[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 58 (Monday, March 27, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15047-15059]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-2864]


 ========================================================================
 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. 71, No. 58 / Monday, March 27, 2006 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 15047]]



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

9 CFR Parts 82 and 94

[Docket No. APHIS-2006-0036]


Exotic Newcastle Disease; Quarantine Restrictions

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are proposing to make several changes to the exotic 
Newcastle disease domestic quarantine regulations, including adding an 
option for the movement of pet birds; adding restrictions on the 
interstate movement of live ratites out of quarantined areas; 
harmonizing the domestic and foreign regulations regarding the movement 
of dressed carcasses of dead birds and dead poultry, including one 
change to the importation regulations; providing for the use of 
alternative procedures for treating manure and litter and for 
composting; and adding an additional surveillance period after the 
conditions for removing quarantine are met before quarantine is 
removed. We have concluded that these proposed changes are necessary 
based on our experiences during the eradication programs for the 2002-
2003 outbreaks of exotic Newcastle disease in California, Arizona, 
Nevada, and Texas. In the event of an exotic Newcastle disease 
outbreak, these changes would help to ensure that exotic Newcastle 
disease does not spread from quarantined areas and that exotic 
Newcastle disease is eradicated within quarantined areas.

DATES: We will consider all comments that we receive on or before May 
26, 2006.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and, in the lower ``Search Regulations and Federal 
Actions'' box, select ``Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service'' 
from the agency drop-down menu, then click on ``Submit.'' In the Docket 
ID column, select APHIS-2006-0036 to submit or view public comments and 
to view supporting and related materials available electronically. 
After the close of the comment period, the docket can be viewed using 
the ``Advanced Search'' function in Regulations.gov.
     Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Please send four copies 
of your comment (an original and three copies) to Docket No. APHIS-
2006-0036, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 
3A.03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please 
state that your comment refers to Docket No. APHIS-2006-0036.
    Reading Room: You may read any comments that we receive on this 
docket in our reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 of 
the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., 
Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 
Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to 
help you, please call (202) 690-2817 before coming.
    Other Information: Additional information about APHIS and its 
programs is available on the Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Glen Garris, Chief of Staff, 
Emergency Management, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 41, Riverdale, MD 
20737-1231; (301) 734-8073.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Exotic Newcastle disease (END) is a contagious and fatal viral 
disease affecting the respiratory, nervous, and digestive systems of 
birds and poultry. END is so virulent that many birds and poultry die 
without showing any clinical signs. A death rate of almost 100 percent 
can occur in unvaccinated poultry flocks. END can infect and cause 
death even in vaccinated poultry.
    The regulations in ``Subpart A--Exotic Newcastle Disease (END)'' (9 
CFR 82.1 through 82.16, referred to below as the regulations) were 
established to prevent the spread of END in the United States in the 
event of an outbreak. These regulations specify the conditions under 
which certain articles, including live birds and live poultry, dead 
birds and dead poultry, manure and litter, eggs other than hatching 
eggs, hatching eggs, and vehicles and conveyances, may be moved out of 
areas listed in Sec.  82.3 as quarantined for END.
    END is spread primarily through direct contact between healthy 
birds and poultry and the bodily discharges of infected birds. Due to 
the high concentrations of END virus in such bodily discharges, the 
virus can be spread not only by the movement of infected birds but also 
by the movement of objects or people bearing discharges containing the 
virus. Therefore, the disease is often spread via such vectors as 
manure haulers, rendering trucks, feed delivery personnel, poultry 
buyers, egg service people, and poultry farm owners and employees.
    The END virus can survive for several weeks on birds' feathers, 
manure, and other organic material. It can survive indefinitely in 
frozen material. However, the destruction of the virus is accelerated 
by warm and dry environments and by the ultraviolet rays in sunlight.
    Between November 21, 2002, and September 16, 2003, areas of the 
States of California, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, and Texas were 
quarantined due to the presence of END. In order to make better 
decisions on how to eradicate END from those areas, we completed 
several risk assessments and epidemiological investigations in the 
context of our activities under the regulations. The experience we 
gained during those outbreaks in enforcing the regulations and 
conducting the risk assessments and epidemiological investigations 
illustrated the need for changes in the regulations. Therefore, we are 
proposing to make several changes to the regulations in order to 
strengthen our regulations and incorporate changes we identified as 
necessary during those outbreaks. These changes are discussed below by 
topic.

Live Pet Birds

    The regulations in Sec.  82.5 regarding the interstate movement of 
live birds and live poultry from an area quarantined for END 
distinguish between the movement of pet birds and other birds and 
poultry.
    Pet birds that are not known to be infected with or exposed to END 
are allowed to move interstate from an area quarantined for END only if 
the

[[Page 15048]]

following conditions are met, as described in Sec.  82.5(a): They are 
accompanied by a permit; epidemiological evidence indicates that they 
are not infected with any communicable disease; the birds show no 
clinical signs of sickness during the 90 days before movement; the 
birds have been maintained apart from other birds and poultry in the 
quarantined area during the 90 days before movement; the birds have 
been under the ownership and control of the individual to whom the 
permit is issued for the 90 days before movement and are moved by the 
individual to whom the permit is issued; the birds are caged during 
movement; and the individual to whom the permit is issued submits 
copies of the permit so that a copy is received by the State animal 
health official and the veterinarian in charge for the State of 
destination within 72 hours of the arrival of the birds at the 
destination listed on the permit.
    Because pet bird owners typically do not practice biosecurity 
controls as restrictive as those that are practiced at commercial 
facilities, the individual to whom the permit is issued is required to 
maintain ownership and control of the birds and maintain them apart 
from other birds and poultry from the time they arrive at the place to 
which the individual is taking them until a Federal or State 
representative examines the birds and determines that the birds show no 
clinical signs of END. The regulations provide that the examination 
must take place no less than 30 days or more after the interstate 
movement. The individual to whom the permit is issued is also required 
to allow Federal and State representatives to examine the birds at any 
time until they are declared free of END and to notify the veterinarian 
in charge or the State animal health official in the State to which the 
birds are moved within 24 hours in the event that the birds die or show 
any clinical signs of END.
    During the 2002-2003 outbreaks of END, many owners of pet birds who 
had been in control of the pet birds for less than 90 days requested 
that APHIS allow them to move their pet birds out of the quarantined 
areas. Because these individuals had been in control of their pet birds 
for less than 90 days, these individuals could not fulfill that 
requirement of the regulations or verify that during the 90 days before 
movement the birds had shown no clinical signs of sickness and the 
birds had been maintained away from other birds and poultry in the 
quarantined area. However, many of the pet birds in question were not 
known to be infected with or exposed to END, and no epidemiological 
evidence indicated that they had been exposed to END or any other 
communicable disease.
    We determined that these birds could be moved safely out of the 
quarantined area if they were moved directly to a USDA-approved 
quarantine facility for a 30-day quarantine. If no evidence of disease 
was found during the quarantine period, the pet birds were allowed to 
move freely after being released from quarantine. Pet birds moved using 
this option had to meet all the other requirements of Sec.  82.5, 
including epidemiological criteria and transit requirements. We are 
proposing to add this option to the regulations so that owners of pet 
birds within areas quarantined for END will have additional 
flexibility.
    Under this proposed option, if pet bird owners choose to move their 
pet birds to a USDA-approved quarantine facility in order to move them 
out of an area quarantined for END, they would assume the costs of 
keeping their pet bird in quarantine for the 30-day period. At a USDA 
quarantine facility, a 30-day quarantine for a pet bird would currently 
cost $390. USDA-approved quarantine facilities not owned by USDA may 
set their own fees for holding birds in quarantine.
    To accomplish this change, we are proposing to revise Sec.  
82.5(a). In the proposed revision, existing paragraph (a)(1) would be 
moved into paragraph (a)(2), and a new paragraph (a)(1) would set out 
epidemiological and testing requirements for pet birds. These 
requirements, except for the requirement that epidemiological evidence 
must indicate that the birds are not infected with any communicable 
disease, would differ on the basis of whether the bird has been under 
the control and ownership of the owner for 90 days. Paragraph (a)(1)(i) 
would set out the requirements for pet birds that have been under the 
control and ownership of the owner for 90 days; this paragraph would 
incorporate the existing Sec.  82.5(a)(3), (a)(4), (a)(5), (a)(8), and 
(a)(9). If the pet bird could not meet all these requirements, it could 
only be moved from a quarantined area if it was moved to a USDA-
approved quarantine station under Sec.  82.5(a)(1)(ii). (Pet birds that 
have been under the control and ownership of the owner for 90 days and 
meet the epidemiological requirements but do not meet one or more of 
the other requirements in Sec.  82.5(a)(1)(i) would also be eligible to 
be moved from a quarantined area to a USDA-approved quarantine station 
under Sec.  82.5(a)(1)(ii), if the owner so chooses.) Paragraph Sec.  
82.5(a)(2) would set out movement restrictions that would apply to all 
pet birds; these proposed restrictions are identical to those currently 
in Sec.  82.5(a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(10), and (a)(11).
    We are also proposing to correct an error in the regulations 
governing the movement of pet birds. In Sec.  82.5, paragraph (a)(2) 
currently reads ``Epidemiological evidence, as described in Sec.  
82.2(a), indicates that the birds are not infected with any 
communicable disease.'' However, the epidemiological criteria in Sec.  
82.2(a) specifically address infection with END, not communicable 
diseases in general. Therefore, we are proposing to remove the phrase 
``as described in Sec.  82.2(a)'' from this requirement as it appears 
in Sec.  82.5(a)(2). (In this revision, Sec.  82.5(a)(2) would be moved 
to Sec.  82.5(a)(1).)

