Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 28, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 22207 

1To view the proposed rule and the comments 

we received, go to (http://www.regulations.gov/ 

fdmspublic/component/ 

main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS-2008-0050). 

Section of OMB 

guidance 

Section in this 

part where 

supplemented 

What the supplementation clarifies 

(2) 2 CFR 182.300(b) .... § 2245.300 Whom in the Corporation a recipient who is an individual must notify if he or she is convicted of a 

criminal drug offense resulting from a violation occurring during the conduct of any award activity. 

(3) 2 CFR 182.500 ........ § 2245.500 Who in the Corporation is authorized to determine that a recipient other than an individual is in 

violation of the requirements of 2 CFR part 182, as implemented by this part. 

(4) 2 CFR 182.505 ........ § 2245.505 Who in the Corporation is authorized to determine that a recipient who is an individual is in violation of the requirements of 2 CFR part 182, as implemented by this part. 

(c) Sections of the OMB guidance that 

this part does not supplement. For any 

section of OMB guidance in Subparts A 

through F of 2 CFR part 182 that is not 

listed in paragraph (b) of this section, 

the Corporation’s policies and 

procedures are the same as those in the 

OMB guidance. 

Subpart A—Purpose and Coverage 

[Reserved] 

Subpart B—Requirements for 

Recipients Other Than Individuals 

§ 2245.225 Whom in the Corporation does 

a recipient other than an individual notify 

about a criminal drug conviction? 

A recipient other than an individual 

that is required under 2 CFR 182.225(a) 

to notify Federal agencies about an 

employee’s conviction for a criminal 

drug offense must notify the 

Corporation’s awarding official or other 

designee. 

Subpart C—Requirements for 

Recipients Who Are Individuals 

§ 2245.300 Whom in the Corporation does 

a recipient who is an individual notify about 

a criminal drug conviction? 

A recipient who is an individual and 

is required under 2 CFR 182.300(b) to 

notify Federal agencies about a 

conviction for a criminal drug offense 

must notify the Corporation’s awarding 

official or other designee. 

Subpart D—Responsibilities of Agency 

Awarding Officials 

§ 2245.400 What method do I use as an 

Agency Awarding Official to obtain a 

recipient’s agreement to comply with the 

OMB guidance? 

To obtain a recipient’s agreement to 

comply with applicable requirements in 

the OMB guidance at 2 CFR part 182, 

you must obtain each recipient’s 

agreement, as a condition of the award, 

to comply with the requirements in 

subpart B (or subpart C, if the recipient 

is an individual) of 2245, which adopts 

the Government-wide implementation 

(2 CFR part 182) of sec. 5152–5158 of 

the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 

(Pub. L. 100–690, Title V, Subtitle D; 41 

U.S.C. 701–707). 

Subpart E—Violations of This Part and 

Consequences 

§ 2245.500 Who in the Corporation 

determines that a recipient other than an 

individual violated the requirements of this 

part? 

The Corporation’s Chief Executive 

Officer or designee is authorized to 

make the determination under 2 CFR 

182.500. 

§ 2245.505 Who in the Corporation 

determines that a recipient who is an 

individual violated the requirements of this 

part? 

The Corporation’s Chief Executive 

Officer or designee is authorized to 

make the determination under 2 CFR 

182.500. 

Subpart F—[Reserved] 

Title 45—Public Welfare 

Chapter XXV—Corporation for National and 

Community Service 

PART 2545—[REMOVED] 

■ 2. Under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 301, 

and 42 U.S.C. 12651c(c), remove part 

2545. 

Dated: April 14, 2010. 

