[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 27 (Monday, February 10, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7636-7639]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-02764]
[[Page 7636]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
[Docket No. APHIS-2009-0101]
Response to Petitions for the Reclassification of Light Brown
Apple Moth as a Non-Quarantine Pest
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are notifying the public of our decision to maintain our
classification of the light brown apple moth (LBAM, Epiphyas
postvittana [Walker]) as a quarantine pest. In making this decision,
the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) evaluated the
possibility of and impact from reclassifying LBAM from an actionable,
quarantine-significant pest to a non-actionable, non-quarantine pest.
By maintaining a regulatory program for LBAM, APHIS is seeking to
minimize the further spread of the moth in the United States and
maintain foreign trade markets for our producers. This decision is
based on our evaluation of data submitted by the two petitioners
seeking the reclassification of LBAM, our analysis of other scientific
data, and comments received from the public in response to our previous
notice announcing the availability of our revised draft response to
those petitions.
DATES: Effective Date: February 10, 2014.
ADDRESSES: You may read the documents referenced in this notice and the
comments we received in our reading room. The reading room is located
in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence
Avenue SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone
is there to help you, please call (202) 7997039 before coming. Those
documents are also available on the Internet on the Regulations.gov Web
site at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2009-0101.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Andrea Simao, National Policy
Manager, Pest Management, PPQ--Plant Health Programs, APHIS, 4700 River
Road Unit 26, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 851-2067.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Light brown apple moth (Epiphyas postvittana [Walker]) (LBAM) is a
plant pest native to Australia with a broad host range of over 2,000
plant species, including stone fruit (peaches, plums, nectarines,
cherries, and apricots), apples, pears, grapes, and citrus. LBAM larvae
feed on the leaves and fruit of host plants and, under appropriate
conditions, may result in significant damage. To date, natural enemies
of leaf rollers have not impacted LBAM populations in the infested
areas of California and few predators or parasites of LBAM have been
observed.
LBAM was detected in the late 1800s in Hawaii. The interstate
movement from Hawaii of cut flowers, fruits and vegetables, plants, and
portions of plants, including LBAM host material, is currently
prohibited unless the articles are first inspected and found free of
plant pests (including LBAM) or are treated for plant pests.
Moths suspected of being LBAM were detected in Alameda and Contra
Costa Counties, CA, in February 2007, and were subsequently confirmed
as LBAM on March 16, 2007. Due to California's cooler climate and the
potential impact of LBAM on a wide range of crops, a response program
has been conducted by the State of California with support from the
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the United States
Department of Agriculture.
APHIS' current regulatory framework and response program for LBAM
is outlined in a Federal Order, which was issued on June 13, 2012, to
prevent the further spread of LBAM from infested to noninfested areas.
The order established restrictions on the interstate movement of
regulated articles from areas where LBAM infestations are known to
exist. Federal Orders were also in place prior to June 13, 2012, to
prevent the further spread of LBAM from infested to noninfested areas.
On September 12, 2008, and February 4, 2009, petitions were
submitted to the Secretary of Agriculture requesting that APHIS
reclassify LBAM from an actionable, quarantine-significant pest to a
non-actionable, non-quarantine pest and that APHIS remove the Federal
restrictions placed on the interstate movement of LBAM host articles
from areas where the pest had been detected. The petitions also
questioned APHIS' ability to eradicate LBAM, the appropriateness of
technologies used to support the eradication program, the potential
impacts of these technologies on the environment and on human health
and safety, and the effectiveness of the communication strategies used
to inform the public about the LBAM program.
APHIS requested that the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) conduct
an independent review of our draft response to the petitions. Based on
the NAS' findings and recommendations, APHIS revised its initial draft
response to the petitions. On March 15, 2010, APHIS published a notice
\1\ in the Federal Register (75 FR 12172-12173, Docket No. APHIS-2009-
0101) announcing the availability, for review and comment, of our
revised draft response to the petitions. We solicited comments for 60
days through May 14, 2010, and received 114 comments by that date.
Three commenters supported the continued regulation of LBAM as a
quarantine pest. The remaining commenters expressed concerns regarding
the continued regulation of LBAM as a quarantine pest. These concerns
are discussed below by topic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ To view the notice, draft response, and the comments we have
received, go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-
2009-0101.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reclassification
The majority of commenters requested that we reclassify LBAM as a
non-quarantine pest.
LBAM meets the Plant Protection Act's (PPA) definition of a plant
pest. The PPA defines the term ``plant pest'' as any living stage of
protozoan, nonhuman animal, parasitic plant, bacterium, fungus, virus
or viroid, infectious agent or other pathogen, or any article similar
to or allied with any of the previous articles that can directly or
indirectly injure, cause damage to, or cause disease in any plant or
plant product.
In addition to concurring with APHIS' conclusion that LBAM meets
the definition of a plant pest under the PPA, the NAS reviewers agreed
that LBAM also met the definitions of quarantine pest as defined in the
International Plant Protection Convention and of an alien species per
Executive Order 13112, ``Invasive Species.'' As NAS noted, APHIS
demonstrated that LBAM is not native, is present within the United
States in a limited distribution, and may cause economic harm.
Due to its extensive host range and potential to establish, LBAM
continues to be a significant concern to foreign trading partners as
well as to States not currently infested with LBAM and which are at
risk of becoming infested. A key reason for classifying and continuing
to classify LBAM as a reportable/actionable pest is the potential
economic impact associated with the detection and spread of the pest to
areas in the United States where it could become established or where
it might be introduced seasonally. In
[[Page 7637]]
calendar year 2007, the value of sales of potential LBAM hosts among
the at-risk States totaled $69.4 billion, which represented 52 percent
of the total value of all reported plant sales within at-risk States.
To date, APHIS has received two Special Need Requests under our
regulations in
7 CFR part 301.1-2 from States seeking APHIS approval for State
restrictions that are in addition to those imposed by the Federal
program for nursery products from California to further ensure
protection from the interstate movement of LBAM in commerce. Should
APHIS reclassify LBAM as a nonactionable pest, other States have
indicated that they would likely enact their own quarantines for LBAM
that would restrict the movement of articles from California. Producers
would then have to meet varying and perhaps stricter requirements for
each State to which they ship their products, most likely resulting in
increased costs for both production and LBAM control. Without
sufficient regulations to demonstrate to trading partners that our
efforts are successful in minimizing the impacts of LBAM within
California, the ability of these industries to export internationally
or domestically would be compromised.
One commenter asked that the quarantine for intrastate movement be
lifted, stating that intrastate movement restrictions are burdening
local market producers.
The intrastate movement of LBAM host articles is regulated by the
California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) not APHIS, so we
cannot make the changes requested in this comment.
Several commenters expressed concern that the LBAM program remains
focused on eradication as the goal.
In March 2010, APHIS announced through a press release as well as
via calls with stakeholders that the objective of the LBAM program has
changed from eradication to suppression and control of the moth's
spread into noninfested areas of the United States.
Introduction Into the United States
Many commenters disagreed with APHIS' designation of LBAM as a
newly introduced pest, stating that trapping surveys conducted prior to
2005 were inadequate to detect the presence of LBAM and that
independent scientists believe that LBAM may have been in California
for 10 to 30 years based upon the number of LBAM interceptions at the
ports of entry. Several commenters stated that the idea of LBAM being
recently introduced was inconsistent with invasive pest literature,
which indicates that new plant pest invaders require a long adjustment
period and that early stages of invasion are difficult to detect.
The lack of any LBAM findings in the data from a 2005 Cooperative
Agricultural Pest Survey in the areas of California currently infested
with LBAM show that it is unlikely that LBAM has been present in the
United States for a decade or more. Additionally, trapping surveys
conducted by growers in the San Francisco and Monterey Bay areas, CA,
in 2006, did not detect the presence of LBAM prior to the initial
detection in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, CA, in 2007.
Although LBAM had previously been intercepted at ports of entry,
this does not demonstrate that the moth had become established within
the United States. No LBAM were detected beyond its known distribution
in California in State-based surveys conducted nationwide in 2008 and
2009. In addition, since the publication of the petition response, the
journal American Entomologist published an article entitled ``Biology,
Identification, and History of the Light Brown Apple Moth, Epiphyas
postvittana (Walker) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae: Archipini) in
California,'' \2\ that stated that surveillance over the past 40 years
for LBAM specifically, as well as other Lepidoptera, failed to detect
the moth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Brown, John W., Epstein, Marc E., Gilligan, Todd M., Passoa,
Steven C., Powell, Jerry A., ``Biology, Identification, and History
of the Light Brown Apple Moth, Epiphyas postvittana (Walker)
(Lepidoptera: Tortricidae: Archipini) in California,'' American
Entomologist, vol. 56, No. 1, pp. 34-43 (Spring 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One commenter stated that since LBAM has been established in the
United States for many years, there is no reason to continue regulating
it. Two commenters stated that the genetic diversity of the LBAM
population present in California supports the idea that there have been
multiple introductions of LBAM, thereby suggesting LBAM was likely
present prior to detection in 2007.
While two independent analyses of mitochondrial DNA indicate that
multiple introductions of LBAM in Northern California may have
occurred, a single large invasion cannot be ruled out.\3\ \4\ The
analyses do not confirm that LBAM was established prior to detection in
2007 since multiple, recent introductions occurring within a single
year may have been possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Rubinoff, D., B.S. Holland, M.S. Jose, and J.A. Powell.
(2011) Geographic proximity not a prerequisite for invasion: Hawaii
not the source of California invasion by light brown apple moth
(Epiphyas postvittana). PLoS ONE, Vl 6 (1): e16361.
\4\ Tooman, L., C.J. Rose, C. Carraher, D.M. Suckling, S. Rioux-
Pasquette, L.A. Ledezma, T.M. Gilligan, M. Epstein, N.B. Barr, and
R.D. Newcomb. (2011) Global mitochondrial population genetics of the
invasive pest, Epiphyas postvittana. Journal of Economic Entomology,
vol. 104, No. 5, pp. 1706-1719 (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modeling
Several commenters expressed concern that the North Carolina State
University APHIS Plant Pest Forecasting System (NAPPFAST) model
inaccurately determined the potential for LBAM establishment and
economic damage. One commenter stated that one of the flaws of the
model was that it lacked LBAM detectability metrics and relied on
qualitative statements rather than quantitative evidence. Several
commenters expressed their concern that the science used to determine
the APHIS response was inaccurate, including the climatic modeling used
to predict crop losses and economic damages.
In response to these concerns, APHIS invited Dr. Andrew Gutierrez
from the University of California, Berkeley, to meet and discuss
potential predictive modeling approaches that may be useful to APHIS in
better understanding pest spread and distribution. Dr. Gutierrez
suggested that APHIS also use Climex and Demographic models to
understand and predict LBAM spread and distribution. As discussed
below, APHIS also used these other modeling approaches recommended by
Dr. Gutierrez that explore the influence of ecological factors on pest
populations rather than relying predominantly on temperature-based
modeling.
The initial output from the NAPPFAST, Climex, and Demographic
models estimated areas suitable for LBAM establishment. Most
importantly, all three model outputs estimated that significant areas
of the United States, particularly in the Southeast, were suitable for
LBAM establishment. All models are in general agreement for areas
estimated to be unsuitable for establishment based on cold
temperatures. The Climex and Demographic models agreed that some areas
in the Southwestern United States are unsuitable for LBAM establishment
due to high temperatures. The NAPPFAST model, which does not currently
incorporate high temperature mortality, disagrees and probably
overestimated suitable areas in the Southwest.
[[Page 7638]]
Trapping
Several commenters stated that the increase in LBAM trapping finds
may be due to an increase in trapping efficiency rather than to an
increase in LBAM populations. One commenter stated that the increase in
LBAM trap finds is irrelevant because it does not indicate potential
for damage.
The trapping equipment has not changed and protocols for delimiting
a detection remained constant until October 2012. The increased trap
finds indicate that LBAM is spreading into new areas, increasing the
potential for damage. While trapped moths by themselves do not
demonstrate damage, the potential harm caused by LBAM has been
discussed above and is further discussed below.
Chemicals
The majority of commenters expressed concern regarding the impacts
on the environment and human and animal health associated with the use
of pesticides and chemicals to control LBAM. The commenters expressed
concern that chemicals used for the control of LBAM had not been tested
on humans and that formulations had not been disclosed. Many commenters
stated that LBAM is present in other countries and that it is
considered a minor pest which is easily and cost-effectively managed as
a crop-quality issue.
Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) as
amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), APHIS is required to analyze our
proposed control actions to determine if they will have an adverse
effect on the environment before implementing the actions. In 2008,
APHIS completed a programmatic environmental assessment for LBAM
(available at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/ea/downloads/lbam-treatmentprog-02-14-08.pdf), which evaluated two approaches: No
action and treatment alternative. The treatment alternative consisted
of maintaining the then applicable Federal Quarantine Order to prevent
the destructive spread of the LBAM infestation, as well as implementing
an LBAM eradication program in California to stop the further spread of
LBAM in California. Because damage caused by LBAM can significantly
threaten agricultural production in the United States, APHIS determined
that the treatment alternative was the best approach to mitigating
these effects and that no significant impact on human health or the
environment would result from the proposed LBAM eradication program.
That Finding of No Significant Impact is available at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/ea/downloads/lbam-fonsi-pheremone.pdf.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administers
regulations for the protection of human health and the environment. In
2001, EPA approved the organic pheromone Checkmate for use in the
United States, finding that it did not have adverse impacts on human
health. This pheromone is used to suppress LBAM and has no known
biological activity in other insect species. The pheromone simulates
the female LBAM odor to attract and confuse the male LBAM, making it
difficult for the males to find a female moth for mating. An analysis
of the pheromone formulation indicated that if brought into contact
with either the eye or skin it may cause slight irritation. However,
this contact is unlikely to occur since the pheromone is distributed
via a plastic tube dispenser that is secured to trellises, fences, and
other fixtures.
One commenter stated that there is no evidence to suggest that
using mating disruption via pheromones, either alone or in conjunction
with other methods, is able to successfully eradicate an insect
population.
The response program uses a multi-layered control and suppression
strategy for LBAM that includes mating disruption, pesticide
application, sterile insect technique, biological control, ongoing
surveys, and regulatory controls on agricultural commodities moving out
of the quarantined area. Mating disruption has been extensively studied
and used successfully in Australia and New Zealand to minimize LBAM
population densities.
Several commenters stated that our analysis of the impacts of LBAM
and the effectiveness of natural controls relied on outdated
information. One commenter noted that the APHIS petition response cites
data from the 1930s to illustrate LBAM damage before the widespread use
of organophosphates, but stated that the data is flawed because
pesticides in use in the 1930s have general effects similar to the
effects of organophosphates, namely eliminating LBAM's natural
predators.
APHIS' pest response programs are developed through analysis and
evaluation of the invasive pest, including historical information, its
behavior in similar environments, and possible control methods. APHIS
initiates technical working groups comprised of entomologists from
around the world. The LBAM working group, considering different
response options, identified a multi-layered response control and
suppression strategy including mating disruption, pesticide
application, sterile insect technique, and biological control.
Available scientific literature suggests that natural control can
be sporadic and incapable of preventing economic losses (Nicholls,
1934; Lloyd et al., 1970; Collyer & van Geldermalsen, 1975; Buchanan,
1977). For example, in the United States, the use of biological control
alone generally has not been sufficient to prevent economically
significant damage to apple crops by tortricid pests, such as LBAM.
Integrated Pest Management
Several commenters expressed concern that the program has not taken
into account non-chemical measures for controlling the LBAM population.
One commenter suggested that the integrated fruit production program
used in New Zealand to control LBAM be used in California. This program
does not use pesticides.
The LBAM program has incorporated integrated pest management (IPM)
techniques into the overall LBAM control and suppression strategy. In
partnership with industry, universities, and the CDFA, APHIS developed
a manual of best management practices to assist the nursery industry in
shipping clean products. This manual includes required and recommended
practices that help nurseries mitigate LBAM. Examples include
establishing physical barriers around nursery perimeters, adopting
cultural and sanitation practices, and isolating and protecting
inspected plants prior to shipment. The IPM techniques, including
principles identified in New Zealand, are used along with mating
disruption, sterile insect technique, chemical treatments, and
biological control.
Economic Effects
Many commenters expressed concern regarding the economic effects of
the LBAM quarantine on domestic growers and stated that the quarantine
benefits foreign growers because American growers are required to have
LBAM-free fields in order to ship interstate while foreign growers are
required to have only LBAM-free shipments. Several commenters expressed
concern that organic and small-scale family farms are being forced to
either use pesticides, which renders them nonorganic, or shut down
their farms.
The purpose of the LBAM quarantine is to protect noninfested areas
of the United States from the artificial spread of the moth via the
movement of host materials and to keep open export
[[Page 7639]]
markets for U.S. products that might otherwise be closed due to the
presence of LBAM in the United States. We agree that the introduction
of LBAM has led to increased costs for U.S. producers. However,
implementation of the regulatory framework has maintained domestic and
international markets with, for example, Canada and Mexico, for
California agricultural exports. It is likely that some noninfested
States would enact restrictions on the movement of host material to
safeguard against LBAM spread if there were no Federal program.
California producers would then need to meet potentially varying
requirements for shipments to each State, which could lead to both
increased pesticide use and increased operational costs.
The LBAM program requires that shipments containing LBAM host
materials only be free of LBAM prior to movement from the quarantined
area; this requirement is parallel to the requirements for foreign
shipments. There are several ways for producers to meet this
requirement, including applying organic treatments, such as Spinosad
and horticultural oils; applying chemical treatments; or implementing
best management practices. Such practices include training of staff,
scouting and monitoring of property to determine the need for
treatments, and maintaining management records.
Many commenters stated that APHIS has overstated the damage done by
LBAM and the potential for damage by LBAM; that the LBAM program is
expensive and wasteful; and that plants listed as potential LBAM host
plants were not hosts of LBAM. Many commenters stated that the only
evidence of LBAM damage came from two organic berry fields in 2009, and
that it was not conclusively determined that the pest that attacked
those fields was LBAM.
APHIS' cost-benefit analysis indicates that if LBAM were to be
reclassified as a non-actionable pest and APHIS' regulatory program for
LBAM to be terminated, annual sales losses from LBAM damages of at
least approximately $694 million would occur (Fowler et al., 2009).
Because of the APHIS regulatory program, the amount of avoided losses
in annual sales, in comparison with the Federal funding available in
the LBAM emergency response effort of almost $100 million, indicates a
potential positive benefit-to-cost ratio of at least 6.9 to 1. This
does not include potential environmental losses due to factors such as
increased pesticide use and other costs associated with widespread
establishment of the pest. Additionally, deregulation of LBAM
domestically is likely to trigger increased restrictions for LBAM-host
commodities by trading partners, which are expected to have a much
greater impact on American farms if LBAM were allowed to spread beyond
the current quarantined area. The cost-benefit analysis supports our
conclusion that LBAM is an economically important invasive pest that
meets the criteria for Federal regulation, including phytosanitary
regulations and mandatory procedures with the objective of containment
and suppression as an actionable quarantine pest.
Miscellaneous
One commenter stated that APHIS was legally required to submit its
response to the petitions to reclassify LBAM to NAS for review.
There are no requirements for petition responses to be reviewed by
third parties. APHIS elected to submit the revised petition response to
NAS.
One commenter supported the continued LBAM quarantine, but stated
that the current LBAM program is in need of review because it does not
take into account the additional regulatory response that will be
needed when LBAM populations expand into other areas of California and
the United States. The commenter further stated that the regulations
for the movement of cut plant material and nursery stock need to be
strengthened. One commenter also supported the continued LBAM
quarantine, but stated that APHIS should continually review the
quarantine and lift it if the pest is found outside of the quarantined
areas and the quarantine becomes uneconomical.
We continually review the LBAM program, as well as other pest
programs, to ensure that the program's goals are being met. In the
event that LBAM is found within the continental United States outside
of California, APHIS and the affected State(s) will take appropriate
action, which may include additional detection activities and
regulatory protocols, to control its spread.
Therefore, for the reasons discussed in our draft responses to
petitions and in this document, we are retaining our classification of
LBAM as an actionable quarantine pest to prevent its further spread
into noninfested areas of United States and to maintain trade markets
for U.S. agricultural products.
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7701-7772 and 7781-7786; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80,
and 371.3.
Done in Washington, DC, this 3rd day of February 2014.
Kevin Shea,
Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-02764 Filed 2-7-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P