Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 75 / Thursday, April 18, 2013 / Notices 23209 

1The Treatment Manual is available on the 

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

import_export/plants/manuals/ports/downloads/ 

treatment.pdf or by contacting the Animal and 

Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection 

and Quarantine, Manuals Unit, 92 Thomas Johnson 

Drive, Suite 200, Frederick, MD 21702. 

oranges and tangerines from Egypt. We 

have concluded that fresh oranges and 

tangerines can safely be imported into 

the United States from Egypt using one 

or more of the five designated 

phytosanitary measures listed in 

§ 319.56–4(b). These measures are: 

• The oranges and tangerines must be 

treated in accordance with 7 CFR part 

305 for C. capitata and B. zonata; and 

• The oranges and tangerines must be 

accompanied by a phytosanitary 

certificate issued by the NPPO of Egypt 

stating that the consignment has begun 

or has undergone treatment for C. 

capitata and B. zonata in accordance 

with 7 CFR part 305, with an additional 

declaration stating that the fruit in the 

consignment was inspected and found 

free of B. zonata. 

Therefore, in accordance with 

§ 319.56–4(c), we are announcing the 

availability of our pest list and CIED for 

public review and comment. The pest 

list and CIED may be viewed on the 

Regulations.gov Web site or in our 

reading room (see ADDRESSES above for 

instructions for accessing 

Regulations.gov and information on the 

location and hours of the reading room). 

You may also request paper copies of 

the pest list and CIED by calling or 

writing to the person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

After reviewing any comments we 

receive, we will announce our decision 

regarding the import status of fresh 

oranges and tangerines from Egypt in a 

subsequent notice. If the overall 

conclusions of the analysis and the 

Administrator’s determination of risk 

remain unchanged following our 

consideration of the comments, then we 

will authorize the importation of fresh 

oranges and tangerines from Egypt into 

the United States subject to the 

requirements specified in the CIED. 

New Treatment 

The phytosanitary treatments 

regulations contained in part 305 of 7 

CFR chapter III set out standards for 

treatments required in parts 301, 318, 

and 319 of 7 CFR chapter III for fruits, 

vegetables, and other articles. 

In § 305.2, paragraph (b) states that 

approved treatment schedules are set 

out in the Plant Protection and 

Quarantine (PPQ) Treatment Manual.1

Section 305.3 sets out a process for 

adding, revising, or removing treatment 

schedules in the PPQ Treatment 

Manual. In that section, paragraph (a) 

sets out the process for adding, revising, 

or removing treatment schedules when 

there is no immediate need to make a 

change. 

The PPQ Treatment Manual does not 

currently provide a treatment schedule 

for B. zonata in oranges and tangerines. 

In accordance with § 305.3(a)(1), we are 

providing notice of a new cold 

treatment schedule T107–l that we have 

determined is effective against B. zonata 

in oranges and tangerines. 

In addition to B. zonata, C. capitata 

(Medfly) is another pest of concern in 

oranges originating from Egypt. The new 

cold treatment schedule T107–l is more 

stringent than the old treatment 

schedule approved for C. capitata in 

oranges and tangerines, T107–a, and 

therefore we have determined that the 

new cold treatment schedule is also 

adequate to mitigate risks from C. 

capitata. 

The reasons for these determinations 

are described in a treatment evaluation 

document (TED) we have prepared to 

support this action. The TED may be 

viewed on the Regulations.gov Web site 

or in our reading room. You may also 

request paper copies of the TED by 

calling or writing to the person listed 

under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

After reviewing the comments we 

receive, we will announce our decision 

regarding the changes to the PPQ 

Treatment Manual that are described in 

the TED in a subsequent notice. If our 

determination that it is necessary to add 

new treatment schedule T107–1 remains 

unchanged following our consideration 

of the comments, then we will make 

available a new version of the PPQ 

Treatment Manual that reflects the 

addition of T107–l. 

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. 

Done in Washington, DC, this 15th day of 

April 2013. 

Kevin Shea, 

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 2013–09146 Filed 4–17–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

[Docket No. APHIS–2011–0072] 

Plants for Planting Whose Importation 

Is Not Authorized Pending Pest Risk 

Analysis; Notice of Addition of Taxa of 

Plants for Planting To List of Taxa 

Whose Importation Is Not Authorized 

Pending Pest Risk Analysis 

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: We are advising the public 

that we are adding 31 taxa of plants for 

planting that are quarantine pests and 

107 taxa of plants for planting that are 

hosts of 13 quarantine pests to our lists 

of taxa of plants for planting whose 

importation is not authorized pending 

pest risk analysis. A previous notice 

made data sheets that detailed the 

scientific evidence we evaluated in 

making the determination that the taxa 

are quarantine pests or hosts of 

quarantine pests available to the public 

for review and comment. This notice 

responds to the comments we received 

and makes available final versions of the 

data sheets, with changes in response to 

comments. 

DATES: Effective Date: May 20, 2013. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Arnold Tschanz, Senior Regulatory 

Policy Specialist, Plants for Planting 

Policy, RPM, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River 

Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737– 

1236; (301) 851–2018. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Under the regulations in ‘‘Subpart— 

Plants for Planting’’ (7 CFR 319.37 

through 319.37–14, referred to below as 

the regulations), the Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) prohibits or restricts the 

importation of plants for planting 

(including living plants, plant parts, 

seeds, and plant cuttings) to prevent the 

introduction of quarantine pests into the 

United States. Quarantine pest is 

defined in § 319.37–1 as a plant pest or 

noxious weed that is of potential 

economic importance to the United 

States and not yet present in the United 

States, or present but not widely 

distributed and being officially 

controlled. 

In a final rule published in the 

Federal Register on May 27, 2011 (76 

FR 31172–31210, Docket No. APHIS– 

2006–0011), and effective on June 27, 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
23210 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 75 / Thursday, April 18, 2013 / Notices 

1To view the notice, the data sheets, and the 

comments we received, go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS2011-0072. 

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

plant_pest_info/weeds/downloads/federalorderlygodiums.pdf. 

2011, we established in § 319.37–2a a 

new category of plants for planting 

whose importation is not authorized 

pending pest risk analysis (NAPPRA) in 

order to prevent the introduction of 

quarantine pests into the United States. 

The final rule established two lists of 

taxa whose importation is NAPPRA: A 

list of taxa of plants for planting that are 

quarantine pests, and a list of taxa of 

plants for planting that are hosts of 

quarantine pests. For taxa of plants for 

planting that have been determined to 

be quarantine pests, the list will include 

the names of the taxa. For taxa of plants 

for planting that are hosts of quarantine 

pests, the list will include the names of 

the taxa, the foreign places from which 

the taxa’s importation is not authorized, 

and the quarantine pests of concern. 

The final rule did not add any taxa to 

the NAPPRA lists. 

Paragraph (b) of § 319.37–2a describes 

the process for adding taxa to the 

NAPPRA lists. In accordance with that 

process, we published a notice 1 in the 

Federal Register on July 26, 2011 (76 FR 

44572–44573, Docket No. APHIS–2011– 

0072) that announced our determination 

that 41 taxa of plants for planting are 

quarantine pests and 107 taxa of plants 

for planting are hosts of 13 quarantine 

pests. That notice also made available 

data sheets that detail the scientific 

evidence we evaluated in making the 

determination that the taxa are 

quarantine pests or hosts of a quarantine 

pest. 

We solicited comments concerning 

the notice and the data sheets for 60 

days ending September 26, 2011. We 

reopened and extended the deadline for 

comments until November 25, 2011, in 

a document published in the Federal 

Register on October 25, 2011 (76 FR 

66033). We received 37 comments by 

that date. They were from producers, 

importers, researchers, and 

representatives of State and foreign 

governments. They are discussed below 

by topic. 

General Comments 

Effective Date and Federal Orders 

The July 26, 2011, notice indicated 

that we would consider comments and 

announce whether the taxa identified in 

the data sheets would be added to the 

NAPPRA lists in a subsequent notice. 

One commenter stated that, due to the 

risk of importing quarantine pests after 

the initial notice is published, plants 

that we determine to be quarantine pests 

or hosts of quarantine pests should be 

added to the NAPPRA list at the same 

time as we publish the notice making 

available the data sheets supporting that 

determination. The notice could have a 

public comment period allowing for 

changes to the initial list of taxa. 

Another commenter disagreed, stating 

that APHIS must often make regulatory 

decisions on the basis of incomplete 

information, and a reasonable comment 

period prior to action allows other 

interested parties the opportunity to 

present valid information and 

perspectives that will help APHIS to 

‘‘get it right.’’ This commenter stated 

that APHIS always has the ability to 

issue emergency prohibitions or 

restrictions, should the situation 

warrant them. 

We agree with the second commenter. 

As described in the May 2011 final rule 

establishing the NAPPRA category, 

when we find evidence that the 

importation of a taxon of plants for 

planting that is currently being 

imported poses a risk of introducing a 

quarantine pest, we restrict or prohibit 

its importation through the issuance of 

a Federal import quarantine order, also 

referred to as a Federal order. For other 

taxa, we will issue a notice through the 

NAPPRA process. 

One commenter expressed concern 

that the 60-day comment period on the 

initial notice and subsequent 

decisionmaking period may create 

something of a ‘‘gold rush’’ effect in 

which importers are forewarned to 

import numerous specimens of risky 

species before APHIS blocks further 

imports. The commenter stated that the 

May 2011 final rule did not fully 

address this risk. The commenter 

recommended we address this risk by 

making liberal use of immediate 

prohibition orders for the riskiest 

species, such as was done in the May 

30, 2008, Federal order that prohibited 

imports of Lygodium microphyllum and 

L. flexuosum,2 and ensure a rapid 

decisionmaking period after the close of 

the comment period, to provide the 

speedy protections the nation needs to 

prevent new plant invasions. 

We will issue a Federal order 

prohibiting the importation of a taxon of 

plants for planting that is currently 

being imported whenever we determine 

it to be necessary to prevent the 

introduction of a quarantine pest. We 

will also strive to ensure that we 

complete our decisionmaking quickly 

after the comment period has ended. 

However, we will continue to monitor 

imports of taxa that we have proposed 

to add to NAPPRA; if a ‘‘gold rush’’ 

effect occurs for any of them, we have 

the option to issue a Federal order. 

One commenter asked about the 

relationship between Federal orders and 

the NAPPRA category. The commenter 

perceived some inconsistencies. For 

example: 

• Exemptions for specific host plant 

material types (e.g., plant size, cuttings, 

etc.) outlined in Federal orders are 

inconsistent with NAPPRA. 

• Exemptions for specific origins (i.e., 

pest not present/known to occur in 

specified origin) outlined in Federal 

orders are inconsistent with NAPPRA. 

The importation of taxa that are hosts 

of several of the quarantine pests 

described in our data sheets has been 

subject to Federal orders. In the July 

2011 notice, we took comment on their 

addition to the NAPPRA category. This 

is consistent with our overall plan for 

the relationship between Federal orders 

and NAPPRA. 

If a taxon of plants for planting is 

currently being imported and we 

determine that the taxon should be 

added to the NAPPRA category because 

it is a host of a quarantine pest, we will 

issue a Federal order to restrict or 

prohibit its importation. We will also 

publish a notice announcing our 

determination that the taxon is a host of 

a quarantine pest and making available 

a data sheet that details the scientific 

evidence that we evaluated in making 

our determination, including references 

for that scientific evidence. We will 

solicit comments from the public. If 

comments present information that 

leads us to determine that the 

importation of the taxon does not pose 

a risk of introducing a quarantine pest 

into the United States, APHIS will 

rescind the Federal order and not add 

the taxon to the NAPPRA list. 

As noted in the July 2011 notice, in 

a few cases, taxa that are listed as 

NAPPRA from most countries will be 

allowed to be imported from countries 

that are currently exporting the taxa to 

the United States, subject to restrictions 

in a Federal order that was issued 

previously. We would continue to allow 

such importation based on our 

experience with importing those taxa of 

plants for planting and our findings, 

through inspection, that they are 

generally pest-free, and based on our 

determination that the restrictions in the 

Federal order are sufficient to mitigate 

the risk associated with the quarantine 

pest in question. Each data sheet we 

made available with the July 2011 

notice included an ‘‘Action under 

NAPPRA’’ section describing the 

specific taxa and countries that would 

be added to NAPPRA. These sections 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 75 / Thursday, April 18, 2013 / Notices 23211 

3To view the CIP proposal and the comments we 

received in response to it, go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS2008-0055. 

4Available at http://www.nappo.org/en/data/ 

files/download/PDF/RSPM24-16-10-05-e.pdf. 

5Available at https://www.ippc.int/file_uploaded/ 

1335957921_ISPM_36_2012_En_2012-05-02.pdf. 

reflected our policy with respect to 

current importation under Federal 

orders, and the final versions of the data 

sheets published along with this notice 

continue to do so. 

With respect to host plant material 

types, the NAPPRA category does not 

allow for exceptions for host material 

types except for seed. Plant typespecific restrictions are discussed 

further later in this document under the 

heading ‘‘Hosts of Quarantine Pests.’’ 

With respect to the origin of imports, 

the Federal order is specifically 

designed to address current trade; the 

NAPPRA category is designed to 

prevent the importation of a taxon from 

anywhere in the world until we can 

conduct a pest risk analysis (PRA) to 

determine what risks may be associated 

with the importation of the taxon and 

what means may be available to mitigate 

those risks. 

The commenter also asked how we 

will ensure cohesion and consistency 

between the Federal orders and the 

NAPPRA list of plants, e.g., will the 

Federal orders be updated to reflect the 

new NAPPRA list. 

If a taxon of plants for planting is on 

the NAPPRA list for a given country, we 

would no longer need to include it in a 

Federal order for that country, and 

would update the Federal order 

accordingly. We are doing just that with 

the pests that have been subject to 

Federal orders and that are being 

addressed by this action. The updated 

Federal orders will note that the 

importation of the taxa from some 

countries is not allowed under 

NAPPRA. 

Pests for Consideration 

Some commenters suggested pests for 

consideration for future addition to the 

NAPPRA lists. We are considering those 

taxa for addition to NAPPRA. Interested 

members of the public can also submit 

suggestions for additions to the 

NAPPRA lists at http:// 

www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/ 

plants/plant_imports/Q37/nappra/ 

suggestions.shtml. 

Future Regulatory Changes 

One commenter described the goal of 

the NAPPRA category as responding 

more swiftly and effectively to prevent 

the introduction of specific quarantine 

pests from established trading partners. 

In that case, the commenter stated, 

APHIS should be prepared to remove a 

plant taxon from NAPPRA if presented 

with a mitigation proposal that 

addresses the quarantine pest(s) for 

which APHIS justified the NAPPRA 

listing in the first place. 

The commenter urged APHIS to 

concurrently implement two other 

components of the overhaul of our 

regulations on the importation of plants 

for planting. First, APHIS should 

overhaul the permit system to allow for 

swift, legal importation of limited 

quantities of germplasm that is 

restricted under NAPPRA for research, 

development, and new variety 

introduction, subject to appropriate 

safeguards and oversight. 

Secondly, the commenter urged 

APHIS to establish the regulatory 

framework for implementing integrated 

measures programs, widely known and 

referred to as systems approaches. The 

commenter stated that integrated 

measures approaches offer the promise 

of mitigating the risk of various pests of 

regulatory concern, and, as NAPPRA is 

implemented, such approaches can and 

should serve as a mechanism for 

facilitating trade in plants that may be 

restricted under NAPPRA as hosts of 

quarantine pests. The commenter also 

stated that implementation of those 

systems approaches should not 

necessarily require a full PRA, although 

in some cases it may. 

The commenter expressed concern 

that restriction of horticulturally 

significant plant taxa under NAPPRA 

without concurrent attention to the 

controlled import permit (CIP) and 

integrated measures regulatory strategies 

will discourage compliant trade and 

encourage unauthorized importation 

and could also subject APHIS to 

challenge under international trade 

agreements. By contrast, concurrent 

implementation of those rules could 

address the concerns one commenter 

expressed that proposals to restrict 

plants as NAPPRA may create 

something of a ‘‘gold rush mentality’’ in 

which various interests rush to import 

them in advance of restrictions taking 

effect. 

We agree with the commenter 

regarding the importance of these 

regulatory strategies. As the commenter 

noted, we published a proposed rule to 

establish CIPs in the Federal Register on 

October 25, 2011 (76 FR 65976–65985, 

Docket No. APHIS–2008–0055).3 We are 

considering the comments we received 

on that proposal. 

We are also developing a proposed 

rule to reorganize the plants for planting 

regulations and to establish a framework 

for integrated measures programs. The 

framework will be based on Regional 

Standard for Phytosanitary Measures 

(RSPM) No. 24 4 of the North American 

Plant Protection Organization, of which 

APHIS is a member. The framework will 

also be consistent with the recently 

developed International Plant Protection 

Convention (IPPC) standard for plants 

for planting.5 It is our hope that there is 

sufficient interest in the industry in 

developing functional integrated 

measures for broad categories of pests 

(insects, fungi, bacteria, etc.) that we 

will be able to use these integrated 

measures to facilitate trade in the 

manner the commenter describes. 

We are adding taxa to the NAPPRA 

category before finalizing the CIP 

proposal and the integrated measures 

proposal because it is necessary to 

protect U.S. agricultural and 

environmental resources against the 

introduction of the quarantine pests 

identified and described in our data 

sheets. However, it is our intention that 

the two rules will provide increased 

flexibility to safely import NAPPRAlisted taxa in the manner the commenter 

describes. In the meantime, limited 

quantities of plant taxa on the NAPPRA 

lists may be imported by the USDA for 

experimental or scientific purposes 

under controlled conditions in 

accordance with the Departmental 

permit provisions in § 319.37–2(c). 

We would also like to note that the 

goal of the NAPPRA category is not to 

respond to specific quarantine pest risks 

from established trading partners, but 

rather to prevent the importation of taxa 

that are quarantine pests or hosts of 

quarantine pests while a PRA is 

conducted to determine all the 

quarantine pests associated with the 

taxon and, if available, appropriate 

mitigations. As described earlier, when 

we find evidence that the importation of 

taxa of plants for planting that are 

currently being imported poses a risk of 

introducing a quarantine pest, we 

prohibit or restrict their importation 

through the issuance of a Federal order. 

The Federal order for such taxa may be 

followed by a NAPPRA notice for the 

countries from which the taxa are 

imported if no mitigations are available 

for the quarantine pest. 

Potential Economic Effects 

One commenter expressed concern 

that the addition of taxa to the NAPPRA 

lists could have a potentially marked 

effect on importers and those who rely 

on imported products to sell, as many 

of the proposed taxa are commonly 

traded. As an example, the commenter 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
23212 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 75 / Thursday, April 18, 2013 / Notices 

6See http://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/ 

plants/plant_imports/federal_order/downloads/ 

2011/CitrusandALB2011-04-01.pdf. 

cited our determination that imported 

plants of the genera Camelia, 

Rhododendron, and Viburnum are hosts 

of Anoplophora chiensis, the citrus 

longhorned beetle (CLB). The 

commenter quoted a summary of 

imports from a Phytophthora ramorum 

working group consisting of APHIS and 

the National Plant Board, in which the 

three genera named earlier plus Pieris 

and Kalmia accounted for 584,285 units 

of importation from the years 2004 

through 2010. 

As described earlier and in the initial 

notice, in a few cases, taxa we identified 

as hosts of quarantine pests that should 

be added to the NAPPRA category 

would be allowed to be imported from 

countries that are currently exporting 

the taxa to the United States, subject to 

restrictions in a Federal order that was 

issued previously. The hosts of CLB 

were previously regulated under a 

Federal order,6 and the identified 

NAPPRA restrictions for CLB took the 

Federal order into account. 

With respect to CLB hosts 

specifically, we have re-examined our 

import records in order to ensure that 

all countries that have had significant 

trade with the United States and that 

generally supply pest-free plants for 

planting in importation are not included 

in the NAPPRA list. We found several 

additional countries that needed to be 

exempted for various host taxa. 

Specifically: 

• All CLB host taxa from Canada are 

now exempted from the NAPPRA 

action. 

• New Zealand is now exempted from 

the NAPPRA action for Acer spp. 

• Netherlands is now exempted from 

the NAPPRA action for Aralia spp., 

Cotoneaster spp., Fagus spp., Robinia 

spp., and Styrax spp. 

• Thailand is now exempted from the 

NAPPRA action for Ficus spp. 

• Israel is now exempted from the 

NAPPRA action for Hedera spp. and 

Robinia spp. 

• France is now exempted from the 

NAPPRA action for Hibiscus spp. and 

Quercus spp. 

• Japan is now exempted from the 

NAPPRA action for Pinus spp. and 

Rhododendron spp. 

• Korea is now exempted from the 

NAPPRA action for Pinus spp. 

• United Kingdom is now exempted 

from the NAPPRA action for Rubus spp. 

The CLB data sheet has been amended 

to reflect these changes; the amended 

CLB data sheet is available on 

Regulations.gov at the address listed 

under footnote 1. The importation of 

these CLB host taxa from the specified 

countries will continue to be allowed 

under the conditions in the Federal 

order. These changes are consistent with 

our policy for implementing NAPPRA. 

As noted earlier, the exemptions from 

the NAPPRA action for hosts of CLB are 

based on our trade records, and we 

reexamined them in the process of 

developing this final action. We issued 

the first Federal order restricting 

imports of CLB hosts in January 2009; 

as the statistics cited by the commenter 

reflect years of trade subject only to the 

general restrictions in the plants for 

planting regulations, those statistics 

may not reflect recent trade patterns. In 

addition, the statistics include genera 

that were not included in the NAPPRA 

action for CLB hosts. We have carefully 

considered potential impacts on existing 

trade in developing this action, and we 

will do so for future NAPPRA actions as 

well. 

The commenter also stated that the 

nursery industry is under a severe 

contraction due to the national 

economy, with many companies failing, 

and that adding taxa to NAPPRA will 

likely lead to many additional failures 

and job loss. In addition, the commenter 

stated, the action would affect many 

sales orders and contracts that are in the 

process of being filled. These are often 

multi-year agreements, often with plant 

material originating in multiple 

countries with specific horticultural 

traits. Without its intended market, the 

commenter stated, this material will 

likely be destroyed, creating a loss for 

oversees trading partners and potential 

litigation on U.S. importers. 

The Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 

7701 et seq.), the authorizing statute for 

APHIS’ plant health-related activities, 

authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture 

to prohibit or restrict the importation of 

any plant product 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. We have 

determined that adding the taxa 

specified in this final notice to the 

NAPPRA lists is necessary to prevent 

the introduction of plant pests and 

noxious weeds. The factors cited by the 

commenter are not within our 

decisionmaking authority under the Act. 

In addition, the taxa we proposed to 

add to the NAPPRA category have not 

been imported into the United States in 

significant amounts. As described 

earlier, for those taxa that have been 

imported in significant amounts, we are 

using Federal orders to restrict their 

importation, rather than adding them to 

the NAPPRA category. These factors 

indicate that our listings under 

NAPPRA are not likely to cause 

significant economic hardship to U.S. 

growers. 

Quarantine Pest Plants 

As noted above, the NAPPRA category 

includes plants that are quarantine pests 

and plants that are hosts of quarantine 

pests. The regulations in § 319.37–1 

define quarantine pest as a plant pest or 

noxious weed that is of potential 

economic importance to the United 

States and not yet present in the United 

States, or present but not widely 

distributed and being officially 

controlled. 

Two commenters generally addressed 

the concept of plant presence in the 

United States, asking us to adopt a clear 

standard for determining whether a 

plant is not yet present in the United 

States, or present but not widely 

distributed and being officially 

controlled. One stated that a taxon 

should be considered to be present in 

the United States when the taxon can be 

shown to have had multiple entries 

through importation or when the taxon 

is available in commercial trade. This 

commenter also stated that there should 

be a clearly defined standard against 

which to judge presence if the record 

shows one or multiple introductions of 

the taxon, or natural occurrences for 

plants whose native habitats exist near 

the United States’ northern or southern 

borders. 

Another commenter agreed that any 

taxon available in commercial trade 

should be considered to be present, and 

also indicated that plant taxa that are in 

cultivation among specialists should be 

considered to be present. This 

commenter also stated that only a small 

percentage of the people who use the 

Internet ever post any information on it, 

meaning that an online report from a 

grower of a taxon probably represents 10 

to 100 other growers who also grow the 

plant. For that reason, any Internet 

report of growth of a plant in the United 

States would indicate that the plant was 

present in the United States. 

We consider a plant taxon to be 

present in the United States if there is 

evidence that it is being grown here. 

Commercial trade, cultivation among 

specialists, and multiple entries through 

importation would be evidence that a 

plant is being grown in the United 

States. We agree with the second 

commenter that Internet reports of 

growth of a plant in the United States 

would indicate that the plant taxon 

described was present in the United 

States. However, we have determined 

that such information may not 

necessarily indicate that the taxon is 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 75 / Thursday, April 18, 2013 / Notices 23213 

7 If the WRA indicated that it was not necessary 

to list the taxon as a noxious weed, we would 

conduct a pest risk analysis to determine whether 

the taxon is a host of any quarantine pests as well. 

widely distributed within the United 

States, which is another component of 

the quarantine pest definition. 

One commenter stated that taxa that 

have had some entries into the United 

States or natural occurrences within the 

United States with no evidence of 

invasiveness should not be considered a 

problem. Another commenter stated that 

plants that have been imported into the 

United States sporadically in the past, 

but that are not currently in cultivation, 

are not present in the United States. 

However, the commenter recommended 

that we consider the fact that the plants 

did not establish permanently in the 

United States as evidence against their 

invasiveness. 

Noting that certain taxa that we 

proposed to add to the NAPPRA 

category appeared to be present in the 

United States, one commenter 

recommended that we put those species 

under consideration for official control, 

thus ensuring that they qualify as 

quarantine pests under the definition. 

This commenter stated that all species 

added to the NAPPRA category should 

be analyzed to determine whether they 

qualify as Federal noxious weeds under 

our regulations in 7 CFR part 360. 

We generally agree with the first two 

commenters that taxa that have 

previously been imported into the 

United States without problems would 

not be likely to be considered 

quarantine pests. However, sometimes 

the potential economic importance of a 

taxon’s effects on U.S. agricultural and 

natural resources becomes apparent 

after importation. New information may 

also become available indicating that 

the taxon may pose more of a threat to 

U.S. agricultural and environmental 

resources than previously thought. As 

suggested by the last commenter, these 

circumstances would spur us to 

consider placing the taxon under official 

control by adding it to the list of 

noxious weeds in 7 CFR part 360. 

We determine whether to place a 

taxon under official control by 

conducting a weed risk assessment 

(WRA). If the WRA indicates that 

official control is necessary, we add the 

taxon to the list of noxious weeds. Taxa 

that are present in the United States but 

not widely distributed and under 

consideration for official control are 

potential additions to the NAPPRA 

category, if they meet the other criteria 

for being considered a quarantine pest. 

We do not automatically conduct 

WRAs for taxa on the NAPPRA list of 

quarantine pest plants; people who 

want a taxon to be removed from the 

NAPPRA category need to request that 

a risk analysis be conducted for its 

removal, as provided in § 319.37–2a(e). 

However, if we add a taxon to the 

NAPPRA list of quarantine pest plants 

in part because we are considering it for 

official control, then the process of 

conducting a WRA has already begun, 

and our decision to remove the taxon 

from the NAPPRA list or add it to the 

list of noxious weeds would be based on 

the results of the WRA.7

The first two commenters also 

mentioned invasiveness as a criterion 

for adding a plant taxon to NAPPRA. 

We would like to note that invasiveness 

in and of itself does not mean that a 

plant taxon could be considered a 

quarantine pest; rather, the damage 

caused by a plant’s invasiveness would 

have to be of potential economic 

importance. 

One commenter stated generally that 

we should work with private growers 

and gardeners to monitor plants that are 

present in the United States and to react 

quickly if one starts to become a 

problem. 

We agree. We have begun reaching 

out to gardeners, plant enthusiast 

societies, and others to share 

information about plants. We expect 

that these efforts will help to inform 

future control efforts. 

We made available data sheets 

detailing the scientific evidence we 

considered in making the determination 

that 41 taxa of plants for planting are 

quarantine pests. We received 

comments on 21 of those taxa. The 

comments are discussed below by 

taxon. 

Alstroemeria aurea. Four commenters 

presented evidence that this species is 

present in the United States. Three of 

these commenters also stated that A. 

aurea does not appear to have any 

invasive tendencies that would warrant 

designation as a quarantine pest. Based 

on the evidence presented by the 

commenters and our own analysis, we 

have determined that A. aurea is widely 

distributed in the United States, and we 

are no longer considering A. aurea for 

addition to the NAPPRA list of 

quarantine pest plants. 

Angelica sylvestris. Three commenters 

presented evidence that this species is 

present in the United States. Another 

commenter expressed support for one of 

these comments. Two of these 

commenters also stated that A. sylvestris 

does not appear to have any invasive 

tendencies that would warrant 

designation as a quarantine pest. We 

have determined that A. sylvestris is 

widely distributed in the United States, 

and we are no longer considering A. 

sylvestris for addition to the NAPPRA 

list of quarantine pest plants. 

Artemisia japonica. One commenter 

presented evidence that this species is 

present in the United States, specifically 

that it is mentioned on herbal medicine 

Web sites. Based on the comment, we 

have reexamined the available evidence 

and determined that A. japonica is 

present in the United States and not 

under official control. Therefore, we are 

no longer considering A. japonica for 

addition to the NAPPRA list of 

quarantine pest plants. 

Berberis glaucocarpa. One commenter 

stated that this taxon is widely available 

in the United Kingdom and that there is 

a very good chance that it has been sold 

to the United States. The commenter 

also stated that B. glaucocarpa has not 

been declared to be an invasive species 

there. 

The data sheet we prepared for B. 

glaucocarpa indicated that it invades 

forests, forest margins, scrub, and 

disturbed areas. Its seedlings tolerate 

shade and establish successfully, 

shading out native plants and 

preventing their regeneration. Birds 

disperse its seeds. B. glaucocarpa is 

naturalized in New Zealand, where it is 

considered an environmental weed. 

These factors led to our determination 

that B. glaucocarpa is a quarantine pest. 

In addition, we can find no information 

indicating that B. glaucocarpa is 

actually present in the United States. 

Finally, we are evaluating B. 

glaucocarpa for addition to the list of 

noxious weeds in 7 CFR part 360, 

meaning it is under consideration for 

official control. Therefore, we are 

adding B. glaucocarpa to the NAPPRA 

list of quarantine pest plants. 

Celtis sinensis. Four commenters 

presented evidence that this species is 

present in the United States. Another 

commenter expressed support for one of 

these comments. As the taxon is not 

under consideration for official control, 

we are no longer considering C. sinensis 

for addition to the NAPPRA list of 

quarantine pest plants. 

Cestrum elegans. Three commenters 

presented evidence that this species is 

present in the United States, stating that 

it is offered for sale in several States, 

listed in guides to American 

horticulture, and grown at several 

arboretums and botanic gardens. We 

have determined that C. elegans is 

widely distributed in the United States, 

and we are no longer considering C. 

elegans for addition to the NAPPRA list 

of quarantine pest plants. 

Chrysanthemoides monilifera. One 

commenter presented evidence that this 

species is present in the United States, 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
23214 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 75 / Thursday, April 18, 2013 / Notices 

8See http://www.fao.org/ag/AGP/AGPC/doc/ 

Gbase/data/pf000231.htm. 

specifically that it has been sold in the 

United States and was imported by the 

USDA 100 years ago. The commenter 

also stated that the species has been 

grown under a synonym in the 

Mediterranean region for about 100 

years, and the commenter could find no 

reports of invasiveness there. We have 

determined that C. monilifera is widely 

distributed in the United States, and we 

are no longer considering C. monilifera 

for addition to the NAPPRA list of 

quarantine pest plants. 

Cordia curassavica. One commenter 

presented evidence that this species is 

present in the United States, specifically 

in Florida. Another commenter stated 

that C. curassavica is native to tropical 

America. This commenter also stated 

that it has been noted that C. 

curassavica seeds have a short viable 

life and cannot withstand low 

temperatures, characteristics that do not 

make it a good candidate for 

invasiveness. 

However, as described in the data 

sheet, C. curassavica is considered an 

economically important foreign weed in 

Trinidad and the Pacific Islands, and 

there is no obvious reason why it would 

not be economically important in the 

warmer parts of the United States. We 

do not have any evidence that the plant 

is distributed outside Florida. In 

addition, we are currently evaluating C. 

curassavica for addition to the list of 

noxious weeds in 7 CFR part 360, 

meaning it is under consideration for 

official control. Therefore, we are 

adding C. curassavica to the NAPPRA 

list of quarantine pest plants. 

Echinochloa pyramidalis. One 

commenter stated that the United 

Nations’ Food and Agriculture 

Organization (FAO) promotes this taxon 

as a fodder grass for tropical Africa. The 

commenter quoted the FAO Web page 8

on E. pyramidalis as stating that the 

taxon is a heavy seed producer but 

sometimes has low germination, so it is 

propagated by cuttings. The page also 

states that the taxon is not frost hardy. 

The commenter stated that such a taxon 

is not likely to be a quarantine pest in 

the United States. 

As stated in the data sheet, E. 

pyramidalis has decidedly invasive 

characteristics with its vigorous shoot 

and rhizome growth and abundant seed 

production. As an aquatic, it also has 

the potential to be very damaging to 

sensitive aquatic habitats. In Guyana, it 

was first noticed in 1982 and increased 

rapidly to become one of the most 

troublesome weeds in the aquatic 

system of the Guyana Sugar 

Corporation. 

The FAO Web page cited by the 

commenter indicates that E. pyramidalis 

is adapted to the wet and dry seasons of 

Africa; the dry season would limit its 

growth there. The Web page further 

indicates that new growth is very 

vigorous after the rains start. If the dry 

stems are burned during the dry season, 

vigorous growth from ground level 

occurs without the incidence of rain. 

The Web page further states that the 

plant’s dense, tangled, floating stems, 

rooting at the nodes, provide efficient 

protection against wave action on the 

walls of earthen dams or flood induced 

erosion of river banks. These 

characteristics indicate that the taxon 

can grow vigorously and block 

waterways, which would in turn 

indicate that it is of potential economic 

significance. This is consistent with the 

information we cited in the data sheet 

for E. pyramidalis. 

For these reasons, we have 

determined that the introduction of E. 

pyramidalis would have potential 

economic significance for the United 

States, and we are adding E. pyramidalis 

to the NAPPRA list of quarantine pest 

plants. We are also evaluating it for 

addition to the list of noxious weeds in 

7 CFR part 360. 

Gladiolus undulatus. Three 

commenters presented evidence that 

this species is present in the United 

States. One of these commenters also 

stated that G. undulatus does not appear 

to have any invasive tendencies that 

would warrant designation as a 

quarantine pest. We have determined 

that G. undulatus is widely distributed 

in the United States, and we are no 

longer considering G. undulatus for 

addition to the NAPPRA list of 

quarantine pest plants. 

Gymnocoronis spilanthoides. One 

commenter presented evidence that this 

species is present in the United States. 

We agree that G. spilanthoides is 

present in the United States, and we are 

no longer considering it for official 

control. Therefore, we are no longer 

considering G. spilanthoides for 

addition to the NAPPRA list of 

quarantine pest plants. 

Hakea gibbosa. One commenter 

presented evidence that this species is 

present in the United States. We have 

determined that H. gibbosa is present in 

the United States, and we are no longer 

considering H. gibbosa for official 

control. Therefore, we are no longer 

considering H. gibbosa for addition to 

the NAPPRA list of quarantine pest 

plants. 

Hakea salicifolia. Two commenters 

presented evidence that this taxon is 

present in the United States, specifically 

in California. Another commenter 

acknowledged that H. salicifolia is 

present in California but stated that the 

plant was invasive. However, the taxon 

does not appear to be distributed 

beyond California within the United 

States, and we are evaluating H. 

salicifolia for addition to the list of 

noxious weeds in 7 CFR part 360, 

meaning it is under consideration for 

official control. Therefore, we are 

adding H. salicifolia to the NAPPRA list 

of quarantine pest plants, as it is not 

widely distributed and is under official 

control. 

Hakea servicea. One commenter 

stated that H. servicea is listed by 

several U.S. nurseries but is not 

currently for sale, which means the 

nurseries have trouble propagating it 

and can offer it only sporadically. The 

commenter stated that this indicates 

that H. servicea is not likely to be 

invasive. 

The history of H. servicea elsewhere 

indicates it is likely to be potentially 

economically significant, thus 

qualifying as a quarantine pest. As the 

data sheet for H. servicea indicates, it is 

included on a list of potentially invasive 

garden plants in its native Australia. 

The European Plant Protection 

Organization categorizes it as an 

invasive alien plant in New Zealand and 

South Africa. In New Zealand, it is 

listed among plants of concern on 

conservation land. In South Africa, it 

has proved highly invasive, is rated as 

a serious weed, and is categorized as a 

transformer and as a prohibited weed in 

the most invasive Category 1. We do not 

know exactly why U.S. nurseries only 

list this taxon sporadically, but 

substantial evidence indicates that the 

introduction of this taxon would have 

potential economic significance in the 

United States. For that reason, we are 

evaluating H. servicea for addition to 

the list of noxious weeds in 7 CFR part 

360, meaning it is under consideration 

for official control. In addition, there is 

no evidence indicating that the taxon is 

widely distributed. Therefore, we are 

adding H. servicea to the NAPPRA list 

of quarantine pest plants. 

Impatiens parviflora. One commenter 

stated that this plant is growing in 

California, without providing any 

references to support this assertion. 

Regardless of whether the taxon is 

present in the United States, we have no 

evidence indicating that it is widely 

distributed, and we are evaluating I. 

parviflora for addition to the list of 

noxious weeds in 7 CFR part 360, 

meaning it is under consideration for 

official control. Therefore, we are 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 75 / Thursday, April 18, 2013 / Notices 23215 

9The link the commenter provided, http:// 

www.threatenedspecies.environment.nsw.gov.au/ 

tsprofile/profile.aspx?id=10623, no longer works, 

but we found a cached version of the page at 

http://web.archive.org/web/20090713032340/http:// 

threatenedspecies.environment.nsw.gov.au/ 

tsprofile/profile.aspx?id=10623. 

adding I. parviflora to the NAPPRA list 

of quarantine pest plants. 

Limnobium laevigatum. Two 

commenters stated that this taxon is 

present in California and listed for 

eradication by the State of California. 

One commenter stated that the taxon is 

a popular aquarium plant throughout 

the United States. 

Although the taxon may be in trade, 

there is little information regarding the 

extent of that trade; its distribution as a 

naturalized plant is limited to 

California. For that reason, we have 

determined that L. laevigatum is not 

widely distributed within the United 

States. We are evaluating L. laevigatum 

for addition to the list of noxious weeds 

in 7 CFR part 360, meaning it is under 

consideration for official control. 

Therefore, we are adding L. laevigatum 

to the NAPPRA list of quarantine pest 

plants. 

Nymphoides cristata. One commenter 

stated that this taxon is a popular 

garden plant, widely available in the 

United States. The commenter also cited 

a tropical botanical garden in Florida 

that sells the plant. 

The data sheet we prepared for this 

taxon indicated that it is present in 

Florida and South Carolina (meaning it 

is not widely distributed) and that it is 

under consideration for official control. 

Indeed, we are evaluating N. cristata for 

addition to the list of noxious weeds in 

7 CFR part 360. Therefore, we are 

adding N. cristata to the NAPPRA list of 

quarantine pest plants. 

Phyllanthus maderaspatensis. One 

commenter stated that this taxon is 

listed as threatened and endangered in 

Australia.9 The Australian Web page for 

this taxon indicated that its threats are 

competition from other summergrowing annuals, clearing of floodplain 

habitat, and roadside clearing. The 

commenter stated that the fact that P. 

maderaspatensis is listed as threatened 

and endangered in Australia makes it 

unlikely that the taxon is invasive in the 

United States. 

The data sheet we prepared for P. 

maderaspatensis cited references 

indicating that the taxon is a weed of 

concern in its native area, southern 

Africa, and Sudan, in addition to 

Australia. Although the evidence the 

commenter cites tends to dispute those 

references, the evidence cited in the 

data sheet has led us to determine that 

it is necessary to evaluate P. 

maderaspatensis for addition to the list 

of noxious weeds in 7 CFR part 360. To 

prevent the introduction of P. 

maderaspatensis during our evaluation, 

we are adding P. maderaspatensis to the 

NAPPRA list of quarantine pest plants. 

If the evaluation indicates that P. 

maderaspatensis is not a quarantine 

pest or a host of a quarantine pest, we 

will remove it from the NAPPRA list in 

accordance with § 319.37–2a(e). 

Rhamnus alaternus. Three 

commenters presented evidence that 

this taxon is present in the United 

States. As we have determined that this 

taxon is widely distributed in the 

United States, we are no longer 

considering R. alaternus for addition to 

the NAPPRA list of quarantine pest 

plants. 

Senecio angulatus. One commenter 

presented evidence that this taxon is 

present in the United States, specifically 

that it is sold in California. We did not 

find any other indication that the taxon 

is present in the United States, 

indicating that it is not widely 

distributed. We are evaluating S. 

angulatus for addition to the list of 

noxious weeds in 7 CFR part 360, 

meaning that it is under official control. 

Therefore, we are adding S. angulatus to 

the NAPPRA list of quarantine pest 

plants. 

Wikstroemia indica. One commenter 

stated that it might be best to find a way 

for researchers to import this plant, 

perhaps through a CIP, as it seems to be 

the hot item for antiviral research and 

a coumarin substitute. 

We are adding W. indica to the 

NAPPRA list of quarantine pest plants. 

However, as the commenter suggests, 

researchers will be able to import it 

through a Departmental permit in 

accordance with § 319.37–2(c). If the 

CIP proposal is finalized, we will be 

able to make permits for research and 

development in this taxon more widely 

available. 

Hosts of Quarantine Pests 

Questions Regarding PRAs 

In order to remove a taxon from the 

NAPPRA category, we will conduct a 

PRA for the taxon in accordance with 

paragraph (e) of § 319.37–2a. We 

received a few questions on the PRA 

process, all of which focused on the 

importation of taxa of plants for 

planting that we determine to be hosts 

of quarantine pests. 

One commenter asked whether the 

PRAs will address only the pest for 

which the taxon was added to the 

NAPPRA category, or all quarantine 

pests associated with the taxon and the 

countries included in the PRA. 

The PRAs will be comprehensive and 

analyze all quarantine pests associated 

with the taxon in the countries included 

in the PRA, so that we can address all 

the risks associated with the 

importation of the plant taxon. 

One commenter asked whether we 

will consider proposals from foreign 

national plant protection organizations 

(NPPOs), accompanied by scientific and 

technical justifications, for the 

development of specific import 

requirements for NAPPRA-listed plants 

(e.g., systems approach, treatment, postentry quarantine, etc.) prior to the 

initiation and completion of a PRA. 

We would not authorize the 

importation of a NAPPRA-listed taxon 

prior to the completion of a PRA, except 

under Departmental permit (or CIP, if 

the proposed rule is finalized). 

However, any information an exporting 

country wishes to submit regarding 

potential mitigations for the pests 

associated with a taxon would be taken 

into account during the development of 

a PRA or the issuance of a Departmental 

permit or CIP. 

One commenter asked about how we 

will prioritize PRAs, the type of 

information that will be required for the 

PRA process, timelines for completion 

of PRAs, and what actions, if any, can 

be taken by industry to facilitate the 

process. 

PRAs will be prioritized based on 

whether we have received a request to 

conduct them. Requests to remove a 

taxon from the NAPPRA list must be 

made in accordance with § 319.5. This 

section, headed ‘‘Requirements for 

submitting requests to change the 

regulations in 7 CFR part 319,’’ allows 

anyone to submit a request to change 

the regulations in 7 CFR part 319, but 

requires the submission of information 

from an NPPO before a PRA will be 

prepared. 

We strive to complete all PRAs in a 

timely manner. However, the length of 

time it takes to complete a PRA is 

dependent on several factors, some of 

which are not in APHIS’ control: 

• The availability of data on the 

taxon; 

• The timeliness with which the 

foreign NPPO responds to our requests 

for information; and 

• Competition for APHIS’ limited 

resources available for developing 

PRAs. 

These factors mean that we cannot 

provide a timetable for preparation of a 

PRA in response to a request to remove 

a taxon from the NAPPRA category. 

However, if a foreign country wishes to 

be able to conduct trade in a taxon with 

the United States, we would expect that 

its NPPO would provide information to 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
23216 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 75 / Thursday, April 18, 2013 / Notices 

APHIS in a timely manner, thus helping 

to reduce the time necessary to 

complete the PRA. Industry could help 

foreign NPPOs by working with them to 

assemble and provide the necessary 

information. 

Distribution of Quarantine Pests 

In most cases, under the ‘‘Action 

under NAPPRA’’ heading in the data 

sheets, we proposed to add taxa that are 

hosts of quarantine pests to NAPPRA 

from all countries, rather than just the 

countries in which the quarantine pest 

of concern is known to be present. 

We received several comments on this 

policy. One commenter asked whether 

the pest status of individual countries of 

origin would be taken into 

consideration, as designated by the 

NPPOs of those countries, in order to 

remove them from the NAPPRA list. 

Another commenter asked for 

clarification to be provided on the 

measures to be implemented in the case 

of countries where the listed pests are 

not known to be present. 

Our policy in implementing the 

NAPPRA category is to prevent the 

importation of hosts from any country, 

regardless of current pest status, with 

the following exceptions: 

• Taxa of hosts of quarantine pests 

whose importation we proposed to 

allow to continue under a Federal order, 

as described earlier in this document; 

• Taxa of hosts of quarantine pests 

currently being imported from a country 

in which the pest is not present; and 

• Certain taxa from Canada, when 

Canada is free of the quarantine pest for 

which the taxa are hosts and when 

Canada’s import regulations and our 

restrictions specific to Canada ensure 

that the pest would not be introduced 

into the United States through the 

importation of the taxa from Canada. 

In general, it is appropriate to add 

hosts of quarantine pests from all 

countries to the NAPPRA category 

because pests can spread quickly from 

country to country through the 

movement of plants for planting, and 

the importation of plants for planting is 

a high-risk pathway for the introduction 

of quarantine pests. 

Another commenter asked how our 

policy of adding imports of taxa of hosts 

of quarantine pests from all countries to 

the NAPPRA list takes relevant IPPC 

guidelines into account. 

As described above, when a taxon that 

is a host of a quarantine pest is currently 

being imported, we take measures other 

than addition to the NAPPRA category 

to address the risk associated with that 

taxon, when such measures are 

available. For taxa that have not 

previously been imported, we are 

following IPPC guidelines by requiring 

a PRA prior to the importation of a plant 

taxon from a new country or region. 

Cut Flowers 

Under the ‘‘Action under NAPPRA’’ 

heading, the data sheets for most of the 

hosts of quarantine pests indicated that 

the importation of cut flowers of those 

taxa would be NAPPRA. One 

commenter stated that cut flowers 

should be included in the NAPPRA 

category only where scientifically 

justified, as cut flowers are generally 

intended for consumption rather than 

for introduction into the environment 

and thus have historically, and 

correctly, been regarded as posing a 

level of risk different than that posed by 

plants for planting. 

The commenter expressed specific 

concerns about including in the 

NAPPRA category cut flowers from CLB 

host taxa, one of which is the genus 

Rosa, which includes roses. The 

commenter asked that the action under 

NAPPRA be modified to be consistent 

with the Federal order, which 

prohibited cut rose imports only of 

stems greater than 10 millimeters (mm) 

in diameter from certain countries. The 

commenter also asked that we allow the 

importation of cut roses of any stem 

diameter from Canada, Denmark, 

France, Germany, Netherlands, and the 

United Kingdom. The commenter cited 

data from USDA’s Foreign Agricultural 

Service indicating that the total value of 

cut roses imported into the United 

States was over $325 million and asked 

that the proposed action be amended to 

reflect existing trade patterns. 

Another commenter agreed that stems 

10 mm or smaller in diameter are not 

likely to transport viable individuals of 

CLB, but expressed concern regarding 

larger stems of roses intended for 

planting, even from the European 

Union; the commenter stated that the 

European Union lacks effective border 

controls and that CLB is established in 

Italy. 

One commenter stated that CLB larvae 

are not found in host plant material 

smaller than 10 mm in diameter, 

meaning such material should be 

exempt from NAPPRA. 

We agree that cut flowers are intended 

for consumption rather than for 

propagation. However, cut flowers can 

be used for propagation, and if so used 

can transmit quarantine pathogens. The 

definitions of plant and regulated article 

in § 319.37–1 allow us to regulate both 

articles intended for propagation and 

articles capable of propagation, as we 

determine to be necessary. Indeed, for 

taxa whose importation is prohibited 

under § 319.37–2(a) due to their 

potential to introduce plant pathogens, 

we have historically prohibited the 

importation of cut flowers of these taxa 

as well, when they are capable of 

propagation and a pathway for the 

introduction of the quarantine pest. 

Nevertheless, the commenter is 

correct that it is important to evaluate 

whether cut flowers of a taxon of plants 

for planting are capable of introducing 

the pest in question before including 

them in the NAPPRA action for that 

taxon. We reexamined the taxa we had 

proposed to add to NAPPRA as hosts of 

quarantine pests and found that the 

insect quarantine pests (CLB; 

Rhynchophorus ferrugineus, the red 

palm weevil; and Rhynchophorus 

palmarum, the giant palm weevil) 

named in the NAPPRA data sheets are 

not likely to infest cut flowers of their 

host taxa. In addition, cut flowers of 

hosts of the two palm weevils are not 

used for propagation and so do not 

present the same risks that cut flowers 

of other taxa might. 

We are updating the ‘‘Action under 

NAPPRA’’ sections of the data sheets for 

CLB and the palm weevils to reflect the 

fact that cut flowers of taxa that are 

hosts of these pests will not be regulated 

under NAPPRA. However, the 

importation of cut flowers from hosts of 

all three of these quarantine pests is 

restricted in Federal orders, and those 

restrictions will remain in place. With 

respect to CLB, the Federal order for 

CLB exempts stems 10 mm and less in 

diameter from regulation, as noted 

earlier, and imposes production and 

certification requirements on larger 

stems and on other plants for planting 

from countries where CLB is known to 

occur (including the European Union). 

The other quarantine pests addressed 

in the data sheets are all pathogens, and 

cut flowers from any of the host taxa can 

serve as a pathway for the introduction 

of the quarantine pest and can be used 

for planting. For that reason, we are 

adding cut flowers of those taxa (as well 

as all other plant parts other than seed) 

to the NAPPRA category. 

We are not, however, exempting any 

plant material less than 10 mm in 

diameter from a CLB host taxon from 

the NAPPRA category. Such plants are 

likely intended for propagation, and in 

order to authorize their importation 

from a new source we would need to 

conduct a PRA to analyze all the 

relevant risks associated with their 

importation. 

Seed 

Two commenters stated that seed 

should be allowed to be imported if the 

taxon is a host of a quarantine pest 

(rather than a quarantine pest itself), the 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 75 / Thursday, April 18, 2013 / Notices 23217 

quarantine pest is an insect, and the 

insect’s egg-laying habits are not 

associated with the plant’s fruit or seed. 

One commenter expressed concern 

that our proposed addition of taxa such 

as Solanum spp. and Capsicum spp. to 

the NAPPRA list of hosts of quarantine 

pests would be a problem for growers in 

Guam who import seed from tropical 

areas in Asia. 

Two commenters expressed specific 

concern about the designation of Rubus 

spp. as a host of CLB and stated that, 

since CLB does not target seeds, seeds 

of Rubus spp. could be exempted from 

NAPPRA restrictions. 

We have recognized that seed poses 

different risks than other plant parts. In 

the May 2011 final rule, we stated that 

we would continue to allow the 

importation of seed from taxa that were 

added to the NAPPRA list of hosts of 

quarantine pests, unless there was 

evidence that the quarantine pest could 

be introduced via seed. The ‘‘Action 

under NAPPRA’’ sections for all of the 

taxa that we determined to be hosts of 

quarantine pests (including Rubus spp., 

Solanum spp., and Capsicum spp.) 

indicated that seed would continue to 

be allowed to be imported. 

One commenter stated that we should 

take into account the size of the 

importation, as small lots of seed are of 

a decidedly lower order of risk than 

bulk commercial shipments of plants or 

seed. 

We agree that the risk of introducing 

a quarantine pest through imported 

plants for planting increases with the 

size of the shipment. However, for 

plants for planting that are themselves 

quarantine pests, a single seed could be 

enough to introduce the quarantine pest 

and allow it to establish. That is why, 

for quarantine pest plants, the 

importation of seed of those taxa is 

NAPPRA. In addition, in the regulations 

allowing the importation of small lots of 

seed without a phytosanitary certificate 

in § 319.37–4(d), we do not allow the 

importation of small lots of seed from 

taxa whose seed is listed as NAPPRA. 

Tissue Culture and Roots 

One commenter stated that tissuecultured plants from taxa listed as 

NAPPRA should be allowed to be 

imported, as scientific evidence 

indicates that pests would not 

accompany tissue-cultured material. 

Two commenters stated that the 

importation of in vitro tissue cultures of 

Rubus spp. should be allowed under the 

conditions currently in place in the 

Federal order for CLB. These 

commenters also stated that roots and 

root segments of Rubus spp. should be 

exempt from NAPPRA. 

While properly tissue-cultured plants 

are pest-free, plants that are infested 

with disease prior to tissue culture are 

likely to be infested when the plant 

comes out of tissue culture as well. 

Plants that are added to the NAPPRA 

list as hosts of an insect quarantine pest 

may be free of that pest, but there may 

be other plant pests for which tissue 

culturing is not an adequate mitigation, 

or for which there may be special 

requirements for tissue culturing. In 

order to fully consider whether tissue 

culture is an adequate mitigation for all 

the pests associated with a taxon of 

plants for planting, we would need to 

conduct a PRA. Therefore, we cannot 

allow the importation of tissue cultures 

of plant taxa listed as NAPPRA. 

Similarly, roots may be hosts for 

additional pests for which we would 

need to conduct a PRA, and we cannot 

allow the importation of roots from 

plant taxa listed as NAPPRA. 

For Rubus spp. specifically, the only 

countries with which the United States 

has had significant trade over the past 

few years in any kind of plants for 

planting are Canada and the United 

Kingdom. As noted earlier, both of these 

countries are now excluded from the 

NAPPRA action for Rubus spp., and 

importation of Rubus spp. from these 

countries, including tissue culture, will 

continue to be regulated by the Federal 

order for CLB and, in the plants for 

planting regulations, paragraphs (e) and 

(f) of § 319.37–5. 

Harmonization With Canada 

Under the ‘‘Action under NAPPRA’’ 

heading of the data sheets for taxa that 

we determined to be hosts of quarantine 

pests, we stated for some taxa that we 

would continue to allow the 

importation of the taxon from Canada. 

We stated in the initial notice that we 

would allow such importation when 

Canada is free of the quarantine pest for 

which the taxa are hosts and when 

Canada’s import regulations and our 

restrictions specific to Canada ensure 

that the pest would not be introduced 

into the United States through the 

importation of the taxa from Canada. 

One commenter, the NPPO of Canada, 

asked us to allow the continued 

importation from Canada of several taxa 

that are hosts of quarantine pests in 

addition to those specified in the initial 

data sheets. Specifically, the NPPO of 

Canada asked that we allow the 

continued importation of hosts of CLB, 

the red palm weevil, the giant palm 

weevil, and the pests Bursaphelenchus 

cocophilus, Ceratocystis manginecans, 

Pseudomonas syringae pv. actinidae, 

and Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. 

punica. The NPPO of Canada stated that 

these pests are not present in Canada 

and that hosts of these pests are 

imported into Canada primarily or 

solely from the United States. 

Furthermore, the commenter stated, the 

NPPO of Canada intends to put in place 

restrictions on the importation of hosts 

of these pests from other countries that 

are equivalent to the restrictions we 

proposed to implement through adding 

those host taxa to the NAPPRA category. 

We agree with this commenter with 

respect to hosts of CLB. Most host taxa 

of CLB are commonly cultivated in 

Canada, and Canada has put in place 

restrictions on the importation of all 

CLB host taxa from other countries. As 

noted earlier in this document, the data 

sheet for CLB has been updated to 

indicate that the importation of hosts of 

this pest from Canada is not restricted 

under NAPPRA. 

With respect to the hosts of the rest 

of the pests the commenter named, 

Canada has not yet implemented 

regulations that are equivalent to adding 

the host taxa to the NAPPRA category. 

In addition, it is unlikely that hosts of 

these pests would be cultivated in 

Canada, as the pests affect tropical 

plants, specifically kiwi, mango, palm, 

and pomegranate plants. Therefore, 

plants of these taxa that are present in 

Canada would likely have been 

imported; if they were imported from an 

area other than the United States, they 

could pose a risk of introducing a 

quarantine pest into the United States, 

should they be re-exported to the United 

States. Accordingly, we will continue to 

include Canada in the list of countries 

from which the importation of hosts of 

the red palm weevil, the giant palm 

weevil, Bursaphelenchus cocophilus, 

Ceratocystis manginecans, 

Pseudomonas syringae pv. actinidae, 

and Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. 

punica is NAPPRA. 

If Canada successfully imposes 

equivalent import restrictions on hosts 

of these pests in the future, we will 

reevaluate our decisions. 

CLB 

One commenter, representing the 

European Union, noted that 72 taxa of 

plants for planting were designated as 

hosts of CLB and thus potential 

additions to the NAPPRA category, but 

the pests and pest risks associated with 

these taxa are well known, since the 

pest of concern has already been 

identified. The commenter asked us to 

clarify the need for strengthening the 

import requirements for these taxa from 

the European Union. 

We have identified the taxa listed in 

the CLB data sheet as hosts of a 

quarantine pest. This indicates that 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
23218 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 75 / Thursday, April 18, 2013 / Notices 

further analysis is necessary before 

allowing their importation. While one 

pest is sufficient for adding a taxon to 

NAPPRA, there may be other quarantine 

pests associated with the taxa in various 

areas of the world where the plant may 

be grown. In order to authorize the 

importation of these host taxa when we 

do not have any information about 

importation of the taxon from a country, 

we would need to develop a PRA that 

determines all the pests associated with 

the taxon in a specific country or area 

and identifies an appropriate risk 

mitigation strategy for all those pests. (It 

is extremely likely that most of the taxa 

of plants for planting identified as hosts 

of CLB are also hosts to other quarantine 

pests, for which we may or may not 

have practical mitigations.) In the 

meantime, we are being consistent with 

IPPC guidelines by not allowing the 

importation of the host taxa from areas 

from which they have not recently been 

imported without a PRA. As discussed 

earlier, importation of CLB host taxa 

from areas that have previously 

exported those taxa to the United States 

will continue to be regulated by the CLB 

Federal order. 

The commenter asked us to share our 

technical documentation on the host 

range of CLB as well as any data on 

interceptions of CLB in plants from the 

European Union. 

The technical documentation on the 

host range of CLB is presented in the 

CLB data sheet. We do not have 

interception data for CLB from the 

European Union, for two reasons. First, 

except for the specific countries from 

which imports of certain CLB host taxa 

will continue to be allowed, as 

described in the amended data sheet 

available with this final notice, the 

countries in the European Union have 

not exported significant quantities of 

CLB host taxa to the United States. 

Second, CLB is an internal borer, and 

such pests are not readily apparent 

through the visual inspection we 

conduct at plant inspection stations, 

which makes it all the more important 

to develop other means to combat this 

and any other quarantine pests 

associated with the CLB host taxa, 

through the PRA process. As discussed 

earlier, the importation of CLB host taxa 

has been subject to mitigations against 

the introduction of CLB that are set out 

in a Federal order, and any importation 

of CLB host taxa that continues after the 

publication of this notice will occur 

under the same mitigations. 

The data sheet for CLB listed CLB as 

present in the European Union, among 

other areas. The commenter stated that 

most European Union Member States 

can claim that CLB is not known to 

occur, based on several years of 

mandatory annual surveillance. The 

commenter stated that areas where CLB 

is established have been demarcated 

officially, and measures are imposed to 

ensure that no infested material can 

leave these areas. The commenter 

further stated that there are no 

indications that CLB is present outside 

demarcated areas, with the exception of 

isolated findings that can be traced back 

to imports. The commenter concluded 

that the entire European Union should 

not be listed as an area where CLB is 

present. 

As stated in this document, unless we 

have had significant trade in CLB host 

taxa with a country, imports of CLB host 

taxa from all countries will be NAPPRA. 

As previously established, the countries 

that comprise the European Union have 

not exported significant quantities of 

CLB host taxa to the United States, with 

limited exceptions as described in the 

data sheets. Therefore, it does not matter 

whether CLB is present in the entire 

European Union or in certain areas for 

the purposes of this action. 

With respect to the assertions made 

by the commenter, we note that, in the 

European Union, CLB has been found in 

the environment surrounding nursery 

areas, suggesting that infested host 

material was moved into previously 

uninfested areas, and may also have 

moved out of those areas. This would 

indicate some potential deficiencies in 

the European Union’s regulatory 

program for this pest. We would 

undertake a detailed review of the 

European Union’s program for CLB if 

the European Union requests that we 

conduct a PRA to allow the importation 

of CLB host taxa into the United States. 

One commenter requested 

clarification regarding the rationale for 

adding Chaenomeles spp., Cydonia 

spp., Malus spp., Prunus spp., and 

Pyrus spp. to the NAPPRA category as 

hosts of CLB. The commenter stated that 

our previously established import 

restrictions for fruit tree propagative 

material into North America require 

certification for specific pests of 

concern, and prohibit importation from 

non-approved sources. The commenter 

stated that these measures should 

mitigate the risk for most pests of 

potential concern. Another commenter 

similarly stated that many of the pest 

species for which taxa were proposed to 

be listed in the NAPPRA category are 

already regulated by the United States, 

including CLB. 

We believe the measures the 

commenter cited are those in paragraphs 

(b) and (j) of § 319.37–5. These measures 

specifically address pathogens that may 

be associated with these genera of fruit 

trees. They do not provide any 

protection against CLB. In addition, they 

do not address other insect or pathogen 

pests that may be associated with these 

genera. In order to comprehensively 

address the risk associated with the 

importation of these taxa, we need to 

complete a PRA. 

Several commenters expressed 

concern regarding the potential impact 

on the bonsai trade of listing Pinus spp. 

and Rhododendron spp. as NAPPRA. 

This trade has been regulated under 

paragraph (q) of § 319.37–5, which 

prescribes conditions for the 

importation of artificially dwarfed 

plants that are designed to prevent the 

introduction of insect pests into the 

United States. Some bonsai are also 

imported under a bonsai pilot program 

in which the bonsai are grown for a 

period of time in postentry quarantine 

under conditions equivalent to those in 

§ 319.37–5(q). 

The commenters stated that the 

importation of Pinus spp. and 

Rhododendron spp. as bonsai, 

particularly from Japan but also from 

China and Taiwan, is an important 

business for them, with investments 

made in production facilities in Japan 

and postentry quarantine facilities in 

the United States and per-tree values of 

$50,000 or more. The commenters also 

stated that bonsai are subject to intense 

monitoring from agricultural officials 

and have had no pest problems. 

Based on these comments, we reexamined our import records to 

determine whether there was significant 

trade in Pinus spp. and Rhododendron 

spp. from any country we had proposed 

to list as NAPPRA for those taxa. As 

noted earlier in this document under the 

heading ‘‘Potential Economic Effects,’’ 

we determined that there had been 

significant trade with Japan (although 

not China or Taiwan). As the conditions 

in § 319.37–5(q) and in the bonsai pilot 

program have been successful at 

mitigating the risk of introducing other 

quarantine pests into the United States, 

and as the Federal order for CLB will 

continue to govern the importation of 

Pinus spp. and Rhododendron spp. from 

Japan, we do not believe excluding 

Japan from the NAPPRA action for these 

taxa will increase the risk of introducing 

quarantine pests into the United States. 

Noting that the importation of bonsai 

is regulated under § 319.37–5(q), one 

commenter suggested we should 

continue to allow the importation of any 

taxon that is to be listed in NAPPRA as 

a host of a quarantine pest if the taxon 

is produced in accordance with a 

USDA-approved systems approach. 

The conditions in § 319.37–5(q) were 

developed to address the risk posed by 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 75 / Thursday, April 18, 2013 / Notices 23219 

longhorned beetles, including CLB, in 

artificially dwarfed plants. However, 

those conditions apply only to 

artificially dwarfed plants; it is 

necessary to restrict the importation of 

all plants that are hosts of CLB in order 

to address the risk of introducing CLB. 

Appropriate conditions for the 

importation of those host plants can be 

determined through the PRA process. 

There may be other quarantine pests 

associated with a taxon besides the pest 

or pests addressed by a systems 

approach and the pest for which the 

taxon was added to the NAPPRA 

category. Conducting a PRA will allow 

us to identify all quarantine pests 

associated with a taxon and develop 

appropriate mitigations. 

As discussed earlier, in cases where 

we have experience with importing 

artificially dwarfed plants under 

§ 319.37–5(q) and the CLB Federal order 

and have found, through inspection, 

that they are generally pest-free, we 

have allowed that trade to continue 

under the conditions of the Federal 

order. 

One commenter, a company primarily 

focused on the establishment and 

management of short rotation 

plantations of hybrid poplar in North 

America, Europe, Asia, and South 

America, expressed concern about the 

listing of Populus, the genus containing 

poplar species, as NAPPRA. The 

commenter stated that its breeding and 

hybridization work takes place in 

Oregon, meaning the commenter needs 

to import plant material in the form of 

soil-free cuttings, seed, and pollen from 

various countries. The commenter 

stated that it has followed all 

regulations for importing plants for 

planting in the past, and such 

importations have not resulted in the 

introduction of any pests to the United 

States. 

The importation of seed of Populus 

spp. will continue to be allowed. While 

pollen may not be a pathway for CLB, 

we need to evaluate all the quarantine 

pests associated with this taxon besides 

CLB as well, as there have not been 

significant imports of Populus spp. 

pollen or other plant parts into the 

United States. Soil-free unrooted 

cuttings, meanwhile, could easily serve 

as a pathway for CLB depending on size, 

and we would need to analyze CLB and 

any other pests associated with Populus 

spp. through the PRA process before 

allowing the importation of such plants 

for planting, as there have not been 

significant imports of Populus spp. from 

any country except Canada. 

One commenter stated a desire to 

establish a pest-free area for CLB and 

the Asian longhorned beetle 

(Anaplophora glabripennis, ALB) in 

Netherlands to allow the importation of 

fruit trees from that country. 

As described in the CLB data sheet 

that accompanied the July 2011 notice, 

Malus spp. and Prunus spp., the two 

principal genera of fruit trees, from 

Netherlands will be allowed to be 

imported under the current regulations 

for their importation in § 319.37–5(b) 

and under the conditions of the Federal 

order. The Federal order includes 

requirements for production in a pestfree area, pest-free place of production, 

or pest-free production site for CLB and 

ALB. We fully support the 

establishment of pest-free areas in 

exporting countries, but it is the 

responsibility of the exporting country’s 

NPPO and local growers to establish and 

maintain these pest-free areas. 

Lachneulla willkommii 

One commenter expressed surprise 

that we had excluded Canada from 

NAPPRA in the data sheet listing hosts 

of the pest Lachneulla willkommii, 

since, as the commenter stated, L. 

willkommii is present in Nova Scotia 

and New Brunswick. 

Both Canada and the United States 

have designated areas under quarantine 

for this pest. We recognize Canada’s 

quarantine, and Canada recognizes ours. 

There is no need for further restrictions. 

Therefore, in accordance with the 

regulations in § 319.37–2a(b)(2), we are 

adding 31 taxa of plants for planting 

that are quarantine pests and 107 taxa 

of plants for planting that are hosts of 

13 quarantine pests to the list of taxa 

whose importation is NAPPRA. A 

complete list of those taxa and the 

restrictions placed on their importation 

can be found at the address in footnote 

1 of this document or on the Plant 

Protection and Quarantine Web page at 

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

import_export/plants/plant_imports/ 

Q37/nappra/index.shtml. 

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. 

Done in Washington, DC, this 15th day of 

April 2013. 

Kevin Shea, 

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 2013–09147 Filed 4–17–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Forest Service 

National Advisory Committee for 

Implementation of the National Forest 

System Land Management Planning 

Rule 

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice of meeting. 

SUMMARY: The National Advisory 

Committee for Implementation of the 

National Forest System Land 

Management Planning Rule will meet in 

Fort Collins, Colorado. The committee 

operates in compliance with the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act. The purpose 

of the committee is to provide advice 

and recommendations on the 

implementation of the National Forest 

System Land Management Rule. The 

meeting is also open to the public. The 

purpose of the meeting is to initiate 

deliberations on formulating advice to 

the Secretary on the Proposed Land 

Management Planning Directives. 

DATES: The meeting will be held on May 

7–9, 2013, from 8:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. 

on Tuesday, 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on 

Wednesday, and 8:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. 

on Thursday, Mountain Time. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 

the Hilton Fort Collins, 425 West 

Prospect Road, Fort Collins, Colorado 

80526. 

Written comments may be submitted 

as described under Supplementary 

Information. All comments, including 

names and addresses when provided, 

are placed in the record and are 

available for public inspection and 

copying. The public may inspect 

comments received at 1601 N Kent 

Street, Arlington, VA 22209, 6th Floor. 

Please contact ahead of time, Chalonda 

Jasper at 202–260–9400, 

cjasper@fs.fed.us, to facilitate entry into 

the building to view comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Chalonda Jasper, Ecosystem 

Management Coordination, 202–260– 

9400, cjasper@fs.fed.us. 

Individuals who use 

telecommunication devices for the deaf 

(TDD) may call the Federal Information 

Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339 

between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., 

Eastern Standard Time, Monday 

through Friday. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

following business will be conducted: 

(1) Initial deliberations on formulating 

advice for the Secretary on the Proposed 

Land Management Planning Directives, 

(2) discuss findings from committee 

working groups, and (3) administrative 

tasks. Further information, including 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES