[Federal Register: April 20, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 76)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 21042-21047]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr20ap04-4]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
9 CFR Parts 94 and 98
[Docket No. 98-090-7]
RIN 0579-AB03
Classical Swine Fever Status of France and Spain
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are amending the regulations concerning the importation of
animals and animal products to recognize France and Spain as regions in
which classical swine fever (CSF) is not known to exist, and from which
breeding swine, swine semen, and pork and pork products may be imported
into the United States under certain conditions, in the absence of
restrictions associated with other foreign animal diseases of swine.
This rulemaking will ensure that breeding swine, swine
[[Page 21043]]
semen, and pork and pork products imported from France or Spain have
originated in one of those countries or in any other region recognized
by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service as free of CSF and
that, prior to export to the United States, such animals and animal
products have not been commingled with animals and animal products from
regions where CSF exists.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 20, 2004.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Chip Wells, 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 Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture regulates the importation of animals and
animal products to guard against the introduction of animal diseases
into this country. The regulations pertaining to the importation of
animals and animal products are set forth in the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR), title 9, chapter I, subchapter D (9 CFR parts 91
through 99).
On June 25, 1999, we published in the Federal Register (64 FR
34155-34168, Docket No. 98-090-1) a proposal to, among other things,
amend the regulations regarding the importation of swine and swine
products from a specifically defined region in the European Union (EU)
consisting of Austria, Belgium, France, Greece, Luxembourg, the
Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, and parts of Germany and Italy. (For
convenience, we refer to individual countries of this EU region as
``Member States.'') In proposing to recognize smaller regions within
Germany and Italy as free of classical swine fever (CSF, which we
referred to in the proposed rule as hog cholera), we defined the
administrative units for purposes of regionalization in those two
Member States as the kreis for Germany and the region for Italy. An
administrative unit was considered to be the smallest administrative
jurisdiction in the Member State with effective oversight of normal
animal movements into, out of, and within that jurisdiction, and that,
in association with national authorities, if necessary, has the
responsibility for controlling animal diseases locally.
Before developing our proposed rule, we prepared a risk analysis to
estimate the likelihood of introducing CSF from the EU region, and to
determine what, if any, mitigation measures would be necessary. We
assessed the likelihood of introducing CSF through the importation of
live breeding swine, swine semen, and pork and pork products. We made
the risk analysis available to the public during the comment period for
the proposed rule.
We solicited comments concerning our proposed rule for 60 days
ending August 24, 1999. One of the commenters expressed concerns with
several aspects of our risk analysis. Based on the concerns expressed
in that comment, and as recommended by the Department's Office of Risk
Assessment and Cost Benefit Analysis, we revised our risk analysis and
included a supplement that presented in more detail specific
information about CSF outbreaks in the EU region. The revised risk
analysis was titled ``Risk Analysis for Importation of Classical Swine
Fever Virus in Swine and Swine Products from the European Union--
December 2000.''
On April 7, 2003, we published in the Federal Register (68 FR
16922-16940, Docket No. 98-090-5) a final rule that, among other
things, amended the regulations to recognize a smaller region in the EU
consisting of Austria, Belgium, Greece, the Netherlands, Portugal, and
parts of Germany and Italy as free of CSF. In the final rule, APHIS did
not recognize France, Spain, or Luxembourg as free of CSF, and thus as
part of the EU region free of CSF, as we had proposed to do in our June
1999 proposed rule, because CSF outbreaks had occurred in domestic
swine in each of those Member States after the publication of the
proposed rule.
In our April 2003 final rule, we continued to consider all of
France, Spain, and Luxembourg to be affected with CSF, even though
outbreaks in domestic swine had occurred only in limited areas of those
Member States, because we had not yet defined the administrative units
in those Member States that we would use for purposes of
regionalization. When the outbreaks occurred, France, Spain, and
Luxembourg took action to eradicate CSF. The last affected herds were
depopulated in France on April 26, 2002, and in Spain on April 30,
2002. Because Luxembourg experienced an outbreak in domestic swine in
August 2003 and continues to remain under restriction by the EU because
of CSF in feral swine, Luxembourg was not considered for evaluation for
CSF-free status at this time.
