[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 229 (Tuesday, November 30, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 66710-66717]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-30994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
7 CFR Part 319
[Docket No. 89-154-5]
RIN 0579-AB00
Importation From Europe of Rhododendron Established in Growing
Media
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are amending the regulations governing the importation of
plants established in growing media to allow the importation of
rhododendron from Europe under conditions designed to prevent the
introduction of dangerous plant pests. This action will relieve
restrictions on the importation of rhododendron plants from Europe
while continuing to protect against introduction of plant pests.
EFFECTIVE DATE: December 30, 1999.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Wayne D. Burnett, Import
Specialist, Phytosanitary Issues Management Team, PPQ, APHIS, 4700
River Road Unit 140, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; (301) 734-6799.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The regulations in 7 CFR part 319 prohibit or restrict the
importation of plants, plant parts, and plant products into the United
States to prevent the introduction of plant pests. The regulations
contained in ``Subpart--Nursery Stock, Plants, Roots, Bulbs, Seeds, and
Other Plant Products,'' Secs. 319.37 through 319.37-14 (referred to
below as the regulations), prohibit or restrict, among other things,
the importation of living plants, plant parts, and seeds for
propagation.
Section 319.37-8, paragraph (a) of the regulations requires, with
certain exceptions, that plants offered for importation into the United
States be free of sand, soil, earth, and other growing media. This
requirement is intended to help prevent the introduction of plant pests
that might be present in the growing media; the exceptions to the
requirement take into account factors that mitigate that plant pest
risk. Those exceptions, which are found in paragraphs (b) through (e)
of Sec. 319.37-8, consider either the origin of the plants and growing
media (paragraph (b)), the nature of the growing media (paragraphs (c)
and (d)), or the use of a combination of growing conditions, approved
media, inspections, and other requirements (paragraph (e)).
On September 7, 1993, we published in the Federal Register (58 FR
47074-47084, Docket No. 89-154-1) a proposed rule to amend the
regulations to allow the importation of five genera of plants
established in growing media. That proposal is referred to below as
``the proposed rule.'' We accepted comments on the proposed rule for a
period of 90 days, ending December 6, 1993.
In a final rule published in the Federal Register on January 13,
1995, and effective on February 13, 1995 (60 FR 3067-3078, Docket No.
89-154-2), the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)
finalized provisions for the importation of Alstroemeria, Ananas,
Anthurium, and Nidularium species. The final rule postponed action on
Rhododendron species established in growing media to allow consultation
regarding the action with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in
accordance with the Endangered Species Act.
On April 30, 1998, we published in the Federal Register (63 FR
23683-23685, Docket No. 89-154-3) a notice reopening and extending the
comment period on the proposal to allow the importation of Rhododendron
species established in growing media. The notice also announced that,
as a result of formal consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service
in accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, APHIS
intended to limit the proposed action to Rhododendron species imported
from Europe only. The limitation to Europe was made because there is
little importation of rhododendron from places outside Europe, and
limited data on pests of rhododendron outside Europe. We believe the
data available on rhododendron pest distribution outside Europe, and
pest interceptions on rhododendron commodities from outside Europe, is
insufficient to support a conclusion of negligible risk for importation
of rhododendron from all countries at this time.
Comments were required to be received on or before June 1, 1998. We
received two requests from trade organizations to extend the period
during which comments would be accepted. In response, on June 1, 1998,
we published in the Federal Register (63 FR 29675-29676, Docket No. 89-
154-4) a notice extending the comment period until July 30, 1998.
During this reopened comment period of April 30 through July 30,
1998, we received 11 comments on the rhododendron proposal.
Additionally, we received approximately 60 comments from domestic
nurseries and nursery associations, importers, State governments, and
environmental interest groups during the original 1993 comment period
on the proposed rule that specifically addressed importation of
rhododendron. The issues addressed by all of these comments are
discussed below.
Comment: APHIS identified rhododendron pests of concern for this
rule using reports from the scientific literature and reports of pest
interceptions associated with rhododendron at ports under the
[[Page 66711]]
premise that these sources would reveal all pests of concern. This
premise is fallacious because the lack of citations in the scientific
literature may merely reflect scientists not choosing to address pests
that attack rhododendron, and a lack of interception reports may
reflect the small amount of trade in rhododendron in growing media.
This approach misses potential pest problems.
Response: The purpose of the literature search and review of
interception reports was to identify all known pests of concern and to
collate information about these pests that would also allow us to make
informed assumptions concerning potential unknown pests of concern.
Pest risk analysis is a combination of the processes of pest risk
assessment (determining whether a pest is harmful and evaluating its
introduction potential) and pest risk management (the decision-making
process of reducing the risk of introduction of a quarantine pest). It
is standard scientific procedure in conducting a pest risk assessment
to review the available scientific literature and interception records,
conduct surveys, and communicate with foreign and domestic scientists
and government officials. The process of pest risk assessment is a
well-established procedure within APHIS. Some of the earliest pest risk
assessments were done over 75 years ago and have proved their utility
over time, because program requirements based on them have successfully
excluded or controlled the quarantine pests that were the targets of
the assessments.
When conducting a pest risk assessment, the relative richness or
paucity of information on particular pests is a factor in the analysis.
If in-depth pest data is lacking and there is reason to believe pests
of concern are not well characterized, the assessment employs
conservative assumptions that maximize the potential hazard presented
by the uncharacterized pests.
Scientists choose to study particular pests for a variety of
reasons, but economic factors clearly direct much scientific research
toward pests of economic importance. Pests of rhododendron and other
major ornamental plants are clearly of economic importance, and a great
deal of research has in fact been directed toward these pests.
Interception records vary with the commodity, source, volume, host
susceptibility, and other factors. Rhododendron have been imported from
Europe in varying amounts for over 50 years, both as cargo and in
passenger baggage. Most of the pest interceptions have been made in
passenger baggage, presumably in plants taken from the wild. It is true
that there are few records of interception of pests associated with
commercial importation of rhododendron because our regulations have
previously prohibited importation of rhododendron in soil or growing
media, and there is limited commercial incentive to import bare-rooted
plants. We believe it is unproductive for commenters to support
limiting rhododendron imports to bare-rooted plants only, and then to
argue that to justify importing the plants in growing media we would
need years of interception records for this (prohibited) trade in
rhododendron in growing media. When considering changes to the
regulations, we cannot collect data about activities we have prohibited
(except for occasional data about shipments smuggled in violation of
the regulations).
Overall, we believe there is sufficient pest information about
which pests occur in Europe and in the United States to analyze the
pest risk and reach a sound biological decision on how to handle the
rhododendron in growing media.
Comment: APHIS wrongly evaluated pests based on their known damage
potential. Many pests now causing harm in the United States were
innocuous in their place of origin and only caused significant harm
when introduced into an area free of their natural enemies.
Response: One of the elements of pest risk assessment is an
evaluation of the potential damage that may be caused by a pest using a
set of criteria. While some introduced pests have found a favorable
niche in the United States, others have never become serious pests. The
establishment of a pest is determined by many factors, such as climate,
survival, finding a suitable host, etc., which are considered in a pest
risk assessment. The absence of natural enemies may play an important
role in the establishment of a pest, especially for insects. APHIS is
well aware of this natural phenomenon and has considered it in
conducting its pest risk assessments. The basis of a good quarantine
system is to prevent the introduction of the pests before they reach
our shores.
Comment: The short-spored rhododendron rust caused by Chrysomyxa
ledi var. rhododendri should be considered a pest of quarantine
significance, as it causes serious defoliation and its spores are
spread by wind. Presence of this disease would not be revealed by the
proposal's greenhouse growing requirements, and the Kahn report (a
report of the APHIS committee of researchers who prepared worksheets on
pests and evaluations of pest risk prior to this rulemaking) notes that
``if the host/rust interaction were in the incubation period at the
time of inspection, the infection would not be detected.''
Response: APHIS considers Chrysomyxa ledi var. rhododendri a
quarantine pest because it can cause economic losses to both
Rhododendron and Picea species. When it is detected on intercepted
plant material, the plant material is seized and destroyed. Concerning
its epidemiology and other characteristics, the fungus may cause
defoliation and the spores are indeed spread by wind, like most rusts.
For infection to occur the disease pathway must lead to the vicinity of
a target host. The conditions and safeguards in the proposed rule are
sufficient to preclude establishment of the disease in the United
States. While there are growth periods when signs of the pathogen are
not obvious in the host plant, there are signs of infection visible to
close scrutiny. That is the reason for the lengthy observed growing
periods required by the proposed rule for both mother stock and
progeny: to provide an opportunity to detect incipient infection that
might not be obvious during a one-time inspection. Besides the regular
surveillance of the plants during the long growing period, the detailed
inspection at a U.S. quarantine inspection station at the first port of
entry provides additional safety.
Comment: The proposal cites APHIS' experience in importing plants
in media without introducing pests as one basis for the proposal and
suggests there have been no problems with plants currently allowed to
be imported in media in 20 years. This is not true. Pest movement on
plant material used in greenhouse production was the likely cause for
spread of a serpentine leafminer (Liriomyza trifoili (Burgess)), a pea
leafminer (L. huidobrensis (Blanchard)), the beet armyworm (Spodoptera
exigua (Hubner)), the western flower thrips (Frankliniella occidentalis
(Pergrande)), and the sweetpotato whitefly (Bemisia tabaci
(Gennadius)). Also, in comments on an earlier rule, Dr. Ken Horst
identified several cases where U.S. growers had to destroy material
imported in media due to disease. Also, simply pointing to the
successes of the current program does not justify extending it.
Response: The experience of growing certain plants in growing
media, as cited by APHIS, forms the basis of a model for a systems
approach that uses modern and advanced horticultural practices to
[[Page 66712]]
prevent the introduction and spread of plant pests. The commenter
correctly identifies pest movement on plant material used in greenhouse
production as the likely cause for the spread of the enumerated pests,
and we do not doubt that those and other pests have spread from
unregulated greenhouse cultivation where infested plants were grown.
The growing of plant material under controlled conditions such as those
in the regulations will prevent or greatly reduce the spread and
movement of plant pests. The pests cited by the commenter did not
originate from greenhouse cultivation under the system described in the
proposal. Greenhouse production in accordance with the proposed
regulations would have prevented the dissemination of such pests.
APHIS is not aware of the details of the specific cases where U.S.
growers had to destroy material imported in media due to disease as
reported by Dr. Ken Horst, because the entry of these pests apparently
was not reported to APHIS or State quarantine officials at the time of
their discovery. When a quarantine pest is discovered, it should be
reported immediately to APHIS or State quarantine officials so its
eradication can be confirmed and the pathway of entry studied. Since
APHIS did not have the opportunity to investigate these cases at the
time, APHIS cannot comment on the incidents cited by the commenter.
Comment: The current state of the science of risk analysis still
acknowledges major areas of uncertainty when it comes to assessing the
actual impacts of new pest introductions; the full extent of the damage
they may cause cannot be accurately estimated. This uncertainty makes
it unwise to adopt the proposed action for rhododendron.
Response: Pest risk analysis is the best tool currently available
to evaluate and manage pest risk. It is being standardized, refined,
and promoted globally. Uncertainties are acknowledged in the risk
analysis process, and for this reason APHIS uses great care in arriving
at its decisions and involves the best and most competent risk analysts
available to the agency among its staff and outside resources. While
all the information about pest damage caused to rhododendron may not be
fully known, there is sufficient and reliable information to evaluate
importing rhododendron under the conditions we proposed. Should pest
risk change at any time, APHIS is prepared to change any or all aspects
of the program, including denying approval of greenhouses, shutting
them down, or making any other changes necessary to the program to
safeguard the United States against invading pests.
Comment: Increasingly, APHIS quarantine decisions appear to be
driven by trade policy (attempting to expand and liberalize
opportunities for international trade under the World Trade
Organization agreement) rather than the primary APHIS mandate of pest
prevention based on science. We believe, consistent with the Office of
Technology Assessment report, ``Agriculture, Trade, and the
Environment: Achieving Complimentary Policies,'' that APHIS should not
try to achieve an unrealistic zero risk standard, but should seek to
target controls to protect those agricultural systems that are at
greatest risk from harmful nonindigenous species. We further believe
that nursery crops represent an ``at greatest risk'' category with
regard to pests associated with foreign rhododendron in media.
Response: APHIS' first and primary responsibility is to protect
U.S. agriculture from foreign quarantine pests. The United States is a
signatory to World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements and is bound to
comply with certain WTO policies guiding national activities to protect
plant health, and it expects that other countries do the same. The
United States strongly supports and sponsors initiatives to achieve
global standardization in plant quarantine activities. APHIS is
applying these standards in complying with the agreements, which is in
the interest of U.S. agriculture. Nursery stock has been, and continues
to be, an area of great concern to APHIS. We attempt to employ the most
effective, practical, and cost-effective strategies to prevent the
introduction of plant pests, including exclusion of the host plant when
necessary. We do not and cannot employ a ``zero risk standard.'' It is
not possible to eliminate all risk. We reduce risk to a negligible
level. Our regulations establish controls and prioritize agency
resources to maximize protection to those agricultural systems that are
at greatest risk.
Comment: The proposed visual inspection of stock in participating
European greenhouses would be largely ineffective because many pests
are not readily found by inspection at some life stages.
Response: In this rule APHIS requires a lengthy pre-importation
detention period or holding period in the greenhouses in foreign
countries. This should give plant inspectors time for inspection and
evaluation of plants and facilities to determine whether the
rhododendron plant material meets entry requirements. By the same
token, this long detention period allows more time for the development
of pests so that they may be visible to the inspector. If the inspector
determines that methods other than a visual inspection are necessary to
determine the presence of a pest, then suspect material may be
investigated, detained, treated, tested, etc. Additionally, all
shipments of rhododendron will be directed to an APHIS Plant Inspection
Station at a port of entry for inspection and final release.
Comment: The proposed pesticide dip offers no detail on active
ingredient, rate, or efficacy against pests. Also, in some cases,
pesticide treatments may mask, but not eliminate, pest presence.
Response: APHIS does not normally include informational details of
a pesticide such as active ingredients, dose rate, or efficacy against
pests in a rule because, in many cases, to do so would be to repeat a
large volume of scientific and testing data that was used in the
process of approving the pesticide for use against targeted pests. The
approval process for pesticides is a separate function of other Federal
agencies and agencies of foreign governments. APHIS' discussion of a
pesticide is usually limited to discussing that a pesticide is in fact
approved for use against a target pest in a given commodity and that
use of the pesticide meets operational needs of APHIS and the affected
industry. The exporter is required to use only pesticides prescribed by
the plant protection service of the exporting country and must inform
the inspector prior to their use. The recommended dip with a pesticide
is a precautionary treatment and just one more additional safeguard, so
while the masking of pest presence by pesticide use may occasionally be
a problem, other components of the systems approach of the regulations
compensate for this possible effect. It is APHIS policy that, should
the pesticide make inspection difficult or hinder inspection in any
way, the shipment or consignment may be denied. Such pesticide dips are
not unique to the rhododendron import rule; they are also recommended
and are effectively used in the United States on other imported and
domestic plant and plant products.
Comment: Inspection at the port of entry under the best conditions
is still not adequate to detect many pests. Further, the reality is
that APHIS inspects many cargoes at a rate of less than one-half of one
percent, and allows unsound inspection practices such as ``tailgate''
inspections and allowing brokers to select the samples to be
[[Page 66713]]
inspected. Because the proposal partly relies on inspection to mitigate
the risks, these inadequacies mean the proposal will not achieve its
claimed level of risk reduction.
Response: Inspection at ports of entry is an internationally
accepted strategy in plant quarantine. It is rarely ever used alone,
and in addition to visual examination by an inspector, may include any
number of techniques to arrive at a decision. In this rule, inspection
at the port of entry is not the only, or even primary, protection.
Additional safeguards include growing site inspection, monitoring,
surveillance, certification, and specific growing conditions in the
country of origin to reduce the risk of the introduction of pests to a
negligible level. Port of entry inspection of bare-rooted rhododendron
has been used successfully for many years. Now that the regulations
allow importation of the plants in growing media, we are retaining port
of entry inspection but are also requiring additional safeguards.
The rate or percentages employed by APHIS in the inspection of
cargoes varies depending on the pest risk, origin of the commodity, and
other factors connected with the type of shipment. An inspection of 100
percent of the commodity may be ordered when the conditions warrant.
The many thousands of interceptions made by the United States and other
countries are evidence that inspection has considerable merit for some
pests, but the volume of interceptions is likewise a sign that
inspection alone is not enough and that a systems approach that
addresses growing conditions in the country of origin is needed to keep
dangerous pests that are not visible to inspectors from arriving at
U.S. ports. This rule establishes such a systems approach.
Comment: APHIS bases part of its argument on the lack of pest
problems associated with imports of bare-rooted rhododendron in recent
years. However, this trade amounts to only a few thousand dollars a
year, compared to an expectation of importing many times that volume of
plants in media under the proposed rule. The minuscule amount of bare-
root imports provides no basis for assessing risk.
Response: APHIS makes a logical comparison between the importation
of bare-rooted rhododendron and its importation in approved growing
media. If pest problems are not associated with bare-rooted plants,
which are grown in the open field and exposed to the environment, one
might conclude that the risk is even less when the plants are grown
under a system of controlled conditions in a greenhouse--barring the
possibility that there are pests associated with the media but not the
plant. The proposal included strict media standards to preclude the
presence of pests associated with the media. Furthermore, the
importation of plants in growing media as proposed should eliminate the
occasional pest problems that were associated with importing bare-
rooted plants, by providing an even safer and economically more
attractive method to import rhododendron. Consider that at one time
ferns were imported bare-rooted, and there were many pest problems both
for the importers and for APHIS. Producing them in growing media under
controlled conditions resolved the problems to the satisfaction of both
the importers and APHIS. The system for importing ferns in growing
media has worked for a large volume of plants imported over an extended
period of time. In view of this and the more limited data from
importing small volumes of bare-rooted rhododendron over many years, it
is reasonable to believe the rule's requirements for importing
rhododendron will work.
Comment: The Endangered Species Act consultation did not assess the
risk to listed species other than Rhododendron in the family Ericaceae,
such as five Arctostaphylos species that occur in California and may be
vulnerable to pests introduced by rhododendron.
Response: Pest risk assessment for plants is generally done at the
genera level, and for this rule it was done for the entire genus
Rhododendron. Based on pest and host data collected in the early stages
of assessment, projects may be expanded to include other plant genera.
If data showed Arctostaphylos to be a host of any of the pests
associated with Rhododendron, the genus would have been seriously
considered in the analysis. We have not received any specific pest or
host data in comments and are not aware of any that indicates it is
necessary to perform an assessment for the entire family Ericaceae. The
Fish and Wildlife Service was a great help in evaluating any effects
pests of rhododendron would have on endangered species. Consultation
with the Fish and Wildlife Service was a valid and legally mandated
approach to reaching an understanding of these matters.
Comment: The pest risk potential associated with imported
rhododendron will remain largely unknown and uncharacterized until
APHIS performs additional pest risk analyses, particularly focused on
horticultural and environmental impacts, to determine the possible
impact on all hosts, both native and agricultural.
Response: Pest risk analysis follows specific guidelines in order
that the assessments may be as uniform and consistent as possible. When
circumstances warrant, there may be a reevaluation of the pest risk. It
would appear from the investigation, reviews, and evaluations already
conducted for rhododendron that an additional pest risk assessment at
this time is not necessary, particularly in the absence of new data or
pertinent information on pest risk. The importation of rhododendron in
growing media under the prescribed conditions is limited to imports
from Europe. The cultivation practices used for rhododendron in Europe,
and the environmental effects of the horticulture and pest issues
associated with it, are fairly well known and were considered in
analyzing pest risk. No number of additional pest risk assessments
could ever give us the precise effect of all possible introduction
scenarios on all U.S. hosts, both native and agricultural.
Comment: The proposed 0.2 mm screen size for greenhouses will not
adequately prevent the entry of airborne pests or pathogens without
additional requirements for door openings, air filtration systems, etc.
The Zandvoort paper, ``Wind Dispersal of Puccinia horiana of
Chrysanthemum,'' clearly illustrates how rust spores can easily enter
and exit greenhouses via ventilation windows, for example.
Response: The proposed 0.2 mm screen size for greenhouses is
intended for those vents where outside air is necessary. The 0.2 mm
screen size is considered very small. It is so small that many believe
it to be a hindrance to adequate air circulation. It is a much smaller
opening than has been approved for other genera now permitted to be
grown in media. The very small screen size and the additional
safeguards for greenhouses growing plants in media are believed to be
more than satisfactory.
Regarding door openings, Sec. 319.37-8(e)(2)(ii) of the regulations
requires that greenhouses be equipped with automatic closing doors to
reduce pest entry into the greenhouses. This requirement was intended
to limit the entry of both insects and wind-borne spores through
entryways. Based on this comment, we have reexamined options for
greater quarantine security at entryways, and have concluded that it is
advisable to require a double-door system for all greenhouses growing
articles in accordance with Sec. 319.37-8(e). We also have discovered
that, for some years, the inspectors employed by
[[Page 66714]]
plant protection services in Europe who inspect and approve greenhouses
and mother stock in accordance with the regulations have been enforcing
a double-door requirement. Therefore, requiring double doors would
improve greenhouse security without adding any expense for greenhouses
already growing articles in accordance with the regulations. Since this
final rule only addresses requirements for rhododendron, at this time
we are amending the greenhouse door provision only for greenhouses
growing rhododendron articles, but we intend to initiate rulemaking to
require double doors for all greenhouses growing articles in accordance
with Sec. 319.37-8(e). This final rule requires that for Rhododendron
species only, the plants must be grown solely in a greenhouse equipped
with automatic closing double doors of an airlock type, so that
whenever one of the doors in an entryway is open the other is closed.
This automatic double door requirement will create an additional
barrier in the entryway.
APHIS only requires air filtration systems and other extreme forms
of containment for high risk quarantine facilities that are used to
maintain high risk material and dangerous pests. These must be
constructed in the manner described by the commenter to prevent the
escape of dangerous pests. We do not believe such a high level of
security is appropriate for greenhouses growing plants from healthy
stock where the plants are under surveillance for pests and disease
over a considerable period, as required for rhododendron. Should
serious pests or diseases be discovered in a greenhouse operating under
this rule, additional containment requirements will be imposed as
needed. Should the pest risk for growing rhododendron at any location
or site be elevated for any reason, the greenhouses for growing them
will not be approved.
The Zandvoort paper, ``Wind Dispersal of Puccinia horiana of
Chrysanthemum,'' is not contested. Puccinia horiana is a fast moving
rust and has largely been distributed with planting material around the
globe. This distribution, however, resulted from international trade in
chrysanthemums under conditions far less stringent than those required
for importing rhododendron into the United States.
Therefore, for the reasons given in the proposed rule and in this
document, we are adopting the proposed rule as a final rule, and are
adding the requirement of automatic closing double doors in
greenhouses. We are also making minor, nonsubstantive word changes.
Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. The rule
has been determined to be significant for the purposes of Executive
Order 12866 and, therefore, has been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget. We have prepared a final regulatory flexibility
analysis and cost-benefit analysis for the rule, which are summarized
below.
This final rule allows Rhododendron spp. to be imported from Europe
in growing media if the plants are grown in secure greenhouses and meet
other conditions to exclude plant pests and diseases. This action was
originally proposed on September 7, 1993 (58 FR 47074-47084, Docket No.
89-154-1) as part of a proposal to allow importation from all countries
of five genera of plants in growing media. Based on comments, action on
Rhododendron spp. was deferred while an Endangered Species Act
consultation was performed between APHIS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS). Importation of the other four genera (Alstroemeria,
Ananas, Anthurium, and Nidularium) has been allowed since the effective
date of the final rule published on January 13, 1995 (60 FR 3067-3078,
Docket No. 89-154-2). APHIS recently concluded its consultation with
the FWS and determined that there were no endangered species concerns
that would preclude importing potted Rhododendron spp. from Europe.
Comments on the initial regulatory flexibility analysis indicated
that there is little existing economic data on import trade in plants
in growing media and that neither risks nor economic effects can be
projected on the basis of the small amount of data available for this
trade. This fact is acknowledged in the risk assessments prepared for
this action and in the economic analysis below, which explain our
analytical basis for projecting risks and economic effects. No changes
to the proposed requirements were made based on these comments.
Alleviating unnecessary quarantine restrictions often can be
equated to elimination of trade barriers. Removal of trade barriers has
two broad economic objectives. First, freer trade between countries
results in lower consumer prices and increases the variety and quality
of goods and services available in the local economy. Second, freer
trade encourages a nation's resources to be invested in areas of
comparative advantage. This enhances the economic well-being of all
countries.
U.S. consumers are direct beneficiaries of government policies that
promote freer trade. Domestic consumers benefit by having access to
higher quality goods and services at lower prices. Freer trade
increases consumer purchasing power by lowering prices and eliminating
the deadweight loss associated with quarantine restrictions and other
trade barriers.
Relaxation of trade barriers also results in changes in producer
revenue. The amount of total producer income can increase or decrease
depending on the elasticity of demand. When U.S. trade restrictions are
lifted, a portion of industry profit will be transferred from domestic
to foreign producers. Additionally, any increase in the amount of total
producer income will go to foreign producers.
The economic effects on producers and consumers of potted
Rhododendron spp. can be analyzed by comparing potential changes in
consumer and producer surpluses. Producer surplus is measured by
estimating the changes in profit (economic rent) based on potential
fluctuations in product prices and quantities. Consumer surplus is the
change in aggregate purchasing power and consumer utility when the
price and quantity of goods change. An increase (decrease) in supply
will decrease (increase) prices and translate into an increase
(decrease) in consumer purchasing power (consumer surplus). The net
effect on society of regulatory changes is the sum of the estimated
changes in consumer and producer surpluses.
This analysis focuses on the U.S. wholesale plant market.
Therefore, domestic consumers of potted Rhododendron spp. include
retail firms, landscape brokers, contractors, dealers, and other retail
or garden centers.
Initially, APHIS does not expect this rule to have an economic
effect on the domestic potted plant market because phytosanitary
restrictions will preclude any increased availability of imported
Rhododendron spp. in the domestic market. European producers will be
required to meet stringent phytosanitary standards before plants can be
shipped to the United States. To date, no European facilities have
received APHIS approval to export Rhododendron spp. in growing media to
the United States. European producers would likely be required to
upgrade existing greenhouses or construct new production units before
receiving permission to ship products to the United States. Time will
be required for European producers to upgrade and adjust their
production practices to meet
[[Page 66715]]
the new requirements. Therefore, APHIS anticipates an 8- to 10-month
delay between publication of the final rule and the appearance of
potted European-origin Rhododendron spp. in the domestic marketplace.
The total value of the domestic nursery and floriculture crop
(nursery stock, plants, roots, bulbs, seeds, and other plant products)
industry is estimated to be about $6.1 billion. This represents about
3.7 percent of the value of domestic agriculture.\1\ Annual U.S.
floriculture crop sales total about $3.5 billion. Therefore,
floriculture crop sales account for about 57.4 percent of total cash
receipts for the U.S. nursery and floriculture industry.\2\ The
estimated value of annual potted Rhododendron spp. production in the
United States totals about $48.3 million annually (Table 1). This
accounts for about 1.4 percent of the annual sales volume for domestic
floriculture producers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1992
Census of Agriculture; October 1994.
\2\ USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service, 1997
Floriculture Crops Summary; April 1988.
\3\ We used 1997 production data for finished florist azaleas as
a proxy measure for total Rhododendron spp. production in this
analysis. We did not include nursery azaleas and rhododendron
production in this analysis due to data limitations associated with
the 1987 Census of Horticultural Specialties.
Table 1.--Estimated U.S. Production of Rhododendron spp.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. of wholesale No. of plants Estimated value
Genera nurseries sold of annual sales
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rhododendron spp.\3\................................... 493 14,225,000 $48,334,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Floriculture Crops Summary (1998).
Imports of Rhododendron spp. in media would increase the supply and
establish a new market equilibrium. A larger quantity of plants would
be available at a lower price. Consumer and producer surpluses would be
affected by the supply shift. The consumer surplus would be expanded
and the producer surplus would increase.
In summary, this rule will allow U.S. consumers to purchase more
potted Rhododendron spp. at lower prices. This increases U.S. consumer
welfare and decreases U.S. producer surplus. Therefore, this rule will
result in a net welfare gain to U.S. society.
We developed low- and high-impact scenarios to estimate the
potential change in net U.S. welfare. This study assumes that prices
will drop by 10 and 30 percent in the low- and high-impact scenarios,
respectively (see page 7 of the full economic impact analysis).
Analysis indicates that this rule will increase net welfare for
U.S. society by between $0.339 and $0.484 million when prices are
assumed to drop by 10 percent (Table 2). A 10 percent price reduction
increases domestic consumer welfare by between $4.933 and $5.078
million. However, U.S. producers of Rhododendron spp. will incur
welfare losses totaling about $4.595 million (Table 2).
When prices are reduced by 30 percent, net welfare is increased by
between $3.047 and $4.353 million (Table 2). Consumer welfare would be
increased by between $15.380 and $16.686 million, and producer welfare
would be decreased by about $12.333 million (Table 2).
Table 2.--Estimated Welfare Effects Assuming Unitary Supply Elasticities and Price Decreases of 10 and 30 Percent
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ed=-0.4 Ed=-0.6 Ed=-1.0
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated percentage price decrease U.S. U.S. Net U.S. U.S. Net U.S. U.S. Net
producer consumer welfare producer consumer welfare producer consumer welfare
loss gain impact loss gain impact loss gain impact
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Es=1.0 Million Dollars
Million Dollars
Million Dollars
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scenario 1: 10 Percent...................... -4.595 4.933 0.339 -4.595 4.982 0.387 -4.595 5.078 0.484
Scenario 2: 30 Percent...................... -12.333 15.380 3.047 -12.333 15.815 3.482 -12.333 16.686 4.353
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires that APHIS specifically
consider the economic effect of rules on ``small'' business entities.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) has set forth size criteria by
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC), which was used as a guide in
determining which economic entities meet the definition of a ``small''
business. This final rule will have a minor economic effect on small
business entities.
The SBA does not maintain specific size standards for domestic
entities that produce potted Rhododendron spp. Therefore, this analysis
uses the size standards established for Retail Nurseries, Lawn and
Garden Supply Stores (SIC code 5261). The SBA's definition of a
``small'' entity included in the Retail Nurseries, Lawn and Garden
Supply Stores classification is one that collects less than $3.5
million in annual receipts.
Rhododendron spp. are grown by about 493 domestic producers (Table
1). Nurseries that collect less than $3.5 million in annual receipts
are considered ``small'' for the purposes of this analysis. APHIS
estimates that all of these nurseries are ``small'' according to the
above criteria.\4\ These nurseries are diversified operations that
produce many varieties of potted plants and other greenhouse products.
Therefore, we anticipate that the rule will not have a significant
economic effect on small producers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Note that the definition of a ``small'' nursery has changed
since publication of the final rule for importation of Alstroemeria,
Ananas, Anthurium, and Nidularium. At that time a ``small'' nursery
was defined as having annual sales of $1 million or less.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SBA definition of a ``small'' business engaged in the import/
export business is one that employs no more than 100 employees. The
number of
[[Page 66716]]
firms that may qualify as a ``small'' business under this definition
cannot be determined. Small importers will likely benefit from the
rule. The rule will enable some ``small'' importers to enhance their
income through imports of Rhododendron spp. in growing media.
Small retailers will benefit from importation of Rhododendron spp.
in growing media. The rule will enhance the availability and quality of
potted plants in the U.S. market. Plant retailers will benefit from
lower wholesale prices and will likely pass any savings on to their
customers. This would increase annual sales volume and revenue.
Summary
This rule will allow importation from Europe of Rhododendron spp.
in growing media. The regulations will require that imported
Rhododendron spp. originate from secure greenhouses and meet other
conditions to exclude plant pests and diseases.
During 1997, about 14.2 million potted Rhododendron spp. valued at
$48.3 million were produced in the United States.\5\ We developed low-
and high-impact scenarios to estimate potential changes in net U.S.
welfare. This study assumes that prices will drop by 10 and 30 percent
in the low- and high-impact scenarios, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Production data for finished florist azaleas was used as a
proxy measure for all domestic Rhododendron spp. production. Nursery
azaleas and rhododendron production were not included in this
analysis due to data limitations associated with the 1987 Census of
Horticultural Specialties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This rule will increase net welfare for U.S. society by between
$0.339 and $0.484 million if prices drop by 10 percent. The rule will
increase the welfare of domestic consumers of Rhododendron spp. by
between $4.933 and $5.078 million if prices drop by 10 percent.
However, U.S. producers of Rhododendron spp. will incur welfare losses
totaling about $4.595 million.
If prices are reduced by 30 percent, net welfare will increase by
between $3.047 and $4.353 million, consumer welfare will increase by
between $15.380 and $16.686 million, and producer welfare will decrease
by about 12.333 million.
Rhododendron spp. are grown by about 493 domestic producers.
Nurseries that collect less than $3.5 million in annual receipts are
considered ``small'' for the purposes of this analysis. APHIS estimates
that all of these nurseries are ``small'' according to the above
criteria. These nurseries are diversified operations that produce many
varieties of potted plants and other greenhouse products. Therefore, we
anticipate that the rule will not have a significant economic effect on
small producers.
Executive Order 12988
This final rule has been reviewed under under Executive Order
12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule allows the importation from
Europe of Rhododendron established in growing media. State and local
laws and regulations regarding articles imported under this rule will
be preempted while the articles are in foreign commerce. Some nursery
stock is imported for immediate distribution and sale to the consuming
public and will remain in foreign commerce until sold to the ultimate
consumer. The question of when foreign commerce ceases in other cases
must be addressed on a case-by-case basis. No retroactive effect will
be given to this rule, and this rule will not require administrative
proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging this
rule.
National Environmental Policy Act
An environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact
have been prepared for this rule. The assessment provides a basis for
the conclusion that the importation of Rhododendron from Europe will
not present a risk of introducing or disseminating plant pests and will
not have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment.
Based on the finding of no significant impact, the Administrator of the
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that an
environmental impact statement need not be prepared.
The environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact
were prepared in accordance with: (1) the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), (2) regulations
of the Council on Environmental Quality for implementing the procedural
provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), (3) USDA regulations
implementing NEPA (7 CFR part 1b), and (4) APHIS' NEPA Implementing
Procedures (7 CFR part 372).
Copies of the environmental assessment and finding of no
significant impact are available for public inspection at USDA, room
1141, South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC, between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except holidays. Persons wishing to inspect copies are requested to
call ahead on (202) 690-2817 to facilitate entry into the reading room.
In addition, copies may be obtained by writing to the individual listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule contains no new information collection or recordkeeping
requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501,
et seq.). All information collection requirements associated with this
rulemaking have been previously approved by OMB and assigned control
number 0579-0049.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 319
Bees, Coffee, Cotton, Fruits, Honey, Imports, Logs, Nursery Stock,
Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Rice, Vegetables.
Accordingly, we are amending 7 CFR part 319 as follows:
PART 319--FOREIGN QUARANTINE NOTICES
1. The authority citation for part 319 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 150dd, 150ee, 150ff, 151-167, 450, 2803, and
2809; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80 and 371.2(c).
2. Section 319.37-8 is amended as follows:
a. In paragraph (e) introductory text, by adding the phrase
``Rhododendron from Europe,'' immediately before the phrase ``and
Saintpaulia.''
b. In paragraph (e)(2)(ii), the second sentence, by adding the
phrase ``(0.2 mm for greenhouses growing Rhododendron spp.)''
immediately after the phrase ``0.6 mm''.
c. In paragraph (e)(2)(vii), by removing the word ``and,''
immediately after the word ``pests;''.
d. In paragraph (e)(2)(viii), by removing the period at the end of
the paragraph and adding a semicolon in its place.
e. By adding new paragraphs (e)(2)(ix) and (e)(2)(x) to read as
follows:
Sec. 319.37-8 Growing media.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(2) * * *
(ix) For Rhododendron species only, the plants must be propagated
from mother plants that have been visually inspected by an APHIS
inspector or an inspector of the plant protection service of the
exporting country and found free of evidence of diseases caused by the
following pathogens: Chrysomyxa ledi var. rhododendri, Erysiphe
cruciferarum, Erysiphe rhododendri, Exobasidium vaccinnum and vaccinum
var. japonicum, and Phomopsis theae; and
[[Page 66717]]
(x) For Rhododendron species only, the plants must be grown solely
in a greenhouse equipped with automatic closing double doors of an
airlock type, so that whenever one of the doors in an entryway is open
the other is closed, and the plants must be introduced into the
greenhouse as tissue cultures or as rootless stem cuttings from mother
plants that:
(A) Have received a pesticide dip prescribed by the plant
protection service of the exporting country for mites, scale insects,
and whitefly; and
(B) Have been grown for at least the previous 6 months in a
greenhouse that meets the requirements of Sec. 319.37-8(e)(2)(ii).
Done in Washington, DC, this 19th day of November 1999.
Craig A. Reed,
Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 99-30994 Filed 11-29-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
