[Federal Register: July 13, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 133)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 41915-41920]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr13jy04-3]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
9 CFR Part 94
[Docket No. 03-009-2]
Classical Swine Fever Status of Chile
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are amending the regulations for importing animals and
animal products by adding Chile to the list of regions we recognize as
free of classical swine fever (CSF). We are taking this action at the
request of the Government of Chile and after conducting a risk
evaluation that indicates that Chile is free of this disease. We are
also adding Chile to a list of CSF-free regions whose exports of live
swine, pork, and pork products to the United States must meet certain
certification requirements to ensure their freedom from CSF, and
amending those requirements to accommodate the addition of Chile to the
list. These actions relieve restrictions on the importation into the
United States of pork, pork products, live swine, and swine semen from
Chile while continuing to protect against the introduction of this
disease into the United States.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 28, 2004.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Charisse Cleare, Senior Staff
Veterinarian, Regionalization Evaluation Services Staff, National
Center for Import and Export, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 38,
Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 734-4356.
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 of
various animal diseases, including rinderpest, foot-and-mouth disease
(FMD), African swine fever (ASF), classical swine fever (CSF), and
swine vesicular disease. These are dangerous and destructive
communicable diseases of ruminants and swine. Section 94.9 of the
regulations restricts the importation into the United States of pork
and pork products from regions where CSF is known to exist. Section
94.10 of the regulations prohibits, with certain exceptions, the
importation of swine that originate in or are shipped from or transit
any region in which CSF is known to exist. Sections 94.9 and 94.10
provide that CSF exists in all regions of the world except for certain
regions listed in those sections.
On November 13, 2003, we published in the Federal Register (68 FR
64274-64282, Docket No. 03-009-1) a proposal to amend the regulations
by adding Chile to the list of regions we recognize as free of CSF. We
also proposed to add Chile to a list of CSF-free regions whose exports
of live swine, pork, and pork products to the United States must meet
certain certification requirements to ensure their freedom from CSF,
and to amend those requirements to accommodate the addition of Chile to
the list. In addition, we proposed to amend those certification
requirements to require, for pork and pork products from a region
listed in Sec. 94.24, an additional statement that the swine from
which the pork and pork products were derived have not lived in a
region affected with CSF.
We solicited comments concerning our proposal for 60 days ending
January 12, 2004. We received three comments by that date. They were
from an importer and from associations of pork producers. Two of the
commenters supported the proposed rule. The third commenter asked for
additional information regarding several issues in the proposed rule.
These issues are discussed below by topic.
The commenter requested additional information about the ongoing
surveillance that Chile's Agricultural and Livestock Service (Servicio
Agricola y Ganadero, SAG) conducts for CSF in Chilean commercial swine.
The commenter stated that data referred to in material supporting
Chile's request to be considered free of CSF are several years old and
appear to be ``point-in-time'' samples related to managing and
eliminating the last outbreaks of CSF in Chile in 1995 and 1996. The
commenter asked whether there is a plan for federally funded, routine,
ongoing surveillance for commercial and noncommercial populations of
swine in Chile. The commenter also wanted to know whether both swine
held on breeding farms and swine intended for slaughter were being
sampled as part of the testing and what specific level of detection the
current testing supports.
As stated in the evaluation that we conducted regarding the CSF
status of Chile, SAG tested swine on 321 family farms, located in all
13 regions of Chile, for CSF in 2000 and 2001. The number of samples
totaled 1,705. In addition, the evaluation referred to serological data
for 2002 that SAG provided. Those data included samples taken at both
commercial premises and backyard (family) premises that possessed or
raised swine. These data reflected testing performed from January to
December 2002. We based our determination that Chile is free of CSF on
these data, not the data from the earlier testing conducted after the
last outbreaks of CSF in Chile to which the commenter refers.
Chile does have a plan for federally funded, routine, ongoing
surveillance for CSF in both commercial and noncommercial populations
of swine. Both swine held on breeding farms and swine held on
commercial properties that send swine for slaughter at export
facilities are tested using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for
CSF under the surveillance plan.
As to the specific level of detection, the sampling design for 2002
was based on two sets of high-risk herds. In the
[[Page 41916]]
first set, the sampling design for herds that were considered high risk
due to their proximity to certain areas (airports, seaports, land
borders, garbage dumps, or owners with a history of feeding waste to
pigs) was intended to detect a 20 percent within-herd prevalence. In
the second set, the sampling design for herds considered high risk due
to a history of past positive serology was intended to detect a 1
percent within-herd prevalence level.
The commenter also asked whether there is a plan for federally
funded, routine, ongoing surveillance for wild boars in Chile, stating
that it did not appear that a surveillance program had been developed
or conducted for CSF or other communicable diseases of swine in the
wild boar population. The commenter stated that the wild boar
population should be thoroughly assessed for possible infection by CSF
and other communicable diseases of swine before the Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service (APHIS) declares Chile free of CSF.
As of December 2002, SAG had not performed surveillance for CSF in
the free-range wild boar population. However, SAG performed
surveillance for CSF at wild boar operations in Chile, based on the
rationale that animals at these operations originated as wild animals
and have been in captivity for several generations.
APHIS has no evidence that suggests that CSF is present in or has
ever been present in feral swine in Chile. We consider this situation
to be analogous to conditions in the United States. There is no
evidence to suggest that CSF is present in feral swine within the
continental United States. Therefore, APHIS does not conduct
surveillance for CSF in feral swine within the continental United
States at this time. Under the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement
on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures and the
principle of national treatment in the WTO General Agreement on Tariffs
and Trade, APHIS must establish requirements for the importation of
animals and animal products that are no more restrictive than the
requirements APHIS imposes on the interstate movement of animals and
animal products. Given these circumstances, APHIS does not believe it
would be appropriate to require Chile to conduct CSF surveillance in
its wild boar population. We are making no changes to the proposed rule
in response to this comment.
Given the situation discussed above, the commenter requested
assurance that wild boar in Chile pose a negligible, minimal risk of
transmitting diseases to commercial swine. The commenter cited recent
experiences in European countries as indicating that the two
populations may be linked with respect to CSF transmission.
As we discussed in the proposed rule, several circumstances
mitigate the risk of disease transmission, if any disease were to be
present, from wild boar to commercial swine in Chile. There are few
commercial swine operations in those regions of Chile where there are
concentrated populations of wild boar; rather, family farms are usually
prevalent in such regions. Even if CSF or another communicable disease
of swine were present in the wild boar population, it is unlikely that
such a disease would be transmitted from wild boar to commercial swine
facilities because of the biosecurity measures in place at those
facilities. In addition, the mountainous habitat of the wild boars and
the areas of Chile devoted to domestic swine production are separated
by forests, which the wild boar do not enter because there is no food
for them in the forests.
In the proposed rule, we stated that the official diagnostic
laboratory of SAG in Santiago does not isolate the causative agent for
CSF because the biosecurity level of the laboratory is not sufficient
to allow use of live CSF virus, which is necessary to confirm a
diagnosis of CSF. This means that Chile must use a laboratory in Spain
to confirm a diagnosis of CSF. We explained further that the
biosecurity controls Chile imposes when a suspected case of CSF is
discovered would be effective at containing the spread of a possible
CSF infection even without an immediate confirmation of a CSF
diagnosis. The commenter agreed with APHIS on this point, but requested
that we discuss whether confirmatory testing for FMD and ASF could be
accomplished within Chile. If confirmatory testing for these diseases
could not be accomplished within Chile, the commenter asserted, the
importation of live swine, pork, and pork products from Chile would
pose a risk to the health of U.S. swine.
We consider Chile to be free of both FMD and ASF. In making the
determination that these diseases do not exist in Chile, we considered
Chile's diagnostic capabilities for these diseases, in the same way
that we considered Chile's diagnostic capability for CSF in the
proposed rule. When we determined that Chile was free from FMD and ASF,
we evaluated Chile's diagnostic capabilities for these diseases and
determined that they were satisfactory. If we were to determine that
Chile's diagnostic capabilities for either of these diseases were
inadequate at some point in the future, we would undertake separate
rulemaking to amend Sec. 94.1 (which lists regions free of FMD and
rinderpest) or Sec. 94.8 (which lists regions where ASF exists)
accordingly. We are making no changes to the proposed rule in response
to this comment.
The commenter noted that the United States is free of blue-eye
disease (BED), and that BED appears to be a disease concern elsewhere.
Given that live swine from Chile would be allowed to be imported into
the United States if Chile was declared free of CSF, the commenter was
concerned about the BED status of Chilean swine.
At this time, APHIS has no evidence that BED is present in Chile.
If the commenter has such evidence, we would be willing to consider it.
The proposed rule was prompted by a request from Chile to evaluate its
CSF status; the risk evaluation and proposed rule addressed the risk of
a possible CSF introduction into the United States via swine, pork, or
pork products imported from Chile. If it becomes necessary to restrict
imports of Chilean swine, pork, or pork products due to BED, we will
undertake separate rulemaking to restrict their importation or, in the
case of live swine, use our authority under Sec. 93.504(a)(3) to deny
the swine a permit for importation into the United States due to
communicable disease conditions in Chile.
The commenter asked that APHIS clarify the circumstances that
prompt us to conduct a qualitative risk assessment rather than a
quantitative risk assessment. The commenter stated that semi-
quantitative or quantitative analyses allow for a more standardized
risk evaluation and allow stakeholders to more easily compare risks and
determine what level of risk APHIS considers acceptable. The commenter
also questioned the value of qualitative risk assessments, stating that
such assessments rely too heavily on the information gathered by a
small site visit team, despite the obvious skills of the site team
members.
APHIS' decision on whether to conduct a qualitative or quantitative
risk assessment when evaluating the disease status of a region is
dependent primarily on two factors. One of these is the disease
conditions in the region that has requested to be evaluated regarding
its disease status. Regions that request to be declared free of a
disease typically have not reported an outbreak of the relevant disease
in many years and do not allow vaccination, which might mask disease.
Such regions may be considered to pose a relatively low risk for
disease
[[Page 41917]]
presence. For such regions, APHIS has historically conducted
qualitative analyses when evaluating their disease status. Chile's last
outbreak of CSF occurred in 1996, and Chile no longer vaccinates swine
for CSF; these considerations indicated to us that a qualitative risk
assessment was appropriate.
The second factor is whether or not we perceive that there may be
underlying risk in the region. Regions for which quantitative analyses
are conducted are typically those for which a qualitative evaluation
has suggested that the region poses a higher level of risk than that
described above. Risks of trade in commodities from the higher-risk
regions often lend themselves to evaluation by a quantitative risk
analysis model. However, no evidence gathered during the qualitative
risk assessment for Chile indicated that such underlying risks exist in
Chile for CSF. Based on these considerations, we conducted a
qualitative risk assessment to evaluate whether Chile is free from CSF.
APHIS is preparing a description of its regionalization process,
which will be posted on the Veterinary Services Web site when it is
finalized. An announcement of its availability will be published in the
Federal Register in the near future. Among other things, the
description will outline the way in which APHIS conducts and applies
risk analyses to assist with the decisionmaking process for
regionalization.
We are, however, making minor editorial changes to the regulatory
text to improve clarity.
Therefore, for the reasons given in the proposed rule and in this
document, we are adopting the proposed rule as a final rule, with the
changes discussed above.
Effective Date
This is a substantive rule that relieves restrictions and, pursuant
to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553, may be made effective less than 30
days after publication in the Federal Register. This rule adds Chile to
the lists of regions considered free of CSF and allows pork, pork
products, live swine, and swine semen to be imported into the United
States from Chile, subject to certain conditions. We have determined
that approximately 2 weeks are needed to ensure that APHIS and
Department of Homeland Security-Bureau of Customs and Border Protection
personnel at ports of entry receive official notice of this change in
the regulations. Therefore, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service has determined that this rule should be
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. The 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.
Under the regulations in 9 CFR part 94, the importation into the
United States of live swine, pork, pork products, and swine semen that
originates in or transits any region where CSF exists is generally
prohibited, except for certain pork products processed in accordance
with the regulations. Furthermore, even if a region is considered free
of CSF, the importation of pork and pork products from that region may
be restricted, depending on the region's proximity to or trading
relationships with regions where CSF exists. CSF is a transmissible
animal disease with potentially serious consequences for international
trade of animals and animal products.
The Agriculture and Livestock Service of the Government of Chile
asked APHIS to evaluate Chile's CSF status. APHIS conducted a site
visit in Chile and, using data from this site visit and data supplied
by the Government of Chile, performed a subsequent risk evaluation that
indicated that Chile is free of CSF. This final rule, therefore,
recognizes Chile as free of CSF. However, since Chile shares borders
with regions that the United States does not recognize as free of CSF,
imports live swine from a region that the United States does not
recognize as free of CSF, and imports certain products from regions
affected with CSF under conditions that are less restrictive than those
in our regulations in 9 CFR part 94, we are also adding certification
requirements for live swine, pork, and pork products imported into the
United States from Chile to ensure their freedom from CSF.
In 1997, Chile had 105,665 swine farms on which 1.7 million swine
were raised. There were 289 commercial premises, which represented 69
percent of Chile's hog facilities.\1\ In the United States in 2000, on
the other hand, there were 98,460 swine producers raising about
59,407,000 swine valued at $4.26 billion.\2\ Chile has never exported
live swine to the United States. In 1998, the United States imported
from Chile 18 metric tons of frozen swine edible offal (Harmonized
Tariff Schedule [HS] code number 020649). No other pork meat or any
other pork product has been imported by the United States from Chile
since then (table 1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ APHIS, Veterinary Services/Trade in Animals and Animal
Products Branch.
\2\ USDA, ``Agricultural Statistics 2000,'' page VII-18.
Washington, DC, National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frozen and dried pork accounts for 87 percent of all Chilean
exports of pork and pork products; the remaining 13 percent consists of
either fresh or chilled pork. In 2000, Chile exported 33,900 metric
tons of pork. Of this, 30.1 metric tons was cooked pork, which was
exported either frozen or dried (table 2). That same year, the United
States imported 368,700 metric tons of pork, more than 10 times the
total of Chile's pork exports.
On average, between 1998 and 2001, Chile's global exports of live
swine amounted to approximately 0.3 percent of the volume of U.S.
imports of live swine (tables 3 and 4). Specifically, Chile's global
exports of live swine were 0.28 percent of the volume of U.S. imports
of live swine in 1998, 0.33 percent in 1999, 0.39 percent in 2000, and
0.32 percent in 2001. Between 1998 and 2001, the volume of Chile's
exports of pork and pork products to the world was, on average,
equivalent to 9 percent of the volume of U.S. imports of pork and pork
products.
Table 1.--U.S. Imports of Pork and Pork Products
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Import volume by year (in metric tons)
Commodity (by HS 6-digit Origin of U.S. imports ---------------------------------------------------
category) 1998 1999 2000 2001
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Swine carcasses, fresh or World..................... 10,555 11,206 4,542 1,676
chilled (HS 020311).
Swine carcasses, frozen (HS World..................... 68 46 70 39
020321).
[[Page 41918]]
Swine hams, fresh or chilled (HS World..................... 48,976 61,099 76,469 75,482
020312).
Swine hams, with bone in (HS World..................... 10,023 7,977 5,533 4,470
020322).
Swine edible offal, fresh or World..................... 10,065 9,499 15,557 20,904
chilled (HS 020630).
Swine edible offal, except for World (except Chile)...... 4,281 4,437 4,138 4,092
liver, frozen (HS 020649).
Chile..................... 18 0 0 0
.......................... (0.4%) ........... ........... ...........
Swine livers, frozen (HS World..................... 248 98 29 264
020641).
Swine hams/shoulders, salted, World..................... 818 1,555 1,659 1,280
dried (HS 021011).
Swine bellies, salted and dried, World..................... 10,073 16,673 21,720 19,836
bacon (HS 021012).
Swine meat, except ham, salted, World..................... 3,768 3,440 4,725 6,709
dried, smoked (HS 021019).
Swine fresh cuts (NES) (HS World..................... 87,434 116,325 148,401 163,131
020319).
Swine frozen cuts (NES) (HS World..................... 60,137 69,625 85,900 80,175
020329).
-----------------------------
Total quantity.............. .......................... 246,464 301,980 368,743 378,058
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: USDA/Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) Global Agricultural Trade System using data from the United
Nations (UN) Statistical Office.
NES = not elsewhere specified.
Table 2.--Chilean Exports of Pork and Pork Products
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Export volume by year (in metric tons)
Commodity (by HS 6-digit -------------------------------------------
category) 1998 1999 2000 2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Swine carcasses, fresh or 4,741 645 21 455
chilled (HS 020311)........
Swine carcasses, frozen (HS 108 80 6 164
020321)....................
Swine hams, fresh or chilled 0 146 790 797
(HS 020312)................
Swine hams, with bone in (HS 661 201 456 5,357
020322)....................
Swine edible offal, fresh or 3 5 104 103
chilled (HS 020630)........
Swine edible offal, except 4,888 5,331 5,677 7,261
for liver, frozen (HS
020649)....................
Swine livers, frozen (HS 248 98 29 264
020641)....................
Swine bellies, salted & 11 3 2 2
dried, bacon (HS 021012)...
Swine fresh cuts (NES) (HS 0 865 2,638 2,448
020319)....................
Swine frozen cuts (NES) (HS 7,857 5,587 9,070 17,049
020329)....................
------------
Total quantity.......... 18,517 12,961 18,793 33,900
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: FAS Global Agricultural Trade System using data from the UN
Statistical Office.
NES = not elsewhere specified.
Table 3.--U.S. Imports of Live Swine
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Swine (by HS 6-digit category) 1998 1999 2000 2001
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pure-bred (HS-010310) \1\
Quantity (swine)........................ 415 594 4,585 22,178
Value................................... $70,000 $182,000 $1,117,000 $5,080,000
Non-pure-bred category A (HS-010391) \2\
Quantity (metric tons).................. 20,383 29,978 2,336,048 42,276
Value................................... $38,993,000 $51,200,000 $72,285,000 $103,168,000
Non-pure-bred category B (HS-010392) \3\
Quantity (metric tons).................. 318,246 259,024 2,016,931 280,621
Value................................... $249,787,000 $175,100,000 $217,977,000 $249,754,000
------------------
Total value......................... $288,850,000 $226,482,000 $291,379,000 $358,002,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Imported from Canada, Denmark, and United Kingdom.
\2\ Imported from Canada, Denmark, and Australia.
\3\ Imported from Canada, Denmark, Norway, Australia, and United Kingdom.
Source: FAS Global Agricultural Trade System using data from the UN Statistical Office.
Table 4.--Chilean Exports of Live Swine
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Swine (by HS 6-digit category) 1998 1999 2000 2001
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pure-bred (HS-010310)
Quantity (metric tons).................. 95 (\1\) (\1\) (\1\)
[[Page 41919]]
Value................................... $759,000 $688,000 $1,126,000 $1,132,000
Non-pure-bred, category A (HS-010391)
Quantity (metric tons).................. 0 (\1\) 0 0
Value................................... 0 $25,000 0 0
Non-pure-bred, category B (HS-010392)
Quantity (metric tons).................. 30 (\1\) 0 0
Value................................... $44,000 $45,000 0 0
------------------
Total value......................... $803,000 $758,000 $1,126,000 $1,132,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Unknown.
Source: FAS Global Agricultural Trade System using data from the UN Statistical Office.
Economic Effects on Small Entities
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires that agencies consider the
economic effects of their rules on small entities. Domestic swine
producers and processors of pork and pork products, as well as brokers,
agents and others in the United States who would become involved in any
future importation and sale of swine, pork, and pork products from
Chile, are most likely to be directly affected by this change to
Chile's CSF status. The number and size of the entities that may become
involved in any future importation and sale of swine (or products) from
Chile is unknown. However, it is reasonable to assume that most will be
small, based on the Small Business Administration's standards, since
most businesses are classified as small under those standards.
From an economic standpoint, this change in Chile's CSF status
should have little or no effect on domestic entities in the United
States. This is because exports from Chile in quantities sufficient to
have a significant effect on the U.S. market are unlikely. We do not
anticipate that any U.S. entities, small or otherwise, will experience
any significant economic effects as a result of this action.
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 final 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.
Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.), the information collection or recordkeeping requirements
included in this rule have been approved by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) under OMB control number 0579-0235.
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 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.
0
Accordingly, we are amending 9 CFR part 94 as follows:
PART 94--RINDERPEST, FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE, FOWL PEST (FOWL
PLAGUE), EXOTIC NEWCASTLE DISEASE, AFRICAN SWINE FEVER, CLASSICAL
SWINE FEVER, AND BOVINE SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY: PROHIBITED AND
RESTRICTED IMPORTATIONS
0
1. The authority citation for part 94 continues 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; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.
Sec. 94.9 [Amended]
0
2. In Sec. 94.9, paragraph (a) is amended by adding the word
``Chile;'' after the word ``Canada;''.
Sec. 94.10 [Amended]
0
3. In Sec. 94.10, paragraph (a) is amended by adding the word
``Chile;'' after the word ``Canada;''.
0
4. Section 94.24 is revised to read as follows.
Sec. 94.24 Restrictions on the importation of live swine, pork, or
pork products from certain regions free of classical swine fever.
The regions listed in paragraph (a) of this section are recognized
as free of classical swine fever (CSF) in Sec. Sec. 94.9(a) and
94.10(a) but either supplement their pork supplies with fresh (chilled
or frozen) pork imported from regions considered to be affected by CSF,
or supplement their pork supplies with pork from CSF-affected regions
that is not processed in accordance with the requirements of this part,
or share a common land border with CSF-affected regions, or import live
swine from CSF-affected regions under conditions less restrictive than
would be acceptable for importation into the United States. Thus, there
exists a possibility that live swine, pork, or pork products from the
CSF-free regions listed in paragraph (a) of this section may be
commingled with live swine, pork, or pork products from CSF-affected
regions, resulting in a risk of CSF introduction into the United
States. Therefore, live swine, pork, or pork products and shipstores,
airplane meals, and baggage containing pork or pork products, other
than those articles regulated under parts 95 or 96 of this chapter, may
not be imported into the United States from a region listed in
paragraph (a) of this section unless the requirements in this section,
in addition to other applicable requirements of part 93 of this chapter
and part 327 of this title, are met.
(a) Regions subject to the requirements of this section: Chile and
[[Page 41920]]
the Mexican States of Baja California, Baja California Sur, Chihuahua,
and Sinaloa.
(b) Live swine. The swine must be accompanied by a certification
issued by a full-time salaried veterinary officer of the national
government of the region of export. Upon arrival of the swine in the
United States, the certification must be presented to an authorized
inspector at the port of arrival. The certification must identify both
the exporting region and the region of origin as a region designated in
Sec. Sec. 94.9 and 94.10 as free of CSF at the time the swine were in
the region and must state that:
(1) The swine have not lived in a region designated in Sec. Sec.
94.9 and 94.10 as affected with CSF.
(2) The swine have never been commingled with swine that have been
in a region that is designated in Sec. Sec. 94.9 and 94.10 as affected
with CSF;
(3) The swine have not transited a region designated in Sec. Sec.
94.9 and 94.10 as affected with CSF unless moved directly through the
region to their destination in a sealed means of conveyance with the
seal intact upon arrival at the point of destination; and
(4) The conveyances or materials used in transporting the swine, if
previously used for transporting swine, have been cleaned and
disinfected in accordance with the requirements of Sec. 93.502 of this
chapter.
(c) Pork or pork products. The pork or pork products must be
accompanied by a certification issued by a full-time salaried
veterinary officer of the national government of the region of export.
Upon arrival of the pork or pork products in the United States, the
certification must be presented to an authorized inspector at the port
of arrival. The certification must identify both the exporting region
and the region of origin of the pork or pork products as a region
designated in Sec. Sec. 94.9 and 94.10 as free of CSF at the time the
pork or pork products were in the region and must state that:
(1) The pork or pork products were derived from swine that were
born and raised in a region designated in Sec. Sec. 94.9 and 94.10 as
free of CSF and were slaughtered in such a region at a federally
inspected slaughter plant that is under the direct supervision of a
full-time salaried veterinarian of the national government of that
region and that is eligible to have its products imported into the
United States under the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) and the regulations in Sec. 327.2 of this title;
(2) The pork or pork products were derived from swine that have not
lived in a region designated in Sec. Sec. 94.9 and 94.10 as affected
with CSF;
(3) The pork or pork products have never been commingled with pork
or pork products that have been in a region that is designated in
Sec. Sec. 94.9 and 94.10 as affected with CSF;
(4) The pork or pork products have not transited through a region
designated in Sec. Sec. 94.9 and 94.10 as affected with CSF unless
moved directly through the region to their destination in a sealed
means of conveyance with the seal intact upon arrival at the point of
destination; and
(5) If processed, the pork or pork products were processed in a
region designated in Sec. Sec. 94.9 and 94.10 as free of CSF in a
federally inspected processing plant that is under the direct
supervision of a full-time salaried veterinary official of the national
government of that region.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
numbers 0579-0230 and 0579-0235)
Done in Washington, DC, this 7th day of July 2004.
W. Ron DeHaven,
Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 04-15805 Filed 7-12-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P