Importation of Fruits and Vegetables, 75967-75981 [E5-7690]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
• Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 245 (Thursday, December 22, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 75967-75981]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-7690]


========================================================================
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. 70, No. 245 / Thursday, December 22, 2005 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 75967]]



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

7 CFR Part 319

[Docket No. 03-086-1]


Importation of Fruits and Vegetables

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We propose to amend the fruits and vegetables regulations to 
list a number of fruits and vegetables from certain parts of the world 
as eligible, under specified conditions, for importation into the 
United States. Some of the fruits and vegetables are already eligible 
for importation under permit, but are not specifically listed in the 
regulations. All of the fruits and vegetables, as a condition of entry, 
would be inspected and subject to treatment at the port of first 
arrival as may be required by an inspector. In addition, some of the 
fruits and vegetables would be required to meet other special 
conditions. In one case, we propose to add a systems approach that 
would provide an alternative to methyl bromide fumigation. These 
actions would provide the United States with additional types and 
sources of fruits and vegetables while continuing to protect against 
the introduction of quarantine pests through imported fruits and 
vegetables.

DATES: We will consider all comments that we receive on or before 
February 21, 2006.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://
www.regulations.gov and, in the ``Search for Open Regulations'' box, 
select ``Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service'' from the agency 
drop-down menu, then click on ``Submit.'' In the Docket ID column, 
select APHIS-2005-0107 to submit or view public comments and to view 
supporting and related materials available electronically. After the 
close of the comment period, the docket can be viewed using the 
``Advanced Search'' function in Regulations.gov.
     Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Please send four copies 
of your comment (an original and three copies) to Docket No. 03-086-1, 
Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 
River Road, Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state that your 
comment refers to Docket No. 03-086-1.
    Reading Room: You may read any comments that we receive on this 
docket in our reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 of 
the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW., 
Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 
Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to 
help you, please call (202) 690-2817 before coming.
    Other Information: Additional information about APHIS and its 
programs is available on the Internet at https://www.aphis.usda.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Donna L. West, Senior Import 
Specialist, Commodity Import Analysis and Operations, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 
River Road, Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 734-8758.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The regulations in ``Subpart--Fruits and Vegetables'' (7 CFR 319.56 
through 319.56-8, referred to below as the regulations) prohibit or 
restrict the importation of fruits and vegetables into the United 
States from certain parts of the world to prevent the introduction and 
spread of plant pests that are new to or not widely distributed within 
the United States.
    At the request of various importers and foreign ministries of 
agriculture, we are proposing to amend the regulations to list a number 
of fruits and vegetables from certain parts of the world as eligible, 
under certain conditions, for importation into the United States. We 
are also proposing to list certain fruits and vegetables that have been 
imported into the United States under a permit without being 
specifically listed in the regulations to improve the transparency of 
our regulations.
    The fruits and vegetables referred to in this document would have 
to be imported under a permit and would be subject to the requirements 
in Sec.  319.56-6 of the regulations, which provides that all imported 
fruits and vegetables will be inspected and will be subject to 
disinfection at the port of first arrival if an inspector requires it. 
Section 319.56-6 also provides that any shipment of fruits and 
vegetables may be refused entry if the shipment is so infested with 
plant pests that an inspector determines that it cannot be cleaned or 
treated.
    Some of the fruits and vegetables proposed for importation would 
have to meet other special conditions. The proposed conditions of 
entry, which are discussed below, appear adequate to prevent the 
introduction and spread of quarantine pests through the importation of 
these fruits and vegetables.
    We have prepared a pest risk assessment for each of the fruits and 
vegetables that we propose to add, unless we have allowed their entry 
previously under a permit. Copies of the pest risk assessments are 
available from the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    We propose to make other amendments to update and clarify the 
regulations and improve their effectiveness. Our proposed amendments 
are discussed below by topic.

Allium spp. from Canada

    In Sec.  319.56-2, paragraph (c) serves as a general permit for 
fruits and vegetables grown in Canada and provides that fruits and 
vegetables grown in Canada may be imported into the United States 
without restrictions, with one exception. (That exception applies to 
potatoes grown in Newfoundland and a portion of the Municipality of 
Central Saanich in the Province of British Columbia; potatoes from 
those two areas are prohibited importation into the United States due 
to potato wart disease and golden nematode, respectively.) In this 
document, we propose to amend Sec.  319.56-2(c) to add a requirement 
that consignments of Allium spp. consisting of the whole plant or above 
ground parts be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by 
the national plant protection organization (NPPO) of Canada with an 
additional declaration

[[Page 75968]]

stating that the articles are free from Acrolepiopsis assectella 
(Zeller).
    A. assectella, known as the leek moth, has been reported to infest 
Allium spp. in Canada and is known to be a serious pest in continental 
Europe, where Italian leek infestation rates have been known to reach 
40 percent. Leek moth larvae and pupae are often hidden within Allium 
tops, near new growth at the crown, which is why the proposed 
phytosanitary certificate requirement would apply to consignments 
consisting of the whole plant or above ground parts, and not to 
consignments consisting solely of bulbs. We believe this proposed 
requirement is necessary to prevent the introduction of leek moth into 
the United States.

Fruits and Vegetables Eligible for Entry Under Permit

    Prior to 1992, APHIS did not specifically amend the regulations to 
list those fruits and vegetables for which we issued a permit after 
determining that the fruit or vegetable was eligible for entry under 
the regulations in Sec.  319.56-2(e). However, in 1992, in an effort to 
increase transparency, we changed our approach and began to amend the 
regulations to specifically list all newly eligible fruits and 
vegetables (i.e., those that were not previously eligible under a 
specific administrative instruction or imported under permit in 
accordance with Sec.  319.56-2(e)). In 2004, we began the process of 
amending the regulations to list those fruits and vegetables that were 
allowed entry exclusively under permit prior to our decision to 
specifically list the commodities in the regulations.
    In this document, we continue the process of amending the 
regulations to list those fruits and vegetables that were approved for 
entry prior to 1992 and that have been eligible for importation under 
permit. In those cases where a permit has contained additional 
conditions that apply to the importation of the fruit or vegetable 
(such as a requirement for a phytosanitary certificate with an 
additional declaration or limitations on the origin or distribution of 
the article), those additional conditions would be reflected in the 
regulations. This proposed action would serve to improve the 
transparency of our regulations.
    The permit requirement for these fruits and vegetables would 
continue to apply to their importation, as would the requirements of 
Sec.  319.56-6 of the regulations described earlier in this document.
    As noted previously, some of the fruits and vegetables we would 
list in the regulations would also have to meet other special 
conditions. The proposed conditions of entry, which are discussed 
below, have proven to be adequate to prevent the introduction and 
spread of quarantine pests through the importation of these fruits and 
vegetables.

Inspected and Subject to Disinfection

    Section 319.56-2t lists fruits and vegetables that may be imported 
into the United States in accordance with the inspection and 
disinfection requirements of Sec.  319.56-6 and all other applicable 
requirements of the regulations. We propose to amend that list to 
include the following additional fruits and vegetables from certain 
countries. All of these fruits and vegetables are currently eligible 
for importation into the United States in accordance with Sec.  319.56-
6 and all other applicable requirements of the regulations. These 
fruits and vegetables also meet the criteria of Sec.  319.56-2(e)(4) 
and have been imported into the United States under permit since before 
1992.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Country of origin            Common name         Botanical name
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bahamas.....................  Grapefruit..........  Citrus paradisi.
                              Lemon...............  Citrus limon.
                              Orange..............  Citrus sinensis.
                              Tangelo.............  Citrus reticulata.
Belize......................  Cichorium...........  Cichorium spp.
                              Eggplant............  Solanum melongena.
Brazil......................  Cichorium...........  Cichorium spp.
Chile.......................  Cichorium...........  Cichorium spp.
Colombia....................  Cichorium...........  Cichorium spp.
Costa Rica..................  Cichorium...........  Cichorium spp.
                              Eggplant............  Solanum melongena.
Guatemala...................  Cichorium...........  Cichorium spp.
Honduras....................  Eggplant............  Solanum melongena.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have determined that any quarantine pests that might be carried 
by any of the fruits and vegetables listed above would be readily 
detectable by an inspector. Therefore, the provisions of Sec.  319.56-6 
for inspection and disinfection at the U.S. port of first arrival 
appear adequate to prevent the introduction into the United States of 
quarantine pests by the importation of these fruits and vegetables.
    Paragraph (b) of Sec.  319.56-2t currently sets out any additional 
restrictions that may apply to a fruit or vegetable listed in the table 
in paragraph (a) of that section, such as a requirement for a 
phytosanitary certificate with an additional declaration or limitations 
on the species of fruit or vegetables that are eligible for entry. For 
citrus from the Bahamas, we would add a new paragraph (b)(6)(i) that 
would specify grapefruit (Citrus paradisi), lemon (C. limon), orange 
(C. sinensis), and tangelo (C. reticulata) as eligible for importation 
into the United States.
    Following an outbreak of citrus canker disease (Xanthomonas citri 
(Hasse) Dowson) on the island of Abaco in 2004, we began requiring all 
shipments of citrus from the Bahamas to be accompanied by a 
phytosanitary certificate issued by the NPPO of the Bahamas with an 
additional declaration stating that the fruit originated in an area 
that is free of citrus canker. Currently, the island of Abaco is the 
only area in the Bahamas where citrus canker is known to occur. 
Therefore, we would also add a new paragraph (b)(5)(vi) to Sec.  
319.56-2t which would provide for all shipments of citrus from the 
Bahamas to be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate with that 
additional declaration.
    The import permit for eggplant from Belize, Costa Rica, and 
Honduras specifies that the eggplant may be imported in commercial 
shipments only. Produce grown commercially is less likely to be 
infested with plant pests than noncommercial shipments. Noncommercial 
shipments are more prone to infestations because the commodity is often 
ripe to overripe, could be of a variety with unknown susceptibility to 
pests, and is often

[[Page 75969]]

grown with little or no pest control. Commercial shipments, as defined 
in Sec.  319.56-1, are shipments of fruits and vegetables that an 
inspector identifies as having been produced for sale and distribution 
in mass markets. Identification of a particular shipment as commercial 
is based on a variety of indicators, including, but not limited to, the 
quantity of produce, the type of packaging, identification of a grower 
or packing house on the packaging, and documents consigning the 
shipment to a wholesaler or retailer.

Fruit From Fruit Fly-Free Areas

    We propose to amend Sec.  319.56-2t to allow the entry of grapes 
from Argentina, which are currently eligible for entry under permit, 
provided the shipments meet the criteria set forth in Sec.  319.56-6, 
were grown in an area recognized by APHIS as free of Mediterranean 
fruit fly (Medfly, Ceratitis capitata) and Anastrepha spp., and are 
accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the NPPO of 
Argentina. The proposed origin and phytosanitary certificate 
requirements for these fruits, which reflect the current permit 
conditions that apply to their importation, are necessary to assure us 
that the fruits originated in a fruit fly-free area and were inspected 
and found free of plant pests.
    To address those cases where grapes from Argentina are grown 
outside a fruit fly-free area, we would also amend Sec.  319.56-2x to 
add grapes from Argentina to the list of fruits and vegetables that may 
be imported into the United States provided that they are treated in 
accordance with 7 CFR part 305.

Fruits and Vegetables Enterable With Treatment

    We propose to amend Sec.  319.56-2x to list the fruits and 
vegetables in the table below as eligible for importation, provided 
they have been treated in accordance with 7 CFR part 305. The fruits 
listed are already admissible under permit with prescribed treatment. 
This proposed action would provide the same benefit as the amendments 
to Sec.  319.56-2t discussed earlier in this document, i.e., they would 
improve the transparency of our regulations. Applicable treatments have 
proven effective at mitigating the risk of introducing any quarantine 
pests that might be carried by any of the fruits and vegetables listed 
below.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Country of origin                  Common name             Botanical name            Plant parts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chile................................  Lemon..................  Citrus limon...........  Fruit.
Italy................................  Kiwi...................  Actinidia deliciosa....  Fruit.
Republic of South Africa.............  Apple..................  Malus domestica........  Fruit.
                                       Grape..................  Vitis spp..............  Fruit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cichorium From Central and South America

    As noted above, articles of the genus Cichorium are currently 
allowed importation under permit from Belize, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, 
Costa Rica, and Guatemala. In addition, articles of the genus Cichorium 
are currently listed in Sec.  319.56-2t as eligible for importation 
from Argentina, Bolivia, Ecuador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, and 
Peru. In this document, we are proposing to amend Sec.  319.56-2t to 
list Cichorium spp. from El Salvador, French Guiana, Guyana, Paraguay, 
Suriname, Uruguay, and Venezuela as enterable subject to Sec.  319.56-6 
and all other applicable requirements of the regulations.
    In 1996, we prepared a qualitative pest risk analysis entitled, 
``Fresh Cichorium endivia and Cichorium intybus for Consumption from 
Ecuador and Nicaragua into the United States.'' In our assessment, we 
examined potential pests associated with Cichorium spp. in Central 
America and South America so that we could use our conclusions as a 
basis for future import requests for Cichorium spp. from countries in 
these regions. We concluded that no quarantine pests were likely to 
follow the pathway and, because of the low risk associated with the 
importation of Cichorium spp., that inspection was the only necessary 
mitigation measure. There have been no significant developments or data 
that would necessitate changing our earlier pest risk assessments 
regarding Cichorium spp.
    Currently, in the table in Sec.  319.56-2t, in the entries for 
those Central American and South American countries noted in the 
paragraph above the previous paragraph, we list only specific species 
of cichorium (e.g., chicory) as eligible for importation. In order to 
make our regulations more clear and consistent, we also propose to 
amend Sec.  319.56-2t by removing the common name entries under 
Argentina for endive, Bolivia for Belgian endive, Ecuador for 
radicchio, Honduras for chicory, Nicaragua for radicchio, Panama for 
Belgian endive, chicory, and endive, and Peru for radicchio and to 
replace those common name entries with ``cichorium.'' This would allow 
for the importation of additional varieties of cichorium from these 
countries.

Eggplant From Central America

    Eggplant from Guatemala and Panama is listed in the table in Sec.  
319.56-2t. As a condition of entry in its import permit, shipments are 
limited to commercial eggplant only, but we failed to specify 
``commercial shipments only'' when those entries were added to Sec.  
319.56-2t. Therefore, we propose to add a reference to paragraph 
(b)(3), which specifies ``commercial shipments only,'' under the 
entries for eggplant from Guatemala and Panama in the table in Sec.  
319.56-2t.

New Zealand Spinach From Israel

    In February 2004, at the request of Israel, we prepared a pest risk 
analysis entitled, ``Importation of New Zealand Spinach, (Tetragonia 
tetragonioides) Palas., from Israel into the United States.'' In that 
document, we identified several pests associated with New Zealand 
Spinach that were known to exist in Israel, including nematodes, 
bacteria, and fungi. We determined that there was a low risk associated 
with these pests because they were either already established in the 
United States or they were not likely to follow the pathway from Israel 
to the United States. We concluded that inspection at the port of entry 
was the only necessary mitigation measure. Therefore, we propose to 
amend Sec.  319.56-2t by adding New Zealand spinach from Israel to the 
list of commodities eligible for importation into the United States.

Citrus From New Zealand

    We propose to amend Sec.  319.56-2t by adding an entry for 
commercial citrus from New Zealand. We have prepared a pest risk 
assessment and a risk management document for Citrus spp. from New 
Zealand and identified Cnephasia jactatana, Coscinoptycha improbana, 
Ctenopseustis obliquana, Epiphyas postvittana, Planotortrix excessana, 
and Pezothrips kellyanus as

[[Page 75970]]

pests of concern for citrus with a medium risk of introduction. In the 
risk management document, we described a single set of mitigation 
measures for all six pests. The mitigation measures, which are 
discussed below, are also part of the existing Australian citrus import 
program described in Sec.  319.56-2v. Australia and New Zealand have 
similar climates and citrus is subject to similar pests in both 
countries and these measures have been effective at mitigating the risk 
of introducing pests of concern on Australian citrus. Therefore, we 
believe the same mitigation measures used for Australian citrus would 
mitigate the risk of introducing quarantine pests on New Zealand citrus 
also.
    In the entry we would add for New Zealand citrus in the table in 
Sec.  319.56-2t, a reference to paragraph (b)(3) of that section, which 
states ``commercial shipments only.'' We would allow only the 
importation of commercial shipments of citrus from New Zealand because 
Cnephasia jactatana, Coscinoptycha improbana, Ctenopseustis obliquana, 
Epiphyas postvittana, and Planotortrix excessana are surface feeders 
that would be readily removed by the commercial post-harvest 
processing, which includes washing, brushing, sanitizing dips, waxing, 
and drying. Fruit are inspected after washing/brushing, and any fruit 
with unacceptable feeding damage or that are visibly infested with the 
larvae of any of the surface feeding pests are culled at this stage. 
Standard post-harvest processes for commercially produced fruit would 
also remove larval and adult P. kellyanus on the surface of the fruit. 
P. kellyanus is an early season problem with anecdotal evidence 
indicating that fruit becomes relatively resistant to P. kellyanus once 
the calyx closes up; however, there is no information available about 
the likelihood of eggs being present in fruit at the time of harvest. 
Although the species has been reported to lay eggs within the epidermis 
of green fruit in a laboratory situation, it is not known if eggs are 
laid in mature fruit under natural conditions. Oviposition, when it 
does occur, is shallow and the sanitizing agents used and heat (up to 
48 [deg]C) treatment during standard post-harvest processing would 
render non-viable most eggs that might be present in the harvested 
fruit. In addition, there is evidence that wax treatments, when used in 
combination with the other post-harvest processes discussed in this 
paragraph, provide significant control of adult arthropods in fruit 
crops (e.g., Brevipalpus chilensis in cherimoyas and citrus).
    In addition, we would amend paragraph (b) of Sec.  319.56-2t by 
adding a new paragraph (b)(5)(vii), which would require all shipments 
of citrus from New Zealand to be accompanied by a phytosanitary 
certificate issued by the country's NPPO with an additional declaration 
stating that the fruit in the shipment has been inspected and found 
free of Cnephasia jactatana, Coscinoptycha improbana, Ctenopseustis 
obliquana, Epiphyas postvittana, Planotortrix excessana, and Pezothrips 
kellyanus. The phytosanitary certificate would provide additional 
security that the fruit has been inspected prior to shipment and that 
the post-harvest procedures have been effective at removing all 
quarantine pests.
    Paragraph (b)(5)(vii) would also provide for an additional 
inspection at the port of entry consisting of a biometric sampling at a 
rate of 100 percent of 30 boxes, taken randomly throughout the 
shipment. This inspection would also include an examination of the box 
for hitchhiking pests. We believe that the post-harvest procedures, 
phytosanitary certificate, and port-of-entry inspection would 
effectively mitigate the risk of introducing the pests of concern into 
the United States.

Pineapples From South Africa

    We currently allow pineapples from South Africa entry into all 
States, except Hawaii, and territories without restrictions, but the 
pest risk assessment entitled ``Importation of Pineapple Fruit (Ananas 
comosus) from South Africa into the Continental United States'' (March 
1997) only evaluated the risks associated with the importation of South 
African pineapples into the continental United States. This oversight 
has recently come to our attention and in order to correct it, we would 
amend the entry for pineapples from South Africa in the table in Sec.  
319.56-2t by adding a reference to a new paragraph (b)(2)(v), which 
would limit distribution to the continental United States only and 
require shipments to be labeled accordingly.

Miscellaneous Changes to Sec. Sec.  319.56-2t and 319.56-2x

    We propose to make several nomenclature changes to commodities 
listed in Sec. Sec.  319.56-2t and 319.56-2x. These changes would more 
accurately describe each commodity, are more universally understood, 
and would allow for easier identification at ports of entry. In Sec.  
319.56-2t, we propose to change the common name of chard from the 
Republic of Korea to Swiss chard and to change the plant part entry to 
read ``leaf and stem'' instead of ``leaf.'' We also propose to change 
the botanical name for Swiss chard from Peru from Beta vulgaris to Beta 
vulgaris subsp. cicla. In Sec.  319.56-2x, we propose to amend the 
entry for El Salvador by changing the common name for garden bean to 
green bean.
    We also propose to make nonsubstantive changes to Sec.  319.56-2t 
for clarity. We propose to revise the plant parts entries for rambutan, 
longan, and litchi to include ``cluster;'' for bananas from Mexico to 
read ``flower and leaf'' instead of ``flower and fruit;'' for loroco 
from El Salvador and Nicaragua to read ``flower and leaf;'' and for 
cassava from Sierra Leone to read ``leaf and root.''
    In Sec.  319.56-2x, we would amend all entries for litchis and 
longan to include ``cluster'' under the plant parts heading.

Tomatoes From Chile

    Currently, the regulations in Sec.  319.56-2dd(d) provide for 
tomatoes from Chile to be imported only if treated for Medfly, the 
fruit fly Rhagoletis tomatis, and tomato leafminer (Tuta absoluta) with 
methyl bromide in accordance with 7 CFR part 305. In March 2005, in an 
effort to develop alternatives to methyl bromide fumigation, we 
prepared a pest risk analysis entitled, ``Importation of Fresh Tomato 
Fruit (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) from Chile into the United 
States.'' The risk analysis evaluated the efficacy of a systems 
approach against Medfly, Rhagoletis tomatis, Tuta absoluta, and 
Liriomyza huidobrensis, a leafminer. A systems approach is defined as a 
set of phytosanitary procedures, at least two of which have an 
independent effect in mitigating pest risk associated with the movement 
of commodities, whereby fruits and vegetables may be imported into the 
United States from countries that are not free of certain pests.
    We propose to amend Sec.  319.56-2dd by reorganizing paragraph (d) 
and by adding a new paragraph (d)(2) which would set forth provisions 
of a systems approach for tomatoes from all regions in Chile. The 
regulations in Sec.  319.56-2dd currently provide for the importation 
of tomatoes from Spain, France, and Morocco into the United States 
under a similar systems approach. Since the implementation of the 
systems approach, pest interceptions associated with tomatoes from 
Spain and France have been low, which demonstrate the effectiveness of 
the systems approach. The provisions of the systems approach, described 
below,

[[Page 75971]]

would include mitigation measures for Medfly, Rhagoletis tomatis, Tuta 
absoluta, and Liriomyza huidobrensis.
    Under paragraph (d)(2)(i) of the proposed regulations, we would 
require all production sites to be approved and registered with the 
NPPO of Chile. Initial approval of production sites would be done by 
APHIS and the NPPO of Chile. The NPPO of Chile would be required to 
visit and inspect the sites monthly starting 2 months before harvest 
and continuing through the end of the shipping season. APHIS could 
monitor the production sites at any time during this period.
    Paragraph (d)(2)(ii) would require tomato production sites to 
consist of pest exclusionary greenhouses, which would be required to 
have self-closing double doors and have all other openings and vents 
covered with 1.6 mm (or less) screening.
    Under paragraph (d)(2)(iii) of the proposed regulations, production 
sites located in a region of Chile where Medfly occurs would have to 
conduct trapping for Medfly; this trapping would not be required for 
Medfly-free regions of the country. Medfly free areas of Chile are 
listed in Sec.  319.56-2, paragraph (j). Where trapping is necessary, 
we would require McPhail traps with an approved protein bait be placed 
inside greenhouses at a density of 4 traps/10 ha, with a minimum of at 
least 2 traps per greenhouse. We would also require a minimum of 10 
traps with trimedlure to be placed inside a buffer area 500 meters wide 
around the registered production site, at a density of 1 trap/10 ha. At 
least one of these traps would have to be near a greenhouse. All traps 
would have to be checked on a weekly basis.
    Production sites would have to maintain Medfly prevalence levels of 
0.7 fly/trap/week (F/T/W) or less for 2 months before harvest and 
throughout the harvest season in order to maintain their registration. 
If the F/T/W exceeds this level, the production site would be 
prohibited from shipping under the systems approach until APHIS and the 
NPPO of Chile agree that risk mitigation has been achieved.
    Production sites in all areas of Chile would be required to put in 
place mitigation measures for Rhagoletis tomatis, Tuta absoluta, and 
Liriomyza huidobrensis.
    Under paragraph (d)(2)(iv), all registered production sites would 
have to conduct trapping for Rhagoletis tomatis. We would require 
McPhail traps with an approved protein bait be placed inside 
greenhouses at a density of 4 traps/10 ha, with a minimum of at least 2 
traps per greenhouse. We would require only the use of a protein bait 
approved for R. tomatis inside greenhouses because the bait is strong 
enough to attract both fruit flies if they are present inside 
greenhouses without attracting additional Medflies from outside of 
greenhouses. Therefore, it would be unnecessary to duplicate the 
trapping protocol for greenhouses in areas where Medfly is known to 
occur. We would require McPhail traps with an approved protein bait be 
placed in the area surrounding the production site. Traps would have to 
be placed inside a 500 meter buffer zone at a density of 1 trap/10 ha 
for a minimum of 10 traps. At least one of the traps would have to be 
near a greenhouse. All traps would have to be checked on a weekly 
basis. There is only one approved bait for R. tomatis and it is a weak 
lure for Medfly. While this bait would be sufficient to attract Medfly 
in the confines of a greenhouse, it would not be strong enough to 
attract Medfly in the open areas surrounding a greenhouse. Therefore, 
it would be necessary to use separate traps for both Medfly and R. 
tomatis in areas surrounding production sites in areas where Medfly 
exists.
    If within 30 days of harvest a single Rhagoletis tomatis is 
captured inside the greenhouse or in a consignment or if two R. tomatis 
are captured or detected in the buffer zone, shipments from the 
production site would be suspended until APHIS and the NPPO of Chile 
determine that risk mitigation is achieved.
    Paragraph (d)(2)(v) would require that registered production sites 
conduct regular inspections for Tuta absoluta throughout the harvest 
season and find these areas free of T. absoluta evidence (e.g., eggs or 
larvae). We would not require trapping for T. absoluta in the 
greenhouses or surrounding areas because the female T. absoluta 
releases a powerful pheromone that can lure males from long distances.
    If within 30 days of harvest two Tuta absoluta are captured inside 
the greenhouse or a single T. absoluta is found inside the fruit or in 
a consignment, shipments from the production site would be suspended 
until APHIS and the NPPO of Chile determine that risk mitigation is 
achieved.
    Under paragraph (d)(2)(vi), we would require that the NPPO of Chile 
conduct monthly inspections for Liriomyza huidobrensis leaf mines and 
visible external pupae or adults to maintain low populations of the 
pest inside greenhouses. L. huidobrensis larvae frequently mine along 
the midribs of leaves and late instar larvae and are almost always 
found mining the lower surfaces of leaves or within petioles, making 
them easy to identify. If L. huidobrensis is found to be generally 
infesting the production site, APHIS would immediately cancel exports 
from the production site until APHIS and the NPPO of Chile determine 
that risk mitigation is achieved. We believe these inspections would 
successfully mitigate the risk associated with L. huidobrensis because 
the mines are easy to detect in visual inspections.
    Under paragraph (d)(2)(vii), we would require that all traps in 
registered sites be placed at least 2 months prior to the harvest and 
be maintained through the harvest season. We would also require traps 
to be monitored and serviced weekly.
    Under paragraph (d)(2)(viii), we would require the NPPO of Chile to 
maintain records of trap placement, checking of traps, and of any 
Rhagoletis tomatis or Tuta absoluta captures for 1 year for APHIS 
review. The NPPO of Chile would be required to maintain an APHIS 
approved quality control program to monitor or audit the trapping 
program. APHIS would have to be notified when a production site is 
removed from or added to the program.
    Paragraph (d)(2)(ix) would require the tomatoes be packed within 24 
hours of harvest in a pest exclusionary packinghouse and be safeguarded 
by a pest-proof screen or plastic tarpaulin while in transit to the 
packinghouse and while awaiting packing. In addition tomatoes, would 
have to be packed in insect-proof cartons or containers or covered with 
insect-proof mesh or plastic tarpaulin, for transit to the United 
States, which would have to remain intact until arrival in the United 
States. These requirements would safeguard harvested fruit from 
infestation as well as deter additional pests that may hitchhike with 
the shipment.
    Under paragraph (d)(2)(x) we would require the packinghouse to only 
accept fruit from registered approved production sites during the time 
the packinghouse is in use for exporting fruit to the United States. 
This measure would ensure that fruit grown and harvested under the 
systems approach would not be exposed to potentially infested fruit 
from unregistered groves.
    Finally, paragraph (d)(2)(xi) would require each shipment of 
tomatoes to be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the 
NPPO of Chile with an additional declaration, ``These tomatoes were 
grown in an approved production site in Chile.'' In addition, we would 
require each shipment box to

[[Page 75972]]

be labeled with the identity of the production site.

Mangoes From Philippines

    Section 319.56-2ii contains administrative instructions to provide 
for the importation of mangoes from the Phillippines. Currently, only 
mangos from the island of Guimaras are allowed importation into the 
United States because it is the only area in the Philippines that is 
free of mango seed weevil, a quarantine pest. We have determined that 
mangos can be safely imported from most areas of the Philippines into 
Guam and Hawaii because the mango seed weevil is already present in 
those areas. Therefore, we propose to amend Sec.  319.56-2ii to allow 
mangos to be imported from all areas of the Philippines, except the 
island of Palawan, into Guam and Hawaii. The island of Palawan is an 
exception because the pulp seed weevil is present there, a pest that is 
not known to exist in the United States. Shipments would be allowed 
importation into Guam and Hawaii provided that they are labeled ``For 
distribution in Guam and Hawaii only.'' We would also require shipments 
of mangoes originating from those additional islands of the Philippines 
to meet all other provisions set forth in Sec.  319.56-2ii, which 
include vapor heat treatment for fruit flies of the genus Bactrocera, 
inspection in either the Philippines or the port of first arrival in 
the United States, and a phytosanitary certificate stating that the 
shipment has been treated for fruit flies of the genus Bactrocera in 
accordance with paragraph (b) of Sec.  319.56-2ii.

Miscellaneous

    We propose to amend Sec.  319.56-1 by adding a definition of 
national plant protection organization (NPPO). Our proposed definition 
is the same as that provided in the International Plant Protection 
Convention's Glossary of Phytosanitary Terms.

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 
economic effects of this proposed rule on small entities. Based on the 
information we have, there is no reason to conclude that adoption of 
this proposed rule would result in any significant economic effect 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 that may incur benefits or 
costs from the implementation of this proposed rule.
    Under the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701-7772), the Secretary 
of Agriculture is authorized to regulate the importation of plants, 
plant products, and other articles to prevent the introduction of plant 
pests into the United States or the dissemination of plant pests within 
the United States.
    We propose to amend the fruits and vegetables regulations to list a 
number of fruits and vegetables from certain parts of the world as 
eligible, under specified conditions, for importation into the United 
States. Many of these fruits and vegetables are already being imported 
under permit, but are not specifically listed in the regulations. All 
of the fruits and vegetables, as a condition of entry, would be 
inspected and subject to treatment at the port of first arrival as may 
be required by an inspector. In addition, some of the fruits and 
vegetables would be required to be treated or meet other special 
conditions. We also propose to eliminate or modify existing treatment 
requirements for specified commodities and make other miscellaneous 
changes. These actions would improve the transparency of our 
regulations while continuing to protect against the introduction of 
quarantine pests through imported fruits and vegetables.

Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires agencies to consider the 
economic impact of their regulations on small entities and to use 
flexibility to provide regulatory relief when regulations create 
economic disparities between differently sized entities. Data on the 
number and size of U.S. producers of the various commodities proposed 
for importation into the United States in this document are not 
available. However, since most fruit and vegetable farms are small by 
Small Business Administration standards, it is likely that the majority 
of U.S. farms producing the commodities listed below are small 
entities.
    As previously stated, many of the commodities listed in this 
document may currently enter the United States under permit. Therefore, 
we do not expect the amount of many commodities submitted for 
importation to increase beyond current levels. Additionally, in many 
cases, importation of certain commodities is necessary given that the 
commodities are not grown extensively in the United States (e.g., 
chicory, kiwis, and mangoes). In other instances, importation augments 
domestic supplies that are not sufficient to meet consumer demand 
(e.g., apples, garlic, and onions).

Grapes and Cichorium From Argentina

    Grapes from Argentina are already admissible under permit into the 
United States. The United States imports an average of 490,000 tons of 
grapes (7 percent of its domestic supply) per year to satisfy its 
domestic demand for consumption.\1\ However, less than 1 percent of 
these imports originate in Argentina. The growing season for grapes in 
Argentina is opposite of that in the United States, thereby 
complementing rather than competing with U.S. grape production. 
Therefore, even if we assume that Argentina greatly increases its 
exports of grapes to the United States, it is more likely to displace 
other countries' share of U.S. imports than to affect the level of U.S. 
consumption of domestic grapes. The economic impact on the level of 
U.S. grape consumption and production resulting from this proposed 
change is expected to be small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ FAOSTAT for production data. USDA/FAS Global Agricultural 
Trade System using data from the U.N. Statistical Office. Trade 
Data: Harmonized Tariff Schedule for trade data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to cichorium, no official production data are 
available in either the United States or Argentina. Therefore, we 
assume that both the United States and Argentina are small commercial 
producers of cichorium. Between 2000 and 2003, U.S. imports of fresh 
cichorium averaged 3.8 thousand tons of a non-witloof variety and 2.5 
thousand tons of a witloof variety; none of these imports originated in 
Argentina.\2\ Between 2000 and 2003, Argentina's exports of cichorium 
to the world as a whole averaged 7 metric tons annually. Even if all of 
these exports were directed to the United States, they would only 
represent 0.11 percent of U.S. demand for imported cichorium. The 
economic impact resulting from this proposed change is not expected to 
be substantial.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ FAOSTAT for production data. USDA/FAS Global Agricultural 
Trade System using data from the U.N. Statistical Office. Trade 
Data: Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HS: 070529 non-witloof variety of 
chicory, and 070521 fresh chicory of witloof variety).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Allium spp. From Canada

    Alliaceous vegetables (i.e., onions, shallots, leeks, and garlic) 
from Canada can be imported into the United States

[[Page 75973]]

under the general permit in Sec.  319.56-2(c) for articles from Canada. 
Between 2000 and 2003, Canada supplied 19 percent of annual U.S. 
imports of shallots and onions, 3 percent of U.S. imports of leeks and 
0.62 percent of U.S. imports of garlic on average.\3\ U.S. imports 
amount to less than 10 percent of U.S. production of shallots and 
onions and less than 15 percent of U.S. garlic production. The proposed 
rule would add, as a condition of entry, that each shipment of 
alliaceous vegetables consisting of the whole plant or above ground 
parts be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate containing an 
additional declaration from the Canadian NPPO that the shipment is free 
of Acrolepiopsis assectella. We would not expect exporters to incur any 
additional expenses as a result of this proposed requirement. 
Therefore, U.S. importers/consumers of these commodities would not see 
an increase in the cost of alliaceous vegetables from Canada. Even if 
exporters of alliaceous vegetables from Canada were to experience an 
increase in exporting cost because of the phytosanitary requirement and 
pass this on to U.S. importers/consumers, the benefits of keeping the 
leek moth out of the United States would outweigh such an increase in 
cost. As a result, the economic impact on the U.S. level of demand for 
consumption and/or production of alliaceous vegetables is not expected 
to be significant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ FAOSTAT for production data. USDA/FAS Global Agricultural 
Trade System using data from the U.N. Statistical Office. Trade 
Data: Harmonized Tariff Schedule for trade data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cichorium, Lemons, and Tomatoes (Under a Systems Approach) From Chile

    Lemons from Chile are already being imported into the United States 
under permit; between 2000 and 2003, 4 percent of annual U.S. imports 
of lemons and limes originated in Chile.\4\ We have no reason to expect 
that listing lemons from Chile in the regulations would result in an 
increase in exports. Even if we assume that Chile increases its exports 
of lemons into the United States, it is more likely to displace other 
countries' share for U.S. imports of them than to affect the level of 
U.S. consumption of domestic lemons. The economic impact resulting from 
this change is not expected to be substantial.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Source of Production Data: https://apps.fao.org/faostat/
agriculture/. Production data for lemons include limes. Source of 
Trade Data: USDA/FAS Global Agricultural Trade System using data 
from the U.N. Statistical Office. Harmonized Tariff Schedule 6 
digits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Tomatoes from Chile are already being imported into the United 
States if fumigated with methyl bromide. The proposed rule would 
provide tomato producers with an alternative to methyl bromide 
fumigation by providing for a systems approach. APHIS continues to 
strive to meet the objectives of the Montreal Protocol by providing 
alternatives to methyl bromide fumigation treatment for fruit and 
vegetable producers. As registered producers in Chile already comply 
with most of the production practices that would be required under the 
systems approach, the proposed requirements would not likely result in 
any additional economic burden to tomato producers. In addition, 
registered producers who remain in compliance with the program 
throughout the shipping season would save money on costly fumigation 
treatments. Between 2000 and 2003, 0.02 percent of U.S. annual imports 
of tomatoes originated in Chile.\5\ The total amount of tomatoes from 
Chile exported to the world between 2000 and 2003 (all varieties) was 
on average only 2,209 tons or 0.38 percent of U.S. imports. This is 
Chile's maximum capacity of tomato exports and is not expected to 
increase in the short term. This small amount of imports, whether grown 
under the systems approach or treated with methyl bromide, is unlikely 
to affect the level of U.S. consumption of domestic tomatoes. The 
economic impact resulting from this change is not expected to be 
substantial.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Source of Production Data: https://apps.fao.org/faostat/
agriculture/. Source of Trade Data: USDA/FAS Global Agricultural 
Trade System using data from the U.N. Statistical Office. Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule 6 digits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to cichorium, there are no available data on U.S. or 
Chilean production. The United States imports approximately 6,000 tons 
of cichorium per year. Cichorium is already being imported from Chile 
under permit, and Chile is a major source of U.S. cichorium imports, 
accounting for approximately 32 percent on average. Because the United 
States is such a small producer of cichorium, it is unlikely that this 
proposed rule would significantly alter this situation. In fact, the 
addition of cichorium into the U.S. market from other countries such as 
Chile would be a benefit to U.S. consumers. The economic impact on the 
level of U.S. consumption of cichorium, lemons, and tomatoes as a 
result of these proposed changes is expected to be small.

New Zealand Spinach From Israel

    According to USDA's Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS), in 2000, 
the United States imported 1.5 metric tons of New Zealand spinach from 
Israel (0.02 percent of U.S. imports of New Zealand spinach in 2000). 
However, APHIS' Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) program has no 
record of these imports and New Zealand spinach from Israel is not 
currently admissible into the United States.\6\ Israel is a small 
producer of spinach (all varieties), producing, on average, an amount 
equivalent to a quarter of total U.S. spinach imports annually. The 
amount imported in 2000 corresponds to 50 percent of Israel's exports. 
Even if we assume that Israel would double its exports into the United 
States, it could not supply more than 0.04 percent of U.S. demand for 
imports of spinach. The economic effects of this proposed change on the 
level of U.S. consumption and/or production of spinach are not expected 
to be significant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The United States imported spinach from Israel for the first 
time in year 2000, but did not import any Israeli spinach in 2001, 
2002, or 2003. Source: U.N. Trade Statistics, FAS Global 
Agricultural Trade System using data from the U.N. Statistical 
Office. Trade Data: Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HS 6 Digit--070970) 
spinach fresh or chilled. Source of production data: https://
apps.fao.org/faostat/agriculture/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kiwi From Italy

    Kiwi fruits from Italy can already be imported into the United 
States under permit. The United States is a small kiwi producer that 
imports almost twice as much as it produces to satisfy its domestic 
demand.\7\ Italy supplies approximately 16 percent of U.S. imported 
kiwi fruits, and it is unlikely that this would change as a result of 
this proposed rule. Even if Italy increased its exports of kiwi to the 
United States, it would most likely displace another countries' share 
because the United States is such a small producer of kiwi. The 
economic impact resulting from this proposed change on the level of 
U.S. consumption is not expected to be substantial.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Source: U.N. Trade Statistics, FAS Global Agricultural Trade 
System using data from the U.N. Statistical Office.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Citrus From New Zealand

    Although FAS statistics indicate that between 2001 and 2003, New 
Zealand supplied, on average, 0.006 percent of U.S. imports of oranges 
and lemons,\8\ APHIS' PPQ has no records of these imports and citrus 
fruit from New Zealand are not currently admissible into the United 
States. New Zealand is a small producer/exporter of citrus, and the 
country's exports account for less than 1 percent of U.S. imports of 
citrus on average. Its total citrus production is

[[Page 75974]]

less than 8 percent of U.S. imports of citrus as a whole. Because the 
United States would import such a small percentage of New Zealand 
citrus, even if we assume that New Zealand greatly increases its 
exports to the United States, it is unlikely to have a substantial 
economic impact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Total citrus trade data here includes the following 
categories of fruits: Oranges (HS-6: 080510), mandarins (HS-6: 
080520), lemons (HS-6: 080530), and grapefruits (HS-6: 080540).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mangoes From the Philippines

    The United States currently imports a very small amount of mangoes 
(18 tons per year on average) from the Philippines.\9\ Because the 
Philippines is a significant producer of mangoes, allowing mangoes to 
be imported into Hawaii and Guam from additional production areas in 
the Philippines could result in mango exports from the Philippines 
capturing a larger share of those two markets. U.S. mango production is 
less than 1 percent of the amount the United States needs to satisfy 
its domestic consumption. Between 2001 and 2002, the United States 
imported approximately 100 times the amount of its domestic mango 
production, with most imports coming from Mexico. Thus, allowing 
imports from more islands in the Philippines would be a benefit to U.S. 
consumers in Guam and Hawaii. The economic impact of this proposed 
change on the level of U.S. consumption or its domestic production of 
mangoes is not expected to be significant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Trade Data: Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HS 6 Digit). Source 
of production data: https://apps.fao.org/faostat/agriculture/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Apples and Grapes From South Africa

    Apples and grapes from South Africa can already be imported into 
the United States under permit. South Africa supplies 3 percent of U.S. 
imports of apples and a little less than 2 percent of U.S. imports of 
grapes.\10\ With respect to grapes, South African exports alone cannot 
satisfy U.S. demand for domestic consumption. Even if South Africa 
directs all of its exports of grapes (880,590 tons) into the United 
States, it would be only enough to supply 22 percent of U.S. annual 
demand. The economic impact of this proposed change on the level of 
U.S. consumption and/or domestic production of apples and/or grapes is 
not expected to be significant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Source: U.N. Trade Statistics, FAS Global Agricultural 
Trade System using data from the U.N. Statistical Office. Trade 
Data: Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HS 6 Digit). Source of production 
data: https://apps.fao.org/faostat/agriculture/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cichorium From Central and South America

    There are no official data available for cichorium in any of the 
above countries, either on production or trade in Bolivia, Brazil, 
Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, French Guiana, Guyana, 
Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Suriname, Uruguay, and 
Venezuela. Thus, we assume that these countries are very small 
producers of cichorium and that they are either not currently exporting 
cichorium or are exporting only small amounts. For these reasons, we 
cannot determine what the economic effects of this proposed rule would 
be, but they are not expected to be significant.

Summary

    U.S. importation of commodities included in this proposed rule is 
not expected to have a significant economic impact on U.S. small 
entities. The different production season of the Southern Hemisphere, 
where many of the fruits and vegetables included in this proposed rule 
are produced, helps maintain a steady supply of fresh produce, 
complementing rather than competing with U.S. production of these 
commodities. For those commodities that are not principal U.S. 
products, the additional supply will help satisfy growing demand for 
these specialty crops. It does not appear that the changes proposed in 
this document would have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of economic entities. However, we invite public comment on this 
analysis.
    This proposed rule contains certain reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements (see ``Paperwork Reduction Act'' below).

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. 03-086-1. 
Please send a copy of your comments to: (1) Docket No. 03-086-1, 
Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 
River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238, and (2) Clearance 
Officer, OCIO, USDA, room 404-W, 14th Street 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.
    In this document, we are proposing to allow a number of fruits and 
vegetables from certain countries of the world to be imported into the 
United States, under specified conditions. Before entering the United 
States, all of the fruits and vegetables would be subject to inspection 
and disinfection at the port of first arrival in the United States to 
ensure that no plant pests are inadvertently brought into the United 
States. These precautions, along with other requirements, would ensure 
that these items can be imported into the United States with a minimal 
risk of introducing exotic plant pests such as fruit flies.
    Allowing these fruits and vegetables to be imported would 
necessitate the use of certain information collection activities, 
including the completion of import permits, phytosanitary certificates, 
and fruit fly monitoring records.
    We are soliciting comments from the public (as well as affected 
agencies) concerning our proposed information collection and 
recordkeeping requirements. These comments will help us:
    (1) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is 
necessary for the proper performance of our agency's functions, 
including whether the information will have practical utility;
    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the 
proposed information collection, including the validity of the 
methodology and assumptions used;

[[Page 75975]]

    (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 1.0796255 hours per response.
    Respondents: Growers, shippers, national plant protection 
organizations.
    Estimated annual number of respondents: 61,190.
    Estimated annual number of responses per respondent: 1.83979.
    Estimated annual number of responses: 112,577.
    Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 121,541 hours. (Due 
to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product 
of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden 
per response.)
    Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Mrs. 
Celeste Sickles, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 
734-7477.

Government Paperwork Elimination Act Compliance

    The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is committed to 
compliance with the Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA), which 
requires Government agencies in general to provide the public the 
option of submitting information or transacting business electronically 
to the maximum extent possible. For information pertinent to GPEA 
compliance related to this proposed rule, please contact Mrs. Celeste 
Sickles, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 734-7477.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 319

    Coffee, Cotton, Fruits, Imports, Logs, Nursery stock, Plant 
diseases and pests, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Rice, Vegetables.

    Accordingly, we propose to amend 7 CFR part 319 as follows:

PART 319--FOREIGN QUARANTINE NOTICES

    1. The authority citation for part 319 would continue to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 450, 7701-7772, and 7781-7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 
and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.

    2. Section 319.56-1 would be amended by adding, in alphabetical 
order, a definition for national plant protection organization (NPPO) 
to read as follows:


Sec.  319.56-1  Definitions.

* * * * *
    National plant protection organization (NPPO). Official service 
established by a government to discharge the functions specified by the 
International Plant Protection Convention.
* * * * *
    3. In Sec.  319.56-2, paragraph (c) would be revised to read as 
follows:


Sec.  319.56-2  Restrictions on entry of fruits and vegetables.

* * * * *
    (c) General permit for fruits and vegetables grown in Canada. 
Fruits and vegetables grown in Canada may be imported into the United 
States without restriction under this subpart; provided, that:
    (1) Consignments of Allium spp. consisting of the whole plant or 
above ground parts must be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate 
issued by the NPPO of Canada with an additional declaration stating 
that the articles are free from Acrolepipsis assectella (Zeller).
    (2) Potatoes from Newfoundland and that portion of the Municipality 
of Central Saanich in the Province of British Columbia east of the West 
Saanich Road are prohibited importation into the United States in 
accordance with Sec.  319.37-2 of this part.
* * * * *
    4. Section 319.56-2t would be amended as follows:
    a. In the table in paragraph (a), by:
    i. Revising the following entries to read as set forth below: Under 
Belize, for rambutan; under Bermuda, for longan; under Costa Rica, for 
rambutan; under El Salvador, for loroco and rambutan; under Grenada, 
for litchi and rambutan; under Guatemala, for eggplant and rambutan; 
under Honduras, for rambutan; under Mexico, for banana and rambutan; 
under Nicaragua, for loroco and rambutan; under Panama, for eggplant 
and rambutan; under Peru, for Swiss chard; under Sierra Leone, for 
cassava; and under South Africa, for pineapple.
    ii. Removing the following entries: Under Argentina, for endive; 
under Bolivia, for Belgian endive; under Ecuador, for radicchio; under 
Honduras, for chicory; under Nicaragua, for radicchio; under Panama, 
for Belgian endive, chicory, and endive; under Peru, for radicchio; and 
under Republic of Korea, for chard.
    iii. Adding, in alphabetical order, the following entries to read 
as set forth below: Under Argentina, for cichorium and grape; under 
Belize, for cichorium and eggplant; under Bolivia, for cichorium; under 
Chile, for cichorium; under Colombia, for cichorium; under Costa Rica, 
fo