Notice of Determination of the Classical Swine Fever, Swine Vesicular Disease, African Swine Fever, Foot-and-Mouth Disease, and Rinderpest Status of Malta, 37418-37421 [2017-16832]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
37418
Notices
Federal Register
Vol. 82, No. 153
Thursday, August 10, 2017
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains documents other than rules or
proposed rules that are applicable to the
public. Notices of hearings and investigations,
committee meetings, agency decisions and
rulings, delegations of authority, filing of
petitions and applications and agency
statements of organization and functions are
examples of documents appearing in this
section.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Submission for OMB Review;
Comment Request
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES
August 7, 2017.
The Department of Agriculture has
submitted the following information
collection requirement(s) to OMB for
review and clearance under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
Public Law 104–13. Comments are
requested regarding (1) whether the
collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the
functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have
practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the
agency’s estimate of burden including
the validity of the methodology and
assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance
the quality, utility and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (4)
ways to minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who
are to respond, including through the
use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other
technological collection techniques and
other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information
collection received by September 11,
2017 will be considered. Written
comments should be addressed to: Desk
Officer for Agriculture, Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), New Executive Office Building,
725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC
20503. Commentors are encouraged to
submit their comments to OMB via
email to: OIRA_Submission@
omb.eop.gov or fax (202) 395–5806 and
to Departmental Clearance Office,
USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602,
Washington, DC 20250–7602. Copies of
the submission(s) may be obtained by
calling (202) 720–8681.
An agency may not conduct or
sponsor a collection of information
unless the collection of information
displays a currently valid OMB control
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:03 Aug 09, 2017
Jkt 241001
number and the agency informs
potential persons who are to respond to
the collection of information that such
persons are not required to respond to
the collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control
number.
Forest Service
Title: Interagency Generic Clearance
for Federal Land Management Agencies
Collaborative Visitor Feedback Surveys
on Recreation and Transportation
Related Programs and Systems.
OMB Control Number: 0596–0236.
Summary of Collection: Section 1119
of Public Law 112–141, the Moving
Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century
Act (MAP–21) requires the Secretary of
Transportation to implement
transportation planning procedures for
Federal lands and tribal transportation
facilities that are consistent with the
planning processes required under
sections 134 and 135 of title 23[6]. The
section also specifies the collection and
reporting of data necessary to
implement the Federal lands
transportation program, the Federal
lands access program, and the tribal
transportation program in accordance
with the Indian Self-Determination and
Education Assistance Act. The Federal
Land Management Agencies (FLMAs)
include, but are not limited to: Forest
Service, the Bureau of Land
Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, National Park Service, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Presidio
Trust, U.S. Geological Survey, Bureau of
Reclamation and the Department of
Transportation. FLMAs will collect
information to help them improve
transportation conditions, site-or areaspecific services, programs, services,
and recreation and resource
management of FLMA lands.
Need and Use of the Information: A
combination of surveys, focus groups
and interviews, are designed to collect
information about visitors’ perceptions,
experiences and expectations, with
respect to road and/or travel
transportation conditions, services, and
recreation opportunities at various
FLMA locations and across areas that
could include multiple locations
managed by different FLMAs. This
information is vital to establish and/or
revise goals and objectives that will help
improve transportation systems and
recreation and resource management
plans and to facilitate interagency
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
coordination at area, state, regional,
and/or national scales which will better
meet the needs of the public and the
resources under FLMA management.
Description of Respondents:
Individuals or households.
Number of Respondents: 69,900.
Frequency of Responses: Reporting:
On occasion.
Total Burden Hours: 15,255.
Charlene Parker,
Departmental Information Collection
Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 2017–16885 Filed 8–9–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3411–15–P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service
[Docket No. APHIS–2015–0102]
Notice of Determination of the
Classical Swine Fever, Swine Vesicular
Disease, African Swine Fever, Footand-Mouth Disease, and Rinderpest
Status of Malta
Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
We are adding the Republic of
Malta to the lists of regions considered
to be free of swine vesicular disease
(SVD), African swine fever (ASF), footand-mouth disease (FMD), and
rinderpest, and to the list of regions
considered free or low risk for classical
swine fever (CSF), subject to conditions
in the regulations governing the
importation of certain animals and
animal products into the United States.
Based on our evaluation of the animal
health status of Malta, which we made
available to the public for review and
comment through a previous notice, the
Administrator has determined that
Malta is free of SVD, ASF, FMD, and
rinderpest, and is low risk for CSF. This
action establishes the disease status of
Malta with regard to SVD, ASF, FMD,
rinderpest, and CSF while continuing to
protect the United States from
introduction of those diseases.
DATES: This change in disease status
will be recognized on September 11,
2017.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.
Chip Wells, Senior Staff Veterinarian,
Regionalization Evaluation Services,
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\10AUN1.SGM
10AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 153 / Thursday, August 10, 2017 / Notices
National Import Export Services, VS,
APHIS, USDA, 4700 River Road Unit 38,
Riverdale, MD 20737–1231;
Chip.J.Wells@aphis.usda.gov; (301) 851–
3317.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES
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, African swine fever (ASF),
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.
The regulations in 9 CFR 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
information submitted in support of the
request, the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (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
May 13, 2016, we published in the
Federal Register (81 FR 29834–29836,
Docket No. APHIS–2015–0102) a
notice 1 announcing the availability for
review and comment of our risk
evaluation of the FMD, rinderpest, ASF,
CSF, and SVD status of the Republic of
Malta. Based on this evaluation, we
determined that the animal disease
surveillance, prevention, and control
measures implemented by Malta are
sufficient to minimize the likelihood of
introducing FMD, rinderpest, ASF, CSF,
and SVD into the United States via
imports of species or products
susceptible to these diseases.
We also determined in our evaluation
that Malta 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 § 94.31 for pork, pork products, and
swine and § 98.38 for swine semen. We
also determined that the provisions of
1 To view the notice of availability, risk
evaluation, environmental assessment, and the
comment we received, go to https://
www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS2015-0102.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:03 Aug 09, 2017
Jkt 241001
§ 94.11 for import conditions for meat or
meat products from ruminants or swine
from FMD-free regions, and of § 94.13
for import conditions for pork or pork
products from SVD-free regions, are
applicable to Malta. With respect to
rinderpest, the global distribution of the
disease has diminished significantly. 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 July
12, 2016, and received one comment by
that date. The commenter, representing
a national pork industry association,
expressed concern over the risk of
allowing imports into the United States
of live swine, pork and pork products
from Malta. The commenter stated that
any incursion of FMD, CSF, ASF, or
SVD into the United States resulting
from such imports would precipitate an
immediate and costly loss of export
markets for these commodities. The
comment is discussed below.
Disease Surveillance
The commenter disagreed with our
determination that passive disease
surveillance conducted by the
veterinary authority of Malta is
sufficient to mitigate the risk to the
United States from importations of
swine, pork, and pork products.
The commenter noted that in the risk
analysis, we cited Malta’s ‘‘lack of
capacity or intention for developing
exports’’ to support our conclusion that
passive disease surveillance would be
sufficient to detect any cases of CSF,
SVD, ASF, FMD, or rinderpest. In
challenging our conclusion, the
commenter cited two articles. One
article noted Malta’s efforts to improve
the health and management of its pigs
in order to compete with European
Union (EU) pork production standards,
and reported that surplus swine are
exported from Malta to Sicily for
finishing and producing Parma ham.2
The other article stated that Malta was
engaged in discussions with other EU
Member States about exporting pork.3
The commenter asked if the information
contained in these articles is significant
enough for APHIS to reconsider its risk
evaluation and require Malta to
undertake active disease surveillance of
its swine before recognizing Malta as
being free of SVD, ASF, and FMD and
2 ACMC
Ltd., April 18, 2011.
Independent, March 19, 2014: https://
www.independent.com.mt/articles/2014-03-19/
news/plans-to-export-pork-put-on-the-back-burner4309385218/.
3 Malta
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
37419
adding Malta to the APHIS-defined
European CSF region.
We acknowledge the commenter’s
concerns but do not consider the
information presented in the articles to
be sufficient to reconsider the findings
of our risk evaluation. APHIS considers
both active and passive surveillance
activities when evaluating the animal
health system of a region.4 In the case
of Malta, APHIS noted its long history
of disease freedom (over 33 years) based
on the results of both periodic active
(most recently in 2007 and 2010) and
passive surveillance; its geographic
isolation and lack of land borders;
movement controls based on EU
Member State standards; requirements
for farmers and private veterinarians to
file notice of any suspected cases of
diseases of concern; frequent farm visits
by official veterinarians (about every 2
weeks); as well as its small livestock
population and limited capacity to
enlarge the scope or size of its animal
and animal product export market.
These factors lead APHIS to conclude
that the constraints upon enlargement of
the Maltese swine industry have not
changed, and that a primarily passive
surveillance program will be sufficient
to detect incursions of these diseases
early enough to avoid introduction into
the United States.
The commenter also expressed
concern about diseases of swine in
Malta that present symptoms similar to
those caused by FMD, CSF, ASF, and
SVD. The commenter noted that Malta
vaccinates swine for Circo Virus, Pig
Wasting Disease, Atrophic Rhinitis,
Enzootic Pneumonia, and Porcine
Reproductive and Respiratory
Syndrome, and that these diseases are
therefore likely to be present in Malta’s
pig populations. For this reason, the
commenter stated that FMD, SVD, CSF,
and ASF should be considered as
differential diagnoses whenever casecompatible lesions and other signs of
disease are observed and reported in
pigs. The commenter further noted that,
since 2002, the Veterinary Regulation
Directorate of Malta has reported no
suspicious cases with such casecompatible signs. The commenter
concluded that the lack of such reports
suggests that passive surveillance may
not be adequate for early disease
detection, as producers and
veterinarians in Malta are likely seeing
case-compatible lesions and other signs
4 APHIS did cite in its risk assessment that it
concludes that Malta might benefit from an active
CSF surveillance program in order to limit any
spread of disease within the island’s swine
population, but noted that this benefit might be
limited if Malta’s emergency response would be to
completely depopulate its swine herd.
E:\FR\FM\10AUN1.SGM
10AUN1
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES
37420
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 153 / Thursday, August 10, 2017 / Notices
of disease but are not reporting them.
The commenter asked APHIS if this lack
of reporting warrants requiring an active
surveillance program to detect FMD,
SVD, rinderpest, CSF, and ASF in Malta
before APHIS recognizes Malta as free of
these diseases and adds it to the APHISdefined European CSF region.
We acknowledge that an active
surveillance program provides some
benefits for early detection of these
diseases but have determined that
passive surveillance is sufficient to
ensure early disease detection in
Maltese swine, particularly in
combination with other factors. For
instance, Maltese regulations prohibit
the movement of swine that are not
considered healthy regardless of
whether any specific disease has been
diagnosed. Furthermore, APHIS
concludes that Malta has the capacity to
handle initial serology screening and
has a plan to obtain confirmatory testing
at EU community laboratories for
diseases under evaluation.
APHIS does agree with the
commenter that FMD, SVD, CSF, and
ASF should be considered during
passive surveillance program
investigations of cases where casecompatible lesions or other signs are
present. We also agree that a review of
more frequent suspicious case
investigations would increase
confidence in the quality of Malta’s
passive surveillance program. However,
we found no indications of failure
through passive surveillance to detect
FMD, SVD, CSF, and ASF.
The commenter also raised questions
about our statement in the risk analysis
that we ‘‘consider the conditions in
Malta to be equivalent to the conditions
of other EU Member States for which
APHIS imposes additional special
restrictions on the importation of
susceptible animals and their products.’’
The commenter cited a version of the
OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code,5
which states that for domestic pigs,
appropriate surveillance, capable of
detecting the presence of infection even
in the absence of clinical signs, is
required for determining CSF status.
The commenter suggested that APHIS’
decision not to require an active
surveillance program in recognizing
Malta’s CSF status is inconsistent with
surveillance requirements for other
countries in the APHIS-defined
European CSF region. Based on this
information, the commenter asked
APHIS to consider requiring Malta to
implement active surveillance to detect
5 Chapter 15.2, Article 15.2.2, ‘‘General criteria for
the determination of the CSF status of a country,
zone or compartment.’’
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:03 Aug 09, 2017
Jkt 241001
FMD, SVD, CSF, and ASF as a condition
of recognizing its disease status.
We disagree with the commenter’s
point that APHIS’ disease surveillance
requirements for Malta are inconsistent
with those required of other EU Member
States. The commenter has cited
surveillance requirements from an
outdated version of the OIE Terrestrial
Animal Health Code. Chapter 15.2.2 of
the current version 6 of the OIE manual
recommends appropriate surveillance in
accordance with Article 15.2.26, which
states that ‘‘surveillance strategies
employed for demonstrating freedom
from CSF at an acceptable level of
confidence should be adapted to the
local situation.’’ We have determined
that the local conditions in Malta are
equivalent to those of EU Member States
where APHIS imposes additional
special restrictions on the importation
of susceptible livestock. The application
of the requirements of § 94.11 for FMD
and rinderpest, § 94.13 for SVD, and
§§ 94.31 and 98.38 for CSF will mitigate
risk for these diseases in Malta at a level
consistent with that of other EU Member
States authorized to export swine, pork,
and pork products to the United States.
APHIS evaluated multiple factors
regarding Malta’s animal health system
and determined that the country’s
reliance primarily on passive
surveillance is adequate for Malta to
detect incursions of CSF. For this
reason, we determined that the
likelihood is low of CSF being
introduced into the United States
through movement of infected animals
or contaminated animal products from
Malta. We consider our evaluation of
Malta to be consistent with the current
OIE recommendation to determine that
an acceptable level of confidence be
adapted to the local situation.
Waste Feeding
The commenter also raised concerns
about the risk of disease transmission
from the practice of feeding garbage and
other waste to swine raised for export.
The commenter noted that in the risk
evaluation, APHIS stated that ‘‘waste
feeding, specifically, feeding FMDcontaminated meat products to swine, is
regarded as the most likely pathway for
exposure of susceptible livestock to
imported contaminated meat products.’’
The commenter added that APHIS
affirmed this determination again in a
2001 pathways assessment.7 The
commenter asked what level of
confidence does APHIS have that the
assessments adequately reflect the
current risk to the U.S. pork industry,
and suggested that the 1995 work be
repeated using more current data. The
commenter also asked whether APHIS is
confident that swine diseases will be
detected in licensed and unlicensed
garbage-feeding operations and what the
estimated time is for detection in each
of these operations.
We remain confident that the risk
evaluations cited by the commenter
provide an accurate account of risks to
the current U.S. pork industry. If
contaminated meat products were
imported from Malta and managed to
make it into plate waste, U.S. garbage
feeding regulations are sufficient to
mitigate that risk. Treatment of food
waste fed to swine is covered under the
Swine Health Protection Act 8 (SHPA)
regulations in 9 CFR part 166 and
supported by APHIS’ Veterinary Service
(VS) Swine Health Program. 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.
In the 1995 study cited by the
commenter, 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. Furthermore, the
findings of the 2001 APHIS survey the
commenter cited, which showed a
substantial reduction in waste-feeding
operations, indicated that the risk of
FMD exposure via feeding of
contaminated waste to swine was
continuing to decline.
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
6 OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code, 25th
Edition, 2016: https://www.oie.int/
index.php?id=169&L=0&htmfile=chapitre_csf.htm.
7 USDA–APHIS–VS, Pathway assessment of footand-mouth disease (FMD) risk to the United States:
An evaluation in response to international FMD
outbreaks in 2001. United States Department of
Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service, Veterinary Services, Centers for
Epidemiology and Animal Health. 2001. A copy of
the document can be obtained by contacting the
person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
8 7 U.S.C. 3801.
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\10AUN1.SGM
10AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 153 / Thursday, August 10, 2017 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with NOTICES
exposure of domestic swine to CSF,
FMD, SVD, and rinderpest from food
waste originating from Malta.
Environmental Assessment
The commenter noted that in the
supporting documents provided for this
notice, the environmental assessment
(EA) we used to support this notice was
a May 2011 EA for the importation of
swine and swine commodities from
Slovakia. The commenter also noted
that we used an amended finding of no
significant impact (FONSI) from
importation of swine and swine
commodities from Slovakia as the basis
for the amended finding related to
Malta. The commenter asked us to
explain how it is justifiable to use an EA
conducted for another country to amend
the finding to Malta.
Since 2006, we have recognized the
CSF, FMD, SVD, and rinderpest status
for EU Member States Latvia, Lithuania,
Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia,
Slovenia, Estonia, and Hungary.
Given that the EU applies and ensures
enforcement of the same disease
mitigation requirements across all of its
Member States, we recognized that the
single-state EAs we were conducting
were redundant and thus unnecessary
with respect to meeting the
requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). After
consulting with Agency specialists on
NEPA compliance, we conducted an
environmental impact analysis
comparison of the Slovakia EA and
similar proposed actions for other EU
Member States. We determined that the
environmental analysis of the Slovakia
EA is sufficiently similar to cover the
proposed action for Malta. The 2011
Slovakia EA stated that for any like or
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 action regarding Malta.
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 Malta is an EU
Member State and because we have
determined that Malta is free of SVD,
FMD, and rinderpest, and at low risk for
CSF, we conclude that the ‘‘like or
similar action’’ environmental analyses
approach as presented in the 2011
Slovakia EA and FONSI is appropriate
to use with respect to Malta.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:03 Aug 09, 2017
Jkt 241001
Based on the evaluation and the
reasons given in this document in
response to comments, we are
recognizing Malta as free of FMD,
rinderpest, ASF, and SVD, and low risk
for CSF. The lists of regions free of or
at low risk of these diseases or where
these diseases currently exist are
available on the APHIS Web site at:
https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/
ourfocus/animalhealth/animal-andanimal-product-import-information/ct_
animal_disease_status or by contacting
the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
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 4th day of
August 2017.
Michael C. Gregoire,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 2017–16832 Filed 8–9–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–34–P
ARCHITECTURAL AND
TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS
COMPLIANCE BOARD
[Docket No. ATBCB–2017–0002]
Proposed Submission of Information
Collection for OMB Review; Comment
Request; Generic Clearance for the
Collection of Qualitative Feedback on
Agency Service Delivery
Architectural and
Transportation Barriers Compliance
Board.
ACTION: Notice and request for
comments.
AGENCY:
In accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA), the Architectural and
Transportation Barriers Compliance
Board (Access Board) invites comment
on the proposed extension of its existing
generic clearance for the collection of
qualitative feedback on agency service
delivery, which expires in January 2018
(OMB Control No. 3014–0011,
Expiration: Jan. 31, 2018). This
information collection was developed as
part of a Federal Government-wide
effort to streamline the process for
seeking feedback from the public on
service delivery. With this notice, the
Access Board solicits comments on
extension of its existing generic
clearance, with proposed revisions to
the type (and number) of information
collection activities that reflect the
agency’s anticipated increasing use of
customer feedback surveys over the next
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
37421
several years to garner qualitative
feedback and improve service delivery
in a timely and effective manner.
Following review of comments received
in response to this 60-day notice, the
Access Board intends to submit a
request to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) to renew its generic
clearance for collection of qualitative
feedback for another three-year term.
DATES: Submit comments by October 10,
2017.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
by any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
directions for sending comments.
• Email: spiegel@access-board.gov.
Include ATBCB–2017–0002 in the
subject line of the message.
• Fax: 202–272–0081.
• Mail or Hand Delivery/Courier:
Frances Spiegel, Office of General
Counsel, U.S. Access Board, 1331 F
Street NW., Suite 1000, Washington, DC
20004–1111.
Instructions: All submissions received
must include the agency name and
docket number for this Notice
(identified by ATBCB–2017–0002). All
comments received, including any
personal information provided, will be
posted without change to https://
www.regulations.gov. For this reason,
please do not include information of a
confidential nature in your comments,
such as sensitive personal or proprietary
information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Frances Spiegel, Attorney Advisor,
Office of General Counsel, U.S. Access
Board, 1331 F Street NW., Suite 1000,
Washington, DC 20004–1111. Phone:
(202) 272–0041 (voice). Email: spiegel@
access-board.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
Under the PRA and its implementing
regulations (5 CFR part 1320), Federal
agencies must obtain approval from
OMB for each collection of information
they conduct or sponsor (e.g.,
contractually-required information
collection by a third-party). ‘‘Collection
of information,’’ within the meaning of
the PRA, includes agency requests that
pose identical questions to, or impose
reporting or record keeping obligations
on ten or more persons, regardless of
whether response to such request is
mandatory or voluntary. See 5 CFR
1320.3(c); see also 44 U.S.C. 3502(3).
Before seeking clearance from OMB,
agencies are generally required, among
other things, to publish a 60-day notice
in the Federal Register concerning any
proposed information collection—
E:\FR\FM\10AUN1.SGM
10AUN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 153 (Thursday, August 10, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37418-37421]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-16832]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
[Docket No. APHIS-2015-0102]
Notice of Determination of the Classical Swine Fever, Swine
Vesicular Disease, African Swine Fever, Foot-and-Mouth Disease, and
Rinderpest Status of Malta
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are adding the Republic of Malta to the lists of regions
considered to be free of swine vesicular disease (SVD), African swine
fever (ASF), foot-and-mouth disease (FMD), and rinderpest, and to the
list of regions considered free or low risk for classical swine fever
(CSF), subject to conditions in the regulations governing the
importation of certain animals and animal products into the United
States. Based on our evaluation of the animal health status of Malta,
which we made available to the public for review and comment through a
previous notice, the Administrator has determined that Malta is free of
SVD, ASF, FMD, and rinderpest, and is low risk for CSF. This action
establishes the disease status of Malta with regard to SVD, ASF, FMD,
rinderpest, and CSF while continuing to protect the United States from
introduction of those diseases.
DATES: This change in disease status will be recognized on September
11, 2017.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Chip Wells, Senior Staff
Veterinarian, Regionalization Evaluation Services,
[[Page 37419]]
National Import Export Services, VS, APHIS, USDA, 4700 River Road Unit
38, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; Chip.J.Wells@aphis.usda.gov; (301) 851-
3317.
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, African swine fever (ASF), 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.
The regulations in 9 CFR 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 information submitted in support of the request,
the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (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 May 13, 2016, we published in
the Federal Register (81 FR 29834-29836, Docket No. APHIS-2015-0102) a
notice \1\ announcing the availability for review and comment of our
risk evaluation of the FMD, rinderpest, ASF, CSF, and SVD status of the
Republic of Malta. Based on this evaluation, we determined that the
animal disease surveillance, prevention, and control measures
implemented by Malta are sufficient to minimize the likelihood of
introducing FMD, rinderpest, ASF, CSF, 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 the comment we received, go to https://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2015-0102.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also determined in our evaluation that Malta 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 of Sec. 94.13 for import conditions for pork or pork products from
SVD-free regions, are applicable to Malta. With respect to rinderpest,
the global distribution of the disease has diminished significantly. 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 July 12, 2016, and received one comment by that date. The
commenter, representing a national pork industry association, expressed
concern over the risk of allowing imports into the United States of
live swine, pork and pork products from Malta. The commenter stated
that any incursion of FMD, CSF, ASF, or SVD into the United States
resulting from such imports would precipitate an immediate and costly
loss of export markets for these commodities. The comment is discussed
below.
Disease Surveillance
The commenter disagreed with our determination that passive disease
surveillance conducted by the veterinary authority of Malta is
sufficient to mitigate the risk to the United States from importations
of swine, pork, and pork products.
The commenter noted that in the risk analysis, we cited Malta's
``lack of capacity or intention for developing exports'' to support our
conclusion that passive disease surveillance would be sufficient to
detect any cases of CSF, SVD, ASF, FMD, or rinderpest. In challenging
our conclusion, the commenter cited two articles. One article noted
Malta's efforts to improve the health and management of its pigs in
order to compete with European Union (EU) pork production standards,
and reported that surplus swine are exported from Malta to Sicily for
finishing and producing Parma ham.\2\ The other article stated that
Malta was engaged in discussions with other EU Member States about
exporting pork.\3\ The commenter asked if the information contained in
these articles is significant enough for APHIS to reconsider its risk
evaluation and require Malta to undertake active disease surveillance
of its swine before recognizing Malta as being free of SVD, ASF, and
FMD and adding Malta to the APHIS-defined European CSF region.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ ACMC Ltd., April 18, 2011.
\3\ Malta Independent, March 19, 2014: https://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2014-03-19/news/plans-to-export-pork-put-on-the-back-burner-4309385218/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We acknowledge the commenter's concerns but do not consider the
information presented in the articles to be sufficient to reconsider
the findings of our risk evaluation. APHIS considers both active and
passive surveillance activities when evaluating the animal health
system of a region.\4\ In the case of Malta, APHIS noted its long
history of disease freedom (over 33 years) based on the results of both
periodic active (most recently in 2007 and 2010) and passive
surveillance; its geographic isolation and lack of land borders;
movement controls based on EU Member State standards; requirements for
farmers and private veterinarians to file notice of any suspected cases
of diseases of concern; frequent farm visits by official veterinarians
(about every 2 weeks); as well as its small livestock population and
limited capacity to enlarge the scope or size of its animal and animal
product export market. These factors lead APHIS to conclude that the
constraints upon enlargement of the Maltese swine industry have not
changed, and that a primarily passive surveillance program will be
sufficient to detect incursions of these diseases early enough to avoid
introduction into the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ APHIS did cite in its risk assessment that it concludes that
Malta might benefit from an active CSF surveillance program in order
to limit any spread of disease within the island's swine population,
but noted that this benefit might be limited if Malta's emergency
response would be to completely depopulate its swine herd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The commenter also expressed concern about diseases of swine in
Malta that present symptoms similar to those caused by FMD, CSF, ASF,
and SVD. The commenter noted that Malta vaccinates swine for Circo
Virus, Pig Wasting Disease, Atrophic Rhinitis, Enzootic Pneumonia, and
Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome, and that these diseases
are therefore likely to be present in Malta's pig populations. For this
reason, the commenter stated that FMD, SVD, CSF, and ASF should be
considered as differential diagnoses whenever case-compatible lesions
and other signs of disease are observed and reported in pigs. The
commenter further noted that, since 2002, the Veterinary Regulation
Directorate of Malta has reported no suspicious cases with such case-
compatible signs. The commenter concluded that the lack of such reports
suggests that passive surveillance may not be adequate for early
disease detection, as producers and veterinarians in Malta are likely
seeing case-compatible lesions and other signs
[[Page 37420]]
of disease but are not reporting them. The commenter asked APHIS if
this lack of reporting warrants requiring an active surveillance
program to detect FMD, SVD, rinderpest, CSF, and ASF in Malta before
APHIS recognizes Malta as free of these diseases and adds it to the
APHIS-defined European CSF region.
We acknowledge that an active surveillance program provides some
benefits for early detection of these diseases but have determined that
passive surveillance is sufficient to ensure early disease detection in
Maltese swine, particularly in combination with other factors. For
instance, Maltese regulations prohibit the movement of swine that are
not considered healthy regardless of whether any specific disease has
been diagnosed. Furthermore, APHIS concludes that Malta has the
capacity to handle initial serology screening and has a plan to obtain
confirmatory testing at EU community laboratories for diseases under
evaluation.
APHIS does agree with the commenter that FMD, SVD, CSF, and ASF
should be considered during passive surveillance program investigations
of cases where case-compatible lesions or other signs are present. We
also agree that a review of more frequent suspicious case
investigations would increase confidence in the quality of Malta's
passive surveillance program. However, we found no indications of
failure through passive surveillance to detect FMD, SVD, CSF, and ASF.
The commenter also raised questions about our statement in the risk
analysis that we ``consider the conditions in Malta to be equivalent to
the conditions of other EU Member States for which APHIS imposes
additional special restrictions on the importation of susceptible
animals and their products.'' The commenter cited a version of the OIE
Terrestrial Animal Health Code,\5\ which states that for domestic pigs,
appropriate surveillance, capable of detecting the presence of
infection even in the absence of clinical signs, is required for
determining CSF status. The commenter suggested that APHIS' decision
not to require an active surveillance program in recognizing Malta's
CSF status is inconsistent with surveillance requirements for other
countries in the APHIS-defined European CSF region. Based on this
information, the commenter asked APHIS to consider requiring Malta to
implement active surveillance to detect FMD, SVD, CSF, and ASF as a
condition of recognizing its disease status.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Chapter 15.2, Article 15.2.2, ``General criteria for the
determination of the CSF status of a country, zone or compartment.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We disagree with the commenter's point that APHIS' disease
surveillance requirements for Malta are inconsistent with those
required of other EU Member States. The commenter has cited
surveillance requirements from an outdated version of the OIE
Terrestrial Animal Health Code. Chapter 15.2.2 of the current version
\6\ of the OIE manual recommends appropriate surveillance in accordance
with Article 15.2.26, which states that ``surveillance strategies
employed for demonstrating freedom from CSF at an acceptable level of
confidence should be adapted to the local situation.'' We have
determined that the local conditions in Malta are equivalent to those
of EU Member States where APHIS imposes additional special restrictions
on the importation of susceptible livestock. The application of the
requirements of Sec. 94.11 for FMD and rinderpest, Sec. 94.13 for
SVD, and Sec. Sec. 94.31 and 98.38 for CSF will mitigate risk for
these diseases in Malta at a level consistent with that of other EU
Member States authorized to export swine, pork, and pork products to
the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code, 25th Edition, 2016:
https://www.oie.int/index.php?id=169&L=0&htmfile=chapitre_csf.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
APHIS evaluated multiple factors regarding Malta's animal health
system and determined that the country's reliance primarily on passive
surveillance is adequate for Malta to detect incursions of CSF. For
this reason, we determined that the likelihood is low of CSF being
introduced into the United States through movement of infected animals
or contaminated animal products from Malta. We consider our evaluation
of Malta to be consistent with the current OIE recommendation to
determine that an acceptable level of confidence be adapted to the
local situation.
Waste Feeding
The commenter also raised concerns about the risk of disease
transmission from the practice of feeding garbage and other waste to
swine raised for export. The commenter noted that in the risk
evaluation, APHIS stated that ``waste feeding, specifically, feeding
FMD-contaminated meat products to swine, is regarded as the most likely
pathway for exposure of susceptible livestock to imported contaminated
meat products.'' The commenter added that APHIS affirmed this
determination again in a 2001 pathways assessment.\7\ The commenter
asked what level of confidence does APHIS have that the assessments
adequately reflect the current risk to the U.S. pork industry, and
suggested that the 1995 work be repeated using more current data. The
commenter also asked whether APHIS is confident that swine diseases
will be detected in licensed and unlicensed garbage-feeding operations
and what the estimated time is for detection in each of these
operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ USDA-APHIS-VS, Pathway assessment of foot-and-mouth disease
(FMD) risk to the United States: An evaluation in response to
international FMD outbreaks in 2001. United States Department of
Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Veterinary
Services, Centers for Epidemiology and Animal Health. 2001. A copy
of the document can be obtained by contacting the person listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We remain confident that the risk evaluations cited by the
commenter provide an accurate account of risks to the current U.S. pork
industry. If contaminated meat products were imported from Malta and
managed to make it into plate waste, U.S. garbage feeding regulations
are sufficient to mitigate that risk. Treatment of food waste fed to
swine is covered under the Swine Health Protection Act \8\ (SHPA)
regulations in 9 CFR part 166 and supported by APHIS' Veterinary
Service (VS) Swine Health Program. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 7 U.S.C. 3801.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 1995 study cited by the commenter, 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. Furthermore,
the findings of the 2001 APHIS survey the commenter cited, which showed
a substantial reduction in waste-feeding operations, indicated that the
risk of FMD exposure via feeding of contaminated waste to swine was
continuing to decline.
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
[[Page 37421]]
exposure of domestic swine to CSF, FMD, SVD, and rinderpest from food
waste originating from Malta.
Environmental Assessment
The commenter noted that in the supporting documents provided for
this notice, the environmental assessment (EA) we used to support this
notice was a May 2011 EA for the importation of swine and swine
commodities from Slovakia. The commenter also noted that we used an
amended finding of no significant impact (FONSI) from importation of
swine and swine commodities from Slovakia as the basis for the amended
finding related to Malta. The commenter asked us to explain how it is
justifiable to use an EA conducted for another country to amend the
finding to Malta.
Since 2006, we have recognized the CSF, FMD, SVD, and rinderpest
status for EU Member States Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, the Czech
Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Estonia, and Hungary.
Given that the EU applies and ensures enforcement of the same
disease mitigation requirements across all of its Member States, we
recognized that the single-state EAs we were conducting were redundant
and thus unnecessary with respect to meeting the requirements of the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). After consulting with Agency
specialists on NEPA compliance, we conducted an environmental impact
analysis comparison of the Slovakia EA and similar proposed actions for
other EU Member States. We determined that the environmental analysis
of the Slovakia EA is sufficiently similar to cover the proposed action
for Malta. The 2011 Slovakia EA stated that for any like or 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 action regarding Malta.
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 Malta is an EU Member State
and because we have determined that Malta is free of SVD, FMD, and
rinderpest, and at low risk for CSF, we conclude that the ``like or
similar action'' environmental analyses approach as presented in the
2011 Slovakia EA and FONSI is appropriate to use with respect to Malta.
Based on the evaluation and the reasons given in this document in
response to comments, we are recognizing Malta as free of FMD,
rinderpest, ASF, and SVD, and low risk for CSF. The lists of regions
free of or at low risk of these diseases or where these diseases
currently exist are available on the APHIS Web site at: https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/animalhealth/animal-and-animal-product-import-information/ct_animal_disease_status or by contacting
the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
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 4th day of August 2017.
Michael C. Gregoire,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-16832 Filed 8-9-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
