Source: http://www.regulations.gov/?_escaped_fragment_=documentDetail;D=APHIS-2006-0011-0267
Timestamp: 2015-11-30 02:42:16
Document Index: 796653797

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 319', '§ 319', 'art 360', '§ 319', '§ 319', '§ 319', '§ 319', '§ 319']

Skip Navigation HomeHelpResourcesContact Us Advanced Search Start of Main Content Importation of Plants for Planting: Establishment of Category of Plants for Planting Not Authorized for Importation Pending Pest Risk Analysis This Rule document was issued by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)For related information, Open Docket Folder Show agency attachment(s) DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
[Docket No. APHIS-2006-0011]
RIN 0579-AC03
SummaryWe are amending the regulations 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 will list taxa of plants for planting whose importation is not authorized pending pest risk analysis. If scientific evidence indicates that a taxon of plants for planting is a quarantine pest or a host of a quarantine pest, we will publish a notice that will announce our determination that the taxon is a quarantine pest or a 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 receive no comments that change our determination, the taxon will subsequently be added to the new category. We will allow any person to petition for a pest risk analysis to be conducted to consider whether to remove a taxon that has been added to the new category. After the pest risk analysis is completed, we will 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 will 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 will allow us to take prompt action on evidence that the importation of a taxon of plants for planting poses a risk while continuing to allow for public participation in the process.
Dates Effective Date: June 27, 2011.
For Further Information ContactDr. Arnold Tschanz, Senior Plant Pathologist, Plants for Planting Policy, Risk Management and Plants for Planting Policy, RPM, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; (301) 734-0627.
Supplementary InformationBackgroundUnder the Plant Protection Act (PPA) (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. 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), restrict, among other things, the importation of living plants, plant parts, seeds, and plant cuttings for planting or propagation. These regulations are intended to ensure that imported nursery stock does not serve as a host for plant pests, such as insects or pathogens, that can cause damage to U.S. agricultural and environmental resources.
The regulations in 7 CFR part 360, “Noxious Weed Regulations,” contain prohibitions and restrictions on the movement of noxious weeds or plant products listed in that part into or through the United States and interstate. Plants are designated as noxious weeds when the plants themselves can cause damage to U.S. agricultural and environmental resources, meaning they can only be moved under a permit containing conditions to prevent their introduction into the environment. The importation of some plants is subject to both the nursery stock regulations and the noxious weed regulations.
On July 23, 2009, we published in theFederal Register(74 FR 36403-36414, Docket No. APHIS-2006-0011) a proposal (1)
to amend the nursery stock regulations. We proposed to change the nursery stock regulations to refer instead to “plants for planting,” a term that is consistent with the International Plant Protection Convention's (IPPC) Glossary of Phytosanitary Terms. (2)
(In this document, we will use the term “plants for planting” to refer to all the articles subject to what have been called the nursery stock regulations, as we did in the proposal.)
We proposed to create a new category of plants for planting whose importation is not authorized pending the completion of a pest risk analysis. We referred to the category as the “not authorized pending pest risk analysis” (NAPPRA) category. We proposed that 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 proposed to define a quarantine pest as a plant pest or noxious weed that is of potential economic importance to the United States and not yet present in the United States, or present but not widely distributed and being officially controlled.
We proposed to add taxa of plants for planting to the NAPPRA category based on scientific evidence that indicates that their importation poses a risk of introducing a quarantine pest into the United States, rather than on a comprehensive pest risk analysis (PRA). Additionally, we proposed to establish the NAPPRA lists on a 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 theFederal Register.
Finally, we proposed to allow any person to request that APHIS conduct a PRA on any plant taxon listed in the NAPPRA category. We proposed that, 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.
We also proposed to make several other changes to definitions in the plants for planting regulations and to expand the scope of the plants for planting regulations to include nonvascular green plants.
We solicited comments concerning our proposal for 90 days ending October 21, 2009. We received 256 comments by that date. They were from producers, researchers, importers, conservation societies, environmental advocacy groups, representatives of State and foreign governments, other Federal agencies, and the general public.
Based on these comments, we are making the following changes to the proposal: In order to make the regulations more specific and to avoid confusion, rather than using the terms “potential quarantine pest” and “potential host of a quarantine pest,” we are simply referring to taxa as quarantine pests or hosts of a quarantine pest.
We are clarifying that seed of taxa of plants for planting whose importation is not authorized pending pest risk analysis is not eligible to be imported without a phytosanitary certificate under the small lots of seed program in § 319.37-4(d).
We are not including the proposed provision under which we would have specified a proposed effective date in the notices announcing our determination that a taxon should be added to the NAPPRA category, as we will enforce any restrictions that must be implemented immediately through Federal import quarantine orders.
We are requiring requests to remove a taxon from the NAPPRA lists to be made in accordance with § 319.5, which requires submission of information regarding the taxon by a foreign national plant protection organizations (NPPO), in order to ensure that we have enough information to conduct a PRA.
We are providing for the removal of a taxon from the NAPPRA list if the scientific evidence we used as a basis for adding the taxon to the lists is shown to be in clear error.We are also making some minor editorial changes, which are discussed below.The comments are discussed below by topic.Support for the Proposed RuleTwo hundred and four of the commenters supported the proposed rule. They cited various reasons for their support. Many spoke of the damage that certain plants cause in the natural environment, giving dozens of examples including mile-a-minute weed, purple loosestrife, yellow starthistle, leafy spurge, Japanese stilt grass, wavyleaf basketgrass, water hyacinth, and spotted knapweed.
The commenters stated that many of these plants, as well as many other harmful plants, have been introduced through the nursery trade, meaning that they would have been subject to evaluation and, potentially, prevented from being imported under NAPPRA. One commenter noted that the nursery trade naturally seeks to sell plants that grow vigorously, resist insect pests, and propagate easily, traits that are often associated with plants that harm agricultural and environmental resources.
Other commenters supported using the NAPPRA category to address the risk associated with plants for planting that are hosts of quarantine pests, citing previous introductions of harmful pests through the importation of plants for planting. These commenters gave many examples as well, including emerald ash borer, chestnut blight, laurel wilt, Dutch elm disease, pine pitch canker, dogwood anthracnose, Port Orford cedar root disease, white pine blister rust, and sudden oak death (Phytophthora ramorum).
Many commenters who supported the rule cited the costs that State and local governments and communities must bear in controlling quarantine pest plants and plant pests; in their view, the most cost-effective way to avoid additional control costs in the future is to prevent the importation of damaging quarantine pest plants and plant pests, and they supported the NAPPRA category as a means by which to do that. One commenter cited a study showing that the Australian weed risk assessment (WRA) system provides economic benefits (4)
and stated that, while the proposed rule did not go as far as the Australian screening system, the regulatory mechanisms are similar enough that creating a NAPPRA list will generate economic benefits to the United States, in addition to significant environmental and agricultural benefits. Some commenters stated that landscaping efforts should concentrate on using native species, making the importation of plants for planting unnecessary.
Some of the commenters noted that preventing the importation of certain taxa of plants for planting might lead to restrictions on taxa that ultimately prove to be safe, or that can be imported safely under certain conditions, but stated that the risk posed by importation of taxa of plants for planting that are quarantine pests or hosts of quarantine pests should be addressed immediately for the good of the wider environment. One commenter stated that maintaining strict importation standards while not impeding trade is a delicate balance, and it appears that the NAPPRA category can maintain that balance when applied judiciously.
One commenter noted that strengthening the plants for planting regulations was recommended by both the National Plant Board's 1999 Safeguarding Review and 2006 Peer Review Reports. (5)
Comments Supporting Broad Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Importation of Plants for PlantingUnder the regulations, most plants for planting may currently be imported into the United States if they are accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate and a permit and if they are inspected at a U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) plant inspection station listed in § 319.37-14. Responding to the NAPPRA proposal, some commenters urged us to impose broad prohibitions or restrictions on the importation of plants for planting.
Five commenters recommended that we prohibit the importation of plants that have not previously been imported until those plants are tested rigorously and found to pose no ecological threat to existing species. One of these commenters stated that, given the level of uncertainty about risks that new organisms pose and the unpleasant surprises from species thought to be benign in the past, this should result in effectively blocking importation of all new plant species. Nothing can be guaranteed to be safe, this commenter stated, so it should be banned. This commenter also recommended that testing to prove safety be paid for by industry, rather than the U.S. Government.
Another of these commenters echoed the point that new organisms pose an uncertain risk, and urged us to prohibit the importation of harmful species that are already present in the United States until they can be tested and found to be safe. This commenter stated that a recent study (6)
has shown that genotypesfrom different regions can hybridize, forming plants of great vigor that are even more difficult to control.
One commenter recommended that we prohibit the importation of all plants that have not previously been imported until a PRA has been completed to determine what level of risk the plants pose and what means may be available to mitigate that risk.
One commenter recommended that we add all imported plants for planting to the NAPPRA category and only allow the importation of plants for planting if they were produced under conditions designed to prevent their infestation by quarantine pests (clean stock programs, growth from tissue culture or seed, pre- or post-entry quarantine, etc.).
Three commenters recommended prohibiting all importation of plants for planting. One commenter cited a recent research paper (7)
that examines the factors that result in the escape of plants from their original plantings and concludes that the single most important factor is propagule pressure. In other words, the longer a taxon has been held in one place and the more plants there are, the more likely it is to escape cultivation. Once taxa escape cultivation, some proportion of them are likely to be noxious weeds. The commenter concluded that we cannot make a determination that it is safe to import a taxon, as no taxon is safe.
One commenter stated that all importation of plants for planting should be prohibited because some pests associated with plants for planting may have no natural enemies. This commenter also stated that local plants are where they are due to natural selection, and interfering with this process by introducing new plants may harm the environment.
Another commenter stated that it is not possible to accurately assess the risks of introducing new pathogens on imported plants. The commenter cited three reasons for this belief: Native plant diseases are poorly known in most regions of the world, and many disease-causing agents have very minor effects on their native hosts. Thus, the knowledge needed to assess risk by plant species or region is not available.
Quarantine inspections can miss the presence of a pathogen that colonizes a plant as an endophyte (a plant pathogen that is asymptomatic for at least part of its life), but when the same pathogen encounters naive hosts or new climatic conditions the effects can be devastating. The commenter cited a research paper demonstrating this, (8)
and another providing conifer canker and needle diseases as examples. (9)
Thus, the commenter stated, even careful screening of imported plants is unlikely to prevent pathogen introductions. Plant pathogens are often complexes of closely related cryptic species or strains. This means that basing a determination of risk on the knowledge that a particular pathogen is already present in the United States is often erroneous, because pathogens known by the same name are often different. The commenter cited the “aggressive strain” of Dutch elm disease, which eventually was recognized as a separate species, as an example. Thus, the commenter stated, we cannot assume we will know the behavior of any pathogen once it is released into a new environment.The commenter allowed that it may be possible to safely move small amounts of tissue-cultured plants that have been tested for the presence of endophytic organisms (i.e., organisms that live at least part of their lives within plants without causing apparent disease), but stated that all other forms of plant movement present unacceptable risk.
A few commenters specifically disagreed with the comments calling for broad prohibitions and restrictions on the importation of plants for planting; these commenters instead expressed support for the approach in the proposed rule. Two of the commenters opposed automatically adding all taxa not already established in the United States to the NAPPRA category. Two stated that the benefits from importing plants for planting can outweigh the risk of unwanted pests as long as programs are in place to prevent pest introduction; that the majority of all plants for planting, including seeds, cuttings, bare roots, and bulbs, had their origins as imported materials brought into the United States each growing season; and that each year, hundreds of millions of propagules are safely imported into the United States to support the demands of the U.S. public for decorative planting materials, without harmful impact on the U.S. environment.
Another commenter stated that the NAPPRA concept, if applied with care and discretion, strikes a balance among the competing requests to impose broad restrictions on the importation of plants for planting and to allow the importation of plants for planting subject only to the existing general restrictions.
We are making no changes to the proposed rule in response to the comments requesting that we impose broad prohibitions and restrictions on the importation of plants for planting, beyond the general requirements in the current regulations. The NAPPRA category is designed to allow us to address the risk associated with plants for planting on a taxon-by-taxon basis; adding broad prohibitions or restrictions to the regulations would be beyond the scope of the proposed rule.
We agree that there is uncertainty about the risk associated with any imported plants for planting when those plants have not been thoroughly studied. Our process for placing restrictions on the importation of a taxon of plants for planting has typically involved the preparation of a comprehensive PRA. This approach required us to evaluate the uncertainty regarding all aspects of the risk associated with the importation of the taxon before any action could be taken. The NAPPRA category that we are adding to the plants for planting regulations in this final rule gives us a streamlined, transparent means to respond to new scientific evidence indicating that a taxon of plants for planting is a quarantine pest or a host of a quarantine pest, thus directly addressing risk while giving us the necessary time to evaluate uncertainty. We will make every effort to respond to scientific evidence as it becomes available.
It should be noted that the NAPPRA category is not the final step we plan to take to ensure that the regulations provide an appropriate level of protection against the risk associated with imported plants for planting. Rather, the NAPPRA category is part of an ongoing effort to revise the plants for planting regulations and to change the way we respond to risks. As noted in the proposed rule, establishing the NAPPRA category is just one of the changes discussed in an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) published in theFederal Registeron December 10, 2004 (69 FR 71736-71744, Docket No. 03-069-1). (10)
We appreciatethe issues that the commenters raised and will keep them in mind as we consider future rulemaking. For example, the issues cited by one commenter regarding the lack of information that we would need to assess risk by plant species or region highlight the need to gather more and better data regarding pests that could potentially be associated with plants for planting. Once we gather such data, of course, the data could be used to add taxa to the NAPPRA category. The NAPPRA category will also allow us to respond quickly to any new information that allows us to better predict which taxa of plants for planting can damage U.S. agricultural and environmental resources.
Although we do not agree with the recommendation that we add all taxa of plants for planting to the NAPPRA category, we agree with the commenter who stated that plants for planting that are hosts of quarantine pests could be allowed to be imported if they are produced under standard conditions designed to prevent their infestation by quarantine pests, such as pest-free growth in tissue culture. We are developing a proposed rule that would provide for various measures to help facilitate the importation of taxa on the NAPPRA lists or the lists of prohibited articles in § 319.37-2. This effort is discussed in more detail later in this document under the heading “Risk-Mitigating Production Practices.”
One commenter asked how we will address uncertainty. Although the proposed rule indicated that the decision to restrict the importation of taxa of plants for planting will be made on the basis of scientific evidence indicating that the importation of the taxa poses a risk, the commenter stated that, often, that there is insufficient scientific evidence to make a conclusion as to the level of risk posed by a particular plant, a particular plant pest, or origin in a particular country. The commenter asked whether a lack of available scientific evidence will be a factor for adding plant taxa to the NAPPRA list.
One commenter stated generally that NAPPRA should address the risk of new or little-known insects and pathogens, as scientific data is not always available, especially in new environments.
Along the same lines, another commenter stated that, for many quarantine pests, there will not be sufficient scientific data to predict their impact after introduction to the United States. In fact, the commenter stated, many quarantine pests are unknown to science until they become pests in a new environment. The commenter stated that it is important that USDA does not underestimate risk when evaluating candidate taxa to appear on the NAPPRA list as quarantine pests or hosts of quarantine pests, as there is often no way of determining the damage a pest will incur to a new ecosystem before the introduction occurs.
As stated earlier, we will only add a taxon to the NAPPRA category if there is scientific evidence indicating that the taxon is a quarantine pest or a host of a quarantine pest. Adding taxa to the NAPPRA category for which we lack scientific evidence, based on uncertainty, would result in the effective imposition of broad restrictions on the importation of all plants that are not well-known. As discussed earlier, our goal in establishing the NAPPRA category is to provide a process for imposing restrictions that directly address the risk associated with specific taxa of plants for planting, based on scientific evidence.General Opposition to the Proposed RuleSeveral commenters expressed general opposition to the proposed rule on the basis that it would impose additional restrictions that might not be justified on the importation of plants for planting. Many commenters characterized the proposed NAPPRA category as a prohibition on the importation of plants for planting, with exceptions only for plants that were assessed and determined to be safe. One commenter expressed concern that the ultimate goal of our regulatory efforts was to prohibit the importation of all plants for planting unless the plants have been screened and found to be safe.
Some commenters raised specific concerns with respect to the implications of a broad prohibition on the importation of plants for planting. One commenter stated that invasive plants have many ways of arriving in the United States and that few of them can be documented as ornamental species that were introduced through horticulture. Two commenters stated that any slowing or complication of the process of importation of seeds and plant material only encourages the illegal and undocumented shipping of that material. One commenter stated that a broad prohibition on plants for planting would affect plants that are only weeds in certain situations and are clearly valuable in others, such as many food crops. One commenter stated that the costs associated with testing every taxon of plants for planting to determine whether each is safe would be prohibitive. One commenter stated that no specific plants were cited in the proposed rule as being invasive or as vectors of pests.
Some commenters opposed the proposed NAPPRA category on the grounds that it would hamper the conservation of plant material. One commenter stated that conservation of plant material is an extremely time-sensitive process, and any slowing of the process could result in the loss of important germplasm or even species. The commenter stated that this would be absolutely fatal for material with short viability or for emergency conservation measures. One commenter stated that seeds were essential for preservation of biodiversity in agricultural systems; another suggested that we should continue to allow the importation of organic seed and other quality seed. One commenter stated that some species may not be able to survive outside greenhouse conditions, meaning there would be no need to prohibit their importation into the United States.
As one of the commenters noted, we are not imposing any additional restrictions on specific taxa of plants for planting in this final rule. Rather, this final rule provides a process by which we can impose restrictions on specific taxa. When we determine that a taxon of plants for planting is a quarantine pest or a host of a quarantine pest, we will publish a notice in theFederal Registerto inform the public of our determination and make available a data sheet that details the scientific evidence that we used in making the determination. At that point, any interested party will have the opportunity to comment on the proposed addition of the taxon to one of the NAPPRA lists, supporting or opposing the addition. We will particularly welcome comments on the scientific evidence supporting our determination, which will be detailed in the data sheet accompanying the notice.
Although one commenter stated that few quarantine pest plants had been introduced through the horticultural trade, several commenters who supported the proposed rule provided examples of ornamental species imported for horticulture that had become quarantine pest plants. In any case, as discussed, we are not imposing broad prohibitions or restrictions on ornamental species imported for horticulture, or on any other taxa imported for any other use.
Because only specific taxa of plants for planting will be added to theNAPPRA lists, we do not expect that this final rule will result in a large increase in illegal importation of plants for planting. We have existing inspection, investigation, and enforcement processes that work to prevent the importation of plants for planting whose importation is prohibited in § 319.37-2. We will use those processes to ensure that NAPPRA taxa are not illegally imported in the same way that we currently do for taxa whose importation is prohibited. We are also providing for plants for planting listed as NAPPRA to be imported for experimental or scientific purposes under controlled conditions, so scientific research can be conducted on them.
Conservation of plant material will continue as it has under the current regulations, unless a taxon of the plant material in question is determined to be a quarantine pest or a host of a quarantine pest and the taxon is subsequently added to one of the NAPPRA lists. As one commenter noted, a taxon requiring conservation is unlikely to be added to the NAPPRA lists as a quarantine pest, since any plant that has difficulty surviving in field conditions is likely incapable of reproducing enough to cause potentially economically important damage to agricultural or environmental resources. For that reason, a taxon that could not survive outside a greenhouse would also be unlikely to be added to the NAPPRA lists.
With respect to the concerns about seed, we note that the NAPPRA list of taxa that are hosts of quarantine pests allows the importation of seed unless we specify that seed is regulated. We would only regulate the seed of hosts of a quarantine pest if the pest in question could be introduced and established in the United States through the importation of seed.
Some commenters expressed specific concerns about the impact of a prohibition on the importation of plants for planting except those that have been determined to be safe for U.S. biodiversity and the importation of plants with beneficial uses. One commenter cited the discovery of important genetic variability in Sophora toromiro, now extinct in the wild, in the hands of a Chilean nurseryman and other individuals outside of botanic gardens, as indicating the importance of not restricting public access to biological diversity.
In addition, the proposed rule discussed some comments we received on the May 2004 ANPR that addressed biodiversity. We summarized these comments as stating that any further restrictions on the importation of plants for planting would adversely impact the overall biodiversity of plants in the United States. We stated in the proposed rule that 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, we stated, helps to ensure that the current biodiversity of the United States is not adversely affected.
One commenter stated that there is no evidence that pests or invasive species reduce biodiversity; rather, in all cases, they have increased biodiversity. The commenter asked us to provide peer-reviewed scientific evidence that biodiversity has decreased at any time because of imports.
We appreciate the opportunity to clarify our statement. There are multiple types of biodiversity that ecologists and other scientists consider when evaluating biodiversity. Total biodiversity, the type to which we believe the commenter refers, involves a simple count of the number of species present in a country or in an area within a country. Site-specific biodiversity may take into account the relative distribution of taxa within a site, a larger area, or even a country.
We regulate the importation of taxa of plants for planting that are quarantine pests or that are hosts of quarantine pests based on the damage they could cause to U.S. agricultural and environmental resources. Sometimes, the damage a quarantine pest causes can reduce site-specific biodiversity. For example, if an imported quarantine pest plant damaged previously thriving species a