This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

36403 

Vol. 74, No. 140 

Thursday, July 23, 2009 

1The term ‘‘official control’’ is further defined 

later in this proposal. 

2See the Glossary of Phytosanitary Terms (2007), 

which is International Standard for Phytosanitary 

Measures (ISPM) Number 5. To view this and other 

ISPMs on the Internet, go to http://www.ippc.int/ 

IPP/En/default.jsp and click on the ‘‘Adopted 

ISPMs’’ link under the ‘‘Standards (ISPMs)’’ 

heading. 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

7 CFR Part 319 

[Docket No. APHIS–2006–0011] 

RIN 0579–AC03 

Importation of Plants for Planting; 

Establishing a Category of Plants for 

Planting Not Authorized for 

Importation Pending Pest Risk 

Analysis 

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: We are proposing to establish 

a new category of regulated articles in 

the regulations governing the 

importation of nursery stock, also 

known as plants for planting. This 

category would list taxa of plants for 

planting whose importation is not 

authorized pending pest risk analysis. If 

scientific evidence indicated that the 

taxon of plants for planting is a 

potential quarantine pest or a potential 

host of a quarantine pest, we would 

publish a notice that would announce 

our determination that the taxon is a 

potential quarantine pest or a potential 

host of a quarantine pest, cite the 

scientific evidence we considered in 

making this determination, and give the 

public an opportunity to comment on 

our determination. If we received no 

comments that changed our 

determination, the taxon would 

subsequently be added to the new 

category. We would allow any person to 

petition for a pest risk analysis to be 

conducted for a taxon that has been 

added to the new category. After the 

pest risk analysis was completed, we 

would remove the taxon from the 

category and allow its importation 

subject to general requirements, allow 

its importation subject to specific 

restrictions, or prohibit its importation. 

We would consider applications for 

permits to import small quantities of 

germplasm from taxa whose importation 

is not authorized pending pest risk 

analysis, for experimental or scientific 

purposes under controlled conditions. 

This new category would allow us to 

take prompt action on evidence that the 

importation of a taxon of plants for 

planting may pose a risk while 

continuing to allow for public 

participation in the process. 

DATES: We will consider all comments 

that we receive on or before October 21, 

2009. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by either of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/

component/main?main=DocketDetail&

d=APHIS-2006-0011 to submit or view 

comments and to view supporting and 

related materials available 

electronically. 

• Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: 

Please send two copies of your comment 

to Docket No. APHIS–2006–0011, 

Regulatory Analysis and Development, 

PPD, APHIS, Station 3A–03.8, 4700 

River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 

20737–1238. Please state that your 

comment refers to Docket No. APHIS– 

2006–0011. 

Reading Room: You may read any 

comments that we receive on this 

docket in our reading room. The reading 

room is located in room 1141 of the 

USDA South Building, 14th Street and 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC. Normal reading room 

hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except holidays. To be 

sure someone is there to help you, 

please call (202) 690–2817 before 

coming. 

Other Information: Additional 

information about APHIS and its 

programs is available on the Internet at 

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Arnold Tschanz, Senior Plant 

Pathologist, Risk Management and 

Plants for Planting Policy, RPM, PPQ, 

APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 133, 

Riverdale, MD 20737–1231; (301) 734– 

0627. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Under the Plant Protection Act (7 

U.S.C. 7701 et seq.), the Secretary of 

Agriculture is authorized to take 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 (APHIS). 

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 that are not 

already established in the United States 

or plant pests that may be established 

but are under official control to 

eradicate or contain them within the 

United States.1 The regulations in 

‘‘Subpart—Nursery Stock, Plants, Roots, 

Bulbs, Seeds, and Other Plant 

Products,’’ §§ 319.37 through 319.37–14 

(referred to below as the regulations, 

and often referred to colloquially as the 

‘‘Quarantine 37’’ regulations), restrict, 

among other things, the importation of 

living plants, plant parts, seeds, and 

plant cuttings for planting or 

propagation. The regulations in 7 CFR 

part 360, ‘‘Noxious Weed Regulations,’’ 

contain restrictions on the movement of 

noxious weeds or plant products listed 

in that part into or through the United 

States and interstate; the importation of 

some plants is subject to both the 

nursery stock regulations and the 

noxious weed regulations. 

To refer to the articles subject to the 

nursery stock regulations collectively in 

this document, we will use the term 

‘‘plants for planting,’’ which the 

International Plant Protection 

Convention (IPPC) defines as: ‘‘Plants 

intended to remain planted, to be 

planted or replanted.’’ Planting is 

defined by the IPPC as: ‘‘Any operation 

for the placing of plants in a growing 

medium, or by grafting or similar 

operations, to ensure their subsequent 

growth, reproduction or propagation.’’2

In a final rule published in the Federal 

Register on August 6, 2007, and 

effective September 5, 2007 (72 FR 

43503–43524, Docket No. 03–002–3), we 

added a definition of plant to the 

regulations that is drawn from the Plant 

Protection Act and includes any plant 

(including any plant part) for or capable 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
36404 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 140 / Thursday, July 23, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

3We use the term ‘‘taxon’’ (plural: taxa) in this 

document to refer to any grouping within botanical 

nomenclature, such as family, genus, species, or 

cultivar. We are proposing to add this term to the 

regulations as well; see the section headed 

‘‘Definitions’’ later in this document. 

4The ANPR, as well as the comments we received 

on the ANPR, can be viewed on Regulations.gov at 

http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/ 

main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS-2004-0024. 

The ANPR contains a detailed discussion of the 

history of the nursery stock regulations that is 

helpful for understanding their original intent and 

current state. 

of propagation, including a tree, a tissue 

culture, a plantlet culture, pollen, a 

shrub, a vine, a cutting, a graft, a scion, 

a bud, a bulb, a root, and a seed. We 

consider the term ‘‘plants for planting’’ 

to include all the articles subject to the 

nursery stock regulations, and thus to be 

equivalent to the term ‘‘nursery stock’’ 

as it is used in the current regulations. 

Plants for planting that cannot be 

feasibly inspected, treated, or handled 

to prevent quarantine pests that may 

accompany them from being introduced 

into the United States are listed in 

§ 319.37–2(a) or (b) of the regulations as 

prohibited articles. Prohibited articles 

may not be imported into the United 

States, unless imported by the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture (USDA) for 

experimental or scientific purposes 

under safeguards specified in the permit 

issued for the importation of the 

articles. 

Plants for planting that can be 

inspected, treated, or handled to 

mitigate the risk of introduction of 

quarantine pests associated with the 

importation of the plants into the 

United States are referred to in the 

regulations as restricted articles. 

Restricted articles may be imported into 

the United States if they are imported in 

compliance with conditions that may 

include permit and phytosanitary 

certificate requirements, inspection, 

treatment, postentry quarantine, or 

combinations of these safeguards. 

Except for certain bulbs from the 

Netherlands, Canadian greenhousegrown plants, small lots of seed, and 

certain seeds from Canada (as described 

in § 319.37–4(a)(4), (c), (d), and (e), 

respectively), the regulations require 

that a phytosanitary certificate issued by 

the exporting country’s national plant 

protection organization (NPPO) 

accompany all restricted articles 

imported into the United States. 

All plants for planting imported into 

the United States must be presented for 

inspection. Plants for planting that are 

required to be imported under a written 

permit under § 319.37–3(a)(1) through 

(a)(6) and that are not from Canada must 

be imported or offered for importation at 

a USDA plant inspection station. Such 

stations are listed in § 319.37–14. Plants 

for planting that are offered for 

inspection at a USDA plant inspection 

station are inspected by Plant Protection 

and Quarantine (PPQ) inspectors. Plants 

for planting that are not required to be 

inspected at a USDA plant inspection 

station may be presented for inspection 

either at one of the ports listed in 

§ 319.37–14 or at a Customs designated 

port of entry indicated in 19 CFR 

101.3(b)(1). Such plants are inspected 

by the Department of Homeland 

Security’s Bureau of Customs and 

Border Protection. 

After inspection, the plants may be 

allowed entry into the United States 

(with treatment, if necessary), 

destroyed, or reexported, depending on 

the results of the inspection. Because 

lots of 13 or more articles (other than 

seeds, bulbs, or sterile cultures of orchid 

plants) from any country or locality 

except Canada are required to be 

imported under a permit, most 

shipments of plants for planting are 

inspected at USDA plant inspection 

stations. 

Summary of New Category of Plants for 

Planting 

Currently, the regulations categorize 

imported plants for planting as either 

prohibited articles or restricted articles. 

We are proposing to create a new 

category of plants for planting whose 

importation is not authorized pending 

the completion of a pest risk analysis. 

We will refer to the category in this 

document as the ‘‘not authorized 

pending pest risk analysis’’ (NAPPRA) 

category. The NAPPRA category would 

include two lists: A list of taxa that we 

have judged, on the basis of scientific 

evidence, to be potential quarantine pest 

plants, and therefore potential noxious 

weeds; and a list of taxa that we have 

judged, on the basis of scientific 

evidence, to be potential hosts of 

quarantine pests.3

We typically provide notice of our 

intent to designate plants for planting as 

prohibited articles, or place additional 

restrictions on their importation, 

through proposed rules, and we often 

complete a pest risk analysis (PRA) to 

support such a designation. By contrast, 

taxa of plants for planting would be 

added to the NAPPRA category based on 

scientific evidence that indicates that 

they pose a risk of introducing a 

quarantine pest into the United States, 

rather than on a comprehensive PRA. 

Additionally, we would establish the 

NAPPRA lists on a PPQ Web site and 

notify the public of our determination 

that taxa of plants for planting are 

potential quarantine pests or potential 

hosts of quarantine pests, and thus 

should be added to the NAPPRA lists, 

by publishing notices in the Federal 

Register. Thus, the NAPPRA category 

would allow us to take more timely 

action when evidence indicates that the 

importation of a taxon of plants for 

planting may pose a risk of introducing 

a quarantine pest into the United States. 

Any person would be able to request 

that APHIS conduct a PRA on any plant 

taxon listed in the NAPPRA category. 

After completing the PRA, we would 

initiate rulemaking either to allow the 

importation of the taxon subject to the 

restrictions described in the risk 

management section of the PRA or, if 

the risk associated with the importation 

of the taxon cannot be feasibly 

mitigated, to prohibit its importation. 

The December 2004 Advance Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking and the Current 

State of the Nursery Stock Regulations 

We first notified the public that we 

were considering establishing a new 

category of imported plants for planting 

in an advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking (ANPR) that we published 

in the Federal Register on December 10, 

2004 (69 FR 71736–71744, Docket No. 

03–069–1).4 This ANPR presented 

several possible changes that we were 

considering to revise the plants for 

planting regulations, one of which was 

implementing the NAPPRA category. (In 

the December 2004 ANPR, the NAPPRA 

category described above was called 

‘‘Option 2’’ for establishing a category of 

plants excluded from importation 

pending risk evaluation and approval; 

we have changed the terminology we 

are using in this proposal in an effort to 

improve clarity. Option 1 in the 

December 2004 ANPR was to exclude 

from importation into the United States 

all taxa that were not currently being 

imported in significant amounts; we are 

not proposing to implement Option 1 or 

requesting comment on it in this 

document.) 

As we discussed in the December 

2004 ANPR, the only pest risk 

mitigation measures required for the 

importation of most taxa of plants for 

planting are that they be accompanied 

by a phytosanitary certificate and that 

they enter the United States through a 

USDA plant inspection station, at which 

the plants for planting are sampled and 

visually inspected. The Plant Protection 

Act provides APHIS with the authority 

to require individual shipments of 

plants for planting to be treated, 

destroyed, or reexported if inspectors 

find quarantine pests in the shipments. 

However, this inspection may not 

always provide an adequate level of 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 140 / Thursday, July 23, 2009 / Proposed Rules 36405 

5The Safeguarding Report can be viewed on the 

Internet at http://www.safeguarding.org. 

protection against quarantine pests, 

particularly if a pest is rare, small in 

size, borne within the plant, or an 

asymptomatic plant pathogen. 

We take action to generally prohibit or 

restrict the importation of an entire 

taxon of plants for planting beyond the 

general permit, phytosanitary certificate, 

and inspection requirements only if 

there is specific evidence that 

importation of that taxon could 

introduce a quarantine pest into the 

United States. If we have reason to 

believe that a currently admissible taxon 

of plants for planting may be a 

quarantine pest itself or may be a host 

of a quarantine pest, we typically 

complete a comprehensive PRA to 

examine the available evidence on the 

subject. The PRA considers all the 

scientific resources available to the 

agency and makes determinations on 

the following issues: 

• Whether importation of the taxon 

poses a risk; 

• If importation of the taxon poses a 

risk, what level of risk it poses; 

• If the importation poses a risk that 

warrants mitigation, whether that risk 

can be mitigated; and 

• If the risk can be mitigated, what 

risk management strategies can 

accomplish the mitigation. 

Many scientific resources exist that 

provide evidence regarding the potential 

of taxa of plants for planting to be 

quarantine pests themselves or to serve 

as hosts for quarantine pests. PPQ 

regularly reviews these resources to 

keep up to date with emerging pest 

risks. Information gathered from these 

scientific resources can serve as a trigger 

to begin the PRA process. In situations 

that we judge to pose an emergency, we 

can take action immediately to stop the 

importation of a taxon into the United 

States. In other situations, we strive to 

complete a PRA promptly, so that we 

can address any pest risks discovered in 

the PRA through regulatory action. 

However, as both the volume and 

number of plants for planting that are 

imported has increased dramatically 

over the last decade, it has been a 

challenge for us to follow up on the 

available scientific evidence by 

initiating PRAs, and, when necessary, 

amending the regulations to address 

risks presented by the importation of 

plants for planting. We estimate that 

species of plants for planting from more 

than 2,000 genera are being imported or 

have been imported in the past; most 

taxa of plants for planting that are 

imported into the United States for the 

first time enter without a PRA having 

been conducted prior to their 

importation. In the meantime, taxa of 

plants for planting that scientific 

evidence indicates are potential 

quarantine pests or potential hosts of a 

quarantine pest may continue to be 

imported with no restrictions other than 

the requirements for a phytosanitary 

certificate, a port-of-entry phytosanitary 

inspection, and, for certain articles, a 

written permit. During the time a PRA 

is being completed to evaluate the 

potential pest risk associated with a 

taxon, U.S. agricultural and 

environmental resources may be at risk 

due to the importation of the taxon. 

Appropriately mitigating the risks of 

quarantine pest introduction associated 

with the importation of plants for 

planting is especially important because 

quarantine pests introduced via 

imported plants for planting are 

generally much more likely to become 

established than quarantine pests 

introduced via other imported articles 

that are not intended for planting or 

propagation. Imported plants for 

planting themselves may serve as hosts 

for quarantine pests for months or years. 

In addition, the destinations of imported 

plants for planting, such as plant 

nurseries, farms, greenhouses, orchards, 

and gardens, are likely to be favorable 

environments for plant growth and pest 

development in general, which could 

present problems in the event that a 

taxon of imported plants for planting 

turns out to be a carrier of a quarantine 

pest or is itself a quarantine pest plant. 

Under these circumstances, the 

introduction of even a few individuals 

of a quarantine pest species via 

imported plants for planting may lead to 

the establishment of that pest in the 

United States. 

The National Plant Board’s 1999 

‘‘Safeguarding American Plant 

Resources’’ report 5 contrasted the 

approach of the regulations governing 

the importation of plants for planting 

with the approach of the regulations 

governing the importation of fruits and 

vegetables, which are found in 

‘‘Subpart—Fruits and Vegetables’’ 

(§§ 319.56–1 through 319.56–49) within 

7 CFR part 319. 

Although quarantine pests that enter 

the United States via imported plants 

for planting are more likely to become 

established than quarantine pests that 

enter the United States via imported 

fruits and vegetables, the nursery stock 

regulations do not require a PRA to be 

completed prior to the importation of a 

new taxon of plants for planting or prior 

to the taxon’s importation from a new 

area. 

By contrast, the importation of fruits 

and vegetables is generally prohibited 

under the regulations in ‘‘Subpart— 

Fruits and Vegetables,’’ and the 

completion of a PRA is generally 

required before a commodity can enter 

from a new area. The process of 

allowing the importation of a fruit or 

vegetable from a particular area or 

country begins when APHIS receives an 

import request from an exporting 

country or when there is a request to 

reconsider the entry status of a 

commodity previously denied entry. 

The request must be accompanied by 

information about the commodity 

proposed for importation into the 

United States, shipping information, a 

description of pests and diseases 

associated with the commodity, and 

current strategies for risk mitigation or 

management, as described in § 319.5. 

If the request is for a fruit or vegetable 

for which no previous entry decision 

has been made, or if new evidence 

indicates that the previous entry 

decision may no longer be applicable, 

then a PRA is completed to determine 

the sources of pest risk associated with 

the requested importation. The fruit or 

vegetable is only allowed to be imported 

if the PRA indicates that the risk can be 

effectively mitigated and if we receive 

no public comments on the analysis that 

lead us to change the conclusions of the 

PRA. In other words, the importation of 

all commodities whose importation is 

governed by ‘‘Subpart—Fruits and 

Vegetables’’ is not authorized pending 

pest risk analysis and approval. 

This difference between the 

regulatory approaches for plants for 

planting and for fruits and vegetables 

means that APHIS typically has less 

information about the risks associated 

with the importation of particular taxa 

of plants for planting than we have 

about the risks associated with the 

importation of taxa of fruits and 

vegetables. While our records of 

importation indicate that some taxa of 

plants for planting have been safely 

imported for years, the data on other 

taxa is less conclusive and sometimes 

indicates that importation of the taxa 

may pose a pest risk. Given the relative 

lack of information available about the 

risks posed by the importation of plants 

for planting, it can be assumed that 

some taxa of plants for planting that are 

presently being imported pose risks of 

introducing quarantine pests that have 

not been assessed through the PRA 

process. 

The North American Plant Protection 

Organization (NAPPO), a regional plant 

protection organization recognized by 

the IPPC, coordinates efforts among the 

NPPOs of Canada, the United States, 

and Mexico to protect their plant 

resources from the entry, establishment 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
36406 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 140 / Thursday, July 23, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

6The standard (‘‘Integrated Pest Risk 

Management Measures for the Importation of Plants 

for Planting into NAPPO Member Countries’’) can 

be viewed on the Internet at http://www.nappo.org/ 

Standards/NEW/RSPMNo.24-e.pdf. 7The foundation document is available on the 

Regulations.gov Web site and in our reading room 

(see ADDRESSES above) and may be obtained from 

the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

and spread of regulated plant pests, 

while facilitating intra- and 

interregional trade. In its Regional 

Standard for Phytosanitary Measures 

No. 24, NAPPO examined the regulatory 

issues associated with international 

trade in plants for planting. The 

standard ultimately concluded that 

‘‘current regulatory measures are 

insufficient to ensure adequate 

protection for NAPPO countries in 

today’s trading environment.’’ 6 The 

standard called for regulatory officials, 

the horticulture industry, and the 

environmental community from Canada, 

the United States, and Mexico to adopt 

more effective regulations to mitigate 

the risk of pest introductions on plants 

for planting. 

Establishing the NAPPRA Category To 

Provide an Appropriate Level of 

Phytosanitary Protection 

We are proposing to establish the 

NAPPRA category in order to provide a 

more appropriate level of phytosanitary 

protection against the introduction of 

quarantine pests through the 

importation of plants for planting. 

Based on the increased diversity and 

volume of plants currently being 

imported, we have determined that the 

current regulations need to be enhanced 

to provide a level of phytosanitary 

protection commensurate with the risks 

posed by the importation of plants for 

planting. For this proposal, APHIS has 

prepared a risk document, ‘‘Foundation 

Document Demonstrating the Risk Basis 

for Establishing the Regulatory Category 

‘Not Authorized Pending Pest Risk 

Analysis’ (NAPPRA) Associated with 

the Importation of Plants for Planting,’’ 

which analyzes current trends in the 

importation of plants for planting and 

the general risks associated with plants 

for planting.7 It concludes, ‘‘The risk 

associated with imported plants is 

considered, by APHIS, to be higher than 

other pathways, e.g., imported fruits and 

vegetables. Because they are normally 

placed in conditions that encourage 

growth, plants serve as long-term hosts 

to the pests that they carry and therefore 

increase the probability that these pests 

will establish, and spread. In addition, 

the importation of plants that develop 

invasive or other harmful characteristics 

is particularly dangerous because the 

original intent of importation was to 

introduce and spread the plant. * * * 

Evidence indicates that while the 

original assumptions and designs for 

Quarantine 37 and the noxious weed 

regulations may have been valid when 

the challenges to the system were less 

intense, the contemporary situation is 

orders of magnitude more challenging.’’ 

The foundation document identifies 

the following factors supporting our 

determination that the current 

regulatory approach to the importation 

of plants for planting needs to be 

enhanced to adequately address this 

risk: 

• The volume of imported seed has 

increased 2,000 percent in the last 

decade; 

• 1,000 more genera were imported 

through the Miami plant inspection 

station (the primary plant inspection 

station for such importation) in 2006 

than in 2004; 

• The number of shipments through 

the Miami plant inspection station 

nearly doubled (from 29,251 to 52,540) 

in the same period; 

• Plants are imported from all regions 

of the world, including areas where 

available pest information is limited; 

• The number of pests that escape 

detection in the inspection process 

increases with the volume of plant 

importation; 

• Inspection is approaching, or may 

have reached, the limits of its 

operational efficacy due to the increased 

volume and diversity of importations; 

and 

• Hundreds of pest plants have been 

introduced into the United States as 

imports. 

We have therefore determined that the 

foundation document indicates a need 

to revise the regulations to provide a 

more appropriate level of protection 

against the risks associated with the 

importation of plants for planting. The 

NAPPRA category described in this 

proposal is the first step we are 

proposing to take to accomplish this 

goal. 

Comments Received on This Subject in 

Response to the December 2004 ANPR 

and the May 2005 Public Meeting 

We solicited comments concerning 

the December 2004 ANPR for 90 days, 

ending March 10, 2005. In a notice 

published in the Federal Register on 

March 10, 2005 (70 FR 11886, Docket 

No. 03–069–2), we extended the 

comment period for the ANPR for an 

additional 30 days ending April 11, 

2005, to allow interested persons 

additional time to prepare and submit 

comments. 

In a document published in the 

Federal Register on May 2, 2005 (70 FR 

22612–22613, Docket No. 03–069–3), we 

announced the availability of a draft set 

of criteria that could be used to 

determine which taxa might be included 

in the NAPPRA category, should we 

decide to establish such a category. In 

order to provide a forum for discussing 

those draft criteria and associated 

issues, such as how such a category 

might be defined and implemented were 

it to be adopted, we held a public 

meeting on May 25, 2005, in Riverdale, 

MD. As part of that document, we also 

reopened the comment period for our 

December 2004 ANPR until June 3, 

2005. 

We received a total of 275 comments 

on the ANPR. (Not all of these 

comments addressed the NAPPRA 

category.) In addition, we recorded 

extensive notes of the discussions at the 

public meeting of May 25, 2005. We 

have carefully considered the comments 

we received on the ANPR and the views 

expressed at the public meeting in 

developing this proposal. 

Some commenters, particularly 

Federal, State, and local government 

agencies, environmental advocacy 

groups, and industry groups, supported 

adding the category so that APHIS could 

promptly prevent the importation of 

taxa of plants for planting that posed a 

potential risk of introducing a 

quarantine pest. Some of these 

commenters also favored changing the 

approach of the plants for planting 

regulations by adding all plants for 

planting to the NAPPRA category, 

unless a PRA showed that the risk 

associated with the importation of a 

specific taxon could be appropriately 

mitigated, similar to the fruits and 

vegetables regulations. A few 

commenters proposed alternatives to the 

regulatory approach we had outlined in 

the ANPR. 

A larger group of commenters, mostly 

private citizens and small businesses, 

opposed establishing the NAPPRA 

category. They believed that a 

comprehensive PRA specifically 

examining the risks associated with the 

importation of a taxon of plants for 

planting is the only evidence that 

should be used to restrict or prohibit the 

importation of that taxon. 

While a comprehensive PRA is 

necessary to determine all the 

quarantine pests that may be associated 

with a taxon and, if appropriate, offer 

means to mitigate the risk associated 

with these pests, the scientific evidence 

we would use to add a taxon to the 

NAPPRA category would be sufficient to 

establish that the taxon is a quarantine 

pest or is a host of a quarantine pest. 

This proposal would provide the public 

with the ability to request that a PRA be 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 140 / Thursday, July 23, 2009 / Proposed Rules 36407 

conducted for any taxon that we add to 

the NAPPRA category. 

Some commenters from this group 

stated that any further restrictions on 

the importation of plants for planting 

would adversely impact the overall 

biodiversity of plants in the United 

States. 

The purpose of establishing the 

NAPPRA category, as with all our 

restrictions on the importation of plants 

for planting, is to prevent damage to 

agricultural and other resources caused 

by plants that are plant pests or that are 

hosts of plant pests. Preventing this 

damage helps to ensure that the current 

biodiversity of the United States is not 

adversely affected. 

Some of these commenters were 

concerned that small businesses would 

be unfairly harmed by the imposition of 

additional restrictions on the 

importation of plants for planting, as 

such businesses often depend on novel 

plants to sell to consumers. 

Although we acknowledge that 

restricting the importation of risky plant 

taxa may have impacts on small 

businesses, we have determined that the 

NAPPRA category is necessary to allow 

APHIS to appropriately respond to risks 

associated with the importation of 

plants for planting and to provide an 

appropriate level of protection against 

such risks. We would decide to restrict 

the importation of taxa of plants for 

planting on the basis of scientific 

evidence indicating that the importation 

of the taxa poses a risk. Though some 

taxa of plants for planting would be 

listed on the NAPPRA lists, most other 

taxa of plants for planting could 

continue to be imported subject to 

general restrictions. 

Others who were opposed to the 

NAPPRA category questioned whether 

the decision to add a taxon to the new 

category would be sufficiently grounded 

in sound science, often stating that 

plants should be considered not to pose 

a risk unless specific evidence exists 

indicating that they do. Commenters 

also questioned whether the process for 

adding a taxon would be transparent 

and allow for adequate public 

participation. 

We took these comments into account 

as we developed the NAPPRA process, 

which is detailed in the remainder of 

this document, Under this proposed 

rule, taxa would only be added to the 

NAPPRA category based on scientific 

evidence, and we would publish notices 

indicating our intent to add taxa to the 

NAPPRA category that would describe 

the scientific evidence and giving the 

public the opportunity to comment on 

our decisions. For these reasons, we are 

confident that the proposed NAPPRA 

category and process would fulfill our 

commitments to base our decisions on 

sound science, to employ transparent 

processes in reaching and 

communicating our decisions, and to 

allow for public participation in the 

process. We invite any suggestions 

commenters may have for improving the 

transparency of any aspect of the 

process, as outlined in this proposal. We 

also invite comment on whether the 

process for adding plants to the 

NAPPRA category is sufficiently 

scientifically rigorous. 

The December 2004 ANPR also 

discussed consolidating the regulations 

governing plants for planting into one 

subpart. As discussed above, we are 

proposing to address risks posed by 

importation of plants for planting that 

are potential quarantine pests 

themselves and risks posed by 

importation of plants for planting that 

are potential hosts of quarantine pests in 

the same section of the nursery stock 

regulations. We plan to pursue 

consolidating all the regulations 

governing the importation of plants for 

planting into a single subpart in a later 

document. 

Detailed Description of NAPPRA 

Category and Associated Changes 

Definitions 

The regulations currently do not 

contain definitions of the terms noxious 

weed, official control, planting, plants 

for planting, quarantine pest, and taxon. 

(The concept of official control is part 

of the IPPC definition of quarantine 

pest.) Therefore, we are proposing to 

add definitions for these terms to the 

‘‘Definitions’’ section in § 319.37–1. 

