This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

51508 

Vol. 79, No. 168 

Friday, August 29, 2014 

1The provisions allowing the importation of 

ovine meat from Uruguay were added in a final rule 

published in the Federal Register (78 FR 68327– 

68331) on November 14, 2013, and effective on 

November 29, 2013. 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

9 CFR Part 94 

[Docket No. APHIS–2014–0032] 

RIN 0579–AD92 

Importation of Beef From a Region in 

Argentina 

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: We are proposing to amend 

the regulations governing the 

importation of certain animals, meat, 

and other animal products to allow, 

under certain conditions, the 

importation of fresh (chilled or frozen) 

beef from a region in Argentina located 

north of Patagonia South and Patagonia 

North B, referred to as Northern 

Argentina. Based on the evidence in a 

recent risk assessment, we believe that 

fresh (chilled or frozen) beef can be 

safely imported from Northern 

Argentina provided certain conditions 

are met. This proposal would provide 

for the importation of beef from 

Northern Argentina into the United 

States while continuing to protect the 

United States against the introduction of 

foot-and-mouth disease. 

DATES: We will consider all comments 

that we receive on or before October 28, 

2014. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by either of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2014-0032. 

• Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: 

Send your comment to Docket No. 

APHIS–2014–0032, Regulatory Analysis 

and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 

3A–03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, 

Riverdale, MD 20737–1238. 

Supporting documents and any 

comments we receive on this docket 

may be viewed at http://

www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2014-0032 or 

in our reading room, which is located in 

Room 1141 of the USDA South 

Building, 14th Street and Independence 

Avenue SW., Washington, DC. Normal 

reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

holidays. To be sure someone is there to 

help you, please call (202) 799–7039 

before coming. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Silvia Kreindel, Senior Staff 

Veterinarian, Regionalization Evaluation 

Services, National Import Export 

Services, Veterinary Services, APHIS, 

4700 River Road Unit 38, Riverdale, MD 

20737–1231; (301) 851–3313. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The regulations in 9 CFR part 94 

(referred to below as the regulations) 

prohibit or restrict the importation of 

certain animals and animal products 

into the United States to prevent the 

introduction of various diseases, 

including rinderpest, foot-and-mouth 

disease (FMD), African swine fever, 

classical swine fever, and swine 

vesicular disease. These are dangerous 

and destructive communicable diseases 

of ruminants and swine. Section 94.1 of 

the regulations contains criteria for 

recognition by the Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of 

foreign regions as free of rinderpest or 

free of both rinderpest and FMD. 

Section 94.11 restricts the importation 

of ruminants and swine and their meat 

and certain other products from regions 

that are declared free of rinderpest and 

FMD but that nonetheless present a 

disease risk because of the regions’ 

proximity to or trading relationships 

with regions affected by rinderpest or 

FMD. Regions APHIS has declared free 

of FMD and/or rinderpest, and regions 

declared free of FMD and rinderpest 

that are subject to the restrictions in 

§ 94.11, are listed on the APHIS Web 

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

import_export/animals/animal_disease_

status.shtml. 

APHIS considers rinderpest or FMD 

to exist in all regions of the world not 

listed as free of those diseases on the 

Web site. On June 26, 1997, we 

published in the Federal Register a final 

rule (62 FR 34385–34394, Docket No. 

94–106–5) allowing, under certain 

conditions, the importation of fresh 

(chilled or frozen) beef from Argentina. 

These conditions were laid out in 

§ 94.21 of the regulations. However, on 

March 12, 2001, Argentina reported to 

the World Organization for Animal 

Health (OIE) and the United States that 

they had detected an outbreak of FMD 

in a herd of 300 young bulls in the 

Province of Buenos Aires. Argentina’s 

Servicio Nacional de Sanidad y Calidad 

Agroalimentario (SENASA) 

subsequently reported the spread of 

FMD to 15 of the country’s 23 

Provinces. In an interim rule published 

in the Federal Register on June 4, 2001 

(66 FR 29897–29899, Docket No. 01– 

032–1), and effective retroactively to 

February 19, 2001, we removed § 94.21 

and removed Argentina from the list in 

§ 94.1 of regions declared to be free of 

both rinderpest and FMD. APHIS 

adopted the interim rule without change 

as a final rule in a document published 

in the Federal Register on December 11, 

2001 (66 FR 63911, Docket No. 01–032– 

2). Although there has not been a major 

outbreak of FMD since 2001/2002, we 

do not consider Northern Argentina to 

be free of FMD because of Argentina’s 

vaccination program in that region. 

With few exceptions, the regulations 

prohibit the importation of fresh 

(chilled or frozen) meat of ruminants or 

swine that originates in or transits a 

region where FMD is considered to 

exist. One such exception is beef and 

ovine meat 1 from Uruguay, which 

conducts FMD vaccinations of cattle. 

The regulations allow the importation of 

fresh beef and ovine meat from Uruguay 

into the United States provided that the 

following additional conditions have 

been met: 

• The meat is beef or ovine meat from 

animals born, raised, and slaughtered in 

Uruguay. 

• FMD has not been diagnosed in 

Uruguay within the previous 12 months. 

• The meat comes from bovines or 

sheep that originated from premises 

where FMD had not been present during 

the lifetime of any bovines or sheep 

slaughtered for the export of beef and 

ovine meat to the United States. 

