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.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

49200

Vol. 70, No. 162

Tuesday, August 23, 2005

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

9 CFR Part 94 

[Docket No. 04–083–1] 

Add Argentina to the List of Regions 

Considered Free of Exotic Newcastle 

Disease

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: We are proposing to amend 

the regulations by adding Argentina to 

the list of regions considered free of 

exotic Newcastle disease. We have 

conducted a risk evaluation and have 

determined that Argentina has met our 

requirements for being recognized as 

free of this disease. This proposed 

action would eliminate certain 

restrictions on the importation into the 

United States of poultry and poultry 

products from Argentina. We would 

also add Argentina to the list of regions 

that, although declared free of exotic 

Newcastle disease, must provide an 

additional certification to confirm that 

any poultry or poultry products offered 

for importation into the United States 

originate in a region free of exotic 

Newcastle disease and that, prior to 

importation into the United States, such 

poultry or poultry products were not 

commingled with poultry or poultry 

products from regions where exotic 

Newcastle disease exists.

DATES: We will consider all comments 

that we receive on or before October 24, 

2005.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by any of the following methods: 

• EDOCKET: Go to http://

www.epa.gov/feddocket to submit or 

view public comments, access the index 

listing of the contents of the official 

public docket, and to access those 

documents in the public docket that are 

available electronically. Once you have 

entered EDOCKET, click on the ‘‘View 

Open APHIS Dockets’’ link to locate this 

document. 

• Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: 

Please send four copies of your 

comment (an original and three copies) 

to Docket No. 04–083–1, Regulatory 

Analysis and Development, PPD, 

APHIS, Station 3C71, 4700 River Road 

Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737–1238. 

Please state that your comment refers to 

Docket No. 04–083–1. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and follow 

the instructions for locating this docket 

and submitting comments. 

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: You may view 

APHIS documents published in the 

Federal Register and related 

information on the Internet at http://

www.aphis.usda.gov/ppd/rad/

webrepor.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

David Nixon, Case Manager, 

Regionalization Evaluation Services, 

National Center for Import and Export, 

VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 38, 

Riverdale, MD 20737–1231; (301) 734–

4356.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The regulations in 9 CFR part 94 

(referred to below as the regulations) 

govern the importation into the United 

States of specified animals and animal 

products in order to prevent the 

introduction of various animal diseases, 

including exotic Newcastle disease 

(END). END is a contagious, infectious, 

and communicable disease of birds and 

poultry. Section 94.6 of the regulations 

provides that END is considered to exist 

in all regions of the world except those 

listed in § 94.6(a)(2), which are 

considered to be free of END. 

The Government of Argentina has 

requested that APHIS evaluate 

Argentina’s animal health status with 

respect to END and provided 

information in support of that request in 

accordance with 9 CFR part 92, 

‘‘Importation of Animals and Animal 

Products: Procedures for Requesting 

Recognition of Regions.’’ 

Risk Evaluation 

Using information submitted to us by 

the Government of Argentina through 

the animal health officials of the 

National Health and Agrifood Quality 

Service (El Servicio Nacional de 

Sanidad y Calidad Agroalimentaria, 

SENASA), as well as information 

gathered during site visits by APHIS 

staff to Argentina in June and December 

of 2003, we have reviewed and analyzed 

the animal health status of Argentina 

relative to END. The review and 

analysis were conducted in light of the 

factors identified in § 92.2, ‘‘Application 

for recognition of the animal health 

status of a region,’’ which are used to 

evaluate the risk associated with 

importing animals or animal products 

into the United States from a given 

region. Based on the information 

submitted to us, we have concluded the 

following:

Veterinary Infrastructure 

All animal disease and control 

programs in Argentina operate under 

the General Animal Health Enforcement 

Law (Law No. 3959/1903). Under this 

law, SENASA has passed several 

resolutions specifically pertaining to the 

control and surveillance of END, 

including SENASA’s resolutions to 

secure Argentina’s compliance with the 

European Union (EU) requirements for 

the importation of poultry. SENASA is 

divided into several sections, four of 

which focus on animal health issues. In 

2003, SENASA had a budget of 

approximately $39 million U.S. dollars 

and employed 572 veterinarians. 

In 2001 and 2002, SENASA was 

reorganized to increase the agency’s 

quality of response to animal disease 

control and eradication. This 

reorganization, which occurred after the 

foot-and-mouth disease outbreak in 

2001, involved centralizing authority, 

examining international standards and 

certification requirements, and 

increasing efficiency and transparency 

through internal monitoring, 

accountability, and increased 

compliance with national policies. The 

new structure of SENASA includes 25 

regional offices and 316 field offices 

throughout Argentina. The regional 

offices are responsible for overseeing the 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 23, 2005 / Proposed Rules 49201

field offices, which monitor local 

prevention and control measures, 

census information, eradication, 

compliance, emergency actions, health 

actions, premises identification, 

movement controls, and recordkeeping. 

In order to monitor poultry in 

Argentina, SENASA requires that all 

premises with commercial poultry 

register with SENASA and obtain a 

unique alphanumeric identifier called a 

RENSPA (Regestrio Nacional Sanitario 

de Productores Agropecuarios, National 

Sanitary Registry of Ag-Producers) 

number. The RENSPA number identifies 

the province, municipality, premises, 

and certain characteristics of the facility 

from which the animal came, such as 

facility ownership. The RENSPA 

number is used to maintain a database 

that includes census information, 

animal movement permit information, 

and the END status of the premises. 

SENASA reports that compliance with 

RENSPA registration is high. Although 

RENSPA registration is not specifically 

required for backyard poultry flocks, 

SENASA believes that these flocks do 

not pose a major threat of END as these 

birds are intended primarily for home 

consumption rather than for 

exportation. 

RENSPA applications also must 

include the name of the veterinarian 

who serves the premises. This 

veterinarian is required by law to report 

any animal health problems occurring 

on the premises. If the veterinarian or 

the owner fails to report, the owner can 

be disqualified from collecting 

indemnity under the indemnity program 

explained in the ‘‘Passive Surveillance’’

section below. Also, a fine may be 

collected from either the veterinarian or 

the premises owner. 

The results of our evaluation indicate 

that animal health officials in Argentina 

have the legal authority to enforce 

Federal and State regulations pertaining 

to END and the necessary veterinary 

infrastructure to carry out END 

surveillance and control activities. 

Disease History and Surveillance 

The first diagnosis of END in 

Argentina occurred in 1961. Since that 

time, there have been four additional 

outbreaks—one in 1966, one in 1970, 

and two in 1987. In 1967, the Argentine 

Government made END reporting 

mandatory. Argentina has not recorded 

an outbreak of END in domestic poultry 

flocks since October 1987; however, in 

1999 a virulent strain of paramyxovirus 

type-1 was isolated from wild pigeons. 

This discovery in the wild pigeon 

population was not considered to be an 

imminent threat to commercial poultry 

flocks as general industry practice 

includes vaccinating commercial birds 

against END (as described below in the 

‘‘Vaccination Status’’ section) and 

keeping these birds in enclosed 

buildings that separate them from wild 

birds. 

The August 1987 outbreak occurred in 

four backyard premises and affected 

approximately 300 hens. This infection 

was discovered when unvaccinated 

backyard birds were at an exhibition 

and began to show END symptoms. 

Other birds at the exhibition site became 

infected, but the Argentine Government 

controlled the spread through slaughter 

and disinfection. The outbreak in 

October 1987, the origin of which is 

unknown, affected 180,000 commercial 

broiler birds housed at 9 poultry farms. 

In addition to slaughter and 

disinfection, the government also used 

vaccination, collection of blood samples 

for serum testing, necropsy of all 

animals dying on neighboring premises 

within a radius of 25 km for the 

following 35 days, and the application 

of stringent biosecurity measures such 

as access controls at farms and testing 

of wild birds. 

Active Surveillance 

Argentina has had an active sampling 

program in place since 1996. This 

program is evaluated yearly and 

modifications to the plan are based on 

an annual risk assessment, the prior 

year’s test results, and practicalities of 

testing such as cost and personnel 

availability. From 1996 through 2001, 

SENASA biannually tested both 

commercial flocks and noncommercial 

flocks and took a large number of 

samples, which all were either negative 

for END or were positive with vaccine 

strains. For the 2002–2004 active 

surveillance program, SENASA tested 

two target populations. The first 

population consisted of noncommercial 

bird flocks, including imported birds, 

birds found in the wild, and birds in 

zoos and backyards. The second group 

covered by the surveillance program 

consisted of testing commercial bird 

flocks including heavy and light 

breeding grandmother and parent birds, 

high-yielding hens, and commercial 

broilers. 

Currently, SENASA is working to 

update and expand its surveillance and 

control programs, including adding new 

standards for parent and grandparent 

facilities.

Passive Surveillance 

SENASA has a system in place 

through which government officials, 

veterinarians, producers, and the public 

can notify SENASA officials of potential 

outbreaks. After a potential or verified 

outbreak has been reported, SENASA 

officials must immediately investigate. 

SENASA also has the authority to 

inspect suspected premises or, if a 

search is refused, set up a quarantine on 

that particular premises. SENASA can 

then obtain a court order to inspect the 

premises. Finally, SENASA has 

emergency response mechanisms for 

health and sanitary measures, as well as 

ante-mortem and postmortem sanitary 

inspection of birds for slaughter. 

Minimum biosecurity and hygiene 

standards for poultry farms and 

treatment of poultry waste also exist. 

In addition, SENASA also 

compensates Argentine citizens when 

they report a case of END in their own 

flocks. Therefore, if an animal is found 

to have END and destroyed, the owner 

is entitled to indemnity for the fair 

market value of the animal. If an 

individual fails to report a case of END 

that is later discovered, indemnity is not 

paid. Although the indemnity program 

provides individuals with an incentive 

to report END, there is little 

communication with the public about 

this program and the site visit team 

discovered that producers were not 

aware of the program. Therefore, APHIS 

recommended that SENASA attempt to 

enhance public awareness of the 

program. 

Results of our evaluation indicate that 

authorities in Argentina are conducting 

an adequate level of END surveillance to 

detect the disease if it were present. 

Diagnostic Capabilities 

In Argentina, the main laboratory 

conducting END testing is the central 

SENASA laboratory in Buenos Aires, 

which is supplemented by five network 

laboratories and the National Farming 

Technology Institute (Instituto Nacional 

de Tecnologı ́a Agropecuaria, INTA). In 

addition, SENASA has indicated that 

additional experts or staff from various 

organizations could assist during 

outbreaks. The Coordinating 

Department of Quarantine, Borders, and 

Certifications sends import/export 

samples to the laboratories between 1 

and 3 days after the birds arrive in 

Argentina. The diagnostic process 

typically takes 15 to 20 days. 

The central SENASA laboratory 

develops official testing protocols for 

the network laboratories, performs 

official tests of suspect END cases, 

conducts virus characterization studies 

on suspect isolates from the network 

laboratories, evaluates serological 

testing done by network laboratories, 

and oversees the use of avian vaccines. 

The laboratory has a barcoding system 

in place to track samples accurately and 

to allow for blind, unbiased testing. This 

49202 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 23, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

laboratory is in the final stages of a $3 

million renovation and new 

construction project. The food sections 

of the central laboratory, including 

residues and food control, are 

accredited by the Argentine 

Accreditation Organization (Organismo 

Argentino de Acreditacio ́n, OAA) under 

International Organization for 

Standardization (ISO) 17025 standards. 

During 2005, the laboratory is 

considering pursuing ISO 17025 

accreditation for the biological tests and 

analytical methods used for disease 

testing. Although training at this facility 

appears to be sporadic, the personnel 

assigned to the avian section are 

technically proficient and 

knowledgeable about END. 

The five network laboratories were 

developed in 1997 to conduct virus 

isolation for END to meet export 

requirements to the EU. The network 

laboratories are inspected yearly and 

must pass an annual proficiency test 

involving virus isolation in samples. 

The five network laboratories currently 

are suspended from official testing until 

they become accredited under ISO 

17025 standards, but can continue to 

carry out certain tests that later can be 

validated by the central laboratory. In 

addition, the current demand for END 

testing is low enough that all testing can 

be performed at the central laboratory. 

If an emergency were to arise and 

additional testing was required, the 

network laboratories would assist the 

central laboratory with such tests. 

The INTA is a laboratory 

administered and funded separately 

from SENASA. The INTA provides 

technical services to SENASA for 

specific types of tests and is involved in 

testing wild birds for END and avian 

influenza virus. This lab also does all of 

the molecular tests needed by SENASA, 

which expects to perform these tests at 

network laboratories in the future. 

APHIS concluded that the laboratory 

capabilities and infrastructure in 

Argentina are sufficient to support the 

END surveillance activities. 

Vaccination Status 

END vaccination in Argentina is 

mandatory for messenger pigeons only; 

all other END vaccinations are 

voluntary. SENASA estimates that 

approximately 80 percent of the poultry 

in Argentina is vaccinated based on 

vaccination schedules that have been 

put into place for production birds, 

breeding birds, and ornamental birds in 

markets and exhibitions. The 2003 site 

visit indicated that these schedules are 

identical or very similar to producers’

vaccination regimens observed in farm 

records. This vaccination schedule 

leaves 20 percent of the poultry 

population to serve as sentinel birds 

along with certain broilers that are 

vaccinated only once in their first 14 

days, which reduces their immunity to 

END later in life. 

Although backyard domestic fowl and 

exhibition birds usually are not 

vaccinated unless they participate in 

exhibitions or fairs, Argentina has tested 

this population and the results showed 

that all of the birds tested were either 

negative for END or tested positive for 

a vaccination strain of END. 

APHIS concluded that these 

vaccinated birds do not constitute a 

significant risk factor for introducing 

END into the United States.

Disease Status of Adjacent Regions 

Argentina is bordered by Paraguay in 

the north, Bolivia in the northwest, 

Uruguay and Brazil in the northeast, 

and Chile in the west. Chile is 

recognized by both APHIS and 

Argentina as END-free. Argentina also 

recognizes Uruguay as END-free. Brazil 

and Bolivia reported END outbreaks in 

2001 and 2002, respectively, and 

therefore are not recognized as END-free 

by either the United States or Argentina. 

Because there have been recent END 

outbreaks in Brazil and Bolivia, APHIS 

proposes to add Argentina to the list in 

§ 94.26 of regions that, although 

declared free of END, supplement their 

meat supply by the importation of fresh 

(chilled or frozen) poultry meat from 

regions designated in § 94.6(a) as 

regions where END is considered to 

exist, have a common land border with 

regions where END is considered to 

exist, or import live poultry from 

regions where END is considered to 

exist under conditions less restrictive 

than would be acceptable for 

importation into the United States. 

Therefore, poultry and poultry products 

from Argentina would have to meet the 

additional certification requirements of 

§ 94.26 to be eligible for importation 

into the United States. These 

certification requirements are explained 

later in this document under the 

heading ‘‘Certification Requirements.’’

Degree of Separation From Adjacent 

Regions 

Argentina’s western and southern 

borders are with Chile and are 

composed entirely of the Andean 

Mountain Range. The northern border of 

Argentina is shared with Bolivia and 

Paraguay. Approximately half of the 

Bolivian portion of the border runs 

along river coastlines, while the other 

half has no natural barriers. The border 

with Paraguay is comprised mostly of 

rivers; however, a small portion of the 

border has no natural barrier. Finally, 

the eastern border of Argentina is shared 

with Uruguay and Brazil. The border 

with Brazil consists mostly of river 

coastlines, with approximately 30 km of 

border with no natural barriers. The 

border with Uruguay is composed 

entirely of river coastlines. 

Although most of the Argentine 

border has adequate protection from 

adjacent countries through natural 

barriers, large areas on the borders with 

Bolivia and Paraguay and a small area 

on the border with Brazil may create the 

potential for END-infected animals to 

enter into Argentina from adjacent areas 

of high risk. In order to prevent this 

movement, effective movement controls 

must be in place. 

Movement Controls and Biological 

Security 

Import Controls 

All importations of live animals, 

genetic material, animal products, and 

animal byproducts into Argentina are 

allowed only under permits issued by 

SENASA. In order for other countries to 

export poultry and poultry products to 

Argentina, the potential exporting 

country must complete a review by 

SENASA consisting of a questionnaire 

and a site visit. Based on the results of 

the review, SENASA officials determine 

the types of animals and animal 

products that can enter Argentina and 

whether certain restrictions, such as a 

quarantine or testing, should be applied. 

Argentina also has limited or banned 

certain types of poultry from entering 

the country. Import procedures differ 

depending on the life stage of the 

poultry, and records are kept for all 

imported materials. 

Although Argentina does have a 

permit system, some importers attempt 

to bring poultry or poultry products into 

the country without a permit. Most of 

the permitting problems are associated 

with importation of ornamental pet 

birds. Commercial shipments of exotic 

birds are usually handled by five or six 

legitimate importers, all of whom are 

known to SENASA. That relationship 

enables SENASA to be aware of when 

permitted shipments are due to arrive; 

thus, when SENASA receives 

information concerning unscheduled 

shipments, it is in a better position to 

act on those shipments. 

Export Controls 

Argentina’s export requirements for 

poultry are based in large part on 

Argentina’s compliance with the EU 

standards for exporting poultry. In order 

for poultry to be exported, it must come 

directly from commercial farms that 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 23, 2005 / Proposed Rules 49203

have chemical or drug withdrawal 

protocols and are held to strict sanitary 

and vaccination rules. These farms must 

be registered with various organizations 

and are subject to inspection by a 

veterinarian or by his or her appointed 

personnel. Any poultry taken to 

slaughterhouses for export must be 

identified properly and accompanied by 

proper health and movement 

certificates. Poultry must then be 

slaughtered at a slaughterhouse 

approved for export to the particular 

country of destination. 

SENASA does not control biosecurity 

at commercial facilities, which are 

likely to be the main source of poultry 

shipped to the United States. However, 

SENASA regulations address 

biosecurity standards and hygiene for 

avian establishments. Although these 

regulations do not appear to have an 

enforcement mechanism, compliance 

seems to be high. In addition, 

commercial birds are not likely to mix 

with other potentially infected birds as 

SENASA has indicated that Argentina 

does not have live markets with birds 

for sale for consumption. Also, in both 

urban and rural areas, backyard and 

non-commercial flocks are typically 

raised for home consumption only. 

These birds are considered unlikely to 

stray far from the home in rural areas 

because of carancho (local predator 

birds), and free-roaming birds in urban 

areas are likely to be picked up by other 

residents for consumption or sale.

Argentina’s main export to the United 

States would likely be poultry meat 

rather than live birds. Previous 

experience with END in the United 

States suggests that the importation of 

live birds presents a far more likely 

initial exposure pathway than poultry 

meat or products. However, if Argentina 

did choose to export live birds to the 

United States, these birds would have to 

be placed in a mandatory 30-day 

quarantine upon their arrival. During 

this time, live birds would be tested for 

END and may be destroyed if the 

disease is found. The 30-day time frame 

exceeds the incubation period for END, 

making it very unlikely that birds with 

END would enter into the United States 

undetected. In addition, these birds 

would have to meet the additional 

certification requirements as described 

below in the ‘‘Certification 

Requirements’’ section, further ensuring 

that birds entering the United States 

would be free of END. 

Given this information, APHIS did 

not identify any significant risk 

pathways to consider commercial 

poultry operations as a likely source for 

introducing END into the United States. 

Movement Across Borders 

There are 45 authorized border 

stations in Argentina, including 

terrestrial stations, maritime and fluvial 

ports, and airports. These border 

stations are managed by SENASA’s 

Quarantine, Borders, and Certifications 

unit. Each station is staffed by various 

security forces, who cooperate with 

SENASA under official agreements. 

Because these forces are the primary 

identifiers of illegal material, SENASA 

works to ensure that these individuals 

are trained to perform these duties. In 

addition, there are 394 permanent 

SENASA employees at border stations 

throughout Argentina. 

For air-based transportation of poultry 

and poultry products, the site visit team 

toured two airports: Ezeiza Airport in 

Buenos Aires, which is the only airport 

through which live birds are 

transported, and Aeroparque Airport. 

Ezeiza is open 24 hours a day and has 

at least three to five veterinarians on 

staff during peak hours. If shipments 

arrive when the veterinarians are not 

present, the shipment must either wait 

until the veterinarians arrive or 

arrangements must be made in advance 

for a veterinarian to be present. Since 

1999, Argentina has scanned all luggage 

entering the airports. In addition, beagle 

dogs have been trained to inspect 

luggage for both plant and animal 

products. To the extent possible, the 

dogs are scheduled to work when the 

riskiest flights are likely to arrive. 

When passengers arrive at an 

Argentine airport, they first must pass 

through immigration where signs listing 

prohibited items are conspicuously 

posted. The beagles are used while the 

passengers are collecting their luggage 

and if a beagle identifies a bag, the bag 

is marked for further inspection. 

Passengers then proceed to customs 

where they must declare any items on 

a form provided by customs officials. 

The bags are then scanned and any 

suspicious or marked bags are inspected 

by hand. Any confiscated avian material 

is chemically treated to inactivate the 

END virus and is buried in a landfill. 

Approximately 2 tons of plant and 

animal material are confiscated at 

Ezeiza per month. 

There are 21 land ports in Argentina: 

6 on the border with Chile, 3 on the 

border with Uruguay, 6 on the border 

with Brazil, 3 on the border with 

Paraguay, and 3 on the border with 

Bolivia. Permanent SENASA personnel 

are stationed at each port along with the 

other officials described above. Usually, 

bags are searched manually; however, 

some of the land-based ports have 

scanners capable of detecting organic 

material for use during high traffic 

hours. For large shipments through 

Iguazu ́, SENASA officials must be 

notified 15 days in advance and can 

reject the shipment if the 

documentation is incomplete or appears 

to be fraudulent. All exporters and 

importers must be registered with 

SENASA, and the shipment must be 

accompanied by a permit. The shipment 

information is then entered into a 

database. During the November 2003 

site visit, the APHIS team visited several 

potentially risky border stations, such as 

the crossings between Argentina and 

Bolivia. There is heavy local traffic 

between these ports with many 

individuals carrying personal food 

supplies between countries, which are 

not likely to pose a significant risk to 

aviculture. 

Any illegal items found at border 

crossings are confiscated, sprayed with 

methylene blue or a similar solution to 

denature them, and incinerated. Each 

local office keeps records of 

interceptions for 2 years. A review of 

records at several local offices indicated 

that there had been no interceptions of 

live birds and that avian products had 

been limited to eggs intended for local 

sale across the border or small amounts 

of chicken meat. 

After the land-based border 

checkpoints, there are also additional 

control points where vehicles, including 

passenger buses, are stopped and 

inspected. Only some of these 

checkpoints employ SENASA 

personnel, but all have some type of 

border surveillance personnel. Many of 

the border control points visited by 

APHIS staff have facilities to spray-treat 

vehicles. These points are also located 

on roads where there are no alternative 

routes into the country, therefore 

ensuring that all vehicles would have to 

pass through these stations. 

For boat crossings, all of the crossings 

are staffed by customs officials and land 

forces, but not all have permanent 

SENASA staff. However, the workers are 

instructed to look for prohibited animal 

and plant substances. 

Smuggling is also a potential problem 

in Argentina. The amount of smuggling 

fluctuates depending on the local 

economy and the exchange rates 

between neighboring countries. 

Additionally, much of the material 

smuggled through ports such as Iguazu ́

and the Bolivian border stations is likely 

to be for local use instead of commercial 

trade and sale. In the past, SENASA 

officials have been able to discover 

illegal shipments and either destroy the 

animals or test them for END and 

release them once they were diagnosed 

as clean.

49204 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 23, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

Officials in Argentina have the 

authority, procedures, and 

infrastructure to enforce effectively the 

system of permits, inspection, 

quarantines, and treatments that the 

country has in place to control animals 

and animal products. APHIS did not 

identify any specific limitations in the 

system that might pose an END risk to 

the United States. 

Livestock Demographics and Marketing 

Practices 

Aviculture is Argentina’s second 

largest livestock production industry 

with 521,766 tons (over 260 million 

birds) of poultry meat production in 

2002 and 687,653 tons (over 343 million 

birds) of production in 2001. The most 

recent census, which only covers the 

first months of 2003, indicate that there 

are over 96 million birds in Argentina, 

with most of the commercial poultry 

population (90 percent) contained in the 

Buenos Aires and Entre Rı ́os provinces. 

This number is expected to increase as 

more broilers are hatched and raised for 

meat production throughout the year. 

These numbers are taken from RENSPA, 

the National Livestock Census, and 

information gathered from the poultry 

industry. Argentina has been exporting 

meat to the EU for several years. Disease 

control and surveillance programs are in 

place for poultry that specifically target 

END. 

Registration for farms and properties 

with birds fall into two categories: 

Commercial production farms or 

premises with birds. The commercial 

production farm category is further 

divided into reproduction farms, 

broilers, hatcheries, layers, other 

commercial bird farms (e.g. turkey, 

quail, etc.), and farms of organically 

raised chickens. For premises with 

birds, the category is divided into house 

birds kept mainly for consumption of 

meat or eggs by families, purebred birds 

routinely gathered at bird shows 

(including fighting birds, messenger 

pigeons, ornamental birds), and field 

birds produced semi-intensively for 

consumption by their owners. 

For commercial birds, the number of 

birds per type of production is laid out 

in table 1. The commercial farms in 

Argentina typically are operated under 

a vertical integration system so that 

breeding flocks, incubating farms, 

broilers, feed mills, slaughter plants, 

and diagnostic laboratories all operate 

under the same company name. 

Commercial broiler production farms 

have an average of 4 to 5 barns, each 

with a bird population density of 10 to 

12 birds per square meter. The birds are 

the same age at the farm so that when 

the birds are sent to slaughter, the barn 

is empty. Breeding farms have an 

average of 2 to 3 barns, each with 4 to 

5 females per male and 4 to 5 female 

birds per square meter. Again, the birds 

at the farm are the same age. 

APHIS did not identify any factors in 

this category that might pose an animal 

health risk to the United States if 

poultry or poultry products were to be 

imported from Argentina.

TABLE 1.—NUMBER OF BIRDS PER

TYPE OF PRODUCTION

Type of bird Number of 

birds 

Commercial broilers .............. 70,000,000 

Heavy breeding flocks .......... 3,300,000 

High yielding hens ................ 18,000,000 

Light breeding flocks ............ 500,000 

High yielding stocking hens .. 4,300,000 

Turkeys ................................. 125,000 

Detection and Eradication of Disease 

END has been effectively controlled 

and eradicated from commercial poultry 

populations in Argentina. Although 

END still exists in the wild pigeon 

population, adequate controls are in 

place to ensure that spread to 

commercial flocks does not occur. The 

Argentine Government also has taken 

precautions following the END 

outbreaks in the 1980s and more recent 

FMD outbreaks to better protect the 

country from the introduction of animal 

diseases. Given the above information, 

APHIS considers the likelihood of an 

END outbreak occurring in Argentina to 

be low. 

Certification Requirements 

As noted previously, we are 

proposing to add Argentina to the list of 

regions in § 94.26 and therefore require 

further certification of the END-free 

status of any poultry or poultry products 

imported into the United States from 

Argentina. An END-free region may be 

added to this list when it supplements 

its meat supply with imports of fresh 

(chilled or frozen) poultry meat from a 

region where END is considered to exist; 

has a common land border with an 

END-affected region; or imports live 

poultry from an END-affected region 

under conditions less restrictive than 

would be acceptable for importation 

into the United States. As previously 

noted, Argentina shares land borders 

with Brazil and Bolivia, both of which 

have experienced recent END outbreaks. 

Thus, even though we are proposing to 

declare Argentina free of END, there is 

a risk that poultry or poultry products 

originating in Argentina may be 

commingled with poultry or poultry 

products originating in an END-affected 

region. 

Adding Argentina to the list of regions 

in § 94.26 would mean that live poultry, 

poultry meat and other poultry 

products, and ship stores, airplane 

meals, and baggage containing such 

meat or animal products originating in 

Argentina could not be imported into 

the United States unless the 

requirements described below were met. 

For all poultry and poultry products, 

each shipment would have to be 

accompanied by a certification by a fulltime salaried veterinary officer of the 

Government of Argentina that would 

have to be presented to an authorized 

inspector at the port of arrival in the 

United States. The certification for live 

poultry would have to state that:

• The poultry have not been in 

contact with poultry or poultry products 

from any region where END is 

considered to exist; 

• The poultry have not lived in a 

region where END is considered to exist; 

and 

• The poultry have not transited 

through a region where END is 

considered to exist unless moved 

directly through the region in a sealed 

means of conveyance with the seal 

intact upon arrival at the point of 

destination. 

The certification accompanying 

poultry meat or other poultry products 

would have to state that: 

• The poultry meat or other poultry 

products are derived from poultry that 

meet all requirements of § 94.26 and 

that have been slaughtered in a region 

designated in § 94.6 as free of END at a 

federally inspected slaughter plant that 

is under the direct supervision of a fulltime salaried veterinarian of the 

national government of the exporting 

region and that is approved to export 

poultry meat and other poultry products 

to the United States in accordance with 

the regulations of the U.S. Department 

of Agriculture’s Food Safety and 

Inspection Service (FSIS) in 9 CFR 

381.196; 

• The poultry meat or other poultry 

products have not been in contact with 

poultry meat or other poultry products 

from any region where END is 

considered to exist; 

• The poultry meat or other poultry 

products have not transited through a 

region where END is considered to exist 

unless moved directly through the 

region in a sealed means of conveyance 

with the seal intact upon arrival at the 

point of destination; and 

• If processed, the poultry meat or 

other poultry products were processed 

in a region designated in § 94.6 as free 

of END in a federally inspected 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 23, 2005 / Proposed Rules 49205

processing plant that is under the direct 

supervision of a full-time salaried 

veterinarian of the Government of 

Argentina. 

Adding Argentina to the list of regions 

in § 94.26 would necessitate several 

editorial changes to that section. 

Currently, § 94.26 focuses exclusively 

on END-free regions within Mexico and 

has language specifically tailored to 

address those regions. In order to 

include Argentina in § 94.26, it would 

be necessary to remove specific 

references to the Government of Mexico 

and replace them with more general 

references to the national government of 

the exporting region. 

Conclusion 

Results of our evaluation indicate that 

the Argentine Government has the laws, 

policies, and infrastructure to detect, 

respond to, and eliminate any 

reoccurrence of END. 

These findings are described in 

further detail in a qualitative evaluation 

that may be obtained from the person 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT and may be viewed on the 

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

vs/reg-request.html by following the 

link for current requests and supporting 

documentation. The evaluation 

documents the factors that have led us 

to conclude that commercial poultry in 

Argentina are END-free. Therefore, we 

are proposing to recognize Argentina as 

free of END, add that country to the list 

in § 94.6 of regions where END is not 

known to exist, and amend § 94.26 to 

include Argentina in the list of regions 

that must provide further certification of 

the END-free status of any poultry or 

poultry products exported to the United 

States. 

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. 

Under the regulations in 9 CFR part 

94, the importation into the United 

States of poultry and poultry products 

that originate in or transit any region 

where END exists is generally 

prohibited. Furthermore, even if a 

region is considered free of END, the 

importation of poultry and poultry 

products from that region may be 

restricted depending on the region’s 

proximity to or trading relationships 

with countries or regions where END is 

present. 

This proposed rule would amend the 

regulations by adding Argentina to the 

list of regions considered free of END. 

However, since Argentina shares 

borders with regions that the United 

States does not recognize as free of END, 

we are also proposing that Argentina 

meet additional certification 

requirements for live poultry and 

poultry products imported into the 

United States to ensure that the imports 

are free from END. 

Over the past several years, 

Argentina’s poultry industry has 

increased substantially as shown in 

table 2. Although Argentina exports 

eggs, which typically are destined to 

Denmark, the main export for Argentina 

is poultry meat. Argentina exports 

poultry meat and products to 34 

countries, with Chile expected to be the 

largest importer. In 2003, Argentina 

exported $22 million of poultry meat 

including whole broilers (36 percent), 

chicken paws (30 percent), processed 

meat from layers (5 percent), and other 

products and byproducts such as wings, 

nuggets, burgers, offal, and breasts (29 

percent). Exports for poultry meat in 

2004 are projected at 70,000 tons, 

almost twice the amount exported in 

2003. In 2005, exports are projected to 

reach 110,000 metric tons.

TABLE 2.—POULTRY EXPORTS, IMPORTS, AND PRODUCTION IN ARGENTINA

[In metric tons] 

Year Poultry imports Poultry exports Poultry

production 

1998 ............................................................................................................................................. 65,215 18,936 930,247 

1999 ............................................................................................................................................. 55,608 17,097 982,860 

2000 ............................................................................................................................................. 45,683 19,187 1,000,260 

2001 ............................................................................................................................................. 26,661 21,243 993,122 

2002 ............................................................................................................................................. 1,196 30,501 972,870 

Source: FAOSTAT Argentina Poultry, last accessed November 2004. 

In 2003, poultry production in the 

United States totaled 38.5 billion 

pounds for a total value of $23.3 billion. 

Broiler meat accounted for $15.2 billion 

(65 percent) of this value in 2003. The 

remaining worth was comprised of the 

value of eggs ($5.3 billion), turkey ($2.7 

billion), and other chicken products 

($48 million). The United States is also 

the world’s largest exporter of broilers, 

with broiler exports totaling 4.93 billion 

pounds, the equivalent of $1.5 billion, 

in 2003. Imports of broiler products into 

the United States in 2003 totaled 12 

million pounds, or less than 1 percent 

of the domestic production. 

In 2002, there were approximately 

32,006 broiler and other meat producing 

chicken farms in the United States, as 

shown in table 3. Under the Small 

Business Administration’s size 

standards, broiler and other meat 

production chicken farms with less than 

$750,000 in annual sales, which is the 

equivalent of 300,000 birds, qualify as 

small businesses. Given this 

information, about 20,949, or 64.5 

percent of all broiler operations, qualify 

as small businesses.

TABLE 3.—NUMBER OF FARMS SELLING BROILERS AND OTHER MEAT-TYPE CHICKENS, 2002 

Number sold Farms Number Average sales per 

farm 

Broilers and other meat-type chickens .................................................................................... 32,006 8,500,313,357 $766,498 

1 to 1,999 ................................................................................................................................. 10,869 1,146,308 304 

2,000 to 15,999 ........................................................................................................................ 406 2,871,466 20,412 

16,000 to 29,999 ...................................................................................................................... 206 4,420,530 61,932 

30,000 to 59,999 ...................................................................................................................... 444 19,732,838 128,267 

49206 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 23, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 3.—NUMBER OF FARMS SELLING BROILERS AND OTHER MEAT-TYPE CHICKENS, 2002—Continued

Number sold Farms Number Average sales per 

farm 

60,000 to 99,999 ...................................................................................................................... 1,060 84,498,647 230,066 

100,000 to 199,999 .................................................................................................................. 3,311 498,386,958 434,425 

200,000 to 299,999 .................................................................................................................. 4,653 1,137,668,155 705,651 

300,000 to 499,999 .................................................................................................................. 5,754 2,191,324,340 1,099,118 

500,000 or more ...................................................................................................................... 5,303 4,560,264,115 2,481,853 

Source: 2002 Census of Agriculture, Table 27. 

Broiler production in the United 

States is concentrated in a group of 

States stretching from Delaware south 

along the Atlantic coast to Georgia, then 

westward through Alabama, 

Mississippi, and Arkansas. These States 

accounted for over 70 percent of broilers 

in the United States in 2003. The top 

five broiler producing States are 

Georgia, Arkansas, Alabama, 

Mississippi, and North Carolina, whose 

2002 broiler sales are listed below in 

table 4.

TABLE 4.—NUMBER OF FARMS SELLING BROILERS IN SELECTED STATES, 2002 

Number of broilers sold per farm U.S. total Alabama Arkansas Georgia Mississippi North

Carolina 

Total for top 

five

producing 

States 

1 to 1,999 ................................................. 10,869 89 79 46 104 13 331 

2,000 to 59,999 ........................................ 1,056 20 103 49 86 101 359 

60,000 to 99,999 ...................................... 1,060 57 199 84 97 158 595 

100,000 to 199,999 .................................. 3,311 385 634 25 210 539 1,793 

200,000 to 499,999 .................................. 10,407 1,328 1,927 1,335 883 1,284 6,757 

500,000 or more ...................................... 5,303 72 578 959 548 349 2,506 

Source: 2002 Census of Agriculture State Data Table. 

Poultry meat imported from Argentina 

could potentially affect the United 

States poultry industry. Consumers 

would benefit from any price decreases 

for poultry and poultry products, while 

producers would potentially be 

negatively affected by more competitive 

prices. However, the amount of poultry 

or poultry products that may be 

imported from Argentina is not 

expected to have a significant impact on 

poultry consumers or producers in the 

United States. In 2003, Argentina 

exported a total of $22 million worth of 

poultry and poultry products while the 

United States produced $15.2 billion 

worth of broilers. Given these numbers, 

any exports from Argentina are not 

likely to be in quantities sufficient to 

have a significant impact on U.S. 

poultry producers, and we do not 

anticipate that any U.S. entities, small 

or otherwise, would experience any 

significant economic effects as a result 

of this proposed action. It should also be 

noted that Argentina is not currently 

eligible to export poultry products to the 

United States under the FSIS 

regulations cited earlier in this 

document; there would, therefore, be no 

economic effects on U.S. entities until 

establishments in Argentina were 

approved to export poultry meat and 

other poultry products to the United 

States. 

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 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 inconsistent 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 

information collection or recordkeeping 

requirements under the Paperwork 

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

et seq.).

List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 94 

Animal diseases, Imports, Livestock, 

Meat and meat products, Milk, Poultry 

and poultry products, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements.

Accordingly, we propose to amend 9 

CFR part 94 as follows:

PART 94—RINDERPEST, FOOT-ANDMOUTH DISEASE, FOWL PEST (FOWL 

PLAGUE), EXOTIC NEWCASTLE 

DISEASE, AFRICAN SWINE FEVER, 

CLASSICAL SWINE FEVER, AND 

BOVINE SPONGIFORM 

ENCEPHALOPATHY: PROHIBITED 

AND RESTRICTED IMPORTATIONS 

1. The authority citation for part 94 

would continue to read as follows:

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

8301–8317; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 31 

U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.

§ 94.6 [Amended] 

2. In § 94.6, paragraph (a)(2) would be 

amended by adding the word 

‘‘Argentina,’’ before the word 

‘‘Australia,’’. 

3. Section 94.26 would be amended as 

follows: 

a. In the introductory text of the 

section, the first sentence would be 

amended by removing the words ‘‘The 

Mexican’’ and adding the words 

‘‘Argentina and the Mexican’’ in their 

place. 

b. In paragraph (a), the words 

‘‘Government of Mexico’’ would be 

removed and the words ‘‘national 

Government of the exporting region’’

would be added in their place. 

c. In paragraph (c)(1), the words 

‘‘Government of Mexico’’ would be 

removed and the words ‘‘national 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 23, 2005 / Proposed Rules 49207

Government of the exporting region’’

would be added in their place. 

d. In paragraph (c)(4), the words 

‘‘Government of Mexico’’ would be 

removed and the words ‘‘national 

Government of the exporting region’’

would be added in their place.

Done in Washington, DC, this 17th day of 

August 2005. 

Elizabeth E. Gaston, 

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service.

[FR Doc. 05–16689 Filed 8–22–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 2001–NM–213–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing 

Model 747SP, 747SR, 747–100, –100B, 

–100B SUD, –200B, –200C, –200F, and 

–300 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking; reopening of 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: This document revises an 

earlier proposed airworthiness directive 

(AD), applicable to all Boeing Model 

747SP, 747SR, 747–100, –100B, –100B 

SUD, –200B, –200C, –200F, and –300 

series airplanes, that would have 

required modification of the escape 

slide/raft pack assembly and cable 

release sliders. This new action revises 

the proposed rule by incorporating new 

service information, which clarifies the 

airplanes on which certain actions must 

be done, and by adding a new 

requirement for certain airplanes. The 

actions specified by this new proposed 

AD are intended to prevent improper 

deployment of the escape slide/raft or 

blockage of the passenger/crew doors in 

the event of an emergency evacuation, 

which could result in injury to 

passengers or crewmembers. This action 

is intended to address the identified 

unsafe condition.

DATES: Comments must be received by 

September 19, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in 

triplicate to the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Transport 

Airplane Directorate, ANM–114, 

Attention: Rules Docket No. 2001–NM–

213–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., 

Renton, Washington 98055–4056. 

Comments may be inspected at this 

location between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. Comments may be submitted 

via fax to (425) 227–1232. Comments 

may also be sent via the Internet using 

the following address: 9-anmnprmcomment@faa.gov. Comments sent 

via fax or the Internet must contain 

‘‘Docket No. 2001–NM–213–AD’’ in the 

subject line and need not be submitted 

in triplicate. Comments sent via the 

Internet as attached electronic files must 

be formatted in Microsoft Word 97 or 

2000 or ASCII text. 

The service information referenced in 

the proposed rule may be obtained from 

Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 

3707, Seattle, Washington 98124–2207. 

This information may be examined at 

the FAA, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., 

Renton, Washington.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Keith Ladderud, Aerospace Engineer, 

Cabin Safety and Environmental 

Systems Branch, ANM–150S, FAA, 

Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, 

Washington 98055–4056; telephone 

(425) 917–6435; fax (425) 917–6590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

Interested persons are invited to 

participate in the making of the 

proposed rule by submitting such 

written data, views, or arguments as 

they may desire. Communications shall 

identify the Rules Docket number and 

be submitted in triplicate to the address 

specified above. All communications 

received on or before the closing date 

for comments, specified above, will be 

considered before taking action on the 

proposed rule. The proposals contained 

in this action may be changed in light 

of the comments received. 

Submit comments using the following 

format:

• Organize comments issue-by-issue. 

For example, discuss a request to 

change the compliance time and a 

request to change the service bulletin 

reference as two separate issues. 

• For each issue, state what specific 

change to the proposed AD is being 

requested. 

• Include justification (e.g., reasons or 

data) for each request. 

Comments are specifically invited on 

the overall regulatory, economic, 

environmental, and energy aspects of 

the proposed rule. All comments 

submitted will be available, both before 

and after the closing date for comments, 

in the Rules Docket for examination by 

interested persons. A report 

summarizing each FAA-public contact 

concerned with the substance of this 

proposal will be filed in the Rules 

Docket. 

Commenters wishing the FAA to 

acknowledge receipt of their comments 

submitted in response to this action 

must submit a self-addressed, stamped 

postcard on which the following 

statement is made: ‘‘Comments to 

Docket Number 2001–NM–213–AD.’’

The postcard will be date stamped and 

returned to the commenter. 

Availability of NPRMs 

Any person may obtain a copy of this 

NPRM by submitting a request to the 

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

ANM–114, Attention: Rules Docket No. 

2001–NM–213–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, 

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056. 

Discussion 

A proposal to amend part 39 of the 

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 

part 39) to add an airworthiness 

directive (AD), applicable to all Boeing 

Model 747SP, 747SR, 747–100, –100B, 

–100B SUD, –200B, –200C, –200F, and 

–300 series airplanes, was published as 

a notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM) (hereafter referred to as the 

‘‘original NPRM’’) in the Federal 

Register on September 10, 2003 (68 FR 

53309). That NPRM would have 

required modification of the escape 

slide/raft pack assembly and cable 

release sliders. The original NPRM was 

prompted by improper escape slide/raft 

deployment and passenger/crew door 

blockage during slide deployment tests. 

That condition, if not corrected, could 

result in injury to passengers or 

crewmembers. 

Comments 

Due consideration has been given to 

the comments received in response to 

the original NPRM. 

Request To Change Preamble/Add 

Revised Service Information 

One commenter asks that Boeing 

Special Attention Service Bulletin 747–

25–3274, Revision 2, dated August 26, 

2004, be added to the first paragraph of 

the ‘‘Explanation of Relevant Service 

Information’’ section of the original 

NPRM. Revision 1 of the service bulletin 

was referenced in the original NPRM as 

the source of service information for 

modifying the slide/raft pack assembly. 

The commenter also asks that the 

following be added to that paragraph: 

‘‘Note: Revision 2 will revise work 

instructions to move two airplane 

effectivities to a different group to 

reflect conversion from passenger