Frank R. Trinity, 

General Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 2010–8989 Filed 4–27–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6050–$$–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

7 CFR Part 319 

[Docket No. APHIS-2008-0050] 

RIN 0579-AC95 

Importation of Papayas From Colombia 

and Ecuador 

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are amending the fruits 

and vegetables regulations to allow, 

under certain conditions, the 

importation of commercial shipments of 

fresh papayas from Colombia and 

Ecuador into the continental United 

States. The conditions for the 

importation of papayas from Colombia 

and Ecuador include requirements for 

field sanitation, hot water treatment, 

and fruit fly trapping in papaya 

production areas. This action allows for 

the importation of papayas from 

Colombia and Ecuador while continuing 

to provide protection against the 

introduction of injurious plant pests 

into the continental United States. 

DATES: Effective Date: May 28, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Dorothy C. Wayson, Regulatory 

Coordination Specialist, Regulatory 

Coordination and Compliance, PPQ, 

APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 134, 

Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 734- 

0772. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Under the regulations in ‘‘SubpartFruits and Vegetables’’ (7 CFR 319.56 

through 319.56-50, referred to below as 

the regulations), the Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) prohibits or restricts the 

importation of fruits and vegetables into 

the United States from certain parts of 

the world to prevent plant pests from 

being introduced into and spread within 

the United States. 

On April 21, 2009, we published in 

the Federal Register (74 FR 18161- 

18166, Docket No. APHIS-2008-0050) a 

proposal1 to amend the regulations in 

§ 319.56-25 to allow the importation of 

commercial consignments of fresh 

papayas from Colombia and Ecuador 

subject to a systems approach. Section 

319.56-25 currently sets out conditions 

for the importation of papayas from 

Central America and Brazil; we 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
22208 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 28, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

proposed to add Colombia and Ecuador 

to this systems approach. The proposed 

systems approach required that the 

papayas be produced and packed in 

approved areas of Colombia and 

Ecuador, that they be packed using 

packing procedures designed to exclude 

quarantine pests, and that fruit fly 

trapping, field sanitation, and hot water 

treatment be employed to remove pests 

of concern from the pathway. 

We solicited comments concerning 

our proposal for 60 days ending June 22, 

2009. We received six comments by that 

date. They were from State agricultural 

agencies, a domestic produce 

wholesaler, and Ecuador’s Agency for 

Agricultural Product Quality Assurance. 

The comments are discussed below. 

We proposed to require that the fields 

where papayas in Colombia and 

Ecuador are grown be kept free of 

papayas that are one-half or more ripe 

and that all culled and fallen fruits be 

buried, destroyed, or removed from the 

farm at least twice a week. One 

commenter stated that removing fallen 

fruit and fruit that is more than half ripe 

will be difficult and subject to 

interpretation, and therefore will 

increase pest infestation risks. The 

commenter asked how this practice will 

be carried out. 

We disagree with the commenter’s 

concerns about fruit removal. The 

national plant protection organizations 

(NPPOs) of Colombia and Ecuador will 

be responsible for ensuring that field 

sanitation, such as removing fallen and 

half ripe fruit is conducted. However, 

APHIS will conduct periodic reviews to 

ensure compliance with the regulations. 

The removal of fallen and half-ripe fruit 

is already a requirement for the 

importation of papayas from Central 

America and Brazil. To date, we have 

not received reports of any difficulties 

associated with this requirement. 

One commenter asked if studies have 

been done to determine when papayas 

in Colombia and Ecuador are 

susceptible to fruit flies. The commenter 

also asked what fruit fly lures will be 

used. 

Although research regarding when 

papayas are susceptible to fruit flies has 

not been conducted specifically for 

papayas from Colombia and Ecuador, 

the pest risk assessments (PRAs) that 

accompanied the proposed rule 

summarized the research on that topic 

that already exists and that was 

conducted for the currently approved 

program for importation of papayas 

from Central America and Brazil. Based 

on the findings of these PRAs, a risk 

management document (RMD) was 

drafted to identify measures to address 

the risks of the two fruit flies within 

Colombia and Ecuador, Anastrepha 

fraterculus (South American fruit fly) 

and Ceratitis capitata (Mediterranean 

fruit fly, or Medfly), and the fungal pest 

(Phoma caricae-papayae) within 

Ecuador, identified as quarantine pests 

in the PRAs. As stated in the RMD, 

papayas that are less than half ripe, or 

‘‘green,’’ are poor hosts for the two fruit 

flies. 

Both Jackson and McPhail traps will 

be used for fruit fly trapping. Baits to be 

used will be specified APHIS-approved 

protein baits such as Nu-Lure or Torula 

yeast pellets. 

In order to mitigate the potential pest 

risk posed by fruit flies laying eggs in 

papayas immediately before harvest, we 

proposed to, among other things, require 

the treatment of papayas with a hot 

water dip. The dip requires that papayas 

from Colombia and Ecuador be held for 

20 minutes in hot water at 48 °C (118.4 

°F). 

One commenter expressed concern 

regarding this hot water dip treatment, 

stating that we removed the requirement 

for hot water treatment from the 

regulations in 7 CFR part 318 20 years 

ago in favor of vapor heat or forced air 

treatment. In addition, the commenter 

stated that field sanitation, trapping, 

and treatment with a hot water dip is 

not a probit 9 method of treating papaya 

for fruit flies. Therefore, the commenter 

stated that papayas should be prohibited 

from importation from Colombia and 

Ecuador and all other countries from 

which papaya are not treated with a 

probit 9 treatment. 

The hot water dip treatment that the 

commenter referred to was used as the 

sole mitigation measure for papayas 

moved interstate from Hawaii to the 

mainland United States. The treatment, 

which we removed from the regulations 

in part 318 in 1991, consisted of 

immersion in water at a temperature of 

between 41 °C and 43 °C for a period of 

40 minutes followed by a second 

immersion in water at a temperature of 

between 48 °C and 50 °C for a period of 

20 minutes. The treatment failed due to 

a blossom end defect within the papayas 

that allowed mature fruit flies to enter 

the fruit rather than to a flaw in the 

treatment itself. The treatment was 

designed to treat fruit fly eggs and larvae 

near the surface of the fruit rather than 

fruit fly larvae within the seed cavity of 

the fruit where heat from the hot water 

treatment could not penetrate. We 

removed the treatment for Hawaii 

because we determined that we could 

not ensure that all papayas with the 

blossom end defect would be 

successfully culled at the packinghouse. 

Unlike the hot water dip that we used 

in Hawaii, the hot water dip we 

proposed for papayas from Colombia 

and Ecuador is part of a systems 

approach rather than a sole mitigation 

measure. 

Probit 9 is a treatment standard that 

requires a pest mortality rate of greater 

than 99 percent. Although the hot water 

dip is not considered a probit 9 

treatment, the systems approach we 

proposed uses methods in addition to 

treatment to mitigate the risk associated 

with fruit flies. These methods include 

removing papayas that are one-half or 

more ripe as well as culled or fallen 

papayas from fields where papayas are 

grown, allowing the exportation of only 

green papayas, and trapping for fruit 

flies at a rate of 1 trap per hectare with 

required mitigation measures or 

suspension of exports if fruit fly 

populations reach certain levels. As 

stated previously, the current systems 

approach has been used successfully to 

mitigate the risks associated with 

papayas from Central America and 

Brazil. To date, no interceptions of fruit 

flies have been found on papayas 

entering the United States from these 

countries. 

Two commenters asked what 

regulatory oversight is in place to ensure 

that the elements of the systems 

approach will be followed. One of these 

commenters asked whether a site visit 

has been conducted and whether 

periodic reviews of the program will be 

carried out. 

APHIS has conducted a site visit and 

will be conducting annual reviews to 

ensure compliance with the regulations. 

In addition, the NPPOs of Colombia and 

Ecuador are responsible for monitoring 

fruit fly traps on a weekly basis and 

maintaining records of such reviews, 

and supervising and directing 

compliance with the requirements of the 

rule. 

One commenter stated that there is no 

objective means of assessing the risk 

associated with the importation of 

papayas from Colombia and Ecuador 

under the proposed systems approach or 

for the countries already approved to 

ship papayas under that systems 

approach. 

We disagree with the commenter. As 

we noted above, the systems approach 

has been used in Central America and 

Brazil and no fruit flies have been 

intercepted on papayas imported from 

those regions. This real-world 

experience, along with our PRAs, our 

RMD, and our knowledge of the 

conditions in Colombia and Ecuador, 

provide an adequate basis for regulatory 

decisionmaking. 

Under the current regulations in 

§ 319.56-25(f), papayas from Central 

America and Brazil must be packed in 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 28, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 22209 

cartons stamped ‘‘Not for importation 

into or distribution in Hawaii’’ due to 

the presence in these areas of the 

papaya fruit fly (Toxotrypana 

curvicauda). This pest does not occur in 

Hawaii, where the majority of U.S. 

commercial papaya production takes 

place. However, in the proposed rule, 

we proposed to remove this box 

marking requirement for Central 

America and Brazil; we determined that 

our permitting process would allow us 

to effectively implement the distribution 

limitations. Likewise, we did not 

propose to require that boxes containing 

papayas from Colombia or Ecuador be 

marked. 

One commenter stated that we should 

retain the requirement for marking all 

shipments of papaya from Central 

America and Brazil with a statement 

that they may not be imported into or 

distributed within Hawaii and that we 

should apply the requirement to 

shipments of papayas from Colombia 

and Ecuador, or the protection for 

Hawaii could be lost. 

We disagree with the commenter. 

Currently, no papayas from foreign 

countries are allowed to enter into 

Hawaii. In addition, because papaya 

fruit fly occurs in Florida and other 

mainland papaya-producing areas, 

papayas from the continental United 

States are also prohibited from entering 

Hawaii, meaning that papayas from 

Colombia and Ecuador imported into 

the continental United States would not 

be allowed to be moved to Hawaii even 

if the papayas had entered domestic 

commerce. As stated in the proposed 

rule, our permitting process will allow 

us to effectively implement the 

distribution limitation, as it currently 

does for many other commodities that 

are not allowed to be imported into 

Hawaii. Therefore, we have determined 

that the box marking is not necessary. 

We proposed to allow imports of 

papayas only from certain areas within 

Colombia and Ecuador, which we 

proposed to list in § 319.56-25(b). One 

commenter stated that, since the pest 

risk analysis for Ecuador analyzed the 

risk from papaya imports on a national 

level, there is no technical reason for the 

rule to refer to specific areas of 

production. 

In the proposed rule, we stated that 

restricting imports of papayas to those 

produced in approved areas of Colombia 

and Ecuador would ensure that papayas 

intended for the continental United 

States are grown and packed in papaya 

production and packing areas of 

Colombia and Ecuador where fruit fly 

traps are maintained and where the 

other elements of the systems approach 

are in place. In addition, we stated that 

grower registration would allow for 

traceback and removal from the export 

program of production sites with 

confirmed pest problems, and the 

papaya orchards would be monitored by 

the NPPO to ensure that pest and 

disease-excluding sanitary procedures 

are employed. 

Since the publication of the proposed 

rule, however, we have determined that, 

as long as the risk mitigation measures 

we proposed are adhered to, there is no 

technical reason to restrict the 

importation of commercial shipments of 

papaya to those produced in specific 

areas within Ecuador. Likewise, there is 

no technical reason to restrict the 

importation of commercial shipments of 

papaya to those produced in specific 

areas within Colombia. We are retaining 

the grower registration requirement for 

both countries, which will allow the 

foreign NPPOs and APHIS to monitor 

compliance with fruit fly trapping and 

the other elements of the systems 

approach. Therefore, we are removing 

the origin restrictions for these 

countries, as grower registration makes 

limiting imports to specific production 

areas unnecessary. 

In § 319.56-25(b), we proposed to 

require that papayas from Colombia and 

Ecuador be grown by growers registered 

with the NPPO of the exporting country. 

One commenter asked why the 

proposed rule required that papaya 

growers in Colombia and Ecuador be 

registered with the NPPO of the 

exporting country when this is not 

required for papaya growers in other 

countries producing papayas for export 

to the United States under the same 

program. 

Based upon our experience with pest 

exclusion programs and activities since 

the existing papaya program was put 

into place, we have determined it would 

be prudent and, indeed, necessary, to 

increase our focus on traceback 

capabilities. Therefore, we are requiring 

grower registration for all new fruit and 

vegetable imports, including the 

importation of papayas from Colombia 

and Ecuador. We did not have a policy 

requiring grower registration at the time 

the existing papaya program was put 

into place. However, the origin 

restrictions on papayas from Brazil and 

Central America function in the same 

manner as grower registration, allowing 

APHIS to monitor compliance with the 

regulations in approved growing areas 

in those countries. 

We also proposed to allow only the 

‘‘Solo’’ type of papayas to be imported 

into the United States from Colombia 

and Ecuador. One commenter stated 

that there is no reason to restrict papaya 

imports to the cultivar Solo as other 

cultivars are already available in the 

United States, and these cultivars are 

also produced within Ecuador. 

The pest risk assessment only 

evaluated the risks associated with the 

importation of papayas weighing 2 

kilograms or less, which are considered 

‘‘Solo’’ papayas. The size limitation was 

put in place because the hot water dip 

treatment has not been tested on larger 

papayas. If Colombia or Ecuador desires 

to export other papaya varieties, they 

may propose to do so, and we will 

analyze the risks associated with the 

importation of such varieties. 

One commenter expressed concern 

regarding the potential financial impact 

of the rule on U.S. papaya growers. 

As explained in the proposed rule, we 

expect that papayas supplied by 

Colombia and Ecuador would largely 

compete against imports from Mexico 

and elsewhere. In addition, given that 

the U.S. market for fresh papaya is 

already dominated by imports, the 

addition of Colombia and Ecuador is 

unlikely to significantly affect sales by 

U.S. producers. 

Therefore, for the reasons given in the 

proposed rule and in this document, we 

are adopting the proposed rule as a final 

rule, with the changes discussed in this 

document. 

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

This final rule has been determined to 

be not significant for the purposes of 

Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, 

has not been reviewed by the Office of 

Management and Budget. 

We have prepared a Final Regulatory 

Flexibility analysis in accordance with 

Section 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act for this action. The analysis 

identifies papaya producers, importers, 

and wholesalers; fresh fruit and 

vegetable wholesalers; grocery stores; 

warehouse clubs and superstores; and 

fruit and vegetable markets as the small 

entities most likely to be affected by this 

action and considers the effects on 

domestic papaya production associated 

with the importation of papaya from 

Colombia and Ecuador. Based on the 

information presented in the analysis, 

the Administrator has certified that this 

action will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. The Final 

Regulatory Flexibility analysis may be 

viewed on the Regulations.gov Web site 

(see footnote 1 for instructions for 

accessing Regulations.gov). Copies of 

the Final Regulatory Flexibility analysis 

are also available from the person listed 

under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
22210 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 28, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

Executive Order 12988 

This final rule allows fresh papayas to 

be imported into the continental United 

States from Colombia and Ecuador. 

State and local laws and regulations 

regarding papayas imported under this 

rule will be preempted while the fruit 

is in foreign commerce. Fresh fruits are 

generally imported for immediate 

distribution and sale to the consuming 

public, and 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. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

In accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et 

seq.), the information collection or 

recordkeeping requirements included in 

this rule have been approved by the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) under OMB control number 

0579-0358. 

E-Government Act Compliance 

The Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service is committed to 

compliance with the E-Government Act 

to promote the use of the Internet and 

other information technologies, to 

provide increased opportunities for 

citizen access to Government 

information and services, and for other 

purposes. For information pertinent to 

E-Government Act compliance related 

to this rule, please contact Mrs. Celeste 

Sickles, APHIS’ Information Collection 

Coordinator, at (301) 851-2908. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 319 

Coffee, Cotton, Fruits, 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. 450, 7701-7772, and 

7781-7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR 

2.22, 2.80, and 371.3. 

■ 2. Section 319.56-25 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 319.56-25 Papayas from Central America 

and South America. 

Commercial consignments of the Solo 

type of papaya may be imported into the 

United States only in accordance with 

this section and all other applicable 

provisions of this subpart. 

(a) The papayas were grown and 

packed for shipment to the continental 

United States (including Alaska), Puerto 

Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands in one 

of the following locations: 

(1) Brazil: State of Espirito Santo; all 

areas in the State of Bahia that are 

between the Jequitinhonha River and 

the border with the State of Espirito 

Santo and all areas in the State of Rio 

Grande del Norte that contain the 

following municipalities: Touros, 

Pureza, Rio do Fogo, Barra de 

Maxaranguape, Taipu, Ceara Mirim, 

Extremoz, Ielmon Marinho, Sao Goncalo 

do Amarante, Natal, Maciaba, 

Parnamirim, Veracruz, Sao Jose de 

Mipibu, Nizia Floresta, Monte Aletre, 

Areas, Senador Georgino Avelino, 

Espirito Santo, Goianinha, Tibau do Sul, 

Vila Flor, and Canguaretama e Baia 

Formosa. 

(2) Costa Rica: Provinces of 

Guanacaste, Puntarenas, San Jose. 

(3) El Salvador: Departments of La 

Libertad, La Paz, and San Vicente. 

(4) Guatemala: Departments of 

Escuintla, Retalhuleu, Santa Rosa, and 

Suchitepe ́quez. 

(5) Honduras: Departments of 

Comayagua, Corte ́s, and Santa Ba ́rbara. 

(6) Nicaragua: Departments of Carazo, 

Granada, Leon, Managua, Masaya, and 

Rivas. 

(7) Panama: Provinces of Cocle, 

Herrera, and Los Santos; Districts of 

Aleanje, David, and Dolega in the 

Province of Chiriqui; and all areas in the 

Province of Panama that are west of the 

Panama Canal; or 

(b) The papayas were grown by a 

grower registered with the national 

plant protection organization (NPPO) of 

the exporting country and packed for 

shipment to the continental United 

States (including Alaska) in Colombia or 

Ecuador. 

(c) Beginning at least 30 days before 

harvest began and continuing through 

the completion of harvest, all trees in 

the field where the papayas were grown 

were kept free of papayas that were onehalf or more ripe (more than one-fourth 

of the shell surface yellow), and all 

culled and fallen fruits were buried, 

destroyed, or removed from the farm at 

least twice a week. 

(d) The papayas were held for 20 

minutes in hot water at 48 °C (118.4 °F). 

(e) When packed, the papayas were 

less than one-half ripe (the shell surface 

was no more than one-fourth yellow, 

surrounded by light green), and 

appeared to be free of all injurious 

insect pests. 

(f) The papayas were safeguarded 

from exposure to fruit flies from harvest 

to export, including being packaged so 

as to prevent access by fruit flies and 

other injurious insect pests. The 

package containing the papayas does 

not contain any other fruit, including 

papayas not qualified for importation 

into the United States. 

(g) Beginning at least 1 year before 

harvest begins and continuing through 

the completion of harvest, fruit fly traps 

were maintained in the field where the 

papayas were grown. The traps were 

placed at a rate of 1 trap per hectare and 

were checked for fruit flies at least once 

weekly by plant health officials of the 

NPPO. Fifty percent of the traps were of 

the McPhail type and 50 percent of the 

traps were of the Jackson type. The 

NPPO kept records of fruit fly finds for 

each trap, updated the records each time 

the traps were checked, and made the 

records available to APHIS inspectors 

upon request. The records were 

maintained for at least 1 year. 

(1) If the average Jackson fruit fly trap 

catch was greater than seven 

Mediterranean fruit flies (Ceratitis 

capitata) (Medfly) per trap per week, 

measures were taken to control the 

Medfly population in the production 

area. If the average Jackson fruit fly trap 

catch exceeds 14 Medflies per trap per 

week, importations of papayas from that 

production area must be halted until the 

rate of capture drops to an average of 7 

or fewer Medflies per trap per week. 

(2) In Colombia, Ecuador, or the State 

of Espirito Santo, Brazil, if the average 

McPhail trap catch was greater than 

seven South American fruit flies 

(Anastrepha fraterculus) per trap per 

week, measures were taken to control 

the South American fruit fly population 

in the production area. If the average 

McPhail fruit fly trap catch exceeds 14 

South American fruit flies per trap per 

week, importations of papayas from that 

production area must be halted until the 

rate of capture drops to an average of 7 

or fewer South American fruit flies per 

trap per week. 

(h) All activities described in 

paragraphs (a) through (h) of this section 

were carried out under the supervision 

and direction of plant health officials of 

the NPPO. 

(i) All consignments must be 

accompanied by a phytosanitary 

certificate issued by the NPPO of the 

exporting country stating that the 

papayas were grown, packed, and 

shipped in accordance with the 

provisions of this section. 

(Approved by the Office of Management 

and Budget under control numbers 

0579-0128 and 0579-0358) 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 28, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 22211 

Done in Washington, DC, this 31st day 

of March 2010. 

Gregory Parham 

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–9779 Filed 4–27–10: 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–S 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

7 CFR Part 932 

[Doc. No. AMS–FV–09–0089; FV10–932–1 

FR] 

Olives Grown in California; Increased 

Assessment Rate 

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This rule increases the 

assessment rate established for the 

California Olive Committee (Committee) 

for the 2010 and subsequent fiscal years 

from $28.63 to $44.72 per assessable ton 

of olives handled. The Committee 

locally administers the marketing order, 

which regulates the handling of olives 

grown in California. Assessments upon 

olive handlers are used by the 

Committee to fund reasonable and 

necessary expenses of the program. The 

fiscal year began January 1 and ends 

December 31. The assessment rate will 

remain in effect indefinitely unless 

modified, suspended, or terminated. 

DATES: Effective Date: April 29, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jeffrey S. Smutny, Marketing Specialist, 

or Kurt J. Kimmel, Regional Manager, 

California Marketing Field Office, 

Marketing Order Administration 

Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, 

AMS, USDA; Telephone: (559) 487– 

5901, Fax: (559) 487–5906; or E-mail: 

Jeffrey.Smutny@ams.usda.gov or 

Kurt.Kimmel@ams.usda.gov. 

Small businesses may request 

information on complying with this 

regulation by contacting Antoinette 

Carter, Marketing Order Administration 

Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, 

AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence 

Avenue, SW., STOP 0237, Washington, 

DC 20250–0237; Telephone: (202) 720– 

2491, Fax: (202) 720–8938, or E-mail: 

Antoinette.Carter@ams.usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule 

is issued under Marketing Agreement 

No. 148 and Order No. 932, both as 

amended (7 CFR part 932), regulating 

the handling of olives grown in 

California, hereinafter referred to as the 

‘‘order.’’ The order is effective under the 

Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act 

of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601–674), 

hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘Act.’’ 

The Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) is issuing this rule in 

conformance with Executive Order 

12866. 

This rule has been reviewed under 

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 

Reform. Under the marketing order now 

in effect, California olive handlers are 

subject to assessments. Funds to 

administer the order are derived from 

such assessments. It is intended that the 

assessment rate as issued herein will be 

applicable to all assessable olives 

beginning on January 1, 2010, and 

continue until amended, suspended, or 

terminated. 

The Act provides that administrative 

proceedings must be exhausted before 

parties may file suit in court. Under 

section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any 

handler subject to an order may file 

with USDA a petition stating that the 

order, any provision of the order, or any 

obligation imposed in connection with 

the order is not in accordance with law 

and request a modification of the order 

or to be exempted therefrom. Such 

handler is afforded the opportunity for 

a hearing on the petition. After the 

hearing, USDA would rule on the 

petition. The Act provides that the 

district court of the United States in any 

district in which the handler is an 

inhabitant, or has his or her principal 

place of business, has jurisdiction to 

review USDA’s ruling on the petition, 

provided an action is filed not later than 

20 days after the date of the entry of the 

ruling. 

This rule increases the assessment 

rate established for the Committee for 

the 2010 and subsequent fiscal years 

from $28.63 to $44.72 per ton of olives 

handled. 

The California olive marketing order 

provides authority for the Committee, 

with the approval of USDA, to formulate 

an annual budget of expenses and 

collect assessments from handlers to 

administer the program. The members 

of the Committee are producers and 

handlers of California olives. They are 

familiar with the Committee’s needs and 

with costs for goods and services in 

their local area and are thus in a 

position to formulate an appropriate 

budget and assessment rate. The 

assessment rate is formulated and 

discussed in a public meeting. Thus, all 

directly affected persons have an 

opportunity to participate and provide 

input. 

For the 2009 and subsequent fiscal 

years, the Committee recommended, 

and USDA approved, an assessment rate 

that would continue in effect from fiscal 

year to fiscal year unless modified, 

suspended, or terminated by USDA 

upon recommendation and information 

submitted by the Committee or other 

information available to USDA. 

The Committee met on December 15, 

2009, and unanimously recommended 

2010 fiscal year expenditures of 

$929,923 and an assessment rate of 

$44.72 per ton of olives. In comparison, 

last year’s budgeted expenditures were 

$1,482,349. The assessment rate of 

$44.72 is $16.09 higher than the rate 

currently in effect. The Committee 

recommended the higher assessment 

rate because the 2009–10 assessable 

olive receipts as reported by the 

California Agricultural Statistics Service 

(CASS) are only 22,150 tons, which 

compares to 49,067 tons in 2008–09. 

Unusual weather conditions, including 

untimely temperatures that fell below 

freezing, contributed to a substantially 

smaller crop. The Committee also plans 

to use available reserve funds to help 

meet its 2010 expenses. 

The major expenditures 

recommended by the Committee for the 

2010 fiscal year include $300,000 for 

research, $255,000 for marketing 

activities, and $324,923 for 

administration. Budgeted expenses for 

these items in 2009 were $495,000, 

$627,800, and $359,549, respectively. 

The assessment rate recommended by 

the Committee was derived by 

considering anticipated fiscal year 

expenses, actual olive tonnage received 

by handlers during the 2009–10 crop 

year, and additional pertinent factors. 

Actual assessable tonnage for the 2010 

fiscal year is expected to be lower than 

the 2009–10 crop receipts of 22,150 tons 

reported by the CASS because some 

olives may be diverted by handlers to 

uses that are exempt from marketing 

order requirements. Income derived 

from handler assessments, along with 

interest income and funds from the 

Committee’s authorized reserve, should 

be adequate to cover budgeted expenses. 

Funds in the reserve will be kept within 

the maximum permitted by the order of 

approximately one fiscal year’s 

expenses (§ 932.40). 

The assessment rate established in 

this rule will continue in effect 

indefinitely unless modified, 

suspended, or terminated by USDA 

upon recommendation and information 

submitted by the Committee or other 

available information. 

Although this assessment rate will be 

in effect for an indefinite period, the 

Committee will continue to meet prior 

to or during each fiscal year to 

recommend a budget of expenses and 

consider recommendations for 

modification of the assessment rate. The 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES