This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains regulatory documents having general

applicability and legal effect, most of which

are keyed to and codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations, which is published under

50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by

the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of

new books are listed in the first FEDERAL

REGISTER issue of each week.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

68327 

Vol. 78, No. 220 

Thursday, November 14, 2013 

1To view the proposed rule and the comments 

we received, go to http://www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2008-0085. 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

9 CFR Part 94 

[Docket No. APHIS–2008–0085] 

RIN 0579–AD17 

Importation of Ovine Meat From 

Uruguay 

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are amending the 

regulations governing the importation of 

certain animals, meat, and other animal 

products to allow, under certain 

conditions, the importation of fresh 

(chilled or frozen) ovine meat from 

Uruguay. A risk assessment that we 

have prepared indicates that fresh 

(chilled or frozen) ovine meat can safely 

be imported from Uruguay under these 

conditions. This action will allow the 

importation of fresh ovine meat from 

Uruguay into the United States while 

continuing to protect the United States 

against the introduction of foot-andmouth disease. 

DATES: Effective Date: November 29, 

2013. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Silvia Kreindel, Senior Staff 

Veterinarian, Regionalization Evaluation 

Services Staff, VS, APHIS, 4700 River 

Road Unit 38, Riverdale, MD 20737– 

1231; (301) 851–3313. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background 

Under the Animal Health Protection 

Act (AHPA, 7 U.S.C. 8301 et seq.), the 

Secretary of Agriculture may prohibit or 

restrict the importation of any animal or 

article if the Secretary determines that 

the prohibition or restriction is 

necessary to prevent the introduction 

into or dissemination within the United 

States of any pest or disease of livestock. 

Pursuant to this Act, the Animal and 

Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) 

of the United States Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) regulates the 

importation of animals and animal 

products into the United States to guard 

against the introduction of animal 

diseases not currently present or 

prevalent in this country. The 

regulations in 9 CFR part 94 (referred to 

below as the regulations) prohibit or 

restrict the importation of specified 

animals and animal products to prevent 

the introduction into the United States 

of various animal diseases, including 

rinderpest and foot-and-mouth disease 

(FMD). These are dangerous and 

destructive communicable diseases of 

ruminants and swine. 

Section 94.1 of the regulations 

contains criteria for APHIS recognition 

of foreign regions as free of rinderpest 

and FMD. Section 94.11 restricts the 

importation of ruminants and swine and 

their meat and certain other products 

from regions that are declared free of 

rinderpest and FMD but that 

nonetheless present a disease risk 

because of the regions’ proximity to or 

trading relationships with regions 

affected with rinderpest or FMD. 

Regions APHIS has declared free of 

FMD and/or rinderpest, and regions 

declared free of FMD and rinderpest 

that are subject to the restrictions in 

§ 94.11, are listed on the APHIS Web 

site at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/

import_export/animals/animal_disease_

status.shtml. 

Because vaccination for FMD may not 

provide complete protection to 

livestock, and because it can be difficult 

to quickly detect FMD in animals 

vaccinated for FMD, APHIS does not 

recognize regions that vaccinate animals 

for FMD as free of the disease. Uruguay 

vaccinates cattle for FMD. Therefore, 

although Uruguay has not had a case of 

FMD since 2001, APHIS does not 

recognize Uruguay as a region free of 

FMD. Based on a final rule effective and 

published in the Federal Register on 

May 29, 2003 (68 FR 31940–31949, 

Docket No. 02–109–3), however, APHIS 

allows the importation of fresh (chilled 

or frozen) beef from Uruguay under 

certain conditions that mitigate the FMD 

risks associated with this product. The 

conditions are set out in § 94.22 of the 

regulations. 

In a proposed rule 1 published in the 

Federal Register on February 24, 2011 

(76 FR 10266–10269, Docket No. 

APHIS–2008–0085), we proposed to 

also allow the importation of fresh ovine 

(sheep) meat from Uruguay under 

conditions identical to those currently 

required for the importation of fresh 

beef, except for one change noted below. 

The proposed conditions were as 

follows: 

• The meat is from animals that have 

been born, raised, and slaughtered in 

Uruguay. 

• If FMD is detected anywhere in 

Uruguay, the export of beef and ovine 

meat from all of Uruguay to the United 

States is prohibited until at least 12 

months have elapsed since the 

depopulation, cleaning, and disinfection 

of the last infected premises. [The 

current requirement for fresh beef is that 

FMD has not been diagnosed in 

Uruguay within the previous 12 

months.] 

• The meat came from animals that 

originated from premises where FMD 

has not been present during the lifetime 

of any animals slaughtered for the 

export of meat to the United States. 

• The meat came from animals that 

were moved directly from the premises 

of origin to the slaughtering 

establishment without any contact with 

other animals. 

• The meat came from animals that 

received ante-mortem and post-mortem 

veterinary inspections, paying particular 

attention to the head and feet, at the 

slaughtering establishment, with no 

evidence found of vesicular disease. 

• The meat consists only of parts of 

the animal’s carcass that are, by 

standard practice, placed in a chiller for 

maturation after slaughter. No part of 

the animal’s heads, feet, hooves, or 

internal organs may be exported (and for 

bovines, the hump is also excluded). 

• All bone and visually identifiable 

blood clots and lymphoid tissue have 

been removed from the meat. 

• The meat has not been in contact 

with meat from regions other than those 

APHIS recognizes as free of FMD. 

• The meat came from carcasses that 

were allowed to maturate at 40 to 50 °F 

(4 to 10 °C) for a minimum of 36 hours 

after slaughter and that reached a pH of 

5.8 or less in the loin muscle at the end 


TKELleY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
68328 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 220 / Thursday, November 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

of the maturation period. Measurements 

for pH must be taken at the middle of 

both longissimus dorsi muscles. Any 

carcass in which the pH does not reach 

5.8 or less may be allowed to maturate 

an additional 24 hours and be retested, 

and, if the carcass still has not reached 

a pH of 5.8 or less after 60 hours, the 

meat from the carcass may not be 

exported to the United States. 

• An authorized veterinary official of 

the Government of Uruguay certifies on 

the foreign meat inspection certificate 

that the above conditions have been 

met. 

• The establishment in which the 

animals are slaughtered allows periodic 

on-site evaluation and subsequent 

inspection of its facilities, records, and 

operations by an APHIS representative. 

We solicited comments concerning 

the proposed rule for 60 days ending 

April 25, 2011. We received 10 

comments by that date. They were from 

organizations representing Uruguayan 

meat packers, meat exporters, and sheep 

producers; Uruguay’s Ministry of 

Livestock, Agriculture, and Fisheries 

(MGAP); organizations representing 

meat importers within the United States 

and the U.S. sheep industry; and several 

private citizens. 

Four of the commenters supported the 

rule as written. Two commenters 

objected to the proposal. The remaining 

commenters favored the importation of 

fresh (chilled or frozen) ovine meat from 

Uruguay but requested clarifications or 

modifications to the rule or its 

supporting documents. The issues 

raised by commenters are discussed 

below, by topic. 

The Risk Assessment 

One commenter requested that we 

reexamine our risk assessment that we 

prepared regarding the importation of 

fresh (chilled or frozen) ovine meat from 

Uruguay. The same commenter and one 

other requested that we conduct an 

additional site visit. They expressed 

concern that changes may have occurred 

in Uruguay’s risk factors for FMD and in 

Uruguay’s ability to prevent and 

mitigate FMD risk since we completed 

the risk assessment. Neither commenter 

mentioned any specific changes that 

should be investigated. One commenter 

also urged APHIS to specify a schedule 

requiring follow-up and ongoing 

reporting from Uruguay on FMD risk 

and the implementation of risk 

mitigation measures. 

We have reevaluated the information 

in the assessment and have determined 

that it still provides an appropriate basis 

for our conclusion that the FMD risk 

from importing fresh (chilled or frozen) 

maturated and deboned ovine meat from 

Uruguay is low and that such meat may 

be safely imported into the United 

States. Based on our review of the 

assessment, we do not think an 

additional site visit is warranted prior to 

finalizing the proposed rule. 

Regarding the need for ongoing 

reporting from Uruguay, as part of the 

implementation of this final rule, we 

will require MGAP to submit an 

operational workplan, subject to APHIS’ 

approval, that details activities that 

MGAP will carry out to meet the 

requirements of the regulations. 

Additionally, paragraph (k) of § 94.22 

requires the establishment in Uruguay 

in which the bovines and sheep are 

slaughtered to allow an APHIS 

representative to make periodic on-site 

evaluations and subsequent inspections 

of its facilities, records, and operations. 

MGAP’s operational workplan will have 

to specifically authorize the on-site 

evaluations and inspections of facilities, 

records, and operations. APHIS 

regulations in 9 CFR part 92 also 

address the potential need for APHIS to 

obtain additional information from a 

region after APHIS has granted the 

region animal health status. In 

particular, under § 92.2(g), a region may 

be required to submit additional 

information pertaining to animal health 

status or allow APHIS to conduct 

additional information collection 

activities in order for that region to 

maintain its animal health status. We 

believe these provisions, collectively, 

will enable APHIS to satisfactorily 

monitor the fresh meat import program. 

Prohibitions on the Importation of Meat 

Following an FMD Outbreak 

One commenter stated that the 

proposed prohibition on the export of 

fresh beef or ovine meat to the United 

States until 12 months after 

depopulation, cleaning, and disinfection 

of the last premises involved in an FMD 

outbreak does not merely clarify 

existing policy, as APHIS stated in its 

proposed rule. Rather, since the current 

requirement for fresh beef from Uruguay 

is 12 months following the last 

diagnosis of FMD, the proposed change 

would impose new, more stringent 

requirements for the importation of beef 

from Uruguay. The commenter also 

stated that, to be consistent with 

standards of the World Organization for 

Animal Health (OIE) and the principle 

of regionalization, the prohibition on 

exports should be limited to 6 months 

and apply only to exports from 

restricted zones for FMD that would be 

established by MGAP in response to a 

limited outbreak in Uruguay, rather than 

to exports from anywhere in the 

country. 

FMD is a significant disease of 

livestock, and its introduction into the 

United States could have a lasting 

deleterious effect on the U.S. 

agricultural economy. In regions that 

vaccinate animals for FMD, it can be 

difficult to detect the disease, and 

APHIS believes that sufficient time must 

pass to ensure that ruminant products 

exported from the region will not be a 

vector of the FMD virus. Depopulation, 

cleaning, and disinfection of infected 

premises are standard practices in 

stamping out FMD. After considering 

this comment, though, we have decided 

that there is no need to build this 

language into the rule. If a country 

experiences an outbreak of FMD and 

there is no diagnosis of the disease in a 

12-month period following the last case, 

APHIS considers this to be sufficient 

reason to conclude that the disease did 

not spread. Therefore, we will leave the 

provision as it is currently worded in 

the provisions for fresh beef: Foot-andmouth disease has not been diagnosed 

in Uruguay within the previous 12 

months. 

Consistent with the OIE principle of 

regionalization, APHIS regulations in 9 

CFR part 92 explain how a country may 

request APHIS recognition of regions 

within its borders. In requesting to 

export fresh (chilled or frozen) ovine 

meat to the United States, Uruguay did 

not ask APHIS to recognize restricted 

zones as regions in the event of an FMD 

outbreak, or provide sufficient 

information for us to evaluate the risk of 

disease spread from such zones in order 

to allow for regionalization at that level. 

The Maturation Process 

One commenter questioned the need 

for a minimum 36-hour maturation 

period. Noting that the key indicator for 

ensuring deactivation of the FMD virus 

is a pH of 6.0 or lower, the commenter 

stated that if a pH of 5.8 is reached 

within 24 hours, then the virus will be 

deactivated and there is no need for an 

additional holding period. The 

commenter stated that the 36-hour 

holding period creates logistical 

problems for the packinghouses, which 

must hold carcasses in chillers, and is 

inconsistent with the requirements of 

other countries that apply a pH 

requirement of either 5.8 or 6.0, with a 

required holding period of 24 hours, for 

the export of Uruguayan meat to their 

markets. The commenter urged to 

require a minimum holding period of 24 

hours. 

We agree with the commenter that the 

acidification necessary to inactivate the 

FMD virus can be achieved within 24 

hours and are modifying § 94.22(i) in 

this final rule accordingly. Twenty-four 


TKELleY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 220 / Thursday, November 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 68329 

hours will be the minimum time 

required for maturation. If the required 

pH is not achieved during 24 hours, the 

meat may continue to maturate for up to 

an additional 24 hours (48 hours total). 

Any meat that has not achieved the 

required pH level in that amount of time 

may not be exported to the United 

States. 

We have also determined that a pH 

lower than 6.0 in the longissimus dorsi, 

in conjunction with other conditions 

included in this final rule, is a good 

indicator of FMD virus inactivation. Our 

review of the literature revealed that 

acidification at that level is sufficient to 

inactivate FMD virus in muscle tissue of 

viremic cattle. Furthermore, over 30 

years of epidemiological data show that 

there is no evidence that importation of 

fresh beef that reached a pH of less than 

6.0 under conditions that are already 

incorporated into the regulations and 

that are analogous to those contained in 

this final rule (e.g., antemortem and 

postmortem inspection, lymph node 

removal, deboning, and maturation) 

have been associated with outbreaks of 

FMD. Therefore, in § 94.22(i) of this 

final rule, the meat will be required to 

reach a pH of less than 6.0, rather than 

5.8 or less, as we had originally 

proposed. 

Removal of Bones 

One commenter stated that there is no 

basis for limiting approval for export of 

ovine meat to boneless products because 

there has been no evidence of FMD in 

sheep in Uruguay since the country 

requested access for fresh beef exports 

in 2003. 

We proposed to require that all bone, 

as well as visually identifiable blood 

clots and lymphoid tissue, be removed 

from fresh ovine meat prior to export to 

the United States from Uruguay. The 

same requirement has been in place for 

fresh beef exported from Uruguay. 

As we noted in both our risk 

assessment and in the proposed rule, 

although the last case of FMD in 

Uruguay was in 2001, FMD is endemic 

in areas of South America surrounding 

Uruguay, and there is, accordingly, a 

risk that FMD will be reintroduced into 

the country. Uruguay vaccinates cattle 

for FMD in recognition of that risk. Each 

of the conditions we proposed, 

including this one, addresses a critical 

point in the pre-export process, from 

selection of an animal for slaughter to 

carcass processing and maturation, 

where FMD risk can be mitigated. The 

conditions were selected based on 

known modes of transmission and 

physical characteristics of the FMD 

virus. Maturation of the meat addresses 

the risk, however small, of FMD virus 

being present in the animal at slaughter. 

The removal of bones and visually 

identifiable blood clots and lymphoid 

tissue is necessary because any FMD 

virus these parts might potentially 

harbor may not be inactivated by the 

maturation process. 

Certification by Veterinary Officials in 

Uruguay 

One commenter expressed concern 

about our proposed requirement that an 

authorized veterinary official of the 

Government of Uruguay certify that all 

conditions for the importation of beef 

and ovine meat have been met. The 

commenter stated that veterinary 

officials could be bribed or otherwise 

induced to falsely certify meat as 

meeting the conditions for importation, 

which could pose a risk of introducing 

FMD into the United States. 

As explained in response to another 

comment, APHIS will be monitoring the 

fresh meat export program. If we 

determine that inspection certificates 

are being deliberately falsified, we may 

take measures pursuant to our authority 

under the AHPA to ensure that beef or 

ovine meat from Uruguay does not 

present a risk of introducing FMD into 

the United States. Such measures may 

include prohibiting the importation of 

fresh beef and ovine meat from 

Uruguay. 

Labeling of Ovine Meat 

One commenter asked whether ovine 

meat imported as proposed would be 

labeled and marketed in the United 

States as ‘‘fresh.’’ The commenter stated 

that, because the product would have 

been chilled or frozen, it would not 

meet the average U.S. consumer’s 

definition of ‘‘fresh’’ and should not be 

marketed as such. The commenter also 

asked whether ovine meat imported 

from Uruguay into the United States 

would be subject to country-of-origin 

labeling. 

As used in the regulations, the term 

‘‘fresh’’ simply means that the meat is 

imported without having been cooked 

or cured as otherwise required of beef or 

ovine meat from regions not recognized 

as free of FMD. APHIS does not regulate 

the marketing of meat in the United 

States. Regarding country-of-origin 

labeling, the Country of Origin Labeling 

(COOL) law requires retailers to notify 

their customers of the country of origin 

for all commodities covered under this 

law. Muscle cuts of beef and lamb, as 

well as ground beef and ground lamb, 

are covered. The COOL law is enforced 

by USDA’s Agricultural Marketing 

Service and Food Safety and Inspection 

Service. The COOL law is not related to 

animal health, but rather, is a consumer 

information program, and thus has no 

bearing on this rulemaking. 

Goat Meat 

One commenter expressed concern 

that inspectors may not know the 

difference between a goat kid carcass 

and a lamb kid carcass. 

Establishments in Uruguay that 

prepare ovine meat for export slaughter 

the sheep. Live sheep are easily 

distinguishable from live goats. It is 

unlikely that a facility would slaughter 

a goat and present its meat as ovine 

meat. As discussed previously, APHIS 

will be monitoring the fresh meat export 

program, including through on-site 

evaluations and inspections of facilities, 

records, and operations. 

Chronic Wasting Disease 

One commenter objected to the lack of 

inspection for chronic wasting disease. 

Chronic wasting disease (CWD) is a 

transmissible spongiform 

encephalopathy of cervids (members of 

Cervidae, the deer family). Species 

known to be susceptible to CWD via 

natural routes of transmission include 

Rocky Mountain elk, mule deer, whitetailed deer, black-tailed deer, and 

moose. There is no evidence that CWD 

is transmissible under natural 

conditions to any other ruminant 

species, including cattle and sheep, and, 

therefore, no need for any CWD-related 

safeguards. 

Miscellaneous 

We have made minor editorial 

changes to the regulatory text in § 94.22 

for clarity. These include replacing 

‘‘and’’ with ‘‘or’’ in the following 

phrases: ‘‘beef and ovine meat,’’ 

‘‘bovines and sheep,’’ and ‘‘bovine parts 

and ovine parts,’’ and changing 

‘‘infected premises’’ to ‘‘affected 

premises.’’ 

Therefore, for the reasons given in the 

proposed rule and in this document, we 

are adopting the proposed rule as a final 

rule, with the changes discussed in this 

document. 

Effective Date 

This is a substantive rule that relieves 

restrictions and, pursuant to the 

provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553, may be made 

effective less than 30 days after 

publication in the Federal Register. 

This rule will allow the importation of 

fresh ovine meat from Uruguay into the 

United States under conditions that will 

continue to protect the United States 

against the introduction of FMD. We 

have determined that approximately 2 

weeks are needed to ensure that APHIS 

and Department of Homeland Security, 

Bureau of Customs and Border 


TKELleY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
68330 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 220 / Thursday, November 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

2 Go to http://www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2008-0085. The 

environmental assessment and finding of no 

significant impact will appear in the resulting list 

of documents. 

Protection, personnel at ports of entry 

receive official notice of this change in 

the regulations. Therefore, the 

Administrator of the Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service has 

determined that this rule should be 

effective 15 days after publication in the 

Federal Register. 

Executive Order 12866 and the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

This final rule has been determined to 

be not significant for the purposes of 

Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, 

has not been reviewed by the Office of 

Management and Budget. 

In accordance with the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, we have analyzed the 

potential economic effects of this action 

on small entities. The analysis is 

summarized below. Copies of the full 

analysis are available on the 

Regulations.gov Web site (see footnote 1 

in this document for a link to 

Regulations.gov) or by contacting the 

person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

This rule will allow the importation 

of fresh (chilled or frozen) lamb and 

mutton from Uruguay under certain 

conditions. U.S. entities potentially 

affected by the rule would be sheep 

farmers and establishments primarily 

engaged in processing meat and meat 

products from purchased meat, most of 

which are small entities under Small 

Business Administration standards. 

U.S. production of lamb and mutton 

averaged 79,561 metric tons (MT) over 

the 5 years, 2006–2010. Over this same 

period, imports averaged almost 75,100 

MT (equivalent to about 94 percent of 

U.S. production). Uruguay expects its 

annual lamb and mutton exports to the 

United States not to exceed 2,000 MT. 

This quantity is equivalent to less than 

3 percent of U.S. lamb and mutton 

imports and less than 2 percent of U.S. 

domestic supply of these commodities. 

A percentage of the imports from 

Uruguay are likely to displace some of 

the lamb and mutton imported from 

existing foreign suppliers, further 

dampening any possible effects for U.S. 

businesses. 

Under these circumstances, the 

Administrator of the Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service has 

determined that this action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Executive Order 12988 

This final rule has been reviewed 

under Executive Order 12988, Civil 

Justice Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts 

all State and local laws and regulations 

that are inconsistent with this rule; (2) 

has no retroactive effect; and (3) does 

not require administrative proceedings 

before parties may file suit in court 

challenging this rule. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

An environmental assessment and 

finding of no significant impact have 

been prepared for this final rule. The 

environmental assessment provides a 

basis for the conclusion that the 

importation of ovine meat from Uruguay 

under the conditions specified in the 

rule will not have a significant impact 

on the quality of the human 

environment. Based on the finding of no 

significant impact, the Administrator of 

the Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service has determined that an 

environmental impact statement need 

not be prepared. 

The environmental assessment and 

finding of no significant impact were 

prepared in accordance with: (1) The 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 

4321 et seq.), (2) regulations of the 

Council on Environmental Quality for 

implementing the procedural provisions 

of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500–1508), (3) 

USDA regulations implementing NEPA 

(7 CFR part 1b), and (4) APHIS’ NEPA 

Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 

372). 

The environmental assessment and 

finding of no significant impact may be 

viewed on the Regulations.gov Web 

site.2 Copies of the environmental 

assessment and finding of no significant 

impact are also available for public 

inspection at USDA, room 1141, South 

Building, 14th Street and Independence 

Avenue SW., Washington, DC, between 

8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except holidays. Persons 

wishing to inspect copies are requested 

to call ahead on (202) 799–7039 to 

facilitate entry into the reading room. In 

addition, copies may be obtained by 

writing to the individual listed under 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

In accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 

et seq.), the information collection or 

recordkeeping requirements included in 

this rule have been approved by the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) under OMB control number 

0579–0372. 

E-Government Act Compliance 

The Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service is committed to 

compliance with the E-Government Act 

to promote the use of the Internet and 

other information technologies, to 

provide increased opportunities for 

citizen access to Government 

information and services, and for other 

purposes. For information pertinent to 

E-Government Act compliance related 

to this rule, please contact Mrs. Celeste 

Sickles, APHIS’ Information Collection 

Coordinator, at (301) 851–2908. 

