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

18161 

Vol. 74, No. 75 

Tuesday, April 21, 2009 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

7 CFR Part 319 

[Docket No. APHIS–2008–0050] 

RIN 0579–AC95 

Importation of Papaya From Colombia 

and Ecuador 

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: We are proposing to allow, 

under certain conditions, the 

importation of commercial shipments of 

fresh papaya from Colombia and 

Ecuador into the continental United 

States. The conditions for the 

importation of papayas from Colombia 

and Ecuador include requirements for 

approved production locations; field 

sanitation; hot water treatment; 

procedures for packing and shipping the 

papayas; and fruit fly trapping in 

papaya production areas. This action 

would allow for the importation of 

papayas from Colombia and Ecuador 

while continuing to provide protection 

against the introduction of injurious 

plant pests into the continental United 

States. 

DATES: We will consider all comments 

that we receive on or before June 22, 

2009. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by either of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov/ 

fdmspublic/component/ 

main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS2008-0050 to submit or view comments 

and to view supporting and related 

materials available electronically. 

• Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: 

Please send two copies of your comment 

to Docket No. APHIS–2008–0050, 

Regulatory Analysis and Development, 

PPD, APHIS, Station 3A–03.8, 4700 

River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 

20737–1238. Please state that your 

comment refers to Docket No. APHIS– 

2008–0050. 

Reading Room: You may read any 

comments that we receive on this 

docket in our reading room. The reading 

room 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) 690–2817 before 

coming. 

Other Information: Additional 

information about APHIS and its 

programs is available on the Internet at 

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Alex Belano, Branch Chief, Risk 

Management and Plants for Planting 

Policy, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road 

Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737–1231; 

(301) 734–5333. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The regulations in ‘‘Subpart–Fruits 

and Vegetables’’ (7 CFR 319.56–1 

through 319.56–48, 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 

organizations (NPPOs) of both Colombia 

and Ecuador have requested that the 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service (APHIS) amend the regulations 

to allow fresh papayas (Carica papaya 

L., cultivar Solo) to be imported from 

Colombia and Ecuador into the 

continental United States. In response to 

those requests, the Center for 

Phytosanitary Excellence in Bogota ́, 

Colombia, an APHIS-funded 

organization, prepared pest risk 

assessments (PRAs) for each country. 

After review of the PRAs and 

consultation with Colombia and 

Ecuador, APHIS prepared a risk 

management document that covers both 

countries. Copies of each PRA and the 

risk management document may be 

obtained from the person listed under 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT and 

may be viewed on the Internet 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 prepared in response to 

Colombia’s request, titled ‘‘Importation 

of Fresh Papaya (Carica papaya 

Linnaeus), cultivar Solo, into the 

Continental United States from 

Colombia’’ (July 2008), evaluates the 

risks associated with the importation of 

papayas into the continental United 

States from Colombia. The PRA 

identified two pests of quarantine 

significance present in Colombia that 

could be introduced into the United 

States via fresh papayas: The South 

American fruit fly (Anastrepha 

fraterculus) and the Mediterranean fruit 

fly or Medfly (Ceratitis capitata). 

The PRA prepared in response to 

Ecuador’s request, titled ‘‘Importation of 

Fresh Papaya Fruit, Carica papaya L., 

into the Continental United States from 

Ecuador’’ (July 2008), evaluates the risks 

associated with the importation of 

papayas into the continental United 

States from Ecuador. The PRA identified 

three pests of quarantine significance 

present in Ecuador that could be 

introduced into the United States via 

fresh papayas: The South American fruit 

fly, the Medfly, and the fungal pest 

Phoma caricae-papayae. 

APHIS has determined that measures 

beyond standard port of arrival 

inspection are required to mitigate the 

risks posed by the plant pests associated 

with papayas from both countries. 

Therefore, we propose to require that 

the papayas be subjected to a systems 

approach to pest mitigation. This 

systems approach would require that 

the papayas be produced and packed in 

approved areas of Colombia and 

Ecuador, would require packing 

procedures designed to exclude 

quarantine pests, and would require 

fruit fly trapping, field sanitation, and 

hot water treatment to remove pests of 

concern from the pathway. Only 

commercial consignments of papayas 

would be allowed to be imported from 

Colombia and Ecuador. Consignments of 

papayas from Colombia and Ecuador 

would also be required to be 

accompanied by a phytosanitary 

certificate issued by the NPPO of the 

exporting country stating that the 

papayas were grown, packed, and 

shipped in accordance with the 

proposed requirements. 


tjames on PRODPC75 with PROPOSALS
18162 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 21, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

The proposed systems approach to 

pest mitigation for the importation of 

papayas from Colombia and Ecuador 

has been used successfully to mitigate 

the risk associated with the importation 

of papayas from Central America and 

Brazil (§ 319.56–25). The risk 

management document for papayas 

from Colombia and Ecuador evaluated 

the effectiveness of these measures 

against the quarantine pests of concern 

and concluded that the provisions in 

§ 319.56–25, along with the general 

requirements for the importation of 

fruits and vegetables in the regulations, 

will be sufficient to prevent the 

introduction into the continental United 

States of injurious plant pests identified 

by the pest risk analyses. Therefore, we 

propose to amend § 319.56–25 to allow 

for the importation of papayas from 

Colombia and Ecuador. The mitigation 

measures for the proposed systems 

approach are outlined in greater detail 

below. 

Commercial Consignments 

The importation of fresh papayas from 

Colombia and Ecuador would be limited 

to commercial consignments only. 

This condition would reduce the 

likelihood that papayas will introduce 

injurious plant pests into the 

continental United States. Commercial 

consignments are 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, 

may 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 packaging, 

identification of grower or packinghouse 

on the packaging, and documents 

consigning the fruits or vegetables to a 

wholesaler or retailer. 

We would place the ‘‘commercial 

consignments only’’ limitation in the 

introductory text of § 319.56–25. 

Located there, that provision would 

apply to both the fresh papayas from 

Colombia and Ecuador that are the 

subject of this proposed rule and the 

currently authorized imports of fresh 

papayas from Central America and 

Brazil. The permit conditions applicable 

to papayas from Central America and 

Brazil already specify that they may be 

imported in commercial shipments 

only, so the addition of this provision to 

the regulations would serve simply to 

make the restriction more transparent. 

Approved Production Areas 

The papayas would have to be grown 

and packed for shipment to the 

continental United States in an 

approved area by growers registered 

with the NPPO of the exporting country. 

In Colombia, these would be the 

Municipalities of La Unio ́n, Roldanillo, 

Toro, and Zarzal in the Province of El 

Valle de Cauca. In Ecuador, these would 

be the Cantons of Balzar, El Triunfo, 

Gral. Antonio Elizalde, Milagro, 

Naranjal, and Santa Elena in the 

Province of Guayas, and the Canton of 

Santo Domingo in the Province of 

Pichincha. 

This condition would ensure that 

papayas intended for the continental 

United States are grown and packed in 

papaya production and packing areas of 

Colombia and Ecuador where fruit fly 

traps are maintained and where the 

other elements of the systems approach 

described below are in place. In 

addition, grower registration allows for 

traceback and removal from the export 

program of production sites with 

confirmed pest problems, and the 

papaya orchards would be monitored by 

the NPPO to ensure that pest and 

disease-excluding sanitary procedures 

are employed. 

Harvesting Procedures 

Beginning at least 30 days before 

harvest begins and continuing through 

the completion of harvest, all trees in 

the area where the papayas are grown 

would have to be kept free of papayas 

that are one-half or more ripe (more 

than one-quarter of shell surface 

yellow), and all culled and fallen fruit 

would have to be buried, destroyed, or 

removed from the farm at least twice a 

week. 

Although papayas are a potential host 

for Medfly and South American fruit fly, 

these fruit flies typically prefer ripe 

fruits as well as culled or fallen 

papayas. Therefore, requiring that only 

green papayas (less than half ripe) be 

present on the trees and that culled and 

fallen fruit be buried, destroyed, or 

removed from the farm would reduce 

the populations of Medfly and South 

American fruit fly in the fields where 

papayas intended for importation into 

the continental United States are grown. 

Treatment 

The papayas would have to be held 

for 20 minutes in hot water at 48 °C 

(118.4 °F). This treatment is currently 

used to treat papayas imported from 

Central America and Brazil for fruit flies 

under the existing regulations in 

§ 319.56–25. Hot water treatment 

mitigates the pest risk that could result 

if fruit flies lay eggs in papayas 

immediately before harvest. In addition, 

hot water treatment reduces populations 

of fungal pathogens such as P. caricaepapayae on fruit. This treatment, in 

conjunction with other safeguards that 

would be required by the regulations for 

papayas from Colombia and Ecuador, 

would reduce the likelihood that 

papayas will introduce injurious plant 

pests into the continental United States. 

Packaging Procedures 

When packed, the papayas would 

have to be less than one-half ripe (shell 

surface no more than one-quarter 

yellow, surrounded by light green) and 

appear to be free of all injurious insect 

pests. 

This condition would reduce the risk 

of introduction of Medfly and South 

American fruit fly, as well as other 

injurious insect pests, into the 

continental United States. Papayas that 

are less than one-half ripe (green) are 

not preferred hosts for fruit flies. 

Requiring papayas to be less than onehalf ripe when packed thus reduces the 

risk of their infestation with Medfly or 

South American fruit fly. In addition, 

requiring that the papayas appear to be 

free of all injurious plant pests would 

help ensure that fruits that are visibly 

infected with P. caricae-papayae are 

culled before packing. 

The papayas would have to be 

safeguarded from exposure to fruit flies 

from harvest to export, including being 

packaged to prevent access by fruit flies 

or other injurious insect pests during 

transit. The package containing the 

papayas would not be allowed to 

contain any other fruit, including 

papayas not qualified for importation 

into the continental United States. 

These conditions would ensure that 

papayas that have already been 

inspected and packaged for shipment to 

the continental United States are not at 

risk for fruit fly infestation. 

Distribution Limitations 

Because the scope of the PRAs that 

were prepared for this proposed rule 

was limited to the continental United 

States, papayas from Colombia and 

Ecuador would not be authorized for 

importation or movement into Hawaii or 

any U.S. territories or possessions. We 

would implement this distribution 

limitation by denying permit 

applications for shipments to 

destinations outside the continental 

United States and, for consignments 

imported into the continental United 

States, by including as a condition of 

the permit a prohibition on moving the 


tjames on PRODPC75 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 21, 2009 / Proposed Rules 18163 

papayas to Hawaii or any U.S. territory 

or possession. 

We note that the regulations in 

§ 319.56–25(f) state that papayas from 

Central America and Brazil must be 

shipped in individual cartons or boxes 

stamped or marked with the statement: 

‘‘Not for importation into or distribution 

within Hawaii.’’ That distribution 

limitation was put in place because the 

papaya fruit fly (Toxotrypana 

curvicauda), which occurs in Central 

America and Brazil, does not occur in 

Hawaii, where the majority of U.S. 

commercial papaya production takes 

place. 

In developing this proposed rule, we 

considered using similar box marking 

requirements to communicate the 

distribution limitations for papayas 

from Colombia and Ecuador. However, 

as noted above, we concluded that the 

permitting process would allow us to 

effectively implement the distribution 

limitations. The same factors that led us 

to conclude that box marking would not 

be necessary for papayas from Colombia 

and Ecuador also led us to consider 

whether it was necessary to continue 

requiring box marking for papayas from 

Central America and Brazil. As a result 

of that consideration, we have 

concluded that the permitting process 

would also allow us to effectively 

implement the distribution limitations 

on papayas from Central America and 

Brazil. Therefore, we are proposing to 

remove the requirement in § 319.56– 

25(f) that papayas from Central America 

and Brazil be shipped in individual 

cartons or boxes stamped or marked 

with the statement: ‘‘Not for importation 

into or distribution within Hawaii.’’ 

Fruit Fly Trapping 

Beginning at least 1 year before 

harvest begins and continuing through 

the completion of harvest, fruit fly traps 

would have to be maintained in the 

field where the papayas were grown. 

Fifty percent of the traps would have to 

be of the McPhail type, and 50 percent 

of the traps of the Jackson type. The 

traps would have to be placed at the rate 

of 1 trap per hectare and checked for 

fruit flies at least once a week by plant 

health officials of the NPPO. The NPPO 

would have to keep records of the fruit 

fly finds for each trap, updating the 

records each time the traps are checked, 

and make the records available to 

APHIS upon request. The records would 

have to be maintained for at least 1 year. 

This condition would ensure the earliest 

possible detection of increasing 

populations of fruit flies in and around 

fields where papayas are grown. 

If the average Jackson fruit fly trap 

catch is greater than seven Medflies per 

trap per week, measures would have to 

be taken to control the Medfly 

population in the production area. If the 

average Jackson trap catch exceeds 14 

Medflies per trap per week, 

importations of papayas from that 

production area would be halted until 

the rate of capture drops to an average 

of 7 or fewer Medflies per trap per week. 

If the average McPhail trap catch is 

greater than seven South American fruit 

flies per trap per week, measures would 

have to be taken to control the South 

American fruit flies population in the 

production area. If the average McPhail 

trap catch exceeds 14 South American 

fruit flies per trap per week, 

importations of papayas from that 

production area would be halted until 

the rate of capture drops to an average 

of 7 or fewer South American fruit flies 

per trap per week. 

These thresholds for Medfly and 

South American fruit fly trapping would 

help detect increasing populations of 

these fruit flies in growing areas; as 

such, this condition would help ensure 

that these fruit flies are not associated 

with imports of papayas into the 

continental United States. 

All activities would have to be 

conducted under the supervision and 

direction of plant health officials of the 

NPPO of the exporting country to help 

ensure that all activities required by the 

regulations are properly carried out. 

Currently, fruit fly trapping is not listed 

as an activity to which this requirement 

applies. Therefore, we are proposing to 

amend § 319.56–25 to make it clear that 

this requirement applies to all activities, 

including fruit fly trapping. 

Phytosanitary Certificate 

All shipments of papayas would have 

to be accompanied by a phytosanitary 

certificate issued by the NPPO of the 

exporting country stating that the 

papayas were grown, packed, and 

shipped in accordance with the 

proposed requirements. This condition 

would help ensure that the provisions of 

the regulations have been met. In 

addition, as part of issuing the 

phytosanitary certificate, the NPPO 

would inspect the commodities and 

certify that they are free of quarantine 

pests. 

The existing regulations in § 319.56– 

25(k), which we are proposing to 

redesignate as paragraph (j), provide 

that all consignments of papayas must 

be accompanied by a phytosanitary 

certificate issued by the national 

Ministry of Agriculture. However, 

throughout the regulations we identify 

the official service responsible for 

discharging functions specified by the 

International Plant Protection 

Convention, including the issuance of 

phytosanitary certificates, as the NPPO 

of the exporting country, rather than the 

national Ministry of Agriculture. For 

clarity and consistency, we propose to 

amend § 319.56–25(k) to refer to the 

NPPO. 

Miscellaneous 

We would amend the regulations in 

§ 319.56–25 in order to clarify that the 

continental United States includes 

Alaska, rather than referring to Alaska 

as a separate entity. 

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. 

We are proposing to allow, under 

certain conditions, the importation of 

commercial shipments of fresh papaya 

from Colombia and Ecuador into the 

continental United States. The 

conditions for the importation of 

papayas from Colombia and Ecuador 

include requirements for approved 

production locations; field sanitation; 

hot water treatment; procedures for 

packing and shipping the papayas; and 

fruit fly trapping in papaya production 

areas. This action would allow for the 

importation of papayas from Colombia 

and Ecuador while continuing to 

provide protection against the 

introduction of injurious plant pests 

into the continental United States. 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act 

requires agencies to evaluate the 

potential effects of their proposed and 

final rules on small businesses, small 

organizations and small governmental 

jurisdictions. Section 605 of the Act 

relieves an agency of the requirement to 

prepare and make available for public 

comment an initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis describing the expected impact 

of a proposed rule on small entities if 

the head of the agency certifies that the 

rule will not, if promulgated, have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Businesses most likely to be affected 

by this rule would be U.S. papaya 

producers. Papaya production is 

classified under North American 

Industry Classification System (NAICS) 

111339, other non-citrus fruit farming. 

The Small Business Administration 

(SBA) classifies papaya producers as 

small entities if they have annual sales 

of not more than $750,000. In the 

United States in 2002, the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) 


tjames on PRODPC75 with PROPOSALS
18164 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 21, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

1USDA NASS, Hawaii Field Office. ‘‘Papaya 

Acreage Survey Results.’’ Sept. 18, 2007. http:// 

www.nass.usda.gov/hi/fruit/annpap.pdf 

2USDA ERS, Fruit and Tree Nuts Situation and 

Outlook Yearbook. Susan Pollack and Agnes Perez. 

Tables A–4, B–23. Oct. 2007. http:// 

www.ers.usda.gov/publications/FTS/2007/ 

Yearbook/FTS2007.pdf 

3University of Florida. IFAS Extension. J.H. 

Crane, Processor and Tropical Fruit Specialist. 

2005. http://ucce.ucdavis.edu/files/datastore/391- 

412.pdf 

4Sauls, Julian W. Extension Horticulturist. Texas 

A & M, AgriLIFE Extension. Department of 

Horticultural Sciences. Retrieved 6/9/08. http:// 

aggie-horticulture.tamu.edu/extension/homefruit/ 

papaya/papaya.html 

5USDA NASS, 2002 Census of Agriculture, Table 

36. 

6 Global Trade Atlas. Harmonized System code 

080720, Papayas, Fresh. 

7NASS. Hawaii Field Office. Statistics of Hawaii 

Agriculture 2006. ‘‘Papayas.’’ http:// 

www.nass.usda.gov/hi/stats/t_of_c.htm 

8USDA ERS Fruit and Tree Nut Outlook. Agnes 

Perez and Susan Pollack. ‘‘California to Produce 

More Strawberries in 2008, Peach, Nectarine, and 

Plum Production Adequate.’’ May 29, 2008. p. 12 

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/fts/2008/ 

05MAY/FTS332.pdf 

9 Global Trade Atlas Navigator. United States 

Import Statistics, monthly data. Commodity Fresh 

Papaya Harmonized System code 080720. Retrieved 

7/22/08. http://www.gtis.com/gta. 

10Food and Agriculture Organization. FAOStat. 

Commodity ‘‘papayas’’ converted from tonnes. 

National Agricultural Statistics Service 

(NASS) reported that 95 percent of 

enterprises engaged in fruit and tree nut 

farming (NAICS 1113) made less than 

$500,000. Most, if not all, papaya 

producers in the United States are 

presumably small entities. 

Importers and wholesalers of papaya 

could be affected by the proposed rule 

as well. These industries and their 

small-entity size standards are: Fresh 

fruit and vegetable wholesalers (NAICS 

424480, 100 or fewer employees), 

wholesalers and other grocery stores 

(NAICS 445110, $23 million or less in 

annual receipts), warehouse clubs and 

superstores (NAICS 452910, $23 million 

or less in annual receipts), and fruit and 

vegetable markets (NAICS 445230, $6 

million or less in annual receipts). Many 

of the entities that comprise these 

industries are small. 

There are three papaya-producing 

States, Florida, Hawaii, and Texas, with 

Hawaii having by far the largest number 

of producers (including bearing and 

nonbearing farms). In 2007, 178 

Hawaiian farms with 2,135 acres, 1,395 

of which were bearing acres, are 

reported to have grown papaya.1 Hawaii 

is the only State for which fresh utilized 

papaya production is reported by 

USDA’s Economic Research Service 

(ERS). The latest update (October 2007) 

by ERS indicates that fresh utilized 

production was 13,000 short tons.2 Over 

the last 5 years, the amount of Hawaiian 

fresh papaya production has decreased 

50 percent. 

Florida has a small commercial 

papaya industry,3 and the lower Rio 

Grande Valley in Texas also has only 

limited commercial plantings due to 

occasional freezing temperatures.4 The 

2002 Census of Agriculture reported 

that Florida had 53 papaya-producing 

farms with a total of 156 acres and that 

Texas had 5 farms with a total of 6 

acres.5

In contrast to the decline in domestic 

production, the quantity of fresh 

papayas imported since 1999 has almost 

doubled, as U.S. demand for papayas 

continues to increase. Imports as a 

percent of domestic fresh papaya 

consumption have risen from 80 percent 

in 2000 to over 94 percent in 2006. U.S. 

fresh papaya imports for 2006 totaled 

around 146,000 short tons, while U.S. 

papaya exports, excluding re-exports, 

totaled only 3,900 short tons.6 In other 

words, the United States imports almost 

11 times the quantity of fresh papayas 

produced domestically. 

Hawaiian papayas are available year 

round, but the peak season starts in 

early summer and continues into fall. 

Annual NASS reports show that the 

percentage of fresh papaya that stayed 

within the State increased from 50 

percent in 2002 to 63 percent in 2006. 

Shipments of fresh papaya from Hawaii 

decreased from 10,600 short tons in 

2002 to 4,900 short tons in 2006 (37 

percent).7 Preliminary estimates for 

2007 indicate a reversal in this pattern, 

with outshipment of 5,800 short tons 

and 51 percent of the fresh papaya crop 

consumed within the State. The 

Hawaiian NASS Field Office does not 

report whether Hawaii’s out-of-State 

sales remained within the United States 

or were exported. The proposed rule 

would only allow the importation of 

papaya from Colombia and Ecuador into 

the continental United States. 

Mexico is the principal source of fresh 

papaya imports by the United States, 

while additional imports arrive from 

such countries as Belize, Brazil, 

Jamaica, and the Dominican Republic. 

ERS attributes the growing U.S. demand 

to increasing ethnic populations that are 

already familiar with papayas and are 

the main consumers of the fruit, as well 

as a growing appetite among other 

consumers for a new, health-promoting, 

and convenient food.8

U.S. producers of papayas must 

compete against less expensive imports. 

In 2006, for example, the price of 

papaya imports from Mexico was about 

28 cents per pound, whereas the market 

price received for fresh papaya in 

Hawaii averaged over 41 cents per 

pound. As of April 2008, the fresh 

papaya farm price in Hawaii was 

estimated at 51 cents per pound, while 

Mexico’s price was 27 cents.9 We expect 

that papaya supplied by Colombia and 

Ecuador would largely compete against 

imports from Mexico and elsewhere. 

With the proposed rule, U.S. papaya 

producers could expect to face 

additional competition of less expensive 

fruit from foreign sources. Given that 

the U.S. market for fresh papaya is 

already dominated by imports, the 

addition of Colombia and Ecuador is 

unlikely to significantly affect sales by 

U.S. producers. Estimated papaya 

production in 2006 for Colombia was 

151,000 short tons and for Ecuador, 

47,000 short tons.10

At least some U.S. firms that import 

papaya could be expected to benefit 

from the additional sources of supply, 

although any such gains overall would 

be limited by the extent to which fresh 

papaya cultivar Solo imports from 

Colombia and Ecuador substitute for 

imports from other countries. Given the 

rapidly expanding demand for fresh 

papaya in the United States, 

substitution among foreign sources may 

be limited, depending upon price 

sensitivities. 

Under these circumstances, the 

Administrator of the Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service has 

determined that this action would not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Executive Order 12988 

This proposed rule would allow 

commercial shipments of fresh papayas 

from Colombia and Ecuador into the 

continental United States. If this 

proposed rule is adopted, State and 

local laws and regulations regarding 

papaya 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. 

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 


tjames on PRODPC75 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 21, 2009 / Proposed Rules 18165 

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–2008–0050. 

Please send a copy of your comments to: 

(1) Docket No. APHIS–2008–0050, 

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 allow, under 

certain conditions, the importation of 

commercial shipments of fresh papaya 

from Colombia and Ecuador into the 

continental United States. The 

conditions for the importation of 

papayas from Colombia and Ecuador 

include requirements for approved 

production locations; field sanitation; 

hot water treatment; procedures for 

packing and shipping the papayas; and 

fruit fly trapping in papaya production 

areas. This action would allow for the 

importation of papayas from Colombia 

and Ecuador while continuing to 

provide protection against the 

introduction of injurious plant pests 

into the continental United States. 

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 0.5 hours per 

response. 

Respondents: National Plant 

Protection Organizations of Colombia 

and Ecuador and importers of papaya. 

Estimated annual number of 

respondents: 3. 

Estimated annual number of 

responses per respondent: 100.666. 

Estimated annual number of 

responses: 302. 

Estimated total annual burden on 

respondents: 151 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 E-Government 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: 

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. 

2. Section 319.56–25 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 319.56–25 Papayas from Central America 

and South America. 

Commercial consignments of the Solo 

type of papaya may be imported into the 

United States only in accordance with 

this section and all other applicable 

provisions of this subpart. 

(a) The papayas were grown and 

packed for shipment to the continental 

United States (including Alaska), Puerto 

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

of the following locations: 

(1) Brazil: State of Espirito Santo; all 

areas in the State of Bahia that are 

between the Jequitinhonha River and 

the border with the State of Espirito 

Santo and all areas in the State of Rio 

Grande del Norte that contain the 

following municipalities: Touros, 

Pureza, Rio do Fogo, Barra de 

Maxaranguape, Taipu, Ceara Mirim, 

Extremoz, Ielmon Marinho, Sao Goncalo 

do Amarante, Natal, Maciaba, 

Parnamirim, Veracruz, Sao Jose de 

Mipibu, Nizia Floresta, Monte Aletre, 

Areas, Senador Georgino Avelino, 

Espirito Santo, Goianinha, Tibau do Sul, 

Vila Flor, and Canguaretama e Baia 

Formosa. 

(2) Costa Rica: Provinces of 

Guanacaste, Puntarenas, San Jose. 

(3) El Salvador: Departments of La 

Libertad, La Paz, and San Vicente. 

(4) Guatemala: Departments of 

Escuintla, Retalhuleu, Santa Rosa, and 

Suchitepe ́quez. 

(5) Honduras: Departments of 

Comayagua, Corte ́s, and Santa Ba ́rbara. 

(6) Nicaragua: Departments of Carazo, 

Granada, Leon, Managua, Masaya, and 

Rivas. 

(7) Panama: Provinces of Cocle, 

Herrera, and Los Santos; Districts of 

Aleanje, David, and Dolega in the 

Province of Chiriqui; and all areas in the 

Province of Panama that are west of the 

Panama Canal; or 

(b) The papayas were grown by a 

grower registered with the national 

plant protection organization (NPPO) of 

the exporting country and packed for 

shipment to the continental United 

States (including Alaska) in one of the 

following locations: 

(1) Colombia: Municipalities of La 

Unio ́n, Roldanillo, Toro, and Zarzal in 

the Province of El Valle de Cauca. 

(2) Ecuador: Cantons of Balzar, El 

Triunfo, Gral. Antonio Elizalde, 

Milagro, Naranjal, and Santa Elena in 

the Province of Guayas, and the Canton 

of Santo Domingo in the Province of 

Pichincha. 

(c) 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 onehalf or more ripe (more than one-fourth 

of the shell surface yellow), and all 

culled and fallen fruits were buried, 

destroyed, or removed from the farm at 

least twice a week. 

(d) The papayas were held for 20 

minutes in hot water at 48 °C (118.4 °F). 

(e) When packed, the papayas were 

less than one-half ripe (the shell surface 

was no more than one-fourth yellow, 

surrounded by light green), and 

appeared to be free of all injurious 

insect pests. 

(f) The papayas were safeguarded 

from exposure to fruit flies from harvest 

to export, including being packaged so 

as to prevent access by fruit flies and 


tjames on PRODPC75 with PROPOSALS
18166 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 21, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

other injurious insect pests. The 

package containing the papayas does 

not contain any other fruit, including 

papayas not qualified for importation 

into the United States. 

(g) 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 

NPPO. Fifty percent of the traps were of 

the McPhail type and 50 percent of the 

traps were of the Jackson type. The 

NPPO 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. 

(1) If the average Jackson fruit fly trap 

catch was greater than seven 

Mediterranean fruit flies (Ceratitis 

capitata) (Medfly) per trap per week, 

measures were taken to control the 

Medfly population in the production 

area. If the average Jackson fruit fly trap 

catch exceeds 14 Medflies per trap per 

week, importations of papayas from that 

production area must be halted until the 

rate of capture drops to an average of 7 

or fewer Medflies per trap per week. 

(2) In Colombia, Ecuador, or the State 

of Espirito Santo, Brazil, if the average 

McPhail trap catch was greater than 

seven South American fruit flies 

(Anastrepha fraterculus) per trap per 

week, measures were taken to control 

the South American fruit fly population 

in the production area. If the average 

McPhail fruit fly trap catch exceeds 14 

South American fruit flies per trap per 

week, importations of papayas from that 

production area must be halted until the 

rate of capture drops to an average of 7 

or fewer South American fruit flies per 

trap per week. 

(h) All activities described in 

paragraphs (a) through (h) of this section 

were carried out under the supervision 

and direction of plant health officials of 

the NPPO. 

(i) All consignments must be 

accompanied by a phytosanitary 

certificate issued by the NPPO of the 

exporting country stating that the 

papayas were grown, packed, and 

shipped in accordance with the 

provisions of this section. 

(Approved by the Office of Management and 

Budget under control number 0579–0128) 

Done in Washington, DC, this 15th day of 

April 2009. 

Kevin Shea, 

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–9100 Filed 4–20–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 71 

[Docket No. FAA–2009–0188; Airspace 

Docket No. 09–AGL–5] 

Proposed Amendment of Class E 

Airspace; Port Clinton, OH 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: This action proposes to 

amend Class E airspace at Port Clinton, 

OH. Additional controlled airspace is 

necessary to accommodate new 

Standard Instrument Approach 

Procedures (SIAPs) at Carl R. Keller 

Field Airport, Port Clinton, OH. The 

FAA is taking this action to enhance the 

safety and management of Instrument 

Flight Rules (IFR) aircraft operations at 

Carl R. Keller Field Airport. 

DATES: 0901 UTC. Comments must be 

received on or before June 5, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this 

proposal to the U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

Washington, DC 20590–0001. You must 

identify the docket number FAA–2009– 

0188/Airspace Docket No. 09–AGL–5, at 

the beginning of your comments. You 

may also submit comments on the 

Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. 

You may review the public docket 

containing the proposal, any comments 

received, and any final disposition in 

person in the Dockets Office between 9 

a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. The 

Docket Office (telephone 1–800–647– 

5527), is on the ground floor of the 

building at the above address. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Scott Enander, Central Service Center, 

Operations Support Group, Federal 

Aviation Administration, Southwest 

Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort 

Worth, TX 76193–0530; telephone: (817) 

321–7716. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

Interested parties are invited to 

participate in this proposed rulemaking 

by submitting such written data, views, 

or arguments, as they may desire. 

Comments that provide the factual basis 

supporting the views and suggestions 

presented are particularly helpful in 

developing reasoned regulatory 

decisions on the proposal. Comments 

are specifically invited on the overall 

regulatory, aeronautical, economic, 

environmental, and energy-related 

aspects of the proposal. 

Communications should identify both 

docket numbers and be submitted in 

triplicate to the address listed above. 

Commenters wishing the FAA to 

acknowledge receipt of their comments 

on this notice must submit with those 

comments a self-addressed, stamped 

postcard on which the following 

statement is made: ‘‘Comments to 

Docket No. FAA–2009–0188/Airspace 

Docket No. 09–AGL–5.’’ The postcard 

will be date/time stamped and returned 

to the commenter. 

Availability of NPRMs 

An electronic copy of this document 

may be downloaded through the 

Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. 

Recently published rulemaking 

documents can also be accessed through 

the FAA’s Web page at http:// 

www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/ 

air_traffic/publications/ 

airspace_amendments/. 

Additionally, any person may obtain 

a copy of this notice by submitting a 

request to the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Office of Air 

Traffic Airspace Management, ATA– 

400, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20591, or by calling 

(202) 267–8783. Communications must 

identify both docket numbers for this 

notice. Persons interested in being 

placed on a mailing list for future 

NPRMs should contact the FAA’s Office 

of Rulemaking (202) 267–9677, to 

request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 

11–2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

Distribution System, which describes 

the application procedure. 

The Proposal 

This action proposes to amend Title 

14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 

CFR), Part 71 by adding additional Class 

E airspace for SIAPs operations at Carl 

R. Keller Field Airport, Port Clinton, 

OH. The area would be depicted on 

appropriate aeronautical charts. 

Class E airspace areas are published 

in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 

7400.9S, dated October 3, 2008, and 

effective October 31, 2008, which is 


tjames on PRODPC75 with PROPOSALS