Update of Noxious Weed Regulations, 68945-68956 [2010-28346]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
County line to the southwest corner of
sec. 33, T. 2 S., R. 5 E.; then north to
the northwest corner of sec. 33; then
west to the southwest corner of sec. 30,
T. 2 S., R. 5 E.; then north to the
southeast corner of sec. 25, T. 2 S., R.
4 E.; then west to the southwest corner
of sec. 25, T. 2 S., R. 4 E.; then north
to the southwest corner of sec. 13, T. 2
S., R. 4 E.; then west to the southwest
corner of sec. 15, T. 2 S., R. 4 E.; then
north to the northwest corner of sec. 3,
T. 2 S., R. 4 E.; then east to the
southwest corner of sec. 35, T. 1 S., R.
4 E.; then north to the northwest corner
of sec. 35, T. 1 S., R. 4 E.; then east to
the northeast corner of sec. 33, T. 1 S.,
R. 5 E.; then north to the northwest
corner of sec. 27, T. 1 S., R. 5 E.; then
east to the northeast corner of sec. 27,
T. 1 S., R. 5 E.; then north to the
northwest corner of sec. 23, T. 1 S., R.
5 E.; then east to the northeast corner of
sec. 21,T. 1 S., R. 6 E.; then south to the
southeast corner of sec. 21, T. 1 S., R.
6 E.; then east to the northeast corner of
sec. 27, T. 1 S., R. 6 E.; then south to
the southeast corner of sec. 27, T. 1 S.,
R. 6 E.; then east to the northeast corner
of sec. 31, T. 1 S., R. 7 E.; then south
to the northwest corner of sec. 5, T. 2
S., R. 7 E.; then east to the northeast
corner of sec. 3, T. 2 S., R. 7 E.; then
north to the northwest corner of sec. 35,
T. 1 S., R. 7 E.; then east to the northeast
corner of sec. 36, T. 1 S., R. 7 E. and the
Maricopa/Pinal County line; then south
along the Maricopa/Pinal County line to
the point of beginning.
*
*
*
*
*
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
California
Riverside County. That portion of
Riverside County known as the Palo
Verde Valley (in part) bounded by a line
drawn as follows: Beginning at the
intersection of 22nd Avenue and State
Highway 78; then north on State
Highway 78 to an unnamed road at
33.548088 latitude and ¥114.656718
longitude; then east on the unnamed
road to an unnamed canal at 33.548066
latitude and ¥114.647868 longitude;
then north on the unnamed canal to
33.548360 latitude and 114.647877
longitude; then east from that point to
33.548360 latitude and ¥114.643696
longitude; then north from that point to
33.550088 latitude and ¥114.643692
longitude; then east from that point to
33.550044 latitude and ¥114.639367
longitude; then north from that point to
33.551705 latitude and ¥114.639367
longitude; then east from that point to
the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe
Railroad tracks at 33.551740 latitude
and ¥114.634545 longitude; then
southwest along the Atchison, Topeka,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:24 Nov 09, 2010
Jkt 223001
and Santa Fe Railroad tracks to
33.548300 latitude and ¥114.637487
longitude; then east from that point to
the C Canal at 33.548277 latitude and
¥114.626363 longitude; then north
along the C Canal to 33.549084 latitude
and ¥114.626372 longitude; then east
from that point to South Defrain
Boulevard at 33.549145 latitude and
¥114.621792 longitude; then south on
South Defrain Boulevard to 33.548217
latitude and ¥114.621774 longitude;
then east from that point to Lovekin
Drain at 33.548338 latitude and
¥114.612488 longitude; then south
along Lovekin Drain to 22nd Avenue;
then east on 22nd Avenue to South
Lovekin Boulevard; then south on South
Lovekin Boulevard to 33.541141
latitude and 114.603889 longitude; then
east from that point to 33.541274
latitude and ¥114.595394 longitude;
then southeast from that point to
33.540357 latitude and ¥114.59219
longitude; then south from that point to
33.536702 latitude and ¥114.595261
longitude; then northeast from that
point to 33.537766 latitude and
¥114.593187 longitude; then east from
that point to an unnamed canal
beginning at 33.537887 latitude and
¥114.586582 longitude; then south
along the unnamed canal to 33.534809
latitude and ¥114.586554 longitude;
then southeast from that point to S C
and D Boulevard at 33.534561 latitude
and ¥114.586228 longitude; then south
on S C and D Boulevard to 33.523400
latitude and ¥114.585948 longitude;
then east from that point to the D10–11
Canal at 33.523596 latitude and
¥114.577832 longitude; then southwest
along the D1011 Canal to the boundary
line of Riverside County at 33.540900
latitude and ¥114.544620 longitude;
then southeast along the Riverside
County boundary line to 33.455829
latitude and 114.623143 longitude; then
west from that point to 33.455783
latitude and ¥114.669038 longitude;
then north from that point to South End
Drain at 33.456190 latitude and
¥114.669076 longitude; then north
along South End Drain to 34th Avenue;
then west on 34th Avenue to 33.463226
latitude and ¥114.682378 longitude;
then north from that point to the C–18–
1 Canal; then west along the C–18–1
Canal to 33.470427 latitude and
¥114.691076 longitude; then north
from that point to an unnamed canal at
latitude 33.474836 and ¥114.691197
longitude; then southwest along the
unnamed canal to Palo Verde Lagoon;
then northeast along Palo Verde Lagoon
to Rannells Drain; then north along
Rannells Drain to 33.499639 latitude
and 114.961526 longitude; then north
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
68945
from that point to the C–03 Canal; then
north along the C–03 Canal to 33.522835
latitude and ¥114.687051 longitude;
then north from that point to 24th
Avenue; then east on 24th Avenue to
the C–03 Canal; then north along the
C–03 Canal to 33.537501 latitude and
¥114.682892 longitude; then east from
that point to Stephenson Boulevard;
then north on Stephenson Boulevard to
22nd Avenue; then east on 22nd
Avenue to the point of beginning.
§ 301.89–5
[Amended]
3. Section 301.89–5, is amended by
removing paragraph (a)(3) and footnote
1.
■
§ 301.89–6
[Amended]
4. In § 301.89–6, in paragraph (a)
introductory text and paragraph (a)(2),
footnotes 2 and 3 are redesignated as
footnotes 1 and 2, respectively.
■
§ 301.89–7
[Amended]
5. In § 301.89–7, footnote 4 is
redesignated as footnote 3.
■
6. In § 301.89–9, paragraph (a) is
amended as follows:
■ a. By redesignating footnote 5 as
footnote 4.
■ b. By revising newly redesignated
footnote 4 to read as set forth below.
■
§ 301.89–7 Assembly and inspection of
regulated articles.
(a) * * * 4
____________________
4 See footnote 1.
*
*
*
*
*
Done in Washington, DC, this 4th day of
November 2010.
Kevin Shea,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 2010–28347 Filed 11–9–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–34–P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service
7 CFR Parts 319, 352, 360, and 361
[Docket No. APHIS–2007–0146]
RIN 0579–AC97
Update of Noxious Weed Regulations
Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
We are amending the
regulations governing the importation
and interstate movement of noxious
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\10NOR1.SGM
10NOR1
68946
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
weeds by adding definitions of terms
used in the regulations, adding details
regarding the process of applying for the
permits used to import or move noxious
weeds, adding a requirement for the
treatment of niger seed, and adding
provisions for petitioning to add a taxon
to or remove a taxon from the noxious
weed lists. These changes will update
the regulations to reflect current
statutory authority and program
operations and improve the
effectiveness of the regulations. We are
also adding seven taxa to the list of
terrestrial noxious weeds and to the list
of seeds with no tolerances applicable to
their introduction. This action will
prevent the introduction or
dissemination of these noxious weeds
into or within the United States.
DATES: Effective Date: December 10,
2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.
Alan V. Tasker, Noxious Weeds Program
Coordinator, Emergency and Domestic
Programs, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road
Unit 26, Riverdale, MD 20737–1236;
(301) 734–5225; or Dr. Arnold Tschanz,
Senior Plant Pathologist, Risk
Management and Plants for Planting
Policy, RPM, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River
Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737–
1231; (301) 734–0627.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Plant Protection Act (PPA), as
amended (7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.)
authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture
to prohibit or restrict the importation,
entry, exportation, or movement in
interstate commerce of any plant, plant
product, biological control organism,
noxious weed, article, or means of
conveyance if the Secretary determines
that the prohibition or restriction is
necessary to prevent the introduction of
a plant pest or noxious weed into the
United States or the dissemination of a
plant pest or noxious weed within the
United States.
The PPA defines ‘‘noxious weed’’ as
‘‘any plant or plant product that can
directly or indirectly injure or cause
damage to crops (including nursery
stock or plant products), livestock,
poultry, or other interests of agriculture,
irrigation, navigation, the natural
resources of the United States, the
public health, or the environment.’’ The
PPA also provides that the Secretary
may publish, by regulation, a list of
noxious weeds that are prohibited or
restricted from entering the United
States or that are subject to restrictions
on interstate movement within the
United States. Under this authority, the
Animal and Plant Health Inspection
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:24 Nov 09, 2010
Jkt 223001
Service (APHIS) administers the
noxious weeds regulations in 7 CFR part
360 (referred to below as the
regulations), which prohibit or restrict
the importation and interstate
movement of those plants that are
designated as noxious weeds in
§ 360.200.
Under the authority of the Federal
Seed Act (FSA) of 1939, as amended
(7 U.S.C. 1551 et seq.), the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA)
regulates the importation and interstate
movement of certain agricultural and
vegetable seeds and screenings. Title III
of the FSA, ‘‘Foreign Commerce,’’
requires shipments of imported
agricultural and vegetable seeds to be
labeled correctly and to be tested for the
presence of the seeds of certain noxious
weeds as a condition of entry into the
United States. APHIS’ regulations
implementing the provisions of title III
of the FSA are found in 7 CFR part 361.
A list of noxious weed seeds is
contained in § 361.6. Paragraph (a)(1) of
§ 361.6 lists species of noxious weed
seeds with no tolerances applicable to
their introduction into the United
States.
On June 10, 2009, we published in the
Federal Register (74 FR 27456–27467,
Docket No. APHIS–2007–0146) a
proposal 1 to make several changes to
the regulations. Briefly, we proposed to:
• Add definitions for terms used in
the regulations and replace references to
the Federal Noxious Weed Act with
references to the PPA;
• Add explanatory text to clarify the
listing of noxious weeds in § 360.200;
• Provide additional detail about the
requirements for permits to move
noxious weeds in § 360.300;
• Amend the regulations to require
heat treatment for Guizotia abyssinica
(niger) seed, as currently required in
§ 319.37–6;
• Add a section to provide
information about the process for
petitioning to add or remove a taxon
from the noxious weed list;
• Add seven new noxious weeds to
the list of noxious weeds in § 360.200
and the list of noxious weed seeds in
§ 361.6; and
• Update or correct the taxonomic
designations for several currently listed
noxious weeds.
We solicited comments concerning
our proposal for 60 days ending August
10, 2009. We received six comments by
that date. They were from a private
citizen, a seed organization, a
1 To view the proposed rule and the comments
we received, go to https://www.regulations.gov/
fdmspublic/component/
main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS-2007-0146.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
biotechnology industry organization,
researchers, and a representative of a
State government. The issues they
raised that are germane to the proposed
rule are discussed below by topic.
Concurrence From States in Approving
Noxious Weed Permits
We proposed to add to the regulations
new §§ 360.301 through 360.305 to
provide additional information about
the requirements for permits to import
or move noxious weeds. Proposed
§ 360.304 contained information about
denial and cancellation of permits.
In paragraph (a) of proposed
§ 360.304, we proposed to provide that
the Administrator could deny an
application for a permit to move a
noxious weed when the Administrator
has determined that, among other
things, a State plant regulatory official
objects to the issuance of the permit on
the grounds that granting the permit
will pose a risk of dissemination of the
noxious weed into the State. However,
we went on to note that, under the
proposed regulations, the Administrator
would have the option to approve a
permit for movement of a noxious weed
even if a State plant regulatory official
objected to the issuance of a permit—for
example, if the Administrator
determined that the safeguards specified
in the permit were adequate to address
the risk of dissemination.
One commenter stated that the
approval of a permit when a State plant
regulatory official objected to the
approval could potentially put an
importer in an unfortunate position
between APHIS and a State authority.
The commenter stated that APHIS needs
to reach positive resolution with the
States when deciding to approve
permits to avoid putting the importer in
a bind.
APHIS’ decisions on whether to grant
a permit take into account the views of
the State, but ultimately APHIS has the
final authority to grant or deny an
application for a permit. However, in all
cases, APHIS attempts to come to a
positive resolution of any difference of
opinion with a State plant health
official, as the commenter recommends.
Our State plant health cooperators are
key to the successful enforcement and
functioning of the Federal noxious weed
regulations. In practice, we would rarely
act contrary to States’ concerns
regarding issuing a permit for the
importation or interstate movement of
taxa listed as Federal noxious weeds,
and we would provide information to
specifically support issuing the permit if
we were to do so.
E:\FR\FM\10NOR1.SGM
10NOR1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
New Section With Treatment for Niger
Seed
We proposed to add a new § 360.400
indicating that Guizota abysinnica
(niger) seed is required to be treated.
This requirement is found in our
regulations governing the importation of
nursery stock in § 319.37–6; we
proposed to duplicate the conditions
that are specified in that section in
proposed § 360.400, as most niger seed
is not imported for use as nursery stock
but as birdseed.
(NOTE: In an interim rule published
and effective on October 19, 2009 (74 FR
53397–53400, Docket No. APHIS–2008–
0097), we added a new § 360.400 to
codify the preemptive effects of the
regulations in part 360. This final rule
redesignates § 360.400 as § 360.600 to
accommodate the new provisions we
proposed to add in June 2009.)
One commenter stated that it is not
entirely clear why proposed § 360.400
was included with the noxious weed
regulations, given that G. abysinnica is
not listed as a noxious weed.
Although G. abysinnica itself is not a
noxious weed, imported lots of G.
abysinnica are commonly contaminated
with various noxious weed seeds,
including Cuscuta spp. We have
determined that heat treatment
effectively mitigates the risk associated
with noxious weed seeds in lots of G.
abysinnica. Because G. abysinnica is not
typically imported for use as nursery
stock, importers may not know to look
in the nursery stock regulations in
§ 319.37–6 to find the requirements for
its importation. Importers of seed more
commonly look at the requirements in
parts 360 and 361. Indicating that G.
abysinnica must be heat treated for
noxious weed seeds in part 360 will
make this requirement more prominent
to its intended audience and thus
improve the clarity and effectiveness of
the regulations.
Petitions To Add a Taxon to or Remove
a Taxon From the Noxious Weed Lists
APHIS accepts petitions to add a
taxon to or remove a taxon from the
noxious weed lists in § 360.200.
Although we provide some information
about the petition process on APHIS’
noxious weeds Web site,2 the
regulations have not contained any
information about this process. We
proposed to add new §§ 360.500 and
360.501 to provide such information.
