[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 75 (Thursday, April 18, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23209-23219]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-09147]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

[Docket No. APHIS-2011-0072]


Plants for Planting Whose Importation Is Not Authorized Pending 
Pest Risk Analysis; Notice of Addition of Taxa of Plants for Planting 
To List of Taxa Whose Importation Is Not Authorized Pending Pest Risk 
Analysis

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: We are advising the public that we are adding 31 taxa of 
plants for planting that are quarantine pests and 107 taxa of plants 
for planting that are hosts of 13 quarantine pests to our lists of taxa 
of plants for planting whose importation is not authorized pending pest 
risk analysis. A previous notice made data sheets that detailed the 
scientific evidence we evaluated in making the determination that the 
taxa are quarantine pests or hosts of quarantine pests available to the 
public for review and comment. This notice responds to the comments we 
received and makes available final versions of the data sheets, with 
changes in response to comments.

DATES: Effective Date: May 20, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Arnold Tschanz, Senior Regulatory 
Policy Specialist, Plants for Planting Policy, RPM, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 
River Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; (301) 851-2018.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    Under the regulations in ``Subpart--Plants for Planting'' (7 CFR 
319.37 through 319.37-14, referred to below as the regulations), the 
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits or restricts the importation 
of plants for planting (including living plants, plant parts, seeds, 
and plant cuttings) to prevent the introduction of quarantine pests 
into the United States. Quarantine pest is defined in Sec.  319.37-1 as 
a plant pest or noxious weed that is of potential economic importance 
to the United States and not yet present in the United States, or 
present but not widely distributed and being officially controlled.
    In a final rule published in the Federal Register on May 27, 2011 
(76 FR 31172-31210, Docket No. APHIS-2006-0011), and effective on June 
27,

[[Page 23210]]

2011, we established in Sec.  319.37-2a a new category of plants for 
planting whose importation is not authorized pending pest risk analysis 
(NAPPRA) in order to prevent the introduction of quarantine pests into 
the United States. The final rule established two lists of taxa whose 
importation is NAPPRA: A list of taxa of plants for planting that are 
quarantine pests, and a list of taxa of plants for planting that are 
hosts of quarantine pests. For taxa of plants for planting that have 
been determined to be quarantine pests, the list will include the names 
of the taxa. For taxa of plants for planting that are hosts of 
quarantine pests, the list will include the names of the taxa, the 
foreign places from which the taxa's importation is not authorized, and 
the quarantine pests of concern. The final rule did not add any taxa to 
the NAPPRA lists.
    Paragraph (b) of Sec.  319.37-2a describes the process for adding 
taxa to the NAPPRA lists. In accordance with that process, we published 
a notice \1\ in the Federal Register on July 26, 2011 (76 FR 44572-
44573, Docket No. APHIS-2011-0072) that announced our determination 
that 41 taxa of plants for planting are quarantine pests and 107 taxa 
of plants for planting are hosts of 13 quarantine pests. That notice 
also made available data sheets that detail the scientific evidence we 
evaluated in making the determination that the taxa are quarantine 
pests or hosts of a quarantine pest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ To view the notice, the data sheets, and the comments we 
received, go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-
2011-0072.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We solicited comments concerning the notice and the data sheets for 
60 days ending September 26, 2011. We reopened and extended the 
deadline for comments until November 25, 2011, in a document published 
in the Federal Register on October 25, 2011 (76 FR 66033). We received 
37 comments by that date. They were from producers, importers, 
researchers, and representatives of State and foreign governments. They 
are discussed below by topic.

General Comments

Effective Date and Federal Orders

    The July 26, 2011, notice indicated that we would consider comments 
and announce whether the taxa identified in the data sheets would be 
added to the NAPPRA lists in a subsequent notice.
    One commenter stated that, due to the risk of importing quarantine 
pests after the initial notice is published, plants that we determine 
to be quarantine pests or hosts of quarantine pests should be added to 
the NAPPRA list at the same time as we publish the notice making 
available the data sheets supporting that determination. The notice 
could have a public comment period allowing for changes to the initial 
list of taxa.
    Another commenter disagreed, stating that APHIS must often make 
regulatory decisions on the basis of incomplete information, and a 
reasonable comment period prior to action allows other interested 
parties the opportunity to present valid information and perspectives 
that will help APHIS to ``get it right.'' This commenter stated that 
APHIS always has the ability to issue emergency prohibitions or 
restrictions, should the situation warrant them.
    We agree with the second commenter. As described in the May 2011 
final rule establishing the NAPPRA category, when we find evidence that 
the importation of a taxon of plants for planting that is currently 
being imported poses a risk of introducing a quarantine pest, we 
restrict or prohibit its importation through the issuance of a Federal 
import quarantine order, also referred to as a Federal order. For other 
taxa, we will issue a notice through the NAPPRA process.
    One commenter expressed concern that the 60-day comment period on 
the initial notice and subsequent decisionmaking period may create 
something of a ``gold rush'' effect in which importers are forewarned 
to import numerous specimens of risky species before APHIS blocks 
further imports. The commenter stated that the May 2011 final rule did 
not fully address this risk. The commenter recommended we address this 
risk by making liberal use of immediate prohibition orders for the 
riskiest species, such as was done in the May 30, 2008, Federal order 
that prohibited imports of Lygodium microphyllum and L. flexuosum,\2\ 
and ensure a rapid decisionmaking period after the close of the comment 
period, to provide the speedy protections the nation needs to prevent 
new plant invasions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/weeds/downloads/federalorder-lygodiums.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We will issue a Federal order prohibiting the importation of a 
taxon of plants for planting that is currently being imported whenever 
we determine it to be necessary to prevent the introduction of a 
quarantine pest. We will also strive to ensure that we complete our 
decisionmaking quickly after the comment period has ended. However, we 
will continue to monitor imports of taxa that we have proposed to add 
to NAPPRA; if a ``gold rush'' effect occurs for any of them, we have 
the option to issue a Federal order.
    One commenter asked about the relationship between Federal orders 
and the NAPPRA category. The commenter perceived some inconsistencies. 
For example:
     Exemptions for specific host plant material types (e.g., 
plant size, cuttings, etc.) outlined in Federal orders are inconsistent 
with NAPPRA.
     Exemptions for specific origins (i.e., pest not present/
known to occur in specified origin) outlined in Federal orders are 
inconsistent with NAPPRA.
    The importation of taxa that are hosts of several of the quarantine 
pests described in our data sheets has been subject to Federal orders. 
In the July 2011 notice, we took comment on their addition to the 
NAPPRA category. This is consistent with our overall plan for the 
relationship between Federal orders and NAPPRA.
    If a taxon of plants for planting is currently being imported and 
we determine that the taxon should be added to the NAPPRA category 
because it is a host of a quarantine pest, we will issue a Federal 
order to restrict or prohibit its importation. We will also publish a 
notice announcing our determination that the taxon is a host of a 
quarantine pest and making available a data sheet that details the 
scientific evidence that we evaluated in making our determination, 
including references for that scientific evidence. We will solicit 
comments from the public. If comments present information that leads us 
to determine that the importation of the taxon does not pose a risk of 
introducing a quarantine pest into the United States, APHIS will 
rescind the Federal order and not add the taxon to the NAPPRA list.
    As noted in the July 2011 notice, in a few cases, taxa that are 
listed as NAPPRA from most countries will be allowed to be imported 
from countries that are currently exporting the taxa to the United 
States, subject to restrictions in a Federal order that was issued 
previously. We would continue to allow such importation based on our 
experience with importing those taxa of plants for planting and our 
findings, through inspection, that they are generally pest-free, and 
based on our determination that the restrictions in the Federal order 
are sufficient to mitigate the risk associated with the quarantine pest 
in question. Each data sheet we made available with the July 2011 
notice included an ``Action under NAPPRA'' section describing the 
specific taxa and countries that would be added to NAPPRA. These 
sections

