Federal Register, Volume 72 Issue 137 (Wednesday, July 18, 2007)

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 137 (Wednesday, July 18, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 39482-39528]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-13708]

[[Page 39481]]

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

Part II

Department of Agriculture

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

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

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

7 CFR Parts 305, 319 and 352

Revision of Fruits and Vegetables Import Regulations; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 18, 2007 /
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 39482]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

7 CFR Parts 305, 319, and 352

[Docket No. APHIS-2005-0106]
RIN 0579-AB80

Revision of Fruits and Vegetables Import Regulations

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are revising and reorganizing the regulations pertaining to
the importation of fruits and vegetables to consolidate requirements of
general applicability and eliminate redundant requirements, update
terms and remove outdated requirements and references, update the
regulations that apply to importations into territories under U.S.
administration, and make various editorial and nonsubstantive changes
to regulations to make them easier to use. We are also making
substantive changes to the regulations, including: Establishing
criteria that, if met, will allow us to approve certain new fruits and
vegetables for importation into the United States and to acknowledge
pest-free areas in foreign countries more effectively and expeditiously
and doing away with the practice of listing in the regulations specific
commodities that may be imported subject to certain types of
phytosanitary measures. These changes are intended to simplify and
expedite our processes for approving certain new imports and pest-free
areas while continuing to allow for full public participation in the
processes. This rule revises the structure of the fruits and vegetables
import regulations and establishes a new process for approving certain
new commodities for importation into the United States. It does not,
however, allow the importation of any specific new fruits or
vegetables, nor does it alter the conditions for importing currently
approved fruits or vegetables except as specifically described in this
document. To the extent that our trading partners consider the length
of time it takes to conduct the rulemaking process a trade barrier,
these changes may facilitate the export of U.S. agricultural
commodities by reducing that time for fruits and vegetables that meet
this rule's criteria. The changes do not alter the manner in which the
risk associated with a commodity import request is evaluated, nor do
they alter the manner in which those risks are ultimately mitigated.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 17, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Regarding the commodity import request
evaluation process, contact Mr. Matthew Rhoads, Program Manager,
Planning, Analysis, and Regulatory Coordination, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River
Road Unit 141, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 734-8790.
Regarding import conditions for particular commodities, contact Ms.
Donna L. West, Senior Import Specialist, Commodity Import Analysis and
Operations, PPQ-PRI, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD
20737; (301) 734-8758.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Under the regulations in ``Subpart--Fruits and Vegetables'' (7 CFR
319.56 through 319.56-8, referred to below as the regulations or the
fruits and vegetables regulations) the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA
or the Department) 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.
On April 27, 2006, we published in the Federal Register (71 FR
25010-25057, Docket No. APHIS-2005-0106) a proposal \1\ to amend the
regulations by revising and reorganizing the regulations pertaining to
the importation of fruits and vegetables to consolidate requirements of
general applicability and eliminate redundant requirements, update
terms and remove outdated requirements and references, update the
regulations that apply to importations into territories under U.S.
administration, and make various editorial and nonsubstantive changes
to regulations to make them easier to use. We also proposed to make
substantive changes to the regulations, including: (1) Establishing
criteria within the regulations that, if met, would allow us to approve
certain new fruits and vegetables for importation into the United
States and to acknowledge pest-free areas in foreign countries more
effectively and expeditiously; (2) doing away with the practice of
listing specific commodities that may be imported subject to certain
types of phytosanitary measures; and (3) providing for the issuance of
special use permits for fruits and vegetables.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ To view the proposed rule and the comments we received, go
to http://www.regulations.gov, click on the ``Advanced Search'' tab,
and select ``Docket Search.'' In the Docket ID field, enter APHIS-
2005-0106, then click ``Submit.'' Clicking on the Docket ID link in
the search results page will produce a list of all documents in the
docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We solicited comments on our proposal for 60 days ending on July
26, 2006. On August 1, 2006, we published a document in the Federal
Register (71 FR 43385, Docket No. APHIS-2005-0106) reopening the
comment period for our proposed rule until August 25, 2006. We received
49 comments by the close of the extended comment period. The comments
were from representatives of State and foreign governments, industry
organizations, importers and exporters, distributors, and private
citizens. The majority of the commenters supported the proposed rule in
terms of improving transparency and reorganizing the structure of part
319; however, some commenters also raised questions or concerns about
our proposal, which are discussed below by topic.

Changes to the Proposed Rule

We made changes to the proposed rule which we will note in this
paragraph as an easy reference for the reader. We established a notice-
based approach for pest-free areas, added ``commercial consignments
only'' as one of the measures eligible for the notice-based approach,
removed proposed requirements that would have provided for the issuance
of special use permits, and made several other nonsubstantive editorial
and technical changes to our proposed rule. The reasons for those
changes are discussed later in this document.

Pest-Free Areas

Proposed Sec. 319.56-5 included provisions that would govern our
recognition of pest-free areas. In those proposed provisions, we stated
that after determining that an area was free of a specified pest, we
would publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing that the area
meets the criteria for pest freedom in Sec. 319.56-5. Several
commenters raised concerns with this approach because pest-free areas
would be recognized by APHIS without an opportunity for public comment.
The commenters asked that we allow for public input before taking such
an action.
We agree with the commenters and have amended Sec. 319.56-5(c) in
this final rule to provide for a 60-day comment period following
publication of a notice announcing that an exporting country has
provided us with the documentation required by the regulations to
support a determination that an area is free of a specified pest and
that we have

[[Page 39483]]

completed our evaluation of the request. Only after any comments
received in response to the notice have been carefully considered and
our initial conclusion affirmed, would we publish a notice recognizing
the area's freedom from the particular pest. Removal of an area's pest-
free status will continue to be effective immediately.
One commenter asked if APHIS will develop standards or requirements
that countries will need to comply with when establishing pest-free
areas. A second commenter stated that the proposed provisions were not
strenuous enough in setting out how a pest-free area is identified and
confirmed and relied too heavily on participants in the source country.
A country seeking APHIS recognition of a pest-free area must submit
official documentation that establishes the pest-free status of that
area in accordance with the criteria found in International Standards
for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPM) No. 4 ``Requirements for the
Establishment of Pest Free Areas,'' which is incorporated by reference
into the regulations. Further, the country must provide us with the
survey protocol used to determine and maintain pest-free status, as
well as protocols for remedial actions to be performed upon detection
of a pest. Assembling the documentation necessary to address the
criteria of ISPM No. 4 and designing the required survey and response
protocols is the responsibility of the national plant protection
organization (NPPO) of the requesting country; we believe this is
entirely appropriate and is not at all an indication of undue reliance
on the requesting country. We note in this regard that the regulations
provide that the submitted protocols require APHIS approval before an
area would be recognized as pest free and that pest-free areas are
subject to audit by APHIS to verify their status.
One commenter asked if we could presume that a pest was absent or
had always been absent if there are no records of the pest's presence
in any pest surveillance data.
If the pest surveillance data referred to by the commenter were
collected using accepted and reliable methods and covered a reasonable
time period, it is reasonable to expect that we could consider those
data as supporting a claim of pest freedom. We would not, however, make
a determination on the basis of those data alone; as noted in our
response to the previous comment, there are several factors that must
be addressed before we will recognize an area as free from a particular
pest.

APHIS' Mission

Two commenters expressed the opinion that APHIS' mission has
shifted from trying to prevent the introduction of foreign pests and
diseases into the United States to one which enables the implementation
of trade agreements that could have negative impacts on domestic
producers. One of those commenters added that responding to foreign
countries' claims, increasing the supply of foreign commodities, and
increasing the variety of commodities in the United States are not part
of APHIS' mission. Three other commenters stated that expediting and
simplifying rulemaking does not correspond with APHIS' mission to
safeguard American agriculture. The commenters stated that APHIS was
not justified in proposing the notice-based approach.
APHIS' mission is to protect the health and value of American
agriculture and natural resources, and we remain focused on preventing
the introduction of pests and diseases into the United States. Without
the activities that APHIS undertakes to protect America's animal and
plant resources from agricultural pests and diseases, threats to our
food supply and to our Nation's economy would be enormous. In recent
years, the scope of APHIS' protection function has expanded beyond pest
and disease exclusion and management. Because of its technical
expertise and leadership in assessing and regulating the risks
associated with agricultural imports, APHIS has an expanded role in the
global agricultural arena. Now, the Agency must also respond
effectively to other countries' animal and plant health import
requirements and secure the acceptance of science-based standards that
ensure America's agricultural exports, worth over $50 billion annually,
are protected from unjustified trade restrictions. Nonetheless, APHIS
has finite resources, and we must explore and implement proven and
prudent measures to improve the regulatory process in order to allow us
to allocate our available resources more effectively and to better
address new risks as they emerge. We are convinced that simplifying the
administrative process for dealing with low-risk commodity import
issues will allow us to improve our effectiveness in protecting the
plant health of American agriculture.

Eligible Measures for Notice-Based Approach

In the proposed rule, we noted that pest risk analyses for the
importation of new commodities often consider only the risks posed by
commercially produced and shipped fruit, and that noncommercial
shipments may pose an entirely different pest risk than commercial
shipments. For that reason, the regulations have provided that many
fruits and vegetables could only be imported in commercial shipments,
and the table in paragraph (a) of proposed Sec. 319.56-13, ``Fruits
and vegetables allowed importation subject to specified conditions,''
included a number of articles for which ``commercial shipments only''
was the only specified condition. We were open to the idea of including
``commercial shipments only'' as one of the designated phytosanitary
measures listed in Sec. 319.56-4 and specifically solicited comment on
the subject.
We received two comments on the addition of ``commercial shipments
only'' as a designated measure, both of which supported the idea. We
have concluded that this approach has merit and we have added this
measure as one of the measures eligible for the notice-based approach
in Sec. 319.56-4. (We note, however, that in the regulatory text of
this final rule, we refer to ``consignments,'' rather than
``shipments.'' In our proposed rule, we discussed replacing the term
``shipment'' with ``consignment,'' but that change was not reflected
consistently throughout the proposed rule. The terms commercial
consignment, consignment, and noncommercial consignment are all defined
in Sec. 319.56-2 in this final rule, as they were in the proposal.)
In our proposal, we stated that if the notice-based process was
adopted for use by APHIS, we would remove from the regulations those
listed commodities that are currently approved for importation subject
only to one or more of the designated measures. In keeping with that
intent and to reflect our addition of ``commercial consignments only''
to the list of designated measures, we have amended the list in Sec.
319.56-13(a) in this final rule by removing those articles that had
been listed in the proposed rule for which ``commercial shipments
only'' was the only specified condition. Those articles we have removed
in this final rule, like other articles omitted from the proposed
regulations by virtue if their being subject only to one or more
designated measures, will continue to be listed in APHIS' fruits and
vegetables manual, and the documentation supporting their approval will
be made available on the Internet.
One commenter stated that he did not support the notice-based
system because he believed that the determination as to which commodity
import requests

[[Page 39484]]

could be addressed using the notice-based system and which must be
addressed through rulemaking is a subjective one.
We strongly disagree with this commenter. After we receive a
request from a foreign government, we will conduct a pest risk
analysis. If the pest risk analysis finds that the commodity can be
imported under one or more of the mitigation measures eligible for the
notice-based approach, then we will follow the notice-based process. If
we find that additional measures are required, then we will follow the
rulemaking process.
One commenter stated that we did not provide enough information as
to why the conditions we listed in the proposed rule warrant the
notice-based process.
We designed this notice-based system to target commodities that
will require mitigations that are widely accepted by plant health
experts and have a proven track record of efficacy. As stated
previously, APHIS is a regulatory agency that has finite resources, and
we have been exploring ways to improve the regulatory process for
several years. The notice-based process will simplify the
administrative process, while having no adverse effects on the
scientific rigor of our analysis, the transparency of the process, or
the public's ability to comment and participate in the process.
Two commenters asked that we clarify that rulemaking will be
required if the pest risk analysis process determines that a systems
approach is necessary.
A systems approach utilizes a series of risk mitigation measures
intended to individually and cumulatively reduce pest risk. Such
measures include sampling regimens, pest surveys, packing requirements,
and other measures determined to be necessary to mitigate the pest risk
posed by the particular commodity. By this definition, a systems
approach could be eligible for the notice-based process if the system
consists only of the designated measures we have determined qualify for
the notice-based process; e.g., if a commodity requires origin from a
pest-free area, pre-export inspection and certification, an approved
post-harvest treatment, and inspection at the port of arrival in the
United States. However, if additional mitigations such as field pest
surveys, packinghouse safeguards, etc., were required, the commodity
would not be eligible for the notice-based process.
One commenter asked how APHIS will consider approving additional
measures for the notice-based process in the future.
Trading partners may petition us requesting specific additional
measures to be included in the notice-based process and we would
consider those requests at that time, or we may propose additional
measures on our own initiative. Any additions to the list of designated
measures would occur only through rulemaking. If we believe that
additional measures should be eligible for the notice-based process, we
would develop a new proposal, publish it in the Federal Register for
comment, and follow with a final rule explaining our decision.
One commenter stated that we should consider adding systems
approaches as one of the measures eligible for the notice-based
process, especially in cases where similar species of fruits and
vegetables are involved, or for which there is already an existing
systems approach in a country. The commenter also asked about including
places and sites of production that are free from specific pests and
low pest prevalence areas in the notice-based approach.
We have chosen to initiate this new process with basic requirements
and phytosanitary measures that are widely accepted and have a proven
track record of efficacy, but may consider making the measures
requested by the commenter part of the notice-based process in the
future.

Information Provided to Public

On June 19, 2001, we published a notice in the Federal Register (66
FR 32923-32928, Docket No. 00-082-1) describing the procedures and
standards that govern the consideration of import requests by the
Agency's Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) programs. That notice
was published in response to a specific direction in sec. 412(d) of the
Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7712(d)). One commenter stated that
APHIS never published a followup to that notice and that the notice did
not comply with all of the directives in the Plant Protection Act.
We revisited our June 2001 notice and reviewed the elements we were
directed to address by sec. 412(d), and we believe, as we did at the
time it was published, that our notice addressed all the elements
specified in the Plant Protection Act. While we did not publish a
document that formally responded to the comments we received on the
notice, we have taken actions consistent with the recommendations made
in some of those comments, such as developing and publishing amendments
to our fruits and vegetables regulations, establishing a peer review
system, and establishing regulations that govern the submission of
import requests (see 7 CFR 319.5). We are in the process of developing
a follow-up notice to our June 2001 notice that will offer an updated
description of the procedures that govern our consideration of import
requests. We will publish that notice in a future edition of the
Federal Register.
Several commenters requested that APHIS routinely provide more
information to the public in the form of country-specific operational
work plans, internal communications within the Agency, and
communications between APHIS and the petitioning country. One commenter
specifically requested that we include country-specific work plans in
our pest risk analyses as to allow for the public to comment on the
work plans as well.
The operational work plans referred to by commenters (also known as
bilateral work plans) are agreements between PPQ, officials of the NPPO
of the foreign government involved, and, when necessary, foreign
commercial entities that specify in detail the application of
phytosanitary measures that will comply with our regulations governing
the import or export of a specific commodity. An operational work plan
is not finalized until after the final rule, or in the case of the
notice-based approach, a final notice, has been published. As a
longstanding matter of policy, APHIS does not make operational work
plans available for public comment, but copies can be obtained by
request. A more detailed description of how bilateral work plans are
developed and used by APHIS can be found in a notice we published in
the Federal Register on May 10, 2006 (71 FR 27221-27224). With respect
to the suggestion that we routinely publish internal APHIS
communications and bilateral communications between APHIS and foreign
NPPOs, we strongly believe that it would not be appropriate or
constructive. We must of course, communicate very clearly to the public
the basis for our decisions. We will present our pest risk analyses and
other documents supporting our regulatory decisionmaking in a manner
that provides the public with a complete picture of what led to our
decision. Furthermore, we will continue to answer questions and share
additional background information whenever possible in response to
specific requests. There will be no substantive alteration of the
public's opportunity to review and comment on our conclusions.
One commenter asked how foreign governments could obtain the manual
that includes the lists of names and production areas of enterable
fruits and vegetables.

[[Page 39485]]

The manual, ``Fresh Fruits and Vegetables Import Manual,'' can be
viewed on the Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/
plants/manuals/ports/downloads/fv.pdf.
In our proposed rule, we stated that we were in the early stages of
converting APHIS' fruits and vegetables manual into a searchable
database that will allow interested persons to search by commodity or
by country, and that will list clearly the conditions that apply to
each particular commodity from a specified country. One commenter asked
when the import database will be available and how often it will be
updated.
Our goal is to have the system operating as soon as possible after
the publication of this rule. The import database will be updated
whenever the fruits and vegetables manual is updated. In the meantime,
a searchable database is currently available at: https://
manuals.cphst.org/q56/Q56Main.cfm.

Operations in Other Countries

One commenter asked that we provide an outline of what information
we would require from a foreign country to process an import request.
As noted previously, we have established regulations in Sec. 319.5
that govern the submission of import requests. Those regulations
provide that persons who wish to import plants, plant parts, or plant
products that are not allowed importation under the conditions in part
319 (including the fruits and vegetables regulations) must file a
request with APHIS in order for us to consider whether the new
commodity can be safely imported into the United States. The completed
request must address, among other things, questions about the party
submitting the request, about the commodity proposed for importation
into the United States, the proposed end use of the imported commodity
(e.g., propagation, consumption, milling, decorative, processing,
etc.), shipping information, description of pests and diseases
associated with the commodity, and current strategies for risk
mitigation or management in order for us to consider their import
requests.
Several commenters questioned the ability of all foreign countries
to provide all the data necessary for the preparation of pest risk
analyses. The commenters stated that APHIS should be required to
provide an assessment of the quality of the data provided or a
description of the effort that APHIS had to expend to gather the
necessary data so as to better allow stakeholders to assess the
relative comprehensiveness of the data.
It is APHIS' responsibility to ensure we have a sufficient and
reliable body of data to enable us to prepare an analysis that provides
an accurate picture of pest risk. In some cases, the NPPO or other
entity making the request may provide a draft pest risk analysis along
with their submission; in such cases, that pest risk analysis is
subject to rigorous review by APHIS to verify the accuracy of the
information. In other cases, APHIS will prepare a draft pest risk
analysis using the information described above that is required by the
regulations in Sec. 319.5. In either case, we will conduct a
literature search, examine interception records, and perform site
visits as appropriate. All of this information will be used in
preparation of the pest risk analysis and will be made available for
public comment. We expect that stakeholders and other reviewers will
focus on the content of the pest risk analysis and the
comprehensiveness and quality of the data used in its preparation,
rather than on a report as to the level of effort that went into its
preparation.
One commenter stated that the pest risk analysis should contain a
report that the NPPO of the exporting country has the resources,
experience, staff, capability, and willingness to do the work to
prevent pests and diseases from entering the United States. The
commenters asked specifically how APHIS will determine that the NPPO
has adequate and competent resources available to effectively carry out
prescribed mitigation measures.
Our past experiences with an NPPO and the information gained
through site visits allow us to determine if an exporting country's
NPPO will have the appropriate staff and resources to carry out the
actions it would need to comply with particular mitigation
requirements; if it does not, then we would explore alternative
mitigation measures or, if none were available, deny the import
request. It would be an empty gesture if we were to approve the
importation of a commodity subject to risk mitigation requirements that
the exporting country was unable to meet effectively, just as it would
be a failure of risk management from our perspective to assign risk
mitigation requirements that we did not expect could be met or did not
conclude would be met.
One commenter stated that APHIS assumes that NPPOs are similar to
each other and that the pests and diseases are the same or similar and
can be addressed with similar mitigation measures. The commenter stated
that when assessing a country's risk, we should factor in resources
that are available and past experience with the organization.
We disagree strongly and can assure all interested parties that
APHIS makes no such assumptions. The commenter's suggestion appears to
confuse risk assessment with the operational aspects of risk
management. In the risk assessment phase, the risk presented by a
particular commodity is assessed scientifically and objectively; the
ability of an NPPO to undertake activities that will mitigate the
identified risks does not become a factor until after the unmitigated
risk has been assessed and risk management measures are being
considered. At that point, we most certainly take an NPPO's
capabilities into account when considering the import request. While we
may require similar mitigation measures for the same commodity from two
different locations when pest conditions and climate conditions in the
two exporting countries are similar, we evaluate each import petition
on an individual basis, taking into consideration the unique risks
associated with the commodity and the efficacy, feasibility, and
impacts of the risk mitigation options. As noted above, we evaluate
very carefully the capability of the NPPO and its plant health
infrastructure.
One commenter noted that proposed Sec. 305.3(a) states that ``all
treatments approved under part 305 are subject to monitoring and
verification by APHIS.'' The commenter said that in the case of imports
from Chile, that provision should not imply any additional actions will
be required beyond those already performed by APHIS and Chile's
Servicio Agricola y Ganadero (SAG) under current operational
instructions for the existing preclearance program in Chile.
The provision pointed out by the commenter does not alter the
existing preclearance program in Chile. We explained in the proposed
rule that many sections of the fruits and vegetables regulations have
required that treatments be monitored by an inspector, and that in
establishing Sec. 305.3(a), we were simply consolidating those
requirements into a single new section.

Stakeholder Participation

Several commenters stated that the 60-day comment period APHIS
would provide for pest risk analyses might not allow enough time for
those outside of APHIS to conduct their own scientific review.
We note that the regulations would provide for a comment period of
60 days, which does not preclude us from

[[Page 39486]]

extending the comment period when necessary.
Several commenters said that we can improve transparency by
allowing stakeholders to become involved during the pest risk analysis
process. Those commenters asked that we take comments from the public
on our pest risk analyses during the drafting stage. One commenter
asked that APHIS notify stakeholders at the time an import request is
received. Two other commenters stated that the proposed rule, if
adopted, would reduce or eliminate stakeholder input.
With respect to allowing the public to comment on pest risk
analyses during the drafting phase, such a process would have a serious
adverse impact on the timely preparation of pest risk analyses. We
believe a process in which an analysis is prepared, reviewed, and
brought to a point where wider circulation and publication for comment
is appropriate yields constructive comments that can be considered
before any analysis is finalized. Therefore, we do not plan to take
comments on pest risk analyses while they are under development.
With regard to notifying commenters at the time import requests are
received, we will begin making available, on a quarterly basis, a
document that lists all outstanding pest risk analysis import requests
made by countries that have provided the information required under the
regulations in Sec. 319.5 for us to begin the risk analysis process.
The list will be available on the Internet and will include contact
information if stakeholders want additional information on the status
of specific pest risk analyses.
Finally, we must again emphasize that the changes made in this rule
will not reduce or impair in any way the opportunities that
stakeholders will have to offer input or comments. As has been the case
prior to this final rule, the public will be afforded ample opportunity
to offer comments on any proposed import action. The only difference
under this final rule will be that in some cases, comments will be
solicited through the notice-based process.
One commenter stated that commenters often raise valid regulatory
or science-based concerns during the comment period that tend to be
discounted by APHIS and that commodities are permitted entry regardless
of biological threats.
We disagree strongly with the view expressed by the commenter.
First, we must point out that the comment does not address the
substance of the rule, but the commenter's apparent disagreement with
prior agency decisions. Second, it must be noted again that when we
receive comments on a proposed rule or its supporting analyses, we
consider carefully the individual issues raised in those comments and
respond as comprehensively as we can to each of them in our final rule.
In some cases, we agree with the points raised by the commenters and
change our approach accordingly in the final rule; indeed, in some
cases we will withdraw a particular proposal in light of new
information offered by commenters. Conversely, when we do not agree
with a point raised by a commenter, we provide an explanation in our
final rule as to why we disagree and why we are continuing with a
particular approach. We will continue to consider carefully all
comments under the notice-based approach and to address those comments
in the context of the final pest risk analyses that will be made
available prior to the approval of new imports. We have stated in the
past that if zero tolerance for pest risk were the standard applied to
international trade in agricultural commodities, it is quite likely
that no country would ever be able to export a fresh agricultural
commodity to any other country. Our pest risk analysis process will
identify and assign appropriate effective mitigations for any
identified pest risks, i.e., the biological threats referred to by the
commenter. If, based on our pest risk analysis, we conclude that the
available mitigation measures against identified pest risks are
insufficient to provide an appropriate level of protection, then we
will not authorize the importation of the particular commodity.

Benefits of Implementing Notice-Based Approach

Several commenters stated that we cited benefits to consumers, but
none to domestic producers. Three commenters stated that the benefits
to consumers seem overstated and the risks to domestic agriculture from
increased and expanded imports are downplayed. One of those commenters
added that she was worried that we were opening the floodgates to cheap
imports that would put domestic producers at a disadvantage.
The risks associated with new imports are not downplayed and will
continue to be considered and addressed with scientific rigor. Benefits
to domestic consumers were a factor in developing the notice-based
approach, but certainly not the only one. APHIS can attest to the fact
that many trading partners do at times consider the length of the
process to be burdensome and indefensible. We emphasized in the
proposed rule that to the extent that our trading partners consider the
length of time it takes to conduct the import approval process through
rulemaking a trade barrier, the changes to that process in this rule
could facilitate the export of U.S. agricultural commodities by
demonstrating our commitment to eliminating trade barriers and
encouraging our trading partners to do the same. Such an outcome would
be of benefit to domestic producers. While we recognize that new
imports may occasionally have some negative economic impacts on some
domestic producers due to increased competition, our decisionmaking is
tied under our plant health authorities to the assessment of risk, not
issues of economic competitiveness.
Several commenters stated that there are often barriers to domestic
producers that are not always based on science and asked what
assurances domestic producers had that facilitating our import approval
process will prompt a similar response from foreign countries. Two
commenters asked if each of the countries which have been granted
access to the U.S. market have an equivalent and reciprocal process.
Three commenters added that we should obtain assurances from our
trading partners that they will simplify their import processes as
well.
USDA actively and vigorously pursues foreign market access for U.S.
products. While we anticipate that this rulemaking will support these
efforts, there are no guarantees. We are obligated to follow the
principles and procedures of World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements,
including the obligation to base our regulations on science. Other
members of the WTO are obligated to do so as well. We view this rule as
a measure for improving the timeliness of our action on import
requests, and of our emphasis on science as a basis for decisionmaking
while maintaining the fullest practicable opportunity for all
interested parties to participate in the process. We expect our trading
partners to evaluate our requests with equivalent dispatch. Each
country has its own process, with some being more complex than others;
our process is one of the most scientifically rigorous, but one which
will be improved by this final rule.
One commenter asked that we conduct yearly examinations of changes
in market access, response to petitions, etc., and another asked that
we identify instances in which foreign trading partners have
substantially modified their approach to U.S. fruit and

[[Page 39487]]

vegetable exports on the basis of how APHIS has reduced the
administrative burden on fruit and vegetable exports to the United
States.
APHIS has produced reports that document our activities and
accomplishments in support of both phytosanitary (plant health) and
sanitary (zoonotics and animal health) trade activities on a regular
basis for several years. Those reports describe the activities
pertaining to U.S. export market access, retention, and expansion, as
well as changes in import market access. Reports through fiscal year
2005 can be found at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/is/tst/
Publications.html. We will continue to analyze our accomplishments in
both import and export activities on a regular basis. These reports
provide an opportunity for the public to evaluate our performance in
facilitating imports and exports.
Several commenters disagreed that the current rulemaking process
was an impediment to trade and stated that we need to allow maximum
opportunity for public comment. One commenter stated that whether or
not our rulemaking process was an impediment to trade is a matter for
WTO, not foreign countries, to determine.
As stated previously, the notice-based approach will not in any way
diminish the opportunity for public comment. We have stated and believe
that some countries view our process for approval of import requests as
a substantial impediment to trade. We proposed this action with the
intent of making the Agency more effective and efficient, while still
employing an exceptionally transparent, science-based risk analysis
process with the widest possible opportunity for public input. We
believe that by modifying the administrative part of our import
evaluation process, we will be better able to focus our resources.
Given the considerable improvements in risk management documentation
and the increase in the number of personnel dedicated to risk
management in PPQ in recent years, we are convinced that the notice-
based process will expedite the import evaluation process and make it
more open and transparent than it has ever been.

APHIS' Resources

Two commenters asked whether we had sufficient staff to handle
expedited scientific reviews. The commenters asked that APHIS provide
the number of scientists currently dedicated to fruit and vegetable
pest and disease risk analyses. One of the commenters asked that this
information be provided to the public each time a new import request is
made. The commenter asked that we clarify the current backlog on risk
analyses.
The commenters clearly misunderstand the purpose, intent, and
import of this rule. As stated previously, the notice-based process is
not an expedited scientific review. The science-based risk analysis
process will remain the same--it is the administrative process that
will be expedited. With regard to personnel, we have sufficient
personnel available to handle the review of data and information for
the completion of pest risk analyses. We are unable to provide the
exact number of scientists dedicated to fruit and vegetable pest risk
analyses because all are not dedicated to import-related issues. Some
of those scientists are also completing assessments for issues related
to the facilitation of exports \2\ and crucial domestic programs. In
addition, at any given time, the numbers can vary based on whether the
scientists are assigned to one area or another in response to workload
and changing priorities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ Pest risk analyses needed to help us address export issues
are always assigned high priority, and there is no backlog of
outstanding export issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

With regard to notifying the public of new import requests, we
noted earlier in this document that we will be providing, on a
quarterly basis, a document that lists all outstanding pest risk
analysis import requests, by commodity and country, made by countries
that have provided the information required under the regulations in
Sec. 319.5 for us to begin the risk analysis process. That document
will be posted on the Internet and distributed to persons who have
signed up to the PPQ stakeholder registry. To join the registry, go to
PPQ's Internet home page (http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/) and
follow the ``Join the PPQ Stakeholder Registry'' link.
With respect to the backlog of risk analyses, we noted in the
proposed rule that we have approximately 400 ``requests'' in the queue.
However, we received many of these requests some time ago but have been
unable to take action on them because they were incomplete or otherwise
lacking and a response to our inquiries has not yet been received from
the requestor. If, for the purposes of estimating the backlog, we were
to count only those official requests that are supported by required
information at this time, we have approximately 70 that are pending
assignment and prioritization and 110 in various stages of development.
Three commenters raised concerns with issues brought up in the
National Plant Board (NPB) report titled, ``Safeguarding American Plant
Resources (A Stakeholder Review of the APHIS-PPQ Safeguarding
System).'' The report, published in July of 1999, examined APHIS'
safeguarding system and made recommendations to improve upon the
system. The commenters stated that there should be no changes to the
regulations until the report is finalized and its recommendations are
taken into full account. One of those commenters stated that the report
contains references to fragmented and dispersed risk management
functions; the need for a better process to monitor the efficacy of
risk mitigation measures; and more training and actual field experience
to ensure that mitigation measures chosen are operationally feasible.
The commenter added that the risk analysis program is not yet
adequately funded.
In August 2005, we reported that PPQ had completed the
implementation process for the recommendations contained in the
stakeholder review, with virtually all of the more than 300
recommendations in the Safeguarding Review fully evaluated and
implemented or in the process of being implemented.\3\ Among our
accomplishments during the first 5 years of the implementation phase
were the strengthening and restructuring of our risk assessment work
and the building of a strong methods development program through our
Center for Plant Health Science and Technology (CPHST). We have
clarified roles and responsibilities for risk management in PPQ and
dedicated additional resources to that function.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ We made the decision not to implement a small number of
recommendations after completing our evaluation, and a number of
other recommendations were passed on to the Department of Homeland
Security after the 2003 reorganization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In terms of monitoring the efficacy of risk mitigation measures, we
work closely with the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) on
measures such as fruit cutting at the port of entry and port of entry
inspections. Inspection guidelines based on our pest risk analyses are
developed for each new commodity allowed entry into the United States.
In addition, APHIS' International Services staff also monitors programs
in exporting countries to ensure that mitigation measures are being
appropriately applied and that they are effective.
With regard to the need for more training and actual field
experience to assure that the mitigation measures

[[Page 39488]]

chosen are operationally feasible, we routinely provide opportunities
for our risk managers, some of whom have extensive operational
experience, to observe and participate in the application of field
measures.
Finally, we disagree that the risk analysis program is not yet
adequately funded. As noted previously, we believe that we have
sufficient personnel available to handle the review of data and
information for the completion of pest risk analyses and have recently
hired several additional risk analysts.
Four commenters raised concerns with CBP having sufficient
resources and staff to monitor the increased imports that would be
associated with this rule. Three of those commenters referenced a
recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) report in which GAO
determined that despite some positive developments, ``the agencies face
management and coordination problems that increase the vulnerability of
U.S. agriculture to foreign pests. CBP has not developed sufficient
performance measures that take into account the agency's expanded
mission or that consider all pathways by which prohibited agricultural
items or foreign pests may enter the country.'' The commenters stated
CBP faces significant resource and performance issues and that this
could lead to future pest infestations. One commenter stated that there
would be an increased need for additional APHIS staff to monitor the
imports and the conditions imposed on future imports. The commenter
noted that if we were to presume that most of those requests are
eligible for the notice-based process and the commodities start to
enter the United States, it appears that APHIS does not have the staff
to monitor its mitigation measures.
We consult with CBP at various stages of the rulemaking process,
beginning once a regulatory work plan has been developed and through
the publication of a final rule. We will similarly consult with CBP
about actions that we may take based on the notice-based process
established by this rule. CBP may raise any concerns with monitoring
required for mitigation measures at those times. If CBP does not have
the appropriate resources to monitor mitigations as determined by the
pest risk analysis, then we will modify our mitigations or otherwise
work with CBP to find efficacious mitigation measures that CBP can
monitor.
Further, increased imports will also generate more revenue for
APHIS and CBP through the collection of additional user fees. This
increase in funds can be used to increase staffing and improve upon
other resources that will be used to monitor mitigations. With regard
to CBP not having developed sufficient performance measures, new
performance measures were developed by CBP and were implemented on
October 1, 2006.
One commenter asked if more resources would be devoted toward
export petitions as a result of this final rule.
APHIS employs trade directors who are assigned specific geographic
areas of responsibility, and each trade director works with one import
specialist and one export specialist. There will be no changes to this
structure as a result of this final rule. As noted previously, when
pest risk analyses are needed for export issues, they are always
assigned a high priority.

Import Requirements for Specific Commodities

One commenter wanted to clarify that pineapple from Thailand will
be subject to general requirements under Sec. 319.56-3 and proposed
paragraphs (b)(2)(vi) and (b)(5)(vii) of Sec. 319.56-13, but no other
requirements. The commenter also asked why pineapple from Thailand has
been restricted importation to Hawaii.
Section 319.56-13 of our proposed rule erroneously stated that
pineapple from Thailand was prohibited entry into Hawaii only, when in
fact it is currently prohibited entry into all U.S. States and
territories except for Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands (CNMI). To correct this error, we are revising the
entry in the table for pineapples from Thailand in Sec. 319.56-13 to
provide that pineapple from Thailand is allowed entry into Guam and
CNMI only.
Two commenters requested that we remove the preclearance inspection
requirement for sand pears from Korea because it had not been required
previously.
The commenters are incorrect. As stated previously, the proposed
rule did not make any changes to existing import requirements, except
for those specifically mentioned in the rule. We have been requiring
preclearance inspections for sand pears from Korea since 1990, and
while that requirement was not listed in the regulations it has been
contained in the fruits and vegetables manual and is implemented by
administrative order.
We proposed to clarify that only Allium spp. without tops may be
imported into Guam, due to the presence of the leaf tip die back
disease, Mycosphaerella schoenoprasi, and exotic species of leaf miners
of Allium spp. in countries that regularly trade with Guam. One
commenter asked that we continue to allow Allium spp. from South Korea
into Guam under the same conditions that we have in the past. The
commenter added that tops of Welsh onion (Allium fistulosum) and stems
of garlic (Allium sativum) have historically been allowed importation
into Guam from South Korea and that the sudden prohibition of those
vegetable parts as a result of the proposed changes would have an
effect on Korean residents living in Guam.
We proposed to allow only Allium spp. without tops to be imported
into Guam, due to the presence of the leaf tip die back disease,
Mycosphaerella schoenoprasi, and exotic species of leaf miners of
Allium spp. in countries that regularly trade with Guam. Those pests,
which are associated with the Allium spp. tops and are not pests of
Allium spp. bulbs, are not present in Guam. The restrictions on the
importation of Allium spp. tops are necessary to prevent the
introduction of Mycosphaerella schoenoprasi and exotic species of leaf
miners into Guam.
One commenter asked that the regulations, where they provide for
the importation of pineapples, be amended to cover all varieties of
pineapple, not just varieties that are limited to at least 50 percent
smooth Cayenne by lineage.
We cannot make such a change in this final rule. We would need to
consider and document the risks associated with such a change and
publish a proposed rule before we could amend the regulations to expand
the number of pineapple varieties eligible for importation.
Two commenters asked that we remove the phytosanitary certificate
requirement for peppers from the Netherlands because a method to ensure
full traceability is still under discussion.
Following an interception of Mediterranean fruit fly (Medfly) in a
consignment of habanero peppers shipped via the Netherlands, we began
requiring consignments of peppers from the Netherlands to be
accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate stating that the fruit had
originated in a greenhouse in the Netherlands. When we began drafting
our proposal, we believed it was necessary to reflect that
administrative phytosanitary certificate requirement, which was cited
in the fruits and vegetables manual, in the regulations. However, since
the publication of the proposed rule, we have engaged in additional
discussions with officials of the Dutch NPPO and have agreed that they
have adequately addressed the Medfly issue that prompted the
phytosanitary certificate requirement. That requirement had been

[[Page 39489]]

the only specified condition that necessitated peppers from the
Netherlands being listed in the table in Sec. 319.56-13, so that entry
does not appear in this final rule. We have also removed proposed
paragraph (b)(5)(xi) in Sec. 319.56-13, which contained the
phytosanitary requirement, because it is not applicable to any other
entries in the table and have redesignated the remaining subparagraphs
in paragraph (b)(5) accordingly.

Pest Risk Analyses

One commenter asked how we will handle issues raised in the comment
period that call into question the use of the notice-based approach on
an import request.
As established by this rule, the notice-based process is
appropriate when we conclude, based on pest risk analysis, that the
risks associated with a particular candidate for importation can be
addressed using one or more of the designated measures listed in Sec.
319.56-4(b). Accordingly, if information submitted during the comment
period led us to change our conclusion about the appropriateness of
those measures, then the notice-based process would end without the
issuance of a permit. If the submitted information did not lead us to
change our conclusions, we would likely proceed with a subsequent
Federal Register notice announcing that we will begin issuing import
permits; in that notice, we would discuss all the comments we received
and our reasons for proceeding as we did.
One commenter asked under what specific circumstances would APHIS
publish a notice in the Federal Register, revising import requirements
for certain imports, or prohibiting or restricting the importation of
certain products as provided for in Sec. 319.56-4(d). The commenter
also asked if APHIS would publish a followup notice if it resolves the
problem which prompted publication of such an action and notice in the
Federal Register.
Paragraph (d) of Sec. 319.56-4 in the proposed rule and in this
final rule provides that if we determine that one or more of the
designated measures is not sufficient to mitigate the risk posed by any
fruit or vegetable that has been authorized for importation under
permit in accordance with Sec. 319.56-4, then APHIS will prohibit or
further restrict the importation of the fruit or vegetable, and that we
may publish a notice to inform the public of our findings. That notice
would specify the amended import requirements, provide an effective
date for the change, and invite public comment on the subject. As for
what specific circumstances might lead us to take the actions described
in Sec. 319.56-4(d), our proposed rule offered examples such as
interceptions of new pests in imported fruits or vegetables or new
evidence of risk or evidence of poor program implementation or
performance. With respect to whether we would publish a followup notice
following the resolution of a problem, we expect that such a decision
would depend on the circumstances leading up to our initial action and
the nature of our action (i.e., a prohibition on imports, a temporary
suspension, the addition of new requirements, etc.). In any case, our
goal will be to keep the public informed and ensure the transparency of
our decisionmaking.
One commenter asked why we were requiring exporting countries to
conduct pest risk analyses when ISPM standards require that importing
countries do so.
We are not requiring that exporting countries conduct their own
pest risk analyses, although an exporting country may provide
substantial inputs and they may benefit by doing so. The main benefit
of an exporting country assisting in conducting the pest risk analysis
is that it can improve the quality of the data and conclusions and the
validity and credibility of the analysis. In some cases, it might also
expedite the approval of the commodity the country wishes to export.
However, all externally prepared pest risk analyses are thoroughly
evaluated by APHIS for completeness and consistency with APHIS-prepared
analyses and revised as necessary.

Insect-Proof Packaging

Section 319.56-2dd has contained restrictions on the importation of
tomatoes from certain countries. In our proposal, we discussed moving
that section to new Sec. 319.56-28 and stated that one of the changes
we were proposing in conjunction with that move was to require the use
of insect-proof containers or coverings, rather than fruit fly-proof
containers or coverings. One commenter took issue with this proposed
change, stating that it was unnecessary to address pest risk and citing
significant economic costs that would be associated with covering
tomatoes.
Our statement in the proposed rule that ``[t]he current regulations
require packaging and containers to be fruit fly-proof, not insect-
proof'' was in error; we should not have presented the subject as a
proposed change in the regulations. The regulations in Sec. 319.56-2dd
have required insect-proof containers or coverings since June 25, 2003,
when we published a final rule (68 FR 37904-37923, Docket No. 02-026-4)
making that change among many others. Prior to that, fruit fly-proof
coverings and containers had been required, and that requirement had
been in place since the regulations in Sec. 319.56-2dd were
established in 1998.
One commenter stated that it is unnecessary to require that
tomatoes be packed in insect-proof cartons or containers or covered by
insect-proof mesh or plastic tarpaulins during transport to the airport
and subsequent exportation to the United States because any harmful
insects that are present in a greenhouse will leave the tomatoes at the
time of harvesting due to the moving of the plants. The commenter added
that tomatoes which have been picked and are subsequently transported
with the production facility do not attract additional insects.
While the commenter may be correct with regard to specific targeted
pests, the insect-proof mesh or plastic tarpaulin is intended to
prevent hitchhiking pests that may attach to fruit while in transit,
and not only pests that could attach at the time of growing,
harvesting, or packing.

Use of Terms

One commenter noted that proposed Sec. 319.56-6 provides that if
APHIS is to be present in an exporting country to facilitate the
exportation of fruits and vegetables and APHIS services are to be
funded by the NPPO of the exporting country or a private export group,
then the NPPO or private group must enter into a trust fund agreement
with APHIS. The commenter contrasted that provision with proposed
Sec. Sec. 319.56-23(b) and 319.56-38(f), which specifically state that
the importation of the authorized commodities from Chile would be
possible only if the Servicio Agricola y Ganadero (SAG) has entered
into a trust fund agreement. The commenter asked that we clarify that
the same would be expected of a private export group.
We agree with the commenter and have amended Sec. Sec. 319.56-
23(b) and 319.56-38(f) in this final rule to be consistent with the
wording of Sec. 319.56-6.
One commenter noted that proposed Sec. 319.56-29 refers to the
Chinese Ministry of Agriculture, while Sec. 319.56-39 refers to the
NPPO of China.
For consistency's sake, both of those sections in this final rule
refer to the NPPO of China.

Frozen Fruit and Quick Freezing

One commenter stated that there is some confusion around the
concept of frozen fruit and asked that we add a definition of frozen
fruit in Sec. 319.56-2.

[[Page 39490]]

We use the term frozen fruits and vegetables as a description and
quick freezing as the method used to obtain the frozen state. However,
to provide clarification, this final rule includes a definition of
frozen fruit or vegetable in Sec. 319.56-2, i.e.: ``Any variety of raw
fruit or vegetable preserved by commercially acceptable freezing
methods in such a way that the commodity remains at -6.7 [deg]C (20
[deg]F) or below for at least 48 hours prior to release.''
Proposed Sec. 319-56-12 provided that the importation from foreign
countries of frozen fruits and vegetables is not authorized when such
fruits and vegetables are subject to attack in the area of origin by
plant pests that may not, in the judgment of the Administrator, be
destroyed by quick freezing. One commenter asked how the Administrator
will communicate the list of plant pests that are not destroyed by
quick freezing.
Section 305.17(b) of our phytosanitary treatments regulations
contains a list of fruits and vegetables and their countries of origin
for which quick freezing is not an authorized treatment. We have
amended Sec. 319.56-12 in this final rule to provide that quick
freezing is not an authorized treatment for those fruits and vegetables
listed in Sec. 305.17(b).
One commenter asked if quick freezing would also be subject to the
monitoring and certification requirements under Sec. 305.3.
Yes, quick freezing is considered a treatment and therefore, will
be subject to the requirements in Sec. 305.3, ``Monitoring and
certification of treatments.''

General Comments

One commenter stated that we did not specify whether the notice
published with APHIS' final determination will contain responses to
public comments. The commenter noted that the opportunity for comment
is meaningless unless the Agency responds to the significant points
raised by the public.
We intend to carefully review all comments we receive on the risk
analyses. We are soliciting comments to help us determine the
appropriate course of action and may change course based on comments.
While the flow chart we presented on page 25017 of the proposed rule
makes reference to a discussion of the comments being included with the
pest risk analysis in the second notice, our discussion of the process
may not clearly communicate our intention to respond to the comments we
receive. We did not intend to imply that the notice-based process would
eliminate our responding to the comments we receive on the notices. We
will continue to respond to all substantive comments and will make the
comments and our responses available as attachments to draft or final
pest risk analyses.
One commenter noted that proposed Sec. 319.56-4(d) states that
APHIS ``may'' prohibit or further restrict the importation of the fruit
or vegetable that has been approved for importation under Sec. 319.56-
4 when we determine that additional risk mitigation measures are
necessary. The commenter stated that the use of the word ``may'' made
it unclear whether or not we would in fact act to prohibit or further
restrict a commodity should it become necessary. The commenter
suggested rewording the sentence to read that ``APHIS shall prohibit or
further restrict importation * * *.''
We agree that our use of the word ``may'' could leave some doubt as
to whether we will prohibit or further restrict imports if we determine
that one of the designated phytosanitary measures is not sufficient to
mitigate the risk posed by authorized imports. Therefore, we have
amended Sec. 319.56-4(d) in this final rule so that it reads ``APHIS
will prohibit or further restrict importation of the fruit or
vegetable. APHIS also may publish a notice in the Federal Register
advising the public of its finding.''
One commenter stated that we should consider limiting consignments
of fruits and vegetables into States like Florida that have crops that
are highly susceptible to infestation by pests and diseases from
countries which do not have equivalent plant pest agencies.
We consider limiting distribution of imports on a case-by-case
basis when the findings of pest risk analysis indicate that such an
action might be necessary and if it is operationally feasible. Limited
distribution is not, however, one of the designated measures listed in
this rule.
Our consideration of this comment brought to mind an issue that we
believe bears clarifying. The pest risk analyses we use to inform our
decisionmaking with respect to specific commodities are usually
prepared by PPQ's Center for Plant Health Science and Technology
(CPHST). In an effort to be as responsive as possible, CPHST routinely
limits the scope of its analyses to the continental United States
because doing so reduces the complexity of the analysis and thus saves
time. (CPHST will, of course, broaden the scope of the analysis to
include Hawaii and/or U.S. territories if the requesting country asks
that they do so.) When scope of a pest risk analysis is limited to the
continental United States, the scope of the import authorization we may
issue for the commodity that was the subject of the analysis is
likewise limited to the continental United States. Such a limitation on
distribution is applied not as a mitigation in response to an
identified pest risk, but rather because we have not examined the risks
associated with the movement of that commodity into Hawaii and/or any
U.S. territories or possessions. We view this as entirely distinct from
those situations where the findings of a pest risk assessment lead our
risk managers to recommend limited distribution as a risk mitigation
measure, such as is the case, for example, with litchi from certain
countries being prohibited from movement into Florida due to the litchi
rust mite. We believe that the first situation--where distribution is
authorized only within the continental United States due simply to the
scope of pest risk analysis--does not preclude the use of the notice-
based approach if the use of that approach is otherwise appropriate. In
the latter situation, the notice-based approach would not be
appropriate, given that limited distribution assigned as a mitigation
measure in response to an identified risk is not among the designated
measures.
One commenter stated that increasing amounts of imports have
increased pest infestations and that APHIS' pest risk analyses and
mitigation procedures do not always work, especially in the case of
imports from developing countries.
The commenter provided no evidence to support the assertion that
increasing imports have led to an increase in pest infestations. As
stated previously in this document, there will always be some degree of
pest risk associated with the movement of agricultural products; APHIS'
goal is to provide the protection necessary to prevent the introduction
and dissemination of plant pests into the United States while
facilitating trade in agricultural products. Further, there are several
factors that contribute to pest infestations, including smuggling,
undeclared fruits and vegetables in passenger baggage, and, as with
soybean rust, climatic conditions. We also note that legal imports
undergo a rigorous scientific evaluation before being approved for
importation and are subject to mitigation measures to which illegal
imports are not.
Three commenters stated that it was unfair to expedite the
importation of foreign fruits and vegetables when changes in interstate
consignments of produce governed by Federal quarantine continue to be
subject to rulemaking. One of those commenters specifically

[[Page 39491]]

requested that we also allow imports from Hawaii and the territories to
be eligible for a similar notice-based process in the final rule.
While we are not making any changes in this final rule in response
to this comment, we are currently considering revising part 318 to
provide the same notice-based process for Hawaii and the territories.
Further, we are reviewing our domestic quarantine regulations in part
301 to determine whether opportunities exist to expedite movements of
regulated products.
One commenter asked for clarification of the respective
responsibilities of APHIS and CBP. Another commenter encouraged APHIS
to provide increased compliance assistance to U.S. import companies and
to exporting countries where new commodities are approved for entry.
CBP personnel at ports of entry have many responsibilities, among
them examining agricultural imports for the protection of America's
agriculture, environment, and food supply from pests, diseases, and
agroterrorism. CBP conducts inspections and facilitates the clearance
of most agricultural products. APHIS-staffed plant inspection stations
are responsible for the inspection and clearance of the majority of
propagative material consignments as well as certain material arriving
under permit. CBP and APHIS work together as a team to safeguard U.S.
agriculture, setting policy, training officers, and improving the
import processes.
APHIS is currently studying and working with CBP on standard
operating procedures that can be used by carriers to ensure that
agricultural commodities are handled and transported in accordance with
APHIS regulations. These new standards will allow carriers to more
easily handle consignments in accordance with U.S. requirements.
Importers, shippers, and ultimately the public will benefit from this
new uniform policy.
We meet regularly with our counterparts in exporting countries to
develop bilateral work plans detailing specific procedures when new
commodities are approved for entry and we will continue to do so. In
addition, we provide an individual contact person for each notice who
can be reached should specific questions arise.
One commenter stated that fruits and vegetables should be subject
to strict inspections. The commenter also suggested that we should
conduct a trial run of the notice-based process in a few countries to
see how effective this approach is.
All imported fruits and vegetables are currently and will continue
to be subject to inspection at the port of entry. With regard to the
suggested trial, the rule does not make any changes to operations or
the pest risk analysis process, it is simply providing for an expedited
administrative process. Accordingly, we do not believe that
implementing this rule on a trial basis would be appropriate or useful.
At the same time, we regularly review our processes to ensure their
continued effectiveness and make changes whenever necessary.
One commenter asked what type of peer review process will be
utilized under the notice-based approach.
If the information that will be disseminated in a pest risk
analysis is determined to be ``influential'' or ``highly influential''
as those terms are used in the Office of Management and Budget's
``Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review,'' (see 70 FR
2664-2667, published January 14, 2005), then a peer review will be
conducted in accordance with USDA's peer review guidance (see http://
www.ocio.usda.gov/qi_guide/scientific_research.html).
One commenter questioned the basis for APHIS decisionmaking
regarding approval of import requests.
Under the Plant Protection Act, the Secretary may prohibit or
restrict the importation of plants and plant products if the Secretary
determines that the prohibition or restriction is necessary to prevent
the introduction into or dissemination within the United States of a
plant pest or noxious weed. Thus, our determinations as to whether a
new agricultural commodity can be safely imported are based on the
findings of pest risk analysis.
One commenter stated that the proposed changes did nothing to
address the fact that APHIS' regulations continue to prohibit the
importation of fruits and vegetables for which no import request has
been made, or for which an import request has been made but an
assessment of quarantine risk has not yet been completed. The commenter
stated that this ``a priori'' prohibition on the importation of fresh
fruits or vegetables into the United States is inconsistent with the
APHIS' obligations under the WTO's Agreement on the Application of
Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement), as they are not
based on an assessment of risks or scientific principles, nor
maintained with sufficient scientific evidence.
We believe it is appropriate to make a distinction between
commodities that are ``prohibited'' and disciplined by Article 5 of the
SPS Agreement, and commodities that are ``not yet approved'' or
``pending evaluation'' and disciplined by Annex C of the SPS Agreement.
Articles that are prohibited have been evaluated and prohibition is the
measure that has been determined to be appropriate. This status may be
changed based on new information and a reevaluation using pest risk
analysis. Likewise, pest risk analysis is used to evaluate the risk
associated with a request for a new commodity not previously evaluated.
It is true that our regulations do not make the distinction between (1)
commodities that have been evaluated and prohibited, (2) commodities
that are not currently allowed importation but that are undergoing risk
evaluation, and (3) commodities that are not allowed importation and
for which no request for risk evaluation exists. We recognize that our
regulatory terminology is not the same as that used in the SPS
Agreement; however, regardless of the terminology, APHIS only allows
new imports of fruits and vegetables following the completion of a risk
analysis that enables us to determine that the pest risks posed by the
commodity are known, and that the risks can and will be mitigated. We
believe that this policy is entirely consistent with the SPS Agreement.
One commenter stated that phytosanitary certificates should be
required for all consignments of imported fruits and vegetables.
On August 29, 2001, we published in the Federal Register (66 FR
45637-45648) a proposal to require phytosanitary certificates for all
imported fruits and vegetables. During the comment period, some
commenters raised issues that put into question whether this approach
was warranted. In response to those commenters, we prepared a risk
assessment that considered the plant pest risks associated with fruits
and vegetables imported in passenger baggage and the probable impact of
phytosanitary certification requirements. On May 24, 2006, we published
in the Federal Register (71 FR 29846-29847) a notice of availability of
that risk assessment. We are considering adopting only the proposed
requirements that pertain to fruits and vegetables imported in air
passenger baggage and are currently assessing the comments we received.
One commenter cautioned against the labeling requirements contained
in proposed Sec. 319.56-5. Specifically, the commenter took issue with
our requiring the orchard or grove of origin/name of grower and the
name of the municipality and State where the fruits or vegetables were
produced. The commenter was concerned that our

[[Page 39492]]

trading partners would require the same of U.S. grain and grain
products.
We made no changes to the labeling requirements that are now
contained in Sec. 319.56-5. The labeling requirements in Sec. 319.56-
5 apply to fruits and vegetables grown in pest-free areas. Therefore,
we must require that information about the origin of the product be
included on the label in order to verify that the fruit is indeed from
a pest-free area. This information also allows us to work effectively
with the NPPO of the exporting country to conduct tracebacks if
quarantine pests are found in a consignment.
One commenter stated that the 60-day comment period was too long.
The commenter asked that the comment period be reduced so that import
approvals can be issued no later than 6 months after the completion of
the pest risk analysis.
When developing our proposed rule, we wanted to ensure that we did
not reduce the opportunity for public comment. We believe maintaining a
60-day comment period is reasonable and appropriate. Further, even with
a 60-day comment period, import approvals could be issued within 6
months of announcing the availability of a pest risk analysis.
One commenter asked if we will still produce, as we have in the
past, proposed rules covering a wide variety of articles (often
referred to as ``periodic amendments'') and if so, how those periodic
amendments will relate to the notice-based approach.
Implementation of the notice-based process will likely reduce the
need to group import requests together in periodic amendments, but we
expect we will continue to use periodic amendments (as opposed to
standalone rulemakings) to add some commodities to the regulations that
require mitigations beyond the designated measures.
One commenter asked how the notice-based process will affect
pending import requests from Guatemala. The commenter asked if
previously submitted import requests needed to be resubmitted for the
commodity to qualify for the notice-based approach.
This rule will be applied to pending requests. If an import request
has already been submitted and the results of our pest risk analysis
lead us to conclude that the commodity can be safely imported under one
or more designated measures, then we will follow the notice-based
approach. It is not necessary to resubmit any import requests.
One commenter asked if the United States or the exporting country
makes decisions on which products are to be exported.
While there may be instances where the impetus for a specific
import request comes from an importer or other entity in the United
States, it is the NPPO of the exporting country that submits the formal
petition to APHIS.
One commenter asked if the exporting country needs to inspect the
commodity as well.
Under some circumstances, we find that inspection prior to
exportation is a necessary part of mitigating pest risk and the
exporting country would need to inspect the commodity. Such an
inspection requirement would be one of the mitigations included in the
pest risk analysis.
One commenter disagreed with not conducting an economic analysis on
future imports that are approved under the notice-based process. The
commenter stated that the economic impacts on domestic producers should
be part of any trade agreement the United States negotiates. The
commenter added that foreign producers are not subject to the same
environmental and phytosanitary restrictions under which U.S. domestic
producers operate, which puts our domestic producers at a distinct
competitive disadvantage.
As stated previously in this document, our determination as to
whether a new agricultural commodity can be safely imported is based on
the findings of pest risk analysis, not on economic factors. While the
notices published using the notice-based approach will not contain
economic analyses, we will certainly consider the potential economic
consequences of pest introduction in the pest risk analysis.
One commenter stated that the measures listed for use at the port
of Wilmington, NC, should incorporate measures to monitor any Medfly
that may escape treatment and should include measures to ensure the
cold treatment facility has a contingency plan for disposing of the
fruit. The commenter stated that the measures employed at the Port of
Wilmington should be at least as stringent as those for Seattle, WA,
and Atlanta, GA.
We did not propose to make any changes to the cold treatment
requirements performed at ports of entry in the United States, we
simply proposed to move these requirements into a different section.
Further, the measures to which the commenter refers are determined by
risk and Wilmington, NC, is not considered a high pest risk port
because it is unlikely that exotic fruit flies will become established
in the Wilmington area.
Two commenters raised issues regarding the irradiation of fruits
and vegetables. Specifically, one of the commenters questioned the use
of irradiation because there is evidence that there is nutrient
depletion when foods are subjected to it. The commenter also stated
that certain fruits and vegetables may produce cyclobutanones when
irradiated which in some studies have shown to act as tumor promoters.
The second commenter stated that irradiation is not safe and allowing
fruits and vegetables that have not been pretreated to enter the United
States opens the doors to pest infestation.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has primary regulatory
responsibility for ensuring that approved irradiation doses do not
render foods unsafe to eat. FDA regulations (21 CFR 179.26) establish a
limit of 1.0 kilogray for disinfestation of arthropod pests in fresh
fruits and vegetables. With respect to the second commenter's
additional concern, we established the irradiation-related provisions
in part 305 through earlier rulemakings and did not propose any changes
to those provisions in our proposed rule.

Additional Changes

In addition to the changes discussed above in response to comments,
we have made the following changes in this final rule:
We have amended Sec. 305.15(b) by removing Washington
Dulles International Airport as a port where cold treatment may be
conducted. There is not currently an approved cold treatment facility
at that airport.
Paragraph (a) of Sec. 305.31 includes a list of several
plant pests for which irradiation is an authorized treatment, but
paragraph (n) of that section has referred to ``the listed fruit
flies.'' Because the list also includes borers, weevils, moths, etc.,
we have amended Sec. 305.31(n) by replacing the reference to fruit
flies with a more general reference to plants pests.
We have removed proposed paragraph (b)(7) of Sec. 319.56-
3, which would have provided for the issuance of special use permits to
authorize the importation of small lots of otherwise prohibited fruits
or vegetable under certain conditions. After reconsidering the issue,
we no longer believe that we have adequate resources to devote to these
types of permits.
We have removed proposed paragraphs (b)(5)(i) and
(b)(5)(xii) from Sec. 319.56-13 and have renumbered the remaining
paragraphs in Sec. 319.56-

[[Page 39493]]

13(b)(5) accordingly. The first of those paragraphs referred to a
phytosanitary certificate requirement that does not apply to any of the
commodities listed in the table in paragraph (a) of that section. The
second of those paragraphs referred to a phytosanitary certificate/
additional declaration requirement regarding freedom from the gray
pineapple mealybug (Dysmicoccus neobrevipes). That paragraph was cited
only in the entry for honeydew melon from Peru in the table, and that
honeydew melon entry also cites paragraph (b)(1)(iv), which includes,
among other things, the same phytosanitary certificate requirement.
Therefore, proposed (b)(5)(xii) was redundant and has been removed.

Changes to the Regulations Since the Publication of Our Proposal

Since the publication of the proposed rule, several final rules
that amended the regulations in part 319 have become effective, and the
changes made to the regulations in those final rules need to be
reflected in this rule.
On May 1, 2006 (see 71 FR 25487-25495, Docket No. 03-113-3), we
published a final rule that amended the fruits and vegetables
regulations by adding a new Sec. 319.56-2pp, ``Conditions governing
the importation of citrus from Peru,'' to allow the importation, under
certain conditions, of fresh commercial citrus fruit (grapefruit,
limes, mandarin oranges or tangerines, sweet oranges, and tangelos)
from approved areas of Peru into the United States. Because the import
requirements include additional measures beyond the designated
measures, they need to remain in the regulations; those provisions
appear in this final rule as Sec. 319-56-41.
On May 22, 2006 (see 71 FR 29241-29244, Docket No. 05-068-2), we
published a final rule that amended the fruits and vegetables
regulations by adding a new Sec. 319.56-2qq, ``Administrative
instructions: Conditions governing the entry of peppers from the
Republic of Korea,'' to allow the importation into the continental
United States of peppers from the Republic of Korea under certain
conditions. Because the import requirements include additional measures
beyond the designated measures, they need to remain in the regulations;
those provisions appear in this final rule as Sec. 319-56-42.
On May 24, 2006 (see 71 FR 29766-29769, Docket No. 05-059-2), we
published a final rule that amended the fruits and vegetables
regulations by adding a new Sec. 319.56-2f, ``Conditions governing the
entry of baby corn and baby carrots from Zambia,'' to allow the
importation into the continental United States of fresh, dehusked,
immature (baby) sweet corn and fresh baby carrots from Zambia. Because
the import requirements include additional measures beyond the
designated measures, they need to remain in the regulations; those
provisions appear in this final rule as Sec. 319-56-43.
On June 8, 2006 (see 71 FR 33172-33178, Docket No. 03-048-3), we
published a final rule that amended the fruits and vegetables
regulations by adding a new Sec. 319.56-2rr, ``Administrative
instructions: Conditions governing the importation of untreated
grapefruit, sweet oranges, and tangerines from Mexico for processing,''
to provide for the importation of untreated citrus (grapefruit, sweet
oranges, and tangerines) from Mexico for processing under certain
conditions. Because the import requirements include additional measures
beyond the designated measures, they need to remain in the regulations;
those provisions appear in this final rule as Sec. 319-56-44.
On August 23, 2006 (see 71 FR 49319-49326, Docket No. 00-086-2), we
published a final rule that amended the plant quarantine safeguard
regulations in 7 CFR part 352. Among other things, that final rule
amended paragraph (e) of Sec. 352.30 by removing a reference to the
State of Sonora in order to make it clear that oranges, tangerines, and
grapefruit that are moving in transit to foreign countries may be
imported into the United States from any municipality in Mexico that
has been recognized as a fruit fly-free area. To reflect that change,
we have removed the reference to Sonora in this final rule's revision
of Sec. 352.30(e).
On August 25, 2006 (see 71 FR 50320-50328, Docket No. APHIS-2006-
0096), we published an interim rule that, among other things, amended
the general permit in Sec. 319.56-2(c) for fruits and vegetables grown
in Canada to state that Canadian-grown fruits and vegetables are
subject to the inspection and other requirements of Sec. 319.56-6
(Sec. 319.56-3(d) in this final rule). In this final rule, we have
amended the text of the general permit for fruits and vegetables grown
in Canada, which now appears in Sec. 319.56-10(a), to reflect that
change.
On August 28, 2006 (see 71 FR 50837-50843, Docket No. APHIS-2006-
0009), we published a final rule that amended the regulations in Sec.
319.56-2dd, ``Administrative instructions: Conditions governing the
entry of tomatoes,'' by adding a new paragraph (f) to allow pink and
red tomatoes grown in approved registered production sites in Costa
Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama to be
imported into the United States. Because the import requirements
include additional measures beyond the designated measures, they need
to remain in the regulations; those provisions appear in this final
rule as paragraph (f) of Sec. 319.56-28.
On September 21, 2006 (see 71 FR 55087-55090, Docket No. APHIS
2006-0025), we published a final rule that amended the fruits and
vegetables regulations by adding a new Sec. 319.56-2ss, ``Conditions
governing the entry of grapes from Namibia,'' to allow for the
importation into the United States of fresh table grapes from Namibia
under certain conditions. The final rule required that the grapes be
cold treated for specific pests, fumigated for specific pests,
accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate, and imported in commercial
consignments only, all of which are measures that are eligible for the
notice-based approach. Therefore, the provisions regarding the entry of
table grapes from Namibia do not appear in this final rule; rather,
those conditions will be listed in the fruits and vegetables manual.
Section 319.56-30, ``Hass avocados from Michoacan, Mexico,'' has
been updated to reflect the changes made in a technical amendment
published on October 18, 2006 (see 71 FR 61373-61374, Docket No. 03-
022-7).
On October 24, 2006 (see 71 FR 62197-62198, Docket No. APHIS-2006-
0073), we published a final rule that amended the fruits and vegetables
regulations by adding a new Sec. 319.56-2bb, ``Conditions governing
the entry of shelled garden peas from Kenya,'' to allow for the
importation into the United States of shelled garden peas from Kenya
into the continental United States under certain conditions. Because
the import requirements include additional measures beyond the
designated measures, they need to remain in the regulations; those
provisions appear in this final rule as Sec. 319.56-45.
On December 18, 2006 (see 71 FR 75649-75659, Docket No. 03-086-3),
we published a final rule that made a number of amendments to the
fruits and vegetables regulations that need to be reflected in this
final rule. Specifically:
We added a requirement that consignments of Allium spp.
consisting of the whole plant or above ground parts be accompanied by a
phytosanitary certificate issued by the NPPO of Canada with an
additional declaration stating that the articles are free from

[[Page 39494]]

Acrolepipsis assectella (Zeller). That phytosanitary certificate
requirement for Allium spp. from Canada appears in Sec. 319.56-10 of
this final rule as paragraph (a)(1).
We amended the table that has appeared in Sec. 319.56-2t
by adding several fruits and vegetables and by revising existing
entries for several fruits and vegetables. Many of those changes were
reflected in our April 2006 proposed rule, and many of the commodities
we added require only mitigations that are eligible for the notice-
based approach, so it is not necessary to list them in this final rule.
There was, however, one commodity added to the table--citrus (Citrus
spp.) fruit from New Zealand--that must meet requirements that go
beyond the designated measures, so we have added an entry for New
Zealand citrus to the table in Sec. 319.56-13 of this final rule. We
also amended the entry for pineapple (Ananas spp.) fruit from South
Africa to indicate that the fruit may only be imported into the
continental United States. That change is also reflected in this final
rule.
We amended the conditions for importing tomatoes from
Chile in Sec. 319.56-2dd(d) by adding provisions to allow the
importation of tomatoes from Chile without treatment for Medfly and
other pests if the tomatoes are grown and packed in accordance with
specified requirements and accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate.
Because those import requirements include additional measures beyond
the designated measures, they need to remain in the regulations; those
provisions appear in this final rule as paragraph (d)(2) in Sec.
319.56-28.
We amended the conditions for importing mangoes from the
Philippines in Sec. 319.56-2ii by adding provisions to allow mangos to
be imported from all areas of the Philippines, except the island of
Palawan, into Guam and Hawaii under certain conditions. In this final
rule, the provisions for importing mangoes from the Philippines, as
amended by Docket No. 03-086-3, appear in Sec. 319.56-33.
On March 12, 2007 (see 72 FR 10902-10907, Docket No. APHIS-2006-
0121), we published a final rule that amended the regulations by adding
a new Sec. 319.56-2tt, ``Conditions governing the entry of mangoes
from India,'' to allow the importation into the continental United
States of mangoes from India under certain conditions. Because the
import requirements include additional measures beyond the designated
measures, they need to remain in the regulations; those provisions
appear in this final rule as Sec. 319.56-46.
On June 21, 2007 (see 72 FR 34163-34176, Docket No. APHIS-2006-
0040), we published a final rule that amended the fruits and vegetables
regulations by adding a new Sec. 319.56-2uu, ``Administrative
instructions: Conditions governing the entry of certain fruits from
Thailand'' to allow the importation into the United States of litchi,
longan, mango, mangosteen, pineapple, and rambutan from Thailand under
certain conditions. Mango, mangosteen, pineapple and rambutan require
only mitigations that are eligible for the notice-based approach, so it
is not necessary to list them in this final rule. Litchi and longan,
however, have labeling requirements, which go beyond the designated
measures, so we have added entries for litchi and longan from Thailand
to the table in Sec. 319.56-13 of this final rule.
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 significant for the purposes of Executive
Order 12866 and, therefore, has been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget.
We have prepared an economic analysis for this final rule. It
provides a cost-benefit analysis as required by Executive Order 12866,
as well as a final regulatory flexibility analysis that considers the
potential economic effects of this final rule on small entities, as
required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The economic analysis is
summarized below. Copies of the full analysis are available from the
person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Please refer to
Docket No. APHIS-2005-0106 when requesting copies. The full analysis is
also available on the Regulations.gov Web site (see footnote 1 at the
beginning of this final rule for instructions for accessing
Regulations.gov).
In accordance with the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701 et
seq.), the Secretary of Agriculture has the authority to promulgate
regulations and take measures to prevent the spread of plant pests into
or through the United States, which includes regulating the importation
of fruits and vegetables into the United States. The Secretary has
delegated the responsibility for enforcing the Plant Protection Act to
the Administrator of APHIS.
This rule revises and reorganizes the regulations pertaining to the
importation of fruits and vegetables to consolidate requirements of
general applicability and eliminate redundant requirements, update
terms and remove outdated requirements and references, update the
regulations that apply to importations of fruits and vegetables into
U.S. territories, and make various editorial and nonsubstantive changes
to regulations to make them easier to use. APHIS is also making
substantive changes to the regulations, including: (1) Establishing
criteria within the regulations that, if met, would allow APHIS to
approve certain new fruits and vegetables for importation into the
United States and to acknowledge pest-free areas in foreign countries
without undertaking rulemaking; and (2) doing away with the process of
listing specific commodities that may be imported subject to certain
types of risk management measures. These changes are necessary to make
the APHIS process for approving new imports and pest-free areas more
effective and efficient while continuing to provide for public
participation in the process.

Summary of Cost-Benefit Analysis

International trade in fruits and vegetables--in particular, many
new and newly traded commodities--expanded rapidly over the past two
decades. This increased trade also reflects a marked change in the
variety of products sought by American consumers. According to Food and
Agriculture Organization (FAO) data, the average value share of fruits
and vegetables (including pulses and tree nuts) in global agricultural
exports increased from 11.7 percent in the period 1977-81 to 15.1
percent in 1987-91 and reached an all-time high of 16.5 percent in
1997-2001.\4\ Imports have become increasingly important for domestic
fresh fruit and vegetable consumption. In 2004, the United States
imported more than $7 billion in fresh fruits and vegetables.
Maintaining the current process will make it difficult to keep pace
with this rapidly increasing volume of import requests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ Huang, Sophia Wu. Global Trade Patterns in Fruits and
Vegetables. Chapter 2. Economic Research Service/USDA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The process for approving imports adopted in this rule will apply
only to commodities that, based on the findings of our risk analyses,
APHIS determines can be safely imported subject to one or more of the
designated risk management measures.
By eliminating the need for specific prior rulemaking for notice-
based

[[Page 39495]]

process commodities, considerable time savings could be reaped. The
current process for approving new imports takes a notable period of
time, ranging on average from 18 months to upwards of 3 years
(beginning with the initial request and ending with the publication of
the final rule). A significant portion of this time is accounted for in
the rulemaking process. This rule will reduce the time needed for the
administrative portion of the approval process of some fruits and
vegetables for import without eliminating opportunity for public
participation in our analysis of risk and without affecting the
science-based review of the request. In addition, this rule will help
relieve the burden on the APHIS regulatory mechanism, given the volume
of new commodity import requests APHIS has been receiving, and the
large volume of rulemaking initiatives already underway in APHIS.
Consumers benefit from the ability to purchase fruits and
vegetables from a variety of sources, foreign as well as domestic.
Consumer expenditures for fruit and vegetables are growing faster than
for any food group other than meats. Many of the commodities that will
be covered by this rule are niche products, currently unavailable or
limited in availability in the United States. This rule allows
importers to more quickly meet consumer demand for those niche
products. In addition, climate causes most domestic fruit and vegetable
production to be seasonal, with the largest harvests occurring during
the summer and fall. Imports supplement domestic supplies, especially
of fresh products during the winter, resulting in increased choices for
consumers. Even where the new imports would compete directly with
domestic production, consumers would benefit when increased competition
results in lower prices.
In the current process, once APHIS has conducted a risk analysis
and identified what phytosanitary measures are necessary to address the
pest risk posed by the commodity subject to an import request, APHIS
then proceeds through rulemaking. Through rulemaking, APHIS amends the
fruits and vegetables regulations by listing the commodity from a
specific part of the world as eligible, under specified conditions, for
importation into the United States. Some import requests that might
otherwise have very quickly led to new imports are delayed considerably
by the rulemaking process. One reason for this is the complexities of
the rulemaking process itself. There are certain statutory, executive
branch, and departmental process requirements that are typically not
required under a notice-based process. Another is the nature of the
requests. Few if any of these requests warrant an entire rulemaking in
and of themselves. These requests are primarily for small volume
imports either because they are specialty crops or are grown in limited
quantities in the requesting area. Therefore these requests, when their
risk analyses have been completed and needed phytosanitary measures
have been identified, are necessarily grouped together for movement
through the rulemaking process. These changes, along with other minor
regulatory changes, are covered in rulemakings referred to as periodic
amendments to Q56.
A significant number of the commodity import requests that APHIS
receives will likely fit the notice-based process criteria as laid out
in this rule. The number of import requests has grown significantly. As
noted previously, there are currently approximately 400 commodity
import requests that are pending before APHIS, of which approximately
70 are awaiting assignment and prioritization and 110 are in various
stages of development; the remainding requests are incomplete or
otherwise lacking and a response to our inquiries has not yet been
received from the requestor. Because of the nature of the import
requests likely to qualify for the notice-based approach, those
commodities would most likely otherwise be included in periodic
amendments to Q56.
Included in the 11th periodic amendment \5\ were numerous herbs
from Central America, figs from Mexico, peppers from Chile, cape
gooseberry from Colombia, longan from China, persimmon from Spain,
yard-long-bean from Nicaragua, and yellow pitaya from Colombia. These
commodities would fit the notice-based process criteria of this rule,
subject only to designated mitigation measures. Had these commodities
followed the notice-based process of this rule, these commodities would
have been available to U.S. consumers far sooner than was actually the
case. For example, all of the pest risk analyses and risk management
decisions associated with the herbs from Central America were completed
by the end of 2001. The final rule allowing the import of these
commodities was not published and effective until June 25, 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ Importation of Fruits and Vegetables. Final Rule. Docket No.
02-024-6. Federal Register/Vol. 68, No. 122/Wednesday, June 25,
2003/Rules and Regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In 2004 and 2005, approximately 454,000 kg of the above commodities
were imported into the United States from the countries covered in the
amendment. It is estimated that the average monthly value per commodity
of these consignments was about $3,900.\6\ A significant percentage of
commodity import requests currently being processed by APHIS may fit
the notice-based process criteria of this rule. The rulemaking process
is an inherently longer process than a notice-based process. There are
complexities in the rulemaking process that are not present in the
notice-based process. In addition, few if any of the requests that
would fall into the notice-based process warrant an entire rulemaking
in and of themselves, and are therefore grouped with other commodities
for rulemaking. Therefore, a notice-based approach to commodity import
approvals could be 6 to 12 months shorter than under a rulemaking
approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ Shipment information was obtained from APHIS' PQ280
database. Information on value is from the U.S. Census Bureau,
Foreign Trade Statistics (for cowpeas, figs, fruit not elsewhere
specified, other spices and herbs, other berries, and peppers) for
2004 and 2005, in 2005 dollars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the purposes of estimating the benefits of a notice-based
approach to approving commodity import requests, we make the following
assumptions: The commodities that are approved for import under this
notice-based process have values similar to those approved under the
11th periodic amendment; 30 to 50 percent (120 to 200) of current
commodity import requests would be approved under this process; and
those commodities approved in the notice-based process would reach the
U.S. market 6 to 12 months earlier than they would under rulemaking.
Based on these assumptions, we could expect imports valued at
between $2.8 million and $9.4 million to occur under a notice-based
process that would not occur under the current rulemaking process.
These added sales represent benefits of this rule. The rule will also
have the benefit of improving trade relations with other countries by
speeding import approvals. In addition, by moving to a notice-based
process for certain commodities, fewer APHIS resources will have to be
devoted to rulemaking for these commodities.
This rule does not alter the manner in which the risks associated
with a commodity import request are evaluated, nor does it alter the
manner in which those risks are ultimately mitigated. The change merely
allows a new commodity import to move more quickly into commerce to the
benefit of consumers once it has been determined

[[Page 39496]]

that the commodity can be safely imported subject to one or more
designated risk management measures.
APHIS currently recognizes changes in the pest-free status of
countries via rulemaking. Under this rule, APHIS will use Federal
Register notices and public comment to acknowledge pest-free areas in
foreign countries without undertaking rulemaking. This will allow APHIS
to be more responsive in recognizing changes in the pest-free status of
foreign areas.
This rule also clarifies and strengthens requirements regarding
safeguarding of fruits and vegetables that are imported from pest-free
areas. These safeguards provide necessary protection of imported
commodities against pest infestations while they are in transit to the
United States and are consistent with standard operating procedures of
all current programs that export fruits and vegetables from pest-free
areas. These changes should therefore have little, if any, impact on
users of the system.
The commodities approved under the notice-based approach will no
longer be listed in the regulations, nor will commodities that are
currently approved for importation subject to one or more of the
designated measures described previously be listed. Rather, the fruits
and vegetables manual \7\ will contain a listing of all commodities
approved for importation into the United States and will serve as a
comprehensive list and reference of enterable fruits and vegetables. In
addition, as stated previously, we are in the process of converting
APHIS' fruits and vegetables manual into a searchable database that
will allow interested persons to search by commodity or by country, and
that will list clearly the conditions that apply to each particular
commodity from a specified country. We anticipate having the system
operating by the end of 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ The manual, ``Fresh Fruits and Vegetables Import Manual,''
can be viewed on the Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_
export/plants/manuals/ports/downloads/fv.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

These changes will not alter the decisionmaking process for
determining whether a commodity is approved for importation, merely how
that decision is presented.
This rule makes several changes to the issuance of permits for the
importation of fruits and vegetables. This rule amends the regulations
pertaining to permits to state that certain dried, cured, or processed
fruits and vegetables; certain fruits and vegetables grown in Canada;
and certain fruits and vegetables grown in the British Virgin Islands
that are imported into the U.S. Virgin Islands; may be imported without
a permit, while all other fruits and vegetables must be imported under
permit. Because this change merely removes an unnecessarily confusing
distinction between specific and general written permits, the change
should have little, if any, impact on users.
Other current provisions regarding application for permits;
issuance of permits; amendment, denial, or withdrawal of permits; and
appeals are relocated in this rule. The provisions for applying for
permits are also updated to reflect the various means now available for
applying for permits. These changes will not affect program operations,
and should therefore have little, if any, impact on users of the
system.
This rule revises, reorganizes, and updates some of the
regulations, updates terms and removes outdated requirements and
references, and makes various editorial and nonsubstantive changes to
regulations to make them easier to use. The reorganization of the
regulations does not affect any requirements for importing commodities
but simplifies the regulations and organizes them to facilitate future
revisions. In addition, this rule also clarifies treatment requirements
in 7 CFR part 305. These changes do not represent a change in program
operations and therefore should not affect users of the system.
This rule also amends the various restrictions on the importation
of okra from countries where the pink bollworm is known to exist. The
regulations were outdated and contained differing restrictions for the
importation of okra from countries even though the regulations are all
aimed at excluding pink bollworm from the United States. Under this
rule, all imports from pink bollworm-infested areas are subject to the
same requirements. The conditions are equivalent to our domestic
regulations that pertain to pink bollworm.
In 2004, okra was imported from 11 countries into the United States
with a value of $17.4 million. Mexico has been the primary source of
these imports. In 2004, Mexico accounted for nearly 70 percent of the
imports. Other major sources are El Salvador, Honduras, and Nicaragua,
which together accounted for the remainder of the okra imports in 2004.
Currently, the regulations contain varying restrictions on the
importation of okra from countries where pink bollworm is known to
exist. These restrictions include fumigation of imports from pink
bollworm infested countries that are moving into infested areas of the
United States. This rule removes this restriction. This may reduce the
cost associated with some imports. However, this change will primarily
impact Mexican imports. Mexico is already, by far, the United States'
largest foreign source of okra. In addition, this change only affects a
limited portion of those okra imports. Therefore, this change should
have at most a minor effect on okra imports and domestic okra prices.
This rule also updates the regulations to reflect current APHIS
operating practices regarding biometric sampling of apricots,
nectarines, peaches, plumcot, and plums from Chile. Under the rule, the
current sampling regimens are removed and replaced with provisions that
require sampling, but do not specify the percentage of fruit to be
sampled or the confidence level of the inspection. Chile is the primary
source of U.S. stone fruit imports, accounting for more than 97 percent
$73 million in such imports in 2005. However, these modifications in
this rule do not represent a change in current program operations and
therefore should not affect users of the system.
In sum, APHIS expects little impact on the total volume of U.S.
imports of fruits and vegetables, with small effects on U.S. marketers
and consumers. In addition, those additional measures in this rule that
affect specific commodities are also expected to have limited impact.
The main portions of this rule represent a significant structural
revision of the fruits and vegetables import regulations and establish
a new process for approving certain new commodities for importation
into the United States. However, those commodity import requests most
likely to qualify for the notice-based process are for small volume
imports. This is either because they are for specialty crops that are
currently unavailable or limited in availability in the United States,
or are for crops grown in limited quantities in the requesting area. In
addition, the rule does not alter the conditions for importing the
majority of currently approved fruits or vegetables.
Of particular note with respect to the changes to the approval
process, the change merely allows a new commodity import to move more
quickly into commerce to the benefit of consumers once it has been
determined that the commodity can be safely imported subject to one or
more designated risk management measures. The rule does not alter the
manner in which the risk associated with a commodity import request is
evaluated, nor does it alter the manner in which those risks are

[[Page 39497]]

ultimately mitigated. Consumers will have quicker access to imported
fruits and vegetables, though risks will still be evaluated and
appropriate mitigations required, as they are currently. Also, given
the growing number of requests to ship foreign fruits and vegetables to
the United States, some trading partners may perceive the time required
to conduct the rulemaking process as a barrier to trade. Such
perception may impede their consideration of U.S. requests to ship U.S.
commodities to their markets. To the extent our trading partners
consider the time it takes to conduct the rulemaking process a trade
barrier, as many of them do, this rule may facilitate the export of
U.S. agricultural commodities.

Summary of Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

Objectives of and Legal Basis

By eliminating the need for specific prior rulemaking for notice-
based process commodities, considerable time savings could be reaped.
The current process for approving new imports takes a notable period of
time, ranging on average from 18 months to 3 years (beginning with the
initial request and ending with the publication of the final rule).
Consumers benefit from the ability to purchase fruits and
vegetables from a variety of sources, foreign as well as domestic. Many
of the commodities that likely to be covered by this rule are niche
products, unavailable or limited in availability in the United States.
This rule will allow importers to more quickly meet consumer demand for
those niche products. In addition, climate causes most domestic fruit
and vegetable production to be seasonal, with the largest harvests
occurring during the summer and fall. Imports supplement domestic
supplies, especially of fresh products during the winter, resulting in
increased choices for consumers. Even where the new imports would
compete directly with domestic production, consumers would benefit when
increased competition results in lower prices.
Under the regulations in ``Subpart-Fruits and Vegetables,'' APHIS
prohibits or restricts the importation of fresh 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. Those regulations are based on
our authority under the Plant Protection Act.

Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 603, we prepared an initial regulatory
flexibility analysis for the interim rule. We invited comments about
the interim rule as it relates to small entities and stated that we
were interested in determining the number and kind of small entities
that may incur benefits or costs from implementation of the interim
rule. We did not receive any comments that were responsive to our
request for additional economic information.

Description and Estimate of Small Entities

Those entities most likely to be economically affected by the rule
are domestic importers and producers of fruits and vegetables. The
Small Business Administration (SBA) has established guidelines for
determining which establishments are to be considered small. Import/
export merchants, agents, and brokers are identified within the broader
wholesaling trade sector. A firm primarily engaged in wholesaling fresh
fruits and vegetables is considered small if it employs not more than
100 persons. In 1997,\8\ more than 96 percent (5,456 of 5,657) of fresh
fruit and vegetable wholesalers would be considered small by SBA
standards.\9\ All types of fruit and vegetable farms are considered
small if they have annual receipts of $0.75 million or less. With some
exceptions, vegetable and melon farms are largely individually owned
and relatively small, with two-thirds harvesting fewer than 25 acres.
In 2002, between 80 and 84 percent of vegetable and melon farms would
be considered small. Similarly, although numbers have declined, fruit
and tree nut production is still dominated by small family or
individually run farm operations. In 2002, between 92 and 95 percent of
all fruit and tree nut farms would be considered small.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ Establishment and firm size is not yet available for the
2002 Economic Census.
\9\ 1997 Economic Census. Department of Commerce, U.S. Bureau of
the Census. North American Industry Classification System (NAICS)
Category 424480 (Fresh fruit & vegetable wholesalers).
\10\ 1997 Census of Agriculture. USDA, National Agricultural
Statistics Service. NAICS Categories 1112 (Vegetable and melon
farming) and 1113 (Fruit and tree nut farming).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The number of entities that will be affected by this rule is
unknown but those affected would likely be considered small entities.
However, based on the information that is available, the effects of
this rule should be small whether the entity affected is small or
large. Those commodity import requests most likely to qualify for the
notice-based process are for small volume imports. This is either
because they are for specialty crops currently unavailable or limited
in availability in the United States, or are for crops grown in limited
quantities in the requesting area. This rule merely allows a new
commodity import to move more quickly into commerce to the benefit of
consumers once it has been determined that the commodity can be safely
imported subject to one or more designated risk management measures.
Hence, we expect little impact on the total volume of U.S. imports of
fruits and vegetables, with small effects on U.S. marketers and
consumers.

Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements for Small
Entities

These requirements are addressed in the proposed rule and later in
this document under the heading ``Paperwork Reduction Act.''

Alternatives

One alternative to this rule considered was to simply continue
under APHIS' current process of authorizing the importation of fruits
and vegetables. In this case, we would continue to list all newly
approved fruits and vegetables in the regulations through notice-and-
comment rulemaking, as we have been doing since 1987. This approach is
no longer satisfactory, because the number of requests we receive from
foreign exporters and domestic importers to amend the regulations has
been steadily increasing. Maintaining the current process will make it
difficult to keep pace with the volume of import requests. Therefore,
this alternative was rejected. We believe that the new approach will
enable us to be more responsive to the import requests of our trading
partners while maintaining the transparency of our decisionmaking
afforded by notice-and-comment rulemaking.
Prior to 1987, APHIS authorized the importation of a fruit or
vegetable by simply issuing a permit once the Agency was satisfied that
the relevant criteria in the regulations had been met. Another
alternative to this rule was to return to this method of authorizing
fruit and vegetable importations. This approach is unsatisfactory,
because it does not provide the opportunity for public analysis of and
comment on the science associated with such imports. Therefore, this
alternative was rejected. Again, we believe that the new approach will
enable us to be more responsive to the import requests of our

[[Page 39498]]

trading partners while maintaining the transparency of our
decisionmaking afforded by notice-and-comment rulemaking.

Executive Orders 12988 and 13132

This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988,
Civil Justice Reform, and Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This rule:
(1) Preempts all State and local laws and regulations that are
inconsistent with this rule; (2) has no retroactive effect; and (3)
does not require administrative proceedings before parties may file
suit in court challenging this rule.
Because the rule's preemptive effect is derived from an express
statutory provision, this rule does not have federalism implications
within the meaning of Executive Order 13132, and therefore does not
warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.
Specifically, pursuant to section 436 of the Plant Protection Act,
no State or political subdivision of a State may regulate in foreign
commerce any article, means of conveyance, plant, biological control
organism, plant pest, noxious weed, or plant product in order to
control a plant pest or noxious weed, to eradicate a plant pest or
noxious weed, or to prevent the introduction or dissemination of a
biological control organism, plant pest, or noxious weed. State and
local laws and regulations regarding fruits and vegetables imported
under the provisions of this rule are preempted. USDA's longstanding
interpretation of the scope of the preemption remains unchanged.
Because fresh fruits and vegetables are generally imported for
immediate distribution and sale to the consuming public, they remain in
foreign commerce until sold to the ultimate consumer.

National Environmental Policy Act

The majority of the regulatory changes in this document are
nonsubstantive, and would therefore have no effects on the environment.
However, this rule will allow APHIS to approve certain new fruits and
vegetables for importation into the United States without undertaking
rulemaking. Despite the fact that those fruits and vegetable imports
will no longer be contingent on the completion of rulemaking, the
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA),
as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) will still apply. As such, for each
additional fruit or vegetable approved for importation, APHIS will make
available to the public documentation related to our analysis of the
potential environmental effects of such new imports. This documentation
will likely be made available at the same time and via the same Federal
Register notice as the risk analysis for the proposed new import.

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 0579-0293.

E-Government Act Compliance

APHIS is committed to compliance with the E-Government Act to
promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies, to
provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government
information and services, and for other purposes. For information
pertinent to E-Government Act compliance related to this rule, please
contact Mrs. Celeste Sickles, APHIS' Information Collection
Coordinator, at (301) 734-7477.

Lists of Subjects

7 CFR Part 305

Agricultural commodities, Chemical treatment, Cold treatment,
Garbage treatment, Heat treatment, Imports, Irradiation, Phytosanitary
treatment, Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine, Quick freeze,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

7 CFR Part 319

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

7 CFR Part 352

Customs duties and inspection, Imports, Plant diseases and pests,
Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

0
Accordingly, we are amending 7 CFR chapter III as follows:

PART 305--PHYTOSANITARY TREATMENTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 305 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec. 305.2 [Amended]

0
2. In Sec. 305.2, paragraph (h)(2)(i), the table is amended as
follows:

0
a. In the entry for acorns and chestnuts from all countries, by
removing the reference to ``Sec. 319.56-2b'' and adding a reference to
``Sec. 319.56-11'' in its place.
0
b. In the entry for yam from all countries, by removing the words
``(see Sec. 319.56-2l of this chapter)''.
0
c. In the entry for papaya from Belize, by removing the words ``(see
Sec. 319.56-2(j) of this part)''.
0
d. In the entry for cherimoya from Chile, by removing the words ``(see
Sec. 319.56-2z of this chapter for additional treatment
information)''.

0
3. A new Sec. 305.3 is added to read as follows:

Sec. 305.3 Monitoring and certification of treatments.

(a) All treatments approved under part 305 are subject to
monitoring and verification by APHIS.
(b) Any treatment performed outside the United States must be
monitored and certified by an inspector or an official from the
national plant protection organization (NPPO) of the exporting country.
If monitored and certified by an official of the NPPO of the exporting
country, the treated commodities must be accompanied by a phytosanitary
certificate issued by the NPPO of the exporting country certifying that
treatment was applied in accordance with APHIS regulations. The
phytosanitary certificate must be provided to an inspector when the
commodity is offered for entry into the United States. During the
entire interval between treatment and export, the consignment must be
stored and handled in a manner that prevents any infestation by pests
and noxious weeds.

0
4. Section 305.15 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 305.15 Treatment requirements.

(a) Approval of treatment facilities. All facilities or locations
used for refrigerating fruits or vegetables in accordance with Sec.
305.16 must be approved by APHIS. Re-approval of the facility or
carrier is required annually, or as often as APHIS directs, depending
on treatments performed, commodities handled, and operations conducted
at the facility. In order to be approved, facilities and carriers must:
(1) Be capable of keeping treated and untreated fruits, vegetables,
or other articles separate so as to prevent reinfestation of articles
and spread of pests;
(2) Have equipment that is adequate to effectively perform cold
treatment.

[[Page 39499]]

(b) Places of treatment; ports of entry. Precooling and
refrigeration may be performed prior to, or upon arrival of fruits and
vegetables in the United States, provided treatments are performed in
accordance with applicable requirements of this section. Fruits and
vegetables that are not treated prior to arrival in the United States
must be treated after arrival only in cold storage warehouses approved
by the Administrator and located in the area north of 39[deg] longitude
and east of 104[deg] latitude or at one of the following ports: The
maritime ports of Wilmington, NC; Seattle, WA; Corpus Christi, TX; and
Gulfport, MS; Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, Seattle, WA; and
Hartsfield-Atlanta International Airport, Atlanta, GA.
(c) Cold treatment enclosures. All enclosures in which cold
treatment is performed, including refrigerated containers, must:
(1) Be capable of precooling and holding fruits or vegetables at
temperatures less than or equal to 2.2 [deg]C (36 [deg]F) or the
maximum temperature prescribed in an approved treatment schedule for
any fruit or vegetable that is to be treated in the enclosure.
(2) Maintain pulp temperatures according to treatment schedules
with no more than a 0.3 [deg]C (0.54 [deg]F) variation in temperature.
(3) Be structurally sound and adequate to maintain required
temperatures.
(4) Be equipped with recording devices, such that automatic,
continuous temperature records are maintained and secured. Recording
devices must be capable of generating temperature charts for
verification of treatment by an inspector.
(d) Precooling. Before loading in cold treatment containers,
packages of fruit must be precooled to a treatment temperature or to a
uniform temperature not to exceed 4.5 [deg]C (40 [deg]F) or precooled
at the terminal to 2.2 [deg]C (36 [deg]F).
(1) Treatment in transit. Fruit that is to be treated in transit
must be precooled either at a dockside refrigeration plant prior to
loading aboard the carrying vessel, or aboard the carrying vessel. If
precooling is accomplished prior to loading aboard the carrying vessel,
an official authorized by the national plant protection organization
(NPPO) of the country of origin must supervise the precooling operation
and certify the treatment by recording pulp temperatures of fruit
sampled at different locations of the lot to ensure that the precooling
was complete and uniform.
(2) Treatment upon arrival in the United States. Fruit that is to
be treated upon arrival in the United States must arrive at a
temperature sufficiently low to prevent insect activity and must be
promptly precooled and refrigerated. Fruit to be both precooled and
refrigerated after arrival in the United States must be delivered to
the treatment facility subject to safeguards required by an inspector.
(e) Treatment procedures. (1) All material, labor, and equipment
for cold treatment performed on vessels must be provided by the vessel
or vessel agent.
(2) Refrigeration must be completed in the container, compartment,
or room in which it is begun.
(3) Fruit that may be cold treated must be safeguarded to prevent
cross-contamination or mixing with other infested fruit.
(4) Breaks, damage, etc., in the treatment enclosure that preclude
maintaining correct temperatures must be repaired before use.
(5) An inspector must approve loading of compartment, number and
placement of sensors, and initial fruit temperature readings before
beginning the treatment.
(6) At least three temperature sensors must be used in the
treatment compartment during treatment.
(7) The time required to complete the treatment begins when the
temperature inside the fruit reaches the required temperature.
Refrigeration continues until the vessel arrives at the port of
destination and the fruit is released for unloading by an inspector
even though this may prolong the period required for the cold
treatment.
(8) Only the same type of fruit in the same type of package may be
treated together in a container; no mixture of fruits in containers
will be treated.
(9) Fruit must be stacked to allow cold air to be distributed
throughout the enclosure, with no pockets of warmer air, and to allow
random sampling of pulp temperature in any location in load.
Temperatures must be recorded at intervals no longer than 1 hour apart.
Gaps of longer than 1 hour may invalidate the treatment or indicate
treatment failure.
(10) Cold treatment is not completed until so designated by an
inspector or the certifying official of the foreign country;
consignments of treated commodities may not be discharged until full
APHIS clearance has been completed, including review and approval of
treatment record charts.
(11) Pretreatment conditioning (heat shock or 100.4 [deg]F for 10
to 12 hours) of fruits is optional and is the responsibility of the
shipper.
(12) Cold treatment of fruits in break-bulk vessels or containers
must be initiated by an inspector if there is not a treatment
technician who has been trained to initiate cold treatments for either
break-bulk vessels or containers.
(13) Inspection of fruits after cold treatment for Mediterranean
fruit fly. An inspector will sample and cut fruit from each consignment
cold treated for Mediterranean fruit fly (Medfly) to monitor treatment
effectiveness. If a single live Medfly in any stage of development is
found, the consignment will be held until an investigation is completed
and appropriate remedial actions have been implemented. If APHIS
determines at any time that the safeguards contained in this section do
not appear to be effective against the Medfly, APHIS may suspend the
importation of fruits from the originating country and conduct an
investigation into the cause of the deficiency.
(14) Caution and disclaimer. The cold treatments required for the
entry of fruit are considered necessary for the elimination of plant
pests, and no liability shall attach to the U.S. Department of
Agriculture or to any officer or representative of that Department in
the event injury results to fruit offered for entry in accordance with
these instructions. In prescribing cold treatments of certain fruits,
it should be emphasized that inexactness and carelessness in applying
the treatments may result in injury to the fruit or its rejection for
entry.
(15) Additional requirements for treatments performed after arrival
in the United States.
(i) Maritime port of Wilmington, NC. Consignments of fruit arriving
at the maritime port of Wilmington, NC, for cold treatment, in addition
to meeting all other applicable requirements of this section, must meet
the following special conditions:
(A) Bulk consignments (those consignments which are stowed and
unloaded by the case or bin) of fruit must arrive in fruit fly-proof
packaging that prevents the escape of adult, larval, or pupal fruit
flies.
(B) Bulk and containerized consignments of fruit must be cold-
treated within the area over which the U.S. Department of Homeland
Security is assigned the authority to accept entries of merchandise, to
collect duties, and to enforce the various provisions of the customs
and navigation laws in force.
(C) Advance reservations for cold treatment space must be made
prior to the departure of a consignment from its port of origin.

[[Page 39500]]

(D) The cold treatment facility must remain locked during non-
working hours.
(ii) Maritime port of Seattle, WA. Consignments of fruit arriving
at the maritime port of Seattle, WA, for cold treatment, in addition to
meeting all other applicable requirements of this section, must meet
the following special conditions:
(A) Bulk consignments (those consignments which are stowed and
unloaded by the case or bin) of fruit must arrive in fruit fly-proof
packaging that prevents the escape of adult, larval, or pupal fruit
flies.
(B) Bulk and containerized consignments of fruit must be cold-
treated within the area over which the U.S. Department of Homeland
Security is assigned the authority to accept entries of merchandise, to
collect duties, and to enforce the various provisions of the customs
and navigation laws in force.
(C) Advance reservations for cold treatment space must be made
prior to the departure of a consignment from its port of origin.
(D) The cold treatment facility must remain locked during non-
working hours.
(E) Blacklight or sticky paper must be used within the cold
treatment facility, and other trapping methods, including Jackson/
methyl eugenol and McPhail traps, must be used within the 4 square
miles surrounding the cold treatment facility.
(F) The cold treatment facility must have contingency plans,
approved by the Administrator, for safely destroying or disposing of
fruit.
(iii) Airports of Atlanta, GA, and Seattle, WA. Consignments of
fruit arriving at the airports of Atlanta, GA, and Seattle, WA, for
cold treatment, in addition to meeting all other applicable
requirements of this section, must meet the following special
conditions:
(A) Bulk and containerized consignments of fruit must arrive in
fruit fly-proof packaging that prevents the escape of adult, larval, or
pupal fruit flies.
(B) Bulk and containerized consignments of fruit arriving for cold
treatment must be cold treated within the area over which the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security is assigned the authority to accept
entries of merchandise, to collect duties, and to enforce the various
provisions of the customs and navigation laws in force.
(C) The cold treatment facility and APHIS must agree in advance on
the route by which consignments are allowed to move between the
aircraft on which they arrived at the airport and the cold treatment
facility. The movement of consignments from aircraft to cold treatment
facility will not be allowed until an acceptable route has been agreed
upon.
(D) Advance reservations for cold treatment space must be made
prior to the departure of a consignment from its port of origin.
(E) The cold treatment facility must remain locked during non-
working hours.
(F) Blacklight or sticky paper must be used within the cold
treatment facility, and other trapping methods, including Jackson/
methyl eugenol and McPhail traps, must be used within the 4 square
miles surrounding the cold treatment facility.
(G) The cold treatment facility must have contingency plans,
approved by the Administrator, for safely destroying or disposing of
fruit.
(iv) Maritime ports of Gulfport, MS, and Corpus Christi, TX.
Consignments of fruit arriving at the ports of Gulfport, MS, and Corpus
Christi, TX, for cold treatment, in addition to meeting all other
applicable requirements of this section, must meet the following
special conditions:
(A) All fruit entering the port for cold treatment must move in
maritime containers. No bulk consignments (those consignments which are
stowed and unloaded by the case or bin) are permitted.
(B) Within the container, the fruit intended for cold treatment
must be enclosed in fruit fly-proof packaging that prevents the escape
of adult, larval, or pupal fruit flies.
(C) All consignments of fruit arriving at the port for cold
treatment must be cold treated within the area over which the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security is assigned the authority to accept
entries of merchandise, to collect duties, and to enforce the various
provisions of the customs and navigation laws in force.
(D) The cold treatment facility and APHIS must agree in advance on
the route by which consignments are allowed to move between the vessel
on which they arrived at the port and the cold treatment facility. The
movement of consignments from vessel to cold treatment facility will
not be allowed until an acceptable route has been agreed upon.
(E) Advance reservations for cold treatment space at the port must
be made prior to the departure of a consignment from its port of
origin.
(F) Devanning, the unloading of fruit from containers into the cold
treatment facility, must adhere to the following requirements:
(1) All containers must be unloaded within the cold treatment
facility; and
(2) Untreated fruit may not be exposed to the outdoors under any
circumstances.
(G) The cold treatment facility must remain locked during non-
working hours.
(H) Blacklights or sticky paper must be used within the cold
treatment facility, and other trapping methods, including Jackson/
methyl eugenol and McPhail traps, must be used within the 4 square
miles surrounding the cold treatment facility at the maritime port of
Gulfport, MS, and within the 5 square miles surrounding the cold
treatment facility at the maritime port of Corpus Christi, TX.
(I) During cold treatment, a backup system must be available to
cold treat the consignments of fruit should the primary system
malfunction. The facility must also have one or more reefers (cold
holding rooms) and methods of identifying lots of treated and untreated
fruits.
(J) The cold treatment facility must have the ability to conduct
methyl bromide fumigations on site.
(K) The cold treatment facility must have contingency plans,
approved by the Administrator, for safely destroying or disposing of
fruit.
(f) Monitoring. Treatment must be monitored by an inspector to
ensure proper administration of the treatment. An inspector must also
approve the recording devices and sensors used to monitor temperatures
and conduct an operational check of the equipment before each use and
ensure sensors are calibrated. An inspector may approve, adjust, or
reject the treatment.
(g) Compliance agreements. Facilities located in the United States
must operate under a compliance agreement with APHIS. The compliance
agreement must be signed by a representative of the cold treatment
facility and APHIS. The compliance agreement must contain requirements
for equipment, temperature, circulation, and other operational
requirements for performing cold treatment to ensure that treatments
are administered properly. Compliance agreements must allow officials
of APHIS to inspect the facility to monitor compliance with the
regulations.
(h) Work plans. Facilities located outside the United States may
operate in accordance with a bilateral work plan. The work plan, if and
when required, must be signed by a representative of the cold treatment
facility, the national plant protection organization (NPPO) of the
country of origin, and APHIS. The work plans must contain requirements
for equipment, temperature, circulation,

[[Page 39501]]

and other operational requirements for performing cold treatment to
ensure that cold treatments are administered properly. Work plans for
facilities outside the United States may also include trust fund
agreement information regarding payment of the salaries and expenses of
APHIS employees on site. Work plans must allow officials of the NPPO
and APHIS to inspect the facility to monitor compliance with APHIS
regulations.

Sec. 305.17 [Amended]

0
5. In ( 305.17, paragraph (a) is amended by removing the citation
``319.56-2c'' and adding the citation ``319.56-12'' in its place.

Sec. 305.31 [Amended]

0
6. In Sec. 305.31, paragraph (n), the first sentence after the
paragraph heading is amended by removing the words ``fruit flies'' and
adding the words ``plant pests'' in their place.

PART 319--FOREIGN QUARANTINE NOTICES

0
7. 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.

Sec. 319.28 [Amended]

0
8. Section 319.28 is amended as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (a)(2), by removing the words ``(except as provided by
Sec. 319.56-2f of this part)''.
0
b. In paragraph (e), by removing the words ``the Fruits and Vegetables
Quarantine (Sec. 319.56)'' and adding the words ``Subpart--Fruits and
Vegetables of this part'' in their place.

Sec. 319.37-2 [Amended]

0
9. In Sec. 319.37-2, paragraph (a), in the table, the entry for
``Cocos nucifera'' is amended by removing the citation ``Sec. 319.56''
in column 1 and adding the citation ``Sec. 319.56-11'' in its place.

Sec. 319.40-2 [Amended]

0
10. In Sec. 319.40-2, paragraph (c) is amended by removing the words
``Sec. Sec. 319.56 through 319.56-8,''.

Sec. 319.40-9 [Amended]

0
11. In Sec. 319.40-9, paragraph (a)(4)(i), footnote 4 is amended by
removing the words ``Sec. Sec. 319.56 through 319.56-8,''.

Sec. 319.41a [Amended]

0
12. In Sec. 319.41a, paragraph (c) is amended by removing the citation
``Sec. 319.56-2'' and adding the citation ``Sec. 319.56-3'' in its
place.

0
13. Subpart--Fruits and Vegetables, Sec. Sec. 319.56 through 319.56-8,
is revised to read as follows:

Subpart--Fruits and Vegetables

Sec.
319.56-1 Notice of quarantine.
319.56-2 Definitions.
319.56-3 General requirements for all imported fruits and
vegetables.
319.56-4 Approval of certain fruits and vegetables for importation.
319.56-5 Pest-free areas.
319.56-6 Trust fund agreements.
319.56-7 Territorial applicability and exceptions.
319.56-8 through 319.56-9 [Reserved]
319.56-10 Importation of fruits and vegetables from Canada.
319.56-11 Importation of dried, cured, or processed fruits,
vegetables, nuts, and legumes.
319.56-12 Importation of frozen fruits and vegetables.
319.56-13 Additional requirements for certain fruits and vegetables.
319.56-14 through 319.56-19 [Reserved]
319.56-20 Apples and pears from Australia (including Tasmania) and
New Zealand.
319.56-21 Okra from certain countries.
319.56-22 Apples and pears from certain countries in Europe.
319.56-23 Apricots, nectarines, peaches, plumcot, and plums from
Chile.
319.56-24 Lettuce and peppers from Israel.
319.56-25 Papayas from Central America and Brazil.
319.56-26 Melon and watermelon from certain countries in South
America.
319.56-27 Fuji variety apples from Japan and the Republic of Korea.
319.56-28 Tomatoes from certain countries.
319.56-29 Ya variety pears from China.
319.56-30 Hass avocados from Michoacan, Mexico.
319.56-31 Peppers from Spain.
319.56-32 Peppers from New Zealand.
319.56-33 Mangoes from the Philippines.
319.56-34 Clementines from Spain.
319.56-35 Persimmons from the Republic of Korea.
319.56-36 Watermelon, squash, cucumber, and oriental melon from the
Republic of Korea.
319.56-37 Grapes from the Republic of Korea.
319.56-38 Clementines, mandarins, and tangerines from Chile.
319.56-39 Fragrant pears from China.
319.56-40 Peppers from certain Central American countries.
319.56-41 Citrus from Peru.
319.56-42 Peppers from the Republic of Korea.
319.56-43 Baby corn and baby carrots from Zambia.
319.56-44 Untreated grapefruit, sweet oranges, and tangerines from
Mexico for processing.
319.56-45 Shelled garden peas from Kenya.
319.56-46 Mangoes from India.

Subpart--Fruits and Vegetables

Sec. 319.56-1 Notice of quarantine.

(a) Under section 412(a) of the Plant Protection Act, the Secretary
of Agriculture may prohibit or restrict the importation and entry of
any plant or plant product if the Secretary determines that the
prohibition or restriction is necessary to prevent the introduction
into the United States or the dissemination within the United States of
a plant pest or noxious weed.
(b) The Secretary has determined that it is necessary to prohibit
the importation into the United States of fruits and vegetables and
associated plants and portions of plants except as provided in this
part.

Sec. 319.56-2 Definitions.

Above ground parts. Any plant parts, such as stems, leaves, fruit,
or inflorescence (flowers), that grow solely above the soil surface.
Administrator. The Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service, United States Department of Agriculture, or any
other employee of the United States Department of Agriculture delegated
to act in his or her stead.
APHIS. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, United
States Department of Agriculture.
Commercial consignment. A lot of fruits or vegetables that an
inspector identifies as having been imported for sale and distribution.
Such identification will be based on a variety of indicators,
including, but not limited to: Quantity of produce, type of packaging,
identification of grower or packinghouse on the packaging, and
documents consigning the fruits or vegetables to a wholesaler or
retailer.
Commodity. A type of plant, plant product, or other regulated
article being moved for trade or other purpose.
Consignment. A quantity of plants, plant products, and/or other
articles, including fruits or vegetables, being moved from one country
to another and covered, when required, by a single phytosanitary
certificate (a consignment may be composed of one or more commodities
or lots).
Country of origin. Country where the plants from which the plant
products are derived were grown.
Cucurbits. Any plants in the family Cucurbitaceae.
Field. A plot of land with defined boundaries within a place of
production on which a commodity is grown.
Frozen fruit or vegetable. Any variety of raw fruit or vegetable
preserved by commercially acceptable freezing methods in such a way
that the

[[Page 39502]]

commodity remains at -6.7 [deg]C (20 [deg]F) or below for at least 48
hours prior to release.
Fruits and vegetables. A commodity class for fresh parts of plants
intended for consumption or processing and not for planting.
Import and importation. To move into, or the act of movement into,
the territorial limits of the United States.
Inspector. Any individual authorized by the Administrator of APHIS
or the Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection,
Department of Homeland Security, to enforce the regulations in this
subpart.
Lot. A number of units of a single commodity, identifiable by its
homogeneity of composition and origin, forming all or part of a
consignment.
National plant protection organization (NPPO). Official service
established by a government to discharge the functions specified by the
International Plant Protection Convention.
Noncommercial consignment. A lot of fruits or vegetables that an
inspector identifies as having been imported for personal use and not
for sale.
Permit. A written, oral, or electronically transmitted
authorization to import fruits or vegetables in accordance with this
subpart.
Phytosanitary certificate. A document, including electronic
versions, that is related to a consignment and that:
(1) Is patterned after the model certificate of the International
Plant Protection Convention (IPPC), a multilateral convention on plant
protection under the authority of the Food and Agriculture Organization
of the United Nations (FAO);
(2) Is issued by an official of a foreign national plant protection
organization in one of the five official languages of the FAO;
(3) Is addressed to the plant protection service of the United
States (Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service);
(4) Describes the consignment;
(5) Certifies the place of origin for all contents of the
consignment;
(6) Certifies that the consignment has been inspected and/or tested
according to appropriate official procedures and is considered to be
free from quarantine pests of the United States;
(7) Contains any additional declarations required by this subpart;
and
(8) Certifies that the consignment conforms with the phytosanitary
requirements of the United States and is considered eligible for
importation pursuant to the laws and regulations of the United States.
Phytosanitary measure. Any legislation, regulation, or official
procedure having the purpose to prevent the introduction and/or spread
of quarantine pests, or to limit the economic impact of regulated non-
quarantine pests.
Place of production. Any premises or collection of fields operated
as a single production or farming unit. This may include a production
site that is separately managed for phytosanitary purposes.
Plant debris. Detached leaves, twigs, or other portions of plants,
or plant litter or rubbish as distinguished from approved parts of
clean fruits and vegetables, or other commercial articles.
Port of first arrival. The first port within the United States
where a consignment is offered for consumption entry or offered for
entry for immediate transportation in bond.
Production site. 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.
Quarantine pest. A pest of potential economic importance to the
area endangered by it and not yet present there, or present but not
widely distributed there and being officially controlled.
United States. All of the States of the United States, the
Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands, the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, the District of Columbia, Guam, the Virgin Islands of the United
States, and any other territory or possession of the United States.
West Indies. The foreign islands lying between North and South
America, the Caribbean Sea, and the Atlantic Ocean, divided into the
Bahamas, the Greater Antilles (including Hispaniola), and the Lesser
Antilles (including the Leeward Islands, the Windward Islands, and the
islands north of Venezuela).

Sec. 319.56-3 General requirements for all imported fruits and
vegetables.

All fruits and vegetables that are allowed importation under this
subpart must be imported in accordance with the following requirements,
except as specifically provided otherwise in this subpart.
(a) Freedom from plant debris. All fruits and vegetables imported
under this subpart, whether in commercial or noncommercial
consignments, must be free from plant debris, as defined in Sec.
319.56-2.
(b) Permit. (1) All fruits and vegetables imported under this
subpart, whether commercial or noncommercial consignments, must be
imported under permit issued by APHIS, must be imported under the
conditions specified in the permit, and must be imported in accordance
with all applicable regulations in this part; except for:
(i) Dried, cured, or processed fruits and vegetables (except frozen
fruits and vegetables), including cured figs and dates, raisins, nuts,
and dried beans and peas, except certain acorns and chestnuts subject
to Sec. 319.56-11 of this subpart;
(ii) Fruits and vegetables grown in Canada (except potatoes from
Newfoundland and that portion of the Municipality of Central Saanich in
the Province of British Columbia east of the West Saanich Road, which
are prohibited importation into the United States); and
(iii) Fruits and vegetables, except mangoes, grown in the British
Virgin Islands that are imported into the U.S. Virgin Islands.
(2) Applying for a permit. Permit applications must be submitted in
writing or electronically as provided in this paragraph and must be
submitted in advance of the proposed importation. Applications must
state the country or locality of origin of the fruits or vegetables,
the anticipated port of first arrival, the name and address of the
importer in the United States, and the identity (scientific name
preferred) and quantity of the fruit or vegetable. Use of PPQ Form 587
or Internet application is preferred.
(i) By mail. Persons who wish to apply by mail for a permit to
import fruits or vegetables into the United States must submit their
application to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant
Protection and Quarantine, Permit Services, 4700 River Road Unit 136,
Riverdale, MD 20737-1236.
(ii) Via the Internet. Persons who wish to apply for a permit to
import fruits or vegetables into the United States via the internet
must do so using APHIS Plant Protection and Quarantine's permit Web
site at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/permits/index.shtml.
(iii) By fax. Persons who wish to apply by fax for a permit to
import fruits or vegetables into the United States must do so by faxing
their application to: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant
Protection and Quarantine, Permit Services, (301) 734-5786.
(3) Issuance of permits. If APHIS approves a permit application,
APHIS will issue a permit specifying the

[[Page 39503]]

conditions applicable to the importation of the fruit or vegetable.
(4) Issuance of oral permits. Oral permits may be issued at ports
of entry for noncommercial consignments if the commodity is admissible
with inspection only. Oral permits may be issued for commercial
consignments of fruits and vegetables that are not accompanied by a
written permit upon arrival in the United States if all applicable
entry requirements are met and proof of application for a written
permit is supplied to an inspector.
(5) Amendment, denial, or withdrawal of permits. The Administrator
may amend, deny, or withdraw a permit at any time if he or she
determines that conditions exist that present an unacceptable risk of
the fruit or vegetable introducing quarantine pests or noxious weeds
into the United States. If the withdrawal is oral, the withdrawal of
the permit and the reasons for the withdrawal will be confirmed in
writing as promptly as circumstances allow.
(6) Appeals. Any person whose permit has been amended, denied, or
withdrawn may appeal the decision in writing to the Administrator
within 10 days after receiving the written notification of the
decision. The appeal must state all of the facts and reasons upon which
the person relies to show that the permit was wrongfully amended,
denied, or withdrawn. The Administrator will grant or deny the appeal,
in writing, stating the reasons for granting or denying the appeal, as
promptly as circumstances permit. If there is a conflict as to any
material fact and the person who has filed an appeal requests a
hearing, a hearing will be held to resolve the conflict. Rules of
practice concerning the hearing will be adopted by the Administrator.
The permit withdrawal will remain in effect pending resolution of the
appeal or the hearing.
(c) Ports of entry. (1) Fruits and vegetables must be imported into
specific ports if so required by this subpart or by part 305 of this
chapter, or if so required by a permit issued under paragraph (b) of
this section for the importation of the particular fruit or vegetable.
If a permit issued for the importation of fruits or vegetables names
specific port(s) where the fruits or vegetables must be imported, the
fruits and vegetables may only be imported into the port(s) named in
the permit. If a permit issued for the importation of fruits or
vegetables does not name specific port(s) where the fruits or
vegetables must be imported, the fruits and vegetables may be imported
into any port referenced in paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
(2) Fruits and vegetables imported under this subpart may be
imported into any port listed in 19 CFR 101.3(b)(1), except as
otherwise provided by part 319 or by a permit issued in accordance with
part 319, and except as provided in Sec. 330.104 of this chapter.
Fruits and vegetables that are to be cold treated at ports in the
United States may only be imported into specific ports as provided in
Sec. 305.15 of this chapter.
(d) Inspection, treatment, and other requirements. All imported
fruits or vegetables are subject to inspection, are subject to such
disinfection at the port of first arrival as may be required by an
inspector, and are subject to reinspection at other locations at the
option of an inspector. If an inspector finds plants or portions of
plants, or a plant pest or noxious weed, or evidence of a plant pest or
noxious weed on or in any fruit or vegetable or its container, or finds
that the fruit or vegetable may have been associated with other
articles infested with plant pests or noxious weeds, the owner or agent
of the owner of the fruit or vegetable must clean or treat the fruit or
vegetable and its container as required by an inspector, and the fruit
or vegetable is also subject to reinspection, cleaning, and treatment
at the option of an inspector at any time and place until all
applicable requirements of this subpart have been accomplished.
(1) Notice of arrival; assembly for inspection. Any person
importing fruits and vegetables into the United States must offer those
agricultural products for inspection and entry at the port of first
arrival. The owner or agent must assemble the fruits and vegetables for
inspection at the port of first arrival, or at any other place
designated by an inspector, and in a manner designated by the
inspector. All fruits and vegetables must be accurately disclosed and
made available to an inspector for examination. The owner or the agent
must provide an inspector with the name and address of the consignee
and must make full disclosure of the type, quantity, and country and
locality of origin of all fruits and vegetables in the consignment,
either orally for noncommercial consignments or on an invoice or
similar document for commercial consignments.
(2) Refusal of entry. If an inspector finds that an imported fruit
or vegetable is prohibited, or is not accompanied by required
documentation, or is so infested with a plant pest or noxious weed
that, in the judgment of the inspector, it cannot be cleaned or
treated, or contains soil or other prohibited contaminants, the entire
lot or consignment may be refused entry into the United States.
(3) Release for movement. No person may move a fruit or vegetable
from the port of first arrival unless an inspector has either:
(i) Released it;
(ii) Ordered treatment at the port of first arrival and, after
treatment, released the fruit or vegetable;
(iii) Authorized movement of the fruit or vegetable to another
location for treatment, further inspection, or destruction; or
(iv) Ordered the fruit or vegetable to be reexported.
(4) Notice to owner of actions ordered by inspector. If an
inspector orders any disinfection, cleaning, treatment, reexportation,
recall, destruction, or other action with regard to imported fruits or
vegetables while the consignment is in foreign commerce, the inspector
will issue an emergency action notification (PPQ Form 523) to the owner
of the fruits or vegetables or to the owner's agent. The owner must,
within the time and in the manner specified in the PPQ Form 523,
destroy the fruits and vegetables, ship them to a point outside the
United States, move them to an authorized site, and/or apply treatments
or other safeguards to the fruits and vegetables as prescribed to
prevent the introduction of plant pests or noxious weeds into the
United States.
(e) Costs and charges. APHIS will be responsible only for the costs
of providing the services of an inspector during regularly assigned
hours of duty and at the usual places of duty.\1\ The owner of imported
fruits or vegetables is responsible for all additional costs of
inspection, treatment, movement, storage, destruction, or other
measures ordered by an inspector under this subpart, including any
labor, chemicals, packing materials, or other supplies required. APHIS
will not be responsible for any costs or charges, other than those
identified in this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ Provisions relating to costs for other services of an
inspector are contained in part 354 of this chapter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(f) APHIS not responsible for damage. APHIS assumes no
responsibility for any damage to fruits or vegetables that results from
the application of treatments or other measures required under this
subpart (or under part 305 of this chapter) to protect against the
introduction of plant pests into the United States.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 0579-0049)

[[Page 39504]]

Sec. 319.56-4 Approval of certain fruits and vegetables for
importation.

(a) Determination by the Administrator. The Administrator has
determined that the application of one or more of the designated
phytosanitary measures cited in paragraph (b) of this section to
certain imported fruits and vegetables mitigates the risk posed by
those commodities, and that such fruits and vegetables may be imported
into the United States subject to one or more of those measures, as
provided in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section. The name and origin
of all fruits and vegetables authorized importation under this section,
as well as the applicable requirements for their importation, may be
found on the Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/
plants/manuals/ports/downloads/fv.pdf. Commodities that require
phytosanitary measures other than one or more of the designated
phytosanitary measures cited in paragraph (b) of this section may only
be imported in accordance with applicable requirements in Sec. 319.56-
3 and commodity-specific requirements contained elsewhere in this
subpart.
(b) Designated phytosanitary measures. (1) Fruits or vegetables are
subject to inspection upon arrival in the United States and comply with
all applicable provisions of Sec. 319.56-3.
(2) The fruits or vegetables are imported from a pest-free area in
the country of origin and are accompanied by a phytosanitary
certificate stating that the fruits or vegetables originated in a pest-
free area in the country of origin.
(3) The fruits or vegetables are treated in accordance with part
305 of this chapter.
(4) The fruits or vegetables are inspected in the country of origin
by an inspector or an official of the national plant protection
organization of the exporting country, and have been found free of one
or more specific quarantine pests identified by risk analysis as likely
to follow the import pathway.
(5) The fruits or vegetables are imported as commercial
consignments only.
(c) Fruits and vegetables authorized importation under this
section. (1) Previously approved fruits and vegetables. Fruits and
vegetables that were authorized importation under this subpart either
directly by permit or by specific regulation as of August 17, 2007 and
that were subject only to one or more of the designated phytosanitary
measures cited in paragraph (b) of this section and the general
requirements of Sec. 319.56-3, may continue to be imported into the
United States under the same requirements that applied before August
17, 2007, except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section.
(2) Other fruits and vegetables. Fruits and vegetables that do not
meet the criteria in paragraph (c)(1) of this section may be authorized
importation under this section as follows:
(i) Pest risk analysis. The risk posed by the particular fruit or
vegetable from a specified country or other region has been evaluated
and publicly communicated as follows:
(A) Availability of pest risk analysis. APHIS published in the
Federal Register, for 60 days public comment, a notice announcing the
availability of a pest risk analysis that evaluated the risks
associated with the importation of the particular fruit or vegetable.
(B) Determination of risk; factors considered. The Administrator
determined, and announced in the notice referred to in the previous
paragraph, that, based on the information available, the application of
one or more of the designated phytosanitary measures described in
paragraph (b) of this section is sufficient to mitigate the risk that
plant pests or noxious weeds could be introduced into or disseminated
within the United States via the imported fruit or vegetable. In order
for the Administrator to make the determination described in this
paragraph, he or she must conclude based on the information presented
in the risk analysis for the fruit or vegetable that the risk posed by
each quarantine pest associated with the fruit or vegetable in the
country or other region of origin is mitigated by one or more of the
following factors:
(1) Inspection. A quarantine pest is associated with the commodity
in the country or region of origin, but the pest can be easily detected
via inspection;
(2) Pest freedom. No quarantine pests are known to be associated
with the fruit or vegetable in the country or region of origin, or a
quarantine pest is associated with the commodity in the country or
region of origin but the commodity originates from an area in the
country or region that meets the requirements of Sec. 319.56-5 for
freedom from that pest;
(3) Effectiveness of treatment. A quarantine pest is associated
with the fruit or vegetable in the country or region of origin, but the
risk posed by the pest can be reduced by applying an approved post-
harvest treatment to the fruit or vegetable.
(4) Pre-export inspection. A quarantine pest is associated with the
commodity in the country or region of origin, but the commodity is
subject to pre-export inspection, and the commodity is to be
accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate that contains an additional
declaration that the commodity has been inspected and found free of
such pests in the country or region of origin.
(5) Commercial consignments. A quarantine pest is associated with
the fruit or vegetable in the country or region of origin, but the risk
posed by the pest can be reduced by commercial practices.
(ii) Issuance of import permits. The Administrator will announce
his or her decision in a subsequent Federal Register notice. If
appropriate, APHIS would begin issuing permits for importation of the
fruit or vegetable subject to requirements specified in the notice
because:
(A) No comments were received on the pest risk analysis;
(B) The comments on the pest risk analysis revealed that no changes
to the pest risk analysis were necessary; or
(C) Changes to the pest risk analysis were made in response to
public comments, but the changes did not affect the overall conclusions
of the analysis and the Administrator's determination of risk.
(d) Amendment of import requirements. If, after August 17, 2007,
the Administrator determines that one or more of the designated
phytosanitary measures is not sufficient to mitigate the risk posed by
any of the fruits and vegetables that are authorized importation into
the United States under this section, APHIS will prohibit or further
restrict importation of the fruit or vegetable. APHIS may also publish
a notice in the Federal Register advising the public of its finding.
The notice will specify the amended import requirements, provide an
effective date for the change, and will invite public comment on the
subject.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 0579-0293)

Sec. 319.56-5 Pest-free areas.

As provided elsewhere in this subpart, certain fruits and
vegetables may be imported into the United States provided that the
fruits or vegetables originate from an area that is free of a specific
pest or pests. In some cases, fruits or vegetables may only be imported
if the area of export is free of all quarantine pests that attack the
fruit or vegetable. In other cases, fruits and vegetables may be
imported if the area of export is free of one or more quarantine pests
that attack the fruit or vegetable, and provided that the risk posed by
the remaining quarantine pests that attack the fruit or vegetable is
mitigated by other specific

[[Page 39505]]

phytosanitary measures contained in the regulations in this subpart.
(a) Application of international standard for pest free areas.
APHIS requires that determinations of pest-free areas be made in
accordance with the criteria for establishing freedom from pests found
in International Standard for Phytosanitary Measures No. 4,
``Requirements for the establishment of pest free areas.'' The
international standard was established by the International Plant
Protection Convention of the United Nations' Food and Agriculture
Organization and is incorporated by reference in Sec. 300.5 of this
chapter.
(b) Survey protocols. APHIS must approve the survey protocol used
to determine and maintain pest-free status, as well as protocols for
actions to be performed upon detection of a pest. Pest-free areas are
subject to audit by APHIS to verify their status.
(c) Determination of pest freedom. (1) For an area to be considered
free of a specified pest for the purposes of this subpart, the
Administrator must determine, and announce in a notice or rule
published in the Federal Register for 60 days public comment, that the
area meets the criteria of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.
(2) The Administrator will announce his or her decision in a
subsequent Federal Register notice. If appropriate, APHIS would begin
issuing permits for importation of the fruit or vegetable from a pest-
free area because:
(i) No comments were received on the notice or
(ii) The comments on the notice did not affect the overall
conclusions of the notice and the Administrator's determination of
risk.
(d) Decertification of pest-free areas; reinstatement. If a pest is
detected in an area that is designated as free of that pest, APHIS
would publish in the Federal Register a notice announcing that the
pest-free status of the area in question has been withdrawn, and that
imports of host crops for the pest in question are subject to
application of an approved treatment for the pest. If a treatment for
the pest is not available, importation of the host crops would be
prohibited. In order for a decertified pest-free area to be reinstated,
it would have to meet the criteria of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this
section.
(e) General requirements for fruits and vegetables imported from
pest-free areas.
(1) Labeling. Each box of fruits or vegetables that is imported
into the United States from a pest-free area under this subpart must be
clearly labeled with:
(i) The name of the orchard or grove of origin, or the name of the
grower; and
(ii) The name of the municipality and State in which the fruits or
vegetables were produced; and
(iii) The type and amount of fruit the box contains.
(2) Phytosanitary certificate. A phytosanitary certificate must
accompany the imported fruits or vegetables, and must contain an
additional declaration that the fruits originate from a pest-free area
that meets the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.
(3) Safeguarding. If fruits or vegetables are moved from a pest-
free area into or through an area that is not free of that pest, the
fruits or vegetables must be safeguarded during the time they are
present in a non-pest-free area by being covered with insect-proof mesh
screens or plastic tarpaulins, including while in transit to the
packinghouse and while awaiting packaging. If fruits or vegetables are
moved through an area that is not free of that pest during transit to a
port, they must be packed in insect-proof cartons or containers or be
covered by insect-proof mesh or plastic tarpaulins during transit to
the port and subsequent export to the United States. These safeguards
described in this section must be intact upon arrival in the United
States.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
numbers 0579-0049, 0579-0316 and 0579-0293)

Sec. 319.56-6 Trust fund agreements.

If APHIS personnel need to be physically present in an exporting
country or region to facilitate the exportation of fruits or vegetables
and APHIS services are to be funded by the national plant protection
organization (NPPO) of the exporting country or a private export group,
then the NPPO or the private export group must enter into a trust fund
agreement with APHIS that is in effect at the time the fruits or
vegetables are exported. Under the agreement, the NPPO of the exporting
country or the private export group must pay in advance all estimated
costs that APHIS expects to incur in providing inspection services in
the exporting country. These costs will include administrative expenses
incurred in conducting the services and all salaries (including
overtime and the Federal share of employee benefits), travel expenses
(including per diem expenses), and other incidental expenses incurred
by the inspectors in performing services. The agreement must require
the NPPO of the exporting country or region or a private export group
to deposit a certified or cashier's check with APHIS for the amount of
those costs, as estimated by APHIS. The agreement must further specify
that, if the deposit is not sufficient to meet all costs incurred by
APHIS, the NPPO of the exporting country or a private export group must
deposit with APHIS, before the services will be completed, a certified
or cashier's check for the amount of the remaining costs, as determined
by APHIS. After a final audit at the conclusion of each shipping
season, any overpayment of funds would be returned to the NPPO of the
exporting country or region or a private export group, or held on
account.

Sec. 319.56-7 Territorial applicability and exceptions.

(a) The regulations in this subpart apply to importations of fruits
and vegetables into any area of the United States, except as provided
in this section.
(b) Importations of fruits and vegetables into Guam. (1) The
following fruits and vegetables may be imported into Guam without
treatment, except as may be required under Sec. 319.56-3(d), and in
accordance with all the requirements of this subpart as modified by
this section:
(i) All leafy vegetables and root crops from the Bonin Islands,
Volcano Islands, and Ryukyu Islands.
(ii) All fruits and vegetables from Palau and the Federated States
of Micronesia (FSM), except Artocarpus spp. (breadfruit, jackfruit, and
chempedak), citrus, curacao apple, guava, Malay or mountain apple
(Syzygium spp.), mango, and papaya, and except dasheen from the Yap
district of FSM and from Palau, and bitter melon (Momordica charantia)
from Palau. The excepted products are approved for entry into Guam
after treatment with an approved treatment listed in part 305 of this
chapter.
(iii) Allium (without tops), artichokes, bananas, bell peppers,
cabbage, carrots, celery, Chinese cabbage, citrus fruits, eggplant,
grapes, lettuce, melons, okra, parsley, peas, persimmons, potatoes,
rhubarb, squash (Cucurbita maxima), stone and pome fruits, string
beans, sweetpotatoes, tomatoes, turnip greens, turnips, and watermelons
from Japan and Korea.
(iv) Leafy vegetables, celery, and potatoes from the Philippine
Islands.
(v) Carrots (without tops), celery, lettuce, peas, potatoes, and
radishes (without tops) from Australia.
(vi) Arrowroot, asparagus, bean sprouts, broccoli, cabbage, carrots
(without tops), cassava, cauliflower, celery, chives, cow-cabbage,
dasheen, garlic, gingerroot, horseradish, kale,

[[Page 39506]]

kudzu, leek, lettuce, onions, Portuguese cabbage, turnip, udo, water
chestnut, watercress, waterlily root, and yam bean root from Taiwan.
(vii) Lettuce from Papua New Guinea.
(viii) Carrots (without tops), celery, lettuce, loquats, onions,
persimmons, potatoes, tomatoes, and stone fruits from New Zealand.
(ix) Asparagus, carrots (without tops), celery, lettuce, and
radishes (without tops) from Thailand.
(x) Green corn on the cob.
(xi) All other fruits and vegetables approved for entry into any
other part or port of the United States, and except any which are
specifically designated in this subpart as not approved.
(2) An inspector in Guam may accept an oral application and issue
an oral permit for products listed in paragraph (a) of this section,
which is deemed to fulfill the requirements of Sec. 319.56-3(b) of
this subpart. The inspector may waive the documentation required in
Sec. 319.56-3 for such products whenever the inspector finds that
information available from other sources meets the requirements under
this subpart for the information normally supplied by such
documentation.
(3) The provisions of Sec. 319.56-11 do not apply to chestnuts and
acorns imported into Guam, which are enterable into Guam without permit
or other restriction under this subpart. If chestnuts or acorns
imported under this paragraph are found infected, infested, or
contaminated with any plant pest and are not subject to disposal under
this subpart, disposition may be made in accordance with Sec. 330.106
of this chapter.
(4) Baskets or other containers made of coconut fronds are not
approved for use as containers for fruits and vegetables imported into
Guam. Fruits and vegetables in such baskets or containers offered for
importation into Guam will not be regarded as meeting Sec. 319.56-
3(a).
(c) Importation of fruits and vegetables into the U.S. Virgin
Islands. (1) Fruits and vegetables grown in the British Virgin Islands
may be imported into the U.S. Virgin Islands in accordance with Sec.
319.56-3, except that:
(i) Such fruits and vegetables are exempt from the permit
requirements of Sec. 319.56-3(b); and
(ii) Mangoes grown in the British Virgin Islands are prohibited
entry into the U.S. Virgin Islands.
(2) Okra produced in the West Indies may be imported into the U.S.
Virgin Islands without treatment but are subject to inspection at the
port of arrival.

Sec. Sec. 319.56-8 through 319.56-9 [Reserved]

Sec. 319.56-10 Importation of fruits and vegetables from Canada.

(a) General permit for fruits and vegetables grown in Canada.
Fruits and vegetables grown in Canada and offered for entry into the
United States will be subject to the inspection, treatment, and other
requirements of Sec. 319.56-3(d), but may otherwise be imported into
the United States without restriction under this subpart; provided,
that:
(1) Consignments of Allium spp. consisting of the whole plant or
above ground parts must be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate
issued by the national plant protection organization of Canada with an
additional declaration stating that the articles are free from
Acrolepipsis assectella (Zeller).
(2) Potatoes from Newfoundland and that portion of the Municipality
of Central Saanich in the Province of British Columbia east of the West
Saanich Road are prohibited importation into the United States in
accordance with Sec. 319.37-2 of this part.
(b) [Reserved]

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 0579-0316)

Sec. 319.56-11 Importation of dried, cured, or processed fruits,
vegetables, nuts, and legumes.

(a) Dried, cured, or processed fruits and vegetables (except frozen
fruits and vegetables), including cured figs and dates, raisins, nuts,
and dried beans and peas, may be imported without permit, phytosanitary
certificate, or other compliance with this subpart, except as
specifically provided otherwise in this section or elsewhere in this
part.
(b) Acorns and chestnuts. (1) From countries other than Canada and
Mexico; treatment required. Acorns and chestnuts intended for purposes
other than propagation, except those grown in and shipped from Canada
and Mexico, must be imported into the United States under permit, and
subject to all the requirements of Sec. 319.56-3, and must be treated
with an approved treatment listed in part 305 of this chapter.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ Acorns and chestnuts imported into Guam are subject to the
requirements of Sec. 319.56-7(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(2) From Canada and Mexico. Acorns and chestnuts grown in and
shipped from Canada and Mexico for purposes other than propagation may
be imported in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section.
(3) For propagation. Acorns and chestnuts from any country may be
imported for propagation only in accordance with the applicable
requirements in Sec. Sec. 319.37 through 319.37-14 of this part.
(c) Macadamia nuts. Macadamia nuts in the husk or shell are
prohibited importation into the United States unless the macadamia nuts
were produced in, and imported from, St. Eustatius.

Sec. 319.56-12 Importation of frozen fruits and vegetables.

Frozen fruits and vegetables may be imported into the United States
in accordance with Sec. 319.56-3. Such fruits and vegetables must be
held at a temperature not higher than 20 [deg]F during shipping and
upon arrival in the United States, and in accordance with the
requirements for importing frozen fruits and vegetables in part 305 of
this chapter. Paragraph (b) of Sec. 305.17 lists frozen fruits and
vegetables for which quick freezing is not an authorized treatment.

Sec. 319.56-13 Fruits and vegetables allowed importation subject to
specified conditions.

(a) The following fruits and vegetables may be imported in
accordance with Sec. 319.56-3 and any additional requirements
specified in paragraph (b) of this section.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional
Country/locality of origin Common name Botanical name Plant part(s) requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Algeria......................... Pineapple......... Ananas comosus.... Fruit............. (b)(2)(vi).
Angola.......................... Pineapple......... Ananas comosus.... Fruit............. (b)(2)(vi).
Antigua and Barbuda............. Pineapple......... Ananas comosus.... Fruit............. (b)(2)(vi).
Argentina....................... Pineapple......... Ananas comosus.... Fruit............. (b)(2)(vi).
Australia (Tasmania only)....... Pineapple......... Ananas comosus.... Fruit............. (b)(2)(vi).
Austria......................... Asparagus, white.. Asparagus Shoot............. (b)(4)(iii).
officinalis.
Bahamas......................... Pineapple......... Ananas comosus.... Fruit............. (b)(2)(vi).

[[Page 39507]]

Barbados........................ Pineapple......... Ananas comosus.... Fruit............. (b)(2)(vi).
Belgium......................... Apricot........... Prunus armeniaca.. Fruit............. (b)(5)(xi).
Fig............... Ficus carica...... Fruit............. (b)(5)(xi).
Nectarine......... Prunus persica Fruit............. (b)(5)(xi).
var. nucipersica.
Peach............. Prunus persica.... Fruit............. (b)(5)(xi).
Plum.............. Prunus domestica.. Fruit............. (b)(5)(xi).
Belize.......................... Papaya............ Carica papaya..... Fruit............. (b)(1)(i),
(b)(2)(iii).
Pineapple......... Ananas comosus.... Fruit............. (b)(2)(vi).
Rambutan.......... Nephelium Fruit............. (b)(2)(i),
lappaceum. (b)(5)(ii).
Benin........................... Pineapple......... Ananas comosus.... Fruit............. (b)(2)(vi).
Bolivia......................... Pineapple......... Ananas comosus.... Fruit............. (b)(2)(vi).
Brazil.......................... Cantaloupe........ Cucumis melo var. Fruit............. (b)(1)(v), (b)(3).
cantaloupensis.
Cassava........... Manihot esculenta. Fruit............. (b)(2)(vii).
Honeydew melon.... Cucumis melo...... Fruit............. (b)(1)(v), (b)(3).
Pineapple......... Ananas comosus.... Fruit............. (b)(2)(vi).
Watermelon........ Citrullus lanatus Fruit............. (b)(1)(v), (b)(3).
var. lanatus.
Burkina Faso.................... Pineapple......... Ananas comosus.... Fruit............. (b)(2)(vi).
Cameroon........................ Pineapple......... Ananas comosus.... Fruit............. (b)(2)(vi).
Cayman Islands.................. Pineapple......... Ananas comosus.... Fruit............. (b)(2)(vi).
Chile........................... African horned Cucumis Fruit............. (b)(2)(i).
cucumber. metuliferus.
Pineapple......... Ananas comosus.... Fruit............. (b)(2)(vi).
China........................... Litchi............ Litchi chinensis.. Fruit............. (b)(2)(v).
Columbia........................ Pineapple......... Ananas comosus.... Fruit............. (b)(2)(vi).
Yellow pitaya..... Selinicereus Fruit............. (b)(5)(xiii).
megalanthus.
Congo, Democratic Republic of... Pineapple......... Ananas comosus.... Fruit............. (b)(2)(vi).
Cook Islands.................... Ginger............ Zingiber Root.............. (b)(2)(ii).
officinalis.
Banana............ Musa spp.......... Fruit............. (b)(4)(i).
Pineapple......... Ananas comosus.... Fruit............. (b)(2)(vi),
(b)(5)(vi).
Costa Rica...................... Cucurbit.......... Cucurbitaceae..... Fruit............. (b)(2)(iii),
(b)(3).
Pineapple......... Ananas comosus.... Fruit............. (b)(2)(vi).
Rambutan.......... Nephelium Fruit............. (b)(2)(i),
lappaceum. (b)(5)(ii).
Cote d'Ivoire................... Pineapple......... Ananas comosus.... Fruit............. (b)(2)(vi).
Dominica........................ Papaya............ Carica papaya..... Fruit............. (b)(2)(vi).
Pineapple......... Ananas comosus.... Fruit............. (b)(2)(vi).
Dominican Republic.............. Cucurbit.......... Cucurbitaceae..... Fruit............. (b)(2)(iii),
(b)(3).
Papaya............ Carica papaya..... Fruit............. (b)(2)(iii),
(b)(2)(vi).
Pineapple......... Ananas comosus.... Fruit............. (b)(2)(iii),
(b)(2)(vi).
Ecuador......................... Pineapple......... Ananas comosus.... Fruit............. (b)(2)(iii),
(b)(2)(vi).
Egypt........................... Pineapple......... Ananas comosus.... Fruit............. (b)(2)(vi).
El Salvador..................... Fennel............ Foeniculum vulgare Leaf and stem..... (b)(2)(i).
German chamomile.. Matricaria Flower and leaf... (b)(2)(i).
recutita and
Matricaria
chamomilla.
Oregano or sweet Origanum spp...... Leaf and stem..... (b)(2)(i).
marjoram.
Parsley........... Petroselinum Leaf and stem..... (b)(2)(i).
crispum.
Pineapple......... Ananas comosus.... Fruit............. (b)(2)(vi).
Rambutan.......... Nephelium Fruit............. (b)(2)(i),
lappaceum. (b)(5)(ii).
Rosemary.......... Rosmarinus Leaf and stem..... (b)(2)(i).
officinalis.
Waterlily or lotus Nelumbo nucifera.. Roots without soil (b)(2)(i).
Yam-bean or jicama Pachyrhizus spp... Roots without soil (b)(2)(i).
Fiji............................ Pineapple......... Ananas comosus.... Fruit............. (b)(2)(vi),
(b)(5)(vi).
France.......................... Bean.............. Glycine max Fruit............. (b)(5)(x).
(Soybean);
Phaseolus
coccineus,
(Scarlet or
french runner
bean); Phaseolus
lunatus (lima
bean); Phaseolus
vulgaris (green
bean, kidney
bean, navy bean,
pinto bean, red
bean, string
bean, white
bean); Vicia faba
(faba bean,
broadbean, haba,
habichuela,
horsebean,
silkworm bean,
windsor bean;
Vigna radiata
(mung bean);
Vigna unguiculata
(includes: ssp.
cylindrica, ssp.
dekintiana, ssp.
sesquipedalis
(yard-long bean,
asparagus bean,
long bean), ssp.
unguiculata
(southern pea,
black-eyed bean,
black-eyed pea,
cowpea, crowder
pea)).
Tomato............ Lycopersicon Fruit, stem, and (b)(4)(ii).
esculentum. leaf.
French Guiana................... Pineapple......... Ananas comosus.... Fruit............. (b)(2)(vi).
French Polynesia, including Pineapple......... Ananas comosus.... Fruit............. (b)(2)(vi),
Tahiti. (b)(5)(vi).
Ghana........................... Pineapple......... Ananas comosus.... Fruit............. (b)(2)(vi).
Grenada......................... Papaya............ Carica papaya..... Fruit............. (b)(2)(vi).
Pineapple......... Ananas comosus.... Fruit............. (b)(2)(vi).

[[Page 39508]]

Guadeloupe...................... Papaya............ Carica papaya..... Fruit............. (b)(2)(vi).
Pineapple......... Ananas comosus.... Fruit............. (b)(2)(vi).
Guatemala....................... Cucurbit.......... Cucurbitaceae..... Fruit............. (b)(2)(iii),
(b)(3).
Fennel............ Foeniculum vulgare Leaf and stem..... (b)(2)(i).
German chamomile.. Matricaria Flower and leaf... (b)(2)(i).
recutita and
Matricaria
chamomilla.
Papaya............ Carica papaya..... Fruit............. (b)(1)(i),
(b)(2)(iii).
Pineapple......... Ananas comosus.... Fruit............. (b)(2)(vi).
Rambutan.......... Nephelium Fruit............. (b)(2)(i),
lappaceum. (b)(5)(ii).
Rosemary.......... Rosmarinus Leaf and stem..... (b)(2)(i).
officinalis.
Tomato............ Lycopersicon Fruit............. (b)(3),
esculentum. (b)(4)(ii).
Waterlily or lotus Nelumbo nucifera.. Roots without soil (b)(2)(i).
Yam-bean or jicama Pachyrhizus spp... Roots without soil (b)(2)(i)
Guinea.......................... Pineapple......... Ananas comosus.... Fruit............. (b)(2)(vi).
Guyana.......................... Pineapple......... Ananas comosus.... Fruit............. (b)(2)(vi).
Haiti........................... Papaya............ Carica papaya..... Fruit............. (b)(2)(vi).
Pineapple......... Ananas comosus.... Fruit............. (b)(2)(vi).
Honduras........................ Basil............. Ocimum basilicum.. Leaf and stem..... (b)(2)(i),
(b)(5)(iii).
Cucurbit.......... Cucurbitaceae..... Fruit............. (b)(2)(iii),
(b)(3).
German chamomile.. Matricaria Flower and leaf... (b)(2)(i).
recutita and
Matricaria
chamomilla.
Oregano or sweet Origanum spp...... Leaf and stem..... (b)(2)(i).
marjoram.
Pineapple......... Ananas comosus.... Fruit............. (b)(2)(vi).
Rambutan.......... Nephelium Fruit............. (b)(2)(i),
lappaceum. (b)(5)(ii).
Tomato............ Lycopersicon Fruit............. (b)(3),
esculentum. (b)(4)(ii).
Waterlily or lotus Nelumbo nucifera.. Roots without soil (b)(2)(i).
Yam-bean or jicama Pachyrhizus spp... Roots without soil (b)(2)(i).
India........................... Litchi............ Litchi chinensis.. Fruit............. (b)(2)(v).
Indonesia....................... Dasheen........... Colocasia spp., Tuber............. (b)(2)(iv).
Alocasia spp.,
and Xanthosoma
spp.
Israel.......................... Melon............. Cucumis melo only. Fruit............. (b)(5)(vii).
Tomato (green).... Lycopersicon Fruit............. (b)(3), (b)(4)(ii)
esculentum. or (b)(3),
(b)(5)(xiv).
Tomato (red or Lycopersicon Fruit............. (b)(3),
pink). esculentum. (b)(5)(viii) or
(b)(3),
(b)(5)(xiv).
Italy........................... Garlic............ Allium sativum.... Bulb.............. (b)(5)(v)\1\.
Pineapple......... Ananas comosus.... Fruit............. (b)(2)(vi).
Tomato............ Lycopersicon Fruit............. (b)(3),
esculentum. (b)(4)(ii).
Jamaica......................... Cucurbit.......... Cucurbitaceae..... Fruit............. (b)(2)(iii),
(b)(3).
Papaya............ Carica papaya..... Fruit............. (b)(2)(iii),
(b)(2)(iv),
(b)(3).
Pineapple......... Ananas comosus.... Fruit............. (b)(2)(vi).
Japan........................... Bean (garden)..... Phaseolus vulgaris Fruit............. (b)(2)(x),
(b)(5)(xi).
Cucumber.......... Cucumis sativas... Fruit............. (b)(2)(x),
(b)(5)(xii).
Pepper............ Capsicum spp...... Fruit............. (b)(2)(x),
(b)(5)(xi).
Sand pear......... Pyrus pyrifolia Fruit............. (b)(5)(ix).
var. culta.
Tomato............ Lycopersicon Fruit............. (b)(2)(x),
esculentum. (b)(5)(xii).
Kenya........................... Pineapple......... Ananas comosus.... Fruit............. (b)(2)(vi).
Liberia......................... Pineapple......... Ananas comosus.... Fruit............. (b)(2)(vi).
Mali............................ Pineapple......... Ananas comosus.... Fruit............. (b)(2)(vi).
Martinique...................... Papaya............ Carica papaya..... Fruit............. (b)(2)(vi).
Pineapple......... Ananas comosus.... Fruit............. (b)(2)(vi).
Mauritania...................... Pineapple......... Ananas comosus.... Fruit............. (b)(2)(vi).
Mexico.......................... Coconut........... Cocos nucifera.... Fruit with milk (b)(5)(iv).
and husk \2\.
Fig............... Ficus carica...... Fruit............. (b)(1)(iii),
(b)(2)(i).
Pitaya............ Hylocereus spp.... Fruit............. (b)(1)(iv),
(b)(2)(i).
Rambutan.......... Nephelium Fruit............. (b)(2)(i),
lappaceum. (b)(5)(ii).
Montserrat...................... Papaya............ Carica papaya..... Fruit............. (b)(2)(vi).
Pineapple......... Ananas comosus.... Fruit............. (b)(2)(vi).
Morocco......................... Pineapple......... Ananas comosus.... Fruit............. (b)(2)(vi).
Morocco and Western Sahara...... Tomato............ Lycopersicon Fruit, stem, and (b)(4)(ii).
esculentum. leaf.
Netherlands..................... Cucurbit.......... Cucurbitaceae..... Fruit............. (b)(2)(iii),
(b)(3).
Peach............. Prunus persica.... Fruit............. (b)(5)(xi).
Netherlands Antilles............ Pineapple......... Ananas comosus.... Fruit............. (b)(2)(vi).
New Zealand..................... Citrus............ Citrus spp........ Fruit............. (b)(3),
(b)(5)(xvi).
Passion fruit..... Passiflora spp.... Fruit............. (b)(2)(vi).
Nicaragua....................... Fennel............ Foeniculum vulgare Leaf and stem..... (b)(2)(i).
German chamomile.. Matricaria Flower and leaf... (b)(2)(i).
recutita and
Matricaria
chamomilla.
Pineapple......... Ananas comosus.... Fruit............. (b)(2)(vi).
Rambutan.......... Nephelium Fruit............. (b)(2)(i),
lappaceum. (b)(5)(ii).
Tomato............ Lycopersicon Fruit............. (b)(3),
esculentum. (b)(4)(ii).
Waterlily or lotus Nelumbo nucifera.. Roots without soil (b)(2)(i).

[[Page 39509]]

Yam-bean or jicama Pachyrhizus spp... Roots without soil (b)(2)(i).
Niger........................... Pineapple......... Ananas comosus.... Fruit............. (b)(2)(vi).
Nigeria......................... Pineapple......... Ananas comosus.... Fruit............. (b)(2)(vi).
Panama.......................... Cucurbit.......... Cucurbitaceae..... Fruit............. (b)(2)(iii),
(b)(3).
Rambutan.......... Nephelium Fruit............. (b)(2)(i),
lappaceum. (b)(5)(ii).
Pineapple......... Ananas comosus.... Fruit............. (b)(2)(vi).
Tomato............ Lycopersicon Fruit............. (b)(3),
esculentum. (b)(4)(ii).
Paraguay........................ Pineapple......... Ananas comosus.... Fruit............. (b)(2)(vi).
Peru............................ Honeydew melon.... Cucumis melo...... Fruit............. (b)(1)(v),
(b)(2)(i),
(b)(3).
Pineapple......... Ananas comosus.... Fruit............. (b)(2)(vi).
Philippines..................... Pineapple......... Ananas comosus.... Fruit............. (b)(5)(vi).
Portugal (including Azores)..... Pineapple......... Ananas comosus.... Fruit............. (b)(2)(vi).
Portugal (Azores only).......... Tomato............ Lycopersicon Fruit............. (b)(3),
esculentum. (b)(4)(ii).
Republic of Korea............... Dasheen........... Colocasia spp., Root.............. (b)(2)(iv).
Alocasia spp.,
and Xanthosoma
spp.
Sand pear......... Pyrus pyrifolia Fruit............. (b)(5)(ix).
var. culta.
Strawberry........ Fragaria spp...... Fruit............. (b)(5)(i).
St. Kitts and Nevis............. Papaya............ Carica papaya..... Fruit............. (b)(2)(vi).
Pineapple......... Ananas comosus.... Fruit............. (b)(2)(vi).
St. Lucia....................... Papaya............ Carica papaya..... Fruit............. (b)(2)(vi).
Pineapple......... Ananas comosus.... Fruit............. (b)(2)(vi).
St. Martin...................... Papaya............ Carica papaya..... Fruit............. (b)(2)(vi).
Barbados cherry... Malpighia glabra.. Fruit............. (b)(2)(vi).
St. Vincent..................... Papaya............ Carica papaya..... Fruit............. (b)(2)(vi).
Pineapple......... Ananas comosus.... Fruit............. (b)(2)(vi).
Senegal......................... Pineapple......... Ananas comosus.... Fruit............. (b)(2)(vi).
Sierra Leone.................... Pineapple......... Ananas comosus.... Fruit............. (b)(2)(vi).
South Africa.................... Pineapple......... Ananas comosus.... Fruit............. (b)(2)(xii).
Spain........................... Garlic............ Allium sativum.... Bulb.............. (b)(5)(v)\1\.
Pineapple......... Ananas comosus.... Fruit............. (b)(2)(vi).
Tomato............ Lycopersicon Fruit............. (b)(4)(ii).
esculentum.
Sri Lanka....................... Pineapple......... Ananas comosus.... Fruit............. (b)(2)(vi),
(b)(5)(vi).
Taiwan.......................... Brassica.......... Brassica oleracea. Above ground parts (b)(2)(viii).
Carambola......... Averrhoa carambola Fruit............. (b)(2)(ix),
(b)(5)(xv).
Litchi............ Litchi chinensis.. Fruit............. (b)(2)(v).
Thailand........................ Pineapple......... Ananas comosus.... Fruit............. (b)(2)(xi),
(b)(5)(vi).
Litchi............ Litchi chinensis.. Fruit............. (b)(2)(v).
Longan............ Dimocarpus longan. Fruit............. (b)(2)(v).
Togo............................ Pineapple......... Ananas comosus.... Fruit............. (b)(2)(vi).
Trinidad and Tobago............. Cassava........... Manihot esculenta. Fruit............. (b)(2)(vi).
Cucurbit.......... Cucurbitaceae..... Above ground parts (b)(2)(iii),
(b)(3).
Papaya............ Carica papaya..... Fruit............. (b)(2)(vi).
Pineapple......... Ananas comosus.... Fruit............. (b)(2)(vi).
Tunisia......................... Pineapple......... Ananas comosus.... Fruit............. (b)(2)(vi).
Turkey.......................... Pineapple......... Ananas comosus.... Fruit............. (b)(2)(vi).
Uruguay......................... Pineapple......... Ananas comosus.... Fruit............. (b)(2)(vi).
Venezuela....................... Cantaloupe........ Cucumis melo var. Fruit............. (b)(1)(v), (b)(3).
cantaloupensis.
Honeydew melon.... Cucumis melo...... Fruit............. (b)(1)(v), (b)(3).
Pineapple......... Ananas comosus.... Fruit............. (b)(2)(vi).
Watermelon........ Citrullus lanatus Fruit............. (b)(1)(v), (b)(3).
var. lanatus.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Also eligible for importation if treated with an approved treatment listed in part 305 of this chapter.
\2\ Fruit without husk may be imported subject to the requirements of Sec. 319.56-5.

(b) Additional restrictions for applicable fruits and vegetables as
specified in paragraph (a) of this section.
(1) Pest-free areas.
(i) The commodity must be from an area that meets the requirements
of Sec. 319.56-5 for freedom from the Mediterranean fruit fly
(Medfly), and must meet applicable requirements of Sec. 319.56-5.
(ii) The commodity must be from an area that meets the requirements
of Sec. 319.56-5 for freedom from the Mediterranean fruit fly
(Medfly), and must meet applicable requirements of Sec. 319.56-5.
Fruit from outside Medfly-free areas must be treated in accordance with
an approved treatment listed in part 305 of this chapter.
(iii) The commodity must be from an area that meets the
requirements of Sec. 319.56-5 for freedom from fruit flies, and must
meet applicable requirements of Sec. 319.56-5.
(iv) The commodity must be from an area that meets the requirements
of Sec. 319.56-5 for freedom from fruit flies, and must meet
applicable requirements of Sec. 319.56-5. The phytosanitary
certificate must also include an additional declaration stating: ``Upon
inspection, these articles were found free of Dysmicoccus neobrevipes
and Planococcus minor.''
(v) The commodity must be from an area that meets the requirements
of Sec. 319.56-5 for freedom from the South American cucurbit fly, and
must meet applicable requirements of Sec. 319.56-5.
(2) Restricted importation and distribution.

[[Page 39510]]

(i) Prohibited entry into Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, Hawaii,
and Guam. Cartons in which commodity is packed must be stamped ``Not
for importation into or distribution within PR, VI, HI, or Guam.''
(ii) Prohibited entry into Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, and
Guam. Cartons in which commodity is packed must be stamped ``Not for
importation into or distribution within PR, VI, or Guam.''
(iii) Prohibited entry into Hawaii. Cartons in which commodity is
packed must be stamped ``Not for importation into or distribution
within HI.''
(iv) Prohibited entry into Guam. Cartons in which commodity is
packed must be stamped ``Not for importation into or distribution
within Guam.''
(v) Prohibited entry into Florida. Cartons in which commodity is
packed must be stamped ``Not for importation into or distribution
within FL.''
(vi) Prohibited entry into Hawaii.
(vii) Prohibited entry into Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, and
Hawaii.
(viii) Prohibited entry into Alaska.
(ix) Prohibited entry into Florida.
(x) Allowed importation into Hawaii only.
(xi) Allowed importation into Guam and Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands only.
(xii) Prohibited entry into Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Northern
Mariana Islands, Hawaii, and Guam. Cartons in which commodity is packed
must be stamped ``For distribution in the continental United States
only.''
(3) Commercial consignments only.
(4) Stage of development.
(i) The bananas must be green at the time of export. Inspectors at
the port of arrival will determine that the bananas were green at the
time of export if:
(A) Bananas shipped by air are still green upon arrival in the
United States; and
(B) Bananas shipped by sea are either still green upon arrival in
the United States or yellow but firm.
(ii) The tomatoes must be green upon arrival in the United States.
Pink or red fruit may only be imported in accordance with other
provisions of Sec. 319.56-13 or Sec. 319.56-28 of this subpart.
(iii) No green may be visible on the shoot.
(5) Other conditions.
(i) Entry permitted only from September 15 to May 31, inclusive, to
prevent the introduction of a complex of exotic pests including, but
not limited to a thrips (Haplothrips chinensis) and a leafroller (Capua
tortrix).
(ii) Must be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by
the national plant protection organization of the country of origin
with an additional declaration stating that the fruit is free from
Coccus moestus, C. viridis, Dysmicoccus neobrevipes, Planococcus
lilacinus, P. minor, and Psedococcus landoi; and all damaged fruit was
removed from the consignment prior to export under the supervision of
the national plant protection organization.
(iii) Must be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by
the national plant protection organization of the country of origin
with an additional declaration stating that the fruit is free from
Planococcus minor.
(iv) Must be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by
the national plant protection organization of the country of origin
with an additional declaration stating that the fruit is of the Malayan
dwarf variety or Maypan variety (=F1 hybrid, Malayan Dwarf x
Panama Tall) (which are resistant to lethal yellowing disease) based on
verification of the parent stock.
(v) Must be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by
the national plant protection organization of the country of origin
with an additional declaration stating that the commodity is free of
living stages of Brachycerus spp. and Dyspessa ulula (Bkh.), based on
field inspection and certification and reexamination at the port of
departure prior to exportation.
(vi) Only the Tahiti Queen cultivar and varieties which are at
least 50 percent smooth Cayenne by lineage are admissible. The importer
or the importer's agent must provide the inspector with documentation
that establishes the variety's lineage. This document is necessary only
with the first importation.
(vii) Prohibited from the Palestinian controlled portions of the
West Bank and Gaza Strip; otherwise, must be accompanied by a
phytosanitary certificate which declares that the melons were grown in
approved areas in the Arava Valley or the Kadesh-Barnea area of Israel,
the fields where the melons were grown were inspected prior to harvest,
and the melons were inspected prior to export and found free of pests.
(viii) Prohibited from the Palestinian controlled portions of the
West Bank and Gaza Strip; otherwise must be accompanied by a
phytosanitary certificate which declares that only tomato varieties
111, 121, 124, 139, and 144 are included in the consignment and the
tomatoes were packed into fruit-fly-proof containers within 24 hours
after harvesting.
(ix) Only precleared consignments are authorized. The consignment
must be accompanied by a PPQ Form 203 signed by the APHIS inspector on
site in the exporting country.
(x) Must be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by
the national plant protection organization of the exporting country
that includes a declaration certifying that the products were grown and
packed in the exporting country.
(xi) Must be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by
the national plant protection organization of the exporting country
that includes a declaration certifying that the products were grown in
a greenhouse in the exporting country.
(xii) Must be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by
the national plant protection organization of the exporting country
that includes a declaration certifying that the products were grown in
a greenhouse in the exporting country on Honshu Island or north
thereof.
(xiii) Only precleared consignments that have been treated with an
approved treatment listed in 7 CFR part 305 are authorized. The
consignment must be accompanied by a PPQ Form 203 signed by the APHIS
inspector on site in the exporting country.
(xiv) Must be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by
the national plant protection organization of Israel that declares
``These tomatoes were grown in registered greenhouses in the Arava
Valley of Israel.''
(xv) Must be treated with an approved treatment listed in 7 CFR
part 305.
(xvi) Must be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by
the national plant protection organization of the country of origin and
with an additional declaration stating that the fruit is free from
Cnephasia jactatana, Coscinoptycha improbana, Ctenopseustis obliquana,
Epiphyas postvittana, Pezothrips kellyanus, and Planotortrix excessana;
must undergo a port of entry inspection with a biometric sampling of
100 percent of 30 boxes selected randomly from each consignment; and
the randomly selected boxes must be examined for hitchhiking pests.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
numbers 0579-0049, 0579-0236, 0579-0264, and 0579-0316)

Sec. Sec. 319.56-14 through 319.56-19 [Reserved]

Sec. 319.56-20 Apples and pears from Australia (including Tasmania)
and New Zealand.

Apples and pears from Australia (including Tasmania) and New
Zealand may be imported only in accordance with this section and all
other applicable provisions of this subpart.

[[Page 39511]]

(a) Inspection and treatment for pests of the family Tortricidae.
An inspector must take a biometrically designed sample from each lot of
apples or pears that are offered for entry into the United States. If
inspection of the sample discloses that pests of the family Tortricidae
(fruit-leaf roller moths) are not present in the lot sampled, the fruit
may be imported without treatment. If any such pests are found upon
inspection, the lot must be treated with methyl bromide as prescribed
in part 305 of this chapter.
(b) Treatment of apples and pears from Australia for fruit flies.
(1) Apples from Australia (including Tasmania) may be imported without
treatment for the following fruit flies if they are imported from an
area in Australia that meets the requirements of Sec. 319.56-5 for
pest freedom: Mediterranean fruit fly (Ceratitis capitata), the
Queensland fruit fly (Bactrocera tryoni), Bactrocera aquilonis, and B.
neohumeralis.
(2) Pears from Australia (including Tasmania) may be imported
without treatment for the following fruit flies if they are imported
from an area in Australia that meets the requirements of Sec. 319.56-5
for pest freedom: Mediterranean fruit fly (Ceratitis capitata), the
Queensland fruit fly (Dacus tryoni), Bactrocera jarvisi, and B.
neohumeralis.
(3) Apples and pears from Australia that do not originate from an
area that is free of fruit flies must be treated for such pests in
accordance with part 305 of this chapter. If an authorized treatment
does not exist for a specific fruit fly, the importation of such apples
and pears is prohibited.

Sec. 319.56-21 Okra from certain countries.

Okra from Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Guyana, Mexico, Peru,
Suriname, Venezuela, and the West Indies may be imported into the
United States in accordance with this section and all other applicable
provisions of this subpart.
(a) Importations into pink bollworm generally infested or
suppressive areas in the United States. Okra may be imported into areas
defined in Sec. 301.52-2a as pink bollworm generally infested or
suppressive areas, provided the okra is imported in accordance with the
requirements of Sec. 319.56-3. Upon entry into the United States, such
okra is immediately subject to the requirements of Subpart--Pink
Bollworm (Sec. Sec. 301.52 through 301.52-10) of this chapter.
(b) Importations into areas south of the 38th parallel that are not
pink bollworm generally infested or suppressive areas.
(1) During December 1 through May 15, inclusive, okra may be
imported into areas of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana,
Mississippi, Nevada, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, or any
part of Illinois, Kentucky, Missouri, or Virginia south of the 38th
parallel subject to the requirements of Sec. 319.56-3.
(2) During May 16 through November 30, inclusive, okra may be
imported into areas of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana,
Mississippi, Nevada, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, or any
part of Illinois, Kentucky, Missouri, or Virginia south of the 38th
parallel if treated for the pink bollworm in accordance with an
approved treatment listed in part 305 of this chapter.
(c) Importations into areas north of the 38th parallel. Okra may be
imported into Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho,
Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York,
North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota,
Utah, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming, the
District of Columbia, or the U.S. Virgin Islands, or any part of
Illinois, Kentucky, Missouri, or Virginia, north of the 38th parallel,
subject to the requirements of Sec. 319.56-3.
(d) Importations into areas of California that are not pink
bollworm generally infested or suppressive areas.
(1) During January 1 through March 15, inclusive, okra may be
imported into California subject to the requirements of Sec. 319.56-3.
(2) During March 16 through December 31, inclusive, okra may be
imported into California if it is treated for the pink bollworm in
accordance with an approved treatment listed in part 305 of this
chapter.
(e) Imports from Andros Island of the Bahamas. Okra produced on
Andros Island, Commonwealth of the Bahamas, may be imported into the
United States in accordance with Sec. 319.56-3.

Sec. 319.56-22 Apples and pears from certain countries in Europe.

(a) Importations allowed. The following fruits may be imported into
the United States in accordance with this section and all other
applicable provisions of this subpart:
(1) Apples from Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Great Britain,
Italy, the Netherlands, Northern Ireland, Norway, Portugal, the
Republic of Ireland, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland;
(2) Pears from Belgium, France, Great Britain, Italy, the
Netherlands, Portugal, and Spain.
(b) Trust fund agreement. Except as provided in paragraph (h) of
this section, the apples or pears may be imported only if the national
plant protection organization (NPPO) of the exporting country has
entered into a trust fund agreement with APHIS in accordance with Sec.
319.56-6.
(c) Responsibilities of the exporting country. The apples or pears
may be imported in any single shipping season only if all of the
following conditions are met:
(1) Officials of the NPPO must survey each orchard producing apples
or pears for shipment to the United States at least twice between
spring blossoming and harvest. If the officials find any leaf miners
that suggest the presence of Leucoptera malifoliella in an orchard, the
officials must reject any fruit harvested from that orchard during that
growing season for shipment to the United States. If the officials find
evidence in an orchard of any other plant pest referred to in paragraph
(g) of this section, they must ensure that the orchard and all other
orchards within 1 kilometer of that orchard will be treated for that
pest with a pesticide approved by the APHIS, in accordance with label
directions and under the direction of the plant protection
organization. If the officials determine that the treatment program has
not been applied as required or is not controlling the plant pest in
the orchard, they must reject any fruit harvested from that orchard
during that growing season for shipment to the United States.
(2) The apples or pears must be identified to the orchard from
which they are harvested (the producing orchard) until the fruit
arrives in the United States.
(3) The apples or pears must be processed and inspected in approved
packing sheds as follows:
(i) Upon arrival at the packing shed, the apples or pears must be
inspected for insect pests as follows: For each grower lot (all fruit
delivered for processing from a single orchard at a given time),
packing shed technicians must examine all fruit in one carton on every
third pallet (there are approximately 42 cartons to a pallet), or at
least 80 apples or pears in every third bin (if the fruit is not in
cartons on pallets). If they find any live larva or pupa of Leucoptera
malifoliella, they must reject the entire grower lot for shipment to
the United States, and the NPPO must reject for shipment any additional
fruit from the producing

[[Page 39512]]

orchard for the remainder of the shipping season.
(ii) The apples or pears must be sorted, sized, packed, and
otherwise handled in the packing sheds on grading and packing lines
used solely for fruit intended for shipment to the United States, or,
if on grading and packing lines used previously for other fruit, only
after the lines have been washed with water.
(iii) During packing operations, apples and pears must be inspected
for insect pests as follows: All fruit in each grower lot must be
inspected at each of two inspection stations on the packing line by
packing shed technicians. In addition, one carton from every pallet in
each grower lot must be inspected by officials of the plant protection
service. If the inspections reveal any live larva or pupa of Leucoptera
malifoliella, the entire grower lot must be rejected for shipment to
the United States, and the plant protection service must reject for
shipment any additional fruit from the producing orchard for the
remainder of that shipping season. If the inspections reveal any other
insect pest referred to in paragraph (g) of this section, and a
treatment authorized in part 305 of this chapter is available, the
fruit will remain eligible for shipment to the United States if the
entire grower lot is treated for the pest under the supervision of an
inspector. However, if the entire grower lot is not treated in this
manner, or if a plant pest is found for which no treatment authorized
in part 305 of this chapter is available, the entire grower lot will be
rejected for shipment to the United States.
(4) Apples or pears that pass inspection at approved packing sheds
must be presented to an inspector for preclearance inspection as
prescribed in paragraph (d) of this section or for inspection in the
United States as prescribed in paragraph (h) of this section.
(5) Apples and pears presented for preclearance inspection must be
identified with the packing shed where they were processed, as well as
with the producing orchard, and this identity must be maintained until
the apples or pears arrive in the United States.
(6) Facilities for the preclearance inspections prescribed in
paragraph (d) of this section must be provided in the exporting country
at a site acceptable to APHIS.
(7) Any apples or pears rejected for shipment into the United
States may not, under any circumstance, be presented again for shipment
to the United States.
(d) Preclearance inspection. Preclearance inspection will be
conducted in the exporting country by an inspector. Preclearance
inspection will be conducted for a minimum of 6,000 cartons of apples
or pears, which may represent multiple grower lots from different
packing sheds. The cartons examined during any given preclearance
inspection will be known as an inspection unit. Apples or pears in any
inspection unit may be shipped to the United States only if the
inspection unit passes inspection as follows:
(1) Inspectors will examine, fruit by fruit, a biometrically
designed statistical sample of 300 cartons drawn from each inspection
unit.
(i) If inspectors find any live larva or pupa of Leucoptera
malifoliella, they will reject the entire inspection unit for shipment
to the United States. The inspectors also will reject for shipment any
additional fruit from the producing orchard for the remainder of the
shipping season. However, other orchards represented in the rejected
inspection unit will not be affected for the remainder of the shipping
season because of that rejection. Additionally, if inspectors reject
any three inspection units in a single shipping season because of
Leucoptera malifoliella on fruit processed by a single packing shed, no
additional fruit from that packing shed will be accepted for shipment
to the United States for the remainder of that shipping season.
(ii) If the inspectors find evidence of any other plant pest
referred to in paragraph (g) of this section, and a treatment
authorized in part 305 of this chapter is available, fruit in the
inspection unit will remain eligible for shipment to the United States
if the entire inspection unit is treated for the pest under the
supervision of an inspector. However, if the entire inspection unit is
not treated in this manner, or if a plant pest is found for which no
treatment authorized in part 305 of this chapter is available, the
inspectors will reject the entire inspection unit for shipment to the
United States. Rejection of an inspection unit because of pests other
than Leucoptera malifoliella will not be cause for rejecting additional
fruit from an orchard or packing shed.
(iii) Apples and pears precleared for shipment to the United States
as prescribed in this paragraph will not be inspected again in the
United States (except as necessary to ensure that the fruit has been
precleared) unless the preclearance program with the exporting country
is terminated in accordance with paragraph (e) of this section. If the
preclearance program is terminated with any country, precleared fruit
in transit to the United States at the time of termination will be
spot-checked by inspectors upon arrival in the United States for
evidence of plant pests referred to in paragraph (g) of this section.
If any live larva or pupa of Leucoptera malifoliella is found in any
carton of fruit, inspectors will reject that carton and all other
cartons in that consignment that are from the same producing orchard.
In addition, the remaining cartons of fruit in that consignment will be
reinspected as an inspection unit in accordance with the preclearance
procedures prescribed in paragraph (d) of this section.
(2) [Reserved]
(e) Termination of preclearance programs. The Administrator may
terminate the preclearance program in a country if he or she determines
that any of the conditions specified in paragraph (c) of this section
are not met or because of pests found during preclearance inspections.
Termination of the preclearance program will stop consignments of
apples or pears from that country for the remainder of that shipping
season. Termination of the preclearance program for findings of
Leucoptera malifoliella in preclearance inspections in any country will
be based on rates of rejection of inspection units as follows:
(1) Termination because of findings of Leucoptera malifoliella. The
preclearance program will be terminated with a country when, in one
shipping season, inspection units are rejected because of Leucoptera
malifoliella as follows:
(i) Five inspection units in sequence among inspection units 1-20,
or a total of 8 or more of the inspection units 1-20;
(ii) Five inspection units in sequence among inspection units 21-
40, or a total of 10 or more of the inspection units 1-40;
(iii) Five inspection units in sequence among inspection units 41-
60, or a total of 12 or more of the inspection units 1-60;
(iv) Five inspection units in sequence among inspection units 61-
80, or a total of 14 or more of the inspection units 1-80;
(v) Five inspection units in sequence among inspection units 81-
100, or a total of 16 or more of the inspection units 1-100;
(vi) Five inspection units in sequence among inspection units 101-
120, or a total of 18 or more of the inspection units 1-120.
(vii) Sequence can be continued in increments of 20 inspection
units by increasing the number of rejected inspection units by 2.

[[Page 39513]]

(2) Termination because of findings of other plant pests. The
preclearance program will be terminated with a country when, in one
shipping season, inspection units are rejected because of other insect
pests as follows:
(i) Ten or more of the inspection units 1-20;
(ii) Fifteen or more of the inspection units 1-40;
(iii) Twenty or more of the inspection units 1-60;
(iv) Twenty-five or more of the inspection units 1-80;
(v) Thirty or more of the inspection units 1-100; or
(vi) Thirty-five or more of the inspection units 1-120.
(vii) Sequence can be continued in increments of 20 inspection
units by increasing the number of rejected inspection units by 5.
(f) Cold treatment. In addition to all other requirements of this
section, apples or pears may be imported into the United States from
France, Italy, Portugal, or Spain only if the fruit is cold treated for
the Mediterranean fruit fly in accordance with part 305 of this
chapter.
(g) Plant pests; authorized treatments. (1) Apples from Belgium,
Denmark, France, Great Britain, Italy, the Netherlands, Northern
Ireland, Norway, Portugal, the Republic of Ireland, Spain, Sweden,
Switzerland, and Germany; and pears from Belgium, France, Great
Britain, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, and Spain may be imported
into the United States only if they are found free of the following
pests or, if an authorized treatment is available, they are treated
for: The pear leaf blister moth (Leucoptera malifoliella (O.G. Costa)
(Lyonetiidae)), the plum fruit moth (Cydia funebrana (Treitschke)
(Tortricidae)), the summer fruit tortrix moth (Adoxophyes orana
(Fischer von Rosslertamm) (Tortricidae)), a leaf roller (Argyrotaenia
pulchellana (Haworth) (Tortricidae)), and other insect pests that do
not exist in the United States or that are not widespread in the United
States.
(2) Authorized treatments are listed in part 305 of this chapter.
(h) Inspection in the United States. Notwithstanding provisions to
the contrary in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section, the
Administrator may allow apples or pears imported under this section to
be inspected at a port of arrival in the United States, in lieu of a
preclearance inspection, under the following conditions:
(1) The Administrator has determined that inspection can be
accomplished at the port of arrival without increasing the risk of
introducing insect pests into the United States;
(2) Each pallet of apples or pears must be completely enclosed in
plastic, to prevent the escape of insects, before it is offloaded at
the port of arrival;
(3) The entire consignment of apples or pears must be offloaded and
moved to an enclosed warehouse, where adequate inspection facilities
are available, under the supervision of an inspector.
(4) The Administrator must determine that a sufficient number of
inspectors are available at the port of arrival to perform the services
required.
(5) The method of inspection will be the same as prescribed in
paragraph (d) of this section for preclearance inspections.

Sec. 319.56-23 Apricots, nectarines, peaches, plumcot, and plums from
Chile.

(a) Importations allowed. Apricots, nectarines, peaches, plumcot,
and plums may be imported into the United States from Chile in
accordance with this section and all other applicable provisions of
this subpart.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ As provided in Sec. 319.56-4, apricots, nectarines,
peaches, plumcot, and plums from Chile may also be imported if
treated in accordance with a treatment listed in part 305 of this
chapter and subject to other applicable regulations in this subpart.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(b) Trust fund agreement. Apricots, nectarines, peaches, plumcot,
and plums may be imported under the regulations in this section only if
the national plant protection organization of Chile (Servicio Agricola
y Ganadero, referred to in this section as SAG) or a private export
group has entered into a trust fund agreement with APHIS in accordance
with Sec. 319.56-6.
(c) Responsibilities of Servicio Agricola y Ganadero. SAG will
ensure that:
(1) Apricots, nectarines, peaches, plumcot, or plums are presented
to inspectors for preclearance in their shipping containers at the
shipping site as prescribed in paragraph (d) of this section.
(2) Apricots, nectarines, peaches, plumcot, and plums presented for
inspection are identified in shipping documents accompanying each load
of fruit that identify the packing shed where they were processed and
the orchards where they were produced; and this identity is maintained
until the apricots, nectarines, peaches, plumcot, or plums are released
for entry into the United States.
(3) Facilities for the inspections prescribed in paragraph (d) of
this section are provided in Chile at an inspection site acceptable to
APHIS.
(d) Preclearance inspection. Preclearance inspection will be
conducted in Chile under the direction of inspectors. An inspection
unit will consist of a lot or consignment from which a statistical
sample is drawn and examined. An inspection unit may represent multiple
grower lots from different packing sheds. Apricots, nectarines,
peaches, plumcot, or plums in any inspection unit may be shipped to the
United Sates only if the inspection unit passes inspection as follows:
(1) Inspectors will examine the contents of the cartons based on a
biometric sampling scheme established for each inspection unit.
(i) If the inspectors find evidence of any plant pest for which a
treatment authorized in part 305 of this chapter is available, fruit in
the inspection unit will remain eligible for shipment to the United
States if the entire inspection unit is treated for the pest in Chile.
However, if the entire inspection unit is not treated in this manner,
or if a plant pest is found for which no treatment authorized in part
305 of this chapter is available, the entire inspection unit will not
be eligible for shipment to the United States.
(ii) Apricots, nectarines, peaches, plumcot, and plums precleared
for shipment to the United States as prescribed in this paragraph will
not be inspected again in the United States except as necessary to
ensure that the fruit has been precleared and for occasional monitoring
purposes.
(2) [Reserved]
(e) Termination of preclearance programs. Consignments of apricots,
nectarines, peaches, plumcot, and plums will be individually evaluated
regarding the rates of infestation of inspection units of these
articles presented for preclearance. The inspection program for an
article will be terminated when inspections establish that the rate of
infestation of inspection units of the article by pests listed in
paragraph (f) of this section exceeds 20 percent calculated on any
consecutive 14 days of actual inspections (not counting days on which
inspections are not conducted). Termination of the inspection program
for an article will require mandatory treatment in Chile, prior to
shipment to the United States, of consignments of the article for the
remainder of that shipping season. If a preclearance inspection program
is terminated with Chile, precleared fruit in transit to the United
States at the time of termination will be spot-checked by inspectors
upon arrival in the United States for evidence of plant pests

[[Page 39514]]

referred to in paragraph (f) of this section.
(f) Plant pests; authorized treatments. (1) Apricots, nectarines,
peaches, plumcot, or plums from Chile may be imported into the United
States only if they are found free of the following pests or, if an
authorized treatment is available, they are treated for: Proeulia spp.,
Leptoglossus chilensis, Megalometis chilensis, Naupactus xanthographus,
Listroderes subcinctus, and Conoderus rufangulus, and other insect
pests that the Administrator has determined do not exist, or are not
widespread, in the United States.
(2) Authorized treatments are listed in part 305 of this chapter.
(g) Inspection in the United States. Notwithstanding provisions to
the contrary in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section, the
Administrator may, in emergency or extraordinary situations, allow
apricots, nectarines, peaches, plumcot, or plums imported under this
section to be inspected at a port of arrival in the United States, in
lieu of a preclearance inspection or fumigation in Chile, under the
following conditions:
(1) The Administrator is satisfied that a unique situation exists
which justifies a limited exception to mandatory preclearance;
(2) The Administrator has determined that inspection and/or
treatment can be accomplished at the intended port of arrival without
increasing the risk of introducing quarantine pests into the United
States;
(3) The entire consignment of apricots, nectarines, peaches,
plumcot, or plums must be offloaded and moved to an enclosed warehouse,
where inspection and treatment facilities are available.
(4) The Administrator must determine that a sufficient number of
inspectors are available at the port of arrival to perform the services
required.
(5) The method of sampling and inspection will be the same as
prescribed in paragraph (d) of this section for preclearance
inspections.

Sec. 319.56-24 Lettuce and peppers from Israel.

(a) Lettuce may be imported into the United States from Israel
without fumigation for leafminers, thrips, and Sminthuris viridis only
in accordance with this section and all other applicable provisions of
this subpart.
(1) Growing conditions. (i) The lettuce must be grown in insect-
proof houses covered with 50 mesh screens, double self-closing doors,
and hard walks (no soil) between the beds;
(ii) The lettuce must be grown in growing media that has been
sterilized by steam or chemical means;
(iii) The lettuce must be inspected during its active growth phase
and the inspection must be monitored by a representative of the Israeli
national plant protection organization;
(iv) The crop must be protected with sticky traps and prophylactic
sprays approved for the crop by Israel;
(v) The lettuce must be moved to an insect-proof packinghouse at
night in plastic containers covered by 50 mesh screens;
(vi) The lettuce must be packed in an insect-proof packinghouse,
individually packed in transparent plastic bags, packed in cartons,
placed on pallets, and then covered with shrink wrapping; and
(vii) The lettuce must be transported to the airport in a closed
refrigerated truck for shipment to the United States.
(2) Each consignment of lettuce must be accompanied by a
phytosanitary certificate issued by the Israeli national plant
protection organization stating that the conditions of paragraph (a)(1)
of this section have been met.
(b) Peppers (fruit) (Capsicum spp.) from Israel may be imported
into the United States only under the following conditions:
(1) The peppers have been grown in the Arava Valley by growers
registered with the Israeli Department of Plant Protection and
Inspection (DPPI).
(2) Malathion bait sprays shall be applied in the residential areas
of the Arava Valley at 6-to 10-day intervals beginning not less than 30
days before the harvest of backyard host material in residential areas
and shall continue through harvest.
(3) The peppers have been grown in insect-proof plastic
screenhouses approved by the DPPI and APHIS. Houses shall be examined
periodically by DPPI or APHIS personnel for tears in either plastic or
screening.
(4) Trapping for Mediterranean fruit fly (Medfly) shall be
conducted by DPPI throughout the year in the agricultural region along
Arava Highway 90 and in the residential area of Paran. The capture of a
single Medfly in a screenhouse will immediately cancel export from that
house until the source of the infestation is delimited, trap density is
increased, pesticide sprays are applied, or other measures acceptable
to APHIS are taken to prevent further occurrences.
(5) Signs in English and Hebrew shall be posted along Arava Highway
90 stating that it is prohibited to throw out/discard fruits and
vegetables from passing vehicles.
(6) Sorting and packing of peppers shall be done in the insect-
proof screenhouses in the Arava Valley.
(7) Prior to movement from approved insect-proof screenhouses in
the Arava Valley, the peppers must be packed in either individual
insect-proof cartons or in non-insect-proof cartons that are covered by
insect-proof mesh or plastic tarpaulins; covered non-insect-proof
cartons must be placed in shipping containers.
(8) The packaging safeguards required by paragraph (b)(7) of this
section must remain intact at all times during the movement of the
peppers to the United States and must be intact upon arrival of the
peppers in the United States.
(9) Each consignment of peppers must be accompanied by a
phytosanitary certificate issued by the Israeli national plant
protection organization stating that the conditions of paragraphs
(b)(1) through (b)(7) of this section have been met.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 0579-0210)

Sec. 319.56-25 Papayas from Central America and Brazil.

The Solo type of papaya may be imported into the continental United
States, Alaska, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands only in
accordance with this section and all other applicable provisions of
this subpart.
(a) The papayas were grown and packed for shipment to the United
States in one of the following locations:
(1) Brazil: State of Espirito Santo; all areas in the State of
Bahia that are between the Jequitinhonha River and the border with the
State of Espirito Santo and all areas in the State of Rio Grande del
Norte that contain the following municipalities: Touros, Pureza, Rio do
Fogo, Barra de Maxaranguape, Taipu, Ceara Mirim, Extremoz, Ielmon
Marinho, Sao Goncalo do Amarante, Natal, Maciaba, Parnamirim, Veracruz,
Sao Jose de Mipibu, Nizia Floresta, Monte Aletre, Areas, Senador
Georgino Avelino, Espirito Santo, Goianinha, Tibau do Sul, Vila Flor,
and Canguaretama e Baia Formosa.
(2) Costa Rica: Provinces of Guanacaste, Puntarenas, San Jose.
(3) El Salvador: Departments of La Libertad, La Paz, and San
Vicente.
(4) Guatemala: Departments of Escuintla, Retalhuleu, Santa Rosa,
and Suchitep[eacute]quez.
(5) Honduras: Departments of Comayagua, Cort[eacute]s, and Santa
B[aacute]rbara.
(6) Nicaragua: Departments of Carazo, Granada, Leon, Managua,
Masaya, and Rivas.

[[Page 39515]]

(7) Panama: Provinces of Cocle, Herrera, and Los Santos; Districts
of Aleanje, David, and Dolega in the Province of Chiriqui; and all
areas in the Province of Panama that are west of the Panama Canal.
(b) Beginning at least 30 days before harvest began and continuing
through the completion of harvest, all trees in the field where the
papayas were grown were kept free of papayas that were one-half or more
ripe (more than one-fourth of the shell surface yellow), and all culled
and fallen fruits were buried, destroyed, or removed from the farm at
least twice a week.
(c) The papayas were held for 20 minutes in hot water at 48 [deg]C
(118.4 [deg]F).
(d) When packed, the papayas were less than one-half ripe (the
shell surface was no more than one-fourth yellow, surrounded by light
green), and appeared to be free of all injurious insect pests.
(e) The papayas were safeguarded from exposure to fruit flies from
harvest to export, including being packaged so as to prevent access by
fruit flies and other injurious insect pests. The package containing
the papayas does not contain any other fruit, including papayas not
qualified for importation into the United States.
(f) All cartons in which papayas are packed must be stamped ``Not
for importation into or distribution in HI.''
(g) All activities described in paragraphs (a) through (f) of this
section were carried out under the supervision and direction of plant
health officials of the national plant protection organization (NPPO).
(h) Beginning at least 1 year before harvest begins and continuing
through the completion of harvest, fruit fly traps were maintained in
the field where the papayas were grown. The traps were placed at a rate
of 1 trap per hectare and were checked for fruit flies at least once
weekly by plant health officials of the NPPO. Fifty percent of the
traps were of the McPhail type and 50 percent of the traps were of the
Jackson type. If the average Jackson trap catch was greater than seven
Medflies per trap per week, measures were taken to control the Medfly
population in the production area. The NPPO kept records of fruit fly
finds for each trap, updated the records each time the traps were
checked, and made the records available to APHIS inspectors upon
request. The records were maintained for at least 1 year.
(i) If the average Jackson trap catch exceeds 14 Medflies per trap
per week, importations of papayas from that production area must be
halted until the rate of capture drops to an average of 7 or fewer
Medflies per trap per week.
(j) In the State of Espirito Santo, Brazil, if the average McPhail
trap catch was greater than seven South American fruit flies
(Anastrepha fraterculus) per trap per week, measures were taken to
control the South American fruit fly population in the production area.
If the average McPhail trap catch exceeds 14 South American fruit flies
per trap per week, importations of papayas from that production area
must be halted until the rate of capture drops to an average of 7 or
fewer South American fruit flies per trap per week.
(k) All consignments must be accompanied by a phytosanitary
certificate issued by the national Ministry of Agriculture stating that
the papayas were grown, packed, and shipped in accordance with the
provisions of this section.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 0579-0128)

Sec. 319.56-26 Melon and watermelon from certain countries in South
America.

(a) Cantaloupe and watermelon from Ecuador. Cantaloupe (Cucumis
melo) and watermelon (fruit) (Citrullus lanatus) may be imported into
the United States from Ecuador only in accordance with this paragraph
and all other applicable provisions of this subpart:
(1) The cantaloupe or watermelon may be imported in commercial
consignments only.
(2) The cantaloupe or watermelon must have been grown in an area
where trapping for the South American cucurbit fly (Anastrepha grandis)
has been conducted for at least the previous 12 months by the national
plant protection organization (NPPO) of Ecuador, under the direction of
APHIS, with no findings of the pest.\4 \
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ Information on the trapping program may be obtained by
writing to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service,
International Services, Stop 3432, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20250-3432.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(3) The following area meets the requirements of paragraph (a)(2)
of this section: The area within 5 kilometers of either side of the
following roads:
(i) Beginning in Guayaquil, the road north through Nobol,
Palestina, and Balzar to Velasco-Ibarra (Empalme);
(ii) Beginning in Guayaquil, the road south through E1 26, Puerto
Inca, Naranjal, and Camilo Ponce to Enriquez;
(iii) Beginning in Guayaquil, the road east through Palestina to
Vinces;
(iv) Beginning in Guayaquil, the road west through Piedrahita
(Novol) to Pedro Carbo; or
(v) Beginning in Guayaquil, the road west through Progreso,
Engunga, Tugaduaja, and Zapotal to El Azucar.
(4) The cantaloupe or watermelon may not be moved into Alabama,
American Samoa, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Guam, Hawaii,
Louisiana, Mississippi, New Mexico, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Texas,
and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The boxes in which the cantaloupe or
watermelon is packed must be stamped with the name of the commodity
followed by the words ``Not to be distributed in the following States
or territories: AL, AS, AZ, CA, FL, GA, GU, HI, LA, MS, NM, PR, SC, TX,
VI''.
(b) Cantaloupe, netted melon, vegetable melon, winter melon, and
watermelon from Peru. Cantaloupe, netted melon, vegetable melon, and
winter melon (Cucumis melo L. subsp. melo) and watermelon may be
imported into the United States from Peru only in accordance with this
paragraph and all other applicable requirements of this subpart:
(1) The fruit may be imported in commercial consignments only.
(2) The fruit must have been grown in an area of Peru considered by
APHIS to be free of the South American cucurbit fly, must be
accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate declaring its origin in such
an area, and must be safeguarded and labeled, each in accordance with
Sec. 319.56-5 of this subpart.
(3) The phytosanitary certificate required under Sec. 319.56-5
must also include a declaration by the NPPO of Peru indicating that,
upon inspection, the fruit was found free of the gray pineapple
mealybug (Dysmicoccus neobrevipes).
(4) All consignments of fruit must be labeled in accordance with
Sec. 319.56(5(e) of this subpart, and the boxes in which the fruit is
packed must be labeled ``Not for distribution in HI, PR, VI, or Guam.''

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 0579-0236)

Sec. 319.56-27 Fuji variety apples from Japan and the Republic of
Korea.

Fuji variety apples may be imported into the United States from
Japan and the Republic of Korea only in accordance with this section
and all other applicable provisions of this subpart.
(a) Treatment and fumigation. The apples must be cold treated and
then fumigated, under the supervision of an APHIS inspector, either in
Japan or the Republic of Korea, for the peach fruit moth (Carposina
niponensis), the yellow peach moth (Conogethes punctiferalis), and the
fruit tree spider mite (Tetranychus viennensis), in accordance with
part 305 of this chapter.

[[Page 39516]]

(b) APHIS inspection. The apples must be inspected upon completion
of the treatments required by paragraph (a) of this section, prior to
export from Japan or the Republic of Korea, by an APHIS inspector and
an inspector from the national plant protection agency of Japan or the
Republic of Korea. The apples shall be subject to further disinfection
in the exporting country if plant pests are found prior to export.
Imported Fuji variety apples inspected in Japan or the Republic of
Korea are also subject to inspection and disinfection at the port of
first arrival, as provided in Sec. 319.56-3.
(c) Trust fund agreements. The national plant protection agency of
the exporting country must enter into a trust fund agreement with APHIS
in accordance with Sec. 319.56-6 before APHIS will provide the
services necessary for Fuji variety apples to be imported into the
United States from Japan or the Republic of Korea.

Sec. 319.56-28 Tomatoes from certain countries.

(a) Tomatoes (fruit) (Lycopersicon esculentum) from Spain. Pink or
red tomatoes may be imported into the United States from Spain only in
accordance with this section and all other applicable provisions of
this subpart.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ The surface area of a pink tomato is more than 30 percent
but not more than 60 percent pink and/or red. The surface area of a
red tomato is more than 60 percent pink and/or red. Green tomatoes
from Spain, France, Morocco, and Western Sahara may be imported in
accordance with Sec. Sec. 319.56-3 and 319.56-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) The tomatoes must be grown in the Almeria Province, the Murcia
Province, or the municipalities of Albu[ntilde]ol and Carchuna in the
Granada Province of Spain in greenhouses registered with, and inspected
by, the Spanish Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Food (MAFF);
(2) The tomatoes may be shipped only from December 1 through April
30, inclusive;
(3) Two months prior to shipping, and continuing through April 30,
MAFF must set and maintain Mediterranean fruit fly (Medfly) traps
baited with trimedlure inside the greenhouses at a rate of four traps
per hectare. In all areas outside the greenhouses and within 8
kilometers, including urban and residential areas, MAFF must place
Medfly traps at a rate of four traps per square kilometer. All traps
must be checked every 7 days;
(4) Capture of a single Medfly in a registered greenhouse will
immediately result in cancellation of exports from that greenhouse
until the source of infestation is determined, the Medfly infestation
is eradicated, and measures are taken to preclude any future
infestation. Capture of a single Medfly within 2 kilometers of a
registered greenhouse will necessitate increasing trap density in order
to determine whether there is a reproducing population in the area.
Capture of two Medflies within 2 kilometers of a registered greenhouse
and within a 1-month time period will result in cancellation of exports
from all registered greenhouses within 2 kilometers of the find until
the source of infestation is determined and the Medfly infestation is
eradicated;
(5) MAFF must maintain records of trap placement, checking of
traps, and any Medfly captures, and must make the records available to
APHIS upon request;
(6) The tomatoes must be packed within 24 hours of harvest. They
must be safeguarded from harvest to export by insect-proof mesh screens
or plastic tarpaulins, including while in transit to the packinghouse
and while awaiting packaging. They must be packed in insect-proof
cartons or containers, or covered by insect-proof mesh or plastic
tarpaulins for transit to the airport and subsequent export to the
United States. These safeguards must be intact upon arrival in the
United States; and
(7) MAFF is responsible for export certification inspection and
issuance of phytosanitary certificates. Each consignment of tomatoes
must be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by MAFF and
bearing the declaration, ``These tomatoes were grown in registered
greenhouses in Almeria Province, the Murcia Province, or the
municipalities of Albu[ntilde]ol and Carchuna in the Granada Province
in Spain.''
(b) Tomatoes (fruit) (Lycopersicon esculentum) from France. Pink or
red tomatoes may be imported into the United States from France only in
accordance with this section and other applicable provisions of this
subpart.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ See footnote 5 to paragraph (a) of this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) The tomatoes must be grown in the Brittany Region of France in
greenhouses registered with, and inspected by, the Service de la
Protection Vegetaux (SRPV);
(2) From June 1 through September 30, SRPV must set and maintain
one Medfly trap baited with trimedlure inside and one outside each
greenhouse and must check the traps every 7 days;
(3) Capture of a single Medfly inside or outside a registered
greenhouse will immediately result in cancellation of exports from that
greenhouse until the source of the infestation is determined, the
Medfly infestation is eradicated, and measures are taken to preclude
any future infestation;
(4) SRPV must maintain records of trap placement, checking of
traps, and any Medfly captures, and must make them available to APHIS
upon request;
(5) From June 1 through September 30, the tomatoes must be packed
within 24 hours of harvest. They must be safeguarded by insect-proof
mesh screen or plastic tarpaulin while in transit to the packinghouse
and while awaiting packing. They must be packed in insect-proof cartons
or containers, or covered by insect-proof mesh screen or plastic
tarpaulin. These safeguards must be intact upon arrival in the United
States; and
(6) SRPV is responsible for export certification inspection and
issuance of phytosanitary certificates. Each consignment of tomatoes
must be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by SRPV and
bearing the declaration, ``These tomatoes were grown in registered
greenhouses in the Brittany Region of France.''
(c) Tomatoes (fruit) (Lycopersicon esculentum) from Morocco and
Western Sahara. Pink tomatoes may be imported into the United States
from Morocco and Western Sahara only in accordance with this section
and other applicable provisions of this subpart.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ See footnote 5 to paragraph (a) of this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) The tomatoes must be grown in the provinces of El Jadida or
Safi in Morocco or in the province of Dahkla in Western Sahara in
insect-proof greenhouses registered with, and inspected by, the
Moroccan Ministry of Agriculture, Division of Plant Protection,
Inspection, and Enforcement (DPVCTRF);
(2) The tomatoes may be shipped from Morocco and Western Sahara
only between December 1 and April 30, inclusive;
(3) Beginning 2 months prior to the start of the shipping season
and continuing through the end of the shipping season, DPVCTRF must set
and maintain Mediterranean fruit fly (Medfly) traps baited with
trimedlure inside the greenhouses at a rate of four traps per hectare.
In Morocco, traps must also be placed outside registered greenhouses
within a 2-kilometer radius at a rate of four traps per square
kilometer. In Western Sahara, a single trap must be placed outside in
the immediate proximity of each registered greenhouse. All traps in
Morocco and Western Sahara must be checked every 7 days;

[[Page 39517]]

(4) DPVCTRF must maintain records of trap placement, checking of
traps, and any Medfly captures, and make the records available to APHIS
upon request;
(5) Capture of a single Medfly in a registered greenhouse will
immediately result in cancellation of exports from that greenhouse
until the source of the infestation is determined, the Medfly
infestation has been eradicated, and measures are taken to preclude any
future infestation. Capture of a single Medfly within 200 meters of a
registered greenhouse will necessitate increasing trap density in order
to determine whether there is a reproducing population in the area. Six
additional traps must be placed within a radius of 200 meters
surrounding the trap where the Medfly was captured. Capture of two
Medflies within 200 meters of a registered greenhouse and within a 1-
month time period will necessitate Malathion bait sprays in the area
every 7 to 10 days for 60 days to ensure eradication;
(6) The tomatoes must be packed within 24 hours of harvest and must
be pink at the time of packing. They must be safeguarded by an insect-
proof mesh screen or plastic tarpaulin while in transit to the
packinghouse and while awaiting packing. They must be packed in insect-
proof cartons or containers, or covered by insect-proof mesh or plastic
tarpaulin for transit to the airport and export to the United States.
These safeguards must be intact upon arrival in the United States; and
(7) The Moroccan Ministry of Agriculture, Fresh Product Export
(EACCE) is responsible for export certification inspection and issuance
of phytosanitary certificates. Each consignment of tomatoes must be
accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by EACCE and bearing
the declaration, ``These tomatoes were grown in registered greenhouses
in El Jadida or Safi Province, Morocco, and were pink at the time of
packing'' or ``These tomatoes were grown in registered greenhouses in
Dahkla Province, Western Sahara and were pink at the time of packing.''
(d) Tomatoes from Chile. Tomatoes (fruit) (Lycopersicon esculentum)
from Chile, whether green or at any stage of ripeness, may be imported
into the United States with treatment in accordance with paragraph
(d)(1) of this section or if produced in accordance with the systems
approach described in paragraph (d)(2) of this section.
(1) With treatment. (i) The tomatoes must be treated in Chile with
methyl bromide in accordance with part 305 of this chapter. The
treatment must be conducted in facilities registered with the Servicio
Agricola y Ganadero (SAG) and with APHIS personnel monitoring the
treatments;
(ii) The tomatoes must be treated and packed within 24 hours of
harvest. Once treated, the tomatoes must be safeguarded by an insect-
proof mesh screen or plastic tarpaulin while in transit to the
packinghouse and awaiting packing. They must be packed in insect-proof
cartons or containers, or insect-proof mesh or plastic tarpaulin under
APHIS monitoring for transit to the airport and subsequent export to
the United States. These safeguards must be intact upon arrival in the
United States; and
(iii) Tomatoes may be imported into the United States from Chile
with treatment in accordance with this paragraph (d)(1) only if SAG has
entered into a trust fund agreement with APHIS for that shipping season
in accordance with Sec. 319.56-6. This agreement requires SAG to pay
in advance all costs that APHIS estimates it will incur in providing
the preclearance services prescribed in this section for that shipping
season.
(2) Systems approach. The tomatoes may be imported without
fumigation for Tuta absoluta, Rhagoletis tomatis, and Mediterranean
fruit fly (Medfly, Ceratitis capitata) if they meet the following
conditions:
(i) The tomatoes must be grown in approved production sites that
are registered with SAG. Initial approval of the production sites will
be completed jointly by SAG and APHIS. SAG will visit and inspect the
production sites monthly, starting 2 months before harvest and
continuing until the end of the shipping season. APHIS may monitor the
production sites at any time during this period.
(ii) Tomato production sites must consist of pest-exclusionary
greenhouses, which must have double self-closing doors and have all
other openings and vents covered with 1.6 mm (or less) screening.
(iii) The tomatoes must originate from an area that has been
determined by APHIS to be free of Medfly in accordance with the
procedures described in Sec. 319.56-5 or an area where Medfly trapping
occurs. Production sites in areas where Medfly is known to occur must
contain traps for both Medfly and Rhagoletis tomatis in accordance with
paragraphs (d)(2)(iii) and (d)(2)(iv) of this section. Production sites
in all other areas do not require trapping for Medfly. The trapping
protocol for the detection of Medfly in infested areas is as follows:
(A) McPhail traps with an approved protein bait must be used within
registered greenhouses. Traps must be placed inside greenhouses at a
density of 4 traps/10 ha, with a minimum of at least two traps per
greenhouse.
(B) Medfly traps with trimedlure must be placed inside a buffer
area 500 meters wide around the registered production site, at a
density of 1 trap/10 ha and a minimum of 10 traps. These traps must be
checked at least every 7 days. At least one of these traps must be near
a greenhouse. Traps must be set for at least 2 months before export and
trapping and continue to the end of the harvest season.
(C) Medfly prevalence levels in the surrounding areas must be 0.7
Medflies per trap per week or lower. If levels exceed this before
harvest, the production site will be prohibited from shipping under the
systems approach. If the levels exceed this after the 2 months prior to
harvest, the production site would be prohibited from shipping under
the systems approach until APHIS and SAG agree that the pest risk has
been mitigated.
(iv) Registered production sites must contain traps for Rhagoletis
tomatis in accordance with the following provisions:
(A) McPhail traps with an approved protein bait must be used within
registered greenhouses. Traps must be placed inside greenhouses at a
density of 4 traps/10 ha, with a minimum of at least two traps per
greenhouse. Traps inside greenhouses will use the same bait for Medfly
and Rhagoletis tomatis because the bait used for R. tomatis is
sufficient for attracting both types of fruit fly within the confines
of a greenhouse; therefore, it is unnecessary to repeat this trapping
protocol in production sites in areas where Medfly is known to occur.
(B) McPhail traps with an approved protein bait must be placed
inside a 500 meter buffer zone at a density of 1 trap/10 ha surrounding
the production site. At least one of the traps must be near a
greenhouse. Traps must be set for at least 2 months before export until
the end of the harvest season and must be checked at least every 7
days. In areas where Medfly trapping is required, traps located outside
of greenhouses must contain different baits for Medfly and Rhagoletis
tomatis. There is only one approved bait for R. tomatis and the bait is
not strong enough to lure Medfly when used outside greenhouses;
therefore, separate traps must be used for each type of fruit fly
present in the area surrounding the greenhouses.
(C) If within 30 days of harvest a single Rhagoletis tomatis is
captured

[[Page 39518]]

inside the greenhouse or in a consignment or if two R. tomatis are
captured or detected in the buffer zone, shipments from the production
site will be suspended until APHIS and SAG determine that risk
mitigation is achieved.
(v) Registered production sites must conduct regular inspections
for Tuta absoluta throughout the harvest season and find these areas
free of T. absoluta evidence (e.g., eggs or larvae). If within 30 days
of harvest, two T. absoluta are captured inside the greenhouse or a
single T. absoluta is found inside the fruit or in a consignment,
shipments from the production site will be suspended until APHIS and
SAG determine that risk mitigation is achieved.
(vi) SAG will ensure that populations of Liriomyza huidobrensis
inside greenhouses are well managed by doing inspections during the
monthly visits specifically for L. huidobrensis mines in the leaves and
for visible external pupae or adults. If L. huidobrensis is found to be
generally infesting the production site, shipments from the production
site will be suspended until APHIS and SAG agree that risk mitigation
is achieved.
(vii) All traps must be placed at least 2 months prior to harvest
and be maintained throughout the harvest season and be monitored and
serviced weekly.
(viii) SAG must maintain records of trap placement, checking of
traps, and of any Rhagoletis tomatis or Tuta absoluta captures for 1
year for APHIS review. SAG must maintain an APHIS approved quality
control program to monitor or audit the trapping program. APHIS must be
notified when a production site is removed from or added to the
program.
(ix) The tomatoes must be packed within 24 hours of harvest in a
pest-exclusionary packinghouse. The tomatoes must be safeguarded by a
pest-proof screen or plastic tarpaulin while in transit to the
packinghouse and while awaiting packing. Tomatoes must be packed in
insect-proof cartons or containers or covered with insect-proof mesh or
plastic tarpaulin for transit to the United States. These safeguards
must remain intact until arrival in the United States.
(x) During the time the packinghouse is in use for exporting fruit
to the United States, the packinghouse may only accept fruit from
registered approved production sites.
(xi) SAG is responsible for export certification inspection and
issuance of phytosanitary certificates. Each consignment of tomatoes
must be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by SAG with
an additional declaration, ``These tomatoes were grown in an approved
production site in Chile.'' The shipping box must be labeled with the
identity of the production site.
(e) Tomatoes (fruit) (Lycopersicon esculentum) from Australia.
Tomatoes may be imported into the United States from Australia only in
accordance with this section and other applicable provisions of this
subpart.
(1) The tomatoes must be grown in greenhouses registered with, and
inspected by, the Australian Quarantine Inspection Service (AQIS);
(2) Two months prior to shipping, AQIS must inspect the greenhouse
to establish its freedom from the following quarantine pests:
Bactrocera aquilonis, B. cucumis, B. jarvis, B. neohumeralis, B.
tryoni, Ceratitis capitata, Chrysodeixis argentifera, C. erisoma,
Helicoverpa armigera, H. punctigera, Lamprolonchaea brouniana,
Sceliodes cordalis, and Spodoptera litura. AQIS must also set and
maintain fruit fly traps inside the greenhouses and around the
perimeter of the greenhouses. Inside the greenhouses, the traps must be
APHIS-approved fruit fly traps, and they must be set at the rate of six
per hectare. In all areas outside the greenhouse and within 8
kilometers of the greenhouse, fruit fly traps must be placed on a 1-
kilometer grid. All traps must be checked at least every 7 days;
(3) Within a registered greenhouse, capture of a single fruit fly
or other quarantine pest will result in immediate cancellation of
exports from that greenhouse until the source of the infestation is
determined, the infestation has been eradicated, and measures are taken
to preclude any future infestation;
(4) Outside of a registered greenhouse, if one fruit fly of the
species specified in paragraph (e)(2) of this section is captured, the
trap density and frequency of trap inspection must be increased to
detect a reproducing colony. Capture of two Medflies or three of the
same species of Bactrocera within 2 kilometers of each other and within
30 days will result in the cancellation of exports from all registered
greenhouses within 2 kilometers of the finds until the source of the
infestation is determined and the fruit fly infestation is eradicated;
(5) AQIS must maintain records of trap placement, checking of
traps, and any fruit fly captures, and must make the records available
to APHIS upon request;
(6) The tomatoes must be packed within 24 hours of harvest. They
must be safeguarded by an insect-proof mesh screen or plastic tarpaulin
while in transit to the packinghouse or while awaiting packing. They
must be placed in insect-proof cartons or containers, or securely
covered with insect-proof mesh or plastic tarpaulin for transport to
the airport or other shipping point. These safeguards must be intact
upon arrival in the United States; and
(7) Each consignment of tomatoes must be accompanied by a
phytosanitary certificate issued by AQIS stating ``These tomatoes were
grown, packed, and shipped in accordance with the requirements of Sec.
319.56-28(e) of 7 CFR.''
(f) Tomatoes (fruit) (Lycopersicon esculentum) from certain
countries in Central America. Pink or red tomatoes may be imported into
the United States from Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras,
Nicaragua, and Panama only under the following conditions:
(1) From areas free of Mediterranean fruit fly:
(i) The tomatoes must be grown and packed in an area that has been
determined by APHIS to be free of Mediterranean fruit fly (Medfly) in
accordance with the procedures described in Sec. 319.56-5.
(ii) A pre-harvest inspection of the production site must be
conducted by the national plant protection organization (NPPO) of the
exporting country for pea leafminer, tomato fruit borer, and potato
spindle tuber viroid. If any of these pests are found to be generally
infesting the production site, the NPPO may not allow exports from that
production site until the NPPO and APHIS have determined that risk
mitigation has been achieved.
(iii) The tomatoes must be packed in insect-proof cartons or
containers or covered with insect-proof mesh or plastic tarpaulin at
the packinghouse for transit to the United States. These safeguards
must remain intact until arrival in the United States.
(iv) The exporting country's NPPO is responsible for export
certification, inspection, and issuance of phytosanitary certificates.
Each consignment of tomatoes must be accompanied by a phytosanitary
certificate issued by the NPPO and bearing the declaration, ``These
tomatoes were grown in an area recognized to be free of Medfly and the
consignment has been inspected and found free of the pests listed in
the requirements.''
(2) From areas where Medfly is considered to exist:
(i) The tomatoes must be grown in approved registered production
sites. Initial approval of the production sites will be completed
jointly by the

[[Page 39519]]

exporting country's NPPO and APHIS. The exporting country's NPPO must
visit and inspect the production sites monthly starting 2 months before
harvest and continuing through until the end of the shipping season.
APHIS may monitor the production sites at any time during this period.
(ii) Tomato production sites must consist of pest-exclusionary
greenhouses, which must have double self-closing doors and have all
other openings and vents covered with 1.6 mm (or less) screening.
(iii) Registered sites must contain traps for the detection of
Medfly both within and around the production site as follows:
(A) Traps with an approved protein bait for Medfly must be placed
inside the greenhouses at a density of four traps per hectare, with a
minimum of two traps per greenhouse. Traps must be serviced on a weekly
basis.
(B) If a single Medfly is detected inside a registered production
site or in a consignment, the registered production site will lose its
ability to export tomatoes to the United States until APHIS and the
exporting country's NPPO mutually determine that risk mitigation is
achieved.
(C) Medfly traps with an approved lure must be placed inside a
buffer area 500 meters wide around the registered production site, at a
density of 1 trap per 10 hectares and a minimum of 10 traps. These
traps must be checked at least every 7 days. At least one of these
traps must be near the greenhouse. Traps must be set for at least 2
months before export and trapping must continue to the end of the
harvest.
(D) Capture of 0.7 or more Medflies per trap per week will delay or
suspend the harvest, depending on whether harvest has begun, for
consignments of tomatoes from that production site until APHIS and the
exporting country's NPPO can agree that the pest risk has been
mitigated.
(E) The greenhouse must be inspected prior to harvest for pea
leafminer, tomato fruit borer, and potato spindle tuber viroid. If any
of these pests, or other quarantine pests, are found to be generally
infesting the greenhouse, exports from that production site will be
halted until the exporting country's NPPO and APHIS determine that the
pest risk has been mitigated.
(iv) The exporting country's NPPO must maintain records of trap
placement, checking of traps, and any Medfly captures in addition to
production site and packinghouse inspection records. The exporting
country's NPPO must maintain an APHIS-approved quality control program
to monitor or audit the trapping program. The trapping records must be
maintained for APHIS's review.
(v) The tomatoes must be packed within 24 hours of harvest in a
pest-exclusionary packinghouse. The tomatoes must be safeguarded by an
insect-proof mesh screen or plastic tarpaulin while in transit to the
packinghouse and while awaiting packing. The tomatoes must be packed in
insect-proof cartons or containers, or covered with insect-proof mesh
or plastic tarpaulin, for transit into the United States. These
safeguards must remain intact until arrival in the United States or the
consignment will be denied entry into the United States.
(vi) During the time the packinghouse is in use for exporting
tomatoes to the United States, the packinghouse may only accept
tomatoes from registered approved production sites.
(vii) The exporting country's NPPO is responsible for export
certification, inspection, and issuance of phytosanitary certificates.
Each consignment of tomatoes must be accompanied by a phytosanitary
certificate issued by the NPPO and bearing the declaration, ``These
tomatoes were grown in an approved production site and the consignment
has been inspected and found free of the pests listed in the
requirements.'' The shipping box must be labeled with the identity of
the production site.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
numbers 0579-0049, 0579-0131, 0579-0316, and 0579-0286)

Sec. 319.56-29 Ya variety pears from China.

Ya variety pears may be imported into the United States from China
only in accordance with this section and all other applicable
provisions of this subpart.
(a) Growing and harvest conditions. (1) The pears must have been
grown by growers registered with the national plant protection
organization (NPPO) of China in an APHIS-approved export growing area
in the Hebei or Shandong Provinces.
(2) Field inspections for signs of pest infestation must be
conducted by the national plant protection organization (NPPO) of China
during the growing season.
(3) The registered growers shall be responsible for following the
phytosanitary measures agreed upon by APHIS and the NPPO of China,
including applying pesticides to reduce the pest population and bagging
the pears on the trees to reduce the opportunity for pests to attack
the fruit during the growing season. The bags must remain on the pears
through the harvest and during their movement to the packinghouse.
(4) The packinghouses in which the pears are prepared for
exportation shall not be used for any fruit other than Ya variety pears
from registered growers during the pear export season. The
packinghouses shall accept only those pears that are in intact bags as
required by paragraph (a)(3) of this section. The pears must be loaded
into containers at the packinghouse and the containers then sealed
before movement to the port of export.
(b) Treatment. Pears from Shandong Province must be cold treated
for Bactrocera dorsalis in accordance with part 305 of this chapter.
(c) Each consignment of pears must be accompanied by a
phytosanitary certificate issued by the NPPO of China stating that the
conditions of this section have been met.

Sec. 319.56-30 Hass avocados from Michoacan, Mexico.

Fresh Hass variety avocados (Persea americana) may be imported from
Michoacan, Mexico, into the United States in accordance with the
requirements of Sec. 319.56-3 of this subpart, and only under the
following conditions:
(a) Shipping restrictions. (1) The avocados may be imported in
commercial consignments only;
(2) The avocados may be imported into and distributed in all
States, but not Puerto Rico or any U.S. Territory.
(b) Trust fund agreement. The avocados may be imported only if the
Mexican avocado industry association representing Mexican avocado
growers, packers, and exporters has entered into a trust fund agreement
with APHIS for that shipping season in accordance with Sec. 319.56-6.
(c) Safeguards in Mexico. The avocados must have been grown in the
Mexican State of Michoacan in an orchard located in a municipality that
meets the requirements of paragraph (c)(1) of this section. The orchard
in which the avocados are grown must meet the requirements of paragraph
(c)(2) of this section. The avocados must be packed for export to the
United States in a packinghouse that meets the requirements of
paragraph (c)(3) of this section. The Mexican national plant protection
organization (NPPO) must provide an annual work plan to APHIS that
details the activities that the Mexican NPPO will, subject to APHIS'
approval of the work plan, carry out to meet the requirements of this
section; APHIS will be directly involved with the Mexican NPPO in the
monitoring and supervision of those activities. The

[[Page 39520]]

personnel conducting the trapping and pest surveys must be hired,
trained, and supervised by the Mexican NPPO or by the Michoacan State
delegate of the Mexican NPPO.
(1) Municipality requirements. (i) The municipality must be listed
as an approved municipality in the bilateral work plan provided to
APHIS by the Mexican NPPO.
(ii) The municipality must be surveyed at least semiannually (once
during the wet season and once during the dry season) and found to be
free from the large avocado seed weevil Heilipus lauri, the avocado
seed moth Stenoma catenifer, and the small avocado seed weevils
Conotrachelus aguacatae and C. perseae.
(iii) Trapping must be conducted in the municipality for
Mediterranean fruit fly (Medfly) (Ceratitis capitata) at the rate of 1
trap per 1 to 4 square miles. Any findings of Medfly must be reported
to APHIS.
(2) Orchard and grower requirements. The orchard and the grower
must be registered with the Mexican NPPO's avocado export program and
must be listed as an approved orchard or an approved grower in the
annual work plan provided to APHIS by the Mexican NPPO. The operations
of the orchard must meet the following conditions:
(i) The orchard and all contiguous orchards and properties must be
surveyed semiannually and found to be free from the avocado stem weevil
Copturus aguacatae.
(ii) Trapping must be conducted in the orchard for the fruit flies
Anastrepha ludens, A. serpentina, and A. striata at the rate of one
trap per 10 hectares. If one of those fruit flies is trapped, at least
10 additional traps must be deployed in a 50-hectare area immediately
surrounding the trap in which the fruit fly was found. If within 30
days of the first finding any additional fruit flies are trapped within
the 260-hectare area surrounding the first finding, malathion bait
treatments must be applied in the affected orchard in order for the
orchard to remain eligible to export avocados.
(iii) Avocado fruit that has fallen from the trees must be removed
from the orchard at least once every 7 days and may not be included in
field boxes of fruit to be packed for export.
(iv) Dead branches on avocado trees in the orchard must be pruned
and removed from the orchard.
(v) Harvested avocados must be placed in field boxes or containers
of field boxes that are marked to show the official registration number
of the orchard. The avocados must be moved from the orchard to the
packinghouse within 3 hours of harvest or they must be protected from
fruit fly infestation until moved.
(vi) The avocados must be protected from fruit fly infestation
during their movement from the orchard to the packinghouse and must be
accompanied by a field record indicating that the avocados originated
from a certified orchard.
(3) Packinghouse requirements. The packinghouse must be registered
with the Mexican NPPO's avocado export program and must be listed as an
approved packinghouse in the annual work plan provided to APHIS by the
Mexican NPPO. The operations of the packinghouse must meet the
following conditions:
(i) During the time the packinghouse is used to prepare avocados
for export to the United States, the packinghouse may accept fruit only
from orchards certified by the Mexican NPPO for participation in the
avocado export program.
(ii) All openings to the outside must be covered by screening with
openings of not more than 1.6 mm or by some other barrier that prevents
insects from entering the packinghouse.
(iii) The packinghouse must have double doors at the entrance to
the facility and at the interior entrance to the area where the
avocados are packed.
(iv) Prior to the culling process, a biometric sample, at a rate
determined by APHIS, of avocados per consignment must be selected, cut,
and inspected by the Mexican NPPO and found free from pests.
(v) The identity of the avocados must be maintained from field
boxes or containers to the shipping boxes so the avocados can be traced
back to the orchard in which they were grown if pests are found at the
packinghouse or the port of first arrival in the United States.
(vi) Prior to being packed in boxes, each avocado fruit must be
cleaned of all stems, leaves, and other portions of plants and labeled
with a sticker that bears the official registration number of the
packinghouse.
(vii) The avocados must be packed in clean, new boxes, or clean
plastic reusable crates. The boxes or crates must be clearly marked
with the identity of the grower, packinghouse, and exporter. Between
January 31, 2005, and January 31, 2007, the boxes or crates must be
clearly marked with the statement ``Not for importation or distribution
in CA, FL, HI, Puerto Rico or U.S. Territories.'' After January 31,
2007, the boxes or crates must be clearly marked with the statement
``Not for importation or distribution in Puerto Rico or U.S.
Territories.''
(viii) The boxes must be placed in a refrigerated truck or
refrigerated container and remain in that truck or container while in
transit through Mexico to the port of first arrival in the United
States. Prior to leaving the packinghouse, the truck or container must
be secured by the Mexican NPPO with a seal that will be broken when the
truck or container is opened. Once sealed, the refrigerated truck or
refrigerated container must remain unopened until it reaches the port
of first arrival in the United States.
(ix) Any avocados that have not been packed or loaded into a
refrigerated truck or refrigerated container by the end of the workday
must be kept in the screened packing area.
(d) Certification. All consignments of avocados must be accompanied
by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the Mexican NPPO with an
additional declaration certifying that the conditions specified in this
section have been met.
(e) Pest detection. (1) If any of the avocado seed pests Heilipus
lauri, Conotrachelus aguacatae, C. perseae, or Stenoma catenifer are
discovered in a municipality during the semiannual pest surveys,
orchard surveys, packinghouse inspections, 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. The municipality in which the pests are
discovered will lose its pest-free certification and avocado exports
from that municipality will be suspended until APHIS and the Mexican
NPPO agree that the pest eradication measures taken have been effective
and that the pest risk within that municipality has been eliminated.
(2) If the Mexican NPPO discovers the stem weevil Copturus
aguacatae in an orchard during an orchard survey or other monitoring or
inspection activity in the orchard, the Mexican NPPO must provide APHIS
with information regarding the circumstances of the infestation and the
pest risk mitigation measures taken. The orchard in which the pest was
found will lose its 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

[[Page 39521]]

effective and that the pest risk within that orchard has been
eliminated.
(3) If the Mexican NPPO discovers the stem weevil Copturus
aguacatae in fruit at a packinghouse, the Mexican NPPO must investigate
the origin of the infested fruit and provide APHIS with information
regarding the circumstances of the infestation and the pest risk
mitigation measures taken. The orchard where the infested fruit
originated will lose its 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
and that the pest risk within that orchard has been eliminated.
(f) Ports. The avocados may enter the United States only through a
port of entry located in a State where the distribution of the fruit is
authorized pursuant to paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(g) Inspection. The avocados are subject to inspection by an
inspector at the port of first arrival. At the port of first arrival,
an inspector will sample and cut avocados from each consignment to
detect pest infestation.
(h) Inspection. The avocados are subject to inspection by an
inspector at the port of first arrival, at any stops in the United
States en route to an approved State, and upon arrival at the terminal
market in the approved States. At the port of first arrival, an
inspector will sample and cut avocados from each consignment to detect
pest infestation.
(i) Repackaging. If any avocados are removed from their original
shipping boxes and repackaged, the stickers required by paragraph
(c)(3)(vi) of this section may not be removed or obscured and the new
boxes must be clearly marked with all the information required by
paragraph (c)(3)(vii) of this section.

Sec. 319.56-31 Peppers from Spain.

Peppers (fruit) (Capsicum spp.) may be imported into the United
States from Spain only under permit, and only in accordance with this
section and all other applicable requirements of this subpart:
(a) The peppers must be grown in the Alicante or Almeria Province
of Spain in pest-proof greenhouses registered with, and inspected by,
the Spanish Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Food (MAFF);
(b) The peppers may be shipped only from December 1 through April
30, inclusive;
(c) Beginning October 1, and continuing through April 30, MAFF must
set and maintain Mediterranean fruit fly (Ceratitis capitata) (Medfly)
traps baited with trimedlure inside the greenhouses at a rate of four
traps per hectare. In all outside areas, including urban and
residential areas, within 8 kilometers of the greenhouses, MAFF must
set and maintain Medfly traps baited with trimedlure at a rate of four
traps per square kilometer. All traps must be checked every 7 days;
(d) Capture of a single Medfly in a registered greenhouse will
immediately halt exports from that greenhouse until the Administrator
determines that the source of infestation has been identified, that all
Medflies have been eradicated, and that measures have been taken to
preclude any future infestation. Capture of a single Medfly within 2
kilometers of a registered greenhouse will necessitate increased trap
density in order to determine whether there is a reproducing population
in the area. Capture of two Medflies within 2 kilometers of a
registered greenhouse during a 1-month period will halt exports from
all registered greenhouses within 2 kilometers of the capture, until
the source of infestation is determined and all Medflies are
eradicated;
(e) The peppers must be safeguarded from harvest to export by
insect-proof mesh or plastic tarpaulin, including while in transit to
the packinghouse and while awaiting packing. They must be packed in
insect-proof cartons or covered by insect-proof mesh or plastic
tarpaulin for transit to the airport and subsequent export to the
United States. These safeguards must be intact upon arrival in the
United States;
(f) The peppers must be packed for shipment within 24 hours of
harvest;
(g) During shipment, the peppers may not transit other fruit fly-
supporting areas unless shipping containers are sealed by MAFF with an
official seal whose number is noted on the phytosanitary certificate;
and
(h) A phytosanitary certificate issued by MAFF and bearing the
declaration, ``These peppers were grown in registered greenhouses in
Alicante or Almeria Province in Spain,'' must accompany the
consignment.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 0579-0210)

Sec. 319.56-32 Peppers from New Zealand.

Peppers (fruit) (Capsicum spp.) from New Zealand may be imported
into the United States only in accordance with this section and all
other applicable provisions of this subpart.
(a) The peppers must be grown in New Zealand in insect-proof
greenhouses approved by the New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture and
Forestry (MAF).
(b) The greenhouses must be equipped with double self-closing
doors, and any vents or openings in the greenhouses (other than the
double self-closing doors) must be covered with 0.6 mm screening in
order to prevent the entry of pests into the greenhouse.
(c) The greenhouses must be examined periodically by MAF to ensure
that the screens are intact.
(d) Each consignment of peppers must be accompanied by a
phytosanitary certificate of inspection issued by MAF bearing the
following declaration: ``These peppers were grown in greenhouses in
accordance with the conditions in Sec. 319.56-32.''

Sec. 319.56-33 Mangoes from the Philippines.

Mangoes (fruit) (Mangifera indica) may be imported into the United
States from the Philippines only in accordance with this section and
other applicable provisions of this subpart.
(a) Limitation of origin. The mangoes must have been grown on the
island of Guimaras, which the Administrator has determined meets the
criteria set forth in Sec. 319.56-5 with regard to the mango seed
weevil (Sternochetus mangiferae). Mangoes from all other areas of the
Philippines except Palawan are eligible for importation into Hawaii and
Guam only. Mangoes from Palawan are not eligible for importation into
the United States.
(b) Treatment. The mangoes must be treated for fruit flies of the
genus Bactrocera with vapor heat under the supervision of an inspector
in accordance with the regulations in part 305 of this chapter.
(c) Inspection. Mangoes from the Philippines are subject to
inspection under the direction of an inspector, either in the
Philippines or at the port of first arrival in the United States.
Mangoes inspected in the Philippines are subject to reinspection at the
port of first arrival in the United States as provided in Sec. 319.56-
3.
(d) Labeling. Each box of mangoes must be clearly labeled in
accordance with Sec. 319.56-5(e)(1). Consignments originating from
approved areas other than Guimaras must be labeled ``For distribution
in Guam and Hawaii only.''
(e) Phytosanitary certificate. Mangoes originating from all
approved areas must be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate
issued by the Republic of the Philippines Department of Agriculture
that contains an additional declaration stating that the mangoes have
been treated for fruit flies of the genus Bactrocera in accordance with
paragraph (b) of this section. Phytosanitary certificates accompanying
consignments of mangoes originating

[[Page 39522]]

from the island of Guimaras must also contain an additional declaration
stating that the mangoes were grown on the island of Guimaras.
(f) Trust fund agreement. Mangoes that are treated or inspected in
the Philippines may be imported into the United States only if the
Republic of the Philippines Department of Agriculture has entered into
a trust fund agreement with APHIS in accordance with Sec. 319.56-6.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
numbers 0579-0172 and 0579-0316)

Sec. 319.56-34 Clementines from Spain.

Clementines (Citrus reticulata) from Spain may only be imported
into the United States in accordance with this section and all other
applicable provisions of this subpart.
(a) Trust fund agreement. Clementines from Spain may be imported
only if the Government of Spain or its designated representative enters
into a trust fund agreement with APHIS before each shipping season in
accordance with Sec. 319.56-6.
(b) Grower registration and agreement. Persons who produce
clementines in Spain for export to the United States must:
(1) Be registered with the Government of Spain; and
(2) Enter into an agreement with the Government of Spain whereby
the producer agrees to participate in and follow the Mediterranean
fruit fly management program established by the Government of Spain.
(c) Management program for Mediterranean fruit fly; monitoring. The
Government of Spain's Mediterranean fruit fly (Ceratitis capitata)
management program must be approved by APHIS, and must contain the
fruit fly trapping and recordkeeping requirements specified in this
paragraph. The program must also provide that clementine producers must
allow APHIS inspectors access to clementine production areas in order
to monitor compliance with the Mediterranean fruit fly management
program.
(1) Trapping and control. In areas where clementines are produced
for export to the United States, traps must be placed in Mediterranean
fruit fly host plants at least 6 weeks prior to harvest. Bait
treatments using malathion, spinosad, or another pesticide that is
approved by APHIS and the Government of Spain must be applied in the
production areas at the rate specified by Spain's Medfly management
program.
(2) Records. The Government of Spain or its designated
representative must keep records that document the fruit fly trapping
and control activities in areas that produce clementines for export to
the United States. All trapping and control records kept by the
Government of Spain or its designated representative must be made
available to APHIS upon request.
(3) Compliance. If APHIS determines that an orchard is not
operating in compliance with the regulations in this section, it may
suspend exports of clementines from that orchard.
(d) Phytosanitary certificate. Clementines from Spain must be
accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate stating that the fruit meets
the conditions of the Government of Spain's Mediterranean fruit fly
management program and applicable APHIS regulations.
(e) Labeling. Boxes in which clementines are packed must be labeled
with a lot number that provides information to identify the orchard
where the fruit was grown and the packinghouse where the fruit was
packed. The lot number must end with the letters ``US.'' All labeling
must be large enough to clearly display the required information and
must be located on the outside of the boxes to facilitate inspection.
(f) Pre-treatment sampling; rates of inspection. For each
consignment of clementines intended for export to the United States,
prior to cold treatment, inspectors will cut and inspect 200 fruit that
are randomly selected from throughout the consignment. If inspectors
find a single live Mediterranean fruit fly in any stage of development
during an inspection, the entire consignment of clementines will be
rejected. If a live Mediterranean fruit fly in any stage of development
is found in any two lots of fruit from the same orchard during the same
shipping season, that orchard will be removed from the export program
for the remainder of that shipping season.
(g) Cold treatment. Clementines must be cold treated in accordance
with part 305 of this chapter. Upon arrival of clementines at a port of
entry into the United States, inspectors will examine the cold
treatment data for each consignment to ensure that the cold treatment
was successfully completed. If the cold treatment has not been
successfully completed, the consignment will be held until appropriate
remedial actions have been implemented.
(h) Port of entry sampling. Clementines imported from Spain are
subject to inspection by an inspector at the port of entry into the
United States. At the port of first arrival, an inspector will sample
and cut clementines from each consignment to detect pest infestation
according to sampling rates determined by the Administrator. If a
single live Mediterranean fruit fly in any stage of development is
found, the consignment will be held until an investigation is completed
and appropriate remedial actions have been implemented.
(i) Suspension of program. If APHIS determines at any time that the
safeguards contained in this section are not protecting against the
introduction of Medflies into the United States, APHIS may suspend the
importation of clementines and conduct an investigation into the cause
of the deficiency.
(j) Definitions. The following are definitions for terms used in
this section:
Consignment. (1) Untreated fruit. For untreated fruit, the term
means one or more lots (containing no more than a combined total of
200,000 boxes of clementines) that are presented to an inspector for
pre-treatment inspection.
(2) Treated fruit. For treated fruit, the term means one or more
lots of clementines that are imported into the United States on the
same conveyance.
Lot. For the purposes of this section, a number of units of
clementines that are from a common origin (i.e., a single producer or a
homogenous production unit.)\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ A homogeneous production unit is a group of adjacent
orchards in Spain that are owned by one or more growers who follow a
homogenous production system under the same technical guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Orchard. A plot on which clementines are grown that is separately
registered in the Spanish Medfly management program.
Shipping season. For the purposes of this section, a shipping
season is considered to include the period beginning approximately in
mid-September and ending approximately in late February of the next
calendar year.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 0579-0203)

Sec. 319.56-35 Persimmons from the Republic of Korea.

Persimmons (fruit) (Disopyros khaki) may be imported into the
United States from the Republic of Korea only in accordance with this
section and all other applicable provisions of this subpart.
(a) The production site, which is an orchard, where the persimmons
are grown must have been inspected at least once during the growing
season and before harvest for the following pests: Conogethes
punctiferalis, Planococcus

[[Page 39523]]

kraunhiae, Stathmopoda masinissa, and Tenuipalpus zhizhilashiviliae.
(b) After harvest, the persimmons must be inspected by the Republic
of Korea's national plant protection organization (NPPO) and found free
of the pests listed in paragraph (a) of this section before the
persimmons may be shipped to the United States;
(c) Each consignment of persimmons must be accompanied by a
phytosanitary certificate issued by the Republic of Korea's NPPO
stating that the fruit is free of Conogethes punctiferalis, Planococcus
kraunhiae, Stathmopoda masinissa, and Tenuipalpus zhizhilashiviliae.
(d) If any of the pests listed in paragraph (a) of this section are
detected in an orchard, exports from that orchard will be canceled
until the source of infestation is determined and the infestation is
eradicated.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 0579-0210)

Sec. 319.56-36 Watermelon, squash, cucumber, and oriental melon from
the Republic of Korea.

Watermelon (Citrullus lanatus), squash (Cucurbita maxima), cucumber
(Cucumis sativus), and oriental melon (Cucumis melo) may be imported
into the United States from the Republic of Korea only in accordance
with this paragraph and all other applicable provisions of this
subpart:
(a) The fruit must be grown in pest-proof greenhouses registered
with the Republic of Korea's national plant protection organization
(NPPO).
(b) The NPPO must inspect and regularly monitor greenhouses for
plant pests. The NPPO must inspect greenhouses and plants, including
fruit, at intervals of no more than 2 weeks, from the time of fruit set
until the end of harvest.
(c) The NPPO must set and maintain McPhail traps (or a similar type
with a protein bait that has been approved for the pests of concern) in
greenhouses from October 1 to April 30. The number of traps must be set
as follows: Two traps for greenhouses smaller than 0.2 hectare in size;
three traps for greenhouses 0.2 to 0.5 hectare; four traps for
greenhouses over 0.5 hectare and up to 1.0 hectare; and for greenhouses
greater than 1 hectare, traps must be placed at a rate of four traps
per hectare.
(d) The NPPO must check all traps once every 2 weeks. If a single
pumpkin fruit fly is captured, that greenhouse will lose its
registration until trapping shows that the infestation has been
eradicated.
(e) The fruit may be shipped only from December 1 through April 30.
(f) Each consignment must be accompanied by a phytosanitary
certificate issued by NPPO, with the following additional declaration:
``The regulated articles in this consignment were grown in registered
greenhouses as specified by 7 CFR 319.56-36.''
(g) Each consignment must be protected from pest infestation from
harvest until export. Newly harvested fruit must be covered with
insect-proof mesh or a plastic tarpaulin while moving to the
packinghouse and awaiting packing. Fruit must be packed within 24 hours
of harvesting in an enclosed container or vehicle or in insect-proof
cartons or cartons covered with insect-proof mesh or plastic tarpaulin,
and then placed in containers for shipment. These safeguards must be
intact when the consignment arrives at the port in the United States.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 0579-0236)

Sec. 319.56-37 Grapes from the Republic of Korea.

Grapes (Vitis spp.) may be imported into the United States from the
Republic of Korea only under the following conditions and in accordance
with all other applicable provisions of this subpart:
(a) The fields where the grapes are grown must be inspected during
the growing season by the Republic of Korea's national plant protection
organization (NPPO). The NPPO will inspect 250 grapevines per hectare,
inspecting leaves, stems, and fruit of the vines.
(b) If evidence of Conogethes punctiferalis, Eupoecilia ambiguella,
Sparganothis pilleriana, Stathmopoda auriferella, or Monilinia
fructigena is detected during inspection, the field will immediately be
rejected, and exports from that field will be canceled until visual
inspection of the vines shows that the infestation has been eradicated.
(c) Fruit must be bagged from the time the fruit sets until
harvest.
(d) Each consignment must be inspected by the NPPO before export.
For each consignment, the NPPO must issue a phytosanitary certificate
with an additional declaration stating that the fruit in the
consignment was found free of C. punctiferalis, E. ambiguella, S.
pilleriana, S. auriferella, M. fructigena, and Nippoptilia vitis.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 0579-0236)

Sec. 319.56-38 Clementines, mandarins, and tangerines from Chile.

Clementines (Citrus reticulata Blanco var. Clementine), mandarins
(Citrus reticulata Blanco), and tangerines (Citrus reticulata Blanco)
may be imported into the United States from Chile only under the
following conditions:
(a) The fruit must be accompanied by a permit issued in accordance
with Sec. 319.56-3(b).
(b) If the fruit is produced in an area of Chile where
Mediterranean fruit fly (Ceratitis capitata) is known to occur, the
fruit must be cold treated in accordance with part 305 of this chapter.
Fruit for which cold treatment is required must be accompanied by
documentation indicating that the cold treatment was initiated in Chile
(a PPQ Form 203 or its equivalent may be used for this purpose).
(c) The fruit must either be produced and shipped under the systems
approach described in paragraph (d) of this section or fumigated in
accordance with paragraph (e) of this section.
(d) Systems approach. The fruit may be imported without fumigation
for Brevipalpus chilensis if it meets the following conditions:
(1) Production site registration. The production site where the
fruit is grown must be registered with the national plant protection
organization (NPPO) of Chile. To register, the production site must
provide Chile's NPPO with the following information: Production site
name, grower, municipality, province, region, area planted to each
species, number of plants/hectares/species, and approximate date of
harvest. Registration must be renewed annually.
(2) Low prevalence production site certification. Between 1 and 30
days prior to harvest, random samples of fruit must be collected from
each registered production site under the direction of Chile's NPPO.
These samples must undergo a pest detection and evaluation method as
follows: The fruit and pedicels must be washed using a flushing method,
placed in a 20 mesh sieve on top of a 200 mesh sieve, sprinkled with a
liquid soap and water solution, washed with water at high pressure, and
washed with water at low pressure. The process must then be repeated.
The contents of the sieves must then be placed on a petri dish and
analyzed for the presence of live B. chilensis mites. If a single live
B. chilensis mite is found, the production site will not qualify for
certification as a low prevalence production site and will be eligible
to export fruit to the United States only if the fruit is fumigated in
accordance with paragraph

[[Page 39524]]

(e) of this section. Each production site may have only one opportunity
per harvest season to qualify as a low prevalence production site, and
certification of low prevalence will be valid for one harvest season
only. The NPPO of Chile will present a list of certified production
sites to APHIS.
(3) Post-harvest processing. After harvest and before packing, the
fruit must be washed, rinsed in a chlorine bath, washed with detergent
with brushing using bristle rollers, rinsed with a hot water shower
with brushing using bristle rollers, predried at room temperature,
waxed, and dried with hot air.
(4) Phytosanitary inspection. The fruit must be inspected in Chile
at an APHIS-approved inspection site under the direction of APHIS
inspectors in coordination with the NPPO of Chile after the post-
harvest processing. A biometric sample will be drawn and examined from
each consignment of fruit, which may represent multiple grower lots
from different packing sheds. Clementines, mandarins, or tangerines in
any consignment may be shipped to the United States only if the
consignment passes inspection as follows:
(i) Fruit presented for inspection must be identified in the
shipping documents accompanying each lot of fruit that identify the
production site(s) where the fruit was produced and the packing shed(s)
where the fruit was processed. This identity must be maintained until
the fruit is released for entry into the United States.
(ii) A biometric sample of boxes from each consignment will be
selected and the fruit from these boxes will be visually inspected for
quarantine pests, and a portion of the fruit will be washed and the
collected filtrate will be microscopically examined for B. chilensis.
(A) If a single live B. chilensis mite is found, the fruit will be
eligible for importation into the United States only if it is fumigated
in Chile in accordance with paragraph (e) of this section. The
production site will be suspended from the low prevalence certification
program and all subsequent lots of fruit from the production site of
origin will be required to be fumigated as a condition of entry to the
United States for the remainder of the shipping season.
(B) If inspectors find evidence of any other quarantine pest, the
fruit in the consignment will remain eligible for importation into the
United States only if an authorized treatment for the pest is available
in part 305 of this chapter and the entire consignment is treated for
the pest in Chile under APHIS supervision.
(iii) Each consignment of fruit must be accompanied by a
phytosanitary certificate issued by the NPPO of Chile that contains an
additional declaration stating that the fruit in the consignment meets
the conditions of Sec. 319.56-38(d).
(e) Approved fumigation. Clementines, mandarins, or tangerines that
do not meet the conditions of paragraph (d) of this section may be
imported into the United States if the fruit is fumigated either in
Chile or at the port of first arrival in the United States with methyl
bromide for B. chilensis in accordance with part 305 of this chapter.
An APHIS inspector will monitor the fumigation of the fruit and will
prescribe such safeguards as may be necessary for unloading, handling,
and transportation preparatory to fumigation. The final release of the
fruit for entry into the United States will be conditioned upon
compliance with prescribed safeguards and required treatment.
(f) Trust fund agreement. Clementines, mandarins, and tangerines
may be imported into the United States under this section only if the
NPPO of Chile or a private export group has entered into a trust fund
agreement with APHIS in accordance with Sec. 319.56-6.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 0579-0242)

Sec. 319.56-39 Fragrant pears from China.

Fragrant pears may be imported into the United States from China
only under the following conditions and in accordance with all other
applicable provisions of this subpart:
(a) Origin, growing, and harvest conditions. (1) The pears must
have been grown in the Korla region of Xinjiang Province in a
production site that is registered with the national plant protection
organization (NPPO) of China.
(2) All propagative material introduced into a registered
production site must be certified free of the pests listed in this
section by the NPPO of China.
(3) Within 30 days prior to harvest, the NPPO of China or officials
authorized by the NPPO of China must inspect the registered production
site for signs of pest infestation and allow APHIS to monitor the
inspections. The NPPO of China must provide APHIS with information on
pest detections and pest detection practices, and APHIS must approve
the pest detection practices.
(4) If any of the quarantine pests listed in this section are found
during the pre-harvest inspection or at any other time, the NPPO of
China must notify APHIS immediately.
(i) Upon detection of Oriental fruit fly (Bactrocera dorsalis),
APHIS may reject the lot or consignment and may prohibit the
importation into the United States of fragrant pears from China until
an investigation is conducted and APHIS and the NPPO of China agree
that appropriate remedial action has been taken.
(ii) Upon detection of peach fruit borer (Carposina sasaki), yellow
peach moth (Conogethes punctiferalis), apple fruit moth (Cydia
inopinata), Hawthorn spider mite (Tetranychus viennensis), red plum
maggot (Cydia funebrana), brown rot (Monilinia fructigena), Asian pear
scab (Venturia nashicola), pear trellis rust (Gymnosporangium fuscum),
Asian pear black spot (Alternaria spp.), or phylloxeran (Aphanostigma
sp. poss. jackusiensis), APHIS may reject the lot or consignment and
may prohibit the importation into the United States of fragrant pears
from the production site for the season. The exportation to the United
States of fragrant pears from the production site may resume in the
next growing season if an investigation is conducted and APHIS and the
NPPO of China agree that appropriate remedial action has been taken. If
any of these pests is detected in more than one registered production
site, APHIS may prohibit the importation into the United States of
fragrant pears from China until an investigation is conducted and APHIS
and the NPPO of China agree that appropriate remedial action has been
taken.
(5) After harvest, the NPPO of China or officials authorized by the
NPPO of China must inspect the pears for signs of pest infestation and
allow APHIS to monitor the inspections.
(6) Upon detection of large pear borer (Numonia pivivorella), pear
curculio (Rhynchites fovepessin), or Japanese apple curculio (R.
heros), APHIS may reject the lot or consignment.
(b) Packing requirements. (1) The fragrant pears must be packed in
cartons that are labeled in accordance with Sec. 319.56-5(e).
(2) The fragrant pears must be held in a cold storage facility
while awaiting export. If fruit from unregistered production sites are
stored in the same facility, the fragrant pears must be isolated from
that other fruit.
(c) Shipping requirements. (1) The fragrant pears must be shipped
in insect-proof containers and all pears must be safeguarded during
transport to the United States in a manner that will prevent pest
infestation.
(2) The fragrant pears may be imported only under a permit issued
by

[[Page 39525]]

APHIS in accordance with Sec. 319.56-3(b).
(3) Each consignment of pears must be accompanied by a
phytosanitary certificate issued by the NPPO of China stating that the
conditions of this section have been met and that the consignment has
been inspected and found free of the pests listed in this section.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 0579-0227)

Sec. 319.56-40 Peppers from certain Central American countries.

Fresh peppers (Capsicum spp.) may be imported into the United
States from Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua
only under the following conditions and in accordance with all other
applicable provisions of this subpart:
(a) For peppers of the species Capsicum annuum, Capsicum
frutescens, Capsicum baccatum, and Capsicum chinense from areas free of
Mediterranean fruit fly (Medfly), terms of entry are as follows:
(1) The peppers must be grown and packed in an area that has been
determined by APHIS to be free of Medfly in accordance with the
procedures described in Sec. 319.56-5 of this subpart.
(2) A pre-harvest inspection of the growing site must be conducted
by the national plant protection organization (NPPO) of the exporting
country for the weevil Faustinus ovatipennis, pea leafminer, tomato
fruit borer, banana moth, lantana mealybug, passionvine mealybug, melon
thrips, the rust fungus Puccinia pampeana, Andean potato mottle virus,
and tomato yellow mosaic virus, and if these pests are found to be
generally infesting the growing site, the NPPO may not allow export
from that production site until the NPPO has determined that risk
mitigation has been achieved.
(3) The peppers must be packed in insect-proof cartons or
containers or covered with insect-proof mesh or plastic tarpaulin at
the packinghouse for transit to the United States. These safeguards
must remain intact until arrival in the United States.
(4) The exporting country's NPPO is responsible for export
certification, inspection, and issuance of phytosanitary certificates.
Each consignment of peppers must be accompanied by a phytosanitary
certificate issued by the NPPO and bearing the declaration, ``These
peppers were grown in an area recognized to be free of Medfly and the
consignment has been inspected and found free of the pests listed in
the requirements.''
(b) For peppers of the species Capsicum annuum, Capsicum
frutescens, Capsicum baccatum, Capsicum chinense, and Capsicum
pubescens from areas in which Medfly is considered to exist:
(1) The peppers must be grown in approved production sites
registered with the NPPO of the exporting country. Initial approval of
the production sites will be completed jointly by the exporting
country's NPPO and APHIS. The exporting country's NPPO will visit and
inspect the production sites monthly, starting 2 months before harvest
and continuing through until the end of the shipping season. APHIS may
monitor the production sites at any time during this period.
(2) Pepper production sites must consist of pest-exclusionary
greenhouses, which must have double self-closing doors and have all
other openings and vents covered with 1.6 mm (or less) screening.
(3) Registered sites must contain traps for the detection of Medfly
both within and around the production site.
(i) Traps with an approved protein bait must be placed inside the
greenhouses at a density of four traps per hectare, with a minimum of
two traps per greenhouse. Traps must be serviced on a weekly basis.
(ii) If a single Medfly is detected inside a registered production
site or in a consignment, the registered production site will lose its
ability to export peppers to the United States until APHIS and the
exporting country's NPPO mutually determine that risk mitigation is
achieved.
(iii) Medfly traps with an approved lure must be placed inside a
buffer area 500 meters wide around the registered production site, at a
density of 1 trap per 10 hectares and a minimum of 10 traps. These
traps must be checked at least every 7 days. At least one of these
traps must be near the greenhouse. Traps must be set for at least 2
months before export and trapping must continue to the end of the
harvest.
(iv) Capture of 0.7 or more Medflies per trap per week will delay
or suspend the harvest, depending on whether harvest has begun, for
consignments of peppers from that production site until APHIS and the
exporting country's NPPO can agree that the pest risk has been
mitigated.
(v) The greenhouse must be inspected prior to harvest for the
weevil Faustinus ovatipennis, pea leafminer, tomato fruit borer, banana
moth, lantana mealybug, passionvine mealybug, melon thrips, the rust
fungus Puccinia pampeana, Andean potato mottle virus, and tomato yellow
mosaic virus. If any of these pests, or other quarantine pests, are
found to be generally infesting the greenhouse, export from that
production site will be halted until the exporting country's NPPO
determines that the pest risk has been mitigated.
(4) The exporting country's NPPO must maintain records of trap
placement, checking of traps, and any Medfly captures. The exporting
country's NPPO must maintain an APHIS-approved quality control program
to monitor or audit the trapping program. The trapping records must be
maintained for APHIS' review.
(5) The peppers must be packed within 24 hours of harvest in a
pest-exclusionary packinghouse. The peppers must be safeguarded by an
insect-proof mesh screen or plastic tarpaulin while in transit to the
packinghouse and while awaiting packing. Peppers must be packed in
insect-proof cartons or containers, or covered with insect-proof mesh
or plastic tarpaulin, for transit to the United States. These
safeguards must remain intact until arrival in the United States or the
consignment will be denied entry into the United States.
(6) During the time the packinghouse is in use for exporting
peppers to the United States, the packinghouse may accept peppers only
from registered approved production sites.
(7) The exporting country's NPPO is responsible for export
certification, inspection, and issuance of phytosanitary certificates.
Each consignment of peppers must be accompanied by a phytosanitary
certificate issued by the NPPO and bearing the declaration, ``These
peppers were grown in an approved production site and the consignment
has been inspected and found free of the pests listed in the
requirements.'' The shipping box must be labeled with the identity of
the production site.
(c) For peppers of the species Capsicum pubescens from areas in
which Mexican fruit fly (Mexfly) is considered to exist:
(1) The peppers must be grown in approved production sites
registered with the NPPO of the exporting country. Initial approval of
the production sites will be completed jointly by the exporting
country's NPPO and APHIS. The exporting country's NPPO must visit and
inspect the production sites monthly, starting 2 months before harvest
and continuing through until the end of the shipping season. APHIS may
monitor the production sites at any time during this period.
(2) Pepper production sites must consist of pest-exclusionary
greenhouses, which must have double

[[Page 39526]]

self-closing doors and have all other openings and vents covered with
1.6 mm (or less) screening.
(3) Registered sites must contain traps for the detection of Mexfly
both within and around the production site.
(i) Traps with an approved protein bait must be placed inside the
greenhouses at a density of four traps per hectare, with a minimum of
two traps per greenhouse. Traps must be serviced on a weekly basis.
(ii) If a single Mexfly is detected inside a registered production
site or in a consignment, the registered production site will lose its
ability to ship under the systems approach until APHIS and the
exporting country's NPPO mutually determine that risk mitigation is
achieved.
(iii) Mexfly traps with an approved protein bait must be placed
inside a buffer area 500 meters wide around the registered production
site, at a density of 1 trap per 10 hectares and a minimum of 10 traps.
These traps must be checked at least every 7 days. At least one of
these traps must be near the greenhouse. Traps must be set for at least
2 months before export, and trapping must continue to the end of the
harvest.
(iv) Capture of 0.7 or more Mexflies per trap per week will delay
or suspend the harvest, depending on whether harvest has begun, for
consignments of peppers from that production site until APHIS and the
exporting country's NPPO can agree that the pest risk has been
mitigated.
(v) The greenhouse must be inspected prior to harvest for the
weevil Faustinus ovatipennis, pea leafminer, tomato fruit borer, banana
moth, lantana mealybug, passionvine mealybug, melon thrips, the rust
fungus Puccinia pampeana, Andean potato mottle virus, and tomato yellow
mosaic virus. If any of these pests, or other quarantine pests, are
found to be generally infesting the greenhouse, export from that
production site will be halted until the exporting country's NPPO
determines that the pest risk has been mitigated.
(4) The exporting country's NPPO must maintain records of trap
placement, checking of traps, and any Mexfly captures. The exporting
country's NPPO must maintain an APHIS-approved quality control program
to monitor or audit the trapping program. The trapping records must be
maintained for APHIS' review.
(5) The peppers must be packed within 24 hours of harvest in a
pest-exclusionary packinghouse. The peppers must be safeguarded by an
insect-proof mesh screen or plastic tarpaulin while in transit to the
packinghouse and while awaiting packing. Peppers must be packed in
insect-proof cartons or containers, or covered with insect-proof mesh
or plastic tarpaulin, for transit to the United States. These
safeguards must remain intact until arrival in the United States or the
consignment will be denied entry into the United States.
(6) During the time the packinghouse is in use for exporting
peppers to the United States, the packinghouse may accept peppers only
from registered approved production sites.
(7) The exporting country's NPPO is responsible for export
certification, inspection, and issuance of phytosanitary certificates.
Each consignment of peppers must be accompanied by a phytosanitary
certificate issued by the NPPO and bearing the declaration, ``These
peppers were grown in an approved production site and the consignment
has been inspected and found free of the pests listed in the
requirements.'' The shipping box must be labeled with the identity of
the production site.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 0579-0274)

Sec. 319.56-41 Citrus from Peru.

Grapefruit (Citrus paradisi), limes (C. aurantiifolia), mandarins
or tangerines (C. reticulata), sweet oranges (C. sinensis), and
tangelos (Citrus tangelo) may be imported into the United States from
Peru under the following conditions:
(a) The fruit must be accompanied by a permit issued in accordance
with Sec. 319.56-3(b).
(b) The fruit may be imported in commercial consignments only.
(c) Approved growing areas. The fruit must be grown in one of the
following approved citrus-producing zones: Zone I, Piura; Zone II,
Lambayeque; Zone III, Lima; Zone IV, Ica; and Zone V, Junin.
(d) Grower registration and agreement. The production site where
the fruit is grown must be registered for export with the national
plant protection organization (NPPO) of Peru, and the producer must
have signed an agreement with the NPPO of Peru whereby the producer
agrees to participate in and follow the fruit fly management program
established by the NPPO of Peru.
(e) Management program for fruit flies; monitoring. The NPPO of
Peru(s fruit fly management program must be approved by APHIS, and must
require that participating citrus producers allow APHIS inspectors
access to production areas in order to monitor compliance with the
fruit fly management program. The fruit fly management program must
also provide for the following:
(1) Trapping and control. In areas where citrus is produced for
export to the United States, traps must be placed in fruit fly host
plants at least 6 weeks prior to harvest at a rate mutually agreed upon
by APHIS and the NPPO of Peru. If fruit fly trapping levels at a
production site exceed the thresholds established by APHIS and the NPPO
of Peru, exports from that production site will be suspended until
APHIS and the NPPO of Peru conclude that fruit fly population levels
have been reduced to an acceptable limit. Fruit fly traps are monitored
weekly; therefore, reinstatements of production sites will be evaluated
on a weekly basis.
(2) Records. The NPPO of Peru or its designated representative must
keep records that document the fruit fly trapping and control
activities in areas that produce citrus for export to the United
States. All trapping and control records kept by the NPPO of Peru or
its designated representative must be made available to APHIS upon
request.
(f) Cold treatment. The fruit, except for limes (C. aurantiifolia),
must be cold treated for Anastrepha fraterculus, A. obliqua, A.
serpentina, and Ceratitis capitata (Mediterranean fruit fly) in
accordance with part 305 of this chapter.
(g) Phytosanitary inspection. Each consignment of fruit must be
accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the NPPO of Peru
stating that the fruit has been inspected and found free of Ecdytolopha
aurantiana.
(h) Port of first arrival sampling. Citrus fruits imported from
Peru are subject to inspection by an inspector at the port of first
arrival into the United States in accordance with Sec. 319.56-3(d). At
the port of first arrival, an inspector will sample and cut citrus
fruits from each consignment to detect pest infestation. If a single
live fruit fly in any stage of development or a single E. aurantiana is
found, the consignment will be held until an investigation is completed
and appropriate remedial actions have been implemented.

Sec. 319.56-42 Peppers from the Republic of Korea.

Peppers (Capsicum annuum L. var. annuum) from the Republic of Korea
may be imported into the continental United States only under the
following conditions and in accordance with all other applicable
provisions of this subpart:
(a) The peppers must be grown in the Republic of Korea in insect-
proof greenhouses approved by and registered with the National Plant
Quarantine Service (NPQS).

[[Page 39527]]

(b) The greenhouses must be equipped with double self-closing
doors, and any vents or openings in the greenhouses (other than the
double self-closing doors) must be covered with 0.6 mm screening in
order to prevent the entry of pests into the greenhouse.
(c) The greenhouses must be inspected monthly throughout the
growing season by NPQS to ensure phytosanitary procedures are employed
to exclude plant pests and diseases, and that the screens are intact.
(d) The peppers must be packed within 24 hours of harvest in a
pest-exclusionary packinghouse. During the time the packinghouse is in
use for exporting peppers to the continental United States, the
packinghouse can accept peppers only from registered approved
production sites. The peppers must be safeguarded by an insect-proof
mesh screen or plastic tarpaulin while in transit from the production
site to the packinghouse and while awaiting packing. The peppers must
be packed in insect-proof cartons or containers, or covered with
insect-proof mesh or plastic tarpaulin, for transit to the continental
United States. These safeguards must remain intact until the arrival of
the peppers in the United States or the consignment will not be allowed
to enter the United States.
(e) Each consignment of peppers must be accompanied by a
phytosanitary certificate of inspection issued by NPQS bearing the
following additional declaration: ``These peppers were grown in
greenhouses in accordance with the conditions in 7 CFR 319.56-42 and
were inspected and found free from Agrotis segetum, Helicoverpa
armigera, Helicoverpa assulta, Mamestra brassicae, Monilinia
fructigena, Ostrinia furnacalis, Scirtothrips dorsalis, Spodoptera
litura, and Thrips palmi.''
(f) The peppers must be imported in commercial consignments only.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 0579-0282)

Sec. 319.56-43 Baby corn and baby carrots from Zambia.

(a) Immature, dehusked ``baby'' sweet corn (Zea mays L.) measuring
10 to 25 millimeters (0.39 to 0.98 inches) in diameter and 60 to 105
millimeters (2.36 to 4.13 inches) in length may be imported into the
continental United States from Zambia only under the following
conditions and in accordance with all other applicable provisions of
this subpart:
(1) The production site, which is a field, where the corn has been
grown must have been inspected at least once during the growing season
and before harvest for the following pest: Phomopsis jaczewskii.
(2) After harvest, the corn must be inspected by Zambia's national
plant protection organization (NPPO) and found free of the pests listed
in paragraph (a)(1) of this section before the corn may be shipped to
the continental United States.
(3) The corn must be inspected at the port of first arrival as
provided in Sec. 319.56-3(d).
(4) Each consignment must be accompanied by a phytosanitary
certificate issued by the NPPO of Zambia that includes an additional
declaration stating that the corn has been inspected and found free of
Phomopsis jaczewskii based on field and packinghouse inspections.
(5) The corn may be imported in commercial consignments only.
(b) Immature ``baby'' carrots (Daucus carota L. ssp. sativus) for
consumption measuring 10 to 18 millimeters (0.39 to 0.71 inches) in
diameter and 50 to 105 millimeters (1.97 to 4.13 inches) in length may
be imported into the continental United States from Zambia only under
the following conditions:
(1) The production site, which is a field, where the carrots have
been grown must have been inspected at least once during the growing
season and before harvest for the following pest: Meloidogyne
ethiopica.
(2) After harvest, the carrots must be inspected by the NPPO of
Zambia and found free of the pests listed in paragraph (b)(1) of this
section before the carrots may be shipped to the continental United
States.
(3) The carrots must be inspected at the port of first arrival as
provided in Sec. 319.56-3(d).
(4) Each consignment must be accompanied by a phytosanitary
certificate issued by the NPPO of Zambia that includes an additional
declaration stating that the carrots have been inspected and found free
of Meloidogyne ethiopica based on field and packinghouse inspections.
(5) The carrots must be free from leaves and soil.
(6) The carrots may be imported in commercial consignments only.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 0579-0284)

Sec. 319.56-44 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 and in accordance with all other applicable provisions of
this subpart:
(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 consignment 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

[[Page 39528]]

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)

Sec. 319.56-45 Shelled garden peas from Kenya.

Garden peas (Pisum sativum) may be imported into the continental
United States from Kenya only under the following conditions and in
accordance with all other applicable provisions of this subpart:
(a) The peas must be shelled from the pod.
(b) The peas must be washed in disinfectant water at 3 to 5 [deg]C
containing 50 ppm chlorine.
(c) Each shipment of peas must be accompanied by a phytosanitary
certificate of inspection issued by the national plant protection
organization of Kenya bearing the following additional declaration:
``These peas have been shelled and washed in accordance with 7 CFR
319.56-45 and have been inspected and found free of pests.''

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 0579-0302)

Sec. 319.56-46 Mangoes from India.

Mangoes (Mangifera indica) may be imported into the continental
United States from India only under the following conditions:
(a) The mangoes must be treated in India with irradiation by
receiving a minimum absorbed dose of 400 Gy in accordance with Sec.
305.31 of this chapter.
(b) The risks presented by Cytosphaera mangiferae and Macrophoma
mangiferae must be addressed in one of the following ways:
(1) The mangoes are treated with a broad-spectrum post-harvest
fungicidal dip; or
(2) The orchard of origin is inspected prior to the beginning of
harvest as determined by the mutual agreement between APHIS and the
national plant protection organization (NPPO) of India and the orchard
is found free of Cytosphaera mangiferae and Macrophoma mangiferae; or
(3) The orchard of origin is treated with a broad-spectrum
fungicide during the growing season and is inspected prior to the
beginning of harvest as determined by the mutual agreement between
APHIS and the NPPO of India and the fruit found free of Cytosphaera
mangiferae and Macrophoma mangiferae.
(c) Each consignment of mangoes must be inspected jointly by APHIS
and the NPPO of India as part of the required preclearance inspection
activities at a time and in a manner determined by mutual agreement
between APHIS and the NPPO of India.
(d) The risks presented by Cytosphaera mangiferae, Macrophoma
mangiferae, and Xanthomonas campestris pv. mangiferaeindicae must be
addressed by inspection during preclearance activities.
(e) Each consignment of fruit must be inspected jointly by APHIS
and the NPPO of India and accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate
issued by the NPPO of India certifying that the fruit received the
required irradiation treatment. The phytosanitary certificate must also
bear two additional declarations confirming that:
(1) The mangoes were subjected to one of the pre- or post-harvest
mitigation options described in Sec. 319.56-46(b) and
(2) The mangoes were inspected during preclearance activities and
found free of Cytosphaera mangiferae, Macrophoma mangiferae, and
Xanthomonas campestris pv. mangiferaeindicae.
(f) The mangoes may be imported in commercial consignments only.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 0579-0312)

Sec. 319.75-2 [Amended]

0
14. In Sec. 319.75-2, footnote 1 is amended by removing the citation
``7 CFR 319.56 et seq.'' and adding the words ``Subpart--Fruits and
Vegetables of this part.'' in its place.

PART 352--PLANT QUARANTINE SAFEGUARD REGULATIONS

0
15. The authority citation for part 352 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7701-7772 and 7781-7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 and
136a; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.

0
16. In Sec. 352.30, paragraphs (e) and (f) are revised to read as
follows:

Sec. 352.30 Untreated oranges, tangerines, and grapefruit from
Mexico.

* * * * *
(e) Untreated fruit from certain municipalities in Mexico. Oranges,
tangerines, and grapefruit in transit to foreign countries may be
imported from certain municipalities in Mexico that meet the criteria
of Sec. 319.56-5 for freedom from fruit flies in accordance with the
applicable conditions in part 319 of this chapter.
(f) Treated fruit. Oranges, tangerines, and grapefruit from Mexico
that have been treated in Mexico in accordance with part 305 of this
chapter may be moved through the United States ports for exportation in
accordance with the regulations in part 319 of this chapter.
* * * * *

Done in Washington, DC, this 10th day of July 2007.
Bruce Knight,
Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs.
[FR Doc. E7-13708 Filed 7-17-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P