[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 164 (Thursday, August 25, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-20989]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: August 25, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
7 CFR Parts 300 and 319
[Docket No. 93-101-2]
Importation of Fruits and Vegetables
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are allowing a number of previously prohibited fruits and
vegetables to be imported into the United States from certain parts of
the world. All of the fruits and vegetables, as a condition of entry,
will be subject to inspection, disinfection, or both, at the port of
first arrival as may be required by a U.S. Department of Agriculture
inspector. In addition, some of the fruits and vegetables will be
required to undergo prescribed treatments for fruit flies or other
injurious insects as a condition of entry, or to meet other special
conditions. This action will provide the United States with additional
kinds and sources of fruits and vegetables while continuing to provide
protection against the introduction and dissemination of injurious
plant pests by imported fruits and vegetables.
We are also making several minor changes to the regulations for the
sake of clarity.
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 25, 1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Frank E. Cooper or Mr. Peter
Grosser, Senior Operations Officers, Port Operations, Plant Protection
and Quarantine, APHIS, USDA, room 635, Federal Building, 6505 Belcrest
Road, Hyattsville, MD 20782, (301) 436-8295.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The regulations in 7 CFR 319.56 through 319.56-8 (referred to below
as the regulations) prohibit or restrict the importation of fruits and
vegetables into the United States from certain parts of the world to
prevent the introduction and dissemination of injurious insects that
are new to or not widely distributed within and throughout the United
States.
On May 2, 1994, we published in the Federal Register (59 FR 22538-
22545, Docket No. 93-101-1) a document in which we proposed to amend
the regulations to allow additional fruits and vegetables to be
imported into the United States from certain parts of the world under
specified conditions. The importation of those fruits and vegetables
had been prohibited because of the risk that the fruits and vegetables
could introduce injurious insects into the United States. We proposed
to allow those importations at the request of various importers and
foreign ministries of agriculture and after determining that the fruits
or vegetables could be imported under certain conditions with
insignificant pest risk. Also in the proposed rule, we proposed to make
some minor changes to the regulations for the sake of clarity.
We solicited comments on the proposed rule for a 30-day period
ending on June 1, 1994. We received 50 comments by that date. One
comment, from a State agricultural agency, supported the proposal. The
other 49 comments, from fruit growers and distributors, State
agricultural agencies, fruit growers' cooperative associations, and
trade associations, opposed the proposal or some of its provisions and/
or made recommendations. We carefully considered all of the comments we
received. They are discussed below.
Comment: The treatments and other requirements proposed by the
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) for the various
fruits and vegetables to be imported would be inadequate in preventing
the introduction of exotic pests into the United States.
Response: Prior to proposing that various fruits and vegetables be
allowed into the United States, APHIS researches the pests, including
diseases, afflicting those fruits and vegetables in their countries of
origin. After reviewing the results of the research on the fruits and
vegetables in this proposal, we are confident that the treatments and
other requirements proposed as conditions of entry into the United
States will be adequate to prevent the introduction of exotic plant
pests.
Comment: APHIS is proposing to use methyl bromide as a fumigant in
the treatment of imported fruits and vegetables even though the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in a final rulemaking published
in the Federal Register on December 10, 1993 (58 FR 65018-65082), has
frozen methyl bromide production at 1991 levels and required the
phasing out of domestic use of methyl bromide by the year 2001.
Response: APHIS is aware of the EPA rulemaking on the use of methyl
bromide. APHIS is studying the effectiveness and environmental
acceptability of alternative treatments to prepare for the eventual
unavailability of methyl bromide fumigation. Our current proposal,
however, assumes the continued availability of methyl bromide for use
as a fumigant for at least the next few years.
Comment: APHIS should conduct periodic site inspections and
treatment assessments at fruit and vegetable treatment facilities to
ensure that phytosanitary requirements for imports are being followed.
Response: Treatment facilities are certified and periodically
inspected by APHIS.
Comment: APHIS is proposing to allow tomatoes (Lycopersicon
esculentum) to be imported into the United States from the Almeria
province in Spain, where the tomato yellow leaf curl and gemini viruses
are present. These viruses could be introduced into the United States
through the importation of tomatoes from Almeria.
Response: This rule will allow only tomato fruit from Almeria into
the United States. Tomato fruit is not a vector of either virus.
Comment: APHIS has proposed to require the Spanish Ministry of
Agriculture, Fisheries, and Food (MAFF) to establish a Mediterranean
fruit fly (Medfly) trapping program in order for tomatoes from Almeria,
Spain, to be exported to the United States. MAFF would be required to
begin trapping 2 months prior to the shipping season and continue
trapping until the season's end. APHIS has agreed to allow MAFF to use
the Nadel type trap.
APHIS should require MAFF to use McPhail type traps as well as
Nadel traps in order to better detect female flies (McPhail traps use a
food lure and attract both male and female flies, while Nadel traps use
a sex lure and attract male flies primarily).
Also, possibly, APHIS should require MAFF to use ``sticky'' traps,
which use a no-pest strip to trap flies, rather than Nadel traps, which
use a pesticide. Sticky traps are more effective than Nadel traps.
Also, APHIS should require MAFF to trap all year long. Though the
climate in Almeria is dry and generally inhospitable to the Medfly,
irrigation has altered the environment so that the Medfly might survive
there year round, not just during the tomato growing season.
Response: In the future, it may be prudent to require MAFF to use
McPhail as well as Nadel traps around tomato screenhouses in Almeria.
However, in extremely hot and arid climates, such as in Almeria, the
food lure used in McPhail traps evaporates within a few days and the
trap becomes ineffective. APHIS has yet to resolve this problem. We
believe that the Nadel trap will effectively detect any Medfly
infestations in Almeria, but we will continue to examine the
possibility of requiring the use of the McPhail trap for supplemental
trapping.
In regard to possibly requiring that MAFF use ``sticky'' rather
than Nadel traps in Almeria, tests conducted at our Hawaii Methods
Development Station indicate that Nadel traps are as effective as
``sticky'' traps in detecting Medfly infestations. Therefore, we will
allow MAFF to use the Nadel trap.
We will not require MAFF to trap for Medfly throughout the year in
Almeria. In Almeria, when the tomato shipping season ends in April, the
screenhouses are taken down and nothing is grown until the next season.
As stated above, the climate is arid and hot and there is very little,
if any, indigenous Medfly host material. Furthermore, tomatoes are
grown several kilometers from residential areas, where there may be
host material in the summer. We do not believe that there could be any
Medfly infestation in the tomato growing areas in Almeria outside of
the growing season and therefore will not require MAFF to trap for
Medflies until 2 months prior to the season and through its end, as
stated in the proposal.
Comment: APHIS has not accurately characterized the potential
economic impact on domestic growers of allowing the import of various
fruits and vegetables. Specifically, APHIS has failed to note the
significant economic impact on Florida tomato growers of allowing
tomato imports from Almeria, Spain.
Also, APHIS has underestimated the economic impact on California
artichoke growers of allowing artichoke imports from Argentina and
South Africa. Also, by using the price elasticity for fresh vegetables
in general to determine the impact of artichoke imports on domestic
artichoke prices, APHIS has underestimated the potential economic
impact, especially on California growers.
Response: Spanish officials estimate that tomato imports from
Almeria into the United States will range from 440,000 to 660,000
pounds. These imports will occur from December to April and overlap
Florida's tomato season, which is November through June. If the volume
of tomatoes to be imported from the Almeria Province were to reach
660,000 pounds, it would constitute only about 0.039 percent of
Florida's tomato production for the fresh market (estimated at 1.7
billion pounds in 1993 by the National Agricultural Statistics
Service). We anticipate, therefore, that the economic impact of these
imports on Florida growers will not be significant.
We continue to support our original contention (explained below)
that allowing artichokes to be imported into the United States from
Argentina and South Africa will not have a significant economic impact
on domestic artichoke growers. A price elasticity specifically for
artichokes is not available. Regardless, we anticipate that the maximum
possible artichoke imports from Argentina will constitute less than
one-tenth of one percent of both domestic production and domestic total
supply. Moreover, California growers account for nearly all domestic
artichoke production. Therefore, we anticipate that these imports will
not have a significant economic impact on California growers.
Comment: APHIS has proposed to allow ivy gourd (Coccinia grandis)
from Jamaica to be imported into the United States without recognizing
the pestiferous nature of ivy gourd. The State of Hawaii has declared
ivy gourd to be a noxious weed and established a statewide eradication
program.
Response: We are adopting this provision of the proposal as part of
the final rule without change, as we do not recognize the ivy gourd as
a noxious weed under either the Federal Noxious Weed Act or the Federal
Seed Act. Furthermore, we do not anticipate that ivy gourd from Jamaica
will be imported to Hawaii.
Comment: APHIS is proposing to allow the importation of dasheen
(Colocasia spp., Alocasia spp., and Xanthosoma spp.) from Indonesia
without sampling for exotic nematodes, thus risking the introduction of
exotic nematodes into the United States.
Response: In many tubers, including dasheen, parasitic nematodes
produce symptoms through their feeding on the cellular contents of the
plant; breakdown of tissue is followed by the invasion of secondary
fungi and bacteria, causing necrotic lesions to develop. These necrotic
and decayed tissues are obvious, visible symptoms that an inspector
would look for during an inspection. Therefore, we continue to believe
that, for dasheen, visual inspection is adequate to prevent the
introduction of nematodes.
Comment: APHIS is proposing to allow blueberries (Vaccinium spp.)
to be imported from Ecuador and Peru into the United States after
treatment only for Medfly. APHIS should not allow blueberries from
Ecuador and Peru to be imported until they have undertaken
entomological and pathological studies to determine whether other pests
may be introduced by the imports.
Response: Prior to proposing that blueberries from Ecuador and Peru
be allowed into the United States, APHIS researched the pests
afflicting blueberries in those countries. Results of that research
indicated that blueberries may be imported into the United States after
treatment only for Medfly with little or no risk of introducing exotic
plant pests. We believe that visual inspection of the blueberries by
APHIS upon arrival will detect the presence of any pests other than
Medfly.
Comment: APHIS has proposed to allow fresh litchi (Litchi
chinensis) from Taiwan to be imported into the United States subject to
cold treatment only for fruit flies of the genus Bactrocera and for the
litchi fruit borer, Conopomorpha sinensis. Other exotic pests, not
affected by this treatment, may be introduced, including those which
infest litchi stems and leaves.
Response: Prior to proposing that litchi from Taiwan be allowed
into the United States, APHIS researched the pests afflicting litchi in
Taiwan. Results of that research indicated that litchi from Taiwan may
be imported into the United States after the prescribed cold treatment
with little or no risk of introducing exotic plant pests. We believe
that visual inspection of litchi by APHIS upon arrival will detect the
presence of any pests other than those killed by the treatment. As for
pests afflicting litchi roots and stems, APHIS will only allow litchi
fruit into the United States; litchi stems and leaves will be
prohibited from entering.
Comment: The cold treatment proposed for litchi will not
effectively eradicate infestations of fruit flies of the genus
Bactrocera or the litchi fruit borer, Conopomorpha sinensis.
Furthermore, APHIS needs to specify where cold treatment of fresh
litchi from Taiwan will be conducted.
Response: Research conducted by Taiwanese agricultural agencies,
the results of which were reviewed and confirmed by USDA, show that the
cold treatment proposed for litchi will effectively eradicate
infestations of fruit flies of the genus Bactrocera and the litchi
fruit borer, Conopomorpha sinensis. Also, the regulations under
Sec. 319.56-2d require that fruit and vegetables requiring cold
treatment as a condition of entry into the United States undergo cold
treatment either prior to arriving in the United States or upon arrival
at designated U.S. ports.
Comment: Taiwanese litchi growers currently use pesticides not
approved in the United States. Imported fresh litchi from Taiwan
therefore may contain residues of these pesticides and pose a public
health risk.
Response: The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
samples and tests imported fruit and vegetables for pesticide residues.
If residue of a pesticide unapproved in the United States is found in a
shipment of imported fruit or vegetables, the shipment is denied entry
into the United States.
Comment: APHIS is proposing that cartons in which fresh litchi from
Taiwan are packed must be stamped ``Not for distribution in FL,'' in
order to prevent the introduction of the pest Eriophyes lichtii into
Florida. This safeguard will be ineffective, as shipments of imported
fresh litchi could be repacked upon arrival into the United States and
then diverted into Florida through interstate commerce.
Response: Fresh litchi from Taiwan could be repacked and diverted
into Florida in violation of our regulations. We have no information,
however, supporting or disproving the assertion that this will occur.
We will make every effort to enforce this and all of our regulations.
It would be impractical for APHIS not to promulgate a regulation simply
because it might be violated.
Comment: APHIS has not accurately characterized the potential
economic impact on litchi growers in Florida of allowing fresh litchi
to be imported from Taiwan into the United States.
Response: Based on information recently provided in these comments
and from elsewhere, we have determined that allowing fresh litchi to be
imported into the United States from Taiwan may have a significant
economic impact on litchi growers in Florida. We have performed a more
detailed economic analysis, set forth below. However, APHIS has no
authority to restrict trade based on its potential economic impact.
Comment: APHIS should not allow fresh longan to be imported into
the United States from Taiwan because of the potential introduction of
exotic pests and the possible adverse economic impact on domestic
longan producers.
Response: Fresh longan fruit is not allowed to be imported into the
United States from Taiwan under Sec. 319.56. We have not proposed to
allow fresh longan fruit to be imported into the United States from
Taiwan.
Therefore, based on the rationale set forth in the proposed rule
and in this document, we are adopting, without change, the provisions
of the proposal as a final rule.
Effective Date
This is a substantive rule that relieves restrictions and, pursuant
to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553, may be made effective less than 30
days after publication in the Federal Register. Immediate
implementation of this rule is necessary to provide relief to those
persons who are adversely affected by restrictions we no longer find
warranted. Therefore, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service has determined that this rule should be effective
upon publication in the Federal Register.
Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. The rule
has been determined to be not significant for 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. 601 et seq., we have performed a Final
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, set forth below, regarding the
economic impact of this rule on small entities.
This final rule will amend the regulations governing the
importation of fruits and vegetables by allowing a number of previously
prohibited fruits and vegetables to be imported into the United States
from certain foreign countries and localities under specified
conditions. The importation of these fruits and vegetables has been
prohibited because of the risk that they could introduce injurious
plant pests into the United States. This rule will revise the status of
certain commodities from certain countries and localities, allowing
their importation into the United States for the first time.
These revisions are based on biological risk analyses that were
conducted by APHIS at the request of various importers and foreign
ministries of agriculture. The risk analyses indicate that the fruits
or vegetables listed in this rule, under certain conditions, may be
imported into the United States without significant pest risk. All of
the fruits and vegetables, as a condition of entry, will be subject to
inspection, disinfection, or both, at the port of first arrival as may
be required by a USDA inspector. In addition, some of the fruits and
vegetables will be required to undergo mandatory treatment for fruit
flies or other injurious insects as a condition of entry, or to meet
other special conditions. Thus, this action will provide the United
States with additional kinds and sources of fruits and vegetables while
continuing to provide protection against the introduction into the
United States of injurious plant pests by imported fruits and
vegetables.
Of the fruits and vegetables to be allowed importation into the
United States, domestic production and related import information is
available only for artichokes, asparagus, blueberries, sweet cherries,
dasheens, plums, pink and red tomatoes, and litchi.
We have used both published elasticities and price flexibilities to
estimate the potential economic effects of allowing artichokes,
asparagus, blueberries, sweet cherries, dasheens, plums, and pink and
red tomatoes to be imported into the United States; both examine the
relationship between changes in supply and subsequent changes in price.
Domestic production and import information was not available for
the other commodities that could be imported into the United States as
a result of this action, because these other commodities are not
produced on a large scale domestically. We anticipate, therefore, that
allowing these other commodities to be imported into the United States
will not have a significant economic impact on domestic producers.
Artichokes
In 1987, 67 domestic producers harvested artichokes; all but one
were in California. It is likely that most of these producers would be
classified as small entities using Small Business Administration (SBA)
criteria (annual gross receipts of $0.5 million or less). In 1992,
domestic producers harvested 118 million pounds of artichokes for the
fresh market, with an estimated value of $39.2 million.
This rule will allow artichokes to be imported into the United
States from Argentina and South Africa under certain conditions.
Argentina produces approximately 165 million pounds of artichokes
annually. We estimate that Argentina could export about 44,000 pounds
of artichokes per year over the next 3 years to the United States. This
volume of artichoke imports will constitute about 2.0 percent of
current total imports to the United States, less than 0.10 percent of
current domestic production, and less than 0.10 percent of the current
total artichoke supply in the United States (domestic and imports).
Assuming that a less than 0.10 percent increase in the supply of
artichokes would lead to an approximately 0.12 percent decrease in the
domestic price of artichokes (using the price elasticity for fresh
vegetables, -0.320), we estimate that this increase in supply will
result in a price decrease of about $0.038 per hundredweight (cwt), or
$0.00038 per pound, from an original price of $33.40 per cwt. As a
result of the price decrease, there could be a decrease in the total
revenue of domestic artichoke producers of about $45,000, roughly 0.12
percent of their total revenue of $39.2 million. We anticipate,
therefore, that allowing artichokes to be imported into the United
States from Argentina will not have a significant economic impact on
domestic producers.
Allowing artichokes to be imported from South Africa will have an
even smaller impact on domestic producers. Production data for South
Africa is not available. South Africa's total exports of artichokes
were less than 2,000 pounds in 1991 and less than 700 pounds in 1992.
Even if South Africa exported 2,000 pounds annually to the United
States, which is unlikely, the price decrease would be negligible, as
would be the decrease in total revenue. Therefore, allowing artichokes
to be imported from South Africa also will not have a significant
economic impact on domestic artichoke producers.
Asparagus
In 1987, 3,033 domestic producers harvested asparagus. It is likely
that most of these producers would be classified as small entities by
SBA standards. In 1992, domestic producers harvested 135 million pounds
of asparagus for the fresh market, with an estimated value of $116
million.
This rule will allow asparagus to be imported into the United
States from Thailand under certain conditions. In 1992, Thailand
produced approximately 26.5 million pounds of asparagus and exported
5.5 million pounds. Japan imported 80 percent of Thailand's asparagus
exports (4.4 million pounds), with the remaining 20 percent imported by
five other countries. Currently, there is no reported excess supply of
asparagus in Thailand.
We expect annual asparagus imports into the United States from
Thailand will be minimal, possibly 220,000 pounds, as a result of this
rule. This volume of asparagus would constitute about 0.38 percent of
current total imports to the United States, about 0.16 percent of
current domestic production, and about 0.11 percent of the current
total asparagus supply in the United States.
Assuming that an 0.11 percent increase in the supply of asparagus
would lead to a decrease of about 0.36 percent in the domestic price of
asparagus (using the price elasticity for fresh vegetables, -0.320), we
estimate that this increase in supply would result in a price decrease
of about $0.31 per cwt, or $0.0031 per pound, from an original price of
$86.00 per cwt. As a result of the price decrease, there could be a
decrease in total revenue of domestic asparagus producers of about
$415,000, roughly 0.36 percent of the original total revenue of $116
million. We anticipate, therefore, that allowing asparagus to be
imported from Thailand will not have a significant economic impact on
domestic asparagus producers.
Blueberries
In 1987, 3,911 farms in 36 states harvested 109.4 million pounds of
cultivated blueberries. Additionally, 501 farms in six of the same
states harvested 32.6 million pounds of wild blueberries. It is likely
that most of these producers would be classified as small entities by
SBA standards. In 1992, domestic producers harvested 44.7 million
pounds of blueberries for the fresh market, with an estimated value of
$48.0 million.
This rule will allow blueberries to be imported into the United
States from Ecuador and Peru under certain conditions. Blueberry
production and export data are not available for either Ecuador or
Peru. Blueberries are not a formal crop in either country; they only
grow wild. There is limited local consumption near the production
areas. We anticipate that an insignificant amount of blueberries, if
any, will be exported to the United States from either country as a
resulted of this action. We anticipate, therefore, that allowing
blueberries to be imported from Ecuador and Peru will not have a
significant economic impact on domestic blueberry producers.
Sweet Cherries
In 1987, 7,171 domestic producers harvested sweet cherries. It is
likely that most of these producers would be classified as small
entities by SBA standards. In 1992, domestic producers harvested 191
million pounds of sweet cherries produced for the fresh market, with an
estimated value of $115 million.
This rule will allow sweet cherries to be imported into the United
States from Mexico. In 1992, Mexico produced approximately 225,000
pounds of cherries, both sweet and sour. We anticipate that any cherry
imports from Mexico as a result of this action will be minimal, since
presently, most of Mexico's cherry production is consumed locally.
However, in the unlikely event that Mexico exported into the United
States 225,000 pounds of sweet cherries, it would constitute only about
4.9 percent of current total imports, about 0.12 percent of current
U.S. production and about 0.12 percent of the current total sweet
cherry supply in the United States (domestic and imports).
Assuming that an 0.12 percent increase in the supply of sweet
cherries would lead to a decrease of about 0.054 percent in the
domestic price (using the price flexibility for sweet cherries,
-0.470), we estimate that this increase in supply would result in a
price decrease of about $0.65 per ton, or $0.00032 per pound, from an
original price of $1,200 per ton. As a result of the price decrease,
there could be a decrease in total revenue of sweet cherry producers of
about $62,000, which is roughly 0.054 percent of the original total
revenue of $115 million. Therefore, we anticipate that allowing sweet
cherries to be imported from Mexico will not have a significant
economic impact on domestic sweet cherry producers.
Dasheen (Taro)
In 1987, 191 domestic producers harvested dasheen, 187 in Hawaii.
It is likely that most of these producers would be classified as small
entities by SBA standards. In 1991, domestic producers harvested 7.0
million pounds of dasheen for the fresh market, with an estimated value
of $3.0 million.
This rule will allow dasheen to be imported into the United States
from Indonesia. Production and export data for dasheen are not
available for Indonesia. Dasheen consumption is limited mostly to the
local areas, although Indonesia exports small quantities to Japan, Hong
Kong, Korea, Malaysia, Singapore and Taiwan. We anticipate that very
little, if any, dasheen will be exported to the United States as a
result of this rule. We anticipate, therefore, that allowing dasheen to
be imported from Indonesia will not have a significant economic impact
on domestic dasheen producers.
Plums
In 1987, 8,789 domestic producers harvested plums and prunes. It is
likely that most of these producers would be classified as small
entities by SBA standards. In 1992, domestic producers harvested 537
million pounds of plums and prunes for the fresh market, with an
estimated value of $67.7 million.
This rule will allow plums to be imported into the United States
from Uruguay. Plum production and export data is not available for
Uruguay, and we anticipate that an insignificant amount of plums will
be exported to the United States as a result of this rule.
Consequently, we anticipate that allowing plums to be imported from
Uruguay will not have a significant economic impact on domestic plum
producers.
Tomatoes
In 1987, 14,542 domestic producers harvested tomatoes. It is likely
that most of these producers would be classified as small entities by
SBA standards. In 1992, domestic producers harvested 3.6 billion pounds
of tomatoes for the fresh market, with an estimated value of $1.3
billion.
This rule will allow pink and red tomatoes to be imported into the
United States from the Almeria Province of Spain if they meet with the
stringent growing and shipping requirements outlined above. Annual
production in the Almeria Province of Spain averages between 4.4
million and 6.6 million pounds. Spanish officials anticipate that
annual tomato exports to the United States will range from 440,000 to
660,000 pounds and will occur from December to April.
If the volume of tomatoes to be imported from the Almeria Province
were to reach 660,000 pounds, it would constitute about 0.15 percent of
current total imports to the United States, about 0.018 percent of
current domestic production and about 0.016 percent of the current
total tomato supply in the United States (domestic and imports).
Assuming that an 0.016 percent increase in the supply of tomatoes
would lead to a decrease of about 0.046 percent in the domestic price
(using the price flexibility for tomatoes, -0.355), we estimate that
this increase in supply would result in a price decrease of about
$0.017 per cwt, or $0.00017 per pound, from an original price of $36.30
per cwt. As a result of the price decrease, there could be a decrease
in total revenue of tomato producers of about $600,000, which is
roughly 0.046 percent of the original total revenue of $1.3 billion.
Therefore, we anticipate that allowing pink or red tomatoes to be
imported from Almeria, Spain will not have a significant economic
impact on domestic tomato producers.
Litchi
In 1992, about 205 domestic producers harvested litchi. It is
likely that most of these producers would be classified as small
entities using Small Business Administration (SBA) criteria (annual
gross receipts of $0.5 million or less). In 1992, domestic producers
harvested 685,000 pounds of litchi for the fresh market, with an
estimated value of $1.1 million.
This rule will allow fresh litchi to be imported into the United
States from Taiwan under certain conditions. Taiwan produces
approximately 217 million pounds of litchi annually. In 1993, Taiwan
exported close to 15.5 million pounds of fresh litchi, mainly to Hong
Kong, Canada, Japan, the Philippines, and Singapore. Exports increased
substantially from 1992, when Taiwan exported only 6.6 million pounds
of fresh litchi.
APHIS anticipates that Taiwan could export as much as 21,000 pounds
of fresh litchi into the United States in 1995; this would constitute
only about 19.6 percent of current total imports of fresh litchi, 3.1
percent of current domestic production, and 2.6 percent of current
total litchi supply in the United States. If imports of fresh litchi
from Taiwan remain at such small percentages of domestic production and
total supply, the economic impact on domestic growers will not be
significant.
However, if imports increase to a level comparable to those of
other importing countries (listed above), domestic growers will be
impacted significantly; the amount of fresh litchi imported from Taiwan
could exceed the amount produced domestically and prices could
subsequently decline drastically as a result of the increased supply.
Consumers, however, would benefit from the decreased price and the
enhanced access to fresh litchi.
The aggregate economic impact of this rule is expected to be
positive. U.S. consumers will benefit from a greater availability of
fruits and vegetables. U.S. importers will also benefit from a greater
availability of fruits and vegetables to import. It is not likely that
any U.S. fruit and vegetable producers or other small entities will be
affected in a significant economic way by the easing of importation
restrictions on these particular commodities.
In the course of rulemaking, had we come across evidence indicating
that importation of any of the concerned fruits or vegetables would
pose a significant risk of plant pest introduction, we would have
considered either developing alternative requirements regarding that
importation or continuing to prohibit the importation of that fruit or
vegetable. However, our initial pest risk assessments and our review of
public comments on the proposal indicated that importation of any of
the concerned fruit and vegetables would pose an insignificant risk of
plant pest introduction.
Executive Order 12778
This rule allows certain fruits and vegetables to be imported into
the United States from certain parts of the world. State and local laws
and regulations regarding the importation of fruits and vegetables
under this rule will be preempted while the fruits and vegetables are
in foreign commerce. Fresh fruits and vegetables are generally imported
for immediate distribution and sale to the consuming public, and will
remain in foreign commerce until sold to the ultimate consumer. The
question of when foreign commerce ceases in other cases must be
addressed on a case-by-case basis. No retroactive effect will be given
to this rule, and this rule will not require administrative proceedings
before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.
National Environmental Policy Act
An environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact
have been prepared for this rule. The assessment provides a basis for
the conclusion that the importation of fruits and vegetables under the
conditions specified in this rule will not present a risk of
introducing or disseminating plant pests and will not have a
significant impact on the quality of the human environment. Based on
the finding of no significant impact, the Administrator of the Animal
and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that an
environmental impact statement need not be prepared.
The environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact
were prepared in accordance with: (1) The National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), (2) Regulations of the
Council on Environmental Quality for Implementing the Procedural
Provisions of NEPA (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508), (3) USDA Regulations
Implementing NEPA (7 CFR Part 1b), and (4) APHIS Guidelines
Implementing NEPA (44 FR 50381-50384, August 28, 1979, and 44 FR 51272-
51274, August 31, 1979).
Copies of the environmental assessment and finding of no
significant impact are available for public inspection at USDA, room
1141, South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC, between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except holidays. In addition, copies may be obtained by writing to the
individual listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.), the information collection or recordkeeping requirements
included in this final rule will be submitted for approval to the
Office of Management and Budget.
List of Subjects
7 CFR Part 300
Incorporation by reference, Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine.
7 CFR Part 319
Bees, Coffee, Cotton, Fruits, Honey, Imports, Incorporation by
reference, Nursery stock, Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rice, Vegetables.
Accordingly, title 7, chapter III, of the Code of Federal
Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 300--INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
1. The authority citation for part 300 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 150ee, 154, 161, 162, 167; 7 CFR 2.17, 2.51,
and 371.2(c).
2. In Sec. 300.1, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 300.1 Materials incorporated by reference.
(a) The Plant Protection and Quarantine Treatment Manual, which was
revised and reprinted November 30, 1992, and includes all revisions
through August 25, 1994, has been approved for incorporation by
reference in 7 CFR chapter III by the Director of the Office of the
Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
* * * * *
PART 319--FOREIGN QUARANTINE NOTICES
3. The authority citation for part 319 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 150dd, 150ee, 150ff, 151-167, 450; 21 U.S.C.
136 and 136a; 7 CFR 2.17, 2.51, and 371.2(c).
4. In Sec. 319.56-2t, the table is amended by adding, in
alphabetical order, the following:
Sec. 319.56-2t Administrative instructions: conditions governing the
entry of certain fruits and vegetables.
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Country/locality Common name Botanical name Plant part(s)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Argentina........ Artichoke, globe. Cynara scolymus. Immature flower
head.
* * * * * * *
Belize
* * * * * * *
Mint............. Mentha spp...... Above ground
parts.
* * * * * * *
Indonesia........ Dasheen.......... Colocasia spp., Tuber
Alocasia spp., (Prohibited
and Xanthosoma entry into Guam
spp. due to dasheen
mosaic virus.
Cartons in
which dasheen
is packed must
be stamped
``Not for
distribution in
Guam.'')
* * * * * * *
Jamaica
* * * * * * *
Ivy gourd........ Coccinia grandis Fruit.
* * * * * * *
Pointed gourd.... Trichosanthes Fruit.
dioica.
* * * * * * *
Mexico
* * * * * * *
Tepeguaje........ Leucaena spp.... Fruit.
* * * * * * *
Peru............. Arugula.......... Eruca sativa.... Leaf and stem.
* * * * * * *
Chervil.......... Anthriscus spp.. Leaf and stem.
* * * * * * *
Lemongrass....... Cymbopogon spp.. Leaf and stem.
Mustard greens... Brassica juncea. Leaf.
* * * * * * *
South Africa..... Artichoke, globe. Cynara scolymus. Immature flower
head.
* * * * * * *
Spain............ Tomato........... Lycopersicon Green fruit
esculentum. (pink or red
fruit from
Almeria
Province may be
imported only
in accordance
with Sec.
319.56-2dd).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
5. In Sec. 319.56-2t, the table is amended for the Cook Islands and
South Korea entries, under the heading Plant Part(s), by adding a
sentence to each as follows:
Sec. 319.56-2t Administrative instructions: conditions governing the
entry of certain fruits and vegetables.
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Country/locality Common name Botanical name Plant part(s)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Cook Islands
* * * * * * *
Ginger........... ***............. *** Cartons in
which ginger is
packed must be
stamped ``Not
for
distribution in
PR, VI, or
Guam.'')
* * * * * * *
South Korea
* * * * * * *
Dasheen.......... ***............. *** Cartons in
which dasheen
is packed must
be stamped
``Not for
distribution in
Guam.''
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
6. In Sec. 319.56-2t, the table is amended for the Israel and
Mexico entries, under the heading Common name, by removing the word
``Garden Rocket'' from both entries and adding ``Arugula'' in its place
in both entries.
7. In Sec. 319.56-2x, paragraph (a), the table is amended by
adding, in alphabetical order, the following:
Sec. 319.56-2x Administrative instructions: conditions governing the
entry of certain fruits and vegetables for which treatment is required.
(a) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Country/locality Common name Botanical name Plant part(s)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Ecuador.......... Blueberry........ Vaccinium spp... Fruit.
* * * * * * *
Israel........... Cactus........... Opuntia spp..... Fruit.
* * * * * * *
Mexico........... Cherry........... Prunus avium.... Fruit.
* * * * * * *
Peru............. Blueberry........ Vaccinium spp... Fruit.
Taiwan........... Litchi........... Litchi chinensis Fruit
(Prohibited
entry into
Florida due to
Eriophyes
litchii.
Cartons in
which litchi
are packed must
be stamped
``Not for
distribution in
FL'').
* * * * * * *
Thailand......... Asparagus........ Asparagus Shoot.
officinalis.
Uruguay.......... Plum............. Prunus domestica Fruit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
8. A new Sec. 319.56-2dd is added to read as follows:
Sec. 319.56-2dd Administrative instructions: conditions governing the
entry of pink or red tomatoes from Spain.
(a) Pink or red tomatoes (fruit) (Lycopersicon esculentum) from
Spain may be imported into the United States only under the following
conditions:
(1) The tomatoes must be grown in the Almeria 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 shall
immediately cancel exports from that greenhouse until the source of
infestation is determined, all Medflies are 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 or if the single Medfly has been
introduced accidentally. Capture of two Medflies within 2 kilometers of
a registered greenhouse and within a 1 month time period shall cancel
exports from all registered greenhouses within 2 kilometers of the
find, until the source of infestation is determined and all Medflies
are eradicated;
(5) The tomatoes must be packed within 24 hours of harvest. They
must be safeguarded by a flyproof mesh screen or plastic tarpaulin
while in transit to the packing house and while awaiting packing, and
packed in flyproof containers for transit to the airport and subsequent
shipping to the United States.
(6) MAFF is responsible for export certification inspection and
issuance of phytosanitary certificates. A phytosanitary certificate
issued by MAFF and bearing the following declaration, ``These tomatoes
were grown in registered greenhouses in Almeria Province in Spain,''
must accompany the shipment.
(b) [Reserved]
Done in Washington, DC, this 19th day of August 1994.
Terry L. Medley,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 94-20989 Filed 8-24-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P