Amendments to the Pale Cyst Nematode Regulations, 34537-34541 [2020-11792]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
34537
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
Vol. 85, No. 109
Friday, June 5, 2020
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains notices to the public of the proposed
issuance of rules and regulations. The
purpose of these notices is to give interested
persons an opportunity to participate in the
rule making prior to the adoption of the final
rules.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service
7 CFR Part 301
[Docket No. APHIS–2018–0041]
RIN 0579–AE48
Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of
comment period.
AGENCY:
We are reopening the
comment period for our proposed rule
that would amend the domestic
quarantine regulations for pale cyst
nematode by adding procedures to
allow persons to review and comment
on the protocols for regulating and
deregulating infested and associated
areas. We are taking this action to allow
persons to comment on the science on
which we have established our infested
and associated field protocols and on
the sources we have used to develop the
protocol principles and methods
currently used. This action will allow
interested persons additional time to
prepare and submit comments.
DATES: The comment period for the
proposed rule published on March 4,
2019 (84 FR 7304–7306), is reopened.
We will consider all comments that we
receive on or before July 6, 2020.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by either of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov/
#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2018-0041.
• Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery:
Send your comment to Docket No.
APHIS–2018–0041, Regulatory Analysis
and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station
3A–03.8, 4700 River Road, Unit 118,
Riverdale, MD 20737–1238.
Supporting documents and any
comments we receive on this docket
may be viewed at https://
www.regulations.gov/
lotter on DSK9F5VC42PROD with PROPOSALS
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Jun 04, 2020
Jkt 250001
On March
4, 2019, we published in the Federal
Register (84 FR 7304–7306, Docket No.
APHIS–2018–0041) a proposal 1 to
amend the domestic quarantine
regulations for Globodera pallida (pale
cyst nematode, or PCN) by adding
procedures that allow persons to review
and comment on the protocols for
regulating and deregulating quarantined
and associated areas. We took this
action in response to a court order 2
requiring the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS) to solicit
public input into the development of
the protocols used for deregulating
fields for PCN.
We solicited comments concerning
our proposal for 60 days ending May 3,
2019. We reopened the comment period
for 30 days ending July 26, 2019, in
response to commenters who
experienced technical difficulties with
accessing the protocols online.
During the comment period, we made
available for comment six documents:
The Infested Field Confirmatory Policy,
the Regulated Field Survey and
Laboratory Result Definitions, the
Infested Field Deregulation Protocol (if
remaining in host crop production), the
Associated Field Deregulation Protocol
(if remaining in host crop production),
the Deregulation Protocol for
Agricultural Land No Longer in Host
Crop Production, and the Analysis in
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Amendments to the Pale Cyst
Nematode Regulations
SUMMARY:
#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2018-0041 or
in our reading room, which is located in
Room 1141 of the USDA South
Building, 14th Street and Independence
Avenue SW, Washington, DC. Normal
reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, except
holidays. To be sure someone is there to
help you, please call (202) 799–7039
before coming.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Lynn Evans-Goldner, National Policy
Manager, Office of the Deputy
Administrator, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River
Road, Unit 137, Riverdale, MD 20737;
(301) 851–2286; lynn.evans-goldner@
usda.gov.
1 To view the proposed rule, supporting
documents, and the comments we received, go to
https://www.regulations.gov/
#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2018-0041.
2 Memorandum Decision and Order, Mickelsen
Farms, LLC, et al. v. APHIS, et al., March 20, 2018.
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-idd-1_
15-cv-00143/pdf/USCOURTS-idd-1_15-cv-001432.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Support of Certification that the Rule
will not have a Significant Economic
Impact on a Substantial Number of
Small Entities.
We received a total of 19 comments,
2 of which were submitted twice. One
person commented that we did not
adequately explain the science and
sources for our confirmatory and
deregulatory field protocols contained
in the applicable documents. Out of an
abundance of caution and transparency,
and in deference to the court which
directed us to provide ‘‘requisite public
notice and commenting on the
Deregulation Protocols,’’ APHIS is
providing the public with an additional
opportunity to comment on the science
supporting the protocols, including the
sources of the methods informing their
content. Accordingly, we are including
more information about the protocols in
this document and are reopening the
comment period for 30 days.
APHIS’ prompt response to finding
PCN in Idaho, which resulted in the
drafting and publication of the interim
rule in 2007,3 drew extensively upon
the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) Emergency Programs Manual
(EPM) (February 2002).4 The EPM lays
out in general form the procedures
necessary for addressing plant pest
emergencies, including development of
an interim rule that establishes survey
activities, quarantines, movement
restrictions, and other pest measures
intended to mitigate or eradicate the
pest. APHIS has implemented similar
plant pest responses throughout the
United States in other programs to
address golden nematode, spotted
lanternfly, potato wart, gypsy moth, and
fruit flies. Similar types of early
detection and rapid response efforts are
employed by other Federal, State, and
international plant protection
organizations.
Based on the initial regulations for
controlling PCN that we finalized
through rulemaking, we subsequently
developed protocols for regulating and
deregulating PCN-infested and
associated fields.5 APHIS has
harmonized its regulations and
enforcement efforts with those of the
Idaho State Department of Agriculture
3 Docket No. APHIS–2006–0143; 72 FR (51975–
51988), September 12, 2007.
4 To view the manual on regulations.gov, see
footnote 1.
5 See footnote 1 for a link to the protocols.
E:\FR\FM\05JNP1.SGM
05JNP1
34538
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 109 / Friday, June 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
and the Canadian Food Inspection
Agency. The protocol mitigations work
collectively as a systems approach and
have significantly reduced the rate of
PCN spread by regulating infested and
associated fields and establishing
sanitation requirements for equipment
and vehicles leaving infested and
associated fields. In the absence of such
regulatory measures, we note that
statistical analysis of human-assisted
spread of PCN estimates a mean spread
rate of 3.29 miles/year.6 This suggests
that in the 14 years since PCN was first
detected in Idaho, the pest could have
spread more than 46 miles from the first
infested field identified. With regulatory
controls in place, PCN is limited to an
area within an 8.5-mile radius, only 11.5
miles in straight line distance.
Below, we list the procedures used in
the protocols and explain the scientific
rationale and background we relied
upon as grounds for including them. As
noted above, many, if not most, of these
procedures have been employed by
USDA and State pest programs for
decades across the United States, in
various forms and for many different
plant pests and crops, including
nematodes on potatoes. Internationally,
Australia and Japan, which also do not
have widespread PCN infestations, have
also relied on these and similar best
practices to help them respond to PCN
detections in their respective countries.7
lotter on DSK9F5VC42PROD with PROPOSALS
Containment Measures for PCN
Different types of farming equipment
can spread Globodera cysts,8 with
potato diggers representing the greatest
potential risk. The risk is high because
of the large amount of soil that adheres
to the digger and because PCN
population densities are highest at
harvest time following production of a
susceptible cultivar. Additionally, the
new cysts present at harvest contain a
large number of viable eggs that provide
a greater chance of successful
population establishment.9
Consequently, every precaution should
be taken to prevent the spread of potato
cyst nematodes. Nematologists advise
6 Banks, N.C., et. al. Dispersal of Potato Cyst
Nematodes Measured Using Historical and Spatial
Statistical Analyses. Phytopathology, Vol. 102, No.
6, 2012.
7 IPPC reports are located at https://www.ippc.int/
en/countries/australia/pestreports/2010/09/
eradication-of-potato-cyst-nematode-pcn-fromwestern-australia/ and at https://www.ippc.int/en/
countries/japan/pestreports/2016/10/outbreak-ofglobodera-pallida-4/.
8 Brodie, B.B., Probability of Globodera
rostochiensis Spread on Equipment and Potato
Tubers. Journal of Nematology 25(2):291–296. 1993.
9 Brodie, B.B., and M.L. Brucato. Relation of Cyst
Age and Egg Density to Establishment of Globodera
Rostochiensis populations. Journal of Nematology
21:4 October 1989.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Jun 04, 2020
Jkt 250001
those who work in the fields to clean
equipment of soil before entering noninfested sites.10
Based on these established best
practices, the PCN program protocols
include requirements for pressure
washing or using steam to clean all farm
equipment, vehicles, or other
conveyances that have been in a PCN
infested or associated field. These
procedures ensure that nematodes are
not carried into new fields via soil or
equipment. Washing and steam
sterilization of equipment has been a
phytosanitary standard for nematode
and other plant pest control for decades,
and the techniques required in the PCN
deregulation protocols are similar to
plant pest sanitation protocols used
throughout the United States and the
world. More specifically, the PCN
sanitation practices are modeled in part
after those employed by the USDA
Golden Nematode program for
controlling the spread of that pest in
New York State. A 2006 version of the
USDA Golden Nematode Manual
requires that all soil be removed by
cleaning farm equipment, mechanized
soil moving equipment, farm tools, used
containers, and other similar articles
using pressure washing and steam
treatment.11
Soil Sampling and Detection Strategies
for PCN
Soil sampling rates used by the PCN
program for associated and infested
fields are supported by a model that
combines the medium scale distribution
of cysts and the small scale distribution
of cysts within square meters. The
medium scale distribution provides the
expected population densities at each
position within the focus and refers to
the size and shape of a focus resulting
from farming practices. The small scale
distribution represents the
multiplication of Globodera on the roots
of evenly spaced potato plants.
A computer program, SAMPLE,
analyzes soil sampling methods.12 The
10 Stienstra, W.C., and D.H. McDonald. The
Soybean Cyst Nematode. Minnesota Extension
Service AG–FO–3935 1990.
11 Golden Nematode Program Manual (2006): 2–
8–18. Similar steam and pressure cleaning
requirements are included in earlier versions of the
manual published in 1968 and 1992. All versions
are available via the link to regulations.gov in
footnote 1 of this document.
12 Additional descriptions of these sampling
methods are: (1) Been, T.H. and Schomaker, C.H.
1998. Sampling methods for fields with patchy
infestations of the potato cyst nematode (Globodera
spp.): A simulation model to develop and evaluate
sampling methods. In Quantitative studies on the
management of potato cyst nematodes (Globodera
spp.) in the Netherlands. p. 319; and (2) Been, T.H.
and Schomaker, C.H. 2000. Development and
evaluation of sampling methods for fields with
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
parameters of the model include
gradient length and width, which
represent the medium scale distribution
and the aggregation factor of the
negative binomial distribution (small
scale distribution). Terms of the soil
sampling method are also factored into
the program. The terms are maximum
grid cell size, sampling points per
hectare (ha), core size cubic centimeters
(cc), soil sample size (cc) per ha, and
bulk sample size (gram). In this
program, the selected average detection
probability is set at 90 percent. The
following sampling rates were
calculated to detect extremely small
infestations at three critical phases of
the program: Deregulation of associated
fields, monitoring eradication progress
on infested fields, and deregulation of
infested fields (in-field bioassay). The
Canadian and United States Guidelines
on Surveillance and Phytosanitary
Actions for the potato cyst nematodes
Globodera rostochiensis and Globodera
pallida recommend a minimum sample
size of 20,000 cc per ha (approximately
8,000 cc per acre) taken either manually
or mechanically. When a similar
method was analyzed with the SAMPLE
program using 15,000 cc/ha
(approximately 6,000 cc per acre) with
a bulk sample size of 22.5 kilogram (kg),
it had a detection probability of 99
percent with a central population
density (CPD) of 50 cysts per kg of soil.
For small infestation foci where the CPD
is 5 cysts per kg of soil, the method has
a detection probability of only 22
percent.
The delimiting rate for associated
fields is 8,000 cubic centimeters (cc)/
acre (ac), approximately 20 pounds
(lbs)/ac. According to the SAMPLE
model, for an infestation with a CPD of
50 cysts/kg in a field, the model shows
a detection probability of 98.55 percent
at the delimiting survey rate. Associated
fields are required to undergo two
surveys at the delimiting rate, each
following a host crop. At a CPD of 50
cysts/kg, the second sampling detection
should remain high. To calculate the
cumulative detection probabilities with
repetitive sampling, the product of both
non-detection probabilities are
combined. The probability of no
detection each year is 1 ¥ 0.9855 =
0.0145. If this happens twice, the
combined probability of no detection
equals 0.01452 = 0.00021025. Detection
after two crops surveyed by this method
is 1 ¥ 0.00021025 = 0.9998, or 99.98
percent. For small infestations of 5
cysts/kg (approximately 2 cysts per
infestation foci of potato cyst nematodes (Globodera
rostochiensis and G. pallida). Phytopathology
90:647–656.
E:\FR\FM\05JNP1.SGM
05JNP1
lotter on DSK9F5VC42PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 109 / Friday, June 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
pound) of soil, however, repetitive
sampling is even more important
because the detection probability starts
at 22 percent but increases with each
host crop.
The infested field monitoring survey
rate is 80,000 cc/ac, approximately 200
lbs/ac. Because of the small infestation
foci in Idaho, a declining cyst
population from the absence of host
crops, and the application of eradication
treatments, intensive sampling increases
the chance of detection and the
accuracy of population estimation. As a
result, the intense monitoring survey
rate of 80,000 cc/ac for infested fields is
scientifically supported.
The infested field in-field bioassay
rate is 20,000 cc/ac, approximately 50
lbs/ac. This rate is scientifically justified
by the model where a small infestation
with a CPD of 5 cysts/kg has a detection
probability of 22 percent. As described
for the delimiting survey method, the
model shows that when the CPD
increases, the detection probability also
increases. Because the in-field bioassay
reintroduces host crops and requires
soil surveys following each of three host
crops, the incipient population
increases; therefore, detection
probability also significantly increases.
Soil samples are collected at the field
surface; however, potato harvest
machinery and annual tillage practices
effectively mix the top layer of the soil
such that soil samples represent at least
the top 30 centimeters of the soil profile.
PCN program sampling rates are higher
than those used by many other countries
where PCN infestations are widespread
and have been present for decades.
Lower sampling rates are generally used
for managing high infestations and
reducing economic impacts of the pest,
not for eradicating nor limiting spread
of the pest.
Details of APHIS’ use of DNA and
morphological/morphometric
identification of PCN are described in a
2007 scientific article,13 which is
provided via a link in the confirmatory
protocol. In the 1990s, nematologists
began using DNA technology
extensively for identification purposes,
while morphological identification of
nematodes has been widely in practice
for decades. The technical minimum
threshold for declaring a field infested/
positive for PCN is met by detecting a
minimum of two cysts from two
samples that were identified as PCN by
morphological/morphometric analysis,
and at least one of the cysts was viable
and confirmed as PCN by molecular
(DNA) analysis. It is not necessary for
the two samples to come from the same
survey event.
Infested Field Confirmatory Policy
To evaluate a field for PCN under the
confirmatory protocol, a soil sample is
required. Sanitary requirements for
entering a field (boots, washing of tools),
soil bagging and labeling, and vehicle
disinfection are longstanding and
widely observed practices used by
APHIS to prevent the spread of plant
pests from infected fields.
The protocol for determining infested
field regulation for PCN is based on our
knowledge about the biology and
epidemiology of PCN. Specimens from a
soil sample must be definitively
identified and confirmed by an APHISapproved laboratory using
morphological and molecular DNAbased methods. Molecular methods
provide an additional, confirmatory step
along with morphological methods.
Fields that APHIS has determined to
be infested with PCN are eligible for
release under a deregulation protocol if
the field is used for host crop
production. The infested field
deregulation protocol employs strategies
that have been used for decades to
control nematodes on potatoes and
other crops.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Jun 04, 2020
Jkt 250001
Regulating Associated Fields
The protocol for determining
associated field regulation is modeled in
part after the USDA Golden Nematode
Program and its criteria for determining
‘‘exposed land’’ as described in the
USDA Golden Nematode Manual (2006
version).14 Unlike the Golden Nematode
Program approach of regulating large
blocks of land or entire counties, the
PCN Program adopted a more
conservative field-by-field regulatory
approach in which only confirmed
infested fields and those at high risk for
infestation are regulated. Associated
fields are identified through the process
of researching an infested field’s history,
going back 10 years, to identify other
fields that may have been exposed to
infested field soil.
Infested Field Deregulation Protocol (if
Remaining in Host Crop Production)
13 Skantar, et al., Morphological and Molecular
Identification of Globodera pallida Associated with
Potato in Idaho. Journal of Nematology, 2007 Jun;
39(2): 133–144. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/
articles/PMC2586493/. In addition, a diagnostic
protocol for Globodera rostochiensis and Globodera
pallida (PM 7/40 (4)) was approved as an European
Plant Protection Organization Standard in 2003 and
last revised in 2017: https://
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/
epp.12391.
14 To view the manual on regulations.gov, see
footnote 1.
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
34539
Fixed Grid Pattern Field Sampling
In the Infested Field Deregulation
Protocol, APHIS conducts an initial full
field survey in a fixed grid pattern at an
80,000 cc of soil per acre sampling rate.
The sampling results (number of cysts
per sample) are used to map the relative
distribution and population of cysts in
the field, and infestation foci are
located. The fixed grid survey is a
standard industry practice for
monitoring several types of field
activities, including mapping
infestations and monitoring pest
eradication treatments. For instance,
one study APHIS drew upon in
developing the protocols describes a
method for PCN soil sampling by which
a field is divided into 20 x 20 meter grid
squares, then soil samples are collected
from each grid. The samples are
processed to separate cysts from the
soil, and the number of cysts per grid is
determined by counting. The results of
the cyst counts are plotted to produce a
map of the infestation across the field.15
Identifying infestation foci informs soil
treatment decisions and cost-effective
monitoring of treatment efficacy over
time. This method is the basis for the
PCN program’s mapping surveys and
subsequent grid monitoring surveys.
The PCN sampling method for
infested fields is based on a 2 x 2 grid
pattern method (subsamples are
collected 2 paces apart, every 2 paces)
modeled in part after a grid survey
method described in GN program
manuals from 1992 and 2006. The 2006
manual describes the steps for such a
survey, beginning with measuring the
dimensions of the field, dividing the
field into a grid, and sampling the soil
following the grid pattern. If nematodes
are located in a sample, the grid makes
it possible to trace that sample back to
a location in the field.16
After sampling results are determined,
a field may undergo a series of optional,
PCN program-sponsored eradication
treatments, which are monitored
according to initial grid survey results.
These treatments are conducted at the
discretion of the grower. Eradication
treatments have included Telone® II
fumigation and the trap crop litchi
tomato. Telone® and Telone® II have
been widely employed as a nematicide
for control of all major species of
nematodes throughout the United
States, as has litchi tomato as a trap crop
15 See Evans. K., et al., Mapping Infestations of
Potato Cyst Nematodes and the Potential for
Spatially Varying Applications of Nematicides.
Precision Agriculture 4 (2003) 149–162.
16 Golden Nematode Program Manual (2006): 2–
3–7. To view the manual on regulations.gov, see
footnote 1.
E:\FR\FM\05JNP1.SGM
05JNP1
34540
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 109 / Friday, June 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
in other countries. Trap crops, which
have been used for decades to control
nematodes, can be effective in reducing
yield loss in potatoes and other crops
when used as part of a crop rotation, or
in conjunction with the use of
nematicides.17
Host crops may be grown
consecutively or in a crop rotation. A
field is eligible for full deregulation if
no viable cysts are detected after each of
three host crops are harvested.18 The
scientific rationale for requiring three
crops is to allow multiplication and
detection of any low-level PCN
populations prior to release.
lotter on DSK9F5VC42PROD with PROPOSALS
Viability Testing, Staining, and
Bioassays
In the Infested Field Deregulation
Protocol, initial cyst viability is assessed
using a live/dead staining assay. The
staining assay to determine viability is
a standard procedure in nematology as
it allows for clearer visual identification
of the organism. To evaluate the efficacy
of a treatment for cyst nematode control,
determining if a nematode is dead or
alive is important. The lack of
movement of a nematode does not
signify death in species like Heterodera
spp. (cyst nematodes).19 Since the egg is
protected in a resistant structure, living
(viable) and dead (nonviable) eggs
cannot be distinguished by direct
observation. Various dyes and stains
have been used to visualize and then
ascertain viability of nematode eggs.
To become deregulated, a field must
complete a series of tests to demonstrate
that the infestation has been fully
eradicated. In classical nematology, the
standard method to determine PCN
viability is based on a staining assay,
using Meldola’s blue dye (MB) followed
by microscopic visualization of
MB-treated nematodes. Nematode
staining techniques are widely accepted
by the majority of nematology
laboratories and have been for
decades.20 One study presents a novel
hatching bioassay technique developed
for golden nematode, in which the
authors illustrated the feasibility and
17 See Sparkes, Jessica, Potential trap crops for the
control of Potato Cyst Nematode (PCN). ADAS UK
Ltd. 2013: https://potatoes.ahdb.org.uk/sites/
default/files/publication_upload/
PCN%20trap%20crops%20review_
for%20publication.pdf.
18 See Greco N., et al., The Effect of Globodera
Pallida and G. Rostochiensis On Potato Yield.
Nematologica 28.4: January 1982: https://brill.com/
view/journals/nema/28/4/article-p379_2.xml.
19 Shepherd, A.M. 1962. New blue R, a stain that
differentiates between living and dead nematodes.
Nematologica 8: 201–208.
20 Perry, R. and Feil, J., Observations on a Novel
Hatching Bioassay for Globodera Rostochiensis
Using Fluorescence Microscopy. Revue
Ne´matologie 9 (31): 280–282 (1986).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Jun 04, 2020
Jkt 250001
advantages of a hatching bioassay
system using staining and fluorescence
microscopy. Another study 21 published
in 1996 discusses the results of PCN
infectivity assays using staining
techniques similar to those we prescribe
in the deregulation protocol. We also
note that the 1968 USDA Golden
Nematode Program Manual includes
viability testing to monitor efficacy of
chemical treatments.
As part of the infested field protocol,
we also assess cyst viability using a
greenhouse bioassay method (equivalent
to three consecutive susceptible potato
crops) or an in-field bioassay method
(three consecutive crops grown in
infestation foci or over the entire field).
Greenhouse and field bioassays are used
throughout the world to evaluate pest
viability and other biological
characteristics.22
APHIS emergency response manuals
and used by several APHIS, State, and
international programs. For example, a
Japanese Beetle Harmonization plan,
adopted by the National Plant Board in
1998, uses the same concept as the PCN
deregulation protocol of conducting
detection surveys followed by a more
robust delimiting survey. This Japanese
beetle harmonization plan was
implemented by the Idaho State
Department of Agriculture in Boise,
Idaho in 2013 after detection of the
beetle in 2012.23
Deregulation Protocol for Agricultural
Land No Longer in Host Crop
Production and Non-Agricultural Land
Associated Field Deregulation Protocol
(if Remaining in Host Crop Production)
The primary determination for a field
to become regulated as an associated
field is exposure of that field to soil or
other regulated articles from an infested
field. Pressure washing sanitation
requirements, explained above, are
implemented for all equipment in
contact with field soil. These
requirements are necessary to mitigate
the potential spread of PCN from
associated fields that are considered
high risk for PCN infestation. Other
regulatory requirements are
implemented for movement of
commodities and articles from the field
that cannot be sanitized. For PCN, a
full-field delimiting survey at a
sampling rate of 8,000 cc of soil per acre
(equivalent to approximately 20 pounds
of soil per acre) is used to determine its
presence in associated fields. A series of
two negative delimiting surveys, each
following harvest of two host crops
grown on the field, is required to
deregulate an associated field. The
current deregulation protocol was
adopted by APHIS in 2012 at the request
of cooperators and stakeholders that
were impacted, including the Idaho
State Department of Agriculture, Idaho
Potato Commission, and owners and
operators of infested and associated
fields.
Delimiting surveys are a common
practice that have been included in
A deregulation option exists for
regulated fields where agriculture still
occurs but where all host crop
production was prohibited or has ceased
for a minimum of 30 years. This could
include infested or associated status
fields. During the 30-year time period,
the fields may have been used for
various purposes, including but not
limited to hobby farms, fallow fields,
forage crops, grain fields, nurseries, or
pasture. PCN can remain viable for
approximately 30 years in the absence
of a host crop.24
To become deregulated, fields no
longer in host crop production must
complete a two-step process. Records
must be made available to APHIS to
demonstrate that the land has been out
of host crop production for the last 30
years. APHIS then surveys the entire
field at a rate of 8,000 cc soil per acre
(equivalent to approximately 20 pounds
of soil per acre). This dual approach
establishes a 30-year period in which
the field is out of host production,
making it much less likely that PCN is
present, and in the present establishes
whether any viable PCN remains.
A deregulation option also exists for
regulated fields that have been
converted to non-agricultural uses. This
could include infested or associated
status fields. Examples of nonagricultural uses include such things as
highways and other paved roads and
commercial, industrial or residential
development.
To become deregulated, fields
converted to non-agricultural uses must
have records available to determine the
land has been out of agricultural use for
21 Zanna, Muhammad, Diapause in the nematode
Globodera pallida. European Journal of Plant
Pathology 100: 413–423, 1994.
22 See McKenzie, M.M. and S.J. Turner, Assessing
reproduction of potato cyst nematodes (Globodera
rostochiensis and G. pallida) on potato cultivars for
National Listing. EPPO Bulletin 17:3: September
1987. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/
10.1111/j.1365-2338.1987.tb00048.x.
23 See Idaho Japanese Beetle Project at https://
invasivespecies.idaho.gov/cooperative-agriculturalpest-surveys-caps.
24 Turner, Susan. Population decline of potato
cyst nematodes (Globodera rostochiensis, G.
pallida) in field soils in Northern Ireland. Annals
of Applied Biology, October 1996: https://
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.17447348.1996.tb05754.x.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\05JNP1.SGM
05JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 109 / Friday, June 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
at least the last 20 years and will not
return to production, or construction for
non-agricultural proposes has rendered
the land non-tillable and is not likely to
return to agricultural production. The
risk of PCN spread and establishment
from these non-agricultural fields is
lower than those remaining in non-PCN
host agricultural production, resulting
in the lower number of years required
for release. In the APHIS Karnal Bunt
Program, which has been in place since
1996, a similar provision in the
regulations 25 has been used
successfully to lower or eliminate the
risk of Karnal Bunt if the land cannot be
farmed.
In order to give the public an
opportunity to consider the science on
which we have established the field
protocols and the sources we have used
to develop them, we are reopening the
comment period on Docket No. APHIS–
2018–0041 for an additional 30 days.
This action will allow interested
persons additional time to prepare and
submit comments.
Done in Washington, DC, this 21st day of
May 2020.
Michael Watson,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 2020–11792 Filed 6–4–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–34–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 431
[EERE–2019–BT–TP–0025]
RIN 1904–AE55
Energy Conservation Program: Test
Procedure for Commercial Prerinse
Spray Valves
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Request for information.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE) is requesting information
and data through this request for
information (‘‘RFI’’) to consider whether
to amend DOE’s test procedures for
commercial prerinse spray valves.
Specifically, DOE seeks data and
information pertinent to whether
amended test procedures would (1)
more accurately or fully comply with
the requirement that the test procedure
be reasonably designed to produce test
results that measure water use during a
representative average use cycle or
period of use without being unduly
lotter on DSK9F5VC42PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
25 See
7 CFR 301.89–3(f)(1).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Jun 04, 2020
Jkt 250001
burdensome to conduct, or (2) reduce
test burden. DOE welcomes written
comments from the public on any
subject within the scope of this
document (including topics not raised
in this RFI), as well as the submission
of data and other relevant information.
DATES: Written comments and
information will be accepted on or
before July 6, 2020.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are
encouraged to submit comments using
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
Alternatively, interested persons may
submit comments, identified by docket
number EERE–2019–BT–TP–0025, by
any of the following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
2. Email: to CPSV2019TP0025@
ee.doe.gov. Include docket number
EERE–2019–BT–TP–0025 in the subject
line of the message.
3. Postal Mail: Appliance and
Equipment Standards Program, U.S.
Department of Energy, Building
Technologies Office, Mailstop EE–5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW,
Washington, DC 20585–0121.
Telephone: (202) 287–1445. If possible,
please submit all items on a compact
disc (‘‘CD’’), in which case it is not
necessary to include printed copies.
4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance
and Equipment Standards Program, U.S.
Department of Energy, Building
Technologies Office, 950 L’Enfant Plaza
SW, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20024.
Telephone: (202) 287–1445. If possible,
please submit all items on a CD, in
which case it is not necessary to include
printed copies.
No telefacsimilies (‘‘faxes’’) will be
accepted. For detailed instructions on
submitting comments and additional
information on this process, see section
III of this document.
Docket: The docket for this activity,
which includes Federal Register
notices, comments, and other
supporting documents/materials, is
available for review at https://
www.regulations.gov. All documents in
the docket are listed in the https://
www.regulations.gov index. However,
some documents listed in the index,
such as those containing information
that is exempt from public disclosure,
may not be publicly available.
The docket web page can be found at
https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/
appliance_standards/standards.aspx?
productid=69&action=viewcurrent. The
docket web page contains instructions
on how to access all documents,
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
34541
including public comments, in the
docket. See section III for information
on how to submit comments through
https://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Lucy deButts, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies Office, EE–5B, 1000
Independence Avenue SW, Washington,
DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 287–
1604. Email:
ApplianceStandardsQuestions@
ee.doe.gov.
Ms. Kathryn McIntosh, U.S.
Department of Energy, Office of the
General Counsel, GC–33, 1000
Independence Avenue SW, Washington,
DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 586–
2002. Email: Kathryn.McIntosh@
hq.doe.gov.
For further information on how to
submit a comment or review other
public comments and the docket,
contact the Appliance and Equipment
Standards Program staff at (202) 287–
1445 or by email:
ApplianceStandardsQuestions@
ee.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
A. Authority and Background
B. Rulemaking History
II. Request for Information
A. Scope and Definitions
B. Test Procedure
1. Industry Standard
2. Water Pressure
C. Other Test Procedure Topics
III. Submission of Comments
I. Introduction
DOE’s test procedures for commercial
prerinse spray valves are prescribed at
Subpart O of 10 CFR part 431. The
following sections discuss DOE’s
authority to establish and amend test
procedures for commercial prerinse
spray valves and relevant background
information regarding DOE’s
consideration of test procedures for this
equipment.
A. Authority and Background
The Energy Policy and Conservation
Act, as amended (‘‘EPCA’’),1 among
other things, authorizes DOE to regulate
the energy efficiency of a number of
consumer products and certain
industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291–
6317) Title III, Part B 2 of EPCA
1 All references to EPCA in this document refer
to the statute as amended through America’s Water
Infrastructure Act of 2018, Public Law 115–270
(October 23, 2018).
2 For editorial reasons, upon codification in the
U.S. Code, Part B was redesignated Part A.
E:\FR\FM\05JNP1.SGM
05JNP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 109 (Friday, June 5, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34537-34541]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-11792]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 109 / Friday, June 5, 2020 / Proposed
Rules
[[Page 34537]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
7 CFR Part 301
[Docket No. APHIS-2018-0041]
RIN 0579-AE48
Amendments to the Pale Cyst Nematode Regulations
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of comment period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are reopening the comment period for our proposed rule that
would amend the domestic quarantine regulations for pale cyst nematode
by adding procedures to allow persons to review and comment on the
protocols for regulating and deregulating infested and associated
areas. We are taking this action to allow persons to comment on the
science on which we have established our infested and associated field
protocols and on the sources we have used to develop the protocol
principles and methods currently used. This action will allow
interested persons additional time to prepare and submit comments.
DATES: The comment period for the proposed rule published on March 4,
2019 (84 FR 7304-7306), is reopened. We will consider all comments that
we receive on or before July 6, 2020.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2018-0041.
Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Send your comment to
Docket No. APHIS-2018-0041, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD,
APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road, Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-
1238.
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may
be viewed at https://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2018-
0041 or in our reading room, which is located in Room 1141 of the USDA
South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC.
Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you,
please call (202) 799-7039 before coming.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Lynn Evans-Goldner, National
Policy Manager, Office of the Deputy Administrator, PPQ, APHIS, 4700
River Road, Unit 137, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 851-2286; [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 4, 2019, we published in the
Federal Register (84 FR 7304-7306, Docket No. APHIS-2018-0041) a
proposal \1\ to amend the domestic quarantine regulations for Globodera
pallida (pale cyst nematode, or PCN) by adding procedures that allow
persons to review and comment on the protocols for regulating and
deregulating quarantined and associated areas. We took this action in
response to a court order \2\ requiring the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS) to solicit public input into the development
of the protocols used for deregulating fields for PCN.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ To view the proposed rule, supporting documents, and the
comments we received, go to https://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2018-0041.
\2\ Memorandum Decision and Order, Mickelsen Farms, LLC, et al.
v. APHIS, et al., March 20, 2018. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-idd-1_15-cv-00143/pdf/USCOURTS-idd-1_15-cv-00143-2.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We solicited comments concerning our proposal for 60 days ending
May 3, 2019. We reopened the comment period for 30 days ending July 26,
2019, in response to commenters who experienced technical difficulties
with accessing the protocols online.
During the comment period, we made available for comment six
documents: The Infested Field Confirmatory Policy, the Regulated Field
Survey and Laboratory Result Definitions, the Infested Field
Deregulation Protocol (if remaining in host crop production), the
Associated Field Deregulation Protocol (if remaining in host crop
production), the Deregulation Protocol for Agricultural Land No Longer
in Host Crop Production, and the Analysis in Support of Certification
that the Rule will not have a Significant Economic Impact on a
Substantial Number of Small Entities.
We received a total of 19 comments, 2 of which were submitted
twice. One person commented that we did not adequately explain the
science and sources for our confirmatory and deregulatory field
protocols contained in the applicable documents. Out of an abundance of
caution and transparency, and in deference to the court which directed
us to provide ``requisite public notice and commenting on the
Deregulation Protocols,'' APHIS is providing the public with an
additional opportunity to comment on the science supporting the
protocols, including the sources of the methods informing their
content. Accordingly, we are including more information about the
protocols in this document and are reopening the comment period for 30
days.
APHIS' prompt response to finding PCN in Idaho, which resulted in
the drafting and publication of the interim rule in 2007,\3\ drew
extensively upon the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Emergency
Programs Manual (EPM) (February 2002).\4\ The EPM lays out in general
form the procedures necessary for addressing plant pest emergencies,
including development of an interim rule that establishes survey
activities, quarantines, movement restrictions, and other pest measures
intended to mitigate or eradicate the pest. APHIS has implemented
similar plant pest responses throughout the United States in other
programs to address golden nematode, spotted lanternfly, potato wart,
gypsy moth, and fruit flies. Similar types of early detection and rapid
response efforts are employed by other Federal, State, and
international plant protection organizations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Docket No. APHIS-2006-0143; 72 FR (51975-51988), September
12, 2007.
\4\ To view the manual on regulations.gov, see footnote 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the initial regulations for controlling PCN that we
finalized through rulemaking, we subsequently developed protocols for
regulating and deregulating PCN-infested and associated fields.\5\
APHIS has harmonized its regulations and enforcement efforts with those
of the Idaho State Department of Agriculture
[[Page 34538]]
and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. The protocol mitigations work
collectively as a systems approach and have significantly reduced the
rate of PCN spread by regulating infested and associated fields and
establishing sanitation requirements for equipment and vehicles leaving
infested and associated fields. In the absence of such regulatory
measures, we note that statistical analysis of human-assisted spread of
PCN estimates a mean spread rate of 3.29 miles/year.\6\ This suggests
that in the 14 years since PCN was first detected in Idaho, the pest
could have spread more than 46 miles from the first infested field
identified. With regulatory controls in place, PCN is limited to an
area within an 8.5-mile radius, only 11.5 miles in straight line
distance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See footnote 1 for a link to the protocols.
\6\ Banks, N.C., et. al. Dispersal of Potato Cyst Nematodes
Measured Using Historical and Spatial Statistical Analyses.
Phytopathology, Vol. 102, No. 6, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below, we list the procedures used in the protocols and explain the
scientific rationale and background we relied upon as grounds for
including them. As noted above, many, if not most, of these procedures
have been employed by USDA and State pest programs for decades across
the United States, in various forms and for many different plant pests
and crops, including nematodes on potatoes. Internationally, Australia
and Japan, which also do not have widespread PCN infestations, have
also relied on these and similar best practices to help them respond to
PCN detections in their respective countries.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ IPPC reports are located at https://www.ippc.int/en/countries/australia/pestreports/2010/09/eradication-of-potato-cyst-nematode-pcn-from-western-australia/ and at https://www.ippc.int/en/countries/japan/pestreports/2016/10/outbreak-of-globodera-pallida-4/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Containment Measures for PCN
Different types of farming equipment can spread Globodera cysts,\8\
with potato diggers representing the greatest potential risk. The risk
is high because of the large amount of soil that adheres to the digger
and because PCN population densities are highest at harvest time
following production of a susceptible cultivar. Additionally, the new
cysts present at harvest contain a large number of viable eggs that
provide a greater chance of successful population establishment.\9\
Consequently, every precaution should be taken to prevent the spread of
potato cyst nematodes. Nematologists advise those who work in the
fields to clean equipment of soil before entering non-infested
sites.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Brodie, B.B., Probability of Globodera rostochiensis Spread
on Equipment and Potato Tubers. Journal of Nematology 25(2):291-296.
1993.
\9\ Brodie, B.B., and M.L. Brucato. Relation of Cyst Age and Egg
Density to Establishment of Globodera Rostochiensis populations.
Journal of Nematology 21:4 October 1989.
\10\ Stienstra, W.C., and D.H. McDonald. The Soybean Cyst
Nematode. Minnesota Extension Service AG-FO-3935 1990.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on these established best practices, the PCN program
protocols include requirements for pressure washing or using steam to
clean all farm equipment, vehicles, or other conveyances that have been
in a PCN infested or associated field. These procedures ensure that
nematodes are not carried into new fields via soil or equipment.
Washing and steam sterilization of equipment has been a phytosanitary
standard for nematode and other plant pest control for decades, and the
techniques required in the PCN deregulation protocols are similar to
plant pest sanitation protocols used throughout the United States and
the world. More specifically, the PCN sanitation practices are modeled
in part after those employed by the USDA Golden Nematode program for
controlling the spread of that pest in New York State. A 2006 version
of the USDA Golden Nematode Manual requires that all soil be removed by
cleaning farm equipment, mechanized soil moving equipment, farm tools,
used containers, and other similar articles using pressure washing and
steam treatment.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Golden Nematode Program Manual (2006): 2-8-18. Similar
steam and pressure cleaning requirements are included in earlier
versions of the manual published in 1968 and 1992. All versions are
available via the link to regulations.gov in footnote 1 of this
document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Soil Sampling and Detection Strategies for PCN
Soil sampling rates used by the PCN program for associated and
infested fields are supported by a model that combines the medium scale
distribution of cysts and the small scale distribution of cysts within
square meters. The medium scale distribution provides the expected
population densities at each position within the focus and refers to
the size and shape of a focus resulting from farming practices. The
small scale distribution represents the multiplication of Globodera on
the roots of evenly spaced potato plants.
A computer program, SAMPLE, analyzes soil sampling methods.\12\ The
parameters of the model include gradient length and width, which
represent the medium scale distribution and the aggregation factor of
the negative binomial distribution (small scale distribution). Terms of
the soil sampling method are also factored into the program. The terms
are maximum grid cell size, sampling points per hectare (ha), core size
cubic centimeters (cc), soil sample size (cc) per ha, and bulk sample
size (gram). In this program, the selected average detection
probability is set at 90 percent. The following sampling rates were
calculated to detect extremely small infestations at three critical
phases of the program: Deregulation of associated fields, monitoring
eradication progress on infested fields, and deregulation of infested
fields (in-field bioassay). The Canadian and United States Guidelines
on Surveillance and Phytosanitary Actions for the potato cyst nematodes
Globodera rostochiensis and Globodera pallida recommend a minimum
sample size of 20,000 cc per ha (approximately 8,000 cc per acre) taken
either manually or mechanically. When a similar method was analyzed
with the SAMPLE program using 15,000 cc/ha (approximately 6,000 cc per
acre) with a bulk sample size of 22.5 kilogram (kg), it had a detection
probability of 99 percent with a central population density (CPD) of 50
cysts per kg of soil. For small infestation foci where the CPD is 5
cysts per kg of soil, the method has a detection probability of only 22
percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Additional descriptions of these sampling methods are: (1)
Been, T.H. and Schomaker, C.H. 1998. Sampling methods for fields
with patchy infestations of the potato cyst nematode (Globodera
spp.): A simulation model to develop and evaluate sampling methods.
In Quantitative studies on the management of potato cyst nematodes
(Globodera spp.) in the Netherlands. p. 319; and (2) Been, T.H. and
Schomaker, C.H. 2000. Development and evaluation of sampling methods
for fields with infestation foci of potato cyst nematodes (Globodera
rostochiensis and G. pallida). Phytopathology 90:647-656.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The delimiting rate for associated fields is 8,000 cubic
centimeters (cc)/acre (ac), approximately 20 pounds (lbs)/ac. According
to the SAMPLE model, for an infestation with a CPD of 50 cysts/kg in a
field, the model shows a detection probability of 98.55 percent at the
delimiting survey rate. Associated fields are required to undergo two
surveys at the delimiting rate, each following a host crop. At a CPD of
50 cysts/kg, the second sampling detection should remain high. To
calculate the cumulative detection probabilities with repetitive
sampling, the product of both non-detection probabilities are combined.
