14202 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 51 / Thursday, March 16, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

Intergovernmental relations, Law

enforcement officers, Pensions,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Retirement.

U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

Lorraine A. Green,

Deputy Director.

Accordingly, OPM is amending

subpart F of 5 CFR part 831 and subpart

F of 5 CFR part 842, as follows:

PART 831—RETIREMENT

1. The authority citation for part 831

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 8347; § 831.102 also

issued under 5 U.S.C. 8334; § 831.106 also

issued under 5 U.S.C. 552a; § 831.108 also

issued under 5 U.S.C. 8336(d)(2);

§ 831.201(b)(6) also issued under 5 U.S.C.

7701(b)(2); § 831.204 also issued under

section 7202(m)(2) of the Omnibus Budget

Reconciliation Act of 1990, Pub. L. 105–508,

104 Stat. 1388–339; § 831.303 also issued

under 5 U.S.C. 8334(d)(2); § 831.502 also

issued under 5 U.S.C. 8337; § 831.502 also

issued under section 1(3), E.O. 11228, 3 CFR

1964–1965 Comp.; § 831.621 also issued

under section 201(d) of the Federal

Employees Benefits Improvement Act of

1986, Pub. L. 99–251, 100 Stat. 23; subpart

S also issued under 5 U.S.C. 834(k); subpart

V also issued under 5 U.S.C. 8343a and

section 6001 of the Omnibus Budget

Reconciliation Act of 1987, Pub. L. 100–203,

101 Stat. 1330–275; § 831.2203 also issued

under section 7001(a)(4) of the Omnibus

Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, Pub. L.

101–508; 104 Stat. 1388–328.

Subpart F—Survivor Annuities

2. In section 831.644, paragraph (d) is

revised to read as follows:

§ 831.644 Remarriage.

* * * * *

(d) (1) If present or future entitlement

to a former spouse annuity is terminated

because of remarriage before age 55, the

entitlement will not be reinstated upon

termination of the remarriage by death

or divorce.

(2) If present or future entitlement to

a former spouse annuity is terminated

because of remarriage before age 55, the

entitlement will not be reinstated upon

annulment of the remarriage unless—

(i) The decree of annulment states that

the marriage is without legal effect

retroactively from the marriage’s

inception; and

(ii) The former spouse’s entitlement is

based on section 4(b)(1)(B) or section

(4)(b)(4) of Pub. L. 98–615.

(3) If a retiree who is receiving a

reduced annuity to provide a former

spouse annuity and who has remarried

that former spouse (before the former

spouse attained age 55) dies, the retiree

will be deemed to have elected to

continue the reduction to provide a

current spouse annuity unless the

retiree requests (or has requested) in

writing that OPM terminate the

reduction.

PART 842—FEDERAL EMPLOYEES

RETIREMENT SYSTEM—BASIC

ANNUITY

3. The authority citation for part 842

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 8461(g); §§ 842.104 and

842.106 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 8461(n);

§ 842.105 also issued under 5 U.S.C.

8402(c)(1) and 7701(b)(2); § 842.106 also

issued under section 7202(m)(2) of the

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990,

Pub. L. 101–508 and 5 U.S.C. 8402(c)(1);

§§ 842.604 and 842.611 also issued under 5

U.S.C. 8417; § 842.607 also issued under 5

U.S.C. 8416 and 8417; § 842.614 also issued

under 5 U.S.C. 8419; § 842.615 also issued

under 5 U.S.C. 8418; § 842.703 also issued

under section 7001(a)(4) of the Omnibus

Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, Pub. L.

101–508; § 842.707 also issued under section

6001 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation

Act of 1987, Pub. L. 100–203; § 842.708 also

issued under section 4005 of the Omnibus

Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989, Pub. L.

101–239 and section 7001 of the Omnibus

Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, Pub. L.

101–508; subpart H also issued under 5

U.S.C. 1104.

Subpart F—Survivor Elections

4. In section 842.612, paragraph (h) is

added to read as follows:

§ 842.612 Post-retirement election of a

fully reduced annuity or one-half reduced

annuity to provide a current spouse

annuity.

* * * * *

(h) If a retiree who is receiving a

reduced annuity to provide a former

spouse annuity and who has remarried

that former spouse (before the former

spouse attained age 55) dies, the retiree

will be deemed to have elected to

continue the reduction to provide a

current spouse annuity unless the

retiree requests (or has requested) in

writing that OPM terminate the

reduction.

[FR Doc. 95–6508 Filed 3–15–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6325–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service

7 CFR Parts 300 and 319

[Docket No. 94–036–2]

Importation of Fruits and Vegetables

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: We are allowing a number of

previously prohibited fruits and

vegetables to be imported into the

United States from certain parts of the

world. All of the fruits and vegetables,

as a condition of entry, will be subject

to inspection, disinfection, or both, at

the port of first arrival as may be

required by a U.S. Department of

Agriculture inspector. In addition, some

of the fruits and vegetables will be

required to undergo prescribed

treatments for fruit flies or other

injurious insects as a condition of entry,

or to meet other special conditions. This

action will provide the United States

with additional kinds and sources of

fruits and vegetables while continuing

to provide protection against the

introduction and dissemination of

injurious plant pests by imported fruits

and vegetables.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 16, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Frank E. Cooper or Mr. Peter Grosser,

Senior Operations Officers, Animal and

Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant

Protection and Quarantine, Port

Operations, 4700 River Road Unit 139,

Riverdale, Maryland 20737–1228; (301)

734–8645.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The regulations in 7 CFR 319.56

through 319.56–8 (referred to below as

the regulations) prohibit or restrict the

importation of fruits and vegetables into

the United States from certain parts of

the world to prevent the introduction

and dissemination of injurious insects

that are new to or not widely distributed

within and throughout the United

States.

On October 25, 1994, we published in

the Federal Register (59 FR 53606–

53612, Docket No. 94–036–1) a proposal

to amend the regulations by allowing

additional fruits and vegetables to be

imported into the United States from

certain parts of the world under

specified conditions. The importation of

these fruits and vegetables had been

prohibited because of the risk that the
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 51 / Thursday, March 16, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 14203

fruits and vegetables could introduce

injurious insects into the United States.

We proposed to allow these

importations at the request of various

importers and foreign ministries of

agriculture, and after conducting pest

risk analyses that indicated that the

fruits or vegetables could be imported

under certain conditions without

significant pest risk.

We solicited comments concerning

our proposal for 30 days ending

November 25, 1994. We received nine

comments by that date. They were from

industry representatives and growers,

State departments of agriculture, an

academic institution, a foreign

department of agriculture, and a foreign

ambassador. One comment supported

the proposal as written. One commenter

was concerned about being able to move

fruits and vegetables from Puerto Rico

into other parts of the United States.

The remainder of the commenters

opposed the rule for specific fruits or

vegetables. We carefully considered all

of the comments we received. They are

discussed below by topic.

Carambola From Taiwan

We proposed to amend § 319.56–2x to

allow the importation of carambola from

Taiwan. We specified that carambola

would undergo cold treatment for the

Oriental fruit fly (Bactrocera dorsalis) in

accordance with the Plant Protection

and Quarantine (PPQ) Treatment

Manual, which has been incorporated

by reference into the Code of Federal

Regulations at 7 CFR 300.1. In

accordance with § 319.56–6 of the

regulations, carambola would be subject

to inspection, disinfection, or both at

the port of first arrival. As discussed in

the proposal, the pest risk assessment

conducted by the Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service (APHIS)

determined that any injurious plant

pests that might be carried by carambola

would be readily detectable by an

inspector.

Several commenters expressed

concerns about the economic analysis in

the Initial Regulatory Flexibility

Analysis. These comments are

addressed in the Final Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis.

One commenter was concerned about

U.S. producers’ ability to export

carambola to the Taiwanese market. Our

proposal and decision to allow

importation of carambola from Taiwan,

as well as other fruits and vegetables,

are based solely on whether these

importations can be made without

significant risk of pest introduction. We

have no authority to limit importations

based on the presence or absence of

reciprocal arrangements. Therefore, we

have made no change based on this

comment.

Two commenters expressed concern

that Taiwanese producers use pesticides

which are illegal in the United States.

The Food and Drug Administration

takes samples of imported commodities

to determine whether illegal pesticides

are present, and seizes shipments that

do not meet its standards. Therefore, we

have made no change based on this

comment.

One commenter stated that there was

no mention of the certification

procedures to ensure fruits are treated

properly and not infested with the

Oriental fruit fly, Bactrocera dorsalis.

We ensure the fruits are treated properly

by verifying the results of treatment in

accordance with the PPQ Treatment

Manual. Cold treatments, as required for

carambola from Taiwan, may be

conducted either in the country of

origin or in the United States, under an

inspector’s supervision. Treatments may

also be conducted on board vessels en

route to the United States. In this case,

a sealed temperature recording device is

read by an inspector upon the fruit’s

arrival in the United States, and the fruit

is released from treatment only if the

temperature record indicates the

required cold treatment has been

successfully completed.

Several commenters stated concerns

about the fruit piercing moth (Othreis

spp.) and fruit borer (Eucosma

notanthes), which attack carambola.

They questioned whether cold or other

treatments would kill these pests and

raised concerns about the effectiveness

of the Taiwanese practice of covering

the fruit with pesticide impregnated

bags to manage these pests. One

commenter felt that there was no way to

ensure that all fruit imported into the

United States had been bagged in the

field. Another commenter felt that there

was no guarantee that shipments of

carambola from Taiwan would be free of

larvae or eggs of the Eucosma or that the

young larvae in the fruit would have

caused sufficient damage for an

inspector to detect. Commenters

expressed concerns that these pests, if

introduced into the United States, could

feed on related fruits and become a

significant problem for carambola and

other crops in Florida.

The fruit borer, Eucosma notanthes, is

recognized as a pest of carambola.

However, routine cultural practices for

carambola production in Taiwan, such

as the bagging of fruit, provide

deterrents against the carambola

becoming infested with these pests. In

addition, the following pest

management activities are carried out to

reduce the risk posed by this insect:

Pesticides are applied weekly, from the

end of the bloom season until the fruit

measures 5 cm in length. Infestation in

young fruit results in premature fruit

drop. The dropped fruit is collected and

destroyed, reducing pest pressure and

risk. Fruits are then bagged to prevent

adult moths from laying eggs on the

growing fruit. APHIS representatives

will schedule periodic visits to

carambola production areas in Taiwan

to monitor these procedures. If an adult

moth circumvents the bagging and lays

eggs on more mature fruits, the action of

the larvae boring into the fruit extrudes

frass from the hole as well as exudate

from the fruit. These obvious symptoms

enhance our confidence in our being

able to visually detect any fruit that may

be infested.

Bagging fruits to prevent insects from

laying their eggs on or in the fruit, and

subsequent larval forms boring into the

fruit, has proven successful with similar

pests and imports of sand pears from

Japan and the Republic of Korea. The

bagging will also exclude other moths,

including Othreis spp.

We consider the measures taken in

the exporting country, coupled with the

safeguards required by the regulations,

including inspection and cold

treatment, to be adequate to prevent the

introduction of injurious plant pests

into the United States by carambola

from Taiwan. Therefore, we are not

making any changes based on these

comments.

Onion Bulbs From Indonesia

We proposed to amend § 319.56–2t to

allow the importation of onion bulbs,

Allium cepa, from Indonesia. One

commenter stated that onion bulbs from

Indonesia should not be allowed entry

with the tops due to the risk of

introduction of the listed leafminer and

noctuids. We are making no change

based on this comment, because, as

indicated in the proposal, only bulbs of

the onion will be allowed. Bulbs with

tops will be refused entry.

Jicama From Tonga

We proposed to amend § 319.56–2t to

allow the importation of Jicama,

Pachyrhizus tuberous, from Tonga. One

commenter felt that jicama from Tonga

should not be admitted until the

nematodes mentioned in the pest risk

assessment are identified and their

impact evaluated. We are making no

change based on this comment. The pest

risk assessment reported on two rootknot nematodes on this host. As the

name implies, attacks by species within

this genus result in a root-knot forming

on the host material. In general, these

are predictable visible symptoms that
14204 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 51 / Thursday, March 16, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

inspectors are trained to look for, and

APHIS inspects jicama for these

nematodes. If these nematodes are

detected at the time of importation, the

jicama will be rejected.

Currant and Gooseberry, From

Argentina and Australia

We proposed to amend § 319.56–2t to

allow the importation of currant and

gooseberry, Ribes spp., from Argentina

and Australia. One commenter felt that

Ribes spp. fruits could harbor the mites

that vector the reversion disease, even

though the fruit would not carry the

pathogen for the disease. The

commenter recommended that surface

treatment should be required to allow

entry for these fruits. We are making no

change based on this comment. The

reversion disease is not known to occur

in Argentina or Australia. Therefore, we

believe there is no risk of mites serving

as vectors.

White Asparagus From Austria

We proposed to amend § 319.56–2t to

allow the importation of white

asparagus, Asparagus officinalis, from

Austria. As specified in the proposal,

the only plant part eligible for

importation is the shoot, with no visible

green on the shoot. One commenter

suggested that white asparagus from

Austria should be harvested before

shoot emergence and washed to

eliminate soil. We are making no

changes based on this comment. If the

asparagus is harvested after shoot

emergence, it will not be white, and,

therefore, will not be enterable. We will

reject all shipments that are not white.

In accordance with 7 CFR 330.300, soil

contamination is a reason for rejecting

shipments of all agricultural products

from nearly all countries. Therefore, the

asparagus shoots must be completely

white and free of soil when presented

for inspection and entry.

Sage From Belize

We proposed to amend § 319.56–2t to

allow the importation of sage, Salvia,

from Belize. In accordance with

§ 319.56–6 of the regulations, sage

would be subject to inspection,

disinfection, or both at the port of first

arrival. As discussed in the proposal,

the pest risk assessment conducted by

APHIS determined that sage from Belize

is not attacked by fruit flies or other

injurious plant pests. In addition, any

other injurious plant pests that might be

carried by sage from Belize would be

readily detectable by an inspector.

One commenter was concerned about

the rust pathogens in Central America.

The commenter questioned the status of

rust pathogens in Belize. We have no

evidence that any of these rust

pathogens occur in Belize. In addition,

our experience with Salvia imports from

countries where these rust pathogens

occur has not demonstrated that

imported Salvia serves as a pathway.

Blueberry From Argentina

We proposed to amend § 319.56–2t to

allow the importation of blueberry,

Vaccinium spp., from Argentina. We

specified that blueberries will undergo

cold treatment for the Mediterranean

fruit fly (Ceratitis capitata) in

accordance with the PPQ Treatment

Manual.

One commenter suggested that

fumigation schedules for Vaccinium

spp. fruit from Argentina should target

Anastrepha spp., which has been

intercepted on Vaccinium spp. in

Mexico. We are making no changes

based on this comment. Although it is

true that a fruit fly of an Anastrepha sp.

was found in blueberry fruit, the fruit

was carried by an airline passenger and

is the only record we have of an

interception of this species in blueberry

fruit. This information was weighed

against the larger body of information of

repeated commercial importation

without any evidence of Anastrepha

infestation. We believe the interception

represented an aberration or incidental

report from a possible over-ripe or

damaged fruit.

Kiwi From the Republic of Korea

We proposed to amend § 319.56–2t to

allow the importation of kiwi, Actinidia

deliciosa, from the Republic of Korea.

One commenter was concerned by the

lack of reciprocal commitment from the

Republic of Korea to treat California

kiwifruit exported to the Republic of

Korea fairly in the context of

phytosanitary and food issues.

Our proposal and decision to allow

importation of kiwi from the Republic of

Korea, as well as other fruits and

vegetables, are based solely on whether

these importations can be made without

significant risk of pest introduction. We

have no authority to limit importations

based on the presence or absence of

reciprocal arrangements.

Inspection Upon Arrival

One commenter questioned the ability

of inspectors to adequately inspect the

increasing number of commodities that

arrive in the United States. Inspection at

the port of first arrival is only one aspect

of our approach to plant pest exclusion,

and is never the sole means of plant pest

exclusion for any commodity. Before a

fruit or vegetable is approved for

importation into the United States, a

plant pest risk assessment is conducted

for the commodity. If a plant pest risk

is found to be associated with a

commodity proposed for importation,

APHIS then determines what, if any,

measures can be taken to reduce the risk

to a level that would allow the

commodity to be safely imported into

the United States. For example, in

certain cases our regulations impose

restrictions such as specific growing and

shipping requirements or inspection in

the country of origin, or treatment. As

a final precaution, all fruits and

vegetables are subject to inspection at

the port of first arrival. Inspectors are

aware of potential pest risks associated

with a particular commodity and

conduct their inspections accordingly.

We consider the measures taken in the

exporting countries, coupled with the

safeguards required by the regulations,

including inspection, to be adequate to

prevent the introduction of injurious

plant pests into the United States.

General

One commenter stated that pest risk

assessments consist only of a cursory

look at the interception histories of

commodities which are currently

prohibited and do not adequately

investigate pest problems associated

with the commodities in their countries

of origin. We do investigate pest

problems associated with commodities

in their countries of origin during our

pest risk assessments. Our current

method of performing pest risk

assessments is to do an exhaustive

search of literature and review our

historical plant pest database and

interception information. When

available, we also use information from

other sources, and occasionally conduct

on-site investigations in proposed

export areas. The pest risk assessments

are largely dependent upon literature on

plant pest problems in countries of

origin. This literature is primarily

investigative findings published by

scientific communities. Our experience

has shown that if a pest causes damage

to an economic crop, the scientific

community investigates the pest’s

biology and extent of pest damage in

prescribing remedial actions.

One commenter felt that commodities

that can be planted or otherwise

propagated, such as onion and shallot

bulbs, cornsalad, and jicama, should be

evaluated by stricter criteria. We are

making no change based on this

comment. We have long recognized that

some products imported for

consumption are capable of being

propagated and that individuals,

occasionally out of curiosity, may plant

them. While we do not believe that the

extent of the practice makes it a
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 51 / Thursday, March 16, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 14205

significant pest risk, we have, in the

past, explored three ways of preventing

the practice: (1) Prohibit the importation

of all commodities that could

potentially be propagated; (2) treat all

commodities capable of propagation

with sprout inhibitor; or (3) devitalize

the products prior to export. We believe

that the first option, prohibition, should

be applied only to products that present

pest risks that cannot be mitigated in

other ways. We have experimented with

the second option, using sprout

inhibitors, but they do not offer

sufficient quarantine security for highrisk products and are not registered for

most products. The third option,

devitalization, in most cases renders a

product unacceptable for the fresh fruit

and vegetable market.

Countries are becoming more and

more sophisticated in their production

and phytosanitary practices, so the

quality of fruits and vegetables in

general is increasing. Products are

graded and inspected during packing

and prior to export, and the products are

inspected again upon arrival in the

United States. All of this reduces the

likelihood of a pest entering the United

States. If, once a commodity has been

imported into the United States, a

person chooses to try to propagate that

commodity, the person would likely

choose the healthiest-looking material,

thus further reducing the probability

that a plant pest would be spread. The

limited degree of risk that remains must

be accepted if free trade is to be

maintained.

Puerto Rico

One commenter felt that the proposal

should not be approved since it would

provide foreign countries importation

rights and benefits which are currently

being denied to other States and

Territories. The commenter requested

that we review and, if necessary, revise

many of our regulations covering Puerto

Rico to increase the number and kinds

of fruits and vegetables moving into

other parts of the United States from

Puerto Rico. We will consider specific

requests from Puerto Rico to allow the

movement of specific fruits and

vegetables to other parts of the United

States. Once a request is received, we

will perform a pest risk assessment to

determine if there is significant risk of

introducing injurious plant pests into

other parts of the United States. After

determining that the fruits or vegetables

could be moved under certain

conditions without significant pest risk,

we would publish a proposed rule in

the Federal Register to allow the

movement of those fruits or vegetables

into other parts of the United States.

Miscellaneous

We have made minor, editorial

changes by removing the references to

‘‘South Korea’’ and by replacing them

with ‘‘the Republic of Korea,’’ the

official name for that country.

Therefore, based on the rationale set

forth in the proposed rule and in this

document, we are adopting the

provisions of the proposal as a final

rule, with the change noted above.

Effective Date

This is a substantive rule that relieves

restrictions and, pursuant to the

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

effective less than 30 days after

publication in the Federal Register.

Immediate implementation of this rule

is necessary to provide relief to those

persons who are adversely affected by

restrictions we no longer find

warranted. Therefore, the Administrator

of the Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service has determined that

this rule should be effective upon

publication in the Federal Register.

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory

Flexibility Act

This rule has been reviewed under

Executive Order 12866. The rule has

been determined to be not significant for

the purposes of Executive Order 12866

and, therefore, has not been reviewed by

the Office of Management and Budget.

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 601 et

seq., we have performed a Final

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, set forth

below, regarding the economic impact

of this rule on small entities.

Under the Plant Quarantine Act and

the Federal Plant Pest Act (7 U.S.C.

150dd, 150ee, 150ff, 151–167), the

Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to

regulate the importation of fruits and

vegetables to prevent the introduction of

injurious plant pests.

This final rule amends the regulations

governing the importation of fruits and

vegetables by allowing a number of

previously prohibited fruits and

vegetables to be imported into the

United States from certain foreign

countries and localities under specified

conditions. The importation of these

fruits and vegetables has been

prohibited because of the risk that they

could introduce injurious plant pests

into the United States. This rule revises

the status of certain commodities from

certain countries and localities,

allowing their importation into the

United States for the first time.

These revisions are based on pest risk

assessments that were conducted by

APHIS at the request of various

importers and foreign ministries of

agriculture. The pest risk assessments

indicate that the fruits or vegetables

listed in this rule, under certain

conditions, may be imported into the

United States without significant pest

risk. All of the fruits and vegetables, as

a condition of entry, will be subject to

inspection, disinfection, or both, at the

port of first arrival as may be required

by an inspector. In addition, some of the

fruits and vegetables will be required to

undergo mandatory treatment for fruit

flies or other injurious insects as a

condition of entry, or to meet other

special conditions. This action will

provide the United States with

additional kinds and sources of fruits

and vegetables while continuing to

provide protection against the

introduction into the United States of

injurious plant pests by imported fruits

and vegetables.

Apples

This rule allows apples to be

imported into the United States from

Spain under certain conditions. Spain’s

production of apples in 1993 was

approximately 821,000 metric tons (mt).

Spain’s export level over the past 5

years has averaged 20,000 mt. In the

unlikely event that Spain’s apple

exports were fully diverted to the

United States, they would represent

about 0.4 percent of U.S. production, an

amount that would not significantly

affect the U.S. market. Moreover, there

would not be any off-season advantages,

since Spain’s main production season,

June through September, inclusive, is

the same as for U.S. apple producers.

In addition, the United States is a net

exporter of apples. Total U.S. utilized

production of apples in 1993 was

4,760,682 mt (fresh equivalent).

(Utilized production of apples refers to

the amount of apples sold plus the

quantities of apples used on farms

where grown and quantities of apples

held in storage, thus those apples

actually used in some way.) Imports of

fresh apples in 1992 totaled 120,412 mt,

or 2.5 percent of domestic utilized

production that year, whereas exports

totaled 507,614 mt, or 10.7 percent.

Given this trade flow, the U.S. market

for apples is not expected to exhibit the

excess demand in the near future that

could encourage increased foreign

supply. The main commercial varieties

grown in Spain (Golden Delicious, 50

percent; Granny Smith, 30 percent) are

common varieties in the United States,

and their export, therefore, would not

satisfy any special market demand.

Asparagus (White)

This rule allows white asparagus to be

imported into the United States from
14206 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 51 / Thursday, March 16, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

Austria under certain conditions. Total

U.S. asparagus production in 1993 was

2,204,000 hundredweight (cwt), or

99,973 mt. Austria’s current production

of asparagus is around 400 mt, 95

percent of which is white asparagus.

APHIS expects that annual exports to

the United States may reach between 1

and 2 tons. This quantity represents less

than 0.002 percent of U.S. production,

and therefore will not affect prices

received by U.S. growers.

Blueberries

This rule allows blueberries to be

imported into the United States from

Argentina under certain conditions.

Total U.S. blueberry production in 1993

was 170,397,000 pounds, or 77,292 mt.

About 40 percent was produced for the

fresh fruit market, and about 60 percent

was processed. APHIS estimates

Argentina’s current production of

blueberries to be 40 mt per year, and we

expect that figure to expand to 200 mt

by 1997–98. At present, all blueberry

exports from Argentina (80 percent of

production) are sent to Europe. If

approved for entry into the United

States, we expect that 19.2 mt or 60

percent of blueberry exports from

Argentina will be directed to U.S. ports.

This quantity represents less than 0.03

percent of U.S. production, and

therefore will not noticeably affect

prices received by U.S. growers.

Carambola

This rule allows carambola to be

imported into the United States from

Taiwan under certain conditions.

Ninety percent of domestic production

of carambola takes place in southern

Florida, where 60 to 90 growers

cultivate a total of about 400 acres. Most

of the producers are considered small

entities, according to the Small Business

Administration definition of annual

gross receipts of $500,000 or less. U.S.

production of carambola in 1994

reached between 5 and 6 million

pounds, a quantity expected to

gradually increase as consumer

familiarity with carambola grows. At

present, carambola is unknown to most

U.S. consumers, and the industry faces

the challenges of creating broader

market appeal for this fruit.

Besides Florida, a relatively small

amount of carambola is produced in

Hawaii (58,400 pounds in 1992). A

regulatory change last year now allows

carambola grown in Hawaii to be

marketed on the mainland. The initial

volume to be shipped this year is

estimated at 1,500 to 3,000 pounds.

Taiwan is reportedly the world’s

largest producer of carambola. In 1992,

35,738 mt (78.8 million pounds) were

produced, about 12 times that of the

United States. However, less than 10 mt

(0.03 percent) of Taiwan’s production is

exported annually, mainly to Hong

Kong and Canada. As an initial trial

shipment, about 1 mt is expected to be

exported to the United States per year.

California is a large and growing

domestic market for carambola and the

likely destination of carambola from

Taiwan. It receives from 40 to 50

percent of Florida’s carambola crop.

California requires that carambola from

Florida be cold treated, and APHIS

requires cold treatment for shipments

from Hawaii to the mainland. Imports

from Taiwan will also require cold

treatment.

Average prices received by U.S.

carambola producers between 1989 and

1993 ranged from about $0.67 to $1.55

per pound. Farm prices in Taiwan vary

from $0.60 to $4.00 per kg ($0.27 to

$1.81 per pound), depending on the

quality, size of production, and season.

While prices are generally lower in

Taiwan, high quality carambolas

suitable for export sell well in Taiwan’s

domestic market. Relatively high farm

prices and the fruit’s well-established

domestic market largely explain

Taiwan’s limited exports.

Carambola is sensitive to chilling,

which can cause the skin to turn brown

and become pitted. Since all carambola

entering California will require cold

treatment, effects of the treatment on the

appearance and marketability of the

fruit will be similar, whether the

carambola comes from Florida, Hawaii,

or Taiwan.

We received four comments

disagreeing with the results of our

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

for carambola from Taiwan. They were

from three domestic growers

associations and an academic

institution. The commenters were

concerned with unfair competition and

the impact on domestic producers. None

of the commenters provided additional

data, however, to dispute our figures.

We carefully considered all of the

comments. The comments and

responses are summarized below.

One commenter stated that the

classification of U.S. carambola

producers as ‘‘small entities’’ does not

change the fact that U.S. citizens are

making their livelihood from producing

carambola. Examination of the possible

impact on U.S. carambola producers as

‘‘small entities’’ is required by the

Regulatory Flexibility Act. No other

significance is attached to the ‘‘small

entities’’ classification.

One commenter felt that the United

States is currently in a trade deficit with

Taiwan, and allowing carambolas to be

imported will only increase this deficit.

APHIS bases its decisions to allow

importation of fruits and vegetables on

whether these importations can be made

without significant risk of pest

introduction. We have no authority to

limit importations based on the size of

a trade deficit.

Two commenters raised concerns that

since the carambola is still a relatively

unknown product in the United States,

the marketing efforts for carambola by

U.S. carambola producers would

provide free benefits to Taiwan, and,

Taiwan would gain as a result. While

carambola imported from Taiwan may

well benefit from U.S. efforts, U.S.

producers may also benefit from

Taiwanese marketing efforts.

All four commenters were concerned

about the impact on U.S. carambola

producers and disagreed with our

evaluation that allowing the importation

of carambola from Taiwan would have

a positive impact on the U.S. economy.

Since the extent of the impact is not

known, one commenter questioned,

‘‘Why experiment on an unknown

outcome with the livelihood of

American Citizens and small

businesses?’’ The commenter also

stated, ‘‘The carambola as a commercial

crop in the U.S. is still an emerging

industry with many unknowns. It would

only seem wise to concentrate all of our

resources on establishing the domestic

side of this industry before allowing

additional unknown elements to be

added to the equation.’’ Three

commenters questioned our conclusion

that a loss of income by U.S. producers

would be positive for the U.S. economy.

The level of expected near-term

imports is very small compared to U.S.

carambola production (less than 0.1

percent). In fact, all of Taiwan’s current

carambola exports equals less than one

percent of current U.S. production. If

carambola retail prices in the United

States declines with imports from

Taiwan, then U.S. consumers will gain

and U.S. producers will lose. The

impact for the economy will be positive

if the gains exceed the losses.

Assuming the market for carambola

expands, and fruit from Taiwan is

routinely imported, domestic producers’

income will be less than it would be

otherwise, due to a price decline and/

or lower volumes than would be sold

were there not imports. The critical

question is what this reduction in

income will be. There is no evidence to

suggest that it will be significant.

From a broader perspective, sales and

income lost by domestic producers

should be balanced against benefits to

U.S. consumers in terms of greater

availability and/or lower prices. Again,
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 51 / Thursday, March 16, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 14207

lack of information on how much

carambola prices can be expected to

decline as a result of imports, and the

responsiveness of producers and

consumers to a decline, precludes

estimation of consumers’ gains and

domestic producers’ losses.

Nevertheless, APHIS believes that the

net benefit to the U.S. economy will be

positive.

Currants and Gooseberries

This rule allows currants and

gooseberries to be imported into the

United States from Argentina under

certain conditions. Argentina’s area of

Ribes spp. production totals only four

hectares, one of which is being used for

experiments on the suitability of various

species. The Economic Research

Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,

estimates the annual crop at 30 mt, of

which 40 percent, or 12 mt, could be

exported to the United States.

Although published data on U.S.

Ribes spp. production is not available,

trade statistics show the United States to

be a net importer. In 1992, 64 mt of

currants and gooseberries were

exported, and 264 mt of currants were

imported. The quantity of Ribes spp.

expected to be imported from Argentina

is only 6 percent of 1992 net imports for

the United States. APHIS does not

expect this relatively small change in

the quantity imported to significantly

affect the market for U.S. producers.

Eggplant

This rule allows eggplant to be

imported into the United States from the

Republic of Korea under certain

conditions. U.S. commercial production

of eggplant in 1993 was 776,000 cwt

(35,199 mt). The Republic of Korea’s

annual production of eggplant in 1993

totaled 22,751 mt, of which 30.3 mt

were exported to Japan and Guam. If all

of the Republic of Korea’s eggplant

exports were sent to the United States,

it will represent less than 0.09 percent

of U.S. commercial production.

Even in the very unrealistic scenario

that the Republic of Korea’s eggplant

exports are fully diverted to the United

States, the quantities will not be large

enough to affect the U.S. market.

Kiwi

This rule allows kiwi to be imported

into the United States from the Republic

of Korea under certain conditions.

Utilized U.S. production of kiwi in 1992

totaled 47,700 mt. Imports of kiwi into

the United States for 1992 were

estimated at 20,236 mt, or more than 40

percent of domestic production. The

Republic of Korea’s annual production

of kiwi in 1993 totaled 8,538 mt, of

which none was exported. Assuming 5

percent of the Republic of Korea’s

production (426.9 mt) were exported to

the United States, this amount will

represent only about 0.6 percent of U.S.

supply (produced domestically and

imported) in 1991.

Even in the very unrealistic scenario

that the Republic of Korea exports 5

percent of its kiwi production to the

United States, the quantities will not be

large enough to affect the U.S. market.

Lettuce

This rule allows lettuce to be

imported into the United States from

Israel and the Republic of Korea under

certain conditions. Total U.S.

production of head, leaf, and romaine

lettuce in 1993 was 82,790,000 cwt

(3,755,330 mt). In Israel, insect-free

lettuce produced in greenhouses for the

1993/94 season reached about 4,480,000

pounds. Exports planned for 1994/95

are estimated at 1,600,000 pounds. If all

of these exports were destined for the

United States, they would comprise less

than 0.02 percent of U.S. production

and, therefore, will not noticeably affect

the U.S. market.

The Republic of Korea’s annual

production of leaf lettuce in 1993

totaled 149,611 mt, of which 23.9 mt

were exported to Japan, Guam, Hong

Kong, and Saipan. If all of the Republic

of Korea’s lettuce exports were sent to

the United States, it would represent

only about 0.0006 percent of U.S.

production.

Even in the very unrealistic scenario

that the Republic of Korea’s lettuce

exports are fully diverted to the United

States, the quantities will not be large

enough to affect the U.S. market.

The aggregate economic impact of this

rule is expected to be positive. U.S.

consumers will benefit from a greater

availability of fruits and vegetables. U.S.

importers will also benefit from a

greater availability of fruits and

vegetables to import.

The alternative to this rule was to

make no changes in the fruits and

vegetables regulations. After

consideration, we rejected this

alternative since there was no pest risk

reason to maintain the prohibitions on

the affected produce.

In the course of rulemaking, if we had

come across evidence indicating that

importation of any of the concerned

fruits or vegetables would pose a

significant risk of plant pest

introduction, we would have considered

either developing alternative

requirements regarding that importation

or continuing to prohibit the

importation of that fruit or vegetable.

However, our initial pest risk

assessments and our review of public

comments on the proposal indicated

that importation of any of the concerned

fruits and vegetables would pose no

significant risk of plant pest

introduction.

This rule contains no paperwork or

recordkeeping requirements.

Executive Order 12778

This rule allows certain fruits and

vegetables to be imported into the

United States from certain parts of the

world. State and local laws and

regulations regarding fruits and

vegetables imported under this rule will

be preempted while the fruits and

vegetables are in foreign commerce.

Fresh fruits and vegetables are generally

imported for immediate distribution and

sale to the consuming public, and will

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. 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

An environmental assessment and

finding of no significant impact have

been prepared for this rule. The

assessment provides a basis for the

conclusion that the importation of fruits

and vegetables under the conditions

specified in this rule will not present a

significant risk of introducing or

disseminating plant pests and will not

have a significant impact on the quality

of the human environment. Based on

the finding of no significant impact, the

Administrator of the Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service has

determined that an environmental

impact statement need not be prepared.

The environmental assessment and

finding of no significant impact were

prepared in accordance with: (1) The

National Environmental Policy Act of

1969 (NEPA) (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) National

Environmental Policy Act Implementing

Procedures (7 CFR part 372).

Copies of the environmental

assessment and finding of no significant

impact are available for public

inspection at USDA, room 1141, South

Building, 14th Street and Independence

Avenue SW., Washington, DC, between

8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through

Friday, except holidays. Persons
14208 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 51 / Thursday, March 16, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

wishing to inspect copies are requested

to call ahead on (202) 690–2817 to

facilitate entry into the reading room. In

addition, copies may be obtained by

writing to the individual listed under

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule contains no information

collection or recordkeeping

requirements under the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501

et seq.).

List of Subjects

7 CFR Part 300

Incorporation by reference, Plant

diseases and pests, Quarantine.

7 CFR Part 319

Bees, Coffee, Cotton, Fruits, Honey,

Imports, Incorporation by reference,

Nursery stock, Plant diseases and pests,

Quarantine, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Rice,

Vegetables.

Accordingly, 7 CFR parts 300 and 319

is amended as follows:

PART 300—INCORPORATION BY

REFERENCE

1. The authority citation for part 300

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 150ee, 154, 161, 162,

and 167; 7 CFR 2.17, 2.51, and 371.2(c).

2. In § 300.1, paragraph (a) is revised

to read as follows:

§ 300.1 Materials incorporated by

reference.

(a) The Plant Protection and

Quarantine Treatment Manual, which

was reprinted November 30, 1992 and

includes all revisions through March

1995, has been approved for

incorporation by reference in 7 CFR

chapter III by the Director of the Office

of the Federal Register in accordance

with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

* * * * *

PART 319—FOREIGN QUARANTINE

NOTICES

3. The authority citation for part 319

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 150dd, 150ee, 150ff,

151–167, and 450; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a;

7 CFR 2.17, 2.51, and 371.2(c).

§ 319.56–2r [Amended]

4. In § 319.56–2r, paragraph (a)(1) is

amended by adding, in alphabetical

order, ‘‘Spain,’’.

5. In § 319.56–2r, paragraph (g)(1) is

amended by adding ‘‘Spain,’’

immediately before ‘‘Sweden’’.

6. In § 319.56–2t, the table is amended

by revising ‘‘South Korea’’ to read

‘‘Republic of Korea’’ and by adding in

alphabetical order, the following:

§ 319.56–2t Administrative instructions:

conditions governing the entry of certain

fruits and vegetables.

* * * * *

Country/locality Common name Botanical name Plant part(s)

Argentina

* * * * * * *

Currant .......................................... Ribes spp ...................................... Fruit.

* * * * * * *

Gooseberry ................................... Ribes spp ...................................... Fruit.

Australia ......................................... Currant .......................................... Ribes spp ...................................... Fruit.

Gooseberry ................................... Ribes spp ...................................... Fruit.

Austria ............................................ Asparagus, white .......................... Asparagus officinalis ..................... Shoot.3

* * * * * * *

Belize

* * * * * * *

Sage ............................................. Salivia officinalis ........................... Leaf and stem.

* * * * * * *

El Salvador .................................... Cilantro ......................................... Coriandrum sativum ..................... Above ground parts.

Dill ................................................. Anethum graveolens ..................... Above ground parts.

* * * * * * *

Honduras

* * * * * * *

Cilantro ......................................... Coriandrum sativum ..................... Above ground parts.

* * * * * * *

Indonesia

* * * * * * *

Onion ............................................ Allium cepa ................................... Bulb.

Shallot ........................................... Allium ascalonicum ....................... Bulb.

* * * * * * *

Nicaragua ...................................... Cilantro ......................................... Coriandrum sativum ..................... Above ground parts.

* * * * * * *

Peru

* * * * * * *

Cornsalad ..................................... Valerianella spp ............................ Whole plant.

* * * * * * *

Lambsquarters .............................. Chenopodium album .................... Above ground parts.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 51 / Thursday, March 16, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 14209

1 42 U.S.C. 6291, 6294.

2 44 FR 66466.

3 42 U.S.C. 6293(b) (7)(A) and (8)(A).

Country/locality Common name Botanical name Plant part(s)

* * * * * * *

Republic of Korea

* * * * * * *

Eggplant ........................................ Solanum melongena ..................... Fruit.

Kiwi ............................................... Actinidia deliciosa ......................... Fruit.

Lettuce .......................................... Lactuca sativa ............................... Leaf.

* * * * * * *

Tonga

* * * * * * *

Jicama .......................................... Pachyrhizus tuberosus ................. Root.

* * * * * * *

3 No green may be visible on the shoot.

7. In § 319.56–2x, paragraph (a), the table is amended by adding, in alphabetical order, the following:

§ 319.56–2x Administrative instructions: conditions governing the entry of certain fruits and vegetables for which treatment is required.

(a) * * *

Country/locality Common name Botanical name Plant part(s)

Argentina ....................................... Blueberry ...................................... Vaccinium spp .............................. Fruit.

* * * * * * *

El Salvador .................................... Garden bean ................................. Phaseolus vulgaris ....................... Pod or shelled.

* * * * * * *

Israel

* * * * * * *

Lettuce .......................................... Lactuca sativa ............................... Leaf.

* * * * * * *

Taiwan ........................................... Carambola .................................... Averrhoa carambola ..................... Fruit.

* * * * * * *

* * * * *

Done in Washington, DC, this 9th day of

March 1995.

Lonnie J. King,

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service.

[FR Doc. 95–6370 Filed 3–15–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

16 CFR Part 305

Rule Concerning Disclosures

Regarding Energy Consumption and

Water Use of Certain Home Appliances

and Other Products Required Under

the Energy Policy and Conservation

Act ‘‘Appliance Labeling Rule’’

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Federal Trade

Commission (‘‘Commission’’)

announces non-substantive

amendments to its Appliance Labeling

Rule (‘‘Rule’’). Specifically, the

Commission is amending the Rule’s

water flow rates disclosure requirements

for showerheads and faucets to specify

that the metric disclosures ‘‘liters per

minute’’ and ‘‘liters per cycle’’ be

abbreviated as ‘‘L/min’’ and ‘‘L/cycle’’

rather than ‘‘Lpm’’ and ‘‘Lpc.’’

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 16, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Terrence J. Boyle, Attorney, (202) 326–

3016, Division of Enforcement, Bureau

of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade

Commission, Washington, DC 20580.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Energy Policy and Conservation Act of

1975 (‘‘EPCA’’) directed the

Commission to issue rules requiring

various categories of home appliances

and other products to be labeled with

information about their energy

consumption and efficiency.1 Pursuant

to EPCA, the Commission on November

19, 1979, issued the Appliance Labeling

Rule requiring label disclosures of

energy operating costs and/or efficiency

for seven categories of products.2

The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (‘‘EPA

92’’) amended EPCA to add

showerheads, faucets, water closets and

urinals as covered products. As

amended, EPCA establishes for

showerheads and faucets a national

maximum water flow rate standard of

2.5 gallons per minute at 80 pounds per

square inch (‘‘psi’’) water pressure and,

for those products, adopted the testing

methods of the American Society of

Mechanical Engineers (‘‘ASME’’)

Standard A112.18.1M as ‘‘the proper

protocols for measuring the water

usage.’’ 3 EPA 92 also directed the

Commission to issue rules requiring

these plumbing products to be

permanently marked with their water

flow rates and to bear disclosures

‘‘consistent with the marking and