Comment from Karen Rivara

As someone involved in the aquaculture industry in New York State, I appreciate
the opportunity to comment on APHIS' Interim Rule regarding Viral Hemorrhagic
Septicemia (VHS).
I take the goal of preventing the further spread of VHS very seriously, but I am
concerned that the Interim Rule will instead serve to unintentionally force the fish
farmers of our state out of business. This Interim Rule will be so difficult to abide
by both logistically and financially that it is essentially unworkable in its current
form.
Most aquaculture businesses in New York are small, family-owned business and
are not able to afford the increased costs associated with meeting the
requirements of this rule. The Interim Rule doubles the number of times per year
that a fish grower using a secure water source would need to test for VHS
compared to the state requirement. Many growers cannot even afford once-a-year
testing as required by NYS DEC and are being forced out of business; twice-a-
year testing is not financially feasible.
For growers using unsecure water sources, the requirement for testing every 30
days is impractical. Testing results are only valid for 30 days after the samples
are
taken, but testing and a final report takes nearly 30 days to complete. Therefore,
negative test results would only be valid for several days at most before a new test
would be needed. The cost of testing on this frequent basis is far beyond what any
fish grower could afford. Also, because water temperatures in New York fall below
those needed to detect VHS for an extended period of time, testing every 30 days
during the cold water season would be ineffectual.
The requirements to obtain an Interstate Certificate of Inspection (ICI) at least 72
hours before fish are shipped out of state is also impractical. There are simply not
enough officials available to meet the needs this rule will produce. Without
personnel to issue an ICI, fish shipments could be delayed or canceled, hurting
aquaculture businesses that are already struggling.
I question whether the expanded Interim Rule is necessary, since no significant
fish kills have resulted from VHS since 2006, and whether this rule as drafted will
serve its purpose to further protect our waters from the spread of this disease.
Instead, I respectfully request that APHIS make VHS testing requirements less
frequent and more in line with state regulations already in place. I also request
that
an ICI be effective for a longer period of time between VHS tests as long as
biosecurity has not been breached at the facility.
As part of this request, I suggest that APHIS cooperate with the aquaculture
industry to develop a set of biosecurity standards that fish growers could adopt to
prevent the spread of VHS and other fish diseases. Today there is no recognized
set of biosecurity measures for aquaculture and this voluntary method of disease
control would be effective, be affordable for growers, and is likely to have far
reaching benefits for future disease prevention.
I also request that APHIS consider designating VHS-regulated areas by
watersheds or similar methods instead of state borders, as well as lifting the
requirement for an ICI when fish are being shipped to live fish markets where they
will be consumed.
The expense of this rule puts New York fish growers at a significant disadvantage
when competing with growers in non-VHS-regulated areas. It is important that in
addition to preventing the spread of VHS, APHIS rules are no sot burdensome as
to destroy the aquaculture industry in New York.
I hope APHIS will be able to revise the Interim rule to provide a workable solution
to VHS concerns. Thank you for considering my comments.