[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 229 (Tuesday, November 30, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 66710-66717]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-30994]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

7 CFR Part 319

[Docket No. 89-154-5]
RIN 0579-AB00


Importation From Europe of Rhododendron Established in Growing 
Media

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We are amending the regulations governing the importation of 
plants established in growing media to allow the importation of 
rhododendron from Europe under conditions designed to prevent the 
introduction of dangerous plant pests. This action will relieve 
restrictions on the importation of rhododendron plants from Europe 
while continuing to protect against introduction of plant pests.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 30, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Wayne D. Burnett, Import 
Specialist, Phytosanitary Issues Management Team, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 
River Road Unit 140, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; (301) 734-6799.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The regulations in 7 CFR part 319 prohibit or restrict the 
importation of plants, plant parts, and plant products into the United 
States to prevent the introduction of plant pests. The regulations 
contained in ``Subpart--Nursery Stock, Plants, Roots, Bulbs, Seeds, and 
Other Plant Products,'' Secs. 319.37 through 319.37-14 (referred to 
below as the regulations), prohibit or restrict, among other things, 
the importation of living plants, plant parts, and seeds for 
propagation.
    Section 319.37-8, paragraph (a) of the regulations requires, with 
certain exceptions, that plants offered for importation into the United 
States be free of sand, soil, earth, and other growing media. This 
requirement is intended to help prevent the introduction of plant pests 
that might be present in the growing media; the exceptions to the 
requirement take into account factors that mitigate that plant pest 
risk. Those exceptions, which are found in paragraphs (b) through (e) 
of Sec. 319.37-8, consider either the origin of the plants and growing 
media (paragraph (b)), the nature of the growing media (paragraphs (c) 
and (d)), or the use of a combination of growing conditions, approved 
media, inspections, and other requirements (paragraph (e)).
    On September 7, 1993, we published in the Federal Register (58 FR 
47074-47084, Docket No. 89-154-1) a proposed rule to amend the 
regulations to allow the importation of five genera of plants 
established in growing media. That proposal is referred to below as 
``the proposed rule.'' We accepted comments on the proposed rule for a 
period of 90 days, ending December 6, 1993.
    In a final rule published in the Federal Register on January 13, 
1995, and effective on February 13, 1995 (60 FR 3067-3078, Docket No. 
89-154-2), the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) 
finalized provisions for the importation of Alstroemeria, Ananas, 
Anthurium, and Nidularium species. The final rule postponed action on 
Rhododendron species established in growing media to allow consultation 
regarding the action with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in 
accordance with the Endangered Species Act.
    On April 30, 1998, we published in the Federal Register (63 FR 
23683-23685, Docket No. 89-154-3) a notice reopening and extending the 
comment period on the proposal to allow the importation of Rhododendron 
species established in growing media. The notice also announced that, 
as a result of formal consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service 
in accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, APHIS 
intended to limit the proposed action to Rhododendron species imported 
from Europe only. The limitation to Europe was made because there is 
little importation of rhododendron from places outside Europe, and 
limited data on pests of rhododendron outside Europe. We believe the 
data available on rhododendron pest distribution outside Europe, and 
pest interceptions on rhododendron commodities from outside Europe, is 
insufficient to support a conclusion of negligible risk for importation 
of rhododendron from all countries at this time.
    Comments were required to be received on or before June 1, 1998. We 
received two requests from trade organizations to extend the period 
during which comments would be accepted. In response, on June 1, 1998, 
we published in the Federal Register (63 FR 29675-29676, Docket No. 89-
154-4) a notice extending the comment period until July 30, 1998.
    During this reopened comment period of April 30 through July 30, 
1998, we received 11 comments on the rhododendron proposal. 
Additionally, we received approximately 60 comments from domestic 
nurseries and nursery associations, importers, State governments, and 
environmental interest groups during the original 1993 comment period 
on the proposed rule that specifically addressed importation of 
rhododendron. The issues addressed by all of these comments are 
discussed below.
    Comment: APHIS identified rhododendron pests of concern for this 
rule using reports from the scientific literature and reports of pest 
interceptions associated with rhododendron at ports under the

[[Page 66711]]

premise that these sources would reveal all pests of concern. This 
premise is fallacious because the lack of citations in the scientific 
literature may merely reflect scientists not choosing to address pests 
that attack rhododendron, and a lack of interception reports may 
reflect the small amount of trade in rhododendron in growing media. 
This approach misses potential pest problems.
    Response: The purpose of the literature search and review of 
interception reports was to identify all known pests of concern and to 
collate information about these pests that would also allow us to make 
informed assumptions concerning potential unknown pests of concern. 
Pest risk analysis is a combination of the processes of pest risk 
assessment (determining whether a pest is harmful and evaluating its 
introduction potential) and pest risk management (the decision-making 
process of reducing the risk of introduction of a quarantine pest). It 
is standard scientific procedure in conducting a pest risk assessment 
to review the available scientific literature and interception records, 
conduct surveys, and communicate with foreign and domestic scientists 
and government officials. The process of pest risk assessment is a 
well-established procedure within APHIS. Some of the earliest pest risk 
assessments were done over 75 years ago and have proved their utility 
over time, because program requirements based on them have successfully 
excluded or controlled the quarantine pests that were the targets of 
the assessments.
    When conducting a pest risk assessment, the relative richness or 
paucity of information on particular pests is a factor in the analysis. 
If in-depth pest data is lacking and there is reason to believe pests 
of concern are not well characterized, the assessment employs 
conservative assumptions that maximize the potential hazard presented 
by the uncharacterized pests.
    Scientists choose to study particular pests for a variety of 
reasons, but economic factors clearly direct much scientific research 
toward pests of economic importance. Pests of rhododendron and other 
major ornamental plants are clearly of economic importance, and a great 
deal of research has in fact been directed toward these pests.
    Interception records vary with the commodity, source, volume, host 
susceptibility, and other factors. Rhododendron have been imported from 
Europe in varying amounts for over 50 years, both as cargo and in 
passenger baggage. Most of the pest interceptions have been made in 
passenger baggage, presumably in plants taken from the wild. It is true 
that there are few records of interception of pests associated with 
commercial importation of rhododendron because our regulations have 
previously prohibited importation of rhododendron in soil or growing 
media, and there is limited commercial incentive to import bare-rooted 
plants. We believe it is unproductive for commenters to support 
limiting rhododendron imports to bare-rooted plants only, and then to 
argue that to justify importing the plants in growing media we would 
need years of interception records for this (prohibited) trade in 
rhododendron in growing media. When considering changes to the 
regulations, we cannot collect data about activities we have prohibited 
(except for occasional data about shipments smuggled in violation of 
the regulations).
    Overall, we believe there is sufficient pest information about 
which pests occur in Europe and in the United States to analyze the 
pest risk and reach a sound biological decision on how to handle the 
rhododendron in growing media.
    Comment: APHIS wrongly evaluated pests based on their known damage 
potential. Many pests now causing harm in the United States were 
innocuous in their place of origin and only caused significant harm 
when introduced into an area free of their natural enemies.
    Response: One of the elements of pest risk assessment is an 
evaluation of the potential damage that may be caused by a pest using a 
set of criteria. While some introduced pests have found a favorable 
niche in the United States, others have never become serious pests. The 
establishment of a pest is determined by many factors, such as climate, 
survival, finding a suitable host, etc., which are considered in a pest 
risk assessment. The absence of natural enemies may play an important 
role in the establishment of a pest, especially for insects. APHIS is 
well aware of this natural phenomenon and has considered it in 
conducting its pest risk assessments. The basis of a good quarantine 
system is to prevent the introduction of the pests before they reach 
our shores.
    Comment: The short-spored rhododendron rust caused by Chrysomyxa 
ledi var. rhododendri should be considered a pest of quarantine 
significance, as it causes serious defoliation and its spores are 
spread by wind. Presence of this disease would not be revealed by the 
proposal's greenhouse growing requirements, and the Kahn report (a 
report of the APHIS committee of researchers who prepared worksheets on 
pests and evaluations of pest risk prior to this rulemaking) notes that 
``if the host/rust interaction were in the incubation period at the 
time of inspection, the infection would not be detected.''
    Response: APHIS considers Chrysomyxa ledi var. rhododendri a 
quarantine pest because it can cause economic losses to both 
Rhododendron and Picea species. When it is detected on intercepted 
plant material, the plant material is seized and destroyed. Concerning 
its epidemiology and other characteristics, the fungus may cause 
defoliation and the spores are indeed spread by wind, like most rusts. 
For infection to occur the disease pathway must lead to the vicinity of 
a target host. The conditions and safeguards in the proposed rule are 
sufficient to preclude establishment of the disease in the United 
States. While there are growth periods when signs of the pathogen are 
not obvious in the host plant, there are signs of infection visible to 
close scrutiny. That is the reason for the lengthy observed growing 
periods required by the proposed rule for both mother stock and 
progeny: to provide an opportunity to detect incipient infection that 
might not be obvious during a one-time inspection. Besides the regular 
surveillance of the plants during the long growing period, the detailed 
inspection at a U.S. quarantine inspection station at the first port of 
entry provides additional safety.
    Comment: The proposal cites APHIS' experience in importing plants 
in media without introducing pests as one basis for the proposal and 
suggests there have been no problems with plants currently allowed to 
be imported in media in 20 years. This is not true. Pest movement on 
plant material used in greenhouse production was the likely cause for 
spread of a serpentine leafminer (Liriomyza trifoili (Burgess)), a pea 
leafminer (L. huidobrensis (Blanchard)), the beet armyworm (Spodoptera 
exigua (Hubner)), the western flower thrips (Frankliniella occidentalis 
(Pergrande)), and the sweetpotato whitefly (Bemisia tabaci 
(Gennadius)). Also, in comments on an earlier rule, Dr. Ken Horst 
identified several cases where U.S. growers had to destroy material 
imported in media due to disease. Also, simply pointing to the 
successes of the current program does not justify extending it.
    Response: The experience of growing certain plants in growing 
media, as cited by APHIS, forms the basis of a model for a systems 
approach that uses modern and advanced horticultural practices to

[[Page 66712]]

prevent the introduction and spread of plant pests. The commenter 
correctly identifies pest movement on plant material used in greenhouse 
production as the likely cause for the spread of the enumerated pests, 
and we do not doubt that those and other pests have spread from 
unregulated greenhouse cultivation where infested plants were grown. 
The growing of plant material under controlled conditions such as those 
in the regulations will prevent or greatly reduce the spread and 
movement of plant pests. The pests cited by the commenter did not 
originate from greenhouse cultivation under the system described in the 
proposal. Greenhouse production in accordance with the proposed 
regulations would have prevented the dissemination of such pests.
    APHIS is not aware of the details of the specific cases where U.S. 
growers had to destroy material imported in media due to disease as 
reported by Dr. Ken Horst, because the entry of these pests apparently 
was not reported to APHIS or State quarantine officials at the time of 
their discovery. When a quarantine pest is discovered, it should be 
reported immediately to APHIS or State quarantine officials so its 
eradication can be confirmed and the pathway of entry studied. Since 
APHIS did not have the opportunity to investigate these cases at the 
time, APHIS cannot comment on the incidents cited by the commenter.
    Comment: The current state of the science of risk analysis still 
acknowledges major areas of uncertainty when it comes to assessing the 
actual impacts of new pest introductions; the full extent of the damage 
they may cause cannot be accurately estimated. This uncertainty makes 
it unwise to adopt the proposed action for rhododendron.
    Response: Pest risk analysis is the best tool currently available 
to evaluate and manage pest risk. It is being standardized, refined, 
and promoted globally. Uncertainties are acknowledged in the risk 
analysis process, and for this reason APHIS uses great care in arriving 
at its decisions and involves the best and most competent risk analysts 
available to the agency among its staff and outside resources. While 
all the information about pest damage caused to rhododendron may not be 
fully known, there is sufficient and reliable information to evaluate 
importing rhododendron under the conditions we proposed. Should pest 
risk change at any time, APHIS is prepared to change any or all aspects 
of the program, including denying approval of greenhouses, shutting 
them down, or making any other changes necessary to the program to 
safeguard the United States against invading pests.
    Comment: Increasingly, APHIS quarantine decisions appear to be 
driven by trade policy (attempting to expand and liberalize 
opportunities for international trade under the World Trade 
Organization agreement) rather than the primary APHIS mandate of pest 
prevention based on science. We believe, consistent with the Office of 
Technology Assessment report, ``Agriculture, Trade, and the 
Environment: Achieving Complimentary Policies,'' that APHIS should not 
try to achieve an unrealistic zero risk standard, but should seek to 
target controls to protect those agricultural systems that are at 
greatest risk from harmful nonindigenous species. We further believe 
that nursery crops represent an ``at greatest risk'' category with 
regard to pests associated with foreign rhododendron in media.
    Response: APHIS' first and primary responsibility is to protect 
U.S. agriculture from foreign quarantine pests. The United States is a 
signatory to World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements and is bound to 
comply with certain WTO policies guiding national activities to protect 
plant health, and it expects that other countries do the same. The 
United States strongly supports and sponsors initiatives to achieve 
global standardization in plant quarantine activities. APHIS is 
applying these standards in complying with the agreements, which is in 
the interest of U.S. agriculture. Nursery stock has been, and continues 
to be, an area of great concern to APHIS. We attempt to employ the most 
effective, practical, and cost-effective strategies to prevent the 
introduction of plant pests, including exclusion of the host plant when 
necessary. We do not and cannot employ a ``zero risk standard.'' It is 
not possible to eliminate all risk. We reduce risk to a negligible 
level. Our regulations establish controls and prioritize agency 
resources to maximize protection to those agricultural systems that are 
at greatest risk.
    Comment: The proposed visual inspection of stock in participating 
European greenhouses would be largely ineffective because many pests 
are not readily found by inspection at some life stages.
    Response: In this rule APHIS requires a lengthy pre-importation 
detention period or holding period in the greenhouses in foreign 
countries. This should give plant inspectors time for inspection and 
evaluation of plants and facilities to determine whether the 
rhododendron plant material meets entry requirements. By the same 
token, this long detention period allows more time for the development 
of pests so that they may be visible to the inspector. If the inspector 
determines that methods other than a visual inspection are necessary to 
determine the presence of a pest, then suspect material may be 
investigated, detained, treated, tested, etc. Additionally, all 
shipments of rhododendron will be directed to an APHIS Plant Inspection 
Station at a port of entry for inspection and final release.
    Comment: The proposed pesticide dip offers no detail on active 
ingredient, rate, or efficacy against pests. Also, in some cases, 
pesticide treatments may mask, but not eliminate, pest presence.
    Response: APHIS does not normally include informational details of 
a pesticide such as active ingredients, dose rate, or efficacy against 
pests in a rule because, in many cases, to do so would be to repeat a 
large volume of scientific and testing data that was used in the 
process of approving the pesticide for use against targeted pests. The 
approval process for pesticides is a separate function of other Federal 
agencies and agencies of foreign governments. APHIS' discussion of a 
pesticide is usually limited to discussing that a pesticide is in fact 
approved for use against a target pest in a given commodity and that 
use of the pesticide meets operational needs of APHIS and the affected 
industry. The exporter is required to use only pesticides prescribed by 
the plant protection service of the exporting country and must inform 
the inspector prior to their use. The recommended dip with a pesticide 
is a precautionary treatment and just one more additional safeguard, so 
while the masking of pest presence by pesticide use may occasionally be 
a problem, other components of the systems approach of the regulations 
compensate for this possible effect. It is APHIS policy that, should 
the pesticide make inspection difficult or hinder inspection in any 
way, the shipment or consignment may be denied. Such pesticide dips are 
not unique to the rhododendron import rule; they are also recommended 
and are effectively used in the United States on other imported and 
domestic plant and plant products.
    Comment: Inspection at the port of entry under the best conditions 
is still not adequate to detect many pests. Further, the reality is 
that APHIS inspects many cargoes at a rate of less than one-half of one 
percent, and allows unsound inspection practices such as ``tailgate'' 
inspections and allowing brokers to select the samples to be

[[Page 66713]]

inspected. Because the proposal partly relies on inspection to mitigate 
the risks, these inadequacies mean the proposal will not achieve its 
claimed level of risk reduction.
    Response: Inspection at ports of entry is an internationally 
accepted strategy in plant quarantine. It is rarely ever used alone, 
and in addition to visual examination by an inspector, may include any 
number of techniques to arrive at a decision. In this rule, inspection 
at the port of entry is not the only, or even primary, protection. 
Additional safeguards include growing site inspection, monitoring, 
surveillance, certification, and specific growing conditions in the 
country of origin to reduce the risk of the introduction of pests to a 
negligible level. Port of entry inspection of bare-rooted rhododendron 
has been used successfully for many years. Now that the regulations 
allow importation of the plants in growing media, we are retaining port 
of entry inspection but are also requiring additional safeguards.
    The rate or percentages employed by APHIS in the inspection of 
cargoes varies depending on the pest risk, origin of the commodity, and 
other factors connected with the type of shipment. An inspection of 100 
percent of the commodity may be ordered when the conditions warrant. 
The many thousands of interceptions made by the United States and other 
countries are evidence that inspection has considerable merit for some 
pests, but the volume of interceptions is likewise a sign that 
inspection alone is not enough and that a systems approach that 
addresses growing conditions in the country of origin is needed to keep 
dangerous pests that are not visible to inspectors from arriving at 
U.S. ports. This rule establishes such a systems approach.
    Comment: APHIS bases part of its argument on the lack of pest 
problems associated with imports of bare-rooted rhododendron in recent 
years. However, this trade amounts to only a few thousand dollars a 
year, compared to an expectation of importing many times that volume of 
plants in media under the proposed rule. The minuscule amount of bare-
root imports provides no basis for assessing risk.
    Response: APHIS makes a logical comparison between the importation 
of bare-rooted rhododendron and its importation in approved growing 
media. If pest problems are not associated with bare-rooted plants, 
which are grown in the open field and exposed to the environment, one 
might conclude that the risk is even less when the plants are grown 
under a system of controlled conditions in a greenhouse--barring the 
possibility that there are pests associated with the media but not the 
plant. The proposal included strict media standards to preclude the 
presence of pests associated with the media. Furthermore, the 
importation of plants in growing media as proposed should eliminate the 
occasional pest problems that were associated with importing bare-
rooted plants, by providing an even safer and economically more 
attractive method to import rhododendron. Consider that at one time 
ferns were imported bare-rooted, and there were many pest problems both 
for the importers and for APHIS. Producing them in growing media under 
controlled conditions resolved the problems to the satisfaction of both 
the importers and APHIS. The system for importing ferns in growing 
media has worked for a large volume of plants imported over an extended 
period of time. In view of this and the more limited data from 
importing small volumes of bare-rooted rhododendron over many years, it 
is reasonable to believe the rule's requirements for importing 
rhododendron will work.
    Comment: The Endangered Species Act consultation did not assess the 
risk to listed species other than Rhododendron in the family Ericaceae, 
such as five Arctostaphylos species that occur in California and may be 
vulnerable to pests introduced by rhododendron.
    Response: Pest risk assessment for plants is generally done at the 
genera level, and for this rule it was done for the entire genus 
Rhododendron. Based on pest and host data collected in the early stages 
of assessment, projects may be expanded to include other plant genera. 
If data showed Arctostaphylos to be a host of any of the pests 
associated with Rhododendron, the genus would have been seriously 
considered in the analysis. We have not received any specific pest or 
host data in comments and are not aware of any that indicates it is 
necessary to perform an assessment for the entire family Ericaceae. The 
Fish and Wildlife Service was a great help in evaluating any effects 
pests of rhododendron would have on endangered species. Consultation 
with the Fish and Wildlife Service was a valid and legally mandated 
approach to reaching an understanding of these matters.
    Comment: The pest risk potential associated with imported 
rhododendron will remain largely unknown and uncharacterized until 
APHIS performs additional pest risk analyses, particularly focused on 
horticultural and environmental impacts, to determine the possible 
impact on all hosts, both native and agricultural.
    Response: Pest risk analysis follows specific guidelines in order 
that the assessments may be as uniform and consistent as possible. When 
circumstances warrant, there may be a reevaluation of the pest risk. It 
would appear from the investigation, reviews, and evaluations already 
conducted for rhododendron that an additional pest risk assessment at 
this time is not necessary, particularly in the absence of new data or 
pertinent information on pest risk. The importation of rhododendron in 
growing media under the prescribed conditions is limited to imports 
from Europe. The cultivation practices used for rhododendron in Europe, 
and the environmental effects of the horticulture and pest issues 
associated with it, are fairly well known and were considered in 
analyzing pest risk. No number of additional pest risk assessments 
could ever give us the precise effect of all possible introduction 
scenarios on all U.S. hosts, both native and agricultural.
    Comment: The proposed 0.2 mm screen size for greenhouses will not 
adequately prevent the entry of airborne pests or pathogens without 
additional requirements for door openings, air filtration systems, etc. 
The Zandvoort paper, ``Wind Dispersal of Puccinia horiana of 
Chrysanthemum,'' clearly illustrates how rust spores can easily enter 
and exit greenhouses via ventilation windows, for example.
    Response: The proposed 0.2 mm screen size for greenhouses is 
intended for those vents where outside air is necessary. The 0.2 mm 
screen size is considered very small. It is so small that many believe 
it to be a hindrance to adequate air circulation. It is a much smaller 
opening than has been approved for other genera now permitted to be 
grown in media. The very small screen size and the additional 
safeguards for greenhouses growing plants in media are believed to be 
more than satisfactory.
    Regarding door openings, Sec. 319.37-8(e)(2)(ii) of the regulations 
requires that greenhouses be equipped with automatic closing doors to 
reduce pest entry into the greenhouses. This requirement was intended 
to limit the entry of both insects and wind-borne spores through 
entryways. Based on this comment, we have reexamined options for 
greater quarantine security at entryways, and have concluded that it is 
advisable to require a double-door system for all greenhouses growing 
articles in accordance with Sec. 319.37-8(e). We also have discovered 
that, for some years, the inspectors employed by

[[Page 66714]]

plant protection services in Europe who inspect and approve greenhouses 
and mother stock in accordance with the regulations have been enforcing 
a double-door requirement. Therefore, requiring double doors would 
improve greenhouse security without adding any expense for greenhouses 
already growing articles in accordance with the regulations. Since this 
final rule only addresses requirements for rhododendron, at this time 
we are amending the greenhouse door provision only for greenhouses 
growing rhododendron articles, but we intend to initiate rulemaking to 
require double doors for all greenhouses growing articles in accordance 
with Sec. 319.37-8(e). This final rule requires that for Rhododendron 
species only, the plants must be grown solely in a greenhouse equipped 
with automatic closing double doors of an airlock type, so that 
whenever one of the doors in an entryway is open the other is closed. 
This automatic double door requirement will create an additional 
barrier in the entryway.
    APHIS only requires air filtration systems and other extreme forms 
of containment for high risk quarantine facilities that are used to 
maintain high risk material and dangerous pests. These must be 
constructed in the manner described by the commenter to prevent the 
escape of dangerous pests. We do not believe such a high level of 
security is appropriate for greenhouses growing plants from healthy 
stock where the plants are under surveillance for pests and disease 
over a considerable period, as required for rhododendron. Should 
serious pests or diseases be discovered in a greenhouse operating under 
this rule, additional containment requirements will be imposed as 
needed. Should the pest risk for growing rhododendron at any location 
or site be elevated for any reason, the greenhouses for growing them 
will not be approved.
    The Zandvoort paper, ``Wind Dispersal of Puccinia horiana of 
Chrysanthemum,'' is not contested. Puccinia horiana is a fast moving 
rust and has largely been distributed with planting material around the 
globe. This distribution, however, resulted from international trade in 
chrysanthemums under conditions far less stringent than those required 
for importing rhododendron into the United States.
    Therefore, for the reasons given in the proposed rule and in this 
document, we are adopting the proposed rule as a final rule, and are 
adding the requirement of automatic closing double doors in 
greenhouses. We are also making minor, nonsubstantive word changes.

Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. The 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 a final regulatory flexibility 
analysis and cost-benefit analysis for the rule, which are summarized 
below.
    This final rule allows Rhododendron spp. to be imported from Europe 
in growing media if the plants are grown in secure greenhouses and meet 
other conditions to exclude plant pests and diseases. This action was 
originally proposed on September 7, 1993 (58 FR 47074-47084, Docket No. 
89-154-1) as part of a proposal to allow importation from all countries 
of five genera of plants in growing media. Based on comments, action on 
Rhododendron spp. was deferred while an Endangered Species Act 
consultation was performed between APHIS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service (FWS). Importation of the other four genera (Alstroemeria, 
Ananas, Anthurium, and Nidularium) has been allowed since the effective 
date of the final rule published on January 13, 1995 (60 FR 3067-3078, 
Docket No. 89-154-2). APHIS recently concluded its consultation with 
the FWS and determined that there were no endangered species concerns 
that would preclude importing potted Rhododendron spp. from Europe.
    Comments on the initial regulatory flexibility analysis indicated 
that there is little existing economic data on import trade in plants 
in growing media and that neither risks nor economic effects can be 
projected on the basis of the small amount of data available for this 
trade. This fact is acknowledged in the risk assessments prepared for 
this action and in the economic analysis below, which explain our 
analytical basis for projecting risks and economic effects. No changes 
to the proposed requirements were made based on these comments.
    Alleviating unnecessary quarantine restrictions often can be 
equated to elimination of trade barriers. Removal of trade barriers has 
two broad economic objectives. First, freer trade between countries 
results in lower consumer prices and increases the variety and quality 
of goods and services available in the local economy. Second, freer 
trade encourages a nation's resources to be invested in areas of 
comparative advantage. This enhances the economic well-being of all 
countries.
    U.S. consumers are direct beneficiaries of government policies that 
promote freer trade. Domestic consumers benefit by having access to 
higher quality goods and services at lower prices. Freer trade 
increases consumer purchasing power by lowering prices and eliminating 
the deadweight loss associated with quarantine restrictions and other 
trade barriers.
    Relaxation of trade barriers also results in changes in producer 
revenue. The amount of total producer income can increase or decrease 
depending on the elasticity of demand. When U.S. trade restrictions are 
lifted, a portion of industry profit will be transferred from domestic 
to foreign producers. Additionally, any increase in the amount of total 
producer income will go to foreign producers.
    The economic effects on producers and consumers of potted 
Rhododendron spp. can be analyzed by comparing potential changes in 
consumer and producer surpluses. Producer surplus is measured by 
estimating the changes in profit (economic rent) based on potential 
fluctuations in product prices and quantities. Consumer surplus is the 
change in aggregate purchasing power and consumer utility when the 
price and quantity of goods change. An increase (decrease) in supply 
will decrease (increase) prices and translate into an increase 
(decrease) in consumer purchasing power (consumer surplus). The net 
effect on society of regulatory changes is the sum of the estimated 
changes in consumer and producer surpluses.
    This analysis focuses on the U.S. wholesale plant market. 
Therefore, domestic consumers of potted Rhododendron spp. include 
retail firms, landscape brokers, contractors, dealers, and other retail 
or garden centers.
    Initially, APHIS does not expect this rule to have an economic 
effect on the domestic potted plant market because phytosanitary 
restrictions will preclude any increased availability of imported 
Rhododendron spp. in the domestic market. European producers will be 
required to meet stringent phytosanitary standards before plants can be 
shipped to the United States. To date, no European facilities have 
received APHIS approval to export Rhododendron spp. in growing media to 
the United States. European producers would likely be required to 
upgrade existing greenhouses or construct new production units before 
receiving permission to ship products to the United States. Time will 
be required for European producers to upgrade and adjust their 
production practices to meet

[[Page 66715]]

the new requirements. Therefore, APHIS anticipates an 8- to 10-month 
delay between publication of the final rule and the appearance of 
potted European-origin Rhododendron spp. in the domestic marketplace.
    The total value of the domestic nursery and floriculture crop 
(nursery stock, plants, roots, bulbs, seeds, and other plant products) 
industry is estimated to be about $6.1 billion. This represents about 
3.7 percent of the value of domestic agriculture.\1\ Annual U.S. 
floriculture crop sales total about $3.5 billion. Therefore, 
floriculture crop sales account for about 57.4 percent of total cash 
receipts for the U.S. nursery and floriculture industry.\2\ The 
estimated value of annual potted Rhododendron spp. production in the 
United States totals about $48.3 million annually (Table 1). This 
accounts for about 1.4 percent of the annual sales volume for domestic 
floriculture producers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1992 
Census of Agriculture; October 1994.
    \2\ USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service, 1997 
Floriculture Crops Summary; April 1988.
    \3\ We used 1997 production data for finished florist azaleas as 
a proxy measure for total Rhododendron spp. production in this 
analysis. We did not include nursery azaleas and rhododendron 
production in this analysis due to data limitations associated with 
the 1987 Census of Horticultural Specialties.

                            Table 1.--Estimated U.S. Production of Rhododendron spp.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          No. of wholesale    No. of plants     Estimated value
                         Genera                              nurseries             sold         of annual sales
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rhododendron spp.\3\...................................                493         14,225,000       $48,334,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Floriculture Crops Summary (1998).

    Imports of Rhododendron spp. in media would increase the supply and 
establish a new market equilibrium. A larger quantity of plants would 
be available at a lower price. Consumer and producer surpluses would be 
affected by the supply shift. The consumer surplus would be expanded 
and the producer surplus would increase.
    In summary, this rule will allow U.S. consumers to purchase more 
potted Rhododendron spp. at lower prices. This increases U.S. consumer 
welfare and decreases U.S. producer surplus. Therefore, this rule will 
result in a net welfare gain to U.S. society.
    We developed low- and high-impact scenarios to estimate the 
potential change in net U.S. welfare. This study assumes that prices 
will drop by 10 and 30 percent in the low- and high-impact scenarios, 
respectively (see page 7 of the full economic impact analysis).
    Analysis indicates that this rule will increase net welfare for 
U.S. society by between $0.339 and $0.484 million when prices are 
assumed to drop by 10 percent (Table 2). A 10 percent price reduction 
increases domestic consumer welfare by between $4.933 and $5.078 
million. However, U.S. producers of Rhododendron spp. will incur 
welfare losses totaling about $4.595 million (Table 2).
    When prices are reduced by 30 percent, net welfare is increased by 
between $3.047 and $4.353 million (Table 2). Consumer welfare would be 
increased by between $15.380 and $16.686 million, and producer welfare 
would be decreased by about $12.333 million (Table 2).

                    Table 2.--Estimated Welfare Effects Assuming Unitary Supply Elasticities and Price Decreases of 10 and 30 Percent
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Ed=-0.4                             Ed=-0.6                             Ed=-1.0
                                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Estimated percentage price decrease         U.S.        U.S.         Net        U.S.        U.S.         Net        U.S.        U.S.         Net
                                               producer    consumer     welfare    producer    consumer     welfare    producer    consumer     welfare
                                                 loss        gain       impact       loss        gain       impact       loss        gain       impact
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Es=1.0                               Million Dollars
                                                        Million Dollars
                                                        Million Dollars
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scenario 1: 10 Percent......................      -4.595       4.933       0.339      -4.595       4.982       0.387      -4.595       5.078       0.484
Scenario 2: 30 Percent......................     -12.333      15.380       3.047     -12.333      15.815       3.482     -12.333      16.686       4.353
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires that APHIS specifically 
consider the economic effect of rules on ``small'' business entities. 
The Small Business Administration (SBA) has set forth size criteria by 
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC), which was used as a guide in 
determining which economic entities meet the definition of a ``small'' 
business. This final rule will have a minor economic effect on small 
business entities.
    The SBA does not maintain specific size standards for domestic 
entities that produce potted Rhododendron spp. Therefore, this analysis 
uses the size standards established for Retail Nurseries, Lawn and 
Garden Supply Stores (SIC code 5261). The SBA's definition of a 
``small'' entity included in the Retail Nurseries, Lawn and Garden 
Supply Stores classification is one that collects less than $3.5 
million in annual receipts.
    Rhododendron spp. are grown by about 493 domestic producers (Table 
1). Nurseries that collect less than $3.5 million in annual receipts 
are considered ``small'' for the purposes of this analysis. APHIS 
estimates that all of these nurseries are ``small'' according to the 
above criteria.\4\ These nurseries are diversified operations that 
produce many varieties of potted plants and other greenhouse products. 
Therefore, we anticipate that the rule will not have a significant 
economic effect on small producers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Note that the definition of a ``small'' nursery has changed 
since publication of the final rule for importation of Alstroemeria, 
Ananas, Anthurium, and Nidularium. At that time a ``small'' nursery 
was defined as having annual sales of $1 million or less.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The SBA definition of a ``small'' business engaged in the import/
export business is one that employs no more than 100 employees. The 
number of

[[Page 66716]]

firms that may qualify as a ``small'' business under this definition 
cannot be determined. Small importers will likely benefit from the 
rule. The rule will enable some ``small'' importers to enhance their 
income through imports of Rhododendron spp. in growing media.
    Small retailers will benefit from importation of Rhododendron spp. 
in growing media. The rule will enhance the availability and quality of 
potted plants in the U.S. market. Plant retailers will benefit from 
lower wholesale prices and will likely pass any savings on to their 
customers. This would increase annual sales volume and revenue.

Summary

    This rule will allow importation from Europe of Rhododendron spp. 
in growing media. The regulations will require that imported 
Rhododendron spp. originate from secure greenhouses and meet other 
conditions to exclude plant pests and diseases.
    During 1997, about 14.2 million potted Rhododendron spp. valued at 
$48.3 million were produced in the United States.\5\ We developed low- 
and high-impact scenarios to estimate potential changes in net U.S. 
welfare. This study assumes that prices will drop by 10 and 30 percent 
in the low- and high-impact scenarios, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Production data for finished florist azaleas was used as a 
proxy measure for all domestic Rhododendron spp. production. Nursery 
azaleas and rhododendron production were not included in this 
analysis due to data limitations associated with the 1987 Census of 
Horticultural Specialties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This rule will increase net welfare for U.S. society by between 
$0.339 and $0.484 million if prices drop by 10 percent. The rule will 
increase the welfare of domestic consumers of Rhododendron spp. by 
between $4.933 and $5.078 million if prices drop by 10 percent. 
However, U.S. producers of Rhododendron spp. will incur welfare losses 
totaling about $4.595 million.
    If prices are reduced by 30 percent, net welfare will increase by 
between $3.047 and $4.353 million, consumer welfare will increase by 
between $15.380 and $16.686 million, and producer welfare will decrease 
by about 12.333 million.
    Rhododendron spp. are grown by about 493 domestic producers. 
Nurseries that collect less than $3.5 million in annual receipts are 
considered ``small'' for the purposes of this analysis. APHIS estimates 
that all of these nurseries are ``small'' according to the above 
criteria. These nurseries are diversified operations that produce many 
varieties of potted plants and other greenhouse products. Therefore, we 
anticipate that the rule will not have a significant economic effect on 
small producers.

Executive Order 12988

    This final rule has been reviewed under under Executive Order 
12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule allows the importation from 
Europe of Rhododendron established in growing media. State and local 
laws and regulations regarding articles imported under this rule will 
be preempted while the articles are in foreign commerce. Some nursery 
stock is imported for immediate distribution and sale to the consuming 
public and will remain in foreign commerce until sold to the ultimate 
consumer. The question of when foreign commerce ceases in other cases 
must be addressed on a case-by-case basis. No retroactive effect will 
be given to this rule, and this rule will not require administrative 
proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging this 
rule.

National Environmental Policy Act

    An environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact 
have been prepared for this rule. The assessment provides a basis for 
the conclusion that the importation of Rhododendron from Europe will 
not present a risk of introducing or disseminating plant pests and will 
not have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment. 
Based on the finding of no significant impact, the Administrator of the 
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that an 
environmental impact statement need not be prepared.
    The environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact 
were prepared in accordance with: (1) the National Environmental Policy 
Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), (2) regulations 
of the Council on Environmental Quality for implementing the procedural 
provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), (3) USDA regulations 
implementing NEPA (7 CFR part 1b), and (4) APHIS' NEPA Implementing 
Procedures (7 CFR part 372).
    Copies of the environmental assessment and finding of no 
significant impact are available for public inspection at USDA, room 
1141, South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW., 
Washington, DC, between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
except holidays. Persons wishing to inspect copies are requested to 
call ahead on (202) 690-2817 to facilitate entry into the reading room. 
In addition, copies may be obtained by writing to the individual listed 
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule contains no new information collection or recordkeeping 
requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501, 
et seq.). All information collection requirements associated with this 
rulemaking have been previously approved by OMB and assigned control 
number 0579-0049.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 319

    Bees, Coffee, Cotton, Fruits, Honey, Imports, Logs, Nursery Stock, 
Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Rice, Vegetables.

    Accordingly, we are amending 7 CFR part 319 as follows:

PART 319--FOREIGN QUARANTINE NOTICES

    1. The authority citation for part 319 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 150dd, 150ee, 150ff, 151-167, 450, 2803, and 
2809; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80 and 371.2(c).

    2. Section 319.37-8 is amended as follows:
    a. In paragraph (e) introductory text, by adding the phrase 
``Rhododendron from Europe,'' immediately before the phrase ``and 
Saintpaulia.''
    b. In paragraph (e)(2)(ii), the second sentence, by adding the 
phrase ``(0.2 mm for greenhouses growing Rhododendron spp.)'' 
immediately after the phrase ``0.6 mm''.
    c. In paragraph (e)(2)(vii), by removing the word ``and,'' 
immediately after the word ``pests;''.
    d. In paragraph (e)(2)(viii), by removing the period at the end of 
the paragraph and adding a semicolon in its place.
    e. By adding new paragraphs (e)(2)(ix) and (e)(2)(x) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 319.37-8  Growing media.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ix) For Rhododendron species only, the plants must be propagated 
from mother plants that have been visually inspected by an APHIS 
inspector or an inspector of the plant protection service of the 
exporting country and found free of evidence of diseases caused by the 
following pathogens: Chrysomyxa ledi var. rhododendri, Erysiphe 
cruciferarum, Erysiphe rhododendri, Exobasidium vaccinnum and vaccinum 
var. japonicum, and Phomopsis theae; and

[[Page 66717]]

    (x) For Rhododendron species only, the plants must be grown solely 
in a greenhouse equipped with automatic closing double doors of an 
airlock type, so that whenever one of the doors in an entryway is open 
the other is closed, and the plants must be introduced into the 
greenhouse as tissue cultures or as rootless stem cuttings from mother 
plants that:
    (A) Have received a pesticide dip prescribed by the plant 
protection service of the exporting country for mites, scale insects, 
and whitefly; and
    (B) Have been grown for at least the previous 6 months in a 
greenhouse that meets the requirements of Sec. 319.37-8(e)(2)(ii).

    Done in Washington, DC, this 19th day of November 1999.
Craig A. Reed,
Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 99-30994 Filed 11-29-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P