National Plant Board

Japanese Beetle Harmonization Plan

U.S. Domestic Japanese Beetle Domestic Harmonization Plan

View Plan On Line (June 17, 2004 Revision) HTML, PDF

Download copy of Plan in Microsoft Word Format (jbcolumn.doc 315 KB)

NPB Japanese Beetle Survey Committee
NPB Japanese Beetle Regulatory Treatment Review Committee

Send Comments or Questions concerning Plan to NPB

Impact of Root Ball Dips on White Grub Survival

Canadian Directive To Prevent the Spread of Japanese Beetle (D-96-15)

In 1997, the then Chairman of the National Plant Board (NPB), Howard Singletary, appointed a working group to review the domestic Japanese beetle harmonization plan adopted in 1992. The goal was to revise the current plan and, where possible, incorporate new strategies and methodologies for managing or preventing the movement of JB via nursery stock. Any revision to the international plan will be predicated on revision to the domestic plan. Several members of the NPB had input into this process by serving on a Japanese Beetle Working Group. President Steve Johnson formalized membership on the Japanese BeetleWorking Group in the fall of 1997 so that each Regional Plant Board was equally represented. On August 19, 1998 at the annual meeting of the National Plant Board in Grand Rapids, MI, the members adopted the revised Plan. The Plan is now in effect.

Developing the Revised Domestic Plan Proposal

In drafting this revision, a series of alternatives were considered by the JB Working Group. The pros and cons for each, are described below. The alternatives considered are as follows:

No Domestic Harmonization Plan
1992 Domestic Harmonization Plan
Proposed Revision to the Existing Domestic Harmonization Plan
Uniform Federal Domestic Quarantine

1. No Domestic Harmonization Plan

Because the federal government no longer regulates the movement of nursery stock for JB, each state may decide upon and implement its own regulatory strategy for JB. This scenario may result in the following:

Pro:

Maximum regulatory flexibility for each state.

Con:

Individual states may expend more resources in program design and implementation than necessary ("reinventing the wheel," many state-to state negotiations).
Nurseries may be subject to increased costs, market or product loss, and other additional regulatory obstacles when buying or selling interstate.
Varying state requirements may lead to confusion resulting in regulatory noncompliance.
States desiring to remain free from JB may have their efforts undermined by neighboring states that fail to implement a JB pest prevention program.
Inadequate information systems to determine and track infestation status may pose unacceptable risk to trading partners.
This approach is contrary to the purpose of the plant boards, which includes the pursuit of greater uniformity and efficiency in the implementation of plant quarantines.

2. 1992 JB Domestic Harmonization Plan (current plan)

This plan, adopted in 1992, enabled development of the 1994 Canada/U.S. Harmonization Plan. It categorizes states as JB free, partially infested or non-infested and establishes fundamentals upon which harmonization can be achieved for the following:

Free movement of JB hosts between and among states, and portions thereof, of equal pest status.
Movement of JB hosts from infested states to non-infested states that have exterior quarantines.
Movement of JB hosts from non-infested portions of a partially infested state or from non-infested states to non-infested states that have exterior quarantines.
Movement of JB hosts from infested areas to non-infested areas that are not protected by an exterior quarantine.

Pro:

Provided a standardized regulatory strategy for JB.
Enabled formalized harmonization with Canada.
Complemented the federal domestic quarantine.

Con:

Did not provide a definition for "infested status" (the currently used definition is found within the 1994 international plan).
Most historically non-infested states without JB prevention programs did not comply with the recommended regulatory strategies.

3. 1998 Revised Domestic Plan

The revised domestic plan adopts a consistent pest status approach to achieve regulatory harmonization. This was the preferred alternative. It incorporates four categories for determining JB regulatory status. These are:

Official quarantine status - non-infested states
Regulated non-quarantine pest status - non-infested or partially infested states
No regulatory significance - partially infested or generally infested states
No regulatory significance – states not known to be infested

Pro:

Provides a standardized regulatory strategy for JB that factors in the success of prior efforts.
Expands certification options based on research and experience since 1992.
Establishes a regulated non-quarantine pest strategy that is less resource intensive than a quarantine strategy for states.
Is most compatible with established host commodity trading patterns.
Sets an agenda for future negotiations with Canada.
Maintains the role and relevance of the regional plant boards toward shaping regulatory strategy.

Con:

Ultimate success will still depend upon uniform, consistent application of plan principles.
Desired level of protection will be dependent on a state’s resource allocation for trapping and regulatory oversight.

4. Federal Domestic Quarantine

On September 12, 1978 the USDA amended the JB federal domestic quarantine to remove nursery stock and all other regulated articles except "means of conveyance". On April 24, 1979, this regulation was further amended to regulate only the movement of aircraft from the infested states to those states, which have requested this protection. This option reviews the rationale for reinstating regulation of nursery stock into this quarantine.

Pro:

This option would provide a uniform national regulatory policy for JB.
It would better enable USDA to negotiate regulatory policy for JB at the international level.

Con:

Regulation of nursery stock for JB meets the following USDA/NPB Council pest risk criteria for withdrawal from a state-federal program.
There is no indication that USDA is able to allocate the resources needed to re-regulate JB on nursery stock.

The working group that developed the Plan spent much time and effort in the development of this plan. The National Plant Board’s primary mission is to unify efforts to protect agriculture, forestry, horticulture and the environment from harmful organisms. Development of this plan has been a major activity in that unification or harmonization effort.

1998 Japanese Beetle Working Group:

Robert Balaam, NJ (EPB) Chair
Phyllis Michalewich, MA (EPB)
Thomas Sim, KS (CPB)
Stanley Smith, IL (CPB)
David Blackburn, AR (SPB)
Gray Haun, TN (SPB)
Dorthea Zadig, CA (WPB)
Kathleen Johnson, OR (WPB)
Craig Regelbrugge, ANLA
Ron Millberg, USDA APHIS PPQ
Vic Mastro, USDA APHIS PPQ
Win McLane, USDA APHIS PPQ

Last modified: February 7, 2007