This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains regulatory documents having general

applicability and legal effect, most of which

are keyed to and codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations, which is published under

50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by

the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of

new books are listed in the first FEDERAL

REGISTER issue of each week.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

57121 

Vol. 70, No. 189 

Friday, September 30, 2005 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

7 CFR Part 301 

[Docket No. 04–127–2] 

West Indian Fruit Fly; Regulated 

Articles 

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 West Indian fruit fly 

regulations by removing grapefruit, 

sweet lime, sour orange, and sweet 

orange from the list of regulated articles. 

A review of available scientific 

literature and other information led us 

to conclude that these citrus fruits do 

not present a risk of spreading West 

Indian fruit fly. This action affirms the 

elimination of restrictions on the 

interstate movement of these citrus 

fruits from areas quarantined because of 

the West Indian fruit fly. 

DATES: The interim rule became 

effective on April 26, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Wayne D. Burnett, National Program 

Manager, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road, 

Unit 134, Riverdale, MD 20737–1236; 

(301) 734–4387. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The West Indian fruit fly regulations, 

contained in 7 CFR 301.98 through 

301.98–10 (referred to below as the 

regulations), restrict the interstate 

movement of regulated articles from 

quarantined areas to prevent the spread 

of West Indian fruit fly (Anastrepha 

obliqua) to noninfested areas of the 

United States. Regulated articles are 

listed in § 301.98–2, and quarantined 

areas are listed in § 301.98–3(c). There 

are currently no areas in the continental 

United States quarantined for the West 

Indian fruit fly. 

In an interim rule effective and 

published in the Federal Register on 

April 26, 2005 (70 FR 21325–21326, 

Docket No. 04–127–1), we amended the 

regulations by removing grapefruit, 

sweet lime, sour orange, and sweet 

orange from the list of regulated articles 

for West Indian fruit fly because the 

available information indicates that 

these fruit do not present a risk of 

spreading West Indian fruit fly. 

Comments on the interim rule were 

required to be received on or before June 

27, 2005. We received one comment by 

that date. The commenter—a State 

government official—raised several 

issues, which are addressed below. 

First, the commenter stated that the 

literature and record review used as the 

basis of the interim rule not only 

provides weak support for removing 

Citrus spp. as a host of West Indian fruit 

fly, but actually substantiates Citrus 

spp. as an occasional host. We disagree 

with this comment. The literature 

review examined nine papers that were 

based on original research and that 

supported Citrus spp. as a host to West 

Indian fruit fly. A detailed evaluation of 

these papers’ quality led APHIS to 

conclude that the evidence supported 

only a low likelihood that Citrus spp. 

are a host. After conducting this review 

and examining the multi-year 

interception data included in the report, 

we do not believe that the low 

likelihood of Citrus spp. being a host is 

sufficient to support the continued 

listing of these fruits as regulated 

articles. 

Second, the commenter stated that 

without formal regulations for West 

Indian fruit fly and with the lack of a 

sensitive and effective detection trap, a 

serious threat is posed for too many 

commercial and dooryard hosts in 

Florida, including mango, guava, 

carambola, avocado, pear, peach, and 

other tropical fruits. We are making no 

changes based on this comment. The 

interim rule did not remove all of the 

regulations for West Indian fruit fly. 

Instead, the interim rule simply 

removed four articles—grapefruit, sweet 

lime, sour orange, and sweet orange— 

from the list of regulated articles; the 

remaining provisions of the regulations 

will remain intact. In addition, we will 

continue using our current detection 

system, which has proven to be an 

effective method for determining if a 

population of fruit flies exists. 

Third, the commenter stated that the 

interception records cited do not 

provide reliable data either due to 

inadequate identification of specimens 

or a low interception rate of hosts. The 

commenter stated that over 3,000 

Anastrepha spp. larvae per year were 

intercepted over the period listed in 

Table 1 of the literature review, which 

identifies a high rate of risk. We are 

unclear on the source and context of the 

number cited by the commenter. Table 

1 in the literature review presented 

interception data from the Greater and 

Lesser Antilles. Of 17,258 interceptions, 

only 8 interceptions were reported as 

occurring in Citrus spp. Upon a closer 

review of these eight reports, most were 

deemed invalid as proof of infestation— 

three were reported as on fruit (not in 

fruit), two were listed as adults, one was 

listed as on leaves, and one was from 

citrus obtained in Haiti and intended for 

use as on-board food on an airline flight 

that departed from Haiti. The final 

interception could have been 

Anastrepha suspensa, as this pest is 

known to use Citrus spp. as a host and 

Anastrepha obliqua larvae can not be 

reliably differentiated from Anastrepha 

suspensa larvae using keys. Given this 

analysis, the evidence supported a 

conclusion of low likelihood of the host 

status of Citrus spp. 

Finally, the commenter called for 

additional data and scientific 

justification for the change in the 

regulations and suggested that an 

interactive risk assessment be 

conducted by APHIS in concert with 

certain concerned and affected States 

before further action is taken. We are 

making no changes based on this 

comment. We continue to believe that 

the information contained in the 

literature review provides a sufficient 

basis for our determination that there is 

only a low likelihood that Citrus spp. 

would be a host to West Indian fruit fly. 

If more research regarding this topic is 

published, we may reevaluate the host 

status of Citrus spp. with respect to 

West Indian fruit fly. 

Therefore, for the reasons given in the 

interim rule and in this document, we 

are adopting the interim rule as a final 

rule without change. 

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