[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 57 (Tuesday, March 25, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14037-14044]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-7455]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
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.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 57 / Tuesday, March 25, 1997 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 14037]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
7 CFR Parts 300 and 319
[Docket No. 96-046-1]
Importation of Fruits and Vegetables
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are proposing to allow a number of previously prohibited
fruits and vegetables to be imported into the United States from
certain parts of the world. All of the fruits and vegetables, as a
condition of entry, would be subject to inspection, disinfection, or
both, at the port of first arrival as may be required by a U.S.
Department of Agriculture inspector. In addition, some of the fruits
and vegetables would be required to meet other special conditions. The
removal of these prohibitions would provide the United States with
additional kinds and sources of fruits and vegetables while continuing
to provide protection against the introduction and dissemination of
injurious plant pests by imported fruits and vegetables.
We are also proposing to extend the production area in Arava,
Israel, where peppers may be grown for importation into the United
States; to eliminate the distribution restrictions for peppers from
Arava, Israel; to eliminate the trust fund provisions for papayas from
Costa Rica; to declare all Provinces in Chile free of the Mediterranean
fruit fly; and to make several nonsubstantive editorial changes to the
regulations. These actions would relieve restrictions while continuing
to prevent the introduction of plant pests into the United States.
DATES: Consideration will be given only to comments received on or
before May 27, 1997.
ADDRESSES: Please send an original and three copies of your comments to
Docket No. 96-046-1, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS,
suite 3C03, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please
state that your comments refer to Docket No. 96-046-1. Comments
received may be inspected at USDA, room 1141, South Building, 14th
Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC, between 8 a.m. and
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. Persons wishing to
inspect comments are requested to call ahead on (202) 690-2817 to
facilitate entry into the comment reading room.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Ronald Campbell, Staff Officer,
Import/Export, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 136, Riverdale, MD
20737-1236; (301) 734-6799.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The regulations in 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 fruit flies and other
injurious plant pests that are new to or not widely distributed within
and throughout the United States.
We are proposing to amend the regulations to allow additional
fruits and vegetables to be imported into the United States from
certain parts of the world under specified conditions. The importation
of these fruits and vegetables has been prohibited because of the risk
that the fruits and vegetables could introduce fruit flies or other
injurious plant pests into the United States. We are proposing to allow
these importations at the request of various importers and foreign
ministries of agriculture, and after conducting pest risk analyses
1 that indicate the fruits or vegetables can be imported under
certain conditions without significant pest risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Information on these pest risk analyses and any other pest
risk analysis referred to in this document may be obtained by
writing to the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
or by calling the Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) fax vault at
301-734-3560.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
All of the fruits and vegetables included in this document would be
subject to the requirements in Sec. 319.56-6 of the regulations.
Section 319.56-6 provides, among other things, that all imported fruits
and vegetables, as a condition of entry, shall be subject to
inspection, disinfection, or both, at the port of first arrival, as may
be required by a U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) inspector to
detect and eliminate plant pests. Section 319.56-6 also provides that
any shipment of fruits and vegetables may be refused entry if the
shipment is infested with fruit flies or other injurious plant pests
and an inspector determines that it cannot be cleaned by disinfection
or treatment.
Some of the fruits and vegetables proposed for importation would be
required to meet other special conditions. The proposed conditions of
entry, which are discussed in greater detail below, appear adequate to
prevent the introduction and dissemination of fruit flies and other
injurious plant pests by the importation of fruits and vegetables from
certain foreign countries and localities into the United States.
Subject to Inspection and Treatment Upon Arrival
We are proposing to allow the following fruits and vegetables to be
imported into the United States from the country or locality indicated
in accordance with Sec. 319.56-6 and all other applicable requirements
of the regulations:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Country/Locality Common Name Botanical Name Plant Part(s)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ecuador....................... Radicchio............. Cichorium spp......... Above ground parts.
El Salvador................... Eggplant.............. Solanum melongena..... Fruit.
Guatemala..................... Basil................. Ocimum basilicum...... Above ground parts.
Guatemala..................... Dill.................. Anethum graveolens.... Above ground parts.
Japan......................... Mioga Ginger.......... Zingiber mioga........ Above ground parts.
Nicaragua..................... Eggplant.............. Solanum melongena..... Fruit.
[[Page 14038]]
Nicaragua..................... Radicchio............. Cichorium spp......... Above ground parts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pest risk analyses conducted by the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS) have shown that the fruit and vegetables
listed above are not attacked by fruit flies or other injurious plant
pests, either because they are not hosts to the pests or because the
pests are not present in the country or locality of origin. In
addition, we have determined that any other injurious plant pests that
might be carried by any of the listed fruit or vegetables would be
readily detectable by a USDA inspector. Therefore, the provisions in
Sec. 319.56-6 concerning inspection, disinfection, or both, at the port
of first arrival, appear adequate to prevent the introduction into the
United States of fruit flies or other injurious plant pests by the
importation of these fruits and vegetables.
Subject to Inspection and Treatment Upon Arrival; Additional
Conditions
We would allow the following fruits and vegetables to be imported
into the United States from the countries indicated subject to the
prescribed conditions and in accordance with Sec. 319.56-6 and all
other applicable requirements of the regulations:
Leeks From Belgium and the Netherlands
We are proposing to allow leeks (Allium spp.) from Belgium and The
Netherlands to be imported into the United States if the leeks are
accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the Ministry of
Agriculture of the country of production (either Belgium or The
Netherlands). The phytosanitary certificate must state that the leeks
are apparently free from Acrolepiopsis assectella, commonly known as
leek moth. This certification would ensure that, prior to departure for
the United States, a thorough phytosanitary inspection of the leeks was
performed and no leek moths were found in the shipment.
Papaya From Brazil
We are proposing to allow solo type papayas (Carica papaya) from
Brazil to be imported into the United States if the fruit is grown in
the State of Espirito Santo and if the fruit has been grown, packed,
and shipped in accordance with certain phytosanitary conditions.
Because papayas can be hosts of several serious plant pests,
including the Mediterranean fruit fly (Ceritatis capitata) (Medfly) and
the South American fruit fly (Anastrepha fraterculus), we would require
that papayas intended for importation into the United States from the
State of Espirito Santo, Brazil, be subject to certain special
conditions. The proposed special conditions outlined below for the
importation of papaya from Brazil are based on the provisions in
Sec. 319.56-2w of the regulations for papaya from Costa Rica and on the
proposed changes to those provisions located under the heading ``Papaya
from Costa Rica'' in this document. The conditions would read as
follows:
1. The papayas were grown and packed for shipment to the United
States in the State of Espirito Santo.
This condition would ensure that papayas intended for the United
States would only be grown and packed in Espirito Santo. The State of
Espirito Santo is currently the only papaya production and packing area
in Brazil where fruit fly traps are maintained and where the other
elements of the systems approach described below are in place.
2. Beginning at least 30 days before harvest began and continuing
through the completion of harvest, all trees in the area where the
papayas were grown were kept free of papayas that were one-half or more
ripe (more than one-quarter of shell surface yellow), and all culled
and fallen fruit were removed from the field at least twice a week.
Papayas that are one-half or more ripe, as well as culled or fallen
papayas, could serve as host material for Medfly and South American
fruit fly. Therefore, this condition would greatly reduce the risk that
Medfly or South American fruit fly would be attracted to the fields
where papayas intended for importation into the United States are
grown.
3. When packed, the papayas were less than one-half ripe (shell
surface no more than one-quarter yellow, surrounded by light green) and
appeared to be free of all injurious plant pests.
This condition would also reduce the risk of introduction of Medfly
or South American fruit fly, as well as other injurious plant pests,
into the United States. Papayas themselves are not a preferred host for
these fruit flies, and papayas that are less than one-half ripe pose
very little risk of attracting Medfly or South American fruit fly.
4. The papayas were packaged so as to prevent access by fruit flies
or other injurious plant pests, and the package does not contain any
other fruit, including papayas not qualified for importation into the
United States.
This condition would ensure that papayas that have already been
inspected and packaged for shipment to the United States would not be
at risk for fruit fly infestation.
5. All activities described in provisions 1 through 4 above were
carried out under the general supervision and direction of plant health
officials of the national Ministry of Agriculture.
The supervision of the Brazilian Ministry of Agriculture would help
ensure that all of the activities required by the regulations were
properly carried out.
6. Beginning at least 1 year before harvest began and continuing
through the completion of harvest, fruit fly traps were maintained in
the field where the papayas were grown. The traps were placed at the
rate of 1 trap per hectare and were checked for fruit flies at least
once a week by plant health officials of the national Ministry of
Agriculture. Fifty percent of the traps were of the McPhail type, and
50 percent of the traps were of the Jackson type. The national Ministry
of Agriculture kept records of the fruit fly finds for each trap,
updating the records each time the traps were checked, and made the
records available to APHIS upon request. The records were maintained
for at least 1 year.
This condition would ensure that the earliest possible detection of
the presence of fruit flies in and around fields where papayas are
grown can be made. If a fruit fly is trapped, the Brazilian Ministry of
Agriculture would increase the trap density in the area and, if more
fruit flies are found, begin malathion bait sprays. This condition
would also allow APHIS to monitor the trapping records of the area for
a 1-year period.
7. All shipments of papayas must be accompanied by a phytosanitary
certificate issued by the national Ministry of Agriculture stating that
the papayas were grown, packed, and shipped in accordance with the
provisions of this section.
This condition would help ensure that the provisions of the
regulations have been met.
We believe that the provisions of Sec. 319.56-6 and all other
applicable requirements, as well as the proposed special conditions,
would be sufficient
[[Page 14039]]
to prevent the introduction of leek moths and fruit flies into the
United States. Pest risk analyses conducted by APHIS have determined
that injurious plant pests other than those mentioned that might be
carried by the leek or papaya would be readily detectable by a USDA
inspector. As noted, the leek and papaya would be subject to
inspection, disinfection, or both, at the port of first arrival, in
accordance with Sec. 319.56-6.
Garlic From Romania
Section 319.56-2g lists countries from which garlic may be imported
into the United States. We are proposing to amend Sec. 319.56-2g to
allow garlic to be imported from Romania into the United States if it
has been fumigated with methyl bromide, according to the treatment
schedule set forth below. Garlic is attacked by the garlic borer
(Brachycerus spp.) and the garlic moth (Dyspessa ulula [Bkh.]) in
Romania. Visual inspection cannot be relied upon to detect these
insects. However, the garlic can be treated as follows to destroy these
injurious plant pests:
32 g/m3 (2 lbs/1000 ft3) for 1\1/2\ hours at 37 deg.C or
above (90 deg.F or above); or
32 g/m3 (2 lbs/1000 ft3) for 2 hours at 26.5-31.5 deg.C
(80-89 deg.F); or
40 g/m3 (2 lbs/1000 ft3) for 2 hours at 21-26 deg.C (70-
79 deg.F); or
48 g/m3 (3 lbs/1000 ft3) for 2 hours at 15.5-20.5 deg.C
(60-69 deg.F); or
48 g/m3 (3 lbs/1000 ft3) for 3 hours at 10-15 deg.C (50-
59 deg.F); or
48 g/m3 (3 lbs/1000 ft3) for 4 hours at 4.5-9.5 deg.C
(40-49 deg.F)
The treatments described above have been determined to be effective
against the specified insects. This determination is based on research
evaluated and approved by the Department. A bibliography and additional
information on this research may be obtained from APHIS by writing to
the Oxford Methods Development Center, 901 Hillsboro St., Oxford, NC
27555.
Pest risk analyses conducted by APHIS have determined that any
other injurious plant pests that might be carried by the garlic would
be readily detectable by a USDA inspector. As noted, the garlic would
be subject to inspection, disinfection, or both, at the port of first
arrival, in accordance with Sec. 319.56-6.
Currently, Sec. 319.56-2g sets out the treatment schedule shown
above. We are proposing to remove this schedule from the regulations,
and, instead refer readers to the Plant Protection and Quarantine
Treatment Manual (PPQ Treatment Manual), which is incorporated into the
regulations by reference at 7 CFR 300.1. This will eliminate
unnecessary duplication of treatment provisions. We would also update
the PPQ Treatment Manual to show that the treatment schedule shown
above is approved for garlic from Romania.
Peppers From Israel
The regulations at Sec. 319.56-2u(b) allow peppers from the Paran
region of the Arava Valley in Israel to be imported into the United
States under certain conditions. Based on trapping data 2 from the
agricultural production areas of the Arava Valley, we are proposing to
extend the production area where peppers may be grown for importation
into the United States to include all of the Arava Valley. All of the
current conditions for importation under Sec. 319.56-2u(b) for peppers
from the Paran region would apply to the entire Arava Valley; the
peppers, among other things, would have to be grown in insect-proof
plastic screenhouses, sorted and packed in insect-proof screenhouses,
and transported in fruit fly-proof containers. Additionally, malathion
bait spray treatments would have to be applied to residential areas in
the Arava Valley at 6- to 10-day intervals beginning not less than 30
days before the harvest of backyard fruit fly host material in
residential areas and continuing through the harvest. The Israeli
Department of Plant Protection and Inspection would also conduct
trapping for Medfly throughout the agricultural production areas of the
Arava Valley, Israel, and if a single Medfly is captured in a
screenhouse, exports from that screenhouse would immediately be
cancelled until the source of the infestation is delimited, trap
density is increased, pesticide sprays are applied, or other measures
acceptable to APHIS are taken to prevent further occurrences. Further,
signs in English and Hebrew must be posted along Arava Highway 90
stating that discarding fruits and vegetables from passing vehicles is
prohibited. Accordingly, we propose to amend Sec. 319.56-2u(b) to
extend the production area in the Arava Valley, Israel, where peppers
may be grown for importation into the United States to include all of
the Arava Valley.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Information on this trapping data may be obtained by writing
to the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with Sec. 319.56-2u(b)(6), peppers imported into the
United States from the Paran region of the Arava Valley, Israel, may
not be distributed outside of the following States: Connecticut, the
District of Columbia, Delaware, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts,
Maryland, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New
York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin, or West
Virginia. We are proposing to amend Sec. 319.56-2u(b)(6) to eliminate
the distribution restrictions on peppers from the Arava Valley, Israel.
As peppers from the Arava Valley must be grown, harvested, and packed
under the conditions described in the preceding paragraph, the
distribution restrictions were imposed as an additional, final
precaution against the introduction of Medfly into the United States.
We are proposing to eliminate these distribution requirements because
there have been no Medfly interceptions in the area of production in
the Arava Valley. We believe that this demonstrates that the growing,
harvesting, and packing conditions imposed on the importation into the
United States of peppers from the Arava Valley, Israel, are dependable
in preventing the introduction of Medfly into the United States.
Therefore, we conclude that restricting the distribution of peppers
from the Arava Valley in the United States is unnecessary.
Papayas From Costa Rica
The regulations at Sec. 319.56-2w allow papayas from Costa Rica to
be imported into the United States under certain conditions. One of the
conditions is that an APHIS inspector in Costa Rica certify that
specified growing, packing, and trapping requirements have been met. We
are proposing to allow the Costa Rican Ministry of Agriculture (MAG) to
make this certification. We are proposing this change because of the
success of the joint effort between the Costa Rican MAG and APHIS in
the Costa Rican papaya program. Since the inception of the papaya
program in Costa Rica, no fruit fly larvae or adult flies have been
intercepted in either the preclearance program in Costa Rica or at the
port of entry in the United States. We believe that this demonstrates
that the growing, harvesting, and trapping conditions governing the
entry into the United States of the papayas (see Sec. 319.56-2w) are
dependable in preventing the introduction of fruit flies into the
United States and that the Costa Rican MAG is committed to, familiar
with, and capable of sole oversight of the papaya program in Costa
Rica. Therefore, we are proposing that the Costa Rican MAG would
oversee the program as stated in Sec. 319.56-2w. All shipments of
papayas from Costa Rica would have to be accompanied by a phytosanitary
certificate signed by a
[[Page 14040]]
MAG official stating that the conditions of 7 CFR 319.56-2w have been
met.
In conjunction with this change, we are proposing to eliminate the
trust fund agreement requirements contained in Sec. 319.56-2w(a) of the
regulations. Currently a trust fund must be mainatined to pay for
services that APHIS provides in the inspection and certification of
shipments of Costa Rican papayas bound for the United States.
Medfly-Free Areas of Chile
The regulations at Sec. 319.56-2(j) provide that all of the
provinces of Chile, except for the Provinces of Arica, Iquique, and
Parinacota, have been determined to be free of Medfly. We are proposing
to declare all of the provinces of Chile, including Arica, Iquique, and
Parinacota, free of Medfly. Recently, Chile provided APHIS with the
trapping data, including the protocol and results of fruit sampling,
sterile fly release, and bait spray applications, that demonstrates
that the provinces of Arica, Iquique, and Parinacota meet the criteria
for a Medfly-free area. Accordingly, we would amend Sec. 319.56-2(j) to
state that all of the provinces of Chile are considered free of Medfly.
Lastly, we are proposing to make minor editorial changes to
Sec. 319.56-2r(a)(1) and Sec. 319.56-2g(a)(1) to correct out-of-date
references to countries or locations.
Use of Methyl Bromide
Methyl bromide is currently in widespread use as a fumigant. It is
presented in this proposal as an alternative to a phytosanitary
inspection that determines that shipments of garlic from Romania are
apparently free of living stages of Brachycerus spp. and Dyspessa ulula
(Bkh.). The environmental effects of using methyl bromide, however, are
being scrutinized by international, Federal, and State agencies. The
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), based on its evaluation of
data concerning the ozone depletion potential of methyl bromide,
published a notice of final rulemaking in the Federal Register on
December 10, 1993 (58 FR 65018-65082). That rulemaking freezes methyl
bromide production in the United States at 1991 levels and requires the
phasing out of domestic use of methyl bromide by the year 2001. APHIS
is studying the effectiveness and environmental acceptability of
alternative treatments to prepare for the eventual unavailability of
methyl bromide fumigation. Our current proposal assumes the continued
availability of methyl bromide for use as a fumigant for at least the
next few years.
Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866.
The rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of
Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the
Office of Management and Budget.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 603, we have performed an Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, which is set out below, regarding the
impact of this proposed rule on small entities. Based on the
information we have, there is no basis to conclude that adoption of
this proposed rule would result in any significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. However, we do not currently have
all of the data necessary for a comprehensive analysis of the effects
of this proposed rule on small entities. Therefore, we are inviting
comments on potential effects. In particular, we are interested in
determining the number and kind of small entities that may incur
benefits or costs from the implementation of this proposed rule.
Under the Federal Plant Pest Act and the Plant Quarantine Act (7
U.S.C. 150dd, 150ee, 150ff, 151-165, and 167), the Secretary of
Agriculture is authorized to regulate the importation of fruits and
vegetables to prevent the introduction of injurious plant pests.
This proposed rule would amend the regulations governing the
importation of fruits and vegetables by allowing a number of previously
prohibited fruits and vegetables to be imported into the United States
from certain foreign countries and localities under specified
conditions. The importation of these fruits and vegetables has been
prohibited because of the risk that they could introduce injurious
plant pests into the United States.
Our proposal is based on pest risk assessments that were conducted
by APHIS at the request of various importers and foreign ministries of
agriculture. The pest risk assessments indicate that the fruits or
vegetables listed in this proposed rule could, under certain
conditions, be imported into the United States without significant pest
risk. All of the fruits and vegetables, as a condition of entry, would
be subject to inspection, disinfection, or both, at the port of first
arrival as may be required by a USDA inspector. In addition, some of
the fruits and vegetables would be required to undergo mandatory
treatment for injurious plant pests as a condition of entry, or to meet
other special conditions. This action would provide the United States
with additional kinds and sources of fruits and vegetables while
continuing to provide protection against the introduction into the
United States of injurious plant pests by imported fruits and
vegetables.
Availability of Data
For many of the commodities proposed for importation into the
United States in this document, data on the levels of production and
the anticipated import volume is unavailable for a number of reasons.
First, many of these commodities are not produced in significant
quantities either in the United States or in the country that would be
exporting the commodity to the United States; generally, less
statistical data is collected-- and therefore available --for
commodities produced in small quantities when compared to a country's
more heavily-produced commodities. Second, some of these commodities do
not appear to be produced in the United States at all; therefore, data
on the U.S. production and export levels for those commodities does not
exist. Finally, estimates of potential exports of commodities from
foreign countries to the United States are often difficult to obtain,
due in part to the uncertainty surrounding the cost and availability of
transportation and the demand for the commodity in the United States.
Leeks From Belgium
No information is available on U.S. production of leeks. Data is
available, however, on U.S. exports and imports of the commodity. In
1995, the United States imported 2,764 metric tons of leeks, an
increase over the 1993 and 1994 levels (2,328 metric tons and 2,042
metric tons, respectively). In 1995, the United States exported 3,279
metric tons of leeks, also an increase over the 1993 and 1994 levels
(2,519 metric tons and 2,708 metric tons, respectively).
The fact that the United States exports leeks suggests that the
commodity is produced in the United States. However, the volume of
exports suggests that the level of production is low relative to other,
more popular vegetables.
Data on the number or size of leek producers in the United States
is not available. However, since most U.S. vegetable and melon farms
are small by Small Business Administration (SBA) standards, it is very
likely that the U.S. farms that produce leeks are also small.
[[Page 14041]]
Data on the volume of potential exports of leeks from Belgium to
the United States is not available.
Papaya From Brazil
In 1995, the United States produced 23,042 metric tons (fresh
equivalent) of papaya for human consumption, valued at $18.5 million.
In 1993 and 1994, the United States produced 28,939 metric tons and
28,123 metric tons, respectively, of papaya for human consumption.
Imports into the United States of fresh papaya have grown rapidly,
to the point where imports now exceed U.S. production levels of papaya
for human consumption. In 1995, the United States imported 33,288
metric tons of fresh papaya, a significant increase over the 1993 and
1994 levels (14,198 metric tons and 18,677 metric tons, respectively).
The increase in U.S. imports of fresh papaya since 1993 is due almost
entirely to increased shipments from Mexico, the source of most U.S.
papaya imports. The United States is a net importer of fresh papaya, as
exports of the commodity from the United States did not exceed 8,293
metric tons in any of the years between 1993 and 1995.
In 1992, papaya was produced at 519 farms in the United States. It
is not known how many of those farms are considered small entities
under SBA standards, since information on their sizes is not available.
However, most are probably small, since most U.S. farms whose revenues
are derived primarily from the sale of fruits and tree nuts are
considered small.
In 1993, Brazil was the world's largest producer of papaya. In that
year, Brazil produced an estimated 1,750,000 metric tons of papaya,
30.1 percent of the world's total. No data is available, however, on
the volume of potential exports of this commodity from Brazil to the
United States.
Radicchio From Ecuador
Data on radicchio production for the entire United States is not
available. However, production data is available for the State of
California, where most, if not all, of U.S. radicchio is produced. In
1994, California produced 7,040 metric tons of radicchio, an increase
over the State's 1993 volume of 6,387 metric tons. California's 1994
production had a value of $7.7 million. No information on U.S. (or
California) trade in radicchio is available.
Data on the number or size of radicchio producers in the United
States (or California) is not available. However, since most U.S.
vegetable and melon farms are considered small by SBA standards, it is
very likely that the U.S. farms that produce radicchio are also small.
Information on Ecuador's production and export of radicchio,
including potential exports to the United States, is not available.
Eggplant From El Salvador
In 1995, the United States produced 28,710 metric tons of eggplant,
with a value of $16.2 million. In 1993 and 1994, domestic production
levels were 34,160 metric tons and 35,380 metric tons, respectively.
U.S. production has been supplemented by a steadily growing level of
eggplant imports, 18,154 metric tons in 1993, 21,302 metric tons in
1994, and 24,946 metric tons in 1995. The United States is a net
importer of eggplant, as exports of the commodity from the United
States did not exceed 9,090 metric tons in any of the years between
1993 and 1995.
In 1992, the latest year for which data is available, eggplant was
produced at 2,203 farms in the United States. It is not known how many
of these farms are considered small entities under SBA standards, since
information as to their size is not available. However, most are
probably small, since most vegetable and melon farms in the United
States are small.
Data on the volume of eggplant production in El Salvador is not
available. Data on the volume of potential exports of eggplant from El
Salvador to the United States is also not available.
Basil and Dill From Guatemala
Information on U.S. production and exportation of basil is not
available, but indicators suggest that basil is not grown commercially
in significant quantities in the United States. In 1995, the United
States imported 3,404 metric tons of basil with a value of $4.9
million. U.S. basil imports in 1994 and 1993 were 3,216 metric tons and
2,449 metric tons, respectively.
Information on U.S. production and exportation of dill is not
available, but indicators suggest that dill, like basil, is not grown
commercially in significant quantities in the United States. In 1995,
the United States imported 766 metric tons of dill with a value of $1.0
million. U.S. dill imports in 1994 and 1993 were 949 metric tons and
828 metric tons, respectively.
Guatemala currently produces basil and dill for its local market
only. No data is available on the exact level of basil or dill
production in Guatemala, but the volume is believed to be very small.
Data on the volume of potential exports of these commodities from
Guatemala to the United States is not available.
Mioga Ginger From Japan
No information is available on U.S. production or exportation of
the flowers, leaves, and stems of mioga ginger. The absence of such
data suggests that commercial production of mioga ginger in the United
States is negligible, at most. Mioga ginger is a spice, and most spices
are not grown commercially in significant quantities in the United
States. Data on U.S. imports of mioga ginger is also not available.
Japan produced 6,638 metric tons of mioga ginger in 1994. No
information is available on the potential volume of exports of this
commodity from Japan to the United States. At the present time, all
mioga ginger produced in Japan is consumed locally; none is exported.
Leek From The Netherlands
Data on U.S. production and trade of leeks is discussed above under
the heading ``Leeks from Belgium.''
In 1994, The Netherlands produced 102,727 metric tons of leeks, and
its exports of leeks that year totaled 43,764 metric tons. In 1995, the
Netherlands exported 51,062 metric tons of leeks, with just over 50
percent of those exports directed to Germany. Potential exports of
leeks from The Netherlands to the United States could reach 1,000
metric tons annually, depending on such factors as the cost and
availability of air transportation and demand in the United States.
However, as the United States is a net exporter of leeks, it is
doubtful that consumer demand in the United States will encourage a
substantial volume of leek imports from The Netherlands.
Eggplant From Nicaragua
Data on U.S. production and trade of eggplant is discussed above
under the heading ``Eggplant from El Salvador.''
To date, all of the eggplant produced commercially in Nicaragua has
been consumed locally. No data is available, however, on the volume of
eggplant production in Nicaragua. In addition, no data on the volume of
potential exports of eggplant from Nicaragua to the United States is
available. However, relatively small quantities are likely to be
imported. In 1993, for example, Nicaragua produced little or no
eggplant, and its production of all vegetables and melons that year
totaled only 59,000 metric tons. By comparison, U.S. supply
(domestically produced and imported) of eggplant alone in 1993 totaled
52,314 metric tons, just slightly less than Nicaragua's entire
vegetable and melon production that year.
[[Page 14042]]
Radicchio From Nicaragua
Data on the production of radicchio in California is discussed
above under the heading ``Radicchio from Ecuador.''
Nicaragua currently produces radicchio for its local market. No
data is available on the exact volume of radicchio production in
Nicaragua, but the volume is believed to be very small. Data on the
volume of potential exports of radicchio from Nicaragua to the United
States is also not available.
Garlic From Romania
In 1995, the United States produced 232,010 metric tons of fresh
garlic, valued at $179.8 million. In 1993 and 1994, domestic production
levels were 188,690 metric tons and 208,200 metric tons, respectively.
While U.S. production has been growing rapidly, U.S. imports of garlic
have steadily declined, 39,381 metric tons in 1993, 21,705 metric tons
in 1994, and 18,594 metric tons in 1995. U.S. exports of the commodity
have also steadily declined, from 11,274 metric tons in 1993 to 7,659
metric tons in 1995.
In 1992, garlic was produced at 619 U.S. farms. It is not known how
many of these farms are considered small entities under SBA standards,
since information as to their size is not available. However, most are
probably small, since most vegetable and melon farms in the United
States are small.
In 1995, Romania produced 58,000 metric tons of garlic, an increase
over the country's 1994 and 1993 production levels (56,400 metric tons
and 48,900 metric tons, respectively). In 1996, Romanian garlic
production is estimated to have fallen to approximately 50,000 metric
tons, due to unfavorable weather conditions. Data on the volume of
potential exports of garlic from Romania to the United States is not
available. However, trade sources within Romania indicate that the
prospects for future exports to the United States are reduced, owing to
both the high price and low quality of Romanian garlic.
The alternative to this proposed rule was to make no changes in the
regulations. After consideration, we rejected this alternative because
there is no biological reason to prohibit the importation into the
United States of the fruits and vegetables listed in this document.
Executive Order 12988
This proposed rule would allow certain fruits and vegetables to be
imported into the United States from certain parts of the world. If
this proposed rule is adopted, State and local laws and regulations
regarding the importation of fruits and vegetables under this rule
would be preempted while the fruits and vegetables are in foreign
commerce. Fresh fruits and vegetables are generally imported for
immediate distribution and sale to the consuming public, and would
remain in foreign commerce until sold to the ultimate consumer. The
question of when foreign commerce ceases in other cases must be
addressed on a case-by-case basis. If this proposed rule is adopted, no
retroactive effect will be given to this rule, and this rule will not
require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in
court challenging this rule.
Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the information collection or
recordkeeping requirements included in this proposed rule have been
submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Please send written comments to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for APHIS, Washington,
DC 20503. Please state that your comments refer to Docket No. 96-046-1.
Please send a copy of your comments to: (1) Docket No. 96-046-1,
Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, suite 3C03, 4700 River
Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238, and (2) Clearance Officer,
OIRM, USDA, room 404-W, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20250. A comment to OMB is best assured of having its
full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication of this
proposed rule.
The paperwork associated with the importation of the fruits and
vegetables named in this document would include the completion of
phytosanitary certificates and fruit fly monitoring records. We are
soliciting comments from the public (as well as affected agencies)
concerning our information collection and recordkeeping requirements.
We need this outside input to help us:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is
necessary for the proper performance of our agency's functions,
including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the
proposed information collection, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the information collection on those who
are to respond (such as through the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses).
Estimate of burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of
information is estimated to average 1.31 hours per response.
Respondents: Foreign plant health protection authorities.
Estimated number of respondents: 50.
Estimated number of responses per respondent: 10.
Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 656 hours.
Copies of this information collection can be obtained from:
Clearance Officer, OIRM, USDA, Room 404-W, 14th Street and Independence
Ave., SW, Washington, DC 20250.
List of Subjects
7 CFR Part 300
Incorporation by reference, Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine.
7 CFR Part 319
Bees, Coffee, Cotton, Fruits, Honey, Imports, Incorporation by
reference, Nursery Stock, Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rice, Vegetables.
Accordingly, 7 CFR parts 300 and 319 are proposed to be amended as
follows:
PART 300--INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
1. The authority citation for part 300 would continue to read as
follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 150ee, 154, 161, 162, and 167; 7 CFR 2.22,
2.80, and 371.2(c).
2. In Sec. 300.1, paragraph (a), the introductory text would be
revised to read as follows:
Sec. 300.1 Materials incorporated by reference; availability.
(a) Plant Protection and Quarantine Treatment Manual. The Plant
Protection and Quarantine Treatment Manual, which was reprinted
November 30, 1992, and includes all revisions through ----------------,
has been approved for incorporation by reference in 7 CFR chapter III
by the Director of the Office of the Federal Register in accordance
with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
* * * * *
PART 319--FOREIGN QUARANTINE NOTICES
3. The authority citation for part 319 would continue to read as
follows:
[[Page 14043]]
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).
Sec. 319.56-2 [Amended]
4. In Sec. 319.56-2, paragraph (j) would be amended by removing the
words ``except Arica, Iquique, and Parinacota'.
5. In Sec. 319.56-2g, paragraph (a) would be revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 319.56-2g Adminstrative instructions prescribing method of
treatment of garlic from specified countries.
(a) Except as otherwise provided in these administrative
instructions, fumigation with methyl bromide in vacuum fumigation
chambers, in accordance with the Plant Protection and Quarantine
Treatment Manual, which is incorporated by reference at Sec. 300.1 of
this chapter, is a condition of entry under permit for all shipments of
garlic (Allium sativum) from Algeria, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan,
Czech Republic, Egypt, Estonia, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece,
Hungary, Iran, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Morocco,
Portugal, Romania, the area of the Russian Federation west of the Ural
Mountains, Slovakia, South Africa (Republic of), Spain, Switzerland,
Syria, Turkey, Ukraine, and the area of the former Yugoslavia.
Fumigation is to be carried out under the supervision of a plant
quarantine inspector and at the expense of the importer. While it is
believed that the garlic will be unaffected by the fumigation, the
treatment will be at the importer's risk. Such entry will be limited to
ports named in the permits, where approved facilities for vacuum
fumigation with methyl bromide are available.
* * * * *
Sec. 319.56-2r [Amended]
6. In Sec. 319.56-2r, paragraph (a)(1) would be amended by removing
the words ``, and West Germany'', by adding the word ``Germany,''
immediately following the word ``France'', and by adding the word
``and'' immediately following the word ``Sweden,''.
7. In Sec. 319.56-2t, the table would be amended by adding, in
alphabetical order, the following entries:
Sec. 319.56-2t Administrative instructions: conditions governing the
entry of certain fruits and vegetables.
* * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Country/locality Common name Botanical name Plant part(s)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Belgium........................... Leek................. Allium spp........... Whole plant. (Must be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate
issued by the Ministry of Agriculture of Belgium stating that the
leek is apparently free of Acrolepiopsis assectella.)
* * * * * * *
Ecuador
* * * * * * *
Radicchio............ Cichorium spp........ Above ground parts.
El Salvador
* * * * * * *
Eggplant............. Solanum melongena.... Fruit.
* * * * * * *
Guatemala
* * * * * * *
Basil................ Ocimum spp........... Above ground parts.
Dill................. Anethum graveolens... Above ground parts.
* * * * * * *
Japan............................. Mioga Ginger......... Zingiber mioga....... Above ground parts.
* * * * * * *
Netherlands....................... Leek................. Allium spp........... Whole plant. (Must be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate
issued by the Ministry of Agriculture of The Netherlands stating that
the leek is apparently free of Acrolepiopsis assectella.)
* * * * * * *
Nicaragua
* * * * * * *
Eggplant............. Solanum melongena.... Fruit.
Radicchio............ Cichorium spp........ Above ground parts.
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 319.56-2u [Amended]
8. Section 319.56-2u would be amended as follows:
a. In paragraph (b)(1), by removing the words ``in the Paran region
of''.
b. In paragraph (b)(2), by removing the word ``Paran'' and by
adding in its place the words ``the Arava Valley''.
c. By removing paragraph (b)(6) and redesignating paragraphs (b)(7)
through (b)(9) as paragraphs (b)(6) through (b)(8), respectively.
d. In newly designated paragraph (b)(6), by removing the word
``Paran''
[[Page 14044]]
and by adding in its place the words ``the Arava Valley'.
e. In newly designated paragraph (b)(7), by removing the word
``Paran'' and by adding in its place the words ``the Arava Valley''.
9. Section 319.56-2w would be revised to read as follows:
Sec. 319.56-2w Administrative instruction; conditions governing the
entry of papayas from Brazil and Costa Rica.
The Solo type of papaya may be imported into the continental United
States, Alaska, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands from the State
of Espirito Santo, Brazil, and the provinces of Guanacaste, San Jose,
and Puntarenas, Costa Rica, only under the following conditions:
(a) The papayas were grown and packed for shipment to the United
States in the State of Espirito Santo, Brazil, or in the provinces of
Guanacaste, San Jose, and Puntarenas, Costa Rica.
(b) Beginning at least 30 days before harvest began and continuing
through the completion of harvest, all trees in the field where the
papayas were grown were kept free of papayas that were \1/2\ or more
ripe (more than \1/4\ of the shell surface yellow), and all culled and
fallen fruits were removed from the field at least twice a week.
(c) When packed, the papayas were less than \1/2\ ripe (the shell
surface was no more than \1/4\ yellow, surrounded by light green), and
appeared to be free of all injurious insect pests.
(d) The papayas were packaged so as to prevent access by fruit
flies and other injurious insect pests, and the package does not
contain any other fruit, including papayas not qualified for
importation into the United States.
(e) All activities described in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this
section were carried out under the general supervision and direction of
plant health officials of the national Ministry of Agriculture.
(f) Beginning at least 1 year before harvest begins and continuing
through the completion of harvest, fruit fly traps were maintained in
the field where the papayas were grown. The traps were placed at a rate
of 1 trap per hectare and were checked for fruit flies at least once
weekly by plant health officials of the national Ministry of
Agriculture. Fifty percent of the traps were of the McPhail type, and
fifty percent of the traps were of the Jackson type. The national
Ministry of Agriculture kept records of fruit fly finds for each trap,
updated the records each time the traps were checked, and made the
records available to APHIS inspectors upon request. The records were
maintained for at least 1 year.
(g) All shipments must be accompanied by a phytosanitary
certificate issued by the national Ministry of Agriculture stating that
the papayas were grown, packed, and shipped in accordance with the
provisions of this section.
Done in Washington, DC, this 19th day of March 1997.
Terry L. Medley,
Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 97-7455 Filed 3-24-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
