[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 189 (Friday, September 29, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50379-50386]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-24332]
========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 189 / Friday, September 29, 1995 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 50379]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
7 CFR Parts 300 and 319
[Docket No. 94-114-2]
Importation of Fruits and Vegetables
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are allowing 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,
will 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 will be
required to undergo prescribed treatments for fruit flies or other
injurious insects as a condition of entry, or to meet other special
conditions. This action will 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.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 29, 1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Frank E. Cooper or Mr. Peter
Grosser, Senior Operations Officers, Port Operations, PPQ, APHIS, 4700
River Road Unit 139, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; (301) 734-8645.
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 injurious insects that
are new to or not widely distributed within and throughout the United
States.
On May 24, 1995, we published in the Federal Register (60 FR 27428-
27437, Docket No. 94-114-1) a proposal to amend the regulations by
allowing 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 had been
prohibited because of the risk that the fruits and vegetables could
introduce injurious insects into the United States. We proposed to
allow these importations at the request of various importers and
foreign ministries of agriculture, and after conducting pest risk
assessments that indicated that the fruits or vegetables could be
imported under certain conditions without significant pest risk.
We solicited comments concerning our proposal for 30 days ending
June 23, 1995. We received two comments by that date. They were from a
State agency and an industry group. Both commenters had reservations to
specific provisions of the proposed rule. The comments are discussed
below by topic:
Papayas From Belize
Comment: The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) did
not indicate in the proposal how it would ensure that cartons of
papayas marked ``Not for importation into or distribution in HI'' would
not enter Hawaii.
Response: Papayas from Belize may not be imported into Hawaii. All
importations into Hawaii from foreign countries are inspected by APHIS
officials, and any papaya from Belize arriving in Hawaii would be
seized or rejected. Belizean papayas shipped from the mainland United
States would be intercepted by State of Hawaii Department of
Agriculture inspectors, who routinely inspect cargo arriving from the
mainland. The State inspectors would inform APHIS of the violation, and
APHIS would seize the shipment and determine whether enforcement
procedures should be initiated.
Ya Pears From the Peoples Republic of China
Comment: APHIS has not indicated in the proposal how the conditions
for the importation of Ya pears from China would be maintained. Also,
China has not yet developed a program for pest-free areas for
phytosanitary certification, and there is no indication that the
current farming and packing practices will lend themselves to the
incorporation of a systems approach to attain pest-free status. Should
the proposed conditions not be met, what resources does APHIS have to
detect pests prior to dissemination in the United States?
Response: The results of APHIS personnel visits to Hebei Province
in China to study production and safeguarding procedures for Ya pears
led us to propose the requirements explained in the proposal. We
believe that the required safeguards will be observed by the Chinese.
All shipments will be inspected at the U.S. port of arrival. Any
findings of significant quarantine pests will be an indication that the
required safeguards are not being applied adequately and will be cause
for action by APHIS to ensure that corrective measures are taken. As is
our practice, repeated findings of significant quarantine pests will be
cause for prohibiting future shipments of the produce. In addition,
APHIS intends to make periodic visits to the growing area in Hebei
Province to monitor production and safeguarding procedures.
Comment: The agency's pest risk assessment explains that some of
the pathogens that attack pears in China differ from those in Japan and
Korea. Therefore, the agency's experience with dealing with the disease
risk involved in the importation into the United States of produce from
Japan and Korea does not account for the added disease risks involved
in the importation into the United States of Ya pears from China. The
conditions, regulatory capabilities (infrastructure), and differing
pests and diseases should be considered when assessing the pest risk of
the importation into the United States of Ya pears from China. It
should not be assumed by the agency that the systems approach can work
for exports from every country.
Response: The pest list does differ between Japan, Korea, and
China.
[[Page 50380]]
Although the lists are different, we believe that the safeguards are
sufficient to exclude the pests that could ordinarily move with the
fruit.
Comment: The pest risk assessment for Ya pears from China indicates
that Alternaria alternata, brown rot, and pear scab are present in
China and could be introduced into the United States through the
importation of Ya pears. Therefore, APHIS should not allow the
importation of Ya pears from China until a detailed plan to prevent the
introduction and dissemination of these diseases has been developed and
reviewed.
Response: Alternaria alternata is considered a cosmopolitan
organism and is widespread within the United States. As such, it falls
outside of the scope of the regulatory authority of APHIS. Alternaria
gaisen, considered by some mycologists to be part of the Alternaria
alternata species complex, does infect sandpear fruits; however,
bagging of the fruits, which will be required for Ya pears imported
into the United States from China, prevents infection. In addition,
studies in Japan and the United States have shown that the fungus only
sporulates in cracked fruits; therefore, we expect it to sporulate only
in cracked fruits in China also. Cracked fruits are clearly visible and
will be excluded from shipping during packing house operations.
Brown rot and pear scab are reported in China. The bagging of the
fruits prevents infection, and the culling and inspections of the fruit
in the packing house will exclude from shipping fruits that show signs
of rot or scabbing.
Grapes From India
We received one comment concerning the pest risk assessment for
grapes from India. In addition, since the publication of the proposed
rule, new information has become available that indicates that grapes
from India are attacked by a fruit fly, Bactrocera correcta, which is
not found in the United States. At present, there is no acceptable
quarantine treatment for this fruit fly. Therefore, we are taking no
action at this time to allow grapes from India to be imported into the
United States, and the provisions found in the proposed rule concerning
grapes from India are not included in this final rule.
Litchi From Peoples Republic of China
Comment: The litchi proposed for importation into the United States
from China presents a risk of introducing Peronophythora litchii, which
is difficult to detect visually and would present a pest risk to the
domestic tomato industry. APHIS should review this pest risk more
thoroughly before allowing the importation of litchi. Also, there are
no cold treatment facilities on the west coast of the United States
authorized to perform the cold treatment designated in the proposed
rule for litchi. Where will APHIS require that the cold treatment be
performed? Will irradiation be allowed?
Response: Peronophythora litchii causes a white cottony mold to
appear on infected fruit. As this mold is quite evident, inspectors can
easily identify infected fruit and exclude them from shipping during
the packing process. Although this fungus has caused serious losses in
Taiwan and China during favorable years for the disease, no field
infections on other crops have been reported.
We anticipate that litchi from China and from India will undergo
cold treatment en route to the United States aboard ships with cold
treatment facilities approved by APHIS. APHIS continues to encourage
the development of alternative treatments and will consider irradiation
treatment for litchi when procedures and schedules are presented for
study.
Lettuce From Israel
Comment: APHIS has not indicated how it will ensure that all of the
provisions included in the proposal concerning the importation of
lettuce from Israel into the United States are carried out. Also, in
the event that the proposed procedures are not followed, APHIS has not
indicated the level of resources necessary and available to inspect the
product for pests prior to importation into the United States.
Response: The Israeli Ministry of Agriculture will certify on a
phytosanitary certificate that the specified conditions have been met.
Inspection at the port of entry will also serve to determine whether
the conditions were carried out. If pests are found, actions will be
taken on the affected shipment, and additional actions can be taken to
correct, adjust, or modify the safeguards used to prevent pest
infestation.
Many variables can affect the level of resources APHIS can apply to
any given program at any given time. APHIS intends to allocate the
number of staff hours necessary to inspect Israeli lettuce to provide
the level of inspection and enforcement required to protect U.S.
agriculture. Apricots, Peaches, Plums, and Nectarines from Zimbabwe
Comment: The proposed conditions for the importation of fruit from
Zimbabwe do not adequately address the risk presented by pathogens
reported to occur on peaches and nectarines in Zimbabwe. Additionally,
there is a risk that Taphrina mume could be introduced into the United
States on fruit imported from Zimbabwe.
Response: No quarantine-significant pathogens that would move with
the fruits from Zimbabwe were identified in the pest risk assessment.
Taphrina mume has not been reported to occur in Zimbabwe or to infect
peaches or nectarines.
Root Crops
Comment: Because low-level nematode infestation cannot be readily
detected by visual inspection, APHIS should more adequately address the
potential for nematode introduction presented by imported root crops
that could be planted or otherwise propagated.
Response: We have long recognized that some products imported for
consumption are capable of being propagated and that occasionally
individuals, out of curiosity, may plant them. While we do not believe
that the extent of this practice makes it a significant pest risk, we
have in the past explored three ways of preventing this practice: (a)
prohibit the importation of all commodities that could potentially be
propagated, (b) treat all commodities capable of propagation with
sprout inhibitor, or (c) devitalize the products prior to export. We
believe that the first option, prohibition, should be applied only to
products that pose pest risks that cannot be mitigated in other ways.
We have experimented with the second option, using sprout inhibitors,
but they do not offer sufficient quarantine security for high-risk
products and are not registered for most products. The third option,
devitalization, in most cases renders a product unacceptable for the
fresh fruit and vegetable market.
Countries are becoming more and more sophisticated in their
production and phytosanitary practices; therefore, the quality of
fruits and vegetables in general is increasing. Products are graded and
inspected during packing and prior to export, and the products are
inspected again upon arrival in the United States. All of this reduces
the likelihood of a pest entering the United States. If a person
chooses to try to propagate a commodity that has been imported into the
United States, that person would likely choose the healthiest-looking
material, thus further reducing the probability that a plant pest would
be spread. We believe this limited degree of risk is insignificant.
[[Page 50381]]
Trapping Program
Comment: In the proposed rule, APHIS has not provided specifics on
the Mediterranean fruit fly (Medfly) trapping program conducted within
the designated Medfly-free districts. APHIS may want to provide
additional discussion in the final rule substantiating the
establishment of the pest free zone.
Response: The Medfly trapping techniques, including the type of
trap, type of lures, placement of trap, monitoring of trap, etc., used
to establish the Medfly-free area in Belize are in accordance with
written guidelines patterned after recommendations of the California
Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) Pest Detection Guide. (To
obtain a copy of the CDFA Pest Detection Guide, write to Dr. Isi A.
Siddiqui, California Department of Food and Agriculture, 1220 N Street,
Sacramento, CA 95814.) Compliance is routinely verified by APHIS
personnel.
Treatment Required
Comment: It is essential, given the possible economic impact of
fruit fly introduction, that any required treatment be conducted at the
point of origin, as opposed to the point of arrival, to ensure that
none of the fruit flies are imported into the United States. Also,
APHIS should cite its basis for the conclusion that climatic conditions
at the port of Wilmington, NC, are unsuitable for the establishment of
fruit flies.
Response: APHIS encourages cold treatments in the country of origin
or en route to the United States aboard vessels with approved cold
treatment facilities. However, our experience shows that cold
treatments can be successfully carried out at U.S. ports of arrival
without significant risk of fruit fly escape. Therefore, three options
are usually available for cold treated fruit: treatment in the country
of origin, treatment en route to the United States, and treatment upon
arrival in the United States.
When we approved cold treatment at Wilmington, NC, in a final rule
published in the Federal Register on August 10, 1994 (59 FR 40794-
40797, Docket No. 93-121-3), we imposed additional safeguards not
required for cold treatment at more northern locations. A detailed
explanation of the additional conditions appears in the preamble of the
proposed rule published in the Federal Register on May 13, 1994 (59 FR
24968-24971, Docket No. 93-121-2). The additional conditions are:
1. Bulk shipments (those shipments which are stowed and unloaded by
the case or bin) of fruit arriving for cold treatment must be packaged
in fruit fly-proof packaging that prevents the escape of adult, larval,
or pupal fruit flies.
2. Bulk and containerized shipments of fruit arriving at the port
of Wilmington, NC, for cold treatment must be cold treated within the
port, that is, the area over which the Bureau of Customs is assigned
the authority to accept entries of merchandise, to collect duties, and
to enforce the various provisions of the customs and navigation laws in
force.
3. Advance reservations for cold treatment space at the port of
Wilmington, NC, must be made prior to the departure of a shipment from
its port of origin.
We believe that the conditions established for cold treatment at
Wilmington, NC, including these additional conditions, are adequate to
prevent the introduction of certain plant pests into the United States.
Pest Risk Assessments
Comment: The pest risk assessments supporting this proposal appear
to consist only of a cursory look at the interception histories and a
brief review of the available literature. Approval of a number of the
commodities proposed for entry should be postponed until additional
review can take place.
Response: We believe that the pest risk assessments performed and
the safeguards proposed are adequate to prevent the introduction of
pests by the commodities proposed for entry. In addition, APHIS is
developing a more transparent pest risk assessment process to offer
outside reviewers a clearer and more detailed explanation of how we
determine pest risk, thereby enhancing public understanding of the pest
risk involved with each commodity proposed for entry. This new pest
risk assessment process follows the guidelines provided by the
international plant protection organizations (e.g. North American Plant
Protection Organization and United Nations' Food and Agricultural
Organization) and will provide written documentation on the pest risk
potential for organisms that rank high for the likelihood of
introduction and establishment.
Therefore, based on the rationale set forth in the proposed rule
and in this document, we are adopting the provisions of the proposal as
a final rule with the changes noted above.
Effective Date
This is a substantive rule that relieves restrictions and, pursuant
to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553, may be made effective less than 30
days after publication in the Federal Register. Immediate
implementation of this rule is necessary to provide relief to those
persons who are adversely affected by restrictions we no longer find
warranted. Therefore, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service has determined that this rule should be effective
upon publication in the Federal Register.
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 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. 601 et seq., we have performed a Final
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, set forth below, regarding the
economic impact of this rule on small entities.
This rule amends 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 had been prohibited
because of the risk that they could have introduced injurious plant
pests into the United States. This final rule revises the status of
certain commodities from certain countries and localities, allowing
their importation into the United States for the first time.
These changes are 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 rule can, under certain conditions,
be imported into the United States without significant pest risk. All
of the fruits and vegetables, as a condition of entry, will 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 will be required to undergo mandatory treatment for
fruit flies or other injurious insects as a condition of entry, or to
meet other special conditions. This action will 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. Papayas from Belize
[[Page 50382]]
The United States produced 71.3 million pounds of papayas in 1993.
Papayas are produced commercially on approximately 300 farms, the
majority of which are in Hawaii. Nearly 65 percent of those farms are
owned by individuals whose major occupation is not farming, while the
balance are operated by individuals whose major occupation is farming.
All of the farms are considered to be small entities according to Small
Business Administration (SBA) size standards.
The United States imported 31.3 million pounds of papayas, valued
at $8,883,000, in 1993. Most of the imported papayas came from Mexico
(66.6 percent), Jamaica (14.4 percent), and Belize (13.7 percent). The
United States exported 16.7 million pounds of fresh papayas, worth
$14,245,000, in 1993. The major importers were Japan (73.4 percent) and
Canada (24.6 percent). Almost all exports of domestically grown papayas
are from Hawaii, while all imports of foreign-origin papayas come into
the continental United States.
The total annual production of papayas in Belize is approximately
4.5 million pounds. Its current exports account for about 4.2 million
pounds. The additional amount expected to be exported to the United
States will be approximately 300,000 pounds of fresh papayas. Even if
all the available supply were exported to the United States, it will
increase the U.S. supply of papayas by only about 0.34 percent. A 0.34
percent increase in supply is unlikely to have any impact on prices or
on producers or consumers.
Cantaloupes From Brazil
The United States produced about 1,910 million pounds of
cantaloupes, with a total value of $310 million, in 1993. Cantaloupes
are produced commercially on about 7,500 farms, nearly 97 percent of
which are considered to be small entities, according to SBA size
standards. The United States is a net importer of cantaloupes. Imports
totaled approximately 458 million pounds of cantaloupes. The major
sources of imported cantaloupes include Mexico (32.8 percent), Honduras
(26 percent), Costa Rica (17.5 percent), Guatemala (16 percent), and
the Dominican Republic (2.8 percent). There were 116 million pounds of
cantaloupes exported from the United States in 1993, of which nearly 95
percent went to Canada, while about 4 percent went to Mexico.
The commercial production of cantaloupe is in the infant stage in
Brazil. Most of the Brazilian production is concentrated in the states
of Rio Grande do Norte and Sao Paulo. Production occurs mainly during
the months of October through March, while U.S. production occurs
during the months of May through September. Thus, any export from
Brazil will be supplementary to, rather than competitive with, the U.S.
supply. Total production of cantaloupes in Brazil was about 5,000
metric tons, or 11 million pounds, in 1994. Currently all cantaloupe
production in Brazil is for domestic consumption. However, even if all
Brazilian production were to be exported to the United States, the U.S.
cantaloupe supply will increase by less than 0.5 percent. Because this
final rule will allow the importation of cantaloupe from only part of
Brazil--that area considered by APHIS to be free of the South American
cucurbit fly--any increase in the U.S. cantaloupe supply will be even
smaller. Such an increase will not be expected to impact U.S. producer
prices.
Ya Pear From the Peoples Republic of China
The United States produced 860,000 metric tons (1,895 million
pounds) of pears in 1993. The United States is a net exporter of pears,
having exported 244 million pounds and imported 143 million pounds in
1993. Most of the pears imported into the United States came from Chile
(57.3 percent), Argentina (30.4 percent), South Africa (6.1 percent),
and New Zealand (3.9 percent). The main importers of U.S. pears are
Canada (32.9 percent) and Mexico (34.9 percent), with the remaining
quantities distributed among 45 destinations. There are approximately
9,800 farms producing pears in the United States, about 98 percent of
which are considered to be small entities, according to SBA size
standards.
China produced about 30,000 metric tons (or 66 million pounds) of
Ya pears in 1993. It exported about 5,700 metric tons (or 12,562,800
pounds). Exports are to several countries in Europe, the Middle East,
and Southeast Asia. The Ya pears that will be imported from the Peoples
Republic of China are of a different variety than pears produced in the
United States; because they are considered to be different products,
they are not expected to be competitive with domestically grown pears.
Litchi From the Peoples Republic of China
The U.S. produced about 700,000 pounds of Litchi in 1993. There are
205 farms that produced litchi, most of which are considered to be
small entities according to SBA criteria.
China produced approximately 27,000 metric tons (or 59.5 million
pounds) of litchi in 1994, exporting about 25 percent (about 15 million
pounds) of its production. Most of China's litchi exports went to
several countries in Western Europe, the Middle East, and Southeast
Asia, as well as to Canada. What proportion of China's domestic litchi
production will be exported to the United States is not clear. In the
event that a significant proportion of China's production is exported
to the United States, U.S. producers will most likely be negatively
impacted in the short run, since the increased supply will drive the
market price of litchi down. U.S. consumers, on the other hand, will
benefit from the lower price as well as the increased choice. In the
long run, as a result of foreign competition in the U.S. litchi market,
more competitive and cost-effective producers may emerge. Lower prices
may also result in an increased demand for litchi. Which of these
effects will outweigh the other cannot be stated definitely.
Basil From Ecuador and El Salvador
The United States imported 5,397,091 pounds of fresh or dried basil
in 1993 (the ratio of fresh to dried cannot be ascertained). The major
sources of import were Egypt (77.7 percent), Mexico (16.1 percent),
France (2.2 percent), and Taiwan (1.2 percent). No information was
obtained on potential production and imports of basil from Ecuador and
El Salvador.
Pak Choi From Jamaica
There are no published data on the U.S. production of pak choi and
no record of trade. Jamaica's current production of pak choi is
estimated to be 3,825 metric tons (8.43 million pounds). Most
production takes place between January and April. Although the exact
amount that will be shipped to the United States is not known,
approximately 50-75 percent of total production is expected to be
exported to the United States. This is expected to expand the variety
of choices available to vegetable consumers.
Chives From Israel
Israel produces approximately 100 metric tons of chives. Production
takes place mainly from October to the end of March. Currently about 95
percent of production is exported to Europe. About 20 to 40 metric tons
is expected to be exporter to the United States. Both producer prices
and consumer prices will likely be unaffected by the importation of
chives from Israel.
[[Page 50383]]
Dill From Israel
The United States imported 1,828,359 pounds of dill in 1993 (trade
records do not clearly indicate whether the dill was fresh or dried).
The major sources were India (68 percent), Pakistan (13.2 percent),
Egypt (10 percent), Sweden (3.2 percent), and Turkey (2.5 percent). The
United States is a net importer of dill. Israel produced about 520
metric tons (1,146,000 pounds) of dill in 1994 and exported about 46
metric tons of dill during the same period. Israel expects that it will
export about 30 metric tons of dill to the United States within the
next 3 to 5 years. Both producer prices and consumer prices will likely
be unaffected by the importation of dill from Israel.
Lettuce From Israel
Total U.S. production of head, leaf, and romaine lettuce in 1993
was 3,756,350 metric tons (or 8,279 million pounds). There are
approximately 2,660 producers of lettuce in the United States, about 97
percent of which are considered to be small entities according to SBA
size standards.
The United States is a net exporter of lettuce. It imported
32,738,000 pounds of lettuce in 1993, mainly from Mexico and Canada,
which together accounted for 99.2 percent of the imports. The United
States exported 693,354,000 pounds of lettuce in 1993. Canada received
approximately 82 percent of those exports, while the remaining
destinations were highly varied.
Israel produced about 10 million pounds of insect-free lettuce,
which is grown inside insect-proof screenhouses, during 1993. About 10
percent of the production is exported to Europe and the rest is
consumed domestically. The amount of lettuce that will be exported to
the United States is expected to be about 1,600,000 pounds, which
represents less than 0.02 percent of U.S. production. This amount will
not have a significant impact upon U.S. market supply. Additionally,
the marketing target for this lettuce, both in Israel's domestic market
as well as in the export market, is the ultra-orthodox religious
community, members of which will not consume lettuce produced in any
other way. Importation of this specialty product is not expected to
compete with domestic production. Both producer prices and consumer
prices will likely be unaffected by the importation of insect-free
lettuce from Israel.
Radishes From The Netherlands
The United States produced about 122.4 million pounds of radishes
in 1993. Radishes are produced on about 760 farms, all of which are
considered to be small entities. The United States is a net importer of
radishes and it imported 35,121,976 pounds of fresh and chilled (the
proportion of fresh to chilled cannot be ascertained) radishes in 1993.
Over 94 percent of these imported radishes came from Mexico and 5.5
percent from Canada.
The Netherlands currently produces about 68 million pounds of
radishes. Exports are expected to increase in stages, from 1.1 million
pounds in the first year, to 2.2 million pounds during the second year,
to about 4.4 million pounds (about 3 percent of U.S. supply) the third
year and thereafter. Exports of radishes are expected to be spread
equally over a 12-month period, with no significant peak period.
Oca From New Zealand
There is no known commercial production of oca in the United
States. Additionally, there is no record of oca imports into the United
States. Oca is a specialty crop and only minor production is carried on
in New Zealand. Most production occurs between the months of March and
October. Annual production is about 110,000 pounds. Current oca exports
from New Zealand to the rest of the world equal about 440 pounds.
Allowing the importation of oca from New Zealand into the United States
will provide additional choice to vegetable consumers.
Apricots, Peaches, Plums, and Nectarines From Zimbabwe
In 1993 the United States produced 87,430 metric tons (192.7
million pounds) of apricots on 3,353 farms; 1,130,00 metric tons
(2,490.6 million pounds) of peaches on 19,106 farms; 182,395 metric
tons (402 million pounds) of nectarines on 2,488 farms; and 176,710
metric tons (390 million pounds) of plums on 8,006 farms. About 98
percent of these farms are considered to be small entities according to
SBA size standards.
The United States is a net exporter of all four of these
commodities. Imports of these four commodities into the United States
are largely from Chile, while most of the U.S. exports are destined for
Canada, Mexico, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and the United Kingdom. Although
relevant volume data is not available, the addition of Zimbabwe as a
new trading partner in apricots, peaches, plums, and nectarines is
unlikely to shift the favorable balance of trade that the United States
currently enjoys for these four commodities.
Summary
The United States produces large amounts of grapes, cantaloupes,
pears, papayas and radishes. The importations of these and other listed
commodities will likely increase supply. However, since potential
imports will represent a very small proportion of the total domestic
production of each product, no significant negative impact on U.S.
producers is expected from such importations. Although increased supply
generally results in lower prices, no information is currently
available about the magnitude of price responses to changes in supply.
Overall, the benefits to consumers of any resulting price decline will
likely outweigh the small losses to producers. Additionally,
importation of oca and pak choi will increase the availability of new
products. Both oca and pak choi have a limited market and are unlikely
to compete with other products. Similarly, the Ya pears and cantaloupes
for importation are also unlikely to compete with other products. Ya
pears are a different variety than any domestically produced pear,
while cantaloupes from Brazil will be imported during the off season
for U.S. cantaloupes. Other products such as basil and dill are very
minor products. Some of these products are grown to supplement other
farm income.
The aggregate economic impact of this rule is expected to be
positive. U.S. consumers will benefit from a greater availability of
fruits and vegetables. U.S. importers will also benefit from a greater
availability of fruits and vegetables to import.
The alternative to this final rule was to make no changes in the
fruits and vegetables regulations. After consideration, we rejected
this alternative since there was no pest risk reason to maintain the
prohibitions on the affected produce.
In the course of rulemaking, we came across evidence that indicated
that the importation of grapes from India posed a significant risk of
plant pest introduction, and, therefore, we are continuing to prohibit
the importation of grapes from India. If we had come across evidence
indicating that the importation of any of the other concerned fruits or
vegetables would pose a significant risk of plant pest introduction, we
would have considered either developing alternative requirements
regarding that importation or continuing to prohibit the importation of
that fruit or vegetable. However, our pest risk assessments and our
review of public comments on the proposal indicated that importation of
[[Page 50384]]
any of the concerned fruits and vegetables other than grapes from India
would not pose a significant risk of introducing or disseminating plant
pests.
Executive Order 12778
This rule allows certain fruits and vegetables to be imported into
the United States from certain parts of the world. State and local laws
and regulations regarding the importation of fruits and vegetables
under this rule will be preempted while the fruit is in foreign
commerce. Fresh fruits and vegetables are generally imported for
immediate distribution and sale to the consuming public, and will
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. 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.
National Environmental Policy Act
An environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact
have been prepared for this rule. The assessment provides a basis for
the conclusion that the importation of fruits and vegetables under the
conditions specified in this rule will not present a significant risk
of introducing or disseminating plant pests and will not have a
significant impact on the quality of the human environment. Based on
the finding of no significant impact, the Administrator of the Animal
and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that an
environmental impact statement need not be prepared.
The environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact
were prepared in accordance with: (1) The National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), (2) Regulations of the
Council on Environmental Quality for Implementing the Procedural
Provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), (3) USDA Regulations
Implementing NEPA (7 CFR part 1b), and (4) APHIS' NEPA Implementing
Procedures (7 CFR part 372).
Copies of the environmental assessment and finding of no
significant impact are available for public inspection at USDA, room
1141, South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC, between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except holidays. In addition, copies may be obtained by writing to the
individuals listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
The regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality that
implement NEPA require preparation of environmental documentation for
all actions that are not categorically excluded by agencies in
accordance with 40 CFR 1501.4(b). In a final rule published by APHIS on
February 1, 1995, and effective March 3, 1995, APHIS categorically
excluded a number of actions for the purposes of NEPA. This rule meets
the criteria for categorical exclusion. Accordingly, this rule
(initiated prior to the effective date of the agency's NEPA
procedures), as well as future amendments in this regulatory series,
are categorically excluded.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule contains no information collection or recordkeeping
requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.).
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 amended as follows:
PART 300--INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
1. The authority citation for part 300 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 150ee, 154, 161, 162, and 167; 7 CFR 2.17,
2.51, and 371.2(c).
2. In Sec. 300.1, paragraph (a) is 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 September 1995,
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 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 2.17, 2.51, and 371.2(c).
4. In Sec. 319.56-2t, the table is amended by adding, in
alphabetical order, the following:
Sec. 319.56-2t Administrative instructions: conditions governing the
entry of certain fruits and vegetables.
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Country/locality Common name Botanical name Plant part(s)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * *
Belize
* * * *
* * *
Papaya......... Carica papaya.. Fruit (Must be
accompanied by a
phytosanitary
certificate issued
by the Belizean
department of
agriculture stating
that the fruit
originated in the
district of Cayo,
Corozal, or Orange
Walk. Papayas from
other districts
enterable only with
treatment--see Sec.
319.56-2x).
Prohibited entry
into Hawaii due to
Toxotrypana
curvicauda. Cartons
in which fruit is
packed must be
stamped ``Not for
importation into or
distribution within
HI.''
* * * *
* * *
Ecuador
[[Page 50385]]
* * * *
* * *
Basil.......... Ocimum spp..... Above ground parts.
* * * *
* * *
El Salvador..... Basil.......... Ocimum spp..... Above ground parts.
* * * *
* * *
Israel
* * * *
* * *
Chives......... Allium Leaf.
schoenoprasum.
Dill........... Anethum Above ground parts.
graveolens.
* * * *
* * *
Jamaica
* * * *
* * *
Pak choi....... Brassica Leaf and stem.
chinensis.
* * * *
* * *
Netherlands..... Radish......... Raphanus Root.
sativus.
New Zealand
* * * *
* * *
Oca............ Oxalis tuberosa Tuber.
* * * *
* * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. In Sec. 319.56-2u, the section heading is revised and paragraph
(a) is added to read as follows:
Sec. 319.56-2u Conditions governing the entry of lettuce and peppers
from Israel.
(a) Lettuce may be imported into the United States from Israel
without fumigation for leafminers, thrips, and Sminthuris viridis only
under the following conditions:
(1) Growing conditions. (i) The lettuce must be grown in insect-
proof houses covered with 50 mesh screens, double self-closing doors,
and hard walks (no soil) between the beds;
(ii) The lettuce must be grown in growing media that has been
sterilized by steam or chemical means;
(iii) The lettuce must be inspected during its active growth phase
and the inspection must be monitored by a representative of the Israeli
Ministry of Agriculture;
(iv) The crop must be protected with sticky traps and prophylactic
sprays approved for the crop by Israel;
(v) The lettuce must be moved to an insect-proof packing house at
night in plastic containers covered by 50 mesh screens;
(vi) The lettuce must be packed in an insect-proof packing house,
individually packed in transparent plastic bags, packed in cartons,
placed on pallets, and then covered with shrink wrapping; and
(vii) The lettuce must be transported to the airport in a closed
refrigerated truck for shipment to the United States.
(2) Each shipment of lettuce must be accompanied by a phytosanitary
certificate issued by the Israeli Ministry of Agriculture stating that
the conditions of paragraph (a)(1) of this section have been met.
* * * * *
6. In Sec. 319.56-2x, paragraph (a) is amended as follows:
a. In the table, in the entry for Israel, the entry for lettuce is
amended in the fourth column under the heading Plant part(s) by adding
the words ``(Treatment for leafminers, thrips, and Sminthuris viridis
not required if the lettuce is imported in accordance with Sec. 319.56-
2u(a))'' after the word ``Leaf''.
b. The table is amended by adding, in alphabetical order, the
following:
Sec. 319.56-2x Administrative instructions; conditions governing the
entry of certain fruits and vegetables for which treatment is required.
(a) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Country/locality Common name Botanical name Plant part(s)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * *
Belize.......... Papaya......... Carica papaya.. Fruit (Treatment for
Medfly not required
for fruit grown in
the districts of
Cayo, Corozal, and
Orange Walk - see
Sec. 319.56-2t).
Papayas prohibited
entry into Hawaii
due to Toxotrypana
curvicauda. Cartons
in which fruit is
packed must be
stamped ``Not for
importation into or
distribution in
HI''.
* * * *
* * *
China........... Litchi......... Litchi Fruit (Prohibited
chinensis. entry into Florida
due to litchi rust
mite. Cartons in
which litchi are
packed must be
stamped ``Not for
importation into or
distribution in
FL'').
[[Page 50386]]
* * * *
* * *
India........... Litchi......... Litchi Fruit (Prohibited
chinensis. entry into Florida
due to litchi rust
mite. Cartons in
which litchi are
packed must be
stamped ``Not for
importation into or
distribution in
FL'').
* * * *
* * *
Zimbabwe
* * * *
* * *
Apricot........ Prunus Fruit.
armeniaca.
* * * *
* * *
Nectarine...... Prunus persica. Fruit.
Peach.......... Prunus persica. Fruit.
* * * *
* * *
Plum........... Prunus Fruit.
domestica.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 319.56-2aa [Amended]
7. In Sec. 319.56-2aa, the section heading and the introductory
text are amended by adding the words ``and cantaloupe'' after the word
``melons''.
8. Section 319.56-2aa is amended by adding the words ``or
cantaloupe'' after the word ``melons'' in the following places:
(a) In paragraph (a) in the first sentence and both times it
appears in the second sentence.
(b) In paragraph (b).
(c) In paragraph (c).
9. A new Sec. 319.56-2ee is added to read as follows:
Sec. 319.56-2ee Administrative instructions: conditions governing the
entry of Ya variety pears from China.
Ya variety pears may be imported into the United States from China
only under the following conditions:
(a) Growing and harvest conditions. (1) The pears must have been
grown by growers registered with the Chinese Ministry of Agriculture in
an APHIS-approved export growing area in Hebei Province.
(2) Field inspections for signs of pest infestation must be
conducted by the Chinese Ministry of Agriculture during the growing
season.
(3) The registered growers shall be responsible for following the
phytosanitary measures agreed upon by APHIS and the Chinese Ministry of
Agriculture, including applying pesticides to reduce the pest
population and bagging the pears on the trees to reduce the opportunity
for pests to attack the fruit during the growing season. The bags must
remain on the pears through the harvest and during their movement to
the packing house.
(4) The packing houses in which the pears are prepared for
exportation shall not be used for any fruit other than Ya variety pears
from registered growers during the pear export season. The packing
houses shall accept only those pears that are in intact bags as
required by paragraph (a)(3) of this section. The pears must be loaded
into containers at the packing house and the containers then sealed
before movement to the port of export.
(b) Treatment. The pears must be cold treated for Bactrocera
dorsalis in accordance with the Plant Protection and Quarantine
Treatment Manual, which is incorporated by reference at Sec. 300.1 of
this chapter.
(c) Each shipment of pears must be accompanied by a phytosanitary
certificate issued by the Chinese Ministry of Agriculture stating that
the conditions of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section have been met.
Done in Washington, DC, this 26th day of September 1995.
Lonnie J. King,
Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 95-24332 Filed 9-28-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
