Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2013 / Proposed Rules 8435 

Historical and designated licensees 

may apply for lottery licenses, subject to 

certain limitations if they are affiliated 

or associated with another licensee 

holding a license for that same item 

from the same country of origin. 

Licensees may fail to qualify for a 

license for a specific item from a 

specific country in the following year if 

they do not meet certain requirements. 

Licensees must (i) Apply for the license 

each year, (ii) pay an annual fee, and 

(iii) have imported at least 85 percent of 

the final license amount from the 

previous year. To avoid ineligibility due 

to the 85 percent rule, licensees may 

surrender up to 100 percent of the 

license, but must import 85 percent of 

any quantity not surrendered. 

Section 6.25(b)(i) of the Dairy TariffRate Import Quota Licensing Program 

regulation currently provides, beginning 

with the 2016 quota year, an additional 

import requirement which applies only 

to historical licensees, that any 

historical licensee who surrenders more 

than 50 percent of the license amount 

for the same item from the same country 

during at least three of the most recent 

five years will be issued a license 

thereafter, in an amount equal to the 

average amount imported under that 

license for those five quota years. 

The only non-technical modifications 

to the program since 1996 have been 

temporary suspensions of the provision 

in section 6.25(b) providing for the 

reduction in the license amount. Citing 

changed market conditions, including 

reduced export subsidies from the 

European Union, USDA temporarily 

suspended the provision three times: for 

five years from 1998–2002, for two years 

from 2009 to 2010, and most recently for 

five years from 2011 to 2015. 

Upon promulgating the Dairy TariffRate Import Quota Licensing Program 

regulation in 1996, the Secretary of 

Agriculture determined that this 

regulation resulted to the fullest extent 

practicable in a fair and equitable 

allocation of the right to import dairy 

products subject to licensing. The 

regulation also maximized the 

utilization of the tariff-rate quotas for 

such articles, taking due account of any 

special factors which may have affected 

or may be affecting the trade in the 

products. Regarding section 6.25(b), in 

light of the small number of licenses 

available to new entrants or others who 

wish to increase imports of a given 

article, USDA determined that it was 

sound public policy to reallocate license 

amounts that were consistently not 

being used and the 6.25(b) reduction 

provision would increase the amount 

available in the non-historical pool, 

while still giving historical licensees a 

fair opportunity to demonstrate that 

they are using their licenses. 

Many stakeholders, particularly 

importers holding historical licenses, 

believe that section 6.25(b)(i) no longer 

serves its original purpose and have 

requested its elimination. They point 

out that in the last decade, for those 

items with low fill-rates, the nonhistorical license fill-rates are no higher 

than the historical license fill-rates. 

Stakeholders have also proposed as an 

alternative to eliminating section 

6.25(b)(i), that the standard against 

which historical license fill-rates are 

measured should not be 50 percent, but 

rather the industry overall average fillrate for each year. Under this type of 

rule, a historical license for a particular 

item would only be reduced if the 

licensee imported less than 50 percent 

of the industry’s average imports of that 

item for three out of the most recent five 

years. 

The U.S. dairy market has changed a 

great deal since the Dairy Tariff-Rate 

Import Quota Licensing Program 

regulation was promulgated in 1996. In 

the intervening years there have been 

significant advances in technology and 

telecommunications, and certain 

processes such as issuing new or 

reallocated licenses can now be 

managed in less time. Stakeholders have 

requested changes to some of the 

timelines and deadlines in the current 

regulation. For example, some would 

prefer that reallocation be done prior to 

October 1 of each year. Permitting 

reallocation earlier in the year would 

provide more time to identify supplies 

and arrange shipping and handling for 

entry into U.S. Customs territory before 

the quota year ends on December 31. 

Some stakeholders have requested a 

review of the method for calculating the 

annual fee, which is currently levied per 

license, but could be levied in other 

ways such as per kilogram. A small 

number of importers control a large 

percentage of the quota allocations. 

These import licenses enable the 

licensee to import certain dairy 

products at the lower in-quota tariff-rate 

and, under the current licensing 

program, much of this value likely 

accrues to these licensed importers, due 

to the extent of control they have over 

imported dairy products subject to 

licensing. Given the length of time since 

the initial historical allocations were 

made almost 60 years ago, suggestions 

have been made that a more equitable 

license allocation system could be 

implemented. 

USDA is requesting public comment 

on all of the issues mentioned above, or 

on any other part of the regulation at 7 

CFR part 6, Subpart—Dairy Tariff-Rate 

Import Quota Licensing. In particular, 

comments are invited on these 

questions: 

(1) Does the historical and 

nonhistorical license system still serve a 

purpose? 

(2) Should any provisions of the 

current regulation be modified in light 

of significant advances in technology 

and telecommunications? 

(3) Should methods be developed for 

issuing licenses that would increase 

competition among importers? 

(4) Should licenses be auctioned or 

issued on another basis? 

(5) Should section 6.25(b)(i) regarding 

historical license reductions be 

eliminated, revised, or indefinitely 

suspended? 

(6) Should the basis upon which 

license fees are assessed be changed 

from the current flat-fee per license? 

(7) Should the deadlines for the 

surrender and reallocation of licenses in 

section 6.26 be changed to allow earlier 

reallocations? 

Dated: January 31, 2013. 

Suzanne E. Heinen, 

Administrator, Foreign Agricultural Service. 

[FR Doc. 2013–02530 Filed 2–5–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–10–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

7 CFR Part 319 

[Docket No. APHIS–2011–0060] 

RIN 0579–AD59 

Importation of Fresh Citrus Fruit From 

Uruguay, Including Citrus Hybrids and 

Fortunella spp., Into the Continental 

United States 

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: We are proposing to amend 

the fruits and vegetables regulations to 

allow the importation of several 

varieties of fresh citrus fruit, as well as 

Citrus hybrids and the Citrus-related 

genus Fortunella, from Uruguay into the 

continental United States. As a 

condition of entry, the fruit would have 

to be produced in accordance with a 

systems approach that would include 

requirements for importation in 

commercial consignments, pest 

monitoring and pest control practices, 

orchard sanitation and packinghouse 

procedures designed to exclude the 

quarantine pests, and treatment. The 

fruit would also be required to be 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
8436 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

1http://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/ 

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

accompanied by a phytosanitary 

certificate issued by the national plant 

protection organization of Uruguay with 

an additional declaration confirming 

that the fruit is free from all quarantine 

pests and has been produced in 

accordance with the systems approach. 

This action would allow for the 

importation of fresh citrus fruit, 

including Citrus hybrids and the Citrusrelated genus Fortunella, from Uruguay 

while continuing to provide protection 

against the introduction of plant pests 

into the United States. 

DATES: We will consider all comments 

that we receive on or before April 8, 

2013. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by either of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov/ 

#!documentDetail;D=APHIS-2011-0060- 

0001. 

• Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: 

Send your comment to Docket No. 

APHIS–2011–0060, Regulatory Analysis 

and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 

3A–03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, 

Riverdale, MD 20737–1238. 

Supporting documents and any 

comments we receive on this docket 

may be viewed at http://www.

regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;

D=APHIS 2011-0060 or in our reading 

room, which is located in room 1141 of 

the USDA South Building, 14th Street 

and Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC. Normal reading room 

hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except holidays. To be 

sure someone is there to help you, 

please call (202) 799–7032 before 

coming. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Meredith C. Jones, Regulatory 

Coordination Specialist, Regulatory 

Coordination and Compliance, PPQ, 

APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 156, 

Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 851–2289. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background 

The regulations in ‘‘Subpart–Fruits 

and Vegetables’’ (7 CFR 319.56–1 

through 319.56–57, referred to below as 

the regulations) prohibit or restrict the 

importation of fruits and vegetables into 

the United States from certain parts of 

the world to prevent the introduction 

and dissemination of plant pests that are 

new to or not widely distributed within 

the United States. 

The national plant protection 

organization (NPPO) of Uruguay has 

requested that the Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service (APHIS) 

amend the regulations to allow sweet 

oranges (Citrus sinensis (L.) Osbeck), 

lemons (C. limon (L.) Burm. f.), four 

species of mandarins (C. reticulata 

Blanco, C. clementina Hort. ex Tanaka, 

C. deliciosa Ten., and C. unshiu 

Marcow, Citrus hybrids, and two 

species of the Citrus-related genus 

Fortunella (F. japonica Thunb. Swingle 

and F. margarita (Lour.) Swingle) to be 

imported into the continental United 

States. Hereafter we refer to these 

species as ‘‘citrus fruit.’’ As part of our 

evaluation of Uruguay’s request, we 

prepared a pest risk assessment (PRA) 

and a risk management document 

(RMD). Copies of the PRA and RMD 

may be obtained from the person listed 

under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT or viewed on the 

Regulations.gov Web site or in our 

reading room (see ADDRESSES above for 

a link to Regulations.gov and 

information on the location and hours of 

the reading room). 

The PRA, titled ‘‘Importation of Fresh 

Citrus Fruit, including Sweet Orange 

(Citrus sinensis (L.) Osbeck), Lemon (C. 

limon (L.) Burm. f.), Mandarin (C. 

reticulata Blanco, C. clementina Hort. ex 

Tanaka, C. deliciosa Ten., C. unshiu 

Marcow.), Citrus Hybrids, and the 

Citrus-Related Genus Fortunella (F. 

japonica (Thunb.) Swingle, F. margarita 

(Lour.) Swingle), from Uruguay into the 

Continental United States’’ (Dec. 16, 

2012), evaluates the risks associated 

with the importation of fresh citrus fruit 

into the continental United States from 

Uruguay. 

The PRA and supporting documents 

identified six pests of quarantine 

significance present in Uruguay that 

could be introduced into the United 

States through the importation of citrus 

fruit. These include two fruit flies, 

Anastrepha fraterculus (South 

American fruit fly) and Ceratitis 

capitata (Mediterranean fruit fly); two 

moths, Cryptoblabes gnidiella (the 

honeydew moth) and Gymnandrosoma 

aurantianum (citrus fruit borer); one 

fungus (Elsinoe ̈ australis, causal agent of 

sweet orange scab); and a pathogen 

(Xanthomonas citri subsp. citri, causal 

agent of citrus canker). In a previous 

revision of the PRA, citrus black spot 

(Guignardia citricarpa Kiely) was 

included as a quarantine pathogen 

likely to follow the pathway. However 

we have since determined that fresh or 

dried citrus fruit is not 

epidemiologically significant as a 

pathway for the introduction of citrus 

black spot because the combination of 

conditions required for disease 

transmission from harvested fruit is 

highly unlikely. Therefore, analysis of 

this pathogen was removed from the 

document. 

APHIS has determined that measures 

beyond standard port-of-arrival 

inspections are required to mitigate the 

risks posed by these plant pests. 

Therefore, we are proposing to allow the 

importation of citrus fruit from Uruguay 

into the continental United States only 

if it is produced under a systems 

approach. The systems approach would 

require the fruit to be imported only in 

commercial consignments; the 

Uruguayan NPPO to provide a workplan 

to APHIS that details the activities that 

the Uruguayan NPPO will, subject to 

APHIS’ approval of the workplan, carry 

out to meet the proposed requirements; 

pest monitoring and pest control 

practices; orchard sanitation and 

packinghouse procedures designed to 

exclude the quarantine pests; and the 

fruit to be treated in accordance with 7 

CFR part 305 and the Plant Protection 

and Quarantine (PPQ) Treatment 

Manual.1 Consignments of citrus fruit 

from Uruguay would also be required to 

be accompanied by a phytosanitary 

certificate with an additional 

declaration stating that the fruit in the 

consignment is free of all quarantine 

pests and has been produced in 

accordance with the requirements of the 

systems approach. We are proposing to 

add the systems approach to the 

regulations in a new § 319.56–58. 

Commercial Consignments 

Paragraph (a) of proposed § 319.56–58 

would state that only commercial 

consignments of citrus fruit from 

Uruguay would be allowed to be 

imported into the continental United 

States. Produce grown commercially is 

less likely to be infested with plant 

pests than noncommercial 

consignments. Noncommercial 

consignments are more prone to 

infestations because the commodity is 

often ripe to overripe, could be of a 

variety with unknown susceptibility to 

pests, and is often grown with little or 

no pest control. Commercial 

consignments, as defined in § 319.56–2, 

are consignments that an inspector 

identifies as having been imported for 

sale and distribution. Such 

identification is based on a variety of 

indicators, including, but not limited to: 

Quantity of produce, type of packing, 

identification of grower or packinghouse 

on the packaging, and documents 

consigning the fruits or vegetables to a 

wholesaler or retailer. 

General Requirements 

Paragraph (b) of proposed § 319.56–58 

would set out general requirements for 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2013 / Proposed Rules 8437 

the Uruguayan NPPO and for growers 

and packers producing citrus fruit for 

export to the United States. 

The Uruguayan NPPO would be 

required to provide a workplan to 

APHIS that details the activities that the 

Uruguayan NPPO will, subject to 

APHIS’ approval of the workplan, carry 

out to meet the proposed requirements. 

A bilateral workplan is an agreement 

between APHIS’ PPQ program, officials 

of the NPPO of a foreign government, 

and, when necessary, foreign 

commercial entities that specifies in 

detail the phytosanitary measures that 

will comply with our regulations 

governing the import or export of a 

specific commodity. Bilateral workplans 

apply only to the signatory parties and 

establish detailed procedures and 

guidance for the day-to-day operations 

of specific import/export programs. 

Bilateral workplans also establish how 

specific phytosanitary issues are dealt 

with in the exporting country and make 

clear who is responsible for dealing 

with those issues. The implementation 

of a systems approach typically requires 

a bilateral workplan to be developed. 

APHIS would be directly involved with 

the Uruguayan NPPO in monitoring and 

auditing implementation of the systems 

approach. 

All places of production and 

packinghouses that participate in the 

export program would have to be 

registered with the Uruguayan NPPO. 

Places of production that are registered 

with the Uruguayan NPPO would be 

required to follow specific field 

guidelines, including field monitoring, 

treatments, trapping and sampling, and 

sanitation. Packinghouses that are 

registered with the Uruguayan NPPO 

would be required to have in place 

general sanitation procedures and 

programs for training packinghouse 

workers to cull fruit with evidence of 

pest damage, among other things. If 

issues should arise, registration would 

also allow for the traceback of a box of 

fruit to its place of production and 

packinghouse and would allow APHIS 

and the Uruguayan NPPO to determine 

what remedial actions are necessary. 

Citrus fruit would be required to be 

grown at places of production that meet 

the requirements for fruit and plant 

debris removal, orchard monitoring, and 

pest control described later in this 

document. 

In addition, the fruit would have to be 

packed for export to the United States 

in a packinghouse that meets the 

requirements for safeguarding, culling, 

identification, and treatment that are 

described later in this document. The 

place of production where the fruit was 

grown would also be required to remain 

identifiable when the fruit leaves the 

place of production, at the 

packinghouse, and throughout the 

export process. Maintaining the identity 

of the fruit would allow for the use of 

the traceback procedures described 

earlier. 

This paragraph would also require 

safeguarding to be maintained at all 

times during the movement of the fruit 

to the United States and to be intact 

upon arrival of the fruit in the United 

States. Maintaining safeguarding would 

prevent the fruit from being infested 

with insect pests during transit. The 

safeguarding requirements are discussed 

in greater detail later in this document 

under the heading ‘‘Packinghouse 

Requirements.’’ 

Monitoring and Oversight 

The systems approach we are 

proposing includes monitoring and 

oversight requirements in paragraph (c) 

of proposed § 319.56–58 to ensure that 

the required phytosanitary measures are 

properly implemented throughout the 

process of growing and packing of citrus 

fruit for export to the United States. 

Oversight is important in ensuring that 

the requirements of the systems 

approach are implemented. 

This paragraph would require the 

Uruguayan NPPO to visit and inspect 

registered places of production monthly, 

starting at least 30 days before harvest 

and continuing until the end of the 

shipping season, to verify that the 

growers are complying with the 

requirements for grove monitoring, pest 

control, and fruit and plant debris 

removal described later in this 

document. In addition to conducting 

fruit inspections at the packinghouses, 

the Uruguayan NPPO would also be 

required to monitor packinghouse 

operations to verify that the 

packinghouses are complying with the 

packinghouse requirements for 

safeguarding, culling, and treatment that 

are described later in this document. 

If the Uruguayan NPPO finds that a 

place of production or a packinghouse 

is not complying with the relevant 

requirements of the regulations, no fruit 

from the place of production or 

packinghouse would be eligible for 

export to the United States until APHIS 

and the Uruguayan NPPO conduct an 

investigation and appropriate remedial 

actions have been implemented. 

Grove Monitoring and Pest Control 

Paragraph (d) of proposed § 319.56–58 

would specify that trapping for 

Mediterranean fruit fly and South 

American fruit fly must be conducted to 

demonstrate that the places of 

production have a low prevalence of 

those fruit flies. 

Specific trapping requirements would 

be included in the bilateral workplan 

and would be adjusted as necessary to 

ensure that trapping is effective. 

Consistent with the recommendations of 

the RMD, the bilateral workplan would 

initially require trapping in the places of 

production to monitor fruit fly 

populations to be conducted beginning 

at least 1 year before harvest begins and 

continue throughout the harvest. There 

would have to be at least two traps per 

square kilometer in all commercial 

production areas with at least two traps 

placed in each place of production. 

APHIS-approved traps baited with 

APHIS-approved plugs would have to 

be used and serviced at least once every 

2 weeks. The personnel conducting 

trapping and pest surveys would have to 

be hired, trained, and supervised by the 

Uruguayan NPPO. 

During the trapping, when traps are 

serviced, if more than 0.7 fruit flies are 

trapped per trap per day at a particular 

place of production, pesticide bait 

treatments would be required to be 

applied in order for the place of 

production to remain eligible to export 

fruit. The Uruguayan NPPO would have 

to keep records of fruit fly detections for 

each trap and make the records 

available to APHIS upon request. The 

records would have to be maintained for 

at least 1 year. 

Orchard Sanitation 

Under paragraph (e) of proposed 

§ 319.56–58, places of production would 

have to be maintained free of fallen fruit 

and plant debris. Sanitation measures, 

such as removing and discarding fallen 

fruit, are essential components of good 

agricultural practices and are mainstays 

of commercial fruit production. These 

procedures would reduce the amount of 

material in the groves that could serve 

as potential disease inoculum for E. 

australis and X. citri subsp. citri or as 

host material for insect pests. 

Fruit that has fallen from citrus trees 

to the ground tends to be damaged and 

over-mature. Therefore, to provide 

further assurance that fruit harvested for 

export is not a potential host for fruit 

flies, fallen fruit would not be allowed 

to be included in field containers of 

fruit brought to the packinghouse to be 

packed for export. 

Packinghouse Requirements 

We are proposing several 

requirements for packinghouse 

activities, which would be contained in 

paragraph (f) of proposed § 319.56–58. 

The packinghouse would have to be 

equipped with double self-closing doors 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
8438 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

2http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/ 

plant_pest_info/citrus/downloads/sweet_orange/ 

2011-22.pdf. 

at the entrance to the packinghouse and 

at the interior entrance to the area where 

fruit is packed to prevent inadvertent 

introduction of pests into the 

packinghouse. In addition, any vents or 

openings in the packinghouse (other 

than the double self-closing doors) 

would have to be covered with 

screening 1.6 mm or smaller in order to 

prevent the entry of pests into the 

packinghouse. The 1.6 mm maximum 

screening size is adequate to exclude the 

insect pests of quarantine significance 

named earlier in this document. 

Citrus fruit would have to be packed 

within 24 hours of harvest in the pestexclusionary packinghouse or stored in 

a degreening chamber in the pestexclusionary packinghouse. The fruit 

would have to be safeguarded by an 

insect-proof mesh, screen, or plastic 

tarpaulin while in transit from the 

production site to the packinghouse and 

while awaiting packing. The citrus fruit 

would have to be packed for shipment 

to the continental United States in 

insect-proof cartons or containers, or 

covered with insect-proof screen or 

plastic tarpaulin. These safeguards 

would have to remain intact until the 

arrival of the fruit in the United States 

or the consignment would not be 

allowed to enter the United States. 

During the time the packinghouse is 

in use for exporting citrus fruit to the 

United States, the packinghouse would 

only be able to accept fruit from 

registered places of production. This 

requirement would prevent citrus fruit 

intended for export to the United States 

from being exposed to or mixed with 

fruit that are not produced according to 

the requirements of the systems 

approach. 

Any symptomatic or damaged fruit 

would have to be removed from the 

commodity destined for export to the 

United States. This is a standard 

practice in packing commercial fruit 

that has been shown to effectively 

remove high proportions of fruit with 

visible pest damage or disease 

symptoms. In addition, all fruit for 

export would have to be practically free 

of leaves, twigs, and other plant parts, 

except for stems that are less than 1 inch 

long and attached to the fruit. Leaves, 

twigs, and other plant parts can serve as 

pathways for the introduction of 

diseases and should be excluded from 

consignments of citrus fruit from 

Uruguay. 

Citrus fruit would also have to be 

prepared for shipping using 

packinghouse procedures that include 

washing, brushing, surface disinfection 

in accordance with 7 CFR part 305 and 

the PPQ Treatment Manual, treatment 

with an APHIS-approved fungicide in 

accordance with labeled instructions, 

and waxing. These measures are 

equivalent to our domestic requirements 

in § 301.75–7 for the interstate 

movement of citrus fruit from areas 

quarantined for X. citri subsp. citri and 

in the April 18, 2011, Federal Order 2

(DA–2011–22) for the interstate 

movement of citrus fruit from areas 

quarantined for E. australis. While 

washing and brushing are unlikely to 

directly kill either E. australis or X. citri 

subsp. citri, washing fruits may help to 

remove any hitchhiking insects. In 

addition, surface disinfection, fungicide 

application, and waxing are intended to 

reduce the viability of X. citri subsp. 

citri and E. australis. In particular, 

surface disinfection with an approved 

disinfectant has been demonstrated to 

be effective in reducing the numbers of 

X. citri subsp. citri cells or similar 

bacteria. In a Federal Order issued on 

March 23, 2011 (DA–2011–14), this 

procedure was approved for use against 

E. australis. 

Treatment 

Under paragraph (g)(1) of proposed 

§ 319.56–58, the fruit (excluding lemon 

fruit), would have to be treated in 

accordance with 7 CFR part 305 with an 

approved treatment listed in the PPQ 

Treatment Manual for Mediterranean 

fruit fly and South American fruit fly. 

Such treatments may include, for 

Mediterranean fruit fly, methyl bromide 

fumigation using treatment schedule 

T101–w–1–2, cold treatment using 

treatment schedule T107–a, or methyl 

bromide fumigation followed by cold 

treatment using treatment schedule 

T108–a, and for South American fruit 

fly, methyl bromide fumigation using 

treatment schedule T101–j–2–1, or cold 

treatment using treatment schedules 

T107–a–1 or T107–c. Quarantine 

treatments are effective in eliminating 

South American fruit fly and 

Mediterranean fruit fly from citrus 

fruits. These treatments have been used 

successfully to mitigate pest risk for 

importing different types of fruits from 

many countries and would also mitigate 

the pest risk from citrus fruit from 

Uruguay. 

APHIS has determined that lemons 

are not hosts for South American fruit 

fly and are a conditional nonhost for 

Mediterranean fruit fly, meaning that, 

while Mediterranean fruit fly generally 

does not infest lemons, it will do so 

under certain conditions. Green lemons 

are not hosts of Mediterranean fruit fly, 

but lemons’ susceptibility to infestation 

increases as lemons mature and 

populations of Mediterranean fruit fly 

increase. The female Mediterranean 

fruit fly ovipositor normally cannot 

pierce through the rind of the lemon 

fruit to lay eggs in the toxin-free pulp; 

therefore, the eggs laid within the rind 

are killed by the toxic compounds. 

However, if the rind is thin or damaged, 

or existing oviposition puncture holes 

are present, females can exploit the 

damage or holes by ovipositing into 

them and the Mediterranean fruit fly 

eggs and larvae will be more likely to 

survive and develop. Additionally, high 

population pressure increases the 

likelihood that Mediterranean fruit fly 

will infest lemons; resistance of lemons 

to Mediterranean fruit fly infestation is 

causally linked to the chemical toxicity 

of the lemon rind and the thickness and 

toughness of the rind, but repeated 

oviposition by females into an existing 

oviposition puncture hole can overcome 

those barriers. 

Therefore, we are proposing in 

paragraph (g)(2) of proposed § 319.56– 

58 that lemon fruit would be eligible for 

importation without treatment and if 

harvested green and if the phytosanitary 

certificate accompanying the lemons 

contains an additional declaration 

stating that the lemons were harvested 

green between May 15 and August 31. 

During this period (the winter season in 

Uruguay), Mediterranean fruit fly 

populations in Uruguay are low. If 

harvested outside of this timeframe or if 

harvested yellow, the lemons would 

have to be treated with an approved 

treatment as stated above. 

Phytosanitary Certificate 

To certify that citrus fruit from 

Uruguay have been grown and packed 

in accordance with the requirements of 

proposed § 319.56–58, proposed 

paragraph (h) would require each 

consignment of citrus fruit to be 

accompanied by a phytosanitary 

certificate of inspection issued by the 

Uruguayan NPPO bearing an additional 

declaration stating that the fruit in the 

consignment is free of all quarantine 

pests and has been produced in 

accordance with the requirements of the 

systems approach in proposed § 319.56– 

58. The phytosanitary certificate and 

additional declaration are intended to 

raise the awareness of port-of-entry 

inspectors of those requirements. 

Miscellaneous Amendments to 

Subpart—Citrus Fruit § 319.28 

The regulations in § 319.28(a) prohibit 

the importation of citrus from Uruguay, 

as well as from eastern and southeastern 

Asia, Japan, Brazil, Paraguay, and other 

designated areas. However, paragraphs 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2013 / Proposed Rules 8439 

(b) through (e) of § 319.28 set out 

various exceptions to this prohibition. 

To allow the importation of citrus fruit 

from Uruguay under § 319.56–58, we 

would add a new paragraph (d) to 

§ 319.28 stating that the prohibition 

does not apply to citrus fruit from 

Uruguay that meets the requirements of 

proposed § 319.56–58. To accommodate 

the addition of the new paragraph (d) in 

§ 319.28, we would redesignate current 

paragraphs (d) through (j) as paragraphs 

(e) through (k), respectively. 

Finally, in the note under the subpart 

heading ‘‘Subpart—Citrus Fruit,’’ we 

would remove the reference to §§ 319.56 

through 319.56–8, because it is now 

outdated. We would replace it with a 

general reference to ‘‘Subpart—Fruits 

and Vegetables.’’ 

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

This proposed rule has been 

determined to be not significant for the 

purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, 

therefore, has not been reviewed by the 

Office of Management and Budget. 

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 603, we 

have performed an initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis, which is 

summarized below, regarding the 

economic effects of this proposed rule 

on small entities. Copies of the full 

analysis are available by contacting the 

person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT or on the 

Regulations.gov Web site (see 

ADDRESSES above for instructions for 

accessing Regulations.gov). 

Based on the information we have, 

there is no reason to conclude that 

adoption of this proposed rule would 

result in any significant economic effect 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. However, we do not currently 

have all of the data necessary for a 

comprehensive analysis of the effects of 

this proposed rule on small entities. 

Therefore, we are inviting comments on 

potential effects. In particular, we are 

interested in determining the number 

and kind of small entities that may 

incur benefits or costs from the 

implementation of this proposed rule. 

U.S. entities that may be impacted by 

imports of fresh citrus from Uruguay are 

producers and packers of fresh oranges, 

lemons, tangerines, and mandarin 

varieties. Fresh oranges (including 

Navel, Valencia, Temple, and other 

varieties) are produced in California (87 

percent), Florida (11 percent), and Texas 

(2 percent). Lemons are produced in 

California (97 percent) and Arizona (3 

percent). Tangerines and mandarins 

(including tangelos and tangors) are 

produced in California (76 percent), 

Florida (23 percent), and Arizona (less 

than 1 percent). Louisiana commercially 

produces a variety of Satsuma that is 

mostly sold locally. 

Impacts of the proposed rule on U.S. 

entities would be dependent upon the 

quantity of fresh citrus imported from 

Uruguay and the substitutability of 

these fresh citrus varieties for U.S.- 

grown citrus varieties. Historically, 

Uruguay has produced less than 3 

percent of total U.S. citrus production, 

including processed citrus, and total 

exports of fresh citrus from Uruguay to 

world markets have been equivalent to 

less than 3 percent of the combined U.S. 

production of fresh orange, lemon, 

tangerine, and mandarin varieties. We 

anticipate that exports directed to the 

U.S. domestic market would be a small 

fraction of Uruguay’s total exports of 

these fresh citrus fruits based on 

availability and currently established 

export markets in Europe and Russia. 

Given the small quantity expected to be 

imported from Uruguay, it is very 

unlikely that there would be a 

significant impact on the U.S. markets 

for fresh oranges, lemons, tangerines, 

and mandarin varieties. Given the 

sizable amounts of fresh lemons and 

mandarins, for example, imported by 

the United States and the fact that the 

time of year that citrus is produced in 

Uruguay is the same as that for current 

South American sources, we expect that 

any product displacement that may 

occur because of the proposed rule 

would be largely borne by other foreign 

suppliers of fresh citrus. 

The majority of citrus producers and 

packinghouses are considered small 

entities. APHIS welcomes informed 

public comment in order to better 

determine the extent to which U.S. 

small entities may be affected by this 

proposed rule. 

Executive Order 12988 

This proposed rule would allow citrus 

fruit to be imported into the continental 

United States from Uruguay. If this 

proposed rule is adopted, State and 

local laws and regulations regarding 

citrus fruit imported under this rule 

would be preempted while the fruit is 

in foreign commerce. Fresh fruits are 

generally imported for immediate 

distribution and sale to the consuming 

public and would remain in foreign 

commerce until sold to the ultimate 

consumer. The question of when foreign 

commerce ceases in other cases must be 

addressed on a case-by-case basis. If this 

proposed rule is adopted, no retroactive 

effect will be given to this rule, and this 

rule will not require administrative 

proceedings before parties may file suit 

in court challenging this rule. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

To provide the public with 

documentation of APHIS’ review and 

analysis of any potential environmental 

impacts associated with the importation 

of citrus fruit from Uruguay, we have 

prepared an environmental assessment. 

The environmental assessment was 

prepared in accordance with: (1) The 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 

4321 et seq.), (2) regulations of the 

Council on Environmental Quality for 

implementing the procedural provisions 

of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500–1508), (3) 

USDA regulations implementing NEPA 

(7 CFR part 1b), and (4) APHIS’ NEPA 

Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 

372). 

The environmental assessment may 

be viewed on the Regulations.gov Web 

site or in our reading room. (A link to 

Regulations.gov and information on the 

location and hours of the reading room 

are provided under the heading 

ADDRESSES at the beginning of this 

proposed rule.) In addition, copies may 

be obtained by calling or writing to the 

individual listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

In accordance with section 3507(d) of 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the information 

collection or recordkeeping 

requirements included in this proposed 

rule have been submitted for approval to 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB). Please send written comments 

to the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attention: 

Desk Officer for APHIS, Washington, DC 

20503. Please state that your comments 

refer to Docket No. APHIS–2011–0060. 

Please send a copy of your comments to: 

(1) Docket No. APHIS–2011–0060, 

Regulatory Analysis and Development, 

PPD, APHIS, Station 3A–03.8, 4700 

River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 

20737–1238, and (2) Clearance Officer, 

OCIO, USDA, room 404–W, 14th Street 

and Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20250. A comment to 

OMB is best assured of having its full 

effect if OMB receives it within 30 days 

of publication of this proposed rule. 

APHIS is proposing to amend the 

fruits and vegetables regulations to 

allow, under certain conditions, the 

importation into the continental United 

States of commercial consignments of 

fresh citrus fruit from Uruguay. The 

conditions for the importation of citrus 

fruit from Uruguay include 

requirements for importation in 

commercial consignments, pest 

monitoring and pest control practices, 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
8440 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

orchard sanitation and packinghouse 

procedures. The citrus fruit would also 

be required to be accompanied by a 

phytosanitary certificate issued by the 

NPPO of Uruguay with an additional 

declaration confirming that the fruit had 

been produced in accordance with the 

proposed requirements. This action 

would allow for the importation of 

citrus fruit from Uruguay while 

continuing to provide protection against 

the introduction of injurious plant pests 

into the United States. 

Implementing this rule will require 

the use of information collection 

activities, including completion of a 

bilateral workplan, registering of 

production sites, labeling, inspections 

and recordkeeping, and phytosanitary 

certificates. 

We are soliciting comments from the 

public (as well as affected agencies) 

concerning our proposed information 

collection and recordkeeping 

requirements. These comments will 

help us: 

(1) Evaluate whether the proposed 

information collection is necessary for 

the proper performance of our agency’s 

functions, including whether the 

information will have practical utility; 

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our 

estimate of the burden of the proposed 

information collection, including the 

validity of the methodology and 

assumptions used; 

(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and 

(4) Minimize the burden of the 

information collection on those who are 

to respond (such as through the use of 

appropriate automated, electronic, 

mechanical, or other technological 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology; e.g., permitting 

electronic submission of responses). 

Estimate of burden: Public reporting 

burden for this collection of information 

is estimated to average 0.36109 hours 

per response. 

Respondents: Citrus producers, 

packers, importers, and the NPPO of 

Uruguay. 

Estimated annual number of 

respondents: 16. 

Estimated annual number of 

responses per respondent: 127.562. 

Estimated annual number of 

responses: 2,041. 

Estimated total annual burden on 

respondents: 737 hours. (Due to 

averaging, the total annual burden hours 

may not equal the product of the annual 

number of responses multiplied by the 

reporting burden per response.) 

Copies of this information collection 

can be obtained from Mrs. Celeste 

Sickles, APHIS’ Information Collection 

Coordinator, at (301) 851–2908. 

E-Government Act Compliance 

The Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service is committed to 

compliance with the EGovernment Act 

to promote the use of the Internet and 

other information technologies, to 

provide increased opportunities for 

citizen access to Government 

information and services, and for other 

purposes. For information pertinent to 

E-Government Act compliance related 

to this proposed rule, please contact 

Mrs. Celeste Sickles, APHIS’ 

Information Collection Coordinator, at 

(301) 851–2908. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 319 

Coffee, Cotton, Fruits, Imports, Logs, 

Nursery stock, Plant diseases and pests, 

Quarantine, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Rice, 

Vegetables. 

Accordingly, we propose to amend 7 

CFR part 319 as follows: 

PART 319–FOREIGN QUARANTINE 

NOTICES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 319 

continues to read as follows: 

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

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

2.22, 2.80, and 371.3. 

Subpart—Citrus Fruit [Amended] 

■ 2. In Subpart—Citrus Fruit, in the note 

below the subpart heading, remove the 

words ‘‘fruit and vegetable quarantine 

No. 56 (§§ 319.56 to 319.56–8)’’ and add 

the words ‘‘Subpart—Fruits and 

Vegetables of this part’’ in their place. 

■ 3. Section 319.28 is amended as 

follows: 

■ a. By redesignating paragraphs (d) 

through (j) as paragraphs (e) through (k), 

respectively, and adding a new 

paragraph (d). 

■ b. By revising newly redesignated 

paragraph (g). 

The addition and revision read as 

follows: 

§ 319.28 Notice of quarantine. 

* * * * * 

(d) The prohibition does not apply to 

sweet oranges (Citrus sinensis (L.) 

Osbeck), lemons (C. limon (L.) Burm. f.), 

mandarins (C. reticulata Blanco, C. 

clementina Hort. ex Tanaka, C. deliciosa 

Ten., and C. unshiu Marcow), Citrus 

hybrids, Fortunella. japonica (Thunb.) 

Swingle, and F. margarita (Lour.) 

Swingle, from Uruguay that meet the 

requirements of 7 CFR 319.56–58. 

* * * * * 

(g) Importations allowed under 

paragraphs (b) through (e) of this section 

shall be subject to the permit and other 

requirements under the regulations in 

Subpart—Fruits and Vegetables of this 

part. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. A new § 319.56–58 is added to read 

as follows: 

§ 319.56–58 Fresh citrus fruit from 

Uruguay. 

Sweet oranges (Citrus sinensis (L.) 

Osbeck), lemons (C. limon (L.) Burm. f.), 

mandarins (C. reticulata Blanco, C. 

clementina Hort. ex Tanaka, C. deliciosa 

Ten., and C. unshiu Marcow), Citrus 

hybrids, Fortunella japonica (Thunb.) 

Swingle, and F. margarita (Lour.) 

Swingle may be imported into the 

continental United States from Uruguay 

only under the conditions described in 

this section. These species are referred 

to collectively in this section as ‘‘citrus 

fruit.’’ These conditions are designed to 

prevent the introduction of the 

following quarantine pests: Anastrepha 

fraterculus, Ceratitis capitata, 

Cryptoblabes gnidiella, Elsinoe ̈

australis, Gymnandrosoma 

aurantianum, and Xanthomonas citri 

subsp. citri. 

(a) Commercial consignments. Citrus 

fruit from Uruguay may be imported in 

commercial consignments only. 

(b) General requirements. (1) The 

national plant protection organization 

(NPPO) of Uruguay must provide a 

workplan to APHIS that details the 

activities that the Uruguayan NPPO 

will, subject to APHIS’ approval of the 

workplan, carry out to meet the 

requirements of this section. APHIS will 

be directly involved with the Uruguayan 

NPPO in monitoring and auditing 

implementation of the systems 

approach. 

(2) All places of production and 

packinghouses that participate in the 

export program must be registered with 

the Uruguayan NPPO. 

(3) The fruit must be grown at places 

of production that meet the 

requirements of paragraphs (d) and (e) 

of this section. 

(4) The fruit must be packed for 

export to the United States in a 

packinghouse that meets the 

requirements of paragraph (f) of this 

section. The place of production where 

the lemons were grown must remain 

identifiable when the fruit leaves the 

grove, at the packinghouse, and 

throughout the export process. Boxes 

containing citrus fruit must be marked 

with the identity and origin of the fruit. 

Safeguarding in accordance with 

paragraph (f)(3) of this section must be 

maintained at all times during the 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 25 / Wednesday, February 6, 2013 / Proposed Rules 8441 

movement of the citrus fruit to the 

United States and must be intact upon 

arrival of the citrus fruit in the United 

States. 

(c) Monitoring and oversight. (1) The 

Uruguayan NPPO must visit and inspect 

registered places of production monthly, 

starting at least 30 days before harvest 

and continuing until the end of the 

shipping season, to verify that the 

growers are complying with the 

requirements of paragraphs (d) and (e) 

of this section. 

(2) In addition to conducting fruit 

inspections at the packinghouses, the 

Uruguayan NPPO must monitor 

packinghouse operations to verify that 

the packinghouses are complying with 

the requirements of paragraph (f) of this 

section. 

(3) If the Uruguayan NPPO finds that 

a place of production or packinghouse 

is not complying with the relevant 

requirements of this section, no fruit 

from the place of production or 

packinghouse will be eligible for export 

to the United States until APHIS and the 

Uruguayan NPPO conduct an 

investigation and appropriate remedial 

actions have been implemented. 

(d) Grove monitoring and pest control. 

Trapping must be conducted in the 

places of production to demonstrate that 

the places of production have a low 

prevalence of A. fraterculus and C. 

capitata. If the prevalence rises above 

levels specified in the bilateral 

workplan, remedial measures must be 

implemented. The Uruguayan NPPO 

must keep records of fruit fly detections 

for each trap and make the records 

available to APHIS upon request. The 

records must be maintained for at least 

1 year. 

(e) Orchard sanitation. Places of 

production must be maintained free of 

fallen fruit and plant debris. Fallen fruit 

may not be included in field containers 

of fruit brought to the packinghouse to 

be packed for export. 

(f) Packinghouse procedures. (1) The 

packinghouse must be equipped with 

double self-closing doors at the entrance 

to the packinghouse and at the interior 

entrance to the area where fruit is 

packed. 

(2) Any vents or openings (other than 

the double self-closing doors) must be 

covered with 1.6 mm or smaller 

screening in order to prevent the entry 

of pests into the packinghouse. 

(3) Fruit must be packed within 24 

hours of harvest in a pest-exclusionary 

packinghouse or stored in a degreening 

chamber in a pest-exclusionary 

packinghouse. The fruit must be 

safeguarded by an insect-proof screen or 

plastic tarpaulin while in transit to the 

packinghouse and while awaiting 

packing. Fruit must be packed in insectproof cartons or containers, or covered 

with insect-proof mesh or a plastic 

tarpaulin, for transport to the United 

States. These safeguards must remain 

intact until the arrival of the fruit in the 

continental United States or the 

consignment will not be allowed to 

enter the United States. 

(4) During the time the packinghouse 

is in use for exporting citrus fruit to the 

continental United States, the 

packinghouse may only accept fruit 

from registered places of production. 

(5) Culling must be performed in the 

packinghouse to remove any 

symptomatic or damaged fruit. Fruit 

must be practically free of leaves, twigs, 

and other plant parts, except for stems 

that are less than 1 inch long and 

attached to the fruit. 

(6) Fruit must be washed, brushed, 

surface disinfected in accordance with 

part 305 of this chapter, treated with an 

APHIS-approved fungicide in 

accordance with labeled instructions, 

and waxed. 

(g) Treatment. (1) Citrus fruit other 

than lemons may be imported into the 

continental United States only if it is 

treated in accordance with part 305 of 

this chapter for A. fraterculus and C. 

capitata. 

(2)(i) Lemons may be shipped without 

a treatment if harvested green and if the 

phytosanitary certificate accompanying 

the lemons contains an additional 

declaration stating that the lemons were 

harvested green between May 15 and 

August 31. 

(ii) If the lemons are harvested 

between September 1 and May 14, or if 

the fruit is harvested yellow, the lemons 

must be treated in accordance with part 

305 of this chapter for C. capitata. 

(h) Phytosanitary certificate. Each 

consignment of citrus fruit must be 

accompanied by a phytosanitary 

certificate of inspection issued by the 

Uruguayan NPPO stating that the fruit 

in the consignment is free of all 

quarantine insects and has been 

produced in accordance with the 

requirements of the systems approach in 

7 CFR 319.56–58. 

Done in Washington, DC, this 31st day of 

January 2013. 

Kevin Shea, 

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 2013–02647 Filed 2–5–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

7 CFR Part 1206 

[Document No. AMS–FV–12–0041] 

Mango Promotion, Research, and 

Information Order; Nominations of 

Foreign Producers and Election of 

Officers 

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This rule would allow foreign 

producers, from major countries 

exporting mangos to the United States, 

who are not members of a foreign 

producer organization to submit names 

to the Secretary for appointment to the 

National Mango Board (Board). At this 

time, only foreign producer associations 

from major countries exporting mangos 

to the United States can submit names 

to the Secretary for consideration. In 

addition, this proposal seeks to provide 

flexibility to the timing of election of 

officers to the Board. The changes were 

proposed by the Board, which 

administers the program, in accordance 

to the provisions of the Mango 

Promotion, Research, and Information 

Order (Order) which is authorized 

under the Commodity Promotion, 

Research, and Information Act of 1996 

(Act). 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

February 26, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Comments may be 

submitted electronically at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Comments may 

also be sent to the Promotion and 

Economics Division, Fruit and 

Vegetable Program, Agricultural 

Marketing Service (AMS), U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Room 1406– 

S, Stop 0244, 1400 Independence 

Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250– 

0244; fax (202) 205–2800. All comments 

submitted should reference the 

document number and title of this 

proposed rule, and will be included in 

the record and made available for public 

inspection. Comments may be viewed 

on the internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, or at the above 

office. Please be advised that the 

identity of individuals or entities 

submitting comments will be made 

public on the internet at the above Web 

site. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jeanette Palmer, Marketing Specialist, 

Promotion and Economics Division, 

Fruit and Vegetable Program, AMS, 

USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS