Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 204 / Monday, October 24, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 61351 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 301 

Agricultural commodities, Plant 

diseases and pests, Quarantine, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Transportation. 

■ Accordingly, we are amending 7 CFR 

part 301 as follows: 

PART 301—DOMESTIC QUARANTINE 

NOTICES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 301 

continues to read as follows: 

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

7786; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3. 

Section 301.75–15 also issued under Sec. 

204, Title II, Pub. L. 106–113, 113 Stat. 

1501A–293; sections 301.75–15 and 301.75–

16 also issued under Sec. 203, Title II, Pub. 

L. 106–224, 114 Stat. 400 (7 U.S.C. 1421 

note). 

■ 2. In § 301.51–3, paragraph (c), under 

the heading New Jersey, the entry for 

Hudson County is removed and the 

entry for Middlesex and Union Counties 

is revised to read as follows: 

§ 301.51–3 Quarantined areas. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

New Jersey 

Middlesex and Union Counties. That 

portion of the counties bounded by a 

line drawn as follows: Beginning at the 

intersection of St. Georges Avenue and 

Wood Avenue; then east on Wood 

Avenue to Curtis Street; then north on 

Curtis Street to East Baltimore Avenue; 

then east on East Baltimore Avenue to 

Dill Avenue; then north on Dill Avenue 

to Grant Street; then southeast on Grant 

Street to Alberta Avenue; then northeast 

on Alberta Avenue to County Road 616 

(Park Avenue); then southeast on 

County Road 616 (Park Avenue) to U.S. 

Route 1; then north on U.S. Route 1 to 

Allen Street; then southeast on Allen 

Street to the east side of the New Jersey 

Turnpike right-of-way; then south along 

the east side of the New Jersey Turnpike 

right-of-way to Marshes Creek; then 

southeast along Marshes Creek to the 

Rahway River; then west along the 

south side of the Rahway River to Cross 

Creek; then south along Cross Creek 

through the wetlands to Peter J. Sica 

Industrial Drive; then east and south on 

Peter J. Sica Industrial Drive to 

Roosevelt Avenue (State Route 602); 

then west on Roosevelt Avenue to Port 

Reading Avenue (State Route 604); then 

west southwest on Port Reading Avenue 

to the Conrail railroad; then north and 

west along the Conrail railroad right-ofway to the NJ Transit railroad right-ofway; then north and northwest along the 

NJ Transit railroad right-of-way to the 

south branch of the Rahway River; then 

west along the south branch of the 

Rahway River to St. Georges Avenue; 

then north on St. Georges Avenue to the 

point of beginning. 

* * * * * 

Done in Washington, DC, this 18th day of 

October 2005. 

Elizabeth E. Gaston, 

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 05–21169 Filed 10–21–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

7 CFR Part 319 

[Docket No. 03–019–3] 

Certification Program for Imported 

Articles of Pelargonium spp. and 

Solanum spp. To Prevent Introduction 

of Potato Brown Rot 

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are adopting as a final 

rule, with changes, an interim rule that 

amended the regulations by establishing 

a certification program for articles of 

Pelargonium spp. and Solanum spp. 

imported from countries where the 

bacterium Ralstonia solanacearum race 

3 biovar 2 (R3B2) is known to occur. 

The interim rule prohibited the 

importation of articles of Pelargonium 

spp. and Solanum spp. from countries 

where R. solanacearum R3B2 is known 

to occur unless the articles are produced 

in accordance with the certification 

program. This final rule amends the 

regulations by modifying some of the 

requirements of the certification 

program to make them clearer and more 

flexible, by providing for the 

establishment of areas that are free of R. 

solanacearum R3B2 within countries 

where the bacterium is known to occur, 

and by exempting imported seeds of 

Pelargonium spp. and Solanum spp. 

from all requirements related to R. 

solanacearum R3B2. The requirements 

of the certification program are designed 

to ensure that R. solanacearum R3B2 

will not be introduced into the United 

States through the importation of 

articles of Pelargonium spp. and 

Solanum spp. This certification program 

is necessary to prevent the introduction 

of this bacterial strain into the United 

States. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 24, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Jeanne Van Dersal, Import Specialist, 

Phytosanitary Issues Management Team, 

PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 140, 

Riverdale, MD 20737–1236; (301) 734–

6653. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The regulations in 7 CFR part 319 

prohibit or restrict the importation of 

certain plants and plant products into 

the United States to prevent the 

introduction of plant pests. The 

regulations contained in ‘‘Subpart—

Nursery Stock, Plants, Roots, Bulbs, 

Seeds, and Other Plant Products,’’

§§ 319.37 through 319.37–14 (referred to 

below as the regulations), restrict, 

among other things, the importation of 

living plants, plant parts, seeds, and 

plant cuttings for propagation. 

In an interim rule effective May 16, 

2003, and published in the Federal 

Register on May 23, 2003 (68 FR 28115–

28119, Docket No. 03–019–1), we 

amended the regulations by requiring 

that the phytosanitary certificates that 

must accompany all articles of 

Pelargonium spp. and Solanum spp. 

imported into the United States contain 

an additional declaration. (Articles of 

Pelargonium spp. and Solanum spp. 

imported under the Canadian 

greenhouse-grown restricted plant 

program in § 319.37–4(c), which are not 

required to be accompanied by a 

phytosanitary certificate when they are 

offered for importation into the United 

States, are exempt from this 

requirement.) The May 2003 interim 

rule was necessary because 

introductions of R. solanacearum R3B2, 

the bacterium that causes potato brown 

rot, had shown that articles of 

Pelargonium spp. and Solanum spp. can 

serve as vectors for its transmission. The 

additional declaration required by the 

May 2003 interim rule had to state 

either that the articles of Pelargonium 

spp. and Solanum spp. were produced 

in a production site that had been tested 

and found to be free of R. solanacearum 

R3B2 or that R. solanacearum R3B2 was 

not known to occur in the region in 

which the articles were produced. 

We received comments on that 

interim rule requesting that we establish 

a certification program for articles of 

Pelargonium spp. and Solanum spp. 

imported from countries where R. 

solanacearum R3B2 is known to occur. 

In addition, an introduction of the 

bacterium into the United States via 

infected geranium cuttings 

(Pelargonium spp.) was confirmed in 

February 2003; during the subsequent 

eradication effort, APHIS found some 

infected articles of Pelargonium spp. 

61352 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 204 / Monday, October 24, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

1This document may be viewed on the Internet 

at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/ep/ralstonia/ 

rasltoniaactionplanv4web.pdf. Copies of all 

documents related to APHIS’ response to the 

introduction of R. solanacearum R3B2 into the 

United States may also be requested from the 

person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

2The Minimum Sanitation Protocols for Offshore 

Geranium Cutting Production may be viewed on the 

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

ralstonia/ralstoniaworkplan.pdf. 

that we believed were imported after the 

effective date of the May 2003 interim 

rule. This indicated to us that additional 

mitigations against the risk of 

introducing R. solanacearum R3B2 via 

imported articles of Pelargonium spp. 

and Solanum spp. were necessary. 

Accordingly, in a subsequent interim 

rule effective May 24, 2004, and 

published in the Federal Register on 

April 23, 2004 (69 FR 21941–21947, 

Docket No. 03–019–2), we amended the 

regulations by requiring that articles of 

Pelargonium spp. and Solanum spp. 

imported from countries where R. 

solanacearum R3B2 is known to occur 

be grown in accordance with a 

certification program. The certification 

program, which includes production 

site construction requirements, testing 

requirements, and operational 

requirements, is designed to ensure that 

R. solanacearum R3B2 will not be 

introduced into the United States via 

the importation of articles of 

Pelargonium spp. and Solanum spp. 

The interim rule also required that 

imported articles of Pelargonium spp. 

and Solanum spp. from countries where 

the bacterium R. solanacearum R3B2 is 

known to occur be accompanied by a 

phytosanitary certificate with an 

additional declaration stating that the 

articles were produced in accordance 

with the requirements of the 

certification program. We took this 

action based on our determination that 

the restrictions that had been added to 

the regulations in the May 2003 interim 

rule did not adequately mitigate the risk 

that imported articles of Pelargonium 

spp. and Solanum spp. could introduce 

this bacterial strain into the United 

States. 

We solicited comments concerning 

the April 2004 interim rule for 60 days 

ending June 22, 2004. We received 10 

comments by that date. They were from 

State and foreign plant protection 

organizations, nursery stock growers, 

industry associations, and university 

researchers. We have carefully 

considered all of the comments we 

received. They are discussed below by 

topic. 

General Comments 

Two commenters asserted that the 

available scientific evidence did not 

support placing any restrictions on the 

importation of articles of Pelargonium 

spp. and Solanum spp. to prevent the 

introduction of R. solanacearum R3B2, 

further claiming that the decision to 

establish the certification program in the 

April 2004 interim rule was driven by 

politics rather than science. One of 

these commenters also stated that there 

is no evidence that articles of 

Pelargonium spp. that are infected with 

R. solanacearum R3B2 pose a threat to 

the environment in general or potatoes 

in particular, noting that the recent 

introductions of the bacterium that had 

prompted our interim rules had not 

resulted in any introductions of R. 

solanacearum R3B2 into the 

environment. (Potatoes were identified 

in the analysis under the heading 

‘‘Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory 

Flexibility Act’’ in both interim rules as 

the Solanum crop that could experience 

the greatest magnitude of negative 

economic effects if R. solanacearum 

R3B2 was introduced into the United 

States.) 

The Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service (APHIS) considers R. 

solanacearum R3B2 to be a quarantine 

pest. The bacterium is not known to 

occur in the United States; 10 years of 

field surveys undertaken by APHIS and 

by State governments have failed to 

discover any evidence of R. 

solanacearum R3B2 in the environment. 

As mentioned above, an introduction 

of the bacterium into the United States 

via infected geranium cuttings 

(Pelargonium spp.) was confirmed in 

February 2003. The bacterium was 

subsequently eradicated; more than 2.1 

million plants at 471 greenhouses 

throughout the United States were 

destroyed as part of the eradication 

effort. The eradication effort was, as one 

of the commenters noted, successful at 

preventing the introduction of R. 

solanacearum R3B2 into the wider U.S. 

environment. The survey procedures 

used to make this determination are 

described in detail in the 2004 New Pest 

Response Guidelines (Action Plan) 

issued in response to the introduction of 

R. solanacearum R3B2 into the United 

States.1

Experiences in other countries suggest 

that if R. solanacearum R3B2 were to 

become established in the United States, 

it would have a significant impact on 

U.S. potato production; the bacterium 

causes potatoes to rot through, making 

them unusable and seriously affecting 

potato yields. In addition, if R. 

solanacearum R3B2 were to be 

introduced into the U.S. environment, 

the bacterium would be extremely 

difficult to eradicate, both because of its 

many alternate hosts and because of its 

ability to survive in water. Letting an 

infected field lie fallow or using 

alternate, non-potato crops for a growing 

season is not effective as a means of 

eradicating R. solanacearum R3B2, as 

the bacterium survives in various 

common weeds, including Solanum 

species such as nightshade. The 

bacterium can also be transmitted from 

infected fields to other fields by streams 

and runoff. Therefore, it is imperative 

that APHIS implement measures 

restrictive enough to prevent R. 

solanacearum R3B2 from being 

introduced into the United States via 

the importation of potentially infected 

articles. The requirements of the 

certification program are designed to 

meet that goal. 

Typically, APHIS simply prohibits the 

importation of articles of nursery stock 

that pose a risk of introducing plant 

pathogens such as R. solanacearum 

R3B2 into the United States, as plant 

pathogens are substantially more 

difficult to detect and neutralize than 

other plant pests. However, as indicated 

in the analysis under the heading 

‘‘Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory 

Flexibility Act’’ in the April 2004 

interim rule, the United States imports 

substantial quantities of Pelargonium 

spp., and we did not want to halt this 

trade if there was an effective 

alternative. We believe the requirements 

of the certification program strike a 

balance by allowing continued 

importation of articles of Pelargonium 

spp. and Solanum spp. but ensuring that 

such importation does not introduce R. 

solanacearum R3B2 into the United 

States. 

One commenter asserted that the 

requirements of the certification 

program are identical to the 

requirements of the Minimum 

Sanitation Protocols for Offshore 

Geranium Cutting Production that 

APHIS issued in response to the 

February 2003 introduction of R. 

solanacearum R3B2 via imported 

geranium cuttings.2 The commenter 

asked what assurance we have that the 

certification program will be effective, 

since some infected geranium cuttings 

appeared to have entered the United 

States after the Minimum Sanitation 

Protocols were issued. 

We believe that the apparent entry of 

infected geranium cuttings after the 

Minimum Sanitation Protocols were 

issued was due to the failure of one 

importer to properly implement the 

Minimum Sanitation Protocols, rather 

than a deficiency in the protocols 

themselves. (The Minimum Sanitation 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 204 / Monday, October 24, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 61353 

3Summarized by John Elphinstone, Central 

Science Laboratory, Department for Environment, 

Food, and Rural Affairs, York, UK, in ‘‘Monitoring 

and control of the potato brown rot bacterium 

(Ralstonia solanacearum) in the UK.’’ This 

presentation was given at ‘‘Planning for Ralstonia 

solanacearum R3B2 Detection on Solanaceous 

Crops in the U.S.,’’ meeting held at APHIS 

headquarters on June 19, 2003. 

Protocols contain requirements that are 

similar to, but more specific than, the 

requirements of the certification 

program.) We continue to believe that 

the requirements of the certification 

program will be effective at preventing 

the introduction of R. solanacearum 

R3B2 into the United States if they are 

properly implemented under the 

oversight of APHIS and the national 

plant protection organization (NPPO) of 

the country of origin of the imported 

articles. Adding the certification 

program to the regulations via our April 

2004 interim rule helped to ensure that 

any production requirements imposed 

by APHIS are properly implemented. 

We are making no changes to the April 

2004 interim rule in response to this 

comment. 

One commenter stated that the 

workplans developed among APHIS, the 

NPPOs of exporting countries, and the 

owners or operators of production sites 

need to address operational details of 

production under the certification 

program more specifically than the 

regulations established by the April 

2004 interim rule do. 

We agree with this comment. The 

regulations describing the certification 

program are intended to establish the 

necessary performance standards, while 

the workplans cited by the commenter 

are intended to describe in greater detail 

what needs to be done at a specific 

production site or sites to meet these 

standards. We have prepared a 

workplan for this program by combining 

the Minimum Sanitation Protocols for 

Offshore Geranium Cutting Production 

with a testing and sampling plan and a 

signature page, which is signed by 

APHIS and the NPPO of each exporting 

country. The workplan requires the 

inspection personnel of the exporting 

country’s NPPO to work in conjunction 

with APHIS when appropriate, and to 

provide the oversight needed to 

demonstrate that each production site 

will carry out the procedures, sampling, 

and testing described in the workplan. 

Additionally, the workplan requires the 

exporting country’s NPPO to provide 

the proper phytosanitary certification of 

all host material, which includes the 

additional declaration ‘‘Tested and 

found free of Ralstonia solanacearum 

race 3 biovar 2.’’

One commenter suggested that APHIS 

establish a Web site that would provide 

updates to the public whenever the best 

management practices associated with 

growing articles of Pelargonium spp. 

and Solanum spp. are changed. 

APHIS maintains documents 

pertaining to R. solanacearum R3B2 on 

the Plant Protection and Quarantine 

Web page, at http://www.aphis.usda.gov

/ppq/ep/ralstonia/index.html. That Web 

site hosts the documents cited in this 

final rule related to the production of 

articles of Pelargonium spp. and 

Solanum spp. for export to the United 

States in countries or areas where R. 

solanacearum R3B2 is known to occur, 

along with more general information 

about APHIS efforts to prevent the 

introduction of the bacterium into the 

United States. We will continue to 

update that Web page to reflect 

advances in scientific knowledge and 

amendments to our regulations 

regarding R. solanacearum R3B2, 

including changes to the best 

management practices associated with 

growing articles of Pelargonium spp. 

and Solanum spp. 

Characteristics of R. solanacearum 

R3B2 

The April 2004 interim rule included 

information about the means by which 

R. solanacearum R3B2 can spread and 

the reasons it is difficult to eradicate. 

This information is presented above 

under the heading ‘‘General Comments’’

in the context of discussing why it was 

necessary to restrict the importation of 

articles of articles of Pelargonium spp. 

and Solanum spp.; it served a similar 

function in the interim rule. We 

received several comments concerning 

this information. 

One commenter stated that the spread 

of R. solanacearum R3B2 from field to 

field via run-off water had never been 

substantiated to the commenter’s 

knowledge in Europe. This commenter 

cited establishment in wild bittersweet 

(Solanum duclamara) and subsequent 

irrigation with contaminated surface 

water as of more importance. Another 

commenter stated that no scientific 

evidence suggests that R. solanacearum 

R3B2 can survive in water. 

Once R. solanacearum R3B2 is 

introduced into the environment, its 

primary means of spread is via 

contaminated run-off water or irrigation 

water. This has been proven by 

experiences in the United Kingdom 

(UK).3 Furthermore, the first commenter 

provided additional evidence that 

suggests it is necessary to address the 

risk of transmission of the bacterium 

into a production site via contaminated 

water. 

In response to the second 

commenter’s assertion, the bacterium 

does not survive indefinitely in water, 

as it requires food to metabolize, but it 

can survive for the limited time required 

for plant-to-plant transmission via runoff water. 

One commenter stated that 

Pelargonium spp. are not preferred hosts 

for R. solanacearum R3B2, so crop 

losses in Pelargonium spp. due to the 

bacterium are minimal and can be easily 

eliminated by proper production 

practices. This commenter also stated 

that R. solanacearum R3B2 rarely 

results in substantial yield losses in 

potatoes in cooler climates, and a proper 

control program can cause it to occur 

only sporadically and easily eliminate it 

from the production column. 

We agree with the commenter’s 

statement regarding the host status of 

Pelargonium spp. for R. solanacearum 

R3B2; however, since infected articles of 

Pelargonium spp. have introduced R. 

solanacearum R3B2 into the United 

States, necessitating eradication efforts 

that were costly both to APHIS and to 

U.S. nursery stock growers, we believe 

it is necessary to regulate their 

importation from countries where R. 

solanacearum R3B2 is known to occur. 

With regard to the commenter’s 

assertions about the potential impact of 

R. solanacearum R3B2 on potato crops, 

it should be reiterated that R. 

solanacearum R3B2 is a quarantine pest 

that is not known to occur in the United 

States. It can be difficult to predict the 

impact of a plant pest in a new 

environment. In addition, if R. 

solanacearum R3B2 were introduced 

into the United States, APHIS would 

likely place a quarantine on any areas of 

the United States where the bacterium 

was known to occur, which would 

result in increased production costs for 

U.S. producers of articles of 

Pelargonium spp. and Solanum spp. 

and the possible loss of export markets 

for such articles. As described in the 

analysis under the heading ‘‘Executive 

Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility 

Act’’ in both interim rules, losses for 

U.S. potato producers due to 

quarantines and reduced export markets 

could potentially amount to hundreds of 

millions of dollars in the event of an 

introduction of R. solanacearum R3B2 

into the United States. We do not 

believe that the information cited by the 

commenter warrants reconsideration of 

R. solanacearum R3B2’s status as a 

quarantine pest or warrants relaxing any 

of the restrictions on the importation of 

articles of Pelargonium spp. and 

Solanum spp. that we added to the 

regulations in the two interim rules. 

