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

57206 

Vol. 70, No. 189 

Friday, September 30, 2005 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

7 CFR Part 319 

[Docket No. 03–113–2] 

Citrus From Peru 

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: We are proposing to amend 

the fruits and vegetables regulations to 

allow the importation, under certain 

conditions, of fresh commercial citrus 

fruit (grapefruit, limes, mandarin 

oranges or tangerines, sweet oranges, 

and tangelos) from approved areas of 

Peru into the United States. Based on 

the evidence in a recent pest risk 

analysis, we believe these articles can be 

safely imported from Peru, provided 

certain conditions are met. This action 

would provide for the importation of 

citrus from Peru into the United States 

while continuing to protect the United 

States against the introduction of plant 

pests. 

DATES: We will consider all comments 

that we receive on or before November 

29, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by any of the following methods: 

• EDOCKET: Go to http:// 

www.epa.gov/feddocket to submit or 

view public comments, access the index 

listing of the contents of the official 

public docket, and to access those 

documents in the public docket that are 

available electronically. Once you have 

entered EDOCKET, click on the ‘‘View 

Open APHIS Dockets’’ link to locate this 

document. 

• Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: 

Please send four copies of your 

comment (an original and three copies) 

to Docket No. 03–113–2, Regulatory 

Analysis and Development, PPD, 

APHIS, Station 3C71, 4700 River Road 

Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737–1238. 

Please state that your comment refers to 

Docket No. 03–113–2. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and follow 

the instructions for locating this docket 

and submitting comments. 

Reading Room: You may read any 

comments that we receive on this 

docket in our reading room. The reading 

room is located in room 1141 of the 

USDA South Building, 14th Street and 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC. Normal reading room 

hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except holidays. To be 

sure someone is there to help you, 

please call (202) 690–2817 before 

coming. 

Other Information: You may view 

APHIS documents published in the 

Federal Register and related 

information on the Internet at http:// 

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

webrepor.html. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Tony Roman, Import Specialist, 

Commodity Import Analysis and 

Operation Staff, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 

River Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 

20737–1231; (301) 734–8758. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The regulations in ‘‘Subpart—Fruits 

and Vegetables’’ (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. The 

Government of Peru has requested that 

the Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service (APHIS) amend the regulations 

to allow the importation into the United 

States of grapefruit, limes, mandarin 

oranges or tangerines, sweet oranges, 

and tangelos. 

To evaluate the risks associated with 

the importation of citrus from Peru, we 

prepared a draft pest risk analysis 

entitled ‘‘Importation of Fresh 

Commercial Citrus Fruit: Grapefruit 

(Citrus x paradisi Macfad.); Lime (C. 

aurantiifolia [Christm.] Swingle); 

Mandarin Orange or Tangerine (C. 

reticulata Blanco); Sweet Orange (C. 

sinensis [L.] Osbeck); Tangelo (C. x 

tangelo J.W. Ingram & H.E. Moore) from 

Peru into the United States’’ (October 

2003). 

On January 12, 2004, we published a 

notice in the Federal Register (69 FR 

1694–1695, Docket No. 03–113–1) in 

which we advised the public of the 

availability of the draft pest risk 

analysis. We solicited comments 

concerning those documents for 60 days 

ending March 12, 2004, and received 14 

comments by that date. The comments 

were from Members of Congress, foreign 

importers, foreign citrus producers, 

foreign and domestic exporters and 

distributors, State departments of 

agriculture, and an agricultural trade 

service. The majority of the commenters 

agreed with the conclusions in the risk 

analysis and supported amending the 

regulations to allow commercial imports 

of citrus from Peru into the United 

States. Two of these commenters 

requested clarification on specific 

issues, while two other commenters 

opposed allowing commercial citrus 

imports from Peru into the United 

States. These comments are discussed 

below by topic. 

Fruit Fly Trapping and Surveys 

Two commenters stated that our 

proposed rule should specify acceptable 

fruit fly population limits (flies/trap/ 

day) in the registered citrus groves and 

how producers would respond if fruit 

fly populations exceed this limit. One of 

the commenters asked that we also 

include the levels of pest interceptions 

which would trigger rejection of fruit in 

packing facilities and noted that the pest 

risk analysis states only that these levels 

are determined by agreement. The 

commenter argued that we maintain 

these types of standards for other 

countries that export fruit to the United 

States. 

Under Peru’s national fruit fly 

program, production sites are required 

to maintain prevalence levels of less 

than 0.01 flies per trap per day for all 

citrus species, except key limes. 

Production sites that exceed this level 

are removed from the program for the 

season and have to undergo immediate 

actions to control pests, which may 

include the use of bait sprays and the 

imposition of quarantines on production 

places and buffer areas. With regard to 

key limes, if just one larva is found in 

fruit in the production site, Peru 

prohibits shipments from the site for the 

remainder of the season and executes 

immediate pest control measures. Fruit 

is only allowed in packinghouses from 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 189 / Friday, September 30, 2005 / Proposed Rules 57207 

production places that are participating 

in the program. If fruit fly larvae are 

detected in a packinghouse, appropriate 

quarantine measures are immediately 

applied. We are confident that Peru’s 

national fruit fly control program will 

continue to apply and enforce measures 

that ensure production sites maintain 

low prevalence levels. Because the 

Peruvian national fruit fly program is 

well established and operating in 

accordance with clearly defined criteria 

that APHIS considers to be effective, we 

believe it would be appropriate to 

simply require producer participation in 

the program without including in the 

regulations the specific information 

suggested by the commenters. The 

proposed regulations would provide 

that Peru’s fruit fly program must be 

approved by APHIS, which would allow 

for APHIS to discontinue imports of 

Peruvian citrus if we determine that the 

program is no longer effective at 

mitigating the risk of introducing pests 

of concern into the United States. 

One commenter noted that the risk 

analysis makes no mention of 

safeguards to ensure that potentially 

infected materials are kept out of 

approved growing areas in Peru. The 

commenter stated that it was unclear as 

to whether surveys to verify freedom 

from targeted diseases would be ongoing 

in approved growing areas and 

requested that this be specifically stated 

in the proposed risk mitigation 

measures. 

As stated in our pest risk analysis, 

Peru was declared free of citrus canker 

(Xanthomonas aconopodis), sweet 

orange scab (Elsino australis), and citrus 

black spot (Guignardia citricarpa), 

diseases of quarantine significance to 

the United States, after 3 years of 

negative survey results from 1996–2000. 

After 2000, the focus of the disease 

surveys shifted from establishing the 

absence of citrus canker, sweet orange 

scab, and citrus black spot to monitoring 

Peru’s freedom from the diseases. The 

pest risk analysis states that disease 

surveys are conducted year-round and 

monthly reports are provided to APHIS. 

The results of the surveys from 1996 to 

2002 are summarized in the pest risk 

analysis. We consider all of Peru, not 

just the approved growing areas, to be 

free of citrus canker, sweet orange scab, 

and citrus black spot. To prevent the 

introduction of the citrus canker, sweet 

orange scab, and citrus black spot, Peru 

restricts citrus imports from countries 

where those diseases are known to 

occur. 

Port of Entry Inspection 

One commenter took issue with the 

following statement in the pest risk 

analysis: ‘‘Standard port of entry 

inspection to which all commodities are 

subjected can be expected to assure that 

sufficient phytosanitary security has 

been provided regarding this pest [i.e., 

Ecdytolopha aurantiana].’’ The 

commenter stated that the standard 

inspection we refer to no longer exists 

with the assimilation of agricultural 

inspection into the Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS). The 

commenter stated that there was a need 

to develop a better means to 

characterize and assess the ability of 

port of entry inspection to provide 

effective risk management. A second 

commenter also stated that inspection at 

the port of entry was inadequate 

because many shipments are not 

inspected thoroughly or inspected at all, 

due to the level of funding for this 

program. 

We disagree with the commenters’

contention that the quality of port 

inspections has suffered because they 

are now carried out by DHS. While DHS 

conducts a majority of inspections of 

agricultural commodities at the ports of 

first arrival, inspectors follow 

established and effective APHIS 

protocols regarding inspection rates and 

procedures. APHIS continues to work 

with DHS to ensure that the United 

States is protected against pests of 

concern that may be associated with 

agricultural imports. 

One commenter stated that larvae in 

citrus are difficult to detect, therefore, 

larvae would most likely not be found 

until the fruit had already entered into 

commerce. The commenter added that 

disease symptoms are not expressed 

until a plant or fruit nears maturity and 

that some diseases may not be detected 

in visual surveys. 

Under this proposed rule, citrus fruit 

from Peru would have to originate in 

production sites participating in Peru’s 

national fruit fly program, be inspected 

prior to export, cold treated for fruit 

flies while en route to the United States, 

and inspected at the port of entry. 

Inspection at the port of entry would 

include fruit cutting, which is required 

by the regulations in § 319.56–2d(b)(8) 

for each shipment of fruit cold treated 

for Medfly in order to monitor treatment 

effectiveness. Our experience with fruit 

cutting for clementines from Spain, as 

well as other cold treated fruit, has 

shown fruit cutting to be a very effective 

means of monitoring the effectiveness of 

cold treatment. As stated previously, 

Peru is considered to be free of the 

diseases of concern that were 

considered in the risk analysis-citrus 

canker, citrus black spot, and sweet 

orange scab. Peru’s disease surveillance 

program, which monitors the country’s 

growing areas for these diseases, has 

been in effect since 1996 and will be 

ongoing. With this program in place, we 

are confident that the detection of a 

disease outbreak would occur early, 

thus, precluding the introduction of 

diseases of concern into the United 

States. 

General Comments 

One commenter stated that registering 

groves was an inadequate mitigation 

measure because it was too difficult to 

monitor and enforce and because 

commingling of fruit from neighboring 

groves or adjacent areas was 

commonplace. 

If grove registration was to be the only 

mitigating measure employed, we could 

understand the commenter’s misgivings. 

However, grove registration is only one 

of the mitigating measures that would 

be in place. Requiring groves to register 

with Peru’s national plant protection 

organization (NPPO), the Servicio 

Nacional de Sanidad Agraria (SENASA), 

and participate in the national fruit fly 

program would allow SENASA and 

APHIS to monitor the pest situation in 

production sites which intend to ship to 

the United States and allow for an easy 

way to trace problems with a particular 

shipment. It would also ensure that 

citrus packers understand and follow 

specific safeguards when growing, 

harvesting, and packing fruit. We have 

no evidence to suggest that the 

commingling of fruit described by the 

commenter occurs in registered 

production sites. 

Another commenter stated that we 

should not rely on cold treatment alone, 

citing the interception of the 

Mediterranean fruit fly (Medfly, 

Ceratitis capitata) in Spanish 

clementines in 2002/2003 as an 

example. The commenter took issue 

with the section of the pest risk analysis 

which examined historical 

performances of existing programs, 

stating that the analysis ignores the 

circumstances by which it became 

necessary to suspend the Spanish 

clementine program in the first place. 

The efficacy of cold treatment is 

scientifically based and would mitigate 

the risk of pest introduction. As a 

general rule, APHIS has required 

treatments for fruit flies to provide 

probit 9 mortality in cases where 

treatment is the only mitigation measure 

applied against the pest of concern. 

Probit 9 refers to a level or percentage 

of mortality of target pests (i.e., 99.9968 

percent mortality or 32 survivors out of 

a million) caused by a control measure. 

This is because the level of mortality 

represented by this benchmark is 

considered extremely high and 

57208 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 189 / Friday, September 30, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

1A detailed consideration of the shortcomings 

associated with any measure that uses a fixed 

expression of proportion of mortality (such as 

probit 9) may be found in: Landolt, P., D. Chambers, 

and V. Chew. 1984. ‘‘Alternative to the use of prohit 

9 mortality as a criterion for quarantine treatments 

of fruit fly infested fruit.’’ J. Econ. Entomol. 77(2): 

285–287. 

stringent, especially when the field 

infestation rates are low.1 Under this 

proposed rule, we would require a 

treatment schedule that we are 

confident will provide a level of 

quarantine security that is equivalent to 

probit 9, but we would also require that 

fruit be consistently at low rates of 

infestation by fruit flies in order to 

ensure that there is a very low 

probability that fruit flies could survive 

cold treatment and become established 

in the United States. Maintaining fruit 

fly traps and trapping records is a 

component of Peru’s fruit fly program 

and would ensure that fruit fly 

prevalence levels remain low at 

participating groves. 

One commenter stated that the pest 

risk analysis does not address all pests 

or all possible negative consequences 

that may occur as a result of introducing 

Peruvian citrus to moderate climates 

where pests may become established. 

The commenter stated that because we 

geographically isolate areas in Peru 

where citrus may be exported, then we 

should also prohibit Peruvian citrus 

from entering areas in California where 

pests are more likely to become 

established. 

We identified all pests known to be 

associated with Peruvian citrus. Using 

available literature and pest interception 

records, we established which pests 

would most likely follow the pathway. 

Our risk analysis examined the 

likelihood of each pest becoming 

established in various parts of the 

United States based on the number and 

availability of suitable hosts and 

climates. This information was one 

component used to determine the 

overall pest risk potential and necessary 

mitigation measures. We believe that 

our proposed measures would 

effectively mitigate the risk of pest 

introduction into all areas of the United 

States. Further, we would only allow 

citrus exports from certain areas in Peru 

because those areas are part of the 

country’s ongoing fruit fly and disease 

surveillance programs. 

One commenter stated that growers in 

Peru use spray treatments for citrus 

pests extensively, indicating a heavy 

reliance on chemicals. The commenter 

contended that this could in turn lead 

to the development of strains of pests 

that are resistant to certain chemicals. 

The risk analysis examined the use of 

pesticides for commercial citrus in Peru 

and concluded that the materials used 

are consistent with citrus pest control 

recommendations in the United States. 

With the exception of Medfly, none of 

the pests targeted in the typical spray 

schedule (see table 3 in the pest risk 

analysis) are pests of quarantine 

significance likely to follow the 

pathway of imported fruit. 

One commenter stated that having the 

rule apply only to commercial 

shipments appears to assume that there 

are fewer risks associated with these 

types of shipments. The commenter 

stated that commercial shipments 

actually increase the risk of pest 

introduction due to the large volumes of 

material being imported and the 

subsequent rapid distribution of the 

product throughout the United States 

and cited several examples including 

Medfly larvae in clementines from 

Spain (2002–2003) and Anastrepha spp. 

larvae in tangerines from Mexico 

(October 2003). 

Our experience indicates that there is 

actually a lower risk of pest 

introduction associated with 

commercial shipments of fruit. 

Commercial shipments are produced 

under more controlled conditions and 

are subject to some form of treatment 

and/or other mitigation measures as a 

condition of entry. Fruit that undergoes 

such measures is less likely to be a 

vehicle for plant pests than fruit carried 

into the United States by passengers, 

which is not subject to such mitigation 

procedures. 

Risk Analysis 

We have not made any changes to the 

pest risk analysis in response to these 

comments. The pest risk analysis may 

be viewed on the EDOCKET Web site or 

in our reading room (Instructions for 

accessing EDOCKET and information on 

the location and hours of the reading 

room are provided under the heading 

ADDRESSES at the beginning of this 

document). You may also request copies 

of those documents from the person 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

Based on the evidence in the pest risk 

analysis, we believe that grapefruit, 

limes, mandarin oranges or tangerines, 

sweet oranges, and tangelos can be 

safely imported from certain geographic 

locations in Peru, provided certain 

conditions are met. Therefore, we are 

proposing to add a new § 319.56–2nn to 

the regulations to provide for the 

importation of commercial shipments of 

citrus from Peru. This proposed new 

section is explained in detail below. 

Permit 

Under paragraph (a) of the proposed 

regulations, a specific written permit 

issued in accordance with § 319.56–3 

would be required to import grapefruit, 

limes, mandarin oranges or tangerines, 

sweet oranges, and tangelos from Peru. 

Importers would be required to apply to 

the Plant Protection and Quarantine 

(PPQ) program for a permit in advance 

of the proposed shipments, stating in 

the application the country or locality of 

origin of the fruits, the port of first 

arrival, and the name and address of the 

importer in the United States to whom 

the permit should be sent. Upon receipt 

of the application and upon approval by 

an inspector, a permit would be issued 

specifying the conditions of entry, 

which will be discussed in the 

following paragraphs, and the port of 

entry. In accordance with § 319.56–4, a 

permit, once issued, could be amended 

or withdrawn by the Administrator at 

any time if it is determined that the 

importation of the fruit presents an 

unacceptable risk of introducing 

quarantine pests into the United States. 

Commercial Shipments 

Under paragraph (b) of the proposed 

regulations, we would specify that only 

commercial shipments of citrus would 

be eligible for importation into the 

United States. Commercial shipments of 

citrus fruit exported from Peru already 

follow specific post-harvest procedures 

which include dipping in a chlorine 

bath, running through roller brushes, 

treating with a fungicide, waxing, 

drying with hot air, visually inspecting 

100 percent of the fruit to determine 

which are export quality, and packing 

by hand. We believe that with such 

practices in place, in addition to the 

following phytosanitary measures, the 

risk of pest introduction into the United 

States would be mitigated. 

Approved Growing Areas 

Under paragraph (c) of the proposed 

regulations, we would require that 

imported fruit originate in one of the 

following approved citrus-producing 

zones: Zone I, Piura; Zone II, 

Lambayeque; Zone III, Lima; Zone IV, 

Ica; and Zone V, Junin. Zones I through 

IV currently produce citrus and Peru 

has identified Zone V as a potential 

location for citrus production. This 

proposed limitation on the origin of the 

fruit would ensure that the fruit was 

produced in areas where citrus disease 

surveys and fruit fly monitoring occur. 

Approved Production Sites 

Under paragraph (d) of the proposed 

regulations, all citrus production sites 

would have to be approved by and 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 189 / Friday, September 30, 2005 / Proposed Rules 57209 

registered with SENASA. Registered 

sites would be required to participate in 

Peru’s national program for fruit fly 

control, which includes trapping, 

sampling, and other integrated pest 

management activities. 

Fruit Fly Monitoring 

Paragraph (e) of the proposed 

regulations would provide that Peru’s 

fruit fly management program must be 

approved by APHIS and must require 

that citrus producers allow APHIS 

inspectors access to all production areas 

in order to monitor compliance with the 

program. All areas where citrus is 

produced for export to the United States 

would have to be monitored for fruit 

flies beginning 6 weeks prior to the 

harvest season at a rate mutually agreed 

upon by APHIS and the NPPO of Peru. 

If fruit fly trapping levels exceed the 

thresholds established by APHIS and 

the NPPO of Peru, we would suspend 

exports from that production site until 

APHIS and the NPPO of Peru conclude 

that fruit fly populations have been 

reduced to an acceptable level. Fruit fly 

traps are monitored and serviced 

weekly, thus reinstatement to the 

program would be evaluated on a 

weekly basis. We would require that the 

NPPO of Peru or its designated 

representative keep records that 

document the fruit fly trapping and 

control activities in areas that produce 

citrus for export to the United States. 

We would also require that the NPPO of 

Peru maintain records of fruit fly 

trapping and control and make these 

records available to APHIS upon 

request. In addition, fruit fly trapping 

records are available on SENASA’s Web 

site, which can be accessed by APHIS at 

any time. 

Treatment 

To address the risk presented by the 

fruit flies Anastrepha fraterculus, A. 

obliqua, A. serpentina, and Medfly, 

paragraph (f) of the proposed 

regulations would require that all fruit 

be cold treated in accordance with the 

following schedule, which is listed in 

the regulations in 7 CFR part 305 as 

T107–a–1, or irradiated in accordance 

with part 305. The following treatment 

schedule is approved for Anastrepha 

spp. and Medfly. 

Temperature Exposure 

period 

34 °F (1.11 °C) or below ............ 15 

35 °F (1.67 °C) or below ............ 17 

Phytosanitary Inspection 

The remaining pest of concern is 

Ecdytolopha aurantiana, a pest more 

commonly known as the citrus fruit 

borer. To address the risk presented by 

this pest, paragraph (g) of the proposed 

regulations would require that 

consignments be inspected prior to 

export and accompanied by a 

phytosanitary certificate with an 

additional declaration stating that the 

consignment has been inspected and 

found free of E. aurantiana. 

We believe that inspection and a 

phytosanitary certificate would 

effectively mitigate the risk of 

introducing E. aurantiana because 

evidence suggests that the adults do not 

travel long distances, decreasing the 

likelihood of their coming into contact 

with suitable hosts. In addition, E. 

aurantiana is easy to detect in visual 

inspections. 

Fruit Cutting 

As noted previously, § 319.56–

2d(b)(8) of the regulations provides that 

at the port of first arrival, an inspector 

will sample and cut fruit from each 

shipment that has been cold treated for 

Medfly to monitor treatment 

effectiveness. Because citrus from Peru 

would be cold treated for Medfly as a 

condition of entry, the port of entry 

inspection would include fruit cutting. 

Therefore, under paragraph (h) of the 

proposed regulations, we would require 

that fruit be inspected, sampled, and cut 

to monitor for treatment effectiveness at 

the port of first arrival in accordance 

with § 319.56–2d(b)(8). If a single live 

fruit fly in any stage of development or 

a single E. aurantiana is found, the 

shipment would be held until an 

investigation is completed and 

appropriate remedial actions have been 

implemented. If APHIS determines at 

any time that the prescribed cold 

treatment does not appear to be effective 

against fruit flies, APHIS may suspend 

the importation of fruit from the 

originating country and conduct an 

investigation into the cause of the 

deficiency. 

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

This proposed rule has been reviewed 

under Executive Order 12866. The rule 

has been determined to be not 

significant for the purposes of Executive 

Order 12866 and, therefore, has not 

been reviewed by the Office of 

Management and Budget. 

We are proposing to amend the fruits 

and vegetables regulations to allow the 

importation, under certain conditions, 

of fresh commercial citrus fruit 

(grapefruit, limes, mandarin oranges or 

tangerines, sweet oranges, and tangelos) 

from approved areas of Peru into the 

United States. Based on the evidence in 

a recent pest risk analysis, we believe 

these articles can be safely imported 

from Peru, provided certain conditions 

are met. This action would provide for 

the importation of citrus from Peru into 

the United States while continuing to 

protect the United States against the 

introduction of plant pests. 

Peru is not yet considered a major 

world producer of citrus, and its citrus 

industry is relatively small compared to 

neighboring countries like Brazil, 

Uruguay, and Argentina. Oranges 

account for the greatest proportion of 

citrus production in Peru (271 million 

kg), followed by lemons and limes (238 

million kg), tangerines, clementines, 

mandarins, and satsumas (132 million 

kg), and grapefruit and pomelos (30.5 

million kg) (see table 1). Peru exported 

11.3 million kg of citrus to more than 11 

countries in 2003. Five exporters in four 

packinghouses account for 98 percent of 

the total exports. 