The probability of no detection each year is 1 - 0.9855 = 0.0145. If
this happens twice, the combined probability of no detection equals
0.0145\2\ = 0.00021025. Detection after two crops surveyed by this
method is 1 - 0.00021025 = 0.9998, or 99.98 percent. For small
infestations of 5 cysts/kg (approximately 2 cysts per
[[Page 34539]]
pound) of soil, however, repetitive sampling is even more important
because the detection probability starts at 22 percent but increases
with each host crop.
The infested field monitoring survey rate is 80,000 cc/ac,
approximately 200 lbs/ac. Because of the small infestation foci in
Idaho, a declining cyst population from the absence of host crops, and
the application of eradication treatments, intensive sampling increases
the chance of detection and the accuracy of population estimation. As a
result, the intense monitoring survey rate of 80,000 cc/ac for infested
fields is scientifically supported.
The infested field in-field bioassay rate is 20,000 cc/ac,
approximately 50 lbs/ac. This rate is scientifically justified by the
model where a small infestation with a CPD of 5 cysts/kg has a
detection probability of 22 percent. As described for the delimiting
survey method, the model shows that when the CPD increases, the
detection probability also increases. Because the in-field bioassay
reintroduces host crops and requires soil surveys following each of
three host crops, the incipient population increases; therefore,
detection probability also significantly increases.
Soil samples are collected at the field surface; however, potato
harvest machinery and annual tillage practices effectively mix the top
layer of the soil such that soil samples represent at least the top 30
centimeters of the soil profile. PCN program sampling rates are higher
than those used by many other countries where PCN infestations are
widespread and have been present for decades. Lower sampling rates are
generally used for managing high infestations and reducing economic
impacts of the pest, not for eradicating nor limiting spread of the
pest.
Infested Field Confirmatory Policy
To evaluate a field for PCN under the confirmatory protocol, a soil
sample is required. Sanitary requirements for entering a field (boots,
washing of tools), soil bagging and labeling, and vehicle disinfection
are longstanding and widely observed practices used by APHIS to prevent
the spread of plant pests from infected fields.
The protocol for determining infested field regulation for PCN is
based on our knowledge about the biology and epidemiology of PCN.
Specimens from a soil sample must be definitively identified and
confirmed by an APHIS-approved laboratory using morphological and
molecular DNA-based methods. Molecular methods provide an additional,
confirmatory step along with morphological methods.
Details of APHIS' use of DNA and morphological/morphometric
identification of PCN are described in a 2007 scientific article,\13\
which is provided via a link in the confirmatory protocol. In the
1990s, nematologists began using DNA technology extensively for
identification purposes, while morphological identification of
nematodes has been widely in practice for decades. The technical
minimum threshold for declaring a field infested/positive for PCN is
met by detecting a minimum of two cysts from two samples that were
identified as PCN by morphological/morphometric analysis, and at least
one of the cysts was viable and confirmed as PCN by molecular (DNA)
analysis. It is not necessary for the two samples to come from the same
survey event.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Skantar, et al., Morphological and Molecular Identification
of Globodera pallida Associated with Potato in Idaho. Journal of
Nematology, 2007 Jun; 39(2): 133-144. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2586493/. In addition, a diagnostic protocol for
Globodera rostochiensis and Globodera pallida (PM 7/40 (4)) was
approved as an European Plant Protection Organization Standard in
2003 and last revised in 2017: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/epp.12391.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulating Associated Fields
The protocol for determining associated field regulation is modeled
in part after the USDA Golden Nematode Program and its criteria for
determining ``exposed land'' as described in the USDA Golden Nematode
Manual (2006 version).\14\ Unlike the Golden Nematode Program approach
of regulating large blocks of land or entire counties, the PCN Program
adopted a more conservative field-by-field regulatory approach in which
only confirmed infested fields and those at high risk for infestation
are regulated. Associated fields are identified through the process of
researching an infested field's history, going back 10 years, to
identify other fields that may have been exposed to infested field
soil.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ To view the manual on regulations.gov, see footnote 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Infested Field Deregulation Protocol (if Remaining in Host Crop
Production)
Fields that APHIS has determined to be infested with PCN are
eligible for release under a deregulation protocol if the field is used
for host crop production. The infested field deregulation protocol
employs strategies that have been used for decades to control nematodes
on potatoes and other crops.
Fixed Grid Pattern Field Sampling
In the Infested Field Deregulation Protocol, APHIS conducts an
initial full field survey in a fixed grid pattern at an 80,000 cc of
soil per acre sampling rate. The sampling results (number of cysts per
sample) are used to map the relative distribution and population of
cysts in the field, and infestation foci are located. The fixed grid
survey is a standard industry practice for monitoring several types of
field activities, including mapping infestations and monitoring pest
eradication treatments. For instance, one study APHIS drew upon in
developing the protocols describes a method for PCN soil sampling by
which a field is divided into 20 x 20 meter grid squares, then soil
samples are collected from each grid. The samples are processed to
separate cysts from the soil, and the number of cysts per grid is
determined by counting. The results of the cyst counts are plotted to
produce a map of the infestation across the field.\15\ Identifying
infestation foci informs soil treatment decisions and cost-effective
monitoring of treatment efficacy over time. This method is the basis
for the PCN program's mapping surveys and subsequent grid monitoring
surveys.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See Evans. K., et al., Mapping Infestations of Potato Cyst
Nematodes and the Potential for Spatially Varying Applications of
Nematicides. Precision Agriculture 4 (2003) 149-162.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The PCN sampling method for infested fields is based on a 2 x 2
grid pattern method (subsamples are collected 2 paces apart, every 2
paces) modeled in part after a grid survey method described in GN
program manuals from 1992 and 2006. The 2006 manual describes the steps
for such a survey, beginning with measuring the dimensions of the
field, dividing the field into a grid, and sampling the soil following
the grid pattern. If nematodes are located in a sample, the grid makes
it possible to trace that sample back to a location in the field.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Golden Nematode Program Manual (2006): 2-3-7. To view the
manual on regulations.gov, see footnote 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After sampling results are determined, a field may undergo a series
of optional, PCN program-sponsored eradication treatments, which are
monitored according to initial grid survey results. These treatments
are conducted at the discretion of the grower. Eradication treatments
have included Telone[supreg] II fumigation and the trap crop litchi
tomato. Telone[supreg] and Telone[supreg] II have been widely employed
as a nematicide for control of all major species of nematodes
throughout the United States, as has litchi tomato as a trap crop
[[Page 34540]]
in other countries. Trap crops, which have been used for decades to
control nematodes, can be effective in reducing yield loss in potatoes
and other crops when used as part of a crop rotation, or in conjunction
with the use of nematicides.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See Sparkes, Jessica, Potential trap crops for the control
of Potato Cyst Nematode (PCN). ADAS UK Ltd. 2013: https://potatoes.ahdb.org.uk/sites/default/files/publication_upload/PCN%20trap%20crops%20review_for%20publication.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Host crops may be grown consecutively or in a crop rotation. A
field is eligible for full deregulation if no viable cysts are detected
after each of three host crops are harvested.\18\ The scientific
rationale for requiring three crops is to allow multiplication and
detection of any low-level PCN populations prior to release.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See Greco N., et al., The Effect of Globodera Pallida and
G. Rostochiensis On Potato Yield. Nematologica 28.4: January 1982:
https://brill.com/view/journals/nema/28/4/article-p379_2.xml.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Viability Testing, Staining, and Bioassays
In the Infested Field Deregulation Protocol, initial cyst viability
is assessed using a live/dead staining assay. The staining assay to
determine viability is a standard procedure in nematology as it allows
for clearer visual identification of the organism. To evaluate the
efficacy of a treatment for cyst nematode control, determining if a
nematode is dead or alive is important. The lack of movement of a
nematode does not signify death in species like Heterodera spp. (cyst
nematodes).\19\ Since the egg is protected in a resistant structure,
living (viable) and dead (nonviable) eggs cannot be distinguished by
direct observation. Various dyes and stains have been used to visualize
and then ascertain viability of nematode eggs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Shepherd, A.M. 1962. New blue R, a stain that
differentiates between living and dead nematodes. Nematologica 8:
201-208.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To become deregulated, a field must complete a series of tests to
demonstrate that the infestation has been fully eradicated. In
classical nematology, the standard method to determine PCN viability is
based on a staining assay, using Meldola's blue dye (MB) followed by
microscopic visualization of MB[hyphen]treated nematodes. Nematode
staining techniques are widely accepted by the majority of nematology
laboratories and have been for decades.\20\ One study presents a novel
hatching bioassay technique developed for golden nematode, in which the
authors illustrated the feasibility and advantages of a hatching
bioassay system using staining and fluorescence microscopy. Another
study \21\ published in 1996 discusses the results of PCN infectivity
assays using staining techniques similar to those we prescribe in the
deregulation protocol. We also note that the 1968 USDA Golden Nematode
Program Manual includes viability testing to monitor efficacy of
chemical treatments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Perry, R. and Feil, J., Observations on a Novel Hatching
Bioassay for Globodera Rostochiensis Using Fluorescence Microscopy.
Revue N[eacute]matologie 9 (31): 280-282 (1986).
\21\ Zanna, Muhammad, Diapause in the nematode Globodera
pallida. European Journal of Plant Pathology 100: 413-423, 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of the infested field protocol, we also assess cyst
viability using a greenhouse bioassay method (equivalent to three
consecutive susceptible potato crops) or an in-field bioassay method
(three consecutive crops grown in infestation foci or over the entire
field). Greenhouse and field bioassays are used throughout the world to
evaluate pest viability and other biological characteristics.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See McKenzie, M.M. and S.J. Turner, Assessing reproduction
of potato cyst nematodes (Globodera rostochiensis and G. pallida) on
potato cultivars for National Listing. EPPO Bulletin 17:3: September
1987. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-2338.1987.tb00048.x.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Associated Field Deregulation Protocol (if Remaining in Host Crop
Production)
The primary determination for a field to become regulated as an
associated field is exposure of that field to soil or other regulated
articles from an infested field. Pressure washing sanitation
requirements, explained above, are implemented for all equipment in
contact with field soil. These requirements are necessary to mitigate
the potential spread of PCN from associated fields that are considered
high risk for PCN infestation. Other regulatory requirements are
implemented for movement of commodities and articles from the field
that cannot be sanitized. For PCN, a full[hyphen]field delimiting
survey at a sampling rate of 8,000 cc of soil per acre (equivalent to
approximately 20 pounds of soil per acre) is used to determine its
presence in associated fields. A series of two negative delimiting
surveys, each following harvest of two host crops grown on the field,
is required to deregulate an associated field. The current deregulation
protocol was adopted by APHIS in 2012 at the request of cooperators and
stakeholders that were impacted, including the Idaho State Department
of Agriculture, Idaho Potato Commission, and owners and operators of
infested and associated fields.
Delimiting surveys are a common practice that have been included in
APHIS emergency response manuals and used by several APHIS, State, and
international programs. For example, a Japanese Beetle Harmonization
plan, adopted by the National Plant Board in 1998, uses the same
concept as the PCN deregulation protocol of conducting detection
surveys followed by a more robust delimiting survey. This Japanese
beetle harmonization plan was implemented by the Idaho State Department
of Agriculture in Boise, Idaho in 2013 after detection of the beetle in
2012.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See Idaho Japanese Beetle Project at https://invasivespecies.idaho.gov/cooperative-agricultural-pest-surveys-caps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deregulation Protocol for Agricultural Land No Longer in Host Crop
Production and Non-Agricultural Land
A deregulation option exists for regulated fields where agriculture
still occurs but where all host crop production was prohibited or has
ceased for a minimum of 30 years. This could include infested or
associated status fields. During the 30-year time period, the fields
may have been used for various purposes, including but not limited to
hobby farms, fallow fields, forage crops, grain fields, nurseries, or
pasture. PCN can remain viable for approximately 30 years in the
absence of a host crop.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Turner, Susan. Population decline of potato cyst nematodes
(Globodera rostochiensis, G. pallida) in field soils in Northern
Ireland. Annals of Applied Biology, October 1996: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1744-7348.1996.tb05754.x.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To become deregulated, fields no longer in host crop production
must complete a two-step process. Records must be made available to
APHIS to demonstrate that the land has been out of host crop production
for the last 30 years. APHIS then surveys the entire field at a rate of
8,000 cc soil per acre (equivalent to approximately 20 pounds of soil
per acre). This dual approach establishes a 30-year period in which the
field is out of host production, making it much less likely that PCN is
present, and in the present establishes whether any viable PCN remains.
A deregulation option also exists for regulated fields that have
been converted to non-agricultural uses. This could include infested or
associated status fields. Examples of non-agricultural uses include
such things as highways and other paved roads and commercial,
industrial or residential development.
To become deregulated, fields converted to non-agricultural uses
must have records available to determine the land has been out of
agricultural use for
[[Page 34541]]
at least the last 20 years and will not return to production, or
construction for non-agricultural proposes has rendered the land non-
tillable and is not likely to return to agricultural production. The
risk of PCN spread and establishment from these non-agricultural fields
is lower than those remaining in non-PCN host agricultural production,
resulting in the lower number of years required for release. In the
APHIS Karnal Bunt Program, which has been in place since 1996, a
similar provision in the regulations \25\ has been used successfully to
lower or eliminate the risk of Karnal Bunt if the land cannot be
farmed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See 7 CFR 301.89-3(f)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to give the public an opportunity to consider the science
on which we have established the field protocols and the sources we
have used to develop them, we are reopening the comment period on
Docket No. APHIS-2018-0041 for an additional 30 days. This action will
allow interested persons additional time to prepare and submit
comments.
Done in Washington, DC, this 21st day of May 2020.
Michael Watson,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-11792 Filed 6-4-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
