99-31513. Mexican Hass Avocado Import Program  

  • [Federal Register Volume 64, Number 233 (Monday, December 6, 1999)]
    [Rules and Regulations]
    [Pages 68001-68005]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 99-31513]
    
    
    
    [[Page 68001]]
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
    
    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
    
    7 CFR Part 319
    
    [Docket No. 99-020-2]
    
    
    Mexican Hass Avocado Import Program
    
    AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
    
    ACTION: Final rule.
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    SUMMARY: We are amending our regulations governing the importation of 
    Hass avocados from Mexico to require handlers and distributors to enter 
    into compliance agreements with the Animal and Plant Health Inspection 
    Service. We are also adding requirements regarding the repackaging of 
    the avocados after their entry into the United States. These amendments 
    are necessary to ensure that distributors and handlers are familiar 
    with the distribution restrictions and other requirements of the 
    regulations and to ensure that any boxes used to repackage the avocados 
    in the United States bear the same information that is required to be 
    displayed on the original boxes in which the fruit was packed in 
    Mexico. These amendments will serve to reinforce the existing 
    safeguards of the avocado import program.
    
    EFFECTIVE DATE: January 5, 2000.
    
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Donna L. West, Import Specialist, 
    Phytosanitary Issues Management Team, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 
    140, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; (301) 734-6799.
    
    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    
    Background
    
        The regulations in ``Subpart--Fruits and Vegetables'' (7 CFR 319.56 
    through 319.56-8, referred to below as the regulations) prohibit or 
    restrict the importation of fruits and vegetables into the United 
    States from certain parts of the world to prevent the introduction and 
    dissemination of plant pests, including fruit flies, that are new to or 
    not widely distributed within the United States.
        The regulations in Sec. 319.56-2ff allow fresh Hass avocado fruit 
    grown in approved orchards in approved municipalities in Michoacan, 
    Mexico, to be imported into certain areas of the United States subject 
    to certain conditions. Those conditions, which include pest surveys and 
    pest risk-reducing cultural practices, packinghouse procedures, 
    inspection and shipping procedures, and restrictions on the time of 
    year (November through February) that shipments may enter the United 
    States, are designed to reduce the risk of pest introduction to a 
    negligible level. Further, the regulations in Sec. 319.56-2ff limit the 
    distribution of the avocados to 19 northeastern States and the District 
    of Colombia, where climatic conditions preclude the establishment in 
    the United States of any of the exotic plant pests that may attack 
    avocados in Michoacan, Mexico.
        On June 25, 1999, we published in the Federal Register (64 FR 
    34141-34144, Docket No. 99-020-1) a proposal to amend the regulations 
    to require handlers and distributors of Mexican Hass avocados to enter 
    into compliance agreements with the Animal and Plant Health Inspection 
    Service (APHIS). In that same document, we also proposed to amend the 
    stickering requirement for the avocados and add provisions regarding 
    the repackaging of the avocados after their entry into the United 
    States.
        We solicited comments concerning our proposal rule for 60 days 
    ending on August 24, 1999. We received 10 comments by that date. They 
    were from two Mexican government officials, two State agricultural 
    agencies, a domestic avocado growers group, an agricultural trade 
    organization, three avocado distributors, and a Mexican avocado grower. 
    Four of the commenters supported the proposed rule, although two of 
    those commenters suggested some changes. The remaining commenters 
    opposed one or more aspects of the proposed rule. The comments are 
    discussed below.
        Comment: Unless properly monitored and enforced, the new 
    requirements will not be effective at reducing the incidence of illegal 
    transshipment of Mexican avocados. The Department should provide 
    additional information in the final rule concerning the steps it 
    intends to take to monitor whether the appropriate compliance 
    agreements are in place and describe the communications outreach 
    efforts it will take to ensure that produce handlers and distributors 
    are made aware of the new regulations.
        Response: Our efforts to ensure that affected persons are made 
    aware of the requirements of the regulations and to monitor whether the 
    appropriate compliance agreements are in place will be closely related. 
    To ensure that all the requirements of the regulations are known, 
    including those requirements added by this final rule, we have created 
    an industry newsletter in both English and Spanish and will forward 
    press releases to trade newspapers and provide information to market 
    owners during regular market surveys outside of the approved States. We 
    will visit distributors and markets, send out mailings, establish an 
    avocado program information website, and create a toll-free regulatory 
    incident hotline prior to the beginning of the shipping season. We will 
    contact all of the distributors and handlers we are aware of who handle 
    Mexican avocados to arrange compliance agreements and will have the 
    opportunity to contact and arrange compliance agreements with 
    additional handlers or distributors during market visits. Finally, this 
    rule's requirement that permittees and handlers confirm that subsequent 
    handlers have entered into a compliance agreement with APHIS will serve 
    as an additional mechanism to ensure that the necessary compliance 
    agreements are in place.
        Comment: The final rule must clarify whether the persons involved 
    in the in-transit movement of Mexican avocados to Canada are required 
    to enter into compliance agreements. Additionally, the final rule must 
    specifically state the conditions that must be observed in order for 
    Mexican avocados shipped in-transit to Canada to be eligible to be 
    reshipped into the United States. Such guidance is needed to remove any 
    question regarding whether the Mexican avocado program requirements 
    extend to such fruit.
        Response: This rule's compliance agreement requirement applies to 
    persons involved in the handling and distribution of Mexican Hass 
    avocados imported into the United States in accordance with 
    Sec. 319.56-2ff; the in-transit movement of avocados to Canada is a 
    separate matter that is addressed in Sec. 352.29 of the plant 
    quarantine safeguard regulations (7 CFR part 352). Mexican avocados 
    shipped in-transit to Canada are not eligible for reshipment into the 
    United States, even if they were produced in accordance with the 
    requirements of the Mexican avocado import program in Sec. 319.56-2ff.
        Comment: We endorse the aspect of the proposed rule that would deny 
    an import permit or compliance agreement to any person who has 
    repeatedly disregarded or violated the terms of an import permit or 
    compliance agreement. However, we believe that the Department should 
    expand this proposed provision to any person who has been found by a 
    court--either an administrative court or a Federal court--to have 
    violated the requirements of other regulatory programs administered by 
    the Department. Inasmuch as such persons have demonstrated their 
    disregard for the Department's regulations, they
    
    [[Page 68002]]
    
    cannot be relied upon or expected to fulfill the requirements of the 
    Mexican avocado import program.
        Response: It is the exception, rather than the rule, for our 
    enforcement actions against a regulatory violator to reach the level of 
    an administrative hearing or a Federal court; most often, a person 
    cited for a violation will settle by agreeing to pay a civil or 
    criminal penalty. Given that, it does not appear that the commenter's 
    recommendation would be as useful a mechanism for ensuring compliance 
    as it might seem. Further, expanding the denial provisions described in 
    the proposal to include violations of any of the Department's 
    regulatory programs would have ramifications for those programs as well 
    as for the Mexican avocado import program.
        Comment: We do not believe that it is proper for the Animal and 
    Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) to use regulatory procedures 
    (i.e., the proposed compliance agreement requirement) as an educational 
    tool, particularly when penalties and restraints on trade may be 
    imposed on parties who are in lawful compliance with the substance of 
    the regulations pertaining to handling and distribution of Mexican Hass 
    avocados.
        Response: APHIS would have no reason to impose any kind of penalty 
    on any person who is ``in lawful compliance with the substance of the 
    regulations.'' Further, we believe that it is completely appropriate to 
    use compliance agreements as an educational tool, as they are furnished 
    free of charge, take a minimal amount of time to execute, and provide 
    an excellent opportunity for the APHIS personnel who will be meeting 
    with those persons entering into compliance agreements to provide 
    information and answer questions.
        Comment: It is neither proper nor necessary for APHIS to require 
    handlers and distributors to enter into compliance agreements in order 
    to educate them as to the requirements of the regulations and to ensure 
    that they receive copies of the regulations. There are a limited number 
    of persons engaged in the handling and distribution of Mexican Hass 
    avocados, and there are many venues (e.g., industry publications, 
    direct mail, and trade show presentations) available through which 
    APHIS could provide full notice of the import program's requirements. 
    APHIS should not be using the proposed compliance agreement requirement 
    as a substitute for discharging its own responsibilities for making its 
    regulations known to the public and enforcing those regulations.
        Response: We have pursued the venues suggested by the commenter in 
    disseminating information about the regulations; press releases 
    explaining the import program were distributed at the time the 
    regulations were established, stories were printed in the popular press 
    and in industry publications, and APHIS personnel have visited large 
    markets and individual firms in an effort to inform avocado handlers 
    about the requirements of the regulations, especially the distribution 
    limitations. Further, those distribution limitations are printed on 
    every box of Mexican Hass avocados. Even with those measures, some 
    distributors and handlers still claim to be unaware that the 
    distribution and sale of Mexican Hass avocados is limited to the 
    approved 19 States and the District of Colombia. The compliance 
    agreement is one more way to spread the word, an attempt to reach each 
    and every one of the ``limited number of persons engaged in the 
    handling and distribution of Mexican Hass avocados'' in order to ensure 
    that they are aware of the requirements of the regulations. Beyond its 
    value as an educational tool, the compliance agreement will make it 
    that much easier to take action against those persons who choose to 
    violate the regulations.
        Comment: Private firms are neither empowered nor authorized to 
    ``ensure'' compliance with Federal laws and regulations. That is the 
    duty and responsibility of the Government. The proposed regulations are 
    not enforceable by private firms against another firm, but the 
    penalties would be imposed on the first party for the possible wrongful 
    acts of a second or third party. This is not appropriate.
        Response: We are not asking private firms to enforce the 
    regulations; we are simply calling on those firms to themselves observe 
    the regulations, i.e., to not transfer avocados to another party for 
    movement or distribution unless that party possesses a compliance 
    agreement. If you confirm that the person to whom you are transferring 
    avocados for movement or distribution possesses a compliance agreement, 
    you have met your obligations under Sec. 319.56-2ff(k)(2) or (3). What 
    that person subsequently does with the avocados is beyond your control 
    and certainly not your responsibility. In such a situation, it is 
    simply not the case that ``penalties would be imposed on the first 
    party for the possible wrongful acts of a second or third party.''
        Comment: It is not proper for APHIS to impose penalties (i.e., the 
    denial of import permits or compliance agreements to repeat violators) 
    on one party for the wrongful acts of secondary and subsequent parties. 
    Each permittee, distributor, or handler should be accountable for its 
    actions directly to the Government. Such regulatory and compliance 
    relations between a regulated firm and APHIS are properly the business 
    of those parties only, and not other parties. It is simply not 
    practicable for a permittee, distributor, or handler to ``ensure that 
    any person to whom he or she released the avocados for movement or 
    distribution . . . has entered into a compliance agreement.''
        Response: As discussed in the response to the previous comment, a 
    permittee or subsequent handler who observes the requirements of the 
    regulations is in no danger of having a request for an import permit or 
    compliance agreement denied. We disagree with the commenter's assertion 
    that ensuring that a person has a compliance agreement is ``simply not 
    practicable.'' Meeting that requirement can be accomplished quickly and 
    would add only a relatively small amount of time to a typical 
    transaction between buyer and seller.
        Comment: The proposed changes to the Mexican Hass avocado import 
    program are unnecessary. The current regulations contain sufficient 
    safeguards, as is evidenced by the fact that APHIS was able to detect 
    the presence of Mexican Hass avocados that were shipped outside the 
    approved States.
        Response: The fact that we were able to detect the presence of 
    Mexican Hass avocados in markets outside the approved States highlights 
    the value of market surveys and the requirement that individual 
    avocados be marked with a sticker, but does not mean that there is no 
    need to amend the existing regulations. For example, some of the 
    Mexican Hass avocados found in markets outside the approved States 
    appear to have been shipped by distributors who were simply unaware of 
    the movement restrictions of the regulations. The compliance agreement 
    requirement will ensure that all distributors are aware of those 
    restrictions, which means that this measure alone will reduce the 
    number of violations. We believe that the other measures included in 
    this rule will prove similarly useful in reinforcing the existing 
    safeguards of the regulations.
        Comment: As written, the registration of handlers will negatively 
    impact the marketing of Mexican avocados by creating a barrier that 
    will eliminate many sales from wholesale marketers in the northeastern 
    United States to customers who buy avocados in less
    
    [[Page 68003]]
    
    than truckload lots. For example, the operator of a small neighborhood 
    store in New York City may wish to purchase four cartons of avocados on 
    a particular day at the Hunts Point Terminal Market, but will be unable 
    to do so because he is not registered with APHIS. It is not practical 
    to expect purchasers such as the store operator or the owner of an 
    independent restaurant to have to register with APHIS and deliver a 
    copy of the compliance agreement to all potential suppliers in order to 
    have the right to buy Mexican avocados.
        Response: The store operator and the restauranteur described by the 
    commenter would not be required to enter into a compliance agreement in 
    order to buy avocados for their store or restaurant, as they will be 
    offering the avocados for sale to consumers. The focus of this rule is 
    on making the requirements of the regulations clear to the operators of 
    businesses that normally buy and sell, move, or distribute commercial 
    lots of avocados, such as grocery chains, wholesalers, and 
    distributors. For example, a grocery chain or a chain's regional 
    distribution centers would have to enter into a compliance agreement 
    with APHIS, while the chain's individual retail store managers would 
    not. To make this clear, we have added a new sentence to Sec. 319.56-
    2ff(k)(1) in this final rule that states that a compliance agreement 
    will not be required for an individual place of business that only 
    offers the avocados for sale directly to consumers.
        Comment: The proposed requirement for the marking of the boxes in 
    which fruit is repackaged in the United States would create additional 
    liabilities for the growers, packers, and exporters of avocados, even 
    though these parties have no control over the fruit during the 
    repacking stage. Additional problems such as microbial contamination 
    from improper handling or commingling with other product may arise even 
    though the listed parties bear no true responsibility for the problem.
        Response: The commenter did not elaborate as to what types of 
    ``microbial contamination'' might occur during repackaging, nor did he 
    elaborate as to what sorts of liability might attach to a Mexican 
    grower, packer, or exporter in the event of such contamination. If a 
    repackaged box of fruit was found to be somehow contaminated, it would 
    be obvious from the new box that the fruit had been handled by someone 
    other than the original packer/exporter. Clearly, the assignment of 
    liability in such a situation--if indeed there was a need to assign 
    liability--would be a tenuous proposition. Importers and distributors 
    have little choice when it comes to damaged boxes of fruit. They can 
    repack the fruit in new boxes, or they can leave the fruit in the 
    damaged box; the latter option is not likely to be chosen given the 
    risk of further damage to the fruit, plus the fact that most of their 
    customers would not care to receive damaged produce. Since it is quite 
    likely that an importer or distributor is going to repackage the fruit 
    anyway, this rule's provisions regarding the marking of repackaged 
    fruit are a matter of ensuring that the identifying measures required 
    for the original boxes are maintained, thus preserving the important 
    information regarding the origin and identity of the avocados that 
    those measures provide.
        Comment: The proposed compliance agreement requirement is an 
    additional burden that may discourage avocado distributors in the 
    United States from conducting business with Mexican growers altogether, 
    leading them to opt instead for fruit from California or from other 
    countries. If that is the case, the compliance agreement requirement 
    will be acting as a nontariff trade barrier.
        Response: The time required on the part of a handler or distributor 
    to enter into a compliance agreement will be minimal. That person will 
    need to write down the name, mailing address, and location of the 
    person or firm entering into the agreement; review the movement and 
    other restrictions that apply; and sign and date the document. We 
    expect that an APHIS inspector would spend about 30 minutes with each 
    handler or distributor explaining the requirements of the regulations 
    and filling out the compliance agreement; the mail or a fax machine may 
    be used when an inspector is unable to make a personal visit. There is 
    no charge or user fee associated with the compliance agreement. In 
    addition, Mexican Hass avocados are typically available to wholesalers 
    at attractive prices that make the minimal effort of entering into a 
    compliance worthwhile. (In one of the comments we received, a 
    wholesaler reported that at the end of the 1998/1999 shipping season, 
    his fill-in supplier quoted a price of $50 to $52 for California Hass 
    avocados and $20 for Mexican Hass avocados.) Thus, we do not believe 
    that the minimal burden of entering into a compliance agreement will be 
    likely to discourage persons in the United States from handling or 
    distributing Mexican Hass avocados.
        Comment: The proposed rule would increase the restrictions that 
    apply to the Mexican Hass avocado import program; APHIS' phytosanitary 
    justification for these restrictions has been that Hass avocados from 
    Mexico present a risk of introducing fruit flies into the United 
    States. Because avocados from California and Florida are not subject to 
    such restrictions despite the presence of fruit flies in those States, 
    the restrictions on Mexican Hass avocados constitute discriminatory 
    treatment under article 712.4 of the North American Free Trade 
    Agreement (NAFTA), which states, in part, that ``Each Party shall 
    ensure that a sanitary or phytosanitary measure that it adopts, 
    maintains or applies does not arbitrarily or unjustifiably discriminate 
    between its goods and like goods of another Party . . . where identical 
    or similar conditions prevail.''
        Response: Fruit flies are not the only pests of concern addressed 
    by the regulations; there are seed and stem pests as well. However, 
    even if fruit flies were the only pest of concern, we do not believe 
    that our restrictions on the movement of Mexican Hass avocados is in 
    any way discriminatory, as avocados are specifically listed as 
    regulated articles in all three of our domestic fruit fly quarantines 
    in 7 CFR part 301, i.e., Mexican fruit fly (Secs. 301.64 through 
    301.64-10), Mediterranean fruit fly (Secs. 301.78 through 301.78-10), 
    and Oriental fruit fly (Secs. 301.93 through 301.93-10).
        Comment: The proposed rule, which would increase the restrictions 
    that apply to the Mexican Hass avocado import program, is at odds with 
    Mexico's request that APHIS consider expanding both the number of 
    States to which Mexican Hass avocados could be shipped and the length 
    of the shipping season. It has been scientifically and practically 
    demonstrated that the Hass avocado is not a fruit fly host, so APHIS 
    does not have the scientific basis to adopt additional restrictions or 
    even maintain some of its current restrictions (NAFTA article 712.1). 
    In the absence of a scientific basis for their application, those 
    restrictions could be viewed as disguised restrictions on trade (NAFTA 
    articles 712.5 and 713.3).
        Response: Although we do consider commercially grown Hass avocados 
    to be a nonpreferred host for fruit flies, and thus a low risk for 
    introducing fruit flies, we do not yet possess conclusive, published 
    evidence that they are a nonhost as asserted by the commenter. We 
    understand that Mexico is working on research in that area, and we 
    would certainly consider conclusive evidence proving the nonhost status 
    of Hass avocados as the grounds for changes to the Mexican avocado 
    import program, as well as to our domestic fruit fly regulations. That 
    being said, however, it is important to remember that fruit flies are 
    not the only pests of concern addressed by the requirements of the
    
    [[Page 68004]]
    
    Mexican Hass avocado import regulations. Those regulations also address 
    the risks presented by the avocado seed pests Heilipus lauri, 
    Conotrachelus aquacatae, C. perseae, and Stenoma catenifer, as well as 
    the stem weevil Copturus aguacatae.
    
    Proposed Amendments to Stickering Requirement
    
        In our proposed rule, we had proposed to amend the current fruit-
    stickering requirement of Sec. 319.56-2ff(c)(3)(vi) of the regulations 
    to require that the stickers not only bear the Sanidad Vegetal 
    registration number of the packinghouse, but that they also bear the 
    letters ``M/US'' after that number, and that those stickers be used 
    only for fruit produced in accordance with Sec. 319.56-2ff for export 
    to the United States. The Mexican Government officials who responded to 
    the proposed rule objected to the proposed limitations on the use of 
    the stickers on the grounds that such limitations are an intrusion on 
    Mexico's sovereignty. Those officials stated that APHIS does not have 
    the authority to restrict Mexican producers from using any particular 
    label on fruit that is distributed within Mexico, arguing that only 
    Mexico can issue regulations affecting its domestic market.
        Our intent in proposing those amendments to the stickering 
    requirement was to ensure that the stickers would serve their intended 
    purpose of making it easier to identify Mexican-origin avocados and 
    would further allow us to differentiate between program fruit and 
    nonprogram fruit that may have been smuggled into the United States. We 
    acknowledge, however, that the proposed limitation on the use of the 
    stickers would also have the effect of placing restrictions on domestic 
    commerce within Mexico. Therefore, in deference to the concerns raised 
    by the Mexican Government, we have omitted from this final rule the 
    proposed requirement that the stickers required by Sec. 319.56-
    2ff(c)(3)(vi) be used only for fruit produced in accordance with 
    Sec. 319.56-2ff for export to the United States. Further, because the 
    inclusion of the letters ``M/US'' on the required sticker would serve 
    no practical purpose in the absence of the proposed limitations on the 
    use of the stickers, we have also omitted that aspect of the proposed 
    rule from this final rule.
        Therefore, for the reasons given in the proposed rule and in this 
    document, we are adopting the proposed rule as a final rule, with the 
    changes discussed in this document.
    
    Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act
    
        This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. The rule 
    has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive 
    Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of 
    Management and Budget.
        This rule amends our regulations governing the importation of Hass 
    avocados from Mexico to require handlers and distributors to enter into 
    compliance agreements with APHIS and adds requirements regarding the 
    repackaging of the avocados after their entry into the United States. 
    These amendments will ensure that distributors and handlers are 
    familiar with the distribution restrictions and other requirements of 
    the regulations and will ensure that any boxes used to repackage the 
    avocados in the United States bear the same information that is 
    required to be displayed on the original boxes in which the fruit was 
    packed in Mexico.
        During the first shipping season for Mexican Hass avocados 
    (November 1997 through February 1998), Mexico exported 13.296 million 
    pounds of fresh avocados to the northeastern United States (U.S. 
    Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service, GAIN Report 
    No. MX8140, November 24, 1998). During the second shipping season 
    (November 1998 through February 1999), Mexico exported approximately 22 
    million pounds of fresh avocados to the northeastern United States.
        Although it was anticipated that the importation of fresh Hass 
    avocados from Mexico into the northeastern United States would result 
    in lower prices for consumers and losses for domestic avocado 
    producers, there has, to date, been little or no price change. The 
    average wholesale price for avocados in the approved 19 northeastern 
    States and the District of Columbia before the first shipping season 
    began in November 1997 was $1.47 per pound, while after the shipping 
    season began, the average wholesale price was $1.60 per pound. For the 
    nonapproved States, the average wholesale prices were $1.46 before 
    November 1997 and $1.57 after the first shipping season began. (The 
    wholesale prices in the approved States are based on averages in 
    Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Detroit, New York, and Philadelphia; the 
    wholesale prices for the nonapproved States are based on averages in 
    Atlanta, Dallas, Los Angeles, Miami, San Francisco, and Seattle.) There 
    was no statistically significant difference between the wholesale 
    prices in the approved States and the nonapproved States before or 
    after Mexican Hass avocados entered the domestic market. It should be 
    noted that the average wholesale prices for fresh avocados in Mexico 
    were only about $0.33 and $0.32 per pound in 1997 and 1998, 
    respectively.
        Because compliance agreements are available from APHIS free of 
    charge, the only aspect of this rule that may result in additional 
    costs for any U.S. entities, large or small, is the requirement for the 
    marking of new boxes in cases where the avocados are repackaged after 
    their entry into the United States. According to industry sources, the 
    cost of the current identification requirements of the regulations, 
    which includes both box marking and fruit stickering, is approximately 
    $0.06 per pound. This cost is borne at the Mexican production/export 
    end of the Hass avocado export program. If 20 percent of all shipments 
    had to be repackaged following their arrival in the United States due 
    to damage to original shipping boxes or for other reasons, this rule's 
    requirement for the marking of new boxes could result in additional 
    costs to U.S. importers or distributors of approximately $160,000 to 
    $264,000. This estimate was arrived at using 20 percent of the total 
    volume of Mexican Hass avocados shipped to the northeastern United 
    States during the two export seasons of 1997-1998 (13.296 million 
    pounds  x  $0.06  x  0.2 = $159,552) and 1998-1999 (22 million pounds 
    x  $0.06  x  0.2 = $264,000). However, because the $0.06 figure used 
    includes the costs of the required stickering as well as box marking, 
    it is likely that the costs to U.S. importers or distributors of 
    marking new boxes in the United States will actually be less than that 
    estimate. Since, as noted above, the price spread between domestic and 
    Mexican wholesale prices is so large, U.S. importers and distributors 
    may be able to absorb any additional costs resulting from the 
    requirement for marking new boxes without passing those costs on to 
    consumers.
        Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and 
    Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action will 
    not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
    entities.
    
    Executive Order 12988
    
        This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil 
    Justice Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts all State and local laws and 
    regulations that are inconsistent with this rule; (2) has no 
    retroactive effect; and (3) does not require administrative proceedings 
    before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.
    
    [[Page 68005]]
    
    Paperwork Reduction Act
    
        In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 
    3501 et seq.), the information collection or recordkeeping requirements 
    included in this rule have been approved by the Office of Management 
    and Budget (OMB) under OMB control number 0579-0129.
    
    List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 319
    
        Bees, Coffee, Cotton, Fruits, Honey, Imports, Logs, Nursery Stock, 
    Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping 
    requirements, Rice, Vegetables.
    
        Accordingly, we are amending 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. 150dd, 150ee, 150ff, 151-167, 450, 2803, and 
    2809; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.2(c).
    
        2. In Sec. 319.56-2ff, new paragraphs (j) and (k) are added to read 
    as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 319.56-2ff  Administrative instructions governing movement of Hass 
    avocados from Mexico to the Northeastern United States.
    
    * * * * *
        (j) Repackaging. If any avocados are removed from their original 
    shipping boxes and repackaged, the stickers required by paragraph 
    (c)(3)(vi) of this section may not be removed or obscured and the new 
    boxes must be clearly marked with all the information required by 
    paragraph (c)(3)(vii) of this section.
        (k) Compliance agreements. (1) Any person, other than the 
    permittee, who moves or distributes the avocados following their 
    importation into the United States (i.e., a second-party or subsequent 
    handler) must enter into a compliance agreement with APHIS. In the 
    compliance agreement, the person must acknowledge, and agree to 
    observe, the requirements of paragraph (a) and paragraphs (f) through 
    (k) of this section. Compliance agreement forms are available, free of 
    charge, from local offices of Plant Protection and Quarantine, which 
    are listed in local telephone directories. A compliance agreement will 
    not be required for an individual place of business that only offers 
    the avocados for sale directly to consumers.
        (2) Before transferring the avocados to any person (i.e., a second-
    party handler) for movement or distribution, the permittee must confirm 
    that the second-party handler has entered into a compliance agreement 
    with APHIS as required by paragraph (k)(1) of this section. If the 
    permittee transfers the avocados to a second-party handler who has not 
    entered into a compliance agreement, APHIS may revoke the permittee's 
    import permit for the remainder of the current shipping season.
        (3) Any second-party or subsequent handler who transfers the 
    avocados to another person for movement or distribution must confirm 
    that the person receiving the avocados has entered into a compliance 
    agreement with APHIS as required by paragraph (k)(1) of this section. 
    If the second-party or subsequent handler transfers the avocados to a 
    person who has not entered into a compliance agreement, APHIS may 
    revoke the handler's compliance agreement for the remainder of the 
    current shipping season.
        (4) Action on repeat violators. APHIS may deny an application for 
    an import permit from, or refuse to enter into a compliance agreement 
    with, any person who has had his or her import permit or compliance 
    agreement revoked under paragraph (k)(2) or (k)(3) of this section 
    twice within any 5-year period.
    
    (Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control 
    number 0579-0129.)
    
        Done in Washington, DC, this 30th day of November 1999.
    Craig A. Reed,
    Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
    [FR Doc. 99-31513 Filed 12-3-99; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 3410-34-U
    
    
    

Document Information

Effective Date:
1/5/2000
Published:
12/06/1999
Department:
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Entry Type:
Rule
Action:
Final rule.
Document Number:
99-31513
Dates:
January 5, 2000.
Pages:
68001-68005 (5 pages)
Docket Numbers:
Docket No. 99-020-2
PDF File:
99-31513.pdf
CFR: (1)
7 CFR 319.56-2ff