This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains regulatory documents having general

applicability and legal effect, most of which

are keyed to and codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations, which is published under

50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by

the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of

new books are listed in the first FEDERAL

REGISTER issue of each week.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

71691

Vol. 69, No. 237

Friday, December 10, 2004

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

7 CFR Part 319 

[Docket No. 02–081–3] 

RIN 0579–AB77 

Importation of Clementines, 

Mandarins, and Tangerines From Chile

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: We are amending the 

regulations to allow the importation, 

under certain conditions, of 

clementines, mandarins, and tangerines 

from Chile into the United States. Based 

on the evidence in a recent pest risk 

assessment and an accompanying risk 

management document, we believe 

these articles can be safely imported 

from all provinces of Chile, provided 

certain conditions are met. This action 

provides for the importation of 

clementines, mandarins, and tangerines 

from Chile into the United States while 

continuing to protect the United States 

against the introduction of plant pests.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 10, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Jeanne VanDersal, Import Specialist, 

Phytosanitary Issues Management Staff, 

PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 140, 

Riverdale, MD 20737–1236; (301) 734–

6799.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The regulations in ‘‘Subpart—Fruits 

and Vegetables’’ (7 CFR 319.56 through 

319.56–8, referred to below as the 

regulations), prohibit or restrict the 

importation of fruits and vegetables into 

the United States from certain parts of 

the world to prevent the introduction 

and dissemination of plant pests. The 

Government of the Republic of Chile has 

requested that the Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service (APHIS) 

amend the regulations to allow the 

importation into the United States of 

clementines, mandarins, and tangerines 

from Chile under certain conditions 

without methyl bromide fumigation. 

Chile also requested that we allow 

methyl bromide fumigation to remain an 

option for clementines, mandarins, and 

tangerines that do not meet the 

requirements of the systems approach or 

in case pests are found during routine 

inspections. 

On October 22, 2002, we published a 

notice in the Federal Register (67 FR 

64862–64863, Docket No. 02–081–1) in 

which we advised the public of the 

availability of a draft pest risk 

assessment and an accompanying risk 

management document that evaluated 

the risks associated with importing 

citrus from Chile. We solicited 

comments concerning those documents 

for 60 days ending December 23, 2002, 

and received no comments by that date. 

We subsequently amended the pest risk 

assessment in March 2004 to include 

information related to a Mediterranean 

fruit fly (Medfly) trapping in Chile in 

April 2003. 

On March 22, 2004, we published in 

the Federal Register (69 FR 13262–

13269, Docket No. 02–081–2) a proposal 

to amend the regulations to allow the 

importation, under certain conditions, 

of clementines, mandarins, and 

tangerines from Chile into the United 

States. 

We solicited comments concerning 

our proposal for 60 days ending May 21, 

2004. We received five comments by 

that date. They were from exporters, 

researchers, and representatives of State, 

local, and foreign governments. One 

commenter supported the proposed rule 

as written. The remaining commenters 

raised specific issues regarding the 

proposed rule. Those issues are 

discussed below by topic. 

We proposed to allow the importation 

of clementines, mandarins, and 

tangerines from Chile subject either to 

the systems approach described in 

proposed § 319.56–2ll(d) or to 

fumigation with methyl bromide in 

Chile in accordance with proposed 

§ 319.56–2ll(e). We also proposed to 

allow the importation of clementines, 

mandarins, and tangerines originating 

from areas in Chile where Medfly is 

known to occur provided they are 

subject to the cold treatment schedules 

prescribed in the Plant Protection and 

Quarantine (PPQ) Treatment Manual 

which is incorporated by reference at 7 

CFR 300.1, ‘‘Plant Protection and 

Quarantine Treatment Manual.’’ 

The national plant protection 

organization of Chile and the Chilean 

Exporters Association stated that the 

fumigation option should provide for 

the treatment to take place either in 

Chile or at the port of first arrival in the 

United States, noting that we allow this 

choice of treatment locations for other 

commodities being imported into the 

United States from Chile. 

In response to this comment, 

§ 319.56–2mm(e) of this final rule 

allows fruit requiring methyl bromide 

fumigation as a condition of entry to be 

fumigated in either Chile or the United 

States. 

In our proposed rule, § 319.56–2ll(e) 

stated that fumigated fruit must be 

inspected in Chile at an APHISapproved inspection site under the 

direction of APHIS inspectors in 

coordination with the national plant 

protection organization of Chile. Two 

commenters stated that an inspection 

following methyl bromide fumigation is 

unnecessary because the treatment’s 

efficacy against target pests (Brevipalpus 

chilensis, Proeulia auraria, and Proeulia 

chrysopteris) has already been 

scientifically established. 

We agree with the commenters that 

methyl bromide fumigation does 

address the risk of all three of the 

targeted pests and that post-fumigation 

inspection is not necessary to ensure 

phytosanitary security. Therefore, we 

have removed the proposed postfumigation inspection requirement from 

paragraph (e) in this final rule. With 

respect to Proeulia auraria and Proeulia 

chrysopteris, we note that we 

incorrectly referred to these pests in the 

background information of the proposed 

rule as fruit leaf folders, whereas they 

are more correctly identified as tortricid 

leafrollers. 

Two commenters stated that we 

referred to treatment schedule T104–a–

1 in the proposed rule, but published 

T101–n–2–1. The commenters did not 

take issue with the prescribed treatment 

schedule itself, but simply questioned 

whether we published the right 

treatment schedule. 

We did not publish T104–a–1 in its 

entirety in the proposed rule, which is 

71692 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 237 / Friday, December 10, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

what led to the confusion surrounding 

the treatment schedules. Schedule 

T104–a–1 includes a note that all citrus 

must be fumigated at a minimum of

50 °F, which is why we omitted the 

lower temperature options in the 

treatment schedule that was published 

in the proposed rule. Without the lower 

temperature options, the treatment 

appears to be the same as T101–n–2–1. 

One commenter stated that, in the 

supplementary information of the 

proposed rule, Chile’s Metropolitan 

Region is incorrectly listed as an area 

where Medfly is known to exist. The 

commenter added that Medfly was 

completely eradicated from this area 

and verified by the United States 

Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

officials in December 2003.

The Arica Province is the only area in 

Chile where Medfly is known to occur; 

the commenter is correct that the 

Medfly outbreak in the Metropolitan 

Region has been eradicated. 

One commenter stated that a 

production site’s ‘‘low prevalence’’

status should only be changed as a 

result of an inspection of the site itself 

by USDA officials. The commenter 

objected to the provisions of proposed 

§ 319.56–211(d)(4) under which a 

production site’s low prevalence status 

would be suspended for the remainder 

of the shipping season if a single 

Brevipalpus chilensis mite is found 

during the required pre-export 

phytosanitary inspection and contended 

that the term ‘‘low prevalence’’ in itself 

allows for the existence of some pests. 

The commenter also stated that the 

established procedure with other 

commodities and countries allows for 

such a shipment to continue to its 

destination provided that it undergoes 

an approved quarantine treatment. 

Further, the commenter claimed that 

suspending a production site’s 

certification is unnecessary as long as a 

treatment that is efficacious against the 

targeted pest can be applied to a specific 

shipment before it is released for entry 

into U.S. commerce. 

The systems approach requires certain 

actions to be taken by fruit producers to 

control Brevipalpus chilensis in the 

field in addition to packinghouses. The 

commenter is correct that production 

sites can be certified as ‘‘low 

prevalence’’ with the understanding that 

some Brevipalpus chilensis may be 

present. However, no single Brevipalpus 

chilensis mite should be present on the 

fruit after the fruit has been through the 

post-harvest processing procedures, 

which include washing, rinsing in a 

chlorine bath with brushing using 

bristle rollers, and waxing. If, after 

undergoing these procedures, a 

Brevipalpus chilensis mite is found, it 

would indicate a greater problem with 

the implementation of the systems 

approach and the production site and/

or the packinghouse would need to be 

investigated. Suspending the site’s 

certification allows for us to conduct 

such an investigation and for the site to 

correct any errors in its implementation 

of the systems approach. The 

commenter is correct that a site should 

be allowed to continue shipping to the 

United States because an efficacious 

treatment against Brevipalpus chilensis

exists. That is why this rule provides 

that a site that has lost its eligibility to 

ship under the systems approach may 

continue shipping to the United States 

using methyl bromide fumigation for the 

remainder of the shipping season. 

One commenter questioned the 

appropriateness of using a pest risk 

assessment developed for Medfly in 

Peru for Chile. 

In the pest risk assessment and risk 

management document developed for 

the proposed rule, we stated that a 

recent assessment examining Medfly in 

Peru was applicable to Chile because 

the pest and hosts from the two 

countries are the same and the climatic 

conditions and environments are 

similar. The only portion of the pest risk 

assessment for Peru that was adapted for 

the pest risk assessment for Chile was 

the section pertaining to the risk ratings 

for Medfly, which are considered high 

for both Peru and Chile and would have 

been no different if the section was 

redone for Chile. 

One commenter stated that our 

proposal failed to address the risk posed 

by fruit flies and that interceptions of 

Medfly in Chile in both 2003 and 2004 

should be cause to stop shipments of 

citrus from Chile. 

We do not agree with this 

commenter’s statement that we failed to 

address fruit fly concerns in our 

proposed rule. While the proposed rule 

dealt largely with describing a systems 

approach for Brevipalpus chilensis, it 

also included provisions requiring that 

eligible citrus from regions in Chile 

where Medfly is known to occur be cold 

treated in accordance with the PPQ 

Treatment Manual. We acknowledge 

that Medfly was intercepted in Chile in 

both 2003 and 2004 and we will 

consider any region in Chile where 

Medfly is captured to be subject to these 

provisions until it has been eradicated. 

We believe that cold treatment will 

prevent the introduction of Medfly into 

the United States. 

One commenter stated that his 

company had developed a new 

fumigation treatment using pure 

phosphine at low temperatures that 

would not damage fruit as methyl 

bromide fumigation can. The 

commenter requested that we add this 

new treatment to the regulations as an 

alternative to methyl bromide 

fumigation. 

APHIS would need to evaluate a 

treatment’s effectiveness before listing it 

as an approved treatment. The 

commenter is welcome to send 

information pertaining to the treatment 

and its efficacy against targeted pests to 

the person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. If the treatment is 

found to be efficacious against a specific 

pest or pests, we may propose to add it 

to the regulations as an approved 

treatment and present the proposal for 

public comment. 

Miscellaneous 

In our March 2004 proposed rule, we 

proposed to add the conditions 

governing the importation of 

clementines, mandarins, and tangerines 

from Chile as § 319.56–211. In this final 

rule, those conditions are added as 

§ 319.56–2mm. 

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 rule has been reviewed under 

Executive Order 12866. The 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. 

For this rule, we have prepared an 

economic analysis. The economic 

analysis provides a cost-benefit analysis 

as required by Executive Order 12866, 

as well as an analysis of the potential 

economic effects of this rule on small 

entities, as required under the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act. The 

economic analysis is summarized 

below. See the full analysis for the 

complete list of references used in this 

document. Copies of the full analysis 

are available on the APHIS Web site at 

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

clementinesecon.pdf or by calling or 

writing the person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Copies 

of the economic analysis are also 

available for viewing in our reading 

room, 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, 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 237 / Friday, December 10, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 71693

1Florida is the largest producer of tangerines, 

accounting for 68 percent of total domestic 

production annually, followed by California (26 

percent), and Arizona (6 percent).

please call (202) 690–2817 before 

coming. 

Summary of Economic Analysis 

Our analysis estimates expected 

benefits and costs associated with 

allowing the importation of 

clementines, mandarins, and tangerines 

from Chile into the United States. The 

analysis assumes that this change in the 

regulations will not lead to an increased 

risk of pest outbreaks in the United 

States. Currently, no clementines, 

mandarins, or tangerines are being 

imported into the United States from 

Chile. According to the Chilean 

Exporters’ Association, 1,300 hectares 

are planted with clementines, 

mandarins, and tangerines in Chile, and 

Chile would like to export 

approximately 1,600 metric tons of 

clementines, mandarins, and tangerines 

to the United States. This amount is a 

little more than 15 percent of Chile’s 

total exports of these commodities in 

2001 (table 1).

TABLE 1.—WORLD EXPORTS OF

CLEMENTINES, MANDARINS, AND

CITRUS HYBRIDS FROM CHILE

Year Value

(1,000 $) 

Quantity

(1,000 kg) 

1993 .............. $4.29 3 

1994 .............. 61.78 81 

1995 .............. 636.64 780 

1996 .............. 1,408.64 1,951 

1997 .............. 1,675.17 1,579 

1998 .............. 4,177.41 4,918 

1999 .............. 4,063.65 4,819 

2000 .............. 4,743.93 6,896 

TABLE 1.—WORLD EXPORTS OF

CLEMENTINES, MANDARINS, AND

CITRUS HYBRIDS FROM CHILE—

Continued

Year Value

(1,000 $) 

Quantity

(1,000 kg) 

2001 .............. 7,441.46 10,398 

Source: The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) Foreign Agricultural Service, as reported by U.N. Trade Statistics. Values are in 2002 dollars and were deflated 

using the Consumer Price Index (All Urban 

Consumers) for fresh fruits, not seasonally adjusted, as reported by the U.S. Department of 

Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

Clementines and mandarins are not 

produced in the United States in 

commercially significant quantities. 

Tangerines are produced domestically. 

Most imports from Chile are expected to 

be clementines, not tangerines. An 

earlier economic analysis by APHIS 

examined the relationship between 

imports of Spanish clementines and 

domestically produced tangerines but 

did not find evidence of substitution. 

That analysis did not look at the 

relationship between Spanish 

clementines and other citrus. However, 

U.S. producers of other kinds of citrus—

especially California navel oranges—

have expressed concerns that imports of 

Spanish clementines have taken market 

share and depressed prices for navel 

oranges, reflecting that the imports are 

marketed in the United States during 

the same season as navels. 

An increase in supply of clementines 

could potentially increase competition 

in the United States for domestically 

produced citrus, such as oranges and 

tangerines. If imports from Chile 

increase, U.S. producer prices could 

decline during the time when a larger 

supply is on the market. However, 

Chilean clementines are expected to 

enter the United States primarily 

between April and September, which is 

the off-season for domestic tangerines. 

Most of the fresh early tangerines from 

Florida, which is the largest producer of 

tangerines, are shipped from October to 

January, while most of the fresh Honey 

tangerines are shipped from February to 

May (Brown 2000).1 California navel 

oranges are marketed primarily from 

November to May, while California 

Valencia oranges are primarily marketed 

from April to October.

Table 2 shows the monthly orange 

shipments for fresh uses of three major 

citrus producing States. Oranges include 

Valencia, navel, and early/midseason 

varieties. Domestic orange shipments 

between April and September comprise 

about 25 percent of total shipments 

annually. Although the data represent 

only a proportion of the production 

dedicated for fresh utilization, they 

provide an indication of the domestic 

orange marketing seasons for 

comparative purposes. The April–

September marketing period for Chilean 

clementines matches the California and 

Florida Valencia marketing seasons, so 

the clementines could displace some 

fresh market Valencia orange sales. 

However, the expected amount of 1,600 

metric tons represents a small share 

(less than 2 percent) of the domestic 

shipments between April and 

September (99,712 metric tons). The 

competition with various summer fruits 

is likely to have a far greater impact. 

Given the small number of expected 

imports from Chile and the different 

marketing seasons, any potential 

impacts on U.S. citrus producers would 

be minimal.

TABLE 2.—MONTHLY ORANGE SHIPMENTS FOR FRESH UTILIZATION, AVERAGE 2000–2002 

Month 

Average shipments by State (metric tons) 

Total 

California Florida Texas 

January .................................................................................................................... 7,818 25,106 8,818 41,742 

February ................................................................................................................... 7,076 19,182 7,652 33,910 

March ....................................................................................................................... 9,394 18,742 5,333 33,470 

April .......................................................................................................................... 8,091 20,545 2,485 31,121 

May .......................................................................................................................... 8,394 19,030 1,182 28,606 

June ......................................................................................................................... 7,136 13,242 0 20,379 

July ........................................................................................................................... 5,409 545 0 5,955 

August ...................................................................................................................... 5,652 45 0 5,697 

September ............................................................................................................... 4,773 2,652 530 7,955 

October .................................................................................................................... 4,242 23,848 5,015 33,106 

November ................................................................................................................ 5,288 37,348 5,576 48,212 

71694 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 237 / Friday, December 10, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

2Lence, S.H. ‘‘Using Consumption and Asset 

Return Data to Estimate Farmers’ Time Preferences 

and Risk Attitudes.’’

TABLE 2.—MONTHLY ORANGE SHIPMENTS FOR FRESH UTILIZATION, AVERAGE 2000–2002—Continued

Month 

Average shipments by State (metric tons) 

Total 

California Florida Texas 

December ................................................................................................................ 7,561 53,500 8,848 69,909 

Note: Orange shipment data for California and Arizona include only rail and piggyback (trailer-on-flat-car and container-on-flat-car). Truck shipment data are not available. Average California orange shipments for 2000–2002 represent about 5 percent of California’s production for fresh 

utilization over the same time period. Arizona data are excluded (available shipment data were small in 2000–2001 and zero in 2002). Average 

Florida and Texas shipments for 2000–2002 represent about 60 percent and 93 percent, respectively, of fresh production for those States. 

Source: USDA/AMS Fruits and Vegetable Market News. 

Most U.S. imports of clementines, 

mandarins, and tangerines (table 3) 

currently come from Spain, which ships 

the commodities from mid-September to 

mid-March. Chile would export these 

commodities to the United States 

between April and September each year. 

These imports would increase the 

availability of these fruits during the 

Spanish off-season, which would lead to 

benefits for U.S. importers and 

consumers.

TABLE 3.—U.S. WORLD IMPORTS OF

CLEMENTINES, MANDARINS, AND

CITRUS HYBRIDS

Year Value

(1,000 $) 

Quantity

(1,000 kg) 

1991 .............. $23,306 19,480 

1992 .............. 26,219 18,112 

1993 .............. 27,019 17,519 

1994 .............. 30,404 20,850 

1995 .............. 26,010 19,062 

1996 .............. 39,976 27,404 

1997 .............. 63,279 42,110 

1998 .............. 60,356 43,168 

1999 .............. 128,104 90,454 

2000 .............. 113,953 96,296 

2001 .............. 131,711 75,365 

Source: Import data are from the USDA’s 

Foreign Agricultural Service, as reported by 

U.N. Trade Statistics. Values are in 2002 dollars and were deflated using the Consumer 

Price Index (All Urban Consumers) for fresh 

fruits, not seasonally adjusted, as reported by 

the U.S. Department of Labor’s Bureau of 

Labor Statistics. 

To capture the impact on U.S. 

importers, an inverse demand curve 

characterizing the U.S. demand for 

imported clementines, tangerines, and 

mandarin oranges was estimated. The 

demand for the imported commodities 

can be related to the export prices and 

quantities for Spanish fruits exported to 

all markets except the United States. 

Spanish export data were used because 

over 83 percent of U.S. imports of these 

fruits was from Spain during 1997–

2001. Data on imports for 1991–2001 

were used to analyze the expected 

impacts for the 10-year period (2004–

2013) subsequent to the entry of the 

imports from Chile. 

Imports from Chile were assumed to 

grow 13.55 percent each year, which 

was the average annual growth during 

1999–2001 in Chile’s exports to Japan, 

its best export market, and that imports 

for 2004 will be 1,595 metric tons (table 

4). It was assumed that U.S. imports 

from sources other than Chile will grow 

6.46 percent per year, which was the 

import growth during 1999–2000, 

starting from an estimate of 87,372 

metric tons imported for 2002, which 

was the average import quantity during 

1999–2001 (table 3).

TABLE 4.—ESTIMATED U.S. IMPORTS

OF CLEMENTINE, MANDARIN, AND

TANGERINE WITH AND WITHOUT

CHILE

Year 

Clementine, mandarin,

and tangerine imports

(1,000 kg) 

Without Chile With Chile 

2004 .............. 99,020 100,620 

2005 .............. 105,420 107,230 

2006 .............. 112,230 114,280 

2007 .............. 119,470 121,810 

2008 .............. 127,190 129,840 

2009 .............. 135,400 138,420 

TABLE 4.—ESTIMATED U.S. IMPORTS

OF CLEMENTINE, MANDARIN, AND

TANGERINE WITH AND WITHOUT

CHILE—Continued

Year 

Clementine, mandarin,

and tangerine imports

(1,000 kg) 

Without Chile With Chile 

2010 .............. 144,150 147,570 

2011 .............. 153,460 157,340 

2012 .............. 163,370 167,780 

2013 .............. 173,920 178,930 

Expected future gross revenues (table 

5) were discounted by using real interest 

rates of 3 percent and 7 percent as 

recommended by the Office of 

Management and Budget. For further 

sensitivity analysis, a rate of 5.34 

percent, which was estimated using 

annual income and rate of return data 

for U.S. farmers during 1966–1994, is 

also provided.2 The annualized increase 

in gross revenues received by U.S. 

importers of clementines, mandarins, 

and tangerines under this rule was an 

estimated $0.60 million per year during 

2004–2013, depending on the interest 

rate chosen. This suggests that the rule 

will yield economic benefits to U.S. 

importers during the period in which it 

remains in force. Consumers also benefit 

from the greater availability of 

clementines during the off-season for 

domestic production and other imports. 

The rule will result in net benefits to 

society given that the new imports are 

not expected to significantly compete 

with domestic citrus production and 

will not lead to pest introductions.

TABLE 5.—IMPACT ON GROSS REVENUES OF U.S. IMPORTERS

[$ millions] 

Year With Chile Without Chile Gains 

2004 ............................................................................................................................................. $7.48 $7.24 $0.24 

2005 ............................................................................................................................................. 8.50 8.21 0.28 

2006 ............................................................................................................................................. 9.65 9.31 0.34 

2007 ............................................................................................................................................. 10.96 10.55 0.42 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 237 / Friday, December 10, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 71695

TABLE 5.—IMPACT ON GROSS REVENUES OF U.S. IMPORTERS—Continued

[$ millions] 

Year With Chile Without Chile Gains 

2008 ............................................................................................................................................. 12.46 11.95 0.50 

2009 ............................................................................................................................................. 14.16 13.55 0.61 

2010 ............................................................................................................................................. 16.09 15.35 0.74 

2011 ............................................................................................................................................. 18.29 17.40 0.89 

2012 ............................................................................................................................................. 20.80 19.72 1.08 

2013 ............................................................................................................................................. 23.66 22.35 1.31 

Annualized discounted sum of gross revenues: 

3% ......................................................................................................................................... $13.78 $13.16 $0.61 

5.34% .................................................................................................................................... $13.46 $12.86 $0.59 

7% ......................................................................................................................................... $13.24 $12.66 $0.58 

Impacts on Small Entities 

According to the 1997 Census of 

Agriculture, there were 17,000 citrus 

producers (excluding grapefruit, lemon, 

and lime producers) in the United 

States. The U.S. Small Business 

Administration defines a small citrus 

producer as one with annual gross 

revenues no greater than $0.75 million. 

The USDA’s National Agricultural 

Statistics Service reported that 3.8 

percent of U.S. fruit and tree nut 

producers accounted for 95.1 percent of 

sales in 1982, 4.2 percent of fruit and 

tree nut producers accounted for 96.2 

percent of sales in 1987, and 4.6 percent 

of fruit and tree nut producers 

accounted for 96.7 percent of sales in 

1992. These data indicate that the 

majority of U.S. citrus producers are 

small entities. Our economic analysis 

suggests that Chilean imports will not 

significantly compete with domestic 

citrus production such as tangerines and 

navel oranges because the imports will 

be shipped largely during the off-season 

for U.S. production of these fruits. 

Although the Chilean imports are 

expected to overlap with some domestic 

orange shipments such as Valencia 

oranges, the amount to be imported is 

expected to be a small percentage of the 

total U.S. orange shipments during the 

importing months. As a result, the 

importation of clementines, mandarins, 

and tangerines from Chile will likely 

have minimal adverse impact on 

domestic citrus producers, large or 

small. 

Importers of clementines, mandarins, 

and tangerines will likely benefit under 

this rule. The number of importers that 

can be classified as small is not known. 

However, the rule will not lead to an 

adverse economic impact on small 

entities in these industries (fresh fruit 

and vegetable wholesalers with no more 

than 100 employees, NAICS 422480; 

wholesalers and other grocery stores 

with annual gross revenues no greater 

than $23 million, NAICS 445110; 

warehouse clubs and superstores with 

annual gross revenues no greater than 

$23 million, NAICS 452910; and fruit 

and vegetable markets with gross 

revenues no greater than $6 million, 

NAICS 445230). 

Under these circumstances, the 

Administrator of the Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service has 

determined that this action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Executive Order 12988 

This rule allows clementines, 

mandarins, and tangerines to be 

imported into the United States from 

Chile. State and local laws and 

regulations regarding clementines, 

mandarins, and tangerines imported 

under this rule will be preempted while 

the fruit is in foreign commerce. Fresh 

fruits and vegetables are generally 

imported for immediate distribution and 

sale to the consuming public and would 

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 caseby-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. 

Use of Methyl Bromide 

The United States is fully committed 

to the objectives of the Montreal 

Protocol, including the reduction and 

ultimately the elimination of reliance on 

methyl bromide for quarantine and preshipment uses in a manner that is 

consistent with the safeguarding of U.S. 

agriculture and ecosystems. APHIS 

reviews its methyl bromide policies and 

their effect on the environment in 

accordance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as 

amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and 

Decision XI/13 (paragraph 5) of the 11th 

Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal 

Protocol, which calls on the Parties to 

review their ‘‘national plant, animal, 

environmental, health, and stored 

product regulations with a view to 

removing the requirement for the use of 

methyl bromide for quarantine and preshipment where technically and 

economically feasible alternatives 

exist.’’

The United States Government 

encourages methods that do not use 

methyl bromide to meet phytosanitary 

standards where alternatives are 

deemed to be technically and 

economically feasible. In some 

circumstances, however, methyl 

bromide continues to be the only 

technically and economically feasible 

treatment against specific quarantine 

pests. In addition, in accordance with 

Montreal Protocol Decision XI/13 

(paragraph 7), APHIS is committed to 

promoting and employing gas recapture 

technology and other methods 

whenever possible to minimize harm to 

the environment caused by methyl 

bromide emissions. As noted above, we 

welcome data or other information 

regarding other treatments that may be 

efficacious and technically and 

economically feasible that we may 

consider as alternatives to methyl 

bromide. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

An environmental assessment and 

finding of no significant impact (FONSI) 

have been prepared for this rule. The 

assessment provides a basis for the 

conclusion that the importation of 

clementines, mandarins, and tangerines 

under the conditions specified in this 

rule will not have a significant impact 

on the quality of the human 

environment. Based on the finding of no 

significant impact, the Administrator of 

the Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service has determined that an 

environmental impact statement need 

not be prepared. 

The environmental assessment and 

FONSI were prepared in accordance 

with: (1) The National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended 

71696 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 237 / Friday, December 10, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), (2) regulations 

of the Council on Environmental 

Quality for implementing the 

procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR 

parts 1500–1508), (3) USDA regulations 

implementing NEPA (7 CFR part 1b), 

and (4) APHIS’ NEPA Implementing 

Procedures (7 CFR part 372). 

The environmental assessment and 

FONSI may be viewed on the Internet at 

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/

enviro_docs/chil.html. Copies of the 

environmental assessment and FONSI 

are also available for public inspection 

in our reading room, 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. In addition, copies may be 

obtained by calling or writing to the 

individual listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT.

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 

0579–0242. 

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 rule, please contact Mrs. Celeste 

Sickles, APHIS’ Information Collection 

Coordinator, at (301) 734–7477.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 319 

Coffee, Cotton, Fruits, Honey, 

Imports, Logs, Nursery stock, Plant 

diseases and pests, Quarantine, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Rice, Vegetables.

■ Accordingly, 7 CFR part 319 is 

amended 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 and 7701–7772; 21 

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

371.3.

■ 2. A new § 319.56–2mm is added to 

read as follows:

§ 319.56–2mm Conditions governing the 

importation of clementines, mandarins, and 

tangerines from Chile. 

Clementines (Citrus reticulata Blanco 

var. Clementine), mandarins (Citrus 

reticulata Blanco), and tangerines 

(Citrus reticulata Blanco) may be 

imported into the United States from 

Chile only under the following 

conditions: 

(a) The fruit must be accompanied by 

a specific written permit issued in 

accordance with § 319.56–3. 

(b) If the fruit is produced in an area 

of Chile where Mediterranean fruit fly 

(Ceratatis capitata) is known to occur, 

the fruit must be cold treated in 

accordance with the Plant Protection 

and Quarantine (PPQ) Treatment 

Manual, which is incorporated by 

reference at § 300.1 of this chapter. Fruit 

for which cold treatment is required 

must be accompanied by documentation 

indicating that the cold treatment was 

initiated in Chile (a PPQ Form 203 or its 

equivalent may be used for this 

purpose). 

(c) The fruit must either be produced 

and shipped under the systems 

approach described in paragraph (d) of 

this section or fumigated in accordance 

with paragraph (e) of this section. 

(d) Systems approach. The fruit may 

be imported without fumigation for 

Brevipalpus chilensis if it meets the 

following conditions: 

(1) Production site registration. The 

production site where the fruit is grown 

must be registered with the national 

plant protection organization (NPPO) of 

Chile. To register, the production site 

must provide Chile’s NPPO with the 

following information: Production site 

name, grower, municipality, province, 

region, area planted to each species, 

number of plants/hectares/species, and 

approximate date of harvest. 

Registration must be renewed annually. 

(2) Low prevalence production site 

certification. Between 1 and 30 days 

prior to harvest, random samples of fruit 

must be collected from each registered 

production site under the direction of 

Chile’s NPPO. These samples must 

undergo a pest detection and evaluation 

method as follows: The fruit and 

pedicels must be washed using a 

flushing method, placed in a 20 mesh 

sieve on top of a 200 mesh sieve, 

sprinkled with a liquid soap and water 

solution, washed with water at high 

pressure, and washed with water at low 

pressure. The process must then be 

repeated. The contents of the sieves 

must then be placed on a petri dish and 

analyzed for the presence of live B. 

chilensis mites. If a single live B. 

chilensis mite is found, the production 

site will not qualify for certification as 

a low prevalence production site and 

will be eligible to export fruit to the 

United States only if the fruit is 

fumigated in accordance with paragraph 

(e) of this section. Each production site 

may have only one opportunity per 

harvest season to qualify as a low 

prevalence production site, and 

certification of low prevalence will be 

valid for one harvest season only. The 

NPPO of Chile will present a list of 

certified production sites to APHIS. 

(3) Post-harvest processing. After 

harvest and before packing, the fruit 

must be washed, rinsed in a chlorine 

bath, washed with detergent with 

brushing using bristle rollers, rinsed 

with a hot water shower with brushing 

using bristle rollers, predried at room 

temperature, waxed, and dried with hot 

air. 

(4) Phytosanitary inspection. The fruit 

must be inspected in Chile at an APHISapproved inspection site under the 

direction of APHIS inspectors in 

coordination with the NPPO of Chile 

after the post-harvest processing. A 

biometric sample will be drawn and 

examined from each consignment of 

fruit, which may represent multiple 

grower lots from different packing 

sheds. Clementines, mandarins, or 

tangerines in any consignment may be 

shipped to the United States only if the 

consignment passes inspection as 

follows: 

(i) Fruit presented for inspection must 

be identified in the shipping documents 

accompanying each lot of fruit that 

identify the production site(s) where the 

fruit was produced and the packing 

shed(s) where the fruit was processed. 

This identity must be maintained until 

the fruit is released for entry into the 

United States. 

(ii) A biometric sample of boxes from 

each consignment will be selected and 

the fruit from these boxes will be 

visually inspected for quarantine pests, 

and a portion of the fruit will be washed 

and the collected filtrate will be 

microscopically examined for B. 

chilensis.

(A) If a single live B. chilensis mite is 

found, the fruit will be eligible for 

importation into the United States only 

if it is fumigated in Chile in accordance 

with paragraph (e) of this section. The 

production site will be suspended from 

the low prevalence certification program 

and all subsequent lots of fruit from the 

production site of origin will be 

required to be fumigated as a condition 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 237 / Friday, December 10, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 71697

of entry to the United States for the 

remainder of the shipping season. 

(B) If inspectors find evidence of any 

other quarantine pest, the fruit in the 

consignment will remain eligible for 

importation into the United States only 

if an authorized treatment for the pest 

is available in the PPQ Treatment 

Manual and the entire consignment is 

treated for the pest in Chile under 

APHIS supervision. 

(iii) Each consignment of fruit must be 

accompanied by a phytosanitary 

certificate issued by the NPPO of Chile 

that contains an additional declaration 

stating that the fruit in the consignment 

meets the conditions of § 319.56–

2mm(d). 

(e) Approved fumigation.

Clementines, mandarins, or tangerines 

that do not meet the conditions of 

paragraph (d) of this section may be 

imported into the United States if the 

fruit is fumigated either in Chile or at 

the port of first arrival in the United 

States with methyl bromide for B. 

chilensis in accordance with the PPQ 

Treatment Manual, which is 

incorporated by reference at § 300.1 of 

this chapter. An APHIS inspector will 

monitor the fumigation of the fruit and 

will prescribe such safeguards as may be 

necessary for unloading, handling, and 

transportation preparatory to 

fumigation. The final release of the fruit 

for entry into the United States will be 

conditioned upon compliance with 

prescribed safeguards and required 

treatment. 

(f) Trust fund agreement.

Clementines, mandarins, and tangerines 

may be imported into the United States 

under this section only if the NPPO of 

Chile has entered into a trust fund 

agreement with APHIS. This agreement 

requires the NPPO of Chile to pay in 

advance of each shipping season all 

costs that APHIS estimates it will incur 

in providing inspection and treatment 

monitoring services in Chile during that 

shipping season. These costs include 

administrative expenses and all salaries 

(including overtime and the Federal 

share of employee benefits), travel 

expenses (including per diem expenses), 

and other incidental expenses incurred 

by APHIS in performing these services. 

The agreement requires the NPPO of 

Chile to deposit a certified or cashier’s 

check with APHIS for the amount of 

these costs, as estimated by APHIS. If 

the deposit is not sufficient to meet all 

costs incurred by APHIS, the agreement 

further requires the NPPO of Chile to 

deposit with APHIS a certified or 

cashier’s check for the amount of the 

remaining costs, as determined by 

APHIS, before APHIS will provide any 

more services related to the inspection 

and treatment of clementines, 

mandarins, and tangerines in Chile. 

After a final audit at the conclusions of 

each shipping season, any overpayment 

of funds would be returned to the NPPO 

of Chile, or held on account until 

needed, at their option.

(Approved by the Office of Management and 

Budget under control number 0579–0242.)

Done in Washington, DC, this 23rd day of 

November, 2004. 

Peter Fernandez, 

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service.

[FR Doc. 04–27075 Filed 12–9–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Marketing Service 

7 CFR Parts 1005, 1006, and 1007

[Docket No. AO–388–A16, AO–356–A38, and 

AO–366–A45; DA–04–07] 

Milk in the Appalachian, Florida, and 

Southeast Marketing Areas; Order 

Amending the Orders

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 

USDA.

ACTION: Final Rule.

SUMMARY: This final rule amends the 

Appalachian, Florida, and Southeast 

Federal milk marketing orders (Orders 

5, 6, and 7). Specifically, the final rule 

implements a temporary supplemental 

charge on Class I milk that will be 

disbursed to handlers who incurred 

extraordinary transportation costs for 

bulk milk movements in and to Orders 

5, 6, and 7 as a result of hurricanes 

Charley, Frances, Ivan and Jeanne. The 

amendments are based on record 

evidence of a public hearing held on 

October 7, 2004. More than the required 

number of dairy farmers approved the 

issuance of the amended orders.

DATES: Effective Date: December 10, 

2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Antoinette M. Carter, Marketing 

Specialist, USDA/AMS/Dairy Programs, 

Order Formulation and Enforcement 

Branch, STOP 0231—Room 2971, 1400 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20250–0231, (202) 690–

3465, e-mail address: 

antoinette.carter@usda.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

administrative action is governed by the 

provisions of Sections 556 and 557 of 

Title 5 of the United States Code and, 

therefore, is excluded from the 

requirements of Executive Order 12866. 

This final rule has been reviewed 

under Executive Order 12988, Civil 

Justice Reform. This rule is not intended 

to have a retroactive effect. This rule 

will not preempt any state or local laws, 

regulations, or policies, unless they 

present an irreconcilable conflict with 

the rule. 

The Agricultural Marketing 

Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 

U.S.C. 601–674), 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 

request modification or exemption from 

such order by filing with the 

Department 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 the 

law. A handler is afforded the 

opportunity for a hearing on the 

petition. After a hearing, the Department 

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 its 

principal place of business, has 

jurisdiction in equity to review the 

Department’s ruling on the petition, 

provided a bill in equity is filed not 

later than 20 days after the date of the 

entry of the ruling. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

In accordance with the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the 

Agricultural Marketing Service has 

considered the economic impact of this 

action on small entities and has certified 

that this rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. For the 

purpose of the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act, a dairy farm is considered a ‘‘small 

business’’ if it has an annual gross 

revenue of less than $750,000, and a 

dairy products manufacturer is a ‘‘small 

business’’ if it has fewer than 500 

employees. 

For the purposes of determining 

which dairy farms are ‘‘small 

businesses,’’ the $750,000 per year 

criterion was used to establish a 

production guideline of 500,000 pounds 

per month. Although this guideline does 

not factor in additional monies that may 

be received by dairy producers, it 

should be an inclusive standard for 

most ‘‘small’’ dairy farmers. For 

purposes of determining a handler’s 

size, if the plant is part of a larger 

company operating multiple plants that 

collectively exceed the 500-employee 

limit, the plant will be considered a 

large business even if the local plant has 

fewer than 500 employees.