51528 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 168 / Friday, August 29, 2014 / Notices 

1To view the notice of availability, the 

assessments, and the comments we received, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2013-0105. 

2The risk analysis for the Patagonia Region 

includes an in-depth assessment of the 11 factors 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

[Docket No. APHIS–2013–0105] 

Notice of Determination of the Footand-Mouth Disease and Rinderpest 

Status of a Region of Patagonia, 

Argentina 

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: We are adding a region of 

Argentina, consisting of the areas of 

Patagonia South and Patagonia North B, 

to the lists of regions that are considered 

free of rinderpest and foot-and-mouth 

disease (FMD). We are taking this action 

because we have determined that this 

region is free of rinderpest and FMD. 

We are also adding the Patagonia Region 

to the list of regions that are subject to 

certain import restrictions on meat and 

meat products because of their 

proximity to or trading relationships 

with rinderpest- or FMD-affected 

countries. These actions update the 

disease status of the Patagonia Region 

with regard to rinderpest and foot-andmouth disease while continuing to 

protect the United States from an 

introduction of those diseases by 

providing additional requirements for 

any meat and meat products imported 

into the United States from the 

Patagonia Region of Argentina. 

DATES: Effective Date: October 28, 2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Silvia Kreindel, Senior Staff 

Veterinarian, Regionalization Evaluation 

Services, National Import Export 

Services, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road 

Unit 38, Riverdale, MD 20737–1231; 

(301) 851–3300. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The regulations in 9 CFR part 94 

(referred to below as the regulations) 

govern the importation of certain 

animals and animal products into the 

United States to prevent the 

introduction of various animal diseases, 

including rinderpest and foot-andmouth disease (FMD). The regulations 

prohibit or restrict the importation of 

live ruminants and swine, and products 

from these animals, from regions where 

rinderpest or FMD is considered to 

exist. 

Within part 94, § 94.1 contains 

requirements governing the importation 

of ruminants and swine from regions 

where rinderpest or FMD exists and the 

importation of the meat of any 

ruminants or swine from regions where 

rinderpest or FMD exists to prevent the 

introduction of either disease into the 

United States. We consider rinderpest 

and FMD to exist in all regions except 

those listed in accordance with 

paragraph (a)(2) of that section as free of 

rinderpest and FMD. 

Section 94.11 of the regulations 

contains requirements governing the 

importation of meat of any ruminants or 

swine from regions that have been 

determined to be free of rinderpest and 

FMD, but that are subject to certain 

restrictions because of their proximity to 

or trading relationships with rinderpestor FMD-affected regions. Such regions 

are listed in accordance with paragraph 

(a)(3) of that section. 

The regulations in 9 CFR part 92, 

§ 92.2, contain requirements for 

requesting the recognition of the animal 

health status of a region. If, after review 

and evaluation of the information 

submitted in support of the request, the 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service (APHIS) believes the request can 

be safely granted, APHIS will make its 

evaluation available for public comment 

through a notice published in the 

Federal Register. At the close of the 

comment period, APHIS will review all 

comments received and will make a 

final determination regarding the 

request that will be detailed in another 

notice published in the Federal 

Register. 

In accordance with that process, on 

January 23, 2014, we published in the 

Federal Register (79 FR 3775–3777, 

Docket No. APHIS–2013–0105) a notice 

of availability 1 in which we announced 

the availability for review and comment 

of our evaluation of the FMD status of 

the areas of Patagonia South and 

Patagonia North B, referred to below as 

the Patagonia Region of Argentina. 

Based on this evaluation, we 

determined that that the animal disease 

surveillance, prevention, and control 

measures implemented by Argentina in 

the Patagonia Region are sufficient to 

minimize the likelihood of introducing 

FMD into the United States via imports 

of FMD-susceptible species or products. 

However, because of the Patagonia 

Region’s proximity to and trading 

relationships with FMD-affected 

regions, we found that it is necessary to 

impose certain restrictions in 

accordance with § 94.11 on the 

importation of meat of any ruminants or 

swine from the Patagonia Region. 

In the same notice we also made 

available an evaluation assessing the 

rinderpest status of South America for 

public review and comment. Rinderpest 

has never been established in South 

America. No South American country 

has ever reported the disease except 

Brazil, which had an outbreak in 1921 

that was limited in scope and quickly 

eradicated. Furthermore, the global 

distribution of rinderpest has 

diminished significantly in recent years 

as a result of the Food and Agriculture 

Organization Global Rinderpest 

Eradication Program. The last known 

cases of rinderpest worldwide occurred 

in the southern part of the ‘‘Somali 

pastoral ecosystem’’ consisting of 

southern Somalia, eastern Kenya, and 

southern Ethiopia. In May 2011, the 

World Organization for Animal Health 

(OIE) announced its recognition of 

global rinderpest freedom. 

We solicited comments on the notice 

of availability for 60 days ending on 

March 24, 2014, and extended the 

comment period for an additional 30 

days, ending April 23, 2014. We 

received 33 comments by that date, from 

State and national livestock associations 

and from private citizens. The 

commenters raised a number of issues 

about our proposed action. The 

comments are discussed below. 

Five commenters specifically 

addressed our proposal to recognize 

South America as free of rinderpest. All 

of those commenters expressed support 

for that determination. 

Many commenters raised concerns 

about the risk analysis for FMD. These 

concerns included concerns about the 

methodology, scope, hazard 

identification, release assessment, 

exposure assessment, risk estimation, 

and discussion of geographical details. 

Several commenters stated that the 

specific methodology and 

measurements used during the site 

visits to support the qualitative risk 

analysis are not available for review. 

One commenter expressed concern that 

such documentation was not collected 

or recorded. That commenter also stated 

that APHIS should develop a protocol to 

be used for site visits so that reviewers’ 

assessments can be analyzed and 

summarized more objectively, and then 

made available with APHIS’ 

conclusions of the risk analysis. 

The purpose of the site visit is to 

verify and complement the information 

previously provided by the country. 

APHIS site visits consist of an in-depth 

evaluation of the risk factors identified 

by APHIS in § 92.2 as factors to consider 

in assessing the risk of the relevant 

animal disease posed by a region.2 The 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 168 / Friday, August 29, 2014 / Notices 51529 

used by APHIS to evaluate the animal health status 

of a region prior to 2012. In 2012, APHIS 

consolidated the 11 factors listed in § 92.2(b) into 

8 factors. APHIS introduced this simplification in 

order to facilitate the application process; however, 

since the evaluation of the Patagonia Region started 

before 2012, and the topics addressed by the 11 

factors are encapsulated in the 8, this analysis 

follows the 11 factor format. 

animal disease risks are identified in the 

risk analysis from the information 

gathered on these factors during the site 

visits and APHIS’ document review, and 

whenever mitigations are considered 

necessary, such mitigations are 

discussed in the risk analysis. 

APHIS has also published guidance 

on our approach to implementing our 

regionalization process and the way in 

which we apply risk analysis to the 

decision-making process for 

regionalization. This document can be 

found on the APHIS Web site at 

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_

export/animals/downloads/

regionalization_process.pdf. 

Site visit findings are thoroughly 

described throughout the risk analysis, 

including visits to local offices (pages 

21–22), airports (pages 33–34), border 

controls (pages 37–38), farms (page 43), 

and laboratories (pages 60–64). 

One commenter stated that APHIS 

should regard the eight factors as more 

than a simple checklist for reviewers 

and that consistent implementation of 

the factors should be completely 

verified. 

APHIS agrees with the commenter. 

When conducting a site visit, APHIS 

verifies that all the factors related to the 

FMD control and eradication program, 

including prevention, controls, 

surveillance, and reporting, are in place 

and that the country has strong 

veterinary authority and infrastructure 

to carry out the FMD program. 

Some commenters stated that 

according to the risk analysis, APHIS 

only conducted three site visits to the 

Patagonia Region. The commenters 

stated that APHIS should maintain a 

more active and robust presence in the 

region. 

APHIS believes that its site visits to 

the Patagonia Region, in conjunction 

with the other documentation and 

information APHIS has reviewed, 

provided APHIS with sufficient 

information to correctly determine the 

region’s FMD status. As a member of the 

OIE, Argentina must immediately notify 

the OIE of any suspect cases of FMD 

that may occur in the future. In 

addition, under § 92.2, a region that is 

granted a specific animal health status 

may be required to submit additional 

information pertaining to that animal 

health status, or to allow APHIS to 

conduct additional information 

collection activities in order to maintain 

its animal health status. 

One commenter stated that the hazard 

identification appears to be lacking 

information, and that APHIS seems to 

consider that FMD is the only hazard of 

concern. The commenter also stated that 

the risk analysis does not provide 

detailed information about the different 

serotypes of the FMD virus, does not 

discuss the efficacy of the FMD 

vaccination programs in regions 

surrounding Patagonia, and does not 

mention virus survival in commodities 

of concern, such as sheep and lamb 

embryos and semen. The commenter 

stated further that the risk analysis does 

not provide any details regarding the 

onset of clinical signs for the different 

species or focus on subclinical disease 

or the species, such as sheep, that may 

display mild clinical signs that can go 

unnoticed and undetected. 

APHIS notes that Argentina requested 

FMD status recognition; therefore the 

risk analysis focuses on the FMD status 

of the region and not on other hazards. 

Appendix I of the risk analysis describes 

the different serotypes of the FMD virus. 

In the risk analysis APHIS also 

describes the disease status of adjacent 

regions, including the FMD outbreaks 

that occurred in 2003 and 2006, and the 

eradication and control programs in 

adjacent regions. 

The vaccination rates in the adjacent 

region of Northern Argentina reached 

over 99 percent between 2008 and 2012. 

In addition, the region of Northern 

Argentina has several overlapping 

controls to ensure compliance with 

vaccination calendars through matching 

vaccination records to movement 

permits and census data and through 

field inspections. We have updated the 

risk analysis to add the following to the 

discussion of the disease status of 

adjacent regions: ‘‘Vaccination of cattle 

is mandatory in the area north of the 

42nd parallel with the exception of 

Patagonia North B (the area adjacent to 

Patagonia South, a region without 

vaccination) and recently, Patagonia 

North A and the summer pastures (zona 

veranadas) of Calingasta Valleys in the 

province of San Juan. The Servicio 

Nacional de Sanidad y Calidad 

Agroalimentaria (SENASA) is the 

Government of Argentina’s enforcement 

authority and regulating body for 

planning, implementing, and 

controlling actions to eradicate FMD. 

SENASA establishes the technical 

requirements for the vaccination 

program. Vaccination can only be 

performed by authorized personnel who 

are trained, registered, and accredited/

audited by SENASA. Vaccination 

coverage rates have been over 97 

percent in the region above the 42nd 

parallel (with the exception of Patagonia 

North B, and most recently Patagonia 

North A, in which vaccination is not 

conducted) since 2001.’’ 

On page 71 of the risk analysis, we 

described embryos as presenting a 

negligible risk of infecting an exposed 

recipient with the FMD virus, as the 

zona pellucida is an important barrier 

against pathogens, and only embryos 

with an intact zona pellucida may be 

imported into the United States under 

the provisions of § 98.3(h). On page 72 

of the document we described semen as 

presenting a likelihood of exposure of 

susceptible animals to this virus if the 

semen is collected from an infected 

animal. However, based on the 

conclusion of the release assessment 

that diseased animals are not likely to 

exist in the Patagonia Region or, if they 

do, are not likely to go undetected, 

APHIS considers it unlikely that U.S. 

animals would be exposed to infected 

semen from the Patagonia Region. 

APHIS looked at clinical disease in all 

the relevant species, including those, 

like swine, that are not expected to be 

exported from the Patagonia Region. 

Clinical disease in sheep is discussed in 

Appendix I. APHIS has updated the risk 

assessment to add the following to the 

Appendix: ‘‘The incubation period in 

sheep is similar to that observed in 

bovines, and has been reported to be 1 

to 12 days, with most cases appearing in 

2–8 days.’’ We understand that 

subclinical disease or species-specific 

symptoms may result in unnoticed and 

undetected viral infection. However, 

because no vaccination is carried out in 

the Patagonia Region, any cattle or 

swine in that region exposed to the FMD 

virus would act as good sentinels of an 

outbreak. 

One commenter stated that the release 

(entry) assessment focuses on the factors 

in § 92.2 rather than providing a 

description of all the biological 

pathways necessary for an importation 

activity to introduce the disease into the 

United States. The commenter stated 

that this section could be strengthened 

by a detailed chronological list of FMD 

outbreak information for the Patagonia 

Region and the bordering regions to 

include the year of the outbreak, 

epidemiological disease spread 

information, risk factors, maps, and the 

controls implemented during the 

outbreak. 

When preparing a risk analysis, 

APHIS evaluates the relevant pathways 

as described by the scientific literature 

and supported by the OIE. Therefore, on 

page 70 of the risk analysis, APHIS has 

described the biological pathway that it 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
51530 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 168 / Friday, August 29, 2014 / Notices 

believes is most likely to result in the 

release of FMD into the United States, 

which is exposure through the 

importation of FMD-infected sheep 

meat. APHIS also discusses the history 

of FMD outbreaks in the Patagonia 

Region and neighboring regions in 

sections 2 and 3 of the entry assessment. 

APHIS does not believe a description of 

all the biological pathways that could 

possibly introduce FMD into the United 

States is necessary or helpful in 

determining the likelihood of release 

because not all pathways will lead to 

the introduction of active virus through 

the importation of susceptible 

commodities. 

In conducting an animal disease 

status evaluation in a foreign region, 

APHIS focuses on the likelihood that 

the region is free of the hazard(s) by 

evaluating, for example, the official 

veterinary capacity and authority, 

surveillance systems, and import 

controls, in place in the exporting 

country. APHIS believes that an analysis 

of these factors provides a robust 

analysis of the likelihood of release of 

FMD into the United States. Given that 

there is a very low likelihood that FMD 

is present in the Patagonia Region or 

would be introduced into Argentina 

without detection, the corresponding 

entry likelihood into the United States 

is considered also to be very low. 

One commenter stated that the 

exposure assessment does not discuss 

the potential transmission of FMD 

within and from quarantine facilities. 

We are confident that the exposure 

assessment appropriately describes the 

biological pathways necessary for 

exposure of animals and humans in the 

United States to FMD, and that APHIS’ 

regulatory safeguards will provide 

effective protection against the risks 

associated with the importation of 

ruminants or their products from the 

Patagonia Region of Argentina. These 

safeguards include subjecting animals 

and animal products from the region to 

certain restrictions because of the 

region’s proximity to FMD-affected 

countries (§ 94.11); certification that 

ruminants and swine have been kept in 

a region entirely free of FMD and 

rinderpest (for ruminants) for 60 days 

prior to export (§§ 93.405 and 93.505); 

and a minimum quarantine of 30 days 

from the date of arrival at the port of 

entry for most imported ruminants 

(§ 93.411), and 15 days for all imported 

swine (§ 93.510). 

One commenter stated that sufficient 

data is lacking for the plausible risk 

exposure pathways mentioned in the 

exposure assessment. 

In the risk analysis, the exposure 

pathways are defined for the 

importation of sheep meat, genetic 

materials, and susceptible live 

ruminants. We anticipate that these are 

the commodities that will be exported to 

the United States based on the 

information provided in Argentina’s 

application, our knowledge of the 

livestock industry in the Patagonia 

Region, and what commodities are 

exported from the Patagonia Region 

now. 

One commenter stated that there is a 

disparity in the risk levels for embryos 

in the exposure assessment with the 

documentation as negligible on page 71 

and low on page 72. 

The risk of transmission of FMD via 

embryos is negligible. APHIS will 

correct the wording on page 72. 

The commenters stated that the risk 

analysis does not include sufficient 

detail for geographical landmarks 

outlining the Patagonia Region or maps 

with the necessary level of detail to be 

useful. 

APHIS disagrees. The geographic 

landmarks outlining the Patagonia 

Region are described on page 27 of the 

risk analysis. This description also 

includes a discussion of the area and 

climate. Figure 1 is a map of Argentina 

showing different provinces (including 

oceans and neighboring countries) and 

Figure 2 shows the regionalization 

status as defined by the OIE after 

Patagonia North B was recognized as 

free without vaccination in May 2007. 

One commenter stated that the risk 

analysis review and general assessment 

process do not seem to be completely 

transparent and are not documented 

satisfactorily for thorough outside 

analysis, but did not identify specific 

aspects of the process that seemed 

opaque. 

APHIS is confident that the review 

and assessment process is appropriately 

explained and documented in the risk 

analysis document. 

Several commenters stated that 

APHIS should prepare a quantitative 

risk analysis and make it available for 

public review. Some commenters stated 

that the qualitative format for the risk 

analysis is subjective and fails to 

objectively quantify the probability of 

risk and adequately assess the 

magnitude of the consequences. One 

commenter noted that APHIS prepared 

a quantitative risk analysis in 2002 for 

importation of beef from Uruguay and 

asked why APHIS chose to prepare a 

qualitative risk analysis for the 

Patagonia Region. 

APHIS believes that a qualitative 

analysis is appropriate in this situation. 

APHIS’ evaluations are based on science 

and conducted according to the factors 

identified in § 92.2, which include 

biosecurity measures, livestock 

demographics, and marketing practices. 

As explained in the risk analysis, we 

conducted an in-depth evaluation of the 

11 factors used by APHIS to evaluate the 

animal health status of a region prior to 

2012. The factors include: (1) The 

authority, organization, and 

infrastructure of the veterinary services 

organization in the region; (2) Disease 

status; (3) The status of adjacent regions 

with respect to the agent; (4) The extent 

of an active disease control program, if 

any, if the agent is known to exist in the 

region; (5) The vaccination status of the 

region; (6) The degree to which the 

region is separated from adjacent 

regions of higher risk through physical 

or other barriers; (7) The extent to which 

movement of animals and animal 

products is controlled from regions of 

higher risk, and the level of biosecurity 

regarding such movements; (8) 

Livestock demographics and marketing 

practices in the region; (9) The type and 

extent of disease surveillance in the 

region; (10) Diagnostic laboratory 

capacity; and (11) Policies and 

infrastructure for animal disease control 

in the region. Neither the regulations in 

9 CFR part 92 nor APHIS guidance 

documents require a quantitative risk 

analysis or indicate that one is needed 

here. 

Most of APHIS’ risk analyses have 

been, and continue to be, qualitative in 

nature. Over time, APHIS has come to 

use qualitative risk assessments given 

the limitations of quantitative models, 

although APHIS recognizes that 

quantitative risk analysis models can be 

useful in cases where the risk 

management questions or information 

cannot be addressed with a qualitative 

model. When coupled with site visit 

evaluations, APHIS believes that 

qualitative risk analyses provide the 

necessary information to assess risk of 

disease introduction through 

importation. Additionally, quantitative 

modes are resource-intensive and take a 

much longer time to complete. 

Quantitative models also tend to be 

data-intensive, and the types of data 

needs required by such models are often 

not available or adequate under most 

circumstances. At the same time that 

quantitative models are data-intensive, 

they are also necessarily developed 

using a set of assumptions that may not 

always adequately represent the 

biological situation in question, thus 

resulting in a wide range of uncertainty 

in interpretation of the model outcomes. 

Quantitative models also require 

constant updating, which is dependent 

on availability of current research and 

data, and thus these models may not 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 168 / Friday, August 29, 2014 / Notices 51531 

always represent the current state of 

scientific information. Finally, 

uncertainty in the results or outcomes of 

quantitative models also arises from a 

large number of sources, including 

problem specification, conceptual or 

computational model construction and 

model misspecification, estimation of 

input values, and other model 

misspecification issues. 

One commenter asked what types of 

training programs are given to SENASA 

personnel stationed at the border 

checkpoints and patrolling in the areas 

along the border. 

The training of SENASA border 

personnel is described on page 30 of the 

risk analysis. The border personnel are 

trained on a number of topics, including 

legal framework, national and 

international zoosanitary status, 

epidemiological characterization of the 

region, and import and export 

procedures. 

Two commenters expressed concern 

that Argentina’s border control and 

security between the Patagonia Region 

and neighboring regions have not been 

adequately verified. 

Border control and security in the 

Patagonia Region are discussed on pages 

27 through 37 of the risk analysis. 

APHIS looked at these issues during all 

of its site visits. Based on those visits 

and other documents and information 

that APHIS has obtained and made 

available with the risk analysis, APHIS 

is confident that Argentina’s border 

controls with respect to the Patagonia 

Region are sufficient to prevent the 

introduction of FMD into the region. 

One commenter stated that in 

addition to assessing the risk of disease 

directly from animals and animal 

products from the Patagonia Region, it 

is also important to measure and 

address risk due to potential economic 

incentives to trans-ship animals and 

animal products. Two additional 

commenters expressed concern that 

because Argentina consumes a large 

portion of the meat that is produced in 

the country, and because there is transit 

between regions for access and delivery 

of beef and meat products, there is a 

greater risk of contamination and 

infection across regional boundaries. 

As we explained above, APHIS has 

assessed the border controls and 

security of the Patagonia Region and we 

are confident that these are sufficient to 

prevent the introduction of FMD into 

the region. We also note that Argentina 

has effective and appropriate 

requirements for the importation of 

susceptible commodities into the 

Patagonia Region. These are discussed 

on page 69 of the risk analysis. 

One commenter asked what 

disinfection methods are used against 

the FMD virus at the border points. 

As explained on page 38 of the risk 

analysis, disinfection methods include 

spraying vehicles with disinfectants that 

are effective against the FMD virus. 

Among other effective disinfectants, 

SENASA uses the following: 5.25 

percent sodium hypochlorite, 3 percent 

acetic acid, 4 percent potassium 

peroxymonosulfate and 1 percent 

sodium chloride, and 4 percent sodium 

carbonate. 

One commenter stated that SENASA 

reports that all producers, animal 

caretakers, and transporters were wellversed in recognizing clinical signs of 

FMD in livestock. The commenter asked 

how these individuals were trained to 

recognize clinical and subclinical signs 

of FMD, and if there is any accreditation 

or certification process for their training. 

The commenter also asked if there was 

any verification process for their 

reported FMD recognition skills. 

APHIS notes that ‘‘subclinical 

disease’’ means that there are no 

observable clinical signs of the disease. 

The training requirements for official 

and non-official veterinarians are 

described on page 19 of the risk 

analysis, and the training requirements 

for SENASA personnel are described on 

page 20. In all cases the training is in 

line with the main strategies in 

Argentina’s FMD National Eradication 

Plan. In addition, different components 

of FMD outreach and awareness 

programs (e.g., radio advertisement, 

presentations to industry, etc.) remind 

producers of vaccination campaigns, 

clinical signs compatible with the 

disease, and compulsory reporting of 

suspect cases. 

With respect to verification of disease 

recognition skills, SENASA has a 

training and promotion program, which 

includes the performance of drills. The 

training is carried out by the Bureau of 

Epidemiology. In addition, the Field 

General Coordination holds meetings to 

provide updates on the information, 

methodology, and standards that the 

local veterinarians should know. 

Training records are maintained by the 

Bureau of Human Resources and 

Training in which official agents get 

credits for the various classes they 

attend. The credits are added up in a 

score that is used towards promotions in 

the organization. The Bureau of Human 

Resources and Training coordinates the 

training activities of each of the 

National Bureaus through training 

consultants. In the case of the National 

Bureau of Animal Health, two 

professionals work as consultants who 

lead the 22 training delegates of the 

provinces who coordinate, audit, and 

guide the process of teaching official 

veterinarians. This training program is 

described in the risk analysis on page 

67. 

Three commenters stated that over 

half the sheep in Argentina reside in the 

Patagonia Region. The sheep are 

generally raised in extensive 

management systems and since FMD 

clinical signs are relatively subtle in 

sheep, it is important that data be 

collected for public review on which 

specific diagnostic practices and risk 

mitigation measures are used at border 

crossings to prevent FMD from entering 

Patagonia. One commenter asked 

specifically how APHIS will ensure that 

there are enhanced surveillance systems 

in place that will preclude the virus 

circulating in the sheep population 

undetected. 

The commenters are correct that 

sheep are the predominant livestock 

species in the Patagonia Region. Almost 

60 percent of the sheep in Argentina 

reside in Patagonia. The livestock 

density is less than one animal per 

hectare. Due to extensive husbandry 

practices and low animal density, 

contact between sheep and other species 

and with other sheep is minimized, 

reducing the risk of disease spread in 

the event that the FMD virus was 

introduced into the region. As we 

explained above, no vaccination is 

carried out in the Patagonia Region, so 

any cattle or swine in that region 

exposed to the FMD virus would act as 

good sentinels of an outbreak. 

Border control and security in the 

Patagonia Region are discussed on pages 

27 through 37 of the risk analysis. 

SENASA conducts serological 

surveillance (testing blood serum for 

viral activity) of sheep and cattle. This 

is an effective indicator of the FMD 

situation because the FMD susceptible 

species are not vaccinated against FMD. 

Furthermore, for sheep, premises 

identification is required, either by 

eartag, which includes the CUIG (Clave 

Unica de Identification Ganadera— 

Unique Holding Identification Code) 

number of the farm, or ear notch. The 

eartag color and shape may be selected 

by the farmer (the color is not specific 

to the FMD status of the region as in 

cattle). Ear notches are controlled by 

and registered with SENASA to ensure 

that they are unique. SENASA requires 

all premises with agricultural animal 

production to register with SENASA 

and obtain a RENSPA (Registro 

Nacional Sanitario de Productores 

Agropecuarios—National Sanitary 

Registry of Ag-Producers) number, an 

alphanumeric identifier that encodes 

information about individual premises. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
51532 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 168 / Friday, August 29, 2014 / Notices 

The RENSPA number is structured to 

identify the province, municipality, 

premises, and various details of the 

particular premises, such as ownership, 

rental status, or shared occupancy. In 

association with the RENSPA number, 

census information on all species on the 

premises and permit information 

showing animal movements are 

included in a database maintained by 

field officials. This information allows 

animals from an individual premise to 

be traced effectively, and we are 

confident that SENASA would be able 

to respond quickly in the event of 

positive or false positive results from 

serological testing. 

Many commenters stated that 

Argentina has shown a trend of 

decreasing compliance in audits 

conducted by the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture’s Food Safety and 

Inspection Service (FSIS) between 2005 

and 2009. One of the commenters stated 

that Argentina’s history of compliance 

issues could influence their ability to 

consistently and successfully enforce 

control measures within the Patagonia 

Region in order to successfully mitigate 

the risk from the possible entry of FMD 

into this region from the surrounding 

higher-risk areas. One commenter asked 

if APHIS consulted with FSIS as part of 

our evaluation, and if so, what was 

FSIS’ feedback. 

The purpose of APHIS’ evaluation 

was to assess the FMD situation in the 

Patagonia Region and to evaluate 

Argentina’s ability to comply with the 

certification requirements for exporting 

specific FMD-susceptible commodities 

to the United States, including the 

certification requirements in § 94.11 for 

meat and other animal products 

imported from regions that are 

considered free of FMD and rinderpest 

but are subject to additional restrictions 

because of their proximity to or trading 

relationships with regions that are not 

free of FMD or rinderpest. Based on its 

site visits and other documentation and 

information, APHIS concluded that 

Argentina’s legal framework, animal 

health infrastructure, movement and 

border controls, diagnostic capabilities, 

surveillance programs, and emergency 

response capacity are sufficient to 

detect, prevent, control, and eradicate 

FMD outbreaks within the boundaries of 

the Patagonia Region of Argentina. 

Moreover, with respect to the Patagonia 

Region, APHIS concluded that the 

Argentine veterinary authority is 

capable of complying with our 

requirements. 

Nevertheless, based on the comments, 

APHIS has reviewed the last five FSIS 

audits conducted in Argentina at the 

slaughter level. The FSIS audits 

concluded that ante-mortem inspection 

processes, which are relevant to the 

detection of FMD during the slaughter 

process, were conducted satisfactorily. 

One commenter stated that reviews of 

the European Commission’s Food and 

Veterinary Office (EC FVO) audits 

identified points of concern in the areas 

of border controls, animal identification, 

vaccination controls, and other 

concerns. The audits evaluated animal 

health controls concerning FMD, related 

animal health control measures, and 

related certification procedures for fresh 

bovine and ovine meat intended for 

export to the European Union (EU). 

The overall objective of the EC FVO 

audits was to assess the animal health 

controls in place in order to verify that 

guarantees provided by the competent 

authorities of Argentina, concerning the 

health status of the country with regard 

to FMD, continue to meet the 

requirements for the export of ovine and 

bovine meat from Argentina to the EU. 

In response to the comments, APHIS 

reviewed the latest reports. The most 

recent report, from 2012, concluded that 

the official FMD control system in place 

for Argentina is reliable and meets EU 

requirements. 

One commenter stated that the 2012 

EC FVO audit showed a less than 

satisfactory enforcement of some 

requirements of the sheep identification 

and movement registration system in 

the Patagonia Region. The commenter 

also stated that the same audit identified 

a weak official control system along the 

Bolivian border, which cannot ensure 

the adequate management of risks 

related to animal movements and 

sufficient verification of satisfactory 

implementation of vaccination 

campaigns for FMD. The commenter 

further stated that limited attention is 

being paid to official ‘‘on-the-spot’’ 

controls on FMD vaccination, which 

casts doubt on the adequate fulfillment 

of the vaccination coverage in all areas 

with an increased risk of FMD. 

As discussed above, the 2012 EC FVO 

report concluded that Argentina meets 

the requirements set forth by the OIE 

and the EU for complying with both the 

EU’s certification requirements for fresh 

bovine and ovine meat and Articles 

8.5.4 and 8.5.5 of the OIE’s Terrestrial 

Animal Health Code recognizing an 

FMD zone where vaccination is not 

practiced and an FMD zone where 

vaccination is practiced. Furthermore, 

with regard to the commenter’s concern 

that the lack of ‘‘on-the-spot’’ controls 

on FMD vaccination would lead to 

inadequate fulfillment of vaccination 

coverage, as we discussed on page 59 of 

the risk analysis, after the 2012 EC FVO 

audit, and in collaboration with external 

animal health experts, Argentina revised 

its surveillance sampling design in 

order to confirm adequate vaccination 

coverage in its territory. The revised 

sampling design focuses on the 

effectiveness of various vaccination 

campaign plans as implemented by the 

local offices. At the time of APHIS’ 

November 2013 site visit, over 50 

percent of samples had already been 

collected with only two reactors 

identified. APHIS notes that the reactor 

animals are not suspect for FMD or 

other diseases; the reaction could be 

related either to immunity as a result of 

vaccination or to the presence of 

proteins in the vaccine. On completion 

of the study, SENASA expects to be able 

to compare effectiveness of operational 

implementation of the National 

Vaccination Plan at the local level. 

Vaccination coverage rates in Northern 

Argentina have been reported at over 97 

percent. In reference to the Bolivian 

border, APHIS recognizes that some 

borders in the northern part of 

Argentina might be porous, and that 

other mitigations might be required in 

such areas in the event Argentina would 

request to export a particular 

commodity into the United States. 

APHIS notes, however, that such 

borders are located over 2,500 miles 

from the region that is under 

consideration in this notice. 

One commenter stated that the EC 

FVO audits showed a limited 

contribution of passive surveillance to 

the detection and notification of suspect 

cases of FMD. The commenter asked if 

the current system of passive 

surveillance in Argentina is really 

working, and asked how the system of 

passive surveillance could work 

effectively if it is not actively pursued. 

The reporting of FMD suspect cases is 

infrequent in the Patagonia Region; 

APHIS believes that this is because FMD 

is not present in the region and other 

vesicular diseases are rare. As we noted 

on page 24 of the risk analysis, there 

were no reports of suspect vesicular 

diseases in 2012 or 2013 in the 

Patagonia Region. To assess the ability 

of veterinary officials at local offices to 

respond to a suspicious case of disease, 

the site visit team asked to view records 

of reports of a suspected notifiable 

disease (in this case, mange) during the 

2009 site visit. The information shared 

revealed that a visit to the affected farm 

was made within 24 hours of the report, 

and all animals on the farm were 

inspected, with samples collected and 

submitted to the laboratory on the same 

day. The farm was immediately 

quarantined upon the report of the 

suspect case and the quarantine 

remained in place throughout the 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 168 / Friday, August 29, 2014 / Notices 51533 

duration of the investigation. At the 

initial visit, neighboring farms were 

contacted to alert the owners of the 

disease suspicion, and the owners were 

told to make their animals available for 

inspection. 

Finally, APHIS notes that the data 

provided in our risk analysis are more 

up-to-date than those provided by the 

EC FVO audits. Further surveillance 

efforts from 2001 to 2013 are described 

on page 57, surveillance efforts 

specifically in Patagonia North A are 

described on page 58, and other ongoing 

surveillance efforts on page 59. Based 

on those findings APHIS concluded that 

the design under which serological 

sampling is conducted in Argentina is 

both valid and efficient and the 

sampling coverage is adequate and that 

the serological sampling is adequate to 

detect disease and identify and measure 

viral activity (if any) in the area. 

A commenter stated that the EC FVO 

audits present wildlife issues as a 

concern for the continued management 

of FMD risk. The commenter stated 

specifically that this issue required 

investigations to assess the risk 

associated with the presence of pigs and 

wild boars in the areas neighboring 

Bolivia and Paraguay, and their possible 

exposure to feeding practices that may 

carry a risk of introduction of the FMD 

virus. 

Although several South American 

wild animal species are susceptible to 

FMD, research into FMD in South 

America has determined that wildlife 

populations, including feral swine, do 

not play a significant role in the 

maintenance and transmission of FMD. 

During outbreak situations, wildlife may 

become affected by FMD; however, as 

we discussed on pages 15–16 of the 

environmental assessment, the 

likelihood that they would become 

carriers under field conditions is rare. 

Therefore, it is unlikely that FMD would 

be introduced into the Patagonia Region 

through movement of infected wildlife. 

The active surveillance on wild boars 

conducted in 2013 is described on page 

58 of the risk analysis. In the serological 

study conducted in swine, a total of 462 

samples were collected from 76 

establishments in Patagonia North A. 

The wildlife surveillance consisted of a 

total of 21 samples. All porcine samples 

were tested using the LF ELISA test 

with negative results. 

Furthermore, feeding garbage to 

animals is prohibited in Argentina 

unless specific products undergo a 

cooking process guaranteeing 

destruction of pathogenic organisms 

(pages 21 and 22 of the risk analysis). In 

the event that these laws were 

circumvented, other factors evaluated in 

the risk analysis, including biosecurity 

measures and response capabilities, 

would mitigate disease risks. 

Two commenters stated that wildlife 

may move across traversable national 

boundaries and infect other wildlife and 

livestock. One of the commenters stated 

that while the environmental 

assessment seeks to address wildlife 

issues and FMD risk, there have not 

been enough wildlife studies or efforts 

to document the natural wildlife 

movements in Patagonia or the 

surrounding regions. The commenter 

further stated that no ideas have been 

advanced to identify practical 

mitigation measures for wildlife species. 

As we explained earlier, research into 

FMD in South America has determined 

that wildlife populations, including 

feral swine, do not play a significant 

role in the maintenance and 

transmission of FMD. During outbreak 

situations, wildlife may become affected 

by FMD; however, the likelihood that 

they would become carriers under field 

conditions is rare and it is unlikely that 

FMD would be introduced into the 

Patagonia Region through movement of 

infected wildlife. 

One commenter stated that there are 

clear weaknesses within Argentina’s 

standards of surveillance and 

management practices, specifically 

inadequate import controls and 

quarantine procedures, that could put 

the U.S. beef supply at risk. 

APHIS disagrees with the commenter. 

We found no evidence of weakness in 

the import controls or quarantine 

procedures in the Patagonia Region and 

are confident that they provide effective 

protection against the introduction of 

FMD to the region. 

One commenter stated that a 

November 2013 report confirmed that 

Brazil and Argentina were beginning a 

second round of vaccination for FMD. 

The commenter stated that this shows 

that Argentina had not previously made 

serious efforts to address its disease 

problem. 

There is no vaccination for FMD in 

the Patagonia Region. APHIS does not 

recognize regions that vaccinate for 

FMD as free of the disease. The 

vaccination activities that occur in other 

regions of Argentina and in Brazil are 

part of the FMD control program in 

those regions. 

One commenter asked how APHIS 

would monitor and verify compliance 

with the measures and restrictions that 

APHIS would place on the importation 

of animals and animal products into the 

United States. The commenter stated 

that in addition to monitoring 

processing operations and sampling, 

and in addition to OIE reporting 

requirements, the responsible 

government agencies of the exporting 

region should be required to submit data 

and status review information regularly, 

as is done in the United States between 

APHIS and State animal health 

agencies. The commenter stated that 

these measures, in addition to follow-up 

site visits and risk monitoring, would 

further assure that the appropriate 

systems and procedures are being 

followed. 

Under the provisions of § 92.2(g), 

regions that are granted animal health 

status may be required to submit 

additional information pertaining to 

animal health status or allow APHIS to 

conduct additional information 

collection activities in order to maintain 

that status. Specifically, we ask for 

additional information if they report 

suspect or known cases of disease to the 

OIE; if we receive public information 

about suspect or known cases of disease; 

if the region that was previously 

evaluated has been re-defined; if there 

are public reports stating changes in the 

veterinary authority, budgets, or 

controls in border areas; if there are 

outbreaks or suspect cases in border 

regions; or if there are changes in any of 

the other factors we consider when 

preparing a risk analysis. We do not 

require submission of additional 

information on a regular schedule 

because we are concerned primarily 

with events that could potentially affect 

the risk status of the region under 

consideration. 

One commenter stated that there was 

no indication of ongoing verification of 

risk control measures other than APHIS 

personnel may inspect slaughter 

establishments periodically. The 

commenter stated that a more routine 

and rigorous system of verification 

should be established. 

As we explained above, regions that 

are recognized for animal health status 

may be required either to provide or to 

allow APHIS to collect additional 

information in order to maintain their 

status if we have reason to believe that 

events in the region or in surrounding 

regions could affect the risk status of the 

region under consideration. We also 

note that APHIS uses a wide variety of 

sources to conduct verification activities 

in the Patagonia Region. These sources 

include the U.S. Embassy, multilateral 

relationships with trading partners, and 

the OIE. 

One commenter stated that, according 

to APHIS reports to the U.S. Animal 

Health Association’s Transmissible 

Diseases of Swine Committee, from 

2009 to 2013 a number of unlicensed 

garbage feeders were found in the 

United States each year by State and 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
51534 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 168 / Friday, August 29, 2014 / Notices 

Federal animal health authorities. The 

commenter asked if APHIS has any 

supporting information that estimates 

the number of unlicensed garbagefeeding facilities. 

Searches for non-licensed garbage 

feeding facilities are regularly 

conducted using several different 

techniques as part of the duties of 

APHIS animal health staff, as well as 

State animal health staff and staff with 

other State agencies. When unlicensed 

garbage feeding facilities are identified, 

the unauthorized activity is documented 

and the facility is brought into 

compliance. Depending on the State, all 

swine on the premises may be 

quarantined and tested for foreign 

animal diseases. Information on the 

number of inspections conducted to 

detect unlicensed garbage feeding 

facilities, the number of unlicensed 

facilities identified, and resolution of 

unlicensed facilities are captured at the 

State level and evaluated by APHIS on 

a regular basis. We do not find the 

number of unlicensed garbage-feeding 

facilities to be too large or their 

existence to pose a risk of FMD given 

the regular monitoring for them. 

One commenter stated that according 

to the risk analysis, APHIS considers the 

most likely pathway of exposure of 

domestic livestock to FMD is through 

feeding of contaminated food waste to 

swine, but that APHIS considers the 

likelihood of exposure of susceptible 

swine to the FMD virus through 

inadequately processed food waste to be 

low. The commenter stated that this 

position is based on a 1995 risk analysis 

and a 2001 survey, and that the pork 

industry has undergone significant 

changes since then. The commenter 

asked what confidence APHIS has that 

these sources adequately reflect the 

current risk to the U.S. pork industry, 

and if the 1995 work should be repeated 

with more current data. 

APHIS acknowledges that the pork 

industry in general has undergone 

significant changes since 1995; 

however, the garbage-feeding industry 

in particular has not. APHIS is 

confident that the 1995 risk analysis and 

2001 survey adequately reflect the 

current risk to the U.S. pork industry 

from contaminated food waste fed to 

swine. 

One commenter stated that under the 

Swine Health Protection Act, licensed 

facilities are required to have two to 

four temperature checks of garbage 

cooking equipment every year. The 

commenter asked what records licensed 

facilities maintain in order to verify that 

they are meeting the time and 

temperature requirements on days when 

they are not inspected, and if those 

records are adequate to provide 

assurance to APHIS that times and 

temperatures are being met outside of 

normal inspections. 

During regularly scheduled visits to 

licensed waste feeding operations, 

inspectors observe the cooking 

procedure to ensure the operator 

understands the proper procedures and 

is able to conduct them properly. If 

there are any suspicions that cooking is 

not being properly conducted, the 

inspector will make additional 

unscheduled visits to ensure that 

cooking procedures are sufficient to 

ensure inactivation of any pathogens, if 

present. APHIS believes that this 

approach helps to ensure proper 

cooking time and temperature even 

when inspectors are not present. 

One commenter asked about APHIS’ 

confidence that FMD would be detected 

early in licensed garbage feeding 

operations. The commenter also asked 

what we estimated the time for 

detection would be and if it would be 

adequate to meet the goals of the 

Foreign Animal Disease Preparedness 

and Response Plan (FAD PReP) for 

disease detection. 

Because of the routine visits of 

inspectors to garbage feeding facilities, 

which provide opportunities for 

education on disease signs and 

requirements for reporting, as well as 

the opportunity for direct observation of 

signs of illness in animals, APHIS 

believes that the presence of FMD or 

other reportable conditions would be 

detected more quickly in these types of 

premises than in other, unregulated 

premises. 

One commenter stated that effective 

surveillance for vesicular diseases relies 

on a high level of awareness by 

producers and veterinarians on what 

clinical signs are consistent with 

vesicular diseases and how to report 

suspected cases. The commenter asked 

if APHIS had current demographics on 

the level of biosecurity, security, 

veterinary care, routine health 

observations, and knowledge of disease 

reporting pathways in garbage-fed 

populations to meet the goal of a FAD 

PReP. The commenter also asked what 

level of confidence APHIS has regarding 

the education provided to licensed 

garbage feeders, whether biosecurity 

and veterinary care protocols are being 

followed; and whether disease reporting 

procedures are being followed. 

Licensed garbage feeders are generally 

provided with education during routine 

inspections by animal health regulatory 

staff on topics including the importance 

of proper cooking, signs of foreign 

animal diseases, appropriate biosecurity 

measures, etc. Mandatory inspections 

provide confidence in the ability of 

licensed garbage feeding operations to 

maintain biosecurity and reporting 

requirement protocols. Demonstration of 

adequate facilities and equipment is a 

requirement for obtaining and 

maintaining licensure. 

One commenter asked what level of 

confidence we have that FMD would be 

detected in unlicensed garbage-feeding 

operations, and what the estimated time 

for detection would be. 

If FMD were to occur in an unlicensed 

garbage feeding facility, APHIS 

estimates that likelihood of detection 

would be no different than introduction 

into any swine herd. 

One commenter asked if budget cuts 

to APHIS and State animal health staffs 

have had a negative effect on the ability 

to carry out the regulatory activities 

outlined in the Swine Health Protection 

Act, and if the reduction in regulatory 

activities had decreased the number of 

inspections and searches for unlicensed 

garbage-feeding operations to a level 

lower than what was used in the 1995 

risk analysis. 

While budget cuts to APHIS have 

resulted in reorganizing priorities 

within the Swine Health Program (SHP), 

our SHP activities remain at 

recommended levels. The changes made 

have resulted in shifting of lower-yield 

activities in favor of allowing SHP 

inspectors to spend more time 

interacting with swine producers. For 

instance, APHIS no longer supports 

State and Federal employees conducting 

regular trips to restaurants to inquire 

about garbage disposal. Instead, this 

activity has been passed to other State 

partners, including public health and 

environmental health employees, who 

routinely frequent restaurants as part of 

their daily activities. These individuals 

report to State cooperators when they 

uncover suspicions of unlicensed 

garbage feeding, which allows APHIS 

inspectors and State cooperators to 

focus on likely violations. This, in turn, 

allows inspectors to spend more time on 

swine farms, working with producers, 

providing education, and performing 

inspections, among other duties. 

One commenter stated that according 

to the sixth edition (2013) of the OIE 

Tool for the Evaluation of Performance 

of Veterinary Services, stability of 

structures, sustainability of policies, and 

operational funding are listed as critical 

competencies for institutional and 

financial sustainability. The commenter 

asked how confident APHIS is that the 

short- and long-term levels of funding 

for SENASA are adequate to carry out 

their mission related to this proposed 

rule. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 168 / Friday, August 29, 2014 / Notices 51535 

As described on page 17 of the risk 

analysis, SENASA reported that its 2013 

budget was 1.3 billion pesos 

(approximately $200.7 million). 

SENASA officials described the system 

as self-sufficient because user fees are 

required for almost every service 

SENASA provides, including slaughter 

surveillance, issuances of certificates, 

and laboratory tests. The budget for the 

laboratory is 60 million pesos 

(approximately $12 million). APHIS 

finds no reason to believe that the 

funding will change, as stable funding 

for the FMD control and eradication 

programs in Argentina has been in place 

for over a decade. 

One commenter asked whether 

APHIS’ funding levels are adequate to 

carry out the agency’s mission, 

especially verification of practices 

conducted in Patagonia. 

While APHIS’ funding levels have 

decreased in recent years, we are still 

confident in our ability to carry out our 

mission successfully. As we explained 

above, APHIS uses a wide variety of 

sources to conduct verification activities 

in the Patagonia Region, including the 

U.S. Embassy, multilateral relationships 

with trading partners, and the OIE. 

Two commenters stated that some of 

the supporting documentation is in a 

foreign language and no official 

translation was provided. One 

commenter stated that while 

stakeholders could shoulder the cost 

burden to have the material translated, 

it would not constitute an official 

translation. 

In addition to the risk analysis and 

other supporting documents, APHIS 

provided the public with documents 

that were referred to in the risk analysis. 

Some of these documents were provided 

by the Government of Argentina and are 

in Spanish. These documents include 

presentations that were done at the local 

offices. For the documents that have not 

been officially translated for the public, 

APHIS verified the data when 

conducting the site visit. This 

information, including data analysis and 

conclusions, is thoroughly described 

throughout the risk analysis that was 

made available for public comment. 

Many commenters noted that there 

was no economic impact analysis 

associated with this notice. One 

commenter stated that while an 

economic analysis is not required for 

risk evaluation notices, the economic 

analysis for the 2007 proposed rule had 

deficiencies. Others stated that infected 

beef entering the United States could 

have a negative impact on our domestic 

livestock supply and economy. The 

commenters stated the economic risk of 

an FMD outbreak to the U.S. livestock 

industry is too great to take any action 

that increases the risk to the domestic 

cattle herd. These commenters stated 

that a new economic analysis for 

animals and animal products should be 

prepared and made available to the 

public for review and comment. 

The commenter is correct that an 

economic analysis is not required for 

risk evaluation notices. APHIS has 

determined that susceptible 

commodities imported from the 

Patagonia Region pose a very low risk of 

introducing FMD into the United States 

and that these products can be safely 

imported. This determination is based 

on the lack of FMD virus circulating in 

the Patagonia Region, the Argentine 

regulatory and industry safeguards that 

would likely arrest the spread of FMD 

should it be introduced into the region 

and prevent exports of infected 

commodities, and, APHIS’ regulatory 

safeguards, including quarantine of live 

imported animals. As we explained 

above, we are confident that APHIS’ 

regulatory safeguards will provide 

effective protection against the risks 

associated with the importation of 

ruminants or their products from the 

Patagonia Region of Argentina. 

One commenter stated that even with 

a robust emergency management system 

in the United States, the mobility and 

demographics of susceptible livestock 

and products in the United States would 

allow for the probable spread of FMD to 

many States before it could be 

contained. The commenter further 

stated that the accidental introduction 

of FMD into the United States would 

cost producers, consumers, and 

governments billions of dollars in lost 

revenue, response overhead, increased 

retail costs, and long-term loss of 

consumer confidence. 

While we agree with the commenter 

that the expected consequences of an 

FMD outbreak in the United States 

would be severe, the likelihood of such 

an outbreak occurring due to exposure 

of the domestic livestock population to 

FMD-susceptible animals and products 

imported from the Patagonia Region of 

Argentina is very low. Therefore, the 

overall risk of FMD to U.S. animal 

health from imports of these 

commodities is also very low. 

The commenter stated that the United 

States has defended its decision to reject 

beef from Argentina citing general 

sanitary issues. The commenter stated 

that Argentina demanded that the U.S. 

market be opened to their exports but 

have not taken appropriate action to 

address their sanitary issues. 

APHIS disagrees with the commenter. 

Our evaluation shows that Argentina, as 

discussed in the risk analysis, has taken 

the necessary action to address FMD 

issues. 

Based on the evaluation and the 

reasons given in this document in 

response to comments, we are 

recognizing the Patagonia Region of 

Argentina as free of FMD and 

rinderpest. The lists of regions 

recognized as free of these diseases can 

be found by visiting the APHIS Web site 

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

portal/aphis/ourfocus/importexport and 

following the link to ‘‘Animal or Animal 

Product.’’ Copies of the lists are also 

available via postal mail, fax, or email 

upon request to the Regionalization 

Evaluation Services, National Import 

Export Services, Veterinary Services, 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service, 4700 River Road Unit 38, 

Riverdale, Maryland 20737. 

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. 

Done in Washington, DC, this 26th day of 

August 2014. 

Michael C. Gregoire, 

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 2014–20646 Filed 8–28–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Food and Nutrition Service 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Proposed Collection; 

Comment Request—FNS User Access 

Request Form FNS–674 

AGENCY: Food and Nutrition Service 

(FNS), USDA. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this 

notice invites the general public and 

other public agencies to comment on the 

proposed information collection. This is 

a revision of a currently approved 

collection. The purpose of this 

information collection request is to 

continue the use of the electronic form 

FNS–674, titled ‘‘User Access Request 

Form.’’ This form will continue to allow 

access to current FNS systems, modify 

access or remove user access. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before October 28, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Comments are invited on: 

(a) Whether the proposed collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

agency, including whether the 

information shall have practical utility; 

(b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES