[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 220 (Friday, November 14, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 61036-61041]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-30105]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

9 CFR Part 94

[Docket No. 97-086-1]


Changes in Disease Status of Belgium, France, Greece, Luxembourg, 
Portugal, and Spain

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We are proposing to declare Luxembourg and Portugal free of 
rinderpest and foot-and-mouth disease; Greece free of rinderpest; 
France, Greece, Luxembourg, and Spain free of exotic Newcastle disease; 
Portugal free of African swine fever; and Belgium, France, and Portugal 
free of swine vesicular disease. These proposed actions are based on a 
request from the European Commission's Directorate General for 
Agriculture and on our review of the supporting documentation supplied 
with that request. These proposed actions would relieve some 
restrictions on the importation into the United States of certain 
animals and animal products from those countries. However, because of 
the status of those countries with respect to other diseases, and 
because of other factors that could result in a risk of introducing 
animal diseases into the United States, the importation into the United 
States of animals and animal products from those countries would 
continue to be subject to certain restrictions.

DATES: Consideration will be given only to comments received on or 
before January 13, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Please send an original and three copies of your comments to 
Docket No. 97-086-1, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, 
suite 3C03, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please 
state that your comments refer to Docket No. 97-086-1. Comments 
received may be inspected 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 comments are requested to call ahead on (202) 690-2817 to 
facilitate entry into the comment reading room.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. John Cougill, Staff Veterinarian, 
Products Program, National Center for Import and Export, VS, APHIS, 
4700 River Road Unit 40, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231, (301) 734-8695; or 
e-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#81ebe2eef4e6e8ededc1e0f1e9e8f2aff4f2e5e0afe6eef7"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f8929b978d9f919494b8998890918bd68d8b9c99d69f978e">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The regulations in 9 CFR part 94 (referred to below as the 
regulations) prohibit or restrict the importation of specified animals 
and animal products into the United States in order to prevent the 
introduction of various animal diseases, including foot-and-mouth 
disease (FMD), rinderpest, exotic Newcastle disease (END), African 
swine fever (ASF), hog cholera, swine vesicular disease (SVD), and 
bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE). These are dangerous and 
destructive communicable diseases of ruminants, swine, and poultry.
    In this document, we are proposing to declare Luxembourg and 
Portugal free of FMD and rinderpest; Greece free of rinderpest; France, 
Greece, Luxembourg, and Spain free of END; Portugal free of ASF; and 
Belgium, France, and Portugal free of SVD. We are proposing these 
actions in response to a request submitted to the Animal and Plant 
Health Inspection Service (APHIS) in July 1997 by the European 
Commission's (EC's) Directorate General for Agriculture. With its 
request, the EC's Directorate General for Agriculture provided 
supporting documentation that included information about the capability 
of each country's veterinary services, laboratory and diagnostic 
procedures, vaccination practices, and the administration of laws and 
regulations to ensure against the introduction of the diseases of 
concern into each country through the importation of live animals, 
meats, and animal products.
    Since this request was received and reviewed by APHIS, we have 
published a final rule and policy statement in the Federal Register 
that establish procedures for recognizing regions, rather than only 
countries, for the purpose of importing animals and animal products 
into the United States, and that establish 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 (see 62 FR 56000-56033, October 28, 1997, Dockets 94-106-8 and 
94-106-9). The final rule is scheduled to become effective on November 
28, 1997. The request from the EC addressed by this proposed rule is 
not a request to recognize regions, rather than countries, nor a 
request to establish new import conditions based the disease status of 
any region. Therefore, as we explained we would do in our final rule 
and policy statement on regionalization, we have handled and evaluated 
this request in the traditional framework of recognizing a country as 
free or not free of a specified disease. If this proposed rule is 
adopted, the current regulations regarding importation of animals and 
animal products from regions ``free'' of a specified disease will 
apply.

Luxembourg and Portugal Free of Rinderpest and FMD

    Section 94.1(a)(1) of the regulations provides that rinderpest or 
FMD exists in all regions of the world except those listed in 
Sec. 94.1(a)(2), which have been declared to be free of those diseases. 
The regulations in Sec. 94.1(b) prohibit, with certain specific 
exceptions, the importation into the United States of any ruminant or 
swine, or any fresh, chilled, or frozen meat of any ruminant or swine, 
that is from any region where rinderpest or FMD exists, or that has 
entered a port in or otherwise transited a region where rinderpest or 
FMD exists. Furthermore, the regulations in Sec. 94.2 restrict the 
importation of fresh, chilled, or frozen products other than meat, and 
milk and milk products, of ruminants or swine that originate in or 
transit a region where rinderpest or FMD exists. Additionally, the 
importation of organs, glands, extracts, and secretions of ruminants or 
swine originating in a region where rinderpest

[[Page 61037]]

or FMD exists is restricted under the regulations in Sec. 94.3, and the 
importation of cured or cooked meat from a region where rinderpest or 
FMD exists is restricted under the regulations in Sec. 94.4. Finally, 
the regulations in 9 CFR part 98 restrict the importation of ruminant 
and swine embryos and animal semen from a region where rinderpest or 
FMD exists.
    We will consider declaring a region to be free of rinderpest and 
FMD if, among other things, there have been no cases of those diseases 
reported there for at least the previous 1-year period and no 
vaccinations for rinderpest or FMD have been administered to swine or 
ruminants in that region for at least the previous 1-year period. There 
has never been a reported case of rinderpest in Luxembourg or Portugal, 
and the last reported cases of FMD in Luxembourg and Portugal occurred 
in 1964 and 1984, respectively. Both Luxembourg and Portugal have 
prohibited vaccinations for rinderpest and FMD since 1991.
    We have reviewed the documentation submitted by the EC's 
Directorate General for Agriculture in support of its request that 
Luxembourg and Portugal be declared free of rinderpest and FMD. Based 
on that documentation, we believe that Luxembourg and Portugal qualify 
to be designated as free of rinderpest and FMD. Therefore, we are 
proposing to add Luxembourg and Portugal to the list in Sec. 94.1(a)(2) 
of regions declared free of rinderpest and FMD. This proposed action 
would remove the rinderpest- and FMD-based prohibition on the 
importation from Luxembourg and Portugal of live ruminants and fresh, 
chilled, or frozen meat from ruminants and would relieve restrictions 
on the importation, from these two countries, of milk and milk products 
from ruminants. However, the importation of fresh, chilled, or frozen 
meat and edible products other than meat (excluding gelatin, milk, and 
milk products) from ruminants that have been in Portugal would continue 
to be restricted under Sec. 94.18 because Portugal is listed in 
Sec. 94.18 as a region in which BSE exists. Additionally, the 
importation from Luxembourg and Portugal of live swine and fresh, 
chilled, or frozen meat from swine would continue to be restricted 
under Sec. 94.9 of the regulations because these countries have not 
been declared free of hog cholera.
    We are also proposing to add Luxembourg and Portugal to the list in 
Sec. 94.11(a) of regions declared free of rinderpest and FMD that are 
subject to special restrictions on the importation of their meat and 
other animal products into the United States. The regions listed in 
Sec. 94.11(a) are subject to these special restrictions because they: 
(1) Supplement their national meat supply by importing fresh, chilled, 
or frozen meat of ruminants or swine from regions that are designated 
in Sec. 94.1(a) as infected with rinderpest or FMD; or (2) have a 
common land border with regions designated as infected with rinderpest 
or FMD; or (3) import ruminants or swine from regions designated as 
infected with rinderpest or FMD under conditions less restrictive than 
would be acceptable for importation into the United States.
    Both Luxembourg and Portugal supplement their national meat 
supplies by the importation of fresh, chilled, or frozen meat of 
ruminants and swine from regions designated in Sec. 94.1(a)(1) as 
regions in which rinderpest or FMD exists. Furthermore, both Luxembourg 
and Portugal import live ruminants and swine from regions not 
recognized as being free of FMD under conditions less restrictive than 
would be acceptable for importation into the United States. As a 
result, even though we propose to designate Luxembourg and Portugal as 
being free of rinderpest and FMD, the meat and other animal products 
produced in these countries may be commingled with the fresh, chilled, 
or frozen meat of animals from a region in which rinderpest or FMD 
exists, resulting in an undue risk of introducing rinderpest or FMD 
into the United States.
    Therefore, we are proposing that meat and other animal products of 
ruminants and swine and the ship stores, airplane meals, and baggage 
containing these meat or animal products imported into the United 
States from Luxembourg and Portugal be subject to the restrictions 
specified in Sec. 94.11 of the regulations, in addition to other 
applicable requirements of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food 
Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) at 9 CFR Chapter III. Section 
94.11 generally requires that the meat and other animal products of 
ruminants and swine be: (1) Prepared in an inspected establishment that 
is eligible to have its products imported into the United States under 
the Federal Meat Inspection Act; and (2) accompanied by an additional 
certificate, issued by a full-time salaried veterinary official of the 
national government that is responsible for the health of the animals 
within the exporting region, assuring that the meat or other animal 
products have not been commingled with or exposed to meat or other 
animal products originating in, imported from, or transported through a 
region where rinderpest or FMD exists.

Greece Free of Rinderpest

    Although Greece does not appear to qualify to be declared free of 
both rinderpest and FMD, the EC's Directorate General for Agriculture 
has requested that Greece be declared free of rinderpest. As noted 
above with regard to both rinderpest and FMD, we will consider 
declaring a region to be free of rinderpest if, among other things, 
there have been no cases of the disease reported there for at least the 
previous 1-year period and no vaccinations for rinderpest have been 
administered to swine or ruminants in that region for at least the 
previous 1-year period. There has not been a reported case of 
rinderpest in Greece since 1926, and vaccinations for that disease have 
been prohibited in Greece since 1991.
    We have reviewed the documentation submitted by the EC's 
Directorate General for Agriculture in support of its request that 
Greece be declared free of rinderpest. Based on that documentation, we 
believe that Greece qualifies to be designated as free of rinderpest. 
We are, therefore, proposing to amend Sec. 94.1(a) to designate Greece 
as a region free of rinderpest. To do so, we are proposing to add a new 
paragraph Sec. 94.1(a)(3) in which Greece's status as a region free of 
rinderpest would be designated.
    However, because Greece would be declared free of rinderpest only, 
and not FMD, the prohibitions and restrictions found in Secs. 94.1(b), 
94.2, 94.3, and 94.4 on the importation from Greece of ruminants and 
swine, and fresh, chilled, or frozen meat of ruminants and swine; 
products other than meat; milk and milk products; organs, glands, 
extracts, and secretions; and cured or cooked meat of ruminants or 
swine would continue to apply.

France, Greece, Luxembourg, and Spain Free of END

    Section 94.6(a)(1) of the regulations provides that END is 
considered to exist in all regions of the world except those listed in 
Sec. 94.6(a)(2), which have been declared to be free of END. The 
importation into the United States of any carcasses, or parts or 
products of carcasses, of poultry, game birds, or other birds that are 
from a region where END is considered to exist, or that have been 
imported from or moved into or through any region where END is 
considered to exist, is subject to the restrictions contained in 
Sec. 94.6(c). In addition, the importation into the United States of 
eggs (other than hatching eggs) laid by poultry, game birds, or other 
birds that are from a region where END or Salmonella

[[Page 61038]]

enteritidis (SE) phage-type 4 is considered to exist or that have been 
imported from or moved into or through any region where END or SE 
phage-type 4 is considered to exist is subject to the restrictions 
contained in Sec. 94.6(d). Poultry eggs for hatching imported from a 
region where END exists must be quarantined in accordance with 
Sec. 93.209(b).
    We will consider declaring a region to be free of END if there have 
been no reported cases of the disease in that region for at least the 
previous 1-year period. There has been no documented case of END in 
France, Greece, or Spain during the reporting period that began in 
1994, and there has been no reported case of END in Luxembourg since 
1995.
    APHIS has reviewed the documentation submitted by the EC's 
Directorate General for Agriculture in support of its request that 
France, Greece, Luxembourg, and Spain be declared free of END. Based on 
that documentation, we believe that France, Greece, Luxembourg, and 
Spain qualify to be designated as free of END. Therefore, we are 
proposing to amend Sec. 94.6(a)(2) by adding France, Greece, 
Luxembourg, and Spain to the list of regions declared free of END. This 
proposed action would relieve the restrictions of Sec. 94.6(c) on the 
importation of carcasses, or parts or products of carcasses, of 
poultry, game birds, or other birds from those countries, and would 
relieve the END-specific restrictions of Sec. 94.6(d)(1)(ix) on the 
importation of eggs (other than hatching eggs) laid by poultry, game 
birds, or other birds from those countries. This proposed action would 
also relieve the quarantine requirements of Sec. 93.209(b) for poultry 
hatching eggs imported from France, Greece, Luxembourg, and Spain.

Portugal Free of ASF

    Section 94.8 of the regulations states that ASF exists or is 
reasonably believed to exist in all the regions of Africa; in Brazil, 
Cuba, Haiti, Malta, and Portugal; and on the island of Sardinia, Italy. 
Paragraph (a) of Sec. 94.8 provides that no pork or pork products may 
be imported into the United States from a region where ASF exists 
unless the pork or pork product meets certain specified conditions. 
Also, Sec. 94.17 provides, in part, that dry-cured pork products may be 
imported into the United States from a region where ASF exists if the 
dry-cured pork products meet the conditions specified in that section.
    In addition to the restrictions on pork and pork products contained 
in the regulations in part 94, live domestic swine from a region where 
ASF exists may not be imported into the United States because the 
regulations in 9 CFR 93.505(a) require, among other things, that live 
domestic swine be accompanied by a certificate showing that the entire 
region of origin of the swine is free of ASF and other specified 
diseases. The importation of swine casings from regions where ASF 
exists is likewise prohibited by 9 CFR 96.2(a) unless the swine casings 
originated in a region free of ASF and were processed in the region 
where ASF exists at a facility that meets the criteria of 
Sec. 94.8(a)(3)(iv) of the regulations.
    We will consider declaring a region free of ASF if there have been 
no reported cases of the disease in that region for at least the 
previous 1-year period. The last case of ASF in Portugal occurred in 
1993.
    APHIS has reviewed the documentation submitted by the EC's 
Directorate General for Agriculture in support of its request that 
Portugal be declared free of ASF. Based on that documentation, we 
believe that Portugal qualifies to be designated as free of ASF. 
Therefore, we are proposing to amend Sec. 94.8 by removing Portugal 
from the list of regions in which ASF exists or is reasonably believed 
to exist. This proposed action would result in the importation of pork 
and pork products from Portugal no longer being subject to the 
restrictions found in Sec. 94.8 of the regulations. Another effect of 
this proposed action would be that the importation of swine casings 
that originated in or were processed in Portugal would no longer be 
subject to the restrictions in 9 CFR 96.2(a).
    However, Portugal is still considered to be affected with hog 
cholera, so the importation of pork and pork products from Portugal 
would remain subject to the restrictions in Sec. 94.9 for hog cholera. 
Similarly, the importation of dry-cured pork products from Portugal 
would continue to be subject to the regulations in Sec. 94.17 due to 
hog cholera. In addition, the importation of pork and pork products 
from Portugal would continue to be subject to the restrictions in 
Sec. 94.11 because, as discussed above with respect to our proposal to 
declare Portugal free of rinderpest and FMD, Portugal would be listed 
in Sec. 94.11(a) as a region that has been declared free of rinderpest 
and FMD, but from which the importation of all meat and other animal 
products is restricted due to the nature of its requirements for 
importing animal products from with regions affected with rinderpest or 
FMD or because they have a common land border with a region affected 
with rinderpest or FMD. Finally, declaring Portugal free of ASF would 
not relieve any of the current restrictions in 9 CFR part 93 on the 
importation into the United States of live swine from Portugal because 
Portugal remains affected with hog cholera.

Belgium, France, and Portugal Free of SVD

    Section 94.12(a) of the regulations provides that SVD is considered 
to exist in all regions of the world except those listed in 
Sec. 94.12(a), which have been declared to be free of SVD. Paragraph 
(b) of Sec. 94.12 provides that no pork or pork products may be 
imported into the United States from a region where SVD exists unless 
the pork or pork product meets certain specified conditions and is not 
otherwise prohibited importation into the United States by the 
regulations.
    We will consider declaring a region to be free of SVD if there have 
been no reported cases of the disease in that region for at least the 
previous 1-year period. The last cases of SVD in Belgium, France, and 
Portugal were reported in 1993, 1983, and 1995, respectively.
    APHIS has reviewed the documentation submitted by the EC's 
Directorate General for Agriculture in support of its request that 
Belgium, France, and Portugal be declared free of SVD. Based on that 
documentation, we believe that Belgium, France, and Portugal qualify to 
be designated as free of SVD. Therefore, we are proposing to amend 
Sec. 94.12(a) by adding Belgium, France, and Portugal to the list of 
regions declared free of SVD. This proposed action would relieve 
certain restrictions on the importation of pork and pork products from 
those countries.
    However, Belgium, France, and Portugal are still considered to be 
affected with hog cholera, so pork and pork products from those 
countries offered for importation into the United States would remain 
subject to the restrictions in Sec. 94.9 for hog cholera. The 
importation of live swine, except for wild swine, from Belgium, France, 
and Portugal would likewise continue to be prohibited due to hog 
cholera in accordance with Sec. 94.10. Similarly, dry-cured pork 
products from Belgium, France, and Portugal would continue to be 
subject to the regulations in Sec. 94.17 due to hog cholera. In 
addition, pork and pork products from Belgium, France, and Portugal 
would continue to be subject to the restrictions in Sec. 94.11 because 
Belgium, France, and Portugal are among the regions listed (or, in the 
case of Portugal, would be listed) in Sec. 94.11(a) that have been 
declared free of rinderpest and FMD, but from which the importation of 
all meat and other

[[Page 61039]]

animal products is restricted due to the nature of their requirements 
for importing animal products from regions affected with rinderpest or 
FMD or because they have a common land border with a region affected 
with rinderpest or FMD. (Portugal is not currently on the list in 
Sec. 94.11(a), but, as discussed above, we are proposing to add 
Portugal to that list as part of our proposal to declare Luxembourg and 
Portugal free of rinderpest and FMD.)
    We are also proposing to amend Sec. 94.13 by adding Belgium, 
France, and Portugal to the list of regions that have been declared 
free of SVD, but from which the importation of pork and pork products 
is restricted. The regions listed in Sec. 94.13 are subject to these 
restrictions because they: (1) Supplement their national pork supply by 
importing fresh, chilled, or frozen pork from regions where SVD is 
considered to exist; (2) have a common border with regions where SVD is 
considered to exist; or (3) have certain import requirements that are 
less restrictive than are acceptable to the United States.
    Belgium, France, and Portugal all supplement their national pork 
supplies by importing fresh, chilled, or frozen pork from regions where 
SVD is considered to exist. In addition, France has a common land 
border with Italy, which is designated in Sec. 94.12(a) as a region 
where SVD exists. Furthermore, Belgium, France, and Portugal have 
certain import requirements that are less restrictive than are 
acceptable to the United States. As a result, even though Belgium, 
France, and Portugal appear to qualify for designation as regions free 
of SVD, there is potential for pork and pork products produced in 
Belgium, France, and Portugal to be commingled with fresh, chilled, or 
frozen pork from a region where SVD exists. This potential for 
commingling constitutes an undue risk of introducing SVD into the 
United States.
    Therefore, we are proposing that pork and pork products, as well as 
any ship's stores, airplane meals, and baggage containing such pork, 
offered for importation into the United States from Belgium, France, or 
Portugal be subject to the restrictions specified in Sec. 94.13 of the 
regulations and to the applicable requirements contained in the FSIS 
regulations at 9 CFR chapter III. Section 94.13 requires, in part, that 
pork and pork products, except those treated in accordance with 
Sec. 94.12(b), be: (1) Prepared in an inspected establishment that is 
eligible to have its products imported into the United States under the 
Federal Meat Inspection Act; and (2) accompanied by a foreign meat 
inspection certificate and a certification issued by a full-time 
salaried veterinary official of the national government that is 
responsible for the health of the animals within the exporting region, 
stating that certain precautions have been taken so that the pork or 
pork product has not been commingled with or exposed to animals, pork, 
or pork products originating in, or transported through, a region in 
which SVD is considered to exist.

Miscellaneous

    In Secs. 94.3 and 94.4, reference is made to articles ``originating 
in any region designated in Sec. 94.1.'' Although the intent of those 
sections is to restrict the importation of certain articles from 
regions where rinderpest or FMD exists, the phrase ``designated in 
Sec. 94.1'' could also be interpreted as referring to those regions 
declared free of rinderpest and FMD, since those regions are listed in 
Sec. 94.1(a)(2). To make the intent of those two sections clear, we are 
proposing to amend those sections so that they refer to ``regions where 
rinderpest or foot-and-mouth disease exists, as designated in 
Sec. 94.1.'' We would also amend Secs. 94.1(c) and 94.11(a), where 
reference is made to Sec. 94.1(a); for the sake of accuracy, those 
paragraphs should specifically refer to Sec. 94.1(a)(2).

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. 
For this action, the Office of Management and Budget has waived its 
review process required by Executive Order 12866.
    This proposed rule would amend the regulations in part 94 by 
declaring Luxembourg and Portugal free of rinderpest and FMD; Greece 
free of rinderpest; France, Greece, Luxembourg, and Spain free of END; 
Portugal free of ASF; and Belgium, France, and Portugal free of SVD.

Pork and Pork Products and Swine

    Although this proposed rule would declare Luxembourg and Portugal 
free of rinderpest and FMD; Greece free of rinderpest; Belgium, France, 
and Portugal free of SVD; and Portugal free of ASF, all those countries 
are still considered affected with hog cholera, and Greece is still 
considered to be affected with FMD. Because of this, this proposed rule 
would not lead to any substantive relaxation of restrictions imposed on 
the importation of pork and pork products and live swine from those 
countries, as these products would continue to be restricted based on 
the presence of hog cholera and, in the case of Greece, FMD. Therefore, 
the effect of this proposed rule on the importation of pork and pork 
products and live swine would be minimal, and thus the potential impact 
on the domestic producers of pork and pork products and swine would be 
minimal.

Ruminants and Ruminant Products

    This proposed rule would declare Greece free of rinderpest, but 
that country is still considered to be affected with FMD. Similarly, 
Portugal would be declared free of rinderpest and FMD, but that country 
is still considered to be affected with BSE. Because imports of 
ruminants and ruminant products from regions with FMD and BSE are 
restricted, this proposed rule would not lead to a substantive change 
in the restrictions imposed on the importation of ruminants and 
ruminant products from Greece and Portugal.
    By declaring Luxembourg free of rinderpest and FMD, this proposed 
rule would reduce the restrictions placed on the importation of 
ruminants and ruminant products from Luxembourg. However, that proposed 
change in disease status should have a minimal effect on the amount of 
ruminants and ruminant products imported into the United States from 
Luxembourg.
    The cattle industry in Luxembourg is very small relative to the 
U.S. domestic market. Cattle and buffalo inventories for 1996 were more 
than 103 million head in the United States (``Agricultural 
Statistics,'' 1997), compared to fewer than 3.4 million in Belgium and 
Luxembourg (those two nations are reported collectively in the United 
Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Yearbook). Also, of 
the 2 million cattle and calves that were imported into the United 
States in 1996, more than 99 percent were from Canada and Mexico. Sheep 
and goat inventories are also much smaller in Luxembourg than in the 
United States. According to the FAO, there were 8.9 million sheep and 2 
million goats in the U.S. in 1995, as opposed to 150,000 sheep and 
9,000 goats in Belgium and Luxembourg. The United States is also a 
strong net exporter of sheep and goats, with 48,792 head imported and 
397,395 head exported in 1996 (``World Trade Atlas,'' June 1997). Of 
the sheep that the United States does import, more than 99 percent are 
from Canada and Mexico (``World Trade Atlas,'' June 1997). Luxembourg 
exported no live ruminants to the United States in 1996. In fact, there 
were fewer than 100 cattle, sheep and goats imported from the European 
Union in 1996. Western Europe is not a significant source of live 
ruminants for the United States, and any importation of live ruminants 
from Luxembourg as

[[Page 61040]]

a result of this proposed rule likely would be negligible.
    The effect of this proposed rule on the importation of ruminant 
meat and meat products should also be minimal. The 1995 production of 
beef, veal, mutton, lamb and goat meat for Belgium and Luxembourg was 
approximately 3 percent of the U.S. production of 11.6 million metric 
tons for that year (``FAO Yearbook,'' 1995). The United States imports 
only a small portion of its overall supply of these products, an amount 
equal to about 6 percent of production. In addition, the United States 
imports very little ruminant meat and meat products from Luxembourg or 
from Western Europe in general. Moreover, nearly 85 percent of the 
imports that come into the United States are from Australia, Canada, 
and New Zealand. Because we believe that it is unlikely that Luxembourg 
would export a significant portion of its comparatively small meat 
production exclusively to the United States, any effect on domestic 
prices or supplies would likely be negligible.
    The importation of dairy products from Luxembourg into the United 
States should be at most minimally affected by this proposed rule. 
Dairy product production in Luxembourg is small relative to that of the 
United States. Milk production in Belgium and Luxembourg was less than 
5 percent the size of U.S. production in 1995 (``FAO Yearbook,'' 1995). 
For dairy products in general, we believe that it is unlikely that 
Luxembourg would redirect a significant portion of its production 
exclusively to the United States, which is a significant net exporter 
of those products. Belgium and Luxembourg do export significant 
quantities of butter and dried milk, but those products may currently 
be exported to the United States under the current regulations. 
Therefore, the impact on domestic dairy producers should be minimal.
    The potential effect of this proposed rule on the importation into 
the United States of ruminant embryos and animal semen would also 
likely be minimal. The United States is a net exporter of both bovine 
semen and cattle embryos. In 1996, the value of U.S. bovine semen and 
cattle embryo imports was $7.7 million and $701,000, respectively, 
while the value of U.S. exports of bovine semen and cattle embryos was 
$63.1 million and $12.6 million respectively (``World Trade Atlas,'' 
June 1997). Given this trade balance and the size difference between 
the cattle industries of the United States and Luxembourg, the amount 
imported of each will likely be minimal.

Bird and Poultry Products

    The proposed rule would declare France, Greece, Luxembourg, and 
Spain free of END. This proposed action would relieve restrictions on 
the importation of carcasses, or parts or products of carcasses, of 
poultry, game birds, or other birds from those countries, and would 
relieve certain restrictions on the importation of eggs (other than 
hatching eggs) laid by poultry, game birds, or other birds from those 
countries. This proposed action would also relieve the quarantine 
requirements for poultry hatching eggs imported from France, Greece, 
Luxembourg, and Spain.
    Egg production in those four countries is considerable: In 1995, 
the reported egg production in Belgium and Luxembourg was 3,858 
million; in France, 16,911 million; in Greece, 2,600 million; and in 
Spain, 9,983 million (``Agriculture Statistics,'' 1997). U.S. 
production is also large, 74,280 million in 1995. In addition, the U.S. 
imports few eggs, with the total amount being equal to less than 0.1 
percent of U.S. production. We believe that it is unlikely that these 
countries would redirect a significant portion of their production 
toward such a small U.S. import market.
    Total poultry meat production in France, Greece, Luxembourg, and 
Spain in 1995 was about 3.5 million metric tons, or about 26 percent 
the size of U.S. production of 13.8 million metric tons. However, the 
United States is a very strong net exporter of poultry meat, with 
imports of only 3,546 metric tons and exports of more than 2 million 
metric tons in 1996 (``World Trade Atlas,'' June 1997). Very few of the 
imports are from western Europe. Moreover, more than 99 percent of U.S. 
poultry meat imports originated in Canada. We do not expect that these 
countries would redirect a significant amount of poultry meat toward 
such a small U.S. import market.

Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires that the Agency 
specifically consider the economic impact associated with the proposed 
rule on small entities. Those likely to be affected by this proposed 
rule are those entities engaged in the production of live swine, pork 
and pork products, live ruminants, meat, meat products, and dairy 
products derived from ruminants, and poultry products.
    The Small Business Administration's (SBA's) definition of a 
``small'' cattle, swine, or poultry farm is one whose total sales is 
less than $0.5 million annually. In 1992, 97.8 percent of cattle and 
calf farms would be considered small entities. The vast majority of the 
domestic hog and pig farms qualify as small entities (96.3 percent in 
1992). Eighty-seven percent of poultry farms would be considered small 
entities in 1992 (``1992 Census of Agriculture,'' U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 1993).
    The SBA's guidelines state that a ``small'' producer of poultry 
meat (Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) 2015, poultry 
slaughtering and processing) is one employing fewer than 500 workers. 
In 1992, 74 percent of 591 poultry slaughtering and processing 
establishments were considered small entities. These small entities 
accounted for approximately 30 percent of the total value of shipments 
of the industry, $7.2 billion.
    The SBA's guidelines state that a ``small'' producer of pork and 
ruminant products (part of SIC 2011 or 2013, meat packing plants) is 
one employing fewer than 500 workers. In 1992, 97 percent of the 1,367 
meat packing establishments in SIC 2011 were considered small entities. 
These small establishments accounted for approximately 40 percent of 
the total value of shipments of the industry, $50.4 billion. Ninety-
eight percent of the 1,264 establishments in SIC 2013 were considered 
small entities in 1992. These producers accounted for 84 percent of the 
total value of shipments of the industry, $19.97 billion.
    Although the majority of the domestic entities potentially affected 
by this proposed rule are small, there should be only a minimal change 
in the level of imports that may compete with the output of these small 
entities, and thus there would be a minimal impact on any domestic 
producer of these products, whether small or large.
    Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and 
Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action would 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.

Executive Order 12988

    This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, 
Civil Justice Reform. If this proposed rule is adopted: (1) All State 
and local laws and regulations that are inconsistent with this rule 
will be preempted; (2) no retroactive effect will be given to this 
rule; and (3) administrative proceedings will not be required before 
parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed rule contains no new information collection or 
recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork

[[Page 61041]]

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 94

    Animal diseases, Imports, Livestock, Meat and meat products, Milk, 
Poultry and poultry products, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
    Accordingly, 9 CFR part 94 would be amended as follows:

PART 94--RINDERPEST, FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE, FOWL PEST (FOWL 
PLAGUE), EXOTIC NEWCASTLE DISEASE, AFRICAN SWINE FEVER, HOG 
CHOLERA, AND BOVINE SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY: PROHIBITED AND 
RESTRICTED IMPORTATIONS

    1. The authority citation for part 94 would continue to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 147a, 150ee, 161, 162, and 450; 19 U.S.C. 
1306; 21 U.S.C. 111, 114a, 134a, 134b, 134c, 134f, 136, and 136a; 31 
U.S.C. 9701; 42 U.S.C. 4331 and 4332; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 
371.2(d).

    2. Section 94.1 would be amended as follows:
    a. In paragraph (a)(1), the words ``or (a)(3)'' would be added 
immediately after the words ``paragraph (a)(2)''.
    b. In paragraph (a)(2), the word ``Luxembourg,'' would be added 
immediately after the word ``Japan,'' and the word ``Portugal,'' would 
be added immediately after the word ``Poland,'';
    c. A new paragraph (a)(3) would be added to read as set forth 
below.
    d. In the introductory text of paragraph (c), the words ``paragraph 
(a) of'' would be removed and the words ``paragraph (a)(2) of'' would 
be added in their place.


Sec. 94.1  Regions where rinderpest or foot-and-mouth disease exists; 
importations prohibited.

    (a) * * *
    (3) The following regions are declared to be free of rinderpest: 
Greece.
* * * * *


Sec. 94.3  [Amended]

    3. Section 94.3 would be amended by adding the words ``where 
rinderpest or foot-and-mouth disease exists, as'' immediately before 
the word ``designated''.


Sec. 94.4  [Amended]

    4. In Sec. 94.4(a), the introductory text of the paragraph would be 
amended by adding the words ``where rinderpest or foot-and-mouth 
disease exists, as'' immediately before the word ``designated''.


Sec. 94.6  [Amended]

    5. In Sec. 94.6, paragraph (a)(2) would be amended by adding the 
words ``France, Greece,'' immediately after the word ``Finland,''; by 
adding the word ``Luxembourg,'' immediately after the word 
``Iceland,''; and by adding the word ``Spain,'' immediately after the 
words ``Republic of Ireland,''.


Sec. 94.8  [Amended]

    6. In Sec. 94.8, the introductory text of the section would be 
amended by removing the words ``Malta, and Portugal'' and adding in 
their place the words ``and Malta''.


Sec. 94.11  [Amended]

    7. In Sec. 94.11, paragraph (a), the first sentence would be 
amended by adding the word ``Luxembourg,'' immediately after the word 
``Japan,''; by adding the word ``Portugal,'' immediately after the word 
``Poland,''; and by removing the reference ``Sec. 94.1'' and adding the 
reference ``Sec. 94.1(a)(2)'' in its place.


Sec. 94.12  [Amended]

    8. In Sec. 94.12, paragraph (a) would be amended by adding the word 
``Belgium,'' immediately after the words ``The Bahamas,''; by adding 
the word ``France,'' immediately after the word ``Finland,''; and by 
adding the word ``Portugal,'' immediately after the word ``Panama,''.


Sec. 94.13  [Amended]

    9. In Sec. 94.13, the introductory text of the section would be 
amended by adding the word ``Belgium,'' immediately after the words 
``The Bahamas,''; by adding the word ``France,'' immediately after the 
word ``Denmark,''; and by adding the word ``Portugal,'' immediately 
after the words ``Northern Ireland,''.

    Done in Washington, DC, this 12th day of November 1997.
Terry L. Medley,
Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 97-30105 Filed 11-13-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>