Federal Register, Volume 76 Issue 100 (Tuesday, May 24, 2011)

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 100 (Tuesday, May 24, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30036-30040]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-12755]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 24, 2011 /
Proposed Rules

[[Page 30036]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

7 CFR Part 319

[Docket No. APHIS-2010-0113]
RIN 0579-AD40

Importation of Fresh Pitaya Fruit From Central America Into the
Continental United States

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are proposing to amend the fruits and vegetables
regulations to allow the importation of fresh pitaya fruit from Central
America into the continental United States. As a condition of entry,
pitaya fruit from Central America would be subject to a systems
approach that would include requirements for monitoring and oversight,
establishment of pest-free places of production, and procedures for
packing the pitaya fruit. This action would allow for the importation
of pitaya fruit from Central America into the continental United States
while continuing to provide protection against the introduction of
plant pests.

DATES: We will consider all comments that we receive on or before July
25, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS-2010-0113 to submit or view comments and
to view supporting and related materials available electronically.
Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Please send one copy of
your comment to Docket No. APHIS-2010-0113, Regulatory Analysis and
Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road, Unit 118,
Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state that your comment refers to
Docket No. APHIS-2010-0113.
Reading Room: You may read any comments that we receive on this
docket in our reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 of
the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to
help you, please call (202) 690-2817 before coming.
Other Information: Additional information about APHIS and its
programs is available on the Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. David B. Lamb, Import Specialist,
Regulatory Coordination and Compliance, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road
Unit, 133, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; (301) 734-0627.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The regulations in ``Subpart--Fruits and Vegetables'' (7 CFR
319.56-1 through 319.56-50, referred to below as the regulations)
prohibit or restrict the importation of fruits and vegetables into the
United States from certain parts of the world to prevent the
introduction and dissemination of plant pests within the United States.
The national plant protection organizations (NPPOs) of the
countries of Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras,
Nicaragua, and Panama have requested that the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS) amend the regulations to allow pitaya fruit
(Hylocereus spp.) to be imported from these countries into the
continental United States. This document will refer to these countries
collectively as Central America.
As part of our evaluation of this request, we prepared a pest risk
assessment (PRA) and a risk management document (RMD). Copies of the
PRA and the RMD may be obtained from the person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or viewed on the Regulations.gov Web site
(see ADDRESSES above for instructions for accessing Regulations.gov).
The PRA, titled ``Importation of Fresh Pitaya Fruit, Hylocereus spp.
and several other genera and species, from Central America into the
Continental United States'' (October 2009), evaluates the risks
associated with the importation of pitaya fruit into the continental
United States from Central America. The PRA identified four pests of
quarantine significance present in Central America that could be
introduced into the United States through the importation of pitaya
fruit. These are the Mexican fruit fly or Mexfly (Anastrepha ludens),
Mediterranean fruit fly or Medfly (Ceratitis capitata), the gray
pineapple mealybug (Dysmicoccus neobrevipes), and the passionvine
mealybug (Planococcus minor). All four of these pests were determined
to pose a high pest risk potential.
APHIS has determined that measures beyond standard port-of-entry
inspection are required to mitigate the risks posed by these plant
pests. Therefore, we are proposing to allow the importation of pitaya
fruit from Central America into the continental United States only if
they are produced in accordance with a systems approach to mitigate
pest risk as outlined below. We are proposing to add the systems
approach to the regulations in a new Sec. 319.56-51 governing the
importation of pitaya fruit from Central America.

Proposed Systems Approach

Monitoring and Oversight

Paragraph (a) of proposed Sec. 319.56-51 would set out monitoring
and oversight requirements for the NPPOs of the countries exporting
pitaya fruit to the United States. Paragraph (a)(1) would require the
NPPO of the exporting country to provide a workplan to APHIS that
details the activities the NPPO will carry out to meet the requirements
of the systems approach, subject to APHIS's approval of the workplan.
APHIS would be directly involved with the NPPO in monitoring and
auditing implementation of the systems approach. A bilateral workplan
is an agreement between APHIS' Plant Protection and Quarantine program,
officials of the NPPO of a foreign government, and, when necessary,
foreign commercial entities that specifies in detail the phytosanitary
measures that will comply with our regulations governing the import or
export of a specific commodity. Bilateral workplans apply only to the
signatory parties and establish detailed procedures and guidance for
the day-to-day operations of specific import/export

[[Page 30037]]

programs. Bilateral workplans also establish how specific phytosanitary
issues are dealt with in the exporting country and make clear who is
responsible for dealing with those issues. The implementation of a
systems approach typically requires a bilateral workplan to be
developed.
Paragraph (a)(2) would require the NPPO of the exporting country to
conduct inspections at the packinghouses and monitor packinghouse
operations to verify that the packinghouses comply with the systems
approach requirements. The NPPO of the exporting country would also
have to visit and inspect the places of production monthly, starting 2
months (60 days) before harvest and continuing until the end of the
shipping season, to verify that the growers are complying with the
systems approach requirements. If the NPPO finds that a place of
production or packinghouse is not complying with the requirements of
the systems approach, no fruit from the place of production or
packinghouse would be eligible for export to the United States until
APHIS and the NPPO conduct an investigation and appropriate remedial
actions have been implemented.
Paragraph (a)(3) would require the NPPO of the exporting country to
review and maintain all forms and documents related to export program
activities in places of production and packinghouses for at least 1
year and, as requested, provide them to APHIS for review.
The monitoring and oversight described above would ensure that the
required phytosanitary measures are properly implemented throughout the
process of growing and packing pitaya fruit for export to the United
States.

Place of Production Requirements

Paragraph (b)(1) of proposed Sec. 319.56-51 would require the
personnel conducting the trapping for Mexfly and Medfly described later
in this document to be hired, trained, and supervised by the NPPO of
the exporting country. The exporting country's NPPO must certify that
each place of production has effective fruit fly trapping programs, and
follows control guidelines, when necessary, to reduce quarantine pest
populations. APHIS would be able to monitor the places of production.
This condition would ensure that pitaya fruit intended for export to
the continental United States are grown and packed in production and
packing areas of Central America where fruit fly traps are maintained
and where the other elements of the systems approach described below
are in place.
Under proposed paragraph (b)(2), pitaya fruit would have to be
grown in approved places of production that are registered with the
NPPO of the exporting country.
Paragraph (b)(3) would specify that trees and other structures,
other than the crop itself, may not shade the crop during the day and
no other host plants of Medfly or Mexfly may be grown within 100 meters
of the edge of the production site. During hot, sunny weather, pests
congregate in shaded areas for survival. These requirements would
reduce the pest pressure of Medfly and Mexfly outside the production
site.
Paragraph (b)(4) would require that pitaya fruit that has fallen on
the ground be removed from the place of production at least once every
7 days. Although pitaya fruit are a potential host for the identified
pests, the pests typically prefer fallen fruit. Therefore, requiring
that fallen fruit be removed from the place of production would reduce
populations of pests in the fields where pitaya fruit intended for
importation into the continental United States are grown. In addition,
fallen fruit would not be allowed to be included in field containers of
fruit to be packed for export because fruit that has fallen from trees
may be damaged and thus more susceptible to infestation.
Under paragraph (b)(5), harvested pitaya fruit would have to be
placed in field cartons or containers that are marked to show the place
of production. This requirement would ensure that APHIS and the NPPO of
the exporting country could identify the place of production for the
pitaya fruit if inspectors were to find quarantine pests in the fruit
either before export or at the port of entry.

Mitigation Measures for Medfly and Mexfly

APHIS has on rare instances intercepted fruit flies in pitaya
fruit. Records of pitaya fruit being a host for either Medfly or Mexfly
are either unverified references in old literature or based on cage
infestations. As a result, pitaya fruit are considered to be poor hosts
to fruit flies. Based on this, we would use trapping to demonstrate
that places of production are free of fruit flies in conjunction with a
systems approach to mitigate the risk posed by these fruit flies.
Paragraph (c)(1)(i) of proposed Sec. 319.56-51 would specify the
trapping requirements to demonstrate place of production freedom from
Medfly and Mexfly. Beginning at least 1 year before the start of
harvest and continuing through the end of the shipping season, trapping
for Mexfly and Medfly would have to be conducted in the places of
pitaya fruit production with at least 1 trap per hectare of APHIS-
approved traps and traps must be serviced every 7 days.
Under proposed paragraph (c)(1)(ii), we would begin requiring
places of production to meet standards for cumulative levels of flies
per trap per day starting at 2 months prior to harvest through the end
of the shipping season. The interval between the start of trapping and
the enforcement of standards for flies per trap per day would allow the
NPPO time to establish a baseline for compliance. Beginning 2 months
prior to harvest, when traps are serviced, if either Medfly or Mexfly
are trapped at a particular place of production at cumulative levels
above 0.07 flies per trap per day, pesticide bait treatments would have
to be applied in the affected place of production in order for the
place of production to remain eligible to export pitaya fruit to the
continental United States. If the average Medfly or Mexfly catch is
greater than 0.07 flies per trap per day for more than 2 consecutive
weeks, the place of production would be ineligible for export until the
rate of capture drops to an average of less than 0.07 flies per trap
per day.
Paragraph (c)(1)(iii) would state that the NPPO would have to keep
records of fruit fly detections for each trap, update the records each
time the traps are checked, and make the records available to APHIS
inspectors upon request. The records would have to be maintained for at
least 1 year.
Paragraph (c)(2) would provide pest-free areas as another option
for mitigating the risk associated with Medfly. If pitaya fruit were
produced in an area designated by APHIS as free of Medfly in accordance
with Sec. 319.56-5, no further mitigation for those fruit flies would
be necessary for fruit produced in that area. For instance, Belize
conducts a national fruit fly program, including Jackson traps, to
maintain its pest-free status for Medfly, and APHIS currently
recognizes all of Belize as free of Medfly. We are not proposing to
provide for the use of pest-free areas for Mexfly because local
conditions in these countries are not likely to allow the establishment
of such areas.
Section 319.56-5 sets out specific requirements for determination
that an area is a pest-free area. Paragraph (a) of Sec. 319.56-5
states that determinations of pest-free areas be made in accordance
with International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPM) No. 4,
which is incorporated by reference in Sec. 300.5. ISPM No. 4 sets out
three main

[[Page 30038]]

criteria for recognition of a pest-free area:
Systems to establish freedom;
Phytosanitary measures to maintain freedom; and
Checks to verify freedom has been maintained.

Packinghouse Requirements

Paragraph (d) of proposed Sec. 319.56-51 would set out
requirements for the packinghouses where the pitaya fruit would be
processed. The packinghouse would have to be registered with the NPPO
of the exporting country. All openings to the outside of the
packinghouse would have to be covered by screening with openings of not
more than 1.6 mm or by some other barrier that prevents pests from
entering. Screening with openings of not more than 1.6 mm excludes
fruit flies. The packinghouse would be required to have double doors at
the entrance to the facility and at the interior entrance to the area
where the pitaya fruit would be packed. Such entrances are designed to
exclude fruit flies from the packinghouse. In addition, the
packinghouse could only accept fruit from registered places of
production while the packinghouse is in use for exporting pitaya fruit
to the United States. These procedures would reduce the risk that
quarantine pests are present on pitaya fruit exported to the United
States.

Post-Harvest Procedures

Paragraph (e) would require that the fruit be safeguarded by a
pest-proof screen or plastic tarpaulin while in transit to a pest-
exclusionary packinghouse and while awaiting packing. Pitaya fruit
would have to be packed within 24 hours of harvest in insect-proof
cartons or containers that can be sealed at the packinghouse against
the entry of pests, or covered with insect-proof mesh or a plastic
tarpaulin for transport to the United States. These safeguards would
have to remain intact until arrival in the United States. These
measures would prevent harvested fruit from being infested by
quarantine pests.

Phytosanitary Inspection

Paragraph (f)(1) would require a biometric sample of pitaya fruit
jointly agreed upon by APHIS and the NPPO to be inspected in the
exporting country by the NPPO of that country following any post-
harvest processing. The biometric sample would be visually inspected
for gray pineapple mealybug and passionvine mealybug, which are
external pests. A portion of the fruit would also be cut open to detect
Mexfly and Medfly, which are internal pests. If the fruit is from a
pest-free area for Medfly, then the fruit would only be inspected for
Mexfly. External and internal inspection of a sample would ensure that
pests at various life stages are detected.
Under proposed paragraph (f)(2), the pitaya fruit would be subject
to inspection for all quarantine pests of concern at the port of entry.
In addition, shipping documents identifying the place(s) of production
in which the fruit had been produced and the packing shed(s) in which
the fruit had been processed would have to accompany each lot of fruit
presented for inspection at the port of entry to the United States and
would have to be maintained until the fruit is released for entry.
Under paragraph (f)(3), if a gray pineapple mealybug and
passionvine mealybug were to be found, the entire consignment of fruit
would be prohibited from import into the United States unless it were
treated in accordance with 7 CFR part 305. If a single larva of either
fruit fly were to be found in a shipment (either by the NPPO in the
exporting country or by inspectors at the U.S. port of entry), the
entire consignment of fruit would be prohibited from export, and the
place of production producing that fruit would be suspended from the
export program until appropriate measures, as agreed upon by the NPPO
of the exporting country and APHIS, had been taken.

Commercial Consignments

Paragraph (g) would state that only commercial consignments of
pitaya fruit would be allowed to be imported. Commercial consignments,
as defined in Sec. 319.56-2, are consignments that an inspector
identifies as having been imported for sale and distribution. Such
identification is 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. Produce grown
commercially is less likely to be infested with plant pests than
noncommercial consignments. Noncommercial consignments are more prone
to infestations because the commodity is often ripe to overripe, could
be of a variety with unknown susceptibility to pests, and is often
grown with little or no pest control.

Phytosanitary Certificate

Paragraph (h) sets out the requirement for a phytosanitary
certificate. Each consignment of fruit would have to be accompanied by
a phytosanitary certificate issued by the NPPO of the exporting
country, providing an additional declaration stating that the fruit in
the consignment was produced in accordance with the requirements in
proposed Sec. 319.56-51. This requirement would certify that the
provisions of the regulations have been met.

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act

This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for
the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been
reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 603, we have performed an initial
regulatory flexibility analysis, which is summarized below, regarding
the economic effects of this proposed rule on small entities. Copies of
the full analysis are available by contacting the person listed under
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or on the Regulations.gov Web site (see
ADDRESSES above for instructions for accessing Regulations.gov).
Based on the information we have, there is no reason to conclude
that adoption of this proposed rule would result in any significant
economic effect on a substantial number of small entities. However, we
do not currently have all of the data necessary for a comprehensive
analysis of the effects of this proposed rule on small entities.
Therefore, we are inviting comments on potential effects. In
particular, we are interested in determining the number and kind of
small entities that may incur benefits or costs from the implementation
of this proposed rule.
This proposed rule would allow the importation of fresh pitaya
fruit from Central America into the continental United States. Pitaya
fruit is produced in Hawaii, California, and Florida, but the
quantities domestically produced, numbers of U.S. producers, quantities
imported, and other factors needed to assess the likely economic
effects of this rule are not known. The quantity of pitaya fruit that
would be imported from Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala,
Honduras, and Panama is also unknown. Nicaragua estimates exporting
1,200 metric tons (60 40-foot containers) of pitaya fruit to the
continental U.S. annually, and it is thought that the other countries
may ship similar or smaller amounts.
Lack of information about the quantity of pitaya fruit that would
be imported from these countries, and about the quantities produced and
already imported by the United States, prevents a clear understanding
of what the economic effects of the proposed

[[Page 30039]]

rule may be. We welcome information that the public may offer regarding
the possible economic effects of this rule for U.S. small entities.

Executive Order 12988

This proposed rule would allow pitaya fruit to be imported into the
United States from Central America. If this proposed rule is adopted,
State and local laws and regulations regarding pitaya fruit imported
under this rule would be preempted while the fruit is in foreign
commerce. Fresh fruits are generally imported for immediate
distribution and sale to the consuming public and would remain in
foreign commerce until sold to the ultimate consumer. The question of
when foreign commerce ceases in other cases must be addressed on a
case-by-case basis. If this proposed rule is adopted, no retroactive
effect will be given to this rule, and this rule will not require
administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court
challenging this rule.

Paperwork Reduction Act

In accordance with section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the information collection or
recordkeeping requirements included in this proposed rule have been
submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Please send written comments to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for APHIS, Washington,
DC 20503. Please state that your comments refer to Docket No. APHIS-
2010-0113. Please send a copy of your comments to: (1) Docket No.
APHIS-2010-0113, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS,
Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238,
and (2) Clearance Officer, OCIO, USDA, room 404-W, 14th Street and
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250. A comment to OMB is
best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30
days of publication of this proposed rule.
We are proposing to amend the fruits and vegetables regulations to
allow the importation of fresh pitaya fruit from Central America into
the continental United States. As condition of entry, pitaya fruit from
Central America would be subject to a systems approach that would
include requirements for monitoring and oversight, establishment of
pest-free places of production, and procedures for packing the pitaya.
This action would allow for the importation of pitaya fruit from
Central America into the continental United States while continuing to
provide protection against the introduction of quarantine pests.
Implementing this rule requires the exporting country's NPPO to
certify production sites, provide a workplan, maintain records of fruit
fly detections and shipping documents, register packinghouses, and
complete a phytosanitary certificate.
We are soliciting comments from the public (as well as affected
agencies) concerning our proposed information collection and
recordkeeping requirements. These comments will help us:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is
necessary for the proper performance of our agency's functions,
including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the
proposed information collection, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the information collection on those who
are to respond (such as through the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology; e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses).
Estimate of burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of
information is estimated to average 0.8652 hours per response.
Respondents: Shippers and producers of fresh pitaya, NPPOs of
Central America.
Estimated annual number of respondents: 27.
Estimated annual number of responses per respondent: 5.2222.
Estimated annual number of responses: 141.
Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 122 hours. (Due to
averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of
the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per
response.)
Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Mrs.
Celeste Sickles, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301)
851-2908.

E-Government Act Compliance

The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 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 proposed rule, please contact Mrs. Celeste
Sickles, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2908.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 319

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

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

PART 319--FOREIGN QUARANTINE NOTICES

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

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

2. Section 319.56-51 is added to read as follows:

Sec. 319.56-51 Fresh pitaya from certain Central American countries.

Fresh pitaya fruit (Hylocereus spp.) may be imported into the
United States from Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala,
Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama in accordance with the conditions
described in this section. These conditions are designed to prevent the
introduction of the following quarantine pests: Anastrepha ludens,
Ceratitis capitata, Dysmicoccus neobrevipes, and Planococcus minor.
(a) Monitoring and oversight. (1) The national plant protection
organization (NPPO) of the exporting country must provide a workplan to
APHIS that details the activities that the NPPO will, subject to
APHIS's approval, carry out to meet the requirements of this section.
APHIS will be directly involved with the NPPO in the monitoring and
auditing implementation of the systems approach.
(2) The NPPO of the exporting country must conduct inspections at
the packinghouses and monitor packinghouse operations. Starting 2
months before harvest and continuing until the end of the shipping
season, the NPPO of the exporting country must visit and inspect the
places of production monthly to verify compliance with the requirements
of this section. If the NPPO finds that a packinghouse or place of
production is not complying with the requirements of this section, no
fruit from the place of production or packinghouse will be eligible for
export to the United States until APHIS and the NPPO have conducted an
investigation and appropriate remedial actions have been implemented.

[[Page 30040]]

(3) The NPPO must review and maintain all forms and documents
related to export program activities in places of production and
packinghouses for at least 1 year and, as requested, provide them to
APHIS for review.
(b) Place of production requirements. (1) The personnel conducting
the trapping required in paragraph (c) of this section must be hired,
trained, and supervised by the NPPO of the exporting country. The
exporting country's NPPO must certify that each place of production has
effective fruit fly trapping programs, and follows control guidelines,
when necessary, to reduce quarantine pest populations. APHIS may
monitor the places of production.
(2) The places of production producing pitaya for export to the
United States must be registered with the NPPO of the exporting
country.
(3) Trees and other structures, other than the crop itself, must
not shade the crop during the day. No C. capitata or A. ludens host
plants may be grown within 100 meters of the edge of the production
site.
(4) Pitaya fruit that has fallen on the ground must be removed from
the place of production at least once every 7 days and may not be
included in field containers of fruit to be packed for export.
(5) Harvested pitaya fruit must be placed in field cartons or
containers that are marked to show the place of production.
(c) Mitigation measures for C. capitata and A. ludens. (1) Pest-
free places of production. (i) Beginning at least 1 year before harvest
begins and continuing through the end of the shipping season, trapping
for A. ludens and C. capitata must be conducted in the places of pitaya
fruit production with at least 1 trap per hectare of APHIS-approved
traps, serviced every 7 days.
(ii) From 2 months prior to harvest through the end of the shipping
season, when traps are serviced, if either A. ludens or C. capitata are
trapped at a particular place of production at cumulative levels above
0.07 flies per trap per day, pesticide bait treatments must be applied
in the affected place of production in order for the place of
production to remain eligible to export pitaya fruit to the continental
United States. If the average A. ludens or C. capitata catch is greater
than 0.07 flies per trap per day for more than 2 consecutive weeks, the
place of production is ineligible for export until the rate of capture
drops to an average of less than 0.07 flies per trap per day.
(iii) The NPPO must maintain records of fruit fly detections for
each trap, update the records each time the traps are checked, and make
the records available to APHIS upon request. The records must be
maintained for at least 1 year for APHIS review.
(2) Pest-free area for C. capitata. If the pitaya fruit are
produced in a place of production located in an area that is designated
as free of C. capitata in accordance with Sec. 319.56-5, the trapping
in paragraph (c)(1) of this section is not required for C. capitata.
(d) Packinghouse requirements. (1) The packinghouses must be
registered with the NPPO of the exporting country.
(2) 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
pests from entering the packinghouses.
(3) The packinghouses must have double doors at the entrance to the
facilities and at the interior entrance to the area where the pitaya
fruit are packed.
(4) While in use for packing pitaya fruit for export to the United
States, the packinghouses may only accept pitaya fruit that are from
registered places of production and that are produced in accordance
with the requirements of this section.
(e) Post-harvest procedures. The pitaya fruit must be packed within
24 hours of harvest in a pest-exclusionary packinghouse. Pitaya fruit
must be packed in insect-proof cartons or containers that can be sealed
at the packinghouse, or covered with insect-proof mesh or a plastic
tarpaulin for transport to the United States. These safeguards must be
intact upon arrival in the United States.
(f) Phytosanitary inspection. (1) The NPPO of the exporting country
must visually inspect a biometric sample of pitaya fruit, jointly
approved by APHIS and the NPPO of the exporting country, for D.
neobrevipes and P. minor, and cut open a portion of the fruit to detect
A. ludens and C. capitata. If the fruit is from a pest-free area for C.
capitata, then the fruit will only be inspected for A. ludens.
(2) The fruit are subject to inspection at the port of entry for
all quarantine pests of concern. Shipping documents identifying the
place(s) of production in which the fruit was produced and the packing
shed(s) in which the fruit was processed must accompany each lot of
fruit presented for inspection at the port of entry to the United
States. This identification must be maintained until the fruit is
released for entry into the United States.
(3) If D. neobrevipes or P. minor is found, the entire consignment
of fruit will be prohibited from import into the United States unless
the shipment is treated with an approved treatment monitored by APHIS.
If inspectors (either from the exporting country's NPPO or at the U.S.
port of entry) find a single fruit fly larva in a shipment, they will
reject the entire consignment for shipment to the United States, and
the place of production for that shipment will be suspended from the
export program until appropriate measures, agreed upon by the NPPO of
the exporting country and APHIS, have been taken.
(g) Commercial consignments. The pitaya fruit may be imported in
commercial consignments only.
(h) Phytosanitary certificate. Each consignment of pitaya fruit
must be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the NPPO
of the exporting country, containing an additional declaration stating
that the fruit in the consignment was produced in accordance with
requirements in 7 CFR 319.56-51.

Done in Washington, DC, this 18th day of May 2011.
Kevin Shea,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-12755 Filed 5-23-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P