Regulatory Impact Analysis and Analysis in Support of 

Certification that the Rule will not have a Significant 

Economic Impact on a Substantial Number of Small Entities

Final Rule

Importation of Plants for Planting; Establishing a 

Category of Plants for Planting Not Authorized for 

Importation Pending Pest Risk Analysis

APHIS-2006-0011

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

June 2010
i

Summary

The final rule will amend the importation of plants for planting regulations to establish a 

new category of regulated articles. This category will list taxa of plants for planting whose 

importation is not authorized pending pest risk analysis. This action is necessary to increase our 

safeguards against the risk of introduction of plant pests or pest plants (noxious weeds) that are 

associated with the importation of plants for planting and protect domestic agriculture and 

environmental resources. After conducting the initial regulatory flexibility analysis and 

addressing public comments related to expected benefits and costs of the proposed rule, APHIS 

has determined that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number 

of small entities. The final rule will serve to set up the new import category and the process by 

which taxa will be added to and removed from the NAPPRA lists. If a review of scientific 

information indicates that a taxon of plants for planting is a quarantine pest or a host of a 

quarantine pest, we will then publish a notice indicating that we have determined that it is 

necessary to add the taxon to the NAPPRA category. The public will be given the opportunity to 

comment on its addition to the NAPPRA category. If we receive no comments that change our 

determination, the taxon will subsequently be added to the NAPPRA category. This final rule 

will establish the criteria for listing quarantine pests and hosts of quarantine pests; the process by 

which plant taxa will be placed on a NAPPRA list; and the process by which plant taxa could be 

removed from a NAPPRA list. The expected benefits of using the NAPPRA process to respond 

to risks process far outweigh any expected costs of implementing the regulation.
ii

Table of Contents

Summary.............................................................................................................................. i

Introduction......................................................................................................................... 1

Overview of the Action....................................................................................................... 4

Potential Impact on Small Entities...................................................................................... 7
1

Introduction

USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) will amend Title 7, Part 

319, Section 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations, by adding a new import category to the 

regulations that govern the importation of nursery stock, also known as plants for planting. A 

new section 319.37-2a will be added that lists taxa of regulated plants for planting whose 

importation is not authorized pending pest risk analysis. We refer to the plants for planting that 

will be listed and the new regulations, themselves, using the acronym NAPPRA (“not authorized 

pending pest risk analysis”).

Existing regulations governing the importation of plants for planting, found in 7 CFR 

319.37 through 319.37-14, restrict or prohibit the importation of certain plants and plant products 

into the United States to prevent the introduction of plant pests that are not already established 

domestically or that are established and under official control. The regulations do not require 

that a pest risk analysis (PRA) be completed prior to the importation of a new taxon of plants for 

planting or prior to the taxon being imported from a new area, except for plants in growing 

media. For taxa of plants for planting whose importation is not specifically restricted or 

prohibited in the regulations, the only risk mitigation requirements are that the shipments enter 

the United States through a Federal plant inspection station, be accompanied by a phytosanitary 

certificate and a permit, and be sampled and visually inspected for quarantine pests. However, 

the measures may not provide an adequate level of protection against the introduction of certain 

pests or noxious weeds, particularly when those pests are not yet recognized and regulated as 

quarantine pests. 

When the plants for planting regulations were originally established, both the volume and

the types of plants for planting imported differed significantly from the current import situation. 
2

In the past, plants for planting that were imported and the phytosanitary conditions of their 

importation were limited to seed or small amounts of plant material, usually 100 or fewer plants 

or vegetative, propagative plant parts per taxon. When originally established, the regulatory 

requirements for importation were created with the intent of limiting imports of such plants to 

the amount necessary to establish a specific species or cultivar within the United States. These 

imports were not intended for direct sale to domestic consumers; rather, the species and cultivars 

were first established domestically, subsequently propagated, and then sold to U.S. consumers. 

Today, APHIS no longer limits the amount of plants for planting imported to those necessary to 

establish a species or cultivar in the United States. Consequently, U.S. imports of plants for 

planting have grown considerably. In fiscal year (FY) 1999, over 700 million plants were 

imported, with a total of 4.2 million plants and 33 tons of seeds inspected at the port of entry at

USDA-APHIS plant inspection stations or by U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

1

 

Comparatively, during fiscal year FY 2006 alone, over 1.3 billion plants and 1,543 tons of seeds 

were imported and inspected at the port of entry at USDA-APHIS plant inspection stations or by

U.S. Customs and Border Protection .

2

 

The Economic Research Service (ERS) forecasts U.S. horticultural imports, which 

include greenhouse and nursery products, to grow by about 3.7 percent annually through 2019.

3

 

The dramatic increase in plants for planting imports, both in volume and type, necessitates a 

higher level of protection against the introduction of plant pests and noxious weeds. 

 

1 APHIS Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ), “The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service’s Plant 

Inspection Stations Factsheet,” December 2002. 

2 APHIS Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ), “The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service’s Plant 

Inspection Stations Factsheet,” January 2007. 

3 USDA-ERS. Agricultural Baseline Projections: U.S. Crops, 2010-2019. Washington, D.C.: Economic Research 

Service, Feb. 2010.
3

A comparison of our current import regulations for plants for planting to the requirements

for fruit and vegetable imports reveals the inadequacy of the plant import requirements. The risk 

of pest introduction and establishment posed by propagative material is greater than that posed 

by products destined for consumption (i.e., fruits and vegetables). Yet, while the Fruits and 

Vegetables Quarantine (7 CFR 319.56-1 through 319.56-50) is based on a “prohibited unless 

found safe” approach, regulation of plants for planting has been largely based on an “enterable 

unless found unsafe” approach.4 This approach essentially assumes there is no risk associated 

with the unknown. APHIS recognizes this to be a very precarious situation, considering that

introduced plants for planting may harbor quarantine pests for months or years. Also, the 

destinations of imported plants for planting, such as nurseries, orchards, gardens, and 

greenhouses, are favorable environments for plant growth and pest development in general, thus 

increasing the risk that a plant pest or pest plant could become established. Additionally, in the 

event that imported plants for planting arrive at these destinations carrying pests or pathogens of 

concern, it is likely that there are other host materials for these quarantine pests abundant in 

those environments. This rule will amend the current regulations so as to provide a level of 

phytosanitary protection commensurate with the risks posed by the importation of plants for 

planting. 

Benefits and costs of the rule are examined in accordance with Executive Order 12866, 

and the benefits are expected to exceed the costs overall. Possible impacts on small entities are 

considered in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act. After conducting the initial 

regulatory flexibility analysis and addressing public comments related to the benefits and cost of 

the proposed rule, APHIS has determined that this rule will not have a significant economic 

 

4 National Plant Board, 1999 Report “Safeguarding American Plant Resources.” 
4

impact on a substantial number of small entities. The final rule will serve to set up the new 

import category, and the process by which taxa will be added to and removed from the NAPPRA 

lists. If a review of scientific information indicates that a taxon of plants for planting is a 

quarantine pest or a host of a quarantine pest, we will then publish a notice indicating that we 

have determined it is necessary to add the taxon to the NAPPRA category. The public will be 

given the opportunity to comment on its addition to the NAPPRA regulations. If we receive no 

comments that change our determination, the taxon will subsequently be added to the NAPPRA 

category. This final rule will establish the criteria for determining that taxa of plants for planting 

are quarantine pests and hosts of quarantine pests; the process by which plant taxa will be placed 

on a NAPPRA list, including a review of the types of scientific evidence that will be utilized in 

doing so; and the process by which plant taxa could be removed from a NAPPRA list.

The final rule will amend Title 7, Part 319 of the Code of Federal Regulations by 

establishing a new category of plants for planting not authorized for importation pending pest 

risk analysis. In accordance with the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701-7772), the Secretary of 

Agriculture is authorized to undertake such actions as may be necessary to prevent the 

introduction and spread of plant pests and noxious weeds within the United States. The 

Secretary has delegated this responsibility to the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service.

Overview of the Action

APHIS has concluded that establishing the NAPPRA category will serve to better protect 

U.S. agriculture and the environment from the introduction of plant pests and noxious weeds into 

the United States by allowing APHIS to take timely action to prevent their importation. 

Strengthening our safeguards against these quarantine pests is expected to result in far-reaching 
5

economic and environmental benefits. In 1999, the National Plant Board reported that 

introduced invasive plant pests cost about $41 billion annually in lost production and in 

prevention and control expenses. A subsequent study estimated that noxious weeds alone cause 

an overall reduction in U.S. crop yield of 12 percent, which translated into a $33 billion loss 

annually.5

Introduced plant pests cause significant control expenses in addition to lost production. 

In 2005, it was estimated that approximately $4 billion was spent each year on herbicides applied 

to U.S. crops to control non-indigenous weeds, a 25 percent increase in five years.

6

 Pimentel et

al. (2005) further estimated that non-indigenous plant pathogens cause $21 billion in U.S. crop 

losses each year, and that growers spend approximately $720 million annually on fungicides to 

combat these pathogens. Crop losses to these pests and weeds and related control costs 

contribute to lower levels of domestic production and, in general, higher prices for consumers.

As the risk of plant pest introductions increases annually, so does the need to proactively 

address these risks. For instance, in 2001 a plant pest called the citrus longhorned beetle 

(CLHB) was imported in a shipment of bonsai maple trees and detected in a Washington State 

nursery. The resulting response involved quarantining an area having a one-half mile radius 

around the infestation site, destroying about 1,000 trees, injecting surrounding trees with an 

insecticide to prevent the infestation’s spread, and surveying of more than 20,000 trees in the 

quarantined area. As a result of these efforts, no new CLHB cases were reported.7 

 

5 Pimentel, D.; R. Zuniga and D., Morrison (2005). "Update on the environmental and economic costs associated 

with alien-invasive species in the United States.". Ecological Economics 52: 273–288.

6 Pimentel, D., L. Lach, R. Zuniga, and D. Morrison. “Environmental and Economic Costs of Nonindigenous 

Species in the United States.” BioScience 50.1 (2000): 53-65.

7 WSDA “Citrus Longhorned Beetle Eradication Project.” Washington State Department of Agriculture 

<http://www.agr.wa.gov>.
6

Washington State officials responded aggressively to the CLHB introduction in light of 

the devastation caused on the East Coast by a similar introduced pest, the Asian longhorned 

beetle (ALB), which is believed to have been introduced via the importation of untreated wood 

packaging material. The fight to eradicate ALB has persisted for more than 13 years, and has 

involved the removal of more than 30,000 beetle-infested trees and the quarantining of over 130 

square miles, at a total cost of more than $533 million in public funds including APHIS and State 

obligations. APHIS obligations from 1997 to 2010 total $388 million, including more than $167

million in Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) transfers. APHIS obligations include a budget 

request for 2011 of nearly $49.2 million. State obligations for Massachusetts, New York, New 

Jersey, and Illinois during the same time period will amount to nearly $95 million with budget 

requests of $13.5 million more for the 2011 fiscal year. We assume that the cost of eradicating 

CHLB, if it were introduced, would be similar to the cost of eradicating ALB.

As another example, in February 2003 the plant pathogen Ralstonia solanacearum race 3 

biovar 2 was detected in geraniums in four greenhouses in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and 

Wisconsin. This plant pathogen was traced back to infected geraniums imported from Kenya. 

The resulting response cost growers and regulators an estimated $7 million and involved the 

destruction of over 2 million plants.8 This pathogen and CHLB are just two examples of the type 

of quarantine pest introductions that this final rule will help to prevent. 

Another benefit of the final rule will be streamlining of the APHIS-PPQ process for 

addressing risks associated with the introduction of quarantine pests. APHIS typically provides

notice of our intent to designate plants for planting as prohibited articles, or place additional 

restrictions on their importation, through proposed rules. A pest risk analysis (PRA) is usually 

 

8 USDA-ARS. Research Project: “Biology and Pathogenesis of Ralstonia Solanacearum Race 3 on Geraniums” 2004 

Annual Report. Beltsville, MD: Agricultural Research Service. 
7

conducted to support such a designation. If an emergency situation arises, APHIS can prohibit 

the importation of a plant taxon through a Federal order, which is later superseded by an interim 

rule in which we request comments from the public. Under the NAPPRA process, we will stop

the importation of a plant taxon that has been scientifically shown to be a quarantine pest or a 

host of a quarantine pest. This process will provide an added measure of protection to U.S. 

agricultural and environmental resources vulnerable to these pests. APHIS will be able to more 

efficiently respond to immediate risks associated with the importation of plants for planting, and 

will be able to solicit comments from the public earlier in the process. As a result of 

implementation, we anticipate that APHIS will experience an increase in requests for PRAs 

associated with plant taxa listed in the NAPPRA category. The process of evaluating the 

requests, including reviewing information from the exporting country’s national plant protection 

organization (NPPO) and initiating the PRA and, if necessary, the rulemaking process, are costs 

that will be efficiently absorbed by the Agency. The expected benefits of this process far 

outweigh any expected costs of implementing the regulation. 

Potential Impact on Small Entities

This analysis provides the basis, as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, for 

certification by the APHIS Administrator that the rule will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Entities and individuals that import plants for planting may be affected by the NAPPRA 

process. Such entities may include farm supplies merchant wholesalers (North American 

Industry Classification System [NAICS] code 424910); flower, nursery stock, and florists’ 

supplies merchant wholesalers (NAICS code 424930); and nursery and garden centers (NAICS 

code 444220). Comparing statistics from the 2007 Economic Census with the Small Business 
8

Administration’s size standards, we have determined that the majority of these entities are

considered small by SBA standards. The NAPPRA process may also affect plant societies. 

Membership fees associated with these societies allow members to engage in the exchange of 

seed or plant material.

This rule will establish the NAPPRA regulatory category and process, including a 

requirement for persons or entities requesting the removal of a taxon from the NAPPRA lists to 

submit to USDA specific information from the exporting nation’s NPPO. Requests to remove a 

taxon from the NAPPRA category, made in accordance with § 319.5, would require the 

submission of information that is necessary for APHIS to conduct a PRA. The economic costs to 

small entities would likely include, but are not limited to, time spent learning the process of 

application, seeking advice, obtaining required information from exporting country’s NPPO, 

preparing and sending off request, follow-up, and maintaining records. It is estimated that the 

collection of this information would take approximately 5.6 hours of business operation time, on 

average. However, as it is optional to request removal of a taxon from the NAPPRA category, 

we do not anticipate that a small entity would make such a request unless the benefits 

outweighed the costs, given that small entities would continue to have most taxa in the world 

available for importation subject to the general restrictions in the plants for planting regulations.

The rule will not establish any broad restrictions or prohibitions but will only target 

specific taxa; most taxa of plants for planting will continue to be allowed to be imported subject 

to the current general restrictions.

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.