[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 76 (Tuesday, April 20, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 21040-21042]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-8894]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

9 CFR Part 93

[Docket No. 99-071-3]


Cattle From Australia and New Zealand; Testing Exemptions

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are amending the regulations regarding the importation of 
cattle to exempt cattle imported from Australia and from New Zealand 
from testing for brucellosis prior to their export to the United 
States. We have determined that the testing of cattle imported from 
Australia and New Zealand for brucellosis is not necessary to protect 
livestock in the United States from the disease. This action relieves 
certain testing requirements for cattle imported from Australia and New 
Zealand while continuing to protect against the introduction of 
communicable diseases of cattle into the United States.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 20, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Anne Goodman, Supervisory Staff 
Officer, Regionalization and 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 regulations in 9 CFR part 93 (referred to below as the 
regulations) govern the importation into the United States of specified 
animals and animal products to prevent the introduction into the United 
States of various animal diseases, including brucellosis and 
tuberculosis. Brucellosis is a contagious disease affecting animals and 
humans, caused by bacteria of the genus Brucella. In its principal 
animal hosts, brucellosis may cause abortion and impaired fertility. 
Bovine tuberculosis is a contagious, infectious, and communicable 
disease caused by Mycobacterium bovis. It affects cattle, bison, deer, 
elk, goats, and other species, including humans. Bovine tuberculosis in 
infected animals and humans manifests itself in lesions of the lung, 
lymph nodes, and other body parts, causes weight loss and general 
debilitation, and can be fatal.
    Paragraph (a) of Sec.  93.406 includes procedures for the 
importation of cattle from other parts of the world into the United 
States. This paragraph details tuberculosis and brucellosis testing and 
certification requirements for all cattle offered for importation from 
any part of the world, except those intended for immediate slaughter.
    On April 20, 2001, we published in the Federal Register (66 FR 
20211-20213, Docket No. 99-071-1) a proposal to amend the regulations 
by exempting cattle from Australia and New Zealand from testing for 
brucellosis prior to their export to the United States, and by 
exempting cattle from Australia from testing for tuberculosis prior to 
their export to the United States. These proposed changes were based on 
requests from Australia and New Zealand. In accordance with the 
provisions of 9 CFR part 92 for requesting recognition of the animal 
health status of a country or other region, when Australia and New 
Zealand requested exemption from the brucellosis testing requirements 
and Australia from the tuberculosis testing requirements, both 
countries submitted extensive documentation to the Animal and Plant 
Health Inspection Service (APHIS) that included information regarding 
disease history and control, livestock demographics and marketing 
practices, surveillance, and veterinary policies and infrastructure. 
The information was considered in assessing the disease risk of 
importing live cattle from those two countries under the conditions of 
the proposed rule and documented Australia and New Zealand's freedom 
from the diseases in question. (The information submitted by Australia 
and New Zealand, along with the risk assessment, may be obtained from 
the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT and may be 
viewed on the Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ncie/reg-request.html.)
    Following publication of the proposed rule, however, we were made 
aware of two outbreaks of tuberculosis that had occurred in Queensland, 
Australia, after we had completed our risk assessment. In order to take 
these outbreaks into account, we are conducting an updated assessment 
of the risk of tuberculosis from cattle imported from Australia and are 
not making final in this document our proposed provisions to exempt 
cattle from Australia from tuberculosis

[[Page 21041]]

testing. We intend to make the results of our updated assessment 
available to the public and to allow for public comment on the results 
of that assessment. We will then address any comments we receive on the 
updated assessment in a document to be published in the Federal 
Register. In addition to addressing comments we receive on our updated 
risk assessment in that document, we will address all comments we 
received regarding tuberculosis testing in Australia in response to our 
April 2001 proposed rule. In this final rule, therefore, we address 
only those issues raised by commenters that concern subjects other than 
tuberculosis testing in Australia.
    We solicited comments concerning our April 2001 proposal for 60 
days ending June 19, 2001. On June 4, 2001, we published in the Federal 
Register (66 FR 29921, Docket No. 99-071-2) a notice announcing that we 
would host a public hearing in Riverdale, MD, on June 19, 2001, to give 
the public an opportunity for the oral presentation of data, views, and 
arguments regarding the proposed rule. We received two written comments 
on the proposal by the June 19, 2001, close of the comment period and 
one oral comment at the public hearing. The comments were from 
representatives of a State animal health commission, an organization of 
research councils, and a cattle industry association. We discuss the 
comments below by topic.
    One commenter said that testing requirements for cattle to be 
imported into the United States should not be reduced or eliminated 
until APHIS has independently verified the validity of documentation 
regarding the health of the livestock in the exporting region.
    We are making no changes based on this comment. We are confident of 
the validity of brucellosis reporting in Australia and New Zealand. 
Brucellosis is notifiable in Australia and New Zealand to the national 
government animal health officials.
    One commenter requested that, during quarantine in the United 
States, cattle from Australia and New Zealand be tested by APHIS for 
brucellosis to verify that the information provided by the exporting 
governments or entities is accurate.
    In considering the import requests from Australia and New Zealand, 
we assessed the legal authority and veterinary infrastructure and 
organization of those countries, and determined them to be effective in 
recognizing, responding to, and giving notice of disease occurrences, 
and in providing reliable certification of the health status and 
testing history of animals intended for exportation. We accept the same 
type of official certification from Australia and New Zealand that 
those and other countries accept from the United States. Therefore, we 
believe that there is no need to conduct testing once the cattle arrive 
in the United States, and we are making no changes based on the 
comment.
    One commenter stated that the data used in the risk assessment for 
Australia and New Zealand were from 1988 and 1989. The commenter asked 
whether there were more recent data available regarding disease 
surveillance in those countries.
    There have been no reported diagnoses of brucellosis in Australia 
and New Zealand since the risk assessments were completed.
    One commenter asked whether, in assessing the need for the tests to 
be required or not required, any distinction was made between those 
cattle that would ultimately move into slaughter channels and those 
that would go into the breeding herd.
    When we conducted our risk assessments, no outbreaks of brucellosis 
had been reported in either New Zealand or Australia since 1989. (The 
statement in the risk assessment for cattle from Australia indicating 
the most recent outbreak there was in 1990 should read ``1989'' 
instead.) That information and the other data available to us, as 
discussed in our risk assessment, indicated cattle could be safely 
imported into the United States without testing for brucellosis. 
Likewise, we would not expect a trading partner to require that U.S. 
cattle intended for export be tested for a disease that had not been 
reported in the United States for more than 10 years.
    One commenter stated there is no way to guarantee the health status 
of animals shipped through Australia or New Zealand from other 
countries for export to the United States.
    The concern raised by the commenter is addressed by a number of 
safeguards. By protocol, we will not consider an animal that is moved 
into Australia or New Zealand to be part of the national herd of the 
country until 60 days following its release from all import quarantine 
restrictions in those countries, except that the waiting period is 90 
days for offspring of animals or germplasm legally imported into 
Australia or New Zealand from a region not recognized by APHIS as being 
free of foot-and-mouth disease and rinderpest. With regard to the 
brucellosis status of animals moved into Australia or New Zealand, both 
of those countries have safeguards in place to ensure that animals 
imported from other countries are not affected by the disease.
    New Zealand requires that all live cattle intended for export to 
that country have been resident in herds negative for brucellosis for 
at least 12 months prior to going into pre-export isolation at a 
facility managed by the national veterinary authority of the exporting 
country. Australia's quarantine regulations require that imported 
cattle originate from a herd or region recognized as free of 
brucellosis according to the standards of the World Organisation for 
Animal Health (also known as OIE).
    One commenter recommended requiring permanent identification of 
cattle coming into the United States, particularly breeding animals.
    We agree there would be benefits to establishing an identification 
plan for cattle entering the United States, as well as for domestic 
cattle, and are in the process of developing such a plan.
    Therefore, for the reasons given in the proposed rule and in this 
document, we are adopting the proposed rule as a final rule, with the 
changes discussed in this document.

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. Immediate 
implementation of this rule will provide relief to those persons who 
are adversely affected by testing requirements we no longer find 
warranted. 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.
    Exempting cattle imports from Australia and New Zealand from 
brucellosis testing will reduce costs for exporters of cattle from 
these two countries to the United States. Impacts for U.S. entities 
will depend on the number of cattle exported to the United States, the 
cost savings per animal, and what portion of these savings may be 
passed on to U.S. buyers through lower prices.
    To date, there have been no recorded imports of cattle from New 
Zealand.

[[Page 21042]]

Cattle imports by the United States from Australia have been minimal, 
as reflected by data for the last 5 years. Trade statistics divide 
cattle into two groups--purebred and not purebred. Purebred cattle 
imported from Australia numbered only 17 head in 1998 and 21 head in 
1999. None were imported in 2000, 2001, or 2002. The small numbers 
imported in 1998 and 1999 represented only 0.4 percent of U.S. imports 
of purebred cattle in those 2 years.
    The number of not purebred cattle imported from Australia averaged 
fewer than eight animals per year from 1998 through 2002. Given that 
annual total U.S. imports of not purebred cattle over this 5-year 
period averaged more than 2.2 million per year, the number that came 
from Australia is negligible. Because the United States has not 
imported cattle from New Zealand, we do not have comparable statistics 
for that country.
    While these numbers are very small, the average value of cattle 
imported from Australia has been much higher than the value of imported 
cattle generally. For purebred cattle from Australia, the average value 
was $5,082 per head, compared to an average value for all purebred 
cattle imports of $1,051. For not purebred cattle from Australia, the 
average value was $3,083 per head, compared to an average value for all 
not purebred cattle imports of $556.
    It is unlikely the number of cattle imported from Australia will be 
affected by removing testing requirements for brucellosis. Brucellosis 
testing costs, assumed to range between $7.50 and $15 per head 
including veterinary fees and handling expenses, represent from 0.15 
percent to 0.30 percent of the value of purebred cattle imported from 
Australia in 1998 and 1999, and from 0.24 percent to 0.49 percent of 
the value of not purebred cattle imported from Australia from 1998 
through 2002.
    A small cost savings will be realized by exporters of Australian 
cattle for a negligible number of animals, if quantities imported in 
recent years continue into the future. Cost savings of such small 
proportion are not expected to affect the number of Australian cattle 
offered for export to the United States. Any benefit realized by U.S. 
buyers of cattle from Australia will be negligible as well. If cattle 
are imported from New Zealand, impacts of this rule for U.S. buyers are 
expected to be similarly negligible.
    As a part of the rulemaking process, APHIS evaluates whether 
regulations will have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. If any entities are affected by this rule, 
they will likely be U.S. cattle operations, nearly all of which are 
small entities. According to the 1997 Census of Agriculture, over 99 
percent of farms with cattle sales had annual receipts that did not 
exceed $750,000, the small-entity criterion set by the Small Business 
Administration (SBA).
    It is unlikely high-valued cattle imported from Australia would be 
destined for slaughter. Nonetheless, it is noted that feedlots that 
could purchase the cattle may or may not be small entities. SBA 
classifies cattle feedlots as small entities if their annual receipts 
are not more than $1.5 million. There were 95,189 feedlots in the 
United States in 2002, about 93,000 (nearly 98 percent) of which had 
capacities of fewer than 1,000 head and can be considered small 
entities. However, the 2 percent of the Nation's feedlots that have 
capacities of at least 1,000 head held 82 percent of all cattle and 
calves on feed on January 1, 2003. These larger feedlots have average 
annual receipts of over $9 million, well above the small-entity 
criterion.
    In any case, the rule will have little, if any, impact on U.S. 
entities, large or small. Brucellosis testing exemptions will result in 
small cost savings for exporters of cattle from Australia or New 
Zealand. The rule is not expected to affect the negligible number of 
cattle imported from Australia or cause cattle to be imported from New 
Zealand for the first time.
    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 proposed 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 information collection or recordkeeping 
requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 
et seq.).

List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 93

    Animal diseases, Imports, Livestock, Poultry and poultry products, 
Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

0
Accordingly, we are amending 9 CFR part 93 as follows:

PART 93--IMPORTATION OF CERTAIN ANIMALS, BIRDS, AND POULTRY, AND 
CERTAIN ANIMAL, BIRD, AND POULTRY PRODUCTS; REQUIREMENTS FOR MEANS 
OF CONVEYANCE AND SHIPPING CONTAINERS

0
1. The authority citation for part 93 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.


0
2. Section 93.406 is amended as follows:
0
a. In the introductory text of paragraph (a), in the first sentence, 
the words ``in paragraph (d) of this section and'' is added immediately 
after the words ``Except as provided''.
0
b. A new paragraph (d) is added to read as follows:


Sec.  93.406  Diagnostic tests.

* * * * *
    (d) Testing exemptions. Cattle from Australia and New Zealand are 
exempt from the brucellosis testing requirements of paragraph (a)(1) of 
this section.

    Done in Washington, DC, this 14th day of April, 2004.
Kevin Shea,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 04-8894 Filed 4-19-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P