This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

18690

Vol. 61, No. 83

Monday, April 29, 1996

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service

7 CFR Part 319

[Docket No. 95–068–1]

Importation of Fruits and Vegetables

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: We are proposing to allow,

under certain conditions, the cold

treatment of imported fruit upon arrival

at the ports of Seattle, WA, Atlanta, GA,

and Gulfport, MS. We have determined

that there are biological barriers at these

ports that, along with certain safeguards,

would prevent the introduction of fruit

flies and other insect pests into the

United States in the unlikely event that

they escape from shipments of fruit

before undergoing cold treatment. We

are also proposing to require that cold

treatment facilities at the port of

Wilmington, NC, remain locked during

non-working hours. These actions

would facilitate the importation of fruit

requiring cold treatment while

continuing to provide protection against

the introduction of fruit flies and other

insect pests into the United States.

DATES: Consideration will be given only

to comments received on or before June

28, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Please send an original and

three copies of your comments to

Docket No. 95–068–1, Regulatory

Analysis and Development, PPD,

APHIS, suite 3C03, 4700 River Road

Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737–1238.

Please state that your comments refer to

Docket No. 95–068–1. Comments

received may be inspected 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 wishing to

inspect comments are requested to call

ahead on (202) 690–2817 to facilitate

entry into the comment reading room.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Peter M. Grosser, Senior Operations

Officer, Port Operations, PPQ, APHIS,

4700 River Road Unit 139, Riverdale,

MD 20737–1236, (301) 734–8891.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Fruits and Vegetables regulations,

contained in 7 CFR 319.56 through

319.56–8 (referred to below as ‘‘the

regulations’’), prohibit or restrict the

importation of fruits and vegetables to

prevent the introduction and

dissemination of injurious insects,

including fruit flies, that are new to or

not widely distributed in the United

States. The Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service (APHIS) of the U.S.

Department of Agriculture administers

these regulations.

Under the regulations, APHIS allows

certain fruits to be imported into the

United States if they undergo sustained

refrigeration (cold treatment) sufficient

to kill certain insect pests. Cold

treatment temperature and time

requirements vary according to the type

of fruit and the pests involved. Detailed

cold treatment procedures may be found

in the Plant Protection and Quarantine

(PPQ) Treatment Manual, which is

incorporated by reference into the

regulations at 7 CFR 300.1.

Most imported fruit that requires cold

treatment undergoes cold treatment in

transit to the United States. However,

APHIS also allows imported fruit to

undergo cold treatment at an approved

cold treatment facility in either the

country of origin or after arrival in the

United States at certain ports designated

by APHIS in § 319.56–2d(b)(1) of the

regulations.

Currently, cold treatment in the

United States is limited to the following

ports: the port of Wilmington, NC;

Atlantic ports north of, and including,

Baltimore, MD; ports on the Great Lakes

and St. Lawrence Seaway; Canadian

border ports on the North Dakota border

and east of North Dakota; and, for air

shipments, Washington, DC, at

Baltimore-Washington International and

Dulles International airports.

Imported fruit may undergo cold

treatment at the listed ports other than

Wilmington, NC, because biological

barriers, including climatic conditions,

exist to prevent the introduction and

establishment of fruit flies and other

insect pests that could escape from

shipments of imported fruit after arrival

in the United States. Imported fruit may

also undergo cold treatment at the port

of Wilmington, NC, because APHIS has

imposed special conditions regarding

cold treatment to mitigate the risk of the

introduction of fruit flies and other

insect pests into the United States (see

§ 319.56–2d(b)(5)(iv)).

Recently, we received formal requests

from the Taiwanese Government, the

City of Atlanta Airport Authority, and

the Mississippi State Port Authority to

authorize the ports of Seattle, WA,

Atlanta, GA, and Gulfport, MS,

respectively, as approved locations for

cold treatment of imported fruit.

Previously Published Notices and

Regulations

On November 12, 1993, in response to

earlier petitions from individuals at the

ports of Wilmington, NC, and Gulfport,

MS, we published in the Federal

Register (58 FR 59953, Docket No. 93–

121–1) an advance notice of proposed

rulemaking requesting public comment

on whether we should allow cold

treatment at ports in the Southern

United States and in California.

We solicited comments concerning

this notice for a 45-day period ending

December 27, 1993. During that period,

we received four comments, three from

State governments and one from a

grower organization. Two commenters

opposed allowing cold treatment at

ports in the Southern United States and

California, arguing that allowing such

treatments would place California and

Florida citrus crops at too great a risk of

fruit fly infestation. Another commenter

requested that we perform a detailed

pest risk analysis before deciding

whether to allow cold treatment at

southern and California ports. Another

commenter supported cold treatment at

the port of Wilmington, NC.

We subsequently published a

proposed rule in the Federal Register on

May 13, 1994 (59 FR 24968–24971,

Docket No. 93–121–2) in which we

proposed to allow imported fruit to be

cold treated at the port of Wilmington,

NC, after arrival in the United States. At

that time, we decided to give further

consideration to allowing cold treatment

at other ports in the Southern United

States and California. In a final rule

published in the Federal Register on

August 10, 1994 (59 FR 40794–40797,
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 83 / Monday, April 29, 1996 / Proposed Rules 18691

Docket No 93–121–3), we approved cold

treatment, under certain conditions, at

the port of Wilmington, NC.

Proposal of Additional Ports

After performing extensive risk

analyses, we are proposing to add the

ports of Seattle, WA, Atlanta, GA, and

Gulfport, MS, to the list of ports in

§ 319.56–2d that are authorized as

approved locations for cold treatment of

imported fruit. This proposal to allow

cold treatment of fruit under certain

conditions at the ports of Seattle, WA,

Atlanta, GA, and Gulfport, MS, is based,

in part, on a document prepared by

APHIS assessing the pest risks

associated with allowing cold treatment

of tropical fruit fly host materials at

certain United States ports. The risk

mitigation measures discussed in the

document are included in this proposal

as requirements for the ports of Seattle,

WA, Atlanta, GA, and Gulfport, MS.

(Copies of this document may be

obtained by writing to the individual

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT.) We have determined that in

the areas of these ports proposed for

cold treatment, there are biological

barriers that, along with certain

safeguards, would prevent the

introduction and establishment of fruit

flies and other insect pests in the

unlikely event that they escape from

shipments of fruit before undergoing

cold treatment.

Risk Groups

Plant Protection and Quarantine

(PPQ), APHIS, has established risk

groups for many ports in the United

States. These risk groups characterize

the relative risk, without consideration

for mitigating factors, associated with

the movement of tropical fruit fly host

material for cold treatment at these ports

in the United States. The ports have

been assigned to one of five risk groups

based on a number of criteria, including

the individual port’s latitude,

microclimate, immediate host

availability, and past fruit fly

infestations. The risk groups are

assigned numbers I through V; this

number scale represents an ascending

level of risk based on the criteria listed

above. Group I ports consist of East

Coast ports north of, and including,

Baltimore, MD. Group II ports consist of

the ports of Wilmington, NC, Seattle,

WA, Portland, OR, Atlanta, GA, and

Norfolk, VA. Group III ports consist of

the ports of Charleston, SC, Savannah,

GA, Port Arthur, TX, and Galveston/

Houston, TX. Group IV ports consist of

the ports of Gulfport, MS, Mobile, AL,

New Orleans, LA, Corpus Christi, TX,

and Pensacola, FL. Group V ports

consist of the ports of San Diego, CA,

San Pedro/Long Beach, CA, San

Francisco, CA, Oakland, CA, Tampa, FL,

Miami, FL, West Palm/Ft. Lauderdale,

FL, Cape Canaveral, FL, Jacksonville,

FL, Ft. Meyers, FL, Ft. Pierce, FL,

Brownsville, TX, and all Hawaiian

ports.

The general requirements for cold

treatment found in § 319.56–2d are

designed to mitigate the risk of

infestation due to fruit fly escape from

shipments intended for cold treatment

at Group I ports. These requirements

include delivering, under the

supervision of an inspector of PPQ,

shipments of fruit that require cold

treatment to an approved cold storage

warehouse where the shipments will be

cold treated; precooling and

refrigerating the shipments of fruit

intended for cold treatment promptly

upon arrival at the cold treatment

facility; allowing shipments of fruit that

require cold treatment to leave U.S.

Customs custody only under a

redelivery bond for cold treatment; and

allowing shipments of fruit that require

cold treatment final release from the

U.S. Collector of Customs only after

official notification has been received by

the Customs officer that the required

cold treatment has been completed.

For shipments of fruit arriving for

cold treatment at the port of

Wilmington, NC, a Group II port, the

regulations at § 319.56–2d(b)(5)(iv) also

require that bulk shipments of fruit

must arrive in fly-proof packaging that

prevents the escape of adult, larval, or

pupal fruit flies; bulk and containerized

shipments of fruit must be cold treated

within the area over which the Bureau

of Customs is assigned the authority to

accept entries of merchandise, to collect

duties, and to enforce the various

provisions of the customs and

navigation laws in force; and advance

reservations for cold treatment must be

made prior to the departure of a

shipment from its port of origin.

