November 13, 2023

Mr. James Writer

USDA-APHIS-PPQ

4700 River Road Unit 137

Riverdale, MD 20737-1231

> Re: Docket No. APHIS-2005-0103

Dear Mr. Writer:

I appreciate your agency's proposal on codifying the criteria needed for
special needs requests. I do have concerns on several issues included in
the proposed rules. The science-based criteria are well intentioned but
are overly broad. For instance 301.1-2(a)(1) has the term
"scientifically sound detection survey" which is not defined. It is
completely possible that a "scientifically sound detection survey" would
be impossible to carry out for monetary, logistical or other reasons.
Currently, under the Japanese Beetle Harmonization Plan the trapping
protocol for nurseries is unmanageable at large nurseries; essentially
our department would have to have several people employed full time just
for one nursery at an incredibly high cost to the state. If this same
protocol were required for other pests to meet the "scientifically sound
detection survey" we would not be able to fulfill our part. The
regulations need to take into account what is reasonable in terms of
conducting a "scientifically sound detection survey". While 301.1-2(a)
states that the special need request must have the five following pieces
of data, in 301.1(a)(2) it states that "the Secretary finds that there
is a special need for additional prohibitions or restrictions based on
sound scientific data **or** a thorough risk assessment". The "**or**"
leads me to believe that only 301.1-2(a)(1) or (2) is needed, but not
both. This should be clarified. Also, risk analysis and risk assessment
seem to be used interchangeably; consistency using one term would be
useful. Along those lines what would an acceptable risk analysis
(assessment) consist of? I think it would be useful to adopt ISPM
(FAO-IPPC) definitions and standards to be consistent with international
standards.

It is also unclear whether a special needs request would be applicable
to a pathway rather than just individual pests. I bring this up because
we have seen that emerald ash borer has been transported artificially in
firewood great distances starting new infestations far from the core
area. It has been demonstrated that other pests move in firewood and has
the potential to transport multiple pests in one commodity. Would the
inadequacy of a "scientifically sound detection survey" in one state be
reason for a special need request by another state. For example, emerald
ash borer continues to be found far outside the core area in Michigan
but many times has not been found in between the core and outlier. Since
those states don't have the resources to survey many of these in between
areas can it be concluded that those areas may be infested but have not
been adequately surveyed yet? Would it not be wise to preclude shipments
(special need request) from those areas until an adequate survey (if at
all possible) is completed?

At this time states may petition USDA to conduct risk analysis on pests
in a particular state or region. This was done in our state recently for
pine shoot beetle. Would we be able continue this with USDA when
petitioning for a special need request or would states be left to
themselves to conduct the analysis?

Sincerely,

Robert Dahl

Chief, Plant Protection

Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade & Consumer Protection

PO Box 8911

Madison, WI 53718

Phone: 608.224.4573

Fax: 608.224.4656

Email: robert.dahl@datcp.state.wi.us