[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 32 (Tuesday, February 18, 2003)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 7722-7728]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-3836]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
9 CFR Part 94
[Docket No. 01-040-1]
RIN 0579-AB38
Importation of Milk and Milk Products From Regions Affected With
Foot-and-Mouth Disease
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are proposing to amend the regulations regarding the
importation of animal products to establish specific processing
requirements for certain cheeses, butter, and butteroil imported from
regions in which foot-and-mouth disease exists; these products are
currently exempt from the requirements of the regulations.
Additionally, we are proposing to require that those products, when
imported from regions in which foot-and-mouth disease exists, be
accompanied by government certification regarding the processing of the
products. The proposed processing methods could also be used for other
milk products that are currently eligible for importation under other
conditions. We believe these actions are necessary to ensure that
materials containing the foot-and-mouth disease virus are not imported
into the United States.
DATES: We will consider all comments that we receive on or before April
21, 2003.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by postal mail/commercial delivery
or by e-mail. If you use postal mail/commercial delivery, please send
four copies of your comment (an original and three copies) to: Docket
No. 01-040-1, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station
3C71, 4700 River
[[Page 7723]]
Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state that your comment
refers to Docket No. 01-040-1. If you use e-mail, address your comment
to [email protected]. Your comment must be contained in the
body of your message; do not send attached files. Please include your
name and address in your message and ``Docket No. 01-040-1'' on the
subject line.
You may read any comments that we receive on this docket in our
reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 of the USDA
South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW., Washington,
DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you,
please call (202) 690-2817 before coming.
APHIS documents published in the Federal Register, and related
information, including the names of organizations and individuals who
have commented on APHIS dockets, are available on the Internet at
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppd/rad/webrepor.html.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Karen James-Preston, Assistant
Director, Technical Trade Services, National Center for Import and
Export, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 38, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231;
(301) 734-8172.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The regulations in 9 CFR part 94 (referred to below as the
regulations) govern the importation into the United States of meat and
other animal products, including milk and milk products, in order to
prevent the introduction of various animal diseases, including
rinderpest and foot-and-mouth disease (FMD). These are dangerous and
destructive communicable diseases of livestock.
FMD is a severe and highly contagious viral infection affecting
cattle, deer, goats, sheep, swine, and other animals. The most
effective means of eradicating FMD is by the slaughter of affected
animals. FMD is endemic to more than two-thirds of the world and is
considered to be widespread in parts of Africa, Asia, Europe, and South
America. FMD occurs in over seven different serotypes and 60 subtypes.
As FMD outbreaks have occurred in foreign regions, the United States
has banned the importation of live ruminants and swine, and restricted
the importation of many animal products, from countries affected by
FMD. In the past few years, the United States has implemented
prohibitions and restrictions in response to outbreaks in South
America, the European Union, and Taiwan.
Although FMD was eradicated in the United States in 1929, the virus
could be reintroduced by a single infected animal, animal product, or
person carrying the virus. Once introduced, FMD can spread quickly
through exposure to aerosols from infected animals, direct contact with
infected animals, contact with contaminated feed or equipment, or
contact with humans harboring the virus or carrying the virus on their
clothing. It appears that FMD is primarily spread among livestock
through aerosol, direct contact, or ingestion of animal products,
including milk products. FMD could be introduced into the United States
if milk or milk products carrying the FMD virus that have not been
properly processed are imported into the United States and are ingested
by ruminants or other livestock in the United States.
Current Regulations
Section 94.16 of the regulations contains provisions governing the
importation of milk and milk products from FMD-affected countries. With
certain exceptions, the current provisions in Sec. 94.16 prohibit the
importation of milk and milk products from regions in which FMD exists,
unless the milk or milk product meets one of the conditions set forth
in Sec. 94.16(b). The products that are exempted from the importation
conditions are butter, butteroil, and cheese, except cheese with liquid
or containing any item prohibited or restricted from importation under
the regulations unless such item is independently eligible for
importation under part 94. Except for these exempted articles, milk and
milk products may not be imported from any region designated in Sec.
94.1(a)(1) as a region in which rinderpest or FMD exists unless the
milk or milk products meet one of the following conditions:
1. They are in a concentrated liquid form and have been processed
by heat by a commercial method in a container hermetically sealed
promptly after filling but before such heating, so as to be shelf
stable without refrigeration.
2. They are dry milk or dry milk products, including dry whole
milk, nonfat dry milk, dried whey, dried buttermilk, and formulations
that contain any such dry milk products, and are consigned directly to
an approved establishment for further processing in a manner approved
by the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
(APHIS) as adequate to prevent the introduction or dissemination of
livestock diseases into the United States. However, in specific cases,
upon request by the importer to the Administrator, and approval by the
Administrator, they may be stored for a temporary period in an approved
warehouse under the supervision of an APHIS inspector pending movement
to an approved establishment. Such products must be transported from
the port of first arrival to an approved establishment or an approved
warehouse, and from an approved warehouse to an approved establishment
only under Department seals or seals of the U.S. Customs Service. Such
seals may be broken only by an APHIS inspector or other person
authorized to do so by the Administrator. Such products may not be
removed from the approved warehouse or approved establishment unless
the Administrator gives special permission and all the conditions and
requirements specified by the Administrator are complied with.
3. Milk and milk products not exempted from the importation
conditions and not meeting conditions 1 or 2 above may be imported if
the importer first applies for and receives written permission from the
Administrator authorizing such importation. Permission will be granted
only when the Administrator determines that such action will not
endanger the health of the livestock of the United States. Products
subject to this provision include, but are not limited to, condensed
milk, long-life milks such as sterilized milk, casein and caseinates,
lactose, and lactalbumin. Additionally, small amounts of milk and milk
products that would otherwise be prohibited from being imported into
the United States may, in specific cases, be imported for examination,
testing, or analysis if such importation is approved by the
Administrator.
In light of recent FMD outbreaks in the European Union, South
America, and elsewhere, we have reviewed the scientific literature and
have determined that permitting the importation into the United States
of butter, butteroil, and certain cheeses without their meeting
specific importation conditions could pose an unacceptable risk of
introducing the FMD virus into the United States. The literature we
reviewed \1\ indicates that
[[Page 7724]]
the FMD virus could survive in those exempted products, so we believe
that it is necessary to provide specific processing requirements for
these products as a condition of their importation. These proposed
processing methods are consistent with the Office International des
Epizooties (OIE) standards. We are, therefore, proposing to remove the
exemptions from importation conditions for the milk products listed in
Sec. 94.16(a) and instead would provide specific conditions (i.e.,
processing methods) under which those products could be imported. These
processing methods could also be used for other products that are
already eligible for importation under the conditions in Sec. 94.16,
including, but not limited to, condensed milk, long-life milks such as
sterilized milk, cream, cheeses, whey, casein and caseinates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See: Blackwell, J.H., ``Survival of Foot-and-Mouth Disease
Virus in Cheese,'' 1976, Journal of Dairy Science, Vol. 59, No. 9,
pp. 1574-1579.
Sellers, R.F., ``Inactivation of Foot-and-Mouth Disease Virus in
Milk,'' 1969, British Veterinary Journal, Vol. 125, No. 4, pp. 163-
168.
Cunliffe, H.R., et al., ``Inactivation of Milkborn Foot- and
Mouth Disease Virus at Ultra-High Temperatures,'' 1979, Journal of
Food Protection, Vol. 42, No. 2, pp. 135-137.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under this proposed rule, the milk products now listed as exempt in
Sec. 94.16(a) could be imported into the United States from a region
affected with FMD only if they have been produced using one of the
processing methods described below:
1. Milk or milk products (other than cheese) that are, or are made
from, milk that has been treated at ultra-high temperature (UHT)(298.4
[deg]F (148 [deg]C) for 3 seconds or 284 [deg]F (140 [deg]C) for 5
seconds).
2. Milk or milk products (other than cheese) that are, or are made
from, milk that has been treated at a high temperature for a short time
(HTST) (161.6 [deg]F (72 [deg]C) for 15 seconds), followed by a second
HTST treatment. For milk products made with added fat or added
concentrates, the treatment temperature would have to be increased to
167 [deg]F (75 [deg]C).
3. Milk products made from milk that is HTST-treated then brought
to a pH of less than 6 for 1 hour.
4. Cheese made from raw milk, aged at a temperature of greater than
35.6 of (2 [deg]C) with a pH of less than 6 for 120 days prior to
export from the country of origin.
5. Cheese made from HTST milk, aged at a temperature of greater
than 35.6 of (2 [deg]C) with a pH of less than 6 for 30 days prior to
export from the country of origin.
The scientific evidence available to us indicates that each of the
methods described above is sufficient to inactivate the FMD virus in
milk and milk products.
We would also require that any milk or milk product imported under
these proposed conditions (i.e., the butter, butteroil, and cheeses
that would have to meet one of those conditions, as well as any other
milk or milk product for which one of those methods was used as an
alternative to meeting the existing importation conditions in Sec.
94.16) be accompanied by an official veterinary certificate endorsed by
a full-time, salaried veterinarian employed by the region of origin
attesting to the completion of the appropriate processing. The
certificate would help ensure that the required processing has been
performed by requiring that a representative responsible for animal
health in the exporting region verifies that the treatment has been
carried out.
Additional Changes
We are proposing to add ice cream and chocolate milk to the
examples of milk products in current Sec. 94.16 (b)(3) that may be
eligible for importation based on written permission from the
Administrator. We are proposing to specifically cite ice cream and
chocolate milk as products requiring written permission to minimize the
chance that these products may accidentally be diverted into the animal
food chain.
We are also proposing to require that the examination, testing, and
analysis of small amounts of milk and milk products allowed for
importation under current Sec. 94.16(b)(4) occur in a laboratory
setting. This action would ensure that untreated samples would not
enter the United States to be sold at trade shows or fairs.
Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866.
The rule has been determined to be significant for the purposes of
Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has been reviewed by the office
of Management and Budget.
We are proposing to amend the regulations regarding the importation
of animal products to establish specific processing requirements for
certain cheeses, butter, and butteroil imported from regions in which
FMD exists. Those processing methods could also be used for other milk
and milk products that are already eligible for importation under
different conditions, thus allowing their importation under a greater
variety of conditions. Additionally, we are proposing to require that
products imported from regions in which FMD exists and processed using
one of the proposed methods be accompanied by government certification
regarding their processing. We believe these actions are necessary to
ensure that products containing the FMD virus are not imported into the
United States.
The establishment of FMD in the United States could result in
serious economic consequences, given the size of the Nation's livestock
inventories and the volume of animal and animal product sales.
Potential losses associated with an outbreak of FMD include production
losses at affected establishments, eradication and quarantine costs,
and trade restrictions.\2\ Production losses arise from lost production
on depopulated premises and in the industries linked to the livestock
sector. There would also be additional costs to be borne by producers
and slaughterers, as restrictions would be imposed to prevent the
spread of FMD and eradicate the disease within the United States. These
restrictions and eradication measures would also mean added costs to
the government for implementation and enforcement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Ekboir, Javier M., ``Potential Impact of Foot-and-Mouth
Disease in California,'' 1999, Agricultural Issues Center, Division
of Agriculture and Natural Resource, University of California.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FMD outbreaks in the spring of 2001 in the United Kingdom
illustrate these costs. Control of FMD in the United Kingdom became a
nationwide undertaking, with restrictions on the movement of animals
(and people), large-scale slaughter of animals on affected and
neighboring farms, and disposal of carcasses through burning,
rendering, or burial. The last case of FMD in the United Kingdom was
found on September 30, 2001; by the time the United Kingdom declared
the outbreak eradicated on January 14, 2002, 586,551 cattle, 3,466,493
sheep, 148,388 pigs, 2,482 goats, 1,021 deer, and 770 other animals had
been slaughtered.\3\ In addition, the European Union banned the export
of meat, livestock, and milk products from the United Kingdom. As is
shown below, the United States is a major exporter of products whose
international movement could be affected by an outbreak of FMD in the
United States. In addition to a likely reduction in demand from
international consumers, trading partners of the United States would
likely impose restrictions on, and reduce imports of, U.S. ruminants,
swine, and some of their products in the event of an FMD outbreak in
the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ UK Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to ``Agricultural Statistics 2001,'' published by
National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), cattle in U.S. herds
in 2000 were valued at $67.1 billion, with 1999 cash receipts
[[Page 7725]]
of $36.5 billion from the sale of cattle, calves, beef, and veal. Cash
receipts from the sale of milk and cream in 1999 reached $23.2 billion.
U.S. hogs and pigs in 2000 were valued at $4.6 billion, with 1999 cash
receipts from the sale of hogs, pork, and lard totaling $8.6 billion.
Sheep and lamb inventories in 2000 were valued at $668.8 million, with
1999 cash receipts of $468.8 million from the sale of live sheep and
lambs and of mutton and lamb. The value of U.S. wool production in 1999
totaled about $17.9 million.
U.S. exports of live bovines, swine, sheep, and goats were valued
at $304.5 million in 2000. U.S. exports of fresh beef, pork, and sheep
and goat meat totaled $4.4 billion in 2000. U.S. exports of fresh
ruminant and swine products other than meat were valued at $718.4
million in 2000. U.S. exports of prepared and preserved ruminant and
swine meat products such as sausages and cured, salted, and dried meats
were valued at $375.5 million in 2000. U.S. exports of dairy products
totaled $784.1 million in 2000. In addition, the United States exports
a great number of other ruminant and swine products including
germplasm, hides and skins, animal feeds, dairy products, bones, hair,
guts, and glands.
In order to help prevent an outbreak of FMD in the United States,
and thus protect the substantial domestic and export market described
above, imports of certain cheeses, butter, and butteroil from regions
affected with FMD would be subject to specific processing requirements
as a result of this proposed rule. Other products, including milk,
cream, casein, whey, caseinates, and ice cream, which are already
eligible for importation under different conditions, could also be
processed using the proposed methods as an alternative to meeting the
existing requirements governing the importation of those products.
Those products, as previously discussed, would need to be accompanied
by an official veterinary certificate that attests to the completion of
the appropriate processing. U.S. imports of these products in 2000 from
regions affected with FMD and the world are shown in Table 1.
Table 1.--U.S. Imports of Milk and Milk Products, 2000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From FMD
affected From FMD free U.S. global
Product imported regions (in regions (in imports (in
millions) millions) millions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Milk and cream, not concentrated............................. $0.73 $9.65 $10.38
Milk and cream, concentrated or sweetened.................... 2.78 31.51 34.29
Butter and other fats and oils derived from milk............. 0.65 34.44 35.09
Cheese and curd.............................................. 140.53 556.10 696.63
Ice cream.................................................... 2.38 15.25 17.62
Casein and caseinates........................................ 98.81 401.57 500.38
Other milk products.......................................... 15.25 157.06 172.31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: World Trade Atlas, Global Trade Information Services, Inc.
Approximately 9 percent of these imports were from regions affected
with FMD. Information on the portion of butter, butteroil, and cheese
imports from FMD-affected regions that do not currently meet the
proposed requirements is not available. However, the impact of the
proposed changes is expected to be small. Imports in total are small
relative to domestic production. For example, butter imports totaled
18,059 metric tons in 1999, while domestic production of butter was
578,349 metric tons. In addition, APHIS anticipates that the majority
of these imports currently meet, or could relatively easily be made to
meet, the requirements described in this proposed rule, as most
processors already possess and use the equipment necessary to meet the
proposed standards. In addition, certain products (i.e., dry milk and
dry milk products including dry whole milk, nonfat dry milk, dried
whey, dried buttermilk, and formulations which contain any such dry
milk products) would continue to be eligible for importation under
existing regulations and would not be required to meet the specific
proposed requirements.
For most types of cheese imported into the United States, this
proposed rule should have little impact. At a total of 197,537 metric
tons in 1999, the amount of imported cheese was equal to about 5
percent of domestic cheese production, which was about 3.6 million
metric tons. In addition, most U.S. imports of cheese currently meet or
should be able to meet the requirements for time, temperature, and pH
level in this proposed rule. There are notable possible exceptions to
this. The aging requirement in the proposed rule may affect the
importation of some cheeses, as additional aging may alter the
character of some cheeses made with raw milk and some cheeses with eye-
formation such as Swiss cheese, thus making them less desirable or
unavailable for importation. In 1999, the United States produced about
100,000 metric tons, and imported more than 34,000 metric tons, of
Swiss cheese. Table 2 shows U.S. imports of Swiss type cheeses and
their origin in 1998 through 2000. The extent to which imports of Swiss
cheese and raw milk cheese may be altered as a result of the proposed
rule is unknown. However, the effect should be exceedingly small, as
more than 99 percent of U.S. Swiss cheese imports in 2000 originated in
FMD-free countries.
Table 2.--U.S. Imports of Swiss Cheese
[in metric tons]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Country of origin 1998 1999 2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Austria.......................... 1,269 1,109 1,298
Canada........................... 346 369 183
Denmark.......................... 1,428 3,417 2,585
Finland.......................... 5,872 6,908 8,124
France........................... 1,371 984 1,390
[[Page 7726]]
Germany.......................... 3,858 6,477 4,633
Hungary.......................... 790 792 357
Ireland.......................... 1,021 1,124 818
Netherlands...................... 374 424 213
Norway........................... 7,510 7,254 7,709
Switzerland...................... 3,416 3,516 3,498
Other countries.................. 1,773 2,816 3,082
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the specific processing requirements for butter,
butteroil, and certain cheeses imported from regions affected by FMD,
this proposed rule would also require government certification that
those requirements have been met. The cost of obtaining certification
may affect the price of the product paid by U.S. importers and end
users. However, the cost of obtaining such certification is expected to
be low. The certification is simply a signed statement from the
veterinary official of the exporting country attesting that the
requirements have been met. Certification would be a new requirement
for cheese (without liquid or restricted items), butter, and butteroil.
Under the current regulations, these items may enter without
restriction. In 2000, about 40 percent of the $530 million in milk and
milk products imported from FMD-affected countries were cheese and
butter.
For some other imports, the proposed rule would expand import
options. For example, certain products such as condensed milk, long-
life milks such as sterilized milk, casein and caseinates, lactose and
lactalbumin, are currently allowed entry if written permission is given
for their importation, and other products such as dry milk or dry milk
products are currently allowed entry only if consigned to an approved
facility for further processing. If any of these products were produced
using milk processed in accordance with methods described in this
proposal, those products would be eligible for importation if
accompanied by the certification described in the previous paragraph.
The number of producers in FMD-affected regions that might opt to use
the processing methods described in this proposed rule for these
products is unknown. We expect that those producers would use UHT-or
HTST-treated milk in the preparation of their products if that option
was viable from a production standpoint and was an economically
attractive alternative to the existing requirements in Sec. 94.16
governing the importation of these products.
The quantity of imports from FMD-affected regions that might be
produced using milk treated in accordance with this proposed rule is
not known, nor is the degree to which that treatment might affect the
cost of those imports.
As this proposed rule would simply provide an alternative to the
current importation provisions for milk and milk products other than
butter, butteroil, and cheese, we expect that the effect of this
proposed rule on imports of those products, which in 2000 constituted
about 60 percent of milk and milk product imports from FMD-affected
regions, would be small.
Cost/Benefit Analysis
This proposed rule may involve added costs for importers and users
of butter, butteroil, and certain cheeses, as those imports from FMD-
affected regions would be required to meet new processing and
certification requirements. However, because FMD-affected regions
account for a small portion of all U.S. imports of these products and
represent an even smaller fraction of domestic production and overall
supply, the impacts on domestic prices and consumption will be small.
Moreover, these costs are very small when compared to the benefits of
preventing an outbreak of FMD in the United States. Such an outbreak
could have serious economic consequences given the size of the nation's
livestock inventories and the volume of animal and animal product
sales.
Impact on Small Entities
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires that Agencies specifically
consider the economic impact of their rules on small entities. Those
entities most likely to be affected by the proposed rule are domestic
importers of milk and milk products, domestic users of these products,
and dairy farms.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) has established guidelines
for determining which establishments are to be considered small
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. According to North
American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes 422430 and
422490, import/export merchants, agents, and brokers are identified in
the wholesaling trade. A firm engaged in wholesaling dairy products is
considered small if it employs fewer than 100 persons. In 1997, more
than 97 percent (2,460 of 2,522) of dairy products (except dried or
canned) wholesalers would be considered small, and more than 95 percent
(12,251 of 12,845) of other grocery and related products wholesalers,
which includes dried and canned dairy products, would be considered
small.\4\ An establishment engaged in dairy cattle and milk production
(NAICS code 112111) is considered small if it has annual sales of less
than $750,000. According to the 1997 Census of Agriculture, at least
79,155 of 86,022 (or 92 percent) of dairy farms would be considered
small. The size standards for establishments engaged in food
manufacturing range from fewer than 500 employees to fewer than 1,000
employees, depending on the type of food being manufactured. An
establishment engaged in dairy product manufacturing (NAICS code 3115)
is considered small if it employs fewer than 500 persons. This is also
the standard for non-chocolate confectionary manufacturing, NAICS code
311340, which includes granola and other types of breakfast bars. In
1997, 25,729 of 26,302 (or more than 97 percent) of food manufacturing
establishments would be considered small.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 1997 Economic Census, Department of Commerce, Bureau of the
Census.
\5\ 1997 Economic Census, Department of Commerce, Bureau of the
Census.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the above it is clear that any domestic entity affected by
this proposed rule is likely to be considered small. However, for most
milk products, the quantity imported is a small fraction of that
produced domestically, and the quantity of imports supplied by FMD-
affected regions is a smaller percentage still of domestic supply.
Thus, the
[[Page 7727]]
impact of this proposed rule on small entities is expected to be small.
Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action would
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
Executive Order 12988
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988,
Civil Justice Reform. If this proposed rule is adopted: (1) All State
and local laws and regulations that are inconsistent with this rule
will be preempted; (2) no retroactive effect will be given to this
rule; and (3) administrative proceedings will not be required before
parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.
Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the information collection or
recordkeeping requirements included in this proposed rule have been
submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Please send written comments to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for APHIS, Washington,
DC 20503. Please state that your comments refer to Docket No. 01-040-1.
Please send a copy of your comments to: (1) Docket No. 01-040-1,
Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3C71, 4700
River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238, and (2) Clearance
Officer, OCIO, USDA, room 404-W, 14th Street and Independence Avenue,
SW., Washington, DC 20250. A comment to OMB is best assured of having
its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication of
this proposed rule.
We are proposing to amend the regulations regarding the importation
of animal products to establish new processing requirements for butter,
butteroil, and certain cheeses imported from regions in which FMD
exists. Additionally, we are proposing to require that those materials,
as well as other milk or milk products that are processed using the new
proposed methods in lieu of meeting the existing importation
conditions, when imported from regions in which foot-and-mouth disease
exists, be accompanied by government certification by a salaried
veterinarian employed by the region of origin regarding the processing
of the materials.
We are asking OMB to approve, for 3 years, our use of this
information collection activity in connection with our efforts to
ensure that milk and milk products imported into the United States from
FMD regions do not harbor the FMD virus.
We are soliciting comments from the public (as well as affected
agencies) concerning our proposed information collection and
recordkeeping requirements. These comments will help us:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is
necessary for the proper performance of our agency's functions,
including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the
proposed information collection, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the information collection on those who
are to respond (such as through the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology; e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses).
Estimate of burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of
information is estimated to average 0.25 hours per response.
Respondents: Exporters of milk and milk products in FMD regions;
full-time, salaried veterinarians employed by the region of origin.
Estimated annual number of respondents: 200.
Estimated annual number of responses per respondent: 5.
Estimated annual number of responses: 1,000.
Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 250 hours. (Due to
averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of
the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per
response.) Copies of this information collection can be obtained from
Mrs. Celeste Sickles, APHIS'' Information Collection Coordinator, at
(301) 734-7477.
Government Paperwork Elimination Act Compliance
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is committed to
compliance with the Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA), which
requires government agencies in general to provide the public the
option of submitting information or transacting business electronically
to the maximum extent possible. For information pertinent to GPEA
compliance related to this proposed rule, please contact Mrs. Celeste
Sickles, APHIS'' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 734-7477.
List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 94
Animal diseases, Imports, Livestock, Meat and meat products, Milk,
Poultry and poultry products, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, we propose to amend 9 CFR part 94 as follows:
PART 94--RINDERPEST, FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE, 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 would continue to read as
follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 450, 7701-7772, and 8301-8317; 21 U.S.C. 136
and 136a; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 42 U.S.C. 4331 and 4332; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80,
and 371.4.
2. Section 94.16 would be amended as follows:
a. By removing paragraph (a) and redesignating paragraphs (b), (c),
and (d) as paragraphs (a), (b), and (c), respectively.
b. In newly redesignated paragraph (a), by revising the
introductory text of the paragraph; redesignating paragraphs (a)(1)
through (a)(4) as paragraphs (a)(6) through (a)(9), respectively; and
by adding new paragraphs (a)(1) through(a)(5) to read as follows.
c. In newly redesignated paragraph (a)(8), by revising the first
sentence to read as follows, and in the last sentence, by adding the
words ``ice cream, chocolate milk,'' after the word ``lactose''.
d. In newly redesignated paragraph (a)(9), by adding the words ``in
a laboratory setting'' after the word ``analysis''.
e. In newly redesignated paragraph (c), in the last sentence, by
removing the citation Sec. 94.16(b)(3)'' and adding the words
``paragraph (a)(8) of this section'' in its place.
Sec. 94.16 Milk and milk products.
(a) Milk and milk products originating in, or shipped from, any
region designated in Sec. 94.1(a) as a region infected with rinderpest
or foot-and-mouth disease may be imported into the United States if the
milk or milk product satisfies one of the sets of criteria described in
paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(9) of this section. Products processed in
accordance with one of the methods described in paragraphs (a)(1)
through (a)(5) of this section must be accompanied by an official
veterinary
[[Page 7728]]
certificate endorsed by a full-time, salaried veterinarian employed by
the region of origin stating that the products have been processed in
accordance with one of those methods:
(1) Milk or milk products (other than cheese) that are, or are made
from, milk that has been treated at an ultra high temperature (298.4
[deg]F (148 [deg]C ) for 3 seconds or 284 [deg]F (140 [deg]C) for 5
seconds); or
(2) Milk or milk products (other than cheese) that are, or are made
from, milk that has been treated at a high temperature for a short time
(HTST) (161.6 [deg]F (72 [deg]C) for 15 seconds) followed by a second
HTST (161.6 [deg]F (72 [deg]C) for 15 seconds) treatment. For milk
products made with added fat or added concentrates, the treatment
temperature must be increased to 167 [deg]F (75 [deg]C); or
(3) Milk products made from HTST milk that is brought to a pH of
less than 6 for 1 hour.
(4) Cheese made from raw milk, aged at a temperature of greater
than 35.6 [deg]F (2 [deg]C) with a pH of less than 6 for 120 days prior
to export from the country of origin; or
(5) Cheese made from HTST milk, aged at a temperature of greater
than 35.6 [deg]F (2 [deg]C) with a pH of less than 6 for 30 days prior
to export from the country of origin.
* * * * *
(8) Milk and milk products not of classes included within the
provisions of paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(7) of this section may be
imported if the importer first applies to and receives written
permission from the Administrator, authorizing such importation. * * *
* * * * *
Done in Washington, DC, this 11th day of February, 2003.
Bill Hawks,
Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs.
[FR Doc. 03-3836 Filed 2-14-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P