[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 76 (Tuesday, April 20, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 21042-21047]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-8893]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

9 CFR Parts 94 and 98

[Docket No. 98-090-7]
RIN 0579-AB03


Classical Swine Fever Status of France and Spain

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are amending the regulations concerning the importation of 
animals and animal products to recognize France and Spain as regions in 
which classical swine fever (CSF) is not known to exist, and from which 
breeding swine, swine semen, and pork and pork products may be imported 
into the United States under certain conditions, in the absence of 
restrictions associated with other foreign animal diseases of swine. 
This rulemaking will ensure that breeding swine, swine

[[Page 21043]]

semen, and pork and pork products imported from France or Spain have 
originated in one of those countries or in any other region recognized 
by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service as free of CSF and 
that, prior to export to the United States, such animals and animal 
products have not been commingled with animals and animal products from 
regions where CSF exists.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 20, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Chip Wells, Senior Staff 
Veterinarian, Regionalization Evaluation Services Staff, National 
Center for Import and Export, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 38, 
Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 734-4356.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture regulates the importation of animals and 
animal products to guard against the introduction of animal diseases 
into 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).
    On June 25, 1999, we published in the Federal Register (64 FR 
34155-34168, Docket No. 98-090-1) a proposal to, among other things, 
amend the regulations regarding the importation of swine and swine 
products from a specifically defined region in the European Union (EU) 
consisting of Austria, Belgium, France, Greece, Luxembourg, the 
Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, and parts of Germany and Italy. (For 
convenience, we refer to individual countries of this EU region as 
``Member States.'') In proposing to recognize smaller regions within 
Germany and Italy as free of classical swine fever (CSF, which we 
referred to in the proposed rule as hog cholera), we defined the 
administrative units for purposes of regionalization in those two 
Member States as the kreis for Germany and the region for Italy. An 
administrative unit was considered to be the smallest administrative 
jurisdiction in the Member State with effective oversight of normal 
animal movements into, out of, and within that jurisdiction, and that, 
in association with national authorities, if necessary, has the 
responsibility for controlling animal diseases locally.
    Before developing our proposed rule, we prepared a risk analysis to 
estimate the likelihood of introducing CSF from the EU region, and to 
determine what, if any, mitigation measures would be necessary. We 
assessed the likelihood of introducing CSF through the importation of 
live breeding swine, swine semen, and pork and pork products. We made 
the risk analysis available to the public during the comment period for 
the proposed rule.
    We solicited comments concerning our proposed rule for 60 days 
ending August 24, 1999. One of the commenters expressed concerns with 
several aspects of our risk analysis. Based on the concerns expressed 
in that comment, and as recommended by the Department's Office of Risk 
Assessment and Cost Benefit Analysis, we revised our risk analysis and 
included a supplement that presented in more detail specific 
information about CSF outbreaks in the EU region. The revised risk 
analysis was titled ``Risk Analysis for Importation of Classical Swine 
Fever Virus in Swine and Swine Products from the European Union--
December 2000.''
    On April 7, 2003, we published in the Federal Register (68 FR 
16922-16940, Docket No. 98-090-5) a final rule that, among other 
things, amended the regulations to recognize a smaller region in the EU 
consisting of Austria, Belgium, Greece, the Netherlands, Portugal, and 
parts of Germany and Italy as free of CSF. In the final rule, APHIS did 
not recognize France, Spain, or Luxembourg as free of CSF, and thus as 
part of the EU region free of CSF, as we had proposed to do in our June 
1999 proposed rule, because CSF outbreaks had occurred in domestic 
swine in each of those Member States after the publication of the 
proposed rule.
    In our April 2003 final rule, we continued to consider all of 
France, Spain, and Luxembourg to be affected with CSF, even though 
outbreaks in domestic swine had occurred only in limited areas of those 
Member States, because we had not yet defined the administrative units 
in those Member States that we would use for purposes of 
regionalization. When the outbreaks occurred, France, Spain, and 
Luxembourg took action to eradicate CSF. The last affected herds were 
depopulated in France on April 26, 2002, and in Spain on April 30, 
2002. Because Luxembourg experienced an outbreak in domestic swine in 
August 2003 and continues to remain under restriction by the EU because 
of CSF in feral swine, Luxembourg was not considered for evaluation for 
CSF-free status at this time.
    Following the elimination of CSF in domestic swine in France and 
Spain, on November 24, 2003, we published in the Federal Register (68 
FR 65869-65871, Docket No. 98-090-6) a supplemental risk analysis which 
examined the risk of introducing CSF from the importation of swine and 
swine products from those two Member States. The supplemental risk 
analysis is available on the Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ncie/reg-request.html.\1\ For this analysis, we used the applicable 
information from the risk analyses we conducted for the June 1999 
proposed rule and the April 2003 final rule, as well as information 
made available following the outbreaks, and subsequent elimination, of 
CSF in France and Spain. We concluded that the risk of importation of 
CSF virus in swine and swine products from France and Spain was low, 
based on the demonstrated ability of these two Member States to 
effectively contain CSF outbreaks in domestic swine. Recognition of the 
CSF status of France and Spain as equivalent to that of the other EU 
Member States or regions evaluated in the revised risk analysis of 
December 2000 was, therefore, judged to be appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ At the bottom of that Web site page, click on ``Information 
previously submitted by Regions requesting export approval and their 
supporting documentation.'' At the next screen, click on the 
triangle beside ``European Union--France/Spain/Swine, swine semen, 
pork/Classical Swine Fever,'' then on the triangle beside ``Response 
by APHIS.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We solicited comments concerning our supplemental risk analysis for 
60 days ending January 23, 2004. We received three comments by that 
date. They were from the Government of Spain, a French pork producers' 
association, and the U.S. National Pork Board. Two of the commenters 
expressed concerns about certain aspects of the supplemental risk 
assessment. The comments are discussed below by topic.
    One commenter referred to the hypothesis that the virus involved in 
the April 2002 CSF outbreak in France might have been introduced onto 
the affected premises by fomites, perhaps on the clothing or personal 
vehicle of a visiting farmer from Germany. The commenter also noted 
that the United States requires travelers to declare whether they have 
visited agricultural facilities during their international travel and 
recommends procedures for those who have, such as the disinfection of 
footwear prior to reentering the United States.
    In our revised risk analysis of December 2000, we took into account 
the fact that travelers moving between EU Member States are not subject 
to border restrictions such as those imposed upon travelers entering or 
reentering the United States. We

[[Page 21044]]

assumed that the EU region would likely continue to experience 
occasional CSF outbreaks in the future but concluded that the EU region 
evaluated in the risk analysis had adequate surveillance and control 
programs in place to detect and contain them. We therefore concluded 
that the risk of importing the CSF virus into the United States via 
imports of breeding swine, pork, pork products, or swine semen from the 
specified EU region under the conditions set out in the April 2003 
final rule was low.
    The commenter also discussed our use of the commune (municipality) 
as the administrative unit to be employed for regionalization purposes 
in France. The commune is the smallest administrative unit described in 
the assessment and, according to the commenter, falls under ``only 
indirect supervision'' of the Prefect for the department (a larger 
administrative unit roughly equivalent to several U.S. counties or a 
U.S. State) under which it is subsumed. Within each department there is 
a Direction Departementale des Services Veterinaires which serves under 
the direct authority of the Prefect and is responsible for the 
implementation and enforcement of animal health regulations at the 
department level. Although the specific question that the commenter was 
asking was not entirely clear, the commenter seemed to be expressing a 
concern over France's ability to manage and control disease at the 
commune level.
    As noted earlier, in our June 1999 proposed rule, we explained the 
criteria we use for designating administrative units for the purpose of 
regionalization. An administrative unit is the smallest administrative 
jurisdiction that has effective oversight of normal animal movements 
into, out of, and within that jurisdiction, and that, in association 
with national authorities, if necessary, has the responsibility for 
controlling animal disease locally. In France, this unit is a commune. 
During its February 2003 site visit, the APHIS team had the opportunity 
to observe the functions of the veterinary authorities at the central, 
regional, and commune levels. Veterinary surveillance and control 
activities at all these levels appeared to be effective. APHIS 
concluded that France is able to manage and control CSF at the commune 
level and that, for the purposes of regionalization, the appropriate 
administrative unit is the commune.
    An outbreak of CSF, however, would not necessarily be limited to a 
single administrative unit. If the zones affected in an outbreak cross 
administrative borders, the restricted area would include all of the 
administrative units affected by the outbreak.
    The commenter also questioned France's strategy for controlling CSF 
in its wild boar population, noting that in zones known to be infected 
with CSF, all hunting has been prohibited. Based on the expectation 
that the CSF virus will develop freely in the wild boar population, 
this approach seeks to allow natural immunity to develop in the older 
animals, while susceptible, young animals die from the disease, thus 
creating an immune population to act as a barrier to further CSF 
spread. The approach differs significantly from that of Germany and 
Luxembourg, both of which encourage hunting to eliminate infected 
animals and use vaccine baits to establish immunity in the wild boar 
population. It was suggested by the commenter that with no other 
country using the French strategy for controlling CSF in wild boars, we 
have no historical comparison to determine its likelihood of success.
    French officials have been aware for many years of the risk of the 
CSF virus spreading from infected wild boars to domestic swine. France 
conducts serological surveillance of both wild boars and domestic swine 
in high-risk areas. Our 2003 supplemental risk assessment found that 
adequate surveillance programs are in place to detect CSF and to allow 
for appropriate responses to ensure that disease spread is limited.
    The same commenter also discussed concerns raised by a CSF outbreak 
that occurred in Spain during the period from June 2001 to May 2002. 
Spanish officials believe that the virus might have entered the country 
through the illegal importation from Eastern Europe of commercial swine 
for fattening in Spain. According to the commenter, while there have 
been some controls instituted for the local movement of swine within 
Spain, no evidence is provided in the supplemental risk assessment that 
Spain has instituted additional controls to prevent future illegal 
swine importation.
    Live swine imported into the EU from third countries are required 
to be accompanied by an official health certificate issued by the 
exporting country and are subject to inspection at border posts upon 
entry into the EU. Spain does not have a land border with third (i.e., 
non-EU) countries and is not directly involved in land border control. 
Consideration of imports from third countries was included in the 
previous evaluations upon which APHIS based its determination that 
imports from designated EU Member States did not pose a significant 
risk of introducing CSF into the United States.
    Relevant to this, swine moving overland from Eastern Europe into 
the EU would be subject to entry requirements at the EU's eastern 
borders but could then proceed westward to Spain without encountering 
additional border controls. Therefore, the possibility that an illegal 
land shipment of swine from Eastern Europe may have reached Spain 
should not necessarily be seen to reflect poorly on Spain's internal 
surveillance or movement control programs. In fact, Spain has actively 
prosecuted cases of illegal swine movement within the country and 
imposed stiff penalties as a deterrent to future illegal movement. To 
ensure compliance with EU standards, the European Commission (EC) 
approves and lists border inspection posts in the Annex of Commission 
Decision 2001/881/EC. Furthermore the EC regularly inspects (at least 
once every 3 years) the infrastructure, equipment, and working 
practices of the border inspection posts.
    The same commenter also referred to Spain's requirement that new, 
large swine facilities be constructed at least 1 km from existing large 
swine facilities. It is noted by the commenter that the Ministerio de 
Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentacion, which is the Spanish equivalent of 
the U.S. Department of Agriculture, intends to extend the requirement 
to existing holdings as well, but that compliance with the present 
requirement is not discussed in the supplemental risk assessment. In 
the December 2000 risk assessment, APHIS had determined that CSF spread 
was more likely in regions with high swine density compared to regions 
with low swine density, so information on producers' compliance with 
the existing 1-km requirement could be helpful in evaluating the risks 
of CSF transmission to U.S. swine posed by imports from Spain. The 
commenter also noted that the 1-km requirement appears only to apply to 
``large'' swine farms. APHIS's 2000 risk assessment did not 
differentiate specifically between the risk of CSF transmission 
associated with large farms and that associated with small farms but 
focused on the risk associated with overall swine density.
    Our 2003 supplemental risk assessment evaluated Spain's ability to 
detect, control, and eradicate CSF under the regulations existing at 
the time. We judged Spain to be equivalent in these areas to the other 
EU Member States or regions covered under the December 2000 revised 
risk assessment. We view the 1-km distance requirement as a useful 
mitigation of the risks of CSF transmission posed by high swine

[[Page 21045]]

density. Requiring a distance of 1 km between holdings can help limit 
spread of the disease from an infected holding.
    The commenter also expressed concern over our intention to use the 
comarca as the administrative unit for regionalization purposes. Spain 
is comprised of 17 autonomous regions, each with its own government. 
The autonomous regions are further divided into provinces, which are 
comprised of local administrative units called comarcas. The commenter 
noted that if swine in a comarca were found to be positive for CSF, a 
request could potentially be made to exclude simply that single comarca 
from the regions declared free of the disease.
    In Spain, APHIS considers the smallest administrative jurisdiction 
that has effective oversight of normal animal movements into, out of, 
and within that jurisdiction, and that, in association with national 
authorities, if necessary, has the responsibility for controlling 
animal disease locally, to be a comarca. Our evaluation led us to 
conclude that the necessary veterinary structures exist at the comarca 
level to allow for the implementation of an effective CSF control plan.
    The Government of Spain, while expressing its satisfaction with the 
findings of the supplemental risk assessment, requested the inclusion 
in the text of a more specific description of the term comarca in order 
to clarify that the term refers to those geographic divisions 
established for animal health purposes. It is our view, however, that 
the description of comarca contained in the supplemental risk 
assessment was consistent with our usual practice and was adequate for 
the purposes of that document.
    As noted earlier, in our supplemental risk analysis of November 
2003, we concluded that the risk of importation of CSF virus in swine 
and swine products from France and Spain was low, based on the 
demonstrated ability of these two Member States to effectively contain 
CSF outbreaks in domestic swine. In this final rule, therefore, we are 
recognizing the CSF status of France and Spain as equivalent to that of 
the other EU Member States or regions evaluated in the revised risk 
analysis of December 2000. Specifically, we are adding France and Spain 
to the lists of CSF-free regions in Sec. Sec.  94.9 and 94.10. We are 
also incorporating France and Spain into the larger CSF-free EU region 
designated in Sec.  94.23 as a region from which pork, pork products, 
and live breeding swine may be imported into the United States under 
certain conditions and in Sec.  98.38 as a region from which swine 
semen may be imported into the United States under certain conditions.

Effective Date

    This is a substantive rule that relieves restrictions and, pursuant 
to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553, may be made effective less than 30 
days after publication in the Federal Register.
    This rule recognizes France and Spain as regions in which CSF does 
not exist. Although restrictions on the importation of animals and 
animal products from France and Spain may continue because of our 
concerns about other diseases and about the movement of products within 
the EU prior to export to the United States, a number of restrictions 
due to CSF are no longer warranted for imports from these two Member 
States. Therefore, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health 
Inspection Service has determined that this rule should be effective 
upon publication in the Federal Register.

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.
    This final rule recognizes France and Spain as free of CSF and 
allows the importation into the United States of pork, pork products, 
live breeding swine, and swine semen from France and Spain under 
certain conditions.
    U.S. entities that may be affected by this final rule are swine and 
pork producers and pork product wholesalers. The Small Business 
Administration (SBA) defines small hog and pig farms as those earning 
not more than $750,000 in annual receipts.\2\ The National Agricultural 
Statistics Service, on the other hand, determines the size of hog farms 
based on hog inventories. Our analysis has determined that only those 
swine operations with inventories well in excess of 3,000 animals would 
likely earn more than $750,000 in yearly sales.\3\ Since over 95 
percent of U.S. swine operations hold inventories of fewer than 2,000 
head, it is clear that most U.S. swine and pork producers fit the SBA's 
definition of small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) 
112210, Hog and pig farming.
    \3\ Assuming about a 6-month production cycle, one inventory 
unit would roughly represent two annual sale units. An average price 
of $102 per head (230 pounds selling weight, at $44.30 per cwt, the 
average of hog prices in 2001), implies a gross revenue of $204 per 
head of inventory, yielding $750,000/$204 per head = 3,676 head.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Likewise, pork product wholesalers are also mainly small entities. 
The SBA categorizes such businesses as small entities if they do not 
have more than 100 employees.\4\ We do not know the size distribution 
of meat wholesalers, but the 1997 Economic Census (the most recent 
available) indicates that the average number of employees per 
establishment that year was 14.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ NAICS 424420, Packaged frozen food merchant wholesalers, and 
NAICS 424470, Meat and meat product merchant wholesalers.
    \5\ As reported in the 1997 Economic Census of the U.S. Census 
Bureau, there were 3,557 meat and meat product wholesale 
establishments that had a total of 50,256 paid employees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If a country has had a history of prior exports of a commodity to 
the United States, we can turn to that record as an indicator of import 
levels that may result from reinstated access to U.S. markets. However, 
APHIS has never before recognized France or Spain as a region in which 
CSF is not known to exist. Imports of swine and swine products from 
these two EU Member States have, therefore, been rare.\6\ In order to 
assess the possible economic impacts of this final rule, we must look 
to the swine and swine product exports of France and Spain to other 
countries during a recent year and compare those exports to U.S. 
production and import levels and patterns. All of the following data 
are for calendar year 2000, and are considered representative in terms 
of U.S. swine and swine product import patterns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ According to U.S. Bureau of Census data, as reported by the 
World Trade Atlas, over the 10-year period 1994-2003, there were no 
imports of live swine or swine products from Spain into the United 
States. During this same period, live swine were imported from 
France in 2 of the 10 years: 72 head in 1994 (valued at $118,000, 
0.16 percent of U.S. swine imports), and 239 head in 1995 ($378,000, 
0.27 percent of imports). Very small amounts of pork were also 
imported from France in 2 of the 10 years: In 1995 (valued at 
$161,786, 0.4 percent of U.S. pork imports) and in 1997 ($21,678, a 
negligible share of imports).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    France and Spain have been able to carry on trade in swine and 
swine products with other countries, as well as the rest of the EU, 
even though they have not been recognized as CSF-free by APHIS. France 
and Spain exported 283,000 head and 1,359,000 head of live swine, 
respectively, to other EU members in 2000, but neither Member State 
exported any live swine outside the EU.\7\ U.S. imports of live swine 
that year, which amounted to over 5.7 million head, all entered from 
Canada,\8\ except for 602 head from Norway.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Live swine and pork export data for France and Spain are 
from FAS, GAIN Reports FR0061 and SP1035.
    \8\ U.S. live swine and pork import data are from U.S. Census 
Bureau, as reported by the World Trade Atlas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding pork, France and Spain exported 366,000 metric tons (MTs) 
and

[[Page 21046]]

345,000 MTs, respectively, to other EU members. France and Spain also 
exported 220,000 MTs and 19,000 MTs of pork, respectively, to countries 
outside the EU. It is reasonable to assume that a portion of these 
exports, in particular, of the exports to countries outside the EU, may 
be diverted to the United States upon publication of this rule. A 
principal deciding factor would be U.S. prices relative to those in 
other world markets. However, U.S. import patterns suggest that it is 
unlikely that any diversions will have a major effect on U.S. entities. 
Canada has been our major foreign supplier of pork, providing 85 
percent of imports in 2000. Denmark, a distant second, supplied 13 
percent that same year. Thus, all other countries exporting pork to the 
United States in 2000 supplied only 2 percent of U.S. imports.
    Total commercial production of pork in the United States in 2000 
was about 8.6 million MTs.\9\ Total pork imports in 2000, which 
amounted to about 321,000 MTs, represented 3.7 percent of U.S. 
production. The 2 percent of pork imports not supplied by Canada or 
Denmark represented about 0.07 percent of U.S. production. Even if 
sizable shares of pork exports by France or Spain were to be sent to 
the United States as a result of this final rule, the impact for U.S. 
entities would be small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Agricultural Statistics 2003, Table 7-66, converted from 
million pounds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is unlikely that this rule will result in swine or swine product 
imports from France or Spain of any consequence, based on these 
representative statistics from 2000. We conclude that while the 
majority of U.S. enterprises that may be affected by swine and swine 
product imports from those two Member States are small entities, 
impacts will be minor.
    Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and 
Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action will 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.

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.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This final rule contains no new information collection or 
recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

List of Subjects

9 CFR Part 94

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

9 CFR Part 98

    Animal diseases, Imports.


0
Accordingly, we are amending 9 CFR parts 94 and 98 as follows:

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

0
1. The authority citation for part 94 is revised to read as follows:

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

0
2. In Sec.  94.9, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  94.9  Pork and pork products from regions where classical swine 
fever exists.

    (a) Classical swine fever is known to exist in all regions of the 
world except Australia; Canada; Denmark; England; Fiji; Finland; 
Iceland; Isle of Man; the Mexican States of Baja California, Baja 
California Sur, Chihuahua, and Sinaloa; New Zealand; Northern Ireland; 
Norway; the Republic of Ireland; Scotland; Sweden; Trust Territory of 
the Pacific Islands; Wales; and a single region in the European Union 
consisting of Austria, Belgium, France, Germany (except for the Kreis 
Uckermark in the Land of Brandenburg; the Kreis Oldenberg, the Kreis 
Soltau-Fallingbostel, and the Kreis Vechta in the Land of Lower Saxony; 
the Kreis Heinsberg and the Kreis Warendorf in the Land of Northrhine-
Westphalia; the Kreis Bernkastel-Wittlich, the Kreis Bitburg-Pr[uuml]m, 
the Kreis Donnersbergkreis, the Kreis Rhein-Hunsr[uuml]che, the Kreis 
S[uuml]dliche Weinstrasse, and the Kreis Trier-Saarburg in the Land of 
Rhineland Palatinate; and the Kreis Altmarkkreis in the Land of Saxony-
Anhalt), Greece, Italy (except for the Regions of Emilia-Romagna, 
Piemonte, and Sardegna), the Netherlands, Portugal, and Spain.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\See also other provisions of this part and parts 93, 95, and 
96 of this chapter and part 327 of this title for other prohibitions 
and restrictions upon importation of swine and swine products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

0
3. In Sec.  94.10, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  94.10  Swine from regions where classical swine fever exists.

    (a) Classical swine fever is known to exist in all regions of the 
world except Australia; Canada; Denmark; England; Fiji; Finland; 
Iceland; Isle of Man; the Mexican States of Baja California, Baja 
California Sur, Chihuahua, and Sinaloa; New Zealand; Northern Ireland; 
Norway; the Republic of Ireland; Scotland; Sweden; Trust Territory of 
the Pacific Islands; Wales; and a single region in the European Union 
consisting of Austria, Belgium, France, Germany (except for the Kreis 
Uckermark in the Land of Brandenburg; the Kreis Oldenberg, the Kreis 
Soltau-Fallingbostel, and the Kreis Vechta in the Land of Lower Saxony; 
the Kreis Heinsberg and the Kreis Warendorf in the Land of Northrhine-
Westphalia; the Kreis Bernkastel-Wittlich, the Kreis Bitburg-Pr[uuml]m, 
the Kreis Donnersbergkreis, the Kreis Rhein-Hunsr[uuml]che, the Kreis 
S[uuml]dliche Weinstrasse, and the Kreis Trier-Saarburg in the Land of 
Rhineland Palatinate; and the Kreis Altmarkkreis in the Land of Saxony-
Anhalt), Greece, Italy (except for the Regions of Emilia-Romagna, 
Piemonte, and Sardegna), the Netherlands, Portugal, and Spain. No swine 
that are moved from or transit any region where classical swine fever 
is known to exist may be imported into the United States, except for 
wild swine imported into the United States in accordance with paragraph 
(b) of this section.
* * * * *


Sec.  94.23  [Amended]

0
4. In Sec.  94.23, the introductory text is amended by adding the word 
``France,'' after the word ``Belgium,'' and by removing the words ``and 
Portugal'' and adding the words ``Portugal, and Spain'' in their place.

PART 98--IMPORTATION OF CERTAIN ANIMAL EMBRYOS AND ANIMAL SEMEN

0
5. The authority citation for part 98 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1622 and 8301-8317; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 
31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.


Sec.  98.38  [Amended]

0
6. In Sec.  98.38, the introductory text is amended by adding the word 
``France,'' after the word ``Belgium,'' and by removing the words ``and 
Portugal'' and

[[Page 21047]]

adding the words ``Portugal, and Spain'' in their place.

    Done in Washington, DC, this 14th day of April, 2004 .
Kevin Shea,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 04-8893 Filed 4-19-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P