Importation of Ovine Meat From Uruguay, 68327-68331 [2013-27285]
Download as PDF
68327
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
Vol. 78, No. 220
Thursday, November 14, 2013
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains regulatory documents having general
applicability and legal effect, most of which
are keyed to and codified in the Code of
Federal Regulations, which is published under
50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by
the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of
new books are listed in the first FEDERAL
REGISTER issue of each week.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service
9 CFR Part 94
[Docket No. APHIS–2008–0085]
RIN 0579–AD17
Importation of Ovine Meat From
Uruguay
Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
We are amending the
regulations governing the importation of
certain animals, meat, and other animal
products to allow, under certain
conditions, the importation of fresh
(chilled or frozen) ovine meat from
Uruguay. A risk assessment that we
have prepared indicates that fresh
(chilled or frozen) ovine meat can safely
be imported from Uruguay under these
conditions. This action will allow the
importation of fresh ovine meat from
Uruguay into the United States while
continuing to protect the United States
against the introduction of foot-andmouth disease.
DATES: Effective Date: November 29,
2013.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.
Silvia Kreindel, Senior Staff
Veterinarian, Regionalization Evaluation
Services Staff, VS, APHIS, 4700 River
Road Unit 38, Riverdale, MD 20737–
1231; (301) 851–3313.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
TKELleY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
Background
Under the Animal Health Protection
Act (AHPA, 7 U.S.C. 8301 et seq.), the
Secretary of Agriculture may prohibit or
restrict the importation of any animal or
article if the Secretary determines that
the prohibition or restriction is
necessary to prevent the introduction
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:50 Nov 13, 2013
Jkt 232001
into or dissemination within the United
States of any pest or disease of livestock.
Pursuant to this Act, the Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)
of the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) regulates the
importation of animals and animal
products into the United States to guard
against the introduction of animal
diseases not currently present or
prevalent in this country. The
regulations in 9 CFR part 94 (referred to
below as the regulations) prohibit or
restrict the importation of specified
animals and animal products to prevent
the introduction into the United States
of various animal diseases, including
rinderpest and foot-and-mouth disease
(FMD). These are dangerous and
destructive communicable diseases of
ruminants and swine.
Section 94.1 of the regulations
contains criteria for APHIS recognition
of foreign regions as free of rinderpest
and FMD. Section 94.11 restricts the
importation of ruminants and swine and
their meat and certain other products
from regions that are declared free of
rinderpest and FMD but that
nonetheless present a disease risk
because of the regions’ proximity to or
trading relationships with regions
affected with rinderpest or FMD.
Regions APHIS has declared free of
FMD and/or rinderpest, and regions
declared free of FMD and rinderpest
that are subject to the restrictions in
§ 94.11, are listed on the APHIS Web
site at https://www.aphis.usda.gov/
import_export/animals/animal_disease_
status.shtml.
Because vaccination for FMD may not
provide complete protection to
livestock, and because it can be difficult
to quickly detect FMD in animals
vaccinated for FMD, APHIS does not
recognize regions that vaccinate animals
for FMD as free of the disease. Uruguay
vaccinates cattle for FMD. Therefore,
although Uruguay has not had a case of
FMD since 2001, APHIS does not
recognize Uruguay as a region free of
FMD. Based on a final rule effective and
published in the Federal Register on
May 29, 2003 (68 FR 31940–31949,
Docket No. 02–109–3), however, APHIS
allows the importation of fresh (chilled
or frozen) beef from Uruguay under
certain conditions that mitigate the FMD
risks associated with this product. The
conditions are set out in § 94.22 of the
regulations.
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
In a proposed rule 1 published in the
Federal Register on February 24, 2011
(76 FR 10266–10269, Docket No.
APHIS–2008–0085), we proposed to
also allow the importation of fresh ovine
(sheep) meat from Uruguay under
conditions identical to those currently
required for the importation of fresh
beef, except for one change noted below.
The proposed conditions were as
follows:
• The meat is from animals that have
been born, raised, and slaughtered in
Uruguay.
• If FMD is detected anywhere in
Uruguay, the export of beef and ovine
meat from all of Uruguay to the United
States is prohibited until at least 12
months have elapsed since the
depopulation, cleaning, and disinfection
of the last infected premises. [The
current requirement for fresh beef is that
FMD has not been diagnosed in
Uruguay within the previous 12
months.]
• The meat came from animals that
originated from premises where FMD
has not been present during the lifetime
of any animals slaughtered for the
export of meat to the United States.
• The meat came from animals that
were moved directly from the premises
of origin to the slaughtering
establishment without any contact with
other animals.
• The meat came from animals that
received ante-mortem and post-mortem
veterinary inspections, paying particular
attention to the head and feet, at the
slaughtering establishment, with no
evidence found of vesicular disease.
• The meat consists only of parts of
the animal’s carcass that are, by
standard practice, placed in a chiller for
maturation after slaughter. No part of
the animal’s heads, feet, hooves, or
internal organs may be exported (and for
bovines, the hump is also excluded).
• All bone and visually identifiable
blood clots and lymphoid tissue have
been removed from the meat.
• The meat has not been in contact
with meat from regions other than those
APHIS recognizes as free of FMD.
• The meat came from carcasses that
were allowed to maturate at 40 to 50 °F
(4 to 10 °C) for a minimum of 36 hours
after slaughter and that reached a pH of
5.8 or less in the loin muscle at the end
1 To view the proposed rule and the comments
we received, go to https://www.regulations.gov/
#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2008-0085.
E:\FR\FM\14NOR1.SGM
14NOR1
68328
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 220 / Thursday, November 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
TKELleY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
of the maturation period. Measurements
for pH must be taken at the middle of
both longissimus dorsi muscles. Any
carcass in which the pH does not reach
5.8 or less may be allowed to maturate
an additional 24 hours and be retested,
and, if the carcass still has not reached
a pH of 5.8 or less after 60 hours, the
meat from the carcass may not be
exported to the United States.
• An authorized veterinary official of
the Government of Uruguay certifies on
the foreign meat inspection certificate
that the above conditions have been
met.
• The establishment in which the
animals are slaughtered allows periodic
on-site evaluation and subsequent
inspection of its facilities, records, and
operations by an APHIS representative.
We solicited comments concerning
the proposed rule for 60 days ending
April 25, 2011. We received 10
comments by that date. They were from
organizations representing Uruguayan
meat packers, meat exporters, and sheep
producers; Uruguay’s Ministry of
Livestock, Agriculture, and Fisheries
(MGAP); organizations representing
meat importers within the United States
and the U.S. sheep industry; and several
private citizens.
Four of the commenters supported the
rule as written. Two commenters
objected to the proposal. The remaining
commenters favored the importation of
fresh (chilled or frozen) ovine meat from
Uruguay but requested clarifications or
modifications to the rule or its
supporting documents. The issues
raised by commenters are discussed
below, by topic.
The Risk Assessment
One commenter requested that we
reexamine our risk assessment that we
prepared regarding the importation of
fresh (chilled or frozen) ovine meat from
Uruguay. The same commenter and one
other requested that we conduct an
additional site visit. They expressed
concern that changes may have occurred
in Uruguay’s risk factors for FMD and in
Uruguay’s ability to prevent and
mitigate FMD risk since we completed
the risk assessment. Neither commenter
mentioned any specific changes that
should be investigated. One commenter
also urged APHIS to specify a schedule
requiring follow-up and ongoing
reporting from Uruguay on FMD risk
and the implementation of risk
mitigation measures.
We have reevaluated the information
in the assessment and have determined
that it still provides an appropriate basis
for our conclusion that the FMD risk
from importing fresh (chilled or frozen)
maturated and deboned ovine meat from
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:50 Nov 13, 2013
Jkt 232001
Uruguay is low and that such meat may
be safely imported into the United
States. Based on our review of the
assessment, we do not think an
additional site visit is warranted prior to
finalizing the proposed rule.
Regarding the need for ongoing
reporting from Uruguay, as part of the
implementation of this final rule, we
will require MGAP to submit an
operational workplan, subject to APHIS’
approval, that details activities that
MGAP will carry out to meet the
requirements of the regulations.
Additionally, paragraph (k) of § 94.22
requires the establishment in Uruguay
in which the bovines and sheep are
slaughtered to allow an APHIS
representative to make periodic on-site
evaluations and subsequent inspections
of its facilities, records, and operations.
MGAP’s operational workplan will have
to specifically authorize the on-site
evaluations and inspections of facilities,
records, and operations. APHIS
regulations in 9 CFR part 92 also
address the potential need for APHIS to
obtain additional information from a
region after APHIS has granted the
region animal health status. In
particular, under § 92.2(g), a region may
be required to submit additional
information pertaining to animal health
status or allow APHIS to conduct
additional information collection
activities in order for that region to
maintain its animal health status. We
believe these provisions, collectively,
will enable APHIS to satisfactorily
monitor the fresh meat import program.
Prohibitions on the Importation of Meat
Following an FMD Outbreak
One commenter stated that the
proposed prohibition on the export of
fresh beef or ovine meat to the United
States until 12 months after
depopulation, cleaning, and disinfection
of the last premises involved in an FMD
outbreak does not merely clarify
existing policy, as APHIS stated in its
proposed rule. Rather, since the current
requirement for fresh beef from Uruguay
is 12 months following the last
diagnosis of FMD, the proposed change
would impose new, more stringent
requirements for the importation of beef
from Uruguay. The commenter also
stated that, to be consistent with
standards of the World Organization for
Animal Health (OIE) and the principle
of regionalization, the prohibition on
exports should be limited to 6 months
and apply only to exports from
restricted zones for FMD that would be
established by MGAP in response to a
limited outbreak in Uruguay, rather than
to exports from anywhere in the
country.
FMD is a significant disease of
livestock, and its introduction into the
United States could have a lasting
deleterious effect on the U.S.
agricultural economy. In regions that
vaccinate animals for FMD, it can be
difficult to detect the disease, and
APHIS believes that sufficient time must
pass to ensure that ruminant products
exported from the region will not be a
vector of the FMD virus. Depopulation,
cleaning, and disinfection of infected
premises are standard practices in
stamping out FMD. After considering
this comment, though, we have decided
that there is no need to build this
language into the rule. If a country
experiences an outbreak of FMD and
there is no diagnosis of the disease in a
12-month period following the last case,
APHIS considers this to be sufficient
reason to conclude that the disease did
not spread. Therefore, we will leave the
provision as it is currently worded in
the provisions for fresh beef: Foot-andmouth disease has not been diagnosed
in Uruguay within the previous 12
months.
Consistent with the OIE principle of
regionalization, APHIS regulations in 9
CFR part 92 explain how a country may
request APHIS recognition of regions
within its borders. In requesting to
export fresh (chilled or frozen) ovine
meat to the United States, Uruguay did
not ask APHIS to recognize restricted
zones as regions in the event of an FMD
outbreak, or provide sufficient
information for us to evaluate the risk of
disease spread from such zones in order
to allow for regionalization at that level.
The Maturation Process
One commenter questioned the need
for a minimum 36-hour maturation
period. Noting that the key indicator for
ensuring deactivation of the FMD virus
is a pH of 6.0 or lower, the commenter
stated that if a pH of 5.8 is reached
within 24 hours, then the virus will be
deactivated and there is no need for an
additional holding period. The
commenter stated that the 36-hour
holding period creates logistical
problems for the packinghouses, which
must hold carcasses in chillers, and is
inconsistent with the requirements of
other countries that apply a pH
requirement of either 5.8 or 6.0, with a
required holding period of 24 hours, for
the export of Uruguayan meat to their
markets. The commenter urged to
require a minimum holding period of 24
hours.
We agree with the commenter that the
acidification necessary to inactivate the
FMD virus can be achieved within 24
hours and are modifying § 94.22(i) in
this final rule accordingly. Twenty-four
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\14NOR1.SGM
14NOR1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 220 / Thursday, November 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
TKELleY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
hours will be the minimum time
required for maturation. If the required
pH is not achieved during 24 hours, the
meat may continue to maturate for up to
an additional 24 hours (48 hours total).
Any meat that has not achieved the
required pH level in that amount of time
may not be exported to the United
States.
We have also determined that a pH
lower than 6.0 in the longissimus dorsi,
in conjunction with other conditions
included in this final rule, is a good
indicator of FMD virus inactivation. Our
review of the literature revealed that
acidification at that level is sufficient to
inactivate FMD virus in muscle tissue of
viremic cattle. Furthermore, over 30
years of epidemiological data show that
there is no evidence that importation of
fresh beef that reached a pH of less than
6.0 under conditions that are already
incorporated into the regulations and
that are analogous to those contained in
this final rule (e.g., antemortem and
postmortem inspection, lymph node
removal, deboning, and maturation)
have been associated with outbreaks of
FMD. Therefore, in § 94.22(i) of this
final rule, the meat will be required to
reach a pH of less than 6.0, rather than
5.8 or less, as we had originally
proposed.
Removal of Bones
One commenter stated that there is no
basis for limiting approval for export of
ovine meat to boneless products because
there has been no evidence of FMD in
sheep in Uruguay since the country
requested access for fresh beef exports
in 2003.
We proposed to require that all bone,
as well as visually identifiable blood
clots and lymphoid tissue, be removed
from fresh ovine meat prior to export to
the United States from Uruguay. The
same requirement has been in place for
fresh beef exported from Uruguay.
As we noted in both our risk
assessment and in the proposed rule,
although the last case of FMD in
Uruguay was in 2001, FMD is endemic
in areas of South America surrounding
Uruguay, and there is, accordingly, a
risk that FMD will be reintroduced into
the country. Uruguay vaccinates cattle
for FMD in recognition of that risk. Each
of the conditions we proposed,
including this one, addresses a critical
point in the pre-export process, from
selection of an animal for slaughter to
carcass processing and maturation,
where FMD risk can be mitigated. The
conditions were selected based on
known modes of transmission and
physical characteristics of the FMD
virus. Maturation of the meat addresses
the risk, however small, of FMD virus
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:50 Nov 13, 2013
Jkt 232001
being present in the animal at slaughter.
The removal of bones and visually
identifiable blood clots and lymphoid
tissue is necessary because any FMD
virus these parts might potentially
harbor may not be inactivated by the
maturation process.
Certification by Veterinary Officials in
Uruguay
One commenter expressed concern
about our proposed requirement that an
authorized veterinary official of the
Government of Uruguay certify that all
conditions for the importation of beef
and ovine meat have been met. The
commenter stated that veterinary
officials could be bribed or otherwise
induced to falsely certify meat as
meeting the conditions for importation,
which could pose a risk of introducing
FMD into the United States.
As explained in response to another
comment, APHIS will be monitoring the
fresh meat export program. If we
determine that inspection certificates
are being deliberately falsified, we may
take measures pursuant to our authority
under the AHPA to ensure that beef or
ovine meat from Uruguay does not
present a risk of introducing FMD into
the United States. Such measures may
include prohibiting the importation of
fresh beef and ovine meat from
Uruguay.
Labeling of Ovine Meat
One commenter asked whether ovine
meat imported as proposed would be
labeled and marketed in the United
States as ‘‘fresh.’’ The commenter stated
that, because the product would have
been chilled or frozen, it would not
meet the average U.S. consumer’s
definition of ‘‘fresh’’ and should not be
marketed as such. The commenter also
asked whether ovine meat imported
from Uruguay into the United States
would be subject to country-of-origin
labeling.
As used in the regulations, the term
‘‘fresh’’ simply means that the meat is
imported without having been cooked
or cured as otherwise required of beef or
ovine meat from regions not recognized
as free of FMD. APHIS does not regulate
the marketing of meat in the United
States. Regarding country-of-origin
labeling, the Country of Origin Labeling
(COOL) law requires retailers to notify
their customers of the country of origin
for all commodities covered under this
law. Muscle cuts of beef and lamb, as
well as ground beef and ground lamb,
are covered. The COOL law is enforced
by USDA’s Agricultural Marketing
Service and Food Safety and Inspection
Service. The COOL law is not related to
animal health, but rather, is a consumer
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
68329
information program, and thus has no
bearing on this rulemaking.
Goat Meat
One commenter expressed concern
that inspectors may not know the
difference between a goat kid carcass
and a lamb kid carcass.
Establishments in Uruguay that
prepare ovine meat for export slaughter
the sheep. Live sheep are easily
distinguishable from live goats. It is
unlikely that a facility would slaughter
a goat and present its meat as ovine
meat. As discussed previously, APHIS
will be monitoring the fresh meat export
program, including through on-site
evaluations and inspections of facilities,
records, and operations.
Chronic Wasting Disease
One commenter objected to the lack of
inspection for chronic wasting disease.
Chronic wasting disease (CWD) is a
transmissible spongiform
encephalopathy of cervids (members of
Cervidae, the deer family). Species
known to be susceptible to CWD via
natural routes of transmission include
Rocky Mountain elk, mule deer, whitetailed deer, black-tailed deer, and
moose. There is no evidence that CWD
is transmissible under natural
conditions to any other ruminant
species, including cattle and sheep, and,
therefore, no need for any CWD-related
safeguards.
Miscellaneous
We have made minor editorial
changes to the regulatory text in § 94.22
for clarity. These include replacing
‘‘and’’ with ‘‘or’’ in the following
phrases: ‘‘beef and ovine meat,’’
‘‘bovines and sheep,’’ and ‘‘bovine parts
and ovine parts,’’ and changing
‘‘infected premises’’ to ‘‘affected
premises.’’
Therefore, for the reasons given in the
proposed rule and in this document, we
are adopting the proposed rule as a final
rule, with the changes discussed in this
document.
Effective Date
This is a substantive rule that relieves
restrictions and, pursuant to the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553, may be made
effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register.
This rule will allow the importation of
fresh ovine meat from Uruguay into the
United States under conditions that will
continue to protect the United States
against the introduction of FMD. We
have determined that approximately 2
weeks are needed to ensure that APHIS
and Department of Homeland Security,
Bureau of Customs and Border
E:\FR\FM\14NOR1.SGM
14NOR1
68330
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 220 / Thursday, November 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
Protection, personnel at ports of entry
receive official notice of this change in
the regulations. Therefore, the
Administrator of the Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service has
determined that this rule should be
effective 15 days after publication in the
Federal Register.
TKELleY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Executive Order 12866 and the
Regulatory Flexibility Act
This final rule has been determined to
be not significant for the purposes of
Executive Order 12866 and, therefore,
has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget.
In accordance with the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, we have analyzed the
potential economic effects of this action
on small entities. The analysis is
summarized below. Copies of the full
analysis are available on the
Regulations.gov Web site (see footnote 1
in this document for a link to
Regulations.gov) or by contacting the
person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
This rule will allow the importation
of fresh (chilled or frozen) lamb and
mutton from Uruguay under certain
conditions. U.S. entities potentially
affected by the rule would be sheep
farmers and establishments primarily
engaged in processing meat and meat
products from purchased meat, most of
which are small entities under Small
Business Administration standards.
U.S. production of lamb and mutton
averaged 79,561 metric tons (MT) over
the 5 years, 2006–2010. Over this same
period, imports averaged almost 75,100
MT (equivalent to about 94 percent of
U.S. production). Uruguay expects its
annual lamb and mutton exports to the
United States not to exceed 2,000 MT.
This quantity is equivalent to less than
3 percent of U.S. lamb and mutton
imports and less than 2 percent of U.S.
domestic supply of these commodities.
A percentage of the imports from
Uruguay are likely to displace some of
the lamb and mutton imported from
existing foreign suppliers, further
dampening any possible effects for U.S.
businesses.
Under these circumstances, the
Administrator of the Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service has
determined that this action will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
Executive Order 12988
This final rule has been reviewed
under Executive Order 12988, Civil
Justice Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts
all State and local laws and regulations
that are inconsistent with this rule; (2)
has no retroactive effect; and (3) does
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:50 Nov 13, 2013
Jkt 232001
not require administrative proceedings
before parties may file suit in court
challenging this rule.
National Environmental Policy Act
An environmental assessment and
finding of no significant impact have
been prepared for this final rule. The
environmental assessment provides a
basis for the conclusion that the
importation of ovine meat from Uruguay
under the conditions specified in the
rule will not have a significant impact
on the quality of the human
environment. Based on the finding of no
significant impact, the Administrator of
the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service has determined that an
environmental impact statement need
not be prepared.
The environmental assessment and
finding of no significant impact were
prepared in accordance with: (1) The
National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C.
4321 et seq.), (2) regulations of the
Council on Environmental Quality for
implementing the procedural provisions
of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500–1508), (3)
USDA regulations implementing NEPA
(7 CFR part 1b), and (4) APHIS’ NEPA
Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part
372).
The environmental assessment and
finding of no significant impact may be
viewed on the Regulations.gov Web
site.2 Copies of the environmental
assessment and finding of no significant
impact are also available for public
inspection at USDA, room 1141, South
Building, 14th Street and Independence
Avenue SW., Washington, DC, between
8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except holidays. Persons
wishing to inspect copies are requested
to call ahead on (202) 799–7039 to
facilitate entry into the reading room. In
addition, copies may be obtained by
writing to the individual listed under
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.), the information collection or
recordkeeping requirements included in
this rule have been approved by the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under OMB control number
0579–0372.
E-Government Act Compliance
The Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service is committed to
2 Go to https://www.regulations.gov/
#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2008-0085. The
environmental assessment and finding of no
significant impact will appear in the resulting list
of documents.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
compliance with the E-Government Act
to promote the use of the Internet and
other information technologies, to
provide increased opportunities for
citizen access to Government
information and services, and for other
purposes. For information pertinent to
E-Government Act compliance related
to this rule, please contact Mrs. Celeste
Sickles, APHIS’ Information Collection
Coordinator, at (301) 851–2908.
List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 94
Animal diseases, Imports, Livestock,
Meat and meat products, Milk, Poultry
and poultry products, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, we are amending 9 CFR
part 94 as follows:
PART 94—RINDERPEST, FOOT-ANDMOUTH DISEASE, NEWCASTLE
DISEASE, HIGHLY PATHOGENIC
AVIAN INFLUENZA, AFRICAN SWINE
FEVER, CLASSICAL SWINE FEVER,
SWINE VESICULAR DISEASE, AND
BOVINE SPONGIFORM
ENCEPHALOPATHY: PROHIBITED
AND RESTRICTED IMPORTATIONS
1. The authority citation for part 94
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 450, 7701–7772, 7781–
7786, and 8301–8317; 21 U.S.C. 136 and
136a; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and
371.4.
2. Section 94.1 is amended by revising
paragraph (b)(4) and the introductory
text of paragraph (d) to read as follows:
■
§ 94.1 Regions where rinderpest or footand-mouth disease exists; importations
prohibited.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(4) Except as provided in § 94.22 for
fresh (chilled or frozen) beef and ovine
meat from Uruguay.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) Except as otherwise provided in
this part, fresh (chilled or frozen) meat
of ruminants or swine raised and
slaughtered in a region free of foot-andmouth disease and rinderpest, as
designated in paragraph (a) of this
section, and fresh (chilled or frozen)
beef and ovine meat exported from
Uruguay in accordance with § 94.22,
which during shipment to the United
States enters a port or otherwise transits
a region where rinderpest or foot-andmouth disease exists, may be imported
provided that all of the following
conditions are met:
*
*
*
*
*
■ 3. Section 94.22 is revised to read as
follows:
E:\FR\FM\14NOR1.SGM
14NOR1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 220 / Thursday, November 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
TKELleY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
§ 94.22 Restrictions on importation of beef
and ovine meat from Uruguay.
Notwithstanding any other provisions
of this part, fresh (chilled or frozen) beef
and ovine meat from Uruguay may be
exported to the United States under the
following conditions:
(a) The meat is beef or ovine meat
from animals that have been born,
raised, and slaughtered in Uruguay.
(b) Foot-and-mouth disease has not
been diagnosed in Uruguay within the
previous 12 months.
(c) The meat comes from bovines or
sheep that originate from premises
where foot-and-mouth disease has not
been present during the lifetime of any
bovines and sheep slaughtered for the
export of beef and ovine meat to the
United States.
(d) The meat comes from bovines or
sheep that were moved directly from the
premises of origin to the slaughtering
establishment without any contact with
other animals.
(e) The meat comes from bovines or
sheep that received ante-mortem and
post-mortem veterinary inspections,
paying particular attention to the head
and feet, at the slaughtering
establishment, with no evidence found
of vesicular disease.
(f) The meat consists only of bovine
parts or ovine parts that are, by standard
practice, part of the animal’s carcass
that is placed in a chiller for maturation
after slaughter. The bovine and ovine
parts that may not be imported include
all parts of the head, feet, hump, hooves,
and internal organs.
(g) All bone and visually identifiable
blood clots and lymphoid tissue have
been removed from the meat.
(h) The meat has not been in contact
with meat from regions other than those
listed as free of foot-and-mouth disease
and rinderpest under § 94.1(a).
(i) The meat comes from carcasses
that were allowed to maturate at 40 to
50 °F (4 to 10 °C) for a minimum of 24
hours after slaughter and that reached a
pH below 6.0 in the loin muscle at the
end of the maturation period.
Measurements for pH must be taken at
the middle of both longissimus dorsi
muscles. Any carcass in which the pH
does not reach less than 6.0 may be
allowed to maturate an additional 24
hours and be retested, and, if the carcass
still has not reached a pH of less than
6.0 after 48 hours, the meat from the
carcass may not be exported to the
United States.
(j) An authorized veterinary official of
the Government of Uruguay certifies on
the foreign meat inspection certificate
that the above conditions have been
met.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:50 Nov 13, 2013
Jkt 232001
(k) The establishment in which the
bovines and sheep are slaughtered
allows periodic on-site evaluation and
subsequent inspection of its facilities,
records, and operations by an APHIS
representative.
68331
The effective date of this rule is
December 16, 2013.
ADDRESSES: The docket, which includes
Federal Register notices, comments,
and other supporting documents/
materials, is available for review at
regulations.gov. All documents in the
(Approved by the Office of Management and
Budget under control number 0579–0372)
docket are listed in the regulations.gov
index. However, some documents listed
Done in Washington, DC, this 7th day of
in the index, such as those containing
November 2013.
information that is exempt from public
Kevin Shea,
disclosure, may not be publicly
Administrator, Animal and Plant Health
available.
Inspection Service.
The docket Web page can be found on
[FR Doc. 2013–27285 Filed 11–13–13; 8:45 am]
regulations.gov, under docket number
BILLING CODE 3410–34–P
EERE–2010–BT–PET–0047, at:
www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=
EERE-2010-BT-PET-0047. The
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
regulations.gov Web page will contain
simple instructions on how to access all
10 CFR Part 430
documents, including public comments,
[Docket Number EERE–2010–BT–PET–0047] in the docket.
For further information on how to
RIN 1904–AC57
review the docket, contact Ms. Brenda
Edwards at (202) 586–2945 or by email:
Energy Conservation Program:
Request for Exclusion of 100 Watt R20 Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov.
Short Incandescent Reflector Lamp
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
From Energy Conservation Standards
Lucy deButts, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Building
Renewable Energy, Department of
Technologies Office, EE–2J, 1000
Energy.
Independence Avenue SW.,
ACTION: Final rule.
Washington, DC 20585–0121.
Telephone: (202) 287–1604. Email:
SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and
incandescent_reflector_lamps@
Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), as
ee.doe.gov.
amended, prescribes energy
Ms. Celia Sher, U.S. Department of
conservation standards for certain
Energy, Office of the General Counsel,
commercial and industrial equipment
GC–71, 1000 Independence Avenue
and various consumer products,
SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121.
including incandescent reflector lamps
Telephone: (202) 287–6122. Email:
(IRLs). The U.S. Department of Energy
celia.sher@hq.doe.gov.
(DOE) received a petition from the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
National Electrical Manufacturers
Association requesting the initiation of
Table of Contents
a rulemaking to exclude from coverage
I. Summary of the Final Rule
under EPCA standards a certain type of
II. Introduction
IRL marketed for use in pool and spa
A. Authority
applications. Specifically, the lamp at
B. Background
issue is a 100-watt R20 short (having a
III. General Discussion
maximum overall length of 3 and 5⁄8 or
A. Authority
3.625 inches) IRL (‘‘R20 short lamp’’).
B. R20 Short Lamp Special Application
Design and Impact on Energy Savings
DOE published this petition and a
1. Special Application of R20 Short Lamps
request for comment in the Federal
a. R20 Short Lamp Design for Special
Register on December 23, 2010. From its
Applications
evaluation of the petition and careful
b. Marketing and Distribution Channels of
consideration of the public comments,
R20 Short Lamps
DOE decided to grant the petition for
2. Impact on Energy Savings
rulemaking. DOE published a request
C. Availability of R20 Short Lamp Special
for information in the Federal Register
Characteristics in Substitutes
1. Improved R20 Short Lamp
on September 8, 2011, followed by a
2. 60 W PAR16 Lamp
notice of proposed rulemaking
3. LED Lamps
published in the Federal Register on
4. Consumer Use of Substitute Products
December 31, 2012. Based on data
IV. Conclusion
gathered by DOE and the comments it
V. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
received on these notices, DOE excludes
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866
R20 short lamps from coverage under
and 13563
the EPCA energy conservation
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act
standards.
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
DATES:
E:\FR\FM\14NOR1.SGM
14NOR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 220 (Thursday, November 14, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 68327-68331]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-27285]
========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 220 / Thursday, November 14, 2013 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 68327]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
9 CFR Part 94
[Docket No. APHIS-2008-0085]
RIN 0579-AD17
Importation of Ovine Meat From Uruguay
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are amending the regulations governing the importation of
certain animals, meat, and other animal products to allow, under
certain conditions, the importation of fresh (chilled or frozen) ovine
meat from Uruguay. A risk assessment that we have prepared indicates
that fresh (chilled or frozen) ovine meat can safely be imported from
Uruguay under these conditions. This action will allow the importation
of fresh ovine meat from Uruguay into the United States while
continuing to protect the United States against the introduction of
foot-and-mouth disease.
DATES: Effective Date: November 29, 2013.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Silvia Kreindel, Senior Staff
Veterinarian, Regionalization Evaluation Services Staff, VS, APHIS,
4700 River Road Unit 38, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 851-3313.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Under the Animal Health Protection Act (AHPA, 7 U.S.C. 8301 et
seq.), the Secretary of Agriculture may prohibit or restrict the
importation of any animal or article if the Secretary determines that
the prohibition or restriction is necessary to prevent the introduction
into or dissemination within the United States of any pest or disease
of livestock.
Pursuant to this Act, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service (APHIS) of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
regulates the importation of animals and animal products into the
United States to guard against the introduction of animal diseases not
currently present or prevalent in this country. The regulations in 9
CFR part 94 (referred to below as the regulations) prohibit or restrict
the importation of specified animals and animal products to prevent the
introduction into the United States of various animal diseases,
including rinderpest and foot-and-mouth disease (FMD). These are
dangerous and destructive communicable diseases of ruminants and swine.
Section 94.1 of the regulations contains criteria for APHIS
recognition of foreign regions as free of rinderpest and FMD. Section
94.11 restricts the importation of ruminants and swine and their meat
and certain other products from regions that are declared free of
rinderpest and FMD but that nonetheless present a disease risk because
of the regions' proximity to or trading relationships with regions
affected with rinderpest or FMD. Regions APHIS has declared free of FMD
and/or rinderpest, and regions declared free of FMD and rinderpest that
are subject to the restrictions in Sec. 94.11, are listed on the APHIS
Web site at https://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/animals/animal_disease_status.shtml.
Because vaccination for FMD may not provide complete protection to
livestock, and because it can be difficult to quickly detect FMD in
animals vaccinated for FMD, APHIS does not recognize regions that
vaccinate animals for FMD as free of the disease. Uruguay vaccinates
cattle for FMD. Therefore, although Uruguay has not had a case of FMD
since 2001, APHIS does not recognize Uruguay as a region free of FMD.
Based on a final rule effective and published in the Federal Register
on May 29, 2003 (68 FR 31940-31949, Docket No. 02-109-3), however,
APHIS allows the importation of fresh (chilled or frozen) beef from
Uruguay under certain conditions that mitigate the FMD risks associated
with this product. The conditions are set out in Sec. 94.22 of the
regulations.
In a proposed rule \1\ published in the Federal Register on
February 24, 2011 (76 FR 10266-10269, Docket No. APHIS-2008-0085), we
proposed to also allow the importation of fresh ovine (sheep) meat from
Uruguay under conditions identical to those currently required for the
importation of fresh beef, except for one change noted below. The
proposed conditions were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ To view the proposed rule and the comments we received, go
to https://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2008-0085.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The meat is from animals that have been born, raised, and
slaughtered in Uruguay.
If FMD is detected anywhere in Uruguay, the export of beef
and ovine meat from all of Uruguay to the United States is prohibited
until at least 12 months have elapsed since the depopulation, cleaning,
and disinfection of the last infected premises. [The current
requirement for fresh beef is that FMD has not been diagnosed in
Uruguay within the previous 12 months.]
The meat came from animals that originated from premises
where FMD has not been present during the lifetime of any animals
slaughtered for the export of meat to the United States.
The meat came from animals that were moved directly from
the premises of origin to the slaughtering establishment without any
contact with other animals.
The meat came from animals that received ante-mortem and
post-mortem veterinary inspections, paying particular attention to the
head and feet, at the slaughtering establishment, with no evidence
found of vesicular disease.
The meat consists only of parts of the animal's carcass
that are, by standard practice, placed in a chiller for maturation
after slaughter. No part of the animal's heads, feet, hooves, or
internal organs may be exported (and for bovines, the hump is also
excluded).
All bone and visually identifiable blood clots and
lymphoid tissue have been removed from the meat.
The meat has not been in contact with meat from regions
other than those APHIS recognizes as free of FMD.
The meat came from carcasses that were allowed to maturate
at 40 to 50 [deg]F (4 to 10 [deg]C) for a minimum of 36 hours after
slaughter and that reached a pH of 5.8 or less in the loin muscle at
the end
[[Page 68328]]
of the maturation period. Measurements for pH must be taken at the
middle of both longissimus dorsi muscles. Any carcass in which the pH
does not reach 5.8 or less may be allowed to maturate an additional 24
hours and be retested, and, if the carcass still has not reached a pH
of 5.8 or less after 60 hours, the meat from the carcass may not be
exported to the United States.
An authorized veterinary official of the Government of
Uruguay certifies on the foreign meat inspection certificate that the
above conditions have been met.
The establishment in which the animals are slaughtered
allows periodic on-site evaluation and subsequent inspection of its
facilities, records, and operations by an APHIS representative.
We solicited comments concerning the proposed rule for 60 days
ending April 25, 2011. We received 10 comments by that date. They were
from organizations representing Uruguayan meat packers, meat exporters,
and sheep producers; Uruguay's Ministry of Livestock, Agriculture, and
Fisheries (MGAP); organizations representing meat importers within the
United States and the U.S. sheep industry; and several private
citizens.
Four of the commenters supported the rule as written. Two
commenters objected to the proposal. The remaining commenters favored
the importation of fresh (chilled or frozen) ovine meat from Uruguay
but requested clarifications or modifications to the rule or its
supporting documents. The issues raised by commenters are discussed
below, by topic.
The Risk Assessment
One commenter requested that we reexamine our risk assessment that
we prepared regarding the importation of fresh (chilled or frozen)
ovine meat from Uruguay. The same commenter and one other requested
that we conduct an additional site visit. They expressed concern that
changes may have occurred in Uruguay's risk factors for FMD and in
Uruguay's ability to prevent and mitigate FMD risk since we completed
the risk assessment. Neither commenter mentioned any specific changes
that should be investigated. One commenter also urged APHIS to specify
a schedule requiring follow-up and ongoing reporting from Uruguay on
FMD risk and the implementation of risk mitigation measures.
We have reevaluated the information in the assessment and have
determined that it still provides an appropriate basis for our
conclusion that the FMD risk from importing fresh (chilled or frozen)
maturated and deboned ovine meat from Uruguay is low and that such meat
may be safely imported into the United States. Based on our review of
the assessment, we do not think an additional site visit is warranted
prior to finalizing the proposed rule.
Regarding the need for ongoing reporting from Uruguay, as part of
the implementation of this final rule, we will require MGAP to submit
an operational workplan, subject to APHIS' approval, that details
activities that MGAP will carry out to meet the requirements of the
regulations. Additionally, paragraph (k) of Sec. 94.22 requires the
establishment in Uruguay in which the bovines and sheep are slaughtered
to allow an APHIS representative to make periodic on-site evaluations
and subsequent inspections of its facilities, records, and operations.
MGAP's operational workplan will have to specifically authorize the on-
site evaluations and inspections of facilities, records, and
operations. APHIS regulations in 9 CFR part 92 also address the
potential need for APHIS to obtain additional information from a region
after APHIS has granted the region animal health status. In particular,
under Sec. 92.2(g), a region may be required to submit additional
information pertaining to animal health status or allow APHIS to
conduct additional information collection activities in order for that
region to maintain its animal health status. We believe these
provisions, collectively, will enable APHIS to satisfactorily monitor
the fresh meat import program.
Prohibitions on the Importation of Meat Following an FMD Outbreak
One commenter stated that the proposed prohibition on the export of
fresh beef or ovine meat to the United States until 12 months after
depopulation, cleaning, and disinfection of the last premises involved
in an FMD outbreak does not merely clarify existing policy, as APHIS
stated in its proposed rule. Rather, since the current requirement for
fresh beef from Uruguay is 12 months following the last diagnosis of
FMD, the proposed change would impose new, more stringent requirements
for the importation of beef from Uruguay. The commenter also stated
that, to be consistent with standards of the World Organization for
Animal Health (OIE) and the principle of regionalization, the
prohibition on exports should be limited to 6 months and apply only to
exports from restricted zones for FMD that would be established by MGAP
in response to a limited outbreak in Uruguay, rather than to exports
from anywhere in the country.
FMD is a significant disease of livestock, and its introduction
into the United States could have a lasting deleterious effect on the
U.S. agricultural economy. In regions that vaccinate animals for FMD,
it can be difficult to detect the disease, and APHIS believes that
sufficient time must pass to ensure that ruminant products exported
from the region will not be a vector of the FMD virus. Depopulation,
cleaning, and disinfection of infected premises are standard practices
in stamping out FMD. After considering this comment, though, we have
decided that there is no need to build this language into the rule. If
a country experiences an outbreak of FMD and there is no diagnosis of
the disease in a 12-month period following the last case, APHIS
considers this to be sufficient reason to conclude that the disease did
not spread. Therefore, we will leave the provision as it is currently
worded in the provisions for fresh beef: Foot-and-mouth disease has not
been diagnosed in Uruguay within the previous 12 months.
Consistent with the OIE principle of regionalization, APHIS
regulations in 9 CFR part 92 explain how a country may request APHIS
recognition of regions within its borders. In requesting to export
fresh (chilled or frozen) ovine meat to the United States, Uruguay did
not ask APHIS to recognize restricted zones as regions in the event of
an FMD outbreak, or provide sufficient information for us to evaluate
the risk of disease spread from such zones in order to allow for
regionalization at that level.
The Maturation Process
One commenter questioned the need for a minimum 36-hour maturation
period. Noting that the key indicator for ensuring deactivation of the
FMD virus is a pH of 6.0 or lower, the commenter stated that if a pH of
5.8 is reached within 24 hours, then the virus will be deactivated and
there is no need for an additional holding period. The commenter stated
that the 36-hour holding period creates logistical problems for the
packinghouses, which must hold carcasses in chillers, and is
inconsistent with the requirements of other countries that apply a pH
requirement of either 5.8 or 6.0, with a required holding period of 24
hours, for the export of Uruguayan meat to their markets. The commenter
urged to require a minimum holding period of 24 hours.
We agree with the commenter that the acidification necessary to
inactivate the FMD virus can be achieved within 24 hours and are
modifying Sec. 94.22(i) in this final rule accordingly. Twenty-four
[[Page 68329]]
hours will be the minimum time required for maturation. If the required
pH is not achieved during 24 hours, the meat may continue to maturate
for up to an additional 24 hours (48 hours total). Any meat that has
not achieved the required pH level in that amount of time may not be
exported to the United States.
We have also determined that a pH lower than 6.0 in the longissimus
dorsi, in conjunction with other conditions included in this final
rule, is a good indicator of FMD virus inactivation. Our review of the
literature revealed that acidification at that level is sufficient to
inactivate FMD virus in muscle tissue of viremic cattle. Furthermore,
over 30 years of epidemiological data show that there is no evidence
that importation of fresh beef that reached a pH of less than 6.0 under
conditions that are already incorporated into the regulations and that
are analogous to those contained in this final rule (e.g., antemortem
and postmortem inspection, lymph node removal, deboning, and
maturation) have been associated with outbreaks of FMD. Therefore, in
Sec. 94.22(i) of this final rule, the meat will be required to reach a
pH of less than 6.0, rather than 5.8 or less, as we had originally
proposed.
Removal of Bones
One commenter stated that there is no basis for limiting approval
for export of ovine meat to boneless products because there has been no
evidence of FMD in sheep in Uruguay since the country requested access
for fresh beef exports in 2003.
We proposed to require that all bone, as well as visually
identifiable blood clots and lymphoid tissue, be removed from fresh
ovine meat prior to export to the United States from Uruguay. The same
requirement has been in place for fresh beef exported from Uruguay.
As we noted in both our risk assessment and in the proposed rule,
although the last case of FMD in Uruguay was in 2001, FMD is endemic in
areas of South America surrounding Uruguay, and there is, accordingly,
a risk that FMD will be reintroduced into the country. Uruguay
vaccinates cattle for FMD in recognition of that risk. Each of the
conditions we proposed, including this one, addresses a critical point
in the pre-export process, from selection of an animal for slaughter to
carcass processing and maturation, where FMD risk can be mitigated. The
conditions were selected based on known modes of transmission and
physical characteristics of the FMD virus. Maturation of the meat
addresses the risk, however small, of FMD virus being present in the
animal at slaughter. The removal of bones and visually identifiable
blood clots and lymphoid tissue is necessary because any FMD virus
these parts might potentially harbor may not be inactivated by the
maturation process.
Certification by Veterinary Officials in Uruguay
One commenter expressed concern about our proposed requirement that
an authorized veterinary official of the Government of Uruguay certify
that all conditions for the importation of beef and ovine meat have
been met. The commenter stated that veterinary officials could be
bribed or otherwise induced to falsely certify meat as meeting the
conditions for importation, which could pose a risk of introducing FMD
into the United States.
As explained in response to another comment, APHIS will be
monitoring the fresh meat export program. If we determine that
inspection certificates are being deliberately falsified, we may take
measures pursuant to our authority under the AHPA to ensure that beef
or ovine meat from Uruguay does not present a risk of introducing FMD
into the United States. Such measures may include prohibiting the
importation of fresh beef and ovine meat from Uruguay.
Labeling of Ovine Meat
One commenter asked whether ovine meat imported as proposed would
be labeled and marketed in the United States as ``fresh.'' The
commenter stated that, because the product would have been chilled or
frozen, it would not meet the average U.S. consumer's definition of
``fresh'' and should not be marketed as such. The commenter also asked
whether ovine meat imported from Uruguay into the United States would
be subject to country-of-origin labeling.
As used in the regulations, the term ``fresh'' simply means that
the meat is imported without having been cooked or cured as otherwise
required of beef or ovine meat from regions not recognized as free of
FMD. APHIS does not regulate the marketing of meat in the United
States. Regarding country-of-origin labeling, the Country of Origin
Labeling (COOL) law requires retailers to notify their customers of the
country of origin for all commodities covered under this law. Muscle
cuts of beef and lamb, as well as ground beef and ground lamb, are
covered. The COOL law is enforced by USDA's Agricultural Marketing
Service and Food Safety and Inspection Service. The COOL law is not
related to animal health, but rather, is a consumer information
program, and thus has no bearing on this rulemaking.
Goat Meat
One commenter expressed concern that inspectors may not know the
difference between a goat kid carcass and a lamb kid carcass.
Establishments in Uruguay that prepare ovine meat for export
slaughter the sheep. Live sheep are easily distinguishable from live
goats. It is unlikely that a facility would slaughter a goat and
present its meat as ovine meat. As discussed previously, APHIS will be
monitoring the fresh meat export program, including through on-site
evaluations and inspections of facilities, records, and operations.
Chronic Wasting Disease
One commenter objected to the lack of inspection for chronic
wasting disease.
Chronic wasting disease (CWD) is a transmissible spongiform
encephalopathy of cervids (members of Cervidae, the deer family).
Species known to be susceptible to CWD via natural routes of
transmission include Rocky Mountain elk, mule deer, white-tailed deer,
black-tailed deer, and moose. There is no evidence that CWD is
transmissible under natural conditions to any other ruminant species,
including cattle and sheep, and, therefore, no need for any CWD-related
safeguards.
Miscellaneous
We have made minor editorial changes to the regulatory text in
Sec. 94.22 for clarity. These include replacing ``and'' with ``or'' in
the following phrases: ``beef and ovine meat,'' ``bovines and sheep,''
and ``bovine parts and ovine parts,'' and changing ``infected
premises'' to ``affected premises.''
Therefore, for the reasons given in the proposed rule and in this
document, we are adopting the proposed rule as a final rule, with the
changes discussed in this document.
Effective Date
This is a substantive rule that relieves restrictions and, pursuant
to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553, may be made effective less than 30
days after publication in the Federal Register. This rule will allow
the importation of fresh ovine meat from Uruguay into the United States
under conditions that will continue to protect the United States
against the introduction of FMD. We have determined that approximately
2 weeks are needed to ensure that APHIS and Department of Homeland
Security, Bureau of Customs and Border
[[Page 68330]]
Protection, personnel at ports of entry receive official notice of this
change in the regulations. Therefore, the Administrator of the Animal
and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this rule
should be effective 15 days after publication in the Federal Register.
Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for the
purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed
by the Office of Management and Budget.
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, we have analyzed
the potential economic effects of this action on small entities. The
analysis is summarized below. Copies of the full analysis are available
on the Regulations.gov Web site (see footnote 1 in this document for a
link to Regulations.gov) or by contacting the person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
This rule will allow the importation of fresh (chilled or frozen)
lamb and mutton from Uruguay under certain conditions. U.S. entities
potentially affected by the rule would be sheep farmers and
establishments primarily engaged in processing meat and meat products
from purchased meat, most of which are small entities under Small
Business Administration standards.
U.S. production of lamb and mutton averaged 79,561 metric tons (MT)
over the 5 years, 2006-2010. Over this same period, imports averaged
almost 75,100 MT (equivalent to about 94 percent of U.S. production).
Uruguay expects its annual lamb and mutton exports to the United States
not to exceed 2,000 MT. This quantity is equivalent to less than 3
percent of U.S. lamb and mutton imports and less than 2 percent of U.S.
domestic supply of these commodities. A percentage of the imports from
Uruguay are likely to displace some of the lamb and mutton imported
from existing foreign suppliers, further dampening any possible effects
for U.S. businesses.
Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
Executive Order 12988
This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988,
Civil Justice Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts all State and local laws
and regulations that are inconsistent with this rule; (2) has no
retroactive effect; and (3) does not require administrative proceedings
before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.
National Environmental Policy Act
An environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact
have been prepared for this final rule. The environmental assessment
provides a basis for the conclusion that the importation of ovine meat
from Uruguay under the conditions specified in the rule will not have a
significant impact on the quality of the human environment. Based on
the finding of no significant impact, the Administrator of the Animal
and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that an
environmental impact statement need not be prepared.
The environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact
were prepared in accordance with: (1) The National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), (2)
regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality for implementing
the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), (3) USDA
regulations implementing NEPA (7 CFR part 1b), and (4) APHIS' NEPA
Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 372).
The environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact
may be viewed on the Regulations.gov Web site.\2\ Copies of the
environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact are also
available for public inspection at USDA, room 1141, South Building,
14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC, between 8 a.m.
and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. Persons wishing
to inspect copies are requested to call ahead on (202) 799-7039 to
facilitate entry into the reading room. In addition, copies may be
obtained by writing to the individual listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Go to https://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-
2008-0085. The environmental assessment and finding of no
significant impact will appear in the resulting list of documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.), the information collection or recordkeeping requirements
included in this rule have been approved by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) under OMB control number 0579-0372.
E-Government Act Compliance
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is committed to
compliance with the E-Government Act to promote the use of the Internet
and other information technologies, to provide increased opportunities
for citizen access to Government information and services, and for
other purposes. For information pertinent to E-Government Act
compliance related to this rule, please contact Mrs. Celeste Sickles,
APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2908.
List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 94
Animal diseases, Imports, Livestock, Meat and meat products, Milk,
Poultry and poultry products, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, we are amending 9 CFR part 94 as follows:
PART 94--RINDERPEST, FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE, NEWCASTLE DISEASE,
HIGHLY PATHOGENIC AVIAN INFLUENZA, AFRICAN SWINE FEVER, CLASSICAL
SWINE FEVER, SWINE VESICULAR DISEASE, AND BOVINE SPONGIFORM
ENCEPHALOPATHY: PROHIBITED AND RESTRICTED IMPORTATIONS
0
1. The authority citation for part 94 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 450, 7701-7772, 7781-7786, and 8301-8317; 21
U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.
0
2. Section 94.1 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(4) and the
introductory text of paragraph (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 94.1 Regions where rinderpest or foot-and-mouth disease exists;
importations prohibited.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(4) Except as provided in Sec. 94.22 for fresh (chilled or frozen)
beef and ovine meat from Uruguay.
* * * * *
(d) Except as otherwise provided in this part, fresh (chilled or
frozen) meat of ruminants or swine raised and slaughtered in a region
free of foot-and-mouth disease and rinderpest, as designated in
paragraph (a) of this section, and fresh (chilled or frozen) beef and
ovine meat exported from Uruguay in accordance with Sec. 94.22, which
during shipment to the United States enters a port or otherwise
transits a region where rinderpest or foot-and-mouth disease exists,
may be imported provided that all of the following conditions are met:
* * * * *
0
3. Section 94.22 is revised to read as follows:
[[Page 68331]]
Sec. 94.22 Restrictions on importation of beef and ovine meat from
Uruguay.
Notwithstanding any other provisions of this part, fresh (chilled
or frozen) beef and ovine meat from Uruguay may be exported to the
United States under the following conditions:
(a) The meat is beef or ovine meat from animals that have been
born, raised, and slaughtered in Uruguay.
(b) Foot-and-mouth disease has not been diagnosed in Uruguay within
the previous 12 months.
(c) The meat comes from bovines or sheep that originate from
premises where foot-and-mouth disease has not been present during the
lifetime of any bovines and sheep slaughtered for the export of beef
and ovine meat to the United States.
(d) The meat comes from bovines or sheep that were moved directly
from the premises of origin to the slaughtering establishment without
any contact with other animals.
(e) The meat comes from bovines or sheep that received ante-mortem
and post-mortem veterinary inspections, paying particular attention to
the head and feet, at the slaughtering establishment, with no evidence
found of vesicular disease.
(f) The meat consists only of bovine parts or ovine parts that are,
by standard practice, part of the animal's carcass that is placed in a
chiller for maturation after slaughter. The bovine and ovine parts that
may not be imported include all parts of the head, feet, hump, hooves,
and internal organs.
(g) All bone and visually identifiable blood clots and lymphoid
tissue have been removed from the meat.
(h) The meat has not been in contact with meat from regions other
than those listed as free of foot-and-mouth disease and rinderpest
under Sec. 94.1(a).
(i) The meat comes from carcasses that were allowed to maturate at
40 to 50 [deg]F (4 to 10 [deg]C) for a minimum of 24 hours after
slaughter and that reached a pH below 6.0 in the loin muscle at the end
of the maturation period. Measurements for pH must be taken at the
middle of both longissimus dorsi muscles. Any carcass in which the pH
does not reach less than 6.0 may be allowed to maturate an additional
24 hours and be retested, and, if the carcass still has not reached a
pH of less than 6.0 after 48 hours, the meat from the carcass may not
be exported to the United States.
(j) An authorized veterinary official of the Government of Uruguay
certifies on the foreign meat inspection certificate that the above
conditions have been met.
(k) The establishment in which the bovines and sheep are
slaughtered allows periodic on-site evaluation and subsequent
inspection of its facilities, records, and operations by an APHIS
representative.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 0579-0372)
Done in Washington, DC, this 7th day of November 2013.
Kevin Shea,
Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-27285 Filed 11-13-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P