Use of Materials Derived From Cattle in Human Food and Cosmetics, 14718-14732 [2016-06123]
Download as PDF
14718
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
circumstances warranting an out-ofcycle review, within 30 days of that
determination USTR will announce a
schedule for the review in the Federal
Register. The schedule will include the
deadline and guidelines for any party to
submit written comments supporting,
opposing or otherwise commenting on
any proposed action.
(3) For any out-of-cycle review
initiated under this paragraph (c), the
AGOA Implementation Subcommittee
will consider public input received by
the applicable deadline and any other
relevant information and report to the
TPSC. The TPSC will conduct further
review as necessary and prepare
recommendations for the U.S. Trade
Representative. The U.S. Trade
Representative may convene the TPRG
or the TPC for further review of
recommendations and other decisions.
The U.S. Trade Representative will
make recommendations to the
President, which may include a
recommendation that no action be
taken.
§ 2017.3
Publication regarding petitions.
USTR will publish in the Federal
Register:
(a) A list of actions taken in response
to a petition, such as the publication of
a Presidential proclamation modifying
the designation of a country or the
application of duty-free treatment with
respect to articles from a country
pursuant to the AGOA; and
(b) A list of petitions upon which no
decision was made, and thus which are
pending further review.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
§ 2017.4
Public inspection.
USTR will make publicly available at
www.regulations.gov:
(a) Any written request, brief or
similar submission of information made
pursuant to this part; and
(b) Any stenographic record of any
public hearing that may be held
pursuant to this part.
(c)(1) USTR will grant business
confidential status and withhold from
public disclosure the information
submitted if the petitioner certifies that
the information customarily would not
be released to the public and clearly
designates the information as
confidential business information.
(2) To request business confidential
status the petitioner must mark the
submission ‘‘BUSINESS
CONFIDENTIAL’’ at the top and bottom
of the cover page and on each
succeeding page, and the submission
should indicate, via brackets, the
specific information that is confidential.
(3) If the submission contains
business confidential information, the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:10 Mar 17, 2016
Jkt 238001
petitioner also must submit a nonconfidential version or summary,
indicating where confidential
information has been redacted, and a
written explanation of why the material
should be protected.
(4) The non-confidential version or
summary will be made publicly
available at www.regulations.gov.
(5) A request for exemption of any
particular information may be denied if
it is determined that such information is
not entitled to exemption under law. In
the event of such a denial, the
information will be returned to the
person who submitted it, with a
statement of the reasons for the denial.
§ 2017.5
Expiration.
The Trade Preferences Extension Act
of 2015 extended the AGOA until
September 30, 2025 (Pub. L. 114–27,
sec. 103, 129 Stat. 364). Accordingly,
this Part will expire on that date unless
extended by statute.
Florizelle Liser,
Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for
African Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2016–06127 Filed 3–17–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3290–F6–P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
21 CFR Parts 189 and 700
[Docket No. FDA–2004–N–0188; (Formerly
2004N–0081)]
RIN 0910–AF47
Use of Materials Derived From Cattle in
Human Food and Cosmetics
AGENCY:
Food and Drug Administration,
HHS.
Final rule; adoption of interim
final rule as final with amendments.
ACTION:
The Food and Drug
Administration (FDA or we) is issuing a
final rule prohibiting the use of certain
cattle material to address the potential
risk of bovine spongiform
encephalopathy (BSE) in human food,
including dietary supplements, and
cosmetics. We have designated the
following items as prohibited cattle
materials: Specified risk materials
(SRMs), the small intestine from all
cattle (unless the distal ileum has been
removed), material from nonambulatory
disabled cattle, material from cattle not
inspected and passed, or mechanically
separated (MS) (Beef). We are taking this
action to minimize human exposure to
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
certain cattle material that could
potentially contain the BSE agent.
DATES: This final rule is effective on
April 18, 2016.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Johnny Braddy, Center for Food Safety
and Applied Nutrition (HFS–315), Food
and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint
Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740,
240–402–1709.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
A. Purpose of the Rule
BSE is a fatal neurological disorder of
cattle that has a long incubation period
(2 to 8 years). It is transmitted when
cattle ingest protein meal containing the
BSE infectious agent. Cattle affected by
BSE are usually apart from the herd and
will show progressively deteriorating
behavioral and neurological signs. Cattle
will react excessively to noise or touch
and will eventually stumble, fall, and
experience seizures, coma, and death.
Studies have linked variant CreutzfeldtJakob disease (vCJD) in humans to
exposure to the BSE agent, most likely
through human consumption of beef
products contaminated with the BSE
agent. There is no known treatment of
vCJD, and it is invariably fatal.
The final rule completes a rulemaking
process that began with an interim final
rule (IFR) in 2004 and was followed by
IFRs in 2005 and 2008. The final rule
establishes measures to prohibit the use
of certain cattle material in FDAregulated human food and cosmetics to
address the potential risk of BSE.
Because the United States has had
measures in place to prevent the
introduction and spread of BSE,
including those affirmed in this rule, the
risk of human exposure to the BSE agent
from FDA-regulated human food and
cosmetics is negligible.
B. Legal Authority
We are issuing these regulations
under the adulteration provisions in
sections 402, 409, 601, and under
section 701 (21 U.S.C. 342, 348, 361,
and 371) of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act).
C. Summary of the Major Provisions of
the Rule
The final rule provides definitions for
prohibited cattle materials and prohibits
their use in human food, dietary
supplements, and cosmetics, to address
the potential risk of BSE. We designate
the following items as prohibited cattle
materials: SRMs, the small intestine
from all cattle unless the distal ileum
has been properly removed, material
from nonambulatory disabled cattle,
E:\FR\FM\18MRR1.SGM
18MRR1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
material from cattle not inspected and
passed, or MS (Beef). We also confirm
that milk and milk products, hides and
hide-derived products, tallow that
contains no more than 0.15 percent
insoluble impurities, and tallow
derivatives are not prohibited cattle
materials. Further, we are amending the
final rule to provide a definition of
gelatin and to clarify that gelatin is not
considered a prohibited cattle material
under 21 CFR 189.5(a)(1) and
700.27(a)(1) as long as it is
manufactured using the customary
industry processes specified. Finally,
we are finalizing the process for
designating a country as not subject to
BSE-related restrictions applicable to
FDA regulated human food and
cosmetics. Specific requirements
regarding record maintenance,
retention, and accessibility, for
manufacturers and processors of a
human food or cosmetic product made
with material from cattle were
previously finalized (see 71 FR 59653).
D. Costs and Benefits
This final rule reaffirms the
provisions in the 2004 IFR, as well as
the 2005 and 2008 amendments, to
address the potential risk of BSE in
human food including dietary
supplements, and in cosmetics. As the
final rule’s coverage does not differ from
the 2004 IFR and the 2005 and 2008
amendments, no additional costs or
benefits will accrue from this
rulemaking.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Table of Contents
I. Introduction—what is BSE?
II. Background—what Is the history for this
rulemaking?
III. What is the legal authority for this
rulemaking?
IV. What comments did we receive? What are
our responses?
A. Definitions (§§ 189.5(a) and 700.27(a))
B. Requirements (§§ 189.5(b) and
700.27(b))
C. Records (§§ 189.5(c) and 700.27(c))
D. Adulteration (§§ 189.5(d) and 700.27(d))
E. Process for Designating Countries
(§§ 189.5(e) and 700.27(e))
F. Other Comments
V. Regulatory Impact Analysis
A. Overview
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996
D. Unfunded Mandatory Reform Act of
1995
VI. Environmental Impact, No Significant
Impact
VII. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
VIII. Federalism
IX. References
I. Introduction—what is BSE?
BSE is a progressive and fatal
neurological disorder of cattle caused by
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:10 Mar 17, 2016
Jkt 238001
an unconventional transmissible agent.
BSE belongs to the family of diseases
known as transmissible spongiform
encephalopathies (TSEs). In the late
stages of disease, 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 TSE agent. Other types
of TSEs include scrapie in sheep and
goats, chronic wasting disease in deer
and elk, and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease
(CJD) in humans.
BSE has a long incubation period (2
to 8 years), and is most likely
transmitted when tissues from infected
cattle are rendered and processed into
protein meal, which is then used as an
additive in livestock feed (Refs. 1 and
2). The clinical signs of BSE include
behavioral, gait, and postural
abnormalities. Cattle with the disease
often present with increased
apprehension, increased reaction to
sound and touch, and a swaying gait.
These signs may be accompanied by
subtle changes in the normal behavior of
the cow, such as separation from the
herd while at pasture, disorientation,
staring, and excessive licking of the
nose or flanks. The disease progresses to
stumbling and falling, and ends with
seizures, coma, and death (Ref. 3).
Scientific and epidemiological studies
have linked vCJD in humans to
exposure to the BSE agent, most likely
through human consumption of beef
products contaminated with the agent.
In several cases that occurred in the
United Kingdom (UK), it is believed that
the persons became infected through
transfusion of blood from an
asymptomatic infected donor. There is
no known treatment of vCJD, and it is
invariably fatal (Ref. 4).
As of June 2, 2014, vCJD has been
identified in 229 patients from 12
countries. One hundred seventy-seven
probable and confirmed cases of vCJD
have been reported in the UK, 27 in
France, 5 in Spain, 4 in Ireland, 4 in the
United States, 3 in the Netherlands, 2 in
Portugal, 2 in Italy, 2 in Canada, and
one each from Japan, Saudi Arabia, and
Taiwan (Ref. 5). In two of the four U.S.
cases, exposure to the BSE agent is
believed to have occurred while the
individuals were residing in the UK. A
third case was likely exposed while
residing in Saudi Arabia. An
investigation of the fourth case found
that the patient’s exposure to the BSE
agent likely occurred before the patient
moved to the United States (Ref. 5). In
the United States, where measures to
prevent the introduction and spread of
BSE have been in place for some time,
the risk of human exposure to the BSE
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
14719
agent is extremely low. Indeed, in May
2013, the World Organization for
Animal Health (OIE) recognized the
effectiveness of these mitigation
measures and categorized the United
States as negligible BSE risk, in
accordance with Chapter 11.4 of the OIE
Terrestrial Animal Health Code (Refs. 6
and 7).
II. Background—what is the history for
this rulemaking?
In the Federal Register of July 14,
2004 (69 FR 42256), we issued an IFR
entitled ‘‘Use of Materials Derived From
Cattle in Human Food and Cosmetics’’
(also referred to as ‘‘the 2004 IFR’’) to
prohibit the use of certain cattle
material, to address the potential risk of
BSE in human food, including dietary
supplements, and cosmetics. The 2004
IFR designated the following items as
prohibited cattle materials: SRMs, the
small intestine from all cattle, material
from nonambulatory disabled cattle,
material from cattle not inspected and
passed or MS (Beef). SRMs include the
brain, skull, eyes, trigeminal ganglia,
spinal cord, vertebral column
(excluding the vertebrae of the tail, the
transverse processes of the thoracic and
lumbar vertebrae, and the wings of the
sacrum), and dorsal root ganglia (DRG)
of cattle 30 months of age and older, and
the tonsils and distal ileum of the small
intestine from all cattle. These
restrictions were codified at § 189.5,
‘‘Prohibited cattle materials,’’ and
§ 700.27, ‘‘Use of prohibited cattle
materials in cosmetic products.’’ The
requirements in §§ 189.5 and 700.27 are
almost identical, except that the latter
pertains only to cosmetic products.
Previously, the Food Safety and
Inspection Service (FSIS) of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA)
published an IFR in the Federal
Register on January 12, 2004 (69 FR
1862) (FSIS IFR). The FSIS IFR
prohibited certain cattle material from
use in meat and meat products. The
FSIS IFR designated the same items as
SRMs as specified in FDA’s 2004 IFR. In
the Federal Register of July 13, 2007,
FSIS affirmed the FSIS IFR with
amendments (72 FR 38700) (‘‘2007 FSIS
affirmation’’). In the Federal Register of
September 7, 2005 (70 FR 53063), we
amended our regulations to permit the
use of the small intestine of cattle in
human food and cosmetics provided the
distal ileum portion has been removed
properly (also referred to as the ‘‘2005
amendment’’). The 2005 amendment
also clarified that milk and milk
products, hides and hide-derived
products, and tallow derivatives are not
prohibited cattle materials, and we
provided for a different method for
E:\FR\FM\18MRR1.SGM
18MRR1
14720
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
determining impurities in tallow. FSIS
also amended its regulations on
September 7, 2005, to permit the use of
the small intestine of cattle in human
food provided the distal ileum is
removed properly (70 FR 53043).
In the Federal Register of April 17,
2008 (73 FR 20785), we amended our
regulations again to provide a process
for designating certain countries as not
subject to certain BSE-related
restrictions (also referred to as the ‘‘2008
amendment’’). FSIS provided a similar
country-specific exception from certain
BSE restrictions covered in its
regulations.
We also published a notice in the
Federal Register on March 4, 2013 (78
FR 14012) (also referred to as the 2013
notice), reopening the comment period
for the interim final rule. We invited
comment on our assessment of recently
published peer-reviewed scientific
studies in which trace amounts of BSE
infectivity were found in parts of the
small intestines other than the distal
ileum of cattle with both experimental
and natural occurring BSE.
In this rule, we are finalizing, with
changes related to gelatin, the 2004 IFR,
as amended in 2005 and 2008, to restrict
certain cattle materials used in human
foods and cosmetics that carry a risk of
transmitting BSE. The final rule
complements similar restrictions that
apply to meat and meat products
regulated by USDA.
III. What is the legal authority for this
rulemaking?
We are issuing these regulations
under the adulteration provisions in
sections 402, 409, 601, and under
section 701 of the FD&C Act.
Under section 402(a)(3) of the FD&C
Act, a food is deemed adulterated ‘‘if it
consists in whole or in part of any
filthy, putrid, or decomposed substance,
or if it is otherwise unfit for food.’’ The
term ‘‘otherwise unfit for food’’ in
section 402(a)(3) of the FD&C Act does
not require that a food be filthy, putrid,
or decomposed for it to be ‘‘otherwise
unfit for food.’’ A food can be
‘‘otherwise unfit for food’’ based on
health risks. Further, the possibility of
disease transmission to humans from
exposure to prohibited cattle material,
SRM, MS Beef, material from
nonambulatory disabled cattle, and
material from cattle not inspected and
passed) may present a risk to human
health. Under section 402(a)(3) of the
FD&C Act, these materials are unfit for
food. Under section 402(a)(4) of the
FD&C Act, a food is adulterated ‘‘if it
has been prepared, packed, or held
under insanitary conditions whereby it
may have become contaminated with
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:10 Mar 17, 2016
Jkt 238001
filth, or whereby it may have been
rendered injurious to health.’’ The
failure to ensure that food is prepared,
packed, or held under conditions in
which prohibited cattle materials do not
contaminate the food constitutes an
insanitary condition whereby it may
have been rendered injurious to health
and thus renders the food adulterated
under section 402(a)(4) of the FD&C Act.
Under section 402(a)(5) of the FD&C
Act, food is deemed adulterated if it is,
in whole or in part, the product of an
animal which has died otherwise than
by slaughter. Some cattle are not
inspected and passed because they have
died before slaughter. Material from
cattle that die otherwise than by
slaughter is adulterated under section
402(a)(5) of the FD&C Act. As further
explained in the 2004 IFR, prohibited
cattle materials for use in human food
are food additives subject to section 409
of the FD&C Act, except when used as
dietary ingredients in dietary
supplements. The use or intended use of
any prohibited cattle material in human
food, except for dietary ingredients in
dietary supplements, causes the
material and the food to be adulterated
under section 402(a)(2)(C) of the FD&C
Act.
Under section 601(c) of the FD&C Act,
a cosmetic is adulterated ‘‘if it has been
prepared, packed, or held under
insanitary conditions whereby it may
have become contaminated with filth, or
whereby it may have been rendered
injurious to health.’’ The failure to
ensure that a cosmetic is prepared,
packed, or held under conditions in
which prohibited cattle materials do not
contaminate the cosmetic constitutes an
insanitary condition whereby it may
have been rendered injurious to health
and, thus, renders the cosmetic
adulterated under section 601(c) of the
FD&C Act.
Under section 701(a) of the FD&C Act,
we may issue regulations for the
efficient enforcement of the FD&C Act.
A regulation that requires measures to
prevent human food from being unfit for
food, from being or bearing an unsafe
food additive, from being the product of
an animal that died otherwise than by
slaughter, and to prevent human food
and cosmetics from being held under
insanitary conditions, allows for
efficient enforcement of the FD&C Act.
IV. What comments did we receive?
What are our responses?
We received approximately 1,464
comments, each containing one or more
issues, to the 2004 IFR, and
approximately 20 comments, each
containing one or more issues, to the
2005 and 2008 amendments, and 31
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
comments to the 2013 notice. Animal
welfare advocacy organizations, private
consultants, consumer groups, foreign
governments, Members of Congress,
industry, and consumers submitted
comments. Comments previously
addressed in the 2005 and 2008
amendments, and comments addressing
issues outside the scope of this
rulemaking (e.g., those addressing
potential concerns regarding diseases
other than BSE; those addressing animal
welfare concerns, which are covered in
the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act
of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.) and
administered by USDA); the prohibition
of the use of materials from
nonambulatory animals other than cattle
(i.e., deer, elk, and sheep); and those
responding to rules issued by other
federal agencies will not be addressed in
this document.
To make it easier to identify the
comments and FDA’s responses, the
word ‘‘Comment,’’ in parentheses,
appears before the comment’s
description and the word ‘‘Response,’’
in parentheses, appears before FDA’s
response. Each comment is numbered to
help distinguish between different
comments. The number assigned to each
comment is purely for organizational
purposes and does not signify the
comment’s value or importance.
A. Definitions (§§ 189.5(a) and
700.27(a))
Sections 189.5(a) and 700.27(a) state
that the definitions and interpretations
of terms in section 201 of the FD&C Act
apply (21 U.S.C. 321) and also define
the following terms: ‘‘prohibited cattle
materials,’’ ‘‘inspected and passed,’’
‘‘mechanically separated,’’
‘‘nonambulatory disabled cattle,’’
‘‘specified risk material,’’ ‘‘tallow,’’
‘‘tallow derivative,’’ and ‘‘gelatin.’’
Several comments pertained to our
regulatory definitions, and we discuss
those comments here.
1. ‘‘Prohibited Cattle Materials’’
(§§ 189.5(a)(1) and 700.27(a)(1))
The 2004 interim final rule defined
‘‘prohibited cattle materials’’ as
specified risk materials, small intestine
of all cattle, material from
nonambulatory disabled cattle, material
from cattle not inspected and passed, or
MS (Beef). The 2004 IFR also defined
‘‘prohibited cattle material’’ as not to
include tallow that contains ‘‘no more
than 0.15 percent hexane-insoluble
impurities and tallow derivatives.’’ The
2005 amendment made an exception in
the case of the small intestine such that
the small intestine would not be
considered prohibited cattle material if
the distal ileum is removed by a
E:\FR\FM\18MRR1.SGM
18MRR1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
procedure that removes at least 80
inches of the uncoiled and trimmed
small intestine in a manner specified in
§ 189.5(b)(2) (or, in the case of § 700.27,
§ 700.27(b)(2)) and also changed
‘‘hexane-insoluble’’ to ‘‘insoluble’’ in
the definition of ‘‘tallow.’’ The 2005
amendment also excluded hides and
hide-derived products, and milk and
milk products from the definition of
‘‘prohibited cattle materials.’’ The 2008
amendment provided that FDA may
designate a country as not subject to
certain BSE-related restrictions
applicable to FDA regulated human
food and cosmetics.
We did not receive comments specific
to the definition of ‘‘prohibited cattle
materials at §§ 189.5(a)(1) and
700.27(a)(1), and we have finalized that
portion of the definition without
change.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
a. Tallow, Tallow Derivatives, Gelatin,
Hides and Hide-Derived Products, and
Milk and Milk Products
(§§ 189.5(a)(1)(i) and 700.27(a)(1)(i))
(Comment 1) One comment supported
the exclusion of hides and hide-derived
products from the definition of
prohibited cattle materials but said that
we need to address the possible crosscontamination of hides and other nonprohibited cattle materials with
prohibited cattle materials during
slaughter and processing.
(Response 1) As noted in the 2005
amendment, manufacturers and
processors must take precautions to
avoid cross contamination of hides and
other non-prohibited cattle material
with prohibited cattle material during
slaughter and processing (70 FR 53063
at 53066). Further, food establishments
are subject to the current good
manufacturing practice requirements
(CGMPs) at 21 CFR part 110, and the
failure to take adequate measures to
prevent cross-contamination could
result in insanitary conditions whereby
the food may be rendered injurious to
health and, therefore, adulterated under
section 402(a)(4) of the FD&C Act.
(Comment 2) While most comments
found the clarification as to the
allowable composition of tallow source
material used in tallow derivatives in
the preamble to the 2005 amendment
helpful, one comment suggested that we
revise the definition of ‘‘prohibited
cattle materials’’ to state that:
‘‘Prohibited cattle materials do not
include tallow that contains no more
than 0.15 percent insoluble impurities,
tallow derivatives (regardless of the
source of tallow), hides and hidederived products, and milk and milk
products.’’
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:10 Mar 17, 2016
Jkt 238001
(Response 2) We understand that the
intent of the parenthetical ‘‘regardless of
the source of the tallow’’ is to make
clear that the chemical processes
(hydrolysis, transesterification, and
saponification) involving high
temperature and pressure are
sufficiently rigorous even if the starting
tallow is, for example, inedible tallow or
tallow containing greater than 0.15
percent insoluble impurities. We agree
that the processes to produce tallow
derivatives are sufficiently rigorous, but
believe that by excluding tallow
derivatives, without the parenthetical,
from the definition of prohibited cattle
material, it is clear that we are
excluding all tallow derivatives.
Prohibited cattle material does not
include tallow derivatives. We do not
believe the parenthetical ‘‘regardless of
the source of tallow’’ is needed.
(Comment 3) One comment would
revise the definition of prohibited cattle
materials to emphasize the rigorousness
of the processing involved in the
production of tallow derivatives (i.e.,
transesterification or saponification) to
minimize the risk of transmitting TSE
agents. The comment was concerned
that the ‘‘lack of alignment’’ between
U.S. and non-U.S. requirements and
guidance with respect to tallow
derivatives will continue to affect the
acceptance of U.S.-origin materials in
non-U.S. markets.
(Response 3) We decline to revise the
definition as suggested by the comment.
Our objective in developing our BSE
regulations for human food and
cosmetics, including these involving
tallow derivatives, is to apply
appropriate measures to safeguard life
and health and be no more trade
restrictive than necessary to achieve the
food and cosmetic safety objective. As to
the degree of processing involved in
producing tallow derivatives, we
addressed this subject in the preamble
to the 2004 IFR (69 FR 42256 at 42261)
and discussed how tallow derivatives
are produced by subjecting tallow to
chemical processes (hydrolysis,
transesterification, and saponification)
that involve high temperature and
pressure. We further noted in the 2004
IFR that FDA’s Transmissible
Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory
Committee (TSEAC) considered the
safety of tallow and tallow derivatives
in 1998 and ‘‘determined that the
rigorous conditions of manufacture are
sufficient to further reduce the BSE risk
in tallow derivatives’’ (69 FR 42256 at
42261).
We have revised the list of materials
not considered prohibited cattle
materials at §§ 189.5(a)(1)(i) and
700.27(a)(1)(i) to include gelatin. To
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
14721
ensure that only gelatin derived from
customary industry processes qualifies
for this exclusion, §§ 189.5(a)(8) and
700.27(a)(8) of the final rule provide
that ‘‘Gelatin means a product that has
been obtained by the partial hydrolysis
of collagen derived from hides,
connective tissue, and/or bone bones of
cattle and swine. Gelatin may be either
Type A (derived from an acid-treated
precursor) or Type B (derived from an
alkali-treated precursor) that has gone
through processing steps that include
filtration and sterilization or an
equivalent process in terms of
infectivity reduction.’’
There has been increasing recognition
based on scientific evidence as to the
safety of gelatin for human use
irrespective of the source materials from
which it is made. For example,
laboratory studies have indicated that
gelatin manufacturing processes are
capable of reducing inoculated BSE
prion titers by at least six to eight orders
of magnitude (Ref. 8). The OIE Code
does not recommend any restrictions,
regardless of the BSE status of a country,
in trade of gelatin prepared from bones
and intended for food, cosmetics,
pharmaceuticals including biologicals,
or medical devices, among other items
(Ref. 9). A 2006 scientific panel of the
European Food Safety Authority
(EFSA)—reviewing a 2003 EFSA
Scientific Steering Committee opinion—
concluded that there was no support for
prohibition of or restrictions on the use
of skull and vertebrae of cattle that had
passed ante mortem and post mortem
inspections in the production of gelatin
(Ref. 10). Based on this evidence, we
conclude that gelatin manufactured
from bovine raw materials using
customary industry processes presents a
negligible risk of transmitting the agent
that causes BSE.
(b) Cattle Materials Inspected and
Passed From Designated Countries
(§§ 189.5(a)(1)(ii) and 700.27(a)(1)(ii))
(Comment 4) One comment
supporting a mechanism to designate
countries as not subject to certain BSErelated restrictions (provided under
§ 189.5(a)(1)(ii)) expressed concerns that
interested countries would need to go
through separate application and
evaluation processes at USDA and FDA
for a country to receive a USDA and
FDA-granted designation. The comment
requested that the application and
evaluation procedures used by the
different U.S. regulating agencies be
streamlined to reduce the potential
duplication of time and effort by the
applying country.
(Response 4) We understand the
concern expressed by the comment.
E:\FR\FM\18MRR1.SGM
18MRR1
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
14722
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
However, as we explained in the 2008
amendment, FDA and USDA have
different regulatory responsibilities with
respect to preventing BSE and ensuring
food safety (73 FR 20785 at 20788).
While we have our own evaluation
process, we will consult with USDA as
part of this process (73 FR 20785 at
20788). Further, we will take into
consideration available risk assessments
of other competent authorities in
conducting our evaluations (73 FR
20785 at 20788.). Although not required,
a previous BSE evaluation performed by
USDA’s FSIS or Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service (APHIS), or
by OIE, or by another country or
competent authority, could be used by
FDA as part of our review (73 FR 20785
at 20788).
(Comment 5) Several comments from
the gelatin industry requested that
gelatin be excluded from consideration
as a prohibited cattle material. The
comments noted that standard industry
practice is to produce gelatin using raw
materials from animals inspected and
passed for human consumption, that
SRMs and materials from
nonambulatory disabled cattle are
excluded, that the safety of gelatin is
based on adherence to industry
practices, as well as our CGMPs and
USDA regulations, and that gelatin
made from bovine raw materials
undergoes manufacturing processes that
inactivate possible BSE infectivity,
citing studies by the European
Commission (EC) and the Gelatine
Manufacturers of Europe. Several
comments noted that TSEAC reviewed
these studies and concluded on July 17,
2003, that these studies ‘‘demonstrate a
reduction in infectivity that is sufficient
to protect human health.’’
(Response 5) We agree with the
comments and have revised
§§ 189.5(a)(1)(i) and 700.27(a)(1)(i) to
include gelatin in the list of materials
not considered ‘‘prohibited cattle
materials.’’ We are making this change
because gelatin manufactured according
to customary industry processes present
a negligible risk of transmitting the BSE
agent and should not be considered
‘‘prohibited cattle materials.’’
(Comment 6) Several comments took
issue with an FDA statement appearing
in the background section to the 2004
IFR that provided certain products, such
as gelatin and collagen, ‘‘have
traditionally been produced from cattle
material deemed inedible by the USDA’’
(69 FR 42256 at 42261). The comments
pointed out that U.S. raw materials used
to produce gelatin come from cattle that
have been inspected and passed by
USDA for human consumption and are
produced in accordance with FDA and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:10 Mar 17, 2016
Jkt 238001
USDA regulations, and in accordance
with applicable FDA human food
CGMPs. These comments further noted
that only safe raw materials are used to
produce gelatin and that SRMs and
materials from nonambulatory disabled
cattle are excluded. One comment
specifically requested that we publish a
correction in the Federal Register
clarifying that gelatin is not produced
from inedible material.
(Response 6) The quoted statement
was included in a broader discussion
explaining in part why we were
extending similar protections to FDAregulated human foods and cosmetics as
USDA had already imposed in USDAinspected facilities. We agree that
gelatin is manufactured from raw
materials that have been inspected and
passed for human consumption.
(Comment 7) Several comments
requested that we clarify whether our
gelatin guidance document published in
1997 (Ref. 11) will be revoked or revised
in light of this regulation. The
comments expressed concern that
gelatin manufacturers would face an
unnecessary regulatory burden
depending on whether the product the
gelatin is used in is a food product or
dietary supplement, or a pharmaceutical
product, or for other FDA-regulated
uses. The comments also requested that
we explicitly state that our gelatin
guidance document is no longer
applicable for products intended for oral
consumption or cosmetic use by
humans.
(Response 7) This final rule
supersedes the 1997 guidance with
respect to human food and cosmetics.
We intend to review the 1997 guidance
and will consider withdrawing or
revising the guidance, as appropriate,
consistent with this final rule.
2. ‘‘Inspected and Passed’’
(§§ 189.5(a)(2) and 700.27(a)(2))
The regulations define ‘‘inspected and
passed’’ as meaning that the product has
been inspected and passed for human
consumption by the appropriate
regulatory authority, and at the time it
was inspected and passed, it was found
to be not adulterated. We did not
receive comments specific to our
definition of ‘‘inspected and passed,’’
and we have finalized the definition
without change.
3. ‘‘Mechanically Separated (MS)
(Beef)’’ (§§ 189.5(a)(3) and 700.27(a)(3))
The regulations define ‘‘mechanically
separated (MS) (beef)’’ as a meat food
product that is finely comminuted,
resulting from the mechanical
separation and removal of most bone
from the attached skeletal muscle of
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
cattle carcasses or parts of carcasses that
meet certain USDA specifications. We
did not receive comments specific to
our definition of ‘‘(MS) (Beef).’’
On our own initiative, we have
revised the definition of ‘‘mechanically
separated (MS) (Beef)’’ to clarify that 9
CFR 319.5, which we cite in
§§ 189.5(a)(3) and 700.27(a)(3), refers to
a USDA regulation. Thus, the final rule
adds ‘‘U.S. Department of Agriculture’’
before ‘‘regulation.’’
4. ‘‘Nonambulatory Disabled Cattle’’
(§§ 189.5(a)(4) and 700.27(a)(4))
The regulations define
‘‘nonambulatory disabled cattle’’ as
cattle that cannot rise from a recumbent
position or that cannot walk, including,
but not limited to, cattle with broken
appendages, severed tendons or
ligaments, nerve paralysis, fractured
vertebral column, or metabolic
conditions.
(Comment 8) One comment suggested
that downer animals should be tested
first for BSE and held pending the
outcome of the testing before deciding
to prohibit the use of material from
nonambulatory disabled cattle in human
food and cosmetics. If the test results are
negative, then the carcass could be used
for human food and cosmetics.
(Response 8) This option is not
feasible due to the limitations of
currently available tests. No validated
ante mortem test for BSE currently
exists. Available post mortem tests,
although useful for disease surveillance
purposes in terms of determining the
rate of disease in the population of
cattle, are not appropriate as a safety
indicator for human food or cosmetics
because there is a potentially long
period in the life of an infected animal
where tests using the current
methodology would not detect the
disease (Refs. 12 through 14). This is
due, in part, to limitations on existing
testing methods, which rely on the use
of post mortem brain tissue.
Experimental evidence demonstrates
that for cattle infected orally, certain
potentially infective tissues (such as the
distal ileum and tonsils) are the first
tissues to accumulate infectivity in the
incubation period and this infectivity
occurs prior to any demonstrated
infectivity in brain tissue (Refs. 12
through 14). Therefore, tests conducted
on brain tissue may not accurately
reflect the potential infectivity in other
tissues that develop infectivity earlier,
such as the distal ileum.
As a result, we have finalized the
definition of ‘‘nonambulatory disabled
cattle’’ without change.
(Comment 9) One comment stated
that our restrictions relating to materials
E:\FR\FM\18MRR1.SGM
18MRR1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
from nonambulatory disabled cattle
should not apply to custom slaughtered
animals.
(Response 9) This final rule does not
apply to custom slaughtered cattle
because such cattle are for the owner’s
exclusive use and not for use in FDA
regulated human food and cosmetics.
FDA notes that, in our 2007 affirmation
of our interim final rule with
amendments, FSIS determined that it
cannot permit the custom slaughter or
preparation of products of
nonambulatory disabled cattle for
human food even if it is for the owner’s
exclusive use because FSIS considers
the carcasses of these animals to be
adulterated (72 FR 38700 at 38703 to
38704).
5. ‘‘Specified Risk Material’’
(§§ 189.5(a)(5) and 700.27(a)(5))
The regulations define ‘‘specified risk
material’’ as meaning the brain, skull,
eyes, trigeminal ganglia, spinal cord,
vertebral column (excluding the
vertebrae of the tail, the transverse
processes of the thoracic and lumbar
vertebrae, and the wings of the sacrum),
and dorsal root ganglia of cattle 30
months and older. The definition also
includes tonsils and distal ileum of the
small intestine of all cattle as ‘‘specified
risk material.’’
In the Federal Register of March 4,
2013 (78 FR 14012), we reopened the
comment period for the IFR due to new
studies showing infectivity in parts of
the small intestine other than the distal
ileum. We noted that there were studies
showing the presence of some
infectivity in the proximal ileum,
jejunum, ileocecal junction, and colon
of cattle with BSE. We also noted that
the infectivity levels reported in the
studies were lower than the infectivity
levels previously demonstrated for the
distal ileum (78 FR 14012 at 14013). We
put the studies into the administrative
record and invited comment on them,
and also said that we had tentatively
concluded that the effect of these traces
of infectivity on the risk of human or
ruminant exposure to BSE in the United
States is negligible (78 FR 14012). We
tentatively concluded that ‘‘requiring
the removal of additional parts of the
small intestine would not provide a
measurable risk reduction compared to
that already being achieved by removal
of the distal ileum in all cattle and that
it would be appropriate to finalize our
interim final rule without changing any
provisions related to the small
intestine’’ (78 FR 14012).
(Comment 10) One comment asked
whether the pituitary gland of cattle is
considered an SRM and would have to
be removed from the carcass when the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:10 Mar 17, 2016
Jkt 238001
brain is removed if the cattle is 30
months of age or older.
(Response 10) The pituitary gland or
hypophysis lies at the base of the brain,
contacting the hypothalamus.
Anatomically, it is considered part of
the brain. Thus, the pituitary gland or
hypophysis is considered an SRM in
cattle 30 months or age or older and
must be removed from the carcass when
the brain is removed.
(Comment 11) One comment
requested that the vertebral column not
be considered an SRM because the
attached DRG as well as the loosely
attached spinal cord, which are sources
of BSE infectivity, can be safely
separated and removed from the
vertebral column. (In general terms,
DRG are nerves attached to the spinal
cord.) The comment did not submit any
data in support of its position nor did
it explain the method or methods for
safely separating and removing the DRG
from the vertebral column.
(Response 11) We decline to revise
the rule as suggested by the comment.
While the vertebral column has not been
shown to harbor BSE infectivity, it does
contain tissues (i.e., DRG, spinal cord)
that have been shown to be infectious.
Technologies are not currently available
to safely remove the DRG without
removing part of the vertebral column
(see 2007 FSIS affirmation, 72 FR 38700
at 38710). The 2007 FSIS affirmation
also noted that while the DRG is located
within the vertebral bones, it could
potentially become dislodged during
consumption of bone-in-beef products.
Therefore, the vertebral column
(excluding the vertebrae of the tail, the
transverse processes of the thoracic and
lumbar vertebrae, and the wings of the
sacrum) from cattle 30 months of age
and older is included in the list of
SRMs. We will reconsider this issue if
technology becomes available to safely
remove the DRG from the vertebral
column, but we have finalized the
definition of ‘‘specified risk material’’
without change.
(Comment 12) One comment
requested that we revise the definition
of SRMs to include meat obtained from
vertebral columns processed with
Advanced Meat Recovery (AMR)
systems because of the instances of DRG
and spinal cord being detected in AMR
products.
(Response 12) We decline to revise
the rule as suggested by the comment.
USDA regulations, at 9 CFR 318.24,
provide that vertebral columns of cattle
30 months of age and older (excluding
the vertebrae of the tail, the transverse
processes of the thoracic and lumbar
vertebrae, and the wings of the sacrum)
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
14723
are SRMs and therefore cannot be used
as source materials for AMR systems.
(Comment 13) One comment stated
that, although we noted that the OIE has
not designated any intestinal sections
other than the distal ileum as SRM, the
OIE did not conduct a risk assessment
to support that statement.
(Response 13) We did not intend to
imply that the OIE had conducted a risk
assessment or studied the new research
findings and published its conclusions
about the significance to human health.
We meant that the OIE had not added
parts of the small intestine other than
the distal ileum to its recommendations
on commodities that should not be
traded (Ref. 15).
(Comment 14) Some comments
recommended that the 30-month age
cutoff, which provides a basis for
designating certain cattle materials as
SRMs, should be changed to a 12-month
cutoff because of scientific uncertainty
about how BSE spreads in cattle, and
because the true prevalence of the
disease in the United States is not fully
known.
(Response 14) We disagree with these
comments. Experimental and
epidemiological evidence have clearly
linked transmission of BSE to using
protein derived from BSE infected cattle
as an additive in cattle feed. FDA’s 1997
and 2008 BSE feed regulations prohibit
this practice. Further, ongoing BSE
surveillance conducted by USDA
APHIS, which tests approximately
40,000 animals from the highest risk
cattle population per year, shows that
the prevalence in the United States is
less than one case per million adult
cattle in the United States (Ref. 16). We
therefore believe that the 30-month
cutoff is appropriate for the BSE risk
status in the United States, as we first
discussed in our 2004 IFR (69 FR 42256
at 42259–60).
(Comment 15) One comment
recommended that a 12-month cutoff for
purposes of designating certain cattle
materials as SRMs would be more
prudent given the scientific uncertainty
in fully understanding the possible
ways that the BSE agent might infect
humans.
(Response 15) We disagree that an
additional margin of safety in the age
cutoff is needed because of scientific
uncertainty about how humans are
exposed to the BSE agent. The 30-month
cutoff is internationally recognized and
well supported by pathogenesis studies
that were designed to determine the
tissue distribution of the BSE agent as
the disease progresses in BSE-infected
cattle.
(Comment 16) Several comments
recommended that materials currently
E:\FR\FM\18MRR1.SGM
18MRR1
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
14724
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
designated as SRMs if they are from
cattle 30 months of age and older should
be considered SRMs regardless of the
animal’s age and should be prohibited
from entering the food supply.
According to the comment, a broad
prohibition on the use of SRMs
regardless of the animal’s age would
significantly reduce the need of
determining the age of each animal, and
thereby improve enforcement. Some
comments pointed out that, in the
absence of a national animal
identification system, any determination
of an animal’s age is based typically on
a physical assessment, and such an
assessment can be subjective.
(Response 16) We disagree that the
full list of SRMs should be removed
from all cattle to eliminate the need for
aging the animals. Methods of aging
allowed under FSIS regulations, such as
documentation and dentition, are
reliable for identifying cattle over 30
months of age.
(Comment 17) One comment
recommended that vertebral columns of
cattle of all ages should be considered
SRMs, not just vertebral columns of
cattle 30 months of age and older, but
the comment did not provide evidence
or data to support the change.
(Response 17) We disagree with this
recommendation. As previously stated
in Comment and Response 14,
pathogenesis studies support a 30month cutoff in low BSE prevalence
countries like the United States.
(Comment 18) Several comments
noted that available post mortem tests
are capable of identifying the presence
of the BSE agent only near the end of
the animal’s incubation period;
therefore cattle younger than 30 months
of age in the early stages of BSE that do
not test positive for the disease may be
harboring the BSE agent. The comments
suggested that the definition of SRM not
exclude certain materials from cattle
younger than 30 months.
(Response 18) We agree about the
limitation of BSE test methods, but
disagree that the limitations should
influence the SRM definition. The 30month cutoff is based on pathogenesis
studies, not on diagnostic capabilities.
(Comment 19) One comment
supported a 12-month cutoff for
classifying animal age-related SRMs due
to uncertainty surrounding a published
study that suggested that there may be
another form of TSE in cattle, referred
to as bovine amyloidotic spongiform
encephalopathy (BASE).
(Response 19) We do not agree that
the 12-month cutoff is necessary for the
BASE strain of BSE, also known as Ltype BSE. FSIS pointed out in the 2007
FSIS affirmation that the available data
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:10 Mar 17, 2016
Jkt 238001
on the BASE strain do not indicate that
cattle with this form of BSE are more
likely to contain higher levels of the
infective agent early in the incubation
period than cattle with the ‘‘typical’’
BSE strain (72 FR 38700 at 38707). As
FSIS concluded, additional study on the
BASE form of BSE will be needed to
determine its significance.
(Comment 20) One comment
recommended expanding the SRM
definition to include the entire head of
cattle 30 months of age and older. The
comment also stated that cheek and
head meat of cattle 12 months of age
and older should be removed before the
skull is fragmented or split, based on
concerns that the head or cheek meat
may contain central nervous system
materials if the meat is not removed
before the skull is fragmented or split.
To support its arguments, the comment
referred to a 2002 USDA FSIS paper that
discussed the prohibition of cheek meat
from cattle aged 24 months and older for
human food if the meat is not removed
before the skull is fragmented or split.
(Response 20) We disagree that the
entire head of cattle 30 months of age
and older should be condemned
because of concerns that head meat and
cheek meat could be contaminated with
central nervous system tissue. FSIS
regulations (9 CFR 310.22(e)) require
that establishment procedures for
removal of SRMS at slaughter must
address potential contamination of
edible materials with specified risk
materials. Such procedures would
include taking steps to ensure that
cheek meat, for example, is not crosscontaminated with brain matter or
central nervous system matter.
(Comment 21) One comment
recommended using a 12-month cutoff
for purposes of designating certain cattle
materials as SRMs so that it would be
consistent with the European Union
(EU) standard 12-month cutoff period.
(Response 21) We decline to revise
the rule as suggested by the comment.
The EU established its BSE
requirements because of a small number
of BSE cases detected in young animals.
These cases are now believed to be the
result of cattle being exposed to large
exposure doses of the BSE agent at the
height of their BSE outbreak, before
appropriate mitigations were put in
place to reduce high levels of BSE
infectivity circulating in their cattle
population. In contrast, early control
measures were put in place in the
United States to protect against the
establishment and amplification of BSE
in the U.S. cattle population.
Further, the EC has published a
roadmap for relaxing its BSE
mitigations, including age cutoffs,
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
because of the downward trend in BSE
cases across the EU (Ref. 17).
(Comment 22) Several comments
supported using a 12-month cutoff for
purposes of designating certain cattle
materials as SRMs because cattle as
young as 21 months have tested positive
for BSE in the UK and Japan.
(Response 22) We disagree with these
comments. As discussed in the 2004 IFR
(69 FR 42256 at 42259), we are aware of
documented cases of BSE in the UK in
animals younger than 30 months of age.
As noted in the 2004 IFR (69 FR 42256
at 42259), at the height of the epidemic
in the UK when thousands of animals
were being diagnosed with BSE each
year, fewer than 20 animals younger
than 30 months were confirmed with
the disease (Ref. 18). The youngest
animal with a confirmed case of BSE
was 20 months old (Ref. 19). The
occurrence of BSE in young animals in
the UK was most likely the result of
exposure to a high infective dose of the
BSE agent at a young age.
We also noted in the 2004 IFR the two
reported cases of BSE in 21-month and
23-month-old animals in Japan
discovered during the testing of animals
presented for slaughter (69 FR 42256 at
42259). FSIS addressed a similar
comment in the 2007 FSIS affirmation
(72 FR 38700 at 38721) and concluded
that the available evidence surrounding
the two very young cases reported in
Japan is insufficient to support any
changes in FSIS’s existing measures to
prevent human exposure to the BSE
agent. FSIS referred to a report by
EFSA’s Scientific Panel on Biological
Hazards, which stated that ‘‘it is unclear
whether the very young cases [reported
in Japan] were adequately identified and
formally confirmed’’ (Ref. 20). This
same EFSA report concluded that these
cases ‘‘seem to be epidemiologically
peculiar as their cohort would have
been expected to yield further cases.’’
(Comment 23) One comment said a
12-month age cutoff would be consistent
with the International Review Team
(IRT) recommendation that the brain,
skull, spinal cord, and vertebral column
of cattle over 12 months of age be
excluded from both human food and
animal food chains unless aggressive
surveillance shows that the BSE risk in
the United States is minimal (Ref. 21).
(Response 23) We decline to revise
the rule in response to the comment.
The IRT was convened at the request of
the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture on
December 30, 2003, to review the
actions taken by the United States in
response to the confirmation of BSE in
an imported dairy cow in Washington
State on December 23, 2003. The IRT
recommended that, among other things,
E:\FR\FM\18MRR1.SGM
18MRR1
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
the brain, skull, spinal cord, and
vertebral column of cattle over 12
months be excluded from both the
human food and animal food chains
unless aggressive surveillance proves
the BSE risk in the United States to be
minimal (Ref. 22). As a follow up to the
IRT report, USDA’s APHIS conducted
the aggressive surveillance and found
the BSE prevalence in the United States
to be minimal. Therefore, a 30-month
cutoff is consistent with the
recommendations of the IRT.
(Comment 24) One comment noted
that many countries have imported vast
amounts of meat-and-bone meal from
countries with BSE-infected cattle, some
of which do not have adequate
surveillance and other mitigations in
place to prevent contamination of the
animal feed and human food chains.
The comment further noted that these
countries may still serve as a source of
disease, and if the entire intestine is not
designated as SRM, BSE-infected bovine
products could be imported and enter
the U.S. food or feed supply.
(Response 24) We disagree that the
scenario described provides sufficient
justification for designating the entire
intestine as SRM. Our trading partners
in cattle and cattle derived products are
countries that have performed a BSE
risk assessment, conducted the required
level of BSE surveillance, and have the
necessary BSE mitigations in place to
meet OIE requirements for negligible or
controlled risk status.
(Comment 25) One comment stated
that we should err on the side of caution
when it comes to protecting public
health and designate the entire length of
the intestines as SRM. The comment
noted that scientific research
demonstrates that immunostaining was
observed in the myenteric plexus of the
distal ileum in both naturally infected
and experimentally challenged cattle
with BSE, so one cannot eliminate the
possibility of infectivity in other
sections because the myenteric plexus
exists throughout the entire intestine.
Another comment stated that even a
trace of BSE infectivity is concern
enough to prohibit the use of the
jejunum, proximal ileum, ileocecal
junction, and colon of cattle.
(Response 25) We agree that it is
reasonable to assume that increasingly
sensitive detection methods could
demonstrate that BSE infectivity is
present anywhere along the intestinal
tract, associated either with the enteric
nervous system or lymphoreticular
tissue. However, all available evidence
to date shows that levels outside the
distal ileum are much lower than levels
in the distal ileum. As we explained in
the 2013 notice, our tentative
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:10 Mar 17, 2016
Jkt 238001
conclusion took into consideration not
just the lower levels, but also the other
safeguards in place in the United States,
the sharp decline in the worldwide
incidence of BSE, and the extremely low
prevalence of BSE in the U.S. cattle
population as indicated by USDA’s BSE
surveillance program (78 FR 14012).
This conclusion is consistent with the
recommendation in the 2009 EFSA
Scientific Opinion that future
consideration of risk associated with
infectivity in the intestine take into
account the BSE prevalence in cattle at
that time (Ref. 18).
(Comment 26) Comments from the
Biological Hazards Unit of EFSA in
response to FDA’s 2013 notice
reopening the comment period clarified
EFSA’s current thinking on BSE
infectivity in bovine intestines. EFSA
stated that it had concluded that BSE
infectivity in the bovine ileum is found
mainly in association with the
lymphoid follicles, the ileal Peyer’s
patches (Refs. 23 through 25). The ileal
Peyer’s patches are aggregated into a
long continuous structure called the
ileocecal plate. The ileocecal plate
extends the full length of the ileum, and
may extend proximally into the
jejunum. EFSA concluded that, when
assessing the BSE infectious load
potentially present in the intestines of
BSE-infected cattle, the ileocecal plate
should be considered as the main
contributor to BSE infectivity in the
intestine.
(Response 26) Since submitting
comments to the 2013 notice, the EFSA
Panel on Biological Hazards (BIOHAZ)
published on May 13, 2014, a Scientific
Opinion on BSE risk in bovine
intestines and mesentery (Ref. 25). This
scientific opinion provides additional
information about the distribution of
intestinal lymphoid tissue with which
BSE infectivity is associated in the early
stages of disease. EFSA concluded that
the BSE infectious load in the intestines
is primarily associated with the
lymphoid tissue making up the ileocecal
plate. According to anatomical data
presented in the report, the length of the
ileocecal plate could reach four meters
(157 inches), with considerable animalto-animal variation, in cattle younger
than 18 month of age, before the
ileocecal plate starts to diminish in
length as the animal ages. So, while
studies to date show that infectivity
levels outside the distal ileum are much
lower than in the distal ileum, the
anatomical data in the report show that
in young cattle lymphoid tissue could
extend two meters outside (proximal to)
the distal ileum. This anatomical data
does not alter our decision to leave the
SRM definition unchanged. We believe
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
14725
that given the United States and
worldwide BSE prevalence data,
removal of prohibited cattle materials as
required by this rule, together with the
other effective BSE mitigations
implemented by the U.S. government,
provides the appropriate level of
protection against human exposure to
the BSE agent.
6. ‘‘Tallow’’ (§§ 189.5(a)(6) and
700.27(a)(6))
The regulations define ‘‘tallow’’ as the
rendered fat of cattle obtained by
pressing or by applying any other
extraction process to tissues derived
directly from discrete adipose tissue
masses or to other carcass parts and
tissue. The definition also states that
tallow must be produced from tissues
that are not prohibited cattle materials
and must not contain more than 0.15
insoluble impurities as determined by
the method entitled ‘‘Insoluble
Impurities’’ (AOCS Official Method Ca
3a–46, American Oil Chemists’ Society
(AOCS), 5th Edition, 1997, or another
equivalent method.
(Comment 27) One comment
questioned the basis (i.e., underlying
data) for selecting the 0.15 percent level
as the allowable cutoff for insoluble
impurities in tallow, but did not provide
evidence or data to support changing
the allowable level.
(Response 27) We discussed the
underlying research that provided the
basis for permitting tallow to be used in
human food and cosmetics if it contains
no more than 0.15 percent insoluble
impurities in the 2004 IFR (69 FR 42256
at 42260 through 42261). In addition,
the 0.15 percent cutoff is consistent
with the level used by the Office
International des Epizooties (OIE) in the
BSE chapter of the OIE Terrestrial
Animal Health Code (Ref. 7). Therefore,
we are not making any further changes
with respect to using the 0.15 percent
level as the allowable cutoff of insoluble
impurities.
7. ‘‘Tallow Derivatives’’ (§§ 189.5(a)(7)
and 700.27(a)(7))
The regulations define ‘‘tallow
derivative’’ as any chemical obtained
through initial hydrolysis,
saponification, or transesterification of
tallow. The definition also states that
chemical conversion of material
obtained by hydrolysis, saponification,
or transesterification may be applied to
obtain the desired product.
We did not receive comments specific
to our definition of ‘‘tallow derivative,’’
and we have finalized the definition
without change.
E:\FR\FM\18MRR1.SGM
18MRR1
14726
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
8. ‘‘Gelatin’’ (§§ 189.5(a)(8) and
700.27(a)(8))
Our regulations at §§ 189.5 and 700.27
mention, but do not define, ‘‘gelatin.’’
Thus, on our own initiative, we have
decided to define gelatin as a product
that has been obtained by the partial
hydrolysis of collagen derived from
hides, connective tissue, and/or bones
of cattle and swine. Gelatin may be
either Type A (derived from an acidtreated precursor) or Type B (derived
from an alkali-treated precursor) that
has gone through processing steps that
include filtration and sterilization or an
equivalent process in terms of
infectivity reduction (Ref. 26).
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
B. Requirements (§§ 189.5(b) and
700.27(b))
The regulations at §§ 189.5(b)(1) and
700.27(b)(1) provide that no human food
or cosmetic shall be manufactured from,
processed with, or otherwise contain,
prohibited cattle materials. We further
clarify in §§ 189.5(b)(2) and 700.27(b)(2)
that the small intestine is not
considered prohibited cattle material as
long as the distal ileum is removed by
a procedure that removes at least 80
inches of the small intestine or by
another procedure that the
establishment can show is equally
effective at ensuring the distal ileum is
completely removed.
(Comment 28) One comment objected
to the use of cattle materials in any
products and believed that our
‘‘published policy’’ is much too lenient,
but did not provide evidence or data to
support this assertion.
(Response 28) We disagree with the
comment’s broad generalization. In the
absence of data or other information, we
do not have a basis on which to evaluate
the comment’s assertion that our
published policy is too lenient.
(Comment 29) One comment
questioned the validity of relying on the
Harvard-Tuskegee study to support the
restrictions being applied by this
regulation to externally applied
cosmetics. The comment also
questioned whether the restrictions that
cover materials derived from cattle not
inspected and passed are predicated on
unfounded assumptions with respect to
potential infectivity.
(Response 29) The Harvard-Tuskegee
study does not specifically address
potential human exposure to the BSE
agent from cosmetics (69 FR 42256 at
42258), so it was not relied on to
support the restrictions applied by the
2004 IFR to externally applied
cosmetics. However, we are concerned
that cosmetics, because of the ways they
are used, could serve as another
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:10 Mar 17, 2016
Jkt 238001
potential route for BSE infectivity to
enter the human system. We therefore
conclude that the wide range of cattlederived ingredients used in cosmetics
should not contain prohibited cattle
materials (Ref. 27).
(Comment 30) One comment said that
the United States should test every cow
for TSEs, extend and enhance the feed
ban, enhance surveillance and testing
programs to test all cattle destined for
human and animal consumption, ban all
animal tissue in vaccines and
nutritional supplements, and stop
feeding ruminant and non-ruminant
protein to all species.
(Response 30) We disagree with the
recommendation to change current U.S.
BSE control measures. The mitigations
currently in place in the U.S. adequately
protect human and animal health from
BSE. Testing cattle and enhancing
surveillance and testing programs fall
under the purview of USDA. USDA’s
surveillance strategy is to target testing
on those animals in the cattle
population where the disease is most
likely to be found if it is present. USDA
has concluded that this is the most
effective way to meet OIE and domestic
surveillance standards. USDA
determined that a level of 40,000
samples per year from these targeted,
high-risk cattle far exceeds the
standards recommended by the OIE
(Ref. 16). With respect to animal feed
restrictions, FDA’s 1997 feed ban
prohibited the use of ruminant protein
in cattle feed, while the 2008 enhanced
feed ban prohibits the use of the highest
risk cattle tissues in all animal feed.
Lastly, we are not aware of scientific
justification for banning all animal
tissue in vaccines and nutritional
supplements.
(Comment 31) While many comments
supported the use of material from
nonambulatory disabled cattle, a few
comments requested that these materials
be prohibited regardless of the reason
for the animal’s condition (e.g., obesity,
fatigue, stress, nerve paralysis, or
physical injury such as a fractured
appendage, severed tendon or ligament,
or dislocated joint). Other comments
were concerned that visual examination
was not sufficient for determining
whether an animal is safe to be
slaughtered. Other comments thought
the current prohibition involving
nonambulatory disabled cattle is too
broad in its application, particularly
when applied to animals that are
nonambulatory due to clear physical
injuries, such as a broken limb.
(Response 31) We decline to make
changes to the rule regarding the
prohibition on the use of cattle materials
from nonambulatory disabled cattle in
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
human food and cosmetics. As
discussed in the 2007 FSIS affirmation,
surveillance data from the EU indicate
that cattle that cannot rise from a
recumbent position are among the cattle
that have a greater prevalence of BSE
than healthy slaughter cattle, and the
typical clinical signs of BSE may not
always be observed when cattle are
nonambulatory (72 FR 38700 at 38701 to
38706).
(Comment 32) Several comments
requested that SRMs be kept out of all
cosmetics over which FDA has
jurisdiction.
(Response 32) Under § 700.27, no
cosmetic shall be manufactured from,
processed with, or otherwise contain,
prohibited cattle materials. This
includes SRMs.
(Comment 33) One comment stated
that human consumption of any trace of
BSE can be fatal, and that the use of
materials derived from cattle should not
be allowed in human food and
cosmetics.
(Response 33) We strongly disagree
that cattle derived products should not
be used in human food and cosmetics.
The sharp decline in vCJD cases
worldwide demonstrates that
internationally recognized BSE
mitigations that remove only specified
risk materials are highly effective in
protecting humans against BSE. (Refs. 4,
22, 28, and 29). We note that the World
Health Organization (WHO), in the 2010
update to the WHO Tables on Tissue
Infectivity Distribution in Transmissible
Spongiform Encephalopathies (Ref. 30),
stated that the amount of pathological
prion or infectious agent detected by
exquisitely sensitive assays may well
fall below the threshold of
transmissibility for humans, and that
consideration also has to be given to the
level of infectivity in tissue, the amount
of tissue to which a person is exposed,
and that oral exposure is a
comparatively inefficient route of
transmission.
(Comment 34) One comment stated
that one of the most important and still
unanswered questions is the
significance of atypical BSE with
respect to human and animal health.
The comment said that if the U.S.
government considers atypical BSE to
be a sporadic disease, at present there is
no means to eliminate cases from the
national herd, and thus the food supply.
The comment noted that in atypical BSE
the extent of infectivity in bovine tissue
is unknown, and hence, it would be
important to at least remove the tissues
having infectivity in classical BSE cases.
(Response 34) We agree with the
comment’s assertion that there are still
unanswered questions about the
E:\FR\FM\18MRR1.SGM
18MRR1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
significance of atypical BSE with
respect to human and animal health. We
also agree that if atypical cases are
sporadic, their occurrence will continue
to be an ongoing rare event in our cattle
population. However, based on the
available science, we believe that the
mitigations currently in place in the
United States to protect against classical
BSE are adequate to protect against
atypical BSE. We note that this was also
the conclusion of the OIE Scientific
Commission for Animal Diseases. The
February 2013 meeting report
concluded that ‘‘the ruminant-toruminant feed ban which mitigates the
risk of classical BSE concurrently
reduces the recycling of atypical BSE in
the cattle populations of the controlled
and negligible BSE risk countries within
which it is applied.’’ (Ref. 31).
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
C. Records (§§ 189.5(c) and 700.27(c))
In the 2004 IFR, FDA required that
manufacturers and processors of human
food and cosmetics that are
manufactured from, processed with, or
otherwise contain, cattle material must
make existing records relevant to
compliance available to FDA for
inspection and copying. In a companion
rulemaking at the same time, FDA
proposed a rule entitled ‘‘Recordkeeping
Requirements for Human Food and
Cosmetics Manufactured From,
Processed With, or Otherwise
Containing Material from Cattle’’ (69 FR
42275). The rule proposed to require
that manufacturers and processors of
human food and cosmetics that are
manufactured from, processed with, or
otherwise contain, material from cattle
establish and maintain records
sufficient to demonstrate the food or
cosmetic is not manufactured from,
processed, with, or does not otherwise
contain, prohibited cattle materials. The
records requirements were finalized in
2006 and incorporated the requirement
from the 2004 IFR that existing records
relevant to compliance be made
available to FDA (71 FR 59653).
D. Adulteration (§§ 189.5(d) and
700.27(d))
Under § 189.5(d)(1), failure of a
manufacturer or processor to operate in
compliance with the requirements or
records provisions renders human food
adulterated under section 402(a)(4) of
the FD&C Act. Under § 700.27(d), failure
of a manufacturer or processor to
operate in compliance with the
requirements or records provisions
renders a cosmetic adulterated under
section 601(c) of the FD&C Act. Further,
under § 189.5(d)(2), human food
manufactured from, processed with, or
otherwise containing, prohibited cattle
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:10 Mar 17, 2016
Jkt 238001
materials is unfit for human food and
deemed adulterated under section
402(a)(3) of the FD&C Act. Under
§ 189.5(d)(3), the use or intended use of
any prohibited cattle material in human
food causes the material and the food to
be adulterated under section
402(a)(2)(C) of the FD&C Act if the
prohibited cattle material is a food
additive, unless it is the subject of a
food additive regulation or of an
investigational exemption for a food
additive under § 170.17.
We did not receive comments specific
to the adulteration provisions, and we
have finalized them without change.
E. Process for Designating Countries
(§§ 189.5(e) and 700.27(e))
Sections 189.5(e) and 700.27(e)
establish a process for designating a
country as not subject to certain BSErelated restrictions applicable to FDAregulated human food and cosmetics. A
country seeking to be so designated
must send a written request to the
Director of FDA’s Center for Food Safety
and Applied Nutrition, including
information about the country’s BSE
case history, risk factors, measures to
prevent the introduction and
transmission of BSE, and any other
relevant information.
We did not receive comments specific
to the process for designating countries,
and we have finalized those aspects of
the rule without change.
F. Other Comments
Several comments addressed matters
that were not specific to a particular
provision in the IFRs. We address those
comments here.
(Comment 35) Several comments said
that prohibiting the use of cattle
materials from nonambulatory disabled
cattle in human food and cosmetics also
should apply to the use of such
materials in animal food or feed.
(Response 35) This final rule applies
to the use of cattle materials in human
food and cosmetics regulated by FDA.
Our regulations in effect at the time of
the 2004 IFR prohibited the use of
certain protein from mammalian tissues
in ruminant feed and have since been
revised to prohibit the use of certain
cattle-derived risk materials (e.g., the
brains and spinal cords from cattle 30
months of age and older, as well as the
entire carcass of cattle not inspected and
passed for human consumption) in all
animal feeds. In a feed rule published in
the Federal Register on April 25, 2008
(73 FR 22720), FDA’s Center for
Veterinary Medicine (CVM) explained
that, because of the low prevalence of
BSE in the United States, it is not
necessary to prohibit all ruminant
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
14727
material from animal feed, nor is it
necessary to prohibit all animal or all
mammalian products in cattle feed. (See
73 FR 22720 at 22724, as well as similar
discussion provided in the preamble to
the earlier CVM proposal published in
the Federal Register on October 6, 2005
(70 FR 58570 at 58578).)
(Comment 36) One comment stated
that we do not truly know or understand
the real risk to the public in regards to
vCJD as caused by classical BSE. The
comment said that based on results of
an appendix tissue survey in the UK,
the dose to infect humans may be much
smaller than previously considered, and
even small amounts of the BSE agent
could infect humans resulting in a
subclinical disease that may pose a risk
to other people via blood transfusions,
etc. According to the comment, this is
justification for prohibiting the use of
the entire intestine for human
consumption or cosmetics.
(Response 36) We are aware of the
results of the appendix survey
published October 15, 2013, in the
British Medical Journal (Ref. 32). We
agree that the survey results underscore
the need for better understanding of BSE
and vCJD. In the appendix survey,
32,441 archived appendix samples
collected during surgical operations
performed in the UK between 2000 and
2012 were analyzed for the presence of
abnormal prion protein. Sixteen
samples were positive for abnormal
prions. We did not conclude from these
findings that they provide the scientific
justification to modify our SRM
definition to include the entire intestine
of cattle. As the article points out, the
samples were collected after the large
BSE epizootic in the United Kingdom
that resulted in a substantial amount of
BSE infectivity entering the human food
supply. We continue to believe that the
SRM definition we are finalizing is
appropriate for managing the BSE
situation risk in the United States.
(Comment 37) One comment stated
that FDA does not require reporting on
CJD, so the United States is unable to
track the incidence rate of the disease.
(Response 37) Tracking the incidence
of CJD and vCJD is the responsibility of
the Center for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC). The CDC collaborates
with the American Association of
Neuropathologists, the National Prion
Disease Pathology Surveillance Center,
and State health departments to monitor
the prevalence of human prion diseases
in the United States (Ref. 33).
(Comment 38) Several comments were
from individuals who had suffered the
loss of a loved one from sporadic CJD
(sCJD) and were concerned about sCJD
risks as well as vCJD risks. Many
E:\FR\FM\18MRR1.SGM
18MRR1
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
14728
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
comments said that, because the
etiology of sCJD is unknown, FDA
should take every precaution possible to
eliminate human exposure to what
could potentially be a causative agent of
sCJD.
(Response 38) Although sCJD and
vCJD are both prion diseases of humans
and are similar in many respects, the
available scientific evidence does not
support a conclusion that the BSE agent
causes sCJD. Therefore, we believe that
requiring removal of parts of the small
intestines other than the distal ileum
would not provide any additional
protection against sCJD.
(Comment 39) A comment inquired as
to the impact of sequestration and
budget cuts upon the availability of FDA
inspectors in slaughter facilities to
insure the proper removal of the distal
ileum and keep the public safe.
(Response 39) FDA does not inspect
cattle slaughter facilities. They are
inspected by USDA under the
provisions of the Federal Meat
Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 601).
(Comment 40) One comment
requested that bovine blood-derived
products, such as beef blood plasma and
fibrinogen, be prohibited until it is more
certain that such blood-derived
products do not have the potential for
transmitting TSEs to humans. While
noting the current thinking that the
lymphatic system is the primary route of
infectivity for TSEs, the comment
suggested that TSEs may be transmitted
via the blood through cut or abraded
skin and damaged oral mucosal tissue.
(Response 40) We recognize that there
are a number of animal species in which
blood from TSE-infected animals have
been shown to be capable of
transmitting the TSE agent, and that
there have been several cases in the UK
of people acquiring vCJD after receiving
transfusions of blood from donors who
later were found to have vCJD. However,
there is no evidence that blood from
infected cattle can transmit the BSE
agent to humans when the blood is
incorporated into human food or
cosmetics. Therefore, the final rule does
not prohibit use of cattle blood or
impose any special requirements on
cattle blood materials that might be used
in human food, including dietary
supplements, and in cosmetics.
(Comment 41) One comment said that
the U.S. government issued an official
communication that it has a
longstanding system of interlocking
safeguards against BSE that protects
public and animal health in the United
States and that the most important
safeguard is the removal of SRM or the
parts of an animal that would contain
BSE should an animal have the disease
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:10 Mar 17, 2016
Jkt 238001
from all animals presented for slaughter
in the United States. The comment
stated that this could lead the public to
believe any tissue that may contain BSE
infectivity is removed at slaughter and
concluded that this is definitely not the
case with certain parts of the intestine
and potentially other tissue such as
peripheral nerves.
(Response 41) We understand the
concern about how the message on the
removal of SRM could be interpreted.
We intend for the term SRM to mean the
list of tissues identified in our final rule
that must be removed from beef
products for human consumption. We
believe the official communication was
correct that the United States has
interlocking safeguards in place in
addition to removal of specified risk
material. These interlocking safeguards
include a strong ruminant-to-ruminant
feed ban, an ongoing BSE surveillance
program capable of detecting the disease
at very low levels in the U.S. cattle
population, and strict controls on
imports of animals and animal products
from countries at risk for BSE.
(Comment 42) One comment
expressed concern about the possibility
of SRMs getting into the food supply
through rendering.
(Response 42) In edible rendering
(applying the rendering process to
edible tissues for use as human food)
only materials from cattle sources that
have been inspected and passed for
human consumption and do not contain
SRMs or other materials considered to
be prohibited cattle materials may be
rendered for use in human food and
cosmetics. It is the responsibility of
manufacturers and processors,
including renderers, to take precautions
to avoid cross contamination of nonprohibited cattle material with
prohibited cattle material during
slaughter and processing. In this regard,
manufacturers and processors of human
food and cosmetics manufactured from,
processed with, or that otherwise
contain, material from cattle must
maintain records sufficient to
demonstrate that the human food and
cosmetics are not manufactured from,
processed with, or otherwise contain,
prohibited cattle materials under
§§ 189.5(c)(1) and 700.27(c)(1). Further,
food establishments are subject to the
CGMP requirements in part 110, and
failure to take adequate measures to
prevent cross-contamination could
result in insanitary conditions whereby
the food may be rendered injurious to
health and, therefore, adulterated under
section 402(a)(4) of the FD&C Act.
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
V. Regulatory Impact Analysis
A. Overview
Economic Analysis of Impacts
We have examined the impacts of the
final rule under Executive Order 12866,
Executive Order 13563, the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601–612), and
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995 (Pub. L. 104–4). Executive Orders
12866 and 13563 direct us to assess all
costs and benefits of available regulatory
alternatives and, when regulation is
necessary, to select regulatory
approaches that maximize net benefits
(including potential economic,
environmental, public health and safety,
and other advantages; distributive
impacts; and equity). We believe that
this final rule is not a significant
regulatory action as defined by
Executive Order 12866.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act
requires us to analyze regulatory options
that would minimize any significant
impact of a rule on small entities.
Because this rule finalizes an existing
IFR with no substantive changes, we
certify that the final rule will not have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (section 202(a)) requires us to
prepare a written statement, which
includes an assessment of anticipated
costs and benefits, before proposing
‘‘any rule that includes any Federal
mandate that may result in the
expenditure by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of $100,000,000 or more
(adjusted annually for inflation) in any
one year.’’ The current threshold after
adjustment for inflation is $144 million,
using the most current (2014) Implicit
Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic
Product. This final rule would not result
in an expenditure in any year that meets
or exceeds this amount.
This final rule reaffirms the
provisions in the 2004 IFR, as well as
the 2005 and 2008 amendments, to
address the potential risk of BSE in
human food including dietary
supplements, and in cosmetics. As the
final rule’s coverage and requirements
do not differ from the 2004 IFR and the
2005 and 2008 amendments, no
additional costs or benefits will accrue
from this rulemaking.
The summary analysis of benefits and
costs included in this document is
drawn from the detailed IFR RIA (69 FR
42255 at 42265–42271).
B. Comments on the IFR RIA
We received two comments on our
interim final regulatory impact analysis
E:\FR\FM\18MRR1.SGM
18MRR1
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
and are declining to make changes to
the RIA in the final rule.
(Comment 43) One comment stated
that our economic analysis appears to
consider only the industries that are end
users of cattle materials and to overlook
industries that produce intermediate
products. As a result, there is no
mention of the rule’s impact on
manufacturers of collagen casings,
gelatin, and other intermediate
products.
(Response 43) We disagree. We did
estimate the impact of the 2004 IFR (and
amendments) to both producers of
intermediate cattle-derived products
and producers of cattle-derived end
products (69 FR 42256 at 42266). In the
case of gelatin, depending on the
product, we had information on cattlederived materials manufactured by
intermediate producers (i.e., input
suppliers to cosmetics manufacturers) or
information on end products that
contained cattle-derived materials (i.e.
foods). Whether our information was on
intermediate manufacturers or end
products, we estimated the impact of
the 2004 IFR on both the upstream and
downstream facilities.
The final rule clarifies that gelatin
was never considered a prohibited cattle
material. This final rule defines
‘‘gelatin’’ to clarify that gelatin is not
considered to be a prohibited cattle
material as long as it is manufactured
using the customary industry processes
specified in the Gelatin Manufacturers
Institute of America’s (GMIA) Gelatin
Manual.
In the 2005 amendment to the 2004
IFR, we revised the definition of
‘‘prohibited cattle materials’’ that
appears at §§ 189.5(a)(1) and
700.27(a)(1) to clarify that ‘‘hides and
hide-derived products’’ are not to be
considered prohibited cattle materials
(70 FR 53063 at 53066). Thus, collagen
casings made from hides are not banned
by this final rule, since the cattle hides
from which they are made are not
prohibited cattle materials.
(Comment 44) One comment stated
that the 2004 IFR does not consider the
cost to gelatin producers of tracing cattle
to their origin, nor does it consider that
other cattle-derived ingredients from
inedible rendering (i.e., tallow-derived
products) are commonly used in
cosmetics.
(Response 44) The final rule does not
require users of cattle material to certify
from which animal a specific material
was derived. Users of cattle-derived
material must only maintain records
sufficient to demonstrate that cattle
derived material is not made from,
processed with, or does not otherwise
contain prohibited cattle materials. We
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:10 Mar 17, 2016
Jkt 238001
included the costs of generating and
keeping records on cattle-derived
material in the BSE recordkeeping rule
(71 FR 59653 at 59661).
Our 2004 IFR analysis (69 FR 42256
at 42267) took into consideration the
potential costs to cosmetic
manufacturers to switch from inedible
rendering to using edible tallow (and
derivatives) in cosmetic products. We
estimated in the 2004 IFR analysis that
the cost of this change would range from
$0 to $18 million.
C. Final Regulatory Impact Analysis
1. Need for Regulation
This final rule reaffirms the
provisions in the 2004 IFR, as well as
the 2005 and 2008 amendments, to
address the potential risk of BSE in
human food including dietary
supplements, and in cosmetics. As the
final rule’s coverage does not differ from
the 2004 IFR and the 2005 and 2008
amendments, no additional costs or
benefits will accrue from this
rulemaking.
2. Final Rule Coverage
We have designated certain materials
from cattle as ‘‘prohibited cattle
materials’’ and banned the use of such
materials in human food, including
dietary supplements, and in cosmetics.
We have designated the following items
as prohibited cattle materials: SRMs, the
small intestine of all cattle unless the
distal ileum is removed, material from
nonambulatory disabled cattle, material
from cattle not inspected and passed
(for human consumption), and
mechanically separated MS (Beef).
SRMs include the brain, skull, eyes,
trigeminal ganglia, spinal cord, vertebral
column (excluding the vertebrae of the
tail, the transverse processes of the
thoracic and lumbar vertebrae, and the
wings of the sacrum), and DRG of cattle
30 months of age and older, and the
tonsils and distal ileum of the small
intestine from all cattle. These
restrictions appear in §§ 189.5 and
700.27 (21 CFR 189.5 and 21 CFR
700.27). Milk and milk products, cattle
hides and hide-derived products, tallow
that contains no more than 0.15 percent
insoluble impurities, tallow derivatives
(regardless of the tallow source), and
gelatin are not prohibited cattle
materials. In addition, we may designate
a country as not subject to certain BSErelated restrictions following an
evaluation of the country’s BSE
situation.
3. Costs of the Final Rule
Because of the 2004 IFR and 2005 and
2008 amendments already in effect,
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
14729
manufacturers and processors of food
and cosmetic products using bovine
materials such as the brain, skull, and
spinal cord are obtaining these
ingredients exclusively from cattle
younger than 30 months of age. The
manufacturers and processors of
products that use the tonsils or the
distal ileum of small intestine of cattle,
material from nonambulatory disabled
cattle, material from cattle not inspected
and passed for human consumption, or
MS (Beef) have found substitutes for
those ingredients. To the extent that the
2004 IFR and 2005 and 2008
amendments led to increased use of
alternative ingredients or ingredients
from cattle under the age of 30 months,
exposure to potentially BSE-infected
cattle materials was reduced.
This final rule also clarifies that
gelatin made from cattle-derived
material is not, and never was,
considered a prohibited cattle material
so long as it is manufactured using
customary industry processes. If there
remained in the marketplace any
confusion as to the status of gelatin
derived from cattle materials, the new
definition provided by this final rule
should remove that confusion.
4. Countries Requesting Designation
To date, New Zealand and Australia
have requested and received designation
as not subject to certain FDA restrictions
on cattle-derived materials. No other
countries have applied to the FDA for
designation. In the 2008 amendment, we
estimated that it would cost a country
about $9,000 to assemble a petition
package for us to consider, and it would
cost us $3,700 to review each package
(73 FR 20785 at 20790). We did not
receive any comments on these costs.
5. Benefits of the Final Rule
The benefits of this final rule are the
value of the public health benefits. The
public health benefit is the reduction in
the risk of the human illness associated
with consumption of the agent that
causes BSE. In the 2004 IFR and 2005
and 2008 amendments, we were unable
to quantify the benefits of these rulemakings, but provided estimates of the
illness burden that could be avoided if
we reduced the potential exposure to
BSE agents.
In the 2004 IFR we estimated the
benefits as the value of preventing a
case of vCJD, the human illness that
results from being infected from eating
contaminated cattle-derived materials.
(69 FR 42256 at 42267) The cost of a
case of vCJD is the value of a statistical
life (VSL) plus the value of preventing
a year-long or longer illness that
precedes certain death for victims of
E:\FR\FM\18MRR1.SGM
18MRR1
14730
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
vCJD. In 2004 we estimated this value
to be in the range of $5.7 to $7.1 million.
Updating using a central estimate of
$369,000 for the value of a statistical life
year (VSLY) and a central estimate of
$8.3 million for VSL,3 results in a single
case of vCJD being valued at about $10
million in 2013 dollars. This estimate
included direct medical costs, reduced
ability of the ill person to function at
home and at work, and the cost of
premature death.
As we stated in the 2004 IFR, we do
not know the baseline expected annual
number of cases, but based on the
epidemiology of vCJD in the UK, we
anticipated much less than one case of
vCJD per year in the United States.
Because the IFR and amendments were
expected to reduce, rather than
eliminate, the risk of exposure to BSE
infectious materials, the reduction in
the number of cases was estimated to be
an unknown fraction of the less than
one case annually. We stated in the
2004 IFR RIA that the IFR, in
conjunction with USDA’s requirements
on cattle-derived materials, would help
reduce a potential human exposure in
the United States that was previously
estimated at less than 1 percent (69 FR
1862 at 1867).
The benefits of this final rule have
already been realized as the IFR has
been in place since 2004. We do not
estimate any additional benefits as a
result of this finalizing this IFR.
VI. Environmental Impact, No
Significant Impact
We have determined under 21 CFR
25.32(m) that this action is of a type that
does not individually or cumulatively
have a significant effect on the human
environment. Therefore, neither an
environmental assessment nor an
environmental impact statement is
required.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
VII. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
The collection of information
provisions of this final rule are subject
to review by OMB under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–
3520). The collections of information in
§§ 189.5(e) and 700.27(e), added by the
2008 amendment, have been previously
approved under OMB control number
0910–0623. This final rule does not
revise the information collection
requirements of §§ 189.5(e) and
700.27(e). Therefore we are not
submitting this final rule to OMB as a
revision of the information collection
3 VSLY based on Aldy and Viscusi discussion
paper 2007 (Ref. 1). VSL is based on EPA National
Center for Environmental Economics estimate of
$7.4 million in 2006 dollars (Ref. 2).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:10 Mar 17, 2016
Jkt 238001
approved under OMB control number
0910–0623.
VIII. Federalism
We have analyzed this final rule in
accordance with the principles set forth
in Executive Order 13132. We have
determined that the rule does not
contain policies that have substantial
direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the National
Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government. Accordingly, we
have concluded that the rule does not
contain policies that have federalism
implications as defined in the Executive
order and, consequently, a federalism
summary impact statement is not
required.
IX. References
The following references have been
placed on display in the Division of
Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES)
and are available for viewing by
interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4
p.m., Monday through Friday they are
also available electronically at https://
www.regulations.gov. FDA has verified
the Web site addresses, as of the date
this document publishes in the Federal
Register, but Web sites are subject to
change over time.)
1. Collee, J. G. and R. Bradley, ‘‘BSE: A
Decade On—Part I,’’ The Lancet,
349:636–641, 1997.
2. Anderson, R. M., C. A. Donnelly, N. M.
Ferguson, et al., ‘‘Transmission
Dynamics and Epidemiology of BSE in
British Cattle,’’ Nature, 382:779–788,
1996.
3. Wells, G. A. H., A. C. Scott, C. T. Johnson,
et al., ‘‘A Novel Progressive Spongiform
Encephalopathy in Cattle,’’ Veterinary
Record, 121:419–420, 1987.
4. HHS/CDC, ‘‘vCJD (Variant CreutzfeldtJakob Disease’’ (fact sheet), accessed
online at https://www.cdc.gov/prions/
vcjd/about.html.
5. University of Edinburgh, National CJD
Research and Surveillance Unit, ‘‘Variant
CJD Cases Worldwide,’’ accessed online
at https://www.cjd.ed.ac.uk/documents/
worldfigs.pdf.
6. Resolution No. 20, Recognition of the
Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Risk
Status of Member Countries, accessed
online at https://www.oie.int/doc/ged/
D12483.PDF.
7. Article 11.4 in the OIE Terrestrial Animal
Health Code (2014), accessed online at
https://www.oie.int/index.php?id=169
&L=0&htmfile=chapitre_bse.htm#article_
bse.1.
8. Grobben A. H., P. J. Steel, D. M. Taylor,
and R. A. Somerville, ‘‘Inactivation of
the Bovine-Spongiform-Encephalopathy
(BSE) Agent by the Acid and Alkaline
Processes Used in the Manufacture of
Bone Gelatin,’’ Biotechnology and
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Applied Biochemistry, 39:329–338, 2004
and Grobben, A. H., P. J. Steel, D. M.
Taylor, R. A. Somerville, et al.,
‘‘Inactivation of the BSE Agent by Heat
and Pressure Process for Manufacturing
Gelatin,’’ Veterinary Record, 157:277–
289, 2005.
9. Article 11.4.15 in the OIE Terrestrial
Animal Health Code (2014), accessed
online at https://www.oie.int/index.
php?id=169&L=0&htmfile=chapitre_bse.
htm#article_bse.15.
10. ‘‘Quantitative Assessment of the Human
and Animal BSE Risk Posed by Gelatine
with Respect to Residual BSE Risk,’’
European Food Safety Authority Journal,
312:1–29, 2006). Available at https://
www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/
312.
11. HHS/FDA, ‘‘Guidance for Industry, The
Sourcing and Processing of Gelatin to
Reduce the Potential Risk Posed by
Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
(BSE) in FDA-Regulated Products for
Human Use,’’ September 1997, accessed
online at https://www.fda.gov/Regulatory
Information/Guidances/ucm125182.htm.
12. Wells, G. A. H., S. A. C. Hawkins, R. B.
Green, et al., ‘‘Preliminary Observations
on the Pathogenesis of Experimental
Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
(BSE): An Update,’’ Veterinary Record,
142:103–106, 1998.
13. Lasmezas, C. I., J–P. Deslys, O. Robain, et
al., ‘‘Transmission of the BSE Agent to
Mice in the Absence of Detectable
Abnormal Prion Protein,’’ Science,
275:402–405, 1997.
14. Race, R., A. Raines, G. J. Raymond, et al.,
‘‘Long-Term Subclinical Carrier State
Precedes Scrapie Replication and
Adaptation in a Resistant Species:
Analogies to Bovine Spongiform
Encephalopathy and Variant CreutzfeldtJakob Disease in Humans,’’ Journal of
Virology, 75(21):10106–10112, 2001.
15. Article 11.4.14 in the OIE Terrestrial
Animal Health Code (2014), accessed
online at https://www.oie.int/index.
php?id=169&L=0&htmfile=chapitre_bse.
htm#article_bse.14.
16. USDA, APHIS, BSE Ongoing Surveillance
Plan, July 20, 2006. Available at https://
www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/
animal_diseases/bse/downloads/BSE_
ongoing_surv_plan_final_71406.pdf.
17. European Commission, the TSE
Roadmap, July 15, 2005. Available at
https://ec.europa.eu/food/food/biosafety/
tse_bse/docs/roadmap_en.pdf.
18. Kimberlin, R. H., ‘‘Bovine Spongiform
Encephalopathy: An Appraisal of the
Current Epidemic in the United
Kingdom,’’ Intervirology 35: 208–218,
1993.
19. Department for Environment, Food and
Rural Affairs, UK, BSE Summary
Statistics,’’ August 2007 accessed online
at: https://webarchive.national
archives.gov.uk/20130123162956/http:/
www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/bse/
statistics/bse/monthly_stats.pdf.
20. ‘‘EFSA Panel on Biological Hazards
(BIOHAZ) Scientific Opinion on BSE
Risk in Bovine Intestines on Request
from the European Commission,’’
E:\FR\FM\18MRR1.SGM
18MRR1
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
European Food Safety Authority Journal,
vol. 1317, pp. 1–9 (2009).
21. CDC, BSE or Bovine Spongiform
Encephalopathy, accessed online at:
https://www.cdc.gov/prions/bse/
prevalence.html.
22. USDA, The Secretary’s Foreign Animal
and Poultry Disease Advisory
Committee’s Subcommittee Report on
Measures Relating to Bovine Spongiform
Encephalopathy (BSE) in the United
States, February 4, 2004.
23. Hoffmann C., M. Eiden, M. Kaatz, M.
Keller, et al., 2011, ‘‘BSE Infectivity in
Jejunum, Ileum and Ileocaecal Junction
of Incubating Cattle,’’ Veterinary
Research, 42, 21.
24. Terry, L. A., S. Marsh, S. J. Ryder, S. A.
Hawkins, et al., ‘‘Detection of DiseaseSpecific PrP in the Distal Ileum of Cattle
Exposed Orally to the Agent of Bovine
Spongiform Encephalopathy,’’
Veterinary Record, 152, 387–392, 2003.
25. ‘‘EFSA Panel on Biological Hazards
(BIOHAZ),’’ 2014 Scientific Opinion on
BSE Risk in Bovine Intestines and
Mesentery, European Food Safety
Authority Journal, vol. 3554, pp. 1–98,
(2014). https://www.efsa.europa.eu/sites/
default/files/scientific_output/files/
main_documents/3554.pdf.
26. Gelatin Manufacturers of America,
Gelatin Handbook, 2012.
27. FDA, Cosmetics: An Evaluation of the
Risk of Variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease
from Exposure to Cattle-Derived Protein
Used in Cosmetics, accessed online at:
https://www.fda.gov/Cosmetics/Products
Ingredients/PotentialContaminants/
ucm137012.htm.
28. European Centre for Disease Control and
Prevention, Creutzfeldt Jakob Disease
International Surveillance Network, CJD
Surveillance Data 1993–2013, accessed
online at: https://www.eurocjd.ed.ac.uk/
surveillance%20data%201.html#vcjdcases.
29. WHO, WHO Media centre, Variant
Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, Fact sheet N°
180 Revised February 2012, accessed
online at: https://www.who.int/
mediacentre/factsheets/fs180/en/.
30. WHO, WHO Tables on Tissue Infectivity
Distribution in Transmissible
Spongiform Encephalopathies (2010
Update), available at: https://
www.who.int/bloodproducts/tablestissue
infectivity.pdf.
31. Report of the Meeting of the OIE
Scientific Commission for Animal
Diseases, Paris, 4–8 February 2013,
https://www.oie.int/doc/ged/D12361.PDF.
32. Gill, O. N., Y. Spencer, A. RichardLoendt, C. Kelly, et al., ‘‘Prevalent
Abnormal Prion Protein in Human
Appendixes After Bovine Spongiform
Encephalopathy Epizootic: Large Scale
Survey,’’ British Medical Journal
2013;347:f5675 doi: 10.1136/bmj.f5675
(published 15 October 2013).
33. CDC, CDC Surveillance for vCJD,
available at: https://www.cdc.gov/prions/
vcjd/surveillance.html.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:10 Mar 17, 2016
Jkt 238001
List of Subjects
21 CFR Part 189
Food additives, Food packaging.
21 CFR Part 700
Cosmetics, Packaging and containers.
Therefore, under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner
of Food and Drugs, the interim final rule
amending 21 CFR parts 189 and 700,
which was published on July 13, 2004,
at 69 FR 42255, and amended on
September 7, 2005, at 70 FR 53063, and
amended on April 17, 2008, at 73 FR
20785, is adopted as a final rule with
the following changes:
PART 189—SUBSTANCES
PROHIBITED FROM USE IN HUMAN
FOOD
1. The authority citation for part 189
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321, 342, 348, 371,
381.
2. Section 189.5 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
■
§ 189.5
Prohibited cattle materials.
(a) Definitions. The definitions and
interpretations of terms contained in
section 201 of the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) apply
to such terms when used in this part.
The following definitions also apply:
(1) Prohibited cattle materials mean
specified risk materials, small intestine
of all cattle except as provided in
paragraph (b)(2) of this section, material
from nonambulatory disabled cattle,
material from cattle not inspected and
passed, or mechanically separated
(MS)(Beef). Prohibited cattle materials
do not include the following:
(i) Tallow that contains no more than
0.15 percent insoluble impurities,
tallow derivatives, gelatin, hides and
hide-derived products, and milk and
milk products, and
(ii) Cattle materials inspected and
passed from a country designated under
paragraph (e) of this section.
(2) Inspected and passed means that
the product has been inspected and
passed for human consumption by the
appropriate regulatory authority, and at
the time it was inspected and passed, it
was found to be not adulterated.
(3) Mechanically separated (MS)
(Beef) means a meat food product that
is finely comminuted, resulting from the
mechanical separation and removal of
most of the bone from attached skeletal
muscle of cattle carcasses and parts of
carcasses that meets the specifications
contained in 9 CFR 319.5, the U.S.
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
14731
Department of Agriculture regulation
that prescribes the standard of identity
for MS (Species).
(4) Nonambulatory disabled cattle
means cattle that cannot rise from a
recumbent position or that cannot walk,
including, but not limited to, those with
broken appendages, severed tendons or
ligaments, nerve paralysis, fractured
vertebral column, or metabolic
conditions.
(5) Specified risk material means the
brain, skull, eyes, trigeminal ganglia,
spinal cord, vertebral column
(excluding the vertebrae of the tail, the
transverse processes of the thoracic and
lumbar vertebrae, and the wings of the
sacrum), and dorsal root ganglia of cattle
30 months of age and older and the
tonsils and distal ileum of the small
intestine of all cattle.
(6) Tallow means the rendered fat of
cattle obtained by pressing or by
applying any other extraction process to
tissues derived directly from discrete
adipose tissue masses or to other carcass
parts and tissues. Tallow must be
produced from tissues that are not
prohibited cattle materials or must
contain no more than 0.15 percent
insoluble impurities as determined by
the method entitled ‘‘Insoluble
Impurities’’ (AOCS Official Method Ca
3a-46), American Oil Chemists’ Society
(AOCS), 5th Edition, 1997, incorporated
by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C.
552(a) and 1 CFR part 51, or another
method equivalent in accuracy,
precision, and sensitivity to AOCS
Official Method Ca 3a–46. You may
obtain copies of the method from AOCS
(https://www.aocs.org) 2211 W. Bradley
Ave. Champaign, IL 61821. Copies may
be examined at the Food and Drug
Administration’s Main Library, 10903
New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 2, Third
Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301–
796–2039, or at the National Archives
and Records Administration (NARA).
For information on the availability of
this material at NARA, call 202–741–
6030, or go to https://www.archives.gov/
federal_register/code_of_federal_
regulations/ibr_locations.html.
(7) Tallow derivative means any
chemical obtained through initial
hydrolysis, saponification, or transesterification of tallow; chemical
conversion of material obtained by
hydrolysis, saponification, or transesterification may be applied to obtain
the desired product.
(8) Gelatin means a product that has
been obtained by the partial hydrolysis
of collagen derived from hides,
connective tissue, and/or bone bones of
cattle and swine. Gelatin may be either
Type A (derived from an acid-treated
precursor) or Type B (derived from an
E:\FR\FM\18MRR1.SGM
18MRR1
14732
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 53 / Friday, March 18, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
alkali-treated precursor) that has gone
through processing steps that include
filtration and sterilization or an
equivalent process in terms of
infectivity reduction.
*
*
*
*
*
PART 700—GENERAL
3. The authority citation for part 700
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 352, 355,
361, 362, 371, 374.
4. Section 700.27 by is amended by
revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
■
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
§ 700.27 Use of prohibited cattle materials
in cosmetic products.
(a) Definitions. The definitions and
interpretations of terms contained in
section 201 of the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) apply
to such terms when used in this part.
The following definitions also apply:
(1) Prohibited cattle materials mean
specified risk materials, small intestine
of all cattle except as provided in
paragraph (b)(2) of this section, material
from nonambulatory disabled cattle,
material from cattle not inspected and
passed, or mechanically separated (MS)
(Beef). Prohibited cattle materials do not
include the following:
(i) Tallow that contains no more than
0.15 percent insoluble impurities,
tallow derivatives, gelatin, hides and
hide-derived products, and milk and
milk products, and
(ii) Cattle materials inspected and
passed from a country designated under
paragraph (e) of this section.
(2) Inspected and passed means that
the product has been inspected and
passed for human consumption by the
appropriate regulatory authority, and at
the time it was inspected and passed, it
was found to be not adulterated.
(3) Mechanically separated (MS)
(Beef) means a meat food product that
is finely comminuted, resulting from the
mechanical separation and removal of
most of the bone from attached skeletal
muscle of cattle carcasses and parts of
carcasses that meets the specifications
contained in 9 CFR 319.5, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture regulation
that prescribes the standard of identity
for MS (Species).
(4) Nonambulatory disabled cattle
means cattle that cannot rise from a
recumbent position or that cannot walk,
including, but not limited to, those with
broken appendages, severed tendons or
ligaments, nerve paralysis, fractured
vertebral column, or metabolic
conditions.
(5) Specified risk material means the
brain, skull, eyes, trigeminal ganglia,
spinal cord, vertebral column
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:10 Mar 17, 2016
Jkt 238001
(excluding the vertebrae of the tail, the
transverse processes of the thoracic and
lumbar vertebrae, and the wings of the
sacrum), and dorsal root ganglia of cattle
30 months of age and older and the
tonsils and distal ileum of the small
intestine of all cattle.
(6) Tallow means the rendered fat of
cattle obtained by pressing or by
applying any other extraction process to
tissues derived directly from discrete
adipose tissue masses or to other carcass
parts and tissues. Tallow must be
produced from tissues that are not
prohibited cattle materials or must
contain no more than 0.15 percent
insoluble impurities as determined by
the method entitled ‘‘Insoluble
Impurities’’ (AOCS Official Method Ca
3a–46), American Oil Chemists’ Society
(AOCS), 5th Edition, 1997, incorporated
by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C.
552(a) and 1 CFR part 51, or another
method equivalent in accuracy,
precision, and sensitivity to AOCS
Official Method Ca 3a–46. You may
obtain copies of the method from AOCS
(https://www.aocs.org) 2211 W. Bradley
Ave. Champaign, IL 61821. Copies may
be examined at the Food and Drug
Administration’s Main Library, 10903
New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 2, Third
Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301–
796–2039 or at the National Archives
and Records Administration (NARA).
For information on the availability of
this material at NARA, call 202–741–
6030, or go to https://www.archives.gov/
federal_register/code_of_federal_
regulations/ibr_locations.html.
(7) Tallow derivative means any
chemical obtained through initial
hydrolysis, saponification, or transesterification of tallow; chemical
conversion of material obtained by
hydrolysis, saponification, or transesterification may be applied to obtain
the desired product.
(8) Gelatin means a product that has
been obtained by the partial hydrolysis
of collagen derived from hides,
connective tissue, and/or bone bones of
cattle and swine. Gelatin may be either
Type A (derived from an acid-treated
precursor) or Type B (derived from an
alkali-treated precursor) that has gone
through processing steps that include
filtration and sterilization or an
equivalent process in terms of
infectivity reduction.
*
*
*
*
*
Dated: March 14, 2016.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016–06123 Filed 3–17–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164–01–P
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[Docket No. USCG–2016–0093]
Drawbridge Operation Regulation;
Sacramento River, Sacramento, CA
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of deviation from
drawbridge regulation.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Coast Guard has issued a
temporary deviation from the operating
schedule that governs the Tower
Drawbridge across the Sacramento
River, mile 59.0, at Sacramento, CA. The
deviation is necessary to allow the
community to participate in the Peace
Love run. This deviation allows the
bridge to remain in the closed-tonavigation position during the deviation
period.
DATES: This deviation is effective from
8:30 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. on March 26,
2016.
ADDRESSES: The docket for this
deviation, [USCG–2016–0093] is
available at https://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you have questions on this temporary
deviation, call or email David H.
Sulouff, Chief, Bridge Section, Eleventh
Coast Guard District; telephone 510–
437–3516, email David.H.Sulouff@
uscg.mil.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: California
Department of Transportation has
requested a temporary change to the
operation of the Tower Drawbridge,
mile 59.0, over Sacramento River, at
Sacramento, CA. The vertical lift bridge
navigation span provides a vertical
clearance of 30 feet above Mean High
Water in the closed-to-navigation
position. The draw operates as required
by 33 CFR 117.189(a). Navigation on the
waterway is commercial and
recreational.
The drawspan will be secured in the
closed-to-navigation position from 8:30
a.m. to 10:30 a.m. on March 26, 2016,
to allow the community to participate in
the Peace Love run. This temporary
deviation has been coordinated with the
waterway users. No objections to the
proposed temporary deviation were
raised.
Vessels able to pass through the
bridge in the closed position may do so
at anytime. The bridge will be able to
open for emergencies and there is no
immediate alternate route for vessels to
pass. The Coast Guard will also inform
the users of the waterways through our
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\18MRR1.SGM
18MRR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 53 (Friday, March 18, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14718-14732]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-06123]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
21 CFR Parts 189 and 700
[Docket No. FDA-2004-N-0188; (Formerly 2004N-0081)]
RIN 0910-AF47
Use of Materials Derived From Cattle in Human Food and Cosmetics
AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
ACTION: Final rule; adoption of interim final rule as final with
amendments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is issuing a
final rule prohibiting the use of certain cattle material to address
the potential risk of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in human
food, including dietary supplements, and cosmetics. We have designated
the following items as prohibited cattle materials: Specified risk
materials (SRMs), the small intestine from all cattle (unless the
distal ileum has been removed), material from nonambulatory disabled
cattle, material from cattle not inspected and passed, or mechanically
separated (MS) (Beef). We are taking this action to minimize human
exposure to certain cattle material that could potentially contain the
BSE agent.
DATES: This final rule is effective on April 18, 2016.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Johnny Braddy, Center for Food Safety
and Applied Nutrition (HFS-315), Food and Drug Administration, 5100
Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740, 240-402-1709.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
A. Purpose of the Rule
BSE is a fatal neurological disorder of cattle that has a long
incubation period (2 to 8 years). It is transmitted when cattle ingest
protein meal containing the BSE infectious agent. Cattle affected by
BSE are usually apart from the herd and will show progressively
deteriorating behavioral and neurological signs. Cattle will react
excessively to noise or touch and will eventually stumble, fall, and
experience seizures, coma, and death. Studies have linked variant
Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD) in humans to exposure to the BSE
agent, most likely through human consumption of beef products
contaminated with the BSE agent. There is no known treatment of vCJD,
and it is invariably fatal.
The final rule completes a rulemaking process that began with an
interim final rule (IFR) in 2004 and was followed by IFRs in 2005 and
2008. The final rule establishes measures to prohibit the use of
certain cattle material in FDA-regulated human food and cosmetics to
address the potential risk of BSE. Because the United States has had
measures in place to prevent the introduction and spread of BSE,
including those affirmed in this rule, the risk of human exposure to
the BSE agent from FDA-regulated human food and cosmetics is
negligible.
B. Legal Authority
We are issuing these regulations under the adulteration provisions
in sections 402, 409, 601, and under section 701 (21 U.S.C. 342, 348,
361, and 371) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act).
C. Summary of the Major Provisions of the Rule
The final rule provides definitions for prohibited cattle materials
and prohibits their use in human food, dietary supplements, and
cosmetics, to address the potential risk of BSE. We designate the
following items as prohibited cattle materials: SRMs, the small
intestine from all cattle unless the distal ileum has been properly
removed, material from nonambulatory disabled cattle,
[[Page 14719]]
material from cattle not inspected and passed, or MS (Beef). We also
confirm that milk and milk products, hides and hide-derived products,
tallow that contains no more than 0.15 percent insoluble impurities,
and tallow derivatives are not prohibited cattle materials. Further, we
are amending the final rule to provide a definition of gelatin and to
clarify that gelatin is not considered a prohibited cattle material
under 21 CFR 189.5(a)(1) and 700.27(a)(1) as long as it is manufactured
using the customary industry processes specified. Finally, we are
finalizing the process for designating a country as not subject to BSE-
related restrictions applicable to FDA regulated human food and
cosmetics. Specific requirements regarding record maintenance,
retention, and accessibility, for manufacturers and processors of a
human food or cosmetic product made with material from cattle were
previously finalized (see 71 FR 59653).
D. Costs and Benefits
This final rule reaffirms the provisions in the 2004 IFR, as well
as the 2005 and 2008 amendments, to address the potential risk of BSE
in human food including dietary supplements, and in cosmetics. As the
final rule's coverage does not differ from the 2004 IFR and the 2005
and 2008 amendments, no additional costs or benefits will accrue from
this rulemaking.
Table of Contents
I. Introduction--what is BSE?
II. Background--what Is the history for this rulemaking?
III. What is the legal authority for this rulemaking?
IV. What comments did we receive? What are our responses?
A. Definitions (Sec. Sec. 189.5(a) and 700.27(a))
B. Requirements (Sec. Sec. 189.5(b) and 700.27(b))
C. Records (Sec. Sec. 189.5(c) and 700.27(c))
D. Adulteration (Sec. Sec. 189.5(d) and 700.27(d))
E. Process for Designating Countries (Sec. Sec. 189.5(e) and
700.27(e))
F. Other Comments
V. Regulatory Impact Analysis
A. Overview
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
D. Unfunded Mandatory Reform Act of 1995
VI. Environmental Impact, No Significant Impact
VII. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
VIII. Federalism
IX. References
I. Introduction--what is BSE?
BSE is a progressive and fatal neurological disorder of cattle
caused by an unconventional transmissible agent. BSE belongs to the
family of diseases known as transmissible spongiform encephalopathies
(TSEs). In the late stages of disease, 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 TSE agent. Other types of TSEs include
scrapie in sheep and goats, chronic wasting disease in deer and elk,
and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD) in humans.
BSE has a long incubation period (2 to 8 years), and is most likely
transmitted when tissues from infected cattle are rendered and
processed into protein meal, which is then used as an additive in
livestock feed (Refs. 1 and 2). The clinical signs of BSE include
behavioral, gait, and postural abnormalities. Cattle with the disease
often present with increased apprehension, increased reaction to sound
and touch, and a swaying gait. These signs may be accompanied by subtle
changes in the normal behavior of the cow, such as separation from the
herd while at pasture, disorientation, staring, and excessive licking
of the nose or flanks. The disease progresses to stumbling and falling,
and ends with seizures, coma, and death (Ref. 3).
Scientific and epidemiological studies have linked vCJD in humans
to exposure to the BSE agent, most likely through human consumption of
beef products contaminated with the agent. In several cases that
occurred in the United Kingdom (UK), it is believed that the persons
became infected through transfusion of blood from an asymptomatic
infected donor. There is no known treatment of vCJD, and it is
invariably fatal (Ref. 4).
As of June 2, 2014, vCJD has been identified in 229 patients from
12 countries. One hundred seventy-seven probable and confirmed cases of
vCJD have been reported in the UK, 27 in France, 5 in Spain, 4 in
Ireland, 4 in the United States, 3 in the Netherlands, 2 in Portugal, 2
in Italy, 2 in Canada, and one each from Japan, Saudi Arabia, and
Taiwan (Ref. 5). In two of the four U.S. cases, exposure to the BSE
agent is believed to have occurred while the individuals were residing
in the UK. A third case was likely exposed while residing in Saudi
Arabia. An investigation of the fourth case found that the patient's
exposure to the BSE agent likely occurred before the patient moved to
the United States (Ref. 5). In the United States, where measures to
prevent the introduction and spread of BSE have been in place for some
time, the risk of human exposure to the BSE agent is extremely low.
Indeed, in May 2013, the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE)
recognized the effectiveness of these mitigation measures and
categorized the United States as negligible BSE risk, in accordance
with Chapter 11.4 of the OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code (Refs. 6
and 7).
II. Background--what is the history for this rulemaking?
In the Federal Register of July 14, 2004 (69 FR 42256), we issued
an IFR entitled ``Use of Materials Derived From Cattle in Human Food
and Cosmetics'' (also referred to as ``the 2004 IFR'') to prohibit the
use of certain cattle material, to address the potential risk of BSE in
human food, including dietary supplements, and cosmetics. The 2004 IFR
designated the following items as prohibited cattle materials: SRMs,
the small intestine from all cattle, material from nonambulatory
disabled cattle, material from cattle not inspected and passed or MS
(Beef). SRMs include the brain, skull, eyes, trigeminal ganglia, spinal
cord, vertebral column (excluding the vertebrae of the tail, the
transverse processes of the thoracic and lumbar vertebrae, and the
wings of the sacrum), and dorsal root ganglia (DRG) of cattle 30 months
of age and older, and the tonsils and distal ileum of the small
intestine from all cattle. These restrictions were codified at Sec.
189.5, ``Prohibited cattle materials,'' and Sec. 700.27, ``Use of
prohibited cattle materials in cosmetic products.'' The requirements in
Sec. Sec. 189.5 and 700.27 are almost identical, except that the
latter pertains only to cosmetic products.
Previously, the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) of the
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) published an IFR in the Federal
Register on January 12, 2004 (69 FR 1862) (FSIS IFR). The FSIS IFR
prohibited certain cattle material from use in meat and meat products.
The FSIS IFR designated the same items as SRMs as specified in FDA's
2004 IFR. In the Federal Register of July 13, 2007, FSIS affirmed the
FSIS IFR with amendments (72 FR 38700) (``2007 FSIS affirmation''). In
the Federal Register of September 7, 2005 (70 FR 53063), we amended our
regulations to permit the use of the small intestine of cattle in human
food and cosmetics provided the distal ileum portion has been removed
properly (also referred to as the ``2005 amendment''). The 2005
amendment also clarified that milk and milk products, hides and hide-
derived products, and tallow derivatives are not prohibited cattle
materials, and we provided for a different method for
[[Page 14720]]
determining impurities in tallow. FSIS also amended its regulations on
September 7, 2005, to permit the use of the small intestine of cattle
in human food provided the distal ileum is removed properly (70 FR
53043).
In the Federal Register of April 17, 2008 (73 FR 20785), we amended
our regulations again to provide a process for designating certain
countries as not subject to certain BSE-related restrictions (also
referred to as the ``2008 amendment''). FSIS provided a similar
country-specific exception from certain BSE restrictions covered in its
regulations.
We also published a notice in the Federal Register on March 4, 2013
(78 FR 14012) (also referred to as the 2013 notice), reopening the
comment period for the interim final rule. We invited comment on our
assessment of recently published peer-reviewed scientific studies in
which trace amounts of BSE infectivity were found in parts of the small
intestines other than the distal ileum of cattle with both experimental
and natural occurring BSE.
In this rule, we are finalizing, with changes related to gelatin,
the 2004 IFR, as amended in 2005 and 2008, to restrict certain cattle
materials used in human foods and cosmetics that carry a risk of
transmitting BSE. The final rule complements similar restrictions that
apply to meat and meat products regulated by USDA.
III. What is the legal authority for this rulemaking?
We are issuing these regulations under the adulteration provisions
in sections 402, 409, 601, and under section 701 of the FD&C Act.
Under section 402(a)(3) of the FD&C Act, a food is deemed
adulterated ``if it consists in whole or in part of any filthy, putrid,
or decomposed substance, or if it is otherwise unfit for food.'' The
term ``otherwise unfit for food'' in section 402(a)(3) of the FD&C Act
does not require that a food be filthy, putrid, or decomposed for it to
be ``otherwise unfit for food.'' A food can be ``otherwise unfit for
food'' based on health risks. Further, the possibility of disease
transmission to humans from exposure to prohibited cattle material,
SRM, MS Beef, material from nonambulatory disabled cattle, and material
from cattle not inspected and passed) may present a risk to human
health. Under section 402(a)(3) of the FD&C Act, these materials are
unfit for food. Under section 402(a)(4) of the FD&C Act, a food is
adulterated ``if it has been prepared, packed, or held under insanitary
conditions whereby it may have become contaminated with filth, or
whereby it may have been rendered injurious to health.'' The failure to
ensure that food is prepared, packed, or held under conditions in which
prohibited cattle materials do not contaminate the food constitutes an
insanitary condition whereby it may have been rendered injurious to
health and thus renders the food adulterated under section 402(a)(4) of
the FD&C Act. Under section 402(a)(5) of the FD&C Act, food is deemed
adulterated if it is, in whole or in part, the product of an animal
which has died otherwise than by slaughter. Some cattle are not
inspected and passed because they have died before slaughter. Material
from cattle that die otherwise than by slaughter is adulterated under
section 402(a)(5) of the FD&C Act. As further explained in the 2004
IFR, prohibited cattle materials for use in human food are food
additives subject to section 409 of the FD&C Act, except when used as
dietary ingredients in dietary supplements. The use or intended use of
any prohibited cattle material in human food, except for dietary
ingredients in dietary supplements, causes the material and the food to
be adulterated under section 402(a)(2)(C) of the FD&C Act.
Under section 601(c) of the FD&C Act, a cosmetic is adulterated
``if it has been prepared, packed, or held under insanitary conditions
whereby it may have become contaminated with filth, or whereby it may
have been rendered injurious to health.'' The failure to ensure that a
cosmetic is prepared, packed, or held under conditions in which
prohibited cattle materials do not contaminate the cosmetic constitutes
an insanitary condition whereby it may have been rendered injurious to
health and, thus, renders the cosmetic adulterated under section 601(c)
of the FD&C Act.
Under section 701(a) of the FD&C Act, we may issue regulations for
the efficient enforcement of the FD&C Act. A regulation that requires
measures to prevent human food from being unfit for food, from being or
bearing an unsafe food additive, from being the product of an animal
that died otherwise than by slaughter, and to prevent human food and
cosmetics from being held under insanitary conditions, allows for
efficient enforcement of the FD&C Act.
IV. What comments did we receive? What are our responses?
We received approximately 1,464 comments, each containing one or
more issues, to the 2004 IFR, and approximately 20 comments, each
containing one or more issues, to the 2005 and 2008 amendments, and 31
comments to the 2013 notice. Animal welfare advocacy organizations,
private consultants, consumer groups, foreign governments, Members of
Congress, industry, and consumers submitted comments. Comments
previously addressed in the 2005 and 2008 amendments, and comments
addressing issues outside the scope of this rulemaking (e.g., those
addressing potential concerns regarding diseases other than BSE; those
addressing animal welfare concerns, which are covered in the Humane
Methods of Slaughter Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.) and
administered by USDA); the prohibition of the use of materials from
nonambulatory animals other than cattle (i.e., deer, elk, and sheep);
and those responding to rules issued by other federal agencies will not
be addressed in this document.
To make it easier to identify the comments and FDA's responses, the
word ``Comment,'' in parentheses, appears before the comment's
description and the word ``Response,'' in parentheses, appears before
FDA's response. Each comment is numbered to help distinguish between
different comments. The number assigned to each comment is purely for
organizational purposes and does not signify the comment's value or
importance.
A. Definitions (Sec. Sec. 189.5(a) and 700.27(a))
Sections 189.5(a) and 700.27(a) state that the definitions and
interpretations of terms in section 201 of the FD&C Act apply (21
U.S.C. 321) and also define the following terms: ``prohibited cattle
materials,'' ``inspected and passed,'' ``mechanically separated,''
``nonambulatory disabled cattle,'' ``specified risk material,''
``tallow,'' ``tallow derivative,'' and ``gelatin.'' Several comments
pertained to our regulatory definitions, and we discuss those comments
here.
1. ``Prohibited Cattle Materials'' (Sec. Sec. 189.5(a)(1) and
700.27(a)(1))
The 2004 interim final rule defined ``prohibited cattle materials''
as specified risk materials, small intestine of all cattle, material
from nonambulatory disabled cattle, material from cattle not inspected
and passed, or MS (Beef). The 2004 IFR also defined ``prohibited cattle
material'' as not to include tallow that contains ``no more than 0.15
percent hexane-insoluble impurities and tallow derivatives.'' The 2005
amendment made an exception in the case of the small intestine such
that the small intestine would not be considered prohibited cattle
material if the distal ileum is removed by a
[[Page 14721]]
procedure that removes at least 80 inches of the uncoiled and trimmed
small intestine in a manner specified in Sec. 189.5(b)(2) (or, in the
case of Sec. 700.27, Sec. 700.27(b)(2)) and also changed ``hexane-
insoluble'' to ``insoluble'' in the definition of ``tallow.'' The 2005
amendment also excluded hides and hide-derived products, and milk and
milk products from the definition of ``prohibited cattle materials.''
The 2008 amendment provided that FDA may designate a country as not
subject to certain BSE-related restrictions applicable to FDA regulated
human food and cosmetics.
We did not receive comments specific to the definition of
``prohibited cattle materials at Sec. Sec. 189.5(a)(1) and
700.27(a)(1), and we have finalized that portion of the definition
without change.
a. Tallow, Tallow Derivatives, Gelatin, Hides and Hide-Derived
Products, and Milk and Milk Products (Sec. Sec. 189.5(a)(1)(i) and
700.27(a)(1)(i))
(Comment 1) One comment supported the exclusion of hides and hide-
derived products from the definition of prohibited cattle materials but
said that we need to address the possible cross-contamination of hides
and other non-prohibited cattle materials with prohibited cattle
materials during slaughter and processing.
(Response 1) As noted in the 2005 amendment, manufacturers and
processors must take precautions to avoid cross contamination of hides
and other non-prohibited cattle material with prohibited cattle
material during slaughter and processing (70 FR 53063 at 53066).
Further, food establishments are subject to the current good
manufacturing practice requirements (CGMPs) at 21 CFR part 110, and the
failure to take adequate measures to prevent cross-contamination could
result in insanitary conditions whereby the food may be rendered
injurious to health and, therefore, adulterated under section 402(a)(4)
of the FD&C Act.
(Comment 2) While most comments found the clarification as to the
allowable composition of tallow source material used in tallow
derivatives in the preamble to the 2005 amendment helpful, one comment
suggested that we revise the definition of ``prohibited cattle
materials'' to state that: ``Prohibited cattle materials do not include
tallow that contains no more than 0.15 percent insoluble impurities,
tallow derivatives (regardless of the source of tallow), hides and
hide-derived products, and milk and milk products.''
(Response 2) We understand that the intent of the parenthetical
``regardless of the source of the tallow'' is to make clear that the
chemical processes (hydrolysis, transesterification, and
saponification) involving high temperature and pressure are
sufficiently rigorous even if the starting tallow is, for example,
inedible tallow or tallow containing greater than 0.15 percent
insoluble impurities. We agree that the processes to produce tallow
derivatives are sufficiently rigorous, but believe that by excluding
tallow derivatives, without the parenthetical, from the definition of
prohibited cattle material, it is clear that we are excluding all
tallow derivatives. Prohibited cattle material does not include tallow
derivatives. We do not believe the parenthetical ``regardless of the
source of tallow'' is needed.
(Comment 3) One comment would revise the definition of prohibited
cattle materials to emphasize the rigorousness of the processing
involved in the production of tallow derivatives (i.e.,
transesterification or saponification) to minimize the risk of
transmitting TSE agents. The comment was concerned that the ``lack of
alignment'' between U.S. and non-U.S. requirements and guidance with
respect to tallow derivatives will continue to affect the acceptance of
U.S.-origin materials in non-U.S. markets.
(Response 3) We decline to revise the definition as suggested by
the comment. Our objective in developing our BSE regulations for human
food and cosmetics, including these involving tallow derivatives, is to
apply appropriate measures to safeguard life and health and be no more
trade restrictive than necessary to achieve the food and cosmetic
safety objective. As to the degree of processing involved in producing
tallow derivatives, we addressed this subject in the preamble to the
2004 IFR (69 FR 42256 at 42261) and discussed how tallow derivatives
are produced by subjecting tallow to chemical processes (hydrolysis,
transesterification, and saponification) that involve high temperature
and pressure. We further noted in the 2004 IFR that FDA's Transmissible
Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (TSEAC) considered the
safety of tallow and tallow derivatives in 1998 and ``determined that
the rigorous conditions of manufacture are sufficient to further reduce
the BSE risk in tallow derivatives'' (69 FR 42256 at 42261).
We have revised the list of materials not considered prohibited
cattle materials at Sec. Sec. 189.5(a)(1)(i) and 700.27(a)(1)(i) to
include gelatin. To ensure that only gelatin derived from customary
industry processes qualifies for this exclusion, Sec. Sec. 189.5(a)(8)
and 700.27(a)(8) of the final rule provide that ``Gelatin means a
product that has been obtained by the partial hydrolysis of collagen
derived from hides, connective tissue, and/or bone bones of cattle and
swine. Gelatin may be either Type A (derived from an acid-treated
precursor) or Type B (derived from an alkali-treated precursor) that
has gone through processing steps that include filtration and
sterilization or an equivalent process in terms of infectivity
reduction.''
There has been increasing recognition based on scientific evidence
as to the safety of gelatin for human use irrespective of the source
materials from which it is made. For example, laboratory studies have
indicated that gelatin manufacturing processes are capable of reducing
inoculated BSE prion titers by at least six to eight orders of
magnitude (Ref. 8). The OIE Code does not recommend any restrictions,
regardless of the BSE status of a country, in trade of gelatin prepared
from bones and intended for food, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals including
biologicals, or medical devices, among other items (Ref. 9). A 2006
scientific panel of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)--
reviewing a 2003 EFSA Scientific Steering Committee opinion--concluded
that there was no support for prohibition of or restrictions on the use
of skull and vertebrae of cattle that had passed ante mortem and post
mortem inspections in the production of gelatin (Ref. 10). Based on
this evidence, we conclude that gelatin manufactured from bovine raw
materials using customary industry processes presents a negligible risk
of transmitting the agent that causes BSE.
(b) Cattle Materials Inspected and Passed From Designated Countries
(Sec. Sec. 189.5(a)(1)(ii) and 700.27(a)(1)(ii))
(Comment 4) One comment supporting a mechanism to designate
countries as not subject to certain BSE-related restrictions (provided
under Sec. 189.5(a)(1)(ii)) expressed concerns that interested
countries would need to go through separate application and evaluation
processes at USDA and FDA for a country to receive a USDA and FDA-
granted designation. The comment requested that the application and
evaluation procedures used by the different U.S. regulating agencies be
streamlined to reduce the potential duplication of time and effort by
the applying country.
(Response 4) We understand the concern expressed by the comment.
[[Page 14722]]
However, as we explained in the 2008 amendment, FDA and USDA have
different regulatory responsibilities with respect to preventing BSE
and ensuring food safety (73 FR 20785 at 20788). While we have our own
evaluation process, we will consult with USDA as part of this process
(73 FR 20785 at 20788). Further, we will take into consideration
available risk assessments of other competent authorities in conducting
our evaluations (73 FR 20785 at 20788.). Although not required, a
previous BSE evaluation performed by USDA's FSIS or Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service (APHIS), or by OIE, or by another country or
competent authority, could be used by FDA as part of our review (73 FR
20785 at 20788).
(Comment 5) Several comments from the gelatin industry requested
that gelatin be excluded from consideration as a prohibited cattle
material. The comments noted that standard industry practice is to
produce gelatin using raw materials from animals inspected and passed
for human consumption, that SRMs and materials from nonambulatory
disabled cattle are excluded, that the safety of gelatin is based on
adherence to industry practices, as well as our CGMPs and USDA
regulations, and that gelatin made from bovine raw materials undergoes
manufacturing processes that inactivate possible BSE infectivity,
citing studies by the European Commission (EC) and the Gelatine
Manufacturers of Europe. Several comments noted that TSEAC reviewed
these studies and concluded on July 17, 2003, that these studies
``demonstrate a reduction in infectivity that is sufficient to protect
human health.''
(Response 5) We agree with the comments and have revised Sec. Sec.
189.5(a)(1)(i) and 700.27(a)(1)(i) to include gelatin in the list of
materials not considered ``prohibited cattle materials.'' We are making
this change because gelatin manufactured according to customary
industry processes present a negligible risk of transmitting the BSE
agent and should not be considered ``prohibited cattle materials.''
(Comment 6) Several comments took issue with an FDA statement
appearing in the background section to the 2004 IFR that provided
certain products, such as gelatin and collagen, ``have traditionally
been produced from cattle material deemed inedible by the USDA'' (69 FR
42256 at 42261). The comments pointed out that U.S. raw materials used
to produce gelatin come from cattle that have been inspected and passed
by USDA for human consumption and are produced in accordance with FDA
and USDA regulations, and in accordance with applicable FDA human food
CGMPs. These comments further noted that only safe raw materials are
used to produce gelatin and that SRMs and materials from nonambulatory
disabled cattle are excluded. One comment specifically requested that
we publish a correction in the Federal Register clarifying that gelatin
is not produced from inedible material.
(Response 6) The quoted statement was included in a broader
discussion explaining in part why we were extending similar protections
to FDA-regulated human foods and cosmetics as USDA had already imposed
in USDA-inspected facilities. We agree that gelatin is manufactured
from raw materials that have been inspected and passed for human
consumption.
(Comment 7) Several comments requested that we clarify whether our
gelatin guidance document published in 1997 (Ref. 11) will be revoked
or revised in light of this regulation. The comments expressed concern
that gelatin manufacturers would face an unnecessary regulatory burden
depending on whether the product the gelatin is used in is a food
product or dietary supplement, or a pharmaceutical product, or for
other FDA-regulated uses. The comments also requested that we
explicitly state that our gelatin guidance document is no longer
applicable for products intended for oral consumption or cosmetic use
by humans.
(Response 7) This final rule supersedes the 1997 guidance with
respect to human food and cosmetics. We intend to review the 1997
guidance and will consider withdrawing or revising the guidance, as
appropriate, consistent with this final rule.
2. ``Inspected and Passed'' (Sec. Sec. 189.5(a)(2) and 700.27(a)(2))
The regulations define ``inspected and passed'' as meaning that the
product has been inspected and passed for human consumption by the
appropriate regulatory authority, and at the time it was inspected and
passed, it was found to be not adulterated. We did not receive comments
specific to our definition of ``inspected and passed,'' and we have
finalized the definition without change.
3. ``Mechanically Separated (MS) (Beef)'' (Sec. Sec. 189.5(a)(3) and
700.27(a)(3))
The regulations define ``mechanically separated (MS) (beef)'' as a
meat food product that is finely comminuted, resulting from the
mechanical separation and removal of most bone from the attached
skeletal muscle of cattle carcasses or parts of carcasses that meet
certain USDA specifications. We did not receive comments specific to
our definition of ``(MS) (Beef).''
On our own initiative, we have revised the definition of
``mechanically separated (MS) (Beef)'' to clarify that 9 CFR 319.5,
which we cite in Sec. Sec. 189.5(a)(3) and 700.27(a)(3), refers to a
USDA regulation. Thus, the final rule adds ``U.S. Department of
Agriculture'' before ``regulation.''
4. ``Nonambulatory Disabled Cattle'' (Sec. Sec. 189.5(a)(4) and
700.27(a)(4))
The regulations define ``nonambulatory disabled cattle'' as cattle
that cannot rise from a recumbent position or that cannot walk,
including, but not limited to, cattle with broken appendages, severed
tendons or ligaments, nerve paralysis, fractured vertebral column, or
metabolic conditions.
(Comment 8) One comment suggested that downer animals should be
tested first for BSE and held pending the outcome of the testing before
deciding to prohibit the use of material from nonambulatory disabled
cattle in human food and cosmetics. If the test results are negative,
then the carcass could be used for human food and cosmetics.
(Response 8) This option is not feasible due to the limitations of
currently available tests. No validated ante mortem test for BSE
currently exists. Available post mortem tests, although useful for
disease surveillance purposes in terms of determining the rate of
disease in the population of cattle, are not appropriate as a safety
indicator for human food or cosmetics because there is a potentially
long period in the life of an infected animal where tests using the
current methodology would not detect the disease (Refs. 12 through 14).
This is due, in part, to limitations on existing testing methods, which
rely on the use of post mortem brain tissue. Experimental evidence
demonstrates that for cattle infected orally, certain potentially
infective tissues (such as the distal ileum and tonsils) are the first
tissues to accumulate infectivity in the incubation period and this
infectivity occurs prior to any demonstrated infectivity in brain
tissue (Refs. 12 through 14). Therefore, tests conducted on brain
tissue may not accurately reflect the potential infectivity in other
tissues that develop infectivity earlier, such as the distal ileum.
As a result, we have finalized the definition of ``nonambulatory
disabled cattle'' without change.
(Comment 9) One comment stated that our restrictions relating to
materials
[[Page 14723]]
from nonambulatory disabled cattle should not apply to custom
slaughtered animals.
(Response 9) This final rule does not apply to custom slaughtered
cattle because such cattle are for the owner's exclusive use and not
for use in FDA regulated human food and cosmetics. FDA notes that, in
our 2007 affirmation of our interim final rule with amendments, FSIS
determined that it cannot permit the custom slaughter or preparation of
products of nonambulatory disabled cattle for human food even if it is
for the owner's exclusive use because FSIS considers the carcasses of
these animals to be adulterated (72 FR 38700 at 38703 to 38704).
5. ``Specified Risk Material'' (Sec. Sec. 189.5(a)(5) and
700.27(a)(5))
The regulations define ``specified risk material'' as meaning the
brain, skull, eyes, trigeminal ganglia, spinal cord, vertebral column
(excluding the vertebrae of the tail, the transverse processes of the
thoracic and lumbar vertebrae, and the wings of the sacrum), and dorsal
root ganglia of cattle 30 months and older. The definition also
includes tonsils and distal ileum of the small intestine of all cattle
as ``specified risk material.''
In the Federal Register of March 4, 2013 (78 FR 14012), we reopened
the comment period for the IFR due to new studies showing infectivity
in parts of the small intestine other than the distal ileum. We noted
that there were studies showing the presence of some infectivity in the
proximal ileum, jejunum, ileocecal junction, and colon of cattle with
BSE. We also noted that the infectivity levels reported in the studies
were lower than the infectivity levels previously demonstrated for the
distal ileum (78 FR 14012 at 14013). We put the studies into the
administrative record and invited comment on them, and also said that
we had tentatively concluded that the effect of these traces of
infectivity on the risk of human or ruminant exposure to BSE in the
United States is negligible (78 FR 14012). We tentatively concluded
that ``requiring the removal of additional parts of the small intestine
would not provide a measurable risk reduction compared to that already
being achieved by removal of the distal ileum in all cattle and that it
would be appropriate to finalize our interim final rule without
changing any provisions related to the small intestine'' (78 FR 14012).
(Comment 10) One comment asked whether the pituitary gland of
cattle is considered an SRM and would have to be removed from the
carcass when the brain is removed if the cattle is 30 months of age or
older.
(Response 10) The pituitary gland or hypophysis lies at the base of
the brain, contacting the hypothalamus. Anatomically, it is considered
part of the brain. Thus, the pituitary gland or hypophysis is
considered an SRM in cattle 30 months or age or older and must be
removed from the carcass when the brain is removed.
(Comment 11) One comment requested that the vertebral column not be
considered an SRM because the attached DRG as well as the loosely
attached spinal cord, which are sources of BSE infectivity, can be
safely separated and removed from the vertebral column. (In general
terms, DRG are nerves attached to the spinal cord.) The comment did not
submit any data in support of its position nor did it explain the
method or methods for safely separating and removing the DRG from the
vertebral column.
(Response 11) We decline to revise the rule as suggested by the
comment. While the vertebral column has not been shown to harbor BSE
infectivity, it does contain tissues (i.e., DRG, spinal cord) that have
been shown to be infectious. Technologies are not currently available
to safely remove the DRG without removing part of the vertebral column
(see 2007 FSIS affirmation, 72 FR 38700 at 38710). The 2007 FSIS
affirmation also noted that while the DRG is located within the
vertebral bones, it could potentially become dislodged during
consumption of bone-in-beef products. Therefore, the vertebral column
(excluding the vertebrae of the tail, the transverse processes of the
thoracic and lumbar vertebrae, and the wings of the sacrum) from cattle
30 months of age and older is included in the list of SRMs. We will
reconsider this issue if technology becomes available to safely remove
the DRG from the vertebral column, but we have finalized the definition
of ``specified risk material'' without change.
(Comment 12) One comment requested that we revise the definition of
SRMs to include meat obtained from vertebral columns processed with
Advanced Meat Recovery (AMR) systems because of the instances of DRG
and spinal cord being detected in AMR products.
(Response 12) We decline to revise the rule as suggested by the
comment. USDA regulations, at 9 CFR 318.24, provide that vertebral
columns of cattle 30 months of age and older (excluding the vertebrae
of the tail, the transverse processes of the thoracic and lumbar
vertebrae, and the wings of the sacrum) are SRMs and therefore cannot
be used as source materials for AMR systems.
(Comment 13) One comment stated that, although we noted that the
OIE has not designated any intestinal sections other than the distal
ileum as SRM, the OIE did not conduct a risk assessment to support that
statement.
(Response 13) We did not intend to imply that the OIE had conducted
a risk assessment or studied the new research findings and published
its conclusions about the significance to human health. We meant that
the OIE had not added parts of the small intestine other than the
distal ileum to its recommendations on commodities that should not be
traded (Ref. 15).
(Comment 14) Some comments recommended that the 30-month age
cutoff, which provides a basis for designating certain cattle materials
as SRMs, should be changed to a 12-month cutoff because of scientific
uncertainty about how BSE spreads in cattle, and because the true
prevalence of the disease in the United States is not fully known.
(Response 14) We disagree with these comments. Experimental and
epidemiological evidence have clearly linked transmission of BSE to
using protein derived from BSE infected cattle as an additive in cattle
feed. FDA's 1997 and 2008 BSE feed regulations prohibit this practice.
Further, ongoing BSE surveillance conducted by USDA APHIS, which tests
approximately 40,000 animals from the highest risk cattle population
per year, shows that the prevalence in the United States is less than
one case per million adult cattle in the United States (Ref. 16). We
therefore believe that the 30-month cutoff is appropriate for the BSE
risk status in the United States, as we first discussed in our 2004 IFR
(69 FR 42256 at 42259-60).
(Comment 15) One comment recommended that a 12-month cutoff for
purposes of designating certain cattle materials as SRMs would be more
prudent given the scientific uncertainty in fully understanding the
possible ways that the BSE agent might infect humans.
(Response 15) We disagree that an additional margin of safety in
the age cutoff is needed because of scientific uncertainty about how
humans are exposed to the BSE agent. The 30-month cutoff is
internationally recognized and well supported by pathogenesis studies
that were designed to determine the tissue distribution of the BSE
agent as the disease progresses in BSE-infected cattle.
(Comment 16) Several comments recommended that materials currently
[[Page 14724]]
designated as SRMs if they are from cattle 30 months of age and older
should be considered SRMs regardless of the animal's age and should be
prohibited from entering the food supply. According to the comment, a
broad prohibition on the use of SRMs regardless of the animal's age
would significantly reduce the need of determining the age of each
animal, and thereby improve enforcement. Some comments pointed out
that, in the absence of a national animal identification system, any
determination of an animal's age is based typically on a physical
assessment, and such an assessment can be subjective.
(Response 16) We disagree that the full list of SRMs should be
removed from all cattle to eliminate the need for aging the animals.
Methods of aging allowed under FSIS regulations, such as documentation
and dentition, are reliable for identifying cattle over 30 months of
age.
(Comment 17) One comment recommended that vertebral columns of
cattle of all ages should be considered SRMs, not just vertebral
columns of cattle 30 months of age and older, but the comment did not
provide evidence or data to support the change.
(Response 17) We disagree with this recommendation. As previously
stated in Comment and Response 14, pathogenesis studies support a 30-
month cutoff in low BSE prevalence countries like the United States.
(Comment 18) Several comments noted that available post mortem
tests are capable of identifying the presence of the BSE agent only
near the end of the animal's incubation period; therefore cattle
younger than 30 months of age in the early stages of BSE that do not
test positive for the disease may be harboring the BSE agent. The
comments suggested that the definition of SRM not exclude certain
materials from cattle younger than 30 months.
(Response 18) We agree about the limitation of BSE test methods,
but disagree that the limitations should influence the SRM definition.
The 30-month cutoff is based on pathogenesis studies, not on diagnostic
capabilities.
(Comment 19) One comment supported a 12-month cutoff for
classifying animal age-related SRMs due to uncertainty surrounding a
published study that suggested that there may be another form of TSE in
cattle, referred to as bovine amyloidotic spongiform encephalopathy
(BASE).
(Response 19) We do not agree that the 12-month cutoff is necessary
for the BASE strain of BSE, also known as L-type BSE. FSIS pointed out
in the 2007 FSIS affirmation that the available data on the BASE strain
do not indicate that cattle with this form of BSE are more likely to
contain higher levels of the infective agent early in the incubation
period than cattle with the ``typical'' BSE strain (72 FR 38700 at
38707). As FSIS concluded, additional study on the BASE form of BSE
will be needed to determine its significance.
(Comment 20) One comment recommended expanding the SRM definition
to include the entire head of cattle 30 months of age and older. The
comment also stated that cheek and head meat of cattle 12 months of age
and older should be removed before the skull is fragmented or split,
based on concerns that the head or cheek meat may contain central
nervous system materials if the meat is not removed before the skull is
fragmented or split. To support its arguments, the comment referred to
a 2002 USDA FSIS paper that discussed the prohibition of cheek meat
from cattle aged 24 months and older for human food if the meat is not
removed before the skull is fragmented or split.
(Response 20) We disagree that the entire head of cattle 30 months
of age and older should be condemned because of concerns that head meat
and cheek meat could be contaminated with central nervous system
tissue. FSIS regulations (9 CFR 310.22(e)) require that establishment
procedures for removal of SRMS at slaughter must address potential
contamination of edible materials with specified risk materials. Such
procedures would include taking steps to ensure that cheek meat, for
example, is not cross-contaminated with brain matter or central nervous
system matter.
(Comment 21) One comment recommended using a 12-month cutoff for
purposes of designating certain cattle materials as SRMs so that it
would be consistent with the European Union (EU) standard 12-month
cutoff period.
(Response 21) We decline to revise the rule as suggested by the
comment. The EU established its BSE requirements because of a small
number of BSE cases detected in young animals. These cases are now
believed to be the result of cattle being exposed to large exposure
doses of the BSE agent at the height of their BSE outbreak, before
appropriate mitigations were put in place to reduce high levels of BSE
infectivity circulating in their cattle population. In contrast, early
control measures were put in place in the United States to protect
against the establishment and amplification of BSE in the U.S. cattle
population.
Further, the EC has published a roadmap for relaxing its BSE
mitigations, including age cutoffs, because of the downward trend in
BSE cases across the EU (Ref. 17).
(Comment 22) Several comments supported using a 12-month cutoff for
purposes of designating certain cattle materials as SRMs because cattle
as young as 21 months have tested positive for BSE in the UK and Japan.
(Response 22) We disagree with these comments. As discussed in the
2004 IFR (69 FR 42256 at 42259), we are aware of documented cases of
BSE in the UK in animals younger than 30 months of age. As noted in the
2004 IFR (69 FR 42256 at 42259), at the height of the epidemic in the
UK when thousands of animals were being diagnosed with BSE each year,
fewer than 20 animals younger than 30 months were confirmed with the
disease (Ref. 18). The youngest animal with a confirmed case of BSE was
20 months old (Ref. 19). The occurrence of BSE in young animals in the
UK was most likely the result of exposure to a high infective dose of
the BSE agent at a young age.
We also noted in the 2004 IFR the two reported cases of BSE in 21-
month and 23-month-old animals in Japan discovered during the testing
of animals presented for slaughter (69 FR 42256 at 42259). FSIS
addressed a similar comment in the 2007 FSIS affirmation (72 FR 38700
at 38721) and concluded that the available evidence surrounding the two
very young cases reported in Japan is insufficient to support any
changes in FSIS's existing measures to prevent human exposure to the
BSE agent. FSIS referred to a report by EFSA's Scientific Panel on
Biological Hazards, which stated that ``it is unclear whether the very
young cases [reported in Japan] were adequately identified and formally
confirmed'' (Ref. 20). This same EFSA report concluded that these cases
``seem to be epidemiologically peculiar as their cohort would have been
expected to yield further cases.''
(Comment 23) One comment said a 12-month age cutoff would be
consistent with the International Review Team (IRT) recommendation that
the brain, skull, spinal cord, and vertebral column of cattle over 12
months of age be excluded from both human food and animal food chains
unless aggressive surveillance shows that the BSE risk in the United
States is minimal (Ref. 21).
(Response 23) We decline to revise the rule in response to the
comment. The IRT was convened at the request of the U.S. Secretary of
Agriculture on December 30, 2003, to review the actions taken by the
United States in response to the confirmation of BSE in an imported
dairy cow in Washington State on December 23, 2003. The IRT recommended
that, among other things,
[[Page 14725]]
the brain, skull, spinal cord, and vertebral column of cattle over 12
months be excluded from both the human food and animal food chains
unless aggressive surveillance proves the BSE risk in the United States
to be minimal (Ref. 22). As a follow up to the IRT report, USDA's APHIS
conducted the aggressive surveillance and found the BSE prevalence in
the United States to be minimal. Therefore, a 30-month cutoff is
consistent with the recommendations of the IRT.
(Comment 24) One comment noted that many countries have imported
vast amounts of meat-and-bone meal from countries with BSE-infected
cattle, some of which do not have adequate surveillance and other
mitigations in place to prevent contamination of the animal feed and
human food chains. The comment further noted that these countries may
still serve as a source of disease, and if the entire intestine is not
designated as SRM, BSE-infected bovine products could be imported and
enter the U.S. food or feed supply.
(Response 24) We disagree that the scenario described provides
sufficient justification for designating the entire intestine as SRM.
Our trading partners in cattle and cattle derived products are
countries that have performed a BSE risk assessment, conducted the
required level of BSE surveillance, and have the necessary BSE
mitigations in place to meet OIE requirements for negligible or
controlled risk status.
(Comment 25) One comment stated that we should err on the side of
caution when it comes to protecting public health and designate the
entire length of the intestines as SRM. The comment noted that
scientific research demonstrates that immunostaining was observed in
the myenteric plexus of the distal ileum in both naturally infected and
experimentally challenged cattle with BSE, so one cannot eliminate the
possibility of infectivity in other sections because the myenteric
plexus exists throughout the entire intestine. Another comment stated
that even a trace of BSE infectivity is concern enough to prohibit the
use of the jejunum, proximal ileum, ileocecal junction, and colon of
cattle.
(Response 25) We agree that it is reasonable to assume that
increasingly sensitive detection methods could demonstrate that BSE
infectivity is present anywhere along the intestinal tract, associated
either with the enteric nervous system or lymphoreticular tissue.
However, all available evidence to date shows that levels outside the
distal ileum are much lower than levels in the distal ileum. As we
explained in the 2013 notice, our tentative conclusion took into
consideration not just the lower levels, but also the other safeguards
in place in the United States, the sharp decline in the worldwide
incidence of BSE, and the extremely low prevalence of BSE in the U.S.
cattle population as indicated by USDA's BSE surveillance program (78
FR 14012). This conclusion is consistent with the recommendation in the
2009 EFSA Scientific Opinion that future consideration of risk
associated with infectivity in the intestine take into account the BSE
prevalence in cattle at that time (Ref. 18).
(Comment 26) Comments from the Biological Hazards Unit of EFSA in
response to FDA's 2013 notice reopening the comment period clarified
EFSA's current thinking on BSE infectivity in bovine intestines. EFSA
stated that it had concluded that BSE infectivity in the bovine ileum
is found mainly in association with the lymphoid follicles, the ileal
Peyer's patches (Refs. 23 through 25). The ileal Peyer's patches are
aggregated into a long continuous structure called the ileocecal plate.
The ileocecal plate extends the full length of the ileum, and may
extend proximally into the jejunum. EFSA concluded that, when assessing
the BSE infectious load potentially present in the intestines of BSE-
infected cattle, the ileocecal plate should be considered as the main
contributor to BSE infectivity in the intestine.
(Response 26) Since submitting comments to the 2013 notice, the
EFSA Panel on Biological Hazards (BIOHAZ) published on May 13, 2014, a
Scientific Opinion on BSE risk in bovine intestines and mesentery (Ref.
25). This scientific opinion provides additional information about the
distribution of intestinal lymphoid tissue with which BSE infectivity
is associated in the early stages of disease. EFSA concluded that the
BSE infectious load in the intestines is primarily associated with the
lymphoid tissue making up the ileocecal plate. According to anatomical
data presented in the report, the length of the ileocecal plate could
reach four meters (157 inches), with considerable animal-to-animal
variation, in cattle younger than 18 month of age, before the ileocecal
plate starts to diminish in length as the animal ages. So, while
studies to date show that infectivity levels outside the distal ileum
are much lower than in the distal ileum, the anatomical data in the
report show that in young cattle lymphoid tissue could extend two
meters outside (proximal to) the distal ileum. This anatomical data
does not alter our decision to leave the SRM definition unchanged. We
believe that given the United States and worldwide BSE prevalence data,
removal of prohibited cattle materials as required by this rule,
together with the other effective BSE mitigations implemented by the
U.S. government, provides the appropriate level of protection against
human exposure to the BSE agent.
6. ``Tallow'' (Sec. Sec. 189.5(a)(6) and 700.27(a)(6))
The regulations define ``tallow'' as the rendered fat of cattle
obtained by pressing or by applying any other extraction process to
tissues derived directly from discrete adipose tissue masses or to
other carcass parts and tissue. The definition also states that tallow
must be produced from tissues that are not prohibited cattle materials
and must not contain more than 0.15 insoluble impurities as determined
by the method entitled ``Insoluble Impurities'' (AOCS Official Method
Ca 3a-46, American Oil Chemists' Society (AOCS), 5th Edition, 1997, or
another equivalent method.
(Comment 27) One comment questioned the basis (i.e., underlying
data) for selecting the 0.15 percent level as the allowable cutoff for
insoluble impurities in tallow, but did not provide evidence or data to
support changing the allowable level.
(Response 27) We discussed the underlying research that provided
the basis for permitting tallow to be used in human food and cosmetics
if it contains no more than 0.15 percent insoluble impurities in the
2004 IFR (69 FR 42256 at 42260 through 42261). In addition, the 0.15
percent cutoff is consistent with the level used by the Office
International des Epizooties (OIE) in the BSE chapter of the OIE
Terrestrial Animal Health Code (Ref. 7). Therefore, we are not making
any further changes with respect to using the 0.15 percent level as the
allowable cutoff of insoluble impurities.
7. ``Tallow Derivatives'' (Sec. Sec. 189.5(a)(7) and 700.27(a)(7))
The regulations define ``tallow derivative'' as any chemical
obtained through initial hydrolysis, saponification, or
transesterification of tallow. The definition also states that chemical
conversion of material obtained by hydrolysis, saponification, or
transesterification may be applied to obtain the desired product.
We did not receive comments specific to our definition of ``tallow
derivative,'' and we have finalized the definition without change.
[[Page 14726]]
8. ``Gelatin'' (Sec. Sec. 189.5(a)(8) and 700.27(a)(8))
Our regulations at Sec. Sec. 189.5 and 700.27 mention, but do not
define, ``gelatin.'' Thus, on our own initiative, we have decided to
define gelatin as a product that has been obtained by the partial
hydrolysis of collagen derived from hides, connective tissue, and/or
bones of cattle and swine. Gelatin may be either Type A (derived from
an acid-treated precursor) or Type B (derived from an alkali-treated
precursor) that has gone through processing steps that include
filtration and sterilization or an equivalent process in terms of
infectivity reduction (Ref. 26).
B. Requirements (Sec. Sec. 189.5(b) and 700.27(b))
The regulations at Sec. Sec. 189.5(b)(1) and 700.27(b)(1) provide
that no human food or cosmetic shall be manufactured from, processed
with, or otherwise contain, prohibited cattle materials. We further
clarify in Sec. Sec. 189.5(b)(2) and 700.27(b)(2) that the small
intestine is not considered prohibited cattle material as long as the
distal ileum is removed by a procedure that removes at least 80 inches
of the small intestine or by another procedure that the establishment
can show is equally effective at ensuring the distal ileum is
completely removed.
(Comment 28) One comment objected to the use of cattle materials in
any products and believed that our ``published policy'' is much too
lenient, but did not provide evidence or data to support this
assertion.
(Response 28) We disagree with the comment's broad generalization.
In the absence of data or other information, we do not have a basis on
which to evaluate the comment's assertion that our published policy is
too lenient.
(Comment 29) One comment questioned the validity of relying on the
Harvard-Tuskegee study to support the restrictions being applied by
this regulation to externally applied cosmetics. The comment also
questioned whether the restrictions that cover materials derived from
cattle not inspected and passed are predicated on unfounded assumptions
with respect to potential infectivity.
(Response 29) The Harvard-Tuskegee study does not specifically
address potential human exposure to the BSE agent from cosmetics (69 FR
42256 at 42258), so it was not relied on to support the restrictions
applied by the 2004 IFR to externally applied cosmetics. However, we
are concerned that cosmetics, because of the ways they are used, could
serve as another potential route for BSE infectivity to enter the human
system. We therefore conclude that the wide range of cattle-derived
ingredients used in cosmetics should not contain prohibited cattle
materials (Ref. 27).
(Comment 30) One comment said that the United States should test
every cow for TSEs, extend and enhance the feed ban, enhance
surveillance and testing programs to test all cattle destined for human
and animal consumption, ban all animal tissue in vaccines and
nutritional supplements, and stop feeding ruminant and non-ruminant
protein to all species.
(Response 30) We disagree with the recommendation to change current
U.S. BSE control measures. The mitigations currently in place in the
U.S. adequately protect human and animal health from BSE. Testing
cattle and enhancing surveillance and testing programs fall under the
purview of USDA. USDA's surveillance strategy is to target testing on
those animals in the cattle population where the disease is most likely
to be found if it is present. USDA has concluded that this is the most
effective way to meet OIE and domestic surveillance standards. USDA
determined that a level of 40,000 samples per year from these targeted,
high-risk cattle far exceeds the standards recommended by the OIE (Ref.
16). With respect to animal feed restrictions, FDA's 1997 feed ban
prohibited the use of ruminant protein in cattle feed, while the 2008
enhanced feed ban prohibits the use of the highest risk cattle tissues
in all animal feed. Lastly, we are not aware of scientific
justification for banning all animal tissue in vaccines and nutritional
supplements.
(Comment 31) While many comments supported the use of material from
nonambulatory disabled cattle, a few comments requested that these
materials be prohibited regardless of the reason for the animal's
condition (e.g., obesity, fatigue, stress, nerve paralysis, or physical
injury such as a fractured appendage, severed tendon or ligament, or
dislocated joint). Other comments were concerned that visual
examination was not sufficient for determining whether an animal is
safe to be slaughtered. Other comments thought the current prohibition
involving nonambulatory disabled cattle is too broad in its
application, particularly when applied to animals that are
nonambulatory due to clear physical injuries, such as a broken limb.
(Response 31) We decline to make changes to the rule regarding the
prohibition on the use of cattle materials from nonambulatory disabled
cattle in human food and cosmetics. As discussed in the 2007 FSIS
affirmation, surveillance data from the EU indicate that cattle that
cannot rise from a recumbent position are among the cattle that have a
greater prevalence of BSE than healthy slaughter cattle, and the
typical clinical signs of BSE may not always be observed when cattle
are nonambulatory (72 FR 38700 at 38701 to 38706).
(Comment 32) Several comments requested that SRMs be kept out of
all cosmetics over which FDA has jurisdiction.
(Response 32) Under Sec. 700.27, no cosmetic shall be manufactured
from, processed with, or otherwise contain, prohibited cattle
materials. This includes SRMs.
(Comment 33) One comment stated that human consumption of any trace
of BSE can be fatal, and that the use of materials derived from cattle
should not be allowed in human food and cosmetics.
(Response 33) We strongly disagree that cattle derived products
should not be used in human food and cosmetics. The sharp decline in
vCJD cases worldwide demonstrates that internationally recognized BSE
mitigations that remove only specified risk materials are highly
effective in protecting humans against BSE. (Refs. 4, 22, 28, and 29).
We note that the World Health Organization (WHO), in the 2010 update to
the WHO Tables on Tissue Infectivity Distribution in Transmissible
Spongiform Encephalopathies (Ref. 30), stated that the amount of
pathological prion or infectious agent detected by exquisitely
sensitive assays may well fall below the threshold of transmissibility
for humans, and that consideration also has to be given to the level of
infectivity in tissue, the amount of tissue to which a person is
exposed, and that oral exposure is a comparatively inefficient route of
transmission.
(Comment 34) One comment stated that one of the most important and
still unanswered questions is the significance of atypical BSE with
respect to human and animal health. The comment said that if the U.S.
government considers atypical BSE to be a sporadic disease, at present
there is no means to eliminate cases from the national herd, and thus
the food supply. The comment noted that in atypical BSE the extent of
infectivity in bovine tissue is unknown, and hence, it would be
important to at least remove the tissues having infectivity in
classical BSE cases.
(Response 34) We agree with the comment's assertion that there are
still unanswered questions about the
[[Page 14727]]
significance of atypical BSE with respect to human and animal health.
We also agree that if atypical cases are sporadic, their occurrence
will continue to be an ongoing rare event in our cattle population.
However, based on the available science, we believe that the
mitigations currently in place in the United States to protect against
classical BSE are adequate to protect against atypical BSE. We note
that this was also the conclusion of the OIE Scientific Commission for
Animal Diseases. The February 2013 meeting report concluded that ``the
ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban which mitigates the risk of classical BSE
concurrently reduces the recycling of atypical BSE in the cattle
populations of the controlled and negligible BSE risk countries within
which it is applied.'' (Ref. 31).
C. Records (Sec. Sec. 189.5(c) and 700.27(c))
In the 2004 IFR, FDA required that manufacturers and processors of
human food and cosmetics that are manufactured from, processed with, or
otherwise contain, cattle material must make existing records relevant
to compliance available to FDA for inspection and copying. In a
companion rulemaking at the same time, FDA proposed a rule entitled
``Recordkeeping Requirements for Human Food and Cosmetics Manufactured
From, Processed With, or Otherwise Containing Material from Cattle''
(69 FR 42275). The rule proposed to require that manufacturers and
processors of human food and cosmetics that are manufactured from,
processed with, or otherwise contain, material from cattle establish
and maintain records sufficient to demonstrate the food or cosmetic is
not manufactured from, processed, with, or does not otherwise contain,
prohibited cattle materials. The records requirements were finalized in
2006 and incorporated the requirement from the 2004 IFR that existing
records relevant to compliance be made available to FDA (71 FR 59653).
D. Adulteration (Sec. Sec. 189.5(d) and 700.27(d))
Under Sec. 189.5(d)(1), failure of a manufacturer or processor to
operate in compliance with the requirements or records provisions
renders human food adulterated under section 402(a)(4) of the FD&C Act.
Under Sec. 700.27(d), failure of a manufacturer or processor to
operate in compliance with the requirements or records provisions
renders a cosmetic adulterated under section 601(c) of the FD&C Act.
Further, under Sec. 189.5(d)(2), human food manufactured from,
processed with, or otherwise containing, prohibited cattle materials is
unfit for human food and deemed adulterated under section 402(a)(3) of
the FD&C Act. Under Sec. 189.5(d)(3), the use or intended use of any
prohibited cattle material in human food causes the material and the
food to be adulterated under section 402(a)(2)(C) of the FD&C Act if
the prohibited cattle material is a food additive, unless it is the
subject of a food additive regulation or of an investigational
exemption for a food additive under Sec. 170.17.
We did not receive comments specific to the adulteration
provisions, and we have finalized them without change.
E. Process for Designating Countries (Sec. Sec. 189.5(e) and
700.27(e))
Sections 189.5(e) and 700.27(e) establish a process for designating
a country as not subject to certain BSE-related restrictions applicable
to FDA-regulated human food and cosmetics. A country seeking to be so
designated must send a written request to the Director of FDA's Center
for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, including information about the
country's BSE case history, risk factors, measures to prevent the
introduction and transmission of BSE, and any other relevant
information.
We did not receive comments specific to the process for designating
countries, and we have finalized those aspects of the rule without
change.
F. Other Comments
Several comments addressed matters that were not specific to a
particular provision in the IFRs. We address those comments here.
(Comment 35) Several comments said that prohibiting the use of
cattle materials from nonambulatory disabled cattle in human food and
cosmetics also should apply to the use of such materials in animal food
or feed.
(Response 35) This final rule applies to the use of cattle
materials in human food and cosmetics regulated by FDA. Our regulations
in effect at the time of the 2004 IFR prohibited the use of certain
protein from mammalian tissues in ruminant feed and have since been
revised to prohibit the use of certain cattle-derived risk materials
(e.g., the brains and spinal cords from cattle 30 months of age and
older, as well as the entire carcass of cattle not inspected and passed
for human consumption) in all animal feeds. In a feed rule published in
the Federal Register on April 25, 2008 (73 FR 22720), FDA's Center for
Veterinary Medicine (CVM) explained that, because of the low prevalence
of BSE in the United States, it is not necessary to prohibit all
ruminant material from animal feed, nor is it necessary to prohibit all
animal or all mammalian products in cattle feed. (See 73 FR 22720 at
22724, as well as similar discussion provided in the preamble to the
earlier CVM proposal published in the Federal Register on October 6,
2005 (70 FR 58570 at 58578).)
(Comment 36) One comment stated that we do not truly know or
understand the real risk to the public in regards to vCJD as caused by
classical BSE. The comment said that based on results of an appendix
tissue survey in the UK, the dose to infect humans may be much smaller
than previously considered, and even small amounts of the BSE agent
could infect humans resulting in a subclinical disease that may pose a
risk to other people via blood transfusions, etc. According to the
comment, this is justification for prohibiting the use of the entire
intestine for human consumption or cosmetics.
(Response 36) We are aware of the results of the appendix survey
published October 15, 2013, in the British Medical Journal (Ref. 32).
We agree that the survey results underscore the need for better
understanding of BSE and vCJD. In the appendix survey, 32,441 archived
appendix samples collected during surgical operations performed in the
UK between 2000 and 2012 were analyzed for the presence of abnormal
prion protein. Sixteen samples were positive for abnormal prions. We
did not conclude from these findings that they provide the scientific
justification to modify our SRM definition to include the entire
intestine of cattle. As the article points out, the samples were
collected after the large BSE epizootic in the United Kingdom that
resulted in a substantial amount of BSE infectivity entering the human
food supply. We continue to believe that the SRM definition we are
finalizing is appropriate for managing the BSE situation risk in the
United States.
(Comment 37) One comment stated that FDA does not require reporting
on CJD, so the United States is unable to track the incidence rate of
the disease.
(Response 37) Tracking the incidence of CJD and vCJD is the
responsibility of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The CDC collaborates with the American Association of
Neuropathologists, the National Prion Disease Pathology Surveillance
Center, and State health departments to monitor the prevalence of human
prion diseases in the United States (Ref. 33).
(Comment 38) Several comments were from individuals who had
suffered the loss of a loved one from sporadic CJD (sCJD) and were
concerned about sCJD risks as well as vCJD risks. Many
[[Page 14728]]
comments said that, because the etiology of sCJD is unknown, FDA should
take every precaution possible to eliminate human exposure to what
could potentially be a causative agent of sCJD.
(Response 38) Although sCJD and vCJD are both prion diseases of
humans and are similar in many respects, the available scientific
evidence does not support a conclusion that the BSE agent causes sCJD.
Therefore, we believe that requiring removal of parts of the small
intestines other than the distal ileum would not provide any additional
protection against sCJD.
(Comment 39) A comment inquired as to the impact of sequestration
and budget cuts upon the availability of FDA inspectors in slaughter
facilities to insure the proper removal of the distal ileum and keep
the public safe.
(Response 39) FDA does not inspect cattle slaughter facilities.
They are inspected by USDA under the provisions of the Federal Meat
Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 601).
(Comment 40) One comment requested that bovine blood-derived
products, such as beef blood plasma and fibrinogen, be prohibited until
it is more certain that such blood-derived products do not have the
potential for transmitting TSEs to humans. While noting the current
thinking that the lymphatic system is the primary route of infectivity
for TSEs, the comment suggested that TSEs may be transmitted via the
blood through cut or abraded skin and damaged oral mucosal tissue.
(Response 40) We recognize that there are a number of animal
species in which blood from TSE-infected animals have been shown to be
capable of transmitting the TSE agent, and that there have been several
cases in the UK of people acquiring vCJD after receiving transfusions
of blood from donors who later were found to have vCJD. However, there
is no evidence that blood from infected cattle can transmit the BSE
agent to humans when the blood is incorporated into human food or
cosmetics. Therefore, the final rule does not prohibit use of cattle
blood or impose any special requirements on cattle blood materials that
might be used in human food, including dietary supplements, and in
cosmetics.
(Comment 41) One comment said that the U.S. government issued an
official communication that it has a longstanding system of
interlocking safeguards against BSE that protects public and animal
health in the United States and that the most important safeguard is
the removal of SRM or the parts of an animal that would contain BSE
should an animal have the disease from all animals presented for
slaughter in the United States. The comment stated that this could lead
the public to believe any tissue that may contain BSE infectivity is
removed at slaughter and concluded that this is definitely not the case
with certain parts of the intestine and potentially other tissue such
as peripheral nerves.
(Response 41) We understand the concern about how the message on
the removal of SRM could be interpreted. We intend for the term SRM to
mean the list of tissues identified in our final rule that must be
removed from beef products for human consumption. We believe the
official communication was correct that the United States has
interlocking safeguards in place in addition to removal of specified
risk material. These interlocking safeguards include a strong ruminant-
to-ruminant feed ban, an ongoing BSE surveillance program capable of
detecting the disease at very low levels in the U.S. cattle population,
and strict controls on imports of animals and animal products from
countries at risk for BSE.
(Comment 42) One comment expressed concern about the possibility of
SRMs getting into the food supply through rendering.
(Response 42) In edible rendering (applying the rendering process
to edible tissues for use as human food) only materials from cattle
sources that have been inspected and passed for human consumption and
do not contain SRMs or other materials considered to be prohibited
cattle materials may be rendered for use in human food and cosmetics.
It is the responsibility of manufacturers and processors, including
renderers, to take precautions to avoid cross contamination of non-
prohibited cattle material with prohibited cattle material during
slaughter and processing. In this regard, manufacturers and processors
of human food and cosmetics manufactured from, processed with, or that
otherwise contain, material from cattle must maintain records
sufficient to demonstrate that the human food and cosmetics are not
manufactured from, processed with, or otherwise contain, prohibited
cattle materials under Sec. Sec. 189.5(c)(1) and 700.27(c)(1).
Further, food establishments are subject to the CGMP requirements in
part 110, and failure to take adequate measures to prevent cross-
contamination could result in insanitary conditions whereby the food
may be rendered injurious to health and, therefore, adulterated under
section 402(a)(4) of the FD&C Act.
V. Regulatory Impact Analysis
A. Overview
Economic Analysis of Impacts
We have examined the impacts of the final rule under Executive
Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601-612), and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L.
104-4). Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct us to assess all costs
and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation
is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net
benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health
and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). We
believe that this final rule is not a significant regulatory action as
defined by Executive Order 12866.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires us to analyze regulatory
options that would minimize any significant impact of a rule on small
entities. Because this rule finalizes an existing IFR with no
substantive changes, we certify that the final rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (section 202(a)) requires
us to prepare a written statement, which includes an assessment of
anticipated costs and benefits, before proposing ``any rule that
includes any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for
inflation) in any one year.'' The current threshold after adjustment
for inflation is $144 million, using the most current (2014) Implicit
Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic Product. This final rule would
not result in an expenditure in any year that meets or exceeds this
amount.
This final rule reaffirms the provisions in the 2004 IFR, as well
as the 2005 and 2008 amendments, to address the potential risk of BSE
in human food including dietary supplements, and in cosmetics. As the
final rule's coverage and requirements do not differ from the 2004 IFR
and the 2005 and 2008 amendments, no additional costs or benefits will
accrue from this rulemaking.
The summary analysis of benefits and costs included in this
document is drawn from the detailed IFR RIA (69 FR 42255 at 42265-
42271).
B. Comments on the IFR RIA
We received two comments on our interim final regulatory impact
analysis
[[Page 14729]]
and are declining to make changes to the RIA in the final rule.
(Comment 43) One comment stated that our economic analysis appears
to consider only the industries that are end users of cattle materials
and to overlook industries that produce intermediate products. As a
result, there is no mention of the rule's impact on manufacturers of
collagen casings, gelatin, and other intermediate products.
(Response 43) We disagree. We did estimate the impact of the 2004
IFR (and amendments) to both producers of intermediate cattle-derived
products and producers of cattle-derived end products (69 FR 42256 at
42266). In the case of gelatin, depending on the product, we had
information on cattle-derived materials manufactured by intermediate
producers (i.e., input suppliers to cosmetics manufacturers) or
information on end products that contained cattle-derived materials
(i.e. foods). Whether our information was on intermediate manufacturers
or end products, we estimated the impact of the 2004 IFR on both the
upstream and downstream facilities.
The final rule clarifies that gelatin was never considered a
prohibited cattle material. This final rule defines ``gelatin'' to
clarify that gelatin is not considered to be a prohibited cattle
material as long as it is manufactured using the customary industry
processes specified in the Gelatin Manufacturers Institute of America's
(GMIA) Gelatin Manual.
In the 2005 amendment to the 2004 IFR, we revised the definition of
``prohibited cattle materials'' that appears at Sec. Sec. 189.5(a)(1)
and 700.27(a)(1) to clarify that ``hides and hide-derived products''
are not to be considered prohibited cattle materials (70 FR 53063 at
53066). Thus, collagen casings made from hides are not banned by this
final rule, since the cattle hides from which they are made are not
prohibited cattle materials.
(Comment 44) One comment stated that the 2004 IFR does not consider
the cost to gelatin producers of tracing cattle to their origin, nor
does it consider that other cattle-derived ingredients from inedible
rendering (i.e., tallow-derived products) are commonly used in
cosmetics.
(Response 44) The final rule does not require users of cattle
material to certify from which animal a specific material was derived.
Users of cattle-derived material must only maintain records sufficient
to demonstrate that cattle derived material is not made from, processed
with, or does not otherwise contain prohibited cattle materials. We
included the costs of generating and keeping records on cattle-derived
material in the BSE recordkeeping rule (71 FR 59653 at 59661).
Our 2004 IFR analysis (69 FR 42256 at 42267) took into
consideration the potential costs to cosmetic manufacturers to switch
from inedible rendering to using edible tallow (and derivatives) in
cosmetic products. We estimated in the 2004 IFR analysis that the cost
of this change would range from $0 to $18 million.
C. Final Regulatory Impact Analysis
1. Need for Regulation
This final rule reaffirms the provisions in the 2004 IFR, as well
as the 2005 and 2008 amendments, to address the potential risk of BSE
in human food including dietary supplements, and in cosmetics. As the
final rule's coverage does not differ from the 2004 IFR and the 2005
and 2008 amendments, no additional costs or benefits will accrue from
this rulemaking.
2. Final Rule Coverage
We have designated certain materials from cattle as ``prohibited
cattle materials'' and banned the use of such materials in human food,
including dietary supplements, and in cosmetics. We have designated the
following items as prohibited cattle materials: SRMs, the small
intestine of all cattle unless the distal ileum is removed, material
from nonambulatory disabled cattle, material from cattle not inspected
and passed (for human consumption), and mechanically separated MS
(Beef). SRMs include the brain, skull, eyes, trigeminal ganglia, spinal
cord, vertebral column (excluding the vertebrae of the tail, the
transverse processes of the thoracic and lumbar vertebrae, and the
wings of the sacrum), and DRG of cattle 30 months of age and older, and
the tonsils and distal ileum of the small intestine from all cattle.
These restrictions appear in Sec. Sec. 189.5 and 700.27 (21 CFR 189.5
and 21 CFR 700.27). Milk and milk products, cattle hides and hide-
derived products, tallow that contains no more than 0.15 percent
insoluble impurities, tallow derivatives (regardless of the tallow
source), and gelatin are not prohibited cattle materials. In addition,
we may designate a country as not subject to certain BSE-related
restrictions following an evaluation of the country's BSE situation.
3. Costs of the Final Rule
Because of the 2004 IFR and 2005 and 2008 amendments already in
effect, manufacturers and processors of food and cosmetic products
using bovine materials such as the brain, skull, and spinal cord are
obtaining these ingredients exclusively from cattle younger than 30
months of age. The manufacturers and processors of products that use
the tonsils or the distal ileum of small intestine of cattle, material
from nonambulatory disabled cattle, material from cattle not inspected
and passed for human consumption, or MS (Beef) have found substitutes
for those ingredients. To the extent that the 2004 IFR and 2005 and
2008 amendments led to increased use of alternative ingredients or
ingredients from cattle under the age of 30 months, exposure to
potentially BSE-infected cattle materials was reduced.
This final rule also clarifies that gelatin made from cattle-
derived material is not, and never was, considered a prohibited cattle
material so long as it is manufactured using customary industry
processes. If there remained in the marketplace any confusion as to the
status of gelatin derived from cattle materials, the new definition
provided by this final rule should remove that confusion.
4. Countries Requesting Designation
To date, New Zealand and Australia have requested and received
designation as not subject to certain FDA restrictions on cattle-
derived materials. No other countries have applied to the FDA for
designation. In the 2008 amendment, we estimated that it would cost a
country about $9,000 to assemble a petition package for us to consider,
and it would cost us $3,700 to review each package (73 FR 20785 at
20790). We did not receive any comments on these costs.
5. Benefits of the Final Rule
The benefits of this final rule are the value of the public health
benefits. The public health benefit is the reduction in the risk of the
human illness associated with consumption of the agent that causes BSE.
In the 2004 IFR and 2005 and 2008 amendments, we were unable to
quantify the benefits of these rule-makings, but provided estimates of
the illness burden that could be avoided if we reduced the potential
exposure to BSE agents.
In the 2004 IFR we estimated the benefits as the value of
preventing a case of vCJD, the human illness that results from being
infected from eating contaminated cattle-derived materials. (69 FR
42256 at 42267) The cost of a case of vCJD is the value of a
statistical life (VSL) plus the value of preventing a year-long or
longer illness that precedes certain death for victims of
[[Page 14730]]
vCJD. In 2004 we estimated this value to be in the range of $5.7 to
$7.1 million. Updating using a central estimate of $369,000 for the
value of a statistical life year (VSLY) and a central estimate of $8.3
million for VSL,\3\ results in a single case of vCJD being valued at
about $10 million in 2013 dollars. This estimate included direct
medical costs, reduced ability of the ill person to function at home
and at work, and the cost of premature death.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ VSLY based on Aldy and Viscusi discussion paper 2007 (Ref.
1). VSL is based on EPA National Center for Environmental Economics
estimate of $7.4 million in 2006 dollars (Ref. 2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As we stated in the 2004 IFR, we do not know the baseline expected
annual number of cases, but based on the epidemiology of vCJD in the
UK, we anticipated much less than one case of vCJD per year in the
United States. Because the IFR and amendments were expected to reduce,
rather than eliminate, the risk of exposure to BSE infectious
materials, the reduction in the number of cases was estimated to be an
unknown fraction of the less than one case annually. We stated in the
2004 IFR RIA that the IFR, in conjunction with USDA's requirements on
cattle-derived materials, would help reduce a potential human exposure
in the United States that was previously estimated at less than 1
percent (69 FR 1862 at 1867).
The benefits of this final rule have already been realized as the
IFR has been in place since 2004. We do not estimate any additional
benefits as a result of this finalizing this IFR.
VI. Environmental Impact, No Significant Impact
We have determined under 21 CFR 25.32(m) that this action is of a
type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental
assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
VII. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
The collection of information provisions of this final rule are
subject to review by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in Sec. Sec.
189.5(e) and 700.27(e), added by the 2008 amendment, have been
previously approved under OMB control number 0910-0623. This final rule
does not revise the information collection requirements of Sec. Sec.
189.5(e) and 700.27(e). Therefore we are not submitting this final rule
to OMB as a revision of the information collection approved under OMB
control number 0910-0623.
VIII. Federalism
We have analyzed this final rule in accordance with the principles
set forth in Executive Order 13132. We have determined that the rule
does not contain policies that have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the National Government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. Accordingly, we have concluded that the
rule does not contain policies that have federalism implications as
defined in the Executive order and, consequently, a federalism summary
impact statement is not required.
IX. References
The following references have been placed on display in the
Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES) and are available for
viewing by interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday they are also available electronically at https://www.regulations.gov. FDA has verified the Web site addresses, as of the
date this document publishes in the Federal Register, but Web sites are
subject to change over time.)
1. Collee, J. G. and R. Bradley, ``BSE: A Decade On--Part I,'' The
Lancet, 349:636-641, 1997.
2. Anderson, R. M., C. A. Donnelly, N. M. Ferguson, et al.,
``Transmission Dynamics and Epidemiology of BSE in British Cattle,''
Nature, 382:779-788, 1996.
3. Wells, G. A. H., A. C. Scott, C. T. Johnson, et al., ``A Novel
Progressive Spongiform Encephalopathy in Cattle,'' Veterinary
Record, 121:419-420, 1987.
4. HHS/CDC, ``vCJD (Variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease'' (fact
sheet), accessed online at https://www.cdc.gov/prions/vcjd/about.html.
5. University of Edinburgh, National CJD Research and Surveillance
Unit, ``Variant CJD Cases Worldwide,'' accessed online at https://www.cjd.ed.ac.uk/documents/worldfigs.pdf.
6. Resolution No. 20, Recognition of the Bovine Spongiform
Encephalopathy Risk Status of Member Countries, accessed online at
https://www.oie.int/doc/ged/D12483.PDF.
7. Article 11.4 in the OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code (2014),
accessed online at https://www.oie.int/index.php?id=169&L=0&htmfile=chapitre_bse.htm#article_bse.1.
8. Grobben A. H., P. J. Steel, D. M. Taylor, and R. A. Somerville,
``Inactivation of the Bovine-Spongiform-Encephalopathy (BSE) Agent
by the Acid and Alkaline Processes Used in the Manufacture of Bone
Gelatin,'' Biotechnology and Applied Biochemistry, 39:329-338, 2004
and Grobben, A. H., P. J. Steel, D. M. Taylor, R. A. Somerville, et
al., ``Inactivation of the BSE Agent by Heat and Pressure Process
for Manufacturing Gelatin,'' Veterinary Record, 157:277-289, 2005.
9. Article 11.4.15 in the OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code (2014),
accessed online at https://www.oie.int/index.php?id=169&L=0&htmfile=chapitre_bse.htm#article_bse.15.
10. ``Quantitative Assessment of the Human and Animal BSE Risk Posed
by Gelatine with Respect to Residual BSE Risk,'' European Food
Safety Authority Journal, 312:1-29, 2006). Available at https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/312.
11. HHS/FDA, ``Guidance for Industry, The Sourcing and Processing of
Gelatin to Reduce the Potential Risk Posed by Bovine Spongiform
Encephalopathy (BSE) in FDA-Regulated Products for Human Use,''
September 1997, accessed online at https://www.fda.gov/RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm125182.htm.
12. Wells, G. A. H., S. A. C. Hawkins, R. B. Green, et al.,
``Preliminary Observations on the Pathogenesis of Experimental
Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE): An Update,'' Veterinary
Record, 142:103-106, 1998.
13. Lasmezas, C. I., J-P. Deslys, O. Robain, et al., ``Transmission
of the BSE Agent to Mice in the Absence of Detectable Abnormal Prion
Protein,'' Science, 275:402-405, 1997.
14. Race, R., A. Raines, G. J. Raymond, et al., ``Long-Term
Subclinical Carrier State Precedes Scrapie Replication and
Adaptation in a Resistant Species: Analogies to Bovine Spongiform
Encephalopathy and Variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease in Humans,''
Journal of Virology, 75(21):10106-10112, 2001.
15. Article 11.4.14 in the OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code
(2014), accessed online at https://www.oie.int/index.php?id=169&L=0&htmfile=chapitre_bse.htm#article_bse.14.
16. USDA, APHIS, BSE Ongoing Surveillance Plan, July 20, 2006.
Available at https://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/animal_diseases/bse/downloads/BSE_ongoing_surv_plan_final_71406.pdf.
17. European Commission, the TSE Roadmap, July 15, 2005. Available
at https://ec.europa.eu/food/food/biosafety/tse_bse/docs/roadmap_en.pdf.
18. Kimberlin, R. H., ``Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy: An
Appraisal of the Current Epidemic in the United Kingdom,''
Intervirology 35: 208-218, 1993.
19. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, UK, BSE
Summary Statistics,'' August 2007 accessed online at: https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130123162956/http:/www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/bse/statistics/bse/monthly_stats.pdf.
20. ``EFSA Panel on Biological Hazards (BIOHAZ) Scientific Opinion
on BSE Risk in Bovine Intestines on Request from the European
Commission,''
[[Page 14731]]
European Food Safety Authority Journal, vol. 1317, pp. 1-9 (2009).
21. CDC, BSE or Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy, accessed online
at: https://www.cdc.gov/prions/bse/prevalence.html.
22. USDA, The Secretary's Foreign Animal and Poultry Disease
Advisory Committee's Subcommittee Report on Measures Relating to
Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) in the United States,
February 4, 2004.
23. Hoffmann C., M. Eiden, M. Kaatz, M. Keller, et al., 2011, ``BSE
Infectivity in Jejunum, Ileum and Ileocaecal Junction of Incubating
Cattle,'' Veterinary Research, 42, 21.
24. Terry, L. A., S. Marsh, S. J. Ryder, S. A. Hawkins, et al.,
``Detection of Disease-Specific PrP in the Distal Ileum of Cattle
Exposed Orally to the Agent of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy,''
Veterinary Record, 152, 387-392, 2003.
25. ``EFSA Panel on Biological Hazards (BIOHAZ),'' 2014 Scientific
Opinion on BSE Risk in Bovine Intestines and Mesentery, European
Food Safety Authority Journal, vol. 3554, pp. 1-98, (2014). https://www.efsa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/scientific_output/files/main_documents/3554.pdf.
26. Gelatin Manufacturers of America, Gelatin Handbook, 2012.
27. FDA, Cosmetics: An Evaluation of the Risk of Variant
Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease from Exposure to Cattle-Derived Protein
Used in Cosmetics, accessed online at: https://www.fda.gov/Cosmetics/ProductsIngredients/PotentialContaminants/ucm137012.htm.
28. European Centre for Disease Control and Prevention, Creutzfeldt
Jakob Disease International Surveillance Network, CJD Surveillance
Data 1993-2013, accessed online at: https://www.eurocjd.ed.ac.uk/surveillance%20data%201.html#vcjd-cases.
29. WHO, WHO Media centre, Variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, Fact
sheet N[deg] 180 Revised February 2012, accessed online at: https://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs180/en/.
30. WHO, WHO Tables on Tissue Infectivity Distribution in
Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies (2010 Update), available
at: https://www.who.int/bloodproducts/tablestissueinfectivity.pdf.
31. Report of the Meeting of the OIE Scientific Commission for
Animal Diseases, Paris, 4-8 February 2013, https://www.oie.int/doc/ged/D12361.PDF.
32. Gill, O. N., Y. Spencer, A. Richard-Loendt, C. Kelly, et al.,
``Prevalent Abnormal Prion Protein in Human Appendixes After Bovine
Spongiform Encephalopathy Epizootic: Large Scale Survey,'' British
Medical Journal 2013;347:f5675 doi: 10.1136/bmj.f5675 (published 15
October 2013).
33. CDC, CDC Surveillance for vCJD, available at: https://www.cdc.gov/prions/vcjd/surveillance.html.
List of Subjects
21 CFR Part 189
Food additives, Food packaging.
21 CFR Part 700
Cosmetics, Packaging and containers.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and
under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, the
interim final rule amending 21 CFR parts 189 and 700, which was
published on July 13, 2004, at 69 FR 42255, and amended on September 7,
2005, at 70 FR 53063, and amended on April 17, 2008, at 73 FR 20785, is
adopted as a final rule with the following changes:
PART 189--SUBSTANCES PROHIBITED FROM USE IN HUMAN FOOD
0
1. The authority citation for part 189 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321, 342, 348, 371, 381.
0
2. Section 189.5 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 189.5 Prohibited cattle materials.
(a) Definitions. The definitions and interpretations of terms
contained in section 201 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(the FD&C Act) apply to such terms when used in this part. The
following definitions also apply:
(1) Prohibited cattle materials mean specified risk materials,
small intestine of all cattle except as provided in paragraph (b)(2) of
this section, material from nonambulatory disabled cattle, material
from cattle not inspected and passed, or mechanically separated
(MS)(Beef). Prohibited cattle materials do not include the following:
(i) Tallow that contains no more than 0.15 percent insoluble
impurities, tallow derivatives, gelatin, hides and hide-derived
products, and milk and milk products, and
(ii) Cattle materials inspected and passed from a country
designated under paragraph (e) of this section.
(2) Inspected and passed means that the product has been inspected
and passed for human consumption by the appropriate regulatory
authority, and at the time it was inspected and passed, it was found to
be not adulterated.
(3) Mechanically separated (MS) (Beef) means a meat food product
that is finely comminuted, resulting from the mechanical separation and
removal of most of the bone from attached skeletal muscle of cattle
carcasses and parts of carcasses that meets the specifications
contained in 9 CFR 319.5, the U.S. Department of Agriculture regulation
that prescribes the standard of identity for MS (Species).
(4) Nonambulatory disabled cattle means cattle that cannot rise
from a recumbent position or that cannot walk, including, but not
limited to, those with broken appendages, severed tendons or ligaments,
nerve paralysis, fractured vertebral column, or metabolic conditions.
(5) Specified risk material means the brain, skull, eyes,
trigeminal ganglia, spinal cord, vertebral column (excluding the
vertebrae of the tail, the transverse processes of the thoracic and
lumbar vertebrae, and the wings of the sacrum), and dorsal root ganglia
of cattle 30 months of age and older and the tonsils and distal ileum
of the small intestine of all cattle.
(6) Tallow means the rendered fat of cattle obtained by pressing or
by applying any other extraction process to tissues derived directly
from discrete adipose tissue masses or to other carcass parts and
tissues. Tallow must be produced from tissues that are not prohibited
cattle materials or must contain no more than 0.15 percent insoluble
impurities as determined by the method entitled ``Insoluble
Impurities'' (AOCS Official Method Ca 3a-46), American Oil Chemists'
Society (AOCS), 5th Edition, 1997, incorporated by reference in
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51, or another method
equivalent in accuracy, precision, and sensitivity to AOCS Official
Method Ca 3a-46. You may obtain copies of the method from AOCS (https://www.aocs.org) 2211 W. Bradley Ave. Champaign, IL 61821. Copies may be
examined at the Food and Drug Administration's Main Library, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 2, Third Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-
2039, or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-
741-6030, or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
(7) Tallow derivative means any chemical obtained through initial
hydrolysis, saponification, or trans-esterification of tallow; chemical
conversion of material obtained by hydrolysis, saponification, or
trans-esterification may be applied to obtain the desired product.
(8) Gelatin means a product that has been obtained by the partial
hydrolysis of collagen derived from hides, connective tissue, and/or
bone bones of cattle and swine. Gelatin may be either Type A (derived
from an acid-treated precursor) or Type B (derived from an
[[Page 14732]]
alkali-treated precursor) that has gone through processing steps that
include filtration and sterilization or an equivalent process in terms
of infectivity reduction.
* * * * *
PART 700--GENERAL
0
3. The authority citation for part 700 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 352, 355, 361, 362, 371, 374.
0
4. Section 700.27 by is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 700.27 Use of prohibited cattle materials in cosmetic products.
(a) Definitions. The definitions and interpretations of terms
contained in section 201 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(the FD&C Act) apply to such terms when used in this part. The
following definitions also apply:
(1) Prohibited cattle materials mean specified risk materials,
small intestine of all cattle except as provided in paragraph (b)(2) of
this section, material from nonambulatory disabled cattle, material
from cattle not inspected and passed, or mechanically separated (MS)
(Beef). Prohibited cattle materials do not include the following:
(i) Tallow that contains no more than 0.15 percent insoluble
impurities, tallow derivatives, gelatin, hides and hide-derived
products, and milk and milk products, and
(ii) Cattle materials inspected and passed from a country
designated under paragraph (e) of this section.
(2) Inspected and passed means that the product has been inspected
and passed for human consumption by the appropriate regulatory
authority, and at the time it was inspected and passed, it was found to
be not adulterated.
(3) Mechanically separated (MS) (Beef) means a meat food product
that is finely comminuted, resulting from the mechanical separation and
removal of most of the bone from attached skeletal muscle of cattle
carcasses and parts of carcasses that meets the specifications
contained in 9 CFR 319.5, the U.S. Department of Agriculture regulation
that prescribes the standard of identity for MS (Species).
(4) Nonambulatory disabled cattle means cattle that cannot rise
from a recumbent position or that cannot walk, including, but not
limited to, those with broken appendages, severed tendons or ligaments,
nerve paralysis, fractured vertebral column, or metabolic conditions.
(5) Specified risk material means the brain, skull, eyes,
trigeminal ganglia, spinal cord, vertebral column (excluding the
vertebrae of the tail, the transverse processes of the thoracic and
lumbar vertebrae, and the wings of the sacrum), and dorsal root ganglia
of cattle 30 months of age and older and the tonsils and distal ileum
of the small intestine of all cattle.
(6) Tallow means the rendered fat of cattle obtained by pressing or
by applying any other extraction process to tissues derived directly
from discrete adipose tissue masses or to other carcass parts and
tissues. Tallow must be produced from tissues that are not prohibited
cattle materials or must contain no more than 0.15 percent insoluble
impurities as determined by the method entitled ``Insoluble
Impurities'' (AOCS Official Method Ca 3a-46), American Oil Chemists'
Society (AOCS), 5th Edition, 1997, incorporated by reference in
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51, or another method
equivalent in accuracy, precision, and sensitivity to AOCS Official
Method Ca 3a-46. You may obtain copies of the method from AOCS (https://www.aocs.org) 2211 W. Bradley Ave. Champaign, IL 61821. Copies may be
examined at the Food and Drug Administration's Main Library, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 2, Third Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-
2039 or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-
6030, or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
(7) Tallow derivative means any chemical obtained through initial
hydrolysis, saponification, or trans-esterification of tallow; chemical
conversion of material obtained by hydrolysis, saponification, or
trans-esterification may be applied to obtain the desired product.
(8) Gelatin means a product that has been obtained by the partial
hydrolysis of collagen derived from hides, connective tissue, and/or
bone bones of cattle and swine. Gelatin may be either Type A (derived
from an acid-treated precursor) or Type B (derived from an alkali-
treated precursor) that has gone through processing steps that include
filtration and sterilization or an equivalent process in terms of
infectivity reduction.
* * * * *
Dated: March 14, 2016.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-06123 Filed 3-17-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P