7636 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Notices 

1To view the notice, draft response, and the 

comments we have received, go to http://

www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS– 

2009–0101. 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

[Docket No. APHIS–2009–0101] 

Response to Petitions for the 

Reclassification of Light Brown Apple 

Moth as a Non-Quarantine Pest 

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: We are notifying the public of 

our decision to maintain our 

classification of the light brown apple 

moth (LBAM, Epiphyas postvittana 

[Walker]) as a quarantine pest. In 

making this decision, the Animal and 

Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) 

evaluated the possibility of and impact 

from reclassifying LBAM from an 

actionable, quarantine-significant pest 

to a non-actionable, non-quarantine 

pest. By maintaining a regulatory 

program for LBAM, APHIS is seeking to 

minimize the further spread of the moth 

in the United States and maintain 

foreign trade markets for our producers. 

This decision is based on our evaluation 

of data submitted by the two petitioners 

seeking the reclassification of LBAM, 

our analysis of other scientific data, and 

comments received from the public in 

response to our previous notice 

announcing the availability of our 

revised draft response to those petitions. 

DATES: Effective Date: February 10, 

2014. 

ADDRESSES: You may read the 

documents referenced in this notice and 

the comments we received in our 

reading room. The reading room is 

located in room 1141 of the USDA 

South Building, 14th Street and 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC. Normal reading room 

hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except holidays. To be 

sure someone is there to help you, 

please call (202) 7997039 before coming. 

Those documents are also available on 

the Internet on the Regulations.gov Web 

site at http://www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=APHIS–2009–0101. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Andrea Simao, National Policy 

Manager, Pest Management, PPQ—Plant 

Health Programs, APHIS, 4700 River 

Road Unit 26, Riverdale, MD 20737– 

1231; (301) 851–2067. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Light brown apple moth (Epiphyas 

postvittana [Walker]) (LBAM) is a plant 

pest native to Australia with a broad 

host range of over 2,000 plant species, 

including stone fruit (peaches, plums, 

nectarines, cherries, and apricots), 

apples, pears, grapes, and citrus. LBAM 

larvae feed on the leaves and fruit of 

host plants and, under appropriate 

conditions, may result in significant 

damage. To date, natural enemies of leaf 

rollers have not impacted LBAM 

populations in the infested areas of 

California and few predators or parasites 

of LBAM have been observed. 

LBAM was detected in the late 1800s 

in Hawaii. The interstate movement 

from Hawaii of cut flowers, fruits and 

vegetables, plants, and portions of 

plants, including LBAM host material, 

is currently prohibited unless the 

articles are first inspected and found 

free of plant pests (including LBAM) or 

are treated for plant pests. 

Moths suspected of being LBAM were 

detected in Alameda and Contra Costa 

Counties, CA, in February 2007, and 

were subsequently confirmed as LBAM 

on March 16, 2007. Due to California’s 

cooler climate and the potential impact 

of LBAM on a wide range of crops, a 

response program has been conducted 

by the State of California with support 

from the Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service (APHIS) of the 

United States Department of 

Agriculture. 

APHIS’ current regulatory framework 

and response program for LBAM is 

outlined in a Federal Order, which was 

issued on June 13, 2012, to prevent the 

further spread of LBAM from infested to 

noninfested areas. The order established 

restrictions on the interstate movement 

of regulated articles from areas where 

LBAM infestations are known to exist. 

Federal Orders were also in place prior 

to June 13, 2012, to prevent the further 

spread of LBAM from infested to 

noninfested areas. 

On September 12, 2008, and February 

4, 2009, petitions were submitted to the 

Secretary of Agriculture requesting that 

APHIS reclassify LBAM from an 

actionable, quarantine-significant pest 

to a non-actionable, non-quarantine pest 

and that APHIS remove the Federal 

restrictions placed on the interstate 

movement of LBAM host articles from 

areas where the pest had been detected. 

The petitions also questioned APHIS’ 

ability to eradicate LBAM, the 

appropriateness of technologies used to 

support the eradication program, the 

potential impacts of these technologies 

on the environment and on human 

health and safety, and the effectiveness 

of the communication strategies used to 

inform the public about the LBAM 

program. 

APHIS requested that the National 

Academy of Sciences (NAS) conduct an 

independent review of our draft 

response to the petitions. Based on the 

NAS’ findings and recommendations, 

APHIS revised its initial draft response 

to the petitions. On March 15, 2010, 

APHIS published a notice 1 in the 

Federal Register (75 FR 12172–12173, 

Docket No. APHIS–2009–0101) 

announcing the availability, for review 

and comment, of our revised draft 

response to the petitions. We solicited 

comments for 60 days through May 14, 

2010, and received 114 comments by 

that date. Three commenters supported 

the continued regulation of LBAM as a 

quarantine pest. The remaining 

commenters expressed concerns 

regarding the continued regulation of 

LBAM as a quarantine pest. These 

concerns are discussed below by topic. 

Reclassification 

The majority of commenters requested 

that we reclassify LBAM as a nonquarantine pest. 

LBAM meets the Plant Protection 

Act’s (PPA) definition of a plant pest. 

The PPA defines the term ‘‘plant pest’’ 

as any living stage of protozoan, 

nonhuman animal, parasitic plant, 

bacterium, fungus, virus or viroid, 

infectious agent or other pathogen, or 

any article similar to or allied with any 

of the previous articles that can directly 

or indirectly injure, cause damage to, or 

cause disease in any plant or plant 

product. 

In addition to concurring with APHIS’ 

conclusion that LBAM meets the 

definition of a plant pest under the PPA, 

the NAS reviewers agreed that LBAM 

also met the definitions of quarantine 

pest as defined in the International 

Plant Protection Convention and of an 

alien species per Executive Order 

13112, ‘‘Invasive Species.’’ As NAS 

noted, APHIS demonstrated that LBAM 

is not native, is present within the 

United States in a limited distribution, 

and may cause economic harm. 

Due to its extensive host range and 

potential to establish, LBAM continues 

to be a significant concern to foreign 

trading partners as well as to States not 

currently infested with LBAM and 

which are at risk of becoming infested. 

A key reason for classifying and 

continuing to classify LBAM as a 

reportable/actionable pest is the 

potential economic impact associated 

with the detection and spread of the 

pest to areas in the United States where 

it could become established or where it 

might be introduced seasonally. In 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Notices 7637 

2Brown, John W., Epstein, Marc E., Gilligan, 

Todd M., Passoa, Steven C., Powell, Jerry A., 

‘‘Biology, Identification, and History of the Light 

Brown Apple Moth, Epiphyas postvittana (Walker) 

(Lepidoptera: Tortricidae: Archipini) in California,’’ 

American Entomologist, vol. 56, No. 1, pp. 34–43 

(Spring 2010). 

3Rubinoff, D., B.S. Holland, M.S. Jose, and J.A. 

Powell. (2011) Geographic proximity not a 

prerequisite for invasion: Hawaii not the source of 

California invasion by light brown apple moth 

(Epiphyas postvittana). PLoS ONE, Vl 6 (1): e16361. 

4Tooman, L., C.J. Rose, C. Carraher, D.M. 

Suckling, S. Rioux-Pasquette, L.A. Ledezma, T.M. 

Gilligan, M. Epstein, N.B. Barr, and R.D. Newcomb. 

(2011) Global mitochondrial population genetics of 

the invasive pest, Epiphyas postvittana. Journal of 

Economic Entomology, vol. 104, No. 5, pp. 1706– 

1719 (2011). 

calendar year 2007, the value of sales of 

potential LBAM hosts among the at-risk 

States totaled $69.4 billion, which 

represented 52 percent of the total value 

of all reported plant sales within at-risk 

States. 

To date, APHIS has received two 

Special Need Requests under our 

regulations in 

7 CFR part 301.1–2 from States 

seeking APHIS approval for State 

restrictions that are in addition to those 

imposed by the Federal program for 

nursery products from California to 

further ensure protection from the 

interstate movement of LBAM in 

commerce. Should APHIS reclassify 

LBAM as a nonactionable pest, other 

States have indicated that they would 

likely enact their own quarantines for 

LBAM that would restrict the movement 

of articles from California. Producers 

would then have to meet varying and 

perhaps stricter requirements for each 

State to which they ship their products, 

most likely resulting in increased costs 

for both production and LBAM control. 

Without sufficient regulations to 

demonstrate to trading partners that our 

efforts are successful in minimizing the 

impacts of LBAM within California, the 

ability of these industries to export 

internationally or domestically would 

be compromised. 

One commenter asked that the 

quarantine for intrastate movement be 

lifted, stating that intrastate movement 

restrictions are burdening local market 

producers. 

The intrastate movement of LBAM 

host articles is regulated by the 

California Department of Food and 

Agriculture (CDFA) not APHIS, so we 

cannot make the changes requested in 

this comment. 

Several commenters expressed 

concern that the LBAM program 

remains focused on eradication as the 

goal. 

In March 2010, APHIS announced 

through a press release as well as via 

calls with stakeholders that the 

objective of the LBAM program has 

changed from eradication to 

suppression and control of the moth’s 

spread into noninfested areas of the 

United States. 

Introduction Into the United States 

Many commenters disagreed with 

APHIS’ designation of LBAM as a newly 

introduced pest, stating that trapping 

surveys conducted prior to 2005 were 

inadequate to detect the presence of 

LBAM and that independent scientists 

believe that LBAM may have been in 

California for 10 to 30 years based upon 

the number of LBAM interceptions at 

the ports of entry. Several commenters 

stated that the idea of LBAM being 

recently introduced was inconsistent 

with invasive pest literature, which 

indicates that new plant pest invaders 

require a long adjustment period and 

that early stages of invasion are difficult 

to detect. 

The lack of any LBAM findings in the 

data from a 2005 Cooperative 

Agricultural Pest Survey in the areas of 

California currently infested with LBAM 

show that it is unlikely that LBAM has 

been present in the United States for a 

decade or more. Additionally, trapping 

surveys conducted by growers in the 

San Francisco and Monterey Bay areas, 

CA, in 2006, did not detect the presence 

of LBAM prior to the initial detection in 

Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, 

CA, in 2007. 

Although LBAM had previously been 

intercepted at ports of entry, this does 

not demonstrate that the moth had 

become established within the United 

States. No LBAM were detected beyond 

its known distribution in California in 

State-based surveys conducted 

nationwide in 2008 and 2009. In 

addition, since the publication of the 

petition response, the journal American 

Entomologist published an article 

entitled ‘‘Biology, Identification, and 

History of the Light Brown Apple Moth, 

Epiphyas postvittana (Walker) 

(Lepidoptera: Tortricidae: Archipini) in 

California,’’ 2 that stated that 

surveillance over the past 40 years for 

LBAM specifically, as well as other 

Lepidoptera, failed to detect the moth. 

One commenter stated that since 

LBAM has been established in the 

United States for many years, there is no 

reason to continue regulating it. Two 

commenters stated that the genetic 

diversity of the LBAM population 

present in California supports the idea 

that there have been multiple 

introductions of LBAM, thereby 

suggesting LBAM was likely present 

prior to detection in 2007. 

While two independent analyses of 

mitochondrial DNA indicate that 

multiple introductions of LBAM in 

Northern California may have occurred, 

a single large invasion cannot be ruled 

out.3 4 The analyses do not confirm that 

LBAM was established prior to 

detection in 2007 since multiple, recent 

introductions occurring within a single 

year may have been possible. 

Modeling 

Several commenters expressed 

concern that the North Carolina State 

University APHIS Plant Pest Forecasting 

System (NAPPFAST) model 

inaccurately determined the potential 

for LBAM establishment and economic 

damage. One commenter stated that one 

of the flaws of the model was that it 

lacked LBAM detectability metrics and 

relied on qualitative statements rather 

than quantitative evidence. Several 

commenters expressed their concern 

that the science used to determine the 

APHIS response was inaccurate, 

including the climatic modeling used to 

predict crop losses and economic 

damages. 

In response to these concerns, APHIS 

invited Dr. Andrew Gutierrez from the 

University of California, Berkeley, to 

meet and discuss potential predictive 

modeling approaches that may be useful 

to APHIS in better understanding pest 

spread and distribution. Dr. Gutierrez 

suggested that APHIS also use Climex 

and Demographic models to understand 

and predict LBAM spread and 

distribution. As discussed below, 

APHIS also used these other modeling 

approaches recommended by Dr. 

Gutierrez that explore the influence of 

ecological factors on pest populations 

rather than relying predominantly on 

temperature-based modeling. 

The initial output from the 

NAPPFAST, Climex, and Demographic 

models estimated areas suitable for 

LBAM establishment. Most importantly, 

all three model outputs estimated that 

significant areas of the United States, 

particularly in the Southeast, were 

suitable for LBAM establishment. All 

models are in general agreement for 

areas estimated to be unsuitable for 

establishment based on cold 

temperatures. The Climex and 

Demographic models agreed that some 

areas in the Southwestern United States 

are unsuitable for LBAM establishment 

due to high temperatures. The 

NAPPFAST model, which does not 

currently incorporate high temperature 

mortality, disagrees and probably 

overestimated suitable areas in the 

Southwest. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

7638 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Notices 

Trapping 

Several commenters stated that the 

increase in LBAM trapping finds may be 

due to an increase in trapping efficiency 

rather than to an increase in LBAM 

populations. One commenter stated that 

the increase in LBAM trap finds is 

irrelevant because it does not indicate 

potential for damage. 

The trapping equipment has not 

changed and protocols for delimiting a 

detection remained constant until 

October 2012. The increased trap finds 

indicate that LBAM is spreading into 

new areas, increasing the potential for 

damage. While trapped moths by 

themselves do not demonstrate damage, 

the potential harm caused by LBAM has 

been discussed above and is further 

discussed below. 

Chemicals 

The majority of commenters 

expressed concern regarding the 

impacts on the environment and human 

and animal health associated with the 

use of pesticides and chemicals to 

control LBAM. The commenters 

expressed concern that chemicals used 

for the control of LBAM had not been 

tested on humans and that formulations 

had not been disclosed. Many 

commenters stated that LBAM is present 

in other countries and that it is 

considered a minor pest which is easily 

and cost-effectively managed as a cropquality issue. 

Under the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) as amended 

(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), APHIS is 

required to analyze our proposed 

control actions to determine if they will 

have an adverse effect on the 

environment before implementing the 

actions. In 2008, APHIS completed a 

programmatic environmental 

assessment for LBAM (available at 

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

health/ea/downloads/lbamtreatmentprog-02–14–08.pdf), which 

evaluated two approaches: No action 

and treatment alternative. The treatment 

alternative consisted of maintaining the 

then applicable Federal Quarantine 

Order to prevent the destructive spread 

of the LBAM infestation, as well as 

implementing an LBAM eradication 

program in California to stop the further 

spread of LBAM in California. Because 

damage caused by LBAM can 

significantly threaten agricultural 

production in the United States, APHIS 

determined that the treatment 

alternative was the best approach to 

mitigating these effects and that no 

significant impact on human health or 

the environment would result from the 

proposed LBAM eradication program. 

That Finding of No Significant Impact is 

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

plant_health/ea/downloads/lbam-fonsipheremone.pdf. 

The United States Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) administers 

regulations for the protection of human 

health and the environment. In 2001, 

EPA approved the organic pheromone 

Checkmate for use in the United States, 

finding that it did not have adverse 

impacts on human health. This 

pheromone is used to suppress LBAM 

and has no known biological activity in 

other insect species. The pheromone 

simulates the female LBAM odor to 

attract and confuse the male LBAM, 

making it difficult for the males to find 

a female moth for mating. An analysis 

of the pheromone formulation indicated 

that if brought into contact with either 

the eye or skin it may cause slight 

irritation. However, this contact is 

unlikely to occur since the pheromone 

is distributed via a plastic tube 

dispenser that is secured to trellises, 

fences, and other fixtures. 

One commenter stated that there is no 

evidence to suggest that using mating 

disruption via pheromones, either alone 

or in conjunction with other methods, is 

able to successfully eradicate an insect 

population. 

The response program uses a multilayered control and suppression strategy 

for LBAM that includes mating 

disruption, pesticide application, sterile 

insect technique, biological control, 

ongoing surveys, and regulatory controls 

on agricultural commodities moving out 

of the quarantined area. Mating 

disruption has been extensively studied 

and used successfully in Australia and 

New Zealand to minimize LBAM 

population densities. 

Several commenters stated that our 

analysis of the impacts of LBAM and the 

effectiveness of natural controls relied 

on outdated information. One 

commenter noted that the APHIS 

petition response cites data from the 

1930s to illustrate LBAM damage before 

the widespread use of 

organophosphates, but stated that the 

data is flawed because pesticides in use 

in the 1930s have general effects similar 

to the effects of organophosphates, 

namely eliminating LBAM’s natural 

predators. 

APHIS’ pest response programs are 

developed through analysis and 

evaluation of the invasive pest, 

including historical information, its 

behavior in similar environments, and 

possible control methods. APHIS 

initiates technical working groups 

comprised of entomologists from around 

the world. The LBAM working group, 

considering different response options, 

identified a multi-layered response 

control and suppression strategy 

including mating disruption, pesticide 

application, sterile insect technique, 

and biological control. 

Available scientific literature suggests 

that natural control can be sporadic and 

incapable of preventing economic losses 

(Nicholls, 1934; Lloyd et al., 1970; 

Collyer & van Geldermalsen, 1975; 

Buchanan, 1977). For example, in the 

United States, the use of biological 

control alone generally has not been 

sufficient to prevent economically 

significant damage to apple crops by 

tortricid pests, such as LBAM. 

Integrated Pest Management 

Several commenters expressed 

concern that the program has not taken 

into account non-chemical measures for 

controlling the LBAM population. One 

commenter suggested that the integrated 

fruit production program used in New 

Zealand to control LBAM be used in 

California. This program does not use 

pesticides. 

The LBAM program has incorporated 

integrated pest management (IPM) 

techniques into the overall LBAM 

control and suppression strategy. In 

partnership with industry, universities, 

and the CDFA, APHIS developed a 

manual of best management practices to 

assist the nursery industry in shipping 

clean products. This manual includes 

required and recommended practices 

that help nurseries mitigate LBAM. 

Examples include establishing physical 

barriers around nursery perimeters, 

adopting cultural and sanitation 

practices, and isolating and protecting 

inspected plants prior to shipment. The 

IPM techniques, including principles 

identified in New Zealand, are used 

along with mating disruption, sterile 

insect technique, chemical treatments, 

and biological control. 

Economic Effects 

Many commenters expressed concern 

regarding the economic effects of the 

LBAM quarantine on domestic growers 

and stated that the quarantine benefits 

foreign growers because American 

growers are required to have LBAM-free 

fields in order to ship interstate while 

foreign growers are required to have 

only LBAM-free shipments. Several 

commenters expressed concern that 

organic and small-scale family farms are 

being forced to either use pesticides, 

which renders them nonorganic, or shut 

down their farms. 

The purpose of the LBAM quarantine 

is to protect noninfested areas of the 

United States from the artificial spread 

of the moth via the movement of host 

materials and to keep open export 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Notices 7639 

markets for U.S. products that might 

otherwise be closed due to the presence 

of LBAM in the United States. We agree 

that the introduction of LBAM has led 

to increased costs for U.S. producers. 

However, implementation of the 

regulatory framework has maintained 

domestic and international markets 

with, for example, Canada and Mexico, 

for California agricultural exports. It is 

likely that some noninfested States 

would enact restrictions on the 

movement of host material to safeguard 

against LBAM spread if there were no 

Federal program. California producers 

would then need to meet potentially 

varying requirements for shipments to 

each State, which could lead to both 

increased pesticide use and increased 

operational costs. 

The LBAM program requires that 

shipments containing LBAM host 

materials only be free of LBAM prior to 

movement from the quarantined area; 

this requirement is parallel to the 

requirements for foreign shipments. 

There are several ways for producers to 

meet this requirement, including 

applying organic treatments, such as 

Spinosad and horticultural oils; 

applying chemical treatments; or 

implementing best management 

practices. Such practices include 

training of staff, scouting and 

monitoring of property to determine the 

need for treatments, and maintaining 

management records. 

Many commenters stated that APHIS 

has overstated the damage done by 

LBAM and the potential for damage by 

LBAM; that the LBAM program is 

expensive and wasteful; and that plants 

listed as potential LBAM host plants 

were not hosts of LBAM. Many 

commenters stated that the only 

evidence of LBAM damage came from 

two organic berry fields in 2009, and 

that it was not conclusively determined 

that the pest that attacked those fields 

was LBAM. 

APHIS’ cost-benefit analysis indicates 

that if LBAM were to be reclassified as 

a non-actionable pest and APHIS’ 

regulatory program for LBAM to be 

terminated, annual sales losses from 

LBAM damages of at least 

approximately $694 million would 

occur (Fowler et al., 2009). Because of 

the APHIS regulatory program, the 

amount of avoided losses in annual 

sales, in comparison with the Federal 

funding available in the LBAM 

emergency response effort of almost 

$100 million, indicates a potential 

positive benefit-to-cost ratio of at least 

6.9 to 1. This does not include potential 

environmental losses due to factors such 

as increased pesticide use and other 

costs associated with widespread 

establishment of the pest. Additionally, 

deregulation of LBAM domestically is 

likely to trigger increased restrictions for 

LBAM-host commodities by trading 

partners, which are expected to have a 

much greater impact on American farms 

if LBAM were allowed to spread beyond 

the current quarantined area. The costbenefit analysis supports our conclusion 

that LBAM is an economically 

important invasive pest that meets the 

criteria for Federal regulation, including 

phytosanitary regulations and 

mandatory procedures with the 

objective of containment and 

suppression as an actionable quarantine 

pest. 

Miscellaneous 

One commenter stated that APHIS 

was legally required to submit its 

response to the petitions to reclassify 

LBAM to NAS for review. 

There are no requirements for petition 

responses to be reviewed by third 

parties. APHIS elected to submit the 

revised petition response to NAS. 

One commenter supported the 

continued LBAM quarantine, but stated 

that the current LBAM program is in 

need of review because it does not take 

into account the additional regulatory 

response that will be needed when 

LBAM populations expand into other 

areas of California and the United 

States. The commenter further stated 

that the regulations for the movement of 

cut plant material and nursery stock 

need to be strengthened. One 

commenter also supported the 

continued LBAM quarantine, but stated 

that APHIS should continually review 

the quarantine and lift it if the pest is 

found outside of the quarantined areas 

and the quarantine becomes 

uneconomical. 

We continually review the LBAM 

program, as well as other pest programs, 

to ensure that the program’s goals are 

being met. In the event that LBAM is 

found within the continental United 

States outside of California, APHIS and 

the affected State(s) will take 

appropriate action, which may include 

additional detection activities and 

regulatory protocols, to control its 

spread. 

Therefore, for the reasons discussed 

in our draft responses to petitions and 

in this document, we are retaining our 

classification of LBAM as an actionable 

quarantine pest to prevent its further 

spread into noninfested areas of United 

States and to maintain trade markets for 

U.S. agricultural products. 

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

7786; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3. 

Done in Washington, DC, this 3rd day of 

February 2014. 

Kevin Shea, 

Administrator, Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 2014–02764 Filed 2–7–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

[Docket No. APHIS–2013–0094] 

Notice of Availability of a Treatment 

Evaluation Document for Heat 

Treatment for Asian Longhorned 

Beetle 

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice of availability and 

request for comments. 

SUMMARY: We are advising the public 

that we have determined that it is 

necessary to add a treatment schedule 

for Asian longhorned beetle in the Plant 

Protection and Quarantine Treatment 

Manual. Thus, we have prepared a 

treatment evaluation document that 

discusses the existing treatment 

schedule and explains why this change 

is necessary. We are making this 

treatment evaluation document 

available to the public for review and 

comment. 

DATES: We will consider all comments 

that we receive on or before April 11, 

2014. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by either of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov/

#!documentDetail;D=APHIS-2013-0094- 

0001. 

• Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: 

Send your comment to Docket No. 

APHIS–2013–0094, Regulatory Analysis 

and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 

3A–03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, 

Riverdale, MD 20737–1238. 

Supporting documents and any 

comments we receive on this docket 

may be viewed at http://

www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2013-0094 or 

in our reading room, which is located in 

room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 

14th Street and Independence Avenue 

SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading 

room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except 

holidays. To be sure someone is there to 

help you, please call (202) 799–7039 

before coming. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Claudia Ferguson, M.S., Regulatory 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES