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

53424 

Vol. 74, No. 200 

Monday, October 19, 2009 

1The list of areas considered by APHIS to be free 

of fruit flies is located online at (http:// 

www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/plants/ 

manuals/ports/downloads/ 

DesignatedPestFreeAreas.pdf). Commodity import 

treatment requirements can be found in the Fruits 

and Vegetables Import Requirements Database at 

(https://epermits.aphis.usda.gov/manual/ 

index.cfm). 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

7 CFR Part 305 

[Docket No. APHIS-2008-0140] 

Amendments to Treatments for Sweet 

Cherry and Citrus Fruit from Australia 

and Irradiation Dose for Mediterranean 

Fruit Fly 

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: We are proposing to amend 

the regulations pertaining to approved 

phytosanitary treatments of fruits and 

vegetables by adding new treatment 

schedules for sweet cherries and for 

certain species of citrus fruit imported 

from Australia into the United States. 

Based on our treatment evaluation, we 

have determined that the proposed 

treatments would be effective against 

Mediterranean fruit fly and Queensland 

fruit fly, pests associated with sweet 

cherries and citrus fruit from Australia. 

We also propose to establish an 

approved irradiation dose for 

Mediterranean fruit fly of 100 gray, 

which is lower than the generic dose of 

150 gray that is approved for all fruit 

flies. New peer-reviewed data indicate 

that the 100 gray irradiation dose will 

neutralize Mediterranean fruit fly. These 

changes would offer more flexibility in 

treatments while continuing to prevent 

the introduction or interstate movement 

of quarantine pests. 

DATES: We will consider all comments 

that we receive on or before December 

18, 2009. 

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=APHIS2008-0140) to submit or view comments 

and to view supporting and related 

materials available electronically. 

∑ Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: 

Please send two copies of your comment 

to Docket No. APHIS-2008-0140, 

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. APHIS2008-0140. 

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: Dr. 

Inder P.S. Gadh, Senior Risk Manager 

–Treatments, Regulations, Permits, and 

Manuals, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road 

Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; 

(301) 734-8578. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The phytosanitary treatments 

regulations contained in 7 CFR part 305 

(referred to below as the regulations) set 

out standards and schedules for 

treatments required in 7 CFR parts 301, 

318, and 319 for fruits, vegetables, and 

articles to prevent the introduction or 

dissemination of plant pests or noxious 

weeds into or through the United States. 

Section 305.2 lists approved treatments; 

paragraph (h)(2)(i) lists approved 

treatments specifically for imported 

fruits and vegetables. The irradiation 

treatments subpart (§§ 305.31 through 

305.34) sets out standards and 

minimum doses for irradiation 

treatment of imported fruits and 

vegetables and of regulated articles 

moved interstate from quarantined areas 

within the United States. 

We are proposing to amend the 

regulations by adding new treatment 

schedules to the list of approved 

treatments in § 305.2(h)(2)(i) for sweet 

cherries and for citrus fruit imported 

from Australia into the United States. 

These new treatment schedules would 

also be added to the list of approved 

methyl bromide treatments in § 305.6(a) 

and the list of approved cold treatments 

in § 305.16. We also propose to establish 

an approved irradiation dose of 100 gray 

(Gy) for Ceratitis capitata 

(Mediterranean fruit fly, or Medfly). 

This dose is lower than the currently 

approved generic dose of 150 Gy for all 

fruit flies set forth in § 305.31(a). 

Phytosanitary Treatments for Sweet 

Cherries from Australia 

Commercial shipments of fresh sweet 

cherries from Australia may be imported 

into the continental United States and 

Hawaii if the fruit originates from an 

area determined by the Animal and 

Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) 

to be free of fruit flies in accordance 

with § 319.56-5 or if the fruit receives an 

APHIS-approved treatment for fruit flies 

in accordance with treatment schedules 

listed in part 305.1 For Bactrocera tryoni 

(Queensland fruit fly) and Medfly in 

commercial shipments of sweet 

cherries, methyl bromide/cold treatment 

combination treatments T108-a-1, T108- 

a-2, and T108-a-3, listed in 

§ 305.10(a)(3) and performed in 

accordance with the treatment 

conditions in that section, are the 

existing approved treatments. 

While the existing approved 

treatments for sweet cherries are 

effective in treating both Queensland 

fruit fly and Medfly, there are 

production areas of Australia where 

only one of those quarantine pests is 

present, so treatment for both pests is 

not always necessary. Also, in some 

instances, combination treatments for 

sweet cherries have resulted in 

diminished fruit quality. The Australian 

national plant protection organization 

(NPPO) has therefore proposed a cold 

treatment that targets Queensland fruit 

fly and a methyl bromide fumigation 

treatment that targets Medfly. 

APHIS evaluated and approved the 

proposed new treatments, which are 

based on data assembled by the 

Australian NPPO. The results of our 

evaluation are documented in a 

treatment evaluation document titled 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 200 / Monday, October 19, 2009 / Proposed Rules 53425 

2Available on the Internet at (http:// 

www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/plants/ 

manuals/ports/treatment.shtml). 

3 See footnote 1 for a list of areas considered by 

APHIS to be free of fruit flies. 

‘‘ ‘08 Periodic Treatment Amendments 

to 7 CFR Part 305’’ (October 2008). 

Copies of the evaluation 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). We 

determined that the proposed 

treatments will effectively treat 

Queensland fruit fly and Medfly in 

sweet cherries from Australia. As a 

result, we are proposing to add a new 

methyl bromide treatment schedule 

T101-s-1-1 to the list of approved 

treatments in § 305.2(h)(2)(i) for Medfly 

in sweet cherries from Australia. T101- 

s-1-1 would be added to the methyl 

bromide treatment schedules in 

§ 305.6(a) to read as follows: 

Treatment 

schedule Pressure Temperature (°F) Dosage rate (lb/1,000 ft.) Exposure period (hours) 

T101-s-1-1 NAP .................... 63 or above ........................................... 2.5 ...................................... 2 hours 

To ensure the effectiveness of the 

proposed methyl bromide treatment for 

sweet cherries, APHIS has determined 

that a number of specific treatment 

conditions should be followed. The 

conditions, listed below, would be 

included with treatment schedule T101- 

s-1-1 in the Plant Protection and 

Quarantine (PPQ) Treatment Manual.2

∑ Fumigation of cherries only 

∑ Chamber fumigation only 

∑ Load factor must not exceed 21 

percent (by volume) 

∑ Fruit must be fumigated in nonsorptive ventilated export cartons 

∑ Recirculation fan must be operated 

continuously during the fumigation 

Additionally, treatment schedule T101- 

s-1-1 would need to be conducted in 

accordance with the general chemical 

treatment requirements in § 305.5. 

We are also proposing to add a new 

cold treatment schedule T107-d-1 to the 

list of approved treatments in 

§ 305.2(h)(2)(i) for Queensland fruit fly 

in sweet cherries from Australia. T107- 

d-1 would also be added to the list of 

cold treatment schedules in § 305.16 to 

read as follows: 

Treatment 

schedule Temperature (°F) Exposure period 

T107-d-1 33.8 or below ........................................................................................... 14 days 

37.4 or below ........................................................................................... 15 days 

If treatment of sweet cherries for 

either Queensland fruit fly or Medfly is 

based on the product being from an area 

in Australia determined by APHIS to be 

free of one of these pests, this fact must 

be included on the phytosanitary 

certificate in accordance with § 319.56- 

5, which sets out requirements for pestfree areas.3 This is consistent with 

existing certification requirements for 

areas determined by APHIS to be free of 

both pests. Existing treatments for sweet 

cherries would continue to be approved 

treatment options. 

Phytosanitary Treatments for Citrus 

Fruit from Australia 

The Australian NPPO also requested 

that APHIS evaluate and approve 

additional cold treatment schedules for 

certain species of citrus fruit. APHIS 

reviewed the data submitted by the 

Australian NPPO in the treatment 

evaluation document referred to above 

and determined that the proposed 

treatments for citrus to be exported from 

Australia to the United States would be 

effective. As a result, we are proposing 

to add several new cold treatment 

schedules to the list of approved 

treatments in § 305.2(h)(2)(i) for 

Queensland fruit fly and Medfly in 

citrus from Australia. These new 

proposed cold treatments, while less 

stringent than existing treatments, have 

been shown to be effective against their 

respective target pests. 

T107-a-2, the proposed treatment for 

Medfly in oranges and tangors from 

Australia, would be added to the list of 

cold treatment schedules in § 305.16 to 

read as follows: 

Treatment 

schedule Temperature (°F) Exposure period 

T107-a-2 37.4 or below ........................................................................................... 20 days 

T107-a-3, the proposed treatment for 

Medfly in lemons from Australia, would 

be added to the list of cold treatment 

schedules in § 305.16 to read as follows: 

Treatment 

schedule Temperature (°F) Exposure period 

T107-a-3 35.6 or below ........................................................................................... 16 days 

37.4 or below ........................................................................................... 18 days 

T107-d-2, the proposed treatment for 

Queensland fruit fly in oranges, 

tangerines, and tangors from Australia, 

would be added to the list of cold 

treatment schedules in § 305.16 to read 

as follows: 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
53426 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 200 / Monday, October 19, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

4Follet, P. A. and J. W. Armstrong. 2004. Revised 

irradiation doses to control melon fly, 

Mediterranean fruit fly, and Oriental fruit fly 

(Diptera: Tephritidae) and a generic dose for 

tephritid fruit flies. Journal of Economic 

Entomology 97: 1254-1262; Torres-Rivera, Z. and G. 

J. Hallman. 2007. Low-dose irradiation 

phytosanitary treatment against Mediterranean fruit 

fly (Diptera: Tephritidae). Florida Entomologist 90: 

343-346. 

5National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), 

2008 Preliminary Summary. 

Treatment 

schedule Temperature (°F) Exposure period 

T107-d-2 37.4 or below ........................................................................................... 16 days 

T107-d-3, the proposed treatment for 

Queensland fruit fly in lemons from 

Australia, would be added to the list of 

cold treatment schedules in § 305.16 to 

read as follows: 

Treatment 

schedule Temperature (°F) Exposure period 

T107-d-3 37.4 or below ........................................................................................... 14 days 

These treatments would need to be 

conducted in accordance with the 

general cold treatment requirements in 

§ 305.15. These include standards that 

must be met by the facility performing 

cold treatment and the enclosure in 

which cold treatment is performed; 

monitoring requirements; procedural 

requirements for performing cold 

treatment; and a required compliance 

agreement or workplan to ensure that 

these requirements are followed, under 

appropriate oversight from APHIS. 

Existing treatments for citrus fruit 

would continue to be approved 

treatment options. 

Approved Dose for Irradiation 

Treatment for Medfly 

The regulations in § 305.31(a) for 

irradiation treatment of imported fruits 

and vegetables specify minimum 

approved doses ranging from 60 Gy to 

400 Gy, depending on the pests being 

targeted for treatment. The regulations 

for irradiation treatment of regulated 

articles moved interstate from areas 

quarantined for plant pests in § 305.32 

and for articles moved interstate from 

Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin 

Islands in § 305.34 refer to this list of 

approved doses. The fact that the 

required irradiation doses are specific to 

plant pests rather than the commodities 

they are associated with reflects the fact 

that the effectiveness of irradiation 

treatment depends entirely on the dose 

that is absorbed by the commodity. 

Specific characteristics of the fruits or 

vegetables being treated, which may 

need to be considered in developing 

other phytosanitary treatments, are 

irrelevant to the effectiveness of 

irradiation as long as the required 

minimum dose is absorbed. 

As indicated in § 305.31(a), APHIS 

has approved a 150 Gy irradiation dose 

as a treatment to effectively treat pest 

risks associated with fruit flies of the 

family Tephritidae, including Medfly, in 

associated articles. However, data from 

USDA’s Agricultural Research Service, 

reviewed by APHIS and subsequently 

published in peer-reviewed journals,4

demonstrates the effectiveness of a 100 

Gy dose in neutralizing Medfly. It is 

important that required irradiation 

doses for plant pests be set at the lowest 

effective level, as higher doses of 

irradiation treatment cost more to 

administer and can cause some fruits 

and vegetables to undergo undesirable 

changes in color and texture. In 

addition, requiring the lowest effective 

absorbed dose for irradiation treatment 

is consistent with our commitments 

under the International Plant Protection 

Convention to require the least 

restrictive phytosanitary measures 

consistent with achieving adequate 

phytosanitary security. 

We are therefore proposing to amend 

the regulations in § 305.31(a) to specify 

a 100 Gy approved irradiation dose for 

Medfly. The treatment would be 

conducted in accordance with the other 

provisions of § 305.31. 

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

This proposed rule is subject to 

Executive Order 12866. However, for 

this action, the Office of Management 

and Budget has waived its review under 

Executive Order 12866. 

In accordance with the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, we have analyzed the 

potential economic effects of this action 

on small entities. When an agency 

issues a rulemaking proposal, the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

requires the agency to ‘‘prepare and 

make available for public comment an 

initial regulatory flexibility analysis,’’ 

which will ‘‘describe the impact of the 

proposed rule on small entities’’ (5 

U.S.C. § 603(a)). Section 605 of the RFA 

allows an agency to certify a rule, in lieu 

of preparing an analysis, if the proposed 

rulemaking is not expected to have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The following economic analysis 

provides a factual basis to support the 

certification of the proposed rule to 

allow more flexibility in treatments of 

sweet cherries and citrus fruit from 

Australia for Medfly and Queensland 

fruit fly, and to establish a 100 Gy 

approved irradiation dose for Medfly. 

The United States is the secondlargest producer of sweet cherries in the 

world, accounting for more than 10 

percent of world production. Total U.S. 

sweet cherry production in 2008 was 

247,060 tons (224,074 metric tons), 

valued at $570 million. Washington, 

California, Oregon, and Michigan are 

the primary sweet cherry-producing 

States, accounting for more than 97 

percent of the quantity produced 

nationwide. The marketing season for 

U.S. sweet cherries lasts from early May 

to mid-August.5

Globally, the United States is the 

largest fresh cherry trader, with $273 

million in exports and $84 million in 

imports (mostly from Chile) in 2008. 

Cherries have been a popular fruit crop 

for consumption in the United States for 

many years. In 2008, per-person 

consumption of cherries was 2.2 

pounds. 

Tables 1 and 2 show the quantity and 

value of U.S. exports and imports of 

fresh sweet cherries, worldwide and in 

trade with Australia, over the past 5 

years. As shown, fresh sweet cherry 

imports from Australia have been 

minimal, although they increased 

substantially in 2007, to nearly 1 

percent of U.S. fresh cherry imports, 

and again, in 2008, to about 1.4 percent 

of imports. 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 200 / Monday, October 19, 2009 / Proposed Rules 53427 

TABLE 1.—VOLUME OF U.S. TRADE OF FRESH SWEET CHERRIES, IN KILOGRAMS

Year 

U. S. exports to: U. S. imports from: 

World Australia World Australia Import share from Australia 

(percent) 

2004 42,860,778 1,806,426 6,408,946 1,277 0.02 

2005 47,924,605 2,320,227 9,450,547 39,865 0.42 

2006 42,237,537 961,860 12,926,878 2,376 0.02 

2007 51,190,265 1,108,798 15,275,917 144,369 0.95 

2008 45,782,592 1,554,916 24,667,589 342,948 1.39 

Source: Global Trade Atlas, 2009; (http://www.gtis.com/gta/) 

TABLE 2.—VALUE OF U.S. TRADE OF FRESH SWEET CHERRIES, IN MILLION U.S. DOLLARS

Year 

U. S. exports to: U. S. imports from: 

World Australia World Australia Import share from Australia 

(percent) 

2004 $186.865 $10.402 $16.085 $0.013 0.08 

2005 $209.859 $10.000 $29.086 $0.079 0.27 

2006 $204.912 $6.863 $43.454 $0.005 0.01 

2007 $255.669 $7,643 $49.781 $0.274 0.55 

2008 $272.614 $12.025 $84.074 $0.544 0.65 

Source: Global Trade Atlas, 2009; (http://www.gtis.com/gta/) 

After Brazil and China, the United 

States is the world’s third largest 

producer of citrus fruits. Total U.S. 

citrus fruit production in 2008 was 

around 11 million tons. The United 

States is the number one producer of 

grapefruits and the number two 

producer of oranges in the world. The 

two major U.S. citrus-producing States 

are Florida and California, followed by 

Arizona and Texas. 

The United States, Spain, and South 

Africa are the top three exporters of 

citrus, with roughly an equal share of 

exports. Tables 3 and 4 show the 

quantity and value of U.S. exports and 

imports of fresh and dried citrus fruits, 

worldwide and in trade with Australia, 

over the past 5 years. Citrus fruit 

imports from Australia have been 

minimal, between 4.2 and 6.2 percent of 

U.S. citrus imports, and have remained 

relatively steady in terms of volume. In 

terms of value (table 4), the share has 

slightly decreased over the 5-year period 

indicated, from 10.31 percent of the 

total citrus import share in 2004 to 7.66 

percent in 2008. 

TABLE 3.—VOLUME OF U.S. TRADE OF CITRUS FRUIT, FRESH AND DRIED, IN KILOGRAMS

Year 

U. S. exports to: U. S. imports from: 

World Australia World Australia Import share from Australia 

(percent) 

2004 1,064,206,680 14,046,557 478,905,296 26,997,917 5.64 

2005 917,993,249 15,965,437 521,739,701 32,324,028 6.19 

2006 964,067,652 19,074,874 550,692,978 26,771,769 4.86 

2007 835,814,014 24,418,696 678,800,752 34,144,895 5.03 

2008 1,021,730,291 29,577,809 600,297,180 25,347,539 4.22 

Source: Global Trade Atlas, 2009; (http://www.gtis.com/gta/) 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
53428 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 200 / Monday, October 19, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

6NASS, 2002 Economic Census. 

TABLE 4.—VALUE OF U.S. TRADE OF CITRUS FRUIT, IN MILLION U.S. DOLLARS

Year 

U. S. exports to: U. S. imports from: 

World Australia World Australia Import share from Australia 

(percent) 

2004 $667.948 $12.440 $307.146 $31.680 10.31 

2005 $631.538 $16.942 $356.441 $36.381 10.19 

2006 $703.975 $21.597 $407.356 $29.346 7.20 

2007 $699.567 $20.267 $501.064 $41.661 8.31 

2008 $814.667 $28.661 $422.880 $32.404 7.66 

Source: Global Trade Atlas, 2009; (http://www.gtis.com/gta/) 

As shown in tables 1 through 4, the 

United States imports relatively small 

quantities of fresh sweet cherries and 

citrus from Australia. For this reason, 

the proposed rule is expected to have 

minimal economic effects on U.S. 

entities, large or small, including cherry 

and citrus producers, importers, 

wholesalers, and distributors. 

The proposed rule would bring more 

flexibility to the treatment requirements 

for cherries and citrus from Australia, 

but given the minimal quantities 

imported to the United States, this 

change is not expected to significantly 

affect their supply or cost. Likewise, any 

improvements in fruit quality resulting 

from these treatment changes is not 

expected to have a significant impact on 

supply or cost to U.S. consumers or 

producers. 

Any businesses that may be affected 

are likely to be small according to Small 

Business Administration (SBA) 

guidelines. The SBA small-entity 

standard for cherry and citrus farms is 

$750,000 or less in annual receipts. 

APHIS does not have information on the 

size distribution of the relevant 

producers, but according to 2007 U.S. 

Census of Agriculture data, there were 

a total of 2,204,792 farms in the United 

States, of which approximately 97 

percent had annual sales of less than 

$500,000, which is well below the 

SBA’s small entity threshold. In the case 

of fresh fruit and vegetable wholesalers, 

establishments in the category ‘‘Fresh 

Fruit and Vegetable Merchant 

Wholesalers’’ (NAICS 424480) with no 

more than 100 employees are 

considered small by SBA standards. In 

2002, there were a total of 5,397 fresh 

fruit and vegetable wholesale trade 

firms in the United States. Of these 

firms, 4,644 firms operated for the entire 

year; of those firms, 4,436 or 95.5 

percent employed fewer than 100 

employees.6

The proposed changes would reduce 

costs for Australian exporters of fresh 

sweet cherries and citrus to the United 

States by reducing the treatment 

requirements when either Medfly or the 

Queensland fruit fly is present, but not 

both pests. We do not know how 

frequently these circumstances occur. 

Nonetheless, the savings are expected to 

be minimal, and are unlikely to 

significantly affect the quantities of 

fresh sweet cherries or citrus exported 

to the United States. The establishment 

of 100 Gy as the new minimum 

absorbed dose for Medfly may have 

minimal effects for exporters to the 

United States of a range of commodities 

from countries besides Australia. 

However, this change is not expected to 

have a significant effect on the cost or 

supply of U.S. imports irradiated for 

Medfly, because the quantity of fruits, 

vegetables, and other articles irradiated 

for plant pests for import to the United 

States is minimal relative to the overall 

quantity of imported articles treated by 

methods other than irradiation. In 

addition, the revised irradiation dosage 

requirements are not expected to 

significantly affect irradiation treatment 

costs. 

Under these circumstances, the 

Administrator of the Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service has 

determined that this action would not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Executive Order 12372 

This program/activity is listed in the 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

under No. 10.025 and is subject to 

Executive Order 12372, which requires 

intergovernmental consultation with 

State and local officials. (See 7 CFR part 

3015, subpart V.) 

Executive Order 12988 

This proposed rule has been reviewed 

under Executive Order 12988, Civil 

Justice Reform. If this proposed rule is 

adopted: (1) No retroactive effect will be 

given to this rule; and (2) administrative 

proceedings will not be required before 

parties may file suit in court challenging 

this rule. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This proposed rule contains no new 

information collection or recordkeeping 

requirements under the Paperwork 

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

seq.). 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 305 

Irradiation, Phytosanitary treatment, 

Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

■ Accordingly, we propose to amend 7 

CFR part 305 as follows: 

PART 305—PHYTOSANITARY 

TREATMENTS 

1. The authority citation for part 305 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7701-7772 and 7781- 

7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 

2.80, and 371. 3. 

2. In § 305.2, the table in paragraph 

(h)(2)(i) is amended by adding, in 

alphabetical order under Australia, new 

entries for ‘‘Cherry’’, ‘‘Lemons’’, 

‘‘Oranges, tangerines, and tangors’’, and 

‘‘Oranges, tangors’’, to read as follows: 

§305.2 Approved treatments. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(i) * * * 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 200 / Monday, October 19, 2009 / Proposed Rules 53429 

Location Commodity Pest Treatment schedule 

* * * * * * * 

Australia 

* * * * * * * 

Cherry Bactrocera tryoni .......................... T107-d-1. 

Ceratitis capitata ........................... T107-s-1-1. 

* * * * * * * 

Lemons Bactrocera tryoni .......................... T107-d-3. 

Ceratitis capitata ........................... T107-a-3. 

Oranges, tangerines, and tangors Bactrocera tryoni .......................... T107-d-2. 

Oranges, tangors Ceratitis capitata ........................... T107-a-2. 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

3. In § 305.6, the table in paragraph (a) 

is amended by adding, in alphabetical 

order, a new entry for treatment 

schedule T101-s-1-1 to read as follows: 

§305.6 Methyl bromide fumigation 

treatment schedules. 

(a) * * * 

Treatment schedule Pressure Temperature (°F) Dosage rate 

(lb/1000 ft.) 

Exposure period 

(hours) 

* * * * * * * 

T101-s-1-1. NAP ................................... 63 or above ....................... 2.5 ..................................... 2 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

4. In § 305.16, the table is amended by 

adding, in alphabetical order, new 

entries for treatment schedules T107-a2, T107-a-3, T107-d-1, T107-d-2, and 

T107-d-3, to read as follows: 

§ 305.16 Cold treatment schedules. 

Treatment schedule Temperature (°F) Exposure period 

* * * * * * * 

T107-a-2. 37.4 or below .................................................... 20 days. 

T107-a-3. 35.6 or below .................................................... 16 days. 

37.4 or below .................................................... 18 days. 

* * * * * * * 

T107-d-1. 33.8 or below .................................................... 14 days. 

37.4 or below .................................................... 15 days. 

T107-d-2. 37.4 or below .................................................... 16 days. 

T107-d-3. 37.4 or below .................................................... 14 days. 

* * * * * * * 

5. In § 305.31, the table in paragraph 

(a) is amended by adding, in 

alphabetical order, a new entry for 

Ceratitis capitata to read as follows: 

§305.31 Irradiation treatment of imported 

regulated articles for certain plant pests. 

(a) * * * 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
53430 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 200 / Monday, October 19, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

Scientific name Common name Dose (gray) 

* * * * * * * 

Ceratitis capitata ................................................ Mediterranean fruit fly ...................................... 100 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

Done in Washington, DC, this 6th day 

of October, 2009. 

Kevin Shea, 

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–25120 Filed 10–16–09: 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE: 3410–34–S 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2008–0295; Directorate 

Identifier 2007–NM–298–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing 

Model 757 Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM); 

reopening of comment period. 

SUMMARY: We are revising an earlier 

proposed airworthiness directive (AD) 

for all Boeing Model 757–200, –200PF, 

–200CB, and –300 series airplanes. The 

original NPRM would have required an 

inspection of the two spring arms in the 

spin brake assemblies in the nose wheel 

well to determine if the spring arms are 

made of aluminum or composite 

material, and repetitive related 

investigative/corrective actions if 

necessary. The original NPRM resulted 

from reports of cracked and broken 

aluminum springs. This action revises 

the original NPRM to include a parts 

installation paragraph and to provide 

options for terminating the repetitive 

actions. We are proposing this 

supplemental NPRM to detect and 

correct cracked or broken springs. A 

cracked or broken spring could separate 

from the airplane and result in potential 

hazard to persons or property on the 

ground, or ingestion into the engine 

with engine damage and potential 

shutdown, or damage to the airplane. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this supplemental NPRM by November 

13, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

For service information identified in 

this proposed AD, contact Boeing 

Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data 

& Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, 

MC 2H–65, Seattle, Washington 98124– 

2207; telephone 206–544–5000, 

extension 1, fax 206–766–5680; e-mail 

me.boecom@boeing.com; Internet 

https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You 

may review copies of the referenced 

service information at the FAA, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 

Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington. 

For information on the availability of 

this material at the FAA, call 425–227– 

1221 or 425–227–1152. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov; or in person at the 

Docket Management Facility between 9 

a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD 

docket contains this proposed AD, the 

regulatory evaluation, any comments 

received, and other information. The 

street address for the Docket Office 

(telephone 800–647–5527) is in the 

ADDRESSES section. Comments will be 

available in the AD docket shortly after 

receipt. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Chris Hartman, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, 

Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, 

Washington 98057–3356; telephone 

(425) 917–6432; fax (425) 917–6590. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to send any written 

relevant data, views, or arguments about 

this proposed AD. Send your comments 

to an address listed under the 

ADDRESSES section. Include ‘‘Docket No. 

FAA–2008–0295; Directorate Identifier 

2007–NM–298–AD’’ at the beginning of 

your comments. We specifically invite 

comments on the overall regulatory, 

economic, environmental, and energy 

aspects of this proposed AD. We will 

consider all comments received by the 

closing date and may amend this 

proposed AD because of those 

comments. 

We will post all comments we 

receive, without change, to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information you provide. We 

will also post a report summarizing each 

substantive verbal contact we receive 

about this proposed AD. 

Discussion 

We issued a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) (the ‘‘original 

NPRM’’) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to 

include an airworthiness directive (AD) 

that would apply to all Boeing Model 

757–200, –200PF, –200CB, and –300 

series airplanes. That original NPRM 

was published in the Federal Register 

on March 13, 2008 (73 FR 13492). That 

original NPRM proposed to require an 

inspection of the two spring arms in the 

spin brake assemblies in the nose wheel 

well to determine if the spring arms are 

made of aluminum or composite 

material, and repetitive related 

investigative/corrective actions if 

necessary. 

Comments 

We gave the public the opportunity to 

participate in developing this AD. We 

considered the comments received from 

the seven commenters. 

Request To Refer to Revision 1 of the 

Service Bulletin 

Boeing and Air Transport Association 

(ATA), on behalf of its member 

American Airlines (AAL), request that 

we include Revision 1 of Boeing Special 

Attention Service Bulletin 757–32– 

0176, dated October 16, 2008, in the AD. 

(We referred to the original issue, 

Boeing Special Attention Service 

Bulletin 757–32–0176, dated September 

10, 2007, as the appropriate source of 

service information in the original 

NPRM.) Boeing points out that the 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS