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

30036 

Vol. 76, No. 100 

Tuesday, May 24, 2011 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

7 CFR Part 319 

[Docket No. APHIS–2010–0113] 

RIN 0579–AD40 

Importation of Fresh Pitaya Fruit From 

Central America Into the Continental 

United States 

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: We are proposing to amend 

the fruits and vegetables regulations to 

allow the importation of fresh pitaya 

fruit from Central America into the 

continental United States. As a 

condition of entry, pitaya fruit from 

Central America would be subject to a 

systems approach that would include 

requirements for monitoring and 

oversight, establishment of pest-free 

places of production, and procedures for 

packing the pitaya fruit. This action 

would allow for the importation of 

pitaya fruit from Central America into 

the continental United States while 

continuing to provide protection against 

the introduction of plant pests. 

DATES: We will consider all comments 

that we receive on or before July 25, 

2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by either of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/ 

component/ 

main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS2010-0113 to submit or view comments 

and to view supporting and related 

materials available electronically. 

• Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: 

Please send one copy of your comment 

to Docket No. APHIS–2010–0113, 

Regulatory Analysis and Development, 

PPD, APHIS, Station 3A–03.8, 4700 

River Road, Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 

20737–1238. Please state that your 

comment refers to Docket No. APHIS– 

2010–0113. 

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: Additional 

information about APHIS and its 

programs is available on the Internet at 

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

David B. Lamb, Import Specialist, 

Regulatory Coordination and 

Compliance, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River 

Road Unit, 133, Riverdale, MD 20737– 

1236; (301) 734–0627. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The regulations in ‘‘Subpart—Fruits 

and Vegetables’’ (7 CFR 319.56–1 

through 319.56–50, 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 within 

the United States. 

The national plant protection 

organizations (NPPOs) of the countries 

of Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, 

Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and 

Panama have requested that the Animal 

and Plant Health Inspection Service 

(APHIS) amend the regulations to allow 

pitaya fruit (Hylocereus spp.) to be 

imported from these countries into the 

continental United States. This 

document will refer to these countries 

collectively as Central America. 

As part of our evaluation of this 

request, we prepared a pest risk 

assessment (PRA) and a risk 

management document (RMD). Copies 

of the PRA and the RMD may be 

obtained from the person listed under 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or 

viewed on the Regulations.gov Web site 

(see ADDRESSES above for instructions 

for accessing Regulations.gov). The 

PRA, titled ‘‘Importation of Fresh Pitaya 

Fruit, Hylocereus spp. and several other 

genera and species, from Central 

America into the Continental United 

States’’ (October 2009), evaluates the 

risks associated with the importation of 

pitaya fruit into the continental United 

States from Central America. The PRA 

identified four pests of quarantine 

significance present in Central America 

that could be introduced into the United 

States through the importation of pitaya 

fruit. These are the Mexican fruit fly or 

Mexfly (Anastrepha ludens), 

Mediterranean fruit fly or Medfly 

(Ceratitis capitata), the gray pineapple 

mealybug (Dysmicoccus neobrevipes), 

and the passionvine mealybug 

(Planococcus minor). All four of these 

pests were determined to pose a high 

pest risk potential. 

APHIS has determined that measures 

beyond standard port-of-entry 

inspection are required to mitigate the 

risks posed by these plant pests. 

Therefore, we are proposing to allow the 

importation of pitaya fruit from Central 

America into the continental United 

States only if they are produced in 

accordance with a systems approach to 

mitigate pest risk as outlined below. We 

are proposing to add the systems 

approach to the regulations in a new 

§ 319.56–51 governing the importation 

of pitaya fruit from Central America. 

Proposed Systems Approach 

Monitoring and Oversight 

Paragraph (a) of proposed § 319.56–51 

would set out monitoring and oversight 

requirements for the NPPOs of the 

countries exporting pitaya fruit to the 

United States. Paragraph (a)(1) would 

require the NPPO of the exporting 

country to provide a workplan to APHIS 

that details the activities the NPPO will 

carry out to meet the requirements of 

the systems approach, subject to 

APHIS’s approval of the workplan. 

APHIS would be directly involved with 

the NPPO in monitoring and auditing 

implementation of the systems 

approach. A bilateral workplan is an 

agreement between APHIS’ Plant 

Protection and Quarantine program, 

officials of the NPPO of a foreign 

government, and, when necessary, 

foreign commercial entities that 

specifies in detail the phytosanitary 

measures that will comply with our 

regulations governing the import or 

export of a specific commodity. Bilateral 

workplans apply only to the signatory 

parties and establish detailed 

procedures and guidance for the day-today operations of specific import/export 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules 30037 

programs. Bilateral workplans also 

establish how specific phytosanitary 

issues are dealt with in the exporting 

country and make clear who is 

responsible for dealing with those 

issues. The implementation of a systems 

approach typically requires a bilateral 

workplan to be developed. 

Paragraph (a)(2) would require the 

NPPO of the exporting country to 

conduct inspections at the 

packinghouses and monitor 

packinghouse operations to verify that 

the packinghouses comply with the 

systems approach requirements. The 

NPPO of the exporting country would 

also have to visit and inspect the places 

of production monthly, starting 2 

months (60 days) before harvest and 

continuing until the end of the shipping 

season, to verify that the growers are 

complying with the systems approach 

requirements. If the NPPO finds that a 

place of production or packinghouse is 

not complying with the requirements of 

the systems approach, no fruit from the 

place of production or packinghouse 

would be eligible for export to the 

United States until APHIS and the 

NPPO conduct an investigation and 

appropriate remedial actions have been 

implemented. 

Paragraph (a)(3) would require the 

NPPO of the exporting country to 

review and maintain all forms and 

documents related to export program 

activities in places of production and 

packinghouses for at least 1 year and, as 

requested, provide them to APHIS for 

review. 

The monitoring and oversight 

described above would ensure that the 

required phytosanitary measures are 

properly implemented throughout the 

process of growing and packing pitaya 

fruit for export to the United States. 

Place of Production Requirements 

Paragraph (b)(1) of proposed § 319.56– 

51 would require the personnel 

conducting the trapping for Mexfly and 

Medfly described later in this document 

to be hired, trained, and supervised by 

the NPPO of the exporting country. The 

exporting country’s NPPO must certify 

that each place of production has 

effective fruit fly trapping programs, and 

follows control guidelines, when 

necessary, to reduce quarantine pest 

populations. APHIS would be able to 

monitor the places of production. This 

condition would ensure that pitaya fruit 

intended for export to the continental 

United States are grown and packed in 

production and packing areas of Central 

America where fruit fly traps are 

maintained and where the other 

elements of the systems approach 

described below are in place. 

Under proposed paragraph (b)(2), 

pitaya fruit would have to be grown in 

approved places of production that are 

registered with the NPPO of the 

exporting country. 

Paragraph (b)(3) would specify that 

trees and other structures, other than the 

crop itself, may not shade the crop 

during the day and no other host plants 

of Medfly or Mexfly may be grown 

within 100 meters of the edge of the 

production site. During hot, sunny 

weather, pests congregate in shaded 

areas for survival. These requirements 

would reduce the pest pressure of 

Medfly and Mexfly outside the 

production site. 

Paragraph (b)(4) would require that 

pitaya fruit that has fallen on the ground 

be removed from the place of 

production at least once every 7 days. 

Although pitaya fruit are a potential 

host for the identified pests, the pests 

typically prefer fallen fruit. Therefore, 

requiring that fallen fruit be removed 

from the place of production would 

reduce populations of pests in the fields 

where pitaya fruit intended for 

importation into the continental United 

States are grown. In addition, fallen fruit 

would not be allowed to be included in 

field containers of fruit to be packed for 

export because fruit that has fallen from 

trees may be damaged and thus more 

susceptible to infestation. 

Under paragraph (b)(5), harvested 

pitaya fruit would have to be placed in 

field cartons or containers that are 

marked to show the place of production. 

This requirement would ensure that 

APHIS and the NPPO of the exporting 

country could identify the place of 

production for the pitaya fruit if 

inspectors were to find quarantine pests 

in the fruit either before export or at the 

port of entry. 

Mitigation Measures for Medfly and 

Mexfly 

APHIS has on rare instances 

intercepted fruit flies in pitaya fruit. 

Records of pitaya fruit being a host for 

either Medfly or Mexfly are either 

unverified references in old literature or 

based on cage infestations. As a result, 

pitaya fruit are considered to be poor 

hosts to fruit flies. Based on this, we 

would use trapping to demonstrate that 

places of production are free of fruit 

flies in conjunction with a systems 

approach to mitigate the risk posed by 

these fruit flies. 

Paragraph (c)(1)(i) of proposed 

§ 319.56–51 would specify the trapping 

requirements to demonstrate place of 

production freedom from Medfly and 

Mexfly. Beginning at least 1 year before 

the start of harvest and continuing 

through the end of the shipping season, 

trapping for Mexfly and Medfly would 

have to be conducted in the places of 

pitaya fruit production with at least 1 

trap per hectare of APHIS-approved 

traps and traps must be serviced every 

7 days. 

Under proposed paragraph (c)(1)(ii), 

we would begin requiring places of 

production to meet standards for 

cumulative levels of flies per trap per 

day starting at 2 months prior to harvest 

through the end of the shipping season. 

The interval between the start of 

trapping and the enforcement of 

standards for flies per trap per day 

would allow the NPPO time to establish 

a baseline for compliance. Beginning 2 

months prior to harvest, when traps are 

serviced, if either Medfly or Mexfly are 

trapped at a particular place of 

production at cumulative levels above 

0.07 flies per trap per day, pesticide bait 

treatments would have to be applied in 

the affected place of production in order 

for the place of production to remain 

eligible to export pitaya fruit to the 

continental United States. If the average 

Medfly or Mexfly catch is greater than 

0.07 flies per trap per day for more than 

2 consecutive weeks, the place of 

production would be ineligible for 

export until the rate of capture drops to 

an average of less than 0.07 flies per trap 

per day. 

Paragraph (c)(1)(iii) would state that 

the NPPO would have to keep records 

of fruit fly detections for each trap, 

update the records each time the traps 

are checked, and make the records 

available to APHIS inspectors upon 

request. The records would have to be 

maintained for at least 1 year. 

Paragraph (c)(2) would provide pestfree areas as another option for 

mitigating the risk associated with 

Medfly. If pitaya fruit were produced in 

an area designated by APHIS as free of 

Medfly in accordance with § 319.56–5, 

no further mitigation for those fruit flies 

would be necessary for fruit produced 

in that area. For instance, Belize 

conducts a national fruit fly program, 

including Jackson traps, to maintain its 

pest-free status for Medfly, and APHIS 

currently recognizes all of Belize as free 

of Medfly. We are not proposing to 

provide for the use of pest-free areas for 

Mexfly because local conditions in these 

countries are not likely to allow the 

establishment of such areas. 

Section 319.56–5 sets out specific 

requirements for determination that an 

area is a pest-free area. Paragraph (a) of 

§ 319.56–5 states that determinations of 

pest-free areas be made in accordance 

with International Standards for 

Phytosanitary Measures (ISPM) No. 4, 

which is incorporated by reference in 

§ 300.5. ISPM No. 4 sets out three main 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
30038 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

criteria for recognition of a pest-free 

area: 

• Systems to establish freedom; 

• Phytosanitary measures to maintain 

freedom; and 

• Checks to verify freedom has been 

maintained. 

Packinghouse Requirements 

Paragraph (d) of proposed § 319.56–51 

would set out requirements for the 

packinghouses where the pitaya fruit 

would be processed. The packinghouse 

would have to be registered with the 

NPPO of the exporting country. All 

openings to the outside of the 

packinghouse would have to be covered 

by screening with openings of not more 

than 1.6 mm or by some other barrier 

that prevents pests from entering. 

Screening with openings of not more 

than 1.6 mm excludes fruit flies. The 

packinghouse would be required to have 

double doors at the entrance to the 

facility and at the interior entrance to 

the area where the pitaya fruit would be 

packed. Such entrances are designed to 

exclude fruit flies from the 

packinghouse. In addition, the 

packinghouse could only accept fruit 

from registered places of production 

while the packinghouse is in use for 

exporting pitaya fruit to the United 

States. These procedures would reduce 

the risk that quarantine pests are present 

on pitaya fruit exported to the United 

States. 

Post-Harvest Procedures 

Paragraph (e) would require that the 

fruit be safeguarded by a pest-proof 

screen or plastic tarpaulin while in 

transit to a pest-exclusionary 

packinghouse and while awaiting 

packing. Pitaya fruit would have to be 

packed within 24 hours of harvest in 

insect-proof cartons or containers that 

can be sealed at the packinghouse 

against the entry of pests, or covered 

with insect-proof mesh or a plastic 

tarpaulin for transport to the United 

States. These safeguards would have to 

remain intact until arrival in the United 

States. These measures would prevent 

harvested fruit from being infested by 

quarantine pests. 

Phytosanitary Inspection 

Paragraph (f)(1) would require a 

biometric sample of pitaya fruit jointly 

agreed upon by APHIS and the NPPO to 

be inspected in the exporting country by 

the NPPO of that country following any 

post-harvest processing. The biometric 

sample would be visually inspected for 

gray pineapple mealybug and 

passionvine mealybug, which are 

external pests. A portion of the fruit 

would also be cut open to detect Mexfly 

and Medfly, which are internal pests. If 

the fruit is from a pest-free area for 

Medfly, then the fruit would only be 

inspected for Mexfly. External and 

internal inspection of a sample would 

ensure that pests at various life stages 

are detected. 

Under proposed paragraph (f)(2), the 

pitaya fruit would be subject to 

inspection for all quarantine pests of 

concern at the port of entry. In addition, 

shipping documents identifying the 

place(s) of production in which the fruit 

had been produced and the packing 

shed(s) in which the fruit had been 

processed would have to accompany 

each lot of fruit presented for inspection 

at the port of entry to the United States 

and would have to be maintained until 

the fruit is released for entry. 

Under paragraph (f)(3), if a gray 

pineapple mealybug and passionvine 

mealybug were to be found, the entire 

consignment of fruit would be 

prohibited from import into the United 

States unless it were treated in 

accordance with 7 CFR part 305. If a 

single larva of either fruit fly were to be 

found in a shipment (either by the 

NPPO in the exporting country or by 

inspectors at the U.S. port of entry), the 

entire consignment of fruit would be 

prohibited from export, and the place of 

production producing that fruit would 

be suspended from the export program 

until appropriate measures, as agreed 

upon by the NPPO of the exporting 

country and APHIS, had been taken. 

Commercial Consignments 

Paragraph (g) would state that only 

commercial consignments of pitaya fruit 

would be allowed to be imported. 

Commercial consignments, as defined in 

§ 319.56–2, are consignments that an 

inspector identifies as having been 

imported for sale and distribution. Such 

identification is based on a variety of 

indicators, including, but not limited to: 

Quantity of produce, type of packaging, 

identification of grower or packinghouse 

on the packaging, and documents 

consigning the fruits or vegetables to a 

wholesaler or retailer. Produce grown 

commercially is less likely to be infested 

with plant pests than noncommercial 

consignments. Noncommercial 

consignments are more prone to 

infestations because the commodity is 

often ripe to overripe, could be of a 

variety with unknown susceptibility to 

pests, and is often grown with little or 

no pest control. 

Phytosanitary Certificate 

Paragraph (h) sets out the requirement 

for a phytosanitary certificate. Each 

consignment of fruit would have to be 

accompanied by a phytosanitary 

certificate issued by the NPPO of the 

exporting country, providing an 

additional declaration stating that the 

fruit in the consignment was produced 

in accordance with the requirements in 

proposed § 319.56–51. This requirement 

would certify that the provisions of the 

regulations have been met. 

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

This proposed 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. 603, we 

have performed an initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis, which is 

summarized below, regarding the 

economic effects of this proposed rule 

on small entities. Copies of the full 

analysis are available by contacting the 

person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT or on the 

Regulations.gov Web site (see 

ADDRESSES above for instructions for 

accessing Regulations.gov). 

Based on the information we have, 

there is no reason to conclude that 

adoption of this proposed rule would 

result in any significant economic effect 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. However, we do not currently 

have all of the data necessary for a 

comprehensive analysis of the effects of 

this proposed rule on small entities. 

Therefore, we are inviting comments on 

potential effects. In particular, we are 

interested in determining the number 

and kind of small entities that may 

incur benefits or costs from the 

implementation of this proposed rule. 

This proposed rule would allow the 

importation of fresh pitaya fruit from 

Central America into the continental 

United States. Pitaya fruit is produced 

in Hawaii, California, and Florida, but 

the quantities domestically produced, 

numbers of U.S. producers, quantities 

imported, and other factors needed to 

assess the likely economic effects of this 

rule are not known. The quantity of 

pitaya fruit that would be imported from 

Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, 

Guatemala, Honduras, and Panama is 

also unknown. Nicaragua estimates 

exporting 1,200 metric tons (60 40-foot 

containers) of pitaya fruit to the 

continental U.S. annually, and it is 

thought that the other countries may 

ship similar or smaller amounts. 

Lack of information about the 

quantity of pitaya fruit that would be 

imported from these countries, and 

about the quantities produced and 

already imported by the United States, 

prevents a clear understanding of what 

the economic effects of the proposed 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules 30039 

rule may be. We welcome information 

that the public may offer regarding the 

possible economic effects of this rule for 

U.S. small entities. 

Executive Order 12988 

This proposed rule would allow 

pitaya fruit to be imported into the 

United States from Central America. If 

this proposed rule is adopted, State and 

local laws and regulations regarding 

pitaya fruit imported under this rule 

would be preempted while the fruit is 

in foreign commerce. Fresh fruits 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 case-by-case basis. If this 

proposed rule is adopted, no retroactive 

effect will be given to this rule, and this 

rule will not require administrative 

proceedings before parties may file suit 

in court challenging this rule. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

In accordance with 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. APHIS–2010–0113. 

Please send a copy of your comments to: 

(1) Docket No. APHIS–2010–0113, 

Regulatory Analysis and Development, 

PPD, APHIS, Station 3A–03.8, 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. 

We are proposing to amend the fruits 

and vegetables regulations to allow the 

importation of fresh pitaya fruit from 

Central America into the continental 

United States. As condition of entry, 

pitaya fruit from Central America would 

be subject to a systems approach that 

would include requirements for 

monitoring and oversight, establishment 

of pest-free places of production, and 

procedures for packing the pitaya. This 

action would allow for the importation 

of pitaya fruit from Central America into 

the continental United States while 

continuing to provide protection against 

the introduction of quarantine pests. 

Implementing this rule requires the 

exporting country’s NPPO to certify 

production sites, provide a workplan, 

maintain records of fruit fly detections 

and shipping documents, register 

packinghouses, and complete a 

phytosanitary certificate. 

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 0.8652 hours per 

response. 

Respondents: Shippers and producers 

of fresh pitaya, NPPOs of Central 

America. 

Estimated annual number of 

respondents: 27. 

Estimated annual number of 

responses per respondent: 5.2222. 

Estimated annual number of 

responses: 141. 

Estimated total annual burden on 

respondents: 122 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) 851–2908. 

E-Government Act Compliance 

The Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service is committed to 

compliance with the E-Government Act 

to promote the use of the Internet and 

other information technologies, to 

provide increased opportunities for 

citizen access to Government 

information and services, and for other 

purposes. For information pertinent to 

E-Government Act compliance related 

to this proposed rule, please contact 

Mrs. Celeste Sickles, APHIS’ 

Information Collection Coordinator, at 

(301) 851–2908. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 319 

Coffee, Cotton, Fruits, Imports, Logs, 

Nursery stock, Plant diseases and pests, 

Quarantine, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Rice, 

Vegetables. 

Accordingly, we propose to amend 7 

CFR part 319 as follows: 

PART 319—FOREIGN QUARANTINE 

NOTICES 

1. The authority citation for part 319 

continues to read as follows: 

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

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

2.22, 2.80, and 371.3. 

2. Section 319.56–51 is added to read 

as follows: 

§ 319.56–51 Fresh pitaya from certain 

Central American countries. 

Fresh pitaya fruit (Hylocereus spp.) 

may be imported into the United States 

from Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, 

Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and 

Panama in accordance with the 

conditions described in this section. 

These conditions are designed to 

prevent the introduction of the 

following quarantine pests: Anastrepha 

ludens, Ceratitis capitata, Dysmicoccus 

neobrevipes, and Planococcus minor. 

(a) Monitoring and oversight. (1) The 

national plant protection organization 

(NPPO) of the exporting country must 

provide a workplan to APHIS that 

details the activities that the NPPO will, 

subject to APHIS’s approval, carry out to 

meet the requirements of this section. 

APHIS will be directly involved with 

the NPPO in the monitoring and 

auditing implementation of the systems 

approach. 

(2) The NPPO of the exporting 

country must conduct inspections at the 

packinghouses and monitor 

packinghouse operations. Starting 2 

months before harvest and continuing 

until the end of the shipping season, the 

NPPO of the exporting country must 

visit and inspect the places of 

production monthly to verify 

compliance with the requirements of 

this section. If the NPPO finds that a 

packinghouse or place of production is 

not complying with the requirements of 

this section, no fruit from the place of 

production or packinghouse will be 

eligible for export to the United States 

until APHIS and the NPPO have 

conducted an investigation and 

appropriate remedial actions have been 

implemented. 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
30040 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

(3) The NPPO must review and 

maintain all forms and documents 

related to export program activities in 

places of production and packinghouses 

for at least 1 year and, as requested, 

provide them to APHIS for review. 

(b) Place of production requirements. 

(1) The personnel conducting the 

trapping required in paragraph (c) of 

this section must be hired, trained, and 

supervised by the NPPO of the 

exporting country. The exporting 

country’s NPPO must certify that each 

place of production has effective fruit 

fly trapping programs, and follows 

control guidelines, when necessary, to 

reduce quarantine pest populations. 

APHIS may monitor the places of 

production. 

(2) The places of production 

producing pitaya for export to the 

United States must be registered with 

the NPPO of the exporting country. 

(3) Trees and other structures, other 

than the crop itself, must not shade the 

crop during the day. No C. capitata or 

A. ludens host plants may be grown 

within 100 meters of the edge of the 

production site. 

(4) Pitaya fruit that has fallen on the 

ground must be removed from the place 

of production at least once every 7 days 

and may not be included in field 

containers of fruit to be packed for 

export. 

(5) Harvested pitaya fruit must be 

placed in field cartons or containers that 

are marked to show the place of 

production. 

(c) Mitigation measures for C. capitata 

and A. ludens. (1) Pest-free places of 

production. (i) Beginning at least 1 year 

before harvest begins and continuing 

through the end of the shipping season, 

trapping for A. ludens and C. capitata 

must be conducted in the places of 

pitaya fruit production with at least 1 

trap per hectare of APHIS-approved 

traps, serviced every 7 days. 

(ii) From 2 months prior to harvest 

through the end of the shipping season, 

when traps are serviced, if either A. 

ludens or C. capitata are trapped at a 

particular place of production at 

cumulative levels above 0.07 flies per 

trap per day, pesticide bait treatments 

must be applied in the affected place of 

production in order for the place of 

production to remain eligible to export 

pitaya fruit to the continental United 

States. If the average A. ludens or C. 

capitata catch is greater than 0.07 flies 

per trap per day for more than 2 

consecutive weeks, the place of 

production is ineligible for export until 

the rate of capture drops to an average 

of less than 0.07 flies per trap per day. 

(iii) The NPPO must maintain records 

of fruit fly detections for each trap, 

update the records each time the traps 

are checked, and make the records 

available to APHIS upon request. The 

records must be maintained for at least 

1 year for APHIS review. 

(2) Pest-free area for C. capitata. If the 

pitaya fruit are produced in a place of 

production located in an area that is 

designated as free of C. capitata in 

accordance with § 319.56–5, the 

trapping in paragraph (c)(1) of this 

section is not required for C. capitata. 

(d) Packinghouse requirements. (1) 

The packinghouses must be registered 

with the NPPO of the exporting country. 

(2) All openings to the outside must 

be covered by screening with openings 

of not more than 1.6 mm or by some 

other barrier that prevents pests from 

entering the packinghouses. 

(3) The packinghouses must have 

double doors at the entrance to the 

facilities and at the interior entrance to 

the area where the pitaya fruit are 

packed. 

(4) While in use for packing pitaya 

fruit for export to the United States, the 

packinghouses may only accept pitaya 

fruit that are from registered places of 

production and that are produced in 

accordance with the requirements of 

this section. 

(e) Post-harvest procedures. The 

pitaya fruit must be packed within 24 

hours of harvest in a pest-exclusionary 

packinghouse. Pitaya fruit must be 

packed in insect-proof cartons or 

containers that can be sealed at the 

packinghouse, or covered with insectproof mesh or a plastic tarpaulin for 

transport to the United States. These 

safeguards must be intact upon arrival 

in the United States. 

(f) Phytosanitary inspection. (1) The 

NPPO of the exporting country must 

visually inspect a biometric sample of 

pitaya fruit, jointly approved by APHIS 

and the NPPO of the exporting country, 

for D. neobrevipes and P. minor, and cut 

open a portion of the fruit to detect A. 

ludens and C. capitata. If the fruit is 

from a pest-free area for C. capitata, 

then the fruit will only be inspected for 

A. ludens. 

(2) The fruit are subject to inspection 

at the port of entry for all quarantine 

pests of concern. Shipping documents 

identifying the place(s) of production in 

which the fruit was produced and the 

packing shed(s) in which the fruit was 

processed must accompany each lot of 

fruit presented for inspection at the port 

of entry to the United States. This 

identification must be maintained until 

the fruit is released for entry into the 

United States. 

(3) If D. neobrevipes or P. minor is 

found, the entire consignment of fruit 

will be prohibited from import into the 

United States unless the shipment is 

treated with an approved treatment 

monitored by APHIS. If inspectors 

(either from the exporting country’s 

NPPO or at the U.S. port of entry) find 

a single fruit fly larva in a shipment, 

they will reject the entire consignment 

for shipment to the United States, and 

the place of production for that 

shipment will be suspended from the 

export program until appropriate 

measures, agreed upon by the NPPO of 

the exporting country and APHIS, have 

been taken. 

(g) Commercial consignments. The 

pitaya fruit may be imported in 

commercial consignments only. 

(h) Phytosanitary certificate. Each 

consignment of pitaya fruit must be 

accompanied by a phytosanitary 

certificate issued by the NPPO of the 

exporting country, containing an 

additional declaration stating that the 

fruit in the consignment was produced 

in accordance with requirements in 7 

CFR 319.56–51. 

Done in Washington, DC, this 18th day of 

May 2011. 

Kevin Shea, 

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–12755 Filed 5–23–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2010–1167] 

Proposed Airworthiness Directives 

Legal Interpretation 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration, DOT. 

ACTION: Extension of comment period 

for a proposed airworthiness directives 

legal interpretation. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation 

Administration published a proposed 

airworthiness directives legal 

interpretation for comment. In response 

to several requests, we are extending the 

comment period to allow additional 

time for comment. Comments from the 

public are requested to assist the agency 

in developing the final legal 

interpretation. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before June 30, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments 

identified by Docket Number FAA– 

2010–1167 using any of the following 

methods: 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS