Comment from Dawn Miller-Cormier, Canadian Food Inspection Agency

APHIS Docket No. 03-002-4 Importation of Nursery Stock - Post-entry Quarantine Requirements for Potential Hosts of Chrysanthemum White Rust and Definition of From Submission of Comments by: The Canadian Food Inspection Agency Date: October 9, 2007 The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed rule for the importation of nursery stock and the proposed amendments to the post-entry quarantine requirements for potential hosts of chrysanthemum white rust (CWR) and the definition of ?from?. The CFIA is generally supportive of the amendment to the post-entry quarantine period for the import of potential hosts of CWR from areas where the disease is not known to occur. With regard to the proposed amendment to the definition of ?from?, the CFIA is concerned that this is a significant departure from the definition that was proposed in APHIS Docket No. 03-002-1 (December 2005) and that CFIA comments submitted at that time appear not to have been fully considered. Specific Comments Regarding CWR The CFIA is pleased that host material of CWR originating in Canada will not be subject to post-entry quarantine requirements in recognition of the inter- connectivity of the Canadian and U.S. chrysanthemum industries. The CFIA agrees with the proposed change to shorten the post-entry quarantine period for potential hosts of CWR provided that they be produced under a best management practices system in a country where CWR is not known to occur. This amendment is supported by published literature that states that the CWR incubation period is normally 7-10 days. Smith et al., 1992, found that short periods of high temperature (over 30?C) apparently prolonged the incubation period to 8 weeks. This post-entry quarantine requirement is consistent with the CFIA?s post-entry quarantine requirement of 60 days for host materials of CWR. Environmental conditions of the post entry quarantine must be conducive to the expression of the disease and fungicide use should be strictly monitored so as not to mask the presence of the disease allowing for the incorrect determination of absence of the disease. Specific Comments Regarding the Definition of ?From? The CFIA was generally supportive of the definition of ?from? as previously proposed in APHIS Docket No. 03-002-1 (December 2005) and agreed that by defining the term ?from? based on conditions equivalent to those required by the U.S. would be easier to substantiate and should provide exporters and importers with greater flexibility while at the same time continuing to protect the U.S. from the introduction of pests. Our primary comment on the original proposed definition was the need to define ?equivalence? and recommended the use of the IPPC definition. The revised proposal for the definition of ?from? reads: An article is considered to ?from? the country where it, or the plants from which the article was derived, was actively growing for at least 9 months immediately prior to export. This proposed definition is significantly different from the one previously proposed. Upon examination of the definition, the CFIA feels that the interpretation and implementation of the newly proposed definition could be problematic and will not offer the level of protection to the U.S. that the first proposed definition would. Specifically, the CFIA has the following questions and comments: 1. The CFIA agrees that the current definition of ?from? places an unnecessary burden on Canadian importers who export imported plants to the U.S. Canada is pleased to see that one definition of ?from? will be applied uniformly to all countries. Under the proposed definition all countries wishing to export propagative materials to the U.S. will be required to satisfy the same requirements regarding origin identification and tracking. 2. It is indicated in the proposed rule that the duration of 9 months was chosen as it is a common length for a growing season for nursery stock and that it is reasonable to assume that after 9 months the plants would pose the same potential pest risk as other plants of the same genus grown in that country. Canada does not completely agree with this assessment. For example, Pelargonium plants from Canada could be imported into a country that the U.S. regulates for Ralstonia. If the plants are grown for 8 months in that country and are then exported to the U.S. the NPPO of the third country would declare the origin of the plants to be Canadian. How do these Pelargonium pose less threat to the U.S. then Pelargonium that were produced in the third country? 3. The proposed definition addresses the determination of origin for plants that have longer production cycles. Challenges may arise in its application to plants with shorter production cycles including greenhouse and bedding plants. It is unclear how the definition of ?from? would apply to bedding plants and other annuals that are produced from seed and have a production cycle that is significantly shorter than the 9 months required by the proposed definition. 4. Clarification is also required in the instances where the plant is produced from imported seed. What is the origin of plants propagated from seed where the seed was imported from another country? This is of particular concern for annual and bedding plants that have a short production cycle (less than 9 months) and are often produced from imported seed. 5. With regard to the Canadian Greenhouse Certification Program would plants grown under the CGCP continue to be considered to be of Canadian origin after one growing cycle? The requirement that imported plant material, including unrooted cuttings, be grown for 9 months to be considered to be of Canadian origin should not be applied to the Greenhouse Certification Program which produces a limited range of low risk plants under a phytosanitary systems management approach. 6. The U.S. has the requirement for post-entry quarantine for many plants from many origins. Many of these PEQs are of durations longer than 9 months (many are up to 2 years). From the information provided in the proposed rule there is the potential to circumvent the PEQ requirement. Plant material that would require PEQ if imported directly into the U.S. could, under the proposed rule, be imported into a country for which the U.S. does not have a PEQ requirement, and be grown on for 9 months. This plant material may then be declared as originating from the third country and would not be subject to PEQ at the time of import into the U.S. 7. As well, it is not clear from the information provided whether, or not, plants that are prohibited direct import into the U.S. will be allowed entry into the U.S. via a third country provided that it was actively growing in that third country for 9 months immediately prior to export to the U.S. 8. It is not clear from the information provided in the proposed rule whether, or not, plants imported in growing media into Country A could become Country A origin after nine months. For example, currently plants imported into Canada in growing media under the Canadian Growing Media Program, which are not also approved under the U.S. Growing Media Program, are never eligible for export to the U.S. regardless of the their length of time in Canada. Will this change if the new definition of ?from? is adopted? If so, how? 9. Regarding the export of plants to the U.S. that have not been grown for 9 months in the third country, would the NPPO of the third country be required to issue a phytosanitary certificate for re-export verifying that the material met the U.S. import requirements when it entered the third country from the originating country? End.