This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains regulatory documents having general

applicability and legal effect, most of which

are keyed to and codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations, which is published under

50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by

the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of

new books are listed in the first FEDERAL

REGISTER issue of each week.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

4451 

Vol. 71, No. 18 

Friday, January 27, 2006 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

7 CFR Parts 301, 305, 318, and 319 

[Docket No. 03–077–2] 

Treatments for Fruits and Vegetables 

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are amending the 

regulations by revising the approved 

doses for irradiation treatment of 

imported fruits and vegetables. This rule 

will establish a new minimum generic 

dose of irradiation for most plant pests 

of the class Insecta, establish a new 

minimum generic dose for the fruit fly 

family, reduce the minimum dose of 

irradiation for some specific fruit fly 

species, add 10 pests to the list of pests 

for which irradiation is an approved 

treatment at less than the generic dose, 

and provide for the use of irradiation as 

a treatment for cut flowers and foliage. 

These actions will allow the use of 

irradiation to neutralize more pests and 

to neutralize some pests at lower doses. 

Furthermore, we are providing for the 

irradiation of fruits and vegetables 

moved interstate from Hawaii at the 

pest-specific irradiation doses that are 

now approved for imported fruits and 

vegetables. We are also providing for the 

use of irradiation to treat fruits and 

vegetables moved interstate from Puerto 

Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. These 

actions will allow irradiation to serve as 

an alternative to other approved 

treatments for additional commodities 

moved interstate from Hawaii, Puerto 

Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. 

Finally, we are adding irradiation as a 

treatment for bananas from Hawaii and 

adding vapor-heat treatment as an 

optional treatment for sweetpotatoes 

from Hawaii. These actions will provide 

an alternative to the currently approved 

treatments for those commodities while 

continuing to provide protection against 

the spread of plant pests from Hawaii 

into the continental United States. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 27, 2006. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Inder P.S. Gadh, Senior Risk Manager, 

Commodity Import Analysis & 

Operations, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River 

Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737– 

1236; (301) 734–8758. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The phytosanitary treatments 

regulations contained in 7 CFR part 305 

set out standards and schedules for 

treatments required in 7 CFR parts 301, 

318, and 319 for fruits, vegetables, and 

other articles to prevent the 

introduction or dissemination of plant 

pests or noxious weeds into or through 

the United States. Within 7 CFR part 

305, the irradiation treatments subpart 

(§§ 305.31 through 305.34, referred to 

below as the regulations) sets out 

standards and minimum doses for 

irradiation treatment for imported fruits 

and vegetables and for regulated articles 

moved interstate from quarantined areas 

within the United States, along with 

other requirements for performing 

irradiation treatments. 

On June 10, 2005, we published in the 

Federal Register (70 FR 33857–33873, 

Docket No. 03–077–1) a proposal to 

amend the regulations by making 

several amendments to the irradiation 

treatment regulations for imported fruits 

and vegetables, for fruits and vegetables 

moved interstate from Hawaii, Puerto 

Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, and 

for regulated articles moved interstate 

from areas quarantined for Mexican fruit 

fly or Mediterranean fruit fly. We also 

proposed to provide for the use of 

irradiation treatment for bananas moved 

interstate from Hawaii and to provide 

for the use of a vapor heat treatment for 

sweetpotatoes moved interstate from 

Hawaii. 

On June 20, 2005, the Federal 

Register published a correction (70 FR 

35500) to the table in § 305.31(a) of our 

proposal in which the generic dose for 

all pests of the phylum Arthropoda, 

excluding adults and pupae of the order 

Lepidoptera, was corrected to read 400 

gray. 

We solicited comments concerning 

our proposal for 60 days ending August 

9, 2005. We received 13 comments by 

that date. They were from producers, 

researchers, representatives of State and 

foreign agricultural departments, an 

international industry organization, a 

public interest organization, and a 

private citizen. The comments are 

discussed below by topic. 

Issue Outside the Scope of APHIS’ 

Authority 

One commenter raised an issue that 

concerns a matter under the regulatory 

authority of the Food and Drug 

Administration (FDA), not the Animal 

and Plant Health Inspection Service 

(APHIS). Specifically, the commenter 

expressed concern that irradiation will 

make foods unsafe to eat. The 

commenter stated that irradiation 

produced 2-alkylcyclobutanones, which 

she contended is a dangerous residue 

chemical present in irradiated fruits and 

vegetables. 

The FDA has primary regulatory 

responsibility for ensuring that 

approved irradiation doses do not 

render foods unsafe to eat. FDA 

regulations (21 CFR 179.26) establish a 

limit of 1.0 kilogray for disinfestation of 

arthropod pests in fresh fruits and 

vegetables. All of the irradiation doses 

contained in this rule are significantly 

less than this approved safe dose limit. 

Use of Irradiation to Treat Cut Flowers 

and Foliage 

One commenter requested that we 

also provide for the use of irradiation to 

treat cut flowers and foliage that are 

subject to treatment requirements in the 

regulations. 

We agree that cut flowers and foliage 

that are hosts of pests for which 

irradiation is an approved treatment can 

be treated at the pest-specific doses 

provided in this final rule. Therefore, in 

this final rule we have amended the 

phytosanitary treatment regulations as 

well as the Hawaiian and territorial 

quarantine regulations to provide for the 

use of irradiation to treat cut flowers 

and foliage. Specifically, we have 

amended paragraph (a) of § 305.31 to 

provide that irradiation at the pestspecific doses may be used to treat cut 

flowers and foliage. We have also 

amended § 305.31 by replacing the 

words ‘‘fruits and vegetables’’ with the 

word ‘‘article’’ each time they occur. 

Sections 305.34, 318.13–4f, and 318.58– 

4b provide administrative instructions 

for irradiation treatment of certain fruits 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES
4452 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

1Bustos, M.E., Enkerlin, W., Reyes, J., and 

Toledo, J. 2004. Irradiation of mangoes as a 

postharvest quarantine treatment for fruit flies 

(Diptera: Tephritidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 97: 286–

292. 

Hallman, G.J. and Worley, J.W. 1999. Gamma 

radiation doses to prevent adult emergence from 

immatures of Mexican and West Indian fruit flies 

(Diptera: Tephritidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 92: 967–

973. 

and vegetables from Hawaii, Puerto 

Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, 

respectively. We have amended these 

sections by replacing the words ‘‘fruits 

and vegetables’’ with the word ‘‘article’’

each time they occur. Finally, we have 

amended the cut flowers regulations in 

§ 319.74–2 by adding a new paragraph 

(d) to indicate that cut flowers may be 

treated at the pest-specific irradiation 

doses listed in § 305.31(a). Cut flowers 

and foliage are also subject to the 

packaging requirements provided in 

§§ 305.31 and 305.34 of the regulations. 

Irradiation may have negative effects 

on the quality of cut flowers, and the 

shipper and facility operator are 

responsible for determining tolerance of 

cut flowers to treatment. APHIS 

assumes no responsibility for any loss or 

damage that may result in the use of 

irradiation. 

Use of Irradiation To Control Pests 

Two commenters objected to the use 

of irradiation to treat imported fruits 

and vegetables. One commenter stated 

that food in the United States has been 

altered so much that it has become 

inferior to food in Europe. A second 

commenter stated that APHIS should 

not employ irradiation as a treatment 

but should instead use other treatments 

and procedures to prevent the 

introduction of dangerous plant pests 

associated with imported fruits and 

vegetables. This second commenter 

added that irradiation has not been 

shown to be a safe, effective, or viable 

means to eradicate invasive pests and 

that the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

should cease pursuing irradiation as a 

treatment for plant pests. 

We have not made any changes to the 

rule in response to these comments. 

Importers are free to choose other 

treatments authorized by the regulations 

in lieu of irradiation. The reason that 

irradiation may be attractive to certain 

importers, particularly those importing 

fresh tropical fruits from fruit flyinfested regions, is that irradiation 

allows fruits of higher quality to be 

imported. Alternative heat, cold, and 

fumigation treatments can cause 

unacceptable phytotoxicity (damage to 

the fruits). Also, these alternative 

treatments often must be used on fruit 

harvested before it is fully ripe. The 

irradiation alternative allows importers 

to sell riper, more valuable fruit, with 

less damage. 

In authorizing irradiation treatments, 

we have considered both the efficacy 

and the environmental effects of 

irradiation compared to other treatments 

already authorized by our regulations. 

The irradiation treatments in the final 

rule are effective against the listed plant 

pests. It is true that several technologies 

under development may also provide 

effective treatments for various plant 

pests (e.g., pressure treatments, 

controlled atmosphere, and laser 

ultraviolet light pulses). To date, we 

have not seen conclusive scientific 

documentation that establishes standard 

methodologies for these treatments, or 

that demonstrates that these treatments 

effectively control pests of concern in 

fruits and vegetables subject to APHIS 

regulations. APHIS is always willing to 

evaluate petitions to add new treatments 

to our import regulations. Petitioners 

should submit a detailed description of 

the methodology and standards of the 

treatment to be evaluated, and should 

include any scientific studies that 

document the effectiveness of the 

treatment and related issues (e.g., 

quality effects on treated articles). 

One commenter stated that the 

proposed rule could stimulate the 

construction of more irradiation 

facilities, some of which could use 

radioactive cobalt-60 or cesium-137, 

which Federal regulations permit. The 

commenter stated that these facilities 

will pose serious risks to the 

communities where they are built. 

We are not making any changes in 

response to this comment. The safety of 

operations of irradiation facilities is 

regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC). NRC ensures that 

such facilities are built and operated 

according to Federal regulations. To be 

licensed, the facility must have been 

designed with multiple fail-safe 

measures, and must establish extensive 

and well-documented safety procedures 

and worker training. With proper design 

and operating procedures, commercial 

irradiation facilities can be operated 

safely and without posing any 

significant radiation risk to workers or 

the public. 

Recommended Doses 

One commenter presented two 

studies 1 which demonstrated that 

Mexican fruit fly (Mexfly) is more 

radiotolerant than West Indian fruit fly, 

but noted that we proposed an 

irradiation dose of 100 Gy for West 

Indian fruit fly and only 70 Gy for 

Mexfly. The commenter recommended 

lowering the dose for West Indian fruit 

fly to 70 Gy. 

We have reviewed the research 

submitted by the commenter and agree 

that the dose for West Indian fruit fly 

(Anastrepha obliqua) should be lowered 

to 70 Gy and have done so in this final 

rule. 

Two commenters stated that it was 

unnecessary to list green scale in the 

pest table in § 305.31 because it requires 

the generic dose (400 Gy). One 

commenter noted that this implied that 

400 Gy was the lowest possible dose 

that can control green scale. The second 

commenter added that there has been no 

large-scale research done on this dose, 

but that preliminary research at the 

University of Hawaii suggested 250 Gy 

would control green scale. 

We agree with these commenters and 

have amended the table in § 305.31(a) 

by removing the entry for Coccus viridis, 

green scale. 

One commenter recommended adding 

a statement in the final rule that lower 

irradiation doses might be sufficient for 

the plant pests being added in this rule 

in order to encourage more research on 

minimum irradiation levels. 

We are not making any changes as a 

result of this comment. As stated 

previously in this document, APHIS is 

always willing to evaluate research that 

supports new treatments or changes to 

existing treatments such as lowering the 

required doses for irradiation. 

Petitioners should submit any scientific 

studies that document the effectiveness 

of the dose, and APHIS will consider 

each request as it is presented. 

One commenter recommended 

rounding irradiation doses to the nearest 

10 Gy increment because dosimeters can 

vary by 1 to 2 percent in their accuracy. 

The commenter added that it is difficult 

during research to accurately apply 

doses in less than 10 Gy increments due 

to variability in the density and 

consistency of the infested fruit or 

vegetable. 

We are not making any changes in 

response to this comment. We believe 

that the measures we have in place to 

monitor and administer irradiation 

treatment will ensure that at least the 

appropriate minimum dose is 

administered. When applying 

irradiation treatment, several factors are 

taken into account, including geometry 

of the source, the dimensions of the 

irradiation container, as well as the 

bulk-density of the load and its 

distribution. Recording of process 

parameters and dosimetry is required to 

ensure that the treatments applied are 

within the limits established by APHIS. 

Further, the available data indicate that 

the doses we proposed are the lowest 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 4453 

2Follett, Peter A. Irradiation for postharvest 

control of Omphisa anastomosalis (Lepidoptera: 

Pyralidae), Euscepes postfaciatus and Cylas 

formicarius elegantulus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) 

in sweetpotatoes. 

effective doses necessary to achieve 

phytosanitary security; thus, rounding a 

dose up to the nearest 10 Gy increment 

would have the effect of requiring more 

than the minimum dose and would be 

contrary to our World Trade 

Organization (WTO) agreements. 

Safeguards on Commodity Movement 

Two commenters noted that we 

should put in place safeguards, such as 

sealed containers, against plant pest 

spread for untreated commodities that 

are moved to the mainland United 

States for treatment. One of the 

commenters suggested prohibiting 

movement of untreated commodities 

with pretreated commodities and 

adding protocols for transport and 

containment upon arrival. 

Section 305.34 of the regulations sets 

forth instructions for fruits and 

vegetables shipped from Hawaii to the 

mainland United States, including 

safeguards for untreated commodities 

being shipped to the mainland United 

States for treatment. For imported fruits 

and vegetables, § 305.31, paragraph 

(g)(1) prohibits packaging irradiated 

fruits and vegetables with nonirradiated 

fruits and vegetables and paragraph 

(g)(2) provides packaging provisions for 

fruits and vegetables irradiated prior to 

entering the United States to prevent the 

entry of fruit flies. However, § 305.31 

does not contain packaging provisions 

for imported fruits and vegetables to be 

irradiated upon arrival in the United 

States. Therefore, we are amending 

§ 305.31(g) in this final rule by adding 

a new paragraph that requires cartons of 

untreated regulated articles being 

imported into the United States for 

treatment to be shipped in shipping 

containers sealed prior to importation 

with seals that will visually indicate if 

the shipping containers have been 

opened. These provisions we have 

added regarding imported articles 

mirror those in § 305.34 for untreated 

articles moved from Hawaii to the 

mainland United States for treatment. 

Bananas from Hawaii 

One commenter stated that the 

configuration of bananas on the stalk 

make visual inspections an ineffective 

detection method. The commenter 

added that the lethal dose for banana 

moth should be determined before 

including this commodity in the 

regulations. 

We have determined that the generic 

dose of 400 Gy would be sufficient for 

banana moth larvae; however inspection 

is necessary for pupae and adults of this 

pest. Bananas may also undergo 

irradiation treatment at a dose of 150 Gy 

for fruit flies, which would require 

inspection for banana moth and green 

scale as an additional mitigation 

measure. We agree with this commenter 

that the configuration of bananas on the 

stalk makes visual inspection more 

difficult. Therefore, we have amended 

§ 318.13–4i, paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2), 

in this final rule to specify that bananas 

must be removed from the stalk during 

inspection. 

One commenter suggested that we 

allow green bananas from Hawaii grown 

under the systems approach to be 

irradiated at 400 Gy if found to be 

infested with green scale or to have 

certain defects that would otherwise 

trigger rejection upon inspection. 

We agree with this commenter and 

have amended § 318.13–4i in this final 

rule by revising paragraph (b), 

introductory text, to state that ‘‘Bananas 

of any cultivar or ripeness that do not 

meet the conditions of paragraph (a) of 

this section may also be moved 

interstate from Hawaii with irradiation 

in accordance with the following 

conditions.’’

Sweetpotatoes 

One commenter questioned whether 

early stages of Kona coffee root-knot 

nematode could be found by visual 

inspection. 

We have found inspection to be very 

effective at detecting nematodes of all 

stages. 

One commenter suggested that the 

regulations should provide that the 

required probes be placed in the largest 

roots when applying heat treatment to 

sweetpotatoes. 

We agree that inspectors should locate 

temperature probes in the largest 

potatoes when applying heat treatment. 

Therefore, we have amended 

§ 305.24(k)(1) in this final rule to 

provide that temperature probes must be 

placed in the approximate center of the 

‘‘largest individual sweetpotato roots.’’

One commenter stated that recent 

research 2 indicates that sweetpotato 

weevil, West Indian sweetpotato weevil, 

and sweetpotato vine borer can all be 

neutralized with a dose of 150 Gy. The 

commenter asked that we add West 

Indian sweetpotato weevil and 

sweetpotato vine borer with a dose of 

150 Gy and that we change the dose for 

sweetpotato weevil to 150 Gy. 

After reviewing the research provided 

by the commenter, we have amended 

the table in § 305.31(a) in this final rule 

by adding entries for West Indian 

sweetpotato weevil and sweetpotato 

vine borer and specifying a minimum 

irradiation dose of 150 Gy for both 

pests. We have also reduced the 

minimum irradiation dose for 

sweetpotato weevil from 165 Gy to 150 

Gy. 

With these changes, all but one of the 

pests of concern for sweetpotatoes from 

Hawaii for which irradiation is an 

authorized treatment may be treated 

with a minimum irradiation dose of 150 

Gy. The exception is the ginger weevil 

(Elytrotreinus subtruncatus), which 

requires a minimum irradiation dose of 

400 Gy. (The regulations also require 

inspection for two other pests for which 

irradiation is not an authorized 

treatment, i.e., the gray pineapple 

mealybug [Dysmicoccus neobrevipes] 

and the Kona coffee-root knot nematode 

[Meloidogyne konaensis]). In the 

proposed rule, we proposed to add a 

vapor heat treatment option for 

sweetpotato from Hawaii that included 

provisions for the sampling, cutting, and 

inspection of sweetpotatoes for the 

ginger weevil, and we are adopting 

those proposed provisions in this final 

rule (see § 318.13–4d in the regulatory 

text at the end of this document). To 

harmonize the irradiation treatment 

provisions for sweetpotatoes from 

Hawaii with those new vapor heat 

provisions, we have amended the 

regulations in § 305.34 in this final rule 

to offer two irradiation treatment 

options: The existing 400 Gy dose or a 

150 Gy dose supplemented by sampling, 

cutting, and inspection for the ginger 

weevil, with the sampling, cutting, and 

inspection requirements being the same 

as those found in the vapor heat 

provisions in § 318.13–4d. The 

inspection requirements for the gray 

pineapple mealybug and the Kona rootknot nematode will continue to apply to 

sweetpotatoes treated at both the 400 Gy 

and 150 Gy dose. To effect this change, 

we have amended § 305.34(b)(7)(i) and 

(ii) in this final rule to reflect the new 

inspection requirement for ginger 

weevil if sweetpotatoes are to be 

irradiated at 150 Gy; a new footnote in 

the entry for sweetpotato in the table in 

paragraph (a)(1) of that section directs 

the reader to § 305.34(b)(7)(i) and (ii). 

Because litchi from Hawaii is also 

subject to additional inspection 

requirements in § 305.34(b)(7), the entry 

for litchi in the table has also been 

annotated with a reference to that 

footnote. 

Pineapples From Hawaii 

One commenter asked that we delete 

the reference to ‘‘other than smooth 

Cayenne’’ in the entry for pineapples in 

§ 305.34, paragraph (a)(1). The 

commenter noted that this would allow 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES
4454 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

all varieties of pineapple to be treated 

by irradiation for plant pests in 

accordance with § 305.31(a) and 

§ 305.34(a)(2). 

The commenter is correct. We 

mistakenly included the reference to 

‘‘other than smooth Cayenne’’ when in 

fact, all varieties of pineapple are 

eligible for irradiation. We have 

amended the entries for pineapple in 

§ 305.34(a)(1) and § 318.13–4f by 

removing the words ‘‘(other than 

smooth Cayenne).’’

General Comments 

In the supplementary information of 

our proposed rule, we stated that mites 

are not arthropod plant pests. Two 

commenters noted that mites are 

arthropod plant pests and that we 

should not use the term ‘‘arthropod.’’

We agree with the commenters have 

amended the last row in the table in 

§ 305.31 by changing the words 

‘‘phylum Arthropoda’’ to ‘‘class 

Insecta.’’

One commenter suggested that we 

should explain to inspectors what they 

can expect to find with properly 

irradiated commodities (e.g., live fruit 

flies and perhaps eggs, but no further 

development from either). 

Customs and Border Protection and 

APHIS inspectors are trained as to what 

they might specifically find in 

commodities treated by irradiation and 

have been inspecting irradiated fruit 

moved interstate for more than a 

decade. Therefore, it is unnecessary to 

include such information in this final 

rule. 

One commenter suggested that we 

include a provision to prohibit 

irradiation of low-oxygen-stored 

produce until research on the 

effectiveness of irradiation on such 

produce can be completed. The 

commenter stated that a recent study 

showed that four pests showed an 

increase in radiotolerance when stored 

in such conditions. 

We have no evidence to either 

support or refute the commenter’s 

concern with the response of pests in 

low-oxygen-stored produce to 

irradiation, but agree that irradiation 

should be only applied to articles that 

have been stored under certain 

conditions. Because these conditions 

may vary based on the specific 

commodity, pest of concern, or country 

of origin, we will address specific 

storage conditions in the operational 

work plan or the compliance agreement 

with plant health officials in the areas 

where commodities are produced, 

packed, and treated. 

One commenter stated that we 

incorrectly classified the dose ranges for 

plant pests in the International Plant 

Protection Convention Guidelines for 

the Use of Irradiation as a Phytosanitary 

Measure (ISPM Publication No. 18) as 

recommended minimum dose ranges. 

The commenter stated that these doses 

are only estimates. 

We acknowledge that we incorrectly 

characterized the estimates as 

recommended minimum doses. That 

statement appeared in the 

supplementary information of the 

proposed rule, however, so there is no 

need to make any changes to the 

regulations in this document. 

Two commenters stated that research 

did not demonstrate that all fruit flies of 

the family Tephritidae would be 

neutralized by a dose of 150 gray. 

The commenters are correct in that, 

technically, all fruit flies of the family 

Tephritidae were not tested, but all of 

the fruit flies that were tested in this 

family were neutralized by this dose. 

Therefore, we consider the results from 

the fruit flies we tested to be applicable 

to the entire Tephritidae family. 

However, we agree that it would have 

been clearer to state that ‘‘we consider 

all fruit flies of the family Tephritidae 

to be neutralized by a dose of 150 gray.’’

In the supplementary information of 

the proposed rule, we stated that 

required irradiation doses were specific 

to plant pests rather than to the 

commodities with which they are 

associated, which reflects the fact that 

the effectiveness of irradiation treatment 

is dependent on the dose that is 

absorbed by the commodity. One 

commenter considered this statement 

misleading, noting that it suggests that 

the radiation is absorbed by the 

commodity thereby killing the insect. 

The commenter added that the doses are 

specific to the pest rather than 

commodity because the commodity 

provides limited shielding for the insect 

from the ionizing radiation. 

We agree with this commenter, but 

because this statement appeared in the 

supplementary information of the 

proposed rule, there is no need to make 

any changes to the regulations in this 

document. 

In the proposed rule, we referred to 

minimum doses as ‘‘pest-specific.’’ One 

commenter suggested that we use either 

‘‘pest species-specific’’ or ‘‘individual 

pest-specific.’’

We are not making changes in 

response to this comment. We prefer the 

general term ‘‘pest-specific’’ which can 

apply to both individual pests or a pest 

group (e.g., all fruit flies). 

In the proposed rule, we stated that 

fruit quality problems associated with 

high irradiation doses prompted us to 

examine lowering doses. One 

commenter noted that we made no 

mention of any financial considerations 

taken into account. 

While economic benefits result from 

our lowering of irradiation doses, they 

are not the reason for our doing so. 

Under WTO agreements, we are obliged 

to base our regulations on sound 

science; to ignore research that showed 

lower irradiation doses to be effective 

would be contrary to these agreements. 

One commenter stated that the 

proposed rule would open up large 

parts of the United States to increased 

risks of infestation. The commenter 

stated that our reasoning that fruit flies 

would not survive irradiation treatment 

or weather conditions in many areas of 

the United States was faulty. The 

commenter added that while the rule 

only applies to 12 species of fruit flies, 

there are numerous hosts in the United 

States that would be susceptible to those 

fruit flies. 

We agree that preventing the 

introduction of exotic fruit flies into the 

United States is of the utmost 

importance. According to ARS, 150 Gy 

will be sufficient to neutralize all fruit 

flies and that doses lower than 150 gray 

are sufficient to neutralize certain 

species of fruit flies. We believe that 

treatment of fruits, vegetables, cut 

flowers, and foliage at these doses, 

when properly administered, will be 

sufficient to prevent the introduction of 

fruit flies via commodities treated by 

irradiation. 

Economic Analysis 

One commenter suggested that our 

economic analysis should take note of 

some advantages to irradiation, such as 

the fact that fruit that is to be irradiated 

can be allowed to ripen longer on the 

tree, resulting in higher-quality fruit. 

We have added a paragraph 

highlighting additional advantages of 

irradiation over some other treatments 

to the economic analysis in this final 

rule. 

One commenter stated that it is naive 

to assume that there are markets for 

irradiated fruits and vegetables in the 

United States. The commenter noted 

that since the FDA legalized the 

irradiation of fruits and vegetables in 

1986, very few types of irradiated 

produce have been sold in U.S. grocery 

stores. The commenter also cited the 

financial troubles of a company that 

stood to benefit from irradiation as an 

example of the lack of a market for 

irradiated fruit in the United States. 

The proposed rule and this final rule 

are concerned with the phytosanitary 

security of fruits and vegetables and not 

their marketing. Our regulations offer 

various treatment options; whether or 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 4455 

not producers or distributors choose to 

use irradiation when it is available is up 

to them. 

Miscellaneous 

Two commenters pointed out several 

nonsubstantive editorial errors in the 

proposed rule. We appreciate the 

commenters bringing these errors to our 

attention and wherever appropriate, 

have made the corrections in this 

document. 

Other Comments 

One commenter suggested that in 

light of the availability of the generic 

irradiation dose, we reconsider our 

current pest risk analysis process and 

require evidence only that the few target 

pests that could not be treated 

effectively with irradiation are not 

present in a particular country or are not 

pests of concern for a particular 

commodity, rather than requiring that a 

list all possible pests be considered in 

the pest risk analysis. 

We agree with this commenter that 

the availability of the generic irradiation 

dose may simplify the pest risk analysis 

process for commodities from countries 

where pests that can be targeted with 

the generic dose exist. We expect that a 

pest list would still have to assembled 

in most cases, but the risk management 

aspect of the risk analysis process could 

be abbreviated if the risks associated 

with all identified quarantine pests 

could be addressed through the 

application of the generic irradiation 

dose. If quarantine pests that could not 

be addressed using the generic dose 

were identified in the pest list, then the 

risk management analysis could be 

limited to examining mitigation 

measures for those pests alone. 

The commenter also requested that 

we reconsider the requirement that 

every new commodity must be added to 

the regulations through rulemaking 

before being eligible for entry into the 

United States. 

While we are unable to make any 

changes in this document in response to 

this comment, we are currently 

developing a proposed rule that would 

redesign the fruits and vegetables 

regulations to provide for the evaluation 

and approval or denial of new import 

requests in a more expeditious and 

effective manner. 

One commenter asked that we 

postpone the comment period for the 

proposed rule because a request 

submitted by her organization under the 

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 

regarding another rulemaking related to 

irradiation had not yet been fulfilled. 

We do not believe it is necessary or 

appropriate to delay this final rule 

pending the resolution of commenter’s 

FOIA request concerning an entirely 

separate rulemaking. The APHIS FOIA 

staff is working to address the request 

referred to by the commenter. 

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 rule has been reviewed under 

Executive Order 12866. For this action, 

the Office of Management and Budget 

has waived its review under Executive 

Order 12866. 

This rule makes several amendments 

to the current provisions for the use of 

irradiation as a treatment for various 

plant pests, allows the use of irradiation 

and inspection as a treatment for 

bananas moved interstate from Hawaii 

as an alternative to the systems 

approach currently described in the 

regulations, and allows the use of a 

vapor heat treatment for sweetpotatoes 

moved interstate from Hawaii as an 

alternative to fumigation with methyl 

bromide and irradiation. The potential 

economic impacts of the changes are 

discussed below. 

Irradiation Treatment for Fruits, 

Vegetables, Cut Flowers, and Foliage 

The regulations in § 305.31 set out 

standards, minimum doses, and other 

requirements for performing irradiation 

treatments on imported fruits, 

vegetables, cut flowers, and foliage and 

set out minimum doses necessary to 

neutralize 11 fruit flies and the mango 

seed weevil. This rule adds minimum 

doses for more pests and lowers the 

minimum doses for others. Specifically, 

this rule establishes: 

• A minimum generic dose of 400 Gy 

for all plant pests of the class Insecta 

other than pupae and adults of the order 

Lepidoptera; 

• A minimum generic dose of 150 Gy 

for all fruit flies of the family 

Tephritidae; 

• Lower minimum doses for certain 

fruit flies; and 

• New approved minimum doses for 

10 plant pests. 

This rule also allows irradiation to 

serve as an alternative to other approved 

treatments for additional articles moved 

interstate from Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and 

the U.S. Virgin Islands. Articles from 

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

Islands that are required to be treated by 

other means for pests listed in 

§ 305.31(a) prior to interstate movement 

will be allowed to be moved interstate 

if they are treated with irradiation at the 

doses listed in § 305.31(a) and in 

accordance with the other conditions 

specified in § 305.34. 

Section 305.34 has only provided for 

irradiation treatment of fruits and 

vegetables from Hawaii; however, we 

have determined that irradiation 

treatment can be used effectively for 

commodities from Puerto Rico and the 

U.S. Virgin Islands if the safeguards in 

§ 305.34 are implemented. Currently, no 

irradiation facilities exist in Puerto Rico 

or the U.S. Virgin Islands, and no 

requests have been received to approve 

the construction of such facilities. 

However, this rule provides for the 

option of moving the commodities 

under limited permit to an irradiation 

facility on the U.S. mainland for 

treatment prior to entering interstate 

commerce. 

Economic Effects on Small Entities of 

Changes in Irradiation Treatment 

Provisions 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act 

requires that agencies specifically 

consider the economic impact of their 

regulations on small entities. The Small 

Business Administration (SBA) has 

established size criteria using the North 

American Industry Classification 

System (NAICS) to determine which 

economic entities meet the definition of 

a small firm. 

Irradiation facilities affected by this 

rule will belong to one of the following 

two NAICS categories: (1) Firms 

providing irradiation services for the 

treatment of fruits and vegetables, 

which would fall within NAICS 

category 115114, ‘‘Postharvest Crop 

Activities (except Cotton Ginning)’’; or 

(2) firms providing irradiation services 

for decontamination or sterilization 

purposes, which would fall within 

NAICS category 811219, ‘‘Medical and 

surgical equipment repair and 

maintenance services.’’

Most treatments of Hawaiian produce 

are likely to occur at an existing 

irradiation facility on the island of 

Hawaii. This facility is used to treat 

other fruits and vegetables for which 

irradiation is an approved treatment and 

can be classified under NAICS category 

115114. The SBA criteria classify this 

facility as a small entity, since its 

annual sales are less than $6 million. 

Another firm on the U.S. mainland 

operates two facilities in Illinois and 

one facility in New Jersey. Its primary 

service is to provide irradiation 

treatment for the sanitation of medical 

devices on contract. This firm is 

classified within NAICS category 

811219. However, since it is part of a 

larger corporation for which annual 

receipts may exceed $6 million, this 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES
4456 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

3Source: Hawaii Department of Agriculture. 

4Source: Hawaii Department of Agriculture. 

5The Census of Agriculture (2002) reports 

minimal acreage in California, Florida, and Texas, 

which together account for only 131 acres. 

6National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2002 

Census of Agriculture. 

firm is not classified as a small entity 

under the SBA criteria. Thus, at least 

one firm that could be affected by this 

rule is a small entity. 

Irradiation facilities, whether large or 

small, will benefit from this rule. The 

range of commodities imported and 

moved interstate for which irradiation 

will be an approved treatment will 

increase. At the same time, dosage 

levels, and therefore operating costs, 

will decrease for many commodities. 

The changes to irradiation doses and 

provisions allowing the use of pestspecific doses to treat commodities for 

interstate movement will facilitate the 

importation of fruits, vegetables, cut 

flowers, and foliage and their interstate 

movement from Hawaii, Puerto Rico, 

and the U.S. Virgin Islands. For certain 

pests for which irradiation is already an 

approved treatment, required irradiation 

dosages will be lowered to the 

minimum level necessary. In other 

instances, irradiation will be newly 

allowed as an alternative phytosanitary 

treatment. 

This rule will result in lower costs 

and increased flexibility for importers, 

gains that could be expected to be at 

least partly realized by U.S. consumers 

through lower prices, assuming 

competitive markets. For some 

commodities, irradiation may also 

provide quality advantages over other 

treatment methods in terms of increased 

shelf life. Irradiation allows fruits and 

vegetables of higher quality to be 

imported. Alternative heat, cold, and 

fumigation treatments can cause 

unacceptable damage to fruits, 

vegetables, cut flowers, and foliage. At 

this time, we are unsure as to the extent 

of damage the use of irradiation may 

cause to certain cut flowers and it is 

entirely the importer’s or owner’s 

responsibility to assess which treatment 

should be used with each variety of cut 

flowers. Also, these alternative 

treatments often must be used on fruit 

harvested before it is fully ripe. 

Irradiation allows importers to sell 

riper, more valuable fruit, with less 

damage. Choice of irradiation as a 

treatment alternative would rest upon 

its expected net returns relative to other 

treatment methods. 

Because these changes will have the 

potential to affect the importation or 

interstate movement of a wide range of 

commodities, it is difficult to predict 

exactly what economic effects these 

changes will have. However, while 

affected irradiation firms, large and 

small, are expected to benefit, we do not 

expect the impacts to be significant. 

Irradiation and Inspection for Bananas 

Moved Interstate from Hawaii 

The regulations in § 318.13–4i have 

provided that green bananas (Musa spp.) 

of the cultivars ‘‘Williams,’’ ‘‘Valery,’’

‘‘Grand Nain,’’ and standard dwarf 

‘‘Brazilian’’ may be moved interstate 

from Hawaii under a systems approach. 

At this time, only green bananas of these 

specified cultivars have been eligible for 

interstate movement under those 

provisions. 

We are adding two combinations of 

irradiation and inspection as treatments 

for bananas from Hawaii. Specifically, 

bananas, regardless of cultivar or 

ripeness, from Hawaii will be eligible 

for interstate movement if they have 

been inspected in Hawaii for adults and 

pupal stages of the banana moth 

Opogona sacchari (Bojen), and have 

undergone irradiation treatment with a 

minimum dose of 400 gray at an 

approved facility. Bananas from Hawaii 

will also be eligible for interstate 

movement if they have been inspected 

in Hawaii for the banana moth and the 

green scale, Coccus viridis (Green), and 

have undergone irradiation treatment 

with a minimum dose of 150 gray at an 

approved facility. 

Cost of Irradiation Treatment 

The cost of irradiation is estimated at 

15 cents per pound.3 We expect that 

most bananas moved interstate from 

Hawaii under this approach will be 

treated at the existing commercial 

irradiation facility on the island of 

Hawaii. However, the treatment could 

be performed at the irradiation facilities 

on the mainland United States as well. 

Cost of APHIS Inspection 

Monitoring of quarantine treatments 

conducted during standard business 

hours (weekdays between 8 a.m. and 

4:30 p.m.) on the island of Hawaii 

comes at no cost to the facility. APHIS 

charges for the monitoring of treatments 

conducted before 8 a.m. and after 4:30 

p.m. and on weekends at a time-and-ahalf rate. 

Benefits 

The combination of irradiation 

treatment and inspection will offer an 

alternative to the systems approach for 

green fruit of the specified four banana 

cultivars, and will allow fruit of any 

ripeness or cultivar to be moved 

interstate from Hawaii. The approach 

described in this rule can be used to 

mitigate the pest risk associated with all 

Hawaiian bananas, regardless of cultivar 

or ripeness. This will allow banana 

producers and parties moving bananas 

interstate greater flexibility in 

operations, more choices with regard to 

the types of bananas moved interstate, a 

greater volume of bananas to ship, and 

less risk of facing rejections during 

inspection under the systems approach 

and Banana Compliance Agreement. 

Growers have been reluctant to ship 

bananas to U.S. mainland markets under 

the systems approach because § 318.13–

4i(c) of the regulations has required that 

bananas to be moved interstate be 

inspected by an inspector and found 

free of the following defects: 

Prematurely ripe fingers, fused fingers, 

or exposed flesh (not including fresh 

cuts made during the packing process). 

Bananas moved interstate from Hawaii 

under this systems approach are 

required to be free of these defects 

because they are conducive to fruit fly 

infestation. However, growers are 

concerned about the risk of having 

whole shipments of fruit prohibited 

from interstate movement as a result of 

a single fault detected when bananas in 

a random selection of boxes are 

inspected. No commercial container 

shipments of bananas have been made 

to U.S. mainland markets under the 

regulations in effect prior to this rule. 

Since the irradiation treatment options 

provided by this rule are sufficient to 

neutralize fruit flies and other pests of 

concern, irradiation will provide the 

Hawaiian banana industry with an 

alternative treatment for interstate 

movement and could open new 

marketing opportunities. 

U.S. consumers will benefit from an 

increased supply of bananas. Growers in 

Hawaii believe that the U.S. mainland 

demand for bananas from Hawaii may 

be equivalent to (if not higher than) the 

existing demand for Hawaiian papaya. 

Hawaiian growers moved approximately 

12 million pounds of papayas to U.S. 

mainland markets in 2003.4 Demand 

may be especially high for the apple 

banana variety, which has a higher 

sugar content and more aromatic flavor 

than the standard commercial banana 

varieties currently available in U.S. 

mainland markets. Consumers will 

benefit from the availability of this 

specialty product. 

Hawaii accounts for almost all U.S. 

banana production.5 In 2002, there were 

677 banana farms in Hawaii,6 and the 

value of sales amounted to $ 8.6 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 4457 

7From http://www.nass.usda.gov/hi/fruit/ 

annban.htm. Sales of Hawaiian bananas in 2003 

were valued at $9.225 million. 

8World Trade Atlas, 2003. 

million.7 Table 1 summarizes 

production information for bananas and 

papayas in Hawaii. The utilized 

production of bananas amounted to 19.5 

million pounds in 2002. 

TABLE 1.—PRODUCTION STATISTICS FOR BANANAS AND PAPAYAS IN HAWAII (2002) 

Item Bananas Papayas 

Bearing acreage (acres) .......................................................................... 1,300 .............................................. 1,720. 

Utilized production (1,000 pounds) ......................................................... 19,500 ............................................ 45,900. 

Price (per pound) .................................................................................... $0.430 ............................................ $0.260. 

Value of utilized production ..................................................................... $8.385 million ................................ $11.924 million. 

Movement to mainland U.S. markets (1,000 pounds) ............................ None .............................................. 12,000. 

Sources: Hawaii Department of Agriculture (movement statistics) and National Agricultural Statistics Service. 

The United States imported 7,883 

million pounds (3,576 million kg) of 

fresh bananas in 2003, valued at $959 

million.8 Ecuador, Costa Rica, 

Guatemala, Colombia, and Honduras 

accounted for 97 percent of the quantity 

of imports (table 2). Compared to the 

7,883 million pounds of bananas 

currently imported, Hawaii’s total 

production of 20 million pounds is 

extremely small, and it is not likely that 

100 percent of the State’s production 

will be moved to the mainland United 

States. Thus, as long as phytosanitary 

mitigation by means of the approved 

treatments is maintained, the interstate 

movement of bananas from Hawaii is 

unlikely to significantly affect current 

U.S. trade in fresh bananas. 

TABLE 2.—QUANTITY AND VALUE OF

FRESH BANANAS IMPORTED INTO

THE UNITED STATES FROM THE FIVE

MAJOR EXPORTING COUNTRIES

(2003) 

Country Quantity 

(million kg) 

Value 

(million U.S. 

dollars) 

Ecuador ............ 902 237.8 

Costa Rica ........ 901 247.5 

Guatemala ........ 868 229.1 

Colombia ........... 429 117.7 

Honduras .......... 388 100.4 

Total imports ....... 3,576 959.3 

Source: World Trade Atlas (2003). 

Economic Effects on Small Entities of 

Irradiation and Inspection Provisions 

for Bananas 

Most treatments of Hawaiian bananas 

are likely to occur at the existing 

irradiation facility on the island of 

Hawaii, which, as noted previously, is 

considered a small entity. 

Banana farming is classified under 

NAICS category 111339 as ‘‘Other 

Noncitrus Fruit Farming.’’ The SBA 

considers entities in this category to be 

small if their average annual receipts are 

less than $750,000. The 677 banana 

farms in Hawaii accounted for annual 

sales of $8.6 million in total in 2002. 

Therefore, it is likely that most 

Hawaiian banana farms will be 

classified as small entities under the 

SBA criteria. The treatment monitoring 

program will be mainly operated by 

APHIS personnel, and no impact is 

anticipated on other small entities or 

government agencies. 

Vapor Heat Treatment for 

Sweetpotatoes Moved Interstate From 

Hawaii 

We are allowing vapor heat treatment, 

combined with tuber cutting and visual 

inspection, to be used as a treatment for 

sweetpotatoes moved interstate from 

Hawaii. We believe this treatment will 

be an effective alternative to the methyl 

bromide and irradiation treatments 

currently prescribed by the regulations 

to control pests of concern. 

Cost of Vapor Heat Treatment 

Hawaii has three packing plants on 

the Island of Hawaii that provide vapor 

heat treatment services. No other vapor 

heat treatment plants are currently in 

operation elsewhere in the State. Since 

APHIS has yet to certify a facility for the 

treatment of sweetpotato by vapor heat, 

the costs of treating this crop 

specifically cannot be determined with 

certainty at this time. However, one of 

the packinghouses estimated that vapor 

heat treatment costs could amount to 2 

to 3 cents per pound for the required 

treatment protocol. This estimate 

considered the costs of labor, electricity, 

water, and sewer service. APHIS has 

traditionally certified vapor heat 

treatment chambers (for example, for 

papaya) in the ‘‘fully loaded 

configuration.’’ The costs of treating 

sweetpotato in smaller batch loads still 

have to be determined. This estimate of 

treatment cost also does not include a 

markup for the facility. The markup will 

be determined by the number of plants 

providing service and the demand for 

service. 

Cost of APHIS Inspection for Vapor 

Heat Treatment or Irradiation 

Monitoring of quarantine treatments 

conducted during standard business 

hours (weekdays between 8 a.m. and 

4:30 p.m.) on the island of Hawaii 

comes at no cost to the facility. APHIS 

charges for the monitoring of treatments 

conducted before 8 a.m. and after 4:30 

p.m. and on weekends at a time-and-ahalf rate. 

Comparison of Vapor Heat Treatment, 

Irradiation, and Methyl Bromide 

Vapor heat treatment will provide the 

Hawaiian sweetpotato industry with an 

alternative treatment to irradiation or 

methyl bromide fumigation. If vapor 

heat treatment can be performed at 2 to 

3 cents per pound, it will constitute the 

most cost-effective treatment, compared 

to irradiation at 15 cents per pound and 

fumigation costs ranging from 40.6 cents 

per pound for 1 pallet to 6.7 cents per 

pound for 12 pallets (table 3). (These are 

treatment costs only and do not include 

the costs of APHIS monitoring or 

inspection activities or inter-island 

transportation costs necessary to 

perform treatments.) 

TABLE 3.—ESTIMATED PER-UNIT COST

OF VAPOR HEAT TREATMENT, IRRADIATION, AND METHYL BROMIDE FUMIGATION

Treatment 

Per unit 

cost 

(cents per 

pound) 

Vapor heat treatment .................. 2–3 

Irradiation .................................... 15 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES
4458 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

9National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2002 

Census of Agriculture. 

10From http://www.nass.usda.gov/hi/vegetble/ 

annveg.htm. 

TABLE 3.—ESTIMATED PER-UNIT COST

OF VAPOR HEAT TREATMENT, IRRADIATION, AND METHYL BROMIDE FUMIGATION—Continued 

Treatment 

Per unit 

cost 

(cents per 

pound) 

Methyl bromide fumigation: 1

One pallet ................................ 40 .6 

Two pallets .............................. 20 .3 

Three pallets ........................... 13 .5 

Four pallets ............................. 10 .1 

Five pallets .............................. 8 .1 

Six pallets ................................ 6 .7 

Nine pallets ............................. 7 .6 

Twelve pallets ......................... 6 .9 

1One pallet contains 1,500 pounds of 

sweetpotatoes. 

Sources: Packinghouse estimate (vapor 

heat treatment); Hawaii Department of Agriculture (irradiation and methyl bromide 

fumigation). 

The availability of vapor heat 

treatment thus provides the Hawaiian 

sweetpotato industry with an alternative 

treatment option at a competitive cost. 

Furthermore, the vapor heat treatment 

plants in Hawaii will benefit if 

sweetpotatoes are included in the list of 

agricultural products to be treated. The 

availability of vapor heat treatment as 

an alternative to fumigation might 

become increasingly important in view 

of the global phaseout of methyl 

bromide under the Montreal Protocol. 

Irradiation may have positive effects on 

the quality and shelf life of the tubers, 

and allows flexibility since both small 

and large product lots can be staged for 

treatment to meet specific market 

demands. Vapor heat treatment is not 

known to offer quality or shelf-life 

benefits to the product, but some 

consumers may prefer this option above 

irradiation, especially in Japan, Canada, 

and Europe. 

Impact on U.S. Sweetpotato Production 

Commercial sweetpotato production 

in Hawaii occurs on the islands of 

Hawaii, Kauai, Maui, and Oahu. In 

2002, there were 59 sweetpotato farms,9

and the value of sales was $989,000.10

The utilized production of 

sweetpotatoes in Hawaii was 1.8 million 

pounds in 2001 (table 4). The crop is in 

year-round production in Hawaii. 

TABLE 4.—PRODUCTION STATISTICS

FOR HAWAIIAN SWEETPOTATOES

(2001) 

Item Amount 

Harvested acres ....................... 220 

Yield per acre (1,000 pounds) .. 8 .2 

Production (1,000 pounds) ....... 1,800 

Farm price (cents per pound) 1 50 

1The 2001 farm price for sweetpotato was 

47.3 cents per pound in Hawaii, Honolulu, and 

the Kauai Counties, and 60 cents per pound in 

the Maui County (Hawaiian Department of Agriculture). 

Source: Hawaii Agricultural Statistics 

Service. 

In the mainland United States, 

sweetpotato is grown commercially in 

Alabama, California, Georgia, Louisiana, 

Mississippi, New Jersey, North Carolina, 

South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia. 

North Carolina, Louisiana, Mississippi, 

and California account for the major 

proportion of production area by State 

(table 5). In total, the United States 

produced 1,355 million pounds of 

sweetpotatoes from 93,500 acres in 2003 

(table 6). The Hawaiian sweetpotato 

production of 1.8 million pounds thus 

comprises a minor proportion of the 

total production of 1,355 million 

pounds in the United States. 

TABLE 5.—ACRES OF

SWEETPOTATOES PLANTED IN THE

UNITED STATES (2003) 

State Acres 

planted 

North Carolina .......................... 42,000 

Louisiana .................................. 18,000 

Mississippi ................................ 14,000 

California ................................... 10,100 

Texas ........................................ 3,400 

Alabama .................................... 2,900 

Others 1 ..................................... 3,100 

Total ................................... 93,500 

1 Including Hawaii. 

Source: Economic Research Service, 

USDA. 

TABLE 6.—PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION STATISTICS FOR

SWEETPOTATOES IN THE UNITED

STATES (2003) 1

Item Amount 

Acres planted .......................... 93,500 

Three-year average yield (cwt/ 

acre) .................................... 150 

Production (million pounds) .... 1,355 

Imports (million pounds) ......... 17 .0 

Exports (million pounds) ......... 53 .0 

Total utilization (million 

pounds) 2 ............................. 1,148 .3 

Per capita use (pounds) ......... 3 .9 

TABLE 6.—PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION STATISTICS FOR

SWEETPOTATOES IN THE UNITED

STATES (2003) 1—Continued 

Item Amount 

Three-year average per capita 

use (pounds) ....................... 4 .0 

Current dollars ($/cwt) ............ 15 .75 

Constant 1996 dollars ($/cwt) 13 .91 

1Estimates are for the total United States, 

and therefore include Hawaii. Forecasted estimates are shown. 2Total utilization includes 103 million 

pounds used for seed and 67.8 million pounds 

accruing to feed use, shrink, and loss. 

Source: Economic Research Service, United 

States Department of Agriculture. Acres were 

obtained from Lucier, G. ‘‘Sweet potatoes—

getting to the root of demand.’’ Economic Research Service, USDA, 2002. 

The Hawaiian sweetpotatoes intended 

for the U.S. mainland markets are of a 

special purple flesh variety, and they 

are therefore shipped to the mainland as 

a specialty product intended for niche 

markets. U.S. mainland consumers 

could, therefore, benefit from an 

increased supply of these specialty 

sweetpotatoes. 

Interstate movement provides 

Hawaiian growers and shippers with 

increased marketing opportunities. 

Sweetpotatoes are in year-round 

production in Hawaii, but some 

seasonal variation in volume is 

expected. Out-shipment to U.S. 

mainland markets is estimated at 50,000 

to 60,000 pounds per week. New 

plantings of the crop have increased on 

the island of Hawaii since irradiation 

was approved as an alternative to 

methyl bromide fumigation in June 

2003. However, plantings are likely to 

increase each year if the market demand 

increases for Hawaiian sweetpotatoes 

regardless of whether the product is 

treated by methyl bromide fumigation, 

irradiation, or vapor heat treatment. 

Nevertheless, even if sweetpotato 

production increases in Hawaii, the 

relative volume of production (1.8 

million pounds) remains extremely 

small in comparison to the volume of 

U.S. mainland sweetpotato production 

(1.36 billion pounds). 

Thus, since Hawaiian production is so 

small in comparison to U.S. mainland 

production, and as long as 

phytosanitary mitigation by the 

approved treatments is maintained, 

sweetpotato shipments from Hawaii are 

unlikely to affect mainland producers. 

Consumers will benefit from the 

availability of the purple-fleshed 

specialty sweetpotato product, and the 

Hawaiian sweetpotato industry will gain 

opportunities to expand its mainland 

U.S. markets. 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 4459 

Vapor Heat Treatment of Sweetpotatoes 

Moved Interstate From Hawaii 

The availability of vapor heat 

treatment at a competitive cost could 

divert some sweetpotatoes moved 

interstate from Hawaii from the existing 

irradiation facility in Hawaii to a vapor 

heat treatment facility. This will affect 

the existing irradiation facility in 

Hawaii, which is a small entity. 

However, it is not known at this time 

what proportion of Hawaiian 

sweetpotatoes moved interstate will be 

treated with vapor heat instead of 

irradiation. 

On the other hand, vapor heat 

treatment facilities could benefit by the 

addition of vapor heat as an approved 

treatment for sweetpotatoes moved 

interstate from Hawaii. However, since 

facilities for the vapor heat treatment of 

Hawaiian sweetpotatoes have not been 

certified yet, the businesses cannot be 

conclusively categorized into small or 

large entities at this time. 

Sweetpotato farming is classified 

under NAICS category 111219, ‘‘Other 

Vegetables (except Potato) and Melon 

Farming.’’ According to the SBA’s 

criteria, an entity involved in crop 

production is considered small if it has 

average annual receipts of less than 

$750,000. The 59 sweetpotato farms in 

Hawaii accounted for annual sales of 

$989,000 in total in 2002. Therefore, it 

is likely that most of these farms would 

be considered small entities according 

to the SBA criteria. The monitoring and 

inspection program will be mainly 

operated by APHIS personnel, and no 

impact is anticipated on other small 

entities and government agencies. 

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 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 final rule has been reviewed 

under Executive Order 12988, Civil 

Justice Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts 

all State and local laws and regulations 

that are inconsistent with this rule; (2) 

has no retroactive effect; and (3) does 

not require administrative proceedings 

before parties may file suit in court 

challenging this rule. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

In accordance with the Paperwork 

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

et seq.), the information collection or 

recordkeeping requirements included in 

this rule have been approved by the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) under OMB control number 

0579–0281. 

Government Paperwork Elimination 

Act Compliance 

The Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service is committed to 

compliance with the Government 

Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA), 

which requires Government agencies in 

general to provide the public the option 

of submitting information or transacting 

business electronically to the maximum 

extent possible. For information 

pertinent to GPEA compliance related to 

this rule, please contact Mrs. Celeste 

Sickles, APHIS’ Information Collection 

Coordinator, at (301) 734–7477. 

List of Subjects 

7 CFR Part 301 

Agricultural commodities, Plant 

diseases and pests, Quarantine, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Transportation. 

7 CFR Part 305 

Irradiation, Phytosanitary treatment, 

Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

7 CFR Part 318 

Cotton, Cottonseeds, Fruits, Guam, 

Hawaii, Plant diseases and pests, Puerto 

Rico, Quarantine, Transportation, 

Vegetables, Virgin Islands. 

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 

parts 301, 305, 318, and 319 as follows: 

PART 301—DOMESTIC QUARANTINE 

NOTICES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 301 

continues to read as follows: 

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

7786; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3. 

Section 301.75–15 also issued under Sec. 

204, Title II, Pub. L. 106–113, 113 Stat. 

1501A–293; sections 301.75–15 and 301.75–

16 also issued under Sec. 203, Title II, Pub. 

L. 106–224, 114 Stat. 400 (7 U.S.C. 1421 

note). 

■ 2. In § 301.64–10, paragraph (g) 

introductory text and the OMB control 

number citation at the end of the section 

are revised to read as follows: 

§ 301.64–10 Treatments. 

* * * * * 

(g) Approved irradiation treatment. 

Irradiation, carried out in accordance 

with the provisions of part 305 of this 

chapter, is approved as a treatment for 

any fruit listed as a regulated article in 

§ 301.64–2(a). 

* * * * * 

(Approved by the Office of Management and 

Budget under control number 0579–0088) 

■ 3. In § 301.78–10, paragraph (c) 

introductory text is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 301.78–10 Treatments. 

* * * * * 

(c) Approved irradiation treatment. 

Irradiation, carried out in accordance 

with the provisions of part 305 of this 

chapter, is approved as a treatment for 

any berry, fruit, nut, or vegetable listed 

as a regulated article in § 301.78–2(a) of 

this subpart. 

* * * * * 

PART 305—PHYTOSANITARY 

TREATMENTS 

■ 4. 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. 

■ 5. Section 305.2 is amended as 

follows: 

■ a. By revising paragraph (h)(1) to read 

as set forth below. 

■ b. In the table in paragraph (h)(2)(ii), 

under Hawaii, by adding a new entry, in 

alphabetical order, for ‘‘Banana’’ to read 

as set forth below. 

■ c. In the table in paragraph (h)(2)(ii), 

under Hawaii, by removing the entry for 

‘‘Sweet potato’’ and adding in its place 

a new entry for ‘‘Sweetpotato’’ to read 

as set forth below. 

§ 305.2 Approved treatments. 

* * * * * 

(h) Fruits and vegetables. (1) 

Treatment of fruits and vegetables from 

foreign localities by irradiation in 

accordance with § 305.31 may be 

substituted for other approved 

treatments for any of the pests listed in 

§ 305.31(a). Treatment of fruits and 

vegetables from Hawaii, Puerto Rico, 

and the U.S. Virgin Islands by 

irradiation at the minimum doses listed 

in § 305.31(a) and in accordance with 

§ 305.34 may be substituted for other 

approved treatments for any of the pests 

listed in § 305.31(a). 

(2) * * * 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES
4460 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

(ii) * * * 

Location Commodity Pest Treatment schedule 

* * * * * * * 

Hawaii 

* * * * * * * 

Banana .......................... Bactrocera curcurbitae, Bactrocera dorsalis, 

Ceratitis capitata, Coccus viridis.

IR. 

* * * * * * * 

Sweetpotato ................... Euscepes postfasciatus, Omphisa anastomosalis, 

Elytrotreinus or subtruncatus.

MB T101–b–3–1 or § 305.24(k) or IR. 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

■ 6. In § 305.24, a new paragraph (k) is 

added to read as follows: 

§ 305.24 Vapor heat treatment schedules. 

* * * * * 

(k) Vapor heat treatment for 

sweetpotatoes moved interstate from 

Hawaii. (1) Temperature probes must be 

placed in the approximate center of the 

largest individual sweetpotato roots. 

(2) The air surrounding the 

sweetpotato roots must be heated. After 

the temperature of the air surrounding 

the sweetpotato roots reaches 87.8 °F 

(31 °C), its temperature must be 

incrementally raised from 87.8 °F (31 

°C) to 111.2 °F (44 °C) over a period of 

240 minutes. 

(3) Using saturated water vapor at 

118.4 °F (48 °C), the core temperature of 

the individual sweetpotato roots must 

be raised to 116.6 °F (47 °C). 

(4) After the core temperature of the 

sweetpotato roots reaches 116.6 °F (47 

°C), the core temperature must then be 

held at 116.6 °F (47 °C) or higher for 190 

minutes. 

■ 7. Section 305.31 is amended as 

follows: 

■ a. By revising the section heading to 

read as set forth below. 

■ b. By revising paragraph (a), including 

the table, to read as set forth below. 

■ c. By redesignating paragraph (g)(2) as 

paragraph (g)(3) and adding a new 

paragraph (g)(2) to read as set forth 

below. 

■ d. In paragraphs (b), (e)(1), (e)(2), 

(f)(1)(i), (f)(1)(ii), (f)(1)(iii), (g) 

introductory text, (g)(1), and (n), and in 

newly redesignated paragraphs (g)(3) 

introductory text, (g)(3)(i) introductory 

text, and (g)(3)(ii) introductory text, by 

removing the words ‘‘fruits and 

vegetables’’ each time they appear and 

adding the word ‘‘articles’’ in their 

place. 

■ e. In newly designated paragraph 

(g)(3)(i)(A), footnote 3, and in paragraph 

(l), by removing the words ‘‘Inspection 

and’’ and adding the words ‘‘Science 

and’’ in their place and by removing the 

words ‘‘1017 Main Campus Drive, suite 

2500’’ and adding the words ‘‘1730 

Varsity Drive, Suite 400’’ in their place. 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 305.31 Irradiation treatment of imported 

regulated articles for certain plant pests. 

(a) Approved doses. Irradiation at the 

following doses for the specified plant 

pests, carried out in accordance with the 

provisions of this section, is approved 

as a treatment for all regulated articles 

(i.e., fruits, vegetables, cut flowers, and 

foliage): 

IRRADIATION FOR CERTAIN PLANT PESTS IN IMPORTED REGULATED ARTICLES1

Scientific name Common name Dose (gray) 

Anastrepha ludens ........................................................................ Mexican fruit fly ............................................................................ 70 

Anastrepha obliqua ....................................................................... West Indian fruit fly ...................................................................... 70 

Anastrepha serpentina .................................................................. Sapote fruit fly .............................................................................. 100 

Anastrepha suspensa ................................................................... Caribbean fruit fly ........................................................................ 70 

Bactrocera jarvisi ........................................................................... Jarvis fruit fly ................................................................................ 100 

Bactrocera tryoni ........................................................................... Queensland fruit fly ...................................................................... 100 

Brevipalpus chilensis ..................................................................... False red spider mite ................................................................... 300 

Conotrachelus nenuphar ............................................................... Plum curculio ............................................................................... 92 

Croptophlebia ombrodelta ............................................................. Litchi fruit moth ............................................................................ 250 

Cryptophlebia illepida .................................................................... Koa seedworm ............................................................................. 250 

Cylas formicarius elegantulus ....................................................... Sweetpotato weevil ...................................................................... 150 

Cydia pomonella ........................................................................... Codling moth ................................................................................ 200 

Euscepes postfasciatus ................................................................ West Indian sweetpotato weevil .................................................. 150 

Grapholita molesta ........................................................................ Oriental fruit moth ........................................................................ 200 

Omphisa anastomosalis ................................................................ Sweetpotato vine borer ................................................................ 150 

Rhagoletis pomonella .................................................................... Apple maggot ............................................................................... 60 

Sternochetus mangiferae (Fabricus) ............................................. Mango seed weevil ...................................................................... 300 

Fruit flies of the family Tephritidae not listed above ............................................................................................................................... 150 

Plant pests of the class Insecta not listed above, except pupae and adults of the order Lepidoptera ................................................. 400 

1There is a possibility that some cut flowers could be damaged by such irradiation. See paragraph (n) of this section. 

* * * * * 

(g) * * * 

(2) For all articles to be irradiated 

upon arrival in the United States, the 

articles must be packed in cartons that 

have no openings that will allow the 

entry of fruit flies and that are sealed 

with seals that will visually indicate if 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 4461 

1Litchi and sweetpotato are also subject to the 

additional inspection requirements in paragraph 

(b)(7) of this section. 

the cartons have been opened. They 

may be constructed of any material that 

prevents the entry of fruit flies and 

prevents oviposition by fruit flies into 

the fruit in the carton. 

* * * * * 

§ 305.32 [Amended] 

■ 8. Section 305.32 is amended as 

follows: 

■ a. In paragraphs (a)(1) and (d), by 

removing the words ‘‘a minimum 

absorbed ionizing radiation dose of 150 

Gray (15 krad)’’ and adding the words 

‘‘the approved dose for Mexican fruit fly 

listed in § 305.31(a)’’ in their place. 

■ b. In paragraph (e)(2), by removing the 

words ‘‘150 Gray (15 krad)’’ and adding 

the words ‘‘the approved dose for 

Mexican fruit fly listed in § 305.31(a)’’

in their place. 

■ c. In paragraph (g), by removing the 

words ‘‘Oxford Plant Protection Center, 

901 Hillsboro St., Oxford, NC 27565’’

and adding the words ‘‘Center for Plant 

Health Science and Technology, 1730 

Varsity Drive, Suite 400, Raleigh, NC 

27606’’ in their place. 

§ 305.33 [Amended] 

■ 9. Section 305.33 is amended as 

follows: 

■ a. In paragraphs (a)(1) and (d), by 

removing the words ‘‘a minimum 

absorbed ionizing radiation dose of 225 

Gray (22.5 krad)’’ and adding the words 

‘‘the approved dose for Mediterranean 

fruit fly listed in § 305.31(a)’’ in their 

place. 

■ b. In paragraph (e)(2), by removing the 

words ‘‘225 gray (22.5 krad)’’ and 

adding the words ‘‘the approved dose 

for Mediterranean fruit fly listed in 

§ 305.31(a)’’ in their place. 

■ c. In paragraph (g), by removing the 

words ‘‘Oxford Plant Protection Center, 

901 Hillsboro St., Oxford, NC 27565’’

and adding the words ‘‘Center for Plant 

Health Science and Technology, 1730 

Varsity Drive, Suite 400, Raleigh, NC 

27606’’ in their place. 

■ 10. Section 305.34 is amended as 

follows: 

■ a. By revising the section heading to 

read as set forth below. 

■ b. By revising paragraph (a), including 

the table, to read as set forth below. 

■ c. In paragraphs (b) introductory text, 

(b)(1), (b)(2)(ii), and (b)(4), by adding the 

words ‘‘, Puerto Rico, or the U.S. Virgin 

Islands’’ after the word ‘‘Hawaii’’ each 

time it occurs. 

■ d. In paragraphs (b) introductory text, 

(b)(1), (b)(2)(i), (b)(2)(ii), (b)(4)(i), 

(b)(4)(ii), (b)(5), (b)(7)(i), (b)(7)(ii), and 

(e), by removing the words ‘‘fruits and 

vegetables’’ each time they appear and 

by adding the word ‘‘articles’’ in their 

place. 

■ e. In paragraph (b)(7)(i), by adding two 

new sentences after the last sentence to 

read as set forth below. 

■ f. In paragraph (b)(7)(ii), by adding 

two new sentences after the last 

sentence to read as set forth below. 

■ g. In paragraph (c), by removing the 

words ‘‘1017 Main Campus Drive, suite 

2500’’ and adding the words ‘‘1730 

Varsity Drive, Suite 400’’ in their place. 

■ h. By revising the OMB control 

number citation at the end of the section 

to read as set forth below. 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 305.34 Irradiation treatment of certain 

regulated articles from Hawaii, Puerto Rico, 

and the U.S. Virgin Islands. 

(a) Approved irradiation treatment. 

(1) Commodity-specific doses. 

Irradiation, carried out in accordance 

with the provisions of this section, is 

approved as a treatment for the 

following fruits and vegetables from 

Hawaii at the specified dose levels: 

IRRADIATION FOR PLANT PESTS IN

HAWAIIAN FRUITS AND VEGETABLES

Commodity Dose (gray) 

Abiu ........................................... 150 

Atemoya .................................... 150 

Bell pepper ............................... 150 

Carambola ................................ 150 

Eggplant .................................... 150 

Litchi1 ........................................ 150 

Longan ...................................... 150 

Mango ....................................... 300 

Papaya ...................................... 150 

Pineapple .................................. 150 

Rambutan ................................. 150 

Sapodilla ................................... 150 

Italian squash ........................... 150 

Sweetpotato1 ............................ 400 or 150 

Tomato ...................................... 150 

(2) Pest-specific doses. Any articles 

from Puerto Rico or the U.S. Virgin 

Islands, as well as any articles from 

Hawaii not listed in paragraph (a)(1) of 

this section, that are required by part 

318 of this chapter to be treated or 

subjected to inspection to control one or 

more of the plant pests listed in 

§ 305.31(a) may instead be treated with 

irradiation. Articles treated with 

irradiation for plant pests listed in 

§ 305.31(a) must be irradiated at the 

doses listed in § 305.31(a), and the 

irradiation treatment must be conducted 

in accordance with the other 

requirements of this section. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(7) * * * 

(i) * * * In addition, sweetpotato 

from Hawaii to be treated with 

irradiation at a dose of 150 Gy must be 

sampled, cut, and inspected in Hawaii 

and found to be free of the ginger weevil 

(Elytrotreinus subtruncatus) by an 

inspector before undergoing irradiation 

treatment in Hawaii. Sampling, cutting, 

and inspection must be performed 

under conditions that will prevent any 

pests that may emerge from the sampled 

sweetpotatoes from infesting any other 

sweetpotatoes intended for interstate 

movement in accordance with this 

section. 

(ii) * * * In addition, sweetpotato 

from Hawaii to be treated with 

irradiation at a dose of 150 Gy must be 

sampled, cut, and inspected in Hawaii 

and found to be free of the ginger weevil 

(Elytrotreinus subtruncatus) by an 

inspector. Sampling, cutting, and 

inspection must be performed under 

conditions that will prevent any pests 

that may emerge from the sampled 

sweetpotatoes from infesting any other 

sweetpotatoes intended for interstate 

movement in accordance with this 

section. 

* * * * * 

(Approved by the Office of Management and 

Budget under control numbers 0579–0198 

and 0579–0281) 

PART 318—HAWAIIAN AND 

TERRITORIAL QUARANTINE NOTICES 

■ 11. The authority citation for part 318 

continues to read as follows: 

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

7786; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3. 

§ 318.13 [Amended] 

■ 12. In § 318.13, paragraph (c) is 

amended by removing the words 

‘‘leaves in full force and effect § 318.30 

which restricts the movement from 

Hawaii, Puerto Rico, or the Virgin 

Islands of the United States into or 

through any other State or certain 

Territories or Districts of the United 

States of all varieties of sweetpotatoes 

(Ipomoea batatas Poir.). It also’’. 

■ 13. Section 318.13–1 is amended as 

follows: 

■ a. In the definition of compliance 

agreement, by removing the words 

‘‘§ 318.13–3(b), § 318.13–4(b), or 

§ 318.13–4f of this subpart’’ and adding 

the words ‘‘§ 318.13(b) or § 318.13–4(b) 

of this subpart or § 305.34 of this 

chapter’’ in their place. 

■ b. By revising the definition of 

inspector to read as set forth below. 

§ 318.13–1 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Inspector. Any individual authorized 

by the Administrator of APHIS or the 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES
4462 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

2Sweetpotatoes may also be moved interstate 

from Hawaii in accordance with § 305.34 of this 

chapter or after fumigation with methyl bromide 

according to treatment schedule T–101–b–3–1, as 

provided for in § 305.6(a) of this chapter. 

3 If there is a question as to the adequacy of a 

carton, send a request for approval of the carton, 

together with a sample carton, to the Animal and 

Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection 

and Quarantine, Center for Plant Health Science 

and Technology, 1730 Varsity Drive, Suite 400, 

Raleigh, NC 27606. 

Commissioner of Customs and Border 

Protection, Department of Homeland 

Security, to enforce the regulations in 

this part. 

* * * * * 

§ 318.13–2 [Amended] 

■ 14. In § 318.13–2, in paragraph (b), the 

list of articles is amended by adding, in 

alphabetical order, a new entry for 

‘‘Sweetpotato (Ipomoea batatas Poir.).’’

■ 15. Section 318.13–3 is amended as 

follows: 

■ a. By revising paragraph (b)(3) to read 

as set forth below. 

■ b. By adding a new paragraph (b)(4) to 

read as set forth below. 

§ 318.13–3 Conditions of movement. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(3) Untreated regulated articles from 

Hawaii may be moved interstate for 

irradiation treatment on the mainland 

United States if the provisions of 

§ 305.34 of this chapter are met and if 

the articles are accompanied by a 

limited permit issued by an inspector in 

accordance with § 318.13–4(c). 

Untreated bananas from Hawaii may be 

moved interstate for irradiation 

treatment on the mainland United States 

if the provisions of § 318.13–4i(b) are 

met and if the bananas are accompanied 

by a limited permit issued by an 

inspector in accordance with § 318.13–

4(c). The limited permit will be issued 

only if the inspector examines the 

shipment and determines that the 

shipment has been prepared in 

compliance with the provisions of this 

subpart. 

(4) Untreated sweetpotatoes from 

Hawaii may be moved interstate for 

vapor heat treatment on the mainland 

United States if the provisions of 

§ 318.13–4d are met and if the 

sweetpotatoes are accompanied by a 

limited permit issued by an inspector in 

accordance with § 318.13–4(c). The 

limited permit will be issued only if the 

inspector examines the shipment and 

determines that the shipment has been 

prepared in compliance with the 

provisions of this subpart. 

* * * * * 

§ 318.13–4b [Amended] 

■ 16. Section 318.13–4b is amended as 

follows: 

■ a. By adding the words ‘‘or 

vegetables’’ after the word ‘‘fruits’’ in 

the following places: 

i. The section heading. 

ii. Paragraph (a). 

iii. Paragraph (b), in the paragraph 

heading and the first sentence. 

iv. Paragraph (c). 

v. Paragraph (e). 

vi. Paragraph (f). 

■ b. In paragraph (b), by removing the 

words ‘‘fruit flies’’ and adding the 

words ‘‘plant pests’’ in their place. 

■ c. In paragraph (b), by adding the 

word ‘‘sweetpotatoes,’’ after the word 

‘‘rambutan,’’. 

■ 17. A new § 318.13–4d is added to 

read as follows: 

§ 318.13–4d Vapor heat treatment of 

sweetpotatoes from Hawaii. 

(a) Vapor heat treatment, carried out 

in accordance with the provisions of 

this section, is approved as a treatment 

for sweetpotato from Hawaii. 

(b) Sweetpotatoes may be moved 

interstate from Hawaii in accordance 

with this section only if the following 

conditions are met: 2

(1) The sweetpotatoes must be treated 

in accordance with the vapor heat 

treatment schedule specified in 

§ 305.24. 

(2) The sweetpotatoes must be 

sampled, cut, and inspected and found 

to be free of the ginger weevil 

(Elytrotreinus subtruncatus). Sampling, 

cutting, and inspection must be 

performed under conditions that will 

prevent any pests that may emerge from 

the sampled sweetpotatoes from 

infesting any other sweetpotatoes 

intended for interstate movement in 

accordance with this section. 

(3) The sweetpotatoes must be 

inspected and found to be free of the 

gray pineapple mealybug (Dysmicoccus 

neobrevipes) and the Kona coffee-root 

knot nematode (Meloidogyne 

konaensis). 

(4)(i) Sweetpotatoes that are treated in 

Hawaii must be packaged in the 

following manner: 

(A) The cartons must have no 

openings that will allow the entry of 

fruit flies and must be sealed with seals 

that will visually indicate if the cartons 

have been opened. They may be 

constructed of any material that 

prevents the entry of fruit flies and 

prevents oviposition by fruit flies into 

the fruit in the carton.3

(B) The pallet-load of cartons must be 

wrapped before it leaves the treatment 

facility in one of the following ways: 

(1) With polyethylene sheet wrap; 

(2) With net wrapping; or 

(3) With strapping so that each carton 

on an outside row of the pallet load is 

constrained by a metal or plastic strap. 

(C) Packaging must be labeled with 

treatment lot numbers, packing and 

treatment facility identification and 

location, and dates of packing and 

treatment. 

(ii) Cartons of untreated sweetpotatoes 

that are moving to the mainland United 

States for treatment must be shipped in 

shipping containers sealed prior to 

interstate movement with seals that will 

visually indicate if the shipping 

containers have been opened. 

(5)(i) Certification on basis of 

treatment. A certificate shall be issued 

by an inspector for the movement of 

sweetpotatoes from Hawaii that have 

been treated and handled in Hawaii in 

accordance with this section. To be 

certified for interstate movement under 

this section, sweetpotato from Hawaii 

must be sampled, cut, and inspected by 

an inspector and found by an inspector 

to be free of the ginger weevil 

(Elytrotreinus subtruncatus) and 

inspected and found by an inspector to 

be free of the gray pineapple mealybug 

(Dysmicoccus neobrevipes), and the 

Kona coffee-root knot nematode 

(Meloidogyne konaensis) before 

undergoing vapor heat treatment in 

Hawaii. 

(ii) Limited permit. A limited permit 

shall be issued by an inspector for the 

interstate movement of untreated 

sweetpotato from Hawaii for treatment 

on the mainland United States in 

accordance with this section. To be 

eligible for a limited permit under this 

section, untreated sweetpotato from 

Hawaii must be sampled, cut, and 

inspected in Hawaii by an inspector and 

found by an inspector to be free of the 

ginger weevil (Elytrotreinus 

subtruncatus) and inspected and found 

by an inspector to be free of the gray 

pineapple mealybug (Dysmicoccus 

neobrevipes), and the Kona coffee-root 

knot nematode (Meloidogyne 

konaensis). 

(Approved by the Office of Management and 

Budget under control number 0579–0281) 

■ 18. Section 318.13–4f is revised to 

read as follows: 

§ 318.13–4f Irradiation treatment of certain 

regulated articles from Hawaii. 

Irradiation, carried out in accordance 

with the provisions in § 305.34 of this 

chapter, is approved as a treatment for 

the following fruits and vegetables: 

Abiu, atemoya, bell pepper, carambola, 

eggplant, litchi, longan, mango, papaya, 

pineapple, rambutan, sapodilla, Italian 

squash, sweetpotato, and tomato. Any 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 4463 

other commodities that are required by 

this subpart to be treated or subjected to 

inspection to control one or more of the 

plant pests listed in § 305.31(a) of this 

chapter may instead be treated with 

irradiation. Commodities treated with 

irradiation for plant pests listed in 

§ 305.31(a) must be irradiated at the 

doses listed in § 305.31(a), and the 

irradiation treatment must be conducted 

in accordance with the other 

requirements of § 305.34. 

■ 19. Section 318.13–4i is amended as 

follows: 

■ a. By revising the section heading to 

read as set forth below. 

■ b. By redesignating paragraphs (a), (b), 

(c), and (d) as paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), 

(a)(3), and (a)(4), respectively, and by 

designating the introductory text of the 

section as paragraph (a), introductory 

text. 

■ c. By adding a new paragraph (b) to 

read as set forth below. 

§ 318.13–4i Conditions governing the 

movement of bananas from Hawaii. 

* * * * * 

(b) Bananas of any cultivar or ripeness 

that do not meet the conditions of 

paragraph (a) of this section may also be 

moved interstate from Hawaii in 

accordance with the following 

conditions: 

(1) The bananas are irradiated at the 

minimum dose listed in § 305.31(a) of 

this chapter and in accordance with the 

other requirements in § 305.34 of this 

chapter for the Mediterranean fruit fly 

(Ceratitis capitata), the melon fruit fly 

(Bactrocera curcurbitae), the Oriental 

fruit fly (Bactrocera dorsalis), and the 

green scale (Coccus viridis) and are 

inspected, after removal from the stalk, 

in Hawaii and found to be free of the 

banana moth (Opogona sacchari 

(Bojen)) by an inspector before or after 

undergoing irradiation treatment; or 

(2) The bananas are irradiated at the 

minimum dose listed in §A305.31(a) of 

this chapter and in accordance with the 

other requirements in § 305.34 of this 

chapter for the Mediterranean fruit fly 

(Ceratitis capitata), the melon fruit fly 

(Bactrocera curcurbitae), and the 

Oriental fruit fly (Bactrocera dorsalis) 

and are inspected, after removal from 

the stalk, in Hawaii and found to be free 

of the green scale (Coccus viridis) and 

the banana moth (Opogona sacchari 

(Bojen)) before or after undergoing 

irradiation treatment. 

(3)(i) A certificate shall be issued by 

an inspector for the movement of 

bananas from Hawaii that have been 

treated and inspected in Hawaii in 

accordance with this paragraph 

§ 318.13–4i(b). To be certified for 

interstate movement under this 

paragraph, bananas from Hawaii must 

be treated, inspected, and, if necessary, 

culled in accordance with the 

requirements of this paragraph prior to 

interstate movement from Hawaii. 

(ii) A limited permit shall be issued 

by an inspector for the interstate 

movement of untreated bananas from 

Hawaii for treatment on the mainland 

United States in accordance with this 

section. To be eligible for a limited 

permit under this paragraph § 318.13–

4i(b), bananas from Hawaii must be 

inspected in accordance with the 

requirements of this paragraph prior to 

interstate movement from Hawaii. 

§ 318.13–5 [Amended] 

■ 20. In § 318.13–5, footnote 6 is 

redesignated as footnote 4. 

§ 318.13–12 [Amended] 

■ 21. In § 318.13–12, footnotes 7 and 8 

are redesignated as footnotes 5 and 6, 

respectively. 

§ 318.13–17 [Amended] 

■ 22. In § 318.13–17, footnotes 9 and 10 

are redesignated as footnotes 7 and 8, 

respectively. 

Subpart—Sweetpotatoes [Removed] 

■ 23. Subpart—Sweetpotatoes, 

consisting of §§ 318.30 and 318.30a, is 

removed. 

§ 318.58 [Amended] 

■ 24. In § 318.58, paragraph (d) is 

amended by removing the words 

‘‘leaves in full force and effect § 318.30 

which restricts the movement from 

Hawaii, Puerto Rico, or the Virgin 

Islands of the United States into or 

through any other State or certain 

Territories or Districts of the United 

States of all varieties of sweetpotatoes 

(Ipomoea batatas Poir.). It also’’. 

■ 25. In § 318.58–1, the definition of 

inspector is revised to read as follows: 

§ 318.58–1 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Inspector. Any individual authorized 

by the Administrator of APHIS or the 

Commissioner of Customs and Border 

Protection, Department of Homeland 

Security, to enforce the regulations in 

this part. 

* * * * * 

§ 318.58–2 [Amended] 

■ 26. In § 318.58–2, in paragraph (b)(2), 

the list of articles is amended by adding, 

in alphabetical order, a new entry for 

‘‘Sweetpotato (Ipomoea batatas Poir.).’’

■ 27. A new section § 318.58–4b is 

added to read as follows: 

§ 318.58–4b Irradiation treatment of 

regulated articles from Puerto Rico and the 

U.S. Virgin Islands. 

Any regulated articles from Puerto 

Rico or the U.S. Virgin Islands that are 

required by this subpart to be treated or 

subjected to inspection to control one or 

more of the plant pests listed in 

§ 305.31(a) of this chapter may instead 

be treated with irradiation. 

Commodities treated with irradiation for 

plant pests listed in § 305.31(a) must be 

irradiated at the doses listed in 

§ 305.31(a), and the irradiation 

treatment must be conducted in 

accordance with the other requirements 

of § 305.34. 

■ 28. A new section § 318.58–4c is 

added to read as follows. 

§ 318.58–4c Movement of sweetpotatoes 

from Puerto Rico to certain ports. 

Sweetpotatoes from Puerto Rico may 

be moved interstate to Atlantic Coast 

ports north of and including Baltimore, 

MD, if the following conditions are met: 

(a) The sweetpotatoes must be 

certified by an inspector of the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico as having 

been grown under the following 

conditions: 

(1) Fields in which the sweetpotatoes 

have been grown must have been given 

a preplanting treatment with an 

approved soil insecticide. 

(2) Before planting in such treated 

fields, the sweetpotato draws and vine 

cuttings must have been dipped in an 

approved insecticidal solution. 

(3) During the growing season an 

approved insecticide must have been 

applied to the vines at prescribed 

intervals. 

(b) An inspector of the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico must 

certify that the sweetpotatoes have been 

washed. 

(c) The sweetpotatoes must be graded 

by inspectors of the Commonwealth of 

Puerto Rico in accordance with Puerto 

Rican standards which do not provide a 

tolerance for insect infestation or 

evidence of insect injury and found by 

such inspectors to comply with such 

standards prior to movement from 

Puerto Rico. 

(d) The sweetpotatoes must be 

inspected by an inspector and found to 

be free of the sweetpotato scarabee 

(Euscepes postfasciatus Fairm.). 

PART 319—FOREIGN QUARANTINE 

NOTICES 

■ 29. 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. 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES
4464 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

§ 319.56–2 [Amended] 

■ 30. In § 319.56–2, paragraph (k) is 

amended by removing the words ‘‘11 

species of fruit flies and one species of 

seed weevil’’ and adding the words 

‘‘plant pests’’ in their place. 

■ 31. Section 319.74–2 is amended as 

follows by redesignating paragraph (d) 

as paragraph (e) and by adding a new 

paragraph (d) to read as follows: 

§ 319.74–2 Conditions governing the entry 

of cut flowers. 

* * * * * 

(d) Irradiation. Cut flowers and foliage 

that are required under this part to be 

treated or subjected to inspection to 

control one or more of the plant pests 

listed in § 305.31(a) of this chapter may 

instead be treated with irradiation. 

Commodities treated with irradiation for 

plant pests listed in § 305.31(a) must be 

irradiated at the doses listed in 

§ 305.31(a), and the irradiation 

treatment must be conducted in 

accordance with the other requirements 

of § 305.34 of this chapter. There is a 

possibility that some cut flowers could 

be damaged by such irradiation. 

* * * * * 

Done in Washington, DC, this 20th day of 

January 2006. 

Kevin Shea, 

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 06–746 Filed 1–26–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

10 CFR Part 52 

RIN 3150–AH56 

AP1000 Design Certification 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC or Commission) is 

amending its regulations to certify the 

AP1000 standard plant design. This 

action is necessary so that applicants or 

licensees intending to construct and 

operate an AP1000 design may do so by 

referencing this regulation [AP1000 

design certification rule (DCR)]. The 

applicant for certification of the AP1000 

design was Westinghouse Electric 

Company, LLC (Westinghouse). 

DATES: Effective Date: The effective date 

of this rule is February 27, 2006. The 

incorporation by reference of certain 

material specified in this regulation is 

approved by the Director of the Office 

of the Federal Register as of February 

27, 2006. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Lauren Quinones-Navarro or Jerry N. 

Wilson, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555–

0001; telephone (301) 415–2007 or (301) 

415–3145; e-mail: lnq@nrc.gov or 

jnw@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background. 

II. Comment Analysis 

A. Design Control Document 

B. Design Certification Rule 

III. Section-by-Section Analysis 

A. Introduction (Section I) 

B. Definitions (Section II) 

C. Scope and Contents (Section III) 

D. Additional Requirements and 

Restrictions (Section IV) 

E. Applicable Regulations (Section V) 

F. Issue Resolution (Section VI) 

G. Duration of this Appendix (Section VII) 

H. Processes for Changes and Departures 

(Section VIII) 

I. Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and 

Acceptance Criteria (Section IX) 

J. Records and Reporting (Section X) 

IV. Availability of Documents 

V. Voluntary Consensus Standards 

VI. Finding of No Significant Environmental 

Impact: Availability 

VII. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement 

VIII. Regulatory Analysis 

IX. Regulatory Flexibility Certification 

X. Backfit Analysis 

XI. Congressional Review Act 

I. Background 

Subpart B of 10 CFR part 52 sets forth 

the process for obtaining standard 

design certifications. On March 28, 2002 

(67 FR 20845; April 26, 2002), 

Westinghouse tendered its application 

for certification of the AP1000 standard 

plant design with the NRC. 

Westinghouse submitted this 

application in accordance with subpart 

B and appendix O of 10 CFR part 52. 

The NRC formally accepted the 

application as a docketed application 

for design certification (Docket No. 52–

006) on June 25, 2002 (67 FR 43690; 

June 28, 2002). The pre-application 

information submitted before the NRC 

formally accepted the application can be 

found in the NRC’s Agencywide 

Documents Access and Management 

System (ADAMS) under Docket Number 

PROJ0711 (Project No. 711). 

The NRC staff issued a final safety 

evaluation report (FSER) for the AP1000 

design in September 2004 (NUREG–

1793). The FSER provides the bases for 

issuance of a final design approval 

(FDA) under appendix O to part 52, 

which is a prerequisite to a design 

certification. The FDA for the AP1000 

design was issued on September 13, 

2004, and published in the Federal 

Register on September 17, 2004 (69 FR 

56101). A proposed rule to certify the 

AP1000 was published on April 18, 

2005 (70 FR 20062). 

Subsequently, Westinghouse 

submitted editorial and minor technical 

changes and clarifications to the 

inspections, tests, analyses, and 

acceptance criteria (ITAAC) in revision 

15 to the design control document 

(DCD). The NRC staff evaluated these 

changes in a supplement to the FSER 

(NUREG–1793, Supplement No. 1). 

Supplement No. 1 is being made 

available to the public as part of this 

rulemaking. The FSER and Supplement 

No. 1 provide the bases for the 

Commission’s approval of the AP1000 

standard plant design. An FDA, which 

incorporates the changes to the DCD, 

will be issued to supersede the current 

FDA after issuance of this final design 

certification rule. 

II. Comment Analysis 

The period for submitting comments 

on the proposed DCR, AP1000 DCD, or 

draft environmental assessment (EA) 

expired on July 5, 2005. The NRC 

received three letters from two private 

citizens and one letter from the Nuclear 

Energy Institute (NEI). The comments 

addressed three categories of 

information: Environmental Assessment 

(EA), Design Control Document, and 

Design Certification Rule. The responses 

to the comments on the EA are 

discussed in section 7.0 of the EA 

(ML053630176). Responses to the 

comments in the second and third 

categories are discussed below. 

A. Design Control Document (DCD) 

Comment summary. There is an overreliance on passive systems in the 

AP1000. 

Response. The NRC disagrees with 

this comment. The NRC required tests of 

the new passive safety systems to 

demonstrate that they will perform as 

predicted in the safety analysis (see 

Chapter 21 of the AP1000 FSER). The 

NRC also required higher availability for 

certain active backup systems to 

compensate for any remaining 

uncertainties in the performance of the 

passive safety systems (see Chapter 22 

of the AP1000 FSER). As a result of 

these reviews, the NRC concluded that 

the use of passive safety systems in the 

AP1000 design is acceptable. 

Comment Summary. The AP1000 is 

an unnecessary and unsafe variation on 

AP600. 

Response. The NRC disagrees with the 

comment. The NRC has determined that 

the AP1000 design can be built and 

operated safely (see AP1000 FSER). The 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES