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

75007 

Vol. 77, No. 244 

Wednesday, December 19, 2012 

1We previously referred to Pyrus pyrifolia as 

‘‘Chinese sand pear.’’ However, we have discovered 

that the accepted international nomenclature for 

Pyrus pyrifolia is simply ‘‘sand pear.’’ Hence, 

throughout this document, we refer to Pyrus 

pyrifolia as sand pear. 

2To view the proposed rule, supporting 

documents, and the comments we received, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov/ 

#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2011-0007. 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

7 CFR Part 319 

[Docket No. APHIS–2011–0007] 

RIN 0579–AD42 

Importation of Sand Pears From China 

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are amending the fruits 

and vegetables regulations to allow the 

importation of sand pears (Pyrus 

pyrifolia) from China into the United 

States. As a condition of entry, sand 

pears from areas in China in which the 

Oriental fruit fly (Bactrocera dorsalis) is 

not known to exist will have to be 

produced in accordance with a systems 

approach that includes requirements for 

registration of places of production and 

packinghouses, sourcing of pest-free 

propagative material, inspection for 

quarantine pests at set intervals by the 

national plant protection organization of 

China, bagging of fruit, safeguarding, 

labeling, and importation in commercial 

consignments. Sand pears from areas in 

China in which Oriental fruit fly is 

known to exist may be imported into the 

United States if, in addition to these 

requirements, the places of production 

and packinghouses have a monitoring 

system in place for Oriental fruit fly and 

the pears are treated with cold 

treatment. All sand pears from China 

will also be required to be accompanied 

by a phytosanitary certificate with an 

additional declaration stating that all 

conditions for the importation of the 

pears have been met and that the 

consignment of pears has been 

inspected and found free of quarantine 

pests. This action will allow for the 

importation of sand pears from China 

into the United States while continuing 

to provide protection against the 

introduction of quarantine pests. 

DATES: Effective Date: January 18, 2013. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Farrell Wise, Supervisory Agriculturist, 

Regulatory Coordination and 

Compliance, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River 

Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737; 

(301) 851–2280. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The regulations in ‘‘Subpart—Fruits 

and Vegetables’’ (7 CFR 319.56–1 

through 319.56–56, 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 

regulations currently allow for the 

importation of both Ya pears (Pyrus 

bretschneideri) and fragrant pears (Pyrus 

sp. nr. communis) from China. 

The national plant protection 

organization (NPPO) of China requested 

that the Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service (APHIS) amend the 

regulations to allow sand pears 1 (Pyrus 

pyrifolia) from China also to be 

imported into the United States. 

As part of our evaluation of China’s 

request, we prepared a pest risk 

assessment (PRA), titled ‘‘Importation of 

Fresh Fruit of Chinese Sand Pear, Pyrus 

pyrifolia, from China, including the 

Special Administrative Regions of Hong 

Kong and Macau, into the Entire United 

States, Including all Territories’’ (July 

2009). The PRA evaluated the risks 

associated with the importation of sand 

pears into the United States from China, 

and identified 16 pests of quarantine 

significance present in China that could 

be introduced into the United States 

through the importation of sand pears. 

The PRA presented a number of 

potential options to mitigate the risks 

posed by these plant pests. Based on 

these options, we prepared a risk 

management document (RMD). The 

RMD recommended specific measures 

to mitigate these risks. 

Based on the recommendations of the 

RMD, on December 16, 2011, we 

published a proposed rule 2 in the 

Federal Register (76 FR 78168–78172, 

Docket No. APHIS–2011–0007) to 

authorize the importation of sand pears 

from China into the United States. We 

solicited comments concerning the 

proposed rule for 60 days ending 

February 14, 2012. We received five 

comments by that date. They were from 

the NPPO of China, a State department 

of agriculture, an organization 

representing State departments of 

agriculture, a technical committee 

representing the U.S. pear industry, and 

a private citizen. The comments we 

received are discussed below, by topic. 

Comments Regarding the Pest Risk 

Assessment 

The PRA identified the following 

pests of quarantine significance as being 

likely to follow the pathway on 

imported sand pears from China: 

• Acrobasis pyrivorella, pear fruit 

moth. 

• Alternaria gaisen Nagano, the cause 

of black spot of pear. 

• Amphitetranychus viennensis 

(Zacher), Hawthorn spider mite. 

• Aphanostigma iaksuiense (Kishida), 

an aphid. 

• Bactrocera dorsalis, Oriental fruit 

fly. 

• Caleptrimerus neimongolensis 

Kuang and Geng, a mite. 

• Carposina sasakii Matsumora, 

peach fruit moth. 

• Ceroplastes japonicus Green, 

Japanese wax scale. 

• Ceroplastes rubens Maskell, red 

wax scale. 

• Congothes punctiferalis (Guene ́e), 

yellow peach moth. 

• Grapholita inopinata, Manchurian 

fruit moth. 

• Guignardia pyricola (Nose) W. 

Yamamoto, a phytopathogenic fungus. 

• Monilinia fructigena Honey in 

Whetzel, the cause of brown rot. 

• Phenacoccus pergandei Cockerell, a 

mealybug. 

• Planococcus kraunhiae (Kuwana), a 

mealybug. 

• Venturia nashicola Tanaka & 

Yamamoto, pear scab fungus. 

One commenter stated that recent 

research conducted on diseases of 

Malus spp. has discovered that the 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 
75008 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

3Tang et al., ‘‘Phylogenetic and pathogenic 

analyses show that the causal agent of apple ring 

rot in China is Botryosphaeria dothidea,’’ Plant 

Disease 4 (April 2012), 486–497. 

causal agent of apple and pear ring spot, 

which had long been considered to be 

G. pyricola (Nose) W. Yamamoto, is in 

fact Botryosphaeria dothidea. The 

commenter pointed out that B. dothidea 

is widely prevalent in the United States, 

and stated that it thus should not be 

considered a pest of quarantine 

significance. The commenter also stated 

that, based on this research, G. pyricola 

should not be considered a pest of 

quarantine significance for sand pears 

from China. The commenter cited a 

peer-reviewed article 3 (referred to 

below as Tang et al.) detailing the 

research that had been conducted. 

We agree that Tang et al. provides 

evidence in support of B. dothidea being 

a causal agent of apple ring spot. 

However, we do not consider this 

evidence sufficient to remove G. 

pyricola from the list of pests of 

quarantine significance for sand pears 

from China. The research detailed in 

Tang et al. appears to have focused 

primarily on Malus spp. Researchers 

included only a few fungi of Pyrus spp. 

for evaluation, and the discussion 

section of Tang et al. refers exclusively 

to fungi isolated from Malus spp. It is 

even unclear whether B. dothidea was 

the only Botryosphaeria species that 

researchers isolated from Pyrus spp. 

The scope and nature of the research 

conducted on Pyrus spp. is unclear in 

Tang et al. In order for us to consider 

removing G. pyricola from the list of 

pests of quarantine significance for sand 

pears from China, Tang et al. would 

have to specify that the research 

conducted on Malus spp. is directly 

applicable to Pyrus spp. It does not do 

so; hence we continue to consider G. 

pyricola a pest of quarantine 

significance for sand pears from China. 

Another commenter stated that the 

list of pests of quarantine significance 

for sand pears from China should be 

expanded to include two additional 

pests, Alternaria yaliinficiens, a 

phytopathogenic fungus, and Monilia 

polystroma, the cause of Asiatic brown 

rot. The commenter pointed out that A. 

yaliinficiens is frequently detected on 

Ya pears in China, and M. polystroma, 

a well-documented pest of sand pears, 

is known to exist in China. 

We have been able to find no 

evidence suggesting that sand pears are 

a host of A. yaliinficiens, and the 

commenter did not provide any 

references on this subject. Ya pears are 

Pyrus bretschneideri, a separate species 

from sand pears. 

We agree that M. polystroma is known 

to exist in China, and sand pears are a 

known host of this pest. However, to 

date, M. polystroma has only been 

detected in Heilongjiang province. This 

province does not produce sand pears 

for export and is geographically isolated 

from the provinces in China that 

account for the bulk of pear exports 

from China, Hebei and Shandong. There 

is, moreover, no evidence of artificial 

spread of M. polystroma within China. 

For these reasons, at this time, we do 

not consider M. polystroma likely to 

follow the pathway of sand pears 

imported from China. We will, however, 

continue to monitor the presence of M. 

polystroma in China and, if necessary, 

take appropriate action to prevent its 

introduction. 

A commenter asked that the PRA be 

updated to include a list of all pests of 

quarantine significance that have been 

detected on sand pears from China 

exported to other countries. 

Foreign countries are free to designate 

plant pests as being of quarantine 

significance, without reference to the 

designations of other countries. Thus, 

there is no guarantee that a foreign 

country’s pest list for sand pears is 

equivalent to our own. Moreover, 

foreign countries’ conditions for 

importation of fruits and vegetables 

often vary significantly from those of the 

United States. Accordingly, a foreign 

country’s pest interception data for a 

particular commodity should not be 

considered a reliable predictor of 

possible pest interceptions for that same 

commodity at ports of entry within the 

United States. We are therefore not 

amending the PRA in the manner 

requested by the commenter. 

The same commenter pointed out that 

the PRA contained a list of pest 

interceptions on Ya and fragrant pears 

from China imported into the United 

States between 1995 and 2009, but this 

list did not include information for 2010 

or 2011. The commenter also pointed 

out that the list did not group detections 

based on the port of entry at which the 

pest was detected. The commenter 

asked that the list be updated to include 

information through 2011 and to sort 

this information by port of entry. 

We do not consider such updates to 

be necessary. Interceptions in 2010 and 

2011 do not disclose any additional 

pests of quarantine significance that had 

not previously been detected on the 

pears. Moreover, the list was provided 

in order to illustrate the starting point 

from which we conducted our 

evaluation of the pests of quarantine 

significance that could follow the 

pathway on sand pears from China 

imported into the United States. Hence, 

changing the scope of the list or its 

presentation would not alter the results 

of our evaluation. 

Comments Regarding the Proposed Rule 

One commenter stated that, based on 

the number of pests of quarantine 

significance likely to follow the 

pathway on sand pears imported into 

the United States from China, the plant 

pest risk associated with the 

importation of sand pears from China 

was significant, and we should therefore 

not authorize such importation. 

Similarly, two commenters stated that 

the proposed conditions for importation 

of sand pears from China in the 

proposed rule did not take into 

consideration the unique climate of 

Florida, which the commenters asserted 

is more conducive to the establishment 

of fruit flies than that of other States. 

The commenters pointed out that 

imported fruit containing dead fruit fly 

larvae had been discovered in Florida, 

and stated that these detections call into 

question the efficacy of APHIS’ systems 

approaches for these pests. 

We agree that there are many pests on 

the pest list for sand pears from China, 

and one of these, B. dorsalis, could 

become established in Florida, if 

introduced. However, for the reasons 

described in the RMD that accompanied 

the proposed rule, we have determined 

that the measures specified in the 

proposed rule will effectively mitigate 

the risk associated with the importation 

of sand pears from China into any area 

of the United States. The commenters 

did not provide any evidence suggesting 

that the mitigations are not effective. 

To that end, we note that the 

discovery of dead larvae in imported 

fruit does not call into question the 

efficacy of the systems approaches 

under which the fruit has been 

imported. Rather, it suggests the systems 

approaches have been effective in 

neutralizing the larvae. 

A commenter asked whether the 

proposed rule had provisions that 

would address the risk that V. nashicola 

or M. fructigena would follow the 

pathway on sand pears from China. 

As detailed in the RMD that 

accompanied the proposed rule, there 

are several provisions of the proposed 

rule that address the risk posed by 

phytopathogenic fungi such as V. 

nashicola and M. fructigena. These 

include: Registration of places of 

production and packinghouses with the 

NPPO of China, inspections for 

quarantine pests at set intervals, bagging 

of fruit, safeguarding, labeling, and 

importation in commercial 

consignments. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 75009 

One commenter stated that fertility 

management, that is, the use of nutrientrich soil composed primarily of 

decaying organic matter, has been 

demonstrated to be effective in reducing 

population densities of certain plant 

pests on host plants. The commenter 

suggested that fertility management be 

explored as an alternative to the systems 

approach of the proposed rule, or, at 

least, certain provisions of that 

approach. 

APHIS will continue to monitor the 

efficacy of this and other possible 

mitigation measures for sand pears from 

China. If we determine alternate 

measures to be effective in reducing the 

risk associated with the importation of 

sand pears from China, we may initiate 

rulemaking to add them to the 

regulations. 

In the proposed rule, we proposed to 

require all sand pears imported into the 

United States from China to be grown at 

places of production that are registered 

with the NPPO of China. We also 

proposed that the NPPO of China would 

have to inspect registered places of 

production prior to harvest for signs of 

infestations and allow APHIS to monitor 

the inspections. Finally, we proposed 

that, if any of the pests of quarantine 

significance likely to follow the 

pathway on sand pears from China were 

detected at a registered place of 

production, we could reject individual 

consignments from that place of 

production or prohibit the importation 

of sand pears from the place of 

production for the remainder of the 

season. 

The NPPO of China stated that it had 

entered into a memorandum of 

understanding (MOU) with APHIS 

regarding inspections of sand pears that 

would take place at ports of entry in the 

United States if the proposed rule was 

finalized. The NPPO stated that it was 

their understanding that these port-ofentry inspections obviated pre-harvest 

inspections of registered places of 

production. Accordingly, the NPPO 

asked that we modify the proposed rule 

to remove references to such pre-harvest 

inspections. 

We are making no change in response 

to this comment. The MOU referenced 

by the NPPO pertains to general 

inspections of imported fruits and 

vegetables that APHIS conducts in 

accordance with § 319.56–3 of the 

regulations. As specified in the MOU, 

such inspections are meant to 

complement, rather than supplant, the 

provisions of the proposed rule, 

including pre-harvest inspections of 

registered places of production. 

Moreover, we note that such pre-harvest 

inspections are necessary not only to 

prevent infested fruit from being 

imported to the United States, but also 

so that APHIS has assurances that 

places of production have implemented 

and are maintaining all provisions of the 

proposed rule that pertain to them, such 

as bagging of sand pears destined for 

export to the United States. 

Miscellaneous 

In our December 2011 proposed rule, 

proposed paragraph (f)(1) of § 319.56–55 

contained minimum requirements for 

the trapping systems that places of 

production and packinghouses would 

need to have in place for B. dorsalis in 

order to export sand pears from areas in 

China south of the 33rd parallel to the 

United States. Additionally, proposed 

paragraph (f)(4) proposed to require 

pears from such areas to be treated in 

accordance with 7 CFR part 305, which 

contains our requirements governing 

approved treatments of imported 

commodities. 

Since the proposed rule was issued, 

we have adopted a general Agency 

policy of adding minimum trapping 

requirements to operational workplans. 

Among other reasons, this allows us to 

change the frequency and distance at 

which traps must be placed in response 

to changes in population densities for B. 

dorsalis in an exporting region. We have 

also begun to add standards for 

application of treatments to operational 

workplans; among other reasons, this 

allows us to prescribe in greater detail 

best practices for the application of 

various treatments. 

Hence, in this final rule, we are 

amending paragraph (f)(1) to specify 

that the trapping systems must meet the 

requirements of the operational 

workplan, and (f)(3) to specify the 

treatments must be applied in 

accordance with not only 7 CFR part 

305 but also the operational workplan. 

In the proposed rule, we proposed to 

add the conditions governing the 

importation of sand pears from China as 

§ 319.56–55. In this final rule, they are 

added as § 319.56–57. 

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 change discussed in this 

document. 

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

This final rule has been determined to 

be not significant for the purposes of 

Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, 

has not been reviewed by the Office of 

Management and Budget. 

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 604, we 

have performed a final regulatory 

flexibility analysis, which is 

summarized below, regarding the 

economic effects of this rule on small 

entities. Copies of the full analysis are 

available on the Regulations.gov Web 

site (see footnote 2 in this document for 

a link to Regulations.gov) or by 

contacting the person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

This rule will amend the regulations 

to allow, under certain conditions, the 

importation into the United States of 

sand pear from China. This fruit is 

produced in the United States in limited 

quantities, primarily in Illinois, 

Virginia, West Virginia, and Maryland. 

Farms producing pears are classified 

within the North American Industry 

Classification System under Other 

Noncitrus Fruit Farming. The average 

2007 market value of crops sold by 

farms classified within the industry 

Fruit and Tree Nut Farming (which 

includes Other Noncitrus Fruit Farming) 

was less than $188,000, an amount well 

below the Small Business 

Administration’s small-entity standard 

of annual receipts of not more than 

$750,000. We infer that the majority of 

farms producing pears, including sand 

pears, are small entities. 

China is expecting to export 24,000 

metric tons of sand pear annually to the 

United States. This amount is less than 

5 percent of average annual production 

of all varieties of pear produced in the 

United States. We do not know the 

quantity or value of sand pear produced 

in the United States, or the quantity or 

value of sand pear imported from other 

countries. Nor do we know the 

substitutability of sand pear for other 

types of pears produced domestically. 

While the United States is a net exporter 

of pears overall, it is likely that the U.S. 

supply of sand pear is largely imported. 

Without information on the domestic 

and foreign quantities supplied and the 

substitutability of sand pear for other 

pear varieties, we are unable to evaluate 

potential effects of the rule for U.S. 

producers. 

Executive Order 12988 

This final rule has been reviewed 

under Executive Order 12988, Civil 

Justice Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts 

all State and local laws and regulations 

that are inconsistent with this rule; (2) 

has no retroactive effect; and (3) does 

not require administrative proceedings 

before parties may file suit in court 

challenging this rule. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

In accordance with the Paperwork 

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

et seq.), the information collection or 

recordkeeping requirements included in 

this rule have been approved by the 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 
75010 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) under OMB control number 

0579–0390. 

E-Government Act Compliance 

The Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service is committed to 

compliance with the EGovernment Act 

to promote the use of the Internet and 

other information technologies, to 

provide increased opportunities for 

citizen access to Government 

information and services, and for other 

purposes. For information pertinent to 

E-Government Act compliance related 

to this rule, please contact Mrs. Celeste 

Sickles, APHIS’ Information Collection 

Coordinator, at (301) 851–2908. 

Lists of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 319 

Coffee, Cotton, Fruits, Imports, Logs, 

Nursery stock, Plant diseases and pests, 

Quarantine, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Rice, 

Vegetables. 

Accordingly, we are amending 7 CFR 

part 319 as follows: 

PART 319—FOREIGN QUARANTINE 

NOTICES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 319 

continues to read as follows: 

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

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

2.22, 2.80, and 371.3. 

■ 2. A new § 319.56–57 is added to read 

as follows: 

§ 319.56–57 Sand pears from China. 

Fresh sand pears (Pyrus pyrifolia) 

from China may be imported into the 

United States from China only under the 

conditions described in this section. 

These conditions are designed to 

prevent the introduction of the 

following quarantine pests: Acrobasis 

pyrivorella, pear fruit moth; Alternaria 

gaisen Nagano, the cause of black spot 

of sand pear; Amphitetranychus 

viennensis (Zacher), Hawthorn spider 

mite; Aphanostigma iaksuiense 

(Kishida), an aphid; Bactrocera dorsalis, 

Oriental fruit fly; Caleptrimerus 

neimongolensis Kuang and Geng, a mite; 

Carposina sasakii Matsumora, peach 

fruit moth; Ceroplastes japonicus Green, 

Japanese wax scale; Ceroplastes rubens 

Maskell, red wax scale; Conogothes 

punctiferalis (Guene ́e), yellow peach 

moth; Grapholita inopinata, 

Manchurian fruit moth; Guignardia 

pyricola (Nose) W. Yamamoto, a 

phytopathogenic fungus; Monilinia 

fructigena Honey in Whetzel, the cause 

of brown fruit rot; Phenacoccus 

pergandei Cockerell, a mealybug; 

Planococcus kraunhiae (Kuwana), a 

mealybug; and Venturia nashicola 

Tanaka and Yamamoto, pear scab 

fungus. The conditions for importation 

of all fresh sand pears from China are 

found in paragraphs (a) through (e) of 

this section; additional conditions for 

sand pears imported from areas of China 

south of the 33rd parallel are found in 

paragraph (f) of this section. 

(a) General requirements. (1) The 

national plant protection organization 

(NPPO) of China must provide an 

operational workplan to APHIS that 

details the activities that the NPPO of 

China will, subject to APHIS’ approval 

of the workplan, carry out to meet the 

requirements of this section. 

(2) The pears must be grown at places 

of production that are registered with 

the NPPO of China. 

(3) The pears must be packed for 

export to the United States in pestexclusionary packinghouses that are 

registered with the NPPO of China. 

(4) Sand pears from China may be 

imported in commercial consignments 

only. 

(b) Place of production requirements. 

(1) All propagative material entering a 

registered place of production must be 

tested and certified by the NPPO of 

China as being free of quarantine pests. 

(2) The place of production must 

carry out any phytosanitary measures 

specified for the place of production 

under the operational workplan. 

(3) When any sand pears destined for 

export to the United States are still on 

the tree and are no more than 2.5 

centimeters in diameter, double-layered 

paper bags must be placed wholly over 

the pears. The bags must remain intact 

and on the pears until the pears arrive 

at the packinghouse. 

(4) The NPPO of China must visit and 

inspect registered places of production 

prior to harvest for signs of infestations 

and allow APHIS to monitor the 

inspections. The NPPO must provide 

records of pest detections and pest 

detection practices to APHIS, and 

APHIS must approve these practices. 

(5) If any of the quarantine pests listed 

in the introductory text of this section 

is detected at a registered place of 

production, APHIS may reject the 

consignment or prohibit the importation 

into the United States of sand pears 

from the place of production for the 

remainder of the season. The 

exportation to the United States of sand 

pears from the place of production may 

resume in the next growing season if an 

investigation is conducted and APHIS 

and the NPPO conclude that appropriate 

remedial action has been taken. 

(c) Packinghouse requirements. (1) 

During the time registered 

packinghouses are in use for packing 

sand pears for export to the United 

States, the packinghouses may only 

accept sand pears that are from 

registered places of production and that 

are produced in accordance with the 

requirements of this section. 

(2) Packinghouses must have a 

tracking system in place to readily 

identify all sand pears that enter the 

packinghouse destined for export to the 

United States back to their place of 

production. 

(3) The NPPO of China or officials 

authorized by the NPPO must inspect 

the pears for signs of pest infestation 

and allow APHIS to monitor the 

inspections. If any of the quarantine 

pests listed in the introductory text of 

this section is detected in a consignment 

at the packinghouse, APHIS may reject 

the consignment. 

(4) Following the inspection, the 

packinghouse must follow a handling 

procedure for the pears that is mutually 

agreed upon by APHIS and the NPPO of 

China. 

(5) The pears must be packed in 

cartons that are labeled with the identity 

of the place of production and the 

packinghouse. 

(6) The cartons must be placed in 

insect-proof containers, and the 

containers sealed. The containers of 

sand pears must be safeguarded during 

transport to the United States in a 

manner that will prevent pest 

infestation. 

(d) Shipping requirements. Sealed 

containers of sand pears destined for 

export to the United States must be held 

in a cold storage facility while awaiting 

export. 

(e) Phytosanitary certificate. Each 

consignment of sand pears imported 

from China into the United States must 

be accompanied by a phytosanitary 

certificate issued by the NPPO of China 

with an additional declaration stating 

that the requirements of this section 

have been met and the consignment has 

been inspected and found free of 

quarantine pests. 

(f) Additional conditions for sand 

pears from areas of China south of the 

33rd parallel. In addition to the 

conditions in paragraphs (a) through (e) 

of this section, sand pears from areas of 

China south of the 33rd parallel must 

meet the following conditions for 

importation into the United States: 

(1) The place of production of the 

pears and the packinghouse in which 

they are packed must have a trapping 

system in place for B. dorsalis. At a 

minimum, the trapping system must 

meet the requirements of the operational 

work plan. 

(2) The place of production or the 

packinghouse must retain data regarding 

the number and location of the traps, as 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 19, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 75011 

well as any pests other than B. dorsalis 

that have been caught, and make this 

information available to APHIS upon 

request. 

(3)(i) The place of production or 

packinghouse must notify the NPPO of 

China, and the NPPO of China must 

notify APHIS, regarding the detection of 

a single B. dorsalis in a place of 

production, packinghouse, or 

surrounding area within 48 hours of the 

detection. 

(ii) If a single B. dorsalis is detected 

in a registered place of production, 

APHIS will prohibit the importation 

into the United States of sand pears 

from the place of production until any 

mitigation measures determined by 

APHIS to be necessary to prevent future 

infestations are taken. 

(iii) If a single B. dorsalis is detected 

in a registered packinghouse, the 

packinghouse may not be used to pack 

sand pears for export to the United 

States until any mitigation measures 

determined by APHIS to be necessary to 

prevent future infestations are taken. 

(4) The pears must be treated in 

accordance with 7 CFR part 305 and the 

operational workplan. 

(Approved by the Office of Management and 

Budget under control number 0579–0390.) 

Done in Washington, DC, this 13th day of 

December 2012. 

Kevin Shea, 

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 2012–30532 Filed 12–18–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Bureau of Industry and Security 

15 CFR Part 748 

[Docket No. 110331231–2684–01] 

RIN 0694–AF19 

Revisions to Authorization Validated 

End-User Provisions: Requirement for 

Notice of Export, Reexport or Transfer 

(In-Country) and Clarification 

Regarding Termination of Conditions 

on VEU Authorizations 

AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and 

Security, Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In this rule, the Bureau of 

Industry and Security (BIS) amends the 

Export Administration Regulations 

(EAR) by adding a requirement for 

persons shipping under Authorization 

Validated End-User (VEU) to send 

written notice of such shipments to the 

recipient VEU. BIS further amends the 

EAR to clarify that when items subject 

to item-specific conditions under 

Authorization VEU no longer require a 

license for export or reexport or become 

eligible for shipment under a license 

exception, as set forth in the EAR, VEUs 

are no longer bound by the conditions 

associated with the original receipt of 

such items. On April 17, 2012, BIS 

published a proposed rule and 

requested public comments on these 

topics (77 FR 22689). The comment 

period closed June 18, 2012. BIS has 

addressed the public comments 

received in response to the proposed 

rule in this final rule. 

DATES: This rule is effective January 18, 

2013. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Karen H. Nies-Vogel, Chair, End-User 

Review Committee, Bureau of Industry 

and Security, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th St. and Pennsylvania 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; by 

telephone: (202) 482–5991, fax: (202) 

482–3911, or email: ERC@bis.doc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Authorization Validated End-User 

(VEU) 

Validated end-users (VEUs) are those 

entities located in eligible destinations 

to which eligible items may be exported, 

reexported, or transferred (in-country) 

under a general authorization instead of 

a license. VEUs and their respective 

eligible destinations and eligible items 

are identified in Supplement No. 7 to 

Part 748 of the EAR. VEUs may obtain 

eligible items without having to wait for 

their suppliers to obtain export licenses 

from BIS. 

VEUs are reviewed and approved by 

the U.S. Government in accordance with 

the provisions of Section 748.15 and 

Supplement Nos. 8 and 9 to Part 748 of 

the EAR. The End-User Review 

Committee (ERC), composed of 

representatives from the Departments of 

State, Defense, Energy and Commerce, 

and other agencies, as appropriate, is 

responsible for administering the VEU 

program. 

On April 17, 2012, BIS published a 

rule soliciting public comments on two 

proposed amendments to Section 748.15 

of the EAR (Authorization Validated 

End-User (VEU)) (77 FR 22689). BIS 

proposed requiring persons exporting, 

reexporting, or transferring (in-country) 

under Authorization VEU to send 

written notification to the recipient VEU 

with details about their shipment within 

seven days of the shipment. In addition, 

BIS proposed explicitly clarifying in the 

EAR that VEUs that are subject to itemspecific conditions and have received 

items subject to such conditions under 

Authorization VEU would no longer be 

bound by the conditions associated with 

the items if the items no longer require 

a license for export or reexport to the 

VEU’s location or become eligible for 

shipment under a license exception to 

the destination. BIS received comments 

from two entities, which are 

summarized and responded to below. 

Comments and Responses 

Comment 1: Both commenters 

indicated their overall support for the 

proposed changes and the VEU 

authorization as a whole. One 

commenter specifically noted that 

Authorization VEU had benefited a VEU 

and its supplier by allowing the 

purchase and supply of equipment to 

proceed without the additional leadtime issues often caused by potentially 

lengthy government approvals. 

Response: BIS appreciates this input 

regarding the VEU program, particularly 

in light of BIS’s efforts to improve the 

program and make it more effective for 

U.S. exporters. 

Comment 2: Both commenters 

explained that individual shipments 

may include items shipped under 

‘‘multiple authorizations’’ including 

Authorization VEU. They asked BIS to 

clarify that proposed paragraph (g) of 

Section 748.15 would only require that 

shippers notify VEUs of items shipped 

under Authorization VEU and not of 

items shipped under other 

authorizations in the same shipment as 

VEU items. Specifically, one commenter 

recommended that notification be 

required to include ‘‘a list of the VEU 

authorized contents and a list of their 

respective ECCNs.’’ 

Response: BIS recognizes that 

individual shipments may include items 

authorized for shipment or transfer 

under Authorization VEU as well as 

items being shipped under other EAR 

authorizations, such as licenses or 

license exceptions. BIS intends that the 

notification be required only for items 

shipped under Authorization VEU and 

not for any other items shipped with the 

VEU-authorized items. BIS has amended 

the text of Section 748.15(g) to specify 

that the notification requirement applies 

only to the ‘‘VEU-authorized’’ items in 

a shipment and to specify that the list 

suggested by the commenter be 

included as part of the notification. 

Comment 3: Both commenters asked 

BIS to review its approach to the timing 

and frequency of notifications under 

Section 748.15(g). Both commenters 

recommended that BIS permit 

consolidated notifications under 

Authorization VEU, rather than require 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with