Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 251 / Tuesday, December 31, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 79573 

1To view the proposed rule, supporting 

documents, and the comments we received, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2011-0132. 

2Although we included Prunus armeniaca 

Marshall as the scientific name for apricot in the 

proposed rule and risk assessment, both that name 

and Prunus armeniaca L. refer to the same species. 

3http://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/

plants/manuals/ports/downloads/treatment.pdf. 

where grown and the packinghouse 

where packed. The labeling must be 

large enough to clearly display the 

required information and must be 

located on the outside of the boxes to 

facilitate inspection. 

(5) Avocados must be packed in 

insect-proof packaging, or covered with 

insect-proof mesh or a plastic tarpaulin, 

for transport to the United States. These 

safeguards must remain intact until 

arrival in the United States. 

(6) Shipping documents 

accompanying consignments of 

avocados from continental Spain that 

are exported to the United States must 

include the official registration number 

of the place of production at which the 

avocados were grown and must identify 

the packing shed or sheds in which the 

fruit was processed and packed. This 

identification must be maintained until 

the fruit is released for entry into the 

United States. 

(f) NPPO of Spain inspection. 

Following any post-harvest processing, 

inspectors from the NPPO of Spain must 

inspect a biometric sample of fruit at a 

rate determined by APHIS. Inspectors 

must visually inspect the fruit and cut 

a portion of the fruit to inspect for C. 

capitata. If any C. capitata are detected 

in this inspection, the place of 

production where the infested avocados 

were grown will immediately be 

suspended from the export program 

until an investigation has been 

conducted by APHIS and the NPPO of 

Spain and appropriate mitigations have 

been implemented. 

(g) Phytosanitary certificate. Each 

consignment of avocados imported from 

Spain into the United States must be 

accompanied by a phytosanitary 

certificate issued by the NPPO of Spain. 

(1) The phytosanitary certificate 

accompanying Hass variety avocados 

must contain an additional declaration 

stating that the avocados are Hass 

variety and were grown in an approved 

place of production and the 

consignment has been inspected and 

found free of C. capitata. 

(2) The phytosanitary certificate 

accompanying non-Hass avocados must 

contain an additional declaration stating 

that the avocados were grown in an 

approved place of production and the 

consignment has been inspected and 

found free of C. capitata. If the 

consignment has been subjected to 

treatment for C. capitata prior to export 

in accordance with 7 CFR part 305, the 

additional declaration must also state 

this. 

(Approved by the Office of Management and 

Budget under control number 0579–0400) 

Done in Washington, DC, this 23rd day of 

December 2013. 

Kevin Shea, 

Administrator, Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 2013–31190 Filed 12–30–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

7 CFR Part 319 

[Docket No. APHIS–2011–0132] 

RIN 0579–AD62 

Importation of Fresh Apricots From 

Continental Spain 

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are amending the fruits 

and vegetables regulations to allow the 

importation into the United States of 

fresh apricots from continental Spain 

(excluding the Balearic Islands and 

Canary Islands). As a condition of entry, 

fresh apricots from continental Spain 

will have to be produced in accordance 

with a systems approach that includes 

registration of production locations and 

packinghouses, pest monitoring, 

sanitary practices, chemical and 

biological controls, and phytosanitary 

treatment. The fruit will have to be 

imported in commercial consignments, 

with each consignment identified 

throughout its movement from place of 

production to port of entry in the United 

States. Consignments will have to be 

accompanied by a phytosanitary 

certificate issued by the national plant 

protection organization of Spain 

certifying that the fruit is free from all 

quarantine pests and has been produced 

in accordance with the systems 

approach. This action will allow for the 

importation of fresh apricots from 

continental Spain while continuing to 

protect against the introduction of plant 

pests into the United States. 

DATES: Effective Date: January 30, 2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Meredith C. Jones, Senior Regulatory 

Policy Specialist, Regulatory 

Coordination and Compliance, PPQ, 

APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 156, 

Riverdale, MD 20737–1231; (301) 851– 

2018. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The regulations in ‘‘Subpart–Fruits 

and Vegetables’’ (7 CFR 319.56–1 

through 319.56–62, 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. 

On January 30, 2013, we published in 

the Federal Register (78 FR 6227–6232, 

Docket No. APHIS–2011–0132) a 

proposal 1 to amend the regulations 

concerning the importation of fruits and 

vegetables to allow the importation of 

fresh apricots (Prunus armeniaca L.) 2

from continental Spain (excluding the 

Balearic Islands and Canary Islands) 

into the United States. We proposed to 

allow the importation of fresh apricots 

from continental Spain only if they were 

produced in accordance with a systems 

approach jointly agreed upon in a 

bilateral workplan between the Animal 

and Plant Health Inspection Service 

(APHIS) and the national plant 

protection organization (NPPO) of 

Spain. The systems approach addresses 

four quarantine pests that the pest risk 

analysis (PRA) determined could follow 

the pathway of consignments of fresh 

apricots imported from continental 

Spain into the United States: 

• The Mediterranean fruit fly 

(Medfly), Ceratitis capitata Wiedemann, 

• The plum fruit moth, Cydia 

funebrana (Treitschke), 

• Leaf scorch, Apiognomonia 

erythrostoma (Pers.), a fungus, and 

• Brown rot, Monilinia fructigena 

Honey, a fungus. 

The proposed systems approach 

included the following requirements: 

Registration of production locations and 

packinghouses; pest monitoring and 

control, including trapping for C. 

funebrana and C. capitata to 

demonstrate areas of low prevalence; 

grove sanitation; chemical controls; 

inspection by the NPPO of Spain for 

quarantine pests; and phytosanitary 

treatment in accordance with 7 CFR part 

305 and the Plant Protection and 

Quarantine (PPQ) Treatment Manual.3

We also proposed that fruit would have 

to be imported in commercial 

consignments, with each consignment 

identified throughout its movement 

from place of production to port of entry 

in the United States, and that 

consignments would have to be 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
79574 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 251 / Tuesday, December 31, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

4The provisions of the systems approach will be 

added to the regulations as § 319.56–63. In this final 

rule, we discuss the comments in terms of 

provisions of proposed § 319.56–58 so that the 

reader can follow along with the proposal. 

accompanied by a phytosanitary 

certificate issued by the NPPO of Spain 

stating that the fruit is free from all pests 

of quarantine concern and has been 

produced in accordance with the 

systems approach. 

We solicited comments concerning 

our proposal for 60 days ending April 1, 

2013. We reopened and extended the 

deadline for comments until June 13, 

2013, in a document published in the 

Federal Register on May 29, 2013 (78 

FR 32184, Docket No. APHIS–2011– 

0132). We received four comments by 

that date. They were from a foreign 

government, a State department of 

agriculture, an organization representing 

State plant regulatory agencies, and a 

university professor. They are discussed 

below by topic. 

General Comments 

One commenter stated that we should 

not allow the import of apricots from 

Spain that have been sprayed with 

pesticides, unless methods can be 

devised to ensure that such fruit will 

not be toxic to consumers. 

The U. S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is responsible for 

registering pesticides for use in the 

United States. EPA also has the 

responsibility to establish limits, or 

tolerances, for pesticide residues in both 

raw agricultural commodities and 

processed foods; these tolerances apply 

to both imported and domestically 

grown foods. EPA-established tolerances 

are commodity specific and represent 

the maximum amount of pesticide 

residue that may legally remain in food. 

In the absence of a tolerance, any level 

of pesticide residue is prohibited. The 

U. S. Food and Drug Administration is 

responsible for enforcing EPA pesticide 

residue tolerances and for determining 

whether an imported food violates the 

Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. 

The proposed rule identifies the 

NPPO of Spain as the body responsible 

for conducting and supervising 

inspections, monitoring, trapping, 

surveying, and other activities required 

in the systems approach. 

A commenter acknowledged that the 

NPPO of Spain is responsible for these 

activities but noted that there are other 

bodies and stakeholders involved, such 

as the Spanish Autonomous 

Communities (the first-level political 

and administrative divisions in Spain), 

auditing companies, integrated pest 

management associations, and field 

technicians and advisors. Their roles are 

defined by Directive 2009/128/EC of the 

European Parliament and of the Council 

of 21 October 2009, which established a 

framework for European Union (EU) 

action to achieve the sustainable use of 

pesticides. The commenter stated that 

the responsibilities of each partner 

should be specified in future workplans 

under the proposed rules. 

In all APHIS fruit and vegetable 

importation programs, the NPPO 

certifies that it is taking responsibility to 

ensure that these other involved parties 

act under NPPO direction and perform 

the actions required by the regulations 

and workplan. Moreover, the NPPO is 

the official participant in the 

International Plant Protection 

Convention, which establishes the 

reciprocal obligations that trading 

countries have to each other. Whether 

the NPPO fulfills its duties through 

other parties whose roles are described 

in European Community (EC) directives 

or through other means is an internal 

matter not subject to our regulations. If 

the NPPO of Spain desires, workplans 

for the apricot program can include 

information about which entities will 

perform which required actions, but in 

the event of failure to perform any 

required action APHIS will hold only 

the NPPO responsible for correcting the 

problems. We note that the cited EC 

directive addresses only pesticide use 

and integrated pest management, rather 

than systems approaches for the growth 

and certification of crops for export, and 

even within that scope the directive 

emphasizes in many places the 

responsibility of competent authorities 

in the Member State to ensure required 

actions are taken. 

One commenter recommended that 

the bilateral workplan track closely with 

the pest mitigation measures specified 

by APHIS in the systems approach. 

That will be the case. The bilateral 

workplan is based on the regulations but 

specifies the pest mitigation measures of 

the systems approach in greater detail. 

We stated in the preamble to the 

proposed rule that, as a condition of 

entry, apricots from Spain would have 

to be produced in accordance with a 

limited harvest period and treated with 

surface disinfectant. 

One commenter noted that neither of 

these mitigation measures appears in 

the proposed regulatory language for the 

systems approach and asked that we 

remove these measures. 

The commenter is correct. These 

mitigation measures are not intended to 

be part of the systems approach and are 

not included in this final rule. 

Monitoring and Oversight 

We proposed in § 319.56–58(c) 4 the 

requirement that the NPPO of Spain 

would have to visit and inspect places 

of production monthly, starting 2 

months (60 days) before harvest and 

continuing until the end of the shipping 

season to verify that growers are 

complying with the proposed 

requirements. 

One commenter stated that, given the 

ripening period of apricot is 

approximately May 1 through July 15, 

official inspections would have to be 

conducted from March to August, which 

under the proposed regulations would 

require six inspections. The commenter 

stated that six inspections are 

unnecessary and not cost-effective and 

suggested instead that the NPPO visit 

production sites once at the beginning 

of the export season, once during 

harvest, and at any other times the 

NPPO finds necessary to verify 

compliance. The commenter stated that 

throughout harvest the NPPO, the 

Autonomous Communities, and the 

auditing companies employed by them 

would control, evaluate, and validate 

field notebooks maintained by growers 

and inspection reports from field 

technicians or advisors. The commenter 

added that the NPPO of Spain would 

ensure that APHIS requirements are 

being fulfilled by the involved parties. 

APHIS is making two changes in 

response to this comment. It is essential 

that the NPPO effectively monitor 

compliance before and during harvest to 

identify and prevent pest risks. 

However, effective inspection does not 

necessarily require six visits each year, 

and depending on the personnel 

authorized by the NPPO to conduct 

various compliance monitoring 

activities, it may not be necessary that 

NPPO employees visit each production 

site each month. While it is important 

that the production site be inspected 

prior to harvest, both to look for early 

signs of pests that may not be as visible 

later and to familiarize the inspector 

with the production area, upon further 

consideration we believe a reasonable 

standard is that a pre-harvest inspection 

occur at least 1 month prior to harvest 

rather than the proposed 2 months. 

Therefore, we are changing the 

proposed standard to read ‘‘starting at 

least 1 month before harvest.’’ We note 

also that the term ‘‘before harvest’’ refers 

to the harvest as conducted at each 

place of production, not to the harvest 

season in general, which in some cases 

could result in fewer inspections being 

necessary. 

As noted above, production site 

inspections are the responsibility of the 

NPPO and must be done under NPPO 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 251 / Tuesday, December 31, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 79575 

5Pe ́rez JA, Garcia T, Arias A, Martı ́nez de Velasco 

D. 1989. Lucha contra el hongo del cerezo 

Gnomonia erythrostoma (Pers.) Auersw. I. Eficacia 

de materias activas. Boletı ́n Sanidad Vegetal y 

Plagas 4: 315–321. Sa ́nchez OL, Garcia MT. 2007. 

Gnomonia. Apiognomonia erythrostoma. Fichas 

te ́cnicas de Sanidad Vegetal. Ficha 10. Junta de 

Extremadura. Consejerı ́a de Agricultura y 

Desarrollo Rural. Direccio ́n General de 

Explotaciones Agrarias. Santiago R. 2008. 

Apiognomonia erythrostoma (Pers.) Ho ̈hnel. La 

‘‘Gnomonia’’ del cerezo. Ficha 20. Laboratorio de 

Diagnostico del Servicio de Sanidad Vegetal. Junta 

de Extremadura. 

direction to verify the conditions and 

actions required by the regulations and 

workplan. However, we acknowledge 

that the identity of the personnel 

authorized to conduct inspectionrelated activities may be determined by 

the NPPO and specified in the 

workplan, and that in some cases the 

NPPO may authorize other personnel, 

such as employees of an Autonomous 

Community or an auditing company, to 

perform duties related to inspection. If 

so, these personnel must be accountable 

to the NPPO. Therefore, in this final rule 

we are changing the relevant sentence in 

§ 319.56–58(c)(1) to read ‘‘The NPPO of 

Spain, or an authorized person 

designated in the workplan, must visit 

and inspect. . . .’’ 

We proposed to require in § 319.56– 

58(c)(1) that any personnel conducting 

trapping and pest surveys in accordance 

with the systems approach be hired, 

trained, and supervised by the NPPO of 

Spain. 

The same commenter noted that, 

while under EU regulations the NPPO of 

Spain is responsible for ensuring that 

such personnel are appropriately 

trained, such personnel are not 

necessarily hired or trained by the 

NPPO of Spain. The commenter asked 

that we delete the words ‘‘hired’’ and 

‘‘trained’’ from this requirement. 

As we noted above, we understand 

that in some cases the NPPO may 

authorize other personnel not hired or 

trained by the NPPO, such as employees 

of an Autonomous Community or an 

auditing company, to perform duties 

related to inspection under the 

supervision of the NPPO. However, we 

agree that they do not necessarily have 

to be hired or trained by the NPPO. 

Therefore, we are deleting the words 

‘‘hired’’ and ‘‘trained’’ from the 

proposed requirement in § 319.56– 

58(c)(1) and replacing those words with 

the term ‘‘accredited’’ to indicate they 

have been determined by the NPPO to 

be qualified to perform the assigned 

duties. 

Two commenters stated that 

procedures should be in place to 

confirm that approved treatments are 

applied properly to fresh apricot fruit 

imported from continental Spain. 

Under the bilateral workplan, APHIS 

will confirm that treatments of fresh 

apricot fruit are properly applied under 

supervision of the NPPO of Spain in 

accordance with the cold treatment 

regulations in § 305.6 and the PPQ 

Treatment Manual. Furthermore, under 

§ 319.56–58(c)(4), the NPPO of Spain 

will be required to retain all forms and 

documentation related to export 

program activities, including approved 

treatments, in places of production and 

packinghouses for at least 1 year and, 

upon request, provide them to APHIS 

for review. 

Mitigations for A. erythrostoma 

One commenter noted that the PRA 

identifies the fungus A. erythrostoma as 

a pest that could follow the pathway of 

consignments of fresh apricots imported 

from Spain to the United States. The 

commenter stated, however, that 

scientific literature 5 identifies A. 

erythrostoma as being only a pest of 

cherry in Spain, and consequently the 

mitigation measures we proposed for A. 

erythrostoma in fresh apricot are not 

supported by the literature. 

We reviewed the documents cited by 

the commenter to support that A. 

erythrostoma does not occur on apricot 

in Spain. None of the documents rules 

out A. erythrostoma as being a potential 

pest risk to apricot in Spain, and one of 

the documents (Santiago, 2008) 

acknowledged that apricots are in fact a 

host of the pathogen. Moreover, A. 

erythrostoma has been reported as an 

apricot pest in Italy, Bulgaria, and 

Austria, and is listed as an apricot pest 

in the 2004 European and 

Mediterranean Plant Protection 

Organization standard ‘‘Good Plant 

Protection Practices for Stone Fruits.’’ 

If a plant pest of quarantine concern 

is reported on a commodity in a 

particular country, APHIS considers it 

to be an import risk for all potential 

hosts of that pest in that country, unless 

there are mitigations in place to prevent 

its spread. No pest-free or lowprevalence areas for A. erythrostoma 

have been established in Spain, leading 

to the risk that apricot production could 

be affected by the pathogen if the 

proposed mitigations are not applied. 

Therefore, we are making no changes 

with regards to the mitigations we 

proposed to require for A. erythrostoma. 

Mitigations for C. funebrana 

We proposed to require in § 319.56– 

58(f) that the NPPO of Spain use one of 

two mitigation options to address the 

risk potential posed by C. funebrana, 

the plum fruit moth, which we 

determined in the PRA to be one of the 

pests that could follow the pathway of 

apricot from Spain. Under the first 

mitigation option in § 319.56–58(f)(1), 

apricots would have to originate from an 

area designated as free of C. funebrana 

in accordance with § 319.56–5. Under 

the second option in § 319.56–58(f)(2), 

apricots would have to originate from an 

area that has been demonstrated to have 

a low prevalence of C. funebrana. The 

NPPO of Spain would be required to 

visit and visually inspect registered 

places of production during the growing 

season and harvest period for signs of C. 

funebrana to demonstrate that the 

places of production have a low 

prevalence of C. funebrana and to verify 

that the growers are complying with the 

mitigation measures required as part of 

the systems approach. 

One commenter stated that, while the 

PRA identifies C. funebrana as a 

quarantine pest that could follow the 

pathway, its prevalence in apricots is 

much lower than that of the oriental 

fruit moth, C. molesta, and outbreaks of 

C. funebrana only take place 

occasionally in apricot orchards located 

near plum orchards. The commenter 

recommended that mitigation measures 

for C. funebrana such as pheromone 

trapping and monitoring should only be 

required for those apricot orchards 

located in the vicinity of plum orchards. 

We have no evidence to suggest that 

outbreaks of C. funebrana only occur in 

apricot orchards that are located near 

plum orchards. At any rate, it would not 

be practical to find every apricot 

orchard located near a plum orchard 

and determine specific boundaries 

within which mitigations for C. 

funebrana would be required. 

As part of the mitigations for 

establishing an area of low pest 

prevalence for C. funebrana, we 

proposed to require in § 319.56–58(f)(2) 

that the NPPO of Spain sample and 

visually inspect a quantity of fruit 

specified in the workplan. Specific 

inspection requirements would be 

included in the bilateral workplan and 

adjusted as necessary to ensure that 

inspection is effective. We would 

initially require samples of 20 fruits per 

tree from 50 trees within every 4 

hectares to be visually inspected by the 

NPPO of Spain every 7 days during the 

growing season. During the harvest 

period, samples of 40 fruits per tree 

from 50 trees within every 4 hectares 

would have to be visually inspected by 

the NPPO of Spain every 7 days until 

harvest is completed. If more than 1 

percent of the fruits sampled in a week 

are damaged or found to have any life 

stage of C. funebrana, remedial 

measures would have to be 

implemented. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
79576 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 251 / Tuesday, December 31, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

6USDA, APHIS, PPQ. 2011. New Pest Response 

Guidelines: Plum Fruit Moth (Cydia funebrana. 

Washington, DC: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/

import_export/plants/manuals/online_

manuals.shtml. 

7 Vernon, JDR. 1971. Observations on the biology 

and control of the plum fruit moth. Plant Pathology 

20(3): 106–110. 

The same commenter opposed the 

requirement to increase the sampling 

size during the harvest period, stating 

that the symptoms of C. funebrana are 

more visible in the latter part of the 

growing season, thereby making infested 

fruit easier to detect. As support, the 

commenter cited APHIS pest response 

guidelines 6 stating that C. funebrana 

larvae feed internally, resulting in 

internal symptoms only. Citing another 

study,7 the commenter added that 

infested fruits may ripen faster than 

uninfested fruits, allowing them to be 

readily detectable. The commenter 

concluded that the biology of C. 

funebrana does not support increasing 

the sample size during harvest period 

from 1,000 to 2,000 fruits per 4 hectares 

each week and recommended that the 

sample size of 20 fruits per tree from 50 

trees within every 4 hectares should 

remain invariable through the petal fall 

phase to the harvest period. 

We are making no changes based on 

the comment. Contrary to the 

commenter’s point, the APHIS pest 

response guidelines the commenter 

cited actually state that symptoms of 

infestation are readily visible on fruit 

early in the growing season. During the 

harvest season, the sample size must 

remain higher in order to minimize the 

risk of larvae being imported to the 

United States in infested fruit. 

The same commenter stated that we 

did not specify in the proposed 

regulatory text a minimum amount of 

sampled fruit in relation to the area of 

the place of production and suggested 

that in accordance with current 

standards of integrated production we 

amend § 319.56–58(f)(2) to set a 

minimum of 50 trees per place of 

production. 

The minimum amount of sampled 

fruit in relation to the area of the place 

of production will be worked out by 

APHIS in consultation with the NPPO of 

Spain. The sample amount will then be 

specified in the workplan required in 

§ 319.56–58(a)(1). Specifying the sample 

size in the workplan rather than in the 

regulations will give us the flexibility to 

change the size to meet changing 

conditions. 

Finally, the commenter stated that 

fruit is the primary sample unit and 

therefore the term ‘‘growing season’’ 

should be restricted to a more specific 

period such as ‘‘fruit setting’’ or ‘‘after 

petal fall.’’ 

Our use of the term ‘‘growing season’’ 

is compatible with the specific period 

suggested by the commenter, i.e., from 

fruit set through the end of harvest 

season. 

Mitigations for C. capitata 

We proposed to require in § 319.56– 

58(g)(1) that trapping for C. capitata, a 

fruit fly, be conducted in the places of 

production to demonstrate that those 

places have a low prevalence of C. 

capitata. If the prevalence rises above 

levels specified in the bilateral 

workplan, remedial measures approved 

jointly by APHIS and the NPPO of Spain 

would have to be implemented. We also 

proposed to require in § 319.56–58(g)(2) 

that all apricots for export from 

continental Spain to the United States 

be treated for C. capitata in accordance 

with 7 CFR part 305. 

Referring to the trapping requirements 

we proposed for C. capitata, one 

commenter stated that the threshold of 

0.5 flies per trap per day would not 

allow growers to meet the technical 

guidelines of integrated production and 

would have a negative impact on the 

environmental sustainability of the 

growing region. The commenter stated 

that in accordance with current 

technical standards of integrated 

production used in the Autonomous 

Communities of Spain, 2 flies per trap 

per day is a more accurate intervention 

threshold for C. capitata. 

We are making no changes in 

response to the comment. C. capitata is 

a serious quarantine pest that is not 

present in the United States, but is 

endemic to Spain. Accordingly, we 

require a high level of protection against 

the introduction of C. capitata. The 

threshold of 0.5 flies per trap per day is 

appropriate given apricot’s host status to 

C. capitata and is consistent with other 

import programs, such as the one for 

Spanish clementines. 

We stated in the proposed rule that 

two phytosanitary mitigation measures 

for C. capitata would be required 

because high larval populations in fruit 

can overwhelm the effectiveness of cold 

treatment. We noted that the trapping 

and field mitigation measures together 

would maintain populations of C. 

capitata at acceptably low prevalence 

levels and ensure that cold treatment is 

effective. 

One commenter asked to define what 

we mean by ‘‘high larval populations.’’ 

The commenter stated that such 

language does not provide additional 

information or quantitative scientifically 

supported data and that it would be 

necessary to state whether those 

populations are related to a percentage 

of fruit infestation. 

What APHIS determines to be high 

larval populations varies with the fruit 

in question and the prevalence of C. 

capitata in a particular area. Generally, 

high larval populations are those that 

pose a substantial risk of overwhelming 

pest mitigations that are in place. For 

example, in 2001 high populations of C. 

capitata larvae were detected in 

imported Spanish clementines that had 

undergone cold treatment, some of 

which were alive upon arrival in the 

United States. 

One commenter recommended that all 

treatments of fresh apricot fruit from 

continental Spain should be applied 

prior to importation into the United 

States. 

Pest mitigation measures, including 

treatments approved by APHIS and the 

NPPO of Spain, are applied to the fruit 

prior to its importation to the United 

States. The phytosanitary certificate 

issued by the NPPO of Spain will also 

have to confirm that each consignment 

of apricot fruit has undergone cold 

treatment for C. capitata. 

Post-Harvest Procedures and 

Packinghouse Requirements 

In proposed § 319.56–58(i), we 

included the requirement that, during 

the time the packinghouse is used to 

pack and export apricot fruit to the 

United States, the packinghouse must 

only accept fruit from places of 

production registered and approved by 

the NPPO of Spain. We proposed to 

require the packinghouse to pack no 

fruit for other markets during the time 

it packs apricots produced in 

accordance with the proposed rule’s 

systems approach. 

One commenter suggested that we 

allow packinghouses to pack fruit for 

other markets during the same period, 

but under conditions that would 

prevent commingling of the fruit. The 

conditions they provided were (1) the 

packing lines in packinghouses be 

cleared prior to packing apricots for the 

United States, and (2) fruit destined for 

the United States must always be 

identified and stored separately from 

fruit destined for other markets. The 

commenter added that similar measures 

are already included in preclearance 

work plans for the export of sweet 

oranges, clementines, and other 

mandarins to the United States. 

After careful consideration, we have 

decided to change the rule in response 

to this comment, according to the 

following reasoning. Consider the 

following scenario for apricots produced 

in accordance with the proposed rule. 

There are two areas of pest risk 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 251 / Tuesday, December 31, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 79577 

8https://www.ippc.int/file_uploaded/

1229532867492_ISPM31_2008_E.pdf. 

associated with the packinghouse. There 

is a small risk that C. capitata could 

enter the packinghouse associated with 

other articles destined for other markets, 

move to regulated apricots, and lay eggs 

in those apricots. However, this is 

unlikely because normal packinghouse 

operations make such movement of 

pests between lots exceedingly rare. 

There is a slightly larger risk that 

articles destined for other markets could 

become accidentally mixed with 

regulated apricots and shipped to the 

United States. Such mixing of articles 

could result in C. capitata larvae being 

shipped to the United States. We believe 

both of these areas of risk can be 

controlled using the methods suggested 

by the commenter. Maintaining the 

identity of regulated apricots at the 

packinghouse and ensuring separation 

between them and other articles are the 

key concerns. The proposed rule, in 

§ 319.56–58(a)(4), states that regulated 

apricots must ‘‘remain identifiable when 

the fruit leaves the grove, at the 

packinghouse, and throughout the 

export process.’’ 

This identity requirement will aid 

achieving separation in the 

packinghouse. To fully achieve effective 

separation, we are changing the 

packinghouse requirement in § 319.56– 

58(i) to read as follows: ‘‘During the 

time registered packinghouses are in use 

for packing apricots for export to the 

United States in accordance with the 

requirements of this section, packing 

lines must be cleared of all other articles 

and plant debris prior to packing such 

apricots, and such apricots must be 

stored in a room separate from any other 

fruits or plant articles while the apricots 

are at the packinghouse.’’ 

Phytosanitary Inspection and Certificate 

Two commenters stated that risk 

mitigation measures should include an 

additional high level of inspection by 

APHIS at the U.S. port of entry. 

The risk mitigations we are adding to 

the regulations for the importation of 

fresh apricots from continental Spain 

include two points of inspection, one in 

continental Spain and one at the U.S. 

port of entry. Under § 319.56–58(j)(1), a 

biometric sample of apricots, jointly 

agreed upon by APHIS and the NPPO of 

Spain, will be required to be inspected 

in Spain by the NPPO following postharvest processing. The sample will 

have to be visually inspected for the 

quarantine pests A. erythrostoma, C. 

funebrana, and M. fructigena, and a 

portion of the fruit cut open to inspect 

for the internal pest C. capitata. If any 

of these quarantine pests are found, the 

entire consignment of apricots will be 

prohibited from import into the United 

States. In addition, each lot of apricot 

fruit from continental Spain will have to 

be presented for inspection at the U.S. 

port of entry with an accompanying 

shipping document indicating the place 

of production and the packinghouse in 

which the fruit was processed. Each 

consignment of apricot fruit will have to 

be accompanied by a phytosanitary 

certificate issued by the NPPO of Spain 

stating that the fruit has been treated for 

C. capitata in accordance with 7 CFR 

part 305 and includes an additional 

declaration stating that the fruit in the 

consignment was inspected and found 

free from A. erythrostoma, C. capitata, 

C. funebrana, and M. fructigena. 

One commenter stated that we should 

not suspend exports from the places of 

production if any C. capitata are 

detected in the required postharvest 

inspection of apricots in Spain. The 

commenter stated that a certain 

percentage of infestation should be 

accepted for apricots because they will 

be subjected to a cold treatment, which 

is the case in other operational 

workplans between Spain and the 

United States for the export of sweet 

oranges, clementines, and other 

mandarins. The commenter also stated 

that the phytosanitary certificate should 

not be required to state that the 

consignment is free of C. capitata. 

We are making no changes based on 

this comment. Given the serious threat 

C. capitata poses, we believe that it is 

reasonable to have no tolerance level for 

C. capitata infestation and to stop 

accepting shipments from a place of 

production pending investigation when 

a single larva is found during 

inspection. Furthermore, neither the 

operational workplan nor the 

regulations for importation of sweet 

oranges, clementines, and mandarins 

from Spain have such tolerances. We 

note that the relevant requirement in 

our regulations for the importation of 

clementines from Spain, § 319.56–34(f), 

states that ‘‘If inspectors find a single 

live Mediterranean fruit fly in any stage 

of development during an inspection, 

the entire consignment of clementines 

will be rejected. If a live Mediterranean 

fruit fly in any stage of development is 

found in any two lots of fruit from the 

same orchard during the same shipping 

season, that orchard will be removed 

from the export program for the 

remainder of that shipping season.’’ 

The same commenter suggested a 

biometric sample size of 200 fruits for 

the post-harvest inspection of C. 

capitata. The commenter calculated that 

sample size using the standard in the 

International Standards For 

Phytosanitary Measures No. 31, 

‘‘Methodologies for sampling of 

consignments’’ (International Plant 

Protection Convention, 2009).8 The 

commenter stated that calculating the 

sample size for a 95 percent confidence 

level at a 2 percent level of detection, 

according to a 75 percent efficacy value 

where the lot size is large and 

sufficiently mixed, yields 199 or 200 

fruits by the binomial or Poisson 

distribution, respectively. 

We do not disagree with the 

commenter’s methodology, but as we 

stated in the proposed rule, the actual 

sampling rate will be worked out by 

technical experts in APHIS in 

consultation with the NPPO of Spain. 

The sample size will then be specified 

in the workplan required in § 319.56– 

58(a)(1). Specifying the sample size in 

the workplan rather than in the 

regulations will give us the flexibility to 

raise or lower the fruit sampling rate 

when conditions indicate a higher or 

lower risk of C. capitata infestation. 

Therefore, for the reasons given in the 

proposed rule and in this document, we 

are adopting the proposed rule as a final 

rule, with the changes discussed in this 

document. 

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

This final rule has been determined to 

be not significant for the purposes of 

Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, 

has not been reviewed by the Office of 

Management and Budget. 

In accordance with the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, we have analyzed the 

potential economic effects of this action 

on small entities. The analysis is 

summarized below. 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). 

This rule will amend the regulations 

to allow the importation into the United 

States of fresh apricots from continental 

Spain, subject to a systems approach. 

The economic analysis examines 

impacts for U.S. small entities of a rule 

that would allow fresh apricot imports 

from continental Spain. Spain is 

expected to export at most 10 standard 

shipping containers of fresh apricot per 

year to the United States. Each container 

can hold approximately 18 metric tons 

(MT), thus fresh apricot imports from 

Spain may total as much as 180 MT 

annually. This amount is equivalent to 

about 1 percent of current U.S. 

consumption. With U.S. fresh apricot 

exports four times the quantity 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
79578 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 251 / Tuesday, December 31, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

imported, and the amount expected to 

be imported from Spain very small in 

comparison to current U.S. 

consumption, any market effects of such 

a relatively small change in supply 

would be minor. 

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 final rule allows fresh apricots to 

be imported into the United States from 

continental Spain. State and local laws 

and regulations regarding fresh apricots 

imported under this rule will be 

preempted while the fruit is in foreign 

commerce. Fresh fruits are generally 

imported for immediate distribution and 

sale to the consuming public, and 

remain in foreign commerce until sold 

to the ultimate consumer. The question 

of when foreign commerce ceases in 

other cases must be addressed on a 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. 

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 final rule, 

which were filed under 0579–0402, 

have been submitted for approval to the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB). When OMB notifies us of its 

decision, if approval is denied, we will 

publish a document in the Federal 

Register providing notice of what action 

we plan to take. 

E-Government Act Compliance 

The Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service is committed to 

compliance with the E-Government Act 

to promote the use of the Internet and 

other information technologies, to 

provide increased opportunities for 

citizen access to Government 

information and services, and for other 

purposes. For information pertinent to 

E-Government Act compliance related 

to this rule, please contact Mrs. Celeste 

Sickles, APHIS’ Information Collection 

Coordinator, at (301) 851–2908. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 319 

Coffee, Cotton, Fruits, Imports, Logs, 

Nursery stock, Plant diseases and pests, 

Quarantine, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Rice, 

Vegetables. 

Accordingly, we are amending 7 CFR 

part 319 as follows: 

PART 319–FOREIGN QUARANTINE 

NOTICES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 319 

continues to read as follows: 

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

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

2.22, 2.80, and 371.3. 

■ 2. A new § 319.56–63 is added to read 

as follows: 

§ 319.56–63 Fresh apricots from 

continental Spain. 

Fresh apricots (Prunus armeniaca L.) 

may be imported into the United States 

from continental Spain (excluding the 

Balearic Islands and Canary Islands) 

only under the conditions described in 

this section. These conditions are 

designed to prevent the introduction of 

the following quarantine pests: 

Apiognomonia erythrostoma (Pers.), a 

brown rot fungus; Ceratitis capitata 

Wiedemann, the Mediterranean fruit fly; 

Cydia funebrana (Treitschke), the plum 

fruit moth; and Monilinia fructigena 

Honey, the leaf scorch fungus. 

(a) General requirements. (1) The 

national plant protection organization 

(NPPO) of Spain must provide a 

bilateral workplan to APHIS that details 

the activities that the NPPO of Spain 

will, subject to APHIS’ approval of the 

workplan, carry out to meet the 

requirements of this section. APHIS will 

be directly involved with the NPPO of 

Spain in monitoring and auditing 

implementation of the systems 

approach. The NPPO of Spain must also 

enter into a trust fund agreement with 

APHIS in accordance with § 319.56–6. 

(2) All places of production and 

packinghouses that participate in the 

export program must be registered with 

the NPPO of Spain. 

(3) The fruit must be grown at places 

of production that meet the 

requirements of this section. 

(4) The fruit must be packed for 

export to the United States in a 

packinghouse that meets the 

requirements of paragraph (i) of this 

section. The place of production where 

the apricots were grown must remain 

identifiable when the fruit leaves the 

grove, at the packinghouse, and 

throughout the export process. 

Safeguarding in accordance with 

paragraph (h) of this section must be 

maintained at all times during the 

movement of the apricot fruit to the 

United States and must be intact upon 

arrival of the apricot fruit in the United 

States. 

(b) Commercial consignments. 

Apricots from continental Spain may be 

imported to the United States in 

commercial consignments only. 

(c) Monitoring and oversight. (1) The 

NPPO of Spain, or an authorized person 

designated in the workplan, must visit 

and inspect places of production 

starting at least 1 month (30 days) before 

harvest and continuing until the end of 

the shipping season to verify that 

growers are complying with the 

requirements of this section and to 

follow pest control guidelines, when 

necessary, to reduce quarantine pest 

populations. The NPPO of Spain must 

certify that exporting places of 

production have fruit fly and moth 

trapping programs and follow control 

guidelines, when necessary, to reduce 

regulated pest populations. Any 

personnel conducting trapping and pest 

surveys must be accredited and 

supervised by the NPPO of Spain. 

APHIS may monitor the places of 

production if necessary. 

(2) In addition to conducting fruit 

inspections at the packinghouses, the 

NPPO of Spain must monitor 

packinghouse operations to verify that 

the packinghouses are complying with 

the requirements of this section. 

(3) If the NPPO of Spain finds that a 

place of production or packinghouse 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 of Spain 

conduct an investigation and implement 

appropriate remedial actions. 

(4) The NPPO of Spain must retain 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. 

(d) Grove sanitation. Fruit that has 

fallen from the trees at each place of 

production must be removed and 

destroyed weekly. 

(e) Fungi. During the growing season, 

the NPPO of Spain must conduct 

inspections at intervals specified in the 

workplan in the place of production for 

signs of A. erythrostoma and M. 

fructigena until harvest is completed. 

Infected leaves must be removed from 

places of production to reduce the 

inoculum potential. Upon detection of 

these fungal diseases, the NPPO of 

Spain must notify APHIS, which may 

prohibit the importation into the United 

States of apricots from the production 

site for the season. 

(f) C. funebrana. The NPPO of Spain 

must use one of the following two 

mitigation measures to address the risk 

potential posed by C. funebrana. 

(1) Pest-free area. Under this 

mitigation measure, apricots must 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 251 / Tuesday, December 31, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 79579 

originate from an area designated as free 

of C. funebrana in accordance with 

§ 319.56–5. 

(2) Area of low pest prevalence and 

pest management. Under this mitigation 

measure, the NPPO of Spain must visit 

and visually inspect registered places of 

production during the growing season 

and harvest period for signs of C. 

funebrana to demonstrate that the 

places of production have a low 

prevalence of C. funebrana and to verify 

that the growers are complying with the 

requirements of this paragraph. The 

NPPO of Spain must also sample and 

visually inspect a quantity of fruit 

specified in the workplan. Trapping 

must also be conducted in the places of 

production to demonstrate that the 

places of production have a low 

prevalence of C. funebrana. If the 

prevalence of any life stage of C. 

funebrana rises above levels specified in 

the bilateral workplan, remedial 

measures approved jointly by APHIS 

and the NPPO of Spain must be 

implemented. The NPPO of Spain must 

keep records of the placement of traps, 

trap visits, trap counts, and treatments 

for each registered place of production 

and make the records available to 

APHIS upon request. 

(g) C. capitata. (1) Trapping must be 

conducted in the places of production to 

demonstrate that those places of 

production have a low prevalence of C. 

capitata. Specific trapping requirements 

are included in the bilateral workplan. 

If the prevalence rises above levels 

specified in the bilateral workplan, 

remedial measures approved jointly by 

APHIS and the NPPO of Spain must be 

implemented. The NPPO of Spain must 

keep records of the placement of traps, 

trap visits, trap counts, and treatments 

for each registered place of production 

and make the records available to 

APHIS upon request. 

(2) All apricots for export from 

continental Spain to the United States 

must be treated for C. capitata in 

accordance with part 305 of this 

chapter. 

(h) Post-harvest procedures. The 

apricots must be safeguarded by a pestproof screen, plastic tarpaulin, or by 

some other pest-proof barrier while in 

transit to the packinghouse and while 

awaiting packing. They must be packed 

within 24 hours of harvest into pestproof cartons or containers or covered 

with pest-proof mesh or a plastic 

tarpaulin for transport to the United 

States. These safeguards must remain 

intact until arrival of the consignment in 

the United States. 

(i) Packinghouse requirements. 

Packing of apricots for export to the 

United States must be conducted within 

a packinghouse registered and approved 

by the NPPO of Spain. Packinghouses in 

which apricots are packed for export to 

the United States must be able to 

exclude quarantine pests. All openings 

to the outside of the packinghouse 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 packinghouse must have 

double self-closing doors at the entrance 

to the facility and at the interior 

entrance to the area where the apricots 

are to be packed. During the time 

registered packinghouses are in use for 

packing apricots for export to the United 

States in accordance with the 

requirements of this section, packing 

lines must be cleared of all other articles 

and plant debris prior to packing such 

apricots, and such apricots must be 

stored in a room separate from any other 

fruits or plant articles while the apricots 

are at the packinghouse. 

(j) Phytosanitary inspection. (1) A 

biometric sample of apricot fruit jointly 

agreed upon by APHIS and the NPPO of 

Spain must be inspected in Spain by the 

NPPO of Spain following post-harvest 

processing. The sample must be visually 

inspected for the quarantine pests A. 

erythrostoma, C. funebrana, and M. 

fructigena. A portion of the fruit must be 

cut open and inspected for C. capitata. 

If any of these quarantine pests are 

found, the entire consignment of apricot 

fruit will be prohibited from 

importation into the United States. 

(2) Fruit presented for inspection at a 

U.S. port of entry must be identified in 

the shipping documents accompanying 

each lot of fruit that specify the place of 

production in which the fruit was 

produced and the packinghouse in 

which the fruit was processed. This 

identification must be maintained until 

the fruit is released for entry into the 

United States. 

(k) Phytosanitary certificate. Each 

consignment of apricot fruit must be 

accompanied by a phytosanitary 

certificate issued by the NPPO of Spain 

that states that the fruit has been treated 

for C. capitata in accordance with 7 CFR 

part 305 and includes an additional 

declaration that the fruit in the 

consignment was inspected and found 

free from A. erythrostoma, C. capitata, 

C. funebrana, and M. fructigena. 

(Approved by the Office of Management and 

Budget under control number 0579–0402) 

Done in Washington, DC, this 23rd day of 

December 2013. 

Kevin Shea, 

Administrator, Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 2013–31189 Filed 12–30–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Parts 429 and 431 

[Docket No. EERE–2011–BT–TP–0024] 

RIN 1904–AC46 

Energy Conservation Program: 

Alternative Efficiency Determination 

Methods, Basic Model Definition, and 

Compliance for Commercial HVAC, 

Refrigeration, and WH Equipment 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) is revising its existing 

regulations governing the use of 

particular methods as alternatives to 

testing for the purposes of certifying 

compliance with the applicable energy 

conservation standards and the 

reporting of related ratings for 

commercial and industrial equipment 

covered by EPCA. These regulations 

arose from a negotiated rulemaking 

effort on issues regarding certification of 

commercial heating, ventilating, airconditioning (HVAC), water heating 

(WH), and refrigeration equipment. In 

addition, DOE is amending the 

compliance dates for the initial 

certification of commercial HVAC, WH, 

and refrigeration equipment. 

DATES: Effective Dates: The amendments 

to 10 CFR 429.42, 429.43, 429.44, 

429.70, and Part 431 are effective 

January 30, 2014. The amendments to 

10 CFR 429.12 are effective December 

31, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: This rulemaking can be 

identified by docket number EERE– 

2011–BT–TP–0024 and/or Regulatory 

Identification Number (RIN) 1904– 

AC46. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents, or 

comments received, go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at 

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Ashley Armstrong, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Office, EE–2J, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. Email: 

Ashley.Armstrong@ee.doe.gov. Phone: 

(202) 586–6590; and Ms. Laura Barhydt, 

U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the 

General Counsel, Forrestal Building, 

GC–32, 1000 Independence Avenue 

SW., Washington, DC 20585. Email: 

Laura.Barhydt@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES