This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

62823

Vol. 69, No. 208

Thursday, October 28, 2004

1For the purposes of this document, the term 

‘‘commodity’’ means a plant, plant product, or other 

agricultural product being moved for trade or other 

purpose.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

7 CFR Part 319

[Docket No. 02–132–1] 

RIN 0579–AB83

Requirements for Requests To Amend 

Import Regulations

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: We are proposing to establish 

regulations governing the submission of 

requests for changes in our regulations 

that restrict the importation of plants, 

plant parts, and plant products. We are 

proposing this action because, despite 

existing non-regulatory guidance on the 

submission of requests, few applicants 

provide the basic information we 

require to properly consider their 

requests. We expect that adoption of 

this proposal would help ensure that we 

are provided with the information we 

need to prepare a risk analysis and/or 

other analyses that evaluate the risks 

and other effects associated with the 

proposed change to the regulations. This 

information is needed for us to 

effectively consider the request, and 

submission of the information at the 

time the request is made allows us to 

proceed with our consideration of the 

request in a timely manner.

DATES: We will consider all comments 

that we receive on or before December 

27, 2004.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by any of the following methods: 

• Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery:

Please send four copies of your 

comment (an original and three copies) 

to Docket No. 02–132–1, Regulatory 

Analysis and Development, PPD, 

APHIS, Station 3C71, 4700 River Road 

Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737–1238. 

Please state that your comment refers to 

Docket No. 02–132–1. 

• E-mail: Address your comment to 

regulations@aphis.usda.gov. Your 

comment must be contained in the body 

of your message; do not send attached 

files. Please include your name and 

address in your message and ‘‘Docket 

No. 02–132–1’’ on the subject line. 

• Agency Web Site: Go to http://

www.aphis.usda.gov/ppd/rad/

cominst.html for a form you can use to 

submit an e-mail comment through the 

APHIS Web site. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and follow 

the instructions for locating this docket 

and submitting comments. 

Reading Room: You may read any 

comments that we receive on this 

docket in our reading room. The reading 

room is located in room 1141 of the 

USDA South Building, 14th Street and 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC. Normal reading room 

hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except holidays. To be 

sure someone is there to help you, 

please call (202) 690–2817 before 

coming. 

Other Information: You may view 

APHIS documents published in the 

Federal Register and related 

information, including the names of 

groups and individuals who have 

commented on APHIS dockets, on the 

Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/

ppd/rad/webrepor.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

information related to risk analyses, 

contact Mr. Robert L. Griffin, Director, 

Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis 

Laboratory, Center for Plant Health, 

Science, and Technology, PPQ, APHIS, 

1730 Varsity Drive Suite 300, Raleigh, 

NC 27606; (919) 855–7400. 

For information related to 

environmental analyses, contact Mr. 

Carl Bausch, Chief, Environmental 

Services, PPD, APHIS, 4700 River Road 

Unit 149, Riverdale, MD 20737–1237; 

(301) 734–8963. 

For information related to economic 

analyses, contact Mr. Christopher 

Klocek, Economist, Policy Analysis and 

Development, PPD, APHIS, 4700 River 

Road Unit 119, Riverdale, MD 20737–

1238; (301) 734–8667.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The regulations contained in 7 CFR 

part 319 (referred to below as the part 

319 regulations) prohibit or restrict the 

importation of plants, plant parts, and 

plant products into the United States in 

accordance with the authority conferred 

on the Secretary of Agriculture by the 

Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701–

7772). The Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service (APHIS) is the 

United States Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) agency responsible for (1) 

enforcing the part 319 regulations and 

(2) considering requests to amend the 

part 319 regulations to allow the 

importation of plants, plant parts, or 

plant products that are not currently 

allowed importation under the 

regulations. 

On June 19, 2001, APHIS published a 

notice in the Federal Register (66 FR 

32923–32928, Docket No. 00–082–1) 

which described procedures and 

standards employed by APHIS in its 

consideration of such requests. As part 

of that document, we requested that 

persons seeking to import a new 

commodity 1 for which a risk analysis is 

required submit specific information in 

support of their request in order to 

expedite APHIS’s consideration of the 

request. In the notice, we explained that 

if APHIS is provided with certain 

information regarding the commodity, 

its country of origin, and the pests 

associated with it, then we would be 

better able to consider the request and 

conduct the risk analysis in a timely 

fashion. We also explained that, after 

reviewing the submitted information, 

we may request any other associated 

information that may be needed to 

complete a risk analysis.

In this document, we are proposing to 

establish regulations governing the 

submission of requests to change the 

part 319 import regulations. We are 

proposing this action because, despite 

our publication of the June 2001 notice 

containing guidance on the submission 

of information in support of commodity 

import requests, and despite other 

existing guidance on this subject, few 

applicants provide the basic information 

we require to properly consider their 

requests. We expect that adoption of 

this proposal would help ensure that we 

are provided with the information we 

need to prepare a risk analysis and/or 

other analyses that evaluate the risks 

and other effects associated with the 

62824 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

2Note: The results of a risk analysis may or may 

not support the proposed action.

3There are few cases where completion of risk 

analysis of some kind would not be required. The 

most obvious case would be if a risk analysis 

already exists.

4The only Required Information that may be 

superfluous for these analyses is information about 

associated pests and current risk mitigation 

strategies.

proposed change to the regulations. This 

information is needed for us to 

effectively consider the request, and 

submission of the information at the 

time the request is made allows us to 

proceed with our consideration of the 

request in a timely manner. Without this 

information, we are unable to effectively 

consider such requests. 

The information we are proposing to 

require is the same type of information 

that we are required to provide to other 

countries as they evaluate commodities 

that we wish to export. Furthermore, the 

provisions of this proposal are 

consistent with country obligations 

under the International Plant Protection 

Convention (IPPC), to which the United 

States is a signatory.

Process for Considering Requests 

When APHIS is requested to allow the 

importation of a commodity, APHIS first 

reviews the regulations to determine 

whether the commodity is enterable 

under existing regulations. If the 

commodity is enterable, APHIS may 

issue a permit for the importation of the 

commodity, subject to applicable 

regulations in part 319. Such cases 

would not require the submission of 

information as proposed in this 

document. 

However, if the commodity is not yet 

authorized for importation under 

existing regulations, APHIS would have 

to undertake rulemaking to change the 

commodity’s regulatory status before the 

commodity could be imported. The first 

step in this process involves 

determining whether it is necessary to 

conduct a risk analysis to analyze the 

pest risk associated with the 

importation of the commodity. When 

APHIS determines whether a pest risk 

analysis is necessary, we formally 

advise the requestor of that finding. 

Regardless of whether or not a pest 

risk analysis is necessary, APHIS needs 

certain basic information (described in 

detail under the heading Required 

Information) to begin considering the 

request, and, in some cases, may require 

additional information (described under 

the heading Additional Information) to 

complete our evaluation. If a risk 

analysis is required,2 the information is 

needed to conduct the analysis in 

accordance with the International 

Standard for Phytosanitary Measures 

(ISPM) No. 11, ‘‘Pest Risk Analysis for 

Quarantine Pests,’’ and its supplements, 

set by the IPPC. The completion of a risk 

analysis may be necessary to inform the 

Secretary as she makes her 

determination to allow or prohibit the 

importation of a commodity in 

accordance with the authority conferred 

on her by the Plant Protection Act.

Even if a risk analysis is not required 

to analyze the pest risk associated with 

the importation of the commodity,3 the 

majority of the information listed under 

the heading Required Information is still 

needed for the purposes of other 

analyses that are designed to satisfy the 

requirements of certain U.S. statutes.4

The following is a list of the U.S. 

statutes that most often have effects on 

the process of consideration of requests. 

This list is not exhaustive, but the 

analyses they require are the ones that 

depend most on certain types of 

information that are described in this 

document.

• The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires Federal 

agencies to consider the effect of 

proposed rules on small businesses, 

nonprofit organizations, and 

government jurisdictions. In order to 

comply with the requirements of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act, for each 

rulemaking action, APHIS conducts an 

analysis on the economic effects the rule 

may have on small entities. 

• Crop Insurance Reform and 

Department of Agriculture 

Reorganization Act of 1994 (Pub. L. 

103–354) requires rules classified as 

‘‘major’’ (having an annual impact on 

the economy of the United States of 

$100 million in 1994 dollars and whose 

primary purpose is to regulate issues of 

human health, human safety, or the 

environment) to be based on a thorough 

analysis that makes clear the nature of 

the risk posed by the action, alternative 

ways of reducing the risk, the reasoning 

that justifies the rule, and a comparison 

of the likely costs and benefits of 

reducing the risk. 

• The National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 

4321 et seq.) and the Council on 

Environmental Quality’s regulations for 

implementing the procedural provisions 

of NEPA require Federal agencies to 

consider the effects of their actions on 

the natural environment and identify 

alternatives to proposed actions. APHIS 

typically prepares environmental 

assessments, and in some cases, 

environmental impact statements, to 

evaluate the environmental effects of 

new imports of plants, plant parts, and 

plant products. 

• The Endangered Species Act, as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) 

requires that Federal agencies ensure 

that their actions do not jeopardize the 

continued existence of species that are 

listed as threatened or endangered or 

adversely modify critical habitat. In 

certain cases, APHIS is required to enter 

into consultations with the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service to provide 

evidence that our actions would not 

adversely affect threatened or 

endangered species or their critical 

habitats. 

Risk analyses and other analyses 

required under the statutes described 

above are integral parts of the body of 

documentation that are required by law 

to support changes in our regulations. 

The findings of these analyses form the 

foundation of the rational basis for 

rulemaking required under the 

Administrative Procedure Act. Problems 

(e.g., a shortage of data) with any one of 

these analyses can have effects on the 

timely processing of a request. To 

facilitate the completion of these 

analyses, we have identified the basic 

information that is required in any case 

for us to begin conducting a risk 

analysis and other analyses required by 

law. We have also identified additional 

information that may become necessary 

at some stage of the processing of the 

request, but that may not be required in 

all, or even most, cases. In this 

document, we are proposing to establish 

regulations to clarify the process for 

evaluating requests and the information 

we require to consider such requests. 

The Proposed Regulations 

Under the proposed regulations, 

which would be located in a new 

‘‘Subpart—Requests To Amend the 

Regulations’’ (7 CFR 319.5), persons 

interested in the importation into the 

United States of commodities that have 

not been evaluated for entry into the 

United States and that are not 

specifically approved for importation 

into the United States under part 319 

would be required to file a request with 

APHIS. The initial request could be 

formal (i.e., a letter from the government 

of the exporting country) or informal 

(i.e., a phone call to an import specialist 

from a foreign producer or prospective 

importer), and could be made by any 

person. Upon APHIS’s confirmation that 

granting the person’s request would 

necessitate revisions to the regulations 

in part 319 (regardless of whether a risk 

analysis is determined to be necessary), 

APHIS would notify the person that, 

prior to consideration of the request, the 

national plant protection organization of 

the country from which the plants, plant 

parts, or plant products would be 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2004 / Proposed Rules 62825

5We specifically welcome comments as to the 

exact type and amount of information that can or 

should be submitted in support of this requirement.

exported would be required to provide 

APHIS with the information described 

in proposed § 319.5(d). Requests that do 

not contain this information will be 

considered incomplete, and APHIS may 

not take further action on such requests 

until all required information is 

submitted. Under § 319.5(c) of the 

proposed regulations, this information 

would be required to be submitted to a 

designated APHIS contact point. 

Required Information 

The regulations in § 319.5(d) would 

require the following information to be 

provided to APHIS:

Information about the party 

submitting the request:

• For requests that address imports 

from a single country, the address, 

telephone and fax numbers, and e-mail 

addresses of the national plant 

protection organization of the country 

from which the commodity would be 

exported, or 

• For requests that address a multicountry region, the address, telephone 

and fax numbers, and e-mail addresses 

of the exporting countries’ national and 

regional plant protection organizations. 

Information about the commodity 

proposed for importation into the 

United States:

• A description and/or map of the 

specific location(s) of the areas in the 

exporting country where the commodity 

is produced, 

• The scientific name (including 

genus, species, and author names), 

synonyms, and taxonomic classification 

of the commodity, 

• Identification of the particular plant 

or plant part (i.e., fruit, leaf, root, entire 

plant, etc.) and any associated plant part 

proposed for importation into the 

United States, 

• The proposed end use of the 

imported commodity (e.g., propagation, 

consumption, milling, decorative, 

processing, etc.), and 

• The months of the year when the 

commodity would be produced, 

harvested, and exported. 

Shipping information:

• Detailed information as to the 

projected quantity and weight/volume 

of the proposed importation, broken 

down according to varieties where 

applicable, and 

• Method of shipping in international 

commerce and under what conditions, 

including type of conveyance, and type, 

size, and capacity of packing boxes and/

or shipping containers. 

Description of all pests and diseases 

associated with the commodity 

proposed for exportation to the United 

States:

• Scientific name (including genus, 

species, and author names) and 

taxonomic classification of arthropods, 

fungi, bacteria, nematodes, virus, 

viroids, mollusks, phytoplasmas, 

spiroplasmas, etc., attacking the crop, 

• Plant part attacked by each pest, 

pest life stages associated with each 

plant part attacked, and location of pest 

(in, on, or with commodity), and 

• References. 

Current strategies for risk mitigation 

or management:

• Overview 5 of agronomic or 

horticultural management practices 

used in the production of the 

commodity, including methods of pest 

risk mitigation or control programs, and

• Identification of parties responsible 

for pest management and control. 

Additional Information 

In addition to the information 

described above, in some cases, APHIS 

may require additional information to 

effectively consider requests to amend 

the part 319 regulations. We are 

requesting public comment as to 

whether some or all of this additional 

information should be required to be 

submitted with the information 

described above, whether some or all of 

the information should be considered 

‘‘optional,’’ or whether APHIS should 

require submission of some or all of the 

information only if we deem it 

necessary during the course of our 

consideration of a request. We wish to 

make it clear that it is very much in the 

interest of the exporting country’s 

national plant protection organization to 

provide as much of the following 

information as possible in order to 

facilitate the timely consideration of a 

request. If APHIS needs this information 

but does not receive it from the national 

plant protection organization of the 

exporting country, we must seek the 

information from available sources or 

take other appropriate action on the 

request. Accordingly, the consideration 

of requests may be delayed substantially 

or even denied. 

Contact information:

Address, phone and fax numbers, 

and/or e-mail for local experts (e.g., 

academicians, researchers, extension 

agents) most familiar with crop 

production, entomology, plant 

pathology, and other relevant 

characteristics of the commodity 

proposed for importation. 

Additional information about the 

commodity:

• Common name(s) in English and in 

the language(s) of the exporting country, 

• Cultivar, variety, or group 

description of the commodity, 

• Stage of maturity at which crop is 

harvested and method of harvest, 

• Indication of whether crop is grown 

from certified seed or nursery stock, if 

applicable, 

• If grown from certified seed or 

stock, indication of the origin of the 

stock or seed (country, State), and 

• Color photographs of plant, plant 

part, or plant product itself. 

Information about the area where the 

commodity is grown:

• Unique characteristics of the 

production area in terms of pests or 

diseases, 

• Maps of the production regions, 

pest free areas, etc., 

• Length of time commodity has been 

grown in production area, 

• Status of growth of production area 

(i.e., acreage expanding or stable), and 

• Physical and climatological 

description of the growing area. 

Information about post-harvest transit 

and processing:

• Complete description of the postharvest processing methods used, and 

• Description of the movement of the 

commodity from field to processing to 

exporting port (e.g., method of 

conveyance, shipping containers, transit 

routes, especially through different pest 

risk areas). 

Shipping methods and volume of 

exports:

• Photographs of the boxes and 

containers used to transport the 

commodity, and 

• Identification of port(s) of export 

and import and expected months 

(seasons) of shipment, including 

intermediate ports-of-call and time at 

intermediate ports-of-call, if applicable. 

Additional description of all pests 

and diseases associated with the 

commodity to be imported:

• Common name(s) of the pest in 

English or local language(s), 

• Geographic distribution of the pest 

in the country, if a quarantine pest and 

follows the pathway, 

• Period of attack (e.g., attacks young 

fruit beginning immediately after 

blooming) and records of pest incidence 

(e.g., percentage of infested plants or 

infested fruit) over time (e.g., during the 

different phenological stages of the 

crops and/or times of the year), 

• Economic losses associated with 

pests of concern in the country, 

• Pest biology or disease etiology or 

epidemiology, and 

• Photocopies of literature cited in 

support of the information above.

Current strategies for risk mitigation 

or manageament:

• Description of pre-harvest pest 

management practices (including target 

pests, treatments [e.g., pesticides], or 

62826 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

other control methods) as well as 

evidence of efficacy of pest management 

treatments and other control methods, 

• Efficacy of post-harvest processing 

treatments in pest control, 

• Culling percentage and efficacy of 

culling in removing pests from the 

commodity, and 

• Description of quality assurance 

activities, efficacy and efficiency of 

monitoring implementation. 

Existing documentation:

• Relevant pest risk analyses, 

environmental assessment(s), biological 

assessment(s), and economic 

information and analyses. 

Availability of Guidance on the Internet 

In conjunction with this rule, we 

would post information related to this 

subject on the APHIS Internet site. The 

site would include a document that 

clearly explains the information 

required to be submitted at the time of 

the import request and the additional 

desirable information described in this 

document, background information on 

the rulemaking process and the 

analytical requirements APHIS must 

meet as it proposes and adopts revisions 

to its import regulations, and documents 

intended to facilitate the preparation of 

the information described in this 

document prior to submission to APHIS. 

We would provide a link for that Web 

site in our final rule. 

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

This proposed 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 an economic 

analysis for this rule. The economic 

analysis provides a cost-benefit analysis, 

as required by Executive Order 12866, 

and an analysis of the potential 

economic effects of this final rule on 

small entities, as required by the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act. The 

economic analysis is set out below. 

Under the Plant Protection Act (7 

U.S.C. 7701–7772), the Secretary of 

Agriculture is authorized to regulate the 

importation of plants, plant products, 

and other articles to prevent the 

introduction of injurious plant pests. 

This proposed rule would require that 

requests to amend the regulations 

regarding imported plants, plant parts, 

or plant products be accompanied by 

the basic information necessary for 

APHIS to properly consider such 

requests. Receipt of necessary 

information (previously described in 

this docket) at the time a request to 

import a currently prohibited 

commodity is made will streamline the 

process for considering the request by 

minimizing delays and backlogs in 

conducting risk assessments and other 

required analyses. Streamlining the 

process will help facilitate trade of both 

imported and exported plants and plant 

products covered by 7 CFR part 319, 

and help maintain good relations 

between the United States and its 

trading partners. 

Commodities in 7 CFR Part 319 

Potentially Affected by the Proposed 

Regulations 

• Fruits and Vegetables 

• Cotton 

• Logs, lumber 

• Nursery Stock (planted in media) 

• Sugarcane 

• Corn, Rice, Wheat, Coffee 

• Packing Material 

• Cut Flowers 

Streamlining the process for 

requesting changes to the import 

regulations will benefit trading partners 

seeking to sell their products in U.S. 

markets by allowing them to bring 

products to market in the United States 

in a more timely fashion. This proposed 

rule, if adopted, would have a positive 

effect on U.S. consumers who benefit 

from increased variety of imported 

products available in domestic markets 

and from increased competition and 

lower prices in affected markets. 

Maintaining good trade relations 

ensures that U.S. exports of fruits, 

vegetables, and other commodities 

would continue to flow freely into 

markets around the world. This would 

benefit U.S. exporters. Uncertainty and 

delays can be costly for U.S. exporters 

of perishable commodities, whose 

window for shipping fresh produce and 

live plants is brief. Some U.S. brokers/

shippers who handle imported plants 

and plant products may be affected, but 

costs to them should be negligible. 

Alternatives Considered 

Two alternatives to this rule were 

considered. The first alternative was to 

do nothing. This alternative was 

rejected because the increased volume 

of import requests and growing backlog 

of risk assessments necessitate a 

mechanism for facilitating the import 

request process. The second alternative 

considered was to limit the rule to fresh 

fruits and vegetables only. Excluding 

other plant and plant parts from this 

rule was not seen as the most effective 

regulatory approach, given the growing 

volume and value of reciprocal trade in 

commodities such as grains, cotton, 

nursery stock, and cut flowers (see table 

1). 

Benefits of the Proposed Rule 

Trade Benefits 

An important benefit of expediting 

the risk assessment process is the 

continued smooth functioning of trade, 

particularly with countries where there 

is significant reciprocal trade in plants 

and plant products. U.S. exports of 

plants, plant parts, and plant products 

are extensive. For example, the United 

States exported roughly $4.26 billion in 

plants, plant parts, and plant products 

to major trading partners Mexico, 

Taiwan, and China in 2003. As the table 

below suggests, given the volume of 

trade in plant and plant products, 

delays by trading partners in processing 

U.S. import requests could be costly for 

U.S. exporters.

TABLE 1.—2003 U.S. EXPORTS OF SELECTED COMMODITIES

Commodity harmonized tariff 

codes (HS) Commodity description 

Value of exports

(in millions of dollars) 

Mexico Taiwan China 

5201, 5203 .............................. Cotton ..................................................................................... $427.658 $117.153 $733.168

4407, 4403, 4406 .................... Lumber and logs .................................................................... 139.405 60.769 190.467

4415 ........................................ Pallets, packing material ........................................................ 13.463 0.123 0.168

08 ............................................ Edible fruits and nuts ............................................................. 256.559 134.824 50.579

07 ............................................ Vegetables .............................................................................. 110.330 27.444 9.553

1701 ........................................ Sugarcane .............................................................................. 0.785 0.034 0.001

0603 ........................................ Cut flowers ............................................................................. 1.132 0 0.021

0601, 0602 .............................. Live plants, grasses, bulbs ..................................................... 21.215 0.071 0.594

0604 ........................................ Tubers .................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2004 / Proposed Rules 62827

6 ‘‘Guide to the Regulatory Flexibility Act.’’ Small 

Business Administration, Office of Advocacy, 

Washington, DC, May 1996.

7North American Industrial Classification System 

(NAICS) 424480, Fresh Fruit and Vegtable Merchant 

Wholesalers.

8See http://www.sba.gov/advo/stats/us99_n6.pdf.

TABLE 1.—2003 U.S. EXPORTS OF SELECTED COMMODITIES—Continued

Commodity harmonized tariff 

codes (HS) Commodity description 

Value of exports

(in millions of dollars) 

Mexico Taiwan China 

1005 ........................................ Corn ........................................................................................ 689.611 513.785 0.658

1006 ........................................ Rice ........................................................................................ 140.263 34.078 0.079

1001 ........................................ Wheat ..................................................................................... 402.083 136.371 35.262

0901 ........................................ Coffee ..................................................................................... 1.966 0.727 0.391

Total ................................. ................................................................................................. 2,204.470 1,025.379 1,020.941

Source: http://www.fas.usda.gov/ustrdscripts/USReport.exe. Trade data are reported by commodity tariff code, also known as harmonized tariff 

schedule (HS). 

Efficiency Gains 

A related benefit of this proposed rule 

for U.S. interests is internal APHIS 

efficiency and consistency gains related 

to processing import requests. 

Collecting data necessary for risk 

assessments requires time, which delays 

processing of import requests. 

For the past several years, APHIS has 

conducted approximately 100 risk 

assessments associated with import 

requests per year. Of those risk 

assessments, 90 percent are routine and 

10 percent are complex. Examples of 

recent complex assessments relate to the 

importation of citrus from Argentina, 

clementines from Spain, and citrus from 

Uruguay. Complex risk assessments 

typically require 2 to 3 months for data 

collection by APHIS, plus trips to the 

country of origin. Data collection for 

routine risk assessments usually 

requires 30 days or less. 

Submission of basic information with 

the import request will substantially 

decrease the amount of time required for 

data collection for both routine and 

complex risk assessments and the need 

for international travel to collect 

information. Providing information at 

the time an import request is made will 

require some expenditure of time and 

effort by the applicant. However, 

assembling data is expected to require 

substantially less time for the applicant 

than for APHIS employees, especially if 

the applicant is in the country of origin. 

Applicants in the country of origin 

should have knowledge of the 

commodity they wish to export and 

access to the required data. 

Even when the risk analysis is not 

complex, or in cases where a risk 

analysis may not be required, the 

information we are proposing to require 

can be used to complete other analyses 

or documentation required by certain 

U.S. statutes, such as the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, the National 

Environmental Policy Act, and the 

Endangered Species Act, to support 

changes in our regulations. Delays or 

problems with any of these analyses can 

affect the timely processing of import 

requests. 

Costs of the Proposed Regulations 

The proposed regulations would 

require that the national plant 

protection organizations of foreign 

countries provide specific information 

in support of import requests. This 

would require an additional 

expenditure of time and effort on the 

part of potential exporters and the 

exporting country’s national plant 

protection organization, but APHIS does 

not expect major adjustment problems 

for those persons. Required information 

about commodities should be known to 

applicants and readily available. 

Many foreign firms use U.S. brokers 

in order to facilitate the movement of 

consignments into the United States. 

The broker’s primary role is to make 

arrangements and obtain appropriate 

documentation for the import and 

export of goods. The task of assembling 

required data could fall to U.S. brokers 

in some cases, but any adjustment 

should be short-lived, as importers, 

brokers, and governments of exporting 

countries work toward the common goal 

of expanded commerce. 

APHIS believes that the benefits of 

this rule (streamlining the process for 

evaluating import requests and reducing 

costs to APHIS) outweigh the costs to 

applicants associated with gathering the 

basic information required by this rule. 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

As a part of the rulemaking process, 

APHIS evaluates whether proposed 

regulations are likely to have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities.6 It 

is unclear whether or to what extent the 

data requirements of the proposed 

regulations would be passed on to U.S. 

brokers/shippers of plants and plant 

products. More than 11,406 brokers/

shippers of plants and plant products 

would be considered small entities 

under the Small Business 

Administration’s (SBA) criteria, but we 

do not expect that the proposed data 

requirements would have a significant 

impact on them.

Under the SBA’s criteria, an import/

export merchant is classified as a small 

entity if it has 100 or fewer employees.7

In all cases, the impact would only be 

as a result of an entity’s involvement in 

assembling data required for the import 

request.

According to the most recent 

information available from the SBA’s 

Office of Advocacy, a total of 5,403 

firms comprised the ‘‘Fresh Fruit and 

Vegetable Merchant Wholesalers’’

category in 1999.8 Seventy-eight percent 

of these firms (4,227) employed 20 or 

fewer individuals, and 99 percent of the 

firms had 500 or fewer employees. 

Clearly, the majority of fruit and 

vegetable wholesalers are small entities, 

having 100 or fewer employees. Other 

types of wholesalers potentially affected 

by the proposed regulations 

(wholesalers of cut flowers and nursery 

stock, grain and beans, and other farm 

product raw materials) demonstrate 

similar demographic profiles, with the 

majority of firms in the industry 

considered small under SBA’s criteria. 

Even though the majority of potentially 

affected wholesalers have 100 or fewer 

employees, and would thus be classified 

as small entities, the proposed 

regulations are not expected to have a 

significant economic impact on them.

Under these circumstances, the 

Administrator of the Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service has 

determined that this action would not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Executive Order 12988

This proposed rule has been reviewed 

under Executive Order 12988, Civil 

62828 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

Justice Reform. If this proposed rule is 

adopted: (1) All State and local laws and 

regulations that are inconsistent with 

this rule will be preempted; (2) no 

retroactive effect will be given to this 

rule; and (3) administrative proceedings 

will not be required before parties may 

file suit in court challenging this rule. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

In accordance with section 3507(d) of 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the information 

collection or recordkeeping 

requirements included in this proposed 

rule have been submitted for approval to 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB). Please send written comments 

to the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attention: 

Desk Officer for APHIS, Washington, DC 

20503. Please state that your comments 

refer to Docket No. 02–132–1. Please 

send a copy of your comments to: (1) 

Docket No. 02–132–1, Regulatory 

Analysis and Development, PPD, 

APHIS, Station 3C71, 4700 River Road 

Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737–1238, 

and (2) Clearance Officer, OCIO, USDA, 

room 404–W, 14th Street and 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20250. A comment to 

OMB is best assured of having its full 

effect if OMB receives it within 30 days 

of publication of this proposed rule. 

Under this rule, persons who wish to 

import an agricultural commodity into 

the United States that is not currently 

approved for importation will be 

required to submit certain information 

to APHIS in support of their request. 

We are soliciting comments from the 

public (as well as affected agencies) 

concerning our proposed information 

collection and recordkeeping 

requirements. These comments will 

help us: 

(1) Evaluate whether the proposed 

information collection is necessary for 

the proper performance of our agency’s 

functions, including whether the 

information will have practical utility; 

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our 

estimate of the burden of the proposed 

information collection, including the 

validity of the methodology and 

assumptions used; 

(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and 

(4) Minimize the burden of the 

information collection on those who are 

to respond (such as through the use of 

appropriate automated, electronic, 

mechanical, or other technological 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology; e.g., permitting 

electronic submission of responses). 

Estimate of burden: Public reporting 

burden for this collection of information 

is estimated to average 2 hours per 

response. 

Respondents: U.S. importers, foreign 

producers and regulatory officials. 

Estimated annual number of 

respondents: 100. 

Estimated annual number of 

responses per respondent: 6. 

Estimated annual number of 

responses: 600. 

Estimated total annual burden on 

respondents: 1,200 hours. (Due to 

averaging, the total annual burden hours 

may not equal the product of the annual 

number of responses multiplied by the 

reporting burden per response.) 

Copies of this information collection 

can be obtained from Mrs. Celeste 

Sickles, APHIS’ Information Collection 

Coordinator, at (301) 734–7477. 

Government Paperwork Elimination 

Act Compliance 

The Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service is committed to 

compliance with the Government 

Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA), 

which requires Government agencies in 

general to provide the public the option 

of submitting information or transacting 

business electronically to the maximum 

extent possible. For information 

pertinent to GPEA compliance related to 

this proposed rule, please contact Mrs. 

Celeste Sickles, APHIS’ Information 

Collection Coordinator, at (301) 734–

7477.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 319

Bees, Coffee, Cotton, Fruits, Honey, 

Imports, Nursery Stock, Plant diseases 

and pests, Quarantine, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Rice, 

Vegetables.

Accordingly, we propose to amend 7 

CFR part 319 as follows:

PART 319—FOREIGN QUARANTINE 

NOTICES 

1. The authority citation for part 319 

would continue to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 450 and 7701–7772; 21 

U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 

371.3.

2. A new ‘‘Subpart—Requests To 

Amend the Regulations’’ (§ 319.5) 

would be added to read as follows:

Subpart—Requests To Amend the 

Regulations

§ 319.5 Requirements for submitting 

requests to change the regulations in 7 CFR 

part 319. 

(a) Definitions.

Commodity. A plant, plant product, or 

other agricultural product being moved 

for trade or other purpose. 

(b) Procedures for submitting requests 

and supporting information. Persons 

who request changes to the import 

regulations contained in this part and 

who wish to import plants, plant parts, 

or plant products that are not allowed 

importation under the conditions of this 

part must file a request with the Animal 

and Plant Health Inspection Service 

(APHIS) in order for APHIS to consider 

whether the new commodity can safely 

be imported into the United States. The 

initial request can be formal (e.g., a 

letter) or informal (e.g., made during a 

bilateral discussion between the United 

States and another country), and can be 

made by any person. Upon APHIS 

confirmation that granting a person’s 

request would require amendments to 

the regulations in this part, the national 

plant protection organization of the 

country from which the commodity 

would be exported must provide APHIS 

with the information listed in paragraph 

(d) of this section before APHIS can 

proceed with its consideration of the 

request; requests that are not supported 

with this information in a timely 

manner will be considered incomplete, 

and APHIS may not take further action 

on such requests until all required 

information is submitted 

(c) Addresses. The national plant 

protection organization of the country 

from which commodities would be 

exported must submit the information 

listed in paragraph (d) of this section to: 

[Address to be added in final rule]. 

(d) Information. The following 

information must be provided to APHIS 

in order for APHIS to consider a request 

to change the regulations in part 319: 

(1) Information about the party 

submitting the request. The address, 

telephone and fax numbers, and e-mail 

addresses of the national plant 

protection organization of the country 

from which plants, plant parts, or plant 

products would be exported; or, for 

requests that address a multi-country 

region, the address, telephone and fax 

numbers, and e-mail addresses of the 

exporting countries’ national and 

regional plant protection organizations. 

(2) Information about the commodity 

proposed for importation into the 

United States.

(i) A description and/or map of the 

specific location(s) of the areas in the 

exporting country where the plants, 

plant parts, or plant products are 

produced; 

(ii) The scientific name (including 

genus, species, and author names), 

synonyms, and taxonomic classification 

of the commodity; 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2004 / Proposed Rules 62829

(iii) Identification of the particular 

plant or plant part (i.e., fruit, leaf, root, 

entire plant, etc.) and any associated 

plant part proposed for importation into 

the United States; 

(iv) The proposed end use of the 

imported commodity (e.g., propagation, 

consumption, milling, decorative, 

processing, etc.); and 

(v) The months of the year when the 

commodity would be produced, 

harvested, and exported. 

(3) Shipping information.

(i) Detailed information as to the 

projected quantity and weight/volume 

of the proposed importation, broken 

down according to varieties, where 

applicable; and 

(ii) Method of shipping in 

international commerce and under what 

conditions, including type of 

conveyance, and type, size, and capacity 

of packing boxes and/or shipping 

containers. 

(4) Description of pests and diseases 

associated with the commodity. For all 

pests associated with the commodity 

proposed for export to the United States: 

(i) Scientific name (including genus, 

species, and author names) and 

taxonomic classification of arthropods, 

fungi, bacteria, nematodes, virus, 

viroids, mollusks, phytoplasmas, 

spiroplasmas, etc., attacking the crop; 

(ii) Plant part attacked by each pest, 

pest life stages associated with each 

plant part attacked, and location of pest 

(in, on or with commodity); and 

(iii) References. 

(5) Current strategies for risk 

mitigation or management.

(i) Overview of agronomic or 

horticultural management practices 

used in production of commodity, 

including methods of pest risk 

mitigation or control programs; and 

(ii) Identification of parties 

responsible for pest management and 

control. 

(e) Availability of additional 

guidance. Information related to the 

processing of requests to change the 

import regulations contained in this part 

may be found on the APHIS Web site at 

[Address to be added in final rule].

Done in Washington, DC, this 22nd day of 

October 2004. 

Bill Hawks, 

Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory 

Programs.

[FR Doc. 04–24150 Filed 10–27–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Marketing Service 

7 CFR Part 932

[Docket No. FV04–932–2 PR] 

Olives Grown in California; 

Redistricting and Reapportionment of 

Producer Membership on the 

California Olive Committee

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 

USDA.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This rule invites comments 

on the redefinition of the producer 

districts and reapportionment of each 

district’s membership on the California 

Olive Committee (committee). The 

Federal marketing order for California 

olives (order) regulates the handling of 

canned ripe olives grown in California 

and is administered locally by the 

committee. This rule would reduce the 

number of producer districts in the 

production area from four to two and 

would reapportion the committee 

representation from each district to 

reflect the consolidation. These changes 

would reflect recent shifts in olive 

acreage and producer numbers within 

the production area and would provide 

equitable committee representation from 

each district.

DATES: Comments must be received by 

December 27, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

invited to submit written comments 

concerning this proposal. Comments 

must be sent to the Docket Clerk, 

Marketing Order Administration 

Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, 

AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence 

Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, 

DC 20250–0237; Fax: (202) 720–8938, or 

E-mail: moab.docketclerk@usda.gov; or 

Internet: http://www.regulations.gov. All 

comments should reference the docket 

number and the date and page number 

of this issue of the Federal Register and 

will be made available for public 

inspection in the Office of the Docket 

Clerk during regular business hours, or 

can be viewed at: http//

www.ams.usda.gov/fv/moab.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Laurel L. May, Marketing Specialist, 

California Marketing Field Office, 

Marketing Order Administration 

Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, 

AMS, USDA, 2202 Monterey Street, 

Suite 102B, Fresno, California 93721; 

telephone: (559) 487–5901, Fax: (559) 

487–5906; or George Kelhart, Technical 

Advisor, 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. 

Small businesses may request 

information on complying with this 

regulation by contacting Jay Guerber, 

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: 

Jay.Guerber@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. This rule is not intended to 

have retroactive effect. This proposal 

will not preempt any State or local laws, 

regulations, or policies, unless they 

present an irreconcilable conflict with 

this rule. 

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 would consolidate the four 

existing producer districts into two 

larger districts. Producer representation 

on the committee would be 

reapportioned accordingly. These 

changes would reflect recent shifts in 

olive acreage and producer numbers 

within the production area and would 

assure equitable committee