• The meat comes from bovines or 

sheep that were moved directly from the 

premises of origin to the slaughtering 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 168 / Friday, August 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 51509 

2 Instructions on accessing Regulations.gov and 

information on the location and hours of the 

reading room may be found at the beginning of this 

document under ADDRESSES. You may also request 

paper copies of the risk analysis by calling or 

writing to the person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

3Prior to 2012, § 92.2(b) listed 11 factors. In 2012, 

APHIS consolidated the 11 factors into 8 in order 

to simplify the regulations and facilitate the 

application process. Since the evaluation of the 

proposed exporting region of Argentina began 

before the consolidation, however, the risk 

assessment follows the 11-factor format. The topics 

addressed by the 11 factors are encapsulated in the 

8. Appendix II of the risk assessment describes the 

similarities between the 8 and 11 factors. 

Observations and information collected during the 

site visits were considered in the risk assessment 

as well. 

establishment without any contact with 

other animals. 

• The meat comes from bovines or 

sheep that received ante-mortem and 

post-mortem veterinary inspections, 

paying particular attention to the head 

and feet, at the slaughtering 

establishment, with no evidence found 

of vesicular disease. 

• The meat consists only of bovine or 

ovine parts that are, by standard 

practice, part of the animal’s carcass 

that is placed in a chiller for maturation 

after slaughter. The bovine and ovine 

parts that may not be imported include 

all parts of the head, feet, hump, hooves, 

and internal organs. 

• All bone and visually identifiable 

blood clots and lymphoid tissue have 

been removed from the meat. 

• The meat has not been in contact 

with meat from regions other than those 

listed in the regulations as free of 

rinderpest and FMD. 

• The meat comes from carcasses that 

were allowed to maturate at 40 to 50 °F 

(4 to 10 °C) for a minimum of 24 hours 

after slaughter and that reached a pH of 

below 6.0 in the loin muscle at the end 

of the maturation period. Measurements 

for pH must be taken at the middle of 

both longissimus dorsi muscles. Any 

carcass in which the pH does not reach 

less than 6.0 may be allowed to 

maturate an additional 24 hours and be 

retested, and, if the carcass still has not 

reached a pH of less than 6.0 after 48 

hours, the meat from the carcass may 

not be exported to the United States. 

• An authorized veterinary official of 

the Government of Uruguay certifies on 

the foreign meat inspection certificate 

that the above conditions have been 

met. 

• The establishment in which the 

bovines and sheep are slaughtered 

allows periodic on-site evaluation and 

subsequent inspection of its facilities, 

records, and operations by an APHIS 

representative. 

In response to a request from the 

Government of Argentina that we 

reconsider our decision to prohibit the 

importation of fresh (chilled or frozen) 

beef into the United States from 

Northern Argentina in light of 

improvements Argentina has made in its 

FMD detection and eradication 

procedures, we conducted a risk 

analysis of that region, which can be 

viewed on the Internet on the 

Regulations.gov Web site or in our 

reading room.2 For the risk analysis, we 

evaluated information provided by 

SENASA in accordance with § 92.2 

regarding the country’s FMD status, 

reviewed published scientific literature, 

and conducted five site visits to the 

proposed exporting region. We 

concluded that Argentina has 

infrastructure and emergency response 

capabilities adequate to effectively 

contain, eradicate, and report FMD in 

the event of an outbreak in a timely 

manner. We further concluded that 

Argentina is able to comply with U.S. 

import restrictions on the specific 

products from affected areas. Based on 

the evidence documented in our recent 

risk assessment, we believe that fresh 

(chilled or frozen) beef can be safely 

imported from Northern Argentina, 

provided certain conditions are met. 

Accordingly, we are proposing to amend 

the regulations in § 94.29 to allow the 

importation of fresh beef from Northern 

Argentina. Under this proposed rule, 

fresh beef from Northern Argentina 

would be subject to the same import 

conditions imposed on fresh beef and 

ovine meat from Uruguay. 

In this proposed rule, we are also 

giving notice that we would add 

Argentina to the list of regions that we 

recognize as free of rinderpest, which 

can be viewed at http://

www.aphis.usda.gov/wps/portal/aphis/

ourfocus/importexport?1dmy&urile=

wcm%3apath%3a/aphis_content_

library/sa_our_focus/sa_animal_health/

sa_import_into_us/sa_entry_

requirements/ct_rinderpest. 

Historically, rinderpest virus has never 

become established in North America, 

Central America, the Caribbean Islands, 

or South America. 

Miscellaneous 

Our proposed addition of the 

exporting region of Northern Argentina 

to the regulations in § 94.29 necessitates 

a few minor editorial changes to § 94.1, 

where, currently, reference is made to 

the importation of fresh beef and ovine 

meat from Uruguay under § 94.29. 

Risk Analysis 

Drawing on data submitted by the 

Government of Argentina and 

observations from our site visits to the 

region under consideration, we have 

conducted a risk analysis of the animal 

health status of that region relative to 

FMD. Our risk analysis was conducted 

according to the eight factors identified 

in § 92.2, ‘‘Application for recognition 

of the animal health status of a region’’: 

The scope of the evaluation being 

requested, veterinary control and 

oversight, disease history and 

vaccination practices, livestock 

demographics and traceability, 

epidemiological separation from 

potential sources of infection, 

surveillance, diagnostic laboratory 

capabilities, and emergency 

preparedness and response.3

A summary evaluation of each factor 

is discussed below. Based on our 

analysis of these factors, we have 

determined that fresh (chilled or frozen) 

beef can be safely imported into the 

United States from Northern Argentina. 

Scope of the Evaluation Being 

Requested 

We conducted our risk analysis in 

response to an official request from 

Argentina that APHIS allow the 

importation of fresh (chilled or frozen) 

beef into the United States from a region 

in Argentina located north of Patagonia 

South and Patagonia North B, referred to 

as Northern Argentina. Given the 

history of FMD in Argentina and the fact 

that Argentina vaccinates its cattle 

population in most Provinces against 

FMD, APHIS conducted this risk 

analysis to evaluate the potential for 

FMD introduction and establishment 

through importation of beef from 

Northern Argentina. Data and 

background information were obtained 

from Argentine animal health officials. 

Much of the supporting information for 

this analysis consists of records 

obtained from SENASA. In addition, 

APHIS conducted five site visits to 

Argentina in 2003, 2005, 2006, 2009, 

and 2013 to verify and complement the 

information provided by Argentina. 

Veterinary Control and Oversight 

At the time of the 2001 outbreak 

detailed above, epidemiological 

investigations revealed areas in 

SENASA’s veterinary controls and 

oversight that were in need of 

improvement. As a result, SENASA was 

reorganized. The new structure was 

intended to increase the efficiency and 

effectiveness of the existing system. 

Issues addressed included centralization 

of command and control of animal 

health programs, enhancements in the 

internal monitoring and 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
51510 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 168 / Friday, August 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

communications, improved compliance 

with international standards and 

certification requirements, and an 

increased emphasis on border controls. 

APHIS reviewed Argentina’s FMD 

control and eradication program during 

our site visits in 2003, 2005, 2006, 2009, 

and 2013, and concluded that the 

program is effective at the local and 

national levels. We concluded that 

SENASA could detect disease quickly, 

limit its spread, and report it promptly. 

APHIS considers that SENASA has 

sufficient legal authority to carry out 

official control, eradication, and 

quarantine activities. SENASA has a 

system of official veterinarians and 

support staff in place for carrying out 

field programs and for import controls. 

Field activities are coordinated through 

the national animal health office. 

Review of veterinary infrastructure with 

SENASA officials confirmed the 

presence of a system adequate for rapid 

detection and reporting of FMD and for 

carrying out surveillance and 

eradication programs. Field offices 

appeared to be appropriately staffed for 

the regions covered. The technical 

infrastructure is adequate, and advanced 

technologies are utilized in conducting 

several animal health programs, 

including the FMD program. Import 

controls are sufficient to protect 

international borders at principal 

crossing points, and sufficient controls 

exist to prevent the introduction of 

international waste into the country. 

Field personnel appeared to be 

adequately trained in FMD detection 

and control or to have had experience 

dealing with epidemiological 

investigations during FMD outbreaks. It 

is expected that they would suspect 

FMD if they were to see clinical signs 

compatible with the disease. With 

regard to indemnity procedures, we 

concluded that adequate funds are 

available to compensate owners for 

depopulated animals and that 

indemnity provisions can be extended 

to all animals potentially exposed to 

FMD, not only those confirmed as 

infected. Generally, we were favorably 

impressed with the census information, 

coverage of premises in the export 

region, the recordkeeping for individual 

premises, the control of vaccination, 

and the movement controls documented 

at the local level. 

Disease History and Vaccination 

Practices 

Outbreaks of FMD occurred in 

Northern Argentina in 2000/2001, with 

isolated instances occurring in 2003 and 

2006. In the course of evaluating the 

potential disease risk posed by 

importation of fresh (chilled or frozen) 

beef into the United States from the 

export region, we did not detect any 

evidence to suggest that active outbreaks 

of FMD exist in the proposed exporting 

region. 

Vaccination of cattle is mandatory in 

the proposed export region (except for 

the Patagonia North A region and the 

summer pastures (zona veranadas) of 

Calingasta Valley in the Province of San 

Juan). Other susceptible species are 

vaccinated only in strategic areas (e.g., 

the borders with Paraguay and Bolivia 

due to the disease status of those 

countries) and emergency situations. 

Local SENASA veterinarians certify, 

control, and audit the vaccination 

campaigns. Further, local, regional, and 

central SENASA services are 

responsible for setting vaccination 

schedules, which are determined using 

a regionalization method in order to 

account for differing ecological features, 

production types, and animal movement 

and flow. Vaccination coverage was 

reported to range between 98.9 percent 

and 100 percent in the proposed export 

region, with vaccination rates at 100 

percent for the 2012 campaign that 

APHIS reviewed. 

The vaccine used is an inactivated, 

trivalent, oil-based vaccine. All FMD 

vaccines produced or used in Argentina 

must be tested for quality and safety by 

the official SENASA laboratory. Quality 

control tests of each batch of the vaccine 

are conducted in the diagnostic 

laboratory in Buenos Aires and strictly 

follow international standards as set 

forth by the OIE. All vials are identified 

with technical and manufacturer brand 

labels, a sequential number, and an 

official stamp stating the series and the 

expiration date. Trucks used for 

transportation of the vaccine are 

equipped with temperature sensors to 

ensure a cold chain during 

transportation. A cold chain ensures 

that the vaccine is kept at the 

temperature specified by its 

manufacturer as necessary to maintain 

its viability and efficacy on a 

continuous basis throughout the 

shipping process. 

We concluded that Argentina 

conducts its FMD vaccine production 

programs appropriately and in 

accordance with international 

standards. There is a system of controls 

to ensure compliance with vaccination 

calendars through matching vaccination 

records to movement permits and 

census data, and through field 

inspections. There is also a system in 

place for levying fines for 

noncompliance. 

Livestock Demographics and 

Traceability 

Cattle production is the primary 

livestock production system in 

Argentina. The domestic livestock 

population consists of approximately 57 

million head of cattle, 13 million sheep, 

2.3 million goats, and 2.3 million pigs. 

Of these, approximately 98 percent of 

the cattle population and premises are 

located within the proposed export area. 

We did not identify significant risk 

pathways that would cause us to 

consider commercial operations in the 

proposed export region as a likely 

source for introducing FMD into the 

United States. The larger commercial 

operations are likely to be the source of 

beef exports from the export region. 

Based on its review of the information, 

APHIS considers the beef industry in 

the export region to be well-organized 

and committed to the production of 

quality product and to preventing FMD 

outbreaks. 

Argentina has an efficient and 

effective traceability system, which 

includes a compulsory national 

individual identification system for 

cattle being exported to different 

countries, including the European 

Union (EU). Individual identification is 

unique and permanent. Since the 

process by which meat is certified for 

export to the EU is identical to the 

process we are proposing here, 

Argentinean inspectors have experience 

and training in the types of procedures 

that would be necessary for export to 

the United States. The use of this 

national identification system enhances 

Argentina’s ability to certify the origin 

of animals entering the export channels. 

We note that the auction system in the 

country is well organized and tightly 

controlled by the official veterinary 

service. However, there is no evidence 

to suggest that major movements of 

animals into export channels occur 

through the auction system. Instead, 

bovines destined for export to the EU 

are shipped directly from the farm to the 

exporting slaughter facility. 

Adequate controls and inspection 

measures exist at slaughter facilities in 

Argentina. Ante-mortem and postmortem inspections are carried out 

satisfactorily. APHIS evaluated pH 

controls, maturation, and deboning 

procedures at three plants in the 

proposed export zone that export to the 

EU and elsewhere. Every carcass 

destined for the EU is tested to ensure 

that the pH is not greater than 5.9, 

which is the EU requirement. If greater, 

the carcass is diverted to local 

consumption. APHIS examined 

maturation records and verified actual 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 168 / Friday, August 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 51511 

rejected and approved seals. APHIS 

considers pH testing and calibration of 

pH meters to be critical mitigation 

measures in assessing the risk of 

importing the FMD virus in beef from 

Northern Argentina. 

The biosecurity measures applied at 

the facilities APHIS visited were 

adequate, and there is a high level of 

awareness of and compliance with these 

measures. In addition, processing for 

slaughter facilities are under adequate 

official control and inspection. 

We concluded that Argentina has 

adequate control of inspection activities 

in slaughter facilities and can certify 

compliance with our import 

requirements. A comparable system for 

control of commercial shipments of 

fresh and frozen beef under similar 

conditions to the EU also exists and is 

considered adequate to control the 

specific conditions for exporting the 

commodity under consideration. 

Epidemiological Separation From 

Potential Sources of Infection 

Northern Argentina is bordered by the 

Atlantic Ocean and shares land borders 

with Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay, 

Uruguay, and the Province of Rı ́o Negro, 

Argentina. The Province of Rı ́o Negro, 

Argentina, is located in ‘‘Patagonia 

North B,’’ which is an FMD surveillance 

area situated to the south of Northern 

Argentina. The most recent outbreak of 

FMD in Patagonia North B occurred in 

1994. APHIS does not consider the 

countries of South America to be FMDfree, with the exception of Chile. 

Outbreaks have occurred in Uruguay 

and Paraguay, both countries that had 

been classified by the OIE as ‘‘free 

without vaccination’’ or ‘‘free with 

vaccination’’ prior to the outbreaks. 

FMD has not been eradicated from 

Colombia, Bolivia, Ecuador, Venezuela, 

or Peru. 

There is a history of introduction of 

disease into Argentina from neighboring 

countries. According to Argentinean 

officials, illegal movement of animals 

from neighboring countries as well as 

mechanical transmission of the virus 

resulted in the introduction of the 

disease into Argentina prior to the 2001 

outbreak discussed previously. APHIS 

concluded that as long as FMD is 

endemic in the overall region in South 

America, there is a risk of 

reintroduction from adjacent areas into 

the proposed exporting region. 

Domestic movement controls within 

Argentina are stringent. SENASA 

requires that all cattle owners identify 

their animals with a unique animal 

identification number, which is kept 

with the cattle via ear tags. Sheep are 

not required to be individually 

identified; however, in the event the 

farm is approved for export to the EU, 

premises identification is required, 

either by ear tag, which includes the 

unique identification number of the 

farm, or ear notch. There is a system of 

permits in place to control animal 

movement, which works well at the 

local level. Movement controls are 

linked to vaccination records, and 

vaccination coverage in the export 

region evaluated by APHIS is high, as 

noted above. 

There is good cooperation between 

Argentine Federal agencies and their 

international counterparts at land 

border crossings. Argentina is separated 

from most of Chile by the Andes 

Mountains and operates a joint 

surveillance program for monitoring 

animal movements across the border 

with the Chilean government. The OIE 

recognizes Chile as FMD-free without 

vaccination and, as a result, SENASA 

does not consider the Chilean border a 

high-risk region. The Brazilian border is 

also considered by SENASA to be a lowrisk region, subject to a joint FMD 

surveillance program with the Brazilian 

government. 

