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

29735

Vol. 66, No. 106

Friday, June 1, 2001

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service

7 CFR Part 319

[Docket No. 00–068–1]

Cold Treatment for Fresh Fruits; Port

of Corpus Christi, TX

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: We are proposing to allow,

under certain conditions, the cold

treatment of imported fruit upon arrival

at the port of Corpus Christi, TX. We

have determined that there are

biological barriers at this port that, along

with certain safeguards, would prevent

the introduction of fruit flies and other

insect pests into the United States in the

unlikely event that they escape from

shipments of fruit before the fruit

undergoes cold treatment. This action

would facilitate the importation of fruit

requiring cold treatment while

continuing to provide protection against

the introduction of fruit flies and other

insect pests into the United States.

DATES: We invite you to comment on

this docket. We will consider all

comments that we receive by July 31,

2001.

ADDRESSES: Please send four copies of

your comment (an original and three

copies) to: Docket No. 00–068–1,

Regulatory Analysis and Development,

PPD, APHIS, Suite 3C03, 4700 River

Road, Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737–

1238. Please state that your comment

refers to Docket No. 00–068–1.

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.

APHIS documents published in the

Federal Register, and related

information, including the names of

organizations and individuals who have

commented on APHIS dockets, are

available on the Internet at http://

www.aphis.usda.gov/ppd/rad/

webrepor.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Donna L. West, Import Specialist, PPQ,

APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 140,

Riverdale, MD 20737–1236; (301) 734–

5007.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The fruits and vegetables regulations,

contained in 7 CFR 319.56 through

319.56–8 (referred to below as the

regulations), prohibit or restrict the

importation of fruits and vegetables to

prevent the introduction or

dissemination of injurious insects,

including fruit flies, that are new to or

not widely distributed in the United

States. The Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service (APHIS) of the U.S.

Department of Agriculture administers

these regulations.

Under the regulations, APHIS allows

certain fruits to be imported into the

United States if they undergo sustained

refrigeration (cold treatment) sufficient

to kill certain insect pests. Cold

treatment temperatures and the duration

of treatment vary according to the type

of fruit and the pests involved. Detailed

cold treatment procedures may be found

in the Plant Protection and Quarantine

(PPQ) Treatment Manual, which is

incorporated by reference into the

regulations at 7 CFR 300.1.

Most imported fruit that requires cold

treatment undergoes cold treatment

while in transit to the United States.

However, APHIS also allows imported

fruit to undergo cold treatment at an

approved cold treatment facility in

either the country of origin or after

arrival in the United States at certain

ports designated by APHIS in § 319.56–

2d(b)(1) of the regulations.

Currently, cold treatment in the

United States is limited to the following

ports: Atlantic ports north of, and

including, Baltimore, MD; ports on the

Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway;

Canadian border ports on the North

Dakota border and east of North Dakota;

the maritime ports of Wilmington, NC,

Seattle, WA, and Gulfport, MS; SeattleTacoma International Airport, Seattle,

WA; Hartsfield-Atlanta International

Airport, Atlanta, GA; BaltimoreWashington International Airport,

Baltimore, MD; and Dulles International

Airport, Chantilly, VA.

Proposal of Additional Port

Recently, we received a formal

request from the Port of Corpus Christi

Authority of Nueces County, TX, to

designate the maritime port of Corpus

Christi, TX, as an approved location for

the cold treatment of imported fruit. In

response to that request, we are

proposing to add the maritime port of

Corpus Christi, TX, to the list of ports

that are designated as approved

locations for cold treatment of imported

fruit. This proposal is based on our

determination that there are biological

barriers in the area of this port that,

along with certain safeguards, would

prevent the introduction of fruit flies

and other insect pests in the unlikely

event that they escape from shipments

of fruit before the fruit undergoes cold

treatment.

Our determination is based, in part,

on a 1994 document prepared by APHIS

assessing the pest risks associated with

allowing cold treatment of tropical fruit

fly host materials at certain U.S. ports.

The applicable risk mitigation measures

discussed in that risk assessment

document are included in this proposal

as requirements for the port of Corpus

Christi, TX. (Copies of the risk

assessment document may be obtained

by writing to the individual listed under

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.)

Risk Groups

The risk assessment document

establishes risk groups for many ports in

the United States; these risk groups

characterize the relative risk, without

consideration for mitigating factors,

associated with the movement of

tropical fruit fly host material for cold

treatment in the United States. The

ports have been assigned to one of five

risk groups based on a number of

criteria, including the individual port’s

latitude, microclimate, immediate host

availability, and past fruit fly

infestations; the risk groups are assigned

numbers I through V, with these

numbers representing an ascending

level of risk based on those criteria. The

ports that were considered have been

categorized as follows:

29736 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 2001 / Proposed Rules

• Group I ports— Atlantic ports north

of and including Baltimore, MD.

• Group II ports— Wilmington, NC;

Seattle, WA; Portland, OR; Atlanta, GA;

and Norfolk, VA.

• Group III ports— Charleston, SC;

Savannah, GA; Port Arthur and

Galveston/Houston, TX.

• Group IV ports— Gulfport, MS;

Mobile, AL; New Orleans, LA; Corpus

Christi, TX; and Pensacola, FL.

• Group V ports— San Diego, San

Pedro/Long Beach, San Francisco, and

Oakland, CA; Tampa, Miami, West Palm

Beach/Fort Lauderdale, Cape Canaveral,

Jacksonville, Fort Myers, and Fort

Pierce, FL; Brownsville, TX; and all

Hawaiian ports.

The general requirements for cold

treatment found in § 319.56–2d are

designed to mitigate the risk of

infestation due to fruit fly escape from

shipments arriving in Group I ports.

These requirements, contained in

§ 319.56–2d(b)(5)(i) through (b)(5)(iii),

include delivering, under the

supervision of a PPQ inspector,

shipments of fruit that require cold

treatment to an approved cold storage

warehouse where the shipments will be

cold treated; precooling and

refrigerating the shipments of fruit

intended for cold treatment promptly

upon arrival at the cold treatment

facility; allowing shipments of fruit that

require cold treatment to leave U.S.

Customs Service (Customs) custody

only under a redelivery bond for cold

treatment; and allowing final release by

Customs of shipments of fruit that

require cold treatment only after the

Customs officer has received official

notification that the required cold

treatment has been completed.

Those Group II and IV ports that are

currently listed in the regulations as

ports where cold treatment of imported

fruit may occur must meet other

requirements, in addition to the general

requirements discussed in the previous

paragraph, to prevent the introduction

of fruit flies and other insect pests into

the United States.

The port of Corpus Christi, TX, which

we are proposing as an approved

location for cold treatment in this

document, has been designated as a

Group IV port; consequently, additional

mitigating measures would need to be in

place before cold treatment could occur

at this port.

The conditions that would be

assigned to the port of Corpus Christi,

TX, are, with one difference, the same

as those currently found in § 319.56–

2d(b)(5)(vii) regarding cold treatment at

the port of Gulfport, MS, which is also

a Group IV port. These proposed

conditions are listed and explained

below.

Special Conditions for the Maritime

Port of Corpus Christi, TX

The maritime port of Corpus Christi,

TX, is not in a commercial citrusproducing area. This reduces the

likelihood that a fruit fly escaping from

a shipment of fruit intended for cold

treatment would find adequate host

material for propagation. However, the

port of Corpus Christi, TX, is less than

150 miles away from commercial citrus

growing areas. Additionally, the port of

Corpus Christi, TX, is located in a part

of the country with a longer growing

season and a wider variety and greater

quantity of backyard hosts available

compared to ports in Groups I through

III. Therefore, in addition to the general

requirements in § 319.56–2d(b)(5)(i)

through (b)(5)(iii) of the regulations

concerning cold treatment, the

following requirements would apply to

cold treatment conducted at the

maritime port of Corpus Christi, TX.

1. All fruit entering the port for cold

treatment must move in maritime

containers. No bulk shipments (i.e.,

those shipments that are stowed and

unloaded by the case or bin) are

permitted.

This condition would ensure that

imported fruit arriving for cold

treatment at the port of Corpus Christi,

TX, would not be exposed to the

outdoors. The shipping container would

insulate the fruit, thereby helping to

keep the fruit chilled during unloading,

prevent leakage of the shipments, and

serve as a barrier to fruit fly escape from

shipments of untreated fruit.

2. Within the container, the fruit

intended for cold treatment must be

enclosed in fruit fly-proof packaging

that prevents the escape of adult, larval,

or pupal fruit flies.

This condition would ensure that

shipments that arrive at the port of

Corpus Christi, TX, would be packaged

in such a manner as to prevent fruit flies

or other insect pests from escaping from

the shipment when the container is

opened. Additionally, this condition

would provide an extra barrier to fruit

fly escape from a shipment of untreated

fruit.

3. Containerized shipments of fruit

arriving at the port for cold treatment

must be cold treated within the area

over which Customs is assigned the

authority to accept entries of

merchandise, to collect duties, and to

enforce the various provisions of the

customs and navigation laws in force.

This condition would restrict the

movement from the immediate vicinity

of the port of untreated shipments of

fruit intended for cold treatment, further

minimizing the risk that any fruit flies

or other insect pests in the shipments

would come into contact with host

material that may be in the area.

4. The cold treatment facility and PPQ

must agree in advance on the route by

which shipments are allowed to move

between the vessel on which they

arrived at the port and the cold

treatment facility. The movement of

shipments from vessel to cold treatment

facility will not be allowed until an

acceptable route has been agreed upon.

In most instances, the route would be

determined by establishing the shortest

route between the vessel and the cold

storage facility that does not include an

area that contains host material for fruit

flies during the time of year when the

region experiences its most abundant

amount of host material for fruit flies.

Then, that route would be used

throughout the year to convey

shipments from vessel to cold treatment

facility. This predetermined route

would reduce the amount of time that

a shipment would have to wait before

undergoing cold treatment and would

reduce the risk that any fruit flies in the

shipments would come into contact

with host material en route to cold

storage.

5. Advance reservations for cold

treatment space at the port must be

made prior to the departure of a

shipment from its port of origin.

This condition would ensure that

untreated shipments of fruit arriving at

the port would not have to wait for an

extended period of time for cold

treatment. Ensuring the expeditious

cold treatment of the fruit would

minimize the risk of fruit flies maturing

in ripening fruit.

6. Devanning, the unloading of fruit

from containers into the cold treatment

facility, must be conducted in

accordance with the following

requirements:

(1) All containers must be unloaded

within the cold treatment facility; and

(2) Untreated fruit may not be

exposed to the outdoors under any

circumstances.

Because of the southern location of

the port of Corpus Christi, TX, we

believe that this condition would be a

necessary mitigating factor at this port.

This condition would eliminate the

possibility of untreated fruit being

unloaded and waiting for cold treatment

outside the cold treatment facility.

If fruit intended for cold treatment

was removed from its shipping

container outside the cold treatment

facility, there would be an increased

risk of fruit fly escape due to untreated

fruit warming up to temperatures that

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 2001 / Proposed Rules 29737

would allow the insect pests that may

be in the fruit to become more active

and possibly to escape when the flyproof packaging is removed from the

shipment. Our proposal to require

devanning inside the cold treatment

facility would ensure that all fruit that

requires cold treatment remains in a

cool environment.

7. The cold treatment facility must

remain locked during nonworking

hours.

This condition would help ensure

that unauthorized persons would not

have access to untreated fruit and,

therefore, could not remove untreated

fruit from the cold treatment facility.

8. Blacklights or sticky paper must be

used within the cold treatment facility,

and other trapping methods, including

Jackson/methyl eugenol and McPhail

traps, must be used within the 5 square

miles surrounding the cold treatment

facility.

This condition is intended to serve as

an extra layer of defense by providing a

means to detect fruit flies within the

facility or within the facility’s environs

in the unlikely event that any fruit flies

survive past the stage of pupation in the

cold treatment facility. Although the

regulations require a 4-square-mile

trapping zone around the port of

Gulfport, MS, APHIS has determined

that a 5-square-mile trapping zone

around the port of Corpus Christi, TX,

is necessary to further mitigate the risks

associated with the variety of fruit fly

host material that is within 5 miles of

the port.

9. During cold treatment, a backup

system must be available to cold treat

the shipments of fruit should the

primary system malfunction. The

facility must also have one or more

reefers (cold holding rooms) and

methods of identifying lots of treated

and untreated fruits.

This condition would ensure that, in

the event that the primary cold

treatment system fails, additional

equipment is on hand at the cold

treatment facility to perform cold

treatment. Cold holding rooms would be

necessary to ensure that shipments of

fruit remain cool during any waiting

period that may ensue from a

malfunction of the primary cold room.

The identification of shipments to

determine which lots have been treated

and which lots need to be treated would

eliminate the possibility of comingling

treated and untreated fruit and further

reduce the possibility of fruit flies or

other insect pests escaping from the

cold treatment facility.

10. The cold treatment facility must

have the ability to conduct methyl

bromide fumigation on site. Therefore,

the cold treatment facility must have

fumigation equipment approved by the

Deputy Administrator of PPQ and a site

for conducting fumigation on the

premises.

This condition would act as an

additional contingency measure to

ensure that fruit entering the port of

Corpus Christi, TX, receives the

necessary treatments. As the risk of fruit

fly infestation is greater at Corpus

Christi, TX, than at ports included in

Groups I through III, we have

determined that extra protection should

be provided by requiring methyl

bromide fumigation capabilities as an

alternative means of eliminating pests

from shipments of fruit. The criteria for

the approval of fumigation equipment

are provided in the PPQ Treatment

Manual.

With respect to methyl bromide

fumigation, the Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) published a

notice of final rulemaking in the Federal

Register on December 10, 1993 (58 FR

65018–65082), that froze the production

of methyl bromide in the United States

at 1991 levels and required the phasing

out of domestic use of methyl bromide

by 2001. Subsequently, the Agriculture,

Rural Development, Food and Drug

Administration, and Related Agencies

Act of 1999 (Act) amended the Clean

Air Act (CAA) and directed the EPA to

promulgate new rules to reduce and

terminate the production, importation,

and consumption of methyl bromide in

accordance with the phaseout schedule

of the Montreal Protocol. Consistent

with the Protocol, the Act also amended

the CAA by providing a quarantine-use

exemption for the production,

importation, and use of methyl bromide

to fumigate commodities entering or

leaving the United States to comply

with APHIS regulations and for other

legitimate quarantine uses.

To ensure that the United States

fulfills its obligations under the CAA

and the Protocol, EPA is nearing

completion on amendments to its

regulations that would revise the

accelerated phaseout regulations and

conform the U.S. methyl bromide

phasedown schedule with the Protocol’s

schedule for industrialized nations. EPA

anticipates that a final rule on this issue

will be published in the Federal

Register in the near future. EPA has also

indicated that it is preparing to publish

a proposed rule regarding the process

for handling and documenting

exemptions for the production and

importation of quantities of methyl

bromide to be used for quarantine and

preshipment purposes.

Because the Montreal Protocol

exempts quarantine uses of methyl

bromide, our proposal assumes the

continued availability of methyl

bromide for use as a fumigant for the

foreseeable future. Nevertheless, USDA

takes very seriously its commitment to

work toward the development of

commodity treatment alternatives to

methyl bromide. Accordingly, APHIS is

actively assessing the effectiveness and

environmental acceptability of other

tools—such as hot water treatment,

thermal treatments (hot air, vapor heat,

and cold treatment), and irradiation—

that may economically manage the pests

currently controlled with methyl

bromide.

11. The cold treatment facility must

have contingency plans, approved by

the Deputy Administrator of PPQ, for

safely destroying or disposing of fruit.

This condition would ensure that, in

the event a shipment cannot be cold

treated or fumigated promptly or

properly, the contents of the shipment

could be safely destroyed or disposed of

so that fruit flies and other plant pests

would not have the opportunity to

escape. Examples of adequate

contingency plans include the ability to

incinerate fruit, to bury fruit, or to

reexport fruit.

We believe that the mitigation

measures described above, which have

proved successful in mitigating fruit fly

risks associated with cold treatment at

the port of Gulfport, MS, would prevent

the introduction of fruit flies and other

plant pests that may be in shipments of

fruit arriving at the port of Corpus

Christi, TX, for cold treatment.

Miscellaneous Changes

The regulations in § 319.56–2d

contain outdated references to the

Bureau of Customs, which is now the

U.S. Customs Service. We are proposing

to correct these references in this

document. Also, another outdated term,

‘‘Collector of Customs,’’ appears in

paragraph (b)(5)(iii) of § 319.56–2d; we

are also proposing to update that term.

Our regulations also misidentify the

locations of both Baltimore-Washington

International and Dulles International

Airports as Washington, DC. BaltimoreWashington International Airport is

located in Baltimore, MD, and Dulles

International Airport is located in

Chantilly, VA. We are proposing to

correct these location descriptions for

accuracy.

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory

Flexibility Act

This proposed rule has been reviewed

under Executive Order 12866. This rule

has been determined to be not

significant for the purposes of Executive

Order 12866, and, therefore, has not

29738 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 2001 / Proposed Rules

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 effects of this

proposed rule on small entities. We do

not currently have all the data necessary

for a comprehensive analysis of the

effects of this proposed 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 the implementation of this

proposed rule.

Under the Plant Protection Act (7

U.S.C. 7701–7772), the Secretary of

Agriculture is authorized to regulate the

importation of fruits and vegetables to

prevent the introduction of plant pests.

This proposed rule would amend the

regulations governing the importation of

fruits and vegetables by allowing, under

certain conditions, the cold treatment of

imported fruits at the port of Corpus

Christi, TX. A new cold treatment

facility has been constructed at this

port.

The port of Corpus Christi, located

along the Texas coast on the Gulf of

Mexico, is connected to both U.S. and

Mexican markets through several State

and interstate highways as well as by

rail service from three rail carriers,

which all have access to the docks. The

facility at the port of Corpus Christi that

would be used for cold treatment has

295,500 square feet of covered dockside

storage and a state-of-the-art refrigerated

warehouse with a 100,000 square-foot

capacity. This cold storage and

treatment facility, completed in August

2000, includes three rooms with

freezing and chilling capacities, and

temperature-controlled rail and truck

docks. A study conducted by the port

authority of Corpus Christi predicts that

by the year 2010, national container

traffic will top 2.75 million transit and

exit units (TEU’s) and that the port of

Corpus Christi could capture a

throughput of 820,000 TEU’s.

The port authority expects that it

would receive commodity imports from

several countries throughout Central

and South America in addition to New

Zealand and South Africa. The annual

collective estimated value of

commodities expected to be cold treated

at the facility is nearly $131.7 million.

According to the Small Business

Administration, a small entity involved

in the wholesale trade of fresh fruits is

one that employs no more than 100

people. While small entities would

likely benefit from being able to cold

treat commodities at the port of Corpus

Christi, the number of these entities and

the extent to which they might benefit

is unknown. Additionally, import and

transport companies in the region could

be expected to handle increased traffic

in fruits and vegetables, as indicated by

the projected figures provided by

exporters in Latin America and South

Africa; consequently, local employment

opportunities could be expected to

increase.

The alternative to this proposed rule

was to make no changes to the

regulations. After consideration, we

rejected this alternative because it

appears that, with the safeguards

proposed, the cold treatment of fruit

may be conducted at the port of Corpus

Christi, TX, without significant risk of

introducing fruit flies or other plant

pests.

Executive Order 12988

This proposed rule would allow fresh

fruit to be imported into the United

States for cold treatment at the maritime

port of Corpus Christi, TX. If this

proposed rule is adopted, State and

local laws and regulations regarding

fruit imported under this rule would be

preempted while the fruit is in foreign

commerce. Fresh fruit is 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 caseby-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

This proposed rule contains no

information collection or recordkeeping

requirements under the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501

et seq.).

List of Subjects in 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, we propose to amend 7

CFR part 319 as follows:

PART 319—FOREIGN QUARANTINE

NOTICES

1. The authority citation for part 319

would continue to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 166, 450, 7711–7714,

7718, 7731, 7732, and 7751–7754; 21 U.S.C.

136 and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.

2. Section 319.56–2d would be

amended as follows:

a. In paragraph (b)(1), the words

‘‘Corpus Christi, TX,’’ would be added

immediately before the words ‘‘and

Gulfport, MS;’’ the words ‘‘Airport,

Baltimore, MD,’’ would be added after

the words ‘‘Baltimore-Washington

International’’; and the words ‘‘airports,

Washington, DC’’ would be removed

and the words ‘‘Airport, Chantilly, VA’’

added in their place.

b. In paragraph (b)(5)(iii), the words

‘‘Collector of Customs’’ would be

removed and the words ‘‘Customs

Service’’ added in their place.

c. In paragraphs (b)(5)(iv)(B),

(b)(5)(v)(B), and (b)(5)(vi)(B), the words

‘‘Bureau of Customs’’ would be removed

each time they occur and the words

‘‘U.S. Customs Service’’ added in their

place.

d. The introductory text of paragraph

(b)(5)(vii) would be revised.

e. In paragraph (b)(5)(vii)(A), the

words ‘‘at the port of Gulfport, MS’’

would be removed.

f. In paragraph (b)(5)(vii)(C), the

words ‘‘Bureau of Customs’’ would be

removed and the words ‘‘U.S. Customs

Service’’ added in their place.

g. Paragraph (b)(5)(vii)(H) would be

revised.

§ 319.56–2d Administrative instructions

for cold treatments of certain imported

fruits.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(5) * * *

(vii) Special requirements for the

maritime ports of Gulfport, MS, and

Corpus Christi, TX. Shipments of fruit

arriving at the ports of Gulfport, MS,

and Corpus Christi, TX, for cold

treatment, in addition to meeting all of

the requirements in paragraphs (b)(5)(i)

through (b)(5)(iii) of this section, must

meet the following special conditions:

* * * * *

(H) Blacklights or sticky paper must

be used within the cold treatment

facility, and other trapping methods,

including Jackson/methyl eugenol and

McPhail traps, must be used within the

4 square miles surrounding the cold

treatment facility at the maritime port of

Gulfport, MS, and within the 5 square

miles surrounding the cold treatment

facility at the maritime port of Corpus

Christi, TX.

* * * * *

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 2001 / Proposed Rules 29739

Done in Washington, DC, this 25th day of

May 2001.

Bobby R. Acord,

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service.

[FR Doc. 01–13758 Filed 5–31–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Rural Housing Service

7 CFR Part 1944

RIN 0575–AC25

Farm Labor Housing Technical

Assistance

AGENCY: Rural Housing Service, USDA.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Rural Housing Service

(RHS) proposes to amend its regulations

for the Farm Labor Housing (FLH)

program. The Housing Act of 1949

authorizes the RHS to provide financial

assistance to private and public

nonprofit agencies to encourage the

development of domestic and migrant

farm labor housing projects. The

nonprofit agencies that receive this

financial assistance, in turn, provide

‘‘technical assistance’’ to other

organizations to assist them in obtaining

loans and grants for the construction of

farm labor housing. The RHS has

provided this assistance in prior years

by awarding technical assistance

contracts. In fiscal year 2000 a Request

for Proposals was published in the

Federal Register requesting grant

proposals from private and public

nonprofit agencies. The intended effect

of this action is to amend the

regulations to establish the eligibility

requirements that nonprofit agencies

must meet to receive technical

assistance grants and how the financial

assistance will be made available by the

RHS.

DATES: Written or E-mail comments

must be received on or before July 31,

2001.

ADDRESSES: Written comments may be

submitted, in duplicate, to the Branch

Chief, Regulations and Paperwork

Management Branch, Rural

Development, U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Stop 0742, 1400

Independence Avenue SW, Washington,

DC 20250–0742. Comments may be

submitted via the Internet by addressing

them to comments@rus.usda.gov and

must contain ‘‘Technical’’ in the subject.

All written comments will be available

for public inspection at 300 E Street SW,

Washington, DC 20546, during normal

working hours.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Douglas MacDowell, Senior Loan

Specialist, Multi-Family Housing

Processing Division, Rural Housing

Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,

STOP 0781, 1400 Independence Avenue

SW., Washington, DC 20250–0781,

Telephone (202) 720–1604.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Classification

This rule has been determined to be

not significant for purposes of Executive

Order 12886 and therefore has not been

reviewed by the Office of Management

and Budget (OMB).

Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection

requirements contained in this

regulation have been previously

approved by OMB under the provisions

of 44 U.S.C. chapter 35 and this

regulation has been assigned OMB

control number 0575–0181, in

accordance with the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995. This rule does

not impose any new information

collection requirements from those

approved by OMB.

Civil Justice Reform

This rule has been reviewed under

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice

Reform. In accordance with this rule: (1)

All state and local laws and regulations

that are in conflict with this rule will be

preempted; (2) no retroactive effect will

be given to this rule; and (3)

administrative proceedings in

accordance with 7 CFR part 11 must be

exhausted before bringing suit in court

challenging action taken under this rule.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub. L.

104–4, establishes requirements for

Federal agencies to assess the effects of

their regulatory actions on State, local,

and tribal governments and the private

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,

RHS generally must prepare a written

statement, including a cost-benefit

analysis, for proposed and final rules

with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may

result in expenditures to State, local, or

tribal governments, in the aggregate, or

to the private sector, of $100 million or

more in any one year. When such a

statement is needed for a rule, section

205 of the UMRA generally requires

RHS to identify and consider a

reasonable number of regulatory

alternatives and adopt the least costly,

more cost-effective or least burdensome

alternative that achieves the objectives

of the rule.

This rule contains no Federal

mandates (under the regulatory

provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for

State, local, and tribal governments or

the private sector. Therefore, this rule is

not subject to the requirements of

section 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism

The policies contained in this rule do

not have any substantial direct effect on

states, on the relationship between the

national government and the states, or

on the distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government. Nor does this rule

impose substantial direct compliance

costs on state and local governments.

Therefore, consultation with the states

is not required.

Programs Affected

The affected program is listed in the

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

under Number 10.405, Farm Labor

Housing Loans and Grants.

Intergovernmental Consultation

For the reasons contained in the Final

Rule related Notice to 7 CFR part 3015,

subpart V, this program is subject to

Executive Order 12372 which requires

intergovernmental consultation with

State and local officials. RHS has

conducted intergovernmental

consultation in the manner delineated

in RD Instruction 1940–J.

Environmental Impact Statement

This document has been reviewed in

accordance with 7 CFR part 1940,

subpart G, ‘‘Environmental Program.’’ It

is the determination of RHS that this

action does not constitute a major

Federal action significantly affecting the

quality of the human environment and

in accordance with the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Pub.

L. 91–190, an Environmental Impact

Statement is not required.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

This proposed rule has been reviewed

with regard to the requirements of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.

601–612). The undersigned has

determined and certified by signature of

this document that this rule will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities

since this rulemaking action does not

involve a new or expanded program nor

does it require any more action on the

part of a small business than required of

a large entity.

Background

Farmworkers are among the lowest

paid workers in the United States and