Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 167 / Wednesday, August 27, 2008 / Proposed Rules 50577 

under this section, except as provided 

by paragraph (c)(3) of this section. The 

agency may set the employee’s rate of 

basic pay at any step rate that does not 

exceed that maximum payable rate. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * (1) For a Department of 

Defense or Coast Guard employee who 

is moved involuntarily (as defined in 

paragraph (d)(3) of this section), without 

a break in service of more than 3 days, 

from a NAFI position in the Department 

of Defense or the Coast Guard to a GS 

position with substantially the same 

duties in the Department of Defense or 

the Coast Guard, respectively, the 

employee is entitled to an initial 

payable rate of basic pay at the lowest 

step rate of the grade that is equal to or 

greater than the employee’s rate of basic 

pay in the NAFI position immediately 

before the move. If the employee’s 

former NAFI rate exceeds the range 

maximum, identify the maximum step 

rate (step 10). 

(2) * * * 

(i) The lowest step rate within the 

highest applicable rate range for the 

employee’s GS position of record and 

official worksite that equals or exceeds 

the employee’s NAFI highest previous 

rate, or any lower step rate (consistent 

with the method prescribed in 

paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section); 

* * * * * 

PART 550—PAY ADMINISTRATION 

(GENERAL) 

Subpart K—Collection by Offset From 

Indebted Government Employees 

3. The authority citation for subpart K 

of part 550 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 5514; sec. 8(1) of E.O. 

11609; redesignated in sec. 2–1 of E.O. 

12107. 

4. In § 550.1103, the definition of 

agency is revised to read as follows: 

§ 550.1103 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Agency means an executive 

department or agency; a military 

department; the United States Postal 

Service; the Postal Regulatory 

Commission; any nonappropriated fund 

instrumentality described in 5 U.S.C. 

2105(c); the United States Senate; the 

United States House of Representatives; 

any court, court administrative office, or 

instrumentality in the judicial or 

legislative branches of the Government; 

or a Government corporation. If an 

agency under this definition is a 

component of an agency, the broader 

definition of agency may be used in 

applying the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 

5514(b) (concerning the authority to 

prescribe regulations). 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E8–19819 Filed 8–26–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6325–39–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

7 CFR Part 319 

[Docket No. APHIS–2007–0152] 

RIN 0579–AC82 

Importation of Grapes from Chile 

Under a Systems Approach 

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: We are proposing to amend 

the fruits and vegetables regulations to 

allow fresh table grapes from Chile to be 

imported into the continental United 

States under a systems approach. 

Currently, as a condition of entry, all 

table grapes from Chile must be 

fumigated with methyl bromide as a 

risk-mitigation measure for Brevipalpus 

chilensis. Under this proposal, we 

would allow a combination of riskmitigation measures, or systems 

approach, to be employed in lieu of 

methyl bromide fumigation. The 

systems approach would provide an 

alternative to methyl bromide while 

continuing to provide protection against 

the introduction of quarantine pests into 

the United States. 

DATES: We will consider all comments 

that we receive on or before October 27, 

2008. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by either of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/ 

component/ 

main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS2007-01 52 to submit or view comments 

and to view supporting and related 

materials available electronically. 

• Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: 

Please send two copies of your comment 

to Docket No. APHIS–2007–0152, 

Regulatory Analysis and Development, 

PPD, APHIS, Station 3A–03.8,4700 

River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 

20737–1238. Please state that your 

comment refers to Docket No. APHIS–

2007–0152. 

Reading Room: You may read any 

comments that we receive on this 

docket in our reading room. The reading 

room is located in room 1141 of the 

USDA South Building, 14th Street and 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC. Normal reading room 

hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except holidays. To be 

sure someone is there to help you, 

please call (202) 690–2817 before 

coming. 

Other Information: Additional 

information about APHIS and its 

programs is available on the Internet at 

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Alex Belano, Assistant Branch Chief, 

Commodity Import Analysis and 

Operations, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River 

Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737–

1231; (301) 734–5333. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The regulations in ‘‘Subpart—Fruits 

and Vegetables’’ (7 CFR 319.56 through 

319.56–47, referred to below as the 

regulations) prohibit or restrict the 

importation of fruits and vegetables into 

the United States from certain parts of 

the world to prevent the introduction 

and dissemination of plant pests that are 

new to or not widely distributed within 

the United States. 

Currently, the importation of table 

grapes (Vitis vinifera L.) from Chile into 

the United States is authorized under 

§ 319.56–4 of the regulations. 

Accordingly, Chilean table grapes are 

listed in the Plant Protection and 

Quarantine Fresh Fruits and Vegetables 

Import Manual, which may be viewed 

on the Internet at http:// 

www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/ 

plants/manuals/ports/downloads/ 

fv.pdf, as a commodity approved for 

entry into the United States, subject to 

certain conditions. 

The regulations in 7 CFR part 305, 

‘‘Phytosanitary Treatments,’’ specify the 

treatment schedules that must be used 

on certain commodities prior to their 

importation or entry into the United 

States. Currently, in § 305.2 of these 

regulations, paragraph (i) identifies 

several different treatment schedules for 

use on table grapes from Chile as riskmitigation measures for Brevipalpus 

chilensis mites and/or Mediterranean 

fruit fly (Ceratitis capitata, referred to 

below as Medfly), depending on the area 

of Chile from which the fruit originates. 

If the grapes originate from an area of 

Chile in which both pests are known to 

exist, the grapes must be treated with 

methyl bromide for B. chilensis 

followed by cold treatment for Medfly. 

If the table grapes originate from an area 

of Chile that the Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has 

declared a pest-free area for Medfly in 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
50578 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 167 / Wednesday, August 27, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

accordance with the provisions of 

§ 319.56–5 of the regulations, only the 

methyl bromide treatment is required. 

Under a systems approach, a set of 

phytosanitary conditions, at least two of 

which have an independent effect in 

mitigating the pest risk associated with 

the movement of commodities, is 

specified, whereby fruits and vegetables 

may be imported into the United States 

from countries that are not free of 

certain plant pests. In 2002, the Servicio 

Agricola y Ganadero, the national plant 

protection organization (NPPO) of Chile, 

proposed a systems approach to be used 

in lieu of the methyl bromide 

fumigation of table grapes for B. 

chilensis mites. The approach consisted 

of the registration of production sites 

with the NPPO, the certification of 

production sites by the NPPO as having 

a low prevalence of B. chilensis mites, 

joint inspection of samples from these 

production sites in Chile by the NPPO 

and APHIS, issuance of phytosanitary 

certificates, and inspection of a sample 

of the grapes at a port of entry. A similar 

approach is currently in use for 

clementines, mandarins, and tangerines 

from Chile, under our regulations in 

§ 319.56–38. 

During the 2002/2003 growing season, 

with the cooperation of APHIS, Chile’s 

NPPO conducted a pilot program to 

determine whether the approach could 

be utilized as an effective mitigation 

measure against B. chilensis mites to 

prevent the introduction of that pest in 

grapes imported into the continental 

United States from Chile. The pilot 

program suggested that the approach 

proposed by Chile’s NPPO could be 

used for this commodity. 

Therefore, in October 2006, APHIS 

received a request from the NPPO of 

Chile to allow the importation of 

Chilean table grapes into the continental 

United States under a systems approach 

substantively similar to the one that had 

been used during the pilot program. In 

response to this request, we evaluated 

the approach to determine whether it 

was sufficient to mitigate its target pest. 

While our evaluation was still 

underway, the Chilean NPPO conducted 

a second pilot program, again with 

APHIS’ cooperation, during the 2006/ 

2007 growing season. This program 

again suggested that the approach 

proposed by the Chilean NPPO was 

efficacious. 

As a result of our evaluation, and 

based upon the findings of these pilot 

programs, we prepared a commodity 

import evaluation document (CIED) for 

Chilean table grapes prepared for export 

under a systems approach. Copies of the 

CIED may be obtained from the person 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT or viewed on the 

Regulations.gov Web site (see 

ADDRESSES above for instructions for 

accessing Regulations.gov). 

The CIED, entitled ‘‘Systems 

Approach for Grapes Vitis Vinifera L. 

Imported from Chile into the 

Continental United States,’’ examines a 

systems approach substantively similar 

to the approach employed by Chile 

during the pilot programs and 

concludes that those phytosanitary 

measures would effectively remove B. 

chilensis mites from the importation 

pathway for Chilean table grapes. Based 

on the information contained in the 

CIED, we are proposing to amend the 

regulations to allow the importation of 

table grapes from Chile into the 

continental United States under a 

systems approach. The systems 

approach, which would be set out in a 

new § 319.56–49, would comprise the 

following phytosanitary measures: 

Commercial consignment. Only 

commercial consignments of grapes 

would be eligible for importation. 

Production site registration. The 

production site where the fruit is grown 

would have to be registered with the 

NPPO of Chile. To register, the 

production site would have to provide 

Chile’s NPPO with the following 

information: Grower, exporter, orchard, 

production site name (if this differs 

from the name of the orchard), region, 

township, province, locality, area 

planted to each variety, number of 

hectares/variety, and approximate date 

of harvest. Registration would have to 

be renewed annually. 

Low prevalence production site 

certification. Between 1 and 30 days 

prior to harvest, random samples of fruit 

would have to be collected from each 

registered production site under the 

direction of Chile’s NPPO. These 

samples would have to undergo a pest 

detection and evaluation method as 

follows: Each bunch of grapes, 

including fruit and rachis (spines), 

would have to be washed using a 

flushing method, placed in a 20 mesh 

sieve on top of a 200 mesh sieve, 

sprinkled with a liquid soap and water 

solution, washed with water at high 

pressure, and washed with water at low 

pressure. The process would then be 

repeated. The contents of the 200 mesh 

sieve would then be placed on a petri 

dish and analyzed for the presence of 

live B. chilensis mites. If a single live B. 

chilensis mite is found, the production 

site would not qualify for certification 

as a low prevalence production site and 

would be eligible to export fruit to the 

United States only if the fruit is 

fumigated with methyl bromide. Each 

production site would have only one 

opportunity per harvest season to 

qualify as a low prevalence production 

site, and certification of low prevalence 

would be valid for one harvest season 

only. The NPPO of Chile would present 

a list of certified production sites to 

APHIS. 

We have determined that low 

prevalence production site certification 

will identify problem production sites 

and prevent shipment of fruit with B. 

chilensis mites from these sites. This 

certification process has been tested in 

Chile and been found successful in 

identifying areas with high and low 

populations of mites. 

Post-harvest processing. After harvest, 

all damaged or diseased fruits would 

have to be culled at the packinghouse, 

and the remaining fruit would have to 

be packed into new, clean boxes, crates, 

or other packing containers approved by 

APHIS for fumigation with methyl 

bromide, should such fumigation 

become necessary. 

Phytosanitary inspection. The fruit 

would have to be inspected in Chile at 

an APHIS approved inspection site 

under the direction of APHIS inspectors 

in coordination with the NPPO of Chile 

after the post-harvest processing. A 

biometric sample would have to be 

drawn and examined from each 

consignment. Fruit presented for 

inspection would have to be identified 

in the shipping documents 

accompanying each lot of fruit to 

specify the production site(s) in which 

the fruit was produced and the packing 

shed(s) in which the fruit was 

processed. This identification would 

have to be maintained until the fruit is 

released for entry into the United States. 

A biometric sample of boxes, crates, or 

other APHIS-approved packing 

containers from each consignment 

would have to be selected by the NPPO 

of Chile at a sampling rate that is 

sufficient to detect a 6 percent 

infestation rate with a 95 percent 

confidence level. Grapes and panicles 

from these boxes, crates, or other 

APHIS-approved packing containers 

would have to be visually inspected for 

quarantine pests, and a portion of the 

fruit would have to be washed with 

soapy water and the collected filtrate 

microscopically examined for B. 

chilensis. If a single live B. chilensis 

mite is found, the fruit would be eligible 

for importation into the United States 

only if it has been fumigated in Chile 

with methyl bromide under the 

supervision of APHIS personnel. When 

employed jointly, post-harvest 

processing, such as the culling of 

damaged fruit, and phytosanitary 

inspections, such as biometric sampling 

for B. chilensis mites, should remove 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 167 / Wednesday, August 27, 2008 / Proposed Rules 50579 

1Chile is divided into 15 administrative regions, 

of which 12 have been designated by APHIS as 

Medfly-free, in accordance with the provisions of 

§ 319.56–5 of the regulations. 

2Based upon 2002 Census of Agriculture-State 

Data and the ‘‘Small Business Size Standards by 

NAICS Industry,’’ Code of Federal Regulations, 

Title 13, Chapter I. 

any remaining fruit that contains B. 

chilensis mites. 

Phytosanitary certificate. Each 

consignment of grapes would have to be 

accompanied by a phytosanitary 

certificate issued by the NPPO of Chile 

that contains an additional declaration 

stating that the grapes in the 

consignment meet the conditions of 

§ 319.56–49. Requiring a phytosanitary 

certificate ensures that the NPPO has 

inspected the fruit and certified that it 

meets the conditions for export to the 

continental United States. If, as a result 

of the inspections specified by the 

systems approach, a single live B. 

chilensis mite is discovered in a 

consignment of grapes, that 

consignment would be eligible for 

importation into the United States only 

if it was fumigated with methyl bromide 

in accordance with the treatment 

schedules already specified in the 

regulations. The production site from 

which the fruit originated would lose its 

certification as a low prevalence 

production site for the remainder of that 

shipping season, and all subsequent 

consignments from the site during that 

season would have to be fumigated with 

methyl bromide in order to be eligible 

for importation into the continental 

United States. 

Because the systems approach is 

neither intended for nor effective in 

removing Medfly from the importation 

pathway for table grapes, grapes from an 

area of Chile not declared by APHIS to 

be free of Medfly would have to be cold 

treated according to schedule CT T107–

a as a risk-mitigation measure for 

Medfly. 

We also recognize that some 

producers would not be able to or 

would not wish to use the systems 

approach as a means for access to the 

U.S. market. Therefore, as an alternative 

mitigation measure, producers would be 

able to continue to use fumigation with 

methyl bromide in Chile or at the port 

of first arrival to the United States. An 

APHIS inspector would monitor the 

fumigation and prescribe such 

safeguards as might be necessary for 

unloading, handling, and transportation 

prior to fumigation. The final release of 

the fruit for entry into the United States 

would be conditioned upon compliance 

with prescribed safeguards and required 

treatment. 

Finally, § 319.56–6 of the regulations 

states that, if APHIS personnel need to 

be physically present in an exporting 

country or region to facilitate the 

exportation of fruits or vegetables and 

APHIS services are to be funded by the 

NPPO of the exporting country or a 

private export group, then the NPPO or 

the export group must enter into a trust 

fund agreement with APHIS. In 

accordance with this section, we are 

proposing to require a trust fund 

agreement for the importation of table 

grapes from Chile into the United States. 

Under the trust fund agreement, the 

NPPO of Chile or the private export 

group would have to pay in advance for 

all estimated costs that APHIS expects 

to incur in providing inspection services 

in Chile. These costs would include 

administrative expenses incurred in 

conducting the services and all salaries 

(including overtime and the Federal 

share of employee benefits), travel 

expenses (including per diem expenses), 

and other incidental expenses incurred 

by the inspectors in performing services. 

The agreement would have to require 

the NPPO of Chile or the private export 

group to deposit a certified or cashier’s 

check with APHIS for the amount of 

those costs, as estimated by APHIS. The 

agreement would have to further specify 

that, if the deposit is insufficient to meet 

all costs incurred by APHIS, the NPPO 

of Chile or the private export group 

would deposit with APHIS, before the 

services would be completed, a certified 

or cashier’s check for the amount of the 

remaining costs, as determined by 

APHIS. After a final audit at the 

conclusion of each shipping season, any 

overpayment of funds would be 

returned to the NPPO of the exporting 

country or region or a private export 

group, or held on account. 

Requiring the payment of costs in 

advance is necessary to help defray the 

costs to APHIS of providing inspection 

and treatment monitoring services in 

Chile. 

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

This proposed rule has been reviewed 

under Executive Order 12866. The rule 

has been determined to be not 

significant for the purposes of Executive 

Order 12866, and, therefore, has not 

been reviewed by the Office of 

Management and Budget. 

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

have performed an initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis, which is set out 

below, regarding the potential effects of 

the proposed action on small entities. 

We do not currently have all the data 

necessary for a comprehensive analysis 

of the effects of this rule on small 

entities. Therefore, we are inviting 

comments concerning potential effects. 

In particular, we are interested in 

determining: (1) Whether allowing the 

importation of table grapes from Chile 

under a systems approach, instead of 

following fumigation with methyl 

bromide, will affect the cost to U.S. 

importers of Chilean table grapes; (2) the 

relative costs of the two means of 

treatment; and (3) whether applying the 

systems approach may influence the 

price of Chilean table grapes within the 

United States. 

Currently, table grapes may be 

imported from Chile subject to 

fumigation with methyl bromide, and, 

depending on the region in Chile from 

which the grapes originate, cold 

treatment.1 We are proposing to amend 

the regulations to allow the importation 

into the continental United States of 

fresh table grapes from Chile under a 

systems approach in lieu of treatment 

with methyl bromide. 

As part of this systems approach, we 

would require production site 

registration, low prevalence production 

site certification, post-harvest 

processing, phytosanitary inspection, 

and issuance of phytosanitary 

certificates. This action would allow 

Chilean exporters to ship fresh table 

grapes to the continental United States 

under a process other than fumigation 

with methyl bromide, while continuing 

to provide protection against the 

introduction of quarantine pests into the 

United States. 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act 

requires agencies to specifically 

consider the economic effects of their 

rules on small entities. The Small 

Business Administration (SBA) has 

established size criteria based on the 

North American Industry Classification 

System (NAICS) to determine which 

economic entities meet the definition of 

a small firm. The proposed rule may 

affect domestic producers of fresh 

grapes and wholesalers who import 

fresh table grapes. Businesses producing 

fresh grapes are classified in the North 

American Industry Classification 

System (NAICS) within the category of 

grape farming without making wine. 

The small business size standard for 

grape farming without making wine, as 

identified by the SBA based upon 

NAICS code 11 1332, is $750,000 or less 

in annual receipts.2 While the available 

data do not provide the number of U.S. 

grape-producing entities according to 

size distribution as it relates to annual 

receipts, it is reasonable to assume that 

the majority of the operations are 

considered small businesses by SBA 

standards. According to the 2002 

Census of Agriculture, there were at 

least 23,856 grape farms in the United 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
50580 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 167 / Wednesday, August 27, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

States in 2002, and at least 937,200 

acres of arable land on which grapes 

were grown (see table 1). It is estimated 

that approximately 93 percent of these 

23,856 grape farms had annual sales in 

2002 of $500,000 or less, and are 

therefore considered to be small entities 

by SBA standards. 

TABLE 1—2006/2007 1 STATE-LEVEL PRODUCTION OF GRAPES FOR THE FRESH MARKET IN THE UNITED STATES

State Production (metric 

tons) 2 Number of acres 

California .................................................................................................................................................. 703,975 (99.3%) 800,000 (86%) 

Michigan ................................................................................................................................................... 91 14,200 

Missouri .................................................................................................................................................... 64 1,300 

New York ................................................................................................................................................. 2,722 31,000 

North Carolina .......................................................................................................................................... 163 1,300 

Ohio ......................................................................................................................................................... 91 2,200 

Pennsylvania ............................................................................................................................................ 272 12,200 

Texas ....................................................................................................................................................... 91 2,900 

Sum of the eight States .................................................................................................................... 707,469 (99.8%) 866,400 (92.5%) 

Other States ............................................................................................................................................. 1,561 70,800 

United States ........................................................................................................................................... 709,030 937,200 

1Based upon 2002 Census of Agriculture-State Data and the ‘‘Small Business Size Standards by NAICS Industry,’’ Code of Federal Regulations, Title 13, Chapter I. 2Quantities have been converted from short tons to metric tons using a conversion factor of 1 short ton = 0.9072 metric tons. 

The United States currently ranks 

fifth in the world’s production of grapes, 

behind China, Turkey, Italy, and Chile. 

However, U.S. production of grapes for 

fresh consumption increased by less 

than 1 percent on average over the last 

17 years. Currently, only one-tenth of all 

grapes produced in the United States are 

consumed as table grapes, with the 

remainder utilized by the processing 

sector. U.S. fresh market grape 

production has averaged a little over 

790,000 metric tons annually from the 

2000/2001 growing season to the 2006/ 

2007 season, generating an average of 

over $600 million at the farm level 

annually. 

With respect to the consumption of 

fresh grapes, the United States currently 

ranks third worldwide, following China 

and Turkey. U.S. domestic consumption 

of fresh grapes from 2000/2001 to 2006/ 

2007 was approximately 907 metric tons 

per year, on average. During that period, 

per capita U.S. consumption of fresh 

grapes averaged 6.2 pounds per year. 

This level of consumption made fresh 

grapes the fourth-most consumed fruit 

within the United States during that 

time period. 

The United States became a net 

importer of fresh table grapes in the 

mid-1980s and has remained so since 

that time. The disparity between 

imports and exports has widened in 

recent years. For example, in 2006, the 

United States exported 290,089 metric 

tons of fresh table grapes, and imported 

603,218 metric tons. Accordingly, the 

United States has increasingly relied on 

imported table grapes to fulfill domestic 

demand. During the 1980s, imports 

accounted on average for 28 percent of 

fresh grapes available for domestic 

consumption. Between the 2000/2001 

and 2006/2007 growing seasons, this 

share rose to more than 50 percent. 

Domestically produced fresh grapes 

are usually shipped to the U.S. market 

between the months of May and 

November. During the U.S. off-season 

(December through April), domestically 

produced supplies are supplemented by 

imports. Chile is the primary exporter of 

fresh table grapes to the United States, 

accounting for approximately 75 percent 

of total U.S. imports of this commodity. 

The presence of imported grapes within 

the domestic market during the U.S. offseason allows for year-round availability 

of the product and promotes domestic 

consumption. 

Most grape production in Chile takes 

place during U.S. winter months, when 

there is little or no fresh grape 

production within the United States 

with which to compete. In addition, we 

do not expect that the proposed rule 

would affect the processing grape 

industry in the United States because of 

the separate markets for table grapes and 

processing grapes. 

The alternative to this proposed rule 

was to make no changes to the 

regulations. After consideration, we 

rejected this alternative, insofar as we 

evaluated the proposed systems 

approach and determined it to be 

effective in removing B. chilensis mites 

from the importation pathway for 

Chilean table grapes. 

This proposed rule contains various 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements. These requirements are 

described in this document under the 

heading ‘‘Paperwork Reduction Act.’’

Executive Order 12988 

This proposed rule would allow table 

grapes to be imported from Chile under 

a systems approach. If this proposed 

rule is adopted, State and local laws and 

regulations regarding table grapes 

imported under this rule would be 

preempted while the fruit is 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 caseby-case basis. If the 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 

In accordance with section 3507(d) of 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the information 

collection or recordkeeping 

requirements included in this proposed 

rule have been submitted for approval 

from the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB). Please send written 

comments to the Office of Information 

and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attention: 

Desk Officer for APHIS, Washington, DC 

20503. Please state that your comments 

refer to Docket No. APHIS–2007–0152. 

Please send a copy of your comments to: 

(1) Docket No. APHIS–2007–0152, 

Regulatory Analysis and Development, 

PPD, APHIS, Station 3A–03.8, 4700 

River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 

20737–1238, and (2) Clearance Officer, 

OCIO, USDA, room 404–W, 14th Street 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 167 / Wednesday, August 27, 2008 / Proposed Rules 50581 

and Independence Ave SW., 

Washington, DC 20250. A comment to 

OMB is best assured of having its full 

effect if OMB receives it within 30 days 

of publication of this proposed rule. 

The regulations in ‘‘Subpart-Fruit and 

Vegetables’’ (7 CFR 319.56 through 

319.56–47, referred to as the 

regulations) prohibit or restrict the 

importation of fruits and vegetables into 

the United States from certain parts of 

the world to prevent the introduction 

and dissemination of plant pests that are 

new to or not widely distributed within 

the United States. Currently, the 

importation of table grapes (Vitis vinfera 

L.) from Chile into the United States is 

authorized under § 319.56–4 of the 

regulations. 

APHIS is proposing to amend the 

fruits and vegetables regulations to 

allow fresh table grapes from Chile to be 

imported into the continental United 

States under a systems approach. 

Currently, as a condition of entry, all 

table grapes from Chile must be 

fumigated with methyl bromide as a risk 

mitigation measure for Brevipalpus 

chilensis. 

Under this proposal, APHIS would 

allow a combination of risk-mitigation 

measures, or systems approach, to be 

employed in lieu of methyl bromide 

fumigation. The systems approach 

would provide an alternative to methyl 

bromide while continuing to provide 

protection against the introduction of 

quarantine pests into the United States. 

Allowing the importation of grapes 

into the United States from Chile will 

require information collection activities 

such as production site registration, 

phytosanitary certificates, and 

phytosanitary inspection. 

We are soliciting comments from the 

public (as well as affected agencies) 

concerning our proposed information 

collection and recordkeeping 

requirements. These comments will 

help us: 

(1) Evaluate whether the proposed 

information collection is necessary for 

the proper performance of our agency’s 

functions, including whether the 

information will have practical utility; 

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our 

estimate of the burden of the proposed 

information collection, including the 

validity of the methodology and 

assumptions used; 

(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and 

(4) Minimize the burden of the 

information collection on those who are 

to respond (such as through the use of 

appropriate automated, electronic, 

mechanical, or other technological 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology; e.g., permitting 

electronic submission of responses). 

Estimate of burden: Public reporting 

burden for this collection of information 

is estimated to average 0.5614754 hours 

per response. 

Respondents: Growers of grapes, 

NPPOs. 

Estimated annual number of 

respondents: 54. 

Estimated annual number of 

responses per respondent: 81.3333. 

Estimated annual number of 

responses: 4,392. 

Estimated total annual burden on 

respondents: 2,466 hours. (Due to 

averaging, the total annual burden hours 

may not equal the product of the annual 

number of responses multiplied by the 

reporting burden per response.) 

Copies of this information collection 

can be obtained from Mrs. Celeste 

Sickles, APHIS’ Information Collection 

Coordinator, at (301) 851–2908. 

E-Government Act Compliance 

The Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service is committed to 

compliance with the E-Government Act 

to promote the use of the Internet and 

other information technologies, to 

provide increased opportunities for 

citizen access to Government 

information and services, and for other 

purposes. For information pertinent to 

the E-Government Act compliance 

related to this proposed rule, please 

contact Mrs. Celeste Sickles, APHIS’

Information Collection Coordinator, at 

(301) 851–2908. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 319 

Coffee, Cotton, Fruits, Imports, Logs, 

Nursery Stock, Plant diseases and pests, 

Quarantine, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Rice, 

Vegetables. 

Accordingly, we propose to amend 7 

CFR part 319 as follows: 

PART 319—FOREIGN QUARANTINE 

NOTICES 

1. The authority citation for part 319 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 450, 7701–7772, 7781–

7786, and 8301–8317; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 

136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3. 

2. A new § 319.56–49 is added to read 

as follows: 

§ 319.56–49 Grapes from Chile. 

Table grapes (Vitis vinifera L.) may be 

imported into United States from Chile 

only under the following conditions: 

(a) The fruit must be imported in 

commercial consignments and 

accompanied by a permit issued in 

accordance with § 319.56–3(b). 

(b) If the fruit is produced in an area 

of Chile where Mediterranean fruit fly 

(Ceratitis capitata) is known to occur, 

the fruit must be cold treated in 

accordance with part 305 of this 

chapter. Fruit for which cold treatment 

is required must be accompanied by 

documentation indicating that the cold 

treatment was initiated in Chile (a PPQ 

Form 203 or its equivalent may be used 

for this purpose). 

(c) The fruit must either be produced 

and shipped under the systems 

approach described in paragraph (d) of 

this section or fumigated in accordance 

with paragraph (e) of this section. 

(d) Systems approach. The fruit may 

be imported without fumigation for 

Brevipalpus chilensis into the 

continental United States (Alaska and 

the lower 48 States) if it meets the 

following conditions: 

(1) Production site registration. The 

production site where the fruit is grown 

must be registered with the national 

plant protection organization (NPPO) of 

Chile. To register, the production site 

must provide Chile’s NPPO with the 

following information: Grower, 

exporter, orchard, production site name 

(if this differs from the name of the 

orchard), region, township, province, 

locality, area planted to each variety, 

number of hectares/variety, and 

approximate date of harvest. 

Registration must be renewed annually. 

(2) Low prevalence production site 

certification. Between 1 and 30 days 

prior to harvest, random samples of fruit 

must be collected from each registered 

production site under the direction of 

Chile’s NPPO. These samples must 

undergo a pest detection and evaluation 

method as follows: Each bunch of 

grapes, including fruit and rachis 

(spines), must be washed using a 

flushing method, placed in a 20 mesh 

sieve on top of a 200 mesh sieve, 

sprinkled with a liquid soap and water 

solution, washed with water at high 

pressure, and washed with water at low 

pressure. The process must then be 

repeated. The contents of the 200 mesh 

sieve must then be placed on a petri 

dish and analyzed for the presence of 

live B. chilensis mites. If a single live B. 

chilensis mite is found, the production 

site will not qualify for certification as 

a low prevalence production site and 

will be eligible to export fruit to the 

United States only if the fruit is 

fumigated in accordance with paragraph 

(e) of this section. Each production site 

may have only one opportunity per 

harvest season to qualify as a low 

prevalence production site, and 

certification of low prevalence will be 

valid for one harvest season only. The 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
50582 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 167 / Wednesday, August 27, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

NPPO of Chile will present a list of 

certified production sites to APHIS. 

(3) Post-harvest processing. After 

harvest, all damaged or diseased fruits 

must be culled at the packinghouse, and 

the remaining fruit must be packed into 

new, clean boxes, crates, or other 

APHIS-approved packing containers for 

fumigation with methyl bromide in 

accordance with paragraph (e) of this 

section, should such fumigation become 

necessary. 

(4) Phytosanitary inspection. The fruit 

must be inspected in Chile at an APHISapproved inspection site under the 

direction of APHIS inspectors in 

coordination with the NPPO of Chile 

after the post-harvest processing. A 

biometric sample must be drawn and 

examined from each consignment. 

Grapes in any consignment may be 

shipped to the continental United States 

only if the consignment passes 

inspection as follows: 

(i) Fruit presented for inspection must 

be identified in the shipping documents 

accompanying each lot of fruit to 

specify the production site(s) in which 

the fruit was produced and the packing 

shed(s) in which the fruit was 

processed. This identification must be 

maintained until the fruit is released for 

entry into the United States. 

(ii) A biometric sample of boxes, 

crates, or other APHIS-approved 

packing containers from each 

consignment will be selected and the 

fruit from these boxes, crates, or other 

APHIS-approved packing containers 

will be visually inspected for quarantine 

pests, and a portion of the fruit will be 

washed with soapy water and the 

collected filtrate will be microscopically 

examined for B. chilensis. If a single live 

B. chilensis mite is found, the fruit will 

be eligible for importation into the 

United States only if it has been 

fumigated in Chile in accordance with 

paragraph (e) of this section. The 

production site will be suspended from 

the low prevalence certification program 

and all subsequent lots of fruit from the 

production site of origin will be 

required to be fumigated in order to be 

eligible for entry into the United States 

for the remainder of the shipping 

season. 

(5) Phytosanitary certificates. Each 

consignment of grapes must be 

accompanied by a phytosanitary 

certificate issued by the NPPO of Chile 

that contains an additional declaration 

stating that the grapes in the 

consignment meet the conditions of 

§ 319.56–49. 

(e) Approved fumigation. Grapes that 

do not meet the conditions of paragraph 

(d) of this section may be imported into 

the United States if the fruit is 

fumigated either in Chile or at the port 

of first arrival to the United States with 

methyl bromide for B. chilensis in 

accordance with part 305 of this 

chapter. An APHIS inspector will 

monitor the fumigation of the fruit and 

will prescribe such safeguards as may be 

necessary for unloading, handling, and 

transportation prior to fumigation. The 

final release of the fruit for entry into 

the United States will be conditioned 

upon compliance with prescribed 

safeguards and required treatments. 

(f) Trust fund agreement. Grapes may 

be imported into the United States 

under this section only if the NPPO of 

Chile or a private export group has 

entered into a trust fund agreement with 

APHIS in accordance with § 319.56–6. 

Done in Washington, DC, this 22nd day of 

August 2008. 

Kevin Shea, 

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. E8–19875 Filed 8–26–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

7 CFR Part 905 

[Docket No. AMS–FV–08–0016; FV08–905–

2 PR] 

Oranges, Grapefruit, Tangerines, and 

Tangelos Grown in Florida; Temporary 

Suspension of Order Provisions 

Regarding Continuance Referenda 

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This rule invites comments 

on a temporary suspension of the order 

provision requiring periodic 

continuance referenda under the Florida 

citrus marketing order (order). This rule 

would suspend for the current cycle the 

order requirement that a continuance 

referendum be held every sixth year. 

The suspension is intended to minimize 

the confusion that could result from the 

overlap of the continuance referendum 

and another referendum associated with 

the amendatory process. It would also 

allow producers time to evaluate the 

results of the amendatory process before 

voting on the continuance of the order. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

September 26, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

invited to submit written comments 

concerning this proposal. Comments 

must be sent to the Docket Clerk, 

Marketing Order Administration 

Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, 

AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence 

Avenue, SW., STOP 0237, Washington, 

DC 20250–0237; Fax: (202) 720–8938; or 

Internet: http://www.regulations.gov. All 

comments should reference the docket 

number and the date and page number 

of this issue of the Federal Register and 

will be made available for public 

inspection in the Office of the Docket 

Clerk during regular business hours, or 

can be viewed at: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Doris Jamieson, Marketing Specialist, or 

Christian D. Nissen, Regional Manager, 

Southeast Marketing Field Office, 

Marketing Order Administration 

Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, 

AMS, USDA; Telephone: (863) 324–

3375, Fax: (863) 325–8793, or e-mail: 

Doris.Jamieson@usda.gov or 

Christian.Nissen@usda.gov. 

Small businesses may request 

information on complying with this 

regulation by contacting Jay Guerber, 

Marketing Order Administration 

Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, 

AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence 

Avenue, SW., STOP 0237, Washington, 

DC 20250–0237; Telephone: (202) 720–

2491, Fax: (202) 720–8938, or e-mail: 

Jay.Guerber@usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

proposal is issued under Marketing 

Agreement No. 84 and Marketing Order 

No. 905, both as amended (7 CFR part 

905), regulating the handling of oranges, 

grapefruit, tangerines, and tangelos 

grown in Florida, hereinafter referred to 

as the ‘‘order.’’ The order is effective 

under the Agricultural Marketing 

Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 

U.S.C. 601–674), hereinafter referred to 

as the ‘‘Act.’’

The Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) is issuing this rule in 

conformance with Executive Order 

12866. 

This proposal has been reviewed 

under Executive Order 12988, Civil 

Justice Reform. This rule is not intended 

to have retroactive effect. This proposal 

will not preempt any State or local laws, 

regulations, or policies, unless they 

present an irreconcilable conflict with 

this rule. 

The Act provides that administrative 

proceedings must be exhausted before 

parties may file suit in court. Under 

section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any 

handler subject to an order may file 

with USDA a petition stating that the 

order, any provision of the order, or any 

obligation imposed in connection with 

the order is not in accordance with law 

and request a modification of the order 

or to be exempted therefrom. A handler 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS