[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 133 (Tuesday, July 13, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41915-41920]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-15805]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

9 CFR Part 94

[Docket No. 03-009-2]


Classical Swine Fever Status of Chile

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are amending the regulations for importing animals and 
animal products by adding Chile to the list of regions we recognize as 
free of classical swine fever (CSF). We are taking this action at the 
request of the Government of Chile and after conducting a risk 
evaluation that indicates that Chile is free of this disease. We are 
also adding Chile to a list of CSF-free regions whose exports of live 
swine, pork, and pork products to the United States must meet certain 
certification requirements to ensure their freedom from CSF, and 
amending those requirements to accommodate the addition of Chile to the 
list. These actions relieve restrictions on the importation into the 
United States of pork, pork products, live swine, and swine semen from 
Chile while continuing to protect against the introduction of this 
disease into the United States.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 28, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Charisse Cleare, 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 regulations in 9 CFR part 94 (referred to below as the 
regulations) govern the importation into the United States of specified 
animals and animal products in order to prevent the introduction of 
various animal diseases, including rinderpest, foot-and-mouth disease 
(FMD), African swine fever (ASF), classical swine fever (CSF), and 
swine vesicular disease. These are dangerous and destructive 
communicable diseases of ruminants and swine. Section 94.9 of the 
regulations restricts the importation into the United States of pork 
and pork products from regions where CSF is known to exist. Section 
94.10 of the regulations prohibits, with certain exceptions, the 
importation of swine that originate in or are shipped from or transit 
any region in which CSF is known to exist. Sections 94.9 and 94.10 
provide that CSF exists in all regions of the world except for certain 
regions listed in those sections.
    On November 13, 2003, we published in the Federal Register (68 FR 
64274-64282, Docket No. 03-009-1) a proposal to amend the regulations 
by adding Chile to the list of regions we recognize as free of CSF. We 
also proposed to add Chile to a list of CSF-free regions whose exports 
of live swine, pork, and pork products to the United States must meet 
certain certification requirements to ensure their freedom from CSF, 
and to amend those requirements to accommodate the addition of Chile to 
the list. In addition, we proposed to amend those certification 
requirements to require, for pork and pork products from a region 
listed in Sec.  94.24, an additional statement that the swine from 
which the pork and pork products were derived have not lived in a 
region affected with CSF.
    We solicited comments concerning our proposal for 60 days ending 
January 12, 2004. We received three comments by that date. They were 
from an importer and from associations of pork producers. Two of the 
commenters supported the proposed rule. The third commenter asked for 
additional information regarding several issues in the proposed rule. 
These issues are discussed below by topic.
    The commenter requested additional information about the ongoing 
surveillance that Chile's Agricultural and Livestock Service (Servicio 
Agricola y Ganadero, SAG) conducts for CSF in Chilean commercial swine. 
The commenter stated that data referred to in material supporting 
Chile's request to be considered free of CSF are several years old and 
appear to be ``point-in-time'' samples related to managing and 
eliminating the last outbreaks of CSF in Chile in 1995 and 1996. The 
commenter asked whether there is a plan for federally funded, routine, 
ongoing surveillance for commercial and noncommercial populations of 
swine in Chile. The commenter also wanted to know whether both swine 
held on breeding farms and swine intended for slaughter were being 
sampled as part of the testing and what specific level of detection the 
current testing supports.
    As stated in the evaluation that we conducted regarding the CSF 
status of Chile, SAG tested swine on 321 family farms, located in all 
13 regions of Chile, for CSF in 2000 and 2001. The number of samples 
totaled 1,705. In addition, the evaluation referred to serological data 
for 2002 that SAG provided. Those data included samples taken at both 
commercial premises and backyard (family) premises that possessed or 
raised swine. These data reflected testing performed from January to 
December 2002. We based our determination that Chile is free of CSF on 
these data, not the data from the earlier testing conducted after the 
last outbreaks of CSF in Chile to which the commenter refers.
    Chile does have a plan for federally funded, routine, ongoing 
surveillance for CSF in both commercial and noncommercial populations 
of swine. Both swine held on breeding farms and swine held on 
commercial properties that send swine for slaughter at export 
facilities are tested using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for 
CSF under the surveillance plan.
    As to the specific level of detection, the sampling design for 2002 
was based on two sets of high-risk herds. In the

[[Page 41916]]

first set, the sampling design for herds that were considered high risk 
due to their proximity to certain areas (airports, seaports, land 
borders, garbage dumps, or owners with a history of feeding waste to 
pigs) was intended to detect a 20 percent within-herd prevalence. In 
the second set, the sampling design for herds considered high risk due 
to a history of past positive serology was intended to detect a 1 
percent within-herd prevalence level.
    The commenter also asked whether there is a plan for federally 
funded, routine, ongoing surveillance for wild boars in Chile, stating 
that it did not appear that a surveillance program had been developed 
or conducted for CSF or other communicable diseases of swine in the 
wild boar population. The commenter stated that the wild boar 
population should be thoroughly assessed for possible infection by CSF 
and other communicable diseases of swine before the Animal and Plant 
Health Inspection Service (APHIS) declares Chile free of CSF.
    As of December 2002, SAG had not performed surveillance for CSF in 
the free-range wild boar population. However, SAG performed 
surveillance for CSF at wild boar operations in Chile, based on the 
rationale that animals at these operations originated as wild animals 
and have been in captivity for several generations.
    APHIS has no evidence that suggests that CSF is present in or has 
ever been present in feral swine in Chile. We consider this situation 
to be analogous to conditions in the United States. There is no 
evidence to suggest that CSF is present in feral swine within the 
continental United States. Therefore, APHIS does not conduct 
surveillance for CSF in feral swine within the continental United 
States at this time. Under the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement 
on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures and the 
principle of national treatment in the WTO General Agreement on Tariffs 
and Trade, APHIS must establish requirements for the importation of 
animals and animal products that are no more restrictive than the 
requirements APHIS imposes on the interstate movement of animals and 
animal products. Given these circumstances, APHIS does not believe it 
would be appropriate to require Chile to conduct CSF surveillance in 
its wild boar population. We are making no changes to the proposed rule 
in response to this comment.
    Given the situation discussed above, the commenter requested 
assurance that wild boar in Chile pose a negligible, minimal risk of 
transmitting diseases to commercial swine. The commenter cited recent 
experiences in European countries as indicating that the two 
populations may be linked with respect to CSF transmission.
    As we discussed in the proposed rule, several circumstances 
mitigate the risk of disease transmission, if any disease were to be 
present, from wild boar to commercial swine in Chile. There are few 
commercial swine operations in those regions of Chile where there are 
concentrated populations of wild boar; rather, family farms are usually 
prevalent in such regions. Even if CSF or another communicable disease 
of swine were present in the wild boar population, it is unlikely that 
such a disease would be transmitted from wild boar to commercial swine 
facilities because of the biosecurity measures in place at those 
facilities. In addition, the mountainous habitat of the wild boars and 
the areas of Chile devoted to domestic swine production are separated 
by forests, which the wild boar do not enter because there is no food 
for them in the forests.
    In the proposed rule, we stated that the official diagnostic 
laboratory of SAG in Santiago does not isolate the causative agent for 
CSF because the biosecurity level of the laboratory is not sufficient 
to allow use of live CSF virus, which is necessary to confirm a 
diagnosis of CSF. This means that Chile must use a laboratory in Spain 
to confirm a diagnosis of CSF. We explained further that the 
biosecurity controls Chile imposes when a suspected case of CSF is 
discovered would be effective at containing the spread of a possible 
CSF infection even without an immediate confirmation of a CSF 
diagnosis. The commenter agreed with APHIS on this point, but requested 
that we discuss whether confirmatory testing for FMD and ASF could be 
accomplished within Chile. If confirmatory testing for these diseases 
could not be accomplished within Chile, the commenter asserted, the 
importation of live swine, pork, and pork products from Chile would 
pose a risk to the health of U.S. swine.
    We consider Chile to be free of both FMD and ASF. In making the 
determination that these diseases do not exist in Chile, we considered 
Chile's diagnostic capabilities for these diseases, in the same way 
that we considered Chile's diagnostic capability for CSF in the 
proposed rule. When we determined that Chile was free from FMD and ASF, 
we evaluated Chile's diagnostic capabilities for these diseases and 
determined that they were satisfactory. If we were to determine that 
Chile's diagnostic capabilities for either of these diseases were 
inadequate at some point in the future, we would undertake separate 
rulemaking to amend Sec.  94.1 (which lists regions free of FMD and 
rinderpest) or Sec.  94.8 (which lists regions where ASF exists) 
accordingly. We are making no changes to the proposed rule in response 
to this comment.
    The commenter noted that the United States is free of blue-eye 
disease (BED), and that BED appears to be a disease concern elsewhere. 
Given that live swine from Chile would be allowed to be imported into 
the United States if Chile was declared free of CSF, the commenter was 
concerned about the BED status of Chilean swine.
    At this time, APHIS has no evidence that BED is present in Chile. 
If the commenter has such evidence, we would be willing to consider it. 
The proposed rule was prompted by a request from Chile to evaluate its 
CSF status; the risk evaluation and proposed rule addressed the risk of 
a possible CSF introduction into the United States via swine, pork, or 
pork products imported from Chile. If it becomes necessary to restrict 
imports of Chilean swine, pork, or pork products due to BED, we will 
undertake separate rulemaking to restrict their importation or, in the 
case of live swine, use our authority under Sec.  93.504(a)(3) to deny 
the swine a permit for importation into the United States due to 
communicable disease conditions in Chile.
    The commenter asked that APHIS clarify the circumstances that 
prompt us to conduct a qualitative risk assessment rather than a 
quantitative risk assessment. The commenter stated that semi-
quantitative or quantitative analyses allow for a more standardized 
risk evaluation and allow stakeholders to more easily compare risks and 
determine what level of risk APHIS considers acceptable. The commenter 
also questioned the value of qualitative risk assessments, stating that 
such assessments rely too heavily on the information gathered by a 
small site visit team, despite the obvious skills of the site team 
members.
    APHIS' decision on whether to conduct a qualitative or quantitative 
risk assessment when evaluating the disease status of a region is 
dependent primarily on two factors. One of these is the disease 
conditions in the region that has requested to be evaluated regarding 
its disease status. Regions that request to be declared free of a 
disease typically have not reported an outbreak of the relevant disease 
in many years and do not allow vaccination, which might mask disease. 
Such regions may be considered to pose a relatively low risk for 
disease