One commenter felt that our use of 

the term ‘‘dangerous’’ to describe R. 

solanacearum R3B2 and our statement 

61354 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 204 / Monday, October 24, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

that an introduction of R. solanacearum 

R3B2 into the United States ‘‘could be 

devastating to U.S. potato production’’

were unnecessarily inflammatory. 

Our use of the term ‘‘dangerous’’ was 

intended to indicate that R. 

solanacearum R3B2 has the potential to 

cause economic damage to crops in the 

United States if it is introduced and 

spreads to the wider environment. 

Similarly, our use of the term 

‘‘devastating’’ to describe the potential 

impact of R. solanacearum R3B2 on 

U.S. potato production was intended to 

reflect the fact that if potato brown rot 

were to become established in the 

United States, the potato industry could 

potentially lose hundreds of millions of 

dollars due to direct losses and indirect 

losses from quarantines and diminished 

export markets. (These possibilities 

were discussed in the analysis under the 

heading ‘‘Executive Order 12866 and 

Regulatory Flexibility Act’’ in both 

interim rules.) To address this 

commenter’s concern, in the preamble 

to this final rule, we will refer more 

directly to the potential economic 

impact of R. solanacearum R3B2 when 

discussing the importance of preventing 

its introduction into the United States. 

No changes to the regulations 

established by the two interim rules are 

necessary as a result of this comment. 

We also received comments regarding 

two other characteristics of R. 

solanacearum R3B2. 

First, both interim rules restricted the 

importation of articles of Pelargonium 

spp. and Solanum spp.; the term 

‘‘articles’’ is understood to refer to both 

plants and all propagative material that 

can be derived from a plant, including 

seed. Two commenters disputed the 

implied assertion that R. solanacearum 

R3B2 could be transmitted via seed and 

asked us to exempt seed of Pelargonium 

spp. and Solanum spp. imported from 

countries where the bacterium exists 

from the requirements established by 

the two interim rules. 

The commenters are correct that R. 

solanacearum R3B2 is not a seedborne 

pathogen and that we should, therefore, 

exempt seeds from the requirements for 

imported articles of Pelargonium spp. 

and Solanum spp. that we established in 

§ 319.37–5(r) in the two interim rules. 

We have done so in this final rule by 

adding a statement to the introductory 

text of § 319.37–5(r) stating that seeds 

are not subject to that paragraph’s 

requirements. (We are not amending the 

entries for ‘‘Pelargonium spp. not 

meeting the conditions for importation 

in § 319.37–5(r)’’ and ‘‘Solanum spp. 

not meeting the conditions for 

importation in § 319.37–5(r)’’ in the 

table of prohibited articles in § 319.37–

2(a), because the entries for prohibited 

articles in that table include seed only 

if specifically mentioned.) 

Although we are exempting seed from 

the requirements of paragraph § 319.37–

5(r) in this final rule, we will refer 

simply to ‘‘articles of Pelargonium spp. 

and Solanum spp.’’ in the following 

discussion of comments for ease of 

reading. 

Second, both interim rules also 

limited the articles that were regulated 

to those of Pelargonium spp. and 

Solanum spp. One commenter asked if 

the host range of R. solanacearum R3B2 

was limited to articles of Pelargonium 

spp. and Solanum spp., and stated that 

if it is not, the importation of asexual 

propagative material from the entire 

host range of the bacterium should be 

restricted. 

We agree that other plants can serve 

as hosts for R. solanacearum R3B2, and 

we are reviewing the available evidence 

regarding plants that may serve as hosts 

for R. solanacearum R3B2. If necessary, 

we will conduct further rulemaking to 

address any risks their importation may 

pose. Such an action would afford the 

public, and foreign producers of these 

species in particular, an opportunity to 

comment on the suitability and 

effectiveness of the certification 

program’s requirements for production 

of those species. Thus, we are making 

no changes to the regulations 

established by the two interim rules in 

response to this comment. 

R. solanacearum in the United States 

In the April 2004 interim rule, we 

made the following statements about the 

presence of R. solanacearum in the 

United States: 

‘‘At least three biovars of R. 

solanacearum race 3 are distinguished 

on the basis of biochemical properties. 

Biovar 1, which is currently established 

in the United States, does not tolerate 

cold temperatures; its establishment is 

thus limited to the southern part of the 

United States. However, biovar 2, which 

is not present in the United States, is 

adapted to low temperatures and is 

found in temperate zones, meaning that 

it could thrive in the northern States 

where most U.S. potatoes are produced. 

If R. solanacearum race 3 biovar 2 were 

to become established in the United 

States, it would likely have a 

devastating impact on potato 

production. 

‘‘Biovar 1 is currently established in 

the United States, and we have not 

established an official control program 

for it. Therefore, in accordance with 

international trade agreements, we 

cannot place restrictions on the 

importation of articles that may be 

infected with biovar 1. Biovar 2, 

however, is not established in the 

United States and is considered a pest 

of quarantine significance. Therefore, 

under those same international 

agreements, we are free to place 

restrictions on the importation of 

articles that may be infected with biovar 

2.’’

We received several comments 

regarding these statements. 

One commenter stated that it is not R. 

solanacearum race 3 biovar 1 that does 

not tolerate cold temperatures and that 

is present in the United States, but 

rather R. solanacearum race 1 biovar 1. 

At the time the commenter submitted 

this comment, during the 60 days after 

the publication of the April 2004 

interim rule, the commenter was 

correct. The races of R. solanacearum 

are distinguished on the basis of their 

primary hosts; race 1 causes bacterial 

wilt on tomatoes, while race 3 causes 

brown rot on potatoes. Both race 1 and 

race 3 can infect hosts other than their 

primary hosts. R. solanacearum race 1 

biovar 1 is established in the southeast 

United States. 

A strain of Ralstonia was discovered 

in samples from a greenhouse and pond 

in the State of Florida in September 

2004. It was eventually identified as R. 

solanacearum biovar 1, but testing has 

to this point produced conflicting 

results as to what race of the bacterium 

is present in the samples. Regardless, 

APHIS is not treating any R. 

solanacearum of biovar 1 as a 

quarantine pest. 

In the absence of further information 

regarding the strain of R. solanacearum 

that we discovered in Florida in 

September 2004, we will refer to the 

strain of R. solanacearum that is present 

in the United States as race 1 biovar 1 

in the preamble of this final rule. 

However, because the interim rules 

addressed R. solanacearum R3B2 and 

the bacterium present in Florida has 

been determined not to be a biovar 2 R. 

solanacearum bacterium, no changes to 

the regulations established by the two 

interim rules are necessary as a result of 

this comment. 

Two commenters asked APHIS to 

present evidence that R. solanacearum 

R3B2 is not present in the United States. 

These commenters stated that U.S. 

potato growers are not required to test 

wilted plants for R. solanacearum R3B2, 

which means that it is unknown 

whether R. solanacearum R3B2 exists in 

U.S. potatoes. Another commenter took 

issue with our statement that R. 

solanacearum R3B2 is not present in the 

United States, since APHIS conducted a 

recent eradication effort against the 

bacterium, and suggested that we state 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 204 / Monday, October 24, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 61355 

4Strider, D.L., Jones, R.K., and Haygood, R.A. 

1981. ‘‘Southern bacterial wilt of geranium caused 

by Pseudomonas solanacearum,’’ Plant Disease 65: 

52–53. 

5Hudelson, B.D. 1999. ‘‘Southern wilt.’’

University of Wisconsin Garden Facts, May 11, 

1999. 

6Nameth, S. 1999. ‘‘Bacterial disease alert in 

geraniums.’’ FlowerTECH2 4: 65–67. 

7 Janse, J. D. 1996. ‘‘Potato brown rot in Western 

Europe—History, presence, occurrence and some 

remarks on possible origin, epidemiology and 

control strategies.’’ EPPO Bull. 26: 679–985. 

instead that we are attempting to 

eradicate R. solanacearum R3B2 within 

the United States. 

All of the available data indicate that 

our eradication effort has been 

successful at preventing R. 

solanacearum R3B2 from becoming 

established within the United States. 

Data from surveys conducted both by 

APHIS and by State governments 

indicate that R. solanacearum R3B2 is 

not present in the United States. 

Potato growers within the United 

States are not required by APHIS to test 

their wilted plants for R. solanacearum 

R3B2 because the bacterium is not 

known to occur in the United States. If 

R. solanacearum R3B2 were known to 

occur in the United States, we would 

establish a domestic quarantine in order 

to pursue its eradication or 

containment. Such a quarantine would 

be likely to include a requirement that 

potato growers submit wilted plants for 

testing. 

Many States have potato certification 

programs to ensure freedom from 

disease and to improve marketability for 

their potato crops. These State programs 

require potato producers to test for 

disease organisms that may occur in the 

production cycle if the potato plants 

show symptoms such as wilting. These 

programs do not specifically seek to 

identify R. solanacearum R3B2 

infections because the bacterium is not 

known to occur in the United States, but 

the presence of symptoms caused by R. 

solanacearum R3B2 infection would 

indicate that a disease is present, and 

the potatoes would be subsequently 

tested for diseases, including R. 

solanacearum R3B2, until the cause of 

the symptoms was determined. 

As indicated above, survey data 

indicate that R. solanacearum R3B2 is 

not present in the United States; these 

data are what led us to the conclusion 

that R. solanacearum R3B2 is not 

known to occur in the United States. 

One commenter cited three 

publications that the commenter 

believed could indicate that R. 

solanacearum R3B2 is present in the 

United States: 

• In a 1979 finding of R. 

solanacearum drawn from Pelargonium 

x hortorum in the United States,4 the 

race and biovar of the bacterium were 

unclear, but pathogenicity tests showed 

that the isolates from the plant failed to 

cause disease on tobacco, which the 

commenter asserted was typical of R. 

solanacearum R3B2. However, this 

finding would also be consistent with R. 

solanacearum race 1 biovar 1, which 

APHIS has acknowledged is established 

in the United States. Therefore, no 

definitive statement about the presence 

of R. solanacearum R3B2 in the United 

States can be made based on this 

finding. 

• The commenter pointed out that R. 

solanacearum R3B2 was found on 

Pelargonium zonale in Wisconsin in 

1999.5 However, the bacterium was 

found only in greenhouses; APHIS 

eradicated the bacterium after it was 

found, and there is no evidence that it 

was transmitted into the wider U.S. 

environment. 

• The commenter also noted that R. 

solanacearum race 1 biovar 1 has been 

found on P. zonale in Ohio.6 R. 

solanacearum race 1 biovar 1, as noted 

above, is established in the United 

States, and APHIS has not established 

an official control program for it. The 

interim rules placed restrictions on the 

importation of articles of Pelargonium 

spp. and Solanum spp. to prevent the 

introduction of R. solanacearum R3B2. 

This commenter also asked for 

information on official control of R. 

solanacearum in the United States. As 

described above, R. solanacearum race 

1 biovar 1 is established in the United 

States, and APHIS has not established 

an official control program for it, nor 

have we established an official control 

program for any other biovar of race 1. 

We do not have an official control 

program for R. solanacearum R3B2 

because that strain of the bacterium is 

not known to occur in the United States. 

Races 2, 4, and 5 are also not known to 

occur in the United States. As 

mentioned earlier in this document, we 

are not treating the R. solanacearum 

biovar 1 bacterium found in Florida as 

a quarantine pest. 

Two commenters stated that they 

were not aware of any evidence that R. 

solanacearum R3B2 could survive in a 

northern climate. Another commenter 

argued that our assertion that R. 

solanacearum R3B2 is adapted to low 

temperatures may not be justified by the 

available evidence and suggested that 

we state instead that R3B2 ‘‘appears to 

be adapted to lower temperatures.’’

Janse (1996) indicates that R3B2 is, in 

fact, adapted to low temperatures.7 If we 

become aware of any new research 

disputing the existing evidence, we will 

evaluate it and, if necessary, update the 

regulations. 

Distribution of R. solanacearum in 

Other Countries 

In the May 2003 interim rule, we 

listed the following countries as 

countries where R. solanacearum R3B2 

is not known to occur: Algeria, Austria, 

Belarus, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, 

Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, 

Estonia, Finland, Greece, Ireland, Israel, 

Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldavia, 

Morocco, Norway, Poland, Portugal, 

Romania, Russian Federation, Slovakia, 

Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, 

Tunisia, and Ukraine. (We did not 

provide this list in the April 2004 

interim rule; one commenter on that 

interim rule asked that we provide it 

here.) Two comments on the April 2004 

interim rule raised issues related to this 

list. 

The April 2004 interim rule exempted 

articles of Solanum spp. from Canada 

from the requirement that the 

phytosanitary certificate accompanying 

articles of Solanum spp. must contain 

an additional declaration; Canada is the 

only country allowed to export articles 

of Solanum spp. other than true seed to 

the United States, as the importation of 

Solanum spp. other than seed from 

other countries is prohibited due to 

other disease risks. One commenter 

asked whether R. solanacearum R3B2 

might have entered Canada after it 

entered the United States in 2003. 

We are aware of no evidence 

suggesting that R. solanacearum R3B2 

has occurred in Canada, and the 

Canadian NPPO has not reported its 

presence. All the evidence available 

indicates that APHIS was successful at 

confining the R. solanacearum R3B2 in 

the United States to a few hundred 

facilities and that the bacterium was not 

transmitted into the wider environment 

in the United States, much less in 

Canada. As a signatory nation to the 

International Plant Protection 

Convention (IPPC) of the United 

Nations’ Food and Agriculture 

Organization, Canada is obligated to 

report any discoveries of R. 

solanacearum R3B2 to the IPPC. 

One commenter, the Secretaria de 

Agricultura, Ganaderı ́a, Desarrollo 

Rural, Pesca y Alimentacio ́n of Mexico 

(SAGARPA, Mexico’s NPPO), requested 

that Mexico be added to the list of 

countries where R. solanacearum R3B2 

is not known to occur. The commenter 

stated that the only article that states 

that R. solanacearum R3B2 occurs in 

Mexico, a 1978 publication by Dr. 

Leopoldo Fucikovsky, used an oxidase 

test to determine that R. solanacearum 

61356 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 204 / Monday, October 24, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

8 ISPM publications can be viewed on the Internet 

at https://www.ippc.int/id/13399. 

R3B2 was present. The oxidase test is 

inadequate to establish the presence of 

R. solanacearum R3B2 since the test 

reacts not only with R. solanacearum 

R3B2 but also with phenols and other 

plant chemistry components. According 

to the commenter, all recent studies 

regarding the occurrence of R. 

solanacearum R3B2 have not 

discovered the bacterium in Mexico. 

The commenter also stated that Mexico 

performs surveys for R. solanacearum 

R3B2 using enzyme-linked 

immunosorbent assays (ELISA) and 

polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests 

and has found no evidence of the 

bacterium. 

SAGARPA did not provide citations 

for the studies it cited as supporting its 

view. If SAGARPA wishes to provide us 

with more specific information 

establishing Mexico’s freedom from R. 

solanacearum R3B2, such as parameters 

of any surveys undertaken and the 

results of those surveys, we will 

consider it. Alternatively, SAGARPA 

may propose to establish an area within 

Mexico as free of R. solanacearum 

R3B2; the process for doing so is 

described in more detail under the 

heading ‘‘Pest-Free Areas and 

Nurseries,’’ which follows directly. 

Pest-Free Areas and Nurseries 

The April 2004 interim rule requires 

that articles of Pelargonium spp. and 

Solanum spp. that are imported into the 

United States from a country where R. 

solanacearum R3B2 is known to occur 

be produced in accordance with the 

certification program established by that 

interim rule. Two commenters 

acknowledged the necessity of placing 

restrictions on the importation of 

articles other than seed of Pelargonium 

spp. and Solanum spp. from countries 

where R. solanacearum R3B2 is known 

to occur, but stated that the 

requirements of the certification 

program are unnecessarily restrictive 

given the phytosanitary controls already 

in place in certain countries that export 

articles of Pelargonium spp. and 

Solanum spp. These two commenters 

asked that we recognize areas within a 

country where R. solanacearum R3B2 is 

known to occur as areas free of R. 

solanacearum R3B2. 

APHIS recognizes areas within a 

country as being free of plant pests in 

accordance with the requirements in 

International Standards for 

Phytosanitary Measures (ISPM) 

Publication No. 4, ‘‘Requirements for 

the Establishment of Pest Free Areas,’’

which was published in 1996 by the 

IPPC and which is incorporated by 

reference into our regulations at 7 CFR 

300.5.8 To establish a pest-free area 

under this standard, a country must 

establish three main components: 

Systems to establish freedom, 

phytosanitary measures to maintain 

freedom, and checks to ensure that 

freedom has been maintained. The 

standard sets out performance-based 

requirements relating to each of these 

three components. Any country wishing 

to establish an area within its borders as 

free of R. solanacearum R3B2 may 

submit the appropriate information in 

accordance with ‘‘Requirements for the 

Establishment of Pest Free Areas’’ and 

propose that APHIS recognize the area 

in question as an area that is free of R. 

solanacearum R3B2. APHIS will 

evaluate whether the components the 

country has established are sufficient to 

establish the area as a pest-free area. At 

the present time, no foreign NPPO has 

submitted such a proposal. 

However, the regulations established 

by the two interim rules do not 

explicitly provide for the possible 

recognition of an area within a country 

as free of R. solanacearum R3B2. To 

allow for this possibility, we are adding 

a new paragraph (r)(2)(ii) to the 

regulations in § 319.37–5. This 

paragraph will exempt articles of 

Pelargonium spp. and Solanum spp. 

imported from areas free of R. 

solanacearum R3B2 within countries 

where R. solanacearum R3B2 is known 

to occur from the requirements of the 

certification program. Instead, such 

articles will be required to be 

accompanied by a phytosanitary 

certificate containing an additional 

declaration that states ‘‘This article is 

from an area that has been established 

as free of Ralstonia solanacearum race 

3 biovar 2.’’ We are moving the 

requirements presently in paragraph 

(r)(2) into a new paragraph (r)(2)(i) to 

accommodate this change. 

These two commenters also asked that 

we recognize the growing practices in 

certain nurseries as sufficient to ensure 

the freedom of articles of Pelargonium 

spp. and Solanum spp. produced in 

those nurseries from R. solanacearum 

R3B2. 

One of these commenters noted that 

the presence of R. solanacearum R3B2 

in the UK has been minimized. All 

production of potato and tomato within 

the European Union (EU) is under 

official compliance with EU production 

directive 98/57/EC. The requirements of 

this directive have ensured that 

outbreaks of potato brown rot and 

tomato bacterial wilt (a disease caused 

in tomatoes by R. solanacearum R3B2) 

have been contained at the place of 

production. Directive 98/57/EC also 

includes measures for the safe disposal 

of any infected crops, therefore 

removing any possibility of the 

pathogen’s spread through trade. 

Furthermore, annual surveys conducted 

by the UK’s NPPO ensure that the 

current locations of contaminated 

watercourses are known and that 

irrigation from such sources is 

prohibited. As a result, only five cases 

of the disease have been detected in 

ware potato crops, and only one case 

has been detected in tomatoes. The 

commenter stated that there have been 

no findings of R. solanacearum R3B2 in 

the UK since 2000. 

The other commenter asked 

specifically that we exclude Solanum 

nigrum produced under protected 

cultivation from the final rule. The 

commenter also stated that R. 

solanacearum R3B2 is not known to 

occur in some nurseries producing 

Pelargonium spp. in EU Member States. 

The commenter further argued that, if 

growing practices are sufficient to 

exclude R. solanacearum R3B2 from a 

production site, the testing provisions of 

the certification program would be 

superfluous. 

We believe that the requirements of 

the certification program are all 

essential to ensuring that articles of 

Pelargonium spp. and Solanum spp. 

that are imported into the United States 

from a country where R. solanacearum 

R3B2 is known to occur do not 

introduce that bacterium into the United 

States. Accordingly, we will recognize 

the growing practices in certain 

nurseries (including protected 

cultivation) as sufficient to ensure the 

freedom of articles produced in those 

nurseries from R. solanacearum R3B2 

only if those practices satisfy the 

requirements of the certification 

program. Growers in countries where R. 

solanacearum R3B2 is known to occur 

who believe that their production 

practices satisfy the requirements of the 

certification program may request to 

have those production practices 

evaluated by APHIS. 

With regard to the first commenter’s 

description of production practices in 

the UK, we consider the UK to be a 

country where R. solanacearum R3B2 is 

known to occur, and the commenter did 

not dispute that. If certain areas in the 

UK are believed to be free of R. 

solanacearum R3B2, the NPPO of the 

UK may attempt to establish their pestfree status by submitting the 

information required by ISPM 

Publication No. 4 to APHIS for further 

evaluation as described above. 

Otherwise, UK growers should request 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 204 / Monday, October 24, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 61357 

9 ISPM publications can be viewed on the Internet 

at https://www.ippc.int/id/13399. 

to have their production practices 

recognized by APHIS as satisfying the 

requirements of the certification 

program. 

We disagree with the second 

commenter’s assertion that testing is 

superfluous in a production site that has 

taken measures to exclude R. 

solanacearum R3B2. Just as the 

establishment of a pest-free area 

requires checks to ensure that the area 

remains free of the relevant pest, testing 

is an important means of ensuring that 

the measures a production site has taken 

to exclude R. solanacearum R3B2 are 

being properly implemented and thus 

excluding the bacterium. We are making 

no changes to the April 2004 interim 

rule in response to these comments. 

Testing for R. solanacearum R3B2 

One commenter asked us to specify 

what criteria must be met to determine 

whether an area is free of R. 

solanacearum R3B2 and what tests may 

be used to determine that a production 

site is free of R. solanacearum R3B2. 

As mentioned earlier in this 

document, the determination that an 

area is free of a pest is based on our 

assessment of components that include, 

but are not limited to, regular checks to 

ensure that the area remains free of the 

pest. Testing may be carried out using 

any means that the country in which the 

proposed pest-free area is located deems 

practical and that APHIS determines to 

be effective. 

The April 2004 interim rule stated 

that we are currently aware of two 

acceptable methods for testing 

production sites: An ELISA, which can 

determine whether Ralstonia spp. 

bacteria are present, and a PCR test that 

can determine whether R. solanacearum 

R3B2 bacteria are present. Domestic 

greenhouses tested for R. solanacearum 

R3B2 during the recent eradication 

effort typically used ELISA to screen 

potentially symptomatic material; if the 

material was infected with Ralstonia 

spp., the PCR test was used to determine 

whether those bacteria were race 3, 

biovar 2. Other testing methods may be 

used if APHIS determines that those 

methods are adequate to confirm that 

production facilities are free of R. 

solanacearum R3B2. 

The preamble of the April 2004 

interim rule stated: ‘‘One approach to 

preventing the entry of R. solanacearum 

R3B2 would be to test articles of 

Pelargonium spp. and Solanum spp. 

that are offered for importation into the 

United States at the port of entry. For 

such an approach to be effective, our 

tests would need to be able to 

distinguish between the biovars of the 

bacterium and to identify the presence 

of R. solanacearum R3B2. However, 

there currently exists no standalone, 

specific test for R. solanacearum race 3 

biovar 2 that is practical for testing 

articles of Pelargonium spp. and 

Solanum spp. at ports of entry.’’ One 

commenter stated that testing for R. 

solanacearum R3B2 at ports of entry is 

quite possible; alternatively, imported 

articles could be tested during postentry 

inspections of the nurseries where the 

articles are further cultivated. 

We do not dispute that such testing is 

possible; however, APHIS currently 

lacks the infrastructure and resources to 

either perform the PCR test at the port 

of entry or perform an ELISA at the port 

of entry, hold the tested articles until 

the test results are available, and then 

run a separate PCR test on any articles 

that tested positive by ELISA for the 

presence of Ralstonia spp. Therefore, we 

have focused our efforts on excluding R. 

solanacearum R3B2 from articles 

offered for importation into the United 

States. 

Specific Provisions of the Certification 

Program 

The April 2004 interim rule added a 

definition of production site to 

§ 319.37–1 that read: ‘‘A defined portion 

of a place of production utilized for the 

production of a commodity that is 

managed separately for phytosanitary 

purposes. This may include the entire 

place of production or portions of it. 

Examples of portions of places of 

production are a defined orchard, grove, 

field, greenhouse, screenhouse, or 

premises.’’ This definition was taken 

from ISPM Publication No. 5, ‘‘Glossary 

of Phytosanitary Terms 2002.’’ 9

One commenter stated that this 

definition might cause confusion with 

regard to some of the requirements of 

the certification program. For example, 

§ 319.37–5(r)(3)(iv) of the certification 

program established by the April 2004 

interim rule requires the production site 

for articles of Pelargonium spp. and 

Solanum spp. to be surrounded by a 1- 

meter buffer. The commenter suggested 

that, given the definition of production 

site established in the April 2004 

interim rule, this requirement could be 

interpreted to mean that an entire farm, 

composed of multiple greenhouses in 

which articles of Pelargonium spp. and 

Solanum spp. are produced, is required 

to be surrounded by a buffer, rather than 

the individual greenhouses. The 

commenter cited similar potential 

problems regarding the certification 

program’s requirement in § 319.37–

5(r)(3)(v) that the buffer be kept free of 

dicotyledonous weeds. 

The definition of production site 

established in the April 2004 interim 

rule states that the production site may 

include ‘‘the entire production site or 

portions of it. Examples of portions of 

places of production are a defined 

orchard, grove, field, greenhouse, 

screenhouse, or premises.’’ Under this 

definition, on a farm that is managed as 

a single production site for 

phytosanitary purposes but is composed 

of multiple greenhouses, each 

individual greenhouse in the farm is 

considered to be a portion of the 

production site. (Individual greenhouses 

are considered to be individual 

production sites only if they are 

managed separately for phytosanitary 

purposes, as provided for in the 

definition.) Thus, the production site in 

this case would not include all the land 

of the farm on which the greenhouses 

are located but rather all the portions of 

the farm in which production of articles 

of Pelargonium spp. and Solanum spp. 

takes place—the individual 

greenhouses. Thus, each individual 

greenhouse on such a farm would be 

required to have a 1-meter buffer that is 

kept free of dicotyledonous weeds. 

We are making no changes to the 

definition of production site in response 

to this comment. However, we are 

revising paragraphs (r)(3)(iv) and 

(r)(3)(v), which refer to the production 

site in the context of the requirements 

the commenter mentioned, to clarify 

that these requirements apply to each 

greenhouse on the production site rather 

than the entire production site. We 

believe these changes addresses the 

commenter’s concern. 

Paragraph (r)(3)(iii) of the certification 

program established in § 319.37–5 by 

the April 2004 interim rule required that 

production sites conduct ongoing 

testing for R. solanacearum R3B2 and 

that only those articles of Pelargonium 

spp. and Solanum spp. that have been 

tested with negative results for the 

presence of R. solanacearum R3B2 may 

be used in production and export. One 

commenter was concerned that this 

requirement could be interpreted to 

mean that each article exported to the 

United States must be tested. 

We did not intend to require that each 

article used in production and export be 

tested individually; rather, we intended 

to require that each article that has been 

used in production and export be part 

of a group of articles that has been 

tested in accordance with a protocol 

sufficient to determine, with a high 

degree of certainty, whether the articles 

in the group are infected with R. 

solanacearum R3B2. Details of the 

61358 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 204 / Monday, October 24, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

testing and the statistical plan for the 

testing protocol are specified in the 

workplan developed by APHIS, the 

foreign NPPO, and the owner or 

operator of the production site. 

The commenter is correct in stating 

that the language in the April 2004 

interim rule is ambiguous on this point. 

Therefore, we are amending paragraph 

(r)(3)(iii) to state that only articles of 

Pelargonium spp. and Solanum spp. 

from a group of articles that has been 

tested according to an APHIS-approved 

testing protocol with negative results for 

the presence of R. solanacearum R3B2 

may be used in production and export. 

Paragraph (r)(3)(iv) of the certification 

program established by the April 2004 

interim rule required that the 

production site be constructed in a 

manner that ensures that outside water 

cannot enter the production site. One 

commenter pointed out that water is 

necessary to grow plants, and this water 

must be brought into the production site 

from outside the production site; the 

interim rule technically excluded such 

water. The commenter suggested 

changing the requirement to state that 

the production site must be constructed 

in a manner that ensures that runoff 

water from areas surrounding the 

production site cannot enter the 

production site. 

We agree with this comment and have 

changed paragraph (r)(3)(iv) of the 

certification program established by the 

April 2004 interim rule as the 

commenter suggests. 

Paragraph (r)(3)(viii) of the 

certification program established by the 

April 2004 interim rule prohibited 

growing media and containers for 

articles of Pelargonium spp. and 

Solanum spp. from coming into contact 

with soil and prohibited the use of soil 

as a growing medium for articles of 

Pelargonium spp. and Solanum spp. 

One commenter hypothesized that 

pasteurized soil might in the future be 

considered an adequate growing 

medium and asked that, to ensure that 

the certification program could 

accommodate such a future 

development, we remove the 

prohibitions relating to soil and refer 

instead to APHIS-approved growing 

media in paragraph (r)(3)(viii). 

We agree that it would be best to 

provide such flexibility in the 

regulations in the case that pasteurized 

soil becomes an acceptable growing 

medium. Therefore, we have changed 

paragraph (r)(3)(viii) of the certification 

program established by the April 2004 

interim rule as the commenter 

requested. However, it is important to 

reiterate that soil of any kind will not be 

considered an APHIS-approved growing 

medium at this time. 

Paragraph (r)(3)(ix) of the certification 

program established by the April 2004 

interim rule required that water used in 

maintenance of the plants at the 

production site be free of R. 

solanacearum R3B2. It also required 

that the production site derive the water 

from an APHIS-approved source or treat 

the water with an APHIS-approved 

treatment before use. Two commenters 

expressed concerns about this 

requirement. One stated that no 

nurseries in the UK use surface water in 

the production of articles of 

Pelargonium spp., and infected 

Solanum dulcamara outside of 

contaminated watercourses have not 

been identified during official 

inspections over many years. Therefore, 

no water-borne route of transmission for 

R. solanacearum R3B2 into UK 

nurseries has been identified. The 

second commenter stated that rain 

water, tap water, or water from deep 

wells is used in the production of 

articles of Pelargonium spp. in the 

Netherlands, Belgium, and Germany. 

If the water sources cited by the 

commenters can be proven to be free of 

R. solanacearum R3B2, APHIS will 

approve the sources for use in the 

production of articles of Pelargonium 

spp. and Solanum spp. under the 

certification program; approval will be 

granted in the workplan developed 

among APHIS, the NPPO of the 

exporting country, and the owner or 

operator of the production site. We are 

making no changes to the April 2004 

interim rule in response to these 

comments. 

Paragraph (r)(3)(x) of the certification 

program established by the April 2004 

interim rule prohibited the use of ebband-flow irrigation in the production of 

articles of Pelargonium spp. and 

Solanum spp. under the certification 

program. We prohibited the use of ebband-flow irrigation because it exposes 

all the articles grown using such an 

irrigation system to any R. 

solanacearum R3B2 that may be present 

in any one article in the system. One 

commenter stated that ebb-and-flow 

irrigation should not be prohibited in 

production facilities located in areas 

within a country where R. 

solanacearum R3B2 is not known to 

occur. 

We agree that this requirement would 

be unjustified if an exporting country 

where R. solanacearum R3B2 is known 

to occur established, in accordance with 

the ‘‘Requirements for the Establishment 

of Pest Free Areas’’ referred to above, 

that an area within that country is free 

of R. solanacearum R3B2. In fact, under 

this final rule, production facilities in 

such a pest-free area would be eligible 

to export articles of Pelargonium spp. 

and Solanum spp. under paragraph 

§ 319.37–5(r)(2)(ii) of the regulations, 

which requires only that the 

phytosanitary certificate accompanying 

the articles contain an additional 

declaration that states that the articles 

are from an area that has been 

established as free of R. solanacearum 

R3B2 in accordance with ISPM No. 4, 

‘‘Requirements for the Establishment of 

Pest Free Areas.’’ However, as discussed 

above, APHIS has received no requests 

to establish such pest-free areas at this 

time. 

Paragraph (r)(3)(xii) of the 

certification program established by the 

April 2004 interim rule required that 

articles of Pelargonium spp. and 

Solanum spp. produced for export 

within an approved production site be 

handled and packed in a manner 

adequate to prevent the presence of R. 

solanacearum R3B2. One commenter 

recommended that the word ‘‘presence’’

be changed to ‘‘introduction,’’ or that 

the word ‘‘introduction’’ be added to 

this requirement. 

The intent of the certification program 

is to prevent the introduction of R. 

solanacearum R3B2 into the United 

States. Therefore, we agree with this 

commenter, and we have changed the 

word ‘‘presence’’ to ‘‘introduction’’ in 

paragraph (r)(3)(xii) of the certification 

program established by the April 2004 

interim rule as the commenter suggests. 

Paragraph (r)(3)(xiii) of the 

certification program established by the 

April 2004 interim rule stated that if R. 

solanacearum R3B2 is found in the 

production site or in consignments from 

the production site, the production site 

will be ineligible to export articles of 

Pelargonium spp. or Solanum spp. to 

the United States. The paragraph further 

stated that a production site may be 

reinstated if a reinspection reveals that 

the production site is free of R. 

solanacearum R3B2 and all problems in 

the production site have been addressed 

and corrected to the satisfaction of 

APHIS. 

One commenter asked us to rewrite 

this paragraph to provide for the 

possibility of individual greenhouses in 

a production site to be declared 

ineligible to export articles of 

Pelargonium spp. or Solanum spp. to 

the United States if articles of 

Pelargonium spp. or Solanum spp. 

infected with R. solanacearum R3B2 

can be traced back to an individual 

greenhouse in a production site, rather 

than declaring the entire production site 

ineligible. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 204 / Monday, October 24, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 61359 

We believe it is safe to declare an 

individual greenhouse among several 

greenhouses ineligible to export articles 

of Pelargonium spp. or Solanum spp. to 

the United States only if the greenhouse 

is managed separately for phytosanitary 

purposes and thus qualifies as a 

production site itself, as specified in the 

definition of production site that the 

April 2004 interim rule added to 

§ 319.37–1. Otherwise, production 

practices in a production site composed 

of multiple greenhouses could spread R. 

solanacearum R3B2 from one 

greenhouse to another, meaning that it 

would not be safe to allow importation 

from any greenhouse in a production 

site in which one greenhouse produced 

articles of Pelargonium spp. or Solanum 

spp. infected with R. solanacearum 

R3B2. We are making no changes to the 

April 2004 interim rule in response to 

this comment. 

One commenter stated that 

production sites should have to be 

tested with negative results three times 

over a 90-day period in order to be 

considered eligible for reinstatement 

into the certification program. This 

commenter further requested that 

details of the testing that would be 

required for reinstatement and other 

requirements for reinstatement be 

included in the regulations. 

The three-test, 90-day standard the 

commenter suggests is a reasonable 

standard, but it may not be appropriate 

in all cases. We prefer to specify 

conditions for production site testing 

and reinstatement in the workplan 

developed among APHIS, the NPPO of 

the exporting country, and the operator 

of the production site, in order to take 

into account local production 

conditions and capabilities. We are 

making no changes to the April 2004 

interim rule in response to this 

comment. 

Paragraph (r)(3)(xv) of the certification 

program established by the April 2004 

interim rule required that the 

government of the country in which 

articles other than seed of Pelargonium 

spp. or Solanum spp. are produced 

enter into a trust fund agreement with 

APHIS before each growing season. The 

government of the country in which the 

articles are produced or its designated 

representative is required to pay in 

advance all estimated costs that APHIS 

expects to incur through its involvement 

in overseeing the execution of paragraph 

(r)(3) of this section. These costs will 

include administrative expenses 

incurred in conducting the services 

enumerated in paragraph (r)(3) of 

§ 319.37–5 and all salaries (including 

overtime and the Federal share of 

employee benefits), travel expenses 

(including per diem expenses), and 

other incidental expenses incurred by 

the inspectors in performing these 

services. The government of the country 

in which the articles are produced or its 

designated representative is required to 

deposit a certified or cashier’s check 

with APHIS for the amount of the costs 

estimated by APHIS. If the deposit is not 

sufficient to meet all costs incurred by 

APHIS, the agreement further requires 

the government of the country in which 

the articles are produced or its 

designated representative to deposit 

with APHIS a certified or cashier’s 

check for the amount of the remaining 

costs, as determined by APHIS, before 

the services will be completed. After a 

final audit at the conclusion of each 

shipping season, any overpayment of 

funds would be returned to the 

government of the country in which the 

articles are produced or its designated 

representative or held on account until 

needed. 

One commenter stated that the trust 

fund requirement adds an economic 

cost to the production of articles of 

Pelargonium spp. or Solanum spp. that 

does not contribute to the maintenance 

of plant health and is therefore not 

justifiable. 

The trust fund requirement is 

common practice under many other 

APHIS import regulations (e.g., 

importing Fuji apples from Japan and 

the Republic of Korea under § 319.56–

2cc, or importing Hass avocados from 

Mexico under § 319.56–2ff). The trust 

fund is intended to ensure that the 

government of the country in which the 

articles are produced or its designated 

representative bears the cost of the 

certification program, rather than U.S. 

taxpayers. (The government of the 

country in which the articles are 

produced is, of course, free to pass this 

cost on to production sites producing 

articles of Pelargonium spp. or Solanum 

spp. for export to the United States.) 

Requiring that APHIS subsidize the 

production of articles of Pelargonium 

spp. or Solanum spp. grown in foreign 

countries for export to the United States 

would, we believe, be a misallocation of 

APHIS’ limited resources. We are 

making no changes to the April 2004 

interim rule in response to this 

comment. 

Two commenters expressed concern 

about the administration of the trust 

fund. One stated that there is no 

assurance that the governments of 

countries in which articles of 

Pelargonium spp. or Solanum spp. are 

produced will participate in setting up 

the trust fund; without such assurance, 

exporters might not be able to 

participate due to governmental 

reluctance. The other asked that APHIS 

itself, rather than the exporting country, 

establish and administer the trust fund 

so that it will cover the APHIS costs 

without making it uneconomical for 

exporting companies to continue 

production. 

APHIS does, in fact, establish and 

administer the trust fund in the 

certification program established in the 

April 2004 interim rule. The 

government of the country in which the 

articles are produced or its designated 

representative deposits money into the 

fund in response to APHIS estimates of 

costs and in response to actual costs as 

determined by APHIS. As noted above, 

the government of the country in which 

the articles are produced is free to pass 

this cost on to production sites 

producing articles of Pelargonium spp. 

or Solanum spp. for export to the United 

States. We are making no changes to the 

April 2004 interim rule in response to 

these comments. 

In the section of the April 2004 

interim rule in which we responded to 

comments, we described one comment 

as suggesting that APHIS impose an 

import bond on all imports of articles of 

Pelargonium spp. or Solanum spp. Two 

commenters on the April 2004 interim 

rule stated that we should require an 

import bond; one suggested that an 

import bond would be appropriate if 

compensation is not provided for 

articles of Pelargonium spp. or Solanum 

spp. destroyed during eradication 

efforts. 

We continue to believe that the 

certification program we established in 

that interim rule is a more direct and 

more effective means of ensuring that 

articles of Pelargonium spp. and 

Solanum spp. that are offered for 

importation will not serve as a pathway 

for the introduction of R. solanacearum 

R3B2. 

Other Comments 

One commenter recommended that, 

rather than place restrictions on the 

importation of articles of Pelargonium 

spp. or Solanum spp., we simply 

prohibit the importation of all nursery 

stock. We do not believe such an action 

is necessary or warranted. 

One commenter suggested that R. 

solanacearum R3B2 should be removed 

from the list of select agents in 7 CFR 

331.3(a). We continue to believe, based 

on input from USDA’s Agricultural 

Research Service, Forest Service, and 

Cooperative State Research, Education, 

and Extension Service and consultation 

with the American Phytopathological 

Society, that R. solanacearum R3B2 

poses a severe threat to plant health or 

plant products, and the commenter 

61360 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 204 / Monday, October 24, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

10Society of American Florists. 

11Electronic Outlook Report from the Economic 

Research Service, Floriculture and Nursery Crops 

Outlook, September 12, 2002, Alberto Jerardo. 

12World Trade Atlas 2002, U.S. imports of 

unrooted cuttings and slips of plants, code # 

0602100000. 

provided no evidence to the contrary. In 

any case, removing R. solanacearum 

R3B2 from that list is beyond the scope 

of this rulemaking. 

One commenter urged APHIS to 

continue with its review of the nursery 

stock regulations, to prevent 

introductions of both R. solanacearum 

R3B2 and other plant pests. We agree 

that this review is essential to 

safeguarding plant health, and we 

published an advance notice of 

proposed rulemaking soliciting 

comments on approaches to revising the 

nursery stock regulations on December 

10, 2004 (69 FR 71736–71744, Docket 

No. 03–069–1). 

Three commenters addressed various 

aspects of the eradication effort that 

APHIS undertook after the presence of 

R. solanacearum R3B2 was confirmed 

in the United States in February 2003, 

including reinstatement procedures for 

facilities where R. solanacearum R3B2 

was present, the speed with which the 

eradication effort was conducted, the 

treatment of individual greenhouses as 

production sites, and the fact that 

APHIS did not pay compensation to the 

owners of plants destroyed during this 

eradication effort. 

The effort to eradicate R. 

solanacearum R3B2 within the United 

States was conducted under the 

authority granted to APHIS in the Plant 

Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7714), which 

states that if the Secretary considers it 

necessary in order to prevent the 

dissemination of a plant pest or noxious 

weed that is new to or not known to be 

widely prevalent or distributed within 

and throughout the United States, the 

Secretary may hold, seize, quarantine, 

treat, apply other remedial measures to, 

destroy, or otherwise dispose of any 

plant that is moving into or through the 

United States or interstate, or has moved 

into or through the United States or 

interstate, and the Secretary has reason 

to believe is infested with a plant pest 

or noxious weed at the time of the 

movement. The Plant Protection Act 

further states that if that situation 

should occur, the Secretary may order 

the owner of any plant to destroy the 

plant without cost to the Federal 

Government and in the manner the 

Secretary considers appropriate. 

The May 2003 and April 2004 interim 

rules placed restrictions on the 

importation of articles of Pelargonium 

spp. or Solanum spp. in order to address 

the risk that such importation could 

introduce R. solanacearum R3B2 into 

the United States; the domestic 

eradication effort is beyond the scope of 

this rulemaking. 

Therefore, for the reasons given in the 

interim rule and in this document, we 

are adopting the interim rule as a final 

rule, with the changes discussed in this 

document. 

This final rule also affirms the 

information contained in the interim 

rule concerning Executive Orders 12372 

and 12988 and the Paperwork 

Reduction Act. 

Effective Date 

Pursuant to the administrative 

procedure provisions in 5 U.S.C. 553, 

we find good cause for making this rule 

effective less than 30 days after 

publication in the Federal Register. The 

interim rule adopted as final by this rule 

was effective on May 24, 2004. This rule 

clarifies certain requirements in the 

certification program established by the 

interim rule and amends other 

requirements to provide additional 

options. Immediate action is necessary 

to amend the certification program in 

order to ensure that its requirements are 

easily understood and to make the 

certification program more flexible. 

Therefore, the Administrator of the 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service has determined that this rule 

should be effective upon publication in 

the Federal Register. 

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. 

In the April 2004 interim rule, APHIS 

amended the regulations to establish a 

certification program for articles of 

Pelargonium spp. and Solanum spp. 

imported from countries where the 

bacterium R. solanacearum R3B2 is 

known to occur. The interim rule 

prohibited the importation of articles of 

Pelargonium spp. and Solanum spp. 

from countries where R. solanacearum 

R3B2 is known to occur unless the 

articles are produced in accordance 

with the certification program. This 

final rule amends the regulations by 

modifying some of the requirements of 

the certification program to make them 

clearer and more flexible, by providing 

for the establishment of areas that are 

free of R. solanacearum R3B2 within 

countries where R. solanacearum R3B2 

is known to occur, and exempting 

imported seeds of Pelargonium spp. and 

Solanum spp. from all requirements 

related to R. solanacearum R3B2. The 

requirements of the certification 

program are designed to ensure that R. 

solanacearum R3B2 will not be 

introduced into the United States 

through the importation of articles of 

Pelargonium spp. and Solanum spp. 

This certification program is necessary 

to prevent the introduction of this 

bacterial strain into the United States. 

The production site certification 

program impacts approximately 11 

different nurseries. Two of these 

nurseries are located in Guatemala, 

three in Mexico, one in China, two in 

Kenya, and three in Costa Rica. The 

average cost of upgrading these 11 

production sites to comply with the 

production site requirements in the 

April 2004 interim rule has been 

estimated at approximately $70,000 per 

site.10 However, many of these 

production sites had already upgraded 

their facilities due to the outbreak of R. 

solanacearum R3B2 in early 2003. Thus, 

to the extent that these upgrades fulfill 

the production site requirements 

contained in this rule, compliance costs 

for some production sites would have 

been lower than this estimate. 

Pelargonium (geranium) spp. 

Based on growers’ receipts, U.S. 

floriculture and nursery crop sales 

totaled $14 billion in 2002. Total sales 

of U.S. geraniums were estimated at 

$204 million for 2002.11 The United 

States imported $44 million worth of 

cuttings and slips of which geraniums 

comprised some unknown part.12

Geraniums are the most popular 

bedding plant in North America; 

approximately 20,000 growers cultivate 

these plants. 

APHIS has determined that the 2003 

R. solanacearum R3B2 outbreak 

occurred when geranium cuttings 

arrived from Kenya carrying the R. 

solanacearum R3B2 bacterium. The R. 

solanacearum R3B2 outbreak in 2003 

led to the disposal of 1.9 million 

geraniums; the disposed plants had a 

total value of approximately $1.5 to $2 

million. 

Solanum spp. 

The genus Solanum comprises a large 

group of both tender and hardy, 

herbaceous shrubby climbing plants. 

Several species can be found in North 

America either growing wild or as 

decorative plants, but two—potatoes 

and eggplants—are grown as vegetables. 

The R. solanacearum R3B2 bacterium, 

which is widely distributed in 

temperate regions, causes the disease 

potato brown rot. In 2002, 1.3 million 

acres of U.S. potatoes were harvested; 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 204 / Monday, October 24, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 61361 

13National Agricultural Statistical Service 

(NASS) data on U.S. potato production, 2002; 

Foreign Agricultural Service data on potato exports, 

2002. 

14British Department of Environment, Food and 

Rural Affairs, Service Delivery Unit, Plant Health 

Division. 

15NASS, Agricultural Statistics Board, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, 2001 Floriculture Crops. 

16Electronic Outlook Report from the Economic 

Service, Floriculture and Nursery Crops Outlook, 

September 12th, 2002, Alberto Jerardo; and NASS 

data U.S. potato production, 2002, along with FAS 

data on potato exports 2002. 

the potato harvest was valued at $3.2 

billion, and $123 million worth of U.S. 

potatoes were exported to the rest of the 

world.13 The value of potato fields 

infected with R. solanacearum R3B2 

could be drastically reduced if not 

completely eliminated. The bacterium 

causes potatoes to have unsightly brown 

rings in the vegetable, making them 

worthless for human consumption. Most 

likely, U.S. producers with fields 

infected with this bacterium would be 

required to quarantine their fields and 

destroy the potatoes to prevent the 

spread of the disease. 

The UK has experienced five 

outbreaks of potato brown rot that have 

caused minor impacts to overall potato 

production.14 Certain areas in South 

America have seen potato losses from 5 

percent to 100 percent due to potato 

brown rot. If potato brown rot were to 

become established in the United States, 

the potato industry could potentially 

lose hundreds of millions of dollars due 

to direct losses and indirect losses from 

quarantines and diminished export 

markets. 

The April 2004 interim rule allowed 

imports of articles of Pelargonium spp. 

and Solanum spp. to continue as long as 

the articles are produced in accordance 

with the certification program 

requirements in § 319.37–5(r)(3) and are 

accompanied by a phytosanitary 

certificate stating that they have been 

produced in accordance with those 

requirements. The interim rule helped 

safeguard U.S. agriculture against the 

possible introduction of R. 

solanacearum R3B2. 

Impact on Small Entities 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act 

requires that agencies consider the 

economic impact of their rules on small 

entities. The Small Business 

Administration (SBA) classifies nursery 

and tree production businesses as small 

entities (North American Industry 

Classification System category 111421) 

if their annual sales receipts are 

$750,000 or less. In 2001, 1,691 

floriculture operations out of a total of 

10,965 operations had sales of $500,000 

or more.15 Therefore, at least 85 percent 

of all floriculture operations can be 

classified as small; it is likely that an 

even higher percentage can be classified 

as small due to the $250,000 

discrepancy. 

The costs of complying with the 

production site certification 

requirements are not expected to 

significantly affect costs or revenues of 

small-entity floriculture operators in the 

United States. Some portion of the cost 

of site certification may be passed onto 

U.S. buyers of geranium cuttings in the 

form of higher prices, but this effect is 

expected to be minor. 

The interim rule had a negative 

impact on offshore operations due to the 

costs involved in complying with the 

additional nursery site certification 

requirements. Experts in the industry 

have estimated that updating the 11 

offshore nursery sites cost 

approximately $770,000 total, or 

$70,000 per site. However, this final 

rule makes changes to the production 

site requirements to allow affected 

entities some flexibility in meeting 

them. It is difficult to determine the 

impact without knowing average 

revenues generated at these 11 nursery 

sites. 

While the costs for production sites to 

comply with the requirements resulted 

in a negative impact on offshore 

production sites, the requirements help 

to ensure that future nursery shipments 

entering the United States are free of R. 

solanacearum R3B2. The 2003 R. 

solanacearum R3B2 outbreak alone cost 

the floriculture industry $1.5 to $2 

million in geranium plant losses. The R. 

solanacearum R3B2 outbreak could 

have jeopardized not only the entire 

U.S. geranium industry, which is 

estimated to be worth $204 million per 

year, but also the potato industry, which 

is estimated to be worth $3.2 billion per 

year, if it had not been contained and 

eradicated.16 It is evident that the 

benefits of certifying offshore 

production sites that produce 

Pelargonium spp. and Solanum spp. 

outweigh the costs. 

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. 

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, the interim rule 

amending 7 CFR part 319 that was 

published at 69 FR 21941–21947 on 

April 23, 2004, is adopted as a final rule 

with the following changes: 

PART 319—FOREIGN QUARANTINE 

NOTICES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 319 

is revised 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. Section 319.37–5 is amended as 

follows: 

■ a. By revising paragraph (r), 

introductory text, to read as set forth 

below. 

■ b. By revising paragraph (r)(2) to read 

as set forth below. 

■ c. In paragraph (r)(3), in the 

introductory text, by adding the words 

‘‘or area’’ after the word ‘‘country.’’

■ d. By revising the second sentence of 

paragraph (r)(3)(iii) to read as set forth 

below. 

■ e. By revising paragraphs (r)(3)(iv) and 

(r)(3)(v) to read as set forth below. 

■ f. In paragraph (r)(3)(vii), by removing 

the words ‘‘must not come in contact 

with soil, and soil may not be used as 

a growing medium’’ and adding the 

words ‘‘must not come in contact with 

growing media that could transmit R. 

solanacearum race 3 biovar 2 and must 

be grown in an APHIS-approved 

growing medium’’ in their place. 

■ g. In paragraph (r)(3)(xii), by removing 

the word ‘‘presence’’ and adding the 

word ‘‘introduction’’ in its place. 

§ 319.37–5 Special foreign inspection and 

certification requirements. 

* * * * * 

(r) Any restricted article of 

Pelargonium spp. or Solanum spp. 

presented for importation into the 

United States may not be imported 

unless it meets the requirements of this 

paragraph (r). Seeds are not subject to 

the requirements of this paragraph (r). 

(1) * * * 

(2) (i) For any article of Pelargonium 

spp. or Solanum spp. that does not meet 

the requirements of paragraph (r)(1) of 

this section and is from a country where 

Ralstonia solanacearum race 3 biovar 2 

is not known to occur, the phytosanitary 

certificate of inspection required by 

§ 319.37–4 must contain an additional 

declaration that states ‘‘Ralstonia 

solanacearum race 3 biovar 2 is not 

known to occur in the country or area 

of origin’’; Provided, that this additional 

declaration is not required on the 

phytosanitary certificate of inspection 

accompanying articles of Solanum spp. 

from Canada that do not meet the 

61362 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 204 / Monday, October 24, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

requirements of paragraph (r)(1) of this 

section. 

(ii) For any article of Pelargonium 

spp. or Solanum spp. that does not meet 

the requirements of paragraph (r)(1) of 

this section and is from an area that has 

been established as free of Ralstonia 

solanacearum race 3 biovar 2 in 

accordance with International Standards 

for Phytosanitary Measures Publication 

No. 4, ‘‘Requirements for the 

Establishment of Pest Free Areas,’’

which is incorporated by reference at 

§ 300.5 of this chapter, the 

phytosanitary certificate required by 

§ 319.37–4 must contain an additional 

declaration that states ‘‘This article is 

from an area that has been established 

as free of Ralstonia solanacearum race 

3 biovar 2.’’

(3) * * * 

(iii) * * * Only articles of 

Pelargonium spp. and Solanum spp. 

from a group of articles that has been 

tested according to an APHIS-approved 

testing protocol with negative results for 

the presence of R. solanacearum race 3 

biovar 2 may be used in production and 

export. * * * 

(iv) Each greenhouse on the 

production site must be constructed in 

a manner that ensures that runoff water 

from areas surrounding the greenhouses 

cannot enter the greenhouses. The 

greenhouses must be surrounded by a 1- 

meter buffer that is sloped so that water 

drains away from the greenhouses. 

(v) Dicotyledonous weeds must be 

controlled both within each greenhouse 

on the production site and around it. 

The greenhouses on the production site 

and the 1-meter buffer surrounding 

them must be free of dicotyledonous 

weeds. 

* * * * * 

Done in Washington, DC, this 18th day of 

October 2005. 

Elizabeth E. Gaston, 

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 05–21168 Filed 10–21–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 71 

Docket No. FAA–2005–22047; Airspace 

Docket No. 05-ANM–10 

RIN 2120–AA66 

Revision of VOR Federal Airway V–

343; MT 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This action extends Federal 

Airway V–343 from the Bozeman, MT, 

Very High Frequency Omni-directional 

Range/Tactical Air Navigation 

(VORTAC) to the initial approach fix for 

the Area Navigation (RNAV) runway 15 

approach to the Bert Mooney Airport 

(BTM), MT. Specifically, this action will 

enhance the management of air traffic 

arrivals at BTM. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 UTC, December 

22, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken 

McElroy, Airspace and Rules, Office of 

System Operations Airspace and AIM, 

Federal Aviation Administration, 800 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 

267–8783. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On August 23, 2005, the FAA 

published in the Federal Register a 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 

to revise VOR Federal Airway V–343 by 

extending the airway to the initial 

approach for the BTM airport (70 FR 

49222). Interested parties were invited 

to participate in this rulemaking effort 

by submitting written comments on the 

proposal. No comments were received. 

With the exception of editorial changes, 

this amendment is the same as that 

published in the NPRM. 

The Rule 

This action amends Title 14 Code of 

Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to 

revise VOR Federal Airway V–343 by 

extending the airway from the Bozeman, 

MT, VORTAC to the initial approach fix 

for the RNAV runway 15 approach to 

the BTM, MT. 

Domestic VOR Federal airways are 

published in paragraph 6010(a) of FAA 

Order 7400.9N dated September 1, 2005, 

and effective September 15, 2005, which 

is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 

71.1. The Federal airways listed in this 

document will be published 

subsequently in the order. 

The FAA has determined that this 

regulation only involves an established 

body of technical regulations for which 

frequent and routine amendments are 

necessary to keep them operationally 

current. Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is 

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not 

a ‘‘significant rule’’ under Department of 

Transportation (DOT) Regulatory 

Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; 

February 26, 1979); and (3) does not 

warrant preparation of a regulatory 

evaluation as the anticipated impact is 

so minimal. Since this is a routine 

matter that will only affect air traffic 

procedures and air navigation, it is 

certified that this rule, when 

promulgated, will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities under the 

criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, 

Navigation (air). 

Adoption of the Amendment 

■ In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows: 

PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, 

B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR 

TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND 

REPORTING POINTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 71 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 

40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–

1963 Comp., p. 389. 

§ 71.1 [Amended] 

■ 2. The incorporation by reference in 

14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9N, 

Airspace Designations and Reporting 

Points, dated September 1, 2005, and 

effective September 15, 2005, is 

amended as follows: 

Paragraph 6010(a) Domestic VOR Federal 

Airways. 

* * * * * 

V–343 [Revised] 

From Dubios, ID; Bozeman, MT, INT 

Bozeman, MT, 302° and Whitehall, MT, 342° 

Radials. 

* * * * * 

Issued in Washington, DC, October 17, 

2005. 

Edith V. Parish, 

Acting Manager, Airspace and Rules. 

[FR Doc. 05–21144 Filed 10–21–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P