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

27428

Vol. 60, No. 100

Wednesday, May 24, 1995

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 persons listed

under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service

7 CFR Parts 300 and 319

[Docket No. 94–114–1]

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 undergo prescribed

treatments for fruit flies or other

injurious insects as a condition of entry,

or to meet other special conditions. This

proposed action 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.

DATES: Consideration will be given only

to comments received on or before June

23, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Please send an original and

three copies of your comments to

Docket No. 94–114–1, 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. 94–114–1. 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.

Frank E. Cooper or Mr. Peter Grosser,

Senior Operations Officers, Port

Operations, PPQ, APHIS, Suite 4A03,

4700 River Road Unit 139, Riverdale,

MD 20737–1236; (301) 734–8645.

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 injurious insects

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 injurious insects 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 dangerous 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 undergo prescribed

treatments for fruit flies or other insect

pests as a condition of entry, or 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 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 ...................................................................................................... Basil ................ Ocimum spp. ..................... Above ground parts.

El Salvador ................................................................................................. Basil ................ Ocimum spp. ..................... Above ground parts.

Israel ........................................................................................................... Chives .............

Dill.

Allium schoenoprasum .....

Anethum graveolens.

Leaf.

Above ground parts.

Jamaica ...................................................................................................... Pak choi .......... Brassica chinensis ............ Leaf and stem.

Netherlands ................................................................................................ Radish ............. Raphanus sativus ............. Root.

New Zealand .............................................................................................. Oca ................. Oxalis tuberosa ................. Tuber.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 24, 1995 / Proposed Rules 27429

2 Details on APHIS-monitored trapping programs

in Belize are available from Operational Support,

IS, APHIS, Suite 5A03, 4700 River Road Unit 67,

Riverdale, MD 20737–1233.

Pest risk analyses conducted by the

Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service (APHIS) have shown that the

fruits 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 fruits 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

injurious plant pests by the importation

of these fruits and vegetables.

Subject to Inspection and Treatment

Upon Arrival; Additional Conditions

In addition to the fruits and

vegetables listed above, 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, and

subject to the additional prescribed

conditions explained below.

Papaya from Belize. We are proposing

to allow papaya (fruit, Carica papaya)

from Belize to be imported into the

United States without treatment for the

Mediterranean fruit fly (Medfly) if the

fruit is grown in one of the designated

Medfly-free districts of Belize. Belize

has conducted a national Medfly

trapping program for more than 6 years

with the cooperation and monitoring of

APHIS.2 An intensive, ongoing trapping

program in the districts of Cayo,

Corozal, and Orange Walk has

established that those districts are free

from Medfly. Therefore, we are

proposing to allow papayas to be

imported from these three districts

without treatment for Medfly if the

papayas are accompanied by a

phytosanitary certificate issued by the

Belizean Department of Agriculture

stating that the fruit originated in the

district of Cayo, Corozal, or Orange

Walk.

Because there are approved

treatments for Medfly that can be used

on papaya, we would also allow papaya

grown in Belize outside the Medfly-free

areas to be imported into the United

States, provided the fruit is treated for

Medfly as described below under

‘‘Treatment Required.’’

With or without treatment, however,

the entry of the papaya into Hawaii—

where most domestically grown papayas

are produced—would be prohibited as a

precaution against the possible

introduction of Toxotrypana

curvicauda. Accordingly, the cartons in

which the papaya are packed would

have to be stamped ‘‘Not for importation

into or distribution in HI.’’

Pest risk analyses conducted by

APHIS have determined that any other

injurious plant pests that might be

carried by the papaya would be readily

detectable by a USDA inspector.

Therefore, the provisions in § 319.56

and all other applicable requirements of

the regulations and the additional

special conditions appear adequate to

prevent the introduction into the United

States of injurious plant pests by the

importation of papaya from Belize.

Cantaloupe from Brazil. We are

proposing to allow the importation of

cantaloupe (fruit, Cucumis melo) from

Brazil under the same conditions

currently imposed on the importation of

honeydew melons from Brazil (7 CFR

319.56–2aa). Cantaloupe, like honeydew

melon, is a recorded host of the South

American cucurbit fly, and we believe

that the multiple safeguards applied to

the importation of honeydew melon

from Brazil would also be adequate to

prevent the introduction of the pest

with cantaloupe.

Specifically, the cantaloupe would

have to be grown in that area of Brazil

considered by APHIS to be free of the

South American cucurbit fly. The free

area is described in § 319.56–2aa(a).

During the last 7 years, Brazil’s Ministry

of Agriculture, the Departamento de

Defenso Sanitaria Vegetal (DDSV), has

conducted surveys in and around the

free area to establish the absence of

infestations of the South American

cucurbit fly in the free area. APHIS has

determined that the survey methods

used by the DDSV are adequate to detect

infestations of the pest, and that the

requirements enforced by the DDSV to

prevent the introduction of the South

American cucurbit fly into the free area

are at least equivalent to those imposed

under 7 CFR chapter III to prevent the

introduction into the United States and

interstate spread of injurious insects.

The cantaloupe would have to be

accompanied by a phytosanitary

certificate issued by DDSV that includes

a declaration that the fruit was grown in

the free area. The cantaloupe would

have to be shipped in an enclosed

container or vehicle, or under a

tarpaulin cover, while in transit from

the free area in Brazil to the United

States to prevent the fruit from being

exposed to insect pests. Finally,

shipments of the cantaloupe would have

to be labeled in accordance with

§ 319.56–2(g) of the regulations.

Pest risk analyses conducted by

APHIS have determined that any other

injurious plant pests that might be

carried by the cantaloupe would be

readily detectable by a USDA inspector.

Therefore, the applicable requirements

of the regulations and these special

conditions appear adequate to prevent

the introduction into the United States

of injurious plant pests.

Ya Pears from China. We are

proposing to allow Ya variety pears

(fruit, Pyrus bretschneideri) to be

imported into the United States from

China under certain conditions

designed to prevent the introduction of

Bactrocera dorsalis and other exotic

pests into the United States.

First, we would require that the pears

be grown in an APHIS-approved export

growing area in Hebei Province by

growers registered with the Chinese

Ministry of Agriculture. The Ministry of

Agriculture would be responsible for

conducting field inspections for signs of

pest infestation during the growing

season. The registered growers would be

responsible for following the

phytosanitary measures agreed upon by

APHIS and the Ministry of Agriculture,

including applying pesticides to reduce

the pest population and bagging the

pears on the trees to reduce the

opportunity for insect pests to attack the

fruit during the growing season. The

bags would have to remain on the pears

through the harvest and during their

movement to the packing house.

In order to prevent Ya pears intended

for export to the United States from

being commingled with any other fruit,

the packing houses in which the pears

would be prepared for exportation to the

United States could not be used for

other fruit during the pear export

season. The packing houses could

accept only those pears that were grown

in the APHIS-approved growing area

and that were still in intact bags.

Additionally, the pears would have to

be loaded into containers at the packing

house and the containers then sealed

before movement to the port of export

to prevent the fruit from being exposed

to insect pests while en route to the port

of export. Each shipment of Ya pears

would have to be accompanied by a

phytosanitary certificate issued by the

Chinese Ministry of Agriculture stating

that the conditions discussed above

have been met.

Finally, we would require that the

pears be cold treated for Bactrocera

dorsalis in accordance with the Plant
27430 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 24, 1995 / Proposed Rules

Protection and Quarantine (PPQ)

Treatment Manual, which has been

incorporated by reference into the Code

of Federal Regulations at 7 CFR 300.1.

The prescribed cold treatment would be

conducted as follows:

10 days at 0 °C (32 °F) or below;

11 days at 0.55 °C (33 °F) or below;

12 days at 1.1 °C (34 °F) or below; or

14 days at 1.66 °C (35 °F) or below.

We believe that the growing, harvest,

shipment, and treatment conditions

described above and the other

requirements of the regulations would

be adequate to prevent the introduction

of Bactrocera dorsalis and other insect

pests into the United States on Ya pears

imported from China.

Lettuce from Israel. Under the

regulations in § 319.56–2x, lettuce may

be imported into the United States from

Israel only if treated in accordance with

the PPQ Treatment Manual. The

treatment—fumigation with methyl

bromide—is required because the

lettuce may be attacked by leafminers,

thrips, and Sminthuris viridis. We are

proposing to amend the regulations to

offer an alternative that would allow

lettuce to be imported into the United

States from Israel without fumigation.

We would require that the lettuce be

grown in insect-proof houses covered

with 50-gauge mesh screens, with

double self-closing doors and hard

walks (no soil) between the beds. The

lettuce would have to be grown in

growing media that had been sterilized

by steam or chemical means.

Additionally, the crop would have to be

protected with sticky traps and

prophylactic sprays approved for lettuce

by Israel.

The lettuce would have to be

inspected for signs of pest infestation

during its active growth phase, with the

inspection monitored by a

representative of the Israeli Ministry of

Agriculture.

After being harvested, the lettuce

would have to be packed in insect-proof

packing houses. The movement from the

growing house to the packing house

would have to take place at night and,

during the movement, the lettuce would

have to be held in plastic containers

covered by 50-gauge mesh screens.

Inside the insect-proof packing houses,

the lettuce would have to be

individually packed in transparent

plastic bags, then packed in cartons; the

cartons would have to be placed on

pallets and covered in shrink wrapping.

The lettuce would have to be

transported to the airport in a closed,

refrigerated truck for shipment to the

United States.

Finally, each shipment of lettuce

would have to be accompanied by a

phytosanitary certificate issued by the

Israeli Ministry of Agriculture stating

that the conditions discussed above

have been met. We believe that these

multiple levels of pest exclusion

measures and the other applicable

requirements of the regulations would

be adequate to prevent the introduction

into the United States of leafminers,

thrips, and Sminthuris viridis on lettuce

imported from Israel.

Treatment Required

Additionally, we are proposing to

allow the fruits and vegetables listed

below to be imported into the United

States. These fruits and vegetables are

attacked by the Medfly or other

injurious insects, as specified below, in

their country or locality of origin. Visual

inspection cannot be relied upon to

detect these insects. However, the fruits

and vegetables listed below can be

treated to destroy the Medfly or other

injurious insects. Therefore, we propose

to allow these fruits and vegetables to be

imported into the United States, or

specified parts of the United States, only

if they have been treated in accordance

with the PPQ Treatment Manual.

We would revise the PPQ Treatment

Manual to show that treatments are

required as follows for the fruits and

vegetables listed below:

Country—Common Name, Botanical Name,

and Plant Part(s)

Belize

Papaya, Carica papaya, Fruit.

All fruit grown outside the districts of

Cayo, Corozal, and Orange Walk must be

treated for Medfly with high-temperature

forced air or vapor heat treatment, as follows:

High-temperature forced air treatment:

The treatment consists of four incremental

temperature increases, with each increase in

air temperature based on when the internal

temperature in the seed cavity is reached as

indicated below:

Air temperature Seed cavity temperature

1. 43 ± 1 °C (109.4 ±

1.8 °F).

41 ± 1.5 °C (105.8 ±

2.7 °F).

2. 45 ± 1 °C (113.0 ±

1.8 °F).

44 ± 1 °C (111.2 ±

1.8 °F).

3. 46.5 ± 1 °C (115.7

± 1.8 °F).

46 ± 0.76 °C (114.8 ±

1.35 °F).

4. 49 ± 0.5 °C (120.2

± 0.9 °F).

47.2 °C (117 °F).

Expose fruit in an approved chamber to

each air temperature in steps 1 through 4

until the indicated seed cavity temperature is

reached. Treatment is complete when the

seed cavity temperature reaches 47.2 °C (117

°F). The treated fruit may be hydrocooled

immediately with tap water (20 ± 5 °C or 68

± 9 °F) when 47.2 °C is reached.

Alternative single-stage high-temperature

forced air treatment:

Conditioning: To enable the papayas to

tolerate the treatment, the fruit may have to

be conditioned. Such conditioning is the

responsibility of the shipper and at the

shipper’s risk. Conditioning of the fruit may

be considered part of the overall treatment.

Preparation: Insert temperature sensors

into the seed cavity with the probe’s tip at

the approximate center of the fruit. Use a

temperature recorder to monitor

temperatures. Set the print interval for at

least once every 5 minutes. The APHISapproved operating protocol of the chamber

must be inaccessible to the operator. The

papayas must be in single layers and put into

APHIS-approved trays or lugs or in APHISapproved and certified bulk bins. Have the

trays, lugs, or bins put into the chamber. The

chamber for treating the fruit must be

airtight. Make sure that there are fans present

to circulate the air. If certified bulk bins are

used, the direction of the air flow and the

protocol for monitoring the fruit’s

temperature during treatment must be

APHIS-certified.

Application: The air temperature during

treatment must be sufficient to raise the

temperature at the fruit’s center to 47.2 °C

(117 °F) or higher. Whether the air

temperatures are single or multiple staged or

ramped is the responsibility of the shipper.

Maintain the relative humidity in the

chamber as desired by the shipper. If the

relative humidity is kept within 40 to 60

percent, though, tests have shown that there

will be less damage to the papayas. The

papayas must be treated for at least 4 hours.

The treatment is complete once the

temperature at the fruit’s center reaches 47.2

°C (117 °F) or higher. The treated papayas

may be hydrocooled immediately by

whatever means are deemed appropriate by

the shipper. However, if the papayas are

hydrocooled with water at a temperature

lower than 12.5 °C (54.5 °F), the fruit may be

damaged.

Vapor heat treatment:

1. Raise temperature of article by saturated

water vapor at 44.4 °C (112 °F) until

approximate center of fruit reaches 44.4 °C

(112 °F) within a time period designated by

the inspector.

2. Hold fruit temperature at 44.4 °C (112

°F) for 8.75 hours, then cool immediately.

(Pretreatment conditioning is optional and is

the responsibility of the shipper.)

Entry of the papayas into Hawaii

prohibited due to Toxotrypana curvicauda.

China

Litchi, Litchi chinensis, Fruit.

Cold treatment as follows for

Conopomorpha sinensis and Bactrocera

dorsalis:

15 days at 1 °C (33.8 °F) or below, or

18 days at 1.39 °C (34.5 °F) or below.

(Pulp of the fruit must be at or below the

indicated temperature at the time treatment

begins.)

Entry into Florida prohibited due to litchi

rust mite.

India Grape,

Vitis spp., Fruit.

Cold treatment for Bactrocera dorsalis and

Eutetranychus orientalis, followed by

fumigation for a complex of insect pests:
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 24, 1995 / Proposed Rules 27431

Cold treatment as follows:

10 days at 0 °C (32 °F) or below;

11 days at 0.55 °C (33 °F) or below;

12 days at 1.11 °C (34 °F) or below; or

14 days at 1.66 °C (35 °F) or below.

(Pulp of the fruit must be at or below the

indicated temperature at the time treatment

begins.)

Fumigation as follows:

With methyl bromide at NAP—chamber or

tarpaulin:

24 g/m3 (11⁄2 lbs/1000 ft3) for 2 hours at 26.5

°C (80 °F) or above, with minimum gas

concentrations of:

19 g (19 oz) at 1⁄2 hour after fumigation

begins

14 g (14 oz) at 2 hours after fumigation

begins; or:

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

°C (70–79 °F), with minimum gas

concentrations of:

26 g (26 oz) at 1⁄2 hour after fumigation

begins

19 g (19 oz) at 2 hours after fumigation

begins; or:

40 g/m3 (21⁄2 lbs/1000 ft3) for 2 hours at 15.5–

20.5 °C (60–69 °F), with minimum gas

concentrations of:

32 g (32 oz) at 1⁄2 hour after fumigation

begins

24 g (24 oz) at 2 hours after fumigation

begins; or:

48 g/m3 (3 lbs/1000 ft3) for 2 hours at 10–15

°C (50–59 °F), with minimum gas

concentrations of:

38 g (38 oz) at 1⁄2 hour after fumigation

begins

29 g (29 oz) at 2 hours after fumigation

begins; or:

64 g/m3 (4 lbs/1000 ft3) for 2 hours at 4.5–

9.5 °C (40–49 °F), with minimum gas

concentrations of:

48 g (48 oz) at 1⁄2 hour after fumigation

begins

38 g (38 oz) at 2 hours after fumigation

begins

(Fruit must be at the indicated temperature

at start of fumigation.)

Litchi, Litchi chinensis, Fruit.

Cold treatment for Conopomorpha sinensis

and Bactrocera dorsalis as set forth above for

litchi from China.

Entry into Florida prohibited due to litchi

rust mite.

Zimbabwe

Apricot, Prunus armeniaca, Fruit.

Cold treatment for Medfly, Pterandrus

rosa, and Cryptophlebia leucotreta as

follows:

22 days at ¥0.55 °C (31 °F) or below.

(If the temperature exceeds ¥0.27 °C (31.5

°F), the treatment shall be extended one-third

of a day for each day or part of a day that

the temperature is above ¥0.27 °C. If the

temperature exceeds 1.11 °C (34 °F) at any

time, the treatment is nullified.

Nectarine, Prunus persica, Fruit.

Cold treatment for Medfly, Pterandrus

rosa, and Cryptophlebia leucotreta as set

forth above for apricot from Zimbabwe.

Peach, Prunus persica, Fruit.

Cold treatment for Medfly, Pterandrus

rosa, and Cryptophlebia leucotreta as set

forth above for apricot from Zimbabwe.

Plum, Prunus domestica, Fruit.

Cold treatment for Medfly, Pterandrus

rosa, and Cryptophlebia leucotreta as set

forth above for apricot from Zimbabwe.

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 the Hoboken Methods Development

Center, PPQ, APHIS, USDA, 209 River Street,

Hoboken, NJ 07030.

In accordance with § 319.56–2x(b) of the

regulations, those fruits and vegetables listed

above that would require treatment for fruit

flies would be restricted to ports of arrival at

Wilmington, NC, and the North Atlantic if

treatment has not been completed before the

fruits and vegetables arrive in the United

States. Climatic conditions at Wilmington,

NC, and at North Atlantic ports are

unsuitable for the fruit flies listed above.

Therefore, in the unlikely event that any fruit

flies escape before treatment, they will not

become established pests in the United

States. The designated North Atlantic ports

are: Atlantic Ocean ports north of, and

including, Baltimore; ports on the Great

Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway; Canadian

border ports on the North Dakota border and

east of North Dakota; and, for air shipments,

Washington, DC (including BaltimoreWashington International and Dulles

International airports).

In the case of litchi from China and India,

we would prohibit the fruit to be imported

into or distributed within Florida because of

concerns regarding the potential introduction

of the litchi rust mite and the effects such an

introduction could have on the Florida litchi

industry. Accordingly, the cartons in which

the litchi are packed would have to be

stamped ‘‘Not for importation into or

distribution in FL.’’

Pest risk analyses conducted by APHIS

have determined that any other injurious

plant pests that might be carried by the fruits

and vegetables listed above would be readily

detectable by a USDA inspector. As noted,

the fruits and vegetables would be subject to

inspection, disinfection, or both, at the port

of first arrival, in accordance with § 319.56–

6. We believe that these requirements and

conditions are adequate to prevent the

introduction into the United States of

injurious plant pests by the importation of

these fruits and vegetables.

Use of Methyl Bromide

Methyl bromide is currently in widespread

use as a fumigant. It is prescribed as a

treatment for grapes from India to be

imported into the United States under this

proposal. 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 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

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.

However, we do not currently have all

the data necessary for a comprehensive

analysis of the effects of this rule on

small entities. Therefore, we are inviting

comments concerning potential effects.

In particular, we are interested in

determining the number and kind of

small entities that may incur benefits or

costs from implementation of this

proposed rule.

Under the Plant Quarantine Act and

the Federal Plant Pest Act (7 U.S.C.

150dd, 150ee, 150ff, 151–167), 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. This proposed

rule would revise the status of certain

commodities from certain countries and

localities, allowing their importation

into the United States for the first time.

Our proposed changes are based on

pest risk analyses that were conducted

by APHIS at the request of various

importers and foreign ministries of

agriculture. The pest risk analyses

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
27432 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 24, 1995 / Proposed Rules

addition, some of the fruits and

vegetables in this proposal also would

be required to undergo mandatory

treatment for fruit flies or other

injurious insects as a condition of entry,

or to meet other special conditions. Our

proposed 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.

Papayas From Belize

The United States produced 71.3

million pounds of papayas in 1993.

Papayas are produced commercially on

approximately 300 farms, the majority

of which are in Hawaii. Nearly 65

percent of those farms are owned by

individuals whose major occupation is

not farming, while the balance are

operated by individuals whose major

occupation is farming. All of the farms

are considered to be small entities

according to Small Business

Administration (SBA) size standards.

The United States imported 31.3

million pounds of papayas, valued at

$8,883,000, in 1993. Most of the

imported papayas came from Mexico

(66.6 percent), Jamaica (14.4 percent),

and Belize (13.7 percent). The United

States exported 16.7 million pounds of

fresh papayas, worth $14,245,000, in

1993. The major importers were Japan

(73.4 percent) and Canada (24.6

percent). Almost all exports of

domestically grown papayas are from

Hawaii, while all imports of foreignorigin papayas come into the

continental United States.

The total annual production of

papayas in Belize is approximately 4.5

million pounds. Its current exports

account for about 4.2 million pounds.

The additional amount expected to be

exported to the United States would be

approximately 300,000 pounds of fresh

papayas. Even if all the available supply

were exported to the United States, it

would increase the U.S. supply of

papayas by only about 0.34 percent. A

0.34 percent increase in supply is

unlikely to have any impact on prices or

on producers or consumers.

Cantaloupes From Brazil

The United States produced about

1,910 million pounds of cantaloupes,

with a total value of $310 million, in

1993. Cantaloupes are produced

commercially on about 7,500 farms,

nearly 97 percent of which are

considered to be small entities,

according to SBA size standards. The

United States is a net importer of

cantaloupes. Imports totalled

approximately 458 million pounds of

cantaloupes. The major sources of

imported cantaloupes include Mexico

(32.8 percent), Honduras (26 percent),

Costa Rica (17.5 percent), Guatemala (16

percent), and the Dominican Republic

(2.8 percent). There were 116 million

pounds of cantaloupes exported from

the United States in 1993, of which

nearly 95 percent went to Canada, while

about 4 percent went to Mexico.

The commercial production of

cantaloupe is in the infant stage in

Brazil. Most of the Brazilian production

is concentrated in the states of Rio

Grande do Norte and Sa ̃o Paulo.

Production occurs mainly during the

months of October through March,

while U.S. production occurs during the

months of May through September.

Thus, any export from Brazil would be

supplementary to, rather than

competitive with, the U.S. supply. Total

production of cantaloupes in Brazil was

about 5,000 metric tons, or 11 million

pounds, in 1994. Currently all

cantaloupe production in Brazil is for

domestic consumption. However, even

if all Brazilian production were to be

exported to the United States, the U.S.

cantaloupe supply would increase by

less than 0.5 percent. Because this

proposed rule would allow the

importation of cantaloupe from only

part of Brazil—that area considered by

APHIS to be free of the South American

cucurbit fly—any increase in the U.S.

cantaloupe supply would be even

smaller. Such an increase would not be

expected to impact U.S. producer

prices.

Ya Pear From Peoples Republic of

China

The United States produced 860,000

metric tons (1,895 million pounds) of

pears in 1993. The United States is a net

exporter of pears, having exported 244

million pounds and imported 143

million pounds in 1993. Most of the

pears imported into the United States

came from Chile (57.3 percent),

Argentina (30.4 percent), South Africa

(6.1 percent), and New Zealand (3.9

percent). The main importers of U.S.

pears are Canada (32.9 percent) and

Mexico (34.9 percent), with the

remaining quantities distributed among

45 destinations. There are

approximately 9,800 farms producing

pears in the United States, about 98

percent of which are considered to be

small entities, according to SBA size

standards.

China produced about 30,000 metric

tons (or 66 million pounds) of Ya pears

in 1993. It exported about 5,700 metric

tons (or 12,562,800 pounds). Exports are

to several countries in Europe, the

Middle East, and Southeast Asia. The

Ya pears that would be imported from

the Peoples Republic of China are of a

different variety than pears produced in

the United States; because they are

considered to be different products, they

are not expected to be competitive with

domestically grown pears.

Litchi From Peoples Republic of China

The U.S. produced about 700,000

pounds of Litchi in 1993. There are 205

farms that produced litchi, most of

which are considered to be small

entities according to SBA criteria.

China produced approximately 27,000

metric tons (or 59.5 million pounds) of

litchi in 1994, exporting about 25

percent (about 15 million pounds) of its

production. Most of China’s litchi

exports went to several countries in

Western Europe, the Middle East, and

Southeast Asia, as well as to Canada.

What proportion of China’s domestic

litchi production would be exported to

the United States is not clear. In the

event that a significant proportion of

China’s production is exported to the

United States, U.S. producers would

most likely be negatively impacted in

the short run, since the increased

supply would drive the market price of

litchi down. U.S. consumers, on the

other hand, would benefit from the

lower price as well as the increased

choice. In the long run, as a result of

foreign competition in the U.S. litchi

market, more competitive and costeffective producers may emerge. Lower

prices could also result in an increased

demand for litchi. Which of these effects

would outweigh the other cannot be

stated definitely.

Basil From Ecuador and El Salvador

The United States imported 5,397,091

pounds of fresh or dried basil in 1993

(the ratio of fresh to dried cannot be

ascertained). The major sources of

import were Egypt (77.7 percent),

Mexico (16.1 percent), France (2.2

percent), and Taiwan (1.2 percent). No

information was obtained on potential

production and imports of basil from

Ecuador and El Salvador.

Grapes From India

Total domestic grape production in

1993 was 5,466,606 metric tons (or

12,048 million pounds). There are

approximately 21,843 producers of

grapes in the United States, about 97

percent of which are considered to be

small entities, according to SBA size

standards. The United States imported

708,712,000 pounds of grapes in 1993,

with most imports occurring between

the months of December and April.

Grape imports to the United States
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 24, 1995 / Proposed Rules 27433

originate mainly from Chile, which

accounted for 88.6 percent of the

imports. Mexico is a distant second with

11 percent of the imports. The United

States exported 449,331,000 pounds of

grapes in 1993, with most exports

occurring between the months of August

and November. Canada receives

approximately 62 percent of U.S.

exports, while the remaining

destinations are highly varied.

At present, India produces about

426,000 (1990–1992 average) metric

tons (or 939 million pounds) of grapes

and exports approximately 4,000 metric

tons (or 8.8 million pounds). Most of

these exports go to Europe. In the

unlikely event that India’s grape exports

were all directed to the United States,

they would represent less than 0.08

percent of domestic production. This

amount would not have a significant

impact upon U.S. market supply. Both

producer prices and consumer prices

would likely be unaffected by the actual

grape import from India.

Pak Choi From Jamaica

There is no published data on the U.S.

production of pak choi and no record of

trade. Jamaica’s current production of

pak choi is estimated to be 3,825 metric

tons (8.43 million pounds). Most

production takes place between January

and April. Although the exact amount

that would be shipped to the United

States is not known, approximately 50–

75 percent of total production is

expected to be exported to the United

States. This is expected to expand the

variety of choices available to vegetable

consumers.

Chives from Israel

Israel produces approximately 100

metric tons of chives. Production takes

place mainly from October to the end of

March. Currently about 95 percent of

production is exported to Europe. It is

expected about 20 to 40 metric tons to

be exported to the United States. Both

producer prices and consumer prices

would likely be unaffected by the

importation of chives from Israel.

Dill From Israel

The United States imported 1,828,359

pounds of dill in 1993 (trade records do

not clearly indicate whether the dill was

fresh or dried). The major sources were

India (68 percent), Pakistan (13.2

percent), Egypt (10 percent), Sweden

(3.2 percent), and Turkey (2.5 percent).

The United States is a net importer of

dill. Israel produced about 520 metric

tons (1,146,000 pounds) of dill in 1994

and exported about 46 metric tons of

dill during the same period. Israel

expects that it would export about 30

metric tons of dill to the United States

within the next 3 to 5 years. Both

producer prices and consumer prices

would likely be unaffected by the

importation of dill from Israel.

Lettuce From Israel

Total U.S. production of head, leaf,

and romaine lettuce in 1993 was

3,756,350 metric tons (or 8,279 million

pounds). There are approximately 2,660

producers of lettuce in the United

States, about 97 percent of which are

considered to be small entities

according to SBA size standards.

The United States is a net exporter of

lettuce. It imported 32,738,000 pounds

of lettuce in 1993, mainly from Mexico

and Canada, which together accounted

for 99.2 percent of the imports. The

United States exported 693,354,000

pounds of lettuce in 1993. Canada

received approximately 82 percent of

those exports, while the remaining

destinations were highly varied.

Israel produced about 10 million

pounds of insect-free lettuce, which is

grown inside insect-proof screenhouses,

during 1993. About 10 percent of the

production is exported to Europe and

the rest is consumed domestically. The

amount of lettuce that would be

exported to the United States is

expected to be about 1,600,000 pounds,

which represents less than 0.02 percent

of U.S. production. This amount would

not have a significant impact upon U.S.

market supply. Additionally, the

marketing target for this lettuce, both in

Israel’s domestic market as well as in

the export market, is the ultra-orthodox

religious community, members of which

would not consume lettuce produced in

any other way. Importation of this

specialty product is not expected to

compete with domestic production.

Both producer prices and consumer

prices would likely be unaffected by the

importation of insect-free lettuce from

Israel.

Radishes From the Netherlands

The United States produced about

122.4 million pounds of radishes in

1993. Radishes are produced on about

760 farms, all of which are considered

to be small entities. The United States

is a net importer of radishes and it

imported 35,121,976 pounds of fresh

and chilled (the proportion of fresh to

chilled cannot be ascertained) radishes

in 1993. Over 94 percent of these

imported radishes came from Mexico

and 5.5 percent from Canada.

The Netherlands currently produces

about 68 million pounds of radishes.

Exports are expected to increase in

stages, from 1.1 million pounds in the

first year, to 2.2 million pounds during

the second year, to about 4.4 million

pounds (about 3 percent of U.S. supply)

the third year and thereafter. Exports of

radishes are expected to be spread

equally over a 12-month period, with no

significant peak period.

Oca From New Zealand

There is no known commercial

production of oca in the United States.

Additionally, there is no record of oca

imports into the United States. Oca is a

specialty crop and only minor

production is carried on in New

Zealand. Most production occurs

between the months of March and

October. Annual production is about

110,000 pounds. Current oca exports

from New Zealand to the rest of the

world equal about 440 pounds.

Allowing the importation of oca from

New Zealand into the United States

would provide additional choice to

vegetable consumers.

Apricots, Peaches, Plums, and

Nectarines From Zimbabwe

In 1993 the United States produced

87,430 metric tons (192.7 million

pounds) of apricots on 3,353 farms;

1,130,00 metric tons (2,490.6 million

pounds) of peaches on 19,106 farms;

182,395 metric tons (402 million

pounds) of nectarines on 2,488 farms;

and 176,710 metric tons (390 million

pounds) of plums on 8,006 farms. About

98 percent of these farms are considered

to be small entities according to SBA

size standards.

The United States is a net exporter of

all four of these commodities. Imports of

these four commodities into the United

States are largely from Chile, while most

of the U.S. exports are destined for

Canada, Mexico, Taiwan, Hong Kong,

and the United Kingdom. Although

relevant volume data is not available,

the addition of Zimbabwe as a new

trading partner in apricots, peaches,

plums, and nectarines is unlikely to

shift the favorable balance of trade that

the United States currently enjoys for

these four commodities.

Summary

The United States produces large

amounts of grapes, cantaloupes, pears,

papayas and radishes. The proposed

importations of these and other listed

commodities would likely increase

supply. However, since potential

imports would represent a very small

proportion of the total domestic

production of each product, no

significant negative impact on U.S.

producers is expected from such

importations. Although increased

supply generally results in lower prices,

no information is currently available
27434 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 24, 1995 / Proposed Rules

about the magnitude of price responses

to changes in supply. Overall, the

benefits to consumers of any resulting

price decline would likely outweigh the

small losses to producers. Additionally,

importation of oca and pak choi would

increase the availability of new

products. Both oca and pak choi have a

limited market and are unlikely to

compete with other products. Similarly,

the Ya pears and cantaloupes proposed

for importation are also unlikely to

compete with other products. Ya pears

are of different variety than any

domestically produced pear, while

cantaloupes from Brazil would be

imported during the off season for U.S.

cantaloupes. Other products such as

basil and dill are very minor products.

Some of these products are grown to

supplement other farm income.

The aggregate economic impact of this

proposed rule is expected to be positive.

U.S. consumers would benefit from a

greater availability of fruits and

vegetables. U.S. importers would also

benefit from a greater availability of

fruits and vegetables to import.

The alternative to this proposed rule

was to make no changes in the fruits

and vegetables regulations. After

consideration, we rejected this

alternative since there was no pest risk

reason to maintain the prohibitions on

the affected produce.

This proposed rule contains no

paperwork or recordkeeping

requirements.

Executive Order 12778

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.

National Environmental Policy Act

An environmental assessment and

finding of no significant impact have

been prepared for this proposed rule.

The assessment provides a basis for the

conclusion that the importation of fruits

and vegetables under the conditions

specified in this proposed rule would

not present a significant risk of

introducing or disseminating plant pests

and would not have a significant impact

on the quality of the human

environment. Based on the finding of no

significant impact, the Administrator of

the Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service has determined that an

environmental impact statement need

not be prepared.

The environmental assessment and

finding of no significant impact were

prepared in accordance with: (1) The

National Environmental Policy Act of

1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), (2)

Regulations of the Council on

Environmental Quality for

Implementing the Procedural Provisions

of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500–1508), (3)

USDA Regulations Implementing NEPA

(7 CFR part 1b), and (4) APHIS’ NEPA

Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part

372).

Copies of the environmental

assessment and finding of no significant

impact are available for public

inspection 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. In addition,

copies may be obtained by writing to the

individuals listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This proposed rule contains no

information collection or recordkeeping

requirements under the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501

et seq.).

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, title 7, chapter III, of the

Code of Federal Regulations would 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,

167; 7 CFR 2.17, 2.51, and 371.2(c).

2. In § 300.1, paragraph (a) would be

revised to read as follows:

§ 300.1 Materials incorporated by

reference.

(a) The Plant Protection and

Quarantine Treatment Manual, which

was reprinted on November 30, 1992,

and includes all revisions through

llllll 1995, 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:

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

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

7 CFR 2.17, 2.51, and 371.2(c).

4. In § 319.56–2t, the table would be

amended by adding, in alphabetical

order, the following:

§ 319.56–2t Administrative instructions:

conditions governing the entry of certain

fruits and vegetables.

* * * * *
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 24, 1995 / Proposed Rules 27435

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

* * * * * * *

Belize

* * * * * * *

Papaya .................. Carica papaya ....... Fruit (Must be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the

Belizean department of agriculture stating that the fruit originated in the district of Cayo, Corozal, or Orange Walk. Papayas from other districts

enterable only with treatment—see § 319.56–2x). Prohibited entry into Hawaii due to Toxotrypana curvicauda. Cartons in which fruit is packed must

be stamped ‘‘Not for importation into or distribution within HI.’’

* * * * * * *

Ecuador

* * * * * * *

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

* * * * * * *

El Salvador ............. Basil ...................... Ocimum spp .......... Above ground parts.

* * * * * * *

Israel

* * * * * * *

Chives ................... Allium

schoenoprasum.

Leaf.

Dill ......................... Anethum

graveolens.

Above ground parts.

* * * * * * *

Jamaica

* * * * * * *

Pak choi ................ Brassica chinensis Leaf and stem.

* * * * * * *

Netherlands ............ Radish ................... Raphanus sativus . Root.

New Zealand

* * * * * * *

Oca ....................... Oxalis tuberosa ..... Tuber.

* * * * * * *

5. In § 319.56–2u, the section heading

and would be revised and paragraph (a)

would be added to read as follows:

§ 319.56–2u Conditions governing the

entry of lettuce and peppers from Israel.

(a) Lettuce may be imported into the

United States from Israel without

fumigation for leafminers, thrips, and

Sminthuris viridis only under the

following conditions:

(1) Growing conditions. (i) The lettuce

must be grown in insect-proof houses

covered with 50 mesh screens, double

self-closing doors, and hard walks (no

soil) between the beds;

(ii) The lettuce must be grown in

growing media that has been sterilized

by steam or chemical means;

(iii) The lettuce must be inspected

during its active growth phase and the

inspection must be monitored by a

representative of the Israeli Ministry of

Agriculture;

(iv) The crop must be protected with

sticky traps and prophylactic sprays

approved for the crop by Israel;

(v) The lettuce must be moved to an

insect-proof packing house at night in

plastic containers covered by 50 mesh

screens;

(vi) The lettuce must be packed in an

insect-proof packing house, individually

packed in transparent plastic bags,

packed in cartons, placed on pallets,

and then covered with shrink wrapping;

and

(vii) The lettuce must be transported

to the airport in a closed refrigerated

truck for shipment to the United States.

(2) Each shipment of lettuce must be

accompanied by a phytosanitary

certificate issued by the Israeli Ministry

of Agriculture stating that the

conditions of paragraph (a)(1) of this

section have been met.

* * * * *

6. In § 319.56–2x, paragraph (a) would

be amended as follows:

a. In the table, in the entry for Israel,

the entry for lettuce would be amended

in the fourth column under the heading

Plant part(s) by adding the words

‘‘(Treatment for leafminers, thrips, and

Sminthuris viridis not required if the
27436 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 24, 1995 / Proposed Rules

lettuce is imported in accordance with

§ 319.56–2u(a))’’ after the word ‘‘Leaf’’.

b. The table would be amended by

adding, in alphabetical order, the

following:

§ 319.56–2x Administrative instructions;

conditions governing the entry of certain

fruits and vegetables for which treatment is

required. (a) * * *

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

* * * * * * *

*

Belize ...................... Papaya .................. Carica papaya ....... Fruit (Treatment for Medfly not required for fruit grown in the districts of Cayo,

Corozal, and Orange Walk - see § 319.56–2t). Papayas prohibited entry

into Hawaii due to Toxotrypana curvicauda. Cartons in which fruit is packed

must be stamped ‘‘Not for importation into or distribution in HI’’.

* * * * * * *

*

China ...................... Litchi ...................... Litchi chinensis ..... Fruit (Prohibited entry into Florida due to litchi rust mite. Cartons in which litchi are packed must be stamped ‘‘Not for importation into or distribution in

FL’’).

* * * * * * *

*

India ........................ Grapes .................. Vitis spp ................ Fruit.

Litchi ...................... Litchi chinensis ..... Fruit (Prohibited entry into Florida due to litchi rust mite. Cartons in which litchi are packed must be stamped ‘‘Not for importation into or distribution in

FL’’).

* * * * * * *

*

Zimbabwe

* * * * * * *

*

Apricot ................... Prunus armeniaca . Fruit.

* * * * * * *

*

Nectarine ............... Prunus persica ...... Fruit.

Peach .................... Prunus persica ...... Fruit.

* * * * * * *

*

Plum ...................... Prunus domestica . Fruit.

* * * * * * *

*

§ 319.56–2aa [Amended]

7. In § 319.56–2aa, the section

heading and the introductory text of the

section would be amended by adding

the words ‘‘and cantaloupe’’ after the

word ‘‘melons’’; paragraph (a) would be

amended by adding the words ‘‘or

cantaloupe’’ after the word ‘‘melons’’ in

the first sentence and both times it

appears in the second sentence;

paragraph (b) would be amended by

adding the words ‘‘or cantaloupe’’ after

the word ‘‘melons’’; and paragraph (c)

would be amended by adding the words

‘‘or cantaloupe’’ after the word

‘‘melons’’.

8. A new § 319.56–2ee would be

added to read as follows:

§ 319.56–2ee Administrative instructions:

conditions governing the entry of Ya variety

pears from China.

Ya variety pears may be imported into

the United States from China only under

the following conditions:

(a) Growing and harvest conditions.

(1) The pears must have been grown by

growers registered with the Chinese

Ministry of Agriculture in an APHISapproved export growing area in Hebei

Province.

(2) Field inspections for signs of pest

infestation must be conducted by the

Chinese Ministry of Agriculture during

the growing season.

(3) The registered growers shall be

responsible for following the

phytosanitary measures agreed upon by

APHIS and the Chinese Ministry of

Agriculture, including applying

pesticides to reduce the pest population

and bagging the pears on the trees to

reduce the opportunity for pests to

attack the fruit during the growing

season. The bags must remain on the

pears through the harvest and during

their movement to the packing house.

(4) The packing houses in which the

pears are prepared for exportation shall

not be used for any fruit other than Ya

variety pears from registered growers

during the pear export season. The

packing houses shall accept only those

pears that are in intact bags as required

by paragraph (a)(3) of this section. The

pears must be loaded into containers at

the packing house and the containers

then sealed before movement to the port

of export.

(b) Treatment. The pears must be cold

treated for Bactrocera dorsalis in

accordance with the Plant Protection

and Quarantine Treatment Manual,
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 24, 1995 / Proposed Rules 27437

which is incorporated by reference at

§ 300.1 of this chapter.

(c) Each shipment of pears must be

accompanied by a phytosanitary

certificate issued by the Chinese

Ministry of Agriculture stating that the

conditions of paragraphs (a) and (b) of

this section have been met.

Done in Washington, DC, this 18th day of

May 1995.

Terry L. Medley,

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service.

[FR Doc. 95–12748 Filed 5–23–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P

7 CFR Part 354

[Docket No. 94–074–1]

RIN 0579–AA68

User Fees—Commercial Aircraft and

Vessels; Phytosanitary Certificates

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: We are proposing to amend

the user fee regulations by lowering the

fees charged for certain agricultural

quarantine and inspection services we

provide in connection with the arrival

of an international commercial aircraft

at a port in the customs territory of the

United States. We are also proposing to

amend the user fee regulations by

raising the fees charged for export

certification of plants and plant

products. We have determined, based

on a review of our user fees, that the

fees must be adjusted to reflect the

actual cost of providing these services.

In addition, we are proposing to amend

the user fee regulations to clarify the

exemption for certain vessels which sail

only between the United States and

Canada.

DATES: Consideration will be given only

to comments received on or before June

23, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Please send an original and

three copies of your comments to

Docket No. 94–074–1, Regulatory

Analysis and Development, PPD,

APHIS, suite 3CO3, 4700 River Road

Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737–1238.

Please state that your comments refer to

Docket No. 94–074–1. 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

information concerning program

operations, contact Mr. Don Thompson,

Staff Officer, Port Operations, PPQ,

APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 136,

Riverdale, MD 20737–1236, (301) 734–

8295.

For information concerning rate

development, contact Ms. Donna Ford,

PPQ User Fees Section Head, FSSB,

BAD, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 54,

Riverdale, MD 20737–1232, (301) 734–

5901.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The regulations in 7 CFR 354.3

(referred to below as the ‘‘regulations’’)

contain provisions for the collection of

user fees for certain international

services provided by the Animal and

Plant Health Inspection Service

(APHIS). In this docket we are

proposing to amend 2 user fees: (1) The

user fee for servicing international

commercial aircraft arriving at ports in

the customs territory of the United

States; and (2) the user fee for certifying

plants and plant products for export. We

are also proposing to clarify the

exemption from user fees which applies

to certain vessels which sail only

between the United States and Canada.

Each amendment is discussed

separately below.

International Commercial Aircraft

One service our user fees cover is the

cost of agricultural quarantine and

inspection (AQI) services provided by

APHIS in connection with the arrival of

an international commercial aircraft at a

port in the customs territory of the

United States. (The customs territory of

the United States is defined in the

regulations as the 50 States, the District

of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.)

The current user fee for international

commercial aircraft became effective on

January 1, 1993, following the

publication of an interim rule in the

Federal Register on December 31, 1992

(Docket No. 92–148–1, 57 FR 62468–

62473). At that time the fee was set at

$61.00. This fee was later affirmed in a

document published in the Federal

Register on November 9, 1993 (Docket

No. 92–148–2, 58 FR 59354–59356).

As we have stated in previous

proposed and final regulations, we

intend to monitor our user fees and

review them at least annually to

determine whether the fees should be

adjusted. After reviewing the fees that

were collected in FY 1993 and FY 1994

and calculating our cost and revenue

projections for FY 1995, we have

determined that the fee for international

commercial aircraft needs to be lowered

from $61.00 to $53.00 for each arrival.

This is necessary to avoid collecting

more revenue than needed to cover the

costs of the services we provide.

Calculation of User Fees for

Commercial Aircraft

To calculate the adjusted user fees for

commercial aircraft, we determined the

total projected cost of providing AQI

services in FY 1995 for international

commercial aircraft. The cost of

providing these services in FY 1993 and

FY 1994 served as a basis for calculating

our projected FY 1995 costs. It is

important to note that each year in the

budget process, Congress limits or

specifies how much APHIS can

withdraw from the AQI User Fee

Account. For FY 1993, APHIS was

authorized to spend $83.3 million. For

FY 1994 we were authorized to spend

$91.6 million, plus $6.9 million to cover

additional AQI program needs.

In FY 1992, APHIS established

accounting procedures to segregate AQI

user fee program costs. We published a

detailed description of these procedures

in the Federal Register on December 31,

1992 (57 FR 62469–62471), as part of a

document (Docket No. 92–148–1)

amending some of our user fees.

As part of our accounting procedures,

we established distinct accounting

codes to record costs that can be directly

related to each inspection activity. At

the State level and below, the following

costs are direct-charged to the AQI User

Fee Account: Salaries and benefits for

inspectors and canine officers,

supervisors (such as officers-in-charge)

and clerical staff, user-fee-specific

equipment, contracts, and large supply

items such as x-ray equipment or

uniforms.

Other costs that cannot be directly

charged to individual accounts are

charged to ‘‘distributable’’ accounts

established at the State level. The

following types of costs are charged to

distributable accounts: utilities, rent,

telephone, vehicles, office supplies, etc.

The costs in these distributable accounts

are prorated (or distributed) among all

the activities that benefit from the

expense, based on the ratio of the costs

that are directly charged to each activity

divided by the total costs directly

charged to each account at the field

level. For example, if a State office

performs work on domestic programs,

AQI user fee programs, and AQI

appropriated programs, the costs are

distributed among each program, based

on the percentage of the direct costs for

that activity at the field level that is

charged to that activity. Costs incurred

at the regional, headquarters program

staff, and agency-level support offices

are also prorated to the separate AQI