[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