We would add a definition of noxious 

weed based on the definition of that 

term in the Plant Protection Act. The 

definition of ‘‘noxious weed’’ in the 

Plant Protection Act refers to nursery 

stock rather than plants for planting; the 

definition we would add in § 319.37–1 

would refer to plants for planting, to be 

consistent with the other changes we are 

making to the regulations. Thus, the 

definition of noxious weed would read 

as follows: 

Noxious weed. Any plant or plant 

product that can directly or indirectly 

injure or cause damage to crops 

(including plants for planting or plant 

products), livestock, poultry, or other 

interests of agriculture, irrigation, 

navigation, the natural resources of the 

United States, the public health, or the 

environment. 

The other definitions we are 

proposing to add are based on 

definitions in the IPPC Glossary of 

Phytosanitary Terms. These definitions 

would read as follows: 

Official control. The active 

enforcement of mandatory 

phytosanitary regulations and the 

application of mandatory phytosanitary 

procedures with the objective of 

eradication or containment of 

quarantine pests. 

Planting. Any operation for the 

placing of plants in a growing medium, 

or by grafting or similar operations, to 

ensure their subsequent growth, 

reproduction, or propagation. 

Plants for planting. Plants intended to 

remain planted, to be planted or 

replanted. 

Quarantine pest. A plant pest or 

noxious weed of potential economic 

importance to the United States and not 

yet present in the United States, or 

present but not widely distributed and 

being officially controlled. 

Taxon (taxa). Any grouping within 

botanical nomenclature, such as family, 

genus, species, or cultivar. 

The definition of official control is 

based on the definition in the IPPC 

Glossary of Phytosanitary Terms. 

However, our proposed definition does 

not include the provisions of the IPPC 

definition that address regulated nonquarantine pests, because the plants for 

planting regulations do not presently 

include provisions for regulating nonquarantine pests. We believe it would be 

confusing to include in our definition of 

official control a reference to a type of 

pest that would not otherwise be 

referred to in the regulations. If, in the 

future, we propose to amend the plants 

for planting regulations to address 

regulated non-quarantine pests, we 

would amend this definition to include 

regulated non-quarantine pests, 

consistent with the IPPC definition. 

We would use ‘‘plants for planting’’ in 

the proposed regulations where we 

would have formerly used the term 

‘‘nursery stock.’’ We would remove the 

definition of nursery stock and replace 

the references to nursery stock in the 

definitions of prohibited article and 

restricted article with references to 

‘‘plants for planting.’’ We would also 

revise the title of the subpart that 

contains the regulations to read 

‘‘Subpart—Plants for Planting.’’ 

The definition of quarantine pest is 

based on the definition in the IPPC 

Glossary of Phytosanitary Terms. The 

definition we are proposing differs in 

two ways from the IPPC definition: 

• The definition of quarantine pest 

that we are proposing refers to ‘‘a plant 

pest or noxious weed’’ rather than ‘‘a 

pest.’’ Such an approach is consistent 

with our authority under the Plant 

Protection Act, which specifically refers 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
36408 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 140 / Thursday, July 23, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

to plant pests and noxious weeds. It is 

also consistent with the IPPC definition, 

since the IPPC definition of ‘‘pest’’ 

includes plants as well as animals and 

pathogenic agents. (The Plant Protection 

Act definition of noxious weeds 

includes references to the weed’s impact 

on agriculture, natural resources, public 

health, and the environment, among 

other things, while the IPPC definition 

of quarantine pest itself refers only to 

economic importance. However, 

Appendix 2 to the Glossary of 

Phytosanitary Terms explains that the 

term ‘‘economic importance’’ is to be 

understood as having a broad meaning 

encompassing potential damage to the 

natural environment as well.) 

• The definition of quarantine pest 

that we are proposing also specifically 

refers to the United States. 

In addition to adding a definition of 

quarantine pest to the regulations, we 

are proposing to remove the term plant 

pest and add the term quarantine pest 

in its place in the regulations. We would 

also remove the definition of plant pest 

in § 319.37–1. APHIS takes action on 

plant pests based on whether they 

qualify as quarantine pests, in keeping 

with our commitments under 

international trade agreements. For 

example, APHIS typically would not 

restrict the importation of a taxon of 

plants for planting because it could 

introduce a plant pest if that plant pest 

is already present in the United States 

and not under official control; such a 

restriction could be inconsistent with 

the national treatment principle of the 

WTO. Therefore, we believe it is 

appropriate to refer specifically to 

quarantine pests rather than to plant 

pests in the plants for planting 

regulations. 

Regulating Noxious Weeds Through the 

NAPPRA Category 

The nursery stock regulations in 

§§ 319.37 through 319.37–14 currently 

address only plants for planting that 

have been determined to be hosts of 

quarantine pests. Plants for planting that 

are themselves quarantine pests have 

been regulated under 7 CFR part 360, 

‘‘Noxious Weed Regulations.’’ However, 

the new definition of quarantine pest 

that we are proposing includes a 

specific reference to noxious weeds, and 

the definition of noxious weed from the 

Plant Protection Act would be added to 

the regulations as well, meaning that the 

definition of quarantine pest would 

allow us to address both plants for 

planting that are potential hosts of 

quarantine pests and plants for planting 

that are potential noxious weeds (i.e., 

quarantine pest plants). 

We are proposing to address the 

potential risks posed by the importation 

of taxa of plants for planting that could 

be quarantine pests themselves and 

those that could serve as hosts for 

quarantine pests through the same set of 

proposed regulations. This decision 

follows from a potential change to the 

regulations we discussed in the 

December 2004 ANPR, in which all the 

regulations relating to the importation of 

plants for planting would be 

consolidated into a single subpart. 

(Commenters who addressed this issue 

generally approved of consolidating the 

plants for planting regulations.) We are 

not proposing to consolidate the plants 

for planting regulations in this 

document, but we do not want to further 

disperse the regulations governing 

plants for planting by establishing 

separate provisions for the NAPPRA 

category in 7 CFR part 319 (for potential 

hosts of quarantine pests) and 7 CFR 

part 360 (for potential pest plants). We 

welcome public comment on this 

approach. 

Proposed Process for Adding Taxa of 

Plants for Planting to the NAPPRA 

Category 

We are proposing to add a new 

§ 319.37–2a, ‘‘Taxa whose importation 

is not authorized pending pest risk 

analysis,’’ to the regulations to describe 

the process by which taxa of plants for 

planting would be added to the lists of 

taxa whose importation is not 

authorized pending pest risk analysis 

(the ‘‘NAPPRA lists’’), to describe the 

criteria we would use when determining 

whether to add a taxon to the NAPPRA 

lists, and to provide instructions to 

persons who wish to request that taxa be 

removed from the NAPPRA lists. 

Paragraph (a) of proposed § 319.37–2a 

would state that we have determined 

that certain taxa of plants for planting 

potentially pose a risk of introducing 

quarantine pests into the United States 

and that the importation of these taxa is 

not authorized pending the completion 

of a pest risk analysis. 

There would be two lists of taxa 

whose importation is not authorized 

pending pest risk analysis: A list of taxa 

of plants for planting that are potential 

quarantine pests, and a list of taxa of 

plants for planting that are potential 

hosts of quarantine pests. These lists 

would be established on the PPQ Web 

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

import_export/plants/plant_imports/ 

Q37.shtml. 

For taxa that had been determined to 

be potential quarantine pests, the list 

would include the names of the taxa. 

For the list of taxa that had been 

determined to be potential hosts of 

quarantine pests, the list would include: 

• The names of the taxa; 

• The foreign places from which the 

taxa’s importation is not authorized; and 

• The quarantine pests of concern. 

The list would indicate that the 

importation of seed from taxa listed as 

potential hosts of quarantine pests is 

permitted unless specifically restricted 

by APHIS based on scientific evidence 

that the associated pest is seedborne. 

Even when a taxon is determined to be 

a potential host of a quarantine pest, its 

seed can often be imported safely, 

depending on the biology of the pest. 

Proposed paragraph (b) would 

describe the process by which APHIS 

would add taxa to the NAPPRA lists. 

Under proposed paragraph (b)(1), 

APHIS would publish in the Federal 

Register a notice announcing our 

determination that a taxon of plants for 

planting is either a potential quarantine 

pest or a potential host of a quarantine 

pest. This notice would make available 

a data sheet that would detail the 

scientific evidence that we evaluated in 

making our determination, including 

references for that scientific evidence. In 

the notice, we would provide for a 

public comment period of a minimum 

of 60 days on our proposed addition to 

the list. 

Proposed paragraph (b)(2) would 

describe how we would respond to 

comments on the notices. APHIS would 

issue a notice after the close of the 

public comment period indicating that 

the taxon will be added to the list of 

taxa not authorized for importation 

pending pest risk analysis if: 

• No comments were received on the 

data sheet; 

• The comments on the data sheet 

revealed that no changes to the data 

sheet were necessary; or 

• Changes to the data sheet were 

made in response to public comments, 

but the changes did not affect our 

determination that the taxon poses a 

potential risk of introducing a 

quarantine pest into the United States. 

If comments presented information 

that leads us to determine that that the 

taxon does not pose a potential risk of 

introducing a quarantine pest into the 

United States, APHIS would not add the 

taxon to the NAPPRA list. We would 

issue a notice giving public notice of 

this determination after the close of the 

comment period. 

This proposed process for adding taxa 

of plants for planting to the NAPPRA 

lists would streamline the process of 

taking action based on sound scientific 

evidence while providing the public 

with the opportunity to participate. We 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 140 / Thursday, July 23, 2009 / Proposed Rules 36409 

8Parker, C., B.P. Caton and L. Fowler. 2007. 

‘‘Ranking non-indigenous weed species by their 

potential to invade the United States: ‘The Parker 

model.’ ’’ Weed Science 55:386–397. 

9See, for example, ‘‘Predicting Invasions of 

Woody Plants in North America’’ (Reichard and 

Hamilton, 1997). 

invite public comment on the process 

we have described. 

The process for removing taxa from 

the NAPPRA lists is discussed in detail 

later in this document under the 

heading ‘‘Process for Removing Taxa of 

Plants for Planting from the NAPPRA 

Category.’’ 

Sources of Scientific Evidence for Taxa 

That Are Potential Quarantine Pests 

Paragraphs (c) and (d) of proposed 

§ 319.37–2a would describe the criteria 

that we would use in determining 

whether to add a taxon of plants for 

planting to the NAPPRA category. 

For both taxa of plants for planting 

that are potential quarantine pests and 

taxa of plants for planting that are 

potential hosts of quarantine pests, we 

are basing our steps for making a 

determination and the sources of 

scientific evidence we would use to 

make the determination on ‘‘Criteria for 

adding plants to a new category of 

plants for planting, ‘Not Authorized 

Pending Risk Analysis’ (NAPRA),’’ a 

document discussed at the May 25, 

2005, meeting and revised in October 

2005. We have made some 

modifications to the wording and 

application of these criteria in this 

proposed rule. We have also simplified 

the criteria where possible. 

Proposed paragraph (c) would state 

that a taxon will be added to the list of 

taxa whose importation is not 

authorized pending pest risk analysis if 

scientific evidence causes APHIS to 

determine that the taxon is a potential 

quarantine pest, as we are proposing to 

define that term in § 319.37–1. 

There are several sources of scientific 

evidence that we anticipate using to 

make the determination that a taxon of 

plants for planting is a potential 

quarantine pest that should be added to 

the NAPPRA list. Those sources 

include, but are not necessarily limited 

to, the following: 

• National and international pest 

alerts, reports, and quarantine lists. 

• Articles from peer-reviewed 

scientific journals or other published 

scientific literature. Examples of 

journals that we might consult to 

determine whether a taxon is a potential 

quarantine pest are Weed Science and 

Plant Protection Quarterly. 

• Published international weed 

references. Two examples of 

international weed references we might 

use are Invasive Plant Species of the 

World: A Reference Guide to 

Environmental Weeds (Weber, Ewald. 

2003; CABI Publishing, Cambridge, MA) 

and Noxious Weeds of Australia (W.T. 

Parsons and E.G. Cuthbertson, 1992; 

Inkata Press, Melbourne and Sydney, 

Australia). 

• Information from international 

databases, such as the Crop Protection 

Compendium (CPC). The CPC is an 

interactive, encyclopedic tool that 

draws together information on all 

aspects of crop protection. The CPC is 

composed of information sourced from 

experts. It is edited and compiled by an 

independent scientific organization and 

draws resources from a diverse 

international development consortium. 

It is published on CD–ROM and on the 

Internet and is updated annually. We 

would consider using other 

international databases of similar repute 

as well. 

• Reports from regional plant 

protection organizations, such as 

NAPPO and the European and 

Mediterranean Plant Protection 

Organization, and from professional 

societies such as the Weed Science 

Society of America (WSSA). 

• Scientific screening systems and 

predictive models, such as the WSSA’s 

prioritization model, that seek to 

identify weeds of global significance 

that pose a threat to the United States. 

Most scientific screening systems and 

predictive models are question-based 

scoring methods that ask about climatic 

preferences, biological attributes, and 

reproductive and dispersal methods. 

Often a system generates a numerical 

score, which is used to rank species to 

determine which species are the highest 

priorities for official control or to 

determine whether a taxon can be 

imported into a country or area. Some 

systems are used to predict whether a 

species may be a weed of agriculture or 

the environment. 

APHIS specifically requested that 

WSSA develop the prioritization model 

to screen taxa of plants for planting that 

could be quarantine pests and to rank 

the taxa based on how much potential 

risk they pose. WSSA has also provided 

detailed fact sheets on the taxa deemed 

to pose the greatest risk. We plan to use 

the information generated by the WSSA 

to add taxa to the NAPPRA category.8

We would also consider using other 

work that is being done in this area. 

Several such systems besides the WSSA 

prioritization model already exist, 

including models developed by 

Australia, Western Australia, and the 

Hawaiian Ecosystems at Risk project. 

Several university scientists are also 

studying invasiveness prediction, and 

some have published articles on various 

models.9

• Any information available from 

other APHIS PRAs, including the 

weediness screening portions of APHIS 

fruit and vegetable commodity PRAs. As 

mentioned earlier in this document, 

APHIS conducts PRAs to determine 

whether and how fruits or vegetables 

can be imported into the United States. 

One of the first steps in a fruit and 

vegetable PRA is a weediness screening 

of the commodity itself. A taxon of 

plants for planting might be identified 

as a candidate for the NAPPRA category 

because it was identified as a potential 

quarantine pest in an assessment that 

was initiated by a request to import the 

taxon for human consumption. The PRA 

will indicate what sources led the risk 

assessor to make the determination that 

the taxon, if imported for planting, 

could be a quarantine pest; we would 

then consult those sources to determine 

whether to add it to the NAPPRA 

category. 

It is important to note that APHIS 

would not automatically determine that 

a taxon should be added to the NAPPRA 

category simply because some scientific 

evidence indicates that the taxon is a 

potential quarantine pest. An obvious 

example is that if a foreign country has 

a taxon of plants for planting on its 

quarantine list, we would not use that 

evidence to add the taxon to the 

NAPPRA category if the taxon is already 

present and not under official control in 

the United States. Another example: If 

a weediness screening model predicted 

that a certain taxon was a potential 

quarantine pest, but other evidence 

indicated that the taxon was not likely 

to be a quarantine pest, we might not 

add that taxon to the NAPPRA category. 

The sources of scientific evidence 

described here would serve as a basis 

for judgment; the existence of evidence 

from these sources would not replace 

the judgment of PPQ technical experts. 

For those sources of scientific 

evidence for which we have provided 

examples, it is important to note that the 

examples are not intended to be 

exhaustive. For example, we would 

consider evidence from all peerreviewed scientific journals in 

determining whether to add a taxon of 

plants for planting to the NAPPRA 

category, not just those we have listed 

for the purposes of illustration. 

Similarly, we would consider 

information from scientific screening 

systems other than the WSSA’s system, 

provided that we judged those screening 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
36410 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 140 / Thursday, July 23, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

systems to be as rigorous and useful as 

the WSSA’s system. 

Sources of Scientific Evidence for Taxa 

That Are Potential Hosts of Quarantine 

Pests 

Proposed paragraph (d) would 

describe the criteria that APHIS would 

use in making the determination that a 

taxon of plants for planting is a 

potential host of a quarantine pest that 

should be added to the NAPPRA 

category. The following criteria would 

have to be fulfilled in order to make this 

determination: 

1. The plant pest in question would 

have to be determined to be a 

quarantine pest, according to the 

definition of quarantine pest that we are 

proposing to add to the regulations; and 

2. The taxon of plants for planting 

would have to be determined to be a 

potential host of that quarantine pest. 

However, reports of the host status of a 

taxon of plants for planting that are 

based on the taxon’s role as a laboratory 

or experimental host may be discounted 

if we determine that they are not 

relevant to the actual conditions under 

which the taxon would be grown and 

imported. 

There are several sources of scientific 

evidence that we anticipate using to 

make the determination that a taxon of 

plants for planting is a potential host of 

a quarantine pest, and thus that the 

taxon should be added to the NAPPRA 

category. The sources of evidence might 

include, but would not necessarily be 

limited to, the following: 

• National and international pest 

alerts, reports, and quarantine lists. 

• Reports and quarantine lists from 

State and local governments. 

• The Plant Protection and 

Quarantine plant pest interception 

database. PPQ maintains a centralized 

database system that is designed to help 

manage the APHIS–PPQ port 

interception information more 

effectively. The system is designed to 

record and track all quarantine 

significant pests found (intercepted) 

during inspection. 

• Articles from peer-reviewed 

scientific journals. Examples of journals 

that we might consult are 

Phytopathology, Plant Disease, 

Mycologia, Plant Pathology, Journal of 

Economic Entomology, and Annals of 

Applied Biology. 

• Other scientific publications used 

as references, on topics like entomology, 

plant pathology, nematology, agronomy, 

and horticulture. Examples of references 

we might consult are the 

Commonwealth Agriculture Bureau 

International’s Abstracts on the above 

topics and the American 

Phytopathological Society’s 

Compendium of Crop Diseases. 

• Information from international 

databases, such as the CPC. 

• Reports from regional plant 

protection organizations, such as 

NAPPO and the European and 

Mediterranean Plant Protection 

Organization, and from professional 

societies, such as the American 

Phytopathological Society and the 

Entomological Society of America. 

• Any information available from 

other APHIS PRAs, particularly PRAs 

prepared to allow the importation of 

plants in growing media under 

§ 319.37–8(e) and APHIS fruit and 

vegetable commodity PRAs. Besides 

containing a weediness screening 

component, as discussed earlier, APHIS 

fruit and vegetable commodity PRAs 

typically examine the scientific 

evidence and establishes a list of 

quarantine pests associated with all 

parts of the taxon of plants in question, 

even if not all of the plant would be 

imported for consumption. For example, 

while a pest associated with the stem of 

a plant may not affect importation of the 

fruit of that plant, it would be useful 

information in determining how to 

regulate that plant when it is imported 

for planting. 

As with taxa of plants for planting 

that are potential quarantine pests, we 

would not automatically consider a 

taxon of plants for planting a potential 

host of a quarantine pest based on the 

existence of scientific evidence from 

any of these sources. Similarly, the 

examples listed here are also not 

intended to be exhaustive; for example, 

we would consider reports from all 

professional societies whose activities 

involve plants for planting, not just 

those that we have listed as examples. 

We invite public comment on the 

process of determining whether a taxon 

is a potential quarantine pest or a 

potential host of a quarantine pest. 

Proposed Process for Removing a 

Taxon From the NAPPRA Lists 

Paragraph (e) of proposed § 319.37–2a 

would state that any person may request 

that APHIS remove a taxon from the list 

of taxa whose importation is not 

authorized pending pest risk analysis. 

We would encourage persons who 

submit such a request to provide as 

much information as possible regarding 

the taxon and, if the taxon is a potential 

host of a quarantine pest, any 

quarantine pests that may be associated 

with it. It is likely that providing such 

information would allow us to complete 

a PRA more promptly than we would 

otherwise be able to. 

Once a request has been submitted to 

remove a taxon of plants for planting 

from one of the NAPPRA lists, PPQ 

would conduct a PRA to determine the 

risk associated with the importation of 

that taxon. Upon completion of the 

PRA, PPQ would determine whether the 

importation of the taxon should be 

prohibited; allowed subject to special 

restrictions, such as a systems approach, 

treatment, or postentry quarantine; or 

allowed subject to the general 

requirements of the plants for planting 

regulations. 

If the PRA supported a determination 

that importation of the taxon should be 

prohibited or allowed subject to special 

restrictions, we would then publish a 

proposed rule that would make the PRA 

available to the public and propose to 

take the action recommended by the 

PRA. We would consider any comments 

we received on the proposed rule and 

finalize the action through a final rule. 

This process would be identical to the 

process currently used to prohibit or 

place special restrictions on the 

importation of a taxon. 

If the PRA supported a determination 

that importation of the taxon should be 

allowed subject to the general 

requirements of the plants for planting 

regulations, we would publish a notice 

announcing our intent to remove the 

taxon from the NAPPRA list and making 

the PRA supporting the taxon’s removal 

available for public review. We would 

respond to comments in a manner 

similar to that proposed for responding 

to comments on notices adding taxa to 

the NAPPRA lists. 

Allowing Importation of Taxa on the 

NAPPRA List Through Permits 

The regulations in § 319.37–2(c) 

provide that articles listed as prohibited 

articles in paragraphs (a) and (b) of 

§ 319.37–2 may nevertheless be 

imported if they are imported under a 

permit for prohibited articles, referred to 

in the regulations as a Departmental 

permit. Such articles must be imported 

by the USDA for experimental or 

scientific purposes and imported at the 

Plant Germplasm Quarantine Center or 

at a plant inspection station and must be 

labeled with the permit number. The 

permit must specify conditions for 

importation that are adequate to prevent 

the introduction of plant pests into the 

United States. These provisions exist 

because scientific and experimental 

research must be done on plants for 

planting in order to understand their 

biology and develop effective mitigation 

strategies for any risks their importation 

may pose. 

Similar impetus would exist to import 

articles of taxa on the NAPPRA lists, 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 140 / Thursday, July 23, 2009 / Proposed Rules 36411 

10Pimentel, 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. 11A Consumer Price Index (CPI) price as 

estimated and reported by the Bureau of Labor 

Statistics is used to measure the current rate of 

inflation based on 1999 and 2000 dollars. 12 ‘‘Citrus Longhorned Beetle Eradication 

Project.’’ Washington State Department of 

Agriculture (http://www.agr.wa.gov). 

and we believe the conditions under 

which prohibited articles have been 

allowed to be imported would be 

effective at mitigating risks associated 

with importation of taxa on the 

NAPPRA lists as well. Therefore, we are 

proposing to amend § 319.37–2(c) to 

indicate that it would also apply to 

articles whose importation is not 

authorized pending pest risk analysis, as 

listed in accordance with proposed 

§ 319.37–2a. 

A similar matter arises in the 

regulations in § 319.37–12. This section 

indicates that a restricted article for 

importation into the United States may 

not be packed in the same container as 

a prohibited article. We would amend 

this requirement to indicate that a 

restricted article also may not be packed 

in the same container as an article 

whose importation is not authorized 

pending pest risk analysis. 

Expanding the Scope of Plants for 

Planting Regulated in the Nursery 

Stock Subpart 

The definition of regulated plant in 

§ 319.37–1 reads: ‘‘Any gymnosperm, 

angiosperm, fern, or fern ally. 

Gymnosperms include cycads, conifers, 

and gingko. Angiosperms include any 

flowering plant. Fern allies include club 

mosses, horsetails, whisk ferns, spike 

mosses, and quillworts.’’ We include a 

definition of regulated plant in the 

regulations because the definition of 

plant is drawn from the Plant Protection 

Act and does not specify the scope of 

plants that APHIS regulates in the 

nursery stock subpart. 

The definition of regulated plant does 

not include nonvascular green plants, 

such as mosses and green algae. 

However, in recent years mosses and 

green algae have been imported to be 

grown as ornamental plants, and 

commenters at our May 2005 meeting 

favored changing the regulations to 

explicitly include nonvascular green 

plants. 

Therefore, we are proposing to revise 

the definition of regulated plant to read: 

‘‘A vascular or nonvascular plant. 

Vascular plants include gymnosperms, 

angiosperms, ferns, and fern allies. 

Gymnosperms include cycads, conifers, 

and gingko. Angiosperms include any 

flowering plant. Fern allies include club 

mosses, horsetails, whisk ferns, spike 

mosses, and quillworts. Nonvascular 

plants include mosses, liverworts, 

hornworts, and green algae.’’ This 

proposed change would update the 

regulations to reflect the full range of 

plants currently being allowed for 

importation. 

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

This proposed rule has been reviewed 

under Executive Order 12866. The 

proposed rule has been determined to 

be significant for the purposes of 

Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, 

has been reviewed by the Office of 

Management and Budget. 

We have prepared an economic 

analysis for this proposed rule. It 

provides a cost-benefit analysis as 

required by Executive Order 12866, as 

well as an initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis, which considers the potential 

economic effects of this proposed rule 

on small entities, as required by the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act. The 

economic analysis is summarized 

below. The full economic analysis may 

be viewed on the Regulations.gov Web 

site (see ADDRESSES at the beginning of 

this document for a link to 

Regulations.gov). You may request 

paper copies of the economic analysis 

by calling or writing to the person listed 

under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. Please refer to Docket No. 

APHIS–2006–0011 when requesting 

copies. The economic analysis is also 

available for review in our reading room 

(information on the location and hours 

of the reading room is listed under the 

heading ADDRESSES at the beginning of 

this document). 

The proposed rule would amend the 

regulations by establishing a new 

category of taxa of plants for planting 

whose importation is not authorized 

pending pest risk analysis. The 

NAPPRA category would include a list 

of taxa that have the potential to be 

quarantine pest plants, and therefore 

could be noxious weeds, and a list of 

taxa that are potential hosts for 

quarantine pests. This action is being 

proposed in order to provide 

phytosanitary protection commensurate 

with the risks posed by the importation 

of plants for planting. 

Establishing the NAPPRA category 

would 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 invasive 

pests is expected to result in farreaching 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. One 

study estimates that in U.S. agriculture, 

noxious weeds cause an overall 

reduction in crop yield of 12 percent, 

which translates into a $23.4 billion loss 

annually.10 It is important to note that 

invasive plant pests cause significant 

control expenses in addition to lost 

production. As a result of 

nonindigenous weeds, approximately $3 

billion is spent each year on herbicides 

that are applied to U.S. crops. Pimentel 

et al. (2000) further estimate that 

nonindigenous plant pathogens cause 

$21 billion in U.S. crop losses each year, 

and that growers spend approximately 

$500 million annually on fungicides to 

combat these pathogens. Crop losses to 

invasive pests and weeds and related 

control costs contribute to lower levels 

of domestic production and, in general, 

higher prices for consumers. Given the 

current rate of inflation, it is estimated 

that the introduction of invasive plant 

pests could cost between $26.0 and 52.5 

billion annually in lost production, 

prevention, and control costs depending 

on the value of the host crop. 

Furthermore, reduced crop yields could 

result in $29 billion in damages 

annually.11

Recent introductions of pests of plants 

demonstrate the need for proactively 

addressing the risks of invasive pests 

and the possible impacts we would 

avoid or lessen as a result of this 

proposed rule. 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 1/2-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 have 

been reported.12

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 11 years, and has involved 

the destruction of thousands of beetleinfested trees, and over 230 square miles 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
36412 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 140 / Thursday, July 23, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

13 ‘‘Biology and Pathogenesis of Ralstonia 

Solanacearum Race 3 on Geraniums,’’ 2004 Annual 

Report. Beltsville, MD: Agricultural Research 

Service. 

have been quarantined, at a total cost of 

more than $350 million in public funds 

including APHIS and State obligations. 

APHIS obligations from 1997 to 2008 

total $282 million, including more than 

$113 million in Commodity Credit 

Corporation transfers. State obligations 

for New York, New Jersey, and Illinois 

during the same time period amounted 

to nearly $68 million, and an additional 

$11.6 million was made available for the 

2009 fiscal year. APHIS has treated 

approximately 72,000 trees susceptible 

to ALB with an insecticide in New York 

and New Jersey in 2009. 

As another example of a pest 

introduced via the importation of plants 

for planting, 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.13 These are just two 

examples of the costs incurred due to 

the introduction of invasive pests that 

this proposed rule would help to 

prevent. 

Another benefit of the proposed 

NAPPRA process involves streamlining 

the APHIS–PPQ process for addressing 

the risk associated with the importation 

of potential plant pests and noxious 

weeds prior to their introduction into 

the United States. Under the current 

regulations, we typically provide notice 

of our intent to designate plants for 

planting as prohibited articles, or place 

additional restrictions on their 

importation, through proposed rules, 

and we often complete a pest risk 

analysis (PRA) to support such a 

designation. However, under the new 

NAPPRA program, we would prohibit 

the importation of a plant taxon that has 

been scientifically shown to be a 

potential quarantine pest or a potential 

host of a quarantine pest prior to its 

importation. As such, our protection 

against potential pests would be 

increased, thus providing sufficient 

protection to the environment and to 

U.S. agricultural products that are 

vulnerable to these pests. 

The NAPPRA regulations would 

initially list taxa of plants for planting 

that, to our knowledge, have not yet 

been imported into the United States 

but present a potential risk. As the taxa 

included in the NAPPRA lists would 

not be plants for planting currently 

imported into the United States, we 

presume they would not be 

economically important to any U.S. 

entities. While entities and individuals 

wanting to import these plants for 

planting in the future may be affected, 

this proposed rule establishing the 

NAPPRA category would not pose direct 

impacts on domestic entities, including 

producers. 

Entities and individuals that 

potentially would be interested in 

importing these plants for planting in 

the future could be affected through the 

addition of taxa to the NAPPRA lists 

through the notice process. Such 

entities would comprise 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 2002 

Economic Census with the Small 

Business Administration’s size 

standards, we have determined that the 

majority of these entities would be 

considered small by SBA standards. 

However, it is important to note that 

there would be no immediate impact on 

these small entities as a result of this 

proposed rule, which would simply 

establish the NAPPRA regulations. 

The proposed NAPPRA program, with 

its accompanying restrictions on the 

importation of plants, may also have an 

economic effect on plant societies. 

Membership fees associated with these 

societies allow members to engage in 

the exchange of seed or plant material. 

We are unable to classify the extent of 

potential economic effects on such 

entities at this time; however, we 

welcome public comment that would 

clarify our understanding on this matter. 

The proposed rule could affect the 

workload of other Federal agencies. 

Plant inspection activity at ports of 

entry conducted by the Bureau of 

Customs and Border Protection and by 

PPQ may become more stringent to 

ensure that plant taxa on the NAPPRA 

list are not allowed entry. Accordingly, 

PPQ staff would develop identification 

aids to assist port inspectors in targeting 

taxa on the NAPPRA list. Importers, 

including those Federal agencies that do 

research on NAPPRA taxa, would have 

to obtain a special permit prior to 

importing plants for planting that are 

listed under NAPPRA. As a result, 

depending on the number of species 

that are of interest for research purposes 

and the taxa included on one of the 

NAPPRA lists, PPQ’s workload for 

processing permit applications could 

increase. Additionally, in the future, as 

PPQ receives requests to remove taxa 

from the NAPPRA list, the workload for 

processing PRAs could increase. 

Under the proposed rule, APHIS 

would be able to more efficiently 

respond to immediate risks associated 

with the importation of plants for 

planting. This proposed rule would 

establish a framework for restricting the 

importation of specific taxa of plants for 

planting in the future. 

Executive Order 12988 

This proposed rule has been reviewed 

under Executive Order 12988, Civil 

Justice Reform. If this proposed rule is 

adopted: (1) No retroactive effect will be 

given to this rule, and (2) administrative 

proceedings will not be required before 

parties may file suit in court challenging 

this rule. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This proposed rule contains no 

information collection or recordkeeping 

requirements under the Paperwork 

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

et seq.). 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 319 

Coffee, Cotton, Fruits, Imports, Logs, 

Nursery stock, Plant diseases and pests, 

Quarantine, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Rice, 

Vegetables. 

Accordingly, we propose to amend 7 

CFR part 319 as follows: 

PART 319—FOREIGN QUARANTINE 

NOTICES 

1. The authority citation for part 319 

continues to read as follows: 

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

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

2.22, 2.80, and 371.3. 

Subpart—Plants for Planting 

2. The heading of the subpart 

consisting of §§ 319.37 through 319.37– 

14 is revised to read as set forth above. 

§ 319.37 [Amended] 

3. In § 319.37, paragraph (b) is 

amended by removing the words ‘‘plant 

pests’’ and adding the words 

‘‘quarantine pests’’ in their place; and 

by removing the words ‘‘plant pest’’ and 

adding the words ‘‘quarantine pest’’ in 

their place. 

4. Section 319.37–1 is amended as 

follows: 

a. By adding, in alphabetical order, 

new definitions of noxious weed, 

official control, planting, plants for 

planting, quarantine pest, and taxon 

(taxa). 

b. By removing the definitions of 

nursery stock and plant pest. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 140 / Thursday, July 23, 2009 / Proposed Rules 36413 

c. In the definition of clean well 

water, by removing the words ‘‘plant 

pathogens or other plant pests’’ and 

adding the words ‘‘quarantine pests’’ in 

their place. 

d. In the definition of phytosanitary 

certificate of inspection, by removing 

the words ‘‘injurious plant diseases, 

injurious insect pests, and other plant 

pests’’ and adding the words 

‘‘quarantine pests’’ in their place. 

e. In the definition of prohibited 

article, by removing the words ‘‘nursery 

stock, plant, root, bulb, seed, or other 

plant product’’ and adding the words 

‘‘plant for planting’’ in their place. 

f. By revising the definitions of 

regulated plant and restricted article to 

read as set forth below. 

§ 319.37–1 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Noxious weed. Any plant or plant 

product that can directly or indirectly 

injure or cause damage to crops 

(including plants for planting or plant 

products), livestock, poultry, or other 

interests of agriculture, irrigation, 

navigation, the natural resources of the 

United States, the public health, or the 

environment. 

* * * * * 

Official control. The active 

enforcement of mandatory 

phytosanitary regulations and the 

application of mandatory phytosanitary 

procedures with the objective of 

eradication or containment of 

quarantine pests. 

* * * * * 

Planting. Any operation for the 

placing of plants in a growing medium, 

or by grafting or similar operations, to 

ensure their subsequent growth, 

reproduction, or propagation. 

* * * * * 

Plants for planting. Plants intended to 

remain planted, to be planted or 

replanted. 

* * * * * 

Quarantine pest. A plant pest or 

noxious weed that is of potential 

economic importance to the United 

States and not yet present in the United 

States, or present but not widely 

distributed and being officially 

controlled. 

Regulated plant. A vascular or 

nonvascular plant. Vascular plants 

include gymnosperms, angiosperms, 

ferns, and fern allies. Gymnosperms 

include cycads, conifers, and gingko. 

Angiosperms include any flowering 

plant. Fern allies include club mosses, 

horsetails, whisk ferns, spike mosses, 

and quillworts. Nonvascular plants 

include mosses, liverworts, hornworts, 

and green algae. 

Restricted article. Any plant for 

planting, excluding any prohibited 

articles listed in § 319.37–2(a) or (b) of 

this subpart, any articles whose 

importation is not authorized pending 

pest risk analysis under § 319.37–2a of 

this subpart, and excluding any articles 

regulated in §§ 319.8 through 319.24 or 

319.41 through 319.74–4 and any 

articles regulated in part 360 of this 

chapter. 

* * * * * 

Taxon (taxa). Any grouping within 

botanical nomenclature, such as family, 

genus, species, or cultivar. 

* * * * * 

§ 319.37–2 [Amended] 

5. Section 319.37–2 is amended as 

follows: 

a. In paragraph (a), in the third 

column heading of the table, by 

removing the words ‘‘Plant pests’’ and 

adding the words ‘‘Quarantine pests’’ in 

their place. 

b. In paragraph (c) introductory text, 

by adding the words ‘‘, and any article 

listed in accordance with § 319.37–2a of 

this subpart as an article whose 

importation is not authorized pending 

pest risk analysis,’’ after the word 

‘‘section’’. 

6. A new § 319.37–2a is added to read 

as follows: 

§ 319.37–2a Taxa of regulated plants for 

planting whose importation is not 

authorized pending pest risk analysis. 

(a) Determination by the 

Administrator. The importation of 

certain taxa of plants for planting 

potentially poses a risk of introducing 

quarantine pests into the United States. 

Therefore, the importation of these taxa 

is not authorized pending the 

completion of a pest risk analysis. Lists 

of these taxa may be found on the 

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

import_export/plants/plant_imports/ 

Q37.shtml. There are two lists of taxa 

whose importation is not authorized 

pending pest risk analysis: A list of taxa 

of plants for planting that are potential 

quarantine pests, and a list of taxa of 

plants for planting that are potential 

hosts of quarantine pests. For taxa of 

plants for planting that have been 

determined to be potential quarantine 

pests, the list includes the names of the 

taxa. For taxa of plants for planting that 

are potential hosts of quarantine pests, 

the list includes the names of the taxa, 

the foreign places from which the taxa’s 

importation is not authorized, and the 

quarantine pests of concern. 

(b) Addition of taxa. A taxon of plants 

for planting may be added to one of the 

lists of taxa not authorized for 

importation pending pest risk analysis 

under this section as follows: 

(1) Data sheet. APHIS will publish in 

the Federal Register a notice that 

announces our determination that a 

taxon of plants for planting is either a 

potential quarantine pest or a potential 

host of a quarantine pest. This notice 

will make available a data sheet that 

details the scientific evidence APHIS 

evaluated in making the determination 

that the taxon is a potential quarantine 

pest or a potential host of a quarantine 

pest. The data sheet will include 

references to the scientific evidence that 

APHIS used in making the 

determination. In our notice, we will 

provide for a public comment period of 

a minimum of 60 days on our addition 

to the list and specify a proposed 

effective date for the addition of the 

taxon to the list of taxa of plants for 

planting whose importation is not 

authorized pending pest risk analysis. 

(2) Response to comments. (i) APHIS 

will issue a notice after the close of the 

public comment period indicating that 

the taxon will be added to the list of 

taxa not authorized for importation 

pending pest risk analysis if: 

(A) No comments were received on 

the data sheet; 

(B) The comments on the data sheet 

revealed that no changes to the data 

sheet were necessary; or 

(C) Changes to the data sheet were 

made in response to public comments, 

but the changes did not affect APHIS’ 

determination that the taxon poses a 

potential risk of introducing a 

quarantine pest into the United States. 

(ii) If comments present information 

that leads us to determine that the taxon 

does not pose a potential risk of 

introducing a quarantine pest into the 

United States, APHIS will not add the 

taxon from the list of plants for planting 

whose importation is not authorized 

pending pest risk analysis. APHIS will 

issue a notice giving public notice of 

this determination after the close of the 

comment period. 

(c) Criterion for listing a taxon of 

plants for planting as a potential 

quarantine pest. A taxon will be added 

to the list of taxa whose importation is 

not authorized pending pest risk 

analysis if scientific evidence causes 

APHIS to determine that the taxon is a 

potential quarantine pest. 

(d) Criteria for listing a taxon of 

plants for planting as a potential host of 

a quarantine pest. A taxon will be 

added to the list of taxa whose 

importation is not authorized pending 

pest risk analysis if scientific evidence 

causes APHIS to determine that the 

taxon is a potential host of a quarantine 

pest. The following criteria must be 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
36414 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 140 / Thursday, July 23, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

fulfilled in order to make this 

determination: 

(1) The plant pest in question must be 

determined to be a quarantine pest; and 

(2) The taxon of plants for planting 

must be determined to be a potential 

host of that quarantine pest. 

(e) Removing a taxon from the list of 

taxa not authorized pending pest risk 

analysis. Any person may request that 

APHIS remove a taxon from the list of 

taxa whose importation is not 

authorized pending pest risk analysis. 

Persons who submit such a request are 

encouraged to provide as much 

information as possible regarding the 

taxon and any quarantine pests that may 

be associated with it. APHIS will 

conduct a pest risk analysis in response 

to such a request. The pest risk analysis 

will examine the risk associated with 

the importation of that taxon. 

(1) If the pest risk analysis supports a 

determination that importation of the 

taxon be prohibited or allowed subject 

to special restrictions, such as a systems 

approach, treatment, or postentry 

quarantine, APHIS will publish a 

proposed rule making the pest risk 

analysis available to the public and 

proposing to take the action 

recommended by the pest risk analysis. 

(2) If the pest risk analysis supports a 

determination that importation of the 

taxon be allowed subject to the general 

restrictions of this subpart, APHIS will 

publish a notice announcing our intent 

to remove the taxon from the NAPPRA 

list and making the pest risk analysis 

supporting the taxon’s removal available 

for public review. 

(i) APHIS will issue a notice after the 

close of the public comment period 

indicating that the importation of the 

taxon will be subject only to the general 

restrictions of this subpart if: 

(A) No comments were received on 

the pest risk analysis; 

(B) The comments on the pest risk 

analysis revealed that no changes to the 

pest risk analysis were necessary; or 

(C) Changes to the pest risk analysis 

were made in response to public 

comments, but the changes did not 

affect the overall conclusions of the 

analysis and the Administrator’s 

determination that the taxon poses a 

potential risk of introducing a 

quarantine pest into the United States. 

(ii) If information presented by 

commenters indicates that the pest risk 

analysis needs to be revised, APHIS will 

issue a notice after the close of the 

public comment period indicating that 

the importation of the taxon will 

continue to be listed as not authorized 

pending pest risk analysis while the 

information presented by commenters is 

analyzed and incorporated into the pest 

risk analysis. APHIS will subsequently 

publish a new notice announcing the 

availability of the revised pest risk 

analysis. 

§ 319.37–5 [Amended] 

7. In § 319.37–5, paragraph (i) 

introductory text is amended by 

removing the words ‘‘plant diseases’’ 

and adding the words ‘‘quarantine 

pests’’ in their place. 

§ 319.37–7 [Amended] 

8. Section 319.37–7 is amended as 

follows: 

a. In paragraph (c)(2)(iii), by removing 

the words ‘‘exotic pests’’ and adding the 

words ‘‘quarantine pests’’ in their place. 

b. In paragraph (c)(2)(iv), by removing 

the words ‘‘plant pests that are not 

known to exist in the United States’’ 

and adding the words ‘‘quarantine 

pests’’ in their place. 

c. In paragraph (d)(5), by removing the 

words ‘‘injurious plant disease, 

injurious insect pest, or other plant 

pest’’ and adding the words ‘‘quarantine 

pest’’ in their place. 

d. In paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2), by 

removing the words ‘‘plant pests’’ each 

time they occur and adding the words 

‘‘quarantine pests’’ in their place. 

e. In paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2), by 

removing the words ‘‘plant pest(s)’’ each 

time they occur and adding the words 

‘‘quarantine pest(s)’’ in their place. 

§ 319.37–8 [Amended] 

9. Section 319.37–8 is amended as 

follows: 

a. In paragraph (e)(2) introductory 

text, by removing the words ‘‘disease 

and pests’’ and adding the words 

‘‘quarantine pests’’ in their place. 

b. In paragraph (e)(2)(ii), by removing 

the words ‘‘plant pests and diseases’’ 

and adding the words ‘‘quarantine 

pests’’ in their place; and by removing 

the words ‘‘injurious plant diseases, 

injurious insect pests, and other plant 

pests’’ and adding the words 

‘‘quarantine pests’’ in their place. 

c. In paragraph (e)(2)(iv)(B), by adding 

the word ‘‘quarantine’’ before the word 

‘‘pests.’’ 

d. In paragraph (e)(2)(vii), by 

removing the words ‘‘plant pests’’ and 

adding the words ‘‘quarantine pests’’ in 

their place. 

e. In paragraph (e)(2)(viii), by 

removing the words ‘‘plant pests and 

diseases’’ and adding the words 

‘‘quarantine pests’’ in their place. 

f. In paragraph (e)(2)(xi)(B) 

introductory text, by removing the 

words ‘‘plant pests’’ and adding the 

words ‘‘quarantine pests’’ in their place. 

g. In paragraphs (f)(3)(i), (f)(3)(vii), 

(f)(3)(viii), and (f)(4), by removing the 

words ‘‘injurious plant diseases, 

injurious insect pests, and other plant 

pests’’ and adding the words 

‘‘quarantine pests’’ in their place. 

10. Section 319.37–12 is revised to 

read as follows: 

§ 319.37–12 Prohibited articles and 

articles whose importation is not 

authorized pending pest risk analysis 

accompanying restricted articles. 

A restricted article for importation 

into the United States may not be 

packed in the same container as an 

article whose importation into the 

United States is prohibited by this 

subpart or in the same container as an 

article whose importation is not 

authorized pending pest risk analysis 

under § 319.37–2a of this subpart. 

§ 319.37–13 [Amended] 

11. Section 319.37–13 is amended as 

follows: 

a. In paragraph (b), by removing the 

words ‘‘injurious plant disease, 

injurious insect pest, or other plant pest, 

new to or not theretofore known to be 

widely prevalent or distributed within 

and throughout the United States’’ and 

adding the words ‘‘quarantine pests’’ in 

their place; and by removing the words 

‘‘injurious plant diseases, injurious 

insect pests, or other plant pests’’ and 

adding the words ‘‘quarantine pests’’ in 

their place. 

b. In paragraph (c), by removing the 

words ‘‘pests and Federal noxious 

weeds’’ and adding the words 

‘‘quarantine pests’’ in their place. 

Done in Washington, DC, this 17th day of 

July 2009. 

Cindy Smith, 

Acting Deputy Under Secretary for Marketing 

and Regulatory Programs. 

[FR Doc. E9–17535 Filed 7–22–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Parts 21, 119, 121, 125, 135, 

141, 142, and 145 

[Docket No. FAA–2009–0671; Notice No. 09– 

06] 

RIN 2120–AJ15 

Safety Management System 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking (ANPRM), request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: This ANPRM solicits public 

comments on a potential rulemaking 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1