![](media/image1.jpeg){width="1.1819444444444445in"
height="1.0972222222222223in"}

**166 Rainbow Rd. Rockwood, PA 15557**

**Phone: (724) 593-2601 Fax: (724) 593-7101**

**www.laurelhilltroutfarm.com**

Docket No. APHIS-2007-0038

Regulatory Analysis and Development

PPD, Aphis, Station 3A-03.8

4700 River Road Unit 118

Riverdale, MD 20737-0038

Our farm has serious concerns in regards to Document No. APHIS-2007-0038
posted on the Federal Register, Vol. 73, No. 175 which is currently set
to be effective on November 10, 2008.

While we certainly would agree that programs and polices to minimize the
threat of or mitigate the damages from contagious diseases are warranted
to protect the public at large, our industry and our environment- they
best work if designed in concert with everyone involved. The cost,
efficacy or prevention measures relative to control measures are highly
variable and they need to be considered and monitored to be effective,
practical and economical.

Since the original rule was amended APHIS has held public hearings and
gathered information but it appears all findings fell of deaf ears and
now the rule as written and released is impractical and immediately
threatens Pennsylvania, the surrounding Great Lakes Region, and
eventually will impact the aquaculture industry of the United States of
America.

When this rule goes into effect, it will make it extremely difficult, if
not impossible, for aquaculturists within the designated eight Great
Lake States to move any of the affected species not bound for immediate
slaughter. For farms on unsecured water sources, the time restraints of
testing will make it impossible to do interstate business, thus likely
forcing many out of business. With permits valid 30 days from the
collection of samples on unsecured water sources and standard testing
requirements for VHS that take 28 days (not including shipping and
necropsy time) by the time that results are received, it is likely that
the thirty days would have passed, making it a futile effort for farms
on unsecured water sources to try to pass testing.

For farms on secure water sources that would require biannual testing,
it is logistically possible; however, the other stipulations in the rule
make it financially unfeasible and place these farms at a severe
competitive disadvantage with farms in unaffected areas. For our
facility that is on a secure water source, the estimated annual cost to
comply with the rule based on the total number current interstate
shipments and labor costs for 2008 would be \$31,000. The actual cost to
comply with these regulations would likely be higher than calculated due
to the unavailability of accredited veterinarians knowledgeable in
aquaculture.

[]{.mark}

APHIS shared at the recent United States Trout Farmer's Meeting in
Milwaukee that a course to assist veterinarians with VHS training will
be available sometime early next year? It was also pointed out that
there are no instances of VHS occurring on an aquaculture facility in
the Great Lakes region or any current outbreaks in 2008. So why change
the rule as it is currently written? It appears to be working- so why
implement even stricter rules? One third of our farm sales are
interstate and with our projected additional expenses we will no longer
be competitive in interstate business and certainly makes us question
how long we can survive.

As written, the rule threatens the aquaculture industry. In the Summary
of the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, it is stated,
"facilities located in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York
, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin will face the costs related to
testing if they raise VHS-regulated species for interstate movement." So
is one region really required to incur the costs to protect the entire
aquaculture industry? And what is the economic impact to that region
when all the aquaculture related businesses in those states fail? We
can't imagine that is really what the Department of Agriculture in those
states want to see happen. The economic impact ranges from food on our
tables, recreational fee fishing, boating, fishing to tourism- all
important to each of the regulated states.

As per the Regulatory Impact Analysis, there are "425 farms involved in
aquaculture production in the regulated states." Using the projected
annual cost impact for our facility as an average for the 425 involved
entities, the total associated cost to comply would be \$13,175,000 -
placing an unfair burden on farms within the affected states.

The Interim Rule as currently published needs to be immediately
withdrawn or amended before November 10, 2008. I ask you to return to
fact finding and enlist the assistance of the growers, local and state
agencies in the affected regions as well as the federal and national
agencies to work together to develop a solution that is equitable to
everyone but still supports APHIS' role and responsibility to protect
our domestic aquatic animals. The goal should be working together to
protect the aquatic and the not place undue burden (paper and/or
financial) on the small businesses of the region.

Sincerely,

Robert L. Pritts

President

Gloria J. Pritts

Vice President