81 FR 45225 - Eligibility of Namibia To Export Meat Products to the United States

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Food Safety and Inspection Service

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 134 (July 13, 2016)

Page Range		45225-45229
FR Document		2016-16546
The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is amending the Federal meat inspection regulations to add Namibia to the list of countries eligible to export meat and meat products to the United States. FSIS has reviewed Namibia's laws, regulations, and inspection system as implemented, and has determined that they are equivalent to the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA), the regulations implementing this statute, and the United States food safety system for meat and meat products. Under this final rule, Namibia will only be able to export to the United States boneless (not ground) raw beef products, such as primal cuts, chuck, blade, and beef trimmings, processed in certified Namibian establishments, because FSIS only assessed Namibia's meat inspection system with respect to these products. Namibia would need to submit additional information for FSIS to review before FSIS would allow Namibia to export other beef product or product from other types of livestock to the United States. All products that Namibia exports to the United States will be subject to reinspection at United States ports-of-entry by FSIS inspectors.
Federal Register, Volume 81 Issue 134 (Wednesday, July 13, 2016)
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 134 (Wednesday, July 13, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 45225-45229]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2016-16546]



========================================================================
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. 81, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2016 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 45225]]



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Food Safety and Inspection Service

9 CFR Part 327

[Docket No. FSIS-2012-0028]
RIN 0583-AD51


Eligibility of Namibia To Export Meat Products to the United 
States

AGENCY: Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is amending the 
Federal meat inspection regulations to add Namibia to the list of 
countries eligible to export meat and meat products to the United 
States. FSIS has reviewed Namibia's laws, regulations, and inspection 
system as implemented, and has determined that they are equivalent to 
the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA), the regulations implementing 
this statute, and the United States food safety system for meat and 
meat products.
    Under this final rule, Namibia will only be able to export to the 
United States boneless (not ground) raw beef products, such as primal 
cuts, chuck, blade, and beef trimmings, processed in certified Namibian 
establishments, because FSIS only assessed Namibia's meat inspection 
system with respect to these products. Namibia would need to submit 
additional information for FSIS to review before FSIS would allow 
Namibia to export other beef product or product from other types of 
livestock to the United States. All products that Namibia exports to 
the United States will be subject to reinspection at United States 
ports-of-entry by FSIS inspectors.

DATES: Effective Date: September 12, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Daniel L. Engeljohn, Assistant 
Administrator, Office of Policy and Program Development, Food Safety 
and Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; Telephone: 
(202) 205-0495.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    On September 18, 2015, FSIS published a proposed rule in the 
Federal Register (80 FR 56401) to add Namibia to the list of countries 
eligible to export meat products to the United States (9 CFR 327.2(b)). 
This final rule is consistent with the proposed rule.
    As is explained in the proposed rule, under the FMIA and 
implementing regulations, meat and meat products imported into the 
United States must be produced under standards for safety, 
wholesomeness, and labeling that are equivalent to those of the United 
States (21 U.S.C. 620). The FMIA also requires that the livestock from 
which such imports are produced be slaughtered and handled in 
connection with slaughter in a manner that is consistent with the 
Humane Methods of Slaughter Act (7 U.S.C. 1901-1906).
    Section 327.2 of Title 9 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 
sets out the procedures by which foreign countries may become eligible 
to export meat and meat products to the United States. Paragraph 
327.2(a) requires that a foreign country's meat inspection system 
provide standards equivalent to those of the United States and to 
provide legal authority for the inspection system and its implementing 
regulations that is equivalent to that of the United States. 
Specifically, a country's laws and regulations must impose requirements 
equivalent to those of the United States with respect to: (1) Ante-
mortem inspection, humane methods of slaughter and handling, and post-
mortem inspection by, or under the direct supervision of, a 
veterinarian; (2) official controls by the national government over 
establishment construction, facilities, and equipment; (3) direct and 
continuous official supervision of slaughtering and preparation of 
product by inspectors to ensure that product is not adulterated or 
misbranded; (4) complete separation of establishments certified to 
export from those not certified; (5) maintenance of a single standard 
of inspection and sanitation throughout certified establishments; (6) 
requirements for sanitation and for sanitary handling of product at 
establishments certified to export; (7) official controls over 
condemned product; (8) a Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point 
(HACCP) system; and (9) any other requirements found in the FMIA and 
its implementing regulations (9 CFR 327.2(a)(2)(ii)).
    The country's inspection system must also impose requirements 
equivalent to those of the United States with respect to: (1) 
Organizational structure and staffing to ensure uniform enforcement of 
the requisite laws and regulations in all certified establishments; (2) 
national government control and supervision over the official 
activities of employees or licensees; (3) qualified inspectors; (4) 
enforcement and certification authority; (5) administrative and 
technical support; (6) inspection, sanitation, quality, species 
verification and residue standards; and (7) any other inspection 
requirements (9 CFR 327.2(a)(2)(i)).

Evaluation of the Namibian Meat Inspection System

    As explained in the proposed rule, in 2002 and again in 2005, the 
government of Namibia requested approval to export meat (beef) products 
to the United States. Namibia stated that, if approved, its immediate 
intent was to export boneless (not ground) raw beef products such as 
primal cuts, chuck, blade, and beef trimmings to the United States.
    In 2006, FSIS conducted a document review to evaluate the laws, 
regulations, and other documentation used by Namibia to execute its 
meat inspection program. FSIS examined the information submitted by 
Namibia to verify that the following equivalence components were 
addressed satisfactorily with respect to standards, activities, 
resources, and enforcement: (1) Government Oversight; (2) Statutory 
Authority and Food Safety Regulations; (3) Sanitation; (4) Hazard 
Analysis and Critical Control Point Systems; (5) Chemical Residue 
Testing Programs; and (6) Microbiological Testing Programs. The 
document review was satisfactory to FSIS, and FSIS scheduled an on-site 
review to evaluate all aspects of Namibia's meat inspection program.
    In 2006, FSIS conducted an on-site audit of Namibia's meat 
inspection system and identified systemic deficiencies within the six 
equivalence components. In response to this audit, Namibia submitted a 
corrective action plan that addressed FSIS's findings. In

[[Page 45226]]

2009, FSIS conducted a follow-up on-site audit to verify that all 
outstanding issues identified during the previous audit had been 
resolved and that Namibia had satisfactorily implemented all the laws, 
regulations, and instructions to the field that FSIS found to be 
equivalent during the document review and previous audit. Nonetheless, 
the new audit identified new systemic deficiencies within the 
equivalence components of government oversight, sanitation, HACCP, 
chemical residue, and microbiological testing programs.
    Following the 2009 on-site audit, Namibia again provided a 
comprehensive corrective action plan that addressed the findings 
identified. In 2013, FSIS proceeded with a follow-up on-site audit of 
Namibia's meat inspection system and verified that Namibia had 
satisfactorily implemented the corrective actions taken in response to 
the 2009 on-site audit. The 2013 audit identified new findings within 
the equivalence components of government oversight, statutory authority 
and food safety regulations, sanitation, and chemical residue testing 
programs.
    In response to the 2013 audit findings, Namibia implemented 
immediate corrective actions and submitted another corrective action 
plan that addressed the findings identified during the audit of its 
food safety system. FSIS conducted another on-site audit in 2014 to 
verify that Namibia had effectively implemented those corrective 
actions.
    FSIS concluded, on the basis of the 2014 audit, that Namibia had 
fully implemented the corrective action plan that it submitted in 
response to the 2013 audit. FSIS did not find any significant problems 
during the 2014 on-site audit. Furthermore, through the audit, FSIS 
found that Namibia had implemented a sampling and testing program for 
Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) that is equivalent to 
FSIS's program. Industry in Namibia is required to control for or 
address STEC so that it is at a non-detectable level, and government 
testing in Namibia verifies that industry has the necessary controls in 
place.
    For more detailed information on FSIS's evaluation of the Namibian 
meat inspection system, see the proposed rule (80 FR 56401) and for the 
full audit reports, go to: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/international-affairs/importing-products/eligible-countries-products-foreign-establishments/foreign-audit-reports.

Final Rule

    After considering the comments received on the proposed rule, 
discussed below, FSIS concludes that Namibia's meat inspection system 
is equivalent to the United States' inspection system for meat and meat 
products. Therefore, FSIS is amending its meat inspection regulations 
to add Namibia to the list of countries eligible to export meat and 
meat products to the United States (9 CFR 327.2(b)). Under FSIS's 
import regulations, the government of Namibia must certify to FSIS that 
those establishments that wish to export meat and meat products to the 
United States are operating under requirements equivalent to those of 
the United States (9 CFR 327.2(a)).
    FSIS will verify that the establishments certified by Namibia's 
government meet the United States requirements through periodic and 
regularly scheduled audits of Namibia's meat inspection system. In the 
future, if Namibia wants to export other beef products (e.g., ground 
beef) or other meat products to this country (e.g., pork products), it 
will need to notify FSIS and submit information about its requirements 
and inspection program for these products. FSIS would then review the 
information and determine whether the Agency needs to audit the 
operations in Namibia producing these products to determine whether the 
requirements and inspection program for these products is equivalent to 
those in the United States. Namibia would not be allowed to export 
additional products to the United States until FSIS determines that the 
country's requirements and inspection program for the products are 
equivalent to FSIS's system.
    Although a foreign country may be listed in FSIS's regulations as 
eligible to export meat and meat products to the United States, the 
exporting country's products must also comply with all other applicable 
requirements of the United States, including those of the Animal and 
Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). These requirements include 
restrictions under 9 CFR part 94 of the APHIS regulations, which 
regulate the importation of meat and meat products from countries into 
the United States to control the spread of specific animal diseases. 
According to 9 CFR 94.1, APHIS listed Namibia as a country free of 
rinderpest and foot-and-mouth disease (excluding the region north of 
the Veterinary Cordon Fence).
    Also, under this final rule, all meat and meat products exported to 
the United States from Namibia will be subject to reinspection by FSIS 
at United States ports of entry for, but not limited to, transportation 
damage, product and container defects, labeling, proper certification, 
general condition, and accurate count.
    FSIS will conduct other types of reinspection activities, such as 
incubation of canned products to ensure product safety and taking 
product samples for laboratory analysis to detect any drug or chemical 
residues or pathogens that may render the product unsafe or any species 
or product composition violations that would render the product 
economically adulterated. Products that pass reinspection will be 
stamped with the official mark of inspection and allowed to enter 
United States commerce. If they do not meet this country's 
requirements, they will be refused entry and within 45 days will have 
to be returned to the country of origin, destroyed, or converted to 
animal food (subject to approval of the Food and Drug Administration 
(FDA)), depending on the violation. The import reinspection activities 
can be found on the FSIS Web site at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/international-affairs/importing-products/port-of-entry-procedures.
    In addition, Namibian meat and meat products will be eligible for 
importation into the United States only if they are from animals 
slaughtered on or after the effective date of this final rule.

Summary of Comments and Responses

    FSIS received 92 comments on the proposed rule. Eighty-one of the 
comments were received from individuals; 10 of the comments were 
received from trade associations representing American cattlemen and 
the beef industry, pork producers, milk producers, and farmers; and one 
comment was from a consumer advocacy group. Of the 92 comments, 87 were 
against the proposed rule, including those from all of the trade 
associations. Four individuals and one advocate on the behalf of the 
Namibian Meat Board were in support of the proposed rule.
    The following is a discussion of the relevant issues raised in the 
comments.
    Comments: Almost all of the comments expressed concern about the 
recent outbreaks of foot and mouth disease (FMD) in the areas north of 
the Veterinary Cordon Fence (VCF), a fence separating Northern Namibia 
and neighboring countries from the central and southern parts of 
Namibia that is designed to contain FMD outbreaks north of the fence. 
The majority of the individuals and various trade associations stated 
that the prevalence of FMD in the region presents a threat to the 
security of U.S. cattle and food safety. The commenters stated that 
Namibia cannot guarantee that FMD-infected animals will stay out of the

[[Page 45227]]

region in Namibia south of the VCF. Several trade associations also 
expressed concern about deficiencies found in a 2013 European 
Commission audit of Namibia's animal health control system.\1\ One 
trade association concluded that these deficiencies would result in 
commingling of contaminated cattle with cattle from the FMD-free zone 
south of the VCF. A few commenters were also concerned that the 
proposed rule did not address what steps FSIS would take to ensure that 
such commingling does not occur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Final Report of an audit, carried out in Namibia, from 19 
February to 01 March 2013, in order to evaluate the animal health 
control system in place, in particular relation to controls on foot-
and-mouth disease. The audit found insufficient implementation and 
documentation of actions following the incursion of FMD positive 
buffalo in the disease-free zone. An Audit conducted by the European 
Commission, Health and Consumers Directorate--General, September 7, 
2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several trade associations also expressed concern in their comments 
about the future of the VCF. Commenters cited recent statements made by 
the Namibian Agricultural Minister who, according to the commenters, 
has expressed a desire to have the fence removed. Additional commenters 
pointed to the lack of structural integrity of the VCF. Those 
commenters stated that the VCF is frequently breached by the country's 
elephant and buffalo population, which raises the possibility of other 
wildlife traveling through carrying FMD.
    Furthermore, one trade association expressed concern over a 30-
kilometer section of the VCF dismantled by the authorities. The trade 
association argued that this places southern Namibia at risk of 
becoming re-infected with FMD, because it allows buffaloes and 
elephants to re-enter the FMD-free zone. Additionally, some commenters 
expressed concern about the lack of a recent APHIS audit, and requested 
that FSIS delay any further action on the proposed rule until APHIS 
conducts an audit and publishes a formal risk assessment.
    Response: Although Namibia may be listed in FSIS's regulations as 
eligible to export poultry products to the United States, the products 
must also comply with all other applicable requirements of the United 
States, including those of USDA's APHIS, before any products can enter 
the United States.
    APHIS is responsible for preventing the entry of foreign animal 
diseases into the livestock population of the United States. APHIS 
determines the animal health status of foreign countries or regions for 
certain diseases, and this process is outlined in Title 9 CFR part 92. 
These animal health status determinations help establish the import 
requirements for livestock and products derived from them.
    In 2006, APHIS recognized the region of Namibia south of the VCF as 
free of FMD and rinderpest (71 FR 62198). This regulation relieved 
certain restrictions due to FMD and rinderpest on the importation into 
the United States of certain live animals and animal products from all 
regions of Namibia except the region north of the VCF. APHIS is 
developing a prioritization process for conducting reviews of countries 
or regions that have received animal health status recognition, such as 
the FMD freedom recognition granted to a region of Namibia. FSIS has 
provided the concerns identified in the comments on the proposed rule 
to APHIS, and APHIS will consider these as they finalize and implement 
their prioritization process. Therefore, at this time, APHIS rules 
allow beef from the region of Namibia south of the VCF to be exported 
to the United States.
    FSIS and APHIS work closely together to ensure that all meat and 
meat products imported into the United States comply with the 
regulatory requirements of both agencies. In 1985, FSIS and APHIS 
signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) in which both agencies 
agreed to cooperate in meeting their respective needs relative to 
information exchange of disease surveillance, diagnostic testing, 
investigations, trace backs, and animal and public health emergencies 
to achieve their related objectives of reducing the spread of animal 
diseases, and of providing a wholesome and economical food supply. The 
MOU is updated periodically to ensure that it addresses matters of 
importance to both agencies. The MOU was last updated November 20, 
2014. In accord with this MOU, FSIS and APHIS established procedures 
for communication between the two agencies regarding the inspection, 
handling, and disposition of imported meat products. APHIS and FSIS 
communicate regularly to ensure that products APHIS has restricted from 
entering the United States because of animal disease concerns are not 
imported into the United States.
    Comments: A majority of the trade associations and the consumer 
advocacy group comments expressed concern about the deficiencies found 
in the 2006, 2009, and 2013 FSIS audits, particularly with respect to 
problems FSIS found in the Namibian food-safety system, the lack of 
collaboration FSIS found between the Namibian ministries, and staffing 
problems FSIS identified in the ministries.
    Response: FSIS assesses a country's food regulatory system in terms 
of six equivalence components and uses its findings from the assessment 
in deciding whether or not to grant eligibility to the country for the 
importation of its meat or meat food products into the United States. 
On the basis of the 2014 follow-up on-site audit, FSIS determined that 
Namibia fully met the criteria within those six equivalence components, 
in accordance with 9 CFR 327.2. Specifically, FSIS found that Namibia 
had a system in place to verify and enforce HACCP requirements. FSIS 
also found that Namibia had an effective strategy for implementing 
sample collection for chemical residue monitoring. Regarding staffing 
problems found during the 2009 on-site audit within the government 
oversight component, Namibia implemented corrective action plans for 
relief inspection personnel. FSIS concluded that Namibia had 
satisfactorily addressed the findings in this component. FSIS found 
Namibia to have remedied all deficiencies regarding the components that 
the Agency had uncovered in past audits, and determined that, as 
implemented, Namibia's inspection system (slaughter and processing) for 
beef is equivalent to the United States' meat inspection system. The 
details of Namibia's compliance with those components can all be found 
on the FSIS Web site at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/international-affairs/importing-products/eligible-countries-products-foreign-establishments/foreign-audit-reports.
    Additionally, regarding deficiencies noted during past FSIS audits 
of the Namibian food-safety system, the history, background and 
verification of corrective actions are documented in the 2009, 2013, 
and 2014 final audit reports.
    Namibia has established its equivalence and when this final rule is 
effective, Namibia will be eligible to export certain beef products to 
the United States. FSIS ensures that countries maintain equivalence 
through a three-part process, involving: (1) Recurring equivalence 
reviews (e.g., through use of the country Self Reporting Tool or other 
documentation from the Central Competent Authority) of the exporting 
country's applicable laws and regulations; (2) periodic on-site 
equivalence verification audits in the exporting country; and (3) 
ongoing point-of-entry (POE) re-inspection of shipments received from 
the exporting country. These POE activities include examination of 
products for defects,

[[Page 45228]]

container examinations, and laboratory analysis of product samples.
    For all these reasons, therefore, concerns about deficiencies found 
in past FSIS audits are unwarranted. The deficiencies have been 
remedied and the Namibian inspection system will be subject to ongoing 
verification to ensure that it continues to maintain standards 
equivalent to those of the United States.
    Comments: Some comments from individuals and trade associations 
expressed concern over the economic effect that the rule would have on 
American ranchers. These commenters stated that the importation of 
Namibian beef would lower the price of beef overall and cause a decline 
in sales and job loss for the American beef industry. Two individuals 
supported the proposed rule and agreed with FSIS's economic analysis.
    Response: FSIS estimates that the expected amount of imported 
Namibian beef is only 0.008 \2\ to 0.05 percent of the United States 
beef production; therefore, there will be no significant impact on 
sales and the United States economy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ In the proposed rule, FSIS used 2012-2014 U.S. beef 
production data to estimate the expected amount of imported Namibian 
beef would be .007 to .05 percent of the United States beef 
production. In the final rule, FSIS used U.S. beef production data 
from 2012-2015 to update the estimated expected amount of imported 
Namibian beef to be .008 to .05 percent of the United States beef 
production.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: The one trade association that disputed FSIS's economic 
analysis specifically stated that applying multipliers from a paper by 
VanSickle,\3\ Namibia's beef import of 1.9 million pound in the first 
year (after the rule is finalized) and 12.5 million pounds in the 5th 
year will likely result in a negative impact on the United States 
economy of $14.9 million and $96 million, respectively; and the United 
States will suffer 127 job losses in the first year and 837.5 job 
losses in the 5th year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The VanSickle paper is a comment paper submitted to APHIS in 
2004 by John VanSickle on the economic analysis in the APHIS 
proposed rule for Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy: Minimal Risk 
Regions and Importation of Commodities. The commenter attached a 
copy of the paper.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: The multipliers the commenter used, i.e. $3.87 impact on 
total United States economic output per $1 decline in sales for the 
cattle ranching and farming sector and 67 United States job losses per 
1 million pounds of additional beef imports, are from a paper that has 
not been peer-reviewed. The multipliers in the VanSickle paper were 
results from an input-output model (I-O model) named IMPLAN. However, 
the paper did not describe the model or the input data, nor specify the 
assumptions of the model. Therefore, there is no way to validate the 
model's accuracy in depicting the linkage from beef imports to total 
economic output and job loss. As a consequence, the credibility of the 
multipliers lacks support. All economic projection models and 
estimations are based on assumptions. To properly interpret a model's 
projections, it is important to understand and evaluate the accuracy of 
its assumptions every step of the way. Neither the VanSickle paper nor 
the commenter ever addressed any of these issues.
    In fact, the use of an I-O model such as IMPLAN has been considered 
problematic in economic research. In addition to the lack of 
transparency inherent in the software-generated calculations, peer-
reviewed journal articles have also suggested that inaccurate 
production functions are one of IMPLAN's weakest links, and that an I-O 
model has the potential to over-calculate impact.\4\ In addition, in a 
review of several studies that used methodology similar to IMPLAN, 
Kinnaman (2011) found the studies to be based on questionable 
assumptions that likely overstate the economic impact.\5\ Furthermore, 
Brown and Munasib & Rickman (2014) also found studies using I-O models 
over-estimated actual economic impact of natural gas extraction. 
Because of the difficulty in using the I-O model appropriately and 
correctly, there are hardly any relevant studies based on such models 
for agriculture imports that have gone through the peer review process 
of an economic journal.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Lazarus, W.F., D.E. Platas, and G.W. Morse, 2002. IMPLAN's 
Weakest Link: Production Functions or Regional Purchase 
Coefficients? Journal of Regional Analysis and Policy, 32 (2002): 
33-48.; Brown, J.P., Goetz, S.J., Ahearn, M.C., & Liang, C. (2014) 
Linkages between Community-Focused Agriculture, Farm Sales, and 
Regional Growth. Economic Development Quarterly, 28(1), 5-16.
    \5\ Kinnaman, T.C., 2011. The Economic Impact of Shale Gas 
Extraction: A Review of Existing Studies. Ecol. Econ. 70: 1243-1249.
    \6\ Brown, J.P., Goetz, S.J., Ahearn, M.C., & Liang, C. (2014) 
Linkages between Community-Focused Agriculture, Farm Sales, and 
Regional Growth. Economic Development Quarterly, 28(1), 5-16; 
Munasib, A. and D.S. Rickman, 2015. Regional Economic Impacts of the 
Shale Gas and Tight Oil Boom: A Synthetic Control Analysis. Regional 
Science and Urban Economics, 50:1-17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are other economic impact models that are more comprehensive 
and more robust than I-O models, such as econometric simulation models 
(ESMs) or computable general equilibrium (CGE) models. It is quite an 
undertaking to use these models, for modelers have to collect data and 
adjust assumptions in the models before running estimations. It is only 
sensible to use these models when the size of expected imports is 
significant. Because the projected amount of beef imports from Namibia 
is very small, only 0.07 to 0.44 percent of total United States 
imports, FSIS believes it does not need a model to tell that it is very 
unlikely to have a noticeable impact on beef prices and other economic 
measures.

Executive Order 12866 and 13563, and the Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Executive Orders (E.O.) 12866 and 13563 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, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 
13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, 
of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. 
This final rule was designated a ``non-significant'' regulatory action 
under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, this rule was not 
reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under E.O. 12866.

Economic Impact Analysis for Namibia Export Equivalence

    This final rule adds Namibia to the list of countries eligible to 
export meat products into the United States. The government of Namibia 
intends to certify only one Namibian establishment as eligible to 
export boneless raw beef products to the United States. Given this 
establishment's beef production capacity and the projected export 
volume, FSIS projects that this final rule will not have a significant 
impact on the United States economy. The annual boneless beef 
production of this establishment averaged 21.4 million pounds from 2008 
to 2014. The projected volume of exports to the United States is about 
1.9 million pounds in the first year, increasing to about 12.5 million 
pounds in five years.\7\ The average annual United States domestic beef 
production in 2012-2015 was 24.9 billion pounds, projected to be 24.6 
billion pounds in 2016.\8\ The total United States import of beef 
averages 2.70 billion pounds per year for 2012-2015, projected to be 
2.85

[[Page 45229]]

billion pounds in 2016.\9\ Therefore, the projected Namibian beef 
imports in the first year would only be about 0.008 percent of total 
United States production, and 0.07 percent of total United States 
imports. If Namibia achieves the projected export goal in five years, 
and assuming that United States beef production and import volume stay 
about the same, the projected beef imports from Namibia would still 
only be about 0.05 percent of total United States production, and 0.44 
percent of total United States imports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ According to Namibia, this is the ``optimistic'' projection 
they wish to achieve. Market conditions will affect actual results.
    \8\ http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/2009937/ldp-m-260.pdf, 
accessed on April 7, 2016; part of Livestock, Dairy, & Poultry 
Outlook by Economic Research Service, USDA.
    \9\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although Namibia indicates that, for now, it is seeking to export 
boneless beef products only, this final rule would not preclude their 
exporting other meat products in the future, if the products meet all 
other applicable requirements of the United States, including those of 
USDA's APHIS, and any additional requirements that FSIS might have in 
place with regard to the products. Therefore, the long-term economic 
impact could be larger than what FSIS can assess right now.

Regulatory Flexibility Act Assessment

    The FSIS Administrator certifies that, for the purposes of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-602), this final rule will not 
have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities in 
the United States. As mentioned above, the expected trade volume is 
very small. Therefore, the action should have no significant impact on 
small entities that produce beef products domestically.

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform

    This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, 
Civil Justice Reform. Under this rule: (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) no 
administrative proceedings will be required before parties may file 
suit in court challenging this rule.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    No new paperwork requirements are associated with this rule. 
Foreign countries wanting to export meat and meat products to the 
United States are required to provide information to FSIS certifying 
that their inspection systems provide standards equivalent to those of 
the United States, and that the legal authority for the system and 
their implementing regulations are equivalent to those of the United 
States. This information collection was approved under OMB number 0583-
0153. The rule contains no other paperwork requirements.

E-Government Act

    FSIS and USDA are committed to achieving the purposes of the E-
Government Act (44 U.S.C. 3601, et seq.) by, among other things, 
promoting the use of the Internet and other information technologies 
and providing increased opportunities for citizen access to Government 
information and services, and for other purposes.

Additional Public Notification

    FSIS will officially notify the World Trade Organization's 
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (WTO/SPS Committee) in 
Geneva, Switzerland, of this rule and will announce it online through 
the FSIS Web page located at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/regulations/federal-register/interim-and-final-rules.
    Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy 
development is important. Consequently, FSIS will announce this Federal 
Register publication on-line through the FSIS Web page located at: 
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/federal-register.
    FSIS also will make copies of this publication available through 
the FSIS Constituent Update, which is used to provide information 
regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations, Federal Register 
notices, FSIS public meetings, and other types of information that 
could affect or would be of interest to our constituents and 
stakeholders. The Update is available on the FSIS Web page. Through the 
Web page, FSIS is able to provide information to a much broader, more 
diverse audience. In addition, FSIS offers an email subscription 
service which provides automatic and customized access to selected food 
safety news and information. This service is available at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/subscribe. Options range from recalls to export 
information, regulations, directives, and notices. Customers can add or 
delete subscriptions themselves, and have the option to password 
protect their accounts.

USDA Non-Discrimination Statement

    No agency, officer, or employee of the USDA shall, on the grounds 
of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual 
orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, 
income derived from a public assistance program, or political beliefs, 
exclude from participation in, deny the benefits of, or subject to 
discrimination any person in the United States under any program or 
activity conducted by the USDA.

How To File a Complaint of Discrimination

    To file a complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program 
Discrimination Complaint Form, which may be accessed online at http://www.ocio.usda.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2012/Complain_combined_6_8_12.pdf, or write a letter signed by you or your 
authorized representative.
    Send your completed complaint form or letter to USDA by mail, fax, 
or email:
    Mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Director, Office of 
Adjudication, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410.
    Fax: (202) 690-7442.
    Email: [email protected].
    Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for 
communication (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.), should contact 
USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 327

    Food labeling, Food packaging, Imports, Meat inspection.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, FSIS amends 9 CFR part 327 
as follows:

PART 327--IMPORTED PRODUCTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 327 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 601-695; 7 CFR 2.18, 2.53.


Sec.  327.2  [Amended]

0
2. Amend Sec.  327.2(b) by adding ``Namibia'' in alphabetical order to 
the list of countries.

    Done at Washington, DC, on July 1, 2016.
Alfred V. Almanza,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2016-16546 Filed 7-12-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-DM-P
45225

Rules and Regulations Federal Register
Vol. 81, No. 134

Wednesday, July 13, 2016

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER Administrator, Office of Policy and product at establishments certified to
contains regulatory documents having general Program Development, Food Safety and export; (7) official controls over
applicability and legal effect, most of which Inspection Service, U.S. Department of condemned product; (8) a Hazard
are keyed to and codified in the Code of Agriculture; Telephone: (202) 205–0495. Analysis and Critical Control Point
Federal Regulations, which is published under (HACCP) system; and (9) any other
50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
requirements found in the FMIA and its
Background implementing regulations (9 CFR
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by
the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of On September 18, 2015, FSIS 327.2(a)(2)(ii)).
new books are listed in the first FEDERAL published a proposed rule in the The country’s inspection system must
REGISTER issue of each week. Federal Register (80 FR 56401) to add also impose requirements equivalent to
Namibia to the list of countries eligible those of the United States with respect
to export meat products to the United to: (1) Organizational structure and
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE States (9 CFR 327.2(b)). This final rule staffing to ensure uniform enforcement
is consistent with the proposed rule. of the requisite laws and regulations in
Food Safety and Inspection Service As is explained in the proposed rule, all certified establishments; (2) national
under the FMIA and implementing government control and supervision
9 CFR Part 327 regulations, meat and meat products over the official activities of employees
[Docket No. FSIS–2012–0028] imported into the United States must be or licensees; (3) qualified inspectors; (4)
produced under standards for safety, enforcement and certification authority;
RIN 0583–AD51 (5) administrative and technical
wholesomeness, and labeling that are
equivalent to those of the United States support; (6) inspection, sanitation,
Eligibility of Namibia To Export Meat quality, species verification and residue
Products to the United States (21 U.S.C. 620). The FMIA also requires
that the livestock from which such standards; and (7) any other inspection
AGENCY: Food Safety and Inspection imports are produced be slaughtered requirements (9 CFR 327.2(a)(2)(i)).
Service, USDA. and handled in connection with Evaluation of the Namibian Meat
ACTION: Final rule. slaughter in a manner that is consistent Inspection System
with the Humane Methods of Slaughter
SUMMARY: The Food Safety and As explained in the proposed rule, in
Act (7 U.S.C. 1901–1906).
Inspection Service (FSIS) is amending 2002 and again in 2005, the government
Section 327.2 of Title 9 of the Code
the Federal meat inspection regulations of Namibia requested approval to export
of Federal Regulations (CFR) sets out the
to add Namibia to the list of countries meat (beef) products to the United
procedures by which foreign countries States. Namibia stated that, if approved,
eligible to export meat and meat may become eligible to export meat and
products to the United States. FSIS has its immediate intent was to export
meat products to the United States. boneless (not ground) raw beef products
reviewed Namibia’s laws, regulations, Paragraph 327.2(a) requires that a
and inspection system as implemented, such as primal cuts, chuck, blade, and
foreign country’s meat inspection beef trimmings to the United States.
and has determined that they are system provide standards equivalent to
equivalent to the Federal Meat In 2006, FSIS conducted a document
those of the United States and to review to evaluate the laws, regulations,
Inspection Act (FMIA), the regulations provide legal authority for the
implementing this statute, and the and other documentation used by
inspection system and its implementing Namibia to execute its meat inspection
United States food safety system for regulations that is equivalent to that of
meat and meat products. program. FSIS examined the
the United States. Specifically, a information submitted by Namibia to
Under this final rule, Namibia will
country’s laws and regulations must verify that the following equivalence
only be able to export to the United
impose requirements equivalent to those components were addressed
States boneless (not ground) raw beef
of the United States with respect to: (1) satisfactorily with respect to standards,
products, such as primal cuts, chuck,
Ante-mortem inspection, humane activities, resources, and enforcement:
blade, and beef trimmings, processed in
methods of slaughter and handling, and (1) Government Oversight; (2) Statutory
certified Namibian establishments,
post-mortem inspection by, or under the Authority and Food Safety Regulations;
because FSIS only assessed Namibia’s
direct supervision of, a veterinarian; (2) (3) Sanitation; (4) Hazard Analysis and
meat inspection system with respect to
official controls by the national Critical Control Point Systems; (5)
these products. Namibia would need to
government over establishment Chemical Residue Testing Programs;
submit additional information for FSIS
construction, facilities, and equipment; and (6) Microbiological Testing
to review before FSIS would allow
(3) direct and continuous official Programs. The document review was
Namibia to export other beef product or
supervision of slaughtering and satisfactory to FSIS, and FSIS scheduled
product from other types of livestock to
preparation of product by inspectors to an on-site review to evaluate all aspects
the United States. All products that
ensure that product is not adulterated or of Namibia’s meat inspection program.
Namibia exports to the United States
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES

misbranded; (4) complete separation of In 2006, FSIS conducted an on-site
will be subject to reinspection at United
establishments certified to export from audit of Namibia’s meat inspection
States ports-of-entry by FSIS inspectors.
those not certified; (5) maintenance of a system and identified systemic
DATES: Effective Date: September 12, single standard of inspection and deficiencies within the six equivalence
2016. sanitation throughout certified components. In response to this audit,
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. establishments; (6) requirements for Namibia submitted a corrective action
Daniel L. Engeljohn, Assistant sanitation and for sanitary handling of plan that addressed FSIS’s findings. In

VerDate Sep<11>2014 12:54 Jul 12, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13JYR1.SGM 13JYR1
45226 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

2009, FSIS conducted a follow-up on- Namibia’s meat inspection system is FSIS will conduct other types of
site audit to verify that all outstanding equivalent to the United States’ reinspection activities, such as
issues identified during the previous inspection system for meat and meat incubation of canned products to ensure
audit had been resolved and that products. Therefore, FSIS is amending product safety and taking product
Namibia had satisfactorily implemented its meat inspection regulations to add samples for laboratory analysis to detect
all the laws, regulations, and Namibia to the list of countries eligible any drug or chemical residues or
instructions to the field that FSIS found to export meat and meat products to the pathogens that may render the product
to be equivalent during the document United States (9 CFR 327.2(b)). Under unsafe or any species or product
review and previous audit. Nonetheless, FSIS’s import regulations, the composition violations that would
the new audit identified new systemic government of Namibia must certify to render the product economically
deficiencies within the equivalence FSIS that those establishments that wish adulterated. Products that pass
components of government oversight, to export meat and meat products to the reinspection will be stamped with the
sanitation, HACCP, chemical residue, United States are operating under official mark of inspection and allowed
and microbiological testing programs. requirements equivalent to those of the to enter United States commerce. If they
Following the 2009 on-site audit, United States (9 CFR 327.2(a)). do not meet this country’s requirements,
Namibia again provided a FSIS will verify that the they will be refused entry and within 45
comprehensive corrective action plan establishments certified by Namibia’s days will have to be returned to the
that addressed the findings identified. government meet the United States country of origin, destroyed, or
In 2013, FSIS proceeded with a follow- requirements through periodic and converted to animal food (subject to
up on-site audit of Namibia’s meat regularly scheduled audits of Namibia’s approval of the Food and Drug
inspection system and verified that meat inspection system. In the future, if Administration (FDA)), depending on
Namibia had satisfactorily implemented Namibia wants to export other beef the violation. The import reinspection
the corrective actions taken in response products (e.g., ground beef) or other activities can be found on the FSIS Web
to the 2009 on-site audit. The 2013 audit meat products to this country (e.g., pork site at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/
identified new findings within the products), it will need to notify FSIS portal/fsis/topics/international-affairs/
equivalence components of government and submit information about its importing-products/port-of-entry-
oversight, statutory authority and food requirements and inspection program procedures.
safety regulations, sanitation, and for these products. FSIS would then In addition, Namibian meat and meat
chemical residue testing programs. review the information and determine products will be eligible for importation
In response to the 2013 audit findings, whether the Agency needs to audit the into the United States only if they are
Namibia implemented immediate operations in Namibia producing these from animals slaughtered on or after the
corrective actions and submitted products to determine whether the effective date of this final rule.
another corrective action plan that requirements and inspection program
Summary of Comments and Responses
addressed the findings identified during for these products is equivalent to those
the audit of its food safety system. FSIS in the United States. Namibia would not FSIS received 92 comments on the
conducted another on-site audit in 2014 be allowed to export additional proposed rule. Eighty-one of the
to verify that Namibia had effectively products to the United States until FSIS comments were received from
implemented those corrective actions. determines that the country’s individuals; 10 of the comments were
FSIS concluded, on the basis of the requirements and inspection program received from trade associations
2014 audit, that Namibia had fully for the products are equivalent to FSIS’s representing American cattlemen and
implemented the corrective action plan system. the beef industry, pork producers, milk
that it submitted in response to the 2013 Although a foreign country may be producers, and farmers; and one
audit. FSIS did not find any significant listed in FSIS’s regulations as eligible to comment was from a consumer
problems during the 2014 on-site audit. export meat and meat products to the advocacy group. Of the 92 comments, 87
Furthermore, through the audit, FSIS United States, the exporting country’s were against the proposed rule,
found that Namibia had implemented a products must also comply with all including those from all of the trade
sampling and testing program for Shiga other applicable requirements of the associations. Four individuals and one
toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) United States, including those of the advocate on the behalf of the Namibian
that is equivalent to FSIS’s program. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Meat Board were in support of the
Industry in Namibia is required to Service (APHIS). These requirements proposed rule.
control for or address STEC so that it is include restrictions under 9 CFR part 94 The following is a discussion of the
at a non-detectable level, and of the APHIS regulations, which relevant issues raised in the comments.
government testing in Namibia verifies regulate the importation of meat and Comments: Almost all of the
that industry has the necessary controls meat products from countries into the comments expressed concern about the
in place. United States to control the spread of recent outbreaks of foot and mouth
For more detailed information on specific animal diseases. According to 9 disease (FMD) in the areas north of the
FSIS’s evaluation of the Namibian meat CFR 94.1, APHIS listed Namibia as a Veterinary Cordon Fence (VCF), a fence
inspection system, see the proposed rule country free of rinderpest and foot-and- separating Northern Namibia and
(80 FR 56401) and for the full audit mouth disease (excluding the region neighboring countries from the central
reports, go to: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/ north of the Veterinary Cordon Fence). and southern parts of Namibia that is
wps/portal/fsis/topics/international- Also, under this final rule, all meat designed to contain FMD outbreaks
affairs/importing-products/eligible- and meat products exported to the north of the fence. The majority of the
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES

countries-products-foreign- United States from Namibia will be individuals and various trade
establishments/foreign-audit-reports. subject to reinspection by FSIS at associations stated that the prevalence
United States ports of entry for, but not of FMD in the region presents a threat
Final Rule limited to, transportation damage, to the security of U.S. cattle and food
After considering the comments product and container defects, labeling, safety. The commenters stated that
received on the proposed rule, proper certification, general condition, Namibia cannot guarantee that FMD-
discussed below, FSIS concludes that and accurate count. infected animals will stay out of the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 12:54 Jul 12, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13JYR1.SGM 13JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 45227

region in Namibia south of the VCF. determinations help establish the Response: FSIS assesses a country’s
Several trade associations also import requirements for livestock and food regulatory system in terms of six
expressed concern about deficiencies products derived from them. equivalence components and uses its
found in a 2013 European Commission In 2006, APHIS recognized the region findings from the assessment in
audit of Namibia’s animal health control of Namibia south of the VCF as free of deciding whether or not to grant
system.1 One trade association FMD and rinderpest (71 FR 62198). This eligibility to the country for the
concluded that these deficiencies would regulation relieved certain restrictions importation of its meat or meat food
result in commingling of contaminated due to FMD and rinderpest on the products into the United States. On the
cattle with cattle from the FMD-free importation into the United States of basis of the 2014 follow-up on-site
zone south of the VCF. A few certain live animals and animal audit, FSIS determined that Namibia
commenters were also concerned that products from all regions of Namibia fully met the criteria within those six
the proposed rule did not address what except the region north of the VCF. equivalence components, in accordance
steps FSIS would take to ensure that APHIS is developing a prioritization with 9 CFR 327.2. Specifically, FSIS
such commingling does not occur. process for conducting reviews of found that Namibia had a system in
Several trade associations also countries or regions that have received place to verify and enforce HACCP
expressed concern in their comments animal health status recognition, such requirements. FSIS also found that
about the future of the VCF. as the FMD freedom recognition granted Namibia had an effective strategy for
Commenters cited recent statements to a region of Namibia. FSIS has implementing sample collection for
made by the Namibian Agricultural provided the concerns identified in the chemical residue monitoring. Regarding
Minister who, according to the comments on the proposed rule to staffing problems found during the 2009
commenters, has expressed a desire to APHIS, and APHIS will consider these on-site audit within the government
have the fence removed. Additional as they finalize and implement their oversight component, Namibia
commenters pointed to the lack of prioritization process. Therefore, at this implemented corrective action plans for
structural integrity of the VCF. Those time, APHIS rules allow beef from the relief inspection personnel. FSIS
commenters stated that the VCF is region of Namibia south of the VCF to concluded that Namibia had
frequently breached by the country’s be exported to the United States. satisfactorily addressed the findings in
elephant and buffalo population, which this component. FSIS found Namibia to
FSIS and APHIS work closely together
raises the possibility of other wildlife have remedied all deficiencies regarding
to ensure that all meat and meat
traveling through carrying FMD. the components that the Agency had
Furthermore, one trade association products imported into the United
States comply with the regulatory uncovered in past audits, and
expressed concern over a 30-kilometer determined that, as implemented,
section of the VCF dismantled by the requirements of both agencies. In 1985,
FSIS and APHIS signed a memorandum Namibia’s inspection system (slaughter
authorities. The trade association argued and processing) for beef is equivalent to
that this places southern Namibia at risk of understanding (MOU) in which both
agencies agreed to cooperate in meeting the United States’ meat inspection
of becoming re-infected with FMD,
their respective needs relative to system. The details of Namibia’s
because it allows buffaloes and
information exchange of disease compliance with those components can
elephants to re-enter the FMD-free zone.
surveillance, diagnostic testing, all be found on the FSIS Web site at:
Additionally, some commenters
investigations, trace backs, and animal http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/
expressed concern about the lack of a
and public health emergencies to fsis/topics/international-affairs/
recent APHIS audit, and requested that
achieve their related objectives of importing-products/eligible-countries-
FSIS delay any further action on the
reducing the spread of animal diseases, products-foreign-establishments/
proposed rule until APHIS conducts an
and of providing a wholesome and foreign-audit-reports.
audit and publishes a formal risk
assessment. economical food supply. The MOU is Additionally, regarding deficiencies
Response: Although Namibia may be updated periodically to ensure that it noted during past FSIS audits of the
listed in FSIS’s regulations as eligible to addresses matters of importance to both Namibian food-safety system, the
export poultry products to the United agencies. The MOU was last updated history, background and verification of
States, the products must also comply November 20, 2014. In accord with this corrective actions are documented in
with all other applicable requirements MOU, FSIS and APHIS established the 2009, 2013, and 2014 final audit
of the United States, including those of procedures for communication between reports.
USDA’s APHIS, before any products can the two agencies regarding the Namibia has established its
enter the United States. inspection, handling, and disposition of equivalence and when this final rule is
APHIS is responsible for preventing imported meat products. APHIS and effective, Namibia will be eligible to
the entry of foreign animal diseases into FSIS communicate regularly to ensure export certain beef products to the
the livestock population of the United that products APHIS has restricted from United States. FSIS ensures that
States. APHIS determines the animal entering the United States because of countries maintain equivalence through
health status of foreign countries or animal disease concerns are not a three-part process, involving: (1)
regions for certain diseases, and this imported into the United States. Recurring equivalence reviews (e.g.,
process is outlined in Title 9 CFR part Comments: A majority of the trade through use of the country Self
92. These animal health status associations and the consumer advocacy Reporting Tool or other documentation
group comments expressed concern from the Central Competent Authority)
1 Final Report of an audit, carried out in Namibia,
about the deficiencies found in the of the exporting country’s applicable
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES

from 19 February to 01 March 2013, in order to 2006, 2009, and 2013 FSIS audits, laws and regulations; (2) periodic on-
evaluate the animal health control system in place,
in particular relation to controls on foot-and-mouth particularly with respect to problems site equivalence verification audits in
disease. The audit found insufficient FSIS found in the Namibian food-safety the exporting country; and (3) ongoing
implementation and documentation of actions system, the lack of collaboration FSIS point-of-entry (POE) re-inspection of
following the incursion of FMD positive buffalo in
the disease-free zone. An Audit conducted by the
found between the Namibian ministries, shipments received from the exporting
European Commission, Health and Consumers and staffing problems FSIS identified in country. These POE activities include
Directorate—General, September 7, 2013. the ministries. examination of products for defects,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 12:54 Jul 12, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13JYR1.SGM 13JYR1
45228 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

container examinations, and laboratory nor specify the assumptions of the running estimations. It is only sensible
analysis of product samples. model. Therefore, there is no way to to use these models when the size of
For all these reasons, therefore, validate the model’s accuracy in expected imports is significant. Because
concerns about deficiencies found in depicting the linkage from beef imports the projected amount of beef imports
past FSIS audits are unwarranted. The to total economic output and job loss. from Namibia is very small, only 0.07 to
deficiencies have been remedied and As a consequence, the credibility of the 0.44 percent of total United States
the Namibian inspection system will be multipliers lacks support. All economic imports, FSIS believes it does not need
subject to ongoing verification to ensure projection models and estimations are a model to tell that it is very unlikely
that it continues to maintain standards based on assumptions. To properly to have a noticeable impact on beef
equivalent to those of the United States. interpret a model’s projections, it is prices and other economic measures.
Comments: Some comments from important to understand and evaluate Executive Order 12866 and 13563, and
individuals and trade associations the accuracy of its assumptions every the Regulatory Flexibility Act
expressed concern over the economic step of the way. Neither the VanSickle
effect that the rule would have on paper nor the commenter ever Executive Orders (E.O.) 12866 and
American ranchers. These commenters addressed any of these issues. 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs
stated that the importation of Namibian In fact, the use of an I–O model such and benefits of available regulatory
beef would lower the price of beef as IMPLAN has been considered alternatives and, if regulation is
overall and cause a decline in sales and problematic in economic research. In necessary, to select regulatory
job loss for the American beef industry. addition to the lack of transparency approaches that maximize net benefits
Two individuals supported the inherent in the software-generated (including potential economic,
proposed rule and agreed with FSIS’s calculations, peer-reviewed journal environmental, public health and safety
economic analysis. articles have also suggested that effects, distributive impacts, and
Response: FSIS estimates that the inaccurate production functions are one equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the
expected amount of imported Namibian of IMPLAN’s weakest links, and that an importance of quantifying both costs
beef is only 0.008 2 to 0.05 percent of the I–O model has the potential to over- and benefits, of reducing costs, of
United States beef production; therefore, calculate impact.4 In addition, in a harmonizing rules, and of promoting
there will be no significant impact on review of several studies that used flexibility. This final rule was
sales and the United States economy. methodology similar to IMPLAN, designated a ‘‘non-significant’’
Kinnaman (2011) found the studies to regulatory action under section 3(f) of
Comment: The one trade association
be based on questionable assumptions E.O. 12866. Accordingly, this rule was
that disputed FSIS’s economic analysis
that likely overstate the economic not reviewed by the Office of
specifically stated that applying
impact.5 Furthermore, Brown and Management and Budget (OMB) under
multipliers from a paper by VanSickle,3
Munasib & Rickman (2014) also found E.O. 12866.
Namibia’s beef import of 1.9 million
pound in the first year (after the rule is studies using I–O models over-estimated Economic Impact Analysis for Namibia
finalized) and 12.5 million pounds in actual economic impact of natural gas Export Equivalence
the 5th year will likely result in a extraction. Because of the difficulty in This final rule adds Namibia to the
negative impact on the United States using the I–O model appropriately and list of countries eligible to export meat
economy of $14.9 million and $96 correctly, there are hardly any relevant products into the United States. The
million, respectively; and the United studies based on such models for government of Namibia intends to
States will suffer 127 job losses in the agriculture imports that have gone certify only one Namibian establishment
first year and 837.5 job losses in the 5th through the peer review process of an as eligible to export boneless raw beef
year. economic journal.6 products to the United States. Given this
Response: The multipliers the There are other economic impact
establishment’s beef production
commenter used, i.e. $3.87 impact on models that are more comprehensive
capacity and the projected export
total United States economic output per and more robust than I–O models, such
volume, FSIS projects that this final rule
$1 decline in sales for the cattle as econometric simulation models
will not have a significant impact on the
ranching and farming sector and 67 (ESMs) or computable general
United States economy. The annual
United States job losses per 1 million equilibrium (CGE) models. It is quite an
boneless beef production of this
pounds of additional beef imports, are undertaking to use these models, for
establishment averaged 21.4 million
from a paper that has not been peer- modelers have to collect data and adjust
pounds from 2008 to 2014. The
reviewed. The multipliers in the assumptions in the models before
projected volume of exports to the
VanSickle paper were results from an United States is about 1.9 million
4 Lazarus, W.F., D.E. Platas, and G.W. Morse,
input-output model (I–O model) named pounds in the first year, increasing to
2002. IMPLAN’s Weakest Link: Production
IMPLAN. However, the paper did not Functions or Regional Purchase Coefficients? about 12.5 million pounds in five
describe the model or the input data, Journal of Regional Analysis and Policy, 32 (2002): years.7 The average annual United
33–48.; Brown, J.P., Goetz, S.J., Ahearn, M.C., &
2 In the proposed rule, FSIS used 2012–2014 U.S. Liang, C. (2014) Linkages between Community-
States domestic beef production in
beef production data to estimate the expected Focused Agriculture, Farm Sales, and Regional 2012–2015 was 24.9 billion pounds,
amount of imported Namibian beef would be .007 Growth. Economic Development Quarterly, 28(1), projected to be 24.6 billion pounds in
to .05 percent of the United States beef production. 5–16. 2016.8 The total United States import of
In the final rule, FSIS used U.S. beef production 5 Kinnaman, T.C., 2011. The Economic Impact of
beef averages 2.70 billion pounds per
data from 2012–2015 to update the estimated Shale Gas Extraction: A Review of Existing Studies.
year for 2012–2015, projected to be 2.85
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES

expected amount of imported Namibian beef to be Ecol. Econ. 70: 1243–1249.
.008 to .05 percent of the United States beef 6 Brown, J.P., Goetz, S.J., Ahearn, M.C., & Liang,
production. C. (2014) Linkages between Community-Focused 7 According to Namibia, this is the ‘‘optimistic’’
3 The VanSickle paper is a comment paper Agriculture, Farm Sales, and Regional Growth. projection they wish to achieve. Market conditions
submitted to APHIS in 2004 by John VanSickle on Economic Development Quarterly, 28(1), 5–16; will affect actual results.
the economic analysis in the APHIS proposed rule Munasib, A. and D.S. Rickman, 2015. Regional 8 http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/2009937/ldp-m-

for Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy: Minimal Economic Impacts of the Shale Gas and Tight Oil 260.pdf, accessed on April 7, 2016; part of
Risk Regions and Importation of Commodities. The Boom: A Synthetic Control Analysis. Regional Livestock, Dairy, & Poultry Outlook by Economic
commenter attached a copy of the paper. Science and Urban Economics, 50:1–17. Research Service, USDA.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 12:54 Jul 12, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\13JYR1.SGM 13JYR1
Document Created: 2016-07-13 01:44:11
Document Modified: 2016-07-13 01:44:11
Category		Regulatory Information
Collection		Federal Register
sudoc Class		AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106:
Publisher		Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
Section		Rules and Regulations
Action		Final rule.
Contact		Dr. Daniel L. Engeljohn, Assistant Administrator, Office of Policy and Program Development, Food Safety and Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; Telephone: (202) 205-0495.
FR Citation		81 FR 45225
RIN Number		0583-AD51
CFR Associated		Food Labeling; Food Packaging; Imports and Meat Inspection
81 FR 45225 - Eligibility of Namibia To Export Meat Products to the United States

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTUREFood Safety and Inspection Service

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 134 (July 13, 2016)

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Food Safety and Inspection Service
