56000 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 208 / Tuesday, October 28, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service

9 CFR Parts 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98,

and 130

[Docket No. 94–106–9]

RIN 0579–AA71

Importation of Animals and Animal

Products

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: We are establishing

procedures for recognizing regions,

rather than only countries, for the

purpose of the importation of animals

and animal products into the United

States. We are also establishing

procedures by which regions may

request permission to export animals

and animal products to the United

States under specified conditions, based

on the regions’ disease status. These

changes to the regulations are in

accordance with international trade

agreements entered into by the United

States. We are also allowing, under

certain conditions, the unloading and

reloading at the port of arrival of meat

and other animal products otherwise

prohibited entry into the United States.

This change is warranted because it

removes unnecessary restrictions on the

transiting of meat and other animal

products through the United States,

without increasing the likelihood that

the meat or other products will

introduce diseases of livestock or

poultry. Additionally, we are removing

the requirement that cattle from Canada

be tested for brucellosis before being

imported into the United States. This

change is warranted because the risk

that cattle imported from Canada will be

infected with brucellosis is slight. We

are also making other minor changes in

our requirements for importing animals

and animal products that will relieve

some import restrictions while

continuing to protect U.S. livestock and

poultry from foreign animal diseases.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 28, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

Gary Colgrove, Chief Staff Veterinarian,

National Center for Import and Export,

VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 38,

Riverdale, MD 20737–1231, (301) 734–

8590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service (APHIS), United

States Department of Agriculture

(USDA), has promulgated regulations

regarding the importation of animals

and animal products in order to guard

against the introduction into the United

States of animal diseases not currently

present or prevalent in this country.

These regulations are set forth in the

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), title

9, chapter 1.

On April 18, 1996, we published in

the Federal Register (61 FR 16978–

17105, Docket No. 94–106–1) a

proposed rule to revise the regulations

in six different parts of 9 CFR, chapter

I, to establish importation criteria for

ruminants and swine, and their

products, based on the level of disease

risk in specified geographical regions.

We solicited comments concerning

our proposal for 90 days ending July 17,

1996. During the comment period,

several commenters requested that we

extend the period during which we

would accept comments. In response to

these requests, on July 11, 1996, we

published in the Federal Register a

notice that we would consider

comments on the proposed rule for an

additional 60 days ending September

16, 1996 (61 FR 36520, Docket No. 94–

106–4). During the comment period, we

conducted four public hearings at which

we accepted oral and written comments

from the public. These public hearings

were held in Riverdale, MD; Atlanta,

GA; Kansas City, MO; and Denver, CO.

We received 113 comments on the

proposed rule on or before September

16, 1996. These comments came from

representatives of State and foreign

governments, international economic

and political organizations, veterinary

associations, State departments of

agriculture, livestock industry

associations and other agricultural

organizations, importing and exporting

associations, members of academia and

the research community, brokerage

firms, exhibitors, animal welfare

organizations, and other members of the

public.

Based on our evaluation of the

information submitted by commenters,

we are making changes to the proposed

rule in this final rule. We discuss below

the issues raised by commenters and the

changes we are making to the rule as

proposed.

What We Proposed

Broadly speaking, in the proposed

rule, we set forth the following items

regarding the importation of ruminants

and swine, and their products:

• A list of restricted disease agents,

including restricted disease vectors;

• Criteria for identifying regions;

• Criteria for classifying regions as to

level of risk for specific disease agents;

• Procedures for applying for risk

classification;

• Risk classifications for individual

countries and other regions;

• Import conditions applicable to

particular commodities from particular

regions, based on the risk posed by

specific diseases; and

• Changes in terminology throughout

the ruminant and swine and ruminant

and swine product import regulations to

refer to ‘‘regions’’ rather than to

countries.

We proposed to classify all countries

of the world into one of six categories

for each restricted disease agent. The six

risk categories ranged from Risk Class

RN (negligible risk), to Risk Class R1

(slight risk), Risk Class R2 (low risk),

Risk Class R3 (moderate risk), Risk Class

R4 (high risk), and Risk Class RU

(unknown risk). We used what we

termed ‘‘qualitative criteria’’ to assign

risk categories—i.e., we examined

certain pre-assigned criteria to

determine what level of risk the

importation of ruminants, swine, or

their products from a particular region

would present for a particular disease if

no restrictions were placed on the

importations. We also proposed, as an

alternative to qualitative risk

assessment, to allow potential exporting

regions to demonstrate by means of a

‘‘quantitative’’ risk assessment that they

should be assigned to a particular risk

category because of a demonstrated

quantitative risk of disease introduction

due to unrestricted importation from

that region.

Once we proposed to classify all

countries of the world for each

restricted disease agent (although the

proposal allowed for regional status, in

all cases but one we classified only

countries, pending future requests for

specific regions), we set forth the

conditions each region assigned to a

particular risk category would have to

meet in order to import ruminants,

swine, or their products into the United

States. Under our proposal, all regions

assigned to the same risk category for a

particular disease and commodity

would have been subject to the same

import conditions.

Public Involvement in the Rulemaking

Process

A number of commenters requested

that we extend the comment period

during which comments would be

accepted on the proposed rule. As noted

above, we extended the initial 90-day

comment period by 60 days to

accommodate commenter requests. In

addition, we accepted public comment
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 208 / Tuesday, October 28, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 56001

at four public hearings held in different

areas of the United States. Therefore, we

believe the public was given adequate

time to comment on the proposed rule.

Some commenters recommended that

the proposed rule be withdrawn, and a

revised proposal be published following

review and revision in consultation

with groups outside the Animal and

Plant Health Inspection Service

(APHIS). Other commenters requested

that APHIS hold meetings to explain the

science that went into the proposal’s

development. Several commenter’s

recommended that the regulations

provide for an open public hearing

process to allow U.S. producers the

opportunity to evaluate how APHIS will

determine risk levels and the status of

foreign animal health programs. One

commenter recommended that APHIS

take into account evaluations conducted

by other countries, the International

Office of Epizootics (OIE), and the

European Union (EU). We believe that

each of these requests for more public

involvement in the process of

regionalization and risk assessment is

addressed by the changes we are making

to the final rule, and by the policy we

intend to follow regarding requests for

regionalization. We discuss these rule

changes and policy in this

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION below,

under the heading ‘‘APHIS Response to

General Concerns.’’ General Concerns

with APHIS’ Proposed Approach to

Regionalization and Risk Assessment .

Although the proposal generated

significant support from the public for

the concepts of regionalization and

levels of risk, a number of commenters

expressed concern with the approach

we proposed to take to implement those

concepts.

The commenters who objected to our

proposed approach focused on two

broad areas: (1) The criteria, procedures,

and risk classifications we proposed in

assigning regions to one of the six risk

categories; and (2) the conditions

regions would have to meet, based on

their risk classification, in order to

export specific commodities. We

discuss below first the broad objections

to our proposed method of classifying

regions, then the broad objections to the

system of conditions that we proposed

to apply to importations.

Concerns Regarding Risk Classification

Approach

A number of commenters stated that

the proposed rule would not be

‘‘transparent’’ to U.S. producers and to

our trading partners, and that its

complexity would cause it to be

ineffective. These commenters

expressed concern that the proposed six

categories of risk would be too many to

administer effectively. Some

commenters recommended that APHIS

simply amend the current import

requirements to allow for recognition of

regions, without incorporating

provisions for classification by risk

level.

A number of commenters stated that

the use of scientific criteria is not

evident in the proposed risk

classifications of various countries/

regions. Some commenters stated that

the proposed regulations lacked

transparency as to how evaluations of

regions based on the qualitative risk

criteria would be done. Other

commenters stated that the risk

categories did not take into account

factors such as mode of transmission,

economic consequences, zoonosis, and

clustering of infected populations.

Some commenters questioned the

validity of using arbitrarily selected

prevalence thresholds for assigning risk

categories. Some commenters

questioned how what they termed

‘‘information uncertainty’’ would be

dealt with.

A number of commenters stated that

application for recognition of risk

classification would demand an

exhaustive process. Other commenters

expressed concern that outbreaks of

disease in restricted areas may not be

readily regionalized.

Concerns Regarding Proposed Import

Conditions Based on Risk

Classifications

Some commenters objected to the

specificity of the proposed import

conditions, stating that the World Trade

Organization Agreement on the

Application of Sanitary and

Phytosanitary Measures (WTO-SPS)

states that a country must accept the

sanitary measures imposed by other

members as equivalent measures, even

when they differ from those in the

importing country, if the exporting

member objectively demonstrates to the

importing member that its actions

provide the health protection required

by the importing country. The

commenters stated that the proposed

import conditions did not adhere to this

requirement.

Some commenters expressed concern

that what they viewed as the ‘‘rigidity’’

of the proposed provisions would result

in unnecessary difficulties in access to

the U.S. market for commodities from

acceptable exporting regions.

APHIS Response to General Concerns

When we drafted the proposed rule,

our overriding goal was to create a

mechanism for regionalized, risk-based

import requirements, consistent with

the obligations of the WTO-SPS

Agreement, that would continue to

protect livestock in the United States

with the level of security provided by

the current regulations. The principles

of the WTO-SPS Agreement do require

that SPS measures be equitably applied,

scientifically sound, guided by

international standards, transparent,

taken in recognition that equal levels of

risk mitigation can be achieved by

applying differing sanitary measures,

risk-assessment based, and applicable

on a regional basis. If the principles of

the WTO-SPS Agreement are fulfilled

without discrimination and unjustified

differences, nations may impose those

sanitary requirements necessary to

protect their livestock, poultry, wildlife,

and human populations from disease.

We developed the proposed rule with

the multiple aims of providing for

regionalization, recognizing gradations

of risk, and making it clear that we

would impose identical import

restrictions on regions with identical

risk situations. In order to give potential

importers advance notice of the type of

import conditions they would face if

they intended to import ruminants or

swine, or their products, we included in

the proposal a tentative risk

classification for each country of the

world for each restricted disease agent.

Where current regulations existed

regarding a particular country,

commodity, and disease, our general

approach was to apply the same import

conditions applicable under the current

regulations. Where the current

regulations were silent on a restricted

disease agent, we either assigned a Risk

Class RU (unknown risk) classification

to the country, or we tentatively

assigned the country a risk classification

based on the literature and other

information available to us. The public

was invited to comment on the

proposed risk classifications.

There are many possible ways to

categorize the varying levels of risk

posed by different areas of the world for

different diseases. Levels of risk can be

described by a minimal number of

categories, as under the current

regulations (which recognize, generally,

countries as ‘‘free,’’ ‘‘free with

restrictions (modified free),’’ and ‘‘not

free’’), or by an expansive spectrum of

levels that recognizes extremely slight

differences in risk among areas.

In developing the proposal, we

arrived at the proposed number of risk

classifications after a review of the

continuum of possible risks, from

negligible risk to unknown risk. One of

the options we considered was

proposing fewer than six risk
56002 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 208 / Tuesday, October 28, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

classifications. The six classifications

we did propose represented a series of

increasing risk situations, from what we

considered to be a negligible risk, to

slight risk, low risk, moderate risk, high

risk, and unknown risk. It would have

been possible to broadly divide the risk

categories into ‘‘low risk’’ (to include

the proposed classifications of

negligible risk, slight risk, and low risk),

‘‘high risk’’ (to include the proposed

classifications of moderate risk and high

risk), and ‘‘unknown risk.’’ However, we

rejected a three-category option, for the

following reasons. First, under such an

option, the ‘‘high risk’’ classification

would not differentiate between a region

affected with a high prevalence of a

disease and a region that is affected with

the disease but that has a strong control

program and a low prevalence of

infection. Grouping the classifications of

moderate and high risk together would

not have allowed for importations from

regions that are at a low-prevalence

level and are likely to remain so.

The three proposed risk

classifications that could have been

broadly grouped under ‘‘low risk’’ are

also distinguishable. Of the countries

considered ‘‘free’’ of certain diseases

under the current regulations, some are

subject to additional restrictions

because they either supplement their

national meat supply with fresh (chilled

or frozen) meat from countries affected

diseases of concern, share a common

border with such countries, or have

trading practices less restrictive than

what we consider acceptable to prevent

the introduction of such animal

diseases.

Under the current regulations, APHIS

does not recognize a country as free of

certain diseases if that country carries

out vaccination for those diseases.

However, the OIE International Animal

Health Code (Code) recognizes a

category of ‘‘free with vaccination.’’ To

achieve equivalency with the OIE Code,

we proposed a ‘‘free with vaccination’’

(low risk) classification.

Therefore, we considered it

appropriate to propose classifications of

regions ‘‘free’’ of specific diseases that

ranged, in ascending order of risk, from

(1) those where the disease is deemed

never to have existed or is deemed to

have been eradicated, to (2) those that

have had a sufficient period of absence

of the disease, but present some risk due

to trade or adjacency with affected

regions, to (3) those that are recently

free of a disease, with some risk of

residual infection.

We considered the number of risk

categories we proposed to be small

enough to be manageable, but broad

enough to recognize differences in risk

discernible on a practical level.

We continue to believe that the

number of risk categories we proposed

represent a functional approach to

characterizing risk. However, after

evaluating the practical implications of

the proposed regulations based on

information submitted by commenters,

we have reassessed the benefits of

applying the exact same pre-assigned

import conditions to all regions grouped

in the same risk classification. We have

determined that what is gained by

making it clear to a region from the

outset what it must do to export a

particular commodity to the United

States is outweighed by a loss of

flexibility in customizing import

conditions to the particular situation of

each region. Further, based on

commenter responses to our tentative

proposed classification of regions, we

believe our characterization of the risk

level of a region and the assigned import

conditions can be most appropriately

determined after the region itself has

submitted sufficient data to APHIS to

allow us to conduct an assessment of

the risk presented by potential imports

from the region.

Therefore, in this document we are

not making final the system we

proposed that would have applied the

same import restrictions to each region

assigned to one of six risk categories.

Instead, as proposed and in accordance

with the trade agreements entered into

by the United States, we are amending

the current regulations to provide for

recognition of regions, rather than only

countries, for the purpose of

importation of animals and animal

products. In § 92.1 of this rule, we

provide that a region may consist of any

of the following:

• A national entity (country);

• Part of a national entity (zone,

county, department, municipality,

parish, Province, State, etc.);

• Parts of several national entities

combined into an area; or

• A group of national entities

(countries) combined into a single area.

In a companion document we are

publishing in this issue of the Federal

Register (APHIS Docket No. 94–106–8,

‘‘APHIS Policy Regarding Importation of

Animals and Animal Products’’), we

give notice of the policy we will follow

in recognizing regions, assessing the risk

presented by potential imports from a

region, and determining appropriate

import conditions. Our policy will be to

determine on a case-by-case basis what

import conditions will reduce the risk

associated with importations from a

particular region to a negligible level.

Because levels of risk exist upon a

continuum, instead of pre-assigning

import conditions based on risk

classifications, we will, as a policy, use

risk categories as benchmarks to assist

regions in evaluating where they can

expect to fall on a spectrum of risk

levels and what general import

conditions may apply.

Reformatting of Current Regulations

In this final rule, we are setting forth

the procedures for requesting

recognition of a region and for

requesting that APHIS assess the risk

presented by a particular commodity

from a recognized region and establish

appropriate import conditions. In order

to accommodate these procedures in 9

CFR, chapter I, we are moving the

provisions of current part 92,

‘‘Importation of Certain Animals, Birds,

and Poultry, and Certain Animal, Bird,

and Poultry Products; Requirements for

Means of Conveyance and Shipping

Containers,’’ to part 93, and are setting

forth the procedures for requesting

regionalization and risk assessment in

the vacated part 92. The provisions in

current part 93 regarding the

importation of elephants, hippopotami,

rhinoceroses, and tapirs, are

redesignated as §§ 93.800 through

93.807.

Procedures for Requesting Recognition

of Regions and Risk Assessment

As set forth in § 92.2 of this final rule,

we will, in general, process applications

for regionalization and risk assessment

according to the following procedures.

The official of the national

government of any country who has the

authority in that country to request such

a change may submit a request to the

Administrator that all or part of the

country be recognized as a region, be

included within an adjacent previously

recognized region, or be made part of a

region larger than the country.

Each request for approval to export a

particular type of animal or animal

product commodity to the United States

from a foreign region must be made to

the Administrator, and must include, in

English, the following information about

the region:

1. The authority, organization, and

infrastructure of the veterinary services

organization in the region.

2. Disease status—i.e., is the restricted

disease agent known to exist in the

region? If ‘‘yes,’’ at what prevalence? If

‘‘no,’’ when was the most recent

diagnosis?

3. The status of adjacent regions with

respect to the agent.

4. The extent of an active disease

control program, if any, if the agent is

known to exist in the region.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 208 / Tuesday, October 28, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 56003

5. The vaccination status of the

region. When was the last vaccination?

What is the extent of vaccination if it is

currently used, and what vaccine is

being used?

6. The degree to which the region is

separated from regions of higher risk

through physical or other barriers.

7. The extent to which movement of

animals and animal products is

controlled from regions of higher risk,

and the level of biosecurity regarding

such movements.

8. Livestock demographics and

marketing practices in the region.

9. The type and extent of disease

surveillance in the region—e.g., is it

passive and/or active; what is the

quantity and quality of sampling and

testing?

10. Diagnostic laboratory capabilities.

11. Policies and infrastructure for

animal disease control in the region—

i.e., emergency response capacity.

The above information will be made

available to the public prior to our

initiating any rulemaking action on the

request.

Once we have received from a

potential exporting region the

information necessary to conduct a risk

assessment, and have evaluated the risk,

we will determine under what

conditions an importation can be safely

allowed. If we believe the importation

can be safely allowed, we will propose

in the Federal Register to allow such

importations, and the conditions under

which the importations would be

allowed, along with a discussion of the

basis for our proposal. We will then

provide a period of time during which

the public may comment on our

proposal. During the comment period,

the public will have access, both in hard

copy and electronically, to the

information upon which we based our

risk analysis, as well as to our

methodology in conducting the analysis.

Once we have reviewed all comments

received, we will make a final decision

about whether and under what

conditions the requested importation

may be allowed. If our decision is to

allow the importation, we will publish

the conditions for importation in a final

rule in the Federal Register.

Recent rulemakings have provided

examples of how the regulations may be

amended under the provisions of this

final rule. On May 9, 1997, we

published in the Federal Register a final

rule (62 FR 25439–25443, Docket No.

94–106–6) to allow, under certain

conditions, the importation of fresh

(chilled or frozen) pork from the State

of Sonora, Mexico. On June 26, 1997, we

published in the Federal Register a final

rule (62 FR 34385–34394, Docket No.

94–106–5), amended for clarification on

August 11, 1997 (62 FR 42899–42900,

Docket No. 94–106–7), allowing, under

specified conditions, the importation of

fresh (chilled or frozen) beef from

Argentina, where vaccination for footand-mouth disease is still carried out.

Although that final rule applied to an

entire country, it exemplified the

opportunity for a foreign region to

request of APHIS an assessment of

whether specific import conditions can

bring the risk of importation of animals

or animal products from that region to

a negligible level. As noted above, our

policy for assessing risk is outlined in

a policy statement we are publishing

elsewhere in this issue of the Federal

Register. Additionally, on June 12,

1997, we published in the Federal

Register a proposal (62 FR 32051–

32053, Docket No. 97–002–1) to

regionalize Italy by considering all of

Italy except the island of Sardinia free

of African swine fever.

As stated above, this final rule allows

for the recognition of regions with

regard to the importation of animals and

animal products. As defined in this final

rule, a region need not be an entire,

single national entity (country), though

it can be. Until we receive requests for

regionalization on a case-by-case basis

under the provisions of this final rule,

we will continue to apply the current

regulations to the importation of

animals and animal products from

foreign countries.

Scope of This Final Rule

In response to our proposed rule,

several commenters objected to the fact

that the proposed provisions applied

only to ruminants and swine, and their

products. The commenters

recommended that the concept of

regionalization also be applied to other

animals governed by the regulations,

including poultry and equine species.

In the Supplementary Information

section of our proposed rule, we stated

that it was our intent to extend, in the

future, the regionalized, risk class

approach to the importation of all

animals and animal products that are

subject to the import regulations in 9

CFR, chapter I. We limited the scope of

the proposal to ruminants and swine in

the interests of timeliness—i.e., the fact

that our proposed approach involved

rewriting large parts of 9 CFR part 92

made it advisable to finalize the

regionalization changes in several

stages. However, the approach we are

taking in this final rule involves

significantly less rewriting of the

current regulations than did the

approach set forth in our proposed rule.

Because the principles and procedures

regarding regionalization and risk

assessment that are applicable to the

importation of ruminants and swine,

and their products, are equally

applicable to the importation of other

animal species governed by the

regulations, we consider it appropriate

to extend the principles of

regionalization in this final rule to all

animals and animal products subject to

the import regulations in 9 CFR, chapter

I, including poultry, birds, and equines.

Concerns that Regionalization Will

Increase the Risk of Disease

Introduction

Some commenters expressed general

concern that the provisions we

proposed for regionalization and levels

of risk would increase the risk of animal

diseases being introduced into the

United States. Other commenters

expressed particular concern about the

possibility of the introduction into the

United States of emerging diseases, such

as bovine spongiform encephalopathy

(BSE). We are acutely aware of the

concern of the U.S. public that livestock

in this country continue to be protected

from disease introduction. As noted

above, until APHIS receives a request

for regionalization, the imports into the

United States will continue to be

governed by the current regulations.

When requests for regionalization are

received, APHIS will evaluate them on

a case-by-case basis, and determine

what, if any, import conditions can

bring the disease risk presented by the

imports to a negligible level.

Throughout the process of analyzing

any request for regionalization, APHIS

will provide the public the opportunity

to evaluate the information the region

has submitted to APHIS in requesting

regionalization. The public will then be

given a formal opportunity to comment

on the proposed action. No request for

regionalization will be made final until

APHIS has taken into consideration all

comments submitted by the public

during the comment period.

Several commenters stated that

attention needs to be paid to identifying

diseases that do not exist in the United

States, but that may put the livestock

population at risk. The commenters

stated that as major diseases such as

foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) or

classical swine fever (hog cholera) are

confined to limited areas of countries, or

are eradicated, it will no longer be

possible to rely on import restrictions

due to the presence of these diseases to

guard against the importation of other

diseases of concern. Consequently, said

the commenters, it will become

increasingly important for APHIS to

have the appropriate resources,
56004 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 208 / Tuesday, October 28, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

diagnostic capabilities, and expertise to

determine what other diseases are

potential risks. The commenters cited

examples of diseases of potential

concern. We agree with the commenters

and concur that changing disease and

trade conditions require a broad view

regarding what diseases require

regulation. We address this broadened

concern in our notice of policy

regarding regionalization and risk

assessment, set forth elsewhere in this

issue of the Federal Register.

Several commenters stated that the

list of diseases of concern should

include all disease subject to a control

or eradication program in the United

States. We share the commenters’ view

that import restrictions should be in

place to guard against the movement

into this country of diseases that

currently exist in the United States but

that are subject to a domestic control or

eradication program. These diseases of

concern are addressed by the current

regulations and by the policy statement

we are publishing elsewhere in this

issue of the Federal Register.

Some commenters stated that a

comprehensive emergency plan should

be in place prior to implementation of

the revised regulations. Currently, the

Secretary of Agriculture has the

authority to implement necessary

measures to control and eradicate

animal disease in this country. APHIS

has had in place for a number of years

resources and procedures for

responding to disease outbreaks on an

emergency basis.

One commenter recommended that

the regulations specifically state that

APHIS has the option to restrict imports

because of new or emerging diseases.

We do not consider it necessary to

include such a statement in the

regulations. For years, APHIS has

enforced import restrictions on new or

emerging diseases, and we will continue

to do so.

Some commenters stated that the

regulations should contain provisions

for relaxing emergency measures when

they are no longer warranted. Just as it

does under the current regulations when

a disease risk has been eliminated,

APHIS will take action through

rulemaking, subject to public comment,

to relieve restrictions that no longer

appear warranted.

A number of commenters expressed

concern that implementation of the

proposed regulations would represent a

huge and costly workload for APHIS,

and that administrative problems in

implementing the proposal would create

barriers to trade. The commenters stated

that APHIS lacks the budget and

infrastructure to administer the proposal

in a timely manner consistent with

sound animal health intervention and

exclusion strategies. Other commenters

stated that the provisions of the

proposed rule were ill-equipped to deal

with developing situations, that it will

be difficult for APHIS to maintain

current information on countries’

importing practices, and that the

information regarding risk classification

will always be months or years out of

date. As an alternative to the ‘‘noticeand-comment’’ procedures currently

followed by APHIS under the

Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5

U.S.C. 551 et seq.), some commenters

suggested that all regional disease

classifications and decisions be made

available electronically, with the CFR

merely establishing authority to classify

and methods to classify and make

changes. According to the commenters,

requests for a change in status could be

updated by a press release available

electronically and comments could be

solicited in like manner. Several

commenters recommended that the

regulations allow the United States to

accept on a provisional basis new risk

classifications established by other

countries, pending U.S. verification.

We believe that a number of the

concerns raised by the commenters are

addressed by the changes we are making

to the proposal in this final rule. As

noted above, we will continue to apply

the current regulations until we receive

requests for regionalization. We are not

making final our proposed system of

assigning each foreign region to one of

six risk classifications. Under this final

rule, we will not attempt to assess the

risk of importations from a region until

the region itself has provided all of the

information necessary for conducting

such an assessment, although we will

take into account any information

available to us from other sources.

Because this final rule provides

options not available under the current

regulations, APHIS recognizes that,

especially initially, it will face an

increased workload when this rule is

made effective. A major impetus to the

publication of this final regulation is the

U.S. commitment under the North

American Free Trade Agreement and

the WTO–SPS Agreement. As a

signatory of these agreements, the

United States has agreed to accept the

principle of regionalization and to allow

the importation of animals and animal

products from regions of low disease

prevalence, subject to whatever

mitigating measures are necessary to

safeguard livestock in the United States.

We are committed to implementing,

where appropriate, regionalization in

individual cases as quickly as possible

once we have received and reviewed

sufficient valid data from and about the

requesting region, and have conducted a

risk assessment of the importation

requested. However, because of the

potentially broad interest regarding

importations of animals and animal

products, we consider it necessary to

ensure that all members of the public

are made aware of potential changes

through rulemaking.

Under the APA, APHIS must, in most

cases, provide public notice of proposed

changes to the regulations through

publication of a proposed rule in the

Federal Register, and provide interested

persons an opportunity to participate in

the rulemaking through submission of

written data, views, or arguments.

Within these requirements, APHIS is

examining ways to streamline the

review process, including the

development of a data-handling

mechanism to receive and store

information related to animal health and

veterinary infrastructure. Additionally,

APHIS plans to increase its resources in

the area of risk assessment. With regard

to electronic notification of proposed

rulemaking, APHIS currently notifies

the public electronically of various

actions taken by the Agency. However,

Administrative Procedure Act

requirements for notice and comment

rulemaking are not fulfilled until the

action is published in the Federal

Register.

Recognition of Equivalency and Foreign

Regionalization

One commenter recommended that

the regulations allow the Administrator

of APHIS to enter into an agreement

with a foreign country to recognize the

equivalency of that country’s rules. We

consider the concept of equivalency to

be provided for in this rule. It allows the

United States, based on information

made available to it by its trading

partners and other sources, to identify,

along with those trading partners,

specified risks from a region on a

disease-by-disease and commodity-bycommodity basis, and identify mutually

agreeable risk management measures to

reduce risk to a negligible level.

Equivalency exists when countries agree

that each others’ risk management

measures are appropriate and when they

identify commodities for which import

measures that may not be identical for

the same commodity are needed to

address the differences in prevalence of

restricted agents, geographic or

demographic factors, or animal health

infrastructure.

It is the responsibility of the exporting

region to demonstrate to the importing

country that the region meets standards
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 208 / Tuesday, October 28, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 56005

equivalent to the importing country’s

standards or other acceptable standards.

Certainly, in those cases where the

United States and some other country

have historically developed animal

health standards for common diseases,

there is no reason to expect that such

interaction will not continue.

Among the comments received was

the recommendation that the United

States should recognize regions that are

created and maintained up-to-date by

other bodies, such as the European

Community (EC). The comment stated

that the EC has been divided into many

regions for various diseases and,

because the areas are constantly

achieving results in disease eradication,

the areas recognized by the EC as free

are constantly expanding. Because of

this, the commenters expressed concern

that U.S. regulations would quickly

become out of date. The commenters

recommended that a region be defined

as the area recognized by the EC as

being free from a particular disease in

accordance with accepted criteria,

pending U.S. examination of the matter.

As discussed above, our overriding

goals in implementing regionalization

are to facilitate trade in accordance with

international agreements while

maintaining the level of biosecurity

afforded by the current regulations. We

believe the provisions of this final rule,

and our policy toward regionalization

and risk assessment published in this

issue of the Federal Register, meet these

dual goals. As discussed above,

however, APHIS rulemaking must be

carried out in accordance with the APA,

with an opportunity provided for public

comment on changes to the regulations.

At present, APHIS is developing a

proposal to recognize regions

established by the EC with regard to

disease status, based on information

submitted in a request by the EC.

Some commenters recommended that,

to make the regulations more

transparent, procedures should be set

forth for situations where there are no

specific requirements stated. As noted

above, the companion policy statement

we are publishing in this issue of the

Federal Register outlines the

procedures we intend to take in

evaluating requests for regionalization

and importation of animals and animal

products. As we discussed, we will

conduct such evaluations in a

transparent manner open to public

review and comment.

Several commenters recommended

that APHIS review what the

commenters referred to as

internationally accepted guidelines for

regionalization, risk analysis, and risk

assessment. The commenters

specifically referred to the following

documents: (1) Cane, B.G., ‘‘The

Concept of Regionalization in

Establishing Disease-Free Areas,’’ OIE

comprehensive reports on technical

items presented to the international

committee or to regional commissions,

1994; (2) Kellar, J.A., ‘‘The Application

of Risk Analysis to International Trade

in Animals and Animal Products,’’ OIE

comprehensive reports on technical

items presented to the international

committee or to regional commissions,

1992; (3) Morley, R.S., Acree, J.,

Williams, S., ‘‘Animal Import Risk

Analysis (AIRA): Harmonizing our

Approach,’’ OIE comprehensive reports

on technical items presented to the

international committee or to regional

commissions, 1990–1991; and (4) ‘‘OIE

International Health Code,’’ Section 1.4,

chapters 1.4.1–1.4.5, 1994 updates. In

the process of developing the proposed

rule, APHIS reviewed all of the sources

cited. Wherever possible, concepts from

these references were incorporated into

the proposal. We have also incorporated

concepts from these references into the

policy on regionalization and risk

assessment we are giving notice of in

this issue of the Federal Register.

Comments on Information Considered

in Assessing Risk

Among the requirements set forth in

the proposal for applying for recognition

of risk classification for a region was the

requirement that the Chief Veterinary

Officer of the region submit to APHIS a

completed questionnaire relating to the

specific disease in question. Several

commenters requested that this

questionnaire be published in the

regulations. Several commenters asked

for clarification of how the United

States would expect regions to

demonstrate freedom from restricted

disease agents. One commenter

requested that APHIS publish the

procedures it will use to communicate

with nations so that countries will have

the opportunity to document their

animal disease situation in order to gain

the appropriate classification. As stated

above, we are not making final our

proposed system of risk classification,

but we are setting forth in § 92.1 of the

regulations procedures for applying for

regionalization, for assessment of the

risk presented by imports from a region,

and for determination of appropriate

import conditions.

Some commenters stated that the

proposed rule placed undue emphasis

on the influence that neighboring

regions have on each other’s disease

status. According to the commenters,

although border controls are often

necessary, they are not as important in

cases where the epidemiology of disease

agents, combined with differing

husbandry factors, effectively prevents

establishment of a disease in a

neighboring region. Although we

consider proximity between regions

generally of importance with regard to

contagious diseases, we agree that in

some cases the proximity of one region

to another is irrelevant because of

varying climatic or other ecological

factors. This is true in the United States

with a disease such as bluetongue,

which has never become established in

the northeastern part of the country due

to ecological factors, despite a lack of

interstate movement controls. Given

equivalent factors, however, vectorborne diseases might readily move

across regional boundaries in spite of

border controls. For this reason,

proximity to affected regions must be

considered a factor in determining

disease risk, and is included in the

information we are requesting under

this rule in applications for

regionalization. Under the approach we

have adopted in this final rule and our

policy toward regionalization, proximity

will be considered as a factor in

assessing the risk of disease

introduction, but will not be given a

predetermined weight in the assessment

process.

In related comments, some

commenters stated that, because many

diseases listed on the OIE ‘‘List B’’ can

easily be contained within a herd or

flock, the status of a contiguous region

is not relevant for many List B diseases

in determining the risk class of the

region under consideration, particularly

when effective border control barriers

are in place. As we stated above with

regard to the issue of proximity, the

status of a contiguous region will be

considered as a factor in assessing the

risk of disease introduction, but will not

be given a predetermined weight in the

assessment process. As implied by the

commenters, the concern about

contiguous regions is not necessarily

about the ability of the disease agent

itself to be transmitted across the

border, but more so about the possibility

of undeclared illegal movements of

infected animals or products, or the

straying of loose animals or carrier

wildlife across the border. While

effective border controls are a crucial

consideration in assessing the risk

posed by importations from a region, we

do not consider them alone to be a

guarantee that the movement of disease

from a contiguous region will be

eliminated.

One commenter expressed concern

about what the commenter considered a

lack of specific criteria for how we
56006 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 208 / Tuesday, October 28, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

would evaluate the veterinary

infrastructure in the exporting region.

We believe this issue relates to the

information, discussed above, that will

be required regarding the authority,

organization, and infrastructure of the

veterinary services in a region. We

consider the evaluation of infrastructure

in any region to necessarily be

somewhat subjective. Until the OIE or

some other organization develops an

objective measure of infrastructure, we

believe the best way to evaluate

infrastructure is on a case-by-case basis,

by means that, in some cases, will

include on-site visits.

Concerns Regarding the Effect of

Regionalization on Wildlife

One commenter expressed concern

about the potential effect of the

proposed risk classification system on

wildlife. The commenter was concerned

that some countries might contain or

eliminate wild animals in order to

ensure that there are no pockets of

disease that might prevent the countries

from attaining a particular risk

classification. We consider the

commenter’s concerns to be addressed

in large measure by our decision not to

make final the system of establishing a

risk classification system based on predefined criteria. However, each country

must make its own decisions concerning

such matters. APHIS will prepare an

environmental assessment specific to

the region in question prior to

promulgating a final rule to create a

region.

Comments Addressing Specific

Conditions for the Importation of

Animals

Some commenters stated that, under

the proposed regulations, cases would

arise where animals would be required

to undergo quarantine simply to

eliminate the presence of a bacterial

disease. According to the commenters,

in these cases, the full quarantine

regimen should not be necessary, and

the regulations should allow for

equivalent alternative mitigating

measures. The commenters suggested as

possibilities the conduct of additional

tests in the country of origin, followed

by isolation and testing in the United

States. It is not clear to us from the

comments whether the commenters are

recommending elimination of certain of

the quarantine requirements in place

under the current regulations.

Historically, we have found the postimportation period of quarantine in the

United States necessary as a period for

observing the imported animals for

disease, and we do not consider it

advisable to eliminate these

requirements at this time.

Several commenters stated that the

proposed 15-day importation quarantine

period was insufficient to allow for

incubation of diseases of concern. It is

not clear to us from the comments

exactly which proposed importation

requirements the commenters are

referring to in each case. Under the

current regulations, except for cattle

from Central America and the West

Indies, which may be quarantined for 7

days under certain conditions, and

except for cattle and certain other

ruminants from Canada and Mexico, all

ruminants imported into the United

States must be quarantined for not less

than 30 days from the date of arrival at

the port of entry. Under the current

regulations, swine must be quarantined

for not less than 15 days from the date

of arrival at the port of entry. Based on

our experience enforcing the

regulations, we consider these

quarantine requirements adequate and

are retaining them in this final rule.

Several commenters expressed

concern that transhipments of animals

and animal products through high risk

areas could cause contamination of the

products or animals. Some commenters

stated that developing countries have

insufficient resources to monitor many

of the most serious foreign animal

diseases of concern. The commenters

expressed concern that, in many

countries, the illegal movement of

livestock from higher-risk to lower-risk

regions would be hard to detect, control,

and prevent. Each of these concerns

focuses on two of the key factors on

which we will request information

under the procedures for applying for

regionalization—border controls and the

infrastructure necessary to monitor and

enforce the movement of animals and

products from, into, or through the

region. We will be obliged to

characterize a requesting region a high

risk or an unknown risk if the country

in question lacks the infrastructure, or

does not have access to the resources

necessary, to enforce sanitary provisions

that would support regionalization or to

monitor for animal diseases of concern

to the United States.

A number of commenters expressed

concern that imported animals may

serve as a source for emerging diseases

or those of long incubation. To facilitate

tracking of animals, commenters

recommended that a permanent

identification be placed on imported

animals. We do not consider the risk of

disease introduction to be any greater

under this final rule than under the

existing regulations. Under the current

regulations, in most cases we do not

require either permanent identification

of imported animals or a permanent

record of their final destination. The

feasibility of heightening identification

and tracking of imported animals is

under review by APHIS. In the

meantime, we support the efforts of the

livestock industry to develop a system

of identification that meets its needs.

Commenters argued both for and

against including destination factors in

determining import conditions. Some

commenters stated that considering

destination risk is required by the

WTO–SPS agreement, and that failure to

consider destination risk makes it

illogical for the United States to impose

post-importation conditions on animals

and animal products if those conditions

do not also apply to native U.S. animals.

Commenters cited the need to assess the

risk of animal importations in which

vector-borne disease agents represent

hazards, and, in particular, the duration

of viraemia and competence of vectors.

The commenters also stated that factors

to be considered should include the

exposure of domestic animals to

infected products, modes of

transmission, and the amount of

infectious agent present that is sufficient

to cause infection. Conversely, some

commenters supported the premise that

any importation of a restricted agent is

undesirable. The general policy we have

followed under the current regulations

is to require import conditions to reduce

any risk of introduction of a disease of

concern at importation to a negligible

level. We are retaining this policy under

this final rule.

Some commenters recommended that

diagnostic tests approved by the OIE

automatically be approved, under the

regulations, for use on animals being

imported. The commenters also stated

that, to ensure openness and

consistency, any other tests that would

be accepted be published in the rule.

Tests approved by the OIE would

generally meet the scientific validity

requirements for an equivalent

approved test. However, we consider it

necessary for the APHIS Administrator

to have the flexibility to not use any test

if evidence shows that it is not valid,

even though it might currently be

included in the OIE list of approved

tests. Also, the Administrator must have

the flexibility to use new tests when

deemed appropriate, even if they have

not been added to the approved list for

OIE. Therefore, we have decided not to

publish in the regulations a list of tests

approved for use on animals imported

or to be imported into the United States.

Several commenters recommended

that the maximum time allowed for

imported animals to be moved to
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 208 / Tuesday, October 28, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 56007

slaughter be reduced from 2 weeks to as

little as 48 hours. The policy of allowing

up to 2 weeks for movement to slaughter

is not new to the proposed rule. It exists

in and has been followed under the

existing regulations. Although we are

making no changes based on these

comments at this time, we will further

examine the commenters’

recommendation and take whatever

action we deem appropriate.

Several commenters questioned the

need for import permits as a

requirement for importation. The

commenters stated that such permits

serve no purpose. Some commenters

stated that if import permits can be

withdrawn without notice or

explanation, such practice would be

contrary to SPS Article 7. As we

explained in the Supplementary

Information section of our proposed

rule, the primary purpose of import

permits is to assure that there is space

at a quarantine center for imported

animals that must be transported by air

or sea to the United States. Such import

permits are necessary to avoid

problems, both economically and with

regard to the humane treatment of

animals, in refusing entry to a shipload

of animals that have arrived at a port

without prior notice and without a

reservation for space.

One commenter asked for clarification

of the term ‘‘restricted use and

movement,’’ as used in the

Supplementary Information section of

the proposed rule when discussing risk

mitigation measures. In general,

restricted use and movement is used

primarily to reduce potential losses

should a disease agent be introduced.

By restricting the distribution of

potentially infected animals, the

number and distribution of native

animals that could be exposed is

limited. An example of how we have

used, and continue to use, this

mitigation measure is in the importation

of amimals from a country where a

particular disease exists, solely for

residence at approved zoos where their

movement is restricted.

One commenter stated that

opportunities for electronic certification

should be considered. We are not

certain what the commenter meant by

‘‘electronic certification.’’ We assume

the commenter was referring to

electronic transmission of health

certificates. Although to date we have

not received a request to accept

electronic health certification for

imports into the United States, we are

receptive to suggestions we might

receive from the public regarding the

use of such certification.

One commenter stated that the

capacity and costs of quarantine centers,

particularly the Harry S Truman Animal

Import Center (HSTAIC), should not

become a trade barrier. Importation

though HSTAIC is a method of allowing

the importation of animals from certain

high-risk situations that would

otherwise require total prohibition of

the importation. APHIS recommends

that importers consider importing

breeding material through embryos or

semen whenever possible, to avoid the

extra costs and potential delays that use

of HSTAIC entails.

Some commenters stated that,

depending on the commodity under

consideration, only the viremic state of

a disease might be of concern, with the

incubatory and convalescent states

representing negligible risk. We agree

that the situation described by the

commenters is true for some diseases,

depending on the mode(s) of

transmission. However, we do not agree

that an animal in the incubatory stage

represents a negligible risk. Because

diagnosis at the incubatory stage is often

difficult, making a distinction among

the stages when determining disease

risk will have little practical effect on

establishing import conditions.

In our proposed regulations we used

the term herd. In the ‘‘Definitions’’

section to the regulations regarding

ruminants and swine, we included no

period of time that animals would need

to remain together to be considered a

herd. Some commenters stated that the

definition of ‘‘herd’’ should indicate

that, to constitute a herd, the animals

must have been together for a specified

minimum period of time. We do not

consider it advisable to make such a

change. In certain situations, how long

the animals have been together is less

important than the origin of the animals

in the group. For instance, if all animals

in the group have been assembled from

herds certified free of a disease under a

disease eradication program, the length

of time the animals have been together

is not significant.

Some commenters addressed the

requirement in proposed §§ 93.415(d)(3)

and (4) that ruminants from regions

proposed to be classified as Risk Class

R3 or R4 for FMD undergo preembarkation quarantine under APHIS

supervision in a facility approved by the

Administrator. The commenters stated

that this requirement shows an

unwarranted disregard for the scientific,

ethical, and certifying ability of the

veterinary authorities in exporting

countries. Although this final rule does

not categorize regions as Risk Class R3

or R4, and does not require APHIS

supervision of pre-embarkation

quarantine, it retains the requirement of

the current regulations that ruminants

and swine imported from countries not

considered free of FMD be quarantined

in a pre-embarkation quarantine facility

approved by the Administrator.

Although we agree that, in many cases,

reliance on the veterinary authorities in

an exporting country would provide

adequate approval and inspection of a

facility, we consider it necessary for the

Administrator to have authority to

ensure that in all cases the facilities in

question meet adequate standards.

Several commenters stated that

APHIS should consider implementing

recommendations from the ‘‘Border

States Consensus Document.’’ The

document referred to represents a

consensus by U.S. States that share a

border with Mexico regarding

recognition of efforts within Mexico to

eradicate Mycobacterium bovis

(tuberculosis). The recommendations of

the consensus document, including

recognition of certain States in Mexico

as being free of tuberculosis, can be

accommodated by the procedures for

requesting recognition of regions set

forth in this rule.

A number of commenters addressed

the issue of how camelids should be

addressed in the regulations. Some

commenters recommended that they be

removed from the definition of

‘‘ruminants.’’ The commenters stated

that camelids are not true ruminants,

that marked anatomic and physiologic

differences between camelids and

ruminants exist in many organ systems,

and that llamas and alpacas appear to be

resistant to and unlikely to spread

several important livestock diseases,

including FMD, M. bovis, and Brucella

abortus. Other commenters expressed

concern regarding the potential disease

risk posed by camelids.

‘‘Webster’s New International

Dictionary’’ defines Ruminantia as

follows: ‘‘A division of even-toed

hoofed animals including those that

chew the cud, as the oxen, sheep, goats,

antelopes, deer, chevrotains, and

camels. They are divided into three

groups; the Pectora or true ruminants

* * * the Tylopada, or camels and

llama * * * and the Chevrotains.’’ We

have many of the same disease concerns

with camelids as with other ruminants.

However, we agree with the commenters

that there may be some practical disease

risk differences between camelids and

cattle. Although we are making no

changes to this final rule in response to

these comments, we are reviewing this

issue and are considering addressing it

in future rulemaking.
56008 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 208 / Tuesday, October 28, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

Comments Addressing Regulations

Governing the Importation of Meat and

Meat Products

A small number of commenters

expressed concern that the import

conditions for meat products from

certain of the proposed risk class

regions required that the backbone be

removed from the carcass of the animal,

even though the meat grading standards

of the Department’s Agricultural

Marketing Service (AMS) require foreign

beef to have a country-of-origin mark on

the carcass 4 inches from the backbone.

Because we are not making final the

import conditions based on risk

classifications, in a number of cases the

provisions the commenters are referring

to are not set forth as general

requirements. However, we consider the

requirement that a carcass be deboned

an important one in reducing the risk of

FMD-transmission from meat, and

expect to apply it to future importations

as appropriate. For example, in our June

26, 1997, final rule regarding the

importation of fresh, chilled or frozen,

beef from Argentina, one of the

requirements for importation of the

meat was that it be deboned. The AMS

standards in 7 CFR 54.4 et seq. state that

grading is done only on carcasses and is

voluntary. We consider concerns

regarding disease risk to take

precedence over grading standards for

meat, which could be done on the

carcass before the meat is deboned.

One commenter stated that, in § 94.15

of the proposal, regarding cancellation

of compliance agreements, the

regulations indicated that certain

actions by APHIS will be taken ‘‘as

promptly as circumstances allow.’’ The

commenter requested that the time

allowed for action by APHIS be

specified. The provisions referred to by

the commenter are set forth in the

current regulations. Based on our

experience enforcing the regulations, we

consider the actions taken by APHIS to

have been taken in a timely manner and

do not consider it necessary to revise

the provisions in question at this time.

In §§ 94.1 (e) and (g) of the proposed

regulations, we set forth proposed

requirements for the importation of

fresh (chilled or frozen) meat from

ruminants and swine from regions

classified as Risk Class R2 or R3 for

FMD. Among the proposed import

conditions was the requirement that the

meat reach a pH of 6.0 or less in the loin

muscle. In the Supplementary

Information section of our proposed

rule, we stated that acidic or alkaline

conditions readily kill the FMD virus.

One commenter took issue with this

statement, stating that research has

shown that although a pH below 6.0 or

above 11.5 will inactivate the FMD

virus, the virus resident in the microenvironment of animal tissue—such as

lymphatic tissue, bone marrow, or

coagulated blood—is resistant to

inactivation over a practical pH range.

The proposed requirements

referenced by the commenter are not

included in this final rule because they

were import conditions particular to

two risk categories that we are not

including in this rule. However,

maturation of meat to an appropriate pH

level is a proven method of killing the

FMD virus, and is one of the conditions

we set forth in our June 26, 1997, final

rule for the importation of fresh (chilled

or frozen) meat from Argentina. In the

Supplementary Information section of

that final rule, we stated that although

we agreed with the commenter, the

regulations as proposed already

addressed the concerns raised. We

stated that we assumed that by ‘‘microenvironment’’ the commenter was

referring to those areas of the meat in

the carcass that are in the immediate

area of the bones, lymphatic tissue, or

coagulated blood, and noted that one of

the proposed conditions for importing

fresh (chilled or frozen) meat from

Argentina was that all bone, blood clots,

and lymphoid tissue be removed from

the meat. However, in that final rule,

based on the comment and the literature

available to us, we amended the

regulations as proposed to require that

a pH level of 5.8 or less be reached

before the meat may be imported.

The proposed importation

requirements for cured or cooked meat

from regions classified as Risk Class R3,

R4, or RU for certain diseases included

the requirement that the meat be

deboned. This requirement for deboning

is also included in the current

regulations. Some commenters,

addressing the proposal, stated that

deboning should not be required for

cured or cooked meat because such

treatment already reduces the disease

risk from the meat to an acceptable

level. We do not agree with the

commenters that removal of bones is not

necessary in meat that is otherwise

cured or cooked in accordance with the

regulations. The presence of the bone in

the meat makes it difficult to determine

whether the bone has been treated

throughout to the extent necessary to

destroy the restricted disease agent. For

example, in the case of FMD, unless

some way is developed to determine the

temperature level within the bone, there

is no way of determining whether the

entire piece of meat, including the bone,

has been heated to the temperature

necessary to kill the FMD virus.

Comments Regarding Bovine

Spongiform Encephalopathy

Some commenters took issue with our

statement in the Supplementary

Information section of our proposal that

bovine spongiform encephalopathy

(BSE) ‘‘is thought to have been

introduced into cattle from scrapieinfected sheep brains that were

included in rendered protein meal

added to cattle feed.’’ The commenters

stated that the original source of BSE is

unknown, and that it would be more

accurate to say that the BSE epidemic

seems to be the result of a single source

infection resulting from BSE-infected

meat and bone meal. The statement we

included in our proposed rule was

based on the information available to us

at the time the proposal was developed.

At this time, we agree with the

commenters as to the limits of what can

be concluded regarding the origins of

BSE.

One commenter questioned the

rationale for allowing the importation of

embryos from BSE-affected regions,

while, according to the commenter, the

OIE takes a cautious approach. The

commenter apparently misread the

proposed regulations. Embryos from

countries affected with BSE are

currently not permitted importation into

the United States, and the proposed

regulations did not include provisions

allowing the importation of such

embryos.

Several commenters stated that

because transmissible encephalopathy

occurs in cervidae in the United States,

a ban on the feeding of ruminant protein

should be in force in the United States.

Other commenters stated that such a

ban would eliminate the possibility that

an infected animal, even if imported,

could transmit the disease to another.

Although APHIS does not have the

authority to ban the feeding of ruminant

protein, it should be noted that in a final

rule published on June 5, 1997 (62 FR

30936–30978, Docket No. 96N–0135),

the United States Department of Health

and Human Service, Food and Drug

Administration, established regulations

controlling the use of animal protein

derived from mammalian tissue in

ruminant feed.

Proposed Provisions Not Being Made

Final

A large number of the issues raised by

commenters regarding our proposed

rule addressed provisions of the

proposed rule that are not included in

either the current regulations or in this

final rule. Therefore, pending future

requests for regionalization, many of the

concerns raised regarding the proposed
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 208 / Tuesday, October 28, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 56009

rule are no longer relevant. These

include concerns raised by commenters

regarding the following: Differences

between the current regulations and the

proposed rule regarding import

requirements for animals and animal

products, including the concern that the

proposed regulations would, in some

cases, be more restrictive than the

current regulations; the relationship

between the ‘‘qualitative’’ and

‘‘quantitative’’ options for assessing risk

under the proposed rule; criteria for

assigning regions to particular risk

classifications; whether the quantitative

risk assessment option could be

scientifically supported; differences

between the proposed import

requirements and the standards of the

OIE Code; differences between the

proposed import requirements and

requirements governing U.S. interstate

movement; classification as ‘‘restricted

disease agents’’ of agents not included

on the OIE ‘‘A’’ or ‘‘B’’ list of diseases;

concerns that the proposed import

requirements would not allow

consideration of ‘‘equivalency’’ with an

importing region’s mitigation measures;

that criteria for border controls of

regions were too rigid; importation

requirements relating to specific disease

agents, including ectoparasites; whether

the proposed import requirements

would preempt State requirements; that

certain terms used in the proposed rule

were unclear and required definitions;

that the proposed restricted disease

agents did not seem to be treated

differently based on potential impact;

and the risk classification of certain

countries.

Similarly, commenters made several

requests that are no longer relevant.

These include: That the regulations

clarify which animals would be

considered in determining the risk

classification of a region; that embryos

from ‘‘high-risk’’ areas be considered

‘‘low-risk’’ if treated in accordance with

internationally recognized treatment

standards; that the practice of

vaccination not necessarily affect a

region’s risk classification; that the

United States evaluate its own status

and programs with regard to the

requirements of the proposal; and that

APHIS publish risk analysis

documentation to support the

prohibition of meat, embryos, and

semen from certain risk class categories.

Other Proposed Changes to the

Regulations Being Made Final

We proposed to make a number of

changes to the regulations that were not

directly related to the concepts of

regionalization or risk assessment. In all

cases but one, we received no comments

regarding these proposed changes. We

discuss below the amendments we

proposed, any comments we received,

and actions we are taking on the

proposed changes in this final rule.

We proposed to consider the entire

country of Canada as presenting a slight

risk for the introduction of Brucella

abortus and as a negligible risk for B.

melitensis. Under the proposed import

conditions for such a risk classification,

no testing for these diseases would be

required for cattle from Canada from

provinces free of brucellosis. We

continue to consider it warranted to

allow cattle from Canada from

brucellosis certified-free provinces or

herds to enter the United States without

brucellosis testing, and are amending

§ 92.418 of the current regulations to

provide that such testing is not

necessary.

We are adding to § 94.0,

‘‘Definitions,’’ the definitions we

proposed for Cervid, Contact, Pink juice

test, Region, Ruminants, and

Veterinarian in charge.

Current § 94.7 includes provisions for

the disposal of animals, meats, and

other articles ineligible for importation

under the regulations regarding

rinderpest and FMD in current § 94.1.

We proposed to expand the disposal

regulations so that they refer to African

swine fever, hog cholera, swine

vesicular disease, and BSE, as well as to

rinderpest and FMD. In this rule, we are

making final those expanded provisions.

We are making final at

§ 94.12(b)(1)(iii)(B) of the regulations the

provision we proposed that pork or pork

products consigned from the port of

arrival to an approved establishment

must be moved under Customs or USDA

seal, and must be otherwise handled as

the Administrator may direct in order to

guard against the introduction and

dissemination of swine vesicular

disease. The required seals may not be

broken except by persons authorized by

the Administrator to do so.

We proposed under § 94.9 to allow

the limited transiting of meat and other

animal products not otherwise eligible

for entry into the United States, to allow

for offloading from one means of

conveyance at the port of arrival onto a

second means of conveyance scheduled

for immediate departure from the

United States. One of the conditions for

such limited movement was that the

meat or other animal product not be

stored for more than 24 hours at the

maritime or airport port of arrival.

Commenters requested that the

allowable time for holding or storage be

extended to 48 hours, to allow for cargo

movement logistical problems. We agree

with the commenters that a longer

period of time at the port is sometimes

necessary to make connections between

ships. As long as the meat and other

animal products are securely contained

aboard the carrier or while being

offloaded, and as long as their overland

movement in the United States is

confined to that port of arrival, we

believe it is warranted to allow the meat

or other animal products to be held at

the port up to 72 hours. We are adding

provisions for such limited transit at

§ 94.15(d) of this final rule.

We are making final the change we

proposed to § 94.16(b)(2) of the current

regulations to remove the requirement

that certain dry milk and dry milk

products intended for importation be

processed for human food. The

provisions that require that dry milk or

dry milk products intended for

importation from countries in which

rinderpest or FMD exists be processed

for human food also require that the dry

milk or dry milk products be processed

in a manner approved by the

Administrator as adequate to prevent

the introduction or dissemination of

livestock diseases into the United

States. Dry milk or dry milk products

that are processed in a manner adequate

to prevent disease can be safely

processed for uses other than human

food.

We are making final at § 96.10 our

proposed removal of references to

specific cities in which casings that

arrive in the United States without

certification may be disinfected, and are

providing that such casings may be

forwarded to a USDA-approved facility

for disinfection. We are making this

change because the facilities in the

cities specified are no longer in

operation. Currently, all casings

entering the United States under 9 CFR

part 96 are entering in accordance with

§ 96.4, which allows the casings to be

entered if the casings are accompanied

by certification that they were derived

from healthy animals that were

inspected ante- and post-mortem. In the

event of an intended importation of

casings that would need to be

disinfected in the United States, such

disinfection could be done at any

facility approved by APHIS.

As proposed, we are removing current

§§ 96.15 and 96.16, because they specify

administrative procedures that have

been discontinued for a number of

years.

Clarification of Final Rule Regarding

the Importation of Pork from Sonora

As noted above, on May 9, 1997, we

published in the Federal Register a final

rule to allow the importation of fresh

(chilled or frozen) pork from the State
56010 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 208 / Tuesday, October 28, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

of Sonora, Mexico. The provisions

allowing this importation were added at

a new § 94.20. At § 94.20(a), we

specified that the pork must be meat

from swine that have been raised and

slaughtered in Sonora. It was also our

intent that the swine from which the

meat comes have been born in Sonora.

In this final rule, we are amending

§ 94.20(a) to clarify this intent.

Clarification of Terminology

In current part 94, we refer in a

number of cases to meat that is ‘‘fresh,

chilled, or frozen.’’ The intent of this

phrase is to refer to fresh meat that is

either chilled or frozen. We are making

nonsubstantive punctuation changes in

part 94 to clarify this intent by using the

wording: ‘‘fresh (chilled or frozen).’’

Regulatory Reform

This action is part of the President’s

Regulatory Reform Initiative, which,

among other things, directs agencies to

remove obsolete and unnecessary

regulations and to find less burdensome

ways to achieve regulatory goals.

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory

Flexibility Act

This rule has been reviewed under

Executive Order 12866. The rule has

been determined to be significant for

purposes of Executive Order 12866 and,

therefore, has been reviewed by the

Office of Management and Budget.

In this rule, we are establishing

procedures for recognizing regions,

rather than only countries, for the

purpose of the importation of animals

and animal products into the United

States. We are also establishing

procedures by which regions may

request permission to export animals

and animal products to the United

States under specified conditions, based

on the regions’ disease status. These

changes to the regulations are in

accordance with international trade

agreements entered into by the United

States. We are also allowing, under

certain conditions, the unloading and

reloading at the port of arrival of meat

and other animal products otherwise

prohibited entry into the United States.

Additionally, we are removing the

requirement that cattle from brucellosis

certified-free herds, provinces, and

territories in Canada be tested for

brucellosis before being imported into

the United States, and are making

several minor changes in our

requirements for importing animals and

animal products that will relieve or

clarify some import restrictions while

continuing to protect U.S. livestock and

poultry from foreign animal diseases.

Regionalization

The fundamental purpose of the

changes we are making to the

regulations with respect to

regionalization—primarily changing the

word ‘‘country’’ to ‘‘region’’ and setting

out the procedures that a region must

follow to be recognized as a region—is

to establish a framework for a regional

approach to the importation of animals

and animal products and, thereby, fulfill

U.S. commitments under international

trade agreements. In developing this

rule and the policy statement published

elsewhere in this same issue of the

Federal Register, we have explicitly

recognized that there are identifiable

and measurable gradations of risk

presented by animals and animal

products and that these gradations are

often tied more to factors such as

geography, ecosystems, epidemiological

surveillance, and the effectiveness of

disease control programs than to

national political boundaries.

Accordingly, we have adopted an

approach that assesses risk along a

continuum and responds to the risks

presented from an importation on a

case-by-case basis.

Because this framework will not be

fully implemented until we receive a

new request to allow the importation of

animals or animal products into the

United States, and because we do not

know the number or sources of requests

we will receive in the future, we cannot

estimate the economic impact of this

rule as stipulated in E.O. 12866. We are

therefore committed to performing a risk

assessment and cost-benefit analysis on

a case-by-case basis for each request we

receive in the near future.

Removal of Requirement for Brucellosis

Testing of Cattle From Canada

We are making final a provision to

allow cattle from certified brucellosisfree herds, provinces, or territories in

Canada to enter the United States

without brucellosis testing.

All domestic herds in Canada are free

of brucellosis, and therefore no

brucellosis testing would be required for

any cattle imported to the United States.

Expected cost savings can be estimated

using the number of breeding cattle

imported from Canada in Fiscal Year

1996: 29,340 head. Assuming a

laboratory cost of $3 to $4 per test

(based on USDA National Veterinary

Services Laboratories user fees),

Canadian operations exporting breeding

cattle to the United States may save a

total of between $88,020 and $117,360.

(Other costs associated with assembling

of the cattle at the time of testing will

remain, since physical inspections will

still take place.)

The cost savings are very small

compared to the average value of the

cattle. In 1996, the average price per

animal of cattle imported from Canada

that weighed 200–320 kg was $332.

(Based on the way the price data is

made available, this price includes the

value of both slaughter and nonslaughter animals. Under the current

regulations, cattle intended for

immediate slaughter are not required to

be tested.). The average price of

nonslaughter cattle (not including

purebreds) weighing more than 320 kg

was $1,152. Thus, the savings represent

no more than 1 cent of every dollar of

the smaller animals’ average cost, and

about 3 cents of every 10 dollars of the

larger animals’ average cost. The average

price of purebred cattle imported from

Canada in 1996 was $810, of which the

cost savings represents less than 5 cents

of every 10 dollars. The fraction of this

savings, if any, that may be realized by

U.S. livestock buyers, would be smaller

still. The economic impact for U.S.

entities will be negligible.

Transiting of Certain Animal Products

This rule allows the unloading and

reloading at the port of arrival of meat

and other animal products otherwise

prohibited entry into the United States.

Under certain conditions, such products

may be unloaded from a means of

conveyance and be held at a port for up

to 72 hours before reshipment from the

same port by a second means of

conveyance.

U.S. imports would not be affected by

this rule change. Consequently, the only

U.S. entities for which there could be

impacts would be ones taking part in

the marine or air transshipments, by

providing shipping or temporary storage

of the transshipped products.

As an example, under this rule, meat

from Europe prohibited by the United

States but eligible for entry to particular

Caribbean or South American countries,

could be transshipped at U.S. ports.

This could result in cost savings for

shipping companies, depending on

shipping logistics, as well as additional

business for the ports providing

transshipment services.

According to available information, in

1994 there were 129 U.S. firms in the

SIC category ‘‘Deep Sea Foreign

Transportation of Freight.’’ Nearly 90

percent (115 firms) were small entities

by the Small Business Administration’s

definition of fewer than 500 employees.

There were also 577 U.S. firms in 1994

in the category, ‘‘Marine Cargo

Handling.’’ For this industry,

designation as a small entity is
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 208 / Tuesday, October 28, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 56011

determined by annual receipts of less

than $18.5 million. An estimated 80 to

90 percent of U.S. firms handling

marine cargo are small entities.

With respect to firms that could be

involved in air transshipments, in 1994

there were 520 U.S. firms classified

under ‘‘Scheduled Air Transportation’’

and 1,475 U.S. firms classified under

‘‘Nonscheduled Air Transportation’’. Of

these firms, 86 percent and 95 percent,

respectively, had less than 500

employees. For both SIC categories, the

Small Business Administration’s

definition of a small entity is one with

fewer than 1,500 employees. There were

also 2,864 U.S. firms in 1994 comprising

the category, ‘‘Airports, Flying Fields,

and Airport Terminal Services.’’ An

estimated 85 percent of these firms are

small entities, as determined by annual

receipts of less than $5 million.

If U.S. shipping and cargo handling

firms were to be affected by this

regulation, it is likely that at least some

of them would be small entities.

However, because the transshipment

that would be allowed by this rule

change currently does not take place,

there is no record upon which to base

an estimation of impacts. Commodities

and volumes that would be

transshipped are not known, let alone

the number of U.S. firms (as opposed to

foreign firms) that would be affected or

the amount by which they might benefit

through lower shipping costs or

additional temporary storage

consignments.

Total estimated receipts of U.S. firms

in these industries in 1994 were as

follows: ‘‘Deep Sea Foreign

Transportation of Freight,’’ $8.7 billion;

‘‘Marine Cargo Handling,’’ $6.2 billion;

‘‘Scheduled and Nonscheduled Air

Transportation,’’ $121.5 billion; and

‘‘Airports, Flying Fields, and Airport

Terminal Services, $7.6 billion.’’

Possible benefits from transshipments at

U.S. ports as allowed by this rule

change would likely be very slight

compared to industry incomes.

Disposal of Animals

We are expanding the regulations

regarding the disposal of animals,

meats, and other articles ineligible for

importation to refer to such products

affected by African swine fever, swine

vesicular disease, hog cholera, and BSE,

as well as those products affected by

rinderpest and FMD.

This change is expected to have no

economic impact. In practice, disposal

provisions for animals and meat having

African swine fever, hog cholera, swine

vesicular disease, or BSE are already the

same as for rinderpest or FMD.

Specification of these diseases will

simply clarify existing provisions.

Movement of Pork and Pork Products

We are revising the current import

regulations regarding the movement of

certain pork and pork products from a

port of arrival to an approved U.S.

establishment for treatment because of

swine vesicular disease, to require that

such movement be done under Customs

or USDA seal. This change is a

clarification to make the regulations in

question consistent with similar import

requirements with regard to treatment

for other diseases. We expect no

economic impact from this change,

because, currently, there are no such

approved establishments in the United

States.

Dry Milk Products

We are removing the requirement that

certain dry milk products intended for

importation be processed for human

food. The provisions in current

§ 94.16(b)(2) that require that dry milk

products intended for importation from

countries in which rinderpest or FMD

exists be processed for human food, also

require that the dry milk products be

processed in a manner approved by the

Administrator as adequate to prevent

the introduction or dissemination of

livestock diseases into the United

States. Dry milk products that are

processed in a manner adequate to

prevent disease can be safely processed

for uses other than human food. We

expect no increase or decrease in the

amount of imported dry milk or dry

milk products due to this change, and

expect no change in the manner in

which such products are processed.

Casings

We are removing the requirement that

casings imported without certification

under § 96.4 be moved to specific cities

for disinfection. We expect no economic

impact from this change. At present,

there are no facilities in any U.S. cities

where disinfection of casings is

performed, and all casings entering the

United States under 9 CFR part 96 are

entering in accordance with the

certification requirements of § 96.4,

which allows the casings to be entered

if the casings are accompanied by

certification that they were derived from

healthy animals that were inspected

ante-and post-mortem. In the event of an

intended importation of casings that

would need to be disinfected in the

United States, such disinfection could

be done at any facility approved by

APHIS.

Executive Order 12988

This rule has been reviewed under

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice

Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts all State

and local laws 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

An environmental assessment and

finding of no significant impact have

been prepared for this rule. The

assessment provides a basis for the

conclusion that the actions required or

authorized by this rule will not present

a significant risk of introducing or

disseminating animal disease agents

into the United States and will not have

a significant impact on the quality of the

human environment. Based on the

finding of no significant impact, the

Administrator of the Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service has

determined that an environmental

impact statement need not be prepared.

The environmental assessment and

finding of no significant impact were

prepared in accordance with: (1) The

National Environmental Policy Act of

1969 (NEPA) (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).

Copies of the environmental

assessment and finding of no significant

impact are 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) 690–2817 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

The information collection burden

expected to be imposed by 9 CFR parts

92, 93, and 98 of this rule is 1,809

burden hours for animal importations,

which is 176,875 burden hours less than

the proposed rule. Although this final

rule provides a mechanism for

regionalization, it does not assign

individual regions to specific risk

categories, as did the proposed rule.

Because the provisions of the current

regulations will continue to be followed
56012 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 208 / Tuesday, October 28, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

until we receive requests for

regionalization, the burden expected is

much less than what was expected

under the proposed rule. In accordance

with section 3507(d) of the Paperwork

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

et seq.), the information collection

requirements of this final rule have been

submitted for approval to the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB). When

OMB notifies us of its decision, we will

publish a document in the Federal

Register providing notice of the

assigned OMB control number for parts

92, 93, and 98, or, if approval is denied,

providing notice of what action we plan

to take.

In accordance with the Paperwork

Reduction Act, the information

collection or recordkeeping

requirements included in this rule

under 9 CFR parts 94, 95, and 96 have

been approved by the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB). The

assigned OMB control number is 0579–

0015.

This rule contains no new

information collection or recordkeeping

requirements under 9 CFR parts 97 and

130.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of

1995

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public

Law 104–4, establishes requirements for

Federal agencies to assess the effects of

their regulatory actions on State, local,

tribal governments, and the private

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,

APHIS generally must prepare a written

statement, including a cost-benefit

analysis, for proposed and final rule

with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may

result in expenditures by State, local, or

tribal governments, in the aggregate, or

to the private sector, of $100 million or

more in any one year. When such a

statement is needed for a rule, section

205 of the UMRA generally requires

APHIS to identify and consider a

reasonable number of regulatory

alternatives and adopt the least costly,

more cost-effective, or least burdensome

alternative that achieves the objectives

of the rule.

This rule contains no Federal

mandates (under the regulatory

provisions of Title II of the UMRA) that

may result in expenditures by State,

local, and tribal governments, in the

aggregate, or to the private sector, or

$100 million or more in any one year.

Thus, this rule is not subject to the

requirements of sections 202 and 205 of

the UMRA.

List of Subjects

9 CFR Part 92

Animal diseases, Imports, Livestock,

Poultry and poultry products,

Quarantine, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

9 CFR Part 93

Animal diseases, Imports, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements.

9 CFR Part 94

Animal diseases, Imports, Livestock,

Meat and meat products, Milk, Poultry

and poultry products, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

9 CFR Part 95

Animal feeds, Hay, Imports,

Livestock, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Straw, Transportation.

9 CFR Part 96

Imports, Livestock, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

9 CFR Part 97

Exports, Government employees,

Imports, Livestock, Poultry and poultry

products, Travel and transportation

expenses.

9 CFR Part 98

Animal diseases, Imports.

9 CFR Part 130

Animals, Birds, Diagnostic reagents,

Exports, Imports, Poultry, Quarantine,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Tests.

Accordingly, under the authority

provided in 5 U.S.C. 5542; 7 U.S.C.

147a, 150ee, 161, 162, 450, 1622, 2260;

19 U.S.C. 1306; 21 U.S.C. 102–105, 111,

114, 114a, 134a, 134b, 134c, 134d, 134f,

135, 136, 136a; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 42

U.S.C. 4331, 4332; 49 U.S.C. 1741; 7

CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.2(d), we are

amending 9 CFR, chapter I, subchapter

D, as follows:

PART 93—[AMENDED]

§§ 93.1–93.8 [Redesignated as §§ 93.800–

93.807]

1. Part 93 is amended by

redesignating §§ 93.1 through 93.8 as

§§ 93.800 through 93.807, and

designating these sections as Subpart

H—Elephants, Hippopotami,

Rhinoceroses, and Tapirs.

PART 92—[REDESIGNATED AS PART

93]

2. In Part 92, subparts A through G

(§§ 92.100 through 92.707) are

redesignated as part 93, subparts A

through G, and part 92 is vacated.

3. A new part 92 is added to read as

follows:

PART 92— IMPORTATION OF

ANIMALS AND ANIMAL PRODUCTS:

PROCEDURES FOR REQUESTING

RECOGNITION OF REGIONS

Sec.

92.1 Definitions.

92.2 Application for recognition of the

animal health status of a region.

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1622; 19 U.S.C. 1306;

21 U.S.C. 102–105, 111, 114a, 134a, 134b,

134c, 134d, 134f, 135, 136, and 136a; 31

U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.2(d).

§ 92.1 Definitions.

Active surveillance. Sample collection

using a systematic or statistically

designed survey methodology to

actively seek out and find cases of

animals with a restricted disease agent,

or to determine the prevalence of the

restricted disease agent in the

population.

Adjacent region. Any geographic land

area, whether or not identifiable by

geological, political or surveyed

boundaries, that shares common

boundaries with any region.

Administrator. The Administrator of

the Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service or any other employee of the

Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service, United States Department of

Agriculture, delegated to act in the

Administrator’s stead.

Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service (APHIS). The Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service of the United

States Department of Agriculture.

Animals. All species of the animal

kingdom, except man, including: Cattle,

sheep, goats, other ruminants, swine,

horses, asses, mules, zebras, dogs,

poultry, and birds that are susceptible to

communicable diseases of livestock and

poultry or capable of being carriers of

those diseases or their arthropod

vectors.

Communicable disease. Any

contagious or infectious disease of

animals. It can be transmitted either

directly or indirectly to a susceptible

animal from an infected animal, vector,

inanimate source, or other sources.

Contagious disease. Any

communicable disease transmitted from

one animal to another by direct contact

or by feed, water, aerosol, or

contaminated objects.

Disease agent. A virus, bacterium, or

other organism that causes disease in

animals.

Import (imported, importation) into

the United States. To bring into the

territorial limits of the United States.

Passive surveillance. A surveillance

system that does not depend on active
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 208 / Tuesday, October 28, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 56013

participation by the responsible agency

to seek out and monitor a restricted

disease agent. The system relies on

mandatory reporting, a pool of trained

investigators, diagnostic submission

procedures and laboratory support, and

periodic public information and

continuing education programs on

diseases.

Prevalence. The number of cases of a

disease in existence at a given time in

a designated area.

Region. Any defined geographic land

region identifiable by geological,

political or surveyed boundaries. A

region may consist of any of the

following:

(1) A national entity (country);

(2) Part of a national entity ( zone,

county, department, municipality,

parish, Province, State, etc.);

(3) Parts of several national entities

combined into an area; or

(4) A group of national entities

(countries) combined into a single area.

Restricted disease agent. Any

communicable disease agent or its

vector not known to exist in the United

States or that is subject to a Federal or

cooperative Federal/State control or

eradication program within the United

States.

Surveillance. Systems to find,

monitor, and confirm the existence or

absence of a restricted disease agent or

agents in livestock, poultry and other

animals. Surveillance may be passive or

active.

United States. All of the States of the

United States, the District of Columbia,

Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands,

Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands of the

United States, and all other territories

and possessions of the United States.

Vector-borne disease. A disease

transmitted to an animal through an

intermediate arthropod vector,

including ticks or insects.

§ 92.2 Application for recognition of the

animal health status of a region.

(a)(1) The representative of the

national government(s) of any country

or countries who has the authority to

request such a change may request at

any time that all or part of the country

or countries be recognized as a region,

be included within an adjacent

previously recognized region, or be

made part of a region larger than an

individual country. Requests for

recognition of a region must be sent to

the Administrator, in accordance with

paragraph (c) of this section.

(b) Each request for approval to export

a particular type of animal or animal

product to the United States from a

foreign region must be made to the

Administrator, in accordance with

paragraph (c) of this section, and must

include, in English, the following

information about the region:

(1) The authority, organization, and

infrastructure of the veterinary services

organization in the region.

(2) Disease status—i.e., is the

restricted disease agent known to exist

in the region? If ‘‘yes,’’ at what

prevalence? If ‘‘no,’’ when was the most

recent diagnosis?

(3) The status of adjacent regions with

respect to the agent.

(4) The extent of an active disease

control program, if any, if the agent is

known to exist in the region.

(5) The vaccination status of the

region. When was the last vaccination?

What is the extent of vaccination if it is

currently used, and what vaccine is

being used?

(6) The degree to which the region is

separated from adjacent regions of

higher risk through physical or other

barriers.

(7) The extent to which movement of

animals and animal products is

controlled from regions of higher risk,

and the level of biosecurity regarding

such movements.

(8) Livestock demographics and

marketing practices in the region.

(9) The type and extent of disease

surveillance in the region—e.g., is it

passive and/or active; what is the

quantity and quality of sampling and

testing?

(10) Diagnostic laboratory capabilities.

(11) Policies and infrastructure for

animal disease control in the region—

i.e., emergency response capacity.

(c) Requests for recognition of a region

or for approval to export animals or

animal products to the United States

from a region, including the information

required by this section, must be sent to

the Administrator, c/o National Center

for Import and Export, VS, APHIS, 4700

River Road Unit 38, Riverdale, MD

20737–1231. (Where possible, include a

copy of the request and accompanying

information on a 3.5-inch floppy disk in

ASCII or a word processing format.)

(d) The information submitted in

accordance with paragraph (b) of this

section will be made available to the

public prior to initiation by APHIS of

any rulemaking action on the request.

(e) If, after review of the information

submitted, APHIS believes the

requested importation can be safely

allowed, APHIS will publish a proposed

rule in the Federal Register to allow the

importation, and the conditions under

which the importation would be

allowed, along with a discussion of the

basis for the proposal.

(f) APHIS will provide a period of

time during which the public may

comment on the proposal. During the

comment period, the public will have

access to the information upon which

APHIS based its analysis of the risk of

such importation, as well as to its

methodology in conducting the analysis.

Once APHIS has reviewed all comments

received, it will make a final decision

on what conditions will be necessary to

allow the importation in question, and

will publish the conditions for import in

the Federal Register.

4. The heading of part 93 is revised

to read as follows:

PART 93—IMPORTATION OF CERTAIN

ANIMALS, BIRDS, AND POULTRY,

AND CERTAIN ANIMAL, BIRD, AND

POULTRY PRODUCTS;

REQUIREMENTS FOR MEANS OF

CONVEYANCE AND SHIPPING

CONTAINERS

5. The authority citation for part 93 is

revised to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1622; 19 U.S.C. 1306;

21 U.S.C. 102–105, 111, 114a, 134a, 134b,

134c, 134d, 134f, 135, 136, and 136a; 31

U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.2(d).

Subpart A—Birds

6. Newly designated § 93.100 is

amended by revising the definition of

Licensed veterinarian and adding a

definition of Region, in alphabetical

order, to read as follows:

§ 93.100 Definitions.

* * * * *

Licensed veterinarian. Any person

licensed by any region or political

subdivision thereof to practice

veterinary medicine.

* * * * *

Region. Any defined geographic land

area identifiable by geological, political,

or surveyed boundaries. A region may

consist of any of the following:

(1) A national entity (country);

(2) Part of a national entity (zone,

county, department, municipality,

parish, Province, State, etc.);

(3) Parts of several national entities

combined into an area; or

(4) A group of national entities

(countries) combined into a single area.

* * * * *

§ 93.101 [Amended]

7. Newly designated § 93.101 is

amended as follows:

a. In paragraph (a), footnote 1 is amended

by removing the word ‘‘countries’’ and

adding in its place the word ‘‘regions’’.

b. By removing the word ‘‘country’’ each

time it appears and adding in its place each

time the word ‘‘region’’ in the following

places:

i. Paragraph (b)(3)(iii).
56014 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 208 / Tuesday, October 28, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

ii. Paragraph (b)(3)(v).

iii. Paragraph (b)(3)(vi).

iv. Paragraph (b)(3)(vii).

v. Paragraph (b)(3)(viii).

vi. Paragraph (b)(3)(ix).

vii. Paragraph (b)(3)(x).

viii. Paragraph (b)(3)(xi).

ix. Paragraph (c)(2)(i).

x. Paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(A).

xi. Paragraph (c)(3)(i).

xii. Paragraph (d), introductory text.

c. In paragraph (b)(1), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§§ 92.205, 92.214, and 92.216’’

and adding in its place a reference to

‘‘§§ 93.205, 93.214, and 93.216’’.

d. In paragraph (b)(3), introductory text, by

removing the reference to ‘‘§ 92.107’’ and

adding in its place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.107’’.

e. In paragraph (b)(3)(ii), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.103(a)(2)(iv)’’ and adding

in its place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.103(a)(2)(iv)’’.

f. In paragraph (b)(3)(ix), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.103(a)(2)(iv)’’ and adding

in its place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.103(a)(2)(iv)’’.

g. In paragraph (b)(3)(x), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.104(a)’’ and adding in its

place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.104(a)’’.

h. In paragraph (b)(3)(xi), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.104(a)’’ and adding in its

place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.104(a)’’.

i. In paragraph (c)(1), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§§ 92.102 or 92.203’’ and

adding in its place a reference to ‘‘§§ 93.103

or 93.203’’, and by removing the reference to

‘‘§ 92.105’’ and adding in its place a reference

to ‘‘§ 93.105’’.

j. In paragraph (c)(2)(i), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.101(c)(1)’’ and adding in its

place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.101(c)(1)’’.

k. In paragraph (c)(3), the introductory text,

by removing the reference to ‘‘§ 92.102(a)’’

and adding in its place a reference to

‘‘§ 93.102(a)’’.

l. In paragraph (c)(3)(ii), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.103(a)(3)’’ each time it

appears and adding in its place each time a

reference to ‘‘§ 93.103(a)(3)’’, and by

removing the reference to ‘‘§ 92.102(a)’’ each

time it appears and adding in its place each

time a reference to ‘‘93.102(a)’’.

m. In paragraph (c)(3)(iv), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.106(a)’’ and adding in its

place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.106(a)’’.

n. In paragraph (c)(3)(v), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.210’’ and adding in its

place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.210’’.

o. In paragraph (d), the introductory text,

by removing the reference to ‘‘§ 92.103’’ and

adding in its place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.103’’.

p. In paragraph (d)(1)(ii), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.103(c)’’ and adding in its

place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.103(c)’’.

q. In paragraph (e), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§§ 92.102(a), 92.103, 92.104,

92.105(a), and 92.106(a)’’ and adding in its

place a reference to ‘‘§§ 93.102(a), 93.103,

93.104, 93.105(a), and 93.106(a)’’.

r. In paragraph (f), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.102 or 92.203’’ and adding

in its place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.102 or

93.203’’, and by removing the reference to

‘‘§ 92.103’’ and adding in its place a reference

to ‘‘§ 93.103’’.

§ 93.102 [Amended]

8. Newly designated § 93.102 is

amended as follows:

a. In paragraph (a), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.101(c)’’ and adding in its

place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.101(c)’’, and by

removing the reference to ‘‘§ 92.101(f)’’ and

adding in its place a reference to

‘‘§ 93.101(f)’’.

b. In paragraph (c), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.105’’ and adding in its

place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.105’’.

c. In paragraph (d), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.101(c)(1) or (2)’’ each time

it appears and adding in its place a reference

to ‘‘§ 93.101(c)(1) or (2)’’, and by removing

the reference to ‘‘§ 92.101(f)’’ and adding in

its place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.101(f)’.

§ 93.103 [Amended]

9. Newly designated § 93.103 is

amended as follows:

a. By removing the word ‘‘country’’ each

time it appears and adding in its place the

word ‘‘region’’ in the following places:

i. Paragraph (a)(1)(vi).

ii. Paragraph (a)(1)(viii).

iii. Paragraph (a)(2)(ii), introductory text.

iv. Paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(B).

v. Paragraph (a)(2)(v).

vi. Paragraph (b), second sentence.

vii. Paragraph (c)(1)(ii).

viii. Paragraph (c)(1)(iv).

ix. Paragraph (c)(2)(ii).

x. Paragraph (c)(2)(iv).

b. In paragraph (a)(1), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§§ 92.101 (b) and (c), 92.103(c),

and 92.107(b)’’ and adding in its place a

reference to ‘‘§§ 93.101(b) and (c), 93.103(c),

and 93.107(b)’’.

c. In paragraph (a)(1)(x), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.106(c)(5)’’ and adding in its

place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.106(c)(5)’’.

d. In paragraph (a)(1)(xii), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§§ 92.100 through 92.107’’ and

adding in its place a reference to ‘‘§§ 93.100

through 93.107’’.

e. In paragraph (a)(1)(xiii), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.107’’ and adding in its

place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.107’’.

f. In paragraph (a)(2)(i), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.106(c)’’ and adding in its

place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.106(c)’’.

g. In paragraph (a)(2)(iii), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.107’’ and adding in its

place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.107’’.

h. In paragraph (a)(2)(iv), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.107’’ and adding in its

place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.107’’.

i. In paragraph (a)(2)(v), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.101(b)(3)’’ each time it

appears and adding in its place a reference

to ‘‘§ 93.101(b)(3)’’.

§ 93.104 [Amended]

10. Newly designated § 93.104 is

amended as follows:

a. In paragraph (a), by removing the word

‘‘country’’ each time it appears and adding in

its place the word ‘‘region’’.

b. In paragraph (a), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.101 (b) and (c)’’ and adding

in its place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.101 (b) and

(c)’’.

c. In paragraph (c)(2), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.107’’ and adding in its

place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.107’’.

d. In paragraph (c)(8), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.107’’ and adding in its

place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.107’’.

e. In paragraph (c)(13), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.101(b)(3)(ix)’’ and adding

in its place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.101(b)(3)(ix)’’.

f. In paragraph (c)(14), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.101(b)(3)’’ and adding in

its place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.101(b)(3)’’.

g. In paragraph (c)(15), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.107’’ and adding in its

place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.107’’.

h. In paragraph (d)(2), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.107’’ and adding in its

place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.107’’.

i. In paragraph (d)(9), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.101(b)(3)(ix)’’ and adding

in its place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.101(b)(3)(ix)’’.

j. In paragraph (d)(10), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.101(b)(3)’’ and adding in

its place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.101(b)(3)’’.

k. In paragraph (d)(11), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.107’’ and adding in its

place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.107’’.

§ 93.105 [Amended]

11. Newly designated § 93.105 is

amended as follows:

a. In paragraph (a), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.107(c)’’ and adding in its

place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.107(c)’’.

b. In paragraph (b), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.101(c)(2)’’ each time it

appears and adding in its place a reference

to ‘‘§ 93.101(c)(2)’’; by removing the reference

to ‘‘§ 92.102(a)’’ and adding in its place a

reference to ‘‘§ 93.102(a)’’; and by removing

the reference to ‘‘§ 92.102 and 92.203’’ and

adding in its place a reference to ‘‘§§ 93.102

and 93.203’’.

c. In paragraph (c), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.107(b)’’ and adding in its

place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.107(b)’’.

§ 93.106 [Amended]

12. Newly designated § 93.106 is

amended as follows:

a. In paragraph (c)(5)(iii), the Cooperative

and Trust Fund Agreement, the second

paragraph, which begins with ‘‘Whereas, the

Importer’’, by removing the word ‘‘countries’’

and adding in its place the word ‘‘regions’’.

b. In paragraph (c)(5)(iii), the Cooperative

and Trust Fund Agreement, paragraph (B)(5),

by removing the word ‘‘country’’ and adding

in its place the word ‘‘region’’.

c. In paragraph (a), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.101(c)’’ and adding in its

place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.101(c)’’, and by

removing the reference to ‘‘§ 92.103’’ and

adding in its place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.103’’.

d. In paragraph (b)(1), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.107’’ and adding in its

place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.107’’, and by

removing the reference to ‘‘§ 92.103’’ and

adding in its place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.103’’.

e. In paragraph (b)(2), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.107’’ and adding in its

place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.107’’.

f. In paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(L), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.103’’ and adding in its

place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.103’’.

g. In paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(M), by removing

the reference to ‘‘§ 92.103’’ and adding in its

place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.103’’.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 208 / Tuesday, October 28, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 56015

h. In paragraph (c)(5)(iii), the Cooperative

and Trust Fund Agreement, paragraph (A)(4),

by removing the reference to ‘‘part 92’’ and

adding in its place a reference to ‘‘part 93’’

each time it appears.

i. In paragraph (c)(5)(iii), the Cooperative

and Trust Fund Agreement, paragraph (A)(5),

by removing the reference to ‘‘§ 92.106(c)’’

and adding in its place a reference to

‘‘§ 93.106(c)’’.

j. In paragraph (c)(5)(iii), the Cooperative

and Trust Fund Agreement, paragraph

(A)(13), by removing the reference to

‘‘§ 92.106(c)(3)(ii)(C)’’ and adding in its place

a reference to ‘‘§ 93.106(c)(3)(ii)(C)’’.

k. In paragraph (c)(5)(iii), the Cooperative

and Trust Fund Agreement, paragraph

(A)(20), by removing the reference to

‘‘§ 92.106(c)’’ and adding in its place a

reference to ‘‘§ 93.106(c)’’.

l. In subpart A, footnote 13, by removing

the reference to ‘‘§ 92.107’’ and adding in its

place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.107’’.

§ 93.107 [Amended]

13. Newly designated § 93.107 is

amended as follows:

a. In paragraph (a), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.103’’ and adding in its

place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.103’’, and by

removing the reference to ‘‘§ 92.101’’ and

adding in its place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.101’’.

b. In paragraph (b)(3), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.203(b)’’ and adding in its

place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.203(b)’’.

c. In paragraph (b)(4), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.104(c)(8)’’ and adding in its

place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.104(c)(8)’’.

d. In paragraph (c)(2), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.105(a)’’ and adding in its

place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.105(a)’’.

e. In paragraph (c)(3), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.203(b)’’ and adding in its

place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.203(b)’’.

Subpart B—Poultry

14. Newly designated § 93.200 is

amended by revising the definition of

Operator and adding a definition of

Region, in alphabetical order, to read as

follows:

§ 93.200 Definitions.

* * * * *

Operator. For the purpose of § 93.209,

any person operating an approved

quarantine facility.

* * * * *

Region. Any defined geographic land

area identifiable by geological, political,

or surveyed boundaries. A region may

consist of any of the following:

(1) A national entity (country);

(2) Part of a national entity (zone,

county, department, municipality,

parish, Province, State, etc.)

(3) Parts of several national entities

combined into an area; or

(4) A group of national entities

(countries) combined into a single area.

* * * * *

§ 93.201 [Amended]

15. Newly designated § 93.201 is

amended as follows:

a. In paragraph (a), footnote 2, by removing

the word ‘‘countries’’ and adding in its place

the word ‘‘regions’’.

b. In paragraph (b), introductory text, by

removing the word ‘‘country’’ and adding in

its place the word ‘‘region’’.

c. In paragraph (b), introductory text, by

removing the reference to ‘‘part 92’’ and

adding in its place a reference to ‘‘part 93’’,

and by removing the reference to ‘‘§ 92.204’’

and adding in its place a reference to

‘‘§ 93.204’’.

d. In paragraph (b)(1)(ii), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.204(c)’’ and adding in its

place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.204(c)’’.

e. In paragraph (c), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.203’’ and adding in its

place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.203’’, and by

removing the reference to ‘‘§ 92.204’’ and

adding in its place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.204’’.

§ 93.202 [Amended]

16. In newly designated § 93.202,

paragraph (a) is amended by removing

the word ‘‘country’’ and adding in its

place the word ‘‘region’’.

§ 93.204 [Amended]

17. Newly designated § 93.204 is

amended as follows:

a. In paragraph (a)(1), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§§ 92.204(c), 92.214, 92.217,

and 92.218’’ and adding in its place a

reference to ‘‘§§ 93.204(c), 93.214, 93.217,

and 93.218’’.

b. In paragraph (a)(2), by removing the

word ‘‘countries’’ and adding in its place the

word ‘‘regions’’.

c. By removing the word ‘‘country’’ each

time it appears and adding in its place the

word ‘‘region’’ in the following places:

i. Paragraph (a)(1).

ii. Paragraph (a)(2).

iii. Paragraph (b).

iv. Paragraph (c)(1)(iii).

v. Paragraph (c)(1)(v).

vi. Paragraph (c)(2)(ii.)

vii. Paragraph (c)(2)(iv).

§ 93.205 [Amended]

18. Newly designated § 93.205 is

amended by removing the word

‘‘country’’ each time it appears and

adding in its place the word ‘‘region’’.

93.207 [Amended]

19. Newly designated § 93.207 is

amended by removing the reference to

‘‘§§ 92.215 and 92.220’’ and adding in

its place a reference to ‘‘§§ 93.215 and

93.220’’.

§ 93.209 [Amended]

20. Newly designated § 93.209 is

amended as follows:

a. In paragraph (a), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.216’’ and adding in its

place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.216’’.

b. In paragraph (b), by removing the word

‘‘countries’’ and adding in its place the word

‘‘regions’’.

21. Preceding newly designated

§ 93.214, in the undesignated center

heading ‘‘CANADA 6’’, footnote 6 is

amended by removing the reference to

‘‘§§ 92.214 to 92.216’’ and adding in its

place a reference to ‘‘§§ 93.214 to

93.216’’.

§ 93.214 [Amended]

22. Newly designated § 93.214 is

amended as follows:

a. In paragraph (a), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.204’’ and adding in its

place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.204’’, and by

removing the reference to ‘‘§ 92.203(b)’’ and

adding in its place a reference to

‘‘§ 93.203(b)’’.

b. In paragraph (b), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.206’’ and adding in its

place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.206’’.

§ 93.215 [Amended]

23. Newly designated § 93.215 is

amended as follows:

a. In paragraph (a)(1), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.204’’ and adding in its

place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.204’’, and by

removing the reference to ‘‘§ 92.201’’ and

adding in its place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.201’’.

b. In paragraph (b), by removing the word

‘‘country’’ and adding in its place the word

‘‘region’’.

§ 93.216 [Amended]

24. Newly designated § 93.216 is

amended by removing the reference to

‘‘§ 92.209’’ and adding in its place a

reference to ‘‘§ 93.209’’.

25. In subpart B, the undesignated

heading preceding newly designated

§ 93.217 is revised to read ‘‘CENTRAL

AMERICA AND THE WEST INDIES 7’’,

and footnote 7 is amended by removing

the reference to ‘‘§ 92.217’’ and adding

in its place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.217’’ and

by removing the word ‘‘countries’’ and

adding in its place the word ‘‘regions’’.

§ 93.217 [Amended]

26. Newly designated § 93.217 is

amended as follows:

a. By removing the word ‘‘countries’’ and

adding in its place the word ‘‘regions’’ in the

following places:

i. Paragraph (a).

ii. Paragraph (b).

iii. Paragraph (c).

b. In paragraph (a), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.204’’ and adding in its

place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.204’’.

c. In paragraph (b), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.206’’ and adding in its

place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.206’’.

d. In paragraph (c), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§§ 92.205, 92.207, 92.209, and

92.210’’ and adding in its place a reference

to ‘‘§ 93.205, 93.207, 93.209, and 93.210’’.

27. Preceding newly designated

§ 93.218, in the undesignated center
56016 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 208 / Tuesday, October 28, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

heading ‘‘MEXICO 8’’, footnote 8 is

amended by removing the reference to

‘‘§§ 92.218 to 92.220’’ and adding in its

place a reference to ‘‘§§ 93.218 to

93.220’’.

§ 93.218 [Amended]

28. In newly designated § 93.218,

paragraph (a) is amended by removing

the reference to ‘‘§ 92.204’’ and adding

in its place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.204’’.

§ 93.219 [Amended]

29. Newly designated § 93.219 is

amended by removing the reference to

‘‘§ 92.206’’ and adding in its place a

reference to ‘‘§ 93.206’’.

§ 93.220 [Amended]

30. In newly designated § 93.220,

paragraph (b) is amended by removing

the reference to ‘‘§ 92.203’’ and adding

in its place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.203’’.

Subpart C—Horses

31. Newly designated § 93.300 is

amended as follows:

a. In the definition of Code of

Practice, by removing the word

‘‘country’’ and adding in its place the

word ‘‘region.’’

b. By revising the definition of

Licensed veterinarian and by adding a

definition of Region, in alphabetical

order, to read as follows:

§ 93.300 Definitions.

* * * * *

Licensed Veterinarian. Any person

licensed by any country or political

subdivision thereof to practice

veterinary medicine.

* * * * *

Region. Any defined geographic land

area identifiable by geological, political,

or surveyed boundaries. A region may

consist of any of the following:

(1) A national entity (country);

(2) Part of a national entity (zone,

county, department, municipality,

parish, Province, State, etc.)

(3) Parts of several national entities

combined into an area; or

(4) A group of national entities

(countries) combined into a single area.

* * * * *

§ 93.301 [Amended]

32. Newly designated § 93.301 is

amended as follows:

a. By removing the word ‘‘country’’ each

time it appears and adding in its place the

word ‘‘region’’ in the following places:

i. Paragraph (b), introductory text.

ii. Paragraph (c)(1).

iii. Paragraph (c)(2)(viii).

iv. Paragraph (d)(1)(ii)(E).

v. Paragraph (d)(2).

vi. Paragraph (e)(1), introductory text.

vii. Paragraph (e)(1)(iii).

viii. Paragraph (e)(1)(v).

ix. Paragraph (e)(1)(vi).

x. In the heading of paragraph (g), and

introductory text.

xi. Paragraph (g)(1), introductory text.

xii. Paragraph (g)(1)(iii).

xiii. Paragraph (g)(1)(iv).

xiv. Paragraph (h), introductory text.

b. By removing the word ‘‘countries’’ each

time it appears and adding in its place the

word ‘‘regions’’ in the following places:

i. Paragraph (a), footnote 3.

ii. Paragraph (c)(1).

iii. In the heading of paragraph (e).

iv. Paragraph (h)(5).

c. In paragraph (b), introductory text, by

removing the reference to ‘‘part 92’’ and

adding in its place a reference to ‘‘part 93’’,

and by removing the reference to ‘‘§ 92.304’’

and adding in its place a reference to

‘‘§ 93.304’’.

d. In paragraph (c)(2)(iii), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.314(a)’’ and adding in its

place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.314(a)’’.

e. In paragraph (c)(2)(iv), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.301(a)’’ and adding in its

place would be removed and a reference to

‘‘§ 93.301(a)’’.

f. In paragraph (d)(1)(i), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.304’’ and adding in its

place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.304’’.

g. In paragraph (d)(1)(ii), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.314(a)’’ and adding in its

place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.314(a)’’ each time

it appears.

h. In paragraph (d)(3), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.308’’ and adding in its

place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.308’’ each time it

appears.

i. In paragraph (e)(1)(i), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.304’’ and adding in its

place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.304’’, and by

removing the reference to ‘‘§ 92.308’’ and

adding in its place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.308’’.

j. In paragraph (e)(1)(ii), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.314(a)’’ and adding in its

place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.314(a)’’.

k. In paragraph (e)(2)(i), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.308’’ and adding in its

place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.308’’.

l. In paragraph (f)(1), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.304’’ and adding in its

place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.304’’.

m. In paragraph (f)(4), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.304’’ and adding in its

place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.304’’.

n. In paragraph (f)(6)(i), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.304’’ and adding in its

place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.304’’.

o. In paragraph (g)(1), introductory text, by

removing the reference to ‘‘§ 92.314(a)’’ and

adding in its place a reference to

‘‘§ 93.314(a)’’.

p. In paragraph (g)(2), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.304’’ and adding in its

place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.304’’.

q. In paragraph (g)(5), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.308’’ and adding in its

place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.308’’.

§ 93.302 [Amended]

33. In newly designated § 93.302,

paragraph (a) is amended by removing

the word ‘‘country’’ and adding in its

place the word ‘‘region’’.

§ 93.303 [Amended]

34. Newly designated § 93.303 is

amended as follows:

a. In paragraph (a), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§§ 92.308(a), (b), and (c) and

92.317’’ and adding in its place a reference

to ‘‘§§ 93.308(a), (b), and (c) and 93.317’’.

b. In paragraph (e), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§§ 92.301(c), 92.304(a), 92.306,

92.308(a), (b), and (c), and 92.314’’ and

adding in its place a reference to

‘‘§§ 93.301(c), 93.304(a), 93.306, 93.308(a),

(b), and (c), and 93.314’’.

c. In paragraph (e), by removing the word

‘‘country’’ and adding in its place the word

‘‘region’’, and in footnote 12, by removing the

word ‘‘countries’’ and adding in its place the

word ‘‘regions’’.

§ 93.304 [Amended]

35. Newly designated § 93.304 is

amended as follows:

a. By removing the word ‘‘countries’’ each

time it appears and adding in its place the

word ‘‘regions’’ in the following places:

i. The section heading.

ii. Paragraph (a)(1)(i).

iii. Paragraph (a)(2).

b. By removing the word ‘‘country’’ each

time it appears and adding in its place the

word ‘‘region’’ in the following places:

i. Paragraph (a)(1)(i).

ii. Paragraph (a)(2).

iii. Paragraph (b)(1).

c. In paragraph (a)(1)(i), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.301(c)(1)’’ and adding in its

place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.301(c)(1)’’, and by

removing the reference to ‘‘§§ 92.315, 92.319,

and 92.321’’ and adding in its place a

reference to ‘‘§§ 93.315, 93.319, and 93.321’’.

d. In paragraph (a)(1)(ii), introductory text,

by removing the reference to ‘‘§ 92.301(f)’’

each time it appears and adding in its place

a reference to ‘‘§ 93.301(f)’’.

e. In paragraph (a)(1)(iii), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.301(f)’’ and adding in its

place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.301(f)’’.

f. In paragraph (a)(2), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.301(c)(1)’’ and adding in its

place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.301(c)(1)’’.

§ 93.306 [Amended]

36. In newly designated § 93.306,

paragraph (a) is amended by removing

the reference to ‘‘§§ 92.318 and 92.323’’

and adding in its place a reference to

‘‘§§ 93.318 and 93.323’’.

§ 93.308 [Amended]

37. Newly designated § 93.308 is

amended as follows:

a. In paragraph (a), introductory text, by

removing the reference to ‘‘§ 92.324’’ and

adding in its place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.324’’,

and by removing the reference to ‘‘§ 92.303’’

and adding in its place a reference to

‘‘§ 93.303’’.

b. In paragraph (a)(1), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.317’’ and adding in its

place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.317’’, and by

removing the reference to ‘‘§ 92.303’’ and

adding in its place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.303’’.

c. In paragraph (a)(2), by removing the

word ‘‘countries’’ each time it appears and
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 208 / Tuesday, October 28, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 56017

adding in its place the word ‘‘regions’’, and

by removing the word ‘‘country and adding

in its place the word ‘‘region.’’.

d. In paragraph (b), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.303(e)’’ and adding in its

place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.303(e)’’.

e. In paragraph (c)(4)(ii), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.308(a)’’ and adding in its

place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.308(a)’’.

§ 93.314 [Amended]

38. Newly designated § 92.314 is

amended as follows:

a. By removing the word ‘‘country’’ each

time it appears and adding in its place the

word ‘‘region’’ in the following places:

i. In paragraph (a), introductory text.

ii. In paragraph (a)(1).

iii. In paragraph (a)(5)(i).

iv. In paragraph (a)(5)(ii).

v. In paragraph (b).

b. In paragraph (a)(5)(iv), by removing the

word ‘‘countries’’ and adding in its place the

word ‘‘regions’’.

c. In paragraph (a)(5), introductory text, by

removing the reference to ‘‘§ 92.301(g)’’ and

adding in its place a reference to

‘‘§ 93.301(g)’’.

d. In paragraph (a)(5)(i), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.301(c)(1)’’ and adding in its

place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.301(c)(1)’’.

e. In paragraph (c), by removing the

reference to reference to ‘‘§ 92.306’’ and

adding in its place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.306’’.

39. Preceding newly designated

§ 93.315, in the undesignated center

heading ‘‘CANADA16’’, footnote 16 is

amended by removing the reference to

‘‘§§ 92.315, 92.316, 92.317 and 92.318’’

and adding in its place a reference to

‘‘§§ 93.315, 93.316, 93.317 and 93.318’’.

§ 93.315 [Amended]

40. Newly designated § 93.315 is

amended by removing the reference to

‘‘§ 92.305’’ and adding in its place a

reference to ‘‘§ 93.305’’.

§ 93.316 [Amended]

41. Newly designated § 93.316 is

amended by removing the reference to

‘‘§ 92.306’’ and adding in its place a

reference to ‘‘§ 93.306’’.

§ 93.317 [Amended]

42. In newly designated § 93.317,

paragraph (a) is amended by removing

the reference to ‘‘§ 92.306’’ and adding

in its place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.306’’,

and by removing the reference to

‘‘§ 92.314’’ each time it appears and

adding in its place a reference to

‘‘§ 93.314’’.

§ 93.318 [Amended]

43. Newly designated § 93.318 is

amended as follows:

a. In paragraph (a)(1), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.304’’ and adding in its

place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.304’’, and by

removing the reference to ‘‘§ 92.301’’ and

adding in its place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.301’’.

b. In paragraph (b), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.317(b)’’ and adding in its

place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.317(b)’’.

c. In paragraph (b), by removing the word

‘‘country’’ and adding in its place the word

‘‘region’’.

44. The undesignated center heading

immediately preceding § 93.319 is

revised to read ‘‘CENTRAL AMERICA

AND THE WEST INDIES17’’, and

footnote 17 is amended by removing

word ‘‘countries’’ and adding in its

place the word ‘‘regions’’, and by

removing the reference to ‘‘§§ 92.319

and 92.320’’ and adding in its place a

reference to ‘‘§§ 93.319 and 93.320’’.

§ 93.319 [Amended]

45. Newly designated § 93.319 is

amended by removing the word

‘‘countries’’ and adding in its place the

word ‘‘regions’’, and by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.305’’ and adding in its

place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.305’’.

§ 93.320 [Amended]

46. Newly designated § 93.320 is

amended by removing the reference to

‘‘§ 92.306’’ and adding in its place a

reference to ‘‘§ 93.306’’, by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.314’’ and adding in its

place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.314’’, and by

removing the reference to ‘‘§ 92.308 (a),

(b) and (c)’’ and adding in its place a

reference to ‘‘§ 93.308 (a), (b), and (c)’’.

47. Preceding newly designated

§ 93.321, in the undesignated center

heading ‘‘MEXICO18’’, footnote 18 is

amended by removing the reference to

‘‘§§ 92.321 to 92.326’’ and adding in its

place a reference to ‘‘§§ 93.321 to

93.326’’.

§ 93.322 [Amended]

48. Newly designated § 93.322 is

amended by removing the reference to

‘‘§ 92.305’’ and adding in its place a

reference to ‘‘§ 93.305’’.

§ 93.323 [Amended]

49. In newly designated § 93.323,

paragraphs (a) and (b) are amended by

removing the references to ‘‘§ 92.324’’

and adding in their place a reference to

‘‘§ 93.324’’.

§ 93.324 [Amended]

50. Newly designated § 93.324 is

amended by removing the reference to

‘‘§ 92.303(a)’’ and adding in its place a

reference to ‘‘§ 93.303(a)’’.

§ 93.325 [Amended]

51. Newly designated § 93.325 is

amended by removing the reference to

‘‘§§ 92.306 and 92.323’’ and adding in

its place a reference to ‘‘§§ 93.306 and

93.323’’, by removing the reference to

‘‘§ 92.314’’ and adding in its place a

reference to ‘‘93.314’’, and by removing

the reference to ‘‘§ 92.324’’ and adding

in its place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.324’’.

§ 93.326 [Amended]

52. Newly designated § 93.326 is

amended by removing the reference to

‘‘§§ 92.321, 92.322, 92.323, and 92.324’’

and adding in its place a reference to

‘‘§§ 93.321, 93.322, 93.323, and 93.324’’,

and by removing the words ‘‘in

§ 92.324’’ and adding in their place the

words ‘‘in § 93.324’’.

Subpart D—Ruminants

53. In newly designated § 93.400, the

definition of Brucellosis certified free

province and territories of Canada is

revised, and a new definition of Region

is added, in alphabetical order, to read

as follows:

§ 93.400 Definitions.

* * * * *

Brucellosis certified-free province or

territory of Canada. A province or

territory of Canada in which all herds of

cattle are brucellosis certified free. The

brucellosis certified free provinces and

territories of Canada are Alberta, British

Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick,

Newfoundland (including Labrador),

Northwest Territories, Nova Scotia,

Ontario, Quebec, Prince Edward Island,

Saskatchewan, and Yukon Territory.

* * * * *

Region. Any defined geographic land

area identifiable by geological, political,

or surveyed boundaries. A region may

consist of any of the following:

(1) A national entity (country);

(2) Part of a national entity (zone,

county, department, municipality,

parish, Province, State, etc.);

(3) Parts of several national entities

combined into an area; or

(4) A group of national entities

(countries) combined into a single area.

* * * * *

§ 93.401 [Amended]

54. Newly designated § 93.401 is

amended as follows:

a. In paragraph (a), footnote 3, by removing

the word ‘‘countries’’ and adding the word

‘‘regions’’ in its place;

b. In paragraph (b), introductory text, by

removing the word ‘‘country’’ and adding the

word ‘‘region’’ in its place, and by removing

the reference to ‘‘§ 92.404’’ and adding in its

place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.404’’.

§ 93.402 [Amended]

55. In newly designated § 93.402,

paragraph (a) is amended by removing

the word ‘‘country’’ and adding the

word ‘‘region’’ in its place.

§ 93.403 [Amended]

56. In newly designated § 93.403,

paragraph (g), the references to
56018 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 208 / Tuesday, October 28, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

‘‘§§ 92.401, 92.404(a), 92.407, 92.408,

92.433, and 92.434’’ are removed, and

references to ‘‘§§ 93.401, 93.404(a),

93.407, 93.408, 93.433, and 93.434’’ are

added in their place.

§ 93.404 [Amended]

57. Newly designated § 93.404 is

amended as follows:

a. In paragraph (a)(1), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§§ 92.417, 92.422, and 92.424’’

and adding in its place a reference to

‘‘§§ 93.417, 93.422, and 93.424’’.

b. In paragraph (a)(2), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.430’’ and adding in its

place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.430’’.

c. In paragraph (c)(4), ‘‘Agreement for the

Importation, Quarantine and Exhibition of

Certain Wild Ruminants and Wild Swine’’,

paragraph 2, the first sentence, by removing

the words ‘‘this country’’ and adding in their

place the words ‘‘the United States’’.

d. By removing the word ‘‘country’’ each

time it appears and adding in its place the

word ‘‘region’’ in the following places:

i. Paragraph (a)(1).

ii. Paragraph (a)(2).

iii. Paragraph (a)(3).

iv. Paragraph (b).

v. Paragraph (c)(4), in the ‘‘Agreement for

the Importation, Quarantine and Exhibition

of Certain Ruminants and Swine’’, in the

introductory text and in paragraph (1) and

paragraph (2).

e. By removing the word ‘‘countries’’ each

time it appears and adding in its place the

word ‘‘regions’’ in the following places:

i. Paragraph (a)(3).

ii. Paragraph (c), the heading and the

introductory text.

f. In paragraph (c)(4), the ‘‘Agreement for

the Importation, Quarantine and Exhibition

of Certain Ruminants and Swine’’,

introductory text, by removing the reference

to ‘‘part 92’’ and adding in its place a

reference to ‘‘part 93’’.

§ 93.405 [Amended]

58. Newly designated § 93.405 is

amended as follows:

a. In paragraph (a), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§§ 92.418(a), 92.419(a),

92.423(c), and 92.428(d)’’ and adding in its

place a reference to ‘‘§§ 93.418(a), 93.419(a),

93.423(c), and 93.428(d)’’.

b. By removing the word ‘‘country’’ each

time it appears and adding in its place the

word ‘‘region’’ in the following places:

i. Paragraph (a), introductory text.

ii. Paragraph (a)(1).

iii. Paragraph (a)(2).

iv. Paragraph (c)(3).

c. In paragraph (b)(2)(ii), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.435(a)’’ and adding in its

place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.435(a)’’.

d. In paragraph (c)(3), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.435(a)’’ and adding in its

place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.435(a)’’.

§ 93.406 [Amended]

59. Newly designated § 93.406 is

amended as follows:

a. In paragraph (a), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§§ 92.418, 92.427(c) and (d),

and 92.432’’ and adding in its place a

reference to ‘‘§§ 93.418, 93.427(c) and (d),

and 93.432’’, and by removing the word

‘‘country’’ and adding the word ‘‘region’’ in

its place.

b. In paragraph (b), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§§ 92.419 and 92.428(b)’’ and

adding in its place a reference to ‘‘§§ 93.419

and 93.428(b),’’ and by removing the word

‘‘country’’ and adding in its place the word

‘‘region’.

c. In paragraph (c), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.411’’ and adding in its

place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.411’’.

§ 93.408 [Amended]

60. Newly designated § 93.408 is

amended by removing the reference to

‘‘§§ 92.421 and 92.426’’ and adding in

its place a reference to ‘‘§§ 93.421 and

93.426’’, and by removing the reference

to ‘‘§§ 92.423(c) and 92.427(a)’’ and

adding in its place a reference to

‘‘§§ 93.423(c) and 93.427(a)’’.

61. Preceding newly designated

§ 93.417, in the undesignated center

heading ‘‘CANADA 7’’, footnote 7 is

amended by removing the reference to

‘‘§§ 92.417 to 92.421’’ and adding in its

place a reference to ‘‘§§ 93.417 to

93.421’’.

§ 93.417 [Amended]

62. Newly designated § 93.417 is

amended as follows:

a. In paragraph (a), introductory text, by

removing the reference to ‘‘§ 92.404’’ and

adding in its place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.404’’,

and by removing the reference to

‘‘§ 92.403(b)’’ and adding in its place a

reference to ‘‘§ 93.403(b)’’.

b. In paragraph (a)(3)(i) and paragraph

(a)(3)(ii), by removing the word ‘‘country’’

and adding in its place the word ‘‘region’.

c. In paragraph (b), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.407’’ and adding in its

place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.407’’.

63. Newly designated § 93.418 is

amended as follows:

a. In paragraph (a), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.420’’ and adding in its

place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.420’’, and by

removing the reference to ‘‘§ 92.405(a)’’ and

adding in its place a reference to

‘‘§ 93.405(a)’.

b. In paragraph (b)(2)(i), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.420’’ and adding in its

place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.420’’.

c. By revising paragraph (c) to read as set

forth below.

d. In paragraph (d)(4), by removing the

reference to ‘‘paragraph (c)(5)’’ and adding in

its place a reference to ‘‘paragraph

(c)(2)(ii)(C)’’.

§ 93.418 Cattle from Canada.

* * * * *

(c) Brucellosis test or vaccination

certificates. (1) Cattle from Canada from

a herd in which any cattle have been

determined to have brucellosis may not

be imported into the United States;

(2) Except for cattle prohibited from

importation into the United States

under paragraph (c)(1) of this section,

cattle 6 months of age or older from

Canada may be imported into the

United States if the following conditions

are met:

(i) The cattle are imported for

slaughter in accordance with § 92.420;

(ii) The cattle are steers; or

(iii) The cattle are accompanied by a

certificate issued or endorsed by a

salaried veterinarian of the Canadian

government showing:

(A) That the cattle are from a

brucellosis certified-free herd, province,

or territory; or

(B) The date and place the cattle were

last tested for brucellosis; that the cattle

were found negative for brucellosis on

such test; and that such test was

performed within 30 days preceding the

arrival of the cattle at the port of entry;

or

(C) That the female cattle under 18

months of age were vaccinated against

brucellosis in accordance with Canadian

regulations.

* * * * *

§ 93.419 [Amended]

64. In newly designated § 93.419,

paragraph (a) is amended by removing

the reference to ‘‘§ 92.420’’ and adding

in its place a reference to § 93.420’’; and

by removing the reference to ‘‘§ 92.405’’

and adding in its place a reference to

‘‘§ 93.405’’.

§ 93.420 [Amended]

65. Newly designated § 92.420 is

amended by removing the reference to

‘‘§ 92.408’’ and adding in its place a

reference to ‘‘§ 93.408’’.

§ 93.421 [Amended]

66. Newly designated § 93.421 is

amended as follows:

a. In paragraph (a)(1), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.404’’ and adding in its

place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.404’’, and by

removing the reference to ‘‘§ 92.401’’ and

adding in its place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.401’’.

b. In paragraph (b), by removing the word

‘‘country’’ and adding in its place the word

‘‘region’’.

67. Preceding newly designated

§ 93.422, the undesignated center

heading ‘‘COUNTRIES OF CENTRAL

AMERICA AND WEST INDIES8’’ is

revised to read ‘‘CENTRAL AMERICA

AND WEST INDIES8’’, and footnote 8 is

amended by removing the word

‘‘countries’’ and adding in its place the

word ‘‘regions’’, and by removing the

reference to ‘‘§§ 92.422 and 92.423’’ and

adding in its place a reference to

‘‘§§ 93.422 and 93.423’’.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 208 / Tuesday, October 28, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 56019

§ 93.422 [Amended]

68. Newly designated § 93.422 is

amended as follows:

a. In paragraph (a), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.404’’ and adding in its

place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.404’’, and by

removing the reference to ‘‘§ 92.423’’ and

adding in its place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.423’’.

b. In paragraph (b), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.407’’ and adding in its

place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.407’’.

69. In newly designated § 93.422,

paragraphs (a) and (b) are amended by

removing the word ‘‘countries’’ and

adding in its place the word ‘‘regions’’.

§ 93.423 [Amended]

70. Newly designated § 93.423 is

amended as follows:

a. In paragraph (a), by removing the word

‘‘country’’ each time it appears and adding in

its place the word ‘‘region’’; by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.405(a)’’ and adding in its

place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.405(a)’’; and by

removing the reference to ‘‘§ 92.420’’ and

adding in its place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.420’’.

b. In paragraph (b), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.405’’ and adding in its

place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.405’’.

c. In paragraph (c), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.403(d)’’ and adding in its

place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.403(d)’’.

71. Preceding newly designated

§ 93.424, in the undesignated center

heading ‘‘MEXICO 9’’, footnote 9 is

amended by removing the reference to

‘‘§§ 92.424 to 92.429,’’ and adding in its

place a reference to ‘‘§§ 93.424 to

93.429’’.

§ 93.424 [Amended]

72. Newly designated ‘‘§ 93.424’’ is

amended as follows:

a. In paragraph (a), introductory text, by

removing the reference to ‘‘§ 92.404’’ and

adding in its place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.404’’;

and by removing the reference to

‘‘§ 92.403(c)’’ and adding in its place a

reference to ‘‘§ 93.403(c)’’.

b. In paragraph (a)(3)(i) and paragraph

(a)(3)(ii), by removing the word ‘‘country’’

each time it appears and adding in its place

the word ‘‘region’’.

c. In paragraph (a)(3)(iii), by removing the

word ‘‘countries’’ and adding in its place the

word ‘‘regions’’.

d. In paragraph (b), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.427(d)’’ each time it

appears and adding in its place a reference

to ‘‘§ 93.427(d)’’.

§ 93.425 [Amended]

73. Newly designated § 93.425 is

amended by removing the reference to

‘‘§ 92.407’’ and adding in its place a

reference to ‘‘§ 93.407’’.

§ 93.426 [Amended]

74. Newly designated § 93.426 is

amended as follows:

a. In paragraph (a), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.427’’ and adding in its

place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.427’’.

b. In paragraph (b), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.403’’ and adding in its

place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.403’’.

§ 93.427 [Amended]

75. Newly designated § 93.427 is

amended as follows:

a. By removing the reference to

‘‘§ 92.405(a)’’ and adding in its place a

reference to § 93.405(a) in the following

places:

i. Paragraph (b)(1).

ii. Paragraph (b)(2)(i).

iii. Paragraph (b)(2)(ii).

iv. Paragraph (c)(1).

v. Paragraph (d)(1), introductory text.

b. In paragraph (b)(2), introductory text, by

removing the reference to ‘‘§ 92.403(c)’’ and

adding in its place a reference to

‘‘§ 93.403(c)’’.

c. In paragraph (c)(1), by removing the

word ‘‘country’s’’ and adding in its place the

word ‘‘region’s’’.

d. In paragraph (c)(1) and paragraph (c)(2),

by removing the reference to ‘‘§ 92.429’’ each

time it appears and adding in its place a

reference to ‘‘§ 93.429’’.

e. In paragraph (c)(2), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.427(e)’’ and adding in its

place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.427(e)’’.

§ 93.428 [Amended]

76. Newly designated § 93.428 is

amended as follows:

a. In paragraph (a), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.405’’ and adding in its

place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.405’’, and by

removing the reference to ‘‘§ 92.427(a)’’ and

adding in its place a reference to

‘‘§ 93.427(a)’’.

b. In paragraph (b), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.427’’ and adding in its

place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.427’’.

c. In paragraph (d), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.426’’ and adding in its

place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.426’’.

§ 93.429 [Amended]

77. Newly designated § 93.429 is

amended by removing the reference to

‘‘§§ 92.424, 92.425, 92.426, and

92.427(b)(2)’’ and adding in its place a

reference to ‘‘§§ 93.424, 93.425, 93.426,

and 93.427(b)(2)’’, and by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.405(a)’’ and adding in

its place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.405(a)’’.

§ 93.430 [Amended]

78. Newly designated § 92.430 is

amended as follows:

a. By removing the word ‘‘country’’ each

time it appears and adding in its place the

word ‘‘region’’ in the following places:

i. Paragraph (c)(1).

ii. Paragraph (d), ‘‘Cooperative Services

Agreement Between (Name of Importer) and

the United States Department of Agriculture,

Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service’’, under ‘‘The importer agrees:’’,

paragraph 4.

iii. Paragraph (d), ‘‘Cooperative Services

Agreement Between (Name of Importer) and

the United States Department of Agriculture,

Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service’’, under ‘‘Both parties agree:’’,

paragraph 4.

b. In paragraph (d), ‘‘Cooperative Services

Agreement Between (Name of Importer) and

the United States Department of Agriculture,

Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service’’, under ‘‘The importer agrees:’’,

paragraph 7, by removing the reference to ‘‘9

CFR 92.431’’ and adding in its place a

reference to ‘‘9 CFR 93.431’’.

§ 93.431 [Amended]

79. Newly designated § 93.431 is

amended as follows:

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

reference to ‘‘§ 92.430(d)’’ both times it

appears and adding in its place a reference

to ‘‘§ 93.430(d)’’.

b. In paragraph (b)(2)(iv) and paragraph

(b)(4), by removing the word ‘‘country’’ and

adding in its place the word ‘‘region’’.

§ 93.432 [Amended]

80. Newly designated § 93.432 is

amended as follows:

a. In paragraph (a), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.432(c)’’ and adding in its

place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.432(c)’’.

b. In paragraph (b)(2), introductory text, by

removing the reference to ‘‘§ 92.432(c)(1)’’

and adding in its place a reference to

‘‘§ 93.432(c)(1)’’.

§ 93.434 [Amended]

81. Newly designated § 93.434 is

amended as follows:

a. In paragraph (a) and the introductory

text of paragraph (b), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.412’’ each time it appears

and adding in its place a reference to

‘‘§ 93.412’’.

b. In paragraph (b)(2)(i)(A), by removing

the reference to ‘‘§ 92.403(g)’’ and adding in

its place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.403(g)’’.

§ 93.435 [Amended]

82. Newly designated § 93.435 is

amended as follows:

a. In paragraph (b)(2), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.405(b)(2)(ii)’’ and adding in

its place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.405(b)(2)(ii)’’.

b. By removing the word ‘‘country’’ and

adding in its place the word ‘‘region’’ in the

following places:

i Paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3).

ii. Paragraph (d).

iii. Paragraph (e).

iv. Paragraph (g)(2)(i) and (g)(2)(ii).

c. In paragraph (b)(3), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.405(c)(3)’’ and adding in its

place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.405(c)(3)’’.

d. In paragraph (b)(6), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.404(c)’’ and adding in its

place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.404(c)’’.

Subpart E—Swine

83. Newly designated 93.500 is

amended by adding a definition of
56020 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 208 / Tuesday, October 28, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

Region, in alphabetical order, to read as

follows:

§ 93.500 Definitions.

* * * * *

Region. Any defined geographic land

area identifiable by geological, political,

or surveyed boundaries. A region may

consist of any of the following:

(1) A national entity (country);

(2) Part of a national entity (zone,

county, department, municipality,

parish, Province, State, etc.);

(3) Parts of several national entities

combined into an area; or

(4) A group of national entities

(countries) combined into a single area.

* * * * *

§ 93.501 [Amended]

84. In newly designated § 93.501,

paragraph (b), the introductory text is

amended by removing the reference to

‘‘part 92’’ and adding in its place a

reference to ‘‘part 93’’; by removing the

word ‘‘country’’ and adding in its place

the word ‘‘region’’; and by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.504’’ and adding in its

place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.504’’.

§ 93.502 [Amended]

85. In newly designated § 93.502,

paragraph (a) is amended by removing

the word ‘‘country’’ and adding in its

place the word ‘‘region’’.

§ 93.504 [Amended]

86. Newly designated § 93.504 is

amended as follows:

a. By removing the word ‘‘country’’ each

time it appears and adding in its place the

word ‘‘region’’ in the following places:

i. Paragraph (a)(1).

ii. Paragraph (a)(2).

iii. Paragraph (a)(3).

iv. Paragraph (b).

v. Paragraph (c)(4), ‘‘Agreement for the

Importation, Quarantine and Exhibition of

Certain Wild Ruminants and Wild Swine’’, in

the introductory text, paragraph (1), and

paragraph (2).

b. In paragraph (a)(1), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§§ 92.516 and 92.520’’ and

adding in its place a reference to ‘‘§§ 93.516

and 93.520’’.

c. In paragraph (a)(2), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.522’’ and adding in its

place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.522’’.

d. By removing the word ‘‘countries’’ and

replacing it with the word ‘‘regions’’ in the

following places:

i. Paragraph (a)(3).

ii. Paragraph (c) in the heading and in the

introductory text.

e. In paragraph (c)(4), ‘‘Agreement for the

Importation, Quarantine and Exhibition of

Certain Wild Ruminants and Wild Swine,

introductory text, by removing the reference

to ‘‘part 92’’ and adding in its place a

reference to ‘‘part 93’’.

§ 93.505 [Amended]

87. In newly designated § 93.505,

paragraph (a) is amended by removing

the reference to § 92.517’’ and adding in

its place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.517’’, and

by removing the word ‘‘country’’ each

time it appears and adding in its place

the word ‘‘region’.

§ 93.507 [Amended]

88. Newly designated § 93.507 is

amended by removing the reference to

‘‘§ 92.519’’ and adding in its place a

reference to ‘‘§ 93.519’’.

89. Preceding newly designated

§ 93.516, in the undesignated center

heading ‘‘CANADA7’’, footnote 7 is

amended by removing the reference to

‘‘§§ 92.516 to 92.519’’ and adding in its

place a reference to ‘‘§§ 93.516 to

93.519’’.

§ 93.516 [Amended]

90. Newly designated § 93.516 is

amended as follows:

a. In paragraph (a), introductory text, by

removing the reference to ‘‘§ 92.504’’ and

adding in its place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.504’’,

and by removing the reference to

‘‘§ 92.503(b)’’ and adding in its place a

reference to ‘‘§ 93.503(b)’’.

b. In paragraph (a)(1) and paragraph (a)(2),

by removing the word ‘‘country’’ each time

it appears and adding in its place the word

‘‘region’’.

c. In paragraph (b), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.506’’ and adding in its

place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.506’’.

§ 93.517 [Amended]

91. In newly designated § 93.517,

paragraph (b) is amended by removing

the reference to § 92.507, 92.516, and

92.518’’ and adding in its place a

reference to ‘‘§§ 93.507, 93.516, and

93.518’’.

§ 93.519 [Amended]

92. Newly designated § 93.519 is

amended as follows:

a. In paragraph (a)(1), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.504’’ and adding in its

place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.504’’, and by

removing the reference to ‘‘§ 92.501’’ and

adding in its place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.501’’.

b. In paragraph (b), by removing the word

‘‘country’’ and adding in its place the word

‘‘region’’.

93. Preceding newly designated

§ 93.520, the undesignated center

heading ‘‘COUNTRIES OF CENTRAL

AMERICA AND WEST INDIES8’’ is

revised to read ‘‘CENTRAL AMERICA

AND WEST INDIES8’’, and footnote 8 is

amended by removing the word

‘‘countries’’ and adding in its place the

word ‘‘regions’’, and by removing the

reference to ‘‘§§ 92.520 to 92.522’’ and

adding in its place a reference to

‘‘§§ 93.520 to 93.522.’’

§ 93.520 [Amended]

94. Newly designated § 93.520 is

amended by removing the reference to

‘‘§ 92.506’’ and adding in its place a

reference to ‘‘§ 93.506’’.

95. Preceding newly designated

§ 93.521, in the undesignated center

heading ‘‘MEXICO9’’, footnote 9 is

amended by removing the reference to

‘‘§ 92.521’’ and adding in its place a

reference to ‘‘§ 93.521’’.

§ 93.521 [Amended]

96. Newly designated § 93.521 is

amended by removing the reference to

‘‘§ 92.506’’ and adding in its place a

reference to ‘‘§ 93.506’’.

§ 93.522 [Amended]

97. Newly designated § 93.522 is

amended as follows:

a. In paragraph (c)(1), by removing the

words ‘‘country or area’’ and adding in their

place the word ‘‘region’’.

b. By removing the word ‘‘country’’ each

time it appears and adding in its place the

word ‘‘region’’ in the following places:

i. Paragraph (c)(3).

ii. Paragraph (d), ‘‘Cooperative-Services

Agreement Between (Name of Importer) and

the United States Department of Agriculture,

Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service’’, under ‘‘The importer agrees:’’,

paragraph 4.

iii. Paragraph (d), ‘‘Cooperative-Services

Agreement Between (Name of Importer) and

the United States Department of Agriculture,

Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service’’, under ‘‘Both parties agree:’’,

paragraph 4.

c. In paragraph (d), ‘‘Cooperative-Services

Agreement Between (Name of Importer) and

the United States Department of Agriculture,

Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service’’, under ‘‘The importer agrees:’’,

paragraph 7, by removing the reference to

‘‘§ 92.523’’ and adding in its place a reference

to ‘‘§ 93.523’’.

§ 93.523 [Amended]

98. Newly designated § 93.523 is

amended as follows:

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

reference to ‘‘§ 92.522(d)’’ both times it

appears and adding in its place a reference

to ‘‘§ 93.522(d)’’.

b. By removing the word ‘‘country’’ each

time it appears and adding in its place the

word ‘‘region’’ in the following places:

i. Paragraph (b)(2)(iv).

ii. Paragraph (b)(2)(viii).

iii. Paragraph (b)(4)

Subpart F—Dogs

§ 93.600 [Amended]

99. Newly designated § 93.600 is

amended by removing the word

‘‘countries’’ and adding in its place the

word ‘‘regions’’.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 208 / Tuesday, October 28, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 56021

Subpart G—Miscellaneous Animals

100. In newly designated § 93.700, a

definition of Region is added, in

alphabetical order, to read as follows:

§ 93.700 Definitions.

* * * * *

Region. Any defined geographic land

area identifiable by geological, political,

or surveyed boundaries. A region may

consist of any of the following:

(1) A national entity (country);

(2) Part of a national entity (zone,

county, department, municipality,

parish, Province, State, etc.)

(3) Parts of several national entities

combined into an area; or

(4) A group of national entities

(countries) combined into a single area.

* * * * *

§ 93.701 [Amended]

101. Newly designated § 93.701 is

amended by removing the word

‘‘country’’ both times it appears and

adding in its place the word ‘‘region’.

§ 93.702 [Amended]

102. Newly designated § 93.702 is

amended by removing the reference to

‘‘§ 92.701’’ and adding in its place a

reference to ‘‘§ 93.701’’.

§ 93.704 [Amended]

103. Newly designated § 93.704 is

amended by removing the word

‘‘country’’ each time it appears and

adding in its place the word ‘‘region’’ in

the paragraph (c)(1) and paragraph

(c)(4).

§ 93.705 [Amended]

104. Newly designated § 93.705 is

amended by removing the word

‘‘country’’ each time it appears and

adding in its place the word ‘‘region’’ in

the following places:

a. Paragraph (a), introductory text.

b. Paragraph (a)(1).

c. Paragraph (a)(2).

d. Paragraph (a)(3).

Subpart H—Elephants, Hippopotami,

Rhinoceroses, and Tapirs

105. Newly designated § 93.800 is

amended by adding a definition of

Region, in alphabetical order, to read as

follows:

§ 93.800 Definitions.

* * * * *

Region. Any defined geographic land

area identifiable by geological, political,

or surveyed boundaries. A region may

consist of any of the following:

(1) A national entity (country);

(2) Part of a national entity (zone,

county, department, municipality,

parish, Province, State, etc.)

(3) Parts of several national entities

combined into an area; or

(4) A group of national entities

(countries) combined into a single area.

* * * * *

§ 93.803 [Amended]

106. In newly designated § 93.803,

paragraph (a), the introductory text is

amended by removing the word

‘‘country’’ each time it appears and

adding in its place the word ‘‘region’.

§ 93.804 [Amended]

107. In newly designated § 93.804,

paragraph (g) is amended by removing

the word ‘‘country’’ and adding in its

place the word ‘‘region’’.

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

108. The authority citation for part 94

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 147a, 150ee, 161, 162,

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).

109. In § 94.0, the definition of

Country of origin is removed and

definitions of Cervid, Contact, Pink juice

test, Region, Region of origin,

Ruminants, and Veterinarian in charge

are added, in alphabetical order, to read

as follows:

§ 94.0 Definitions.

* * * * *

Cervid. All species of deer, elk, and

moose.

* * * * *

Contact. Known or potential

commingling of products during

processing or storage, or while being

transported from any point to any other

point. Contact includes the

simultaneous processing in the same

room, locker, or container, but not

necessarily the same storage facility or

conveyance, as long as adequate

security measures are taken to prevent

commingling, as determined by an

authorized APHIS representative.

* * * * *

Pink juice test. Determination of

whether meat has been thoroughly

cooked by observation of whether the

flesh and juices have lost all red and

pink color.

* * * * *

Region. Any defined geographic land

area identifiable by geological, political,

or surveyed boundaries. A region may

consist of any of the following:

(1) A national entity (country);

(2) Part of a national entity (zone,

county, department, municipality,

parish, Province, State, etc.)

(3) Parts of several national entities

combined into an area; or

(4) A group of national entities

(countries) combined into a single area.

Region of origin. For meat and meat

products, the region in which the

animal from which the meat or meat

products were derived was born, raised

and slaughtered; and for eggs, the region

in which the eggs were laid.

Ruminants. All animals that chew the

cud, such as cattle, buffaloes, sheep,

goats, deer, antelopes, camels, llamas

and giraffes.

* * * * *

Veterinarian in Charge. The

veterinary official of the Animal and

Plant Health Inspection Service, United

States Department of Agriculture, who

is assigned by the Administrator to

supervise and perform the official

animal health work of the Animal and

Plant Health Inspection Service in the

State or area concerned.

* * * * *

§ 94.1 [Amended]

110. Section 94.1 is amended as

follows:

a. By removing the word ‘‘Countries’’ in

the heading to the section and adding in its

place the word ‘‘Regions’’.

b. By removing the word ‘‘countries’’ each

time it appears and adding in its place the

word ‘‘regions’’ in the following places:

i. Paragraph (a)(1);

ii. Paragraph (a)(2);

iii. Paragraph (b).

c. By removing the words ‘‘fresh, chilled,

or frozen’’ each time they appear and adding

in their place the words ‘‘fresh (chilled or

frozen)’’ in paragraph (b) and paragraph (c).

d. By removing the word ‘‘country’’ each

time it appears and adding in its place the

word ‘‘region’’ in the following places:

i. Paragraph (b).

ii. Paragraph (c), introductory text.

iii. Paragraph (c)(2).

iv. Paragraph (c)(3).

v. Paragraph (c)(5).

§ 94.1a [Amended]

111. Section 94.1a is amended as

follows:

a. By removing the word ‘‘country’’ each

time it appears and adding in its place the

word ‘‘region’’ in the following places:

i. Paragraph (a), introductory text.

ii. Paragraph (a)(2).

iii. Paragraph (a)(7).

iv. Paragraph (a)(8), introductory text.

b. In paragraph (a)(7) and in paragraph

(a)(8), introductory text, by removing the

word ‘‘countries’’ each time it appears and

adding in its place the word ‘‘regions’’.
56022 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 208 / Tuesday, October 28, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

§ 94.2 [Amended]

112. Section 94.2 is amended as

follows:

a. In the heading to the section, by

removing the words ‘‘Fresh, chilled, or

frozen’’ and adding in their place the words

‘‘Fresh (chilled or frozen)’’;

b. In paragraph (a), by removing the words

‘‘fresh, chilled, or frozen’’ and adding in their

place the words ‘‘fresh (chilled or frozen)’’.

c. In paragraphs (a) and (b), by removing

the word ‘‘country’’ each time it appears and

adding in its place the word ‘‘region’’.

§ 94.3 [Amended]

113. Section 94.3 is amended by

removing the words ‘‘fresh, chilled, or

frozen’’ and adding in their place the

words ‘‘fresh (chilled or frozen)’’ and by

removing the word ‘‘country’’ and

adding in its place the word ‘‘region’’.

§ 94.4 [Amended]

114. Section 94.4 is amended as

follows:

a. In the heading to the section, by

removing the word ‘‘countries’’ and adding

in its place the word ‘‘regions’’.

b. By removing the word ‘‘country’’ each

time it appears and adding in its place the

word ‘‘region’’ in the following places:

i. Paragraph (a), introductory text.

ii. Paragraph (a)(1).

iii. Paragraph (a)(4).

iv. Paragraph (b), introductory text.

v. Paragraph (b)(7).

vi. Paragraph (c)(1)(iii).

vii. Paragraph (c)(2)(iv).

§ 94.5 [Amended]

115. In § 94.5, paragraph (b)(1)(i)(A) is

amended by removing the word

‘‘country’’ and adding the word

‘‘region’’ in its place, and by removing

the word ‘‘countries’’ and adding the

word ‘‘regions’’ in its place.

§ 94.6 [Amended]

116. Section 94.6 is amended as

follows:

a. By removing the word ‘‘countries’’ each

time it appears and adding in its place the

word ‘‘regions’’ in the following places:

i. The heading to the section.

ii. Paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2).

iii. Paragraph (b)(1).

iv. Paragraph (b)(2).

v. The heading to paragraph (c).

vi. The heading to paragraph (d).

b. In the heading to paragraph (a) and in

the heading to paragraph (b), by removing the

word ‘‘Countries’’ each time it appears and

adding in its place the word ‘‘Regions’’.

c. By removing the word ‘‘country’’ each

time it appears and adding in its place the

word ‘‘region’’ in the following places:

i. Paragraph (c), introductory text.

ii. Paragraph (d), introductory text.

iii. Paragraph (d)(1), introductory text.

iv. Paragraph (d)(1)(i).

v. Paragraph (d)(1)(iii).

vi. Paragraph (d)(1)(v).

vii. Paragraph (d)(1)(viii).

viii. Paragraph (d)(1)(ix), introductory text.

ix. Paragraph (d)(1)(ix)(C)(1).

x. Paragraph (d)(1)(ix)(C)(2).

xi. Paragraph (d)(1)(x), introductory text.

xii. Paragraph (d)(1)(x)(C)(1).

xiii. Paragraph (d)(1)(x)(C)(2).

xiv. Paragraph (d)(1)(x)(C)(3).

§ 94.7 [Amended]

117. Section 94.7 is amended as

follows:

a. By removing the words ‘‘fresh, chilled,

or frozen’’ wherever they appear and adding

in their place the words ‘‘fresh (chilled or

frozen)’’ in the following places:

i. Paragraph (a);

ii. Paragraph (b);

iii. Paragraph (c);

iv. Paragraph (d).

b. By removing the reference to ‘‘§ 94.1,’’

each time it appears and adding in its place

a reference to ‘‘§§ 94.1, 94.8, 94.9, 94.10,

94.12, 94.14, or 94.18,’’ in the following

places:

i. Paragraph (a).

ii. Paragraph (b).

iii. Paragraph (c).

iv. Paragraph (d).

§ 94.8 [Amended]

118. Section 94.8 is amended as

follows:

a. In paragraph (a)(3)(iv)(A), by removing

the words ‘‘countries or parts of countries’’

and adding in their place the word ‘‘regions’’.

b. In the heading to the section, by

removing the word ‘‘countries’’ and adding

in its place the word ‘‘regions’’.

c. In footnote 7, before paragraph (1), by

removing the words ‘‘country or a part of a

country’’ and adding in their place the word

‘‘region’’, and, in paragraph (4), by removing

the words ‘‘this country’’ and adding in their

place the words ‘‘the United States’’.

d. By removing the words ‘‘country or part

of a country’’ and adding in their place the

word ‘‘region’’ in the following places:

i. Paragraph (a), introductory text.

ii. Paragraph (a)(3)(i)(A).

iii. Paragraph (a)(3)(i)(B).

iv. Paragraph (a)(3)(v).

v. Paragraph (c).

e. By removing the word ‘‘country’’ each

time it appears and adding in its place the

word ‘‘region’’ in the following places.

i. Footnote 7 to the introductory text of the

section.

ii. Paragraph (a)(3)(i)(B).

iii. Paragraph (a)(3)(i)(C).

iv. Paragraph (a)(3)(i)(D).

v. Paragraph (a)(3)(vi).

f. In footnote 7 to the introductory text of

the section, by removing the word

‘‘country’s’’ and adding in its place the word

‘‘region’s’’.

§ 94.9 [Amended]

119. Section 94.9 is amended as

follows:

a. By removing the word ‘‘countries’’ each

time it appears and adding in its place the

word ‘‘regions’’ in the following places:

i. The heading to the section.

ii. Paragraph (a), introductory text.

iii. Paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(C)(2).

iv. Paragraph (c).

b. By removing the word ‘‘country’’ each

time it appears and adding in its place the

word ‘‘region’’ in the following places:

i. Paragraph (b), introductory text.

ii. Paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A).

iii. Paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(A).

iv. Paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(C), introductory

text.

v. Paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(C)(1).

vi. Paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(C)(2).

vii. Paragraph (b)(3).

§ 94.10 [Amended]

120. Section 94.10 is amended as

follows:

a. In the heading to the section and in

paragraph (a), by removing the word

‘‘countries’’ and adding in its place the word

‘‘regions’’.

b. In paragraph (a), by removing the word

‘‘country’’ and adding in its place the word

‘‘region’’.

c. In paragraph (b), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.504(c) or § 92.501’’ and

adding in its place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.504(c)

or § 93.501’’.

§ 94.11 [Amended]

121. Section 94.11 is amended as

follows:

a. By removing the word ‘‘countries’’ each

time it appears and adding in its place the

word ‘‘regions’’ in the following places:

i. The heading to the section.

ii. Paragraph (a).

iii. Paragraph (b).

iv. Paragraph (c), introductory text.

b. In paragraph (a), by removing the words

‘‘fresh, chilled, or frozen’’ both times they

appear and adding in their place the words

‘‘fresh (chilled or frozen)’’.

c. By removing the word ‘‘country’’ each

time it appears and adding in its place the

word ‘‘region’’ in the following places:

i. Paragraph (a).

ii. Paragraph (c), introductory text.

iii. Paragraph (c)(1).

iv. Paragraph (c)(2).

v. Paragraph (c)(3).

122. Section 94.12 is amended as

follows:

a. By removing the word ‘‘countries’’ each

time it appears and adding in its place the

word ‘‘regions’’ in the following places:

i. The heading to the section.

ii. Paragraph (a).

iii. Paragraph (b)(1)(iv)(B)(2)(ii).

b. By removing the word ‘‘country’’ each

time it appears and adding in its place the

word ‘‘region’’ in the following places:

i. Paragraph (b), introductory text.

ii. Paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A).

iii. Paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(A).

iv. Paragraph (b)(1)(iv), introductory text.

v. Paragraph (b)(1)(iv)(A).

vi. Paragraph (b)(1)(iv)(B)(1).

vii. Paragraph (b)(1)(iv)(B)(2)(i).

viii. Paragraph (b)(3).

c. By revising paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(B) to

read as follows:
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 208 / Tuesday, October 28, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 56023

11The names and addresses of approved

establishments may be obtained from, and request

for approval of any establishment may be made to,

the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service,

Veterinary Services, National Center for ImportExport, 4700 River Road Unit 38, Riverdale,

Maryland 20737–1231. Establishments will be

approved only if the Administrator determines that

the imported articles will be so handled at the

establishment as to prevent the introduction and

dissemination of livestock or poultry diseases into

the United States. Approval of any establishment

may be refused or withdrawn only after the operator

thereof has been given notice of the proposed action

and has had an opportunity to present his views

thereon.

§ 94.12 Pork and pork products from

countries where swine vesicular disease

exists.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(1) * * *

(iii) * * *

(B) Such pork or pork products shall

be consigned directly from the port of

entry in the United States to a meat

processing establishment operating

under Federal meat inspection and

approved by the Administrator,11 for

heating to an internal temperature of

166 °F. During movement from the port

of entry to the meat processing

establishment, the pork or pork

products must be moved under

Department seals or seals of the the U.S.

Customs Service, and shall be otherwise

handled as the Administrator may direct

in order to guard against the

introduction and dissemination of

swine vesicular disease. Seals applied

under this section may not be broken

except by persons authorized by the

Administrator to do so; or

* * * * *

§ 94.13 [Amended]

123. Section 94.13 is amended as

follows:

a. In the heading to the section and in the

introductory text to the section, by removing

the word ‘‘countries’’ each time it appears

and adding in its place the word ‘‘regions’’.

b. In the introductory text to the section,

by removing the words ‘‘fresh, chilled, or

frozen’’ both times they appear and adding in

their place the words ‘‘fresh (chilled or

frozen)’’.

c. By removing the word ‘‘country’’ each

time it appears and adding in its place the

word ‘‘region’’ in the following places:

i. The introductory text to the section.

ii. Paragraph (b), introductory text.

iii. Paragraph (b)(1).

iv. Paragraph (b)(2).

§ 94.14 [Amended]

124. Section 94.14 is amended as

follows:

a. In the heading to the section and in

paragraph (a), by removing the word

‘‘countries’’ and adding in its place the word

‘‘regions’.

b. In paragraph (a), by removing the word

‘‘country’’ and adding in its place the word

‘‘region’.

c. In paragraph (b), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.501 or § 92.504(c)’’ and

adding in its place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.501

or § 93.504(c)’.

125. In § 94.15, paragraph (c) is

amended by removing the word

‘‘countries’’ both times it appears and

adding in its place the word ‘‘regions’’,

and a new paragraph (d) is added to

read as follows:

§ 94.15 Animal products and materials;

movement and handling.

* * * * *

(d) Any meat or other animal products

not otherwise eligible for entry into the

United States, as provided in this part

and part 95 of this chapter, may transit

the United States for immediate export

if the following conditions are met:

(1) Notification of the transiting of

such meat or other animal product is

made by the importer to the Plant

Protection and Quarantine officer at the

United States port of arrival prior to

such transiting;

(2) The meat or other animal product

is contained in a sealed, leakproof

carrier or container, which remains

sealed while aboard the transporting

carrier or other means of conveyance,

or, if the container or carrier in which

the meat or other animal product is

transported is offloaded in the United

States for reshipment, it remains sealed

at all times;

(3) Such transit is limited to the

maritime or airport port of arrival only,

with no overland movement outside the

airport terminal area or dock area of the

maritime port; and

(4) The meat or other animal product

is not held or stored for more than 72

hours at the maritime or airport port of

arrival.

§ 94.16 [Amended]

126. Section 94.16 is amended as

follows:

a. By removing the word ‘‘country’’ each

time it appears and adding in its place the

word ‘‘region’’ in the following places:

i. Paragraph (b), introductory text.

ii. Paragraph (c), introductory text.

iii. Paragraph (c)(1).

iv. Paragraph (c)(3).

v. Paragraph (d).

b. In paragraph (b)(2), first sentence, by

removing the words ‘‘for human food’.

c. In paragraph (c), introductory text, by

removing the word ‘‘countries’’ and adding

in its place the word ‘‘regions’.

§ 94.17 [Amended]

127. Section 94.17 is amended as

follows:

a. By removing the word ‘‘countries’’ each

time it appears and adding in its place the

word ‘‘regions’’ in the following places:

i. The heading to the section.

ii. Paragraph (o)(2)(ii)(A).

iii. Paragraph (o)(2)(ii)(B).

iv. Paragraph (o)(2)(iii)(A).

v. Paragraph (o)(2)(iii)(B).

b. By removing the word ‘‘country’’ each

time it appears and adding in its place the

word ‘‘region’’ in the following places:

i. Paragraph (a).

ii. Paragraph (b).

iii. Paragraph (d).

iv. Paragraph (i)(2)(vi).

v. Paragraph (i)(3)(vii).

vi. Paragraph (j)(1).

vii. Paragraph (j)(2).

viii. Paragraph (j)(3).

ix. Paragraph (k).

x. Paragraph (m)(1).

xi. Paragraph (o), introductory text.

xii. Paragraph (o)(2)(ii)(A).

xiii. Paragraph (o)(2)(ii)(B).

xiv. Paragraph (o)(2)(iii)(A).

xv. Paragraph (o)(2)(iii)(B).

§ 94.18 [Amended]

128. Section 94.18 is amended as

follows:

a. In the heading to the section and in

paragraph (a), by removing the word

‘‘countries’’ and adding in its place the word

‘‘regions’’.

b. In paragraph (b), introductory text, and

paragraph (b)(1), by removing the words

‘‘fresh, frozen, and chilled’’ and adding in

their place the words ‘‘fresh (chilled or

frozen)’’.

c. By removing the word ‘‘country’’ each

time it appears and adding in its place the

word ‘‘region’’ in the following places:

i. Paragraph (b), introductory text.

ii. Paragraph (b)(2)(ii).

iii. Paragraph (b)(2)(iii).

iv. Paragraph (c), introductory text.

d. In paragraph (d), introductory text, by

removing the words ‘‘Fresh, chilled, or

frozen’’ and adding in their place the words

‘‘Fresh (chilled or frozen)’’.

§ 94.19 [Amended]

129. Section 94.19 is amended by

removing the word ‘‘country’’ each time

it appears and adding in its place the

word ‘‘region’’ in both the heading and

the text to the section.

§ 94.20 [Amended]

130. Section 94.20 is amended as

follows:

a. In introductory text to the section, by

removing the words ‘‘fresh, chilled or frozen’’

and adding in their place the words ‘‘fresh

(chilled or frozen)’’.

b. In paragraph (a), by adding the word

‘‘born,’’ immediately before the word

‘‘raised’’.

c. In paragraph (b), by removing the word

‘‘countries’’ both times it appears and adding

in its place the word ‘‘regions’’.

§ 94.21 [Amended]

131. Section 94.21 is amended as

follows:
56024 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 208 / Tuesday, October 28, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

a. In the introductory text to the section,

by removing the words ‘‘fresh, chilled or

frozen’’ and adding in their place the words

‘‘fresh (chilled or frozen)’’.

b. In paragraph (c), by removing the word

‘‘countries’’ and adding in its place the word

‘‘regions’’.

PART 95—SANITARY CONTROL OF

ANIMAL BYPRODUCTS (EXCEPT

CASINGS), AND HAY AND STRAW,

OFFERED FOR ENTRY INTO THE

UNITED STATES

132. The authority citation for part 95

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 111, 136, and 136a; 31

U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.2(d).

133. Section 95.1 is amended by

adding a definition of Region, in

alphabetical order, to read as follows:

§ 95.1 Definitions.

* * * * *

Region. Any defined geographic land

area identifiable by geological, political,

or surveyed boundaries. A region may

consist of any of the following:

(1) A national entity (country);

(2) Part of a national entity (zone,

county, department, municipality,

parish, Province, State, etc.)

(3) Parts of several national entities

combined into an area; or

(4) A group of national entities

(countries) combined into a single area.

* * * * *

§ 95.2 [Amended]

134. Section 95.2 is amended as

follows:

a. In the heading to the section, by

removing the word ‘‘Country’’ and adding in

its place the word ‘‘Region’’.

b. By removing the word ‘‘country’’ each

time it appears and adding in its place the

word ‘‘region’’ in the following places:

i. The introductory text to the section.

ii. Paragraph (a).

ii. Paragraph (b).

§ 95.4 [Amended]

135. Section 95.4 is amended as

follows:

a. In the heading to the section, by

removing the word ‘‘countries’’ and adding

in its place the word ‘‘regions’’.

b. By removing the word ‘‘country’’ each

time it appears and adding in its place the

word ‘‘region’’ in the following places:

i. Paragraph (a).

ii. Paragraph (b).

iii. Paragraph (c), introductory text.

§ 95.5 [Amended]

136. Section 95.5 is amended as

follows:

a. In paragraph (a) and paragraph (c), by

removing the word ‘‘country’’ each time it

appears and adding in its place the word

‘‘region’’.

b. In paragraph (c), footnote 1, by removing

the word ‘‘countries’’ and adding in its place

the word ‘‘regions’’.

§ 95.7 [Amended]

137. In § 95.7, paragraph (a) and

paragraph (c) are amended by removing

the word ‘‘country’’ each time it appears

and adding in its place the word

‘‘region’’.

§ 95.9 [Amended]

138. In § 95.9, paragraph (a) and

paragraph (c) are amended by removing

the word ‘‘country’’ each time it appears

and adding in its place the word

‘‘region’’.

§ 95.11 [Amended]

139. In § 95.11, the introductory text

of paragraph (b) and paragraph (b)(2) are

amended by removing the word

‘‘country’’ each time it appears and

adding in its place the word ‘‘region’’.

§ 95.14 [Amended]

140. In § 95.14, paragraph (a) is

amended by removing the word

‘‘country’’ and adding in its place the

word ‘‘region’;.

§ 95.15 [Amended]

141. Section 95.15 is amended by

removing the word ‘‘country’’ and

adding in its place the word ‘‘region’’.

§ 95.17 [Amended]

142. Section 95.17 is amended by

removing the word ‘‘country’’ and

adding in its place the word ‘‘region’’.

§ 95.21 [Amended]

143. Section 95.21 is amended by

removing the word ‘‘country’’ and

adding in its place the word ‘‘region’’.

§ 95.23 [Amended]

144. In § 95.23, the introductory text

is amended by removing the word

‘‘country’’ both times it appears and

adding in its place the word ‘‘region’’.

PART 96—RESTRICTION OF

IMPORTATIONS OF FOREIGN ANIMAL

CASINGS OFFERED FOR ENTRY INTO

THE UNITED STATES

145. The authority citation for part 96

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 111, 136, 136a; 7 CFR

2.22, 2.80, and 371.2(d).

146. Section 96.1 is amended by

adding a definition of Region, in

alphabetical order, to read as follows:

§ 96.1 Definitions.

* * * * *

Region. Any defined geographic land

area identifiable by geological, political,

or surveyed boundaries. A region may

consist of any of the following:

(1) A national entity (country);

(2) Part of a national entity (zone,

county, department, municipality,

parish, Province, State, etc.)

(3) Parts of several national entities

combined into an area; or

(4) A group of national entities

(countries) combined into a single area.

* * * * *

§ 96.2 [Amended]

147. Section 96.2 is amended as

follows:

a. In the heading to the section, by

removing the word ‘‘countries’’ and adding

in its place the word ‘‘regions’’.

b. In paragraph (a), by removing the words

‘‘country or part of a country’’ and adding in

their place the word ‘‘region’’ each time they

appear.

c. In paragraph (b), by removing the word

‘‘country’’ and adding in its place the word

‘‘region’’.

§ 96.3 [Amended]

148. Section 96.3 is amended as

follows: a. By removing the word

‘‘country’’ each time it appears and

adding in its place the word ‘‘region’’ in

the following places:

i. Paragraph (a).

ii. Paragraph (c), introductory text.

iii. Paragraph (c), ‘‘FOREIGN OFFICIAL

CERTIFICATE FOR ANIMAL CASINGS’’.

b. In paragraph (c), ‘‘FOREIGN OFFICIAL

CERTIFICATE FOR ANIMAL CASINGS’’, by

removing the word ‘‘Country’’ and adding in

its place the word ‘‘Region’’.

149. Section 96.10 is amended by

revising the introductory text of

paragraph (a) to read as follows:

§ 96.10 Uncertified casings; transportation

for disinfection; original shipping

containers; disposition of salt.

(a) Foreign animal casings imported

into the United States without

certification may be forwarded in

customs custody to a USDA-approved

facility for disinfection under APHIS

supervision and release by the United

States Customs authorities, provided

that, before being transported over land

in the United States, each and every

container of such casings shall be

disinfected by the application of a

solution of sodium hydroxide prepared

as follows:

* * * * *

150. Sections 96.15 and 96.16 are

removed.

PART 97—OVERTIME SERVICES

RELATING TO IMPORTS AND

EXPORTS

151. The authority citation for part 97

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 2260; 49 U.S.C. 1741;

7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.2(d).
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 208 / Tuesday, October 28, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 56025

§ 97.1 [Amended]

152. In § 97.1, footnote 1 is amended

by removing the reference to ‘‘§§ 92.1

through 92.3’’ and adding in its place a

reference to ‘‘§§ 93.102, 93.203, 93.303,

93.403, 93.503, 93.703, and 93.805’’.

PART 98—IMPORTATION OF CERTAIN

ANIMAL EMBRYOS AND ANIMAL

SEMEN

153. The authority citation for part 98

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1622; 19 U.S.C. 1306;

21 U.S.C. 103–105, 111, 134a, 134b, 134c,

134d, 134f, 136, and 136a; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7

CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.2(d)

154. In part 98, the heading for

subpart A is revised to read:

Subpart A—Ruminant and Swine

Embryos from Regions Free of

Rinderpest and Foot-and-Mouth

Disease; and Embryos of Horses and

Asses

155. Section 98.2 is amended by

revising the definitions of Approved

artificial insemination center and

Approved embryo transfer unit, and by

adding a definition of Region, in

alphabetical order, to read as follows:

§ 98.2 Definitions.

* * * * *

Approved artificial insemination

center. A facility approved or licensed

by the national government of the region

in which the facility is located to collect

and process semen under the general

supervision of such government.

Approved embryo transfer unit. A

facility approved or licensed by the

national government of the region in

which the facility is located for the

artificial insemination of donor dams or

for conception as a result of artificial

breeding by a donor sire and for

collecting and processing embryos for

export under the general supervision of

such government.

* * * * *

Region. Any defined geographic land

area identifiable by geological, political,

or surveyed boundaries. A region may

consist of any of the following:

(1) A national entity (country);

(2) Part of a national entity (zone,

county, department, municipality,

parish, Province, State, etc.)

(3) Parts of several national entities

combined into an area; or

(4) A group of national entities

(countries) combined into a single area.

* * * * *

§ 98.3 [Amended]

156. Section 98.3 is amended as

follows:

a. By removing the word ‘‘country’’ each

time it appears and adding in its place the

word ‘‘region’’ in the following places:

i. The introductory text to the section.

ii. Paragraph (a).

iii. Paragraph (i).

b. In paragraph (d), by removing the

reference to ‘‘part 92’’ and adding in its place

a reference to ‘‘part 93’’.

c. In paragraph (f), by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.304(a)(2)’’ and adding in its

place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.304(a)(2)’’, by

removing the reference to ‘‘§ 92.404(a)(2)’’

and adding in its place a reference to

‘‘§ 93.404(a)(2)’’, and by removing the

reference to ‘‘§ 92.504(a)(2)’’ and adding in its

place a reference to ‘‘§ 93.504(a)(2).

§ 98.4 [Amended]

157. In § 98.4, paragraph (c)(1) and

paragraph (c)(5) are amended by

removing the word ‘‘country’’ each time

it appears and adding in its place the

word ‘‘region’’.

§ 98.5 [Amended]

158. In § 98.5, paragraph (a), the

introductory text is amended by

removing the word ‘‘country’’ each time

it appears and adding in its place the

word ‘‘region’’.

§ 98.6 [Amended]

159. Section 98.6 is amended by

removing the reference to ‘‘§ 92.303’’

and adding in its place a reference to

‘‘§ 93.303’’, by removing the reference to

‘‘§ 92.403’’ and adding in its place a

reference to ‘‘§ 93.403’’, and by

removing the reference to ‘‘§ 92.503’’

and adding in its place a reference to

‘‘§ 93.503’’.

§ 98.7 [Amended]

160. In § 98.7, paragraph (g) is

amended by removing the word

‘‘country’’ and adding in its place the

word ‘‘region’’.

§ 98.10a [Amended]

161. Section 98.10a is amended as

follows:

a. In the heading to the section, by

removing the word ‘‘countries’’ and adding

in its place the word ‘‘regions’’.

b. By removing the word ‘‘country’’ each

time it appears and adding in its place the

word ‘‘region’’ in the following places:

i. Paragraph (c).

ii. Paragraph (d).

iii. Paragraph (f), introductory text.

iv. Paragraph (f)(1).

v. Paragraph (f)(2)(i).

vi. Paragraph (f)(2)(ii).

162. The heading for subpart B is

revised to read:

Subpart B—Ruminant and Swine

Embryos From Regions Where

Rinderpest or Foot-and-Mouth Disease

Exists

163. Section 98.11 is amended by

removing the definition of Country of

origin and by adding definitions of

Region and Region of origin, in

alphabetical order, to read as follows:

§ 98.11 Definitions.

* * * * *

Region. Any defined geographic land

area identifiable by geological, political,

or surveyed boundaries. A region may

consist of any of the following:

(1) A national entity (country);

(2) Part of a national entity (zone,

county, department, municipality,

parish, Province, State, etc.);

(3) Parts of several national entities

combined into an area; or

(4) A group of national entities

(countries) combined into a single area.

Region of origin. The region in which

the embryo is conceived and collected

and from which the embryo is imported

into the United States.

* * * * *

§ 98.12 [Amended]

164. Section 98.12 is amended as

follows:

a. In paragraph (a), by removing the word

‘‘countries’’ and adding in its place the word

‘‘regions’’.

b. In paragraph (b), by removing the word

‘‘country’’ both time it appears and adding in

its place the word ‘‘region’’.

§ 98.13 [Amended]

165. In § 98.13, paragraph (a) is

amended by removing the word

‘‘countries’’ and adding in its place the

word ‘‘regions’’.

§ 98.14 [Amended]

166. In § 98.14, paragraph (a) is

amended by removing the word

‘‘country’’ each time it appears and

adding in its place the word ‘‘region’’.

§ 98.15 [Amended]

167. Section § 98.15 is amended by

removing the word ‘‘country’’ each time

it appears and adding in its place the

word ‘‘region’’ in the following places:

a. The introductory text to the section.

b. Paragraph (a)(5)(ii), introductory text.

c. Paragraph (a)(5)(iii).

d. Paragraph (a)(6).

e. Paragraph (b)(1).

f. Paragraph (b)(2).

g. Paragraph (b)(5).

§ 98.16 [Amended]

168. In § 98.16, the introductory text

to the section is amended by removing

the word ‘‘country’’ and adding in its

place the word ‘‘region’’.
56026 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 208 / Tuesday, October 28, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

§ 98.17 [Amended]

169. Section 98.17 is amended by

removing the word ‘‘country’’ each time

it appears and adding in its place the

word ‘‘region’’ in the following places:

a. Paragraph (f)(6)(i).

b. Paragraph (f)(6)(ii).

c. Paragraph (h)(2).

§ 98.18 [Amended]

170. In § 98.18, paragraph (c) is

amended by removing the reference to

‘‘§ 92.203(a)’’ and adding in its place a

reference to ‘‘§ 93.203(a).

§ 98.21 [Amended]

171. In § 98.21, the heading is

amended by removing the word

‘‘countries’’ and adding in its place the

word ‘‘regions’’.

Subpart C—Certain Animal Semen

172. Section 98.30 is amended by

adding a definition of Region, in

alphabetical order, to read as follows:

§ 98. 30 Definitions.

* * * * *

Region. Any defined geographic land

area identifiable by geological, political,

or surveyed boundaries. A region may

consist of any of the following:

(1) A national entity (country);

(2) Part of a national entity (zone,

county, department, municipality,

parish, Province, State, etc.)

(3) Parts of several national entities

combined into an area; or

(4) A group of national entities

(countries) combined into a single area.

* * * * *

§ 98.31 [Amended]

173. In § 98.31, paragraph (b) is

amended by removing the word

‘‘country’’ each time it appears and

adding in its place the word ‘‘region’’.

§ 98.32 [Amended]

174. In § 98.32, paragraph (a) is

amended by removing the word

‘‘country’’ and adding in its place the

word ‘‘region’’.

§ 98.34 [Amended]

175. Section 98.34 is amended as

follows:

a. By removing the word ‘‘country’’ each

time it appears and adding in its place the

word ‘‘region’’ in the following places:

i. Paragraph (a)(1).

ii. Paragraph (a)(2).

iii. Paragraph (a)(3).

iv. Paragraph (b).

v. Paragraph (c), introductory text.

vi. Paragraph (c)(1)(i).

vii. Paragraph (c)(1)(ii).

viii. Paragraph (c)(3).

ix. Paragraph (c)(4).

x. Paragraph (c)(5).

b. In paragraph (a)(3) and in the heading

to paragraph (c), by removing the word

‘‘countries’’ each time it appears and adding

in its place the word ‘‘regions’’.

§ 98. 35 [Amended]

176. In § 98.35, paragraph (c) is

amended by removing the word

‘‘country’’ each time it appears and

adding in its place the word ‘‘region’’.

§ 98.36 [Amended]

177. In § 98.36, paragraph (a)(1) and

paragraph (a)(2) are amended by

removing the word ‘‘country’’ each time

it appears and adding in its place the

word ‘‘region’’.

§ 98.37 [Amended]

178. Section 98.37 is amended as

follows:

a. In the heading to the section, by

removing the word ‘‘countries’’ and adding

in its place the word ‘‘regions’’.

b. By removing the word ‘‘country’’ each

time it appears and adding in its place the

word ‘‘region’’ in the following places:

i Paragraph (c).

ii. Paragraph (d).

iii. Paragraph (f), introductory text.

iv. Paragraph (f)(1).

v. Paragraph (f)(2)(i).

vi. Paragraph (f)(2)(ii).

PART 130—USER FEES

179. The authority citation for part

130 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 5542; 7 U.S.C. 1622; 19

U.S.C. 1306; 21 U.S.C. 102–105, 111, 114,

114a, 134a, 134b, 134c, 134d, 134f, 135, 136,

and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.2(d).

§ 130.1 [Amended]

180. Section 130.1 is amended by

removing the reference to ‘‘part 92’’ and

adding in its place a reference to ‘‘part

93’’ in the following places:

a. The definition of Feeder animal.

b. The definition of Privately operated

permanent import-quarantine facility.

c. The definition of Zoo animal, footnote

2.

§ 130.2 [Amended]

181. Section 130.2 is amended by

removing the references to ‘‘part 92’’

and adding in their place references to

‘‘part 93’’ in the following places:

a. Paragraph (a), footnote 5.

b. Paragraph (a), in the table, under the

heading ‘‘Animal or bird’’, in the first entry

under ‘‘Birds’’.

c. Paragraph (e).

§ 130.3 [Amended]

182. In § 130.3, paragraph (a)(3) is

amended by removing the references to

‘‘92.103, 92.204, 92.304, 92.404, or

92.504’’ and adding in their place

references to ‘‘93.103, 93.204, 93.304,

93.404, or 93.504’’.

§ 130.10 [Amended]

183. In § 130.10, paragraph (a),

footnote 7 is amended by removing the

reference ‘‘part 92’’ and adding in its

place a reference to ‘‘part 93’’.

Done in Washington, DC, this 22nd day of

October, 1997.

Terry L. Medley,

Administrator, Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service.

[FR Doc. 97–28473 Filed 10–23–97; 12:52

pm]

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P