Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 12, 2005 / Proposed Rules 59283 

1The pest risk assessment, titled ‘‘Importation of 

Fresh Pepper Fruit with Stems (Capsicum annuum 

L., C. frutescens L., C. baccatum L., C. pubescens 

Ruiz & Pav., and C. chinense Jacq.) from Costa Rica, 

El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua 

into the United States,’’ may be viewed on the 

Regulations.gov site (see ADDRESSES above for 

instructions for accessing Regulations.gov) or on the 

APHIS Web site at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/ 

pra/draft/. 

§ 301.38–4 Interstate movement of 

regulated articles. 

(a) Non-protected areas. Interstate 

movement of regulated articles into or 

through any State or area that is not 

designated a protected area under 

§ 301.38–3(d) is allowed without 

restriction under this subpart. 

(b) Protected areas. (1) Prohibited 

movement. The following regulated 

articles are prohibited from moving 

interstate into or through any protected 

area: 

(i) All rust-susceptible Berberis, 

Mahoberberis, and Mahonia plants, 

seeds, fruits, and other plant parts 

capable of propagation, except Mahonia 

cuttings for decorative purposes. 

(ii) All seed-propagated plants of the 

Berberis species and varieties 

designated as rust-resistant in § 301.38–

2(a)(1) of this subpart that are of less 

than 2 years’ growth, and any seeds, 

fruits, and other plant parts capable of 

propagation from such plants. 

(2) Restricted movement. The 

following regulated articles may be 

moved interstate into or through a 

protected area with a certificate issued 

and attached in accordance with 

§§ 301.38–5 and 301.38–7 of this 

subpart: 

(i) Seed-propagated plants of at least 

2 years’ growth, clonally propagated 

plants of any age, seeds, fruits, and 

other plant parts capable of propagation 

of the Berberis species and varieties 

designated as rust-resistant in § 301.38–

2(a)(1) of this subpart; 

(ii) Plants, seeds, fruits, and other 

plant parts capable of propagation of the 

Mahoberberis and Mahonia species and 

varieties designated as rust-resistant in 

§ 301.38–2(a)(2) of this subpart. 

* * * * * 

Done in Washington, DC, this 5th day of 

October 2005. 

Elizabeth E. Gaston, 

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 05–20387 Filed 10–11–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

7 CFR Part 319 

[Docket No. 05–003–1] 

Importation of Peppers From Certain 

Central American Countries 

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: We are proposing to amend 

the regulations governing the 

importation of fruits and vegetables in 

order to allow certain types of peppers 

grown in approved registered 

production sites in Costa Rica, El 

Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and 

Nicaragua to be imported into the 

United States without treatment. The 

conditions to which the proposed 

importation of peppers would be 

subject, including trapping, pre-harvest 

inspection, and shipping procedures, 

are designed to prevent the introduction 

of quarantine pests into the United 

States. This action would allow for the 

importation of peppers from those 

countries in Central America while 

continuing to provide protection against 

the introduction of quarantine pests into 

the United States. 

DATES: We will consider all comments 

that we receive on or before December 

12, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by either of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and, in the 

‘‘Search for Open Regulations’’ box, 

select ‘‘Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service’’ from the agency 

drop-down menu, then click on 

‘‘Submit.’’ In the Docket ID column, 

select APHIS–2005–0095 to submit or 

view public comments and to view 

supporting and related materials 

available electronically. After the close 

of the comment period, the docket can 

be viewed using the ‘‘Advanced Search’’

function in Regulations.gov. 

• Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: 

Please send four copies of your 

comment (an original and three copies) 

to Docket No. 05–003–1, 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. 05–003–1. 

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: Additional 

information about APHIS and its 

programs is available on the Internet at 

http://www.aphis.usda.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Donna L. West, Senior Import 

Specialist, Commodity Import Analysis 

and Operations, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 

River Road Unit 140, Riverdale, MD 

20737–1228; (301) 734–8262. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The regulations in ‘‘Subpart—Fruits 

and Vegetables’’ (7 CFR 319.56 though 

319.56–8, referred to below as the 

regulations) prohibit or restrict the 

importation of fruits and vegetables into 

the United States from certain parts of 

the world to prevent the introduction 

and dissemination of plant pests that are 

new to or not widely distributed within 

the United States. 

We are proposing to amend the 

regulations to allow the importation of 

peppers (Capsicum spp.) from Costa 

Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, 

and Nicaragua under certain conditions 

that would be set forth in a new 

§ 319.56–2nn. The quarantine pests of 

concern for peppers from those 

countries, as identified in a pest risk 

assessment prepared for this proposed 

rule,1 are the Mexican fruit fly (Mexfly, 

Anastrepha ludens) for certain types of 

peppers, Mediterranean fruit fly 

(Medfly, Ceratitis capitata), the weevil 

Faustinus ovatipennis, pea leafminer 

(Liriomyza huidobrensis), tomato fruit 

borer (Neoleucinodes elegantalis), 

banana moth (Opogona sacchari), latana 

mealybug (Phenacoccus parvus), 

passionvine mealybug (Planococcus 

minor), melon thrips (Thrips palmi), the 

rust fungus Puccinia pampeana, 

Andean potato mottle virus, and tomato 

yellow mosaic virus. 

To mitigate the risks presented by 

Mexfly and Medfly, we have developed 

a specific systems approach, which is 

described below. The remaining pests 

exhibit symptoms that are macroscopic 

and detectable upon visual inspection 

in the production areas or during preexport or port-of-entry inspections. 

Specifically: 

• The weevil Faustinus ovatipennis 

feeds on leaves, stem, inflorescence, and 

fruit. Both larvae and adults are external 

feeders and, as a result, easily observed. 

• Pea leafminers spend a majority of 

their life cycle in larval form, mining 

host leaves. These mines are easily 

detectable via visual inspection. 

• Tomato fruit borer larvae penetrate 

the fruit and may cause the fruit to fall 

59284 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 12, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

2Currently, there are no areas covered by this 

proposed rule that contain Mexfly free zones. 

or become otherwise unmarketable. 

More mature larvae create large exit 

holes in the fruit that can be easily 

detected. In addition, the screen size 

required by the systems approach as 

described below is too small to allow 

the entry of adult tomato fruit borers. 

• The banana moth mines plant 

stems, causing leaf fall and allowing 

pathogens to colonize and destroy 

affected plants. Infected plants will not 

produce quality fruit suitable for export. 

In addition, the screen size required by 

the systems approach as described 

below is too small to allow the entry of 

adult banana moths. 

• Latana mealybug and passionvine 

mealybug are both external pests that 

are white in color. They are easily 

detectable on the darker skin of the host. 

In addition, these pests may also cause 

deformities in the plant, making 

infestation obvious. 

• Melon thrips cause leaves to yellow 

and die. Terminal bud growth may be 

arrested and fruits may be scarred or 

deformed. 

• The rust fungus Puccinia 

pampeana causes yellow or orange rust 

pustules to form on the pepper fruit 

stem which are easily detectable via 

visual inspection. 

• The Andean potato mottle virus and 

tomato yellow mosaic virus are easily 

observable on mature plants in the field. 

Symptoms include mottling of the plant, 

mosaic coloring, and other plant 

deformities. In many cases the fruit will 

not develop and the plants themselves 

may be dwarfed. 

We have developed the following 

phytosanitary measures to guard against 

the entry of Medfly and Mexfly in 

shipments of peppers from those 

countries into the United States. The 

proposed measures vary, depending 

upon area freedom from Medfly and 

Mexfly. Capsicum pubescens 

(commonly referred to as rocoto 

pepper), a preferred host for Mexfly and 

Medfly, would be allowed entry only if 

grown in a certified pest-free 

greenhouse, whereas field-grown 

Capsicum annuum (e.g., bell, wax, 

pimento, jalapeno), Capsicum 

frutescens (e.g., tabasco, malagueta), 

Capsicum baccatum (e.g., bird pepper, 

aji), and Capsicum chinense (e.g., 

habanero, scotch bonnet) would be 

permitted under certain circumstances. 

Areas Where Medfly Is Present 

C. annuum, C. frutescens, C. 

baccatum, C. chinense, and C. 

pubescens grown in an area that has not 

been determined to be free of Medfly 

would be required to be grown in 

approved production sites registered 

with the national plant protection 

organization (NPPO) of the exporting 

country and would be subject to the 

systems approach detailed below. Initial 

approval of the production sites would 

be completed jointly by the exporting 

country’s NPPO and the Animal and 

Plant Health Inspection Service 

(APHIS). Representatives of the 

exporting country’s NPPO would have 

to visit and inspect the production sites 

monthly, starting 2 months before 

harvest and continuing through until 

the end of the shipping season. APHIS 

could monitor the production sites at 

any time during this period. 

Pepper production sites would have 

to consist of pest exclusionary 

greenhouses with self-closing double 

doors. All additional openings would be 

required to be covered with 1.6 (or less) 

millimeter screening. Registered sites 

would have to contain traps with an 

approved protein bait for the detection 

of fruit flies within the greenhouses at 

a density of four traps per hectare, with 

a minimum of at least two traps per 

greenhouse. Traps would have to be 

serviced on a weekly basis. In addition, 

Medfly traps with an approved protein 

bait would have to be placed inside a 

buffer area 500 meters wide around the 

registered production site, at a density 

of 1 trap per 10 hectares. These traps 

would have to be checked at least once 

every 7 days. At least one trap would 

have to be near the greenhouse. Traps 

would have to be set for at least 2 

months prior to export and trapping 

would have to continue to the end of 

harvest. Capture of 0.7 or more Medflies 

per trap per week within the buffer zone 

would suspend or delay the harvest, 

depending on whether the harvest had 

begun, for consignments of peppers 

from that production site until APHIS 

and the exporting country’s NPPO 

determine that the pest risk has been 

mitigated. 

If a single Medfly is detected inside a 

registered production site or in a 

consignment, the registered production 

site would lose its ability to export 

peppers to the United States until 

APHIS and the exporting country’s 

NPPO mutually determine that risk 

mitigation has been achieved. 

For the weevil Faustinus ovatipennis, 

pea leafminer, tomato fruit borer, 

banana moth, latana mealybug, 

passionvine mealybug, melon thrips, the 

rust fungus Puccinia pampeana, 

Andean potato mottle virus, and tomato 

yellow mosaic virus, the production site 

would have to be inspected prior to 

harvest, and if any of these pests or any 

other quarantine pests are found to be 

generally infesting the production site, 

the NPPO would not allow export from 

that production site until risk mitigation 

has been achieved. If the NPPO detects 

any quarantine pests in the 

consignment, the shipment would be 

deemed ineligible for export to the 

United States. 

The exporting country’s NPPO would 

have to maintain records of trap 

placement, checking of traps, and any 

Medfly captures. In addition, the 

exporting country’s NPPO would have 

to maintain an APHIS-approved quality 

control program to monitor or audit the 

trapping program. The trapping records 

would have to be maintained for 

APHIS’s review. 

We would require that the peppers be 

packed within 24 hours of harvest in a 

pest exclusionary packinghouse. The 

peppers would have to be safeguarded 

by an insect-proof mesh screen or 

plastic tarpaulin while in transit from 

the production site to the packinghouse 

and while awaiting packing. The 

peppers would have to be packed in 

insect-proof cartons or containers, or 

covered with insect-proof mesh or 

plastic tarpaulin, for transit to the 

United States. These safeguards would 

have to remain intact until arrival in the 

United States or the shipment would 

not be allowed to enter the United 

States. 

During the time the packinghouse is 

in use for exporting peppers to the 

United States, the packinghouse could 

accept peppers only from registered 

approved production sites. 

The exporting country’s NPPO would 

be responsible for export certification, 

inspection, and issuance of 

phytosanitary certificates. Each 

shipment of peppers would have to be 

accompanied by a phytosanitary 

certificate issued by the NPPO and 

bearing the declaration, ‘‘These peppers 

were grown in an approved production 

site and the shipment has been 

inspected and found free of the pests 

listed in the requirements.’’ The 

shipping box would have to be labeled 

with the identity of the production site. 

Areas Where Mexfly Is Present 

C. pubescens grown in an area that 

has not been determined to be free of 

Mexfly 2 would have to be grown in 

approved production sites registered 

with the NPPO of the exporting country 

and would be subject to the systems 

approach detailed below. Initial 

approval of the production sites would 

be completed jointly by the exporting 

country’s NPPO and APHIS. 

Representatives of the exporting 

country’s NPPO would have to visit and 

inspect the production sites monthly, 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 12, 2005 / Proposed Rules 59285 

starting 2 months before harvest and 

continuing through until the end of the 

shipping season. APHIS could monitor 

the production sites at any time during 

this period. 

Pepper production sites would have 

to consist of pest exclusionary 

greenhouses with self-closing double 

doors. All additional openings would be 

required to be covered with 1.6 (or less) 

millimeter screening. Registered sites 

would have to contain traps with an 

approved protein bait for the detection 

of fruit flies within the greenhouses at 

a density of four traps per hectare, with 

a minimum of at least two traps per 

greenhouse. Traps would have to be 

serviced on a weekly basis. In addition, 

Mexfly traps with an approved protein 

bait would have to be placed inside a 

buffer area 500 meters wide around the 

registered production site, at a density 

of 1 trap per 10 hectares. These traps 

would have to be checked at least once 

every 7 days. At least one trap would 

have to be near the greenhouse. Traps 

would have to be set for at least 2 

months prior to export and trapping 

would have to continue to the end of 

harvest. Capture of 0.7 or more Mexflies 

per trap per week within the buffer zone 

would suspend or delay the harvest, 

depending on whether the harvest had 

begun, for consignments of peppers 

from that production site until APHIS 

and the exporting country’s NPPO 

determine that the pest risk has been 

mitigated. 

If a single Mexfly is detected inside a 

registered production site or in a 

consignment, the registered production 

site would lose its ability to export 

peppers to the United States until 

APHIS and the exporting country’s 

NPPO mutually determine that risk 

mitigation is achieved. For the other 

pests of concern listed above, the 

greenhouse would have to be inspected 

prior to harvest, and if any of these pests 

or any other quarantine pests are found 

to be generally infesting the greenhouse, 

the NPPO would not allow export from 

that production site until risk mitigation 

has been achieved. If the NPPO detected 

any quarantine pests in the 

consignment, the shipment would be 

deemed ineligible for export to the 

United States. 

The exporting country’s NPPO would 

have to maintain records of trap 

placement, checking of traps, and any 

Mexfly captures. In addition, the 

exporting country’s NPPO would have 

to maintain an APHIS-approved quality 

control program to monitor or audit the 

trapping program. The trapping records 

would have to be maintained for 

APHIS’s review. 

We would require that the peppers be 

packed within 24 hours of harvest in a 

pest exclusionary packinghouse. The 

peppers would have to be safeguarded 

by an insect-proof mesh screen or 

plastic tarpaulin while in transit from 

the production site to the packinghouse 

and while awaiting packing. The 

peppers would have to be packed in 

insect-proof cartons or containers, or 

covered with insect-proof mesh or 

plastic tarpaulin, for transit to the 

United States. These safeguards would 

have to remain intact until arrival in the 

United States or the shipment would 

not be allowed to enter the United 

States. 

During the time the packinghouse is 

in use for exporting peppers to the 

United States, the packinghouse could 

accept peppers only from registered 

approved production sites. 

The exporting country’s NPPO would 

be responsible for export certification, 

inspection, and issuance of 

phytosanitary certificates. Each 

shipment of peppers would have to be 

accompanied by a phytosanitary 

certificate issued by the NPPO and 

bearing the declaration, ‘‘These peppers 

were grown in an approved production 

site and the shipment has been 

inspected and found free of the pests 

listed in the requirements.’’ The 

shipping box would have to be labeled 

with the identity of the production site. 

Medfly Free Areas 

We would allow C. annuum, C. 

frutescens, C. baccatum, and C. 

chinense grown in a Medfly-free area to 

be imported under conditions less 

stringent than those described above for 

peppers grown in areas where Medfly is 

present. The peppers would have to be 

grown and packed in an area that APHIS 

has determined to be free of Medfly in 

accordance with the procedures 

described in § 319.56–2(f); currently, 

Honduras and Guatemala are the only 

Central American countries covered by 

this proposal that contain such areas. 

A pre-harvest inspection of the 

production site would be conducted by 

the NPPO for the detection of Medfly. If 

Medfly is found to be generally infesting 

the production site, the NPPO would 

not allow export from that production 

site until it is determined that risk 

mitigation is achieved. For the other 

pests of concern listed above (i.e., those 

pests other than Medfly and Mexfly), 

the production site would have to be 

inspected prior to harvest, and if any of 

these pests or any other quarantine pests 

are found to be generally infesting the 

production site, the NPPO would not 

allow export from that production site 

until risk mitigation has been achieved. 

If the NPPO detected any quarantine 

pests in the consignment, the shipment 

would be deemed ineligible for export 

to the United States. 

We would require that peppers be 

packed in insect-proof cartons or 

containers, or covered with insect-proof 

mesh or plastic tarpaulin, for transit to 

the United States. These safeguards 

would have to remain intact until 

arrival in the United States or the 

shipment would not be allowed to enter 

the United States. These measures 

would be necessary since, although the 

production area is Medfly-free, the 

peppers would need to be protected 

against infestation while in transit. 

The exporting country’s NPPO would 

be responsible for export certification, 

inspection, and issuance of 

phytosanitary certificates. Each 

shipment of peppers would have to be 

accompanied by a phytosanitary 

certificate issued by the NPPO and 

bearing the declaration, ‘‘These peppers 

were grown in an area recognized to be 

free of Medfly and the shipment has 

been inspected and found free of the 

pests listed in the requirements.’’ The 

shipping box would have to be labeled 

with the identity of the production site. 

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. 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

requires that agencies consider the 

economic impact of their rules on small 

businesses, organizations, and 

governmental jurisdictions. In 

accordance with section 603 of the RFA, 

we have prepared an initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis describing the 

expected impact of the changes 

proposed in this document on small 

entities. 

Under the Plant Protection Act (7 

U.S.C. 7701–7772), the Secretary of 

Agriculture is authorized to regulate the 

importation of plants, plant products, 

and other articles to prevent the 

introduction of plant pests and noxious 

weeds. 

We are proposing to amend the 

regulations governing the importation of 

fruits and vegetables in order to allow 

certain types of peppers grown in 

approved registered production sites in 

Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, 

Honduras, and Nicaragua to be imported 

into the United States without 

treatment. The conditions to which the 

proposed importation of peppers would 

59286 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 12, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

3These estimates were provided by the proposed 

exporting countries and have been aggregated for 

the purpose of this analysis. 

be subject, including trapping, preharvest inspection, and shipping 

procedures, are designed to prevent the 

introduction of quarantine pests into the 

United States. This action would allow 

for the importation of peppers from 

those countries in Central America 

while continuing to provide protection 

against the introduction of quarantine 

pests into the United States. 

Central American Production and 

Exports 

While agriculture is an important 

industry in the countries that would be 

affected by this rule, it does not account 

for the largest share of gross domestic 

product in any of the countries. Peppers 

do not appear to be major crops in those 

Central American countries. However, 

production and exports of both 

commodities are following upward 

trends. 

Over the past four decades, pepper 

production in Central America has been 

on the rise. For the last 11 years, exports 

of peppers from this region have also 

increased. However, much of the 

increase in exports is a reflection of 

increased trade among the countries in 

this region. During this time period, an 

average of 62.23 percent of exports were 

intra-regional. Although this percentage 

has fluctuated substantially, the 

percentage of peppers exported from 

Central American countries to other 

Central American countries has been 

generally above 70 percent since 1997 

with the exception of 2002. In 2003, 

approximately 96 percent of all Central 

American pepper exports were sent to 

other countries within the region. 

It is estimated that about 31,040 

metric tons of peppers may be imported 

into the United States each year from 

Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, 

Honduras, and Nicaragua as a result of 

the proposed rule.3

U.S. Production and Trade Levels 

In 2004, U.S. total pepper production 

totaled 843,696 metric tons (Table 1). 

While domestic production has 

fluctuated from year to year and has 

declined or remained steady since 2000, 

there has been an upward trend in 

domestic pepper production over the 

last 9 years. Imports have also been on 

the rise, and these have been increasing 

at a rapid pace since 1996. Per capita 

consumption of bell peppers has 

remained fairly constant over the past 

nine years, while consumption of chile 

peppers has been growing at a steady 

pace since 1996, as seen in Table 1. 

Although the levels of production, 

imports, and per capita consumption are 

reported for all pepper varieties, 

information on exports and domestic 

consumption is not available. This is 

only reported in the case of bell 

peppers, and is shown in Table 2. This 

table shows that most production is 

consumed domestically, with 

approximately 10 percent devoted to 

exports. Additionally, as mentioned 

above, per capita consumption of bell 

peppers has been steady despite the 

overall increase in imports. 

TABLE 1.—U.S. PRODUCTION, IMPORTS, AND PER CAPITA CONSUMPTION OF ALL PEPPERS, 1996–2004 

Year 

Production and imports (metric 

tons) 

Per capita consumption (pounds) 

Production Imports Bell peppers Chili peppers Total 

1996 ..................................................................................... 752,976 277,334 7.1 4.6 11.7 

1997 ..................................................................................... 680,400 290,557 6.4 4.5 10.9 

1998 ..................................................................................... 662,256 329,336 6.4 4.7 11.1 

1999 ..................................................................................... 707,616 342,128 6.7 4.7 11.4 

2000 ..................................................................................... 911,736 346,660 7.0 5.1 12.1 

2001 ..................................................................................... 857,304 366,514 6.9 5.1 12.0 

2002 ..................................................................................... 843,696 408,499 6.8 5.7 12.5 

2003 ..................................................................................... 843,696 426,197 6.9 5.5 12.4 

2004 ..................................................................................... 843,696 445,982 7.1 6.0 13.1 

Source: USDA/ERS, ‘‘Vegetables and Melons Yearbook,’’ http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/data-sets/specialty/89011/. 

TABLE 2.—U.S. SUPPLY AND UTILIZATION OF FRESH BELL PEPPERS, 2000–2004 

Year 

Supply Utilization 

Production Imports Total Exports Domestic Per capita use 

(pounds) 

(Metric tons) 

1996 ......................................................... 754,745 171,143 925,888 60,465 865,423 7.1 

1997 ......................................................... 678,540 179,217 857,758 60,692 797,066 6.4 

1998 ......................................................... 660,260 199,085 859,345 57,970 801,375 6.4 

1999 ......................................................... 705,892 206,524 912,416 66,309 846,107 6.7 

2000 ......................................................... 765,631 198,190 963,822 71,479 892,342 7.0 

2001 ......................................................... 748,168 215,596 963,764 73,347 890,417 6.9 

2002 ......................................................... 710,700 249,979 960,679 73,166 887,514 6.8 

2003 ......................................................... 731,112 245,715 976,828 72,077 904,751 6.9 

2004 ......................................................... 762,184 258,053 1,020,237 73,438 946,799 7.1 

Source: USDA/ERS, ‘‘Vegetables and Melons Yearbook,’’ http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/data-sets/specialty/89011/. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 12, 2005 / Proposed Rules 59287 

4This number represents the total number of 

farms in the United States, thus including barley, 

buckwheat, corn, millet, oats, rice, soybean, and 

sugarcane farms. 

5Source: SBA and 2002 Census of Agriculture. 

6Note that this NAICS code relates to the 1997 

Economic Census. The 2002 NAICS code for this 

group is 424480. 

7For NAICS 424480, SBA guidelines state that an 

entity with not more than 100 employees should be 

considered small unless that entity is a government 

contractor. In this case, the size standard increases 

to 500 employees. However, in this instance, it is 

fair to assume that fruit and vegetable importers 

will not be under government contract since it is 

against regulations for imports to be used in 

relevant government programs (e.g., school lunch 

programs). 

8Source: SBA and 1997 Economic Census. 

From 1995 to 2003, most of the 

peppers imported into the United States 

came from Mexico, Canada, and the 

Netherlands, with the majority supplied 

by Mexico. Given the close ties created 

by the North American Free Trade 

Agreement, these trading patterns are 

not surprising. 

It is unlikely that the proposed 

changes would lead to dramatic 

increases in U.S. import levels of 

peppers. The amount of peppers 

expected to be imported from that 

region (31,040 metric tons) represents 

approximately 6.95 percent of the 2004 

import level (445,982 metric tons). 

Thus, Central American imports are not 

expected to command a large portion of 

the U.S. imported pepper market. 

Effects on Small Entities 

This proposed rule would affect 

domestic producers of peppers as well 

as importers that deal with these 

commodities. It is likely that the entities 

affected would be small according to 

Small Business Administration (SBA) 

guidelines. As detailed below, 

information available to APHIS 

indicates that the effects on these small 

entities would not be significant. 

Two alternatives to the proposed 

course of action are as follows: 

Maintaining the regulations as they are 

currently written regarding the 

importation of peppers from these 

Central American countries or allowing 

importation without establishing the 

proposed risk mitigations. 

The first alternative would maintain 

current safeguards against the entry of 

quarantine pests. However, this option 

would also mean that those specified 

Central American countries as well as 

the United States would forgo the 

economic benefits expected to be 

afforded by the proposed trade. 

Allowing importation of fresh peppers 

from certain Central American countries 

under phytosanitary requirements less 

restrictive than are proposed could 

potentially lead to the introduction of 

pests not currently found in the United 

States. This option could result in 

significant damage and costs to 

domestic production and is not 

desirable for those reasons. 

Affected U.S. pepper producers are 

expected to be small based on the 2002 

Census of Agriculture data and SBA 

guidelines for entities in two farm 

categories: Other Vegetable (except 

Potato) and Melon Farming (North 

American Industry Classification 

System [NAICS] number 111219) and 

Other Food Crops Grown Under Cover 

(NAICS number 111419). The SBA 

classifies producers in these farm 

categories as small entities if their total 

annual sales are no more than $750,000. 

APHIS does not have information on the 

size distribution of domestic pepper 

producers, but according to 2002 Census 

data, there were a total of 2,128,892 

farms in the United States.4 Of this 

number, approximately 97 percent had 

total annual sales of less than $500,000 

in 2002, which is well below the SBA’s 

small entity threshold for commodity 

farms.5 This indicates that the majority 

of farms are considered small by SBA 

standards, and it is reasonable to 

assume that most of the 4,748 pepper 

farms that could be affected by the 

proposed rule would also qualify as 

small. In the case of fruit and vegetable 

wholesalers (NAICS number 422480),6

those entities with fewer than 100 

employees are considered small by SBA 

standards.7 In 1997, there were a total of 

4,811 fruit and vegetable wholesale 

trade farms in the United States.8 Of 

these farms, 4,610 or 95.8 percent 

employed fewer than 100 employees 

and were considered small by SBA 

standards. Between 1997 and 2002 there 

is not likely to have been substantial 

changes in the industry. Therefore, 

domestic producers and importers that 

may be affected by this proposed rule 

are predominantly small entities. 

Economic analysis of the expected 

increase in imports of peppers from 

Central America shows that the 

proposed importation of these 

commodities would lead to negligible 

changes in domestic prices. Based on 

historical consumption data, an increase 

in imports of this magnitude would lead 

to a decrease in price of approximately 

$0.01 to $0.02 per pound at the retail 

level, based on an average price of $1.15 

per pound over the last 25 years. 

Although domestic producers may 

face slightly lower prices as a result of 

the proposed increase in the pepper 

supply, these price changes are 

expected to be negligible. APHIS 

welcomes public comment on these 

preliminary estimates. Changes of the 

magnitude presented here should not 

have large repercussions for either 

domestic producers or importers of 

peppers. 

This proposed rule contains 

information collection or recordkeeping 

requirements (see ‘‘Paperwork 

Reduction Act’’ below). 

Executive Order 12988 

This proposed rule would allow 

certain types of peppers from Costa 

Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, 

and Nicaragua to be imported into the 

United States. If this proposed rule is 

adopted, State and local laws and 

regulations regarding peppers imported 

under this rule would be preempted 

while the fruit is in foreign commerce. 

Fresh fruits and vegetables 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 caseby-case basis. If this proposed rule is 

adopted, no retroactive effect will be 

given to this rule, and this rule will not 

require administrative proceedings 

before parties may file suit in court 

challenging this rule. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

To provide the public with 

documentation of APHIS’ review and 

analysis of any potential environmental 

impacts associated with the proposed 

importation of peppers from Central 

America, we have prepared an 

environmental assessment. The 

environmental assessment, entitled 

‘‘Proposed Rule for the Importation of 

Peppers from Central America,’’ 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 Regulations.gov Web 

site or in our reading room (see 

ADDRESSES above for instructions for 

accessing Regulations.gov and for 

information on the location and hours of 

the reading room). You may request 

paper copies of the environmental 

assessment by calling or writing to the 

person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. Please refer to the 

title of the environmental assessment 

when requesting copies. 

59288 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 12, 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. 05–003–1. Please 

send a copy of your comments to: (1) 

Docket No. 05–003–1, 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. 

In this document, we are proposing to 

allow certain types of peppers grown in 

approved registered production sites in 

Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, 

Honduras, and Nicaragua to be imported 

into the United States without 

treatment, under certain conditions. 

Those conditions include trapping, preharvest inspection, and shipping 

procedures designed to prevent the 

introduction of quarantine pests into the 

United States. These precautions, along 

with other requirements, would allow 

for the importation of peppers from 

those countries in Central America 

while continuing to provide protection 

against the introduction of quarantine 

pests into the United States. 

Allowing peppers to be imported 

would necessitate the use of certain 

information collection activities, 

including the completion of pre-harvest 

inspections, phytosanitary certificates, 

and fruit fly monitoring records. 

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 0.0037537 hours 

per response. 

Respondents: Importers, producers, 

national plant protection organizations. 

Estimated annual number of 

respondents: 200. 

Estimated annual number of 

responses per respondent: 3,994.625. 

Estimated annual number of 

responses: 798,925. 

Estimated total annual burden on 

respondents: 2,299 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, we propose to amend 7 

CFR part 319 as follows: 

PART 319—FOREIGN QUARANTINE 

NOTICES 

1. The authority citation for part 319 

would continue to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 450 and 7701–7772 

and 7781–7786; 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 as follows: 

§ 319.56–2nn Administrative instructions: 

Conditions governing the entry of peppers 

from certain Central American countries. 

Fresh peppers (Capsicum spp.) may 

be imported into the United States from 

Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, 

Honduras, and Nicaragua, only under 

the following conditions: 

(a) For peppers of the species 

Capsicum annuum, Capsicum 

frutescens, Capsicum baccatum, and 

Capsicum chinense from areas free of 

Mediterranean fruit fly (Medfly), terms 

of entry are as follows: 

(1) The peppers must be grown and 

packed in an area that has been 

determined by APHIS to be free of 

Mediterranean fruit fly (Medfly) in 

accordance with the procedures 

described in § 319.56–2(f) of this 

subpart. 

(2) A pre-harvest inspection of the 

growing site must be conducted by the 

national plant protection organization 

(NPPO) of the exporting country for the 

weevil Faustinus ovatipennis, pea 

leafminer, tomato fruit borer, banana 

moth, latana mealybug, passionvine 

mealybug, melon thrips, the rust fungus 

Puccinia pampeana, Andean potato 

mottle virus, and tomato yellow mosaic 

virus, and if these pests are found to be 

generally infesting the growing site, the 

NPPO may not allow export from that 

production site until the NPPO has 

determined that risk mitigation has been 

achieved. 

(3) The peppers must be packed in 

insect-proof cartons or containers or 

covered with insect proof mesh or 

plastic tarpaulin at the packinghouse for 

transit to the United States. These 

safeguards must remain intact until 

arrival in the United States. 

(4) The exporting country’s NPPO is 

responsible for export certification, 

inspection, and issuance of 

phytosanitary certificates. Each 

shipment of peppers must be 

accompanied by a phytosanitary 

certificate issued by the NPPO and 

bearing the declaration, ‘‘These peppers 

were grown in an area recognized to be 

free of Medfly and the shipment has 

been inspected and found free of the 

pests listed in the requirements.’’

(b) For peppers of the species 

Capsicum annuum, Capsicum 

frutescens, Capsicum baccatum, 

Capsicum chinense, and Capsicum 

pubescens from areas in which Medfly 

is considered to exist: 

(1) The peppers must be grown in 

approved production sites registered 

with the NPPO of the exporting country. 

Initial approval of the production sites 

will be completed jointly by the 

exporting country’s NPPO and APHIS. 

The exporting country’s NPPO will visit 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 12, 2005 / Proposed Rules 59289 

and inspect the production sites 

monthly, starting 2 months before 

harvest and continuing through until 

the end of the shipping season. APHIS 

may monitor the production sites at any 

time during this period. 

(2) Pepper production sites must 

consist of pest exclusionary 

greenhouses, which must have selfclosing double doors and have all other 

openings and vents covered with 1.6 (or 

less) mm screening. 

(3) Registered sites must contain traps 

for the detection of Medfly both within 

and around the production site. 

(i) Traps with an approved protein 

bait must be placed inside the 

greenhouses at a density of four traps 

per hectare, with a minimum of two 

traps per greenhouse. Traps must be 

serviced on a weekly basis. 

(ii) If a single Medfly is detected 

inside a registered production site or in 

a consignment, the registered 

production site will lose its ability to 

export peppers to the United States 

until APHIS and the exporting country’s 

NPPO mutually determine that risk 

mitigation is achieved. 

(iii) Medfly traps with an approved 

protein bait must be placed inside a 

buffer area 500 meters wide around the 

registered production site, at a density 

of 1 trap per 10 hectares and a minimum 

of 10 traps. These traps must be checked 

at least every 7 days. At least one of 

these traps must be near the greenhouse. 

Traps must be set for at least 2 months 

before export and trapping must 

continue to the end of the harvest. 

(iv) Capture of 0.7 or more Medflies 

per trap per week will delay or suspend 

the harvest, depending on whether 

harvest has begun, for consignments of 

peppers from that production site until 

APHIS and the exporting country’s 

NPPO can agree that the pest risk has 

been mitigated. 

(v) The greenhouse must be inspected 

prior to harvest for the weevil Faustinus 

ovatipennis, pea leafminer, tomato fruit 

borer, banana moth, latana mealybug, 

passionvine mealybug, melon thrips, the 

rust fungus Puccinia pampeana, 

Andean potato mottle virus, and tomato 

yellow mosaic virus. If any of these 

pests, or other quarantine pests, are 

found to be generally infesting the 

greenhouse, export from that production 

site will be halted until the exporting 

country’s NPPO determines that the pest 

risk has been mitigated. 

(4) The exporting country’s NPPO 

must maintain records of trap 

placement, checking of traps, and any 

Medfly captures. The exporting 

country’s NPPO must maintain an 

APHIS-approved quality control 

program to monitor or audit the 

trapping program. The trapping records 

must be maintained for APHIS’s review. 

(5) The peppers must be packed 

within 24 hours of harvest in a pest 

exclusionary packinghouse. The 

peppers must be safeguarded by an 

insect-proof mesh screen or plastic 

tarpaulin while in transit to the 

packinghouse and while awaiting 

packing. Peppers must be packed in 

insect-proof cartons or containers, or 

covered with insect-proof mesh or 

plastic tarpaulin, for transit to the 

United States. These safeguards must 

remain intact until arrival in the United 

States or the consignment will be 

denied entry into the United States. 

(6) During the time the packinghouse 

is in use for exporting peppers to the 

United States, the packinghouse may 

accept peppers only from registered 

approved production sites. 

(7) The exporting country’s NPPO is 

responsible for export certification, 

inspection, and issuance of 

phytosanitary certificates. Each 

shipment of peppers must be 

accompanied by a phytosanitary 

certificate issued by the NPPO and 

bearing the declaration, ‘‘These peppers 

were grown in an approved production 

site and the shipment has been 

inspected and found free of the pests 

listed in the requirements.’’ The 

shipping box must be labeled with the 

identity of the production site. 

(c) For peppers of the species 

Capsicum pubescens from areas in 

which Mexican fruit fly (Mexfly) is 

considered to exist: 

(1) The peppers must be grown in 

approved production sites registered 

with the NPPO of the exporting country. 

Initial approval of the production sites 

will be completed jointly by the 

exporting country’s NPPO and APHIS. 

The exporting country’s NPPO must 

visit and inspect the production sites 

monthly, starting 2 months before 

harvest and continuing through until 

the end of the shipping season. APHIS 

may monitor the production sites at any 

time during this period. 

(2) Pepper production sites must 

consist of pest exclusionary 

greenhouses, which must have selfclosing double doors and have all other 

openings and vents covered with 1.6 (or 

less) mm screening. 

(3) Registered sites must contain traps 

for the detection of Mexfly both within 

and around the production site. 

(i) Traps with an approved protein 

bait must be placed inside the 

greenhouses at a density of four traps 

per hectare, with a minimum of two 

traps per greenhouse. Traps must be 

serviced on a weekly basis. 

(ii) If a single Mexfly is detected 

inside a registered production site or in 

a consignment, the registered 

production site will lose its ability to 

ship under the systems approach until 

APHIS and the exporting country’s 

NPPO mutually determine that risk 

mitigation is achieved. 

(iii) Mexfly traps with an approved 

protein bait must be placed inside a 

buffer area 500 meters wide around the 

registered production site, at a density 

of 1 trap per 10 hectares and a minimum 

of 10 traps. These traps must be checked 

at least every 7 days. At least one of 

these traps must be near the greenhouse. 

Traps must be set for at least 2 months 

before export and trapping must 

continue to the end of the harvest. 

(iv) Capture of 0.7 or more Mexflies 

per trap per week will delay or suspend 

the harvest, depending on whether 

harvest has begun, for consignments of 

peppers from that production site until 

APHIS and the exporting country’s 

NPPO can agree that the pest risk has 

been mitigated. 

(v) The greenhouse must be inspected 

prior to harvest for the weevil Faustinus 

ovatipennis, pea leafminer, tomato fruit 

borer, banana moth, latana mealybug, 

passionvine mealybug, melon thrips, the 

rust fungus Puccinia pampeana, 

Andean potato mottle virus, and tomato 

yellow mosaic virus. If any of these 

pests, or other quarantine pests, are 

found to be generally infesting the 

greenhouse, export from that production 

site will be halted until the exporting 

country’s NPPO determines that the pest 

risk has been mitigated. 

(4) The exporting country’s NPPO 

must maintain records of trap 

placement, checking of traps, and any 

Mexfly captures. The exporting 

country’s NPPO must maintain an 

APHIS-approved quality control 

program to monitor or audit the 

trapping program. The trapping records 

must be maintained for APHIS’s review. 

(5) The peppers must be packed 

within 24 hours of harvest in a pest 

exclusionary packinghouse. The 

peppers must be safeguarded by an 

insect-proof mesh screen or plastic 

tarpaulin while in transit to the 

packinghouse and while awaiting 

packing. Peppers must be packed in 

insect-proof cartons or containers, or 

covered with insect-proof mesh or 

plastic tarpaulin, for transit to the 

United States. These safeguards must 

remain intact until arrival in the United 

States or the consignment will be 

denied entry into the United States. 

(6) During the time the packinghouse 

is in use for exporting peppers to the 

United States, the packinghouse may 

59290 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 196 / Wednesday, October 12, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

accept peppers only from registered 

approved production sites. 

(7) The exporting country’s NPPO is 

responsible for export certification, 

inspection, and issuance of 

phytosanitary certificates. Each 

shipment of peppers must be 

accompanied by a phytosanitary 

certificate issued by the NPPO and 

bearing the declaration, ‘‘These peppers 

were grown in an approved production 

site and the shipment has been 

inspected and found free of the pests 

listed in the requirements.’’ The 

shipping box must be labeled with the 

identity of the production site. 

Done in Washington, DC, this 6th day of 

October 2005. 

N.E. Gutierrez, 

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 05–20388 Filed 10–11–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration 

29 CFR Parts 1910 and 1926 

[Docket No. S–0215] 

RIN 1218–AB67 

Electric Power Generation, 

Transmission, and Distribution; 

Electrical Protective Equipment; 

Extension of Comment Period; Change 

in Date of Public Hearing 

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA), Labor. 

ACTION: Notice of hearing; extension of 

comment period; reopening of the 

period to file notices of intention to 

appear at an informal public hearing; 

additional issues for comment. 

SUMMARY: This notice reschedules an 

informal hearing on the proposed 

standards on electric power generation, 

transmission, and distribution and on 

electrical protective equipment, which 

were published on June 15, 2005. It also 

reopens the period to file notices of 

intention to appear at the informal 

public hearing, extends the period for 

written comments on the proposal, 

extends the period to provide the 

complete text of testimony and 

documentary evidence, and identifies 

additional issues on which OSHA is 

seeking comment. These periods are 

extended 90 days with this notice. 

DATES: Comments. Comments on the 

proposal must be submitted 

(postmarked or sent) by January 11, 

2006. 

Informal public hearing. OSHA will 

hold an informal public hearing in 

Washington, DC, beginning March 6, 

2006. The hearing will commence at 1 

p.m. on the first day, and at 9 a.m. on 

the second and subsequent days. 

Notices of intention to appear. Parties 

who intend to present testimony at the 

informal public hearing must notify 

OSHA in writing of their intention to do 

so no later than November 11, 2005. 

Hearing testimony and documentary 

evidence. Parties who request more than 

10 minutes for their presentations at the 

informal public hearing and parties who 

will submit documentary evidence at 

the hearing must submit the full text of 

their testimony and all documentary 

evidence postmarked no later than 

February 1, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit written 

comments, notices of intention to 

appear, hearing testimony, and 

documentary evidence—identified by 

docket number (S–215) or RIN number 

(1218–AB67)—by any of the following 

methods. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• OSHA Web site: http:// 

dockets.osha.gov/. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments 

on OSHA’s Web page. 

• Fax: If your written comments are 

10 pages or fewer, you may fax them to 

the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693–

1648. 

• Regular mail, express delivery, 

hand delivery, and courier service: 

Submit three copies to the OSHA 

Docket Office, Docket No. S–215, U.S. 

Department of Labor, 200 Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Room N2625, 

Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 

693–2350. (OSHA’s TTY number is 

(877) 889–5627.) OSHA Docket Office 

hours of operation are 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 

p.m., e.s.t. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

docket number or Regulatory 

Information Number (RIN) for this 

rulemaking. All comments received will 

be posted without change to http:// 

dockets.osha.gov/, including any 

personal information provided. For 

detailed instructions on submitting 

comments and additional information 

on the rulemaking process, see the 

‘‘Public Participation’’ heading of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read comments and background 

documents that can be posted go to 

http://dockets.osha.gov/. Written 

comments received, notices of intention 

to appear, and all other material related 

to the development of the proposed 

standard will be available for inspection 

and copying in the public record in the 

Docket Office at the address listed 

previously. 

Hearing: The hearing will be held in 

the auditorium of the U.S. Department 

of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, 

NW., Washington DC. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

General information and press 

inquiries: Mr. Kevin Ropp, Director, 

Office of Communications, Room 

N3647, OSHA, U.S. Department of 

Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 

693–1999. 

Technical information: Mr. David 

Wallis, Director, Office of Engineering 

Safety, Room N3609, OSHA, U.S. 

Department of Labor, 200 Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; 

telephone (202) 693–2277 or fax (202) 

693–1663. 

Hearings: Ms. Veneta Chatmon, 

OSHA Office of Communications, 

Occupational Health and Safety 

Administration, Room N3647; 200 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20210; telephone (202) 693–1999. 

Electronic copies of this Federal 

Register notice, as well as news, are 

available at OSHA’s Web page on the 

Internet at http://www.osha.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 

15, 2005, OSHA published a proposal 

that would update the standards on 

electric power generation, transmission, 

and distribution and on electrical 

protective equipment for general 

industry and construction (70 FR 

34822). Interested parties were given 

until August 15, 2005, to submit notices 

of intention to appear at an informal 

hearing, and they were given until 

October 13, 2005, to submit written 

comments. 

The Edison Electric Institute (EEI) 

requested that OSHA extend the 

rulemaking period by 90 days. EEI 

argued that an extension is warranted 

because of the involvement of their 

membership in electric power 

restoration following Hurricane Katrina, 

as follows: 

EEI is the association of the nation’s investor 

owned electric companies. Many EEI member 

companies, their employees, and contractors 

they regularly engage, are now 

overwhelmingly occupied with providing 

assistance in the areas affected by Hurricane 

Katrina. This is especially so as to those 

involved in electric power transmission and 

distribution construction, as sister companies 

work to provide mutual aid, including 

restoration of electric power, to customers of 

those companies whose service territories 

include affected portions of southern states.