Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2001 / Notices 13697

goats must be either individually

identified, or identified with their

premises of origin. Eartags and backtags

are two of the most common devices for

accomplishing the required

identification. As APHIS continues to

revise and expand its scrapie programs,

we anticipate that the demand for

eartags and backtags for official

identification will increase over the next

few years. Federal and State agencies,

accredited veterinarians, and sheep and

goat flock owners will be looking for

commercial sources to supply the

needed eartags and backtags.

To assist interested companies that

wish to produce eartags and backtags for

sheep and goats, APHIS has identified

the office of the National Scrapie

Program Coordinator as the contact

point for companies to obtain advice on

the production standards eartags and

backtags must meet to qualify as official

identification in accordance with our

regulations. Further details on

production standards for eartags and

backtags may be obtained from the

office identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

This office will also review sample tags

for suitability and approve companies to

produce official identification eartags

and backtags.

In general, tags may be plastic or

metal and must be an appropriate size

for use in sheep and goats. Tags must be

able to legibly accommodate any

required alphanumeric sequences to

identify individual animals or their

premises. Tags must resist removal and

must be difficult to place on another

animal once removed, but need not be

tamper-proof. Tags must be readily

distinguishable as USDA official sheep

and goat tags, must carry the

alphanumeric sequences, symbols, or

logos specified by APHIS, and must

have a means of discouraging

counterfeiting, such as use of a unique

copyrighted logo or trade mark.

Done in Washington, DC, this 1st day of

March 2001.

Bobby R. Acord,

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service.

[FR Doc. 01–5589 Filed 3–6–01 8:45am]

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service

[Docket No. 01–009–1]

Control of Rabies in Wildlife; Request

for Public Involvement

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service’s Wildlife Services

program is soliciting public

involvement in the planning of a

proposed cooperative program to stop

the spread of rabies in the States of New

York, Ohio, Texas, Vermont, and West

Virginia. A small portion of

northeastern New Hampshire and the

western counties in Pennsylvania that

border Ohio could also be included in

these control efforts. In addition,

Wildlife Services may cooperate in

smaller scale oral rabies vaccine projects

in the States of Florida, Massachusetts,

Maryland, New Jersey, Virginia, and

Alabama. The information received in

response to this notice will be

considered during the planning of the

proposed program and development of

an environmental assessment that will

be prepared in accordance with the

National Environmental Policy Act.

DATES: We invite you to comment on

this notice. We will consider all

comments that we receive by April 6,

2001.

ADDRESSES: Please send four copies of

your comment (an original and three

copies) to: Docket No. 01–009–1,

Regulatory Analysis and Development,

PPD, APHIS, Suite 3C03, 4700 River

Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737–

1238.

Please state that your comment refers

to Docket No. 01–009–1.

You may read any comments that we

receive on this docket in our reading

room. The reading room is located in

room 1141 of the USDA South Building,

14th Street and Independence Avenue

SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading

room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, except

holidays. To be sure someone is there to

help you, please call (202) 690–2817

before coming.

APHIS documents published in the

Federal Register, and related

information, including the names of

organizations and individuals who have

commented on APHIS dockets, are

available on the Internet at http://

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

webrepor.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Dennis Slate, Rabies Program

Coordinator, Wildlife Services, APHIS,

59 Chennell Drive, Suite 7, Concord, NH

03301–8548; phone (603) 223–6832.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Rabies is

an acute, fatal viral disease of mammals

most often transmitted through the bite

of a rabid animal. The disease can be

effectively prevented in humans and

domestic animals, but abundant and

widely distributed reservoirs among

wild mammals complicate rabies

control. The vast majority of rabies cases

reported to the Centers for Disease

Control and Prevention (CDC) each year

occur in raccoons, skunks, bats, foxes,

and other wild animals. Domestic

animals account for less than 10 percent

of the reported rabies cases, with cats,

dogs, and cattle among those most often

reported.

Public health importance of rabies.

Over the last 100 years, the rabies

situation in the United States has

changed dramatically. About 90 percent

or greater of all animal cases reported

annually to CDC now occur in wildlife,

whereas before 1960 the majority of

cases were reported in domestic

animals. The principal rabies hosts

today are wild carnivores and bats. The

number of rabies-related human deaths

in the United States has declined from

more than 100 annually at the beginning

of the 20th century to an average of one

or two people per year in the 1990’s.

Modern prophylaxis, which consists of

a series of vaccine injections given to

people who have been exposed, has

proven nearly 100 percent successful in

preventing mortality when administered

promptly after exposure. In the United

States, human fatalities associated with

rabies occur in people who fail to seek

timely medical assistance, usually

because they were unaware of their

exposure.

Although human rabies deaths are

rare, the estimated public health costs

associated with disease detection,

prevention, and control have risen,

exceeding $300 million annually. These

costs include the vaccination of

companion animals, animal control

programs, maintenance of rabies

laboratories, and medical costs, such as

those incurred for exposure case

investigations and rabies post-exposure

prophylaxis (PEP).

Accurate estimates of these

expenditures are not available.

Although the number of PEP’s given in

the United States each year is unknown,

it is estimated to be about 40,000. When

rabies becomes epizootic (epidemics in

animals) or enzootic (i.e., present in an

area over time but at low case

13698 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2001 / Notices

frequency) in a region, the number of

PEP’s in that area increases. Although

the cost varies, a course of rabies

immune globulin and five doses of

vaccine given over a 4-week period

typically exceeds $1,000 and may be as

high as $2,000.

Rabies in raccoons was virtually

unknown prior to the 1950’s. It was first

described in Florida and spread slowly

during the next three decades into

Georgia, Alabama, and South Carolina.

It was unintentionally introduced into

the mid-Atlantic States by translocation

of infected animals. The first cases

appeared in West Virginia and Virginia

in 1977 and 1978. Since then, raccoon

rabies in the area has expanded to form

the most intensive rabies outbreak in the

United States.

Two rabies epizootics emerged in

Texas in 1988; one involved spillover of

canine dog rabies into coyotes in south

Texas, and the other involved a rabies

variant unique to gray foxes in westcentral Texas. The south Texas

epizootic alone resulted in 2 human

deaths and caused over 3,000 people to

receive post-exposure rabies treatment.

In 1994, the public health threat created

by these two expanding epizootics

prompted the Governor of Texas to

declare rabies a public health

emergency in Texas.

Primary need for action. If the rabies

strains transmitted by raccoons, gray

foxes, and coyotes are not prevented

from spreading to broader areas of the

United States, the health threats and

costs associated with rabies are

expected to increase substantially. In

the area that stretches west from the

leading edge of the current distribution

of raccoon rabies (which stretches from

Alabama northeastward along the

Appalachian Mountains to Maine) to the

Rocky Mountains, and north from the

distribution of gray fox and coyote

rabies in Texas, there are more than 111

million livestock animals—including

cattle, horses, mules, swine, goats, and

sheep—valued at $42 billion. If raccoon,

gray fox, or coyote rabies were to spread

into the above described area, the

livestock there would be at risk from

these specific rabies variants. More

importantly, human health care

concerns would be expected to increase

substantially as well if raccoon, coyote,

and gray fox strains of rabies infect a

much broader geographic area.

Development of oral rabies vaccine

(ORV) programs. Although the concept

of ORV to control rabies in free-ranging

wildlife populations originated in the

United States, it has a longer history of

implementation in Europe and Canada.

The emergence of raccoon rabies in the

United States during the 1970’s

heightened interest in the application of

ORV to raccoons. Due to biological and

ecological differences between the types

of animals that transmit rabies,

development of specific vaccine and

bait combinations was necessary. One of

the main difficulties was the

development of a safe and effective

vaccine for raccoons. In contrast to red

foxes, which were the primary subjects

of ORV programs in Europe and Canada,

raccoons were not readily immunized

by the oral route with the modified live

rabies virus vaccines that worked well

in foxes. In addition, modified ‘‘live

virus’’ vaccines pose a small risk of

vaccine-induced rabies and resulted in

some cases of vaccine-induced rabies

associated with oral baiting programs in

Europe and Canada. However, a

genetically engineered vaccine,

vaccinia-rabies glycoprotein (V–RG), has

proven to be effective orally in raccoons,

coyotes, and foxes. V–RG was

extensively evaluated in the laboratory

for safety in over 50 vertebrate species

with no adverse effects, regardless of

route or dose. Following successful field

safety testing in the early 1990’s, V–RG

was licensed in 1995 in the United

States for vaccination of free-ranging

raccoons. It remains the only effective

vaccine licensed for use in the United

States for raccoons. It has also been

approved for experimental use to

vaccinate wild gray foxes and coyotes in

Texas.

V–RG is commercially available from

Merial, 115 Transtech Drive, Athens,

GA 30601, under the registered name

Raboral V–RG. It is currently the only

licensed oral vaccine available for rabies

control for carnivores in the United

States. V–RG is a recombinant vaccine

that uses vaccinia, a living pox virus, as

the vector (i.e., carrier) for the rabies

gene that encodes for the production of

rabies antigen in the form of rabies

glycoprotein. Rabies glycoprotein is the

protective sheath around the bulletshaped rabies virus. The glycoprotein by

itself is noninfective and cannot cause

rabies, but, because it serves as the

rabies antigen, it elicits an immune

antibody response to rabies when the

vaccine is swallowed by raccoons,

foxes, or coyotes. When raccoons, foxes,

or coyotes swallow the V–RG vaccine, it

bathes the lymphatic tissue in the throat

area and initiates the immunization

process.

There is no possibility of vaccineinduced rabies with Raboral V–RG

because the vaccine only contains the

noninfective surface protein of the

rabies virus; none of the viral nuclear

material that would be required for the

rabies virus to replicate is present in the

vaccine. Over 22 million doses of

Raboral V–RG have been distributed in

the United States since 1994, with only

one reported case of adverse effects on

humans (i.e., a single case of a vaccinia

virus infection, which caused localized

skin rashes). This vaccine has been

tested in 59 wild mammalian and avian

species without adverse effects. In

addition, a domestic animal’s annual

rabies vaccination can be safely

administered even if it recently ingested

a dose of oral rabies vaccine.

The V–RG vaccine is most often

encased in baits and distributed by

aircraft. The baits are small blocks of

fishmeal (for coyotes and raccoons) or

dog food (for gray foxes) that are held

together with a polymer binding agent.

The sachet, a thin plastic packet

containing the liquid vaccine, is in the

middle of the bait. Efforts to provide for

more efficient delivery of vaccine/bait

packages to wildlife populations at

lower cost have resulted in the

development of ‘‘baitless’’ sachets, in

which the vaccine is enclosed within a

plastic sachet that has been coated with

special waxes and attractants, rather

than the thick outer package of edible

meal. These baitless sachets, which can

be prepared without extensive manual

labor and for less cost in materials, are

smaller and lighter than other oral

rabies vaccine baits, allowing for the

possibility that more baits can be

transported via aircraft, and smaller,

less expensive aircraft can be used.

Another attribute of the baitless sachet

is that it is not possible for the animal

to eat the edible material and leave the

un-ruptured vaccine container behind.

Field trials to date have shown that it

performs very well in delivering vaccine

to raccoons and coyotes. While the

traditional fishmeal/dog food baits are

likely to be used in most cases, it is

possible that APHIS–WS and the States

may employ baitless sachets, depending

on their availability, in the course of the

proposed cooperative program.

Oral wildlife vaccination for raccoon

rabies control has been under field

evaluation in the United States since

1990. A limited field release of the

recombinant vaccine occurred on

Parramore Island, VA, prior to wider use

in the United States for control of

raccoon rabies. A major objective of that

field trial was to evaluate the freeranging raccoon population for adverse

effects after the distribution of V–RG

vaccine-laden baits. With the

development and field testing of the V–

RG vaccine, a potential method of rabies

control now exists for some rabies

variants to complement methods of

control that include public education,

domestic animal vaccination, and

human post-exposure prophylaxis.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2001 / Notices 13699

1A total of over 800,000 V–RG vaccine-laden

baits were distributed in 1997.

Since the first field release of the V–

RG vaccine in 1990, the annual number

of vaccine-laden baits distributed to

better understand the role of ORV for

raccoon rabies control in the United

States has risen exponentially.1 Eleven

field projects have been conducted or

are in progress in Pennsylvania (1991–

1992), New Jersey (1992–1994, with

further projects reinitiated in the last

couple of years), Massachusetts (1994–

present), Florida (1995–present), New

York (1994–present), Vermont (1997–

present), Ohio (1997–present), Maryland

(1998), and Virginia (2000). Since 1995,

more than 13.25 million individual

doses of ORV have been distributed over

196,000 square miles of southern and

west-central Texas for control of rabies

strains in coyotes and gray foxes.

Several pilot projects were conducted

to evaluate the effect of ORV baiting

upon raccoon rabies. Through intensive

baiting efforts at the peninsular neck,

raccoon rabies was prevented from

invading the Cape Cod peninsula. A

recently completed project in Albany

and Rensselaer Counties in New York

demonstrated that raccoon rabies may

be virtually eliminated from an area

where the disease had been present for

a number of years by use of ORV. In

Ohio, along the Pennsylvania border

from Lake Erie to West Virginia, twiceyearly baiting has been successful to

date in preventing the westward spread

of raccoon rabies.

Previous rabies control activities by

Wildlife Services. The Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service’s (APHIS)

Wildlife Services (WS) program is

authorized to conduct programs to

address wildlife-caused disease

problems by the Animal Damage

Control Act of 1931 and the Rural

Development, Agriculture and Related

Agencies Act of 1988. WS’s previous

involvement in rabies prevention and

control has been to provide technical

and operational assistance to State

health departments in experimental and

operational distribution of ORV baits; in

some of those States, WS has also

assisted in the collection of animal

specimens for monitoring purposes.

Proposed programs. APHIS–WS is

proposing to cooperate in State

programs to stop the spread of rabies in

the States of New York, Ohio, Texas,

Vermont, and West Virginia. A small

portion of northeastern New Hampshire

and the western counties in

Pennsylvania that border Ohio could

also be included in these control efforts.

In addition, APHIS–WS may cooperate

in smaller scale ORV projects in the

States of Florida, Massachusetts,

Maryland, New Jersey, Virginia, and

Alabama. Consequently, we are

soliciting public involvement in the

planning process. The proposal is to

provide Federal funds authorized by

Congress to: (1) Purchase ORV baits that

would be distributed by air and ground

placement; (2) provide other forms of

assistance in monitoring rabies and

determining the effectiveness of the

ORV programs through collection and

testing of samples from wild animal

specimens; and (3) if the targeted rabies

strains advance beyond the barriers

created by the ORV zones, participate in

implementing contingency plans to

restore the integrity of the ORV barrier

and prevent further spread of rabies.

Such contingency plans may involve

increased distribution of ORV baits in

and around the ORV zones or, if

necessary, the localized reduction of

target species populations through

lethal means.

The intent of the bait distribution is

to orally vaccinate wild raccoons in

portions of the above-listed States with

the exception of Texas. Similar

programs would be directed at gray

foxes in west-central Texas and coyotes

in southern Texas. The primary goals of

the program are to: (1) Stop the forward

advance of these strains of rabies from

areas where they now occur by

immunizing portions of target species

populations along the leading edges of

the rabies fronts; and (2) reduce the

incidence of rabies cases involving wild

and domestic animals and rabies

exposure to humans in the areas where

the ORV programs are conducted.

The areas over which the ORV baits

would be distributed and from which

animal specimens would be collected

could be anywhere in the above-listed

States. The ORV zones would be

delineated based on the most current

distribution of rabies cases and the

expected direction of disease spread.

Vaccination zones would be determined

in cooperation with State health

departments and other State agencies

with jurisdiction over wildlife and

domestic animals. Pending the

verification of legal authorities to do so,

ORV baits would be distributed over a

variety of classes of land ownership,

including private, public, tribal, and

other State and Federal lands. Each

individual bait would have a warning

label advising persons not to handle or

disturb the bait along with a toll-free

telephone number to call for further

information.

Wild animal collections for purposes

of monitoring would be conducted

using a variety of live capture or lethal

methods. Information from raccoons

would be predominantly collected from

cage-trapped individuals that, if

apparently healthy, would be released at

or near their site of capture. The

requisite sample from coyotes would be

obtained primarily by aerial or groundbased shooting from sample areas

within the ORV zone. Gray fox samples

would be obtained by ground shooting

and various capture methods including

leghold traps, cage traps, foot snares,

and wire cable neck snares. Only legally

approved methods would be used in all

animal sample collection areas to

provide critical data for the evaluation

of project effectiveness. Project

effectiveness would be based in large

part on the percentage of ORV baits

consumed in populations of target

species and by the presence of sufficient

levels of serum neutralizing antibodies

to produce immunity to rabies as

determined from serological analysis of

blood samples obtained from target

species within ORV zones.

In the event that the targeted rabies

strains advance beyond the barriers

created by the ORV zones, contingency

plans may be implemented by the

involved States that could involve local

population suppression of the target

wildlife species using lethal means.

Another type of contingency plan to

address such outbreaks might be to

distribute higher densities of ORV baits

in and around such areas to attempt to

arrest the outbreak without resorting to

lethal population suppression. If any

localized lethal population control

efforts were undertaken, those efforts

would likely be integrated with hand or

aerial placement of ORV baits in and

around the population suppression area

to restore the integrity of the ORV

barrier and prevent further spread of

rabies. APHIS–WS may, as part of the

proposed action, assist in such efforts by

providing funds, personnel, or

equipment to capture and kill target

species. Should this occur, methods

used would involve any of those

described above for the collection of

wild animal specimens. In Texas, an

additional method that could be used to

remove gray foxes and coyotes would be

sodium cyanide in the M–44 device,

which is approved by the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency for

this purpose. The need for APHIS–WS

involvement in contingency plans that

employ localized lethal population

suppression is considered to be

unlikely.

We are encouraging members of the

public and other interested agencies and

organizations to assist in the planning of

this program by answering the following

questions:

13700 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2001 / Notices

• What issues or concerns about the

distribution of ORV baits by air and

ground should we analyze?

• What other issues or concerns about

the proposed action do you think we

should address?

• What alternatives to the proposed

action should we analyze?

• Do you have any information (i.e.,

scientific data or studies) that we should

consider in the analysis?

Information received will be

considered in an environmental

assessment (EA) prepared in accordance

with the National Environmental Policy

Act.

Issues and alternatives identified thus

far. Several issues have already been

identified as areas of concern for

consideration in the EA:

• Potential for adverse effects on

people that become exposed to the

vaccine or the baits.

• Potential for adverse effects on

nontarget wildlife species that might

consume the baits.

• Potential for adverse effects on pet

dogs or other domestic animals that

might consume the baits.

• Potential for aerially dropped baits

to strike and injure people or domestic

animals.

• Cost of the program in comparison

to perceived benefits.

• Humaneness of methods used to

collect wild animal specimens critical

for timely program evaluation.

Other issues may also be included in

the analysis and will be identified based

on comments obtained through

gathering information from the public

and other agencies. Several alternatives

that have been identified for

consideration are:

• No involvement by APHIS–WS in

rabies prevention or control.

• Implement the proposed action.

• Live capture of species being

targeted (e.g., raccoon, gray fox, coyotes)

followed by administration of rabies

vaccines by injection and release back

into the wild.

• Provide resources for ORV bait

distribution without collection of wild

animal specimens by APHIS–WS for

monitoring purposes.

Other alternatives may also be

included in the analysis based on

comments obtained through gathering

information from the public and other

agencies.

Availability of additional information.

Further information on rabies and ORV

may be obtained from CDC Internet

website (http://www.cdc.gov) and from

the vaccine manufacturer, Merial (http:/

/www.merial.com, e-mail:

raboral@merial.com). Further

information on the status of ORV

program planning efforts within the

involved individual States may be

available by contacting individual State

health departments. Links to individual

State health department Internet

websites are available on the CDC

Internet website. Information regarding

APHIS–WS rabies control activities may

be obtained by calling or writing the

person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT.

Done in Washington, DC, this 2nd day of

March 2001.

Bobby R. Acord,

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service.

[FR Doc. 01–5590 Filed 3–6–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–34–U

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

Meadow Face Stewardship Pilot

Project, Nez Perce National Forest,

Idaho County, ID

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice; intent to prepare

environmental impact statement.

(Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7)

SUMMARY: The Forest Service will

prepare an environmental impact

statement to disclose the environmental

impacts of implementing vegetation and

watershed restoration activities and

modification of the transportation

system within the Meadow Face

analysis area. Individuals interested in

actions of this nature are encouraged to

submit comments and become involved

in the planning process.

DATES: Comments concerning the scope

of the analysis should be received at the

address below on or before April 6,

2001.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to

Darcy Pederson, District Ranger, Route 2

Box 475, Grangeville, ID 83530.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Heather Berg, Project Coordinator, (208)

983–1983.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Meadow Face Stewardship Pilot Project

area is located on the Nez Perce

National Forest in northern Idaho

within Idaho County. The project area

lies approximately 7 air miles southeast

of Grangeville Idaho. The project area

encompasses 27,000 acres and includes

Meadow, Wickiup and Ralph Smith

Creek watersheds, which drain directly

into the South Fork Clearwater River.

The Meadow Face Stewardship Pilot

Project was authorized under the 1999

Department of Interior Appropriations

Bill (Section 347). This legislation

authorized 28 pilot projects to test

contracting mechanisms that allow the

exchange of goods for services, retention

of receipts, and end-result rather than

prescriptive contract specifications. The

legislative intent includes meeting local

and rural community needs and

provided a clear expectation for the

pilot projects to be developed

cooperatively with local and affected

communities.

The proposed activities described

below were developed cooperatively

with a local citizens group called the

Stewards of the Nez Perce Forest. This

group worked with the Forest Service to

review the ecological conditions in the

analysis area as described in the South

Fork Clearwater River Landscape

Assessment (USFS, Nez Perce National

Forest, 1998) and Meadow Face

Ecosystem Assessment at the Watershed

Scale (USFS, Nez Perce National Forest,

1999) and make recommendations for

actions to address current undesirable

conditions while meeting the objectives

of the Nez Perce Forest Plan.

The actions proposed for

implementation include modifying

vegetation through timber harvest and

prescribed burning to achieve forest

conditions which more closely resemble

historic. The analysis area includes both

low elevation, dry, ponderosa pine and

mid-elevation, moist, fir vegetation

types. Due to fire suppression and other

past management activities the

vegetation is denser with increased

shrubs and small trees. These

conditions result in increased fire risk

and susceptibility to drought, insects

and disease. To address these

conditions, approximately 5700 acres of

harvest and 7300 acres of prescribed

burning is proposed.

In addition to the vegetation

conditions described above, the analysis

area has non-native and noxious plant

species present. To address this

condition, approximately 230 acres of

herbicide application and native species

restoration is proposed.

As part of the Meadow Face proposal,

the transportation system of roads and

trails in the area would also be modified

to reduce adverse effects of the road

system on forest resources, particularly

soil and water. To address these

conditions, approximately 80 miles of

road decommissioning would occur.

Road decommissioning would return

these road segments to forest production

and they would no longer be available

as transportation routes.

Some streams in the analysis area

have been affected by the transportation

system, past vegetation manamagement

and grazing. These streams would be