[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