Proposed Rule2023-05889
Importation of Fresh Beef From Paraguay
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
March 27, 2023
Issuing agencies
Agriculture DepartmentAnimal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Abstract
We are proposing to amend the regulations governing the importation of certain animals, meat, and other animal products by allowing, under certain conditions, the importation of fresh (chilled or frozen) beef from Paraguay. Based on the evidence from a risk analysis, we have determined that fresh beef can safely be imported from Paraguay, provided certain conditions are met. This action would provide for the importation of fresh beef from Paraguay into the United States while continuing to protect the United States against the introduction of foot-and-mouth disease.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 58 (Monday, March 27, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 58 (Monday, March 27, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18077-18086]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2023-05889]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
9 CFR Part 94
[Docket No. APHIS-2018-0007]
RIN 0579-AE73
Importation of Fresh Beef From Paraguay
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are proposing to amend the regulations governing the
importation of certain animals, meat, and other animal products by
allowing, under certain conditions, the importation of fresh (chilled
or frozen) beef from Paraguay. Based on the evidence from a risk
analysis, we have determined that fresh beef can safely be imported
from Paraguay, provided certain conditions are met. This action would
provide for the importation of fresh beef from Paraguay into the United
States while continuing to protect the United States against the
introduction of foot-and-mouth disease.
DATES: We will consider all comments that we receive on or before May
26, 2023.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
<bullet> Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>.
Enter APHIS-2018-0007 in the Search Field. Select the Documents tab,
then select the Comment button in the list of documents.
<bullet> Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Send your comment to
Docket No. APHIS-2018-0007, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD,
APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road, Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-
1238.
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may
be viewed at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> or in our reading room, which is
located in room 1620 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure
someone is there to help you, please call (202) 799-7039 before coming.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Ingrid Kotowski, Import Risk
Analyst, Regionalization Evaluation Services, VS, APHIS, 920 Main
Campus Drive, Suite 200, Raleigh, NC 27606; (919) 855-7732; email:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7031031b221517191f1e111c190a1104191f1e30050314115e171f06"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a1e0d2caf3c4c6c8cecfc0cdc8dbc0d5c8cecfe1d4d2c5c08fc6ced7">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The regulations in 9 CFR part 94 (referred to below as the
regulations) prohibit or restrict the importation of certain animals
and animal products into the United States to prevent the introduction
of various animal diseases, including foot-and-mouth disease (FMD),
African swine fever, classical swine fever, and swine vesicular
disease. These are dangerous and destructive communicable diseases of
ruminants and swine. Under most circumstances, Sec. 94.1 of the
regulations prohibits the importation of live ruminants and swine and
fresh (chilled or frozen) meat derived from ruminants and swine
originating in, or transiting through, a region where FMD exists.
Section 94.11 restricts the importation of ruminants and swine and
their meat and certain other products from regions that are declared
free of FMD but that nonetheless present a disease risk because of the
regions' proximity to or trading relationships with regions affected
with FMD. Regions that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
(APHIS) has declared free of FMD and regions declared free of FMD that
are subject to the restrictions in Sec. 94.11 are listed on the APHIS
website at <a href="http://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/animals/animal_disease_status.shtml">http://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/animals/animal_disease_status.shtml</a>.
The regulations do allow for certain exceptions to the prohibitions
contained
[[Page 18078]]
in Sec. 94.1. These exceptions include allowing the importation of
fresh (chilled or frozen) beef and ovine meat from Uruguay and fresh
beef from certain regions of Argentina and a region of Brazil, subject
to certain conditions. While there have been FMD outbreaks in the past
in those regions, the disease is not currently known to exist in any of
them. We do not recognize those exporting regions as FMD-free, however,
because the Argentine, Brazilian, and Uruguayan governments all require
that cattle be vaccinated for FMD.\1\ The conditions for the
importation of beef and ovine meat from Uruguay and beef from the
exporting regions of Argentina and Brazil are set out in Sec. 94.29 of
the regulations and include the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The position of the United States is that a country that
vaccinates for FMD is not free of the disease. Vaccination of cattle
against FMD introduces risks related to the immunological response
within the vaccinated herd. While a large percentage of individual
animals in the herd may fully respond to FMD vaccination, some
individual animals in the herd may have a limited response,
resulting in partial or no immunity. Therefore, so-called herd
immunity may not always reflect individual animal immunity, and the
disease may still be present in certain animals in a vaccinated
population. As a result, importation of beef from areas in which
cattle are vaccinated for FMD could result in importation of beef
derived from infected animals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
<bullet> The meat is derived from animals born, raised, and
slaughtered in the exporting region.
<bullet> FMD has not been diagnosed in the exporting region within
the previous 12 months.
<bullet> The meat comes from bovines or sheep that originated from
premises where FMD has not been present during the lifetime of any
bovines and sheep slaughtered for the export of meat to the United
States.
<bullet> The meat comes from bovines or sheep that were moved
directly from the premises of origin to the slaughtering establishment
without any contact with other animals.
<bullet> The meat comes from bovines or sheep that received ante-
mortem and post-mortem veterinary inspections, paying particular
attention to the head and feet, at the slaughtering establishment, with
no evidence found of vesicular disease.
<bullet> The meat consists only of bovine parts or ovine parts that
are, by standard practice, part of the animal's carcass that is placed
in a chiller for maturation after slaughter and before removal of any
bone, blood clots, or lymphoid tissue. The bovine and ovine parts that
may not be imported include all parts of the head, feet, hump, hooves,
and internal organs.
<bullet> All bone and visually identifiable blood clots and
lymphoid tissue have been removed from the meat to be exported (bone-in
ovine meat from Uruguay may be imported under certain conditions listed
in the regulations, however).
<bullet> The meat has not been in contact with meat from regions
other than those listed in accordance with Sec. 94.1(a).
<bullet> The meat came from carcasses that were allowed to maturate
at 40 to 50 [deg]F (4 to 10 [deg]C) for a minimum of 24 hours after
slaughter and that reached a pH below 6.0 in the loin muscle at the end
of the maturation period. Measurements for pH must be taken at the
middle of both longissimus dorsi muscles. Any carcass in which the pH
does not reach less than 6.0 may be allowed to maturate an additional
24 hours and be retested, and, if the carcass still has not reached a
pH of less than 6.0 after 48 hours, the meat from the carcass may not
be exported to the United States.
<bullet> An authorized veterinary official of the government of the
exporting region certifies on the foreign meat inspection certificate
that the above conditions have been met.
<bullet> The establishment in which the bovines and sheep are
slaughtered allows periodic on-site evaluation and subsequent
inspection of its facilities, records, and operations by an APHIS
representative.
Historically, trade in fresh (chilled or frozen) beef from Paraguay
has not been allowed because APHIS has considered Paraguay to be a
country affected with FMD. In response to a request from the Government
of Paraguay that we allow fresh (chilled or frozen) beef to be imported
into the United States from that country, we conducted a risk analysis,
which can be viewed on the internet on the <a href="http://Regulations.gov">Regulations.gov</a> website or
in our reading room.\2\ APHIS gathered data to support this analysis
from records of the Servicio Nacional de Calidad y Salud Animal
(SENACSA), from publicly available information, and from published
scientific literature. In addition, APHIS conducted site visits to
Paraguay in December 2008 and July 2014 to verify the information
submitted by SENACSA and to collect additional data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Instructions on accessing <a href="http://Regulations.gov">Regulations.gov</a> and information on
the location and hours of the reading room may be found at the
beginning of this document under ADDRESSES. You may also request
paper copies of the risk analysis by calling or writing the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We concluded that the overall risk associated with importing fresh
beef from Paraguay is low and that Paraguay has the infrastructure and
emergency response capabilities needed to effectively report, contain,
and eradicate FMD in the event of an outbreak and to do so in a timely
manner. We further concluded that Paraguay is able to comply with U.S.
import restrictions on the specific products from affected areas. Based
on the evidence documented in our risk analysis, we believe that fresh
(chilled or frozen) beef can be safely imported from Paraguay, provided
certain conditions are met. Accordingly, we are proposing to amend the
regulations in Sec. 94.29 to provide for the importation of fresh beef
from Paraguay. Under this proposed rule, fresh beef from Paraguay would
be subject to the same import conditions applicable to fresh beef and
ovine meat from Uruguay (other than bone-in ovine meat imported under
Sec. 94.29(g)(1) through (3)) and fresh beef from the exporting
regions of Argentina and Brazil.
Risk Analysis
Our risk analysis was conducted according to the eight factors
identified in 9 CFR 92.2, ``Application for recognition of the animal
health status of a region or a compartment'': The scope of the
evaluation being requested, veterinary control and oversight, disease
history and vaccination practices, livestock demographics and
traceability, epidemiological separation from potential sources of
infection, surveillance, diagnostic laboratory capabilities, and
emergency preparedness and response. A summary evaluation of each
factor is discussed below. Based on our analysis of these factors, we
have determined that fresh (chilled or frozen) beef can be safely
imported into the United States from Paraguay, under the conditions
specified in Sec. 94.29.
Scope of the Evaluation Being Requested
In addition to reviewing records submitted by SENACSA, publicly
available information, and published scientific literature, APHIS
conducted site visits in December 2008 and July 2014 to verify the
information we reviewed and to collect additional data. The site visits
focused on the veterinary and legal infrastructure of SENACSA, its FMD
control program, border control procedures, disease control measures,
laboratory and diagnostic capabilities, biosecurity procedures on
cattle farms and in slaughter facilities, animal health recordkeeping
systems, movement controls, and disease surveillance systems. The 2014
visit included an evaluation of FMD outbreaks that occurred in 2011 and
2012 and the
[[Page 18079]]
effectiveness of SENACSA's response to the outbreaks.
Veterinary Control and Oversight
Based on our analysis of the data submitted by SENACSA and
observations made during our site visits to Paraguay, we concluded that
the competent veterinary authority of Paraguay is well-organized and
has the legal authority and technical infrastructure in place to carry
out official control, eradication, and quarantine activities at the
central, regional, and local levels. SENACSA is also an active
collaborator with neighboring countries in disease-eradication efforts.
SENACSA has a system of official veterinarians and support staff in
place for carrying out FMD field programs and for import controls and
animal quarantines. It also has a training program for animal health
professionals, frequently in collaboration with the veterinary medical
faculty of the National University. The overall structure and resources
of SENACSA have significantly increased and been strengthened in
reaction to the FMD outbreak in 2012. Following feedback from the World
Organization for Animal Health (WOAH) and the European Union (EU),
SENACSA is also hiring new personnel to expand its workforce.
A very strong partnership exists between the competent authority
and the livestock industry. A large proportion of SENACSA's funding
comes from the private sector in the form of user fees paid by
stakeholders associated with sales of animals or movement permits.
While this funding method allows SENACSA to operate autonomously and
with little political interference, it also makes SENACSA's budget
dependent on user fees. SENACSA is addressing the issue and has
increased its operational budget to U.S. $36 million. Although the
contribution of the treasury department compared to that of the private
sector is small, APHIS found no evidence suggesting that resources from
the private sector could change in the future or that available
resources for FMD control programs would be reduced.
Disease History and Vaccination Practices
APHIS observed that SENACSA has an established program for the
control and prevention of FMD which includes a well-organized
vaccination strategy. The vaccine used in Paraguay has been assessed by
international FMD reference laboratories to be appropriate for the
strains that have been found in the region in the last 15 years.
Serosurveillance has demonstrated adequate levels of immunity in cattle
previously immunized.
Following the 2011/2012 FMD outbreak, SENACSA instituted changes to
its vaccination program. Audits of vaccinators and the vaccine cold
chain were conducted. Vaccination cycles were increased from two to
three annually. The training provided by SENACSA and industry-based
Animal Health Commissions (AHC) prior to each vaccination cycle also
appears to have increased the level of awareness of good vaccination
practices among AHC vaccinators.
Livestock Demographics and Traceability
Paraguay's animal identification system is similar to, and meets
the requirements of, the EU and Chilean markets, both of which have
stringent traceability requirements. Paraguay has two traceability
systems: A mandatory system under SENACSA and an industry-based,
voluntary program called the System for the Identification and
Traceability of Rural Holdings in Paraguay (SITRAP). Under SITRAP,
there have been initiatives undertaken to facilitate and enhance
traceability at slaughter.
Movement controls were well organized and coordinated. Internal
control posts visited were well-equipped with access to
telecommunications and information technology systems. Staff at these
control posts were well aware of movement requirements and followed
established procedures related to movement control. The staff had an
organized and consistent way of assessing each animal transport and
movement. Records at the control posts were well organized, and manuals
of procedures were readily available.
We concluded that Paraguay has a sound system for animal
identification and traceability, premises registration, and animal
movement controls. The system is adequate to provide assurance that the
U.S. import requirements for animals to be born, raised, and
slaughtered in Paraguay can be met.
Epidemiological Separation From Potential Sources of Infection
Many natural barriers, such as large rivers and forest areas, exist
along Paraguay's international and internal borders. These barriers
restrict both animal movement and human traffic and prevent the spread
of disease.
Movement of FMD-susceptible species or products into Paraguay could
occur through international borders where sufficient physical barriers
do not exist, e.g., along some areas bordering Brazil and Argentina.
However, the international borders are actively monitored, and Paraguay
collaborates effectively with neighboring countries to minimize the
risk of introduction of FMD. Border control agreements between Paraguay
and its neighbors have been in place since the 1970s, and efforts
continue to strengthen and harmonize border activities. Sufficient
controls exist at the airports for interdiction of prohibited material
and for prevention of the recycling of confiscated products and
international waste.
With the exception of Chile, APHIS does not consider the countries
of South America to be free of FMD. Coordinated regional FMD control
efforts have been effective in decreasing the incidence of FMD and
limiting it to certain regions, however. Based on the history of the
disease on the continent, Paraguay's veterinary infrastructure, and
SENASCA'S prompt response to the outbreaks in Argentina (2006), Brazil
(2005-2006), and Bolivia (2007), APHIS concluded that it is unlikely
that disease would be introduced from adjacent areas. However, at the
time the risk analysis was prepared, Colombia had just eradicated an
FMD outbreak. As long as FMD is endemic in certain areas in South
America, there is a potential risk of reintroduction of the disease
into the export area.
Surveillance Practices
Our evaluation led us to conclude that Paraguay has a good
epidemiological surveillance system. The surveillance activities
conducted and the use of sound statistical methodologies increase the
likelihood of detection of FMD if it exists in the population.
Paraguay's surveillance system combines both active surveillance
and passive surveillance. Active surveillance consists of annual
seroepidemiological sampling at the national level to verify the
absence of circulating FMD virus. The active surveillance strategy is
updated based on the surveillance objectives for the year. Extensive
serological surveys were also conducted following FMD outbreaks 2003
and 2011/2012 to ensure the absence of circulating FMD virus. Passive
surveillance is based on the notification of vesicular disease by
producers who are required by law to report any suspect cases to their
Local Veterinary Unit, which must then respond within 12 hours of
notification. Indemnification is predicated on this notification by the
producer. Paraguay's passive surveillance efforts are enhanced by the
extensive awareness of
[[Page 18080]]
the clinical signs of FMD among the animal health field staff and
within the industry, as well as the mandatory reporting requirement for
suspect cases of vesicular diseases. SENACSA, producers, and the AHCs
in particular all have a role in passive surveillance efforts.
Additional surveillance comes from herd immunity studies, which are
conducted frequently. Enhanced epidemiological surveillance occurs in
High Surveillance Zones, which were established by Paraguay in
coordination with neighboring countries.
SENACSA has a manual of procedures that provides the field
veterinarians with guidelines for sample collection, animal
identification, aging by dentition, communications, and measures to be
taken in case of reactors or suspect cases. The manual ensures
consistency in surveillance activities and responses to suspects among
field offices.
Diagnostic Laboratory Capabilities
The Directorate General for Laboratories (DIGELAB) is the official
laboratory in Paraguay and is located in the SENACSA headquarters.
Responsibilities include the diagnosis of SENACSA's program diseases
such as FMD, bovine spongiform encephalopathy, tuberculosis,
brucellosis, classical swine fever, and Newcastle disease. DIGELAB's
FMD laboratory is the only laboratory in Paraguay authorized to conduct
diagnostic testing for vesicular diseases, including FMD. Relative to
the FMD program, DIGELAB's Vesicular Diseases Department is responsible
for conducting FMD diagnostic testing of animals as required under
SENACSA's active and passive surveillance strategy, including
surveillance sampling at fairs and shows, as well as testing of animals
for import or export.
APHIS concluded that Paraguay has the diagnostic capabilities to
adequately test samples for the presence of FMD virus. DIGELAB's FMD
laboratory has the necessary infrastructure, equipment, and personnel.
The laboratory staff are well-trained in the diagnosis of vesicular
diseases. Diagnostic test methodologies used in the identification of
vesicular diseases are consistent with WOAH guidelines. All laboratory
standard operating procedures are thorough and systematic, and
documentation is good. The laboratory conducts quality control on all
FMD vaccines, both nationally produced and imported. SENACSA has an
organized recordkeeping system for laboratory data and the ability to
complete and report test results in a timely manner.
Emergency Preparedness and Response
SENACSA has established procedures for rapidly detecting and
responding to FMD emergencies. SENACSA has surveillance and laboratory
programs for early detection of FMD and the necessary infrastructure
for carrying out emergency eradication programs, including an FMD
contingency plan supported by a legal framework and a sufficient
budget. If FMD is confirmed in Paraguay through diagnostic testing, the
National Animal Health Emergency System (SINAESA) is immediately
activated, and a Director of Emergency is appointed to head up the
emergency response effort. SINAESA is responsible for establishing a
chain of command and for identifying and obtaining the necessary
resources to carry out the activities needed to eradicate the disease.
In responding to outbreaks in neighboring countries, as well as during
the 2011/2012 outbreak in Paraguay, SENACSA demonstrated its capacity
for rapid and effective emergency response.
The above findings are detailed in the risk analysis document. The
risk analysis explains the factors that have led us to conclude that
fresh (chilled or frozen) beef may be safely imported from Paraguay
under the conditions enumerated above. It also establishes that
Paraguay has adequate veterinary infrastructure in place to prevent,
control, report, and manage FMD outbreaks. Therefore, we are proposing
to amend Sec. 94.29 to allow the importation of fresh beef from
Paraguay under the conditions described above.
Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and Regulatory Flexibility Act
This proposed rule has been determined to be significant for the
purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has been reviewed by
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
We have prepared an economic analysis for this rule. The economic
analysis provides a cost-benefit analysis, as required by Executive
Orders 12866 and 13563, which direct agencies to assess all costs and
benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is
necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits
(including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety
effects, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance
of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of
harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. The economic analysis
also provides an initial regulatory flexibility analysis that examines
the potential economic effects of this rule on small entities, as
required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Based on the information we have, there is no reason to conclude
that adoption of this proposed rule would result in any significant
economic effect on a substantial number of small entities. However, we
do not currently have all of the data necessary for a comprehensive
analysis of the effects of this proposed rule on small entities.
Therefore, we are inviting comments on potential effects. In
particular, we are interested in determining the number and kind of
small entities that may incur benefits or costs from the implementation
of this proposed rule.
Introduction
This analysis examines potential economic impacts of a proposed
rule that would allow fresh (chilled or frozen) beef from Paraguay to
be imported into the United States provided certain conditions are met.
APHIS currently considers the whole territory of Paraguay to be a
region where FMD exists. With few exceptions, APHIS' regulations in
part 94 prohibit the importation of fresh (chilled or frozen) meat of
ruminants or swine that originates in or transits a region where FMD is
considered to exist. APHIS does not consider Paraguay as free of FMD
because Paraguay vaccinates against FMD. As explained in detail earlier
in this document, the vaccination requirement could result in infected
animals being imported into the United States.
This document provides a benefit-cost analysis, as required by
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, which direct agencies to assess all
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public
health and safety effects, and equity). Executive Order 13563
emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of
reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility.
This document also examines the potential economic effects of the rule
on small entities, as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Overview of the Action and Affected Entities
U.S. Beef Production and Trade
The United States is the largest beef producer in the world and
produces
[[Page 18081]]
primarily grain-fed beef for the domestic and export markets. Over the
period 2016 to 2020, U.S. beef production averaged 12 million metric
tons (MT); exports 1.4 million MT; and imports 1.3 million MT (Table
1).
Table 1--U.S. Beef Production, Exports, and Imports
[2016 to 2020]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Production Imports Exports
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metric tons
-----------------------------------------------
2016............................................................ 11,468,481 1,365,986 1,159,637
2017............................................................ 11,904,762 1,357,370 1,296,599
2018............................................................ 12,216,780 1,359,637 1,433,107
2019............................................................ 12,346,485 1,386,848 1,372,336
2020............................................................ 12,355,556 1,515,646 1,338,322
-----------------------------------------------
5-year average.............................................. 12,058,413 1,397,098 1,320,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), World Agricultural Outlook Board, ``World Agricultural Supply and
Demand Estimates'' and supporting materials; U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis
(population); and USDA, Economic Research Service.
Most U.S. beef imports are grass-fed beef that is processed
together with higher-fat trimmings from U.S. grain-fed beef to produce
ground beef. Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Mexico historically
have been the largest sources of U.S. beef imports (Table 2). Entry of
beef from Paraguay into the U.S. beef market would result in a change
in market shares.
In terms of exports, between 2016 and 2020 the top destinations for
U.S. beef were Japan (362,071 MT); South Korea (264,780 MT); Mexico
(181,982 MT); Hong Kong (156,025 MT); and Canada (133,316 MT).
Table 2--U.S. Beef Imports From Principal Supply Countries
[2016 to 2020; 1,000 MT]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Country 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Average
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,000 Metric tons, carcass weight equivalent
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Canada.................................................. 325.37 336.01 358.91 384.31 374.15 355.75
Australia............................................... 347.74 315.02 305.08 324.85 300.50 318.64
Mexico.................................................. 223.67 259.99 230.36 262.90 295.25 254.44
New Zealand............................................. 277.67 252.48 259.54 181.77 233.73 241.04
Brazil.................................................. 69.22 62.39 63.92 74.01 100.20 73.95
Nicaragua............................................... 50.43 60.44 71.07 82.83 85.83 70.12
Uruguay................................................. 54.72 54.61 51.91 53.89 66.73 56.37
Other Countries......................................... 16.42 15.81 18.20 21.57 58.39 26.07
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................... 1,365.24 1,356.75 1,358.99 1,386.13 1,514.78 1,396.38
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: USDA ERS carcass weight equivalent calculations using data from U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.
Note: Quantities include some processed beef and veal.
Paraguay's Beef Production and Trade
Historically, beef cattle production has been one of the major
agricultural activities in Paraguay with beef and soybeans being the
leading exports. Paraguay recently surpassed Argentina for eighth place
among the world's largest beef exporters. The Paraguayan beef industry
is focused on exports with about 40 percent of the production consumed
domestically. Paraguay ships roughly 90 percent of its beef to just
five markets: Chile, Russia, Israel, Taiwan and Brazil. Today, cattle
are being displaced from traditional production areas in Paraguay
because of a steady increase in soybean acreage. Since the 1990s, there
has also been increased grain supplementation of beef cattle feeding
regimes in Paraguay.
For the period 2016 to 2020, Paraguay's average annual production
was 582,000 MT, with domestic consumption averaging 224,000 MT, or
about 40 percent of production (Table 3). Exports averaged 372,000 MT
per year. Paraguay's average exports of 372,000 MT for the 2016 to 2020
period is equivalent to approximately 26 percent of U.S. fresh beef
imports for the same period.
The quantity of fresh beef expected to be imported into the United
States from Paraguay, ranging from 3,250 to 6,500 MT, is equivalent to
about 0.05 percent of U.S. average annual fresh beef production, about
0.05 percent of U.S. average annual imports of fresh beef, and about
0.50 percent of average annual exports of fresh beef, 2016 to 2020.
[[Page 18082]]
Table 3--Paraguay's Beef Production, Exports, and Imports
[2016 to 2020]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Production Consumption Imports Exports
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,000 Metric tons
---------------------------------------------------------------
2013............................................ 510 186 2 326
2014............................................ 570 183 2 389
2015............................................ 590 210 1 381
2016............................................ 610 222 2 390
2017............................................ 610 223 1 380
---------------------------------------------------------------
Average..................................... 578 231 2 373
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Compiled from various GAIN Reports of the USDA Foreign Agricultural Service using carcass weight
equivalent data.
Expected Benefits and Costs of the Rule
For this analysis, we use a non-spatial, net trade, partial
equilibrium approach to welfare analysis to compute expected impacts of
the rule on U.S. producers and consumers of fresh beef. In this
section, we describe assumptions and parameters of the welfare
analysis, including the baseline price and quantities, projected
imports from Paraguay, and domestic price elasticities of demand and
supply. We then discuss the modeling results. The model evaluates how
domestic market prices and quantities may adjust to the policy change,
and how producers and consumers may potentially be impacted.
We assume that demand and supply functions are approximately linear
near the initial equilibrium point. For small parallel shifts in supply
and demand, this assumption results in reasonably accurate measures of
consumer and producer surplus changes. Beef imports from Paraguay will
affect prices and quantities of fresh beef on the U.S. market, and
therefore result in welfare impacts as reflected in changes in consumer
and producer surplus. Consumer surplus is the difference between what
the consumer pays for a unit of a good or service and the maximum price
that the consumer would be willing to pay for that unit. Producer
surplus is the difference between the price a producer is paid for
supplying a unit of a good or service and the minimum price that the
producer would be willing to accept to supply that unit.
Our analysis is non-spatial in that the price and quantity effects
obtained from the model are assumed to be average effects across
geographically separate markets. Partial equilibrium means that the
model results are based on maintaining a commodity-price equilibrium in
a limited portion of the overall economy. All other economic sectors
not explicitly included in the model are assumed to have a negligible
influence on the model results. A partial equilibrium analysis is
appropriate because the rule is specific to imports of fresh beef from
Paraguay and is therefore expected to have only limited effects on
other sectors of the economy.
Baseline data for fresh beef are shown in Tab1e 4. Baseline
quantities are based on 5-year averages, 2016 through 2020. Domestic
supply is equated to fresh beef production minus exports, where fresh
beef exports are set equal to zero. In a net trade model, such as the
one applied in this analysis, a country is identified as either a net
exporter or a net importer of a particular commodity. In this instance,
U.S. fresh beef exports are not included as part of domestic supply in
the baseline in order to quantify the effects of permitting fresh beef
imports from Paraguay. Domestic demand for fresh beef is equated to
fresh production less exports plus imports. The baseline price is the
5-year average U.S. custom import value for fresh beef, 2016 through
2020.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The custom import value is defined as the price actually
paid or payable for merchandise when sold for exportation, excluding
import duties, freight, insurance, and other charges incurred in
bringing the merchandise to the importing country.
Table 4--U.S. Fresh Beef Baseline Data: Production, Imports, Exports, Domestic Consumption, and Price in 2016
Dollars
[2016 to 2020]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Domestic
Year Production Imports Exports supply Price per MT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metric tons
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2016............................ 11,468,481 1,365,986 1,159,637 11,674,830 6,988
2017............................ 11,904,762 1,357,370 1,296,599 11,965,533 7,092
2018............................ 12,216,780 1,359,637 1,433,107 12,143,311 7,248
2019............................ 12,346,485 1,386,848 1,372,336 12,360,998 7,533
2020............................ 12,355,556 1,515,646 1,338,322 12,532,880 8,063
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 year average.............. 12,058,413 1,397,098 1,320,000 12,135,510 7,385
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: USDA, World Agricultural Outlook Board, ``World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates'' and
supporting materials; U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis (population); and USDA,
Economic Research Service.
For this analysis, we use price elasticities of demand and supply
for fresh beef of -1.52 and 0.34, respectively.\4\ In the short run,
beef producers' responsiveness is inelastic due to limitations in
adjusting supply to
[[Page 18083]]
market changes. In the long run, producers are better able to respond
to changes in price associated with increased market supply. Likewise,
a more price-elastic long-run demand would be indicative of increased
price responsiveness of consumers over time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Paarlberg, Philip L., Ann Hillberg Seitzinger, John G. Lee,
and Kenneth H. Mathews, Jr. Economic Impacts of Foreign Animal
Disease. Economic Research Report Number 57. USDA ERS, May 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a measure of possible impacts of fresh beef imports from
Paraguay, we consider import volumes of 3,250 to 6,500 MT (5 to 10
percent of the other countries tariff rate quota of 65,005 \5\). For
each of the three annual import levels, we modeled changes in U.S.
consumption, production, price, consumer welfare, producer welfare, and
net social welfare gain (Table 5). In each case, consumer welfare gains
outweigh producer welfare losses with positive net welfare impacts.
Producer welfare losses under the three import levels range between $12
and $23 million. Consumer welfare gains range between $13 and $26
million with net welfare gains of between $1.3 and $3.0 million. Beef
imports from Paraguay may displace imports from other countries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (2018)
Revision 4, Chapter 2, Meat and Edible Meat Offal. The tariff rate
quota provides preferential-duty access for certain named countries
and a category of countries grouped as Other Countries or Areas. The
combined annual quantity of beef allowed to be imported from Other
Countries or Areas is limited to 65,005 MT.
Table 5--Modeled Impacts for U.S. Fresh Beef Production, Consumption, Price, and Consumer and Producer Welfare,
Assuming Fresh Beef Imports From Paraguay
[Of 3,250 MT, 4,875 MT, and 6,500 MT]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assumed annual fresh beef imports from Paraguay........ 3,250 4,875 6,500
Change in U.S. consumption, MT......................... 2,715 4,072 5,430
Change in U.S. production, MT.......................... -535 -803 -1,070
Change in domestic price of fresh beef, dollars per MT. ($1.09) ($1.63) ($2.17)
% Change in domestic price............................. -0.0147 -0.0221 -0.0294
Change in consumer welfare............................. $13,179,777 $19,770,771 $26,362,502
Change in producer welfare............................. ($11,660,864) ($17,491,078) ($23,321,146)
Annual net benefit..................................... $1,518,913 $2,279,694 $3,041,356
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternatives to the Rule
We considered alternatives to the chosen course of action,
including maintaining the current prohibition on imports of fresh beef
from Paraguay and using the WOAH recommendations to determine import
requirements. Continuing to prohibit fresh beef imports from Paraguay
is not defensible, given that a complete restriction on imports is
unnecessary for safeguarding the U.S. cattle industry provided certain
conditions are met. We therefore reject the status quo alternative.
A second alternative considered by APHIS would be to allow fresh
beef to enter from Paraguay under trade recommendations established by
the WOAH. The WOAH recommendations, however, do not meet the acceptable
level of protection of the United States.
FMD is a highly contagious disease caused by a resilient virus
readily transmitted to all cloven-hoofed animals. There are few
effective mitigation measures to guard against the risk of exposure of
susceptible U.S. livestock if FMD-infected animals or products
contaminated with the FMD virus were imported into the United States.
APHIS has determined therefore that a cautious approach to allowing
fresh beef imports from regions that vaccinate for FMD is warranted.
As noted earlier, the position of the United States is that a
country that vaccinates for FMD is not free of the disease. Vaccination
of cattle against FMD introduces risks related to the immunological
response within the vaccinated herd. While a large percentage of
individual animals in the herd may fully respond to FMD vaccination,
some individual animals in the herd may have a limited response,
resulting in partial or no immunity. Therefore, so-called herd immunity
may not always reflect individual animal immunity, and the disease may
still be present in certain animals in a vaccinated population. As a
result, importation of beef from areas in which cattle are vaccinated
for FMD could result in importation of beef derived from infected
animals.
Under the World Trade Organization Sanitary and Phytosanitary
Agreement, Member Countries are encouraged to base their import
requirements on international recommendations but maintain the right to
adopt additional measures provided that they are based on science, are
transparent in the way they are developed and implemented, and do not
arbitrarily or unjustifiably discriminate among members. APHIS does not
recognize a country that vaccinates for FMD as free of the disease
because vaccination may mask clinical signs. The virus can remain
present but undetected in vaccinated populations. APHIS regulations
allow for the importation of meat and meat products from regions that
vaccinate for FMD provided that these products are processed in such a
way as to ensure the inactivation of the FMD virus.
If APHIS were to follow the WOAH recommendations, we expect that
fresh beef imports from Paraguay would tend toward the upper end of the
3,250 to 6,500 MT range; more cattle and larger quantities of beef
would likely qualify for export to the United States because the import
sanitary requirements would be less stringent. Fresh beef imports from
Paraguay exceeding 6,500 MT would enter under a higher tariff rate.
Under the modeled 6,500 MT scenario, wholesale beef price would
decrease by 0.03 percent. U.S. beef production would decline by
approximately 1,000 MT or less than a percent of total U.S beef
production.
We reject this alternative to the rule for reasons other than
disproportionate economic impact and because it does not meet APHIS'
determination of necessary sanitary requirements for the importation of
fresh beef from Paraguay. The preferred alternative has been analyzed
using the limited information available. We cannot certify that this
rule would have no disproportionate impact on small entities, but at
this time have found no evidence that it would have such impacts.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires agencies to evaluate the
potential effects of their proposed and final rules on small
businesses, small organizations and small governmental jurisdictions.
This initial regulatory flexibility analysis describes expected impacts
of this proposed rule on small entities, as required by section 603 of
the Act.
[[Page 18084]]
Reasons Action Is Being Considered
In response to a request from the Government of Paraguay that fresh
(chilled or frozen) beef be allowed to be imported into the United
States from Paraguay, APHIS conducted a risk analysis to enable APHIS
to develop appropriate regulatory conditions with mitigations to
address potential risks of FMD disease introduction following any
initiation of trade in fresh beef from Paraguay. In the analysis APHIS
considered the epidemiological characteristics of FMD that are relevant
to the risk of importing fresh and frozen beef under certain conditions
into the United States and described appropriate mitigations to reduce
that risk. The mitigations to be applied include restrictions on the
origin of animals, requirements for maturation and pH testing of
carcasses, ante-mortem and post-mortem inspections, and verification by
Paraguayan officials that the various mitigations were applied
appropriately. APHIS concluded from the assessments that the
surveillance, prevention, and control measures implemented by the
Government of Paraguay are sufficient and that fresh beef imported from
Paraguay under the additional mitigation measures imposed by the
proposed action will be safe. It is highly unlikely that such imports
from Paraguay will introduce or disseminate FMD within the United
States. As of 2020, there are more than 70 markets opened to Paraguayan
beef. Cattlemen in Paraguay and the Government of Paraguay aim at
opening in the future important markets such as China, NAFTA countries,
and South Korea.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Paraguay Beef & Cattle Outlook 2020: <a href="https://beef2live.com/story-paraguay-beef-cattle-annual-0-206336">https://beef2live.com/story-paraguay-beef-cattle-annual-0-206336</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Objectives of and Legal Basis for the Rule
With a few exceptions, APHIS regulations in 9 CFR part 94 prohibit
the importation of fresh (chilled or frozen) meat of ruminants or swine
that originates in or transits a region where FMD is considered to
exist. APHIS does not consider Paraguay free of FMD because Paraguay
vaccinates against FMD. The proposed rule would allow the importation
of fresh (chilled or frozen) beef from Paraguay under certain
conditions designed to ensure beef exported to the United States will
not harbor FMD virus. In accordance with the Animal Health Protection
Act (7 U.S.C. 8301 et seq.), the Secretary of Agriculture has the
authority to promulgate regulations and take measures to prevent the
introduction of contagious animal diseases into the United States by
means of import restrictions.
Potentially Affected Small Entities
Entities that could be primarily affected by the proposed rule are
beef and cattle producers, as well as feedlots and slaughter
facilities. Of the 882,692 farms \7\ in the United States with cattle
and calves, 711,827 sold cattle and calves, 729,0466 were classified as
beef cow farms, and 54,599 had milk cows.\8\ Based on data from the
2017 Census of Agriculture and Small Business Administration (SBA)
standards,\9\ we expect a majority of these entities to be small.
Entities in the categories beef cattle ranching and farming (NAICS
112111) and dairy cattle and milk production (NAICS 112120) are
considered small if their total annual sales do not exceed $1 million.
The 2017 Census of Agriculture indicates that 99 percent of beef cattle
operations are classified as small; of the 582,380 (farms with sales)
farms classified under the beef cattle ranching and farming category,
99 percent had annual sales of less than $1 million. Of the 47,237
dairy operations, 95 percent are classified as small. Entities in the
category cattle feedlots (NAICS 112112) are considered small if they
have total annual sales of not more than $8 million. Sales were not
available for farms operating as feedlots. Entities classified as
animal (except poultry) slaughtering (NAICS 311611) with not more than
1,000 employees are considered small by SBA standards. The 2012
Economic Census reports 1,494 establishments in this category. Of this
number, 1,357 establishments (96 percent) had fewer than 1,000
employees.\10\ Thus, the majority of slaughter establishments are
considered small by SBA standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Represents all farms that held cattle inventory whether or
not they sold cattle.
\8\ U.S. 2017 Agriculture Census, tables 12, 13, 14, 16, <a href="https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2017/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_1_US/st99_1_0011_0012.pdf">https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2017/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_1_US/st99_1_0011_0012.pdf</a>. <a href="https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2017/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_1_US/st99_1_0013_0014.pdf">https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2017/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_1_US/st99_1_0013_0014.pdf</a>. <a href="https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2017/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_1_US/st99_1_0015_0016.pdf">https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2017/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_1_US/st99_1_0015_0016.pdf</a>.
\9\ Small Business Administration size standards: <a href="https://www.sba.gov/document/support-table-size-standards">https://www.sba.gov/document/support-table-size-standards</a>.
\10\ U.S. Bureau of Census, 2018 County Business Pattern Survey:
<a href="https://data.census.gov/cedsci/tablen=311611&tid=CBP2018.CB1800CBP">https://data.census.gov/cedsci/tablen=311611&tid=CBP2018.CB1800CBP</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements associated with the
proposed rule are discussed in the proposed rule under the heading
``Paperwork Reduction Act.''
Duplication, Overlap, or Conflict With Existing Rules and Regulations
APHIS has not identified any duplication, overlap, or conflict of
the proposed rule with other Federal rules.
Alternatives To Minimize Significant Economic Impacts of the Rule
For the purposes of this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis,
we have used the best data available to examine feasible ways to
achieve the desired policy goals. We cannot certify that this rule
would have no disproportionate impact on small entities, but at this
time have found no evidence that it would have such impacts.
We recognize we may not have all relevant information concerning
economic impacts at this time. Therefore, we invite public comment on
any additional relevant information. We also invite public comments on
alternatives that may achieve the objective of this proposed rule.
Executive Order 12988
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988,
Civil Justice Reform. If this proposed rule is adopted: (1) All State
and local laws and regulations that are inconsistent with this rule
will be preempted; (2) no retroactive effect will be given to this
rule; and (3) administrative proceedings will not be required before
parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.
Executive Order 13175
This rule has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments. The review reveals that this rule will not have
substantial and direct effects on Tribal governments and will not have
significant Tribal implications.
In 2020, APHIS informed Tribal leaders of the proposed action and
solicited comments and questions. APHIS did not receive any comments or
questions from Tribal leaders in response. APHIS worked with the APHIS
Office of the National Tribal Liaison to conduct the outreach in 2020
and also hosted a Tribal listening session on October 17, 2022, about
the proposed rule. If a tribe requests consultation in the future,
APHIS will work with the Office of Tribal Relations to ensure
meaningful consultation is provided.
[[Page 18085]]
National Environmental Policy Act
To provide the public with documentation of APHIS' review and
analysis of any potential environmental impacts associated with the
importation of fresh (chilled or frozen) beef from Paraguay, we have
prepared an environmental assessment. The environmental assessment was
prepared in accordance with: (1) The National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), (2) regulations of
the Council on Environmental Quality for implementing the procedural
provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), (3) USDA regulations
implementing NEPA (7 CFR part 1b), and (4) APHIS' NEPA Implementing
Procedures (7 CFR part 372).
The environmental assessment may be viewed on the <a href="http://Regulations.gov">Regulations.gov</a>
website or in our reading room. (A link to <a href="http://Regulations.gov">Regulations.gov</a> and
information on the location and hours of the reading room are provided
under the heading ADDRESSES at the beginning of this proposed rule.) In
addition, copies may be obtained by calling or writing to the
individual listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), reporting and recordkeeping
requirements included in this proposed rule have been submitted for
approval to OMB. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed
information collection should be sent within 60 days of publication of
this notice to <a href="http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain">www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain</a>. Find this particular
information collection by selecting ``Currently under 60-day Review--
Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function. Please send
a copy of your comments to: (1) Docket No. APHIS-2018-0007, Regulatory
Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road
Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238, and (2) Clearance Officer, OCIO,
USDA, Room 404-W, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW, Washington,
DC 20250.
APHIS is proposing to amend the regulations in Sec. 94.29 to
provide for the importation of fresh (chilled or frozen) beef from
Paraguay. Under this proposed rule, fresh beef from Paraguay would be
subject to the same import conditions applicable to fresh beef and
ovine meat from Uruguay (other than bone-in ovine meat imported under
Sec. 94.29(g)(1) through (3)) and fresh beef from the exporting
regions of Argentina and Brazil. The importation of fresh beef from
Paraguay will require information collection activities such as the
completion and signature of Foreign Meat Inspection Certificates by an
authorized veterinary official of the Government of Paraguay and onsite
evaluations and inspections of operations, records, and processing
facilities to ensure they are following the procedures necessary to
lead to the results listed in the Foreign Meat Inspection Certificate.
The certificate, evaluation, and inspection ensure that exported fresh
beef from Paraguay poses negligible risk of introducing disease into
the United States. If this action is finalized and OMB approves of this
information collection package, APHIS plans to merge this information
collection into OMB control number 0579-0372, Importation of Beef and
Ovine Meat from Uruguay and Beef from Argentina and Brazil.
We are soliciting comments from the public (as well as affected
agencies) concerning our proposed information collection and
recordkeeping requirements. These comments will help us:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is
necessary for the proper performance of our agency's functions,
including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the
proposed information collection, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the information collection on those who
are to respond (such as through the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology; e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses).
Estimate of burden: Public burden for this collection of
information is estimated to average 1.3 hours per response.
Respondents: Authorized veterinary officials employed by the
Government of Paraguay and beef producers in Paraguay.
Estimated annual number of respondents: 2.
Estimated annual number of responses per respondent: 1.
Estimated annual number of responses: 3.
Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 4 hours. (Due to
averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of
the annual number of responses multiplied by the estimate of burden.)
A copy of the information collection may be viewed on the
<a href="http://Regulations.gov">Regulations.gov</a> website or in our reading room. (A link to
<a href="http://Regulations.gov">Regulations.gov</a> and information on the location and hours of the
reading room are provided under the heading ADDRESSES at the beginning
of this proposed rule.) Copies can also be obtained from Mr. Joseph
Moxey, APHIS' Paperwork Reduction Act Coordinator, at (301) 851-2483.
APHIS will respond to any information collection review-related
comments in the final rule. All comments will also become a matter of
public record.
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 trade partners who have fully automated systems,
APHIS will accept computer extracts of electronic health certification
data. These certificates are included in the government-wide use of the
International Trade Data System via the Automated Commercial
Environment to improve business operations and further Agency missions.
Respondents are free to maintain required records as best suited for
their organization. For information pertinent to E-Government Act
compliance related to this proposed rule, please contact Mr. Joseph
Moxey, APHIS' Paperwork Reduction Act Coordinator, at (301) 851-2483.
List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 94
Animal diseases, Imports, Livestock, Meat and meat products, Milk,
Poultry and poultry products, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, we propose to amend 9 CFR part 94 as follows:
PART 94--FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE, NEWCASTLE DISEASE, HIGHLY
PATHOGENIC AVIAN INFLUENZA, AFRICAN SWINE FEVER, CLASSICAL SWINE
FEVER, SWINE VESICULAR DISEASE, 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. 1633, 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.
[[Page 18086]]
Sec. 94.29 [Amended]
0
2. Section 94.29 is amended as follows:
0
a. In the introductory text, by adding the words ``fresh (chilled or
frozen) beef from Paraguay;'' after the word ``Tocantins;'';
0
b. In paragraph (a)(1), by adding the words ``or in Paraguay;'' after
the word ``Brazil''; and
0
c. In paragraph (b), by adding the words ``in Paraguay (for beef from
Paraguay),'' after the words ``(for beef from Brazil),''.
Done in Washington, DC, this 17th day of March 2023.
Jennifer Moffitt,
Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs.
[FR Doc. 2023-05889 Filed 3-24-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on March 27, 2023.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.