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

31201 

Vol. 74, No. 124 

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

7 CFR Part 301 

[Docket No. APHIS–2009–0023] 

RIN 0579–AC96 

Citrus Canker; Movement of Fruit From 

Quarantined Areas 

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: We are proposing to amend 

the citrus canker regulations to modify 

the conditions under which fruit may be 

moved interstate from a quarantined 

area. Under this proposed rule, we 

would eliminate the requirement that 

each lot of finished fruit be inspected at 

the packinghouse and found to be free 

of visible symptoms of citrus canker, 

and we would remove the current 

prohibition on the movement of fruit 

from a quarantined area to commercial 

citrus-producing States. We would 

continue to require fruit moved 

interstate from a quarantined area to be 

treated with an approved disinfectant 

and to be packed in a commercial 

packinghouse that operates under a 

compliance agreement. These proposed 

changes would relieve some restrictions 

on the interstate movement of fresh 

citrus fruit from quarantined areas while 

maintaining conditions that would 

prevent the artificial spread of citrus 

canker. 

DATES: We will consider all comments 

that we receive on or before August 31, 

2009. 

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=APHIS-2009-0023 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–2009–0023, 

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– 

2009–0023. 

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. 

Stephen Poe, Senior Operations Officer, 

Emergency and Domestic Programs, 

Plant Protection and Quarantine, 

APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 137, 

Riverdale, MD 20737–1231; (301) 734– 

4387. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Citrus canker is a plant disease caused 

by the bacterium Xanthomonas citri 

subsp. citri (referred to below as Xcc) 

that affects plants and plant parts, 

including fresh fruit, of citrus and citrus 

relatives (Family Rutaceae). Citrus 

canker can cause defoliation and other 

serious damage to the leaves and twigs 

of susceptible plants. It can also cause 

lesions on the fruit of infected plants, 

which render the fruit unmarketable, 

and cause infected fruit to drop from the 

trees before reaching maturity. The A 

(Asiatic) strain of citrus canker can 

infect susceptible plants rapidly and 

lead to extensive economic losses in 

commercial citrus-producing areas. 

Citrus canker is only known to be 

present in the United States in the State 

of Florida. 

The regulations to prevent the 

interstate spread of citrus canker are 

contained in ‘‘Subpart—Citrus Canker’’ 

(7 CFR 301.75–1 through 301.75–14, 

referred to below as the regulations). 

The regulations restrict the interstate 

movement of regulated articles from and 

through areas quarantined because of 

citrus canker and provide, among other 

things, conditions under which 

regulated fruit may be moved into, 

through, and from quarantined areas for 

packing. 

The conditions for the interstate 

movement of regulated fruit produced 

in a quarantined area in § 301.75–7(a) 

are currently as follows: 

• Every lot of fruit to be moved 

interstate must be inspected by an 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service (APHIS) employee at a 

commercial packinghouse for symptoms 

of citrus canker. Any lot found to 

contain fruit with visible symptoms of 

citrus canker will be ineligible for 

interstate movement from the 

quarantined area. The number of fruit to 

be inspected will be the quantity that is 

sufficient to detect, with a 95 percent 

level of confidence, any lot of fruit 

containing 0.38 percent or more fruit 

with visible canker lesions. A lot of fruit 

that is inspected and found to be 

ineligible for interstate movement may 

not be reconditioned and submitted for 

reinspection. 

• The owner or operator of any 

commercial packinghouse that wishes to 

move citrus fruit interstate from the 

quarantined area must enter into a 

compliance agreement with APHIS in 

accordance with § 301.75–13. 

• The regulated fruit was treated with 

an approved disinfectant in accordance 

with § 301.75–11(a). 

• The regulated fruit is free of leaves, 

twigs, and other plant parts, except for 

stems that are less than 1 inch long and 

attached to the fruit. 

• Each lot of regulated fruit found to 

be eligible for interstate movement must 

be accompanied by a limited permit 

issued in accordance with § 301.75–12. 

Regulated fruit to be moved interstate 

must be packaged in boxes or other 

containers that are approved by APHIS 

and that are used exclusively for 

regulated fruit that is eligible for 

interstate movement. The boxes or other 

containers in which the fruit is 

packaged, and any shipping documents 

accompanying the boxes or other 

containers, must be clearly marked with 

a statement indicating that they may not 

be distributed in American Samoa, 

Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii, 

Louisiana, Commonwealth of the 

Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, 

Texas, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
31202 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 30, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

1To view the final rule, go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?

main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS-2007-0022. 

2The term ‘‘epidemiologically significant’’ refers 

to the minimum conditions required for 

introduction of a disease into an unaffected area. 

Our judgment of whether fruit is an 

epidemiologically significant pathway for disease 

transmission is based on the likelihood that the 

fruit itself will be infected with the disease, that the 

infection will occur in a way or at a level sufficient 

for transmission of the disease, and that such an 

infected fruit will encounter the biological 

conditions required for transmission of the disease. 

3 Gottwald, T., Graham, J., Bock, C., Bonn, G., 

Civerolo, E., Irey, M., Leite, R., Lo ́pez, M. M., 

McCollum, G., Parker, P., Ramallo, J., Riley, T., 

Schubert, T., Stein, B., and Taylor, E. (2009). The 

epidemiological significance of post-packinghouse 

survival of Xanthomonas citri subsp. citri for 

dissemination of Asiatic citrus canker via infected 

fruit. Crop Protection 28, 508–524. 

4Shiotani, H., Uematsu, H., Tsukamoto, T., 

Shimizu, Y., Ueda, K., Mizuno, A. & Sato, S. (2009). 

Survival and dispersal of Xanthomonas citri pv. 

citri from infected Satsuma mandarin fruit. Crop 

Protection 28, 19–23. 

(These are the commercial citrusproducing areas listed in § 301.75–5; we 

refer to them in this document as 

commercial citrus-producing States.) 

In a final rule 1 effective and 

published in the Federal Register on 

November 19, 2007 (72 FR 65172– 

65204, Docket No. APHIS–2007–0022), 

we amended the regulations governing 

the interstate movement of regulated 

fruit from a quarantined area to 

establish these conditions. That final 

rule eliminated a requirement that the 

groves in which fruit to be moved 

interstate is produced be inspected and 

found free of citrus canker. Instead, we 

added the packinghouse inspection 

requirement mentioned earlier. We 

retained the other requirements that had 

been in the regulations, including the 

requirement that the fruit be treated 

with a surface disinfectant and the 

prohibition on the movement of fruit 

from a quarantined area into 

commercial citrus-producing States 

listed in § 301.75–5. 

We established those conditions 

based on the conclusions of a pest risk 

assessment (PRA) and risk management 

analysis (RMA) prepared for that 

rulemaking. The PRA concluded that 

asymptomatic, commercially produced 

citrus fruit, treated with a disinfectant 

and subject to other mitigations, is not 

epidemiologically significant as a 

pathway for the introduction and spread 

of citrus canker. 

The RMA examined the risks 

associated with both symptomatic and 

asymptomatic fruit and concluded that 

the introduction and spread of Xcc into 

other States through the movement of 

commercially packed fresh citrus fruit 

from quarantined areas is unlikely. In 

addition, the RMA concluded that a 

phytosanitary inspection would ensure, 

with high confidence, that few shipped 

fruit would have symptoms of citrus 

canker disease. However, the RMA also 

concluded that the evidence available at 

that time was not sufficient to support 

a determination that fresh citrus fruit 

produced in an Xcc-infested grove 

cannot serve as a pathway for the 

introduction of Xcc into new areas, thus 

necessitating the prohibition on 

movement of fruit into commercial 

citrus-producing States. 

In our responses to public comments 

in the Background section of the 

November 2007 final rule, we stated: ‘‘If, 

in the future, evidence is developed to 

support a determination that 

commercially packed citrus fruit (both 

symptomatic and asymptomatic) is not 

an epidemiologically significant 2

pathway for the introduction and spread 

of citrus canker, we would undertake 

rulemaking to amend our regulations 

accordingly.’’ 

New Evidence Regarding the Potential 

of the Movement of Fruit to Spread 

Citrus Canker 

Since the publication of the final rule, 

two publications have provided 

additional evidence regarding the 

potential of fruit to serve as a pathway 

for the introduction and spread of citrus 

canker. This new evidence addresses 

key uncertainties and caused us to 

revisit our previous findings. The first 

article, by Gottwald et al. (2009),3

documents research on the survival of 

Xcc on commercially produced and 

packed citrus fruit and the likelihood 

that such fruit could serve as a 

mechanism to spread the disease. The 

second article, by Shiotani et al. (2009),4

documents research on the survival of 

Xcc on commercially produced 

mandarin fruits and the likelihood of 

spread of Xcc to trees from harvested 

mandarins. 

Accordingly, we have prepared 

updates to the PRA and RMA that 

accompanied the November 2007 final 

rule. These documents, and the 

November 2007 PRA and RMA that they 

update, are available on the 

Regulations.gov Web site and in our 

reading room (see ADDRESSES above) 

and may be obtained from the person 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

The updated PRA, titled ‘‘An Updated 

Evaluation of Citrus Fruit (Citrus spp.) 

as a Pathway for the Introduction of 

Citrus Canker Disease (Xanthomonas 

citri subsp. citri)’’ (March 2009), 

examines the information presented in 

Gottwald et al. (2009) and Shiotani et al. 

(2009) in the context of the earlier PRA. 

Based on the evidence presented in both 

the November 2007 PRA and the two 

new publications, the updated PRA 

concludes that asymptomatic fruit 

(treated or untreated) is not 

epidemiologically significant as a 

pathway for introducing citrus canker. It 

further concludes that symptomatic fruit 

subjected to a packinghouse process that 

includes washing with disinfectants is 

also not epidemiologically significant as 

a pathway for introducing citrus canker. 

These conclusions led us to prepare a 

supplemental RMA, titled ‘‘Movement 

of Commercially Packed Citrus Fruit 

from Citrus Canker Disease Quarantine 

Area; Supplemental Risk Management 

Analysis’’ (May 2009). The 

supplemental RMA takes into account 

the conclusions of the updated PRA as 

well as the evidence and discussion 

presented in the November 2007 RMA. 

Like the November 2007 RMA, the 

supplemental RMA was submitted for 

peer review, in accordance with the 

Office of Management and Budget’s 

bulletin on peer review. All the 

materials associated with the peer 

review on the supplemental RMA, 

including the peer reviewers’ comments 

and our responses, are available at 

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

peer_review_agenda.shtml. The peer 

reviewers’ comments were considered 

in developing the supplemental RMA. 

The supplemental RMA examines key 

findings from the publications 

mentioned earlier. These include: 

• Post-harvest treatments reduce the 

viability of bacteria on fruit; 

• The viability of bacteria on fruit 

diminishes after it is harvested; 

• The low potential for spread from 

fruit to suitable hosts has now been 

reported by several sources; 

• Rinds of infected fruit are unlikely 

to provide inoculum for disease if they 

have been discarded in the field at least 

8 days; and 

• Fruit parts, even those that are in 

direct contact with susceptible trees, are 

unlikely to spread the disease. 

The supplemental RMA concludes 

that multiple lines of evidence, 

including, but not limited to, evidence 

from the two recent studies and the 

November 2007 RMA, indicate that 

commercially packed and disinfected 

fresh citrus fruit is not an 

epidemiologically significant pathway 

for the introduction and spread of Xcc, 

i.e.: 

• Disease management practices in 

the grove reduce, but do not eliminate, 

Xcc populations. 

• Commercially produced fruit 

harvested in areas where Xcc exists may 

be visibly infected or the fruit may carry 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 30, 2009 / Proposed Rules 31203 

the pathogen either on its surface or in 

wounds. 

• Citrus canker disease development 

between harvest and packinghouse, via 

wounding for example, is not likely. 

• Procedures for cleaning and 

disinfecting fruit are routinely applied 

by packinghouses. 

• The individual efficacy of these 

procedures for removing or destroying 

Xcc may not be known in detail, but the 

effect of packinghouse treatments 

reduces the prevalence of viable Xcc 

and therefore the level of inoculum 

associated with commercially packed 

fresh citrus fruit. 

• Packinghouse processing that 

includes a disinfectant treatment further 

reduces amounts of Xcc inoculum on 

infected or contaminated fruit. 

• The viability of bacteria on fruit and 

in lesions and wounds diminishes after 

the fruit is harvested. 

• The viability of Xcc bacteria that 

survive the packing process will further 

diminish during shipping. 

• Epiphytic populations of Xcc may 

aid in pathogen dispersal, but 

substantial evidence indicates that 

bacterial populations do not infect 

intact mature fruit. 

• Evidence indicates that wounds on 

harvested fruit containing Xcc inoculum 

do not lead to citrus canker lesion 

development, and Xcc populations 

generally decline rapidly, although 

wounds might occasionally retain Xcc 

populations that decline more slowly. 

• The cool temperatures at which 

citrus fruit are stored and shipped and 

the duration of storage reduce the ability 

of Xcc to reproduce and cause infection. 

• As a condition for successful 

establishment, Xcc, in amounts 

sufficient to cause infection, must 

encounter not only an environment with 

a conducive temperature, relative 

humidity, moisture, and wind events for 

infection, but also must encounter host 

plant tissue that is either at a 

susceptible growth stage or is wounded 

and then must successfully enter this 

tissue. 

• Despite substantial international 

trade between Xcc-infected and 

noninfected countries, there is no 

authenticated record of movement of 

diseased fruit or seeds resulting in the 

introduction of Xcc to new areas. 

Evaluation of Risk Management Options 

In light of this evidence, the 

supplemental RMA considers five risk 

management options for the interstate 

movement of commercially packed 

citrus fruit from areas quarantined for 

citrus canker: 

• Option 1: Allow distribution of all 

types and varieties of commercially 

packed citrus fruit to all U.S. States, 

without packinghouse treatment with a 

disinfectant. 

• Option 2: Allow distribution of all 

types and varieties of commercially 

packed citrus fruit to all U.S. States, 

subject to packinghouse treatment with 

an APHIS-approved disinfectant, but 

without the current inspection 

requirement. 

• Option 3: Allow distribution of all 

types and varieties of commercially 

packed citrus fruit to all U.S. States 

except commercial citrus-producing 

States, subject to packinghouse 

treatment of citrus fruit with an APHISapproved disinfectant treatment; and, 

allow distribution of all types and 

varieties of commercially packed citrus 

fruit to all U.S. States, including 

commercial citrus-producing States, 

subject to packinghouse treatment with 

an APHIS-approved disinfectant 

treatment and APHIS inspection for 

symptoms of citrus canker. 

• Option 4: Allow distribution of all 

types and varieties of commercially 

packed citrus fruit to all U.S. States 

other than commercial citrus-producing 

States, subject to packinghouse 

treatment with an APHIS-approved 

disinfectant. 

• Option 5: Leave the current 

regulations for the interstate movement 

of citrus fruit from areas quarantined for 

citrus canker unchanged. 

Each option was considered within 

the context of available scientific 

evidence. Option 1 would allow 

unrestricted distribution of all types and 

varieties of commercially packed citrus 

fruit to all U.S. States, without 

packinghouse treatment with a 

disinfectant. However, the updated PRA 

and the supplemental RMA limit their 

conclusion that fresh citrus fruit is not 

an epidemiologically significant 

pathway for the introduction and spread 

of Xcc to fruit that has been treated with 

a disinfectant. This conclusion is 

consistent with the Gottwald et al. 

(2009) article, which concludes that 

packinghouse-disinfested, citrus fruit 

with canker lesions are an unlikely 

pathway through which Xcc inoculum 

might lead to infection and Xcc 

establishment in new areas. 

In addition, both of the recent articles 

examined in the updated PRA and the 

supplemental RMA included research 

on the issue of transmission of Xcc from 

infected fruit to nearby citrus plants. All 

but one of the situations reported in 

these articles found no transmission of 

Xcc to citrus plants in circumstances 

designed to allow for such transmission. 

Gottwald et al. (2009) reported one 

transmission of citrus canker from 

untreated, highly infected fruit to 

susceptible plants in what the paper 

characterized as ‘‘a highly contrived 

situation designed to provide every 

possible opportunity for dispersal of 

Xcc.’’ The situation included fruit 

selected specifically for their high level 

of canker infection, subjected to no postharvest treatment or processing, placed 

next to grapefruit seedlings (considered 

highly susceptible to Xcc infection), and 

subjected to artificial wind and rain 

conditions. An injured grapefruit 

seedling immediately adjacent to the 

infested fruit was infected under these 

conditions. It is highly improbable that 

the conditions under which Xcc was 

transmitted from the untreated fruit 

would occur in any area; however, the 

experiment demonstrates that the 

transmission of canker from untreated 

fruit is possible. Therefore, we 

determined that movement of fruit from 

quarantined areas without disinfectant 

treatment and with no other 

phytosanitary mitigations was not 

justified by the available scientific 

evidence. We welcome public comment 

on this determination. 

Option 5 is the most restrictive option 

that we considered. It would leave the 

current regulations in place and 

unchanged, including both the 

requirement for packinghouse 

inspection for symptoms of citrus 

canker and the prohibition on the 

movement of fruit to commercial citrusproducing States. This option would not 

take into account the evidence in the 

recent articles cited in the updated PRA 

and the supplemental RMA. This 

evidence establishes with a greater 

degree of certainty than was previously 

indicated that commercially packed 

fruit that is treated with an APHISapproved disinfectant is not an 

epidemiologically significant pathway 

for the transmission of citrus canker, 

meaning that some phytosanitary 

mitigations currently included in the 

regulations are no longer necessary to 

prevent the spread of citrus canker from 

quarantined areas via the movement of 

fruit. Consequently, Options 2, 3, and 4 

were evaluated and Options 1 and 5 

were no longer considered. 

Option 2 would allow commercially 

packed fruit treated with an APHISapproved disinfectant to move from a 

quarantined area to any State, including 

commercial citrus-producing States, but 

would not include the current 

inspection requirement. 

Options 3 and 4 require disinfectant 

treatment and include additional 

phytosanitary measures to address any 

remaining uncertainty regarding the 

epidemiological significance of 

commercially packed fruit as a pathway 

for the transmission of citrus canker. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
31204 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 30, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

Option 3 would prohibit the 

distribution of fruit to commercial 

citrus-producing States unless it is 

inspected for symptoms of citrus canker, 

using the same inspection process 

currently described in paragraph (a)(1) 

of § 301.75–7. Option 4 would not 

include the inspection requirement but 

would continue to prohibit the 

distribution of all fruit to commercial 

citrus-producing States. 

After considering the evidence 

presented in the updated PRA and the 

supplemental RMA and the conclusions 

of those documents, we have 

determined that currently available 

scientific evidence provides additional 

certainty that commercially packed, 

treated fruit is not an epidemiologically 

significant pathway for the spread of 

citrus canker. Therefore, no mitigations 

beyond treatment with an APHISapproved disinfectant are necessary. 

Accordingly, in this document, we are 

proposing to implement Option 2. 

Pretreatment Detergent Wash 

We also considered whether to change 

our current fruit disinfection treatments 

in § 301.75–11 in light of findings in 

Gottwald et al. (2009). Paragraph (a) of 

§ 301.75–11 currently requires fruit 

moved interstate from a quarantined 

area to be treated, in a commercial 

packinghouse operating under a 

compliance agreement, in at least one of 

the following ways: 

• The regulated fruit must be 

thoroughly wetted for at least 2 minutes 

with a solution containing 200 parts per 

million sodium hypochlorite, with the 

solution maintained at a pH of 6.0 to 

7.5. 

• The regulated fruit must be 

thoroughly wetted with a solution 

containing sodium o-phenyl phenate 

(SOPP) at a concentration of 1.86 to 2.0 

percent of the total solution, for 45 

seconds if the solution has sufficient 

soap or detergent to cause a visible 

foaming action or for 1 minute if the 

solution does not contain sufficient soap 

to cause a visible foaming action. 

• The regulated fruit must be 

thoroughly wetted for at least 1 minute 

with a solution containing 85 parts per 

million peroxyacetic acid. 

Gottwald et al. (2009) presents 

evidence that ‘‘suggest[s] that 

effectiveness of packing line 

decontamination can be increased by 

using prewashing treatment that 

includes detergent, (such as SOPP) to 

remove dirt and debris that reduce the 

effectiveness of the disinfestants.’’ 

(Shiotani et al. (2009) did not address 

this issue.) The supplemental RMA 

concludes, as noted earlier, that 

packinghouse processing that includes 

prewashing fruit with detergent over 

brushes followed by a disinfectant 

treatment further reduces already 

epidemiologically insignificant amounts 

of Xcc inoculum on infected or 

contaminated fruit. Accordingly, we 

considered whether to change our 

treatment requirements to incorporate a 

pretreatment detergent wash 

requirement in addition to the approved 

disinfectant treatments listed earlier. 

Various studies have demonstrated 

the effectiveness of the currently 

approved disinfectants in reducing 

numbers of Xcc cells or similar bacteria 

to low or undetectable levels, as 

discussed in the November 2007 RMA. 

The overall results of the pretreatment 

detergent wash experiments in Gottwald 

et al. (2009) were inconclusive. In the 

experiment in which the pretreatment 

detergent wash increased the 

effectiveness of the chlorine treatment, 

the treatment used was not equivalent to 

any of the APHIS-approved treatments 

listed earlier. In the other experiment, 

the treatment was equivalent, but the 

pretreatment detergent wash did not 

significantly increase the effectiveness 

of the treatment. 

In addition, the updated PRA and 

supplemental RMA conclude that the 

viability of Xcc bacteria on fruit and in 

lesions and wounds diminishes after the 

fruit is harvested; the viability of Xcc 

bacteria that survive the packing process 

will further diminish during shipping; 

and evidence indicates that wounds on 

harvested fruit containing Xcc inoculum 

do not lead to citrus canker lesion 

development, and Xcc populations 

generally decline rapidly, although 

wounds might occasionally retain Xcc 

populations that decline more slowly. 

The risk associated with bacteria that 

survive treatment is additionally 

mitigated by other steps in the 

commercial packing and distribution 

process. 

Taking all the relevant evidence into 

account, we have determined that it is 

not necessary to amend the regulations 

to require a pretreatment detergent wash 

in addition to the disinfectant treatment. 

The current disinfectant treatments are 

an adequate mitigation to ensure that 

fruit is not an epidemiologically 

significant pathway for Xcc, especially 

when considering other aspects of the 

epidemiological significance of Xcc that 

are better characterized by the new 

evidence. 

Proposed Changes to the Regulations 

Governing the Interstate Movement of 

Fruit 

As noted earlier, the regulations 

governing the interstate movement of 

regulated fruit produced in a 

quarantined area are set out in 

paragraph (a) of § 301.75–7. Reflecting 

our choice of Option 2, we are 

proposing to remove the requirements 

in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(6), which 

respectively describe the current fruit 

inspection process and state that a lot of 

fruit that is determined to be ineligible 

for interstate movement through the 

inspection process may not be 

reconditioned and submitted for 

reinspection. 

We are also proposing to remove the 

requirements in paragraph (a)(5), which 

requires a limited permit and marking of 

the fruit’s packaging to prevent its 

movement to commercial citrusproducing States. The current 

introductory text of paragraph (a) in 

§ 301.75–7 refers to movement of fruit 

into any area of the United States except 

commercial citrus-producing areas. We 

would amend this introductory text to 

indicate that regulated fruit may move 

interstate with a certificate issued and 

attached in accordance with § 301.75– 

12. Because we would remove the 

current distribution restrictions, a 

certificate, which allows unrestricted 

movement, would be the appropriate 

document to accompany regulated fruit 

moved interstate from the quarantined 

area under the proposed regulations. 

Paragraph (a)(2) requires the owner or 

operator of any commercial 

packinghouse that wishes to move citrus 

fruit interstate from the quarantined 

area to enter into a compliance 

agreement with APHIS in accordance 

with § 301.75–13. We are proposing to 

move this requirement to paragraph 

(a)(1) and to restate it slightly to 

emphasize that the fruit must be packed 

in a commercial packinghouse. The 

emphasis on packing in a commercial 

packinghouse would ensure that the 

regulations are consistent with the 

conclusions of the updated PRA and the 

supplemental RMA, which evaluate the 

risk of spread of citrus canker via 

commercially packed fruit specifically. 

Under this proposal, paragraph (a)(1) of 

§ 301.75–7 would state that regulated 

fruit must be packed in a commercial 

packinghouse whose owner or operator 

has entered into a compliance 

agreement with APHIS in accordance 

with § 301.75–13. 

The term ‘‘commercial packinghouse’’ 

is defined in § 301.75–1 as an 

establishment in which space and 

equipment are maintained for the 

primary purpose of packing citrus fruit 

for commercial sale. The conclusions of 

the supplemental RMA refer specifically 

to disinfected fruit; accordingly, we are 

proposing to amend this definition to 

refer to equipment maintained for the 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 30, 2009 / Proposed Rules 31205 

primary purpose of disinfecting and 

packing fruit. 

In addition, under the current 

definition of commercial packinghouse, 

a commercial packinghouse must be 

registered as a packinghouse with the 

State in which it operates or hold a 

business license for treating and packing 

fruit. However, part of this definition is 

in error; there is no business license 

available for treating and packing fruit 

in the citrus canker quarantined area. 

Rather, there are State licensing, 

registration, and certification provisions 

for commercial packinghouses, and each 

of these provisions includes 

requirements that the packinghouse 

must fulfill in order to be licensed, 

certified, or registered as a commercial 

packinghouse. Therefore, we are 

proposing to amend the commercial 

packinghouse definition to require that 

a commercial packinghouse be licensed, 

registered, or certified with the State in 

which it operates and meet all the 

requirements for the license, 

registration, or certification that it holds. 

Proposed paragraph (a)(2) of § 301.75– 

7 would require the regulated fruit to be 

treated in accordance with § 301.75– 

11(a). This requirement is currently 

contained in paragraph (a)(3). 

Proposed paragraph (a)(3) would 

require the regulated fruit to be free of 

leaves, twigs, and other plant parts, 

except for stems that are less than 1 inch 

long and attached to the fruit. This 

requirement is currently contained in 

paragraph (a)(4). We are proposing to 

retain this requirement, which is 

necessary because other plant parts pose 

different risks than fruit does; canker 

lesions on leaves, for example, typically 

have much higher bacterial populations 

than canker lesions on fruit. 

Under this proposed rule, APHIS 

inspectors would no longer be on site at 

packinghouses to enforce the 

requirements for treatment and removal 

of leaves, twigs, and other plant parts. 

We would require that these activities 

be conducted in accordance with the 

regulations in our compliance 

agreements with commercial 

packinghouses, and spot checks would 

be conducted to ensure that treatment is 

being performed properly and that no 

leaves, twigs, or other plant parts are 

being included in containers of fruit 

moved interstate. 

As noted earlier, we are proposing to 

remove the requirements related to 

packaging fruit moved interstate, under 

which only fruit that met the 

requirements of the regulations could be 

packaged in boxes or other containers 

bearing a statement prohibiting their 

distribution to commercial citrusproducing States, because we are 

proposing to remove the distribution 

restrictions that made those packaging 

requirements necessary. It is a common 

business practice in Florida for 

businesses to buy commercially packed 

and treated fruit and repackage it for 

interstate movement before the fruit is 

ultimately moved interstate from 

Florida. Under this proposed rule, the 

repackaged fruit would not be moved 

with its original certificate, which 

would have been attached to the 

container in which the fruit was 

originally packed or to the waybill 

originally accompanying the fruit in 

accordance with § 301.75–12. However, 

fruit moved interstate would need to be 

moved with a certificate to allow us to 

verify that it was moved in accordance 

with the proposed regulations. 

To address this issue, we are 

proposing to include a new paragraph 

(a)(4). This paragraph would state that, 

if fruit is repackaged after being packed 

in a commercial packinghouse and 

before it is moved interstate from the 

quarantined area, the person that 

repackages the fruit must enter into a 

compliance agreement with APHIS in 

accordance with § 301.75–13 and issue 

and attach a certificate for the interstate 

movement of the fruit in accordance 

with § 301.75–12. 

In current § 301.75–7, paragraph (c) 

contains requirements for the interstate 

movement of fruit from a quarantined 

area when that fruit was not produced 

in the quarantined area but was moved 

there for packing. Under paragraph 

(c)(1), such fruit may be moved to States 

other than commercial citrus-producing 

States, under conditions similar to those 

in current paragraph (a), or the fruit may 

be moved to any State (including 

commercial citrus-producing States) 

under the conditions specified in under 

paragraph (c)(2). These conditions 

include covering the fruit while it is in 

transit, keeping it separate from fruit 

that is produced in the quarantined area 

and packed in the packinghouse, and 

otherwise preventing its exposure to 

citrus canker. The fruit must also be 

treated in accordance with § 301.75– 

11(a). 

We evaluated these conditions in light 

of the updated PRA and the 

supplemental RMA and the changes we 

are proposing. The supplemental RMA 

indicates that it is not necessary to 

separate fruit produced in a quarantined 

area from fruit not produced in a 

quarantined area, as substantial 

evidence indicates that bacterial 

populations of Xcc on harvested fruit do 

not infect intact mature fruit. Although 

paragraph (c)(2) does not require fruit 

moved to a quarantined area for packing 

and intended to be moved to 

commercial citrus-producing States to 

be packed in a commercial 

packinghouse, as would be required 

under proposed paragraph (a)(1) of 

§ 301.75–7, the provisions for separation 

of fruit, disinfection of equipment, and 

disposal of litter in paragraph (c)(2) 

effectively limit its applicability to fruit 

packed in commercial packinghouses. 

Paragraph (c)(2) currently contains a 

requirement for treating fruit moved 

interstate, as would be required under 

proposed paragraph (a)(2). In addition, 

removing leaves, twigs, and other plant 

material from packed fruit, as would be 

required in proposed paragraph (a)(3), is 

a typical packing practice in commercial 

packinghouses. 

Given these considerations, we 

believe that it is no longer necessary to 

provide separate conditions for the 

interstate movement of fruit produced 

in a quarantined area and fruit that is 

not produced in a quarantined area but 

is moved into a quarantined area for 

packing. Therefore, this proposal would 

remove paragraph (c) and amend the 

introductory text of paragraph (a) to 

indicate that paragraph (a) provides 

conditions for the interstate movement 

of all regulated fruit from citrus canker 

quarantined areas. 

Paragraph (b) in § 301.75–7 states that 

regulated fruit produced in a 

quarantined area that is not eligible for 

movement under paragraph (a) may be 

moved interstate only for immediate 

export. We are proposing to amend this 

paragraph to indicate that any regulated 

fruit in a quarantined area, whether 

produced in the area or moved to the 

area for packing, that is not eligible for 

interstate movement could only be 

moved for immediate export. 

Section 301.75–4 of the regulations 

sets out the quarantined areas for citrus 

canker. Within § 301.75–4, paragraph 

(d) sets out conditions for designating 

an area less than an entire State as a 

quarantined area. Some of these 

conditions concern the movement of 

fruit. We are proposing to retain most of 

the conditions for the intrastate 

movement of fruit in paragraphs (d)(2)(i) 

and (ii), as they contain requirements 

intended to prevent intrastate 

transmission of citrus canker via plant 

parts other than fruit and via 

equipment. The first sentence of 

paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(D), though, requires 

regulated fruit moved intrastate for 

packing to be stored separately from and 

have no contact with fruit eligible for 

movement to commercial citrusproducing States. As discussed earlier, 

this provision is no longer necessary, 

and we are therefore proposing to 

remove it. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
31206 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 30, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

We are also proposing to remove 

paragraph (d)(6), which requires that, in 

addition to meeting the conditions in 

§ 301.75–7(a), fruit moved interstate 

from a quarantined area less than an 

entire State originate from a grove in 

which no plant parts infected with 

citrus canker were found in the 2 years 

before interstate movement and in 

which any exposed plants in the grove 

at high risk for developing citrus canker 

have been destroyed. This provision is 

intended to reduce the prevalence of 

citrus canker in fruit to be moved 

interstate. Because we have determined 

that fruit that meets the requirements of 

proposed § 301.75–7(a) is not an 

epidemiologically significant pathway 

for the transmission of citrus canker, 

this additional requirement is not 

necessary. Accordingly, we are 

proposing to remove paragraph (d)(6). 

Under § 412(a) of the Plant Protection 

Act (7 U.S.C. 7712), the Secretary of 

Agriculture may prohibit or restrict the 

interstate movement of any plant or 

plant product if the Secretary 

determines that the prohibition or 

restriction is necessary to prevent the 

dissemination within the United States 

of a plant pest or noxious weed. Based 

on our supplemental RMA, APHIS has 

concluded that commercially packed 

citrus fruit treated with an APHISapproved disinfectant is not an 

epidemiologically significant pathway 

for the dissemination of citrus canker 

within the United States. Accordingly, 

APHIS has determined that it is not 

necessary to prohibit the interstate 

movement of fruit from citrus canker 

quarantined areas that is commercially 

packed and treated with an APHISapproved disinfectant in order to 

prevent the dissemination within the 

United States of a plant pest or noxious 

weed. This determination is based on 

the findings of the updated PRA and the 

supplemental RMA referred to earlier in 

this document and our judgment that 

the application of the measures that 

would be required under proposed 

§ 301.75–7(a) would prevent the 

dissemination of plant pests within the 

United States. 

Although this proposed rule would 

amend only the domestic citrus canker 

quarantine regulations, we would in the 

future consider the risk management 

strategy proposed here to be suitable to 

mitigate against citrus canker in fruit 

imported from foreign countries affected 

with citrus canker. However, the 

national plant protection organization of 

such a country would need to submit a 

request that we do so. A country 

requesting to be able to use this 

framework to export citrus to us would 

have to demonstrate the ability to 

perform the required treatments; it 

would also be required to have a 

bilateral workplan in place with APHIS. 

In addition, there may be other citrus 

pests in foreign citrus production areas 

whose risk would need to be mitigated 

separately from the risk posed by citrus 

canker; a request to export citrus from 

a canker-affected country would need to 

incorporate the risk management 

strategy for citrus canker that we 

propose here into a risk management 

approach that addresses the total citrus 

pest complex present in that country. 

For that reason, we would complete a 

separate pest risk analysis for such an 

action. 

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

This proposed rule has been reviewed 

under Executive Order 12866. The 

proposed rule has been determined to 

be significant for the purposes of 

Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, 

has been reviewed by the Office of 

Management and Budget. 

We have prepared an economic 

analysis for this rule. The economic 

analysis provides a cost-benefit analysis, 

as required by Executive Order 12866, 

and an initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis that examines the potential 

economic effects of this interim rule on 

small entities, as required by the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act. The 

economic analysis is summarized 

below. Copies of the full analysis are 

available by contacting the person listed 

under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT or on the Regulations.gov Web 

site (see ADDRESSES above for 

instructions for accessing 

Regulations.gov). 

We are proposing to amend the citrus 

canker regulations to modify the 

conditions under which fruit may be 

moved interstate from a quarantined 

area. Under this proposed rule, we 

would eliminate the requirement that 

each lot of finished fruit be inspected at 

the packinghouse and found to be free 

of visible symptoms of citrus canker, 

and we would remove the current 

prohibition on the movement of fruit 

from a quarantined area to commercial 

citrus-producing States. We would 

continue to require fruit moved 

interstate from a quarantined area to be 

treated with an approved disinfectant 

and to be packed in a commercial 

packinghouse that operates under a 

compliance agreement. These proposed 

changes would relieve some restrictions 

on the interstate movement of fresh 

citrus fruit from quarantined areas while 

maintaining conditions that would 

prevent the artificial spread of citrus 

canker. 

In the November 2007 final rule, we 

amended the regulations governing the 

interstate movement of regulated fruit 

from a quarantined area. That final rule 

removed the grove inspection 

requirement whereby fresh citrus fruit 

to be moved interstate was to be 

inspected by APHIS and found to be 

free of citrus canker. Instead, we added 

a requirement for packinghouse 

inspection of fresh citrus for symptoms 

of citrus canker. We retained the other 

requirements that had been in the 

regulations, including the requirement 

that the fruit be treated with a surface 

disinfectant and the prohibition on the 

movement of fruit from a quarantined 

area into commercial citrus-producing 

States listed in § 301.75–5. All 

components associated with the changes 

in regulations were based on scientific 

findings as outlined in the PRA and 

RMA prepared for that rulemaking. 

New scientific evidence has led 

APHIS to prepare an updated PRA and 

a supplemental RMA. These documents 

indicate that less stringent regulations 

would offer the same level of protection 

against the spread of citrus canker while 

lessening some of the economic burden 

associated with compliance under the 

current regulations. By removing the 

requirement that fruit to be moved 

interstate be inspected and found to be 

free of citrus canker symptoms, the 

proposed rule would allow for the longterm preservation of fresh citrus 

movement to the domestic market by 

Florida’s commercial packinghouses 

and growers. (We use the term 

‘‘domestic market’’ to mean all States 

except Florida.) 

Under the current regulations, 

approximately 4.7 percent of the lots of 

fresh grapefruit, 1.2 percent of the lots 

of fresh oranges and temples, and 0.2 

percent of the lots of fresh tangerines 

and tangelos intended for the domestic 

market were rejected during the 2008– 

09 season due to the presence of citrus 

canker, as found during APHIS 

inspection at the packinghouses. If 

APHIS inspectors find citrus canker on 

one piece of citrus fruit during their 

inspection, the entire lot is prohibited 

from interstate movement. Furthermore, 

it is also highly likely that some 

producers, after assessing whether the 

prevalence of citrus canker in their 

groves is low enough for their fruit to 

pass inspection after packinghouse 

grading and culling, may consider 

alternative markets for their citrus rather 

than risk costly packing charges 

associated with the rejected lots. 

While the rejected lots of the 2008–09 

season were successfully diverted for 

processing or to fresh fruit markets 

within Florida or outside the United 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 30, 2009 / Proposed Rules 31207 

5Based on 5-year averages of shipments during 

the 2003–04 through 2007–08 seasons. 

States, affected citrus producers and 

commercial packinghouses do incur 

revenue losses due to the product 

diversion. The cost of producing citrus 

fruit intended for the fresh market is 

greater than the cost of production for 

the processed market, where the 

physical appearance of the fruit is not 

important; the value of citrus on the 

processed market is relatively low 

compared to the value of citrus sold on 

the fresh market. 

As citrus canker continues to spread 

throughout Florida, the proportion of 

fruit diverted to other markets because 

of rejected lots will increase. Citrus 

growers will only maintain self-surveys 

and best management field practices for 

citrus canker that are necessary to 

produce fruit for the domestic fresh 

citrus market as long as the expected net 

return from the fresh fruit sales is 

greater than the expected net return 

from sales for processing or from sales 

of fresh fruit within Florida or in foreign 

markets. The greater the likelihood that 

a lot may be rejected because of fruit 

found to have citrus canker symptoms, 

thereby resulting in elimination charges 

and price discounts, the less likely 

producers will choose to bear the higher 

costs of self-surveys and best 

management practices. 

In an interim rule effective and 

published on August 1, 2006 (71 FR 

43345–43352, Docket No. APHIS–2006– 

0114), we amended the regulations to 

designate the entire State of Florida as 

a quarantined area for citrus canker. 

This action resulted in restrictions on 

the movement of all citrus fruit from the 

State of Florida, including a prohibition 

on distributing such fruit to commercial 

citrus-producing States. This proposed 

rule would also allow for the renewal of 

fresh citrus market access to other 

commercial citrus-producing States. 

Prior to implementation of the August 

2006 interim rule, Florida shipped an 

average of 106,000 4/5-bushel cartons of 

fresh grapefruit, 209,000 4/5-bushel 

cartons of fresh oranges and temples, 

and 1 million 4/5-bushel cartons of 

fresh tangerines and tangelos to other 

commercial citrus-producing States.5

Approximately 5.7 percent of Florida 

domestic fresh fruit shipments (nearly 4 

percent of all shipments, including 

exports) were transported to other 

commercial citrus-producing States 

during the 2004–05 season, the final 

season in which Florida fresh citrus was 

permitted movement into these States. 

California received about 3 percent of 

Florida’s domestic fresh citrus 

shipments during the 2004–05 season. 

While fresh citrus shipments to other 

commercial citrus-producing States 

generally accounted for less than 6 

percent of Florida’s domestic market 

supply, that State’s producers and citrus 

packers of fresh tangerines and tangelos 

found lucrative markets for their 

products in California, Texas, and 

Louisiana, shipping between 12 and 15 

percent of total domestic fresh 

shipments to these States. 

U.S. consumers other than those in 

Florida would benefit from an increased 

supply of fresh citrus because of this 

rule, especially fresh grapefruit. Florida 

is the largest supplier of fresh grapefruit, 

with an average domestic fresh market 

supply of more than 6 million 4/5- 

bushel cartons. As grapefruit are more 

likely to face rejection than other, less 

susceptible citrus, domestic consumers 

will have increasingly limited access to 

fresh grapefruit under the current 

regulations, particularly if Florida’s 

bearing acreage continues to decline on 

average by 11 percent annually. 

According to APHIS estimates, 

Federal expenditures on commercial 

packinghouse inspections of fresh fruit 

intended for domestic markets range 

from $8.95 million to $9.85 million per 

season. Under the proposed rule, 

commercial citrus packinghouse 

inspections by APHIS of fresh citrus 

intended for the domestic market for 

symptoms of citrus canker would no 

longer be required, resulting in 

significant Federal savings. 

The proposed rule would also likely 

result in a lower supply of fresh citrus 

for Florida consumers. APHIS data 

indicate that nearly 30 percent of 

rejected fresh citrus shipments 

originally intended for the domestic 

market were redirected to markets 

within Florida. However, this same 

fresh citrus fruit diverted to markets 

within Florida represented only about 2 

percent of all fresh citrus shipped 

within the State. The benefits of longterm preservation of the domestic 

market for Florida fresh citrus, less 

restrictive market access, costs savings 

of foregone inspections of fresh fruit for 

symptoms of citrus canker, and savings 

on packinghouse charges are expected 

to outweigh the additional costs 

imposed by the proposed changes to the 

regulations. The science-based revisions 

to the regulations would continue to 

prevent the spread of citrus canker to 

other States, including commercial 

citrus-producing States. 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act 

requires that agencies consider the 

economic impact of their rules on small 

businesses, organizations, and 

governmental jurisdictions. Section 603 

of the Act requires agencies to prepare 

and make available for public comment 

an initial regulatory flexibility analysis 

(IRFA) describing the expected impact 

of proposed rules on small entities. 

Sections 603(b) and 603(c) of the Act 

specify the content of an IRFA. In this 

section, we address these IRFA 

requirements for this proposed rule. 

Reasons for Action 

APHIS is taking these actions based 

on the determination that citrus fruit 

that has citrus canker symptoms and 

that has been treated using an APHISapproved disinfectant is not an 

epidemiologically significant pathway 

for transmission of the disease. Citrus 

canker in Florida is pervasive, and 

eradication and quarantine zones within 

the State have not succeeded in 

controlling the spread of the disease 

within Florida. This action is being 

taken to relieve restrictions on the 

Florida citrus industry that we believe 

are no longer warranted while 

continuing to prevent the spread of 

citrus canker to other U.S. commercial 

citrus-producing States and territories. 

The current citrus canker regulations 

place several restrictions on the 

interstate movement of citrus fruit from 

areas quarantined due to citrus canker, 

including APHIS inspection of fresh 

citrus intended for the domestic market, 

treatments, and interstate movement 

only under limited permit to States that 

do not produce citrus commercially. 

APHIS is proposing to implement a new 

protocol under which specified 

treatments would be required for 

Florida citrus shippers to move 

regulated fresh fruit to all States without 

the currently required APHIS 

inspection. This action would apply less 

restrictive measures for movement of 

fresh citrus from Florida while 

continuing to prevent the spread of 

citrus canker to areas free from the pest. 

Objectives and Legal Basis for Proposed 

Rule 

The objective of the proposed rule is 

to modify the current protocol 

contained in § 301.75–7 that stipulates 

the conditions under which fresh citrus 

fruit may be moved interstate from 

quarantined areas. Under the provisions 

of this proposed rule, a new mitigation 

strategy would eliminate the required 

APHIS inspection of each lot of finished 

fruit. 

Under section 412(a) of the Plant 

Protection Act, the Secretary of 

Agriculture may prohibit or restrict the 

movement in interstate commerce of 

any plant or plant product if the 

Secretary determines that the 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
31208 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 30, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

6 ‘‘Fresh Shippers Report: 2007–08 Season 

Through July 31, 2008,’’ Citrus Administrative 

Committee, August 8, 2008. http:// 

www.citrusadministrativecommittee.org/ 

7 Ibid. 8Source: SBA and 2007 Census of Agriculture. 

prohibition or restriction is necessary to 

prevent the dissemination of a plant 

pest or noxious weed within the United 

States. APHIS has determined that it is 

not necessary to prohibit the interstate 

movement of fruit from citrus canker 

quarantined areas that is commercially 

packed and treated with an APHISapproved disinfectant in order to 

prevent the dissemination within the 

United States of a plant pest or noxious 

weed. This determination is based on 

the findings of the updated PRA and the 

supplemental RMA referred to earlier in 

this document and our judgment that 

the application of the measures that 

would be required under proposed 

§ 301.75–7(a) would prevent the 

dissemination of plant pests within the 

United States. 

Description and Estimated Number of 

Small Entities Regulated 

Florida’s citrus commercial 

packinghouses and fresh citrus 

producers comprise the industries that 

we expect to be directly affected by this 

proposed rule. The small business size 

standards for citrus fruit packing, as 

identified by the Small Business 

Administration (SBA) based upon the 

North American Industry Classification 

System (NAICS) code 115114 

(Postharvest Crop Activities) is $6.5 

million or less in annual receipts. There 

are currently 174 commercial 

packinghouses in Florida under an 

APHIS packinghouse compliance 

agreement, 56 of which are registered 

with the Florida Department of 

Agriculture and Consumer Services’ 

Division of Fruit and Vegetables. While 

the classification of all of these 

establishments by sales volume is not 

available, it is estimated that 

approximately 40 of the 56 registered 

commercial packinghouses are the topgrossing citrus commercial 

packinghouses. The remaining 

packinghouses are small establishments 

known primarily as gift packers. At least 

95 percent of Florida fresh citrus 

shipments are packed by the top 40 (23 

percent) commercial packinghouses in 

the State.6 The Fresh Shippers Report, 

as reported by the Citrus Administrative 

Committee, details quantities of fresh 

citrus shipped by the top 40 shippers 

each season.7 During the 2007–08 

season, annual sales for 14 of the top 40 

shippers (35 percent) were below the 

SBA size standard of $6.5 million. It is 

estimated that at least 82 percent of 

Florida’s citrus packers, including the 

small gift packers, would be considered 

small according to the SBA size 

standards. 

The proposed rule is also expected to 

positively affect producers of fresh 

citrus in Florida currently facing an 

increasing number of lots rejected at the 

packinghouse level each season. 

Packing and elimination charges for 

growers are higher for fruit diverted to 

the intrastate or export markets, or 

processing plants. In addition, fruit 

diverted to processing yields lower 

revenues for growers who have already 

borne the higher costs of producing fruit 

intended for the fresh market. 

A majority of the Florida citrus 

producers that would be affected by the 

proposed rule are small, based on 2007 

Census of Agriculture data and SBA 

guidelines for entities classified within 

the farm categories Orange Groves 

(NAICS 111310) and Citrus (except 

Orange) Groves (NAICS 111320). SBA 

classifies producers in these categories 

with total annual sales of not more than 

$750,000 as small entities. According to 

2007 Census data, there were a total of 

6,061 citrus farms in Florida in 2007. Of 

this number, 90 percent had annual 

sales in 2007 of less than $500,000, 

which is well below the SBA’s small 

entity threshold of $750,000.8 Any costs 

associated with the proposed rule are 

expected to be minimal, especially 

given the producers’ gains from fewer 

rejections of fresh citrus lots destined 

for the domestic market. 

Producers of fresh fruit in other 

commercial citrus-producing States may 

also be impacted by the rule to the 

extent that the reintroduction of Florida 

fresh citrus changes the supply in these 

States. However, APHIS does not 

anticipate significant increases in fresh 

citrus supplies into these markets as a 

result of this proposed rule, as indicated 

by historic data on Florida fresh citrus 

shipments. According to 2007 Census 

data, there were a total of 15,658 citrus 

farms in the United States in 2007. Of 

this total, 329 were located in Arizona, 

7,358 in California, 884 in Hawaii, 210 

in Louisiana, and 750 in Texas. In each 

State, at least 91 percent of all farms had 

annual sales in 2007 of less than 

$500,000 and would be classified as 

small entities according to SBA 

guidelines. 

Description and Estimate of Compliance 

Requirements 

In general, this rule would not entail 

new reporting, recordkeeping, or other 

compliance requirements beyond those 

already required for shipment of Florida 

fresh citrus destined for domestic and 

export markets. The costs to 

packinghouses associated with 

certifying fruit for interstate movement 

are expected to be less than the costs 

associated with the current requirement 

that limited permits accompany 

shipments of fresh citrus from Florida 

that are moved interstate. In addition, 

under the current regulations, fresh 

citrus fruit from Florida destined for the 

domestic market must be packed in 

boxes with markings that indicate that 

fruit is prohibited from movement into 

other commercial citrus-producing 

States in order to obtain a limited 

permit. The proposed rule would 

eliminate the required limited permits 

and packaging requirements at a cost 

savings to packinghouses. 

The annual cost of obtaining a Citrus 

Fruit Dealer License is less than $25. 

There is no cost to register as a 

commercial packinghouse, but the 

Florida Department of Agriculture does 

charge inspection fees and box taxes 

where applicable. Of the 174 

packinghouses currently operating 

under an APHIS compliance agreement, 

we estimate that fewer than 10 would 

need to obtain a license or registration 

in order to obtain a compliance 

agreement with APHIS and meet the 

requirements of the proposed 

regulations. 

Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With 

Existing Rules and Regulations 

APHIS has not identified any 

duplication, overlap, or conflict of the 

proposed rule with other Federal rules. 

Regulatory Alternatives 

An in depth discussion of the 

alternatives we considered in preparing 

this proposed rule may be found earlier 

in this document under the heading 

‘‘Evaluation of Risk Management 

Options’’ as well as in the 

accompanying full economic analysis. 

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 12988 

This proposed rule has been reviewed 

under Executive Order 12988, Civil 

Justice Reform. If this proposed rule is 

adopted: (1) All State and local laws and 

regulations that are inconsistent with 

this rule will be preempted; (2) no 

retroactive effect will be given to this 

rule; and (3) administrative proceedings 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 30, 2009 / Proposed Rules 31209 

will not be required before parties may 

file suit in court challenging this rule. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

To provide the public with 

documentation of APHIS’ review and 

analysis of any potential environmental 

impacts associated with the proposed 

amendments to the regulations 

providing for the interstate movement of 

regulated fruit from areas quarantined 

for citrus canker, we have prepared an 

environmental assessment. The 

environmental assessment was prepared 

in accordance with: (1) The National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 

seq.), (2) regulations of the Council on 

Environmental Quality for 

implementing the procedural provisions 

of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500–1508), (3) 

USDA regulations implementing NEPA 

(7 CFR part 1b), and (4) APHIS’ NEPA 

Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 

372). 

The environmental assessment may 

be viewed on the Regulations.gov Web 

site or in our reading room. (A link to 

Regulations.gov and information on the 

location and hours of the reading room 

are provided under the heading 

ADDRESSES at the beginning of this 

proposed rule.) In addition, copies may 

be obtained by calling or writing to the 

individual listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

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 301 

Agricultural commodities, Plant 

diseases and pests, Quarantine, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Transportation. 

Accordingly, we propose to amend 7 

CFR part 301 as follows: 

PART 301—DOMESTIC QUARANTINE 

NOTICES 

1. The authority citation for part 301 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7701–7772 and 7781– 

7786; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3. 

Section 301.75–15 issued under Sec. 204, 

Title II, Public Law 106–113, 113 Stat. 

1501A–293; sections 301.75–15 and 301.75– 

16 issued under Sec. 203, Title II, Public Law 

106–224, 114 Stat. 400 (7 U.S.C. 1421 note). 

2. In § 301.75–1, the definition of 

commercial packinghouse is revised to 

read as follows: 

§ 301.75–1 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Commercial packinghouse. An 

establishment in which space and 

equipment are maintained for the 

primary purpose of disinfecting and 

packing citrus fruit for commercial sale. 

A commercial packinghouse must also 

be licensed, registered, or certified with 

the State in which it operates and meet 

all the requirements for the license, 

registration, or certification that it holds. 

* * * * * 

§ 301.75–4 [Amended] 

3. Section 301.75–4 is amended as 

follows: 

a. In paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(D), by 

removing the first sentence. 

b. By removing paragraph (d)(6). 

4. Section 301.75–7 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 301.75–7 Interstate movement of 

regulated fruit from a quarantined area. 

(a) Regulated fruit produced in a 

quarantined area or moved into a 

quarantined area for packing may be 

moved interstate with a certificate 

issued and attached in accordance with 

§ 301.75–12 if all of the following 

conditions are met: 

(1) The regulated fruit was packed in 

a commercial packinghouse whose 

owner or operator has entered into a 

compliance agreement with APHIS in 

accordance with § 301.75–13. 

(2) The regulated fruit was treated in 

accordance with § 301.75–11(a). 

(3) The regulated fruit is free of 

leaves, twigs, and other plant parts, 

except for stems that are less than 1 inch 

long and attached to the fruit. 

(4) If the fruit is repackaged after 

being packed in a commercial 

packinghouse and before it is moved 

interstate from the quarantined area, the 

person that repackages the fruit must 

enter into a compliance agreement with 

APHIS in accordance with § 301.75–13 

and issue and attach a certificate for the 

interstate movement of the fruit in 

accordance with § 301.75–12. 

(b) Regulated fruit that is not eligible 

for movement under paragraph (a) of 

this section may be moved interstate 

only for immediate export. The 

regulated fruit must be accompanied by 

a limited permit issued in accordance 

with § 301.75–12 and must be moved in 

a container sealed by APHIS directly to 

the port of export in accordance with 

the conditions of the limited permit. 

(Approved by the Office of Management and 

Budget under control number 0579–0325) 

Done in Washington, DC, this 26th day of 

June 2009. 

Cindy Smith, 

Acting Deputy Under Secretary for Marketing 

and Regulatory Programs. 

[FR Doc. E9–15508 Filed 6–29–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Office of the Comptroller of the 

Currency 

12 CFR Part 25 

[Docket ID OCC–2009–0010] 

RIN 1557–AD24 

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM 

12 CFR Part 228 

[Docket No. R–1360] 

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE 

CORPORATION 

12 CFR Part 345 

[RIN 3064–AD45] 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Office of Thrift Supervision 

12 CFR Part 563e 

[Docket ID OTS–2009–0010] 

RIN 1550–AC35] 

Community Reinvestment Act 

Regulations 

AGENCY: Office of the Comptroller of the 

Currency, Treasury (OCC); Board of 

Governors of the Federal Reserve 

System (Board); Federal Deposit 

Insurance Corporation (FDIC); Office of 

Thrift Supervision, Treasury (OTS). 

ACTION: Joint notice of proposed 

rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The OCC, the Board, the 

FDIC, and the OTS (collectively, ‘‘the 

Agencies’’) are issuing this notice of 

proposed rulemaking that would revise 

our rules implementing the Community 

Reinvestment Act (CRA). The proposed 

rule would incorporate into our rules 

recently adopted statutory language that 

requires the Agencies, when assessing 

an institution’s record of meeting 

community credit needs, to consider, as 

a factor, low-cost education loans 

provided by the financial institution to 

low-income borrowers. The proposal 

also would incorporate into our rules 

statutory language that allows the 

Agencies, when assessing an 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS