Pale Cyst Nematode; Quarantine and Regulations, 19374-19382 [E9-9724]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
19374
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 29, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a, and provide
consultation and guidance regarding
those policies.
Thomas J. Vilsack,
Secretary of Agriculture.
[FR Doc. E9–9726 Filed 4–28–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service
7 CFR Parts 301 and 305
[Docket No. APHIS–2006–0143]
RIN 0579–AC54
Pale Cyst Nematode; Quarantine and
Regulations
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION:
Final rule.
SUMMARY: We are adopting as a final
rule, with two changes, an interim rule
that amended the regulations by
quarantining parts of Bingham and
Bonneville Counties, ID, due to the
discovery of the potato cyst nematode
there and establishing restrictions on
the interstate movement of regulated
articles from the quarantined area. As
amended by this document, the rule
refers to the nematode of concern,
Globodera pallida, by the common
name ‘‘pale cyst nematode’’ rather than
by the name ‘‘potato cyst nematode;’’
allows the movement of Phaseolus spp.
(beans) and Pisum spp. (peas) under the
same conditions that apply to the
movement of other crops to which soil
is often attached; and requires that a
protocol approved by the Administrator
as sufficient to support removal of
infested fields from quarantine, rather
than a 3-year biosurvey protocol, be
completed in order to remove an
infested field from quarantine. We are
also making minor, nonsubstantive
changes. These actions will prevent the
spread of the pale cyst nematode via
potatoes, soil, and other host material to
noninfested areas of the United States.
DATES:
Effective Date: April 29, 2009.
Ms.
Eileen Y. Smith, National Program
Manager, Emergency and Domestic
Programs, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road
Unit 134, Riverdale, MD 20737–1236;
(301) 734–5235.
tjames on PRODPC75 with RULES
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:08 Apr 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
Background
published in the
In an interim
Federal Register on September 12, 2007,
and effective on November 1, 2007 (72
FR 51975–51988, Docket No. APHIS–
2006–0143), we quarantined parts of
Bingham and Bonneville Counties, ID,
due to the discovery of the potato cyst
nematode (Globodera pallida) and
established restrictions on the interstate
movement of regulated articles from the
quarantined area. This action was
necessary to prevent the spread of this
pest to noninfested areas of the United
States.
We solicited comments concerning
our interim rule for 60 days ending
November 13, 2007. We received three
comments by that date. They were from
a State department of agriculture and
two private citizens. We have carefully
considered the comments we received.
They are discussed below.
The regulations established by the
interim rule referred to G. pallida as the
potato cyst nematode. One commenter
stated that our use of the term ‘‘potato
cyst nematode’’ to refer to G. pallida
was confusing, as the term ‘‘potato cyst
nematode’’ is used generically to refer to
many cyst nematodes that infest
potatoes. The commenter suggested that
we amend the regulations to instead
refer to the ‘‘pale potato cyst nematode.’’
We agree that the use of the term
‘‘potato cyst nematode’’ may make the
species to which we refer unclear. For
example, in our regulations for the
importation of nursery stock in
§ 319.37–5(a), we refer to G.
rostochiensis (the golden nematode) and
G. pallida collectively as ‘‘potato cyst
nematodes.’’ To avoid confusion, this
final rule amends the regulations
established by the interim rule to refer
instead to the ‘‘pale cyst nematode,’’ or
PCN.
Section 301.86–2 of the interim rule
lists certain articles that present a risk
of spreading PCN if they are moved
from quarantined areas without
restriction. These articles are referred to
as regulated articles and include garden
and dry beans (Phaseolus spp.) and peas
(Pisum spp.).
One commenter asked why Phaseolus
spp. and Pisum spp. were listed as
regulated articles, since these articles
are not hosts of PCN. The commenter
also noted that we had not included
provisions for their movement under
certificate in the regulations and asked
us to explain why.
rule 1
1 To view the interim rule and the comments we
received, go to https://www.regulations.gov/
fdmspublic/component/
main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS–2006–0143.
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Phaseolus spp. and Pisum spp. are
listed as regulated articles because these
articles are often moved with soil
attached; it is the soil that poses a risk
of spreading PCN, rather than the
commodity itself. (Phaseolus spp. and
Pisum spp. are produced both for
consumption and as seed; in both cases,
the risk arises from the potential
movement of soil with the articles.) The
risk posed by these articles is thus
similar to the risk posed by potatoes and
root crops intended for consumption,
which are also often moved with soil
attached.
The regulations established by the
interim rule provide conditions under
which potatoes and root crops intended
for consumption can be moved
interstate with a certificate. Paragraph
(a)(3) of § 301.86–5 states that an
inspector may issue a certificate for the
interstate movement of potatoes or root
crops intended for consumption from
the quarantined area only if the field in
which the potatoes or root crops have
been grown meets the following
requirements:
• The field has been surveyed by an
inspector for PCN at least once in the
last 3 years and prior to the planting of
the potatoes or root crops;
• PCN has not been found in the
field; and
• No more than one PCN host crop
has been grown in the field the last 3
years.
We should have allowed Phaseolus
spp. and Pisum spp. to move interstate
under the same conditions, as the risk
posed by these articles is the same as
the risk posed by potatoes and root
crops for consumption, and the
conditions under which potatoes and
root crops are allowed to be moved will
also be effective for Phaseolus spp. and
Pisum spp. Therefore, we are amending
the regulations established by the
interim rule to allow Phaseolus spp. and
Pisum spp. to move under the same
conditions as potatoes and root crops
that are moved for consumption. (We
are also making minor editorial changes
to § 301.86–5(a)(3) to make it consistent
with the other provisions in § 301.86–5.)
Paragraph § 301.86–3(a) of the
regulations provide that the
Administrator of the Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service (APHIS) will
publish the description of the
quarantined area on the Plant Protection
and Quarantine (PPQ) Web site, https://
www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/
plant_pest_info/potato/pcn.shtml. The
description of the quarantined area will
include the date the description was last
updated and a description of the
changes that have been made to the
quarantined area.
E:\FR\FM\29APR1.SGM
29APR1
tjames on PRODPC75 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 29, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
One commenter expressed concerns
about using a Web site to display the
map of the quarantined area. This
commenter stated that the map on the
PPQ Web site was hard to read. The
commenter also noted that the Web
address could change, and asked how
we would ensure that the address does
not change for the life of the regulations.
Finally, the commenter stated that the
Department of Justice in the
commenter’s State had advised that
referring to a mutable document, such
as a map of a quarantined area on a Web
site, in a quarantine regulation could be
more easily subjected to challenge in
court than a description of the
quarantined area in the regulations
themselves.
On November 1, 2007, the effective
date of the interim rule, we updated the
map of the quarantined area and made
it easier to read.2 We published a notice
in the Federal Register informing the
public of the changes to the map since
the publication of the interim rule on
June 6, 2008 (73 FR 32284–32285,
Docket No. APHIS–2008–0014), and we
have published several notices since
then informing the public of additional
changes to the quarantined area. As
with other regulations that refer to Web
addresses, we will ensure that, if our
Web site is revised and the address
changes, our Web site will redirect users
who enter the Web address given in the
regulations to the proper Web address.
Finally, the regulations set out specific
conditions for adding infested and
associated fields to the quarantined area
and indicate that we will update the
quarantined area whenever these
conditions are met, meaning that the
quarantined area reflects our application
of standards in the regulations. We have
determined that publishing the
quarantined area on the Web and
updating it based on standards in the
regulations is an adequate means to
communicate the quarantined area to
the regulated public.
As noted earlier, § 301.86–5(a)(3) of
the regulations sets out conditions
under which potatoes and root crops
intended for consumption may be
moved under a certificate. One
commenter suggested that we require
potatoes and root crops intended for
consumption and moved under a
certificate to be grown only in fields that
are planted with certified potato seed, if
the fields are planted with potatoes.
The State of Idaho’s seed certification
process does not require potato seed to
be examined for potato cyst nematodes.
2 This update to the quarantined area added fields
in both Bingham and Bonneville Counties, ID, and
also added fields in Jefferson County, ID.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:08 Apr 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
Therefore, such a requirement would
not decrease the risk posed by the
movement of potatoes, root crops for
consumption, beans, or peas, and we are
not including such a requirement in the
final rule. A potato seed certification
standard is being developed that would
incorporate examination for pale cyst
nematode; if it is adopted, we may
revisit this issue.
It should be noted that the State of
Idaho already requires that all potato
seed planted in the State be certified
potato seed, meaning that only certified
potato seed is being planted in the
current quarantined area.
Paragraph § 301.86–5(b) of the
regulations provides for the issuance of
limited permits for the interstate
movement of regulated articles from the
quarantined area. Paragraph (b)(2) sets
out specific conditions for the
movement of potatoes for consumption
from the quarantined area for processing
or packing. Under this paragraph, an
inspector may issue a limited permit to
allow the interstate movement of
potatoes from the quarantined area for
processing or packing only if:
• The potatoes are transported in a
manner that prevents the potatoes and
soil attached to the potatoes from
coming into contact with agricultural
premises outside the quarantined area;
and
• The potatoes are processed or
packed at facilities that handle potatoes,
waste, and waste water in a manner
approved by APHIS to prevent the
spread of PCN.
One commenter asked us to require
that receiving States be notified of any
movement of potatoes from the
quarantined area under a limited
permit. The commenter recommended
that the receiving State be involved in
reviewing the practices of the
processing and packing facility that
would receive such potatoes in order to
ensure that those processes are adequate
to prevent the spread of PCN. The
commenter stated that receiving States
should have the option of testing soil
from potatoes moved under a limited
permit. The commenter also asked
specifically that no movement of
potatoes under a limited permit be
allowed to the commenter’s State,
Oregon.
To ensure that potatoes moved from
the quarantined area under a limited
permit are handled, processed, or
utilized in a manner that destroys PCN,
we require the receiving facility to have
a compliance agreement. This
compliance agreement is signed by
APHIS and the owner or operator of the
facility; during the approval process for
a compliance agreement, the State in
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
19375
which the facility is located is offered
the opportunity to provide input and
raise any applicable concerns. APHIS
will not approve any compliance
agreement unless we determine that the
facility will follow the regulations,
which provide adequate restrictions to
prevent the interstate spread of PCN.
Therefore, it is not necessary to provide
advance notification to States of
shipments of potatoes moved under a
limited permit.
It should be noted that, thus far in the
PCN program, all movement of potatoes
under a limited permit has occurred
within the State of Idaho, and we do not
anticipate any movement of potatoes
under a limited permit from Idaho to
other States.
One commenter stated that the
interim rule had a significant economic
impact on his business, citing expenses
associated with washing trucks and
tarping trucks that move between fields.
The commenter stated that the
designation of fields owned by the
commenter as part of the quarantined
area meant that the commenter no
longer has any control over what crops
can be planted there and that
investments in planting potato crops in
the quarantined fields had thus been
lost.
The commenter also stated that there
had been an agreement to sell one of his
farms to another farmer, but since the
designation of that field as part of the
quarantined area, the sale of the farm
may be lost. The commenter asked that
compensation be provided to affected
producers and suggested that APHIS
rent the fields in the quarantined area
for a period of time until PCN could be
eradicated.
Another commenter asked that APHIS
allow equipment to move from
quarantined fields through
nonquarantined fields and to other
quarantined fields without washing.
The regulations and the PCN
eradication program do not require
tarping of trucks. However, as
mentioned earlier, potatoes moved
under limited permit must be
transported in a manner that prevents
the potatoes and soil attached to the
potatoes from coming into contact with
agricultural premises outside the
quarantined area. Potatoes transported
in trucks normally have soil attached.
Accordingly, an inspector may require
steps to be taken to prevent that soil
from coming into contact with
agricultural premises outside the
quarantined area. A common and
simple means to accomplish this goal is
tarping trucks. The requirement to
prevent soil attached to the potatoes
from coming into contact with
E:\FR\FM\29APR1.SGM
29APR1
tjames on PRODPC75 with RULES
19376
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 29, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
agricultural premises outside the
quarantined area is necessary to prevent
the spread of PCN.
Similarly, washing trucks that have
been used in the quarantined area is
often necessary to prevent soil on the
truck from coming into contact with
agricultural premises outside the
quarantined area; without washing,
such movement could pose a risk of
spreading PCN to the nonquarantined
fields. We provide the services of an
inspector free of charge to monitor
washing of trucks, if necessary. We are
working with affected producers to
ensure that we can accommodate their
business processes to the extent that our
resources allow.
The regulations restrict the interstate
movement of regulated articles from the
quarantined area; they do not prescribe
management practices. The commenter
refers to management practices that are
part of the eradication program; if
producers participate in the eradication
program, infested fields will eventually
be able to be removed from quarantine.
Under the regulations in § 301.86–
3(d), producers have had the option of
maintaining their fields under
quarantine or participating in a
biosurvey protocol sufficient to declare
the field free of PCN. Options for
ensuring that an infested field is free of
PCN include participating in the APHIS
eradication program for PCN or not
planting any host crops in a quarantined
field for enough time that any PCN that
are present can no longer survive. The
latter option requires not planting host
crops for 30 years, meaning that affected
producers may judge it to be in their
best interest to participate in the
eradication program.
Federal action is necessary to prevent
the spread of PCN into noninfested
areas and thus prevent economic
impacts on a much greater number of
producers than are currently affected by
the PCN quarantine. We have
determined that it is not appropriate to
pay compensation to affected producers;
however, APHIS has assumed the cost
of implementing the eradication
program and will continue to do so,
subject to the availability of funds.
One commenter stated that we had
not given advance notice of the addition
of a field owned by the commenter to
the quarantined area and that such
notice should have been given.
We provided notice of the changes in
the quarantined area on November 1,
2007, consistent with § 301.86–3 of the
regulations.
We are making one additional change
to the regulations established by the
interim rule. Paragraph § 301.86–3(d)(1)
of the interim rule stated that an
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:08 Apr 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
infested field will be removed from
quarantine when a 3-year biosurvey
protocol approved by APHIS has been
completed and the field has been found
to be free of PCN. At the time of
publication of the interim rule, we
believed that a 3-year biosurvey
protocol would be sufficient to support
removal of an infested field from
quarantine, although we had not yet
worked out the specific requirements for
such a procedure. However, with input
from stakeholders and from an
independent international science
panel, we have refined and continue to
refine the protocol that will be sufficient
to support removal of an infested field
from quarantine. We will continue to
solicit input from affected producers,
State departments of agriculture,
researchers, and the general public as
we develop the protocol, and we will
update affected producers and other
interested parties on our progress. To
ensure that the regulations recognize
whatever bioassay protocol we
ultimately determine to be sufficient, we
are changing the regulations for removal
of infested fields from quarantine to
refer more generically to a protocol
approved by the Administrator as
sufficient to support removal of infested
fields from quarantine.
Paragraph § 301.86–3(d)(2) of the
interim rule stated that an associated
field will be removed from quarantine
when the field has been found to be free
of PCN according to a survey protocol
approved by the Administrator as
sufficient to support removal from
quarantine. To avoid confusion with the
requirement for removing infested fields
from quarantine, we are changing
paragraph (d)(2) to refer to a protocol
approved by the Administrator as
sufficient to support removal of
associated fields from quarantine.
Therefore, for the reasons given in the
interim rule and in this document, we
are adopting the interim rule as a final
rule, with the changes discussed in this
document.
This final rule also affirms the
information contained in the interim
rule concerning Executive Orders
12866, 12372, and 12988 and the
Paperwork Reduction Act.
Further, this action has been
determined to be not significant for the
purposes of Executive Order 12866 and,
therefore, has not been reviewed by the
Office of Management and Budget.
Effective Date
Pursuant to the administrative
procedure provisions in 5 U.S.C. 553,
we find good cause for making this rule
effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. The
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
interim rule adopted as final by this rule
became effective on November 1, 2007.
This rule amends the testing
requirements and provisions for
interstate movement established by the
interim rule. Immediate action is
necessary to make these changes in
order to prevent the artificial spread of
PCN to noninfested areas of the United
States. Therefore, the Administrator of
the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service has determined that this rule
should be effective upon publication in
the Federal Register.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
This final rule follows an interim rule
that amended the regulations by
quarantining part of Bingham and
Bonneville Counties, ID, because of the
presence there of PCN and restricting
the interstate movement of regulated
articles from the quarantined area. On
November 1, 2007, the quarantined area
was updated to add fields in both
Bingham and Bonneville Counties, ID,
and to add fields in Jefferson County,
ID. These are the first detections of PCN
in the United States. This analysis
considers the economic effects of the
regulations on the current quarantined
area and the benefits of imposing the
quarantine.
Expected benefits and costs are
examined, including expected economic
impacts for small entities as required by
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
U.S. Production and Exports 3
Potatoes, excluding sweet potatoes,
are a staple crop grown in a majority of
U.S. States. They are also the lead
vegetable crop in the United States. The
Russet variety, which is planted in the
spring and harvested in the fall,
accounts for approximately 75 percent
of the total U.S. acreage planted to
potatoes. Ninety percent of all potatoes
are harvested in the fall, with the
remaining 10 percent harvested in the
other three seasons. This 10 percent of
production accounts for specialty
varieties that typically command higher
prices, such as round white, red, yellow,
and purple potatoes.
From 2001 to 2006, acreage planted to
fall potatoes fell by 9 percent while
production of this variety decreased by
4 percent throughout the United States.
The decline in Idaho’s acreage and
production was sharper, falling by 21
percent and 18 percent, respectively.
Yields over the same period increased
in both the United States and Idaho. Fall
potatoes are marketed year round from
3 Most information in this section is derived from
the Economic Research Service’s Potato Briefing
Room, available online at https://www.ers.usda.gov/
Briefing/Potatoes/.
E:\FR\FM\29APR1.SGM
29APR1
19377
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 29, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
July (early harvest areas) through June.
Potatoes can be stored for long periods
of time. This storage capability allows
flexibility in marketing; sellers can hold
their crop until more favorable prices
prevail on the market. Fresh potatoes
are mainly sold on the open market, not
under contract. Processing potatoes, on
the other hand, are typically contracted.
TABLE 1—PRODUCTION AND FARM PRICES OF FALL POTATOES IN THE UNITED STATES; IDAHO; AND BINGHAM,
BONNEVILLE, AND JEFFERSON COUNTIES, ID, 2001–2006
United States
Production
Farm price
Table stock
1,000 Cwt.
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
..................
Idaho
Production
393,631
413,581
410,588
410,253
382,743
398,921
Farm price
Processing
Table stock
$ per Cwt.
10.79
9.59
7.32
6.76
10.36
10.27
All uses
$ per Cwt.
120,200
133,385
123,180
131,970
118,288
128,915
(a)
(a)
3.85
3.40
6.90
6.55
Jefferson
county b
Bonneville
county b
Production
Processing
1,000 Cwt.
5.05
5.16
5.10
5.06
5.39
5.90
Bingham
county b
1,000 Cwt.
(a)
(a)
4.30
4.50
4.90
5.40
1,000 Cwt.
1,000 Cwt.
18,330
20,000
19,598
20,740
18,080
20,200
8,136
9,204
8,537
9,070
8,250
9,930
10,047
13,029
10,645
9,200
9,360
9,100
6.15
5.00
4.40
4.25
5.70
5.90
a Prices
by use not available for these years.
data available for prices at the county level.
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Potatoes: 2006 Summary, September 2007 and USDA, NASS,
Idaho Office, County Estimates: Potatoes 2006, September 2007.
b No
The United States ranks fourth in the
world in potato production, trailing
China, Russia, and India. Historically,
the United States has been a net
exporter of potatoes in value terms, with
exports of processed potatoes
accounting for a large portion of this
surplus. In 2003 and 2004, an increase
in imports of processed potato products
from Canada tipped this balance so that
the United States ran a trade deficit in
those years. However, imports of
Canadian potato products returned to
historical levels in 2005, and the United
States regained its status as a net
exporter. Exports of potatoes are on the
rise and now account for approximately
one-third of the value of farm sales.
Over half of these exports are processed
products, primarily frozen french fries.
Japan is the United States’ largest
importer of frozen fries, followed by
Mexico and Canada. Canada is the
largest supplier of U.S. potato imports.
Although, historically, Japan has been
the largest importer of U.S. frozen
potato products, this country banned
imports of fresh potatoes from the
United States starting in the 1950s.
However, in February of 2006, Japan
opened its market to the importation of
fresh potatoes from approved facilities
in 14 States: Arizona, California,
Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Maine,
Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico,
North Dakota, Texas, Oregon,
Washington, and Wisconsin (OC 2006).4
The outbreak of PCN in Idaho has led
to the reimplementation of Japan’s ban
on fresh potatoes from the United
States.
Idaho Production and Exports
Idaho specializes in production of fall
potatoes. According to NASS data, there
were no spring, summer, or winter
potatoes produced in Idaho from 2001
to 2006. Over 65 percent of fall potatoes
are grown in the Western States. Idaho
and Washington account for 50 percent
of the U.S. total, where planted acreage
in Idaho is more than double that in
Washington. Idaho’s importance to the
domestic potato industry also makes
this State influential in the world
market for potatoes. Idaho exports a
substantial amount of potatoes on a
yearly basis. However, the majority of
these exports is processed rather than
fresh. This analysis only focuses on the
fresh market, since this is the portion
that will be affected by the final rule.
From 2001 to 2006, the annual value of
Idaho’s table potato exports averaged
$3.6 million. Sixty-seven percent of
Idaho’s fresh exports during this period
were to Canada. Mexico also imported
potatoes from Idaho, accounting for 23
percent of Idaho exports. Japan is a
substantial importer of U.S. processed
potato products, but its imports of fresh
potatoes have been negligible or
nonexistent.
Together, Canada and Mexico
accounted for approximately 90 percent
of Idaho exports between 2001 and
2006, although Idaho’s fresh potato sales
worldwide and the combined share
exported to Canada and Mexico have
fluctuated substantially (table 2).
Mexico has been an expanding market,
with sales increasing 90-fold over this 6year period, while exports to Canada
have declined by more than half. In
2005, Idaho’s potato exports to Mexico
exceeded its potato exports to Canada
for the first time.
TABLE 2—IDAHO EXPORTS OF FRESH POTATOES BY COUNTRY, 2001–2006
World
Canada
tjames on PRODPC75 with RULES
Exports
($1,000)
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
.........................................................
.........................................................
.........................................................
.........................................................
.........................................................
3,622
3,472
1,988
1,485
6,643
4 Office of Communications of USDA. Release
number 0050.06, February 2006. Online news
release: https://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:05 Apr 28, 2009
Jkt 214001
Exports
($1,000)
3,209
3,200
1,988
1,096
1,485
Mexico
Percentage
of total
Exports
($1,000)
88.6
92.2
100.0
73.8
22.4
0_A/7_0_1OB/.cmd/ad/.ar/sa.retrievecontent/.c/6_
2_1UH/.ce/7_2_5JM/.p/5_2_4TQ/_th/J_2_9D/_s.7_
0_A/7_0_1OB?PC_7_2_5JM_contentid=2006%
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Japan
Percentage
of total
34
12
0
338
2,967
0.9
0.3
0.0
22.8
44.7
Exports
($1,000)
43
0
0
0
0
Percentage
of total
1.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2F02%2F0050.xml&PC_7_2_5JM_parentnav=
LATEST_RELEASES&PC_7_2_5JM_navid=NEWS_
RELEASE. Accessed September 2006.
E:\FR\FM\29APR1.SGM
29APR1
19378
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 29, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 2—IDAHO EXPORTS OF FRESH POTATOES BY COUNTRY, 2001–2006—Continued
World
Canada
Exports
($1,000)
2006 .........................................................
Exports
($1,000)
4,518
1,190
Mexico
Percentage
of total
26.3
Exports
($1,000)
Japan
Percentage
of total
3,086
68.3
Exports
($1,000)
Percentage
of total
0
0.0
Source: Global Trade Information Services, World Trade Atlas: U.S. State Export Edition, April 2007.
Costs for Producers in the Quarantined
Area
As of December 1, 2008,
approximately 17,376 of the 335,000
acres planted to potatoes in Idaho were
included in the current quarantined
area. However, of these acres, only 1,079
were infested with PCN. The rest were
regulated as associated fields. The
potential economic impacts of
regulating this area are presented in the
following paragraphs.
Given a quarantined area of
approximately 17,376 acres, an upperbound annual potato production
quantity of about 563.7 million pounds
could be affected by the rule.5 This
amount represents approximately 3
percent of total potato production in
Idaho and slightly more than 1 percent
of total potato production in the United
States. However, even these small
percentages overstate the probable
impact because the 563.7 million pound
upper-bound quantity assumes all
regulated acres would be planted to
potatoes at any given time, whereas
potatoes are commonly grown in a 2- to
3-year rotation with grain. Moreover,
interstate movement of table potatoes
and other regulated articles from
quarantined areas will be allowed when
accompanied by a certificate or limited
permit, when field surveys are
completed and cropping restrictions
have been met, and when PCN has not
been found. We note that State officials
expect a significant decline in the
acreage planted to potatoes in Idaho this
year, due to the high price of grain and
possible water shortages.
Despite the minimal impacts on
domestic production, some export
markets initially did close due to the
PCN outbreak. However, the majority of
Idaho potato exports are in the form of
processed products, not fresh potatoes.
Idaho’s exports of fresh potatoes
averaged 2 percent of total exports of
potato and potato products from 2001 to
2006. As noted, since the Federal Order
quarantining certain areas of Idaho was
implemented on August 28, 2006, major
foreign markets for fresh potatoes from
Idaho have reopened, including Canada
and Mexico. Since these two countries
account for approximately 90 percent of
Idaho fresh exports, the impact of the
rule on fresh potato exports is likely to
be very small.
Producers whose fields are infested
and who wish to remove those fields
from quarantine may choose either not
to plant any host crop, including
potatoes, tomatoes, eggplants, peppers,
or tomatillos, for 30 years or to engage
in the APHIS eradication program.
Producers may plant non-host crops on
the quarantined acreage. According to
APHIS field personnel, prior to the
implementation of the Federal Order,
producers in the three affected counties
historically planted potatoes in a 2-year
rotation with grain. If, because of the
rule, a producer chooses to plant
alternative crops entirely, it would
likely be a continuous grain rotation or
a rotation of grain and hay. In Bingham
County, the harvested acreage of
potatoes trails that of wheat and alfalfa
hay. Producers in this county also grow
barley. Data for Bonneville County show
significant wheat and barley acreage, as
well as acreage devoted to hay
production. Jefferson County harvests a
significant acreage of hay, with
approximately equivalent acreage
devoted to barley, wheat, and potatoes,
combined. Based on historical
production in the three counties (tables
3, 4, and 5) and farmers’ options, it is
likely that farmers subject to the
quarantine will choose to plant non-host
crops rather than forgo revenue that
could be generated from the land under
quarantine. The planting decision will
be a function of market prices, input
costs, and possibly Government
payments for commodities classified as
program crops. Farmers may choose to
plant one commodity or multiple
commodities depending on these
factors. Given alternative production
opportunities, the extent to which
producers in the quarantined area will
be negatively affected by the rule cannot
be clearly defined. However, given that
the crops mentioned above are viable
substitutes in production for the
ineligible host crops, producers will
likely not face substantial impacts due
to the quarantine regulations.
5 This estimate is based on historical yields from
Bingham, Bonneville, and Jefferson Counties, ID,
and the estimated number of acres quarantined
under the rule. An average of the yields from 2001
to 2006 excluding the high and low yields from the
period is multiplied by the number of acres
quarantined to estimate the level of production in
each county for the quarantine area. The production
numbers for the three counties are then summed to
obtain the upper-bound estimate reported above.
Based upon available data and
expected effects, we believe that the
benefits of the rule, in terms of
curtailing the spread of the pest, will
outweigh the costs borne by producers
in the quarantined area. Major importers
of fresh potatoes from Idaho, including
Canada and Mexico, have lifted their
import prohibitions imposed following
the PCN discoveries and now allow
imports of fresh potatoes from Idaho
subject to certain restrictions, including
that the potatoes do not originate from
the quarantined area. Since the United
States exports many more potatoes in
the processed form, either as frozen
french fries or potato chips, any loss of
foreign markets for fresh potatoes is not
likely to have significant economic
impacts on the U.S. potato industry.
Additionally, the domestic market will
be able to absorb any excess supply of
fresh potatoes resulting from import
bans imposed by other countries.
In the following analysis, we first
consider potential costs of the rule for
producers in the quarantined area.
Possible benefits of the rule, in terms of
preventing the spread of PCN to other
States, are then examined. Lastly, we
address expected impacts for small
entities.
tjames on PRODPC75 with RULES
Expected Costs of the Rule
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:08 Apr 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\29APR1.SGM
29APR1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 29, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
19379
TABLE 3—HARVESTED ACREAGE AND PRODUCTION OF VARIOUS CROPS IN BINGHAM COUNTY, ID, 2001–2006
Wheat
Barley
Hay
Potatoes
Harvested Acres
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
117,500
116,500
109,000
117,500
122,200
114,500
21,300
22,500
28,700
26,900
24,300
19,100
54,300
67,000
66,900
64,500
61,600
72,000
55,200
59,700
60,300
56,000
52,200
55,800
Production (1,000 Pounds)
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
660,000
682,200
680,400
795,600
807,960
736,500
95,184
100,224
123,360
133,440
121,152
84,960
472,800
568,400
512,000
514,000
583,800
705,600
1,833,000
2,000,000
1,959,800
2,074,000
1,808,000
2,020,000
Source: USDA, NASS, Quick Stats Database, U.S. and All States County Data—Crops, January 2008.
TABLE 4—HARVESTED ACREAGE AND PRODUCTION OF VARIOUS CROPS IN BONNEVILLE COUNTY, ID, 2001–2006
Wheat
Barley
Hay
Potatoes
Harvested Acres
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
57,400
52,600
46,300
51,000
46,500
52,700
60,100
68,400
71,300
66,500
69,000
59,200
34,500
34,700
38,800
37,400
35,600
39,000
28,700
31,200
29,800
29,900
26,600
29,200
Production (1,000 Pounds)
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
192,000
178,800
145,200
214,800
183,900
203,100
235,680
280,320
210,240
315,456
331,392
264,000
242,000
256,800
248,000
254,800
263,200
311,000
813,600
920,400
853,700
907,000
825,000
993,000
Source: USDA, NASS, Quick Stats Database, U.S. and All States County Data—Crops, January 2008.
TABLE 5—HARVESTED ACREAGE AND PRODUCTION OF VARIOUS CROPS IN JEFFERSON COUNTY, ID, 2001–2006
Wheat
Barley
Hay
Potatoes
Harvested Acres
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
30,900
27,200
22,700
33,300
31,300
32,800
41,600
42,700
51,900
56,300
56,700
44,600
91,500
97,500
101,700
98,000
95,300
98,600
29,600
36,700
32,000
24,200
24,300
23,400
Production (1,000 Pounds)
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
152,100
143,160
123,900
195,600
188,880
197,880
187,776
198,960
234,576
288,672
276,192
207,840
835,600
913,200
926,400
911,400
910,000
997,000
1,004,700
1,302,900
1,064,500
920,000
936,000
910,000
tjames on PRODPC75 with RULES
Source: USDA, NASS, Quick Stats Database, U.S. and All States County Data—Crops, January 2008.
Expected Benefits of the Rule
Impacts of the rule on the domestic
market are likely to be small, and the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:08 Apr 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
benefits of the quarantine in preventing
the spread of PCN are expected to
outweigh the costs. Widespread
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
dissemination of the pest would likely
translate into significant economic
losses for producers and processors. Left
E:\FR\FM\29APR1.SGM
29APR1
19380
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 29, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
unchecked, PCN attacks the roots of the
potato plant, leaching nutrients from the
plant itself, which in turn reduces
yields, leading to significant declines in
production. Additionally, import bans
implemented by U.S. trading partners
would likely be more widespread and
take longer to remove. Furthermore,
producers have the option to plant nonhost crops and keep land in production
rather than allowing it to remain fallow.
tjames on PRODPC75 with RULES
Cost-Benefit Summary
Benefits of the regulation in terms of
preventing the spread of PCN are
expected to outweigh direct costs to
affected producers. The rule states that
an infested field will be removed from
quarantine when a protocol approved by
the Administrator as sufficient to
support removal of infested fields from
quarantine has been completed and the
field has been found to be free of PCN.
One means to ensure that a field is free
of PCN is to avoid planting host crops
in it for at least 30 years; PCN can
survive for up to 30 years in a dormant
state without any host crops on which
to feed. PPQ is also developing a
protocol for eradicating PCN in infested
fields. As noted earlier, PPQ will solicit
input from affected producers, State
departments of agriculture, researchers,
and the general public to develop the
protocol and provide updates on its
progress. When the protocol is finalized,
APHIS will make it available to the
public and will pay for its
implementation, subject to the
availability of funds. Regardless of the
eradication means used to ensure that a
field is free from PCN, however, APHIS
will require the protocol approved by
the Administrator as sufficient to
support removal of infested fields from
quarantine to confirm that freedom.
Until eradication of PCN in a field is
achieved, producers can minimize their
losses resulting from the regulation by
planting alternative non-host crops. A
number of non-host crops have been
identified as viable substitutes for
potatoes in the quarantined area.
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The Regulatory Flexibility Act
requires that agencies consider the
economic impact of rule changes on
small businesses, organizations, and
governmental jurisdictions. Section 604
of the Act requires agencies to prepare
and make available to the public a final
regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA)
describing any changes made to the rule
as a result of comments received and the
steps the agency has taken to minimize
any significant economic impacts on
small entities. Section 604(a) of the Act
specifies the content of a FRFA. In this
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:08 Apr 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
section, we address these FRFA
requirements.
Objectives and Need for the Rule
The objective of the interim rule and
this final rule is to prevent the spread
of PCN by quarantining infested or
associated fields. A widespread
outbreak of PCN in Idaho could have
devastating consequences for the U.S.
potato industry. APHIS believes the
implementation of the quarantine and
movement restrictions will prevent the
pest from spreading to other areas in
Idaho and the rest of the United States.
This will benefit a majority of potato
producers by safeguarding their fields
from infestation.
Summary of Significant Issues Raised
During Comment Period
One producer affected by the
quarantine commented that following
the protocols established in this rule
would be logistically difficult and
would impose an economic burden on
his operation. In addition, the producer
felt the rule limited his ability to make
planting decisions and interfered with
the potential sale of land.
The issues raised in this comment
appear to be an isolated incident where
the rule may have a significant impact
on one operation. However, the benefits
of the rule, in terms of preventing the
spread of PCN to other areas, outweigh
the costs described by this producer.
APHIS has not made any changes in this
final rule based on this comment.
Description and Estimated Number of
Small Entities Regulated
The final rule will have potential
implications for domestic producers of
potatoes, as well as potato processing
firms. Additionally, producers of other
host crops and non-host crops also
regulated under the rule may be
impacted. It is likely that the entities
affected will be small according to
Small Business Administration (SBA)
guidelines. A discussion of these
impacts follows.
Affected U.S. potato producers are
expected to be small entities, based on
2002 Census of Agriculture data and
SBA guidelines for entities in the farm
category Potato Farming, Field, and
Seed Potato Production (NAICS
111211). The SBA classifies producers
in this farm category with total annual
sales of not more than $750,000 as small
entities. APHIS does not have
information on the size distribution of
the relevant producers, but according to
2002 Agriculture Census data, there
were a total of 25,017 farms in Idaho in
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
2002.6 Of this number, approximately
95 percent had annual sales in 2002 of
less than $500,000, which is well below
the SBA’s small entity threshold of
$750,000 for commodity farms.7 This
indicates that the majority of farms are
considered small by SBA standards, and
it is reasonable to assume that most of
the 121 potato farms located in Bingham
County, the 47 potato farms located in
Bonneville County, and the 32 potato
farms located in Jefferson County that
may be affected by this rule also qualify
as small. Potato packing firms classified
as NAICS 115114 (Postharvest Crop
Activities (except Cotton Ginning)) are
considered small if they have not more
than $6.5 million in total annual sales.
According to the County Business
Patterns report for Idaho published by
the Census Bureau, there were 22 postharvest establishments in Idaho in 2005,
the latest date for which numbers were
published. Of these, one was located in
Bingham County and one was located in
Bonneville County; there were no
establishments reported for Jefferson
County. This document does not report
the value of total annual sales or the
distribution of annual sales for firms in
this category. Thus, it is not known
what percentage of potato packing firms
are small.
In addition to potato farms, producers
engaged in growing other host crops,
including tomatoes, eggplants, peppers,
and tomatillos, and non-host crops that
may be moved with soil attached,
including garden and dry beans and
peas, are subject to regulation and
expected to be small entities according
to SBA standards. The crops listed
above are all classified within NAICS
111219 (Other Vegetable (except Potato)
and Melon Farming). Firms with total
annual sales of less than $750,000 are
considered small entities. As discussed
earlier, APHIS does not have data at a
sufficiently detailed level to determine
which farms in these categories are
considered small. However, it is
reasonable to assume that if 95 percent
of total Idaho farms are small by SBA
guidelines, a majority of the farms
classified under NAICS 111219 can also
be considered small. Although it is
assumed that most if not all vegetable
(except potato) farms in Bingham,
Bonneville, and Jefferson Counties are
small, NASS does not report any of
these types of farms in the affected
counties, nor is there any production
data for these crops in any of the
affected counties. Therefore, there is
likely to be at most a very small impact
6 This number represents the total number of
farms in Idaho, including farms producing potatoes.
7 Source: SBA and 2002 Census of Agriculture.
E:\FR\FM\29APR1.SGM
29APR1
tjames on PRODPC75 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 29, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
as a result of regulations concerning
other host crops and non-host crops
moved with soil attached.
In the case of potato processors,
establishments classified within NAICS
311411 (Frozen Fruit, Juice, and
Vegetable Manufacturing), NAICS
311423 (Dried and Dehydrated Food
Manufacturing), NAICS 311919 (Other
Snack Food Manufacturing), and NAICS
311991 (Perishable Prepared Food
Manufacturing) with not more than 500
employees are considered small entities
by SBA standards. Data from the
Economic Census show that in 2002,
there were a total of 235 frozen fruit,
juice, and vegetable manufacturing
establishments, including firms
manufacturing frozen french fries, in the
United States. Of these firms, 215, or 92
percent, employed fewer than 500
employees and were, therefore,
considered small entities by SBA
standards. There were 181 dried and
dehydrated food manufacturing
establishments in 2002. Included in this
category are manufacturers of
dehydrated potato products. There were
176 firms with less than 500 employees
in this category, accounting for 97
percent of all firms. For other snack
food manufacturing establishments,
which includes firms manufacturing
potato chips, there were 338
establishments in the United States in
2002. Of these establishments, 322 (over
95 percent) had fewer than 500
employees. Firms manufacturing peeled
or cut potatoes, included in the
perishable prepared food manufacturing
category, numbered 610 in 2002. Of
these, 603 (99 percent) had no more
than 500 employees.8 Based on this
information, it is reasonable to conclude
that domestic producers and potato
processors that may be affected by the
rule are predominantly small entities.
Based on the data available to APHIS,
benefits to producers outside the
regulated area of curtailing the spread of
the pest will likely outweigh the costs
borne by affected producers. Major
importers of fresh potatoes from Idaho,
including Canada and Mexico, have
lifted import prohibitions they imposed
following the PCN discoveries and now
allow imports of fresh potatoes from
Idaho subject to certain restrictions,
including that the potatoes do not
originate from the quarantined area.
Since the United States exports many
more potatoes in the processed form,
either as frozen french fries or potato
chips, any loss of fresh markets is not
likely to have significant economic
impacts on the U.S. potato industry.
Additionally, the domestic market
8 Source:
SBA and 2002 Economic Census.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:08 Apr 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
would likely be able to absorb any
excess supply of fresh potatoes resulting
from the import bans imposed by other
countries.
Description and Estimate of Compliance
Requirements
Inspection services required to
comply with regulations are provided to
producers at no cost. Certificates and
limited permits required to move
regulated articles out of a quarantined
area may be obtained without cost from
an inspector or person operating under
a compliance agreement.
Description of Steps Taken To Minimize
Significant Economic Impacts on Small
Entities
APHIS has concluded that there are
no alternatives to the rule that would
satisfactorily accomplish the stated
objectives and minimize any significant
impacts on small entities. The rule will
protect potato producers outside the
regulated area from the crop damage
and losses that would be incurred if the
pale cyst nematode were allowed to
spread.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 301
Agricultural commodities, Plant
diseases and pests, Quarantine,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Transportation.
■ Accordingly, the interim rule
amending 7 CFR parts 301 and 305 that
was published at 72 FR 51975–51988 on
September 12, 2007, is adopted as a
final rule with the following changes:
PART 301—DOMESTIC QUARANTINE
NOTICES
1. The authority citation for part 301
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7701–7772 and 7781–
7786; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.
Section 301.75–15 issued under Sec. 204,
Title II, Public Law 106–113, 113 Stat.
1501A–293; sections 301.75–15 and 301.75–
16 issued under Sec. 203, Title II, Public Law
106–224, 114 Stat. 400 (7 U.S.C. 1421 note).
Subpart—Pale Cyst Nematode
2. The heading of the subpart
consisting of §§ 301.86 through 301.86–
9 is revised to read as set forth above.
■ 3. Section 301.86–1 is amended as
follows:
■ a. By removing the definition for
‘‘potato cyst nematode’’.
■ b. By adding, in alphabetical order, a
definition of ‘‘pale cyst nematode’’ to
read as set forth below.
■ c. In the definitions of ‘‘associated
field’’, ‘‘certificate’’, ‘‘infestation
(infested)’’, and ‘‘infested field’’, by
removing the word ‘‘potato’’ and adding
■
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
19381
the word ‘‘pale’’ in its place each time
it occurs.
§ 301.86–1
Definitions.
Pale cyst nematode. The pale cyst
nematode (Globodera pallida), in any
stage of development.
■ 4. Section 301.86–2 is amended as
follows:
■ a. By revising paragraph (a), including
footnote 2, to read as set forth below.
■ b. In paragraphs (b) and (i), by
removing the word ‘‘potato’’ and adding
the word ‘‘pale’’ in its place each time
it occurs.
§ 301.86–2
Regulated articles.
(a) Pale cyst nematodes.2
§ 301.86–3
[Amended]
5. Section 301.86–3 is amended as
follows:
■ a. In paragraphs (a), (b)(2), (c), and
(d)(2), by removing the words ‘‘potato
cyst’’ and adding the words ‘‘pale cyst’’
in their place each time they occur.
■ b. In paragraph (d)(1), by removing the
words ‘‘3-year biosurvey protocol
approved by APHIS’’ and adding the
words ‘‘protocol approved by the
Administrator as sufficient to support
removal of infested fields from
quarantine’’ in their place; and by
removing the word ‘‘PCN’’ and adding
the words ‘‘pale cyst nematode’’ in its
place.
■ c. In paragraph (d)(2), by removing the
word ‘‘survey’’ and by adding the words
‘‘of associated fields’’ after the word
‘‘removal’’.
■ 6. Section 301.86–5 is amended as
follows:
■ a. In paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(4),
(a)(5), and (b), by removing the word
‘‘potato’’ and adding the word ‘‘pale’’ in
its place each time it occurs.
■ b. By revising paragraph (a)(3) to read
as set forth below.
■
§ 301.86–5 Issuance and cancellation of
certificates and limited permits.
(a) * * *
(3) Certification requirements for
potatoes for consumption, root crops for
consumption, garden or dry beans, and
peas. An inspector may issue a
certificate for the movement of potatoes
intended for consumption, root crops
intended for consumption, garden or
dry beans, or peas from the quarantined
area only if the field in which the
potatoes, root crops, garden or dry
beans, or peas were grown meets the
following requirements:
(i) The field has been surveyed by an
inspector for pale cyst nematode at least
2 Permit and other requirements for the interstate
movement of pale cyst nematodes are contained in
part 330 of this chapter.
E:\FR\FM\29APR1.SGM
29APR1
19382
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 29, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
once in the last 3 years and prior to the
planting of the potatoes or root crops;
(ii) Pale cyst nematode has not been
found in the field; and
(iii) No more than one pale cyst
nematode host crop, as listed in
§ 301.86–2(b), has been grown in the
field in the last 3 years.
Done in Washington, DC, this 23rd day of
April 2009.
Kevin Shea,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. E9–9724 Filed 4–28–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–34–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Bureau of Industry and Security
15 CFR Part 748
[Docket No. 090415662–9687–01]
RIN 0694–AE61
Additions and Revisions to the List of
Approved End-Users and Respective
Eligible Items for the People’s
Republic of China (PRC) Under
Authorization Validated End-User
(VEU)
tjames on PRODPC75 with RULES
AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and
Security, Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: In this final rule, the Bureau
of Industry and Security (BIS) amends
the Export Administration Regulations
(EAR) to add a name to the list of endusers for the People’s Republic of China
(PRC) approved to receive exports,
reexports and transfers of certain items
under Authorization Validated EndUser (VEU). This rule also amends the
EAR to add and revise eligible items and
destinations for existing VEU
authorizations. Specifically, this rule
amends the EAR to authorize one
additional VEU and identify its
respective eligible items for export and
reexport to the PRC. This rule also
amends the authorizations of two preexisting VEUs in the PRC. Finally, this
rule makes a modification to the listed
name of an existing VEU in the PRC. In
a final rule published in the Federal
Register on June 19, 2007, BIS revised
and clarified U.S. export control policy
for the PRC, establishing Authorization
VEU and identifying the PRC as the
initial eligible destination. In a final rule
published in the Federal Register on
October 19, 2007, BIS published the
names of the first five validated endusers in the PRC that were approved to
receive certain specified items under
Authorization VEU.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:08 Apr 28, 2009
Jkt 217001
DATES: This rule is effective April 29,
2009. Although there is no formal
comment period, public comments on
this regulation are welcome on a
continuing basis.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by RIN 0694–AE61
(VEUPRCADE), by any of the following
methods:
E-mail: publiccomments@bis.doc.gov.
Include ‘‘RIN 0694–AE61
(VEUPRCADE)’’ in the subject line of
the message.
Fax: (202) 482–3355. Please alert the
Regulatory Policy Division, by calling
(202) 482–2440, if you are faxing
comments.
Mail or Hand Delivery/Courier: Sheila
Quarterman, U.S. Department of
Commerce, Bureau of Industry and
Security, Regulatory Policy Division,
14th Street & Pennsylvania Avenue,
NW., Room 2705, Washington, DC
20230, Attn: RIN 0694–AE61
(VEUPRCADE).
Send comments regarding the
collection of information associated
with this rule, including suggestions for
reducing the burden to Jasmeet Seehra,
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), by e-mail to
jseehra@omb.eop.gov or by fax to (202)
395–7285. Comments on this collection
of information should be submitted
separately from comments on the final
rule (i.e., RIN 0694–AE61
(VEUPRCADE))—all comments on the
latter should be submitted by one of the
three methods outlined above.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Karen Nies-Vogel, Chairman, End-User
Review Committee, Bureau of Industry
and Security, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street & Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230;
by telephone (202) 482–3811, or by email to kniesv@bis.doc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Authorization Validated End-User
(VEU): Additions and Modifications to
the List of Approved End-Users, Eligible
Items and Destinations
Consistent with U.S. Government
policy to facilitate trade for civilian endusers in the PRC, BIS amended the EAR
in a final rule on June 19, 2007 (72 FR
33646) by creating a new authorization
for ‘‘validated end-users’’ (VEUs)
located in eligible destinations to which
eligible items (commodities, software
and technology, except those controlled
for missile technology or crime control
reasons) may be exported, reexported or
transferred under a general
authorization instead of a license, in
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
conformance with Section 748.15 of the
EAR.
Authorization VEU is a mechanism to
facilitate increased high-technology
exports to companies in the PRC and
India that have a record of using such
items responsibly. VEUs may obtain
eligible items that are on the Commerce
Control List without having to wait for
their suppliers to obtain export licenses
from BIS. A wide range of items are
eligible for shipment under
Authorization VEU. In addition to U.S.
exporters, Authorization VEU may be
used by foreign reexporters, and does
not have an expiration date.
Additional VEUs in the PRC and Their
Respective ‘‘Eligible Items (By ECCN)’’
and ‘‘Eligible Destinations’’
This final rule amends Supplement
No. 7 to Part 748 of the EAR to identify
an additional company with eligible
facilities in the PRC as a VEU and to
identify the items that may be exported,
reexported or transferred to it under
Authorization VEU. This new entry is
for Aviza Technology China. It lists
Export Control Classification Numbers
(ECCNs) 2B230, 3B001.c.1.a and
3B001.e under ‘‘Eligible Items (By
ECCN),’’ and includes the following
facility names and addresses under
‘‘Eligible Destination:’’
Aviza Technology China, Room B–1501,
No. 188, Tomson Center, Zhang Yang
Road, Shanghai, China 200122.
Aviza Technology China, Room 612,
International Business Center, No. 18,
Hong Da North Road, Beijing
Economics and Technology
Development Area, Beijing, China.
Beijing Bonded: CIES, Electronics
Building, A23, Fuxing Road, Beijing,
China 100036.
Shanghai Bonded: SLC, Shanghai
Industrial-Wailianfa International
Logistics Co., Ltd., Address: 13F
Waigaoqiao Building, 889 Yang Gao
Road(N), Pudong, Shanghai, China.
HMG Logistics (Chengdu) Co., Ltd.,
Floor 1, No. 5 Standard Warehouse,
EPZ (West Area), Chengdu, China
611731.
Modifications to Existing VEU
Authorizations
This final rule also amends
Supplement No. 7 to Part 748 of the
EAR to implement requests received
from existing VEUs for modifications in
their authorizations to include
additional eligible items and additional
destinations, and to list a change of
name for an existing VEU. Specifically,
this rule makes the following
amendments to Supplement No. 7 to
Part 748:
E:\FR\FM\29APR1.SGM
29APR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 81 (Wednesday, April 29, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19374-19382]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-9724]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
7 CFR Parts 301 and 305
[Docket No. APHIS-2006-0143]
RIN 0579-AC54
Pale Cyst Nematode; Quarantine and Regulations
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are adopting as a final rule, with two changes, an interim
rule that amended the regulations by quarantining parts of Bingham and
Bonneville Counties, ID, due to the discovery of the potato cyst
nematode there and establishing restrictions on the interstate movement
of regulated articles from the quarantined area. As amended by this
document, the rule refers to the nematode of concern, Globodera
pallida, by the common name ``pale cyst nematode'' rather than by the
name ``potato cyst nematode;'' allows the movement of Phaseolus spp.
(beans) and Pisum spp. (peas) under the same conditions that apply to
the movement of other crops to which soil is often attached; and
requires that a protocol approved by the Administrator as sufficient to
support removal of infested fields from quarantine, rather than a 3-
year biosurvey protocol, be completed in order to remove an infested
field from quarantine. We are also making minor, nonsubstantive
changes. These actions will prevent the spread of the pale cyst
nematode via potatoes, soil, and other host material to noninfested
areas of the United States.
DATES: Effective Date: April 29, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Eileen Y. Smith, National Program
Manager, Emergency and Domestic Programs, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road
Unit 134, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; (301) 734-5235.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
In an interim rule \1\ published in the Federal Register on
September 12, 2007, and effective on November 1, 2007 (72 FR 51975-
51988, Docket No. APHIS-2006-0143), we quarantined parts of Bingham and
Bonneville Counties, ID, due to the discovery of the potato cyst
nematode (Globodera pallida) and established restrictions on the
interstate movement of regulated articles from the quarantined area.
This action was necessary to prevent the spread of this pest to
noninfested areas of the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ To view the interim rule and the comments we received, go to
https://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS-2006-0143.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We solicited comments concerning our interim rule for 60 days
ending November 13, 2007. We received three comments by that date. They
were from a State department of agriculture and two private citizens.
We have carefully considered the comments we received. They are
discussed below.
The regulations established by the interim rule referred to G.
pallida as the potato cyst nematode. One commenter stated that our use
of the term ``potato cyst nematode'' to refer to G. pallida was
confusing, as the term ``potato cyst nematode'' is used generically to
refer to many cyst nematodes that infest potatoes. The commenter
suggested that we amend the regulations to instead refer to the ``pale
potato cyst nematode.''
We agree that the use of the term ``potato cyst nematode'' may make
the species to which we refer unclear. For example, in our regulations
for the importation of nursery stock in Sec. 319.37-5(a), we refer to
G. rostochiensis (the golden nematode) and G. pallida collectively as
``potato cyst nematodes.'' To avoid confusion, this final rule amends
the regulations established by the interim rule to refer instead to the
``pale cyst nematode,'' or PCN.
Section 301.86-2 of the interim rule lists certain articles that
present a risk of spreading PCN if they are moved from quarantined
areas without restriction. These articles are referred to as regulated
articles and include garden and dry beans (Phaseolus spp.) and peas
(Pisum spp.).
One commenter asked why Phaseolus spp. and Pisum spp. were listed
as regulated articles, since these articles are not hosts of PCN. The
commenter also noted that we had not included provisions for their
movement under certificate in the regulations and asked us to explain
why.
Phaseolus spp. and Pisum spp. are listed as regulated articles
because these articles are often moved with soil attached; it is the
soil that poses a risk of spreading PCN, rather than the commodity
itself. (Phaseolus spp. and Pisum spp. are produced both for
consumption and as seed; in both cases, the risk arises from the
potential movement of soil with the articles.) The risk posed by these
articles is thus similar to the risk posed by potatoes and root crops
intended for consumption, which are also often moved with soil
attached.
The regulations established by the interim rule provide conditions
under which potatoes and root crops intended for consumption can be
moved interstate with a certificate. Paragraph (a)(3) of Sec. 301.86-5
states that an inspector may issue a certificate for the interstate
movement of potatoes or root crops intended for consumption from the
quarantined area only if the field in which the potatoes or root crops
have been grown meets the following requirements:
The field has been surveyed by an inspector for PCN at
least once in the last 3 years and prior to the planting of the
potatoes or root crops;
PCN has not been found in the field; and
No more than one PCN host crop has been grown in the field
the last 3 years.
We should have allowed Phaseolus spp. and Pisum spp. to move
interstate under the same conditions, as the risk posed by these
articles is the same as the risk posed by potatoes and root crops for
consumption, and the conditions under which potatoes and root crops are
allowed to be moved will also be effective for Phaseolus spp. and Pisum
spp. Therefore, we are amending the regulations established by the
interim rule to allow Phaseolus spp. and Pisum spp. to move under the
same conditions as potatoes and root crops that are moved for
consumption. (We are also making minor editorial changes to Sec.
301.86-5(a)(3) to make it consistent with the other provisions in Sec.
301.86-5.)
Paragraph Sec. 301.86-3(a) of the regulations provide that the
Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)
will publish the description of the quarantined area on the Plant
Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) Web site, https://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/potato/pcn.shtml. The description of
the quarantined area will include the date the description was last
updated and a description of the changes that have been made to the
quarantined area.
[[Page 19375]]
One commenter expressed concerns about using a Web site to display
the map of the quarantined area. This commenter stated that the map on
the PPQ Web site was hard to read. The commenter also noted that the
Web address could change, and asked how we would ensure that the
address does not change for the life of the regulations. Finally, the
commenter stated that the Department of Justice in the commenter's
State had advised that referring to a mutable document, such as a map
of a quarantined area on a Web site, in a quarantine regulation could
be more easily subjected to challenge in court than a description of
the quarantined area in the regulations themselves.
On November 1, 2007, the effective date of the interim rule, we
updated the map of the quarantined area and made it easier to read.\2\
We published a notice in the Federal Register informing the public of
the changes to the map since the publication of the interim rule on
June 6, 2008 (73 FR 32284-32285, Docket No. APHIS-2008-0014), and we
have published several notices since then informing the public of
additional changes to the quarantined area. As with other regulations
that refer to Web addresses, we will ensure that, if our Web site is
revised and the address changes, our Web site will redirect users who
enter the Web address given in the regulations to the proper Web
address. Finally, the regulations set out specific conditions for
adding infested and associated fields to the quarantined area and
indicate that we will update the quarantined area whenever these
conditions are met, meaning that the quarantined area reflects our
application of standards in the regulations. We have determined that
publishing the quarantined area on the Web and updating it based on
standards in the regulations is an adequate means to communicate the
quarantined area to the regulated public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ This update to the quarantined area added fields in both
Bingham and Bonneville Counties, ID, and also added fields in
Jefferson County, ID.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted earlier, Sec. 301.86-5(a)(3) of the regulations sets out
conditions under which potatoes and root crops intended for consumption
may be moved under a certificate. One commenter suggested that we
require potatoes and root crops intended for consumption and moved
under a certificate to be grown only in fields that are planted with
certified potato seed, if the fields are planted with potatoes.
The State of Idaho's seed certification process does not require
potato seed to be examined for potato cyst nematodes. Therefore, such a
requirement would not decrease the risk posed by the movement of
potatoes, root crops for consumption, beans, or peas, and we are not
including such a requirement in the final rule. A potato seed
certification standard is being developed that would incorporate
examination for pale cyst nematode; if it is adopted, we may revisit
this issue.
It should be noted that the State of Idaho already requires that
all potato seed planted in the State be certified potato seed, meaning
that only certified potato seed is being planted in the current
quarantined area.
Paragraph Sec. 301.86-5(b) of the regulations provides for the
issuance of limited permits for the interstate movement of regulated
articles from the quarantined area. Paragraph (b)(2) sets out specific
conditions for the movement of potatoes for consumption from the
quarantined area for processing or packing. Under this paragraph, an
inspector may issue a limited permit to allow the interstate movement
of potatoes from the quarantined area for processing or packing only
if:
The potatoes are transported in a manner that prevents the
potatoes and soil attached to the potatoes from coming into contact
with agricultural premises outside the quarantined area; and
The potatoes are processed or packed at facilities that
handle potatoes, waste, and waste water in a manner approved by APHIS
to prevent the spread of PCN.
One commenter asked us to require that receiving States be notified
of any movement of potatoes from the quarantined area under a limited
permit. The commenter recommended that the receiving State be involved
in reviewing the practices of the processing and packing facility that
would receive such potatoes in order to ensure that those processes are
adequate to prevent the spread of PCN. The commenter stated that
receiving States should have the option of testing soil from potatoes
moved under a limited permit. The commenter also asked specifically
that no movement of potatoes under a limited permit be allowed to the
commenter's State, Oregon.
To ensure that potatoes moved from the quarantined area under a
limited permit are handled, processed, or utilized in a manner that
destroys PCN, we require the receiving facility to have a compliance
agreement. This compliance agreement is signed by APHIS and the owner
or operator of the facility; during the approval process for a
compliance agreement, the State in which the facility is located is
offered the opportunity to provide input and raise any applicable
concerns. APHIS will not approve any compliance agreement unless we
determine that the facility will follow the regulations, which provide
adequate restrictions to prevent the interstate spread of PCN.
Therefore, it is not necessary to provide advance notification to
States of shipments of potatoes moved under a limited permit.
It should be noted that, thus far in the PCN program, all movement
of potatoes under a limited permit has occurred within the State of
Idaho, and we do not anticipate any movement of potatoes under a
limited permit from Idaho to other States.
One commenter stated that the interim rule had a significant
economic impact on his business, citing expenses associated with
washing trucks and tarping trucks that move between fields. The
commenter stated that the designation of fields owned by the commenter
as part of the quarantined area meant that the commenter no longer has
any control over what crops can be planted there and that investments
in planting potato crops in the quarantined fields had thus been lost.
The commenter also stated that there had been an agreement to sell
one of his farms to another farmer, but since the designation of that
field as part of the quarantined area, the sale of the farm may be
lost. The commenter asked that compensation be provided to affected
producers and suggested that APHIS rent the fields in the quarantined
area for a period of time until PCN could be eradicated.
Another commenter asked that APHIS allow equipment to move from
quarantined fields through nonquarantined fields and to other
quarantined fields without washing.
The regulations and the PCN eradication program do not require
tarping of trucks. However, as mentioned earlier, potatoes moved under
limited permit must be transported in a manner that prevents the
potatoes and soil attached to the potatoes from coming into contact
with agricultural premises outside the quarantined area. Potatoes
transported in trucks normally have soil attached. Accordingly, an
inspector may require steps to be taken to prevent that soil from
coming into contact with agricultural premises outside the quarantined
area. A common and simple means to accomplish this goal is tarping
trucks. The requirement to prevent soil attached to the potatoes from
coming into contact with
[[Page 19376]]
agricultural premises outside the quarantined area is necessary to
prevent the spread of PCN.
Similarly, washing trucks that have been used in the quarantined
area is often necessary to prevent soil on the truck from coming into
contact with agricultural premises outside the quarantined area;
without washing, such movement could pose a risk of spreading PCN to
the nonquarantined fields. We provide the services of an inspector free
of charge to monitor washing of trucks, if necessary. We are working
with affected producers to ensure that we can accommodate their
business processes to the extent that our resources allow.
The regulations restrict the interstate movement of regulated
articles from the quarantined area; they do not prescribe management
practices. The commenter refers to management practices that are part
of the eradication program; if producers participate in the eradication
program, infested fields will eventually be able to be removed from
quarantine.
Under the regulations in Sec. 301.86-3(d), producers have had the
option of maintaining their fields under quarantine or participating in
a biosurvey protocol sufficient to declare the field free of PCN.
Options for ensuring that an infested field is free of PCN include
participating in the APHIS eradication program for PCN or not planting
any host crops in a quarantined field for enough time that any PCN that
are present can no longer survive. The latter option requires not
planting host crops for 30 years, meaning that affected producers may
judge it to be in their best interest to participate in the eradication
program.
Federal action is necessary to prevent the spread of PCN into
noninfested areas and thus prevent economic impacts on a much greater
number of producers than are currently affected by the PCN quarantine.
We have determined that it is not appropriate to pay compensation to
affected producers; however, APHIS has assumed the cost of implementing
the eradication program and will continue to do so, subject to the
availability of funds.
One commenter stated that we had not given advance notice of the
addition of a field owned by the commenter to the quarantined area and
that such notice should have been given.
We provided notice of the changes in the quarantined area on
November 1, 2007, consistent with Sec. 301.86-3 of the regulations.
We are making one additional change to the regulations established
by the interim rule. Paragraph Sec. 301.86-3(d)(1) of the interim rule
stated that an infested field will be removed from quarantine when a 3-
year biosurvey protocol approved by APHIS has been completed and the
field has been found to be free of PCN. At the time of publication of
the interim rule, we believed that a 3-year biosurvey protocol would be
sufficient to support removal of an infested field from quarantine,
although we had not yet worked out the specific requirements for such a
procedure. However, with input from stakeholders and from an
independent international science panel, we have refined and continue
to refine the protocol that will be sufficient to support removal of an
infested field from quarantine. We will continue to solicit input from
affected producers, State departments of agriculture, researchers, and
the general public as we develop the protocol, and we will update
affected producers and other interested parties on our progress. To
ensure that the regulations recognize whatever bioassay protocol we
ultimately determine to be sufficient, we are changing the regulations
for removal of infested fields from quarantine to refer more
generically to a protocol approved by the Administrator as sufficient
to support removal of infested fields from quarantine.
Paragraph Sec. 301.86-3(d)(2) of the interim rule stated that an
associated field will be removed from quarantine when the field has
been found to be free of PCN according to a survey protocol approved by
the Administrator as sufficient to support removal from quarantine. To
avoid confusion with the requirement for removing infested fields from
quarantine, we are changing paragraph (d)(2) to refer to a protocol
approved by the Administrator as sufficient to support removal of
associated fields from quarantine.
Therefore, for the reasons given in the interim rule and in this
document, we are adopting the interim rule as a final rule, with the
changes discussed in this document.
This final rule also affirms the information contained in the
interim rule concerning Executive Orders 12866, 12372, and 12988 and
the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Further, this action has been determined to be not significant for
the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been
reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
Effective Date
Pursuant to the administrative procedure provisions in 5 U.S.C.
553, we find good cause for making this rule effective less than 30
days after publication in the Federal Register. The interim rule
adopted as final by this rule became effective on November 1, 2007.
This rule amends the testing requirements and provisions for interstate
movement established by the interim rule. Immediate action is necessary
to make these changes in order to prevent the artificial spread of PCN
to noninfested areas of the United States. Therefore, the Administrator
of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that
this rule should be effective upon publication in the Federal Register.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
This final rule follows an interim rule that amended the
regulations by quarantining part of Bingham and Bonneville Counties,
ID, because of the presence there of PCN and restricting the interstate
movement of regulated articles from the quarantined area. On November
1, 2007, the quarantined area was updated to add fields in both Bingham
and Bonneville Counties, ID, and to add fields in Jefferson County, ID.
These are the first detections of PCN in the United States. This
analysis considers the economic effects of the regulations on the
current quarantined area and the benefits of imposing the quarantine.
Expected benefits and costs are examined, including expected
economic impacts for small entities as required by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act.
U.S. Production and Exports \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Most information in this section is derived from the
Economic Research Service's Potato Briefing Room, available online
at https://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Potatoes/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Potatoes, excluding sweet potatoes, are a staple crop grown in a
majority of U.S. States. They are also the lead vegetable crop in the
United States. The Russet variety, which is planted in the spring and
harvested in the fall, accounts for approximately 75 percent of the
total U.S. acreage planted to potatoes. Ninety percent of all potatoes
are harvested in the fall, with the remaining 10 percent harvested in
the other three seasons. This 10 percent of production accounts for
specialty varieties that typically command higher prices, such as round
white, red, yellow, and purple potatoes.
From 2001 to 2006, acreage planted to fall potatoes fell by 9
percent while production of this variety decreased by 4 percent
throughout the United States. The decline in Idaho's acreage and
production was sharper, falling by 21 percent and 18 percent,
respectively. Yields over the same period increased in both the United
States and Idaho. Fall potatoes are marketed year round from
[[Page 19377]]
July (early harvest areas) through June. Potatoes can be stored for
long periods of time. This storage capability allows flexibility in
marketing; sellers can hold their crop until more favorable prices
prevail on the market. Fresh potatoes are mainly sold on the open
market, not under contract. Processing potatoes, on the other hand, are
typically contracted.
Table 1--Production and Farm Prices of Fall Potatoes in the United States; Idaho; and Bingham, Bonneville, and Jefferson Counties, ID, 2001-2006
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
United States
Idaho Bingham Bonneville Jefferson
county \b\ county \b\ county \b\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Production Farm price Production Farm price
Production
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table stock Processing Table stock Processing All uses
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,000 Cwt. $ per Cwt. 1,000 Cwt. $ per Cwt. 1,000 Cwt. 1,000 Cwt. 1,000 Cwt.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001.......................................................... 393,631 10.79 5.05 120,200 (a) (a) 6.15 18,330 8,136 10,047
2002.......................................................... 413,581 9.59 5.16 133,385 (a) (a) 5.00 20,000 9,204 13,029
2003.......................................................... 410,588 7.32 5.10 123,180 3.85 4.30 4.40 19,598 8,537 10,645
2004.......................................................... 410,253 6.76 5.06 131,970 3.40 4.50 4.25 20,740 9,070 9,200
2005.......................................................... 382,743 10.36 5.39 118,288 6.90 4.90 5.70 18,080 8,250 9,360
2006.......................................................... 398,921 10.27 5.90 128,915 6.55 5.40 5.90 20,200 9,930 9,100
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Prices by use not available for these years.
\b\ No data available for prices at the county level.
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Potatoes: 2006 Summary, September 2007 and USDA, NASS, Idaho Office, County Estimates: Potatoes 2006,
September 2007.
The United States ranks fourth in the world in potato production,
trailing China, Russia, and India. Historically, the United States has
been a net exporter of potatoes in value terms, with exports of
processed potatoes accounting for a large portion of this surplus. In
2003 and 2004, an increase in imports of processed potato products from
Canada tipped this balance so that the United States ran a trade
deficit in those years. However, imports of Canadian potato products
returned to historical levels in 2005, and the United States regained
its status as a net exporter. Exports of potatoes are on the rise and
now account for approximately one-third of the value of farm sales.
Over half of these exports are processed products, primarily frozen
french fries. Japan is the United States' largest importer of frozen
fries, followed by Mexico and Canada. Canada is the largest supplier of
U.S. potato imports.
Although, historically, Japan has been the largest importer of U.S.
frozen potato products, this country banned imports of fresh potatoes
from the United States starting in the 1950s. However, in February of
2006, Japan opened its market to the importation of fresh potatoes from
approved facilities in 14 States: Arizona, California, Colorado,
Florida, Idaho, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota,
Texas, Oregon, Washington, and Wisconsin (OC 2006).\4\ The outbreak of
PCN in Idaho has led to the reimplementation of Japan's ban on fresh
potatoes from the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Office of Communications of USDA. Release number 0050.06,
February 2006. Online news release: https://www.usda.gov/wps/portal?contentidonly=true&contentid=2006/02/0050.xml.
Accessed September 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Idaho Production and Exports
Idaho specializes in production of fall potatoes. According to NASS
data, there were no spring, summer, or winter potatoes produced in
Idaho from 2001 to 2006. Over 65 percent of fall potatoes are grown in
the Western States. Idaho and Washington account for 50 percent of the
U.S. total, where planted acreage in Idaho is more than double that in
Washington. Idaho's importance to the domestic potato industry also
makes this State influential in the world market for potatoes. Idaho
exports a substantial amount of potatoes on a yearly basis. However,
the majority of these exports is processed rather than fresh. This
analysis only focuses on the fresh market, since this is the portion
that will be affected by the final rule. From 2001 to 2006, the annual
value of Idaho's table potato exports averaged $3.6 million. Sixty-
seven percent of Idaho's fresh exports during this period were to
Canada. Mexico also imported potatoes from Idaho, accounting for 23
percent of Idaho exports. Japan is a substantial importer of U.S.
processed potato products, but its imports of fresh potatoes have been
negligible or nonexistent.
Together, Canada and Mexico accounted for approximately 90 percent
of Idaho exports between 2001 and 2006, although Idaho's fresh potato
sales worldwide and the combined share exported to Canada and Mexico
have fluctuated substantially (table 2). Mexico has been an expanding
market, with sales increasing 90-fold over this 6-year period, while
exports to Canada have declined by more than half. In 2005, Idaho's
potato exports to Mexico exceeded its potato exports to Canada for the
first time.
Table 2--Idaho Exports of Fresh Potatoes by Country, 2001-2006
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
World Canada Mexico Japan
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exports Exports Percentage Exports Percentage Exports Percentage
($1,000) ($1,000) of total ($1,000) of total ($1,000) of total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001......................................................... 3,622 3,209 88.6 34 0.9 43 1.2
2002......................................................... 3,472 3,200 92.2 12 0.3 0 0.0
2003......................................................... 1,988 1,988 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
2004......................................................... 1,485 1,096 73.8 338 22.8 0 0.0
2005......................................................... 6,643 1,485 22.4 2,967 44.7 0 0.0
[[Page 19378]]
2006......................................................... 4,518 1,190 26.3 3,086 68.3 0 0.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Global Trade Information Services, World Trade Atlas: U.S. State Export Edition, April 2007.
Based upon available data and expected effects, we believe that the
benefits of the rule, in terms of curtailing the spread of the pest,
will outweigh the costs borne by producers in the quarantined area.
Major importers of fresh potatoes from Idaho, including Canada and
Mexico, have lifted their import prohibitions imposed following the PCN
discoveries and now allow imports of fresh potatoes from Idaho subject
to certain restrictions, including that the potatoes do not originate
from the quarantined area. Since the United States exports many more
potatoes in the processed form, either as frozen french fries or potato
chips, any loss of foreign markets for fresh potatoes is not likely to
have significant economic impacts on the U.S. potato industry.
Additionally, the domestic market will be able to absorb any excess
supply of fresh potatoes resulting from import bans imposed by other
countries.
In the following analysis, we first consider potential costs of the
rule for producers in the quarantined area. Possible benefits of the
rule, in terms of preventing the spread of PCN to other States, are
then examined. Lastly, we address expected impacts for small entities.
Expected Costs of the Rule
Costs for Producers in the Quarantined Area
As of December 1, 2008, approximately 17,376 of the 335,000 acres
planted to potatoes in Idaho were included in the current quarantined
area. However, of these acres, only 1,079 were infested with PCN. The
rest were regulated as associated fields. The potential economic
impacts of regulating this area are presented in the following
paragraphs.
Given a quarantined area of approximately 17,376 acres, an upper-
bound annual potato production quantity of about 563.7 million pounds
could be affected by the rule.\5\ This amount represents approximately
3 percent of total potato production in Idaho and slightly more than 1
percent of total potato production in the United States. However, even
these small percentages overstate the probable impact because the 563.7
million pound upper-bound quantity assumes all regulated acres would be
planted to potatoes at any given time, whereas potatoes are commonly
grown in a 2- to 3-year rotation with grain. Moreover, interstate
movement of table potatoes and other regulated articles from
quarantined areas will be allowed when accompanied by a certificate or
limited permit, when field surveys are completed and cropping
restrictions have been met, and when PCN has not been found. We note
that State officials expect a significant decline in the acreage
planted to potatoes in Idaho this year, due to the high price of grain
and possible water shortages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ This estimate is based on historical yields from Bingham,
Bonneville, and Jefferson Counties, ID, and the estimated number of
acres quarantined under the rule. An average of the yields from 2001
to 2006 excluding the high and low yields from the period is
multiplied by the number of acres quarantined to estimate the level
of production in each county for the quarantine area. The production
numbers for the three counties are then summed to obtain the upper-
bound estimate reported above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite the minimal impacts on domestic production, some export
markets initially did close due to the PCN outbreak. However, the
majority of Idaho potato exports are in the form of processed products,
not fresh potatoes. Idaho's exports of fresh potatoes averaged 2
percent of total exports of potato and potato products from 2001 to
2006. As noted, since the Federal Order quarantining certain areas of
Idaho was implemented on August 28, 2006, major foreign markets for
fresh potatoes from Idaho have reopened, including Canada and Mexico.
Since these two countries account for approximately 90 percent of Idaho
fresh exports, the impact of the rule on fresh potato exports is likely
to be very small.
Producers whose fields are infested and who wish to remove those
fields from quarantine may choose either not to plant any host crop,
including potatoes, tomatoes, eggplants, peppers, or tomatillos, for 30
years or to engage in the APHIS eradication program. Producers may
plant non-host crops on the quarantined acreage. According to APHIS
field personnel, prior to the implementation of the Federal Order,
producers in the three affected counties historically planted potatoes
in a 2-year rotation with grain. If, because of the rule, a producer
chooses to plant alternative crops entirely, it would likely be a
continuous grain rotation or a rotation of grain and hay. In Bingham
County, the harvested acreage of potatoes trails that of wheat and
alfalfa hay. Producers in this county also grow barley. Data for
Bonneville County show significant wheat and barley acreage, as well as
acreage devoted to hay production. Jefferson County harvests a
significant acreage of hay, with approximately equivalent acreage
devoted to barley, wheat, and potatoes, combined. Based on historical
production in the three counties (tables 3, 4, and 5) and farmers'
options, it is likely that farmers subject to the quarantine will
choose to plant non-host crops rather than forgo revenue that could be
generated from the land under quarantine. The planting decision will be
a function of market prices, input costs, and possibly Government
payments for commodities classified as program crops. Farmers may
choose to plant one commodity or multiple commodities depending on
these factors. Given alternative production opportunities, the extent
to which producers in the quarantined area will be negatively affected
by the rule cannot be clearly defined. However, given that the crops
mentioned above are viable substitutes in production for the ineligible
host crops, producers will likely not face substantial impacts due to
the quarantine regulations.
[[Page 19379]]
Table 3--Harvested Acreage and Production of Various Crops in Bingham County, ID, 2001-2006
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wheat Barley Hay Potatoes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harvested Acres
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001........................................................ 117,500 21,300 54,300 55,200
2002........................................................ 116,500 22,500 67,000 59,700
2003........................................................ 109,000 28,700 66,900 60,300
2004........................................................ 117,500 26,900 64,500 56,000
2005........................................................ 122,200 24,300 61,600 52,200
2006........................................................ 114,500 19,100 72,000 55,800
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Production (1,000 Pounds)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001........................................................ 660,000 95,184 472,800 1,833,000
2002........................................................ 682,200 100,224 568,400 2,000,000
2003........................................................ 680,400 123,360 512,000 1,959,800
2004........................................................ 795,600 133,440 514,000 2,074,000
2005........................................................ 807,960 121,152 583,800 1,808,000
2006........................................................ 736,500 84,960 705,600 2,020,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: USDA, NASS, Quick Stats Database, U.S. and All States County Data--Crops, January 2008.
Table 4--Harvested Acreage and Production of Various Crops in Bonneville County, ID, 2001-2006
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wheat Barley Hay Potatoes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harvested Acres
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001........................................................ 57,400 60,100 34,500 28,700
2002........................................................ 52,600 68,400 34,700 31,200
2003........................................................ 46,300 71,300 38,800 29,800
2004........................................................ 51,000 66,500 37,400 29,900
2005........................................................ 46,500 69,000 35,600 26,600
2006........................................................ 52,700 59,200 39,000 29,200
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Production (1,000 Pounds)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001........................................................ 192,000 235,680 242,000 813,600
2002........................................................ 178,800 280,320 256,800 920,400
2003........................................................ 145,200 210,240 248,000 853,700
2004........................................................ 214,800 315,456 254,800 907,000
2005........................................................ 183,900 331,392 263,200 825,000
2006........................................................ 203,100 264,000 311,000 993,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: USDA, NASS, Quick Stats Database, U.S. and All States County Data--Crops, January 2008.
Table 5--Harvested Acreage and Production of Various Crops in Jefferson County, ID, 2001-2006
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wheat Barley Hay Potatoes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harvested Acres
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001........................................................ 30,900 41,600 91,500 29,600
2002........................................................ 27,200 42,700 97,500 36,700
2003........................................................ 22,700 51,900 101,700 32,000
2004........................................................ 33,300 56,300 98,000 24,200
2005........................................................ 31,300 56,700 95,300 24,300
2006........................................................ 32,800 44,600 98,600 23,400
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Production (1,000 Pounds)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001........................................................ 152,100 187,776 835,600 1,004,700
2002........................................................ 143,160 198,960 913,200 1,302,900
2003........................................................ 123,900 234,576 926,400 1,064,500
2004........................................................ 195,600 288,672 911,400 920,000
2005........................................................ 188,880 276,192 910,000 936,000
2006........................................................ 197,880 207,840 997,000 910,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: USDA, NASS, Quick Stats Database, U.S. and All States County Data--Crops, January 2008.
Expected Benefits of the Rule
Impacts of the rule on the domestic market are likely to be small,
and the benefits of the quarantine in preventing the spread of PCN are
expected to outweigh the costs. Widespread dissemination of the pest
would likely translate into significant economic losses for producers
and processors. Left
[[Page 19380]]
unchecked, PCN attacks the roots of the potato plant, leaching
nutrients from the plant itself, which in turn reduces yields, leading
to significant declines in production. Additionally, import bans
implemented by U.S. trading partners would likely be more widespread
and take longer to remove. Furthermore, producers have the option to
plant non-host crops and keep land in production rather than allowing
it to remain fallow.
Cost-Benefit Summary
Benefits of the regulation in terms of preventing the spread of PCN
are expected to outweigh direct costs to affected producers. The rule
states that an infested field will be removed from quarantine when a
protocol approved by the Administrator as sufficient to support removal
of infested fields from quarantine has been completed and the field has
been found to be free of PCN. One means to ensure that a field is free
of PCN is to avoid planting host crops in it for at least 30 years; PCN
can survive for up to 30 years in a dormant state without any host
crops on which to feed. PPQ is also developing a protocol for
eradicating PCN in infested fields. As noted earlier, PPQ will solicit
input from affected producers, State departments of agriculture,
researchers, and the general public to develop the protocol and provide
updates on its progress. When the protocol is finalized, APHIS will
make it available to the public and will pay for its implementation,
subject to the availability of funds. Regardless of the eradication
means used to ensure that a field is free from PCN, however, APHIS will
require the protocol approved by the Administrator as sufficient to
support removal of infested fields from quarantine to confirm that
freedom. Until eradication of PCN in a field is achieved, producers can
minimize their losses resulting from the regulation by planting
alternative non-host crops. A number of non-host crops have been
identified as viable substitutes for potatoes in the quarantined area.
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires that agencies consider the
economic impact of rule changes on small businesses, organizations, and
governmental jurisdictions. Section 604 of the Act requires agencies to
prepare and make available to the public a final regulatory flexibility
analysis (FRFA) describing any changes made to the rule as a result of
comments received and the steps the agency has taken to minimize any
significant economic impacts on small entities. Section 604(a) of the
Act specifies the content of a FRFA. In this section, we address these
FRFA requirements.
Objectives and Need for the Rule
The objective of the interim rule and this final rule is to prevent
the spread of PCN by quarantining infested or associated fields. A
widespread outbreak of PCN in Idaho could have devastating consequences
for the U.S. potato industry. APHIS believes the implementation of the
quarantine and movement restrictions will prevent the pest from
spreading to other areas in Idaho and the rest of the United States.
This will benefit a majority of potato producers by safeguarding their
fields from infestation.
Summary of Significant Issues Raised During Comment Period
One producer affected by the quarantine commented that following
the protocols established in this rule would be logistically difficult
and would impose an economic burden on his operation. In addition, the
producer felt the rule limited his ability to make planting decisions
and interfered with the potential sale of land.
The issues raised in this comment appear to be an isolated incident
where the rule may have a significant impact on one operation. However,
the benefits of the rule, in terms of preventing the spread of PCN to
other areas, outweigh the costs described by this producer. APHIS has
not made any changes in this final rule based on this comment.
Description and Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated
The final rule will have potential implications for domestic
producers of potatoes, as well as potato processing firms.
Additionally, producers of other host crops and non-host crops also
regulated under the rule may be impacted. It is likely that the
entities affected will be small according to Small Business
Administration (SBA) guidelines. A discussion of these impacts follows.
Affected U.S. potato producers are expected to be small entities,
based on 2002 Census of Agriculture data and SBA guidelines for
entities in the farm category Potato Farming, Field, and Seed Potato
Production (NAICS 111211). The SBA classifies producers in this farm
category with total annual sales of not more than $750,000 as small
entities. APHIS does not have information on the size distribution of
the relevant producers, but according to 2002 Agriculture Census data,
there were a total of 25,017 farms in Idaho in 2002.\6\ Of this number,
approximately 95 percent had annual sales in 2002 of less than
$500,000, which is well below the SBA's small entity threshold of
$750,000 for commodity farms.\7\ This indicates that the majority of
farms are considered small by SBA standards, and it is reasonable to
assume that most of the 121 potato farms located in Bingham County, the
47 potato farms located in Bonneville County, and the 32 potato farms
located in Jefferson County that may be affected by this rule also
qualify as small. Potato packing firms classified as NAICS 115114
(Postharvest Crop Activities (except Cotton Ginning)) are considered
small if they have not more than $6.5 million in total annual sales.
According to the County Business Patterns report for Idaho published by
the Census Bureau, there were 22 post-harvest establishments in Idaho
in 2005, the latest date for which numbers were published. Of these,
one was located in Bingham County and one was located in Bonneville
County; there were no establishments reported for Jefferson County.
This document does not report the value of total annual sales or the
distribution of annual sales for firms in this category. Thus, it is
not known what percentage of potato packing firms are small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ This number represents the total number of farms in Idaho,
including farms producing potatoes.
\7\ Source: SBA and 2002 Census of Agriculture.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to potato farms, producers engaged in growing other
host crops, including tomatoes, eggplants, peppers, and tomatillos, and
non-host crops that may be moved with soil attached, including garden
and dry beans and peas, are subject to regulation and expected to be
small entities according to SBA standards. The crops listed above are
all classified within NAICS 111219 (Other Vegetable (except Potato) and
Melon Farming). Firms with total annual sales of less than $750,000 are
considered small entities. As discussed earlier, APHIS does not have
data at a sufficiently detailed level to determine which farms in these
categories are considered small. However, it is reasonable to assume
that if 95 percent of total Idaho farms are small by SBA guidelines, a
majority of the farms classified under NAICS 111219 can also be
considered small. Although it is assumed that most if not all vegetable
(except potato) farms in Bingham, Bonneville, and Jefferson Counties
are small, NASS does not report any of these types of farms in the
affected counties, nor is there any production data for these crops in
any of the affected counties. Therefore, there is likely to be at most
a very small impact
[[Page 19381]]
as a result of regulations concerning other host crops and non-host
crops moved with soil attached.
In the case of potato processors, establishments classified within
NAICS 311411 (Frozen Fruit, Juice, and Vegetable Manufacturing), NAICS
311423 (Dried and Dehydrated Food Manufacturing), NAICS 311919 (Other
Snack Food Manufacturing), and NAICS 311991 (Perishable Prepared Food
Manufacturing) with not more than 500 employees are considered small
entities by SBA standards. Data from the Economic Census show that in
2002, there were a total of 235 frozen fruit, juice, and vegetable
manufacturing establishments, including firms manufacturing frozen
french fries, in the United States. Of these firms, 215, or 92 percent,
employed fewer than 500 employees and were, therefore, considered small
entities by SBA standards. There were 181 dried and dehydrated food
manufacturing establishments in 2002. Included in this category are
manufacturers of dehydrated potato products. There were 176 firms with
less than 500 employees in this category, accounting for 97 percent of
all firms. For other snack food manufacturing establishments, which
includes firms manufacturing potato chips, there were 338
establishments in the United States in 2002. Of these establishments,
322 (over 95 percent) had fewer than 500 employees. Firms manufacturing
peeled or cut potatoes, included in the perishable prepared food
manufacturing category, numbered 610 in 2002. Of these, 603 (99
percent) had no more than 500 employees.\8\ Based on this information,
it is reasonable to conclude that domestic producers and potato
processors that may be affected by the rule are predominantly small
entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Source: SBA and 2002 Economic Census.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the data available to APHIS, benefits to producers outside
the regulated area of curtailing the spread of the pest will likely
outweigh the costs borne by affected producers. Major importers of
fresh potatoes from Idaho, including Canada and Mexico, have lifted
import prohibitions they imposed following the PCN discoveries and now
allow imports of fresh potatoes from Idaho subject to certain
restrictions, including that the potatoes do not originate from the
quarantined area. Since the United States exports many more potatoes in
the processed form, either as frozen french fries or potato chips, any
loss of fresh markets is not likely to have significant economic
impacts on the U.S. potato industry. Additionally, the domestic market
would likely be able to absorb any excess supply of fresh potatoes
resulting from the import bans imposed by other countries.
Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements
Inspection services required to comply with regulations are
provided to producers at no cost. Certificates and limited permits
required to move regulated articles out of a quarantined area may be
obtained without cost from an inspector or person operating under a
compliance agreement.
Description of Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impacts on
Small Entities
APHIS has concluded that there are no alternatives to the rule that
would satisfactorily accomplish the stated objectives and minimize any
significant impacts on small entities. The rule will protect potato
producers outside the regulated area from the crop damage and losses
that would be incurred if the pale cyst nematode were allowed to
spread.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 301
Agricultural commodities, Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
0
Accordingly, the interim rule amending 7 CFR parts 301 and 305 that was
published at 72 FR 51975-51988 on September 12, 2007, is adopted as a
final rule with the following changes:
PART 301--DOMESTIC QUARANTINE NOTICES
0
1. The authority citation for part 301 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7701-7772 and 7781-7786; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80,
and 371.3.
Section 301.75-15 issued under Sec. 204, Title II, Public Law
106-113, 113 Stat. 1501A-293; sections 301.75-15 and 301.75-16
issued under Sec. 203, Title II, Public Law 106-224, 114 Stat. 400
(7 U.S.C. 1421 note).
Subpart--Pale Cyst Nematode
0
2. The heading of the subpart consisting of Sec. Sec. 301.86 through
301.86-9 is revised to read as set forth above.
0
3. Section 301.86-1 is amended as follows:
0
a. By removing the definition for ``potato cyst nematode''.
0
b. By adding, in alphabetical order, a definition of ``pale cyst
nematode'' to read as set forth below.
0
c. In the definitions of ``associated field'', ``certificate'',
``infestation (infested)'', and ``infested field'', by removing the
word ``potato'' and adding the word ``pale'' in its place each time it
occurs.
Sec. 301.86-1 Definitions.
Pale cyst nematode. The pale cyst nematode (Globodera pallida), in
any stage of development.
0
4. Section 301.86-2 is amended as follows:
0
a. By revising paragraph (a), including footnote 2, to read as set
forth below.
0
b. In paragraphs (b) and (i), by removing the word ``potato'' and
adding the word ``pale'' in its place each time it occurs.
Sec. 301.86-2 Regulated articles.
(a) Pale cyst nematodes.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Permit and other requirements for the interstate movement of
pale cyst nematodes are contained in part 330 of this chapter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 301.86-3 [Amended]
0
5. Section 301.86-3 is amended as follows:
0
a. In paragraphs (a), (b)(2), (c), and (d)(2), by removing the words
``potato cyst'' and adding the words ``pale cyst'' in their place each
time they occur.
0
b. In paragraph (d)(1), by removing the words ``3-year biosurvey
protocol approved by APHIS'' and adding the words ``protocol approved
by the Administrator as sufficient to support removal of infested
fields from quarantine'' in their place; and by removing the word
``PCN'' and adding the words ``pale cyst nematode'' in its place.
0
c. In paragraph (d)(2), by removing the word ``survey'' and by adding
the words ``of associated fields'' after the word ``removal''.
0
6. Section 301.86-5 is amended as follows:
0
a. In paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(4), (a)(5), and (b), by removing
the word ``potato'' and adding the word ``pale'' in its place each time
it occurs.
0
b. By revising paragraph (a)(3) to read as set forth below.
Sec. 301.86-5 Issuance and cancellation of certificates and limited
permits.
(a) * * *
(3) Certification requirements for potatoes for consumption, root
crops for consumption, garden or dry beans, and peas. An inspector may
issue a certificate for the movement of potatoes intended for
consumption, root crops intended for consumption, garden or dry beans,
or peas from the quarantined area only if the field in which the
potatoes, root crops, garden or dry beans, or peas were grown meets the
following requirements:
(i) The field has been surveyed by an inspector for pale cyst
nematode at least
[[Page 19382]]
once in the last 3 years and prior to the planting of the potatoes or
root crops;
(ii) Pale cyst nematode has not been found in the field; and
(iii) No more than one pale cyst nematode host crop, as listed in
Sec. 301.86-2(b), has been grown in the field in the last 3 years.
Done in Washington, DC, this 23rd day of April 2009.
Kevin Shea,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. E9-9724 Filed 4-28-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
