Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 68945 

County line to the southwest corner of 

sec. 33, T. 2 S., R. 5 E.; then north to 

the northwest corner of sec. 33; then 

west to the southwest corner of sec. 30, 

T. 2 S., R. 5 E.; then north to the 

southeast corner of sec. 25, T. 2 S., R. 

4 E.; then west to the southwest corner 

of sec. 25, T. 2 S., R. 4 E.; then north 

to the southwest corner of sec. 13, T. 2 

S., R. 4 E.; then west to the southwest 

corner of sec. 15, T. 2 S., R. 4 E.; then 

north to the northwest corner of sec. 3, 

T. 2 S., R. 4 E.; then east to the 

southwest corner of sec. 35, T. 1 S., R. 

4 E.; then north to the northwest corner 

of sec. 35, T. 1 S., R. 4 E.; then east to 

the northeast corner of sec. 33, T. 1 S., 

R. 5 E.; then north to the northwest 

corner of sec. 27, T. 1 S., R. 5 E.; then 

east to the northeast corner of sec. 27, 

T. 1 S., R. 5 E.; then north to the 

northwest corner of sec. 23, T. 1 S., R. 

5 E.; then east to the northeast corner of 

sec. 21,T. 1 S., R. 6 E.; then south to the 

southeast corner of sec. 21, T. 1 S., R. 

6 E.; then east to the northeast corner of 

sec. 27, T. 1 S., R. 6 E.; then south to 

the southeast corner of sec. 27, T. 1 S., 

R. 6 E.; then east to the northeast corner 

of sec. 31, T. 1 S., R. 7 E.; then south 

to the northwest corner of sec. 5, T. 2 

S., R. 7 E.; then east to the northeast 

corner of sec. 3, T. 2 S., R. 7 E.; then 

north to the northwest corner of sec. 35, 

T. 1 S., R. 7 E.; then east to the northeast 

corner of sec. 36, T. 1 S., R. 7 E. and the 

Maricopa/Pinal County line; then south 

along the Maricopa/Pinal County line to 

the point of beginning. 

* * * * * 

California 

Riverside County. That portion of 

Riverside County known as the Palo 

Verde Valley (in part) bounded by a line 

drawn as follows: Beginning at the 

intersection of 22nd Avenue and State 

Highway 78; then north on State 

Highway 78 to an unnamed road at 

33.548088 latitude and ¥114.656718 

longitude; then east on the unnamed 

road to an unnamed canal at 33.548066 

latitude and ¥114.647868 longitude; 

then north on the unnamed canal to 

33.548360 latitude and 114.647877 

longitude; then east from that point to 

33.548360 latitude and ¥114.643696 

longitude; then north from that point to 

33.550088 latitude and ¥114.643692 

longitude; then east from that point to 

33.550044 latitude and ¥114.639367 

longitude; then north from that point to 

33.551705 latitude and ¥114.639367 

longitude; then east from that point to 

the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe 

Railroad tracks at 33.551740 latitude 

and ¥114.634545 longitude; then 

southwest along the Atchison, Topeka, 

and Santa Fe Railroad tracks to 

33.548300 latitude and ¥114.637487 

longitude; then east from that point to 

the C Canal at 33.548277 latitude and 

¥114.626363 longitude; then north 

along the C Canal to 33.549084 latitude 

and ¥114.626372 longitude; then east 

from that point to South Defrain 

Boulevard at 33.549145 latitude and 

¥114.621792 longitude; then south on 

South Defrain Boulevard to 33.548217 

latitude and ¥114.621774 longitude; 

then east from that point to Lovekin 

Drain at 33.548338 latitude and 

¥114.612488 longitude; then south 

along Lovekin Drain to 22nd Avenue; 

then east on 22nd Avenue to South 

Lovekin Boulevard; then south on South 

Lovekin Boulevard to 33.541141 

latitude and 114.603889 longitude; then 

east from that point to 33.541274 

latitude and ¥114.595394 longitude; 

then southeast from that point to 

33.540357 latitude and ¥114.59219 

longitude; then south from that point to 

33.536702 latitude and ¥114.595261 

longitude; then northeast from that 

point to 33.537766 latitude and 

¥114.593187 longitude; then east from 

that point to an unnamed canal 

beginning at 33.537887 latitude and 

¥114.586582 longitude; then south 

along the unnamed canal to 33.534809 

latitude and ¥114.586554 longitude; 

then southeast from that point to S C 

and D Boulevard at 33.534561 latitude 

and ¥114.586228 longitude; then south 

on S C and D Boulevard to 33.523400 

latitude and ¥114.585948 longitude; 

then east from that point to the D10–11 

Canal at 33.523596 latitude and 

¥114.577832 longitude; then southwest 

along the D1011 Canal to the boundary 

line of Riverside County at 33.540900 

latitude and ¥114.544620 longitude; 

then southeast along the Riverside 

County boundary line to 33.455829 

latitude and 114.623143 longitude; then 

west from that point to 33.455783 

latitude and ¥114.669038 longitude; 

then north from that point to South End 

Drain at 33.456190 latitude and 

¥114.669076 longitude; then north 

along South End Drain to 34th Avenue; 

then west on 34th Avenue to 33.463226 

latitude and ¥114.682378 longitude; 

then north from that point to the C–18– 

1 Canal; then west along the C–18–1 

Canal to 33.470427 latitude and 

¥114.691076 longitude; then north 

from that point to an unnamed canal at 

latitude 33.474836 and ¥114.691197 

longitude; then southwest along the 

unnamed canal to Palo Verde Lagoon; 

then northeast along Palo Verde Lagoon 

to Rannells Drain; then north along 

Rannells Drain to 33.499639 latitude 

and 114.961526 longitude; then north 

from that point to the C–03 Canal; then 

north along the C–03 Canal to 33.522835 

latitude and ¥114.687051 longitude; 

then north from that point to 24th 

Avenue; then east on 24th Avenue to 

the C–03 Canal; then north along the 

C–03 Canal to 33.537501 latitude and 

¥114.682892 longitude; then east from 

that point to Stephenson Boulevard; 

then north on Stephenson Boulevard to 

22nd Avenue; then east on 22nd 

Avenue to the point of beginning. 

§ 301.89–5 [Amended] 

■ 3. Section 301.89–5, is amended by 

removing paragraph (a)(3) and footnote 

1. 

§ 301.89–6 [Amended] 

■ 4. In § 301.89–6, in paragraph (a) 

introductory text and paragraph (a)(2), 

footnotes 2 and 3 are redesignated as 

footnotes 1 and 2, respectively. 

§ 301.89–7 [Amended] 

■ 5. In § 301.89–7, footnote 4 is 

redesignated as footnote 3. 

■ 6. In § 301.89–9, paragraph (a) is 

amended as follows: 

■ a. By redesignating footnote 5 as 

footnote 4. 

■ b. By revising newly redesignated 

footnote 4 to read as set forth below. 

§ 301.89–7 Assembly and inspection of 

regulated articles. 

(a) * * * 4

____________________ 4See footnote 1. 

* * * * * 

Done in Washington, DC, this 4th day of 

November 2010. 

Kevin Shea, 

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–28347 Filed 11–9–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

7 CFR Parts 319, 352, 360, and 361 

[Docket No. APHIS–2007–0146] 

RIN 0579–AC97 

Update of Noxious Weed Regulations 

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are amending the 

regulations governing the importation 

and interstate movement of noxious 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
68946 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

1To view the proposed rule and the comments 

we received, go to http://www.regulations.gov/ 

fdmspublic/component/ 

main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS-2007-0146. 

weeds by adding definitions of terms 

used in the regulations, adding details 

regarding the process of applying for the 

permits used to import or move noxious 

weeds, adding a requirement for the 

treatment of niger seed, and adding 

provisions for petitioning to add a taxon 

to or remove a taxon from the noxious 

weed lists. These changes will update 

the regulations to reflect current 

statutory authority and program 

operations and improve the 

effectiveness of the regulations. We are 

also adding seven taxa to the list of 

terrestrial noxious weeds and to the list 

of seeds with no tolerances applicable to 

their introduction. This action will 

prevent the introduction or 

dissemination of these noxious weeds 

into or within the United States. 

DATES: Effective Date: December 10, 

2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Alan V. Tasker, Noxious Weeds Program 

Coordinator, Emergency and Domestic 

Programs, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road 

Unit 26, Riverdale, MD 20737–1236; 

(301) 734–5225; or Dr. Arnold Tschanz, 

Senior Plant Pathologist, Risk 

Management and Plants for Planting 

Policy, RPM, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River 

Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737– 

1231; (301) 734–0627. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Plant Protection Act (PPA), as 

amended (7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.) 

authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture 

to prohibit or restrict the importation, 

entry, exportation, or movement in 

interstate commerce of any plant, plant 

product, biological control organism, 

noxious weed, article, or means of 

conveyance if the Secretary determines 

that the prohibition or restriction is 

necessary to prevent the introduction of 

a plant pest or noxious weed into the 

United States or the dissemination of a 

plant pest or noxious weed within the 

United States. 

The PPA defines ‘‘noxious weed’’ as 

‘‘any plant or plant product that can 

directly or indirectly injure or cause 

damage to crops (including nursery 

stock or plant products), livestock, 

poultry, or other interests of agriculture, 

irrigation, navigation, the natural 

resources of the United States, the 

public health, or the environment.’’ The 

PPA also provides that the Secretary 

may publish, by regulation, a list of 

noxious weeds that are prohibited or 

restricted from entering the United 

States or that are subject to restrictions 

on interstate movement within the 

United States. Under this authority, the 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service (APHIS) administers the 

noxious weeds regulations in 7 CFR part 

360 (referred to below as the 

regulations), which prohibit or restrict 

the importation and interstate 

movement of those plants that are 

designated as noxious weeds in 

§ 360.200. 

Under the authority of the Federal 

Seed Act (FSA) of 1939, as amended 

(7 U.S.C. 1551 et seq.), the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

regulates the importation and interstate 

movement of certain agricultural and 

vegetable seeds and screenings. Title III 

of the FSA, ‘‘Foreign Commerce,’’ 

requires shipments of imported 

agricultural and vegetable seeds to be 

labeled correctly and to be tested for the 

presence of the seeds of certain noxious 

weeds as a condition of entry into the 

United States. APHIS’ regulations 

implementing the provisions of title III 

of the FSA are found in 7 CFR part 361. 

A list of noxious weed seeds is 

contained in § 361.6. Paragraph (a)(1) of 

§ 361.6 lists species of noxious weed 

seeds with no tolerances applicable to 

their introduction into the United 

States. 

On June 10, 2009, we published in the 

Federal Register (74 FR 27456–27467, 

Docket No. APHIS–2007–0146) a 

proposal 1 to make several changes to 

the regulations. Briefly, we proposed to: 

• Add definitions for terms used in 

the regulations and replace references to 

the Federal Noxious Weed Act with 

references to the PPA; 

• Add explanatory text to clarify the 

listing of noxious weeds in § 360.200; 

• Provide additional detail about the 

requirements for permits to move 

noxious weeds in § 360.300; 

• Amend the regulations to require 

heat treatment for Guizotia abyssinica 

(niger) seed, as currently required in 

§ 319.37–6; 

• Add a section to provide 

information about the process for 

petitioning to add or remove a taxon 

from the noxious weed list; 

• Add seven new noxious weeds to 

the list of noxious weeds in § 360.200 

and the list of noxious weed seeds in 

§ 361.6; and 

• Update or correct the taxonomic 

designations for several currently listed 

noxious weeds. 

We solicited comments concerning 

our proposal for 60 days ending August 

10, 2009. We received six comments by 

that date. They were from a private 

citizen, a seed organization, a 

biotechnology industry organization, 

researchers, and a representative of a 

State government. The issues they 

raised that are germane to the proposed 

rule are discussed below by topic. 

Concurrence From States in Approving 

Noxious Weed Permits 

We proposed to add to the regulations 

new §§ 360.301 through 360.305 to 

provide additional information about 

the requirements for permits to import 

or move noxious weeds. Proposed 

§ 360.304 contained information about 

denial and cancellation of permits. 

In paragraph (a) of proposed 

§ 360.304, we proposed to provide that 

the Administrator could deny an 

application for a permit to move a 

noxious weed when the Administrator 

has determined that, among other 

things, a State plant regulatory official 

objects to the issuance of the permit on 

the grounds that granting the permit 

will pose a risk of dissemination of the 

noxious weed into the State. However, 

we went on to note that, under the 

proposed regulations, the Administrator 

would have the option to approve a 

permit for movement of a noxious weed 

even if a State plant regulatory official 

objected to the issuance of a permit—for 

example, if the Administrator 

determined that the safeguards specified 

in the permit were adequate to address 

the risk of dissemination. 

One commenter stated that the 

approval of a permit when a State plant 

regulatory official objected to the 

approval could potentially put an 

importer in an unfortunate position 

between APHIS and a State authority. 

The commenter stated that APHIS needs 

to reach positive resolution with the 

States when deciding to approve 

permits to avoid putting the importer in 

a bind. 

APHIS’ decisions on whether to grant 

a permit take into account the views of 

the State, but ultimately APHIS has the 

final authority to grant or deny an 

application for a permit. However, in all 

cases, APHIS attempts to come to a 

positive resolution of any difference of 

opinion with a State plant health 

official, as the commenter recommends. 

Our State plant health cooperators are 

key to the successful enforcement and 

functioning of the Federal noxious weed 

regulations. In practice, we would rarely 

act contrary to States’ concerns 

regarding issuing a permit for the 

importation or interstate movement of 

taxa listed as Federal noxious weeds, 

and we would provide information to 

specifically support issuing the permit if 

we were to do so. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 68947 

2At http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/ 

plant_pest_info/weeds/index.shtml. 

3To view this ISPM on the Internet, go to 

http://www.ippc.int/IPP/En/default.jsp and click on 

the ‘‘Adopted ISPMs’’ link under the ‘‘Standards 

(ISPMs)’’ heading. 

New Section With Treatment for Niger 

Seed 

We proposed to add a new § 360.400 

indicating that Guizota abysinnica 

(niger) seed is required to be treated. 

This requirement is found in our 

regulations governing the importation of 

nursery stock in § 319.37–6; we 

proposed to duplicate the conditions 

that are specified in that section in 

proposed § 360.400, as most niger seed 

is not imported for use as nursery stock 

but as birdseed. 

(NOTE: In an interim rule published 

and effective on October 19, 2009 (74 FR 

53397–53400, Docket No. APHIS–2008– 

0097), we added a new § 360.400 to 

codify the preemptive effects of the 

regulations in part 360. This final rule 

redesignates § 360.400 as § 360.600 to 

accommodate the new provisions we 

proposed to add in June 2009.) 

One commenter stated that it is not 

entirely clear why proposed § 360.400 

was included with the noxious weed 

regulations, given that G. abysinnica is 

not listed as a noxious weed. 

Although G. abysinnica itself is not a 

noxious weed, imported lots of G. 

abysinnica are commonly contaminated 

with various noxious weed seeds, 

including Cuscuta spp. We have 

determined that heat treatment 

effectively mitigates the risk associated 

with noxious weed seeds in lots of G. 

abysinnica. Because G. abysinnica is not 

typically imported for use as nursery 

stock, importers may not know to look 

in the nursery stock regulations in 

§ 319.37–6 to find the requirements for 

its importation. Importers of seed more 

commonly look at the requirements in 

parts 360 and 361. Indicating that G. 

abysinnica must be heat treated for 

noxious weed seeds in part 360 will 

make this requirement more prominent 

to its intended audience and thus 

improve the clarity and effectiveness of 

the regulations. 

Petitions To Add a Taxon to or Remove 

a Taxon From the Noxious Weed Lists 

APHIS accepts petitions to add a 

taxon to or remove a taxon from the 

noxious weed lists in § 360.200. 

Although we provide some information 

about the petition process on APHIS’ 

noxious weeds Web site,2 the 

regulations have not contained any 

information about this process. We 

proposed to add new §§ 360.500 and 

360.501 to provide such information. 

In both sections, we proposed to 

encourage petitioners to provide several 

pieces of information along with their 

petitions. Providing such information 

can help speed up the review process 

and help APHIS determine whether the 

specified plant taxon should be listed as 

a noxious weed. However, we did not 

propose to require that such information 

be provided. 

One commenter characterized our 

proposal to request information as a list 

of criteria for adding or removing a 

taxon from the list of noxious weeds, 

and stated that it is not clear whether or 

not all criteria need to be met in order 

to add or remove taxa. The commenter 

expressed concern that justifying 

additions solely on the basis of one 

criterion (such as potential economic 

impacts) could result in a noxious weed 

list populated with plant species that 

are not noxious from a biological or 

ecological perspective. The commenter 

asked us to add language to these 

sections stating that all criteria must be 

addressed and considered in any 

petition to add (or remove) taxa to the 

noxious weed list. 

This commenter also stated that the 

proposed regulations do not include any 

discussion regarding how APHIS will 

evaluate petitions to add a taxon to or 

remove a taxon from the noxious weed 

lists, or communicate their decisions to 

the public. The commenter 

recommended that APHIS establish a 

transparent process or procedures by 

which APHIS will conduct these 

evaluations and communicate decisions 

to the public. The commenter also 

recommended that these procedures 

include a sufficient comment period (up 

to 180 days) to give stakeholders who 

may be impacted an opportunity to 

respond to petitions and provide input. 

The various types of information we 

proposed to request are not a 

comprehensive set of criteria for listing 

a taxon as a noxious weed or removing 

a taxon from the list of noxious weeds; 

rather, we proposed to request 

information we would find useful in 

investigating whether or not a plant 

should be listed as a noxious weed. We 

did not propose to require petitioners to 

include all the different types of 

information we requested because that 

information may not be available to the 

petitioner. Accordingly, we are not 

taking the commenter’s suggestion to 

require petitioners to provide all this 

information. 

If we receive a petition to list a taxon 

as a noxious weed or to remove a taxon 

from the list of noxious weeds, we will 

communicate with the petitioner 

regarding whether we are proceeding 

with a weed risk assessment (WRA), 

and, if not, why not. 

We conduct our WRAs in accordance 

with our Weed-Initiated Pest Risk 

Assessment Guidelines for Qualitative 

Assessments, regardless of whether the 

assessment is triggered by a petition, 

through research and identification of a 

potential noxious weed, or discovery of 

an outbreak or introduction of a 

potential noxious weed. These 

guidelines are available on the Web at 

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ 

plant_health/plant_pest_info/weeds/ 

downloads/wra.pdf. These guidelines 

are consistent with the International 

Plant Protection Convention’s (IPPC) 

International Standard for Phytosanitary 

Measures (ISPM) No. 2, ‘‘Framework for 

pest risk analysis.’’ 3 If we perform a 

WRA in response to a petition, we will 

review all the information supplied by 

the petitioner as part of this process; we 

will also review other data sources to 

ensure that our conclusions regarding 

the taxon in question are based on the 

broadest possible base of information. 

If our WRA and any other analysis we 

may conduct indicate that a taxon 

should be listed as a noxious weed, we 

will publish an interim rule or proposed 

rule in the Federal Register to amend 

the list of noxious weeds in § 360.200 

and, if appropriate, the list of noxious 

weed seeds in part 361. Such 

publication provides both public notice 

and a period during which stakeholders 

who may be impacted can provide 

input. We will make the WRA and any 

other analysis we may conduct available 

along with the interim rule or proposed 

rule. We typically provide for a 

comment period of 60 days on interim 

rules and proposed rules; however, we 

have the option to allow for a longer 

comment period should circumstances 

warrant it. 

We proposed to add a new § 360.500 

to provide information about the 

process of adding a taxon to the noxious 

weed list. Among other things, we 

proposed to encourage petitioners to 

provide the following information about 

the potential consequences of the 

taxon’s introduction or spread: 

• The taxon’s habitat suitability in the 

United States (predicted ecological 

range); 

• Dispersal potential (biological 

characteristics associated with 

invasiveness); 

• Potential economic impacts (e.g., 

potential to reduce crop yields, lower 

commodity values, or cause loss of 

markets for U.S. goods); and 

• Potential environmental impacts 

(e.g., impacts on ecosystem processes, 

natural community composition or 

structure, human health, recreation 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
68948 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

patterns, property values, or use of 

chemicals to control the taxon). 

Referring to the request for 

information about potential economic 

impacts of a taxon petitioned to be 

listed as a noxious weed, one 

commenter stated that the use of such 

information could result in petitions for 

classifying certain genetically 

engineered (GE) crop species as noxious 

weeds. APHIS’ Biotechnology 

Regulatory Services (BRS) program 

regulates GE organisms, and the 

commenter assumed that BRS will use 

the noxious weed authority of the PPA 

when such issues arise with GE crops. 

To ensure consistency, the commenter 

recommended that PPQ and BRS 

coordinate to ensure that these 

regulations will be uniformly 

interpreted when such issues arise. If 

there is not consistency, the commenter 

stated, it is conceivable that a petitioner 

could apply to both PPQ and BRS to list 

(or delist) the same taxon and end up 

with different results. 

We agree with the commenter’s 

recommendation that PPQ and BRS 

coordinate when we receive petitions to 

list GE crops as noxious weeds. PPQ 

and BRS regularly discuss such issues 

and will continue to do so. It should be 

noted that, currently, BRS regulates GE 

organisms only under the plant pest 

authority of the PPA. 

One commenter stated that, while the 

information requested will be necessary 

to determining whether to list a taxon as 

a noxious weed, certain baseline 

information will also be required and 

should also be specifically referenced in 

the regulations. As an initial matter, the 

commenter stated, information must be 

provided to show that the plant in 

question causes injury recognized under 

the PPA and the IPPC. The commenter 

quoted the Background section of a 

proposed rule regarding the importation 

and interstate movement of GE 

organisms published in the Federal 

Register on October 9, 2008 (73 FR 

60008–60048, Docket No. APHIS–2008– 

0023), which stated that the first 

consideration in determining whether a 

plant is a noxious weed is identifying 

what direct injury or damage (physical 

harm) the plant causes. 

While we proposed in § 360.500 to 

request that petitioners provide 

information regarding the potential 

economic and environmental impacts of 

spread of the plant in question, we did 

not propose to request or require 

information regarding the injury the 

offending plant may inflict. The 

commenter stated that, while in many 

instances this information will be 

obvious, it is nevertheless essential to a 

noxious weed determination and must 

not be overlooked. In all cases, the 

commenter stated, APHIS must first 

make an initial finding of physical harm 

caused by the plant at issue; only then 

may APHIS continue the risk 

assessment and risk mitigation process 

to determine whether further regulation 

is appropriate. 

We have determined that it is not 

necessary to require that petitioners 

provide information about the direct 

harm caused by a taxon in a petition to 

list a taxon as a noxious weed. Such 

information may not be available to the 

petitioner; for example, a petitioner 

might notice unchecked growth of a 

weed in an area without knowing the 

precise means by which the weed was 

displacing native vegetation. 

As discussed earlier, after receiving a 

petition, we consider all available 

information relating to that taxon, not 

just the information provided in the 

petition, and we conduct our weed risk 

assessments in accordance with our 

Weed-Initiated Pest Risk Assessment 

Guidelines for Qualitative Assessments. 

These guidelines provide specific 

examples of what we mean by potential 

economic impacts and potential 

environmental impacts. Potential 

economic impacts include, but are not 

limited to: 

• Reduced crop yield (e.g., by 

parasitism, competition, or by harboring 

other pests). 

• Lower commodity value (e.g., by 

increasing costs of production, lowering 

market price, or a combination); or if not 

an agricultural weed, by increasing costs 

of weed control. 

• Loss of markets (foreign or 

domestic) due to presence of a new 

quarantine pest. 

Potential environmental impacts 

include, but are not limited to, 

considerations of whether the weed, if 

introduced, could: 

• Cause impacts on ecosystem 

processes (alteration of hydrology, 

sedimentation rates, a fire regime, 

nutrient regimes, changes in 

productivity, growth, yield, vigor, etc.). 

• Cause impacts on natural 

community composition (e.g., reduce 

biodiversity, affect native populations, 

affect endangered or threatened species, 

impact keystone species, impact native 

fauna, pollinators, or microorganisms, 

etc.). 

• Cause impacts on community 

structure (e.g., change density of a layer, 

cover the canopy, eliminate or create a 

layer, impact wildlife habitats, etc.). 

• Have impacts on human health 

such as allergies or changes in air or 

water quality. 

• Have sociological impacts on 

recreation patterns and aesthetic or 

property values. 

• Stimulate control programs 

including toxic chemical pesticides or 

introduction of a nonindigenous 

biological control agent. 

Risk ratings are then determined 

based on how many of the impacts are 

posed by the taxon (except for taxa that 

affect endangered or threatened species, 

which are always rated high risk for 

environmental impacts). The WRA 

process thus considers in detail the 

direct injury or damage the plant may 

cause. We believe this satisfies the 

commenter’s overall concern that the 

direct injury or damage caused by a 

plant should be considered in 

determining whether to list it as a 

noxious weed. 

Additions to the Lists of Terrestrial 

Noxious Weeds and Noxious Weed 

Seeds 

We proposed add seven new taxa to 

the list of terrestrial noxious weeds in 

§ 360.200(c) and to the list of noxious 

weed seeds with no tolerances 

applicable to their introduction in 

§ 361.6(a)(1). Commenters who 

addressed these additions supported 

them. 

One commenter stated that the 

addition of the seven new taxa could 

have indirect adverse consequences on 

seed production. The commenter stated 

that many companies have overseas 

operations in which seed is produced in 

a foreign country and shipped back to 

the United States for sale in the United 

States or for value-adding and 

repackaging for re-export. Some 

producers’ offshore production sites 

likely could be in areas where these taxa 

are endemic, the commenter stated, and 

several of the new taxa, such as 

Arctotheca calendula, Ageratina riperia, 

Euphorbia terracina, Onopordum 

acaulon, and O. illyricum, could impact 

grass seed production as well as row 

crop and vegetable crop seed 

production. If these new taxa, or 

whenever any new taxa, are added to 

the noxious weed list, the commenter 

requested that we provide detailed 

information on the occurrence and 

distribution of these taxa, as well as 

specific information on their seed 

morphology and biology, so that seed 

production companies can implement 

measures to minimize contamination of 

seed in those production areas where 

these taxa pose a threat. 

We list taxa as noxious weeds based 

on the risk they pose, not on their 

geographical distribution. We provided 

the information we have on the 

international distribution, seed 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 68949 

4See the Draft of the Second Edition of the Jepson 

Manual: Vascular Plants of California; and 

Tropicos, the database of the Missouri Botanical 

Garden. http://mobot.mobot.org/cgi-bin/search_vast 

(accessed August 24, 2010). 

morphology, and biology of these weeds 

in the WRAs that were provided along 

with the proposed rule on 

Regulations.gov (see footnote 1 for 

instructions on accessing 

Regulations.gov). Because these weeds 

have significant effects on agricultural 

production and the environment, as 

discussed in the WRAs, seed producers 

will likely know whether these noxious 

weeds are present in or near their 

production facilities; for economic 

reasons, we presume that they would 

take appropriate steps to prevent 

contamination of their seed with seeds 

of these weeds. 

We proposed to list A. calendula 

(capeweed) as a noxious weed. In the 

proposed rule, we stated that A. 

calendula is currently present in 

California and that a purple-flowered, 

seed-producing type of A. calendula is 

regulated by the State. A sterile, 

vegetatively reproducing yellowflowered type is not currently regulated 

by the State of California, but is noted 

by some to spread from cultivation into 

wild or managed environments. In 

addition, absent inflorescence, 

identifying a plant as a member of one 

type or another of A. calendula can be 

difficult. We invited public comment on 

whether it is appropriate to regulate the 

entire species A. calendula, as we 

proposed to do, or whether we should 

only regulate the purple-flowered, seedproducing type. 

Two commenters addressed this 

issue. One stated that the less noxious 

form (we described it as yellowflowered, while the commenter 

described it as orange-flowered) is 

indistinguishable from the purpleflowered form when not in flower. The 

commenter pointed out that 

enforcement would be difficult if only 

one form is regulated, and 

recommended that we add the entire 

species to the list. 

Another commenter agreed with this 

comment and added other points to 

consider when determining whether to 

regulate the entire species: 

• The commenter stated that the 

infertile type is also invasive. According 

to one report from the California 

Invasive Plant Inventory (http:// 

www.cal-ipc.org), it is more competitive 

than the fertile form. It can escape 

cultivation by creeping stolons and 

spread aggressively. 

• The commenter asked whether 

purple flower color is always linked to 

fertile seed production and whether this 

is always a reliable characteristic for 

determining the type of capeweed. 

• The commenter asked whether the 

genetic basis of seed infertility in the 

sterile type is understood. If yes, the 

commenter asked, is the sterility stable? 

Or is it capable of reverting to fertility 

under certain circumstances or can it 

cross with the fertile type? 

• The commenter stated that the 

sterile type is just as potentially toxic to 

sheep, cattle, pigs and horses as the 

fertile type, due to presence of nitrates. 

Since the publication of the proposed 

rule, we have found more information 

about the botanical classification of 

what we characterized as the fertile and 

sterile types of A. calendula. These are 

actually two different species; A. 

calendula is the fertile type, while the 

sterile type has been designated A. 

prostrata (creeping capeweed).4 There 

are morphological differences between 

the two species that make it practical to 

distinguish them for enforcement 

purposes, as well. 

As we had proposed to regulate A. 

calendula as a noxious weed on the 

basis of the damage caused by what we 

had characterized as the fertile type, we 

are adding A. calendula to the list of 

terrestrial noxious weeds and to the list 

of noxious weed seeds with no 

tolerances applicable to their 

introduction, as we proposed. We will 

evaluate A. prostrata separately to 

determine whether it, too, needs to be 

added to those lists, with the 

information and questions provided by 

the second commenter in mind. 

One commenter, citing the ‘‘no 

tolerances applicable to their 

introduction’’ language, stated that this 

terminology strongly indicates that there 

is a zero tolerance for noxious weed 

seed contaminants in seed 

consignments. The commenter 

understood the basis for zero tolerance, 

but also recognizes that achieving this 

level of risk reduction will at times be 

very difficult. The commenter asked 

that APHIS seek input from the seed 

industry on the development of a 

rational tolerance for noxious weed seed 

contaminants that is achievable by the 

industry. The commenter also asked 

that APHIS add language to this section 

stating that whenever noxious weed 

seed contaminants are detected in seed 

consignments, companies will be given 

the option of recleaning and reinspection according to established 

APHIS procedures and protocols, and 

that destruction or re-export will be 

considered a last option. 

The commenter refers to existing text 

from § 361.6(a)(1) regarding seeds with 

no tolerances applicable to their 

introduction that we were discussing in 

the Background section of the proposal. 

Within § 361.6, paragraph (c) discusses 

how certain seed may not be counted 

toward the tolerance (for example, 

damaged seed). However, it is important 

to prevent even one individual, viable 

seed of taxa listed in § 361.6(a)(1) from 

entering the United States, as these taxa 

have been determined to be capable of 

causing agricultural and environmental 

damage should they be introduced into 

the United States. Thus, the zerotolerance standard is appropriate for 

these taxa. We are making no changes in 

response to this comment. 

Common Names 

One commenter addressed the 

common names of noxious weeds. With 

regard to the seven taxa we proposed to 

add to the list of terrestrial noxious 

weeds and to the list of noxious weed 

seeds with no tolerances applicable to 

their introduction, the commenter noted 

that the common names we included 

with the scientific names in the 

proposed regulatory text often differed 

from those in the USDA’s PLANTS Web 

site (http://plants.usda.gov). The 

commenter stated that it would be less 

confusing if the proposed regulatory text 

and the PLANTS Web site agreed on 

common names, and that using the most 

common usage would better serve the 

general public and others. 

Common names, including those on 

the PLANTS Web site, are unofficial. It 

is often difficult to determine the most 

common usage, which varies 

worldwide. For these reasons, we rely 

on the scientific name of a taxon, which 

is the internationally recognized 

scientific standard, as the official name 

for regulatory purposes. We list a 

common name for the convenience of 

nonspecialists. 

APHIS normally lists the most recent 

common name found in one or more of 

three sources. The Weed Science 

Society of America (WSSA) publishes a 

Composite List of Weeds with their 

officially recognized common names, 

which APHIS would normally use. 

WSSA lists few of the weeds we 

proposed to add because of their lack of 

distribution in the United States. Since 

the preparation of the WRAs, WSSA has 

added several of the species we 

proposed to add to the list of noxious 

weeds to its Composite List of Weeds. 

Other sources of common names are the 

Germplasm Resources Information 

Network (GRIN) and the Integrated 

Taxonomic Information System (ITIS) 

database. PLANTS tends to favor names 

in ITIS. 

In this final rule, we are changing 

common names to match WSSA where 

names have been recognized since the 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
68950 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

original draft. In cases where WSSA 

does not list a common name, we have 

compared GRIN and ITIS and changed 

to names listed in both databases, where 

available. The following table 

summarizes the proposed common 

names, the common names provided in 

the references listed above, and the 

changes in the final rule. 

TABLE 1—COMMON NAMES OF SEVEN NEW NOXIOUS WEED TAXA

Scientific name Proposed rule WSSA GRIN ITIS PLANTS Final rule 

Acacia nilotica ................ prickly acacia (no common 

name listed).

acacia a` gomme, acacia gomifera, 

arabische 

Gummiakazie, babul 

acacia, Egyptian acacia, gommier rouge, 

Indian gum-arabictree, lekkeruikpeul, 

scented-thorn, thornmimosa, thorny acacia.

gum arabic tree .. gum arabic 

tree.

gum arabic tree, 

thorny acacia. 

Ageratina riparia ............. mistflower ....... creeping 

croftonweed.

creeping croftonweed, 

hamakua pamakani, 

mistblom, mistflower, 

river eupatorium.

creeping 

croftonweed, 

mist flower, 

spreading 

snakeroot.

spreading 

snakeroot.

creeping 

croftonweed, 

mistflower. 

Arctotheca calendula ..... capeweed ...... capeweed ...... Capeweed, venidium .... Cape weed, 

capeweed.

Capeweed ...... capeweed (no 

changes). 

Euphorbia terracina ........ false caper ..... Geraldton 

carnationweed.

false caper, Geraldton 

carnation-spurge, 

Geraldton carnationweed, leiteira.

Geraldton carnation weed.Geraldton carnation weed.false caper, 

Geraldton carnation weed. 

Inula britannica ............... British elecampane.British elecampane.British elecampane, ou 

ya xuan fu hua, xuan 

fu hua, British 

yellowhead.

British yellowhead British 

yellowhead.

British elecampane, British 

yellowhead. 

Onopordum acaulon ...... stemless thistle.(no common 

name listed).

cardo, horse thistle, 

stemless onopordon, 

stemless thistle.

(no common 

name listed).

(no common 

name listed).

stemless thistle 

(no changes). 

Onopordum illyricum ...... Illyrian thistle .. Illyrian thistle .. cardo-ilı ́rico, Illyrian thistle.Illyrian 

cottonthistle.

Illyrian 

cottonthistle.

Illyrian thistle (no 

changes). 

We also proposed to make several 

nomenclature changes for taxa currently 

listed as terrestrial noxious weeds and 

as noxious weed seeds with no 

tolerances applicable to their 

introduction. Among these changes, we 

proposed to update the regulations by 

removing the entry for Homeria spp. 

from both §§ 360.200(c) and 361.6(a)(1) 

and adding entries for Moraea collina, 

M. flaccida, M. miniata, M. ochroleuca, 

and M. pallida in its place. 

The commenter stated that the 

common names we proposed to use for 

the Moraea species are contrived and 

confusing. In the proposed rule, M. 

flaccida is called the one-leaf Cape 

tulip, but most of the others also have 

one leaf. M. collina is called the apricot 

tulp, but other species are similarly 

colored, and likewise M. ochroleuca is 

called the red tulp even though it has 

yellow flowers. The commenter stated 

that it appears that ‘‘tulp’’ is a 

typographical error, and will appear to 

be an error to many others. To reduce 

confusion, the commenter 

recommended that all of the species be 

called ‘‘Cape tulip,’’ similar to how 

Salvinia spp. are all called ‘‘giant 

salvinia’’ on the present list, or that they 

be listed without common name as with 

Cuscuta and Prosopis species on the 

current list. 

As noted earlier, we rely on the 

scientific name of a taxon as the official 

name for regulatory purposes. We list a 

common name for the convenience of 

non-specialists. ‘‘Tulp’’ is the Dutch and 

Afrikaans word for ‘‘tulip’’ and is thus in 

common use internationally. 

We conducted a review of the 

common names of the new Moraea spp. 

similar to the one conducted for the 

common names of the seven new taxa. 

The results of this review are shown in 

table 2. 

TABLE 2—COMMON NAMES OF FIVE MORAEA SPECIES

Scientific name Proposed rule Wiersema & 

Leon1 WSSA GRIN ITIS PLANTS Final rule 

Moraea collina 

(=Homeria 

collina).

apricot tulp ..... (no common 

name listed).

(no common 

name listed).

(no common 

name listed).

(no common 

name listed).

Cape tulip ...... apricot Cape-tulip. 

Moraea flaccida 

(=Homeria 

flaccida).

one-leaf Capetulip.one-leaf Capetulip.(no common 

name listed).

one-leaf Capetulip.(no common 

name listed).

(no common 

name listed).

one-leaf Cape-tulip (no 

changes). 

Moraea miniata 

(=Homeria 

miniata).

two-leaf Capetulip.two-leaf Capetulip.(no common 

name listed).

two-leaf Capetulip.(no common 

name listed).

(no common 

name listed).

two-leaf Cape-tulip (no 

changes). 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 68951 

TABLE 2—COMMON NAMES OF FIVE MORAEA SPECIES—Continued 

Scientific name Proposed rule Wiersema & 

Leon1 WSSA GRIN ITIS PLANTS Final rule 

Moraea 

ochroleuca 

(=Homeria 

ochroleuca).

red tulp .......... red tulp .......... (no common 

name listed).

red tulp .......... (no common 

name listed).

(no common 

name listed).

red Cape-tulip. 

Moraea pallida 

(=Homeria 

pallida).

yellow tulp ..... yellow tulp ..... (no common 

name listed).

yellow tulp ..... (no common 

name listed).

(no common 

name listed).

yellow Cape-tulip. 

Wiersema, J.H. and Leon, Blanca. 1999. World economic plants: A standard reference. p. 261. 

Based on this review, we are changing 

the common name for M. collina to 

‘‘apricot Capetulip,’’ to be more 

consistent with the PLANTS database 

while ensuring that M. collina can be 

differentiated from the other regulated 

Cape-tulip. We also recognize that U.S. 

regulated entities may not be familiar 

with the term ‘‘tulp,’’ and that listing all 

the new Moraea spp. as some variety of 

‘‘Cape-tulip’’ would help to ensure 

consistency in naming the genus. For 

that reason, we have changed the 

proposed common name of M. 

ochroleuca, ‘‘red tulp,’’ to read ‘‘red 

Cape-tulip,’’ in this final rule and we 

have changed the proposed common 

name of M. pallida, ‘‘yellow tulp,’’ to 

read ‘‘yellow Cape-tulip’’ in this final 

rule. 

Miscellaneous Change 

We proposed to revise current 

§ 360.300. Proposed paragraph (a) in 

§ 360.300 stated that no person may 

move a Federal noxious weed into or 

through the United States, or interstate, 

unless he or she applies for a permit to 

move a noxious weed in accordance 

with § 360.301, the permit application is 

approved, and the movement is 

consistent with the specific conditions 

contained in the permit. Proposed 

paragraph (b) of § 360.300 stated that 

persons who move noxious weeds into 

or through the United States, or 

interstate, without complying with 

those conditions will be subject to such 

criminal and civil penalties as are 

provided by the Plant Protection Act 

(7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.). 

We are not including proposed 

paragraph (b) in this final rule, as it is 

not necessary to state explicitly in the 

regulations that violations of the 

regulations are subject to the penalties 

prescribed in the act under whose 

authority they are promulgated. The 

requirements in proposed paragraph (a) 

and its subparagraphs (a)(1) through 

(a)(3) appear in this final rule as 

undesignated introductory text for 

§ 360.300 and as paragraphs (a) through 

(c), respectively. 

Therefore, for the reasons given in the 

proposed rule and in this document, we 

are adopting the proposed rule as a final 

rule, with the changes discussed in this 

document. 

Federal Preemption 

On May 20, 2009, the President issued 

a memorandum to the heads of 

executive departments and agencies on 

the subject of preemption. The 

memorandum states that it is the general 

policy of the Administration that 

preemption of State law by executive 

departments and agencies should be 

undertaken only with full consideration 

of the legitimate prerogatives of the 

States and with a sufficient legal basis 

for preemption. The memorandum 

further states: 

To ensure that executive departments 

and agencies include statements of 

preemption in regulations only when 

such statements have a sufficient legal 

basis: 

• Heads of departments and agencies 

should not include in regulatory 

preambles statements that the 

department or agency intends to 

preempt State law through the 

regulation except where preemption 

provisions are also included in the 

codified regulation. 

• Heads of departments and agencies 

should not include preemption 

provisions in codified regulations 

except where such provisions would be 

justified under legal principles 

governing preemption, including the 

principles outlined in Executive Order 

13132. 

Since 1996, Executive Order 12988, 

‘‘Civil Justice Reform,’’ has required 

agencies to include in each regulation a 

statement regarding its preemptive 

effects. APHIS has included a statement 

of preemptive effects in regulatory 

preambles under the heading ‘‘Executive 

Order 12988.’’ 

In compliance with the May 2009 

memorandum from the White House, 

we are adding preemption provisions to 

part 352 that apply to this rule, as well 

as to the existing regulations in part 352. 

Preemption provisions have already 

been added to parts 319, 360, and 361. 

Part 352 contains safeguarding 

regulations for the movement through 

the United States of plants, plant 

products, plant pests, soil, and other 

products and articles that may be 

infested or infected by or contain plant 

pests or noxious weeds. 

Under section 436 of the Plant 

Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7756), no State 

or political subdivision of a State may 

regulate in foreign commerce any 

article, means of conveyance, plant, 

biological control organism, plant pest, 

noxious weed, or plant product in order 

to control a plant pest or noxious weed, 

to eradicate a plant pest or noxious 

weed, or to prevent the introduction or 

dissemination of a biological control 

organism, plant pest, or noxious weed. 

Therefore, in accordance with section 

436 of the Plant Protection Act, the 

regulations in part 352 preempt all State 

and local laws and regulations that are 

inconsistent with or exceed the 

regulations in part 352. 

Accordingly, in this final rule, we are 

adding a new paragraph (d) in § 352.2 to 

codify the preemptive effects of the 

regulations in part 352. To reflect this 

change, we have renamed § 352.2 

‘‘Purpose; relation to other regulations; 

applicability; preemption of State and 

local laws.’’ 

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

This final rule has been determined to 

be not significant for the purposes of 

Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, 

has not been reviewed by the Office of 

Management and Budget. 

In accordance with the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, we have analyzed the 

potential economic effects of this action 

on small entities. As described in the 

economic analysis, the majority of 

producers, importers, and merchants 

that may be affected by the final rule are 

small entities. However, there is no 

evidence of any significant trade in the 

seven taxa that are being added to the 

list of noxious weeds, and the other 

changes in the final rule serve to clarify 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
68952 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

the regulations and improve their 

effectiveness. Under these 

circumstances, the Administrator of the 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service has determined that this action 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

The full economic analysis may be 

viewed on the Regulations.gov Web site. 

(See footnote 1 in this document for a 

link to the analysis on Regulations.gov.) 

In addition, copies may be obtained by 

calling or writing to the individual 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

Executive Order 12372 

This program/activity is listed in the 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

under No. 10.025 and is subject to 

Executive Order 12372, which requires 

intergovernmental consultation with 

State and local officials. (See 7 CFR part 

3015, subpart V.) 

Executive Order 12988 

This final rule has been reviewed 

under Executive Order 12988, Civil 

Justice Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts 

all State and local laws and regulations 

that are inconsistent with this rule; 

(2) has no retroactive effect; and 

(3) does not require administrative 

proceedings before parties may file suit 

in court challenging this rule. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This final rule contains no new 

information collection or recordkeeping 

requirements under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 

et seq.). 

List of Subjects 

7 CFR Part 319 

Coffee, Cotton, Fruits, Imports, Logs, 

Nursery stock, Plant diseases and pests, 

Quarantine, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Rice, 

Vegetables. 

7 CFR Part 352 

Customs duties and inspection, 

Imports, Plant diseases and pests, 

Quarantine, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

7 CFR Part 360 

Imports, Plants (Agriculture), 

Quarantine, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation, Weeds. 

7 CFR Part 361 

Agricultural commodities, Imports, 

Labeling, Quarantine, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Seeds, 

Vegetables, Weeds. 

■ Accordingly, we are amending 7 CFR 

parts 319, 352, 360, and 361 as follows: 

PART 319—FOREIGN QUARANTINE 

NOTICES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 319 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 450, 7701–7772, and 

7781–7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR 

2.22, 2.80, and 371.3. 

§ 319.37–6 [Amended] 

■ 2. In § 319.37–6, paragraph (c) is 

amended by adding the words ‘‘must be 

treated’’ after the word ‘‘States’’. 

PART 352—PLANT QUARANTINE 

SAFEGUARD REGULATIONS 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 352 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7701–7772 and 7781– 

7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 31 U.S.C. 

9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3. 

■ 4. Section 352.2 is amended as 

follows: 

■ a. By revising the section heading to 

read as set forth below. 

■ b. In paragraph (a) introductory text, 

in the first sentence, by adding the 

words ‘‘noxious weeds,’’ after the words 

‘‘plant pests,’’; and by removing the 

words ‘‘319 and 330’’ and adding the 

words ‘‘319, 330, and 360’’ in their place. 

■ c. In paragraph (b), by removing the 

words ‘‘319 or 330’’ and adding the 

words ‘‘319, 330, or 360’’ in their place. 

■ d. By adding a new paragraph (d) to 

read as set forth below. 

§ 352.2 Purpose; relation to other 

regulations; applicability; preemption of 

State and local laws. 

* * * * * 

(d) Under section 436 of the Plant 

Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7756), a State 

or political subdivision of a State may 

not regulate in foreign commerce any 

article, means of conveyance, plant, 

biological control organism, plant pest, 

noxious weed, or plant product in order 

to control a plant pest or noxious weed, 

to eradicate a plant pest or noxious 

weed, or to prevent the introduction or 

dissemination of a biological control 

organism, plant pest, or noxious weed. 

§ 352.3 [Amended] 

■ 5. Section 352.3 is amended as 

follows: 

■ a. In paragraphs (a) and (b), by adding 

the words ‘‘noxious weeds,’’ after the 

words ‘‘plant pests,’’ each time they 

occur. 

■ b. In paragraph (d), by adding the 

words ‘‘or noxious weed’’ before the 

word ‘‘dissemination.’’ 

§ 352.5 [Amended] 

■ 6. Section 352.5 is amended as 

follows: 

■ a. By adding the words ‘‘noxious 

weeds,’’ after the words ‘‘plant pests,’’ 

each time they occur. 

■ b. In paragraph (d), by adding the 

words ‘‘, 330, and 360’’ after the words 

‘‘parts 319’’ each time they occur. 

§ 352.6 [Amended] 

■ 7. Section 352.6 is amended as 

follows: 

■ a. In paragraph (a), by adding the 

words ‘‘(including noxious weeds)’’ 

before the period at the end of the 

paragraph heading. 

■ b. In paragraph (e), by adding the 

words ‘‘or noxious weed’’ before the 

word ‘‘dissemination’’ each time it 

occurs. 

§ 352.7 [Amended] 

■ 8. Section 352.7 is amended by adding 

the words ‘‘(including noxious weeds)’’ 

after the word ‘‘products’’ the first time 

it occurs. 

§ 352.9 [Amended] 

■ 9. Section 352.9 is amended by adding 

the words ‘‘noxious weeds,’’ after the 

words ‘‘plant pests,’’. 

§ 352.10 [Amended] 

■ 10. Section 352.10 is amended as 

follows: 

■ a. In paragraphs (a) and (b)(1), by 

removing the words ‘‘part 319 or 330’’ 

each time they occur and adding the 

words ‘‘parts 319, 330, or 360’’ in their 

place. 

■ b. In paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), and (c), 

by adding the words ‘‘or noxious weed’’ 

before the word ‘‘dissemination’’ each 

time it occurs. 

■ c. In paragraph (b)(2), by removing the 

words ‘‘319 or 330’’ and adding the 

words ‘‘319, 330, or 360’’ in their place. 

§ 352.11 [Amended] 

■ 11. In § 352.11, paragraph (a)(1) is 

amended by adding the words ‘‘noxious 

weeds,’’ after the words ‘‘plant pests,’’. 

§ 352.13 [Amended] 

■ 12. Section 352.13 is amended as 

follows: 

■ a. By adding the words ‘‘noxious 

weeds,’’ after the words ‘‘plant pests,’’. 

■ b. By removing the words ‘‘part 319 or 

330’’ and adding the words ‘‘parts 319, 

330, or 360’’ in their place. 

§ 352.15 [Amended] 

■ 13. Section 352.15 is amended by 

adding the words ‘‘or noxious weed’’ 

before the word ‘‘dissemination’’. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 68953 

1One or more of the common names of weeds are 

given in parentheses after most scientific names to 

help identify the weeds represented by such 

scientific names; however, a scientific name is 

intended to include all subordinate taxa within the 

taxon. For example, taxa listed at the genus level 

include all species, subspecies, varieties, and forms 

within the genus; taxa listed at the species level 

include all subspecies, varieties, and forms within 

the species. 

PART 360—NOXIOUS WEED 

REGULATIONS 

■ 14. The authority citation for part 360 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7701–7772 and 7781– 

7786; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3. 

■ 15. Section 360.100 is amended as 

follows: 

■ a. By removing the paragraph (b) 

designation and the introductory text of 

paragraph (b). 

■ b. By redesignating paragraph (a) as 

undesignated introductory text. 

■ c. By adding, in alphabetical order, 

new definitions of Administrator, 

APHIS, interstate, move, noxious weed, 

permit, person, responsible person, 

State, taxon (taxa), through the United 

States, and United States to read as set 

forth below. 

■ d. By removing the definition of 

Deputy Administrator. 

§ 360.100 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Administrator. The Administrator, 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service, or any individual authorized to 

act for the Administrator. 

APHIS. The Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, United States 

Department of Agriculture. 

* * * * * 

Interstate. From one State into or 

through any other State; or within the 

District of Columbia, Guam, the Virgin 

Islands of the United States, or any 

other territory or possession of the 

United States. 

Move. To carry, enter, import, mail, 

ship, or transport; to aid, abet, cause, or 

induce the carrying, entering, importing, 

mailing, shipping, or transporting; to 

offer to carry, enter, import, mail, ship, 

or transport; to receive to carry, enter, 

import, mail, ship, or transport; to 

release into the environment; or to allow 

any of the activities described in this 

definition. 

Noxious weed. Any plant or plant 

product that can directly or indirectly 

injure or cause damage to crops 

(including nursery stock or plant 

products), livestock, poultry, or other 

interests of agriculture, irrigation, 

navigation, the natural resources of the 

United States, the public health, or the 

environment. 

Permit. A written authorization, 

including by electronic methods, by the 

Administrator to move plants, plant 

products, biological control organisms, 

plant pests, noxious weeds, or articles 

under conditions prescribed by the 

Administrator. 

Person. Any individual, partnership, 

corporation, association, joint venture, 

or other legal entity. 

* * * * * 

Responsible person. The person who 

has control over and will maintain 

control over the movement of the 

noxious weed and assure that all 

conditions contained in the permit and 

requirements in this part are complied 

with. A responsible person must be at 

least 18 years of age and must be a legal 

resident of the United States or 

designate an agent who is at least 18 

years of age and a legal resident of the 

United States. 

State. Any of the several States of the 

United States, the Commonwealth of the 

Northern Mariana Islands, the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the 

District of Columbia, Guam, the Virgin 

Islands of the United States, or any 

other territory or possession of the 

United States. 

Taxon (taxa). Any grouping within 

botanical nomenclature, such as family, 

genus, species, or cultivar. 

Through the United States. From and 

to places outside the United States. 

United States. All of the States. 

■ 16. Section 360.200 is amended as 

follows: 

■ a. By revising the introductory text, 

including footnote 1, to read as set forth 

below. 

■ b. In paragraph (a), by revising the 

entries for ‘‘Caulerpa taxifolia 

(Mediterranean clone)’’, ‘‘Eichornia 

azurea (Swarth) Kunth’’, and ‘‘Melaleuca 

quenquinervia (Cav.) Blake’’ to read as 

set forth below. 

■ c. In paragraph (b), by removing the 

entries for ‘‘Cuscuta jepsonii Yuncker’’, 

‘‘Cuscuta nevadensis I.M. Johnston’’, and 

‘‘Cuscuta occidentalis Millspaugh ex 

Mill & Nuttall’’. 

■ d. In paragraph (b), by revising the 

entries for ‘‘Cuscuta ceanothii Behr,’’ 

‘‘Cuscuta cephalanthii Engelmann’’, 

‘‘Cuscuta corylii Engelmann’’, ‘‘Cuscuta 

exalta Engelmann’’, ‘‘Cuscuta obtusiflora 

Humboldt, Bonpland, & Kunth’’, 

‘‘Cuscuta rostrata Shuttleworth ex 

Engelmann’’, ‘‘Cuscuta umbrellata 

Humboldt, Bonpland, & Kunth’’, and 

‘‘Cuscuta vetchii Brandegee’’ to read as 

set forth below. 

■ e. In paragraph (c), by removing the 

entries for ‘‘Digitaria scalarum 

(Schweinfurth) Chlovenda (African 

couchgrass, fingergrass)’’, ‘‘Homeria 

spp.’’, and ‘‘Mimosa invisa Martius 

(giant sensitive plant)’’. 

■ f. In paragraph (c), by revising the 

entries for ‘‘Digitaria velutina (Forsskal) 

Palisot de Beauvois (velvet fingergrass, 

annual conchgrass)’’, ‘‘Drymaria 

arenariodes Humboldt & Bonpland ex 

Roemer & Schultes (lightning weed)’’, 

‘‘Imperata cylindrica (Linnaeus) 

Raeuschel (cogongrass)’’, ‘‘Mikania 

micrantha Humboldt, Bonpland, & 

Kunth’’, ‘‘Prosopis farcta (Solander ex 

Russell) Macbride’’, ‘‘Prosopis pallida 

(Humboldt & Bonpland ex Willdenow) 

Humboldt, Bonpland, & Kunth’’, 

‘‘Setaria pallide-fusca (Schumacher) 

Stapf & Hubbard (cattail grass)’’, and 

‘‘Spermacoce alata (Aublet) de 

Candolle’’ to read as set forth below. 

■ g. In paragraph (c), by adding, in 

alphabetical order, entries for ‘‘Acacia 

nilotica (Linnaeus) Wildenow ex Delile 

(gum arabic tree, thorny acacia)’’, 

‘‘Ageratina riparia (Regel) R.M. King and 

H. Robinson (creeping croftonweed, 

mistflower)’’, ‘‘Arctotheca calendula 

(Linnaeus) Levyns (capeweed)’’, 

‘‘Digitaria abyssinica (Hochstetter ex A. 

Richard) Stapf (African couchgrass, 

fingergrass),’’ ‘‘Euphorbia terracina 

Linnaeus (false caper, Geraldton 

carnation weed)’’, ‘‘Inula britannica 

Linnaeus (British elecampane, British 

yellowhead)’’, ‘‘Mimosa diplotricha C. 

Wright (giant sensitive-plant)’’, ‘‘Moraea 

collina Thunberg (apricot Cape-tulip)’’, 

‘‘Moraea flaccida (Sweet) Steudel (oneleaf Cape-tulip)’’, ‘‘Moraea miniata 

Andrews (two-leaf Cape-tulip)’’, 

‘‘Moraea ochroleuca (Salisbury) Drapiez 

(red Cape-tulip)’’, ‘‘Moraea pallida 

(Baker) Goldblatt (yellow Cape-tulip)’’, 

‘‘Onopordum acaulon Linnaeus 

(stemless thistle)’’, and ‘‘Onopordum 

illyricum Linnaeus (Illyrian thistle)’’. 

§ 360.200 Designation of noxious weeds. 

The Administrator has determined 

that it is necessary to designate the 

following plants 1 as noxious weeds to 

prevent their introduction into the 

United States or their dissemination 

within the United States: 

(a) * * * 

Caulerpa taxifolia (Vahl) C. Agardh, 

Mediterranean strain (killer algae) 

* * * * * 

Eichhornia azurea (Swartz) Kunth 

* * * * * 

Melaleuca quinquenervia (Cavanilles) 

S.T. Blake 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

Cuscuta ceanothi Behr 

Cuscuta cephalanthi Engelmann 

* * * * * 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
68954 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

2 Information on applying for a permit to import 

a noxious weed into the United States is available 

at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/

permits/plantproducts.shtml. 

3 Information on applying for a permit to move a 

noxious weed interstate is available at http://www.

aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/permits/

plantproducts.shtml. 

Cuscuta coryli Engelmann 

* * * * * 

Cuscuta exaltata Engelmann 

* * * * * 

Cuscuta obtusiflora Kunth 

* * * * * 

Cuscuta rostrata Shuttleworth ex 

Engelmann & Gray 

* * * * * 

Cuscuta umbellata Kunth 

* * * * * 

Cuscuta veatchii Brandegee 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

Digitaria velutina (Forsskal) Palisot de 

Beauvois (velvet fingergrass, annual 

couchgrass) 

Drymaria arenariodes Humboldt & 

Bonpland ex J.A. Schultes (lightning 

weed) 

* * * * * 

Imperata cylindrica (Linnaeus) Palisot 

de Beauvois (cogongrass) 

* * * * * 

Mikania micrantha Kunth 

* * * * * 

Prosopis farcta (Banks & Solander) 

J.F. Macbride 

* * * * * 

Prosopis pallida (Humboldt & 

Bonpland ex Willdenow) Kunth 

* * * * * 

Setaria pumila (Poir.) Roem. & Schult. 

subsp. pallidefusca (Schumach.) B.K. 

Simon (cattail grass) 

* * * * * 

Spermacoce alata Aublet 

* * * * * 

■ 17. Section 360.300 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 360.300 Notice of restrictions on 

movement of noxious weeds. 

No person may move a Federal 

noxious weed into or through the 

United States, or interstate, unless: 

(a) He or she applies for a permit to 

move a noxious weed in accordance 

with § 360.301; 

(b) The permit application is 

approved; and 

(c) The movement is consistent with 

the specific conditions contained in the 

permit. 

(Approved by the Office of Management 

and Budget under control number 0579– 

0054) 

■ 18. New §§ 360.301 through 360.305 

are added to read as follows. 

§ 360.301 Information required for 

applications for permits to move noxious 

weeds. 

(a) Permit to import a noxious weed 

into the United States. A responsible 

person must apply for a permit to 

import a noxious weed into the United 

States.2 The application must include 

the following information: 

(1) The responsible person’s name, 

address, telephone number, and (if 

available) e-mail address; 

(2) The taxon of the noxious weed; 

(3) Plant parts to be moved; 

(4) Quantity of noxious weeds to be 

moved per shipment; 

(5) Proposed number of shipments per 

year; 

(6) Origin of the noxious weeds; 

(7) Destination of the noxious weeds; 

(8) Whether the noxious weed is 

established in the State of destination; 

(9) Proposed method of shipment; 

(10) Proposed port of first arrival in 

the United States; 

(11) Approximate date of arrival; 

(12) Intended use of the noxious 

weeds; 

(13) Measures to be employed to 

prevent danger of noxious weed 

dissemination; and 

(14) Proposed method of final 

disposition of the noxious weeds. 

(b) Permit to move noxious weeds 

interstate. A responsible person must 

apply for a permit to move a noxious 

weed interstate.3 The application must 

include the following information: 

(1) The responsible person’s name, 

address, telephone number, and (if 

available) e-mail address; 

(2) The taxon of the noxious weed; 

(3) Plant parts to be moved; 

(4) Quantity of noxious weeds to be 

moved per shipment; 

(5) Proposed number of shipments per 

year, 

(6) Origin of the noxious weeds; 

(7) Destination of the noxious weeds; 

(8) Whether the noxious weed is 

established in the State of destination; 

(9) Proposed method of shipment, 

(10) Approximate date of movement; 

(11) Intended use of the noxious 

weeds; 

(12) Measures to be employed to 

prevent danger of noxious weed 

dissemination; and 

(13) Proposed method of final 

disposition of the noxious weeds. 

(c) Permits to move noxious weeds 

through the United States. Permits to 

move noxious weeds through the United 

States must be obtained in accordance 

with part 352 of this chapter. 

§ 360.302 Consideration of applications for 

permits to move noxious weeds. 

Upon the receipt of an application 

made in accordance with § 360.301 for 

a permit for movement of a noxious 

weed into the United States or 

interstate, the Administrator will 

consider the application on its merits. 

(a) Consultation. The Administrator 

may consult with other Federal agencies 

or entities, States or political 

subdivisions of States, national 

governments, local governments in 

other nations, domestic or international 

organizations, domestic or international 

associations, and other persons for 

views on the danger of noxious weed 

dissemination into the United States, or 

interstate, in connection with the 

proposed movement. 

(b) Inspection of premises. The 

Administrator may inspect the site 

where noxious weeds are proposed to be 

handled in connection with or after 

their movement under permit to 

determine whether existing or proposed 

facilities will be adequate to prevent 

noxious weed dissemination if a permit 

is issued. 

§ 360.303 Approval of an application for a 

permit to move a noxious weed; conditions 

specified in permit. 

The Administrator will approve or 

deny an application for a permit to 

move a noxious weed. If the application 

is approved, the Administrator will 

issue the permit including any 

conditions that the Administrator has 

determined are necessary to prevent 

dissemination of noxious weeds into the 

United States or interstate. Such 

conditions may include requirements 

for inspection of the premises where the 

noxious weed is to be handled after its 

movement under the permit, to 

determine whether the facilities there 

are adequate to prevent noxious weed 

dissemination and whether the 

conditions of the permit are otherwise 

being observed. Before the permit is 

issued, the Administrator will require 

the responsible person to agree in 

writing to the conditions under which 

the noxious weed will be safeguarded. 

§ 360.304 Denial of an application for a 

permit to move a noxious weed; cancelation 

of a permit to move a noxious weed. 

(a) The Administrator may deny an 

application for a permit to move a 

noxious weed when the Administrator 

determines that: 

(1) No safeguards adequate or 

appropriate to prevent dissemination of 

the noxious weed can be implemented; 

or 

(2) The destructive potential of the 

noxious weed, should it escape despite 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 68955 

4Criteria for the approval of heat treatment 

facilities are contained in part 305 of this chapter. 

proposed safeguards, outweighs the 

probable benefits to be derived from the 

proposed movement and use of the 

noxious weed; or 

(3) The responsible person, or the 

responsible person’s agent, as a previous 

permittee, failed to maintain the 

safeguards or otherwise observe the 

conditions prescribed in a previous 

permit and failed to demonstrate the 

ability or intent to observe them in the 

future; or 

(4) The movement could impede an 

APHIS eradication, suppression, 

control, or regulatory program; or 

(5) A State plant regulatory official 

objects to the issuance of the permit on 

the grounds that granting the permit 

will pose a risk of dissemination of the 

noxious weed into the State. 

(b) The Administrator may cancel any 

outstanding permit when: 

(1) After the issuance of the permit, 

information is received that constitutes 

cause for the denial of an application for 

permit under paragraph (a) of this 

section; or 

(2) The responsible person has not 

maintained the safeguards or otherwise 

observed the conditions specified in the 

permit. 

(c) If a permit is orally canceled, 

APHIS will provide the reasons for the 

withdrawal of the permit in writing 

within 10 days. Any person whose 

permit has been canceled or any person 

who has been denied a permit may 

appeal the decision in writing to the 

Administrator within 10 days after 

receiving the written notification of the 

cancellation or denial. The appeal must 

state all of the facts and reasons upon 

which the person relies to show that the 

permit was wrongfully canceled or 

denied. The Administrator will grant or 

deny the appeal, in writing, stating the 

reasons for the decision as promptly as 

circumstances allow. If there is a 

conflict as to any material fact, a hearing 

will be held to resolve the conflict. 

Rules of practice concerning such a 

hearing will be adopted by the 

Administrator. 

§ 360.305 Disposal of noxious weeds when 

permits are canceled. 

When a permit for the movement of 

a noxious weed is canceled by the 

Administrator and not reinstated under 

§ 360.304(c), further movement of the 

noxious weed covered by the permit 

into or through the United States, or 

interstate, is prohibited unless 

authorized by another permit. The 

responsible person must arrange for 

disposal of the noxious weed in 

question in a manner that the 

Administrator determines is adequate to 

prevent noxious weed dissemination. 

The Administrator may seize, 

quarantine, treat, apply other remedial 

measures to, destroy, or otherwise 

dispose of, in such manner as the 

Administrator deems appropriate, any 

noxious weed that is moved without 

compliance with any conditions in the 

permit or after the permit has been 

canceled whenever the Administrator 

deems it necessary in order to prevent 

the dissemination of any noxious weed 

into or within the United States. 

§ 360.400 [Redesignated as § 360.600] 

■ 19. Section 360.400 is redesignated as 

§ 360.600. 

■ 20. New §§ 360.400, 360.500, and 

360.501 are added to read as follows: 

§ 360.400 Treatments. 

(a) Seeds of Guizotia abyssinica (niger 

seed) are commonly contaminated with 

noxious weed seeds listed in § 360.200, 

including (but not limited to) Cuscuta 

spp. Therefore, Guizotia abyssinica 

seeds may be imported into the United 

States only if: 

(1) They are treated in accordance 

with part 305 of this chapter at the time 

of arrival at the port of first arrival in the 

United States; or 

(2) They are treated prior to shipment 

to the United States at a facility that is 

approved by APHIS 4 and that operates 

in compliance with a written agreement 

between the treatment facility owner 

and the plant protection service of the 

exporting country, in which the 

treatment facility owner agrees to 

comply with the provisions of § 319.37– 

6 and allow inspectors and 

representatives of the plant protection 

service of the exporting country access 

to the treatment facility as necessary to 

monitor compliance with the 

regulations. Treatments must be 

certified in accordance with the 

conditions described in § 319.37–13(c) 

of this chapter. 

(b) [Reserved] 

§ 360.500 Petitions to add a taxon to the 

noxious weed list. 

A person may petition the 

Administrator to have a taxon added to 

the noxious weeds lists in § 360.200. 

Details of the petitioning process for 

adding a taxon to the lists are available 

on the Internet at http://www.aphis.

usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/

weeds/downloads/listingguide.pdf. 

Persons who submit a petition to add a 

taxon to the noxious weed lists must 

provide their name, address, telephone 

number, and (if available) e-mail 

address. Persons who submit a petition 

to add a taxon to the noxious weed lists 

are encouraged to provide the following 

information, which can help speed up 

the review process and help APHIS 

determine whether the specified plant 

taxon should be listed as a noxious 

weed: 

(a) Identification of the taxon. (1) The 

taxon’s scientific name and author; 

(2) Common synonyms; 

(3) Botanical classification; 

(4) Common names; 

(5) Summary of life history; 

(6) Native and world distribution; 

(7) Distribution in the United States, 

if any (specific States, localities, or 

Global Positioning System coordinates); 

(8) Description of control efforts, if 

established in the United States; and 

(9) Whether the taxon is regulated at 

the State or local level. 

(b) Potential consequences of the 

taxon’s introduction or spread. (1) The 

taxon’s habitat suitability in the United 

States (predicted ecological range); 

(2) Dispersal potential (biological 

characteristics associated with 

invasiveness); 

(3) Potential economic impacts (e.g., 

potential to reduce crop yields, lower 

commodity values, or cause loss of 

markets for U.S. goods); and 

(4) Potential environmental impacts 

(e.g., impacts on ecosystem processes, 

natural community composition or 

structure, human health, recreation 

patterns, property values, or use of 

chemicals to control the taxon). 

(c) Likelihood of the taxon’s 

introduction or spread. (1) Potential 

pathways for the taxon’s movement into 

and within the United States; and 

(2) The likelihood of survival and 

spread of the taxon within each 

pathway. 

(d) List of references. 

§ 360.501 Petitions to remove a taxon from 

the noxious weed lists. 

A person may petition the 

Administrator to remove a taxon from 

the noxious weeds lists in § 360.200. 

Details of the petitioning process for 

removing a taxon from the lists are 

available at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ 

plant_health/plant_pest_info/weeds/

downloads/delistingguide.pdf. Persons 

who submit a petition to remove a taxon 

from the noxious weed lists would be 

required to provide their name, address, 

telephone number, and (if available) email address. Persons who submit a 

petition to remove a taxon from the 

noxious weed lists are encouraged to 

provide the following information, 

which can help speed up the review 

process and help APHIS determine 

whether the specified plant taxon 

should not be listed as a noxious weed: 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
68956 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 217 / Wednesday, November 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

(a) Evidence that the species is 

distributed throughout its potential 

range or has spread too far to implement 

effective control. 

(b) Evidence that control efforts have 

been unsuccessful and further efforts are 

unlikely to succeed. 

(c) For cultivars of a listed noxious 

weed, scientific evidence that the 

cultivar has a combination of risk 

elements that result in a low pest risk. 

For example, the cultivar may have a 

narrow habitat suitability, low dispersal 

potential, evidence of sterility, inability 

to cross-pollinate with introduced wild 

types, or few if any potential negative 

impacts on the economy or environment 

of the United States. 

(d) List of references. 

PART 361—IMPORTATION OF SEED 

AND SCREENINGS UNDER THE 

FEDERAL SEED ACT 

■ 21. The authority citation for part 361 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1581–1610; 7 CFR 

2.22, 2.80, and 371.3. 

■ 22. In § 361.6, paragraph (a)(1) is 

amended as follows: 

■ a. By removing the entries for 

‘‘Caulerpa taxifolia (Mediterranean 

clone)’’, ‘‘Homeria spp.’’, and ‘‘Mimosa 

invisa Martius’’. 

■ b. By revising the entries for ‘‘Digitaria 

abyssinica (=D. scalarum)’’, ‘‘Drymaria 

arenariodes Humboldt & Bonpland ex 

Roemer & Schultes’’, ‘‘Imperata 

cylindrica (L.) Raeuschel’’, ‘‘Mikania 

micrantha Humboldt, Bonpland, & 

Kunth’’, ‘‘Prosopis farcta (Solander ex 

Russell) Macbride’’, ‘‘Prosopis pallida 

(Humboldt & Bonpland ex Willdenow) 

Humboldt, Bonpland, & Kunth’’, 

‘‘Setaria pallide-fusca (Schumacher) 

Stapf & Hubbard’’, and ‘‘Spermacoce 

alata (Aublet) de Candolle’’ to read as 

set forth below. 

■ c. By adding, in alphabetical order, 

entries for ‘‘Acacia nilotica (Linnaeus) 

Wildenow ex Delile’’, ‘‘Ageratina riparia 

(Regel) R.M. King and H. Robinson’’, 

‘‘Arctotheca calendula (Linnaeus) 

Levyns’’, ‘‘Euphorbia terracina 

Linnaeus’’, ‘‘Inula britannica Linnaeus’’, 

‘‘Mimosa diplotricha C. Wright’’, 

‘‘Moraea collina Thunberg’’, ‘‘Moraea 

flaccida (Sweet) Steudel’’, ‘‘Moraea 

miniata Andrews ‘‘, ‘‘Moraea ochroleuca 

(Salisbury) Drapiez’’, ‘‘Moraea pallida 

(Baker) Goldblatt’’, ‘‘Onopordum 

acaulon Linnaeus’’, and ‘‘Onopordum 

illyricum Linnaeus’’. 

§ 361.6 Noxious weed seeds. 

(a) * * * 

(1) * * * 

Digitaria abyssinica (Hochstetter ex A. 

Richard) Stapf 

* * * * * 

Drymaria arenariodes Humboldt & 

Bonpland ex J.A. Schultes 

* * * * * 

Imperata cylindrica (Linnaeus) Palisot 

de Beauvois 

* * * * * 

Mikania micrantha Kunth 

* * * * * 

Prosopis farcta (Banks & Solander) 

J.F. Macbride 

* * * * * 

Prosopis pallida (Humboldt & 

Bonpland ex Willdenow) Kunth 

* * * * * 

Setaria pumila (Poir.) Roem. & Schult. 

subsp. pallidefusca (Schumach.) B.K. 

Simon 

* * * * * 

Spermacoce alata Aublet 

* * * * * 

Done in Washington, DC, this 4th day of 

November 2010. 

Kevin Shea, 

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–28346 Filed 11–9–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE 

AGENCY 

12 CFR Part 1208 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND 

URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

Office of Federal Housing Enterprise 

Oversight 

12 CFR Part 1704 

RIN 2590–AA15 

Debt Collection 

AGENCY: Federal Housing Finance 

Agency; Office of Federal Housing 

Enterprise Oversight, HUD. 

ACTION: Interim final rule with request 

for comments. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Housing Finance 

Agency (FHFA) is issuing an interim 

final rule with request for comments on 

Debt Collection. The interim final rule 

sets forth procedures for use by FHFA 

in collecting debts owed to the Federal 

Government. Agencies are required by 

law to issue a regulation on their debt 

collection procedures. The interim final 

rule includes procedures for collection 

of debts through salary offset, 

administrative offset, tax refund offset, 

and administrative wage garnishment. 

FHFA requests comments on the interim 

final rule. 

DATES: The interim final rule is effective 

on November 10, 2010. FHFA will 

accept written comments on the interim 

final rule on or before January 10, 2011. 

For additional information, see 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit your 

comments on the interim final rule, 

identified by regulatory information 

number (RIN) 2590–AA15, by any one 

of the following methods: 

• E-mail: Comments to Alfred M. 

Pollard, General Counsel may be sent by 

e-mail at RegComments@fhfa.gov. 

Please include ‘‘RIN 2590–AA15’’ in the 

subject line of the message. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. If 

you submit your comment to the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal, please also 

send it by e-mail to FHFA at 

RegComments@fhfa.gov to ensure 

timely receipt by FHFA. Include the 

following information in the subject line 

of your submission: Comments/RIN 

2590–AA15. 

• U.S. Mail, United Parcel Service, 

Federal Express, or Other Mail Service: 

The mailing address for comments is: 

Alfred M. Pollard, General Counsel, 

Attention: Comments/RIN 2590–AA15, 

Federal Housing Finance Agency, 

Fourth Floor, 1700 G Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20552. 

• Hand Delivered/Courier: The hand 

delivery address is: Alfred M. Pollard, 

General Counsel, Attention: Comments/ 

RIN 2590–AA15, Federal Housing 

Finance Agency, Fourth Floor, 1700 G 

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20552. The 

package should be logged at the Guard 

Desk, First Floor, on business days 

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Andra Grossman, Senior Counsel, 

telephone (202) 343–1313 or Gail F. 

Baum, Associate General Counsel, 

telephone (202) 343–1508 (not toll-free 

numbers); Federal Housing Finance 

Agency, Fourth Floor, 1700 G Street, 

NW., Washington, DC 20552. The 

telephone number for the 

Telecommunications Device for the Deaf 

is (800) 877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Comments 

The Federal Housing Finance Agency 

(FHFA) invites comments on all aspects 

of the interim final rule, and will take 

all comments into consideration before 

issuing the final regulation. Copies of all 

comments will be posted without 

change, including any personal 

information you provide, such as your 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES