61983CJ0090_EN
Parties
Subject of the case
Grounds
Decision on costs
Operative part
Parties
IN CASE 90/83
REFERENCE TO THE COURT UNDER ARTICLE 177 OF THE EEC TREATY BY THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE, QUEEN ' S BENCH DIVISION, DIVISIONAL COURT, FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING IN THE PROCEEDINGS PENDING BEFORE THAT COURT BETWEEN
MICHAEL PATERSON, APPELLANT,
AND
W . WEDDEL & COMPANY LIMITED, RESPONDENT ;
RONALD EDMOND BROOK, APPELLANT,
AND
EXETER HIDE AND SKIN COMPANY LIMITED, RESPONDENT ;
ALBAN DEREK KEDWARD, APPELLANT,
AND
FREDERICK ANTHONY LEYLAND, RESPONDENT,
Subject of the case
ON THE INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 14A ( 2 ) ( C ) OF REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 543/69 OF THE COUNCIL OF 25 MARCH 1969 ON THE HARMONIZATION OF CERTAIN SOCIAL LEGISLATION RELATING TO ROAD TRANSPORT ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL, ENGLISH SPECIAL EDITION 1969 ( I ), P . 170 ), AS AMENDED BY COUNCIL REGULATIONS NO 515/72 OF 28 FEBRUARY 1972 ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL, ENGLISH SPECIAL EDITION 1972 ( I ), P . 134 ) AND NO 2827/77 OF 12 DECEMBER 1977 ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL L 334, P . 1 ),
Grounds
1 BY ORDER DATED 21 APRIL 1983 WHICH WAS RECEIVED AT THE COURT REGISTRY ON 19 MAY 1983, THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE, QUEEN ' S BENCH DIVISION, DIVISIONAL COURT, REFERRED TO THE COURT FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING UNDER ARTICLE 177 OF THE EEC TREATY SEVERAL QUESTIONS ON THE INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 14A OF REGULATION NO 543/69 OF THE COUNCIL OF 25 MARCH 1969 ON THE HARMONIZATION OF CERTAIN SOCIAL LEGISLATION RELATING TO ROAD TRANSPORT ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL, ENGLISH SPECIAL EDITION 1969 ( I ), P . 170 ), AS AMENDED BY REGULATION NO 515/72 OF THE COUNCIL OF 28 FEBRUARY 1972 ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL, ENGLISH SPECIAL EDITION 1972 ( I ), P . 134 ) AND COUNCIL REGULATION NO 2827/77 OF 12 DECEMBER 1977 ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL 1977 L 334, P . 1 ).
2 THOSE QUESTIONS AROSE IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS BROUGHT AGAINST THREE UNDERTAKINGS WHICH HAD USED THEIR VEHICLES FOR THE CARRIAGE BY ROAD OF CERTAIN
ANIMAL PRODUCTS INTENDED PRINCIPALLY FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION, IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF REGULATION NO 543/69 CITED ABOVE AND OF THOSE OF REGULATION NO 1463/70 OF THE COUNCIL OF 20 JULY 1970 ON THE INTRODUCTION OF RECORDING EQUIPMENT IN ROAD TRANSPORT ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL, ENGLISH SPECIAL EDITION 1970 ( II ), P . 482 ). IN THE FIRST CASE THE PRODUCTS BEING TRANSPORTED COMPRISED SIDES OF HINDQUARTERS AND FOREQUARTERS OF BEEF OR LAMB TOGETHER WITH BOXES CONTAINING CHICKEN OR IMPORTED BEEF, IN THE SECOND CASE RAW SHEEPSKINS AND IN THE THIRD CASE 21 FOREQUARTERS OF BEEF AND ONE BRISKET CONTAINED IN 31 BOXES .
3 REGULATION NO 543/69 LAYS DOWN RULES REGARDING THE COMPOSITION OF THE CREWS ENGAGED IN THE CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY ROAD WHERE CERTAIN VEHICLES ARE USED ( ARTICLES 5 AND 6 ), THE LIMITATION OF DRIVING PERIODS ( ARTICLES 7 TO 10 ) AND DAILY AND WEEKLY REST PERIODS ( ARTICLES 11 AND 12 ).
4 IN ORDER TO ENSURE THAT THOSE RULES ARE OBSERVED, PROVISION IS MADE FOR CONTROL MEASURES WHICH DIFFER DEPENDING ON WHETHER OR NOT THE VEHICLE IS ASSIGNED TO A REGULAR SERVICE . IN THE LATTER CASE, ARTICLE 14 ( 1 ) PROVIDES THAT CREW MEMBERS ARE TO CARRY AN INDIVIDUAL CONTROL BOOK CONFORMING TO THE MODEL IN THE ANNEX TO THE REGULATION . THE INDIVIDUAL CONTROL BOOK HAS BEEN PROGRESSIVELY REPLACED BY A MONITORING DEVICE ( TACHOGRAPH ), OF WHICH THE INSTALLATION IN VEHICLES WAS MADE COMPULSORY BY REGULATION NO 1463/70, CITED ABOVE .
5 ARTICLE 5 OF REGULATION NO 515/72, CITED, ABOVE INSERTED A NEW ARTICLE, ARTICLE 14A, IN REGULATION NO 543/69, TO WHICH REGULATION NO 2827/77 IN TURN ADDED FURTHER PARAGRAPHS . THE SECOND OF THOSE PARAGRAPHS PROVIDES THAT :
' ' MEMBER STATES MAY, AFTER CONSULTING THE COMMISSION, GRANT EXEMPTIONS FROM THIS REGULATION FOR THE FOLLOWING NATIONAL TRANSPORT OPERATIONS AND USES :
( A ) . . .
( B ). . .
( C)TRANSPORT OF LIVE ANIMALS FROM FARMS TO LOCAL MARKETS AND VICE VERSA, AND TRANSPORT OF ANIMAL CARCASES OR WASTE NOT INTENDED FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION . ' '
6 THE UNITED KINGDOM AVAILED ITSELF OF THE POSSIBILITY OF EXEMPTION PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE 14A ( 2 ) ( C ) BY ADOPTING THE COMMUNITY ROAD TRANSPORT RULES ( EXEMPTIONS ) REGULATIONS 1978, WHICH WERE SUBSEQUENTLY AMENDED, THE PROVISIONS OF REGULATION NO 3 BEING IDENTICAL TO THOSE OF ARTICLE 14A ( 2 ) ( C ) CITED ABOVE .
7 BEFORE THE NATIONAL COURT, THE THREE RESPONDENT UNDERTAKINGS SOUGHT TO RELY UPON THE EXEMPTION PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE 14A ( 2 ) ( C ). THEY CLAIMED THAT THE TRANSPORT OPERATIONS IN RESPECT OF WHICH CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS HAD BEEN BROUGHT AGAINST THEM FELL WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THAT EXEMPTION AND THAT CONSEQUENTLY THEY WERE NOT BOUND TO OBSERVE THE COMMUNITY REQUIREMENTS REGARDING THE OBLIGATION TO FIT TACHOGRAPHS TO VEHICLES USED FOR THE CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY ROAD OR THE OBLIGATION FOR THE CREWS OF SUCH VEHICLES TO CARRY AN INDIVIDUAL CONTROL BOOK .
8 IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES THE NATIONAL COURT STAYED THE PROCEEDINGS AND REFERRED THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS TO THE COURT :
' ' 1 . DOES THE REFERENCE IN PARAGRAPH 2 ( C ) OF ARTICLE 14A OF COUNCIL REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 543/69 OF 25 MARCH 1969 ON THE HARMONIZATION OF CERTAIN SOCIAL LEGISLATION RELATING TO ROAD TRANSPORT ( AS AMENDED BY COUNCIL REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 515/72 OF 28 FEBRUARY 1972 AND COUNCIL REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 2827/77 OF 12 DECEMBER 1977 ) ( HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS ' THE REGULATION ' ) TO ' ANIMAL CARCASES '
APPLY :
( A ) TO ALL ANIMAL CARCASES IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER INTENDED FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION, OR
( B)ONLY TO ANIMAL CARCASES WHICH ARE NOT INTENDED FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION?
2.IF THE ANSWER TO QUESTION 1 IS ( A ), DOES THE REFERENCE IN THE REGULATION TO ' ANIMAL CARCASES '
INCLUDE PARTS OF CARCASES AND, IF SO, SUBJECT TO WHAT IF ANY LIMITATIONS? IN PARTICULAR, DOES THE REFERENCE INCLUDE :
( A)21 FOREQUARTERS OF BEEF AND ONE BRISKET?
( B)SIDE OR QUARTERS?
( C)CHICKEN LEGS?
( D)OFFAL?
3.DOES THE REFERENCE IN THE REGULATION TO ' ANIMAL . . . WASTE . . . INTENDED FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION '
APPLY :
( A)ONLY TO PARTS OF ANIMALS WHICH ARE INTENDED FOR ORAL HUMAN CONSUMPTION, OR
( B)ALSO TO THOSE PARTS OF ANIMALS WHICH ARE INTENDED FOR ANY OTHER USE, E.G . AS ANIMAL FOOD OR FOR INDUSTRIAL OR COMMERCIAL USE, I.E . TO ALL PARTS OF ANIMALS SAVE ONLY THOSE WHICH ARE TO BE MERELY THROWN AWAY OR DESTROYED?
4.IF THE ANSWER TO QUESTION 3 IS ( B ), DOES THE ANIMAL PART CEASE TO BE ' ANIMAL WASTE . . . INTENDED FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION '
AS SOON AS IT IS FIRST TREATED WITH A VIEW TO BEING PREPARED FOR SUCH USE, OR AT A LATER STAGE, AND IF LATER, WHEN?
5.DOES THE REFERENCE IN THE REGULATION TO ' OPERATIONS . . . FOR THE TRANSPORT OF ANIMAL CARCASES OR WASTE . . . '
APPLY :
( A)ONLY WHEN THE LOAD BEING TRANSPORTED CONSISTS EXCLUSIVELY ( SUBJECT ONLY TO DE MINIMIS CONSIDERATIONS ) OF ANIMAL CARCASES OR WASTE, OR
( B)ALSO WHEN THE LOAD BEING TRANSPORTED CONSISTS SUBSTANTIALLY OR IN PART ( AND IF SO, WHAT PROPORTION ) OF ANIMAL CARCASES OR WASTE?
' '
THE FIRST QUESTION
9 BY THE FIRST QUESTION, THE NATIONAL COURT WISHES TO KNOW WHETHER THE EXEMPTION PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE 14A ( 2 ) ( C ) OF REGULATION NO 543/69 COVERS ALL ANIMAL CARCASES OR ONLY THOSE NOT INTENDED FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION .
10 IN THE OBSERVATIONS WHICH IT SUBMITTED TO THE COURT, THE UNITED KINGDOM CLAIMED THAT THE USE OF THE DISJUNCTIVE ' ' OR ' '
BETWEEN THE TERMS ' ' CARCASES ' '
AND ' ' WASTE ' '
AND THE ABSENCE OF A COMMA AFTER THE TERM ' ' WASTE ' '
IN THE ENGLISH, FRENCH AND ITALIAN TEXTS SHOWS THAT THE QUALIFYING WORDS ' ' NOT INTENDED FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION ' '
MUST APPLY ONLY TO WASTE . HOWEVER, THE
UNITED KINGDOM ACKNOWLEDGED THAT AN INTERPRETATION TO THE EFFECT THAT THE QUALIFYING WORDS REFER ALSO TO CARCASES IS LIKEWISE POSSIBLE . WEDDEL & COMPANY LIMITED AND EXETER HIDE AND SKIN COMPANY LIMITED ( HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS ' ' WEDDEL ' '
AND ' ' EXETER ' ' ), TWO OF THE RESPONDENTS IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS, FAVOUR THE RESTRICTIVE INTERPRETATION AND ALSO POINT OUT THAT IF THOSE QUALIFYING WORDS WERE TO APPLY ALSO TO CARCASES, ARTICLE 14A ( 2 ) ( C ) WOULD BE DEPRIVED OF ITS PRACTICAL MEANING SINCE THE CARRIAGE OF CARCASES NOT INTENDED FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION IS VERY RARE .