In both sections, we proposed to
encourage petitioners to provide several
pieces of information along with their
petitions. Providing such information
2 At https://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/
plant_pest_info/weeds/index.shtml.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:24 Nov 09, 2010
Jkt 223001
can help speed up the review process
and help APHIS determine whether the
specified plant taxon should be listed as
a noxious weed. However, we did not
propose to require that such information
be provided.
One commenter characterized our
proposal to request information as a list
of criteria for adding or removing a
taxon from the list of noxious weeds,
and stated that it is not clear whether or
not all criteria need to be met in order
to add or remove taxa. The commenter
expressed concern that justifying
additions solely on the basis of one
criterion (such as potential economic
impacts) could result in a noxious weed
list populated with plant species that
are not noxious from a biological or
ecological perspective. The commenter
asked us to add language to these
sections stating that all criteria must be
addressed and considered in any
petition to add (or remove) taxa to the
noxious weed list.
This commenter also stated that the
proposed regulations do not include any
discussion regarding how APHIS will
evaluate petitions to add a taxon to or
remove a taxon from the noxious weed
lists, or communicate their decisions to
the public. The commenter
recommended that APHIS establish a
transparent process or procedures by
which APHIS will conduct these
evaluations and communicate decisions
to the public. The commenter also
recommended that these procedures
include a sufficient comment period (up
to 180 days) to give stakeholders who
may be impacted an opportunity to
respond to petitions and provide input.
The various types of information we
proposed to request are not a
comprehensive set of criteria for listing
a taxon as a noxious weed or removing
a taxon from the list of noxious weeds;
rather, we proposed to request
information we would find useful in
investigating whether or not a plant
should be listed as a noxious weed. We
did not propose to require petitioners to
include all the different types of
information we requested because that
information may not be available to the
petitioner. Accordingly, we are not
taking the commenter’s suggestion to
require petitioners to provide all this
information.
If we receive a petition to list a taxon
as a noxious weed or to remove a taxon
from the list of noxious weeds, we will
communicate with the petitioner
regarding whether we are proceeding
with a weed risk assessment (WRA),
and, if not, why not.
We conduct our WRAs in accordance
with our Weed-Initiated Pest Risk
Assessment Guidelines for Qualitative
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
68947
Assessments, regardless of whether the
assessment is triggered by a petition,
through research and identification of a
potential noxious weed, or discovery of
an outbreak or introduction of a
potential noxious weed. These
guidelines are available on the Web at
https://www.aphis.usda.gov/
plant_health/plant_pest_info/weeds/
downloads/wra.pdf. These guidelines
are consistent with the International
Plant Protection Convention’s (IPPC)
International Standard for Phytosanitary
Measures (ISPM) No. 2, ‘‘Framework for
pest risk analysis.’’ 3 If we perform a
WRA in response to a petition, we will
review all the information supplied by
the petitioner as part of this process; we
will also review other data sources to
ensure that our conclusions regarding
the taxon in question are based on the
broadest possible base of information.
If our WRA and any other analysis we
may conduct indicate that a taxon
should be listed as a noxious weed, we
will publish an interim rule or proposed
rule in the Federal Register to amend
the list of noxious weeds in § 360.200
and, if appropriate, the list of noxious
weed seeds in part 361. Such
publication provides both public notice
and a period during which stakeholders
who may be impacted can provide
input. We will make the WRA and any
other analysis we may conduct available
along with the interim rule or proposed
rule. We typically provide for a
comment period of 60 days on interim
rules and proposed rules; however, we
have the option to allow for a longer
comment period should circumstances
warrant it.
We proposed to add a new § 360.500
to provide information about the
process of adding a taxon to the noxious
weed list. Among other things, we
proposed to encourage petitioners to
provide the following information about
the potential consequences of the
taxon’s introduction or spread:
• The taxon’s habitat suitability in the
United States (predicted ecological
range);
• Dispersal potential (biological
characteristics associated with
invasiveness);
• Potential economic impacts (e.g.,
potential to reduce crop yields, lower
commodity values, or cause loss of
markets for U.S. goods); and
• Potential environmental impacts
(e.g., impacts on ecosystem processes,
natural community composition or
structure, human health, recreation
3 To view this ISPM on the Internet, go to
https://www.ippc.int/IPP/En/default.jsp and click on
the ‘‘Adopted ISPMs’’ link under the ‘‘Standards
(ISPMs)’’ heading.
E:\FR\FM\10NOR1.SGM
10NOR1
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
68948
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
patterns, property values, or use of
chemicals to control the taxon).
Referring to the request for
information about potential economic
impacts of a taxon petitioned to be
listed as a noxious weed, one
commenter stated that the use of such
information could result in petitions for
classifying certain genetically
engineered (GE) crop species as noxious
weeds. APHIS’ Biotechnology
Regulatory Services (BRS) program
regulates GE organisms, and the
commenter assumed that BRS will use
the noxious weed authority of the PPA
when such issues arise with GE crops.
To ensure consistency, the commenter
recommended that PPQ and BRS
coordinate to ensure that these
regulations will be uniformly
interpreted when such issues arise. If
there is not consistency, the commenter
stated, it is conceivable that a petitioner
could apply to both PPQ and BRS to list
(or delist) the same taxon and end up
with different results.
We agree with the commenter’s
recommendation that PPQ and BRS
coordinate when we receive petitions to
list GE crops as noxious weeds. PPQ
and BRS regularly discuss such issues
and will continue to do so. It should be
noted that, currently, BRS regulates GE
organisms only under the plant pest
authority of the PPA.
One commenter stated that, while the
information requested will be necessary
to determining whether to list a taxon as
a noxious weed, certain baseline
information will also be required and
should also be specifically referenced in
the regulations. As an initial matter, the
commenter stated, information must be
provided to show that the plant in
question causes injury recognized under
the PPA and the IPPC. The commenter
quoted the Background section of a
proposed rule regarding the importation
and interstate movement of GE
organisms published in the Federal
Register on October 9, 2008 (73 FR
60008–60048, Docket No. APHIS–2008–
0023), which stated that the first
consideration in determining whether a
plant is a noxious weed is identifying
what direct injury or damage (physical
harm) the plant causes.
While we proposed in § 360.500 to
request that petitioners provide
information regarding the potential
economic and environmental impacts of
spread of the plant in question, we did
not propose to request or require
information regarding the injury the
offending plant may inflict. The
commenter stated that, while in many
instances this information will be
obvious, it is nevertheless essential to a
noxious weed determination and must
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:24 Nov 09, 2010
Jkt 223001
not be overlooked. In all cases, the
commenter stated, APHIS must first
make an initial finding of physical harm
caused by the plant at issue; only then
may APHIS continue the risk
assessment and risk mitigation process
to determine whether further regulation
is appropriate.
We have determined that it is not
necessary to require that petitioners
provide information about the direct
harm caused by a taxon in a petition to
list a taxon as a noxious weed. Such
information may not be available to the
petitioner; for example, a petitioner
might notice unchecked growth of a
weed in an area without knowing the
precise means by which the weed was
displacing native vegetation.
As discussed earlier, after receiving a
petition, we consider all available
information relating to that taxon, not
just the information provided in the
petition, and we conduct our weed risk
assessments in accordance with our
Weed-Initiated Pest Risk Assessment
Guidelines for Qualitative Assessments.
These guidelines provide specific
examples of what we mean by potential
economic impacts and potential
environmental impacts. Potential
economic impacts include, but are not
limited to:
• Reduced crop yield (e.g., by
parasitism, competition, or by harboring
other pests).
• Lower commodity value (e.g., by
increasing costs of production, lowering
market price, or a combination); or if not
an agricultural weed, by increasing costs
of weed control.
• Loss of markets (foreign or
domestic) due to presence of a new
quarantine pest.
Potential environmental impacts
include, but are not limited to,
considerations of whether the weed, if
introduced, could:
• Cause impacts on ecosystem
processes (alteration of hydrology,
sedimentation rates, a fire regime,
nutrient regimes, changes in
productivity, growth, yield, vigor, etc.).
• Cause impacts on natural
community composition (e.g., reduce
biodiversity, affect native populations,
affect endangered or threatened species,
impact keystone species, impact native
fauna, pollinators, or microorganisms,
etc.).
• Cause impacts on community
structure (e.g., change density of a layer,
cover the canopy, eliminate or create a
layer, impact wildlife habitats, etc.).
• Have impacts on human health
such as allergies or changes in air or
water quality.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
• Have sociological impacts on
recreation patterns and aesthetic or
property values.
• Stimulate control programs
including toxic chemical pesticides or
introduction of a nonindigenous
biological control agent.
Risk ratings are then determined
based on how many of the impacts are
posed by the taxon (except for taxa that
affect endangered or threatened species,
which are always rated high risk for
environmental impacts). The WRA
process thus considers in detail the
direct injury or damage the plant may
cause. We believe this satisfies the
commenter’s overall concern that the
direct injury or damage caused by a
plant should be considered in
determining whether to list it as a
noxious weed.
Additions to the Lists of Terrestrial
Noxious Weeds and Noxious Weed
Seeds
We proposed add seven new taxa to
the list of terrestrial noxious weeds in
§ 360.200(c) and to the list of noxious
weed seeds with no tolerances
applicable to their introduction in
§ 361.6(a)(1). Commenters who
addressed these additions supported
them.
One commenter stated that the
addition of the seven new taxa could
have indirect adverse consequences on
seed production. The commenter stated
that many companies have overseas
operations in which seed is produced in
a foreign country and shipped back to
the United States for sale in the United
States or for value-adding and
repackaging for re-export. Some
producers’ offshore production sites
likely could be in areas where these taxa
are endemic, the commenter stated, and
several of the new taxa, such as
Arctotheca calendula, Ageratina riperia,
Euphorbia terracina, Onopordum
acaulon, and O. illyricum, could impact
grass seed production as well as row
crop and vegetable crop seed
production. If these new taxa, or
whenever any new taxa, are added to
the noxious weed list, the commenter
requested that we provide detailed
information on the occurrence and
distribution of these taxa, as well as
specific information on their seed
morphology and biology, so that seed
production companies can implement
measures to minimize contamination of
seed in those production areas where
these taxa pose a threat.
We list taxa as noxious weeds based
on the risk they pose, not on their
geographical distribution. We provided
the information we have on the
international distribution, seed
E:\FR\FM\10NOR1.SGM
10NOR1
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
morphology, and biology of these weeds
in the WRAs that were provided along
with the proposed rule on
Regulations.gov (see footnote 1 for
instructions on accessing
Regulations.gov). Because these weeds
have significant effects on agricultural
production and the environment, as
discussed in the WRAs, seed producers
will likely know whether these noxious
weeds are present in or near their
production facilities; for economic
reasons, we presume that they would
take appropriate steps to prevent
contamination of their seed with seeds
of these weeds.
We proposed to list A. calendula
(capeweed) as a noxious weed. In the
proposed rule, we stated that A.
calendula is currently present in
California and that a purple-flowered,
seed-producing type of A. calendula is
regulated by the State. A sterile,
vegetatively reproducing yellowflowered type is not currently regulated
by the State of California, but is noted
by some to spread from cultivation into
wild or managed environments. In
addition, absent inflorescence,
identifying a plant as a member of one
type or another of A. calendula can be
difficult. We invited public comment on
whether it is appropriate to regulate the
entire species A. calendula, as we
proposed to do, or whether we should
only regulate the purple-flowered, seedproducing type.
Two commenters addressed this
issue. One stated that the less noxious
form (we described it as yellowflowered, while the commenter
described it as orange-flowered) is
indistinguishable from the purpleflowered form when not in flower. The
commenter pointed out that
enforcement would be difficult if only
one form is regulated, and
recommended that we add the entire
species to the list.
Another commenter agreed with this
comment and added other points to
consider when determining whether to
regulate the entire species:
• The commenter stated that the
infertile type is also invasive. According
to one report from the California
Invasive Plant Inventory (https://
www.cal-ipc.org), it is more competitive
than the fertile form. It can escape
cultivation by creeping stolons and
spread aggressively.
• The commenter asked whether
purple flower color is always linked to
fertile seed production and whether this
is always a reliable characteristic for
determining the type of capeweed.
• The commenter asked whether the
genetic basis of seed infertility in the
sterile type is understood. If yes, the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:24 Nov 09, 2010
Jkt 223001
commenter asked, is the sterility stable?
Or is it capable of reverting to fertility
under certain circumstances or can it
cross with the fertile type?
• The commenter stated that the
sterile type is just as potentially toxic to
sheep, cattle, pigs and horses as the
fertile type, due to presence of nitrates.
Since the publication of the proposed
rule, we have found more information
about the botanical classification of
what we characterized as the fertile and
sterile types of A. calendula. These are
actually two different species; A.
calendula is the fertile type, while the
sterile type has been designated A.
prostrata (creeping capeweed).4 There
are morphological differences between
the two species that make it practical to
distinguish them for enforcement
purposes, as well.
As we had proposed to regulate A.
calendula as a noxious weed on the
basis of the damage caused by what we
had characterized as the fertile type, we
are adding A. calendula to the list of
terrestrial noxious weeds and to the list
of noxious weed seeds with no
tolerances applicable to their
introduction, as we proposed. We will
evaluate A. prostrata separately to
determine whether it, too, needs to be
added to those lists, with the
information and questions provided by
the second commenter in mind.
One commenter, citing the ‘‘no
tolerances applicable to their
introduction’’ language, stated that this
terminology strongly indicates that there
is a zero tolerance for noxious weed
seed contaminants in seed
consignments. The commenter
understood the basis for zero tolerance,
but also recognizes that achieving this
level of risk reduction will at times be
very difficult. The commenter asked
that APHIS seek input from the seed
industry on the development of a
rational tolerance for noxious weed seed
contaminants that is achievable by the
industry. The commenter also asked
that APHIS add language to this section
stating that whenever noxious weed
seed contaminants are detected in seed
consignments, companies will be given
the option of recleaning and reinspection according to established
APHIS procedures and protocols, and
that destruction or re-export will be
considered a last option.
The commenter refers to existing text
from § 361.6(a)(1) regarding seeds with
no tolerances applicable to their
introduction that we were discussing in
4 See the Draft of the Second Edition of the Jepson
Manual: Vascular Plants of California; and
Tropicos, the database of the Missouri Botanical
Garden. https://mobot.mobot.org/cgi-bin/search_vast
(accessed August 24, 2010).
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
68949
the Background section of the proposal.
Within § 361.6, paragraph (c) discusses
how certain seed may not be counted
toward the tolerance (for example,
damaged seed). However, it is important
to prevent even one individual, viable
seed of taxa listed in § 361.6(a)(1) from
entering the United States, as these taxa
have been determined to be capable of
causing agricultural and environmental
damage should they be introduced into
the United States. Thus, the zerotolerance standard is appropriate for
these taxa. We are making no changes in
response to this comment.
Common Names
One commenter addressed the
common names of noxious weeds. With
regard to the seven taxa we proposed to
add to the list of terrestrial noxious
weeds and to the list of noxious weed
seeds with no tolerances applicable to
their introduction, the commenter noted
that the common names we included
with the scientific names in the
proposed regulatory text often differed
from those in the USDA’s PLANTS Web
site (https://plants.usda.gov). The
commenter stated that it would be less
confusing if the proposed regulatory text
and the PLANTS Web site agreed on
common names, and that using the most
common usage would better serve the
general public and others.
