Hass Avocados From Mexico; Importation Into the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and Other Changes, 81372-81376 [2010-32589]
Download as PDF
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
81372
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 28, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
of civil and criminal laws; investigations,
inquiries, and proceedings thereunder;
national security and intelligence activities;
and protection of the President of the U.S. or
other individuals pursuant to Section 3056
and 3056A of Title 18. The DHS/USCIS–012
CIDR System of Records contains information
that is collected by, on behalf of, in support
of, or in cooperation with DHS and its
components and may contain PII collected by
other federal, state, local, tribal, foreign, or
international government agencies. The
Secretary of Homeland Security has
exempted this system from the following
provisions of the Privacy Act, subject to
limitations set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3);
(d); (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), (e)(4)(I); and (f)
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a (k)(1) and (k)(2).
Exemptions from these particular subsections
are justified, on a case-by-case basis to be
determined at the time a request is made, for
the following reasons:
(a) From subsection (c)(3) (Accounting for
Disclosures) because release of the
accounting of disclosures could alert the
subject of an investigation of an actual or
potential criminal, civil, or regulatory
violation to the existence of the investigation,
and reveal investigative interest on the part
of DHS as well as the recipient agency.
Disclosure of the accounting would therefore
present a serious impediment to law
enforcement efforts and/or efforts to preserve
national security. Disclosure of the
accounting could also permit the individual
who is the subject of a record to impede the
investigation, to tamper with witnesses or
evidence, and to avoid detection or
apprehension, which would undermine the
entire investigative process.
(b) From subsection (d) (Access to Records)
because access to the records contained in
this system of records could inform the
subject of an investigation of an actual or
potential criminal, civil, or regulatory
violation, to the existence of the
investigation, and reveal investigative
interest on the part of DHS or another agency.
Access to the records could permit the
individual who is the subject of a record to
impede the investigation, to tamper with
witnesses or evidence, and to avoid detection
or apprehension. Amendment of the records
could interfere with ongoing investigations
and law enforcement activities and would
impose an impossible administrative burden
by requiring investigations to be
continuously reinvestigated. In addition,
permitting access and amendment to such
information could disclose security-sensitive
information that could be detrimental to
homeland security.
(c) From subsection (e)(1) (Relevancy and
Necessity of Information) because in the
course of investigations into potential
violations of federal law, the accuracy of
information obtained or introduced
occasionally may be unclear or the
information may not be strictly relevant or
necessary to a specific investigation. In the
interests of effective law enforcement, it is
appropriate to retain all information that may
aid in establishing patterns of unlawful
activity.
(d) From subsections (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H),
and (e)(4)(I) (Agency Requirements), and (f)
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:14 Dec 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
(Agency Rules) because portions of this
system are exempt from the individual access
provisions of subsection (d) for the reasons
noted above, and therefore DHS is not
required to establish requirements, rules, or
procedures with respect to such access.
Providing notice to individuals with respect
to existence of records pertaining to them in
the system of records or otherwise setting up
procedures pursuant to which individuals
may access and view records pertaining to
themselves in the system would undermine
investigative efforts and reveal the identities
of witnesses, and potential witnesses, and
confidential informants.
Dated: December 14, 2010.
Mary Ellen Callahan,
Chief Privacy Officer, Department of
Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2010–32540 Filed 12–27–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111–97–P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service
7 CFR Part 319
[Docket No. APHIS–2008–0060]
RIN 0579–AD13
Hass Avocados From Mexico;
Importation Into the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico and Other Changes
Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
We are amending the
regulations governing the importation of
fruits and vegetables to provide for the
importation of Hass avocados from
Mexico into Puerto Rico under the same
systems approach currently required for
the importation of Hass avocados into
all States of the United States from
´
Michoacan, Mexico. The systems
approach requirements include
trapping, orchard certification, limited
production area, trace back labeling,
pre-harvest orchard surveys for all pests,
orchard sanitation, post-harvest
safeguards, fruit cutting and inspection
at the packinghouse, port-of-arrival
inspection, and clearance activities.
This action will allow for the
importation of Hass avocados from
´
Michoacan, Mexico, into Puerto Rico
while continuing to provide protection
against the introduction of quarantine
pests. In addition, we are amending the
regulations to provide for the Mexican
national plant protection organization to
use an approved designee to inspect
avocados for export and to suspend
importation of avocados into the United
´
States from Michoacan, Mexico, only
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
from specific orchards or packinghouses
when quarantine pests are detected,
rather than suspending imports from the
entire municipality where the affected
orchards or packinghouses are located.
These changes will provide additional
flexibility in operating the export
program while continuing to provide
protection against the introduction of
quarantine pests.
DATES: Effective Date: December 28,
2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
David B. Lamb, Import Specialist,
Regulatory Coordination and
Compliance, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River
Road, Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737–
1231; (301) 734–0627.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Under the regulations in ‘‘Subpart—
Fruits and Vegetables’’ (7 CFR 319.56–1
through 319.56–50, referred to below as
the regulations), the Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service (APHIS)
prohibits or restricts the importation of
fruits and vegetables into the United
States from certain parts of the world to
prevent plant pests from being
introduced into and spread within the
United States.
The requirements for importing Hass
avocados into the United States from
´
Michoacan, Mexico, are described in
§ 319.56–30. Those requirements
include pest surveys and pest riskreducing practices, treatment,
packinghouse procedures, inspection,
and shipping procedures.
On May 14, 2010, we published in the
Federal Register (75 FR 27225–27227,
Docket No. APHIS–2008–0060) a
proposal 1 to amend the regulations to:
• Allow the importation of Hass
´
avocados from Michoacan, Mexico, into
Puerto Rico, under the same conditions
required for importation into the 50
States;
• Provide for the Mexican national
plant protection organization (NPPO) to
use an approved designee to inspect
avocados for export; and
• Limit the scope of suspension of
export certification to the orchard or
packinghouse in which pests are found,
rather than the municipality in which
the orchard or packinghouse is located.
We solicited comments concerning
our proposal for 60 days ending July 13,
2010. We received four comments by
that date. They were from associations
of avocado producers and
representatives of State and foreign
1 To view the proposed rule and the comments
we received, go to https://www.regulations.gov/
fdmspublic/component/
main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS-2008-0060.
E:\FR\FM\28DER1.SGM
28DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 28, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
governments. They are discussed below
by topic.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
General Comments
One commenter stated that invasive
pests are one of the foremost challenges
for California avocado growers and that
research has definitively shown that
some of the most pernicious avocado
pests presently found in California
originated in Mexico and Central
America. This commenter stated that
growers are apprehensive about any
modification of export protocols that
shifts risk to the domestic producer, and
the commenter characterized the
proposed rule as an example of such
risk-shifting.
The commenter did not specify which
pernicious avocado pests prompted this
concern. The regulations in § 319.56–30
set out a systems approach designed to
mitigate the risk of introducing
quarantine pests via the importation of
Hass avocados from Mexico into the
United States. By any measure, the
systems approach has been successful at
this goal. In 9 years of fruit cutting and
inspection of Hass avocados imported
from Mexico, over 28 million fruit were
examined (20.2 million in the orchards,
7.2 million in packinghouses, and
602,490 at border inspection ports) for
pests. Twice, the quarantine pest
Contrachelus perseae was found, both
times in backyard avocados that would
not have been eligible to be exported to
the United States. Both outbreaks of this
pest were eradicated. All other avocados
from this export program have been
found to be free of quarantine pests.
There is no evidence that the
importation of Hass avocados from
Mexico has resulted in the introduction
of quarantine pests into the United
States.
The proposed changes are minor
updates designed to provide additional
flexibility in operating the export
program while continuing to provide
protection against the introduction of
quarantine pests.
Allowing the Importation of Hass
Avocados From Mexico Into Other U.S.
Territories
We did not receive any comments
expressing concern about allowing the
importation of Hass avocados from
Mexico into Puerto Rico. However, one
commenter requested that we eliminate
all restrictions on the importation and
distribution of Hass avocados to the U.S.
territories as well. The commenter
stated that, unless there is a sound
scientific reason to ban Mexican Hass
avocados from being distributed into the
U.S. territories, APHIS should allow the
trade, whether or not there has been a
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:14 Dec 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
formal diplomatic request to lift this
trade barrier. The commenter stated that
the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701
et seq.) clearly considers the territories
to be part of the United States.
The commenter noted that Hass
avocados produced in California, Chile,
New Zealand, and the Dominican
Republic can all be imported or moved
interstate to the U.S. territories without
any additional safeguards or other
mitigations for known pests. The
commenter stated that if APHIS were to
maintain such restrictions on Mexican
Hass avocados without a scientific
justification, it would risk violating the
nondiscrimination provisions of the
World Trade Organization’s Agreement
on the Application of Sanitary and
Phytosanitary Measures and the
comparable provisions of the North
American Free Trade Agreement.
Finally, the commenter stated,
maintaining a trade restriction may trap
unwary U.S. or Mexican produce
handlers who are consolidating
shipments of produce to the territories.
The commenter also stated that, if the
commenter’s proposed change was
adopted, it would be appropriate to
eliminate box markings for restricted
distribution, as the extremely small
markets in the U.S. territories would not
justify the expensive and burdensome
box marking and storage arrangements
that would be necessary for packers,
importers, and marketers, nor the
potential compliance costs incurred by
APHIS.
Section 319.56–1 prohibits the
importation of all fruits or vegetables
except as provided in the regulations.
We only allow the importation of fruits
or vegetables after conducting an
analysis of the pest risk associated with
the importation of said fruits or
vegetables. As noted in the commodity
import evaluation document we made
available to the public along with the
proposed rule, the risks associated with
the importation of Hass avocados from
Mexico to U.S. territories have not been
analyzed. Therefore, we will not allow
such importation until an analysis is
completed. The differing pest situations
in each of the territories require us to
conduct separate analyses regarding the
importation of Hass avocados from
Mexico into each territory.
Hass avocados produced in California
have historically been allowed to move
freely within the United States, which,
as the commenter notes, clearly
includes the territories; we expect that
any pests associated with the interstate
movement of avocados from California
would have been introduced into the
territories long ago. The risk analyses for
the importation of Hass avocados from
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
81373
Chile, New Zealand, and the Dominican
Republic all included analysis specific
to the territories.
As the importation of most fruits and
vegetables is prohibited under § 319.56–
1, we ask that foreign governments
interested in exporting fruits and
vegetables to the United States, or to
new areas within the United States,
make formal requests to do so, so that
we can prioritize our risk analysis
activity. If we receive a formal request
to analyze the risks associated with the
importation of Hass avocados from
Mexico into the U.S. territories, we will
consider it.
With respect to the commenter’s
concern regarding produce handlers, for
consignments imported into the 50
States and Puerto Rico, we will include
as a condition of the import permit a
prohibition on moving the avocados to
any U.S. territory. In the past, we have
found such restrictions to be effective at
preventing the unauthorized interstate
movement of fruits and vegetables. As
part of allowing the importation of Hass
avocados from Mexico into Puerto Rico,
we proposed to remove the requirement
for marking boxes to indicate limitations
on their distribution from paragraph
(c)(3)(vii) of § 319.56–30 for that reason.
However, we are not removing the
remaining box marking requirements in
paragraph (c)(3)(vii), which require the
avocados to be packed in boxes or crates
that are clearly marked with the identity
of the grower, packinghouse, and
exporter. This information is necessary
in case we need to conduct traceback on
Hass avocados imported from Mexico.
Use of an Approved Designee To Inspect
Avocados for Export
The regulations in § 319.56–
30(c)(3)(iv) require samples of Hass
´
avocados produced in Michoacan,
Mexico, to be selected, cut, and
inspected by the Mexican NPPO and
found free from pests. We proposed to
amend that paragraph to provide for
avocados to be selected, cut, and
inspected by either the Mexican NPPO
or its approved designee. We stated that
the use of approved designees in
situations such as this is consistent with
the International Plant Protection
Convention’s International Standard for
Phytosanitary Measures (ISPM) No. 20,2
which, among other things, describes a
system that NPPOs may use to authorize
other government services, nongovernmental organizations, agencies, or
2 To view this and other ISPMs on the Internet,
go to https://www.ippc.int/ and click on the
‘‘Adopted Standards’’ link under the ‘‘Core
activities’’ heading.
E:\FR\FM\28DER1.SGM
28DER1
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
81374
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 28, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
persons to act on their behalf for certain
defined functions.
One commenter supported this
change, but stressed the importance of
reviewing the criteria that will be
utilized by the Mexican NPPO to choose
a designee for these purposes. Another
commenter noted that ISPM No. 20
states that, for the use of approved
designees, the ISPM guidelines state
that ‘‘operational procedures’’ are
required and that ‘‘procedures should be
developed for the demonstration of
competency and for audits, corrective
actions, system review and withdrawal
of authorization.’’ This commenter
recommended that APHIS require the
Mexican NPPO to provide detailed
procedures consistent with ISPM No. 20
before making this change. The
commenter also recommended that the
regulations indicate that APHIS retains
the right to conduct periodic audits to
verify that the procedures, once
implemented, are being properly
performed by the NPPO’s designee.
We will review and approve the
Mexican NPPO’s procedures for
approving designees to select, cut, and
inspect fruit before the Mexican NPPO
begins using approved designees. The
specific process by which this takes
place will be detailed in the workplan
that the Mexican NPPO provides to
APHIS annually. APHIS must approve
the workplan. For that reason, it is not
necessary to delay changing the
regulations in order to ensure that
APHIS can review and approve the
Mexican NPPO’s procedures for
approving designees. With respect to the
second commenter’s other
recommendation, the introductory text
of paragraph (c) of § 319.56–30 already
indicates that APHIS will be directly
involved with the NPPO in the
monitoring and supervision of activities
carried out under § 319.56–30. This
would include monitoring the
procedures for approving designees.
Two commenters recommended that
we allow the Mexican NPPO to use
approved designees for the pest surveys
and trapping required in paragraph
(c)(1) of § 319.56–30. The commenters
stated that there may be many highly
qualified entomologists or other experts
in the private sector that would be
available for contracting with the
Mexican NPPO to carry out
phytosanitary tasks in the avocado
orchards.
These commenters suggested that we
amend the introductory text of
paragraph (c), which currently indicates
that personnel carrying out tasks
required in paragraph (c) must be
‘‘hired, trained, and supervised by the
Mexican NPPO,’’ to indicate that it
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:14 Dec 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
allows the use of accredited inspectors
to perform these tasks.
It was necessary to amend paragraph
(c)(3)(iv) in order to accommodate the
use of approved designees because that
paragraph specifically required the
Mexican NPPO to select, cut, and
inspect fruit. However, the requirement
that personnel who perform tasks
required in paragraph (c) of § 319.56–30
be hired, trained, and supervised by the
Mexican NPPO does not mean that
those personnel have to be employees of
the Mexican NPPO; they can be hired as
contractors, provided that they are
trained and supervised by the Mexican
NPPO, and provided that they operate
in accordance with the various
procedures described in ISPM No. 20.
Thus, the regulations already
accommodate the use of approved
designees for these functions. We
appreciate the opportunity to clarify this
point.
Limiting the Scope of Suspension of
Export Certification
Paragraph (e) of § 319.56–30 sets out
the procedures that are followed when
a pest is detected in the surveys and
inspections required in paragraph (c).
Under paragraph (e)(1), when avocado
seed pests other than the avocado stem
weevil Copturus aguacatae (Heilipus
lauri, Conotrachelus aguacatae, C.
perseae, or Stenoma catenifer) are
detected during semiannual pest
surveys, orchard surveys, packinghouse
inspections, or other monitoring or
inspection activities, the entire
municipality in which the pests are
discovered loses its pest-free
certification and avocado exports from
that municipality are suspended.
However, our regulations in paragraphs
(e)(2) and (e)(3) call for the suspension
of the export certification of individual
orchards and packinghouses where the
avocado stem weevil, Copturus
aguacatae, is detected, rather than for
the suspension of the export
certification of the entire municipality.
Based on our experience with the
avocado seed pests in the Mexican Hass
avocado export program, we proposed
to replace paragraphs (e)(1) through
(e)(3) of § 319.56–30 with a new
paragraph (e) stating that suspension of
avocado shipments applies to orchards
or packinghouses within a municipality
when H. lauri, C. aguacatae, C. perseae,
Copturus aguacatae, or S. catenifer are
detected.
One commenter stated that APHIS
should establish a buffer zone with a
radius of at least 1 square mile from the
specific site where an avocado seed pest
is detected. The commenter added that
orchards encompassed in part or in their
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
entirety by this buffer zone should be
suspended from the avocado export
program until the pests of concern have
been eradicated. To support this
position, the commenter cited recent
research conducted in Guatemala by Dr.
Mark Hoddle, an entomologist at the
University of California, Riverside,
which has shown that S. catenifer are
vigorous fliers that commence flight at
dusk and continue on and off until
dawn. The commenter quoted a
personal communication from Dr.
Hoddle stating that it is highly likely
that S. catenifer flies more than 100
meters in one night. The study from
which this figure was derived measured
flight distances between release points
and pheromone traps designed to lure
male avocado seed moths. The
commenter stated that this distance is
almost certainly different for females,
which are likely to fly even farther, if
necessary, to locate a site suitable for
egg-laying; this assertion was based on
a personal communication from Dr.
Jocelyn Millar, also an entomologist at
the University of California, Riverside.
The commenter further stated that
various moth species have been
documented to fly ‘‘at least several
kilometers’’ to locate pheromone
sources, citing Hoddle, M.S., et al.,
‘‘Field optimization of the sex
pheromone of Stenoma catenifer
(Lepidoptera: Elachistidae): Evaluation
of lure types, trap height, male flight
distances, and number of traps needed
per avocado orchard for detection,’’
scheduled for publication in an
upcoming issue of the Bulletin of
Entomological Research.
Another commenter, supporting the
change we proposed, cited a Web site
presented by Dr. Hoddle 3 that states
that the flight of S. catenifer when
released from vials ranged between 3
and 12 meters; those moths invariably
sought refuge in nearby fallen leaves
and other debris. The commenter also
stated that the original pest risk
assessment for the importation of Hass
avocados year-round and into all 50
States, prepared in 2004, contained an
appendix confirming the limited
mobility of the seed pests other than S.
catenifer.
We appreciate the commenters
submitting additional information about
S. catenifer. In citing Dr. Hoddle’s Web
site, the second commenter did not
mention that the flights of 3 to 12 meters
occurred when S. catenifer was released
during the day (specifically, at 2 p.m.).
As discussed by the first commenter, S.
catenifer has been shown to fly longer
3 https://www.biocontrol.ucr.edu/Stenoma/
Stenoma.html.
E:\FR\FM\28DER1.SGM
28DER1
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 28, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
distances at night in at least some
circumstances.
However, the evidence from Dr.
Hoddle’s studies regarding S. catenifer’s
mobility in Guatemala may not
necessarily be relevant to its mobility in
Mexico. S. catenifer is known to
respond to changes in climate;
Guatemala’s is a hot climate with
periodic shifts from wet to dry seasons,
´
while the province of Michoacan is
drier and cooler.
More importantly, conducting the
Mexican Hass avocado export program
has given us extensive information
about how H. lauri, C. aguacatae, C.
perseae, Copturus aguacatae, and S.
catenifer behave in commercial Hass
´
avocado production in Michoacan. As
noted earlier, only twice has any one of
these pests been found, both times in
backyard avocados that would not have
been eligible to be exported to the
United States, and none of the
quarantine pests identified in the 2004
pest risk assessment (including the seed
pests at issue here) have been found in
avocados presented for importation into
the United States.
The information provided by the first
commenter does not change our
conclusion, based on years of evaluation
of the effectiveness of the systems
approach used to mitigate pests in
approved municipalities, that the
mobility of avocado seed pests,
including S. catenifer, creates no greater
risk of their avoiding detection than the
mobility of the avocado stem weevil,
and that the same scope of export
suspension should apply to avocado
seed pests and the stem weevil. Given
our years of experience with surveying
and inspecting for these pests in
´
Michoacan, we have determined that
the proposed changes are appropriate.
As noted in the proposed rule, if
avocado seed pests are present in places
of production close to a place of
production in which an avocado seed
pest is found, the required surveys
would find it in those nearby places of
production, and we would suspend
those places of production as well. The
entire municipality would be suspended
if the pests were detected in all places
of production within that municipality.
In addition, if circumstances were to
change, and S. catenifer or any of the
other seed pests were to suddenly begin
infesting commercially produced
avocado fruit across wide distances, our
surveys and inspections would find the
pest, and we would make any necessary
adjustments to the program or suspend
it while we determined appropriate
mitigations for the pests.
One commenter stated that
suspension of orchards and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:14 Dec 27, 2010
Jkt 223001
packinghouses when a pest is found can
and should be based on the scientific
evidence of the biology of the particular
pest and its known mobility at various
stages. Such suspensions should be no
greater than scientifically necessary to
protect against exported avocados being
a pathway for infestations.
The changes in this final rule limit
suspension to the orchard or
packinghouse where a pest is found. If
the commenter is recommending
suspending only portions of an orchard
or packinghouse when a pest of
particularly low mobility is found in the
orchard or packinghouse, we would not
consider that operationally feasible,
since avocados and pests may be moved
around freely within orchards or
packinghouses.
One commenter stated that, from the
inception of the export program, APHIS
has based its assumptions about S.
catenifer and other seed pests on the
results of fruit cutting. The commenter
stated that small larvae of these pests
may easily be overlooked in fruit that,
in all respects, appears uninfested or
damage-free. Consequently, the
commenter stated, orchard surveys that
rely on fruit cutting should not inform
APHIS’ decisionmaking on the mobility
of avocado seed pests.
We disagree with the commenter.
Inspection using fruit cutting is an
effective mitigation for these pests.
Avocado fruit discolor immediately
when larvae bore tunnels in the fruit,
meaning that damage can be easily
detected in cut fruit. Inspection has
served as an effective mitigation thus far
in preventing the introduction of these
pests into the United States, even given
the great volumes of Hass avocados that
have been imported since the beginning
of the program.
Other Issues
One commenter recommended that
we remove paragraphs (f) and (h) from
§ 319.56–30, as paragraph (f) relates to
restrictions that have been removed
from the regulations and paragraph (h)
is duplicated by paragraph (g).
We agree. In a final rule published in
the Federal Register on October 29,
2010 (75 FR 66643–66644, Docket No.
APHIS–2008–0016), we made these
changes, although we removed
paragraph (g) rather than paragraph (h).
That final rule also revised paragraph
(c)(3)(vii) to accommodate the use of
bulk shipping bins for Hass avocados
from Mexico and to remove outdated
restrictions. That paragraph has also
contained the box marking requirements
reflecting the prohibition on importing
Hass avocados from Mexico into Puerto
Rico or the U.S. territories. We had
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
81375
proposed to remove the last two
sentences of the paragraph, which
contained the box marking requirement
and the outdated restrictions; instead,
this final rule specifically removes the
box marking requirement.
One commenter stated that the
administrative instructions found in 7
CFR 352.29 were published to support
and maintain the former shipping
restrictions on Mexican Hass avocados,
which were removed several years ago.
This commenter stated that there are no
longer any restrictions on moving
Mexican avocados through the United
States. The commenter stated that these
administrative instructions no longer
serve any valid purpose and should be
eliminated to avoid confusion by the
public.
The commenter misunderstands the
scope and purpose of § 352.29, which
regulates the movement of all avocados
from anywhere in Mexico through the
United States, rather than the
importation of avocados into the United
States. The regulations in § 319.56–30
allow only Hass variety avocados from
´
the State of Michoacan to be imported
into the United States. However, when
exporting to countries other than the
United States, Mexican producers and
exporters may wish to move avocados of
other varieties or from other areas of
Mexico through the United States before
the avocados arrive at their ultimate
destination, in order to use U.S. ports of
export. The provisions in § 352.29 allow
such transit to occur safely.
One commenter presented extensive
information on the use of sex
pheromones to lure and trap S. catenifer
and recommended that we work with
the Mexican NPPO to deploy
pheromone traps for monitoring and
´
detection purposes in Michoacan.
We appreciate the commenter
updating us on the progress of this
research. We will review the
information submitted and consider
whether to incorporate pheromone
trapping into the Mexican Hass avocado
export program. If we determine that
requiring such trapping would be
useful, we will publish a proposed rule
and take public comment on the use of
pheromone trapping.
One commenter complimented the
NPPO of Peru on its cooperation in
researching S. catenifer and
recommended that we encourage and
facilitate a level of cooperation between
California scientists and the Mexican
NPPO comparable to the level of
cooperation those scientists receive
from the NPPO of Peru.
We support the Mexican NPPO
working with private collaborators on
managing quarantine pest problems. As
E:\FR\FM\28DER1.SGM
28DER1
81376
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 28, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
members of the North American Plant
Protection Organization, APHIS and the
Mexican NPPO share a commitment to
controlling and eliminating quarantine
pest populations. We will continue to
encourage collaboration with private
groups should opportunities arise.
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.
Effective Date
This is a substantive rule that relieves
restrictions and, pursuant to the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553, may be made
effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register.
Immediate implementation of this
rule is necessary to provide relief to
those persons who are adversely
affected by restrictions we no longer
find warranted. The shipping season for
Hass avocados from Mexico is yearround. Making this rule effective
immediately will allow interested
producers and others in the marketing
chain to benefit from these changes.
Therefore, the Administrator of the
Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service has determined that this rule
should be effective upon publication in
the Federal Register.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory
Flexibility Act
This final 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 the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, we have analyzed the
potential economic effects of this action
on small entities. The analysis is
summarized below. Copies of the full
analysis are available on the
Regulations.gov Web site (see footnote 1
in this document for a link to
Regulations.gov) or by contacting the
person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
Puerto Rico has a relatively small
avocado industry, importing most of its
supply from the Dominican Republic. In
2007, 737 Puerto Rican farms harvested
avocados, a significant decrease from
the 1,217 farms reported in 2002, and
suggesting an increasing reliance on
imports. Most, if not all, of these farms
are small. Most avocados grown in
Puerto Rico, as in the rest of the
Caribbean and in Florida, are not Hass
variety but larger, smooth-skinned
varieties.
We expect this rule to primarily result
in increased import competition. Any
VerDate Mar<15>2010
02:23 Dec 28, 2010
Jkt 223001
impacts for Puerto Rico’s small entities
will depend in part upon the extent to
which Hass avocados imported from
Mexico substitute for the larger, smoothskinned varieties produced
domestically. Avocado imports from
Mexico will directly compete with Hass
avocados that may be shipped from
California.
Other amendments included in this
rule provide for the Mexican NPPO to
use an approved designee to inspect
avocados for export, and when seed
pests are detected, for suspension of
avocado imports from specific orchards
or packinghouses rather than from the
entire municipality where the affected
orchards or packinghouses are located.
These changes will benefit U.S. entities
generally by facilitating the inspection
process in Mexico and minimizing
import disruptions and reductions due
to pest detections.
Under these circumstances, the
Administrator of the Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service has
determined that this action will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
Executive Order 12988
This final rule allows Hass avocados
to be imported into Puerto Rico from
´
Michoacan, Mexico. State and local
laws and regulations regarding Hass
avocados imported under this rule will
be preempted while the fruit is in
foreign commerce. Fresh fruits are
generally imported for immediate
distribution and sale to the consuming
public, and remain in foreign commerce
until sold to the ultimate consumer. The
question of when foreign commerce
ceases in other cases must be addressed
on a case-by-case basis. No retroactive
effect will be given to this rule, and this
rule will not require administrative
proceedings before parties may file suit
in court challenging this rule.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This final rule contains no new
information collection or recordkeeping
requirements under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.).
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 are amending 7 CFR
part 319 as follows:
■
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
PART 319—FOREIGN QUARANTINE
NOTICES
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.
2. Section 319.56–30 is amended as
follows:
■ a. By revising paragraph (a)(2) to read
as set forth below.
■ b. In paragraph (c)(3)(iv), by adding
the words ‘‘or its approved designee’’
after the word ‘‘NPPO’’.
■ c. In paragraph (c)(3)(vii), by removing
the words ‘‘, and with the statement ‘‘Not
for importation or distribution in Puerto
Rico or U.S. Territories.’’ ’’ and adding a
period in their place.
■ d. By revising paragraph (e) to read as
set forth below.
■
§ 319.56–30 Hass avocados from
Michoacan, Mexico.
*
*
*
*
*
(a) * * *
(2) Shipping restrictions. The
avocados may be imported into and
distributed in all States and in Puerto
Rico, but not in any U.S. Territory.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) Pest detection. If any of the
avocado pests Heilipus lauri,
Conotrachelus aguacatae, C. perseae,
Copturus aguacatae, or Stenoma
catenifer are detected during the
semiannual pest surveys in a
packinghouse, certified orchard or areas
outside of certified orchards, or other
monitoring or inspection activity in the
municipality, the Mexican NPPO must
immediately initiate an investigation
and take measures to isolate and
eradicate the pests. The Mexican NPPO
must also provide APHIS with
information regarding the circumstances
of the infestation and the pest risk
mitigation measures taken. Orchards
affected by the pest detection will lose
their export certification immediately,
and avocado exports from that orchard
will be suspended until APHIS and the
Mexican NPPO agree that the pest
eradication measures taken have been
effective.
*
*
*
*
*
Done in Washington, DC, this 21st day of
December 2010.
Kevin Shea,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 2010–32589 Filed 12–27–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–34–P
E:\FR\FM\28DER1.SGM
28DER1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 248 (Tuesday, December 28, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 81372-81376]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-32589]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
7 CFR Part 319
[Docket No. APHIS-2008-0060]
RIN 0579-AD13
Hass Avocados From Mexico; Importation Into the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico and Other Changes
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are amending the regulations governing the importation of
fruits and vegetables to provide for the importation of Hass avocados
from Mexico into Puerto Rico under the same systems approach currently
required for the importation of Hass avocados into all States of the
United States from Michoac[aacute]n, Mexico. The systems approach
requirements include trapping, orchard certification, limited
production area, trace back labeling, pre-harvest orchard surveys for
all pests, orchard sanitation, post-harvest safeguards, fruit cutting
and inspection at the packinghouse, port-of-arrival inspection, and
clearance activities. This action will allow for the importation of
Hass avocados from Michoac[aacute]n, Mexico, into Puerto Rico while
continuing to provide protection against the introduction of quarantine
pests. In addition, we are amending the regulations to provide for the
Mexican national plant protection organization to use an approved
designee to inspect avocados for export and to suspend importation of
avocados into the United States from Michoac[aacute]n, Mexico, only
from specific orchards or packinghouses when quarantine pests are
detected, rather than suspending imports from the entire municipality
where the affected orchards or packinghouses are located. These changes
will provide additional flexibility in operating the export program
while continuing to provide protection against the introduction of
quarantine pests.
DATES: Effective Date: December 28, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. David B. Lamb, Import Specialist,
Regulatory Coordination and Compliance, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road,
Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 734-0627.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Under the regulations in ``Subpart--Fruits and Vegetables'' (7 CFR
319.56-1 through 319.56-50, referred to below as the regulations), the
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) prohibits or
restricts the importation of fruits and vegetables into the United
States from certain parts of the world to prevent plant pests from
being introduced into and spread within the United States.
The requirements for importing Hass avocados into the United States
from Michoac[aacute]n, Mexico, are described in Sec. 319.56-30. Those
requirements include pest surveys and pest risk-reducing practices,
treatment, packinghouse procedures, inspection, and shipping
procedures.
On May 14, 2010, we published in the Federal Register (75 FR 27225-
27227, Docket No. APHIS-2008-0060) a proposal \1\ to amend the
regulations to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ To view the proposed rule and the comments we received, go
to https://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS-2008-0060.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allow the importation of Hass avocados from
Michoac[aacute]n, Mexico, into Puerto Rico, under the same conditions
required for importation into the 50 States;
Provide for the Mexican national plant protection
organization (NPPO) to use an approved designee to inspect avocados for
export; and
Limit the scope of suspension of export certification to
the orchard or packinghouse in which pests are found, rather than the
municipality in which the orchard or packinghouse is located.
We solicited comments concerning our proposal for 60 days ending
July 13, 2010. We received four comments by that date. They were from
associations of avocado producers and representatives of State and
foreign
[[Page 81373]]
governments. They are discussed below by topic.
General Comments
One commenter stated that invasive pests are one of the foremost
challenges for California avocado growers and that research has
definitively shown that some of the most pernicious avocado pests
presently found in California originated in Mexico and Central America.
This commenter stated that growers are apprehensive about any
modification of export protocols that shifts risk to the domestic
producer, and the commenter characterized the proposed rule as an
example of such risk-shifting.
The commenter did not specify which pernicious avocado pests
prompted this concern. The regulations in Sec. 319.56-30 set out a
systems approach designed to mitigate the risk of introducing
quarantine pests via the importation of Hass avocados from Mexico into
the United States. By any measure, the systems approach has been
successful at this goal. In 9 years of fruit cutting and inspection of
Hass avocados imported from Mexico, over 28 million fruit were examined
(20.2 million in the orchards, 7.2 million in packinghouses, and
602,490 at border inspection ports) for pests. Twice, the quarantine
pest Contrachelus perseae was found, both times in backyard avocados
that would not have been eligible to be exported to the United States.
Both outbreaks of this pest were eradicated. All other avocados from
this export program have been found to be free of quarantine pests.
There is no evidence that the importation of Hass avocados from Mexico
has resulted in the introduction of quarantine pests into the United
States.
The proposed changes are minor updates designed to provide
additional flexibility in operating the export program while continuing
to provide protection against the introduction of quarantine pests.
Allowing the Importation of Hass Avocados From Mexico Into Other U.S.
Territories
We did not receive any comments expressing concern about allowing
the importation of Hass avocados from Mexico into Puerto Rico. However,
one commenter requested that we eliminate all restrictions on the
importation and distribution of Hass avocados to the U.S. territories
as well. The commenter stated that, unless there is a sound scientific
reason to ban Mexican Hass avocados from being distributed into the
U.S. territories, APHIS should allow the trade, whether or not there
has been a formal diplomatic request to lift this trade barrier. The
commenter stated that the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.)
clearly considers the territories to be part of the United States.
The commenter noted that Hass avocados produced in California,
Chile, New Zealand, and the Dominican Republic can all be imported or
moved interstate to the U.S. territories without any additional
safeguards or other mitigations for known pests. The commenter stated
that if APHIS were to maintain such restrictions on Mexican Hass
avocados without a scientific justification, it would risk violating
the nondiscrimination provisions of the World Trade Organization's
Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures and
the comparable provisions of the North American Free Trade Agreement.
Finally, the commenter stated, maintaining a trade restriction may
trap unwary U.S. or Mexican produce handlers who are consolidating
shipments of produce to the territories.
The commenter also stated that, if the commenter's proposed change
was adopted, it would be appropriate to eliminate box markings for
restricted distribution, as the extremely small markets in the U.S.
territories would not justify the expensive and burdensome box marking
and storage arrangements that would be necessary for packers,
importers, and marketers, nor the potential compliance costs incurred
by APHIS.
Section 319.56-1 prohibits the importation of all fruits or
vegetables except as provided in the regulations. We only allow the
importation of fruits or vegetables after conducting an analysis of the
pest risk associated with the importation of said fruits or vegetables.
As noted in the commodity import evaluation document we made available
to the public along with the proposed rule, the risks associated with
the importation of Hass avocados from Mexico to U.S. territories have
not been analyzed. Therefore, we will not allow such importation until
an analysis is completed. The differing pest situations in each of the
territories require us to conduct separate analyses regarding the
importation of Hass avocados from Mexico into each territory.
Hass avocados produced in California have historically been allowed
to move freely within the United States, which, as the commenter notes,
clearly includes the territories; we expect that any pests associated
with the interstate movement of avocados from California would have
been introduced into the territories long ago. The risk analyses for
the importation of Hass avocados from Chile, New Zealand, and the
Dominican Republic all included analysis specific to the territories.
As the importation of most fruits and vegetables is prohibited
under Sec. 319.56-1, we ask that foreign governments interested in
exporting fruits and vegetables to the United States, or to new areas
within the United States, make formal requests to do so, so that we can
prioritize our risk analysis activity. If we receive a formal request
to analyze the risks associated with the importation of Hass avocados
from Mexico into the U.S. territories, we will consider it.
With respect to the commenter's concern regarding produce handlers,
for consignments imported into the 50 States and Puerto Rico, we will
include as a condition of the import permit a prohibition on moving the
avocados to any U.S. territory. In the past, we have found such
restrictions to be effective at preventing the unauthorized interstate
movement of fruits and vegetables. As part of allowing the importation
of Hass avocados from Mexico into Puerto Rico, we proposed to remove
the requirement for marking boxes to indicate limitations on their
distribution from paragraph (c)(3)(vii) of Sec. 319.56-30 for that
reason.
However, we are not removing the remaining box marking requirements
in paragraph (c)(3)(vii), which require the avocados to be packed in
boxes or crates that are clearly marked with the identity of the
grower, packinghouse, and exporter. This information is necessary in
case we need to conduct traceback on Hass avocados imported from
Mexico.
Use of an Approved Designee To Inspect Avocados for Export
The regulations in Sec. 319.56-30(c)(3)(iv) require samples of
Hass avocados produced in Michoac[aacute]n, Mexico, to be selected,
cut, and inspected by the Mexican NPPO and found free from pests. We
proposed to amend that paragraph to provide for avocados to be
selected, cut, and inspected by either the Mexican NPPO or its approved
designee. We stated that the use of approved designees in situations
such as this is consistent with the International Plant Protection
Convention's International Standard for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPM)
No. 20,\2\ which, among other things, describes a system that NPPOs may
use to authorize other government services, non-governmental
organizations, agencies, or
[[Page 81374]]
persons to act on their behalf for certain defined functions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ To view this and other ISPMs on the Internet, go to https://www.ippc.int/ and click on the ``Adopted Standards'' link under the
``Core activities'' heading.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One commenter supported this change, but stressed the importance of
reviewing the criteria that will be utilized by the Mexican NPPO to
choose a designee for these purposes. Another commenter noted that ISPM
No. 20 states that, for the use of approved designees, the ISPM
guidelines state that ``operational procedures'' are required and that
``procedures should be developed for the demonstration of competency
and for audits, corrective actions, system review and withdrawal of
authorization.'' This commenter recommended that APHIS require the
Mexican NPPO to provide detailed procedures consistent with ISPM No. 20
before making this change. The commenter also recommended that the
regulations indicate that APHIS retains the right to conduct periodic
audits to verify that the procedures, once implemented, are being
properly performed by the NPPO's designee.
We will review and approve the Mexican NPPO's procedures for
approving designees to select, cut, and inspect fruit before the
Mexican NPPO begins using approved designees. The specific process by
which this takes place will be detailed in the workplan that the
Mexican NPPO provides to APHIS annually. APHIS must approve the
workplan. For that reason, it is not necessary to delay changing the
regulations in order to ensure that APHIS can review and approve the
Mexican NPPO's procedures for approving designees. With respect to the
second commenter's other recommendation, the introductory text of
paragraph (c) of Sec. 319.56-30 already indicates that APHIS will be
directly involved with the NPPO in the monitoring and supervision of
activities carried out under Sec. 319.56-30. This would include
monitoring the procedures for approving designees.
Two commenters recommended that we allow the Mexican NPPO to use
approved designees for the pest surveys and trapping required in
paragraph (c)(1) of Sec. 319.56-30. The commenters stated that there
may be many highly qualified entomologists or other experts in the
private sector that would be available for contracting with the Mexican
NPPO to carry out phytosanitary tasks in the avocado orchards.
These commenters suggested that we amend the introductory text of
paragraph (c), which currently indicates that personnel carrying out
tasks required in paragraph (c) must be ``hired, trained, and
supervised by the Mexican NPPO,'' to indicate that it allows the use of
accredited inspectors to perform these tasks.
It was necessary to amend paragraph (c)(3)(iv) in order to
accommodate the use of approved designees because that paragraph
specifically required the Mexican NPPO to select, cut, and inspect
fruit. However, the requirement that personnel who perform tasks
required in paragraph (c) of Sec. 319.56-30 be hired, trained, and
supervised by the Mexican NPPO does not mean that those personnel have
to be employees of the Mexican NPPO; they can be hired as contractors,
provided that they are trained and supervised by the Mexican NPPO, and
provided that they operate in accordance with the various procedures
described in ISPM No. 20. Thus, the regulations already accommodate the
use of approved designees for these functions. We appreciate the
opportunity to clarify this point.
Limiting the Scope of Suspension of Export Certification
Paragraph (e) of Sec. 319.56-30 sets out the procedures that are
followed when a pest is detected in the surveys and inspections
required in paragraph (c). Under paragraph (e)(1), when avocado seed
pests other than the avocado stem weevil Copturus aguacatae (Heilipus
lauri, Conotrachelus aguacatae, C. perseae, or Stenoma catenifer) are
detected during semiannual pest surveys, orchard surveys, packinghouse
inspections, or other monitoring or inspection activities, the entire
municipality in which the pests are discovered loses its pest-free
certification and avocado exports from that municipality are suspended.
However, our regulations in paragraphs (e)(2) and (e)(3) call for the
suspension of the export certification of individual orchards and
packinghouses where the avocado stem weevil, Copturus aguacatae, is
detected, rather than for the suspension of the export certification of
the entire municipality. Based on our experience with the avocado seed
pests in the Mexican Hass avocado export program, we proposed to
replace paragraphs (e)(1) through (e)(3) of Sec. 319.56-30 with a new
paragraph (e) stating that suspension of avocado shipments applies to
orchards or packinghouses within a municipality when H. lauri, C.
aguacatae, C. perseae, Copturus aguacatae, or S. catenifer are
detected.
One commenter stated that APHIS should establish a buffer zone with
a radius of at least 1 square mile from the specific site where an
avocado seed pest is detected. The commenter added that orchards
encompassed in part or in their entirety by this buffer zone should be
suspended from the avocado export program until the pests of concern
have been eradicated. To support this position, the commenter cited
recent research conducted in Guatemala by Dr. Mark Hoddle, an
entomologist at the University of California, Riverside, which has
shown that S. catenifer are vigorous fliers that commence flight at
dusk and continue on and off until dawn. The commenter quoted a
personal communication from Dr. Hoddle stating that it is highly likely
that S. catenifer flies more than 100 meters in one night. The study
from which this figure was derived measured flight distances between
release points and pheromone traps designed to lure male avocado seed
moths. The commenter stated that this distance is almost certainly
different for females, which are likely to fly even farther, if
necessary, to locate a site suitable for egg-laying; this assertion was
based on a personal communication from Dr. Jocelyn Millar, also an
entomologist at the University of California, Riverside. The commenter
further stated that various moth species have been documented to fly
``at least several kilometers'' to locate pheromone sources, citing
Hoddle, M.S., et al., ``Field optimization of the sex pheromone of
Stenoma catenifer (Lepidoptera: Elachistidae): Evaluation of lure
types, trap height, male flight distances, and number of traps needed
per avocado orchard for detection,'' scheduled for publication in an
upcoming issue of the Bulletin of Entomological Research.
Another commenter, supporting the change we proposed, cited a Web
site presented by Dr. Hoddle \3\ that states that the flight of S.
catenifer when released from vials ranged between 3 and 12 meters;
those moths invariably sought refuge in nearby fallen leaves and other
debris. The commenter also stated that the original pest risk
assessment for the importation of Hass avocados year-round and into all
50 States, prepared in 2004, contained an appendix confirming the
limited mobility of the seed pests other than S. catenifer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ https://www.biocontrol.ucr.edu/Stenoma/Stenoma.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We appreciate the commenters submitting additional information
about S. catenifer. In citing Dr. Hoddle's Web site, the second
commenter did not mention that the flights of 3 to 12 meters occurred
when S. catenifer was released during the day (specifically, at 2
p.m.). As discussed by the first commenter, S. catenifer has been shown
to fly longer
[[Page 81375]]
distances at night in at least some circumstances.
However, the evidence from Dr. Hoddle's studies regarding S.
catenifer's mobility in Guatemala may not necessarily be relevant to
its mobility in Mexico. S. catenifer is known to respond to changes in
climate; Guatemala's is a hot climate with periodic shifts from wet to
dry seasons, while the province of Michoac[aacute]n is drier and
cooler.
More importantly, conducting the Mexican Hass avocado export
program has given us extensive information about how H. lauri, C.
aguacatae, C. perseae, Copturus aguacatae, and S. catenifer behave in
commercial Hass avocado production in Michoac[aacute]n. As noted
earlier, only twice has any one of these pests been found, both times
in backyard avocados that would not have been eligible to be exported
to the United States, and none of the quarantine pests identified in
the 2004 pest risk assessment (including the seed pests at issue here)
have been found in avocados presented for importation into the United
States.
The information provided by the first commenter does not change our
conclusion, based on years of evaluation of the effectiveness of the
systems approach used to mitigate pests in approved municipalities,
that the mobility of avocado seed pests, including S. catenifer,
creates no greater risk of their avoiding detection than the mobility
of the avocado stem weevil, and that the same scope of export
suspension should apply to avocado seed pests and the stem weevil.
Given our years of experience with surveying and inspecting for these
pests in Michoac[aacute]n, we have determined that the proposed changes
are appropriate.
As noted in the proposed rule, if avocado seed pests are present in
places of production close to a place of production in which an avocado
seed pest is found, the required surveys would find it in those nearby
places of production, and we would suspend those places of production
as well. The entire municipality would be suspended if the pests were
detected in all places of production within that municipality.
In addition, if circumstances were to change, and S. catenifer or
any of the other seed pests were to suddenly begin infesting
commercially produced avocado fruit across wide distances, our surveys
and inspections would find the pest, and we would make any necessary
adjustments to the program or suspend it while we determined
appropriate mitigations for the pests.
One commenter stated that suspension of orchards and packinghouses
when a pest is found can and should be based on the scientific evidence
of the biology of the particular pest and its known mobility at various
stages. Such suspensions should be no greater than scientifically
necessary to protect against exported avocados being a pathway for
infestations.
The changes in this final rule limit suspension to the orchard or
packinghouse where a pest is found. If the commenter is recommending
suspending only portions of an orchard or packinghouse when a pest of
particularly low mobility is found in the orchard or packinghouse, we
would not consider that operationally feasible, since avocados and
pests may be moved around freely within orchards or packinghouses.
One commenter stated that, from the inception of the export
program, APHIS has based its assumptions about S. catenifer and other
seed pests on the results of fruit cutting. The commenter stated that
small larvae of these pests may easily be overlooked in fruit that, in
all respects, appears uninfested or damage-free. Consequently, the
commenter stated, orchard surveys that rely on fruit cutting should not
inform APHIS' decisionmaking on the mobility of avocado seed pests.
We disagree with the commenter. Inspection using fruit cutting is
an effective mitigation for these pests. Avocado fruit discolor
immediately when larvae bore tunnels in the fruit, meaning that damage
can be easily detected in cut fruit. Inspection has served as an
effective mitigation thus far in preventing the introduction of these
pests into the United States, even given the great volumes of Hass
avocados that have been imported since the beginning of the program.
Other Issues
One commenter recommended that we remove paragraphs (f) and (h)
from Sec. 319.56-30, as paragraph (f) relates to restrictions that
have been removed from the regulations and paragraph (h) is duplicated
by paragraph (g).
We agree. In a final rule published in the Federal Register on
October 29, 2010 (75 FR 66643-66644, Docket No. APHIS-2008-0016), we
made these changes, although we removed paragraph (g) rather than
paragraph (h).
That final rule also revised paragraph (c)(3)(vii) to accommodate
the use of bulk shipping bins for Hass avocados from Mexico and to
remove outdated restrictions. That paragraph has also contained the box
marking requirements reflecting the prohibition on importing Hass
avocados from Mexico into Puerto Rico or the U.S. territories. We had
proposed to remove the last two sentences of the paragraph, which
contained the box marking requirement and the outdated restrictions;
instead, this final rule specifically removes the box marking
requirement.
One commenter stated that the administrative instructions found in
7 CFR 352.29 were published to support and maintain the former shipping
restrictions on Mexican Hass avocados, which were removed several years
ago. This commenter stated that there are no longer any restrictions on
moving Mexican avocados through the United States. The commenter stated
that these administrative instructions no longer serve any valid
purpose and should be eliminated to avoid confusion by the public.
The commenter misunderstands the scope and purpose of Sec. 352.29,
which regulates the movement of all avocados from anywhere in Mexico
through the United States, rather than the importation of avocados into
the United States. The regulations in Sec. 319.56-30 allow only Hass
variety avocados from the State of Michoac[aacute]n to be imported into
the United States. However, when exporting to countries other than the
United States, Mexican producers and exporters may wish to move
avocados of other varieties or from other areas of Mexico through the
United States before the avocados arrive at their ultimate destination,
in order to use U.S. ports of export. The provisions in Sec. 352.29
allow such transit to occur safely.
One commenter presented extensive information on the use of sex
pheromones to lure and trap S. catenifer and recommended that we work
with the Mexican NPPO to deploy pheromone traps for monitoring and
detection purposes in Michoac[aacute]n.
We appreciate the commenter updating us on the progress of this
research. We will review the information submitted and consider whether
to incorporate pheromone trapping into the Mexican Hass avocado export
program. If we determine that requiring such trapping would be useful,
we will publish a proposed rule and take public comment on the use of
pheromone trapping.
One commenter complimented the NPPO of Peru on its cooperation in
researching S. catenifer and recommended that we encourage and
facilitate a level of cooperation between California scientists and the
Mexican NPPO comparable to the level of cooperation those scientists
receive from the NPPO of Peru.
We support the Mexican NPPO working with private collaborators on
managing quarantine pest problems. As
[[Page 81376]]
members of the North American Plant Protection Organization, APHIS and
the Mexican NPPO share a commitment to controlling and eliminating
quarantine pest populations. We will continue to encourage
collaboration with private groups should opportunities arise.
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.
Effective Date
This is a substantive rule that relieves restrictions and, pursuant
to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553, may be made effective less than 30
days after publication in the Federal Register.
Immediate implementation of this rule is necessary to provide
relief to those persons who are adversely affected by restrictions we
no longer find warranted. The shipping season for Hass avocados from
Mexico is year-round. Making this rule effective immediately will allow
interested producers and others in the marketing chain to benefit from
these changes. Therefore, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service has determined that this rule should be
effective upon publication in the Federal Register.
Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act
This final 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 the Regulatory Flexibility Act, we have analyzed
the potential economic effects of this action on small entities. The
analysis is summarized below. Copies of the full analysis are available
on the Regulations.gov Web site (see footnote 1 in this document for a
link to Regulations.gov) or by contacting the person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Puerto Rico has a relatively small avocado industry, importing most
of its supply from the Dominican Republic. In 2007, 737 Puerto Rican
farms harvested avocados, a significant decrease from the 1,217 farms
reported in 2002, and suggesting an increasing reliance on imports.
Most, if not all, of these farms are small. Most avocados grown in
Puerto Rico, as in the rest of the Caribbean and in Florida, are not
Hass variety but larger, smooth-skinned varieties.
We expect this rule to primarily result in increased import
competition. Any impacts for Puerto Rico's small entities will depend
in part upon the extent to which Hass avocados imported from Mexico
substitute for the larger, smooth-skinned varieties produced
domestically. Avocado imports from Mexico will directly compete with
Hass avocados that may be shipped from California.
Other amendments included in this rule provide for the Mexican NPPO
to use an approved designee to inspect avocados for export, and when
seed pests are detected, for suspension of avocado imports from
specific orchards or packinghouses rather than from the entire
municipality where the affected orchards or packinghouses are located.
These changes will benefit U.S. entities generally by facilitating the
inspection process in Mexico and minimizing import disruptions and
reductions due to pest detections.
Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
Executive Order 12988
This final rule allows Hass avocados to be imported into Puerto
Rico from Michoac[aacute]n, Mexico. State and local laws and
regulations regarding Hass avocados imported under this rule will be
preempted while the fruit is in foreign commerce. Fresh fruits are
generally imported for immediate distribution and sale to the consuming
public, and remain in foreign commerce until sold to the ultimate
consumer. The question of when foreign commerce ceases in other cases
must be addressed on a case-by-case basis. No retroactive effect will
be given to this rule, and this rule will not require administrative
proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging this
rule.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This final rule contains no new information collection or
recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
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. Section 319.56-30 is amended as follows:
0
a. By revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as set forth below.
0
b. In paragraph (c)(3)(iv), by adding the words ``or its approved
designee'' after the word ``NPPO''.
0
c. In paragraph (c)(3)(vii), by removing the words ``, and with the
statement ``Not for importation or distribution in Puerto Rico or U.S.
Territories.'' '' and adding a period in their place.
0
d. By revising paragraph (e) to read as set forth below.
Sec. 319.56-30 Hass avocados from Michoacan, Mexico.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(2) Shipping restrictions. The avocados may be imported into and
distributed in all States and in Puerto Rico, but not in any U.S.
Territory.
* * * * *
(e) Pest detection. If any of the avocado pests Heilipus lauri,
Conotrachelus aguacatae, C. perseae, Copturus aguacatae, or Stenoma
catenifer are detected during the semiannual pest surveys in a
packinghouse, certified orchard or areas outside of certified orchards,
or other monitoring or inspection activity in the municipality, the
Mexican NPPO must immediately initiate an investigation and take
measures to isolate and eradicate the pests. The Mexican NPPO must also
provide APHIS with information regarding the circumstances of the
infestation and the pest risk mitigation measures taken. Orchards
affected by the pest detection will lose their export certification
immediately, and avocado exports from that orchard will be suspended
until APHIS and the Mexican NPPO agree that the pest eradication
measures taken have been effective.
* * * * *
Done in Washington, DC, this 21st day of December 2010.
Kevin Shea,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-32589 Filed 12-27-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P