[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 95 (Wednesday, May 18, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-12001]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: May 18, 1994]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

7 CFR Part 301

[Docket No. 93-066-2]
RIN 0579-ZA00

 

Pink Bollworm Regulated Areas

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We are adopting as a final rule, with changes, an interim rule 
that added Missouri to the list of States quarantined because of pink 
bollworm. In this final rule, we are removing the designation of the 
entire State of Missouri as a generally infested area as set forth in 
the interim rule, and are adding portions of Dunklin and New Madrid 
Counties in Missouri and all of Pemiscot County in that State to the 
list of suppressive areas. This action is necessary to prevent the 
interstate movement of pink bollworm into noninfested areas, and to 
relieve unnecessary restrictions on areas not infested with pink 
bollworm.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 18, 1994.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Sidney Cousins, Senior Operations Officer, Domestic and Emergency 
Operations, Plant Protection and Quarantine, APHIS, USDA, room 643, 
Federal Building, 6505 Belcrest Road, Hyattsville, MD 20782, (301) 436-
6365.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    In an interim rule effective and published in the Federal Register 
on July 8, 1993 (58 FR 36591-36592, Docket No. 93-066-1), we amended 
the pink bollworm regulations by adding Missouri to the list of States 
in 7 CFR 301.52(a) that are quarantined because of pink bollworm, and 
to the list of generally infested areas in Sec. 301.52-2a. Our 
quarantine of the State of Missouri was the result of surveys conducted 
by inspectors to the United States Department of Agriculture and by 
State agencies in Missouri that established that pink bollworm had 
spread into Missouri.
    Under Sec. 301.52-2 of the pink bollworm regulations, less than an 
entire quarantined State will be designated as a regulated area only if 
(1) the State is enforcing a quarantine or regulations that impose 
restrictions on the intrastate movement of regulated articles that are 
substantially the same as those imposed with respect to the interstate 
movement of such articles under the Federal regulations, and (2) the 
designation of less than the entire State as a regulated area will 
otherwise be adequate to prevent the interstate spread of pink 
bollworm.
    At the time the interim rule was published, although pink bollworm 
had been captured only in several counties in Missouri, the State was 
not enforcing an intrastate quarantine or related regulations. 
Therefore, APHIS quarantined the entire State and listed it as a 
generally infested area.
    We solicited comments concerning our interim rule for a 60-day 
comment period ending September 7, 1993. We received two comments by 
that date, one from a member of Congress, the other from the State of 
Missouri Department of Agriculture. Both commenters questioned the need 
for designating Missouri as a generally infested area. The issues they 
raised are discussed below under the heading ``Comments Received.''
    After the interim rule was published, the State of Missouri 
established an intrastate quarantine on those areas in the State 
infested with pink bollworm. Because this quarantine imposes intrastate 
restrictions on regulated articles that are substantially the same as 
those imposed with respect to the interstate movement of such articles 
under the Federal regulations, we are removing the entire State of 
Missouri from the list of generally infested areas, and are listing 
portions of Dunklin and New Madrid Counties in Missouri and all of 
Pemiscot County in that State as suppressive areas. We have determined 
the designation of these areas as regulated areas will be adequate to 
prevent the interstate spread of pink bollworm. Because the eradication 
of pink bollworm is being undertaken in the areas listed, they are 
considered ``suppressive areas'' as defined in Sec. 301.52-1. See the 
rule portion of this document for specific descriptions of the 
suppressive areas.

Comments Received

    As noted, two commenters questioned the need for designating 
Missouri as a generally infested area. Their specific objections are 
discussed in the following paragraphs.
    One commenter stated that listing Missouri as a quarantined State 
solely on the basis of the capture of pink bollworm moths was 
biologically unsound. The commenter stated that pink bollworm moths 
have periodically been caught with pheromone traps in Louisiana, 
Mississippi, northeast Arkansas, and southeast Missouri since 
development of the pink bollworm sex pheromone, with no resulting 
``infestation'' ever being established. The commenter cited research 
that the commenter stated showed that excessive moisture during the 
fall and winter is detrimental to overwintering pink bollworm larvae 
(Ohlendorf, ``Studies of the Pink Bollworm in Mexico,'' U.S. Department 
of Agriculture Bulletin 1374. 1926), and that excessive soil moisture 
is detrimental to survival of overwintering pink bollworm larvae (Fife 
et al., ``Pink Bollworm Carryover from One Cotton Crop to the Next in 
the Lower Rio Grande Valley,'' Journal of Economic Entomology, 56: 172-
175, 1947; also, Chapman et al., ``Survival of the Pink Bollworm under 
Various Cultural and Climatic Conditions,'' U.S. Department of 
Agriculture Production Research Report 34, 1960).
    We agree with the commenter that research indicates that excessive 
moisture is detrimental to survival of pink bollworm. However, we are 
aware of no research that has determined that excessive moisture under 
natural conditions during the fall and winter is 100 percent effective 
in killing pink bollworm. To the contrary, Chapman and Fife concluded 
that a number of pink bollworm were able to survive excessive soil 
moisture.
    The commenter stated further that it is reasonable to assume that 
at least a portion of the pink bollworm moths that are found in the 
mid-South States are being carried into that area in infested planting 
cottonseed, by means of used cotton harvesting equipment returning from 
infested areas, and through dispersal by wind (``Fifty Years of 
Research on the Pink Bollworm''; Agricultural Handbook No. 357, page 
17). We assume that the commenter was concluding that the incidence of 
pink bollworm in Missouri was not the result of a self-perpetuating 
infestation that would carry over from year to year, but rather a 
random incidence of pink bollworm that were transported into the State 
and that would not survive the winter.
    We do not agree that evidence supports the conclusion that pink 
bollworm found in Missouri entered the State with planting cottonseed 
from a quarantined area. Cottonseed for planting may not move from a 
regulated area unless it has been fumigated to kill any pink bollworm 
that might be present. The Plant Methods Development staff of the 
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service tested such fumigation 
extensively before approving it as a treatment. We consider it 
effective and have strictly enforced the fumigation requirement. In 
1991, when pink bollworm was found in Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, 
and Missouri, State and Federal inspectors conducted trapping at four 
seed storage facilities in Missouri and Mississippi. The facilities 
contained cottonseed that had been moved interstate from a generally 
infested area. The trapping was conducted to determine if some of the 
pink bollworm in the States might be originating in the cottonseed. 
During the 7 to 12 months the traps were set, no pink bollworm moths 
were captured.
    We agree that used harvesting equipment that has not been fumigated 
could be a carrier of pink bollworm, and are intensifying our efforts 
to ensure that all used harvesting and processing equipment moved from 
a regulated area is fumigated. However, investigations of the location 
and timing of the capture of pink bollworm moths show no consistent 
correlation with the presence of used harvesting equipment moved from a 
regulated area. We have concluded that such equipment may account for 
some but not all pink bollworm captures in the mid-South States.
    We also agree that wind dispersal can account for a small number of 
pink bollworm moths captured. However, following publication of our 
July 8 interim rule, and as of November 30, 1993, we discovered over 
775 pink bollworm moths and two pink bollworm larvae in Missouri. We 
consider it unlikely that wind dispersal was the cause of such a large 
number of finds.
    The commenter stated that the timing of the capture of pink 
bollworm moths must be taken into consideration when determining 
whether an infestation has been established. According to the 
commenter, pink bollworm moths captured in southeast Missouri (the part 
of the State where pink bollworm was initially found) are nearly always 
caught after October 1. The commenter cited research that, according to 
the commenter, concluded that by the autumnal equinox (September 23), 
all the larval population is in diapause (a state of quiescence) and 
that, therefore, a field infestation of pink bollworm after this date 
is not possible (Lukefahr et al., ``Factors Inducing Diapause in the 
Pink Bollworm,'' U.S. Department of Agriculture Technical Bulletin 
1304, 1964).
    According to the commenter, the research indicates that moths 
trapped after the autumnal equinox are incapable of producing 
infestations, and that as long as surveys conducted during the summer 
months are negative, moths trapped after the equinox should be 
considered nonthreatening.
    We have examined the literature cited by the commenter and disagree 
that it concludes that the entire larval population is in diapause 
after the autumnal equinox. Rather, the literature states that nearly 
all of the larval population should be in diapause. In the absence of 
research indicating otherwise, we must assume that a number of pink 
bollworm larvae in the quarantined area are capable of remaining active 
through the fall and winter. Further, even though certain larvae may be 
in diapause, they can still be moved and present a risk of infestation.
    Both commenters noted that although 343 pink bollworm moths were 
trapped in Missouri in 1991, only 17 were trapped in 1992. The 
commenters cited this as evidence arguing against the need for a 
quarantine of that State. We do not agree that a decline in pink 
bollworm moths trapped from one year to the next demonstrates that an 
infestation does not exist. As discussed above, we agree that moist 
winters in the mid-South States are detrimental to the pink bollworm, 
and acknowledge that such conditions may result in a decreased number 
of moths from one year to the next. However, each time even some pink 
bollworm successfully overwinter in those States, it increases the 
chances that certain numbers of the pest will adapt to the climatic 
conditions in the area. Although relatively few pink bollworm moths 
were trapped in Missouri in 1992, that number rose in 1993 to over 775.
    Under Executive Order 12291, we assessed the economic impact of the 
interim rule, and concluded that it would not cause a significant 
adverse effect on competition, employment, investment, productivity, 
innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to 
compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic or export markets. 
One commenter addressed this conclusion and stated that the interim 
rule would indeed have an adverse effect on the economy of southern 
Missouri. The commenter did not provide any estimates of the economic 
impact.
    We recognize that any time a quarantine is imposed on an area, 
there is a negative economic impact on entities affected by the 
quarantine. However, as indicated in the preceding paragraph, we were 
required to determine if the regulatory change would have a significant 
adverse effect in certain specific areas. Our analysis indicated that 
it would not. The results of our analysis of the economic impact of 
this final rule are set forth in this document under the heading 
``Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act.''
    The commenters also addressed issues unrelated to the provisions of 
the interim rule. Among the topics discussed were a suggested updating 
of the pink bollworm program and revision of quarantine enforcement 
procedures, and a recommendation that a pest risk assessment be 
conducted to determine that economic significance of pink bollworm to 
the mid-South area. We will carefully review the information we 
received and take whatever action is appropriate.

Miscellaneous

    In this final rule, we are also making a nonsubstantive change to 
the heading to Sec. 30152-2a to correct a typographical error.
    Therefore, based on the rationale set forth in the interim rule and 
in this document, we are adopting the provisions of the interim rule as 
a final rule, with the changes discussed in this document.

Effective Date

    This is a substantive rule that relieves restrictions and, pursuant 
to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553, may be made effective less than 30 
days after publication.
    This rule releases certain areas in Missouri from their designation 
as areas generally infested with pink bollworm. This will eliminate 
restrictions on the interstate movement of regulated articles from 
these areas, thus reducing the burden on producers of cotton, used 
equipment dealers, and facilities that process cotton. Therefore, the 
Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has 
determined that this rule should be effective upon publication.

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Department has reviewed this rule under Executive Order 12866. 
The rule has been determined to be significant for purposes of 
Executive Order 12866 and therefore has been reviewed by the Office of 
Management and Budget.
    The entities affected by this rule include cotton producers, cotton 
ginning facilities, equipment auction companies, and storage facilities 
and other entities that purchase cotton and cotton products, such as 
cottonseed oil mills. According to the latest census data available, 
there are 1,214 farms in Missouri that produce cotton and a total of 
43,046 such farms in the United States. About 99 percent of such farms 
in Missouri and 97 percent of those in the entire United States are 
considered to be small entities. Additionally, there are 28 other 
cotton-related facilities within the regulated portion of Missouri. Of 
these, 16 are cotton ginning facilities, 9 are equipment dealers, and 
the remainder are seed storage facilities and cottonseed oil mills. Of 
these 28 cotton-related facilities, virtually all are small entities.
    In 1992, 17.5 million bales of cotton and 6.9 million metric tons 
of cottonseed were produced in the United States. In that same year, 
Missouri produced approximately 541,000 bales of cotton and 217,000 
metric tons of cottonseed.
    Over 89 percent of cotton produced in Missouri is produced in 
Dunklin, New Madrid, and Pemiscot Counties. Of this amount, 60-70 
percent is either produced or moved to be ginned in the regulated areas 
in those counties, and virtually all of the remainder is either ginned 
and baled in the regulated areas, or is moved, under limited permit and 
without being treated, from the regulated areas to ginning facilities 
operating under a compliance agreement. Because the compression caused 
by baling kills any pink bollworm present, once the cotton is ginned 
and baled it is not regulated under the pink bollworm regulations. Of 
the cottonseed produced in the regulated areas, 98 percent is sold to 
oil mills in those areas, and therefore is not regulated under the pink 
bollworm regulations.
    Under the regulations, regulated articles are not absolutely 
prohibited movement from the quarantined area, but are made subject to 
certain restrictions, including treatment of the articles before 
interstate movement. Treatment costs for cotton range from 
approximately $1.52 to $2.28 per bale of cotton. Treatment costs for 
cottonseed range from approximately $0.10 to $0.15 per bushel of 
cottonseed. For the three most recent marketing years for which 
published figures are available (1990, 1991, and 1992), the average 
price per bale of cotton received by farmers was about $284. The 
average price per bushel of cottonseed received by farmers was 
approximately $1.60. Thus, quarantine treatment costs for cotton and 
cottonseed range between 0.5 percent and 0.8 percent of the value of 
cotton, and between 0.6 and 0.9 percent of the value of cottonseed.
    Under the regulations, used cotton harvesting equipment, used 
cotton ginning equipment, and used cotton oil mill equipment are 
regulated articles, and thus are subject to certain restrictions, 
including treatment of the equipment before interstate movement. As a 
practical matter, the only type of this equipment likely to be moved 
interstate is harvesting equipment. It costs approximately $250 to 
fumigate a piece of harvesting equipment. On the average, each piece of 
harvesting equipment is worth about $120,000.
    Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and 
Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action will 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.

Executive Order 12372

    This program/activity is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic 
Assistance under No. 10.025 and is subject to Executive Order 12372, 
which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local 
officials (See 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V.

Executive Order 12778

    This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12778, Civil 
Justice Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts all State and local laws and 
regulations that are inconsistent with it; (2) has no retroactive 
effect; and (3) does not require administrative proceedings before 
parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This document contains no information collection or recordkeeping 
requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 
et seq.).

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 301

    Agricultural commodities, Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

    Accordingly, 7 CFR part 301 is amended as follows:

PART 301--DOMESTIC QUARANTINE NOTICES

    1. The authority citation for part 301 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 150bb, 150dd, 150ee, 150ff; 161, 162, and 
164-167; 7 CFR 2.17, 2.51, and 371.2(c).

    2. Section 301.52-2a is amended by revising the section heading and 
the entry for Missouri to read as follows:


Sec. 301.52-2a  Regulated areas; suppressive and generally infested 
areas.

* * * * *

Missouri

    (1) Generally infested area. None.
    (2) Suppressive area.
    (3) Dunklin County. That portion of Dunklin County bounded by a 
line beginning at the juncture of the St. Francis River and the 
northwest corner of Section 22, Township 9 North, and proceeding 
east 2.75 miles to State Highway 25; then south 3 miles to U.S. 
Highway 412; then east 0.75 mile to County Road Z; then south 3 
miles; then west 3 miles to County Road Y; then north 2.5 miles to 
State Highway 84; then west 2.75 miles to the St. Francis River; 
then north along the St. Francis River to the point of beginning.
    New Madrid County. That portion of New Madrid County bounded by 
a line beginning at the Mississippi River at a point approximately 1 
mile south of the intersection of U.S. Highway 61 (Loop 55) and spur 
61; then north approximately 1 mile to the intersection of U.S. 
Highway 61 (Loop 55) and spur 61; then northeast approximately 1 
mile on Loop 55 to its intersection with State Highway U and U.S. 
Highway 61; then northwest 3.5 miles on U.S. Highway 61 to its 
intersection with County Road 634 (Ristine); then west on County 
Road 634 3.5 miles to its intersection with County Road 641; then 
south on County Road 641 3 miles to its intersection with State Road 
U; then west on State Road U 0.25 mile to its intersection with 
State Highway D; then west on State Highway D approximately 1.5 
miles to the Little River; then south southwest along the Little 
River 4 miles to its intersection with County Road 314; then south 
on County Road 314 4 miles to its intersection with State Highway 
ZZ; then west on State Highway ZZ 3 miles to its intersection with 
County Road 315 and the Little River; then south southwest along the 
Little River 3 miles to its intersection with State Highway 162; 
then west on State Highway 162 1 mile to its intersection with 
County Road 357; then south on County Road 357 3.25 miles to the New 
Madrid/Pemiscot County line, then east along the New Madrid/Pemiscot 
County line to the Mississippi River; then north along the 
Mississippi River to the point of beginning.
    Pemiscot County. The entire county.
* * * * *
    Done in Washington, DC, this 12th day of May 1994.
Patricia Jensen,
Acting Assistant Secretary, Marketing and Inspection Services.
[FR Doc. 94-12001 Filed 5-17-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-35-P-M