[[Page 41917]]

presence. For such regions, APHIS has historically conducted 
qualitative analyses when evaluating their disease status. Chile's last 
outbreak of CSF occurred in 1996, and Chile no longer vaccinates swine 
for CSF; these considerations indicated to us that a qualitative risk 
assessment was appropriate.
    The second factor is whether or not we perceive that there may be 
underlying risk in the region. Regions for which quantitative analyses 
are conducted are typically those for which a qualitative evaluation 
has suggested that the region poses a higher level of risk than that 
described above. Risks of trade in commodities from the higher-risk 
regions often lend themselves to evaluation by a quantitative risk 
analysis model. However, no evidence gathered during the qualitative 
risk assessment for Chile indicated that such underlying risks exist in 
Chile for CSF. Based on these considerations, we conducted a 
qualitative risk assessment to evaluate whether Chile is free from CSF.
    APHIS is preparing a description of its regionalization process, 
which will be posted on the Veterinary Services Web site when it is 
finalized. An announcement of its availability will be published in the 
Federal Register in the near future. Among other things, the 
description will outline the way in which APHIS conducts and applies 
risk analyses to assist with the decisionmaking process for 
regionalization.
    We are, however, making minor editorial changes to the regulatory 
text to improve clarity.
    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 above.

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 adds Chile to 
the lists of regions considered free of CSF and allows pork, pork 
products, live swine, and swine semen to be imported into the United 
States from Chile, subject to certain conditions. We have determined 
that approximately 2 weeks are needed to ensure that APHIS and 
Department of Homeland Security-Bureau of Customs and Border Protection 
personnel at ports of entry receive official notice of this change in 
the regulations. Therefore, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant 
Health Inspection Service has determined that this rule should be 
effective 15 days after 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.
    Under the regulations in 9 CFR part 94, the importation into the 
United States of live swine, pork, pork products, and swine semen that 
originates in or transits any region where CSF exists is generally 
prohibited, except for certain pork products processed in accordance 
with the regulations. Furthermore, even if a region is considered free 
of CSF, the importation of pork and pork products from that region may 
be restricted, depending on the region's proximity to or trading 
relationships with regions where CSF exists. CSF is a transmissible 
animal disease with potentially serious consequences for international 
trade of animals and animal products.
    The Agriculture and Livestock Service of the Government of Chile 
asked APHIS to evaluate Chile's CSF status. APHIS conducted a site 
visit in Chile and, using data from this site visit and data supplied 
by the Government of Chile, performed a subsequent risk evaluation that 
indicated that Chile is free of CSF. This final rule, therefore, 
recognizes Chile as free of CSF. However, since Chile shares borders 
with regions that the United States does not recognize as free of CSF, 
imports live swine from a region that the United States does not 
recognize as free of CSF, and imports certain products from regions 
affected with CSF under conditions that are less restrictive than those 
in our regulations in 9 CFR part 94, we are also adding certification 
requirements for live swine, pork, and pork products imported into the 
United States from Chile to ensure their freedom from CSF.
    In 1997, Chile had 105,665 swine farms on which 1.7 million swine 
were raised. There were 289 commercial premises, which represented 69 
percent of Chile's hog facilities.\1\ In the United States in 2000, on 
the other hand, there were 98,460 swine producers raising about 
59,407,000 swine valued at $4.26 billion.\2\ Chile has never exported 
live swine to the United States. In 1998, the United States imported 
from Chile 18 metric tons of frozen swine edible offal (Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule [HS] code number 020649). No other pork meat or any 
other pork product has been imported by the United States from Chile 
since then (table 1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ APHIS, Veterinary Services/Trade in Animals and Animal 
Products Branch.
    \2\ USDA, ``Agricultural Statistics 2000,'' page VII-18. 
Washington, DC, National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Frozen and dried pork accounts for 87 percent of all Chilean 
exports of pork and pork products; the remaining 13 percent consists of 
either fresh or chilled pork. In 2000, Chile exported 33,900 metric 
tons of pork. Of this, 30.1 metric tons was cooked pork, which was 
exported either frozen or dried (table 2). That same year, the United 
States imported 368,700 metric tons of pork, more than 10 times the 
total of Chile's pork exports.
    On average, between 1998 and 2001, Chile's global exports of live 
swine amounted to approximately 0.3 percent of the volume of U.S. 
imports of live swine (tables 3 and 4). Specifically, Chile's global 
exports of live swine were 0.28 percent of the volume of U.S. imports 
of live swine in 1998, 0.33 percent in 1999, 0.39 percent in 2000, and 
0.32 percent in 2001. Between 1998 and 2001, the volume of Chile's 
exports of pork and pork products to the world was, on average, 
equivalent to 9 percent of the volume of U.S. imports of pork and pork 
products.

                                Table 1.--U.S. Imports of Pork and Pork Products
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Import volume by year  (in metric tons)
    Commodity  (by HS 6-digit       Origin of U.S.  imports  ---------------------------------------------------
            category)                                             1998         1999         2000         2001
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Swine carcasses, fresh or         World.....................       10,555       11,206        4,542        1,676
 chilled (HS 020311).
Swine carcasses, frozen (HS       World.....................           68           46           70           39
 020321).

[[Page 41918]]

 
Swine hams, fresh or chilled (HS  World.....................       48,976       61,099       76,469       75,482
 020312).
Swine hams, with bone in (HS      World.....................       10,023        7,977        5,533        4,470
 020322).
Swine edible offal, fresh or      World.....................       10,065        9,499       15,557       20,904
 chilled (HS 020630).
Swine edible offal, except for    World (except Chile)......        4,281        4,437        4,138        4,092
 liver, frozen (HS 020649).
                                  Chile.....................           18            0            0            0
                                  ..........................       (0.4%)  ...........  ...........  ...........
 Swine livers, frozen (HS         World.....................          248           98           29          264
 020641).
Swine hams/shoulders, salted,     World.....................          818        1,555        1,659        1,280
 dried (HS 021011).
Swine bellies, salted and dried,  World.....................       10,073       16,673       21,720       19,836
 bacon (HS 021012).
Swine meat, except ham, salted,   World.....................        3,768        3,440        4,725        6,709
 dried, smoked (HS 021019).
Swine fresh cuts (NES) (HS        World.....................       87,434      116,325      148,401      163,131
 020319).
Swine frozen cuts (NES) (HS       World.....................       60,137       69,625       85,900       80,175
 020329).
                                 -----------------------------
    Total quantity..............  ..........................      246,464      301,980      368,743     378,058
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Source: USDA/Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) Global Agricultural Trade System using data from the United
  Nations (UN) Statistical Office.
 NES = not elsewhere specified.


           Table 2.--Chilean Exports of Pork and Pork Products
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Export volume by year  (in metric tons)
  Commodity  (by HS 6-digit  -------------------------------------------
          category)              1998       1999       2000       2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Swine carcasses, fresh or         4,741        645         21        455
 chilled (HS 020311)........
Swine carcasses, frozen (HS         108         80          6        164
 020321)....................
Swine hams, fresh or chilled          0        146        790        797
 (HS 020312)................
Swine hams, with bone in (HS        661        201        456      5,357
 020322)....................
Swine edible offal, fresh or          3          5        104        103
 chilled (HS 020630)........
Swine edible offal, except        4,888      5,331      5,677      7,261
 for liver, frozen (HS
 020649)....................
Swine livers, frozen (HS            248         98         29        264
 020641)....................
Swine bellies, salted &              11          3          2          2
 dried, bacon (HS 021012)...
Swine fresh cuts (NES) (HS            0        865      2,638      2,448
 020319)....................
Swine frozen cuts (NES) (HS       7,857      5,587      9,070     17,049
 020329)....................
                             ------------
    Total quantity..........     18,517     12,961     18,793    33,900
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Source: FAS Global Agricultural Trade System using data from the UN
  Statistical Office.
 NES = not elsewhere specified.


                                      Table 3.--U.S. Imports of Live Swine
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Swine  (by HS 6-digit category)              1998             1999             2000             2001
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pure-bred (HS-010310) \1\
    Quantity (swine)........................              415              594            4,585           22,178
    Value...................................          $70,000         $182,000       $1,117,000       $5,080,000
Non-pure-bred category A (HS-010391) \2\
    Quantity (metric tons)..................           20,383           29,978        2,336,048           42,276
    Value...................................      $38,993,000      $51,200,000      $72,285,000     $103,168,000
Non-pure-bred category B (HS-010392) \3\
    Quantity (metric tons)..................          318,246          259,024        2,016,931          280,621
    Value...................................     $249,787,000     $175,100,000     $217,977,000     $249,754,000
                                             ------------------
        Total value.........................     $288,850,000     $226,482,000     $291,379,000    $358,002,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Imported from Canada, Denmark, and United Kingdom.
\2\ Imported from Canada, Denmark, and Australia.
\3\ Imported from Canada, Denmark, Norway, Australia, and United Kingdom.
Source: FAS Global Agricultural Trade System using data from the UN Statistical Office.


                                     Table 4.--Chilean Exports of Live Swine
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Swine  (by HS 6-digit category)              1998             1999             2000             2001
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pure-bred (HS-010310)
    Quantity (metric tons)..................               95            (\1\)            (\1\)            (\1\)

[[Page 41919]]

 
    Value...................................         $759,000         $688,000       $1,126,000       $1,132,000
Non-pure-bred, category A (HS-010391)
    Quantity (metric tons)..................                0            (\1\)                0                0
    Value...................................                0          $25,000                0                0
Non-pure-bred, category B (HS-010392)
    Quantity (metric tons)..................               30            (\1\)                0                0
    Value...................................          $44,000          $45,000                0                0
                                             ------------------
        Total value.........................         $803,000         $758,000       $1,126,000      $1,132,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Unknown.
Source: FAS Global Agricultural Trade System using data from the UN Statistical Office.

Economic Effects on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires that agencies consider the 
economic effects of their rules on small entities. Domestic swine 
producers and processors of pork and pork products, as well as brokers, 
agents and others in the United States who would become involved in any 
future importation and sale of swine, pork, and pork products from 
Chile, are most likely to be directly affected by this change to 
Chile's CSF status. The number and size of the entities that may become 
involved in any future importation and sale of swine (or products) from 
Chile is unknown. However, it is reasonable to assume that most will be 
small, based on the Small Business Administration's standards, since 
most businesses are classified as small under those standards.
    From an economic standpoint, this change in Chile's CSF status 
should have little or no effect on domestic entities in the United 
States. This is because exports from Chile in quantities sufficient to 
have a significant effect on the U.S. market are unlikely. We do not 
anticipate that any U.S. entities, small or otherwise, will experience 
any significant economic effects as a result of this action.
    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

    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 0579-0235.

Government Paperwork Elimination Act Compliance

    The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is committed to 
compliance with the Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA), which 
requires Government agencies in general to provide the public the 
option of submitting information or transacting business electronically 
to the maximum extent possible. For information pertinent to GPEA 
compliance related to this rule, please contact Mrs. Celeste Sickles, 
APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 734-7477.

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.

0
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, CLASSICAL 
SWINE FEVER, AND BOVINE SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY: PROHIBITED AND 
RESTRICTED IMPORTATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 94 continues 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.


Sec.  94.9  [Amended]

0
2. In Sec.  94.9, paragraph (a) is amended by adding the word 
``Chile;'' after the word ``Canada;''.


Sec.  94.10  [Amended]

0
3. In Sec.  94.10, paragraph (a) is amended by adding the word 
``Chile;'' after the word ``Canada;''.
0
4. Section 94.24 is revised to read as follows.


Sec.  94.24  Restrictions on the importation of live swine, pork, or 
pork products from certain regions free of classical swine fever.

    The regions listed in paragraph (a) of this section are recognized 
as free of classical swine fever (CSF) in Sec. Sec.  94.9(a) and 
94.10(a) but either supplement their pork supplies with fresh (chilled 
or frozen) pork imported from regions considered to be affected by CSF, 
or supplement their pork supplies with pork from CSF-affected regions 
that is not processed in accordance with the requirements of this part, 
or share a common land border with CSF-affected regions, or import live 
swine from CSF-affected regions under conditions less restrictive than 
would be acceptable for importation into the United States. Thus, there 
exists a possibility that live swine, pork, or pork products from the 
CSF-free regions listed in paragraph (a) of this section may be 
commingled with live swine, pork, or pork products from CSF-affected 
regions, resulting in a risk of CSF introduction into the United 
States. Therefore, live swine, pork, or pork products and shipstores, 
airplane meals, and baggage containing pork or pork products, other 
than those articles regulated under parts 95 or 96 of this chapter, may 
not be imported into the United States from a region listed in 
paragraph (a) of this section unless the requirements in this section, 
in addition to other applicable requirements of part 93 of this chapter 
and part 327 of this title, are met.
    (a) Regions subject to the requirements of this section: Chile and

[[Page 41920]]

the Mexican States of Baja California, Baja California Sur, Chihuahua, 
and Sinaloa.
    (b) Live swine. The swine must be accompanied by a certification 
issued by a full-time salaried veterinary officer of the national 
government of the region of export. Upon arrival of the swine in the 
United States, the certification must be presented to an authorized 
inspector at the port of arrival. The certification must identify both 
the exporting region and the region of origin as a region designated in 
Sec. Sec.  94.9 and 94.10 as free of CSF at the time the swine were in 
the region and must state that:
    (1) The swine have not lived in a region designated in Sec. Sec.  
94.9 and 94.10 as affected with CSF.
    (2) The swine have never been commingled with swine that have been 
in a region that is designated in Sec. Sec.  94.9 and 94.10 as affected 
with CSF;
    (3) The swine have not transited a region designated in Sec. Sec.  
94.9 and 94.10 as affected with CSF unless moved directly through the 
region to their destination in a sealed means of conveyance with the 
seal intact upon arrival at the point of destination; and
    (4) The conveyances or materials used in transporting the swine, if 
previously used for transporting swine, have been cleaned and 
disinfected in accordance with the requirements of Sec.  93.502 of this 
chapter.
    (c) Pork or pork products. The pork or pork products must be 
accompanied by a certification issued by a full-time salaried 
veterinary officer of the national government of the region of export. 
Upon arrival of the pork or pork products in the United States, the 
certification must be presented to an authorized inspector at the port 
of arrival. The certification must identify both the exporting region 
and the region of origin of the pork or pork products as a region 
designated in Sec. Sec.  94.9 and 94.10 as free of CSF at the time the 
pork or pork products were in the region and must state that:
    (1) The pork or pork products were derived from swine that were 
born and raised in a region designated in Sec. Sec.  94.9 and 94.10 as 
free of CSF and were slaughtered in such a region at a federally 
inspected slaughter plant that is under the direct supervision of a 
full-time salaried veterinarian of the national government of that 
region and that is eligible to have its products imported into the 
United States under the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 601 et 
seq.) and the regulations in Sec.  327.2 of this title;
    (2) The pork or pork products were derived from swine that have not 
lived in a region designated in Sec. Sec.  94.9 and 94.10 as affected 
with CSF;
    (3) The pork or pork products have never been commingled with pork 
or pork products that have been in a region that is designated in 
Sec. Sec.  94.9 and 94.10 as affected with CSF;
    (4) The pork or pork products have not transited through a region 
designated in Sec. Sec.  94.9 and 94.10 as affected with CSF unless 
moved directly through the region to their destination in a sealed 
means of conveyance with the seal intact upon arrival at the point of 
destination; and
    (5) If processed, the pork or pork products were processed in a 
region designated in Sec. Sec.  94.9 and 94.10 as free of CSF in a 
federally inspected processing plant that is under the direct 
supervision of a full-time salaried veterinary official of the national 
government of that region.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control 
numbers 0579-0230 and 0579-0235)

    Done in Washington, DC, this 7th day of July 2004.
W. Ron DeHaven,
Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 04-15805 Filed 7-12-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P