Following the elimination of CSF in domestic swine in France and
Spain, on November 24, 2003, we published in the Federal Register (68
FR 65869-65871, Docket No. 98-090-6) a supplemental risk analysis which
examined the risk of introducing CSF from the importation of swine and
swine products from those two Member States. The supplemental risk
analysis is available on the Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ncie/reg-request.html.
\1\ For this analysis, we used the applicable
information from the risk analyses we conducted for the June 1999
proposed rule and the April 2003 final rule, as well as information
made available following the outbreaks, and subsequent elimination, of
CSF in France and Spain. We concluded that the risk of importation of
CSF virus in swine and swine products from France and Spain was low,
based on the demonstrated ability of these two Member States to
effectively contain CSF outbreaks in domestic swine. Recognition of the
CSF status of France and Spain as equivalent to that of the other EU
Member States or regions evaluated in the revised risk analysis of
December 2000 was, therefore, judged to be appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ At the bottom of that Web site page, click on ``Information
previously submitted by Regions requesting export approval and their
supporting documentation.'' At the next screen, click on the
triangle beside ``European Union--France/Spain/Swine, swine semen,
pork/Classical Swine Fever,'' then on the triangle beside ``Response
by APHIS.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We solicited comments concerning our supplemental risk analysis for
60 days ending January 23, 2004. We received three comments by that
date. They were from the Government of Spain, a French pork producers'
association, and the U.S. National Pork Board. Two of the commenters
expressed concerns about certain aspects of the supplemental risk
assessment. The comments are discussed below by topic.
One commenter referred to the hypothesis that the virus involved in
the April 2002 CSF outbreak in France might have been introduced onto
the affected premises by fomites, perhaps on the clothing or personal
vehicle of a visiting farmer from Germany. The commenter also noted
that the United States requires travelers to declare whether they have
visited agricultural facilities during their international travel and
recommends procedures for those who have, such as the disinfection of
footwear prior to reentering the United States.
In our revised risk analysis of December 2000, we took into account
the fact that travelers moving between EU Member States are not subject
to border restrictions such as those imposed upon travelers entering or
reentering the United States. We
[[Page 21044]]
assumed that the EU region would likely continue to experience
occasional CSF outbreaks in the future but concluded that the EU region
evaluated in the risk analysis had adequate surveillance and control
programs in place to detect and contain them. We therefore concluded
that the risk of importing the CSF virus into the United States via
imports of breeding swine, pork, pork products, or swine semen from the
specified EU region under the conditions set out in the April 2003
final rule was low.
The commenter also discussed our use of the commune (municipality)
as the administrative unit to be employed for regionalization purposes
in France. The commune is the smallest administrative unit described in
the assessment and, according to the commenter, falls under ``only
indirect supervision'' of the Prefect for the department (a larger
administrative unit roughly equivalent to several U.S. counties or a
U.S. State) under which it is subsumed. Within each department there is
a Direction Departementale des Services Veterinaires which serves under
the direct authority of the Prefect and is responsible for the
implementation and enforcement of animal health regulations at the
department level. Although the specific question that the commenter was
asking was not entirely clear, the commenter seemed to be expressing a
concern over France's ability to manage and control disease at the
commune level.
As noted earlier, in our June 1999 proposed rule, we explained the
criteria we use for designating administrative units for the purpose of
regionalization. An administrative unit is the smallest administrative
jurisdiction that has effective oversight of normal animal movements
into, out of, and within that jurisdiction, and that, in association
with national authorities, if necessary, has the responsibility for
controlling animal disease locally. In France, this unit is a commune.
During its February 2003 site visit, the APHIS team had the opportunity
to observe the functions of the veterinary authorities at the central,
regional, and commune levels. Veterinary surveillance and control
activities at all these levels appeared to be effective. APHIS
concluded that France is able to manage and control CSF at the commune
level and that, for the purposes of regionalization, the appropriate
administrative unit is the commune.
An outbreak of CSF, however, would not necessarily be limited to a
single administrative unit. If the zones affected in an outbreak cross
administrative borders, the restricted area would include all of the
administrative units affected by the outbreak.
The commenter also questioned France's strategy for controlling CSF
in its wild boar population, noting that in zones known to be infected
with CSF, all hunting has been prohibited. Based on the expectation
that the CSF virus will develop freely in the wild boar population,
this approach seeks to allow natural immunity to develop in the older
animals, while susceptible, young animals die from the disease, thus
creating an immune population to act as a barrier to further CSF
spread. The approach differs significantly from that of Germany and
Luxembourg, both of which encourage hunting to eliminate infected
animals and use vaccine baits to establish immunity in the wild boar
population. It was suggested by the commenter that with no other
country using the French strategy for controlling CSF in wild boars, we
have no historical comparison to determine its likelihood of success.
French officials have been aware for many years of the risk of the
CSF virus spreading from infected wild boars to domestic swine. France
conducts serological surveillance of both wild boars and domestic swine
in high-risk areas. Our 2003 supplemental risk assessment found that
adequate surveillance programs are in place to detect CSF and to allow
for appropriate responses to ensure that disease spread is limited.
The same commenter also discussed concerns raised by a CSF outbreak
that occurred in Spain during the period from June 2001 to May 2002.
Spanish officials believe that the virus might have entered the country
through the illegal importation from Eastern Europe of commercial swine
for fattening in Spain. According to the commenter, while there have
been some controls instituted for the local movement of swine within
Spain, no evidence is provided in the supplemental risk assessment that
Spain has instituted additional controls to prevent future illegal
swine importation.
Live swine imported into the EU from third countries are required
to be accompanied by an official health certificate issued by the
exporting country and are subject to inspection at border posts upon
entry into the EU. Spain does not have a land border with third (i.e.,
non-EU) countries and is not directly involved in land border control.
Consideration of imports from third countries was included in the
previous evaluations upon which APHIS based its determination that
imports from designated EU Member States did not pose a significant
risk of introducing CSF into the United States.
Relevant to this, swine moving overland from Eastern Europe into
the EU would be subject to entry requirements at the EU's eastern
borders but could then proceed westward to Spain without encountering
additional border controls. Therefore, the possibility that an illegal
land shipment of swine from Eastern Europe may have reached Spain
should not necessarily be seen to reflect poorly on Spain's internal
surveillance or movement control programs. In fact, Spain has actively
prosecuted cases of illegal swine movement within the country and
imposed stiff penalties as a deterrent to future illegal movement. To
ensure compliance with EU standards, the European Commission (EC)
approves and lists border inspection posts in the Annex of Commission
Decision 2001/881/EC. Furthermore the EC regularly inspects (at least
once every 3 years) the infrastructure, equipment, and working
practices of the border inspection posts.
The same commenter also referred to Spain's requirement that new,
large swine facilities be constructed at least 1 km from existing large
swine facilities. It is noted by the commenter that the Ministerio de
Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentacion, which is the Spanish equivalent of
the U.S. Department of Agriculture, intends to extend the requirement
to existing holdings as well, but that compliance with the present
requirement is not discussed in the supplemental risk assessment. In
the December 2000 risk assessment, APHIS had determined that CSF spread
was more likely in regions with high swine density compared to regions
with low swine density, so information on producers' compliance with
the existing 1-km requirement could be helpful in evaluating the risks
of CSF transmission to U.S. swine posed by imports from Spain. The
commenter also noted that the 1-km requirement appears only to apply to
``large'' swine farms. APHIS's 2000 risk assessment did not
differentiate specifically between the risk of CSF transmission
associated with large farms and that associated with small farms but
focused on the risk associated with overall swine density.
Our 2003 supplemental risk assessment evaluated Spain's ability to
detect, control, and eradicate CSF under the regulations existing at
the time. We judged Spain to be equivalent in these areas to the other
EU Member States or regions covered under the December 2000 revised
risk assessment. We view the 1-km distance requirement as a useful
mitigation of the risks of CSF transmission posed by high swine
[[Page 21045]]
density. Requiring a distance of 1 km between holdings can help limit
spread of the disease from an infected holding.
The commenter also expressed concern over our intention to use the
comarca as the administrative unit for regionalization purposes. Spain
is comprised of 17 autonomous regions, each with its own government.
The autonomous regions are further divided into provinces, which are
comprised of local administrative units called comarcas. The commenter
noted that if swine in a comarca were found to be positive for CSF, a
request could potentially be made to exclude simply that single comarca
from the regions declared free of the disease.
In Spain, APHIS considers the smallest administrative jurisdiction
that has effective oversight of normal animal movements into, out of,
and within that jurisdiction, and that, in association with national
authorities, if necessary, has the responsibility for controlling
animal disease locally, to be a comarca. Our evaluation led us to
conclude that the necessary veterinary structures exist at the comarca
level to allow for the implementation of an effective CSF control plan.
The Government of Spain, while expressing its satisfaction with the
findings of the supplemental risk assessment, requested the inclusion
in the text of a more specific description of the term comarca in order
to clarify that the term refers to those geographic divisions
established for animal health purposes. It is our view, however, that
the description of comarca contained in the supplemental risk
assessment was consistent with our usual practice and was adequate for
the purposes of that document.
As noted earlier, in our supplemental risk analysis of November
2003, we concluded that the risk of importation of CSF virus in swine
and swine products from France and Spain was low, based on the
demonstrated ability of these two Member States to effectively contain
CSF outbreaks in domestic swine. In this final rule, therefore, we are
recognizing the CSF status of France and Spain as equivalent to that of
the other EU Member States or regions evaluated in the revised risk
analysis of December 2000. Specifically, we are adding France and Spain
to the lists of CSF-free regions in Sec. Sec. 94.9 and 94.10. We are
also incorporating France and Spain into the larger CSF-free EU region
designated in Sec. 94.23 as a region from which pork, pork products,
and live breeding swine may be imported into the United States under
certain conditions and in Sec. 98.38 as a region from which swine
semen may be imported into the United States under certain conditions.
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 recognizes France and Spain as regions in which CSF does
not exist. Although restrictions on the importation of animals and
animal products from France and Spain may continue because of our
concerns about other diseases and about the movement of products within
the EU prior to export to the United States, a number of restrictions
due to CSF are no longer warranted for imports from these two Member
States. Therefore, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service has determined that this rule should be effective
upon 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.
This final rule recognizes France and Spain as free of CSF and
allows the importation into the United States of pork, pork products,
live breeding swine, and swine semen from France and Spain under
certain conditions.
U.S. entities that may be affected by this final rule are swine and
pork producers and pork product wholesalers. The Small Business
Administration (SBA) defines small hog and pig farms as those earning
not more than $750,000 in annual receipts.\2\ The National Agricultural
Statistics Service, on the other hand, determines the size of hog farms
based on hog inventories. Our analysis has determined that only those
swine operations with inventories well in excess of 3,000 animals would
likely earn more than $750,000 in yearly sales.\3\ Since over 95
percent of U.S. swine operations hold inventories of fewer than 2,000
head, it is clear that most U.S. swine and pork producers fit the SBA's
definition of small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
112210, Hog and pig farming.
\3\ Assuming about a 6-month production cycle, one inventory
unit would roughly represent two annual sale units. An average price
of $102 per head (230 pounds selling weight, at $44.30 per cwt, the
average of hog prices in 2001), implies a gross revenue of $204 per
head of inventory, yielding $750,000/$204 per head = 3,676 head.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Likewise, pork product wholesalers are also mainly small entities.
The SBA categorizes such businesses as small entities if they do not
have more than 100 employees.\4\ We do not know the size distribution
of meat wholesalers, but the 1997 Economic Census (the most recent
available) indicates that the average number of employees per
establishment that year was 14.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ NAICS 424420, Packaged frozen food merchant wholesalers, and
NAICS 424470, Meat and meat product merchant wholesalers.
\5\ As reported in the 1997 Economic Census of the U.S. Census
Bureau, there were 3,557 meat and meat product wholesale
establishments that had a total of 50,256 paid employees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If a country has had a history of prior exports of a commodity to
the United States, we can turn to that record as an indicator of import
levels that may result from reinstated access to U.S. markets. However,
APHIS has never before recognized France or Spain as a region in which
CSF is not known to exist. Imports of swine and swine products from
these two EU Member States have, therefore, been rare.\6\ In order to
assess the possible economic impacts of this final rule, we must look
to the swine and swine product exports of France and Spain to other
countries during a recent year and compare those exports to U.S.
production and import levels and patterns. All of the following data
are for calendar year 2000, and are considered representative in terms
of U.S. swine and swine product import patterns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ According to U.S. Bureau of Census data, as reported by the
World Trade Atlas, over the 10-year period 1994-2003, there were no
imports of live swine or swine products from Spain into the United
States. During this same period, live swine were imported from
France in 2 of the 10 years: 72 head in 1994 (valued at $118,000,
0.16 percent of U.S. swine imports), and 239 head in 1995 ($378,000,
0.27 percent of imports). Very small amounts of pork were also
imported from France in 2 of the 10 years: In 1995 (valued at
$161,786, 0.4 percent of U.S. pork imports) and in 1997 ($21,678, a
negligible share of imports).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
France and Spain have been able to carry on trade in swine and
swine products with other countries, as well as the rest of the EU,
even though they have not been recognized as CSF-free by APHIS. France
and Spain exported 283,000 head and 1,359,000 head of live swine,
respectively, to other EU members in 2000, but neither Member State
exported any live swine outside the EU.\7\ U.S. imports of live swine
that year, which amounted to over 5.7 million head, all entered from
Canada,\8\ except for 602 head from Norway.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Live swine and pork export data for France and Spain are
from FAS, GAIN Reports FR0061 and SP1035.
\8\ U.S. live swine and pork import data are from U.S. Census
Bureau, as reported by the World Trade Atlas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding pork, France and Spain exported 366,000 metric tons (MTs)
and
[[Page 21046]]
345,000 MTs, respectively, to other EU members. France and Spain also
exported 220,000 MTs and 19,000 MTs of pork, respectively, to countries
outside the EU. It is reasonable to assume that a portion of these
exports, in particular, of the exports to countries outside the EU, may
be diverted to the United States upon publication of this rule. A
principal deciding factor would be U.S. prices relative to those in
other world markets. However, U.S. import patterns suggest that it is
unlikely that any diversions will have a major effect on U.S. entities.
Canada has been our major foreign supplier of pork, providing 85
percent of imports in 2000. Denmark, a distant second, supplied 13
percent that same year. Thus, all other countries exporting pork to the
United States in 2000 supplied only 2 percent of U.S. imports.
Total commercial production of pork in the United States in 2000
was about 8.6 million MTs.\9\ Total pork imports in 2000, which
amounted to about 321,000 MTs, represented 3.7 percent of U.S.
production. The 2 percent of pork imports not supplied by Canada or
Denmark represented about 0.07 percent of U.S. production. Even if
sizable shares of pork exports by France or Spain were to be sent to
the United States as a result of this final rule, the impact for U.S.
entities would be small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Agricultural Statistics 2003, Table 7-66, converted from
million pounds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is unlikely that this rule will result in swine or swine product
imports from France or Spain of any consequence, based on these
representative statistics from 2000. We conclude that while the
majority of U.S. enterprises that may be affected by swine and swine
product imports from those two Member States are small entities,
impacts will be minor.
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
This final 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
9 CFR Part 94
Animal diseases, Imports, Livestock, Meat and meat products, Milk,
Poultry and poultry products, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
9 CFR Part 98
Animal diseases, Imports.
0
Accordingly, we are amending 9 CFR parts 94 and 98 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 is revised 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.
0
2. In Sec. 94.9, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 94.9 Pork and pork products from regions where classical swine
fever exists.
(a) Classical swine fever is known to exist in all regions of the
world except Australia; Canada; Denmark; England; Fiji; Finland;
Iceland; Isle of Man; the Mexican States of Baja California, Baja
California Sur, Chihuahua, and Sinaloa; New Zealand; Northern Ireland;
Norway; the Republic of Ireland; Scotland; Sweden; Trust Territory of
the Pacific Islands; Wales; and a single region in the European Union
consisting of Austria, Belgium, France, Germany (except for the Kreis
Uckermark in the Land of Brandenburg; the Kreis Oldenberg, the Kreis
Soltau-Fallingbostel, and the Kreis Vechta in the Land of Lower Saxony;
the Kreis Heinsberg and the Kreis Warendorf in the Land of Northrhine-
Westphalia; the Kreis Bernkastel-Wittlich, the Kreis Bitburg-Pr[uuml]m,
the Kreis Donnersbergkreis, the Kreis Rhein-Hunsr[uuml]che, the Kreis
S[uuml]dliche Weinstrasse, and the Kreis Trier-Saarburg in the Land of
Rhineland Palatinate; and the Kreis Altmarkkreis in the Land of Saxony-
Anhalt), Greece, Italy (except for the Regions of Emilia-Romagna,
Piemonte, and Sardegna), the Netherlands, Portugal, and Spain.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\See also other provisions of this part and parts 93, 95, and
96 of this chapter and part 327 of this title for other prohibitions
and restrictions upon importation of swine and swine products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
0
3. In Sec. 94.10, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 94.10 Swine from regions where classical swine fever exists.
(a) Classical swine fever is known to exist in all regions of the
world except Australia; Canada; Denmark; England; Fiji; Finland;
Iceland; Isle of Man; the Mexican States of Baja California, Baja
California Sur, Chihuahua, and Sinaloa; New Zealand; Northern Ireland;
Norway; the Republic of Ireland; Scotland; Sweden; Trust Territory of
the Pacific Islands; Wales; and a single region in the European Union
consisting of Austria, Belgium, France, Germany (except for the Kreis
Uckermark in the Land of Brandenburg; the Kreis Oldenberg, the Kreis
Soltau-Fallingbostel, and the Kreis Vechta in the Land of Lower Saxony;
the Kreis Heinsberg and the Kreis Warendorf in the Land of Northrhine-
Westphalia; the Kreis Bernkastel-Wittlich, the Kreis Bitburg-Pr[uuml]m,
the Kreis Donnersbergkreis, the Kreis Rhein-Hunsr[uuml]che, the Kreis
S[uuml]dliche Weinstrasse, and the Kreis Trier-Saarburg in the Land of
Rhineland Palatinate; and the Kreis Altmarkkreis in the Land of Saxony-
Anhalt), Greece, Italy (except for the Regions of Emilia-Romagna,
Piemonte, and Sardegna), the Netherlands, Portugal, and Spain. No swine
that are moved from or transit any region where classical swine fever
is known to exist may be imported into the United States, except for
wild swine imported into the United States in accordance with paragraph
(b) of this section.
* * * * *
Sec. 94.23 [Amended]
0
4. In Sec. 94.23, the introductory text is amended by adding the word
``France,'' after the word ``Belgium,'' and by removing the words ``and
Portugal'' and adding the words ``Portugal, and Spain'' in their place.
PART 98--IMPORTATION OF CERTAIN ANIMAL EMBRYOS AND ANIMAL SEMEN
0
5. The authority citation for part 98 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1622 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. 98.38 [Amended]
0
6. In Sec. 98.38, the introductory text is amended by adding the word
``France,'' after the word ``Belgium,'' and by removing the words ``and
Portugal'' and
[[Page 21047]]
adding the words ``Portugal, and Spain'' in their place.
Done in Washington, DC, this 14th day of April, 2004 .
Kevin Shea,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 04-8893 Filed 4-19-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P