SENASA has identified the 

Paraguayan and Bolivian borders as the 

most vulnerable for the potential 

introduction of FMD into Argentina. As 

a result, those areas have received 

enhanced support from SENASA in the 

form of increased surveillance and 

border control activities. Agreements are 

also in place between SENASA and its 

counterparts in Paraguay and Bolivia for 

such coordinated border control 

activities as vaccinations, surveillance, 

animal census, education, and animal 

identification. 

Movement controls at international 

land checkpoints as well as movement 

control measures and biosecurity at 

airports and seaports appear to be 

adequate. 

During site visits, APHIS attempts to 

target the riskiest border crossings (and 

other areas) as an example of 

‘‘maximized risk scenario,’’ in order to 

address similar, but theoretically lower, 

risks in the remainder of the export 

region. APHIS assumes that if the 

riskiest pathways are sufficiently 

mitigated, the overall spectrum of risk 

issues should be acceptable. Using this 

assumption and visiting the areas of 

highest risk in the proposed export 

region, APHIS concluded that 

movement control measures for live 

animals are relatively robust at both 

domestic and international checkpoints. 

Surveillance 

The animal health service in 

Argentina has a surveillance system that 

covers all national territory. All official 

service field staff, community 

participants, and private sector 

veterinarians are trained and required to 

look for signs of vesicular diseases (e.g., 

excessive salivation, difficulty walking, 

etc.). If FMD is suspected, it must be 

immediately reported to the local unit 

or to the veterinary authority that would 

notify the local unit. Cattle are 

inspected every 6 months by vaccinators 

and official veterinarians, when the 

bovines are gathered in corrals for 

vaccination. Other susceptible species 

are not vaccinated except for the area 

located 25 kilometers south of the 

Argentina/Bolivia and Argentina/

Paraguay border, where all susceptible 

species are vaccinated twice a year. 

Animals are individually inspected for 

signs of vesicular disease by personnel 

from the official service before 

slaughtering. Other body parts, 

including the tongue and feet, are 

examined during post-mortem 

inspection. All animals coming into 

fairs, auctions, or exhibitions are 

clinically inspected by the official 

veterinarians. The clinical inspection of 

animals in transit is carried out at 

checkpoints and border control points 

by official personnel. The conditions 

under which animals move are based on 

the animal health status of the Province 

of origin or the country sharing borders 

with the export region. 

Argentina has a two-phase 

surveillance system that effectively uses 

active and passive surveillance. Phase I 

relies on active surveillance to 

document freedom from disease. Active 

surveillance is carried out by means of 

targeted sero-epidemiological surveys in 

specific ‘‘high-risk’’ areas within the 

zone that SENASA considers FMD-free. 

The surveys aim to prove that the zone 

remains free of viral activity. Serological 

testing is also conducted whenever 

there is suspicion of the disease. Phase 

II begins once freedom from infection 

has been established. The main goals in 

this phase are to prevent the 

reintroduction of the disease, maintain 

good sanitary conditions, and provide 

technical grounds to demonstrate the 

continual absence of disease and viral 

activity in the zone. Passive surveillance 

is the primary type employed in Phase 

II, although active surveillance is also 

used. Passive surveillance activities 

include observations made during: (1) 

Animal movement control activities and 

trade of animal products, (2) farm 

inspections, (3) slaughterhouse 

inspection, and (4) inspections during 

livestock fairs. Data on the above 

activities are collected annually. Passive 

surveillance takes advantage of the 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
51512 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 168 / Friday, August 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

community structure in Argentina and 

relies heavily on the participation of the 

community. SENASA officials have 

carefully and methodically thought 

about each component of their 

surveillance system, and their two-stage 

cluster sampling design is appropriate, 

efficient, scientifically valid, and simple 

to implement. All technical aspects of 

that design were addressed properly. 

Observations made during recent site 

visits to Argentina led APHIS to 

conclude that the Argentine authorities 

were particularly effective in their FMD 

educational campaigns and that the 

country’s FMD eradication strategy and 

surveillance practices have been fully 

communicated, understood, and 

embraced by all animal health officials 

in the country. This was made evident 

by the high degree of consistency in 

implementation and execution of the 

program at every local veterinary unit 

visited. In addition, the serological 

surveillance plan, updated in 2013, 

appears well designed and executed. 

Diagnostic Laboratory Capabilities 

SENASA has one laboratory, located 

in Buenos Aires, under its direct 

supervision that performs diagnostic 

tests for FMD and other vesicular 

diseases. Based on laboratory and site 

visits conducted in 2003, 2005, 2006, 

2009, and 2013, we concluded that 

Argentina has the diagnostic capability 

to adequately test samples for the 

presence of the FMD virus. The 

laboratory in Buenos Aires has adequate 

quality control activities; adequate 

laboratory equipment, which is 

routinely monitored and calibrated; 

sufficient staff; and an effective and 

efficient recordkeeping system for 

storage and retrieval of data. The tests 

used to investigate evidence of viral 

activity are consistent with OIE 

guidelines. The staff members appear to 

be well-trained and motivated. Samples 

were turned around in a timely manner. 

Emergency Preparedness and Response 

Argentina’s efficient and effective 

traceability system is an important 

component of its emergency response 

capacity. As noted above, Argentina 

uses a mandatory national identification 

system, which includes individual 

animal identification numbers, for cattle 

that are destined for export. In addition, 

Argentina uses a mandatory 

identification system to track the entire 

cattle population in the country by lot. 

That system proved to be effective 

during the 2003 and 2006 FMD 

outbreaks in the traceback of all 

contacts. 

Argentina relies heavily on 

community notification of FMD 

outbreaks, as that tends to be the most 

efficient way to locate disease. Once 

notification occurs, the Federal 

contingency plan for FMD is extensive 

and thorough, and a significant degree 

of necessary autonomy is built in at the 

Provincial level. 

APHIS concluded that adequate legal 

authority, funding, personnel, and 

resources exist at both the Provincial 

and Federal levels to carry out 

emergency response measures. The 

emergency response is both rapid and 

effective, as shown following the FMD 

outbreaks in Northern Argentina in 2003 

and 2006. 

The above findings are detailed in the 

risk analysis document summarized 

above. The risk analysis explains the 

factors that have led us to conclude that 

fresh (chilled or frozen) beef may be 

safely imported from Northern 

Argentina under the conditions 

enumerated above. It also establishes 

that Argentina has adequate veterinary 

infrastructures in place to prevent, 

control, report, and manage FMD and 

outbreaks. Therefore, we are proposing 

to amend § 94.29 to allow the 

importation of fresh beef from Northern 

Argentina under the conditions 

described above. 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

This proposed rule has been 

determined to be not significant for the 

purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, 

therefore, has not been reviewed by the 

Office of Management and Budget. 

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 603, we 

have performed an initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis, which is 

summarized below, regarding the 

economic effects of this proposed rule 

on small entities. Copies of the full 

analysis are available by contacting the 

person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT or on the 

Regulations.gov Web site (see 

ADDRESSES above for instructions for 

accessing Regulations.gov). 

Based on the information we have, 

there is no reason to conclude that 

adoption of this proposed rule would 

result in any significant economic effect 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. However, we do not currently 

have all of the data necessary for a 

comprehensive analysis of the effects of 

this proposed rule on small entities. 

Therefore, we are inviting comments on 

potential effects. In particular, we are 

interested in determining the number 

and kind of small entities that may 

incur benefits or costs from the 

implementation of this proposed rule. 

Our analysis examines potential 

economic impacts of a proposed rule 

that would allow fresh (chilled or 

frozen) beef from Northern Argentina to 

be imported into the United States 

provided certain conditions are met. 

Economic effects of the rule for both 

U.S. producers and consumers are 

expected to be very small. Producers’ 

welfare would be negatively affected, 

but not significantly. Gains for 

consumers would outweigh producer 

losses, resulting in a net benefit to the 

U.S. economy. 

The United States is the largest beef 

producer in the world and yet still 

imports a significant quantity. U.S. beef 

import volumes from 1999 to 2013 

averaged 0.9 million metric tons (MT) or 

roughly 11 percent of U.S. production. 

Most of the beef imported by the United 

States is from grass-fed cattle and is 

processed with trimmings from U.S. 

grain-fed cattle to make ground beef. 

Australia, Canada, and New Zealand are 

the main foreign suppliers of beef to the 

United States. 

Effects of the proposed rule are 

estimated using a partial equilibrium 

model of the U.S. agricultural sector. 

Economic impacts are estimated based 

on intra-sectoral linkages among the 

grain, livestock, and livestock product 

sectors. Annual imports of fresh (chilled 

or frozen) beef from Argentina are 

expected to range between 16,000 and 

24,000 MT, with volumes averaging 

20,000 MT. Quantity, price and welfare 

changes are estimated for these three 

import scenarios. The results are 

presented as average annual effects for 

the 5-year period 2014–2018. 

The model indicates less than 10 

percent of the beef imported from 

Argentina would displace beef that 

would otherwise be imported from other 

countries, in particular, from Australia, 

Canada, Mexico, New Zealand, and 

Uruguay. If the United States were to 

import 20,000 MT of beef from 

Argentina, total U.S. beef imports would 

increase by 1.35 percent. Due to the 

supply increase, the wholesale price of 

beef, the retail price of beef, and the 

price of cattle (steers) are estimated to 

decline by 0.22, 0.08, and 0.24 percent, 

respectively. U.S. beef production 

would decline by 0.01 percent while 

U.S. beef consumption and exports 

would increase by 0.12 and 0.22 

percent, respectively. The 16,000 MT 

and 24,000 MT scenarios show similar 

quantity and price effects. 

The fall in beef prices and the 

resulting decline in U.S. beef 

production would translate into reduced 

returns to capital and management in 

the livestock and beef sectors. Under the 

20,000 MT import scenario, producers 

would experience a decline in surplus 

of $7.63 million or 0.42 percent, while 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 168 / Friday, August 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 51513 

consumers would benefit from the 

decrease in price by an increase in their 

surplus of $130.24 million or 0.30 

percent. The overall impact would be a 

net welfare gain of $122.61 million or 

0.27 percent for the beef sector. 

The 16,000 MT and 24,000 MT 

scenarios show similar welfare impacts, 

with net benefits increasing broadly in 

proportion to the quantity of beef 

imported. The largest impact would be 

for the beef sector, but consumers of 

pork would also benefit neglibly. While 

most of the establishments that would 

be affected by this rule are small 

entities, based on the results of this 

analysis, APHIS does not expect the 

impacts to be significant. APHIS 

welcomes information that the public 

may provide regarding potential 

economic effects of the proposed rule. 

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. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

To provide the public with 

documentation of APHIS’ review and 

analysis of any potential environmental 

impacts associated with the importation 

of fresh (chilled or frozen) beef from 

Northern Argentina under the 

conditions described in this proposed 

rule, we have prepared an 

environmental assessment. The 

environmental assessment was prepared 

in accordance with: (1) The National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 

seq.), (2) regulations of the Council on 

Environmental Quality for 

implementing the procedural provisions 

of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500–1508), (3) 

USDA regulations implementing NEPA 

(7 CFR part 1b), and (4) APHIS’ NEPA 

Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 

372). 

The environmental assessment may 

be viewed on the Regulations.gov Web 

site or in our reading room. (A link to 

Regulations.gov and information on the 

location and hours of the reading room 

are provided under the heading 

ADDRESSES at the beginning of this 

proposed rule.) In addition, copies may 

be obtained by calling or writing to the 

individual listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

In accordance with section 3507(d) of 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the information 

collection or recordkeeping 

requirements included in this proposed 

rule have been submitted for approval to 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB). Please send written comments 

to the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attention: 

Desk Officer for APHIS, Washington, DC 

20503. Please state that your comments 

refer to Docket No. APHIS–2014–0032. 

Please send a copy of your comments to: 

(1) APHIS, using one of the methods 

described under ADDRESSES at the 

beginning of this document, and (2) 

Clearance Officer, OCIO, USDA, Room 

404–W, 14th Street and Independence 

Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250. A 

comment to OMB is best assured of 

having its full effect if OMB receives it 

within 30 days of publication of this 

proposed rule. 

APHIS’ animal import regulations in 

§§ 94.1 and 94.29 will place certain 

restrictions on the importation of fresh 

(chilled or frozen) beef from Northern 

Argentina into the United States. Under 

these regulations, APHIS must collect 

information, prepared by an authorized 

certified official of the Government of 

Argentina, certifying that specific 

conditions for importation have been 

met. 

We are soliciting comments from the 

public (as well as affected agencies) 

concerning our proposed information 

collection and recordkeeping 

requirements. These comments will 

help us: 

(1) Evaluate whether the proposed 

information collection is necessary for 

the proper performance of our agency’s 

functions, including whether the 

information will have practical utility; 

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our 

estimate of the burden of the proposed 

information collection, including the 

validity of the methodology and 

assumptions used; 

(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and 

(4) Minimize the burden of the 

information collection on those who are 

to respond (such as through the use of 

appropriate automated, electronic, 

mechanical, or other technological 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology; e.g., permitting 

electronic submission of responses). 

Estimate of burden: Public reporting 

burden for this collection of information 

is estimated to average 1.3 hours per 

response. 

Respondents: Federal animal health 

authorities in Argentina and exporters 

of beef and beef products from 

Argentina to the United States. 

Estimated annual number of 

respondents: 88. 

Estimated annual number of 

responses per respondent: 1. 

Estimated annual number of 

responses: 88. 

Estimated total annual burden on 

respondents: 114 hours. (Due to 

averaging, the total annual burden hours 

may not equal the product of the annual 

number of responses multiplied by the 

reporting burden per response.) 

Copies of this information collection 

can be obtained from Mrs. Celeste 

Sickles, APHIS’ Information Collection 

Coordinator, at (301) 851–2908. 

E-Government Act Compliance 

The Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service is committed to 

compliance with the E-Government Act 

to promote the use of the Internet and 

other information technologies, to 

provide increased opportunities for 

citizen access to Government 

information and services, and for other 

purposes. For information pertinent to 

E-Government Act compliance related 

to this proposed rule, please contact 

Mrs. Celeste Sickles, APHIS’ 

Information Collection Coordinator, at 

(301) 851–2908. 

List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 94 

Animal diseases, Imports, Livestock, 

Meat and meat products, Milk, Poultry 

and poultry products, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Accordingly, we propose to amend 9 

CFR part 94 as follows: 

PART 94—RINDERPEST, FOOT–AND– 

MOUTH DISEASE, NEWCASTLE 

DISEASE, HIGHLY PATHOGENIC 

AVIAN INFLUENZA, AFRICAN SWINE 

FEVER, CLASSICAL SWINE FEVER, 

SWINE VESICULAR DISEASE, AND 

BOVINE SPONGIFORM 

ENCEPHALOPATHY: PROHIBITED 

AND RESTRICTED IMPORTATIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 94 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 450, 7701–7772, 7781– 

7786, and 8301–8317; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 

136a; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 

371.4. 

§ 94.1 [Amended] 

■ 2. Section 94.1 is amended in 

paragraphs (b)(4) and (d) introductory 

text by removing the words ‘‘from 

Uruguay’’. 

■ 3. Section 94.29 is revised to read as 

follows: 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
51514 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 168 / Friday, August 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

1 64 FR 59888 (1999). 

2 16 CFR part 312. 

3 78 FR 3972 (2013). 

4 16 CFR 312.12(a); 78 FR at 3991–3992, 4013. 

§ 94.29 Restrictions on importation of 

fresh (chilled or frozen) beef and ovine meat 

from specified regions. 

Notwithstanding any other provisions 

of this part, fresh (chilled or frozen) beef 

from a region in Argentina located north 

of Patagonia South and Patagonia North 

B, referred to as Northern Argentina, 

and fresh (chilled or frozen) beef and 

ovine meat from Uruguay may be 

exported to the United States under the 

following conditions: 

(a) The meat is beef or ovine meat 

from animals that have been born, 

raised, and slaughtered in the exporting 

region of Argentina or in Uruguay. 

(b) Foot-and-mouth disease has not 

been diagnosed in the exporting region 

of Argentina or in Uruguay within the 

previous 12 months. 

(c) The meat comes from bovines or 

sheep that originated from premises 

where foot-and-mouth disease has not 

been present during the lifetime of any 

bovines and sheep slaughtered for the 

export of beef and ovine meat to the 

United States. 

(d) The meat comes from bovines or 

sheep that were moved directly from the 

premises of origin to the slaughtering 

establishment without any contact with 

other animals. 

(e) The meat comes from bovines or 

sheep that received ante-mortem and 

post-mortem veterinary inspections, 

paying particular attention to the head 

and feet, at the slaughtering 

establishment, with no evidence found 

of vesicular disease. 

(f) The meat consists only of bovine 

parts or ovine parts that are, by standard 

practice, part of the animal’s carcass 

that is placed in a chiller for maturation 

after slaughter. The bovine and ovine 

parts that may not be imported include 

all parts of the head, feet, hump, hooves, 

and internal organs. 

(g) All bone and visually identifiable 

blood clots and lymphoid tissue have 

been removed from the meat. 

(h) The meat has not been in contact 

with meat from regions other than those 

listed in § 94.1(a). 

(i) The meat came from bovine 

carcasses that were allowed to maturate 

at 40 to 50 °F (4 to 10 °C) for a minimum 

of 24 hours after slaughter and that 

reached a pH below 6.0 in the loin 

muscle at the end of the maturation 

period. Measurements for pH must be 

taken at the middle of both longissimus 

dorsi muscles. Any carcass in which the 

pH does not reach less than 6.0 may be 

allowed to maturate an additional 24 

hours and be retested, and, if the carcass 

still has not reached a pH of less than 

6.0 after 48 hours, the meat from the 

carcass may not be exported to the 

United States. 

(j) An authorized veterinary official of 

the government of the exporting region 

certifies on the foreign meat inspection 

certificate that the above conditions 

have been met. 

(k) The establishment in which the 

bovines and sheep are slaughtered 

allows periodic on-site evaluation and 

subsequent inspection of its facilities, 

records, and operations by an APHIS 

representative. 

(Approved by the Office of Management and 

Budget under control number 0579–0372) 

Done in Washington, DC, this 26th day of 

August 2014. 

Michael C. Gregoire, 

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 2014–20643 Filed 8–28–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

16 CFR Part 312 

RIN 3084–AB20 

Children’s Online Privacy Protection 

Rule: AgeCheq Application for 

Parental Consent Method 

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission 

(FTC or Commission). 

ACTION: Request for public comment. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Trade 

Commission publishes this request for 

public comment concerning the 

proposed parental consent method 

submitted by AgeCheq Inc. (‘‘AgeCheq’’) 

under the Voluntary Commission 

Approval Processes provision of the 

Children’s Online Privacy Protection 

Rule. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before September 30, 

2014. 

ADDRESSES: Interested parties may file a 

comment online or on paper, by 

following the instructions in the 

Request for Comment part of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

below. Write ‘‘AgeCheq Application for 

Parental Consent Method, Project No. 

P–145410’’ on your comment, and file 

your comment online at https://

ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/

coppaagecheqapp by following the 

instructions on the web-based form. If 

you prefer to file your comment on 

paper, mail your comment to the 

following address: Federal Trade 

Commission, Office of the Secretary, 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite 

CC–5610 (Annex K), Washington, DC 

20580, or deliver your comment to the 

following address: Federal Trade 

Commission, Office of the Secretary, 

Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 

5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex K), 

Washington, DC 20024. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Miry Kim, (202) 326–3622, Attorney, 

Kandi Parsons, Attorney, (202) 326– 

2369, or Peder Magee, Attorney, (202) 

326–3538, Division of Privacy and 

Identity Protection, Federal Trade 

Commission, Washington, DC 20580. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Section A. Background 

On October 20, 1999, the Commission 

issued its final Rule 1 pursuant to the 

Children’s Online Privacy Protection 

Act, 15 U.S.C. 6501 et seq., which 

became effective on April 21, 2000.2 On 

December 19, 2012, the Commission 

amended the Rule, and these 

amendments became effective on July 1, 

2013.3 The Rule requires certain Web 

site operators to post privacy policies 

and provide notice, and to obtain 

verifiable parental consent, prior to 

collecting, using, or disclosing personal 

information from children under the age 

of 13. The Rule enumerates methods for 

obtaining verifiable parental consent, 

while also allowing an interested party 

to file a written request for Commission 

approval of parental consent methods 

not currently enumerated.4 To be 

considered, the party must submit a 

detailed description of the proposed 

parental consent method, together with 

an analysis of how the method meets 

the requirements for parental consent 

described in 16 CFR 312.5(b)(1). 

Pursuant to § 312.12(a) of the Rule, 

AgeCheq has submitted a proposed 

parental consent method to the 

Commission for approval. The full text 

of its application is available on the 

Commission’s Web site at www.ftc.gov. 

Section B. Questions on the Parental 

Consent Method 

The Commission is seeking comment 

on the proposed parental consent 

method, and is particularly interested in 

receiving comment on the questions that 

follow. These questions are designed to 

assist the Commission’s consideration of 

the petition and should not be 

construed as a limitation on the issues 

on which public comment may be 

submitted. Responses to these questions 

should cite the number of the question 

being answered. For all comments 

submitted, please provide any relevant 

data, statistics, or any other evidence, 

upon which those comments are based. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS