Importation of Live Swine, Swine Semen, Pork, and Pork Products From the Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland, 6490-6499 [E7-2327]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
• Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 28 (Monday, February 12, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 6490-6499]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-2327]


========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of 
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these 
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in 
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 28 / Monday, February 12, 2007 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 6490]]



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

9 CFR Parts 92, 93, 94, and 98

[Docket No. APHIS-2006-0106]
RIN 0579-AC33


Importation of Live Swine, Swine Semen, Pork, and Pork Products 
From the Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We are proposing to amend the regulations governing the 
importation of animals and animal products to add the Czech Republic, 
Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland to the region of the European Union that 
we recognize as low risk for classical swine fever (CSF). We are also 
proposing to add the Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland to 
the list of regions we consider free from swine vesicular disease (SVD) 
and to add Latvia and Lithuania to the list of regions considered free 
from foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) and rinderpest. These proposed 
actions would relieve some restrictions on the importation into the 
United States of certain animals and animal products from those 
regions, while continuing to protect against the introduction of CSF, 
SVD, and FMD, and rinderpest into the United States.

DATES: We will consider all comments that we receive on or before April 
13, 2007.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov, 
select ``Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service'' from the agency 
drop-down menu, then click ``Submit.'' In the Docket ID column, select 
APHIS-2006-0106 to submit or view public comments and to view 
supporting and related materials available electronically. Information 
on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing 
documents, submitting comments, and viewing the docket after the close 
of the comment period, is available through the site's ``User Tips'' 
link.
     Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Please send four copies 
of your comment (an original and three copies) to Docket No. APHIS-
2006-0106, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-
03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state 
that your comment refers to Docket No. APHIS-2006-0106.
    Reading Room: 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.
    Other Information: Additional information about APHIS and its 
programs is available on the Internet at https://www.aphis.usda.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Kelly Rhodes, Regionalization and 
Evaluation Services, Import, Sanitary Trade Issues Team, 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 
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) regulates the 
importation of animals and animal products into the United States to 
guard against the introduction of animal diseases not currently present 
or prevalent in this country. The regulations in 9 CFR part 94 
(referred to below as the regulations) prohibit or restrict the 
importation of specified animals and animal products to prevent the 
introduction into the United States of various animal diseases, 
including classical swine fever (CSF), foot-and-mouth disease (FMD), 
and swine vesicular disease (SVD). These are dangerous and destructive 
communicable diseases of ruminants and swine.
    In a final rule published in the Federal Register on May 19, 2006 
(71 FR 29061-29072, Docket No. 02-046-2), we amended the regulations to 
recognize a region consisting of the 15 Member States of the European 
Union (EU) that comprised the EU as of April 30, 2004 (the EU-15), as a 
single region of low risk for CSF. The EU-15 consists of those Member 
States that we had recognized as a single region regarding CSF in a 
final rule published in the Federal Register on April 7, 2003 (68 FR 
16922-16941, Docket No. 98-090-5), plus additional Member States. The 
May 19, 2006, final rule established a uniform set of importation 
requirements related to CSF for the EU-15.
    Sections 94.9 and 94.10 of the regulations list regions of the 
world that are declared free of or low-risk for CSF. The EU-15 is 
currently the only region considered low-risk for CSF; Sec. Sec.  94.24 
and 98.38 specify restrictions necessary to mitigate the risk of 
introducing CSF into the United States via pork, pork products, live 
swine, and swine semen from the EU-15.
    Section 94.12 of the regulations lists regions that are declared 
free of SVD. Section 94.13 of the regulations lists regions that have 
been determined to be free of SVD, but that are subject to certain 
restrictions because of their proximity to or trading relationships 
with SVD-affected regions.
    Section 94.1 of the regulations lists regions of the world that are 
declared free of rinderpest or free of both rinderpest and FMD. Section 
94.11 of the regulations lists regions that have been determined to be 
free of rinderpest and FMD, but that are subject to certain 
restrictions because of their proximity to or trading relationships 
with rinderpest-or FMD-affected regions.
    On May 1, 2004, the Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland, 
along with six other countries, became new Member States of the EU. As 
part of the accession process, these new EU Member States adopted the 
legislation of the European Commission (EC) \1\ regarding animal 
health, welfare, and identification, including legislation

[[Page 6491]]

pertaining to CSF, FMD, and SVD. This legislation became the basis for 
new standard operating procedures for domestic animal health matters in 
the Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland by the time of their 
accession. The Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland also 
adopted the harmonized EC legislation regarding sanitary measures 
applicable to import and trade in live animals and animal products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The EC is the EU institution responsible for representing 
the EU as a whole. It proposes legislation, policies, and programs 
of acton and implements decisions of the EU Parliament and Council.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2003, the Governments of Lithuania and Poland requested that 
APHIS evaluate their animal health status with respect to CSF and SVD 
and provided information in support of these requests in accordance 
with 9 CFR part 92, ``Importation of Animals and Animal Products; 
Procedures for Requesting Recognition of Regions.'' In addition, the 
Government of Lithuania requested that APHIS evaluate Lithuania's 
animal health status with respect to FMD. In 2004 and 2005, the 
Governments of Latvia and the Czech Republic also requested that APHIS 
evaluate their animal health status with respect to CSF and SVD. In 
addition, the Government of Latvia requested that APHIS evaluate 
Latvia's animal health status with respect to FMD. Because rinderpest 
has not been diagnosed in Latvia since 1921 and has never been reported 
in Lithuania, we are proposing to recognize these countries as free of 
rinderpest.
    As part of our evaluation of their disease status, APHIS identified 
the smallest administrative units (AUs) within each of these EU Member 
States that we would consider ``regions'' in the event of future animal 
disease outbreaks. See the discussion of those AUs under the section 
entitled ``Administrative Units.''
    Our determinations concerning these requests with regard to CSF and 
SVD in the Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland, and FMD in 
Latvia and Lithuania are set forth below.

Summary of Proposed Changes

    In this document, we are proposing to add the Czech Republic, 
Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland to the region of the EU (currently 
referred to in the regulations as the EU-15) that we currently 
recognize as a low-risk region for CSF and from which breeding swine, 
swine semen, and pork and pork products may be imported into the United 
States under certain conditions. In order to provide flexibility in the 
event that additional Member States may be added to this region in the 
future, we would amend the regulations to refer to this region as the 
``APHIS-defined EU CSF region.''
    We are also proposing to add the Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, 
and Poland to the list of regions recognized as free of SVD, and to the 
list of SVD-free regions whose exports of pork and pork products to the 
United States are subject to certain restrictions to prevent the 
introduction of SVD into this country.
    Additionally, we are proposing to add Latvia and Lithuania to the 
list of regions recognized as free of FMD and rinderpest. We are also 
proposing to add Latvia and Lithuania to the list of FMD and 
rinderpest-free regions whose exports of ruminant and swine meat and 
products to the United States are subject to certain restrictions to 
prevent the introduction of FMD and rinderpest into this country.

Risk Analyses

    APHIS conducted risk analyses to examine the risk of introducing 
CSF or SVD from the importation of swine and swine products from the 
Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland and the risk of 
introducing FMD from the importation of swine, ruminants, and swine and 
ruminant products from Latvia and Lithuania. These risk analyses were 
completed early in 2006 and may be viewed on the Regulations.gov Web 
site or in our reading room. (Instructions for accessing 
Regulations.gov and information on the location and hours of the 
reading room are provided under the heading ADDRESSES at the beginning 
of this proposed rule.) The risk analyses may also be viewed at https://
www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ncie/reg-request.html by following the link for 
``Information previously submitted by Regions requesting export 
approval and their supporting documentation.'' In the following 
paragraphs, we summarize our findings for each of the 11 factors set 
out in our procedures for requesting recognition of regions in 9 CFR 
92.2 and summarize our risk considerations of these findings following 
our discussion of the factors.

Authority, Organization, and Veterinary Infrastructure

    As stated above, the Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland 
adopted the legislation of the EC regarding animal health, welfare, and 
identification, as well as sanitary measures applicable to import and 
trade in live animals and animal products. At the time of accession, 
Commission Decisions and Regulations concerning CSF, SVD, and FMD 
became directly applicable in the new EU Member States, whereas Council 
Directives were implemented in national legislation. During APHIS site 
visits, it appeared that official veterinarians of each country were 
familiar with and able to effectively implement the provisions of 
pertinent EC and national legislation.
    APHIS concluded that the official veterinary services of these new 
EU Member States have sufficient legal authority, personnel, and 
financial resources to carry out animal health activities quickly and 
efficiently. Regular training is conducted for official veterinarians. 
In addition, all offices visited by APHIS site visit teams were 
generally in good condition, with some undergoing renovations, and were 
outfitted with computers with both Internet and Intranet connections. 
The official veterinary services are hierarchically organized and 
appear to have clear lines of command and reporting, with sufficient 
autonomy at the local level to carry out the tasks assigned. Internal 
and external auditing practices are adequate to ensure compliance with 
the provisions of pertinent animal health legislation.

Disease History

    CSF: CSF was last reported in domestic swine in the Czech Republic 
in 1997, in Latvia in 1996, in Lithuania in 1992, and in Poland in 
1994. No CSF outbreaks have occurred in wild boar in recent years in 
Latvia, Lithuania, or Poland. CSF virus was last detected in wild boar 
in the Czech Republic in November 1999. Serologic surveillance 
indicates that the virus is present in segments of the wild boar 
population in the Czech Republic along its borders with Austria and 
Slovakia, albeit at very low and decreasing levels.
    In addition, veterinary officials indicated that most small swine 
producers keep pigs indoors, which limits potential exposure to CSF in 
wild boar populations, and that most of the larger farms are 
confinement operations with restricted access. Biosecurity practices on 
large swine confinement operations, from which exports to the United 
States from the Czech Republic would most likely be derived, are 
sufficient to prevent direct or indirect exposure of domestic swine to 
wild boar.
    SVD: SVD has never been reported in the Czech Republic, Latvia, or 
Lithuania. The last reported case of SVD in Poland occurred in 1972 in 
domestic swine (SVD has never been reported in wild boar in Poland).
    FMD: FMD was last reported in Latvia and Lithuania in 1987 and 
1982, respectively.

[[Page 6492]]

Disease Status of Adjacent Regions

    CSF: Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland all share land borders with non-
EU countries that APHIS considers affected with CSF, namely Russia, 
Belarus, and/or Ukraine. (APHIS considers all countries affected until 
the disease status of a specific country is evaluated at the request of 
that foreign country and we determine otherwise. The governments of 
Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine have not requested such evaluation.) 
Belarus last reported a CSF outbreak in August 1995 and Ukraine in July 
2001; CSF is endemic in parts of Russia and outbreaks continue to 
occur.
    The Czech Republic and Poland also border other EU Member States 
such as Germany, Estonia, and Slovakia. Germany is part of the EU 
region that APHIS considers low risk for CSF under Sec. Sec.  94.9 and 
94.10, but CSF is endemic in segments of its wild boar population. CSF 
is also endemic in wild boar in regions of Slovakia that border the 
Czech Republic. APHIS is currently evaluating the CSF status of 
Slovakia and Estonia (which borders Latvia).
    Due to the proximity of affected or potentially affected regions, 
the risk analyses concluded that the potential exists for introduction 
of CSF into the Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, or Poland via wild 
boar, incoming vehicular or human traffic, smuggled swine products, or 
other routes discussed below.
    SVD: APHIS considers SVD to exist in Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine 
since we have not evaluated their status with regard to this disease. 
However, SVD has never been reported in Russia or Belarus, and was last 
reported in Ukraine in 1977. The Czech Republic, Latvia, and Poland 
each border either Slovakia or Estonia, which APHIS is currently 
evaluating for SVD status, but which have never reported an SVD 
outbreak. The Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland also share 
borders with one another, with each bordering at least one of the other 
three. The risk analyses concluded that the likelihood of introduction 
of SVD into these four Member States from neighboring regions is low.
    FMD: Latvia and Lithuania border Russia and Belarus, which APHIS 
does not consider free of FMD. Belarus last reported an FMD outbreak in 
1982; sporadic FMD outbreaks continue to occur in Russia. Latvia and 
Lithuania also border each other. Due to the proximity of affected or 
potentially affected regions, the risk analyses concluded that the 
potential exists for introduction of FMD into Latvia or Lithuania via 
wild animals, incoming vehicular or human traffic, smuggled animal 
products, or other routes discussed below.

Degree of Separation From Adjacent Regions

    The Czech Republic is entirely surrounded by other EU Member 
States. In addition, although parts of Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland 
border the Baltic Sea, they are not separated from regions of higher 
risk by a uniform physical barrier, therefore few impediments exist to 
introduction of CSF, SVD, or FMD via natural movement of wild animals 
or human traffic.
    The primary wild animals within these four EU Member States and 
neighboring countries that are susceptible to CSF and SVD are wild 
boar. In addition, wild boar and ruminants such as deer are also 
susceptible to FMD. These species are not considered to be migratory in 
nature, but individual animals are known to travel substantial 
distances in search of food, during mating season, or in response to 
hunting or other habitat disruptions.

Extent of an Active Disease Control Program

    None of the four countries have active disease control programs in 
place for CSF or SVD, and Latvia and Lithuania do not have active 
disease control programs in place for FMD, since these diseases have 
not been reported for many years. Surveillance for these diseases is 
discussed in more detail below.

Vaccination

    The last vaccination against CSF occurred in the Czech Republic in 
1992, in Latvia in 1998, in Lithuania in 2000, and in Poland in 1996. 
Vaccination against CSF is now prohibited in all four countries, 
although official contingency plans allow for emergency vaccination 
against CSF. None of these countries has ever vaccinated against SVD 
and such vaccination is also now prohibited. In addition, vaccination 
against FMD is prohibited in Latvia and Lithuania, although as with 
CSF, the official contingency plans for FMD for both countries allow 
for emergency vaccination if sanctioned by the EC.

Movement Control From Higher Risk Regions

    Some forms of CSF, SVD, and FMD are difficult to detect in live 
animals or on post-mortem examination without laboratory testing, and 
in some instances detection may be delayed due to deficiencies in 
active surveillance or diagnostic testing capabilities. Any such delay 
in detection of an outbreak could increase the export risk to the 
United States. Consequently, the risk analyses examined potential 
pathways for disease introduction into the Czech Republic, Latvia, 
Lithuania, and Poland such as importation and intra-Community trade in 
live animals and animal products, vehicular and human traffic, and 
commodities for personal consumption.
    Import controls: Import of live animals and animal products into 
the Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland from non-EU countries 
occurs at certain road, rail, air, and/or sea ports through a border 
inspection post (BIP) that has been approved by the EC. The EC conducts 
a rigorous inspection of each BIP prior to approval and carries out 
regular audits to monitor the efficacy of sanitary controls. Each BIP 
visited by APHIS appeared sufficiently able to keep up with required 
levels of inspection.
    Swine, ruminants, and derived products such as meat, meat products, 
and genetic material are harmonized commodities under EC legislation, 
which means that the requirements for import from non-EU countries are 
standardized across all EU Member States. Binding EC legislation lists 
the non-EU countries, and establishments within those countries, that 
are approved for export of certain commodities to the EU. 
Slaughterhouses, cutting plants, semen collection centers, and other 
exporting establishments are subject to inspection prior to approval. 
Veterinary certificates required for export to the EU outline 
comprehensive animal health and testing requirements and must be 
endorsed by an official veterinarian of the exporting country.
    APHIS recognizes all of the countries approved for export of live 
swine and swine semen to the EU as free of SVD (although some are 
subject to the restrictions specified in Sec.  94.13) and all but 
Switzerland as free of CSF. APHIS also considers these countries free 
of FMD, although some are subject to the restrictions in Sec.  94.11. 
However, although import practices in the Czech Republic, Latvia, 
Lithuania, and Poland have largely been protective with regard to CSF, 
SVD, and FMD, EC legislation allows EU Member States to import fresh 
pork and pork products derived from swine from several regions that 
APHIS has not evaluated and therefore regards as affected with these 
diseases. EU Member States may also import bovine embryos and meat and 
meat products from both domestic and wild ruminants from regions that 
APHIS considers affected with FMD.

[[Page 6493]]

    Veterinary inspectors at the entry BIP check that the documentation 
accompanying imported commodities is in order, including appropriate 
health certificates and other movement control documents, and that the 
shipment is properly identified and the identification matches the 
documentation. Veterinary inspectors also physically examine and sample 
a percentage of incoming shipments as prescribed by EC legislation.
    The risk analyses concluded EC legislation imposes less stringent 
restrictions on sourcing of imported ruminants and swine than do APHIS 
requirements, resulting in some risk of introducing CSF, SVD, or FMD 
into the Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, or other EU Member 
States via imported animals or animal products. However, this risk is 
substantially mitigated by factors such as veterinary inspection of 
live animals prior to shipment, approval of establishments for export 
of animal products, certification of disease status by an official 
veterinarian, and veterinary inspection at the point of entry into the 
EU.
    Trade controls: As EU Member States, the Czech Republic, Latvia, 
Lithuania, and Poland may engage in intra-Community trade with other 
Member States as governed by EC legislation that was transposed into 
national legislation prior to accession. Live animals and animal 
products must be accompanied by an appropriate health certificate 
signed by an official veterinarian of the country of origin. Intra-
Community trade in swine and swine products, including semen and 
embryos, from CSF or SVD affected regions of EU Member States is 
prohibited. There are no trade restrictions based on FMD since there 
are currently no outbreaks reported in the EU.
    Establishments such as slaughterhouses, cutting plants, milk 
processing plants, and semen collection centers must be approved by the 
Member State in which they reside according to criteria similar to 
those for exporting establishments in non-EU countries. The EC and the 
official veterinary services of the Member State conduct periodic 
audits to monitor compliance with approval criteria and certification 
requirements. The risk analyses concluded that the likelihood of 
introducing SVD or FMD via intra-Community trade was low and, although 
the likelihood of introducing CSF was slightly higher, this risk was 
largely mitigated by the factors described above.
    Veterinary control of passenger traffic: In the Czech Republic, 
Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland, the majority of border crossings from 
non-EU countries are controlled by the Customs Service, without 
official veterinary control. Posters are prominently displayed at 
border crossings to promote public awareness of prohibited meat, milk, 
and meat and milk products. However, the EC permits personal 
consignments of products that could carry live CSF, SVD, and/or FMD 
virus from countries that APHIS has not evaluated and regards as 
affected with these diseases. In some instances, there is considerable 
local passenger and commercial traffic to and from neighboring non-EU 
countries that APHIS does not consider free of CSF, SVD, and/or FMD. 
Veterinary officials indicated that individuals attempting to cross the 
border with agricultural products at a checkpoint without veterinary 
inspection are redirected to a BIP or the products are confiscated. 
However, the percentage of incoming traffic that is inspected for 
prohibited agricultural commodities varies among border crossings. The 
risk analyses concluded that, although the likelihood of introduction 
of such commodities by this route is relatively high, existing 
production and biosecurity measures substantially reduce the associated 
export risk to the United States.

Livestock Demographics

    As stated above, the Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland 
have adopted the EC legislation with regard to animal identification. 
Each country has in place or is implementing herd registration and 
animal identification plans for ruminants and swine that include 
movement tracking through a central computerized database. Health 
certificates and/or a movement authorization form are required for 
internal movement of ruminants and swine.
    Small swine holdings predominate in each of these countries, and 
there is considerable overlap in distribution with wild boar, although 
veterinary authorities indicated that the majority of pigs are raised 
indoors. Production and slaughter systems in each country are such that 
large confinement operations (up to 30,000 pigs) are the most likely 
source of swine and swine products for export. APHIS site visit teams 
noted biosecurity measures on the confinement operations that would 
effectively prevent direct or indirect contact with wild boar, and 
limit the likelihood of CSF, SVD, or FMD introduction by other routes. 
The risk analyses concluded that commercial production and biosecurity 
practices in these countries serve to mitigate potential export risk to 
the United States.
    Cattle are distributed throughout Latvia and Lithuania; agriculture 
in these two countries has traditionally included dairy-beef husbandry. 
There are few sheep or goats and these are generally distributed in 
small numbers on individual farms. Biosecurity measures on ruminant 
operations are generally not sufficient to prevent direct and/or 
indirect contact with wildlife or contact with live virus on clothing 
or vehicles. However, exports to the United States will likely be 
derived from the larger cattle operations, which are closely monitored 
by the official veterinary services.

Disease Surveillance

    CSF: The Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland all have 
national surveillance programs in place for CSF in domestic swine and 
wild boar. Active surveillance is primarily based on serology for 
antibodies to the CSF virus, as is common throughout the world. Since 
antibodies occur late in CSF infection, serological surveillance would 
likely miss an early infection (e.g., in the first 21 days). In each 
country, training and national simulation exercises aid in passive 
surveillance for CSF by developing and maintaining the ability to 
quickly detect these diseases. Passive surveillance is likely 
sufficient to detect overt clinical signs of CSF, but detection may be 
delayed in the case of moderate or low virulence strains. In some 
instances, lack of incentive for hunters to sample wild boar and 
underreporting of wild boar found dead may also hinder detection.
    SVD: The Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland each conduct 
serological surveillance for SVD in domestic swine at a considerably 
lower level than for CSF, and rely more on passive surveillance for 
this disease. Consequently, detection may be delayed in the absence of 
overt clinical signs, although serological surveillance would 
eventually detect the historical presence of the disease.
    FMD: Lithuania conducts serological surveillance for FMD in cattle, 
domestic swine, wild boar, and deer at a relatively low level. 
Surveillance is not routinely conducted in reservoir populations such 
as sheep and goats. Latvia conducted serological surveillance for FMD 
in cattle and domestic swine, although not small ruminants or 
susceptible wild animals, through 2003; active surveillance is no 
longer conducted. Both countries rely heavily on passive surveillance 
for

[[Page 6494]]

FMD, which may delay detection in the absence of overt clinical signs.

Diagnostic Capabilities

    The Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland all have 
established accredited national reference laboratories (NRL) for animal 
diseases, including CSF, SVD, and FMD. Overall, the laboratories are 
well organized and equipped, with experienced scientific and technical 
staff. Standard operating procedures and quality control measures are 
in place throughout. Laboratory biosecurity practices are adequate to 
prevent the escape of live virus.
    CSF: In each country, the NRL provides a full range of diagnostic 
tests for the diagnosis and confirmation of CSF. Tests have all been 
validated and include well-regarded commercial test kits used in many 
countries and tests developed in-house that are performed using 
standard methodology. An APHIS site visit team expressed concern 
regarding the sensitivity of the ELISA test used for screening for CSF 
in Lithuania. Laboratory officials indicated they are addressing this 
issue by phasing in more sensitive tests for the detection of CSF and 
are also working to expand the diagnostic capabilities for SVD and FMD. 
The risk analyses concluded that an index case of CSF would be 
diagnosed by these laboratories if proper samples were submitted.
    SVD and FMD: The NRL of each country provides a moderate spectrum 
of diagnostic testing for SVD and, in Latvia and Lithuania, for FMD as 
well. The risk analyses concluded that each NRL has the competence to 
make a presumptive diagnosis of SVD or FMD; however, diagnostic 
capabilities are limited by reliance on serology, and samples would be 
sent to the reference laboratory in Pirbright, UK, for confirmatory 
testing, which would result in a slight delay in confirming an 
outbreak.

Emergency Response Capacity

    The Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland have contingency 
plans in place and supporting legislation to control and eradicate CSF, 
SVD, and/or FMD outbreaks. These contingency plans conform closely to 
the provisions of EC legislation. The EC has a ``stamping out'' policy 
with regard to CSF, SVD, and FMD. Eradication is carried out by 
compulsory destruction of all animals on the affected premises with 
burial or incineration of the carcasses. All live animals, animal 
products, and genetic material moved off of an affected premises during 
the time between disease introduction and detection of the outbreak 
must be traced and destroyed. Additionally, protection zones of at 
least a 3-kilometer radius and surveillance zones of at least a 10-
kilometer radius from the affected premises, respectively, are 
established, and the movement of live animals, animal products, and 
genetic material is suspended until the restrictions are lifted.

Release Assessment Conclusions

    APHIS considers the potential for introduction of CSF, SVD, and/or 
FMD into the Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, or Poland to be greater 
than the potential for the introduction of CSF, SVD, and/or FMD from 
the Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland into the United 
States. This is due to the fact that these countries share common land 
borders with several regions APHIS does not consider to be free of 
these diseases, because they engage in free trade with other EU Member 
States that import live animals or animal commodities from such 
regions, and because, under harmonized EC legislation, they could 
directly import live swine or swine commodities from such regions.
    Following our analysis, we have concluded that the risk profiles 
for the Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland with regard to 
CSF are equivalent in CSF risk to the EU-15. The EU-15 is considered a 
low-risk region for CSF in Sec. Sec.  94.9 and 94.10 and is subject to 
the import restrictions specified in Sec.  94.24 for live swine, pork, 
and pork products, and Sec.  98.38 for swine semen. Therefore, we are 
proposing to include the Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland 
along with the other countries that comprise the low-risk region for 
CSF currently referred to in our regulations as the EU-15. As noted 
previously, to reflect the addition of those four countries to that 
region, and to accommodate possible future additions to that region, we 
would amend the regulations by replacing references to the ``EU-15'' 
with references to the ``APHIS-defined EU CSF region'' wherever they 
appear in parts 93, 94, and 98.
    We are proposing to recognize the Czech Republic, Latvia, 
Lithuania, and Poland as free of SVD and to recognize Latvia and 
Lithuania as free of FMD. In addition to proposing to include the Czech 
Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland in the list in Sec.  94.12(a) 
of regions declared free of SVD, and Latvia and Lithuania to the list 
in Sec.  94.1(a)(2) of regions declared free of both rinderpest and 
FMD, we are also proposing to add the Czech Republic, Latvia, 
Lithuania, and Poland to the list in Sec.  94.13 of regions declared 
free of SVD whose exports of pork and pork products are also subject to 
restrictions and to add Latvia and Lithuania to the list in Sec.  
94.11(a) of regions declared free of rinderpest and FMD whose exports 
of meat and other animal products to the United States are nevertheless 
subject to certain restrictions.

Administrative Units

    On October 28, 1997, we published in the Federal Register a final 
rule (62 FR 56000-56026, Docket No. 94-106-9) and a policy statement 
(62 FR 56027-56033, Docket No. 94-106-8) that established procedures 
for recognizing regions and levels of risk for the purpose of 
regulating the importation of animals and animal products. With the 
establishment of those procedures, APHIS can consider requests to allow 
importations from regions based on levels of risk, as well as to 
recognize entire countries free of a disease. In subsequent rules, we 
identified the smallest administrative jurisdictions in the EU-15 that 
we would use to regionalize those Member States in the event of future 
animal disease outbreaks. As discussed in those documents, we believe 
that each of those jurisdictions is the smallest that can be 
demonstrated to have effective oversight of normal animal movements 
into, out of, and within that Member State, and that, in association 
with national authorities, if necessary, has effective control over 
animal movements and animal diseases locally.
    We have identified the following AUs for each country: Czech 
Republic-region, Latvia-district, Lithuania-county, Poland-district.
    Further information on each AU and why we chose it is available in 
the risk analysis for each Member State. If we receive no substantive 
comments regarding our identification of AUs for these Member States 
and we finalize this proposed rule, following the effective date of the 
final rule, these AUs will be used to regionalize those Member States 
in the event of future animal disease outbreaks.

Miscellaneous

    We are also proposing to revise the definition of European Union in 
Sec.  92.1 to update its list of EU Member States. There are currently 
25 Member States of the EU, 10 more than when that definition was added 
to the regulations. In part 92, the European Union is referred to in 
Sec.  92.3, which states: ``Whenever the European Commission (EC) 
establishes a quarantine for a

[[Page 6495]]

disease in the European Union in a region the Animal and Plant Health 
Inspection Service recognizes as one in which the disease is not known 
to exist and the EC imposes prohibitions or other restrictions on the 
movement of animals or animal products from the quarantined area in the 
European Union, such animals and animal products are prohibited 
importation into the United States.'' Therefore, it is necessary to 
update the definition of European Union to ensure that this provision 
applies to all EU Member States.
    We are further proposing to remove Sec.  94.1a, ``Criteria for 
determining the separate status of a territory or possession as to 
rinderpest and foot-and-mouth disease,'' from the regulations. Those 
provisions, which were established in 1974, were rendered unnecessary 
when we added the current provisions for the recognition of regions in 
9 CFR part 92.
    Finally, in Sec.  98.38(f), we are proposing to remove a reference 
to the Office International des Epizooties and to refer instead to the 
World Organization for Animal Health, as this is the current, 
internationally recognized name for that organization.

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This proposed 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.
    We are proposing to amend the regulations governing the importation 
of animals and animal products to add the Czech Republic, Latvia, 
Lithuania, and Poland to the region of the European Union that we 
recognize as low risk for CSF. We are also proposing to add the Czech 
Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland to the list of regions we 
consider free from SVD and to add Latvia and Lithuania to the list of 
regions considered free from FMD and rinderpest.

The U.S. Swine Industry

    The U.S. swine industry plays an important role in the U.S. 
economy. Cash receipts from marketing meat animals were about $15 
billion in 2005 (the average between 2001 and 2005 was $12.4 
billion).\2\ Additionally, swine and related product exports generated 
over $2.1 billion in sales that year. Other agricultural and 
nonagricultural sectors are dependent on the swine industry for their 
economic activity. At present, international trade in U.S. livestock 
proceeds without CSF or SVD related restrictions. Maintaining such 
favorable conditions depends in part on continued aggressive efforts to 
prevent transmission of foreign diseases to U.S. swine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ USDA/NASS, Meat Animal Production, Disposition, and Income: 
2005 Summary, April 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As shown in table 1, U.S. pork production increased from 7,764,000 
metric tons (MT) in 1996 to 9,392,000 MT in 2005, an annual growth rate 
of about 2.1 percent. Similarly, consumption increased from 7,619 MT to 
8,671 MT. During the same period, U.S. exports increased from 440,000 
MT to 1,207,000 MT, by far outpacing imports. Net exports increased 
from 159,000 MT to 743,000 MT.

                                   Table 1.--U.S. Pork Production, Consumption, Price, Exports, and Imports, 1996-2005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Production      Consumption                       Exports         Imports       Net exports
                          Year                              (1,000 MT)      (1,000 MT)     Price per MT     (1,000 MT)      (1,000 MT)      (1,000 MT)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996....................................................           7,764           7,619          $1,596             440             281             159
1997....................................................           7,835           7,631           1,562             473             288             185
1998....................................................           8,623           8,305           1,170             558             320             238
1999....................................................           8,758           8,594           1,178             582             375             207
2000....................................................           8,596           8,455           1,413             584             438             146
2001....................................................           8,691           8,389           1,473             707             431             276
2002....................................................           8,929           8,685           1,179             731             486             245
2003....................................................           9,056           8,816           1,298             779             538             241
2004....................................................           9,312           8,817           1,621             989             499             490
2005....................................................           9,392           8,671           1,562           1,207             464             743
5-year average (2001-2005)..............................           9,076           8,676           1,427             883             484            399
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources: USDA/FAS, PS&D Online, 1996-2005, https://www.fas.usda.gov/
psdonline/psdquery.aspx; prices, reported as $/100 pounds for yearly pork carcass cut-
  out values, are converted to dollars per metric ton, and are taken from Red Meat Yearbook (94006), https://usda.manlib.cornell.
edu/ers/94006/wholesaleprices.xls; net exports are calculated as the difference between exports and imports for each year.

The Swine Industry in the Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland

    The four countries (the Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, and 
Poland) together produced an average of 2.522 million MT of pig meat 
between 2001 and 2005. They are net importers of pork, which is the 
focus of this analysis. They had a 5-year (2001-2005) average level of 
pork exports of 130,030 MT and an average level of imports of 152,954 
MT, yielding an average net export of a negative 22,823 MT. The Czech 
Republic and Poland accounted for 95 percent of production and export 
of the above total.

Potential Costs of Classical Swine Fever, Swine Vesicular Disease, and 
Foot and Mouth Disease

    CSF, also known as hog cholera or swine plague, is a highly 
contagious and often fatal disease of pigs. Young animals are more 
severely affected than older animals. Mortality rates may reach up to 
90 percent among young pigs. SVD is less severe and does not usually 
cause death. The overall cost of control and eradication depends on the 
mitigation methods used to control and eradicate the two diseases.
    Potential costs include disease control measures such as imposing 
quarantine measures and movement controls, indemnity payments, 
vaccination costs, surveillance, and laboratory testing. CSF was 
eradicated from the United States in 1976 at a cost of about $550 
million in 2006 dollars. Several EU countries experienced small-and-
large scale CSF outbreaks between 1990 and 1997 and suffered heavy 
economic losses. One large outbreak cost producers $917.6 million, the 
national governments

[[Page 6496]]

$296.9 million, and the EU $1,040.6 million in 2006 dollars. The cost 
of a small scale outbreak was $14 million and the cost of the medium-
scale outbreak was $268.8 million.\3\ The above costs are direct costs 
of disease outbreaks and do not include indirect costs such as losses 
caused by trade restrictions. Little information exists on the cost of 
control and eradication of SVD in a previously free region.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Saatkamp, H. W., P. B. M. Berentsen et al. ``Economic 
aspects of the control of classical swine fever outbreaks in the 
European Union,'' Vet Microbiology 73 (2000): 221-237; Stegeman, A., 
A. Elbers et al., ``The 1997-98 epidemic of classical swine fever in 
the Netherlands,'' Vet Microbiology, 73 (2000): 183-196.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FMD is a contagious viral disease that affects cloven-hoofed 
animals. Cattle, pigs, sheep and goats are highly susceptible to FMD. 
Although the death rates are low, it has serious lasting negative 
effects on infected animals that survive the disease. It causes 
decreased milk production, decreased pregnancy rates, weight loss, and 
lameness. In addition to these losses, an FMD outbreak can lead to 
economic sanctions, including the loss of export markets. Any outbreak 
of FMD in the United States could result in a loss of billions of 
dollars for agriculture and related industries as indicated by the most 
recent FMD outbreak in the United Kingdom (UK). According to the World 
Organization for Animal Health (OIE), over 6 million cattle, sheep, 
swine, and goats were slaughtered to stop the spread of the disease and 
the epidemic is estimated to have cost the UK economy about $12.9 
billion.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ D. Thompson, P. Muriel, D. Russell, P. Osborne, A. Bromley, 
M. Rowland, S. Creigh-Tyte, and C. Brown, ``Economic losses of foot 
and mouth disease outbreak in the U.K,'' Rev. sci. tech. int. epiz., 
21 (2002): 675-687.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Impact of Potential Pork Imports

    In this section, we estimate the impact of pork imports from the 
Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland on U.S. production, 
consumption, and prices using a net trade welfare model.\5\ The 
baseline data used are as shown in the last row of table 1. The demand 
and supply elasticities used are -0.86 and 1, respectively.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The data used were obtained from Foreign Agricultural 
Service (FAS), Production, Supply and Distribution database (https://
www.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/
psdquery.aspx;) USDA/ERS, Red Meat Yearbook (94006) (https://
usda.mannlib.cornell. edu/usda/ers//
wholesaleprices.xls); The Global Trade Atlas: Global Trade 
Information Services, Inc., country Edition, June 2006; and UN/FAO, 
FAO stat data (https://faostat.fao.org).
    \6\ John Sullivan, John Wainio, Vernon Roningen, A Database for 
Trade Liberalization Studies, AGES89-12, March 1989.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the four countries' combined average annual global exports 
of 130,130 MT (2001-2005), we model three potential levels of pork 
exports to the United States from the Czech Republic, Latvia, 
Lithuania, and Poland: (1) An amount proportional to the percentage of 
the EU-15's pork exports sent to the United States (1.87 percent); (2) 
an amount proportional to the percentage of Denmark's \7\ pork exports 
sent to the United States (3.99 percent); and (3) an amount equal to 10 
percent of the global pork exports by the four countries. Amounts of 
pork shipped to the United States under the three scenarios would be 
2,433 MT, 5,192 MT, and 13,013 MT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Exports from Denmark to the United States are used as an 
upper range estimate of possible exports from these countries. 
Denmark's pork industry is export oriented, and it is the second 
largest supplier of pork products to the United States, after 
Canada. Using the proportion of its global pork exports that are 
shipped to the United States as an estimate of possible imports from 
the four countries likely overstates potential shipments to the 
United States from these countries.

Table 2.--The Impact of Pork Imports From the Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland on the United States
                                                     Economy
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Import          Import          Import
                                                                    Scenario 1      Scenario 2      Scenario 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assumed pork imports, MT........................................       \1\ 2,433       \2\ 5,192      \3\ 13,013
Change in U.S. consumption, MT..................................           1,160           2,475           6,202
Change in U.S. production, MT...................................          -1,273          -2,717          -6,811
Change in wholesale price of pork, dollars per MT...............          -$0.22          -$0.47          -$1.19
Change in consumer welfare......................................      $1,924,230      $4,106,610     $10,294,830
Change in producer welfare......................................     -$1,817,020     -$3,877,160     -$9,715,120
Annual net benefit..............................................        $107,210        $229,450        $579,710
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Welfare and benefit are used interchangeably. The baseline data used is a 5-year annual average for
  production, consumption, price, exports and imports as reported in the last row of table 1. The demand and
  supply elasticities used are -0.86 and 1, respectively (John Sullivan, John Wainio, Vernon Roningen, A
  Database for Trade Liberalization Studies, AGES89-12, March 1989).
\1\ Calculated by multiplying the total global exports of the Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland,
  130,130 MT, by the proportion (1.87 percent) of EU-15's global export sent to the U.S. EU-15 countries
  including Denmark exported 50,742 MT to the United States from their global exports of 2,719,698 MT.
\2\ Calculated by multiplying total global exports of the Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland by the
  proportion (3.99 percent) of Denmark exports sent to the United States, 43,037 MT out of 1,077,986 MT.
\3\ Calculated by multiplying total global exports of the Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland by 10
  percent.

    Table 2 presents the changes resulting from the assumed U.S. pork 
imports from the Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland. These 
include annual changes in U.S. consumption, production, wholesale 
price, consumer welfare, producer welfare, and net welfare. Our medium 
level of pork imports of 5,192 MT (import scenario 2, assuming pork 
imports proportional to those received from Denmark) would result in a 
decline of $0.47 per metric ton in the wholesale price of pork and a 
fall in U.S. production of 2,717 MT. Consumption would increase by 
2,475 MT. Producer welfare would decline by $3.9 million and consumer 
welfare would increase by $4.1 million, yielding an annual net benefit 
of about $230,000.
    Import scenario 1 presents impacts assuming a more likely level of 
pork imports (proportional to those received from the EU-15). In this 
case, price would decrease by $0.22 per metric ton, production would 
decline by 1,273 MT, and consumption would increase by 1,160 MT. 
Consumer welfare would increase by $1.9 million and producer welfare 
would decline by $1.8 million. The annual net benefit would be about 
$107,000.
    Finally, import scenario 3 presents a case of expanded trade, with 
pork imports by the United States assumed to equal 10 percent of global 
exports by the four countries. The wholesale price of pork would 
decline by $1.19 per metric ton, production would decline by 6,811 MT, 
and consumption would increase

[[Page 6497]]

by 6,202 MT. Consumer welfare would increase by $10.3 million, while 
producer welfare would decline by $9.7 million. The annual net benefit 
would be about $580,000.
    In all cases consumer welfare gains would outweigh producer welfare 
losses. The decline in producer welfare, even in the last scenario, 
would represent less than one-tenth of 1 percent of cash receipts 
received from the sale of domestic hogs and pork products.\8\ Thus, our 
analysis indicates that U.S. entities are unlikely to be significantly 
affected by this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ $9.7 million divided by $12.4 billion equals 0.08 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Small Business Administration (SBA) has established guidelines 
for determining which types of firms are to be considered small under 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act. This rule could affect importers of 
live animals or animal products and swine operations with sales.
    Meat processing entities (NAICS 311612) and meat and meat product 
merchant wholesalers (NAICS 424470) may be affected by this rule. Under 
SBA standards, meat processing establishments with no more than 500 
employees and meat and meat product wholesalers with no more than 100 
employees are considered small. In 2002, there were 1,335 companies in 
the United States that processed and sold meat. More than 97 percent of 
these establishments are considered to be small entities and had 
average sales of $15.4 million, while large meat processors had average 
sales of $188 million. In 2002, there were 2,535 meat and meat product 
wholesalers in the United States. Of these establishments, 2,456 (97 
percent) employed not more than 100 employees and are, thus, considered 
small by SBA standards. Small wholesalers had average sales of $9.3 
million, while large entities had average sales of $131 million.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census: Manufacturing--
Industries Series, Wholesale Trade--Subject Series and 
Transportation and Warehousing--Subject Series, issued August 2006; 
and SBA, Small business Size Standards matched to North American 
Industry Classification System 2002, effective July 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other entities that could theoretically be affected include 
refrigerated long-distance trucking firms (NAICS 484230), freight 
forwarders (NAICS 488510), and deep sea freight transport companies 
(NAICS 483111). The SBA classifies trucking firms as small if their 
annual receipts are not more than $23.5 million; freight forwarding 
firms are small if their annual receipts are not more than $6.5 
million, and deep sea freight transport firms are small if they have 
not more than 500 workers. According to the 2002 Economic Census, there 
were 3,429 trucking firms, 3,827 freight forwarders, and 195 deep sea 
freight transport companies. Over 99 percent of trucking firms, 96 
percent freight forwarders, and 97 percent of deep sea freight 
transport firms are considered to be small. Thus, predominant numbers 
of meat processors, wholesale traders, and transport firms that could 
be affected by the rule are considered to be small by SBA standards. 
Average sales of even the smallest packers and wholesalers are large 
compared to the amount of pork expected to be imported from the four 
countries.
    U.S. swine and pork producers (NAICS 112210) might be potentially 
affected by the proposed rule. According to the 2002 Census of 
Agriculture, there were 82,028 hog and pig operations with sales of 
184,997,686 hogs and pigs valued at $12.4 billion. These facilities are 
considered to be small if their annual receipts are not more than 
$750,000. Over 83 percent of these operations (or 68,083) are 
considered to be small and had sales of fewer than 2,000 hogs and pigs. 
Small operations had a total inventory of 16,297,158 (8.81 percent) 
with an average inventory of 237 hogs, while large operations (or 
13,945) had sales of 168,700,528 (91.19 percent) with an average 
inventory of 12,714 hogs. Based on inventory share, small operations 
had annual sales of $1.3 billion and an average income of about 
$19,400, while large operations had sales of $11 billion with an 
average income of about $834,000. As shown in table 3, the impact of 
potential pork imports on U.S. producers as a result of this rule would 
be small. The decrease in producer welfare per small entity is less 
than $133 or about 0.6 percent of average annual sales of small 
entities when we assume that 10 percent of combined global pork exports 
by the four countries would be sent to the United States.

 Table 3.--The Economic Impact of Potential Pork Imports From the Czech
Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland on U.S. Small Entities, Assuming
  10 Percent of Combined Global Pork Exports by the Four Countries Are
                 Sent to the United States, 2005 Dollars
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total decline in producer welfare \1\......................   $9,715,120
Decrease in welfare incurred by small entities \2\.........      855,902
Average decrease per head of inventory, small entities \3\.         0.05
Average decrease per small entity \4\......................          124
Average decrease as percentage of average sales, small              0.6%
 entities \5\..............................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ From table 2. The change in producer welfare is negative indicating
  a decline.
\2\ Change in producer welfare multiplied by 8.81 percent from the above
  text. We assume that the change in producer welfare would be
  proportional to inventory share.
\3\ Decrease in producer welfare for small entities divided by
  16,297,158 (see text above).
\4\ Average decrease per head of inventory multiplied by 237 (see text
  above).
\5\ Average decrease per small entity divided by $19,400 (see text
  above).

    Because quantities of swine, swine semen, ruminants, and ruminant 
products imported from these countries, if such imports were to occur, 
are likely to be very small, effects of the rule with respect to these 
commodities are not included in the analysis.
    The amounts of pork shipped to the United States under the three 
scenarios discussed above would be 2,433 MT, 5,192 MT, and 13,013 MT. 
Even when the largest import quantity is assumed, the welfare effect 
for U.S. small-entity producers would be equivalent to less than 1 
percent of their average revenue.
    Predominant numbers of producers, meat processors, and wholesale 
traders are considered to be small entities. Other small entities that 
could theoretically be affected by the proposed rule include 
refrigerated long-distance trucking firms, freight forwarders, and deep 
sea freight transport companies. In all cases, any effects of the 
proposed rule for these types of businesses are expected to be very 
minor.

[[Page 6498]]

    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.

National Environmental Policy Act

    To provide the public with documentation of APHIS' review and 
analysis of any potential environmental impacts associated with the 
proposed addition of the Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland 
to the list of EU countries considered to be low risk for CSF and to 
the list of regions recognized as free of SVD, but that are subject to 
certain import restrictions, and the addition of Latvia and Lithuania 
to the list of regions recognized as free of FMD and rinderpest, but 
that are subject to certain import restrictions, we have prepared 
environmental assessments for each country.
    The environmental assessments were prepared in July or August 2006 
and in accordance with: (1) The National Environmental Policy Act of 
1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), (2) regulations of 
the Council on Environmental Quality for implementing the procedural 
provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), (3) USDA regulations 
implementing NEPA (7 CFR part 1b), and (4) APHIS' NEPA Implementing 
Procedures (7 CFR part 372).
    The environmental assessments may be viewed on the Regulations.gov 
Web site or in our reading room. We invite the public to comment on 
those environmental assessments. Comments on the environmental 
assessments may be submitted using the same process as comments on the 
proposed rule. (Instructions for accessing Regulations.gov and for 
submitting comments, and information on the location and hours of the 
reading room are provided under the heading ADDRESSES at the beginning 
of this proposed rule. In addition, copies may be obtained by calling 
or writing to the individual listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed 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

9 CFR Part 92

    Animal diseases, Imports, Livestock, Poultry and poultry products, 
Region, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

9 CFR Part 93

    Animal diseases, Imports, Livestock, Poultry and poultry products, 
Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

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.
    Accordingly, we propose to amend 9 CFR parts 92, 93, 94, and 98 as 
follows:

PART 92--IMPORTATION OF ANIMALS AND ANIMAL PRODUCTS: PROCEDURES FOR 
REQUESTING RECOGNITION OF REGIONS

    1. The authority citation for part 92 would continue 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.

    2. In Sec.  92.1, the definition of European Union would be revised 
to read as follows:


Sec.  92.1  Definitions.

* * * * *
    European Union. The organization of Member States consisting of 
Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, 
Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, 
Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, 
Slovenia, Republic of Ireland, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom 
(England, Scotland, Wales, the Isle of Man, and Northern Ireland).
* * * * *

PART 93--IMPORTATION OF CERTAIN ANIMALS, BIRDS, FISH, AND POULTRY, 
AND CERTAIN ANIMAL, BIRD, AND POULTRY PRODUCTS; REQUIREMENTS FOR 
MEANS OF CONVEYANCE AND SHIPPING CONTAINERS

    3. The authority citation for part 93 would continue 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.

    4. In Sec.  93.500, the definition of European Union-15 (EU-15) 
would be removed and a definition of APHIS-defined EU CSF region would 
be added, in alphabetical order, to read as follows:


Sec.  93.500  Definitions.

* * * * *
    APHIS-defined EU CSF region. The European Union