[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 87 (Wednesday, May 5, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 24916-24936]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-10067]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

7 CFR Part 319

[Docket No. 98-035-5]
RIN 0579-AB75


Importation of Orchids of the Genus Phalaenopsis From Taiwan 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 and plant products to add orchids of the genus Phalaenopsis from 
Taiwan to the list of plants that may be imported in an approved 
growing medium subject to specified growing, inspection, and 
certification requirements. We are taking this action in response to a 
request by Taiwan and after determining that Phalaenopsis spp. plants 
established in growing media can be imported without resulting in the 
introduction into the United States or the dissemination within the 
United States of a plant pest or noxious weed.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 4, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. William Thomas, Import Specialist, 
Phytosanitary Issues Management, 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 into the United States of certain plants and plant products 
to prevent the introduction of plant pests and noxious weeds. The 
regulations in ``Subpart--Nursery Stock, Plants, Roots, Bulbs, Seeds, 
and Other Plant Products,'' Sec. Sec.  319.37 through 319.37-14 
(referred to below as the regulations or Quarantine 37) contain, among 
other things, prohibitions and restrictions on the importation of 
plants, plant parts, and seeds for propagation.
    The regulations in Quarantine 37 currently allow the importation of 
orchids from all countries of the world, provided that the plants are 
(1) free of sand, soil, earth, and other growing media, (2) accompanied 
by phytosanitary certificate of inspection, (3) imported under a permit 
issued by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), and 
(4) imported into a Federal plant inspection station listed in Sec.  
319.37-14(b), where they are subject to inspection by APHIS. Such 
plants are imported bare-rooted into the United States, and are rooted 
and potted for sale by U.S. nurseries.
    On September 1, 1998, we published in the Federal Register (63 FR 
46403-46406, Docket No. 98-035-1) a proposal to amend the regulations 
by allowing the importation of orchids of the genus Phalaenopsis 
established in an approved growing medium, subject to specified 
growing, inspection, and certification requirements. We proposed this 
action in response to a request from Taiwan and after determining that 
the degree of pest risk posed by these plants is no greater than the 
pest risk associated with the importation of bare-rooted Phalaenopsis 
spp. orchids, which may already be imported under the regulations. We 
accepted comments on our proposal for a total of 90 days, ending 
December 1, 1998.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The comment period on the proposed rule was extended from 60 
to 90 days in a notice published in the Federal Register on October 
29, 1998 (63 FR 57932, Docket 98-035-02).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to comments received on the proposed rule (discussed in 
detail later in this document), APHIS narrowed the application of the 
rule to Phalaenopsis spp. orchids from Taiwan and entered into 
consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to assess 
the potential effects of the proposed action on endangered or 
threatened species, as required under section 7 of the Endangered 
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). On April 7, 
2003, FWS concluded the section 7 consultation process by concurring 
with APHIS's determination that the importation of Phalaenopsis spp. 
orchids from Taiwan in growing media will not adversely affect 
federally listed or proposed endangered or threatened species or their 
habitats. The section 7 consultation for this rule is described later 
in this document.
    Upon receiving concurrence from FWS, APHIS completed an 
environmental assessment 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's NEPA Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 372). On May 9, 2003, 
we published in the Federal Register (68 FR 24915, Docket No. 98-035-3) 
a notice announcing the availability of the environmental assessment, 
and solicited comments on the environmental assessment for 30 days 
ending June 9, 2003. On June 11, 2003, we published in the Federal 
Register (68 FR 34898-37899, Docket No. 98-035-4) another notice that 
extended the comment period on the environmental assessment for an 
additional 30 days ending July 9, 2003.

2003 Risk Analysis

    Also in response to public comments, APHIS updated the risk 
assessment that was prepared in support of this rulemaking action. The 
original risk assessment, referred to elsewhere in this document as the 
1997 risk assessment, identified pests that are known to be associated 
with Phalaenopsis spp. plants in Taiwan and assessed the risk posed by 
those pests in the absence of the mitigative effects of the 
requirements of Sec.  319.37-8(e), which are designed to establish and 
maintain a pest-free production environment and ensure the use of pest-
free seeds or parent plants. However, as noted by commenters, the 1997 
risk assessment did not contain a thorough description of how the 
mitigation measures required under the regulations in Sec.  319.37-8(e) 
reduce the risk posed by the specific quarantine pests of Phalaenopsis 
spp. orchids that were identified in the risk assessment. Because the 
original risk assessment was prepared in April 1997, APHIS believes it 
was appropriate to update the risk document that supported this rule in 
several ways in order to address commenters' concerns regarding its 
adequacy. These changes were necessary to provide the most transparent 
communication of risk possible at this time.
    First, we revised the 1997 risk assessment to bring it up to date 
with current APHIS guidelines for pathway-initiated risk assessments. 
As a result of this update, some of the risk ratings that were 
identified in the 1997 risk assessment have changed.\2\ These changes 
are a result of the fact that the new risk assessment guidelines employ 
the use of a different risk rating system

[[Page 24917]]

that was not used by APHIS at the time the 1997 risk assessment was 
drafted. Using the current guidelines, the individual risk elements 
that compose the overall estimated consequences and likelihood of 
introduction associated with the importation of the commodity are 
assigned a rating of low (1 point), medium (2 points), or high (3 
points) for each known quarantine pest. Cumulative risk values for 
consequences and likelihood of introduction are then calculated by a 
summation of their component risk estimates, and the overall pest risk 
potential posed by the identified pests is calculated by adding 
together the ratings for consequences and likelihood of introduction 
for each pest. The interpretation scale was modified based on agency 
experience with other importations, and a ``risk score'' is no longer 
used. Instead, descriptions of pest biology augment the presentation of 
the risk ratings. For a detailed description of the current process, 
please refer to APHIS's Guidelines for Pathway-Initiated Risk 
Assessments.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ In the 2003 risk analysis, the baseline pest risk potential 
for 5 of the identified pests has been reassessed as ``medium'' 
rather than ``high.''
    \3\ Version 5.02, available on the Internet at: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/pra/commodity/cpraguide.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Next, we searched for any additional research and data published 
since the 1997 risk assessment was prepared that could have a bearing 
on the findings of the risk assessment and updated the document 
accordingly. Specifically, the fungus Colletotrichum phalaenopsidis, 
which was listed in the 1997 assessment as a quarantine significant 
pest that could follow the Phalaenopsis spp. orchid import pathway, was 
removed from further consideration because it has been synonymized with 
(considered to be the same species as) C. gloeosporioides (Penz.), 
which is widely distributed in the United States.
    Finally, we added a substantial discussion of how the risk 
mitigation measures contained in Sec.  319.37-8(e) mitigate the risks 
posed by the six quarantine pests that were identified as likely to 
follow the commodity import pathway. This part of the analysis is 
referred to as ``risk management,'' and is contained in part III of the 
revised risk document. Note that, due to the addition of risk 
management to the risk document, we now refer to the document as a 
``risk analysis.'' Risk analysis is the combined product of risk 
assessment (an analysis of pests associated with the commodity) and 
risk management (an analysis of the effectiveness of the measures 
chosen in mitigating the risk posed by the pests identified in the risk 
assessment). The revised risk analysis, ``Risk Analysis of the 
Importation of Moth Orchid, Phalaenopsis spp. Plants in Approved 
Growing Media From Taiwan into the United States,'' was completed May 
6, 2003. The revised risk analysis is referred to throughout this 
document as the 2003 risk analysis, and is available on the Internet at 
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/pim/.

Determination by the Secretary

    In this document, APHIS is adopting its proposal to allow the 
importation of orchids of the genus Phalaenopsis established in an 
approved growing medium as a final rule, with the changes discussed in 
this document. Specifically, we are allowing the importation of 
Phalaenopsis spp. plants in growing media from Taiwan only.
    Under Sec.  412(a) of the Plant Protection Act, the Secretary of 
Agriculture may prohibit or restrict the importation and entry of any 
plant or plant product if the Secretary determines that the prohibition 
or restriction is necessary to prevent the introduction into the United 
States or the dissemination within the United States of a plant pest or 
noxious weed.
    The Secretary has determined that it is not necessary to prohibit 
the importation of orchids of the genus Phalaenopsis from Taiwan that 
are established in an approved growing medium in order to prevent the 
introduction into the United States or the dissemination within the 
United States of a plant pest or noxious weed. This determination is 
based on the findings of the risk documents referred to earlier in this 
document, and the Secretary's judgment that the application of the 
measures required under Sec.  319.37-8(e) will prevent the introduction 
or dissemination of plant pests into the United States.

Regulatory Requirements

    Under this final rule, Phalaenopsis spp. plants imported in growing 
media are subject to the requirements of Sec.  319.37-8(e), which:
     Specifies the types of growing media that may be used;
     Requires plants to be grown in accordance with written 
agreements between APHIS and the plant protection service of the 
country where the plants are grown and between the foreign plant 
protection service and the grower;
     Requires the plants to be rooted and grown in a greenhouse 
that meets certain requirements for pest exclusion and that is used 
only for plants being grown in compliance with Sec.  319.37-8(e);
     Restricts the source of the seeds or parent plants used to 
produce the plants, and requires grow-out or treatment of parent plants 
imported into the exporting country from another country;
     Specifies the sources of water that may be used on the 
plants, the height of the benches on which the plants must be grown, 
and the conditions under which the plants must be stored and packaged; 
and
     Requires that the plants be inspected in the greenhouse 
and found free of evidence of plant pests no more than 30 days prior to 
the exportation of the plants.
    A phytosanitary certificate issued by the plant protection service 
of the country in which the plants were grown that declares that the 
above conditions have been met must accompany the plants at the time of 
importation. These conditions have been used successfully to mitigate 
the risk of pest introduction associated with the importation into the 
United States of approved plants established in growing media.

Discussion of Public Comments on the Proposed Rule

    We received 40 comments on the proposed rule by the close of the 
comment period. The comments were from orchid growers and sellers, 
Members of Congress, farm bureaus, Federal and State government agency 
representatives, university researchers, agricultural research 
scientists, and orchid, nursery, landscape, and floriculture 
associations and societies. Thirty-five of the commenters opposed some 
aspect of the rule, and the remaining five requested that APHIS extend 
the comment period on the proposal, which we did, for 30 days (see 63 
FR 57932). The comments are discussed below, by topic.
    We also received a letter from the Small Business Administration 
(SBA) regarding our proposal, which we considered along with public 
comments received by the close of the comment period. Several issues 
raised by SBA were also raised by other commenters; therefore, we 
discuss all comments, including the SBA letter, below.
    We also received 19 comments in response to our May 2003 notice of 
the availability of the environmental assessment. Many of those 
comments pertain to the 2003 risk analysis or to the proposed rule for 
this action. Comments that pertained to the environmental assessment 
are addressed in the final environmental assessment, and the 
accompanying finding of no significant impact, which may be viewed on 
the Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppd/es/ppqdocs.html. Comments 
that pertained

[[Page 24918]]

to the 2003 risk analysis or the proposed rule are addressed below, 
along with comments submitted during the comment period for the 
proposed rule.

Availability of Resources and Verification of Compliance

    One commenter stated that due to budget cuts and downsizing in 
Federal agencies, it is unclear whether APHIS can continue to conduct 
adequate inspections, especially in the face of an increase in the 
amount of plant material entering the United States.
    While some Federal agencies have been subject to budget cuts and 
downsizing, APHIS's appropriated funding for Agricultural Quarantine 
Inspection (AQI) Programs has doubled since 1998, from approximately 
$27.2 million to $55 million in 2002. Funds collected via AQI user fees 
have increased from $140.5 million in 1998 to $260 million in 2002. The 
inspections required under this rule will not be affected by the 
transfer of APHIS personnel to the Department of Homeland Security 
(DHS). All plants imported under this rule are required to be imported 
into Federal plant inspection stations,\4\ which continue to be staffed 
by APHIS, not DHS, inspectors. APHIS has reviewed its resources and 
believes it has adequate resources available to ensure compliance with 
the conditions of the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ A list of Federal plant inspection stations is contained in 
7 CFR 319.37-14(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter stated that the conditions imposed by Sec.  319.37-8 
cannot be verified by APHIS because the cost of attempting to verify 
compliance is a significant expense and would require an unprecedented 
level of cooperation from other governments and their agencies, many of 
whom are ill-equipped to do their jobs or may be influenced by corrupt 
elements. The commenters stated that if APHIS does not physically 
conduct the reviews required by the regulations, the Agency must 
demand, receive, and review documentation from the exporting country 
and its growers that is sufficient to satisfy the Agency that the 
conditions of Sec.  319.37-8 have been complied with.
    Under the regulations in Sec.  319.37-8, there must be an agreement 
between APHIS and a foreign entity for enforcement of the regulations 
in that section. In this case, the agreement will technically be 
between the American Institute in Taiwan and the Taiwanese Economic and 
Cultural Representative's Office, and will involve the plant protection 
organization of Taiwan and APHIS (this agreement is referred to 
elsewhere in this document as ``U.S.-Taiwan agreement''). Each grower 
who wishes to export to the United States under the regulations must 
enter into an agreement with the plant protection organization of 
Taiwan whereby he or she must agree to comply with the provisions of 
the regulations in Sec.  319.37-8 and to allow APHIS inspectors, and 
representatives of Taiwan's plant protection organization, access to 
the growing facility as necessary to monitor compliance with the 
provisions of that section. Taiwan's plant protection organization is 
responsible for ongoing oversight of the program. APHIS inspectors will 
monitor for compliance with the regulations by making periodic visits 
to production sites, as is the case with current and past plants in 
growing media programs, such as the following:
     In the Netherlands, two to four greenhouses (companies) 
have participated in the plants in growing media program each year 
since 1990. Both ferns and Anthurium have been grown and exported to 
the United States. Currently, three greenhouses are in the program. 
APHIS plant health specialists inspect the greenhouses 4 to 12 times a 
year for noncompliance with program requirements, including the absence 
of plant pests. No greenhouses have been found to be noncompliant and 
no plant pests have been found on any of these visits.
     In Israel, one greenhouse growing ferns and African 
violets participated in the plants in growing media program between 
1990 and 1994. This facility was inspected by APHIS plant health 
specialists three to five times a year. Again, no greenhouses were 
found to be noncompliant and no plant pests were found.
    Based on our experience with these programs, we are confident that 
the safeguards work, and that we can verify compliance regularly.
    One commenter stated that, under Sec.  319.37-8(g)(4)(ii), 
sufficient APHIS resources must be available to implement or ensure 
implementation of appropriate mitigation measures. The commenter cited 
a report by the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) that APHIS is 
unable to determine the extent to which its inspection programs 
actually work. The commenter posited that, given the GAO report, APHIS 
is unable to determine the extent to which its inspection programs 
actually work, and therefore, cannot determine that sufficient APHIS 
resources are available to implement or ensure implementation of the 
appropriate mitigation measures.
    The portion of the GAO report cited by the commenter (GAO report 
RCED-97-102) deals primarily with issues surrounding the allocation of 
APHIS inspectors at ports in the United States according to risk-based 
criteria. The report acknowledges that ``APHIS faces a difficult 
mission'' in ensuring that tons of cargo and millions of passengers 
entering the United States do not bring in harmful pests or diseases, 
and found that APHIS should ``allocate its limited inspection resources 
to the ports of entry with the highest risks of pest and disease 
introduction.'' These findings should not be construed to mean that 
APHIS ``is unable to determine the extent to which its inspection 
programs actually work.'' As stated earlier in this document, APHIS has 
reviewed its resources and believes it has adequate resources available 
to ensure compliance with the conditions of the final rule.
    One commenter expressed concern that Taiwan will receive plants 
moved from China, relabel them, and ship them directly to the United 
States.
    The regulations require that the plant protection organization of 
Taiwan ensure that the plants exported to the United States meet the 
requirements contained in Sec.  319.37-8(e). It is in an exporting 
country's interest to ensure that the requirements of importing 
countries are strictly followed. If falsified documentation is 
discovered, it could impact severely on the exporter, and possibly the 
exporting country's plant protection service, and could result in the 
loss of export markets.
    One commenter questioned what will happen if parties are caught out 
of compliance, including in the event of pest-or disease-infested 
shipments.
    If APHIS determines that Phalaenopsis spp. orchids imported from 
Taiwan in growing media contain quarantine or actionable pests, APHIS 
may hold all imports until an investigation can be completed and 
appropriate measures initiated, including stopping imports from a 
specific producer or shutting down the entire program, if the 
circumstances show that such an action is warranted.

Trade and Equivalence

    One commenter expressed concern that APHIS's pest prevention 
mission is being compromised in favor of trade facilitation, and stated 
that the proposed action appears to be linked in trade negotiations 
that resulted in agreements for U.S. exports of other commodities.
    APHIS makes decisions as to whether to allow the importation of 
agricultural products and commodities based on an evaluation of facts, 
data, and available scientific evidence. While the order of processing 
particular requests may be

[[Page 24919]]

influenced by trade considerations, and the components of a risk 
management program may be a product of negotiations between APHIS and 
its foreign counterparts, the ultimate determination as to whether a 
commodity can be safely imported is based on a determination that the 
product can be imported without introducing a plant pest or noxious 
weed into the United States.
    One commenter stated that U.S. producers should have equivalent 
access to the export market, and claimed that producers have 
considerable difficulty exporting, even within the NAFTA region. The 
commenter claimed that adoption of the proposed rule would make the 
``playing field'' even less level. Another commenter stated that there 
is no indication whatsoever that reciprocal arrangements with Taiwan or 
any other country are anticipated, and that no nation should be allowed 
to export to the United States without U.S. growers being able to 
export plants back under the same conditions.
    Other countries make decisions as to whether to allow the 
importation of U.S. products only when formally requested. If U.S. 
producers of orchids wish to export to other countries, those persons 
may submit a request to APHIS, and APHIS will take that request to the 
appropriate country's plant protection organization for their 
consideration. Upon receipt of a request, APHIS may contact the 
requestor and ask for additional information prior to making a proposal 
to the designated export country.
    In any case, measures applied to mitigate the risk posed by a 
particular plant or plant part exported from one country to another are 
determined by the particular risks posed in each case. Because of 
climatic conditions and other factors, the risks posed to Taiwan by 
Phalaenopsis spp. orchid imports from the United States are not likely 
the same risks posed by imports of Taiwan-grown Phalaenopsis spp. 
orchids into the United States. The risk posed by imported plants is 
dependent on the pests associated with the commodity in the country of 
origin and the pests' potential impact on the importing country. As 
such, reciprocal trade could occur under the same phytosanitary 
conditions if the pest dynamics in each country are the same.
    One commenter questioned whether other countries could make a 
similar request to import other potted orchids that are now grown in 
the United States, provided the countries meet APHIS's sanitary and 
certification standards.
    Any country may request that APHIS consider allowing the 
importation of a new commodity. Whether APHIS grants that request is 
tied to the findings of a risk analysis and a determination by the 
Secretary of Agriculture as to whether the commodity can be imported 
without resulting in the introduction into the United States or the 
dissemination within the United States of a plant pest or noxious weed.
    One commenter questioned whether APHIS is obliged to grant every 
request to import an agricultural commodity into the United States as 
long as it is pest-free and will benefit the American consumer, without 
regard to the effects on small, minority- or family-operated businesses 
in the United States.
    APHIS is bound by Federal statutes and executive orders that 
require us to consider the economic effects of our actions, as well as 
to identify and assess the costs and benefits of regulatory 
alternatives, including alternatives that reduce economic effects on 
small entities. However, pursuant to Sec.  7701(3) of the PPA, APHIS 
regulates exports, imports, and interstate commerce in agricultural 
products and other commodities that pose a risk of harboring plant 
pests or noxious weeds in ways that will reduce, to the extent 
practicable, as determined by the Secretary, the risk of dissemination 
of plant pests or noxious weeds. The determination to allow an import 
under the PPA is based on the Secretary's determination that the 
importation of a commodity will not result in the introduction into or 
dissemination within the United States of a plant pest or noxious weed.
    One commenter stated that APHIS is not acting in accordance with 
its mission by ``enhancing the competitive positions of the countries 
currently exporting orchids to the United States.'' The commenter 
stated that, instead of being concerned for the well-being of foreign 
interests, APHIS should work to enhance the competitiveness of U.S. 
businesses.
    The quote cited by the commenter is taken from APHIS's initial 
regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA), which is contained in the 
proposed rule. The IRFA identifies the economic effects that could be 
associated with adoption of the proposed rule, but the text cited is 
not part of APHIS's rationale for making the proposal; rather, it was 
considered as a possible consequence of adopting this rule. As stated 
earlier in this document, the Secretary considers many factors in 
making a determination to allow the import of a previously prohibited 
article, such as potential environmental effects and the economic 
effects associated with the introduction of a plant pest or noxious 
weed. The determination to allow an import under the PPA, however, is 
ultimately based on the Secretary's determination that the importation 
of a commodity will not result in the introduction into or 
dissemination within the United States of a plant pest or noxious weed. 
This approach is consistent with APHIS's obligations under the PPA and 
international trade agreements.
    Part of APHIS's mission is to facilitate exports, and we strive to 
do so. Success in this area is somewhat tied to factors out of our 
control, but we make every effort to assist domestic industry in 
securing access to export markets.
    One commenter stated that imports should have to meet the same 
standards as U.S. products, including growing conditions, pest freedom, 
pesticides applied, etc. The commenter stated that the proposed rule 
would allow the importation of orchid plants subject to fewer 
restrictions than apply to interstate shipments.
    We are unclear as to what standards the commenter refers. There are 
no Federal restrictions on the interstate movement of orchids, and as 
such, there are no specific ``standards'' that apply to how they are 
grown or shipped. Phalaenopsis spp. plants imported from Taiwan in 
growing media would have to meet the strict phytosanitary conditions 
contained in Sec.  319.37-8(e), while domestically produced orchids are 
not subject to any Federal regulation whatsoever. While individual 
producers may adopt specific standards for how their plants are 
produced, and individual States may impose requirements that apply to 
the intrastate movement of plants, those standards are not Federal 
standards, are not applicable in every State, and cannot be applied to 
plants being imported into the United States.

Risk Assessment

General
    Several commenters stated that because the 1997 risk assessment 
only considered the importation of orchids from Taiwan, it cannot be 
used to evaluate the risks associated with importation of orchids from 
any other area, as APHIS proposed. The commenters noted that pests and 
pathogens are not the same from country to country, and that a pest 
risk assessment and management strategy for Phalaenopsis spp. orchids 
is needed for each exporting country.
    We agree with the commenter's statement. In this final rule, we are 
only authorizing the importation of

[[Page 24920]]

Phalaenopsis spp. orchids in approved growing media from Taiwan--the 
region considered in the 1997 risk assessment and the 2003 risk 
analysis.
    One commenter stated that APHIS should reexamine its 1997 pest risk 
assessment, analysis procedures, and policies to ensure that they are 
consistent with current levels of scientific knowledge and standards. 
The commenter stated that the 1997 risk assessment should form ``a link 
between scientific data and decision makers,'' but also that 
decisionmakers must have accurate and adequate scientific data upon 
which to base their decisions--which, the commenter argued, is not the 
case in this rulemaking. The commenter further claimed that the risk 
assessors' conclusion is simply an opinion--one not supported by any 
scientific rigor--and does not even appear to have been used by the 
decisionmakers.
    As noted elsewhere in this document, we have updated the 1997 risk 
assessment to bring it up to current standards. This update included 
(1) inserting the data from the 1997 risk assessment into the risk 
assessment document format currently used by APHIS, (2) searching for 
additional research and data published since the 1997 risk assessment 
was prepared that could have a bearing on the findings of the risk 
analysis, and (3) adding a substantial discussion of how the risk 
mitigation measures selected reduce the risk posed by quarantine pests 
of Phalaenopsis spp. orchids that can be expected to follow the import 
pathway. We believe that by making the link between the identified 
quarantine pests and the mitigation measures more apparent, we have 
addressed the commenter's concern about the need for a link between 
scientific data and decisionmakers. The 2003 risk analysis is based on 
the best data available to us at the time the analysis was drafted, and 
it provides a clear and rational basis as to why Phalaenopsis spp. 
orchids imported from Taiwan in growing media will not result in the 
introduction of plant pests or noxious weeds into the United States.
    Several commenters stated that the 1997 risk assessment should 
incorporate a rigorous study of conditions and practices at foreign 
nurseries and all existing inspection reports of imported bare-root 
orchid plants. The commenters expressed concern that imports of 
Phalaenopsis spp. orchids in growing media could result in the 
introduction of new insects and diseases into the United States, and 
stated that such pests would pose a grave threat to both indigenous 
species and commercially cultivated plants.
    The 1997 risk assessment and the risk assessment portion of the 
2003 risk analysis are based on (1) a search of all available 
scientific literature and (2) APHIS's pest interception records for 
imported plants of the genus Phalaenopsis and the plant family 
Orchidaceae. As such, we examined data on prior bare-root orchid 
imports and visited some of the production sites that would export as a 
result of the final rule. Furthermore, any exports of Phalaenopsis spp. 
orchids by Taiwan would be contingent on an inspection of the 
production sites by APHIS and the execution of the U.S-Taiwan agreement 
described earlier in this document. We believe our 2003 risk analysis 
provides an adequate analysis of the risks posed by quarantine pests, 
and documents how the measures in Sec.  319.37-8(e) remove those pests 
from the import pathway.
    Several commenters stated that basing a risk assessment on a 
literature search has some inherent weaknesses. One of the commenters 
stated that literature searches do not catch all pests due to the fact 
that pests have different common names, and because only the title 
words of literature are searched. Several commenters also stated that 
insufficient scientific literature and biological information regarding 
orchid pests exists to justify reliance upon a literature search, as 
orchids are not a major agricultural commodity and research has not 
been conducted to the necessary depth for every pest on every orchid 
species. Several commenters noted that orchids are a niche crop, and 
that as such, have not had the extensive research that more widely 
produced crops typically endure. One commenter stated that APHIS should 
conduct field tests and preclearance surveys on the imported plants in 
addition to a literature search. Another commenter claimed that the 
risk potential for all the pest species identified may be high, yet due 
to a lack of information, the potential effects of orchid importation 
cannot be adequately addressed at this time. Another commenter stated 
that the 1997 risk assessment may not consider all potential pests, and 
therefore, the mitigation measures would also have to mitigate any risk 
posed by unknown organisms. The commenter stated that the risk 
mitigations are not designed to protect against all potential 
unidentified pests.
    The purpose of conducting an analysis of the risk posed by imported 
agricultural commodities is to evaluate available scientific evidence 
and to provide an evaluation of the risk associated with the 
importation of those commodities. As such, APHIS can only make the 
determination to allow the importation of the commodity based on the 
current state of scientific knowledge. In developing the list of pests 
that are analyzed in the 1997 risk assessment and 2003 risk analysis, 
we began with a list of pests provided to us by Taiwan. We then 
consulted applicable scientific literature (including field surveys 
done to date) and reviewed APHIS's records to determine what pests were 
intercepted on imported plants of the genus Phalaenopsis. Literature 
searches are unique to each risk analysis, and typically begin with 
broad searches of both abstracts of publications and the entire text of 
publications, depending on the database being searched. These initial 
searches typically use scientific species, genus, and family names, as 
well as known common names of plants. As analysts learn more about the 
pests involved and their nomenclature, additional pest-specific 
searches are conducted.
    We believe these sources provide an adequate means to identify and 
assess pests of concern. Further, we disagree with commenters' 
contentions that orchids are niche crops. While orchids may not be one 
of the top-selling products in the entire floriculture industry, they 
rate highly among other potted flowering plants, according to data 
collected by the National Agricultural Statistics Service. (See http://www.usda.gov/nass/ for more information.)
    While we do not believe there is a shortage of appropriate 
scientific information in this specific case, if APHIS were to regulate 
the trade of agricultural commodities based on the risk posed by 
unknown factors, such an action could be viewed as highly arbitrary, 
which could potentially affect the export markets for our own 
domestically produced commodities. Under the PPA, APHIS protects 
American agriculture while facilitating the trade of agricultural 
commodities. There is always some uncertainty associated with the risk 
posed by imported agricultural products, and if zero risk were the 
standard applied, there would be no international trade in agricultural 
products. While we can never be certain that our methods, regulations, 
and policies will exclude pests 100 percent of the time, our goal is to 
do just that, to the extent practicable. We are confident that the 
measures required under this rule will reduce the risk posed by 
Phalaenopsis spp. plants imported from Taiwan in approved growing 
media. Our judgment is supported by the fact that bare-rooted 
Phalaenopsis spp. plants and the growing media in which they will be

[[Page 24921]]

imported have separately been imported from throughout the world for 
many years with no known associated pest problems. Given that the 
plants in growing media will be subject to a number of additional 
requirements (the effects of which are considered and evaluated in the 
risk management section of the 2003 risk analysis) that do not apply to 
bare-rooted plants, we believe that the risk posed by known and unknown 
pests is appropriately reduced, to the extent practicable, by the 
measures in Sec.  319.37-8(e).
    One commenter claimed that a pest should have been included in the 
pest list, but was not because it has multiple common names, including 
``spiraling whitefly,'' ``keys whitefly,'' and ``spiral whitefly.''
    While the commenter did not specify the scientific name of the 
pest, we assume he is referring to Aleurodicus dispersus. There is no 
available evidence to show that this pest attacks orchids in Taiwan. 
Our process for searching for pests associated with a given commodity 
is described earlier in this document.
    One commenter stated that APHIS should reassess the role that the 
propagative material pathway is playing in new pest introductions, 
claiming that the U.S. nursery and greenhouse industry has suffered 
from continuing pest incursions associated with plant material imports. 
The commenter claimed that the current system associated with imported 
propagative material is failing and that expanding the list of plant 
material allowed entry established in growing media using as a baseline 
the risk associated with bare-root materials--regardless of the 
acceptability of that current risk--is reckless.
    APHIS recognizes that the underlying structure of the regulations 
for nursery stock and other propagative material are different from the 
corresponding regulations for fruits and vegetables. Fruits and 
vegetables are prohibited entry into the United States unless the 
regulations specifically provide otherwise. In contrast, nursery stock 
and other propagative plant material (except plants imported in growing 
media) are allowed importation subject to inspection at a plant 
inspection station unless the regulations specifically provide 
otherwise. While APHIS conducts risk analyses in each case where the 
importation of a new fruit or vegetable is proposed, risk analyses are 
only conducted for nursery stock and propagative material in response 
to a demonstrated pest problem or in response to a new request to 
import plants in growing media. The regulations in Sec.  319.37-8(g) 
currently provide that APHIS will allow the importation of plants in 
growing media if it determines, using risk analysis, that the plants 
pose the same or less risk than bare-rooted plants which are already 
allowed importation under the current regulations in Quarantine 37. In 
this case, restricting the entry of Phalaenopsis spp. orchids in 
growing media is not necessary because the measures in Sec.  319.37-
8(e) reduce the risk posed by those plants to a level at or below that 
of bare-root plants.
    APHIS recognizes that there is a need to reconsider the underlying 
structure of the nursery stock regulations in order to better address 
the risk posed by propagative material and has been considering ways to 
approach the issue for several years. We are in the process of drafting 
an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking on the subject of revising 
Quarantine 37; however, we are not able to provide a projected 
publication date at this point.
    One commenter expressed confusion as to why the title of the 1997 
risk assessment indicates that seedlings are under consideration, yet 
neither the body of the 1997 risk assessment nor proposed rule address 
the distinction between seedlings and adult plants.
    The reference to seedlings in the title of the 1997 risk assessment 
was made in error. While Taiwan requested that we allow the importation 
of Phalaenopsis spp. seedlings in growing media, the 1997 risk 
assessment and 2003 risk analysis actually consider the risk posed by 
all plants regardless of whether they were grown from seed or whether 
they are a specific size or age.
    One commenter stated that some of the pests identified in the 1997 
risk assessment could affect other plants besides orchids and that 
APHIS should have discussed potential effects on those species in the 
proposed rule.
    Risk analyses conducted by APHIS are designed to assess the risk of 
introducing quarantine pests into the United States, regardless of the 
domestic plants that can serve as hosts for those pests. The 1997 risk 
assessment considered potential effects on other plants in its 
estimates of consequences of introduction, as does the 2003 risk 
analysis. We acknowledge that some pests attack other hosts besides 
orchids; however, the Secretary's determination to allow the 
importation of Phalaenopsis spp. orchids from Taiwan in growing media 
was derived from the conclusions of the 2003 risk analysis, which shows 
that importations of those plants will not result in the introduction 
of pests into the United States.
    One commenter stated that the importation of propagative material 
presents different levels of risk than does trade in major food 
commodity crops, which are well-studied. The commenter stated that more 
is known about the pests associated with fruits and vegetables, 
including those that are incidental, but that little is known about 
crops such as orchids, and therefore, informed decisionmaking is not 
possible. The commenter claimed that if a pest is allowed to enter and 
become established, there may not be enough knowledge about its 
background, enemies, physiology, hosts, and so on, to enable us to 
control it quickly.
    We agree with the commenter's statement that propagative material 
presents different risks than do food commodities, primarily because of 
the nature of the commodity. Pests associated with fruits and 
vegetables can be the same species as those associated with propagative 
plants. Nevertheless, as stated elsewhere in this document, we believe 
there are sufficient data available to conclude that the importation of 
Phalaenopsis spp. orchids in growing media from Taiwan will not result 
in the introduction of plant pests into the United States.
    One commenter stated that the 1997 risk assessment should consider 
the risk posed by microbial species that may inhabit the growing media. 
The commenter also claimed that all risk assessments must include 
experiments on the genetic consequences on ``founder populations'' of 
these alien species, as genetic changes and the evolution of new 
recombinants as a result of small population size can be extremely 
important in the ability of alien species to adapt to new habitats.
    The 1997 risk assessment and 2003 risk analysis for this action 
take into account all pests that are known to be associated with 
Phalaenopsis spp. orchids, and consider the unique risk posed by the 
plant imported in growing media. As stated elsewhere in this document, 
determinations as to whether a new agricultural commodity can be safely 
imported are based on the current state of knowledge and based on the 
information available, there is no reason to believe that the 
importation of Phalaenopsis spp. orchids in growing media from Taiwan 
will result in the introduction of plant pests such as the commenter 
has suggested (including microbial species). As such, we do not believe 
the experiments suggested by the commenter are necessary.
    One commenter stated that if pests are excluded from risk 
mitigation because they are not expected to remain with the commodity 
during harvest and

[[Page 24922]]

shipping, according to APHIS guidelines, references must be cited to 
support the pest's inability to follow the pathway.
    The risk assessments (1997 and 2003) for this action assume that 
all known pests are expected to follow the pathway if risk mitigation 
measures are not applied. However, most of the pests listed in table 2 
of the 2003 risk analysis (table 1 of the 1997 risk assessment) are 
excluded from further consideration because of two factors: (1) The 
pests do not meet the Food and Agriculture Organization of United 
Nations (FAO) definition of a ``quarantine pest'' for the United 
States, or (2) the pests have not been specifically linked in 
scientific literature or APHIS interception records with orchids of the 
genus Phalaenopsis. This winnowing of the list of pests is documented 
in detail in section E, ``Analysis of Quarantine Pests'' in the 2003 
risk analysis.
    One commenter stated that none of the conditions required by Sec.  
319.37-8(e) address the risks presented by Phalaenopsis spp. orchids 
that have flower spikes. The commenter noted that flower spikes 
increase pest risk because they provide a habitat for thrips, blossom 
mites, blossom midges, and other blossom-infesting organisms.
    There are no quarantine pests of the types cited by the commenter 
that have been specifically linked in scientific literature or APHIS 
pest interception records with orchids of the genus Phalaenopsis. 
Further, the operators of greenhouses in which plants imported under 
the regulations in Sec.  319.37-8(e) are required to apply measures 
necessary to eliminate pest infestation of plants being grown in an 
approved greenhouse, including infestations by pests such as those 
cited by the commenter. In the event that any such quarantine pests are 
confirmed to be associated with Phalaenopsis spp. plants in the future 
either in program greenhouses, in scientific literature, or via 
inspections by APHIS, we would adopt revised conditions that address 
the risk posed by those pests.
    One commenter stated that the World Trade Organization's Sanitary 
and Phytosanitary Agreement provides that members shall take into 
account relevant ecological and environmental conditions and quarantine 
or other treatment, and claimed that APHIS's 1997 risk assessment does 
not consider relevant ecological and environmental conditions. 
Specifically, the commenter noted that (1) pesticide use in other 
countries is less restrictive, (2) there are more chemical pesticides 
available, and (3) due to the long U.S. pesticide registration process, 
new pesticides in other countries are years ahead of sales in the 
United States. The commenter claimed that because of these factors, the 
presence of serious pathogens is masked and pests rapidly become 
resistant to pesticides. The commenter claimed that the risk assessment 
should provide for consideration as to whether introduced plant pests 
will arrive as resistant strains, since control of such strains is 
difficult, if not impossible.
    There is no specific scientific evidence that any of the quarantine 
pests affecting Phalaenopsis spp. are resistant to pesticides. 
Furthermore, APHIS has taken into account relevant ecological and 
environmental conditions in its risk analysis. We are confident that 
the measures required under the regulations in Sec.  319.37-8(e) will 
reduce the risk posed by Phalaenopsis spp. plants imported from Taiwan 
in growing media, regardless of whether or not the pests are resistant 
to pesticides. Our judgment is supported by the fact that these plants 
have been imported bare-rooted for many years, with no known associated 
pest problems. Given that the plants in growing media will be subject 
to a number of additional requirements that do not apply to bare-rooted 
plants, we believe that the risk posed by all plant pests is 
appropriately reduced by the measures in Sec.  319.37-8(e).
    One commenter claimed that the establishment of introduced pest 
species is far more likely in Hawaii than in other States, as Hawaii's 
climate and ecology are very similar to the proposed point of origin 
for this plant material, Taiwan. The commenter stated that, for this 
reason, Hawaii's State quarantine measures have historically focused on 
plants coming from within the 30[deg] parallels, yet the 1997 risk 
assessment for the proposed rule does not account for this. The 
commenter claimed that failure to address this point results in APHIS 
treating Hawaii's verdant ecosystems the same as those of urban 
environments without suitable hosts.
    APHIS's 2003 risk analysis is designed to assess the risk posed by 
all known pests that could be introduced into the United States via 
Phalaenopsis spp. plants imported from Taiwan in growing media. The 
intent of the regulatory approach chosen is to ensure that pests are 
not introduced into the United States, regardless of the destination of 
the plants. Specifically, in this case, the risk assessment identifies 
the climatological conditions in which identified pests could survive 
and the estimates of consequences of introduction of those pests 
reflect what is known about climate-host interaction and host range for 
the pests. While the consequences of the introduction of the identified 
pests into Hawaii differ from the consequences associated with 
introductions into urban environments, the risk assessment also 
considers introductions into a suitable habitat and introductions near 
suitable hosts. Nonetheless, given the application of mitigation 
measures that will be required under this final rule, there is a very 
low likelihood that an identified pest would be introduced into Hawaii 
via Phalaenopsis spp. plants imported in growing media from Taiwan.
Risk Ratings
    Two commenters argued that the risk rating for climate-host 
interaction should be assessed as high for all pest species because 
plant hardiness zone 11 includes more than just the southern part of 
Florida, which is the only area cited in the risk assessment. The 
commenters noted that plant hardiness zone 11 also includes Hawaii, 
Guam, American Samoa, Northern Mariana Islands, U.S. Virgin Islands, 
Federated States of Micronesia, and Puerto Rico, and stated that given 
this error the 2003 risk analysis does not adequately address the 
potential risks posed to these States and territories.
    We have corrected the 2003 risk analysis to show that plant 
hardiness zone 11 includes other States and territories besides 
Florida. However, this does not affect the risk ratings for climate-
host interaction \5\ in the 2003 risk analysis. As described in APHIS's 
``Guidelines for Pathway-Initiated Pest Risk Assessments'' (available 
on the Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/pra/commodity/cpraguide.pdf), risk ratings for climate-host interaction are based on 
the number of plant hardiness zones where a pest can establish, not the 
number of States that are contained within a specific plant hardiness 
zone. If a pest can establish in a specific U.S. plant hardiness zone, 
the risk assessment takes that into consideration, regardless of the 
number of States and territories that fall within the particular plant 
hardiness zone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ ``Climate-host interaction'' is one of several risk elements 
that factor into the overall ``consequences of introduction'' risk 
rating in commodity risk assessments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the purposes of commodity risk assessments, if a pest can 
establish in a single plant hardiness zone (e.g., zone 11, which occurs 
in parts of more than one State), the risk rating for climate host-
interaction is ``low.'' If a pest can establish in two or three plant 
hardiness zones (e.g., zones 9, 10, and 11), the risk rating for 
climate-host interaction is medium. If a pest can establish in four

[[Page 24923]]

or more plant hardiness zones, the risk rating for climate-host 
interaction is high. Given these facts, the risk ratings for climate-
host interaction for each identified pest in the 2003 risk analysis are 
appropriate.
    One commenter stated that the information given in the 2003 risk 
analysis does not accurately reflect the potential host range of the 
quarantine mealybug pest Planococcus minor. The commenter pointed out 
that the 2003 risk analysis characterizes the host range of P. minor 
(according to Cox, 1989) as including more than 30 species in over 10 
families, but that according to ScaleNet (http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov 
/scalenet/scalenet.htm), the host range of P. minor includes more than 
100 species in over 60 families, with many hosts being genera grown in 
the ornamental industry.
    APHIS agrees that the host range of Planococcus minor includes many 
hosts, but the mitigation measures are designed to reduce or eliminate 
this pest from production facilities and remove it from the pathway of 
the importation. Given that the risk rating for host range of 
Planococcus minor is already high, we do not see any need to revise our 
risk analysis based on this comment, since making such a change would 
not affect the estimates of risk or the overall conclusions of the risk 
analysis.
    One commenter noted that the host range for pathogens 
Cylindrosporium phalaenopsis and Sphaerulina phalaenopsis was assumed 
to be only Phalaenopsis. The commenter claimed that host range, if not 
known, should not be assumed to be restricted to orchids. The commenter 
stated that if only one host is known it may be because plant 
pathologists do not have the time or funds to undertake costly cross-
inoculation studies.
    As stated elsewhere in this document, APHIS makes determinations as 
to whether a new agricultural commodity can be safely imported based on 
data and research available to us. There is no evidence to suggest that 
the host range of the pests cited by the commenter is incorrectly rated 
in the risk assessment. Furthermore, ``cross-inoculation'' is not 
sufficient in this case. A complete demonstration of Koch's Postulates 
to establish pathogenicity is the standard for host range testing that 
plant pathologists have relied on since the start of modern plant 
pathology.
    One commenter stated that the host range of Phomopsis orchidolphila 
is nothing more than the extent of scientific observations and not a 
biological limit. The commenter noted that not all species of orchids 
have been tested and not found to be a host of this pathogen, and 
claimed that, contrary to the 2003 risk analysis, it is very likely 
that other orchid genera will be hosts of P. orchidophila but have not 
been observed yet.
    While APHIS agrees that many orchid genera are closely related, 
hybrids are common, and members of the Orchidaceae may be susceptible 
to a variety of pests, APHIS makes determinations as to whether a new 
agricultural commodity can be safely imported based on data and 
research available to us. There is no evidence to suggest that the host 
range of the pest cited by the commenter is incorrectly rated in the 
risk assessment. We are aware of no evidence that the importation of 
bare-rooted plants has led to the introduction of Phomopsis 
orchidolphila, so there is no reason to suspect that the lower-risk 
plants produced under this system are likely to be infected.
    One commenter stated that the dispersal potential of mollusks 
should be rated high in the 2003 risk analysis because of difficulty of 
finding them on the roots of orchid plants.
    APHIS acknowledges that mollusks may be difficult to detect on 
orchid plants, which is why the overall risk rating for the mollusks 
Acusta (= Bradybaena) tourranensis and Bradybaena spp. is ``medium.'' 
The overall rating would not change if the rating for dispersal 
potential was changed to medium or high, and, in any event, the risk 
management measures contained in Sec.  319.37-8(e) would appropriately 
reduce the risk posed by mollusks including Acusta (= Bradybaena) 
tourranensis and Bradybaena spp. regardless of whether the overall risk 
rating is ``medium'' or ``high.'' The ability of the measures to reduce 
the risk posed by mollusks, including A. tourranensis, is discussed in 
detail in the risk management section of the 2003 pest risk analysis.
    One commenter stated that the dispersal potential of Planococcus 
minor should be rated as high because finished, flowering orchids have 
not previously moved in international commerce, and that a lack of 
interceptions on bare-root plants is proof of nothing. The commenter 
claimed that the presence of mealybugs is a major cause of rejections 
of potted flowering orchid plants.
    Determinations as to whether a new agricultural commodity can be 
safely imported are based on data and research available to us. There 
is no evidence to suggest that the dispersal potential of the pest 
cited by the commenter is incorrectly rated in the risk assessment, and 
the commenter provided no data to suggest otherwise. Further, potted 
orchids plants have not been previously allowed importation into the 
United States from any location. The commenter's claim that ``mealybugs 
are a major cause of rejections of potted flowering orchid plants,'' 
pertains to interstate movements of potted plants that are not subject 
to the same measures as Phalaenopsis spp. imported from Taiwan. There 
are no Federal regulations governing the interstate movement of 
Phalaenopsis spp. plants.
    One commenter stated that it is incorrect to assume that the spores 
of S. phalaenopsis, P. orchidophila, and C. phalaenopsis are not 
dispersed over long distances since spores are carried by rain 
splashes. The commenter stated that observation of the roadsides in 
Hawaii shows that spores are likely to be widely dispersed, either by 
rain splashes, or in the air, and claimed that the dispersal rating for 
these pathogens should be rated as high.
    Our risk rating for the dispersal potential of S. phalaenopsis, P. 
orchidophila, and C. phalaenopsis is based on the need for both 
adequate rain and wind to disseminate these spores. While the anecdotal 
observation cited by the commenter suggests that these combined 
conditions occur in native U.S. habitats, the dispersal potential 
rating in the risk analysis also considers the dispersal potential 
derived from plants within greenhouses, production facilities, and 
interiorscapes where proper watering practices and reduced airflow are 
expected to limit the conditions that favor spore dispersal.
    One commenter claimed the 2003 risk analysis' prediction that no 
more than 10 shipping containers per year are expected to be imported 
from Taiwan is an understatement, as permission to import this 
commodity into the United States is likely to be linked with an 
increase in production and subsequent increases in volume of imports. 
The commenter claimed that the pest risk concerning the quantity of 
product should be properly assessed as high, not low.
    Our estimate that no more than 10 shipping containers per year are 
expected to be imported from Taiwan is based on information provided to 
us by Taiwan. We believe this estimate and the risk rating for 
``quantity imported annually'' contained in 2003 risk analysis are 
appropriate.
Pest List
    Two commenters stated that, in the 1997 risk assessment, 18 of the 
26 mollusk and arthropod quarantine pests do not have species 
identification and

[[Page 24924]]

are identified to family or genus level only. The commenters claimed 
that the risk assessment, therefore, does not comply with APHIS's own 
regulatory requirement that all quarantine pests be catalogued. One of 
the commenters also claimed that APHIS regulations require that an 
evaluation be made of the history of past plant pest interceptions or 
introductions, but that the 1997 risk assessment does not contain such 
an evaluation.
    The 2003 risk analysis catalogues all known pests that have been 
documented as being associated with Phalaenopsis spp. plants, and 
identifies all pests that are of quarantine significance. Contrary to 
one of the commenters' statements, the pests that were identified to 
family or genus level were selected because they appear in APHIS 
interception records for orchids; however, for the purposes of this 
action, APHIS did not select pests for further consideration in the 
risk assessment unless those specific pests were directly linked by 
scientific literature or pest interception records with the particular 
host species being imported. In this case, there is no evidence 
available to clearly establish that the pests identified to family or 
genus level are pests of Phalaenopsis spp. orchids.
    Several commenters stated that the 1997 risk assessment is based on 
an incomplete catalog of quarantine pests, and a few commenters 
identified specific pests that they claimed APHIS should consider in 
its risk assessment. Another commenter submitted a list of pests of 
orchids that were found during Hawaiian State plant inspections.
    As stated elsewhere in this document, APHIS is confident that the 
2003 risk analysis considers all pests known to be associated with 
Phalaenopsis spp. orchids. We reviewed lists of pests provided by 
commenters and found that our list of pests is complete. The lists 
provided did not contribute any new quarantine pests of Phalaenopsis 
spp. orchids from Taiwan.
    Several commenters claimed that only two mollusk taxa are discussed 
in the 2003 risk analysis, but many other species have potential to be 
imported with growing media, including Achatinidae (e.g., Achatina 
fulica, the giant African snail), species of Succinea (family 
Succineidae), Meghimatium species (slugs in the family Philomycidae), 
as well as various species of Subulinidae (especially species in the 
genus Opeas), Veronicellidae, Camaenidae, Helicarionidae, and 
Ariophantidae. The commenter claimed that many of these species are 
actionable by APHIS.
    There is no scientific evidence that any mollusks of quarantine 
significance are associated with Phalaenopsis spp. orchids in Taiwan 
besides those considered in the 2003 risk analysis. Further, even if 
one of the mollusks cited by the commenter was associated with 
Phaelanopsis spp. orchids in Taiwan, the mitigation measures required 
under this final rule would be sufficient to mitigate the risk posed by 
the pest.
    One commenter stated the 1997 pest risk assessment omits pathogenic 
roundworms, nematodes, phytopathogenic bacteria, and plant viruses 
vectored by insects, and stated that the pest risk assessment is 
focused only on ``the organisms for which biological information is 
available.'' The commenter claimed that the 1997 risk assessment does 
not comply with the requirement in Sec.  319.37-8(g)(2)(v) that any 
nonindigenous or native plant pest that may be able to vector another 
plant pest be identified and assessed. The commenter stated that 
undetected bacteria contained within orchids established in growing 
media or orchids serving as symptomless carriers of viruses are 
possibilities that must be addressed in the risk assessment.
    As stated earlier in this document, APHIS is confident that our 
1997 risk assessment and our 2003 risk analysis consider all pests 
known to be associated with Phalaenopsis spp. orchids. The commenter 
did not identify any specific pests for APHIS to evaluate. Further, 
based on the findings of our risk analysis, we believe that the 
measures contained in Sec.  319.37-8(e) will effectively remove all 
known quarantine pests from the import pathway. APHIS does not 
currently have any evidence to support the conclusion that any of the 
pests identified in the risk analysis are vectors of animal or plant 
diseases, therefore, we would not be justified in regulating the 
importation of Phalaenopsis spp. plants in growing media as if they 
posed a risk of introducing pests that serve as vectors of animal or 
plant diseases.
    One commenter stated that the species identifications for four 
fungal pathogens (Colletotrichum phalaenopsis, Cylindrosporium 
phalaenopsis, Phomopsis orchidophila, and Sphaerulina phalaenopsis) are 
incorrect, and therefore, the risk ratings for those pests are 
incorrect. The commenter stated that none of the species were found in 
the Permuterm Subject Index for 1985 to 1998 (January and February for 
1998), published by the Institute for Scientific Information, and 
questioned how the four fungal pathogens were identified to the species 
level in the 1997 risk assessment when there has been no species 
identification of these four fungal pathogens in the last 13 years. The 
commenter claimed that the four fungal pathogens should properly have 
been identified only to genus, the host range of these four genera 
should have been appraised as high, and, as a consequence, the risk 
rating for these four fungal pathogens should be assessed as high.
    To produce the pest list for the risk assessments on Phalaenopsis 
spp. orchids from Taiwan, the risk assessors relied on published 
scientific literature on pests of quarantine significance from that 
area. The references that supported the inclusion on the list of the 
four fungi \6\ were from periodicals listing fungal taxa (genus, 
species, and author), hosts (scientific names), and their geographical 
distributions. One of the references was a book which was a list of 
plant pests reported in Taiwan (published by Taiwan's plant protection 
organization). Another reference was the scientific journal Mycologia. 
Fungus names and host names were provided to the species level. Fungus 
names and authors of names were verified by using USDA-ARS National 
Fungus Collection's Database on Fungi operated from Beltsville, MD. 
Even if the pests were not reported or intercepted recently (i.e., in 
the last 13 years) APHIS would still consider that they occur in that 
area unless official notification by Taiwan was made declaring 
``eradication.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Colletotrichum phalaenopsidis, which was listed in the 1997 
risk assessment, was removed from futher consideration because it 
has been synonymized with C. gloeosporioides (Penz.), which is 
widely distributed in the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter stated that the mealybugs Pseudococcus importatus 
McKenzie and Pseudococcus microcirculus McKenzie are host specific to 
orchids and that Pseudococcus orchidicola Takahashi has a wide host 
range and could become a pest on many other plant species if 
established.
    The mealybugs cited by the commenter have not been linked 
specifically with Phalaenopsis spp. orchids in any scientific 
literature or by interception records. For this reason, they were not 
specifically considered in the 1997 risk assessment or 2003 risk 
analysis.
    One commenter stated that it is critical that risk analysis be 
conducted at the species level, and claimed that the extrapolation of 
data regarding one species across an entire genus is not acceptable. 
The commenter noted that, for an expert to accurately predict the 
potential impact of an exotic pest in the

[[Page 24925]]

United States, we must know what factors are responsible for its impact 
(or lack of impact) in the country of origin. The commenter stated that 
adding species of plants within the requested genus further complicates 
and reduces the probability of successful prediction of risk.
    In conducting the risk analysis for this action, we searched for 
information that linked specific pests with any plant in the genus 
Phalaenopsis in Taiwan, and we assumed that those pests found could 
affect any plants in the genus. We disagree that analysis needs to be 
conducted at the species level, since an analysis at the species level 
would have likely yielded far fewer pests, and a less-accurate 
prediction of the risk. In fact, our risk analysis would yield similar 
results if it were composed of a series of species-specific risk 
analyses; the same pests we have identified would have been cited in a 
series of documents, rather than in one document. If anything, the 
approach we have chosen may overestimate the risk posed by imports of 
certain species of Phalaenopsis spp. orchids in growing media, as 
identified pests may not actually be associated with the specific 
species and varieties of Phalaenopsis that may be imported under this 
final rule.
    One commenter stated that imported orchids pose a risk of 
introducing an unknown virus, which has no symptoms of infection until 
potted Phalaenopsis spp. orchids are mature and stressed. The commenter 
claimed that a major outbreak of this virus has occurred in Japan from 
potted Phalaenopsis spp. orchids imported from Taiwan, and that the 
virus is well established in Taiwan. The commenter also claimed that it 
is likely that the virus has arrived on the mainland and in Hawaii on 
bare-rooted Phalaenopsis spp. orchids shipped from Taiwan.
    As stated elsewhere in this document, we can only make 
determinations as to whether a new agricultural commodity can be safely 
imported based on available scientific evidence, and we are not aware 
of any evidence that supports the commenter's suggestion that a 
previously unknown disease or virus has been documented to affect 
Phalaenopsis spp. orchids. Given that the commenter did not identify 
the disease in question, we have no basis to revise our risk analysis 
in response to this comment.

Risk Management

General
    One commenter expressed concern as to why APHIS proposed this 
action given the fact that the 1997 risk assessment found that seven 
quarantine pests could be expected to follow the import pathway, and 
that the risk posed by each pest was rated ``high.'' The commenter 
stated that it would take an unwise ``leap of faith'' to assume that 
the mitigation measures will reduce identified high risks to acceptable 
levels.
    First, as explained earlier in this document, through the process 
of updating the risk assessment to bring it up to current standards, 
the baseline pest risk potential for five of the identified pests has 
been reassessed as ``medium.'' Only one (Spodoptera litura) of the 
original seven identified quarantine pests remains rated as ``high;'' 
the other pest (Colletotrichum phalaenopsidis) listed in the 1997 risk 
assessment was removed from further consideration because it was 
synonymized with C. gloeosporioides (Penz.), which is widely 
distributed in the United States. Second, as stated elsewhere in this 
document, in response to commenters' concerns that the measures chosen 
may not mitigate the risk posed by the pests identified, we have 
updated the 1997 risk assessment to include a thorough discussion of 
how the risks posed by the pests of concern, including the risk posed 
by Spodoptera litura, are mitigated by the measures in Sec.  319.37-
8(e).
    Several commenters stated that no manner of risk mitigation can be 
completely effective, nor can there be any guarantees that a 
surreptitious pest in an imported Phalaenopsis plant or its growing 
medium will not spread to other plants, including food crops and 
indigenous flora. One commenter questioned whether APHIS will be held 
accountable for any introduction of new pests that occur if the 
proposed rule is adopted.
    As stated elsewhere in this document, while we can never be certain 
that our methods, regulations, and policies will exclude pests 100 
percent of the time, our goal is to do just that, to the extent 
practicable. We are confident that the measures required under this 
rule will effectively remove all identified quarantine pests from the 
import pathway. Again, if zero tolerance for pest risk were the 
standard applied to international trade in agricultural products, it is 
likely that no country would ever be able to export an agricultural 
commodity to any other country. There will always be some degree of 
pest risk associated with the movement of agricultural products; 
however, as stated in the PPA, APHIS will ``facilitate exports, 
imports, and interstate commerce in agricultural products and other 
commodities that pose a risk of harboring plant pests or noxious weeds 
in ways that will reduce, to the extent practicable, as determined by 
the Secretary, the risk of dissemination of plant pests or noxious 
weeds.''
    In the highly unlikely event that a new pest is introduced into the 
United States as a result of the importation of Phalaenopsis spp. 
orchids from Taiwan in growing media, responsibility for managing that 
situation would reside with APHIS, in cooperation with States and 
industry.
    One commenter stated that mitigation measures to control the 
growing environment can only be effective if enough is known about the 
specific diseases and pest species associated with the import in the 
country of origin. The commenter claimed that, in this case, the lack 
of available biological information raises doubts as to how effective 
any mitigation efforts will be.
    As stated elsewhere in this document, we identified all known 
quarantine pests of Phalaenopsis spp. orchids and evaluated the ability 
of the mitigation measures to mitigate the risk posed by those 
particular pests. We believe sufficient biological information is 
available to determine that these plants can be safely imported into 
the United States.
    One commenter stated that monitoring reduces pest risk by lowering 
the level of pest infestation, which does not negate the presence of 
pests. The commenter claimed that lowered pest levels are more 
difficult to detect upon inspection at the nursery and at the port of 
entry, yet the pest still has the capability to be introduced and 
established in a new environment.
    While it is true that the mitigation measures required under this 
rule are intended to reduce pest introduction into the United States, 
the level of pest infestation of all imported plants is generally very 
low to begin with. While very low levels of pest infestation are harder 
to detect than high levels of pest infestation, we believe that the 
reductions in pest levels resulting from the application of the 
measures specified in Sec.  319.37-8(e) will not affect our ability to 
prevent the introduction of plant pests into the United States. As with 
other systems approaches, the measures in Sec.  319.37-8(e) provide an 
overlapping series of safeguards which, even if one of the measures 
fails, still ensures that the risk of pest introduction is reduced to 
the extent practicable.
    One commenter stated that the mitigative effects of the 
requirements in Sec.  319.37-8(e) are not sufficient to reduce the risk 
posed by plants imported in

[[Page 24926]]

growing media to the same level as that posed by bare-rooted plants or 
plants imported on other approved epiphytic growing media.
    As stated in our proposed rule, and based on the findings of the 
2003 risk analysis, we believe the mitigation measures required under 
this rule are sufficient to reduce the risk posed by Phalaenopsis spp. 
orchids imported in growing media to the same level, or a lower level, 
than that posed by bare-rooted plants. Plants that are currently 
allowed to be imported with bare roots are subject only to inspection 
at the port of entry, while plants imported in media under the 
conditions of Sec.  319.37-8(e) are subject to additional conditions 
that reduce the risk that those plants could become infested with pests 
prior to export to the United States or introduce pests into the United 
States.
    One commenter claimed that the success of the proposed rule depends 
upon the cooperation and enforcement of the exporting country, which in 
many cases simply are inadequate or underfunded. The commenter claimed 
that compliance with the conditions spelled out in Sec.  319.37-8(e) 
could only be assured if an inspector were on-site every hour of every 
day in every ``certified'' greenhouse--and perhaps not even then--and 
stated that signing an agreement does not guarantee that it will be 
followed. The commenter stated that APHIS should take extra precautions 
to enter only into agreements that have a high likelihood of compliance 
and claimed that there is no such assurance in this case.
    The regulations in Sec.  319.37-8 require that for orchid producers 
of Taiwan to export Phalaenopsis spp. orchids to the United States, 
there must be an agreement in place that stipulates provisions for how 
the regulations will be enforced. Furthermore, each grower who wishes 
to export to the United States under the regulations must enter into an 
agreement with the plant protection organization of Taiwan whereby he 
or she must agree to comply with the provisions of the regulations in 
Sec.  319.37-8 and to allow APHIS inspectors, and representatives of 
Taiwan's plant protection service, access to the growing facility as 
necessary to monitor compliance with the provisions of this section.
    We disagree with the commenter that these agreements do not provide 
for verification that the conditions specified in the regulations will 
be followed. As noted elsewhere in this document, APHIS monitors 
production sites to ensure compliance with the regulations. If the 
regulations are not followed, inspections of the production sites and 
inspections of the imported plants at the ports of entry in the United 
States will reveal as much, and APHIS may hold all imports until an 
investigation can be completed and appropriate measures initiated, 
including stopping imports from a specific producer or shutting down 
the entire program, if the circumstances show that such an action is 
warranted. For this reason, the plant protection organization of Taiwan 
and growers have an economic incentive to follow the regulations.
    Two commenters stated that none of the conditions required by Sec.  
319.37-8(e) mitigates the risk of contamination of plants in growing 
media by fungal spores. The commenters stated that while the 1997 risk 
assessment identifies 12 fungal pests of Phalaenopsis spp. orchids, 3 
of these fungi have teleomorphic or sexual stages, which produce spores 
that will contaminate growing media, be discharged into air currents, 
and quickly travel throughout a greenhouse. The commenter stated that 
since fungal spores are microscopic in size, they cannot be detected 
via inspection.
    The fact that plants will be required to be grown in greenhouses 
for a minimum of 4 months, propagated from clean mother stock, and 
watered with clean water sources reduces the risk that undetected 
infections will occur. Many fungal spores are able to travel by air and 
water, but it is unlikely that the spores will gain entry into a 
greenhouse, spread to plants intended for export, and infect the 
plants, and that the subsequent symptoms of infection will escape 
detection during both the 4-month pre-export quarantine period and port 
of entry inspection. APHIS agrees that unlike leaf-spot symptoms, 
microscopic fungal spores are not likely to be detected via inspection, 
but the risk analysis accounts for this within its risk element rating 
for the ability of the pest to evade detection. If greenhouses are 
contaminated by fungal spores, plants are likely to show symptoms or 
signs of infection prior to export to the United States, or at an 
inspection station in the United States. If fungal infection is 
detected in the greenhouse, surrounding plants would be removed from 
the greenhouse and remedial measures would be applied to ensure that 
the fungal spores do not reinfest clean plants. If fungal infection is 
detected at the port of entry into the United States, the plants would 
be refused entry, and APHIS may hold all imports until an investigation 
can be completed and appropriate measures initiated, including stopping 
imports from a specific producer or shutting down the entire program, 
if the circumstances show that such an action is warranted.
    Furthermore, Phalaenopsis spp. plants have been imported bare-
rooted for years, subject simply to inspection at a port of entry. 
Bare-rooted plants are more likely to be infected with a fungal pest 
than plants grown under the stringent conditions of Sec.  319.37-8(e), 
yet there have been no major problems with Phalaenopsis spp. plants 
imported with bare roots.
    One commenter stated that APHIS should employ postentry risk 
management to reduce the risk posed by Phalaenopsis imported in growing 
media. The commenter claimed that in this case, an effective post-
harvest disinfestation treatment is needed for Thrips palmi.
    As stated elsewhere in this document, we are confident that the 
measures contained in Sec.  319.37-8(e) will mitigate the risk posed by 
orchids of the genus Phalaenopsis imported in growing media from 
Taiwan. The effectiveness of these measures renders postentry risk 
management other than inspection unnecessary. Thrips palmi has not been 
documented as being specifically associated with Phalaenopsis spp. 
plants. Should Thrips palmi or any other quarantine-significant pest be 
detected in shipments of Phalaenopsis spp. plants in the future, or in 
the event that such a pest is linked to Phalaenopsis in scientific 
literature, we may reevaluate whether the measures we have chosen 
mitigate the risk posed by the particular pests discovered.
    One commenter claimed that there is a lack of plant virus control 
by growers in Taiwan because they do not sterilize tools between 
plants.
    Our 2003 risk analysis did not identify any quarantine-significant 
viruses that are associated with Phalaenopsis spp. orchids in Taiwan. 
Nonetheless, growers will be required to perform specific sanitary 
measures under the requirements of the rule and the bilateral workplan 
that APHIS enters into with the plant protection organization of 
Taiwan.\7\ Greenhouse

[[Page 24927]]

operating procedures will specify that sterilization of tools between 
plants must occur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ A bilateral workplan is a written agreement between APHIS 
and a foreign plant protection organization that clarifies the 
responsibilities of each organization in enforcing APHIS regulations 
that pertain to preclearance export programs. The workplan also 
clarifies how specific aspects of the program operate, and may 
include directives as to how certain pest problems must be remedied. 
The workplan goes into more detail regarding the day to day 
operation of the programs than do the regulations in the CFR, and, 
because of their separation from the CFR, workplans are flexible and 
can be revised as needed based on changing circumstances in the 
exporting country. The workplan is enforceable, and failure of the 
exporting country to abide by the conditions of the workplan is 
grounds for suspension, and possibly cancellation, of the export 
program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter stated that laboratory testing is necessary to 
confirm the absence of pests such as latent viruses and nematodes, and 
that it is necessary to keep a log of pesticide applications that 
indicates pesticides used, dosage, and date of application.
    Based on the findings of the 2003 risk analysis, we believe there 
is no basis to require laboratory testing of plants intended for export 
to the United States. We are confident that the measures required under 
the regulations are sufficient to address the risk posed by 
Phalaenopsis spp. orchids from Taiwan. Further, the bilateral workplan 
for the export program will require growers to keep a log of pesticide 
applications as suggested by the commenter. This type of requirement is 
standard in APHIS's plants in growing media import programs.
    Two commenters claimed that pest control during the growing period 
and an efficacious disinfestation treatment prior to shipment are 
necessary to ensure pest-free orchid plants. The commenters claimed 
that the systems approach should include an effective postproduction 
treatment.
    Based on the findings of the 2003 risk analysis, we believe there 
is no basis to require plants intended for export to the United States 
to be subjected to a specific post-harvest treatment regimen. Further, 
it is the responsibility of the growers of these plants in the 
exporting country to apply pesticides and fungicides as necessary to 
ensure that plants are pest-free.
    One commenter claimed that the program requirements will not 
address the dispersal potential of identified mollusk pests, and 
claimed that 46 cm benches are not high enough. The commenter claimed 
that, in Hawaii, slugs and snails easily travel 90 cm to infest plants 
on benches of that height.
    If the height of benches were the only risk-mitigating factor to 
protect against the infestation of Phalaenopsis spp. orchids by 
mollusks (i.e., if plants were not grown in greenhouses subject to the 
requirements of Sec.  319.37-8(e)), then we would agree with the 
commenter that the risk posed by those pests may have been too great. 
However, plants are subject to a series of mitigation measures intended 
to keep mollusks out of the greenhouse, and, in the unlikely event that 
they enter the greenhouse, they are subject to additional control 
measures. Should we find evidence that mollusks are present in program 
greenhouses, we may require additional risk mitigation for those pests, 
such as attaching copper flashing to vertical structural components.
    One commenter claimed that the regulations should include explicit 
requirements for greenhouse sanitation such as those imposed on 
imported geraniums.
    The regulations do require that plants be grown in a greenhouse in 
which sanitary procedures sufficient to exclude plant pests and 
diseases are always applied. The bilateral workplan for the program 
will specify measures that are believed by APHIS to be necessary to 
meet this requirement.
    One commenter stated that the regulations should include a 
requirement that prohibits packing at night under lights and packing 
outside of the pest exclusionary greenhouse.
    The bilateral workplan will require plants to be packed inside the 
greenhouse. We see no need to require that plants not be packed at 
night since plants will be packed in greenhouses that exclude 
quarantine pests.
Inspection at the Port of Entry
    One commenter stated that inspection should be considered the first 
line of defense, and not considered to be a ``catch all'' for pests 
that are able to exist on the plant in potting media despite proposed 
safeguards. The commenter stated that Hawaii's pest interceptions on 
orchid plants from 1988 to 1998 indicate that it is difficult to 
intercept pests on orchid plants, as evidenced by the fact that, only 
later, while under Hawaii's mandatory 60-day quarantine in secure 
quarantine facilities, did pests develop into larger populations that 
became observable, or develop to a detectable state, or produce signs 
(i.e., exit holes) that could be detected. The commenter stated that 
the Hawaii Department of Agriculture has intercepted a large number of 
pests on bare-rooted orchids, and expressed concern as to whether those 
pests could be found on potted materials when inspectors from two 
separate agencies (foreign and APHIS) could not find these pests on 
bare-rooted materials.
    It is significant to note that inspection is the last in a series 
of safeguards required under this final rule to ensure that 
Phalaenopsis spp. orchids imported in growing media do not introduce 
plant pests into the United States, including Hawaii. It is also 
significant to note that the pests detected by Hawaii's inspectors were 
found on bare-rooted plants, which, in contrast to plants imported 
under this final rule, are allowed importation subject only to 
inspection. As a practical matter, under this rule, inspection at the 
port of entry is not the ``first line of defense,'' since it is the 
last phytosanitary measure applied to Phalaenopsis spp. from Taiwan. As 
such, it is the last remaining means by which to ensure, to the extent 
possible, that plants are pest-free prior to release into domestic 
commerce. The various other measures required under Sec.  319.37-8(e) 
are intended to ensure that the plants are free of pests prior to 
arrival at a port of entry into the United States.
    One commenter stated that inspection at the port of entry is not an 
effective mitigation measure, especially given the list of pests that 
have become established in the United States in recent years, 
apparently associated with the living plant or cut flower/decorative 
plant material pathways.
    APHIS believes that inspection, as a mitigation measure, is more 
effective in some cases than others. For instance, if a pest associated 
with a commodity is large and not mobile, we would likely consider 
inspection sufficient mitigation for the risk posed by the pest. In a 
case where a pest is difficult to detect via inspection, we would 
employ inspection in combination with other measures that reduce the 
likelihood that the plants being inspected are infested with the pest. 
In this case, the regulations in Sec.  319.37-8(e) place several 
restrictions on plants imported under this final rule. Inspection is 
just one in a series of measures that, taken together, reduce the 
likelihood that plants released into U.S. commerce will contain pests 
that could harm U.S. agriculture or the natural environment.
    One commenter questioned at what rate orchids would be inspected 
upon arrival at U.S. ports of entry.
    For at least the first year of the program, APHIS would inspect a 
large percentage (greater than 50 percent) of each shipment of 
Phalaenopsis spp. orchids imported in growing media from Taiwan. In 
subsequent years, the rate of sampling may increase or decrease 
depending on the results of previous inspections (i.e., based on how 
well the program appears to be working). In the event that pests are 
found, APHIS may hold all imports until an investigation can be 
completed and appropriate measures initiated, including stopping 
imports from a specific producer or shutting down the entire program, 
if the circumstances show that such an action is warranted.
Screening and Doors
    Three commenters stated that screens of 0.6 mm mesh are inadequate 
to keep out certain important pests. One of the

[[Page 24928]]

commenters claimed that the melon aphid and the silverleaf whitefly 
will pass through screens with mesh sizes of 0.281 mm, and that 
quarantine pests of Phalaenopsis spp. orchids, including Dichromothrips 
spp., Frankliniella intonsa, Frankliniella schultezi, and Thrips palmi 
will not be excluded with hole sizes as small as 0.073 mm. The 
commenter also stated that the required 0.6 mm opening will not exclude 
aphids, whiteflies, thrips, and crawlers of mealybug, including 
Planococcus minor, soft scales, and armored scales, including 
Parlatoria spp., as well as young nymphal stages of leafhoppers. The 
commenter noted that Dichromothrips spp., Frankliniella intonsa, 
Frankliniella schultezi, Planococcus minor, Parlatoria spp., and Thrips 
palmi are identified quarantine pests of Phalaenopsis spp. orchids, and 
that Planococcus minor is one of the identified quarantine pests of 
Phalaenopsis spp. orchids that is most likely to travel with the plant 
and has the greatest potential for economic damage.
    The screen mesh size required under the regulations in Sec.  
319.37-8(e) is sufficient to exclude all life stages of all quarantine 
pests of Phalaenopsis spp. orchids identified in our risk analysis, 
except for the crawler stage of Planococcus minor. That said, the 
likelihood that P. minor could invade a greenhouse and infest 
Phalaenopsis grown in media is very low. The crawler, which is not 
highly mobile, would have to either crawl through a screen, up a bench, 
and onto plants'--or be blown in the air through a screen and fall 
directly on a plant below. Nonetheless, even if P. minor invaded a 
greenhouse, it would likely be detected during greenhouse or port of 
entry inspections, thus greatly reducing the chance that it could be 
introduced into the United States via imported Phalaenopsis spp. 
plants.
    One commenter stated that equipping entryways with automatic 
closing doors is of little protection, unless double door systems are 
used and the production areas are under positive pressure. Another 
commenter stated that during the short period when a door is opened, 
flying insects, such as adults of the nocturnal, high-risk pest cluster 
caterpillar (Spodoptera litura) are capable of entering the greenhouse, 
especially if it is lighted. The commenter claimed that if a mated 
female moth entered the greenhouse, she would be capable of laying 
fertile eggs on potted orchids.
    APHIS acknowledges that pests may be able to gain access to 
greenhouses, but it is the responsibility of the person growing the 
plants to ensure that does not happen. Regular inspections of growing 
premises are intended to ensure that plants are grown in a pest-free 
environment, and our past experience with this type of program provides 
evidence that this approach is successful.
    Regarding Spodoptera litura specifically: If a mated adult female 
entered the greenhouse and laid eggs on plants, given that those eggs 
are relatively large and are typically laid in one location, the eggs 
would likely be detected by a simple visual inspection. If the eggs 
went undetected and hatched, the damage caused by the larvae would be 
detectable during the growing period or at the port of entry.
    One commenter stated that ants and other pests that move 
underground will not be excluded by mesh screens and automatic doors. 
The commenter stated that ants intercepted on bare-root orchids in the 
past are generalist predators and, if established, some species would 
most certainly become pests in urban, agricultural, and natural 
environments. The commenter cited, as an example, the introduced ant 
Linepithema humile (Mayr), which has had a devastating effect on many 
native and endangered plant and animal species in Hawaii.
    We are not aware of how the ant Linepithema humile (Mayr) was 
introduced into Hawaii, but we have no reason to believe that its 
introduction had anything to do with imports of plants in growing 
media, or imports of orchids specifically. Ants that are associated 
with vegetation are worker ants, which are not generally reproductive, 
and which therefore present little risk of establishment if imported 
into the United States. Ants generally only pose a risk of becoming 
established in the United States if a queen were imported in a plant in 
growing media. Given the fact that signs of ant infestation of 
Phalaenopsis spp. plants in growing media would be relatively obvious 
in the greenhouse in Taiwan and at the port of entry into the United 
States, and given the fact that media must be safeguarded against pest 
introduction prior to entry into the greenhouse, we do not believe the 
risks posed by ants require additional risk mitigation. Again, if 
pests, including ants, are detected in a program greenhouse, remedial 
measures must be applied, and the infestation must be eliminated.
    One commenter stated that rusts, such as Coleosporium merillii, 
Uromyces spp., Puccinia spp., and Uredo spp. have spores able to 
penetrate through mesh screens.
    The commenter is correct that rust fungi have spores that could 
penetrate mesh screens, however, according to our risk analysis, there 
are no known quarantine significant rusts that are associated with 
Phalaenopsis spp. orchids in Taiwan. In general, greenhouse mesh 
screens are not intended to prevent the entry of fungal spores, 
although the decrease in air flow associated with screening may provide 
some benefits. The exclusion of diseases begins with the use of only 
clean stock plants and media, and continues via the rapid detection and 
removal of symptomatic plant tissues. Other mitigation measures that 
are part of good plant production practices, such as sanitation and 
proper watering, are expected to be more effective in reducing or 
eliminating diseases than manipulation of the mesh screen size.
    One commenter questioned whether 0.8 mm mesh size screens would be 
sufficient, rather than 0.6 mm screens.
    Given the pests known to be associated with Phalaenopsis spp. 
plants in Taiwan, and the fact that other APHIS plants in growing media 
programs have been successful in keeping plants pest-free using 0.6 mm 
screens, we believe that size mesh is necessary.
Greenhouse Inspections and Pest Freedom
    One commenter stated that the requirement that a greenhouse be 
``found free from evidence of plant pests and diseases * * * no more 
than 30 days prior to the date of export to the United States'' is 
inadequate. The commenter stated that, during that period of time, any 
number of pests could become established and develop in the greenhouse, 
and then be imported into the United States.
    The requirement that plants be inspected no more than 30 days prior 
to export grew out of the practical reality of inspecting the plants. 
Greenhouses ship plants periodically--sometimes several different 
shipments in one month--and it is often not feasible for inspectors to 
visit greenhouses and perform inspections for each shipment of plants 
during the day or week they are shipped. Rather, the inspectors inspect 
and approve plants for export within the next 30 days, which allows the 
owner of the plants to ship certified plants as needed during that time 
frame. If plants that are inspected and certified are not shipped 
within 30 days, they must be reinspected. While it is possible that 
plants could become infested with a pest during the short time between 
inspection and shipment from the greenhouse, it is highly unlikely, as

[[Page 24929]]

shown by our years of experience in allowing imports of plants in 
growing media under the regulations in Sec.  319.37-8(e). Furthermore, 
as noted earlier in this document, it is in the interest of producers 
to ship only pest-free plants, or else risk that the plants be refused 
entry into the United States upon inspection at a plant inspection 
station.
    Two commenters stated that even under near-optimal conditions of 
chemical pest control, it is unlikely that a greenhouse can be kept 
pest-free over extended periods of time.
    In section D of the risk management portion of the 2003 risk 
analysis, we describe the historical performance of existing programs 
for the export to the United States of plants in growing media. Our 
review of those programs found that during the approximately 200 
inspectional site visits made to greenhouses participating in plants in 
growing media programs, no pests were found. While it is possible that 
pests could infest program greenhouses, the regulations in Sec.  
319.37-8(e) and the bilateral workplans for such export programs are 
designed to ensure that plants are not infested with pests of 
quarantine significance.
    One commenter questioned how often greenhouses would be inspected 
in Taiwan.
    Approved greenhouses will be inspected at least monthly by 
officials of Taiwan's plant protection organization to monitor for 
compliance with the regulations, and APHIS personnel will make multiple 
inspections during the first year of the program, followed by at least 
one inspection per year in subsequent years.

Risk Associated With Growing Media

    One commenter stated that fungal plant pathogens of Phalaenopsis 
orchids, including Colletotrichum phalaenopsis, Cylindrosporium 
phalaenopsis, Phomopsis orchidophila, and Sphaerulina phalaenopsis, 
could be introduced into the United States unless the media and pots 
were removed to expose roots.
    We disagree that it will be necessary to remove growing media from 
plants to detect these fungal diseases,\8\ which can cause leaf-
spotting or canker symptoms on affected plant parts. These are not 
primarily root-affecting fungi. Orchids routinely produce roots that 
protrude from associated media, and these will be visible to 
inspectors. Furthermore, inspectors at APHIS's plant inspection 
stations (into which all plants in growing media must be imported) do 
remove growing media from plants to inspect their root systems for soil 
or other pests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Colletotrichum phalaenopsidis was removed from further 
consideration in the 2003 risk analysis because it has been 
synonymized with C. gloeosporioides (Penz.), which is widely 
distributed in the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter stated that the proposal, if adopted, will create 
another avenue for the illegal importation of wild-collected plants, 
because it will inhibit inspection of the root systems of imported 
plants. The commenter stated that one of the major factors in 
determining whether a plant is wild-collected instead of artificially 
propagated is the nature and condition of the root system.
    As stated elsewhere in this document, it is in the interest of the 
exporting country to ensure that the conditions of the regulations are 
met. Failure to abide by the conditions could result in rejection of 
shipments of plants, as well as suspension of the program. As such, 
Taiwan's plant protection organization is responsible for verifying 
that plants are artificially propagated and in compliance with the 
program--otherwise Taiwan risks suspension of the program. If APHIS 
finds one quarantine pest in a shipment of imported plants, we may hold 
all imports until an investigation can be completed and appropriate 
measures initiated, including stopping imports from a specific producer 
or shutting down the entire program, if the circumstances show that 
such an action is warranted. We wish to make it clear that we will 
accept certifications made by the plant protection organization of 
Taiwan as true unless there is a reason to believe that certifications 
are being made improperly. Regardless, as stated in response to the 
previous comment, inspectors at APHIS's plant inspection stations (into 
which all plants in growing media must be imported) do remove growing 
media from plants to inspect their root systems.
    Several commenters stated that increased risk of pest introduction 
comes not from Phalaenopsis spp. plants but from the medium in which 
they are shipped, which, they alleged, the 1997 risk assessment did not 
consider. The commenters stated that the likelihood of importing pests 
and diseases is greatly increased where plants are already established 
in sphagnum, or any other growing medium, as bare root plants allow a 
more thorough inspection of plant roots and easier detection of any 
pests or diseases which may be present. One commenter stated that the 
mounding of media around the bases of plants obscures not only the 
roots but also the lower leaf axils where additional pests occur. The 
commenter stated that the medium also provides harborage for dormant 
pest stages and may delay pest and disease symptoms. One commenter 
stated that insects and other pests that feed on roots are found in 
substrates during part of their life cycle may not be noticed by the 
APHIS inspector during inspection. The commenters also stated that 
there may be an unacceptable risk of pest introduction associated with 
even bare-root orchids.
    The 1997 risk assessment and 2003 risk analysis take into account 
the fact that growing media has an effect on pests' ability to find 
suitable shelter and an effect on the ability of inspectors to detect 
certain pests that may be obscured by growing media. Specifically, the 
risk assessment took these factors into consideration in its estimates 
of the likelihood of introduction (see table 6 and preceding text in 
the 2003 risk analysis). The risk posed by growing media in and of 
itself was not considered in the risk assessment, because the specific 
types of growing media are already approved and listed in Sec.  319.37-
8(e)(1) of the regulations, and have been successfully imported into 
the United States for years.\9\ Such media does not present a risk of 
pest introduction into the United States. In particular, sphagnum moss, 
which APHIS expects to be the growing medium of choice for growers in 
Taiwan, is exported in bulk and in association with plants imported 
under the regulations in Sec.  319.37-8(e) from countries all over the 
world.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See section D of the risk management section of the 2003 
risk analysis for additional detail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on many years of inspections of bare-rooted Phalaenopsis spp. 
orchids, we do not believe that it is necessary to impose any 
additional restrictions on their entry. Our interception records shows 
that, since 1988, there have been fewer than 50 interceptions of 
quarantine significant pests on orchids of the genus Phalaenopsis from 
Taiwan. This number compares favorably with numbers of interceptions 
for other imported plants. It suggests that the risk posed by these 
plants is low, and that pests are generally not associated with 
Phalaenopsis spp. orchids
    Several commenters claimed that the importation of Phyllosticta or 
Guignardia species in vandaceous orchids imported from southeast Asia 
is already happening, and that potting media will only make it worse.
    There is no interception evidence that either of the pests cited by 
the commenter is associated with Phalaenopsis spp. orchids in Taiwan or 
would be associated with imports of

[[Page 24930]]

those plants in growing media. Furthermore, there is no evidence that 
the unidentified Phyllosticta and Guignardia species are even of 
quarantine concern on vandaceous orchids.
    Several commenters claimed that immature stages of biting midges 
(Ceratopoginidae = Culicoides spp., Forcipomyia spp.) that are present 
in Taiwan could be imported in sphagnum moss. The commenters claimed 
that given the size of the midges, the mitigation measures required by 
the rule cannot prevent them from entering greenhouses where plants 
intended for export to the United States are grown. The commenters 
claimed the midges can vector arboviruses, filarial worms, other 
parasites, and in addition, could be major pests to humans in areas 
such as Hawaii which have climatic conditions to support their 
survival.
    APHIS believes that there is a very low likelihood that biting 
midges that can vector animal diseases will be imported in Phalaenopsis 
spp. plants from Taiwan. First, the growing medium in which the plants 
are potted is very unlikely to contain midges when it enters the 
greenhouse, and even if it did, under the regulations, in Sec.  319.37-
8(e)(2)(ii) measures must be applied to ensure that pests are excluded 
from the greenhouse, and that action is taken against pests that do 
enter the greenhouse. While the regulations do not require any specific 
pest-control measures such as pesticide applications to be applied in 
the greenhouse, it is the responsibility of the greenhouse owner to 
ensure that plants exported to the United States are free of all pests, 
including biting midges. Furthermore, it is the responsibility of 
Taiwan's plant protection organization to verify that growers follow 
the conditions of the regulations. This involves ensuring that the 
growing media (likely sphagnum moss imported from another country) is 
safeguarded against pest infestation at all times prior to entry of the 
media into the greenhouse, and that, in the highly unlikely event that 
pests enter the greenhouse, they are dealt with accordingly.
    Furthermore, sphagnum moss has been imported into the United States 
for years, and there is no evidence to suggest that media used for 
commercial plant production has been or will be a pathway for entry of 
biting midges into the United States.
    One commenter questioned whether sphagnum moss must be sterilized 
or pasteurized, and claimed that the regulations should include such a 
requirement.
    Based on years of importations and inspections of various types of 
approved growing media, including sphagnum moss, we are confident that 
approved media, by virtue of their natural composition, are 
inhospitable to most pest species. Further, under the conditions of the 
bilateral workplan for this program, media will have to be safeguarded 
against pest infestation prior to entry into the greenhouse.
    One commenter claimed that snail eggs may be laid in growing media 
and are not visible to inspectors.
    While it is possible to detect the presence of snail eggs visually 
under certain circumstances, it is highly unlikely, given the measures 
required under Sec.  319.37-8(e), that quarantine significant snails 
will have access to plants.
    Several commenters expressed confusion over what type of growing 
medium will be used. The commenters stated that the proposed rule 
discusses sphagnum moss in several places but speaks of ``other 
approved media'' such as coconut fiber and tree fern. The commenters 
claimed that the pest risk associated with each medium will vary based 
on various factors, including the source of the medium, its age, and 
state of decomposition, among others.
    Under this final rule, plants may be imported in any approved 
growing medium listed in Sec.  319.37-8(e)(1), although sphagnum moss 
will likely be the most commonly used type. The following growing media 
are also approved: Baked expanded clay pellets, cork, glass wool, 
organic and inorganic fibers, peat, perlite, polymer stabilized starch, 
plastic particles, phenol formaldehyde, polyethylene, polystyrene, 
polyurethane, rock wool, sphagnum moss, ureaformaldehyde, vermiculite, 
or volcanic rock, or any combination of these media. Growing media must 
not have been previously used.
    Several commenters expressed concern that the importation of 
Phalaenopsis spp. orchids in sphagnum moss could have serious 
ecological consequences in Hawaii. One commenter stated that scientists 
have found that one transplanted Sphagnum species that is native to 
Hawaii has spread vigorously when moved out of its natural habitat. The 
commenter expressed concern that this could happen with imported 
species of sphagnum as well. Another commenter stated that sphagnum 
moss used domestically as a growing medium consistently contains 
damaging insects and noxious weeds.
    Sphagnum moss is an approved growing medium and is listed in Sec.  
319.37-8(e)(1). There are already nine genera and one order of plants 
that may be imported into any U.S. State (including Hawaii) in sphagnum 
moss. Ferns from Taiwan are known to be imported in sphagnum moss, and 
are already eligible for importation into Hawaii. At present, we have 
no reason to believe that unused sphagnum moss that is produced 
according to standard industry practice presents any risk of pest 
introduction in and of itself, nor does it behave as a weed. 
Nonetheless, growing media are subject to inspection at any point in 
the production process, from rooting to importation into the United 
States, to ensure against pest infestation.
    One commenter stated that when sphagnum is of low quality or 
advancing age, it proves to be an attractive home for all manner of 
insect and arthropod life as well as fungi, algae, etc. The commenter 
stated that, while these plants would not be coming from the wild, it 
is disingenuous to suggest that the addition of a growing medium will 
not increase the risk of pest introduction.
    As stated elsewhere in this document, the regulations require that 
sphagnum moss used as growing media must not have been previously used. 
We do not deny that the pest risk posed by bare-rooted Phalaenopsis 
plants would be lower than that posed by Phalaenopsis imported in 
growing media if the plants in media were not subject to the mitigation 
measures in Sec.  319.37-8(e). However, when the mitigation measures 
are applied to such plants, the risk they pose drops to a level equal 
to or below that posed by bare-rooted plants. Plants imported in 
growing media are subject to many additional requirements that do not 
apply to bare-rooted plants. These requirements are designed to 
mitigate the added risk posed by the addition of growing media. As 
stated elsewhere in this document, the risk management section of the 
2003 risk analysis provides a detailed discussion of how the measures 
ensure that pests are removed from the import pathway.
    One commenter stated that the current plants in growing media 
program is very limited as to country of origin, and that plants grown 
under the existing program have failed to guard against pest intrusion. 
The commenter stated that citing the debatable success of the existing 
program is misleading. The commenter stated that APHIS failed to 
consider that the first five genera approved for importation in growing 
media are all short term crops compared to the genera proposed in 1993 
(Alstroemeria, Ananas, Anthurium, and Nidularium) and claimed that 
APHIS

[[Page 24931]]

also did not consider that the first five genera came from countries 
north of 30[deg] north latitude while noting that the genera proposed 
in 1993 and Phalaenopsis (as proposed) may be imported from any foreign 
country. The commenter stated that short term crops grown in northern 
areas present a lower pest risk than what was proposed in 1993 or what 
is being considered in the proposed rule.
    As stated elsewhere in this document, the risk analysis conducted 
in support of this rulemaking action assesses the risk posed by known 
quarantine pests of Phalaenopsis spp. orchids that are present in 
Taiwan. The findings of the risk analysis have led the Secretary to 
determine that Phalaenopsis spp. orchids imported in growing media from 
Taiwan can be safely imported into the United States. Furthermore, the 
risk analysis is independent of previous analyses of other plants in 
growing media, though we do cite the success of the program as evidence 
that the program is effective in producing pest-free plants for export 
to the United States.
    One commenter stated that a potted plant is difficult to inspect 
because unlike bare-root plants, a potted plant cannot be turned upside 
down or turned in such a way to make it easier for the inspector to see 
tiny signs of infestations, such as entry holes on the plant's stems. 
The commenter stated that entry holes of weevils and other internal 
feeders are difficult to detect because the holes are generally small 
and may be hidden in protected areas of the plants, such as where the 
leaf and stem meet, or on the stem near the media level.
    A plant potted in growing media can be removed from media such that 
the roots can be inspected for signs of pest infestation. This is 
common practice in APHIS's plant inspection stations, and will be 
practiced as part of the inspection of plants imported under this final 
rule. Additionally, inspectors do inspect all accessible parts of the 
plant, including the leaf and root interface. Furthermore, while 
inspection at the port of entry is the last mitigation measure employed 
under the growing media program, it is only one in a series of measures 
that are collectively designed to reduce the risk that quarantine pests 
that are known to infest Phalaenopsis spp. orchids could be introduced 
into the United States.
    One commenter stated that, in the 1997 risk assessment for the 
proposed rule, only the weediness potential of Phalaenopsis spp. 
orchids was assessed, and that there was no assessment of the weediness 
potential of sphagnum moss. The commenter stated that this oversight 
renders the proposal arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion, 
because sphagnum moss can contain viable weed seeds which may sprout 
and grow after the orchids are potted.
    The commenter is correct that the 1997 risk assessment did not 
assess the weediness potential of sphagnum moss itself, as sphagnum 
moss is allowed to be imported without restriction from all parts of 
the world, as is the case with bare-rooted Phalaenopsis plants. As 
such, we conducted the 1997 risk assessment in accordance with our 
regulations to specifically address the unique risk posed by 
Phalaenopsis plants imported in growing media--that is, the risk caused 
by the interaction of plant and the media'which, in this case, is tied 
to the fact that growing media increases the risk posed by an imported 
plant by providing harborage for pests that would not likely be present 
on bare-root plants, or that would be easier to inspect for if the 
plants were imported with bare roots. The measures contained in Sec.  
319.37-8(e) are designed to mitigate the risk posed by those pests, as 
described and evaluated in the risk management portion of the 2003 risk 
analysis.
    One commenter stated that inspection of growing media is necessary 
to ensure that snails are not present in imported orchids, and alleged 
the current regulations do not provide for such inspection. The 
commenter stated that snails, including the quarantine pest Bradybaena 
spp., are known to occur on roots of potted orchids, and that others 
have observed Sublina octona and the bush snail, Bradybena similaris, 
occurring on orchids in Hawaii and stunting potted orchid plants. The 
commenter stated that interception records from the Hawaii Department 
of Agriculture report snails even on bare-rooted Phalaenopsis spp. 
orchids from Taiwan.
    The risk analysis identified only one quarantine pest of 
Phalaenopsis spp. orchids in Taiwan that is a mollusk: Acusta 
tourranensis.\10\ The risk posed by this snail and related pests is 
mitigated by the measures contained in Sec.  319.37-8(e), as explained 
in detail in the risk management portion of the 2003 risk analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ For purposes of the 2003 risk analysis, Acusta 
(=Bradybaena) tourranensis and Bradybaena spp. are analyzed 
together.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter stated that the greenhouses in which Phalaenopsis 
spp. orchids would be grown are likely to be invaded by Frankliniella 
schultezi, Spodoptera litura, Thrips palmi, and other quarantine pests, 
and that Phalaenopsis spp. orchids potted in sphagnum moss provide an 
excellent habitat for the pupal or resting stage of those pests, which 
could pupate in the growing media, thereby infesting it.
    There are no quarantine significant thrips that have been confirmed 
to be associated with Phalaenopsis spp. plants in Taiwan. We have 
responded to the commenter's concern regarding the risk posed by S. 
litura earlier in this document.

Preemption

    Several commenters expressed concern or confusion as to whether the 
proposed regulations would preempt Hawaiian quarantine restrictions on 
the importation of Phalaenopsis spp. orchids from Taiwan. One commenter 
requested that the rule include a special exemption for Hawaii and 
stated that all orchid plants imported into Hawaii should still be 
subject to the mandatory 60-day quarantine. Two commenters stated that 
such an exemption would not suffice, as plants which contain pests 
could be imported into the mainland and then be moved interstate into 
Hawaii. The Department of Agriculture of the State of Hawaii (HDOA) 
commented on the proposal, and specifically objected to the adoption of 
the rule, which it believes would increase the risk of introducing more 
plant pests in the State. HDOA stated that a number of the pests do not 
yet occur in Hawaii, but have been documented to have passed through 
APHIS inspection in Hawaii only to be stopped by a more thorough Hawaii 
Department of Agriculture quarantine requirement.
    This final rule preempts applicable State regulations, as the 
Federal Government is responsible for regulating foreign and interstate 
commerce. States have authority to regulate intrastate commerce. In 
this case, we do not believe it is necessary to provide an exception 
for the rule for Hawaii, given the fact that plants imported in growing 
media are subject to the requirements of Sec.  319.37-8(e), these 
plants present a level of pest risk equal to or below that posed by 
bare-rooted plants.
    HDOA also stated that Federal preemption limits States' ability to 
protect themselves from risks that the Federal government does not 
acknowledge. HDOA expressed concern as to whether APHIS is facilitating 
international trade at the expense of its mission to prevent the 
introduction or dissemination of pests.
    APHIS is charged with regulating the importation and interstate 
movement of plants and plant products according to

[[Page 24932]]

the best available science. Our authority does not allow us to make 
exceptions to our regulatory policy unless they are science-based. In 
this case, we are confident that this final rule is based on sound 
scientific data.
    One commenter stated that plants imported into Hawaii should be 
subject to a mandatory 60-day quarantine.
    APHIS disagrees with the commenter that any further risk management 
is necessary beyond what we originally proposed. The 2003 risk analysis 
shows that the risks posed by the identified pests are mitigated by the 
measures contained in Sec.  319.37-8(e).

Safeguarding Report

    One commenter noted that at the time comments were being accepted 
on the proposed rule, the National Plant Board and APHIS were 
initiating a review of U.S. pest safeguarding systems. The commenter 
stated that it would be premature to make further modifications to 
Quarantine 37 pending the results of that review, and suggested that 
APHIS withdraw the proposal pending completion of that review, and re-
propose it in light of future results.
    The ``Safeguarding American Plant Resources'' report was completed 
in July 1999, and efforts to implement its recommendations are ongoing. 
The report is posted on the Internet at http://www.safeguarding.org/. 
The report did not contain any recommendations specific to the 
importation of plants in growing media, though it did recommend that 
APHIS consider revisions to Quarantine 37 under which decisions to 
allow the importation of propagative material would be made based on 
risk analysis as is the case with Quarantine 56 (7 CFR 319.56 through 
319.56-8). Given that plants in growing media are the only propagative 
materials that are always subject to risk analysis as a condition of 
determining their enterability, we see no reason to further delay 
modifications to the regulations in Sec.  319.37-8.

OMB Designation of Significance

    One commenter stated that the proposed rule would result in 
increased inspection and regulatory activity by APHIS and that the 
conclusion that the rule is ``not significant for the purposes of 
Executive Order 12866'' is incorrect. The commenter claimed that review 
by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is necessary.
    The determination that the proposed rule was ``not significant for 
the purposes of Executive Order 12866'' was made by OMB. This final 
rule has been determined to be significant for the purposes of 
Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has been reviewed by OMB.

Economics

General
    Several commenters claimed that adoption of this rule would result 
in unfair ``dumping'' of cheap imports in the United States and that 
there must be assurances that such dumping will not occur.
    As stated elsewhere in this document, determinations as to whether 
a new agricultural commodity can be safely imported are based on the 
findings of risk analysis. The regulation of ``dumping'' is 
administered by (1) the U.S. Department of Commerce (with respect to 
the determination of dumping margins), and (2) the International Trade 
Commission (with respect to determinations of injury). APHIS has no 
authority to adopt regulations to guard against ``dumping'' of imported 
plants.
    Several commenters claimed that Phalaenopsis spp. orchids shipped 
specifically from Taiwan would have an unfair marketing advantage over 
domestically grown plants due to growers being subsidized and the 
plants may be shipped on subsidized airlines.
    APHIS has no reason to believe that Phalaenopsis producers or 
shippers are subsidized by Taiwan. However, even if they were, as 
stated elsewhere in this document, APHIS's determinations as to whether 
a new agricultural commodity can be safely imported are not affected by 
factors such as economic competitiveness.
    One commenter claimed that this rule is unnecessary because 
Hawaiian orchid growers can supply the epiphytic orchids needed by 
Hawaiian citizens and the Hawaiian visitor industry. Another commenter 
stated that because imported plants would spend an extended period of 
time in transit and would require shorter acclimation time, plants 
offered for sale will be in a stressed condition resulting in shorter 
bloom life and reduced overall quality, which would be a disservice to 
consumers. The commenter claimed that since the plants may not appear 
stressed at the time of sale, the latent damage would lead to overall 
dissatisfaction of the consumer, which in turn would be damaging to the 
Phalaenopsis industry.
    APHIS is bound under international trade agreements to remove 
technical barriers to trade in the event that such barriers are found 
by scientific analysis to be unnecessary. In this case, we have 
conducted a risk analysis that found that all quarantine pests 
associated with Phalaenopsis spp. orchids in Taiwan are effectively 
removed from the import pathway by the measures required under Sec.  
319.37-8(e). As such, the Secretary of Agriculture has determined that 
it is not necessary to prohibit the importation of orchids of the genus 
Phalaenopsis from Taiwan in approved growing media. Considerations such 
as quality and consumer preference are not factors considered by APHIS 
or USDA in general when authorizing the importation of new commodities. 
These considerations are addressed by retailers and consumers who 
purchase plants in a free market; if imported plants are of 
insufficient quality or are perceived in a particular light due to 
their origin, the need for those imports will be dictated by the 
marketplace.

Economic and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    Several commenters claimed that, contrary to the initial regulatory 
flexibility analysis that APHIS has prepared and published, the 
proposed rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities, and the economic analysis for the proposal 
greatly underestimates the consequences that will be associated with 
adoption of the proposal. The commenters claimed that adoption of the 
proposed rule would harm or perhaps destroy the domestic orchid 
industry, especially the industry in Hawaii, which will be unable to 
compete with new, cheaper imports. Commenters stated that the economic 
effect of the rule on small and family operated nurseries needs study 
and claimed that those types of businesses should be nurtured, not 
threatened, by government policies, especially in economically 
depressed areas.
    Our initial regulatory flexibility analysis did not make a 
determination as to whether adoption of the proposed rule would have a 
significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities. 
Our final regulatory analysis, however, found this final rule will 
likely have a significant adverse economic impact on many U.S. growers 
of potted Phalaenopsis plants, many of whom are probably small 
entities. Our analysis also found that an adverse impact on U.S. 
growers of orchids other than Phalaenopsis spp. orchids, many of whom 
are also probably small in size, is possible, but less certain. As 
noted elsewhere in this document, determinations as to whether a new 
agricultural commodity can be safely imported are not affected by 
factors such as economic competitiveness.
    One commenter stated that the intent of the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act is not to limit regulations having adverse

[[Page 24933]]

economic impacts on small entities; rather the intent is to have 
agencies (1) focus special attention on the effects their proposed 
actions would have on small entities, (2) disclose to the public which 
alternatives they considered to lessen adverse impacts, (3) consider 
public comments on impacts and alternatives, and (4) state reasons for 
not adopting an alternative that has less of an adverse impact on small 
entities. The commenter stated that APHIS must fully comply with the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act, and must consider the impact of 
``inevitable proposals'' for importing flowering potted orchids from 
other orchid genera. The commenter claimed that if APHIS issues a final 
rule for this action, the Agency must state in detail all of the 
reasons it has for making no changes in the regulations, the only 
alternative that can ``minimize the significant economic impact on 
small entities.''
    APHIS believes that it has complied with the requirements of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act. In our proposed rule, APHIS proposed to 
allow the importation of Phalaenopsis in growing media from all 
countries of the world. We also explained that we considered two 
alternatives to the proposed rule: (1) to make no changes to the 
regulations; and (2) to limit the scope of the rule to potted 
Phalaenopsis plants from Taiwan only, not all countries. In light of 
the comments we received on the proposed rule, we reconsidered the 
selection of alternatives for our final rule. As such, we are adopting 
the second alternative to our proposal as a final rule because our risk 
analysis for this action applies only to imports of Phalaenopsis from 
Taiwan, and as such should not be used as a technical justification for 
imports of Phalaenopsis from other countries. We rejected the first 
alternative because, given APHIS's obligations under the Plant 
Protection Act and international trade agreements, we do not believe 
continuing to prohibit the importation of Phalaenopsis in growing media 
from Taiwan is justified, since we have determined that Phalaenopsis 
from Taiwan can be imported in growing media without introducing plant 
pests or noxious weeds into the United States.
    Regarding the ``inevitable proposals'' referred to by the 
commenter, we have considered the potential effects associated with 
importing Phalaenopsis in growing media from Taiwan. An analysis of 
future revisions and potential imports from other countries is not 
appropriate at this time, as any such changes to the regulations would 
have to be the subject of a future rulemaking action.
    One commenter stated that there is a mass-market domestic trade 
that establishes Phalaenopsis spp. orchids, and other epiphytic 
orchids, in pots, and then sells these potted epiphytic orchids, 
primarily at wholesale. The commenter claimed that adoption of the 
proposed rule will severely compromise, even devastate, domestic orchid 
growers' participation in this mass-market trade, noting that Hawaiian 
orchid growers import about half of the orchid plants that they use to 
establish potted epiphytic orchids.
    Our regulatory impact analysis and final regulatory flexibility 
analysis consider the potential economic effects of the adoption of 
this rule on persons who import orchid plants into Hawaii and pot them 
for sale in the domestic market. As noted earlier in this document, our 
final regulatory analysis found this final rule will likely have a 
significant adverse economic impact on many U.S. growers of potted 
Phalaenopsis plants, many of whom are probably small entities. Our 
analysis also found that an adverse impact on U.S. growers of orchids 
other than Phalaenopsis spp. orchids, many of whom are also probably 
small in size, is possible, but less certain.
    One commenter stated that APHIS has failed to comply with the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act, because its economic analysis is rudimentary 
and superficial. The commenter claimed that the economic analysis 
ignores or diminishes the value of statistics that are available about 
the orchid industry in the United States, and that it makes an 
assumption that ``cheaper foreign imports would likely benefit plant 
retailers and importers'' without examining whether or not the 
statement might actually be true, or, for that matter, whether or not 
more ``cheap foreign imports'' would result from adoption of the 
proposal.
    We believe our final regulatory flexibility analysis complies with 
the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended. 
Further, our analysis makes use of all the relevant data that we could 
locate, including information provided to us by commenters.
    We believe it is reasonable in this case to assume that the 
expected low prices of imported Phalaenopsis plants from Taiwan will 
lead to an expanded market for those plants, at the expense of more 
expensive domestically produced plants. While cheaper imports may not 
benefit retailers if importers do not pass on savings, it is certain 
that importers will benefit from adoption of this rule.
    One commenter stated that APHIS's economic analysis should not 
attempt to draw conclusions and inferences regarding the proposed 
action, given that data on potted orchids are ``scarce'' and data on 
potted Phalaenopsis ``are virtually nonexistent.'' The commenter 
claimed that the limitations on the data used in the analysis are 
significant; there are far more growers, far more space devoted to 
production, and greater gross sales than APHIS acknowledges in its 
analysis. The commenter noted that there is no industry sharing of data 
at present, and as a result, no accurate information on the state of 
the industry.
    While economic data on potted orchids may be scarce, we have 
considered the data that are available. In any event, APHIS cannot 
prohibit imports of plants and plant products based on a lack of 
information regarding domestic production of those plants and plant 
products.
    One commenter stated that the American Orchid Society's (AOS) 
estimate (cited in the proposed rule's economic analysis) that half of 
all orchids grown in the United States are Phalaenopsis is incorrect. 
The commenter claimed that while the percentage is significant, the AOS 
figure overstates the importance of the genus.
    For the purposes of our analysis, we make the assumption that this 
estimate is appropriate, as the basis for the assumption is based on 
the judgment of an expert on the domestic orchid industry, and there is 
no substantive evidence to suggest that the expert's opinion is 
incorrect.
    One commenter stated that, contrary to what was said in the 
economic analysis for the proposed rule, the majority of domestic 
orchids growers do not sell their plants primarily wholesale to general 
merchandise retailers and specialty stores.
    The commenter did not provide any evidence to support his claim, 
and since revisions to the economic analysis for the rule based on this 
comment would not affect the overall conclusions of the analysis, we 
are making no changes in response to this comment.
    One commenter stated that APHIS's economic analysis should consider 
the impact of the proposed rule on other orchids grown domestically 
such as dendrobium, cattleya, vanda, etc., since orchid buyers do not 
always distinguish what kind of orchid they are buying, as long they 
are cheap and attractive. Another commenter stated that potted 
Phalaenopsis spp. orchids imported from Taiwan will compete against all 
other potted plants as well--although to a lesser degree.

[[Page 24934]]

    In our final regulatory flexibility analysis, we acknowledge that 
adoption of this final rule may have adverse economic effects on 
producers of other plants besides Phalaenopsis spp. orchids; however, 
the extent of the effect on those producers could not be determined.
    One commenter stated that the economic analysis failed to analyze 
or consider extra costs that growers, importers, or retailers might 
face in case a pest is introduced into the United States via these 
imports.
    Our regulatory impact analysis does not consider potential economic 
impacts associated with the introduction of a new pest into the United 
States because, based on the findings of our risk analysis, we believe 
such an occurrence to be highly unlikely. If we expected pest 
introductions to occur in association with this proposal, an assessment 
of the associated costs would be appropriate--but we would never have 
formally proposed the action in the first place.
    One commenter stated that importers of potted orchids will benefit 
from adoption of the proposed rule, but it is a leap of faith to 
suppose that the rule will lead to increased sales volume benefitting 
retailers and consumers. The commenter claimed that, at retail flower 
shops and other mass marketers of floriculture products, the 
competition for shelf space is fierce and that orchids are minor items 
for most retail outlets. The commenter stated that owners might be 
inclined to pocket the savings from lower prices and earn a greater 
margin per square foot of shelf space devoted to potted orchids. The 
commenter claimed that it is naive to suggest that retail sales volume 
will increase or that retailers will pass their lower costs on to 
consumers.
    As noted in our regulatory impact analysis, the availability of 
cheaper foreign imports would benefit plant importers in the United 
States. Importers would benefit from the income that the increased 
business activity would produce. U.S. retailers would also benefit if 
they kept the savings from lower wholesale prices for themselves 
instead of passing those savings on to their customers in the form of 
lower retail prices. Even if retailers did pass the savings on to their 
customers, they may still benefit, because the lower retail prices on 
potted plants may create an environment that leads to increased sales 
volume and revenue elsewhere. Consumers would benefit if retailers 
passed the savings on to them.
    When a lower priced import is introduced, both consumer and 
producer surplus, as well as total surplus, are affected; consumers are 
better off because they pay a lower price for the good, and producers 
are hurt because they get a lower price. However, trade in the product 
always increases total surplus. In this case, the lack of information 
and uncertainties regarding certain data (e.g., the volume of 
Phalaenopsis spp. orchid imports from Taiwan) has precluded a monetary 
quantification of the gains and losses for U.S. producers and 
consumers, and the net welfare effect to U.S. society. However, 
regardless of the specific dollar amounts, the net welfare effect of 
imports of Phalaenopsis from Taiwan to U.S. society will be positive.
    One commenter stated that, given this rule's potential negative 
economic effects on small entities, APHIS should consider employing 
quotas on the number of imported plants it will allow from Taiwan to 
protect the domestic orchid industry from competition.
    APHIS regulates the importation of agricultural products based on 
risk, and has no authority to issue quotas on the importation of 
agricultural products, since such quotas would be based on economic 
considerations.
    One commenter stated that there would be a negative impact on 
Hawaii's tourism industry if biting fly Forcipomyia taiwana or other 
non-native biting flies were to become established in Hawaii.
    We do not believe this action will have an impact on Hawaii's 
tourism industry because there is no evidence to suggest that the pests 
cited by the commenter will enter the United States in association with 
Phalaenopsis spp. plants imported in approved growing media from 
Taiwan.

Fish and Wildlife Consultation/Effects on Endangered Species

    Several commenters stated that APHIS must enter into formal 
consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), as required 
by section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) for all Federal 
actions that may affect species listed under the ESA. The commenters 
stated that the importation of orchids in growing media may affect 
species of native Hawaiian orchids listed as threatened or endangered 
under the ESA and that the importation of sphagnum moss could be 
detrimental to these orchid species by altering the critical conditions 
required by Hawaiian orchids for successful germination, growth, and 
reproduction. This could come about through the introduction of the 
alien arthropods, snails, and fungi that have been identified in the 
1997 risk assessment conducted by APHIS and summarized in the proposed 
rule.
    In response to comments received on the proposed rule, APHIS 
narrowed the application of the rule to Phalaenopsis spp. orchids from 
Taiwan as the only point of origin and entered into informal section 7 
consultation with FWS, as required under the ESA, to seek its 
concurrence with APHIS's determination that the proposed rule may 
affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, species proposed or 
listed by FWS as endangered or threatened. On April 7, 2003, FWS 
concluded the section 7 consultation process by concurring with APHIS's 
determination that the importation of Phalaenopsis spp. orchids from 
Taiwan in approved growing media will not adversely affect federally 
listed or proposed endangered or threatened species or their habitats.
    One commenter claimed that APHIS did not provide FWS with 
sufficient information to make a valid determination of the impact of 
the rule on endangered or threatened species. The commenter noted that 
comments made by Hawaii's Department of Agriculture were not mentioned 
in the Biological Evaluation provided to FWS in support of the rule, 
and claimed that, since the Biological Evaluation was the document used 
by FWS to concur with APHIS's finding of ``not likely to adversely 
affect,'' APHIS should reconsider its findings.
    APHIS provided FWS with all of the information that we had related 
to imports of Phalaenopsis spp. orchids in growing media from Taiwan. 
FWS concluded that the information that we gave them was sufficient to 
produce a finding that the importation of Phalaenopsis spp. orchids 
from Taiwan in approved growing media will not adversely affect 
federally listed or proposed endangered or threatened species or their 
habitats.
    Therefore, for the reasons given in the proposed rule and in this 
document, we are adopting the proposed rule as a final rule, with the 
changes discussed in this document.

Executive Order 12866 and 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 an economic analysis for this rule. The economic 
analysis provides a cost-benefit analysis, as required by Executive 
Order 12866, and an analysis of the potential economic effects of this 
final rule on

[[Page 24935]]

small entities, as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The 
economic analysis is summarized below. Copies of the full analysis are 
available by contacting the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT, or on the Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppd/rad/98-035-5_final_economic_analysis.pdf.
    Under the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701-7772), the Secretary 
of Agriculture is authorized to regulate the importation of plants, 
plant products, and other articles to prevent the introduction of 
injurious plant pests.

Summary of Economic Analysis

    The regulations in 7 CFR part 319 prohibit or restrict the 
importation into the United States of certain plants and plant products 
to prevent the introduction of plant pests. The current regulations 
allow the importation of orchids from all countries of the world, but 
only under certain conditions, including the condition that the plants 
be free of sand, soil, earth, and other growing media.
    We are amending the regulations to add orchids of the genus 
Phalaenopsis from Taiwan to the list of plants that may be imported in 
an approved growing medium, subject to specified growing, inspection, 
and certification requirements. We are taking this action in response 
to a request by Taiwan, and after determining that Phalaenopsis spp. 
plants established in growing media can be imported without resulting 
in the introduction into, or dissemination within, the United States of 
plant pests or noxious weeds.
    Our economic analysis examines this final rule's economic impacts, 
as required by Executive Order 12866, and considers the potential 
economic effects of the rule on small entities, as required by section 
604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The analysis takes into account 
public comments received in response to the proposal. Comments were 
received primarily from Hawaiian orchid growers and organizations 
representing those growers.
    The economic impact of potted plant imports from Taiwan on Hawaiian 
and other domestic growers is uncertain because information on relative 
costs of production and transportation costs is unknown. However, 
Taiwan's interest in access to the potted plant markets, as well as 
certain other information, suggest that imports will displace sales by 
at least some domestic growers. Accordingly, it is very possible that 
domestic growers would lose sales to Taiwanese producers if the rule is 
adopted.
    The percentage of all potted orchid plants produced in the United 
States that fall within the Phalaenopsis genus is unknown but it is 
estimated to be significant, perhaps as high as 90 percent. In Hawaii, 
unlike the situation on the U.S. mainland, potted plants of 
Phalaenopsis spp. are only a small segment of the overall potted orchid 
plant market. (Phalaenopsis spp. plants are produced primarily by the 
larger growers, and many Hawaiian growers are small-scale producers 
that tend to grow primarily specialty orchids.) The data suggest that, 
on average, Hawaiian growers of Phalaenopsis spp. would not be price 
competitive with imports from Taiwan. However, the rule's impact on 
Hawaii's small scale producers, given their niche in the specialty 
market, is unclear.
    The data suggest that growers of Phalaenopsis spp. in California 
and Florida would also not be price competitive with the Taiwanese 
imports. The number of producers of potted Phalaenopsis spp. plants in 
those two States is unknown, but it is believed to be significant. In 
California in 2002, there were 41 producers of potted orchid plants of 
all genera, including Phalaenopsis spp.; Florida also had 41 producers 
of all genera that year.
    Excluding Hawaii, California, and Florida, there were 101 large 
growers of potted orchid plants in all of the other States in 2002, 
with no one State accounting for more than 10 producers. The number of 
producers of potted Phalaenopsis spp. plants in those States is unknown 
but they, too, stand to be undercut in price by the Taiwanese imports.
    The data are less conclusive on whether growers of all potted 
orchid plants--not just Phalaenopsis spp.--would be affected. Most U.S. 
growers of potted orchid plants are small entities.
    The impact on producers is unclear. The rule is expected to provide 
net social benefits to consumers (domestic importers, wholesalers, 
retailers, as well as final consumers) that would exceed potential 
losses to domestic growers. The rule is expected to increase net social 
welfare.

Executive Order 12988

    This final rule allows plants of the genus Phalaenopsis to be 
imported in approved growing media into the United States from Taiwan. 
State and local laws and regulations regarding Phalaenopsis spp. plants 
imported under this rule will be preempted while the plants are in 
foreign commerce. Potted plants are generally imported for immediate 
distribution and sale to the consuming public, and 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 final rule. The assessment provides a basis 
for the conclusion that the importation of orchids of the genus 
Phalaenopsis 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 (NEPA), as amended (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's NEPA 
Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 372).
    The environmental assessment may be viewed on the Internet at 
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppd/es/ppqdocs.html. You may request paper 
copies of the environmental assessment from the person listed under FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Please refer to the title of the 
environmental assessment when requesting copies. The environmental 
assessment is also available for review in our reading room, which 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.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This final rule contains no new 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

    Bees, Coffee, Cotton, Fruits, Honey, Imports, Logs, Nursery Stock, 
Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine,

[[Page 24936]]

Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rice, Vegetables.

0
Accordingly, we are amending 7 CFR part 319 as follows:

PART 319--FOREIGN QUARANTINE NOTICES

0
1. The authority citation for part 319 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 450 and 7701-7772; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 
CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.


Sec.  319.37-8  [Amended]

0
2. In Sec.  319.37-8, paragraph (e), the introductory text of the 
paragraph is amended by adding the words ``Phalaenopsis spp. from 
Taiwan,'' immediately after the word ``Peperomia,''.

    Done in Washington, DC, this 29th day of April 2004.
Bill Hawks,
Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs.
[FR Doc. 04-10067 Filed 5-4-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P