79568 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 251 / Tuesday, December 31, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

1To view the proposed rule, supporting 

documents, and the comments we received, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2012-0002. 

2 In this final rule, the provisions of the systems 

approach are added as § 319.56–64. We discuss the 

comments in terms of provisions of proposed 

§ 319.56–58 so that the reader can follow along with 

the proposal. 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

7 CFR Part 319 

[Docket No. APHIS–2012–0002] 

RIN 0579–AD63 

Importation of Avocados 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 of avocados from 

continental Spain (excluding the 

Balearic Islands and Canary Islands) 

into the United States. As a condition of 

entry, avocados from 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 the 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. Consignments of avocados 

other than the Hass variety would also 

have to be treated for the Mediterranean 

fruit fly either prior to moving to the 

United States or upon arrival prior to 

release. This action will allow for the 

importation of avocados 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 319.56–63, 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 that are 

new to or not widely distributed within 

the United States. 

On January 30, 2013, the Animal and 

Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) 

published in the Federal Register (78 

FR 6222–6227, Docket No. APHIS– 

2012–0002), a proposal 1 to amend the 

fruits and vegetables regulations to 

allow the importation of avocados from 

continental Spain (excluding the 

Balearic Islands and Canary Islands) 

into the United States subject to a 

systems approach and treatment. We 

proposed to allow the importation of 

avocados from continental Spain only if 

they were produced in accordance with 

a systems approach jointly agreed upon 

in a bilateral workplan between APHIS 

and the national plant protection 

organization (NPPO) of Spain. The 

systems approach addresses one pest of 

quarantine significance present in 

continental Spain that could be 

introduced into the United States 

through the importation of avocados. 

That pest is Ceratitis capitata 

(Wiedemann), the Mediterranean fruit 

fly. 

The proposed systems approach 

included the following requirements: 

• Registration, monitoring, and 

oversight of places of production; 

• Grove sanitation; 

• Harvesting requirements for 

safeguarding and identification of the 

fruit; 

• Packinghouse requirements for 

safeguarding and identification of the 

fruit; 

• Inspection by the NPPO of Spain for 

C. capitata; and 

• Cold treatment for avocado varieties 

other than Hass. 

Additionally, we proposed that all 

avocados from Spain must be 

accompanied by a phytosanitary 

certificate issued by the NPPO of Spain. 

The phytosanitary certificate 

accompanying Hass variety avocados 

would have to 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. The phytosanitary certificate 

accompanying non-Hass avocados 

would have to 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, and, if treated prior to export, 

that the consignment has been treated 

for C. capitata in accordance with 7 CFR 

part 305. We proposed to add these 

requirements to the regulations in a new 

§ 319.56–58 titled Avocados from 

continental Spain.2

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 32183–32184, Docket No. APHIS– 

2012–0002). We received 20 comments 

by that date. They were from the 

European Union (EU), a State 

department of agriculture, an 

organization representing State plant 

regulatory agencies, domestic avocado 

growers, and private citizens. They are 

discussed below by topic. 

One commenter stated that the 

proposed rule identifies the NPPO of 

Spain as the body responsible for 

conducting and supervising inspections, 

monitoring, trapping, surveying, etc., in 

the systems approach. However, there 

are other bodies and stakeholders 

involved, such as the Spanish 

Autonomous Communities (the firstlevel political and administrative 

divisions in Spain), auditing companies, 

integrated pest management 

associations, and field technicians and 

advisors, as defined by Directive 2009/ 

128/EC of the European Parliament and 

of the Council of October 21, 2009, 

establishing a framework for EU action 

to achieve the sustainable use of 

pesticides. The commenter stated that 

responsibilities of each partner should 

be specified in future workplans under 

the rules. 

Under APHIS 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. Whether the NPPO 

achieves this through other parties 

whose roles are described in EC 

Directives or other means is an internal 

matter not subject to our regulations. If 

the NPPO desires, workplans for the 

avocado 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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 251 / Tuesday, December 31, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 79569 

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 comment addressed the 

requirement proposed in § 319.56– 

58(b)(1) that ‘‘[t]he NPPO of Spain must 

visit and inspect registered places of 

production monthly, starting at least 2 

months before harvest and continuing 

until the end of the shipping season, to 

verify that the growers are complying’’ 

with proposed requirements. The 

commenter stated that the harvest 

period is approximately February 1 

through May 1, which would mean six 

inspections from December to May. The 

commenter stated that six inspection 

visits are unnecessary and not costeffective, 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 noted 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. 

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 also 

note that the term ‘‘before harvest’’ 

refers to the harvest as conducted at 

each production site, not to the harvest 

season in general. This could result in 

fewer inspections in some cases. For 

example, if a production site begins its 

harvest on February 15 and ends it April 

15, its inspections could be scheduled 

on January, February, March, and April 

10 (or various other dates), for a total of 

four inspections. We also note that, as 

discussed above, production site 

inspections are the responsibility of the 

NPPO and must be done under NPPO 

direction to verify the conditions and 

actions required by the regulations and 

workplan. 

While the responsibility for 

inspections remains with the NPPO, the 

identity of the personnel authorized to 

conduct inspection-related activities 

may be determined by the NPPO and 

specified in the workplan. We 

understand that in some cases the NPPO 

may authorize personnel who are not 

NPPO employees, 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. To make this clear, in this final 

rule we are changing the relevant 

sentence in proposed § 319.56–58(b)(1) 

to read ‘‘The NPPO of Spain, or an 

authorized person designated in the 

workplan, must visit and inspect. . . .’’ 

One commenter noted that proposed 

§ 319.56–58(e)(1) would require a 

registered packinghouse to pack no fruit 

for other markets during a period when 

it packs avocados produced in 

accordance with the proposed rule’s 

systems approach. The commenter 

suggested that packinghouses should be 

allowed to pack fruit for other markets 

during the same period under 

conditions to prevent commingling, i.e., 

that (1) the packing lines in 

packinghouses be cleared prior to 

packing avocados for the United States; 

and (2) fruit destined to the United 

States must always be identified and 

stored separately from fruit destined to 

other markets. The commenter stated 

that this is similar to measures for the 

program to export sweet oranges, 

clementines, and other mandarins from 

Spain 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 avocados 

produced in accordance with the 

proposed rule (regulated avocados). 

There are two areas of pest risk 

associated with the packinghouse. There 

is a very minor risk that C. capitata 

could enter the packinghouse associated 

with other articles destined for other 

markets, move to regulated avocados, 

and lay eggs in the regulated avocados. 

This is very 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 

avocados and shipped to the United 

States. If the other articles were better 

hosts than regulated avocados, e.g., 

untreated non-Hass avocado varieties or 

even fruits other than avocados, such 

admixture 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 type of 

methods suggested by the commenter. 

Maintaining the identity of regulated 

avocados at the packinghouse and 

ensuring separation between them and 

other articles are the key concerns. The 

proposed rule, in § 319.56–58(d), states 

that regulated avocados 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 proposed 

§ 319.56–58(e)(1) to read as follows: 

‘‘During the time registered 

packinghouses are in use for packing 

avocados 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 avocados, 

and such avocados must be stored in a 

room separate from any other fruits, 

plant articles, and other potential C. 

capitata hosts while the avocados are at 

the packinghouse.’’ 

Another commenter stated that the 

proposal indicates ‘‘Packinghouses 

should not pack avocados for other 

countries while packing for the United 

States.’’ The commenter stated that this 

language needs to be more directive and 

inclusive, such as: ‘‘During the time the 

packinghouse is in use for exporting 

avocados to the United States, the 

packinghouse may only receive fruit 

from registered, approved places of 

production.’’ 

The sentence containing the word 

‘‘should’’ that was quoted by the 

commenter appears in the risk 

management document (RMD) that was 

prepared prior to the proposed rule and 

made available with it. The RMD was an 

evaluative and advisory document that 

was used during decisionmaking for the 

proposed rule. The corresponding 

language in § 319.56–58(e) of the 

proposed rule was mandatory, and read 

‘‘packinghouses may only accept 

avocados that are from registered places 

of production.’’ However, as discussed 

with regard to the comment above, we 

have changed the standard in this final 

rule for the circumstances under which 

other articles may be allowed in a 

packinghouse at the same time as 

regulated avocados. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
79570 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 251 / Tuesday, December 31, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

The same commenter stated that, 

while the proposed rule calls for 

registered orchards to practice field 

sanitation and pest control measures, 

there is no requirement for trapping to 

monitor for C. capitata in avocado 

production blocks. 

That is correct, and we are not making 

any change in response to this 

comment. A specific trapping 

requirement is not necessary because 

the foundation of the proposal is not 

freedom of the grove areas from C. 

capitata, but rather the 2010 APHIS 

finding that intact Hass avocados with 

the stem attached are not a host to C. 

capitata and our requirement for 

treatment of other avocado varieties that 

are better hosts. We note that while 

trapping is not needed and therefore is 

not required by the proposed rule, it is 

necessary and required for export of 

articles that are better C. capitata hosts, 

e.g., citrus, and that to the best of our 

knowledge the regions that will be 

exporting Hass avocados also export 

citrus. In those regions, the autonomous 

communities conduct annual surveys 

for C. capitata and perform mass 

trapping and surveillance trapping 

under the Mediterranean fruit fly 

management program established by the 

Government of Spain (see, e.g., ‘‘Real 

Decreto 461/2004, de 18 de marzo, por 

el que se establece el Programa nacional 

de control de la mosca mediterra ́nea de 

la fruta’’ at http://

www.lexureditorial.com/boe/0404/

05823.htm). 

One commenter stated that allowing 

avocado imports instead of supporting 

the domestic avocado industry is shortsighted and counter-productive, and 

noted that domestic growers have 

recently been challenged by both 

natural factors (such as cold, wind, heat, 

fire, and lack of water) as well as market 

conditions. Several other commenters 

objected in general terms to the 

economic effects of importing avocados 

rather than relying on domestic 

production. 

We are not making any change in 

response to this comment. The Plant 

Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.), 

the authorizing statute for APHIS’ planthealth-related activities, authorizes the 

Secretary of Agriculture to prohibit or 

restrict the importation of any plant 

product if the Secretary determines that 

the prohibition or restriction is 

necessary to prevent the introduction of 

a plant pest or noxious weed into the 

United States. We have determined that 

the measures in the systems approach 

we proposed, amended as described 

earlier, are sufficient to prevent the 

introduction of any plant pests. The 

factors cited by the commenters are not 

within our decisionmaking authority 

under the Act. 

We have analyzed the economic 

effects of this rule as required by 

Executive Order 12866 and the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act, both in the 

proposed rule and in the section below. 

Part of this analysis concluded that it is 

likely that at least a portion of the 

projected avocado imports from Spain 

would displace imports from other 

foreign sources rather than domestic 

sources when fresh avocado supplies 

are low and demand is high. The 

analysis also concluded that the 

projected volume of avocado imports 

from Spain, a few hundred metric tons, 

is well under half of 1 percent of 

domestic production and would 

therefore have minor economic effects. 

The Florida Department of 

Agriculture and Consumer Services 

commented on the requirement in 

proposed § 319.56–58(a)(5) that 

avocados other than Hass variety from 

continental Spain must be treated for C. 

capitata. We proposed to require cold 

treatment in accordance with the 

regulations in 7 CFR 305.6, which 

allows treatment to occur prior to export 

to the United States, or upon arrival 

prior to release. The commenter stated 

that allowing untreated product into 

Florida for treatment would greatly 

increase the possibility of introducing C. 

capitata and is a major departure from 

long-standing plant protection 

protocols. It also stated that the required 

treatments should not preclude an 

additional high level of inspection at the 

port of entry to ensure procedures are in 

place to confirm the treatments were 

applied properly. 

We are not making any change to the 

rule in response to this comment. The 

rule will not authorize treatment of any 

avocados in Florida. We expect postarrival cold treatment will be infrequent 

since the industry norm is cold 

treatment prior to departure or in 

transit. Further, the regulations will 

continue to prohibit cold treatment after 

arrival in Florida. The current 

regulations on cold treatment, 7 CFR 

305.6, allow the establishment of cold 

treatment facilities for imported articles 

in certain specific areas of the United 

States as follows. Facilities may be 

located on the mainland United States 

either in the area that is north of 39° 

latitude and east of 104° longitude, or 

under special conditions at one of the 

following ports: The maritime ports of 

Wilmington, NC; Seattle, WA; Corpus 

Christi, TX; and Gulfport, MS; SeattleTacoma International Airport, Seattle, 

WA; and Hartsfield-Atlanta 

International Airport, Atlanta, GA. In a 

recent proposed rule (78 FR 27864– 

27866; Docket No. APHIS–2012–0089, 

published May 13, 2013), we proposed 

adding MidAmerica St. Louis Airport, 

Mascoutah, IL, to this list. 

The ability of these facilities to 

conduct cold treatments without 

spreading and establishing fruit fly 

populations has been documented 

several times, most recently in a 

treatment evaluation document 

prepared for the proposed rule 

mentioned above, and in an earlier 

APHIS study ‘‘Characterizing and 

mitigating relative risk associated with 

the movement of tropical fruit fly host 

material into the United States for cold 

treatment at certain ports.’’ Both of these 

documents have been added to the 

administrative record for this rule, 

available at http://www.regulations.gov/ 

#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2012-0002. 

With regard to the commenter’s 

second point about inspection levels at 

the port of entry, APHIS inspection will 

serve as a check on the effectiveness of 

the systems approach. We do not plan 

to inspect at a higher level than our 

usual level, unless evidence indicates 

that there may be a problem with the 

implementation of the systems 

approach. We have found the NPPO of 

Spain to have the necessary resources 

and capacity to implement the systems 

approach, but will continually monitor 

the program’s effectiveness through 

activities both in Spain and through 

inspections upon arrival. 

This commenter also asked what 

corrective measures will be taken to 

prevent a reoccurrence if inspectors find 

live larvae during inspection, and what 

penalties will apply in such cases. 

Proposed § 319.56–58(f) stated that if 

any C. capitata are detected in the 

required postharvest inspection in 

Spain, 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. If 

any C. capitata are detected through 

inspection at arrival, APHIS will refuse 

entry to the shipment unless an 

inspector finds it can be treated to 

destroy the pests, and APHIS may also 

order the place of production where the 

infested avocados were grown to be 

immediately suspended from the export 

program pending an investigation. 

Another commenter stated that we 

should not apply the proposed 

§ 319.56–58(f) requirement to non-Hass 

variety avocados. Under that 

requirement, if any C. capitata are 

detected in the required postharvest 

inspection in Spain of non-Hass 

avocados, the place of production where 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 251 / Tuesday, December 31, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 79571 

3To view this and other ISPMs on the Internet, 

go to http://www.ippc.int/IPP/En/default.jsp and 

click on the ‘‘Adopted ISPMs’’ link under the 

‘‘Standards (ISPMs)’’ heading. 

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. 

The commenter noted that this means 

that if a single larva of C. capitata is 

found, the entire consignment of nonHass avocados would be rejected. 

However, a certain percentage of 

infestation should be accepted for nonHass varieties because they will be 

subjected to a cold treatment. The 

commenter stated that this is the case in 

other bilateral workplans between the 

United States and Spain, e.g., the 

preclearance operational workplan for 

the export of sweet oranges, 

clementines, and other mandarins from 

Spain. 

We are not making any change 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 

production site pending investigation 

when a single larvae is found during 

inspection. Furthermore, neither the 

operational plan nor the regulations for 

shipment of sweet oranges, clementines, 

and mandarins has such a tolerance. 

The regulations in this area are even 

stricter, in consideration of the better 

host status of such citrus. The relevant 

section for clementines, § 319.56–34(f), 

states ‘‘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.’’ 

One commenter suggested a biometric 

sample size of 200 fruits for the postharvest inspection of C. capitata. The 

commenter calculated that sample size 

using the standard in International 

Standards for Phytosanitary Measures 

(ISPM) No. 31, ‘‘Methodologies for 

sampling of consignments’’ (IPPC, 

2009 3). The commenter stated that 

calculating sample size for 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 stated 

in the proposed rule, the actual 

sampling rate with be worked out by 

technical experts in APHIS in 

consultation with their counterparts in 

the NPPO of Spain. The sample size will 

then be specified in the workplan 

required by proposed § 319.56–58(a). 

Specifying the sample size in the 

workplan rather than 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 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 set 

forth below. 

In response to a request by the NPPO 

of Spain that APHIS authorize market 

access for commercial shipments of 

fresh avocados into the United States, 

APHIS is allowing the importation of 

such shipments if Spain produces the 

avocados in accordance with a systems 

approach intended to prevent the 

introduction of quarantine pests. 

In 2009, the United States was the 

world’s third largest avocado producer, 

after Mexico and Chile; the United 

States accounted for about 7 percent of 

global production, while Mexico and 

Chile accounted for 32 percent and 9 

percent, respectively. Commercial 

production of avocado occurs in three 

States. California accounts for about 90 

percent of U.S. production, followed by 

Florida with about 9 percent, and 

Hawaii with less than 1 percent. In 

2010, U.S. utilized production of 

avocado totaled about 135,500 metric 

tons (MT), only one-half of the 271,000 

MT produced in 2009, and indicative of 

the significant variability in yield from 

year to year. 

In the last decade, U.S. per capita 

consumption of avocado has risen 

significantly, from 1 kilogram in 2000 to 

1.86 kilograms in 2010, representing an 

annual growth rate of about 6.4 percent. 

Although the United States is a major 

producer of avocado, it is also the 

largest import market (since 2002) and 

has been a net importer since the late 

1980s. During this time, the gap 

between U.S. imports and U.S. exports 

has widened substantially. The average 

annual value of U.S. avocado imports, 

2008–2010, was nearly $622 million, 

compared to average annual exports 

valued at less than $16 million. 

Spanish avocado producers expect to 

export to the United States about 260 

MT of fresh avocado annually, an 

amount equivalent to 0.15 percent of 

U.S. production, 0.07 percent of U.S. net 

imports (imports minus exports), and 

0.05 percent of U.S. supply (production 

plus net imports), based on 2008–2010 

average annual U.S. production and 

trade quantities. 

Entities that may be directly affected 

by the rule are U.S. importers and 

producers of avocado. Avocado 

importers are classified in the North 

American Industry Classification 

System (NAICS) under Fresh Fruit and 

Vegetable Merchant Wholesalers 

(NAICS 424480). Avocado producers are 

classified under Other Noncitrus Fruit 

Farming (NAICS 111339). The Small 

Business Administration (SBA) has 

established guidelines for determining 

which establishments are to be 

considered small. A firm primarily 

engaged in fresh fruit and vegetable 

wholesaling is considered small if it 

employs not more than 100 persons. A 

firm primarily engaged in noncitrus 

fruit farming is considered small if it 

has annual sales of not more than 

$750,000. 

In 2007, nearly 95 percent of fruit and 

vegetable wholesale establishments 

(4,207 of 4,437 businesses) that operated 

the entire year were small by the SBA’s 

small-entity threshold of not more than 

100 employees. That same year, nearly 

93 percent of farms that sold fruits, tree 

nuts, or berries (104,424 of 112,690 

operations) had annual sales of less than 

$500,000, well below the SBA’s smallentity threshold of $750,000. The subset 

of these farms that comprise the 

industry Other Noncitrus Fruit Farming 

numbered 23,641, and can be assumed 

to be also primarily composed of small 

entities. Of these Other Noncitrus Fruit 

Farming establishments, there were 

8,245 avocado farms in 2007, also 

presumed to be principally small 

operations. 

While most entities that may be 

affected by the rule are small, any 

effects should be insignificant because 

of the small quantity of avocado 

expected to be imported from 

continental Spain. 

Under these circumstances, the 

Administrator of the Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service has 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
79572 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 251 / Tuesday, December 31, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

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 avocados to be 

imported into the United States from 

continental Spain. State and local laws 

and regulations regarding avocados 

imported under this rule will be 

preempted while the fruit is in foreign 

commerce. Fresh avocados are generally 

imported for immediate distribution and 

sale to the consuming public and would 

remain in foreign commerce until sold 

to the ultimate consumer. The question 

of when foreign commerce ceases in 

other cases must be addressed on a caseby-case basis. No retroactive effect will 

be given to this rule, and this rule will 

not require administrative proceedings 

before parties may file suit in court 

challenging this rule. 

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 0579–0400, 

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 EGovernment Act 

to promote the use of the Internet and 

other information technologies, to 

provide increased opportunities for 

citizen access to Government 

information and services, and for other 

purposes. For information pertinent to 

E-Government Act compliance related 

to this rule, please contact Mrs. Celeste 

Sickles, APHIS’ Information Collection 

Coordinator, at (301) 851–2908. 

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 § 319.56–64 is added to read 

as follows: 

§ 319.56–64 Avocados from continental 

Spain. 

Fresh avocados (Persea americana P. 

Mill.) 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 

quarantine pest Ceratitis capitata 

(Wiedemann), the Mediterranean fruit 

fly. 

(a) General requirements. (1) The 

national plant protection organization 

(NPPO) of Spain must provide a 

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. The NPPO 

of Spain must also establish a trust fund 

in accordance with § 319.56–6. 

(2) The avocados must be grown at 

places of production in continental 

Spain that are registered with the NPPO 

of Spain and that meet the requirements 

of this section. 

(3) The avocados must be packed for 

export to the United States in 

packinghouses that are registered with 

the NPPO of Spain and that meet the 

requirements of this section. 

(4) Avocados from Spain may be 

imported in commercial consignments 

only. 

(5) Avocados other than Hass variety 

from continental Spain must be treated 

for C. capitata in accordance with part 

305 of this chapter. 

(b) Monitoring and oversight. (1) The 

NPPO of Spain, or an authorized person 

designated in the workplan, must visit 

and inspect registered places of 

production monthly, starting at least 1 

month before harvest and continuing 

until the end of the shipping season, to 

verify that the growers are complying 

with the requirements of paragraph (c) 

of this section and follow pest control 

guidelines, when necessary, to reduce 

quarantine pest populations. 

(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 paragraph (e) 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 

appropriate remedial actions have been 

implemented. 

(4) The NPPO of Spain must retain all 

forms and documents related to export 

program activities in groves and 

packinghouses for at least 1 year and, as 

requested, provide them to APHIS for 

review. 

(c) Grove sanitation. Avocado fruit 

that has fallen from the trees must be 

removed from each place of production 

at least once every 7 days, starting 2 

months before harvest and continuing to 

the end of harvest. Fallen avocado fruit 

may not be included in field containers 

of fruit brought to the packinghouse to 

be packed for export. 

(d) Harvesting requirements. 

Harvested avocados must be placed in 

field cartons or containers that are 

marked with the official registration 

number of the place of production. The 

place of production where the avocados 

were grown must remain identifiable 

when the fruit leaves the grove, at the 

packinghouse, and throughout the 

export process. The fruit must be moved 

to a registered packinghouse within 3 

hours of harvest or must be protected 

from fruit fly infestation until moved. 

The fruit must be safeguarded by an 

insect-proof screen or plastic tarpaulin 

while in transit to the packinghouse and 

while awaiting packing. 

(e) Packinghouse requirements. (1) 

During the time registered 

packinghouses are in use for packing 

avocados 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 avocados, 

and such avocados must be stored in a 

room separate from any other fruits, 

plant articles, and other potential C. 

capitata hosts while the avocados are at 

the packinghouse. 

(2) Avocados must be packed within 

24 hours of harvest in an insectexclusionary packinghouse. 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 doors 

at the entrance to the facility and at the 

interior entrance to the area where the 

avocados are packed. 

(3) Before packing, all avocados must 

be cleaned of all plant debris. 

(4) Boxes or cartons in which 

avocados are packed must be labeled 

with a lot number that provides 

information to identify the orchard 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
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