26850 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 104 / Wednesday, May 29, 1996 / Proposed Rules

hearings, except to clarify or explain the

proposed rule.

Done in Washington, DC, this 22nd day of

May 1996.

Donald Husnik,

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service.

[FR Doc. 96–13407 Filed 5–28–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P

Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service

9 CFR Part 94

[Docket No. 96–025–1]

Change in Disease Status of Spain

Because of African Swine Fever

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: We are proposing to declare

Spain free of African swine fever.

Declaring Spain free of African swine

fever appears to be appropriate because

there have been no confirmed outbreaks

of African swine fever in Spain since

September 1994. This proposed rule

would relieve restrictions on the

importation of pork and pork products

into the United States from Spain.

However, because Spain shares common

land borders with countries affected by

certain swine diseases and because

Spain, as a member state of the

European Union, has certain trade

practices that are less restrictive than

are acceptable to the United States, the

importation into the United States of

pork and pork products from Spain

would continue to be subject to certain

restrictions.

DATES: Consideration will be given only

to comments received on or before July

29, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Please send an original and

three copies of your comments to

Docket No. 96–025–1, Regulatory

Analysis and Development, PPD,

APHIS, suite 3C03, 4700 River Road

Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737–1238.

Please state that your comments refer to

Docket No. 96–025–1. Comments

received may be inspected at USDA,

room 1141, South Building, 14th Street

and Independence Avenue SW.,

Washington, DC, between 8 a.m. and

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

except holidays. Persons wishing to

inspect comments are requested to call

ahead on (202) 690–2817 to facilitate

entry into the comment reading room.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

John Cougill, Staff Veterinarian,

Products Program, National Center for

Import and Export, VS, APHIS, 4700

River Road Unit 40, Riverdale, MD

20737–1231, (301) 734–8688; or e-mail:

jcougill@aphis.usda.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The regulations in 9 CFR part 94

(referred to below as the regulations)

govern the importation into the United

States of specified animals and animal

products in order to prevent the

introduction into the United States of

various animal diseases, including

rinderpest, foot-and-mouth disease,

bovine spongiform encephalopathy,

swine vesicular disease, hog cholera,

and African swine fever (ASF). These

are dangerous and destructive

communicable diseases of ruminants

and swine.

Section 94.8 of the regulations

provides that ASF exists or is

reasonably believed to exist in all the

countries of Africa, Brazil, Cuba, Haiti,

Italy, Malta, Portugal, and Spain. We

will consider declaring a country to be

free of ASF if there have been no

reported cases of the disease in that

country for at least the previous 1-year

period. The last case of ASF in Spain

occurred in September 1994. The

Government of Spain has requested that

the U.S. Department of Agriculture

(USDA) recognize Spain to be free of

ASF.

The Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service (APHIS) has

reviewed the documentation submitted

by the Government of Spain in support

of its request. A team of APHIS officials

traveled to Spain in July 1994 to

conduct an on-site evaluation of Spain’s

animal health program with regard to

African horse sickness. The evaluation

consisted of a review of Spain’s

veterinary services, laboratory and

diagnostic procedures, vaccination

practices, and administration of laws

and regulations intended to prevent the

introduction of communicable animal

diseases into Spain. We believe that the

July 1994 on site evaluation was

sufficient to provide APHIS with a

complete picture of Spain’s animal

health program with regard to ASF, as

well. Therefore, we have used the

findings of the July 1994 on-site

evaluation as part of the basis for this

proposed rule. (Details concerning the

July 1994 on-site evaluation are

available upon written request from the

person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT.)

Based on the information discussed

above, we are proposing to amend § 94.8

of the regulations by removing Spain

from the list of countries where ASF

exists or is reasonably believed to exist.

This action would relieve certain

restrictions on the importation of pork

and pork products into the United

States from Spain, including restrictions

on the importation of live swine and

fresh pork and pork products. This

action would also eliminate

requirements on the curing time for

Spanish hams and other pork products

offered for importation into the United

States from Spain.

However, the importation of pork and

pork products into the United States

from Spain would continue to be subject

to certain restrictions because Spain

appears in the list of countries in § 94.11

that have been declared free of

rinderpest and foot-and-mouth disease

(FMD), but from which the importation

of pork and pork products is restricted,

and Spain appears in the list of

countries in § 94.13 that have been

declared free of swine vesicular disease

(SVD), but from which the importation

of pork and pork products is restricted.

The countries listed in §§ 94.11 and

94.13 are subject to these restrictions

because they: (1) Supplement their

national pork supply by importing fresh,

chilled, or frozen pork from countries

where rinderpest, FMD, or SVD,

respectively, is considered to exist; (2)

have a common border with countries

where rinderpest, FMD, or SVD,

respectively, is considered to exist; or

(3) have certain trade practices that are

less restrictive than are acceptable to the

United States. Spain shares common

land borders with France, a country

affected by SVD, and Portugal, a country

affected by rinderpest, FMD, and SVD.

Additionally, as a member state of the

European Union (EU), Spain trades

without restrictions with other member

states of the EU that are affected by

rinderpest, FMD, and/or SVD. These

trade practices could allow live swine,

pork, or pork products produced in

Spain to be commingled with live

swine, pork, or pork products from a

country affected by rinderpest, FMD,

and/or SVD, resulting in an undue risk

of the introduction of these diseases into

the United States. As such, pork and

pork products, as well as any ship’s

stores, airplane meals, and baggage

containing such pork, offered for

importation into the United States from

Spain would be subject to the

restrictions specified in §§ 94.11 and

94.13 of the regulations and to the

applicable requirements contained in

the regulations of the USDA’s Food

Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) at

9 CFR chapter III. Sections 94.11 and

94.13 generally require that pork and

pork products be: (1) Prepared in an
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 104 / Wednesday, May 29, 1996 / Proposed Rules 26851

inspected establishment that is eligible

to have its products imported into the

United States under the Federal Meat

Inspection Act; and (2) accompanied by

an additional certification from a fulltime salaried veterinary official of the

national government of the exporting

country, stating that the pork or pork

product has not been commingled with

or exposed to meat or other animal

products originating in, imported from,

or transported through a country in

which rinderpest, FMD, or SVD,

respectively, is considered to exist.

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory

Flexibility Act

This proposed rule has been reviewed

under Executive Order 12866. For this

action, the Office of Management and

Budget has waived its review process

required by Executive Order 12866.

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

have performed an Initial Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis, which is set out

below, regarding the impact of this

proposed rule on small entities.

However, we do not currently have all

the data necessary for a comprehensive

analysis of the effects of this proposed

rule on small entities. Therefore, we are

inviting comments on potential effects.

In particular, we are interested in

determining the number and kind of

small entities that may incur benefits or

costs from the implementation of this

proposed rule.

In accordance with 21 U.S.C. 111–

113, 114a, 115, 117, 120, 123, and 134a,

the Secretary of Agriculture has the

authority to promulgate regulations and

take measures to prevent the

introduction into the United States, and

the interstate dissemination within the

United States, of communicable

diseases of livestock and poultry.

This proposed rule would amend the

regulations in part 94 by removing

Spain from the list of countries where

ASF exists or is reasonably believed to

exist. This action would relieve certain

restrictions on the importation of live

swine, pork, and pork products into the

United States from Spain. However,

because of Spain’s proximity to France

and Portugal (countries affected by

serious swine diseases) and Spain’s

trading practices as a member state of

the European Union, other requirements

would continue to restrict the

importation of pork and pork products

from Spain.

In 1992, the majority (approximately

96.3 percent) of all hog and pig farmers

in the United States qualified as small

entities. However, the impact of

relieving restrictions on live swine

imports from Spain on these producers

is expected to be minimal because the

swine industry of Spain is relatively

small compared to the market in the

United States. In 1994, swine

production in Spain was estimated to be

26.7 million head, compared to swine

production in the United States of over

100 million head. Also, in 1994, Spain

exported a little more than 0.5 million

live swine, or less than 2 percent of its

total swine production, and all of those

animals were directed to countries in

Europe.

Total imports of live swine into the

United States are very small relative to

domestic production. In 1993, only 1.75

million head were imported into the

United States. Due to transportation

costs and other factors, nearly all of the

live swine imported into the United

States (more than 99.8 percent in 1993)

are from Canada. Most of the live swine

that are imported from Western Europe

into the United States are imported in

very small numbers, to be used for

genetic improvements of domestic

stock. We expect that the importation of

swine embryos and semen will not

increase as a result of the proposed

change. Movement of swine embryos

and semen is limited because the

technology is not as advanced as it is for

other species.

Like domestic swine producers, the

majority of pork producers (97 percent

of 1367 meat packing establishments

and 98 percent of 1264 other processing

plants, according to 1992 data) qualify

as small entities. We expect the effect of

the proposed amendment on these

entities would be minimal because,

while Spain produces a considerable

amount of pork (2.107 million metric

tons in 1994), its total pork production

amounts to only about 26 percent of the

total pork production of the United

States. Additionally, most of Spain’s

pork production is consumed within

Spain, as its population consumes pork

at a rate greater than 1.6 times that of

the U.S. population.

In 1994, Spain exported

approximately 83,000 metric tons of

pork, but more than 97 percent of these

exports were to European countries.

While Spanish exports of pork are

growing and its imports of pork are

declining, Spain has historically been a

net importer of pork. From 1991 to

1993, Spain imported well over twice as

much pork as it exported. Even if Spain

were able to redirect all of its exports of

pork to the United States, it would

constitute a small portion of the

domestic market, as U.S. pork

production was 8 million metric tons in

1994.

Since 1985, the United States has

expanded its pork exports by more than

four times to reach 240,858 metric tons

in 1994. Simultaneously, the United

States has decreased its pork imports, as

exemplified by a decrease of

approximately 34 percent in 1994, and

the trend is continuing. In an average

year, up to 90 percent of pork imported

into the United States comes from

Canada and Denmark.

Domestic pork producers most likely

to be affected by the amendments in this

proposal are a small number of domestic

producers of specific specialty pork

products. If the proposed rule is

adopted, we anticipate increased

imports into the United States from

Spain of dry-cured, ready-to-eat ham;

dry-cured, salted, boneless loin; and

dry-cured sausages, particularly Serrano

ham. Most of these products are similar

to Parma and prosciutto hams and other

cured pork products being produced

domestically and produced in other

countries for importation into the

United States, but Serrano ham is a

specialty product with unique water

content, color, aroma, and flavor.

Spain currently produces

approximately 350,000 metric tons of all

types of cured ham per year. It is

estimated that in 1994 more than

975,000 metric tons of all types of cured

ham were produced in the United

States. While Spanish production of all

types of cured ham represents

approximately 27.9 percent of U.S.

cured ham production, Spain’s domestic

consumption of cured pork is

considerably higher than consumption

in the United States. About 40 percent

of Spain’s total pork consumption

consists of cured pork. In 1994, Spain

exported only 4,135 metric tons of cured

ham, which amounts to significantly

less than 1 percent of total U.S.

production of cured pork. These exports

were directed primarily to France,

Argentina, Portugal, and Germany.

From all indications, only a few of the

largest 18 cured pork producers in

Spain, which account for 50 percent of

Spanish production of cured pork, have

an interest in or a capability for

penetrating the U.S. market over the

foreseeable future. Further, we estimate

that the maximum amount of cured pork

products that Spain could expect to

export to the United States would not

likely exceed 500 metric tons annually,

and this ceiling would not likely be

reached for a period of about five years

because the imports arriving in the

United States from Spain would still be

required to meet Food Safety and

Inspection Service standards before

entering the country.

We estimate that there are

approximately 15 companies in the

United States producing significant

amounts of specialty processed pork
26852 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 104 / Wednesday, May 29, 1996 / Proposed Rules

products that would compete with the

potential imports from Spain. A small

portion of these producers are very

large, and these specialty products

constitute only a small fraction of their

overall business. Therefore, we expect

the impact of the proposed change on

these large companies would be

minimal. However, the small producers

may be impacted by additional imports.

Yet, without specific information on (1)

the quantity of additional imports

generated by the rule change, (2) the

quantity of domestic production, and (3)

the degree to which Spanish imports

will displace other imports rather than

domestic production, the impact on

small domestic producers cannot be

predicted.

An alternative to this proposed rule is

to make no changes in the regulations.

We rejected this alternative because

Spain has had no reported cases of ASF

since September 1994, and, therefore,

we have no scientific reason to continue

considering Spain to be a country where

ASF exists.

This proposed rule contains no

information collection or recordkeeping

requirements.

Executive Order 12778

This proposed rule has been reviewed

under Executive Order 12778, Civil

Justice Reform. If this proposed rule is

adopted: (1) All State and local laws and

regulations that are inconsistent with

this rule will be preempted; (2) no

retroactive effect will be given to this

rule; and (3) administrative proceedings

will not be required before parties may

file suit in court challenging this rule.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This proposed rule contains no new

information collection or recordkeeping

requirements under the Paperwork

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

et seq.).

List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 94

Animal diseases, Imports, Livestock,

Meat and meat products, Milk, Poultry

and poultry products, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Accordingly, 9 CFR part 94 would be

amended as follows:

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

PLAGUE), VELOGENIC

VISCEROTROPIC NEWCASTLE

DISEASE, AFRICAN SWINE FEVER,

HOG CHOLERA, AND BOVINE

SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY:

PROHIBITED AND RESTRICTED

IMPORTATIONS

1. The authority citation for part 94

would continue to read as follows:

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

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

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

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

2.22, 2.80, and 371.2(d).

§ 94.8 [Amended]

2. In § 94.8, the introductory text

would be amended by removing the

words ‘‘, and Spain’’ and by adding the

word ‘‘and’’ immediately preceding the

word ‘‘Portugal’’.

Done in Washington, DC, this 22nd day of

May 1996.

Donald Husnik,

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service.

[FR Doc. 96–13406 Filed 5–28–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

10 CFR Part 150

RIN 3150–AC57

Reasserting NRC’s Authority for

Approving Onsite Low-Level Waste

Disposal in Agreement States;

Withdrawal

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule: Withdrawal.

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) is withdrawing a

notice of proposed rulemaking that

would have reasserted the NRC’s

jurisdiction in Agreement States over

the disposal of licensed material

generated and disposed of at nuclear

reactor sites. The proposed rule would

also have clarified the jurisdiction over

disposal of noncritical waste quantities

of special nuclear material at reactors

and fuel cycle facilities.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Joseph J. Mate, Office of Nuclear

Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

DC 20555–0001, telephone (301) 415–

6202.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On August 22, 1988 (53 FR 31880),

the Commission published a notice of

proposed rulemaking in the Federal

Register entitled ‘‘Reasserting NRC’s

Authority for Approving Onsite LowLevel Waste Disposal in Agreement

States.’’ This rule would have reasserted

the NRC’s jurisdiction in the Agreement

States over the disposal of low-level

radioactive waste generated and

disposed of at reactor sites. The

proposed rule would also have clarified

the jurisdiction over the disposal of

noncritical waste quantities of special

nuclear material at fuel cycle facilities.

The NRC would have authorized this

disposal under 10 CFR 20.302, but 10

CFR part 20, ‘‘Standards for Protection

Against Radiation,’’ was revised in May

1991 (56 FR 23360). The applicable

regulation is now 10 CFR 20.2002.

The purpose of the proposed rule was

to provide for a more centralized and

consistent regulatory review of all onsite

waste management activities and to

avoid duplication of regulatory effort by

the NRC and the Agreement States. The

uniform review process that would

result from the proposed rule was

intended to provide greater assurance

that onsite disposal of radioactive

material will not present a health hazard

and that the disposal of this waste in

this manner will not unnecessarily

complicate or delay decommissioning.

As a result of publishing the proposed

rule in the Federal Register, the NRC

received 49 comment letters. Twelve

commenters (24 percent) favored the

proposal, 37 commenters (76 percent)

opposed the proposal. Comments were

submitted by private citizens,

Agreement and Non-Agreement States,

nuclear utilities, nuclear utilities’

representatives, and various

conservation and public interest groups.

The vast majority of the comments

favoring the proposal were from nuclear

utilities and their representatives.

Comments opposed to the proposal

came from private citizens, Agreement

and Non-Agreement States, and

conservation and public interest groups.

Nineteen of the commenters questioned

the need for the proposed rule, six

commenters wanted the States’

participation in the approval process to

be specified, and a few States

questioned the NRC’s authority to

promulgate the rule. The remaining

commenters were concerned with better

definitions of the protected and

exclusion areas, the type of waste to be

covered by the rule, existing onsite

disposal, and the impact on regional

low-level waste disposal facilities. Some

States commented that the Agreement

States were more familiar with local

conditions and that their requirements

were more strict than the NRC’s. Of the

10 Agreement States that commented, 9

States were opposed to the

amendments. The remaining Agreement

State that commented supported the

rule but reserved the right to participate

in the approval process with full review

privileges and expected their concerns

to be addressed.

As a result of the public comments

received and the relatively low hazards