[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 64 (Wednesday, April 2, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17881-17885]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-6800]



 ========================================================================
 Rules and Regulations
                                                 Federal Register
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents 
 having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed 
 to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published 
 under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
 
 The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents. 
 Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each 
 week.
 
 ========================================================================
 

  Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 64 / Wednesday, April 2, 2008 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 17881]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

9 CFR Part 94

[Docket No. APHIS-2006-0186]
RIN 0579-AC24


Importation of Uncooked Pork and Pork Products

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are amending the regulations for importing animal products 
to allow the importation of uncooked pork and pork products from 
regions where classical swine fever (CSF) is considered to exist if the 
uncooked pork and pork products originate in a region free of CSF and 
meet certain other conditions with respect to processing and shipping. 
This action removes some restrictions on the importation of uncooked 
pork and pork products while continuing to protect against an incursion 
of CSF into the United States.

DATES: Effective Date: May 2, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Masoud A. Malik, Senior Staff 
Veterinarian, Technical Trade Services, National Center for Import and 
Export, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 40, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; 
(301) 734-3277.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    The regulations in 9 CFR part 94 prohibit or restrict the 
importation of certain animals and animal and poultry products into the 
United States to prevent the introduction of dangerous and destructive 
diseases of livestock and poultry. Section 94.9 contains requirements 
that apply to the importation of pork and pork products from regions 
where classical swine fever (CSF) exists.
    On January 5, 2007, we published in the Federal Register (72 FR 
471-475, Docket No. APHIS-2006-0186) a proposal \1\ to allow the 
importation of uncooked pork and pork products from regions where CSF 
is considered to exist if the uncooked pork and pork products originate 
in a region free of CSF and meet certain other conditions with respect 
to processing and shipping.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ To view the proposed rule and the comments we received, go 
to http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS-2006-0186.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We solicited comments concerning our proposal for 60 days ending 
March 6, 2007. We received 11 comments by that date, from private 
citizens, a State animal industry board, a State animal health 
commission, an animal welfare advocacy group, a pork industry 
association, a veterinary medical association, and representatives of 
the Mexican Government.
    Several commenters expressed concern that the proposed rule would 
increase the risk of a CSF introduction into the United States. Some of 
these commenters were also concerned about the economic impact of the 
proposed rule on the pork industry in the United States, especially as 
a result of a loss of consumer confidence in U.S.-origin pork both with 
domestic consumers and foreign trading partners in the event of a CSF 
introduction to the United States.
    While we agree that an animal disease outbreak could have negative 
impacts on markets for U.S. meat, we are confident that, for the 
reasons explained in the proposed rule, the protections afforded by the 
safeguards contained in this final rule will reduce to an acceptable 
level the risks associated with any importation of pork or pork 
products that originate in regions designated as free of CSF but that 
have been processed in regions that are not designated as free of CSF.
    One commenter expressed concern that the Animal and Plant Health 
Inspection Service (APHIS) and the Food Safety and Inspection Service 
(FSIS) will not be able to monitor foreign processing establishments 
effectively and take appropriate remedial action in a timely manner.
    We disagree. Both APHIS and FSIS have strong inspection and 
enforcement processes in place to ensure that foreign processing 
establishments meet the requirements of the Federal Meat Inspection Act 
and the regulations issued thereunder, as well as APHIS regulations.
    One commenter stated that APHIS's conclusion that the proposed rule 
would have a minimal economic impact on the U.S. pork industry is 
premature.
    We have prepared a revised economic analysis with the most recent 
available economic data. Our analysis shows that even in the case of 
pork imports from Mexico increasing by twice the amount imported in 
2006, the effect on cash receipts of U.S. pork producers would be less 
than one-tenth of 1 percent.
    One commenter expressed concern that under the rule, retail stores 
could obtain processing inspection status in the United States and 
allow fresh meat from CSF regions to go directly from foreign plants to 
U.S. stores.
    Retailers would not be able to import fresh pork directly to their 
stores. In addition to the requirements APHIS imposes on imported meat 
and meat products, all meat imported into the United States for 
commercial purposes must be inspected by FSIS to ensure it meets the 
requirements of the Federal Meat Inspection Act and FSIS regulations. 
Imported meat must be moved from the port of arrival to the nearest 
defrost facility or an inspection house supervised by FSIS for review, 
inspection, and, if necessary, laboratory testing before the meat is 
distributed to the market or retail stores.
    One commenter was concerned that shipping swine to foreign 
establishments for slaughter would result in inhumane treatment of the 
swine.
    Under this final rule, only pork or pork products--not live swine--
originating in CSF-free regions may be processed in regions that are 
not CSF-free and then imported into the United States. As we explained 
in the proposed rule, we would not allow processing establishments that 
process pork or pork products for export to the United States to 
receive live swine, because CSF spreads quickly in environments where 
swine are held or slaughtered.
    Some commenters asked why no risk analysis was performed for this 
rulemaking. These commenters stated that a risk analysis addressing 
issues of contamination at plants in CSF regions,

[[Page 17882]]

review of biosecurity practices at plants, review of plants' compliance 
history, and need for sampling of products should be prepared.
    This rule includes requirements to ensure that pork and pork 
products from CSF-free regions are shipped to the processing facility 
in a manner that will prevent contamination. Records documenting 
shipment under seal must be kept at the facility for 2 years. The rule 
also contains measures to ensure contamination does not occur at the 
facility. These include a prohibition on the facility receiving or 
handling any pork or pork products from regions which are not free of 
CSF, a requirement that the processing be supervised by a full-time 
salaried meat inspection official of the national government of the 
region in which the facility is located, and provisions for APHIS 
monitoring. In addition, the facility must be approved by FSIS. We note 
that under the provisions of Sec.  94.6, poultry carcasses and parts 
and products of poultry carcasses from regions free of exotic Newcastle 
disease (END) may be processed in regions where END exists under 
conditions similar to those we proposed for pork and pork products. 
Those measures have proven successful in mitigating the risk of 
introducing END into the United States through poultry carcasses or 
parts and products of poultry carcasses. Under these circumstances, we 
decided that a risk analysis was not necessary.
    One commenter asked if the references to ``regions'' are consistent 
with the definition in the Terrestrial Animal Health Code, and if the 
United States Department of Agriculture has defined the science-based 
criteria to evaluate whether or not a region should be considered to be 
free of CSF.
    The term ``region'' is defined in Sec.  94.1 as ``Any defined 
geographical land area identifiable by geological, political, or 
surveyed boundaries. A region may consist of any of the following: (1) 
A national entity (country); (2) Part of a national entity (zone, 
county, department, municipality, parish, Province, State, etc.); (3) 
Parts of several national entities combined into an area; or (4) A 
group of national entities (countries) combined into a single area.'' 
We believe this definition to be consistent with World Organization for 
Animal Health definitions.
    APHIS evaluates foreign regions for disease-free status in 
accordance with the criteria set forth in our regulations in 9 CFR part 
92. Additional information on determining animal disease status and 
risk assessment can be found online at the Veterinary Services 
Regionalization Evaluation Services Staff Web site, http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ncie/reg-request.html. The informational document 
``Process for Foreign Animal Disease Status Evaluations, 
Regionalization, Risk Analysis, and Rulemaking,'' which describes the 
process APHIS follows when conducting foreign animal disease status 
evaluation, regionalization, risk analysis, and related rulemaking, is 
available to the public through that Web site by clicking on the 
document title at the bottom of the page.
    This final rule does not make any changes to the definition of a 
region, nor does it add or remove any regions from the list of regions 
recognized as CSF-free.
    We have made a minor, nonsubstantive change in Sec.  94.9 in this 
final rule by adding the word ``representative'' after the second 
``APHIS'' in the second sentence of paragraph (e)(4). This word was 
inadvertently left out in the proposed rule.
    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.

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.
    The U.S. swine industry plays an important role in the U.S. 
economy. Cash receipts from marketing meat animals were about $15 
billion in 2005 (2001-2005 average, $12.4 billion). Sales totaled 27.2 
billion pounds in 2005.\2\ Table 1 presents a time series of 
production, consumption, and export and import data. As the table 
shows, U.S. pork production increased from 7,764,000 metric tons in 
1996 to 9,392,000 metric tons in 2005, an annual growth rate of about 
2.1 percent. Similarly, consumption increased from 7,619,000 metric 
tons to 8,671,000 metric tons. During the same period, U.S. exports 
increased from 440,000 metric tons to 1,207,000 metric tons, by far 
outpacing imports. Net exports increased from 159,000 metric tons to 
743,000 metric tons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ NASS/USDA, Meat Animals Production, Disposition, and Income: 
2005 Summary, April 2006.

                                   Table 1.--U.S. Pork Production, Consumption, Price, Exports and Imports, 1996-2005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Production in  Consumption in                    Exports in      Imports in    Net exports in
                          Year                             1,000 metric    1,000 metric      Price per     1,000 metric    1,000 metric    1,000 metric
                                                               tons            tons         metric ton         tons            tons            tons
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996....................................................           7,764           7,619          $1,596             440             281             159
1997....................................................           7,835           7,631           1,562             473             288             185
1998....................................................           8,623           8,305           1,170             558             320             238
1999....................................................           8,758           8,594           1,178             582             375             207
2000....................................................           8,596           8,455           1,413             584             438             146
2001....................................................           8,691           8,389           1,473             707             431             276
2002....................................................           8,929           8,685           1,179             731             486             245
2003....................................................           9,056           8,816           1,298             779             538             241
2004....................................................           9,312           8,817           1,621             989             499             490
2005....................................................           9,392           8,671           1,562           1,207             464             743
5-year average (2001-2005)..............................           9,076           8,676           1,427             883             484            399
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources: USDA/FAS, PS&D Online, 1996-2005, www.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/psdquery.aspx; prices, reported as $/100 pounds for yearly pork carcass cut-out
  values, are converted to dollars per metric ton, and are taken from Red Meat Yearbook (94006), http://usda.manlib.cornell.edu/usda/94006/wholesaleprices.xls; net exports are calculated as the difference between exports and imports for each year.


[[Page 17883]]

    The United States exported a total of about 907,000 metric tons of 
fresh or frozen pork valued at $2.2 billion in 2006. Although exports 
are widely distributed, a few regions represent major markets. The 
major destinations include Japan (45.3 percent), Mexico (11.2 percent), 
Canada (12.2 percent), South Korea (13.1 percent), Russia (4 percent), 
Australia (3.4 percent), China (1.9 percent), and Taiwan (0.8 percent). 
These regions accounted for nearly 92 percent of U.S. fresh or frozen 
pork exports in 2006. The most recent data (January-February 2007) show 
a similar pattern.\3\
    Under our current regulations, all U.S. fresh and frozen pork 
imports are from regions that are free from CSF. As shown in table 2, 
the United States imported about 342,000 metric tons of fresh or frozen 
pork valued at $863 million in 2006. Most of the imports were from 
Canada (84.3 percent) and Denmark (10.3 percent). Other regions that 
supplied pork include the Netherlands (0.7 percent), Ireland (0.5 
percent), the United Kingdom (0.4 percent), Finland (0.4 percent), and 
Mexico (0.4 percent), with a total of less than 0.7 percent of imports 
coming from six other countries. In January and February of 2007, a 
similar import pattern was observed, with imports of about 52,600 
metric tons of fresh or frozen pork valued at about $131 million for 
this 2-month period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The World Trade Atlas: Global Trade Information Services, 
Inc., U.S. edition, February 2007.

                                            Table 2.--U.S. Global Imports of Fresh or Frozen Pork, 2003-2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     2003        2004        2005        2006         2007 (Jan-Feb)
                                 ------------------------------------------------------------------------               Metric                  Metric
             Source                             Metric                  Metric                  Metric     $Million      tons      $Million      tons
                                   $Million      tons      $Million      tons      $Million      tons
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Canada..........................    $644.806    349422.6    $760.886    320339.3    $745.496    315136.5    $681.313    288624.2     $103.11     46102.2
Denmark.........................     156.324     45735.7     182.794     46697.8     154.933     34477.9     141.731     35208.8       22.65      5248.1
Ireland.........................       9.998      2905.7      128.38      2889.4      12.192      2590.5       8.657      1750.9       1.627       335.2
Finland.........................        2115       822.4       6.792      2186.3       4.797      1356.5       5.235      1292.7       0.513        95.3
Netherlands.....................           0           0       8.511      1923.3       9.373      2249.8      10.508      2490.2           0           0
United Kingdom..................       4.281      1488.7       4.184      1020.6      10.787      2186.3       7.305      1410.7       1.608       323.9
Mexico\1\.......................       0.949       391.9       2.498       725.8       4.212      1038.7       5.102      1496.6       1.201       306.6
Sweden..........................       0.098        40.8        2.95       730.3         2.4       557.9       1.807         386       0.068        23.6
Germany\1\......................       9.353       137.4           0           0       0.319       117.9       0.381        91.2           0           0
Australia.......................       0.038        12.3        0.05         9.1       0.056          24           0           0           0           0
New Zealand.....................       0.037        14.5           0           0           0           0           0           0           0           0
Chile...........................           0           0           0           0           0           0       0.723       320.2       0.468       126.1
Iceland.........................           0           0           0           0           0           0       0.161          24           0           0
Belgium\1\......................           0           0           0           0           0           0       0.058        23.1           0           0
China...........................           0           0           0           0           0           0       0.042        18.1           0           0
                                 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
World total.....................         819    400972.1     928.504    373514.5     944.565    359738.7     863.024    342257.1      131.46    52562.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Mexico contains regions where CSF exists, but also contains regions recognized as CSF-free. Belgium and Germany are part of the APHIS-defined CSF
  region, a single region of low risk for CSF. Pork, pork products, and swine from this region may be imported into the United States in accordance with
  the provisions of Sec.   94.24.

Overall Impacts of Potential Pork Imports From Mexico

    As indicated above, the rule will allow uncooked pork and pork 
products that originate in the United States to be shipped for 
processing to Mexico, which contains areas where CSF is considered to 
exist, and then be returned to the United States. As the Mexican 
Government and U.S. pork producers have requested this rule, this trade 
may increase under the rule, but we are unable to predict the size of 
the increase. Pork imports from Mexico accounted for only 0.6 percent 
in terms of value and only 0.4 percent in terms of volume in 2006.
    We estimate here the impact of pork imports from Mexico on U.S. 
production, consumption, and prices using a net trade welfare model. 
The data used are obtained from the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) 
Production, Supply and Distribution (PS&D) database;\4\ the USDA 
Economic Research Service (ERS) Red Meat Yearbook (94006);\5\ the 
Global Trade Atlas;\6\ and United Nations/Food and Agriculture 
Organization FAOSTAT data.\7\ The baseline data used are as shown in 
the last row of table 1. The demand and supply elasticities used are -
0.086 and 1, respectively.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ http://www.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/psdquery.aspx.
    \5\ http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/ers/94006/wholesaleprices.xls.
    \6\ Global Trade Information Services, Inc., country edition, 
March 2007.
    \7\ http://faostat.fao.org.
    \8\ John Sullivan, John Wainio, and Vernon Roningen, A Database 
for Trade Liberalization Studies, AGES89-12, March 1989.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We model three potential levels of pork imports from Mexico: 
Average imports from Mexico between 2003 and 2006; imports in 2006; and 
twice the imports in 2006. Amounts of pork shipped to the United States 
under the three scenarios are 906.45 metric tons, 1,470 metric tons, 
and 2,940 metric tons. Table 3 presents the changes resulting from the 
assumed U.S. pork imports from Mexico. These include annual changes in 
U.S. consumption, production, wholesale price, consumer welfare, 
producer welfare, and net welfare.
    Our medium level of assumed pork imports of 1.470 metric tons (2006

[[Page 17884]]

actual imports) results in a decline of $0.13 per metric ton in the 
wholesale price of pork and a fall in U.S. production of about 770 
metric tons. Consumption increases by about 700 metric tons. Producer 
welfare declines by about $1.10 million and consumer welfare increases 
by about $1.16 million, yielding an annual net benefit of about 
$65,000.

        Table 3.--Estimated Impact for the U.S. Economy of Pork Imports From Mexico Under Three Scenarios
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Average imports                        Twice the 2006
                                                            (2003-2006)        2006 imports         imports
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assumed pork imports, metric tons......................             906.45               1470               2940
Change in U.S. consumption, metric tons................             432.04             700.45             1401.3
Change in U.S. production, metric tons.................            -474.41            -769.35            -1538.7
Change in wholesale price of pork, dollars per metric               -$0.08             -$0.13             -$0.27
 ton...................................................
Change in consumer welfare.............................           $716,910         $1,162,630         $2,325,360
Change in producer welfare.............................          -$676,960        -$1,097,810        -$2,195,520
Annual net welfare gain................................            $39,950            $64,820          $129,840
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The baseline data used are 5-year annual averages for production, consumption, price, exports, and imports
  (2001-2005), as reported in the last row of table 1. The demand and supply elasticities used are -0.086 and 1,
  respectively.

    The first column presents impacts assuming imports from Mexico 
equivalent to the 2003-2006 average. In this case, the price decreases 
by $0.08 per metric ton, production declines by about 474 metric tons, 
and consumption increases by about 432 metric tons. Consumer welfare 
increases by about $717,000, and producer welfare declines by $677,000. 
The annual net benefit is about $40,000.
    Finally, the last column presents a case of expanded trade, with 
pork imports by the United States assumed to equal twice the 2006 
imports from Mexico. The wholesale price of pork declines by $0.27 per 
metric ton, production declines by about 1,540 metric tons, and 
consumption increases by about 1,400 metric tons. Consumer welfare 
increases by about $2.3 million, while production welfare declines by 
about $2.2 million. The annual net benefit is about $130,000.
    In all cases, consumer welfare gains outweigh production welfare 
losses. The decline in producer welfare, even in the last scenario, 
represents less than one-tenth of 1 percent of cash receipts received 
from the sale of domestic hogs and pork products.\9\ Thus, our analysis 
indicates that U.S. entities are unlikely to be significantly affected 
by this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ $9.7 million divided by $12.4 billion equals 0.08 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Expected Impacts of the Rule for Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires that agencies consider the 
economic impacts of their rules on small entities. We expect the impact 
of this rule for businesses large and small to be insignificant, but 
note here that the main industries that could be affected--meat 
processing (NAICS 311612) and meat and meat product merchant 
wholesalers (NAICS 424470)--are primarily composed of small entities. 
Under Small Business Administration (SBA) standards, meat processing 
establishments with no more than 500 employees, and meat and meat 
products wholesalers with no more than 100 employees are considered 
small. In 2002, there were 1,335 companies in the United States that 
processed and sold meat. More than 97 percent of these establishments 
are considered to be small entities and had average sales of $15.4 
million, while large meat processors had average sales of $188 million. 
In 2002, there were 2,535 meat and meat product wholesalers in the 
United States. Of these establishments, 2,456 (97 percent) employed not 
more than 100 employees and are thus considered small by SBA standards. 
Small wholesalers had average sales of $9.3 million, while large 
entities had average sales of $131 million.\10\ Additionally, entities 
that produce hogs and pigs (NAICS 11210) could be affected.\11\ There 
were 82,028 farms with sales of hogs, about 94 percent of which are 
considered to be small. The impact of the rule is expected to be small 
for all entities, regardless of their size.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census: Manufacturing--
Industries Series and Wholesale Trade-Subject, August 2006.
    \11\ SBA, Small Business Size Standards matched to North 
American Industry Classification System. Effective July 31, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 0579-0333.

E-Government Act Compliance

    The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is committed to 
compliance with the E-Government Act to promote the use of the Internet 
and other information technologies, to provide increased opportunities 
for citizen access to Government information and services, and for 
other purposes. For information pertinent to E-Government Act 
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:


[[Page 17885]]


    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 450, 7701-7772, 7781-7786, and 8301-8317; 21 
U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.


Sec.  94.12, 94.16, 94.17, 94.18  [Amended]


0
2. Sections 94.12, 94.16, 94.17, and 94.18 are amended by redesignating 
footnotes 12 through 18 as footnotes 13 through 19, respectively.

0
3. In Sec.  94.9, a new paragraph (e) and a new footnote 12 are added 
and the OMB citation at the end of the section is revised to read as 
follows:


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

* * * * *
    (e) Uncooked pork or pork products that originated in a region 
considered to be free of classical swine fever (CSF) and are processed 
in a region where CSF exists may be imported into the United States 
under the following conditions:
    (1) Shipment to approved establishments. (i) The uncooked pork or 
pork products must be shipped from the CSF-free region of origin in 
closed containers sealed with serially numbered seals applied by an 
official of the national government of that region. They must be 
accompanied by a certificate that is signed by an official of that 
region's national government and that specifies the product's region of 
origin, the name and number of the establishment of origin, and the 
processing establishment to which the uncooked pork or pork products 
are consigned, and the numbers of the seals applied to the shipping 
containers.
    (ii) The uncooked pork or pork products may be removed from 
containers at the processing establishment in the region where CSF is 
considered to exist only after an official of that region's national 
government has determined that the seals are intact and free of any 
evidence of tampering.
    (2) Handling of uncooked pork and pork products. Establishments 
\12\ in regions where CSF is considered to exist that process uncooked 
pork or pork products for export to the United States:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See footnote 9 in Sec.  94.8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (i) May not receive or handle any live swine;
    (ii) May not receive, handle, or process uncooked pork or pork 
products that originate in regions affected with CSF;
    (iii) Must keep the certificate required by paragraph (e)(1)(i) of 
this section on file at the facility for a period of at least 2 years 
after export of processed products to the United States, and must make 
those records available to USDA inspectors during inspections; and
    (iv) Must be evaluated and approved by APHIS through a site 
inspection.
    (3) Compliance agreement. The operators of the processing 
establishment must sign a compliance agreement with APHIS, stating 
that:
    (i) All meat processed for importation to the United States will be 
processed in accordance with the requirements of this part; and
    (ii) A full-time, salaried meat inspection official of the national 
government of the region in which the processing facility is located 
will supervise the processing and examination of the product, and 
certify that it has been processed in accordance with this section; and
    (iii) APHIS personnel or other persons authorized by the 
Administrator may enter the establishment, unannounced, to inspect the 
establishment and its records.
    (4) Cooperative service agreement. The processing establishment, or 
a party on its behalf, must enter into a cooperative service agreement 
with APHIS to pay all expenses incurred by APHIS for the initial 
evaluation of the processing establishment and periodically thereafter, 
including travel, salary, subsistence, administrative overhead, and 
other incidental expenses, including excess baggage up to 150 pounds. 
In accordance with the terms of the cooperative service agreement, 
before the APHIS representative's site inspection, the operator of the 
processing establishment or the party acting on their behalf must 
deposit with the Administrator an amount equal to the approximate cost 
of one inspection by an APHIS representative, including travel, salary, 
subsistence, administrative overhead, and other incidental expenses, 
including excess baggage up to 150 pounds. As funds from that amount 
are obligated, a bill for costs incurred based on official accounting 
records will be issued to restore the deposit to the original level, 
revised as necessary to allow for inflation or other changes in 
estimated costs. To be current, bills must be paid within 14 days of 
receipt.
    (5) Shipment to the United States. Uncooked pork or pork products 
to be imported into the United States must be shipped from the region 
where they were processed in closed containers sealed with serially 
numbered seals applied by an official of the national government of 
that region. The shipments must be accompanied by a certificate signed 
by an official of the national government of the region where the pork 
or pork products were processed that lists the numbers of the seals 
applied and states that all of the conditions of this paragraph (e) 
have been met. The certificate shall also state that the container 
seals specified in paragraph (e)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section were 
found by an official of the region's national government to be intact 
and free of any evidence of tampering on arrival at the processing 
establishment in the CSF-affected region. A copy of this certificate 
must be kept on file at the processing establishment for at least 2 
years.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control 
numbers 0579-0015 and 0579-0333)


Sec.  94.17  [Amended]

0
4. In Sec.  94.17, newly redesignated footnote 17 is amended by 
removing the words ``footnote 15'' and adding the words ``footnote 16'' 
in their place and by removing the words ``Sec.  94.17(e) of this 
part'' and adding the words ``paragraph (e) of this section'' in their 
place.

    Done in Washington, DC, this 27th day of March 2008.
Kevin Shea,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
 [FR Doc. E8-6800 Filed 4-1-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P