This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains regulatory documents having general

applicability and legal effect, most of which

are keyed to and codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations, which is published under

50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by

the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of

new books are listed in the first FEDERAL

REGISTER issue of each week.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

20333

Vol. 65, No. 74

Monday, April 17, 2000

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service

9 CFR Part 94

[Docket No. 98–029–2]

Change in Disease Status of the

Republic of South Africa Because of

Foot-and-Mouth Disease and

Rinderpest

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: We are declaring the Republic

of South Africa, except the foot-andmouth disease controlled area, which

includes Kruger National Park, free of

foot-and-mouth disease. We are also

declaring all of the Republic of South

Africa free of rinderpest. We are taking

these actions because there have been

no outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease

in the Republic of South Africa, except

in the foot-and-mouth disease

controlled area, since 1957, and there

have been no outbreaks of rinderpest in

the Republic of South Africa since 1903.

These actions will relieve certain

restrictions due to foot-and-mouth

disease and rinderpest on the

importation into the United States of

certain live animals and animal

products from all regions of the

Republic of South Africa, except the

foot-and-mouth disease controlled area.

However, because we do not consider

the Republic of South Africa to be free

of hog cholera, African swine fever, and

swine vesicular disease, the importation

of live swine, and meat and other

products from swine, into the United

States from the Republic of South Africa

will continue to be subject to certain

restrictions.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 2, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

Glen I. Garris, Supervisory Staff Officer,

Regionalization Evaluation Services

Staff, National Center for Import and

Export, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road

Unit 39, Riverdale, MD 20737–1231;

(301) 734–4356.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The regulations in 9 CFR part 94

(referred to below as the regulations)

prohibit or restrict the importation of

specified animals and animal products

into the United States to help prevent

the introduction of various diseases,

including foot-and-mouth disease

(FMD) and rinderpest. FMD and

rinderpest are highly contagious and

destructive diseases of ruminants and

swine.

Section 94.1(a) of the regulations

provides that rinderpest or FMD exists

in all regions of the world except those

listed in § 94.1(a)(2) as free of both of

those diseases and those listed in

§ 94.1(a)(3) as free of rinderpest. The

regulations in § 94.1(b) prohibit, with

certain exceptions, the importation into

the United States of any ruminant or

swine, or any fresh (chilled or frozen)

meat of any ruminant or swine, that

originates from a region where

rinderpest or FMD exists, or that has

entered a port in or otherwise transited

a region where rinderpest or FMD

exists. Also, the regulations in § 94.2

restrict the importation of fresh (chilled

or frozen) products, other than meat,

and milk and milk products of

ruminants or swine that originate in or

transit a region where rinderpest or

FMD exists. Additionally, the

importation of organs, glands, extracts,

and secretions of ruminants or swine

originating in a region where rinderpest

or FMD exists is restricted under the

regulations in § 94.3, and the

importation of cured or cooked meat

from a region where rinderpest or FMD

exists is restricted under the regulations

in § 94.4. Finally, the regulations in 9

CFR part 98 restrict the importation of

ruminant and swine embryos and

animal semen from a region where

rinderpest or FMD exists.

The Government of the Republic of

South Africa has requested that the U.S.

Department of Agriculture (USDA)

recognize the Republic of South Africa

as free of rinderpest. It also has

requested that USDA recognize the

Republic of South Africa, except the

FMD-controlled area, which includes

Kruger National Park, as free of FMD.

On February 17, 1999, we published

in the Federal Register (64 FR 7816–

7822, Docket No. 98–029–1) a proposal

to amend the regulations by declaring

the Republic of South Africa, except the

FMD-controlled area (which extends

from the Republic of South Africa’s

border with Mozambique approximately

30 to 90 kilometers into the Republic of

South Africa to include Kruger National

Park and surveillance and control zones

around the park, and elsewhere extends,

from east to west, approximately 10 to

20 kilometers into the Republic of South

Africa along its borders with

Mozambique, Swaziland, Zimbabwe,

Botswana, and the southeast part of the

border with Namibia), free of FMD. We

also proposed to declare all of the

Republic of South Africa free of

rinderpest. In addition, we proposed to

add the proposed FMD-free area of the

Republic of South Africa to the list of

regions in § 94.11(a) that are declared

free of rinderpest and FMD but are still

subject to some restrictions on the

importation of their meat and other

animal products into the United States

because they share land borders with or

trade freely with regions that we do not

recognize as being free of these diseases.

We did not propose any changes to the

restrictions we have on importations of

swine and swine products from the

Republic of South Africa because of hog

cholera, African swine fever, and swine

vesicular disease because we do not

recognize the Republic of South Africa

as being free of these diseases.

We solicited comments concerning

our proposal for 60 days ending April

19, 1999. We received 17 comments by

that date. They were from a State

agricultural experiment station, a

veterinary association, the Republic of

South Africa, and private citizens. Three

of the commenters supported the

proposal as written. Twelve commenters

supported the proposed rule, except

with respect to the importation of

animal semen and embryos from the

Republic of South Africa. One

commenter expressed concerns

regarding various aspects of the docket,

including how we proposed to regulate

animal semen and embryos. One

commenter expressed concerns about

the effects that additional imports might

have on the domestic Boer goat

20334 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 74 / Monday, April 17, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

industry. All of the issues raised by the

commenters are discussed below.

Importation of Semen and Embryos

In the proposal, we stated that the

importation of ruminant and swine

embryos and semen from the Republic

of South Africa would be restricted as

provided in subparts B and C of 9 CFR

part 98 due to the presence of other

ruminant and swine diseases (meaning

diseases other than rinderpest and

FMD). Thirteen commenters stated that

the proposed restrictions on the

importation of animal embryos and

semen from the Republic of South

Africa into the United States were

unnecessarily stringent. We agree. Our

citation to subpart B of 9 CFR part 98

was incorrect; we should have cited

subpart A. Subpart B pertains to the

importation of ruminant and swine

embryos from regions where rinderpest

or FMD exists. Under this final rule,

ruminant and swine embryos from the

Republic of South Africa, except the

FMD-controlled area, may be imported

in accordance with subpart A of 9 CFR

part 98, which, among other things, sets

forth the requirements for the

importation of ruminant and swine

embryos from regions free of rinderpest

and FMD. The requirements in subpart

A are less stringent than those in

subpart B. In addition, the importation

of ruminant and swine semen into the

United States from the Republic of

South Africa, except the FMDcontrolled area, would be allowed as

provided in subpart C of 9 CFR part 98

for animal semen from regions where

rinderpest and FMD do not exist. Both

subparts A and C include provisions for

ensuring that other diseases that may be

present in the Republic of South Africa

are not introduced into the United

States.

Swine Diseases

We stated in our proposed rule that

the importation of swine and swine

products from the Republic of South

Africa would continue to be restricted

because of hog cholera, swine vesicular

disease (SVD), and African swine fever

(ASF). One commenter objected. He

stated that the Republic of South Africa

has been free of hog cholera since 1918,

and that SVD has never been diagnosed

in the Republic of South Africa. In

addition, the commenter stated that the

Republic of South Africa has an ASFcontrolled area and that the last

outbreak of ASF in the free area, in

February 1996, was due to an illegal

movement of pigs from the ASFcontrolled area. The commenter

maintained that information regarding

hog cholera and SVD in the Republic of

South Africa is supplied by the Office

International des Epizooties (OIE),

which is the international standardsetting body for animal health. The

commenter stated that the World Trade

Organization Agreement on Sanitary

and Phytosanitary Measures (WTO–SPS

Agreement) requires us to provide a

scientific basis for deviations from

international standards.

The WTO–SPS Agreement requires

that measures be scientifically sound,

guided by international standards,

adapted to regional conditions,

transparent, risk-assessment based,

taken in recognition that equal levels of

risk mitigation may be achieved by

applying differing sanitary measures,

and be applied in a manner that is not

arbitrarily or unjustifiably

discriminating. Nations acting in

accordance with the principles of the

WTO–SPS Agreement may impose

sanitary or phytosanitary requirements

necessary to protect human, animal, or

plant life or health.

The regulations in §§ 94.8, 94.9(a),

and 94.12(a) describe regions in which

ASF, hog cholera, and SVD,

respectively, are considered to exist,

including the Republic of South Africa.

If the Republic of South Africa wishes

to export live swine or meat and other

products of swine to the United States

under less restrictive conditions than

currently apply and submits the request

to us in accordance with 9 CFR part 92,

we will evaluate the request in

accordance with that part.

One commenter stated that ASF is a

swine disease and that ruminant meat,

embryos, and semen cannot be

restricted based on the presence of ASF

in certain areas of the Republic of South

Africa.

We are not restricting the importation

of ruminant meat, embryos, or semen

because of the presence of ASF in the

Republic of South Africa. Under this

final rule, the importation of ruminant

meat will continue to be restricted

under § 94.11 because of the potential

for it to be commingled with meat

imported into the Republic of South

Africa from regions where rinderpest or

FMD exists. (See additional discussion

below under ‘‘Trade Practices.’’)

Ruminant embryos and semen may be

imported in accordance with 9 CFR part

98, subparts A and C, respectively, and

import conditions will not be affected

by the presence or absence of ASF

because that disease does not affect

ruminants.

Trade Practices

We proposed to add the Republic of

South Africa to the list of regions in

§ 94.11 that are free of rinderpest and

FMD but are still subject to restrictions

with respect to imports of meat and

other animal products into the United

States because of their trade practices

with regions of higher risk for rinderpest

and FMD.

One commenter objected to our listing

the Republic of South Africa in § 94.11.

The commenter stated that the Republic

of South Africa was unaware of any

international standard that allows a

member country to restrict trade in

products from free regions because of

importation policies of those free

regions. He stated that the Republic of

South Africa’s importation policies have

been effective for over 40 years in

preventing the introduction of FMD and

rinderpest into the Republic of South

Africa and that we should recognize

those measures as equivalent in

accordance with the WTO–SPS

Agreement. The commenter further

stated that the Republic of South Africa

should be able to recognize other FMDand rinderpest-free regions based on its

own evaluation and should not have to

discriminate against animals imported

from regions recognized by the Republic

of South Africa, but not by the United

States, as free of FMD and rinderpest.

The commenter also stated that, while

the Republic of South Africa was

willing to certify, as required by § 94.11,

that slaughtered animals are from areas

free of FMD and rinderpest, the

Republic of South Africa objects to

certifying that slaughtered animals were

born and raised in the FMD-free area of

the Republic of South Africa. The

commenter specifically mentioned

Namibia and Botswana as having FMDfree zones recognized by the OIE and

said that the United States should

recognize them as well. The commenter

requested a copy of our risk assessment

supporting our restrictions on ruminant

and swine meat from the Republic of

South Africa. The commenter also

objected to the requirement in § 94.11

that certifications under that section

must be made by a full-time salaried

veterinary official of the national

government.

The WTO–SPS Agreement obliges

member countries to be transparent in

developing SPS measures. The measures

developed should be based on sound

scientific principles, risk assessments,

guided by relevant international

standards, and applied without

arbitrarily or unjustifiably

discriminating. The principles of

equivalence and adaptation to regional

conditions should be encompassed

within the measures. APHIS published

its policy for applying these concepts to

the importation of animals and animal

products in the Federal Register on

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 74 / Monday, April 17, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 20335

October 28, 1997 (see 62 FR 56027–

56033, Docket No. 94–106–8.) As noted

in that document, regions classified as

‘‘free’’ of a certain disease can present

different levels of risk. Currently,

§ 94.11 of the regulations addresses this

risk, with respect to rinderpest and

FMD, by imposing restrictions on the

importation of meat from regions that

are ‘‘free’’ of these diseases, but that

present a higher disease risk due to

importation practices of these regions or

their geographical proximity to regions

with a higher disease risk. Paragraph (a)

of § 94.11 lists regions that are declared

free of rinderpest and FMD but are

subject to restrictions on the

importation of their meat and animal

products into the United States because

they: (1) Supplement their national meat

supply by importing fresh (chilled or

frozen) meat of ruminants or swine from

regions that are designated in § 94.1(a)

as regions where rinderpest or FMD

exists; or (2) have a common land

border with regions where rinderpest or

FMD exists; or (3) import ruminants or

swine from regions where rinderpest or

FMD exists under conditions less

restrictive than would be acceptable for

importation into the United States. As a

result of these practices, the meat or

other products produced in the free

region may be commingled with the

fresh (chilled or frozen) meat of animals

from a region where rinderpest or FMD

exists, resulting in an undue risk of

introducing rinderpest or FMD into the

United States if the free region is

allowed to export meat to the United

States without restriction.

Section 94.11 requires, among other

things, that the meat or other products

imported into the United States from a

region listed in § 94.11(a) be

accompanied by a certificate that states,

in part, that the meat or other animal

product covered by the certificate was

derived from animals born and raised in

a region listed in § 94.2(a) of the

regulations as free of rinderpest and

FMD and has never been in any region

in which rinderpest or FMD existed. We

believe this certification is necessary to

ensure that the meat imported into the

United States from the free region is

from an animal that is free of the disease

and that the meat has not been

commingled with meat from a region

where rinderpest or FMD exists.

Section 94.11 requires this

certification to be made by a full-time

salaried veterinary official of the agency

in the national government that is

responsible for the health of the animals

within that region. Because of the

seriousness of the diseases § 94.11

addresses, we believe it is appropriate

for a full-time salaried veterinary official

to provide the required certification.

The Republic of South Africa

recognizes FMD-free areas of Botswana

and Namibia and imports ruminants

and swine and ruminant and swine

meat and other products from those

regions under conditions that are less

restrictive than would be acceptable for

importation into the United States. The

United States does not recognize

Botswana or Namibia as being free of

rinderpest or FMD, nor do we recognize

FMD-free regions within either country.

Further, neither country has requested

that we evaluate its disease status with

respect to rinderpest or FMD. As

explained in our 1997 policy statement,

we will continue to apply existing

import requirements to countries listed

in our regulations as free or not free of

certain diseases until we amend our

regulations based on a request to

reevaluate a country’s disease status or

to regionalize a country for a certain

disease. The request must come from

the country wishing a change in status.

The request must be made by a

representative of the national

government of that country who has the

authority to request such a change, and

the request must be accompanied by

specific information about the region to

be considered, in accordance with 9

CFR part 92. We will consider a region’s

listing by OIE in our assessment, but

this will not be our sole criterion.

Our policy does not interfere with the

Republic of South Africa’s right to trade

with any region or to independently

assess the disease status of a particular

region based on its own criteria or

regulations, just as the United States

does.

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

One commenter stated that there is

interest in the importation of cattle and

small stock embryos from the Republic

of South Africa into the United States.

The commenter further stated that the

volume of trade in embryos between the

Republic of South Africa and the United

States may increase based on our

acceptance of the Republic of South

Africa’s disease status and certification

procedure.

The commenter did not identify the

animals that he considered small stock,

but we assume that small stock includes

goats and sheep. We anticipate that

there will be some imports of small

stock semen and embryos from the

Republic of South Africa to improve the

genetics of some herds in the United

States; however, we expect the amount

to be relatively low because the

population of goats and sheep within

the United States is relatively small.

Other

One commenter who breeds Boer

goats requested the establishment of

another port of entry, in Houston, TX,

for importation. However, the

commenter did not specify whether the

port of entry should be for the

importation of goats or goat embryos

and semen. One commenter

recommended requiring importers and

owners of flocks that receive Boer goats

and Boer goat germ plasm from the

Republic of South Africa to meet certain

requirements regarding domestic animal

health, food safety, and livestock trade.

This commenter also suggested

restricting the rate of importation of

Boer goats and Boer goat germ plasm

from the Republic of South Africa into

the United States to protect U.S. meat

goat farmers and the U.S. Boer goat

market.

These comments are outside the scope

of this rulemaking.

Therefore, for the reasons given in the

proposed rule and in this document, we

are adopting the proposed rule as a final

rule, without change.

Effective Date

This is a substantive rule that relieves

restrictions and, pursuant to the

provisions of U.S.C. 553, may be made

effective less than 30 days after

publication in the Federal Register.

This rule removes certain restrictions on

the importation into the United States of

certain animals and animal products

from the Republic of South Africa,

except the FMD-controlled area.

Therefore, the Administrator of the

Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service has determined that this rule

should be made effective 15 days after

publication in the Federal Register.

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory

Flexibility Act

This rule has been reviewed under

Executive Order 12866. This rule has

been determined to be not significant for

the purposes of Executive Order 12866

and, therefore, has not been reviewed by

the Office of Management and Budget.

This rule recognizes all of the

Republic of South Africa as free of

rinderpest and the Republic of South

Africa, except the FMD-controlled area,

as free of FMD. This action will relieve

certain restrictions on the importation of

animals and animal products into the

United States from the Republic of

South Africa. However, the importation

of swine and pork and pork products

will continue to be restricted because

we do not consider the Republic of

South Africa to be free of hog cholera,

African swine fever, or swine vesicular

disease.

20336 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 74 / Monday, April 17, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

The following analysis examines the

economic effects of this rule on small

entities as required by the Regulatory

Flexibility Act.

The cattle industry in the Republic of

South Africa is small relative to the

cattle industry in the United States. In

1997, there were more than 101 million

head of cattle in the United States,

compared to more than 13 million in the

Republic of South Africa. Of the 2

million head of cattle that were

imported into the United States in 1996,

more than 99 percent were from Canada

and Mexico, and most of these were

feeder and slaughter animals. Sheep and

goat inventories in the United States are

relatively small. In 1997, there were

more than 7 million sheep and goats in

the United States, compared to more

than 35 million in the Republic of South

Africa. Of the sheep that the United

States imports, more than 99 percent are

from Canada and Mexico (‘‘World Trade

Atlas,’’ June 1997). In 1995, the United

States imported 460 goats and sheep

from the Republic of South Africa;

however, since 1995, the United States

has not imported any live goats and

sheep from the Republic of South

Africa. We do not believe that adoption

of this rule will lead to a significant

number of live ruminants being

imported into the United States from the

Republic of South Africa because of the

cost of transporting the animals.

We also do not believe that adoption

of this rule will result in a significant

amount of ruminant meat (beef, veal,

mutton, and goat meat) and meat

products imported into the United

States from the Republic of South

Africa. The Republic of South Africa’s

production of ruminant meat in 1997

was 1,542 million pounds, compared to

26,089 million pounds of ruminant meat

produced in the United States. In 1997,

the Republic of South Africa imported

196 million pounds of ruminant meat

and exported 44 million pounds of

ruminant meat. The Republic of South

Africa trades primarily with the

European Union, the Middle East,

Japan, Korea, Australia, New Zealand,

and neighboring African countries. The

United States obtains more than 85

percent of its imports of ruminant meat

and meat products from Australia,

Canada, and New Zealand. We

anticipate that this rule’s effect on

domestic supplies of ruminant meat and

meat products will be negligible because

we believe that the Republic of South

Africa is unlikely to redirect a

significant portion of its ruminant meat

production for export exclusively to the

United States, given that restrictions

will remain in place for imports into the

United States.

The importation of dairy products

from the Republic of South Africa into

the United States should also be

minimally affected by this rule. In 1998,

U.S. exports and imports of dairy

products were valued at more than $914

million and $1,465 million,

respectively. In 1998, the United States

exported more than $3.6 million worth

of dairy products to the Republic of

South Africa and imported more than

$3.4 million worth of dairy products

from the Republic of South Africa. We

believe that it is highly unlikely that the

United States will import a significant

amount of dairy products from the

Republic of South Africa because the

United States is a net exporter of those

products to the Republic of South

Africa. Therefore, the effect on domestic

dairy producers should be minimal.

The importation of ruminant embryos

and semen from the Republic of South

Africa into the United States should also

be minimally affected by this rule. The

United States is a net exporter of both

bovine semen and cattle embryos. In

1996, the value of U.S. bovine semen

and cattle embryo imports was $7.7

million and $701,000, respectively,

while the value of U.S. exports of

bovine semen and cattle embryos was

$63.1 million and $12.6 million,

respectively (’’World Trade Atlas,’’ June

1997). Due to the trade balance and the

size differences between the cattle

industries of the United States and the

Republic of South Africa, the amount of

bovine semen and cattle embryos

imported will likely be minimal and

have a minimal effect on small domestic

cattle producers.

We believe that there will be a

demand for the importation of Boer goat

germ plasm from the Republic of South

Africa to the United States. However, as

previously stated, the goat industry

within the United States is relatively

small. As a result, we do not believe that

the amount of germ plasm imported into

the United States will be significant.

The entities most likely to be affected

by this rule are those entities engaged in

the production of live ruminants and

ruminant meat and meat products. The

Small Business Administration’s

(SBA’s) definition of a small cattle farm

is one whose total sales is less than $0.5

million annually. In 1997, 99.4 percent

of cattle and calf farms in the United

States would have been considered

small entities.

The SBA’s guidelines state that a

small producer of products of swine or

ruminants (part of Standard Industrial

Classification (SIC) 2011 or 2013, meat

packing plants) is one employing fewer

than 500 workers. In 1997, 95 percent of

the 1,393 meat packing establishments

in SIC 2011 were considered small

entities. These small establishments

accounted for approximately 23.7

percent of the total value of shipments

of the industry, or $54.5 billion. In 1997,

98.1 percent of the 1,297 establishments

in SIC 2013 were considered small

entities. These producers accounted for

78.3 percent of the total value of

shipments of the industry, or $25

billion.

Although the majority of the domestic

entities potentially affected by this rule

are small, there should be only a

minimal change in the level of imports

that may compete with the production

of these small entities, and thus there

would be a minimal effect on any

domestic producer of these products,

whether small or large.

Under these circumstances, the

Administrator of the Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service has

determined that this action will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

Executive Order 12988

This rule has been reviewed under

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice

Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts all State

and local laws and regulations that are

inconsistent with this rule; (2) has no

retroactive effect; and (3) does not

require administrative proceedings

before parties may file suit in court

challenging this rule.

National Environmental Policy Act

An environmental assessment and

finding of no significant impact have

been prepared for this rule. The

assessment provides a basis for the

conclusion that the importation of

certain live animals and animal

products from all regions of the

Republic of South Africa, except the

FMD-controlled area, will not present a

significant risk of introducing or

disseminating FMD or rinderpest

disease agents into the United States

and would not have a significant impact

on the quality of the human

environment. Based on the finding of no

significant impact, the Administrator of

the Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service has determined that an

environmental impact statement need

not be prepared.

The environmental assessment and

finding of no significant impact were

prepared in accordance with: (1) The

National Environmental Policy Act of

1969, as amended (NEPA) (42 U.S.C.

4321 et seq.), (2) regulations of the

Council on Environmental Quality for

implementing the procedural provisions

of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500–1508), (3)

USDA regulations implementing NEPA

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 74 / Monday, April 17, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 20337

(7 CFR part 1b), and (4) APHIS’ NEPA

Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part

372).

Copies of the environmental

assessment and finding of no significant

impact are available for public

inspection at USDA, room 1141, South

Building, 14th Street and Independence

Avenue SW., Washington, DC, between

8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through

Friday, except holidays. Persons

wishing to inspect copies are requested

to call ahead on (202)690–2817 to

facilitate entry into the reading room. In

addition, copies may be obtained by

writing to the individual listed under

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule contains no new

information collection or recordkeeping

requirements under the Paperwork

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

et seq.).

List of Subjects in Part 94

Animal diseases, Imports, Livestock,

Meat and meat products, Milk, Poultry

and poultry products, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Accordingly, we are amending 9 CFR

part 94 as follows:

PART 94—RINDERPEST, FOOT-ANDMOUTH DISEASE, FOWL PEST (FOWL

PLAGUE), EXOTIC NEWCASTLE

DISEASE, AFRICAN SWINE FEVER,

HOG CHOLERA, AND BOVINE

SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY:

PROHIBITED AND RESTRICTED

IMPORTATIONS

1. The authority citation for part 94

continues to read as follows:

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

450; 19 U.S.C. 1306; 21 U.S.C. 111, 114a,

134a, 134b, 134c, 134f, 136, and 136a; 31

U.S.C. 9701; 42 U.S.C. 4331 and 4332; 7 CFR

2.22, 2.80, and 371.2(d).

§ 94.1 [Amended]

2. Section 94.1 is amended as follows:

a. In paragraph (a)(2), by adding the

words ‘‘Republic of South Africa except

the foot-and-mouth disease controlled

area (which extends from the Republic

of South Africa’s border with

Mozambique approximately 30 to 90

kilometers into the Republic of South

Africa to include Kruger National Park

and surveillance and control zones

around the park, and elsewhere extends,

from east to west, approximately 10 to

20 kilometers into the Republic of South

Africa along its borders with

Mozambique, Swaziland, Zimbabwe,

Botswana, and the southeast part of the

border with Namibia),’’ immediately

after ‘‘Republic of Korea,’’.

b. In paragraph (a)(3), by adding the

words ‘‘and the Republic of South

Africa’’ immediately after ‘‘Greece’’.

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

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

place a reference to ‘‘part 93’’.

§ 94.11 [Amended]

3. In § 94.11, paragraph (a) is

amended by adding, in the first

sentence, the words ‘‘Republic of South

Africa except the foot-and-mouth

disease controlled area (which extends

from the Republic of South Africa’s

border with Mozambique approximately

30 to 90 kilometers into the Republic of

South Africa to include Kruger National

Park and surveillance and control zones

around the park, and elsewhere extends,

from east to west, approximately 10 to

20 kilometers into the Republic of South

Africa along its borders with

Mozambique, Swaziland, Zimbabwe,

Botswana, and the southeast part of the

border with Namibia),’’ immediately

after ‘‘Republic of Korea,’’.

Done in Washington, DC, this 11th day of

April 2000.

Bobby R. Acord,

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service.

[FR Doc. 00–9491 Filed 4–14–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

10 CFR Part 39

RIN 3150–AG14

Energy Compensation Sources for

Well Logging and Other Regulatory

Clarifications

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) is amending its

regulations governing licenses and

radiation safety requirements for well

logging. The final rule modifies NRC

regulations dealing with: low activity

energy compensation sources; tritium

neutron generator target sources;specific

abandonment procedures in the event of

an immediate threat; changes to

requirements for inadvertent intrusion

on an abandoned source; the

codification of an existing generic

exemption; the removal of an obsolete

date; and updating regulations to be

consistent with the Commission’s

metrication policy. The amendments to

NRC’s regulations are necessary to

improve, clarify, update, and reflect

current practices in the well logging

industry.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 17, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mark Haisfield, Office of Nuclear

Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555–0001, telephone

(301) 415–6196, e-mail MFH@nrc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Nuclear Regulatory Commission is

amending its regulations to

acknowledge and accommodate the use

of well logging technology that was not

incorporated when the NRC issued the

existing well logging regulations (March

17, 1987; 52 FR 8225). This technology

allows licensees to lower a logging tool

down a well at the same time that the

hole for the well is being drilled instead

of requiring drilling to stop, removing

drilling pieces, and lowering a logging

tool down the well. This technology is

commonly referred to as ‘‘logging while

drilling.’’ This process uses a relatively

small radioactive source within the

logging tool in addition to the larger

radioactive sources currently used in

logging a well. The 1987 regulations

were based on the use of the larger

radioactive sources and include

provisions that are unnecessary and

potentially burdensome for the

additional small sources. These changes

will have no significant impact on

public health and safety and the

environment while reducing potential

burdens to licensees. Licensees will no

longer need to comply with unnecessary

regulatory requirements for these small

sources or to request licensing

exemptions from the NRC for actions

dealing with these small sources. Other

changes are also being implemented to

improve, clarify, and update NRC’s well

logging regulations to reduce confusion.

These changes may also reduce the need

for licensees to request exemptions from

unnecessary requirements.

Introduction

Oil and gas come from accumulations

in the pore spaces of reservoir rocks

(usually sandstone, limestone, or

dolomites) and are removed via a well.

Because the amount of oil and gas in

these pore spaces is dependent upon the

rock’s characteristics, the oil and gas

industry often needs to determine the

characteristics of underground

formations to predict the commercial

viability of a new or existing well.

Licensed radioactive materials are used

to obtain information on certain

properties of an underground formation,

such as type of rock, porosity,

hydrocarbon content, and density.