Pink Bollworm Regulated Areas

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