Each of the ports proposed as an

approved location for cold treatment in

this document, the ports of Seattle, WA,

Atlanta, GA, and Gulfport, MS, has been

assigned to a risk group other than

Group I; consequently, additional

mitigating factors need to be put in

place before cold treatment can occur at

any of these ports.

Proposal of Special Conditions for the

Ports of Seattle, WA, Atlanta, GA, and

Gulfport, MS

We are proposing to impose

additional special conditions regarding

cold treatment at each of the ports

proposed as an approved location for

cold treatment that mitigate the risk of

the introduction and establishment of

fruit flies and other insect pests. The

special conditions that would be

assigned to each port are listed below by

port.

Special Conditions for the Maritime

Port of Seattle, WA

The maritime port of Seattle has

biological barriers to fruit fly

introduction and establishment in that

the port is not in a citrus-producing

area. This reduces the likelihood that a

fruit fly escaping from a shipment of

fruit intended for cold treatment would

find adequate host material for

propagation. However, the maritime

port of Seattle, WA, belongs to the

Group II list of ports because the area

surrounding this port contains a small

variety of fruit-fly host material and has

a longer growing season than Group I

ports. Therefore, in addition to the

requirements in § 319.56–2d (b)(5)(i)

through (b)(5)(iii) of the regulations

concerning cold treatment, the

following additional requirements

would apply to cold treatment

conducted at the maritime port of

Seattle, WA:

1. Bulk shipments (those shipments

which are stowed and unloaded by the

case or bin) of fruit must arrive in fruit

fly-proof packaging that prevents the

escape of adult, larval, or pupal fruit

flies.

This condition would ensure that

shipments that arrive at the maritime

port of Seattle, WA, in cases or bins

would not be exposed in such a manner

as to allow fruit flies or other insect

pests to escape from the shipment.

2. Bulk and containerized shipments

of fruit must be cold treated within the

area over which the Bureau of Customs

is assigned the authority to accept

entries of merchandise, to collect duties,

and to enforce the various provisions of

the customs and navigation laws in

force.

This condition would restrict the

movement of untreated shipments of

fruit intended for cold treatment, further

minimizing the risk that any fruit flies

in the shipments would come into

contact with host material that may be

in the area.

3. Advance reservations for cold

treatment space must be made prior to

the departure of a shipment from its

port of origin.

This condition would ensure that

untreated shipments of fruit arriving at

the port would not have to wait for an

extended period of time for cold

treatment. Ensuring the expeditious

cold treatment of the fruit would

minimize the risk of fruit flies maturing

in deteriorating fruit.
18692 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 83 / Monday, April 29, 1996 / Proposed Rules

4. The cold treatment facility must

remained locked during non-working

hours.

This condition would help ensure

that unauthorized persons do not have

access to untreated fruit and, therefore,

cannot remove untreated fruit from the

cold treatment facility.

We believe that the biological barriers

and these additional conditions

established for cold treatment at the

maritime port of Seattle, WA, would be

adequate to prevent the introduction

and establishment of fruit flies and

other insect pests.

Special Conditions for the Airports of

Atlanta, GA, and Seattle, WA

The airports of Atlanta, GA, and

Seattle, WA, each have biological

barriers to fruit fly introduction and

establishment in that neither port is in

a citrus-producing area. This reduces

the likelihood that a fruit fly escaping

from a shipment of fruit intended for

cold treatment would find adequate host

material for propagation. However, both

the airports of Atlanta, GA, and Seattle,

WA, belong to the Group II list of ports

because the areas surrounding these

airports contain a small variety of fruitfly host material and have longer

growing seasons than Group I ports.

Additionally, although fruit that travels

to the United States by ship for cold

treatment is regularly chilled during

transit, fruit imported into the United

States by aircraft for cold treatment is

not. Therefore, the mitigation measures

for the Group II airports of Atlanta, GA,

and Seattle, WA, would be more

extensive than the mitigation measures

for Group II maritime ports. As such, in

addition to the requirements in

§ 319.56–2d(b)(5)(i) through (b)(5)(iii) of

the regulations concerning cold

treatment, the following additional

requirements would apply to cold

treatment conducted at the airports of

Atlanta, GA, and Seattle, WA:

1. Bulk and containerized shipments

of fruit must arrive in fruit fly-proof

packaging that prevents the escape of

adult, larval, or pupal fruit flies.

This condition would ensure that all

shipments, including those that that

arrive at these airports in cases or bins,

would not be exposed in such a manner

as to allow fruit flies or other insect

pests to escape from the shipment.

2. Bulk and containerized shipments

of fruit must be cold treated within the

area over which the Bureau of Customs

is assigned the authority to accept

entries of merchandise, to collect duties,

and to enforce the various provisions of

the customs and navigation laws in

force.

This condition would restrict the

movement of untreated shipments of

fruit intended for cold treatment, further

minimizing the risk that any fruit flies

in the shipments would come into

contact with host material that may be

in the area.

3. The cold treatment facility and PPQ

must agree in advance on the route by

which shipments are allowed to move

between the aircraft on which they

arrived at the port and the cold

treatment facility. The movement of

shipments from aircraft to cold

treatment facility would not be allowed

until an acceptable route has been

agreed upon.

In most instances, the route would be

determined by establishing the shortest

route between the aircraft and the cold

treatment facility that does not include

an area that contains host material for

fruit flies during the time of year that

the region experiences its most

abundant amount of host material for

fruit flies. Then, that route would be

used throughout the year to convey

shipments from aircraft to cold

treatment facility. This predetermined

route would reduce the amount of time

that a shipment would have to wait

before undergoing cold treatment and

would reduce the risk that any fruit flies

in the shipments would come into

contact with host material en route to

cold treatment.

4. Advance reservations for cold

treatment space must be made prior to

the departure of a shipment from its

port of origin.

This condition would ensure that

untreated shipments of fruit arriving at

the port would not have to wait for an

extended period of time for cold

treatment. Ensuring the expeditious

cold treatment of the fruit would

minimize the risk of fruit flies maturing

in deteriorating fruit.

5. The cold treatment facility must

remained locked during non-working

hours.

This condition would help ensure

that unauthorized persons do not have

access to untreated fruit and, therefore,

cannot remove untreated fruit from the

cold treatment facility.

6. Blacklight or sticky paper must be

used within the cold treatment facility,

and other trapping methods, including

Jackson/methyl eugenol and McPhail

traps, must be used within the 4 square

miles surrounding the cold treatment

facility.

This condition would act as a general

safeguard. We propose this condition as

an extra layer of defense that would trap

any fruit flies within the facility or

within the facility’s environs, in the

unlikely event that a fruit fly manages

to survive past the stage of pupation in

the cold treatment facility.

7. The cold treatment facility must

have contingency plans, approved by

the Deputy Administrator of PPQ, for

handling fruit, including the ability to

destroy or dispose of fruit safely.

This condition would ensure that, in

the event that a shipment cannot be cold

treated promptly or properly, the

contents of the shipment could be safely

treated by alternative means, destroyed,

or disposed of so that fruit flies and

other insect pests would not have the

opportunity to escape. Examples of

adequate contingency plans would

include the ability to incinerate fruit, to

bury fruit, or to re-export fruit.

We believe that the biological barriers

and these additional conditions

established for cold treatment at the

airports of Atlanta, GA, and Seattle,

WA, would be adequate to prevent the

introduction and establishment of fruit

flies and other plant pests.

Special Conditions for the Port of

Gulfport, MS

The maritime port of Gulfport, MS,

has biological barriers to fruit fly

introduction and establishment in that it

is not in a citrus-producing area. This

reduces the likelihood that a fruit fly

escaping from a shipment of fruit

intended for cold treatment would find

adequate host material for propagation.

However, the port of Gulfport belongs to

the Group IV list of ports because the

area surrounding this port, among other

things, contains a wider variety and

greater quantity of fruit-fly host material

than Group I, II, or III ports and has a

lengthy growing season due to its

southern location. Therefore, in

addition to the requirements in

§ 319.56–2d(b)(5)(i) through (b)(5)(iii) of

the regulations concerning cold

treatment, the following additional

requirements would apply to cold

treatment conducted at the maritime

port of Gulfport, MS:

1. All fruit entering the port for cold

treatment must move in maritime

containers. No bulk shipments (those

shipments which are stowed and

unloaded by the case or bin) would be

allowed at the port of Gulfport, MS.

This condition would ensure that

imported fruit arriving at the port of

Gulfport, MS, for cold treatment would

not be exposed to the outdoors. The

shipping container would insulate the

fruit, thereby helping to keep the fruit

chilled during unloading, would

prevent leakage of the shipment, and

would serve as a barrier to fruit fly

escape from shipments of untreated

fruit.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 83 / Monday, April 29, 1996 / Proposed Rules 18693

2. Within the container, the fruit

intended for cold treatment must be

enclosed in fruit fly-proof packaging

that prevents the escape of adult, larval,

or pupal fruit flies.

This condition would ensure that

containerized shipments would be

packaged in such a manner as to prevent

fruit flies or other insect pests from

escaping from the shipment when the

container is opened. This condition

would provide an extra barrier to fruit

fly escape from a shipment of untreated

fruit.

3. Containerized shipments of fruit

arriving at the port must be cold treated

within the area over which the Bureau

of Customs is assigned the authority to

accept entries of merchandise, to collect

duties, and to enforce the various

provisions of the customs and

navigation laws in force.

This condition would restrict the

movement of untreated shipments of

fruit intended for cold treatment, further

minimizing the risk that any fruit flies

in the shipments would come into

contact with host material that may be

in the area.

4. The cold treatment facility and PPQ

must agree in advance on the route by

which shipments are allowed to move

between the vessel on which they

arrived at the port and the cold

treatment facility. The movement of

shipments from vessel to cold treatment

facility would not be allowed until an

acceptable route has been agreed upon.

In most instances, the route would be

determined by establishing the shortest

route between the vessel and the cold

treatment facility that does not include

an area that contains host material for

fruit flies during the time of year that

the region experiences its most

abundant amount of host material for

fruit flies. Then, that route would be

used throughout the year to convey

shipments from vessel to cold treatment

facility. This predetermined route

would reduce the amount of time that

a shipment would have to wait before

undergoing cold treatment and would

reduce the risk that any fruit flies in the

shipments would come into contact

with host material en route to cold

treatment.

5. Advance reservations for cold

treatment space must be made prior to

the departure of a shipment from its

port of origin.

This condition would ensure that

untreated shipments of fruit arriving at

the port would not have to wait for an

extended period of time for cold

treatment. Ensuring the expeditious

cold treatment of the fruit would

minimize the risk of fruit flies maturing

in deteriorating fruit.

6. Devanning, the unloading of fruit

from containers into the cold treatment

facility, must adhere to the following

requirements: (1) All containers must be

unloaded within the cold treatment

facility; and (2) untreated fruit may not

be exposed to the outdoors under any

circumstances.

Because of the southern location of

the port of Gulfport, MS, we believe that

this condition would be a necessary

mitigating factor at this port. This

condition would eliminate the

possibility of untreated fruit being

unloaded and waiting for cold treatment

outside of the cold treatment facility

itself.

If fruit intended for cold treatment

was removed from its shipping

container outside of the cold treatment

facility, there would be an increased

risk of fruit fly escape due to untreated

fruit warming up to temperatures that

would allow the insect pests that may

be in the fruit to become more active

and possibly to escape when the flyproof packaging is removed from the

shipment. Our proposal to require

devanning inside of the cold treatment

facility would ensure that all fruit that

requires cold treatment remains in a

cool environment.

7. The cold treatment facility must

remained locked during non-working

hours.

This condition would help ensure

that unauthorized persons do not have

access to untreated fruit and, therefore,

cannot remove untreated fruit from the

cold treatment facility.

8. Blacklight or sticky paper must be

used within the cold treatment facility,

and other trapping methods, including

Jackson/methyl eugenol and McPhail

traps, must be used within the 4 square

miles surrounding the cold treatment

facility.

This condition would act as a general

safeguard. We propose this condition as

an extra layer of defense that would trap

any fruit flies within the facility or

within the facility’s environs, in the

unlikely event that a fruit fly manages

to survive past the stage of pupation in

the cold treatment facility.

9. During cold treatment, a backup

system must be available to cold treat

the shipments of fruit should the

primary cold room malfunction. The

facility must also have one or more

reefers (cold holding rooms) and

methods of identifying lots of treated

and untreated fruit.

This condition would ensure that, in

the event that the primary cold

treatment system fails, additional

equipment is on hand at the cold

treatment facility to perform cold

treatments on shipments of fruit. Cold

holding rooms would be necessary to

ensure that shipments of fruit remain

cool during any waiting period that may

ensue from a malfunction of the primary

cold room. The identification of

shipments to determine which lots have

been treated and which lots need to be

treated would eliminate the possibility

of treated fruit being commingled with

untreated fruit and thereby further

reduce the possibility of fruit flies or

other insect pests escaping from the

cold treatment facility.

10. The cold treatment facility must

have the ability to conduct methyl

bromide fumigations on site. Therefore,

the cold treatment facility must have

fumigation equipment approved by the

Deputy Administrator of PPQ and a site

for conducting fumigation on the

premises.

This condition would act as an

additional contingency plan to treat

fruit entering the port of Gulfport, MS.

As the risk of fruit fly infestation is

greater at Gulfport, MS, than at the other

ports proposed for cold treatment, we

have determined that an extra layer of

protection should be provided by

requiring methyl bromide fumigation

capabilities as an alternative means of

eliminating pests from shipments of

fruit. The criteria for the approval of

fumigation equipment can be found in

the PPQ Treatment Manual.

With respect to methyl bromide

fumigation, the Environmental

Protection Agency published a notice of

final rulemaking in the Federal Register

on December 10, 1993 (58 FR 65018–

65082) which freezes the production of

methyl bromide at 1991 levels and

requires the phasing out of domestic use

of methyl bromide by the year 2001.

APHIS is studying the effectiveness and

environmental acceptability of

alternative treatments to prepare for the

eventual unavailability of methyl

bromide fumigation. Our current

proposal assumes the continued

availability of methyl bromide for use as

a fumigant for at least the next few

years.

11. The cold treatment facility must

have contingency plans, approved by

the Deputy Administrator of PPQ, for

safely destroying or disposing of fruit.

This condition would ensure that, in

the event a shipment cannot be cold

treated promptly or properly, the

contents of the shipment could be safely

destroyed or disposed of so that fruit

flies and other plant pests would not

have the opportunity to escape.

Examples of adequate contingency plans

would include the ability to incinerate

fruit, to bury fruit, or to re-export fruit.

We believe that the biological barriers

and these additional conditions
18694 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 83 / Monday, April 29, 1996 / Proposed Rules

established for cold treatment at the port

of Gulfport, MS, would be adequate to

prevent the introduction and

establishment of fruit flies and other

plant pests.

Proposal of Special Condition for the

Port of Wilmington, NC

We are also proposing to require that

cold treatment facilities at the port of

Wilmington, NC, remain locked during

non-working hours as another special

condition to cold treatment at the port

of Wilmington, NC. We have

determined that this safeguard, without

interfering with daily operations at the

port, would help ensure that

unauthorized persons do not have

access to untreated fruit and, therefore,

cannot remove untreated fruit from the

cold treatment facility.

Miscellaneous

We are also proposing to make minor

editorial changes for clarity and

consistency. We propose to amend the

language in § 319.56–2d(b)(5)(iv)(B) to

clarify that shipments coming in for

cold treatment currently consist only of

fruit. Section 319.56–2d(b)(5)(iv)(B)

states that the shipments intended for

cold treatment consist of fruits and

vegetables, but, presently, only certain

fruits from certain countries are

approved for cold treatment.

We also propose to revise § 319.56–

2x(b) to update the list of ports that are

approved as locations for cold

treatment.

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory

Flexibility Act

This proposed rule has been reviewed

under Executive Order 12866. For this

action, the Office of Management and

Budget has waived its review process

required by Executive Order 12866.

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 603, we

have performed an Initial Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis, which is set out

below, regarding the impact of this

proposed rule on small entities.

However, we do not currently have all

of the data necessary for a

comprehensive analysis of the effects of

this proposed rule on small entities.

Therefore, we are inviting comments on

potential effects. In particular, we are

interested in determining the number

and kind of small entities that may

incur benefits or costs from the

implementation of this proposed rule.

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 proposed rule would amend the

regulations governing the importation of

fruits and vegetables by allowing, under

certain conditions, the cold treatment of

imported fruits upon arrival at the ports

of Gulfport, MS, Atlanta, GA, and

Seattle, WA. Modern cold treatment

facilities have been or are in the process

of being constructed at each of these

ports.

Approximately 585.4 million

kilograms of fresh fruits and vegetables

were imported into the United States

through the ports of Gulfport, MS,

Atlanta, GA, and Seattle, WA, during

fiscal year 1994. The port of Gulfport,

MS, handled about 98 percent of the

total fresh fruit and vegetable imports

for these ports. The ports of Atlanta, GA,

and Seattle, WA, handled 0.25 and 1.75

percent, respectively, of the total fresh

fruit and vegetable imports for these

three ports. During fiscal year 1994,

approximately 550,330 kilograms (less

than one-tenth of one percent) of the

total fresh fruit imports for these ports

were cold treated in the country of

origin or in transit to the United States

and, if these ports had been approved

for cold treatment, would have been

eligible for cold treatment upon arrival

in the United States. Should these ports

be approved for cold treatment, we

expect that an additional 20 million

kilograms of new and rerouted fresh

fruits would be imported through and

cold treated at these ports each year.

According to the Small Business

Administration, a ‘‘small’’ entity

involved in the wholesale trade of fresh

fruits is one that employs no more than

100 people. Currently, there are 4,388

‘‘small’’ wholesale importers of fresh

fruits in the United States. Use of on-site

cold treatment facilities at the ports of

Seattle, WA, Atlanta, GA, and Gulfport,

MS, may slightly reduce transportation

costs for foreign fruit exporters, which,

in turn, may slightly reduce

transportation costs for domestic

importers and, ultimately, may slightly

reduce the cost of certain fruits for U.S.

consumers. We expect, however, that

these reductions in costs would be

insignificant.

The alternative to this proposed rule

was to make no changes in the

regulations. After consideration, we

rejected this alternative because it

appears that, with the safeguards

proposed, the cold treatment of fruit

may be conducted at any of the ports

proposed in this document without

significant risk of introducing fruit flies

or other injurious plant pests.

Executive Order 12778

This proposed rule would allow cold

treatment of certain imported fruits to

be conducted at the ports of Gulfport,

MS, Atlanta, GA, and Seattle, WA. If

this proposed rule is adopted, State and

local laws and regulations regarding the

importation of fruits under this rule

would be preempted while the fruits are

in foreign commerce. Fresh fruits are

generally imported for immediate

distribution and sale to the consuming

public, and would remain in foreign

commerce until sold to the ultimate

consumer. The question of when foreign

commerce ceases in other cases must be

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

proposed rule is adopted, no retroactive

effect will be given to this rule, and this

rule will not require administrative

proceedings before parties may file suit

in court challenging this rule.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This proposed rule contains no new

information collection or recordkeeping

requirements under the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501

et seq.).

List of Subjects in 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 part 319 would be

amended as follows:

PART 319—FOREIGN QUARANTINE

NOTICES

1. The authority citation for part 319

would continue to read as follows:

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

151–167, 450, 2803, and 2809; 21 U.S.C. 136

and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.2(c).

2. Section 319.56–2d would be

amended as follows:

a. In paragraph (b)(1), by revising the

second sentence to read as set forth

below.

b. By revising paragraph (b)(5)(iv) to

read as set forth below.

c. By adding new paragraphs (b)(5)(v)

and (b)(5)(vi) to read as set forth below.

§ 319.56–2d Administrative instructions

for cold treatments of certain imported

fruits.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(1) * * * If not so refrigerated, the

fruit must be both precooled and

refrigerated after arrival only in cold

storage warehouses approved by the

Deputy Administrator and located at the

following ports: Atlantic ports north of,

and including, Baltimore, MD; ports on

the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence

Seaway; Canadian border ports on the
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 83 / Monday, April 29, 1996 / Proposed Rules 18695

North Dakota border and east of North

Dakota; the maritime ports of

Wilmington, NC, Seattle, WA, and

Gulfport, MS; Seattle-Tacoma

International Airport, Seattle, WA;

Hartsfield-Atlanta International Airport,

Atlanta, GA; and Baltimore-Washington

International and Dulles International

airports, Washington, DC. * * *

* * * * *

(5) * * *

(iv) Special requirements for the

maritime ports of Wilmington, NC, and

Seattle, WA. Shipments of fruit arriving

at the maritime ports of Wilmington,

NC, and Seattle, WA, for cold treatment,

in addition to meeting all of the

requirements in paragraphs (b)(5)(i)

through (b)(5)(iii) of this section, must

meet the following special conditions:

(A) Bulk shipments (those shipments

which are stowed and unloaded by the

case or bin) of fruit must arrive in fruit

fly-proof packaging that prevents the

escape of adult, larval, or pupal fruit

flies.

(B) Bulk and containerized shipments

of fruit must be cold-treated within the

area over which the Bureau of Customs

is assigned the authority to accept

entries of merchandise, to collect duties,

and to enforce the various provisions of

the customs and navigation laws in

force.

(C) Advance reservations for cold

treatment space must be made prior to

the departure of a shipment from its

port of origin.

(D) The cold treatment facility must

remained locked during non-working

hours.

(v) Special requirements for the

airports of Atlanta, GA, and Seattle,

WA. Shipments of fruit arriving at the

airports of Atlanta, GA, and Seattle,

WA, for cold treatment, in addition to

meeting all of the requirements in

paragraphs (b)(5)(i) through (b)(5)(iii) of

this section, must meet the following

special conditions:

(A) Bulk and containerized shipments

of fruit must arrive in fruit fly-proof

packaging that prevents the escape of

adult, larval, or pupal fruit flies.

(B) Bulk and containerized shipments

of fruit arriving for cold treatment must

be cold treated within the area over

which the Bureau of Customs is

assigned the authority to accept entries

of merchandise, to collect duties, and to

enforce the various provisions of the

customs and navigation laws in force.

(C) The cold treatment facility and

Plant Protection and Quarantine must

agree in advance on the route by which

shipments are allowed to move between

the aircraft on which they arrived at the

airport and the cold treatment facility.

The movement of shipments from

aircraft to cold treatment facility will

not be allowed until an acceptable route

has been agreed upon.

(D) Advance reservations for cold

treatment space must be made prior to

the departure of a shipment from its

port of origin.

(E) The cold treatment facility must

remained locked during non-working

hours.

(F) Blacklight or sticky paper must be

used within the cold treatment facility,

and other trapping methods, including

Jackson/methyl eugenol and McPhail

traps, must be used within the 4 square

miles surrounding the cold treatment

facility.

(G) The cold treatment facility must

have contingency plans, approved by

the Deputy Administrator, for safely

destroying or disposing of fruit.

(vi) Special requirements for the port

of Gulfport, MS. Shipments of fruit

arriving at the port of Gulfport, MS, for

cold treatment, in addition to meeting

all of the requirements in paragraphs

(b)(5)(i) through (b)(5)(iii) of this

section, must meet the following special

conditions:

(A) All fruit entering the port for cold

treatment must move in maritime

containers. No bulk shipments (those

shipments which are stowed and

unloaded by the case or bin) are

permitted at the port of Gulfport, MS.

(B) Within the container, the fruit

intended for cold treatment must be

enclosed in fruit fly-proof packaging

that prevents the escape of adult, larval,

or pupal fruit flies.

(C) All shipments of fruit arriving at

the port for cold treatment must be cold

treated within the area over which the

Bureau of Customs is assigned the

authority to accept entries of

merchandise, to collect duties, and to

enforce the various provisions of the

customs and navigation laws in force.

(D) The cold treatment facility and

Plant Protection and Quarantine must

agree in advance on the route by which

shipments are allowed to move between

the vessel on which they arrived at the

port and the cold treatment facility. The

movement of shipments from vessel to

cold treatment facility will not be

allowed until an acceptable route has

been agreed upon.

(E) Advance reservations for cold

treatment space at the port must be

made prior to the departure of a

shipment from its port of origin.

(F) Devanning, the unloading of fruit

from containers into the cold treatment

facility, must adhere to the following

requirements:

(1) All containers must be unloaded

within the cold treatment facility; and

(2) Untreated fruit may not be

exposed to the outdoors under any

circumstances.

(G) The cold treatment facility must

remained locked during non-working

hours.

(H) Blacklight or sticky paper must be

used within the cold treatment facility,

and other trapping methods, including

Jackson/methyl eugenol and McPhail

traps, must be used within the 4 square

miles surrounding the cold treatment

facility.

(I) During cold treatment, a backup

system must be available to cold treat

the shipments of fruit should the

primary system malfunction. The

facility must also have one or more

reefers (cold holding rooms) and

methods of identifying lots of treated

and untreated fruits.

(J) The cold treatment facility must

have the ability to conduct methyl

bromide fumigations on-site.

(K) The cold treatment facility must

have contingency plans, approved by

the Deputy Administrator, for safely

destroying or disposing of fruit.

* * * * *

3. In § 319.56–2x(b), the first sentence

would be revised to read as follows:

§ 319.56–2x Administrative instructions;

conditions governing the entry of certain

fruits and vegetables for which treatment is

required.

* * * * *

(b) If treatment has not been

completed before the fruits and

vegetables arrive in the United States,

fruits and vegetables listed above and

requiring treatment for fruit flies may

arrive in the United States only at the

following ports: Atlantic ports north of,

and including, Baltimore, MD; ports on

the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence

Seaway; Canadian border ports on the

North Dakota border and east of North

Dakota; the maritime ports of

Wilmington, NC, Seattle, WA, and

Gulfport, MS; Seattle-Tacoma

International Airport, Seattle, WA;

Hartsfield-Atlanta International Airport,

Atlanta, GA; and Baltimore-Washington

International and Dulles International

airports, Washington, DC. * * *

Done in Washington, DC, this 23rd day of

April 1996.

Lonnie J. King,

Administrator, Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service.

[FR Doc. 96–10461 Filed 4–26–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P