United States 

Department of 

Agriculture

Animal and 

Plant Health 

Inspection 

Service

May 2011

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

Proposed Rule 

APHIS-2011-0007

RIN 0579-AD42

Importation of Chinese Sand Pears from 

China

Policy & Program Development

Policy Analysis & Development
i

Summary

This proposed rule would amend the regulations to allow, under certain conditions, the 

importation into the United States of Chinese sand pear (Pyrus pyrifolia) from China. This fruit 

is produced in the United States in limited quantities, primarily in Illinois, Virginia, West 

Virginia, and Maryland. 

The average 2007 market value of crops sold by fruit and tree nut farms was less than 

$188,000, an amount well below the SBA small-entity standard of annual receipts of not more 

than $750,000. We infer that the majority of farms producing pears, including sand pears, are 

small entities. 

China is expecting to export 24,000 metric tons of Chinese sand pear annually to the 

United States. We do not know the quantity or value of Chinese sand pear produced in the 

United States, or the quantity or value of Chinese sand pear imported from other countries. Nor 

do we know the substitutability of Chinese sand pear for other types of pears produced 

domestically. Without basic production and trade information, we are unable to evaluate 

potential impacts of the proposed rule. We welcome information of this type that would permit 

an analysis of possible effects for U.S. entities.
Table of Contents

Summary.............................................................................................................................. i

Introduction......................................................................................................................... 1

U.S. Pear Production and Trade.......................................................................................... 2

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis................................................................................ 5

Reasons Action is Being Considered.............................................................................. 5

Objectives of and Legal Basis for the Rule .................................................................... 5

Potentially Affected Small Entities................................................................................. 6

Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements................. 8

Duplication, Overlap, or Conflict with Existing Rules and Regulations........................ 8

Alternatives to minimize Significant Economic Impacts of the Rule............................. 8

References........................................................................................................................... 9
Introduction

APHIS received a request from the National Plant Protection Organization of China to 

allow the importation of commercial shipments of the Chinese sand pear, Pyrus pyrifolia, from 

China (including from the special administrative regions of Hong Kong and Macau) into the 

United States. A systems approach would be used to mitigate the risks posed by certain plant 

pests. U.S. demand for new fruits such as the Chinese sand pear is expanding due to the 

increasing popularity of exotic foods and a growing interest in healthier diets. The Chinese sand 

pear is a good source of iron, potassium, vitamin C, and phosphorous.

1

 

The Chinese sand pear is produced in the United States in limited quantities, primarily in 

the States of Illinois, Virginia, West Virginia, and Maryland. However, published information 

on the quantity or value of domestic commercial production of the Chinese sand pear is not 

available. China expects to export 24,000 metric tons of Chinese sand pear to the United States, 

but we do not know the quantity or value of Chinese sand pear imported from other countries. 

Nor do we know the substitutability of Chinese sand pear for other types of pears produced 

domestically.

This analysis fulfills requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act for the evaluation of 

potential effects of proposed rule on small businesses, small organizations and small 

governmental jurisdictions. Lack of production and trade data specific to the Chinese sand pear 

prevents an informed examination of expected market effects of the proposed rule. However, as 

context, we provide information on U.S. pear production and trade generally. We welcome 

information regarding Chinese sand pear production and sales in the United States that would 

 

1

Pears - pyrus communis, pyrus pyrifolia. (2004). Retrieved from http://www.fruit-crops.com/pear.html#production
allow insight into possible effects of the proposed rule for U.S. producers of this fruit and for 

U.S. pear producers in general. 

U.S. Pear Production and Trade

U.S. pear production levels and farm values, 2004 to 2009, are shown in table 1. As 

depicted, the amount of pear produced has not varied greatly from year to year. Almost 870,000 

metric tons were produced in 2009.

Table 1. U.S. pear production and value, 2004-2009

 

Source: USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Noncitrus Fruits and Nuts Summary, various 

issues.

Data on the amount of pear produced in each State are not available, but as shown in 

table 2, approximately one-third of the farms that produced pears in 2007 were located in 

Washington, Oregon, and California, and the farms in these three States comprised nearly 90 

percent of the total U.S. acreage devoted to pear production. 

Year Production

(metric tons)

Value

(million dollars)

2004 796,757.5 242.14

2005 746,915.9 242.58

2006 763,894.2 275.12

2007 791,940.2 298.87

2008 789,127.9 326.45

2009 868,390.0 293.06
Table 2. Number of commercial pear farms and acreages, by State, 2007

Number of 

Pear Farms

Percentage 

Share of 

U.S. Farms

Acres in Pear 

Production

Percentage 

Share of U.S. 

Acreage

Washington 1,530 15.5 25,514 37.4

Oregon 888 9.0 18,416 27.0

California 739 7.5 15,859 23.2

Pennsylvania 647 6.5 1,041 1.5

Texas 548 5.5 545 0.8

All Other States 5526 56.0 6,841 10.0

United States 9878 100 68,216 100

Source: USDA NASS, 2007 Census of Agriculture, Table 32, Fruits and Nuts.

 

Trade data solely for pears also are not available; pears are grouped with quinces. Table 

3 shows the combined quantity of pears (all types) and quinces imported, 2006-2010. The 

United States receives the largest share of these fruits from Argentina – 44 percent of imports in 

2010. As shown, 8 percent of pear and quince imports in 2010 came from China.

Table 3. Quantity of U.S. pears and quinces imports, 2006-2010, metric tons

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, as reported in the Global Trade Atlas.

Table 4 shows the value of U.S. pear and quince imports, 2006-2010, and the 2010 

composite price. The average value of pear and quince imports over the five years was 

Source

Quantity Percent 

Share 

2010

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

World 89,586 107,695 86,217 82,095 62,042 100.0

Argentina 43,693 52,357 37,014 38,460 27,039 44

Chile 25,266 24,598 25,438 18,980 17,226 28

Korea South 7,821 15,057 8,904 10,286 9,671 16

China 8,952 8,841 11,954 11,013 5,252 8

New Zealand 2,806 5,636 2,005 2,490 2,048 3

South Africa 757 866 420 696 591 1

Canada 6 63 212 50 146 0

Japan 286 276 202 118 69 0

Brazil - - 69 - - 0

Mexico - - - 1 - 0
approximately $101 million, with the largest single share of this amount, over $41 million, paid 

for fruit imported from Argentina.

Table 4. Value of U.S. pear and quince imports, 2006-2010, million dollars 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, as reported in the Global Trade Atlas.

In contrast, the quantities of pear and quince exported by the United States totaled about 

152,000 MT in 2010 (more than twice the amount imported), and was valued at $155 million 

(table 5). The majority of exports in 2010 and in previous years were shipped to Canada and 

Mexico.

Table 5. Quantity and value of U.S. pear and quince exports, 2008-2010

Source

Value 2010 Unit 

Value

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Percent 

Share

2010

Dollars per 

Metric Ton

World 102.2 125.4 96.8 98.6 83.2 100.00 1,340

Argentina 47.0 54.0 36.2 38.1 32.5 39.04 1,201

Chile 19.7 19.9 21.7 23.4 23.5 28.27 1,365

Korea South 21.5 23.9 22.2 19.0 14.7 17.63 1,516

China 8.3 18.2 12.3 10.1 6.2 7.41 1,174

New Zealand 3.4 7.0 2.6 6.1 4.7 5.62 2,283

South Africa 1.1 1.1 0.8 1.6 1.2 1.41 1,987

Canada 1.4 1.2 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.49 2,803

Japan 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.12 1,395

Brazil - - 0.0 - - 0.00 -

Mexico - - - 0.0 - 0.00 -

Quantity 2010 Value 2010 Unit 

Value

2008 2009 2010 Percent 

Share 2010

Million 

Dollars

Percent 

Share

Dollars per 

Metric Ton

World 158,802 156,951 152,163 100 155.2 100. 1,020

Canada 39,757 38,922 42,399 28 49.6 32 1,170

Mexico 73,592 60,250 52,154 34 43.1 28 826

Russia 6,602 10,254 11,720 8 12.2 8 1,039

Brazil 7,466 11,039 8,006 5 9.7 6 1,212
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, as reported in the Global Trade Atlas.

While the United States is a net exporter of pears overall, it is likely that the U.S. supply

of Chinese sand pear is largely imported. Without information on the domestic and foreign

quantities supplied and the substitutability of Chinese sand pear for other pear varieties, we are 

unable to evaluate potential effects of the rule for U.S. producers. We welcome information that 

would allow a more complete understanding of possible effects of the proposed rule for small 

entities. 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

Reasons Action is Being Considered

The proposed rule is in response to a request made by the National Plant Protection 

Organization of China for APHIS to amend the regulations to allow for the commercial shipment 

into the United States of the Chinese sand pear, Pyrus pyrifolia. A systems approach would be 

used to mitigate the risks posed by certain plant pests.

Objectives of and Legal Basis for the Rule

The objective of the rule is to allow Chinese sand pears to be imported into the United 

States from China (including from the special administrative regions of Hong Kong and Macau). 

The legal basis for this action is the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701-7772), which authorizes 

the Secretary of Agriculture to prohibit or restrict the importation of any plant product if the 

Secretary determines that the prohibition or restriction is necessary to prevent the introduction of 

a plant pest or noxious weed into the United States. The proposed rule is part of a continuing 

All Other 

Countries 31,385 36,486 37,883 25 40.7 26 1,073
program to allow the importation of foreign agricultural products that APHIS has determined are 

without significant risk of introducing pests or diseases into the United States.

Potentially Affected Small Entities

Farms producing pears are classified within the North American Industry Classification 

System under Other Noncitrus Fruit Farming (NAICS 111339). For this industry classification, 

a business is considered to be a small entity if its annual receipts are not more than $750,000.2 

The average 2007 market value of crops sold by farms classified within Fruit and Tree Nut 

Farming (which includes Other Noncitrus Fruit Farming) was less than $188,000.3 We infer that 

the majority of farms producing pears, both sand pear and other types, are small entities. 

The 2007 Census of Agriculture also contains data on certain sub-categories of fruit and 

tree nut farming operations, namely, small family farms and farms having operators who belong 

to socially disadvantaged groups.4 Small family farms have gross farm cash income of less than 

$250,000. Categories of socially disadvantaged groups are women, persons of Hispanic origin,

American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, African American, and Native Hawaiian or other

Pacific. 

As shown in table 6, 84 percent of fruit and tree nut farms in 2007 were small family

farms. We note that residential/lifestyle farms comprised 40 percent of small family fruit and 

tree nut farms. For about 30 percent of the small family fruit and tree nut farms, the operators 

reported that they were retired. 

 

2 U.S. Small Business Administration, Table of Small Business Size Standards. 

http://www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/sba_homepage/serv_sstd_tablepdf.pdf

3

2007 Census of Agriculture, Table 62. Selected Characteristics of Farms by North American Industry 

Classification System: 2007, http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Full_Report/usv1.pdf

4

For definitions and information, see: USDA ERS. Structure and Finances of U.S. Farms: Family Farm Report, 

2010 edition, EIB-66, July 2010. http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/EIB66/EIB66.pdf
Table 6. Number and percentage of small family farms consisting of fruit and tree nut farming,

2007

Number of 

fruit and 

tree nut 

farming 

farms

10,705 24,019 33,212 11,034 3,527 82,497 98,281

Percentage

of Small 

Family 

Farms

13 29 40 13 4 100 n/a

Percentage 

of Total 

Farms

11 24 34 11 4 84 100

Source: USDA NASS, 2007 Census of Agriculture.

Note: A limited resource farm is a small family farm that has gross sales of less than $100,000 (indexed after 2003), 

and a household income less than the poverty level for a family of four with two children or less than half the county 

median income. A retirement farm is a small family farm whose operators report they are retired (excludes limited

resource farms operated by retired farmers). A residential/lifestyle farm is a small family farm whose operators 

report a major occupation other than farming (excludes limited resource farms whose operators report a major 

occupation other than farming). A farming occupation/lower-sales farm is a small family farm with sales less than 

$100,000 whose operators report farming as their major occupation (excludes limited resource farms whose 

operators report farming as their major occupation). A farming occupation/higher-sales farm is a small family farm

with sales between $100,000 and $249,000 whose operators report farming as their major occupation. 

Table 7 shows the number and percentage of fruit and tree nut farms that had operators 

belonging to socially disadvantaged groups in 2007. Fourteen percent of fruit and tree nut farms 

had a woman as the principal operator. Overall, 16 percent of fruit and tree nut farms had one or 

more operators who belonged to a socially disadvantaged group. Fifty-seven percent of the 

farms having one or more operators who belonged to a socially disadvantaged group had an

operator who was of Spanish, Hispanic, or Latin origin.
Table 7. Number and percentage of farms consisting of fruit and tree nut farming for which one 

or more operators belong to a socially disadvantaged group, 2007

Farms 

where the 

principal 

operator is 

female

Farms 

where an 

operator is 

of 

Spanish, 

Hispanic, 

or Latino 

origin

Farms where 

an operator 

reports race as 

American 

Indian or 

Alaska Native

Farms 

where an 

operator 

reports race 

as Asian

Farms 

where an 

operator 

reports 

race as 

Black or 

African 

American

Farms 

where an 

operator 

reports race 

as Native 

Hawaiian 

or Other 

Pacific 

Islander

All Farms

with one or 

more 

operators 

belonging to a 

socially 

disadvantaged 

group

Total 

Number 

of Farms

Number of 

farms with 

fruit and 

tree nut 

farming

13,876 8,871 1,304 4,163 836 335 15,509 98,281

Percentage

of special 

operators

89 57 8 27 5 2 100 n/a

Percentage 

of Total 

Farms

14 9 1 4 <1 <1 16 100

Source: USDA NASS, 2007 Census of Agriculture.

Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 

Requirements

Reporting and recordkeeping requirements associated with the proposed rule are 

discussed in the rule under the heading "Paperwork Reduction Act." There would be no 

compliance costs specific to this rule for U.S. small entities.

Duplication, Overlap, or Conflict with Existing Rules and Regulations

APHIS has not identified any duplication, overlap, or conflict of the proposed rule with 

other Federal rules.

Alternatives to minimize Significant Economic Impacts of the Rule

We have insufficient information for evaluating the expected effects of the proposed rule 

for small entities. In the absence of evidence of possible significant economic impacts, we have 

not identified alternatives that would minimize such impacts. 
References

Census of Agriculture, 2007, 

http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Full_Report/index.asp

Global Trade Atlas. Retrieved (2011, April), http://www.gtis.com/gta/default.cfm

Pears - pyrus communis, pyrus pyrifolia. (2004). Retrieved from http://www.fruitcrops.com/pear.html#production

U.S. Small Business Administration. U.S. Small Business Administration: Table of Small 

Business Size Standards Match to North American Industry Classification System 

http://www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/sba_homepage/serv_sstd_tablepdf.pdf