32210 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 115 / Thursday, June 14, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

kernels in several wheat fields in

western Young County, adjacent to

Throckmorton County. Initial surveys

indicate that Karnal bunt is also present

in other fields in the area we are

regulating, and that the spread of the

disease to the infected fields may have

occurred as a result of the movement of

contaminated seed into the area or

through the movement into the area of

cattle that may have grazed in infected

fields. Until we are able to determine

the extent of this new infection by

conducting detection and delimiting

surveys, it is essential that we delineate

a large enough regulated area to include

any fields for which there is a

reasonable possibility of infection.

Emergency Action

This rulemaking is necessary on an

emergency basis to prevent Karnal bunt

from spreading to noninfected areas of

the United States. Under these

circumstances, the Administrator has

determined that prior notice and

opportunity for public comment are

contrary to the public interest and that

there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 533

for making this rule effective less than

30 days after publication in the Federal

Register.

We will consider comments that are

received within 60 days of publication

of this rule in the Federal Register.

After the comment period closes, we

will publish another document in the

Federal Register. The document will

include a discussion of any comments

we receive and any amendments we are

making to the rule as a result of the

comments.

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory

Flexibility Act

This rule has been reviewed under

Executive Order 12866. For this action,

the Office of Management and Budget

has waived its review process required

by Executive Order 12866.

This emergency situation makes

timely compliance with section 604 of

the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.

601 et seq.) impracticable. We are

currently assessing the potential

economic effects of this action on small

entities. Based on that assessment, we

will either certify that the rule will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities or

publish a final regulatory flexibility

analysis.

Executive Order 12372

This program/activity is listed in the

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

under No. 10.025 and is subject to

Executive Order 12372, which requires

intergovernmental consultation with

State and local officials. (See 7 CFR part

3015, subpart V.)

Executive Order 12988

This rule has been reviewed under

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice

Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts all State

and local laws and regulations that are

inconsistent with this rule; (2) has no

retroactive effect; and (3) does not

require administrative proceedings

before parties may file suit in court

challenging this rule.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This interim 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 301

Agricultural commodities, Plant

diseases and pests, Quarantine,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Transportation.

Accordingly, we are amending 7 CFR

part 301 as follows:

PART 301—DOMESTIC QUARANTINE

NOTICES

1. The authority citation for part 301

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 166, 7711, 7712, 7714,

7731, 7735, 7751, 7752, 7753, and 7754; 7

CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.

2. In § 301.89–3, paragraph (f), under

the heading for ‘‘Texas’’, add two new

entries in alphabetical order to read as

follows:

§ 301.89–3 Regulated areas.

* * * * *

Texas

* * * * *

Throckmorton County. The entire

county.

Young County. The entire county.

Done in Washington, DC, this 8th day of

June, 2001.

Bobby R. Acord,

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service.

[FR Doc. 01–14942 Filed 6–13–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service

7 CFR Part 319

[Docket No. 93–131–2]

Importation of Mangoes From the

Philippines

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: We are amending the

regulations governing the importation of

fruits and vegetables to allow the

importation of mangoes from Guimaras

Island in the Republic of the

Philippines, subject to inspection and

the completion of a prescribed vapor

heat treatment. We believe that this

action is warranted because there

appears to be no significant pest risk

associated with the importation of

mangoes from Guimaras Island in the

Philippines under these circumstances.

This action will relieve restrictions on

the importation of mangoes from the

Philippines without presenting a

significant risk of introducing plant

pests into the United States.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 14, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

Paul Gadh, Import Specialist,

Phytosanitary Issues Management Team,

PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 140,

Riverdale, MD 20737–1236; (301) 734–

6799.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The regulations in 7 CFR 319.56

through 319.56–8 (referred to below as

the regulations) prohibit or restrict the

importation of fruits and vegetables into

the United States from certain parts of

the world to prevent the introduction

and dissemination of plant pests that are

new to or not widely distributed within

the United States.

On January 22, 2001, we published in

the Federal Register (66 FR 6488–6491,

Docket No. 93–131–1) a proposal to

amend the regulations to allow the

importation of mangoes from Guimaras

Island in the Republic of the

Philippines, subject to inspection and

the completion of a prescribed vapor

heat treatment.

We solicited comments concerning

our proposal for 60 days ending March

23, 2001. We received four comments by

that date. They were from a State

agriculture agency, a foreign

government, and a firm representing

foreign governmental and

nongovernmental organizations.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 115 / Thursday, June 14, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 32211

Two of the commenters suggested

several editorial changes to the

background section of the proposed

rule. Those suggested changes did not,

however, relate to the regulatory

provisions of § 319.56–2ii or our

rational basis for those provisions, so

there is no need to make any changes in

this final rule as a result of those

comments.

With regard to the trust fund

agreement provided for by § 319.56–

2ii(f), one commenter recommended

that the agreement be similar to those

that Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service (APHIS) has previously

arranged with the Governments of Japan

and the Republic of Korea and offered

specific examples of the types of

expenses that should be covered. While

the commenter’s suggestions may, in

fact, be reflected in the actual trust fund

agreement that we arrange with the

Republic of the Philippines Department

of Agriculture (RPDA), it is not

necessary to amend § 319.56–2ii(f) as a

result of that comment, as that portion

of the final rule simply provides for the

use of a trust fund agreement as one

element of the mango import program.

Specific details such as those suggested

by the commenter will be worked out

between APHIS and the RPDA before

the trust fund agreement is signed.

One commenter opposed the

proposed rule based on the risk

presented by the fruit fly Bactrocera

philippinensis and stated that the

mangoes should be prohibited from

being imported through ports of entry in

Florida and should not be sold or

distributed in that State. The commenter

noted that B. philippinensis had been

detected in two Florida cities in 1998,

which, given that B. philippinensis

occurs only in the Philippines, suggests

that infested fruit had been moved from

the Philippines to Florida. The

commenter stated that his agency would

be willing to reconsider its position on

the proposed rule if Philippine efforts to

suppress and eventually eradicate B.

philippinensis prove successful.

In the proposed rule, we noted that

several plant pests, including the mango

seed weevil (Sternochetus mangiferae)

and fruit flies of the genus Bactrocera,

are known to attack mangoes in the

Philippines. While Guimaras Island has

been shown to be free of the mango seed

weevil, no claims were made as to the

freedom of Guimaras Island from fruit

flies. Indeed, our concerns about two

fruit fly species B. occipitalis and B.

philippinensis led us to propose the

vapor heat treatment requirement for the

mangoes found in § 319.56–2ii(b) of this

final rule. That vapor heat treatment has

been shown, through confirmatory tests

conducted by the Department’s

Agricultural Research Service, to be

effective in mitigating the risk presented

by B. occipitalis and B. philippinensis.

Given the availability and required

application of an effective treatment for

the fruit flies of concern and the

freedom of Guimaras Island from the

mango seed weevil, we do not believe

that it is necessary or justifiable to

prohibit the movement into Florida of

mangoes grown and shipped in

accordance with the requirements of

this rule.

With regard to the economic analysis

contained in the proposed rule, one

commenter asked how we could

conclude that the importation of

mangoes from the Philippines would

not further damage the economics of

Florida mango production, given that

State’s overwhelming share of domestic

production (97 percent) and the

negative effects that weather, disease,

and falling prices have had on Florida

mango producers.

Our conclusions with regard to the

potential effects of mango imports from

the Philippines were based on several

factors. First, while Florida did indeed

account for about 97 percent of

domestic production in 1997, domestic

production accounted for only about 1.5

percent of the total U.S. mango supply

that year; the amount of mangoes

imported in 1997 (186,530 metric tons)

was nearly 66 times greater than the

amount of mangoes produced

domestically (2,829 metric tons).

Between 1997 and 1999, U.S. mango

imports increased by more than 17

percent, and it is reasonable to assume

that the growth in U.S. mango imports

will continue, with Guimaras Island

being but one more foreign source.

Moreover, we noted that little of

Florida’s mango crop now enters the

national market to compete with fresh

fruit imports, as most of the production

is either consumed fresh within Florida

or is processed into chutney or other

products; these markets are unlikely to

be affected by the availability of an

additional source of imported fresh

mangoes. Based on these considerations,

we concluded that the importation of

mangoes from Guimaras Island, the

amount of which is expected to be very

small compared to current import

levels, would not significantly affect

U.S. mango producers.

Therefore, for the reasons given in the

proposed rule and in this document, we

are adopting the proposed rule as a final

rule, without change.

Effective Date

This is a substantive rule that relieves

restrictions and, pursuant to the

provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553, may be made

effective less than 30 days after

publication in the Federal Register.

Immediate implementation of this

rule is necessary to provide relief to

those persons who are adversely

affected by restrictions we no longer

find warranted. The shipping season for

mangoes from the Philippines is in

progress. Making this rule effective

immediately will allow interested

producers and others in the marketing

chain to benefit during this year’s

shipping season. Therefore, the

Administrator of the Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service has

determined that this rule should be

effective upon publication in the

Federal Register.

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory

Flexibility Act

This 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.

This rule amends the regulations

governing the importation of fruits and

vegetables by allowing, under certain

conditions, the importation of mangoes

from the Philippines into the United

States.

Analysis

Nearly all of the mangoes consumed

in the United States are imported.

Mexico is the source of most U.S. mango

imports, supplying between 75 percent

and 85 percent of all imported mangoes

in each of the 5 years between 1995 and

1999. Other major sources are Brazil,

Ecuador, and Peru.

The quantity of imported mangoes has

grown steadily and rapidly in recent

years. Over the 5-year period 1995

through 1999, mango imports increased

at an annual rate of about 9 percent

(table 1). During this same period, the

average value of imported mangoes fell

from about $0.85 per kg to about $0.65

per kg. These data suggest a high level

of market competition among those

countries supplying mangoes to the U.S.

market.

TABLE 1.—QUANTITY AND VALUE OF

U.S. MANGO IMPORTS, 1995–1999

Year Metric tons Value

(in millions)

1995 ..... 141,673 $121.01

1996 ..... 171,349 103.81

1997 ..... 186,530 119.07

1998 ..... 197,587 132.43

1999 ..... 218,941 142.99

Source: USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service.

32212 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 115 / Thursday, June 14, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

U.S. production of mangoes has

primarily been in southern Florida, with

a smaller quantity grown in Hawaii and

a negligible amount produced in

California. According to the 1997

Census of Agriculture, there were 218

mango farms in Florida, 171 in Hawaii,

and 2 in California. The total domestic

harvest that year was about 2,829 metric

tons, of which about 97 percent was

produced in Florida and about 3 percent

produced in Hawaii. There are no U.S.

mango exports.

Florida’s mango producers suffered a

severe setback in 1992, when Hurricane

Andrew destroyed many of the trees.

According to the Florida Agricultural

Statistics Service, bearing acres fell from

2,500 in 1992 to 1,400 in 1993. Bearing

acres reported for 1997 also stood at

1,400 acres. Yields have also declined

sharply, from 160 bushels per acre in

1992 to 71 bushels per acre in 1997, due

in part to bloom and disease problems

at fruit set. Consequently, the value of

Florida’s mango production in 1997,

$1.45 million, was only one-third of the

value of production in 1992, $4.28

million.

The Florida Agricultural Statistics

Service has not reported on mango

production since 1997, a reflection of

the industry’s decline. Little of the

State’s crop now enters the national

market to compete with fresh fruit

imports. Most of the production is either

consumed fresh within Florida or is

processed into chutney or other

products.

The quantity of mangoes that may be

imported into the United States from

Guimaras Island as a result of this rule

is not known. According to data from

the Philippines’ Bureau of Agricultural

Statistics, about 2,106 metric tons were

produced in Guimaras in 1993.

Production jumped to 10,740 metric

tons in 1994, reached a high of 16,440

metric tons in 1996, declined to 12,736

metric tons in 1997, and stood at 10,041

metric tons in 1998. Data for the years

following 1998 were not available, but

our experience with mango production

on Guimaras leads us to believe that

current production levels there are

similar those prior to 1998. The

proportion of Guimaras’ mango

production that is represented by

export-grade fruit is not available. While

specific data for exports from Guimaras

are likewise not available, the

Philippines already has well-established

export markets in at least a dozen

countries, with the largest amount of

exports going to Hong Kong, Japan, and

Singapore. The Philippines can be

expected to continue to serve those

established export markets as well as its

domestic markets. If half of Guimaras’

1997 production (i.e., 6,368 metric tons)

was exported to the United States, it

would represent an amount roughly

double that which was harvested

domestically in that year (1997 being

the last year for which Florida mango

production data were reported).

However, given the large quantity of

mangoes imported from Mexico and

other countries, 6,368 metric tons

represent only about 3.3 percent of what

the U.S. supply was in 1997, and an

even smaller proportion of today’s

supply; between 1997 and 1999, U.S.

mango imports increased by more than

17 percent.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act

requires that agencies consider the

economic effects of their rules on small

entities. Whether affected entities may

be considered small depends on their

annual gross receipts. Annual receipts

of $750,000 or less is the small entity

criterion set by the Small Business

Administration for establishments

primarily engaged in ‘‘other noncitrus

fruit farming’’ (NAICS code 111339). As

noted previously, Florida accounted for

about 97 percent of mango production

in 1997, thus mango producers in that

State are the entities most likely to be

affected by this rule. Most, if not all,

mango producers in Florida are small

entities. According to information

provided by the University of Florida’s

Institute of Food and Agricultural

Sciences (IFAS), about 10 to 15 growers

manage the bulk of the producing

mango acreage in Florida. According to

IFAS, about 25 percent of Florida

growers produce mangoes alone, while

the remaining 75 percent are diversified

operations growing other tropical fruits

in addition to mangoes. Florida growers

occupy niche markets in the State by

providing green fruit for processing into

chutney and other products and by

providing fresh, untreated, tree-ripened

fruit for consumption. The introduction

of Philippine mangoes into the larger

U.S. market is expected to have little to

no impact on Florida producers who

occupy those niche markets, as the

Philippine producers are not expected

to be shipping green fruit for processing

and would be unable to provide

untreated, tree-ripened fruit to U.S.

markets.

Conclusion

U.S. mango imports dwarf domestic

production. Mango imports during the

late 1990’s expanded annually by

amounts several times greater than the

quantity likely to be imported from

Guimaras Island. It is reasonable to

assume that the growth in U.S. mango

imports will continue, with Guimaras

Island but one more foreign source. We

do not expect that the economic effects

of this rule on U.S. entities, large or

small, will be significant.

The importation of mangoes from

Guimaras Island is not expected to

significantly affect U.S. mango

producers. The amount imported will be

very small compared to current import

levels. Moreover, much of Florida’s

harvest (the source of 97 percent of

domestic production in 1997) is

consumed within that State or is

processed into chutney and other

products; these markets are unlikely to

be affected by the availability of an

additional source of imported fresh

mangoes.

Under these circumstances, the

Administrator of the Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service has

determined that this action will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

Executive Order 12988

This final rule allows mangoes to be

imported into the United States from the

Philippines. State and local laws and

regulations regarding mangoes imported

under this rule will be preempted while

the fruit is in foreign commerce. Fresh

mangoes are generally imported for

immediate distribution and sale to the

consuming public, and 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. No retroactive effect will be

given to this rule, and this rule will not

require administrative proceedings

before parties may file suit in court

challenging this rule.

Paperwork Reduction Act

In accordance with the Paperwork

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

et seq.), the information collection or

recordkeeping requirements included in

this rule have been approved by the

Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) under OMB control number

0579–0172.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 319

Bees, Coffee, Cotton, Fruits, Honey,

Imports, Nursery Stock, Plant diseases

and pests, Quarantine, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Rice,

Vegetables.

Accordingly, we are amending 7 CFR

part 319 as follows:

PART 319—FOREIGN QUARANTINE

NOTICES

1. The authority citation for part 319

continues to read as follows:

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 115 / Thursday, June 14, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 32213

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. A new § 319.56–2ii is added to read

as follows:

§ 319.56–2ii Administrative instructions:

conditions governing the entry of mangoes

from the Philippines.

Mangoes (fruit) (Mangifera indica)

may be imported into the United States

from the Philippines only under the

following conditions:

(a) Limitation of origin. The mangoes

must have been grown on the island of

Guimaras, which the Administrator has

determined meets the criteria set forth

in § 319.56–2(e)(4) and § 319.56–2(f)

with regard to the mango seed weevil

(Sternochetus mangiferae).

(b) Treatment. The mangoes must be

subjected to the following vapor heat

treatment for fruit flies of the genus

Bactrocera. The treatment must be

conducted in the Philippines under the

supervision of an inspector.

(1) Size the fruit before treatment.

Place temperature probes in the center

of the large fruits.

(2) Raise the temperature of the fruit

by saturated water vapor at 117.5 °F

(47.5 °C) until the approximate center of

the fruit reaches 114.8 °F (46 °C) within

a minimum of 4 hours.

(3) Hold fruit temperature at 114.8 °F

(46 °C) for 10 minutes.

(4) During the run-up time,

temperature should be recorded from

each pulp sensor once every 5 minutes.

During the 10 minutes holding time,

temperature should be recorded from

each pulp sensor every minute. During

the last hour of the treatment, which

includes the 10-minute holding time,

the relative humidity must be

maintained at a level of 90 percent or

higher. After the fruit are treated, air

cooling and/or drench cooling are

optional.

(c) APHIS inspection. Mangoes from

the Philippines are subject to inspection

under the direction of an inspector,

either in the Philippines or at the port

of first arrival in the United States.

Mangoes inspected in the Philippines

are subject to reinspection at the port of

first arrival in the United States as

provided in § 319.56–6.

(d) Labeling. Each box of mangoes

must be clearly labeled in accordance

with § 319.56–2(g).

(e) Phytosanitary certificate. Each

shipment of mangoes must be

accompanied by a phytosanitary

certificate issued by the Republic of the

Philippines Department of Agriculture

that contains additional declarations

stating that the mangoes were grown on

the island of Guimaras and have been

treated for fruit flies of the genus

Bactrocera in accordance with

paragraph (b) of this section.

(f) Trust Fund Agreement. Mangoes

that are treated or inspected in the

Philippines may be imported into the

United States only if the Republic of the

Philippines Department of Agriculture

(RPDA) has entered into a trust fund

agreement with APHIS. That agreement

requires the RPDA to pay, in advance of

each shipping season, all costs that

APHIS estimates it will incur in

providing inspection services in the

Philippines during that shipping season.

Those costs include administrative

expenses and all salaries (including

overtime and the Federal share of

employee benefits), travel expenses

(including per diem expenses), and

other incidental expenses incurred by

APHIS in performing these services. The

agreement requires the RPDA to deposit

a certified or cashier’s check with

APHIS for the amount of those costs, as

estimated by APHIS. If the deposit is not

sufficient to meet all costs incurred by

APHIS, the agreement further requires

the RPDA to deposit with APHIS a

certified or cashier’s check for the

amount of the remaining costs, as

determined by APHIS, before any more

mangoes will be treated or inspected in

the Philippines. After a final audit at the

conclusion of each shipping season, any

overpayment of funds would be

returned to the RPDA or held on

account until needed, at the RPDA’s

option.

(g) Department not responsible for

damage. The treatment for mangoes

prescribed in paragraph (b) of this

section is judged from experimental

tests to be safe. However, the

Department assumes no responsibility

for any damage sustained through or in

the course of such treatment.

Done in Washington, DC, this 8th day of

June 2001.

Bobby R. Acord,

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service.

[FR Doc. 01–14937 Filed 6–08–01; 4:39 pm]

BILLING CODE 3410–34–U

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service

7 CFR Part 360

[Docket No. 98–091–2]

Noxious Weeds; Permits and Interstate

Movement

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Affirmation of interim rule as

final rule.

SUMMARY: We are adopting as a final

rule, without change, an interim rule

that amended the regulations to clearly

state that a permit is required for the

movement of noxious weeds interstate,

as well as into or through the United

States. Prior to the interim rule, the

regulations provided for the issuance of

permits for movements of noxious

weeds into or through the United States,

but did not explicitly address interstate

movements. This action is necessary to

help prevent the artificial interstate

spread of noxious weeds into

noninfested areas of the United States.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The interim rule

became effective on July 29, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

Alan V. Tasker, National Weed Program

Coordinator, Invasive Species and Pest

Management, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River

Road Unit 134, Riverdale, MD 20737–

1236; (301) 734–5708.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

In an interim rule effective and

published in the Federal Register on

July 29, 1999 (64 FR 41007–41010,

Docket No. 98–091–1), we amended the

regulations in 7 CFR part 360 (referred

to below as the regulations) to clearly

state that a permit is required for the

movement of noxious weeds interstate,

as well as into or through the United

States. Prior to the interim rule, the

regulations provided for the issuance of

permits for movements of noxious

weeds into or through the United States,

but did not explicitly address interstate

movements.

The interim rule was necessary to

help prevent the artificial interstate

spread of noxious weeds into

noninfested areas of the United States.

The interim rule aligned our interstate

movement regulations with our import

requirements and is consistent with our

obligations under international trade

agreements.

Comments on the interim rule were

required to be received on or before

September 27, 1999. We received six

comments by that date. The comments

were from State Governments, plant and

seed producers, a trade association, and

an environmental advocacy

organization. Four of those commenters

generally supported the interim rule.

One commenter opposed the rule. One

commenter submitted data on two

Federal noxious weeds. We have

carefully considered these comments,

which are discussed below by topic.