43804 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 141 / Friday, July 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

1To view the proposed rule, the commodity 

import evaluation document, and the comments we 

received, go to http://www.regulations.gov/ 

fdmspublic/component/ 

main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS-2010-0127. 

Saguache 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2011–18533 Filed 7–21–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6325–39–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

7 CFR Parts 301 and 319 

[Docket No. APHIS–2010–0127] 

RIN 0579–AD34 

Movement of Hass Avocados From 

Areas Where Mediterranean Fruit Fly 

or South American Fruit Fly Exist 

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are amending the 

regulations to relieve certain restrictions 

regarding the movement of fresh Hass 

variety avocados. Specifically, we are 

amending our domestic regulations to 

provide for the interstate movement of 

Hass avocados from Mediterranean fruit 

fly quarantined areas in the United 

States with a certificate if the fruit is 

safeguarded after harvest in accordance 

with specific measures. We are also 

amending our foreign quarantine 

regulations to remove trapping 

requirements for Mediterranean fruit fly 

for Hass avocados imported from the 

State of Michoaca ́n, Mexico, 

requirements for treatment or origin 

from an area free of Mediterranean fruit 

fly for Hass avocados imported from 

Peru, and requirements for trapping or 

origin from an area free of South 

American fruit fly for Hass avocados 

imported from Peru. These actions are 

warranted in light of research 

demonstrating the limited host status of 

Hass avocados to Mediterranean fruit fly 

and South American fruit fly. By 

amending both our domestic and foreign 

quarantine regulations, we are making 

them consistent with each other and 

relieving restrictions for Mexican and 

Peruvian Hass avocado producers. In 

addition, this action provides a means 

for Hass avocados to be moved interstate 

if the avocados originate from a 

Mediterranean fruit fly quarantined area 

in the United States. 

DATES: Effective Date: July 22, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Tony Roma ́n, Import Specialist, 

Regulations, Permits, and Manuals, 

PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 133, 

Riverdale, MD 20737–1231; (301) 734– 

0627. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The domestic fruit fly regulations, 

contained in 7 CFR 301.32 through 

301.32–10 (referred to below as the 

domestic regulations), were established 

to prevent the spread of certain fruit fly 

species, including Ceratitis capitata 

(Mediterranean fruit fly), into 

noninfested areas of the United States. 

The regulations designate soil and many 

fruits, nuts, vegetables, and berries as 

regulated articles and impose 

restrictions on the interstate movement 

of those regulated articles from 

regulated areas. 

Avocado, Persea americana 

(including the variety Hass), is listed as 

a regulated article for Mediterranean 

fruit fly, melon fruit fly (Bactrocera 

cucurbitae), Mexican fruit fly 

(Anastrepha ludens), Oriental fruit fly 

(Bactrocera dorsalis), peach fruit fly 

(Anastrepha zonata), and sapote fruit 

fly (Anastrepha serpentina) in the 

regulations. Because avocados are listed 

as regulated articles, they may not be 

moved interstate from an area 

quarantined for one of those fruit flies 

unless the movement is authorized by a 

certificate or limited permit. In general, 

avocados may be eligible for a certificate 

if a bait spray is applied to the 

production site beginning prior to 

harvest and continuing through the end 

of harvest or if a post-harvest irradiation 

treatment is applied to the fruit. To be 

eligible for a limited permit, a regulated 

article must be moved to a specific 

destination for specialized handling, 

utilization, or processing or for 

treatment and meet all other applicable 

provisions of the regulations. For Hass 

avocados moving interstate from any 

Mexican fruit fly or sapote fruit fly 

quarantined area, the avocados may be 

moved interstate under certificate if the 

fruit is safeguarded after harvest in 

accordance with specific measures set 

out in § 301.32–4(d). We have 

determined that Hass avocados are a 

host for Mexican fruit fly and sapote 

fruit fly only after harvest; these 

measures are designed to prevent Hass 

avocados harvested in a quarantined 

area from being infested with these fruit 

flies after harvest. Avocados handled in 

accordance with these measures are 

thus allowed to move from the 

quarantined area without further 

restriction under the certificate. 

The regulations in ‘‘Subpart–Fruits 

and Vegetables’’ (7 CFR 319.56–1 

through 319.56–50, referred to below as 

the import regulations) prohibit or 

restrict the importation of fruits and 

vegetables into the United States from 

certain parts of the world to prevent the 

introduction and dissemination of plant 

pests that are new to or not widely 

distributed within the United States. 

The requirements for importing Hass 

variety avocados into the United States 

from Michoaca ́n, Mexico, are described 

in § 319.56–30. Those requirements 

include pest surveys and pest riskreducing practices, treatment, 

packinghouse procedures, inspection, 

and shipping procedures. Although 

Mediterranean fruit fly is not known to 

be present in Michoaca ́n, Mexico, the 

regulations require that trapping be 

conducted for Mediterranean fruit fly 

and that any fruit fly finds are reported 

to the Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service (APHIS). 

The regulations in § 319.56–50 allow 

the importation into the continental 

United States of Hass avocados from 

Peru provided, among other things, that 

the avocados originate from an area free 

of Mediterranean fruit fly or that the 

avocados have been treated for 

Mediterranean fruit fly in accordance 

with our phytosanitary treatment 

regulations in 7 CFR part 305. In 

addition, the regulations in § 319.56–50 

require that the avocados must either 

originate from an area within Peru that 

is free of South American fruit fly or an 

area with low pest prevalence for South 

American fruit fly and where trapping 

for South American fruit fly is 

conducted. 

On April 4, 2011, we published in the 

Federal Register (76 FR 18419–18421, 

Docket No. APHIS–2010–0127) a 

proposal 1 to amend our domestic 

quarantine regulations to provide for the 

interstate movement of Hass avocados 

from Mediterranean fruit fly 

quarantined areas in the United States 

with a certificate if the fruit is 

safeguarded after harvest in accordance 

with specific measures. We also 

proposed to amend our foreign 

quarantine regulations to remove 

trapping requirements for 

Mediterranean fruit fly for Hass 

avocados imported from Michoaca ́n, 

Mexico, the treatment requirements and 

origin restrictions for Mediterranean 

fruit fly for imported Hass avocados 

from Peru, and the trapping 

requirements and origin restrictions for 

South American fruit fly for imported 

Hass avocados from Peru. These 

proposed actions were intended to make 

our domestic and foreign requirements 

for movement of Hass avocados 

consistent with each other, relieve 

restrictions for Mexican and Peruvian 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 141 / Friday, July 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 43805 

2Aluja, M., F. Diaz-Fleischer and J. Arredondo. 

2004. Nonhost Status of Commercial Persea 

americana ‘Hass’ to Anastrepha ludens, Anastrepha 

obliqua, Anastrepha serpentina, and Anastrepha 

striata (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Mexico. J. Econ. 

Entomol. 97(2): 293–309. 

Hass avocado producers, and provide an 

alternative means for Hass avocados to 

be moved interstate if the avocados 

originate from a Mediterranean fruit fly 

quarantined area in the United States. 

We solicited comments concerning 

our proposal for 30 days ending May 4, 

2011. We reopened and extended the 

deadline for comments until May 18, 

2011, in a document published in the 

Federal Register on May 9, 2011 (76 FR 

26654–26655). We received 30 

comments by that date. They were from 

private citizens, customs brokers, trade 

associations, a State department of 

agriculture, growers, industry groups, 

chambers of commerce, ports, and 

foreign governments. The majority of 

commenters supported the proposed 

rule. Several commenters submitted 

comments that were not germane to the 

rule. The issues raised by the other 

commenters are discussed below. 

One commenter stated that, because 

Hass avocados have been proven to be 

limited hosts for South American fruit 

fly and Mediterranean fruit fly, APHIS 

should relieve movement restrictions on 

Hass avocados from all countries with 

Mediterranean fruit fly and South 

American fruit fly that ship Hass 

avocados to the United States. The 

commenter stated that this would fulfill 

our bilateral and multilateral sanitary 

and phytosanitary agreements. 

Currently, Hass avocados are allowed 

entry into the United States from the 

State of Michoaca ́n, Mexico, and Peru 

under the regulations in §§ 319.56–30 

and 319.56–50, respectively. In 

addition, Hass avocados are allowed 

entry into the United States from Chile 

administratively, provided that the 

avocados originate from an area free of 

the Mediterranean fruit fly or that the 

avocados have been treated by either 

cold treatment or fumigation with 

methyl bromide. Because we recognize 

Chile as free of Mediterranean fruit fly 

and South American fruit fly, we did 

not mention Chile in our proposed rule; 

however, we are also relieving 

movement restrictions on Hass avocados 

from Chile due to Mediterranean fruit 

fly, should Mediterranean fruit fly be 

reintroduced to Chile. In the event that 

another country where Mediterranean 

fruit fly and South American fruit fly 

are present is authorized to export Hass 

avocados to the United States, we will 

not impose movement restrictions 

associated with those fruit flies, except 

for post-harvest safeguarding as 

described in the proposed rule. 

One commenter expressed concern 

that Peru’s research protocol and 

findings, particularly with respect to the 

host status of Hass avocados for South 

American fruit fly, were not subjected to 

peer review. The commenter further 

stated that the NPPO of Peru should 

conduct additional experiments to test 

host susceptibility to South American 

fruit fly using fruit of varying degrees of 

maturity from stressed trees. The 

commenter cited the abandonment of 

the regulatory protocol allowing the 

movement of Sharwil variety avocados 

from Hawaii to the continental United 

States due to repeated finds of Oriental 

fruit fly larva within avocado fruit 

during drought conditions. 

While Peru’s report on the host status 

of Hass avocado for South American 

fruit fly was not peer-reviewed, their 

research corroborated current literature, 

including peer-reviewed research 

conducted by Martin Aluja et al.,2

concluding that, under most 

circumstances, Hass avocados are 

generally poor hosts for Anastrepha 

spp. fruit flies. As stated in the 

commodity import evaluation document 

published in connection with the 

proposed rule, APHIS does not consider 

South American fruit fly to infest Hass 

avocados in Mexico, but we included it 

in the pest list for Hass avocados from 

Peru due to a lack of host records and 

data. Peru subsequently conducted a 

study on host status and came to the 

conclusion that Hass avocados in Peru 

are not hosts to South American fruit 

fly. As stated in our commodity import 

evaluation document, the main risk of 

fruit fly infestation is from avocado fruit 

outside of the normal population, i.e., 

fruit that is left to become overripe on 

the tree, injured or damaged fruit, fruit 

picked up from the ground, picked fruit 

left in the field for days, and fruit that 

is the wrong cultivar. Therefore, we 

have determined that Hass avocados are 

conditional nonhosts for Mediterranean 

fruit fly and South American fruit fly. 

We have encouraged Peru to submit the 

data they submitted to us regarding the 

host status of Hass avocado to South 

American fruit fly for publication in a 

peer-reviewed journal. 

The commenter is correct that the 

regulatory protocol allowing Sharwil 

avocados to be moved to the continental 

United States from Hawaii was 

abandoned due to repeated finds of 

Oriental fruit fly larva within avocado 

fruit. However, the situation within 

Hawaii was fundamentally different 

than the situation within Peru for 

several reasons, not the least of which 

is the different fruit fly species and 

avocado varieties involved. 

Apart from variety-host interactions, 

other factors indicate that the problems 

with interstate movement of Sharwil 

variety avocados are not likely to occur 

in Hass variety avocados. For example, 

the exocarp of the Hass avocado fruit 

provides a barrier to infestation by fruit 

flies that may not be offered by the 

exocarp of other varieties of avocados. 

In general, drought conditions may 

increase incidences of fruit fly 

infestation of avocados, in particular 

due to an increase in a specific type of 

peduncle damage called girdling. 

However, unlike Sharwil avocados in 

Hawaii, it has been shown that Hass 

avocados in Mexico that experience 

girdling do not reach a size conducive 

to export (see footnote 2). Therefore, 

they are not likely to be included in 

commercial shipments. In addition, it is 

unlikely that avocado trees in Peru 

would undergo drought stress because 

the avocado groves there are irrigated. 

Mature ripe fruit, including Hass 

avocados, are also more susceptible to 

insect infestation than immature or 

‘‘green’’ fruit; the greater distance that 

Peruvian Hass avocados must travel to 

reach the United States means that 

mature ripe Hass avocados would not be 

packed for export to the United States, 

as they would spoil by the time they 

arrived on the export market. 

One commenter asked what sort of 

oversight APHIS would have over our 

Hass avocado import programs and 

what resources will be made available to 

ensure that the provisions in the 

regulations are carried out. 

As signatories to the International 

Plant Protection Convention, the 

national plant protection organizations 

(NPPO) of Mexico, Peru, and Chile are 

obligated to fulfill their responsibilities 

for importation of Hass avocados. In 

addition, we have APHIS employees 

stationed in countries throughout the 

world, including Mexico, Peru, and 

Chile, to monitor import program 

activities. We have conducted site visits 

as part of developing our import 

requirements and found the NPPOs of 

Mexico, Peru, and Chile to have the 

necessary resources and capacity to 

implement them. In addition, all Hass 

avocado shipments are subject to 

inspection at the port of entry, which 

may include fruit cutting to ensure 

freedom from quarantine pests. This 

inspection serves as a check on the 

effectiveness of the required mitigations. 

One commenter suggested that each 

avocado importer provide a bond that 

could be used to pay for mitigating 

potential pest outbreaks as a result of 

the importation. 

We do not consider such a bond 

requirement to be practical, largely 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
43806 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 141 / Friday, July 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

because no country in the world 

requires the indemnification of 

agricultural products offered for 

importation; if the United States were to 

set a precedent and require such 

indemnification, it would be only a 

matter of time before our domestic 

agricultural producers would be 

required to put up similar bonds for 

their exports. Any grower or farmer has 

little control over his or her produce 

once it has left the grove or farm, let 

alone once it has been exported to 

another nation. Finally, requiring such 

indemnification would run counter to 

our obligations under current 

international trade agreements and 

would certainly be subject to challenge 

by our trading partners. For these 

reasons, the use of such bonds is 

considered impractical. In addition, as 

our import requirements are sufficient 

to mitigate the risk of pest introduction 

via the importation of Hass avocados, 

we do not believe that such a 

requirement would be necessary in any 

case. 

Several commenters expressed 

concern regarding the impact of the 

proposed rule on U.S. avocado 

producers. One commenter pointed to a 

historical decrease in U.S. avocado 

acreage and stated that increasing U.S. 

regulatory constraints and water costs as 

well as lower-priced foreign imports 

have accelerated the decline in avocado 

acreage in recent years. The commenter 

further stated that lowering the costs 

borne by foreign producers and allowing 

unlimited foreign imports will drive 

domestic avocado producers out of 

business, resulting in the permanent 

loss of the domestic avocado industry, 

which will have an adverse economic 

effect for businesses connected with the 

domestic avocado industry. In addition, 

the commenter stated that communities 

in the United States where avocados are 

currently grown would suffer from 

fallowed farm land. The commenter 

recommended that, before additional 

Peruvian avocados are imported, a farreaching and comprehensive economic 

impact analysis be prepared, preferably 

by an independent third party, to 

evaluate the impacts to the U.S. avocado 

industry and the effects of additional 

pressures. 

While the commenter is correct that 

U.S. avocado acreage has declined in 

the past 25 years, many factors could 

contribute to that decline, including the 

increasing opportunity cost of avocado 

production and the conversion of 

avocado groves to residential or 

commercial lots. In addition, despite a 

decrease in avocado acreage, avocado 

production has remained approximately 

the same over that period. While APHIS 

does not place specific limits on imports 

of agricultural products generally, 

APHIS does allow imports to occur only 

after pest risks are investigated and 

appropriate mitigation measures are in 

place. 

This rule will allow foreign producers 

to realize cost savings, and may increase 

imports. However, we have determined 

that the domestic avocado industry will 

not be significantly adversely affected 

by this rule. Avocados from Chile, 

Mexico, and Peru are currently allowed 

importation into the United States and, 

in the case of Mexico and Chile, have 

been allowed into the United States for 

a number of years. Despite this, the U.S. 

avocado industry is still very active and 

there have been no introductions of 

pests that can be traced to avocado 

imports in the United States. 

APHIS does realize that additional 

imports may place downward pressure 

on domestic Hass avocado prices, but it 

also may mean greater availability and 

potentially greater demand by 

consumers for all avocados, imported 

and domestic alike. 

Should domestic avocado production 

decline as a result of this rule, some 

land may be removed from avocado 

production. However, fallowing land 

implies that opportunity cost of avocado 

production land is zero. On the 

contrary, the land will be put to a use 

that provides the owner with the highest 

return, which could include 

noneconomic considerations. We would 

also like to emphasize that, by allowing 

imports to occur under reasonable 

science-based restrictions, we advocate 

for a more accessible world market for 

U.S. exports as well. 

The additional areas of study 

suggested by the commenter are beyond 

the requirements of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, which requires agencies 

to evaluate the potential effects of their 

proposed and final rules on small 

businesses, small organizations, and 

small governmental jurisdictions and to 

prepare and make available for public 

comment a regulatory flexibility 

analysis that describes expected impacts 

of a rule on small entities. In addition, 

we believe a study of that scope is not 

warranted given that this rule was not 

intended to allow additional avocados 

into the United States but to relieve 

restrictions, which we have deemed no 

longer necessary, on the importation of 

Hass avocados already allowed entry. 

Another commenter stated that, 

because there are no domestic areas 

quarantined for the presence of 

Mediterranean fruit fly, it is not a 

benefit to U.S. producers to remove 

restrictions on the interstate movement 

of Hass avocados for Mediterranean fruit 

fly. The commenter further expressed 

concern regarding the economic impact 

of the rule on small entities and 

recommended that APHIS consult an 

economic report put out by the 

University of California, Davis, 

Department of Agricultural and 

Resource Economics, in 2004 regarding 

how to offset price impacts from 

imported avocados. 

While the commenter is correct that 

there are currently no areas within the 

United States quarantined for 

Mediterranean fruit fly, we proposed to 

remove restrictions on the movement of 

Hass avocados due to Mediterranean 

fruit fly if, in the future, areas of the 

United States were to be quarantined for 

Mediterranean fruit fly. Since 2005, 

there have been 13 Mediterranean fruit 

fly outbreaks in the United States. The 

last outbreak of Mediterranean fruit fly 

in California was in 2009, and it affected 

avocado production areas. As stated 

previously, avocados from Chile, 

Mexico, and Peru are already allowed 

entry into the United States; the final 

rule merely relieves restrictions on the 

movement of Hass avocados we have 

determined are not necessary in light of 

research demonstrating the limited host 

status of Hass avocados to 

Mediterranean and South American 

fruit fly. 

Therefore, for the reasons given in the 

proposed rule and in this document, we 

are adopting the proposed rule as a final 

rule, without change. 

Effective Date 

This is a substantive rule that relieves 

restrictions and, pursuant to the 

provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553, may be made 

effective less than 30 days after 

publication in the Federal Register. 

Immediate implementation of this rule 

is necessary to provide relief to those 

persons who are adversely affected by 

restrictions we no longer find 

warranted. The shipping season for Hass 

avocados from Mexico, Peru, and Chile 

is in progress. Making this rule effective 

immediately will allow interested 

producers and others in the marketing 

chain to benefit during this year’s 

shipping season. Therefore, the 

Administrator of the Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service has 

determined that this rule should be 

effective upon publication in the 

Federal Register. 

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

This final rule has been determined to 

be not significant for the purposes of 

Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, 

has not been reviewed by the Office of 

Management and Budget. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 141 / Friday, July 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 43807 

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 604, we 

have performed a final regulatory 

flexibility analysis, which is 

summarized below, regarding the 

economic effects of this rule on small 

entities. Copies of the full analysis are 

available on the Regulations.gov Web 

site (see footnote 1 in this document for 

a link to Regulations.gov) or by 

contacting the person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Within the United States, avocado 

fruit is primarily produced in California, 

Hawaii, and Florida. There were 

approximately 8,200 farms producing 

avocados in those States in 2007. About 

180,000 metric tons (MT) of avocados 

were produced annually in the United 

States over a 20-year period beginning 

in the 1990–1991 season. There is an 

occasional fluctuation with an 

occasional higher or lower production 

amount than other years; the variance in 

avocado production can be attributed to 

various circumstances including 

inclement weather. 

Currently, the costs associated with 

the Mediterranean fruit fly mitigation 

measures on Hass avocados from 

Mexico and Peru have increased the 

cost of imported avocados for 

consumers. Removing requirements for 

treatment, trapping, and origin 

restrictions for Hass avocados from 

Mexico and Peru due to Mediterranean 

fruit fly and South American fruit fly 

will reduce the cost associated with 

mitigation for producers, and in 

consequence, likely lower the cost of 

imported avocados for U.S. consumers. 

The impact of the rule on Hass 

avocado fruit operations in California, 

Hawaii, and Florida will depend on the 

volume and season of increased Hass 

avocado imports from Mexico and Peru, 

the volume and season of continental 

U.S. production, the volume and season 

of imports from other countries, as well 

as U.S. consumption and export levels. 

Consumer demand for avocados has 

increased greatly in the past decade. 

Imports of Hass avocados increased 

from 56,000 MT in 2001 to a high of 

420,000 MT in 2009. 

The countries affected by the 

mitigation treatment changes in this rule 

already export Hass avocados to the 

United States. It is worth noting that the 

increase in imports of Hass avocados 

has occurred over the last 10 years 

while U.S. domestic avocado 

production quantities and values have 

remained relatively stable. It would 

appear that the domestic market for 

avocados continues to expand to absorb 

both increasing imports and existing 

domestic production rather than new 

avocado imports displacing either 

domestic production or existing 

imports. It therefore does not appear 

that the current increasing level of 

imports has had a significant impact on 

a substantial number of small avocado 

producers or importers. 

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 

This final rule contains no new 

information collection or recordkeeping 

requirements under the Paperwork 

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

et seq.). 

List of Subjects 

7 CFR Part 301 

Agricultural commodities, Plant 

diseases and pests, Quarantine, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Transportation. 

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 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 issued under Sec. 204, 

Title II, Public Law 106–113, 113 Stat. 

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

16 issued under Sec. 203, Title II, Public Law 

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

§ 301.32–4 [Amended]. 

■ 2. In § 301.32–4, paragraph (d) 

introductory text is amended by 

removing the word ‘‘Mexican’’ and 

adding the words ‘‘Mediterranean, 

Mexican,’’ in its place. 

PART 319—FOREIGN QUARANTINE 

NOTICES 

■ 3. 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. 

§ 319.56–30 [Amended]. 

■ 4. Section 319.56–30 is amended by 

removing paragraph (c)(1)(iii). 

■ 5. Section 319.56–50 is amended as 

follows: 

■ a. By revising paragraphs (b)(1) and 

(b)(2) to read as set forth below. 

■ b. By removing paragraphs (d) and (e) 

and redesignating paragraphs (f) through 

(j) as paragraphs (d) through (h), 

respectively. 

■ c. By revising newly redesignated 

paragraph (g) to read as set forth below. 

■ d. In newly redesignated paragraph 

(h) introductory text, by removing the 

words ‘‘In addition:’’ and by removing 

newly redesignated paragraphs (h)(1) 

through (h)(3). 

§ 319.56–50 Hass avocados from Peru. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * (1) The NPPO of Peru must 

visit and inspect registered places of 

production monthly, starting at least 2 

months before harvest and continuing 

until the end of the shipping season, to 

verify that the growers are complying 

with the requirements of paragraphs (c) 

and (e) of this section and follow pest 

control guidelines, when necessary, to 

reduce quarantine pest populations. 

Any personnel conducting trapping and 

pest surveys under paragraph (d) of this 

section must be trained and supervised 

by the NPPO of Peru. APHIS may 

monitor the places of production if 

necessary. 

(2) In addition to conducting fruit 

inspections at the packinghouses, the 

NPPO of Peru must monitor 

packinghouse operations to verify that 

the packinghouses are complying with 

the requirements of paragraph (f) of this 

section. 

* * * * * 

(g) NPPO of Peru inspection. 

Following any post-harvest processing, 

inspectors from the NPPO of Peru must 

inspect a biometric sample of fruit from 

each place of production at a rate to be 

determined by APHIS. The inspectors 

must visually inspect for the quarantine 

pests listed in the introductory text of 

this section and must cut fruit to inspect 

for S. catenifer. If any quarantine pests 

are detected in this inspection, the place 

of production where the infested 

avocados were grown will immediately 

be suspended from the export program 

until an investigation has been 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
43808 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 141 / Friday, July 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

conducted by APHIS and the NPPO of 

Peru and appropriate mitigations have 

been implemented. 

* * * * * 

Done in Washington, DC, this 19th day of 

July 2011. 

Kevin Shea, 

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–18707 Filed 7–20–11; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Office of Energy Policy and New Uses 

7 CFR Part 2902 

RIN 0503–AA36 

Designation of Biobased Items for 

Federal Procurement 

AGENCY: Departmental Management, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) is amending the 

Guidelines for Designating Biobased 

Products for Federal Procurement, to 

add 14 sections to designate items 

within which biobased products will be 

afforded Federal procurement 

preference, as provided for under 

section 9002 of the Farm Security and 

Rural Investment Act of 2002, as 

amended by the Food, Conservation, 

and Energy Act of 2008 (referred to in 

this document as ‘‘section 9002’’). 

USDA is also establishing minimum 

biobased contents for each of these 

items. 

DATES: This rule is effective August 22, 

2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron 

Buckhalt, USDA, Office of Procurement 

and Property Management, Room 361, 

Reporters Building, 300 7th St. SW., 

Washington, DC 20024; e-mail: 

biopreferred@usda.gov; phone (202) 

205–4008. Information regarding the 

Federal biobased preferred procurement 

program (one part of the BioPreferred 

Program) is available on the Internet at 

http://www.biopreferred.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

information presented in this preamble 

is organized as follows: 

I. Authority 

II. Background 

III. Summary of Changes 

IV. Discussion of Public Comments 

V. Regulatory Information 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

C. Executive Order 12630: Governmental 

Actions and Interference With 

Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights 

D. Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice 

Reform 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

G. Executive Order 12372: 

Intergovernmental Review of Federal 

Programs 

H. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

I. Paperwork Reduction Act 

J. E-Government Act 

K. Congressional Review Act 

I. Authority 

These items are designated under the 

authority of section 9002 of the Farm 

Security and Rural Investment Act of 

2002 (FSRIA), as amended by the Food, 

Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 

(FCEA), 7 U.S.C. 8102 (referred to in 

this document as ‘‘section 9002’’). 

II. Background 

As part of the BioPreferred Program, 

USDA published, on November 23, 

2010, a proposed rule in the Federal 

Register (FR) for the purpose of 

designating a total of 14 items for the 

preferred procurement of biobased 

products by Federal agencies (referred 

to hereafter in this FR notice as the 

‘‘preferred procurement program’’). This 

proposed rule can be found at 75 FR 

71492. This rulemaking is referred to in 

this preamble as Round 7 (RIN 0503– 

AA36). 

In the proposed rule, USDA proposed 

designating the following 14 items for 

the preferred procurement program: 

Animal repellents; bath products; 

bioremediation materials; compost 

activators and accelerators; concrete and 

asphalt cleaners; cuts, burns, and 

abrasions ointments; dishwashing 

products; erosion control materials; 

floor cleaners and protectors; hair care 

products, including shampoos and 

conditioners as subcategories; interior 

paints and coatings; oven and grill 

cleaners; slide way lubricants; and 

thermal shipping containers, including 

durable and non-durable thermal 

shipping containers as subcategories. 

Today’s final rule designates the 

proposed items within which biobased 

products will be afforded Federal 

procurement preference. USDA has 

determined that each of the items being 

designated under today’s rulemaking 

meets the necessary statutory 

requirements; that they are being 

produced with biobased products; and 

that their procurement will carry out the 

following objectives of section 9002: to 

improve demand for biobased products; 

to spur development of the industrial 

base through value-added agricultural 

processing and manufacturing in rural 

communities; and to enhance the 

Nation’s energy security by substituting 

biobased products for products derived 

from imported oil and natural gas. 

When USDA designates by 

rulemaking an item (a generic grouping 

of products) for preferred procurement 

under the BioPreferred Program, 

manufacturers of all products under the 

umbrella of that item, that meet the 

requirements to qualify for preferred 

procurement, can claim that status for 

their products. To qualify for preferred 

procurement, a product must be within 

a designated item and must contain at 

least the minimum biobased content 

established for the designated item. 

When the designation of specific items 

is finalized, USDA will invite the 

manufacturers and vendors of these 

qualifying products to post information 

on the product, contacts, and 

performance testing on its BioPreferred 

Web site, http://www.biopreferred.gov. 

Procuring agencies will be able to utilize 

this Web site as one tool to determine 

the availability of qualifying biobased 

products under a designated item. Once 

USDA designates an item, procuring 

agencies are required generally to 

purchase biobased products within 

these designated items where the 

purchase price of the procurement item 

exceeds $10,000 or where the quantity 

of such items or of functionally 

equivalent items purchased over the 

preceding fiscal year equaled $10,000 or 

more. 

Subcategorization. Most of the items 

USDA is considering for designation for 

preferred procurement cover a wide 

range of products. For some items, there 

are subgroups of products within the 

item that meet different requirements, 

uses and/or different performance 

specifications. Where such subgroups 

exist, USDA intends to create 

subcategories within the designated 

items. In sum, USDA looks at the 

products within each item category to 

evaluate whether there are subgroups of 

products within the item that have 

different characteristics or that meet 

different performance specifications 

and, where USDA finds these types of 

differences, it intends to create 

subcategories with the minimum 

biobased content based on the tested 

products within the subcategory. 

For some items, however, USDA may 

not have sufficient information at the 

time of designation to create 

subcategories within an item. In such 

instances, USDA may either designate 

the item without creating subcategories 

(i.e., defer the creation of subcategories) 

or designate one subcategory and defer 

designation of other subcategories 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES