Response to recommendations: United States (Puerto Rico)
Published 22 October 2025
© Crown copyright 2025
This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gov.uk.
Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.
This publication is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/african-swine-fever-evaluation-of-the-protection-zone-in-puerto-rico-and-the-united-states-virgin-islands/response-to-recommendations-united-states-puerto-rico
Date response received: 26 November 2024
| Recommendation | Competent Authority (CA) response | Great Britain’s response |
|---|---|---|
| 1: APHIS to ensure the Dorado laboratory obtains ISO 17025 accreditation | APHIS acknowledged the ISO accreditation won’t be obtained until 2026, the latest, when the works on the laboratory building are completed. | The UK SPS office notes the clarification regarding the Dorado laboratory ISO accreditation. Our recommendation, however, remains the same for this item. |
| 2: APHIS to ensure that documented contingency plans exist and are implemented at entry points, including the required responses to equipment failures and other incidents that may cause operational difficulties. | APHIS put forward the argument that Customs and Borders Protection (CBP) do indeed have contingencies and the managers have tools they can use to respond to situations. | The use of standard operating procedures is a key element in UK operational delivery of controls. We acknowledge the tools at the managers disposal however, during the inspection no such SOP was available for the audit team to ensure consistency of delivery of official controls. The UK SPS office notes the clarification provided. Our recommendation, however, remains the same for this item. |
| 3: APHIS to ensure the courier companies include pork products on the list of regulated and prohibited items. | No comment from APHIS. | No comment from Great Britain. |
In addition to the recommendations, APHIS colleagues provided some clarifications in the text of the draft report.
We welcome the points of clarification, and we’ve amended the report to reflect them (for example, the use of “feral and free-roaming pigs” instead of “wild boar”).