Other Live Birds, Including Ratites

    Other birds and poultry not known to be infected with or exposed to 
END are allowed to be moved interstate from an area quarantined for END 
only if the following conditions are met, as described in Sec.  
82.5(b): They are accompanied by a permit; they are covered in such a 
way as to prevent feathers and other debris from blowing or falling off 
the means of conveyance; they are moved in a means of conveyance either 
under official seal or are accompanied by a Federal representative; 
they are not unloaded until their arrival at their destination listed 
on the permit, except for emergencies; and the permit is presented upon 
arrival at the destination and copies of the permit are submitted so 
that a copy is received by the State animal health official and the 
veterinarian in charge for the State of destination within 72 hours of 
arrival. Birds other than poultry are required to be moved to a site 
approved by the Administrator. Poultry are required to be moved to a 
recognized slaughtering establishment and must be slaughtered within 24 
hours of arrival at such an establishment; the required permit must be 
presented to a State or Federal representative upon arrival at such an 
establishment.
    During the outbreak of END in California, we found that there 
existed some confusion about whether the interstate movement from 
quarantined areas of birds imported for eventual resale as pet birds 
should be governed by the regulations for the movement of pet birds or 
the regulations for the movement of other birds and poultry. As noted 
previously, the regulations in Sec.  82.5(a) governing the interstate 
movement of pet birds from a quarantined area are stricter than the 
regulations for other birds and poultry because pet bird owners 
typically do not

[[Page 15049]]

practice biological security controls as restrictive as those that 
would be practiced at commercial facilities. Birds imported for 
eventual resale as pet birds, by contrast, are typically imported from 
and into biologically secure facilities; therefore, they should be 
subject to the regulations in Sec.  82.5(b) governing the movement of 
other birds and poultry from a quarantined area.
    To clarify this distinction, we are proposing to change the 
definition of pet birds and add a new definition of commercial birds in 
Sec.  82.1. The proposed definitions are modeled on the definitions of 
these terms in the regulations governing the importation of birds other 
than poultry in Sec.  93.100. The new definition of pet birds would 
read: ``Birds, except ratites, that are kept for the personal pleasure 
of their individual owners and are not intended for resale.'' The new 
definition of commercial birds would read: ``Birds that are moved or 
kept for resale, breeding, public display, or any other purpose, except 
pet birds.'' We would also revise the heading of paragraph (b) in Sec.  
82.5 to read ``Other birds (including commercial birds) and poultry'' 
and revise the introductory text of paragraph (b) to explicitly 
indicate that commercial birds moved interstate must fulfill the 
requirements in paragraph (b). These proposed revisions are intended to 
clarify that birds imported for eventual resale as pet birds would be 
included in the definition of commercial birds and thus subject to the 
regulations in Sec.  82.5(b), rather than the regulations in Sec.  
82.5(a).
    As noted previously, the regulations require that live poultry 
moved interstate from an area quarantined for END must be moved to an 
approved slaughtering establishment and slaughtered within 24 hours of 
arrival. For the reasons discussed in the following paragraphs, we are 
proposing to amend the regulations to place the same requirements on 
ratites moved interstate from a quarantined area.
    The term ``ratites'' encompasses cassowaries, emus, kiwis, 
ostriches, and rheas. Surveillance of these birds for infection with 
END is more difficult than surveillance of poultry. Detection of virus 
shedding in live ratites is unpredictable. Examiners may not always be 
able to detect END infection by examination or testing of swabs for 
virus, which are the standard procedures for testing other birds whose 
movement is regulated by Sec.  82.5(b). Tissue samples can provide 
additional certainty in diagnosing END; however, while the death loss 
rates in production flocks of poultry mean that tissue samples are 
normally available for testing, the death loss rates in flocks of 
ratites are much lower, meaning that tissue samples of ratites may be 
unavailable. The relative lack of dead ratites for surveillance 
purposes also means that tests on tissues of dead ratites are less 
reliable than tests on tissues of dead poultry. For these reasons, no 
consensus exists on optimal surveillance techniques for END in live 
ratites. This means that any determination that ratites to be moved 
interstate from a quarantined area are not known to be infected with or 
exposed to END is, at best, uncertain.
    In addition, it is often difficult to determine whether ratites 
have been exposed to END; they are mostly maintained in outdoor pens or 
in backyard flocks, which are often less biologically secure than the 
facilities in which commercial flocks of poultry are maintained. 
Ratites that have been kept in these conditions within a quarantined 
area may therefore be more likely to have actually been exposed to END 
than other birds kept under more biologically secure conditions. 
Finally, ratites typically live in highly concentrated populations, 
meaning that END could be spread quickly by an infected or exposed 
ratite moved interstate from a quarantined area.
    Slaughtering and disposing of live poultry moved interstate from a 
quarantined area, as required by Sec.  82.5(b), ensures that END virus 
is not spread from any poultry that, despite not being known to be 
infected with or exposed to END, may pose a risk of spreading the END 
virus during interstate movement. Requiring that ratites be moved to 
slaughter under the same conditions under which live poultry are 
required to be moved would ensure that the END virus would not be 
spread through the movement of ratites from quarantined areas.
    Therefore, we are proposing to amend Sec.  82.5(b)(5) to indicate 
that ratites as well as poultry must be moved directly to slaughter 
when moved interstate from a quarantined area. In order to accomplish 
this change, we would also add a definition of the term ratites to 
Sec.  82.1. The definition we would add is identical to the definition 
of ratites found in the regulations governing the importation of birds 
other than poultry in Sec.  93.100. It reads ``Cassowaries, emus, 
kiwis, ostriches, and rheas.''

Dressed Carcasses of Dead Birds and Dead Poultry

    The regulations in Sec.  82.6(b) regarding interstate movement of 
dressed carcasses of dead birds and dead poultry from an area 
quarantined for END allow dressed carcasses from dead birds and dead 
poultry that are not known to be infected with END to be moved 
interstate from a quarantined area under the following conditions: The 
birds or poultry from which the dressed carcasses were derived were 
slaughtered in a recognized slaughtering establishment; the dressed 
carcasses are accompanied by a permit; they are moved in a means of 
conveyance either under official seal or accompanied by a Federal 
representative; they are not unloaded until their arrival at the 
destination listed on the permit; they are moved without stopping to 
the destination listed on the permit; and copies of the permit are 
submitted so that a copy is received by the State animal health 
official and the State veterinarian in charge for the State of 
destination within 72 hours of the arrival at the destination of the 
dressed carcasses listed on the permit.
    In this proposal, we would replace the current restrictions on the 
interstate movement of dressed carcasses from birds and poultry from an 
area quarantined for END with new restrictions based on the 
restrictions on the importation of birds and poultry from foreign 
regions where END is considered to exist. Those regulations are found 
in 9 CFR 94.6.
    The current restrictions placed on the movement of dressed 
carcasses in the regulations do not provide a sufficient level of 
protection against the possible spread of END from the quarantined area 
through the movement of dressed carcasses of dead birds and dead 
poultry. One study has demonstrated that the END virus can survive for 
134 days in the bone marrow and 98 days in the skin of plucked and 
eviscerated carcasses stored at 34 to 35 [deg]F (1 to 2 [deg] C). The 
virus survived for more than 300 days in the bone marrow and skin of 
plucked and eviscerated carcasses stored at -4 [deg]F (-20 [deg]C) .\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Asplin, F.B. ``Observations on the viability of Newcastle 
disease virus,'' The Veterinary Record, 61:159, 1949.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the regulations currently require that dressed carcasses 
to be moved out of the quarantined area be derived from birds and 
poultry not known to be infected with END, this restriction may not be 
sufficient to ensure that END is not present in the dressed carcasses. 
Birds and poultry not known to be infected with END may still be 
infected with the virus, because the criteria used to determine whether 
a bird is known to be infected with or exposed to END do not require 
that the birds and poultry actually be physically tested for the virus; 
for example, birds or poultry suffering from presymptomatic stages of 
END might

[[Page 15050]]

not be known to be infected but might be infected nonetheless. Indeed, 
the spread of END in dozens of outbreaks of the disease in the United 
Kingdom was apparently related to feeding uncooked poultry swill to 
chickens.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Alexander, D.J. ``Newcastle disease and other avian 
paramyxoviruses,'' Revue Scientifique et Technique Office 
International des Epizooties, 19(2):443-462, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The END virus can be completely destroyed in meat by exposure to 
high temperatures such as those necessary to fully cook bird and 
poultry meat. For this reason, the regulations governing the 
importation of birds and poultry from foreign regions where END is 
considered to exist require that carcasses or parts or products of 
carcasses from poultry or other birds imported into the United States 
from those regions must either be: Packed in hermetically sealed 
containers and cooked by a commercial method after packing to produce 
articles that are shelf-stable without refrigeration, or cooked so that 
they have a thoroughly cooked appearance throughout, as determined by 
an inspector. (Carcasses of game birds and carcasses intended for 
importation to museums, educational establishments, or other 
establishments from regions where END is considered to exist may be 
imported into the United States under different conditions; these are 
discussed later in this document.) Section 94.6 also sets out certain 
requirements for establishments in regions where END is considered to 
exist that process carcasses or parts or products of carcasses of 
poultry and other birds for export to the United States. We believe 
that these requirements for cooking dressed carcasses of dead birds and 
dead poultry from foreign regions where END is considered to exist and 
for establishments in those regions that process dead birds and dead 
poultry, as applied to the equivalent products and establishments in 
domestic areas quarantined for END, would be more effective at reducing 
the risk of spreading END into nonquarantined areas due to the movement 
of dead birds and dead poultry than the previous regulations in Sec.  
82.6.
    In addition, under the World Trade Organization Agreement on the 
Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, APHIS must apply 
the same movement restrictions on both foreign and domestic commodities 
from regions where an animal disease is present, under the principle of 
national treatment. The regulations on the movement of dressed 
carcasses from areas in the United States that have been quarantined 
for END have been less restrictive than the regulations on the movement 
of dressed carcasses from foreign regions where END is considered to 
exist. Applying the same restrictions to these commodities allows APHIS 
to meet its obligations under international trade agreements while 
reducing the risk that END could spread from a quarantined area through 
the movement of dressed carcasses.
    Therefore, we are proposing to replace the current restrictions on 
the movement of dressed carcasses from areas within the United States 
that are quarantined for END with restrictions that are substantively 
the same as those currently in place to prevent the introduction of END 
into the United States via bird and poultry carcasses and parts or 
products of carcasses that originate in regions specified in Sec.  94.6 
where END is known to exist. In addition, the regulations governing the 
importation of birds and poultry from foreign regions where END is 
considered to exist refer to ``carcasses and parts or products of 
carcasses''; to make our domestic and import regulations consistent, we 
would change the definition of dressed carcasses in Sec.  82.1 to read 
``Carcasses of birds or poultry that have been eviscerated, with heads 
and feet removed, or parts or products of such carcasses.''
    We are proposing to add one provision to Sec.  82.6 that is not 
found in the regulations in Sec.  94.6. The regulations in Sec.  94.6 
prohibit any establishment in a region where END is known to exist that 
processes dressed carcasses for export to the United States from 
receiving or handling any live poultry, with no exceptions. In Sec.  
82.6, we would allow establishments within an area quarantined for END 
that process dressed carcasses to receive live poultry as long as there 
is complete separation between the slaughter portion of the 
establishment and the portions of the establishment in which further 
processing takes place. Processing establishments in the United States 
are constructed on the assumption that non-endemic diseases such as END 
will not be present; prohibiting these establishments from receiving 
live poultry, as we prohibit processing establishments in regions 
outside the United States where END is known to exist from receiving 
live poultry, would disrupt established business practices. If complete 
separation between the slaughter portion of the establishment and the 
portions of the establishment in which further processing takes place 
can be achieved, we believe dressed carcasses can be processed safely 
in an establishment within a quarantined area that receives live 
poultry.
    We would not add any provisions to the domestic END regulations to 
allow for the movement of dead birds and dead poultry out of 
quarantined areas to museums, educational institutions, or other 
establishments, as is provided for imported carcasses in Sec.  
94.6(b)(2). We believe it is likely that any dead birds and dead 
poultry that might be required by a museum, educational institution, or 
other establishment in the United States would be available from a 
nonquarantined area within the United States.
    Finally, we have reviewed paragraph (b)(1) of Sec.  94.6, which 
addresses the importation into the United States of carcasses of game 
birds from regions where END is considered to exist. This paragraph has 
allowed the carcasses of game birds to be imported into the United 
States as long as they are eviscerated and their heads and feet have 
been removed. For reasons discussed above, the importation of such 
carcasses poses a high risk of introducing END into the United States. 
Accordingly, we are proposing to remove and reserve paragraph Sec.  
94.6(b)(1).
    We would continue to allow dead birds and dead poultry to be moved 
interstate from a quarantined area for disposal, as described in Sec.  
82.6(a).

Manure and Litter

    The regulations in Sec.  82.7 regarding the interstate movement of 
manure and litter from an area quarantined for END allow manure 
generated by and litter used by birds or poultry not known to be 
infected with END to be moved interstate from a quarantined area only 
if the manure or litter is accompanied by a permit with an affidavit 
stating the location of the poultry or birds that generated the manure 
or used the litter and the name and address of the flockowner; the 
manure or litter has been heated throughout to a temperature of 175 
[deg]F (79.4 [deg]C) throughout; the manure or litter has been 
subsequently placed in a container that has never before been used or 
that has been disinfected, since last being used, in accordance with 
the regulations in 9 CFR part 71; and copies of the permit are 
submitted so that a copy is received by the State animal health 
official and the State veterinarian in charge for the State of 
destination within 72 hours of the arrival at the destination of the 
manure and litter listed on the permit.
    We are proposing to amend these regulations to allow any other 
treatment judged by the Administrator to be

[[Page 15051]]

adequate to prevent the dissemination of END to be used to treat manure 
generated by and litter used by birds or poultry not known to be 
infected with END, as an alternative to the heat treatment that has 
been required by the regulations.
    While heating manure or litter to a temperature of 175 [deg]F (79.4 
[deg]C) throughout is an effective means of killing the END virus, 
other treatments may be available within quarantined areas that utilize 
different means to achieve the same end with the same efficacy. Some 
composting techniques are also effective at killing the END virus and 
could be used in place of heat treatment to ensure that manure and 
litter moved interstate from a quarantined area is not contaminated 
with the END virus. Occasionally, site-specific treatments may be 
appropriate. For example, premises not known to be infected with END in 
counties in California, Arizona, and Nevada that were quarantined as of 
March 5, 2003, could safely ship manure or litter that had been stored 
for more than 90 days on the premises; we determined that those 
commodities had been adequately heated to kill the END virus, based on 
average daily temperatures in those counties. Providing that other 
equally effective options can be used as an alternative to the heat 
treatment specified by the regulations would benefit both producers in 
quarantined areas, who may be able to use different treatments to 
comply with quarantine restrictions on the interstate movement of 
manure and litter at less cost, and quarantine authorities, who could 
see increased compliance with the quarantine regulations if lower cost 
options are available.
    Therefore, we are proposing to amend the regulations to provide 
that manure generated by and litter used by birds or poultry not known 
to be infected with END that is to be moved interstate from a 
quarantined area may be treated either with the heat treatment 
described above or with any other treatment approved by the 
Administrator as being adequate to prevent the dissemination of END. 
This change would give persons who wish to move manure and litter 
interstate from quarantined areas more flexibility while continuing to 
ensure that manure generated by and litter used by birds or poultry not 
known to be infected with END that is moved interstate is not 
contaminated with the END virus.

Manure and Litter From Infected Flocks

    As stated above, the regulations in Sec.  82.7 only allow the 
movement of manure generated by or litter used by bird or poultry not 
known to be infected with END. In addition, the regulations in Sec.  
82.4, which lists general prohibitions and restrictions on the movement 
of articles from a quarantined area, specifically prohibit the movement 
of litter used by or manure generated by birds or poultry, or a flock 
of birds or poultry, infected with END. However, we have determined 
that, under certain conditions, compost generated from manure generated 
by or litter used by END-infected flocks may be safely moved interstate 
from quarantined areas. Therefore, we are proposing to amend Sec.  82.7 
to provide conditions under which such manure and litter may be moved 
interstate from quarantined areas. Under this proposal, the existing 
provisions of Sec.  82.7 would be incorporated into a new paragraph (a) 
and the proposed new provisions would be added as a new paragraph (b). 
The conditions under which manure and litter from END-infected flocks 
would be allowed to move interstate from quarantined areas are:
     The manure and litter would have to be accompanied by a 
permit.
     All birds and poultry would have to be removed from the 
premises where the manure or litter was held.
     After all birds are removed from the premises where the 
manure or litter was held, all manure and litter inside and outside the 
bird or poultry house would have to remain undisturbed for at least 28 
days before being moved from the infected premises for composting.
     Composting would have to be done at a site approved by the 
Administrator and under a protocol approved by the Administrator as 
being adequate to prevent the dissemination of END. All manure and 
litter from the infected premises would have to be moved to the 
composting site at the same time.
     Following the composting process, the composted manure or 
litter would have to remain undisturbed for an additional 15 days 
before movement.
     After this 15-day period, all of the composted manure or 
litter from the infected site would have to be removed at the same 
time.
     The resulting compost would have to be transported either 
in a previously unused container or in a container that has been 
cleaned and disinfected, since last being used, in accordance with 9 
CFR part 71.
     The vehicle in which the resulting compost is transported 
would have to have been cleaned and disinfected, since last being used, 
in accordance with 9 CFR part 71.
     Copies of the permit accompanying the compost derived from 
the manure and the litter would have to be submitted so that a copy is 
received by the State animal health official and the veterinarian in 
charge for the State of destination within 72 hours of arrival of the 
compost at the destination listed on the permit.
    Leaving the composted manure or litter undisturbed during two 
lengthy periods allows the END virus to die out in the environment; the 
END virus can only survive without host material for a limited length 
of time.
    This addition would give owners of infected flocks an additional 
option for disposal of their manure and litter while ensuring that END 
is not spread to nonquarantined areas via the interstate movement of 
composted manure and litter from END-infected flocks.
    To reflect this change, we would also revise paragraph (a)(2) of 
Sec.  82.4, which prohibits the interstate movement of litter or manure 
from an END-infected flock in a quarantined area, to indicate that such 
litter and manure may be moved interstate from a quarantined area under 
the conditions described in new Sec.  82.7(b).

Eggs, Other Than Hatching Eggs

    The regulations in Sec.  82.8 regarding the interstate movement of 
eggs, other than hatching eggs, from an area quarantined for END allow 
the interstate movement of eggs, other than hatching eggs, from flocks 
not known to be infected with END from a quarantined area if the eggs 
are accompanied by a permit; the eggs have been cleaned and sanitized 
in accordance with 7 CFR part 59; \3\ the eggs are packed either in 
previously unused flats or in used plastic flats or cases that were 
cleaned and disinfected, since last being used, in accordance with 9 
CFR part 71; the eggs are moved to a facility where they are examined 
to ensure that they have been cleaned and sanitized; and copies of the 
permit are submitted so that a copy is received by the State animal 
health official and the State veterinarian in charge for the State of 
destination within 72 hours of the arrival of the eggs at the facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The regulations in 7 CFR part 59 were moved to 9 CFR part 
590 in a final rule published in the Federal Register on December 
31, 1998 (63 FR 72351-72356). We would update the regulations in 
Sec.  82.8(a)(2) to reflect that change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While these safeguards are essential to ensuring that eggs, other 
than hatching eggs, from flocks not known to be infected with END can 
be moved interstate without spreading END from the quarantined area, 
they do not fully address the risks that may arise at the processing 
plants that prepare the eggs for eventual sale. Processing plants 
accepting eggs, other than hatching eggs, under these regulations 
typically accept eggs from both quarantined areas and

[[Page 15052]]

nonquarantined areas and, once the eggs have been processed, send them 
to destinations both within and outside the quarantined area. In 
addition, some processing plants have facilities in which poultry lay 
eggs onsite, meaning that eggs, other than hatching eggs, that are 
contaminated with END and are not properly handled could expose live 
poultry to the virus. As described previously, END can be transmitted 
in many ways, and the virus can survive on the surface of eggshells for 
extended periods. We believe that risks of transmission of END at 
plants that process eggs, other than hatching eggs, from flocks not 
known to be infected with END within a quarantined area should be 
addressed by the regulations.
    Therefore, we would revise paragraph (a)(3) to set out the 
following standards for processing plants:
     Processing plants would have to separate their processing 
and layer facilities, the incoming and outgoing eggs at the facilities, 
and any flocks that may reside at the processing plant.
     Adequate controls would have to be in place to ensure that 
trucks, shipping companies, or other visitors do not expose the 
processing plant to END.
     Equipment used in the processing plant would have to be 
cleaned and disinfected in accordance with 9 CFR part 71 at intervals 
deemed appropriate by the Administrator to ensure that the equipment 
cannot transmit END to the eggs, other than hatching eggs, being 
processed.
     The eggs would have to be packed either in previously 
unused flats or cases or in used plastic flats that were cleaned or 
disinfected, since last being used, in accordance with 9 CFR part 71. 
(This provision is the only one currently found in Sec.  82.8 (a)(3) of 
the regulations.)
    Requiring that these standards be met in processing plants would 
assist quarantine authorities in ensuring that eggs are processed 
safely while continuing to allow the interstate movement of eggs, other 
than hatching eggs, from flocks not known to be infected with END.

Hatching Eggs

    The regulations in Sec.  82.9 regarding the interstate movement of 
hatching eggs from an area quarantined for END allow the interstate 
movement of hatching eggs from birds or poultry not known to be 
infected with or exposed to END from a quarantined area if the eggs are 
accompanied by a permit; the copies of the permit accompanying the 
hatching eggs are submitted so that a copy is received by both the 
State animal health official and the veterinarian in charge for the 
State of destination within 72 hours of the arrival of the hatching 
eggs at their destination facility; the hatching eggs are moved to a 
premises designated jointly by the veterinarian in charge and the State 
animal health official from the time of arrival until hatch; and the 
birds or poultry hatched from the eggs are held at the premises for not 
less than 30 days after hatch to determine their freedom from END.
    We are proposing to add a requirement to the regulations that 
hatching eggs moved interstate from an area quarantined for END must 
have been kept in accordance with the conditions set out in Sec. Sec.  
147.22 and 147.25 of the National Poultry Improvement Plan, a voluntary 
program for producers of poultry whose provisions are enumerated in 9 
CFR parts 145 and 147. Section 147.22 prescribes conditions for 
sanitation in a hatchery; Sec.  147.25 states that fumigation may be 
used for sanitizing hatching eggs and hatchery equipment or rooms as 
part of a sanitation program, such as the one in Sec.  147.22. The 
National Poultry Improvement Plan's standards are developed by Federal 
and State officials working with industry representatives and are 
widely accepted among poultry producers. Requiring that these 
sanitation procedures be followed would provide further protection 
against transmission of END from the quarantine zone via hatching eggs 
moved interstate from the quarantine zone.

Removal of Quarantine

    The regulations in Sec.  82.14 state that an area will be removed 
from quarantine only when all the following requirements have been met: 
All birds and poultry exposed to END in the quarantined area have been 
found to be free of END; all birds and poultry infected with END in the 
quarantined area have been euthanized; all birds and poultry that have 
been euthanized and all birds and poultry that died from any cause 
other than slaughter have been buried in the quarantined area, rendered 
to ashes by incineration, rendered, or reduced to dust by composting in 
the quarantined area; all eggs produced by birds or poultry infected 
with or exposed to END in the quarantined area have been buried, 
reduced to ashes by incineration, or rendered; all manure generated by 
or litter used by birds or poultry infected with or exposed to END in 
the quarantined area has been reduced to ashes by incineration, or has 
been buried, composted, or spread on a field or turned under; and all 
vehicles, cages, coops, containers, troughs, and other equipment that 
have had physical contact with birds infected with or exposed to END, 
and all premises that have housed birds that have been infected with or 
exposed to END, are disinfected in accordance with 9 CFR part 71. We 
are proposing to amend these regulations to indicate that, as an 
alternative to the composting procedures that has been mandated by the 
regulations, any treatment judged by the Administrator to be adequate 
to prevent the dissemination of END may be used to treat the relevant 
materials.
    The procedures for composting that are described in this section 
are effective at eliminating END virus from birds and poultry and from 
manure and litter. However, as in the situation described previously 
under the heading ``Manure and Litter,'' other composting procedures 
exist that would provide equivalent lethality for the END virus while 
giving flockowners and Federal and State quarantine officials the 
option of selecting an effective procedure that may be more adaptable 
to the flockowners' individual situations. Therefore, we are proposing 
to amend the detailed descriptions of composting procedures found in 
the current regulations in paragraphs Sec.  82.14(c)(2) and (e)(2) to 
indicate that the relevant articles may also be composted according to 
a procedure approved by the Administrator as being adequate to prevent 
the dissemination of END. This change would provide flockowners with 
additional flexibility as they attempt to comply with the requirements 
to be removed from quarantine.
    We would also add a provision to require follow-up surveillance for 
a length of time determined by the Administrator after the conditions 
of Sec.  82.14 are met and before a quarantined area is released from 
quarantine. Specifically, we are proposing to add a new paragraph Sec.  
82.14(i) to the end of Sec.  82.14 that would read: ``An area will not 
be released from quarantine until follow-up surveillance over a period 
of time determined by the Administrator indicates END is not present in 
the quarantined area.''
    The conditions in Sec.  82.14 describe what must occur before an 
area may be released from quarantine, but do not obligate APHIS to 
release an area from quarantine once those conditions are met. During 
the 2002-2003 outbreaks of END, we determined that an additional 
surveillance period was necessary to gather additional data and ensure 
that areas were not removed from quarantine prematurely, and we 
anticipate that such a surveillance period would be necessary after the 
conditions of Sec.  82.14 are met if there are any future outbreaks of 
END within the United States. (The need for an additional surveillance

[[Page 15053]]

period is also recognized in the Terrestrial Animal Health Code of the 
World Organization for Animal Health, which is recognized by the World 
Trade Organization as an international standards-setting organization 
for animal health. The Code states that a country that eradicates END 
should only be considered free of END 6 months after the last affected 
animal is slaughtered.\4\) Adding this provision to the regulations 
would clarify that an additional surveillance period will follow the 
completion of the conditions in Sec.  82.14 before an area will be 
released from quarantine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See http://www.oie.int/eng/normes/mcode/en_chapitre_2.7.13.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. 
The 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.
    We are proposing several changes to the END domestic quarantine 
regulations, including adding an option for the movement of pet birds; 
harmonizing the domestic and foreign regulations regarding the movement 
of dressed carcasses of dead birds and dead poultry; adding 
restrictions on the interstate movement of ratites out of quarantined 
areas; providing for the use of alternative procedures for treating 
manure and litter and for composting; and adding an additional 
surveillance period after the conditions for removing quarantine are 
met before quarantine is removed. We have determined that these changes 
are necessary based on our experiences during the eradication programs 
for the recent outbreaks of END in California, Arizona, Nevada, and 
Texas. These changes would help to ensure that END does not spread from 
quarantined areas and that END is eradicated within quarantined areas.
    Exotic Newcastle disease (END), also known as velogenic 
viscerotropic Newcastle disease, is a highly contagious and fatal viral 
disease affecting all species of birds. As it is one of the most 
infectious and virulent diseases of poultry in the world, END results 
in many birds dying before demonstrating any clinical signs. In 
unvaccinated poultry flocks, END has a death rate of close to 100 
percent. Moreover, the mortality rates in vaccinated flocks are 10 to 
20 percent, clearly showing that vaccination does not guarantee 
protection against END.
    END affects the respiratory, nervous, and digestive systems of 
birds. After an incubation period of 2 to 15 days, an infected bird may 
show any of the following signs: Respiratory effects such as sneezing, 
gasping for air, nasal discharge, and coughing; digestive effects such 
as greenish, watery diarrhea; upsets in the nervous system such as 
depression, muscular tremors, drooping wings, twisting of the head and 
neck, circling, and complete paralysis; drop in egg production; 
production of thin-shelled eggs; swelling of tissue around eyes and 
neck; and death. As mentioned before, not all birds demonstrate 
clinical signs before dying, and some pet birds, such as parrots, may 
shed the virus for more than a year without showing any of the common 
clinical signs. The virus is spread primarily through direct contact 
between healthy birds and the bodily discharges, such as fecal material 
or nose, mouth, and eye secretions, of infected birds. Not 
surprisingly, the closer the physical proximity of birds the more 
rapidly END spreads, clearly posing a significant threat to the 
commercial poultry industry. END is also effectively spread by means of 
indirect contact. For instance, virus-bearing material can be picked up 
on shoes and clothing of laborers in the poultry industry and 
transported from an infected flock to a healthy one. Considering birds 
can still shed the disease while not exhibiting signs, the opportunity 
to spread END by means of indirect contact represents a real hazard.
    END was first identified in the United States in 1950 in 
California. The outbreak was traced to game birds and pheasants 
imported from Hong Kong. The disease spread to five poultry farms in 
Contra Costa County, but it was quickly eliminated by destroying 
infected chickens. In 1971, a major outbreak of END occurred in 
California commercial poultry and lasted for 2 years. As a result of 
that outbreak, 1,341 infected flocks were identified, and almost 12 
million birds were destroyed. The eradication program cost taxpayers 
$56 million ($228 million in 2002 dollars), severely disrupted the 
operations of many producers, and increased the prices of poultry and 
poultry products to consumers. On October 1, 2002, END was confirmed in 
backyard poultry in Southern California. The disease spread from 
backyard poultry to commercial poultry operations in California, 
backyard poultry in Nevada and Arizona, and poultry in Texas and New 
Mexico. USDA's APHIS took the lead in END eradication efforts. 
Immediately a task force of over 1,500 people from APHIS and the 
California Department of Food and Agriculture combined forces to fight 
the disease. At last count, almost 4 million birds were destroyed to 
contain the spread of END.

Economic Analysis

    The proposed changes to the END regulations would have an effect on 
all persons and entities handling birds of any type, including farm and 
commercial operations, backyard flock owners and enthusiasts, and pet 
bird owners in an END quarantined area wishing to engage in interstate 
movement. While accurate statistics on farm and commercial operations 
in the United States are readily available, there is a significant 
information gap on the backyard flocks and pet bird owners. As such, we 
have no way of quantifying the true number of persons who would be 
affected by these changes.
    The United States is the world's largest producer of poultry meat 
and the second-largest egg producer behind China. Preliminary reports 
for the year 2004 indicate there were a total of 454.1 million 
chickens, excluding commercial broilers, with a cash value of $1.120 
billion. In the year 2003, broiler production, raised for the purpose 
of meat production, totaled 8.492 billion, with a combined live weight 
of over 43.9 billion pounds. The value of broiler production for that 
year was over $15.2 billion. In 2003, the date of the last full report 
available, there were a total of 87.1 billion eggs produced with a cash 
value of $5.3 billion.\5\ The United States is also the world's largest 
turkey producer. In 2003, turkey production totaled over 274 million 
birds with a combined live weight of 7.549 billion pounds and a cash 
value of over $2.7 billion.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ USDA, Agricultural Statistics 2005. Washington, DC: National 
Agricultural Statistics Service, 2005. Estimates cover the 12-month 
period, December 1 of the previous year through November 30.
    \6\ USDA, Agricultural Statistics 2005. Washington, DC: National 
Agricultural Statistics Service, 2005. Estimates based on turkeys 
placed September 1, 2002 through August 31, 2003 and excludes young 
turkeys lost.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The U.S. poultry industry plays a significant role in international 
trade. In fact, the United States is the world's largest exporter of 
both broilers and turkey products. In 2003, broiler exports totaled 
4.93 billion pounds, valued at $1.5 billion. Turkey exports for the 
same year totaled 482 million pounds and were valued at $265 million. 
In addition, 41 million dozen shell eggs for consumption and 59 million 
dozen of egg products, on an egg-equivalent

[[Page 15054]]

basis, were exported in 2003.\7\ When END is present in the United 
States, it significantly reduces our ability to be competitive in 
international markets in the trade of poultry and poultry products. By 
extension, any efforts made to contain and prevent the spread of END 
throughout the United States would serve to enhance our reputation for 
providing high-quality products. Thus, the proposed changes would 
benefit the commercial poultry industry in the event of an outbreak by 
increasing product marketability, both domestically and 
internationally.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ USDA, Poultry and Eggs: Trade. Washington, DC: Economic 
Research Service, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These proposed changes would also impact the movement of ratites 
out of a quarantined area. Ratites are a family of flightless birds 
with small wings and flat breastbones. Most important of the ratite 
family are ostriches, emus, and rheas. This industry is still in its 
infancy, so new in fact that ratites have only been under mandatory 
USDA inspection since April 22, 2002. Ostrich was the first ratite to 
be raised in the United States. As of February 2003, there were about 
1,000 ostrich growers in the United States raising about 100,000 birds. 
Emu are now raised in at least 43 States by about 10,000 families 
(3,000) in Texas, with a total emu population of about a million. Rheas 
are the newest farm-raised ratite, but at over 15,000 birds, the United 
States has the largest population of farmed rheas. \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ USDA, FOCUS ON: Ratites (Emu, Ostrich, and Rhea). 
Washington, DC: Food Safety and Inspection Service, February 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ratite family of birds is approximately 95 percent usable for 
such marketable products as leather, feathers, meat, and oil. Ratite 
oil is being produced for niche cosmetic markets and the hides are 
usually set aside for more expensive garments. Ratite meat is a small 
industry, with only a small amount being sold to some higher scale 
restaurants and markets. Though the meat is more expensive than beef, 
pork, chicken and turkey, the future price of ratite meat is projected 
to decrease as the quantity becomes more widely available. In July 
1996, the last available price report, ratites raised for slaughter 
were valued at $500 to $750 per bird.\9\ Based on the populations and 
number of farms, we can assume that each farm has an average of 100 
ostriches or emus. Thus, average ratite farms are bringing in annual 
sales of $750,000, the limit by which they can be considered small 
entities. In addition, as the very nature of the ratite industry is in 
its infancy, we can be safe in assuming the majority of ratite farms 
are small entities.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ J.C. Hermes. ``Raising ratites: ostriches, emu, and rheas,'' 
Pacific Northwest Extension Publications 494, July 1996.
    \10\ Though there is no specific reference to ratite farming 
size standards, there is a line item with the NAICS code 112390, 
``Other Poultry Production,'' where annual receipts of $750,000 or 
less satisfies the definition of a small entity. We feel safe in 
concluding ratite farming would be placed under this grouping. Table 
of Size Standards based on NAICS 2002. Washington, DC: U.S. Small 
Business Administration, 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, it is important to note that regulations will affect 
backyard poultry not kept for commercial sale and pet owners in the 
quarantined area, the numbers of which are indeterminate. Although the 
specific numbers of persons in this category are unknown, we feel safe 
in determining that the impact of this proposal would not be 
significant as it only affects those constituents located within a 
quarantined area for the limited time the quarantine is actually in 
place. The remainder of this analysis will consider each of the major 
proposed changes individually and examine the expected benefits and 
costs.

Live Pet Birds

    Current regulations, found in Sec.  82.5, prohibit the movement of 
pet birds out of a quarantined area unless they have been in the 
owner's control for 90 days. The proposed rule would add a new option 
to allow pet birds, except those that are imported for eventual resale 
as pets, that have been in the owner's control for less than 90 days to 
be moved out of the quarantined area if they enter a 30-day quarantine 
at a USDA quarantine station outside of the quarantined area and meet 
all other requirements for movement. There is a user fee of $390 to 
enter into this 30-day USDA quarantine station. Entering into this 
quarantine station is voluntary and is meant to increase the 
flexibility for pet owners who have been in control of their pet birds 
for less than 90 days. Intuitively, we would expect only those pet 
owners who place a higher value on protecting and moving their birds 
out of the quarantine area than the expense of $390 to voluntarily 
enter the USDA facility. Hence, it is safe to assume the cost of 
entering the facility would not be significant to those pet owners that 
decide to do so. While that does pose an expense to pet owners, in 
light of the benefits of greater flexibility and protection from 
destruction, it is safe to assume the cost is acceptable for those pet 
owners that would decide to enter their birds into the USDA facility.
    Those birds that are imported for eventual resale as pets, which 
fall under the added definition of commercial birds, are not bound by 
the restrictions in Sec.  82.5(a). Current regulations require that 
commercial birds be imported from and into biologically secure 
facilities. As such, birds imported for eventual resale as pets have 
already met the necessary requirements to be determined free of END. 
The proposed amendment is more of a clarification rather than an actual 
change in movement requirements. Generally, END regulations governing 
pet birds are more restrictive than for other birds due to the fact 
that there are fewer biological security measures in place, and pet 
birds are thus more vulnerable to contracting and spreading END.

Other Live Birds, Including Ratites

    Ratites have a tendency to be housed in outdoor pens or backyard 
flocks, thereby making surveillance of END for these birds more 
difficult. Also, virus detection techniques that are widely used to 
detect END were inconclusive when used on ratites. Combined, this 
creates a situation where infection of ratites in a quarantined area is 
highly possible and detection is uncertain, thus increasing the risk 
for widespread END dissemination. Consequently, the proposed rule would 
amend Sec.  82.5(b)(5) to prohibit interstate movement of ratites from 
an area quarantined for END unless they are moved to a recognized 
slaughtering establishment and slaughtered within 24 hours of arrival 
at that establishment.
    Previously, ratites not known to be infected with or exposed to END 
were allowed to move interstate as long as they were accompanied by a 
permit. Coupled with the knowledge that epidemiological tests of END 
were inconclusive in ratites, this created a situation where widespread 
dissemination of END was highly possible. In situations where ratites 
were thought to be exposed to END, these flocks were depopulated and 
the owners were paid indemnities based on current market values. While 
this regulation change would place restrictions on movement of ratites 
where there previously were none, we do not believe the economic 
impacts of this proposed change would be significant. Even though all 
movement of ratites must be directly to slaughter, considering the many 
marketable products of ratites such as leather, feathers, meat and oil, 
slaughtering these birds continues to allow owners the opportunity to 
market these products. Essentially, the proposed change seeks to 
increase biological security measures by restricting movement of 
ratites in a quarantined area. We do not expect that the

[[Page 15055]]

economic impacts to affected producers would be significant. We welcome 
public comment from ratite owners on what the expected costs of 
conforming to this change would entail.

Dressed Carcasses of Dead Birds and Dead Poultry

    We would harmonize Sec.  82.6 with the regulations in Sec.  94.6 
under which carcasses, and parts or products of carcasses, of birds and 
poultry may be imported into the United States from an area where END 
is considered to exist. The principal effect of this proposed change 
would be to prohibit any movement of uncooked bird or poultry meat out 
of a quarantined area. Only meat that has both been packed in 
hermetically sealed containers and cooked by a commercial method after 
packing to produce articles that are shelf-stable without 
refrigeration, or cooked so that it has a thoroughly cooked appearance 
throughout, would be allowed to move from the quarantined area. Current 
regulations, which do not require sealing and commercial cooking, do 
not provide a sufficient level of protection against the spread of END. 
The cost burdens of these proposed changes would be fairly obvious for 
those producers in a quarantined area engaged in the interstate 
movement of dead birds and poultry. Specifically, these costs would 
include gathering materials to seal the dead birds or poultry; the 
expense of electricity and/or gas, and perhaps equipment, needed to 
commercially cook the dead birds or poultry, and the additional labor 
costs associated with this change. These costs would vary by producer. 
We do not anticipate that these costs would significantly impact 
producers, the majority of which are small entities. We welcome public 
comment on what these costs would entail. The major benefit of this 
proposed change, outside of increasing safeguards against END, would be 
to harmonize domestic requirements of movement out of a quarantined 
area with import requirements from an area where END is known to exist, 
thereby satisfying the WTO requirement of national treatment.
    In addition, all importation of eviscerated game birds from areas 
where END exists would be prohibited. Current regulations allow 
importation of eviscerated game birds from these regions even if the 
birds were infected. The biological security hazards such importation 
presented are all too clear. There would be no direct costs of 
complying with this proposed change outside of the loss in economic 
proceeds from the sale of these birds. For the most part, eviscerated 
game birds are imported for sale in specialty markets and restaurants. 
As the proposed rule would only discontinue importation from regions 
where END exists, it is possible that the price for eviscerated game 
birds from regions where END does not exist may increase, as the supply 
on the import market shrinks, but we would not expect this impact to be 
significant. The overall goal is to eliminate all biological security 
hazards posed with regard to END. Surely, the costs, as far as can be 
determined, would be insignificant in comparison to the benefits of 
eliminating END from domestic flocks.

Manure and Litter

    Currently, the only way manure and/or litter used by birds and 
poultry not known to be infected with END can be moved interstate from 
a quarantined area is by heating throughout to a temperature of not 
less than 175 [deg]F along with other requirements. This proposed 
change would eliminate some of the burdens placed on producers, the 
majority of whom are considered small entities, of moving manure and 
litter from a quarantined area while still maintaining an effective 
stance against END. Instead of requiring a heat treatment, APHIS would 
allow any alternative treatment to be used as long as it is determined 
by the Administrator of APHIS to be adequate in preventing the 
dissemination of END. This change would result in a potential decrease 
in cost, as we assume producers are profit maximizing entities; hence, 
it is safe to assume any alternative treatment proposed and accepted 
would be cheaper than the heat treatment previously required. As such, 
it is hard to quantify the actual cost savings of this proposed change 
as it would vary based on the alternative chosen.
    Also, a procedure would be specified by which composted manure and/
or litter from infected premises will be allowed to move outside the 
quarantined area. Current regulations, as found in Sec.  82.7(a)(2), 
prohibit movement from a quarantined area of any manure or litter from 
infected premises. This amendment would be of benefit to small entities 
by allowing them greater flexibility. Thus, the proposed changes with 
regard to movement of manure and/or litter would pose no significant 
economic impact to small entities. Rather, small entities would benefit 
by having greater flexibility and the opportunity to decrease their 
present costs by looking into cheaper alternatives to heat treatment.

Eggs, Other Than Hatching Eggs

    We would add performance standards for processing plants, those 
facilities that prepare eggs for eventual sale. Current conditions in 
many of these plants pose a high risk of END dissemination. For 
example, many of these plants commingle eggs from both quarantine and 
non-quarantined areas. Another commonplace occurrence is that many of 
these processing plants have facilities where poultry lay eggs on-site. 
This situation is particularly high-risk because if the eggs are 
contaminated with END and not properly handled, the virus could spread 
to the live on-site poultry. In an effort to increase biological 
security at these sites, these processing plants would have to meet 
several standards. They include:
     Physically separating processing and layer facilities, the 
incoming and outgoing eggs by quarantined and non-quarantined areas, 
and any flocks that may reside at the processing plant.
     Putting in place adequate controls to ensure processing 
plants are not exposed to END by any outside sources (i.e. those 
persons higher up in the vertical chain of production).
     Disinfecting equipment in accordance with 9 CFR part 71 at 
intervals deemed appropriate by the Administrator of APHIS so that 
there is less of a chance equipment transmits END to the eggs being 
processed.
    Implementing these biological security standards would pose some 
burdens on processing plants. The actual cost imposed is 
indeterminable, because that would vary by processing plant. We welcome 
public comment on what these costs would entail. However, it is of note 
that the majority of these standards have to do with modifications in 
the procedures rather than any sort of capital investment. As such, it 
is not expected processing plants would incur a significant economic 
burden by conforming to these standards.

Hatching Eggs

    This portion of the regulation would better harmonize domestic 
requirements for movement from a quarantined area with import 
requirements from an area where END is considered to exist. As a 
result, persons wishing to move hatching eggs out of the quarantined 
area would have to follow the procedures in the National Poultry 
Improvement Plan for sanitizing hatching eggs, as found in Sec. Sec.  
147.22 and 147.25. By harmonizing domestic requirements with import 
requirements, movement of hatching eggs out of quarantined areas would 
be slightly

[[Page 15056]]

more restrictive. However, the effect is not expected to pose a 
significant economic burden upon affected entities.

Removal of Quarantine

    Finally, before the quarantine is lifted, birds and poultry that 
died from any cause other than slaughter, along with accompanying 
manure and litter generated by these birds and poultry, must be 
composted. This proposed change would allow the use of any alternative 
composting treatment that is determined by the Administrator to be 
adequate to prevent the dissemination of END. This change would be 
expected to produce cost savings, as we would expect producers to only 
adopt alternative treatment mechanisms that are cheaper than those 
currently prescribed. In addition, the proposal would require follow-up 
surveillance after a quarantined area has fulfilled all requirements to 
have the quarantine lifted. The time period necessary to conduct this 
follow-up surveillance would be determined by the Administrator of 
APHIS. This additional observation period would ensure the quarantine 
is not lifted prematurely.

Impact on Small Entities

    The proposed rule intends to ensure any future END outbreaks in the 
United States are contained to as small an area as possible while 
allowing emergency authorities the flexibility to choose the methods 
best suited to meet that goal. Costs of complying with the changes this 
regulation proposes are relatively minimal and for the most part are 
not borne by producers. Specifically, there would be a user fee of $390 
to enter the 30-day USDA quarantine station for those pet owners in 
control of their pets for less than 90 days wishing to move their birds 
interstate. In compliance with harmonizing domestic and import 
regulations for END, producers located within the quarantined area 
wishing to engage in interstate movement of dead birds and poultry 
would have to sustain the costs relating to sealing and commercially 
cooking the birds. In the case of processing plants, the costs inherent 
in complying with the proposed changes are not expected to require 
capital investment; rather, there would be the cost of extra labor and 
materials required with respect to meeting the proposed standards. 
Finally, State and/or Federal governments, depending on the type of 
quarantine, would shoulder the cost of inspection and certification of 
hatching eggs from a quarantined area. The benefits of the changes in 
the proposed rule, which would ensure more efficient and effective END 
containment and eradication efforts, are numerous. In many cases, the 
actual benefit in monetary terms is impossible to quantify. For 
example, ratite owners would be given the chance to slaughter and 
market the leather, feathers, meat and oil of their ratites instead of 
just receiving an indemnity payment. Alternative treatment procedures 
of moving manure and litter from a quarantined area would be considered 
and accepted by APHIS, thus potentially lifting some of the cost 
burdens previously faced by producers. Most importantly, the changes 
proposed seek to eliminate all biological security hazards posed with 
regard to END. The costs of compliance are insignificant in comparison 
to the benefits of eliminating END from domestic flocks. Therefore, 
APHIS believes the net benefit of the proposal would be positive.
    The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires that agencies consider the 
economic impact of a regulation on small entities. The Small Business 
Administration (SBA) has established size criteria using the North 
American Industry Classification System (NAICS) to determine which 
economic entities meet the definition of a small firm. A small chicken 
egg operation (NAICS code 112310) is one having $11.5 million or less 
in annual receipts. All other poultry products and meat operations are 
small if they have $750,000 or less in annual receipts.
    The last agricultural census estimated there were 83,381 domestic 
poultry and poultry products farms. Unfortunately, concrete information 
on the size distribution is unknown, but the census does indicate that 
only 29,393 of those poultry operations have annual sales of $50,000 or 
more.\11\ Also, as was mentioned on the outset, the ratite farming 
industry is in its infancy. Therefore, it would be safe to assume that 
the majority of poultry operations in the United States are classified 
as small entities. While we acknowledge that these small entities would 
incur some costs of compliance, we do not believe these costs would be 
significant. Further, it is vital to remember that the proposed changes 
would only affect those small poultry operations located within an area 
quarantined as respects END, only for as long as the quarantine is in 
place.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ USDA, 2002 Census of Agriculture, Table 56. Washington, DC: 
National Agricultural Statistics Service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and 
Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action would 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.

Executive Order 12372

    This program/activity is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic 
Assistance under No. 10.025 and is subject to Executive Order 12372, 
which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local 
officials. (See 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V.)

Executive Order 12988

    This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, 
Civil Justice Reform. If this proposed rule is adopted: (1) All State 
and local laws and regulations that are in conflict with this rule will 
be preempted; (2) no retroactive effect will be given to this rule; and 
(3) administrative proceedings will not be required before parties may 
file suit in court challenging this rule.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed rule contains no new information collection or 
recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

Lists of Subjects

9 CFR Part 82

    Animal diseases, Poultry and poultry products, Quarantine, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

9 CFR Part 94

    Animal diseases, Imports, Livestock, Meat and meat products, Milk, 
Poultry and poultry products, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Accordingly, we propose to amend 9 CFR parts 82 and 94 as follows:

PART 82--EXOTIC NEWCASTLE DISEASE (END) AND CHLAMYDIOSIS

    1. The authority citation for part 82 would continue to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 8301-8317; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.

    2. Section 82.1 would be amended as follows:
    a. By removing the definition of pet bird.
    b. By adding, in alphabetical order, definitions of commercial 
birds, pet birds, and ratites to read as set forth below.
    c. By revising the definition of dressed carcasses to read as set 
forth below.


Sec.  82.1  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Commercial birds. Birds that are moved or kept for resale, 
breeding,

[[Page 15057]]

public display, or any other purpose, except pet birds.
    Dressed carcasses. Carcasses of birds or poultry that have been 
eviscerated, with heads and feet removed, or parts or products of such 
carcasses.
* * * * *
    Pet birds. Birds, except ratites, that are kept for the personal 
pleasure of their individual owners and are not intended for resale.
* * * * *
    Ratites. Cassowaries, emus, kiwis, ostriches, and rheas.
* * * * *


Sec.  82.4  [Amended]

    3. In Sec. 82.4, paragraph (a)(2) would be amended by adding the 
words ``, except as provided in Sec.  82.7(b)'' after the word ``END''.
    4. Section 82.5 would be amended as follows:
    a. By revising paragraph (a) and the introductory text of paragraph 
(b) to read as set forth below.
    b. In paragraph (b)(5), by adding the words ``or ratites'' after 
the word ``poultry'' each time it occurs.


Sec.  82.5  Interstate movement of live birds and live poultry from a 
quarantined area.

    (a) Pet birds. An individual may move his or her pet birds 
interstate from a quarantined area only if the birds are not known to 
be infected with or exposed to END and the following requirements are 
fulfilled:
    (1) Epidemiological and testing requirements. For all pet birds 
moved interstate, epidemiological evidence must indicate that the birds 
are not infected with any communicable disease.
    (i) Pet birds that have been under the control and ownership of the 
owner for at least 90 days. Pet birds that have been under the 
ownership and control of the individual to whom the permit is issued 
for the 90 days before interstate movement, show no clinical signs of 
sickness (such as diarrhea, nasal discharge, ocular discharge, ruffled 
feathers, or lack of appetite) during the 90 days before interstate 
movement, and have been maintained apart from other birds and poultry 
in the quarantined area during the 90 days before interstate movement 
may be moved to a location outside the quarantined area for subsequent 
examination. The individual to whom the permit is issued must maintain 
ownership and control of the birds and maintain them apart from other 
birds and poultry from the time they arrive at the place to which the 
individual is taking them until a Federal representative or State 
representative \3\ examines the birds and determines that the birds 
show no clinical signs of END. The examination will not be less than 30 
days after the interstate movement. The individual to whom the permit 
is issued must allow Federal representatives and State representatives 
to examine the birds at any time until they are declared free of END by 
either a Federal veterinarian or a State veterinarian.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The location of Federal representatives and State 
representatives may be obtained by writing to Emergency Programs, 
Veterinary Services, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 
4700 River Road Unit 41, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (ii) All other pet birds. Pet birds that do not meet the criteria 
in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section may only be moved to a USDA-
approved quarantine facility outside the quarantined area for a 30-day 
quarantine before being released. The individual to whom the permit is 
issued must maintain ownership and control of the birds and maintain 
them isolated from other birds or poultry until the time they arrive at 
the USDA-approved quarantine facility. The pet bird owner is 
responsible for all costs associated for keeping his or her pet birds 
at the USDA-approved quarantine facility for the 30-day quarantine 
period.
    (2) Movement restrictions. All pet birds must be moved interstate 
from a quarantined area under the following conditions:
    (i) The birds are accompanied by a permit obtained in accordance 
with Sec.  82.11.
    (ii) The birds are moved interstate by the individual to whom the 
permit is issued.
    (iii) The birds are caged while being moved interstate.
    (iv) Within 24 hours of a bird's dying or showing clinical signs of 
sickness (such as diarrhea, nasal discharge, ocular discharge, ruffled 
feathers, or lack of appetite), the individual to whom the permit is 
issued notifies the veterinarian in charge or the State animal health 
official \4\ in the State to which the birds are moved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The location of the veterinarian in charge or the State 
animal health official may be obtained by writing to Emergency 
Programs, Veterinary Services, Animal and Plant Health Inspection 
Service, 4700 River Road Unit 41, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231, or by 
referring to the local telephone book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (v) The individual to whom the permit is issued submits copies of 
the permit so that a copy is received by the State animal health 
official and the veterinarian in charge for the State of destination 
within 72 hours of the arrival of the birds at the destination listed 
on the permit.
    (b) Other birds (including commercial birds) and poultry. Except as 
provided for pet birds in paragraph (a) of this section, a person may 
move live birds (including commercial birds) and live poultry that are 
not known to be infected with or exposed to END interstate from a 
quarantined area only if:
* * * * *
    5. In Sec.  82.6, paragraph (b) would be revised to read as 
follows.


Sec.  82.6  Interstate movement of dead birds and dead poultry from a 
quarantined area.

* * * * *
    (b) Dressed carcasses from birds and poultry that are not known to 
be infected with END may be moved interstate from a quarantined area 
only if:
    (1) The dressed carcasses are from birds or poultry that were 
slaughtered in a recognized slaughtering establishment;\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\See footnote 5 to Sec.  82.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) The dressed carcasses have been processed in one of the 
following ways:
    (i) They are packed in hermetically sealed containers and cooked by 
a commercial method after such packing to produce articles which are 
shelf stable without refrigeration; or
    (ii) They have been thoroughly cooked and have a thoroughly cooked 
appearance throughout;
    (3) If the dressed carcasses are from poultry, the processing 
establishment that treats the dressed carcasses in accordance with 
paragraph (b)(2) of this section employs the following safeguards:
    (i) If receiving or handling any live poultry, there must be 
complete separation between the slaughter portion of the establishment 
and the portions of the establishment in which further processing takes 
place;
    (ii) If the plant processes dressed carcasses from both quarantined 
and nonquarantined areas, all areas, utensils, and equipment likely to 
contact the poultry carcasses to be processed, including skimming, 
deboning, cutting, and packing areas, are cleaned and disinfected in 
accordance with part 71 of this chapter between the processing of 
dressed poultry carcasses from the quarantined area and the processing 
of dressed poultry carcasses from nonquarantined areas;
    (iii) The dressed carcasses are stored in a manner that ensures 
that no cross-contamination with potentially infectious materials, such 
as raw or unprocessed products, occurs;

[[Page 15058]]

    (4) The dressed carcasses are accompanied by a permit obtained in 
accordance with Sec.  82.11;
    (5) The dressed carcasses are moved in a means of conveyance either 
under official seal or accompanied by a Federal representative;
    (6) The dressed carcasses are not unloaded until their arrival at 
the destination listed on the permit required by paragraph (b)(4) of 
this section;
    (7) The dressed carcasses are moved, without stopping, to the 
destination listed on the permit required by paragraph (b)(4) of this 
section, except for normal traffic conditions, such as traffic lights 
and stop signs; and
    (8) Copies of the permit accompanying the dressed carcasses are 
submitted so that a copy is received by the State animal health 
official and the veterinarian in charge for the State of destination 
within 72 hours of the arrival of the dressed carcasses at the 
destination listed on the permit required by paragraph (b)(4) of this 
section.
* * * * *
    6. Section 82.7 would be amended as follows:
    a. By redesignating paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (d) as paragraphs 
(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), and (a)(4), respectively, and designating the 
introductory text of the section as paragraph (a).
    b. In newly redesignated paragraph (a)(2), by adding the words ``or 
subjected to any other treatment approved by the Administrator as being 
adequate to prevent the dissemination of END'' after the words ``not 
less than 175 [deg]F (79.4 [deg]C).
    c. By adding a new paragraph (b) to read as set forth below.


Sec.  82.7  Interstate movement of manure and litter from a quarantined 
area.

* * * * *
    (b) Compost derived from manure generated by and litter used by 
birds or poultry known to be infected with END may be moved interstate 
from a quarantined area only if:
    (1) The manure and litter is accompanied by a permit obtained in 
accordance with Sec.  82.11;
    (2) All birds and poultry have been removed from the premises where 
the manure or litter is held;
    (3) After all birds are removed from the premises where the manure 
or litter is held, all manure and litter inside and outside the bird or 
poultry house remains undisturbed for at least 28 days before being 
moved from the infected premises for composting;
    (4) Composting is done at a site approved by the Administrator and 
under a protocol approved by the Administrator as being adequate to 
prevent the dissemination of END. All manure and litter from the 
infected premises must be moved to the composting site at the same 
time;
    (5) Following the composting process, the composted manure or 
litter remains undisturbed for an additional 15 days before movement;
    (6) After this 15-day period, all of the composted manure or litter 
from the infected site is removed at the same time;
    (7) The resulting compost must be transported in either in a 
previously unused container or in a container that has been cleaned and 
disinfected, since last being used, in accordance with part 71 of this 
chapter;
    (8) The vehicle in which the resulting compost is to be transported 
has been cleaned and disinfected, since last being used, in accordance 
with part 71 of this chapter; and
    (9) Copies of the permit accompanying the compost derived from the 
manure and the litter are submitted so that a copy is received by the 
State animal health official and the veterinarian in charge for the 
State of destination within 72 hours of arrival of the compost at the 
destination listed on the permit.
    7. Section 82.8 would be amended as follows:
    a. In paragraph (a)(2), by removing the citation ``7 CFR part 59'' 
and adding the citation ``9 CFR part 590'' in its place.
    b. By revising paragraph (a)(3) to read as set forth below.


Sec.  82.8  Interstate movement of eggs, other than hatching eggs, from 
a quarantined area.

    (a) * * *
    (3) The establishment that processes the eggs, other than hatching 
eggs, for sale establishes procedures adequate to ensure that the eggs 
are free of END, including:
    (i) The establishment separates processing and layer facilities, 
the incoming and outgoing eggs at the establishment, and any flocks 
that may reside at the establishment;
    (ii) The establishment implements controls to ensure that trucks, 
shipping companies, or other visitors do not expose the processing 
plant to END;
    (iii) Equipment used in the establishment is cleaned and 
disinfected in accordance with part 71 of this chapter at intervals 
determined by the Administrator to ensure that the equipment cannot 
transmit END to the eggs, other than hatching eggs, being processed; 
and
    (iv) The eggs are packed either in previously unused flats or cases 
or in used plastic flats that were cleaned or disinfected, since last 
being used, in accordance with part 71 of this chapter;
* * * * *
    8. Section 82.9 would be amended as follows:
    a. In paragraph (b), by removing the word ``and'' at the end of the 
paragraph.
    b. By redesignating paragraph (c) as paragraph (d).
    c. By adding a new paragraph (c) to read as set forth below.


Sec.  82.9  Interstate movement of hatching eggs from a quarantined 
area.

* * * * *
    (c) The hatching eggs have been kept in accordance with the 
sanitation practices specified in Sec.  147.22 and Sec.  147.25 of the 
National Poultry Improvement Plan; and
* * * * *
    9. Section 82.14 would be amended as follows:
    a. In paragraph (c)(2), in the introductory text, by revising the 
second sentence to read as set forth below.
    b. In paragraph (e)(2), by removing the first sentence and by 
adding two new sentences in its place to read as set forth below.
    c. By adding a new paragraph (i) to read as set forth below.


Sec.  82.14  Removal of quarantine.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) * * * The birds and poultry must be composted according to the 
following instructions or according to another procedure approved by 
the Administrator as being adequate to prevent the dissemination of 
END:
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (2) Composting. If the manure and litter is composted, the manure 
and litter must be composted in the quarantined area. The manure and 
litter must be composted according to the following method, or 
according to another procedure approved by the Administrator as being 
adequate to prevent the dissemination of END: Place the manure and 
litter in rows 3 to 5 feet high and 5 to 10 feet at the base. * * *
* * * * *
    (i) After the other conditions of this section are fulfilled, an 
area will not be released from quarantine until followup surveillance 
over a period of time determined by the Administrator indicates END is 
not present in the quarantined area.
* * * * *

[[Page 15059]]

PART 94--RINDERPEST, FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE, FOWL PEST (FOWL 
PLAGUE), EXOTIC NEWCASTLE DISEASE, AFRICAN SWINE FEVER, CLASSICAL 
SWINE FEVER, AND BOVINE SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY: PROHIBITED AND 
RESTRICTED IMPORTATIONS

    10. The authority citation for part 94 would continue 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.


Sec.  94.6  [Amended]

    11. In Sec.  94.6, paragraph (b)(1) would be removed and reserved.

    Done in Washington, DC, this 20th day of March 2006.
Kevin Shea,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 06-2864 Filed 3-24-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P