Chronic Wasting Disease Herd Certification Program and Interstate Movement of Farmed or Captive Deer, Elk, and Moose, 41682-41707 [06-6367]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
• Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 140 (Friday, July 21, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41682-41707]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-6367]



[[Page 41681]]

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

Part V





Department of Agriculture





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



Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service



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



9 CFR Parts 55 and 81



Chronic Wasting Disease Herd Certification Program and Interstate 
Movement of Farmed or Captive Deer, Elk, and Moose; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 140 / Friday, July 21, 2006 / Rules 
and Regulations

[[Page 41682]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

9 CFR Parts 55 and 81

[Docket No. 00-108-3]
RIN 0579-AB35


Chronic Wasting Disease Herd Certification Program and Interstate 
Movement of Farmed or Captive Deer, Elk, and Moose

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are establishing a herd certification program to eliminate 
chronic wasting disease (CWD) from farmed or captive cervids in the 
United States. Participating deer, elk, and moose herds will have to 
follow program requirements for animal identification, testing, herd 
management, and movement of animals into and from herds. After 5 years 
of enrollment with no evidence of chronic wasting disease, a herd may 
be granted ``Certified'' status. Owners of herds may enroll in a State 
program that we have determined has requirements equivalent to the 
Federal program, or may enroll directly in the Federal program if no 
State program exists. We are also establishing interstate movement 
requirements to prevent the interstate movement of deer, elk, and moose 
that pose a risk of spreading CWD. These actions will help to eliminate 
CWD from the farmed or captive deer, elk, and moose herds in the United 
States.

DATES: Effective Date: October 19, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Dean E. Goeldner, Senior Staff 
Veterinarian, Ruminant Health Programs, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 
43, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 734-4916.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Chronic wasting disease (CWD) is a transmissible spongiform 
encephalopathy (TSE) of cervids (members of Cervidae, the deer family) 
that, as of October 2005, has been found only in wild and captive 
animals in North America and in captive animals in the Republic of 
Korea. First recognized as a clinical ``wasting'' syndrome in 1967, the 
disease is typified by chronic weight loss leading to death. There is 
no known relationship between CWD and any other TSE of animals or 
people. Species known to be susceptible to CWD via natural routes of 
transmission include Rocky Mountain elk, mule deer, white-tailed deer, 
black-tailed deer, and moose. Noncervid ruminant species, including 
wild ruminants and domestic cattle, sheep, and goats, have been housed 
in wildlife facilities in direct or indirect contact with CWD-affected 
deer and elk, and as of June 2005 there has been no evidence of 
transmission of CWD to these other species. Additional studies to 
delineate the host range of CWD are underway.
    In the United States, CWD has been confirmed in free-ranging deer 
and elk in Colorado, Illinois, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, South 
Dakota, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming, and, as of October 
2005, in 31 farmed or captive elk herds in Colorado, Kansas, Minnesota, 
Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Wisconsin, and in 8 
farmed or captive deer herds in New York and Wisconsin. The disease was 
first detected in U.S. farmed elk in 1997. It was also diagnosed in a 
wild moose in Colorado in 2005.
    The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's (APHIS's) 
regulations in 9 CFR subchapter B govern cooperative programs to 
control and eradicate communicable diseases of livestock. In accordance 
with the Animal Health Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 8301 et seq.), the 
Secretary of Agriculture has the authority to issue orders and 
promulgate regulations to prevent the introduction into the United 
States and the dissemination within the United States of any pest or 
disease of livestock, and to pay claims growing out of the destruction 
of animals.
    On December 24, 2003, we published in the Federal Register (68 FR 
74513-74529, Docket No. 00-108-2) a proposal to amend 9 CFR subchapter 
B by establishing regulations in part 55 for a CWD Herd Certification 
Program to help eliminate chronic wasting disease from the farmed or 
captive deer and elk herds in the United States. Under that proposal, 
deer and elk herd owners who choose to participate would have to follow 
program requirements for animal identification, testing, herd 
management, and movement of animals into and from herds. We also 
proposed to amend 9 CFR subchapter B by establishing a new part 81 
containing interstate movement requirements to prevent the interstate 
movement of deer and elk that pose a risk of spreading CWD.
    We solicited comments concerning our proposal for 60 days ending 
February 23, 2004. We received 105 comments by that date, from cervid 
ranches, national and State cervid producer associations, national 
wildlife associations, State wildlife and agriculture agencies, and 
others. These comments are discussed below by topic. In response to 
these comments, APHIS has decided to amend the proposed rule by making 
the following changes:
     Adding moose to the animals covered by the regulations, in 
addition to deer and elk.
     Change the definition of commingled, commingling by 
replacing ``30 feet of physical separation'' with ``10 feet of physical 
separation'' and by eliminating the exception for animals in brief 
contact for less than 48 hours.
     Change the definition of CWD-positive animal to require 
two positive official CWD tests, rather than one.
     Change the definition of CWD-suspect animal to clarify 
that it would include animals that have tested positive to an 
unofficial CWD test.
     Change the definition of herd plan to specify that it must 
be signed by the herd owner, in addition to APHIS and the State, to 
emphasize the involvement of all three parties in a herd plan's 
development.
     Change the requirements for animal identification to 
require that free-ranging animals captured for interstate movement and 
release, like other farmed or captive cervids, must have two forms of 
animal identification, including one form with a nationally unique 
animal identification number. Add ``or other identification approved by 
APHIS'' to the list of allowed identification devices we proposed 
(electronic implant, flank tattoo, ear tattoo, or tamper-resistant ear 
tag).
     Change the interstate movement restrictions for farmed or 
captive cervids to exempt cervids moving directly to slaughter from the 
requirements of Sec.  81.3, ``General restrictions,'' when the sending 
and receiving States have agreed to the movement and certain other 
conditions are met.
     Change the responsibilities for herd owners participating 
in the program to require that they report animal deaths and make the 
carcasses available for testing for all animals 12 months and older, 
rather than 16 months as proposed. Also require herd owners to report 
any animals that escape or disappear.
     Change the inventory requirements for participating herds 
to specify that the ``physical herd inventory with verification 
reconciling animals and identifications with the records maintained by 
the owner'' must be conducted annually, rather than ``upon request'' as 
we proposed. Also change the inventory requirements to make it clear 
that the owner must present the

[[Page 41683]]

entire herd for inspection under conditions where the APHIS employee or 
State representative can safely read all identification on the animals. 
The owner will be responsible for assembling, handling and restraining 
the animals and for all costs and liabilities incurred to present the 
animals for inspection.
     Add a requirement that cervids held for research purposes 
may only be moved interstate under a USDA permit. In the proposal, such 
animals were completely exempt from the requirements of the rule.
     Make minor changes to improve clarity in other sections of 
the rule.

Comments on Definitions in the Proposed Rule

Approved State CWD Herd Certification Program

    One commenter noted that although the term Approved State CWD Herd 
Certification Program appears in the regulations its meaning is not 
defined and must be derived from context. In response we have added a 
definition of this term that reads ``A program operated by a State 
government for certification of cervid herds with respect to CWD that 
the Administrator has determined to meet the requirements of Sec.  
55.23(a).''

Definition of Farmed or Captive

    Several commenters stated that when referring to cervids, the term 
``captive'' should be changed to ``privately owned,'' ``domestic,'' or 
``farmed.'' They stated that the term captive implies the animal was 
captured from the wild, but cervid ranches and farms primarily contain 
animals born on a commercial premises. Some commenters stated that the 
words ``captive'' or ``captured'' have a negative connotation about the 
cervid industry.
    We understand that producers that maintain herds of cervids that 
were born in captivity and do not deal in animals captured from the 
wild believe that their industry is properly associated with other 
livestock industries, and that there may be negative connotations in 
any term that associates them with the capture of wild cervids. 
However, some herds of domesticated elk or deer do in fact contain some 
animals captured from the wild. While this is becoming less common, if 
our certification program only addressed herds in which all animals 
were born into captivity, the program would exclude too many herds, 
reducing the program's effectiveness in controlling CWD. Many State CWD 
regulations and programs recognize the fact that a ``captive'' cervid 
may be either born into a herd or introduced into it from the wild. 
Some States, in their requirements for allowing cervids to enter the 
State, require that the cervid must come from a herd that has been 
monitored for CWD for at least 5 years under a State program, but do 
not require that the cervid must have been born into a captive herd; 
instead, they require that all animals in the source herd must be 
either natural additions or have been in the herd for at least 1 year.
    We believe that to effectively control CWD our certification 
program must address not only cervid herds containing solely 
domesticated cervids born into herds, but also must address herds that 
contain one or more animals introduced from the wild, cervids captured 
from the wild and temporarily maintained in captivity, and cervids 
maintained by zoos and other exhibitors. Also, the term captive cervids 
is already in use in a number of other Federal regulations (e.g., 9 CFR 
Part 77--Tuberculosis, 9 CFR Part 50--Animals Destroyed Because of 
Tuberculosis, and 9 CFR Part 91--Inspection and Handling of Livestock 
For Exportation). It is also used in several State laws, regulations, 
and policy statements. Using an alternate term such as ``domestic 
cervid'' or ``farmed cervid'' in our certification regulations would be 
inconsistent and could cause confusion.
    However, we do agree that incorporating the term ``farmed'' along 
with the term ``captive'' would emphasize the fact that many cervids 
are domestic animals born in captivity. Therefore, we are replacing the 
term ``captive'' with the term ``farmed or captive'' throughout the 
regulations. We are making no change to the definition itself, so in 
this final rule, the term farmed or captive will read as follows: 
``Privately or publicly maintained or held for economic or other 
purposes within a perimeter fence or confined area, or captured from a 
free-ranging population for interstate movement and release.''

Definition of Commingled, Commingling

    Several commenters stated that there is no scientific evidence 
supporting the idea that animals are commingled to the extent that 
disease transmission is possible when the animals are separated by less 
than 30 feet. These commenters stated that CWD transmission at this 
distance would be possible only through aerosol routes, and no evidence 
has ever been found that CWD passes via an aerosol spray from animal to 
animal. Commenters also stated that regulations for control of other 
diseases, e.g., tuberculosis, require separation of only 10 feet to 
prevent commingling.
    Several commenters asked for clarification of how the commingling 
definition would apply to perimeter fencing issues, and whether a 
certified herd would lose its status (become an exposed herd) if its 
premises does not have a double fence with at least 30 feet between the 
fences and a wild cervid in the area is diagnosed with CWD. One 
commenter suggested that perimeter fences that maintain 30 feet of 
separation from wild animals should be clearly required for all farmed 
or captive cervid premises, because, otherwise, commingling with native 
animals could not be avoided, increasing both the risk that captive 
animals would contract CWD from free-ranging animals and the risk that 
farmed or captive animals would spread CWD to free-ranging native 
animals.
    The term commingling is used in the regulations in two distinct 
contexts--that of temporary contact between animals (e.g., during sale 
or transport or at shows) and more long-term contact between animals 
(e.g., when an owner maintains two or more separate herds on one 
premises, in accordance with Sec.  55.23(b)(5)). The criteria used to 
determine that commingling has occurred are especially important 
because if a herd was commingled with a CWD-positive animal, it can be 
declared to be a CWD-exposed herd.
    We agree with the points made by several commenters that it would 
be both unnecessary and burdensome to say that animals are commingled 
if there is not a 30-foot buffer zone between animals at all times. We 
are changing this requirement in the definition of commingling to 10 
feet of separation, and will make it clear that this separation 
distance is adequate for situations where animals are in temporary 
association, such as at auctions or during movement. We are making this 
change because our level of knowledge concerning transmission of CWD 
from animal to animal has increased since the proposed rule was 
written. In the proposed rule we stated ``A buffer zone of 30 feet was 
chosen because in other APHIS disease control programs this distance 
has been shown to be effective in preventing aerosol transmission of 
infective agents from one animal to another. Because there is not yet a 
detailed model of how TSE's are transmitted, APHIS believes it is 
prudent to assume that they might spread short distances as aerosols, 
rather than only through more direct contact.'' Currrent evidence 
indicates that transmission is most likely to occur via an oral-fecal 
route, and that a 10-foot

[[Page 41684]]

buffer zone should prevent this. A buffer zone of 10 feet will prevent 
nose-to-nose contact, make accidental fecal contamination and transfer 
less likely, and is the standard distance we use to prevent 
ectoparasite transfer of other diseases. Ten to 12 feet is also the 
standard distance used for construction of alleyways on farms and 
animal holding facilities, so it will be relatively easy to comply with 
this standard when a producer needs to prevent commingling of animals.
    However, we also believe that it is necessary for separate herds to 
have a buffer zone of more than 10 feet between them because risks of 
cross-herd contamination are increased when different herds are in 
close association for long periods. Therefore, in addition to changing 
``30 feet'' to ``10 feet'' in the definition of commingled, 
commingling, we are also adding the following italicized words to the 
paragraph describing conditions for maintaining separate herds, Sec.  
55.23(b)(5): ``If an owner wishes to maintain separate herds, he or she 
must maintain separate herd inventories, records, working facilities, 
water sources, equipment, and land use. There must be a buffer zone of 
at least 30 feet between the perimeter fencing around separate herds, 
and no commingling of animals may occur. Movement of animals between 
herds must be recorded as if they were separately owned herds.''
    Readers should note that this requirement that herds must be 
separated by 30 feet applies to cases where a single owner maintains 
separate herds, as well as to cases where different owners have 
adjacent herds.
    Several commenters stated that since current scientific information 
indicates CWD is transmitted laterally, animal to animal, there is no 
basis for the ``48-hour exemption.'' One commenter stated that all 
animals grouped together even briefly at a sale or auction should 
assume the status of the lowest program status animal in the group. 
Some commenters stated that the definition's exemption for animals 
commingled for less than 48 hours at sales or auctions is arbitrary, 
but if used, it should also apply to short-term commingling of animals 
outside sales or auction premises, when the owner can document that the 
commingling was for less than 48 hours.
    A zoo association requested that APHIS establish an exemption 
similar to the 48-hour exemption for auctions and sales for zoo animals 
that briefly share holding or hospital pens for the purpose of cleaning 
enclosures or shifting animals.
    The ``48 hour exemption'' exists in various forms in several other 
animal disease control programs, and is based on an assumption that 
transmission of disease between animals is most likely during periods 
of prolonged close contact. APHIS has reexamined this assumption with 
regard to CWD transmission, and has found that there are no completed 
studies of CWD transmission rates that definitively settle the question 
of what length of time contact between animals is needed before there 
is a significant risk of CWD transmission. Therefore, we are removing 
the ``48 hour exemption'' from the definition of commingling. We may 
address the risks associated with brief contacts again in future 
rulemaking if new studies of CWD transmission provide relevant data.
    Commenters also noted that the rule did not clearly describe the 
actions APHIS would take to reduce a herd's program status if its 
animals commingled with animals from a lower-status herd. This 
reclassification of herd status becomes even more important now that we 
have eliminated the ``48 hour exemption'' for sales and auctions, where 
commingling is likely to occur. We agree that Sec.  55.24, Herd status, 
does not sufficiently describe APHIS or State actions that may reduce 
herd status as a result of commingling. Therefore, we are adding a new 
paragraph Sec.  55.24(b)(3) that reads: ``If an APHIS or State 
representative determines that animals from a herd enrolled in the 
program have commingled with animals from a herd with a lower program 
status, the herd with the higher program status will be reduced to the 
status of the herd with which its animals commingled.''
    We expect the two changes discussed above--removing the ``48 hour 
exemption'' and adding an explicit process to reduce the status of 
commingled herds--will result in operational changes at sales, 
auctions, and other sites where animals are at risk of commingling. 
Owners will probably find it useful to plan animal grouping at such 
sites so that only animals with equal program status are grouped 
together.
    Based on some of the comments about commingling, some readers 
appear not to understand that the term is used in the regulations for 
distinct and limited purposes related to contact with other farmed or 
captive cervids, and not related to exposure to wild cervids in a 
farm's vicinity. The concept of commingling is used when determining 
whether groups of animals on a single premises qualify as separate 
herds or not, when determining whether animals have been exposed to 
animals from a herd with a lower program status, and when determining 
whether animals in a suspect herd commingled with a CWD-positive 
animal, in which case the suspect herd will lose its program status and 
will be designated as a CWD-exposed herd. However, as discussed above 
regarding perimeter fence issues, there is nothing in the regulations 
that would reduce a herd's program status based on the lack of a 30-
foot (10-foot, under this final rule) physical separation from animals 
in the wild. Although APHIS encourages double perimeter fencing, the 
requirement in the regulations is for single-fencing. In individual 
cases a herd plan developed to eradicate CWD from a CWD-positive herd, 
to control the risk of CWD in a suspect herd, or to prevent 
introduction of CWD into another herd, may specify double perimeter 
fencing for a particular herd, for example, when there is known CWD 
infection in adjacent captive or wildlife populations.

Definitions of CWD-Exposed Animal and CWD-Exposed Herd

    One commenter pointed out that the defined terms for exposed 
animals and herds omitted cases where the exposure was not to a CWD-
positive animal, but to a CWD-exposed animal (which may later prove to 
be CWD-positive). The commenter suggested creating and defining a term 
to cover such ``exposed to exposed'' contacts for epidemiology 
purposes.
    We agree with the commenter that awareness of ``exposed-to-
exposed'' contacts can help epidemiologic investigations and long-term 
tracking of patterns of CWD transmission. However, exposed animals and 
herds are already subject to restrictions under the regulations, and we 
do not believe that the regulations should impose any additional 
restrictions on ``exposed-to-exposed'' animals. We do plan to emphasize 
the importance of investigating ``exposed-to-exposed'' contacts in our 
nonregulatory guidance to APHIS and State veterinarians conducting 
epidemiologic investigations.

Definitions of CWD-Positive Animal and CWD-Positive Herd

    Several commenters questioned the definition of a CWD-positive 
animal as one that ``has had a diagnosis of CWD confirmed by means of 
an official CWD test.'' These commenters stated that at least two 
positive results from certified laboratories are needed to reliably 
identify a positive animal. The commenters said two tests should be 
required because they believe that errors in samples collected for CWD 
programs

[[Page 41685]]

have been found (e.g., mislabeling or collection of the wrong tissues) 
and that current CWD tests require evaluation of results in a manner 
that is subjective and may be subject to error. Some commenters stated 
that, after an animal tests positive, the owner should have the 
opportunity to have the sample's DNA matched to DNA from the owner's 
animal to prove that the correct sample was tested. One commenter added 
that a positive result on a CWD test is a major crisis to any deer 
farmer, and the expense of a second test and DNA verification is a 
small price to pay to ensure that the process has been free of human or 
other error.
    We agree with the comments suggesting that a determination that an 
animal is CWD-positive should not be based on a single positive test 
result. We are amending the definition of CWD-positive animal to read: 
``An animal that has had a diagnosis of CWD confirmed by means of two 
official CWD tests.'' We expect that, in most cases, the first test 
would be conducted by a State, Federal, or university laboratory 
approved to conduct CWD official tests in accordance with Sec.  55.8, 
and the second, confirmatory test would be conducted at the National 
Veterinary Services Laboratories (NVSL). In some cases, both the 
initial and confirmatory test may be conducted at NVSL.
    With regard to DNA matching to confirm that positive samples are 
indisputably associated with the correct animal, we plan to allow such 
confirmation, at the owner's expense, when the owner of the CWD-
positive animal requests it. DNA verification will be possible because 
our instructions on how to collect and submit tissue samples will 
require submission of all manmade identification devices on the animal, 
with part of the ear or skin to which they are attached, in a manner 
that preserves the chain of custody.

Definition of CWD-Suspect Animal and CWD-Suspect Herd

    Several commenters suggested that it was not clear whether the 
phrase ``laboratory evidence or clinical signs suggest a diagnosis of 
CWD'' in the definitions of CWD-suspect animal and CWD-suspect herd 
meant that an animal or herd could be found to be CWD-suspect based on 
the results of unofficial CWD tests.
    We planned to include unofficial CWD test results as an indicator 
in this definition. To clarify this, we are changing the relevant 
phrase in both definitions to read ``unofficial CWD test results, 
laboratory evidence, or clinical signs suggest a diagnosis of CWD.''
    One commenter pointed out that the definition of CWD-suspect herd 
in Sec.  55.1 said the determination could be made by ``an APHIS 
employee or State representative,'' but the definition of CWD-suspect 
animal in Sec.  81.1 mentions only ``an APHIS employee.'' This was an 
inadvertent omission, and we have added ``or State representative'' to 
the definition of CWD-suspect animal.

Definitions of Deer, Elk, and Moose

    Some commenters noted that the proposed definitions of deer and elk 
were imprecise or incomplete, and there was some confusion about when 
hybrid animals would be considered deer and when they would be 
considered elk. Several commenters asked why certain species were not 
included in either definition when there is no conclusive scientific 
evidence that the species are not susceptible to CWD. Commenters asked 
in particular about sika deer (Cervus nippon), sambar (Cervus 
unicolor), rusa deer (Cervus timorensis), barasingha (Cervus 
duvauceli), and Pere David's deer (Elaphurus davidiensis). Several 
commenters suggested that the definitions be expanded to include more 
deer and elk or other cervids.
    We agree, and are replacing the term ``deer and elk'' with ``deer, 
elk, and moose'' and are defining the term to mean ``all animals in the 
genera Odocoileus, Cervus, and Alces and their hybrids.'' This change 
expands coverage to all species of concern. This final definition was 
developed by identifying the species known to be susceptible to natural 
spread of CWD and then expanding coverage to the complete genera that 
include these species, under the assumption that related animals in a 
genus may share similar susceptibility to CWD even when all species in 
the genus have not been shown to be susceptible. We have expanded 
coverage to include moose (genus Alces) because CWD was recently 
diagnosed in a moose for the first time. We have not expanded coverage 
to genera in which no species has demonstrated susceptibility via 
natural routes of transmission. To do so would extend the requirements 
of this rule without a sound basis, unnecessarily increasing the burden 
on regulated parties, especially zoos with large and varied animal 
collections. We are prepared to extend the definition in the future if 
new research demonstrates additional species in other genera are 
susceptible to CWD by natural routes of transmission. This change 
should make it clear that the same program requirements apply to deer, 
elk, moose, and any hybrids of these animals.

Definition of Herd Plan

    Several commenters addressed the part of the herd plan definition 
that said a herd plan, among other things, will specify ``the time for 
which a premises must not contain cervids after CWD-positive, -exposed, 
or -suspect animals are removed from the premises.'' These commenters 
stated that there should be a permanent ban on raising cervids on any 
property that once contained CWD-positive animals, due to risks of 
environmental transmission of CWD.
    We do not agree with these comments. The definition's language will 
allow a herd plan to prohibit cervids from a premises for an 
appropriate period based on the specific risks and conditions of the 
individual herd. Ongoing and future research may help resolve many 
questions about environmental transmission of CWD and establish 
reasonable standards for when it is safe to repopulate a previously 
contaminated premises. Establishing permanent restrictions on 
repopulating premises with cervids would be unnecessarily broad and 
harsh when, in most cases, tailored herd plans can be used to minimize 
both the risk of CWD transmission and the financial burden on owners of 
premises. The length of a ban on restocking may be stated as an actual 
time period in months or years, or it may be condition-dependent, e.g., 
a herd plan might prohibit restocking based on the presence or levels 
of CWD in surrounding herds or wildlife.
    Some commenters suggested that the definition of a herd plan in 
part 55 should state that it must be approved and signed by all three 
involved parties--APHIS, the State, and the herd owner. As proposed, it 
seemed that the document was executed between APHIS and the State but 
affected the herd owner.
    As described in the proposal, the herd plan will be developed with 
extensive input from the herd owner, because it will include procedures 
developed to address the particular risks and situation of a herd. We 
agree that, although the APHIS Administrator has the ultimate authority 
to determine that a herd plan is adequate, all three involved parties 
should approve and sign the herd plan. Therefore we have changed the 
language in the definition to state that a herd plan will become 
effective after ``it has been reviewed and signed by the Administrator, 
the State representative, and the herd owner.''
    One commenter stated that the herd plan definition's requirement 
for ``regular examination of animals in the herd by a veterinarian for 
clinical signs

[[Page 41686]]

of disease'' was vague, and could mean veterinarians must examine 
animals once a year, every month, or any other frequency.
    We intend to establish the frequency of veterinary examination for 
each herd in the body of the herd plan developed specifically for the 
herd. We did not specify a frequency in the rule because it will be set 
based on the particular circumstances and risk conditions associated 
with each herd.
    A zoological association commented that the herd plan definition 
could impose a tremendous burden on zoos with its requirement for 
``reporting to a State or APHIS representative of any clinical signs of 
a central nervous system disease or chronic wasting condition in the 
herd.'' The association interpreted this to mean that zoo veterinarians 
would have to report every cervid that exhibits chronic weight loss or 
an unsteady gait, both of which are common in older animals.
    We believe this commenter did not take into account that this 
requirement applies only to herds that are under a herd plan, and that 
most zoos will not be subject to herd plans. A zoo, like any herd, 
would become subject to a herd plan only after it is found to be CWD-
positive, CWD-exposed, or CWD-suspect. This should happen to zoos only 
rarely, but when it does, it is important that all clinical signs that 
may indicate CWD be reported and investigated.

Consistency Between CWD Regulations and Other TSE Regulations

    Several commenters stated that the regulations for CWD, BSE, and 
scrapie should have similar structures, accepted risk levels, and 
effects. They stated that TSE causal agents for each disease and their 
effects on ruminants are sufficiently similar to demand virtually 
complete compatibility between regulations. They said that the 
continuing risk of cross contamination between species also requires 
regulatory consistency. Another reason they provided for consistency 
between CWD, BSE, and scrapie regulations is that, without it, cervid 
producers may be subject to discriminatory, anti-farming regulatory 
pressures. Some commenters suggested that farmed or captive deer, and 
elk generally should be treated the same as other domestic livestock. 
Some commenters questioned why owners of farmed or captive cervids are 
expected to test 100 percent of on-farm mortalities, while owners of 
cattle (potentially affected by BSE) test very few on-farm mortalities 
and a fraction of downer animals sent to slaughter, and owners of sheep 
(potentially affected by scrapie) usually test only animals exhibiting 
clinical signs of scrapie.
    In responding to these comments, we emphasize that the TSE diseases 
that affect different species of domestic livestock are not all the 
same disease. They have different modes of transmission and different 
pathogenicity, and taking these facts into account means that we cannot 
have the same approaches for all of our TSE programs and still attain 
our goals. At this point in time, the BSE program is a surveillance and 
prevention program, not a disease control program like the CWD 
certification program, and, as such, requires completely different 
standards and testing levels. The scrapie program, like the CWD 
program, is a certification program for an endemic disease. Where 
possible, we have tried to make the CWD program consistent with the 
scrapie certification program. However, several factors make it 
necessary that participants in the CWD program, unlike the scrapie 
program, must make all herd mortalities (over 12 months of age) and all 
animals sent to slaughter available for sample collection and testing. 
The most obvious reason for this difference is that two powerful 
surveillance tools are available to the scrapie program that are not 
available to the CWD program, a live animal test for scrapie and 
scrapie susceptibility genotyping.

The 5-Year Standard

    Many commenters addressed the provisions of the rule that use a 5-
year standard regarding risks of CWD. Some commenters questioned the 
part of these definitions that would classify an animal or herd as 
exposed based on contact with a CWD-positive animal anytime within the 
preceding 5 years. These commenters stated that including exposure that 
occurred 5 years before is not based on known risk or scientific fact, 
and suggested that a 3-year limit would be sufficient.
    The 5-year standard is used in the definitions of commingled, CWD-
exposed animal, and CWD-exposed herd, and the progress of a herd to 
``Certified'' status also requires 5 years of monitoring without 
evidence of CWD. All of these uses assume that a cervid that contracts 
CWD will develop signs of the disease--in fact will almost certainly 
die from the disease--in less than 5 years. Based on that assumption, 
the rule requires investigation of an animal or herd's exposure to 
incidents within the past 5 years and, if a herd is continually 
monitored for CWD for 5 years without positive test results, the CWD 
risk in the herds is considered low.
    All commenters agreed that the incubation period for CWD is less 
than 5 years. The key question for many commenters is, how much less? 
The expense of participating in the CWD program increases incrementally 
with the length of time required to reach ``Certified'' status. Also, 
with regard to exposure to CWD, many more animals and herds must be 
considered exposed if we consider exposure that happened 5 years ago 
than if we consider only exposures that happened in the past 2 or 3 
years.
    Many commenters suggested that a 3-year standard for exposure and 
for reaching ``Certified'' status is adequate and is justified by 
scientific research on the CWD incubation period. A few commenters also 
suggested either shorter or longer periods than 3 years for this 
standard. In addition to citing scientific research that supported an 
incubation period of from 24 to 34 months, some commenters also 
referred to State animal health agency records as supporting a 3-year 
standard. They stated that records of trace-back and trace-forward 
investigations of animals associated with CWD-positive herds did not 
show any cases where a CWD-positive animal acquired the disease more 
than 30 months prior to diagnosis. Some commenters stated that using a 
5-year standard is arbitrary and simply incorporates a 2-year safety 
margin. Some commenters stated that certain existing State CWD programs 
allow animals to move into their States after only 3 years of 
monitoring for CWD.
    We are not changing the 5-year standard in response to these 
comments. The choice of 5 years was made based on several factors, 
including the probable maximum incubation time for CWD and program 
design decisions about time spans realistically needed for all the 
participants in a herd certification program (Federal and State animal 
health personnel, cervid producers, laboratories, and others) to 
perform all the duties required of them.
    The goal of the CWD certification program is to rapidly eliminate a 
disease that is not currently widespread in the farmed cervid 
industries. It will take much longer to achieve this goal if the 
program standards are set too low at the outset and must be made more 
stringent later; if, for example, we applied a 3-year standard at the 
outset only to find that it allowed CWD-positive animals to further 
spread CWD without being detected. Until there is definitive data to 
allow for less stringent measures, we must use a conservative approach 
based on current knowledge.
    We agree that many studies suggest an average incubation period for 
CWD of

[[Page 41687]]

no more than 36 months. For example, a study \1\ in captive elk at the 
Colorado Division of Wildlife, Foothills Wildlife Research facility, 
found that the average incubation period for elk in its herd that were 
naturally exposed to CWD in a contaminated environment was 26 months 
(range 18-36 months). However, in this same group of elk and in the 
same pens, there was a case of CWD in an individual animal that 
occurred 5 years after the last CWD death in the herd. This could have 
been the result of a later environmental exposure or it could represent 
a 5-year incubation period.\2\ Preliminary reports from an ongoing 
APHIS and Agricultural Research Service research project in Ames, IA 
have also identified animals that did not show signs of disease until 
at least 4 years after infection, and animals that do not show signs of 
disease 4 years after infection but that test positive for CWD through 
unofficial tests such as rectal biopsy and the third eyelid test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Miller et al., 1998 Epidemiology of Chronic Wasting Disease 
in Captive Rocky Mountain Elk, Journal of Wildlife Diseases, 34:532-
538.
    \2\ Miller, personal communication.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In pathogenesis studies \3\ in mule deer and elk at the University 
of Wyoming, high dose oral inoculation produced an average incubation 
(from exposure to onset of clinical disease) of 23 months (range 15 
months to >25 months) in mule deer. Similar work in elk showed the 
range of incubation was 12-34 months. The researchers acknowledged that 
experimental infections (single dose oral exposure to brain material) 
probably underestimates natural incubation times as it is likely that 
greater exposure results in shorter duration of incubation. In other 
words, experimental infections most likely represent the range of 
minimum incubation times. Maximum incubation times are not known but 
most likely exceed 25 months for mule deer and 34 months for elk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\Williams et al. 2002. Chronic Wasting Disease of Deer and 
Elk. A Review With Recommendations for Management. Journal of 
Wildlife Management 66(3): 551-563.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these reasons, we believe that incubation periods for low dose 
natural exposures may be longer than incubation periods for high dose 
oral inoculations used in most research. Based on the information we 
have now, the longest incubations likely fall between 3 and 5 years. 
This supports establishing the program with a 5-year timeframe for 
tracing animals and certifying herds to ensure the program locates CWD-
positive animals.
    We anticipate that research, monitoring, and surveillance will 
reveal more precise data about CWD transmission over the next few 
years. If new data support changing the 5-year standard, APHIS will 
initiate rulemaking to modify it.

Animal Identification

    Many commenters addressed the proposed animal identification 
requirements. Some requested more flexibility in the type of approved 
identification so that producers could make better economic decisions 
about what type of identification worked best for their herds. We 
agree, and have added the phrase ``or other device approved by APHIS'' 
to the lists of approved identification devices (electronic implant, 
flank tattoo, ear tattoo, or tamper-resistant ear tag) in Sec.  55.25, 
Animal identification and Sec.  81.2, Identification of deer, elk, and 
moose in interstate commerce. We will approve alternative 
identification on a case-by-case basis as the program is implemented. 
The criteria for approving identification devices will be whether they 
provide permanent, secure identification, are cost effective, and are 
practical for those who must apply and read the devices.
    Many cervid producers commented that the proposal to require two 
forms of official identification would be very burdensome, due to the 
expense and difficulty of assembling and restraining an entire herd to 
apply the devices. This involves high labor costs, risks of harming the 
animals, and, if tranquilizer darts are used, dart drug costs of $30 to 
$35 per animal. Some commenters suggested that APHIS could mitigate 
this burden by phasing in the two identification requirements over the 
first 2 or 3 years of program participation. Some commenters also 
suggested that a second form of official identification should only be 
required when animals are moved from an owner's premises, not for every 
animal in the herd.
    We are making several changes to the animal identification 
requirements, discussed below, in response to these comments. We also 
intend to work with producers when they enroll in the program to allow 
them to apply the required animal identification at a time and in a 
manner that minimizes the burden on the producer, who is responsible 
for ensuring that animals are identified when required and for the 
costs associated with identifying the animals.
    When applying identification devices, producers may be able to 
schedule identification activities at a time when they already need to 
restrain animals, such as the annual physical inventory, or may be able 
to apply identification to a few animals at a time over extended 
periods, or may find other ways to economize on the process. More 
information is being developed on flexible alternatives for 
accomplishing program requirements, including application of animal 
identification devices required by the program, and this information 
will be made available to the public when it is ready.
    We are not eliminating the requirement for a second form of animal 
identification because accurate identification is a critical element of 
the program, and loss or obliteration of identification devices is 
quite common with cervids. A producer who can't logistically meet the 
identification and inventory standards will be unable to participate in 
the CWD Herd Certification Program. Participation must be contingent on 
ability to meet the requirements, or the program will lose 
effectiveness and industry confidence. Producers who want their herds 
to achieve ``Certified'' status may need to alter their management 
practices in order to meet program requirements.
    However, we are changing the identification requirement so that 
only one of the two required identification devices attached to the 
animal must have a nationally unique animal identification number that 
is linked to that animal in the CWD National Database, where 
information on the animal's current herd may be cross-referenced. The 
other animal identification device need only be unique within the 
animal's herd; that is, it does not need a nationally unique number, 
but may instead merely identify the herd and distinguish different 
animals in the herd. Since the second means of animal identification is 
only required to be unique for the individual animal within its herd, 
this should allow continued use of most existing forms of animal 
identification as the required second means of identification.
    To accomplish this change, we are separating the proposed defined 
term official identification into two new defined terms, animal 
identification and official animal identification. We are also 
retitling Sec.  55.25, Official identification, as Animal 
identification, and are changing it as described below.
    We define animal identification as a device or means of animal 
identification approved by APHIS for use under 7 CFR part 55. The 
definition also notes that examples of animal identification devices 
that APHIS has approved are listed in Sec.  55.25.
    We define official animal identification to mean devices or means 
of animal identification approved by

[[Page 41688]]

APHIS to uniquely identify individual animals, with examples provided 
in Sec.  55.25. The definition states that official animal 
identification must include a nationally unique animal identification 
number that adheres to either the National Uniform Eartagging System, 
the AIN (Animal identification number) system, a premises-based 
numbering system that uses an official premises identification number 
(PIN), or another numbering system approved by the Administrator for 
the identification of animals in commerce.
    Revised Sec.  55.25, Animal identification, now says that each 
animal required to be identified must have at least two forms of animal 
identification attached to the animal, that the means of animal 
identification must be an electronic implant, flank tattoo, ear tattoo, 
tamper-resistant ear tag, or other device approved by APHIS. The 
revised section states that one of the animal identifications must be 
official animal identification as defined, with a nationally unique 
animal identification number that is linked to that animal in the CWD 
National Database. The second animal identification must be unique for 
the individual animal within the herd and also must be linked to that 
animal and herd in the CWD National Database.
    The nationally unique identification number and all the animal's 
identification data from the second form of identification will be 
entered into the CWD National Database. This will allow an authorized 
user of the CWD National Database to use either identification number 
to retrieve all information on the animal and its herd and premises.
    The nationally unique identification number approach is consistent 
with the national animal identification system (NAIS) that APHIS is in 
the process of developing and implementing in cooperation with States 
and animal industries. The NAIS is intended to be an effective, 
uniform, consistent, and efficient national animal identification 
system. An overview of the NAIS is available at https://
animalid.aphis.usda.gov/nais/index.shtml.
    To make our CWD regulations consistent with the NAIS approach that 
is under development, we are also adding a definition recently added to 
other APHIS domestic livestock regulations. On November 8, 2004, we 
published in the Federal Register an interim rule concerning livestock 
identification and the use of numbering systems for identification 
devices (69 FR 64644-64651; Docket No. 04-052-1). The interim rule 
amended the APHIS regulations that address interstate movement of 
livestock (9 CFR parts 71, 77, 78, 79, 80, and 85). One purpose of the 
interim rule was to authorize use of an alternative numbering system 
for individual animal identification that assigns a unique number to 
each animal identified under the system, to encourage consistency with 
the NAIS. The interim rule included definitions of animal 
identification number (AIN) and premises identification number (PIN), 
which we are adding to the CWD regulations in 9 CFR parts 55 and 81. 
The definition of animal identification number (AIN) reads: ``A 
numbering system for the official identification of individual animals 
in the United States. The AIN contains 15 digits, with the first 3 
being the country code (840 for the United States), the alpha 
characters USA, or the numeric code assigned to the manufacturer of the 
identification device by the International Committee on Animal 
Recording.'' The definition of premises identification number reads: 
``Premises identification number (PIN). A unique number assigned by a 
State or Federal animal health authority to a premises that is, in the 
judgment of the State or Federal animal health authority, a 
geographically distinct location from other livestock production units. 
The premises identification number is associated with an address or 
legal land description and may be used in conjunction with a producer's 
own livestock production numbering system to provide a unique 
identification number for an animal. The premises identification number 
may consist of: (1) The State's two-letter postal abbreviation followed 
by the premises' assigned number; or (2) A seven-character alphanumeric 
code, with the right-most character being a check digit. The check 
digit number is based upon the ISO 7064 Mod 36/37 check digit 
algorithm.''
    This definition of AIN is added to clarify the sentence in the new 
definition of official animal identification that reads: ``The official 
animal identification for an animal must include a nationally unique 
animal identification number, such as an AIN number.'' While the rule 
does not require use of an AIN--other nationally unique identification 
numbers can meet the requirement--we wanted to make it clear, in 
preparation for implementation of the NAIS, that NAIS-compliant 
individual animal identification will also meet the requirements of 
this CWD rule.
    Some commenters suggested that the regulations should specifically 
``grandfather in'' as animal identification any form of identification 
that is currently accepted by a State CWD program.
    We are not giving blanket approval to all forms of identification 
currently used by a State CWD program because we may not be aware of 
the characteristics of all such devices in use, and a few may not be 
adequate for program purposes. We do expect to approve most, if not 
all, identification devices in use by State CWD programs, under the 
provision we are adding (discussed above) to allow identification by 
``any other device approved by APHIS.''
    Some commenters suggested that cervids captured from a free-ranging 
population for interstate movement and release should also be required 
to have two forms of animal identification because such animals are not 
regularly observed and hence are more likely to lose one form of 
identification between extended observation periods.
    We agree, and we are changing the requirements for animal 
identification to require that free-ranging animals captured for 
interstate movement and release, like other farmed or captive cervids, 
must have two forms of animal identification, one of which must be 
official animal identification. We are making this change by removing 
the phrase ``except for free-ranging animals captured for interstate 
movement and release in accordance with Sec.  81.3(b), which must have 
at least one form of identification'' from Sec.  81.2, Identification 
of deer, elk, and moose in interstate commerce, and revising the phrase 
``has at least one form of official identification'' in Sec.  81.3(b) 
to read, ``has two forms of animal identification, one of which is 
official animal identification.''
    Several commenters asked whether there was a specific age before 
which animals in participating herds must be officially identified.
    The proposed rule did not establish a specific age by which animals 
must be identified. We did not do so because local herd conditions will 
affect both when identification is needed, and when it is practical to 
apply it. However, the commenters are correct that the rule should be 
more specific about when identification must be applied, both to help 
herd owners comply with the requirement and to ensure that the animals 
are officially identified before certain events that present risks of 
spreading CWD can take place, such as interstate or intrastate movement 
of the animal from the premises, which may result in exposure to other 
animals.
    Therefore, we are adding the following sentences to paragraph 
(b)(1) of Sec.  55.23, Responsibilities of herd owners: ``All animals 
in an enrolled herd must be identified before reaching

[[Page 41689]]

12 months of age. In addition, all animals of any age in an enrolled 
herd must be identified before being moved from the herd premises. In 
addition, all animals in an enrolled herd must be identified before the 
inventory required under paragraph (b)(4) of this section, and animals 
found to be in violation of this requirement during the inventory must 
be identified during or after the inventory on a schedule specified by 
the APHIS employee or State representative conducting the inventory.'' 
We are using 12 months as the age by which animals must be identified 
because that age has been suggested before by industry members as a 
reasonable standard, and because the seasonal nature of livestock 
management means that herd management events where applying 
identification is feasible are likely to repeat on a 12-month cycle.
    We expect that many herd owners will use the annual inventory 
process as an opportunity to apply animal identification to animals 
born into the herd in the prevous year. The Uniform Methods and Rules 
for the Chronic Wasting Disease Herd Certification Program (UM&R) 
describes other situations where owners may wish to apply 
identification at other times.

APHIS Authority To Regulate Wild Cervid Capture and Release

    Several commenters stated that APHIS is overstepping its authority 
by regulating interstate movement of cervids captured and released from 
a free-ranging population. The commenters believe that any regulation 
of such movement should be under the authority of the respective State 
wildlife agencies. The commenters did not oppose requiring animal 
identification and documentation that such animals are free from CWD 
for such movements, but they did oppose including such requirements in 
APHIS regulations.
    APHIS works cooperatively on CWD issues with many State wildlife 
agencies and will continue to do so. We rely on these agencies to apply 
and administer their State authorities over wildlife in support of 
mutual State-Federal goals for CWD control. We will work cooperatively 
with these agencies to achieve safe, low-risk movement of cervids 
captured and released from a free-ranging population. APHIS shares with 
State wildlife agencies the goal of avoiding the establishment of CWD 
in wildlife in new areas.
    APHIS does not agree that we are exceeding our authority in 
applying regulatory requirements in an APHIS rule to the capture and 
release of cervids from a free-ranging population. The Animal Health 
Protection Act of 2002 (``the Act'') grants the Secretary of 
Agriculture (and by delegation of authority, the Administrator of 
APHIS) ample authority to do so. Under the Act, the Secretary may 
prohibit or restrict the movement in interstate commerce of any animal 
if the Secretary determines that it is necessary to prevent the 
introduction or dissemination of any pest or disease of livestock.
    Under the Act's definitions, it is clear that this authority 
extends to regulating the interstate movement of cervids captured from 
one free-ranging population for release in another such population. The 
Act broadly defines animal as ``any member of the animal kingdom 
(except a human),'' which includes wild cervids. The Act broadly 
defines interstate commerce to include ``trade, traffic, or other 
commerce'' between or through U.S. States, territories, and 
possessions. The act of capturing animals, moving them interstate, and 
releasing them falls within this scope. The Act's definition of move 
specifically covers, among other things, the act of transporting, and 
the act of releasing into the environment; both apply to the 
translocation of captured cervids. It is not uncommon for multiple 
governmental agencies to have authority over the same things or 
transactions for similar or different purposes. One agency having 
authority to regulate a thing or transaction for one purpose does not 
preclude another agency from having authority over the same thing for a 
similar or different purpose. This is especially true when dealing at 
different levels of government, but is also true when dealing within 
the Federal government or within a State's or other jurisdiction's 
regulatory scheme. Nothing precludes such multiple authorities over the 
same thing or transaction, if each agency exercising authority with 
regard to the thing or transaction in question has the requisite 
jurisdiction to do so. The Secretary (and by delegation of authority, 
the Administrator of APHIS) has clearly been granted that authority 
under the Animal Health Protection Act.

Applicability To Hunting Operations

    Several commenters suggested that hunting ranches should be 
regulated in an alternate manner that recognizes the constraints that 
exist for these farms. According to the commenters, most hunting 
operations are very large premises that do not normally restrain their 
animals' movements within the premises, making identification and 
inventory very difficult. Commenters said that detection of incidental 
mortalities throughout the year in order to make tissues available for 
testing would be difficult and that dead animals in such facilities 
might not be located quickly enough to obtain samples suitable for 
testing. Commenters said that hunting operations are also seasonal, 
meaning that the requirement that all animals that die on the premises 
must be made available for testing would mean a flood of sampling for 4 
to 5 months each year when hunters kill animals on the premises. They 
said that the volume of work during this period could adversely affect 
the quality of tissue collection, recordkeeping, and laboratory 
analysis. These commenters suggested that instead of the CWD 
Certification program as proposed, hunting operations could participate 
in a surveillance and monitoring program that was harvest-based, 
without strict animal identification and inventory requirements but 
including testing a statistical sample of each year's harvest for 3 to 
5 years.
    APHIS is willing to work with hunting premises owners and States to 
consider and evaluate suggested alternative approaches for hunting 
premises to meet program requirements. However, none of the approaches 
suggested in comments would be adequate to detect the presence of CWD 
with sufficient confidence to allow certification of the herd or to 
control the spread of CWD in hunting premises effectively. We believe 
that identification of all animals, an annual herd inventory, and 
extensive testing are the keystones of an effective CWD program, and 
these are the requirements that hunting premises owners asked us to 
reduce or eliminate. Alternative surveillance programs that sample a 
percentage of animals in hunting herds and that do not include 
identifying and inventorying all animals might ameliorate some concern 
about the presence of CWD, but we do not believe such an approach could 
provide the same degree of confidence that the CWD certification 
program requirements provide. If hunting premises owners want their 
herds to be certified, they must meet the requirements for the 
certification program.

Eligibility of Cervid Owners To Participate in the Program and 
Enrollment Dates

    Some commenters suggested that CWD Certification Program 
participation should be limited to herd owners with no prior violations 
of State laws and regulations for livestock and animal care.
    We agree with the spirit of this comment but believe that banning 
producers with ``any violation'' would

[[Page 41690]]

be too severe and could unnecessarily reduce participation in the 
program and program effectiveness. While sometimes APHIS officials may 
have information about relevant violations by applicants, we believe 
the enforcement and recordkeeping activities of State governments 
usually make them the best level to address questions about when 
particular producers have committed violations that indicate they are 
unlikely to comply with CWD Certification Program requirements fully 
and honestly. State veterinarians and other officials can address this 
question when deciding whether to admit a herd to their Approved State 
CWD Herd Certification Program or, in cases where there is no approved 
State program, the State veterinarians can still advise APHIS officials 
about violations by applicants applying to enter the Federal program 
directly. If an applicant has committed relevant violations, this may 
be cause to refuse consideration of the application if the violations 
are known at the time of application, or to deny the application if the 
violations are discovered later during evaluation of the application. 
To make this clear, we are adding the following sentence to Sec.  
55.22, Participation and enrollment: ``An application for participation 
may be denied if APHIS or the State determines that the applicant has 
previously violated State or Federal laws or regulations for livestock, 
and that the nature of the violation indicates that the applicant may 
not faithfully comply with the requirements of the CWD Herd 
Certification Program.''
    Several commenters addressed procedures for ``grandfathering'' 
herds already in State CWD programs into the APHIS CWD Certification 
Program. Some believe that herds that have complied with a State 
program should be grandfathered in with the status they have achieved, 
even if their State program has not been designated as an Approved 
State CWD Herd Certification Program under APHIS regulations. 
Commenters stated that producers should not be penalized simply because 
their State, for whatever reason, did not, does not, or will not 
cooperate to get Federal recognition for the State program. Commenters 
also addressed the problem of ``grandfathered'' credit for herd owners 
who wish to enroll directly in the Federal CWD program because there is 
no State program available to them. Such owners may have maintained 
their herds for some time, in some type of voluntary individual or 
other non-State program, under conditions equivalent to the Federal 
program standards (animal identification, monitoring, testing of 
suspect animals, restrictions on animals added to the herd, etc.), and 
should receive some sort of credit for this.
    We generally agree that herd owners should be given appropriate 
credit for time their herds were maintained under restrictions 
equivalent to those in the Federal CWD program, whether that time was 
spent enrolled in a State program that later becomes an Approved State 
CWD Herd Certification Program, in a State program that does not choose 
to apply to be approved, or in some other program that nevertheless 
applied the same sort of herd maintenance conditions. Whenever we 
evaluate an existing State CWD program that has applied for approval 
and participation in the National CWD Program, we will carefully 
compare the requirements of the program as followed by that State to 
determine that the State, and thus herds in good standing in the 
State's program, have met the minimum standards of our program. For 
herds in States that have not applied to become Approved State CWD Herd 
Certification Prog