[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 13 (Tuesday, January 21, 2003)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2703-2711]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-1210]


 ========================================================================
 Proposed Rules
                                                 Federal Register
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of 
 the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these 
 notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in 
 the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
 
 ========================================================================
 

  Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 13 / Tuesday, January 21, 2003 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 2703]]



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

9 CFR Ch. I

[Docket No. 01-068-1]
RIN 0579-AB43


Risk Reduction Strategies for Potential BSE Pathways Involving 
Downer Cattle and Dead Stock of Cattle and Other Species

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We are soliciting public comment to help us develop approaches 
to control the risk that dead stock and nonambulatory animals could 
serve as potential pathways for the spread of bovine spongiform 
encephalopathy, if that disease should ever be introduced into the 
United States.

DATES: We will consider all comments that we receive on or before March 
24, 2003.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by postal mail/commercial delivery 
or by e-mail. If you use postal mail/commercial delivery, please send 
four copies of your comment (an original and three copies) to: Docket 
No. 01-068-1, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 
3C71, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231. Please state 
that your comment refers to Docket No. 01-068-1. If you use e-mail, 
address your comment to [email protected]. Your comment must 
be contained in the body of your message; do not send attached files. 
Please include your name and address in your message and ``Docket No. 
01-068-1'' on the subject line.
    You may read any comments that we receive on this docket in our 
reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 of the USDA 
South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, 
DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, 
please call (202) 690-2817 before coming.
    APHIS documents published in the Federal Register, and related 
information, including the names of organizations and individuals who 
have commented on APHIS dockets, are available on the Internet at 
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppd/rad/webrepor.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Lisa Ferguson, Emergency Programs, 
VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 41, Riverdale, MD 20737-1237; (301) 
734-8073.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    We are soliciting comments to help us develop an approach to 
control risks associated with disposal of nonambulatory and dead 
livestock. These animals could serve as potential pathways for the 
spread of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), if that disease 
should ever be introduced into the United States.
    It is well established that domestic and wild animals may contract 
diseases--especially viral and bacterial diseases--from animals that 
die on the farm and do not receive proper disposal. Direct exposure to 
improperly buried dead stock \1\ and consumption of feed or grass 
contaminated by run-off that passed over such animals are some of the 
routes of potential exposure for these diseases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Dead stock are livestock that die or are killed before being 
sent to slaughter; they are sometimes referred to as ``on-farm 
deads.'' When used in this notice in reference to cattle, this term 
refers to adult cattle over 24 months of age, since cattle that die 
at a younger age present a greatly reduced likelihood of harboring 
BSE infectivity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) is a disease of cattle and 
is a member of a class called transmissible spongiform encephalopathies 
(TSE's). Other TSE's also cause various diseases in animals and humans. 
BSE was first documented in the United Kingdom in 1986 and has since 
spread to approximately 21 other countries in Europe, and to Israel and 
Japan. There has never been a case of BSE identified in the United 
States. However, other types of TSE diseases have affected U.S. 
livestock and wildlife, including scrapie in sheep and goats and 
chronic wasting disease (CWD) in both captive and free-ranging elk and 
deer.
    In many ways, TSE diseases present a more difficult problem than 
other animal diseases with regard to controlling the spread of disease 
through dead stock. This is due to the nature of TSE diseases, the 
general lack of live-animal tests for them, and the extreme hardiness 
of TSE agents. These issues are discussed in some detail below.
    Surveillance programs in European countries where BSE exist have 
found that BSE is present in a higher percentage of nonambulatory and 
dead livestock than in the general cattle populations. An animal at the 
point of death from BSE is also generally in its most infectious state, 
with a high concentration of the BSE agent in certain tissues. Studies 
by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), independent researchers, 
and the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis (discussed below) concur that 
if BSE were introduced into the United States, dead stock that were 
rendered and allowed into the animal feed chain would pose a risk of 
spreading the disease. In January 2001, the Food and Agriculture 
Organization of the United Nations issued a press release urging 
countries to take steps to reduce BSE risks; one of the recommended 
practices was correct disposal of dead stock. Diseases other than BSE 
are also an issue in the disposal of dead stock.
    The BSE agent is remarkably hardy and resistant to destruction by 
standard cooking practices, sterilization procedures, and rendering 
processes. Generally, the rendering processes used in the United States 
will reduce the infectivity of a TSE agent in the rendered material by 
a factor of 1 to 3 logs.\2\ The continuous rendering processes most 
widely used in the United States reduce infectivity by 2 logs or less; 
batch processing, used for less than 5 percent of rendered animals, can 
reduce infectivity by 3 logs. Since some BSE agent survives rendering, 
if BSE were to be present in a rendered product that is used in cattle 
feed (in deliberate or accidental violation of the feed ban imposed by 
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)) it could lead to the 
amplification and spread of

[[Page 2704]]

BSE among cattle consuming that feed. There is also a possibility that 
animal feed containing a TSE agent from the rendered protein of one 
species (e.g., scrapie in sheep) could cause development of disease in 
animals of another species consuming that feed (e.g., cause BSE in 
cattle). This is, in fact, the leading theory for how BSE originated in 
the United Kingdom.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ A 1-log reduction is reduction by a factor of 10, 2 logs = 
100, 3 logs = 1000, etc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given this situation, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection 
Service (APHIS) wants to take steps to limit the potential pathways 
through which BSE could spread in U.S. animal populations, in case it 
is introduced despite efforts to keep it out of the United States.

TSE Disease Surveillance

    Data from APHIS animal disease surveillance programs can be used to 
detect occurrences of disease, provide information for better policy 
decisions, and better understand the diseases. Most surveillance 
programs are based on data from live-animal tests; however, since such 
tests are generally unavailable for TSE's, in this area APHIS generally 
relies on observation of animals exhibiting signs of TSE's and tissue 
samples from dead animals. Since 1990, animals targeted for BSE 
surveillance by APHIS include cattle exhibiting signs of neurological 
disease in the field (i.e., prior to being brought to slaughter), 
cattle condemned at slaughter for neurologic reasons, rabies-negative 
cattle submitted to public health laboratories,\3\ neurologic cases 
submitted to veterinary diagnostic laboratories and teaching hospitals, 
nonambulatory cattle (``downer cattle'') over 24 months of age at 
slaughter, and adult cattle dying from unknown causes on farms. The 
primary reason we target downer animals is that surveillance data from 
European countries in which BSE has been detected indicate that downer 
cattle have a greater incidence of BSE.\4\ If BSE enters the United 
States, downer cattle testing programs are likely to first reveal it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ We test rabies-negative cattle because these animals often 
have clinical signs that could be consistent with BSE. If the public 
health tests show the animal does not have rabies, the samples may 
be forwarded to APHIS for BSE testing.
    \4\ For instance, surveillance in Germany in 2001 showed that 
animals subjected to normal slaughter had a BSE incidence of 0.002 
percent, while fallen animals (in the United States, these would be 
called dead stock, or animals not presented for slaughter for human 
consumption) had an incidence of 0.02 percent, and emergency 
slaughters (in the United States, animals presented for slaughter 
for human consumption and found to show signs of neurological 
illness) had an incidence of 0.48 percent. ``Final Report of a 
Mission Carried Out in Germany from 28/05/2001 to 01/06/2001 in 
Order to Evaluate the Implementation of Protective Measures Against 
Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy,'' available at http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/inspections/vi/reports/germany/vi_rep_germ_3302-2001_en.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    APHIS' current approach to BSE surveillance takes into account 
regional differences in the movement of animals, i.e., surveillance is 
scaled to take into account where most cattle are raised and where they 
are slaughtered. On this basis the United States is divided into eight 
regions \5\ for BSE surveillance. For years, APHIS has calculated 
regional surveillance goals for BSE to exceed international standards 
recommended by the Office International des Epizooties, the world 
organization for animal health. APHIS continues to increase postmortem 
testing for BSE, with more than 19,990 cattle samples tested in fiscal 
year 2002'up from 5,200 during fiscal year 2001. Overall, our 
surveillance program targets the segment of the cattle population where 
BSE would most likely be found if it were to occur, i.e., downer 
animals and dead stock.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ These divisions were established essentially for 
epidemiological surveillance reasons and are not intended for the 
purposes of Chapter 1.3.4 of the International Animal Health Code, 
i.e., ``defining geographical areas of different animal health 
status within its territory for the purpose of international 
trade.'' The regions were established because State-by-State 
reporting did not provide very useful data, and caused 
underestimation and overestimation of States' cattle populations, 
due to the common practice of moving cattle interstate for feeding 
and slaughter. Often an animal actually comes from one state (e.g., 
New Jersey) but is slaughtered in another state (e.g., 
Pennsylvania), so therefore slaughter surveillance on a State-by-
State basis would report the animal as originating from 
Pennsylvania. To make our estimations and calculations as 
scientifically sound as possible, we changed to a regional system, 
with States grouped into regions based on typical animal populations 
and their movement to regional slaughterhouses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Limiting Possible Pathways for Spread of BSE

    By their nature, downer animals and dead stock include many animals 
dead or dying from communicable diseases. They therefore represent a 
significant pathway for spread of disease if they are not handled or 
disposed of with appropriate safeguards. Over time, USDA and industry 
have developed methods to mitigate, if imperfectly, the risks presented 
by dead stock and downer animals affected by the older, better-known 
animal diseases.
    With regard to limiting the potential pathways through which BSE 
could spread in U.S. animal populations if it were introduced, we 
believe that dead stock and downer animals represent the most 
significant potential pathway that has not been addressed in previous 
efforts to reduce BSE risks. The remainder of this advance notice of 
proposed rulemaking discusses why we think this is so and identifies 
topic areas where we are seeking more information in order to develop 
rulemaking on the subject of dead stock.

The Harvard Risk Analysis

    In April 1998, in order to better characterize the potential for 
BSE to be introduced and spread in the United States, and the potential 
threat to human health should this happen, USDA commissioned the 
Harvard Center for Risk Analysis to conduct a risk analysis (referred 
to below as the Harvard study). The Harvard study was completed and 
released on November 30, 2001.\6\ The summary of the Harvard study 
stated its findings that the United States is highly resistant to any 
introduction of BSE or a similar disease. It also found that BSE is 
extremely unlikely to become established in the United States, and if 
introduced, it is likely to be quickly eliminated following its 
introduction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Evaluation of the Potential for Bovine Spongiform 
Encephalopathy in the United States; Harvard University and Tuskegee 
University, November 26, 2001. Available at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/oa/bse/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Harvard study investigated potential pathways by which BSE or 
other TSE's could enter U.S. cattle populations, using a quantitative 
simulation model to characterize how the introduction of BSE would 
spread over time, and the extent to which it could result in human 
exposure to contaminated food products. The study's model quantified 
some aspects of BSE's potential progress if introduced into the United 
States--e.g., the number of animals that would be infected over time, 
and the resulting quantity of the BSE agent in food that would 
potentially be available for human consumption--but it did not quantify 
the probability that BSE will be introduced, nor did it estimate how 
many people would contract vCJD if BSE were introduced. The study 
omitted quantitative treatment of both of these issues because the 
available information is inadequate.
    The Harvard study has helped APHIS identify those risk management 
control options that most influence the introduction and spread of 
disease, and to identify those sources of uncertainty that have the 
greatest impact on our programs to control BSE risks. This information 
can be used to help identify the most important control measures and to 
prioritize data collection and research efforts.
    The Harvard study finds that the United States is highly resistant 
to the introduction of BSE. In addition, should BSE occur in this 
country, measures taken by government and industry make

[[Page 2705]]

the United States robust against the spread of BSE to animals or 
humans.
    The report identified three pathways or practices that could 
contribute most either to increased human exposure to the BSE agent or 
to the spread of BSE if it should be introduced into the United States. 
The three pathways are:
    [sbull] Noncompliance with the FDA feed ban, including misfeeding 
on the farm and the mislabeling of prohibited feed and feed products;
    [sbull] Inclusion of high risk material, such as brain and spinal 
cord, in edible products;
    [sbull] Rendering of animals that die on the farm and use (through 
illegal diversion or cross-contamination) of the rendered product in 
ruminant feed.
    FDA and FSIS are taking action to address the first two pathways. 
FDA is enhancing its enforcement of the feed ban and is evaluating 
whether further rulemaking is needed. FSIS published a notice in the 
Federal Register on January 17, 2002 (67 FR 2399, Docket No. 01-027N) 
announcing the availability of a BSE Current Thinking Paper that 
discusses measures that it is considering implementing to minimize 
human exposure to bovine materials that could potentially contain the 
BSE agent. Measures under consideration by FSIS include prohibiting 
certain high risk materials, such as brain and spinal cord, from 
specified cattle for use as human food and prohibiting the 
incorporation of CNS tissue in boneless beef products, including meat 
from advance meat recovery (AMR) systems. Commenters on this advance 
notice of proposed rulemaking may wish to explore whether there are 
cross-cutting issues between safe disposal of these specified risk 
materials and safe disposal options for downer and on-farm dead 
animals.
    Because APHIS has primary authority \7\ for animal disease risks 
posed by both live and dead animals on the farm, including matters 
where carcass disposal may pose animal health risks, APHIS is 
publishing this advance notice of proposed rulemaking to open 
discussion concerning the third pathway, rendered material from animals 
that die on the farm and its possible inclusion in ruminant feed. We 
are publishing this notice to fulfill the Secretary's statement, upon 
release of the Harvard study, that ``USDA will publish an advance 
notice of proposed rulemaking to consider disposal options for dead and 
downer animals, because such cattle are considered an important 
potential pathway for the spread of BSE in the animal chain.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Generally, APHIS does not directly regulate businesses 
engaged in animal disposal through rendering, incineration, burial, 
or other methods. However, such businesses could be affected if 
APHIS regulates how the owners of animals may move or dispose of 
dead stock; e.g., disposal businesses could choose to alter their 
practices to provide the types of disposal APHIS requires the owners 
of animals to employ. See the Animal Health Protection Act of 2002 
(Subtitle E of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, 
Pub. L. 107-171). Section 10406 states that the Secretary of 
Agriculture may prohibit or restrict ``the movement in interstate 
commerce of any animal, article, or means of conveyance if the 
Secretary determines that the prohibition or restriction is 
necessary to prevent the introduction or dissemination of any pest 
or disease of livestock.'' Section 10409 states that the Secretary 
``may carry out operations and measures to detect, control, or 
eradicate any pest or disease of livestock * * * including animals 
at a slaughterhouse, stockyard, or other point of concentration.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Harvard study considers dead stock to be an especially 
significant potential pathway for BSE. The base case for the Harvard 
study's model examined what would happen if 10 animals infected with 
BSE were imported into the United States, assuming current Government 
regulations and controls are in place. In this scenario, it could be 
likely that one or more of these animals will succumb to the disease on 
the farm, or become sick enough to be killed rather than sent to 
slaughter. The worst possible outcome at this point in the scenario 
would be for an animal with BSE to be rendered, and for the rendered 
product to be mixed into ruminant feed (in violation of the FDA feed 
ban). Rendering an animal that has reached the clinical stage of BSE 
introduces the maximum amount of infectivity into rendering and 
potentially into feed. This could result in many more cattle 
contracting BSE through consuming that contaminated feed, or consuming 
feed that was cross-contaminated during production or storage, if the 
feed ban was violated.
    The Harvard study's model estimates that keeping this from 
occurring, by prohibiting the rendering of animals that die on the farm 
or by ensuring that no rendered product from such animals is ever mixed 
with ruminant feed, would greatly reduce the potential for 
contamination in the animal feed chain and reduce the average predicted 
new cases of BSE following introduction of 10 infected cattle from 2.9 
new cases to 0.68 new cases. The Harvard study found that safely 
disposing of on-farm dead livestock is predicted to greatly reduce BSE 
spread due to the high levels of BSE agent expected in animals that die 
from BSE on the farm. It is important to keep such animals from 
directly entering animal feed chains (e.g., through using rendered 
products derived from them in feed), and it is important to dispose of 
their carcasses in ways that keep other livestock and wildlife from 
contacting them.
    Note that the Harvard study by design considered risk factors for 
BSE one at a time, not in combination. In other words, the prediction 
that keeping rendered dead stock out of ruminant feed would lower new 
cases of BSE following introduction of 10 infected cattle from 2.9 to 
0.68 new cases does not take into account the marginal and cumulative 
effects of other BSE risk reduction activities. Other actions by 
Federal agencies and industry--e.g., more effective enforcement of the 
feed ban and import restrictions applied to countries with BSE--will 
also be acting to mitigate BSE risks, to a cumulative degree not 
calculated by the Harvard study.
    The Harvard study suggests prohibiting rendering of dead stock as 
one way to mitigate this risk, but it does not go on to evaluate the 
associated negative effects such a policy could have on preventing the 
spread of BSE and other diseases. Eliminating rendering as a disposal 
option for dead stock would mean owners would have to find other 
disposal options, many of which pose their own risks of spreading 
disease. These risks are discussed later in this document.

Issues in Disposal of Downer Cattle and Dead Stock

Downer Cattle
    Downer cattle--animals that cannot rise from a recumbent position 
due to injury or illness--may be sent for slaughter at plants inspected 
by FSIS.\8\ Sometimes the FSIS antemortem inspection reveals that the 
downer animal clearly is affected by a particular disease, but more 
often diseases are revealed only when characteristic lesions (e.g., of 
tuberculosis, swine erysipelas, or infectious anemia) are seen within 
the carcass after slaughter. However, TSE diseases do not cause grossly 
observable lesions, so FSIS inspectors instead observe the live downer 
animals for signs of a CNS disorder. FSIS has the lead role in ensuring 
that downer cattle presented for slaughter that exhibit clinical signs 
of BSE are diverted from slaughter. Cattle with clinical signs of a CNS 
disorder and cattle that died otherwise than by slaughter are already 
prohibited from use as human food. All downer cattle presented for 
slaughter are

[[Page 2706]]

automatically suspected of being affected with a disease or condition 
that may require condemnation of the animal, in whole or in part, and 
are identified as ``U.S. Suspects.'' Such cattle must be examined by an 
FSIS veterinarian, and a record of the veterinarian's clinical findings 
must accompany the carcass to postmortem inspection if the animal is 
not condemned. Post mortem inspection on the carcasses of all cattle 
classified as ``US Suspects,'' including downer cattle, must be 
performed by a veterinarian rather than a food inspector, and the 
results of this inspection must be recorded as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Any FSIS-inspected facility may slaughter downer cattle if 
the animal passes ante mortem inspection. Although some slaughter 
facilities will not accept downers for slaughter, FSIS does not 
restrict or approve where downers may be slaughtered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Downer cattle presented for slaughter that pass antemortem 
inspection may be slaughtered and, if passed on postmortem inspection, 
the meat and meat products from such cattle can be used for human food. 
However, surveillance for BSE in Europe has shown that downer cattle 
infected with BSE often cannot be found by looking for the typical 
clinical signs associated with BSE, because the signs of BSE often 
cannot be differentiated from the signs of the many other diseases and 
conditions affecting downer cattle. Thus, if BSE were present in the 
United States, downer cattle infected with BSE could potentially be 
offered for slaughter and, if the clinical signs of the disease were 
not detected, pass antemortem inspection. These cattle could then be 
slaughtered for human or animal food. Although the muscle tissue from 
BSE-infected downer cattle has not been found to contain the BSE agent, 
other tissues could contain the BSE agent and the muscle tissue could 
be cross-contaminated during slaughter and processing.
    As noted above, FSIS is considering placing restrictions on 
specified risk materials from certain categories of slaughtered cattle, 
including downer cattle, to address this scenario. We are seeking 
suggestions on actions APHIS could take to prevent downer animals 
potentially affected by BSE (should it be introduced) from spreading 
the disease; i.e., actions that could be taken on the farm or at other 
stages prior to slaughter. We are looking for actions we could take 
now, rather than actions to be taken if and when BSE is ever 
introduced. Commenters may wish to describe how risk factors should be 
considered when sending downer cattle to slaughter, e.g., age, physical 
condition, source and type of cattle, etc.
    Commenters should bear in mind that we currently rely on collecting 
samples from downer animals, at slaughter and other locations, as a key 
part of BSE surveillance. We would like commenters to address how APHIS 
could continue to obtain samples for testing from downer cattle, since 
such cattle are an important part of our surveillance program for BSE.
Dead Stock
    In addition to comments regarding downer animals, we seek comments 
regarding dead stock. Disposal methods for dead stock is the most 
important issue addressed by this advance notice of proposed 
rulemaking. Dead stock are a potential source of infection for many 
animal diseases, including BSE. Past experience with disease outbreaks 
in livestock has demonstrated the need for carcass disposal methods 
that are cost-effective, safe, fast, complete, and environmentally 
acceptable.
    If an animal dies on the farm, or becomes so sick or injured that 
it must be destroyed on the farm, it immediately loses most or all of 
its economic value. It is prohibited from being sold for human food. It 
might be sold to be rendered, or to be processed as pet food, but in 
most cases the fee for picking up and transporting a dead animal 
exceeds the salvage value (i.e., the payment for its value as rendered 
product or pet food). Thus, producers have a strong business reason for 
finding ways to dispose of dead stock as cheaply as possible.
    This incentive to find cheap means of disposal for dead stock is 
directly in conflict with certain public interest needs. We will note, 
but not directly address in this advance notice of proposed rulemaking, 
that dead stock disposal can have significant impacts on environmental 
quality and on the capacity of existing solid waste management disposal 
systems (landfills, incinerators, etc.). We are also aware that there 
are varying costs associated with different methods of dead stock 
disposal, but we have not analyzed these costs because we have 
insufficient data, and we request commenters to submit data on these 
costs. The focus of this advance notice of proposed rulemaking is on 
how dead stock disposal relates to the public interest in controlling 
animal disease risks.
    Many animal health programs depend on collecting good data about 
how livestock become sick and die. This data collection would obviously 
become even more important if BSE were introduced into the United 
States. When dead stock is treated as an economic burden and disposed 
of as cheaply as possible, this data collection suffers. The cheapest 
methods for dead stock disposal include ignoring the carcass (possible 
in some cattle range situations) or burying it on-site. Both of these 
means are legal in some States, and in other States that have specific 
disposal requirements, the requirements are often loosely enforced. 
Some producers have disposed of dead stock creatively and illegally by 
abandoning it on public or private land in ravines, rivers, culverts, 
dumpsters, and other locations. In all of these situations, information 
about the animal and its possible cause of death is unlikely to make 
its way to State or Federal animal health authorities.
    In addition to making it harder to collect animal health data, 
inappropriate disposal of dead stock increases the possibility that 
humans, livestock, or wildlife will come into contact with pathogens 
associated with the dead stock. Human and animal health concerns, along 
with environmental quality concerns, are the major reasons existing 
State laws on carcass disposal were enacted.
    While State laws regarding dead stock disposal vary widely, most 
have the following features in common. They establish a time limit 
within which disposal must take place--usually 24 or 48 hours after 
death. They limit disposal methods to those authorized by law, and 
sometimes rank the methods in the order the State prefers they be used. 
Typically, this is the preferred order:
    Rendering at a licensed and approved rendering facility. This 
method maximizes the government's ability to monitor and regulate dead 
stock disposal, by working with relatively few companies that pick up 
and render the dead stock. However, as discussed below, dead stock 
pickup by renderers has become less available in many areas and has 
become more expensive. (In the past renderers would pick up dead cattle 
for free, or pay the producer for the dead animals; now there is 
typically a fee of $20 or more for this service, when it is available 
at all.) There are also TSE risk issues associated with rendering, and 
with the renderers' ability to segregate higher-risk materials and 
divert them to products that are not for use in humans or animals.
    However, the existence of markets for use of rendered products for 
industrial purposes that present no risk of contact with animal or 
human products does provide a possible avenue for disposal of rendered 
products from animals that may be infected with a TSE. Such products 
may be diverted into production of paints, adhesives, or other 
products. Rendered fat products and meat and bone meal (MBM) may also 
be used as either a primary fuel or a fuel supplement for heat and 
power production (especially co-combustion in coal-fired plants), or as 
an ingredient in cement (MBM is currently used in

[[Page 2707]]

cement production in Belgium, France, Germany, Japan, and possibly 
other countries.) Naturally, diversion of large quantities of rendered 
products into new uses raises significant economic issues, and many 
diversion uses may not currently make sense in purely economic terms, 
as other nations that practice such diversion have found.\9\ For 
example, MBM, when burned, generates only about half the energy 
obtained from burning coal, yet MBM sells for about 12 times the price 
of coal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ ``In Germany all fallen animals and all animals unfit for 
human consumption must be disposed of at rendering plants. The 
renderers collect the animals. All fallen and sick bovines over 24 
months are BSE tested * * * If the results of the test have not come 
through then the whole carcass must be processed into MBM under the 
standard procedure at 133[deg]C and 3 bar. Since the introduction of 
the MBM feed ban all MBM must be burnt either in waste incinerators, 
power stations, or as fuel for cement producers * * * Since the 
introduction of the MBM feed ban rendering operations run at a loss. 
Federal and Land Governments are still discussing the coverage of 
the extra costs brought about by the BSE crisis. The Federal 
Government has so far resisted the wish of the Land Governments that 
the Federal Government should pay all BSE follow-up costs including 
the disposal costs of MBM.''--British Embassy Bonn Office 
Agriculture Note: September 2001, available at http://www.britischebotschaft.de/en/embassy/agriculture/Agni-Note-Fallen%20Stock.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although many industrial products are produced mainly from rendered 
fats and oils, rather than rendered protein, some products utilize 
rendered protein. In other cases, a percentage of rendered protein can 
be included as a harmless additive with the rendered fat or oil 
product. If such diversion into non-food uses is effectively 
accomplished, it could provide a safe means of dead stock disposal for 
animals that might spread TSE's if disposed of in other ways.
    Composting of dead stock in a properly designed and sized dead 
animal composter. Composting of dead stock allows the end product to be 
recycled back to the land as a fertilizer. Poultry and swine industries 
use this technology effectively. Composting is used to dispose of some 
cattle and other large species, but large-scale cost-effective 
approaches are still under development. Composting requires careful 
planning and monitoring to be successful. Issues include moisture and 
temperature control and proper admixture of plant matter (often straw 
or old feedstuffs) to raise the carbon-nitrogen level to a point where 
proper composting can occur. Composting also takes time; decomposition 
of a mature cattle carcass takes about 6 to 8 months. The remaining 
bony matter is soft and easily broken for land application or other 
final disposal. One successful composting approach uses a three-bin 
system, which is best located downwind from nearby residences and away 
from waterways and ponds. Permanent composting facilities have 
significant start-up costs of $5,000 or more. Composting operations 
must also take steps to control the potential risk of disease spread by 
wild and feral animals.
    Composting is problematic with regard to BSE infectivity; it may be 
effective, or it may reduce but not destroy infectivity. Composting 
does not usually raise material temperatures over 160 [deg]F, a 
temperature the BSE agent is known to survive for long periods. Further 
research is needed to characterize the effectiveness of composting with 
regard to BSE. The United Kingdom's Department for Environment, Food, 
and Rural Affairs is currently preparing a risk assessment, to be 
completed in the near future, that may help resolve this question.
    Dead stock disposal in an approved sanitary landfill. Most 
municipal landfills are permitted to accept dead animals but may limit 
their numbers. To minimize pathogen contamination of groundwater, 
modern sanitary landfills are designed and operated to prevent leaching 
into groundwater or surface waters. Drawbacks include limited capacity 
and expense--many landfills charge over $100 a head to dispose of 
cattle. However, properly operated landfills will keep infectious 
material away from livestock.
    Incinerating dead stock. Incineration is very effective but is 
costly and energy intensive, and it may pollute the environment if the 
incinerator is not operated and maintained properly. Incinerators 
generally must be licensed by a State government. Open burning of dead 
animals is not allowed in most States without a permit.
    A subset of incineration technology that is gaining popularity is 
on-site disposal using either complete mobile incinerators or air 
curtain trench burners. There are cost and air quality issues 
associated with both of these technologies, and they are usually 
considered most suitable for short-term disposal projects (such as 
depopulating a herd) rather than long-term use. However, air curtain 
trench burners in particular have been gaining use in recent years for 
on-site disposal of diseased animals. They have been used in Great 
Britain for disposal of animals during the recent foot-and-mouth 
disease outbreak, and they have been used in Montana and Colorado to 
dispose of elk implicated in CWD outbreaks. When properly used, this 
technology produces ash that presents no disease risk when disposed of 
properly.
    Air curtain trench burners are essentially giant blowers that 
direct powerful airstreams onto trenches in which carcasses are burned 
on firewood fuel. This superheats the fire to temperatures steadily 
above 1,000 [deg]C., resulting in total carcass incineration in 
approximately 20 minutes. (Cadaver incineration times will vary with 
factors such as fat content, moisture content, firebox or pit 
temperature, type of wood waste used, etc.) Site selection is important 
for air curtain trench burners, and soil type, underground water table, 
and prevailing wind direction should be carefully considered. High 
water table areas and sandy soil types should be avoided. Stable 
vertical trench walls with minimum entry of underground water into the 
burn area are needed for steady high incineration temperatures.
    Burial on premises. Many States specify requirements for owners who 
bury their dead stock on their own premises. Typically, State laws 
limit the number of animals that may be buried, require adequate 
topsoil covering the animals (usually 2 or 3 feet), and attempt to 
restrict burials in areas where runoff passing over the animals would 
contaminate groundwater or aquifers.
    Tissue digestion. Because this is a new and relatively expensive 
technology, most State laws do not yet recognize or recommend it as a 
means of dead stock disposal. Tissue digesters are essentially large 
``pressure cooker'' devices that use boiling sodium hydroxide solutions 
to degrade proteins and fats and result in a sterile liquid suitable 
for municipal sewage systems, and a sterile, crumbling calcium 
phosphate residue from the bones and teeth of the animals. Research has 
shown this method to very effectively reduce levels of TSE infectivity. 
A typical digester costs several hundred thousand dollars, could 
process several cattle cadavers simultaneously, and takes several hours 
to complete a processing cycle. Currently, most digesters in the United 
States are located at major veterinary research centers or veterinary 
teaching hospitals.

Preferred Methods for Dead Stock Disposal

    APHIS is seeking comments on which approaches for safe disposal of 
dead stock should be encouraged or required. The primary issue we would 
like commenters to address is how to develop a combination of 
regulatory requirements, incentives, and cooperative relationships with 
production and disposal industries that

[[Page 2708]]

will result in sustainable procedures for the safe disposal of dead 
stock.
    Commenters are also asked to consider the costs associated with any 
such solutions, and any trade-offs that might result by requiring 
particularly stringent disposal methods to protect against BSE, when 
easier disposal methods might be adequate protection against other 
animal diseases. Such comments could also address whether moving to a 
disposal system designed with BSE in mind might reduce the availability 
of other types of disposal services which might be needed in situations 
where it is necessary to dispose of large quantities of carcasses that 
do not present a BSE risk (e.g., an FMD or pseudorabies outbreak).
    Commenters should bear in mind that our current BSE surveillance 
includes collecting samples from cattle that die on-farm. We would like 
commenters to address how APHIS could continue to obtain and increase 
our samples for testing from dead stock.
    When dead stock are disposed of unsafely, it is because safe 
disposal is unavailable, expensive, or inconvenient. One approach to 
dead stock disposal could be to require certain methods of disposal 
(e.g., incineration, landfill burial, digestion, or composting, at 
licensed facilities) under Federal or State laws. But requiring certain 
disposal methods does not automatically make them available, 
inexpensive, or convenient. Also, some disposal methods have been very 
useful for disposing of small numbers of animal carcasses, but their 
use for the disposal of large numbers of carcasses may result in an 
increased disease risk to other livestock producers in an area. The 
short term savings from these methods can easily result in an increased 
cost later on, which could have been reduced or eliminated if the right 
techniques had been used initially.
    As discussed above, different disposal methods result in different 
levels and types of risk that cattle could contract BSE from a disposed 
animal. There are very effective and usually expensive disposal methods 
that reliably inactivate any infectious agent, including BSE, in a 
destroyed cadaver. These methods include incineration (on-farm or at a 
remote incinerator) and tissue digestion. Other disposal methods are 
known to be partially effective in deactivating the BSE agent, thus 
reducing but not eliminating risk. These methods include rendering 
(known to reduce BSE infectivity, with the extent of reduction related 
to the process used) and composting (apparently reduces infectivity, 
but to what degree is not well characterized). In both of these 
methods, an important element may be diversion of the end-product to 
uses that will not bring it into contact with animal feed. Other 
methods such as open burning, burial, and landfill disposal have great 
variations in their effectiveness due to the great variations in how 
they are implemented at different times and places.
    An important aspect of disposal methods is that they can achieve 
the desired end either by deactivating the BSE agent or by isolating 
it. The BSE agent in dead stock need not be inactivated if it is 
reliably kept from contact with animals that it might infect. Another 
aspect to consider regarding disposal methods is the extent to which 
they create further disposal problems downstream. Incineration reduces 
animals to a small volume of ash, but the ash must be spread somewhere. 
Tissue digesters produce innocuous liquid waste and some calcium 
phosphate. Burial and landfill disposal do not immediately reduce the 
volume of the animal and create enduring concerns about scavengers and 
leaching into the water table. Rendering greatly reduces the volume of 
the processed product by removing water content and places the end-
product in containers, but it has labeling and use concerns because the 
product may still be infectious.
    We are seeking comments to help us balance these considerations in 
developing good dead stock disposal practices. We have better 
information on the issues associated with rendering, compared to other 
disposal methods, because rendering businesses are few in number and 
uniform in operation compared to the great variety of businesses 
operating landfills, incinerators, and composting services. While the 
following discussion directly addresses some issues associated with 
rendering, we hope commenters will help us develop similar data 
regarding other disposal methods.
    Here are some of the questions regarding whether rendering is a 
useful disposal method for dead stock that could harbor TSE's: Since 
rendering does not completely destroy TSE agents, can we be sure 
rendered products from possibly-infected dead stock would all be used 
in ways that would not spread TSE's? Given the capacity and 
distribution of rendering plants, is rendering of dead stock a viable 
option nationwide, or are there areas where it is practically 
unavailable? If rendering is a desirable disposal method, what sorts of 
requirements, partnerships, or incentives could increase its use?
    There are approximately 100 million cattle in the United States, 
including beef, dairy, and other categories. Over a million post-
weaning calves and adult cattle die or are killed each year before 
being sent to slaughter. The National Renderers Association estimates 
that about 44 percent of these carcasses were sent for rendering last 
year but notes that this percentage is declining, as the profitability 
of rendering dead stock declines. North American renderers process more 
than 50 billion pounds of animal and poultry material each year, 
including dead stock, offal, and waste from slaughter and packing 
plants, and animal waste from food processing, supermarket, and 
restaurant industries. Rendering reduces the volume of this material by 
64 percent, mostly by reducing the water content, which makes the 
resultant products much easier to package and transport--whether for 
sale, or for disposal. The value of rendered products in the United 
States in 1998 was approximately $3.2 billion, and consisted of 9 
billion pounds of protein concentrate (largely meat and bone meal, or 
MBM) and 9 billion pounds of animal fat such as tallow.
    Historically, the bulk of rendered products has been used by the 
feed industry, which adds MBM and high-energy fats to feed mixes for 
cattle, swine, poultry, and pets. MBM is an attractive feed supplement 
because it is high in protein, calcium, and phosphorus. The chief 
supplements that compete with MBM are soybean meal and corn gluten 
meal. Neither of these plant-based supplements has significant levels 
of calcium or phosphorus, although corn gluten meal has a higher crude 
protein content than MBM (60 percent compared to 50 percent). Wholesale 
prices for MBM and soybean meal have traditionally tracked each other 
closely, but with MBM commanding a slight premium presumably due to its 
better mineral content. From January 1988 through February 1996, 
ruminant MBM sold for an average of $16.05 per ton above the price of 
soybean meal, but since March 1996, the average price of ruminant MBM 
has been $1.20 below the price of soybean meal. This price reduction 
probably results largely from the FDA feed ban, although greater 
production of soy and corn may also be a factor.
    Steady decreases in the price brought by MBM, coupled with 
increases in transportation and processing costs, act to reduce 
renderers' traditional role as the primary means for producers to 
dispose of dead stock. In the past, renderers paid farmers for their 
dead stock, but recovered that cost by selling the byproducts at a 
profit. Farmers got rid of their dead animals without cost or

[[Page 2709]]

difficulty. Now, however, the rendered product derived from a dead 
stock cow is worth perhaps $20; to cover collection and processing 
costs and profit, renderers charge the owner a pickup fee of from $15 
to $35 for each animal. This causes producers to seek cheaper means of 
disposal. It has also caused some renderers to stop offering dead stock 
pickup when they do not find it cost effective; renderer pickup is very 
difficult to arrange in Ohio and Michigan, among other places.
    We have not yet been able to obtain accurate national figures to 
indicate the fall-off in renderer pickup of dead stock, but we do have 
illustrative data from one State, California. The California Department 
of Food and Agriculture recently required renderers to submit annual 
reports on how much of their raw material came from dead stock. These 
reports show that between fiscal years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001, the 
number of dead stock (poultry excluded) that was collected by renderers 
declined by 20 percent--from 686,434 head to 553,974 head.
    To help commenters focus their comments on the role of rendering in 
dead stock disposal, we are providing certain basic information about 
how rendering industries are regulated, their business situation, and 
certain rendering industry initiatives relevant to dead stock disposal. 
Persons interested in obtaining more information on rendering 
industries may wish to visit the National Renderers Association website 
at http://www.renderers.org.
    Renderers generally must be licensed by each State in which they do 
business. Licensing and operating requirements for renderers vary from 
State to State. With regard to Federal regulations, renderers, like any 
business, must comply with numerous regulations regarding employment, 
worker safety, environmental quality, and so on. Renderers of livestock 
species subject to the FMIA are required to register their businesses 
with the FSIS, in accordance with 21 U.S.C. 643 and 9 CFR 320.5. 
(Renderers who do business solely at official slaughter, packing, or 
other establishments inspected by FSIS are exempt from this 
registration requirement.) Renderers are also subject to FDA 
regulations at 21 CFR 589.2000--the ``feed ban'' regulations--that 
impose requirements on renderers that produce products for use in 
animal feed. The FDA regulations include requirements for labeling, 
recordkeeping, separation of raw materials based on species type, and 
related matters to ensure mammalian protein (with certain exceptions) 
does not go into ruminant feed.
    The rendering industry and individual renderers have taken several 
actions affecting dead stock disposal and TSE issues. Starting in 1991, 
most renderers elected not to pick up dead sheep, due to the possible 
scrapie/BSE link, as a means of keeping sheep dead stock protein out of 
ruminant feed. That industry-elected action became irrelevant in 1997 
with the FDA ruminant feed ban, but dead sheep pickup is still not 
happening because: (1) Many contracts from product end-users specify 
that no adult ovine protein is allowed in the product, and (2) the same 
economic conditions that make it marginal for renderers to pick up any 
dead stock (cattle, swine, etc.) make it a low priority for renderers 
to resume picking up sheep. However, renderers have stated that they 
could reinstitute sheep pickup if it becomes economically viable to do 
so.
    Rendering industry representatives cooperated with FDA in 
developing the feed ban regulations and have monitored compliance with 
the ban within the rendering industry. Beginning in April 2001, the 
Animal Protein Producers Industry (the biosecurity arm of the rendering 
industry) started an inspection audit of all animal protein producers 
to ascertain compliance with the FDA feed ban. This was a third-party 
audit performed by an independent auditing firm, Cook & Thurber of 
Madison, WI.
    Currently, a major concern of renderers is identifying markets for 
MBM and other rendered protein products that contain ruminant protein. 
Year 2000 production of MBM was nearly 6.7 billion pounds, of which 5 
billion pounds, or 75 percent, contained ruminant protein. All of the 
ruminant protein MBM production has been diverted from use in ruminant 
feed, with most going to swine, poultry, and pet feed. Export markets 
for MBM have also increased more than four-fold in the past 10 years, 
to 979 million pounds in the year 2000. However, oversupply of MBM 
compared to the demand for its allowed uses continues to drive MBM 
prices down. The industry believes it would be physically possible for 
independent rendering plants to install separate processing lines that 
would allow them to reduce the amount of MBM containing ruminant 
protein, and increase the amount of ruminant-free MBM, by roughly 1.5 
billion pounds a year. However, the capital expenditure and operating 
costs to do this would mean that renderers would lose money with each 
year additional separate processing lines are operated, given 
prevailing prices for MBM.
    Renderers continue to seek new, non-feed markets for their rendered 
product. However, the market opportunities seem to be much greater for 
rendered fat and oil product lines than for rendered protein product 
lines. For example, there is a growing market for biodiesel fuels that 
can be produced from animal (as well as plant) fats and oils. The 
USDA's Foreign Agricultural Service has reported that, to address MBM 
disposal in Europe, ``New uses are being pursued, such as burning MBM 
in power plants to produce electricity or burning it in kilns to 
produce construction materials such as cement.''\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ ``International Agricultural Trade,'' February 5, 2002, 
p.3. Foreign Agricultural Service, USDA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are interested in receiving comments that discuss whether 
rendering can be an effective means for safely disposing of dead stock 
in a manner that minimizes risks of spreading BSE and other animal 
diseases. We hope that commenters will address the full range of 
technical, economic, regional, environmental, and practical business 
issues associated with this question. At this time, APHIS believes that 
the key issues associated with using rendering as a safe means of 
disposal for dead stock are:
    [sbull] Should dead stock ruminants be segregated at rendering from 
material being rendered for animal feed use?
    [sbull] If so, can the rendering industry successfully implement 
this degree of raw material and product segregation and labeling? What 
would the cost implications be?
    [sbull] If the cost of rendering dead stock exceeds the value of 
the rendered product, who should pay the excess cost? The producer, 
State or local government, Federal Government, or someone else?
    [sbull] What could be done through cooperation between industry and 
government to decrease the cost of picking up dead stock for rendering 
(e.g., harmonization of licensing and regulations, creation of regional 
pickup centers, etc.)?

Compliance, Enforcement, and Incentive Issues

    We are also interested in receiving comments on ways to ensure 
compliance with any dead stock disposal requirements that may 
eventually be established through rulemaking. Vigorous enforcement, 
with civil and criminal penalties for violators, is one means to 
encourage compliance. However, there are obvious limits to APHIS' 
ability to directly monitor and enforce dead stock disposal

[[Page 2710]]

requirements. Our inspectors cannot directly observe, or even be aware 
of, all the thousands of animal disposal incidents that occur each day. 
In addition to enforcement and penalties, there may be a role for 
incentives to help achieve compliance in dead stock disposal practices.
    One possible incentive may be a program to help owners pay for the 
cost of dead stock disposal under certain circumstances. In a January 
2002 report \11\ about strengthening regulatory efforts to prevent BSE 
in the United States, the Government Accounting Office (GAO) noted that 
USDA sometimes subsidizes animal disposal costs in order to obtain 
sufficient tissue samples for its BSE surveillance program. The report 
notes that ``In 1998 USDA implemented a cooperative program with the 
rendering industry to ensure that carcasses of animals condemned at 
slaughter for signs of neurological disease are held until test results 
are completed. Under this program, USDA may share the expenses to store 
or dispose of carcasses during the testing period.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ ``MAD COW DISEASE: Improvements in the Animal Feed Ban and 
Other Regulatory Areas Would Strengthen U.S. Prevention Efforts,'' 
GAO-02-183, Government Accounting Office, January 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similar programs haves used State, Federal, and industry subsidies 
to obtain surveillance samples and to encourage responsible dead stock 
disposal. For example, when cattle with neurological signs of illness 
are identified at ante mortem inspection in several States, the costs 
of sample collection and carcass disposal are shared between State 
government, Federal agencies, and renderers. We are seeking more data 
on the rationale and operations of these and similar programs, 
especially including any studies of their overall costs and benefits. 
We hope to assemble enough data to evaluate the costs and benefits 
associated with possible dead stock disposal programs that could be 
designed to maximize benefits to the general public, cattle producers, 
disposal industries, and others. One possible design for a voucher-
subsidized ``multi-benefit'' dead stock disposal program is discussed 
below.
    Consider a program where the Federal or State Government issues 
qualifying producers a certain number of ``stock disposal vouchers'' 
each year. If one of the producer's animals dies on-farm, or becomes so 
ill or injured the producer decides to euthanize it, the producer could 
use a voucher to cover some or all of the costs of disposing of the 
animal. The government that issued the vouchers may make arrangements 
with incinerator operators or other disposal businesses that will honor 
the vouchers. Dead stock transporters may also be involved in the 
voucher system. In all cases, businesses may benefit from increased 
formal disposal of dead stock that, without the voucher system, might 
be buried on-farm. Solid waste disposal systems may benefit as fewer 
animals are taken to limited landfill spaces and more animals are 
incinerated. Public health and environmental values may benefit from 
fewer casual or illegal animal disposals that pollute groundwater and 
spread disease.
    Such a voucher system could also benefit USDA disease surveillance 
programs if it includes a requirement to allow USDA to examine and 
collect samples from the animals for which vouchers are used. USDA 
staff or accredited veterinarians could be used to examine animals 
prior to euthanasia and to collect samples from dead animals prior to 
their disposal.
    As an alternative to a predefined voucher system for dead stock 
disposal, Federal or State agencies could concentrate on identifying, 
and paying disposal costs for, downer animals that would be euthanized 
on the farm. This approach might offer a bounty or reward payment for 
owners who report certain types of animals in their herds--e.g., adult 
cattle showing certain signs indicative of CNS conditions. The Federal 
or State agency could then examine the animal, euthanize it, take 
samples if the examination showed a reason to do so, and arrange to 
dispose of the cadaver. The owner would receive a small bounty payment 
and would avoid any disposal costs he might otherwise have faced if he 
euthanized the animal without government assistance.
    The above are just two examples of a design for a ``multi-benefit'' 
dead stock disposal program; we encourage commenters to suggest others. 
If your comment suggests a system for dead stock disposal, please 
include your thoughts on what businesses, levels of government, or 
other parties should be involved. We are particularly interested in 
hearing comments on whether such programs should be organized on the 
county or State level, a regional level, or a national level, and what 
role the Federal Government should play.

Dead Stock Disposal for Species Other Than Cattle

    While this notice primarily addresses disposal of cattle, there are 
obviously related issues for other species. In particular, commenters 
may wish to address disposal of sheep and goats with regard to scrapie, 
disposal of captive elk and deer with regard to CWD, and disposal of 
all types of livestock with regard to communicable non-TSE diseases. We 
hope commenters will help us to understand what dead stock disposal 
issues are common to all of these species, what issues are of 
particular importance to different types of producers, and the possible 
costs to involved parties (including producers and taxpayers) of 
addressing these issues.

Summary of Issues Open for Comment

    [sbull] What is the preferred approach and associated costs to 
affected parties for controlling risks associated with disposal of 
nonambulatory and dead livestock?
    [sbull] Are there any cross-cutting issues between safe disposal of 
specified risk materials such as brain and spinal cord and safe 
disposal options for downer and on-farm dead animals?
    [sbull] Are there practical ways to cull higher-risk downer cattle, 
e.g. cattle that may have a non-obvious CNS condition, before they are 
sent to slaughter? How should risk factors such as age, physical 
condition, and the source and type of cattle be considered when sending 
downer cattle to slaughter? What would such culling cost affected 
parties?
    [sbull] Since APHIS currently relies on collecting samples from 
downer animals, at slaughter and other locations, as a key part of BSE 
surveillance, how could we continue to obtain samples for testing from 
downer cattle if they are not sent to slaughter?
    [sbull] What carcass disposal methods are safe, fast, complete, and 
environmentally acceptable? What combination of regulatory 
requirements, incentives, and cooperative relationships with production 
and disposal industries would result in sustainable procedures for the 
safe disposal of dead stock, and what are the costs associated with 
such solutions?
    [sbull] Can rendering be an effective means for safely disposing of 
dead stock in a manner that minimizes risks of spreading BSE and other 
animal diseases? Under what conditions? What are the associated 
technical, economic, regional, environmental, and practical business 
issues?
    [sbull] What are equitable ways to share the costs of dead stock 
disposal, to concentrate and increase economic opportunities and social 
benefits that can be associated with responsible dead stock disposal?
    [sbull] What businesses, levels of government, or other parties 
should be involved in dead stock disposal? Should such programs be 
organized on the

[[Page 2711]]

county or State level, a regional level, or a national level, and what 
role should the Federal Government play?
    [sbull] Is there a need to particularly address disposal of sheep 
and goats with regard to scrapie, and disposal of captive elk and deer 
with regard to CWD? What dead stock disposal issues are common to all 
species, and what issues are of particular importance to different 
types of producers?

    Done in Washington, DC, this 15th day of January 2003.
Bill Hawks,
Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs.
[FR Doc. 03-1210 Filed 1-17-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P