[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 57 (Thursday, March 23, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15521-15526]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-7211]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

9 CFR Part 94

[Docket No. 98-034-2]
RIN 0579-AA96


Importation of Poultry Meat and Other Poultry Products From 
Sinaloa and Sonora, Mexico

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are amending the regulations concerning the importation of 
animal products to relieve certain restrictions on the importation of 
poultry meat and other poultry products from the Mexican States of 
Sinaloa and Sonora. Because of the existence of exotic Newcastle 
disease in Mexico, we have required poultry meat and other poultry 
products from Sinaloa and Sonora to be cooked, sealed, and packaged to 
certain specifications to be eligible for entry into the United States. 
This rule establishes new, less restrictive conditions for the

[[Page 15522]]

importation of poultry meat and other poultry products from Sinaloa and 
Sonora into the United States. This action is based on a risk 
assessment indicating that such importations will present a negligible 
risk of introducing exotic Newcastle disease into the United States.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 24, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Michael David, Senior Staff 
Veterinarian, National Center for Import and Export, VS, APHIS, 4700 
River Road Unit 39, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 734-5034.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture (USDA) regulates the importation of animals 
and animal products into the United States to guard against the 
introduction of animal diseases not currently present or prevalent in 
this country. The regulations pertaining to the importation of animals 
and animal products are set forth in the Code of Federal Regulations 
(CFR), title 9, chapter I, subchapter D (9 CFR parts 91 through 99).
    The regulations in part 94 pertain to, among other things, the 
importation of meat and other animal products into the United States. 
Section 94.6 of the regulations governs the importation of carcasses, 
or parts or products of carcasses, of poultry, game birds, or other 
birds from regions where exotic Newcastle disease (END) is considered 
to exist. Specifically, the regulations allow poultry carcasses, or 
parts or products of poultry carcasses, to be imported for consumption 
from regions where END is considered to exist if: (1) The poultry is 
packed in hermetically sealed containers and cooked by a commercial 
method after such packing to produce articles that are shelf stable 
without refrigeration; (2) the poultry is thoroughly cooked and appears 
to have a thoroughly cooked appearance throughout upon APHIS inspection 
at the port of arrival; or (3) the poultry is imported under permit 
after APHIS determines the importation as such will not constitute a 
risk of introducing or disseminating END into the United States.
    On May 21, 1999, we published in the Federal Register (64 FR 27711-
27717, Docket No. 98-034-1) a proposal to establish a new Sec. 94.22 to 
allow the importation of poultry meat and other poultry products from 
the States of Sinaloa and Sonora, Mexico, under conditions less 
restrictive than provided in Sec. 94.6. We based our proposed rule on 
information presented to APHIS by the Mexican Government in 1994 in a 
request to recognize the Mexican States of Sinaloa and Sonora as free 
of END, and on a site visit that APHIS officials made to Mexico in 1997 
to verify that Sinaloa and Sonora had the veterinary infrastructure, 
disease control programs, diagnostic capabilities, and surveillance 
programs necessary to diagnose and prevent an introduction of END. 
Following the site visit, we performed a qualitative risk assessment on 
the importation of poultry meat and other poultry products from 
federally inspected slaughtering and processing plants in Sinaloa and 
Sonora. The qualitative risk assessment indicated that such 
importations would present a negligible risk of introducing END into 
the United States.
    Based on the finding of negligible risk, we proposed to relieve 
restrictions on the importation of poultry meat and other poultry 
products from Sinaloa and Sonora, Mexico. However, we proposed to allow 
the poultry meat and other poultry products to be imported only under 
certain conditions, to help prevent the possibility that poultry meat 
and other poultry products from poultry raised in regions of Mexico 
other than Sinaloa or Sonora could be exported to the United States via 
Sinaloa or Sonora. We wanted to prevent the following possibilities: 
That poultry from regions of Mexico other than Sinaloa or Sonora could 
be moved to Sinaloa or Sonora for slaughter, processing, and export to 
the United States; that poultry meat or other poultry products from 
other regions could be moved to Sinaloa or Sonora for export to the 
United States; or that, once leaving Sinaloa or Sonora, poultry meat or 
other poultry products from Sinaloa or Sonora could be commingled with 
poultry meat or other poultry products from other regions of Mexico in 
transit to the United States. We stated our belief that the proposed 
import conditions would provide a higher degree of safety against the 
occurrence of any of these scenarios.
    In the proposed rule, we set forth (1) our reasons for believing 
that the importation of poultry meat and other poultry products from 
Sinaloa and Sonora could be accomplished safely under certain 
conditions; (2) the proposed import conditions for poultry meat and 
other poultry products from Sinaloa and Sonora; and (3) our basis for 
the proposed import conditions. The proposed import conditions follow:
    1. The poultry meat or other poultry products must be derived from 
poultry that were born and raised in Sinaloa or Sonora and slaughtered 
in Sinaloa or Sonora at a federally inspected slaughter plant under the 
direct supervision of a full-time salaried veterinarian of the 
Government of Mexico, and the slaughter plant must be approved to 
export poultry meat and other poultry products to the United States in 
accordance with 9 CFR 381.196.
    2. If processed in any manner, the poultry meat or other poultry 
products must be processed at a federally inspected processing plant in 
Sinaloa or Sonora under the direct supervision of a full-time salaried 
veterinarian of the Government of Mexico.
    3. The poultry meat or other poultry products may not have been in 
contact with poultry from any State in Mexico other than Sinaloa and 
Sonora or from any other region not listed in Sec. 94.6 as a region 
where END is not known to exist.
    4. The foreign meat inspection certificate for the poultry meat or 
other poultry products (required by the Food Safety and Inspection 
Service, USDA, under 9 CFR 381.197) must be signed by a full-time 
salaried veterinarian of the Government of Mexico. The certificate must 
include statements that certify the above conditions have been met. The 
certificate must also show the seal number on the shipping container if 
a seal is required (see below).
    5. In addition, if the poultry meat or other poultry products are 
going to transit any State in Mexico other than Sinaloa or Sonora, or 
any other region not listed in Sec. 94.6 as a region where END is not 
known to exist, en route to the United States, a full-time salaried 
veterinarian of the Government of Mexico must apply serially numbered 
seals to the containers carrying the poultry meat or other poultry 
products at the federally inspected slaughter or processing plant in 
Sinaloa or Sonora, and the seal numbers must be recorded on the foreign 
meat inspection certificate.
    6. Prior to its arrival in the United States, the shipment of 
poultry meat or other poultry products may not have been in any State 
in Mexico other than Sinaloa or Sonora or in any other region not 
listed in Sec. 94.6 unless the poultry meat or poultry products have 
remained under seal until arrival at the U.S. port and either (1) the 
numbers on the seals match the numbers on the foreign meat inspection 
certificate or (2) if the numbers on the seals do not match the numbers 
on the foreign meat inspection certificate, an APHIS representative at 
the port of arrival is satisfied that the poultry meat or poultry 
products were not contaminated during movement to the United States.

[[Page 15523]]

    We solicited comments concerning our proposal for 60 days ending 
July 20, 1999. We received 14 comments by that date. They were from an 
association representing U.S. veterinarians, three associations 
representing the U.S. poultry industry, several associations 
representing the Mexican poultry industry, and one individual. The 
comments are discussed below by topic.

Eggs and Egg Products

    Nine commenters supported the proposed rule but requested that 
APHIS clarify under what conditions eggs and egg products from Sinaloa 
and Sonora are eligible for importation into the United States. They 
also asked if the proposed rule relieved restrictions on the 
importation of eggs and egg products from Sinaloa and Sonora. One 
commenter requested that we include new conditions for importing eggs 
and egg products from Mexico in our proposal.
    The proposed rule did not alter or otherwise affect the 
restrictions currently in place for eggs and egg products from Mexico. 
While our use of the term ``poultry meat and other poultry products'' 
in our proposal could be construed to include eggs and egg products, it 
was not our intent to allow eggs and egg products to be imported from 
Sinaloa and Sonora under conditions less restrictive than those 
currently in place. Further, our risk assessment did not take into 
account the risk associated with eggs and egg products, nor did we 
develop any new conditions specific to the importation of eggs and eggs 
products for this rule.
    Because Salmonella enteriditis phage-type 4 is considered to exist 
in Mexico, eggs from any Mexican State, including Sinaloa and Sonora, 
may only be imported into the United States in accordance with the 
conditions contained in Sec. 94.6(d) of the regulations. We are 
currently reviewing our S. enteriditis regulations, and should we 
determine that changes are warranted, we will publish a proposed rule 
in the Federal Register for comment.

Food Safety and Oversaturation of the U.S. Poultry Market

    One commenter opposed the proposed rule based on concerns about 
food safety and the potential for oversaturating the U.S. poultry 
market. He cited concern about the potential for poultry meat and other 
poultry products from Sinaloa and Sonora to carry Salmonella, Listeria 
spp., and Campylobacter. The commenter suggested that poultry from 
Mexico should be clearly labeled in stores so it is not confused with 
poultry raised in the United States. The commenter also stated that 
there is little need for imports of poultry and eggs from Mexico, 
considering that the United States is experiencing an egg surplus and 
spent fowl with little or no market.
    APHIS regulates the importation of animals and animal products into 
the United States to guard against the introduction of animal diseases 
not currently present or prevalent in this country. Our chief 
responsibility is to safeguard American agriculture from foreign animal 
diseases. However, no poultry meat or other poultry products from 
Sinaloa or Sonora are eligible to enter into U.S. commerce until USDA's 
Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) has approved such imports. 
Issues related to food safety and poultry imports from Mexico will be 
addressed by FSIS if and when FSIS approves such imports. Product 
labeling also falls under the jurisdiction of FSIS.
    As stated earlier, we are not amending the restrictions currently 
in place for eggs from Mexico in this rule. Further, by amending the 
regulations regarding the importation of poultry meat and other poultry 
products from Sinaloa and Sonora, Mexico, as requested by the 
Government of Mexico, APHIS has acted in accordance with trade 
agreements entered into by the United States, including the North 
American Free Trade Agreement and the Uruguay Round of the General 
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. APHIS is bound under these agreements 
to relieve restrictions on foreign imports of animals and animal 
products, if requested to do so, if we determine that decreased 
restrictions on imports will not result in a significant risk of 
introducing foreign animal diseases into the United States, regardless 
of the domestic need for such imports.

Compliance With the Regulations

    Four commenters supported our proposal provided we could ensure 
compliance with the proposed regulations. In addition, one commenter 
stated that if APHIS amends the regulations to allow poultry meat and 
other poultry products from Sinaloa and Sonora to be imported into the 
United States under the conditions described in our proposal, APHIS 
should conduct an ongoing monitoring, evaluation, and verification 
program to ensure compliance with the regulations.
    We will inspect shipments of poultry meat and other poultry 
products from Sinaloa and Sonora, Mexico, upon arrival in the United 
States to review the foreign meat inspection certificate and to check 
the seals on containers. However, we do not intend to conduct a more 
rigorous monitoring, evaluation, and verification program because, as 
stated in our proposal and in this document, we believe both Sinaloa 
and Sonora have the veterinary infrastructure, disease control 
programs, diagnostic capabilities, and surveillance programs necessary 
to diagnose and prevent an introduction of END. It is in both States' 
interest to take measures necessary to prevent an outbreak of END and 
to comply with APHIS regulations. Should APHIS determine that poultry 
meat or other poultry products from Sinaloa or Sonora have not met all 
the conditions of this rule, the poultry meat or other poultry products 
will be refused entry into the United States.
    Therefore, for the reasons given in the proposed rule and in this 
document, we are adopting the proposed rule as a final rule, without 
change.

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. The rule 
has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive 
Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of 
Management and Budget.
    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 604, we have performed a final 
regulatory flexibility analysis regarding the economic effect of this 
rule on small entities. This analysis also provides a cost-benefit 
analysis.
    In accordance with 21 U.S.C. 111, the Secretary of Agriculture is 
authorized to promulgate regulations to prevent the introduction or 
dissemination of the contagion of any contagious, infectious, or 
communicable disease of animals from a foreign country into the United 
States.
    This final rule relieves certain restrictions on the importation of 
poultry meat and other poultry products from the States of Sinaloa and 
Sonora, Mexico, by establishing new conditions for the importation of 
poultry meat and other poultry products from Sinaloa and Sonora into 
the United States.
    Currently, no poultry slaughter facilities in the States of Sinaloa 
or Sonora are approved by the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) 
of the U.S. Department of Agriculture to export poultry meat or other 
poultry products to the United States. Poultry processing facilities in 
Sinaloa and Sonora will need FSIS approval prior to exporting poultry 
meat or other poultry products to the United States. Further, based on 
the following analysis, we anticipate that, if and when Mexican 
facilities receive FSIS approval to export poultry meat or other 
poultry products to the United States, the economic effect

[[Page 15524]]

of those imports on U.S. producers and processors will be minimal.
    As part of our analysis, we compared the expected benefits of 
importing poultry meat and other poultry products from Sinaloa and 
Sonora to the expected costs resulting from a possible disease 
outbreak. A qualitative risk assessment prepared by APHIS indicates 
that the expected costs of disease introduction are likely to be zero, 
as the imports pose a low probability of causing an outbreak of exotic 
Newcastle disease (END) in the United States.
    The benefits of allowing poultry imports from Sinaloa and Sonora 
under less restrictive conditions are calculated as the net change in 
consumer and producer surplus that results from the estimated volume of 
trade. Assuming that, among other things, poultry meat and other 
poultry products from Sinaloa and Sonora will be a perfect substitute 
for domestic poultry meat and other poultry products, it is estimated 
that the net benefits of the imports will be positive. Allowing 
importations of poultry meat and other poultry products from Sinaloa 
and Sonora will cause U.S. farm gate prices to decrease marginally, 
benefiting U.S. consumers.
    Our economic analysis examines the potential economic effects of 
such imports under low- (100 metric tons per year), medium- (1,000 
metric tons per year), and high- (5,000 metric tons per year) volume 
scenarios. We chose these levels because 5,000 metric tons is the 
highest volume of poultry meat Mexico has ever exported to the world. 
Further, recently, there have been years when Mexico has exported no 
poultry meat. Therefore, we used the above import level scenarios based 
on Mexico's poultry export history.
    For the low-volume scenario, consumer surplus is estimated to 
increase by $67,172 (1996 dollars) and producer surplus would decrease 
by $67,166, resulting in a net annual benefit of $6. The price of 
poultry would fall by $0.006 per metric ton. The medium-volume scenario 
shows an increase in consumer surplus of $671,734, a decrease in 
producer surplus of $671,645, and a net benefit of $89. The price of 
poultry would decrease by $0.063 per metric ton. Under the high-volume 
scenario, consumer surplus would rise by $3,358,942, and producer 
surplus would fall by $3,357,902, for a net benefit of $1,040. Poultry 
prices would decrease by $0.30 per metric ton. It is apparent that 
expected economic effects are very small for each of the scenarios.

The United States Poultry Market

    Since the mid-1960s, there have been dramatic changes in the market 
structure, production technology, and retail marketing of broiler 
products. Production efficiency has been increased by continuing 
improvements in genetics, nutrition, housing, equipment, disease 
control, and management. Improved production efficiency is demonstrated 
in the reduction of feed and time required for producing a broiler 
chicken. Growing a 4.5 lb. broiler in 1940 required 14 weeks and 4 
pounds of feed per pound of live bird. Today, the same size bird can be 
produced in 6.5 weeks with less than 2 pounds of feed per pound of 
bird.
    Managerial decisionmaking has shifted from single proprietorship 
farming operations to vertically integrated poultry producing-
processing-marketing firms, in which production and marketing decisions 
are centralized in a single entity that is either owned directly or 
controlled through contracts.
    Improvement in poultry house technology enables producers to raise 
chickens in large confinement units throughout the year, resulting in 
increased production efficiency and consequent reductions in production 
cost. By 1995, almost all (99 percent) broilers were produced by 
vertically integrated companies. In 1978, in the United States, the 
four largest broiler companies controlled 21.4 percent of national 
production, and the eight largest broiler companies controlled 36 
percent. By 1998 the four largest companies produced approximately 47 
percent of national production, while the eight largest companies 
produced about 63 percent.
    The potential economic effects of the importation of poultry meat 
and other poultry products from the Mexican States of Sinaloa and 
Sonora on national, regional, and local poultry producers are dependent 
on a number of factors, such as where the products will be consumed in 
the United States. While it is currently unknown exactly how poultry 
meat and other poultry products from Sinaloa and Sonora will enter U.S. 
marketing and distribution channels and where they would ultimately be 
consumed, it is likely that they will be shipped by truck through 
Nogales, AZ. Other U.S. States in the region that could receive poultry 
from Sinaloa and Sonora are California, New Mexico, and Texas. It is 
unclear whether poultry from Sinaloa and Sonora will be consumed only 
in these four States. If poultry from Sinaloa and Sonora were purchased 
by a local retail chain or wholesaler, it would likely be consumed 
regionally. If it were purchased by a national wholesaler, it could be 
consumed anywhere in the United States. The effect on small producers 
will be more pronounced if Sinaloa and Sonora imports affect only 
California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas producers. For the purpose 
of this analysis, we examined both the possibility that poultry meat 
and other poultry products from Sinaloa and Sonora will be consumed 
locally in these four southwestern States and also the possibility that 
they will enter national distribution channels.
    The Small Business Administration (SBA) defines small poultry farms 
(Standard Industrial Code 0251) as those earning less than $500,000 in 
annual sales, except for sales of chicken eggs. Industry experts 
suggest that only those poultry operations producing in excess of 
270,000 broiler chickens earn $500,000 or more in sales annually.
    According to the SBA definition, at least 99 percent of poultry 
farms in Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas and 97 percent of poultry farms 
in California are small entities. There were 1,241 small poultry farms 
in the four States in 1997, and only 4 farms with estimated annual 
revenues greater than $500,000. For the United States as a whole, in 
1997, there were an estimated 10,289 small poultry farms. Although some 
structural changes may have occurred among broiler producers since the 
1997 Census of Agriculture, it can be assumed that poultry farms remain 
predominantly small entities.
    According to the Census of Agriculture, in 1997, Texas' average 
sales by small poultry farms ($75,294) were higher than the national 
average ($62,714), while sales in California were lower ($46,855). 
There are no comparable data for Arizona's and New Mexico's poultry 
farmers.
    Whether we consider the United States as a whole or only selected 
southwestern States, the overwhelming majority of poultry farms are 
small entities. It is reasonable to conclude that, if U.S. poultry 
producers are affected by this rule, a substantial number will be small 
entities.

Economic Effects on Small Entities

    There is no general rule that sets threshold or trigger levels for 
``significant economic impact;'' however, it has been suggested that an 
economic effect that equals a small business' profit margin--5 to 10 
percent of annual sales--could be considered significant.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Verkuil, Duke Law Journal, 1982.

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

[[Page 15525]]

    We used estimated changes in producer surplus together with the 
1997 Census of Agriculture data on poultry inventories and poultry 
sales to develop very rough estimates of the economic effects of this 
rule on small poultry farmers across the United States and in selected 
southwestern States. To do this, we assumed that losses in producer 
surplus are shared equally among all poultry farms in the geographic 
area under consideration (either the entire United States or selected 
southwestern States). We then compared per farm changes in producer 
surplus with small farms' annual sales to determine whether the 
economic effects approached the 5-10 percent threshold.
    If poultry meat and other poultry products from Sinaloa and Sonora 
enter national distribution channels and, therefore, economic effects 
are shared by all U.S. producers, there will not be a significant 
economic effects on small entities no matter which level (low, medium, 
or high volume) of imports is assumed. Producer surplus losses per U.S. 
poultry farm will range from $2 to $103 per year, and these amounts are 
substantially less than 1 percent of the typical small poultry farmer's 
annual sales in every scenario.
    If, under the high-volume scenario, the maximum 5,000 metric tons 
are imported annually from Sinaloa and Sonora and consumed locally in 
Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas, there likely will not be a 
significant economic effect on small entities no matter which level 
(low, medium, or high volume) of imports is assumed. Producer surplus 
losses per poultry farm in the selected southwestern States will range 
from $10 to $488 per year, and these amounts are less than 1 percent of 
the typical small California or Texas poultry farmer's annual sales in 
every scenario. Since we have no data available on sales in Arizona and 
New Mexico, we cannot determine the effect of this rule on producers in 
those States.
    A substantial number (99 percent) of U.S. broiler farms meet the 
SBA size criteria for designation as small entities. However, this rule 
is not likely to have a significant economic effect on them. Even under 
the high-volume import assumption, there will not be a significant 
economic effect on small U.S. poultry farms, no matter where the 
Mexican poultry is imported and consumed. Under the most extreme 
assumptions (imports of 5,000 metric tons and limited geographic area 
affected), small poultry producers in California and Texas will 
experience losses in producer surplus equaling less than 1 percent of 
annual sales, which does not meet the suggested criteria for 
significant economic effect. Further, we expect that this action will 
have a similar effect on small poultry producers in Arizona and New 
Mexico, though we do not have the data to confirm this.
    It is very unlikely that a volume of 5,000 metric tons of poultry 
meat or other poultry products will be exported from Sinaloa and Sonora 
to the United States since Mexico is not a major exporter of poultry 
meat or other poultry products. Mexico had yearly world exports of 
5,000 metric tons of poultry meat and poultry products in 1990, 1991, 
and 1992. However, in 1993, 1994, 1995, Mexico exported no poultry meat 
and other poultry products, and since 1996 has exported less than 1,000 
metric tons of poultry meat and other poultry products annually.
    Further, even under the high-volume scenario (5,000 metric tons), 
Mexico's exports to the United States represent less than .05 percent 
of total U.S. poultry production (over 14 million metric tons in 1997).

Alternatives Considered

    In developing this rule, we considered: (1) Making no changes to 
the existing regulations governing the importation of poultry meat and 
other poultry products from Sinaloa or Sonora, Mexico; (2) allowing the 
importation of poultry meat and other poultry products from Sinaloa and 
Sonora under conditions different from those set forth in this 
document; or (3) allowing the importation of poultry and poultry 
products from Sinaloa and Sonora under the conditions set forth in this 
document.
    We rejected the first alternative because poultry meat and other 
poultry products from Sinaloa and Sonora appear to present little risk 
of introducing END into the United States, and taking no action would 
not be scientifically defensible and would be contrary to trade 
agreements entered into by the United States. We also rejected the 
second alternative, which would allow the importation of poultry meat 
and other poultry products from Sinaloa and Sonora under conditions 
other than those set forth in this document. In developing the criteria 
for the importation of such poultry meat and other poultry products, we 
determined that conditions less stringent than those set forth would 
present a risk of the introduction of END into the United States via 
poultry meat or other poultry products from regions of Mexico other 
than Sinaloa or Sonora. We further concluded that more stringent 
conditions would be unnecessarily restrictive.
    We consider the conditions set forth by this rule to be both 
effective and necessary in ensuring that the risk of END introduction 
via poultry meat and other poultry product imports from Sinaloa and 
Sonora remains at a negligible level.
    This rule contains various recordkeeping requirements, which were 
described in our proposed rule, and which have been approved by the 
Office of Management and Budget.

Executive Order 12988

    This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, 
Civil Justice Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts all State and local laws 
and regulations that are inconsistent with this rule; (2) has no 
retroactive effect; and (3) does not require administrative proceedings 
before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.

National Environmental Policy Act

    An environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact 
have been prepared for this rule. The assessment provides a basis for 
the conclusion that the importation of poultry meat and other poultry 
products from Sinaloa and Sonora, Mexico, under the conditions 
specified in this rule will not present a significant risk of 
introducing or disseminating END into the United States and will not 
have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment. 
Based on the finding of no significant impact, the Administrator of the 
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that an 
environmental impact statement need not be prepared.
    The environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact 
were prepared in accordance with: (1) The National Environmental Policy 
Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), (2) 
regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality for implementing 
the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), (3) USDA 
regulations implementing NEPA (7 CFR part 1b), and (4) APHIS' NEPA 
Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 372).
    Copies of the environmental assessment and finding of no 
significant impact are available for public inspection at USDA, room 
1141, South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW., 
Washington, DC, between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
except holidays. Persons wishing to inspect copies are requested to 
call ahead on (202) 690-2817 to facilitate entry into the reading room. 
In

[[Page 15526]]

addition, copies may be obtained by writing to the individual listed 
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 
3501 et seq.), the information collection or recordkeeping requirements 
included in this rule have been approved by the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) under OMB control number 0579-0144.

List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 94

    Animal diseases, Imports, Livestock, Meat and meat products, Milk, 
Poultry and poultry products, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Accordingly, we are amending 9 CFR part 94 as follows:

PART 94--RINDERPEST, FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE, FOWL PEST (FOWL 
PLAGUE), EXOTIC NEWCASTLE DISEASE, AFRICAN SWINE FEVER, HOG 
CHOLERA, AND BOVINE SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY: PROHIBITED AND 
RESTRICTED IMPORTATIONS

    1. The authority citation for part 94 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 147a, 150ee, 161, 162, and 450; 19 U.S.C. 
1306; 21 U.S.C. 111, 114a, 134a, 134b, 134c, 134f, 136, and 136a; 31 
U.S.C. 9701; 42 U.S.C. 4331 and 4332; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 
371.2(d).

    2. A new Sec. 94.22 is added to read as follows:


Sec. 94.22  Importation of poultry meat and other poultry products from 
Sinaloa and Sonora, Mexico.

    Notwithstanding any other provisions of this part, poultry meat and 
other poultry products from the States of Sinaloa and Sonora, Mexico, 
may be imported into the United States under the following conditions:
    (a) The poultry meat or other poultry products are derived from 
poultry born and raised in Sinaloa or Sonora and slaughtered in Sinaloa 
or Sonora at a federally inspected slaughter plant under the direct 
supervision of a full-time salaried veterinarian of the Government of 
Mexico, and the slaughter plant must be approved to export poultry meat 
and other poultry products to the United States in accordance with 9 
CFR 381.196.
    (b) If processed, the poultry meat or other poultry products were 
processed in either Sinaloa or Sonora, Mexico, in a federally inspected 
processing plant that is under the direct supervision of a full-time 
salaried veterinarian of the Government of Mexico.
    (c) The poultry meat or other poultry products have not been in 
contact with poultry from any State in Mexico other than Sinaloa or 
Sonora or with poultry from any other region not listed in Sec. 94.6 as 
a region where exotic Newcastle disease is not known to exist.
    (d) The foreign meat inspection certificate accompanying the 
poultry meat or other poultry products (required by 9 CFR 381.197) 
includes statements certifying that the requirements in paragraphs (a), 
(b), and (c) of this section have been met and, if applicable, listing 
the numbers of the seals required by paragraph (e)(1) of this section.
    (e) The shipment of poultry meat or other poultry products has not 
been in any State in Mexico other than Sinaloa or Sonora or in any 
other region not listed in Sec. 94.6 as a region where exotic Newcastle 
disease is not known to exist, unless:
    (1) The poultry meat or other poultry products arrive at the U.S. 
port of entry in shipping containers bearing intact, serially numbered 
seals that were applied at the federally inspected slaughter plant by a 
full-time salaried veterinarian of the Government of Mexico, and the 
seal numbers correspond with the seal numbers listed on the foreign 
meat inspection certificate; or
    (2) The poultry meat or other poultry products arrive at the U.S. 
port of entry in shipping containers bearing seals that have different 
numbers than the seal numbers on the foreign meat inspection 
certificate, but, upon inspection of the hold, compartment, or 
container and all accompanying documentation, an APHIS representative 
is satisfied that the poultry containers were opened and resealed en 
route by an appropriate official of the Government of Mexico and the 
poultry meat or other poultry products were not contaminated or exposed 
to contamination during movement from Sinaloa or Sonora to the United 
States.

    Done in Washington, DC, this 20th day of March 2000.
Bobby R. Acord,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 00-7211 Filed 3-22-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-U