11 THAT INTERPRETATION CANNOT BE ACCEPTED . AS THE COMMISSION HAS POINTED OUT, WHILST IT IS TRUE THAT, ACCORDING TO CERTAIN LANGUAGE VERSIONS OF ARTICLE 14A ( 2 ) ( C ), BOTH THE VIEW MAINTAINED BY WEDDEL AND EXETER AND, IN PART, BY THE UNITED KINGDOM AND THE OPPOSITE VIEW ARE THEORETICALLY POSSIBLE, OTHER VERSIONS, IN PARTICULAR THE DUTCH LANGUAGE VERSION, ARE WORDED IN SUCH A WAY AS TO EXCLUDE UNCERTAINTY . IN FACT, IN THAT VERSION, THE QUALIFYING WORDS ' ' NOT INTENDED FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION ' '
PRECEDE THE TERM ' ' CARCASES ' '
AND CONSEQUENTLY CAN APPLY ONLY TO BOTH WASTE AND CARCASES .
12 THE INTERPRETATION THUS DERIVING FROM THE UNEQUIVOCAL LANGUAGE VERSIONS IS CONFIRMED BY AN ANALYSIS OF ARTICLE 14A, CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY AND IN THE LIGHT OF ITS LEGAL CONTEXT .
13 ALL THE CASES IN WHICH AN EXEMPTION FROM REGULATION NO 543/69 IS RENDERED POSSIBLE BY ARTICLE 14A RELATE TO TRANSPORT OPERATIONS DISPLAYING PARTICULAR CHARACTERISTICS, BY REASON EITHER OF THE USE OF SPECIALIZED VEHICLES OR OF THE SPECIFIC NATURE OF THE ARTICLES TO BE TRANSPORTED . IT WAS PRECISELY IN VIEW OF THE LATTER FACT THAT REGULATION NO 2827/77, BY INSERTING PARAGRAPH 2 ( C ) IN ARTICLE 14A, ENCOURAGED RAPID TRANSPORT OF ANIMAL CARCASES NOT INTENDED FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION .
14 IN FACT, AS THE COMMISSION HAS RIGHTLY POINTED OUT, CARCASES OF THAT TYPE, BY CONTRAST WITH THOSE INTENDED FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION, DO NOT UNDERGO ANY TREATMENT OF SUCH A KIND AS TO FACILITATE THEIR CONSERVATION OR AVOID THE RISK OF CONTAMINATION . CONSEQUENTLY, THOSE PRODUCTS MUST BE MOVED RAPIDLY IN VIEW OF THE POTENTIAL DANGERS WHICH THEY MAY REPRESENT FOR PUBLIC HEALTH, BOTH HUMAN AND ANIMAL .
15 IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE CARRIAGE OF CARCASES INTENDED FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION, WHICH ACCOUNTS FOR A VERY SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF TRADE, CAN BE CARRIED OUT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF REGULATION NO 543/69 AND WITHOUT ANY RISK TO PUBLIC HEALTH, THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR A GENERALIZED EXEMPTION IN FAVOUR OF THAT TYPE OF CARRIAGE .
16 IN ADDITION, THAT CONCLUSION NECESSARILY FOLLOWS FROM THE FACT THAT SINCE ARTICLE 14A ( 2 ) ENVISAGES DEROGATIONS FROM THE GENERAL RULES CONTAINED IN REGULATION NO 543/69, IT CANNOT BE INTERPRETED SO AS TO EXTEND ITS EFFECTS FURTHER THAN IS NECESSARY FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE INTERESTS WHICH IT IS INTENDED TO SAFEGUARD .
17 IT IS THEREFORE NECESSARY TO STATE IN REPLY TO THE FIRST QUESTION THAT THE TERM ' ' ANIMAL CARCASES ' '
USED IN ARTICLE 14A ( 2 ) ( C ) OF REGULATION NO 543/69 OF THE COUNCIL OF 25 MARCH 1969 ON THE HARMONIZATION OF CERTAIN SOCIAL LEGISLATION RELATING TO ROAD TRANSPORT, AS AMENDED BY REGULATION NO 515/72 OF THE COUNCIL OF 28 FEBRUARY 1972 AND COUNCIL REGULATION NO 2827/77 OF 12 DECEMBER 1977, REFERS SOLELY TO CARCASES WHICH ARE NOT INTENDED FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION .
18 IN VIEW OF THE ANSWER GIVEN TO THE FIRST QUESTION, IT IS UNNECESSARY TO REPLY TO THE SECOND QUESTION .
THE THIRD QUESTION
19 BY THE THIRD QUESTION, THE NATIONAL COURT ASKS, ESSENTIALLY, WHETHER THE TERM ' ' ANIMAL . . . WASTE NOT INTENDED FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION ' '
CONTAINED IN ARTICLE 14A ( 2 ) ( C ) REFERS ALSO TO PARTS OF ANIMALS INTENDED TO BE USED FOR PURPOSES OTHER THAN ORAL CONSUMPTION .
20 ALL THE PARTIES WHICH HAVE SUBMITTED OBSERVATIONS TO THE COURT HAVE EXPRESSED THE VIEW THAT NOT ONLY UNUSABLE REMAINS OF SLAUGHTERED ANIMALS BUT ALSO INEDIBLE ANIMAL BY-PRODUCTS ARE COVERED BY ARTICLE 14A ( 2 ) ( C ).
21 IN THAT CONNECTION, IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT IN ORDINARY LANGUAGE THE TERM ' ' HUMAN CONSUMPTION ' '
CAN MEAN ONLY ' ' USE BY HUMANS AS FOOD ' ' . THAT IS PARTICULARLY CLEAR IN THE CASE OF ARTICLE 14A ( 2 ) ( C ) SINCE THE MOST FREQUENT AND USUAL PURPOSE OF ANIMAL PRODUCTS TO WHICH THAT PROVISION REFERS IS PRECISELY TO FEED HUMAN BEINGS .
22 THAT INTERPRETATION IS NOT CONTRADICTED BY THE SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT TERMS USED IN THE VARIOUS LANGUAGE VERSIONS OF ARTICLE 14A . IN FACT, TERMS SUCH AS ' ' DECHETS D ' ABATTAGE ' ', ' ' SCARTI DI MACELLAZIONE ' ', ' ' SCHLACHTABFALLE ' ', ' ' SLAGTERIAFFALD ' ', ' ' SLACHTAFVALLEN ' '
AND ' ' WASTE ' '
PERFECTLY REFLECT THE IDEA THAT FOR THE PURPOSES OF UTILIZATION OF THE CARCASE OF AN ANIMAL, EVEN THOUGH THE INEDIBLE PARTS MAY BE USED IN NON-FOOD INDUSTRIES SUCH AS THE LEATHER OR FERTILIZER INDUSTRIES, THEY HAVE FAR LESS VALUE AND IMPORTANCE THAN THE EDIBLE PRODUCTS WHICH, FOR THEIR PART, UNDENIABLY REPRESENT THE SOLE ' ' PRIMARY ' '
PRODUCTS OF ANIMAL SLAUGHTER .
23 IT IS THEREFORE NECESSARY TO STATE IN REPLY TO THE THIRD QUESTION THAT THE TERM ' ' ANIMAL . . . WASTE NOT INTENDED FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION ' '
IN ARTICLE 14A ( 2 ) ( C ) REFERS ONLY TO PARTS OF ANIMALS NOT INTENDED FOR ORAL HUMAN CONSUMPTION .
24 IN VIEW OF THE REPLY GIVEN TO THE THIRD QUESTION, IT IS UNNECESSARY TO REPLY TO THE FOURTH QUESTION .
THE FIFTH QUESTION
25 BY THE FIFTH QUESTION, THE NATIONAL COURT ASKS IN ESSENCE WHETHER THE POSSIBILITY OF EXEMPTION ENVISAGED IN ARTICLE 14A ( 2 ) ( C ) APPLIES WHERE THE LOAD BEING TRANSPORTED INCLUDES PRODUCTS NOT COVERED BY THAT EXEMPTION .
26 IF TRANSPORT OPERATIONS WERE ALLOWED EXEMPTION FROM THE APPLICATION OF REGULATION NO 543/69 FOR THE SOLE REASON THAT THEY INCLUDED ANIMAL CARCASES OR WASTE NOT INTENDED FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION, THE PROVISIONS OF REGULATION NO 543/69 COULD READILY BE DEFEATED . THE ADDITION TO THE LOAD BEING
TRANSPORTED OF EVEN A SMALL NUMBER OF CARCASES OR A MINIMAL QUANTITY OF WASTE WOULD SUFFICE TO AVOID THE APPLICATION OF THAT REGULATION .
27 THAT RESULT WOULD BE MANIFESTLY CONTRARY TO THE OBJECTIVES PURSUED BY ARTICLE 14A, WHICH IS INTENDED TO EXEMPT FROM THE APPLICATION OF REGULATION NO 543/69 ONLY SPECIFIC TRANSPORT OPERATIONS .
28 IT IS THEREFORE NECESSARY TO STATE IN REPLY TO THE FIFTH QUESTION THAT THE TERM ' ' OPERATIONS . . . FOR THE TRANSPORT OF ANIMAL CARCASES OR WASTE ' '
USED IN ARTICLE 14A ( 2 ) ( C ) REFERS SOLELY TO OPERATIONS IN WHICH ONLY ANIMAL CARCASES AND WASTE NOT INTENDED FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION ARE TRANSPORTED .
Decision on costs
COSTS
29 THE COSTS INCURRED BY THE UNITED KINGDOM AND BY THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, WHICH HAVE SUBMITTED OBSERVATIONS TO THE COURT, ARE NOT RECOVERABLE . AS THESE PROCEEDINGS ARE, SO FAR AS THE PARTIES TO THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS ARE CONCERNED, IN THE NATURE OF A STEP IN THE ACTION PENDING BEFORE THE NATIONAL COURT, THE DECISION ON COSTS IS A MATTER FOR THAT COURT .
Operative part
ON THOSE GROUNDS,
THE COURT ( FIRST CHAMBER ),
IN ANSWER TO THE QUESTIONS REFERRED TO IT BY THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE, QUEEN ' S BENCH DIVISION, DIVISIONAL COURT, BY ORDER OF 21 APRIL 1983, HEREBY RULES :
1 . THE TERM ' ' ANIMAL CARCASES ' '
USED IN ARTICLE 14A ( 2 ) ( C ) OF REGULATION NO 543/69 OF THE COUNCIL OF 25 MARCH 1969 ON THE HARMONIZATION OF CERTAIN SOCIAL LEGISLATION RELATING TO ROAD TRANSPORT, AS AMENDED BY REGULATION NO 515/72 OF THE COUNCIL OF 28 FEBRUARY 1972 AND COUNCIL REGULATION NO 2827/77 OF 12 DECEMBER 1977, REFERS SOLELY TO CARCASES WHICH ARE NOT INTENDED FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION ;
2.THE TERM ' ' ANIMAL . . . WASTE NOT INTENDED FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION ' '
CONTAINED IN ARTICLE 14A ( 2 ) ( C ) REFERS ONLY TO PARTS OF ANIMALS NOT INTENDED FOR ORAL HUMAN CONSUMPTION ;
3.THE TERM ' ' OPERATIONS . . . FOR THE TRANSPORT OF ANIMAL CARCASES OR WASTE ' '
USED IN ARTICLE 14A ( 2 ) ( C ) REFERS SOLELY TO OPERATIONS IN WHICH ONLY ANIMAL CARCASES AND WASTE NOT INTENDED FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION ARE TRANSPORTED .