Spring Viremia of Carp; Payment of Indemnity, 6553-6554 [05-2323]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 8, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
(1) Loss deductible clauses for
required insurance coverage may not
exceed the higher of 1% of the face
value of the policy or $1,000 unless
state law requires a higher maximum
deductible amount.
*
*
*
*
*
Dated: December 27, 2004.
Russell T. Davis,
Administrator, Rural Housing Service.
[FR Doc. 05–2429 Filed 2–7–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–XV–P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service
9 CFR Parts 53 and 71
[Docket No. 02–091–2]
Spring Viremia of Carp; Payment of
Indemnity
Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Affirmation of interim rule as
final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: We are adopting as a final
rule, without change, an interim rule
that amended the general indemnity
regulations to provide for the payment
of indemnity to owners for fish
destroyed because of spring viremia of
carp. We also amended the interstate
movement regulations to prevent the
movement of fish infected with or
exposed to spring viremia of carp. These
actions were necessary to help control
and eradicate this disease in the United
States.
DATES: Effective Date: The interim rule
became effective on May 12, 2004.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Jill Rolland, Fishery Biologist,
Certification and Control Team, VS,
APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 46,
Riverdale, MD 20737–1231; (301) 734–
7727.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
In an interim rule effective May 12,
2004, and published in the Federal
Register on May 17, 2004 (69 FR 27823–
27827, Docket No. 02–091–1), we
amended the general indemnity
regulations contained in 9 CFR part 53
to provide for the payment of indemnity
to owners for fish destroyed because of
spring viremia of carp (SVC). We also
amended the interstate movement
regulations to prevent the movement of
fish infected with or exposed to SVC.
These actions were necessary to help
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:45 Feb 07, 2005
Jkt 205001
control and eradicate this disease in the
United States.
Comments on the interim rule were
required to be received on or before July
16, 2004. We received one comment by
that date, from a private citizen. This
commenter raised several issues related
to the interim rule. These issues are
discussed below.
The commenter objected to payment
of indemnity to eligible owners on the
grounds that such payment is contrary
to the public interest and will only
reward poor practice among
aquaculturists. We believe that payment
of indemnity is necessary to provide an
incentive for aquaculturists to
participate in the surveillance and
eradication program and thus to ensure
the success of the program. We are
making no changes to the rule in
response to this comment.
The commenter stated that since fish
destroyed as a result of infection or
exposure to SVC may be sold for
rendering or salvage value, the payment
received for such sales should be all the
recompense aquaculturists receive. We
note that not all fish destroyed because
of SVC may be sold for rendering or
salvage value, such as ornamental fish
infected with SVC. The regulations
provide that any salvage value collected
for fish destroyed because of SVC will
be subtracted from the amount of any
indemnity payment a producer may
receive.
The commenter stated that the United
States Department of Agriculture should
neither support aquaculture nor extend
payment of indemnity to aquaculturists
because fish are not livestock. We point
out that the National Aquaculture Act of
1980, as amended by the National
Aquaculture Improvement Act of 1985
(16 U.S.C. 2801–2810), requires the
Secretary to support and develop
aquaculture programs. Furthermore, the
Animal Health Protection Act (7 U.S.C.
8301–8317), from which the Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)
derives its authority to regulate matters
associated with animal health, defines
livestock as ‘‘all farm-raised animals.’’
We interpret this to mean aquatic as
well as terrestrial animals. We are
making no changes to the rule in
response to this comment.
The commenter further stated that the
importation of carp should be
prohibited and carp should be banned
in the United States. We believe such
measures to be unwarranted. We are
making no changes to the rule in
response to this comment.
The commenter noted that since the
disease survives in mud and water,
eradication would be impossible or at
least expensive. We note that there are
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
6553
two treatments available to control the
survival of the virus in mud and water.
Depending on the size of the pond, it
may simply be allowed to dry out, or it
may be treated with slaked lime, which
raises the pH of the pond, penetrates the
mud, and renders the virus inactive.
Neither of these treatments is difficult or
excessively expensive. We are making
no changes to the rule in response to
this comment.
The commenter also objected to the
practice of aquaculture on the grounds
that it represents an environmental
threat. We note that APHIS’s mission is
to protect plant and animal health, not
to dictate the means by which plants
and animals are raised, unless those
means pose a risk to plant or animal
health. We do not believe that
aquaculture in itself poses an inherent
risk to the health of fish so raised. We
are making no changes to the rule in
response to this comment.
Therefore, for the reasons given in the
interim rule and in this document, we
are adopting the interim rule as a final
rule without change.
This action also affirms the
information contained in the interim
rule concerning Executive Order 12866
and the Regulatory Flexibility Act,
Executive Orders 12372 and 12988, and
the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Further, this action has been
determined to be not significant for the
purposes of Executive Order 12866 and,
therefore, has not been reviewed by the
Office of Management and Budget.
List of Subjects
9 CFR Part 53
Animal diseases, Indemnity
payments, Livestock, Poultry and
poultry products.
9 CFR Part 71
Animal disease, Livestock, Poultry
and poultry products, Quarantine,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Transportation.
PART 53—FOOT-AND-MOUTH
DISEASE, PLEUROPNEUMONIA,
RINDERPEST, AND CERTAIN OTHER
COMMUNICABLE DISEASES OF
LIVESTOCK OR POULTRY
PART 71—GENERAL PROVISIONS
Accordingly, we are adopting as a final
rule, without change, the interim rule
that amended 9 CFR parts 53 and 71 and
that was published at 69 FR 27823–
27827 on May 17, 2004.
I
E:\FR\FM\08FER1.SGM
08FER1
6554
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 8, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
Done in Washington, DC, this 2nd day of
February 2005.
Elizabeth E. Gaston,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 05–2323 Filed 2–7–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–34–P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Food Safety and Inspection Service
9 CFR Part 327
[Docket No. 99–018F]
Addition of Slovakia to the List of
Countries Eligible To Export Meat
Products to the United States
Food Safety and Inspection
Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Food Safety and
Inspection Service (FSIS) is adding
Slovakia to the list of countries eligible
to export meat products to the United
States. Reviews of Slovakia’s laws,
regulations, and other written materials
show that its meat processing system
meets requirements that are equivalent
to the relevant provisions of the Federal
Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) and its
implementing regulations.
Meat products processed in certified
establishments in Slovakia will be
eligible to be exported to the United
States only if these products are derived
from cattle, sheep, swine, or goats
slaughtered in federally inspected
establishments in the United States, or
in certified slaughter establishments in
other countries eligible to export meat to
the United States. All meat products
exported from Slovakia to the United
States will be subject to reinspection at
the U.S. ports-of-entry by FSIS
inspectors as required by law.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 11, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Sally White, Director, International
Equivalence Staff, Office of
International Affairs; (202) 720–6400.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On August 13, 2001, FSIS published
a proposal in the Federal Register (66
FR 42472) to add Slovakia to the list of
countries eligible to export meat and
meat products to the United States. As
discussed in that proposed rulemaking,
in 1993, the country formerly known as
Czechoslovakia split into two separate
countries, the Czech Republic and
Slovakia. Although Czechoslovakia had
been listed as eligible to export meat
and meat products to the United States
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:45 Feb 07, 2005
Jkt 205001
since 1972, the part of the country that
became Slovakia had never had any
establishments certified to export meat
or meat products to the United States.
Thus, FSIS did not have sufficient
information about Slovakia’s meat
inspection system to determine whether
it was equivalent to the U.S. system.
Therefore, the Agency required that
Slovakia request and receive approval
from FSIS before it could be deemed
eligible to export meat and meat
products to the United States.
In the proposed rule, FSIS reported
that Slovakia had met the certification
requirements imposed in the United
States’ meat inspection regulations, that
its meat processing inspection system is
equivalent to that of the United States,
and that its official residue control
laboratory is fully capable of testing
meat food products. Therefore, FSIS
proposed to permit Slovakia to export
processed meat products to the United
States.
Because only one pork processing
establishment in Slovakia had requested
certification to export meat products to
the United States, Slovakia requested
that FSIS evaluate and approve only its
meat processing inspection system.
Thus, FSIS’ equivalence evaluation of
Slovakia’s meat inspection system did
not include a review of the slaughter
inspection component. As a result, the
carcasses or parts of any cattle, sheep,
swine, or goats processed in
establishments in Slovakia approved to
export to the United States must be
derived from animals slaughtered in the
United States under USDA inspection or
in establishments in other countries that
are certified as eligible to export to the
United States. The government of
Slovakia has agreed to conduct its
program in a way that ensures that meat
products processed in Slovakia are only
prepared from cattle, sheep, swine, or
goats that were slaughtered in certified
establishments in eligible countries. If
FSIS were to evaluate Slovakia’s
slaughter inspection system and
determine that it is equivalent to that of
the United States, the Agency would
conduct a separate rulemaking.
Therefore, when this rule becomes
effective, meat products processed in
certified establishments in Slovakia will
be eligible for exportation to the United
States only if these products are derived
from cattle, sheep, swine, or goats
slaughtered in federally inspected
establishments in the United States, or
in certified slaughter establishments in
other countries eligible to export meat to
the United States.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Comments
FSIS received 36 comments on the
proposed rule. Most were from private
citizens and individual members of a
women’s agricultural organization, a
few were from small cattle producers,
and one was from a national cattle
producer trade association. All
commenters opposed adding Slovakia to
the list of countries eligible to export
meat and meat products into the United
States.
Comment: Most of the commenters
opposed the proposed rule because, at
the time that the rule was published,
Slovakia was listed in USDA’s Animal
and Plant Health Inspection Service
(APHIS) regulations as a region that
presents an undue risk of introducing
bovine spongiform encephalopathy
(BSE) into the United States (9 CFR
94.18(a)(2)). After publication of the
proposed rule, APHIS amended its
regulations to add Slovakia to the list of
countries in which BSE is known to
exist (9 CFR 94.18(a)(1)). The
commenters stated that, because of
Slovakia’s BSE status, it should remain
ineligible to export meat and meat
products to the United States under
FSIS’ regulations.
One commenter opposed permitting
Slovakia to export meat and meat
products to the United States because
Slovakia is not listed by APHIS as a
region that is free from foot and mouth
disease (FMD)(9 CFR 94.1). The
commenter stated that if Slovakia were
listed as eligible to export meat and
meat products to the United States,
there is a risk that these products could
introduce FMD to the United States.
Response: FSIS considered both BSE
and FMD risk in its evaluation process
for meat products currently proposed
for importation into the United States
from Slovakia.1 Although Slovakia
would be listed in FSIS’ regulations as
eligible to export meat products to the
United States, FSIS’ regulations that list
countries eligible to export products of
cattle, sheep, swine, and goats to the
United States do not authorize the entry
of products that are ineligible for
importation into the United States
because they are from countries in
which certain contagious and
communicable diseases, such as FMD,
exist as provided in 9 CFR part 94 (see
9 CFR 327.2(b)). Meat products must
comply with all U.S. requirements prior
to entry. Before a shipment of meat or
meat products may be presented for reinspection at the port-of entry by FSIS,
1 Currently, the one establishment that would be
certified to export meat food products from
Slovakia to the United States intends to export only
pork products.
E:\FR\FM\08FER1.SGM
08FER1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 25 (Tuesday, February 8, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6553-6554]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-2323]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
9 CFR Parts 53 and 71
[Docket No. 02-091-2]
Spring Viremia of Carp; Payment of Indemnity
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Affirmation of interim rule as final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are adopting as a final rule, without change, an interim
rule that amended the general indemnity regulations to provide for the
payment of indemnity to owners for fish destroyed because of spring
viremia of carp. We also amended the interstate movement regulations to
prevent the movement of fish infected with or exposed to spring viremia
of carp. These actions were necessary to help control and eradicate
this disease in the United States.
DATES: Effective Date: The interim rule became effective on May 12,
2004.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Jill Rolland, Fishery Biologist,
Certification and Control Team, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 46,
Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 734-7727.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
In an interim rule effective May 12, 2004, and published in the
Federal Register on May 17, 2004 (69 FR 27823-27827, Docket No. 02-091-
1), we amended the general indemnity regulations contained in 9 CFR
part 53 to provide for the payment of indemnity to owners for fish
destroyed because of spring viremia of carp (SVC). We also amended the
interstate movement regulations to prevent the movement of fish
infected with or exposed to SVC. These actions were necessary to help
control and eradicate this disease in the United States.
Comments on the interim rule were required to be received on or
before July 16, 2004. We received one comment by that date, from a
private citizen. This commenter raised several issues related to the
interim rule. These issues are discussed below.
The commenter objected to payment of indemnity to eligible owners
on the grounds that such payment is contrary to the public interest and
will only reward poor practice among aquaculturists. We believe that
payment of indemnity is necessary to provide an incentive for
aquaculturists to participate in the surveillance and eradication
program and thus to ensure the success of the program. We are making no
changes to the rule in response to this comment.
The commenter stated that since fish destroyed as a result of
infection or exposure to SVC may be sold for rendering or salvage
value, the payment received for such sales should be all the recompense
aquaculturists receive. We note that not all fish destroyed because of
SVC may be sold for rendering or salvage value, such as ornamental fish
infected with SVC. The regulations provide that any salvage value
collected for fish destroyed because of SVC will be subtracted from the
amount of any indemnity payment a producer may receive.
The commenter stated that the United States Department of
Agriculture should neither support aquaculture nor extend payment of
indemnity to aquaculturists because fish are not livestock. We point
out that the National Aquaculture Act of 1980, as amended by the
National Aquaculture Improvement Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 2801-2810),
requires the Secretary to support and develop aquaculture programs.
Furthermore, the Animal Health Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 8301-8317),
from which the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)
derives its authority to regulate matters associated with animal
health, defines livestock as ``all farm-raised animals.'' We interpret
this to mean aquatic as well as terrestrial animals. We are making no
changes to the rule in response to this comment.
The commenter further stated that the importation of carp should be
prohibited and carp should be banned in the United States. We believe
such measures to be unwarranted. We are making no changes to the rule
in response to this comment.
The commenter noted that since the disease survives in mud and
water, eradication would be impossible or at least expensive. We note
that there are two treatments available to control the survival of the
virus in mud and water. Depending on the size of the pond, it may
simply be allowed to dry out, or it may be treated with slaked lime,
which raises the pH of the pond, penetrates the mud, and renders the
virus inactive. Neither of these treatments is difficult or excessively
expensive. We are making no changes to the rule in response to this
comment.
The commenter also objected to the practice of aquaculture on the
grounds that it represents an environmental threat. We note that
APHIS's mission is to protect plant and animal health, not to dictate
the means by which plants and animals are raised, unless those means
pose a risk to plant or animal health. We do not believe that
aquaculture in itself poses an inherent risk to the health of fish so
raised. We are making no changes to the rule in response to this
comment.
Therefore, for the reasons given in the interim rule and in this
document, we are adopting the interim rule as a final rule without
change.
This action also affirms the information contained in the interim
rule concerning Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility
Act, Executive Orders 12372 and 12988, and the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Further, this action has been determined to be not significant for
the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been
reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
List of Subjects
9 CFR Part 53
Animal diseases, Indemnity payments, Livestock, Poultry and poultry
products.
9 CFR Part 71
Animal disease, Livestock, Poultry and poultry products,
Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
PART 53--FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE, PLEUROPNEUMONIA, RINDERPEST, AND
CERTAIN OTHER COMMUNICABLE DISEASES OF LIVESTOCK OR POULTRY
PART 71--GENERAL PROVISIONS
0
Accordingly, we are adopting as a final rule, without change, the
interim rule that amended 9 CFR parts 53 and 71 and that was published
at 69 FR 27823-27827 on May 17, 2004.
[[Page 6554]]
Done in Washington, DC, this 2nd day of February 2005.
Elizabeth E. Gaston,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 05-2323 Filed 2-7-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
