Notice of Determination of the Classical Swine Fever, Foot-and-Mouth Disease, Rinderpest, and Swine Vesicular Disease Status of Croatia, 64387-64392 [2015-27092]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
• Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 205 (Friday, October 23, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64387-64392]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-27092]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

[Docket No. APHIS-2014-0042]


Notice of Determination of the Classical Swine Fever, Foot-and-
Mouth Disease, Rinderpest, and Swine Vesicular Disease Status of 
Croatia

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: We are adding Croatia to the lists of regions that are 
considered free of foot-and-mouth disease, rinderpest, and swine 
vesicular disease, and to the list of regions considered free or low 
risk for classical swine fever. We are taking this action because we 
have determined that this region is free of foot-and-mouth disease, 
rinderpest, and swine vesicular disease, and is low risk for classical 
swine fever. This action establishes the disease status of Croatia with 
regard to foot-and-mouth disease, rinderpest, swine vesicular disease, 
and classical swine fever while continuing to protect the United States 
from an introduction of those diseases.

DATES: Effective November 23, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Donald Link, Import Risk Analyst, 
Regionalization Evaluation Services, National Import Export Services, 
Veterinary Services, APHIS, 920 Main Campus Drive, Suite 200, Raleigh, 
NC 27606; (919) 855-7731; Donald.B.Link@aphis.usda.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The regulations in 9 CFR part 94 (referred to below as the 
regulations) govern the importation of certain animals and animal 
products into the United States to prevent the introduction of various 
animal diseases, including classical swine fever (CSF), foot-and-mouth 
disease (FMD), rinderpest, and swine vesicular disease (SVD). The 
regulations prohibit or restrict the importation of live ruminants and 
swine, and products from these animals, from regions where these 
diseases are considered to exist.
    Within part 94, Sec.  94.1 contains requirements governing the 
importation of ruminants and swine from regions where rinderpest or FMD 
exists and the importation of the meat of any ruminants or swine from 
regions where rinderpest or FMD exists to prevent the introduction of 
either disease into the United States. We consider rinderpest and FMD 
to exist in all regions except those listed in accordance with 
paragraph (a) of that section as free of rinderpest and FMD. Section 
94.9 contains requirements governing the importation of pork and pork 
products from regions where CSF exists. Section 94.10 contains 
importation requirements for swine from regions where CSF is considered 
to exist and designates the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 
(APHIS)-defined European CSF region as a single region of low-risk for 
CSF. Section 94.31 contains requirements governing the importation of 
pork, pork products, and swine from the APHIS-defined European CSF 
region. We consider CSF to exist in all regions of the world except 
those listed in accordance with paragraph (a) of Sec.  94.9 as free of 
the disease.
    Section 94.11 of the regulations contains requirements governing 
the importation of meat of any ruminants or swine from 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. Such 
regions are listed in accordance with paragraph (a) of that section.
    Section 94.12 of the regulations contains requirements governing 
the importation of pork or pork products from regions where SVD exists. 
We consider SVD to exist in all regions of the world except those 
listed in accordance with paragraph (a) of that section as free of SVD.
    Section 94.13 contains importation requirements governing the 
importation of pork or pork products from regions that have been 
declared free of SVD as provided in Sec.  94.12(a) but supplement their 
national pork supply by the importation of fresh (chilled or frozen) 
meat of animals from regions where SVD is considered to exist, or have 
a common border with such regions, or have trade practices that are 
less restrictive than are acceptable to the United States. Such regions 
are listed in accordance with paragraph (a) of Sec.  94.13.
    Section 94.14 states that no swine which are moved from or transit 
any region in which SVD is known to exist may be imported into the 
United States except wild swine imported in accordance with Sec.  
94.14(b).
    The regulations in 9 CFR part 92, Sec.  92.2, contain requirements 
for requesting the recognition of the animal health status of a region 
(as well as for the approval of the export of a particular type of 
animal or animal product to the United States from a foreign region). 
If, after review and evaluation of the

[[Page 64388]]

information submitted in support of the request, APHIS believes the 
request can be safely granted, APHIS will make its evaluation available 
for public comment through a document published in the Federal 
Register.
    In accordance with that process, on February 3, 2015, we published 
in the Federal Register (80 FR 5728-5729, Docket No. APHIS-2014-0042) a 
notice \1\ announcing the availability for review and comment of our 
risk evaluation of the CSF, FMD, rinderpest, and SVD status of Croatia. 
Based on this evaluation, we determined that that the animal disease 
surveillance, prevention, and control measures implemented by Croatia 
are sufficient to minimize the likelihood of introducing CSF, FMD, 
rinderpest, and SVD into the United States via imports of species or 
products susceptible to these diseases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ To view the notice of availability, risk evaluation, 
environmental assessment, and comments we received, go to https://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2014-0042.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, we determined in our evaluation that Croatia is low 
risk for CSF and therefore eligible to be added to the APHIS-defined 
European CSF region. This region is subject to the conditions in Sec.  
94.31 for pork, pork products, and swine and Sec.  98.38 for swine 
semen. We also determined that the provisions of Sec.  94.11 for import 
conditions for meat or meat products from ruminants or swine from FMD-
free regions, and Sec.  94.13 for import conditions for pork or pork 
products from SVD-free regions, are applicable to Croatia.
    With respect to rinderpest, the global distribution of the disease 
has diminished significantly in recent years as a result of the Food 
and Agriculture Organization Global Rinderpest Eradication Program. The 
last known cases of rinderpest worldwide occurred in the southern part 
of the ``Somali pastoral ecosystem'' consisting of southern Somalia, 
eastern Kenya, and southern Ethiopia. In May 2011, the World 
Organization for Animal Health (OIE) announced its recognition of 
global rinderpest freedom.
    We solicited comments on the notice of availability for 60 days 
ending on April 6, 2015. We received two comments by that date, both 
from national pork industry associations. Both commenters raised 
specific concerns about disease risks regarding our proposed action to 
recognize Croatia as being free of FMD, rinderpest, and SVD, and low 
risk for CSF, as this action would allow for the importation into the 
United States of swine, pork, and pork products from Croatia subject to 
the regulations. The comments are discussed below.

Smuggling of Prohibited Articles

    The commenters noted that international passenger traffic was 
identified in the APHIS evaluation as a key risk factor for the 
introduction of the disease hazards. The commenters stated that limited 
data exists to determine the quantity of prohibited products smuggled 
into Croatia and that APHIS obtained estimates of international 
passenger traffic from 2006 data that is no longer current. The 
commenters requested that we require Croatia to provide updated 
information on passenger traffic in order to determine if the risk 
evaluation needs to be modified.
    We agree with the commenter that limited data exists regarding 
smuggling of prohibited products into Croatia. Such data is by its 
nature limited because the intent of smuggling is to avoid disclosure, 
documentation, or inspection. We also acknowledge the volume of 
international passenger traffic into Croatia and agree that the 
introduction of prohibited products into Croatia could play a role in 
the transmission of animal diseases. As the commenters requested, we 
have provided more recent data for passenger traffic into Croatia.
    Data available from the World Bank indicates that 9,111,000, 
9,927,000, and 10,369,000 international inbound tourists (overnight 
visitors) entered Croatia in 2010, 2011, and 2012, respectively.\2\ 
Additional data published by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation 
and Development (OECD) \3\ (see Table 1) indicates total inbound 
tourism and primary countries of origin for arriving passengers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/ST.INT.ARVL. The data on 
inbound tourists refer to the number of arrivals, not to the number 
of people traveling. Thus a person who makes several trips to a 
country during a given period is counted each time as a new arrival.
    \3\ Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 
(2014), ``Croatia'', in OECD Tourism Trends and Policies 2014, OECD 
Publishing. (Data cited by OECD was sourced from Croatian Bureau of 
Statistics data on tourism: https://www.dzs.hr/default_e.htm.)

          Table 1--Inbound Tourism: Total Arrivals and Primary Countries of Origin, Croatia, 2008-2012
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       2008            2009            2010            2011            2012
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Intl Arrivals (x1000).....           8,665           8,694           9,111           9,927          10,369
Top Markets (x1000).
    Germany.....................           1,405           1,463           1,525           1,661           1,853
    Slovenia....................             985             963           1,017           1,100           1,054
    Italy.......................           1,009           1,058           1,018           1,150           1,051
    Austria.....................             692             776             810             892             946
    Czech Republic..............             589             579             606             638             647
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the above data indicates that Croatia has seen an increase in 
the number of international arrivals over the period indicated, the 
data does not change our conclusions in the risk evaluation. The 
updated number of arrivals does not differ substantially from the 2006 
number we used in the risk evaluation. Additionally, the primary 
countries of origin listed in Table 1 for arriving passengers are other 
European Union (EU) Member States that APHIS recognizes to be free of 
FMD and rinderpest and low risk for CSF. Germany, Slovenia, Austria, 
and the Czech Republic are also free of SVD, as are several regions of 
Italy. We determined in the Croatia risk evaluation and previous swine 
disease status assessments of the EU and individual Member States that 
the animal health rules governing trade and travel between Member 
States mitigate the risk of contagious animal disease transmission 
through international passenger traffic.
    We conclude that the risk of virus introduction into Croatia via 
the pathway of intentionally smuggled or unintentionally carried 
prohibited products is effectively mitigated by implementing EU-level 
and Croatian national policies regarding commodities for personal 
consumption and by the interdiction efforts of Croatia's Border 
Veterinary Inspection and International

[[Page 64389]]

Trade (BVIITS) and Customs departments. As described in the risk 
analysis, BVIITS and Customs are the Croatian authorities responsible 
for the inspection and confiscation and disposal of prohibited animal 
products at Croatia's points of entry. Furthermore, in addition to 
border controls, we determined in our risk assessment that Croatia has 
systems in place for surveillance and early detection of CSF, FMD, SVD, 
and rinderpest should any of these diseases be introduced via incoming 
passenger traffic into Croatia or any other pathway.

Disease Detection and Surveillance

    The commenters stated concerns over the ability of commercial swine 
operations in Croatia to conduct surveillance for and detect foreign 
animal diseases. As evidence, the commenters cited in the risk 
evaluation a reference to an interview we conducted with the operator 
of a company-owned swine fattening farm, in which the operator seemed 
more aware of potential production impacts than on the clinical signs 
that would accompany an outbreak of CSF or SVD. The commenters asked if 
APHIS is confident that the level of awareness of swine operations in 
Croatia is sufficient for early detection of trade-limiting foreign 
animal diseases of swine. They recommended that prior to announcing a 
decision on Croatia's disease status, we should require Croatia to 
provide us with verification that the industry has been provided with 
the training or educational materials necessary to assist in active 
disease surveillance.
    We reply that APHIS is confident in the level of awareness for 
swine diseases in Croatia's commercial swine operations. This 
particular commercial fattening farm represents Croatia's high 
intensity, high biosecurity, vertically integrated production and 
marketing system. Given the advanced swine husbandry standards, 
premises monitoring by company veterinarians, swine disease training, 
awareness and sampling, APHIS considers it highly likely that a trade-
limiting swine disease in Croatia would be quickly detected and 
contained. Additionally, we consider Croatia's commercial swine 
production system to be the most likely source of pork or pork products 
for export to the United States, and consider the risk of undetected 
CSF-, FMD-, or SVD-contaminated products being sourced from this 
production chain to be low.
    Regarding this particular commercial farm and farm operator, 
despite the observation the commenters cited in the risk evaluation, 
the same farm operator seemed knowledgeable of farm operations, company 
procedures, and Croatian veterinary and legal requirements. As noted on 
page 43 of the risk evaluation, we also observed evidence of strong 
operational, biosecurity, and recordkeeping practices on that farm, as 
well as strong veterinary oversight. State veterinary authorities 
reported that the farm receives educational information distributed by 
Croatia's Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Rural Development 
(MAFRD) and that company officials have attended swine disease symposia 
organized by the MAFRD Veterinary Directorate, which is the central 
competent authority for animal health and veterinary services in 
Croatia. In addition, a company veterinarian visits the premises every 
2 weeks on average or when called to provide veterinary care. We also 
observed that the authorized veterinarian for this farm visits 
regularly to issue health certificates and movement documents.
    Overall, our Croatia risk evaluation determined that Croatia has an 
effective surveillance system in place for detection of swine diseases, 
including surveillance strategies for the commercial swine sector. We 
agree with the commenters that early disease detection is a core 
element of all trade-participating countries and we saw no evidence 
that Croatia was lacking in this regard.

Small Farms and Backyard Premises

    The commenters noted that we considered the disease risk posed by 
the small, family-operated breeding farm we visited (and backyard 
premises in general) to be different from that of vertically integrated 
commercial swine production systems, particularly with respect to 
animal disease traceability, animal sampling, and biosecurity. The 
commenters recommended that, before making a decision on Croatia's 
disease status, we require Croatia to provide a plan for risk reduction 
for small farms and backyard premises that addresses improving pre-
harvest traceability, disease and biosecurity awareness, and disease 
sampling strategies that aid in early detection of trade-limiting 
foreign animal diseases.
    In reply, we do consider the disease risk posed by small family-
operated breeding farms and backyard premises to differ from the risk 
associated with Croatia's vertically integrated commercial swine 
production systems. However, we also observed measures that mitigate 
the risks associated with the small family-operated breeding farm we 
visited, including satisfactory operational, husbandry, and biosecurity 
standards. The farm controlled and catalogued on- and off-farm 
movements of animals, people, and supplies, and satisfied animal 
disease traceability requirements. Additionally, this farm was included 
in Croatia's swine disease surveillance program, as are other small 
farms in Croatia.
    Regarding risk reduction plans, we note that Croatia does have such 
a plan in place for CSF in the form of legislation that places 
additional restrictions on swine, pork, and pork products produced in 
or moving from the counties of Vukovar-Srijem, Sisak-Moslavina, 
Karlovac, and Brod-Posavina, which are considered higher risk for CSF 
due to past serological events for CSF in feral swine. The family-
operated breeding farm visited by APHIS was in Karlovac County and thus 
subject to these additional restrictions. As noted in the risk 
evaluation,\4\ the additional risk reduction measures include specific 
biosecurity requirements such as cleaning and disinfection of vehicles 
and equipment. Additional measures also require that domestic swine 
from premises situated in the higher-risk counties can be marketed 
within Croatia if they undergo clinical examination and sampling 
procedures prior to movement from the premises of origin. The swine 
must also test negative for CSF within the 7 days prior to movement, 
and no swine must have been introduced to the premises within 30 days 
prior to movement. Domestic swine from higher-risk counties must be 
accompanied by a health certificate that includes the number of swine, 
place of origin, date of clinical examination, and disease sampling and 
diagnostic test results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Section 4, ``Active Disease Control Programs,'' page 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The additional risk reduction measures stipulate that fresh meat, 
meat preparations, or meat products consisting of or containing meat of 
swine originating from premises in Karlovac, Vukovar-Srijem, and Sisak-
Moslavina Counties may be marketed and sold outside of these counties 
only if no evidence of CSF has been recorded in the previous 12 months 
on the premises and the premises is located outside a protection or 
surveillance zone. The swine are required to have resided for at least 
90 days on the premises, and no swine are permitted to have been 
introduced into the premises within the previous 30 days before 
dispatch to slaughter. Under the additional risk reduction measures, 
Croatia also requires each premises to be

[[Page 64390]]

inspected by an authorized veterinarian, including appropriate clinical 
examination and sampling of animals, twice per year. If swine are moved 
directly to slaughter, the animals are required to be clinically 
examined and sampled by an authorized veterinarian, culminating in a 
signed health certificate. Finally, the additional restrictions prevent 
semen, ova, and embryos from swine from these higher-risk counties from 
being marketed outside of those counties.

Animal Movement Safeguards

    The commenters stated concern about the movement of swine within 
Croatia, noting that swine can be kept in livestock markets for no more 
than 12 hours and must be returned to the premises if not sold in that 
time. The commenters noted that commingling of swine outside of a 
production system or premises of origin at a market presents an 
elevated risk of disease transmission. For this reason, the commenters 
asked APHIS to clarify what, if any, regulations apply to reporting 
that animal movement back to the premises of origin and if there are 
any quarantine or movement restrictions or disease monitoring placed on 
that animal. The commenters recommended that APHIS ensure that 
reporting takes place for animal movement back to the premises of 
origin, that there are quarantine or movement restrictions as 
necessary, and that official monitoring for disease be in place and 
verified by Croatia.
    We agree with the commenters that commingling of potentially 
infected but undetected swine in markets could contribute to rapid 
transmission and spread of contagious swine diseases. We acknowledged 
on page 46 of our risk evaluation that backyard premises with a single 
pig are exempt from most of Croatia's premises and animal registration 
requirements and that this presents a gap in animal disease 
traceability. We also acknowledged that backyard premises may present a 
biosecurity gap as some may not always conduct animal disease sampling 
or collect, analyze, and respond to changes in production data.
    However, we consider it unlikely that animals/products from small 
farms or backyard premises will enter the export chain, as the movement 
and marketing patterns of Croatia's small farms and family premises are 
local and domestic in scope. Additionally, we concluded from our risk 
evaluation that the risk of disease transmission in small farm and 
backyard premises is mitigated at the premises and market levels. 
Although these premises are exempt from entry in the Croatian 
Agricultural Agency's Farm Register database, they must report the 
purchase of any pig to the competent veterinary organization at the 
time of delivery. Moreover, as the pig is most likely fed and fattened 
for personal consumption, we consider it unlikely that the pig would be 
moved off of a single- or double-swine backyard premises. Any swine 
that do move from a small premises require a movement permit and 
corresponding health certificate, and would most likely enter the local 
livestock market and be subject to the regulations enforced there. 
Livestock market regulations include the requirement that each animal 
consignment arriving to the market must be accompanied by a veterinary 
health certificate, issued within 30 days prior to movement, indicating 
veterinary inspection was performed prior to animals leaving the 
premises, as well as a travel document indicating that the transport 
vehicle underwent cleaning and disinfection.
    Finally, the risk associated with an infected animal arriving at an 
animal market and being sent back to the premises of origin is also 
mitigated by veterinary inspection and corresponding documentation 
prior to animals moving to the market, as well as by the requirement 
that transport vehicles be disinfected.
    Disease risk is further mitigated by other control measures that 
can be implemented in the event that a contagious animal disease is 
suspected or confirmed. The measures we observed included disinfection 
wheelbaths for vehicles and footbaths for people, and requiring that 
employees don personal protective clothing prior to entering the sale 
and transfer part of the market. Animal disease awareness educational 
pamphlets and contingency plans were on display in the market office, 
and the market has participated in disease outbreak simulation 
exercises.
    Overall, we determined that Croatia has a sufficient infrastructure 
in place for reporting movement of pigs, including livestock markets, 
and concluded that disease monitoring took place at all critical points 
of Croatia's movement and marketing channels.

Surveillance for African Swine Fever

    The commenters noted that Croatia conducts active surveillance for 
CSF, SVD, and FMD. However, they asked if we could determine whether 
active or passive surveillance is conducted for African swine fever 
(ASF), and whether the veterinary authority in Croatia rules out ASF in 
swine that present for inspection with case-compatible lesions.
    We do not currently consider Croatia affected with ASF and did not 
conduct an evaluation of Croatia's ASF status. Thus, as the commenters 
acknowledged, passive and active surveillance for ASF are not 
specifically related to the risk assessment, which was conducted 
specifically for CSF, FMD, SVD, and rinderpest. However, we did 
conclude that Croatia maintains effective CSF and FMD emergency 
response plans, so if a disease investigation was triggered by case-
compatible lesions we consider it highly likely that ASF would be 
appropriately confirmed or ruled out by Croatian veterinary officials.
    We acknowledge that ASF has been a concern in the EU and in areas 
adjacent to the EU. The EU has laid down prevention and control 
measures \5\ to be applied where ASF is suspected or confirmed, either 
in agricultural establishments or in wild boars. As an EU Member State, 
Croatia is required to implement EU-mandated prevention and control 
measures for all swine diseases, including ASF. APHIS continues to 
monitor the ASF situation in the EU, and Croatia would be subject to 
any restrictive action that APHIS takes towards the EU or individual 
Member States to mitigate the risk of introduction of ASF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:02002L0060-20080903:EN:NOT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CSF Testing Methods

    The commenters stated that the methods of investigation and testing 
in Croatia for suspected cases of CSF included in the risk evaluation 
appear to be inconsistent with the laboratory methods conducted in the 
United States that ensure rapid detection of CSF from samples submitted 
from a farm. The commenters suggested that this inconsistency could 
result in a significant delay in confirming the presence of CSF on 
farms in Croatia with case-compatible lesions and recommended that the 
competent veterinary authority of Croatia be required to improve 
laboratory detection methods so they are equivalent to those used in 
the United States.
    Under OIE guidelines, APHIS import risk analyses are required to 
assess whether the end result of a sanitary measure or standard, in 
this case CSF detection methodology and disease confirmation, is 
equivalent to the end result of the importing country's measure or 
standard. While Croatia's CSF investigation and testing procedures may 
diverge slightly from U.S. protocols, we concluded from information 
gathered during the site visit that Croatia's CSF diagnostic

[[Page 64391]]

testing protocols are in accordance with international standards and 
their end result would be rapid detection of CSF. We determined that 
Croatia's laboratory system was capable of quickly and accurately 
receiving, processing, and completing diagnostic tests on samples 
received. We also determined that these labs were able to accurately 
diagnose CSF, FMD, and SVD, distinguish them from differential 
diagnoses, and quickly communicate test results to the Croatian 
Veterinary Directorate and back to the field. Finally, we determined 
that Croatia's epidemiological investigations will capably trigger an 
appropriate surveillance response that would result in timely and 
accurate diagnosis of CSF.

Contaminated Food Waste

    The commenters questioned our determination that contaminated food 
waste from Croatia poses a low disease risk to swine in the United 
States, noting that the risk findings we cited to help support this 
determination were conducted in 1995 and 2001 and do not reflect 
current risks to the U.S. pork industry.
    One risk the commenters cited was the increased interstate trade of 
swine from States that allow the regulated feeding of garbage. The 
commenters recommended that the 1995 assessment be repeated using more 
recent data.
    To the commenter's point, if contaminated meat products were 
imported from Croatia and managed to make it into plate waste, U.S. 
garbage feeding regulations will mitigate that risk. In 1995, we 
conducted a pathway analysis to estimate the likelihood of exposing 
domestic swine to infected waste. With 95 percent confidence, we 
estimated that 0.023 percent or less of plate and manufacturing waste 
would be inadequately processed prior to feeding to swine. Based on 
this percentage, less than 1 part in 4,300 of imported beef fed to 
swine as plate or manufacturing waste is likely to be inadequately 
cooked. The findings of a 2001 APHIS survey, which showed a substantial 
reduction in waste-feeding operations, further indicated that the risk 
of FMD exposure via feeding of contaminated waste to swine was 
continuing to decline.
    Treatment of food waste to be fed to swine is covered under the 
Swine Health Protection Act \6\ (SHPA) regulations in 9 CFR part 166 
and supported by APHIS' Veterinary Service (VS) Swine Health Program 
(SHP). Under the regulations, waste feeder operations must be licensed 
and regularly inspected by APHIS inspectors. In addition to other 
safeguards, the licensing process requires that producers adequately 
cook the waste fed to swine using methods designed to destroy foreign 
animal disease agents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 7 U.S.C. 3801.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We acknowledge that waste feeding continues to be a potential 
pathway for transmission of swine diseases and that interstate trade 
patterns are subject to change. We maintain, however, that the 1995 and 
2001 risk findings, combined with existing SHPA requirements, indicate 
to us a low likelihood of exposure of domestic swine to CSF, FMD, SVD, 
and rinderpest from food waste originating from Croatia.

Verification of Garbage Heating Requirements

    The commenters noted that the SHPA requires licensed facilities to 
have quarterly or bi-yearly temperature checks of garbage-cooking 
equipment for a minimum of two and a maximum of four temperature checks 
each fiscal year. The commenters asked how many of the licensed garbage 
feeders actually were temperature checked twice in 2014 by a regulatory 
official. They indicated concerns with the records licensed facilities 
maintain to verify that they are meeting cooking time and temperature 
requirements on days they are not inspected, and recommended that we 
determine what records licensed facilities maintain in order to provide 
such verification to State and Federal animal health officials.
    While we require that licensed U.S. garbage-feeding facilities 
observe all garbage heating requirements under the SHPA regulations, 
cooking temperature and treatment requirements are outside the scope of 
this risk evaluation. Regulations addressing these practices are 
contained in 9 CFR part 166 and include provisions for inspection of 
heating equipment and records. Garbage-feeding facilities suspected of 
violating the regulations for storing and heating garbage for feeding 
are subject to license suspension or revocation.

Unlicensed Garbage Feeders

    The commenters presented data from APHIS-VS reports to the U.S. 
Animal Health Association's Transmissible Diseases of Swine Committee 
indicating that, from 2009 to 2013, the number of non-licensed garbage 
feeders found by State and Federal animal health authorities in 
searches for non-licensed feeders was 104, 142, 68, 125, and 160, 
respectively. The commenters asked if APHIS has any supporting 
information on estimates of the number of unlicensed garbage-feeding 
facilities. Citing the disease risk posed by unlicensed garbage-feeding 
operations, the commenters expressed concern with our level of 
confidence that foreign animal diseases can be detected promptly in 
unlicensed garbage-feeding operations and asked if our emphasis on 
finding non-licensed feeders increased or decreased over the past 
couple of years. Procedures for the handling, processing, and feeding 
of food waste to swine in the United States are subject to our swine 
health protection regulations in 9 CFR part 166. Compliance with the 
regulations has improved in recent years, thereby reducing the 
probability of survival of FMD virus in the food waste. Searches for 
non-licensed garbage feeding facilities are regularly conducted using 
several different techniques as part of the duties of APHIS animal 
health staff, as well as State animal health and other State agency 
staff. During fiscal year 2014, animal health and other inspectors 
conducted 28,774 searches for non-licensed garbage feeding facilities 
with 122 documented non-licensed facilities identified, which indicates 
that unlicensed activity is infrequent.
    When unlicensed garbage feeding facilities are identified, the 
unauthorized activity is documented, and the facility is brought into 
compliance. Depending on the State, all swine on such premises may be 
quarantined and tested for foreign animal diseases. Information on the 
number of inspections conducted to detect unlicensed garbage feeding 
facilities, the number of unlicensed facilities identified, and 
resolution of cases resulting from such identification are captured at 
the State level and evaluated by APHIS on a regular basis. Given the 
regular monitoring of these facilities and their relatively small 
number, we stand by the conclusions we reached in our 1995 risk 
analysis cited above.

SHPA Budget

    The commenters stated a concern that budget cuts to APHIS-VS and 
State animal health officials have negatively affected the ability to 
effectively carry out the regulatory activities supporting the SHPA. 
They also expressed concern that the reduction in such activities has 
reduced the number of inspection and searches for unlicensed garbage-
feeding operations to a level that is lower than what was indicated in 
the 1995 risk analysis.
    Budget cuts to APHIS have necessitated a reordering of priorities 
in relation to SHPA-related activities. We have deemphasized or passed 
on to State partners or other cooperators lower-yield activities, such 
as visiting

[[Page 64392]]

restaurants to inquire about garbage-disposal methods, in favor of 
allowing inspectors to spend more time interacting with and educating 
swine producers and conducting inspections. The regular presence of 
APHIS inspectors in U.S. garbage feeding facilities provides 
opportunities to educate operators on disease signs and reporting 
requirements and to conduct direct observation of animals for signs of 
illness. APHIS believes, therefore, that the presence of animal 
products infected with FMD or other reportable conditions entering the 
United States would be detected more quickly in these types of premises 
than in other, unregulated premises.

Environmental Assessment

    The commenters noted that the environmental assessment (EA) 
provided with this rulemaking was the May 2011 EA for the importation 
of swine and swine commodities from Slovakia. They also noted that 
APHIS provided a supporting document that was an amended finding of no 
significant impact (FONSI) from importation of swine and swine 
commodities from Croatia that uses the EA from Slovakia as the basis 
for the amended finding related to Croatia. The commenters requested 
that APHIS expand on how it is justifiable to use an EA prepared for 
other countries and apply it to Croatia.
    APHIS has conducted animal health status evaluations for multiple 
EU Member States for swine diseases. Since 2006 we have recognized the 
CSF, FMD, SVD, and/or rinderpest status for EU Member States Latvia, 
Lithuania, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Estonia, and 
Hungary, and for certain countries that have entered into agricultural 
equivalence agreements with the EU. In each case, we determined that 
measures are in place to mitigate the risk of CSF, SVD, FMD, and/or 
rinderpest introduction into the United States through importation of 
swine, swine commodities, ruminants, and ruminant commodities from 
countries or regions that we recognize as low risk for CSF and free of 
SVD, FMD, and rinderpest.
    Given that the EU applies and ensures enforcement of the same 
disease mitigation requirements across all EU Member States, we 
recognized that the single-state evaluations we were conducting were 
redundant and thus unnecessary with respect to meeting the requirements 
of the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA). After we consulted 
with Agency specialists on NEPA, we did an environmental impact 
analysis comparison of the 2011 Slovakia EA analysis in regards to the 
proposed action of this notice for the EU Member State Croatia and 
determined that the environmental analyses of the Slovakia EA were 
similar and sufficient to cover the proposed action for Croatia. The 
2011 Slovakia EA stated that for any like/similar future 
regionalization actions proposed for EU Member States, APHIS would 
incorporate the Slovakia EA by reference in a new FONSI issued for a 
proposed new action for an EU Member State. That is what we have done 
for this proposed action for Croatia.
    Additionally, we determined that future proposed actions of this 
nature pose negligible environmental impacts to each EU Member State or 
country that has entered into an agricultural equivalency agreement 
with the EU, provided that a disease assessment finds them to be free 
of or a low risk for relevant diseases. As Croatia is an EU Member 
State and because we have determined that Croatia is free of SVD, FMD, 
and rinderpest, and at low risk for CSF, we believe that the ``like/
similar action'' environmental analyses approach as presented in the 
2011 Slovakia EA/FONSI is appropriate to use for the proposed action 
for Croatia.
    Based on the evaluation and the reasons given in this document in 
response to comments, we are recognizing Croatia as free of FMD, 
rinderpest, and SVD, and low risk for CSF. The lists of regions 
recognized as free or at low risk of these diseases can be found by 
visiting the APHIS Web site at https://www.aphis.usda.gov/wps/portal/aphis/ourfocus/importexport and following the link to ``Animal or 
Animal Product.'' Copies of the lists are also available via postal 
mail, fax, or email upon request to the Regionalization Evaluation 
Services, National Import Export Services, Veterinary Services, Animal 
and Plant Health Inspection Service, 4700 River Road Unit 39, 
Riverdale, Maryland 20737.

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 450, 7701-7772, 7781-7786, and 8301-8317; 21 
U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.

    Done in Washington, DC, this 19th day of October 2015.
Kevin Shea,
Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-27092 Filed 10-22-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3410-34-P