Information From Foreign Regions Applying for Recognition of Animal Health Status, 81404-81408 [2011-33206]
Download as PDF
81404
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules
and adults of the order Lepidoptera,
with irradiation in accordance with
§ 305.9 of this chapter. Treatment must
be conducted prior to importation of the
fruits into the United States.
(c) Each shipment of litchi must be
accompanied by a phytosanitary
certificate of inspection issued by the
NPPO of Australia with an additional
declaration stating that the litchi were
treated with irradiation as described in
the Plant Protection and Quarantine
Treatment Manual.
(d) In addition to meeting the labeling
requirements in Part 305 of this chapter,
cartons in which litchi are packed must
be stamped ‘‘Not for importation into or
distribution in FL.’’
(e) The litchi may be imported in
commercial consignments only.
Done in Washington, DC, this 19th day of
December 2011.
Kevin Shea,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 2011–33201 Filed 12–27–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–34–P
Background
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service
9 CFR Part 92
[Docket No. APHIS–2007–0158]
RIN 0579–AD30
Information From Foreign Regions
Applying for Recognition of Animal
Health Status
Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
We are proposing to amend
the regulations that govern the
importation of animals and animal
products by revising the list of factors
APHIS considers when evaluating the
animal health status of a foreign region.
Additionally, we are proposing criteria
for considering a region to be
historically free of a specific disease.
These changes would make clearer the
type of information APHIS needs from
a requesting region to most
expeditiously conduct an evaluation.
DATES: We will consider all comments
that we receive on or before February
27, 2012.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by either of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov/
#!documentDetail;D=APHIS-2007-01580001.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:25 Dec 27, 2011
Jkt 226001
• Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery:
Send your comment to Docket No.
APHIS–2007–0158, Regulatory Analysis
and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station
3A–03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118,
Riverdale, MD 20737–1238.
Supporting documents and any
comments we receive on this docket
may be viewed at https://
www.regulations.gov/
#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2007-0158 or
in our reading room, which 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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.
Kelly Rhodes, Regionalization
Evaluation Services, 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:
The regulations in 9 CFR part 92,
‘‘Importation of Animals and Animal
Products; Procedures for Requesting
Recognition of Regions’’ (referred to
below as the regulations), set forth the
process by which a foreign government
may request recognition of the animal
health status of a region.
Section 92.2 of the regulations
requires that such requests be
accompanied by information regarding
the region that will enable the Animal
and Plant Health Inspection Service
(APHIS) of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture to evaluate the request.
Currently, the provisions in paragraph
(b) of § 92.2 state that each request must
include the following information,
which APHIS commonly refers to as
‘‘the 11 factors’’:
• The authority, organization, and
infrastructure of the veterinary services
organization in the region.
• Disease status, i.e., is the restricted
disease agent known to exist in the
region? If ‘‘yes,’’ at what prevalence? If
‘‘no,’’ when was the most recent
diagnosis?
• The status of adjacent regions with
respect to the agent.
• The extent of an active disease
control program, if any, if the agent is
known to exist in the region.
• The vaccination status of the region.
When was the last vaccination? What is
the extent of vaccination if it is
currently used, and what vaccine is
being used?
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
• The degree to which the region is
separated from adjacent regions of
higher risk through physical or other
barriers.
• The extent to which movement of
animals and animal products is
controlled from regions of higher risk,
and the level of biosecurity regarding
such movements.
• Livestock demographics and
marketing practices in the region.
• The type and extent of disease
surveillance in the region, e.g., is it
passive and/or active; what is the
quantity and quality of sampling and
testing?
• Diagnostic laboratory capabilities.
• Policies and infrastructure for
animal disease control in the region, i.e.,
emergency response capacity.
Current paragraph (e) of § 92.2
provides that if, after evaluating the
information submitted, APHIS believes
the action being requested can be safely
taken, the Agency will publish a
proposed rule in the Federal Register
proposing to take such action and will
provide a period of time during which
the public may comment on the
proposal. Current paragraph (f) of § 92.2
provides that, during the comment
period, the public will have access both
to the information upon which APHIS
based its analysis of risk and the
analysis itself. Once APHIS reviews and
considers all comments received, it
makes a final decision regarding the
request and publishes that decision in
the Federal Register.
In order to conduct a valid evaluation
of a region’s animal health status and
any risk that might be associated with
the action requested, it is important that
APHIS have complete and pertinent
information regarding the region, its
disease history, its animal health
practices and capabilities, and any effect
its import practices or relationship to
adjacent regions might have on disease
risk.
The 11 factors listed in § 92.2(b)
specify the types of information APHIS
needs to accomplish its evaluation. To
assist foreign governments making a
request under § 92.2, APHIS also makes
available on its Web site detailed
guidance as to the types of information
required. This guidance is forth in a
document titled ‘‘Clarification of
Information Requested for Recognition
of a Region,’’ which can be viewed at
https://www.aphis.usda.gov/
import_export/downloads/
info_request.pdf.
Each year, APHIS receives a number
of requests to evaluate the animal health
status of foreign regions. However, the
evaluation process is often hindered
because, even with the assistance of the
E:\FR\FM\28DEP1.SGM
28DEP1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules
guidance, the initial information sent to
APHIS is incomplete and requires
APHIS to contact the requesting
government for additional information.
Based on our experience, we believe
it is advisable to clarify further what
information is necessary for APHIS to
initiate an evaluation of risk. Therefore,
we are proposing to revise the list of
factors in § 92.2(b) and to make
available more detailed guidance as to
the specific types of information
encompassed by each factor.
Our experience dealing with requests
from foreign governments indicates that
the list of 11 factors can be confusing
because the information requested in
some of the factors overlaps with
information requested in other factors.
For instance, one of the factors asks for
information regarding the degree to
which the region is separated from
adjacent regions of higher risk through
physical or other barriers. A separate
factor asks for information regarding the
extent to which movement of animals
and animal products is controlled from
regions of higher risk and the level of
biosecurity regarding such movements.
To eliminate such overlap, we
propose to consolidate the 11 factors
into 8 factors, listed as follows:
• Scope of the evaluation being
requested;
• Veterinary control and oversight;
• Disease history and vaccination
practices;
• Livestock demographics and
traceability;
• Epidemiological separation from
potential sources of infection;
• Diagnostic laboratory capabilities;
• Surveillance practices; and
• Emergency preparedness and
response.
The type of information required
would not change substantively from
what we currently require to conduct an
evaluation. It would simply be
described in what we believe is a more
helpful way. More detailed guidance as
to the specific types of information
encompassed by each factor would be
set forth in a guidance document
available on the APHIS Web site or by
contacting APHIS. Instructions for
accessing or obtaining the guidance
document would be set forth in § 92.2(b)
of the regulations. The revised guidance
document, ‘‘Clarification of Information
Requested for Recognition of a Region,’’
is available for review and comment as
part of this rulemaking 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:25 Dec 27, 2011
Jkt 226001
this proposed rule. In addition, a copy
may be obtained by calling or writing to
the individual listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
An overview of the information
required for each of the factors, as
explained in the guidance document, is
as follows:
1. Scope of the evaluation being
requested. This factor would require
identification of the disease(s) for which
an APHIS evaluation is requested; a
detailed description of the region,
including maps; identification of the
animal commodities proposed for
export to the United States; and an
estimate of the projected annual volume
of export for each commodity. Although
this type of information is not
specifically referenced in the current
regulations and guidance document, it
is standard practice for APHIS to require
such information from a requesting
region before beginning an evaluation.
2. Veterinary control and oversight.
This factor would require sufficient
information for APHIS to assess the
infrastructure of the official veterinary
services in the region and the ability of
the veterinary services to oversee animal
health activities, monitor for disease,
and implement disease control
measures.
3. Disease history and vaccination
practices. This factor would require
sufficient information to enable APHIS
to understand the history of the
disease(s) being evaluated in the region,
including prior control measures,
revisions to those measures as
applicable, and the vaccination status
and history in the region.
4. Livestock demographics and
traceability. This factor would require
sufficient information for APHIS to
assess the geographic distribution of
livestock and wildlife species that are
susceptible to the disease(s) under
evaluation, patterns of livestock
movement within the region, and the
ability of the official veterinary services
of the region to trace livestock
movements in the event of a disease
outbreak.
5. Epidemiological separation from
potential sources of infection. This
factor would require sufficient
information to enable APHIS to evaluate
the ability of the region to prevent
incursions of the disease(s) under
evaluation. Relevant risk factors that we
would evaluate include the presence of
the disease(s) in adjacent regions or in
regions with epidemiological links to
the requesting region, natural and
manmade barriers to disease
introduction, trading practices, and
inspection practices.
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
81405
6. Surveillance. This factor would
require sufficient information to enable
APHIS to determine whether the
surveillance system in the region is
sufficient to ensure early detection of
the disease(s) under evaluation.
Countries would need to submit
information regarding active and/or
passive surveillance as applicable.1
Documentation regarding collection and
analysis of disease and infection data
must be sufficient to provide confidence
in the disease status of the region.
7. Diagnostic laboratory capabilities.
This factor would require sufficient
information to enable APHIS to
determine whether the animal health
laboratory system, diagnostic
procedures, and quality assurance
measures in the region are sufficient to
effectively support surveillance for the
disease(s) under evaluation.
8. Emergency preparedness and
response. This factor would require
information sufficient for APHIS to
assess emergency preparedness
measures and response capabilities in
the region, as well as procedures in
place to notify trading partners and
other international entities of a disease
outbreak.
Regions Historically Free of a Disease
In regions in which a significant
period of time has elapsed since a
particular disease or infection has
occurred, if it has ever occurred, certain
information required as part of the eight
factors listed above would not be
applicable or necessary. An example of
this would be some of the information
on surveillance, particularly active
pathogen-specific surveillance. In the
guidance document for the eight factors
above, APHIS asks for detailed
information regarding surveillance
specific to the pathogen under
consideration, including the following:
Target populations, targeted prevalence
for detection and estimated confidence
level, sampling plan, types of samples
collected, frequency of sampling, and
the targeted and actual numbers of
samples collected and the results of
screening and confirmatory testing for
the past 3 years.
1 Active surveillance is defined in § 92.1 of the
regulations as sample collection using a systematic
or statistically designed survey methodology to
actively seek out and find cases of animals with a
restricted disease agent, or to determine the
prevalence of the restricted disease agent in the
population. Passive surveillance is defined as a
surveillance system that does not depend on active
participation by the responsible agency to seek out
and monitor a restricted disease agent. The
definition explains, further, that such a system
relies on mandatory reporting, a pool of trained
investigators, diagnostic submission procedures and
laboratory support, and periodic public information
and continuing education programs on diseases.
E:\FR\FM\28DEP1.SGM
28DEP1
81406
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
However, if a particular disease or
infection has not occurred in a region
for many years, the benefit of active
surveillance specifically targeting that
pathogen would be minimal. In such a
case, it would not be necessary for
APHIS to receive detailed information
from the region regarding active
pathogen-specific surveillance.
However, to be recognized as free of a
disease, it would still be necessary for
the region to demonstrate an effective
early detection system for the disease(s)
under evaluation, as described below.
The World Organization for Animal
Health (OIE), of which the United States
is a Member country, is the
internationally recognized standardsetting body that develops science-based
recommendations for the safe trade of
animals and animal products. The
World Trade Organization has
recognized the OIE as the international
forum for setting animal health
standards, reporting global animal
disease events, and presenting
guidelines and recommendations on
sanitary measures relating to animal
health. The OIE recommends criteria for
recognizing a country or zone free of a
disease based on a significant period of
time having elapsed since the disease
was last reported, if it was ever
reported.2 Such an area is described by
the OIE as being historically free of a
disease.
In its Terrestrial Animal Health Code
(Code), the OIE recommends that a
region may be recognized as historically
free of a disease if the disease has never
occurred in the region or has not
occurred for at least the past 25 years,
provided the following conditions have
been met for at least the past 10 years:
• The disease has been a notifiable
disease; 3
• An early detection system has been
in place for all relevant species;
• Measures to prevent disease/
infection introduction have been in
place and no vaccination against the
disease has been carried out unless
otherwise provided in the Code; and
• There has been no evidence of
infection in wildlife in the region.
2 When discussing areas with regard to animal
diseases, OIE’s use of the terms ‘‘country’’ and
‘‘zone’’ is equivalent to APHIS’ use of the term
‘‘region.’’ In § 92.1, a region is defined as any of the
following: (1) A national entity (country); (2) part
of a national entity (zone, county, department,
municipality, parish, Province, State, etc.; (3) parts
of several national entities combined into an area;
or (4) a group of national entities combined into a
single area.
3 The Code defines a notifiable disease as one
listed by the Veterinary Authority in a region that,
as soon as it is detected or suspected, must be
brought to the attention of the Veterinary Authority
in accordance with national regulations.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:25 Dec 27, 2011
Jkt 226001
Based on APHIS’ experience
evaluating the animal health status of
foreign regions, we concur with the
OIE’s recommended criteria for being
recognized as historically free of a
disease, and we are proposing to add a
new paragraph (c) in § 92.2 of the
regulations that would list the factors
we will consider in evaluating whether
to recognize a region as historically free.
Much of the information is the same as
that required for the eight factors
discussed above. However, consistent
with OIE guidelines, APHIS’ evaluations
for historically free status will focus on
verifying an effective early detection
system for the disease(s) under
consideration, disease reporting
requirements, and measures in place to
prevent introduction. Therefore, certain
information encompassed by the eight
factors would not be required.
In evaluating whether a region can be
considered historically free of a disease,
we would consider the following six
factors:
• Scope of the evaluation being
requested;
• Veterinary control and oversight;
• Disease history and vaccination
practices;
• Disease reporting;
• Disease detection; and
• Barriers to disease introduction.
As with the eight factors discussed
earlier in this document, more detailed
guidance as to the specific types of
information encompassed by each factor
for regions historically free of a disease
would be set forth in a guidance
document available on the APHIS Web
site or by contacting APHIS.
Instructions for accessing or obtaining
the guidance document would be set
forth in § 92.2(c) of the regulations. The
guidance document, ‘‘Clarification of
Information Requested for Recognition
of a Historically Free Region,’’ is
available for review and comment as
part of this rulemaking and may be
viewed on the Regulations.gov Web site
or in our reading room.
Consistent with the OIE guidelines,
proposed § 92.2(c) would indicate that,
for a region to be considered historically
free of a disease, the disease must not
have occurred in domestic livestock for
at least the past 25 years and must not
have been reported in wildlife for at
least the past 10 years. An overview of
the information required for each of the
factors, as explained in the guidance
document, is as follows.
1. Scope of the evaluation being
requested. The information we would
require for this factor is the same as that
described for the eight factors, above.
2. Veterinary control and oversight.
This factor would require sufficient
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
information to enable APHIS to
determine whether the veterinary
services in the region have had and
continue to have sufficient legal
authority, organization, and
infrastructure to effectively investigate,
diagnose, and report the disease(s)
under evaluation, if detected.
3. Disease history and vaccination
practices. For this factor, the requesting
authority would need to indicate when
each disease under evaluation was last
reported, if ever, in domestic livestock
and wildlife in the region. Additionally,
if vaccination against the disease(s) has
occurred within the past 10 years, the
request must include information
indicating the reasons for vaccination,
the source and type of vaccines used,
target populations, recordkeeping
requirements, and procedures to
distinguish vaccinated animals.
4. Disease reporting. This factor
would require sufficient information to
enable APHIS to determine whether
each disease under evaluation has been
legally notifiable in the region for at
least the past 10 years.
5. Disease detection. This factor
would require sufficient information for
APHIS to determine whether an
effective early detection system has
been in place for at least the past 10
years for the disease(s) under
evaluation. An effective early detection
system would include, among other
things, representative coverage of
susceptible animal populations by field
services, a training program for
detecting and reporting unusual animal
health incidents, the ability to
undertake effective disease investigation
and reporting, and access to laboratories
capable of diagnosing and
differentiating relevant diseases.
6. Barriers to disease introduction.
This factor would require sufficient
information for APHIS to determine
whether measures have been in place
for at least the past 10 years to prevent
introduction of the disease(s) under
evaluation.
Initiation of an Evaluation
Historically, the evaluations APHIS
has conducted in accordance with part
92 have been at the request of a
representative of a foreign jurisdiction.
We expect that to continue to be the
case the great majority of the time.
However, there might be instances
where APHIS initiates an evaluation on
its own initiative. As with evaluations
done at the request of a foreign region,
we would consider the factors set forth
in this proposed rule and, if our intent
is to recognize the health status of the
region, would give notice in the Federal
Register of that intent, make the
E:\FR\FM\28DEP1.SGM
28DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
relevant information and data and our
evaluation available to the public, and
accept public comment regarding our
intent. After reviewing and considering
any comments received, we would give
notice to the public of our final
determination. In this proposed rule, we
include a footnote to § 92.2(a) that
references such situations.
Information Received With Requests
Current § 92.2(d) states that the
information sent to APHIS with requests
submitted in accordance with part 92
will be made available to the public
prior to initiation by APHIS of any
rulemaking action on the request.
Current § 92.2(f) provides that, in cases
where APHIS does publish a proposed
rule based on a request, the public will
be provided a period of time to
comment on the proposal and that,
during the comment period, the public
will have access to the information
upon which APHIS based its analysis
supporting the proposal, as well as its
methodology in conducting the analysis.
We believe that the wording of
current § 92.2(d) can be confusing. The
intent of that paragraph is to give notice
to the public that, at the time a proposal
is published, information supporting the
proposal will have been made available
to the public. Such information is
posted on the APHIS Web site.
However, the wording of current
§ 92.2(d) does not indicate how early in
the process such information will be
made available to the public. It has been
APHIS’ practice to make such
information available immediately
before publication of a proposed rule.
APHIS does not begin an evaluation
until it has sufficient information to
conduct a valid analysis of a request,
and does not take the further action of
publishing a proposed rule in the
Federal Register unless it believes the
results of the evaluation support the
action being requested. We believe that,
until a proposed rule is ready for
publication, it can be confusing and
misleading for the public to review what
APHIS considers partial information or
information with regard to which
further action may not be taken.
However, we believe it could be useful
to the public to know which foreign
regions have requested APHIS’
recognition of their animal health status.
Therefore, in this document, we are
proposing to remove the statement in
§ 92.2(d) that supporting information
will be made available to the public
prior to initiation of rulemaking and to
replace it with the statement that a list
of regions that have requested
recognition of their animal health status
is available to the public. We will
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:25 Dec 27, 2011
Jkt 226001
continue to make available to the public
by the time APHIS publishes a proposal
in the Federal Register any relevant
information received from a requesting
country.
Miscellaneous
As noted above, current paragraph (e)
of § 92.2 provides that if, after
evaluating the information submitted
with a region’s request for APHIS’
recognition of its animal health status,
APHIS believes the action being
requested can be safely taken, the
Agency will publish a proposed rule in
the Federal Register proposing to take
such action and will provide a period of
time during which the public may
comment on the proposal. However,
recent rulemaking by APHIS has made
it incorrect to say that a proposed rule
will be used in all cases to give notice
of APHIS’ intent. On January 24, 2011,
we published in the Federal Register an
interim rule (76 FR 4046–4056, Docket
No. APHIS–2006–0074) concerning
highly pathogenic avian influenza
(HPAI) as it applies to the importation
of live birds and poultry and the
products of birds and poultry. In that
interim rule, we provide for a method of
notifying the public of APHIS’ intent
regarding the HPAI status of a region
that differs somewhat from the method
currently provided for in § 92.2(e).
Instead of publishing a proposed rule, as
provided for in current § 92.2(e), the
HPAI interim rule indicates that a
region will be removed from the list of
regions where HPAI is considered to
exist only after APHIS makes its
evaluation available for public comment
through a notice published in the
Federal Register. The interim rule
provides that, following the close of the
comment period, APHIS will publish
another notice responding to comments
and announcing APHIS’ decision.
In order to account for such situations
where a notice, rather than proposed
rule, will be used to solicit comment
regarding APHIS’ evaluation of the
animal health status of a foreign region,
we are proposing to revise paragraph (e)
of § 92.2 to provide that, if APHIS
believes a request from a foreign region
for APHIS’ recognition of its animal
health status can be safely granted,
APHIS will indicate its intent and make
its evaluation available for public
comment through a document
published in the Federal Register.
Paragraph (f) of § 92.2 would indicate
that, during the comment period, the
public will have access to the
information upon which APHIS based
its evaluation, as well as the evaluation
itself, and that, once APHIS has
reviewed all comments received, it will
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
81407
make a final determination regarding
the request and will publish that
determination in the Federal Register.
Additionally, in this document, we
are clarifying which requests are
governed by § 92.2. The scope of § 92.2
is reflected in its heading, which reads
‘‘Application for recognition of the
animal health status of a region.’’
Requests submitted to APHIS in
accordance with part 92 are evaluated
by the Regionalization Evaluation
Services staff of APHIS’ Veterinary
Services. However, the wording in
paragraphs (b), (c), and (e) of current
§ 92.2 indicates that the section also
governs requests for approval to export
a particular type of animal or animal
product to the United States from a
foreign region. Although the evaluations
conducted by the Regionalization
Evaluation Services staff can ultimately
affect which commodities are allowed
importation into the United States and
under what conditions, requests to
import specific types of animals or
animal products are governed by parts
in 9 CFR other than part 92. To clarify
the scope of part 92, we are proposing
to remove from that part the references
to exportation of a particular type of
animal or animal product to the United
States from a foreign region.
Currently, § 92.2(c) indicates where
requests for recognition of a region, and
information supporting such a request,
should be sent. That paragraph also
requests that, where possible, a copy of
the request and supporting information
be submitted on a 3.5-inch floppy disk
in ASCII or a word processing format. In
this proposal, we include the address to
which requests and supporting
information should be sent in § 92.2(a)
instead of § 92.2(c) and propose to
remove the request for submission on a
3.5-inch floppy disk. Such disks are no
longer commonly used. In proposed
§ 92.2(a), we request that, where
possible, a copy of the request and
accompanying information be included
in electronic format.
We are also proposing several
nonsubstantive wording changes to
§ 92.2 for the sake of clarity.
Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory
Flexibility Act
This proposed 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 have prepared an economic
analysis for this action. The analysis
identifies importers and producers of
animals and animal products as the
small entities most likely to be affected
by this action and considers the
E:\FR\FM\28DEP1.SGM
28DEP1
81408
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules
reduction in time it would take under
this proposal for APHIS to initiate and
complete an evaluation of the animal
disease status of a region. Based on the
information presented in the analysis,
we expect that decreasing the amount of
time and APHIS resources required to
initiate and complete such an
evaluation would not have a significant
economic effect on the entities affected.
We invite comment on our economic
analysis, which is posted with this
proposed rule on the Regulations.gov
Web site (see ADDRESSES above for
instructions for accessing
Regulations.gov) and may also be
obtained from the person listed under
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Executive Order 12988
This proposed rule has been reviewed
under Executive Order 12988, Civil
Justice Reform. If this proposed rule is
adopted: (1) All State and local laws and
regulations that are inconsistent with
this rule will be preempted; (2) no
retroactive effect will be given to this
rule; and (3) administrative proceedings
will not be required before parties may
file suit in court challenging this rule.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed 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 in 9 CFR Part 92
Animal diseases, Imports, Livestock,
Poultry and poultry products, Region,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Accordingly, we propose to amend 9
CFR part 92 as follows:
PART 92—IMPORTATION OF ANIMALS
AND ANIMAL PRODUCTS;
PROCEDURES FOR REQUESTING
RECOGNITION OF REGIONS
1. The authority citation for part 92
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.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
2. In § 92.2, paragraphs (a) through (f)
are revised to read as follows:
§ 92.2 Application for recognition of the
animal health status of a region.
(a) The representative of the national
government(s) of any country or
countries who has the authority to make
such a request may request that APHIS
recognize the animal health status of a
region.1 Such requests must be made in
1 Additionally,
APHIS may choose to initiate an
evaluation of the animal health status of a foreign
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:25 Dec 27, 2011
Jkt 226001
English and must be sent to the
Administrator, c/o National Center for
Import and Export, VS, APHIS, 4700
River Road Unit 38, Riverdale, MD
20737–1231. (Where possible, include a
copy of the request and accompanying
information in electronic format.)
(b) Requests for recognition of the
animal health status of a region, other
than requests submitted in accordance
with paragraph (c) of this section, must
include, in English, the following
information about the region. More
detailed information regarding the
specific types of information that will
enable APHIS to most expeditiously
conduct an evaluation of the request is
available at [address to be added in final
rule] or by contacting the Director,
Sanitary Trade Issues Team, National
Center for Import and Export, VS,
APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 38,
Riverdale, MD 20737.
(1) Scope of the evaluation being
requested.
(2) Veterinary control and oversight.
(3) Disease history and vaccination
practices.
(4) Livestock demographics and
traceability.
(5) Epidemiological separation from
potential sources of infection.
(6) Surveillance.
(7) Diagnostic laboratory capabilities.
(8) Emergency preparedness and
response.
(c) Requests for recognition that a
region is historically free of a disease
based on the amount of time that has
elapsed since the disease last occurred
in a region, if it has ever occurred, must
include, in English, the following
information about the region. More
detailed information regarding the
specific types of information that will
enable APHIS to most expeditiously
conduct an evaluation of the request is
available at [address to be added in final
rule] or by contacting the Director,
Sanitary Trade Issues Team, National
Center for Import and Export, VS,
APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 38,
Riverdale, MD 20737. For a region to be
considered historically free of a disease,
the disease must not have been reported
in domestic livestock for at least the
past 25 years and must not have been
reported in wildlife for at least the past
10 years.
(1) Scope of the evaluation being
requested.
(2) Veterinary control and oversight.
(3) Disease history and vaccination
practices.
(4) Disease notification.
region on its own initiative. In such cases, APHIS
will follow the same evaluation and notification
procedures set forth in this section.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
(5) Disease detection.
(6) Barriers to disease introduction.
(d) A list of those regions that have
requested APHIS’ recognition of their
animal health status is available at
[address to be added in final rule].
(e) If, after review and evaluation of
the information submitted in
accordance with paragraph (b) or (c) of
this section, APHIS believes the request
can be safely granted, APHIS will
indicate its intent and make its
evaluation available for public comment
through a document published in the
Federal Register.
(f) APHIS will provide a period of
time during which the public may
comment on its evaluation. During the
comment period, the public will have
access to the information upon which
APHIS based its evaluation, as well as
the evaluation itself. Once APHIS has
reviewed all comments received, it will
make a final determination regarding
the request and will publish that
determination in the Federal Register.
*
*
*
*
*
Done in Washington, DC, this 19th day of
December 2011.
Kevin Shea,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 2011–33206 Filed 12–27–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–34–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 719
48 CFR Parts 931, 952 and 970
RIN 1990–AA37
Contractor Legal Management
Requirements; Acquisition
Regulations
Office of General Counsel,
Department of Energy.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
and opportunity for public comment.
AGENCY:
The Department of Energy
(DOE or Department) is proposing to
revise existing regulations covering
contractor legal management
requirements. Conforming amendments
are also proposed to the Department of
Energy Acquisition Regulation (DEAR).
The proposed regulations will provide
rules for handling of legal matters and
associated costs by certain contractors
whose contracts exceed $100,000,000 as
well as legal counsel retained directly
by the Department for matters in which
costs exceed $100,000.
DATES: DOE will accept comments, data,
and information regarding this notice of
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\28DEP1.SGM
28DEP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 249 (Wednesday, December 28, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 81404-81408]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-33206]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
9 CFR Part 92
[Docket No. APHIS-2007-0158]
RIN 0579-AD30
Information From Foreign Regions Applying for Recognition of
Animal Health Status
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are proposing to amend the regulations that govern the
importation of animals and animal products by revising the list of
factors APHIS considers when evaluating the animal health status of a
foreign region. Additionally, we are proposing criteria for considering
a region to be historically free of a specific disease. These changes
would make clearer the type of information APHIS needs from a
requesting region to most expeditiously conduct an evaluation.
DATES: We will consider all comments that we receive on or before
February 27, 2012.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=APHIS-2007-0158-0001.
Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Send your comment to
Docket No. APHIS-2007-0158, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD,
APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-
1238.
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may
be viewed at https://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2007-
0158 or in our reading room, which 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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Kelly Rhodes, Regionalization
Evaluation Services, 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 regulations in 9 CFR part 92, ``Importation of Animals and
Animal Products; Procedures for Requesting Recognition of Regions''
(referred to below as the regulations), set forth the process by which
a foreign government may request recognition of the animal health
status of a region.
Section 92.2 of the regulations requires that such requests be
accompanied by information regarding the region that will enable the
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture to evaluate the request. Currently, the
provisions in paragraph (b) of Sec. 92.2 state that each request must
include the following information, which APHIS commonly refers to as
``the 11 factors'':
The authority, organization, and infrastructure of the
veterinary services organization in the region.
Disease status, i.e., is the restricted disease agent
known to exist in the region? If ``yes,'' at what prevalence? If
``no,'' when was the most recent diagnosis?
The status of adjacent regions with respect to the agent.
The extent of an active disease control program, if any,
if the agent is known to exist in the region.
The vaccination status of the region. When was the last
vaccination? What is the extent of vaccination if it is currently used,
and what vaccine is being used?
The degree to which the region is separated from adjacent
regions of higher risk through physical or other barriers.
The extent to which movement of animals and animal
products is controlled from regions of higher risk, and the level of
biosecurity regarding such movements.
Livestock demographics and marketing practices in the
region.
The type and extent of disease surveillance in the region,
e.g., is it passive and/or active; what is the quantity and quality of
sampling and testing?
Diagnostic laboratory capabilities.
Policies and infrastructure for animal disease control in
the region, i.e., emergency response capacity.
Current paragraph (e) of Sec. 92.2 provides that if, after
evaluating the information submitted, APHIS believes the action being
requested can be safely taken, the Agency will publish a proposed rule
in the Federal Register proposing to take such action and will provide
a period of time during which the public may comment on the proposal.
Current paragraph (f) of Sec. 92.2 provides that, during the comment
period, the public will have access both to the information upon which
APHIS based its analysis of risk and the analysis itself. Once APHIS
reviews and considers all comments received, it makes a final decision
regarding the request and publishes that decision in the Federal
Register.
In order to conduct a valid evaluation of a region's animal health
status and any risk that might be associated with the action requested,
it is important that APHIS have complete and pertinent information
regarding the region, its disease history, its animal health practices
and capabilities, and any effect its import practices or relationship
to adjacent regions might have on disease risk.
The 11 factors listed in Sec. 92.2(b) specify the types of
information APHIS needs to accomplish its evaluation. To assist foreign
governments making a request under Sec. 92.2, APHIS also makes
available on its Web site detailed guidance as to the types of
information required. This guidance is forth in a document titled
``Clarification of Information Requested for Recognition of a Region,''
which can be viewed at https://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/downloads/info_request.pdf.
Each year, APHIS receives a number of requests to evaluate the
animal health status of foreign regions. However, the evaluation
process is often hindered because, even with the assistance of the
[[Page 81405]]
guidance, the initial information sent to APHIS is incomplete and
requires APHIS to contact the requesting government for additional
information.
Based on our experience, we believe it is advisable to clarify
further what information is necessary for APHIS to initiate an
evaluation of risk. Therefore, we are proposing to revise the list of
factors in Sec. 92.2(b) and to make available more detailed guidance
as to the specific types of information encompassed by each factor.
Our experience dealing with requests from foreign governments
indicates that the list of 11 factors can be confusing because the
information requested in some of the factors overlaps with information
requested in other factors. For instance, one of the factors asks for
information regarding the degree to which the region is separated from
adjacent regions of higher risk through physical or other barriers. A
separate factor asks for information regarding the extent to which
movement of animals and animal products is controlled from regions of
higher risk and the level of biosecurity regarding such movements.
To eliminate such overlap, we propose to consolidate the 11 factors
into 8 factors, listed as follows:
Scope of the evaluation being requested;
Veterinary control and oversight;
Disease history and vaccination practices;
Livestock demographics and traceability;
Epidemiological separation from potential sources of
infection;
Diagnostic laboratory capabilities;
Surveillance practices; and
Emergency preparedness and response.
The type of information required would not change substantively
from what we currently require to conduct an evaluation. It would
simply be described in what we believe is a more helpful way. More
detailed guidance as to the specific types of information encompassed
by each factor would be set forth in a guidance document available on
the APHIS Web site or by contacting APHIS. Instructions for accessing
or obtaining the guidance document would be set forth in Sec. 92.2(b)
of the regulations. The revised guidance document, ``Clarification of
Information Requested for Recognition of a Region,'' is available for
review and comment as part of this rulemaking 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. In addition, a copy may be obtained by
calling or writing to the individual listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
An overview of the information required for each of the factors, as
explained in the guidance document, is as follows:
1. Scope of the evaluation being requested. This factor would
require identification of the disease(s) for which an APHIS evaluation
is requested; a detailed description of the region, including maps;
identification of the animal commodities proposed for export to the
United States; and an estimate of the projected annual volume of export
for each commodity. Although this type of information is not
specifically referenced in the current regulations and guidance
document, it is standard practice for APHIS to require such information
from a requesting region before beginning an evaluation.
2. Veterinary control and oversight. This factor would require
sufficient information for APHIS to assess the infrastructure of the
official veterinary services in the region and the ability of the
veterinary services to oversee animal health activities, monitor for
disease, and implement disease control measures.
3. Disease history and vaccination practices. This factor would
require sufficient information to enable APHIS to understand the
history of the disease(s) being evaluated in the region, including
prior control measures, revisions to those measures as applicable, and
the vaccination status and history in the region.
4. Livestock demographics and traceability. This factor would
require sufficient information for APHIS to assess the geographic
distribution of livestock and wildlife species that are susceptible to
the disease(s) under evaluation, patterns of livestock movement within
the region, and the ability of the official veterinary services of the
region to trace livestock movements in the event of a disease outbreak.
5. Epidemiological separation from potential sources of infection.
This factor would require sufficient information to enable APHIS to
evaluate the ability of the region to prevent incursions of the
disease(s) under evaluation. Relevant risk factors that we would
evaluate include the presence of the disease(s) in adjacent regions or
in regions with epidemiological links to the requesting region, natural
and manmade barriers to disease introduction, trading practices, and
inspection practices.
6. Surveillance. This factor would require sufficient information
to enable APHIS to determine whether the surveillance system in the
region is sufficient to ensure early detection of the disease(s) under
evaluation. Countries would need to submit information regarding active
and/or passive surveillance as applicable.\1\ Documentation regarding
collection and analysis of disease and infection data must be
sufficient to provide confidence in the disease status of the region.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Active surveillance is defined in Sec. 92.1 of the
regulations as sample collection using a systematic or statistically
designed survey methodology to actively seek out and find cases of
animals with a restricted disease agent, or to determine the
prevalence of the restricted disease agent in the population.
Passive surveillance is defined as a surveillance system that does
not depend on active participation by the responsible agency to seek
out and monitor a restricted disease agent. The definition explains,
further, that such a system relies on mandatory reporting, a pool of
trained investigators, diagnostic submission procedures and
laboratory support, and periodic public information and continuing
education programs on diseases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Diagnostic laboratory capabilities. This factor would require
sufficient information to enable APHIS to determine whether the animal
health laboratory system, diagnostic procedures, and quality assurance
measures in the region are sufficient to effectively support
surveillance for the disease(s) under evaluation.
8. Emergency preparedness and response. This factor would require
information sufficient for APHIS to assess emergency preparedness
measures and response capabilities in the region, as well as procedures
in place to notify trading partners and other international entities of
a disease outbreak.
Regions Historically Free of a Disease
In regions in which a significant period of time has elapsed since
a particular disease or infection has occurred, if it has ever
occurred, certain information required as part of the eight factors
listed above would not be applicable or necessary. An example of this
would be some of the information on surveillance, particularly active
pathogen-specific surveillance. In the guidance document for the eight
factors above, APHIS asks for detailed information regarding
surveillance specific to the pathogen under consideration, including
the following: Target populations, targeted prevalence for detection
and estimated confidence level, sampling plan, types of samples
collected, frequency of sampling, and the targeted and actual numbers
of samples collected and the results of screening and confirmatory
testing for the past 3 years.
[[Page 81406]]
However, if a particular disease or infection has not occurred in a
region for many years, the benefit of active surveillance specifically
targeting that pathogen would be minimal. In such a case, it would not
be necessary for APHIS to receive detailed information from the region
regarding active pathogen-specific surveillance. However, to be
recognized as free of a disease, it would still be necessary for the
region to demonstrate an effective early detection system for the
disease(s) under evaluation, as described below.
The World Organization for Animal Health (OIE), of which the United
States is a Member country, is the internationally recognized standard-
setting body that develops science-based recommendations for the safe
trade of animals and animal products. The World Trade Organization has
recognized the OIE as the international forum for setting animal health
standards, reporting global animal disease events, and presenting
guidelines and recommendations on sanitary measures relating to animal
health. The OIE recommends criteria for recognizing a country or zone
free of a disease based on a significant period of time having elapsed
since the disease was last reported, if it was ever reported.\2\ Such
an area is described by the OIE as being historically free of a
disease.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ When discussing areas with regard to animal diseases, OIE's
use of the terms ``country'' and ``zone'' is equivalent to APHIS'
use of the term ``region.'' In Sec. 92.1, a region is defined as
any of the following: (1) A national entity (country); (2) part of a
national entity (zone, county, department, municipality, parish,
Province, State, etc.; (3) parts of several national entities
combined into an area; or (4) a group of national entities combined
into a single area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its Terrestrial Animal Health Code (Code), the OIE recommends
that a region may be recognized as historically free of a disease if
the disease has never occurred in the region or has not occurred for at
least the past 25 years, provided the following conditions have been
met for at least the past 10 years:
The disease has been a notifiable disease; \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The Code defines a notifiable disease as one listed by the
Veterinary Authority in a region that, as soon as it is detected or
suspected, must be brought to the attention of the Veterinary
Authority in accordance with national regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An early detection system has been in place for all
relevant species;
Measures to prevent disease/infection introduction have
been in place and no vaccination against the disease has been carried
out unless otherwise provided in the Code; and
There has been no evidence of infection in wildlife in the
region.
Based on APHIS' experience evaluating the animal health status of
foreign regions, we concur with the OIE's recommended criteria for
being recognized as historically free of a disease, and we are
proposing to add a new paragraph (c) in Sec. 92.2 of the regulations
that would list the factors we will consider in evaluating whether to
recognize a region as historically free. Much of the information is the
same as that required for the eight factors discussed above. However,
consistent with OIE guidelines, APHIS' evaluations for historically
free status will focus on verifying an effective early detection system
for the disease(s) under consideration, disease reporting requirements,
and measures in place to prevent introduction. Therefore, certain
information encompassed by the eight factors would not be required.
In evaluating whether a region can be considered historically free
of a disease, we would consider the following six factors:
Scope of the evaluation being requested;
Veterinary control and oversight;
Disease history and vaccination practices;
Disease reporting;
Disease detection; and
Barriers to disease introduction.
As with the eight factors discussed earlier in this document, more
detailed guidance as to the specific types of information encompassed
by each factor for regions historically free of a disease would be set
forth in a guidance document available on the APHIS Web site or by
contacting APHIS. Instructions for accessing or obtaining the guidance
document would be set forth in Sec. 92.2(c) of the regulations. The
guidance document, ``Clarification of Information Requested for
Recognition of a Historically Free Region,'' is available for review
and comment as part of this rulemaking and may be viewed on the
Regulations.gov Web site or in our reading room.
Consistent with the OIE guidelines, proposed Sec. 92.2(c) would
indicate that, for a region to be considered historically free of a
disease, the disease must not have occurred in domestic livestock for
at least the past 25 years and must not have been reported in wildlife
for at least the past 10 years. An overview of the information required
for each of the factors, as explained in the guidance document, is as
follows.
1. Scope of the evaluation being requested. The information we
would require for this factor is the same as that described for the
eight factors, above.
2. Veterinary control and oversight. This factor would require
sufficient information to enable APHIS to determine whether the
veterinary services in the region have had and continue to have
sufficient legal authority, organization, and infrastructure to
effectively investigate, diagnose, and report the disease(s) under
evaluation, if detected.
3. Disease history and vaccination practices. For this factor, the
requesting authority would need to indicate when each disease under
evaluation was last reported, if ever, in domestic livestock and
wildlife in the region. Additionally, if vaccination against the
disease(s) has occurred within the past 10 years, the request must
include information indicating the reasons for vaccination, the source
and type of vaccines used, target populations, recordkeeping
requirements, and procedures to distinguish vaccinated animals.
4. Disease reporting. This factor would require sufficient
information to enable APHIS to determine whether each disease under
evaluation has been legally notifiable in the region for at least the
past 10 years.
5. Disease detection. This factor would require sufficient
information for APHIS to determine whether an effective early detection
system has been in place for at least the past 10 years for the
disease(s) under evaluation. An effective early detection system would
include, among other things, representative coverage of susceptible
animal populations by field services, a training program for detecting
and reporting unusual animal health incidents, the ability to undertake
effective disease investigation and reporting, and access to
laboratories capable of diagnosing and differentiating relevant
diseases.
6. Barriers to disease introduction. This factor would require
sufficient information for APHIS to determine whether measures have
been in place for at least the past 10 years to prevent introduction of
the disease(s) under evaluation.
Initiation of an Evaluation
Historically, the evaluations APHIS has conducted in accordance
with part 92 have been at the request of a representative of a foreign
jurisdiction. We expect that to continue to be the case the great
majority of the time. However, there might be instances where APHIS
initiates an evaluation on its own initiative. As with evaluations done
at the request of a foreign region, we would consider the factors set
forth in this proposed rule and, if our intent is to recognize the
health status of the region, would give notice in the Federal Register
of that intent, make the
[[Page 81407]]
relevant information and data and our evaluation available to the
public, and accept public comment regarding our intent. After reviewing
and considering any comments received, we would give notice to the
public of our final determination. In this proposed rule, we include a
footnote to Sec. 92.2(a) that references such situations.
Information Received With Requests
Current Sec. 92.2(d) states that the information sent to APHIS
with requests submitted in accordance with part 92 will be made
available to the public prior to initiation by APHIS of any rulemaking
action on the request. Current Sec. 92.2(f) provides that, in cases
where APHIS does publish a proposed rule based on a request, the public
will be provided a period of time to comment on the proposal and that,
during the comment period, the public will have access to the
information upon which APHIS based its analysis supporting the
proposal, as well as its methodology in conducting the analysis.
We believe that the wording of current Sec. 92.2(d) can be
confusing. The intent of that paragraph is to give notice to the public
that, at the time a proposal is published, information supporting the
proposal will have been made available to the public. Such information
is posted on the APHIS Web site. However, the wording of current Sec.
92.2(d) does not indicate how early in the process such information
will be made available to the public. It has been APHIS' practice to
make such information available immediately before publication of a
proposed rule. APHIS does not begin an evaluation until it has
sufficient information to conduct a valid analysis of a request, and
does not take the further action of publishing a proposed rule in the
Federal Register unless it believes the results of the evaluation
support the action being requested. We believe that, until a proposed
rule is ready for publication, it can be confusing and misleading for
the public to review what APHIS considers partial information or
information with regard to which further action may not be taken.
However, we believe it could be useful to the public to know which
foreign regions have requested APHIS' recognition of their animal
health status. Therefore, in this document, we are proposing to remove
the statement in Sec. 92.2(d) that supporting information will be made
available to the public prior to initiation of rulemaking and to
replace it with the statement that a list of regions that have
requested recognition of their animal health status is available to the
public. We will continue to make available to the public by the time
APHIS publishes a proposal in the Federal Register any relevant
information received from a requesting country.
Miscellaneous
As noted above, current paragraph (e) of Sec. 92.2 provides that
if, after evaluating the information submitted with a region's request
for APHIS' recognition of its animal health status, APHIS believes the
action being requested can be safely taken, the Agency will publish a
proposed rule in the Federal Register proposing to take such action and
will provide a period of time during which the public may comment on
the proposal. However, recent rulemaking by APHIS has made it incorrect
to say that a proposed rule will be used in all cases to give notice of
APHIS' intent. On January 24, 2011, we published in the Federal
Register an interim rule (76 FR 4046-4056, Docket No. APHIS-2006-0074)
concerning highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) as it applies to
the importation of live birds and poultry and the products of birds and
poultry. In that interim rule, we provide for a method of notifying the
public of APHIS' intent regarding the HPAI status of a region that
differs somewhat from the method currently provided for in Sec.
92.2(e). Instead of publishing a proposed rule, as provided for in
current Sec. 92.2(e), the HPAI interim rule indicates that a region
will be removed from the list of regions where HPAI is considered to
exist only after APHIS makes its evaluation available for public
comment through a notice published in the Federal Register. The interim
rule provides that, following the close of the comment period, APHIS
will publish another notice responding to comments and announcing
APHIS' decision.
In order to account for such situations where a notice, rather than
proposed rule, will be used to solicit comment regarding APHIS'
evaluation of the animal health status of a foreign region, we are
proposing to revise paragraph (e) of Sec. 92.2 to provide that, if
APHIS believes a request from a foreign region for APHIS' recognition
of its animal health status can be safely granted, APHIS will indicate
its intent and make its evaluation available for public comment through
a document published in the Federal Register. Paragraph (f) of Sec.
92.2 would indicate that, during the comment period, the public will
have access to the information upon which APHIS based its evaluation,
as well as the evaluation itself, and that, once APHIS has reviewed all
comments received, it will make a final determination regarding the
request and will publish that determination in the Federal Register.
Additionally, in this document, we are clarifying which requests
are governed by Sec. 92.2. The scope of Sec. 92.2 is reflected in its
heading, which reads ``Application for recognition of the animal health
status of a region.'' Requests submitted to APHIS in accordance with
part 92 are evaluated by the Regionalization Evaluation Services staff
of APHIS' Veterinary Services. However, the wording in paragraphs (b),
(c), and (e) of current Sec. 92.2 indicates that the section also
governs requests for approval to export a particular type of animal or
animal product to the United States from a foreign region. Although the
evaluations conducted by the Regionalization Evaluation Services staff
can ultimately affect which commodities are allowed importation into
the United States and under what conditions, requests to import
specific types of animals or animal products are governed by parts in 9
CFR other than part 92. To clarify the scope of part 92, we are
proposing to remove from that part the references to exportation of a
particular type of animal or animal product to the United States from a
foreign region.
Currently, Sec. 92.2(c) indicates where requests for recognition
of a region, and information supporting such a request, should be sent.
That paragraph also requests that, where possible, a copy of the
request and supporting information be submitted on a 3.5-inch floppy
disk in ASCII or a word processing format. In this proposal, we include
the address to which requests and supporting information should be sent
in Sec. 92.2(a) instead of Sec. 92.2(c) and propose to remove the
request for submission on a 3.5-inch floppy disk. Such disks are no
longer commonly used. In proposed Sec. 92.2(a), we request that, where
possible, a copy of the request and accompanying information be
included in electronic format.
We are also proposing several nonsubstantive wording changes to
Sec. 92.2 for the sake of clarity.
Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act
This proposed 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 have prepared an economic analysis for this action. The analysis
identifies importers and producers of animals and animal products as
the small entities most likely to be affected by this action and
considers the
[[Page 81408]]
reduction in time it would take under this proposal for APHIS to
initiate and complete an evaluation of the animal disease status of a
region. Based on the information presented in the analysis, we expect
that decreasing the amount of time and APHIS resources required to
initiate and complete such an evaluation would not have a significant
economic effect on the entities affected. We invite comment on our
economic analysis, which is posted with this proposed rule on the
Regulations.gov Web site (see ADDRESSES above for instructions for
accessing Regulations.gov) and may also be obtained from the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Executive Order 12988
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988,
Civil Justice Reform. If this proposed rule is adopted: (1) All State
and local laws and regulations that are inconsistent with this rule
will be preempted; (2) no retroactive effect will be given to this
rule; and (3) administrative proceedings will not be required before
parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed 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 in 9 CFR Part 92
Animal diseases, Imports, Livestock, Poultry and poultry products,
Region, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, we propose to amend 9 CFR part 92 as follows:
PART 92--IMPORTATION OF ANIMALS AND ANIMAL PRODUCTS; PROCEDURES FOR
REQUESTING RECOGNITION OF REGIONS
1. The authority citation for part 92 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.
2. In Sec. 92.2, paragraphs (a) through (f) are revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 92.2 Application for recognition of the animal health status of
a region.
(a) The representative of the national government(s) of any country
or countries who has the authority to make such a request may request
that APHIS recognize the animal health status of a region.\1\ Such
requests must be made in English and must be sent to the Administrator,
c/o National Center for Import and Export, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road
Unit 38, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231. (Where possible, include a copy of
the request and accompanying information in electronic format.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Additionally, APHIS may choose to initiate an evaluation of
the animal health status of a foreign region on its own initiative.
In such cases, APHIS will follow the same evaluation and
notification procedures set forth in this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Requests for recognition of the animal health status of a
region, other than requests submitted in accordance with paragraph (c)
of this section, must include, in English, the following information
about the region. More detailed information regarding the specific
types of information that will enable APHIS to most expeditiously
conduct an evaluation of the request is available at [address to be
added in final rule] or by contacting the Director, Sanitary Trade
Issues Team, National Center for Import and Export, VS, APHIS, 4700
River Road Unit 38, Riverdale, MD 20737.
(1) Scope of the evaluation being requested.
(2) Veterinary control and oversight.
(3) Disease history and vaccination practices.
(4) Livestock demographics and traceability.
(5) Epidemiological separation from potential sources of infection.
(6) Surveillance.
(7) Diagnostic laboratory capabilities.
(8) Emergency preparedness and response.
(c) Requests for recognition that a region is historically free of
a disease based on the amount of time that has elapsed since the
disease last occurred in a region, if it has ever occurred, must
include, in English, the following information about the region. More
detailed information regarding the specific types of information that
will enable APHIS to most expeditiously conduct an evaluation of the
request is available at [address to be added in final rule] or by
contacting the Director, Sanitary Trade Issues Team, National Center
for Import and Export, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 38, Riverdale,
MD 20737. For a region to be considered historically free of a disease,
the disease must not have been reported in domestic livestock for at
least the past 25 years and must not have been reported in wildlife for
at least the past 10 years.
(1) Scope of the evaluation being requested.
(2) Veterinary control and oversight.
(3) Disease history and vaccination practices.
(4) Disease notification.
(5) Disease detection.
(6) Barriers to disease introduction.
(d) A list of those regions that have requested APHIS' recognition
of their animal health status is available at [address to be added in
final rule].
(e) If, after review and evaluation of the information submitted in
accordance with paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, APHIS believes
the request can be safely granted, APHIS will indicate its intent and
make its evaluation available for public comment through a document
published in the Federal Register.
(f) APHIS will provide a period of time during which the public may
comment on its evaluation. During the comment period, the public will
have access to the information upon which APHIS based its evaluation,
as well as the evaluation itself. Once APHIS has reviewed all comments
received, it will make a final determination regarding the request and
will publish that determination in the Federal Register.
* * * * *
Done in Washington, DC, this 19th day of December 2011.
Kevin Shea,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-33206 Filed 12-27-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P