Importation of Fruits and Vegetables; Untreated Citrus From Mexico, 33172-33178 [E6-8935]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
• Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 110 (Thursday, June 8, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33172-33178]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-8935]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

7 CFR Part 319

[Docket No. 03-048-3]


Importation of Fruits and Vegetables; Untreated Citrus From 
Mexico

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are amending the fruits and vegetables regulations to 
provide for the importation of untreated citrus (grapefruit, sweet 
oranges, and tangerines) from Mexico for processing under certain 
conditions. We believe the conditions under which untreated citrus from 
Mexico will be allowed importation to be sufficient for safeguarding 
fruit that are moving from Mexico to Texas. This action will relieve 
unnecessary restrictions while continuing to protect against the 
introduction of quarantine pests through imported fruits.

DATES: Effective Date: July 10, 2006.

[[Page 33173]]


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. David Lamb, Import Specialist, 
Commodity Import Analysis and Operations, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road 
Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737-1228; (301) 734-4312.

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.
    On March 31, 2005, we published in the Federal Register (70 FR 
16431-16445, Docket No. 03-048-1) a proposal to amend the 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. We also proposed to recognize areas in several countries 
as free from certain fruit flies; add an alternative treatment for 
specified commodities; provide for the importation of untreated citrus 
from Mexico for processing under certain conditions; eliminate or 
modify existing treatment requirements for specified commodities; and 
to add, modify, or remove certain definitions and make other 
miscellaneous changes.
    We solicited comments concerning our proposal for 60 days ending 
May 31, 2005. We received 29 comments by that date. They were from 
representatives of State governments, industry organizations, importers 
and exporters, producers, scientists, and individuals.
    We addressed the majority of the comments in another final rule, 
which was published in the Federal Register on December 8, 2005 (70 FR 
72881-72892, Docket No. 03-048-2). In that final rule, we took final 
action on all aspects of our March 2005 proposed rule except for the 
proposed provisions regarding the importation of untreated citrus from 
Mexico into the United States for processing, about which six 
commenters raised specific concerns (two other commenters supported the 
proposed provisions). In order to give ourselves additional time to 
consider the issues raised by those six commenters regarding those 
proposed provisions without delaying final action on the other aspects 
of the proposed rule, our December 2005 final rule stated that we would 
issue another document in the Federal Register in the future regarding 
the importation of untreated citrus from Mexico into the United States 
for processing.
    In this final rule, we address the comments we received regarding 
the proposed provisions regarding the importation of untreated 
grapefruit, sweet oranges, and tangerines from Mexico for processing. 
The issues raised by the commenters are discussed below.

General Comments

    Several commenters questioned the proposed program in general, 
asking why the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) would 
consider allowing potentially infested fruit to be imported into areas 
of Texas where a substantial amount of money is being spent to maintain 
and upgrade the Mexican fruit fly (Anastrepha ludens) suppression 
program. These commenters stated that allowing untreated citrus fruit 
to be imported would exacerbate the Mexican fruit fly situation in 
Texas, a situation they noted has been complicated by Arizona and 
California denying market access for most Texas oranges and grapefruit 
due to the April 2005 detection of live Mexican fruit fly larvae in two 
truckloads of treated grapefruit shipped from Texas. The commenters 
stated that those detections highlight the need to review and expand 
the suppression activities in south Texas, and the absolute need to 
prevent, so far as possible, the introduction of additional flies from 
Mexico.
    The protocol governing the fruit fly trapping activities in Mexican 
production areas required by this rule, monitored under an APHIS-
approved quality control program, will provide a level of phytosanitary 
security that will be equivalent to the strengthened Texas Lower Rio 
Grande Protocol for 2005/2006. According to the trapping protocol, if 
just one Mexican fruit fly, sapote fruit fly (A. serpentina), or 
Mediterranean fruit fly (Ceratitis capitata, Medfly) is found, exports 
from the production site of origin will be prohibited until other 
measures have been taken to ensure the absence of fruit flies in the 
site. APHIS must approve these measures and consider them effective 
before permitting the production site to resume exports. Measures could 
include increased trapping densities, pesticide applications, or other 
measures that would correspond with conditions for interstate movement 
of fruit from production sites in the United States where fruit flies 
are detected. This requirement would ensure that imported untreated 
citrus originates from areas with low prevalence for Mexican fruit fly 
and freedom from sapote fruit fly and Medfly. In addition, this rule's 
requirements for packing the fruit in insect-proof cartons or covering 
the fruit with insect-proof mesh or a plastic tarpaulin for transit 
will further mitigate the pest risk. Lastly, because the citrus will be 
moving from Mexico to Texas for immediate juicing rather than 
consumption, it will present a significantly lower risk of pest 
introduction than fruit intended for consumption because the process of 
juicing itself is a mitigation measure.
    One commenter stated that the Mexican fruit fly populations in 
Mexico are several times (sometimes even a hundredfold) greater than 
those in Texas and that lowering these populations to the levels in 
Texas would be an enormous task for Mexican growers. Similarly, another 
commenter stated that there are so many fruit flies of various species 
infesting wild and domestic citrus and other hosts in Mexican 
production areas that nothing short of a massive suppression program 
would have any practical hope of success. The first commenter stated 
that releasing sterile flies alone would not accomplish the goal of 
lowering Mexican fruit fly populations levels in Mexico's production 
areas and recommended that a systems approach be employed to reduce 
those population levels to the levels found in Texas. These commenters 
stated that until such a reduction is realized, which one of the 
commenters questioned as even being possible, the shipment of untreated 
fruit into Texas poses a serious risk of pest introduction.
    Mexican fruit fly is native to Mexico and it is true that there are 
parts of Mexico that are heavily infested, but there are also parts of 
Mexico that have been recognized as free areas for Mexican fruit fly by 
APHIS (see Sec.  319.56-2(h) of the regulations). It will be the 
obligation of the Mexican growers, in cooperation with the national 
plant protection organization (NPPO) of Mexico, to ensure that fruit 
destined to the United States for juicing meets all the requirements 
outlined in this rule to mitigate any pest risk. All of the independent 
requirements, including trapping and the preventative release program, 
need to be met before citrus for juicing is allowed entry into areas of 
the United States that are listed in 7 CFR 301.64-3 as quarantined 
areas for the Mexican fruit fly.
    One of the commenters noted that while Mexico is seeking to export 
untreated citrus to the United States, Mexican authorities continue to 
require that shipments of citrus fruit from Texas to Mexico be treated.

[[Page 33174]]

    Untreated citrus from Mexico will be exported to specific areas in 
the State of Texas for the sole purpose of processing (juicing). This 
scenario is not the same as citrus shipments from Texas destined to 
Mexico for consumption. In addition, untreated Mexican citrus will be 
packed in insect-proof cartons or containers or covered with insect-
proof mesh or plastic tarpaulin during its movement to Texas to further 
mitigate the risk of introducing fruit flies.
    One commenter asked if the activities called for under the proposed 
provisions would be paid for and supported by the Mexican Government, 
or if the U.S. Government intended to provide funding for the necessary 
activities in Mexican production areas and during the transport of the 
fruit into the United States.
    Cost of the Mexican program will be borne by Mexico. In some cases, 
such as the preventative release program, costs will be shared by APHIS 
and Mexico. In this example, APHIS will pay for flies to be dropped in 
Mexico, which may aid in the certification of fruit for exportation 
into the United States. We note, however, that assisting Mexico in 
reducing fruit fly levels along the border will be beneficial in 
keeping our own fruit fly levels down as well.
    One commenter stated that it was unclear as to whether Mexican 
producers wanted to export fruit year round or only into a zone in 
South Texas when trapping within a particular portion of the Mexican 
fruit fly quarantined area in Texas indicates an increase in fruit fly 
levels, thus triggering the application of additional suppression and 
mitigation measures in that area.
    At this time we are unsure as to the exporting intentions of 
Mexican producers; however, there is nothing in this rule to prevent 
them from exporting citrus year round.
    Several commenters viewed the proposed provisions as an erosion of 
U.S. phytosanitary security standards. One commenter, noting that the 
regulations already provide for the importation of fruits and 
vegetables from fruit-fly-free production areas, stated that APHIS 
should not lower its standards to require only a low prevalence of 
reproducing fruit flies in production areas, especially with respect to 
areas in Mexico where there is a variety of indigenous fruit fly 
populations.
    We disagree with the assertion that there is an erosion of 
phytosanitary security standards. This rule requires that the fruit 
must originate from an area that has a low prevalence of Mexican fruit 
fly and is free of Medfly and sapote fruit fly, as is the case in the 
areas in Texas into which fruit will be allowed importation for 
processing. In addition, the preventative release program mirrors that 
which is required in areas quarantined for Mexican fruit fly in Texas. 
Because the entry of the fruit will be limited to an area with similar 
pest conditions, we have concluded that untreated Mexican citrus can be 
safely imported under the prescribed conditions. Further, fruits and 
vegetables imported into the United States from fruit-fly-free 
production areas are typically imported for fresh consumption and may 
be moved throughout the country, whereas the citrus imported under this 
rule must be sent directly to processing and may only enter areas of 
the United States where similar pest conditions prevail.
    One commenter requested that if the proposal is adopted, APHIS 
provide his organization an opportunity to review the importation 
guidelines in order to evaluate the adequacy of the safeguarding 
measures.
    Details of the program will be included in a bilateral workplan 
developed jointly with APHIS and the NPPO of Mexico. Once the final 
rule is effective and the workplan has been finalized, copies of the 
workplan may be obtained by contacting Dr. Ed Gersabeck, International 
Services, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 65, Riverdale, MD 20737-1228; 
(301) 734-7550.
    One comment stated that the proposed rule was unnecessary because 
there is only one juice processing facility in operation in the three 
counties in Texas to which Mexican citrus could be transported and that 
facility will not process Mexican citrus.
    While the commenter is correct that there is currently only one 
juice processing facility in the three Texas counties subject to this 
rule, we have no evidence that this facility will not process Mexican 
citrus. In addition, there is the possibility that other juice 
processing facilities will be established once this final rule becomes 
effective.
    One commenter stated that the failure of a similar program 
established for Spanish clementine growers shows that allowing the 
entry of Mexican citrus into the United States is unwise.
    We disagree with the commenter's evaluation of and comparisons 
between the Spanish clementine import regulations and this Mexican 
citrus rule. The Spanish clementine import program has functioned 
effectively. In any case, it is important to note again that the 
untreated Mexican citrus covered by this rule will only be allowed 
entry into three counties in Texas where it will be transported 
directly to a juice processing facility for juicing, and only under the 
conditions specified in this rule.
    One commenter noted that two reports issued in the past 2 years by 
the Government Accountability Office (GAO) stated that the efficacy of 
APHIS' pest exclusion program has been reduced since these 
responsibilities were transferred to the Department of Homeland 
Security (DHS). The commenter added that inspection responsibilities 
should rest with APHIS inspectors until DHS inspectors can be properly 
and thoroughly trained.
    We believe that the problems identified in the GAO reports cited by 
the commenter have been addressed. Following the creation of DHS, there 
was a need to provide pest exclusion training to those Immigration and 
Naturalization Service, U.S. Border Patrol, and U.S. Customs Service 
personnel who were transferred to DHS' Bureau of Customs and Border 
Protection (CBP), just as the mission of CBP dictated the need to 
provide cross-training in other specialties to those APHIS personnel 
who were transferred to CBP. Planning and delivering training for all 
these personnel necessarily had to be accomplished over time, but all 
CBP inspection personnel have now been fully and satisfactorily trained 
in pest exclusion.
    One commenter stated that the California Department of Food and 
Agriculture discovered Mexican fruit fly larvae in fumigated grapefruit 
from Texas at a State border inspection station, and noted that APHIS 
was still investigating how the larvae were able to circumvent the 
existing system that is in place to prevent such incidents from 
occurring.
    The citrus fruit that will be allowed entry into Texas under this 
rule will be going directly to a juice processing facility, and the 
processing that occurs there will eliminate any fruit fly risk with 
respect to the product that will be moved out of that facility. No 
whole fruit originating from Mexico that is imported under this program 
will be allowed entry into California or any other State.

Trapping

    One commenter stated that the proposed trapping density of one trap 
per 10 hectares for Mexican fruit fly and sapote fruit fly was too 
high, especially considering that a sterile fly release program will be 
employed in production areas and the surrounding buffer areas. This 
commenter noted that a density of 1 trap per 10 hectares is equivalent 
to 10 traps per square

[[Page 33175]]

kilometer or 25 traps per square mile, which he stated is 2.5 times 
higher that the trapping density called for under the risk assessment 
criteria of the North American Plant Protection Organization (NAPPO) 
for a high-risk area, and higher than the 5 traps per square mile 
trapping density employed in the United States under preventive release 
programs in Florida, Texas, and California. The commenter further 
stated that such a high number of traps will result in the capture of 
numerous sterile flies, which could jeopardize the effectiveness of 
that aspect of the program. Based on these considerations, the 
commenter recommended that the trapping density be reduced to no more 
than two traps per square mile.
    In response to this comment, we have reduced the trapping density 
in this final rule to two traps per square kilometer (one trap per 50 
hectares) for Anastrepha spp. fruit flies. This trapping density is 
consistent with the levels called for in the International Atomic 
Energy Agency's (IAEA) guidelines \1\ for the monitoring of suppression 
areas for Anastrepha spp. fruit flies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Trapping Guidelines for Area-Wide Fruit Fly Programmes, 
published by the Insect Pest Control Section of the Joint FAO/IAEA 
Division, IAEA, Vienna, Austria, November 2003. Available at  http:/
/www.iaea.org/programmes/nafa/d4/public/d4-trapping.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several commenters did not support allowing growers in Mexico to 
conduct the required trapping, even if the trapping is subject to 
monitoring under an APHIS-approved quality control program and the 
fruit has to be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by 
the Mexican Government attesting that the trapping and other 
requirements have been met. These commenters pointed out that U.S. 
growers do not conduct trapping and stated that such an activity must 
be a Government function.
    Growers will not be solely responsible for conducting trapping as 
previously indicated. Traps will be set and monitored by employees of 
the Mexican NPPO and it will be the responsibility of the Mexican NPPO 
to ensure that growers are complying with the regulations. APHIS will 
review trapping records and will ultimately determine if the level of 
compliance is sufficient to provide an appropriate level of protection 
for the United States.
    Some commenters noted that, while the proposed rule would require 
the use of APHIS-approved traps, it did not specify how often those 
traps must be checked, how the traps must be maintained, or how often 
trapping results must be reported to Mexican and U.S. authorities.
    Such details of Mexico's fruit fly trapping program are included in 
APHIS's and Mexico's bilaterally agreed upon fruit fly management 
plans. The details of the trapping program will be determined upon a 
site review and included in a workplan to be signed by both APHIS and 
the NPPO of Mexico. As stated previously, once the final rule is 
effective and the workplan has been finalized, copies of the workplan 
may be obtained by contacting APHIS' International Services at the 
address provided the response to the earlier comment regarding 
workplans.
    One commenter recommended that, at the very least, a fruit cutting 
component should be included to check for fruit fly larvae as a backup 
to field trapping.
    Fruit cutting will not be necessary because the fruit will be going 
directly to processing plants for juicing in Texas. We believe that the 
additional safeguards against fruit fly infestation from the time of 
harvest until processing in the United States, such as packing the 
fruit in insect-proof cartons or containers or covering fruit with 
insect-proof mesh or plastic tarpaulin, will be sufficient at 
preventing the risk of pest introduction while the fruit is in transit 
through Mexico and into Texas.
    Two commenters noted that under the proposed program, the capture 
of a Mexican fruit fly, sapote fruit fly, or Medfly in a production 
site or buffer area would result in exports from that production area 
being prohibited until APHIS determines that the phytosanitary measures 
taken have been effective to allow the resumption of exports from that 
production site. One commenter stated that the program must provide for 
the suspension of exports upon the capture of any Anastrepha spp. fruit 
fly, not just Mexican fruit fly or sapote fruit fly. The other 
commenter asked what specific criteria the Administrator would use to 
determine that the phytosanitary measures taken have been effective to 
allow the resumption of export from that production site.
    The fruit fly prevalence requirements in Mexico mirror the low 
prevalence program currently in place in Texas and will ensure that low 
prevalence levels of reproducing Mexican fruit flies are maintained 
throughout production sites. The reason the program calls for 
suspension of imports upon capture of any Mexican fruit fly or sapote 
fruit fly, but no other Anastrepha spp., is because these two fruit 
flies are the only Anastrepha spp. fruit flies present in the Mexican 
production areas that infest citrus. Specific requirements and criteria 
which the Administrator will use to determine whether risk mitigation 
has been achieved will be agreed upon by APHIS and the NPPO of Mexico 
and included in the bilateral workplan for this program.

Fruit Fly Control

    Several commenters were concerned that the suppression activities 
called for in the proposal were focused solely on Mexican fruit fly and 
would have no effect on Mediterranean fruit fly, sapote fruit fly, or 
any other of several potentially damaging fruit fly pests that are 
commonplace in Mexico. The commenters stated that all other 
economically important Anastrepha species, as well as Medfly, must be 
comprehensively addressed in the program's requirements.
    In addition to the Mexican and sapote fruit fly systems approach, 
our proposal set forth specific provisions regarding Medfly. Our 
proposal also stated that APHIS-approved traps and lures be placed in 
the production sites and surrounding 1.5 mile buffer areas at a rate of 
one to four traps per 250 hectares. As stated previously, we will 
suspend imports from a production site if any Mexican fruit fly, sapote 
fruit fly, or Medfly is captured. We believe it is appropriate to adopt 
a trapping-only approach to monitor for Medfly because Medfly is 
largely confined to the southern part of Mexico, and there are ongoing 
Medfly suppression and eradication activities throughout Mexico. We are 
not conducting a preventative release program for the sapote fruit fly 
because we consider citrus to be a poor host of sapote fruit fly. 
Further, we are unaware of any governmental or non-governmental 
entities that are producing populations of sterile sapote fruit flies 
at this time. Nevertheless, the Mexican NPPO must ensure that 
production sites are free of sapote fruit fly to be eligible for the 
program under this final rule.
    Several commenters questioned the commitment of Mexican authorities 
to pursuing an active and effective fruit fly control program. These 
commenters stated that before any untreated citrus can be exported to 
the United States, Mexico must construct and maintain an efficient, 
effective suppression program for all fruit flies--not just Mexican 
fruit fly--that produces proven results over time.
    Before exports can begin, the NPPO of any of our trading partners 
wishing to export a commodity that was previously prohibited entry must 
submit an acceptable workplan to APHIS for review, and APHIS oversight 
is incorporated into those plans. In the

[[Page 33176]]

case of untreated Mexican citrus, we believe that the mitigation 
measures we have prescribed are appropriate and will be effective. 
Because APHIS will conduct oversight of the program, if at any time it 
appears that a production site is not maintaining sufficient mitigation 
measures, APHIS will suspend exports from that site.

Use of Terms

    One commenter recommended that, for the sake of clarity, the 
introductory text of the section should state that the fruit may be 
imported for ``extracting juice'' rather than the broader term 
``processing.''
    We agree with this commenter, therefore, in Sec.  319.56-2rr, in 
the introductory text, we are replacing the word ``processing'' with 
the words ``extracting juice.''
    One commenter disagreed with the statement in the proposed rule 
that the Mexican fruit fly quarantined areas in Texas are under an 
APHIS-approved preventative release program. This commenter stated that 
a preventative release program is used in areas with a high risk for an 
infestation but where an infestation does not exist.
    The International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) defines a 
preventative release program as a program that would prevent the 
indigenous fruit fly population from reaching a level to require a 
regulatory change. We consider the program in Texas to be a 
preventative release program because the goal of the preventative 
release program is to prevent the indigenous population from reaching a 
level to require regulatory action.
    One commenter recommended that, to avoid ambiguity, phrases such as 
low prevalence zone, preventative release program, production site, and 
buffer zone should be defined. Another commenter stated that the United 
States and Mexico appear to have differing concepts of what constitutes 
a low prevalence zone, and until those concepts are reconciled, the 
proposal should not be finalized. On a similar note, a third commenter 
asked what the criteria would be for designating an area as a low 
prevalence zone and who would make that determination.
    The IPPC defines an area of low prevalence as an area, whether all 
of a country, part of a country, or all or parts of several countries, 
as identified by the competent authorities, in which a specific pest 
occurs at low levels and which is subject to effective surveillance, 
control, or eradication measures.
    A buffer zone is defined as an area in which a specific pest does 
not occur or occurs at a low level and is officially controlled, that 
either encloses or is adjacent to an infested area, an infested place 
of production, an area of low prevalence, a pest-free area, a pest-free 
place of production, or a pest-free production site, and in which 
phytosanitary measures are taken to prevent spread of the pest.
    Production site is defined in Sec.  319.56-1 as a defined portion 
of a place of production utilized for the production of a commodity 
that is managed separately for phytosanitary purposes. This may include 
the entire place of production or portions of it. Examples of portions 
of places of production are a defined orchard, grove, field, or 
premises.
    As stated previously, the IPPC defines preventative release program 
as a program that would prevent the indigenous fruit fly population 
from reaching a level to require a regulatory change.
    The specific areas included in the low prevalence zone will be 
identified in the bilateral workplan between APHIS and Mexico.

Economic Analysis

    Some of the commenters disputed the statements in the proposed 
rule's economic analysis that the proposed program would positively 
affect U.S. citrus processing plants and the U.S. trucking industry. 
The commenters stated that it is unlikely that new facilities would be 
built simply because Mexican citrus becomes available for processing, 
and noted that the operators of the only citrus processing plant in the 
area into which imports would be allowed have indicated that they do 
not need or want to process Mexican citrus. The commenters further 
stated that even if the processing plant did elect to accept the fruit, 
there would be no benefit to domestic trucking firms because that plant 
is only about 5 miles north of the primary port of entry at Pharr/
Reynosa.
    As stated previously, we have no evidence that the citrus 
processing facility in Texas will not process Mexican citrus. Our 
proposed rule stated that any positive effects on the U.S. citrus 
processing or trucking industries would depend upon the volume of 
citrus Mexico was exporting to the United States. However, the 
commenter is correct that we made a statement that the U.S. citrus 
processing industry would be positively affected by this final rule. 
While we expect citrus processing plants to benefit from increased 
citrus imported for processing, the benefits would depend upon the 
amount of citrus being imported from Mexico. However, in light of what 
the commenter said about the location of the citrus processing plant, 
we have revised the economic analysis in this final rule by removing 
the statement that the U.S. trucking industry will benefit from the 
imports of untreated citrus from Mexico.

Miscellaneous

    In our May 2005 proposed rule, we proposed to add the conditions 
governing the importation of untreated citrus from Mexico as Sec.  
319.56-2nn. In this final rule, those conditions are added as Sec.  
319.56-2rr.
    Therefore, for the reasons given in the proposed rule and in this 
document, we are adopting the proposed rule as a final rule, with the 
changes discussed in this document.

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. The rule 
has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive 
Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of 
Management and Budget.
    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 604, we have performed a final 
regulatory flexibility analysis, which is set out below, regarding the 
economic effects of this rule on small entities.
    This final rule amends the fruits and vegetables regulations to 
provide for the importation of untreated citrus (grapefruit, sweet 
oranges, and tangerines) from Mexico for processing under certain 
conditions. We believe the conditions under which untreated citrus from 
Mexico will be allowed importation to be sufficient for safeguarding 
fruit that are moving from Mexico to Texas. This action will relieve 
unnecessary restrictions while continuing to protect against the 
introduction of quarantine pests through imported fruits.
    We used all available data to estimate the potential economic 
effects of allowing the fruits specified in this rule to be imported 
into the United States. However, some of the data we believe would have 
been helpful in making this determination was not available at the time 
the analysis for the proposed rule was prepared. We invited public 
comment on the potential effects of our proposed rule on small 
entities, in particular the number and kind of small entities that may 
incur benefits or costs from the implementation of the proposed rule. 
We received one comment that raised issues specific to the economic 
considerations associated

[[Page 33177]]

with the provisions for the importation of untreated citrus from Mexico 
for processing. Those issues are discussed earlier in this document.
    The total value of the citrus industry to the Texas economy is more 
than $200 million. The total crop value to the growers tops $50 million 
annually.\2\ Three counties account for all the citrus acreage/
production in Texas (about 27,000 acres total). Specifically, Hidalgo 
County accounts for 85 percent of the citrus acreage, Cameron County 
accounts for 14 percent of the acreage, while Willacy County accounts 
for only about 1 percent only. The Texas citrus industry is dominated 
by grapefruit and oranges, as less than 100 acres in the counties are 
dedicated to other citrus. Texas Citrus Exchange (TCX) is the only 
juice processor operating in the three counties. In some cases, local 
citrus production cannot fully supply the facility's production 
capacity. TCX uses local oranges to produce fresh orange juice; 
however, to satisfy the demand for frozen concentrated orange juice, 
TCX uses imported fruit. In 2005, Texas-produced oranges satisfied only 
25 percent of TCX production capacity. At the same time, Texas 
grapefruit can fully satisfy the plant's grapefruit juice production 
capacity.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The Texas Citrus Industry, Julian W. Sauls, Texas 
Cooperative Extension, July 2005. Web site https://aggie-
horticulture.tamu.edu/citrus/.
    \3\ Personal communication with Jay Mudden, Texas Citrus 
Exchange (TCX-Juice Division), Mission, Hidalgo County, TX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    TCX sells its concentrated citrus juice either to wholesale centers 
(U.S. and foreign) where it can be further mixed with citrus juice from 
other sources, or sent directly to grocery stores. The concentrate is 
commonly sold in bulk to Florida packers to be blended with Florida 
concentrate, and some is sold to out-of-State distributors for 
repacking under private labels. It is also repacked as frozen 
concentrate and single strength and blended juices marketed under the 
private labels of the respective processor.
    The TCX juice processing plant employs more than 100 people but 
fewer than 500, and thereby qualifies as a small-entity fruit and juice 
manufacturing business (North American Industry Classification System 
[NAICS] category 311411).\4\ Presently, there are about 12 independent 
and 3 cooperative shippers of citrus operating in the 3 Texas 
counties.\5\ We do not have any information on their size.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Small Business Size Standards by NAICS Industry, Subsector 
311--Food Manufacturing, Size Standards in number of employees, 
Sec.  121.201, 13 CFR Ch. 1 (1-1-04 Edition), page 290.
    \5\ Taylor, Hall, and Molina. Texas Agricultural Extension 
Service. The Texas A&M University System. Texas Citrus Grower 
Marketing Outlets. Web site https://aggie-horticulture.tamu.edu/
citrus/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This rule could be expected to have a positive effect on the TCX 
juice processing plant by providing it an additional source of citrus 
for juicing. Shippers could be expected to gain as well, due to the 
expected increase in the volume of citrus shipped in the area. The 
economic impact will depend on the volume of citrus imported from 
Mexico. We do not expect citrus producers in the area to be harmed by 
the rule, since most of the citrus processed by TCX into juice is 
already supplied by other sources.

Effects 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.
    We are amending the regulations to allow grapefruit, sweet oranges, 
and tangerines from areas of Mexico where certain fruit flies occur to 
be imported into the United States for processing under certain 
conditions. Those conditions include a requirement that the processing 
plants must be located within an area in Texas that is under an APHIS-
approved preventative release program using sterile insect technique 
for Mexican fruit fly.
    This change in the regulations has the potential to positively 
affect U.S. citrus processing plants. These businesses and their 
surrounding areas are expected to benefit. However, the exact amount of 
financial gain and the extent of the expected economic impact will 
depend upon the volume of citrus fruit that enters the United States 
for processing.
    Between 2000 and 2002, the United States produced an average of 15 
million metric tons of citrus fruits annually. During that same period, 
Mexico produced an average of 4.9 million metric tons of citrus fruits 
annually. Mexican consumers greatly favor fresh citrus over processed 
citrus, thus the majority of Mexican citrus produced is consumed 
domestically, with around 6 percent of average annual production 
serving as exports. Therefore, given the relatively small amount of 
Mexican production when compared to U.S. production levels, coupled 
with the small percentage of Mexican production that is exported, the 
economic effects of this rule are expected to be small.
    This rule contains various recordkeeping requirements, which were 
described in our proposed rule, and which have been approved by the 
Office of Management and Budget (see ``Paperwork Reduction Act'' 
below).

Executive Order 12988

    This final rule allows citrus to be imported into the United States 
from Mexico. State and local laws and regulations regarding citrus 
imported under this rule will be preempted while the fruit is in 
foreign commerce. Fresh citrus will be imported for immediate juicing 
in certain areas of Texas, and will remain in foreign commerce until it 
is processed. 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 the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 
3501 et seq.), the information collection or recordkeeping requirements 
included in this rule have been approved by the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) under OMB control number 0579-0264.

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 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.


0
Accordingly, we are amending 7 CFR part 319 as follows:

PART 319--FOREIGN QUARANTINE NOTICES

0
1. The authority citation for part 319 continues 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.


0
2. A new Sec.  319.56-2rr is added to read as follows:

[[Page 33178]]

Sec.  319.56-2rr  Administrative instructions; conditions governing the 
importation of untreated grapefruit, sweet oranges, and tangerines from 
Mexico for processing.

    Untreated grapefruit (Citrus paradisi), sweet oranges (Citrus 
sinensis), and tangerines (Citrus reticulata) may be imported into the 
United States from Mexico for extracting juice if they originate from 
production sites in Mexico that are approved by APHIS because they meet 
the following conditions and any other conditions determined by the 
Administrator to be necessary to mitigate the pest risk that such 
fruits pose:
    (a) Application of sterile insect technique. Production sites, and 
a surrounding 1.5 mile buffer area, must be administered under an 
APHIS-approved preventative release program using sterile insect 
technique for the Mexican fruit fly (Anastrepha ludens).
    (b) Fruit fly trapping protocol. (1) Trapping densities. In areas 
where grapefruit, sweet oranges, and tangerines are produced for export 
to the United States, APHIS approved traps and lures must be placed in 
production sites and a surrounding 1.5 mile buffer areas as follows:
    (i) For Mexican fruit fly (Anastrepha ludens) and sapote fruit fly 
(A. serpentina): One trap per 50 hectares.
    (ii) For Mediterranean fruit fly (Ceratitis capitata): One to four 
traps per 250 hectares.
    (2) Fruit fly catches. Upon trapping of a Mexican fruit fly, sapote 
fruit fly, or Mediterranean fruit fly in a production site or buffer 
area, exports from that production site are prohibited until the 
Administrator determines that the phytosanitary measures taken have 
been effective to allow the resumption of export from that production 
site.
    (3) Monitoring. The trapping program must be monitored under an 
APHIS-approved quality control program.
    (c) Safeguarding. Fruit must be safeguarded against fruit fly 
infestation using methods approved by APHIS from the time of harvest 
until processing in the United States.
    (d) Phytosanitary certificate. Each shipment must be accompanied by 
a phytosanitary certificate issued by Mexico's national plant 
protection organization that contains additional declarations stating 
that the requirements of paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of this section 
have been met.
    (e) Ports. The harvested fruit may enter the United States only 
through a port of entry located in one of the Texas counties listed in 
Sec.  301.64-3(c) of this chapter.
    (f) Route of transit. Harvested fruit must travel on the most 
direct route to the processing plant from its point of entry into the 
United States as specified in the import permit. Such fruit may not 
enter or transit areas other than the Texas counties listed in Sec.  
301.64-3(c) of this chapter.
    (g) Approved destinations. Processing plants within the United 
States must be located within an area in Texas that is under an APHIS-
approved preventative release program using sterile insect technique 
for Mexican fruit fly.
    (h) Compliance agreements. Processing plants within the United 
States must enter into a compliance agreement with APHIS in order to 
handle grapefruit, sweet oranges, and tangerines imported from Mexico 
in accordance with this section. APHIS will only enter into compliance 
agreements with facilities that handle and process grapefruit, sweet 
oranges, and tangerines from Mexico in such a way as to eliminate any 
risk that exotic fruit flies could be disseminated into the United 
States, as determined by APHIS.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control 
number 0579-0264)

    Done in Washington, DC, this 2nd day of June 2006.
Kevin Shea,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. E6-8935 Filed 6-7-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P