List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 94 

Animal diseases, Imports, Livestock, 

Meat and meat products, Milk, Poultry 

and poultry products, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Accordingly, we are amending 9 CFR 

part 94 as follows: 

PART 94—RINDERPEST, FOOT-ANDMOUTH DISEASE, NEWCASTLE 

DISEASE, HIGHLY PATHOGENIC 

AVIAN INFLUENZA, AFRICAN SWINE 

FEVER, CLASSICAL SWINE FEVER, 

SWINE VESICULAR DISEASE, AND 

BOVINE SPONGIFORM 

ENCEPHALOPATHY: PROHIBITED 

AND RESTRICTED IMPORTATIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 94 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 450, 7701–7772, 7781– 

7786, and 8301–8317; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 

136a; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 

371.4. 

■ 2. Section 94.1 is amended by revising 

paragraph (b)(4) and the introductory 

text of paragraph (d) to read as follows: 

§ 94.1 Regions where rinderpest or footand-mouth disease exists; importations 

prohibited. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(4) Except as provided in § 94.22 for 

fresh (chilled or frozen) beef and ovine 

meat from Uruguay. 

* * * * * 

(d) Except as otherwise provided in 

this part, fresh (chilled or frozen) meat 

of ruminants or swine raised and 

slaughtered in a region free of foot-andmouth disease and rinderpest, as 

designated in paragraph (a) of this 

section, and fresh (chilled or frozen) 

beef and ovine meat exported from 

Uruguay in accordance with § 94.22, 

which during shipment to the United 

States enters a port or otherwise transits 

a region where rinderpest or foot-andmouth disease exists, may be imported 

provided that all of the following 

conditions are met: 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Section 94.22 is revised to read as 

follows: 


TKELleY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 220 / Thursday, November 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 68331 

§ 94.22 Restrictions on importation of beef 

and ovine meat from Uruguay. 

Notwithstanding any other provisions 

of this part, fresh (chilled or frozen) beef 

and ovine meat from Uruguay may be 

exported to the United States under the 

following conditions: 

(a) The meat is beef or ovine meat 

from animals that have been born, 

raised, and slaughtered in Uruguay. 

(b) Foot-and-mouth disease has not 

been diagnosed in Uruguay within the 

previous 12 months. 

(c) The meat comes from bovines or 

sheep that originate from premises 

where foot-and-mouth disease has not 

been present during the lifetime of any 

bovines and sheep slaughtered for the 

export of beef and ovine meat to the 

United States. 

(d) The meat comes from bovines or 

sheep that were moved directly from the 

premises of origin to the slaughtering 

establishment without any contact with 

other animals. 

(e) The meat comes from bovines or 

sheep that received ante-mortem and 

post-mortem veterinary inspections, 

paying particular attention to the head 

and feet, at the slaughtering 

establishment, with no evidence found 

of vesicular disease. 

(f) The meat consists only of bovine 

parts or ovine parts that are, by standard 

practice, part of the animal’s carcass 

that is placed in a chiller for maturation 

after slaughter. The bovine and ovine 

parts that may not be imported include 

all parts of the head, feet, hump, hooves, 

and internal organs. 

(g) All bone and visually identifiable 

blood clots and lymphoid tissue have 

been removed from the meat. 

(h) The meat has not been in contact 

with meat from regions other than those 

listed as free of foot-and-mouth disease 

and rinderpest under § 94.1(a). 

(i) The meat comes from carcasses 

that were allowed to maturate at 40 to 

50 °F (4 to 10 °C) for a minimum of 24 

hours after slaughter and that reached a 

pH below 6.0 in the loin muscle at the 

end of the maturation period. 

Measurements for pH must be taken at 

the middle of both longissimus dorsi 

muscles. Any carcass in which the pH 

does not reach less than 6.0 may be 

allowed to maturate an additional 24 

hours and be retested, and, if the carcass 

still has not reached a pH of less than 

6.0 after 48 hours, the meat from the 

carcass may not be exported to the 

United States. 

(j) An authorized veterinary official of 

the Government of Uruguay certifies on 

the foreign meat inspection certificate 

that the above conditions have been 

met. 

(k) The establishment in which the 

bovines and sheep are slaughtered 

allows periodic on-site evaluation and 

subsequent inspection of its facilities, 

records, and operations by an APHIS 

representative. 

(Approved by the Office of Management and 

Budget under control number 0579–0372) 

Done in Washington, DC, this 7th day of 

November 2013. 

Kevin Shea, 

Administrator, Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 2013–27285 Filed 11–13–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 430 

[Docket Number EERE–2010–BT–PET–0047] 

RIN 1904–AC57 

Energy Conservation Program: 

Request for Exclusion of 100 Watt R20 

Short Incandescent Reflector Lamp 

From Energy Conservation Standards 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), as 

amended, prescribes energy 

conservation standards for certain 

commercial and industrial equipment 

and various consumer products, 

including incandescent reflector lamps 

(IRLs). The U.S. Department of Energy 

(DOE) received a petition from the 

National Electrical Manufacturers 

Association requesting the initiation of 

a rulemaking to exclude from coverage 

under EPCA standards a certain type of 

IRL marketed for use in pool and spa 

applications. Specifically, the lamp at 

issue is a 100-watt R20 short (having a 

maximum overall length of 3 and 5⁄8 or 

3.625 inches) IRL (‘‘R20 short lamp’’). 

DOE published this petition and a 

request for comment in the Federal 

Register on December 23, 2010. From its 

evaluation of the petition and careful 

consideration of the public comments, 

DOE decided to grant the petition for 

rulemaking. DOE published a request 

for information in the Federal Register 

on September 8, 2011, followed by a 

notice of proposed rulemaking 

published in the Federal Register on 

December 31, 2012. Based on data 

gathered by DOE and the comments it 

received on these notices, DOE excludes 

R20 short lamps from coverage under 

the EPCA energy conservation 

standards. 

DATES: The effective date of this rule is 

December 16, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: The docket, which includes 

Federal Register notices, comments, 

and other supporting documents/

materials, is available for review at 

regulations.gov. All documents in the 

docket are listed in the regulations.gov 

index. However, some documents listed 

in the index, such as those containing 

information that is exempt from public 

disclosure, may not be publicly 

available. 

The docket Web page can be found on 

regulations.gov, under docket number 

EERE–2010–BT–PET–0047, at: 

www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=

EERE-2010-BT-PET-0047. The 

regulations.gov Web page will contain 

simple instructions on how to access all 

documents, including public comments, 

in the docket. 

For further information on how to 

review the docket, contact Ms. Brenda 

Edwards at (202) 586–2945 or by email: 

Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Lucy deButts, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Office, EE–2J, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 287–1604. Email: 

incandescent_reflector_lamps@

ee.doe.gov. 

Ms. Celia Sher, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

GC–71, 1000 Independence Avenue 

SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 287–6122. Email: 

celia.sher@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Summary of the Final Rule 

II. Introduction 

A. Authority 

B. Background 

III. General Discussion 

A. Authority 

B. R20 Short Lamp Special Application 

Design and Impact on Energy Savings 

1. Special Application of R20 Short Lamps 

a. R20 Short Lamp Design for Special 

Applications 

b. Marketing and Distribution Channels of 

R20 Short Lamps 

2. Impact on Energy Savings 

C. Availability of R20 Short Lamp Special 

Characteristics in Substitutes 

1. Improved R20 Short Lamp 

2. 60 W PAR16 Lamp 

3. LED Lamps 

4. Consumer Use of Substitute Products 

IV. Conclusion 

V. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review 

A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 

and 13563 

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act 


TKELleY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES