Detailed Information on the
Pest and Disease Exclusion Assessment

Adding a new long-term performance measure to quantify the value of damages prevented or mitigated by the Pest and Disease Exclusion Programs.

Implementing recommendations from a review conducted to streamline the permitting process for imported animals and animal products and improve customer satisfaction.

Established baselines for its performance measures for pest and disease exclusions.

Updating and integrating strategic plans for domestic and international fruit fly activites to enhance program management and better protect the United States from outbreaks of exotic fruit flies.

Measure: Number of foreign animal disease incidents in the United States.

Explanation:APHIS is tracking its success at excluding diseases by measuring the number of foreign animal disease incidents.

Measure: Number of severe outbreaks of exotic fruit flies detected on mainland U.S.

Explanation:APHIS is tracking its success at excluding pests through the amount of outbreaks of exotic fruit flies.

Measure: Value of expanded and retained markets, new markets access and trade facilitated (in billions).

Explanation:APHIS is tracking its success at facilitating trade by measuring the value of markets retained, expanded or opened. FY 2005 data is expected to be available prior to the FY 2007 budget being released.

Measure: Number of horseback river patrols.

Explanation:APHIS implements a horseback patrol along the Rio Grande. These patrols are responsible for the apprehension of stray or smuggled Mexican livestock. As of 2001, 50 percent of bovine and 20 percent of equine apprehended were infested with ticks. This measure displays the continuous effort toward preventing tick infestations. The program has focused on cattle tick treatments which have almost doubled.

Measure: Number of countries from which agricultural disease/pest information is collected.

Explanation:By building a network of information concerning agricultural diseases and pests in other countries, APHIS expands its knowledge to be put forth toward safeguarding U.S. agriculture from foreign animal diseases.

Measure: Number of sterile fruit fly pupae produced weekly (in billions).

Explanation:By producing sterile pupae, APHIS reduces the risk of pests being established in the United States.

Measure: Regulatory decisions or initiatives taken to ensure safe commodity importation.

Explanation:In order to manage the risk of exotic pests and foreign diseases, APHIS implements regulations on commodity imports.

Measure: Percentage of cattle fever tick outbreaks occurring outside the quarantine zone eliminated in less than twelve months

Explanation:APHIS protects the United States from the risk of tropical bont tick infestations by eradicating the tick from the Caribbean islands. Antigua is the most severe case among the islands due to its large livestock population.

Measure: Dollar cost of 1 million sterile fruit flies produced at the El Pino facility in Guatemala.

Explanation:APHIS produces sterile male pupae and sells them to the States for dispersal. The sterile male flies unsuccessfully mate with female flies consequently reducing the population of flies. This measure displays cost efficiency within APHIS by producing pupae for less money and sharing that savings with the States.

Measure: Areas free of Medfly in Mexico and Guatemala.

Explanation:The greatest threat of Medfly establishment in the United States is from the spread of the pest overland through Mexico and into fruit and vegetable growing areas in Texas and California. APHIS and Mexico have decided to embark on a long-term program to eradicate medfly completely from southern Mexico and Guatemala.

Measure: Number of traps set in Florida and Puerto Rico.

Explanation:APHIS has replaced original traps with new multi-lure traps (MLT). Whereas the old traps required service 4 times a month, the new traps require only 2. As a result, the program has employed twice as many traps without increasing funds. With more traps, APHIS can significantly enhance its fruit fly detection capability.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The purpose of APHIS' Pest and Disease Exclusion Programs is to prevent the introduction of foreign agricultural diseases through off-shore eradication and information collection activities and the regulation of agricultural imports. The programs also support the ability of U.S. producers to export their products both through protecting U.S. agricultural health and through directly resolving sanitary and phytosanitary issues that affect trade.

Evidence: The Animal Health Protection Act (7 USC sec. 8301 et seq.) and the Plant Protection Act (7 USC sec. 7701 et seq.) both authorize and require USDA to undertake activities to prevent the entry of foreign agricultural diseases. These programs play an integral part in APHIS' efforts to safeguard U.S. agriculture and natural resources and protect the livelihoods of U.S. producers.

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest or need?

Explanation: The United States continually faces the potential introduction of foreign animal and plant pests and diseases through natural and human-assisted means of spread. The APHIS Pest and Disease Exclusion Programs work to prevent such occurances through off-shore eradication and information collection activities and the regulation of agricultural imports.

Evidence: Several devastating agricultural pests and diseases, such as foot-and-mouth disease, Mediterranean fruit fly, and screwworm, are present in Central and South America. Tropical bont tick is present in the Carribean, and cattle fever ticks are present in Mexico. Without the offshore eradication activities conducted by APHIS and cooperators in affected countries and the domestic prevention activities conducted in at-risk States, these pests and diseases would reach the United States through means of natural spread. FMD, for example, nearly reached the U.S.-Mexico border in the 1950s and was fought back in a dramatic eradication effort on the part of Mexican and U.S. animal health authorities. Today, the APHIS Foreign Animal Disease/Foot-and-Mouth Disease (FAD/FMD) program is establishing a permanent barrier for the disease at the Panama-Colombia border. The Import/Export program tracks the agricultural disease status of U.S. trading partners and sets import policy to ensure that agricultural diseases are not introduced through imports.

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: No other Federal program responds to the overseas threat of plant and animal diseases.

Evidence: APHIS is the Federal agency responsible for setting agricultural import policy and representing the United States in matters covered by the World Trade Organization's Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures.

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: The programs' design and focus is effective and efficient. Preventing the entry of agricultural diseases saves taxpayers and agricultural producers the costs associated with eradication programs and prevents the production losses that foreign agricultural diseases would cause. The agency takes a proactive approach of seeking to eradicate pests and diseases in off-shore locations to accomplish this mission. This approach is preferable to the alternative of directing more resources to inspection efforts at ports of entry because the amount of resources necessary to raise the level of inspection even a small percentage would be cost prohibitive. Additionally, even with scientific sampling and inspection methods, the program will never detect all potential pests in passenger baggage and cargo. Accordingly, eradicating the highest risk pests and diseases where travelers and cargo originate significantly reduces the possibility that these pests will make it to the United States.

Evidence: If Medfly became established in the United States, economists estimate that it would cost producers $2 billion annually in lost export markets, production losses, and lower domestic prices. Preventing the pest's entry through eradication and preventive releases of sterile flies costs approximatley $56 million per year. APHIS conducted strategic planning reviews for several of the Pest and Disease Exclusion Programs (Medfly, FAD/FMD, and TBT) this fiscal year and determined that the FAD/FMD and TBT programs' designs were sound and effective. The TBT program, for example, has eradicated the pest on 67 percent of participating Caribbean islands, ahead of its schedule. Program officials expanded the goal of the Medfly program to make it more effective.

Is the program effectively targeted, so that resources will reach intended beneficiaries and/or otherwise address the program's purpose directly?

Explanation: Through its offshore eradication activities, APHIS is targeting pests and diseases where they originate. To help facilitate safe agricultural trade and collect information about the agricultural health status of our trading partners, the Trade Issues Resolution Management (TIRM) program stations agricultural attaches in places where trade issues arise.

Evidence: For example, genetic fingerprinting has shown that five of the past seven Medfly outbreaks in California involved Medflies from Central America. Eradicating Medlfy from Mexico, Guatemala, and eventually countries further south through Central America is a key part of APHIS' overall strategy to protect the United States. With the continued movement of people and goods from Central America, there is a continued risk of a Medfly introduction as long as the pest exists in those areas.

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: APHIS has developed a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program, which is to prevent the introduction of foreign agricultural diseases.

Evidence: The Fruit Fly Exclusion and Detection (FFED) program's long-term performance measure is the number of severe outbreaks of exotic fruit flies in the mainland United States. The FAD/FMD program's long-term measure is the number of foreign animal disease incidents in the United States. Other programs, such as TBT, Screwworm, and Cattle Fever Tick, help support FAD/FMD exclusion goal by conducting exclusion activities for specific animal pests. The TIRM program's measure is the value of expanded and retained markets, new market access and trade facilitated. The Import/Export program provides critical support to the TIRM program through its certification of U.S. animal and animal product exports.

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: The program has ambitious targets and timeframes for its long term measures.

Evidence: The target for FY 2005 through 2008 for the number of severe outbreaks of exotic fruit flies in the mainland United States is 0. With improved efficiency in sterile fly production, APHIS is able to maintain its targets even though costs are rising in other areas, such as fuel costs and security for aerial operations. The target for FY 2005 through 2008 for the number of foreign animal disease incidents in the United States is 0. Finally, the FY 2006 through FY 2008 target for the value of expanded and retained markets, new market access and trade facilitated is constant ($2..447 billion), assuming no significant budget increases.

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?

Explanation: The Pest and Disease Exclusion program has specific annual performance measures for each of its component programs that support the overall goal of preventing the introduction of foreign agricultural pests and diseases.

Evidence: For example, the FFED program's annual measure is the area (measured in square kilometers) of the international eradication zone considered free of Medfly. As this area increases, so does the size and strength of the international barrier that helps to protect the United States from Medfly introductions. The goal of the TBT program is to erradicate the tick from the Caribbean, thus precluding the tick (which carries a disease fatal to cattle and other animals) from spreading to the United States. The TBT program's annual measure demonstrates progress toward achieving this end through tracking the percent of premises that are rid of the tick on participating islands.

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: APHIS has baselines and ambitious targets for the Pest and Disease Exclusion programs' annual measures.

Evidence: For the TBT program, the baseline is 30 percent of premises freed of the tick in FY 2003 on Antingua. The targets are 50 percent in 2005 and 95 percent in 2006. While the annual targets for other programs remain level, our costs are increasing. Our outputs also support our long-term targets. The targets for APHIS' FAD and fruit fly programs remain at zero for the next several years, even though increasing travel and agricultural trade continue to increase the risk of introducing a new pest or disease. Additionally, while maintaining this level of performance, the fruit fly program is increasing its efficiency. The fruit fly program estimates it will produce 2.7 billion sterile fruit fly pupae weekly in FY 2005 and 2006. Even though production is estimated to stay the same, the cost to produce 1 million sterile fly pupae has dropped from $395/million in FY 2000 to $139/million in FY 2004 to an estimated $132/million in '05. This improved efficiency provides resources for the increasing costs such as fuel and security and for increased surveillance efforts.

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: APHIS cooperates with various stakeholders, Federal and State agencies, and other governments, all committed toward achieving the annual and long-term program goals. APHIS and its cooperators typically commit to program goals through broad agreements with governing boards and international organizations and through cooperative agreements with specific agencies, which specify funding levels and the activities each party is expected to carry out. For the Moscamed program, the program's technical advisory committee (made up of represenatatives from the United States, Mexico, and Guatamala) developed a unified management plan, which was endorsed by USDA's Undersecretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs and his counterparts from ministeries of agriculture in cooperating countries. For the Tropical Bont Tick program and the Foreign Animal Disease/Foot and Mouth Disease program, APHIS works with umbrella organizations such as the United Nation's Food and Agriculture Organization and the Pan-American Organization to agree on program goals and then signs cooperative agreements with individual countries.

Evidence: Examples of joint commitment to goals include APHIS' cooperation with the governments of Mexico and Guatemala through a "unified management" approach approved by the Moscamed (the international Medfly eradication program) regional eradication task force commissioners (including USDA U/S Hawks.); APHIS' supports of the Pan-American Health Organizations plan to eradicate Foot and Mouth Disease from the Western Hemisphere which fits into APHIS program goals; and the Texas animal Health Commission (TAHC) strategic plan which ensures the commitment of working with APHIS to eradicate and prevent the spread of cattle ticks.

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: APHIS solicits independent evaluations a neede to ensure that its safeguarding efforts are effective. For example, since 1999, both the Nat'l Plant Board & the Nat'l Assoc. of State Dept.'s of Ag. (NASDA) have conducted extensive evaluations of APHIS' plant & animal health safeguarding programs, encompassing all our exclusion and monitoring and surveillance programs, our relationships with stakeholders, and our use of science and technology. The large scope of the reviews was necessary given changes in world trade and travel programs that required APHIS to adjust it operations. The Plant Board and NASDA ensured the quality of the reviews through exhaustive interviews with Agency personnel, stakeholders, and outside experts, and provided extensive documentation. The Smaller scale, independent evaluations are conducted more frequently to ensure that individual programs are effective.

Evidence: The Safeguarding Reviews were conducted by the Natl' Plant Board and the NASDA. Both are independent of APHIS and sometimes critical and have a stake in ensuring that APHIS performs its safeguarding mission effectively. The Moscamed program technical advisory committee is made up of academics, ARS scientists, and UN representatives. The committee conducts formal evaluations of the program at least once a year. The Amblyomma program in the Caribbean conducts evaluations as part of the normal reporting process under terms of agreement with the Food and Agriculture Organization of the U.N. APHIS' Planning and Program Development staff have facilitated a strategic planning analysis of the FAD/FMD, TBT, CSF, Screwworm, and Medfly programs. The reviews were conducted by pesonel independent of the programs and included input and discussion from industry, academia and program personnel. The program used Expert Choice decision making software to have stakeholder vote on the importance of activities for the FAD/FMD program strategic plan review.

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: The program's budget is aligned with the program goals. APHIS' planning and budgeting process specifically relates program results to changes in funding, policy, or legislative mandates.

Evidence: APHIS budgets for all program costs, both direct and indirect, in developing and submitting annual proposals so that the total cost --including administrative and indirect-- is covered at each funding level. Additionally, Cooperative agreements have specific work and spending plans that tie into APHIS goals.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: The program conducts regular strategic planning reviews and addresses any deficiencies as necessary.

Evidence: Based on the Safeguarding reviews, APHIS is making numerous changes. For ex., we are increasing our focus on int'l info. gathering to support informed regulatory import policy.Following a strategic planning review of the intl' Medfly program, the program's goal was revised from maintaining a low Medfly prevalence in Guatemala to pushing the barrier to the Guatemala's southern border by 2010 and eventually to the Panama/Colombia border to ensure an effective buffer against the pest. The programs address issues of concers at meetings with stakeholders and have implemented recommendations from various reviews. For example, the Medfly program in Guatemala changed its management structure after a review. Similarly a review of the screwworm program lead to the plan to construct a one module rearing facility rather than three module facility. The int'l Medfly program was highlighted by a 2003 National Academy of Public Administration Report & a 2000 GAO report as a good ex. of a program that collects regular performance data for program decisions. (How Federal Programs Use Outcome Info. and GAO-GG-00204 respectively).

Are all regulations issued by the program/agency necessary to meet the stated goals of the program, and do all regulations clearly indicate how the rules contribute to achievement of the goals?

Explanation: All regulations issued by the program are necessary to meet the program goals. All regulations clearly indicate how the rules contribute to the achievement of the goals. USDA regulations have a preamble stating the goal of the program, which justifies the need for the regulation. For example, regulations promulgated by the Import/Export program help ensure that animals and animal products entering the United States pose minimal health risk to the U.S. herd. The regulations may also identify varying animal health zones or regions within the United States to promote international trade status of animals and animal products in those regions.

Evidence: Federal Register issuances of new rules to add, modify, or clarify existing regulations. APHIS programs review regulations on at least a 5-year cycle per APHIS policy, but most do so more frequently because pest and disease situations change quickly and require us to adjust our regulations. Recently published rules and notices are available on the APHIS Web site: www.aphis.usda.gov/ppd/rad/webrepor/vs.html.

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: The Pest and Disease Exclusion programs collect performance data throughout the year and use the information to adjust program operations as needed. If the data reveal that eradication or exclusion operations are not achieivng results, program managers determine what needs to be changed using performance data. For example, the Fruit Fly exclsuion program sets traps for exotic fruit flies and checks them on a regular basis. If exotic fruit flies are detected, the program responds immediately.

Evidence: The information collected by the programs is compiled into databases or reports, such as the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Accomplishment Report. Managers analyze program data and focus resources where they are needed most to accomplish program goals. For example, epidemiologists use data collected by the cattle fever tick program to investigate incursions of cattle ticks and develop new strategies to eradicate source populations in the eradication zone. The fruit fly eradication program releases sterile flies and collects data using traps. The program determines how many sterile flies should be distributed based on trapping data. The international Medfly program was highlighted by a May 2003 National Academy of Public Administration Report (How Federal Programs Use Outcome Information) and a Sept. 2000 GAO report (GAO-GG-00204) as a good example of a program that collects regular performance data useful for program decisions.

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: Program managers are responsible for assessing and directing program policies and regulations to assure alignment with program goals and objectives. Federal managers and program partners are held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results.

Evidence: The successes or failures of program performance are a direct reflection of program management at all levels and are reflected in employee performance evaluations. Contracts that do not produce desired results are terminated. For example, when Honduras failed to provide its share of the cost for FMD surveillance and diagnostic testing, the agreement was terminated in FY 2003.

Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner and spent for the intended purpose?

Explanation: The programs obligate funds in a timely manner in accordance with stated objectives, and they leave little or no unobligated balance in their line-item accounts.

Evidence: Programs estimate spending at the beginning of the fiscal year. APHIS' financial managers track spending throughout the year. Each month, Program Financial Managers and APHIS' Budget Staff review current spending results and projections to assure funds are being obligated in a timely manner and for their intended purpose. The Budget staff then briefs the Agency's Administrator each month on spending. APHIS accountants and program financial managers collaborate throughout and at the end of the year close out to ensure that spending estimates are accurate.

Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: The international eradication Pest and Disease Exclusion programs have procedures in place to measure efficiency and cost effectiveness.

Evidence: The El Pino fly production plant is considered the world leader in technology improvement for sterile Medfly production and has achieved tremendous production efficiencies through adoption of new technologies. The program measures its efficiency by tracking the variable cost of producing sterile fruit flies. The program has been able to lower cost by 22% (from $178 per million to $139 per million). The screwworm program also tracks its cost in producing sterile flies and provides flies to cooperators at cost. While production costs, such as insurance, security, the price of gasoline, etc., have steadily risen over the course of the program's operation, the program has kept the price charged for flies level through improvements in technology. Additionally, our monthly financial review measures and documents efficiency gains.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: The Pest and Disease Exclusion programs collaborate and coordinate effectively with other Federal agencies and with other governments that are working towards the same objectives. The international Pest and Disease Exclusion are true cooperative efforts between APHIS and its foreign counterparts. For example, APHIS and its cooperators in Mexico and Guatemala recently developed a unified management plan for all three countries to follow in the international fruit fly eradication program. As part of the process, all three committed to a new long-term goal, the establishment of a permanent Medfly barrier at Panama's southern border and reallocated resources accordingly.

Evidence: APHIS cooperates with Mexico and Guatemala on the international fruit fly eradication program. Program cooperators have developed a joint financial plan and are tracking it with a joint accounting system, which enables transparent access to cost and performance data. As a result of a joint strategic planning decision to move the Medfly barrier steadily south rather than focusing on several areas at once, we reallocated funding from Guatemala's program to Mexico's (a difference of nearly $16 million). Funding for Guatemala will increase in future years as the free area moves south. Resources for the tropical bont tick program are also allocated based on strategic planning and needs across Caribbean countries. The TIRM and Import/Export programs work with FAS and USTR; they all share the goal of facilitating safe agricultural trade. As a result of this cooperation, the United States has signed free trade agreements with Morocco and Australia and negotiated the Central American Free Trade Agreement.

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: The Pest and Disease Exclusion programs each receive an annual allocation, which includes funding for program support, and are held accountable for keeping spending within this amount. During the course of the year, program officials meet on a regular basis with the APHIS Budget and Program Analysis Staff to review projections and discuss financial issues of concern. Additionally, USDA is auditied by it Inspector General on an annual basis.

Evidence: USDA received clean audited opinions for FY 2002 and FY 2003 and is free of material control weaknesses. Procurement actions are handled by procurement specialists in accordance with established prodecures, controls, and competitive practices. Our system of credit card purchases is routinely reviewed. Spending is reviewed on a monthly basis in the APHIS status-of-funds process to assure that the funds are properly managed. Programs track activity costs using the Foundation Financial Information System.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: The programs continuously review their management structures and address any deficiencies that are uncovered. Individual Pest and Disease Exclusion programs have their own systems in place to review program management.

Evidence: The Moscamed program's tech. advisory committee conducts formal evaluations of the program at least once a year. During 2003, the advisory committee identified a management weakness: separate program management structures for Mexico and Guatemala. Since then, a unified management structure has been put into place and has had a positive effect on management control. The TBT program conducts regular evaluations as part of the normal reporting process under the terms of its agreement with the U.N.'s Food and Ag. Org. APHIS' Policy and Program Development staff have facilitated a strategic planning analysis of the FAD/FMD, TBT, CSF, Screwworm, and Medfly programs. The reviews were conducted by pesonel independent of the programs included input and discussion from industry, academia and program personnel. The program used Expert Choice decision making software to have stakeholder vote on the importance of activities for the FAD/FMD program strategic plan review.

Did the program seek and take into account the views of all affected parties (e.g., consumers; large and small businesses; State, local and tribal governments; beneficiaries; and the general public) when developing significant regulations?

Explanation: APHIS consults with State, local, and tribal officials, as well as industry, on an ongoing basis about animal and plant health issues of concern. All APHIS programs are committed to a rulemaking process that provides for full public participation. The Pest and Disease Exclusion programs that are regulatory based (including the domestic fruit fly program, cattle fever tick, and Import/Export) published 11 rules establishing or lifting fruit fly quarantines in calendar year 2003 and 11 rules regarding the disease status of specific regions or setting requirements for the introduction of animals or animal products from regions affected with a disease).

Evidence: The Pest and Disease Exclusion programs routinely propose significant actions for public comment prior to putting new regulations into effect. The program considers all comments submitted and responds to issues raised, explaining why it is adopting some suggestions and not others. See "Classical Swine Fever Status of France and Spain", April 20, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 76, which includes a section that shows how the program responded to public comments. The programs may extend the public comment period to allow interested persons additional time to prepare and submit comments. See "Mexican Fruit Fly; Interstate Movement of Regulated Articles", April 15, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 73.

Did the program prepare adequate regulatory impact analyses if required by Executive Order 12866, regulatory flexibility analyses if required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act and SBREFA, and cost-benefit analyses if required under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act; and did those analyses comply with OMB guidelines?

Explanation: Whenever a rule is deemed significant, APHIS prepares a regulatory impact analysis, regulatory flexibility analysis, and a cost benefit analysis that comply with OMB guidelines. Regulatory analyses always receive peer review outside of the program, for example, from economists of the Policy and Program Development staff, from USDA's Office of Budget and Program Analysis, and Office of the Chief Economist. As appropriate, analyses receive external peer review.

Evidence: (Recently published rules and notices are available on the APHIS Web site: www.aphis.usda.gov/ppd/rad/webrepor/vs.html) A proposed rule entitled: "Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy; Minimal Risk Regions and Importation of Commodities", Nov. 4, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 213, was determined to be significant and was reviewed by OMB. An economic analysis was conducted, as were all other necessary analyses. A proposed rule entitled: "Importation of Clementines, Mandarins, and Tangerines From Chile", March 22, 2004, Vol. 69, No. 55 was determined to be significant and was reviewed by OMB. An economic analysis was conducted, as were all other necessary analyses.

Does the program systematically review its current regulations to ensure consistency among all regulations in accomplishing program goals?

Explanation: APHIS reviews it's regulations on an ongoing basis to ensure consistency in accomplishing program goals.

Evidence: Ongoing review is a part of management responsibilities, and all regulations are reviewed on at least a 5-year cycle, per APHIS policy and in accordance with Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The domestic fruit fly program reviews and updates its regulations much more frequently. Whenever an exotic fruit fly outbreak is detected, the program must impose a regulatory quarantine. Program officials then carefully track the number of days since the last insect was trapped in order to lift the quarantine as soon as possible. The programs also use new scientific evidence as it becomes available and update regulations accordingly. The program proposed revising the clementine rule based on evidence from a recent pest risk assessment. Additionally, the WTO's Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures obliges APHIS to ensure that its international and domestic regulations are consistently applied. APHIS has revised several of its import requirements, such as those on Karnal bunt host material, for consistency with domestic regulations.

Are the regulations designed to achieve program goals, to the extent practicable, by maximizing the net benefits of its regulatory activity?

Explanation: The regulations are designed to maximize net benefits and to achieve the programs' goals of safeguarding U.S. agriculture and facilitating safe agricultural trade.

Evidence: The programs make the best effort to assess how each additional regulation adds to the current level of regulatory requirements, and they strive to keep the regulatory compliance burden at a minimum. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, we quantify and report the level of paperwork burden when publishing proposed rules and request comments on how we can further minimize the burden. For regulations requiring permits, we have an on-line permitting system designed to reduce paperwork burden. Our import regulations also demonstrate our efforts to take the least restrictive regulatory action possible. For example, following outbreaks of Ralstonia in Guatemala, APHIS did not prohibit host material imports, such as geraniums, which are extremely important to the U.S. nursery industry but is requiring off-shore producers to follow clean-stock programs that allow trade to continue while protecting U.S. ag. Economic analyses accompanying rules show the benefits of additional compliance requirements. Recently published rules and notices are available on the APHIS Web site: www.aphis.usda.gov/ppd/rad/webrepor/vs.html.

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: The APHIS Pest and Disease Exclusion program's overall goal is to prevent intorductions of significant diseases. The program's success in meeting this goal is tracked through two long term measures related to pest and disease outbreaks in the United States. In FY 2003, APHIS exceeded its target for the "number of severe outbreaks of exotic fruit flies detected on the mainland United States" by preventing one fewer outbreak than expected, but did not meet zero foreign animal disease incidents in the United States. In this case, the incident was the outbreak of Exotic Bewcastle Disease, which was likely linked to illegal smuggling of fighting birds into the United States. While APHIS does work to combat smuggling, this type of artificial disease introduction is somewhat beyond APHIS' control. APHIS was very successsful in preventig the intorduction of many high-risk diseases, including foot-and-mouth disease and classical swine fever.

Evidence: For several years, APHIS has allowed two or fewer fruit fly outbreaks in the U.S. requiring emergency action. None of these has resulted in permanent establishments. No FMD cases were detected and none have been detected to date in FY 2004.

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: APHIS has baseline data for four out of six measures reported for the Pest and Disease Exclusion program. While the program did not meet its target for one fo these measures, the programs are demonstrating progress through the others, and have set ambitious targets for future years.

Evidence: In FY 2003, APHIS exceeded its goal by 10% for the number of sterile fruit fly pupae produced weekly (in billions).

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: APHIS' PDE programs comply with Agency and Federal requirements to maximize cost-effectiveness by developing less expensive - and, sometimes, automated - methods that enable personnel to accomplish more with the same funding level. Also, these progams seek centralized supply distribution points to reduce shipping costs. As APHIS clears more areas of threatening pests and diseases, fewer tax dollars are needed for emergency eradication action. Even though performance did improve in past years, "largel extent" was given, since no goals had been established against which to measure the accomplishments.

Evidence: Fruit Fly: APHIS' use of eclosion towers, a new technology, saved $1 million in FY 2003 over FY 2002. Multi-lure traps - which were first used in FY 2002 - require service only twice a month as opposed to four times with the previous method. As a result, program can employ twice as many traps. In FY 2003, program began using a central warehouse to house trapping supplies. Using this warehouse has decreased shipping costs and has enabled program to buy items in bulk at a lower cost.

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: APHIS' Pest and Disease Exclusion programs compare favorably with the exclusion efforts of other countries. For example, while European countries have recently experienced serious outbreaks of BSE, FMD, and classical swine fever (CSF), the United States has prevented FMD and CSF from entering the country and has had procedures in place that have prevented a large-scale BSE outbreak. APHIS has also successfully prevented Medfly from becoming established in the United States despite periodic outbreaks.

Evidence: The 2001 FMD outbreak in the UK cost more than $3.7 billion. A similar outbreak in the US would cost over $14 billion. While FMD spread to other countries in Europe (including the Netherlands and France) and Asia, it did not enter the US. APHIS is also successfully preventing CSF from entering the US from the Dominican Republic or Haiti through a combination of preclearance inspections and eradication activities. Additionally, while one case of BSE was detected in the US and others may be found, APHIS and other Federal agencies have had measures in place to prevent any infection from spreading. Experts believe that at least one million cattle in the UK were infected, and the epidemic there caused enormous losses as well as over 100 human deaths. APHIS has also successfully prevented Medfly from becoming established in the United States. As it moved into Central America (in the 1950s) and Mexico (in the 1970s), these countries were not able to prevent its establishment. APHIS is cooperating with these countries to eradicate Medfly from these areas.

Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: Independent evaluations indicate that the programs are effective.

Evidence: The Animal and Plant Health Safeguarding Reviews (conducted by the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture and the National Plant Board in 2001 and 1999) both showed that APHIS safeguarding activities are largely effective and made recommendations for ensuring that the programs remain effective in our increasingly global economy. APHIS has acted on many of the recommendations, which include an increased focus on off-shore risk reduction. In response, among other improvements, we are establishing a formal international information gathering program. Additionally, the APHIS FFED program's use of performance data in program management has been cited twice in government-wide reviews, in a May 2003 study by the National Academy of Public Administration and a September 2000 GAO study.

Were programmatic goals (and benefits) achieved at the least incremental societal cost and did the program maximize net benefits?

Explanation: Through regulatory impact analyses of significant rules, APHIS assures that its goals and benefits are achieved at the least societal cost with maximum benefit.

Evidence: Our import regulations demonstrate our efforts to take the least restrictive regulatory action possible and maximize benefits. For example, following outbreaks of Ralstonia in Guatemala, APHIS did not prohibit host material imports, such as geraniums, which are extremely important to the U.S. nursery industry but is requiring off-shore producers to follow clean-stock programs that allow trade to continue while protecting U.S. ag. APHIS has maximized net program benefits in resolving market access for cherry exports to Korea, potato exports to Mexico, and clementine imports from Spain. These actions/regulations help both U.S. producers in expanding business and U.S. consumer in expanding choice.