Importation of Nursery Stock, 43503-43524 [E7-15124]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
• Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 150 (Monday, August 6, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43503-43524]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-15124]



========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents 
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed 
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published 
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents. 
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each 
week.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 150 / Monday, August 6, 2007 / Rules 
and Regulations

[[Page 43503]]



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

7 CFR Parts 319, 330, and 340

[Docket No. 03-002-3]
RIN 0579-AC51


Importation of Nursery Stock

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are amending the regulations on importing nursery stock to 
eliminate various restrictions on the importation of kenaf seed; to 
establish programs for the importation of approved plants from the 
Canary Islands and from Israel; to require an additional declaration on 
the phytosanitary certificate accompanying blueberry plants imported 
from Canada; to require that phytosanitary certificates include the 
genus names of the restricted articles they accompany, and the species 
names when restrictions apply to species within a genus; to change the 
phytosanitary certificate requirements for several restricted articles; 
to reduce the postentry quarantine growing period for Hydrangea spp.; 
and to update the list of ports of entry and Federal plant inspection 
stations. We are also making several other changes to update and 
clarify the regulations and improve their effectiveness. These changes 
are necessary to relieve restrictions that appear unnecessary, update 
existing provisions, and make the regulations easier to understand and 
implement.

DATES: Effective Date: September 5, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Arnold T. Tschanz, Senior Import 
Specialist, Commodity Import Analysis and Operations, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 
River Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; (301) 734-5306.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    The regulations in 7 CFR part 319 prohibit or restrict the 
importation of certain plants and plant products into the United States 
to prevent the introduction of plant pests. The regulations contained 
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), restrict, among other things, the 
importation of living plants, plant parts, and seeds for propagation.
    On December 15, 2005, we published in the Federal Register (70 FR 
74215-74235, Docket No. 03-002-1) a proposal \1\ to make several 
amendments to the nursery stock regulations. We solicited comments 
concerning the proposal for 60 days ending February 13, 2006. We 
reopened and extended the deadline for comments until March 31, 2006, 
in a document published in the Federal Register on February 28, 2006 
(71 FR 9978, Docket No. 03- 002-2). We received 25 comments by that 
date, from 23 commenters, including private citizens, State and local 
governments, industry organizations, individual industry companies, and 
foreign national plant protection organizations. The comments are 
discussed below by topic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ To view the proposed rule and the comments we received, go 
to https://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/
main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS-2005-0081.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

General Comments

    Two commenters asked how the proposed rule fits into the ongoing 
revision of the nursery stock regulations, which was first discussed in 
an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) that was published in 
the Federal Register on December 10, 2004 (69 FR 71736-71744, Docket 
No. 03-069-1).
    We are continuing with our efforts to revise the nursery stock 
regulations. As the commenters noted, the revision will take several 
years to fully implement. We anticipate completing the revision in 
stages. As we implement the revisions, we will continue to enforce the 
current regulations. The changes in the proposed rule were designed to 
address specific issues that have arisen as we continue to enforce the 
regulations.
    One commenter expressed concern about the introduction of invasive 
species into the United States via the importation of nursery stock and 
stated that any species of nursery stock being imported into the United 
States should be studied for 1 year prior to importation. The commenter 
also suggested that a tax be imposed on the importation of nursery 
stock to help defray the cost of eradicating invasive species.
    As discussed in the December 2004 ANPR, we are considering whether 
to adopt more restrictive regulations for the importation of nursery 
stock. We may in the future elect to establish regulations that will 
allow us to take a precautionary approach to the importation of species 
that have not been imported before. In response to the commenter's 
second suggestion, APHIS does not have the authority to impose a tax on 
the importation of nursery stock; we are only authorized to charge user 
fees for services we provide.

Definition of From

    The definition of from in Sec.  319.37-1 currently provides that an 
article is considered to be ``from'' any country or locality in which 
it was grown. The current regulations also provide that an article 
imported into Canada from another country or locality shall be 
considered as being solely ``from'' Canada if it is imported into the 
United States directly from Canada after having been grown for at least 
1 year in Canada; has never been grown in a country from which it would 
be a prohibited article or from which it would be subject to special 
foreign inspection, certification, treatment, or other requirements; 
was not grown in a country or locality from which it would be subject 
to postentry quarantine requirements, unless it was grown in Canada 
under postentry growing conditions equivalent to those specified for 
the article in Sec.  319.37-7; and was not imported into Canada in 
growing media.
    We proposed to replace this definition with a new definition of 
from, in order to remove the language that imposed special restrictions 
on the importation of regulated articles from Canada. The proposed 
definition of from read: ``An article is considered to be ``from'' an 
exporting country or area when it was

[[Page 43504]]

grown or propagated only in the exporting country or area, or when it 
was grown in the exporting country or area after it entered the 
exporting country or area from another country or area under conditions 
that are equivalent to those that would be required by the United 
States if the plant were imported into the United States directly from 
any of the countries or areas where the plant was grown prior to its 
entry into the exporting country or area.''
    We received several comments on our proposed definition. Many of 
these commenters were concerned that the proposed definition might 
weaken our protections against the importation of potentially risky 
nursery stock. Three commenters asked us to clarify whether articles 
prohibited from another country would continue to be prohibited even 
after importation to a second country, regardless of the time that the 
articles remained in that country.
    Some commenters expressed concern that the proposed definition 
would be difficult to enforce, since the national plant protection 
organization (NPPO) of an exporting country would have to keep track of 
any plant material that entered its country in case it was reexported 
at some point in the future. Other commenters expressed general concern 
about whether the restrictions on the importation of nursery stock in 
general are adequate to prevent the introduction of plant pests, when 
it can be difficult to determine what pests a plant has been exposed 
to.
    We agree that these commenters have identified significant issues 
with our proposed definition of from. We are withdrawing that proposed 
change in this final rule. We will revisit this issue in a separate 
proposed rule.

