This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains regulatory documents having general

applicability and legal effect, most of which

are keyed to and codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations, which is published under

50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by

the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of

new books are listed in the first FEDERAL

REGISTER issue of each week.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

15805 

Vol. 72, No. 63 

Tuesday, April 3, 2007 

1To view the proposed rule and the comments 

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

on the ‘‘Advanced Search’’ tab, and select ‘‘Docket 

Search.’’ In the Docket ID field, enter APHIS–2005– 

0061, then click on ‘‘Submit.’’ Clicking on the 

Docket ID link in the search results page will 

produce a list of all documents in the docket. 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

7 CFR Part 319 

[Docket No. 03–016–3] 

RIN 0579–AC18 

Cut Flowers From Countries With 

Chrysanthemum White Rust 

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are amending the cut 

flowers regulations to establish specific 

requirements for the importation of cut 

flowers that are hosts of chrysanthemum 

white rust (CWR) from countries where 

the disease is known to occur. We are 

also amending the nursery stock 

regulations to update lists of countries 

where CWR is known to occur. We are 

making these changes in order to make 

our cut flowers and nursery stock 

regulations consistent. This action is 

necessary because of numerous recent 

findings of CWR on cut flowers from 

Europe that pose a risk of introducing 

CWR in the United States. 

DATES: Effective Date: May 3, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Tony Roman, Import Specialist, 

Commodity Import Analysis and 

Operation, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River 

Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737– 

1231; (301) 734–8758. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The regulations in 7 CFR part 319 

prohibit or restrict the importation of 

plants, plant parts, and related materials 

to prevent the introduction of plant 

pests into the United States. The 

regulations in ‘‘Subpart-Nursery Stock, 

Plants, Roots, Bulbs, Seeds, and Other 

Plant Products,’’ §§ 319.37 through 

319.37–14 (referred to below as the 

nursery stock regulations) restrict, 

among other things, the importation of 

living plants, plant parts, and seeds for 

propagation. Conditions governing the 

importation of cut flowers into the 

United States are contained in 

‘‘Subpart—Cut Flowers’’ (§§ 319.74–1 

through 319.74–4, referred to below as 

the cut flowers regulations). 

On July 7, 2005, we published in the 

Federal Register (70 FR 39194–39199, 

Docket No. 03–016–1) a proposal 1 to 

amend the cut flowers regulations to 

establish specific requirements for the 

importation of cut flowers that are hosts 

of chrysanthemum white rust (CWR) 

from countries where the disease is 

known to occur. We also proposed to 

amend the nursery stock regulations to 

update lists of countries where CWR is 

known to occur. 

We solicited comments concerning 

our proposal for 60 days ending 

September 6, 2005. On September 20, 

2005, we published a document in the 

Federal Register (70 FR 55036, Docket 

No. 03–016–2) reopening the comment 

period for our proposed rule until 

October 21, 2005. We received eight 

comments by that date. The comments 

were from representatives of State and 

foreign governments, industry 

organizations, importers and exporters, 

and distributors. Two of those 

commenters supported the proposed 

rule. The remaining commenters 

expressed some reservations, which are 

discussed below. 

General Comments 

Two commenters stated that 

information about production site 

registration in the background section 

and the rule portion was inconsistent. 

Specifically, the commenters stated that 

it was unclear if all cut flower 

production sites in countries where 

CWR is known to occur would have to 

register with their national plant 

protection organizations (NPPOs) or if 

only those wishing to export to the 

United States would have to do so. 

The commenter is correct, in that the 

wording used in the background section 

and the proposed regulatory text in our 

proposal regarding production site 

registration was inconsistent. The 

background section of the proposed rule 

stated that all production sites in 

countries where CWR is known to occur 

would have to register with their 

NPPOs. The proposed regulatory text 

stated that cut flowers would have to 

originate from production sites that 

were registered with their country’s 

NPPO. It is our intent to only require 

those production sites that wish to ship 

CWR-susceptible species of cut flowers 

to the United States to register with 

their NPPOs. Because the error appeared 

only in the background section, it is not 

necessary to make a change in the 

regulatory text in this final rule. 

One commenter took issue with our 

statement that CWR is not established in 

the United States. The commenter said 

that the CWR status of a country should 

be based on official survey information 

in conformance with international 

standards. Also, the commenter stated 

that we should recognize areas within 

countries as pest-free rather than 

considering the entire country to be 

affected, and that this recognition 

should be based upon official surveys 

conducted in accordance with the 

International Plant Protection 

Convention’s (IPPC) standards for pestfree areas. 

We maintain that CWR is not 

established in the United States. Based 

on the definitions given in the 

International Standards for 

Phytosanitary Measures (ISPM) No. 8, 

‘‘Determination of Pest Status in an 

Area,’’ when CWR is found in the 

United States, it fits under the category 

of ‘‘Transient: Actionable, under 

eradication.’’ The explanation of this 

category given in ISPM No. 8 is that 

‘‘the pest has been detected as an 

isolated population which may survive 

into the immediate future and, without 

phytosanitary measures for eradication, 

may establish. Appropriate 

phytosanitary measures have been 

applied for its eradication.’’ As stated in 

the proposed rule, whenever CWR has 

been detected in the United States, we 

have taken immediate action to 

eradicate the disease. With regard to 

recognizing areas within countries as 

CWR-free, we have not identified any 

CWR-free areas within the countries 

where the disease is known to occur at 

this time, but would be willing to do so 

if an affected country submits to APHIS 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
15806 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

scientific documentation that 

demonstrates the pest-free status of an 

area or areas within the country, and if 

the area otherwise meets the 

requirements in ISPM No. 4 

‘‘Requirements for the Establishment of 

Pest Free Areas.’’

One commenter stated that risk 

mitigations should be based on a pest 

risk analysis, but noted that no pest risk 

analysis was done for the proposed rule. 

The commenter stated that it would be 

useful for APHIS to communicate to 

NPPOs the risks that have been 

identified by APHIS in this matter. 

We explained in our proposed rule 

that we have been administratively 

regulating cut flowers from countries 

where CWR is known to occur since 

1974. Under these circumstances, we 

believe that it is unnecessary to conduct 

a formal pest risk analysis. We also 

stated in our proposed rule that we are 

currently applying similar 

administrative restrictions to cut flowers 

from Mexico and the Netherlands and 

that these measures have been effective 

in preventing the introduction of CWR 

by cut flowers from those countries. 

Two commenters stated that APHIS 

inspectors should not be allowed to 

oversee program operations in other 

countries. One of the commenters stated 

that APHIS being allowed to exercise 

influence over export certifications is 

inconsistent with IPPC standards and 

that inspecting production sites should 

be left up to the individual exporting 

country. The second commenter took 

issue with the statement in our 

proposed rule that, ‘‘* * * if any 

shipment of cut flowers is found to be 

infested with CWR upon arrival in the 

United States, we would prohibit 

imports from the originating production 

site until such a time as APHIS and the 

national plant protection organization of 

the exporting country can agree that the 

eradication measures taken have been 

effective and the pest risk within the 

production site has been eliminated.’’

The commenter stated that the 

effectiveness of eradication measures 

should be determined by the exporting 

country’s NPPO, not APHIS. 

As the NPPO of the United States, we 

have the right to monitor program 

operations in other countries in order to 

ensure that proper procedures are being 

followed so as to prevent the 

introduction of quarantine pests and 

diseases into the United States. APHIS 

inspectors will monitor production sites 

and pest survey information, but the 

NPPO of the individual countries will 

be ultimately responsible for monitoring 

and applying appropriate pest-control 

measures when necessary. Further, the 

APHIS inspectors who will be involved 

in monitoring the effectiveness of each 

country’s program will primarily be 

APHIS employees who are already 

working closely with the NPPO in each 

country. With regard to eradication 

measures, it is not our intention to 

dictate which measures a country uses 

to eradicate CWR once it is detected. 

Our concern is with ensuring that the 

measures used by the production site 

have been effective and that the pest 

risk within the production site has been 

eliminated. 

One commenter stated that the 

taxonomy of the genus Chrysanthemum 

has changed over the years and that the 

table of CWR hosts in § 319.74–2 should 

reflect these changes. The commenter 

noted that the plants belonging to the 

former Chrysanthemum spp. complex 

have been transferred to several other 

genera and that only three species are 

now recognized as belonging to the 

genus Chrysanthemum (i.e., C. 

carinatum, C. coronarium and C. 

segetum). The commenter added that 

these species are not hosts to CWR. The 

commenter also stated that the common 

name ‘‘chrysanthemum’’ should be 

associated with entries for the 

Dendrathema spp., Nipponanthemum 

spp., Leucanthemella spp., and Ajania 

pacifica, but not with entries of 

Chrysanthemum spp. Finally, the 

commenter stated that in the proposed 

rule, Leucanthemum appears as a 

synonym for a susceptible species when 

it is not considered a host and 

Chrysanthemum appears as a 

susceptible species. 

The commenter is correct in that the 

taxonomy of the genus Chrysanthemum 

has changed over the years; however, 

the taxonomy has changed again since 

the suggestions made by the commenter 

were used. The earlier splitting of the 

genus referred to by the commenter 

caused a lot of resistance and confusion, 

because these plants were well-known 

as chrysanthemums and many countries 

did not want to use the new names. In 

1995, a formal proposal was made to the 

International Botanical Congress to 

conserve the genus Chrysanthemum. 

The proposal was approved in the 1999 

meeting of the Botanical Congress and 

the resulting ‘‘St. Louis Code’’ of 2000 

conserved the genus Chrysanthemum. 

APHIS updated the taxonomic names in 

accordance with the decision, and we 

use the currently accepted names as 

treated in the USDA, Agricultural 

Research Service Germplasm Resources 

Information Network. The table in 

§ 319.74–2 reflects the current 

taxonomy, and the synonyms listed in 

the second column include those names 

in use before the genus Chrysanthemum 

was conserved. 

One commenter stated that plants for 

planting pose a greater risk than cut 

flowers because cut flowers will shortly 

end up in someone’s home, while plants 

for planting can be propagated. 

The regulations in § 319.37–2 prohibit 

the importation of CWR-susceptible 

species of plants for planting from 

countries where the disease is known to 

occur. In addition, the regulations in 

§ 319.37–5(c) require that restricted 

articles from countries where CWR is 

not known to occur be accompanied by 

a phytosanitary certificate with a 

declaration that the ‘‘article was grown 

in a greenhouse nursery and found by 

the plant protection service of the 

country in which grown to be free of 

CWR based on visual examination of the 

parent stock, the articles for 

importation, and the greenhouse 

nursery in which the articles for 

importation and the parent stock were 

grown, once a month for 4 consecutive 

months immediately prior to 

importation.’’

One commenter stated that we should 

clarify that Myclobutanil is the only 

fungicide listed that is intended for 

foliar fungicide application. 

This information was provided in our 

economic analysis in a paragraph 

discussing the measures taken if CWR is 

found in the United States. We simply 

listed common pesticides that can be 

used to control CWR and it was not our 

intention to describe specific details 

about the appropriate uses of each of 

those pesticides. Further, the list was 

not part of the proposed mitigation 

measures. 

One commenter stated that the 

proposed survey of one-quarter mile 

surrounding a positive site within the 

United States is too short. The 

commenter added that USDA literature 

indicates that spores may be dispersed 

by wind more than 700 meters (0.43 

miles) away from the positive site. 

We are not making any changes in 

response to this comment because it 

relates to our CWR national 

management plan and not the 

restrictions for cut flowers imports set 

forth in this rule; however, we will 

examine our national management plan 

and update it if warranted. 

Effects on Existing Programs in Other 

Countries 

One commenter stated that the rule 

would have a negative impact on 

Canadian exporters because 

chrysanthemums are often imported to 

Canada, made into bouquets, and then 

re-exported to the United States. These 

cut flowers are not accompanied by a 

phytosanitary certificate. The 

commenter was concerned that the 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 15807 

proposed requirements would cause 

demand to exceed supply because only 

chrysanthemums that originated in a 

country where CWR is not known to 

occur would be allowed re-exportation 

in Canadian bouquets. The commenter 

also asked that consideration be given to 

the Flowers Canada pilot program, 

which allows for certain species of cut 

flowers originating from specific 

countries to enter the United States 

without 100 percent inspection. Along 

those same lines, a second commenter 

asked if cut flowers from South 

American countries where CWR is 

known to occur would be eligible for reexportation to the United States if they 

had been cleared through the Miami Cut 

Flower Release Program before being 

moved to Canada and made into 

bouquets. 

Based on numerous interceptions of 

CWR on cut flowers in recent years, we 

believe it is necessary to require 

additional restrictions on cut flowers 

from countries where CWR is known to 

occur. This means that only flowers of 

Canadian origin, or that originate in a 

country where CWR does not exist, will 

be eligible for importation under the 

regulations unless the flowers are 

accompanied by a phytosanitary 

certificate. With regard to the Flowers 

Canada pilot program, currently, this 

program does not include 

chrysanthemums because of the risk of 

introducing CWR into the United States; 

however, the Flowers Canada program 

will not otherwise be affected by the 

rule. With regard to the Miami Cut 

Flower Release Program, 

chrysanthemums from Canada entering 

the United States for a second time will 

be allowed entry because they have 

already been inspected and released in 

the United States under the program. 

Two commenters asked that the final 

rule take into account the fact that in 

some countries, like Colombia, the 

programs in place to address CWR are 

not directly run by the NPPO. The 

commenters added that APHIS has not 

intercepted CWR on cut flowers from 

Colombia since 1990 despite the large 

amount of flowers that are exported to 

the United States from that country. One 

of the commenters stated that the 

measures imposed on cut flowers from 

Colombia are equivalent to—and in 

some cases exceed—the requirements 

set forth in our proposal, but that 

because of the proposed requirement for 

direct participation by the NPPO of the 

country of origin, Colombia would not 

be eligible to ship cut flowers of CWRsusceptible species to the United States 

without substantially modifying its 

existing procedures. The commenters 

requested that we modify some of the 

proposed measures for Colombian 

exporters. 

In Colombia, Ascoflores is an 

exporter’s association that has a 

cooperative working agreement with the 

Colombian Plant Protection 

Organization to dedicate personnel to 

plant health programs in the cut flower 

sector and currently oversees 

inspections of production sites and 

issues plant health declarations for 

Colombian cut flowers. We recognize 

that Colombia has in place measures 

that are not run by the NPPO, but that 

are equivalent to the requirements set 

forth in our proposal and that the rule 

is currently written as if APHIS will 

only accept certifications and 

documentation from the NPPO of the 

country of origin. We also acknowledge 

that as a result of Ascoflores’ efforts, we 

have not had any interceptions of CWR 

on cut flowers from Colombia for more 

than 15 years and that this evidence 

supports the efficacy of the current 

measures in place in Colombia. 

Therefore, we have amended § 319.74–

2(d)(3)(i) in this final rule to provide 

that production sites must be registered 

with the NPPO of the country of origin 

or its designee, and that the NPPO or its 

designee must provide a list of 

registered sites to APHIS. In addition, 

we have amended § 319.74–2(d)(3)(ii) to 

provide that each shipment of cut 

flowers must be accompanied by a 

phytosanitary certificate or equivalent 

documentation issued by the NPPO of 

the country of origin or its designee, that 

contains an additional declaration 

stating that the place of production as 

well as the consignment have been 

inspected and found free of Puccinia 

horiana. 

Economic Analysis 

One commenter took issue with the 

statement in our economic analysis 

certifying that the proposed 

requirements would not have a 

significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. The 

commenter provided figures that 

demonstrated that the economic effects 

of this rule on Colombian growers and 

exporters would be significant. 

While we do recognize that the final 

rule will entail additional costs for 

importers for inspection and 

certification in foreign countries, the 

statement in the proposed rule referred 

to small entities in the United States, 

not foreign countries. As required by the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act, our 

economic analyses focus on the effects 

of our rules on small entities within the 

United States. Under the Plant 

Protection Act, our decisionmaking 

related to allowing or denying the 

importation of commodities must be 

based on phytosanitary considerations 

and not economic effects; even when 

considering the economic effects on 

U.S. small entities. 

Additional Changes in This Final Rule 

Since the publication of our proposed 

rule, we have had several findings of 

CWR on cut flowers from Ecuador. 

Therefore, in this final rule, we are 

adding Ecuador to the list of countries 

where CWR is known to occur. 

In § 319.74–2(d) of our proposed rule, 

we listed Norway and the Ukraine as 

countries where CWR is known to 

occur; however, we failed to include 

Norway and the Ukraine in the lists of 

countries in § 319.37–2(a). In this final 

rule, we are correcting this error by 

adding Norway and the Ukraine to the 

list of countries where CWR is known 

to occur in § 319.37–2(a). 

In each of the places where a list of 

countries where CWR is known to occur 

appeared in the proposed rule (i.e., 

§§ 319.37–2(a) and 319.74–2(d)(2)), we 

are amending those lists to update the 

listing of countries that comprise the 

European Union. We are also amending 

the table in § 319.37–2(a) by amending 

the entries for Leucanthemella serotina 

and Nipponanthemum nipponicum so 

that they reflect the complete list of 

countries where CWR is known to 

occur. We overlooked those two entries 

in our proposed rule. Similarly, we are 

amending §§ 319.37–5(c) and 319.37–

7(a) to update the list of countries where 

CWR is known to occur that appear in 

each of those paragraphs. 

Finally, as mentioned previously in 

this document, the taxonomy of 

Chrysanthemum has changed as a result 

of the conservation of the genus 

Chrysanthemum. As a result of this 

conservation, species that were formerly 

considered Dendranthema are now 

considered Chrysanthemum. Therefore, 

we are amending §§ 319.37–2(a) and 

319.37–7(a)(3) by revising the entries for 

Dendranthema spp. to read ‘‘see 

Chrysanthemum spp.’’ This will prevent 

confusion on the part of importers who 

continue to use the name 

Dendranthema. We are also amending 

the entries for Chrysanthemum spp. in 

§§ 319.37–2(a), 319.37–5(c), and 319.37–

7(a)(3) by adding ‘‘includes 

Dendranthema spp.’’

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

This rule has been reviewed under 

Executive Order 12866. The rule has 

been determined to be not significant for 

the purposes of Executive Order 12866 

and, therefore, has not been reviewed by 

the Office of Management and Budget. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
15808 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

2Floriculture and Nursery Crops Outlook/ 

Electronic Outlook Report from the Economic 

Research Service/FLO–2006/June 2006/Andy 

Jerardo. 

3http://apps1.fao.org/ and http:// 

untrade.fas.usda.gov/. 

4Rizvi, Anwar S., Roeland Elliston, and Philip 

Bell, ‘‘Chrysanthemum White Rust: A National 

Management Plan for Exclusion and Eradication,’’

June 2002. 

5Exotic Pests and Diseases: Biology, Economics, 

Public Policy, 1999. Published by the Agricultural 

Issues Center. University of California at Davis: pp. 

76–86. 

6See footnote 5. 

7See footnote 5. 

8National Agricultural Statistics Service, 

Agricultural Statistics Board, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, 2001 Floriculture Crops. 

We are amending the cut flowers 

regulations to establish specific 

requirements for the importation of cut 

flowers that are hosts of CWR from 

countries where the disease is known to 

occur. We are also amending the 

nursery stock regulations to update lists 

of countries where CWR is known to 

occur. This action is necessary because 

of numerous recent findings of CWR on 

cut flowers from Europe that pose a risk 

of introducing CWR in the United 

States. 

In 2005, U.S. floriculture and nursery 

crop sales were close to $15.2 billion 

based on growers’ receipts. 

Chrysanthemums were among the most 

profitable flowers for their growers. 

Total U.S. sales of chrysanthemums 

were estimated at $86.2 million in 2002. 

Of this amount, $68.9 million were 

attributed to florists’ cut 

chrysanthemums and the remaining 

$17.3 million to potted (i.e., hardy) 

chrysanthemums. Chrysanthemums 

were not only one of the top four garden 

plants in terms of sales in 2005, they 

were also the garden plants with the 

second fastest price gains since 1995.2

Between 2001 and 2005, 10 percent 

($64.7 million) of the money spent on 

imported cut flowers was for 

chrysanthemums. About 91.6 percent of 

the cut flowers imported into the United 

States originate in countries where, 

based on interceptions by U.S. 

inspectors, CWR exists.3

APHIS has prepared a national 

management plan which describes 

procedures in the event a nursery in the 

United States is infected with CWR. The 

plan calls for the nursery to be placed 

into quarantine status. If there are very 

few infected chrysanthemum plants, the 

grower has the option to use a fungicide 

to control the disease or to destroy the 

crop by incineration. However, no plant 

should leave the nursery for 8 weeks or 

until the nursery has been inspected 

and certified as being free from CWR. In 

addition to these containment measures, 

the plan calls for an inspection of every 

chrysanthemum grower and every 

residence within a quarter mile to be 

inspected for CWR.4

The fungicides most often 

recommended to fight the fungus 

Puccinia horiana Henn., which causes 

CWR, are Myclobutanil, metam sodium, 

Dazomet, Chloropicrin, and methyl 

bromide. The cost of fungicide 

application varies, depending upon the 

plant size and number of leaves. A 

study by the National Agricultural 

Pesticide Impact Assessment Program 

and the University of California 

estimated the cost of different chemical 

treatments per acre of ornamental/ 

nursery plants infected with fungus 

diseases, including CWR, by State. For 

field-grown nursery plants, all acreage 

was treated with fungicides. The 

treatment entailed spraying the flower 

plants with metam sodium, which costs 

$550 per acre, and then applying an 

herbicide at $200 per acre, totaling $750 

per acre. For greenhouse plants, the 

treatment costs to fight CWR or any 

other fungus are higher.5

In 1994, a property in California was 

quarantined after it was found to have 

chrysanthemums infected with CWR. 

The State followed with a survey 

around the affected residential area and 

found 70 more properties in the area 

with infected chrysanthemums. It cost 

$32,000, about $500 per residence, to 

eradicate the disease. A second survey 

by the State conducted 8 weeks 

following the first treatment process 

found very few remaining infected 

properties. However, the quarantine 

lasted much longer the second time and 

the average cost per property reached 

$7,000.6

In 1995, chrysanthemum growers in 

San Diego County, CA, spent, on 

average, $5,000 per business 

establishment to fight a CWR 

infestation. The infestation was 

eradicated quickly and followed by an 

8-week host-free period. However, the 

cost reached $100,000 for one 

greenhouse that experienced repeated 

infestations and remained quarantined 

for 10 months. Between 1992 and 1997, 

direct and indirect losses from CWR 

infestations to chrysanthemum growers 

in Santa Barbara County, CA, were 

approximately $2 million. The county 

reported an annual value of 

chrysanthemum production of more 

than $10 million in 1997.7

Potential Effects 

The economic effects that could result 

from the changes in the regulations are 

expected to be small for U.S. importers 

of cut chrysanthemums. The cost of the 

phytosanitary certification will be borne 

by the exporters, who may pass those 

costs on to U.S. importers. The expected 

benefit from the changes in import 

requirements for cut flowers from all 

countries where CWR is known to occur 

is the protection of U.S. floriculture and 

nursery crop industries and the jobs of 

the people they employ. In 2005, these 

two industries contributed $15.2 billion 

in sales revenue to the U.S. economy. 

Potential Effects on Small Entities 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act 

requires that agencies specifically 

consider the economic effects their rules 

on small entities. The Small Business 

Administration has established the size 

standards based on the North American 

Industry Classification System (NAICS) 

for determining which economic 

entities meet the definition of a small 

firm. The small entity size standard for 

nursery and tree production (NAICS 

code 111421) is $750,000 or less in 

annual receipts. A total of 1,691 

floriculture operations out of 10,965 

operations had sales of $500,000 or 

more. Thus, at least 85 percent of all 

floriculture operations can be classified 

as small entities, and it is likely that an 

even higher percentage can be classified 

as small entities due to the $250,000 

discrepancy.8

This rule will continue to allow 

imports of cut chrysanthemums from 

countries where CWR is known to 

occur, as long as the exporters from 

these countries comply with the import 

requirements described in this rule. We 

do not know the cost of certification in 

these countries compared to the average 

value of imported consignments of 

chrysanthemums, but it is expected to 

be minor. We do not expect that small 

entities in the U.S. floriculture industry 

will be significantly affected. However, 

the requirements will help safeguard the 

U.S. floriculture and nursery industries 

from additional introductions of CWR. 

Under these circumstances, the 

Administrator of the Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service has 

determined that this action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Executive Order 12988 

This rule has been reviewed under 

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 

Reform. If this rule is adopted: (1) All 

State and local laws and regulations that 

are inconsistent with this rule will be 

preempted; (2) no retroactive effect will 

be given to this rule; and (3) 

administrative proceedings will not be 

required before parties may file suit in 

court challenging this rule. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 15809 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

In accordance with the Paperwork 

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

et seq.), the information collection or 

recordkeeping requirements included in 

this rule have been approved by the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) under OMB control number 

0579–0271. 

E-Government Act Compliance 

The Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service is committed to 

compliance with the E-Government Act 

to promote the use of the Internet and 

other information technologies, to 

provide increased opportunities for 

citizen access to Government 

information and services, and for other 

purposes. For information pertinent to 

E-Government Act compliance related 

to this rule, please contact Mrs. Celeste 

Sickles, APHIS’ Information Collection 

Coordinator, at (301) 734–7477. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 319 

Coffee, Cotton, Fruits, Imports, Logs, 

Nursery stock, Plant diseases and pests, 

Quarantine, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Rice, 

Vegetables. 

■ Accordingly, we are amending 7 CFR 

part 319 as follows: 

PART 319—FOREIGN QUARANTINE 

NOTICES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 319 

continues to read as follows: 

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

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

2.22, 2.80, and 371.3. 

■ 2. In the table in § 319.37–2(a), the 

entries for ‘‘Chrysanthemum spp. 

(chrysanthemum)’’, ‘‘Dendranthema 

spp. (chrysanthemum)’’, 

‘‘Leucanthemella serotina’’, and 

‘‘Nipponanthemum nipponicum’’ are 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 319.37–2 Prohibited articles. 

(a) * * * 

Prohibited article (includes seeds 

only if specifically mentioned) Foreign places from which prohibited 

Plant pests existing in the places 

named and capable of being transported with the prohibited article 

* * * * * * * 

Chrysanthemum, spp. (chrysanthemum, includes Dendranthema 

spp.).

Andorra, Argentina, Australia, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, 

Brazil, Brunei, Canary Islands, Chile, China, Colombia, Croatia, Ecuador, Iceland, Japan, Korea, Liechtenstein, Macedonia, Malaysia, 

Mexico, Moldova, Monaco, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Republic 

of South Africa, Russia, San Marino, Switzerland, Taiwan, Thailand, 

Tunisia, Ukraine, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yugoslavia; the European 

Union (Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and 

United Kingdom); and all countries, territories, and possessions of 

countries located in part or entirely between 90° and 180° East longitude.

Puccinia horiana P. Henn. (white 

rust of chrysanthemum). 

* * * * * * * 

Dendranthema spp. (chrysanthemum).See Chrysanthemum spp. ...................................................................... See Chrysanthemum spp. 

* * * * * * * 

Leucanthemella serotina ................ Andorra, Argentina, Australia, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, 

Brazil, Brunei, Canary Islands, Chile, China, Colombia, Croatia, Ecuador, Iceland, Japan, Korea, Liechtenstein, Macedonia, Malaysia, 

Mexico, Moldova, Monaco, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Republic 

of South Africa, Russia, San Marino, Switzerland, Taiwan, Thailand, 

Tunisia, Ukraine, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yugoslavia; the European 

Union (Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and 

United Kingdom); and all countries, territories, and possessions of 

countries located in part or entirely between 90° and 180° East longitude.

Puccinia horiana P. Henn. (white 

rust of chrysanthemum). 

* * * * * * * 

Nipponanthemum nipponicum ....... Andorra, Argentina, Australia, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, 

Brazil, Brunei, Canary Islands, Chile, China, Colombia, Croatia, Ecuador, Iceland, Japan, Korea, Liechtenstein, Macedonia, Malaysia, 

Mexico, Moldova, Monaco, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Republic 

of South Africa, Russia, San Marino, Switzerland, Taiwan, Thailand, 

Tunisia, Ukraine, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yugoslavia; the European 

Union (Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and 

United Kingdom); and all countries, territories, and possessions of 

countries located in part or entirely between 90° and 180° East longitude.

Puccinia horiana P. Henn. (white 

rust of chrysanthemum). 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
15810 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

Prohibited article (includes seeds 

only if specifically mentioned) Foreign places from which prohibited 

Plant pests existing in the places 

named and capable of being transported with the prohibited article 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

■ 3. In § 319.37–5, paragraph (c) is 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 319.37–5 Special foreign inspection and 

certification requirements. 

* * * * * 

(c) Any restricted article (except 

seeds) of Chrysanthemum spp. 

(chrysanthemum, includes 

Dendranthema spp.), Leucanthemella 

serotina, or Nipponanthemum 

nipponicum, from any foreign place 

except Andorra, Argentina, Australia, 

Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, 

Brunei, Canary Islands, Chile, China, 

Colombia, Croatia, Ecuador, Iceland, 

Japan, Korea, Liechtenstein, Macedonia, 

Malaysia, Mexico, Moldova, Monaco, 

New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Republic 

of South Africa, Russia, San Marino, 

Switzerland, Taiwan, Thailand, Tunisia, 

Ukraine, Uruguay, Venezuela, 

Yugoslavia; the European Union 

(Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, 

Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, 

Finland, France, Germany, Greece, 

Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, 

Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, 

Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, 

Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and 

United Kingdom); and all countries, 

territories, and possessions of countries 

located in part or entirely between 90° 

and 180° East longitude shall, at the 

time of arrival at the port of first arrival 

in United States, be accompanied by a 

phytosanitary certificate of inspection. 

The phytosanitary certificate of 

inspection must contain a declaration 

that such article was grown in a 

greenhouse nursery and found by the 

plant protection service of the country 

in which grown to be free from white 

rust of chrysanthemum (caused by the 

rust fungus Puccinia horiana P. Henn.) 

based on visual examination of the 

parent stock, the articles for 

importation, and the greenhouse 

nursery in which the articles for 

importation and the parent stock were 

grown, once a month for 4 consecutive 

months immediately prior to 

importation. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. In § 319.37–7, paragraph (a)(3), the 

table is amended by revising the entries 

for ‘‘Chrysanthemum spp. 

(chrysanthemum) meeting the 

conditions in § 319.37–5(c)’’, 

‘‘Leucanthemella serotina’’, and 

‘‘Nipponanthemum nipponicum’’, and 

by removing the entry for 

‘‘Dendranthema spp. (chrysanthemum) 

meeting the conditions in § 319.37–5(c)’’

and adding in its place an entry for 

‘‘Dendranthema spp. (chrysanthemum)’’

to read as follows: 

§ 319.37–7 Postentry quarantine. 

(a) * * * 

(3) * * * 

Restricted article (excluding seeds) Foreign country(ies) or locality(ies) from which imported 

* * * * * * * 

Chrysanthemum spp. (chrysanthemum, includes 

Dendranthema spp.) meeting the conditions 

in § 319.37–5(c).

All except Andorra, Argentina, Australia, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Brunei, Canary Islands, Chile, China, Colombia, Croatia, Ecuador, Iceland, Japan, Korea, Liechtenstein, Macedonia, Malaysia, Mexico, Moldova, Monaco, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Republic of South Africa, Russia, San Marino, Switzerland, Taiwan, Thailand, Tunisia, Ukraine, 

Uruguay, Venezuela, Yugoslavia; the European Union (Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, 

Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, 

Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and United Kingdom); and all countries, territories, and 

possessions of countries located in part or entirely between 90° and 180° East longitude. 

* * * * * * * 

Dendranthema spp. (chrysanthemum) ............... See Chrysanthemum spp. 

* * * * * * * 

Leucanthemella serotina ..................................... All except Andorra, Argentina, Australia, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Brunei, Canary Islands, Chile, China, Colombia, Croatia, Ecuador, Iceland, Japan, Korea, Liechtenstein, Macedonia, Malaysia, Mexico, Moldova, Monaco, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Republic of South Africa, Russia, San Marino, Switzerland, Taiwan, Thailand, Tunisia, Ukraine, 

Uruguay, Venezuela, Yugoslavia; the European Union (Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, 

Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, 

Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and United Kingdom); and all countries, territories, and 

possessions of countries located in part or entirely between 90° and 180° East longitude. 

* * * * * * * 

Nipponanthemum nipponicum ............................ All except Andorra, Argentina, Australia, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Brunei, Canary Islands, Chile, China, Colombia, Croatia, Ecuador, Iceland, Japan, Korea, Liechtenstein, Macedonia, Malaysia, Mexico, Moldova, Monaco, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Republic of South Africa, Russia, San Marino, Switzerland, Taiwan, Thailand, Tunisia, Ukraine, 

Uruguay, Venezuela, Yugoslavia; the European Union (Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, 

Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, 

Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and United Kingdom); and all countries, territories, and 

possessions of countries located in part or entirely between 90° and 180° East longitude. 

* * * * * * * 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 15811 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Section 319.74–2 is amended as 

follows: 

■ a. By redesignating paragraphs (d) and 

(e) as paragraphs (e) and (f), 

respectively. 

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

read as set forth below. 

■ c. By adding, at the end of the section, 

an OMB citation to read as set forth 

below. 

§ 319.74–2 Conditions governing the entry 

of cut flowers. 

* * * * * 

(d) Chrysanthemum white rust hosts. 

(1) The following Chrysanthemum, 

Leucanthemella, and Nipponanthemum 

spp. are considered to be hosts of 

chrysanthemum white rust: 

Accepted name of susceptible species Synonyms Common name 

Chrysanthemum arcticum L. ................... Arctanthemum arcticum (L.) Tzvelev and Dendranthema 

arcticum (L.) Tzvelev.

Arctic chrysanthemum and arctic daisy. 

Chrysanthemum boreale (Makino) 

Makino.

Chrysanthemum indicum L. var. boreale Makino and 

Dendranthema boreale (Makino) Ling ex Kitam.

Chrysanthemum indicum L. .................... Dendranthema indicum (L.) Des Moul.

Chrysanthemum japonense Nakai .......... Dendranthema japonense (Nakai) Kitam. and 

Dendranthema occidentali-japonense Kitam.

Nojigiku. 

Chrysanthemum japonicum Makino ....... Chrysanthemum makinoi Matsum. & Nakai and 

Dendranthema japonicum (Makino) Kitam.

Ryuno-giku. 

Chrysanthemum×morifolium Ramat ....... Anthemis grandiflorum Ramat., Anthemis stipulacea 

Moench, Chrysanthemum sinense Sabine ex Sweet, 

Chrysanthemum stipulaceum (Moench) W. Wight, 

Dendranthema×grandiflorum (Ramat.) Kitam., 

Dendranthema×morifolium (Ramat.) Tzvelev, and 

Matricaria morifolia Ramat.

Florist’s chrysanthemum, chrysanthemum, and mum. 

Chrysanthemum pacificum Nakai ........... Ajania pacifica (Nakai) K. Bremer & Humphries and 

Dendranthema pacificum (Nakai) Kitam.

Iso-giku. 

Chrysanthemum shiwogiku Kitam .......... Ajania shiwogiku (Kitam.) K. Bremer & Humphries and 

Dendranthema shiwogiku (Kitam.) Kitam.

Shio-giku. 

Chrysanthemum yoshinaganthum 

Makino ex Kitam.

Dendranthema yoshinaganthum (Makino ex Kitam.) Kitam.

Chrysanthemum zawadskii Herbich 

subsp. yezoense (Maek.) Y. N. Lee.

Chrysanthemum arcticum subsp. maekawanum Kitam, 

Chrysanthemum arcticum var. yezoense Maek. 

[basionym], Chrysanthemum yezoense Maek. 

[basionym], Dendranthema yezoense (F. Maek.) D. J. N. 

Hind, and Leucanthemum yezoense (Maek.) A ́ . Lo ̈ve & 

D. Lo ̈ve.

Chrysanthemum zawadskii Herbich 

subsp. zawadskii.

Chrysanthemum sibiricum Turcz. ex DC., nom. inval., 

Dendranthema zawadskii (Herbich) Tzvelev, and 

Dendranthema zawadskii var. zawadskii.

Leucanthemella serotina (L.) Tzvelev ..... Chrysanthemum serotinum L., Chrysanthemum uliginosum 

(Waldst. & Kit. ex Willd.) Pers., and Pyrethrum 

uliginosum (Waldst. & Kit. ex Willd.).

Giant daisy or high daisy. 

Nipponanthemum nipponicum (Franch. 

ex Maxim.) Kitam.

Chrysanthemum nipponicum (Franch. ex Maxim.) Matsum. 

and Leucanthemum nipponicum Franch. ex Maxim.

Nippon daisy or Nippon-chrysanthemum. 

(2) Chrysanthemum white rust is 

considered to exist in the following 

regions: Andorra, Argentina, Australia, 

Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, 

Brunei, Canary Islands, Chile, China, 

Colombia, Croatia, Ecuador, Iceland, 

Japan, Korea, Liechtenstein, Macedonia, 

Malaysia, Mexico, Moldova, Monaco, 

New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Republic 

of South Africa, Russia, San Marino, 

Switzerland, Taiwan, Thailand, Tunisia, 

Ukraine, Uruguay, Venezuela, 

Yugoslavia; the European Union 

(Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, 

Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, 

Finland, France, Germany, Greece, 

Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, 

Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, 

Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, 

Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and 

United Kingdom); and all countries, 

territories, and possessions of countries 

located in part or entirely between 90° 

and 180° East longitude. 

(3) Cut flowers of any species listed in 

paragraph (d)(1) of this section may be 

imported into the United States from 

any region listed in paragraph (d)(2) of 

this section only under the following 

conditions: 

(i) The flowers must be grown in a 

production site that is registered with 

the national plant protection 

organization (NPPO) of the country in 

which the production site is located or 

with the NPPO’s designee, and the 

NPPO or its designee must provide a list 

of registered sites to APHIS. 

(ii) Each shipment of cut flowers must 

be accompanied by a phytosanitary 

certificate or equivalent documentation, 

issued by the NPPO of the country of 

origin or its designee, that contains an 

additional declaration stating that the 

place of production as well as the 

consignment have been inspected and 

found free of Puccinia horiana. 

(iii) Box labels and other documents 

accompanying shipments of cut flowers 

must be marked with the identity of the 

registered production site. 

(iv) APHIS-authorized inspectors 

must also be allowed access to 

production sites and other areas 

necessary to monitor the 

chrysanthemum white rust-free status of 

the production sites. 

(4) Cut flowers not meeting these 

conditions will be refused entry into the 

United States. The detection of 

chrysanthemum white rust in a 

shipment of cut flowers from a 

registered production site upon arrival 

in the United States will result in the 

prohibition of imports originating from 

the production site until such time 

when APHIS and the NPPO of the 

exporting country, can agree that the 

eradication measures taken have been 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
15812 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 3, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

effective and that the pest risk within 

the production site has been eliminated. 

* * * * * 

(Approved by the Office of Management and 

Budget under control number 0579–0271.) 

Done in Washington, DC, this 28th day of 

March 2007. 

Kevin Shea, 

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. E7–6128 Filed 4–2–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION 

12 CFR Parts 652 and 655 

RIN 3052–AC17 

Federal Agricultural Mortgage 

Corporation Funding and Fiscal 

Affairs; Federal Agricultural Mortgage 

Corporation Disclosure and Reporting 

Requirements; Risk-Based Capital 

Requirements; Effective Date 

AGENCY: Farm Credit Administration. 

ACTION: Notice of effective date. 

SUMMARY: The Farm Credit 

Administration (FCA) published a final 

rule under parts 652 and 655 on 

December 26, 2006 (71 FR 77247). This 

final rule is intended to more accurately 

reflect risk in the risk-based capital 

stress test (RBCST) in order to improve 

the RBCST’s output—Federal 

Agricultural Mortgage Corporation’s 

regulatory minimum risk-based capital 

level. In accordance with 12 U.S.C. 

2252, the effective date of the final rule 

is 30 days from the date of publication 

in the Federal Register during which 

either or both Houses of Congress are in 

session. Based on the records of the 

sessions of Congress, the effective date 

of the regulations is March 31, 2007. 

DATES: Effective Date: The regulation 

amending 12 CFR parts 652 and 655, 

published on December 26, 2006 (71 FR 

77247) is effective March 31, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Joseph T. Connor, Associate Director for 

Policy and Analysis, Office of 

Secondary Market Oversight, Farm 

Credit Administration, McLean, VA 

22102–5090, (703) 883–4280, TTY (703) 

883–4434; or Rebecca S. Orlich, Senior 

Counsel, Office of General Counsel, 

Farm Credit Administration, McLean, 

VA 22102–5090, (703) 883–4020, TTY 

(703) 883–4020. 

(12 U.S.C. 2252(a)(9) and (10)) 

Dated: March 28, 2007. 

Roland E. Smith, 

Secretary, Farm Credit Administration Board. 

[FR Doc. E7–6076 Filed 4–2–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6705–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2007–26812; Directorate 

Identifier 2006–NM–199–AD; Amendment 

39–15006; AD 2007–07–09] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model 

A318, A319, A320, and A321 Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding an 

existing airworthiness directive (AD), 

which applies to certain Airbus Model 

A318–100, A319–100, A320–200, A321–

100, and A321–200 series airplanes; and 

Model A320–111 airplanes. That AD 

currently requires modification of the 

electrical bonding of all structures and 

systems installed inside the center fuel 

tank. This new AD requires 

modification of additional bonding 

points inside the center fuel tank. This 

AD results from a report that additional 

bonding points need to be modified in 

order to prevent electrical arcing in the 

center fuel tank. We are issuing this AD 

to prevent electrical arcing in the center 

fuel tank due to inadequate bonding, 

which could result in an explosion of 

the center fuel tank and consequent loss 

of the airplane. 

DATES: This AD becomes effective May 

8, 2007. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

of certain publications listed in the AD 

as of May 8, 2007. 

On October 26, 2005 (70 FR 55228, 

September 21, 2005), the Director of the 

Federal Register approved the 

incorporation by reference of Airbus 

Service Bulletin A320–28–1104, 

Revision 01, dated December 8, 2004. 

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD 

docket on the Internet at http:// 

dms.dot.gov or in person at the Docket 

Management Facility, U.S. Department 

of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, 

SW., Nassif Building, Room PL–401, 

Washington, DC. 

Contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice 

Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France, 

for service information identified in this 

AD. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim 

Dulin, Aerospace Engineer, 

International Branch, ANM–116, FAA, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 

Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 

98057–3356; telephone (425) 227–2141; 

fax (425) 227–1149. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Examining the Docket 

You may examine the airworthiness 

directive (AD) docket on the Internet at 

http://dms.dot.gov or in person at the 

Docket Management Facility office 

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

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

The Docket Management Facility office 

(telephone (800) 647–5227) is located on 

the plaza level of the Nassif Building at 

the street address stated in the 

ADDRESSES section. 

Discussion 

The FAA issued a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR 

part 39 to include an AD that 

supersedes AD 2005–19–14, amendment 

39–14279 (70 FR 55228, September 21, 

2005). The existing AD applies to 

certain Airbus Model A318–100, A319–

100, A320–200, A321–100, and A321–

200 series airplanes; and Model A320–

111 airplanes. That NPRM was 

published in the Federal Register on 

January 12, 2007 (72 FR 1467). That 

NPRM proposed to continue to require 

modification of the electrical bonding of 

all structures and systems installed 

inside the center fuel tank. That NPRM 

also proposed to require modification of 

additional bonding points inside the 

center fuel tank. 

Comments 

We provided the public the 

opportunity to participate in the 

development of this AD. No comments 

have been received on the NPRM or on 

the determination of the cost to the 

public. 

Conclusion 

We have carefully reviewed the 

available data and determined that air 

safety and the public interest require 

adopting the AD as proposed. 

Costs of Compliance 

The following table provides the 

estimated costs for U.S. operators to 

comply with this AD. There are 

approximately 720 U.S.-registered 

airplanes. The average labor rate is $80 

per work hour. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES