This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains regulatory documents having general

applicability and legal effect, most of which

are keyed to and codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations, which is published under

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

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by

the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of

new books are listed in the first FEDERAL

REGISTER issue of each week.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

2391

Vol. 61, No. 18

Friday, January 26, 1996

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service

7 CFR Part 301

[Docket No. 95–089–1]

Mexican Fruit Fly Regulations;

Addition of Regulated Areas

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Interim rule and request for

comments.

SUMMARY: We are amending the Mexican

fruit fly regulations by adding California

to the list of quarantined States and by

designating portions of Los Angeles

County and San Diego County, CA, as

regulated areas. This action is necessary

on an emergency basis to prevent the

spread of the Mexican fruit fly to

noninfested areas of the United States.

This action restricts the interstate

movement of regulated articles from the

regulated areas in California.

DATES: Interim rule effective January 22,

1996. Consideration will be given only

to comments received on or before

March 26, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Please send an original and

three copies of your comments to

Docket No. 95–089–1, 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. 95–089–1. 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. Michael B. Stefan, Operations

Officer, Domestic and Emergency

Operations, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River

Road Unit 134, Riverdale, MD 20737–

1236, (301) 734–8247.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Mexican fruit fly, Anastrepha

ludens (Loew), is a destructive pest of

citrus and many other types of fruits.

The short life cycle of the Mexican fruit

fly allows rapid development of serious

outbreaks that can cause severe

economic losses in commercial citrusproducing areas.

The Mexican fruit fly regulations

(contained in 7 CFR 301.64 through

301.64–10 and referred to below as the

regulations) were established to prevent

the spread of the Mexican fruit fly to

noninfested areas of the United States.

The regulations impose restrictions on

the interstate movement of regulated

articles from the regulated areas. Prior to

the effective date of this rule, Texas was

the only State quarantined for the

Mexican fruit fly.

Section 301.64–3 provides that the

Deputy Administrator of the Animal

and Plant Health Inspection Service

(APHIS) for Plant Protection and

Quarantine (PPQ) shall list as a

regulated area each quarantined State,

or each portion of a quarantined State,

in which the Mexican fruit fly has been

found by an inspector, in which the

Deputy Administrator has reason to

believe the Mexican fruit fly is present,

or that the Deputy Administrator

considers necessary to regulate because

of its proximity to the Mexican fruit fly

or its inseparability for quarantine

enforcement purposes from localities in

which the Mexican fruit fly occurs. Less

than an entire quarantined State is

designated as a regulated area only if the

Deputy Administrator determines that:

(1) The State has adopted and is

enforcing a quarantine and regulations

that impose restrictions on the intrastate

movement of the regulated articles that

are substantially the same as those with

respect to the interstate movement of

the articles; and

(2) The designation of less than the

entire State as a regulated area will

otherwise be adequate to prevent the

artificial interstate spread of the

Mexican fruit fly.

Recent trapping surveys by inspectors

of California State and county agencies

and by inspectors of PPQ reveal that

portions of Los Angeles County and San

Diego County, CA, are infested with the

Mexican fruit fly. Specifically, on

October 26, 1995, inspectors found one

male Mexican fruit fly in a trap in a

residential area of Los Angeles County;

and, on November 14, 1995, inspectors

discovered four Mexican fruit flies in

traps set at three separate locations

between 1⁄2 to 1 mile from the site of the

October 26th detection. Two of these

flies were mated females, indicating that

an infestation exists. In San Diego

County, inspectors found six Mexican

fruit flies between November 29, 1995,

and December 4, 1995. The Mexican

fruit fly is not known to occur anywhere

else in the continental United States,

except parts of Texas.

Accordingly, to prevent the spread of

the Mexican fruit fly to other States, we

are amending the regulations in

§ 301.64(a) by designating California as

a quarantined State and in § 301.64–

39(c) by designating as regulated areas

portions of Los Angeles County and San

Diego County, CA. The regulated areas

are described in the rule portion of this

document.

There does not appear to be any

reason to designate any other portions of

the quarantined State of California as a

regulated area. Officials of State

agencies of California have begun an

intensive Mexican fruit fly eradication

program in the regulated areas in

California. Also, California has adopted

and is enforcing regulations imposing

restrictions on the intrastate movement

of certain articles from the regulated

areas that are substantially the same as

those with respect to the interstate

movement of regulated articles.

Emergency Action

The Administrator of the Animal and

Plant Health Inspection Service has

determined that an emergency exists

that warrants publication of this interim

rule without prior opportunity for

public comment. Immediate action is

necessary to prevent the Mexican fruit

fly from spreading to noninfested areas

of the United States.

Because prior notice and other public

procedures with respect to this action

are impracticable and contrary to the

public interest under these conditions,

we find good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553

to make it effective upon signature. We

will consider comments that are

received within 60 days of publication
2392 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

of this rule in the Federal Register.

After the comment period closes, we

will publish another document in the

Federal Register. It will include a

discussion of any comments we receive

and any amendments we are making to

the rule as a result of the comments.

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory

Flexibility Act

This 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.

This rule restricts the interstate

movement of regulated articles from

portions of Los Angeles County and San

Diego County, CA. Within the regulated

areas there are approximately 931 small

entities that may be affected by this rule.

These include 579 fruit sellers, 259

distributors, 51 nurseries, 30 swap

meets, 5 growers, 4 food banks, 2

community gardens, and 1 processor.

These 931 entities comprise less than 1

percent of the total number of similar

entities operating in the State of

California. Additionally, these small

entities sell regulated articles primarily

for local intrastate, not interstate

movement, so the effect, if any, of this

regulation on these entities appears to

be minimal.

The effect on those few entities that

do move regulated articles interstate

will be minimized by the availability of

various treatments, that, in most cases,

will allow these small entities to move

regulated articles interstate with very

little additional cost.

Under these circumstances, the

Administrator of the Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service has

determined that this action will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

Executive Order 12372

This program/activity is listed in the

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

under No. 10.025 and is subject to

Executive Order 12372, which requires

intergovernmental consultation with

State and local officials. (See 7 CFR part

3015, subpart V.)

Executive Order 12778

This rule has been reviewed under

Executive Order 12778, Civil Justice

Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts all State

and local laws and regulations that are

inconsistent with this rule; (2) has no

retroactive effect; and (3) does 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 the Mexican fruit fly

program. The assessment provides a

basis for the conclusion that the

methods employed to eradicate the

Mexican fruit fly will not present a 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) APHIS’ NEPA

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

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 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501

et seq.).

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 301

Agricultural commodities, Plant

diseases and pests, Quarantine,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Transportation.

Accordingly, 7 CFR part 301 is

amended as follows:

PART 301—DOMESTIC QUARANTINE

NOTICES

1. The authority citation for part 301

continues to read as follows;

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

150ff, 161, 162, and 164–167; 7 CFR 2.22,

2.80, and 371.2(c).

§ 301.64 [Amended]

2. In § 301.64, paragraph (a) is

amended by removing the phrase ‘‘the

State of Texas’’ and adding ‘‘the States

of California and Texas’’ in its place.

3. In § 301.64–3, paragraph (c) is

amended by adding an entry for

‘‘California’’ and the description of the

regulated areas for Los Angeles County

and San Diego County, CA, to read as

follows:

§ 301.64–3 Regulated areas.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

California

Los Angeles County. That portion of

Los Angeles County in the City Terrace

area bounded by a line drawn as

follows: Beginning at the intersection of

U.S. Highway 101 and State Highway

110; then northeast along State Highway

110 to Via Marisol; then east along Via

Marisol to Monterey Road; then south

along Monterey Road to Huntington

Drive; then east along Huntington Drive

to Poplar Boulevard; then east along

Poplar Boulevard to Fremont Avenue;

then south along Fremont Avenue to

Mission Road; then northeast along

Mission Road to Atlantic Boulevard;

then south along Atlantic Boulevard to

Interstate Highway 10; then east along

Interstate Highway 10 to Alhambra

Avenue; then south along Alhambra

Avenue to Graves Avenue; then east

along Graves Avenue to Del Mar

Avenue; then south along Del Mar

Avenue to Hill Drive; then southeast

along Hill Drive to Paramount

Boulevard; then southwest along

Paramount Boulevard to Montebello

Boulevard; then southwest along

Montebello Boulevard to Montebello

Way; then west along Montebello Way

to Greenwood Avenue; then southwest

along Greenwood Avenue to Gage

Avenue; then west along Gage Avenue

to Garfield Avenue; then southwest

along Garfield Avenue to Florence

Avenue; then west along Florence

Avenue to Alameda Street; then north

along Alameda Street to Vernon

Avenue; then west along Vernon

Avenue to Central Avenue; then north

along Central Avenue to Interstate

Highway 10; then northwest along

Interstate Highway 10 to Broadway;

then northeast along Broadway to U.S.

Highway 101; then northwest along U.S.

Highway 101 to the point of beginning.

San Diego County. That portion of

San Diego County in the National City

area bounded by a line drawn as

follows: Beginning at the intersection of

State Highway 15 and State Highway 94;

then northeast along State Highway 94

to Federal Boulevard; then northeast
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 2393

along Federal Boulevard to San Miguel

Avenue; then east along San Miguel

Avenue to Massachusetts Avenue; then

south along Massachusetts Avenue to

Canton Drive; then southeast along

Canton Drive to Skyline Drive; then

south along Skyline Drive to Jamacha

Road; then east along Jamacha Road to

County Highway S17; then south and

southwest along County Highway S17 to

Otay Lakes Road; then southeast along

Otay Lakes Road to H Street; then

southwest along H Street to Paseo Del

Rey; then south along Paseo Del Rey to

Telegraph Canyon Road; then northwest

along Telegraph Canyon Road to

Oleander Avenue; then south along

Oleander Avenue to East Naples Street;

then west along East Naples Street to

Naples Street; then west along Naples

Street to Industrial Boulevard; then

north along Industrial Boulevard to L

Street; then west along L Street to

Interstate Highway 5; then north along

Interstate Highway 5 to Harbor Drive;

then northwest along Harbor Drive to

32nd Street; then north along 32nd

Street to Wabash Boulevard; then

northeast along Wabash Boulevard to

State Highway 15; then north along

State Highway 15 to the point of

beginning.

* * * * *

Done in Washington, DC, this 22nd day of

January 1996.

Terry L. Medley,

Administrator, Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service.

[FR Doc. 96–1414 Filed 1–25–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P

Agricultural Marketing Service

7 CFR Part 999

[FV95–999–1FIR]

Specialty Crops; Import Regulations—

Exemption of Brine Dried Prunes From

Import Requirements

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service,

USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Department of

Agriculture (Department) is adopting as

a final rule, without change, the

provisions of an interim final rule

which exempted brine dried prunes

from import requirements by specifying

that brine dried prunes do not fall

within the definition of prunes in the

import regulation. This rule is

implemented in accordance with

section 8e of the Agricultural Marketing

Agreement Act of 1937. Section 8e

requires imports of prunes to meet the

same or comparable requirements as

those implemented under Federal

Marketing Order No. 993, regulating the

handling of dried prunes produced in

California. The Department has

determined that brine dried prunes are

different from those normally handled

by California prune handlers and that

such prunes shall not be subjected to

Section 8e import requirements.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 26, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Valerie L. Emmer, Marketing Specialist,

Marketing Order Administration

Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Division,

AMS, USDA, room 2523–S, P.O. Box

96456, Washington, DC 20090–6456;

telephone: 202–205–2829.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule

is issued under section 8e of the

Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act

of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601–674)

(Act). Section 8e provides that

whenever certain specified

commodities, including prunes, are

regulated under a Federal marketing

order, imports of those commodities

must meet the same or comparable

grade, size, quality, and maturity

requirements as those in effect for the

domestically produced commodities.

The Department is issuing this rule in

conformance with Executive Order

12866.

This rule has been reviewed under

Executive Order 12778, Civil Justice

Reform. This rule is not intended to

have retroactive effect. This rule will

not preempt any State or local laws,

regulations, or policies, unless they

present an irreconcilable conflict with

this rule.

There are no administrative

procedures which must be exhausted

prior to any judicial challenge to the

provisions of import regulations issued

under section 8e of the Act.

Pursuant to the requirements set forth

in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),

the Administrator of the Agricultural

Marketing Service (AMS) has

considered the economic impact of this

rule on small entities.

The purpose of the RFA is to fit

regulatory actions to the scale of

business subject to such actions in order

that small businesses will not be unduly

or disproportionately burdened.

Marketing orders issued pursuant to the

Act, and rules issued thereunder, are

unique in that they are brought about

through group action of essentially

small entities acting on their own

behalf.

Import regulations issued under

section 8e of the Act are based on

regulations established under Federal

marketing orders for fresh fruits,

vegetables, and specialty crops, like

prunes. Thus, import regulations also

have small entity orientation and impact

both small and large business entities in

a manner comparable to rules issued

under such marketing orders.

There are approximately 10 importers

who may be affected by this final rule.

Small agricultural service firms, which

include importers of dried prunes, have

been defined by the Small Business

Administration (13 CFR 121.601) as

those whose annual receipts are less

than $5,000,000. A majority of the

importers may be classified as small

entities.

Prior to publication of the interim

final rule in the Federal Register on

November 24, 1995 (60 FR 57910),

sulfur-bleached prunes, commonly

known as silver prunes, and high

moisture plums were exempt from

import requirements. The interim final

rule added brine dried prunes as an

additional exemption under the import

regulation. This rule finalizes that

interim final rule.

Brine dried prunes are different in

form and character from those prunes

regulated under the order, and were

never intended to be subject to section

8e import requirements. Therefore, it is

appropriate that they be exempt from

the dried prune import regulation

specified in § 999.200. Brine dried

prunes are imported under International

Harmonized Tariff Schedule No.

0813.20.1000. All prunes now regulated

under the order are imported under

Harmonized Tariff Schedule No.

0813.20.2000.

To exempt brine dried prunes from

import regulation requirements, the

definition of ‘‘prunes’’ in paragraph

(a)(1) of § 999.200, was amended to add

brine dried prunes as an exclusion from

that definition. Brine dried prunes are

defined as prunes that have been

impregnated with brine or salt during

the dehydration process to the extent

that they have lost their form and

character as prunes and cannot be

reconstituted to permit economic use of

the individual fruits as prunes.

The change to the import regulation

was published in the Federal Register

as an interim final rule on November 24,

1995 (60 FR 57910). That rule provided

that interested persons could file

comments through December 26, 1995.

No comments were received.

In accordance with section 8e of the

Act, the United States Trade

Representative (USTR) has concurred

with the issuance of this rule.

Based on available information, the

Administrator of the AMS has

determined that the issuance of this rule

will not have a significant economic