

grounds that, since we established the 

requirement, the EC has modified its 

regulations to strengthen controls for 

CSF introduction or dissemination via 

infected germplasm, and we have 

strengthened our own regulations 

governing the importation of swine 

semen from a CSF-affected region. We 

also noted that the majority of swine 

semen used for artificial insemination is 

less than 5 days old and the current 

prohibition, therefore, was burdensome 

to exporters and inhibited trade. 

One commenter stated that, in the 

event of an outbreak of CSF, it often 

takes several days to conduct an 

epidemiological investigation. The 

commenter stated that, if we were to 

remove the requirement, there is a 

possibility that swine semen 

contaminated with CSF virus could be 

imported into the United States and 

used to inseminate domestic sows 

before the scope of the outbreak is 

delineated and a prohibition on the 

importation of swine semen from the 

affected country into the United States 

is put in place. The commenter asked 

that APHIS provide to the U.S. pork 

industry a detailed response plan for 

exposure of U.S. swine to fresh semen 

that is epidemiologically linked to a 

CSF case in the exporting country. 

Current EU regulations specify 

conditions for approval and supervision 

of artificial insemination centers, preadmission quarantine and testing of 

boars, serologic testing for CSF, clinical 

observation of donor boars, and 

movement controls and epidemiologic 

investigation procedures in the event 

that an outbreak of CSF is suspected. 

The movement controls include 

restrictions on the movement of swine 

semen, and epidemiologic 

investigations may include inspections 

of swine semen collection facilities. 

Because of these interlocking safeguards 

and our own regulations and policies, 

we consider the possibility that CSF 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with 
74558 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 242 / Monday, December 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

4See http://www.regulations.gov/ 

#!docketDetail;D=APHIS–2009–0035. 

5 Go to http://www.regulations.gov/ 

#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2008-0043. The 

environmental assessments and findings of no 

significant impact will appear in the resulting list 

of documents. 

virus-contaminated germplasm will be 

exported to the United States from a 

country within the APHIS-defined 

European CSF region to be remote, even 

with the removal of the 40-day holding 

period. 

In the unlikely event that the scenario 

proposed by the commenter comes to 

pass, we would take actions consistent 

with the outbreak of any foreign animal 

disease within the United States. In 

collaboration with State animal health 

officials and other emergency response 

partners, we would determine the scope 

of the outbreak, identify potentially 

affected animals, place the appropriate 

restrictions or prohibitions on the 

movement of those animals, implement 

the mitigation measures necessary to 

prevent further disease spread, and 

conduct cleaning and disinfection of 

affected premises and articles. 

Lists of Regions Removed From the CFR 

When we published the proposed rule 

for this action in February 2011, the 

countries included in the APHISdefined EU CSF region (now APHISdefined European CSF region), and 

foreign regions considered free of or 

affected with various animal diseases 

and pests, including CSF, SVD, 

rinderpest, and FMD, were listed in our 

animal and animal product import 

regulations in 9 CFR parts 92, 93, 94, 96, 

and 98. In a final rule 4 published in the 

Federal Register on January 10, 2012 

(77 FR 1388–1396, Docket No. APHIS– 

2009–0035), we removed lists of regions 

classified with respect to certain animal 

diseases and pests from those 

regulations. The lists are now posted on 

APHIS’ Web site, rather than published 

in the Code of Federal Regulations. 

Accordingly, the proposed addition of 

Estonia, Hungary, Slovakia, and 

Slovenia to the APHIS-defined 

European CSF region, the proposed 

additions of Estonia, Slovakia, and 

Slovenia to the list of regions APHIS 

considers free of SVD, and the proposed 

addition of Slovakia and Slovenia to the 

list of regions APHIS considers free of 

FMD and rinderpest do not need to be 

finalized through rulemaking. Instead, 

this preamble provides notice that we 

are amending the lists on APHIS’ Web 

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

import_export/animals/ 

animal_disease_status.shtml). Copies of 

the lists are also be available via postal 

mail, fax, or email upon request to the 

Sanitary Trade Issues Team, National 

Center for Import and Export, Veterinary 

Services, Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, 4700 River Road 

Unit 38, Riverdale, Maryland 20737. 

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 described above. 

Executive Order 12866 and the 

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. 

We have prepared an economic 

analysis for this rule. The economic 

analysis identifies hog and pig 

producers as the small entities most 

likely to be affected by this action, and 

considers the effects on domestic prices 

associated with increased imports of 

swine, swine semen, pork, and pork 

products. Based on the information 

presented in the analysis, we expect that 

domestic pork producers will 

experience only a minimal loss of 

welfare as a result of this action. The 

analysis provides a basis for the APHIS 

Administrator’s determination that this 

action will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Copies of the 

full analysis are available on the 

Regulations.gov Web site (see footnote 

1), or by contacting the person listed 

under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

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. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

Environmental assessments and 

findings of no significant impact have 

been prepared for this final rule. The 

environmental assessments provide a 

basis for the conclusion that the 

importation of swine, swine semen, 

pork, and pork products from Estonia, 

Hungary, Slovakia, and Slovenia under 

the conditions specified in the rule will 

not have a significant impact on the 

quality of the human environment. 

Based on the findings of no significant 

impact, the Administrator of the Animal 

and Plant Health Inspection Service has 

determined that environmental impact 

statements need not be prepared. 

The environmental assessments and 

findings of no significant impact were 

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 assessments and 

findings of no significant impact may be 

viewed on the Regulations.gov Web 

site.5 Copies of the environmental 

assessments and findings of no 

significant impact are also available for 

public inspection at USDA, Room 1141, 

South Building, 14th Street and 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC, between 8 a.m. and 

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except holidays. Persons wishing to 

inspect copies are requested to call 

ahead on (202) 799–7039 to facilitate 

entry into the reading room. In addition, 

copies may be obtained by writing to the 

individual listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This final rule contains no 

information collection or recordkeeping 

requirements under the Paperwork 

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

et seq.). 

List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 98 

Animal diseases, Imports. 

Accordingly, we are amending 9 CFR 

part 98 as follows: 

PART 98—IMPORTATION OF CERTAIN 

ANIMAL EMBRYOS AND ANIMAL 

SEMEN 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 98 

continues to read as follows: 

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

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

CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4. 

§ 98.38 [Amended] 

■ 2. Section 98.38 is amended as 

follows: 

■ a. In the introductory text, by 

removing the words ‘‘, except as noted 

in paragraph (h) of this section with 

regard to swine semen imported from 

Denmark, Finland, the Republic of 

Ireland, Sweden, or the United 

Kingdom’’. 

■ b. By removing paragraph (h). 

■ c. By redesignating paragraph (i) as 

paragraph (h). 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 242 / Monday, December 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 74559 

1This part was originally titled Part B. It was 

redesignated Part A in the United States Code for 

editorial reasons. 

■ d. In newly redesignated paragraph 

(h), by removing the words ‘‘through 

(h)’’ and adding the words ‘‘through (g)’’ 

in their place. 

Done in Washington, DC, this 11th day of 

December 2012. 

Kevin Shea, 

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 2012–30259 Filed 12–14–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 430 

[Docket No. EERE–2009–BT–TP–0013] 

RIN 1904–AB95 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products: Test Procedures 

for Residential Water Heaters, Direct 

Heating Equipment, and Pool Heaters 

(Standby Mode and Off Mode) 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: Where appropriate, the U.S. 

Department of Energy (DOE) is 

amending its test procedures for 

residential water heaters, direct heating 

equipment (DHE), and pool heaters to 

include provisions for measuring 

standby mode and off mode energy 

consumption, as required by the Energy 

Independence and Security Act of 2007 

(EISA 2007). DOE has concluded that 

such amendments are necessary for 

direct heating equipment and pool 

heaters, but test procedure amendments 

are not necessary for residential water 

heaters, because the existing test 

procedures for those products already 

address standby mode and off mode 

energy use. These test procedure 

amendments are primarily based upon 

provisions of the latest version of the 

International Electrotechnical 

Commission (IEC) Standard 62301 

(Second Edition 2011–01), ‘‘Household 

electrical appliances—Measurement of 

standby power,’’ which is incorporated 

by reference. For direct heating 

equipment and pool heaters, this final 

rule also adds new calculations to 

determine the annual energy 

consumption associated with product 

operation in standby mode and off 

mode, and it modifies the existing 

energy consumption equations to 

integrate standby mode and off mode 

energy consumption into the calculation 

of overall annual energy consumption of 

these products. For pool heaters only, 

the standby mode and off mode energy 

consumption is integrated into the 

efficiency metric. This rulemaking also 

adopts a number of definitions for key 

terms, as well as clarifies the rounding 

guidance and sampling provisions for 

the new measurement of standby mode 

and off mode. 

DATES: This rule is effective January 16, 

2013. The incorporation by reference of 

certain publications listed in this rule is 

approved by the Director of the Federal 

Register on January 16, 2013. 

The compliance date for any 

representations relating to standby 

mode and off mode of residential direct 

heating equipment and pool heaters is 

June 17, 2013; on and after this date, 

any such representations must be based 

upon results generated under these test 

procedures and sampling plans. For 

purposes of compliance with energy 

conservation standards, these test 

procedure amendments related to 

standby mode and off mode are not 

required at this time, but their use will 

be required upon the compliance date of 

the next standards final rule which will 

address standby mode and off mode. 

ADDRESSES: The docket for this 

rulemaking is available for review at 

www.regulations.gov, including Federal 

Register notices, public meeting 

attendee lists and transcripts, 

comments, and other supporting 

documents/materials. All documents in 

the docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. However, 

not all documents listed in the index 

may be publicly available, such as 

information that is exempt from public 

disclosure. 

A link to the docket Web page can be 

found at www.regulations.gov. This Web 

page will contain a link to the docket for 

this notice in the www.regulations.gov 

Web site. The www.regulations.gov Web 

page contains simple instructions on 

how to access all documents, including 

public comments, in the docket. 

For further information on how to 

review the docket, contact Ms. Brenda 

Edwards at (202) 586–2945 or by email: 

Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Mohammed Khan, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, EE–2J, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–7892. Email: 

Mohammed.Khan@ee.doe.gov. 

Mr. Eric Stas, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

GC–71, 1000 Independence Avenue 

SW., Washington, DC 20585. Telephone: 

(202) 586–9507. Email: 

Eric.Stas@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final 

rule incorporates by reference into Part 

430 the following standard: 

ANSI Z21.56–2006 (‘‘ANSI Z21.56’’), 

Standard for Gas-Fired Pool Heaters, 

approved December 13, 2005, IBR 

approved for Appendix P to Subpart B. 

Copies of the ANSI Z21.56–2006 can 

be purchased from the American 

National Standards Institute, 11 West 

42nd Street, New York, New York 

10036, (212) 642–4936, or http:// 

webstore.ansi.org. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background and Authority 

II. Summary of the Final Rule 

III. Discussion 

A. Determination Not To Amend Test 

Procedures for Residential Water Heaters 

B. Use of IEC Standard 62301 (Second 

Edition), ‘‘Household Electrical 

Appliances—Measurement of Standby 

Power’’ 

C. Requirements for Unvented Heaters and 

Exclusion From Testing 

D. Technical Feasibility of an Integrated 

Efficiency Metric for Vented Heaters and 

Pool Heaters 

E. Hearth Products Coverage 

F. Review of Burner Operating Hours 

Estimates 

G. Other Issues Raised in the Supplemental 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

IV. Effective Date and Compliance Date 

V. Compliance With Other EPCA 

Requirements 

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act 

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 

H. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 1999 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

J. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal 

Energy Administration Act of 1974 

M. Congressional Notification 

VII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Background and Authority 

Title III of the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6291 et 

seq.; EPCA or the Act) sets forth a 

variety of provisions designed to 

improve energy efficiency. Part A 1 of 

Title III (42 U.S.C. 6291–6309) 

establishes the ‘‘Energy Conservation 

Program for Consumer Products Other 

Than Automobiles,’’ including 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with