This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

14037

Vol. 62, No. 57

Tuesday, March 25, 1997

1 Information on these pest risk analyses and any

other pest risk analysis referred to in this document

may be obtained by writing to the person listed

under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or by

calling the Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ)

fax vault at 301–734–3560.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service

7 CFR Parts 300 and 319

[Docket No. 96–046–1]

Importation of Fruits and Vegetables

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: We are proposing to allow a

number of previously prohibited fruits

and vegetables to be imported into the

United States from certain parts of the

world. All of the fruits and vegetables,

as a condition of entry, would be subject

to inspection, disinfection, or both, at

the port of first arrival as may be

required by a U.S. Department of

Agriculture inspector. In addition, some

of the fruits and vegetables would be

required to meet other special

conditions. The removal of these

prohibitions would provide the United

States with additional kinds and sources

of fruits and vegetables while

continuing to provide protection against

the introduction and dissemination of

injurious plant pests by imported fruits

and vegetables.

We are also proposing to extend the

production area in Arava, Israel, where

peppers may be grown for importation

into the United States; to eliminate the

distribution restrictions for peppers

from Arava, Israel; to eliminate the trust

fund provisions for papayas from Costa

Rica; to declare all Provinces in Chile

free of the Mediterranean fruit fly; and

to make several nonsubstantive editorial

changes to the regulations. These

actions would relieve restrictions while

continuing to prevent the introduction

of plant pests into the United States.

DATES: Consideration will be given only

to comments received on or before May

27, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Please send an original and

three copies of your comments to

Docket No. 96–046–1, Regulatory

Analysis and Development, PPD,

APHIS, suite 3C03, 4700 River Road

Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737–1238.

Please state that your comments refer to

Docket No. 96–046–1. Comments

received may be inspected at USDA,

room 1141, South Building, 14th Street

and Independence Avenue SW.,

Washington, DC, between 8 a.m. and

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except holidays. Persons wishing to

inspect comments are requested to call

ahead on (202) 690–2817 to facilitate

entry into the comment reading room.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Ronald Campbell, Staff Officer, Import/

Export, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road

Unit 136, Riverdale, MD 20737–1236;

(301) 734–6799.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The regulations in 7 CFR 319.56

through 319.56–8 (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 fruit flies and

other injurious plant pests that are new

to or not widely distributed within and

throughout the United States.

We are proposing to amend the

regulations to allow additional fruits

and vegetables to be imported into the

United States from certain parts of the

world under specified conditions. The

importation of these fruits and

vegetables has been prohibited because

of the risk that the fruits and vegetables

could introduce fruit flies or other

injurious plant pests into the United

States. We are proposing to allow these

importations at the request of various

importers and foreign ministries of

agriculture, and after conducting pest

risk analyses 1 that indicate the fruits or

vegetables can be imported under

certain conditions without significant

pest risk.

All of the fruits and vegetables

included in this document would be

subject to the requirements in § 319.56–

6 of the regulations. Section 319.56–6

provides, among other things, that all

imported fruits and vegetables, as a

condition of entry, shall be subject to

inspection, disinfection, or both, at the

port of first arrival, as may be required

by a U.S. Department of Agriculture

(USDA) inspector to detect and

eliminate plant pests. Section 319.56–6

also provides that any shipment of fruits

and vegetables may be refused entry if

the shipment is infested with fruit flies

or other injurious plant pests and an

inspector determines that it cannot be

cleaned by disinfection or treatment.

Some of the fruits and vegetables

proposed for importation would be

required to meet other special

conditions. The proposed conditions of

entry, which are discussed in greater

detail below, appear adequate to prevent

the introduction and dissemination of

fruit flies and other injurious plant pests

by the importation of fruits and

vegetables from certain foreign countries

and localities into the United States.

Subject to Inspection and Treatment

Upon Arrival

We are proposing to allow the

following fruits and vegetables to be

imported into the United States from the

country or locality indicated in

accordance with § 319.56–6 and all

other applicable requirements of the

regulations:

Country/Locality Common Name Botanical Name Plant Part(s)

Ecuador ............................................... Radicchio ........................................... Cichorium spp ................................... Above ground parts.

El Salvador .......................................... Eggplant ............................................ Solanum melongena ......................... Fruit.

Guatemala ........................................... Basil ................................................... Ocimum basilicum ............................. Above ground parts.

Guatemala ........................................... Dill ...................................................... Anethum graveolens ......................... Above ground parts.

Japan ................................................... Mioga Ginger ..................................... Zingiber mioga ................................... Above ground parts.

Nicaragua ............................................ Eggplant ............................................ Solanum melongena ......................... Fruit.
14038 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 57 / Tuesday, March 25, 1997 / Proposed Rules

Country/Locality Common Name Botanical Name Plant Part(s)

Nicaragua ............................................ Radicchio ........................................... Cichorium spp ................................... Above ground parts.

Pest risk analyses conducted by the

Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service (APHIS) have shown that the

fruit and vegetables listed above are not

attacked by fruit flies or other injurious

plant pests, either because they are not

hosts to the pests or because the pests

are not present in the country or locality

of origin. In addition, we have

determined that any other injurious

plant pests that might be carried by any

of the listed fruit or vegetables would be

readily detectable by a USDA inspector.

Therefore, the provisions in § 319.56–6

concerning inspection, disinfection, or

both, at the port of first arrival, appear

adequate to prevent the introduction

into the United States of fruit flies or

other injurious plant pests by the

importation of these fruits and

vegetables.

Subject to Inspection and Treatment

Upon Arrival; Additional Conditions

We would allow the following fruits

and vegetables to be imported into the

United States from the countries

indicated subject to the prescribed

conditions and in accordance with

§ 319.56–6 and all other applicable

requirements of the regulations:

Leeks From Belgium and the

Netherlands

We are proposing to allow leeks

(Allium spp.) from Belgium and The

Netherlands to be imported into the

United States if the leeks are

accompanied by a phytosanitary

certificate issued by the Ministry of

Agriculture of the country of production

(either Belgium or The Netherlands).

The phytosanitary certificate must state

that the leeks are apparently free from

Acrolepiopsis assectella, commonly

known as leek moth. This certification

would ensure that, prior to departure for

the United States, a thorough

phytosanitary inspection of the leeks

was performed and no leek moths were

found in the shipment.

Papaya From Brazil

We are proposing to allow solo type

papayas (Carica papaya) from Brazil to

be imported into the United States if the

fruit is grown in the State of Espirito

Santo and if the fruit has been grown,

packed, and shipped in accordance with

certain phytosanitary conditions.

Because papayas can be hosts of

several serious plant pests, including

the Mediterranean fruit fly (Ceritatis

capitata) (Medfly) and the South

American fruit fly (Anastrepha

fraterculus), we would require that

papayas intended for importation into

the United States from the State of

Espirito Santo, Brazil, be subject to

certain special conditions. The

proposed special conditions outlined

below for the importation of papaya

from Brazil are based on the provisions

in § 319.56–2w of the regulations for

papaya from Costa Rica and on the

proposed changes to those provisions

located under the heading ‘‘Papaya from

Costa Rica’’ in this document. The

conditions would read as follows:

1. The papayas were grown and

packed for shipment to the United

States in the State of Espirito Santo.

This condition would ensure that

papayas intended for the United States

would only be grown and packed in

Espirito Santo. The State of Espirito

Santo is currently the only papaya

production and packing area in Brazil

where fruit fly traps are maintained and

where the other elements of the systems

approach described below are in place.

2. Beginning at least 30 days before

harvest began and continuing through

the completion of harvest, all trees in

the area where the papayas were grown

were kept free of papayas that were onehalf or more ripe (more than one-quarter

of shell surface yellow), and all culled

and fallen fruit were removed from the

field at least twice a week.

Papayas that are one-half or more

ripe, as well as culled or fallen papayas,

could serve as host material for Medfly

and South American fruit fly. Therefore,

this condition would greatly reduce the

risk that Medfly or South American fruit

fly would be attracted to the fields

where papayas intended for importation

into the United States are grown.

3. When packed, the papayas were

less than one-half ripe (shell surface no

more than one-quarter yellow,

surrounded by light green) and

appeared to be free of all injurious plant

pests.

This condition would also reduce the

risk of introduction of Medfly or South

American fruit fly, as well as other

injurious plant pests, into the United

States. Papayas themselves are not a

preferred host for these fruit flies, and

papayas that are less than one-half ripe

pose very little risk of attracting Medfly

or South American fruit fly.

4. The papayas were packaged so as

to prevent access by fruit flies or other

injurious plant pests, and the package

does not contain any other fruit,

including papayas not qualified for

importation into the United States.

This condition would ensure that

papayas that have already been

inspected and packaged for shipment to

the United States would not be at risk

for fruit fly infestation.

5. All activities described in

provisions 1 through 4 above were

carried out under the general

supervision and direction of plant

health officials of the national Ministry

of Agriculture.

The supervision of the Brazilian

Ministry of Agriculture would help

ensure that all of the activities required

by the regulations were properly carried

out.

6. Beginning at least 1 year before

harvest began and continuing through

the completion of harvest, fruit fly traps

were maintained in the field where the

papayas were grown. The traps were

placed at the rate of 1 trap per hectare

and were checked for fruit flies at least

once a week by plant health officials of

the national Ministry of Agriculture.

Fifty percent of the traps were of the

McPhail type, and 50 percent of the

traps were of the Jackson type. The

national Ministry of Agriculture kept

records of the fruit fly finds for each

trap, updating the records each time the

traps were checked, and made the

records available to APHIS upon

request. The records were maintained

for at least 1 year.

This condition would ensure that the

earliest possible detection of the

presence of fruit flies in and around

fields where papayas are grown can be

made. If a fruit fly is trapped, the

Brazilian Ministry of Agriculture would

increase the trap density in the area and,

if more fruit flies are found, begin

malathion bait sprays. This condition

would also allow APHIS to monitor the

trapping records of the area for a 1-year

period.

7. All shipments of papayas must be

accompanied by a phytosanitary

certificate issued by the national

Ministry of Agriculture stating that the

papayas were grown, packed, and

shipped in accordance with the

provisions of this section.

This condition would help ensure

that the provisions of the regulations

have been met.

We believe that the provisions of

§ 319.56–6 and all other applicable

requirements, as well as the proposed

special conditions, would be sufficient
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 57 / Tuesday, March 25, 1997 / Proposed Rules 14039

2 Information on this trapping data may be

obtained by writing to the person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

to prevent the introduction of leek

moths and fruit flies into the United

States. Pest risk analyses conducted by

APHIS have determined that injurious

plant pests other than those mentioned

that might be carried by the leek or

papaya would be readily detectable by

a USDA inspector. As noted, the leek

and papaya would be subject to

inspection, disinfection, or both, at the

port of first arrival, in accordance with

§ 319.56–6.

Garlic From Romania

Section 319.56–2g lists countries from

which garlic may be imported into the

United States. We are proposing to

amend § 319.56–2g to allow garlic to be

imported from Romania into the United

States if it has been fumigated with

methyl bromide, according to the

treatment schedule set forth below.

Garlic is attacked by the garlic borer

(Brachycerus spp.) and the garlic moth

(Dyspessa ulula [Bkh.]) in Romania.

Visual inspection cannot be relied upon

to detect these insects. However, the

garlic can be treated as follows to

destroy these injurious plant pests:

32 g/m3 (2 lbs/1000 ft3) for 11⁄2 hours at 37

°C or above (90 °F or above); or

32 g/m3 (2 lbs/1000 ft3) for 2 hours at 26.5–

31.5 °C (80–89 °F); or

40 g/m3 (2 lbs/1000 ft3) for 2 hours at 21–26

°C (70–79 °F); or

48 g/m3 (3 lbs/1000 ft3) for 2 hours at 15.5–

20.5 °C (60–69 °F); or

48 g/m3 (3 lbs/1000 ft3) for 3 hours at 10–15

°C (50–59 °F); or

48 g/m3 (3 lbs/1000 ft3) for 4 hours at 4.5–

9.5 °C (40–49 °F)

The treatments described above have

been determined to be effective against

the specified insects. This

determination is based on research

evaluated and approved by the

Department. A bibliography and

additional information on this research

may be obtained from APHIS by writing

to the Oxford Methods Development

Center, 901 Hillsboro St., Oxford, NC

27555.

Pest risk analyses conducted by

APHIS have determined that any other

injurious plant pests that might be

carried by the garlic would be readily

detectable by a USDA inspector. As

noted, the garlic would be subject to

inspection, disinfection, or both, at the

port of first arrival, in accordance with

§ 319.56–6.

Currently, § 319.56–2g sets out the

treatment schedule shown above. We

are proposing to remove this schedule

from the regulations, and, instead refer

readers to the Plant Protection and

Quarantine Treatment Manual (PPQ

Treatment Manual), which is

incorporated into the regulations by

reference at 7 CFR 300.1. This will

eliminate unnecessary duplication of

treatment provisions. We would also

update the PPQ Treatment Manual to

show that the treatment schedule shown

above is approved for garlic from

Romania.

Peppers From Israel

The regulations at § 319.56–2u(b)

allow peppers from the Paran region of

the Arava Valley in Israel to be imported

into the United States under certain

conditions. Based on trapping data 2

from the agricultural production areas of

the Arava Valley, we are proposing to

extend the production area where

peppers may be grown for importation

into the United States to include all of

the Arava Valley. All of the current

conditions for importation under

§ 319.56–2u(b) for peppers from the

Paran region would apply to the entire

Arava Valley; the peppers, among other

things, would have to be grown in

insect-proof plastic screenhouses, sorted

and packed in insect-proof

screenhouses, and transported in fruit

fly-proof containers. Additionally,

malathion bait spray treatments would

have to be applied to residential areas

in the Arava Valley at 6- to 10-day

intervals beginning not less than 30

days before the harvest of backyard fruit

fly host material in residential areas and

continuing through the harvest. The

Israeli Department of Plant Protection

and Inspection would also conduct

trapping for Medfly throughout the

agricultural production areas of the

Arava Valley, Israel, and if a single

Medfly is captured in a screenhouse,

exports from that screenhouse would

immediately be cancelled until the

source of the infestation is delimited,

trap density is increased, pesticide

sprays are applied, or other measures

acceptable to APHIS are taken to

prevent further occurrences. Further,

signs in English and Hebrew must be

posted along Arava Highway 90 stating

that discarding fruits and vegetables

from passing vehicles is prohibited.

Accordingly, we propose to amend

§ 319.56–2u(b) to extend the production

area in the Arava Valley, Israel, where

peppers may be grown for importation

into the United States to include all of

the Arava Valley.

In accordance with § 319.56–2u(b)(6),

peppers imported into the United States

from the Paran region of the Arava

Valley, Israel, may not be distributed

outside of the following States:

Connecticut, the District of Columbia,

Delaware, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana,

Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine,

Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire,

New Jersey, New York, Ohio,

Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont,

Wisconsin, or West Virginia. We are

proposing to amend § 319.56–2u(b)(6) to

eliminate the distribution restrictions on

peppers from the Arava Valley, Israel.

As peppers from the Arava Valley must

be grown, harvested, and packed under

the conditions described in the

preceding paragraph, the distribution

restrictions were imposed as an

additional, final precaution against the

introduction of Medfly into the United

States. We are proposing to eliminate

these distribution requirements because

there have been no Medfly interceptions

in the area of production in the Arava

Valley. We believe that this

demonstrates that the growing,

harvesting, and packing conditions

imposed on the importation into the

United States of peppers from the Arava

Valley, Israel, are dependable in

preventing the introduction of Medfly

into the United States. Therefore, we

conclude that restricting the distribution

of peppers from the Arava Valley in the

United States is unnecessary.

Papayas From Costa Rica

The regulations at § 319.56–2w allow

papayas from Costa Rica to be imported

into the United States under certain

conditions. One of the conditions is that

an APHIS inspector in Costa Rica certify

that specified growing, packing, and

trapping requirements have been met.

We are proposing to allow the Costa

Rican Ministry of Agriculture (MAG) to

make this certification. We are

proposing this change because of the

success of the joint effort between the

Costa Rican MAG and APHIS in the

Costa Rican papaya program. Since the

inception of the papaya program in

Costa Rica, no fruit fly larvae or adult

flies have been intercepted in either the

preclearance program in Costa Rica or at

the port of entry in the United States.

We believe that this demonstrates that

the growing, harvesting, and trapping

conditions governing the entry into the

United States of the papayas (see

§ 319.56–2w) are dependable in

preventing the introduction of fruit flies

into the United States and that the Costa

Rican MAG is committed to, familiar

with, and capable of sole oversight of

the papaya program in Costa Rica.

Therefore, we are proposing that the

Costa Rican MAG would oversee the

program as stated in § 319.56–2w. All

shipments of papayas from Costa Rica

would have to be accompanied by a

phytosanitary certificate signed by a
14040 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 57 / Tuesday, March 25, 1997 / Proposed Rules

MAG official stating that the conditions

of 7 CFR 319.56–2w have been met.

In conjunction with this change, we

are proposing to eliminate the trust fund

agreement requirements contained in

§ 319.56–2w(a) of the regulations.

Currently a trust fund must be

mainatined to pay for services that

APHIS provides in the inspection and

certification of shipments of Costa Rican

papayas bound for the United States.

Medfly-Free Areas of Chile

The regulations at § 319.56–2(j)

provide that all of the provinces of

Chile, except for the Provinces of Arica,

Iquique, and Parinacota, have been

determined to be free of Medfly. We are

proposing to declare all of the provinces

of Chile, including Arica, Iquique, and

Parinacota, free of Medfly. Recently,

Chile provided APHIS with the trapping

data, including the protocol and results

of fruit sampling, sterile fly release, and

bait spray applications, that

demonstrates that the provinces of

Arica, Iquique, and Parinacota meet the

criteria for a Medfly-free area.

Accordingly, we would amend

§ 319.56–2(j) to state that all of the

provinces of Chile are considered free of

Medfly.

Lastly, we are proposing to make

minor editorial changes to § 319.56–

2r(a)(1) and § 319.56–2g(a)(1) to correct

out-of-date references to countries or

locations.

Use of Methyl Bromide

Methyl bromide is currently in

widespread use as a fumigant. It is

presented in this proposal as an

alternative to a phytosanitary inspection

that determines that shipments of garlic

from Romania are apparently free of

living stages of Brachycerus spp. and

Dyspessa ulula (Bkh.). The

environmental effects of using methyl

bromide, however, are being scrutinized

by international, Federal, and State

agencies. The U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA), based on its

evaluation of data concerning the ozone

depletion potential of methyl bromide,

published a notice of final rulemaking

in the Federal Register on December 10,

1993 (58 FR 65018–65082). That

rulemaking freezes methyl bromide

production in the United States at 1991

levels and requires the phasing out of

domestic use of methyl bromide by the

year 2001. APHIS is studying the

effectiveness and environmental

acceptability of alternative treatments to

prepare for the eventual unavailability

of methyl bromide fumigation. Our

current proposal assumes the continued

availability of methyl bromide for use as

a fumigant for at least the next few

years.

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory

Flexibility Act

This proposed rule has been reviewed

under Executive Order 12866. The 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 set out

below, regarding the impact of this

proposed rule on small entities. Based

on the information we have, there is no

basis to conclude that adoption of this

proposed rule would result in any

significant economic impact 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.

Under the Federal Plant Pest Act and

the Plant Quarantine Act (7 U.S.C.

150dd, 150ee, 150ff, 151–165, and 167),

the Secretary of Agriculture is

authorized to regulate the importation of

fruits and vegetables to prevent the

introduction of injurious plant pests.

This proposed rule would amend the

regulations governing the importation of

fruits and vegetables by allowing a

number of previously prohibited fruits

and vegetables to be imported into the

United States from certain foreign

countries and localities under specified

conditions. The importation of these

fruits and vegetables has been

prohibited because of the risk that they

could introduce injurious plant pests

into the United States.

Our proposal is based on pest risk

assessments that were conducted by

APHIS at the request of various

importers and foreign ministries of

agriculture. The pest risk assessments

indicate that the fruits or vegetables

listed in this proposed rule could, under

certain conditions, be imported into the

United States without significant pest

risk. All of the fruits and vegetables, as

a condition of entry, would be subject

to inspection, disinfection, or both, at

the port of first arrival as may be

required by a USDA inspector. In

addition, some of the fruits and

vegetables would be required to undergo

mandatory treatment for injurious plant

pests as a condition of entry, or to meet

other special conditions. This action

would provide the United States with

additional kinds and sources of fruits

and vegetables while continuing to

provide protection against the

introduction into the United States of

injurious plant pests by imported fruits

and vegetables.

Availability of Data

For many of the commodities

proposed for importation into the

United States in this document, data on

the levels of production and the

anticipated import volume is

unavailable for a number of reasons.

First, many of these commodities are

not produced in significant quantities

either in the United States or in the

country that would be exporting the

commodity to the United States;

generally, less statistical data is

collected— and therefore available —for

commodities produced in small

quantities when compared to a

country’s more heavily-produced

commodities. Second, some of these

commodities do not appear to be

produced in the United States at all;

therefore, data on the U.S. production

and export levels for those commodities

does not exist. Finally, estimates of

potential exports of commodities from

foreign countries to the United States

are often difficult to obtain, due in part

to the uncertainty surrounding the cost

and availability of transportation and

the demand for the commodity in the

United States.

Leeks From Belgium

No information is available on U.S.

production of leeks. Data is available,

however, on U.S. exports and imports of

the commodity. In 1995, the United

States imported 2,764 metric tons of

leeks, an increase over the 1993 and

1994 levels (2,328 metric tons and 2,042

metric tons, respectively). In 1995, the

United States exported 3,279 metric

tons of leeks, also an increase over the

1993 and 1994 levels (2,519 metric tons

and 2,708 metric tons, respectively).

The fact that the United States exports

leeks suggests that the commodity is

produced in the United States.

However, the volume of exports

suggests that the level of production is

low relative to other, more popular

vegetables.

Data on the number or size of leek

producers in the United States is not

available. However, since most U.S.

vegetable and melon farms are small by

Small Business Administration (SBA)

standards, it is very likely that the U.S.

farms that produce leeks are also small.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 57 / Tuesday, March 25, 1997 / Proposed Rules 14041

Data on the volume of potential

exports of leeks from Belgium to the

United States is not available.

Papaya From Brazil

In 1995, the United States produced

23,042 metric tons (fresh equivalent) of

papaya for human consumption, valued

at $18.5 million. In 1993 and 1994, the

United States produced 28,939 metric

tons and 28,123 metric tons,

respectively, of papaya for human

consumption.

Imports into the United States of fresh

papaya have grown rapidly, to the point

where imports now exceed U.S.

production levels of papaya for human

consumption. In 1995, the United States

imported 33,288 metric tons of fresh

papaya, a significant increase over the

1993 and 1994 levels (14,198 metric

tons and 18,677 metric tons,

respectively). The increase in U.S.

imports of fresh papaya since 1993 is

due almost entirely to increased

shipments from Mexico, the source of

most U.S. papaya imports. The United

States is a net importer of fresh papaya,

as exports of the commodity from the

United States did not exceed 8,293

metric tons in any of the years between

1993 and 1995.

In 1992, papaya was produced at 519

farms in the United States. It is not

known how many of those farms are

considered small entities under SBA

standards, since information on their

sizes is not available. However, most are

probably small, since most U.S. farms

whose revenues are derived primarily

from the sale of fruits and tree nuts are

considered small.

In 1993, Brazil was the world’s largest

producer of papaya. In that year, Brazil

produced an estimated 1,750,000 metric

tons of papaya, 30.1 percent of the

world’s total. No data is available,

however, on the volume of potential

exports of this commodity from Brazil to

the United States.

Radicchio From Ecuador

Data on radicchio production for the

entire United States is not available.

However, production data is available

for the State of California, where most,

if not all, of U.S. radicchio is produced.

In 1994, California produced 7,040

metric tons of radicchio, an increase

over the State’s 1993 volume of 6,387

metric tons. California’s 1994

production had a value of $7.7 million.

No information on U.S. (or California)

trade in radicchio is available.

Data on the number or size of

radicchio producers in the United States

(or California) is not available. However,

since most U.S. vegetable and melon

farms are considered small by SBA

standards, it is very likely that the U.S.

farms that produce radicchio are also

small.

Information on Ecuador’s production

and export of radicchio, including

potential exports to the United States, is

not available.

Eggplant From El Salvador

In 1995, the United States produced

28,710 metric tons of eggplant, with a

value of $16.2 million. In 1993 and

1994, domestic production levels were

34,160 metric tons and 35,380 metric

tons, respectively. U.S. production has

been supplemented by a steadily

growing level of eggplant imports,

18,154 metric tons in 1993, 21,302

metric tons in 1994, and 24,946 metric

tons in 1995. The United States is a net

importer of eggplant, as exports of the

commodity from the United States did

not exceed 9,090 metric tons in any of

the years between 1993 and 1995.

In 1992, the latest year for which data

is available, eggplant was produced at

2,203 farms in the United States. It is

not known how many of these farms are

considered small entities under SBA

standards, since information as to their

size is not available. However, most are

probably small, since most vegetable

and melon farms in the United States

are small.

Data on the volume of eggplant

production in El Salvador is not

available. Data on the volume of

potential exports of eggplant from El

Salvador to the United States is also not

available.

Basil and Dill From Guatemala

Information on U.S. production and

exportation of basil is not available, but

indicators suggest that basil is not

grown commercially in significant

quantities in the United States. In 1995,

the United States imported 3,404 metric

tons of basil with a value of $4.9

million. U.S. basil imports in 1994 and

1993 were 3,216 metric tons and 2,449

metric tons, respectively.

Information on U.S. production and

exportation of dill is not available, but

indicators suggest that dill, like basil, is

not grown commercially in significant

quantities in the United States. In 1995,

the United States imported 766 metric

tons of dill with a value of $1.0 million.

U.S. dill imports in 1994 and 1993 were

949 metric tons and 828 metric tons,

respectively.

Guatemala currently produces basil

and dill for its local market only. No

data is available on the exact level of

basil or dill production in Guatemala,

but the volume is believed to be very

small. Data on the volume of potential

exports of these commodities from

Guatemala to the United States is not

available.

Mioga Ginger From Japan

No information is available on U.S.

production or exportation of the

flowers, leaves, and stems of mioga

ginger. The absence of such data

suggests that commercial production of

mioga ginger in the United States is

negligible, at most. Mioga ginger is a

spice, and most spices are not grown

commercially in significant quantities in

the United States. Data on U.S. imports

of mioga ginger is also not available.

Japan produced 6,638 metric tons of

mioga ginger in 1994. No information is

available on the potential volume of

exports of this commodity from Japan to

the United States. At the present time,

all mioga ginger produced in Japan is

consumed locally; none is exported.

Leek From The Netherlands

Data on U.S. production and trade of

leeks is discussed above under the

heading ‘‘Leeks from Belgium.’’

In 1994, The Netherlands produced

102,727 metric tons of leeks, and its

exports of leeks that year totaled 43,764

metric tons. In 1995, the Netherlands

exported 51,062 metric tons of leeks,

with just over 50 percent of those

exports directed to Germany. Potential

exports of leeks from The Netherlands

to the United States could reach 1,000

metric tons annually, depending on

such factors as the cost and availability

of air transportation and demand in the

United States. However, as the United

States is a net exporter of leeks, it is

doubtful that consumer demand in the

United States will encourage a

substantial volume of leek imports from

The Netherlands.

Eggplant From Nicaragua

Data on U.S. production and trade of

eggplant is discussed above under the

heading ‘‘Eggplant from El Salvador.’’

To date, all of the eggplant produced

commercially in Nicaragua has been

consumed locally. No data is available,

however, on the volume of eggplant

production in Nicaragua. In addition, no

data on the volume of potential exports

of eggplant from Nicaragua to the

United States is available. However,

relatively small quantities are likely to

be imported. In 1993, for example,

Nicaragua produced little or no

eggplant, and its production of all

vegetables and melons that year totaled

only 59,000 metric tons. By comparison,

U.S. supply (domestically produced and

imported) of eggplant alone in 1993

totaled 52,314 metric tons, just slightly

less than Nicaragua’s entire vegetable

and melon production that year.
14042 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 57 / Tuesday, March 25, 1997 / Proposed Rules

Radicchio From Nicaragua

Data on the production of radicchio in

California is discussed above under the

heading ‘‘Radicchio from Ecuador.’’

Nicaragua currently produces

radicchio for its local market. No data is

available on the exact volume of

radicchio production in Nicaragua, but

the volume is believed to be very small.

Data on the volume of potential exports

of radicchio from Nicaragua to the

United States is also not available.

Garlic From Romania

In 1995, the United States produced

232,010 metric tons of fresh garlic,

valued at $179.8 million. In 1993 and

1994, domestic production levels were

188,690 metric tons and 208,200 metric

tons, respectively. While U.S.

production has been growing rapidly,

U.S. imports of garlic have steadily

declined, 39,381 metric tons in 1993,

21,705 metric tons in 1994, and 18,594

metric tons in 1995. U.S. exports of the

commodity have also steadily declined,

from 11,274 metric tons in 1993 to 7,659

metric tons in 1995.

In 1992, garlic was produced at 619

U.S. farms. It is not known how many

of these farms are considered small

entities under SBA standards, since

information as to their size is not

available. However, most are probably

small, since most vegetable and melon

farms in the United States are small.

In 1995, Romania produced 58,000

metric tons of garlic, an increase over

the country’s 1994 and 1993 production

levels (56,400 metric tons and 48,900

metric tons, respectively). In 1996,

Romanian garlic production is estimated

to have fallen to approximately 50,000

metric tons, due to unfavorable weather

conditions. Data on the volume of

potential exports of garlic from Romania

to the United States is not available.

However, trade sources within Romania

indicate that the prospects for future

exports to the United States are reduced,

owing to both the high price and low

quality of Romanian garlic.

The alternative to this proposed rule

was to make no changes in the

regulations. After consideration, we

rejected this alternative because there is

no biological reason to prohibit the

importation into the United States of the

fruits and vegetables listed in this

document.

Executive Order 12988

This proposed rule would allow

certain fruits and vegetables to be

imported into the United States from

certain parts of the world. If this

proposed rule is adopted, State and

local laws and regulations regarding the

importation of fruits and vegetables

under this rule would be preempted

while the fruits and vegetables are in

foreign commerce. Fresh fruits and

vegetables 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-bycase 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.

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. 96–046–1. Please

send a copy of your comments to: (1)

Docket No. 96–046–1, Regulatory

Analysis and Development, PPD,

APHIS, suite 3C03, 4700 River Road

Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737–1238,

and (2) Clearance Officer, OIRM, 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.

The paperwork associated with the

importation of the fruits and vegetables

named in this document would include

the completion of phytosanitary

certificates and fruit fly monitoring

records. We are soliciting comments

from the public (as well as affected

agencies) concerning our information

collection and recordkeeping

requirements. We need this outside

input to 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 1.31 hours per

response.

Respondents: Foreign plant health

protection authorities.

Estimated number of respondents: 50.

Estimated number of responses per

respondent: 10.

Estimated total annual burden on

respondents: 656 hours.

Copies of this information collection

can be obtained from: Clearance Officer,

OIRM, USDA, Room 404-W, 14th Street

and Independence Ave., SW,

Washington, DC 20250.

List of Subjects

7 CFR Part 300

Incorporation by reference, Plant

diseases and pests, Quarantine.

7 CFR Part 319

Bees, Coffee, Cotton, Fruits, Honey,

Imports, Incorporation by reference,

Nursery Stock, Plant diseases and pests,

Quarantine, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Rice,

Vegetables.

Accordingly, 7 CFR parts 300 and 319

are proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 300—INCORPORATION BY

REFERENCE

1. The authority citation for part 300

would continue to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 150ee, 154, 161, 162,

and 167; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.2(c).

2. In § 300.1, paragraph (a), the

introductory text would be revised to

read as follows:

§ 300.1 Materials incorporated by

reference; availability.

(a) Plant Protection and Quarantine

Treatment Manual. The Plant Protection

and Quarantine Treatment Manual,

which was reprinted November 30,

1992, and includes all revisions through

————————, has been approved

for incorporation by reference in 7 CFR

chapter III by the Director of the Office

of the Federal Register in accordance

with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

* * * * *

PART 319—FOREIGN QUARANTINE

NOTICES

3. The authority citation for part 319

would continue to read as follows:
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 57 / Tuesday, March 25, 1997 / Proposed Rules 14043

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 150dd, 150ee, 150ff,

151–167, 450, 2803, and 2809; 21 U.S.C. 136

and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.2(c).

§ 319.56–2 [Amended]

4. In § 319.56–2, paragraph (j) would

be amended by removing the words

‘‘except Arica, Iquique, and Parinacota’.

5. In § 319.56–2g, paragraph (a) would

be revised to read as follows:

§ 319.56–2g Adminstrative instructions

prescribing method of treatment of garlic

from specified countries.

(a) Except as otherwise provided in

these administrative instructions,

fumigation with methyl bromide in

vacuum fumigation chambers, in

accordance with the Plant Protection

and Quarantine Treatment Manual,

which is incorporated by reference at

§ 300.1 of this chapter, is a condition of

entry under permit for all shipments of

garlic (Allium sativum) from Algeria,

Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Czech

Republic, Egypt, Estonia, France,

Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary,

Iran, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania,

Moldova, Morocco, Portugal, Romania,

the area of the Russian Federation west

of the Ural Mountains, Slovakia, South

Africa (Republic of), Spain, Switzerland,

Syria, Turkey, Ukraine, and the area of

the former Yugoslavia. Fumigation is to

be carried out under the supervision of

a plant quarantine inspector and at the

expense of the importer. While it is

believed that the garlic will be

unaffected by the fumigation, the

treatment will be at the importer’s risk.

Such entry will be limited to ports

named in the permits, where approved

facilities for vacuum fumigation with

methyl bromide are available.

* * * * *

§ 319.56–2r [Amended]

6. In § 319.56–2r, paragraph (a)(1)

would be amended by removing the

words ‘‘, and West Germany’’, by adding

the word ‘‘Germany,’’ immediately

following the word ‘‘France’’, and by

adding the word ‘‘and’’ immediately

following the word ‘‘Sweden,’’.

7. In § 319.56–2t, the table would be

amended by adding, in alphabetical

order, the following entries:

§ 319.56–2t Administrative instructions:

conditions governing the entry of certain

fruits and vegetables.

* * * * *

Country/locality Common name Botanical name Plant part(s)

* * * * * * *

Belgium ................................ Leek .................................... Allium spp. .......................... Whole plant. (Must be accompanied by a

phytosanitary certificate issued by the Ministry of

Agriculture of Belgium stating that the leek is apparently free of Acrolepiopsis assectella.)

* * * * * * *

Ecuador

* * * * * * *

Radicchio ............................ Cichorium spp. ................... Above ground parts.

El Salvador

* * * * * * *

Eggplant ............................. Solanum melongena .......... Fruit.

* * * * * * *

Guatemala

* * * * * * *

Basil .................................... Ocimum spp. ...................... Above ground parts.

Dill ....................................... Anethum graveolens .......... Above ground parts.

* * * * * * *

Japan ................................... Mioga Ginger ...................... Zingiber mioga .................... Above ground parts.

* * * * * * *

Netherlands .......................... Leek .................................... Allium spp. .......................... Whole plant. (Must be accompanied by a

phytosanitary certificate issued by the Ministry of

Agriculture of The Netherlands stating that the leek

is apparently free of Acrolepiopsis assectella.)

* * * * * * *

Nicaragua

* * * * * * *

Eggplant ............................. Solanum melongena .......... Fruit.

Radicchio ............................ Cichorium spp. ................... Above ground parts.

* * * * * * *

§ 319.56–2u [Amended]

8. Section 319.56–2u would be

amended as follows:

a. In paragraph (b)(1), by removing the

words ‘‘in the Paran region of’’.

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

word ‘‘Paran’’ and by adding in its place

the words ‘‘the Arava Valley’’.

c. By removing paragraph (b)(6) and

redesignating paragraphs (b)(7) through

(b)(9) as paragraphs (b)(6) through (b)(8),

respectively.

d. In newly designated paragraph

(b)(6), by removing the word ‘‘Paran’’
14044 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 57 / Tuesday, March 25, 1997 / Proposed Rules

and by adding in its place the words

‘‘the Arava Valley’. e. In newly designated paragraph

(b)(7), by removing the word ‘‘Paran’’

and by adding in its place the words

‘‘the Arava Valley’’. 9. Section 319.56–2w would be

revised to read as follows:

§ 319.56–2w Administrative instruction;

conditions governing the entry of papayas

from Brazil and Costa Rica.

The Solo type of papaya may be

imported into the continental United

States, Alaska, Puerto Rico, and the U.S.

Virgin Islands from the State of Espirito

Santo, Brazil, and the provinces of

Guanacaste, San Jose, and Puntarenas,

Costa Rica, only under the following

conditions:

(a) The papayas were grown and

packed for shipment to the United

States in the State of Espirito Santo,

Brazil, or in the provinces of

Guanacaste, San Jose, and Puntarenas,

Costa Rica.

(b) Beginning at least 30 days before

harvest began and continuing through

the completion of harvest, all trees in

the field where the papayas were grown

were kept free of papayas that were 1⁄2

or more ripe (more than 1⁄4 of the shell

surface yellow), and all culled and

fallen fruits were removed from the field

at least twice a week.

(c) When packed, the papayas were

less than 1⁄2 ripe (the shell surface was

no more than 1⁄4 yellow, surrounded by

light green), and appeared to be free of

all injurious insect pests. (d) The papayas were packaged so as

to prevent access by fruit flies and other

injurious insect pests, and the package

does not contain any other fruit,

including papayas not qualified for

importation into the United States. (e) All activities described in

paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section

were carried out under the general

supervision and direction of plant

health officials of the national Ministry

of Agriculture. (f) Beginning at least 1 year before

harvest begins and continuing through

the completion of harvest, fruit fly traps

were maintained in the field where the

papayas were grown. The traps were

placed at a rate of 1 trap per hectare and

were checked for fruit flies at least once

weekly by plant health officials of the

national Ministry of Agriculture. Fifty

percent of the traps were of the McPhail

type, and fifty percent of the traps were

of the Jackson type. The national

Ministry of Agriculture kept records of

fruit fly finds for each trap, updated the

records each time the traps were

checked, and made the records available

to APHIS inspectors upon request. The

records were maintained for at least 1

year.

(g) All shipments must be

accompanied by a phytosanitary

certificate issued by the national

Ministry of Agriculture stating that the

papayas were grown, packed, and

shipped in accordance with the

provisions of this section.

Done in Washington, DC, this 19th day of

March 1997.

Terry L. Medley,

Administrator, Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service.

[FR Doc. 97–7455 Filed 3–24–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P

9 CFR Parts 1 and 3

[Docket No. 97–018–1]

Animal Welfare; Petition for

Rulemaking

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of petition and request

for comments.

SUMMARY: We are notifying the public of

our receipt of a petition for rulemaking,

and we are soliciting public comment

on that petition. The petition, sponsored

by the Doris Day Animal League,

requests that we amend the Animal

Welfare regulations by redefining the

term ‘‘retail pet store’’ and by including

dealers of dogs intended for hunting,

security, and breeding in the

regulations.

DATES: Consideration will be given only

to comments received on or before May

27, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Please send an original and

three copies of your comments to

Docket No. 97–018–1, Regulatory

Analysis and Development, PPD,

APHIS, suite 3C03, 4700 River Road

Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737–1238.

Please state that your comments refer to

Docket No. 97–018–1. Anyone wishing

to see copies of comments received, or

the petition, including appendices, may

do so by coming to USDA, room 1141,

South Building, 14th Street and

Independence Avenue SW.,

Washington, DC, between 8 a.m. and

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except holidays. Please call ahead on

(202) 690–2817 to facilitate entry into

the comment reading room.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

Bettye Walters, Veterinary Medical

Officer, AC, APHIS, 4700 River Road

Unit 84, Riverdale, MD 20737–1234,

(301) 734–7833.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Under the Animal Welfare Act (the

Act) (7 U.S.C. 2131 et seq.), the

Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to

promulgate standards and other

requirements governing the humane

handling, housing, care, treatment, and

transportation of certain animals by

dealers, research facilities, exhibitors,

and carriers and intermediate handlers.

Regulations established under the Act

are contained in 9 CFR parts 1, 2, and

3. 9 CFR part 1 contains definitions for

terms used in 9 CFR parts 2 and 3.

Subpart A of 9 CFR part 3 contains

specific standards for the humane

handling, care, treatment, and

transportation of dogs and cats.

A petition for rulemaking, sponsored

by the Doris Day Animal League,

requests two changes to the regulations

at 9 CFR parts 1 and 3. The requested

changes are: (1) to redefine the term

‘‘retail pet store’’ in 9 CFR part 1; and

(2) to regulate dealers of dogs intended

for hunting, security, and breeding

under the provisions applicable to other

dealers of dogs in 9 CFR part 3. The

petition is printed below. A brief

description of the appendices referred to

in the petition appears at the end of the

petition.

Comments are invited on the

proposed changes discussed in the

petition. In particular, we are soliciting

comments addressing the following

questions:

1. Should the definition of ‘‘retail pet

store’’ in 9 CFR part 1 be revised to read

‘‘a non-residential business

establishment used primarily for the

sale of pets to the ultimate customer’?

2. Should dealers of dogs intended for

hunting, security, and breeding be

subject to the applicable regulations at

9 CFR part 3, subchapter A’’?

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 2131–2159; 7 CFR 2.22,

2.80, and 371.2(g).

Done in Washington, DC, this 19th day of

March 1997.

Terry L. Medley,

Administrator, Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service.

Petition Before the U.S. Department of

Agriculture

Petition for Rulemaking and Collateral

Relief; Doris Day Animal League, 227

Massachusetts Avenue, NE, Suite 100,

Washington, DC 20002

June 22, 1995.

I. Introduction

Pursuant to the Administrative

Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 553(e), the

Doris Day Animal League, a national

animal protection organization,

petitions the Department of Agriculture