Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy; Minimal-Risk Regions and Importation of Meat, Meat Byproducts, and Meat Food Products Derived From Bovines 30 Months of Age or Older, 54083-54089 [E8-21786]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 182 / Thursday, September 18, 2008 / Proposed Rules
dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
comment. In addition, we have
determined that the South American
cactus moth is present in the State of
Mississippi, which we did not include
in the quarantined area in our proposal
to establish regulations for South
American cactus moth. We are
reopening the comment period on that
proposal to allow interested persons to
submit comments on the addition of
Mississippi to the proposed quarantined
area, as well as on other aspects of the
proposal.
DATES: We will consider all comments
that we receive on or before October 20,
2008.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by either of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/
component/main?main=DocketDetail&d
=APHIS_2006_0153 to submit or view
comments and to view supporting and
related materials available
electronically.
• Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery:
Please send two copies of your comment
to Docket No. APHIS 2006 0153,
Regulatory Analysis and Development,
PPD, APHIS, Station 3A 03.8, 4700
River Road, Unit 118, Riverdale, MD
20737–1238. Please state that your
comment refers to Docket No. APHIS
2006 0153.
Reading Room: You may read any
comments that we receive on this
docket in our reading room. The reading
room is located in room 1141 of the
USDA South Building, 14th Street and
Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC. Normal reading room
hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except holidays. To be
sure someone is there to help you,
please call (202) 690–2817 before
coming.
Other Information: Additional
information about APHIS and its
programs is available on the Internet at
https://www.aphis.usda.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.
Robyn Rose, National Program Lead,
Emergency and Domestic Programs,
PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Rd., Unit 26,
Riverdale, MD 20737–1236; (301) 734–
7121.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The South American cactus moth
(Cactoblastis cactorum) is a grayishbrown moth with a wingspan of 22 to
35 millimeters (approximately 0.86 to
1.4 inches) that is indigenous to
Argentina, southern Brazil, Paraguay,
and Uruguay. It is a serious quarantine
pest of Opuntia spp., and an occasional
pest of Nopalea spp., Cylindropuntia
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:24 Sep 17, 2008
Jkt 214001
spp., and Consolea spp., four closely
related genera of the family Cactaceae.
After an incubation period following
mating, the female South American
cactus moth deposits an egg stick
resembling a cactus spine on the host
plant. The egg stick, which consists of
70 to 90 eggs, hatches in 25 to 30 days
and the larvae bore into the cactus pad
to feed, eventually hollowing it out and
killing the plant. Within a short period
of time, the South American cactus
moth can destroy whole stands of
cactus.
On February 11, 2008, the Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)
published in the Federal Register (73
FR 7679–7686, Docket No. APHIS–
2006–0153) a proposal to amend the
domestic quarantine regulations to
establish regulations to restrict the
interstate movement of South American
cactus moth host material, including
nursery stock and plant parts for
consumption, from infested areas of the
United States.
In connection with this proposed rule,
we have prepared an environmental
assessment (EA) entitled ‘‘Quarantine
for the South American Cactus Moth,
Cactoblastis cactorum, in Florida, South
Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, and
Mississippi.’’ We are making this
environmental assessment available to
the public for review and comment. We
will consider all comments that we
receive on or before the date listed
under the heading DATES at the
beginning of this notice.
Since publication of the proposed
rule, surveys conducted by the
Mississippi Department of Agriculture
and Commerce have confirmed the
presence of South American cactus
moth in the State of Mississippi.
Therefore, we have determined that
Mississippi should be added to the
proposed list of quarantined areas in
§ 301.55–3(c). In addition, we would
like to clarify our intention regarding
the use of deltamethrin as a treatment.
Although the ‘‘Background’’ section of
the proposal listed deltamethrin as an
acceptable treatment for South
American cactus moth, the proposed
regulatory text did not include
deltamethrin. We do not have efficacy
data for the use of this chemical on
South American cactus moth; therefore
we did not intend to approve
deltamethrin as a treatment and it
should not have been included as an
acceptable treatment in the
‘‘Background’’ section.
Comments on the proposed rule were
required to be received on or before
April 11, 2008. We are reopening the
comment period for the proposed rule
for 30 days following publication of this
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
54083
notice. This action will allow interested
persons to prepare and submit
comments regarding the proposed
addition of Mississippi to the list of
States quarantined for South American
cactus moth or other aspects of the
proposed rule. We will also consider all
comments received between April 11,
2008, and the date of this notice.
The environmental assessment, the
proposed rule, and all previously
received comments on the proposed
rule may be viewed on the
Regulations.gov Web site or in our
reading room (see ADDRESSES above for
a link to Regulations.gov and
information on the location and hours of
the reading room). You may request
paper copies of the documents listed
above by calling or writing to the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT. Please refer to the title of the
environmental assessment when
requesting copies.
The environmental assessment has
been prepared in accordance with: (1)
The National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C.
4321 et seq.), (2) regulations of the
Council on Environmental Quality for
implementing the procedural provisions
of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500–1508), (3)
USDA regulations implementing NEPA
(7 CFR part 1), and (4) APHIS’ NEPA
Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part
372).
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7701–7772 and 7781–
7786; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3. Section
301.75–15 issued under Sec. 204, Title II,
Public Law 106–113, 113 Stat. 1501A 293;
sections 301.75–15 and 301.75–16 issued
under Sec. 203, Title II, Public Law 106–224,
114 Stat. 400 (7 U.S.C. 1421 note).
Done in Washington, DC, this 12th day of
September 2008.
Kevin Shea,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. E8–21816 Filed 9–17–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–34–P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service
9 CFR Parts 94 and 95
[Docket No. APHIS–2008–0093]
Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy;
Minimal-Risk Regions and Importation
of Meat, Meat Byproducts, and Meat
Food Products Derived From Bovines
30 Months of Age or Older
Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service, USDA.
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\18SEP1.SGM
18SEP1
54084
ACTION:
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 182 / Thursday, September 18, 2008 / Proposed Rules
Request for comments.
SUMMARY: This document requests
comment on the removal of the delay of
applicability of certain provisions of the
rule entitled ‘‘Bovine Spongiform
Encephalopathy; Minimal-Risk Regions
and Importation of Commodities,’’
published in the Federal Register on
January 4, 2005, 70 FR 460–553. The
delay of applicability was removed in a
final rule entitled ‘‘Bovine Spongiform
Encephalopathy; Minimal-Risk Regions;
Importation of Live Bovines and
Products Derived from Bovines,’’
published in the Federal Register on
September 18, 2007, 72 FR 53314–
53379.
We will consider all comments
that we receive on or before November
17, 2008.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by either of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/
component/
main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS–
2008–0093 to submit or view comments
and to view supporting and related
materials available electronically.
• Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery:
Please send two copies of your comment
to Docket No. APHIS–2008–0093,
Regulatory Analysis and Development,
PPD, APHIS, Station 3A–03.8, 4700
River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD
20737–1238. Please state that your
comment refers to Docket No. APHIS–
2008–0093.
Reading Room: You may read any
comments that we receive on this
docket, as well as APHIS supporting
materials referenced in this docket, in
our reading room. The reading room is
located in room 1141 of the USDA
South Building, 14th Street and
Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC. Normal reading room
hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except holidays. To be
sure someone is there to help you,
please call (202) 690–2817 before
coming.
Other Information: Additional
information about APHIS and its
programs is available on the Internet at
https://www.aphis.usda.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.
Lisa Ferguson, ASEP Director, National
Center for Animal Health Programs, VS,
APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 46,
Riverdale, MD 20737–1231; (301) 734–
6188.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
DATES:
Background
The Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS) of the U.S.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:24 Sep 17, 2008
Jkt 214001
Department of Agriculture (USDA or
Department) regulates the importation
of animals and animal products into the
United States to guard against the
introduction of animal diseases. The
regulations in 9 CFR parts 93, 94, 95,
and 96 (referred to below as the
regulations) govern the importation of
certain animals, birds, poultry, meat,
other animal products and byproducts,
hay, and straw into the United States in
order to prevent the introduction of
various animal diseases, including
bovine spongiform encephalopathy
(BSE), a chronic degenerative disease
affecting the central nervous system of
cattle.
Nature of BSE
BSE belongs to the family of diseases
known as transmissible spongiform
encephalopathies (TSEs). All TSEs
affect the central nervous system of
infected animals. However, the
distribution of infectivity in the body of
the animal and mode of transmission
differ according to the species and the
TSE agent. In addition to BSE, TSEs
include, among other diseases, scrapie
in sheep and goats, chronic wasting
disease in deer and elk, and CreutzfeldtJakob disease in humans.
The agent that causes BSE has yet to
be fully characterized. The theory that is
most accepted in the international
scientific community is that the agent is
an abnormal form of a normal protein
known as cellular prion protein. The
BSE agent does not evoke a traditional
immune response or inflammatory
reaction in host animals. BSE is
confirmed by post-mortem examination
of an animal’s brain tissue, which may
include detection of the abnormal form
of the prion protein in the brain tissues.
The pathogenic form of the protein is
both less soluble and more resistant to
degradation than the normal form. The
BSE agent is resistant to heat and to
normal sterilization processes.
BSE is not a contagious disease, and
therefore is not spread through casual
contact between animals. Scientists
believe that the primary route of
transmission is through ingestion of
feed that has been contaminated with a
sufficient amount of tissue from an
infected animal. This route of
transmission can be prevented by
excluding potentially contaminated
materials from ruminant feed.
Roles of Different Agencies
APHIS, an animal health agency
within USDA, promulgates its
regulations regarding BSE under the
authority of the Animal Health
Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 8301 et seq.),
which gives the Secretary broad
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
discretion to regulate the importation of
animals and animal products if
necessary to protect the health of U.S.
livestock.
Because variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob
Disease (vCJD) in humans has been
linked to exposure to the BSE agent,
APHIS collaborates with other Federal
agencies with regulatory responsibility
for assuring food safety and the
protection of human health to
implement a comprehensive
coordinated U.S. response to BSE.
Within USDA, protecting human health
from the risks of BSE is carried out by
the Food Safety and Inspection Service
(FSIS), the agency charged with
responsibility for administering the
Federal Meat Inspection Act, which was
enacted to ensure that meat and meat
food products distributed in commerce
are wholesome, not adulterated, and
properly marked, labeled, and packaged.
The USDA agencies carry out their
programs in close coordination with the
following Centers of the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) of the U.S.
Department of Health and Human
Services: The Center for Veterinary
Medicine regarding animal feed; the
Center for Food Safety and Applied
Nutrition regarding foods other than
meat, poultry, and egg products; and
other Centers regarding drugs, biologics,
and devices containing bovine material.
These agencies collaborate, issuing
regulations under their respective
authorities.
Tissue Localization
Some bovine tissues have
demonstrated infectivity, whereas
others have not. Most of the information
on the development and distribution of
tissue infectivity in BSE-infected cattle
has been derived from experimental
pathogenesis studies conducted in the
United Kingdom (Wells, et al., 1994;
1996; 1998; 1999; 2005). In these
studies, cattle were deliberately infected
with BSE through oral exposure to the
brain tissue of cattle with confirmed
BSE. Subsets of the experimentally
infected cattle were killed at regular
intervals as the disease progressed. At
each interval, the tissues of the infected
cattle were examined for
histopathological changes consistent
with BSE and for abnormal prion
proteins. Also, at each interval, a mouse
assay was done—i.e., tissues of the BSE
infected cattle were injected
intracerebrally and intraperitoneally
into mice to identify those tissues of
cattle containing infectivity.
The pathogenesis studies involved 30
animals, each of which received a single
dose of 100g of infected brain at 4
months of age (Wells, et al., 1994; 1996;
E:\FR\FM\18SEP1.SGM
18SEP1
dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 182 / Thursday, September 18, 2008 / Proposed Rules
1998; 1999; 2005). This dose is probably
10–100 times greater than that
associated with field exposure via feed
(DEFRA 2005). The studies demonstrate
that in cattle infected with BSE, the total
amount of infectivity in the animal, as
well as the distribution of infectivity in
the animal’s body, change over time
(Wells, et al., 1994; 1996; 1998; 1999;
2005). The highest levels of infectivity
were detected in the brain and spinal
cord at the end stages of disease. Some
cattle exhibited clinical signs of BSE as
early as 35 months after oral exposure
to the BSE agent. By 37 months after
oral exposure, all five animals that were
still alive demonstrated clinical
evidence of BSE. Infectivity was found
in cattle with clinical signs of BSE in
the brain, spinal cord, dorsal root
ganglia (DRG),1 trigeminal ganglia, and
the distal ileum of the small intestine.
BSE infectivity was demonstrated in
the brain, spinal cord, and DRG as early
as 32 months after oral exposure to the
BSE agent in some cattle (Wells, et al.,
1994; 1996; 1998; 1999; 2005).
Infectivity was demonstrated in these
tissues 3 months before animals began
to develop clinical signs of the disease.
Infectivity was demonstrated in the
distal ileum of cattle 6 to 18 months
after oral exposure to the BSE agent and
again at 38 months and 40 months after
oral exposure. A similar, more recent,
study (Espinosa, et al., 2007) examined
the infectivity of tissues from these
same animals by intracerebral
inoculation of highly sensitive
transgenic mice overexpressing bovine
PrP. This study’s findings were similar
to those of Wells, et al., described above.
In addition, infectivity in the sciatic
nerve was found at low levels only after
30 months from exposure. No detectable
infectivity was found in the spleen,
skeletal muscle, blood or urine of
asymptomatic cattle.
As explained by the United
Kingdom’s Department for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
(DEFRA) and by the European
Commission’s Scientific Steering
Committee, a second phase of the
pathogenesis studies, which used a
cattle bioassay as an endpoint, was
conducted to ensure that low levels of
infectivity that may not have been
detected in the first phase using the
mouse bioassay were not missed
(DEFRA 2006; EC SSC 2002). This
second phase of the study was
1 DRG are clusters of nerve cells attached to the
spinal cord that are contained within the bones of
the vertebral column. ‘‘DRG’’ as used in this
document has the same meaning as the term ‘‘dorsal
spinal nerve root ganglia.’’ Trigeminal ganglia are
clusters of nerve cells connected to the brain that
lie close to the exterior of the skull.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:24 Sep 17, 2008
Jkt 214001
completed in March 2007 (Gerald Wells,
personal communication, 2008).
In the cattle bioassay, tissues from the
same cattle orally exposed to BSE in the
earlier pathogenesis studies were
injected directly into the brain of BSEfree cattle (DEFRA 2005). This method
is considered to be several hundred-fold
more sensitive in detecting BSE
infectivity than the mouse bioassay
(DEFRA 2005). Preliminary results from
the cattle bioassay study demonstrate
that, in addition to the materials that
were found to contain infectivity when
the mouse bioassay was used, the
tonsils of calves 10 months after oral
exposure to the BSE agent also contain
infectivity. However, because only one
of five animals injected with tonsil
material from infected animals
developed clinical BSE at 45 months
post-inoculation, the level of infectivity
in the tonsils appears to be very low.
BSE infectivity has not been
demonstrated in the muscle tissue of
BSE-infected cattle examined in these
studies through either the mouse
bioassay or the cattle assays (Wells
1996; 2005; personal communication
2008). All assays of the skeletal muscle
pools were completed in March 2007
(Wells, personal communication 2008).
In addition to these studies on
experimentally infected cattle,
distribution of tissue infectivity has also
been studied in cattle exposed to BSE
under field conditions. In these animals,
at the end stages of the incubation
period with demonstrated clinical signs,
BSE infectivity has been confirmed by
mouse bioassay only in the brain, spinal
cord, and retina of the eye (EC SSC
2001).
In a recent study, mice, genetically
engineered to be highly susceptible to
BSE and to overexpress the bovine prion
protein, were inoculated with tissues
from an end-stage clinically affected
BSE-infected cow (Buschmann and
Groschup, 2005). The sensitivity of
these mice to infection is significantly
greater than other mice panels used in
bio-assays, and the sensitivity is even
greater than that of cattle by
approximately tenfold. This study
demonstrated low levels of infectivity in
the facial and sciatic nerves of the
peripheral nervous system when
injected into these highly sensitive
mice. While this study, and the 2007
study by Espinosa, et al., produced
interesting findings that can help further
characterize the pathogenesis of BSE,
they cannot be extrapolated into the
context of the risk presented by natural
(i.e., field) exposure pathways. The
findings may be influenced by the
overexpression of prion proteins in
these genetically engineered mice. Any
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
54085
apparent levels of infectivity are low in
these extremely sensitive mice and
would be even lower in other species
such as cattle. Moreover, the route of
administration to the mice was both
intraperitoneal and intracerebral, both
of which are very efficient routes of
infection as compared to oral
consumption.
Tissues that have demonstrated
infectivity, and thus are likely to
contain the infectious BSE agent in
infected cattle, are brain, tonsil, spinal
cord, eyes, trigeminal ganglia, DRG, and
distal ileum. Approximately 90 percent
of the infectivity is associated with the
brain, spinal column, DRG, and
trigeminal ganglia. The remaining 10
percent is associated with the infectivity
in the distal ileum. In BSE, as with other
TSEs, the total amount of infectivity in
an animal increases throughout the
incubation period, reaching the highest
load at the end of that period, very close
to the death of the animal. Infectivity is
considered to increase exponentially,
reaching 4.5 logs less than a clinical
case at 50 percent of the incubation
period and 3 logs less than a clinical
case by 70 percent of the incubation
period (Comer and Huntly, 2003).
All of this research has contributed to
the definition of which tissues should
be deemed specified risk materials
(SRMs). Both the types of tissues, and
the understanding of the progression of
the infectivity throughout the
incubation period contribute to the
definition of SRMs. Affiliated tissues or
structures such as skull or vertebral
column are also considered risk
materials because of the difficulty in
separating out small tissues such as
DRG from the vertebral column. The
risks associated with tissue localization
can be mitigated by excluding SRMs
from the food or feed chain or by
excluding them completely from
importation. FSIS and FDA regulations
regarding SRMs are based on this
scientific knowledge and an
understanding of the mitigative effects
of exclusion of SRMs (FSIS, 2004;
2004a; 2004b; 2005; 2007; FDA, 2004;
2005; 2007; 2008).
There are some studies available that
report finding the presence of the
abnormal prion protein in various
tissues (Buschmann and Groschup,
2005; Masujin et al., 2007). As new
methods are developed that provide
increased sensitivity to detect abnormal
PrP, such demonstrations of the
presence of abnormal PrP in various
tissues may continue. However,
demonstrating the presence of PrPBSE
does not necessarily indicate the
presence of BSE infectivity, especially if
no infectivity is demonstrated via the
E:\FR\FM\18SEP1.SGM
18SEP1
54086
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 182 / Thursday, September 18, 2008 / Proposed Rules
most direct method available: cattle-tocattle exposure via intracerebral
inoculation. Therefore, one cannot
automatically assume that a finding of
PrPBSE in a tissue means the tissue
should be considered infectious or
should be considered an SRM. As noted
by the World Organization for Animal
Health (OIE), the international standardsetting organization for guidelines
related to animal health:
dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
The availability of experimental infectivity
data has significantly increased in recent
years. During the same interval, extremely
sensitive tests have been developed,
including those employing highly sensitive
transgenic mice strains and potentially more
sensitive laboratory PrP detection methods.
With the development of such highly
sensitive methods, the probability of
detection of PrPBSE in tissues that are not
currently listed as infectious is increasing.
However, such findings need to be
considered in context, and their relevance to
establishing risk to consumers evaluated
carefully when the quantity of PrPBSE
detected is potentially below the limit of
detection of intracerebral cattle to cattle
bioassay (OIE TAHSC, 2006).
Within USDA, APHIS and FSIS
review and consider carefully, on an
ongoing basis, all BSE research
regarding the definition of SRMs, as do
other countries that participate in OIE.
International guidelines regarding SRM
definition and removal have not
changed based on the results of the
studies noted above that report finding
the presence of the abnormal prion
protein in various tissues. U.S.
regulations regarding SRM removal are
consistent with international guidelines.
Prior to 2005, when the APHIS final
rule on BSE minimal-risk regions (70 FR
460–553, Docket No. 03–080–3) became
effective, APHIS’ import regulations
regarding BSE considered three
categories of regions with regard to
BSE—(1) those in which BSE is known
to exist, (2) those that present an undue
risk of BSE, and (3) all regions not listed
in either of the other two categories.
Imports from BSE-affected regions and
those considered to present an undue
risk are governed by the same set of
restrictions, including a prohibition on
the importation of meat, meat products,
and edible products other than meat
(except for milk and milk products and
gelatin under certain conditions). All
other regions were not subject to any
import restrictions because of BSE.
Beginning in 2003, APHIS
commenced a rulemaking process to
update our BSE regulations to reflect the
latest scientific data and knowledge of
the disease. In a document published in
the Federal Register on November 4,
2003 (68 FR 62386–62405, Docket No.
03–080–1), APHIS proposed to establish
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:24 Sep 17, 2008
Jkt 214001
a category of regions that present a
minimal risk of introducing BSE into
the United States via live ruminants and
ruminant products and byproducts, and
to add Canada to this category. The
proposal also set forth conditions for the
importation of certain live ruminants
and ruminant products and byproducts
from BSE minimal-risk regions. Among
the conditions for the importation of
meat from BSE minimal-risk regions
was that the meat be derived from
bovines less than 30 months of age
when slaughtered. This age restriction
was a measure to guard against the
importation of, or contamination of
meat through contact with, tissues other
than meat that have the potential of
containing high levels of BSE
infectivity.
On December 25, 2003, less than 2
weeks before the close of the comment
period for the proposed rule, a case of
BSE in a dairy cow of Canadian origin
in Washington State was verified by an
international reference laboratory.
Subsequently, both FSIS and FDA
implemented significant additional
measures in the United States to protect
human health. In addition, APHIS
commenced an enhanced BSE
surveillance program to determine the
incidence of the disease in the United
States.
The measures taken by FSIS included
declaring SRMs to be inedible and
requiring their removal from cattle at
slaughter. FSIS designated as SRMs the
brain, skull, eyes, trigeminal ganglia,
spinal cord, vertebral column
(excluding the vertebrae of the tail, the
transverse process of the thoracic and
lumbar vertebrae, and the wings of the
sacrum), and DRG of cattle 30 months
of age or older, and the tonsils and
distal ileum of the small intestine of all
cattle. To ensure effective removal of the
distal ileum, FSIS also required that the
entire small intestine be removed and be
disposed of as inedible.2 FSIS also
required all slaughtering and processing
establishments to develop, implement,
and maintain written procedures for the
removal, segregation, and disposition of
SRMS. Establishments were specifically
required to implement procedures to
address the potential contamination of
edible materials with SRMs before,
during, and after entry into the
establishment. FSIS did not restrict the
2 On September 7, 2005, FSIS published in the
Federal Register an interim final rule that allowed
for use as human food, under certain conditions,
beef small intestine, excluding the distal ileum,
derived from cattle slaughtered in official U.S.
establishments or in certified foreign establishments
in countries listed by FSIS in 9 CFR 327.2(b) as
eligible to export meat products to the United
States.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
age of cattle eligible for slaughter,
because the removal of SRMs effectively
mitigates the BSE risk to humans
associated with cattle that pass both
ante-mortem and post-mortem
inspections (i.e., apparently healthy
cattle).
Pursuant to the Federal Meat
Inspection Act, countries that export
meat to the United States must
implement food safety requirements that
are equivalent to those in place in the
United States. To be eligible to export
beef to the United States, a country must
have in place a system to effectively
keep SRMs out of the production chain
and to prevent cross-contamination of
beef with SRMs. FSIS has determined
that the SRM requirements
implemented by Canada in July 2003 are
equivalent to FSIS’ requirements.
Additionally, FDA’s feed ban prohibits
most mammalian protein, including
ruminant protein, from entering the
ruminant feed chain in the United
States.
On March 8, 2004, we published a
document in the Federal Register (69
FR 10633–10636, Docket No. 03–080–2)
explaining the effects on our proposed
rule of the detection of BSE in the State
of Washington in a cow imported from
Canada and of the additional measures
taken by FSIS, APHIS, and FDA. That
document explained why the detection
of an imported BSE-infected cow did
not alter the conclusions we had
reached in our original risk assessment.
It explained further that, in fact, the
resulting additional measures put in
place by FSIS provided a basis for
removing from the proposed provisions
an age restriction on cattle from which
meat would be derived for export to the
United States. Accordingly, we
proposed to allow the importation of
beef derived from cattle of any age. To
give the public additional time to
comment on the proposal in light of
these developments, we reopened and
extended the comment period for an
additional 30 days.
On January 4, 2005, we published in
the Federal Register (70 FR 460–553,
Docket No. 03–080–3) a final rule that
established the criteria for BSE minimalrisk regions, listed Canada as a BSE
minimal-risk region, and specified
importation requirements for live
animals, and meat products and
byproducts. The final rule allowed the
importation of meat from bovines of any
age, as we had proposed on March 8,
2004. The final rule was scheduled to
become effective on March 7, 2005.3
3 On March 2, 2005, Judge Richard F. Cebull of
the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana
ordered that the implementation of APHIS’ January
E:\FR\FM\18SEP1.SGM
18SEP1
dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 182 / Thursday, September 18, 2008 / Proposed Rules
In January 2005, BSE was confirmed
in two cows in Canada.
On March 11, 2005, APHIS published
a document in the Federal Register (70
FR 12112–12113, Docket No. 03–080–6)
that, pursuant to an announcement by
the Secretary of Agriculture on February
9, 2005, delayed the applicability of the
provisions of the January 2005 final rule
as they applied to the importation from
Canada of the following commodities
when derived from bovines 30 months
of age or older when slaughtered: (1)
Meat, meat food products, and meat
byproducts other than liver; (2) whole or
half carcasses; (3) offal; (4) tallow
composed of less than 0.15 percent
insoluble impurities that is not
otherwise eligible for importation under
9 CFR 95.4(a)(1)(i); and (5) gelatin
derived from bones of bovines that is
not otherwise eligible for importation
under 9 CFR 94.18(c).
In his February 9, 2005,
announcement, the Secretary stated that
because ongoing investigations into the
recent finds of BSE in Canada in
animals over 30 months of age were not
complete, he felt it prudent to delay the
effective date for allowing imports of
meat from bovines 30 months of age and
over. He also indicated that the delay of
applicability would address concerns
that the January 2005 final rule allowed
the importation of meat from bovines 30
months of age or older, while
continuing to prohibit the importation
of live cattle 30 months of age or older
for processing in the United States. The
Secretary stated that the Department
would consider and develop a plan—
based on the latest scientific
information and with the protection of
public and animal health as the highest
priority—to allow imports of live
bovines 30 months of age or older.
In January 2005, an APHIS team
visited Canada to evaluate the
epidemiology of the North American
BSE cases that had been identified at
that time. This team concluded that the
information available suggested a
localized exposure, based on the
relatively small geographical location,
the temporal association, and the
clustering of cases. The team also
evaluated the likelihood of higher-risk
animal or feed exposure to the United
States at that time, and concluded that
the U.S. feed ban and other mitigations
had effectively minimized the risk of
transmission or amplification of the BSE
agent (USDA, 2005). In addition, also in
January 2005, USDA sent a team to
4, 2005, final rule be preliminarily enjoined. On
July 14, 2005, the U.S. States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit ordered that the preliminary
injunction order be vacated and the case remanded
to the District Court.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:24 Sep 17, 2008
Jkt 214001
Canada to assess Canada’s feed ban and
its feed inspection program to determine
whether the control measures put in
place by the Canadian Government were
achieving compliance with that
country’s regulations. APHIS conducted
an extensive review of the feed ban in
Canada and concluded that Canada has
a robust inspection program, that overall
compliance with the feed ban in Canada
was good, and that the feed ban was
reducing the risk of transmission of BSE
in the Canadian cattle population
(USDA, 2005a).
On January 9, 2007, we published a
proposed rule in the Federal Register
(72 FR 1101–1129, Docket No. APHIS–
2006–0041) to, among other things,
establish conditions for the importation
from BSE minimal-risk regions of live
bovines for any use born on or after a
date determined by APHIS to be the
date of effective enforcement of a
ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban in the
region of export.4
We conducted an assessment of the
risk to U.S. livestock of allowing the
importation of live bovines according to
the provisions of the proposed rule from
Canada—currently the only region
recognized as a BSE minimal-risk region
by APHIS. That risk assessment
incorporated and built on information
from all of the previous analyses,
including the 2005 reports of the feed
ban team and the epidemiological
investigation team. In the risk
assessment, we evaluated both the
likelihood of ‘‘release’’ of the BSE agent
into the United States and the
likelihood of susceptible animals being
exposed, given such release. We
evaluated the pathways by which
infected Canadian cattle, if imported,
might expose U.S. cattle to BSE, and the
likelihood that these pathways might
4 Requiring that live bovines exported to the
United States from BSE minimal-risk regions be
born after the date of effective enforcement of a
ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban is consistent with
the standards of the World Organization for Animal
Health (OIE) for the exportation of live bovines from
countries classified by the OIE as having either a
negligible or a controlled BSE risk. We consider
effective enforcement to have been achieved after
completion of the initial (or practical) period of
implementation of a feed ban and after sufficient
time has elapsed to allow most feed products to
cycle through the system. The practical
implementation period, which begins when the
regulations are initially put in place, can be
determined by evaluating implementation guidance
and policies, such as allowing grace periods for
certain aspects of the industry. In addition, the time
necessary for initial education of industry and
training of inspectors must be considered. After the
practical implementation period is defined, we then
consider the time necessary subsequent to practical
implementation to allow most feed products to
cycle through the system, given the management
practices in the country. Effective enforcement does
not necessarily mean that 100 percent compliance
with the feed ban requirements will be achieved.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
54087
lead to the establishment of the disease
in the U.S. cattle population. We
concluded that the likelihood of BSE
exposure and establishment in the U.S.
cattle population as a consequence of
imports under the proposed rule was
negligible.
In our risk assessment, we explained
that several steps must occur for BSE to
be transmitted to cattle in the United
States from a live bovine imported from
another country. A BSE-infected bovine
must be imported into the United States;
the infected bovine must die or be
slaughtered; tissues from that animal
that contain the infectious agent (i.e.,
the SRMs) must be sent to a rendering
facility; the infectivity present in these
tissues must survive inactivation in the
rendering process; the resulting meatand-bone meal containing the abnormal
prion protein must be incorporated into
feed; and this feed must be fed to cattle,
in contravention of FDA regulations, at
a level adequate to infect the cattle. (The
amount of infectious material required
in feed for cattle to become infected is
dependent on the age of the cattle;
younger cattle are more susceptible to
BSE and require less BSE-contaminated
feed to become infected (Arnold and
Wilesmith, 2004)). We explained in our
risk assessment that some of the steps
could occur in parallel—i.e., without
the occurrence of other steps—while
others would need to occur in series.
Because the impact of any specific step
would depend on its relationship to
other steps, its importance to the
likelihood of BSE transmission, and, in
turn, the impact of disease mitigation
measures at each step, cannot be
understood in isolation from the rest of
the pathway.
One component of our risk
assessment was an estimate of the
prevalence of BSE in Canada, which
was conducted using the same methods
as an earlier estimate of the prevalence
of BSE in the United States. The results
of this prevalence estimate were then
used to inform the subsequent
considerations and calculations in the
risk assessment. Because the prevalence
was not zero—i.e., we concluded and
acknowledged that BSE is still present
in Canada at low levels—the risk
assessment consequently assumed that
infected animals could be imported into
the United States under the provisions
of the proposed rule. Even with this
assumption, our conclusion that the risk
of the exposure of U.S. cattle and the
establishment of BSE in the United
States was negligible remained
unchanged.
On September 18, 2007, we published
in the Federal Register (72 FR 53314–
53379, Docket No. APHIS–2006–0041) a
E:\FR\FM\18SEP1.SGM
18SEP1
dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
54088
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 182 / Thursday, September 18, 2008 / Proposed Rules
final rule that adopted the changes to
the regulations we had proposed in
January 2007. Additionally, the
September 2007 final rule removed the
partial delay of applicability of the
January 2005 final rule with respect to
meat and certain meat products and
byproducts derived from cattle over 30
months of age. In our September 2007
final rule, we stated that, subsequent to
implementation of the partial delay of
applicability, ‘‘we [had] obtained
additional information regarding all
aspects of the issues that prompted the
delay of applicability and [had]
conducted additional analyses’’ as
indicated by the Secretary in February
2005 to allow imports of live bovines 30
months of age or older (72 FR 53316).
As we concluded in our September
2007 final rule, the risk assessment for
that final rule demonstrates the
negligible BSE risk from the importation
of additional classes of live bovines,
including those 30 months of age or
older. As explained previously, the risk
of transmission of BSE occurs when
SRMs from infected cattle enter the
ruminant feed supply in contravention
of current feed regulations. Since the
risk is tied to those tissues that contain
infectivity, if those tissues are excluded
from import, the risk is mitigated. When
live cattle are imported, the potential
exists that, after their death, their SRMs
could enter the ruminant feed supply.
Even with this potential, the conclusion
of the risk assessment was that such
imports present a negligible risk of
establishment of BSE in the United
States. As noted above, one of the
requirements for the importation of
meat from bovines is that the SRMS be
removed from the animals from which
the meat is derived. In other words, the
SRMs are excluded from import and
would not even have the potential to
enter the risk pathway in the United
States. Therefore, the conclusion of
negligible risk related to the importation
of live older bovines gives further
support to the conclusion of the risk
analysis conducted for our January 2005
final rule regarding meat and meat
products derived from bovines of any
age in BSE minimal-risk regions.
Specifically, the risk is even lower for
the importation of meat and meat
products than for live bovines.
The September 2007 final rule, which
included the removal of the partial
delay of applicability of the provisions
of the January 2005 rule relating to meat
derived from cattle 30 months of age or
older, became effective on November 19,
2007.
On July 3, 2008, Judge Lawrence L.
Piersol of the U.S. District Court for the
District of South Dakota, in response to
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:24 Sep 17, 2008
Jkt 214001
a motion filed in that Court, ordered
USDA to provide the public with notice
and a further opportunity to comment
on the provisions of our January 2005
final rule regarding the importation of
beef from bovines 30 months of age or
older when slaughtered, to consider
comments made by interested parties,
and to revise the rule as USDA deems
necessary. In this document, we are
providing such notice and further
opportunity for comment. We will
consider all comments that we receive
by November 17, 2008.
References
Arnold, M. and J. Wilesmith. (2004).
Estimation of the Age-Dependent Risk of
Infection to BSE of Dairy Cattle in Great
Britain. Preventive Veterinary Medicine.
66(1): 35–47.
Buschmann, A. and M. Groschup (2005).
Highly Bovine Spongiform
Encephalopathy-Sensitive Transgenic
Mice Confirm the Essential Restriction of
Infectivity to the Nervous System in
Clinically Diseased Cattle. The Journal of
Infectious Diseases, 192: 934–42.
September 1.
Comer, P.J. and P.J. Huntly. (2003). Exposure
of the human population to BSE
infectivity over the course of the BSE
epidemic in Great Britain and the impact
of changes to the Over Thirty Month
Rule. Over Thirty Month Rule (OTMR)
review paper. June. (https://
www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/
otmcomer.pdf)
Department of Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs (DEFRA), United Kingdom.
(2006). BSE: Science & research—
Pathogenesis. Page last reviewed October
10. (https://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/
bse/science-research/pathog.html)
Espinosa, J.C., M. Morales, J. Castilla, M.
Rogers, and J.M. Torres. (2007).
Progression of prion infectivity in
asymptomatic cattle after oral bovine
spongiform encephalopathy challenge.
Journal of General Virology 88:1379–
1383. April.
European Commission Scientific Steering
Committee (EC SSC). (2001), ‘‘Opinion
on TSE Infectivity Distribution in
Ruminant Tissues (State of Knowledge,
December 2001)’’ (Adopted January 10–
11, 2002). (https://europa.eu.int/comm/
food/fs/sc/ssc/out241_en.pdf)
European Commission Scientific Steering
Committee (EC SSC). (2002). Update of
the opinion on TSE infectivity
distribution in ruminant tissues.
November. (https://www.europa.eu.int/
comm/food/fs/sc/ssc/out296_en.pdf)
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (2004).
Federal Register Volume 69, Number
134, 42255–42274. Interim Final Rule,
‘‘Use of Materials Derived from Cattle in
Human Food and Cosmetics.’’ FDA
Docket No. 2004N–0081. July 14.
(https://www.fda.gov/OHRMS/DOCKETS/
98fr/04–15881.htm)
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (2005).
Federal Register Volume 70, Number
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
172, 533063–53069. Interim Final Rule,
‘‘Use of Materials Derived from Cattle in
Human Food and Cosmetics.’’ FDA
Docket No. 2004N–0081. September 7.
(https://www.fda.gov/OHRMS/DOCKETS/
98fr/05–17693.pdf)
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (2007).
Federal Register Volume 72, Number 8,
1582–1619. Proposed Rule, ‘‘Use of
Material Derived from Cattle in Medical
Products Intended for Use in Humans
and Drugs Intended for Use in
Ruminants.’’ FDA Docket No. 2005N–
0373. January 12. (https://
edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E6–
22329.htm)
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (2008).
Federal Register Volume 73, Number 81,
22718–22758. Final Rule, ‘‘Substances
Prohibited from Use in Animal Food or
Feed.’’ FDA Docket No. 2002N–0273.
April 25. (https://edocket.access.gpo.gov/
2007/pdf/08–1180.pdf)
Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)
(2004). Federal Register Volume 69, No.
7, 1861–1874. Interim Final Rule,
‘‘Prohibition of the Use of Specified Risk
Materials for Human Food and
Requirements for the Disposition of NonAmbulatory Disabled Cattle,’’ Docket No.
03–025IF. January 12. (https://
www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/rdad/FRPubs/
03–025IF.pdf)
Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)
(2004a). Federal Register Volume 69, No.
7, 1874–1885. Interim Final Rule, ‘‘Meat
Produced by Advanced Meat/Bone
Separation Machinery and Meat
Recovery (AMR) Systems,’’ Docket No.
03–0038IF. January 12. (https://
www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/rdad/FRPubs/
03–0038IF.pdf)
Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)
(2004b). Federal Register Volume 69,
No. 7, 1885–1891. Interim Final Rule,
‘‘Prohibition of the Use of Certain
Stunning Devices Used To Immobilize
Cattle During Slaughter; Bovine
Spongiform Encephalopathy
Surveillance Program; Interim Final
Rule,’’ Docket No. 01–033IF. January 12.
(https://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/rdad/
FRPubs/01–033IF.pdf)
Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)
(2005). Federal Register Volume 70, No.
173, 53043–53050. Interim final rule,
‘‘Prohibition of the Use of Specified Risk
Materials for Human Food and
Requirements for the Disposition of NonAmbulatory Disabled Cattle.’’ Docket No.
03–025IFA. September 7. (https://
frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/
getpage.cgi?position=all&
page=53043&dbname=2005_register)
Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS).
(2007). Federal Register Volume 72, No.
134, 38700–38730. Affirmation of
Interim Final Rules with Amendments,
‘‘Prohibition of the Use of Specified Risk
Materials for Human Food and
Requirements for the Disposition of NonAmbulatory Disabled Cattle; Prohibition
of the Use of Certain Stunning Devices
Used to Immobilize Cattle During
Slaughter.’’ Docket No. 03–025F. July 13.
(https://www.fsis.usda.gov/Regulations_&
E:\FR\FM\18SEP1.SGM
18SEP1
dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 182 / Thursday, September 18, 2008 / Proposed Rules
_Policies/federal_register_publications_&
_related_documents/index.asp)
Masujin, K., D. Matthews, G.A.H. Wells, S.
Mohri, and T. Yokoyama. (2007). Prions
in the peripheral nerves of bovine
spongiform encephalopathy-affected
cattle. J. Gen. Virol. (88): 1850–1858; DOI
10.1099/vir.0.82779–0.
United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA). (2005). U.S. Department of
Agriculture’s Summary of the
Epidemiological Finding of North
American BSE Positive Cattle, April.
(https://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/
hot_issues/bse/background/documents/
bse_epi_report_4–29–05.pdf)
United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA). (2005a). Assessment of the
Canadian Feed Ban, February. (https://
www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/
hot_issues/bse/background)
Wells, G.A.H., M. Dawson, S.A.C. Hawkins,
R.B. Green, I. Dexter, M.E. Francis, M.M.
Simmons, A.R. Austin, and M.W.
Horigan. (1994). Infectivity in the ileum
of cattle challenged orally with bovine
spongiform encephalopathy. Vet. Rec.
135(2): 40–41.
Wells, G.A.H., M. Dawson, S.A.C. Hawkins,
A.R. Austin, R.B. Green, I. Dexter, M.W.
Horigan, and M.M. Simmons. (1996).
Preliminary observations on the
pathogenesis of experimental bovine
spongiform encephalopathy. In: Bovine
spongiform encephalopathy: the BSE
dilemma (Gibbs C.J. Jr., ed.). SpringerVerlag, New York.
Wells, G.A.H., S.A.C. Hawkins, R.B. Green,
A.R. Austin, I. Dexter, Y.I. Spencer, M.J.
Chaplin, M.J. Stack, and M. Dawson.
(1998). Preliminary observations on the
pathogenesis of experimental bovine
spongiform encephalopathy (BSE): an
update. Vet. Rec. 142: 103–106.
Wells, G.A.H., S.A.C. Hawkins, R.B. Green,
Y.I. Spencer, I. Dexter, and M. Dawson.
(1999). Limited detection of sternal bone
marrow infectivity in the clinical phase
of experimental bovine spongiform
encephalopathy (BSE). Vet. Rec. 144:
292–294.
Wells, G.A.H., J. Spiropoulos, S.A.C.
Hawkins, and S.J. Ryder. (2005).
Pathogenesis of experimental bovine
spongiform encephalopathy: pre-clinical
infectivity in tonsil and observations on
the distribution of lingual tonsil in
slaughtered cattle. Vet Rec. 156(13): 401–
407.
Wells, G.A.H. (2008). Personal
communication with APHIS. E-mail.
January 30. World Organization for
Animal Health Terrestrial Animal Health
Standards Commission (OIE TAHSC).
(2006). Supporting document for Chapter
2.3.13 of the Terrestrial Animal Health
Code on Bovine Spongiform
Encephalopathy. Terrestrial Animal
Health Standards Commission Report.
October. (https://www.aataanimaltransport.org/Publications/issues/
4-GS75TAHSCBSE
supportdocOct2006.doc)
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 450, 7701–7772, and
8301–8317; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 31
U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:24 Sep 17, 2008
Jkt 214001
Done in Washington, DC, this 12th day of
September 2008.
Cindy J. Smith,
Administrator, Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. E8–21786 Filed 9–17–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–34–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 430
[Docket No. EERE–2008–BT–STD–0012]
RIN 1904–AB80
Energy Conservation Standards for
Residential Refrigerators, RefrigeratorFreezers, and Freezers: Public Meeting
and Availability of the Framework
Document
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notice of public meeting and
availability of the framework document.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: DOE will hold an informal
public meeting to discuss and receive
comments on issues that it will address
in this rulemaking proceeding. The
Department is also initiating data
collection for establishing energy
conservation standards for residential
refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and
freezers. The Department also
encourages written comments on these
subjects. To inform stakeholders and
facilitate this process, DOE has prepared
a draft framework document, available
at https://www1.eere.energy.gov/
buildings/appliance_standards/
residential/refrigerators_freezers.html.
DATES: The Department will hold a
public meeting on Monday, September
29, 2008, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. in
Washington, DC. Any person requesting
to speak at the public meeting should
submit such request along with a signed
original and an electronic copy of the
statements to be given at the public
meeting before 4 p.m., Monday,
September 22, 2008. Written comments
are welcome, especially following the
public meeting, and should be
submitted by October 20, 2008.
ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be
held at the U.S. Department of Energy,
Forrestal Building, Room 8E–089, 1000
Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20585–0121. Please
note that foreign nationals participating
in the public meeting are subject to
advance security screening procedures.
If a foreign national wishes to
participate in the public meeting, please
inform DOE of this fact as soon as
possible by contacting Ms. Brenda
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
54089
Edwards at (202) 586–2945 so that the
necessary procedures can be completed.
Stakeholders may submit comments,
identified by docket number EERE–
2008–BT–STD–0012 and/or Regulation
Identifier Number (RIN) 1904–AB80, by
any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• E-mail: ResRefFreez–2008–STD–
0012@hq.doe.gov. Include EERE–2008–
BT–STD–0012 and/or RIN 1904–AB80
in the subject line of the message.
• Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S.
Department of Energy, Building
Technologies Program, Mailstop EE–2J,
Framework Document for Refrigerators,
Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers,
EERE–2008–BT–STD–0012 and/or RIN
1904–AB80, 1000 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585–
0121. Phone: (202) 586–2945. Please
submit one signed paper original.
• Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda
Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy,
Building Technologies Program, 6th
Floor, 950 L’Enfant Plaza, SW.,
Washington, DC 20024. Phone: (202)
586–2945. Please submit one signed
paper original.
Instructions: All submissions received
must include the agency name and
docket number or RIN for this
rulemaking.
Docket: For access to the docket to
read background documents, a copy of
the transcript of the public meeting, or
comments received, go to the U.S.
Department of Energy, 6th Floor, 950
L’Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC
20024, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. For additional information
about visiting the Resource Room,
please call Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202)
586–2945. Please note that the
Department’s Freedom of Information
Reading Room (formerly Room 1E–190
at the Forrestal Building) no longer
houses rulemaking materials.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: (1)
Stephen Witkowski, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies, EE–2J, 1000
Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20585–0121. Phone:
(202) 586–7463. e-mail:
stephen.witkowski@ee.doe.gov. (2)
Michael Kido, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of General Counsel, GC–
72, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20585–0121. Phone:
(202) 586–9507. e-mail:
michael.kido@hq.doe.gov.
Part A of
Title III of the Energy Policy and
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
E:\FR\FM\18SEP1.SGM
18SEP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 182 (Thursday, September 18, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54083-54089]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21786]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
9 CFR Parts 94 and 95
[Docket No. APHIS-2008-0093]
Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy; Minimal-Risk Regions and
Importation of Meat, Meat Byproducts, and Meat Food Products Derived
From Bovines 30 Months of Age or Older
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
[[Page 54084]]
ACTION: Request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document requests comment on the removal of the delay of
applicability of certain provisions of the rule entitled ``Bovine
Spongiform Encephalopathy; Minimal-Risk Regions and Importation of
Commodities,'' published in the Federal Register on January 4, 2005, 70
FR 460-553. The delay of applicability was removed in a final rule
entitled ``Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy; Minimal-Risk Regions;
Importation of Live Bovines and Products Derived from Bovines,''
published in the Federal Register on September 18, 2007, 72 FR 53314-
53379.
DATES: We will consider all comments that we receive on or before
November 17, 2008.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://
www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/
main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS-2008-0093 to submit or view comments and
to view supporting and related materials available electronically.
Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Please send two copies of
your comment to Docket No. APHIS-2008-0093, Regulatory Analysis and
Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118,
Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state that your comment refers to
Docket No. APHIS-2008-0093.
Reading Room: You may read any comments that we receive on this
docket, as well as APHIS supporting materials referenced in this
docket, in our reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141
of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to
help you, please call (202) 690-2817 before coming.
Other Information: Additional information about APHIS and its
programs is available on the Internet at https://www.aphis.usda.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Lisa Ferguson, ASEP Director,
National Center for Animal Health Programs, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road
Unit 46, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 734-6188.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA or Department) regulates the
importation of animals and animal products into the United States to
guard against the introduction of animal diseases. The regulations in 9
CFR parts 93, 94, 95, and 96 (referred to below as the regulations)
govern the importation of certain animals, birds, poultry, meat, other
animal products and byproducts, hay, and straw into the United States
in order to prevent the introduction of various animal diseases,
including bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), a chronic
degenerative disease affecting the central nervous system of cattle.
Nature of BSE
BSE belongs to the family of diseases known as transmissible
spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs). All TSEs affect the central nervous
system of infected animals. However, the distribution of infectivity in
the body of the animal and mode of transmission differ according to the
species and the TSE agent. In addition to BSE, TSEs include, among
other diseases, scrapie in sheep and goats, chronic wasting disease in
deer and elk, and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in humans.
The agent that causes BSE has yet to be fully characterized. The
theory that is most accepted in the international scientific community
is that the agent is an abnormal form of a normal protein known as
cellular prion protein. The BSE agent does not evoke a traditional
immune response or inflammatory reaction in host animals. BSE is
confirmed by post-mortem examination of an animal's brain tissue, which
may include detection of the abnormal form of the prion protein in the
brain tissues. The pathogenic form of the protein is both less soluble
and more resistant to degradation than the normal form. The BSE agent
is resistant to heat and to normal sterilization processes.
BSE is not a contagious disease, and therefore is not spread
through casual contact between animals. Scientists believe that the
primary route of transmission is through ingestion of feed that has
been contaminated with a sufficient amount of tissue from an infected
animal. This route of transmission can be prevented by excluding
potentially contaminated materials from ruminant feed.
Roles of Different Agencies
APHIS, an animal health agency within USDA, promulgates its
regulations regarding BSE under the authority of the Animal Health
Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 8301 et seq.), which gives the Secretary broad
discretion to regulate the importation of animals and animal products
if necessary to protect the health of U.S. livestock.
Because variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (vCJD) in humans has been
linked to exposure to the BSE agent, APHIS collaborates with other
Federal agencies with regulatory responsibility for assuring food
safety and the protection of human health to implement a comprehensive
coordinated U.S. response to BSE. Within USDA, protecting human health
from the risks of BSE is carried out by the Food Safety and Inspection
Service (FSIS), the agency charged with responsibility for
administering the Federal Meat Inspection Act, which was enacted to
ensure that meat and meat food products distributed in commerce are
wholesome, not adulterated, and properly marked, labeled, and packaged.
The USDA agencies carry out their programs in close coordination with
the following Centers of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of the
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: The Center for Veterinary
Medicine regarding animal feed; the Center for Food Safety and Applied
Nutrition regarding foods other than meat, poultry, and egg products;
and other Centers regarding drugs, biologics, and devices containing
bovine material. These agencies collaborate, issuing regulations under
their respective authorities.
Tissue Localization
Some bovine tissues have demonstrated infectivity, whereas others
have not. Most of the information on the development and distribution
of tissue infectivity in BSE-infected cattle has been derived from
experimental pathogenesis studies conducted in the United Kingdom
(Wells, et al., 1994; 1996; 1998; 1999; 2005). In these studies, cattle
were deliberately infected with BSE through oral exposure to the brain
tissue of cattle with confirmed BSE. Subsets of the experimentally
infected cattle were killed at regular intervals as the disease
progressed. At each interval, the tissues of the infected cattle were
examined for histopathological changes consistent with BSE and for
abnormal prion proteins. Also, at each interval, a mouse assay was
done--i.e., tissues of the BSE infected cattle were injected
intracerebrally and intraperitoneally into mice to identify those
tissues of cattle containing infectivity.
The pathogenesis studies involved 30 animals, each of which
received a single dose of 100g of infected brain at 4 months of age
(Wells, et al., 1994; 1996;
[[Page 54085]]
1998; 1999; 2005). This dose is probably 10-100 times greater than that
associated with field exposure via feed (DEFRA 2005). The studies
demonstrate that in cattle infected with BSE, the total amount of
infectivity in the animal, as well as the distribution of infectivity
in the animal's body, change over time (Wells, et al., 1994; 1996;
1998; 1999; 2005). The highest levels of infectivity were detected in
the brain and spinal cord at the end stages of disease. Some cattle
exhibited clinical signs of BSE as early as 35 months after oral
exposure to the BSE agent. By 37 months after oral exposure, all five
animals that were still alive demonstrated clinical evidence of BSE.
Infectivity was found in cattle with clinical signs of BSE in the
brain, spinal cord, dorsal root ganglia (DRG),\1\ trigeminal ganglia,
and the distal ileum of the small intestine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ DRG are clusters of nerve cells attached to the spinal cord
that are contained within the bones of the vertebral column. ``DRG''
as used in this document has the same meaning as the term ``dorsal
spinal nerve root ganglia.'' Trigeminal ganglia are clusters of
nerve cells connected to the brain that lie close to the exterior of
the skull.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BSE infectivity was demonstrated in the brain, spinal cord, and DRG
as early as 32 months after oral exposure to the BSE agent in some
cattle (Wells, et al., 1994; 1996; 1998; 1999; 2005). Infectivity was
demonstrated in these tissues 3 months before animals began to develop
clinical signs of the disease. Infectivity was demonstrated in the
distal ileum of cattle 6 to 18 months after oral exposure to the BSE
agent and again at 38 months and 40 months after oral exposure. A
similar, more recent, study (Espinosa, et al., 2007) examined the
infectivity of tissues from these same animals by intracerebral
inoculation of highly sensitive transgenic mice overexpressing bovine
PrP. This study's findings were similar to those of Wells, et al.,
described above. In addition, infectivity in the sciatic nerve was
found at low levels only after 30 months from exposure. No detectable
infectivity was found in the spleen, skeletal muscle, blood or urine of
asymptomatic cattle.
As explained by the United Kingdom's Department for Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and by the European Commission's
Scientific Steering Committee, a second phase of the pathogenesis
studies, which used a cattle bioassay as an endpoint, was conducted to
ensure that low levels of infectivity that may not have been detected
in the first phase using the mouse bioassay were not missed (DEFRA
2006; EC SSC 2002). This second phase of the study was completed in
March 2007 (Gerald Wells, personal communication, 2008).
In the cattle bioassay, tissues from the same cattle orally exposed
to BSE in the earlier pathogenesis studies were injected directly into
the brain of BSE-free cattle (DEFRA 2005). This method is considered to
be several hundred-fold more sensitive in detecting BSE infectivity
than the mouse bioassay (DEFRA 2005). Preliminary results from the
cattle bioassay study demonstrate that, in addition to the materials
that were found to contain infectivity when the mouse bioassay was
used, the tonsils of calves 10 months after oral exposure to the BSE
agent also contain infectivity. However, because only one of five
animals injected with tonsil material from infected animals developed
clinical BSE at 45 months post-inoculation, the level of infectivity in
the tonsils appears to be very low.
BSE infectivity has not been demonstrated in the muscle tissue of
BSE-infected cattle examined in these studies through either the mouse
bioassay or the cattle assays (Wells 1996; 2005; personal communication
2008). All assays of the skeletal muscle pools were completed in March
2007 (Wells, personal communication 2008).
In addition to these studies on experimentally infected cattle,
distribution of tissue infectivity has also been studied in cattle
exposed to BSE under field conditions. In these animals, at the end
stages of the incubation period with demonstrated clinical signs, BSE
infectivity has been confirmed by mouse bioassay only in the brain,
spinal cord, and retina of the eye (EC SSC 2001).
In a recent study, mice, genetically engineered to be highly
susceptible to BSE and to overexpress the bovine prion protein, were
inoculated with tissues from an end-stage clinically affected BSE-
infected cow (Buschmann and Groschup, 2005). The sensitivity of these
mice to infection is significantly greater than other mice panels used
in bio-assays, and the sensitivity is even greater than that of cattle
by approximately tenfold. This study demonstrated low levels of
infectivity in the facial and sciatic nerves of the peripheral nervous
system when injected into these highly sensitive mice. While this
study, and the 2007 study by Espinosa, et al., produced interesting
findings that can help further characterize the pathogenesis of BSE,
they cannot be extrapolated into the context of the risk presented by
natural (i.e., field) exposure pathways. The findings may be influenced
by the overexpression of prion proteins in these genetically engineered
mice. Any apparent levels of infectivity are low in these extremely
sensitive mice and would be even lower in other species such as cattle.
Moreover, the route of administration to the mice was both
intraperitoneal and intracerebral, both of which are very efficient
routes of infection as compared to oral consumption.
Tissues that have demonstrated infectivity, and thus are likely to
contain the infectious BSE agent in infected cattle, are brain, tonsil,
spinal cord, eyes, trigeminal ganglia, DRG, and distal ileum.
Approximately 90 percent of the infectivity is associated with the
brain, spinal column, DRG, and trigeminal ganglia. The remaining 10
percent is associated with the infectivity in the distal ileum. In BSE,
as with other TSEs, the total amount of infectivity in an animal
increases throughout the incubation period, reaching the highest load
at the end of that period, very close to the death of the animal.
Infectivity is considered to increase exponentially, reaching 4.5 logs
less than a clinical case at 50 percent of the incubation period and 3
logs less than a clinical case by 70 percent of the incubation period
(Comer and Huntly, 2003).
All of this research has contributed to the definition of which
tissues should be deemed specified risk materials (SRMs). Both the
types of tissues, and the understanding of the progression of the
infectivity throughout the incubation period contribute to the
definition of SRMs. Affiliated tissues or structures such as skull or
vertebral column are also considered risk materials because of the
difficulty in separating out small tissues such as DRG from the
vertebral column. The risks associated with tissue localization can be
mitigated by excluding SRMs from the food or feed chain or by excluding
them completely from importation. FSIS and FDA regulations regarding
SRMs are based on this scientific knowledge and an understanding of the
mitigative effects of exclusion of SRMs (FSIS, 2004; 2004a; 2004b;
2005; 2007; FDA, 2004; 2005; 2007; 2008).
There are some studies available that report finding the presence
of the abnormal prion protein in various tissues (Buschmann and
Groschup, 2005; Masujin et al., 2007). As new methods are developed
that provide increased sensitivity to detect abnormal PrP, such
demonstrations of the presence of abnormal PrP in various tissues may
continue. However, demonstrating the presence of PrP\BSE\ does not
necessarily indicate the presence of BSE infectivity, especially if no
infectivity is demonstrated via the
[[Page 54086]]
most direct method available: cattle-to-cattle exposure via
intracerebral inoculation. Therefore, one cannot automatically assume
that a finding of PrP\BSE\ in a tissue means the tissue should be
considered infectious or should be considered an SRM. As noted by the
World Organization for Animal Health (OIE), the international standard-
setting organization for guidelines related to animal health:
The availability of experimental infectivity data has
significantly increased in recent years. During the same interval,
extremely sensitive tests have been developed, including those
employing highly sensitive transgenic mice strains and potentially
more sensitive laboratory PrP detection methods. With the
development of such highly sensitive methods, the probability of
detection of PrP\BSE\ in tissues that are not currently listed as
infectious is increasing. However, such findings need to be
considered in context, and their relevance to establishing risk to
consumers evaluated carefully when the quantity of PrP\BSE\ detected
is potentially below the limit of detection of intracerebral cattle
to cattle bioassay (OIE TAHSC, 2006).
Within USDA, APHIS and FSIS review and consider carefully, on an
ongoing basis, all BSE research regarding the definition of SRMs, as do
other countries that participate in OIE. International guidelines
regarding SRM definition and removal have not changed based on the
results of the studies noted above that report finding the presence of
the abnormal prion protein in various tissues. U.S. regulations
regarding SRM removal are consistent with international guidelines.
Prior to 2005, when the APHIS final rule on BSE minimal-risk
regions (70 FR 460-553, Docket No. 03-080-3) became effective, APHIS'
import regulations regarding BSE considered three categories of regions
with regard to BSE--(1) those in which BSE is known to exist, (2) those
that present an undue risk of BSE, and (3) all regions not listed in
either of the other two categories. Imports from BSE-affected regions
and those considered to present an undue risk are governed by the same
set of restrictions, including a prohibition on the importation of
meat, meat products, and edible products other than meat (except for
milk and milk products and gelatin under certain conditions). All other
regions were not subject to any import restrictions because of BSE.
Beginning in 2003, APHIS commenced a rulemaking process to update
our BSE regulations to reflect the latest scientific data and knowledge
of the disease. In a document published in the Federal Register on
November 4, 2003 (68 FR 62386-62405, Docket No. 03-080-1), APHIS
proposed to establish a category of regions that present a minimal risk
of introducing BSE into the United States via live ruminants and
ruminant products and byproducts, and to add Canada to this category.
The proposal also set forth conditions for the importation of certain
live ruminants and ruminant products and byproducts from BSE minimal-
risk regions. Among the conditions for the importation of meat from BSE
minimal-risk regions was that the meat be derived from bovines less
than 30 months of age when slaughtered. This age restriction was a
measure to guard against the importation of, or contamination of meat
through contact with, tissues other than meat that have the potential
of containing high levels of BSE infectivity.
On December 25, 2003, less than 2 weeks before the close of the
comment period for the proposed rule, a case of BSE in a dairy cow of
Canadian origin in Washington State was verified by an international
reference laboratory. Subsequently, both FSIS and FDA implemented
significant additional measures in the United States to protect human
health. In addition, APHIS commenced an enhanced BSE surveillance
program to determine the incidence of the disease in the United States.
The measures taken by FSIS included declaring SRMs to be inedible
and requiring their removal from cattle at slaughter. FSIS designated
as SRMs the brain, skull, eyes, trigeminal ganglia, spinal cord,
vertebral column (excluding the vertebrae of the tail, the transverse
process of the thoracic and lumbar vertebrae, and the wings of the
sacrum), and DRG of cattle 30 months of age or older, and the tonsils
and distal ileum of the small intestine of all cattle. To ensure
effective removal of the distal ileum, FSIS also required that the
entire small intestine be removed and be disposed of as inedible.\2\
FSIS also required all slaughtering and processing establishments to
develop, implement, and maintain written procedures for the removal,
segregation, and disposition of SRMS. Establishments were specifically
required to implement procedures to address the potential contamination
of edible materials with SRMs before, during, and after entry into the
establishment. FSIS did not restrict the age of cattle eligible for
slaughter, because the removal of SRMs effectively mitigates the BSE
risk to humans associated with cattle that pass both ante-mortem and
post-mortem inspections (i.e., apparently healthy cattle).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ On September 7, 2005, FSIS published in the Federal Register
an interim final rule that allowed for use as human food, under
certain conditions, beef small intestine, excluding the distal
ileum, derived from cattle slaughtered in official U.S.
establishments or in certified foreign establishments in countries
listed by FSIS in 9 CFR 327.2(b) as eligible to export meat products
to the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to the Federal Meat Inspection Act, countries that export
meat to the United States must implement food safety requirements that
are equivalent to those in place in the United States. To be eligible
to export beef to the United States, a country must have in place a
system to effectively keep SRMs out of the production chain and to
prevent cross-contamination of beef with SRMs. FSIS has determined that
the SRM requirements implemented by Canada in July 2003 are equivalent
to FSIS' requirements. Additionally, FDA's feed ban prohibits most
mammalian protein, including ruminant protein, from entering the
ruminant feed chain in the United States.
On March 8, 2004, we published a document in the Federal Register
(69 FR 10633-10636, Docket No. 03-080-2) explaining the effects on our
proposed rule of the detection of BSE in the State of Washington in a
cow imported from Canada and of the additional measures taken by FSIS,
APHIS, and FDA. That document explained why the detection of an
imported BSE-infected cow did not alter the conclusions we had reached
in our original risk assessment. It explained further that, in fact,
the resulting additional measures put in place by FSIS provided a basis
for removing from the proposed provisions an age restriction on cattle
from which meat would be derived for export to the United States.
Accordingly, we proposed to allow the importation of beef derived from
cattle of any age. To give the public additional time to comment on the
proposal in light of these developments, we reopened and extended the
comment period for an additional 30 days.
On January 4, 2005, we published in the Federal Register (70 FR
460-553, Docket No. 03-080-3) a final rule that established the
criteria for BSE minimal-risk regions, listed Canada as a BSE minimal-
risk region, and specified importation requirements for live animals,
and meat products and byproducts. The final rule allowed the
importation of meat from bovines of any age, as we had proposed on
March 8, 2004. The final rule was scheduled to become effective on
March 7, 2005.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ On March 2, 2005, Judge Richard F. Cebull of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Montana ordered that the
implementation of APHIS' January 4, 2005, final rule be
preliminarily enjoined. On July 14, 2005, the U.S. States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ordered that the preliminary
injunction order be vacated and the case remanded to the District
Court.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 54087]]
In January 2005, BSE was confirmed in two cows in Canada.
On March 11, 2005, APHIS published a document in the Federal
Register (70 FR 12112-12113, Docket No. 03-080-6) that, pursuant to an
announcement by the Secretary of Agriculture on February 9, 2005,
delayed the applicability of the provisions of the January 2005 final
rule as they applied to the importation from Canada of the following
commodities when derived from bovines 30 months of age or older when
slaughtered: (1) Meat, meat food products, and meat byproducts other
than liver; (2) whole or half carcasses; (3) offal; (4) tallow composed
of less than 0.15 percent insoluble impurities that is not otherwise
eligible for importation under 9 CFR 95.4(a)(1)(i); and (5) gelatin
derived from bones of bovines that is not otherwise eligible for
importation under 9 CFR 94.18(c).
In his February 9, 2005, announcement, the Secretary stated that
because ongoing investigations into the recent finds of BSE in Canada
in animals over 30 months of age were not complete, he felt it prudent
to delay the effective date for allowing imports of meat from bovines
30 months of age and over. He also indicated that the delay of
applicability would address concerns that the January 2005 final rule
allowed the importation of meat from bovines 30 months of age or older,
while continuing to prohibit the importation of live cattle 30 months
of age or older for processing in the United States. The Secretary
stated that the Department would consider and develop a plan--based on
the latest scientific information and with the protection of public and
animal health as the highest priority--to allow imports of live bovines
30 months of age or older.
In January 2005, an APHIS team visited Canada to evaluate the
epidemiology of the North American BSE cases that had been identified
at that time. This team concluded that the information available
suggested a localized exposure, based on the relatively small
geographical location, the temporal association, and the clustering of
cases. The team also evaluated the likelihood of higher-risk animal or
feed exposure to the United States at that time, and concluded that the
U.S. feed ban and other mitigations had effectively minimized the risk
of transmission or amplification of the BSE agent (USDA, 2005). In
addition, also in January 2005, USDA sent a team to Canada to assess
Canada's feed ban and its feed inspection program to determine whether
the control measures put in place by the Canadian Government were
achieving compliance with that country's regulations. APHIS conducted
an extensive review of the feed ban in Canada and concluded that Canada
has a robust inspection program, that overall compliance with the feed
ban in Canada was good, and that the feed ban was reducing the risk of
transmission of BSE in the Canadian cattle population (USDA, 2005a).
On January 9, 2007, we published a proposed rule in the Federal
Register (72 FR 1101-1129, Docket No. APHIS-2006-0041) to, among other
things, establish conditions for the importation from BSE minimal-risk
regions of live bovines for any use born on or after a date determined
by APHIS to be the date of effective enforcement of a ruminant-to-
ruminant feed ban in the region of export.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Requiring that live bovines exported to the United States
from BSE minimal-risk regions be born after the date of effective
enforcement of a ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban is consistent with
the standards of the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) for
the exportation of live bovines from countries classified by the OIE
as having either a negligible or a controlled BSE risk. We consider
effective enforcement to have been achieved after completion of the
initial (or practical) period of implementation of a feed ban and
after sufficient time has elapsed to allow most feed products to
cycle through the system. The practical implementation period, which
begins when the regulations are initially put in place, can be
determined by evaluating implementation guidance and policies, such
as allowing grace periods for certain aspects of the industry. In
addition, the time necessary for initial education of industry and
training of inspectors must be considered. After the practical
implementation period is defined, we then consider the time
necessary subsequent to practical implementation to allow most feed
products to cycle through the system, given the management practices
in the country. Effective enforcement does not necessarily mean that
100 percent compliance with the feed ban requirements will be
achieved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We conducted an assessment of the risk to U.S. livestock of
allowing the importation of live bovines according to the provisions of
the proposed rule from Canada--currently the only region recognized as
a BSE minimal-risk region by APHIS. That risk assessment incorporated
and built on information from all of the previous analyses, including
the 2005 reports of the feed ban team and the epidemiological
investigation team. In the risk assessment, we evaluated both the
likelihood of ``release'' of the BSE agent into the United States and
the likelihood of susceptible animals being exposed, given such
release. We evaluated the pathways by which infected Canadian cattle,
if imported, might expose U.S. cattle to BSE, and the likelihood that
these pathways might lead to the establishment of the disease in the
U.S. cattle population. We concluded that the likelihood of BSE
exposure and establishment in the U.S. cattle population as a
consequence of imports under the proposed rule was negligible.
In our risk assessment, we explained that several steps must occur
for BSE to be transmitted to cattle in the United States from a live
bovine imported from another country. A BSE-infected bovine must be
imported into the United States; the infected bovine must die or be
slaughtered; tissues from that animal that contain the infectious agent
(i.e., the SRMs) must be sent to a rendering facility; the infectivity
present in these tissues must survive inactivation in the rendering
process; the resulting meat-and-bone meal containing the abnormal prion
protein must be incorporated into feed; and this feed must be fed to
cattle, in contravention of FDA regulations, at a level adequate to
infect the cattle. (The amount of infectious material required in feed
for cattle to become infected is dependent on the age of the cattle;
younger cattle are more susceptible to BSE and require less BSE-
contaminated feed to become infected (Arnold and Wilesmith, 2004)). We
explained in our risk assessment that some of the steps could occur in
parallel--i.e., without the occurrence of other steps--while others
would need to occur in series. Because the impact of any specific step
would depend on its relationship to other steps, its importance to the
likelihood of BSE transmission, and, in turn, the impact of disease
mitigation measures at each step, cannot be understood in isolation
from the rest of the pathway.
One component of our risk assessment was an estimate of the
prevalence of BSE in Canada, which was conducted using the same methods
as an earlier estimate of the prevalence of BSE in the United States.
The results of this prevalence estimate were then used to inform the
subsequent considerations and calculations in the risk assessment.
Because the prevalence was not zero--i.e., we concluded and
acknowledged that BSE is still present in Canada at low levels--the
risk assessment consequently assumed that infected animals could be
imported into the United States under the provisions of the proposed
rule. Even with this assumption, our conclusion that the risk of the
exposure of U.S. cattle and the establishment of BSE in the United
States was negligible remained unchanged.
On September 18, 2007, we published in the Federal Register (72 FR
53314-53379, Docket No. APHIS-2006-0041) a
[[Page 54088]]
final rule that adopted the changes to the regulations we had proposed
in January 2007. Additionally, the September 2007 final rule removed
the partial delay of applicability of the January 2005 final rule with
respect to meat and certain meat products and byproducts derived from
cattle over 30 months of age. In our September 2007 final rule, we
stated that, subsequent to implementation of the partial delay of
applicability, ``we [had] obtained additional information regarding all
aspects of the issues that prompted the delay of applicability and
[had] conducted additional analyses'' as indicated by the Secretary in
February 2005 to allow imports of live bovines 30 months of age or
older (72 FR 53316).
As we concluded in our September 2007 final rule, the risk
assessment for that final rule demonstrates the negligible BSE risk
from the importation of additional classes of live bovines, including
those 30 months of age or older. As explained previously, the risk of
transmission of BSE occurs when SRMs from infected cattle enter the
ruminant feed supply in contravention of current feed regulations.
Since the risk is tied to those tissues that contain infectivity, if
those tissues are excluded from import, the risk is mitigated. When
live cattle are imported, the potential exists that, after their death,
their SRMs could enter the ruminant feed supply. Even with this
potential, the conclusion of the risk assessment was that such imports
present a negligible risk of establishment of BSE in the United States.
As noted above, one of the requirements for the importation of meat
from bovines is that the SRMS be removed from the animals from which
the meat is derived. In other words, the SRMs are excluded from import
and would not even have the potential to enter the risk pathway in the
United States. Therefore, the conclusion of negligible risk related to
the importation of live older bovines gives further support to the
conclusion of the risk analysis conducted for our January 2005 final
rule regarding meat and meat products derived from bovines of any age
in BSE minimal-risk regions. Specifically, the risk is even lower for
the importation of meat and meat products than for live bovines.
The September 2007 final rule, which included the removal of the
partial delay of applicability of the provisions of the January 2005
rule relating to meat derived from cattle 30 months of age or older,
became effective on November 19, 2007.
On July 3, 2008, Judge Lawrence L. Piersol of the U.S. District
Court for the District of South Dakota, in response to a motion filed
in that Court, ordered USDA to provide the public with notice and a
further opportunity to comment on the provisions of our January 2005
final rule regarding the importation of beef from bovines 30 months of
age or older when slaughtered, to consider comments made by interested
parties, and to revise the rule as USDA deems necessary. In this
document, we are providing such notice and further opportunity for
comment. We will consider all comments that we receive by November 17,
2008.
References
Arnold, M. and J. Wilesmith. (2004). Estimation of the Age-Dependent
Risk of Infection to BSE of Dairy Cattle in Great Britain.
Preventive Veterinary Medicine. 66(1): 35-47.
Buschmann, A. and M. Groschup (2005). Highly Bovine Spongiform
Encephalopathy-Sensitive Transgenic Mice Confirm the Essential
Restriction of Infectivity to the Nervous System in Clinically
Diseased Cattle. The Journal of Infectious Diseases, 192: 934-42.
September 1.
Comer, P.J. and P.J. Huntly. (2003). Exposure of the human
population to BSE infectivity over the course of the BSE epidemic in
Great Britain and the impact of changes to the Over Thirty Month
Rule. Over Thirty Month Rule (OTMR) review paper. June. (https://
www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/otmcomer.pdf)
Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), United
Kingdom. (2006). BSE: Science & research--Pathogenesis. Page last
reviewed October 10. (https://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/bse/science-
research/pathog.html)
Espinosa, J.C., M. Morales, J. Castilla, M. Rogers, and J.M. Torres.
(2007). Progression of prion infectivity in asymptomatic cattle
after oral bovine spongiform encephalopathy challenge. Journal of
General Virology 88:1379-1383. April.
European Commission Scientific Steering Committee (EC SSC). (2001),
``Opinion on TSE Infectivity Distribution in Ruminant Tissues (State
of Knowledge, December 2001)'' (Adopted January 10-11, 2002).
(https://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/sc/ssc/out241_en.pdf)
European Commission Scientific Steering Committee (EC SSC). (2002).
Update of the opinion on TSE infectivity distribution in ruminant
tissues. November. (https://www.europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/sc/ssc/
out296_en.pdf)
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (2004). Federal Register Volume
69, Number 134, 42255-42274. Interim Final Rule, ``Use of Materials
Derived from Cattle in Human Food and Cosmetics.'' FDA Docket No.
2004N-0081. July 14. (https://www.fda.gov/OHRMS/DOCKETS/98fr/04-
15881.htm)
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (2005). Federal Register Volume
70, Number 172, 533063-53069. Interim Final Rule, ``Use of Materials
Derived from Cattle in Human Food and Cosmetics.'' FDA Docket No.
2004N-0081. September 7. (https://www.fda.gov/OHRMS/DOCKETS/98fr/05-
17693.pdf)
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (2007). Federal Register Volume
72, Number 8, 1582-1619. Proposed Rule, ``Use of Material Derived
from Cattle in Medical Products Intended for Use in Humans and Drugs
Intended for Use in Ruminants.'' FDA Docket No. 2005N-0373. January
12. (https://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E6-22329.htm)
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (2008). Federal Register Volume
73, Number 81, 22718-22758. Final Rule, ``Substances Prohibited from
Use in Animal Food or Feed.'' FDA Docket No. 2002N-0273. April 25.
(https://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2007/pdf/08-1180.pdf)
Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) (2004). Federal Register
Volume 69, No. 7, 1861-1874. Interim Final Rule, ``Prohibition of
the Use of Specified Risk Materials for Human Food and Requirements
for the Disposition of Non-Ambulatory Disabled Cattle,'' Docket No.
03-025IF. January 12. (https://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/rdad/FRPubs/
03-025IF.pdf)
Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) (2004a). Federal Register
Volume 69, No. 7, 1874-1885. Interim Final Rule, ``Meat Produced by
Advanced Meat/Bone Separation Machinery and Meat Recovery (AMR)
Systems,'' Docket No. 03-0038IF. January 12. (https://
www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/rdad/FRPubs/03-0038IF.pdf)
Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) (2004b). Federal Register
Volume 69, No. 7, 1885-1891. Interim Final Rule, ``Prohibition of
the Use of Certain Stunning Devices Used To Immobilize Cattle During
Slaughter; Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Surveillance Program;
Interim Final Rule,'' Docket No. 01-033IF. January 12. (https://
www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/rdad/FRPubs/01-033IF.pdf)
Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) (2005). Federal Register
Volume 70, No. 173, 53043-53050. Interim final rule, ``Prohibition
of the Use of Specified Risk Materials for Human Food and
Requirements for the Disposition of Non-Ambulatory Disabled
Cattle.'' Docket No. 03-025IFA. September 7. (https://
frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/
getpage.cgi?position=all&page=53043&dbname=2005_register)
Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS). (2007). Federal Register
Volume 72, No. 134, 38700-38730. Affirmation of Interim Final Rules
with Amendments, ``Prohibition of the Use of Specified Risk
Materials for Human Food and Requirements for the Disposition of
Non-Ambulatory Disabled Cattle; Prohibition of the Use of Certain
Stunning Devices Used to Immobilize Cattle During Slaughter.''
Docket No. 03-025F. July 13. (https://www.fsis.usda.gov/Regulations_
&
[[Page 54089]]
--Policies/federal--register--publications--&--related--documents/
index.asp)
Masujin, K., D. Matthews, G.A.H. Wells, S. Mohri, and T. Yokoyama.
(2007). Prions in the peripheral nerves of bovine spongiform
encephalopathy-affected cattle. J. Gen. Virol. (88): 1850-1858; DOI
10.1099/vir.0.82779-0.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). (2005). U.S.
Department of Agriculture's Summary of the Epidemiological Finding
of North American BSE Positive Cattle, April. (https://
www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/hot_issues/bse/background/documents/
bse_epi_report_4-29-05.pdf)
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). (2005a). Assessment
of the Canadian Feed Ban, February. (https://www.aphis.usda.gov/
newsroom/hot_issues/bse/background)
Wells, G.A.H., M. Dawson, S.A.C. Hawkins, R.B. Green, I. Dexter,
M.E. Francis, M.M. Simmons, A.R. Austin, and M.W. Horigan. (1994).
Infectivity in the ileum of cattle challenged orally with bovine
spongiform encephalopathy. Vet. Rec. 135(2): 40-41.
Wells, G.A.H., M. Dawson, S.A.C. Hawkins, A.R. Austin, R.B. Green,
I. Dexter, M.W. Horigan, and M.M. Simmons. (1996). Preliminary
observations on the pathogenesis of experimental bovine spongiform
encephalopathy. In: Bovine spongiform encephalopathy: the BSE
dilemma (Gibbs C.J. Jr., ed.). Springer-Verlag, New York.
Wells, G.A.H., S.A.C. Hawkins, R.B. Green, A.R. Austin, I. Dexter,
Y.I. Spencer, M.J. Chaplin, M.J. Stack, and M. Dawson. (1998).
Preliminary observations on the pathogenesis of experimental bovine
spongiform encephalopathy (BSE): an update. Vet. Rec. 142: 103-106.
Wells, G.A.H., S.A.C. Hawkins, R.B. Green, Y.I. Spencer, I. Dexter,
and M. Dawson. (1999). Limited detection of sternal bone marrow
infectivity in the clinical phase of experimental bovine spongiform
encephalopathy (BSE). Vet. Rec. 144: 292-294.
Wells, G.A.H., J. Spiropoulos, S.A.C. Hawkins, and S.J. Ryder.
(2005). Pathogenesis of experimental bovine spongiform
encephalopathy: pre-clinical infectivity in tonsil and observations
on the distribution of lingual tonsil in slaughtered cattle. Vet
Rec. 156(13): 401-407.
Wells, G.A.H. (2008). Personal communication with APHIS. E-mail.
January 30. World Organization for Animal Health Terrestrial Animal
Health Standards Commission (OIE TAHSC). (2006). Supporting document
for Chapter 2.3.13 of the Terrestrial Animal Health Code on Bovine
Spongiform Encephalopathy. Terrestrial Animal Health Standards
Commission Report. October. (https://www.aata-animaltransport.org/
Publications/issues/4-GS75TAHSCBSEsupportdocOct2006.doc)
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 450, 7701-7772, and 8301-8317; 21 U.S.C. 136
and 136a; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.
Done in Washington, DC, this 12th day of September 2008.
Cindy J. Smith,
Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. E8-21786 Filed 9-17-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P