57122 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 189 / Friday, September 30, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

This action also affirms the 

information contained in the interim 

rule concerning Executive Order 12866 

and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 

Executive Orders 12372 and 12988, and 

the Paperwork Reduction Act. 

Further, for this action, the Office of 

Management and Budget has waived its 

review under Executive Order 12866. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 301 

Agricultural commodities, Plant 

diseases and pests, Quarantine, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Transportation. 

PART 301—DOMESTIC QUARANTINE 

NOTICES 

■ Accordingly, we are adopting as a 

final rule, without change, the interim 

rule that amended 7 CFR part 301 and 

that was published at 70 FR 21325–

21326 on April 26, 2005. 

Done in Washington, DC, this 26th day of 

September 2005. 

Elizabeth E. Gaston, 

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 05–19576 Filed 9–29–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

7 CFR Part 301 

[Docket No. 02–129–5] 

Mexican Fruit Fly; Quarantined Areas 

and Treatments for Regulated Articles 

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Affirmation of interim rules as 

final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are adopting as a final 

rule, without change, an interim rule 

that amended the Mexican fruit fly 

regulations to provide for the use of 

irradiation as a treatment for fruits listed 

as regulated articles. We are also 

adopting as a final rule, without change, 

an interim rule that amended those 

regulations by removing a portion of 

San Diego County, CA, from the list of 

quarantined areas. Those interim rules 

were necessary to provide an additional 

option for qualifying regulated articles 

for movement from quarantined areas 

and to relieve restrictions that were no 

longer needed to prevent the spread of 

Mexican fruit fly to noninfested areas of 

the United States. 

DATES: The interim rules became 

effective on February 20, 2003, and 

October 22, 2003. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Wayne Burnett, National Fruit Fly 

Program Manager, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 

River Road Unit 134, Riverdale, MD 

20737–1236; (301) 734–4387. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Mexican fruit fly (Anastrepha 

ludens) is a destructive pest of citrus 

and many other types of fruit. The short 

life cycle of the Mexican fruit fly allows 

rapid development of serious outbreaks 

that can cause severe economic losses in 

commercial citrus-producing areas. 

The Mexican fruit fly regulations, 

contained in 7 CFR 301.64 through 

301.64–10 (referred to below as the 

regulations), were established to prevent 

the spread of the Mexican fruit fly to 

noninfested areas of the United States. 

The regulations impose restrictions on 

the interstate movement of regulated 

articles from quarantined areas. 

In an interim rule effective January 

15, 2003, and published in the Federal 

Register on January 21, 2003 (68 FR 

2679–2680, Docket No. 02–129–1), we 

amended the regulations in § 301.64–3 

by designating a portion of San Diego 

County, CA, as a quarantined area for 

Mexican fruit fly. That action was 

necessary to prevent the spread of the 

Mexican fruit fly to noninfested areas of 

the United States. 

We solicited comments concerning 

the interim rule for 60 days ending 

March 24, 2003. We received five 

comments by that date. They were from 

fruit and vegetable producers and an 

individual. 

One commenter supported the interim 

rule. The remaining commenters raised 

questions about the location of the 

boundary lines for the quarantined area, 

arguing that the boundary lines were 

beyond what was necessary for 

quarantine purposes and requesting that 

the lines be reexamined and redrawn. 

The process for establishing 

quarantine boundaries is based on our 

experience and scientific information 

concerning the Mexican fruit fly’s life 

cycle and its ability to spread, both 

naturally and by artificial means. For 

operational and quarantine enforcement 

reasons, boundaries often follow easily 

identifiable markers, such as major 

roads or other county and city lines. We 

remain sensitive to the needs of 

producers and make every effort to 

minimize quarantined areas. Currently, 

Mexican fruit fly has been eradicated 

from the designated part of San Diego 

County, CA, and there are no longer any 

areas in California quarantined for the 

Mexican fruit fly. 

In a second interim rule effective 

February 20, 2003, and published in the 

Federal Register on February 26, 2003 

(68 FR 8817–8820, Docket No. 02–129–

2), we amended the regulations in 

§ 301.64–10 to provide for the use of 

irradiation as a treatment for fruits that 

are regulated articles. That change 

provided an additional option for 

qualifying those regulated articles for 

interstate movement from areas 

quarantined because of Mexican fruit 

fly. 

We solicited comments concerning 

the interim rule for 60 days ending 

April 28, 2003. We received three 

comments by that date. They were from 

State and Federal government 

representatives and an individual. 

One commenter supported the interim 

rule, and suggested that we should also 

consider allowing the use of irradiation 

as a treatment option for all fruit 

imported into the United States from 

Mexico to mitigate the risk posed by 

Mexican fruit fly. 

In the regulations governing the 

importation of fruits and vegetables 

(Subpart—Fruits and Vegetables, 7 CFR 

319.56 through 319.56–6), § 319.56–2(k) 

provides that any fruit or vegetable that 

is required to be treated or subjected to 

other growing or inspection 

requirements to control one or more of 

the 11 species of fruit flies and one 

species of seed weevil listed in 7 CFR 

305.31(a) as a condition of entry into the 

United States may instead be treated by 

irradiation in accordance with part 305. 

The Mexican fruit fly is among the 11 

species of fruit flies listed in § 305.31(a), 

so irradiation is already an option for 

any fruits or vegetables imported from 

Mexico that are required to be treated or 

subjected to other measures to control 

Mexican fruit fly. 

Another commenter stated that the 

minimum absorbed treatment dose 

should be reduced from 150 gray to 70 

gray, since some fruits may suffer 

damage as a result of higher dosimetry. 

In a proposed rule published in the 

Federal Register on June 10, 2005 (70 

FR 33857-33873, Docket No. 03–077–1), 

we proposed, among other things, to 

reduce the approved irradiation dose for 

Mexican fruit fly to 70 gray, consistent 

with the commenter’s recommendation. 

We are currently considering the 

comments received on that proposed 

rule and will finalize the 70 gray dose 

and the other proposed provisions of 

that document if our review of the 

comments leads us to conclude such 

action is appropriate. 

The same commenter also pointed out 

that the addresses we provided in 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 189 / Friday, September 30, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 57123 

§ 301.64–10 for the submission of 

cartons for approval and for the 

submission of requests for approval of 

an irradiation treatment facility and 

treatment protocol were out of date. 

Those addresses were updated in 

another final rule that amended 

§ 310.64–10, so the changes suggested 

by the commenter are no longer 

necessary. 

Another commenter pointed out that, 

as written, the packaging and labeling 

requirements found in § 301.64–10(g)(3) 

would apply only to fruit treated within 

a quarantined area. The commenter 

stated that information relative to 

treatment verification and product 

origin must be provided regardless of 

where the treatment was conducted. 

The packaging requirements of 

§ 301.64–10(g)(3) are intended to 

prevent fruit flies from entering the 

cartons and ovipositing on the fruit after 

it has been treated and is being moved 

out of a treatment facility in a 

quarantined area. That same risk of 

oviposition would not be present if the 

treatment facility was located outside a 

quarantined area, i.e., in an area where 

Mexican fruit fly was not present; in 

such instances, an inspector would 

ensure, through a compliance 

agreement, that safeguards were applied 

to prevent the escape of fruit flies from 

the fruit as it was being moved from the 

quarantined area into the nonquarantined area for treatment. With 

respect to the labeling requirements of 

paragraph (g)(3) as they apply to fruit 

treated outside a quarantined area, the 

same compliance agreement would 

provide that packaging must be labeled 

with treatment lot numbers, packing 

and treatment facility identification and 

location, and dates of packing and 

treatment. 

In a third interim rule effective March 

4, 2003, and published in the Federal 

Register on March 10, 2003 (68 FR 

11311–11313, Docket No. 02–129–3), we 

amended the regulations in § 301.64–3 

by designating an additional portion of 

San Diego County, CA, as a quarantined 

area for Mexican fruit fly. This action 

was necessary to prevent the spread of 

the Mexican fruit fly to noninfested 

areas of the United States. 

We solicited comments concerning 

the interim rule for 60 days ending May 

9, 2003. We received one comment by 

that date, from an individual. The 

commenter stated that the interim rule 

attempted to bypass the requirements of 

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

601 et seq.) based on its designation of 

the spread of the Mexican fruit fly as an 

emergency situation and failed to take 

into consideration potentially more 

efficient methods of preventing the 

spread of the fruit fly (e.g., pesticides). 

In this case, the requirements of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act were not 

bypassed, but simply deferred, 

consistent with the provisions of that 

act, due to the need to implement the 

quarantine and movement restrictions 

on an emergency basis in order to 

prevent the spread of the Mexican fruit 

fly into noninfested areas of the United 

States. With respect to our consideration 

of alternatives such as pesticides, we 

note that the action taken in the interim 

rule was merely one aspect of a 

multifaceted State/Federal response to 

the Mexican fruit fly outbreak in San 

Diego County, CA. In addition to the 

designation of the quarantined area and 

the resulting restrictions on the 

movement of regulated articles, a variety 

of inspections, trapping and delimiting 

surveys, premises treatments, and other 

activities were undertaken to prevent 

Mexican fruit fly from spreading to 

noninfested areas and to ensure that the 

pest was eradicated from the 

quarantined area. 

Noting that the regulations in 

§§ 301.64 and 301.64–5 provide that any 

properly identified inspector is 

authorized to stop and inspect persons 

and means of conveyance, and to seize, 

quarantine, treat, apply other remedial 

measures to, destroy, or otherwise 

dispose of regulated articles, the 

commenter stated that there was ‘‘a 

great risk of abuse of that authority.’’

Because of that perceived risk, the 

commenter stated that there should be 

checks and balances on the authority of 

inspectors. 

Given that the action taken in the 

March 2003 interim rule was limited to 

amending § 301.64–3 to designate of a 

portion of San Diego County, CA, as a 

quarantined area, we believe that this 

comment falls outside the scope of that 

rulemaking. 

In a fourth interim rule effective 

October 22, 2003, and published in the 

Federal Register on October 28, 2003 

(68 FR 61323–61324, Docket No. 02–

129–4), we removed San Diego County, 

CA, from the list of quarantined areas 

and thus removed restrictions on the 

interstate movement of regulated 

articles from that area. That action was 

based on our determination that the 

Mexican fruit fly had been eradicated 

from San Diego County, CA, and was 

necessary to relieve restrictions that 

were no longer needed to prevent the 

spread of the Mexican fruit fly into 

noninfested areas of the United States. 

We solicited comments concerning 

the interim rule for 60 days ending 

December 29, 2003. We did not receive 

any comments. 

Therefore, for the reasons given in the 

interim rules and in this document, we 

are adopting the February 2003 and 

October 2003 interim rules as a final 

rule without change. 

This action also affirms the 

information contained in the interim 

rules concerning Executive Orders 

12866, 12372, and 12988 and the 

Paperwork Reduction Act. 

Further, for this action, the Office of 

Management and Budget has waived its 

review under Executive Order 12866. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

This rule follows a series of interim 

rules that amended the Mexican fruit fly 

regulations by designating portions of 

San Diego County, CA, as quarantined 

areas, then subsequently removing those 

portions of the county from the list of 

quarantined areas. In another interim 

rule in that series, we provided for the 

use of irradiation as a treatment for 

fruits listed as regulated articles. In the 

October 2003 interim rule in which we 

removed those portions of San Diego 

County, CA, from the list of quarantined 

areas, we addressed the economic 

effects of the interim rules that dealt 

with quarantined areas. The following 

analysis examines the economic effects 

associated with the February 2003 

interim rule adding irradiation as a 

treatment for regulated articles. 

The small entities most likely to have 

been affected by our addition of 

irradiation as an approved treatment for 

fruits listed as regulated articles would 

be those entities that moved regulated 

articles interstate from the quarantined 

area. We expect that those entities 

would have benefited from the 

availability of an additional treatment 

alternative, especially in any case where 

irradiation treatment may have been less 

time-consuming or less expensive than 

the other treatment options available 

(cold treatment, methyl bromide 

fumigation, and high-temperature forced 

air). 

We do not know how many producers 

or shippers availed themselves of the 

irradiation treatment option, but we 

have no evidence to suggest that the cost 

or time differential between irradiation 

and the other available treatment 

options is substantial enough to have 

had any significant economic effects for 

any entities, large or small. 

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. 

57124 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 189 / Friday, September 30, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 301 

Agricultural commodities, Plant 

diseases and pests, Quarantine, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Transportation. 

PART 301—DOMESTIC QUARANTINE 

NOTICES 

■ Accordingly, we are adopting as a 

final rule, without change, the interim 

rules that amended 7 CFR part 301 and 

that were published at 68 FR 8817–8820 

on February 26, 2003, and 68 FR 61323–

61324 on October 28, 2003. 

Done in Washington, DC, this 26th day of 

September 2005. 

Elizabeth E. Gaston, 

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 05–19575 Filed 9–29–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Economic Development Administration 

13 CFR Chapter III 

[Docket No.: 050729210–5250–02] 

RIN 0610–AA63 

Economic Development Administration 

Reauthorization Act of 2004 

Implementation; Regulatory Revision 

AGENCY: Economic Development 

Administration, Department of 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule; delay of effective 

date of certain provisions and extension 

of public comment period. 

SUMMARY: On August 11, 2005, the 

Economic Development Administration 

(‘‘EDA’’) published an interim final rule 

in the Federal Register. This final rule 

delays the effective date of certain 

provisions in the interim final rule from 

October 1, 2005 until November 14, 

2005. This final rule also extends the 

deadline for submitting public 

comments on the interim final rule from 

October 11, 2005 until November 14, 

2005. The delay in effective date and the 

extension of the public comment period 

are necessary to provide additional time 

for the submission of public comments 

and to allow for EDA’s additional 

consideration of matters pertaining to 

the effective implementation of the 

interim final rule. Capitalized terms 

used but not otherwise defined in this 

final rule have the meanings ascribed to 

them in the interim final rule. 

DATES: The effective date of the 

following provisions of the interim final 

rule is delayed from October 1, 2005 

until November 14, 2005: (i) Section 

304.2(c)(2), pertaining to membership of 

a District Organization’s governing 

body; and (ii) Section 301.4, as the 

provisions of this section relate to 

Investment Rates for EDA Planning 

Investments. The deadline for 

submitting public comments on the 

interim final rule is extended from 5 

p.m. (e.s.t.) on October 11, 2005 until 5 

p.m. (e.s.t.) on November 14, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Office of Chief Counsel, Economic 

Development Administration, 

Department of Commerce, Room 7005, 

1401 Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–4687. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EDA 

published an interim final rule in the 

Federal Register (70 FR 47002) on 

August 11, 2005. The interim final rule 

reflects the amendments made to EDA’s 

authorizing statute, the Public Works 

and Economic Development Act of 1965 

(42 U.S.C. 3121 et seq.) (‘‘PWEDA’’), by 

the Economic Development 

Reauthorization Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 

108–373). In addition to tracking the 

statutory amendments to PWEDA, the 

interim final rule reflects EDA’s current 

practices and policies in administering 

its economic development programs 

that have evolved since the 

promulgation of EDA’s current 

regulations (codified at 13 CFR Chapter 

III). The interim final rule also provides 

for a public comment period. 

This final rule delays the effective 

date of the provisions specified above 

relating to EDA’s Planning Investments, 

Investment Rates for Planning 

Investments, and District Organizations 

from October 1, 2005 until November 

14, 2005. The effective date of all other 

provisions of the interim final rule 

remains October 1, 2005. This final rule 

also extends the deadline for submitting 

public comments on the entire interim 

final rule from 5 p.m. (e.s.t.) on October 

11, 2005 until 5 p.m. (e.s.t.) on 

November 14, 2005. The procedure for 

filing public comments is set forth in 

the interim final rule and is not changed 

by this final rule. The delay in effective 

date and the extension of the public 

comment period are necessary to 

provide additional time for the 

submission of public comments and to 

allow for EDA’s additional 

consideration of matters pertaining to 

the effective implementation of the 

interim final rule. 

Classification 

Prior notice and opportunity for 

public comment are not required for 

rules concerning public property, loans, 

grants, benefits, and contracts (5 U.S.C. 

553(a)(2)). Because prior notice and an 

opportunity for public comment are not 

required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 or any 

other law, the analytical requirements of 

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

601 et seq.) are inapplicable. Therefore, 

a regulatory flexibility analysis has not 

been prepared. 

Executive Order No. 12866 

It has been determined that this final 

rule is not significant for purposes of 

Executive Order 12866. 

Congressional Review Act 

This final rule is not ‘‘major’’ under 

the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 

801 et seq.). 

Executive Order No. 13132 

Executive Order 13132 requires 

agencies to develop an accountable 

process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and 

timely input by State and local officials 

in the development of regulatory 

policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 

Executive Order 13132 to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on the 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.’’ It has 

been determined that this final rule does 

not contain policies that have 

federalism implications. 

Dated: September 28, 2005. 

Benjamin Erulkar, 

Chief Counsel, Economic Development 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 05–19705 Filed 9–29–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–24–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2005–22413; Directorate 

Identifier 2005–NM–167–AD; Amendment 

39–14271; AD 2005–19–06] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing 

Model 747–100, 747–100B, 747–100B 

SUD, 747–200B, 747–200C, 747–200F, 

747–300, 747SR, and 747SP Series 

Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule; correction.