Common names, including those on
the PLANTS Web site, are unofficial. It
is often difficult to determine the most
common usage, which varies
worldwide. For these reasons, we rely
on the scientific name of a taxon, which
is the internationally recognized
scientific standard, as the official name
for regulatory purposes. We list a
common name for the convenience of
nonspecialists.
APHIS normally lists the most recent
common name found in one or more of
three sources. The Weed Science
Society of America (WSSA) publishes a
Composite List of Weeds with their
officially recognized common names,
which APHIS would normally use.
WSSA lists few of the weeds we
proposed to add because of their lack of
distribution in the United States. Since
the preparation of the WRAs, WSSA has
added several of the species we
proposed to add to the list of noxious
weeds to its Composite List of Weeds.
Other sources of common names are the
Germplasm Resources Information
Network (GRIN) and the Integrated
Taxonomic Information System (ITIS)
database. PLANTS tends to favor names
in ITIS.
In this final rule, we are changing
common names to match WSSA where
names have been recognized since the
E:\FR\FM\10NOR1.SGM
10NOR1
68950
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
original draft. In cases where WSSA
does not list a common name, we have
compared GRIN and ITIS and changed
to names listed in both databases, where
available. The following table
summarizes the proposed common
names, the common names provided in
the references listed above, and the
changes in the final rule.
TABLE 1—COMMON NAMES OF SEVEN NEW NOXIOUS WEED TAXA
Scientific name
Proposed rule
WSSA
GRIN
ITIS
`
acacia a gomme, acacia gomifera,
arabische
Gummiakazie, babul
acacia, Egyptian acacia, gommier rouge,
Indian gum-arabictree, lekkeruikpeul,
scented-thorn, thornmimosa, thorny acacia.
creeping croftonweed,
hamakua pamakani,
mistblom, mistflower,
river eupatorium.
gum arabic tree ..
gum arabic
tree.
gum arabic tree,
thorny acacia.
creeping
croftonweed,
mist flower,
spreading
snakeroot.
Cape weed,
capeweed.
Geraldton carnation weed.
spreading
snakeroot.
creeping
croftonweed,
mistflower.
Capeweed ......
Geraldton carnation weed.
capeweed (no
changes).
false caper,
Geraldton carnation weed.
British yellowhead
British
yellowhead.
British elecampane, British
yellowhead.
(no common
name listed).
(no common
name listed).
stemless thistle
(no changes).
Illyrian
cottonthistle.
Illyrian
cottonthistle.
Illyrian thistle (no
changes).
Acacia nilotica ................
prickly acacia
(no common
name listed).
Ageratina riparia .............
mistflower .......
creeping
croftonweed.
Arctotheca calendula .....
capeweed ......
capeweed ......
Capeweed, venidium ....
Euphorbia terracina ........
false caper .....
Geraldton
carnationweed.
Inula britannica ...............
British elecampane.
British elecampane.
Onopordum acaulon ......
stemless thistle.
(no common
name listed).
Onopordum illyricum ......
Illyrian thistle ..
Illyrian thistle ..
false caper, Geraldton
carnation-spurge,
Geraldton carnationweed, leiteira.
British elecampane, ou
ya xuan fu hua, xuan
fu hua, British
yellowhead.
cardo, horse thistle,
stemless onopordon,
stemless thistle.
´
cardo-ilırico, Illyrian thistle.
We also proposed to make several
nomenclature changes for taxa currently
listed as terrestrial noxious weeds and
as noxious weed seeds with no
tolerances applicable to their
introduction. Among these changes, we
proposed to update the regulations by
removing the entry for Homeria spp.
from both §§ 360.200(c) and 361.6(a)(1)
and adding entries for Moraea collina,
M. flaccida, M. miniata, M. ochroleuca,
and M. pallida in its place.
The commenter stated that the
common names we proposed to use for
the Moraea species are contrived and
confusing. In the proposed rule, M.
flaccida is called the one-leaf Cape
tulip, but most of the others also have
one leaf. M. collina is called the apricot
tulp, but other species are similarly
colored, and likewise M. ochroleuca is
called the red tulp even though it has
yellow flowers. The commenter stated
that it appears that ‘‘tulp’’ is a
typographical error, and will appear to
be an error to many others. To reduce
confusion, the commenter
recommended that all of the species be
called ‘‘Cape tulip,’’ similar to how
Salvinia spp. are all called ‘‘giant
salvinia’’ on the present list, or that they
be listed without common name as with
PLANTS
Final rule
Cuscuta and Prosopis species on the
current list.
As noted earlier, we rely on the
scientific name of a taxon as the official
name for regulatory purposes. We list a
common name for the convenience of
non-specialists. ‘‘Tulp’’ is the Dutch and
Afrikaans word for ‘‘tulip’’ and is thus in
common use internationally.
We conducted a review of the
common names of the new Moraea spp.
similar to the one conducted for the
common names of the seven new taxa.
The results of this review are shown in
table 2.
TABLE 2—COMMON NAMES OF FIVE MORAEA SPECIES
Wiersema &
Leon1
WSSA
GRIN
ITIS
PLANTS
Final rule
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Scientific name
Proposed rule
Moraea collina
(=Homeria
collina).
Moraea flaccida
(=Homeria
flaccida).
Moraea miniata
(=Homeria
miniata).
apricot tulp .....
(no common
(no common
(no common
(no common
Cape tulip ......
name listed).
name listed).
name listed).
name listed).
one-leaf Capetulip.
one-leaf Capetulip.
(no common
one-leaf Capename listed).
tulip.
(no common
(no common
one-leaf Cape-tulip (no
name listed).
name listed).
changes).
two-leaf Capetulip.
two-leaf Capetulip.
(no common
two-leaf Capename listed).
tulip.
(no common
(no common
two-leaf Cape-tulip (no
name listed).
name listed).
changes).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:24 Nov 09, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\10NOR1.SGM
10NOR1
apricot Cape-tulip.
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
68951
TABLE 2—COMMON NAMES OF FIVE MORAEA SPECIES—Continued
Scientific name
Proposed rule
Wiersema &
Leon1
Moraea
ochroleuca
(=Homeria
ochroleuca).
Moraea pallida
(=Homeria
pallida).
red tulp ..........
red tulp ..........
(no common
red tulp ..........
name listed).
(no common
(no common
red Cape-tulip.
name listed).
name listed).
yellow tulp .....
yellow tulp .....
(no common
yellow tulp .....
name listed).
(no common
(no common
yellow Cape-tulip.
name listed).
name listed).
WSSA
GRIN
ITIS
PLANTS
Final rule
Wiersema, J.H. and Leon, Blanca. 1999. World economic plants: A standard reference. p. 261.
Based on this review, we are changing
the common name for M. collina to
‘‘apricot Capetulip,’’ to be more
consistent with the PLANTS database
while ensuring that M. collina can be
differentiated from the other regulated
Cape-tulip. We also recognize that U.S.
regulated entities may not be familiar
with the term ‘‘tulp,’’ and that listing all
the new Moraea spp. as some variety of
‘‘Cape-tulip’’ would help to ensure
consistency in naming the genus. For
that reason, we have changed the
proposed common name of M.
ochroleuca, ‘‘red tulp,’’ to read ‘‘red
Cape-tulip,’’ in this final rule and we
have changed the proposed common
name of M. pallida, ‘‘yellow tulp,’’ to
read ‘‘yellow Cape-tulip’’ in this final
rule.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Miscellaneous Change
We proposed to revise current
§ 360.300. Proposed paragraph (a) in
§ 360.300 stated that no person may
move a Federal noxious weed into or
through the United States, or interstate,
unless he or she applies for a permit to
move a noxious weed in accordance
with § 360.301, the permit application is
approved, and the movement is
consistent with the specific conditions
contained in the permit. Proposed
paragraph (b) of § 360.300 stated that
persons who move noxious weeds into
or through the United States, or
interstate, without complying with
those conditions will be subject to such
criminal and civil penalties as are
provided by the Plant Protection Act
(7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.).
We are not including proposed
paragraph (b) in this final rule, as it is
not necessary to state explicitly in the
regulations that violations of the
regulations are subject to the penalties
prescribed in the act under whose
authority they are promulgated. The
requirements in proposed paragraph (a)
and its subparagraphs (a)(1) through
(a)(3) appear in this final rule as
undesignated introductory text for
§ 360.300 and as paragraphs (a) through
(c), respectively.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:24 Nov 09, 2010
Jkt 223001
Therefore, for the reasons given in the
proposed rule and in this document, we
are adopting the proposed rule as a final
rule, with the changes discussed in this
document.
Federal Preemption
On May 20, 2009, the President issued
a memorandum to the heads of
executive departments and agencies on
the subject of preemption. The
memorandum states that it is the general
policy of the Administration that
preemption of State law by executive
departments and agencies should be
undertaken only with full consideration
of the legitimate prerogatives of the
States and with a sufficient legal basis
for preemption. The memorandum
further states:
To ensure that executive departments
and agencies include statements of
preemption in regulations only when
such statements have a sufficient legal
basis:
• Heads of departments and agencies
should not include in regulatory
preambles statements that the
department or agency intends to
preempt State law through the
regulation except where preemption
provisions are also included in the
codified regulation.
• Heads of departments and agencies
should not include preemption
provisions in codified regulations
except where such provisions would be
justified under legal principles
governing preemption, including the
principles outlined in Executive Order
13132.
Since 1996, Executive Order 12988,
‘‘Civil Justice Reform,’’ has required
agencies to include in each regulation a
statement regarding its preemptive
effects. APHIS has included a statement
of preemptive effects in regulatory
preambles under the heading ‘‘Executive
Order 12988.’’
In compliance with the May 2009
memorandum from the White House,
we are adding preemption provisions to
part 352 that apply to this rule, as well
as to the existing regulations in part 352.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Preemption provisions have already
been added to parts 319, 360, and 361.
Part 352 contains safeguarding
regulations for the movement through
the United States of plants, plant
products, plant pests, soil, and other
products and articles that may be
infested or infected by or contain plant
pests or noxious weeds.
Under section 436 of the Plant
Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7756), no State
or political subdivision of a State may
regulate in foreign commerce any
article, means of conveyance, plant,
biological control organism, plant pest,
noxious weed, or plant product in order
to control a plant pest or noxious weed,
to eradicate a plant pest or noxious
weed, or to prevent the introduction or
dissemination of a biological control
organism, plant pest, or noxious weed.
Therefore, in accordance with section
436 of the Plant Protection Act, the
regulations in part 352 preempt all State
and local laws and regulations that are
inconsistent with or exceed the
regulations in part 352.
Accordingly, in this final rule, we are
adding a new paragraph (d) in § 352.2 to
codify the preemptive effects of the
regulations in part 352. To reflect this
change, we have renamed § 352.2
‘‘Purpose; relation to other regulations;
applicability; preemption of State and
local laws.’’
Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory
Flexibility Act
This final rule 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.
In accordance with the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, we have analyzed the
potential economic effects of this action
on small entities. As described in the
economic analysis, the majority of
producers, importers, and merchants
that may be affected by the final rule are
small entities. However, there is no
evidence of any significant trade in the
seven taxa that are being added to the
list of noxious weeds, and the other
changes in the final rule serve to clarify
E:\FR\FM\10NOR1.SGM
10NOR1
68952
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
the regulations and improve their
effectiveness. Under these
circumstances, the Administrator of the
Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service has determined that this action
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
The full economic analysis may be
viewed on the Regulations.gov Web site.
(See footnote 1 in this document for a
link to the analysis on Regulations.gov.)
In addition, copies may be obtained by
calling or writing to the individual
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
Executive Order 12372
This program/activity is listed in the
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
under No. 10.025 and is subject to
Executive Order 12372, which requires
intergovernmental consultation with
State and local officials. (See 7 CFR part
3015, subpart V.)
Executive Order 12988
This final rule has been reviewed
under Executive Order 12988, Civil
Justice Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts
all State and local laws and regulations
that are inconsistent with this rule;
(2) has no retroactive effect; and
(3) does not require administrative
proceedings before parties may file suit
in court challenging this rule.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This final rule contains no new
information collection or recordkeeping
requirements under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.).
recordkeeping requirements, Seeds,
Vegetables, Weeds.
■ Accordingly, we are amending 7 CFR
parts 319, 352, 360, and 361 as follows:
PART 319—FOREIGN QUARANTINE
NOTICES
1. The authority citation for part 319
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 450, 7701–7772, and
7781–7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR
2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.
§ 319.37–6
[Amended]
2. In § 319.37–6, paragraph (c) is
amended by adding the words ‘‘must be
treated’’ after the word ‘‘States’’.
■
PART 352—PLANT QUARANTINE
SAFEGUARD REGULATIONS
3. The authority citation for part 352
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7701–7772 and 7781–
7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 31 U.S.C.
9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.
4. Section 352.2 is amended as
follows:
■ a. By revising the section heading to
read as set forth below.
■ b. In paragraph (a) introductory text,
in the first sentence, by adding the
words ‘‘noxious weeds,’’ after the words
‘‘plant pests,’’; and by removing the
words ‘‘319 and 330’’ and adding the
words ‘‘319, 330, and 360’’ in their place.
■ c. In paragraph (b), by removing the
words ‘‘319 or 330’’ and adding the
words ‘‘319, 330, or 360’’ in their place.
■ d. By adding a new paragraph (d) to
read as set forth below.
■
List of Subjects
§ 352.2 Purpose; relation to other
regulations; applicability; preemption of
State and local laws.
7 CFR Part 319
*
Coffee, Cotton, Fruits, Imports, Logs,
Nursery stock, Plant diseases and pests,
Quarantine, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Rice,
Vegetables.
7 CFR Part 352
Customs duties and inspection,
Imports, Plant diseases and pests,
Quarantine, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements,
Transportation.
§ 352.3
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
7 CFR Part 360
Imports, Plants (Agriculture),
Quarantine, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements,
Transportation, Weeds.
7 CFR Part 361
Agricultural commodities, Imports,
Labeling, Quarantine, Reporting and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:24 Nov 09, 2010
*
*
*
*
(d) Under section 436 of the Plant
Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7756), a State
or political subdivision of a State may
not regulate in foreign commerce any
article, means of conveyance, plant,
biological control organism, plant pest,
noxious weed, or plant product in order
to control a plant pest or noxious weed,
to eradicate a plant pest or noxious
weed, or to prevent the introduction or
dissemination of a biological control
organism, plant pest, or noxious weed.
Jkt 223001
[Amended]
5. Section 352.3 is amended as
follows:
■ a. In paragraphs (a) and (b), by adding
the words ‘‘noxious weeds,’’ after the
words ‘‘plant pests,’’ each time they
occur.
■ b. In paragraph (d), by adding the
words ‘‘or noxious weed’’ before the
word ‘‘dissemination.’’
■
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
§ 352.5
[Amended]
6. Section 352.5 is amended as
follows:
■ a. By adding the words ‘‘noxious
weeds,’’ after the words ‘‘plant pests,’’
each time they occur.
■ b. In paragraph (d), by adding the
words ‘‘, 330, and 360’’ after the words
‘‘parts 319’’ each time they occur.
■
§ 352.6
[Amended]
7. Section 352.6 is amended as
follows:
■ a. In paragraph (a), by adding the
words ‘‘(including noxious weeds)’’
before the period at the end of the
paragraph heading.
■ b. In paragraph (e), by adding the
words ‘‘or noxious weed’’ before the
word ‘‘dissemination’’ each time it
occurs.
■
§ 352.7
[Amended]
8. Section 352.7 is amended by adding
the words ‘‘(including noxious weeds)’’
after the word ‘‘products’’ the first time
it occurs.
■
§ 352.9
[Amended]
9. Section 352.9 is amended by adding
the words ‘‘noxious weeds,’’ after the
words ‘‘plant pests,’’.
■
§ 352.10
[Amended]
10. Section 352.10 is amended as
follows:
■ a. In paragraphs (a) and (b)(1), by
removing the words ‘‘part 319 or 330’’
each time they occur and adding the
words ‘‘parts 319, 330, or 360’’ in their
place.
■ b. In paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), and (c),
by adding the words ‘‘or noxious weed’’
before the word ‘‘dissemination’’ each
time it occurs.
■ c. In paragraph (b)(2), by removing the
words ‘‘319 or 330’’ and adding the
words ‘‘319, 330, or 360’’ in their place.
■
§ 352.11
[Amended]
11. In § 352.11, paragraph (a)(1) is
amended by adding the words ‘‘noxious
weeds,’’ after the words ‘‘plant pests,’’.
■
§ 352.13
[Amended]
12. Section 352.13 is amended as
follows:
■ a. By adding the words ‘‘noxious
weeds,’’ after the words ‘‘plant pests,’’.
■ b. By removing the words ‘‘part 319 or
330’’ and adding the words ‘‘parts 319,
330, or 360’’ in their place.
■
§ 352.15
[Amended]
13. Section 352.15 is amended by
adding the words ‘‘or noxious weed’’
before the word ‘‘dissemination’’.
■
E:\FR\FM\10NOR1.SGM
10NOR1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
PART 360—NOXIOUS WEED
REGULATIONS
14. The authority citation for part 360
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7701–7772 and 7781–
7786; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.
15. Section 360.100 is amended as
follows:
■ a. By removing the paragraph (b)
designation and the introductory text of
paragraph (b).
■ b. By redesignating paragraph (a) as
undesignated introductory text.
■ c. By adding, in alphabetical order,
new definitions of Administrator,
APHIS, interstate, move, noxious weed,
permit, person, responsible person,
State, taxon (taxa), through the United
States, and United States to read as set
forth below.
■ d. By removing the definition of
Deputy Administrator.
■
§ 360.100
Definitions.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
*
*
*
*
*
Administrator. The Administrator,
Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service, or any individual authorized to
act for the Administrator.
APHIS. The Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service, United States
Department of Agriculture.
*
*
*
*
*
Interstate. From one State into or
through any other State; or within the
District of Columbia, Guam, the Virgin
Islands of the United States, or any
other territory or possession of the
United States.
Move. To carry, enter, import, mail,
ship, or transport; to aid, abet, cause, or
induce the carrying, entering, importing,
mailing, shipping, or transporting; to
offer to carry, enter, import, mail, ship,
or transport; to receive to carry, enter,
import, mail, ship, or transport; to
release into the environment; or to allow
any of the activities described in this
definition.
Noxious weed. Any plant or plant
product that can directly or indirectly
injure or cause damage to crops
(including nursery stock or plant
products), livestock, poultry, or other
interests of agriculture, irrigation,
navigation, the natural resources of the
United States, the public health, or the
environment.
Permit. A written authorization,
including by electronic methods, by the
Administrator to move plants, plant
products, biological control organisms,
plant pests, noxious weeds, or articles
under conditions prescribed by the
Administrator.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:24 Nov 09, 2010
Jkt 223001
Person. Any individual, partnership,
corporation, association, joint venture,
or other legal entity.
*
*
*
*
*
Responsible person. The person who
has control over and will maintain
control over the movement of the
noxious weed and assure that all
conditions contained in the permit and
requirements in this part are complied
with. A responsible person must be at
least 18 years of age and must be a legal
resident of the United States or
designate an agent who is at least 18
years of age and a legal resident of the
United States.
State. Any of the several States of the
United States, the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the
District of Columbia, Guam, the Virgin
Islands of the United States, or any
other territory or possession of the
United States.
Taxon (taxa). Any grouping within
botanical nomenclature, such as family,
genus, species, or cultivar.
Through the United States. From and
to places outside the United States.
United States. All of the States.
16. Section 360.200 is amended as
follows:
■ a. By revising the introductory text,
including footnote 1, to read as set forth
below.
■ b. In paragraph (a), by revising the
entries for ‘‘Caulerpa taxifolia
(Mediterranean clone)’’, ‘‘Eichornia
azurea (Swarth) Kunth’’, and ‘‘Melaleuca
quenquinervia (Cav.) Blake’’ to read as
set forth below.
■ c. In paragraph (b), by removing the
entries for ‘‘Cuscuta jepsonii Yuncker’’,
‘‘Cuscuta nevadensis I.M. Johnston’’, and
‘‘Cuscuta occidentalis Millspaugh ex
Mill & Nuttall’’.
■ d. In paragraph (b), by revising the
entries for ‘‘Cuscuta ceanothii Behr,’’
‘‘Cuscuta cephalanthii Engelmann’’,
‘‘Cuscuta corylii Engelmann’’, ‘‘Cuscuta
exalta Engelmann’’, ‘‘Cuscuta obtusiflora
Humboldt, Bonpland, & Kunth’’,
‘‘Cuscuta rostrata Shuttleworth ex
Engelmann’’, ‘‘Cuscuta umbrellata
Humboldt, Bonpland, & Kunth’’, and
‘‘Cuscuta vetchii Brandegee’’ to read as
set forth below.
■ e. In paragraph (c), by removing the
entries for ‘‘Digitaria scalarum
(Schweinfurth) Chlovenda (African
couchgrass, fingergrass)’’, ‘‘Homeria
spp.’’, and ‘‘Mimosa invisa Martius
(giant sensitive plant)’’.
■ f. In paragraph (c), by revising the
entries for ‘‘Digitaria velutina (Forsskal)
Palisot de Beauvois (velvet fingergrass,
annual conchgrass)’’, ‘‘Drymaria
arenariodes Humboldt & Bonpland ex
■
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
68953
Roemer & Schultes (lightning weed)’’,
‘‘Imperata cylindrica (Linnaeus)
Raeuschel (cogongrass)’’, ‘‘Mikania
micrantha Humboldt, Bonpland, &
Kunth’’, ‘‘Prosopis farcta (Solander ex
Russell) Macbride’’, ‘‘Prosopis pallida
(Humboldt & Bonpland ex Willdenow)
Humboldt, Bonpland, & Kunth’’,
‘‘Setaria pallide-fusca (Schumacher)
Stapf & Hubbard (cattail grass)’’, and
‘‘Spermacoce alata (Aublet) de
Candolle’’ to read as set forth below.
■ g. In paragraph (c), by adding, in
alphabetical order, entries for ‘‘Acacia
nilotica (Linnaeus) Wildenow ex Delile
(gum arabic tree, thorny acacia)’’,
‘‘Ageratina riparia (Regel) R.M. King and
H. Robinson (creeping croftonweed,
mistflower)’’, ‘‘Arctotheca calendula
(Linnaeus) Levyns (capeweed)’’,
‘‘Digitaria abyssinica (Hochstetter ex A.
Richard) Stapf (African couchgrass,
fingergrass),’’ ‘‘Euphorbia terracina
Linnaeus (false caper, Geraldton
carnation weed)’’, ‘‘Inula britannica
Linnaeus (British elecampane, British
yellowhead)’’, ‘‘Mimosa diplotricha C.
Wright (giant sensitive-plant)’’, ‘‘Moraea
collina Thunberg (apricot Cape-tulip)’’,
‘‘Moraea flaccida (Sweet) Steudel (oneleaf Cape-tulip)’’, ‘‘Moraea miniata
Andrews (two-leaf Cape-tulip)’’,
‘‘Moraea ochroleuca (Salisbury) Drapiez
(red Cape-tulip)’’, ‘‘Moraea pallida
(Baker) Goldblatt (yellow Cape-tulip)’’,
‘‘Onopordum acaulon Linnaeus
(stemless thistle)’’, and ‘‘Onopordum
illyricum Linnaeus (Illyrian thistle)’’.
§ 360.200
Designation of noxious weeds.
The Administrator has determined
that it is necessary to designate the
following plants 1 as noxious weeds to
prevent their introduction into the
United States or their dissemination
within the United States:
(a) * * *
Caulerpa taxifolia (Vahl) C. Agardh,
Mediterranean strain (killer algae)
*
*
*
*
*
Eichhornia azurea (Swartz) Kunth
*
*
*
*
*
Melaleuca quinquenervia (Cavanilles)
S.T. Blake
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
Cuscuta ceanothi Behr
Cuscuta cephalanthi Engelmann
*
*
*
*
*
1 One or more of the common names of weeds are
given in parentheses after most scientific names to
help identify the weeds represented by such
scientific names; however, a scientific name is
intended to include all subordinate taxa within the
taxon. For example, taxa listed at the genus level
include all species, subspecies, varieties, and forms
within the genus; taxa listed at the species level
include all subspecies, varieties, and forms within
the species.
E:\FR\FM\10NOR1.SGM
10NOR1
68954
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
Cuscuta coryli Engelmann
*
*
*
*
Cuscuta exaltata Engelmann
*
*
*
*
*
Cuscuta obtusiflora Kunth
*
*
*
*
*
Cuscuta rostrata Shuttleworth ex
Engelmann & Gray
*
*
*
*
*
Cuscuta umbellata Kunth
*
*
*
*
*
Cuscuta veatchii Brandegee
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
Digitaria velutina (Forsskal) Palisot de
Beauvois (velvet fingergrass, annual
couchgrass)
Drymaria arenariodes Humboldt &
Bonpland ex J.A. Schultes (lightning
weed)
*
*
*
*
*
Imperata cylindrica (Linnaeus) Palisot
de Beauvois (cogongrass)
*
*
*
*
*
Mikania micrantha Kunth
*
*
*
*
*
Prosopis farcta (Banks & Solander)
J.F. Macbride
*
*
*
*
*
Prosopis pallida (Humboldt &
Bonpland ex Willdenow) Kunth
*
*
*
*
*
Setaria pumila (Poir.) Roem. & Schult.
subsp. pallidefusca (Schumach.) B.K.
Simon (cattail grass)
*
*
*
*
*
Spermacoce alata Aublet
*
*
*
*
*
■ 17. Section 360.300 is revised to read
as follows:
*
§ 360.300 Notice of restrictions on
movement of noxious weeds.
No person may move a Federal
noxious weed into or through the
United States, or interstate, unless:
(a) He or she applies for a permit to
move a noxious weed in accordance
with § 360.301;
(b) The permit application is
approved; and
(c) The movement is consistent with
the specific conditions contained in the
permit.
(Approved by the Office of Management
and Budget under control number 0579–
0054)
18. New §§ 360.301 through 360.305
are added to read as follows.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
■
§ 360.301 Information required for
applications for permits to move noxious
weeds.
(a) Permit to import a noxious weed
into the United States. A responsible
person must apply for a permit to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:24 Nov 09, 2010
Jkt 223001
import a noxious weed into the United
States.2 The application must include
the following information:
(1) The responsible person’s name,
address, telephone number, and (if
available) e-mail address;
(2) The taxon of the noxious weed;
(3) Plant parts to be moved;
(4) Quantity of noxious weeds to be
moved per shipment;
(5) Proposed number of shipments per
year;
(6) Origin of the noxious weeds;
(7) Destination of the noxious weeds;
(8) Whether the noxious weed is
established in the State of destination;
(9) Proposed method of shipment;
(10) Proposed port of first arrival in
the United States;
(11) Approximate date of arrival;
(12) Intended use of the noxious
weeds;
(13) Measures to be employed to
prevent danger of noxious weed
dissemination; and
(14) Proposed method of final
disposition of the noxious weeds.
(b) Permit to move noxious weeds
interstate. A responsible person must
apply for a permit to move a noxious
weed interstate.3 The application must
include the following information:
(1) The responsible person’s name,
address, telephone number, and (if
available) e-mail address;
(2) The taxon of the noxious weed;
(3) Plant parts to be moved;
(4) Quantity of noxious weeds to be
moved per shipment;
(5) Proposed number of shipments per
year,
(6) Origin of the noxious weeds;
(7) Destination of the noxious weeds;
(8) Whether the noxious weed is
established in the State of destination;
(9) Proposed method of shipment,
(10) Approximate date of movement;
(11) Intended use of the noxious
weeds;
(12) Measures to be employed to
prevent danger of noxious weed
dissemination; and
(13) Proposed method of final
disposition of the noxious weeds.
(c) Permits to move noxious weeds
through the United States. Permits to
move noxious weeds through the United
States must be obtained in accordance
with part 352 of this chapter.
2 Information on applying for a permit to import
a noxious weed into the United States is available
at https://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/
permits/plantproducts.shtml.
3 Information on applying for a permit to move a
noxious weed interstate is available at https://www.
aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/permits/
plantproducts.shtml.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
§ 360.302 Consideration of applications for
permits to move noxious weeds.
Upon the receipt of an application
made in accordance with § 360.301 for
a permit for movement of a noxious
weed into the United States or
interstate, the Administrator will
consider the application on its merits.
(a) Consultation. The Administrator
may consult with other Federal agencies
or entities, States or political
subdivisions of States, national
governments, local governments in
other nations, domestic or international
organizations, domestic or international
associations, and other persons for
views on the danger of noxious weed
dissemination into the United States, or
interstate, in connection with the
proposed movement.
(b) Inspection of premises. The
Administrator may inspect the site
where noxious weeds are proposed to be
handled in connection with or after
their movement under permit to
determine whether existing or proposed
facilities will be adequate to prevent
noxious weed dissemination if a permit
is issued.
§ 360.303 Approval of an application for a
permit to move a noxious weed; conditions
specified in permit.
The Administrator will approve or
deny an application for a permit to
move a noxious weed. If the application
is approved, the Administrator will
issue the permit including any
conditions that the Administrator has
determined are necessary to prevent
dissemination of noxious weeds into the
United States or interstate. Such
conditions may include requirements
for inspection of the premises where the
noxious weed is to be handled after its
movement under the permit, to
determine whether the facilities there
are adequate to prevent noxious weed
dissemination and whether the
conditions of the permit are otherwise
being observed. Before the permit is
issued, the Administrator will require
the responsible person to agree in
writing to the conditions under which
the noxious weed will be safeguarded.
§ 360.304 Denial of an application for a
permit to move a noxious weed; cancelation
of a permit to move a noxious weed.
(a) The Administrator may deny an
application for a permit to move a
noxious weed when the Administrator
determines that:
(1) No safeguards adequate or
appropriate to prevent dissemination of
the noxious weed can be implemented;
or
(2) The destructive potential of the
noxious weed, should it escape despite
E:\FR\FM\10NOR1.SGM
10NOR1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
proposed safeguards, outweighs the
probable benefits to be derived from the
proposed movement and use of the
noxious weed; or
(3) The responsible person, or the
responsible person’s agent, as a previous
permittee, failed to maintain the
safeguards or otherwise observe the
conditions prescribed in a previous
permit and failed to demonstrate the
ability or intent to observe them in the
future; or
(4) The movement could impede an
APHIS eradication, suppression,
control, or regulatory program; or
(5) A State plant regulatory official
objects to the issuance of the permit on
the grounds that granting the permit
will pose a risk of dissemination of the
noxious weed into the State.
(b) The Administrator may cancel any
outstanding permit when:
(1) After the issuance of the permit,
information is received that constitutes
cause for the denial of an application for
permit under paragraph (a) of this
section; or
(2) The responsible person has not
maintained the safeguards or otherwise
observed the conditions specified in the
permit.
(c) If a permit is orally canceled,
APHIS will provide the reasons for the
withdrawal of the permit in writing
within 10 days. Any person whose
permit has been canceled or any person
who has been denied a permit may
appeal the decision in writing to the
Administrator within 10 days after
receiving the written notification of the
cancellation or denial. The appeal must
state all of the facts and reasons upon
which the person relies to show that the
permit was wrongfully canceled or
denied. The Administrator will grant or
deny the appeal, in writing, stating the
reasons for the decision as promptly as
circumstances allow. If there is a
conflict as to any material fact, a hearing
will be held to resolve the conflict.
Rules of practice concerning such a
hearing will be adopted by the
Administrator.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
§ 360.305 Disposal of noxious weeds when
permits are canceled.
When a permit for the movement of
a noxious weed is canceled by the
Administrator and not reinstated under
§ 360.304(c), further movement of the
noxious weed covered by the permit
into or through the United States, or
interstate, is prohibited unless
authorized by another permit. The
responsible person must arrange for
disposal of the noxious weed in
question in a manner that the
Administrator determines is adequate to
prevent noxious weed dissemination.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:24 Nov 09, 2010
Jkt 223001
The Administrator may seize,
quarantine, treat, apply other remedial
measures to, destroy, or otherwise
dispose of, in such manner as the
Administrator deems appropriate, any
noxious weed that is moved without
compliance with any conditions in the
permit or after the permit has been
canceled whenever the Administrator
deems it necessary in order to prevent
the dissemination of any noxious weed
into or within the United States.
§ 360.400
[Redesignated as § 360.600]
19. Section 360.400 is redesignated as
§ 360.600.
■ 20. New §§ 360.400, 360.500, and
360.501 are added to read as follows:
■
§ 360.400
Treatments.
(a) Seeds of Guizotia abyssinica (niger
seed) are commonly contaminated with
noxious weed seeds listed in § 360.200,
including (but not limited to) Cuscuta
spp. Therefore, Guizotia abyssinica
seeds may be imported into the United
States only if:
(1) They are treated in accordance
with part 305 of this chapter at the time
of arrival at the port of first arrival in the
United States; or
(2) They are treated prior to shipment
to the United States at a facility that is
approved by APHIS 4 and that operates
in compliance with a written agreement
between the treatment facility owner
and the plant protection service of the
exporting country, in which the
treatment facility owner agrees to
comply with the provisions of § 319.37–
6 and allow inspectors and
representatives of the plant protection
service of the exporting country access
to the treatment facility as necessary to
monitor compliance with the
regulations. Treatments must be
certified in accordance with the
conditions described in § 319.37–13(c)
of this chapter.
(b) [Reserved]
§ 360.500 Petitions to add a taxon to the
noxious weed list.
A person may petition the
Administrator to have a taxon added to
the noxious weeds lists in § 360.200.
Details of the petitioning process for
adding a taxon to the lists are available
on the Internet at https://www.aphis.
usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/
weeds/downloads/listingguide.pdf.
Persons who submit a petition to add a
taxon to the noxious weed lists must
provide their name, address, telephone
number, and (if available) e-mail
address. Persons who submit a petition
4 Criteria for the approval of heat treatment
facilities are contained in part 305 of this chapter.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
68955
to add a taxon to the noxious weed lists
are encouraged to provide the following
information, which can help speed up
the review process and help APHIS
determine whether the specified plant
taxon should be listed as a noxious
weed:
(a) Identification of the taxon. (1) The
taxon’s scientific name and author;
(2) Common synonyms;
(3) Botanical classification;
(4) Common names;
(5) Summary of life history;
(6) Native and world distribution;
(7) Distribution in the United States,
if any (specific States, localities, or
Global Positioning System coordinates);
(8) Description of control efforts, if
established in the United States; and
(9) Whether the taxon is regulated at
the State or local level.
(b) Potential consequences of the
taxon’s introduction or spread. (1) The
taxon’s habitat suitability in the United
States (predicted ecological range);
(2) Dispersal potential (biological
characteristics associated with
invasiveness);
(3) Potential economic impacts (e.g.,
potential to reduce crop yields, lower
commodity values, or cause loss of
markets for U.S. goods); and
(4) Potential environmental impacts
(e.g., impacts on ecosystem processes,
natural community composition or
structure, human health, recreation
patterns, property values, or use of
chemicals to control the taxon).
(c) Likelihood of the taxon’s
introduction or spread. (1) Potential
pathways for the taxon’s movement into
and within the United States; and
(2) The likelihood of survival and
spread of the taxon within each
pathway.
(d) List of references.
§ 360.501 Petitions to remove a taxon from
the noxious weed lists.
A person may petition the
Administrator to remove a taxon from
the noxious weeds lists in § 360.200.
Details of the petitioning process for
removing a taxon from the lists are
available at https://www.aphis.usda.gov/
plant_health/plant_pest_info/weeds/
downloads/delistingguide.pdf. Persons
who submit a petition to remove a taxon
from the noxious weed lists would be
required to provide their name, address,
telephone number, and (if available) email address. Persons who submit a
petition to remove a taxon from the
noxious weed lists are encouraged to
provide the following information,
which can help speed up the review
process and help APHIS determine
whether the specified plant taxon
should not be listed as a noxious weed:
E:\FR\FM\10NOR1.SGM
10NOR1
68956
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
(a) Evidence that the species is
distributed throughout its potential
range or has spread too far to implement
effective control.
(b) Evidence that control efforts have
been unsuccessful and further efforts are
unlikely to succeed.
(c) For cultivars of a listed noxious
weed, scientific evidence that the
cultivar has a combination of risk
elements that result in a low pest risk.
For example, the cultivar may have a
narrow habitat suitability, low dispersal
potential, evidence of sterility, inability
to cross-pollinate with introduced wild
types, or few if any potential negative
impacts on the economy or environment
of the United States.
(d) List of references.
PART 361—IMPORTATION OF SEED
AND SCREENINGS UNDER THE
FEDERAL SEED ACT
21. The authority citation for part 361
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1581–1610; 7 CFR
2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.
22. In § 361.6, paragraph (a)(1) is
amended as follows:
■ a. By removing the entries for
‘‘Caulerpa taxifolia (Mediterranean
clone)’’, ‘‘Homeria spp.’’, and ‘‘Mimosa
invisa Martius’’.
■ b. By revising the entries for ‘‘Digitaria
abyssinica (=D. scalarum)’’, ‘‘Drymaria
arenariodes Humboldt & Bonpland ex
Roemer & Schultes’’, ‘‘Imperata
cylindrica (L.) Raeuschel’’, ‘‘Mikania
micrantha Humboldt, Bonpland, &
Kunth’’, ‘‘Prosopis farcta (Solander ex
Russell) Macbride’’, ‘‘Prosopis pallida
(Humboldt & Bonpland ex Willdenow)
Humboldt, Bonpland, & Kunth’’,
‘‘Setaria pallide-fusca (Schumacher)
Stapf & Hubbard’’, and ‘‘Spermacoce
alata (Aublet) de Candolle’’ to read as
set forth below.
■ c. By adding, in alphabetical order,
entries for ‘‘Acacia nilotica (Linnaeus)
Wildenow ex Delile’’, ‘‘Ageratina riparia
(Regel) R.M. King and H. Robinson’’,
‘‘Arctotheca calendula (Linnaeus)
Levyns’’, ‘‘Euphorbia terracina
Linnaeus’’, ‘‘Inula britannica Linnaeus’’,
‘‘Mimosa diplotricha C. Wright’’,
‘‘Moraea collina Thunberg’’, ‘‘Moraea
flaccida (Sweet) Steudel’’, ‘‘Moraea
miniata Andrews ‘‘, ‘‘Moraea ochroleuca
(Salisbury) Drapiez’’, ‘‘Moraea pallida
(Baker) Goldblatt’’, ‘‘Onopordum
acaulon Linnaeus’’, and ‘‘Onopordum
illyricum Linnaeus’’.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
■
§ 361.6
Noxious weed seeds.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:24 Nov 09, 2010
Jkt 223001
Digitaria abyssinica (Hochstetter ex A.
Richard) Stapf
*
*
*
*
*
Drymaria arenariodes Humboldt &
Bonpland ex J.A. Schultes
*
*
*
*
*
Imperata cylindrica (Linnaeus) Palisot
de Beauvois
*
*
*
*
*
Mikania micrantha Kunth
*
*
*
*
*
Prosopis farcta (Banks & Solander)
J.F. Macbride
*
*
*
*
*
Prosopis pallida (Humboldt &
Bonpland ex Willdenow) Kunth
*
*
*
*
*
Setaria pumila (Poir.) Roem. & Schult.
subsp. pallidefusca (Schumach.) B.K.
Simon
*
*
*
*
*
Spermacoce alata Aublet
*
*
*
*
*
Done in Washington, DC, this 4th day of
November 2010.
Kevin Shea,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 2010–28346 Filed 11–9–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–34–P
FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE
AGENCY
12 CFR Part 1208
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Office of Federal Housing Enterprise
Oversight
12 CFR Part 1704
RIN 2590–AA15
Debt Collection
Federal Housing Finance
Agency; Office of Federal Housing
Enterprise Oversight, HUD.
ACTION: Interim final rule with request
for comments.
AGENCY:
The Federal Housing Finance
Agency (FHFA) is issuing an interim
final rule with request for comments on
Debt Collection. The interim final rule
sets forth procedures for use by FHFA
in collecting debts owed to the Federal
Government. Agencies are required by
law to issue a regulation on their debt
collection procedures. The interim final
rule includes procedures for collection
of debts through salary offset,
administrative offset, tax refund offset,
and administrative wage garnishment.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
FHFA requests comments on the interim
final rule.
DATES: The interim final rule is effective
on November 10, 2010. FHFA will
accept written comments on the interim
final rule on or before January 10, 2011.
For additional information, see
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
ADDRESSES: You may submit your
comments on the interim final rule,
identified by regulatory information
number (RIN) 2590–AA15, by any one
of the following methods:
• E-mail: Comments to Alfred M.
Pollard, General Counsel may be sent by
e-mail at RegComments@fhfa.gov.
Please include ‘‘RIN 2590–AA15’’ in the
subject line of the message.
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments. If
you submit your comment to the
Federal eRulemaking Portal, please also
send it by e-mail to FHFA at
RegComments@fhfa.gov to ensure
timely receipt by FHFA. Include the
following information in the subject line
of your submission: Comments/RIN
2590–AA15.
• U.S. Mail, United Parcel Service,
Federal Express, or Other Mail Service:
The mailing address for comments is:
Alfred M. Pollard, General Counsel,
Attention: Comments/RIN 2590–AA15,
Federal Housing Finance Agency,
Fourth Floor, 1700 G Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20552.
• Hand Delivered/Courier: The hand
delivery address is: Alfred M. Pollard,
General Counsel, Attention: Comments/
RIN 2590–AA15, Federal Housing
Finance Agency, Fourth Floor, 1700 G
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20552. The
package should be logged at the Guard
Desk, First Floor, on business days
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Andra Grossman, Senior Counsel,
telephone (202) 343–1313 or Gail F.
Baum, Associate General Counsel,
telephone (202) 343–1508 (not toll-free
numbers); Federal Housing Finance
Agency, Fourth Floor, 1700 G Street,
NW., Washington, DC 20552. The
telephone number for the
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf
is (800) 877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Comments
The Federal Housing Finance Agency
(FHFA) invites comments on all aspects
of the interim final rule, and will take
all comments into consideration before
issuing the final regulation. Copies of all
comments will be posted without
change, including any personal
information you provide, such as your
E:\FR\FM\10NOR1.SGM
10NOR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 217 (Wednesday, November 10, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 68945-68956]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28346]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
7 CFR Parts 319, 352, 360, and 361
[Docket No. APHIS-2007-0146]
RIN 0579-AC97
Update of Noxious Weed Regulations
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are amending the regulations governing the importation and
interstate movement of noxious
[[Page 68946]]
weeds by adding definitions of terms used in the regulations, adding
details regarding the process of applying for the permits used to
import or move noxious weeds, adding a requirement for the treatment of
niger seed, and adding provisions for petitioning to add a taxon to or
remove a taxon from the noxious weed lists. These changes will update
the regulations to reflect current statutory authority and program
operations and improve the effectiveness of the regulations. We are
also adding seven taxa to the list of terrestrial noxious weeds and to
the list of seeds with no tolerances applicable to their introduction.
This action will prevent the introduction or dissemination of these
noxious weeds into or within the United States.
DATES: Effective Date: December 10, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Alan V. Tasker, Noxious Weeds
Program Coordinator, Emergency and Domestic Programs, PPQ, APHIS, 4700
River Road Unit 26, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; (301) 734-5225; or Dr.
Arnold Tschanz, Senior Plant Pathologist, Risk Management and Plants
for Planting Policy, RPM, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 133,
Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 734-0627.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Plant Protection Act (PPA), as amended (7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.)
authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to prohibit or restrict the
importation, entry, exportation, or movement in interstate commerce of
any plant, plant product, biological control organism, noxious weed,
article, or means of conveyance if the Secretary determines that the
prohibition or restriction is necessary to prevent the introduction of
a plant pest or noxious weed into the United States or the
dissemination of a plant pest or noxious weed within the United States.
The PPA defines ``noxious weed'' as ``any plant or plant product
that can directly or indirectly injure or cause damage to crops
(including nursery stock or plant products), livestock, poultry, or
other interests of agriculture, irrigation, navigation, the natural
resources of the United States, the public health, or the
environment.'' The PPA also provides that the Secretary may publish, by
regulation, a list of noxious weeds that are prohibited or restricted
from entering the United States or that are subject to restrictions on
interstate movement within the United States. Under this authority, the
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) administers the
noxious weeds regulations in 7 CFR part 360 (referred to below as the
regulations), which prohibit or restrict the importation and interstate
movement of those plants that are designated as noxious weeds in Sec.
360.200.
Under the authority of the Federal Seed Act (FSA) of 1939, as
amended (7 U.S.C. 1551 et seq.), the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) regulates the importation and interstate movement of certain
agricultural and vegetable seeds and screenings. Title III of the FSA,
``Foreign Commerce,'' requires shipments of imported agricultural and
vegetable seeds to be labeled correctly and to be tested for the
presence of the seeds of certain noxious weeds as a condition of entry
into the United States. APHIS' regulations implementing the provisions
of title III of the FSA are found in 7 CFR part 361. A list of noxious
weed seeds is contained in Sec. 361.6. Paragraph (a)(1) of Sec. 361.6
lists species of noxious weed seeds with no tolerances applicable to
their introduction into the United States.
On June 10, 2009, we published in the Federal Register (74 FR
27456-27467, Docket No. APHIS-2007-0146) a proposal \1\ to make several
changes to the regulations. Briefly, we proposed to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ To view the proposed rule and the comments we received, go
to https://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS-2007-0146.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Add definitions for terms used in the regulations and
replace references to the Federal Noxious Weed Act with references to
the PPA;
Add explanatory text to clarify the listing of noxious
weeds in Sec. 360.200;
Provide additional detail about the requirements for
permits to move noxious weeds in Sec. 360.300;
Amend the regulations to require heat treatment for
Guizotia abyssinica (niger) seed, as currently required in Sec.
319.37-6;
Add a section to provide information about the process for
petitioning to add or remove a taxon from the noxious weed list;
Add seven new noxious weeds to the list of noxious weeds
in Sec. 360.200 and the list of noxious weed seeds in Sec. 361.6; and
Update or correct the taxonomic designations for several
currently listed noxious weeds.
We solicited comments concerning our proposal for 60 days ending
August 10, 2009. We received six comments by that date. They were from
a private citizen, a seed organization, a biotechnology industry
organization, researchers, and a representative of a State government.
The issues they raised that are germane to the proposed rule are
discussed below by topic.
Concurrence From States in Approving Noxious Weed Permits
We proposed to add to the regulations new Sec. Sec. 360.301
through 360.305 to provide additional information about the
requirements for permits to import or move noxious weeds. Proposed
Sec. 360.304 contained information about denial and cancellation of
permits.
In paragraph (a) of proposed Sec. 360.304, we proposed to provide
that the Administrator could deny an application for a permit to move a
noxious weed when the Administrator has determined that, among other
things, a State plant regulatory official objects to the issuance of
the permit on the grounds that granting the permit will pose a risk of
dissemination of the noxious weed into the State. However, we went on
to note that, under the proposed regulations, the Administrator would
have the option to approve a permit for movement of a noxious weed even
if a State plant regulatory official objected to the issuance of a
permit--for example, if the Administrator determined that the
safeguards specified in the permit were adequate to address the risk of
dissemination.
One commenter stated that the approval of a permit when a State
plant regulatory official objected to the approval could potentially
put an importer in an unfortunate position between APHIS and a State
authority. The commenter stated that APHIS needs to reach positive
resolution with the States when deciding to approve permits to avoid
putting the importer in a bind.
APHIS' decisions on whether to grant a permit take into account the
views of the State, but ultimately APHIS has the final authority to
grant or deny an application for a permit. However, in all cases, APHIS
attempts to come to a positive resolution of any difference of opinion
with a State plant health official, as the commenter recommends. Our
State plant health cooperators are key to the successful enforcement
and functioning of the Federal noxious weed regulations. In practice,
we would rarely act contrary to States' concerns regarding issuing a
permit for the importation or interstate movement of taxa listed as
Federal noxious weeds, and we would provide information to specifically
support issuing the permit if we were to do so.
[[Page 68947]]
New Section With Treatment for Niger Seed
We proposed to add a new Sec. 360.400 indicating that Guizota
abysinnica (niger) seed is required to be treated. This requirement is
found in our regulations governing the importation of nursery stock in
Sec. 319.37-6; we proposed to duplicate the conditions that are
specified in that section in proposed Sec. 360.400, as most niger seed
is not imported for use as nursery stock but as birdseed.
(NOTE: In an interim rule published and effective on October 19,
2009 (74 FR 53397-53400, Docket No. APHIS-2008-0097), we added a new
Sec. 360.400 to codify the preemptive effects of the regulations in
part 360. This final rule redesignates Sec. 360.400 as Sec. 360.600
to accommodate the new provisions we proposed to add in June 2009.)
One commenter stated that it is not entirely clear why proposed
Sec. 360.400 was included with the noxious weed regulations, given
that G. abysinnica is not listed as a noxious weed.
Although G. abysinnica itself is not a noxious weed, imported lots
of G. abysinnica are commonly contaminated with various noxious weed
seeds, including Cuscuta spp. We have determined that heat treatment
effectively mitigates the risk associated with noxious weed seeds in
lots of G. abysinnica. Because G. abysinnica is not typically imported
for use as nursery stock, importers may not know to look in the nursery
stock regulations in Sec. 319.37-6 to find the requirements for its
importation. Importers of seed more commonly look at the requirements
in parts 360 and 361. Indicating that G. abysinnica must be heat
treated for noxious weed seeds in part 360 will make this requirement
more prominent to its intended audience and thus improve the clarity
and effectiveness of the regulations.
Petitions To Add a Taxon to or Remove a Taxon From the Noxious Weed
Lists
APHIS accepts petitions to add a taxon to or remove a taxon from
the noxious weed lists in Sec. 360.200. Although we provide some
information about the petition process on APHIS' noxious weeds Web
site,\2\ the regulations have not contained any information about this
process. We proposed to add new Sec. Sec. 360.500 and 360.501 to
provide such information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ At https://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/weeds/index.shtml.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In both sections, we proposed to encourage petitioners to provide
several pieces of information along with their petitions. Providing
such information can help speed up the review process and help APHIS
determine whether the specified plant taxon should be listed as a
noxious weed. However, we did not propose to require that such
information be provided.
One commenter characterized our proposal to request information as
a list of criteria for adding or removing a taxon from the list of
noxious weeds, and stated that it is not clear whether or not all
criteria need to be met in order to add or remove taxa. The commenter
expressed concern that justifying additions solely on the basis of one
criterion (such as potential economic impacts) could result in a
noxious weed list populated with plant species that are not noxious
from a biological or ecological perspective. The commenter asked us to
add language to these sections stating that all criteria must be
addressed and considered in any petition to add (or remove) taxa to the
noxious weed list.
This commenter also stated that the proposed regulations do not
include any discussion regarding how APHIS will evaluate petitions to
add a taxon to or remove a taxon from the noxious weed lists, or
communicate their decisions to the public. The commenter recommended
that APHIS establish a transparent process or procedures by which APHIS
will conduct these evaluations and communicate decisions to the public.
The commenter also recommended that these procedures include a
sufficient comment period (up to 180 days) to give stakeholders who may
be impacted an opportunity to respond to petitions and provide input.
The various types of information we proposed to request are not a
comprehensive set of criteria for listing a taxon as a noxious weed or
removing a taxon from the list of noxious weeds; rather, we proposed to
request information we would find useful in investigating whether or
not a plant should be listed as a noxious weed. We did not propose to
require petitioners to include all the different types of information
we requested because that information may not be available to the
petitioner. Accordingly, we are not taking the commenter's suggestion
to require petitioners to provide all this information.
If we receive a petition to list a taxon as a noxious weed or to
remove a taxon from the list of noxious weeds, we will communicate with
the petitioner regarding whether we are proceeding with a weed risk
assessment (WRA), and, if not, why not.
We conduct our WRAs in accordance with our Weed-Initiated Pest Risk
Assessment Guidelines for Qualitative Assessments, regardless of
whether the assessment is triggered by a petition, through research and
identification of a potential noxious weed, or discovery of an outbreak
or introduction of a potential noxious weed. These guidelines are
available on the Web at https://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/weeds/downloads/wra.pdf. These guidelines are consistent
with the International Plant Protection Convention's (IPPC)
International Standard for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPM) No. 2,
``Framework for pest risk analysis.'' \3\ If we perform a WRA in
response to a petition, we will review all the information supplied by
the petitioner as part of this process; we will also review other data
sources to ensure that our conclusions regarding the taxon in question
are based on the broadest possible base of information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ To view this ISPM on the Internet, go to https://www.ippc.int/IPP/En/default.jsp and click on the ``Adopted ISPMs''
link under the ``Standards (ISPMs)'' heading.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If our WRA and any other analysis we may conduct indicate that a
taxon should be listed as a noxious weed, we will publish an interim
rule or proposed rule in the Federal Register to amend the list of
noxious weeds in Sec. 360.200 and, if appropriate, the list of noxious
weed seeds in part 361. Such publication provides both public notice
and a period during which stakeholders who may be impacted can provide
input. We will make the WRA and any other analysis we may conduct
available along with the interim rule or proposed rule. We typically
provide for a comment period of 60 days on interim rules and proposed
rules; however, we have the option to allow for a longer comment period
should circumstances warrant it.
We proposed to add a new Sec. 360.500 to provide information about
the process of adding a taxon to the noxious weed list. Among other
things, we proposed to encourage petitioners to provide the following
information about the potential consequences of the taxon's
introduction or spread:
The taxon's habitat suitability in the United States
(predicted ecological range);
Dispersal potential (biological characteristics associated
with invasiveness);
Potential economic impacts (e.g., potential to reduce crop
yields, lower commodity values, or cause loss of markets for U.S.
goods); and
Potential environmental impacts (e.g., impacts on
ecosystem processes, natural community composition or structure, human
health, recreation
[[Page 68948]]
patterns, property values, or use of chemicals to control the taxon).
Referring to the request for information about potential economic
impacts of a taxon petitioned to be listed as a noxious weed, one
commenter stated that the use of such information could result in
petitions for classifying certain genetically engineered (GE) crop
species as noxious weeds. APHIS' Biotechnology Regulatory Services
(BRS) program regulates GE organisms, and the commenter assumed that
BRS will use the noxious weed authority of the PPA when such issues
arise with GE crops. To ensure consistency, the commenter recommended
that PPQ and BRS coordinate to ensure that these regulations will be
uniformly interpreted when such issues arise. If there is not
consistency, the commenter stated, it is conceivable that a petitioner
could apply to both PPQ and BRS to list (or delist) the same taxon and
end up with different results.
We agree with the commenter's recommendation that PPQ and BRS
coordinate when we receive petitions to list GE crops as noxious weeds.
PPQ and BRS regularly discuss such issues and will continue to do so.
It should be noted that, currently, BRS regulates GE organisms only
under the plant pest authority of the PPA.
One commenter stated that, while the information requested will be
necessary to determining whether to list a taxon as a noxious weed,
certain baseline information will also be required and should also be
specifically referenced in the regulations. As an initial matter, the
commenter stated, information must be provided to show that the plant
in question causes injury recognized under the PPA and the IPPC. The
commenter quoted the Background section of a proposed rule regarding
the importation and interstate movement of GE organisms published in
the Federal Register on October 9, 2008 (73 FR 60008-60048, Docket No.
APHIS-2008-0023), which stated that the first consideration in
determining whether a plant is a noxious weed is identifying what
direct injury or damage (physical harm) the plant causes.
While we proposed in Sec. 360.500 to request that petitioners
provide information regarding the potential economic and environmental
impacts of spread of the plant in question, we did not propose to
request or require information regarding the injury the offending plant
may inflict. The commenter stated that, while in many instances this
information will be obvious, it is nevertheless essential to a noxious
weed determination and must not be overlooked. In all cases, the
commenter stated, APHIS must first make an initial finding of physical
harm caused by the plant at issue; only then may APHIS continue the
risk assessment and risk mitigation process to determine whether
further regulation is appropriate.
We have determined that it is not necessary to require that
petitioners provide information about the direct harm caused by a taxon
in a petition to list a taxon as a noxious weed. Such information may
not be available to the petitioner; for example, a petitioner might
notice unchecked growth of a weed in an area without knowing the
precise means by which the weed was displacing native vegetation.
As discussed earlier, after receiving a petition, we consider all
available information relating to that taxon, not just the information
provided in the petition, and we conduct our weed risk assessments in
accordance with our Weed-Initiated Pest Risk Assessment Guidelines for
Qualitative Assessments. These guidelines provide specific examples of
what we mean by potential economic impacts and potential environmental
impacts. Potential economic impacts include, but are not limited to:
Reduced crop yield (e.g., by parasitism, competition, or
by harboring other pests).
Lower commodity value (e.g., by increasing costs of
production, lowering market price, or a combination); or if not an
agricultural weed, by increasing costs of weed control.
Loss of markets (foreign or domestic) due to presence of a
new quarantine pest.
Potential environmental impacts include, but are not limited to,
considerations of whether the weed, if introduced, could:
Cause impacts on ecosystem processes (alteration of
hydrology, sedimentation rates, a fire regime, nutrient regimes,
changes in productivity, growth, yield, vigor, etc.).
Cause impacts on natural community composition (e.g.,
reduce biodiversity, affect native populations, affect endangered or
threatened species, impact keystone species, impact native fauna,
pollinators, or microorganisms, etc.).
Cause impacts on community structure (e.g., change density
of a layer, cover the canopy, eliminate or create a layer, impact
wildlife habitats, etc.).
Have impacts on human health such as allergies or changes
in air or water quality.
Have sociological impacts on recreation patterns and
aesthetic or property values.
Stimulate control programs including toxic chemical
pesticides or introduction of a nonindigenous biological control agent.
Risk ratings are then determined based on how many of the impacts
are posed by the taxon (except for taxa that affect endangered or
threatened species, which are always rated high risk for environmental
impacts). The WRA process thus considers in detail the direct injury or
damage the plant may cause. We believe this satisfies the commenter's
overall concern that the direct injury or damage caused by a plant
should be considered in determining whether to list it as a noxious
weed.
Additions to the Lists of Terrestrial Noxious Weeds and Noxious Weed
Seeds
We proposed add seven new taxa to the list of terrestrial noxious
weeds in Sec. 360.200(c) and to the list of noxious weed seeds with no
tolerances applicable to their introduction in Sec. 361.6(a)(1).
Commenters who addressed these additions supported them.
One commenter stated that the addition of the seven new taxa could
have indirect adverse consequences on seed production. The commenter
stated that many companies have overseas operations in which seed is
produced in a foreign country and shipped back to the United States for
sale in the United States or for value-adding and repackaging for re-
export. Some producers' offshore production sites likely could be in
areas where these taxa are endemic, the commenter stated, and several
of the new taxa, such as Arctotheca calendula, Ageratina riperia,
Euphorbia terracina, Onopordum acaulon, and O. illyricum, could impact
grass seed production as well as row crop and vegetable crop seed
production. If these new taxa, or whenever any new taxa, are added to
the noxious weed list, the commenter requested that we provide detailed
information on the occurrence and distribution of these taxa, as well
as specific information on their seed morphology and biology, so that
seed production companies can implement measures to minimize
contamination of seed in those production areas where these taxa pose a
threat.
We list taxa as noxious weeds based on the risk they pose, not on
their geographical distribution. We provided the information we have on
the international distribution, seed
[[Page 68949]]
morphology, and biology of these weeds in the WRAs that were provided
along with the proposed rule on Regulations.gov (see footnote 1 for
instructions on accessing Regulations.gov). Because these weeds have
significant effects on agricultural production and the environment, as
discussed in the WRAs, seed producers will likely know whether these
noxious weeds are present in or near their production facilities; for
economic reasons, we presume that they would take appropriate steps to
prevent contamination of their seed with seeds of these weeds.
We proposed to list A. calendula (capeweed) as a noxious weed. In
the proposed rule, we stated that A. calendula is currently present in
California and that a purple-flowered, seed-producing type of A.
calendula is regulated by the State. A sterile, vegetatively
reproducing yellow-flowered type is not currently regulated by the
State of California, but is noted by some to spread from cultivation
into wild or managed environments. In addition, absent inflorescence,
identifying a plant as a member of one type or another of A. calendula
can be difficult. We invited public comment on whether it is
appropriate to regulate the entire species A. calendula, as we proposed
to do, or whether we should only regulate the purple-flowered, seed-
producing type.
Two commenters addressed this issue. One stated that the less
noxious form (we described it as yellow-flowered, while the commenter
described it as orange-flowered) is indistinguishable from the purple-
flowered form when not in flower. The commenter pointed out that
enforcement would be difficult if only one form is regulated, and
recommended that we add the entire species to the list.
Another commenter agreed with this comment and added other points
to consider when determining whether to regulate the entire species:
The commenter stated that the infertile type is also
invasive. According to one report from the California Invasive Plant
Inventory (https://www.cal-ipc.org), it is more competitive than the
fertile form. It can escape cultivation by creeping stolons and spread
aggressively.
The commenter asked whether purple flower color is always
linked to fertile seed production and whether this is always a reliable
characteristic for determining the type of capeweed.
The commenter asked whether the genetic basis of seed
infertility in the sterile type is understood. If yes, the commenter
asked, is the sterility stable? Or is it capable of reverting to
fertility under certain circumstances or can it cross with the fertile
type?
The commenter stated that the sterile type is just as
potentially toxic to sheep, cattle, pigs and horses as the fertile
type, due to presence of nitrates.
Since the publication of the proposed rule, we have found more
information about the botanical classification of what we characterized
as the fertile and sterile types of A. calendula. These are actually
two different species; A. calendula is the fertile type, while the
sterile type has been designated A. prostrata (creeping capeweed).\4\
There are morphological differences between the two species that make
it practical to distinguish them for enforcement purposes, as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See the Draft of the Second Edition of the Jepson Manual:
Vascular Plants of California; and Tropicos, the database of the
Missouri Botanical Garden. https://mobot.mobot.org/cgi-bin/search_vast (accessed August 24, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As we had proposed to regulate A. calendula as a noxious weed on
the basis of the damage caused by what we had characterized as the
fertile type, we are adding A. calendula to the list of terrestrial
noxious weeds and to the list of noxious weed seeds with no tolerances
applicable to their introduction, as we proposed. We will evaluate A.
prostrata separately to determine whether it, too, needs to be added to
those lists, with the information and questions provided by the second
commenter in mind.
One commenter, citing the ``no tolerances applicable to their
introduction'' language, stated that this terminology strongly
indicates that there is a zero tolerance for noxious weed seed
contaminants in seed consignments. The commenter understood the basis
for zero tolerance, but also recognizes that achieving this level of
risk reduction will at times be very difficult. The commenter asked
that APHIS seek input from the seed industry on the development of a
rational tolerance for noxious weed seed contaminants that is
achievable by the industry. The commenter also asked that APHIS add
language to this section stating that whenever noxious weed seed
contaminants are detected in seed consignments, companies will be given
the option of recleaning and re-inspection according to established
APHIS procedures and protocols, and that destruction or re-export will
be considered a last option.
The commenter refers to existing text from Sec. 361.6(a)(1)
regarding seeds with no tolerances applicable to their introduction
that we were discussing in the Background section of the proposal.
Within Sec. 361.6, paragraph (c) discusses how certain seed may not be
counted toward the tolerance (for example, damaged seed). However, it
is important to prevent even one individual, viable seed of taxa listed
in Sec. 361.6(a)(1) from entering the United States, as these taxa
have been determined to be capable of causing agricultural and
environmental damage should they be introduced into the United States.
Thus, the zero-tolerance standard is appropriate for these taxa. We are
making no changes in response to this comment.
Common Names
One commenter addressed the common names of noxious weeds. With
regard to the seven taxa we proposed to add to the list of terrestrial
noxious weeds and to the list of noxious weed seeds with no tolerances
applicable to their introduction, the commenter noted that the common
names we included with the scientific names in the proposed regulatory
text often differed from those in the USDA's PLANTS Web site (https://plants.usda.gov). The commenter stated that it would be less confusing
if the proposed regulatory text and the PLANTS Web site agreed on
common names, and that using the most common usage would better serve
the general public and others.
Common names, including those on the PLANTS Web site, are
unofficial. It is often difficult to determine the most common usage,
which varies worldwide. For these reasons, we rely on the scientific
name of a taxon, which is the internationally recognized scientific
standard, as the official name for regulatory purposes. We list a
common name for the convenience of nonspecialists.
APHIS normally lists the most recent common name found in one or
more of three sources. The Weed Science Society of America (WSSA)
publishes a Composite List of Weeds with their officially recognized
common names, which APHIS would normally use. WSSA lists few of the
weeds we proposed to add because of their lack of distribution in the
United States. Since the preparation of the WRAs, WSSA has added
several of the species we proposed to add to the list of noxious weeds
to its Composite List of Weeds. Other sources of common names are the
Germplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN) and the Integrated
Taxonomic Information System (ITIS) database. PLANTS tends to favor
names in ITIS.
In this final rule, we are changing common names to match WSSA
where names have been recognized since the
[[Page 68950]]
original draft. In cases where WSSA does not list a common name, we
have compared GRIN and ITIS and changed to names listed in both
databases, where available. The following table summarizes the proposed
common names, the common names provided in the references listed above,
and the changes in the final rule.
Table 1--Common Names of Seven New Noxious Weed Taxa
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scientific name Proposed rule WSSA GRIN ITIS PLANTS Final rule
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acacia nilotica................ prickly acacia.... (no common name acacia [agrave] gum arabic tree... gum arabic tree... gum arabic tree,
listed). gomme, acacia thorny acacia.
gomifera,
arabische
Gummiakazie, babul
acacia, Egyptian
acacia, gommier
rouge, Indian gum-
arabic-tree,
lekkeruikpeul,
scented-thorn,
thorn-mimosa,
thorny acacia.
Ageratina riparia.............. mistflower........ creeping creeping creeping spreading creeping
croftonweed. croftonweed, croftonweed, mist snakeroot. croftonweed,
hamakua pamakani, flower, spreading mistflower.
mistblom, snakeroot.
mistflower, river
eupatorium.
Arctotheca calendula........... capeweed.......... capeweed.......... Capeweed, venidium. Cape weed, Capeweed.......... capeweed (no
capeweed. changes).
Euphorbia terracina............ false caper....... Geraldton false caper, Geraldton Geraldton false caper,
carnationweed. Geraldton carnation weed. carnation weed. Geraldton
carnation-spurge, carnation weed.
Geraldton
carnation-weed,
leiteira.
Inula britannica............... British elecampane British elecampane British elecampane, British yellowhead British yellowhead British
ou ya xuan fu hua, elecampane,
xuan fu hua, British
British yellowhead. yellowhead.
Onopordum acaulon.............. stemless thistle.. (no common name cardo, horse (no common name (no common name stemless thistle
listed). thistle, stemless listed). listed). (no changes).
onopordon,
stemless thistle.
Onopordum illyricum............ Illyrian thistle.. Illyrian thistle.. cardo- Illyrian Illyrian Illyrian thistle
il[iacute]rico, cottonthistle. cottonthistle. (no changes).
Illyrian thistle.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also proposed to make several nomenclature changes for taxa
currently listed as terrestrial noxious weeds and as noxious weed seeds
with no tolerances applicable to their introduction. Among these
changes, we proposed to update the regulations by removing the entry
for Homeria spp. from both Sec. Sec. 360.200(c) and 361.6(a)(1) and
adding entries for Moraea collina, M. flaccida, M. miniata, M.
ochroleuca, and M. pallida in its place.
The commenter stated that the common names we proposed to use for
the Moraea species are contrived and confusing. In the proposed rule,
M. flaccida is called the one-leaf Cape tulip, but most of the others
also have one leaf. M. collina is called the apricot tulp, but other
species are similarly colored, and likewise M. ochroleuca is called the
red tulp even though it has yellow flowers. The commenter stated that
it appears that ``tulp'' is a typographical error, and will appear to
be an error to many others. To reduce confusion, the commenter
recommended that all of the species be called ``Cape tulip,'' similar
to how Salvinia spp. are all called ``giant salvinia'' on the present
list, or that they be listed without common name as with Cuscuta and
Prosopis species on the current list.
As noted earlier, we rely on the scientific name of a taxon as the
official name for regulatory purposes. We list a common name for the
convenience of non-specialists. ``Tulp'' is the Dutch and Afrikaans
word for ``tulip'' and is thus in common use internationally.
We conducted a review of the common names of the new Moraea spp.
similar to the one conducted for the common names of the seven new
taxa. The results of this review are shown in table 2.
Table 2--Common Names of Five Moraea Species
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wiersema &
Scientific name Proposed rule Leon\1\ WSSA GRIN ITIS PLANTS Final rule
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moraea collina (=Homeria apricot tulp.... (no common name (no common name (no common name (no common name Cape tulip..... apricot Cape-
collina). listed). listed). listed). listed). tulip.
Moraea flaccida (=Homeria one-leaf Cape- one-leaf Cape- (no common name one-leaf Cape- (no common name (no common name one-leaf Cape-
flaccida). tulip. tulip. listed). tulip. listed). listed). tulip (no
changes).
Moraea miniata (=Homeria two-leaf Cape- two-leaf Cape- (no common name two-leaf Cape- (no common name (no common name two-leaf Cape-
miniata). tulip. tulip. listed). tulip. listed). listed). tulip (no
changes).
[[Page 68951]]
Moraea ochroleuca (=Homeria red tulp........ red tulp........ (no common name red tulp....... (no common name (no common name red Cape-tulip.
ochroleuca). listed). listed). listed).
Moraea pallida (=Homeria yellow tulp..... yellow tulp..... (no common name yellow tulp.... (no common name (no common name yellow Cape-
pallida). listed). listed). listed). tulip.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wiersema, J.H. and Leon, Blanca. 1999. World economic plants: A standard reference. p. 261.
Based on this review, we are changing the common name for M.
collina to ``apricot Capetulip,'' to be more consistent with the PLANTS
database while ensuring that M. collina can be differentiated from the
other regulated Cape-tulip. We also recognize that U.S. regulated
entities may not be familiar with the term ``tulp,'' and that listing
all the new Moraea spp. as some variety of ``Cape-tulip'' would help to
ensure consistency in naming the genus. For that reason, we have
changed the proposed common name of M. ochroleuca, ``red tulp,'' to
read ``red Cape-tulip,'' in this final rule and we have changed the
proposed common name of M. pallida, ``yellow tulp,'' to read ``yellow
Cape-tulip'' in this final rule.
Miscellaneous Change
We proposed to revise current Sec. 360.300. Proposed paragraph (a)
in Sec. 360.300 stated that no person may move a Federal noxious weed
into or through the United States, or interstate, unless he or she
applies for a permit to move a noxious weed in accordance with Sec.
360.301, the permit application is approved, and the movement is
consistent with the specific conditions contained in the permit.
Proposed paragraph (b) of Sec. 360.300 stated that persons who move
noxious weeds into or through the United States, or interstate, without
complying with those conditions will be subject to such criminal and
civil penalties as are provided by the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C.
7701 et seq.).
We are not including proposed paragraph (b) in this final rule, as
it is not necessary to state explicitly in the regulations that
violations of the regulations are subject to the penalties prescribed
in the act under whose authority they are promulgated. The requirements
in proposed paragraph (a) and its subparagraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3)
appear in this final rule as undesignated introductory text for Sec.
360.300 and as paragraphs (a) through (c), respectively.
Therefore, for the reasons given in the proposed rule and in this
document, we are adopting the proposed rule as a final rule, with the
changes discussed in this document.
Federal Preemption
On May 20, 2009, the President issued a memorandum to the heads of
executive departments and agencies on the subject of preemption. The
memorandum states that it is the general policy of the Administration
that preemption of State law by executive departments and agencies
should be undertaken only with full consideration of the legitimate
prerogatives of the States and with a sufficient legal basis for
preemption. The memorandum further states:
To ensure that executive departments and agencies include
statements of preemption in regulations only when such statements have
a sufficient legal basis:
Heads of departments and agencies should not include in
regulatory preambles statements that the department or agency intends
to preempt State law through the regulation except where preemption
provisions are also included in the codified regulation.
Heads of departments and agencies should not include
preemption provisions in codified regulations except where such
provisions would be justified under legal principles governing
preemption, including the principles outlined in Executive Order 13132.
Since 1996, Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform,'' has
required agencies to include in each regulation a statement regarding
its preemptive effects. APHIS has included a statement of preemptive
effects in regulatory preambles under the heading ``Executive Order
12988.''
In compliance with the May 2009 memorandum from the White House, we
are adding preemption provisions to part 352 that apply to this rule,
as well as to the existing regulations in part 352. Preemption
provisions have already been added to parts 319, 360, and 361.
Part 352 contains safeguarding regulations for the movement through
the United States of plants, plant products, plant pests, soil, and
other products and articles that may be infested or infected by or
contain plant pests or noxious weeds.
Under section 436 of the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7756), no
State or political subdivision of a State may regulate in foreign
commerce any article, means of conveyance, plant, biological control
organism, plant pest, noxious weed, or plant product in order to
control a plant pest or noxious weed, to eradicate a plant pest or
noxious weed, or to prevent the introduction or dissemination of a
biological control organism, plant pest, or noxious weed. Therefore, in
accordance with section 436 of the Plant Protection Act, the
regulations in part 352 preempt all State and local laws and
regulations that are inconsistent with or exceed the regulations in
part 352.
Accordingly, in this final rule, we are adding a new paragraph (d)
in Sec. 352.2 to codify the preemptive effects of the regulations in
part 352. To reflect this change, we have renamed Sec. 352.2
``Purpose; relation to other regulations; applicability; preemption of
State and local laws.''
Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act
This final rule 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.
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, we have analyzed
the potential economic effects of this action on small entities. As
described in the economic analysis, the majority of producers,
importers, and merchants that may be affected by the final rule are
small entities. However, there is no evidence of any significant trade
in the seven taxa that are being added to the list of noxious weeds,
and the other changes in the final rule serve to clarify
[[Page 68952]]
the regulations and improve their effectiveness. Under these
circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service has determined that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The full economic analysis may be viewed on the Regulations.gov Web
site. (See footnote 1 in this document for a link to the analysis on
Regulations.gov.) In addition, copies may be obtained by calling or
writing to the individual listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Executive Order 12372
This program/activity is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance under No. 10.025 and is subject to Executive Order 12372,
which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local
officials. (See 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V.)
Executive Order 12988
This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988,
Civil Justice Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts all State and local laws
and regulations that are inconsistent with this rule; (2) has no
retroactive effect; and (3) does not require administrative proceedings
before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This final rule contains no new information collection or
recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
List of Subjects
7 CFR Part 319
Coffee, Cotton, Fruits, Imports, Logs, Nursery stock, Plant
diseases and pests, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Rice, Vegetables.
7 CFR Part 352
Customs duties and inspection, Imports, Plant diseases and pests,
Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
7 CFR Part 360
Imports, Plants (Agriculture), Quarantine, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Weeds.
7 CFR Part 361
Agricultural commodities, Imports, Labeling, Quarantine, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Seeds, Vegetables, Weeds.
0
Accordingly, we are amending 7 CFR parts 319, 352, 360, and 361 as
follows:
PART 319--FOREIGN QUARANTINE NOTICES
0
1. The authority citation for part 319 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 450, 7701-7772, and 7781-7786; 21 U.S.C.
136 and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.
Sec. 319.37-6 [Amended]
0
2. In Sec. 319.37-6, paragraph (c) is amended by adding the words
``must be treated'' after the word ``States''.
PART 352--PLANT QUARANTINE SAFEGUARD REGULATIONS
0
3. The authority citation for part 352 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7701-7772 and 7781-7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 and
136a; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.
0
4. Section 352.2 is amended as follows:
0
a. By revising the section heading to read as set forth below.
0
b. In paragraph (a) introductory text, in the first sentence, by adding
the words ``noxious weeds,'' after the words ``plant pests,''; and by
removing the words ``319 and 330'' and adding the words ``319, 330, and
360'' in their place.
0
c. In paragraph (b), by removing the words ``319 or 330'' and adding
the words ``319, 330, or 360'' in their place.
0
d. By adding a new paragraph (d) to read as set forth below.
Sec. 352.2 Purpose; relation to other regulations; applicability;
preemption of State and local laws.
* * * * *
(d) Under section 436 of the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7756),
a State or political subdivision of a State may not regulate in foreign
commerce any article, means of conveyance, plant, biological control
organism, plant pest, noxious weed, or plant product in order to
control a plant pest or noxious weed, to eradicate a plant pest or
noxious weed, or to prevent the introduction or dissemination of a
biological control organism, plant pest, or noxious weed.
Sec. 352.3 [Amended]
0
5. Section 352.3 is amended as follows:
0
a. In paragraphs (a) and (b), by adding the words ``noxious weeds,''
after the words ``plant pests,'' each time they occur.
0
b. In paragraph (d), by adding the words ``or noxious weed'' before the
word ``dissemination.''
Sec. 352.5 [Amended]
0
6. Section 352.5 is amended as follows:
0
a. By adding the words ``noxious weeds,'' after the words ``plant
pests,'' each time they occur.
0
b. In paragraph (d), by adding the words ``, 330, and 360'' after the
words ``parts 319'' each time they occur.
Sec. 352.6 [Amended]
0
7. Section 352.6 is amended as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (a), by adding the words ``(including noxious weeds)''
before the period at the end of the paragraph heading.
0
b. In paragraph (e), by adding the words ``or noxious weed'' before the
word ``dissemination'' each time it occurs.
Sec. 352.7 [Amended]
0
8. Section 352.7 is amended by adding the words ``(including noxious
weeds)'' after the word ``products'' the first time it occurs.
Sec. 352.9 [Amended]
0
9. Section 352.9 is amended by adding the words ``noxious weeds,''
after the words ``plant pests,''.
Sec. 352.10 [Amended]
0
10. Section 352.10 is amended as follows:
0
a. In paragraphs (a) and (b)(1), by removing the words ``part 319 or
330'' each time they occur and adding the words ``parts 319, 330, or
360'' in their place.
0
b. In paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), and (c), by adding the words ``or
noxious weed'' before the word ``dissemination'' each time it occurs.
0
c. In paragraph (b)(2), by removing the words ``319 or 330'' and adding
the words ``319, 330, or 360'' in their place.
Sec. 352.11 [Amended]
0
11. In Sec. 352.11, paragraph (a)(1) is amended by adding the words
``noxious weeds,'' after the words ``plant pests,''.
Sec. 352.13 [Amended]
0
12. Section 352.13 is amended as follows:
0
a. By adding the words ``noxious weeds,'' after the words ``plant
pests,''.
0
b. By removing the words ``part 319 or 330'' and adding the words
``parts 319, 330, or 360'' in their place.
Sec. 352.15 [Amended]
0
13. Section 352.15 is amended by adding the words ``or noxious weed''
before the word ``dissemination''.
[[Page 68953]]
PART 360--NOXIOUS WEED REGULATIONS
0
14. The authority citation for part 360 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7701-7772 and 7781-7786; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80,
and 371.3.
0
15. Section 360.100 is amended as follows:
0
a. By removing the paragraph (b) designation and the introductory text
of paragraph (b).
0
b. By redesignating paragraph (a) as undesignated introductory text.
0
c. By adding, in alphabetical order, new definitions of Administrator,
APHIS, interstate, move, noxious weed, permit, person, responsible
person, State, taxon (taxa), through the United States, and United
States to read as set forth below.
0
d. By removing the definition of Deputy Administrator.
Sec. 360.100 Definitions.
* * * * *
Administrator. The Administrator, Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service, or any individual authorized to act for the
Administrator.
APHIS. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, United
States Department of Agriculture.
* * * * *
Interstate. From one State into or through any other State; or
within the District of Columbia, Guam, the Virgin Islands of the United
States, or any other territory or possession of the United States.
Move. To carry, enter, import, mail, ship, or transport; to aid,
abet, cause, or induce the carrying, entering, importing, mailing,
shipping, or transporting; to offer to carry, enter, import, mail,
ship, or transport; to receive to carry, enter, import, mail, ship, or
transport; to release into the environment; or to allow any of the
activities described in this definition.
Noxious weed. Any plant or plant product that can directly or
indirectly injure or cause damage to crops (including nursery stock or
plant products), livestock, poultry, or other interests of agriculture,
irrigation, navigation, the natural resources of the United States, the
public health, or the environment.
Permit. A written authorization, including by electronic methods,
by the Administrator to move plants, plant products, biological control
organisms, plant pests, noxious weeds, or articles under conditions
prescribed by the Administrator.
Person. Any individual, partnership, corporation, association,
joint venture, or other legal entity.
* * * * *
Responsible person. The person who has control over and will
maintain control over the movement of the noxious weed and assure that
all conditions contained in the permit and requirements in this part
are complied with. A responsible person must be at least 18 years of
age and must be a legal resident of the United States or designate an
agent who is at least 18 years of age and a legal resident of the
United States.
State. Any of the several States of the United States, the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, Guam, the Virgin Islands of the
United States, or any other territory or possession of the United
States.
Taxon (taxa). Any grouping within botanical nomenclature, such as
family, genus, species, or cultivar.
Through the United States. From and to places outside the United
States.
United States. All of the States.
0
16. Section 360.200 is amended as follows:
0
a. By revising the introductory text, including footnote 1, to read as
set forth below.
0
b. In paragraph (a), by revising the entries for ``Caulerpa taxifolia
(Mediterranean clone)'', ``Eichornia azurea (Swarth) Kunth'', and
``Melaleuca quenquinervia (Cav.) Blake'' to read as set forth below.
0
c. In paragraph (b), by removing the entries for ``Cuscuta jepsonii
Yuncker'', ``Cuscuta nevadensis I.M. Johnston'', and ``Cuscuta
occidentalis Millspaugh ex Mill & Nuttall''.
0
d. In paragraph (b), by revising the entries for ``Cuscuta ceanothii
Behr,'' ``Cuscuta cephalanthii Engelmann'', ``Cuscuta corylii
Engelmann'', ``Cuscuta exalta Engelmann'', ``Cuscuta obtusiflora
Humboldt, Bonpland, & Kunth'', ``Cuscuta rostrata Shuttleworth ex
Engelmann'', ``Cuscuta umbrellata Humboldt, Bonpland, & Kunth'', and
``Cuscuta vetchii Brandegee'' to read as set forth below.
0
e. In paragraph (c), by removing the entries for ``Digitaria scalarum
(Schweinfurth) Chlovenda (African couchgrass, fingergrass)'', ``Homeria
spp.'', and ``Mimosa invisa Martius (giant sensitive plant)''.
0
f. In paragraph (c), by revising the entries for ``Digitaria velutina
(Forsskal) Palisot de Beauvois (velvet fingergrass, annual
conchgrass)'', ``Drymaria arenariodes Humboldt & Bonpland ex Roemer &
Schultes (lightning weed)'', ``Imperata cylindrica (Linnaeus) Raeuschel
(cogongrass)'', ``Mikania micrantha Humboldt, Bonpland, & Kunth'',
``Prosopis farcta (Solander ex Russell) Macbride'', ``Prosopis pallida
(Humboldt & Bonpland ex Willdenow) Humboldt, Bonpland, & Kunth'',
``Setaria pallide-fusca (Schumacher) Stapf & Hubbard (cattail grass)'',
and ``Spermacoce alata (Aublet) de Candolle'' to read as set forth
below.
0
g. In paragraph (c), by adding, in alphabetical order, entries for
``Acacia nilotica (Linnaeus) Wildenow ex Delile (gum arabic tree,
thorny acacia)'', ``Ageratina riparia (Regel) R.M. King and H. Robinson
(creeping croftonweed, mistflower)'', ``Arctotheca calendula (Linnaeus)
Levyns (capeweed)'', ``Digitaria abyssinica (Hochstetter ex A. Richard)
Stapf (African couchgrass, fingergrass),'' ``Euphorbia terracina
Linnaeus (false caper, Geraldton carnation weed)'', ``Inula britannica
Linnaeus (British elecampane, British yellowhead)'', ``Mimosa
diplotricha C. Wright (giant sensitive-plant)'', ``Moraea collina
Thunberg (apricot Cape-tulip)'', ``Moraea flaccida (Sweet) Steudel
(one-leaf Cape-tulip)'', ``Moraea miniata Andrews (two-leaf Cape-
tulip)'', ``Moraea ochroleuca (Salisbury) Drapiez (red Cape-tulip)'',
``Moraea pallida (Baker) Goldblatt (yellow Cape-tulip)'', ``Onopordum
acaulon Linnaeus (stemless thistle)'', and ``Onopordum illyricum
Linnaeus (Illyrian thistle)''.
Sec. 360.200 Designation of noxious weeds.
The Administrator has determined that it is necessary to designate
the following plants \1\ as noxious weeds to prevent their introduction
into the United States or their dissemination within the United States:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ One or more of the common names of weeds are given in
parentheses after most scientific names to help identify the weeds
represented by such scientific names; however, a scientific name is
intended to include all subordinate taxa within the taxon. For
example, taxa listed at the genus level include all species,
subspecies, varieties, and forms within the genus; taxa listed at
the species level include all subspecies, varieties, and forms
within the species.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) * * *
Caulerpa taxifolia (Vahl) C. Agardh, Mediterranean strain (killer
algae)
* * * * *
Eichhornia azurea (Swartz) Kunth
* * * * *
Melaleuca quinquenervia (Cavanilles) S.T. Blake
* * * * *
(b) * * *
Cuscuta ceanothi Behr
Cuscuta cephalanthi Engelmann
* * * * *
[[Page 68954]]
Cuscuta coryli Engelmann
* * * * *
Cuscuta exaltata Engelmann
* * * * *
Cuscuta obtusiflora Kunth
* * * * *
Cuscuta rostrata Shuttleworth ex Engelmann & Gray
* * * * *
Cuscuta umbellata Kunth
* * * * *
Cuscuta veatchii Brandegee
* * * * *
(c) * * *
Digitaria velutina (Forsskal) Palisot de Beauvois (velvet
fingergrass, annual couchgrass)
Drymaria arenariodes Humboldt & Bonpland ex J.A. Schultes
(lightning weed)
* * * * *
Imperata cylindrica (Linnaeus) Palisot de Beauvois (cogongrass)
* * * * *
Mikania micrantha Kunth
* * * * *
Prosopis farcta (Banks & Solander) J.F. Macbride
* * * * *
Prosopis pallida (Humboldt & Bonpland ex Willdenow) Kunth
* * * * *
Setaria pumila (Poir.) Roem. & Schult. subsp. pallidefusca
(Schumach.) B.K. Simon (cattail grass)
* * * * *
Spermacoce alata Aublet
* * * * *
0
17. Section 360.300 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 360.300 Notice of restrictions on movement of noxious weeds.
No person may move a Federal noxious weed into or through the
United States, or interstate, unless:
(a) He or she applies for a permit to move a noxious weed in
accordance with Sec. 360.301;
(b) The permit application is approved; and
(c) The movement is consistent with the specific conditions
contained in the permit.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 0579-0054)
0
18. New Sec. Sec. 360.301 through 360.305 are added to read as
follows.
Sec. 360.301 Information required for applications for permits to
move noxious weeds.
(a) Permit to import a noxious weed into the United States. A
responsible person must apply for a permit to import a noxious weed
into the United States.\2\ The application must include the following
information:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Information on applying for a permit to import a noxious
weed into the United States is available at https://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/permits/plantproducts.shtml.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) The responsible person's name, address, telephone number, and
(if available) e-mail address;
(2) The taxon of the noxious weed;
(3) Plant parts to be moved;
(4) Quantity of noxious weeds to be moved per shipment;
(5) Proposed number of shipments per year;
(6) Origin of the noxious weeds;
(7) Destination of the noxious weeds;
(8) Whether the noxious weed is established in the State of
destination;
(9) Proposed method of shipment;
(10) Proposed port of first arrival in the United States;
(11) Approximate date of arrival;
(12) Intended use of the noxious weeds;
(13) Measures to be employed to prevent danger of noxious weed
dissemination; and
(14) Proposed method of final disposition of the noxious weeds.
(b) Permit to move noxious weeds interstate. A responsible person
must apply for a permit to move a noxious weed interstate.\3\ The
application must include the following information:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Information on applying for a permit to move a noxious weed
interstate is available at https://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/permits/plantproducts.shtml.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) The responsible person's name, address, telephone number, and
(if available) e-mail address;
(2) The taxon of the noxious weed;
(3) Plant parts to be moved;
(4) Quantity of noxious weeds to be moved per shipment;
(5) Proposed number of shipments per year,
(6) Origin of the noxious weeds;
(7) Destination of the noxious weeds;
(8) Whether the noxious weed is established in the State of
destination;
(9) Proposed method of shipment,
(10) Approximate date of movement;
(11) Intended use of the noxious weeds;
(12) Measures to be employed to prevent danger of noxious weed
dissemination; and
(13) Proposed method of final disposition of the noxious weeds.
(c) Permits to move noxious weeds through the United States.
Permits to move noxious weeds through the United States must be
obtained in accordance with part 352 of this chapter.
Sec. 360.302 Consideration of applications for permits to move
noxious weeds.
Upon the re