TABLE 1.—CITRUS PRODUCTION IN PERU (2000) 

Crop Area harvested 

(hectares) 

Production 

(metric tons) 

Oranges ........................................................................................................................................................... 23,353 270,673 

Lemons and limes ........................................................................................................................................... 23,363 238,179 

Tangerine, clementine, mandarin, and satsuma ............................................................................................. 7,375 131,787 

Grapefruit and pomelos ................................................................................................................................... 1,750 30,500 

Source: World Resources Institute (2002), cited in the pest risk analysis. 

The United States produced 16.4 

million tons of citrus fruit in 2003–04, 

valued at $2.35 billion. Citrus is 

produced in Florida, California, 

Arizona, and Texas. Florida accounts for 

79 percent of U.S. citrus production and 

57210 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 189 / Friday, September 30, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

58 percent of the value of production. 

California accounts for 18 percent of 

production and 39 percent of the value 

of production, while Arizona and Texas 

together contribute 3 percent of 

production and 3 percent of the value of 

production. 

Oranges represented 79 percent of the 

volume of individual citrus crops and 

70 percent of the dollar value of 

domestic production in 2003–04 (table 

2). Grapefruit represented 13 percent, 

lemons 11 percent, tangerines 5 percent, 

and tangelos and temples less than 1 

percent of the value of production. 

Tangerines are produced in Florida 

only. Estimates for K-early citrus and 

limes have been discontinued since 

2002–03, and are therefore not available 

for 2003–04. However, in 2001–02, 

these crops represented less than 0.1 

percent of the dollar value of total citrus 

production in the United States. 

Clementines and mandarins are not 

produced in the United States in 

commercially significant quantities. 

TABLE 2.—CITRUS PRODUCTION IN THE UNITED STATES: ACREAGE, PRODUCTION, UTILIZATION, AND VALUE BY CROP

(2003–04) 

Crop 

Bearing 

acreage 

(acres) 

Production 

(1,000 tons) 

Utilization of production 

(1,000 tons) Value of 

production 

($1,000) 1

Fresh Processed 

Oranges ............................................................................... 761,400 12,930 2,179 10,751 1,645,856 

Grapefruit ............................................................................. 114,800 2,152 1,006 1,146 296,777 

Lemons ................................................................................ 59,800 798 540 258 269,753 

Tangelos .............................................................................. 8,000 45 25 20 9,871 

Tangerines 2 ......................................................................... 36,200 435 317 118 125,301 

Temples ............................................................................... 3,400 63 15 48 4,806 

K-Early Citrus (2001–02) 3 ................................................... 200 1 N/A 1 113 

Limes (2001–02) 3 ................................................................ 800 7 6 1 1,732 

Source: National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA (September 2004) (http://www.usda.gov/nass). 1Packinghouse-door equivalents. 

2Published estimates include Florida only. Estimates for 2003–04 include Fallglo, Sunburst, and Honey varieties only. 3Estimates for K-early citrus and limes have been discontinued since 2001–02 and are therefore not available for 2003–04. 

U.S. domestic shipments peak 

between October and January, gradually 

decrease from February to June, and are 

at the lowest between July and 

September. In contrast, the shipping 

season for the Peruvian citrus crops 

proposed for import into the United 

States are expected to extend from 

February to September, which is outside 

the peak shipment season for 

domestically produced oranges. For 

Peruvian oranges specifically, imports 

into the United States are mainly 

expected from June to September, when 

domestic orange shipments are at their 

lowest. Thus, the importation of 

Peruvian citrus fruits is not expected to 

compete with the production and 

shipment of U.S. domestically produced 

oranges intended for fresh utilization. 

Instead, imports of Peruvian citrus 

would provide U.S. consumers and 

importers with access to citrus fruit 

during periods when supply from 

domestic production is low, thus, 

increasing the availability of fresh citrus 

fruit throughout the year. 

U.S. imports of citrus fruits from 

northern hemisphere countries are also 

lower during this period. For example, 

Spain accounts for 25.5 percent of U.S. 

imports of citrus fruits (table 3). Citrus 

fruits from Spain are primarily imported 

into the United States from midSeptember to mid-March. Thus, 

Peruvian shipments between February 

and September would increase the 

availability of citrus fruits during the 

season when supply from both domestic 

production and imports from northern 

hemisphere countries such as Spain, 

and other countries listed in table 3, are 

low. Therefore, U.S. consumers and 

importers would benefit and potential 

negative impacts on U.S. citrus 

producers are expected to be minimal. 

In 2004, the United States imported 

478.4 million kg of citrus valued at 

$307.2 million. The major countries 

from which citrus fruit were imported 

included Mexico, Spain, South Africa, 

Australia, and Chile. Lemons and limes, 

mandarins, and oranges were the major 

products imported, and accounted for 

48 percent, 32 percent, and 19 percent 

of the value of imports, respectively. 

TABLE 3.—U.S. IMPORTS OF CITRUS FRUITS (2004) 

Commodity 

Value 

(U.S. dollars in 

millions) 

Quantity 

(million kg) 

Major countries from which citrus is imported, 

and percent share of import value 1

Lemons and limes ........................... 146.5 321.1 Mexico (88%), Chile (7.6%), Spain (2%). 

Mandarins ........................................ 99.0 77.3 Spain (76.2%), South Africa (12.6%), Australia (6.4%), Mexico (2.2%), 

Morocco (1.4%). 

Oranges ........................................... 58.8 65.7 South Africa (45.2%), Australia (42.8%), Mexico (9.1%), Dominican Republic (1.2%). 

Grapefruit ......................................... 1.6 13.8 Bahamas (68.6%), Mexico (26.0%), Canada (2.9%), Israel (2.4%). 

Other citrus fruit 2 ............................. 1.3 0.6 Jamaica (68.0%), Israel (25.1%), Italy (3.7%), Vietnam (1.2%), Morocco 

(1.2%). 

Total citrus fruits ....................... 307.2 478.4 Mexico (44.5%), Spain (25.5%), South Africa (12.9%), Australia 

(10.3%), and Chile (3.6%). 

Source: World Trade Atlas (2005) (http://www.gtis.com). 1Only countries accounting for more than 1 percent of the value of imports are included in table 3. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 189 / Friday, September 30, 2005 / Proposed Rules 57211 

2 Includes various fresh and dried citrus fruits, such as kumquats, citrons, bergamots, and Tahitian, Persian, and other limes of the Citrus 

latifolia variety. 

Peruvian exporters estimated that 

exports of citrus to the United States 

would total 5,100 metric tons (5.1 

million kg) a year. Tangerines/ 

mandarins and tangelos are expected to 

comprise 69 percent of these exports 

(table 4). The estimated volume of 5.1 

million kg of U.S. citrus imports from 

Peru would comprise a relatively 

minimal amount, compared to current 

U.S. citrus imports of 478.4 million kg, 

and U.S. domestic citrus production of 

16.42 billion kg. 

TABLE 4.—ESTIMATED ANNUAL VOLUME OF PERUVIAN CITRUS EXPORTS TO THE UNITED STATES 1

Commodity Metric tons 

Number of 

40-foot shipping 

containers 2

Tangerine/mandarin ................................................................................................................................. 2,000 100 

Tangelo .................................................................................................................................................... 1,500 75 

Key Lime .................................................................................................................................................. 600 30 

Clementine ............................................................................................................................................... 500 25 

Washington navel orange ........................................................................................................................ 300 15 

Grapefruit ................................................................................................................................................. 200 10 

Total .................................................................................................................................................. 5,100 255 

Sources: Carbonell Torres, 2003, and Cargo Systems, 2001, cited in the pest risk analysis. 

1Volumes were estimated for the year 2004. 

2A conversion factor of 20 metric tons per 40-foot shipping container is used. 

Impact on Small Entities 

According to the 2002 Census of 

Agriculture, there were 17,727 citrus 

farms in the United States in 2002. The 

U.S. Small Business Administration 

defines a small citrus producer as one 

with annual gross revenues no greater 

than $ 750,000. The USDA’s National 

Agricultural Statistics Service reported 

that 3.8 percent of U.S. fruit and tree nut 

producers accounted for 95.1 percent of 

sales in 1982, 4.2 percent of fruit and 

tree nut producers accounted for 96.2 

percent of sales in 1987, and 4.6 percent 

of fruit and tree nut producers 

accounted for 96.7 percent of sales in 

1992. These data indicate that the 

majority of U.S. citrus producers are 

small entities. 

The economic analysis suggests that 

Peruvian imports would not 

significantly compete with domestic 

citrus production because the imports 

would be shipped largely during the offseason for U.S. production of these 

fruits. Although the Peruvian imports 

are expected to overlap with some 

domestic orange shipments such as 

Valencia oranges, the volume to be 

imported would be expected to be a 

small percentage of the total U.S. orange 

shipments during the importing months. 

Thus, given the difference in marketing 

seasons and the relatively small volume 

of citrus imports from Peru, the 

proposed rule would not likely 

adversely impact domestic citrus 

producers, large or small. 

The proposed rule would likely 

benefit importers of citrus fruits. The 

number of importers that can be 

classified as small is not known. 

However, the rule would likely benefit, 

rather than adversely impact, small 

entities in these industries, which 

include: Fresh fruit and vegetable 

wholesalers with no more than 100 

employees, NAICS 422480; wholesalers 

and other grocery stores with annual 

gross revenues no greater than $23 

million, NAICS 445110; warehouse 

clubs and superstores with annual gross 

revenues no greater than $23 million, 

NAICS 452910; and fruit and vegetable 

markets with gross revenues no greater 

than $6 million, NAICS 445230. 

Consumers would also likely benefit 

through the increased availability of 

fresh citrus fruit during the months 

when shipments from domestic sources, 

and imports from Northern Hemisphere 

countries such as Spain, and other 

countries listed in table 3, are low. 

Under these circumstances, the 

Administrator of the Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service has 

determined that this action would not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Executive Order 12988 

This proposed rule would allow 

grapefruit, limes, mandarin oranges or 

tangerines, sweet oranges, and tangelos 

to be imported into the United States 

from Peru. If this proposed rule is 

adopted, State and local laws and 

regulations regarding grapefruit, limes, 

mandarin oranges or tangerines, sweet 

oranges, and tangelos imported under 

this rule would be preempted while the 

fruit is in foreign commerce. Fresh fruits 

are generally imported for immediate 

distribution and sale to the consuming 

public and would remain in foreign 

commerce until sold to the ultimate 

consumer. The question of when foreign 

commerce ceases in other cases must be 

addressed on a case-by-case basis. If this 

proposed rule is adopted, no retroactive 

effect will be given to this rule, and this 

rule will not require administrative 

proceedings before parties may file suit 

in court challenging this rule. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

To provide the public with 

documentation of APHIS’ review and 

analysis of any potential environmental 

impacts associated with the importation 

of commercial citrus from Peru, we have 

prepared an environmental assessment. 

The environmental assessment was 

prepared in accordance with: (1) The 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (NEPA), as amended (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). 

The environmental assessment may 

be viewed on the EDOCKET Web site or 

in our reading room. (Instructions for 

accessing EDOCKET and information on 

the location and hours of the reading 

room are provided under the heading 

ADDRESSES at the beginning of this 

proposed rule). In addition, copies may 

be obtained by calling or writing to the 

individual listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

57212 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 189 / Friday, September 30, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

In accordance with section 3507(d) of 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the information 

collection or recordkeeping 

requirements included in this proposed 

rule have been submitted for approval to 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB). Please send written comments 

to the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attention: 

Desk Officer for APHIS, Washington, DC 

20503. Please state that your comments 

refer to Docket No. 03–113–2. Please 

send a copy of your comments to: (1) 

Docket No. 03–113–2, Regulatory 

Analysis and Development, PPD, 

APHIS, Station 3C71, 4700 River Road 

Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737–1238, 

and (2) Clearance Officer, OCIO, USDA, 

room 404–W, 14th Street and 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20250. A comment to 

OMB is best assured of having its full 

effect if OMB receives it within 30 days 

of publication of this proposed rule. 

Under this proposed rule, we would 

add provisions for the importation of 

citrus from Peru. The proposed 

measures would require the production 

site where the fruit is grown to be 

registered for export with the NPPO of 

Peru and the producer to have signed an 

agreement with the NPPO of Peru 

whereby the producer agrees to 

participate in and follow the fruit fly 

management program established by the 

NPPO of Peru. 

The NPPO of Peru or its designated 

representative would also have to keep 

records that document the fruit fly 

trapping and control activities in areas 

that produce citrus for export to the 

United States. All trapping and control 

records kept by the NPPO of Peru or its 

designated representative would have to 

be made available to APHIS upon 

request. 

In addition, the proposed rule would 

require each shipment of fruit to be 

accompanied by a phytosanitary 

certificate issued by the NPPO of Peru 

stating that the fruit has been inspected 

and found free of Ecdytolopha 

aurantiana. 

We are soliciting comments from the 

public (as well as affected agencies) 

concerning our proposed information 

collection and recordkeeping 

requirements. These comments will 

help us: 

(1) Evaluate whether the proposed 

information collection is necessary for 

the proper performance of our agency’s 

functions, including whether the 

information will have practical utility; 

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our 

estimate of the burden of the proposed 

information collection, including the 

validity of the methodology and 

assumptions used; 

(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and 

(4) Minimize the burden of the 

information collection on those who are 

to respond (such as through the use of 

appropriate automated, electronic, 

mechanical, or other technological 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology; e.g., permitting 

electronic submission of responses). 

Estimate of burden: Public reporting 

burden for this collection of information 

is estimated to average 27.7727 hours 

per response. 

Respondents: Citrus growers/grove 

registrants, Peru’s NPPO. 

Estimated annual number of 

respondents: 20. 

Estimated annual number of 

responses per respondent: 5.5. 

Estimated annual number of 

responses: 110. 

Estimated total annual burden on 

respondents: 3,055 hours. (Due to 

averaging, the total annual burden hours 

may not equal the product of the annual 

number of responses multiplied by the 

reporting burden per response.) 

Copies of this information collection 

can be obtained from Mrs. Celeste 

Sickles, APHIS’ Information Collection 

Coordinator, at (301) 734–7477. 

Government Paperwork Elimination 

Act Compliance 

The Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service is committed to 

compliance with the Government 

Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA), 

which requires Government agencies in 

general to provide the public the option 

of submitting information or transacting 

business electronically to the maximum 

extent possible. For information 

pertinent to GPEA compliance related to 

this proposed rule, please contact Mrs. 

Celeste Sickles, APHIS’ Information 

Collection Coordinator, at (301) 734–

7477. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 319 

Coffee, Cotton, Fruits, Imports, Logs, 

Nursery stock, Plant diseases and pests, 

Quarantine, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Rice, 

Vegetables. 

Accordingly, 7 CFR part 319 would be 

amended 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. 450 and 7701–7772; 21 

U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 

371.3. 

2. A new § 319.56–2nn would be 

added to read as follows: 

§ 319.56–2nn Conditions governing the 

importation of citrus from Peru. 

Grapefruit (Citrus paradisi), limes (C. 

aurantiifolia), mandarins or tangerines 

(C. reticulata), sweet oranges (C. 

sinensis), and tangelos (Citrus tangelo) 

may be imported into the United States 

from Peru under the following 

conditions: 

(a) The fruit must be accompanied by 

a specific written permit issued in 

accordance with § 319.56–3. 

(b) The fruit may be imported in 

commercial shipments only. 

(c) Approved growing areas. The fruit 

must be grown in one of the following 

approved citrus-producing zones: Zone 

I, Piura; Zone II, Lambayeque; Zone III, 

Lima; Zone IV, Ica; and Zone V, Junin. 

(d) Grower registration and 

agreement. The production site where 

the fruit is grown must be registered for 

export with the national plant 

protection organization (NPPO) of Peru, 

and the producer must have signed an 

agreement with the NPPO of Peru 

whereby the producer agrees to 

participate in and follow the fruit fly 

management program established by the 

NPPO of Peru. 

(e) Management program for fruit 

flies; monitoring. The NPPO of Peru’s 

fruit fly management program must be 

approved by APHIS, and must require 

that participating citrus producers allow 

APHIS inspectors access to production 

areas in order to monitor compliance 

with the fruit fly management program. 

The fruit fly management program must 

also provide for the following: 

(1) Trapping and control. In areas 

where citrus is produced for export to 

the United States, traps must be placed 

in fruit fly host plants at least 6 weeks 

prior to harvest at a rate mutually agreed 

upon by APHIS and the NPPO of Peru. 

If fruit fly trapping levels at a 

production site exceed the thresholds 

established by APHIS and the NPPO of 

Peru, exports from that production site 

will be suspended until APHIS and the 

NPPO of Peru conclude that fruit fly 

population levels have been reduced to 

an acceptable limit. Fruit fly traps are 

monitored weekly; therefore, 

reinstatements of production sites will 

be evaluated on a weekly basis. 

(2) Records. The NPPO of Peru or its 

designated representative must keep 

records that document the fruit fly 

trapping and control activities in areas 

that produce citrus for export to the 

United States. All trapping and control 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 189 / Friday, September 30, 2005 / Proposed Rules 57213 

records kept by the NPPO of Peru or its 

designated representative must be made 

available to APHIS upon request. 

(f) Cold treatment. The fruit must be 

cold treated for Anastrepha fraterculus, 

A. obliqua, A. serpentina, and Ceratitis 

capitata (Mediterranean fruit fly) in 

accordance with part 305 of this 

chapter. 

(g) Phytosanitary inspection. Each 

consignment of fruit must be 

accompanied by a phytosanitary 

certificate issued by the NPPO of Peru 

stating that the fruit has been inspected 

and found free of Ecdytolopha 

aurantiana. 

(h) Port of first arrival sampling. 

Citrus fruits imported from Peru are 

subject to inspection by an inspector at 

the port of first arrival into the United 

States in accordance with § 319.56–

2d(b)(8). At the port of first arrival, an 

inspector will sample and cut citrus 

fruits from each shipment to detect pest 

infestation. If a single live fruit fly in 

any stage of development or a single E. 

aurantiana is found, the shipment will 

be held until an investigation is 

completed and appropriate remedial 

actions have been implemented. 

Done in Washington, DC, this 27th day of 

September 2005. 

W. Ron DeHaven, 

Administrator, Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 05–19574 Filed 9–29–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–U 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2005–22558; Directorate 

Identifier 2005–NM–107–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Cessna 

Model 500, 550, S550, 560, 560XL, and 

750 Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a 

new airworthiness directive (AD) for 

certain Cessna Model 500, 550, S550, 

560, 560XL, and 750 airplanes. This 

proposed AD would require installing 

identification sleeves on the wires for 

the positive and negative terminal studs 

of the engine and/or auxiliary power 

unit (APU) fire extinguishing bottles, as 

applicable, and re-connecting the wires 

to the correct terminal studs. This 

proposed AD results from a report of 

mis-wired fire extinguishing bottles. We 

are proposing this AD to ensure that the 

fire extinguishing bottles are activated 

in the event of an engine or APU fire, 

and that flammable fluids are not 

supplied during a fire, which could 

result in an unextinguished fire in the 

nacelle or APU. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by November 14, 

2005. 

ADDRESSES: Use one of the following 

addresses to submit comments on this 

proposed AD. 

• DOT Docket Web site: Go to 

http://dms.dot.gov and follow the 

instructions for sending your comments 

electronically. 

• Government-wide rulemaking Web 

site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov 

and follow the instructions for sending 

your comments electronically. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 

Seventh Street SW., Nassif Building, 

Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

• Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on 

the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 

400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, 

DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

Contact Cessna Aircraft Co., P.O. Box 

7706, Wichita, Kansas 67277, for the 

service information identified in this 

proposed AD. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert D. Adamson, Aerospace 

Engineer, Systems and Propulsion 

Branch, ACE–116W, FAA, Wichita 

Aircraft Certification Office, 1801 

Airport Road, Room 100, Mid-Continent 

Airport, Wichita, Kansas 67209; 

telephone (316) 946–4145; fax (316) 

946–4107. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to submit any relevant 

written data, views, or arguments 

regarding this proposed AD. Include the 

docket number ‘‘FAA–2005–22558; 

Directorate Identifier 2005–NM–107–

AD’’ at the beginning of your comments. 

We specifically invite comments on the 

overall regulatory, economic, 

environmental, and energy aspects of 

the proposed AD. We will consider all 

comments received by the closing date 

and may amend the proposed AD in 

light of those comments. 

We will post all comments we 

receive, without change, to http:// 

dms.dot.gov, including any personal 

information you provide. We will also 

post a report summarizing each 

substantive verbal contact with FAA 

personnel concerning this proposed AD. 

Using the search function of that web 

site, anyone can find and read the 

comments in any of our dockets, 

including the name of the individual 

who sent the comment (or signed the 

comment on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 

19477–78), or you may visit http:// 

dms.dot.gov. 

Examining the Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov, or in 

person at the Docket Management 

Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. The Docket 

Management Facility office (telephone 

(800) 647–5227) is located on the plaza 

level of the Nassif Building at the DOT 

street address stated in the ADDRESSES

section. Comments will be available in 

the AD docket shortly after the Docket 

Management System receives them. 

Discussion 

We have received a report indicating 

that the auxiliary power unit (APU) fire 

extinguishing system was mis-wired on 

some Cessna Model 750 airplanes. 

Although the main engine fire 

extinguishing system on all Cessna 

Model 750 airplanes is wired correctly, 

further investigation revealed that the 

fire extinguishing systems on the main 

engines of Cessna Model 500, 550, S550, 

560 airplanes, and on the main engines 

and APUs of Cessna Model 560XL 

airplanes may not be wired correctly. 

Therefore, all of these models may be 

subject to the same or similar unsafe 

condition found on the Cessna Model 

750 APU installation. The engine and 

APU fire extinguishing bottles on these 

airplane models have positive and 

negative terminal studs that are the 

same size, so it is possible to crossconnect the wiring of the positive and 

negative leads. If the wiring is crossconnected and the fire extinguishing 

bottles are activated, the circuit breaker 

may trip due to the direct ground on the 

positive lead, and no fire extinguishing 

agent would be expelled. In addition, 

with the exception of the Model 750 

APU installation, the tripped circuit 

breaker removes power from the fuel 

and hydraulic firewall shutoff valves, 

which are powered closed from a 

normally open state, and from the 

associated cockpit indications. As a 

result, flammable fluids could continue 

to be supplied to the area during a fire. 

It should be noted that the APU