38148 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 135 /Wednesday, July 15, 1998 / Notices

R.D., Food and Nutrition Information

Center, NAL/ARS/USDA, Room 304,

10301 Baltimore Avenue, Beltsville, MD

20705–2351, (301) 504–7374. All

responses to this notice will be

summarized and included in the request

for OMB approval. All comments will

also become a matter of public record.

Keith W. Russell,

Deputy Director, NAL.

[FR Doc. 98–18728 Filed 7–14–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–03–P

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service

[Docket No. 98–027–1]

International Sanitary and

Phytosanitary Standard-Setting

Activities

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice and solicitation of

comments.

SUMMARY: In accordance with legislation

implementing the results of the Uruguay

Round of negotiations under the General

Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, we are

informing the public of international

standard-setting activities of the Office

International des Epizooties, the

Secretariat of the International Plant

Protection Convention, and the North

American Plant Protection Organization,

and we are soliciting public comment

on the standards to be considered.

ADDRESSES: Please send an original and

three copies of your comments to

Docket No. 98–027–1, Regulatory

Analysis and Development, PPD,

APHIS, Suite 3C03, 4700 River Road

Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737–1238.

Please state in your letter that your

comments refer to Docket No. 98–027–

1, and state the name of the committee

or working group to which your

comments are addressed. Comments

received may be inspected at USDA,

room 1141, South Building, 14th Street

and Independence Avenue SW.,

Washington, DC, between 8 a.m. and

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

except holidays. Persons wishing to

inspect comments are requested to call

ahead on (202) 690–2817 to facilitate

entry into the comment reading room.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

John Greifer, Acting Director, Trade

Support Team, International Services,

APHIS, room 1128, South Building,

14th Street and Independence Avenue

SW., Washington, DC, 20250, (202) 720–

7677; or e-mail: jgreifer@aphis.usda.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The World

Trade Organization (WTO) was

established on January 1, 1995, as the

common international institutional

framework for the conduct of trade

relations among its members in matters

related to the Uruguay Round

Agreements. The WTO is the successor

organization to the General Agreement

on Tariffs and Trade. U.S. membership

in the WTO was approved by Congress

when it enacted the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act, which was signed into

law (Public Law 103–465) by the

President on December 8, 1994. The

Uruguay Round Agreements Act

amended title IV of the Trade

Agreements Act of 1979 (19 U.S.C. 2531

et seq.) by adding a new subtitle F,

‘‘International Standard-Setting

Activities.’’ Subtitle F requires the

President to designate an agency to be

responsible for informing the public of

the sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS)

standard-setting activities of each

international standard-setting

organization. The designated agency

must inform the public by publishing a

notice in the Federal Register that

provides the following information: (1)

The sanitary or phytosanitary standards

under consideration or planned for

consideration by the international

standard-setting organization; and (2)

for each sanitary or phytosanitary (SPS)

standard specified: a description of the

consideration or planned consideration

of the standard; whether the United

States is participating or plans to

participate in the consideration of the

standard; the agenda for United States

participation, if any; and the agency

responsible for representing the United

States with respect to the standard.

Subtitle F defines ‘‘international

standard’’ as a standard, guideline, or

recommendation: (1) Adopted by the

Codex Alimentarius Commission

(Codex) regarding food safety; (2)

developed under the auspices of the

Office International des Epizooties (OIE)

regarding animal health and zoonoses;

(3) developed under the auspices of the

Secretariat of the International Plant

Protection Convention (IPPC) in

cooperation with the North American

Plant Protection Organization (NAPPO)

regarding plant health; or (4) established

by or developed under any other

international organization agreed to by

the member countries of the North

American Free Trade Agreement

(NAFTA) or by member countries of the

WTO.

The President, pursuant to

Proclamation No. 6780 of March 23,

1995 (60 FR 15845), designated the

United States Department of Agriculture

as the agency responsible for informing

the public of the SPS standard-setting

activities of Codex, OIE, IPPC, and

NAPPO. This responsibility was

delegated to the United States

Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s)

Food Safety and Inspection Service

(FSIS) for Codex activities and Animal

and Plant Health Inspection Service

(APHIS) for OIE, IPPC, and NAPPO

activities.

FSIS is responsible for publishing an

annual notice in the Federal Register to

inform the public of SPS standardsetting activities for Codex. Codex was

created in 1962 by two United Nations

organizations, the Food and Agriculture

Organization (FAO) and the World

Health Organization. It is the major

international organization for

encouraging international trade in food

and protecting the health and economic

interests of consumers.

APHIS is responsible for publishing

notice of OIE, IPPC, and NAPPO

activities related to international

standards and representing the United

States with respect to these standards.

Following are descriptions of OIE,

IPPC, and NAPPO scheduled activities

for the coming year. In some cases,

working groups and committees have

not yet set meeting dates and locations

or determined specific standards to be

discussed. The OIE, IPPC, and NAPPO

sanitary and phytosanitary standardsetting activities for the coming year

may be modified as emergency

situations may affect the agenda of each

standard-setting body.

OIE Standard-Setting Activities

The OIE was created in Paris, France,

in 1924 with the signing of an

international agreement by 28 countries.

It is currently composed of 151 member

nations, each of which is represented by

a delegate, who, in most cases, is the

chief veterinary officer of that country.

The WTO has designated the OIE as

the international forum for setting

animal health standards, reporting

global animal situations and disease

status, and presenting guidelines and

recommendations on sanitary measures.

The OIE facilitates intergovernmental

cooperation to prevent the spread of

contagious diseases in animals through

the sharing of scientific research among

its members. The major function of the

OIE is to ensure that scientifically

justified standards govern international

trade in animals and animal products.

The OIE aims to achieve this through

the development and revision of

international standards for diagnostic

tests and vaccines for the safe

international trade of animals and

animal products.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 135 /Wednesday, July 15, 1998 / Notices 38149

The OIE provides annual reports on

the global distribution of animal

diseases, recognizes disease-free status

of member countries, categorizes animal

diseases with respect to their

international significance, publishes

bulletins on global disease status and

timely reviews of pertinent animal

health issues, and provides animal

disease control guidelines to member

countries.

Positions, policies, and standards

established by the OIE can be adopted

by consensus or by vote of the delegates

upon recommendations from various

commissions and working groups

within the OIE. The following is a list

of those commissions and groups. Each

listing contains a description of the

general purpose of the commission or

group, the items on its current agenda,

and the dates and locations of its

meetings. Also listed are the U.S.

agencies represented or serving as

contact points on each commission or

group. Commission and working group

members are drawn from the five OIE

regional commissions and are selected

based on their expertise; each

commission is made up of three to six

members. The scientific community of

the United States has the honor of being

represented on most, but not all, of the

commissions.

OIE Commissions and Working Groups

1. Committee/Working Group: General

Session.

U.S. Participant: Veterinary Services,

USDA–APHIS; Alternate—International

Services, USDA–APHIS.

General Purpose: Establish, review,

and adopt international standards

dealing with animal health.

Date of Meeting: May (annually).

Location of Meeting: Paris, France.

Major Discussion/Agenda: Animal

health standards related to trade,

including risk assessment standards,

global disease control procedures,

regionalization, specific disease issues,

and quality assurance of veterinary

services.

2. Committee/Working Group:

Regional Commission for the Americas.

U.S. Participant: Veterinary Services,

USDA–APHIS.

General Purpose: The Regional

Commission for the Americas is one of

five OIE Regional Commissions.

Regional Commissions nominate

candidates for election to the expert

commissions and working groups,

discuss regional animal health issues,

and propose topics of regional concern

as agenda items or for scientific review

at upcoming meetings of the OIE

General Session.

Date of Meeting: May (annually) and

March or April (every 2 years).

Location of Meeting: Variable.

Major Discussion/Agenda: Location of

regional office for the Americas, animal

health disease control issues of regional

concern.

3. Committee/Working Group:

Standards Commission.

U.S. Participant: Veterinary Services,

USDA–APHIS.

General Purpose: The Standards

Commission recommends new

standards and changes in existing

international standards for diagnostic

tests and vaccines. These changes, when

approved by the General Session, are

published in the OIE Manual of

Standards for Diagnostic Tests and

Vaccines.

Dates of Meetings: February and

September (twice annually).

Location of Meetings: Paris, France.

Major Discussion/Agenda: Review

and recommend revisions to

international diagnostic test standards

published in the OIE Manual of

Standards for Diagnostic Tests and

Vaccines; review OIE reference

laboratories, OIE reference sera, and

laboratory quality assurance, and make

recommendations to the OIE

International Animal Health Code

Commission; discuss the most

appropriate diagnostic procedures for

specific animal and poultry diseases.

4. Committee/Working Group:

International Animal Health Code

Commission.

U.S. Participant: International

Services, USDA–APHIS.

General Purpose: The International

Animal Health Code Commission

develops and updates disease-specific

international standards regarding the

movement of animals and animal

products and generic standards for

animal transport, regionalization and

risk assessment procedures, surveillance

and monitoring guidelines, and

evaluation of animal health

infrastructures. The Director General

appoints ad-hoc groups of experts to

assist the Commission in the drafting

and review of disease standards. When

adopted by the General Session, these

standards are published in the OIE

International Animal Health Code, the

WTO-recognized manual of standards

for international movement of animals

and animal products.

Date of Meeting: January and

September (twice annually).

Location of Meeting: Paris, France.

Major Discussion/Agenda: The

International Animal Health Code

Commission reviews and updates the

Code. Proposed changes are circulated

twice yearly to member countries for

comments, and are then submitted for

adoption at the General Session.

5. Committee/Working Group: Foot

and Mouth Disease (FMD) and Other

Epizootics Commission.

U.S. Participant: None.

General Purpose: The FMD and Other

Epizootics Commission monitors the

world status of FMD and other major

animal diseases and prepares

epidemiological recommendations for

adoption by the General Assembly.

Date of Meeting: January and

September (twice annually).

Location of Meeting: Paris, France.

Major Discussion/Agenda: Current

issues facing the Commission:

International standards for FMD

serological testing, protocols for

endorsement of FMD-free areas,

standards for epidemiological

surveillance for contagious bovine

pleuropneumonia, surveillance and

monitoring standards for bovine

spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), and

criteria for recognition of BSE-free

status.

6. Committee/Working Group: Fish

Diseases Commission.

U.S. Participant: U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, Department of Interior.

General Purpose: The Fish Diseases

Commission drafted an Aquatic Animal

Health Code and a Diagnostic Manual

for Aquatic Animal Diseases that

contain international standards for fish

diseases. These manuals have been

approved by the General Session.

Date of Meeting: September

(annually).

Location of Meeting: Paris, France.

Major Discussion/Agenda: Current

activities of the Fish Diseases

Commission: Continual updating of the

OIE fish disease manuals, preparation of

the annual OIE report on the worldwide

status of fish diseases, and planning and

hosting international conferences on

current topics in aquatic animal health.

7. Committee/Working Group: Ad Hoc

Working Group on Biotechnology.

U.S. Participant: Animal Disease

Research Unit, Agricultural Research

Service, USDA.

General Purpose: The Ad Hoc

Working Group on Biotechnology

reviews the biotechnological aspects of

each chapter of the OIE Manual for

Diagnostic Tests and Vaccines and

prepares an annual report and

recommendations dealing with

biotechnology for consideration by the

General Session. The Working Group

has also developed an international

database on sources of

biotechnologically engineered vaccines

and diagnostic reagents.

Date of Meeting: The working group

meets when called by the Director

General.
38150 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 135 /Wednesday, July 15, 1998 / Notices

Location of Meeting: Paris, France.

Major Discussion/Agenda: Current

issues facing the working group:

Ongoing reviews of diagnostic test kits,

applications of genetic engineering to

animal health, veterinary products

developed using biotechnology, and

possible uses of new biotechnological

techniques in veterinary medicine.

8. Committee/Working Group:

Working Group on Veterinary Drug

Registration.

U.S. Participant: Center for Veterinary

Medicine, Food and Drug

Administration, in cooperation with

USDA–APHIS.

General Purpose: Prepares

recommendations for the General

Session.

Date of Meeting: Every 2 years.

Location of Meeting: Paris, France.

Major Discussion/Agenda: Current

issues facing the working group:

Developing training programs for

veterinary drug registration officials of

OIE member countries and assisting an

OIE ad hoc group in developing draft

international guidelines for veterinary

drug registration.

9. Committee/Working Group:

Working Group on Informatics and

Epidemiology.

U.S. Participant: USDA–APHIS is a

consultant to the working group.

General Purpose: The Working Group

on Informatics and Epidemiology

develops programs to increase the

efficiency of OIE communications and

to assist animal health officials of

member countries to more effectively

utilize contemporary communications

technology. One project of the working

group is HandiStatus, an information

network on animal diseases of

international importance.

Date of Meeting: The working group

meets when called by the Director

General.

Location of Meeting: Paris, France.

Major Discussion/Agenda: The

working group is currently developing a

Windows version of HandiStatus and

designing and developing the OIE web

page.

10. Committee/Working Group:

Working Group on Wildlife Diseases.

U.S. Participant: Southeastern

Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study,

College of Veterinary Medicine,

University of Georgia.

General Purpose: The working group

addresses the relationship between

diseases of wildlife and those of

domestic animals and poultry.

Date of Meeting: The working group

meets when called by the Director

General, usually annually in the

summer or fall.

Location of Meeting: Paris, France.

Major Discussion/Agenda: Some

issues currently facing the working

group are: development of reporting

methods for wildlife diseases

(particularly those naturally

transmissible between domesticated and

wild species); facilitating worldwide

wildlife disease surveillance and the

applicability of routine diagnostic tests

to wildlife species; and problems related

to propagation of wildlife species in

captivity and the disease hazards

associated with their release from zoos

or game farms.

11. Committee/Working Group: Ad

Hoc Group on Transmissible

Spongiform Encephalopathies (TSEs):

Coordination of Research and

Epidemiological Studies

U.S. Participant: Veterinary Services,

USDA–APHIS (periodically, depending

upon expertise required at each specific

meeting).

General Purpose: The group reports

its findings and research

recommendations on TSEs and BSE to

the Code Commission.

Date of Meeting: At the request of the

Director General.

Location of Meeting: Paris, France.

Major Discussion/Agenda: Updating

information on TSEs.

For further information on any of the

OIE standards, publications, or

commissions or working groups, contact

Dr. Robert F. Kahrs, Trade Policy

Liaison, National Center for Import and

Export, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road

Unit 38, Riverdale, MD 20737–1231;

(301) 734–6194; or e-mail:

rfkahrs@aphis.usda.gov.

IPPC Standard-Setting Activities

The IPPC is an international treaty,

first ratified in 1952, aimed at

promoting international cooperation to

control and prevent the spread of

harmful plant pests associated with the

movement of people and commodities.

The Convention has been, and

continues to be, administered at the

national level by plant quarantine

officials whose primary objective is to

safeguard plant resources from injurious

pests. Under the IPPC, the

understanding of plant protection has

been, and continues to be, broad,

encompassing the protection of both

cultivated and noncultivated plants

from direct or indirect injury by plant

pests.

In last year’s notice, we explained that

the IPPC was undergoing revision as a

result of the WTO Agreement on the

Application of Sanitary and

Phytosanitary Measures (WTO SPS

Agreement). Signatory countries agreed

on the need to revise the Convention to

reflect significant changes in

international trade and plant quarantine

since the last revision of the IPPC. New

revised text was adopted by the FAO

Conference in November 1997.

One of the primary objectives of the

revision process was to ensure that the

IPPC was able to develop international

standards, guidelines, and

recommendations as envisioned in the

SPS Agreement. The standards,

guidelines, and recommendations

developed by the IPPC are important

within the framework of the SPS

Agreement for two reasons. First, a

WTO member is required to base its

phytosanitary measures on international

standards, guidelines, and

recommendations where they exist, or

justify a measure that achieves a higher

level of protection. Second, a standard,

guideline, or recommendation

developed by the IPPC serves as a ‘‘safe

haven’’ standard, i.e., a national

phytosanitary measure that conforms to

an IPPC standard will be presumed to be

consistent with the requirements set

forth in the WTO SPS Agreement and in

the General Agreement on Tariffs and

Trade.

Member countries agreed that in order

for the IPPC to fulfill its role as a

standard-setting body, the IPPC would

have to strengthen its capability to

develop phytosanitary standards.

Although the IPPC began developing

and adopting standards following the

establishment of the Secretariat in 1993,

it had not formalized the institutional

capability for producing phytosanitary

standards in the Convention. The

revision of the IPPC began with the

primary intent to (1) Institutionalize a

standard-setting capability within the

IPPC and (2) ensure consistency

between the IPPC and the WTO SPS

Agreement by incorporating and

clarifying within the IPPC a number of

phytosanitary concepts contained in the

WTO SPS Agreement. The revised IPPC

established the Commission on

Phytosanitary Measures as the body

responsible for carrying out the

objectives of the revised IPPC. However,

the revised IPPC will not be in force

until two-thirds of the member

countries accept the revisions. Until this

happens, FAO has approved the

meeting of an Interim Commission on

Phytosanitary Measures, which will

serve in the role designed for the

Commission in the revised IPPC, but

actions will not receive official

recognition without FAO council action.

The revised IPPC also formalized the

role of the IPPC Secretariat, which is

responsible for implementing the

policies and activities of the

Commission on Phytosanitary Measures.

The Secretariat is appointed by the
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 135 /Wednesday, July 15, 1998 / Notices 38151

Director General of FAO and is

responsible for the dissemination of

information to IPPC member countries

regarding (1) Proposed and approved

standards; (2) lists of regulated pests; (3)

phytosanitary requirements, restrictions,

and prohibitions; and (4) translations of

all standards and meeting

documentation into the official

languages of FAO.

The Commission on Phytosanitary

Measures

The Commission on Phytosanitary

Measures actively examines the state of

plant protection in the world and

proposes and establishes standards that

help to eliminate plant pests and control

their spread. The Commission is

composed of technically competent

officials from member countries who are

ultimately responsible for implementing

IPPC standards and policies in their

countries. The Commission provides

member countries with a forum in

which to propose international

standards and discuss and exchange

information on phytosanitary measures,

standards, and other issues of concern.

IPPC standards are proposed in a

number of ways. The IPPC Secretariat

may initiate development of a draft

standard by forming a working group to

develop a standard deemed a priority by

IPPC members. Draft standards or

discussion papers may also be

submitted to the Secretariat for IPPC

consideration by regional or national

plant protection organizations or other

interested parties. The IPPC Secretariat

refers draft standards to the Committee

of Experts on Phytosanitary Measures

(CEPM), which considers the drafts and

recommends action. Drafts approved by

the CEPM are then submitted to member

countries for consultation and comment

(country consultation). Comments made

during country consultation are then

considered by the Secretariat, which

revises the standard before resubmitting

it to the CEPM.

If the CEPM approves the revised

draft, it is submitted to the Commission

on Phytosanitary Measures for adoption.

Each member country is represented

on the Commission by a single delegate.

Although experts and advisers may

accompany the delegate to meetings of

the Commission, only the delegate or an

authorized alternate may vote on

proposed standards or other initiatives.

Parties involved in a vote by the

Commission are to make every effort to

reach agreement on all matters by

consensus. Only after all efforts to reach

a consensus have been exhausted may a

decision on a standard be passed by a

vote of two-thirds of delegates present

and voting.

Technical experts from the United

States have participated directly in

working groups and indirectly as

reviewers of all IPPC draft standards. In

addition, documents and positions

developed by APHIS and NAPPO have

served as the basis for many of the

standards adopted to date.

Scheduled IPPC Meetings

The first meeting of the Interim

Commission on Phytosanitary Measures

will be held in Rome, November 3–6,

1998.

The 10th Technical Consultation of

Regional Plant Protection Organizations

will be held in Rome, November 9–10,

1998.

The Regulated Non-quarantine Pest

Working Group will convene during the

first week of October 1998 (tentative), at

a location to be determined.

The next meeting of the Committee of

Experts on Phytosanitary Measures

(CEPM) is tentatively scheduled for the

second week in May, 1999.

Status of International Standards for

Phytosanitary Measures

Various formal documents and

standards are currently moving through

different stages of development, review,

and approval. The status of all IPPC

formal documents and standards

(existing, drafted, and proposed) is

listed below.

Existing Standards (subject to

revision):

• The International Plant Protection

Convention (existing, and new revised

text), revised November 1997.

• Principles of Plant Quarantine as

Related to International Trade

(reference standard), adopted in 1993.

• Code of Conduct for the Import and

Release of Biological Control Agents,

adopted November 1995.

• Guidelines for Pest Risk Analysis,

adopted November 1995.

• Requirements for the Establishment

of Pest Free Areas, adopted November

1995.

• Glossary of Phytosanitary Terms

(reference standard), revised in

September 1995.

• Guidelines for Surveillance.

• Export Certification System.

Proposed standards to be submitted to

the Commission for final approval in

November 1998:

• Determination of pest status.

• Guidelines for pest eradication

programs. Draft standards undergoing

country consultation prior to meeting of

regional plant protection organizations

in November 1998:

• Requirements for the establishment

of pest-free places of production.

• Inspection methodology.

• Pest risk analysis for quarantine

pests. Draft standards to be reviewed by

the Council of Experts on Phytosanitary

Measures in May 1999:

• Guidelines for an import regulatory

system.

• Guidelines for phytosanitary

certificates.

• Guidelines for surveillance for

specific pests: Citrus canker.

Existing standards being updated for

alignment with the revised IPPC (1997):

• Principles of Plant Quarantine as

Related to International Trade (first

draft prepared by the Secretariat).

• Guidelines for Pest Risk Analysis

(first draft prepared by the Secretariat).

Standards under development by the

IPPC. The following standards will be

prioritized at the November 1998

meeting:

• Guidelines for the preparation of

regulated pest lists (no draft or

discussion paper).

• Technical justification for

regulating nonquarantine pests (draft

discussion paper by the IPPC

Secretariat; working group for fall 1998).

• Guidelines for notification—

interceptions and noncompliance (no

draft or discussion paper).

• Systems approaches for risk

management (discussion paper in

preparation).

• Low pest prevalence (no draft or

discussion paper).

• Quarantine nomenclature for plants

and plant products (no draft or

discussion paper).

• Dispute settlement (draft in

preparation).

• Procedures for the preparation of a

standard (pending discussion by the

Commission).

• Pest-specific monitoring and testing

requirements (no draft or discussion

paper).

• Training and accreditation of

inspectors (no draft or discussion

paper).

• Pest control procedures (no draft or

discussion paper).

• Procedures for post-entry

quarantine (no draft or discussion

paper).

• Systems for approving

phytosanitary treatments (no draft or

discussion paper).

• Guidelines for research

requirements for treatment efficacy (no

draft or discussion paper).

• Commodity-specific standards (no

draft or discussion paper).

Further information on the IPPC

standards is available from the FAO web

page at: http://www.fao.org/waicent/

faoinfo/agricult/agp/agpp/PQ/

Default.htm. This page may contain

outdated information but is tentatively
38152 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 135 /Wednesday, July 15, 1998 / Notices

scheduled to be updated by July 31,

1998.

Information on U.S. participation in

IPPC standard setting, as well as up-todate information on activities and

meetings, is also available by contacting

Mr. Alfred Elder, Acting Deputy

Administrator, APHIS, USDA, room

302-E, Whitten Building, 14th Street

and Independence Avenue SW.,

Washington, DC 20250.

NAPPO Standard-Setting Activities

NAPPO was created in 1976 to

coordinate plant protection activities in

Canada, the United States, and Mexico.

NAPPO provides a mechanism by

which the three countries can exchange

information related to plant pest

control. NAPPO cooperates with other

regional plant protection organizations

and the FAO to achieve the objectives

of the IPPC.

NAPPO conducts its business through

permanent and ad hoc panels and

annual meetings of the three member

countries. The NAPPO Executive

Committee charges individual panels

with the responsibility for drawing up

proposals for NAPPO positions,

policies, and standards. These panels

are made up of representatives from

each member country who have

scientific expertise related to the policy

or standard being considered.

Proposals drawn up by the individual

panels are then circulated for review to

government and industry by Canada,

Mexico, and the United States, which

may suggest revisions. Once revisions

are made, the proposal is then sent to

the NAPPO Working Group and the

NAPPO Standards Panel for technical

reviews, and finally to the Executive

Committee for final approval, which is

made by consensus.

The following is a summary of panel

charges as they relate to the

development of standards (see the

NAPPO web page for more information,

including a list of U.S. participants on

the panels, at http://www.nappo.org):

NAPPO Standards Panel

The NAPPO Standards Panel handles

or supports development of NAPPO

standards and other cross-commodity

issues, reviews proposed international

standards, and recommends NAPPO

positions on proposed international

standards. This panel reviews the

standards proposed by the other panels

before they are sent out for full review,

with a focus on modifying such

proposed standards where necessary to

clarify whether NAPPO or FAO

definitions and standards will apply to

particular NAPPO activities.

Other current charges to the

Standards Panel include:

• Proposing elements for an

international standard on regulated

nonquarantine pests to submit to the

FAO.

• Providing updates to the

International Standards for

Phytosanitary Measures and NAPPO

Standards for the NAPPO Newsletter.

Accreditation Panel

The panel will continue the

development of the draft NAPPO

Standard for Laboratory Accreditation

for consideration by the NAPPO

Working Group in July 1998 and

approval by the Executive Committee in

October 1998.

Biological Control Panel

No charges are currently available for

this panel.

Biotechnology Panel

The panel will continue working on

issues related to transgenic crops in

their centers of origin. This includes

completion of the report of the

workshop on transgenic maize held in

Mexico City in October 1997.

Citrus Panel

The panel will develop a draft

NAPPO Standard for Phytosanitary

Measures establishing requirements for

the importation of citrus into a NAPPO

member country.

Forestry Panel

The panel will:

• Incorporate comments from the

Standards Panel into the draft NAPPO

Dunnage Standard, circulate the draft

for review, and revise it by June 30,

1998, for consideration by the NAPPO

Working Group in July 1998. This draft

standard is expected to require

extensive review, and action may be

suspended until each of the three

countries has an opportunity for

consultation with and input from

affected parties.

• Develop a glossary of phytosanitary

terms unique to the forestry sector by

June 30, 1998, for consideration by the

NAPPO Working Group in July 1998

and approval by the Executive

Committee in October 1998.

Fruit Fly Panel

The panel will incorporate comments

from the Standards Panel, circulate the

draft Surveillance for Fruit Flies

Standard for full review, and revise by

June 30, 1998, for consideration by the

Working Group in July 1998 and

Executive Committee approval in

October 1998.

Fruit Tree and Grapevine Nursery

Stock Certification Panel

The panel will:

• Incorporate comments from the

Standards Panel and circulate the draft

Grapevine Standard for full review by

June 30, 1998, for consideration by the

NAPPO Working Group in July 1998.

The policy of this draft standard is being

carefully reviewed to determine its

impact on current industry practice. The

review period will be extended as

necessary to accommodate further

consultation and review.

• Continue work on development of

Citrus, Prunus, and Malus standards;

draft citrus standard for initial review

by Standards Panel in July 1998, and

circulate for full review in August 1998.

Grains Panel

The panel will:

• Review the treatment options

available for risk management of Tilletia

indica (Karnal bunt) and recommend

treatments for endorsement by NAPPO.

• Identify whether there are

phytosanitary or commercial problems

associated with weed seeds imported

into, or shipped within, North America.

• Develop harmonized procedures to

deal with contaminated grain

shipments.

• Develop a harmonized regulatory

approach to deal with shipments of

grain contaminated with Tilletia species

of ryegrass.

Pest Risk Analysis Panel

The panel will classify areas within

North America (as requested by the

Grains Panel) according to the relative

risk of the introduction (entry and

establishment) of Tilletia indica.

Potato Panel

The panel will begin work with the

European Plant Protection Organization

on a global standard for potatoes.

Training Panel

The panel will develop criteria to

assess the proficiency of persons to

perform tasks described in the NAPPO

Standard for the Accreditation of

Individuals to Issue Phytosanitary

Certificates by July 1998.

The current NAPPO meeting schedule

is as follows:

NAPPO Annual Meetings

July 19–23, 1998, Halifax, Canada.

October 18–22, 1998, Guanajuato,

Mexico.

NAPPO Working Group

July 20–22, 1998, Ottawa, Canada.

October 18, 1998, Halifax, Canada.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 135 /Wednesday, July 15, 1998 / Notices 38153

NAPPO Executive Committee

August 18, 1998, Grand Rapids,

Michigan, United States.

October 19, 1998, Halifax, Canada.

Up-to-date information on NAPPO

policies, standard setting activities, U.S.

participants, and meeting agendas and

dates is available on the NAPPO web

page at http://www.nappo.org.

Interested individuals may also contact

Mr. Alfred Elder, Acting Deputy

Administrator, PPQ, APHIS, room 302–

E, Whitten Building, 14th Street and

Independence Avenue SW.,

Washington, DC 20250.

Comments on standards being

considered or to be considered by any

of the OIE, IPPC, or NAPPO committees

or working groups listed above may be

sent to APHIS as directed under the

heading ADDRESSES.

Done in Washington, DC, this 9th day of

July, 1998.

Craig A. Reed,

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service.

[FR Doc. 98–18839 Filed 7–14–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

Texas Blowdown Changed Condition

Analysis, National Forests and

Grasslands in Texas, Angelina,

Montgomery, Sabine, San Augustine,

San Jacinto, and Walker Counties,

Texas

AGENCY: Forest Service.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This notice is to announce

that the U.S. Forest Service will prepare

an analysis of storm-damaged areas on

the Angelina, Sabine, and Sam Houston

National Forests to determine changed

conditions due to a catastrophic

windstorm. The changed condition

analysis will be used to identify

proposed actions for site preparation

and reforestation on national forest

lands extensively damaged by the

February 1988 windstorm. Initial plans

are for the analysis to consider only

areas within Management Area 1—

Upland Forest Ecosystems and

Management Area 2—Red cockaded

Woodpecker (RCW) Emphasis on the

three affected National Forests. The

analysis will determine the existing

conditions of these management areas,

the desired future conditions for the

areas as directed in the 1996 Land and

Resource Management Plan (LRMP) for

the National Forests and Grassland in

Texas (NFGT), and potential

management actions to achieve the

desired future conditions.

In addition to the determination of

appropriate reforestation needs, the

information gathered in this process

would be used to analyze the need to

amend the forest plan’s allocation of

Management Area 2 on the Angelina

and Sabine National Forests due to

changed conditions on these forest

caused by the storm damage.

Public involvement will be requested

and accepted continually throughout

these efforts. Public involvement will

also be conducted as part of ‘‘scoping’’

following the issuance on the Notice of

Intent to prepare an Environmental

Impact Statement based on the results of

the Changed Condition Analysis.

DATES: The Texas Blowdown Changed

Condition Analysis is scheduled to be

completed by October 1998.

ADDRESSES: Requests for information,

and comments concerning the notice

can be sent to: Team Leader, Texas

Blowdown Changed Condition

Analsysis, National Forests and

Grasslands in Texas, 701 North First

Street, Lufkin, Texas 75961.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Keith Baker, Project Environmental

Coordinator. Phone: 409–344–6205

(New Waverly, TX).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

1. Background on the Changed

Conditions and Actions Taken to Date

On the afternoon of February 10,

1998, a storm with hurricane-force

winds stuck the forests of east Texas.

The storm left a path of destruction from

near Houston to Toledo Bend Reservoir,

a distance of approximately 150 miles.

Approximately 103,000 acres of national

forest land on the Sabine, Angelina and

Sam Houston National Forests were

damaged by the windstorm. The LRMP

had allocated the majority of the lands

affected by the storm to Management

Area 1 (upland forest ecosystems) and

Management Area 2 (red-cockaded

woodpecker emphasis). Other

Management Areas (MAs) were also

affected, including MA–4 (streamside

management zones), MA–8 (special area

management), MA–9 (recreation area

management), and MA–10

(administrative and special use sites).

The Forest Service categorized the

storm damage severity and extent on the

three affected national forests as

follows:

• extensive damage—loss of greater

than 60 percent of the existing trees

(11,600 acres),

• moderate damage—loss of 30 to 60

percent of the existing trees (65,400

acres), and

• light damage—loss of 10 to 30

percent of the existing trees (26,000

acres).

The NFGT determined that an

emergency response was needed to meet

three objectives: (A) reduce the potential

for high intensity wildfires spreading

into the intermingled private

ownerships that include individual

homes, subdivisions, and rural

communities; (B) minimize further

damage to RCW and bald eagle habitat;

and (C) reduce the risk of anticipated

bark beetle attack to living trees that

could kill additional federal and private

timber, RCW habitat, and bald eagle

habitat. The Forest Service requested

approval for alternative arrangements

for compliance with the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969

(NEPA) from the Council on

Environmental Quality (CEQ) to

expedite the removal of the blown down

and damaged timber. On March 10,

1998, CEQ approved the Forest Service’s

request for alternative arrangements and

the NFGT undertook actions to remove

blown down and damaged trees to meet

the three objectives. As part of these

alternative arrangements, the Forest

Service and CEQ agreed that the actions

taken to reforest the damaged areas of

the three affected national forests would

be analyzed and the effects disclosed in

an Environmental Impact Statement.

2. Preparation of the Texas Blowdown

Changed Condition Analysis

The objectives of the Changed

Condition Analysis are twofold: (1) to

provide the basis for reforestation

proposals in the storm damaged areas of

the NFGT and (2) to analyze the need to

adjust land allocations to MA–2 on the

Angelina and Sabine National Forests to

meet LRMP objectives for red-cockaded

woodpecker habitat. The analysis will

synthesize a range of information about

the affected areas, including inventories

of existing vegetation and special

features such as heritage sites,

threatened, endangered, and sensitive

species; potential vegetation as guided

by the Ecological Classification System

(ECS) developed in conjunction with

the Kisatchie National Forest and the

Nature Conservancy; and management

direction from the 1996 LRMP.

The inventory information will be

used to define the existing conditions

within the blowdown-affected areas.

The ECS information and LRMP

direction will provide the basis for the

desired future conditions. Comparing

the existing conditions to the desired

future conditions will identify the

management opportunities to meet the

objectives of the LRMP.