[[Page 23211]]

reflected our policy with respect to current importation under Federal 
orders, and the final versions of the data sheets published along with 
this notice continue to do so.
    With respect to host plant material types, the NAPPRA category does 
not allow for exceptions for host material types except for seed. Plant 
type-specific restrictions are discussed further later in this document 
under the heading ``Hosts of Quarantine Pests.''
    With respect to the origin of imports, the Federal order is 
specifically designed to address current trade; the NAPPRA category is 
designed to prevent the importation of a taxon from anywhere in the 
world until we can conduct a pest risk analysis (PRA) to determine what 
risks may be associated with the importation of the taxon and what 
means may be available to mitigate those risks.
    The commenter also asked how we will ensure cohesion and 
consistency between the Federal orders and the NAPPRA list of plants, 
e.g., will the Federal orders be updated to reflect the new NAPPRA 
list.
    If a taxon of plants for planting is on the NAPPRA list for a given 
country, we would no longer need to include it in a Federal order for 
that country, and would update the Federal order accordingly. We are 
doing just that with the pests that have been subject to Federal orders 
and that are being addressed by this action. The updated Federal orders 
will note that the importation of the taxa from some countries is not 
allowed under NAPPRA.

Pests for Consideration

    Some commenters suggested pests for consideration for future 
addition to the NAPPRA lists. We are considering those taxa for 
addition to NAPPRA. Interested members of the public can also submit 
suggestions for additions to the NAPPRA lists at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/plants/plant_imports/Q37/nappra/suggestions.shtml.

Future Regulatory Changes

    One commenter described the goal of the NAPPRA category as 
responding more swiftly and effectively to prevent the introduction of 
specific quarantine pests from established trading partners. In that 
case, the commenter stated, APHIS should be prepared to remove a plant 
taxon from NAPPRA if presented with a mitigation proposal that 
addresses the quarantine pest(s) for which APHIS justified the NAPPRA 
listing in the first place.
    The commenter urged APHIS to concurrently implement two other 
components of the overhaul of our regulations on the importation of 
plants for planting. First, APHIS should overhaul the permit system to 
allow for swift, legal importation of limited quantities of germplasm 
that is restricted under NAPPRA for research, development, and new 
variety introduction, subject to appropriate safeguards and oversight.
    Secondly, the commenter urged APHIS to establish the regulatory 
framework for implementing integrated measures programs, widely known 
and referred to as systems approaches. The commenter stated that 
integrated measures approaches offer the promise of mitigating the risk 
of various pests of regulatory concern, and, as NAPPRA is implemented, 
such approaches can and should serve as a mechanism for facilitating 
trade in plants that may be restricted under NAPPRA as hosts of 
quarantine pests. The commenter also stated that implementation of 
those systems approaches should not necessarily require a full PRA, 
although in some cases it may.
    The commenter expressed concern that restriction of horticulturally 
significant plant taxa under NAPPRA without concurrent attention to the 
controlled import permit (CIP) and integrated measures regulatory 
strategies will discourage compliant trade and encourage unauthorized 
importation and could also subject APHIS to challenge under 
international trade agreements. By contrast, concurrent implementation 
of those rules could address the concerns one commenter expressed that 
proposals to restrict plants as NAPPRA may create something of a ``gold 
rush mentality'' in which various interests rush to import them in 
advance of restrictions taking effect.
    We agree with the commenter regarding the importance of these 
regulatory strategies. As the commenter noted, we published a proposed 
rule to establish CIPs in the Federal Register on October 25, 2011 (76 
FR 65976-65985, Docket No. APHIS-2008-0055).\3\ We are considering the 
comments we received on that proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ To view the CIP proposal and the comments we received in 
response to it, go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2008-0055.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are also developing a proposed rule to reorganize the plants for 
planting regulations and to establish a framework for integrated 
measures programs. The framework will be based on Regional Standard for 
Phytosanitary Measures (RSPM) No. 24 \4\ of the North American Plant 
Protection Organization, of which APHIS is a member. The framework will 
also be consistent with the recently developed International Plant 
Protection Convention (IPPC) standard for plants for planting.\5\ It is 
our hope that there is sufficient interest in the industry in 
developing functional integrated measures for broad categories of pests 
(insects, fungi, bacteria, etc.) that we will be able to use these 
integrated measures to facilitate trade in the manner the commenter 
describes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Available at http://www.nappo.org/en/data/files/download/PDF/RSPM24-16-10-05-e.pdf.
    \5\ Available at https://www.ippc.int/file_uploaded/1335957921_ISPM_36_2012_En_2012-05-02.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are adding taxa to the NAPPRA category before finalizing the CIP 
proposal and the integrated measures proposal because it is necessary 
to protect U.S. agricultural and environmental resources against the 
introduction of the quarantine pests identified and described in our 
data sheets. However, it is our intention that the two rules will 
provide increased flexibility to safely import NAPPRA-listed taxa in 
the manner the commenter describes. In the meantime, limited quantities 
of plant taxa on the NAPPRA lists may be imported by the USDA for 
experimental or scientific purposes under controlled conditions in 
accordance with the Departmental permit provisions in Sec.  319.37-
2(c).
    We would also like to note that the goal of the NAPPRA category is 
not to respond to specific quarantine pest risks from established 
trading partners, but rather to prevent the importation of taxa that 
are quarantine pests or hosts of quarantine pests while a PRA is 
conducted to determine all the quarantine pests associated with the 
taxon and, if available, appropriate mitigations. As described earlier, 
when we find evidence that the importation of taxa of plants for 
planting that are currently being imported poses a risk of introducing 
a quarantine pest, we prohibit or restrict their importation through 
the issuance of a Federal order. The Federal order for such taxa may be 
followed by a NAPPRA notice for the countries from which the taxa are 
imported if no mitigations are available for the quarantine pest.

Potential Economic Effects

    One commenter expressed concern that the addition of taxa to the 
NAPPRA lists could have a potentially marked effect on importers and 
those who rely on imported products to sell, as many of the proposed 
taxa are commonly traded. As an example, the commenter

[[Page 23212]]

cited our determination that imported plants of the genera Camelia, 
Rhododendron, and Viburnum are hosts of Anoplophora chiensis, the 
citrus longhorned beetle (CLB). The commenter quoted a summary of 
imports from a Phytophthora ramorum working group consisting of APHIS 
and the National Plant Board, in which the three genera named earlier 
plus Pieris and Kalmia accounted for 584,285 units of importation from 
the years 2004 through 2010.
    As described earlier and in the initial notice, in a few cases, 
taxa we identified as hosts of quarantine pests that should be added to 
the NAPPRA category would be allowed to be imported from countries that 
are currently exporting the taxa to the United States, subject to 
restrictions in a Federal order that was issued previously. The hosts 
of CLB were previously regulated under a Federal order,\6\ and the 
identified NAPPRA restrictions for CLB took the Federal order into 
account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See http://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/plants/plant_imports/federal_order/downloads/2011/CitrusandALB2011-04-01.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to CLB hosts specifically, we have re-examined our 
import records in order to ensure that all countries that have had 
significant trade with the United States and that generally supply 
pest-free plants for planting in importation are not included in the 
NAPPRA list. We found several additional countries that needed to be 
exempted for various host taxa. Specifically:
     All CLB host taxa from Canada are now exempted from the 
NAPPRA action.
     New Zealand is now exempted from the NAPPRA action for 
Acer spp.
     Netherlands is now exempted from the NAPPRA action for 
Aralia spp., Cotoneaster spp., Fagus spp., Robinia spp., and Styrax 
spp.
     Thailand is now exempted from the NAPPRA action for Ficus 
spp.
     Israel is now exempted from the NAPPRA action for Hedera 
spp. and Robinia spp.
     France is now exempted from the NAPPRA action for Hibiscus 
spp. and Quercus spp.
     Japan is now exempted from the NAPPRA action for Pinus 
spp. and Rhododendron spp.
     Korea is now exempted from the NAPPRA action for Pinus 
spp.
     United Kingdom is now exempted from the NAPPRA action for 
Rubus spp.
    The CLB data sheet has been amended to reflect these changes; the 
amended CLB data sheet is available on Regulations.gov at the address 
listed under footnote 1. The importation of these CLB host taxa from 
the specified countries will continue to be allowed under the 
conditions in the Federal order. These changes are consistent with our 
policy for implementing NAPPRA.
    As noted earlier, the exemptions from the NAPPRA action for hosts 
of CLB are based on our trade records, and we reexamined them in the 
process of developing this final action. We issued the first Federal 
order restricting imports of CLB hosts in January 2009; as the 
statistics cited by the commenter reflect years of trade subject only 
to the general restrictions in the plants for planting regulations, 
those statistics may not reflect recent trade patterns. In addition, 
the statistics include genera that were not included in the NAPPRA 
action for CLB hosts. We have carefully considered potential impacts on 
existing trade in developing this action, and we will do so for future 
NAPPRA actions as well.
    The commenter also stated that the nursery industry is under a 
severe contraction due to the national economy, with many companies 
failing, and that adding taxa to NAPPRA will likely lead to many 
additional failures and job loss. In addition, the commenter stated, 
the action would affect many sales orders and contracts that are in the 
process of being filled. These are often multi-year agreements, often 
with plant material originating in multiple countries with specific 
horticultural traits. Without its intended market, the commenter 
stated, this material will likely be destroyed, creating a loss for 
oversees trading partners and potential litigation on U.S. importers.
    The Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.), the authorizing 
statute for APHIS' plant health-related activities, authorizes the 
Secretary of Agriculture to prohibit or restrict the importation of any 
plant product if the Secretary determines that the prohibition or 
restriction is necessary to prevent the introduction of a plant pest or 
noxious weed into the United States. We have determined that adding the 
taxa specified in this final notice to the NAPPRA lists is necessary to 
prevent the introduction of plant pests and noxious weeds. The factors 
cited by the commenter are not within our decisionmaking authority 
under the Act.
    In addition, the taxa we proposed to add to the NAPPRA category 
have not been imported into the United States in significant amounts. 
As described earlier, for those taxa that have been imported in 
significant amounts, we are using Federal orders to restrict their 
importation, rather than adding them to the NAPPRA category. These 
factors indicate that our listings under NAPPRA are not likely to cause 
significant economic hardship to U.S. growers.

Quarantine Pest Plants

    As noted above, the NAPPRA category includes plants that are 
quarantine pests and plants that are hosts of quarantine pests. The 
regulations in Sec.  319.37-1 define quarantine pest as a plant pest or 
noxious weed that is of potential economic importance to the United 
States and not yet present in the United States, or present but not 
widely distributed and being officially controlled.
    Two commenters generally addressed the concept of plant presence in 
the United States, asking us to adopt a clear standard for determining 
whether a plant is not yet present in the United States, or present but 
not widely distributed and being officially controlled. One stated that 
a taxon should be considered to be present in the United States when 
the taxon can be shown to have had multiple entries through importation 
or when the taxon is available in commercial trade. This commenter also 
stated that there should be a clearly defined standard against which to 
judge presence if the record shows one or multiple introductions of the 
taxon, or natural occurrences for plants whose native habitats exist 
near the United States' northern or southern borders.
    Another commenter agreed that any taxon available in commercial 
trade should be considered to be present, and also indicated that plant 
taxa that are in cultivation among specialists should be considered to 
be present. This commenter also stated that only a small percentage of 
the people who use the Internet ever post any information on it, 
meaning that an online report from a grower of a taxon probably 
represents 10 to 100 other growers who also grow the plant. For that 
reason, any Internet report of growth of a plant in the United States 
would indicate that the plant was present in the United States.
    We consider a plant taxon to be present in the United States if 
there is evidence that it is being grown here. Commercial trade, 
cultivation among specialists, and multiple entries through importation 
would be evidence that a plant is being grown in the United States. We 
agree with the second commenter that Internet reports of growth of a 
plant in the United States would indicate that the plant taxon 
described was present in the United States. However, we have determined 
that such information may not necessarily indicate that the taxon is

[[Page 23213]]

widely distributed within the United States, which is another component 
of the quarantine pest definition.
    One commenter stated that taxa that have had some entries into the 
United States or natural occurrences within the United States with no 
evidence of invasiveness should not be considered a problem. Another 
commenter stated that plants that have been imported into the United 
States sporadically in the past, but that are not currently in 
cultivation, are not present in the United States. However, the 
commenter recommended that we consider the fact that the plants did not 
establish permanently in the United States as evidence against their 
invasiveness.
    Noting that certain taxa that we proposed to add to the NAPPRA 
category appeared to be present in the United States, one commenter 
recommended that we put those species under consideration for official 
control, thus ensuring that they qualify as quarantine pests under the 
definition. This commenter stated that all species added to the NAPPRA 
category should be analyzed to determine whether they qualify as 
Federal noxious weeds under our regulations in 7 CFR part 360.
    We generally agree with the first two commenters that taxa that 
have previously been imported into the United States without problems 
would not be likely to be considered quarantine pests. However, 
sometimes the potential economic importance of a taxon's effects on 
U.S. agricultural and natural resources becomes apparent after 
importation. New information may also become available indicating that 
the taxon may pose more of a threat to U.S. agricultural and 
environmental resources than previously thought. As suggested by the 
last commenter, these circumstances would spur us to consider placing 
the taxon under official control by adding it to the list of noxious 
weeds in 7 CFR part 360.
    We determine whether to place a taxon under official control by 
conducting a weed risk assessment (WRA). If the WRA indicates that 
official control is necessary, we add the taxon to the list of noxious 
weeds. Taxa that are present in the United States but not widely 
distributed and under consideration for official control are potential 
additions to the NAPPRA category, if they meet the other criteria for 
being considered a quarantine pest.
    We do not automatically conduct WRAs for taxa on the NAPPRA list of 
quarantine pest plants; people who want a taxon to be removed from the 
NAPPRA category need to request that a risk analysis be conducted for 
its removal, as provided in Sec.  319.37-2a(e). However, if we add a 
taxon to the NAPPRA list of quarantine pest plants in part because we 
are considering it for official control, then the process of conducting 
a WRA has already begun, and our decision to remove the taxon from the 
NAPPRA list or add it to the list of noxious weeds would be based on 
the results of the WRA.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ If the WRA indicated that it was not necessary to list the 
taxon as a noxious weed, we would conduct a pest risk analysis to 
determine whether the taxon is a host of any quarantine pests as 
well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The first two commenters also mentioned invasiveness as a criterion 
for adding a plant taxon to NAPPRA. We would like to note that 
invasiveness in and of itself does not mean that a plant taxon could be 
considered a quarantine pest; rather, the damage caused by a plant's 
invasiveness would have to be of potential economic importance.
    One commenter stated generally that we should work with private 
growers and gardeners to monitor plants that are present in the United 
States and to react quickly if one starts to become a problem.
    We agree. We have begun reaching out to gardeners, plant enthusiast 
societies, and others to share information about plants. We expect that 
these efforts will help to inform future control efforts.
    We made available data sheets detailing the scientific evidence we 
considered in making the determination that 41 taxa of plants for 
planting are quarantine pests. We received comments on 21 of those 
taxa. The comments are discussed below by taxon.
    Alstroemeria aurea. Four commenters presented evidence that this 
species is present in the United States. Three of these commenters also 
stated that A. aurea does not appear to have any invasive tendencies 
that would warrant designation as a quarantine pest. Based on the 
evidence presented by the commenters and our own analysis, we have 
determined that A. aurea is widely distributed in the United States, 
and we are no longer considering A. aurea for addition to the NAPPRA 
list of quarantine pest plants.
    Angelica sylvestris. Three commenters presented evidence that this 
species is present in the United States. Another commenter expressed 
support for one of these comments. Two of these commenters also stated 
that A. sylvestris does not appear to have any invasive tendencies that 
would warrant designation as a quarantine pest. We have determined that 
A. sylvestris is widely distributed in the United States, and we are no 
longer considering A. sylvestris for addition to the NAPPRA list of 
quarantine pest plants.
    Artemisia japonica. One commenter presented evidence that this 
species is present in the United States, specifically that it is 
mentioned on herbal medicine Web sites. Based on the comment, we have 
reexamined the available evidence and determined that A. japonica is 
present in the United States and not under official control. Therefore, 
we are no longer considering A. japonica for addition to the NAPPRA 
list of quarantine pest plants.
    Berberis glaucocarpa. One commenter stated that this taxon is 
widely available in the United Kingdom and that there is a very good 
chance that it has been sold to the United States. The commenter also 
stated that B. glaucocarpa has not been declared to be an invasive 
species there.
    The data sheet we prepared for B. glaucocarpa indicated that it 
invades forests, forest margins, scrub, and disturbed areas. Its 
seedlings tolerate shade and establish successfully, shading out native 
plants and preventing their regeneration. Birds disperse its seeds. B. 
glaucocarpa is naturalized in New Zealand, where it is considered an 
environmental weed. These factors led to our determination that B. 
glaucocarpa is a quarantine pest. In addition, we can find no 
information indicating that B. glaucocarpa is actually present in the 
United States. Finally, we are evaluating B. glaucocarpa for addition 
to the list of noxious weeds in 7 CFR part 360, meaning it is under 
consideration for official control. Therefore, we are adding B. 
glaucocarpa to the NAPPRA list of quarantine pest plants.
    Celtis sinensis. Four commenters presented evidence that this 
species is present in the United States. Another commenter expressed 
support for one of these comments. As the taxon is not under 
consideration for official control, we are no longer considering C. 
sinensis for addition to the NAPPRA list of quarantine pest plants.
    Cestrum elegans. Three commenters presented evidence that this 
species is present in the United States, stating that it is offered for 
sale in several States, listed in guides to American horticulture, and 
grown at several arboretums and botanic gardens. We have determined 
that C. elegans is widely distributed in the United States, and we are 
no longer considering C. elegans for addition to the NAPPRA list of 
quarantine pest plants.
    Chrysanthemoides monilifera. One commenter presented evidence that 
this species is present in the United States,

[[Page 23214]]

specifically that it has been sold in the United States and was 
imported by the USDA 100 years ago. The commenter also stated that the 
species has been grown under a synonym in the Mediterranean region for 
about 100 years, and the commenter could find no reports of 
invasiveness there. We have determined that C. monilifera is widely 
distributed in the United States, and we are no longer considering C. 
monilifera for addition to the NAPPRA list of quarantine pest plants.
    Cordia curassavica. One commenter presented evidence that this 
species is present in the United States, specifically in Florida. 
Another commenter stated that C. curassavica is native to tropical 
America. This commenter also stated that it has been noted that C. 
curassavica seeds have a short viable life and cannot withstand low 
temperatures, characteristics that do not make it a good candidate for 
invasiveness.
    However, as described in the data sheet, C. curassavica is 
considered an economically important foreign weed in Trinidad and the 
Pacific Islands, and there is no obvious reason why it would not be 
economically important in the warmer parts of the United States. We do 
not have any evidence that the plant is distributed outside Florida. In 
addition, we are currently evaluating C. curassavica for addition to 
the list of noxious weeds in 7 CFR part 360, meaning it is under 
consideration for official control. Therefore, we are adding C. 
curassavica to the NAPPRA list of quarantine pest plants.
    Echinochloa pyramidalis. One commenter stated that the United 
Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) promotes this taxon as 
a fodder grass for tropical Africa. The commenter quoted the FAO Web 
page \8\ on E. pyramidalis as stating that the taxon is a heavy seed 
producer but sometimes has low germination, so it is propagated by 
cuttings. The page also states that the taxon is not frost hardy. The 
commenter stated that such a taxon is not likely to be a quarantine 
pest in the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See http://www.fao.org/ag/AGP/AGPC/doc/Gbase/data/pf000231.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated in the data sheet, E. pyramidalis has decidedly invasive 
characteristics with its vigorous shoot and rhizome growth and abundant 
seed production. As an aquatic, it also has the potential to be very 
damaging to sensitive aquatic habitats. In Guyana, it was first noticed 
in 1982 and increased rapidly to become one of the most troublesome 
weeds in the aquatic system of the Guyana Sugar Corporation.
    The FAO Web page cited by the commenter indicates that E. 
pyramidalis is adapted to the wet and dry seasons of Africa; the dry 
season would limit its growth there. The Web page further indicates 
that new growth is very vigorous after the rains start. If the dry 
stems are burned during the dry season, vigorous growth from ground 
level occurs without the incidence of rain. The Web page further states 
that the plant's dense, tangled, floating stems, rooting at the nodes, 
provide efficient protection against wave action on the walls of 
earthen dams or flood induced erosion of river banks. These 
characteristics indicate that the taxon can grow vigorously and block 
waterways, which would in turn indicate that it is of potential 
economic significance. This is consistent with the information we cited 
in the data sheet for E. pyramidalis.
    For these reasons, we have determined that the introduction of E. 
pyramidalis would have potential economic significance for the United 
States, and we are adding E. pyramidalis to the NAPPRA list of 
quarantine pest plants. We are also evaluating it for addition to the 
list of noxious weeds in 7 CFR part 360.
    Gladiolus undulatus. Three commenters presented evidence that this 
species is present in the United States. One of these commenters also 
stated that G. undulatus does not appear to have any invasive 
tendencies that would warrant designation as a quarantine pest. We have 
determined that G. undulatus is widely distributed in the United 
States, and we are no longer considering G. undulatus for addition to 
the NAPPRA list of quarantine pest plants.
    Gymnocoronis spilanthoides. One commenter presented evidence that 
this species is present in the United States. We agree that G. 
spilanthoides is present in the United States, and we are no longer 
considering it for official control. Therefore, we are no longer 
considering G. spilanthoides for addition to the NAPPRA list of 
quarantine pest plants.
    Hakea gibbosa. One commenter presented evidence that this species 
is present in the United States. We have determined that H. gibbosa is 
present in the United States, and we are no longer considering H. 
gibbosa for official control. Therefore, we are no longer considering 
H. gibbosa for addition to the NAPPRA list of quarantine pest plants.
    Hakea salicifolia. Two commenters presented evidence that this 
taxon is present in the United States, specifically in California. 
Another commenter acknowledged that H. salicifolia is present in 
California but stated that the plant was invasive. However, the taxon 
does not appear to be distributed beyond California within the United 
States, and we are evaluating H. salicifolia for addition to the list 
of noxious weeds in 7 CFR part 360, meaning it is under consideration 
for official control. Therefore, we are adding H. salicifolia to the 
NAPPRA list of quarantine pest plants, as it is not widely distributed 
and is under official control.
    Hakea servicea. One commenter stated that H. servicea is listed by 
several U.S. nurseries but is not currently for sale, which means the 
nurseries have trouble propagating it and can offer it only 
sporadically. The commenter stated that this indicates that H. servicea 
is not likely to be invasive.
    The history of H. servicea elsewhere indicates it is likely to be 
potentially economically significant, thus qualifying as a quarantine 
pest. As the data sheet for H. servicea indicates, it is included on a 
list of potentially invasive garden plants in its native Australia. The 
European Plant Protection Organization categorizes it as an invasive 
alien plant in New Zealand and South Africa. In New Zealand, it is 
listed among plants of concern on conservation land. In South Africa, 
it has proved highly invasive, is rated as a serious weed, and is 
categorized as a transformer and as a prohibited weed in the most 
invasive Category 1. We do not know exactly why U.S. nurseries only 
list this taxon sporadically, but substantial evidence indicates that 
the introduction of this taxon would have potential economic 
significance in the United States. For that reason, we are evaluating 
H. servicea for addition to the list of noxious weeds in 7 CFR part 
360, meaning it is under consideration for official control. In 
addition, there is no evidence indicating that the taxon is widely 
distributed. Therefore, we are adding H. servicea to the NAPPRA list of 
quarantine pest plants.
    Impatiens parviflora. One commenter stated that this plant is 
growing in California, without providing any references to support this 
assertion. Regardless of whether the taxon is present in the United 
States, we have no evidence indicating that it is widely distributed, 
and we are evaluating I. parviflora for addition to the list of noxious 
weeds in 7 CFR part 360, meaning it is under consideration for official 
control. Therefore, we are

[[Page 23215]]

adding I. parviflora to the NAPPRA list of quarantine pest plants.
    Limnobium laevigatum. Two commenters stated that this taxon is 
present in California and listed for eradication by the State of 
California. One commenter stated that the taxon is a popular aquarium 
plant throughout the United States.
    Although the taxon may be in trade, there is little information 
regarding the extent of that trade; its distribution as a naturalized 
plant is limited to California. For that reason, we have determined 
that L. laevigatum is not widely distributed within the United States. 
We are evaluating L. laevigatum for addition to the list of noxious 
weeds in 7 CFR part 360, meaning it is under consideration for official 
control. Therefore, we are adding L. laevigatum to the NAPPRA list of 
quarantine pest plants.
    Nymphoides cristata. One commenter stated that this taxon is a 
popular garden plant, widely available in the United States. The 
commenter also cited a tropical botanical garden in Florida that sells 
the plant.
    The data sheet we prepared for this taxon indicated that it is 
present in Florida and South Carolina (meaning it is not widely 
distributed) and that it is under consideration for official control. 
Indeed, we are evaluating N. cristata for addition to the list of 
noxious weeds in 7 CFR part 360. Therefore, we are adding N. cristata 
to the NAPPRA list of quarantine pest plants.
    Phyllanthus maderaspatensis. One commenter stated that this taxon 
is listed as threatened and endangered in Australia.\9\ The Australian 
Web page for this taxon indicated that its threats are competition from 
other summer-growing annuals, clearing of floodplain habitat, and 
roadside clearing. The commenter stated that the fact that P. 
maderaspatensis is listed as threatened and endangered in Australia 
makes it unlikely that the taxon is invasive in the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The link the commenter provided, http://www.threatenedspecies.environment.nsw.gov.au/tsprofile/profile.aspx?id=10623, no longer works, but we found a cached 
version of the page at http://web.archive.org/web/20090713032340/http://threatenedspecies.environment.nsw.gov.au/tsprofile/profile.aspx?id=10623.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The data sheet we prepared for P. maderaspatensis cited references 
indicating that the taxon is a weed of concern in its native area, 
southern Africa, and Sudan, in addition to Australia. Although the 
evidence the commenter cites tends to dispute those references, the 
evidence cited in the data sheet has led us to determine that it is 
necessary to evaluate P. maderaspatensis for addition to the list of 
noxious weeds in 7 CFR part 360. To prevent the introduction of P. 
maderaspatensis during our evaluation, we are adding P. maderaspatensis 
to the NAPPRA list of quarantine pest plants. If the evaluation 
indicates that P. maderaspatensis is not a quarantine pest or a host of 
a quarantine pest, we will remove it from the NAPPRA list in accordance 
with Sec.  319.37-2a(e).
    Rhamnus alaternus. Three commenters presented evidence that this 
taxon is present in the United States. As we have determined that this 
taxon is widely distributed in the United States, we are no longer 
considering R. alaternus for addition to the NAPPRA list of quarantine 
pest plants.
    Senecio angulatus. One commenter presented evidence that this taxon 
is present in the United States, specifically that it is sold in 
California. We did not find any other indication that the taxon is 
present in the United States, indicating that it is not widely 
distributed. We are evaluating S. angulatus for addition to the list of 
noxious weeds in 7 CFR part 360, meaning that it is under official 
control. Therefore, we are adding S. angulatus to the NAPPRA list of 
quarantine pest plants.
    Wikstroemia indica. One commenter stated that it might be best to 
find a way for researchers to import this plant, perhaps through a CIP, 
as it seems to be the hot item for antiviral research and a coumarin 
substitute.
    We are adding W. indica to the NAPPRA list of quarantine pest 
plants. However, as the commenter suggests, researchers will be able to 
import it through a Departmental permit in accordance with Sec.  
319.37-2(c). If the CIP proposal is finalized, we will be able to make 
permits for research and development in this taxon more widely 
available.

Hosts of Quarantine Pests

Questions Regarding PRAs

    In order to remove a taxon from the NAPPRA category, we will 
conduct a PRA for the taxon in accordance with paragraph (e) of Sec.  
319.37-2a. We received a few questions on the PRA process, all of which 
focused on the importation of taxa of plants for planting that we 
determine to be hosts of quarantine pests.
    One commenter asked whether the PRAs will address only the pest for 
which the taxon was added to the NAPPRA category, or all quarantine 
pests associated with the taxon and the countries included in the PRA.
    The PRAs will be comprehensive and analyze all quarantine pests 
associated with the taxon in the countries included in the PRA, so that 
we can address all the risks associated with the importation of the 
plant taxon.
    One commenter asked whether we will consider proposals from foreign 
national plant protection organizations (NPPOs), accompanied by 
scientific and technical justifications, for the development of 
specific import requirements for NAPPRA-listed plants (e.g., systems 
approach, treatment, post-entry quarantine, etc.) prior to the 
initiation and completion of a PRA.
    We would not authorize the importation of a NAPPRA-listed taxon 
prior to the completion of a PRA, except under Departmental permit (or 
CIP, if the proposed rule is finalized). However, any information an 
exporting country wishes to submit regarding potential mitigations for 
the pests associated with a taxon would be taken into account during 
the development of a PRA or the issuance of a Departmental permit or 
CIP.
    One commenter asked about how we will prioritize PRAs, the type of 
information that will be required for the PRA process, timelines for 
completion of PRAs, and what actions, if any, can be taken by industry 
to facilitate the process.
    PRAs will be prioritized based on whether we have received a 
request to conduct them. Requests to remove a taxon from the NAPPRA 
list must be made in accordance with Sec.  319.5. This section, headed 
``Requirements for submitting requests to change the regulations in 7 
CFR part 319,'' allows anyone to submit a request to change the 
regulations in 7 CFR part 319, but requires the submission of 
information from an NPPO before a PRA will be prepared.
    We strive to complete all PRAs in a timely manner. However, the 
length of time it takes to complete a PRA is dependent on several 
factors, some of which are not in APHIS' control:
     The availability of data on the taxon;
     The timeliness with which the foreign NPPO responds to our 
requests for information; and
     Competition for APHIS' limited resources available for 
developing PRAs.
    These factors mean that we cannot provide a timetable for 
preparation of a PRA in response to a request to remove a taxon from 
the NAPPRA category. However, if a foreign country wishes to be able to 
conduct trade in a taxon with the United States, we would expect that 
its NPPO would provide information to

[[Page 23216]]

APHIS in a timely manner, thus helping to reduce the time necessary to 
complete the PRA. Industry could help foreign NPPOs by working with 
them to assemble and provide the necessary information.

Distribution of Quarantine Pests

    In most cases, under the ``Action under NAPPRA'' heading in the 
data sheets, we proposed to add taxa that are hosts of quarantine pests 
to NAPPRA from all countries, rather than just the countries in which 
the quarantine pest of concern is known to be present.
    We received several comments on this policy. One commenter asked 
whether the pest status of individual countries of origin would be 
taken into consideration, as designated by the NPPOs of those 
countries, in order to remove them from the NAPPRA list. Another 
commenter asked for clarification to be provided on the measures to be 
implemented in the case of countries where the listed pests are not 
known to be present.
    Our policy in implementing the NAPPRA category is to prevent the 
importation of hosts from any country, regardless of current pest 
status, with the following exceptions:
     Taxa of hosts of quarantine pests whose importation we 
proposed to allow to continue under a Federal order, as described 
earlier in this document;
     Taxa of hosts of quarantine pests currently being imported 
from a country in which the pest is not present; and
     Certain taxa from Canada, when Canada is free of the 
quarantine pest for which the taxa are hosts and when Canada's import 
regulations and our restrictions specific to Canada ensure that the 
pest would not be introduced into the United States through the 
importation of the taxa from Canada.
    In general, it is appropriate to add hosts of quarantine pests from 
all countries to the NAPPRA category because pests can spread quickly 
from country to country through the movement of plants for planting, 
and the importation of plants for planting is a high-risk pathway for 
the introduction of quarantine pests.
    Another commenter asked how our policy of adding imports of taxa of 
hosts of quarantine pests from all countries to the NAPPRA list takes 
relevant IPPC guidelines into account.
    As described above, when a taxon that is a host of a quarantine 
pest is currently being imported, we take measures other than addition 
to the NAPPRA category to address the risk associated with that taxon, 
when such measures are available. For taxa that have not previously 
been imported, we are following IPPC guidelines by requiring a PRA 
prior to the importation of a plant taxon from a new country or region.

Cut Flowers

    Under the ``Action under NAPPRA'' heading, the data sheets for most 
of the hosts of quarantine pests indicated that the importation of cut 
flowers of those taxa would be NAPPRA. One commenter stated that cut 
flowers should be included in the NAPPRA category only where 
scientifically justified, as cut flowers are generally intended for 
consumption rather than for introduction into the environment and thus 
have historically, and correctly, been regarded as posing a level of 
risk different than that posed by plants for planting.
    The commenter expressed specific concerns about including in the 
NAPPRA category cut flowers from CLB host taxa, one of which is the 
genus Rosa, which includes roses. The commenter asked that the action 
under NAPPRA be modified to be consistent with the Federal order, which 
prohibited cut rose imports only of stems greater than 10 millimeters 
(mm) in diameter from certain countries. The commenter also asked that 
we allow the importation of cut roses of any stem diameter from Canada, 
Denmark, France, Germany, Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. The 
commenter cited data from USDA's Foreign Agricultural Service 
indicating that the total value of cut roses imported into the United 
States was over $325 million and asked that the proposed action be 
amended to reflect existing trade patterns.
    Another commenter agreed that stems 10 mm or smaller in diameter 
are not likely to transport viable individuals of CLB, but expressed 
concern regarding larger stems of roses intended for planting, even 
from the European Union; the commenter stated that the European Union 
lacks effective border controls and that CLB is established in Italy.
    One commenter stated that CLB larvae are not found in host plant 
material smaller than 10 mm in diameter, meaning such material should 
be exempt from NAPPRA.
    We agree that cut flowers are intended for consumption rather than 
for propagation. However, cut flowers can be used for propagation, and 
if so used can transmit quarantine pathogens. The definitions of plant 
and regulated article in Sec.  319.37-1 allow us to regulate both 
articles intended for propagation and articles capable of propagation, 
as we determine to be necessary. Indeed, for taxa whose importation is 
prohibited under Sec.  319.37-2(a) due to their potential to introduce 
plant pathogens, we have historically prohibited the importation of cut 
flowers of these taxa as well, when they are capable of propagation and 
a pathway for the introduction of the quarantine pest.
    Nevertheless, the commenter is correct that it is important to 
evaluate whether cut flowers of a taxon of plants for planting are 
capable of introducing the pest in question before including them in 
the NAPPRA action for that taxon. We reexamined the taxa we had 
proposed to add to NAPPRA as hosts of quarantine pests and found that 
the insect quarantine pests (CLB; Rhynchophorus ferrugineus, the red 
palm weevil; and Rhynchophorus palmarum, the giant palm weevil) named 
in the NAPPRA data sheets are not likely to infest cut flowers of their 
host taxa. In addition, cut flowers of hosts of the two palm weevils 
are not used for propagation and so do not present the same risks that 
cut flowers of other taxa might.
    We are updating the ``Action under NAPPRA'' sections of the data 
sheets for CLB and the palm weevils to reflect the fact that cut 
flowers of taxa that are hosts of these pests will not be regulated 
under NAPPRA. However, the importation of cut flowers from hosts of all 
three of these quarantine pests is restricted in Federal orders, and 
those restrictions will remain in place. With respect to CLB, the 
Federal order for CLB exempts stems 10 mm and less in diameter from 
regulation, as noted earlier, and imposes production and certification 
requirements on larger stems and on other plants for planting from 
countries where CLB is known to occur (including the European Union).
    The other quarantine pests addressed in the data sheets are all 
pathogens, and cut flowers from any of the host taxa can serve as a 
pathway for the introduction of the quarantine pest and can be used for 
planting. For that reason, we are adding cut flowers of those taxa (as 
well as all other plant parts other than seed) to the NAPPRA category.
    We are not, however, exempting any plant material less than 10 mm 
in diameter from a CLB host taxon from the NAPPRA category. Such plants 
are likely intended for propagation, and in order to authorize their 
importation from a new source we would need to conduct a PRA to analyze 
all the relevant risks associated with their importation.

Seed

    Two commenters stated that seed should be allowed to be imported if 
the taxon is a host of a quarantine pest (rather than a quarantine pest 
itself), the

[[Page 23217]]

quarantine pest is an insect, and the insect's egg-laying habits are 
not associated with the plant's fruit or seed.
    One commenter expressed concern that our proposed addition of taxa 
such as Solanum spp. and Capsicum spp. to the NAPPRA list of hosts of 
quarantine pests would be a problem for growers in Guam who import seed 
from tropical areas in Asia.
    Two commenters expressed specific concern about the designation of 
Rubus spp. as a host of CLB and stated that, since CLB does not target 
seeds, seeds of Rubus spp. could be exempted from NAPPRA restrictions.
    We have recognized that seed poses different risks than other plant 
parts. In the May 2011 final rule, we stated that we would continue to 
allow the importation of seed from taxa that were added to the NAPPRA 
list of hosts of quarantine pests, unless there was evidence that the 
quarantine pest could be introduced via seed. The ``Action under 
NAPPRA'' sections for all of the taxa that we determined to be hosts of 
quarantine pests (including Rubus spp., Solanum spp., and Capsicum 
spp.) indicated that seed would continue to be allowed to be imported.
    One commenter stated that we should take into account the size of 
the importation, as small lots of seed are of a decidedly lower order 
of risk than bulk commercial shipments of plants or seed.
    We agree that the risk of introducing a quarantine pest through 
imported plants for planting increases with the size of the shipment. 
However, for plants for planting that are themselves quarantine pests, 
a single seed could be enough to introduce the quarantine pest and 
allow it to establish. That is why, for quarantine pest plants, the 
importation of seed of those taxa is NAPPRA. In addition, in the 
regulations allowing the importation of small lots of seed without a 
phytosanitary certificate in Sec.  319.37-4(d), we do not allow the 
importation of small lots of seed from taxa whose seed is listed as 
NAPPRA.

Tissue Culture and Roots

    One commenter stated that tissue-cultured plants from taxa listed 
as NAPPRA should be allowed to be imported, as scientific evidence 
indicates that pests would not accompany tissue-cultured material.
    Two commenters stated that the importation of in vitro tissue 
cultures of Rubus spp. should be allowed under the conditions currently 
in place in the Federal order for CLB. These commenters also stated 
that roots and root segments of Rubus spp. should be exempt from 
NAPPRA.
    While properly tissue-cultured plants are pest-free, plants that 
are infested with disease prior to tissue culture are likely to be 
infested when the plant comes out of tissue culture as well. Plants 
that are added to the NAPPRA list as hosts of an insect quarantine pest 
may be free of that pest, but there may be other plant pests for which 
tissue culturing is not an adequate mitigation, or for which there may 
be special requirements for tissue culturing. In order to fully 
consider whether tissue culture is an adequate mitigation for all the 
pests associated with a taxon of plants for planting, we would need to 
conduct a PRA. Therefore, we cannot allow the importation of tissue 
cultures of plant taxa listed as NAPPRA. Similarly, roots may be hosts 
for additional pests for which we would need to conduct a PRA, and we 
cannot allow the importation of roots from plant taxa listed as NAPPRA.
    For Rubus spp. specifically, the only countries with which the 
United States has had significant trade over the past few years in any 
kind of plants for planting are Canada and the United Kingdom. As noted 
earlier, both of these countries are now excluded from the NAPPRA 
action for Rubus spp., and importation of Rubus spp. from these 
countries, including tissue culture, will continue to be regulated by 
the Federal order for CLB and, in the plants for planting regulations, 
paragraphs (e) and (f) of Sec.  319.37-5.

Harmonization With Canada

    Under the ``Action under NAPPRA'' heading of the data sheets for 
taxa that we determined to be hosts of quarantine pests, we stated for 
some taxa that we would continue to allow the importation of the taxon 
from Canada. We stated in the initial notice that we would allow such 
importation when Canada is free of the quarantine pest for which the 
taxa are hosts and when Canada's import regulations and our 
restrictions specific to Canada ensure that the pest would not be 
introduced into the United States through the importation of the taxa 
from Canada.
    One commenter, the NPPO of Canada, asked us to allow the continued 
importation from Canada of several taxa that are hosts of quarantine 
pests in addition to those specified in the initial data sheets. 
Specifically, the NPPO of Canada asked that we allow the continued 
importation of hosts of CLB, the red palm weevil, the giant palm 
weevil, and the pests Bursaphelenchus cocophilus, Ceratocystis 
manginecans, Pseudomonas syringae pv. actinidae, and Xanthomonas 
axonopodis pv. punica. The NPPO of Canada stated that these pests are 
not present in Canada and that hosts of these pests are imported into 
Canada primarily or solely from the United States. Furthermore, the 
commenter stated, the NPPO of Canada intends to put in place 
restrictions on the importation of hosts of these pests from other 
countries that are equivalent to the restrictions we proposed to 
implement through adding those host taxa to the NAPPRA category.
    We agree with this commenter with respect to hosts of CLB. Most 
host taxa of CLB are commonly cultivated in Canada, and Canada has put 
in place restrictions on the importation of all CLB host taxa from 
other countries. As noted earlier in this document, the data sheet for 
CLB has been updated to indicate that the importation of hosts of this 
pest from Canada is not restricted under NAPPRA.
    With respect to the hosts of the rest of the pests the commenter 
named, Canada has not yet implemented regulations that are equivalent 
to adding the host taxa to the NAPPRA category. In addition, it is 
unlikely that hosts of these pests would be cultivated in Canada, as 
the pests affect tropical plants, specifically kiwi, mango, palm, and 
pomegranate plants. Therefore, plants of these taxa that are present in 
Canada would likely have been imported; if they were imported from an 
area other than the United States, they could pose a risk of 
introducing a quarantine pest into the United States, should they be 
re-exported to the United States. Accordingly, we will continue to 
include Canada in the list of countries from which the importation of 
hosts of the red palm weevil, the giant palm weevil, Bursaphelenchus 
cocophilus, Ceratocystis manginecans, Pseudomonas syringae pv. 
actinidae, and Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. punica is NAPPRA.
    If Canada successfully imposes equivalent import restrictions on 
hosts of these pests in the future, we will reevaluate our decisions.

CLB

    One commenter, representing the European Union, noted that 72 taxa 
of plants for planting were designated as hosts of CLB and thus 
potential additions to the NAPPRA category, but the pests and pest 
risks associated with these taxa are well known, since the pest of 
concern has already been identified. The commenter asked us to clarify 
the need for strengthening the import requirements for these taxa from 
the European Union.
    We have identified the taxa listed in the CLB data sheet as hosts 
of a quarantine pest. This indicates that

[[Page 23218]]

further analysis is necessary before allowing their importation. While 
one pest is sufficient for adding a taxon to NAPPRA, there may be other 
quarantine pests associated with the taxa in various areas of the world 
where the plant may be grown. In order to authorize the importation of 
these host taxa when we do not have any information about importation 
of the taxon from a country, we would need to develop a PRA that 
determines all the pests associated with the taxon in a specific 
country or area and identifies an appropriate risk mitigation strategy 
for all those pests. (It is extremely likely that most of the taxa of 
plants for planting identified as hosts of CLB are also hosts to other 
quarantine pests, for which we may or may not have practical 
mitigations.) In the meantime, we are being consistent with IPPC 
guidelines by not allowing the importation of the host taxa from areas 
from which they have not recently been imported without a PRA. As 
discussed earlier, importation of CLB host taxa from areas that have 
previously exported those taxa to the United States will continue to be 
regulated by the CLB Federal order.
    The commenter asked us to share our technical documentation on the 
host range of CLB as well as any data on interceptions of CLB in plants 
from the European Union.
    The technical documentation on the host range of CLB is presented 
in the CLB data sheet. We do not have interception data for CLB from 
the European Union, for two reasons. First, except for the specific 
countries from which imports of certain CLB host taxa will continue to 
be allowed, as described in the amended data sheet available with this 
final notice, the countries in the European Union have not exported 
significant quantities of CLB host taxa to the United States. Second, 
CLB is an internal borer, and such pests are not readily apparent 
through the visual inspection we conduct at plant inspection stations, 
which makes it all the more important to develop other means to combat 
this and any other quarantine pests associated with the CLB host taxa, 
through the PRA process. As discussed earlier, the importation of CLB 
host taxa has been subject to mitigations against the introduction of 
CLB that are set out in a Federal order, and any importation of CLB 
host taxa that continues after the publication of this notice will 
occur under the same mitigations.
    The data sheet for CLB listed CLB as present in the European Union, 
among other areas. The commenter stated that most European Union Member 
States can claim that CLB is not known to occur, based on several years 
of mandatory annual surveillance. The commenter stated that areas where 
CLB is established have been demarcated officially, and measures are 
imposed to ensure that no infested material can leave these areas. The 
commenter further stated that there are no indications that CLB is 
present outside demarcated areas, with the exception of isolated 
findings that can be traced back to imports. The commenter concluded 
that the entire European Union should not be listed as an area where 
CLB is present.
    As stated in this document, unless we have had significant trade in 
CLB host taxa with a country, imports of CLB host taxa from all 
countries will be NAPPRA. As previously established, the countries that 
comprise the European Union have not exported significant quantities of 
CLB host taxa to the United States, with limited exceptions as 
described in the data sheets. Therefore, it does not matter whether CLB 
is present in the entire European Union or in certain areas for the 
purposes of this action.
    With respect to the assertions made by the commenter, we note that, 
in the European Union, CLB has been found in the environment 
surrounding nursery areas, suggesting that infested host material was 
moved into previously uninfested areas, and may also have moved out of 
those areas. This would indicate some potential deficiencies in the 
European Union's regulatory program for this pest. We would undertake a 
detailed review of the European Union's program for CLB if the European 
Union requests that we conduct a PRA to allow the importation of CLB 
host taxa into the United States.
    One commenter requested clarification regarding the rationale for 
adding Chaenomeles spp., Cydonia spp., Malus spp., Prunus spp., and 
Pyrus spp. to the NAPPRA category as hosts of CLB. The commenter stated 
that our previously established import restrictions for fruit tree 
propagative material into North America require certification for 
specific pests of concern, and prohibit importation from non-approved 
sources. The commenter stated that these measures should mitigate the 
risk for most pests of potential concern. Another commenter similarly 
stated that many of the pest species for which taxa were proposed to be 
listed in the NAPPRA category are already regulated by the United 
States, including CLB.
    We believe the measures the commenter cited are those in paragraphs 
(b) and (j) of Sec.  319.37-5. These measures specifically address 
pathogens that may be associated with these genera of fruit trees. They 
do not provide any protection against CLB. In addition, they do not 
address other insect or pathogen pests that may be associated with 
these genera. In order to comprehensively address the risk associated 
with the importation of these taxa, we need to complete a PRA.
    Several commenters expressed concern regarding the potential impact 
on the bonsai trade of listing Pinus spp. and Rhododendron spp. as 
NAPPRA. This trade has been regulated under paragraph (q) of Sec.  
319.37-5, which prescribes conditions for the importation of 
artificially dwarfed plants that are designed to prevent the 
introduction of insect pests into the United States. Some bonsai are 
also imported under a bonsai pilot program in which the bonsai are 
grown for a period of time in postentry quarantine under conditions 
equivalent to those in Sec.  319.37-5(q).
    The commenters stated that the importation of Pinus spp. and 
Rhododendron spp. as bonsai, particularly from Japan but also from 
China and Taiwan, is an important business for them, with investments 
made in production facilities in Japan and postentry quarantine 
facilities in the United States and per-tree values of $50,000 or more. 
The commenters also stated that bonsai are subject to intense 
monitoring from agricultural officials and have had no pest problems.
    Based on these comments, we re-examined our import records to 
determine whether there was significant trade in Pinus spp. and 
Rhododendron spp. from any country we had proposed to list as NAPPRA 
for those taxa. As noted earlier in this document under the heading 
``Potential Economic Effects,'' we determined that there had been 
significant trade with Japan (although not China or Taiwan). As the 
conditions in Sec.  319.37-5(q) and in the bonsai pilot program have 
been successful at mitigating the risk of introducing other quarantine 
pests into the United States, and as the Federal order for CLB will 
continue to govern the importation of Pinus spp. and Rhododendron spp. 
from Japan, we do not believe excluding Japan from the NAPPRA action 
for these taxa will increase the risk of introducing quarantine pests 
into the United States.
    Noting that the importation of bonsai is regulated under Sec.  
319.37-5(q), one commenter suggested we should continue to allow the 
importation of any taxon that is to be listed in NAPPRA as a host of a 
quarantine pest if the taxon is produced in accordance with a USDA-
approved systems approach.
    The conditions in Sec.  319.37-5(q) were developed to address the 
risk posed by

[[Page 23219]]

longhorned beetles, including CLB, in artificially dwarfed plants. 
However, those conditions apply only to artificially dwarfed plants; it 
is necessary to restrict the importation of all plants that are hosts 
of CLB in order to address the risk of introducing CLB. Appropriate 
conditions for the importation of those host plants can be determined 
through the PRA process. There may be other quarantine pests associated 
with a taxon besides the pest or pests addressed by a systems approach 
and the pest for which the taxon was added to the NAPPRA category. 
Conducting a PRA will allow us to identify all quarantine pests 
associated with a taxon and develop appropriate mitigations.
    As discussed earlier, in cases where we have experience with 
importing artificially dwarfed plants under Sec.  319.37-5(q) and the 
CLB Federal order and have found, through inspection, that they are 
generally pest-free, we have allowed that trade to continue under the 
conditions of the Federal order.
    One commenter, a company primarily focused on the establishment and 
management of short rotation plantations of hybrid poplar in North 
America, Europe, Asia, and South America, expressed concern about the 
listing of Populus, the genus containing poplar species, as NAPPRA. The 
commenter stated that its breeding and hybridization work takes place 
in Oregon, meaning the commenter needs to import plant material in the 
form of soil-free cuttings, seed, and pollen from various countries. 
The commenter stated that it has followed all regulations for importing 
plants for planting in the past, and such importations have not 
resulted in the introduction of any pests to the United States.
    The importation of seed of Populus spp. will continue to be 
allowed. While pollen may not be a pathway for CLB, we need to evaluate 
all the quarantine pests associated with this taxon besides CLB as 
well, as there have not been significant imports of Populus spp. pollen 
or other plant parts into the United States. Soil-free unrooted 
cuttings, meanwhile, could easily serve as a pathway for CLB depending 
on size, and we would need to analyze CLB and any other pests 
associated with Populus spp. through the PRA process before allowing 
the importation of such plants for planting, as there have not been 
significant imports of Populus spp. from any country except Canada.
    One commenter stated a desire to establish a pest-free area for CLB 
and the Asian longhorned beetle (Anaplophora glabripennis, ALB) in 
Netherlands to allow the importation of fruit trees from that country.
    As described in the CLB data sheet that accompanied the July 2011 
notice, Malus spp. and Prunus spp., the two principal genera of fruit 
trees, from Netherlands will be allowed to be imported under the 
current regulations for their importation in Sec.  319.37-5(b) and 
under the conditions of the Federal order. The Federal order includes 
requirements for production in a pest-free area, pest-free place of 
production, or pest-free production site for CLB and ALB. We fully 
support the establishment of pest-free areas in exporting countries, 
but it is the responsibility of the exporting country's NPPO and local 
growers to establish and maintain these pest-free areas.

Lachneulla willkommii

    One commenter expressed surprise that we had excluded Canada from 
NAPPRA in the data sheet listing hosts of the pest Lachneulla 
willkommii, since, as the commenter stated, L. willkommii is present in 
Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.
    Both Canada and the United States have designated areas under 
quarantine for this pest. We recognize Canada's quarantine, and Canada 
recognizes ours. There is no need for further restrictions.
    Therefore, in accordance with the regulations in Sec.  319.37-
2a(b)(2), we are adding 31 taxa of plants for planting that are 
quarantine pests and 107 taxa of plants for planting that are hosts of 
13 quarantine pests to the list of taxa whose importation is NAPPRA. A 
complete list of those taxa and the restrictions placed on their 
importation can be found at the address in footnote 1 of this document 
or on the Plant Protection and Quarantine Web page at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/plants/plant_imports/Q37/nappra/index.shtml.

    Authority:  7 U.S.C. 450, 7701-7772, and 7781-7786; 21 U.S.C. 
136 and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.

    Done in Washington, DC, this 15th day of April 2013.
Kevin Shea,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-09147 Filed 4-17-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P