[Federal Register: April 20, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 76)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 21040-21042]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr20ap04-3]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
9 CFR Part 93
[Docket No. 99-071-3]
Cattle From Australia and New Zealand; Testing Exemptions
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are amending the regulations regarding the importation of
cattle to exempt cattle imported from Australia and from New Zealand
from testing for brucellosis prior to their export to the United
States. We have determined that the testing of cattle imported from
Australia and New Zealand for brucellosis is not necessary to protect
livestock in the United States from the disease. This action relieves
certain testing requirements for cattle imported from Australia and New
Zealand while continuing to protect against the introduction of
communicable diseases of cattle into the United States.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 20, 2004.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Anne Goodman, Supervisory Staff
Officer, Regionalization and 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 93 (referred to below as the
regulations) govern the importation into the United States of specified
animals and animal products to prevent the introduction into the United
States of various animal diseases, including brucellosis and
tuberculosis. Brucellosis is a contagious disease affecting animals and
humans, caused by bacteria of the genus Brucella. In its principal
animal hosts, brucellosis may cause abortion and impaired fertility.
Bovine tuberculosis is a contagious, infectious, and communicable
disease caused by Mycobacterium bovis. It affects cattle, bison, deer,
elk, goats, and other species, including humans. Bovine tuberculosis in
infected animals and humans manifests itself in lesions of the lung,
lymph nodes, and other body parts, causes weight loss and general
debilitation, and can be fatal.
Paragraph (a) of Sec. 93.406 includes procedures for the
importation of cattle from other parts of the world into the United
States. This paragraph details tuberculosis and brucellosis testing and
certification requirements for all cattle offered for importation from
any part of the world, except those intended for immediate slaughter.
On April 20, 2001, we published in the Federal Register (66 FR
20211-20213, Docket No. 99-071-1) a proposal to amend the regulations
by exempting cattle from Australia and New Zealand from testing for
brucellosis prior to their export to the United States, and by
exempting cattle from Australia from testing for tuberculosis prior to
their export to the United States. These proposed changes were based on
requests from Australia and New Zealand. In accordance with the
provisions of 9 CFR part 92 for requesting recognition of the animal
health status of a country or other region, when Australia and New
Zealand requested exemption from the brucellosis testing requirements
and Australia from the tuberculosis testing requirements, both
countries submitted extensive documentation to the Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service (APHIS) that included information regarding
disease history and control, livestock demographics and marketing
practices, surveillance, and veterinary policies and infrastructure.
The information was considered in assessing the disease risk of
importing live cattle from those two countries under the conditions of
the proposed rule and documented Australia and New Zealand's freedom
from the diseases in question. (The information submitted by Australia
and New Zealand, along with the risk assessment, may be obtained from
the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT and may be
viewed on the Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ncie/reg-request.html.
)
Following publication of the proposed rule, however, we were made
aware of two outbreaks of tuberculosis that had occurred in Queensland,
Australia, after we had completed our risk assessment. In order to take
these outbreaks into account, we are conducting an updated assessment
of the risk of tuberculosis from cattle imported from Australia and are
not making final in this document our proposed provisions to exempt
cattle from Australia from tuberculosis
[[Page 21041]]
testing. We intend to make the results of our updated assessment
available to the public and to allow for public comment on the results
of that assessment. We will then address any comments we receive on the
updated assessment in a document to be published in the Federal
Register. In addition to addressing comments we receive on our updated
risk assessment in that document, we will address all comments we
received regarding tuberculosis testing in Australia in response to our
April 2001 proposed rule. In this final rule, therefore, we address
only those issues raised by commenters that concern subjects other than
tuberculosis testing in Australia.
We solicited comments concerning our April 2001 proposal for 60
days ending June 19, 2001. On June 4, 2001, we published in the Federal
Register (66 FR 29921, Docket No. 99-071-2) a notice announcing that we
would host a public hearing in Riverdale, MD, on June 19, 2001, to give
the public an opportunity for the oral presentation of data, views, and
arguments regarding the proposed rule. We received two written comments
on the proposal by the June 19, 2001, close of the comment period and
one oral comment at the public hearing. The comments were from
representatives of a State animal health commission, an organization of
research councils, and a cattle industry association. We discuss the
comments below by topic.
One commenter said that testing requirements for cattle to be
imported into the United States should not be reduced or eliminated
until APHIS has independently verified the validity of documentation
regarding the health of the livestock in the exporting region.
We are making no changes based on this comment. We are confident of
the validity of brucellosis reporting in Australia and New Zealand.
Brucellosis is notifiable in Australia and New Zealand to the national
government animal health officials.
One commenter requested that, during quarantine in the United
States, cattle from Australia and New Zealand be tested by APHIS for
brucellosis to verify that the information provided by the exporting
governments or entities is accurate.
In considering the import requests from Australia and New Zealand,
we assessed the legal authority and veterinary infrastructure and
organization of those countries, and determined them to be effective in
recognizing, responding to, and giving notice of disease occurrences,
and in providing reliable certification of the health status and
testing history of animals intended for exportation. We accept the same
type of official certification from Australia and New Zealand that
those and other countries accept from the United States. Therefore, we
believe that there is no need to conduct testing once the cattle arrive
in the United States, and we are making no changes based on the
comment.
One commenter stated that the data used in the risk assessment for
Australia and New Zealand were from 1988 and 1989. The commenter asked
whether there were more recent data available regarding disease
surveillance in those countries.
There have been no reported diagnoses of brucellosis in Australia
and New Zealand since the risk assessments were completed.
One commenter asked whether, in assessing the need for the tests to
be required or not required, any distinction was made between those
cattle that would ultimately move into slaughter channels and those
that would go into the breeding herd.
When we conducted our risk assessments, no outbreaks of brucellosis
had been reported in either New Zealand or Australia since 1989. (The
statement in the risk assessment for cattle from Australia indicating
the most recent outbreak there was in 1990 should read ``1989''
instead.) That information and the other data available to us, as
discussed in our risk assessment, indicated cattle could be safely
imported into the United States without testing for brucellosis.
Likewise, we would not expect a trading partner to require that U.S.
cattle intended for export be tested for a disease that had not been
reported in the United States for more than 10 years.
One commenter stated there is no way to guarantee the health status
of animals shipped through Australia or New Zealand from other
countries for export to the United States.
The concern raised by the commenter is addressed by a number of
safeguards. By protocol, we will not consider an animal that is moved
into Australia or New Zealand to be part of the national herd of the
country until 60 days following its release from all import quarantine
restrictions in those countries, except that the waiting period is 90
days for offspring of animals or germplasm legally imported into
Australia or New Zealand from a region not recognized by APHIS as being
free of foot-and-mouth disease and rinderpest. With regard to the
brucellosis status of animals moved into Australia or New Zealand, both
of those countries have safeguards in place to ensure that animals
imported from other countries are not affected by the disease.
New Zealand requires that all live cattle intended for export to
that country have been resident in herds negative for brucellosis for
at least 12 months prior to going into pre-export isolation at a
facility managed by the national veterinary authority of the exporting
country. Australia's quarantine regulations require that imported
cattle originate from a herd or region recognized as free of
brucellosis according to the standards of the World Organisation for
Animal Health (also known as OIE).
One commenter recommended requiring permanent identification of
cattle coming into the United States, particularly breeding animals.
We agree there would be benefits to establishing an identification
plan for cattle entering the United States, as well as for domestic
cattle, and are in the process of developing such a plan.
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 in this document.
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. Immediate
implementation of this rule will provide relief to those persons who
are adversely affected by testing requirements we no longer find
warranted. 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.
Exempting cattle imports from Australia and New Zealand from
brucellosis testing will reduce costs for exporters of cattle from
these two countries to the United States. Impacts for U.S. entities
will depend on the number of cattle exported to the United States, the
cost savings per animal, and what portion of these savings may be
passed on to U.S. buyers through lower prices.
To date, there have been no recorded imports of cattle from New
Zealand.
[[Page 21042]]
Cattle imports by the United States from Australia have been minimal,
as reflected by data for the last 5 years. Trade statistics divide
cattle into two groups--purebred and not purebred. Purebred cattle
imported from Australia numbered only 17 head in 1998 and 21 head in
1999. None were imported in 2000, 2001, or 2002. The small numbers
imported in 1998 and 1999 represented only 0.4 percent of U.S. imports
of purebred cattle in those 2 years.
The number of not purebred cattle imported from Australia averaged
fewer than eight animals per year from 1998 through 2002. Given that
annual total U.S. imports of not purebred cattle over this 5-year
period averaged more than 2.2 million per year, the number that came
from Australia is negligible. Because the United States has not
imported cattle from New Zealand, we do not have comparable statistics
for that country.
While these numbers are very small, the average value of cattle
imported from Australia has been much higher than the value of imported
cattle generally. For purebred cattle from Australia, the average value
was $5,082 per head, compared to an average value for all purebred
cattle imports of $1,051. For not purebred cattle from Australia, the
average value was $3,083 per head, compared to an average value for all
not purebred cattle imports of $556.
It is unlikely the number of cattle imported from Australia will be
affected by removing testing requirements for brucellosis. Brucellosis
testing costs, assumed to range between $7.50 and $15 per head
including veterinary fees and handling expenses, represent from 0.15
percent to 0.30 percent of the value of purebred cattle imported from
Australia in 1998 and 1999, and from 0.24 percent to 0.49 percent of
the value of not purebred cattle imported from Australia from 1998
through 2002.
A small cost savings will be realized by exporters of Australian
cattle for a negligible number of animals, if quantities imported in
recent years continue into the future. Cost savings of such small
proportion are not expected to affect the number of Australian cattle
offered for export to the United States. Any benefit realized by U.S.
buyers of cattle from Australia will be negligible as well. If cattle
are imported from New Zealand, impacts of this rule for U.S. buyers are
expected to be similarly negligible.
As a part of the rulemaking process, APHIS evaluates whether
regulations will have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. If any entities are affected by this rule,
they will likely be U.S. cattle operations, nearly all of which are
small entities. According to the 1997 Census of Agriculture, over 99
percent of farms with cattle sales had annual receipts that did not
exceed $750,000, the small-entity criterion set by the Small Business
Administration (SBA).
It is unlikely high-valued cattle imported from Australia would be
destined for slaughter. Nonetheless, it is noted that feedlots that
could purchase the cattle may or may not be small entities. SBA
classifies cattle feedlots as small entities if their annual receipts
are not more than $1.5 million. There were 95,189 feedlots in the
United States in 2002, about 93,000 (nearly 98 percent) of which had
capacities of fewer than 1,000 head and can be considered small
entities. However, the 2 percent of the Nation's feedlots that have
capacities of at least 1,000 head held 82 percent of all cattle and
calves on feed on January 1, 2003. These larger feedlots have average
annual receipts of over $9 million, well above the small-entity
criterion.
In any case, the rule will have little, if any, impact on U.S.
entities, large or small. Brucellosis testing exemptions will result in
small cost savings for exporters of cattle from Australia or New
Zealand. The rule is not expected to affect the negligible number of
cattle imported from Australia or cause cattle to be imported from New
Zealand for the first time.
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 proposed 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 information collection or recordkeeping
requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.).
List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 93
Animal diseases, Imports, Livestock, Poultry and poultry products,
Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
0
Accordingly, we are amending 9 CFR part 93 as follows:
PART 93--IMPORTATION OF CERTAIN ANIMALS, BIRDS, AND POULTRY, AND
CERTAIN ANIMAL, BIRD, AND POULTRY PRODUCTS; REQUIREMENTS FOR MEANS
OF CONVEYANCE AND SHIPPING CONTAINERS
0
1. The authority citation for part 93 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.
0
2. Section 93.406 is amended as follows:
0
a. In the introductory text of paragraph (a), in the first sentence,
the words ``in paragraph (d) of this section and'' is added immediately
after the words ``Except as provided''.
0
b. A new paragraph (d) is added to read as follows:
Sec. 93.406 Diagnostic tests.
* * * * *
(d) Testing exemptions. Cattle from Australia and New Zealand are
exempt from the brucellosis testing requirements of paragraph (a)(1) of
this section.
Done in Washington, DC, this 14th day of April, 2004.
Kevin Shea,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 04-8894 Filed 4-19-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P