Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 8, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 6553

(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

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

■ 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.

6554 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 8, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

1Currently, the one establishment that would be 

certified to export meat food products from 

Slovakia to the United States intends to export only 

pork products.

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

AGENCY: Food Safety and Inspection 

Service, USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

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 

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. 

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,