Definition of Preclearance

    We proposed to add a definition of preclearance to Sec.  319.37-1. 
The definition we proposed to add is consistent with the definition of 
that term in the International Plant Protection Convention's (IPPC) 
2002 Glossary of Phytosanitary Terms (International Standards for 
Phytosanitary Measures [ISPM] publication number 5).\2\ The proposed 
definition read: ``Phytosanitary certification and/or clearance in the 
country in which the articles were grown, performed by or under the 
regular supervision of APHIS.'' Our intention was to clarify the 
conditions under which sampling and inspection can take place in the 
country of origin in a preclearance program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ISPMs may be viewed on the World Wide Web at https://
www.ippc.int/IPP/En/default.jsp. Click on the ``Standards'' link on 
the home page to view the ISPMs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter supported the expression of our intent to provide 
regular supervision in preclearance and asked whether the word 
``regular'' meant that APHIS would supervise at set intervals, rather 
than a random basis.
    We have always provided regular supervision of inspection and 
clearance during preclearance according to the terms of the workplan 
developed between APHIS and the NPPO of the country of origin of the 
precleared articles.\3\ Typically, the workplan requires APHIS' 
participation in preclearance activities, either at set intervals or at 
specific points during the production process for the articles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ We published in the Federal Register a notice providing 
background information on bilateral workplans on May 10, 2006 (71 FR 
27221-27224, Docket No. APHIS-2005-0085).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Two commenters recommended that preclearance sampling and 
inspection at the production site be one of the main elements of plant 
protection employed by APHIS. These commenters stated that this would 
require a greater commitment to assigning trained personnel to work on 
location, perhaps stationing APHIS employees permanently at foreign 
sites of production.
    We implement preclearance procedures based on the type of 
restricted articles being precleared for importation and the level of 
APHIS involvement we believe is warranted. This may involve, as the 
commenter suggests, stationing APHIS employees permanently at foreign 
sites of production or treatment facilities, or sending APHIS personnel 
to production sites for specific tours of duty to survey and inspect at 
the appropriate times during the production process. It may also 
involve APHIS employees consulting with employees of the NPPO of the 
country of origin regarding standards or requirements for phytosanitary 
certification. For any preclearance program, the details of APHIS 
supervision are specified in the workplan developed between APHIS and 
the NPPO of the country of origin.
    One commenter was concerned that the proposed definition would not 
accommodate a bulb export program currently under development in which 
bulbs would be produced in certified fields in Germany and Poland, thus 
meeting the requirements in Sec.  319.37-5(a), and then moved to the 
Netherlands for processing prior to export. In this program, APHIS 
inspectors would preclear bulbs in the Netherlands, rather than in the 
country of origin of the articles being exported.
    The program the commenter referred to has not yet been approved by 
the parties that would participate in it. If the program is approved, 
we will make any changes to our regulations that may be necessary for 
its implementation.
    We are making one change to our proposed definition of preclearance 
in this final rule. The proposed definition, taken directly from the 
IPPC Glossary of Phytosanitary Terms, referred to APHIS providing 
phytosanitary certification in the country in which an article of 
nursery stock to be imported is grown. However, under our arrangements 
with foreign NPPOs, only the foreign NPPO issues phytosanitary 
certificates; APHIS preclearance officers instead inspect articles to 
ensure that they meet the requirements of the regulations. Therefore, 
in this final rule, we have replaced the reference to phytosanitary 
certification with a reference to phytosanitary inspection.

Plant Protection Act Definitions

    We proposed to add definitions of two terms to the regulations and 
to revise the definitions of three other terms to make those 
definitions consistent with the definitions found in title IV of the 
Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000, known as the Plant Protection 
Act (7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.). One of the terms that we proposed to add 
to the regulations was plant, which we proposed to define, following 
the Plant Protection Act, as: ``Any plant (including any plant part) 
for or capable of propagation, including a tree, a tissue culture, a 
plantlet culture, pollen, a shrub, a vine, a cutting, a graft, a scion, 
a bud, a bulb, a root, and a seed.''
    One commenter recommended that the definition of plant include cell 
cultures in solution.
    The definition includes any plant (including any plant part) for or 
capable of propagation. This category includes cell cultures in 
solution, even though cell cultures in solution are not listed as 
examples of members of the category. (In the definition, the use of the 
term ``includes'' indicates that the list is not exhaustive.) We are 
not changing the proposed definition to include cell cultures in 
solution as an example because we believe it is important for the 
regulations to be consistent with the Plant Protection Act.
    Because the definition of plant that we proposed to add to the 
regulations is broader than the scope of the plants we regulate in the 
nursery stock regulations, we also proposed to add a definition of 
regulated plant to the regulations that would include only

[[Page 43505]]

those plants regulated in the nursery stock regulations. This proposed 
definition read: ``Any gymnosperm, angiosperm, fern, or fern ally. 
Gymnosperms include cycads, conifers, and gingko. Angiosperms include 
any flowering plant. Fern allies include club moss, horsetail, whisk 
fern, spike moss, and quillwort.''
    One commenter asked why the term ``regulated'' was used and stated 
that the proposed definition appeared to be even broader than the 
proposed definition of plant.
    We are using the term ``regulated'' to make it clear that the scope 
of plants included in the nursery stock regulations is limited to the 
plants included in the definition of regulated plant. We believe that 
the meaning of the term ``regulated'' is apparent to most readers of 
the regulations. The definition of regulated plant is narrower in scope 
than the definition of plant; the former excludes nonvascular plants 
such as mosses and green algae, to name two examples.
    We are making one minor change to the proposed definition of 
regulated plant in this final rule. To make the last sentence of the 
definition of regulated plant consistent with the second sentence of 
the definition, we are making the examples in that sentence plural 
rather than singular.
    We also proposed to revise the definition of plant pest to make it 
consistent with the definition of that term in the Plant Protection 
Act. The definition had read: ``The egg, pupal, and larval stages as 
well as any other living stage of: Any insects, mites, nematodes, 
slugs, snails, protozoa, or other invertebrate animals, bacteria, 
fungi, other parasitic plants or reproductive parts thereof, viruses, 
or any organisms similar to or allied with any of the foregoing, or any 
infectious substances, which can directly or indirectly injure or cause 
disease or damage in any plants or parts thereof, or any processed, 
manufactured, or other products of plants.'' We proposed to revise it 
to read: ``Any living stage of any of the following that can directly 
or indirectly injure, cause damage to, or cause disease in any plant or 
plant product: A protozoan, a nonhuman animal, a parasitic plant, a 
bacterium, a fungus, a virus or viroid, an infectious agent or other 
pathogen, or any article similar to or allied with any of these 
articles.''
    One commenter noted that the proposed definition, which included 
nonhuman animals, was broader in scope than the previous definition, 
which only included invertebrate animals.
    Again, our intention in revising the definition of plant pest was 
to make that definition consistent with the definition of that term in 
the Plant Protection Act. We have no intention of broadening the scope 
of the pests we regulate or issue permits for at this time.
    We are making one other minor change to the Plant Protection Act-
derived definitions we proposed. Like the current definition of 
regulated article, the definition of regulated article in the December 
2005 proposed rule began: ``Any class of nursery stock or other 
regulated plant, root, bulb, seed, or other plant product * * *'' The 
words ``class of nursery stock or other'' are redundant, and we are 
removing them in this final rule.

Plants In Vitro

    We proposed to remove several restrictions on plants in vitro. The 
IPPC's 2002 Glossary of Phytosanitary Terms defines plants in vitro as 
``plants in an aseptic medium in a closed container.'' Specifically:
     We proposed to amend Sec.  319.37-3(a)(5) of the 
regulations to exempt shipments of plants in vitro from the requirement 
that lots of 13 or more articles offered for importation into the 
United States must be accompanied by a written permit issued by a Plant 
Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) inspector. This exemption would not 
apply if importation of the plants is restricted or prohibited 
elsewhere in the nursery stock regulations. This would also mean that 
plants in vitro could enter the United States at any port of entry 
authorized in 7 CFR part 330 for articles not required to be imported 
under a written permit.
     We also proposed to amend Sec.  319.37-4(a) of the 
regulations to exempt plants in vitro from the requirement that 
restricted articles offered for importation into the United States be 
accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate from the country of origin, 
unless their importation is restricted or prohibited elsewhere in the 
nursery stock regulations. These changes would make plants in vitro 
whose importation is not otherwise restricted or prohibited generally 
admissible into the United States.
    To accomplish these changes, we proposed to add a definition of 
plants in vitro to the regulations in Sec.  319.37-1. The proposed 
definition was identical to the IPPC definition quoted above.
    Six commenters recommended that we not proceed with these proposed 
changes. The commenters focused on the fact that plants in vitro pose 
an extremely low risk only if they are produced from plants that have 
been determined to be free of plant pests and carefully monitored 
throughout the production process to ensure their continued freedom 
from plant pests. Along these lines, one commenter stated that some 
fastidious and cryptic organisms can survive the process if the source 
plant is infected. The commenter cited Odontoglossum ring spot virus 
and Cymbidium mosaic virus in orchids as good examples. This commenter 
further stated that the fact that a plant is growing in aseptic 
conditions does not imply that it is free of foliar nematodes. Other 
commenters noted that the proposed regulations placed no conditions on 
the importation of plants in vitro other than being imported in an 
aseptic medium; under the proposed regulations, there would be no way 
to verify that the proper production practices had been followed, or to 
trace the plants back to their production site if they proved to be 
affected by plant pests. Two commenters stated that plants in vitro 
should be generally admissible, but only if they are produced in 
accordance with a general clean stock program, as described in the 
December 2004 ANPR.
    Based on these comments, we are withdrawing the proposed changes 
that would have made plants in vitro generally admissible. They will 
continue to be subject to the permit and phytosanitary certificate 
requirements. We agree with the commenters who stated that plants in 
vitro produced in a program designed to ensure pest freedom would pose 
an extremely low risk of introducing a quarantine pest into the United 
States. We are considering developing such a program and adding it to 
the regulations. However, in order to verify that producers of plants 
in vitro comply with the requirements of such a program, we would need 
to require that articles produced in such a program be accompanied by a 
phytosanitary certificate.
    One commenter recommended that APHIS allow the importation of 
plants in vitro even if the importation of their genus or species is 
otherwise prohibited.
    This may be possible if the plants are produced in accordance with 
a program of the type described above. We will consider this issue as 
part of our deliberation on whether to develop such a program.
    In a related matter, we proposed to amend Sec.  319.37-8(c) of the 
regulations, which had stated: ``A restricted article growing solely in 
agar or in other transparent or translucent tissue culture medium may 
be imported established in

[[Page 43506]]

such growing media.'' We proposed to remove the requirement that the 
growing medium be transparent or translucent in order to allow the use 
of charcoal in the growing medium. Charcoal is commonly used by 
importers of plants in vitro as a detoxifying agent; if it is used as 
an additive in growing media, it will still be easy to determine 
whether the growing media meets the aseptic standard prescribed in the 
definition of plants in vitro, because any bacteria in the growing 
media would quickly reproduce and form a large mass. Therefore, we 
proposed to revise this paragraph to read: ``Plants in vitro may be 
imported in their growing media.''
    Two commenters specifically addressed this issue, noting that our 
statement that bacteria in media would ``quickly reproduce and form a 
large mass'' assumes that the growing requirements in the regulations 
related to plant-associated bacteria are met when plants are produced 
in in vitro media. The commenters stated that this is not the case.
    The regulations do not contain any general requirements for plants 
produced in in vitro media. The previous requirement was intended to 
aid inspection of plants grown and imported in their growing media. If 
we become aware of any specific risks related to the importation of 
certain plants in growing media, we will amend the regulations 
accordingly to address those specific risks. However, as a general 
requirement, we believe the use of growing media with a charcoal 
additive will still allow for effective inspection of the growing media 
upon importation, for the reasons stated in the proposed rule. We are 
making no changes to the proposed rule in response to this comment.
    Because we are not adding a definition of plants in vitro to the 
regulations at this time, we need to revise our proposed wording. This 
final rule therefore modifies paragraph (c) of Sec.  319.37-8 to read: 
`` A restricted article growing solely in agar or in other tissue 
culture medium may be imported established in such growing media.''

Genus and Species Name on Phytosanitary Certificates

    The regulations in Sec.  319.37-4(a) currently require that any 
restricted article offered for importation into the United States be 
accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate of inspection, with certain 
exceptions. We proposed to additionally require that the phytosanitary 
certificate include the genus and species name of the restricted 
article that it accompanies.
    Several commenters stated that the proposed requirement did not 
make any allowance for plants gathered on plant exploration research 
expeditions, where species data may not be available; unnamed, recently 
discovered species; or interspecific or intergeneric hybrids, including 
naturally occurring seedlings from unknown parents. One of these 
commenters suggested that instead we use the language in the IPPC's 
ISPM No. 12, ``Guidelines for Phytosanitary Certificates,'' which 
recommends that plants and plant products be identified on a 
phytosanitary certificate using accepted scientific names, at least to 
genus level but preferably to the species level. Another commenter 
suggested allowing the cultivar name of a plant to be provided as an 
alternative to the species name. One commenter suggested establishing a 
system through which plants whose taxonomic information was unknown 
could be imported under permit, with monitoring of the destination and 
disposal of the material.
    Other commenters opposed the change entirely. Two commenters asked 
why it was necessary to require species information to be listed in 
cases when our restrictions are applied at the genus level. Two other 
commenters stated that many genera of certain plant types can have 
dozens of species. These commenters expressed concern that the need for 
NPPO inspection staff to verify all plants in a consignment to the 
species level will cause unnecessary delays in the inspection and 
consequently the shipping process and will detract from the inspector's 
primary objective to detect and identify diseases and insect pests. One 
of these commenters also expressed concern that use of the species name 
might cause identification errors that could result in delays when 
restricted articles are offered for importation. The commenters 
requested that the proposal be amended to require that only those 
species that have special requirements or are regulated by the 
Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species should be 
identified on the phytosanitary certificates by both genus and species.
    We agree with the commenters who stated that we need to provide for 
situations in which the species name is not known, and we understand 
the burden that listing species names can impose. However, some 
requirements in the regulations place restrictions on specific species 
or cultivars within a genus; for example, the regulations in Sec.  
319.37-5(b) restrict the importation of certain species within the 
genus Prunus based on whether they are immune to plum pox virus, and 
the regulations in Sec.  319.37-2(a) prohibit the importation of 
Berberis spp. except for species and cultivars that have been 
designated as resistant to black stem rust. Inspectors enforcing such 
regulations need to be able to quickly distinguish what species or 
cultivar is being offered for importation in order to determine whether 
the plants meet the requirements in the regulations.
    To ensure that inspectors have the information they need while 
accommodating the need for exceptions when species data are not 
available, we have changed the proposed requirement in this final rule. 
Instead of requiring that the genus and species name of a restricted 
article offered for importation be included on the phytosanitary 
certificate accompanying that article, this final rule requires that, 
when the regulations place restrictions on individual species or 
cultivars within a genus, the phytosanitary certificate must also 
identify the species or cultivar of the article it accompanies. 
Otherwise, identification of the species is strongly preferred, but not 
required. In cases in which species is not known, the phytosanitary 
certificate may identify the cultivar name of the restricted article it 
accompanies, except where the regulations place restrictions on 
individual species.
    Further, we are requiring that intergeneric and interspecific 
hybrids be designated by placing the multiplication sign ``x'' between 
the names of the parent taxa. If the hybrid is named, the 
multiplication sign may instead be placed before the name of an 
intergeneric hybrid or before the epithet in the name of an 
interspecific hybrid.
    We are not making an exception in the phytosanitary certificate 
regulations for unnamed or unknown articles, as the information we have 
indicates that they have been imported extremely infrequently. Persons 
wishing to import unnamed or unknown articles into the United States 
are encouraged to contact PPQ's Permit Unit for information about 
importing such articles through a departmental permit. This would allow 
the unnamed or unknown articles to be imported for identification or 
research purposes, similar to the conditions described by one of the 
commenters.
    The regulations in this final rule indicate that we strongly prefer 
that species be listed on the phytosanitary certificate, even when 
listing species is not required. We continue to request this 
information for data-gathering purposes. We need to know the number, 
size, and volume of imports of nursery stock in order to better assess 
what overall risks presented by plants for

[[Page 43507]]

planting need to be better addressed. This effort is part of the Q-37 
revision mentioned earlier in this document. In addition, requesting 
that species information be entered where known is consistent with IPPC 
guidelines, as discussed earlier.
    In discussing this change, the preamble of the proposed rule stated 
that ``having the genus and species name available would allow 
inspectors to easily identify restricted articles presented for 
importation and thus better assess any risks that may be associated 
with their importation.'' One commenter stated that a risk assessment 
should be performed prior to importation of the articles in question, 
unless it is meant to give the individual inspector a management tool 
to make a selection of the products presented for importation.
    As the commenter stated, our inspectors are not conducting risk 
assessments at the ports; rather, they make decisions about how to 
apply the regulations, which are the result of risk assessments. The 
phytosanitary certificates that have accompanied restricted articles 
may not have enough information to allow an inspector to determine what 
restrictions apply to its importation in cases where restrictions apply 
to species or cultivars within a genus. The proposed change was 
intended to address this problem. We appreciate the opportunity to 
clarify this point.
    One commenter, addressing the fact that we need data on which 
species are imported to further our efforts to revise the nursery stock 
regulations, stated that the data should be obtained from forms other 
than the phytosanitary certificate.
    The Paperwork Reduction Act obligates us to minimize paperwork 
burden on stakeholders; requiring genus and species data to be 
submitted on a different form would be an unjustifiable duplicate 
paperwork burden. We are making no further changes to the proposed rule 
in response to these comments.

Phytosanitary Certificates for Bulbs From the Netherlands

    We proposed to amend paragraph Sec.  319.37-4(a) of the 
regulations, which requires that most restricted articles imported into 
the United States be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate, to 
allow small individual shipments of bulbs from the Netherlands to enter 
with a special certificate related to a phytosanitary certificate. The 
special certificate would list a serial number that would refer to a 
phytosanitary certificate held by the NPPO of the Netherlands. The 
special certificate would also list the scientific name of the bulb, 
the bulbs' country of origin, and an expiration date after which the 
special certificate could no longer be used in lieu of a phytosanitary 
certificate. We proposed that the expiration date for the special 
certificates would be 4 weeks after the issuance of the phytosanitary 
certificate held by the NPPO of the Netherlands.
    Commercial shipments of bulbs from the Netherlands must be 
precleared for entry into the United States by a PPQ inspector. In 
addition, under Sec.  319.37-5(a), all bulbs imported from the 
Netherlands must be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate with an 
additional declaration that the bulbs offered for importation were 
grown on land that has been sampled and microscopically inspected by 
the plant protection organization of the Netherlands and found to be 
free from the potato cyst nematodes Globodera rostochiensis (Woll.) 
Behrens and G. pallida (Stone) Behrens within the past 12 months.
    The proposed special certificate would accompany small individual 
shipments of bulbs imported into the United States in passenger 
baggage; the special certificate would be easier for individuals to 
obtain than a full phytosanitary certificate. The clearance process at 
the port of entry would continue to serve as an additional mitigation 
against the risk of introduction of nematodes into the United States.
    One commenter was concerned that, while the special certificate 
would be linked to a phytosanitary certificate issued, held, and 
retrievable upon request by the NPPO of the Netherlands, the proposed 
regulations did not contain any provisions linking the bulbs imported 
under the special certificate to the requirements of Sec.  319.37-5(a). 
Thus, the commenter stated, bulbs imported under the proposed special 
certificate might have originated in someone's backyard. Two other 
commenters stated that the proliferation of special certificates could 
allow these documents to be misused and thus increase the risk of 
introduction of potato cyst nematodes into the United States.
    All bulbs imported from the Netherlands are subject to the 
requirements in Sec.  319.37-5(a). Special certificates would be 
assigned to lots of bulbs inspected and certified under the 
phytosanitary certificate issued for that particular lot as part of the 
preclearance process. A phytosanitary certificate would not be issued 
for a lot of bulbs unless the bulbs in the lot meet all the 
requirements in the regulations for importation into the United States. 
The special certificates will serve as an indication that the bulbs 
have been inspected and certified, and they will be related to a 
specific phytosanitary certificate in all cases. Any fraud committed 
using the special certificates would be investigated by APHIS' 
Investigation and Enforcement Services.
    We do not believe it would be prudent to specifically refer to 
Sec.  319.37-5(a) in the regulations governing the issuance and use of 
the special certificates, as the phytosanitary certification 
requirements for bulbs from the Netherlands may change over time and 
thus may be contained in different sections of the regulations. We are 
making no changes to the proposed rule in response to these comments.
    One commenter cited high rejection rates in recent years for 
shipments of bulbs from the Netherlands and stated that using special 
certificates would not be advisable if the phytosanitary certificates 
were already suspect.
    Our records do not indicate high rejection rates either for bulbs 
that are inspected and precleared in the Netherlands or for bulbs from 
the Netherlands that have been inspected and released at a U.S. port of 
entry. Bulbs entering the United States with a special certificate 
would have been inspected by the NPPO of the Netherlands. The special 
certificate indicates that the bulbs have been inspected and a 
phytosanitary certificate was issued for the lot of bulbs. The special 
certificate is traceable to the actual phytosanitary certificate on 
file in the Netherlands. These bulbs would also be subject to 
inspection when the passenger arrives at a United States port of entry. 
If there are phytosanitary problems with bulbs under the special 
certificate, we would notify the NPPO of the Netherlands for corrective 
action.
    One commenter, the Netherlands NPPO, stated that the proposed 
program agreed to by APHIS and the Netherlands NPPO had specified that 
the special certificates would be valid for 6 weeks, rather than 4.
    The commenter is correct, and we have made that change in this 
final rule.
    The Netherlands NPPO also stated that it and APHIS had agreed to a 
workplan that states that no phytosanitary certificates, either 
originals or copies, will accompany shipments of bulbs that have been 
precleared in the Netherlands; they are given to the APHIS inspector in 
the Netherlands or mailed to APHIS offices. However, the language in 
Sec.  319.37-5(a) states that the phytosanitary certificate must 
accompany the bulbs ``at the time of arrival at the port of first 
arrival in the

[[Page 43508]]

United States,'' which contradicts the workplan.
    The commenter is correct that the specific language ``at the time 
of arrival at the port of first arrival in the United States'' would 
not allow the program to work as proposed. We are removing that 
language from Sec.  319.37-5(a) in this final rule. The phytosanitary 
requirements in Sec.  319.37-5(a) will remain otherwise unchanged.
    One commenter expressed concern that the current preclearance 
program for bulbs from the Netherlands only addresses the specific 
nematode pests cited earlier. The commenter stated that imported bulbs 
can carry other pests that are of concern to nurseries, commercial 
flower growers, State departments of agriculture, and industries other 
than the nursery industry. The commenter cited Ditylenchus dipsaci and 
D. destructor as two pests that are of concern to the potato industry 
and that are regulated by some State departments of agriculture. The 
commenter urged APHIS to expend more effort on ensuring that regulated 
nonquarantine pests are not imported into the United States via bulbs 
and other nursery stock.
    At this time, APHIS has not identified any regulated nonquarantine 
pests and has not established regulations for their official control. 
In order for APHIS to restrict the importation of regulated 
nonquarantine pests under the IPPC, we would have to identify regulated 
nonquarantine pests (including providing scientific justification for 
regulating them) and establish official control mechanisms. We have not 
yet done so. We are considering whether to develop procedures for 
identifying such pests and whether to establish regulations to control 
their importation. We cannot take any action against regulated 
nonquarantine pests in this final rule.

Importation of Certain Seeds From Canada

    We proposed to add a new paragraph (d) to Sec.  319.37-4 of the 
regulations to allow seed exported from Canada that meets certain 
conditions to be imported into the United States without a 
phytosanitary certificate. To be eligible for this exemption, Canadian 
exporters of seed would have to register with and participate in a seed 
export program that would be established by the Canadian Food 
Inspection Agency (CFIA).
    One commenter asked whether Canada would establish a similar 
program to allow U.S. seed to be exported to Canada without a 
phytosanitary certificate.
    We evaluated the Canadian request for a seed export program on the 
basis of whether such importation would increase the risk of 
introducing a seed-borne plant pest into the United States. Our 
evaluation concluded that, under the conditions specified in the 
proposal, the absence of a phytosanitary certificate would not increase 
that risk. Whether Canada would reciprocate was not a subject of our 
evaluation.
    One commenter asked whether imposing these requirements on the 
importation of Canadian seed was unlawful discrimination against 
Canadian seed exports.
    This change liberalizes trade by removing the requirement for a 
phytosanitary certificate while providing other conditions that 
maintain phytosanitary security. We proposed this change at the request 
of the Canadian NPPO, so we are assuming that they do not believe that 
this change discriminates against seed exports from their country. 
Canadian seed exporters still have the option of obtaining a 
phytosanitary certificate for each shipment they export to the United 
States.
    One commenter, the Canadian NPPO, requested that the United States 
exempt small shipments of commercially packaged seed from all 
phytosanitary requirements to facilitate their export to the United 
States. The commenter stated that the risk presented by such packages 
should be minimal due to the small quantity of seeds being shipped 
under such an exemption.
    We have not previously received a proposal for such an exemption, 
and we cannot make such a change without giving the public an 
opportunity to comment on it. We are making no changes in response to 
this comment. We will note that such a change would be inconsistent 
with the regulations that set out conditions for importing small lots 
of seed without a phytosanitary certificate, which we established in a 
final rule published in the Federal Register on April 13, 2006 (71 FR 
19097-19102, Docket No. 02-119-2).
    Related to the rule establishing conditions for the importation of 
small lots of seed without a phytosanitary certificate, we are making 
one change to the proposed rule text in this final rule. We had 
proposed to add the Canadian seed program in a new paragraph (d) in 
Sec.  319.37-4. Since the publication of the proposed rule, the final 
rule establishing conditions under which small lots of seed may be 
imported without a phytosanitary certificate added a new paragraph (d) 
to Sec.  319.37-4 that sets out those conditions. Accordingly, this 
final rule adds the Canadian seed program in a new paragraph (e). We 
have also made minor adjustments to the language in proposed paragraph 
(a) to reflect this change.

Blueberry Plants From Canada

    We proposed to add a new paragraph Sec.  319.37-5(t) to the 
regulations to require that phytosanitary certificates that accompany 
Vaccinium corymbosum (blueberry) plants that are imported from Canada 
must contain an additional declaration stating that the plants are free 
of blueberry scorch carlavirus.
    Blueberry scorch carlavirus causes blueberry scorch disease, the 
primary symptom of which is blighting of both flowers and new 
vegetative growth at peak bloom. Blighted blossoms fail to produce 
fruit, and infected plants in general are less vigorous than healthy 
plants. Bushes, once infected, may show symptoms each year. Initially, 
only one or few branches may have blighted flowers and leaves, but 
after a few years the entire bush may show symptoms.
    We proposed to require this additional declaration on the 
phytosanitary certificate accompanying V. corymbosum plants because 
virulent strains of blueberry scorch carlavirus have been found that 
exist only in Canada.
    One commenter stated that other plants can serve as hosts of 
blueberry scorch carlavirus, including huckleberry and cranberry 
plants.
    We agree with this commenter. In this final rule, we are expanding 
the scope of the additional declaration requirement to include all 
Vaccinium spp., not just V. corymbosum.
    One commenter asked us to change the proposed regulations so that 
they stated that the declaration of freedom has to be based on annual 
testing of the ``mother'' plants used for propagation rather than just 
visual inspection. Another commenter addressed the same issue in noting 
that the virus has a 2-year latent period.
    We agree with these commenters. In this final rule, we are 
requiring that Vaccinium spp. from Canada be grown in an approved 
certification program for blueberry scorch carlavirus. APHIS would 
evaluate certification programs for blueberry scorch carlavirus upon 
request.
    One commenter pointed out an inconsistency in our proposal: The 
proposed declaration applied broadly to all strains of blueberry scorch 
carlavirus, but the preamble to the proposed rule expressed concern 
about specific virulent strains of blueberry scorch carlavirus that 
have been found only in Canada. The commenter

[[Page 43509]]

asserted that restricting importation for all strains of the virus is 
not justified, as some strains of the virus are also found in the 
United States and are not under official control.
    We agree with this comment. In this final rule, we are requiring 
that Vaccinium spp. imported into the United States be grown in an 
approved certification program and tested free of only the BC-1 and BC-
2 strains of blueberry scorch carlavirus. Canadian government 
information indicates that these strains are distinct from the 
Northwest strain (present in the States of Oregon and Washington) and 
the East Coast strain (first identified in New Jersey and present in 
that and some surrounding States).\4\ To our knowledge, the BC-1 and 
BC-2 strains are not present in the United States. These strains are 
more aggressive than the strains that are present in the United States, 
having infected approximately 30 percent of blueberry production fields 
in British Columbia since 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See https://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/cropprot/blsv.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With these changes, paragraph (t) of Sec.  319.37-5 reads as 
follows in this final rule: ``For any Vaccinium spp. plants from 
Canada, the phytosanitary certificate of inspection required by Sec.  
319.37-4 must contain an additional declaration that the articles were 
produced in an approved certification program and found by the national 
plant protection organization of Canada to be free of the BC-1 and BC-2 
strains of blueberry scorch carlavirus.''
    In practice, these requirements will likely mean that Vaccinium 
spp. imported from Canada will be free of all strains of blueberry 
scorch carlavirus, not just the BC-1 and BC-2 strains, as testing for 
specific strains of blueberry scorch carlavirus is time- and resource-
intensive. However, if Vaccinium spp. from Canada were tested for 
specific strains and found to be infected with strains of blueberry 
scorch carlavirus other than BC-1 and BC-2, we would allow their 
importation.
    Two commenters stated that the movement of blueberry plants between 
Canada and the United States, in both directions, is common and has 
occurred for many years. The commenters stated that the fields of 
blueberry in the Canadian province of British Columbia that are known 
to be infected are just one-quarter mile north of the Canada-United 
States border. Because the virus is spread through the movement of 
virus-carrying aphids as well as through the movement of propagative 
materials, these commenters asserted that any regulations to restrict 
movement are unwarranted.
    One of these commenters stated that the CFIA has conducted 
extensive surveying in the province of British Columbia; additional 
surveying would be required in suspect U.S. States to determine the 
true range of these new strains of the virus. The other stated that the 
commenter's organization was unaware of a risk assessment or national 
survey having been conducted by the United States to determine whether 
the strains of blueberry scorch carlavirus that are of concern are 
present in the United States.
    While blueberry plants have moved between Canada and the United 
States, their importation into the United States has also been subject 
in many cases to State regulations that require them to be free of 
blueberry scorch carlavirus. (As one of these commenters noted, the 
British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture and Lands has worked with the 
State departments of agriculture in Oregon and Washington to develop a 
certification program for the propagation of blueberry plants based on 
testing and isolation.) Surveys that have been conducted at the State 
level in the United States have not detected the BC-1 or BC-2 strains 
of blueberry scorch carlavirus. We will continue to survey for these 
strains of blueberry scorch carlavirus, and we will revisit our 
regulations if either of the BC-1 or BC-2 strains is detected in the 
United States. We recognize that aphids can transport the virus across 
the U.S.-Canada border, but this transport is only in the immediate 
area of the border. Infected Vaccinium spp. plants are the principal 
means of long-distance spread to the major U.S. blueberry-producing 
areas. We believe restrictions on the importation of Vaccinium spp. 
from Canada are justified to prevent the introduction of the BC-1 and 
BC-2 strains of blueberry scorch carlavirus into the United States. We 
are making no changes in response to these comments.
    One commenter noted that Vaccinium spp. can serve as hosts for 
Phytophthora ramorum (sudden oak death) and asked that we not overlook 
P. ramorum in promulgating restrictions on the importation of Vaccinium 
spp.
    We are developing a separate interim rule that will place 
restrictions on the importation of Vaccinium spp. due to the presence 
of P. ramorum in certain countries. Temporary, emergency restrictions 
are already in place to prevent the introduction of P. ramorum in 
imported host plants.
    One commenter asked that APHIS expand the regulations to include 
restrictions to prevent the introduction of other blueberry diseases, 
such as blueberry shock virus.
    Blueberry shock virus is present in the United States, and we do 
not have an official program to control its spread; therefore, we would 
not be justified in placing restrictions on the importation of 
blueberries to prevent its introduction. We are not currently aware of 
any blueberry diseases that are not present in the United States and 
that are present in other countries from which the United States 
imports blueberries that are not already addressed in the regulations. 
We welcome suggestions regarding other blueberry diseases that may be 
appropriate for us to address in the regulations.

Programs for Importation of Approved Plants From the Canary Islands and 
From Israel

    We proposed to add new paragraphs (u) and (v) to Sec.  319.37-5 to 
establish programs to govern the importation of approved plants from 
the Canary Islands of Spain and from Israel, respectively. Under this 
proposal, the NPPO of the country of origin, the growers in the country 
of origin, and APHIS would jointly implement safeguards to ensure that 
the relevant quarantine pests are not present in shipments of approved 
plants. In the case of the Canary Islands, the approved plants would be 
Pelargonium (geranium) spp., and the pests of concern are Helicoverpa 
armigera, the cotton bollworm; Chrysodeixis chalcites, the tomato 
looper; and Syngrapha circumflexa (syn. Cornutiplusia circumflexa).\5\ 
In the case of Israel, all plants except bulbs, dormant perennials, and 
seeds that are imported into the United States would be required to be 
imported under this program. The main pest of concern in Israel is 
Spodoptera littoralis, the Egyptian cotton leafworm, although other 
quarantine pests are found in Israel and must be excluded from 
shipments of plants imported under this program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The proposed rule referred to this pest as Cornutiplusia 
circumflexa. We have since determined that its proper name is 
Syngrapha circumflexa, and we have updated the final rule 
accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Four commenters were concerned that the pests listed in these 
proposed programs did not include Ralstonia solanacearum race 3 biovar 
2 (potato brown rot), a bacterial disease for which APHIS has 
established regulations in Sec.  319.37-5(r). One of these commenters 
asked APHIS to amend the proposed regulations to indicate that the R. 
solanacearum race 3 biovar 2 regulations in Sec.  319.37-5(r) 
superseded

[[Page 43510]]

the proposed regulations. Two of these commenters also stated that 
quarantine-significant potato cyst nematodes and other exotic cyst-
forming nematodes occur in the Canary Islands and Israel. These 
commenters expressed hope that the phytosanitary requirements for 
export of Pelargonium spp. and other plants to the United States also 
include rigorous exclusionary measures to prevent the contamination of 
plants and packing material with cysts of these nematode pests. Another 
commenter asked if there were any other pests of concern associated 
with the importation of these plants from the Canary Islands and 
Israel.
    The importation of Pelargonium spp. from the Canary Islands and 
from Israel is subject to all requirements in the nursery stock 
regulations; none of the regulations in the nursery stock subpart 
supersede each other, and all must be complied with in order to import 
nursery stock into the United States. The proposed regulatory text 
stated that the importation of plants from the Canary Islands and from 
Israel would be subject to the requirements of ``this section,'' i.e., 
Sec.  319.37-5, which includes the requirements in paragraph (r) of 
Sec.  319.37-5 as well as the proposed requirements.
    Both Spain and Israel are countries where R. solanacearum race 3 
biovar 2 is not known to occur. If R. solanacearum race 3 biovar 2 was 
detected in these countries, we would enforce the regulations in Sec.  
319.37-5(r)(3) as well as the relevant regulations elsewhere in Sec.  
319.37-5. Similarly, plants imported from the Canary Islands and Israel 
would have to meet all other applicable requirements in the 
regulations, including any restrictions based on the presence of potato 
cyst nematodes in those countries. We would ensure that all relevant 
requirements would be met in the workplan that APHIS develops with the 
NPPO of the country of origin and, if necessary, the grower. All 
nursery stock imported under these programs will be inspected at a USDA 
plant inspection station, and appropriate action will be taken if a 
quarantine pest is found.
    One commenter was concerned about the level of APHIS involvement in 
the proposed programs. The commenter cited proposed provisions in which 
APHIS would inspect and approve production sites and packing materials 
and proposed provisions in which APHIS, along with the NPPO of the 
country of origin, would monitor compliance with the program 
requirements and decide whether to reinstate growers who had violated 
those requirements. The commenter referred to the text of the IPPC \6\ 
and stated that Articles IV and V.2 of that document grant 
responsibility for performing such tasks solely to the NPPO of the 
country in which production of the exported articles takes place. The 
commenter stated that, apart from very specific risk situations, the 
monitoring of programs in the exporting country should solely be the 
responsibility of the exporting country's NPPO. The commenter 
considered the proposed involvement of APHIS to present an unnecessary 
and unjustified interference with the exporting countries' 
responsibilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The text of the IPPC may be viewed on the Internet at 
https://www.ippc.int/IPP/En/default.jsp. Click on the ``Convention 
text'' link under ``Convention'' on the home page to view the IPPC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Both the Canary Islands program and the Israel program have been 
proposed because the high-risk plant pests addressed by these programs 
were frequently intercepted at U.S. ports of entry in shipments of 
plants from the Canary Islands and Israel. Because these programs have 
been agreed to by the relevant parties, and specifically because the 
foreign NPPOs involved have agreed that APHIS labor is necessary to 
help administer the programs, we do not believe that it would be 
appropriate to change the programs at this point. If, in the future, 
the foreign NPPOs wish to assume a more active role, we will entertain 
discussions with them regarding roles and responsibilities.
    We received three comments specifically addressing the trust funds 
that we proposed to require as a means of funding APHIS involvement in 
these programs. One commenter supported our proposed use of the trust 
funds. Another commenter was concerned that other countries have begun 
requiring similar trust funds for commodities exported from the United 
States to those countries, and suggested that we think about other cost 
recovery mechanisms. A third commenter stated that the proposed rule 
may lead to substantial increase in the costs for the export of plant 
material to the United States, as there would be additional expenses 
for bilateral cooperation and the involvement of APHIS experts. As a 
consequence, this commenter stated, only large companies that can 
afford the additional financial and administrative burden for such a 
program may be able to export plant material to the United States in 
the future. This development would be in contrast to the IPPC 
requirement that importing countries take the least restrictive 
measures possible in order to reach a minimum impediment to the 
international movement of commodities. In addition, the commenter 
questioned why the costs would have to be paid in advance.
    The trust fund requirement is common practice under many other 
APHIS import regulations that require APHIS to assist in certification 
(e.g., importing Pelargonium spp. and Solanum spp. from areas where R. 
solanacearum race 3 biovar 2 is known to exist under Sec.  319.37-5(r), 
or importing Hass avocados from Mexico for consumption under Sec.  
319.56-2ff). The trust fund is intended to ensure that the government 
of the country in which the articles are produced or its designated 
representative bears the costs of monitoring and inspection, rather 
than U.S. taxpayers. (The government of the country in which the 
articles are produced is, of course, free to pass this cost on to 
production sites producing plants for export to the United States.)
    Given that the NPPOs for the Canary Islands and Israel have agreed 
that APHIS involvement is necessary to ensure that plants exported from 
those countries are free of quarantine pests, we believe that we are in 
fact requiring the least restrictive measures possible. Requiring that 
APHIS subsidize the production of plants grown in foreign countries for 
export to the United States by providing its labor free of charge 
would, we believe, be a misallocation of APHIS' limited resources.
    The commenter asking us to consider other cost recovery mechanisms 
did not suggest any alternatives. Of the options for cost recovery we 
have considered, we have determined that the trust fund is the simplest 
and most direct means of cost recovery. We are making no changes to the 
proposed rule in response to these comments.

Kenaf Seed From Mexico

    We proposed to allow kenaf seed from Mexico to be imported into 
pink bollworm generally infested areas in the United States without 
treatment. Under the current regulations in Sec.  319.37-6(a), seeds of 
Hibiscus spp. (hibiscus, rose mallow) from any foreign country or 
locality, at the time of importation into the United States, must be 
treated for possible infestation with Pectinophora gossypiella 
(Saunders) (pink bollworm) in accordance with the applicable provisions 
of 7 CFR part 305.
    However, the movement of untreated kenaf (Hibiscus cannabinus) seed 
from Mexico into pink bollworm generally infested areas of the United 
States (listed under our domestic pink bollworm quarantine and 
regulations in 7 CFR 301.52-2a, and currently the States of Arizona, 
New Mexico, and

[[Page 43511]]

Texas, and several counties in California) would pose little or no risk 
of increasing the area of pink bollworm infestation. Under our domestic 
pink bollworm quarantine regulations in Sec.  301.52, these generally 
infested areas are quarantined to prevent the spread of pink bollworm, 
and kenaf seed is a regulated article under Sec.  301.52(b) that may 
not be moved interstate from any quarantined area except under the 
conditions described in Sec.  301.52-3.
    We proposed that kenaf seed from Mexico imported into pink bollworm 
generally infested areas would be subject to inspection, and, 
immediately upon release, would be subject to the domestic pink 
bollworm quarantine regulations in Sec. Sec.  301.52 through 301.52-10, 
Subpart--Pink Bollworm.
    Two commenters asked whether APHIS could allow Mexican kenaf seed 
to be imported into pink bollworm generally infested areas without 
allowing other kenaf seed from other countries to be imported into 
those areas as well.
    As we stated in the proposal, we have reviewed the pests associated 
with kenaf seed in Mexico and found that the pink bollworm is the only 
pest of concern. We would provide similar treatment for kenaf seed 
imports from other countries only if it could be determined that the 
pink bollworm is the only pest of concern associated with kenaf seed in 
those countries as well and that the seed could be imported directly 
into the generally infested areas.
    Two commenters stated that the proposal appeared to indicate that 
APHIS has domestic regulations that could allow the distribution of 
pink bollworm on kenaf seed. These commenters suggest that we first 
correct what appeared to them to be permissive domestic regulations 
prior to allowing the importation of kenaf seed into the United States 
from Mexico. The commenters asserted that there is no guarantee that 
potentially infested kenaf seed would not be moved to areas free of the 
pink bollworm.
    We would only allow the importation of untreated kenaf seed from 
Mexico into generally infested areas for pink bollworm. In the 
generally infested areas, we are not pursuing eradication of pink 
bollworm. Instead, we have placed restrictions on the interstate 
movement of commodities whose movement could spread pink bollworm from 
generally infested areas to areas where we are pursuing eradication of 
pink bollworm or areas where pink bollworm is not known to occur. Once 
Mexican kenaf seed enters the United States, it would be subject to the 
domestic pink bollworm regulations. These regulations are designed to 
prevent the movement of potentially infested kenaf seed, whether it has 
originated in a foreign country or domestically, from generally 
infested areas unless it is moved under conditions that would prevent 
the spread of pink bollworm, as listed in Sec.  301.52-4(a). Any 
violations would be investigated by APHIS' Investigation and 
Enforcement Services. We are making no changes to the proposed 
regulations in response to these comments.
    We also proposed to reorganize the regulations in Sec.  319.37-6 
into a table. The proposed table had one row for each of the six 
paragraphs in Sec.  319.37-6. However, some of the paragraphs addressed 
multiple genera, and it could be confusing to list multiple genera in 
one row in a table. In this final rule, we have listed each genus in 
Sec.  319.37-6 in a separate row in the table. In an effort to provide 
further clarity, we have also revised the proposed table entry for 
``Rutaceae seeds'' to read ``Rutaceae, seeds of all species in the 
family.'' Finally, the proposed listing for the pests addressed by 
treating Guizotia abyssinica (niger) seeds, which stated that the 
treatment was intended to address Cuscuta spp., was incomplete; we have 
expanded the listing to include the other noxious weeds listed in 7 CFR 
360.200.

Postentry Quarantine Requirements for Hydrangea spp.

    We proposed to add a new provision in Sec.  319.37-7(d)(7)(ii)