[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 85 (Tuesday, May 4, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 23795-23796]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-11130]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 85 / Tuesday, May 4, 1999 / Proposed
Rules
[[Page 23795]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
9 CFR Chapter I
[Docket 98-085-1]
RIN 0579-AB09
Aquaculture: Farm-Raised Fin Fish
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking and request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are considering establishing programs and regulations for
farm-raised fin fish. A national program could help protect the health
of farm-raised fin fish, help producers of farm-raised fin fish meet
international trade requirements, and help encourage international
trade in U.S. aquaculture products. We are asking for comments on
whether we should establish such programs and, if so, the type and
extent of the programs. We are also asking for comments on whether to
use negotiated rulemaking to develop regulations for any programs that
we may establish.
DATES: Consideration will be given only to comments received on or
before July 6, 1999.
ADDRESSES: Please send an original and three copies of your comment to
Docket No. 98-085-1, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS,
suite 3C03, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please
state that your comments refer to Docket No. 98-085-1. Comments
received may be inspected at USDA, room 1141, South Building, 14th
Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC, between 8 a.m. and
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. Persons wishing to
inspect comments are requested to call ahead on (202) 690-2817 to
facilitate entry into the comment reading room.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Otis Miller, Jr., National
Aquaculture Coordinator, National Animal Health Programs, VS, APHIS,
4700 River Road Unit 43, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231, (301) 734-6954.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has received 21
petitions asking us to promulgate animal health regulations and perhaps
other regulatory programs to deal with farm-raised fin fish as
livestock. These petitions are from State farm bureaus, industry
associations, individual producers, State officials, and businesses
that serve aquaculture industries.
One petition requested that we define domesticated farm-raised fish
as livestock ``so that USDA can provide farmers with needed services
identical to those received by other American farm raised animals.''
Most of the petitions we have received addressed only farm-raised
fin fish. However, several addressed a broader range of aquatic
species. One letter stated that we should recognize the entire
industry--``clams, aquatic plants, alligators, tropical fish, and fish
raised for human consumption''--as ``general farming.'' One stated that
we should define ``farmed aquatic animals, such as fish and shrimp,''
as livestock. Another asked us to define ``domesticated farm-raised
fish and shellfish'' as livestock. Other letters suggested that we
consider domestically raised fish and shellfish as livestock, and
stated that ``[a]quatic farmers are a diverse group growing a number of
species of fish, crustaceans, and mollusks.''
The petitioners are concerned mainly with receiving the same
services that domestic producers of livestock receive for animals
moving in interstate and foreign commerce. Examples are diagnostic and
certification services, protecting the industry by preventing
importation of pests and diseases, and supporting commerce by
simplifying interstate movement (now, each State sets its own
requirements).
Based on the petitions, it is difficult for us to determine what
segments of the aquaculture industry want services and exactly what
sevices they want. It is also difficult to determine what the different
petitioners want to accomplish by inviting Federal regulation.
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is
authorized to regulate to protect the health of livestock and poultry
in the United States. We have many regulatory programs covering
poultry, horses, swine, cattle, and other livestock. Our regulatory
programs also cover animals that could transmit diseases or pests of
livestock or poultry. Our programs for ``traditional'' livestock are
intended to: (1) Prevent the importation of diseases and pests; (2)
regulate interstate movement in a uniform manner; (3) provide
diagnostic laboratory services; (4) regulate vaccines and biologic
reagents used in animals; and (5) control and/or eradicate diseases and
pests already found in the United States.
Based on the petitions we have received, we are considering whether
to expand services to farm-raised fin fish. We already provide some
services to aquaculture industries. Specifically, we provide laboratory
diagnostic services, endorse export health certificates for aquatic
animals and aquatic animal products, and license vaccines and biologic
reagents for use in aquatic animals. We also control damage done by
wild birds and other animals to farmed aquatic animals. Some of these
services are paid for through user fees and cooperative agreements. If
we were to offer additional services and programs, we would need funds
to pay for them. We are interested in comments on how such services and
programs should be funded.
What Programs and Regulations Should We Establish?
Before we decide whether to propose regulations covering farm-
raised fin fish, we want the views and recommendations of all
interested persons on the following specific issues:
1. We have received petitions to promulgate rules and regulations
concerning domesticated farm-raised fin fish. However, as many of the
petitions acknowledge, U.S. aquaculture industries include more than
just domesticated fin fish. Letters referred not only to fish, but to
clams, alligators, tropical fish (for aquariums), fish raised for human
consumption, shrimp, mollusks, and crustaceans. Should we consider
regulating only domesticated farm-raised fin fish, or should we
consider regulating other aquatic animals as well? If we should
consider a broader regulatory program, what species should we include,
and why?
[[Page 23796]]
2. We already provide some services to aquaculture industries. We
provide laboratory diagnostic services, endorse export health
certificates for aquatic animals and aquatic animal products, and
license vaccines and biologic reagents for use in aquatic animals. We
also control damage done by wild birds and other animals to farmed
aquatic animals. Should we expand the range of our services? If we
expand our services to aquaculture industries, what new or additional
services should we consider providing?
3. We currently regulate the importation of livestock and poultry
and livestock and poultry products. These regulations are designed to
prevent diseases and pests of livestock and poultry from being
introduced into the United States. Should we consider adopting
regulations to prevent the introduction of diseases and pests of
aquatic animal species? If so, should the regulations be similar to
those we have for livestock and poultry? If not, how should the
regulations be different?
4. We work closely with industry and State representatives to
administer many of our current disease control programs. For example,
we work with industry and State representatives to control and
eradicate brucellosis, tuberculosis, and other livestock diseases. If
we develop any regulatory programs for aquatic animal species, what
form should our cooperation take?
5. We currently regulate the interstate movement of livestock and
poultry and livestock and poultry products. These regulations are
designed to prevent diseases and pests of livestock and poultry from
being spread within the United States. Currently, we administer several
voluntary programs designed to help producers control and eliminate
certain diseases in their livestock. The goal of these programs is to
eliminate sources of infection, while helping producers improve their
stock. For example, we have a program covering scrapie in sheep and
goats called the Voluntary Scrapie Flock Certification Program. Should
we consider adopting regulations to prevent the interstate spread of
diseases and pests of any aquatic species? If we were to adopt
regulations covering interstate movement of any aquatic animal species,
should we include voluntary programs to help producers control and
eliminate certain diseases? If so, what species and diseases should be
covered? What should we include in such programs?
How Should We Conduct Rulemaking?
Developing a new regulatory program can be very complicated. It is
important that we establish reasonable goals and adopt workable
programs to achieve them. We will need to collect reliable information
on the costs and benefits of any program. Public participation and
input in the rulemaking process is vital to success.
In the rulemaking process, we can either draft proposed regulations
ourselves or use negotiated rulemaking to develop the proposals. In
negotiated rulemaking, an agency brings together the groups that are
interested in or would be affected by proposed regulations. Working
together, agency employees and representatives of interested and
affected groups negotiate the text of a draft proposed rule.
Whether we draft a proposed rule ourselves, or use negotiated
rulemaking, later steps in the rulemaking process would be the same. We
would publish any proposed rule in the Federal Register, including an
analysis of the costs and benefits, and invite the public to submit
comments. After reviewing all the comments we receive, we would decide
upon what further action to take.
Therefore, we are asking for comments from interested persons
regarding the desirability of using a negotiated rulemaking process
should we decide to proceed with rulemaking affecting farm-raised fin
fish or other aquatic animals.
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 5542; 7 U.S.C. 147b; 21 U.S.C. 111-114a,
114b-114c, 114h, 115, 117-130, 134, 134(a)-134(h), 135a, 136, and
136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.2(d).
Done in Washington, DC, this 28 day of April 1999.
Craig A. Reed,
Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 99-11130 Filed 5-3-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P