Deregulation of Pine Shoot Beetle, 61806-61809 [2020-21800]
Download as PDF
61806
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 191 / Thursday, October 1, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
have a financial need that results from
at least one of the following five
conditions:
*
*
*
*
*
(5) The participant has incurred
expenses and losses (including loss of
income) on account of a disaster
declared by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) under the
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, Public Law
100–707, provided that the participant’s
principal residence or principal place of
employment at the time of the disaster
was located in an area designated by the
FEMA for individual assistance with
respect to the disaster.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2020–20762 Filed 9–30–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6760–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service
7 CFR Parts 301 and 319
[Docket No. APHIS–2016–0065]
RIN 0579–AE41
Deregulation of Pine Shoot Beetle
Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
We are adopting as a final
rule, without change, a proposal to
amend our regulations to remove the
domestic pine shoot beetle (PSB)
quarantine and to eliminate the
restrictions that apply to the
importation of PSB host material from
Canada. We have determined through
analysis that the regulatory program is
ineffective in slowing the spread of the
pest and reducing damage, which has
also been found to be minimal. This
action will provide flexibility to the
States as they manage PSB. It will also
allow Federal resources spent on this
program to be allocated elsewhere, and
it will remove PSB-related interstate
movement and importation restrictions
on PSB-regulated articles.
DATES: Effective November 2, 2020.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Bill Wesela, National Policy Manager,
PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 22,
Riverdale, MD 20737–1236; (301) 851–
2229; William.D.Wesela@usda.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
Background
Pine shoot beetle (PSB, Tomicus
piniperda) is a pest of pines in Africa,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:58 Sep 30, 2020
Jkt 253001
Asia, and Europe. Biologically, this
species of bark beetle is considered to be
a secondary pest of pine and not able to
successfully attack healthy trees. PSB
colonizes fresh timber and dying pine
trees in early spring. Larvae feed within
the galleries under the bark and emerge
as adults from shoots after a hard frost.
They then move to the base of the tree
to reproduce.
PSB was first detected in the United
States in a Christmas tree farm in Ohio
in 1992. Based on an initial finding of
potentially high economic losses in
1992, the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS)
implemented a program to regulate atrisk pine commodities, including logs
with bark, Christmas trees, and nursery
stock in known infested areas.
The regulations in ‘‘Subpart G—Pine
Shoot Beetle’’ (7 CFR 301.50 through
301.50–10, referred to below as the
regulations) had restricted interstate
movement of certain regulated articles
(generally wood and wood products)
from quarantined areas in order to
prevent spread of PSB into non-infested
areas of the United States.
Since APHIS initiated the PSB
program in 1992, PSB has advanced at
a slow rate, and damage to native pines,
plantations, and the nursery trade has
been minimal. In 2015, APHIS met with
the National Plant Board, which
represents plant protection divisions of
State departments of agriculture, to
reassess the relevance and need for the
PSB regulatory program. This was due
to the slow advancement and minimal
damage of PSB and the limited
resources allotted to the PSB program.
We prepared an analysis of regulatory
options, ‘‘Pine Shoot Beetle, Tomicus
piniperda (Linnaeus): Analysis of
Regulatory Options’’ (February 2015),
referred to below as the February 2015
analysis, to evaluate the PSB program in
terms of its effectiveness and efficiency
in slowing the spread and reducing
losses. The analysis looked at timber
losses and estimated compliance costs
that Christmas tree growers incur in
quarantined areas. Given the little PSB
damage observed and the amount of
resources allocated to manage the
minimal risks associated with PSB, we
determined it appropriate to deregulate
PSB. While the possibility exists that
PSB may spread at a faster rate and
enter Southern States sooner in the
absence of Federal regulations, we
anticipated that PSB would be
controlled within managed timber
stands in the South.
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Accordingly, in a proposed rule 1
published in the Federal Register on
September 23, 2019 (84 FR 49680–
49681, Docket No. APHIS–2016–0065),
we proposed to remove the domestic
PSB quarantine and the restrictions that
apply to importation of PSB host
material from Canada. We solicited
comments concerning our proposal for
60 days ending November 22, 2019.
We received 10 comments by the
close of the comment period. They were
from private citizens and one State
forestry.
Of the commenters, six opposed
deregulation and the proposed rule. The
remaining four commenters urged
caution in deregulation, raising
concerns similar to those opposed. One
of these latter commenters recognized
the positive economic impacts of
deregulation on the industry, yet still
pressed PSB concerns.
Comments fell into seven distinct
categories: Concern for natural
forestland protection; support for the
current regulations out of perception
that they work; concern for the pine
industry and economy; concerns for
future impacts of PSB; concerns
regarding reallocation of regulatory
funding; requests for delay or phase-in
of deregulation with monitoring and
assessment before action; and requests
that science direct regulation of PSB.
We have characterized the comments
received below according to these
topics.
Natural Forestland Protection
A majority of the 10 commenters
wanted continued regulation to prevent
PSB from inflicting pine tree losses on
‘‘natural’’ and wild forests, as well as
private lands. Some addressed
vulnerability of pine to PSB impact on
tree trunks. Two commenters expressed
concern over what they considered the
growth-stunting potential of PSB in
harming shoots of pine trees. The
commenters stated that this is
significant in that shoots are means of
photosynthesis, energy conversion, and
thus growth, which could impact yields
and incomes.
We acknowledge that PSB can inflict
damage on pine trees and that it is a
plant pest. Our February 2015 analysis
did not state otherwise. The analysis
also reviewed studies that showed adult
PSB prefers to colonize freshly-cut
stumps and slash. Nonetheless, the
analysis concluded that pine-stand
owners and the industry can and do
1 To view the proposed rule, its supporting
documents, and the comments that we received, go
to https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=APHIS2016-0065.
E:\FR\FM\01OCR1.SGM
01OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 191 / Thursday, October 1, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
cover trees, remove downed trees, and
treat pine for PSB in a manner that is
more cost-effective than ongoing Federal
regulation. As detailed in our February
2015 analysis, estimation and
comparison of pine timber damage
along the leading edge of PSB
distribution, both with and without a
‘‘slow-the-spread’’ regulatory effort,
indicates regulatory cost will exceed
any avoided losses. Compliance costs
projected long into the future outweigh
any possible benefits to pine producers.
There is also no evidence that in
attacking the shoots of pine this beetle
has broadly retarded maturity across
pine timber stands and negatively
impacted growth, vitality, and yields.
While PSB does inflict damage on pine
shoots, and especially on certain pine
varieties, initial fears that the pest
would devastate pine forests and their
industry never came true.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Regulatory Efficacy
Several commenters either presumed
regulation is preventing spread within
or from quarantined areas, or mistakenly
believed PSB numbers are declining
under regulation.
We are making no changes in
response to these comments. Our
February 2015 analysis demonstrates
that despite regulatory efforts that have
spanned 28 years, PSB has spread from
a single Christmas tree farm in one State
(Ohio) in 1992 to 20 States. Fourteen
States are presently under Federal
quarantine in their entirety.
While regulation did not keep PSB
from spreading, we still find PSB
damage to native pines and pine
plantations, as well as costs to the
nursery trade in this broad area, to be
minimal. Our February 2015 analysis for
deregulation indicated the pest is now
considered minor and readily within
State and local ability to manage.
Pine Industry and Economy
Four of the commenters expressed
concern for the pine economy as a result
of PSB deregulation. One commenter
questioned especially the impact on the
Christmas tree industry from possible
increased cosmetic damage on certain
species of pine.
We find no evidence of such negative
economic impacts to justify changing
deregulation as proposed. Our February
2015 analysis demonstrated that despite
PSB’s spread, damage has been minor.
Additionally, as experience now long
indicates, pine producers can and do
take steps to control the disease
irrespective of Federal regulation. States
may also impose and enforce their own
quarantines in the absence of Federal
regulation.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:58 Sep 30, 2020
Jkt 253001
Our analysis found nothing to suggest
PSB is singularly destructive, nor did it
find evidence of high level destructive
or economic impact. So many more
pests of far greater impact have
prompted regulatory efforts since PSB’s
first detection 28 years ago.
Future PSB Impacts
Half of the 10 commenters on PSB
deregulation voiced concern for a range
of possible negative future impacts. Two
commenters suggested deregulation will
result in high tree mortality in higher
density forests (from higher stress on
weakened, dying trees, even on healthy
trees).
One commenter addressed
deregulatory impact on pine tree forests
in the Southeastern States. The
commenter feared PSB spread following
deregulation will have a negative
economic impact there, where the
warmer climate will allow two
incubation periods per year, instead of
one; where storms are more frequent
and violent, downing trees to create PSB
brooding conditions; and where pine
stands are large and dense.
Two other commenters feared PSB
spread to pinewood forests in the
Western States. One acknowledged
positive impacts on timber producers
once they are freed from timeconsuming, expensive regulatory
compliance. However, the commenter
feared possible negative impact on
Western pine forests and urged ‘‘Early
Detection and Rapid Response’’
funding.
We understand these concerns, but
we are making no changes to PSB
deregulation. The commenters
concerned about establishment in high
density forests and Southeastern pine
tree forests incorrectly assume the PSB
damage has been minimal to date
because PSB has become established in
areas that are not densely populated
with pine or are not otherwise
conducive to PSB establishment.
However, thus far, even in pine-dense
regions where PSB has become
endemic, PSB damage to native pines,
plantations, and nursery trade has been
minimal. Estimated compliance costs
for Christmas tree growers have far
outweighed timber losses. Moreover,
Federal regulatory requirements for PSB
have largely consisted of certification,
inspection, and permitting. These
activities control the artificial spread of
PSB but are not aimed at controlling it
within an affected region. It is the pine
industry’s own practices that control
PSB within such an area. Pine
producers apply cover spray on trees,
destroy cell piles, remove stumps, and
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
61807
use trap logs to attract broods into piles
that they then destroy.
With regard to westward movement,
the nation’s Great Plains region (more
than 1.12 million square miles of
prairie, steppe and grasslands, with
negligible quantities of pine), has
provided and will continue to provide
a natural barrier to PSB spread to the
West. Western States are also free to
fashion their own PSB regulation in the
absence of Federal regulation and to
promote the industry practices that pine
producers already effectively employ in
the Northeast and Central States.
Funding Concerns
Four of 10 commenters either asked
that regulatory funds be preserved to
protect pine production and the natural
environment from PSB’s harm, or
sought evidence that funding
reallocation will be more beneficial.
Commenters said regulation is
worthwhile and should be prioritized.
They stated costs to the public are worth
controlling PSB populations.
Our February 2015 analysis found
that costs to producers in complying
with quarantines, paperwork, and
recordkeeping to manage agreements,
data collection, and review for reporting
all outweigh any benefits. Both
assessments that we conducted call for
new strategies, which the States and
producers may undertake from the
success of localized approaches.
The pine industry is largely composed
of small businesses and producers who
can better safeguard pine resources,
products, and their economy if they do
not have to devote time and resources
to meeting permit, certificate, and form
compliance costs under quarantine. We
have determined that removing the PSB
quarantine will provide flexibility to the
States as they and the pine community
manage PSB in all regions.
Funding used for PSB, which has
become less and less significant even as
the pest spread despite regulation, will
be reallocated to address worsening
Japanese beetle problems nationally.
APHIS’ Japanese beetle regulations
control the movement of aircraft from
regulated areas to southern and western
areas where Japanese beetle is not
located, but could become established,
if introduced, and cause economic
losses. However, increased package and
product shipping across the United
States has created another pathway for
Japanese beetle movement into
Southern and Western States. APHIS is
working with a National Plant Board
harmonization initiative to address this
problem, and the reprogrammed funds
will be used to help address this issue
E:\FR\FM\01OCR1.SGM
01OCR1
61808
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 191 / Thursday, October 1, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
by increasing inspection and treatment
for Japanese beetle.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Delay or Phase-in of Deregulation
Four of the comments counseled more
cautious approaches to regulatory
change and PSB control. Three sought
delay or a phase-in of deregulation, with
monitoring of impact on PSB losses and
harm before entirely deregulating. One
commenter suggested allocating funds
for damage control at conclusion of a
phase-out of regulations.
While we recognize the value of
cautionary approaches protective of
natural resources, we find no basis to
continue regulation. Deregulating PSB is
based on 28 years of experience
showing PSB regulation has not
deterred spread of the pest. Yet neither
widespread destruction nor significant
economic loss resulted. Our February
2015 analysis demonstrated that
funding is being ineffectively used to
deter PSB. Projected well into the
future, the cost of regulation outweighs
any avoided negative losses. It will cost
producers more in compliance than they
realize in any economic benefit.
Prolonging this cost to largely small
producers a few more years is neither
justifiable, nor defensible. We must
invite new strategies other than Federal
regulation, recognizing local pine
industry practices have been most
effective at minimizing PSB damage.
Moreover, continued regulation
precludes our reprogramming the funds
for PSB to Japanese beetle control,
which, as discussed above, is needed to
address an emerging pathway for the
spread of Japanese beetle.
We will however, continue to support
the Nature Conservancy’s ‘‘Don’t Move
Firewood’’ campaign, which is credited
with a broad education effort to enlist
the public in curbing the spread of PSB
and other pests of firewood. That effort
will continue even after PSB
deregulation. States are also free to
attempt their own PSB regulation, and
one State has already stated that it will.
As the pine industry, processing, and
trade have demonstrated where PSB
spread across the Northern State
regions, their treatments in the field and
handling of harvested material,
diminish PSB impact and loss. States
and the industry need to help shift PSB
strategies now away from national
regulation as present funding addresses
pressing Japanese beetle expansion.
Scientific Basis for Deregulation
Two commenters asserted that official
studies have not been conducted to
justify deregulation. They said the
public needs scientific studies
conducted to determine current PSB
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:58 Sep 30, 2020
Jkt 253001
populations and losses under
regulation. They said careful analysis
based on scientific findings could then
form a basis for addressing permanent
changes that will result from
deregulation.
We acknowledge need for more
research to address many domestic
pests. However, APHIS Plant Protection
and Quarantine, Center for Plant Health
Science and Technology (now named
Science and Technology), and the Plant
Epidemiology and Risk Laboratory did
conduct the February 2015 analysis of
regulatory options for this deregulation.
Our analysis drew on 46 citations to
assess the physical and economic
impact of PSB and to project possible
impact of deregulation on other regions.
We also consulted with the National
Plant Board.
Therefore, for the reasons given, we
are adopting the proposed rule as a final
rule, without change.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13771 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. This rule is
not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory
action because this rule is not
significant under Executive Order
12866.
In accordance with the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, we have analyzed the
potential economic effects of this action
on small entities. The analysis is
summarized below. Copies of the full
analysis are available on the
Regulations.gov website (see footnote 1
in this document for a link to
Regulations.gov) or by contacting the
person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT or on the
Regulations.gov website.
APHIS is amending the pine shoot
beetle (PSB) regulations to remove all
Federal PSB quarantine areas and all
Federal regulatory requirements related
to the import and movement of PSB and
associated host material. Although PSB
is now found throughout the Northeast
and North Central United States,
damage to native pines and pine
plantations and costs to the nursery
trade have been minimal. It is now
considered a minor pest that can be
readily controlled locally.
Establishments that may be affected
are ones that grow, handle, or move
regulated pine (Pinus spp.) products:
bark products, Christmas trees, logs and
firewood with bark attached, lumber
with bark attached, nursery stock, raw
pine materials for pine wreaths and
garlands, and stumps. Potentially
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
affected establishments include timber
tract operations, forest product
operations, logging companies, forest
tree nurseries, and Christmas tree
operations. The majority of these
establishments are small entities.
Regulated articles from PSB
quarantined areas may be moved
interstate if accompanied by a certificate
or limited permit. Under the rule,
affected establishments in the Federal
PSB quarantine areas will no longer
incur costs of complying with
certification or permitting requirements.
Businesses that operate under Federal
PSB compliance agreements, of which
there are about 100, are the
establishments most likely to be
shipping regulated articles interstate.
With this rule, they will forgo the
paperwork and recordkeeping costs of
compliance. For affected entities that do
not operate under compliance
agreement, the costs of inspection are
incurred by APHIS, unless they occur
outside of normal working hours.
We estimate that an establishment
with an active PSB compliance
agreement spends 4 to 8 hours annually
collecting data and ensuring adherence
to the agreement. Based on this
estimate, total annual cost savings from
PSB deregulation for establishments
with active compliance agreements
could be between $12,480 and $59,600.
In accordance with guidance on
complying with Executive Order 13771,
the single primary estimate of the cost
savings of this rule is about $36,000, the
mid-point estimate annualized in
perpetuity using a 7 percent discount
rate.
Besides yielding cost savings for
entities with compliance agreements,
sales volumes for at least some
businesses could increase if their sales
are constrained because of the Federal
quarantine. Restrictions ultimately
borne will depend on whether States
decide to enforce their own PSB
quarantine programs.
Internationally, the deregulation is
unlikely to affect exports of pine
products. In 2018, the United States
exported about $240 million of pine logs
and timber, of which $75 million were
Christmas trees and other plants used
for ornamental purposes. However,
these exports are required to be treated
otherwise for pine wood nematode
under a systems approach and
accompanied by a phytosanitary
certificate as proof that the trees meet
the importing countries’ requirements,
as documented in International
Standards for Phytosanitary Measures
No. 12.
Longer term, any delay in PSB spread
attributable to the quarantine
E:\FR\FM\01OCR1.SGM
01OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 191 / Thursday, October 1, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
regulations will end with promulgation
of the rule. It is possible that without
the PSB program, human-assisted
dispersal of PSB would have occurred
more rapidly and extended to areas that
are not yet infested; the impact of the
rule on pine populations in natural and
urban environments within and outside
currently quarantined areas—and on
businesses that grow, use, or process
pine products—is indeterminate. Still,
PSB has caused negligible direct damage
despite having spread widely, and
compliance costs that will no longer be
incurred under the rule are minimal.
Based on this information, the APHIS
Administrator has determined that this
action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
Executive Order 12372
This program/activity is listed in the
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
under No. 10.025 and is subject to
Executive Order 12372, which requires
intergovernmental consultation with
State and local officials. (See 2 CFR
chapter IV.)
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.
Congressional Review Act
Pursuant to the Congressional Review
Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs
designated this rule as not a major rule,
as defined by 5U.S.C. 804(2).
Paperwork Reduction Act
This final rule contains no reporting
or recordkeeping requirements under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
List of Subjects
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Jkt 253001
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7701–7772 and 7781–
7786; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.
Section 301.75–15 issued under Sec. 204,
Title II, Public Law 106–113, 113 Stat.
1501A–293; sections 301.75–15 and 301.75–
16 issued under Sec. 203, Title II, Public Law
106–224, 114 Stat. 400 (7 U.S.C. 1421 note).
Subpart G [Removed and Reserved]
2. Subpart G, consisting of §§ 301.50
through 301.50–10, is removed and
reserved.
■
PART 319—FOREIGN QUARANTINE
NOTICES
3. The authority citation for part 319
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1633, 7701–7772, and
7781–7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR
2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.
§ 319.40–3
[Amended]
4. Section 319.40–3 is amended by:
a. In paragraph (a)(1)(i)(A), removing
‘‘, and;’’ and adding ‘‘; and’’ in its place;
■ b. Removing paragraph (a)(1)(i)(B);
and
■ c. Redesignating paragraph (a)(1)(i)(C)
as (a)(1)(i)(B).
■
■
§ 319.40–5
[Amended]
5. Section 319.40–5 is amended by
removing and reserving paragraph (m).
■
Done in Washington, DC, this 24th day of
September 2020.
Michael Watson,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 2020–21800 Filed 9–30–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–34–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Office of the Comptroller of the
Currency
[Docket ID OCC–2018–0041]
RIN 1557–AE21
7 CFR Part 319
Coffee, Cotton, Fruits, Imports, Logs,
Nursery stock, Plant diseases and pests,
Quarantine, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Rice,
Vegetables.
Accordingly, we are amending 7 CFR
parts 301 and 319 as follows:
21:58 Sep 30, 2020
1. The authority citation for part 301
continues to read as follows:
■
12 CFR Part 32
7 CFR Part 301
Agricultural commodities, Plant
diseases and pests, Quarantine,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Transportation.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
PART 301—DOMESTIC QUARANTINE
NOTICES
Supplemental Lending Limits Program:
Technical Correction
Office of the Comptroller of the
Currency (OCC), Treasury.
ACTION: Correcting amendment.
AGENCY:
On July 14, 2020, the Office
of the Comptroller of the Currency
(OCC) published in the Federal Register
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
61809
a final rule that, among other revisions,
made technical changes to the OCC’s
supplemental lending limits rule. This
correcting amendment makes a
correction to those regulations by
reinstating two paragraphs to the
lending limits rules that were
inadvertently deleted.
DATES: This rule is effective on October
1, 2020.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Marta E. Stewart-Bates, Senior Attorney,
Chief Counsel’s Office, (202) 649–5490,
for persons who are deaf or hearing
impaired, TTY, (202) 649–5597, Office
of the Comptroller of the Currency, 400
7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20219.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background and Description of
Correcting Amendment
On July 14, 2020, the OCC published
in the Federal Register a final rule 1 that
made technical changes to the OCC’s
supplemental lending limits rules,
among other revisions. Specifically, the
terms ‘‘small business loans’’ and
‘‘small farm loans or extensions of
credit’’ were replaced with the terms
‘‘loans to small businesses’’ and ‘‘loans
or extensions of credit to small farms,’’
respectively, to conform with the Call
Report instructions. These technical
changes were made to the supplemental
lending limits rules in §§ 32.7(a)(1),
32.7(a)(2), and 32.7(d). However,
§§ 32.7(a)(4) and (a)(5) were
inadvertently deleted by the final rule.
This correcting amendment reinstates
§§ 32.7(a)(4) and (a)(5).
II. Administrative Law Matters
A. Administrative Procedure Act
The OCC is issuing this correcting
amendment without prior notice and
the opportunity for public comment and
the delayed effective date ordinarily
prescribed by the Administrative
Procedure Act (APA).2 Pursuant to
section 553(b)(B) of the APA, general
notice and the opportunity for public
comment are not required with respect
to a rulemaking when an ‘‘agency for
good cause finds (and incorporates the
finding and a brief statement of reasons
therefor in the rules issued) that notice
and public procedure thereon are
impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary
to the public interest.’’ 3
The OCC finds that public notice and
comment are unnecessary because this
correcting amendment makes a
technical change to correct an erroneous
removal of two paragraphs in the
1 85
FR 42630.
U.S.C. 553.
3 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A).
25
E:\FR\FM\01OCR1.SGM
01OCR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 191 (Thursday, October 1, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 61806-61809]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-21800]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
7 CFR Parts 301 and 319
[Docket No. APHIS-2016-0065]
RIN 0579-AE41
Deregulation of Pine Shoot Beetle
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are adopting as a final rule, without change, a proposal to
amend our regulations to remove the domestic pine shoot beetle (PSB)
quarantine and to eliminate the restrictions that apply to the
importation of PSB host material from Canada. We have determined
through analysis that the regulatory program is ineffective in slowing
the spread of the pest and reducing damage, which has also been found
to be minimal. This action will provide flexibility to the States as
they manage PSB. It will also allow Federal resources spent on this
program to be allocated elsewhere, and it will remove PSB-related
interstate movement and importation restrictions on PSB-regulated
articles.
DATES: Effective November 2, 2020.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Bill Wesela, National Policy
Manager, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 22, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236;
(301) 851-2229; [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Pine shoot beetle (PSB, Tomicus piniperda) is a pest of pines in
Africa, Asia, and Europe. Biologically, this species of bark beetle is
considered to be a secondary pest of pine and not able to successfully
attack healthy trees. PSB colonizes fresh timber and dying pine trees
in early spring. Larvae feed within the galleries under the bark and
emerge as adults from shoots after a hard frost. They then move to the
base of the tree to reproduce.
PSB was first detected in the United States in a Christmas tree
farm in Ohio in 1992. Based on an initial finding of potentially high
economic losses in 1992, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
(APHIS) implemented a program to regulate at-risk pine commodities,
including logs with bark, Christmas trees, and nursery stock in known
infested areas.
The regulations in ``Subpart G--Pine Shoot Beetle'' (7 CFR 301.50
through 301.50-10, referred to below as the regulations) had restricted
interstate movement of certain regulated articles (generally wood and
wood products) from quarantined areas in order to prevent spread of PSB
into non-infested areas of the United States.
Since APHIS initiated the PSB program in 1992, PSB has advanced at
a slow rate, and damage to native pines, plantations, and the nursery
trade has been minimal. In 2015, APHIS met with the National Plant
Board, which represents plant protection divisions of State departments
of agriculture, to reassess the relevance and need for the PSB
regulatory program. This was due to the slow advancement and minimal
damage of PSB and the limited resources allotted to the PSB program.
We prepared an analysis of regulatory options, ``Pine Shoot Beetle,
Tomicus piniperda (Linnaeus): Analysis of Regulatory Options''
(February 2015), referred to below as the February 2015 analysis, to
evaluate the PSB program in terms of its effectiveness and efficiency
in slowing the spread and reducing losses. The analysis looked at
timber losses and estimated compliance costs that Christmas tree
growers incur in quarantined areas. Given the little PSB damage
observed and the amount of resources allocated to manage the minimal
risks associated with PSB, we determined it appropriate to deregulate
PSB. While the possibility exists that PSB may spread at a faster rate
and enter Southern States sooner in the absence of Federal regulations,
we anticipated that PSB would be controlled within managed timber
stands in the South.
Accordingly, in a proposed rule \1\ published in the Federal
Register on September 23, 2019 (84 FR 49680-49681, Docket No. APHIS-
2016-0065), we proposed to remove the domestic PSB quarantine and the
restrictions that apply to importation of PSB host material from
Canada. We solicited comments concerning our proposal for 60 days
ending November 22, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ To view the proposed rule, its supporting documents, and the
comments that we received, go to https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=APHIS-2016-0065.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We received 10 comments by the close of the comment period. They
were from private citizens and one State forestry.
Of the commenters, six opposed deregulation and the proposed rule.
The remaining four commenters urged caution in deregulation, raising
concerns similar to those opposed. One of these latter commenters
recognized the positive economic impacts of deregulation on the
industry, yet still pressed PSB concerns.
Comments fell into seven distinct categories: Concern for natural
forestland protection; support for the current regulations out of
perception that they work; concern for the pine industry and economy;
concerns for future impacts of PSB; concerns regarding reallocation of
regulatory funding; requests for delay or phase-in of deregulation with
monitoring and assessment before action; and requests that science
direct regulation of PSB.
We have characterized the comments received below according to
these topics.
Natural Forestland Protection
A majority of the 10 commenters wanted continued regulation to
prevent PSB from inflicting pine tree losses on ``natural'' and wild
forests, as well as private lands. Some addressed vulnerability of pine
to PSB impact on tree trunks. Two commenters expressed concern over
what they considered the growth-stunting potential of PSB in harming
shoots of pine trees. The commenters stated that this is significant in
that shoots are means of photosynthesis, energy conversion, and thus
growth, which could impact yields and incomes.
We acknowledge that PSB can inflict damage on pine trees and that
it is a plant pest. Our February 2015 analysis did not state otherwise.
The analysis also reviewed studies that showed adult PSB prefers to
colonize freshly-cut stumps and slash. Nonetheless, the analysis
concluded that pine-stand owners and the industry can and do
[[Page 61807]]
cover trees, remove downed trees, and treat pine for PSB in a manner
that is more cost-effective than ongoing Federal regulation. As
detailed in our February 2015 analysis, estimation and comparison of
pine timber damage along the leading edge of PSB distribution, both
with and without a ``slow-the-spread'' regulatory effort, indicates
regulatory cost will exceed any avoided losses. Compliance costs
projected long into the future outweigh any possible benefits to pine
producers.
There is also no evidence that in attacking the shoots of pine this
beetle has broadly retarded maturity across pine timber stands and
negatively impacted growth, vitality, and yields. While PSB does
inflict damage on pine shoots, and especially on certain pine
varieties, initial fears that the pest would devastate pine forests and
their industry never came true.
Regulatory Efficacy
Several commenters either presumed regulation is preventing spread
within or from quarantined areas, or mistakenly believed PSB numbers
are declining under regulation.
We are making no changes in response to these comments. Our
February 2015 analysis demonstrates that despite regulatory efforts
that have spanned 28 years, PSB has spread from a single Christmas tree
farm in one State (Ohio) in 1992 to 20 States. Fourteen States are
presently under Federal quarantine in their entirety.
While regulation did not keep PSB from spreading, we still find PSB
damage to native pines and pine plantations, as well as costs to the
nursery trade in this broad area, to be minimal. Our February 2015
analysis for deregulation indicated the pest is now considered minor
and readily within State and local ability to manage.
Pine Industry and Economy
Four of the commenters expressed concern for the pine economy as a
result of PSB deregulation. One commenter questioned especially the
impact on the Christmas tree industry from possible increased cosmetic
damage on certain species of pine.
We find no evidence of such negative economic impacts to justify
changing deregulation as proposed. Our February 2015 analysis
demonstrated that despite PSB's spread, damage has been minor.
Additionally, as experience now long indicates, pine producers can and
do take steps to control the disease irrespective of Federal
regulation. States may also impose and enforce their own quarantines in
the absence of Federal regulation.
Our analysis found nothing to suggest PSB is singularly
destructive, nor did it find evidence of high level destructive or
economic impact. So many more pests of far greater impact have prompted
regulatory efforts since PSB's first detection 28 years ago.
Future PSB Impacts
Half of the 10 commenters on PSB deregulation voiced concern for a
range of possible negative future impacts. Two commenters suggested
deregulation will result in high tree mortality in higher density
forests (from higher stress on weakened, dying trees, even on healthy
trees).
One commenter addressed deregulatory impact on pine tree forests in
the Southeastern States. The commenter feared PSB spread following
deregulation will have a negative economic impact there, where the
warmer climate will allow two incubation periods per year, instead of
one; where storms are more frequent and violent, downing trees to
create PSB brooding conditions; and where pine stands are large and
dense.
Two other commenters feared PSB spread to pinewood forests in the
Western States. One acknowledged positive impacts on timber producers
once they are freed from time-consuming, expensive regulatory
compliance. However, the commenter feared possible negative impact on
Western pine forests and urged ``Early Detection and Rapid Response''
funding.
We understand these concerns, but we are making no changes to PSB
deregulation. The commenters concerned about establishment in high
density forests and Southeastern pine tree forests incorrectly assume
the PSB damage has been minimal to date because PSB has become
established in areas that are not densely populated with pine or are
not otherwise conducive to PSB establishment. However, thus far, even
in pine-dense regions where PSB has become endemic, PSB damage to
native pines, plantations, and nursery trade has been minimal.
Estimated compliance costs for Christmas tree growers have far
outweighed timber losses. Moreover, Federal regulatory requirements for
PSB have largely consisted of certification, inspection, and
permitting. These activities control the artificial spread of PSB but
are not aimed at controlling it within an affected region. It is the
pine industry's own practices that control PSB within such an area.
Pine producers apply cover spray on trees, destroy cell piles, remove
stumps, and use trap logs to attract broods into piles that they then
destroy.
With regard to westward movement, the nation's Great Plains region
(more than 1.12 million square miles of prairie, steppe and grasslands,
with negligible quantities of pine), has provided and will continue to
provide a natural barrier to PSB spread to the West. Western States are
also free to fashion their own PSB regulation in the absence of Federal
regulation and to promote the industry practices that pine producers
already effectively employ in the Northeast and Central States.
Funding Concerns
Four of 10 commenters either asked that regulatory funds be
preserved to protect pine production and the natural environment from
PSB's harm, or sought evidence that funding reallocation will be more
beneficial. Commenters said regulation is worthwhile and should be
prioritized. They stated costs to the public are worth controlling PSB
populations.
Our February 2015 analysis found that costs to producers in
complying with quarantines, paperwork, and recordkeeping to manage
agreements, data collection, and review for reporting all outweigh any
benefits. Both assessments that we conducted call for new strategies,
which the States and producers may undertake from the success of
localized approaches.
The pine industry is largely composed of small businesses and
producers who can better safeguard pine resources, products, and their
economy if they do not have to devote time and resources to meeting
permit, certificate, and form compliance costs under quarantine. We
have determined that removing the PSB quarantine will provide
flexibility to the States as they and the pine community manage PSB in
all regions.
Funding used for PSB, which has become less and less significant
even as the pest spread despite regulation, will be reallocated to
address worsening Japanese beetle problems nationally. APHIS' Japanese
beetle regulations control the movement of aircraft from regulated
areas to southern and western areas where Japanese beetle is not
located, but could become established, if introduced, and cause
economic losses. However, increased package and product shipping across
the United States has created another pathway for Japanese beetle
movement into Southern and Western States. APHIS is working with a
National Plant Board harmonization initiative to address this problem,
and the reprogrammed funds will be used to help address this issue
[[Page 61808]]
by increasing inspection and treatment for Japanese beetle.
Delay or Phase-in of Deregulation
Four of the comments counseled more cautious approaches to
regulatory change and PSB control. Three sought delay or a phase-in of
deregulation, with monitoring of impact on PSB losses and harm before
entirely deregulating. One commenter suggested allocating funds for
damage control at conclusion of a phase-out of regulations.
While we recognize the value of cautionary approaches protective of
natural resources, we find no basis to continue regulation.
Deregulating PSB is based on 28 years of experience showing PSB
regulation has not deterred spread of the pest. Yet neither widespread
destruction nor significant economic loss resulted. Our February 2015
analysis demonstrated that funding is being ineffectively used to deter
PSB. Projected well into the future, the cost of regulation outweighs
any avoided negative losses. It will cost producers more in compliance
than they realize in any economic benefit. Prolonging this cost to
largely small producers a few more years is neither justifiable, nor
defensible. We must invite new strategies other than Federal
regulation, recognizing local pine industry practices have been most
effective at minimizing PSB damage. Moreover, continued regulation
precludes our reprogramming the funds for PSB to Japanese beetle
control, which, as discussed above, is needed to address an emerging
pathway for the spread of Japanese beetle.
We will however, continue to support the Nature Conservancy's
``Don't Move Firewood'' campaign, which is credited with a broad
education effort to enlist the public in curbing the spread of PSB and
other pests of firewood. That effort will continue even after PSB
deregulation. States are also free to attempt their own PSB regulation,
and one State has already stated that it will. As the pine industry,
processing, and trade have demonstrated where PSB spread across the
Northern State regions, their treatments in the field and handling of
harvested material, diminish PSB impact and loss. States and the
industry need to help shift PSB strategies now away from national
regulation as present funding addresses pressing Japanese beetle
expansion.
Scientific Basis for Deregulation
Two commenters asserted that official studies have not been
conducted to justify deregulation. They said the public needs
scientific studies conducted to determine current PSB populations and
losses under regulation. They said careful analysis based on scientific
findings could then form a basis for addressing permanent changes that
will result from deregulation.
We acknowledge need for more research to address many domestic
pests. However, APHIS Plant Protection and Quarantine, Center for Plant
Health Science and Technology (now named Science and Technology), and
the Plant Epidemiology and Risk Laboratory did conduct the February
2015 analysis of regulatory options for this deregulation. Our analysis
drew on 46 citations to assess the physical and economic impact of PSB
and to project possible impact of deregulation on other regions. We
also consulted with the National Plant Board.
Therefore, for the reasons given, we are adopting the proposed rule
as a final rule, without change.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13771 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. This rule is not an Executive
Order 13771 regulatory action because this rule is not significant
under Executive Order 12866.
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, we have analyzed
the potential economic effects of this action on small entities. The
analysis is summarized below. Copies of the full analysis are available
on the Regulations.gov website (see footnote 1 in this document for a
link to Regulations.gov) or by contacting the person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or on the Regulations.gov website.
APHIS is amending the pine shoot beetle (PSB) regulations to remove
all Federal PSB quarantine areas and all Federal regulatory
requirements related to the import and movement of PSB and associated
host material. Although PSB is now found throughout the Northeast and
North Central United States, damage to native pines and pine
plantations and costs to the nursery trade have been minimal. It is now
considered a minor pest that can be readily controlled locally.
Establishments that may be affected are ones that grow, handle, or
move regulated pine (Pinus spp.) products: bark products, Christmas
trees, logs and firewood with bark attached, lumber with bark attached,
nursery stock, raw pine materials for pine wreaths and garlands, and
stumps. Potentially affected establishments include timber tract
operations, forest product operations, logging companies, forest tree
nurseries, and Christmas tree operations. The majority of these
establishments are small entities.
Regulated articles from PSB quarantined areas may be moved
interstate if accompanied by a certificate or limited permit. Under the
rule, affected establishments in the Federal PSB quarantine areas will
no longer incur costs of complying with certification or permitting
requirements. Businesses that operate under Federal PSB compliance
agreements, of which there are about 100, are the establishments most
likely to be shipping regulated articles interstate. With this rule,
they will forgo the paperwork and recordkeeping costs of compliance.
For affected entities that do not operate under compliance agreement,
the costs of inspection are incurred by APHIS, unless they occur
outside of normal working hours.
We estimate that an establishment with an active PSB compliance
agreement spends 4 to 8 hours annually collecting data and ensuring
adherence to the agreement. Based on this estimate, total annual cost
savings from PSB deregulation for establishments with active compliance
agreements could be between $12,480 and $59,600. In accordance with
guidance on complying with Executive Order 13771, the single primary
estimate of the cost savings of this rule is about $36,000, the mid-
point estimate annualized in perpetuity using a 7 percent discount
rate.
Besides yielding cost savings for entities with compliance
agreements, sales volumes for at least some businesses could increase
if their sales are constrained because of the Federal quarantine.
Restrictions ultimately borne will depend on whether States decide to
enforce their own PSB quarantine programs.
Internationally, the deregulation is unlikely to affect exports of
pine products. In 2018, the United States exported about $240 million
of pine logs and timber, of which $75 million were Christmas trees and
other plants used for ornamental purposes. However, these exports are
required to be treated otherwise for pine wood nematode under a systems
approach and accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate as proof that
the trees meet the importing countries' requirements, as documented in
International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures No. 12.
Longer term, any delay in PSB spread attributable to the quarantine
[[Page 61809]]
regulations will end with promulgation of the rule. It is possible that
without the PSB program, human-assisted dispersal of PSB would have
occurred more rapidly and extended to areas that are not yet infested;
the impact of the rule on pine populations in natural and urban
environments within and outside currently quarantined areas--and on
businesses that grow, use, or process pine products--is indeterminate.
Still, PSB has caused negligible direct damage despite having spread
widely, and compliance costs that will no longer be incurred under the
rule are minimal.
Based on this information, the APHIS Administrator has determined
that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Executive Order 12372
This program/activity is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance under No. 10.025 and is subject to Executive Order 12372,
which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local
officials. (See 2 CFR chapter IV.)
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.
Congressional Review Act
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs designated this rule
as not a major rule, as defined by 5U.S.C. 804(2).
Paperwork Reduction Act
This final rule contains no reporting or recordkeeping requirements
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
List of Subjects
7 CFR Part 301
Agricultural commodities, Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
7 CFR Part 319
Coffee, Cotton, Fruits, Imports, Logs, Nursery stock, Plant
diseases and pests, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Rice, Vegetables.
Accordingly, we are amending 7 CFR parts 301 and 319 as follows:
PART 301--DOMESTIC QUARANTINE NOTICES
0
1. The authority citation for part 301 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7701-7772 and 7781-7786; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80,
and 371.3.
Section 301.75-15 issued under Sec. 204, Title II, Public Law
106-113, 113 Stat. 1501A-293; sections 301.75-15 and 301.75-16
issued under Sec. 203, Title II, Public Law 106-224, 114 Stat. 400
(7 U.S.C. 1421 note).
Subpart G [Removed and Reserved]
0
2. Subpart G, consisting of Sec. Sec. 301.50 through 301.50-10, is
removed and reserved.
PART 319--FOREIGN QUARANTINE NOTICES
0
3. The authority citation for part 319 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1633, 7701-7772, and 7781-7786; 21 U.S.C.
136 and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.
Sec. 319.40-3 [Amended]
0
4. Section 319.40-3 is amended by:
0
a. In paragraph (a)(1)(i)(A), removing ``, and;'' and adding ``; and''
in its place;
0
b. Removing paragraph (a)(1)(i)(B); and
0
c. Redesignating paragraph (a)(1)(i)(C) as (a)(1)(i)(B).
Sec. 319.40-5 [Amended]
0
5. Section 319.40-5 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph (m).
Done in Washington, DC, this 24th day of September 2020.
Michael Watson,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-21800 Filed 9-30-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P