Federal Register, Volume 66 Issue 167 (Tuesday, August 28, 2001)

[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 167 (Tuesday, August 28, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 45151-45161]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-21641]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.

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

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 28, 2001 /
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 45151]]

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

7 CFR Parts 300 and 319

[Docket No. 00-006-2]

Importation of Fruits and Vegetables

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are amending the fruits and vegetables regulations to list
a number of fruits and vegetables from certain parts of the world as
eligible, under specified conditions, for importation into the United
States. All of the fruits and vegetables, as a condition of entry, will
be inspected and subject to disinfection 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 be
treated or 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 of injurious plant pests by imported fruits and
vegetables.
We are also recognizing the Department of Peten in Guatemala and
all Districts in Belize as areas free of the Mediterranean fruit fly.
This action will relieve import restrictions while continuing to
prevent the introduction of plant pests into the United States.

DATES: This regulation is effective August 28, 2001. The incorporation
by reference of the material described in the rule is approved by the
Director of the Federal Register as of August 28, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donna L. West, Import Specialist,
Phytosanitary Issues Management Team, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit
140, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; (301) 734-6799.

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 fruit flies and other
injurious plant pests that are new to or not widely distributed within
the United States.
On August 21, 2000, we published in the Federal Register (65 FR
50655-50666, Docket No. 00-0061-1) a proposal to amend the regulations
to list a number of fruits and vegetables from certain parts of the
world as eligible, under specified conditions, for importation into the
United States. In the proposal, we also proposed to declare Los Cabos
and La Paz, Baja California Sur, Mexico, as fruit fly-free areas, and
to declare Belize and the Department of Peten, Guatemala, as areas free
of the Mediterranean fruit fly (Medfly). We proposed these actions at
the request of various importers and foreign ministries of agriculture,
and after conducting pest risk analyses \1\ that indicated these
actions could be taken without significant risk of introducing plant
pests into the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ Information on these pest risk analyses and any other pest
risk analysis referred to in this document may be obtained by
writing to the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
or by calling the Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) fax vault at
301-734-3560.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since the publication of the proposed rule, the Government of
Mexico has reported infestations of the West Indian fruit fly
(Anastrepha obliqua) in both the Los Cabos and La Paz areas of the
State of Baja California Sur, Mexico. We are therefore, withdrawing our
proposal to list those areas as fruit fly-free areas under the
regulations in Sec. 319.56-2(h).
Also, on March 14, 2001, a single female Medfly was found in a
Jackson trap in the village of Placencia in the Stann Creek District of
Belize. Since March 14, the Belize Agriculture Health Authority (BAHA)
has increased trapping around the area where the Medfly was detected.
Further, BAHA has removed available Medfly host material (including
guavas and cashews) from trees in Placencia. No additional Medflies
have been trapped to date. Based on the lack of further detections,
BAHA and APHIS believe that there is not a reproducing Medfly
population in the Placencia area. Therefore, we are making no changes
to our proposal to list all of Belize as Medfly-free under the
regulations in Sec. 319.56-2(j).
We solicited comments concerning our proposal for 60 days ending
October 20, 2000. We received 82 comments by that date. They were from
producers, exporters, researchers, and representatives of State and
foreign governments. Seventy-five commenters generally supported the
rule. Seven commenters expressed concerns about some aspect of the
proposed rule. Their concerns are discussed below by topic.

Papaya Systems Approach

We proposed to amend the regulations in Sec. 319.56-2w (referred to
below as the papaya systems approach) by adding several areas in
Central America to the list of locations eligible to export papayas to
the United States in accordance with the papaya systems approach.
Comment: The listing of areas in proposed Sec. 319.56-2w(a) is
meaningless in terms of mitigating pest risk because there are large
populations of Medfly in those areas.
Response: We did not intend for that list of areas to serve as a
mitigating measure against the introduction of Medfly or other pests.
Rather, the list of areas in Sec. 319.56-2w(a) is necessary to identify
those areas that are eligible to export papayas to the United States
under the papaya systems approach.
Comment: Fully green papayas have been reported to harbor Medfly.
Therefore, APHIS must provide data that demonstrate otherwise.
Response: Research conducted by officials in Brazil, Costa Rica,
and Hawaii regarding the susceptibility of papaya at various stages of
ripeness to infestation with fruit flies was critically reviewed by
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) personnel and found to be
satisfactory. The research demonstrates that less than one-half ripe
papayas (shell surface no more than one-quarter yellow, surrounded by
light green) are not a host for Medfly or South American fruit fly.
Further, field and cage tests conducted in Costa Rica and Brazil
demonstrate that fully ripe

[[Page 45152]]

papayas are not a preferred host of Medfly or South American fruit fly.
In field tests in Costa Rica, papayas were purposely left on trees
so that all stages of ripeness were represented at all times, and
fields growing papayas for survey were not treated with pesticides.
Approximately 100,000 papayas were examined over the course of 3 years.
No Anastrepha spp. fruit flies were found in any of the papayas, even
in almost fully ripe fruits, and no Medflies were found in papayas that
were less than three-quarters ripe. In those 100,000 papayas, only 6
Medfly larvae were found in fruit that was three-quarters ripe or more.
Those six larvae, plus trap catches in the areas where research was
conducted in Costa Rica, indicate that Medflies were present in the
area, but that Medflies do not prefer papayas, especially papayas that
are less than one-half ripe.
In forced tests in Costa Rica, no Medfly or Anastrepha spp. larvae
were found in papayas that were green to quarter-ripe, and only one
larva was found in a half-ripe papaya.
Further, in a study conducted in Brazil, more than 100,000 papayas
of all ripeness degrees, green to fully ripe (entirely yellow), were
collected in commercial groves in Espirito Santo. Under these natural
conditions, none of the papayas, not even fully ripe papayas, contained
fruit fly larvae. Under forced conditions (e.g., cage tests, where
Medfly and South American fruit fly are confined in cages with ripening
papayas), Medfly and South American fruit fly only attacked fully ripe
papayas. Therefore, we are confident that papayas that are less than
one-half ripe present a negligible risk of introducing Medfly or South
American fruit fly into the United States.
Comment: Trap catches of 7 or more Medflies per trap per week
indicate the presence of a sizable Medfly population, and trap catches
of 14 Medflies per week are well beyond acceptable levels to continue
harvesting fruits for export. Control measures must be initiated at
much lower levels.
Response: As stated above, research shows that papayas that are
less than one-half ripe are not a host of Medfly. The trapping
requirements of the systems approach guard against ``high infestation
pressure'' in production fields, and each farm's weekly average of
Medfly captures per trap will be individually calculated. In the
systems approach, there are specific requirements for the placement,
types, and monitoring of fruit fly traps in papaya production fields.
Specifically, we require that beginning at least 1 year before harvest
begins and continuing through the completion of harvest, fruit fly
traps must be maintained in the field where the papayas are grown. The
traps must be placed at a rate of one trap per hectare and must be
checked for fruit flies at least once weekly by plant health officials
of the national plant protection organization. Fifty percent of the
traps must be of the McPhail type, and 50 percent of the traps must be
of the Jackson type.
The systems approach identifies trapping thresholds that will
trigger action if the Medfly population in a papaya production area is
too large. Specifically, in order to monitor the Medfly levels in
commercial papaya production areas, we require that if the average
Jackson trap catch is greater than seven Medflies per trap per week,
measures, which may include Malathion bait sprays or other chemical
sprays, must be taken to control the Medfly population in the
production area. If the average Jackson trap catch exceeds 14 Medflies
per trap per week, importations of papayas from that production area
will be halted until the rate of capture drops to an average of 7 or
fewer Medflies per trap per week.
These thresholds for Medfly trapping help detect increasing
populations of these fruit flies in growing areas and help ensure that
these fruit flies are not associated with imports of papayas.
Comment: The proposed papaya program in Guatemala should be run as
a preclearance program, and APHIS should be present to supervise
treatments of papayas.
Response: APHIS operates preclearance programs when they are
determined necessary to mitigate pest risks identified by a pest risk
assessment. In the case of papayas imported from Guatemala, APHIS has
determined that it need not supervise firms authorized to export
papayas to the United States under the systems approach because
Guatemala has the infrastructure and expertise necessary to run the
program in accordance with APHIS' regulations. However, APHIS personnel
make periodic, often unannounced, inspections of papaya production and
processing areas that are eligible to export papayas under the systems
approach. The intent of these inspections is to ensure that growers and
processors are operating in compliance with all applicable APHIS
regulations.
Comment: Persons producing and shipping papayas under the systems
approach have a built-in incentive to ``cheat'' on the hot water
treatment since such treatment may hurt the fruits' shelf life.
Response: We agree that treatment may have an adverse effect on the
quality of papayas. However, each individual measure required under the
regulations is not intended to act as a stand-alone treatment for
Medfly, South American fruit fly, or any other pest. The measures are
overlapping, redundant safeguards that collectively form a systems
approach to the importation of papayas from Brazil, Costa Rica, El
Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama. Therefore, we
believe the systems approach protects against the risks resulting from
an occasional inadequately treated shipment of papayas. This is to say
that, even in the event that a shipment of papayas is not treated
properly, we believe that the other mitigating measures employed by the
systems approach will be adequate to protect against the shipment being
infested with fruit flies. The requirement that all shipments of
papayas imported under the systems approach must be accompanied by a
phytosanitary certificate issued by the national plant protection
organization of the region of origin that states that the papayas were
grown, packed, and shipped in accordance with the systems approach
regulations provides assurance that papayas were treated in accordance
with APHIS requirements.
Further, as a precautionary measure, in order to ensure that
growers who export papayas to the United States under the systems
approach are treating fruits properly, APHIS monitors the treatment of
papayas through examination of fruit at the port of arrival in the
United States. To date, these efforts have proven effective, as there
have been no reported interceptions of fruit fly-infested papayas
imported under the systems approach from Costa Rica or Brazil.
Comment: Other safeguards are more effective in preventing insect
infestation in papaya than hot water treatment. APHIS should consider
requiring the use of a fruit washing system and intensified checking of
fruits during selection and packaging. Such requirements would likely
be more effective in ensuring papayas' freedom from fruit flies. Hot
water treatment is costly, has minimal benefits in the context of the
program, and should be made an optional safeguard.
Response: As described above, each individual measure required
under the systems approach is not intended to act as a stand-alone
treatment for Medfly, South American fruit fly, or any other pest.
However, we believe that the required hot water is an essential part of
the systems approach, and is necessary

[[Page 45153]]

to minimize the pest risk associated with the importation of papayas
under the systems approach. Specifically, the hot water treatment is
particularly useful in mitigating the pest risk that could result if
fruit flies lay eggs in papayas immediately before harvest. Further,
any consideration of alternative safeguards to be used in the systems
approach would have to be based on risk assessment, and would need to
be the subject of another rulemaking action.
Comment: APHIS should amend the systems approach to allow riper
fruit to be eligible for export.
Response: As stated above, research has shown that papayas in any
stage of ripeness are not a preferred host for Medfly or South American
fruit fly, and papayas that are less than one-half ripe are not a host
for Medfly or South American fruit fly. Given that papayas that are
more than one-half ripe could be hosts (albeit not preferred hosts) for
fruit flies, we will continue to prohibit the importation under the
systems approach of papayas that are not less than one-half ripe.
Comment: APHIS should include additional areas in Guatemala as
eligible to export papayas to the United States under the systems
approach.
Response: Persons who wish to have areas added to the list of areas
eligible to export papayas to the United States under the systems
approach must submit a formal request to the APHIS representative for
their region, and should be prepared to provide APHIS with at least 1
year's worth of fruit fly trapping data for the area to be considered.
We are not making any changes in response to this comment because any
additions to the list of areas eligible to export papayas under the
systems approach regulations must go through notice and comment
rulemaking under the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act.
Comment: APHIS should include the Tainung variety of papaya as a
fruit eligible for importation into the United States under the papaya
systems approach.
Response: Again, we are not making any changes in response to this
comment because any additions to the list of fruits eligible for
importation into the United States must go through notice and comment
rulemaking. Persons or regions wishing to export commodities to the
United States may submit all available data on the commodity, including
pest risk assessments, to the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

Fruit Fly-free Areas

Comment: It is likely impossible to know that Belize and the
Department of Peten, Guatemala, are free of Medflies, and that all of
Baja California Sur, Mexico, is free of fruit flies due to the physical
impossibility of surveying the entire areas. Trapping cannot definitely
prove that an area is fruit fly-free, but only that populations are
below certain detectable levels.
Response: The national plant protection organizations of Belize,
Guatemala, and Mexico conduct fruit fly trapping surveys throughout the
fruit-fly free areas. Traps are located in close proximity to all areas
where fruit fly host material is located, including commercial growing
areas that produce fruit fly host material for export to the United
States and backyards that contain fruit fly hosts.
We agree that trapping results cannot definitely prove with
absolute certainty that a given area is fruit fly-free, even if no
fruit flies are trapped within the area. However, trapping is the
preferred method used to by most countries to determine if there are
fruit fly populations present in a given area.
As stated earlier in this document, since the publication of the
proposed rule, there have been several trap catches of the West Indian
fruit fly (Anastrepha obliqua) in the municipalities of Los Cabos and
La Paz, Baja California Sur, in Mexico. Given the recent detections in
those areas, we are withdrawing our proposal to declare Los Cabos and
La Paz as municipalities in Baja California Sur, Mexico, that are fruit
fly-free under the regulations in Sec. 319.56-2(h).
Comment: Since the areas in Mexico, Belize, and Guatemala proposed
to be designated as fruit fly-free areas in Secs. 319.56-2(h) and (j)
are adjacent to areas with large fruit fly populations, the regulations
should include detailed requirements for quarantine protection,
continuous monitoring, and provisions for removing listed areas if the
requirements are not met.
Response: In accordance with the regulations in Sec. 319.56-2(f),
before an area can be listed as fruit fly-free, the Administrator of
APHIS must determine that:
Within the past 12 months, the plant protection service of
the country of origin has established the absence of infestations of
fruit flies in the definite area or district based on surveys performed
in accordance with requirements approved by the Administrator as
adequate to detect such infestations;
The country of origin has adopted and is enforcing
requirements to prevent the introduction of fruit flies into the
definite area or district of the country of origin that are deemed by
the Administrator to be at least equivalent to those requirements
imposed under APHIS' regulations to prevent the introduction into the
United States and interstate spread of fruit flies; and
The plant protection service of the country of origin has
submitted to the Administrator written detailed procedures for the
conduct of surveys and the enforcement of the requirements in
Sec. 319.56-2 to prevent the introduction of fruit flies.
In accordance with these requirements, vehicles entering fruit fly-
free areas in Mexico, Belize, or Guatemala are stopped and inspected
for fruit fly host material. Any fruit fly host material that is
brought into free areas must be treated for fruit flies. Further, the
governments of Mexico, Belize, and Guatemala conduct trapping surveys
in and around fruit fly-free areas to monitor for the presence of fruit
fly or Medfly populations in those areas. APHIS closely monitors the
trapping data to verify that these areas do not contain active fruit
fly populations.
Comment: APHIS is recognizing Belize as free of Medfly, yet Belize
did not have to follow the same procedure and provide as much
information as Guatemala did. Why?
Response: Belize provided APHIS with the same kinds of trapping
data and descriptions of pest-control infrastructure as Guatemala did
and was subject to the same approval process as Guatemala. Copies of
the documentation submitted by each country can be obtained by
contacting the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Comment: Chile is not Medfly-free. An active infestation is present
in Santiago.
Response: Since the publication of the proposed rule, the national
plant protection organization of Chile has reported the presence of
Medfly in the Provinces of Arica, Iquique, and Parinacota. In response
to these reports, we will soon be publishing an interim rule to remove
those provinces from the list of Medfly-free areas in Chile.
Comment: Why are papayas from Belize and the Department of Peten,
Guatemala, not allowed into Hawaii if they are allowed into the rest of
the United States without treatment for Medfly?
Response: The papaya fruit fly, which is a pest of quarantine
significance for Hawaii, is known to exist in Belize and Guatemala.
Given that Hawaii is the United States' largest producer of papaya, we
prohibit the entry into

[[Page 45154]]

Hawaii of papayas from regions where the papaya fruit fly is known to
exist to protect against the introduction of the papaya fruit fly into
that State.

Mangoes From Mexico

Comment: Mangoes from Mexico are not always treated properly, and
interceptions of live larvae have occurred at border ports. These
interceptions cast doubt on the effectiveness of the mango preclearance
program.
Response: In response to recent fruit fly interceptions in treated
mangoes from Mexico, APHIS has conducted a review of the mango
preclearance program in Mexico. APHIS also requested that the
Agricultural Research Service (ARS) review the authorized hot water
treatment for mangoes imported from Mexico and to determine whether
post-treatment hydrocooling of the mangoes compromised the efficacy of
the treatment. The authorized treatment did not specifically require or
forbid the use of hydrocooling, and hydrocooling has been employed in
Mexico in an effort to preserve the appearance and taste of treated
mangoes.
An ARS report completed in February 2001 states that hydrocooling
immediately after hot water treatment does indeed compromise treatment
efficacy. The report also states that treatment efficacy can be
maintained by requiring cooling of fruits in air for 30 minutes after
the completion of hot water treatment, after which the fruit could be
hydrocooled. Based on the ARS report, we are planning to publish a
proposed rule that would amend the existing hot water treatment
schedule for mangoes from certain areas, including Mexico. Copies of
the ARS report are available by contacting the person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
In addition to the review of the treatment for mangoes, APHIS also
evaluated additional facets of the mango production process that we had
not previously monitored. In our evaluation, we found additional
factors that may have contributed to the infestations of mangoes
offered for entry into the United States, including inadequate trapping
surveys, improper fruit selection, and deficiencies in fruit-cutting
examinations conducted prior to the treatment of mangoes at various
production and processing areas in Mexico. In response to these issues,
APHIS will be monitoring these activities throughout Mexico to ensure
against further introductions of fruit flies into the United States.
Comment: APHIS should not transfer oversight of the existing mango
preclearance program to Mexico, given the recent interceptions of fruit
flies in mangoes from Mexico, especially since APHIS supervised the
treatment of those mangoes. Given the number of interceptions, the
program should have been shut down.
Response: As stated above, we believe the recent fruit fly
interceptions at the border were attributable to the use of
hydrocooling immediately after the authorized hot water treatment and
problems with other pretreatment pest management issues--not with
APHIS' or others' oversight of the treatment. With the revised
treatment protocol described above in place, and with the additional
monitoring of production and processing described above, we believe
there is no reason to expect any further fruit fly interceptions in
treated mangoes from Mexico, regardless of who supervises the
treatments. Therefore, we are making no changes in response to this
comment.
Comment: Given the change of the mango program in Mexico from a
preclearance program to a national certification program, is APHIS
prepared to apply the equivalency principle to other countries with
similar programs?
Response: Yes, APHIS will consider requests that would result in
the transfer of an existing preclearance program to the national plant
protection organization of a particular country. For each such request,
we would publish a proposed rule in the Federal Register and solicit
public comment on the proposed transfer of certification authority. We
would propose such actions only after determining that the national
plant protection organization of the exporting region has the
infrastructure and expertise necessary to conduct the export program in
accordance with APHIS' regulations. Further, APHIS would still monitor
such operations, and would make periodic inspections of treatment
facilities to ensure compliance with APHIS' regulations.
Comment: Has APHIS studied the correlation between live fruit fly
finds and the presence of full-time APHIS inspectors at each treatment
facility and/or APHIS inspectors covering a number of facilities? Were
these studies considered in developing the proposed rule?
Response: APHIS has not conducted such a study, nor was such a
study considered in the development of the proposed rule. However, in
any case when APHIS allows a foreign plant protection agency to certify
treatments required by APHIS, such a decision is typically based on a
combination of prior experience working with the plant protection
organization of the affected country and risk. In short, APHIS
maintains a presence in exporting regions only if APHIS' presence is
necessary to ensure that commodities to be exported to the United
States are free of quarantine pests and diseases.

Carambola From Mexico

Comment: APHIS should supervise cold treatment of carambolas from
Mexico and should specify in the regulations the exact level of APHIS
supervision that will be required. There is a built-in incentive for
Mexico to ``cheat'' on cold-treatment of carambolas. Cold treatment for
11 days or more causes significant damage to carambolas, and damage
worsens as temperature is lowered and duration increased.
Response: APHIS will monitor the treatment of carambolas from
Mexico to ensure that the treatments are performed in accordance with
the PPQ Treatment Manual. An APHIS representative will typically be
present when treatment begins and when treatment ends, and will review
the temperature readings recorded during the treatment that are
required to be kept by the treatment facility in accordance with the
PPQ Treatment Manual.
Further, treatment facilities that treat carambolas under the
regulations are required to be certified by, and must operate under a
compliance agreement with, APHIS. Shipments of carambolas that are
treated at facilities that do not meet the requirements will be refused
entry into the United States.
Comment: Increased imports of carambolas from Mexico would hurt
U.S. carambola producers.
Response: In our initial regulatory flexibility analysis for our
August 21, 2000, proposed rule, we stated that there were no data
available regarding production of carambolas in the United States, and
Mexico's Center for Agricultural Statistics does not believe that there
are any commercial carambola production areas in Mexico. Based on the
lack of available data, we stated that imports of carambola from Mexico
would be unlikely to have any measurable economic effect on U.S.
producers or consumers. However, since the proposed rule was published,
we have gathered additional information related to domestic carambola
production. The information is discussed below in our final regulatory
flexibility analysis.

Inspection of Fruits and Vegetables

Comment: In the proposed rule, APHIS states that pest risk analyses

[[Page 45155]]

indicate potential pests of passion fruit, kiwi, carambola, and lettuce
that are not ``treated for'' would be readily detectable by an
inspector. There are two problems with this statement:
1. Representatives from APHIS have publicly stated that many pests
are extremely difficult to detect in a high-volume setting such as a
port of entry.
2. APHIS examines only a tiny volume of products imported into the
United States.
Response: The fruits cited by the commenter would be allowed to
enter the United States from certain countries if treated in accordance
with the PPQ Treatment Manual for certain pests.
In conducting a risk assessment for each of these fruits, APHIS
identified the pests of concern that could be associated with each
particular imported commodity. APHIS then considered the damage each
pest could cause and the likelihood of each pest being introduced into
the United States via the imported commodity and assigned each pest a
risk level of high, medium, or low. APHIS then determined what, if any,
mitigating measures (e.g., treatments) are available to address the
risks presented by the identified pests of concern. APHIS does not
typically require additional mitigation measures other than inspection
at the port of arrival for pests that are identified as low risk
according to risk assessment.
The commenter is correct that APHIS inspects only a portion of
imported products. However, APHIS does inspect at least a small portion
of every documented shipment of plant products that is imported into
the United States, and randomly selects fruits and vegetables from each
shipment for inspection.

Eggplant and Watermelon From Spain

Comment: Eggplant and watermelon should be packaged in pest-proof
containers when being moved from commercial growing locations.
Response: APHIS requires that certain commodities from certain
areas to be packaged in pest-proof containers prior to movement from
production areas in the region of origin to ensure that the commodities
are not vulnerable to pest infestation during transit from the
production area to the United States. However, APHIS does not believe
that such controls are necessary to protect eggplant and watermelon
from Spain. These commodities are not hosts to pests of quarantine
significance in the United States.

Peppers From New Zealand

Comment: Peppers can be host to serious plant pests, including
Helicoverpa armigera Hubner and Spodoptera litura Fabricus. The risk of
introducing these pests is too great to allow the importation of
peppers from New Zealand.
Response: As stated in our proposed rule, in order to protect
against the introduction of H. armigera and S. litura, we are requiring
that the peppers be grown in insect-proof greenhouses approved by the
New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF). We are
requiring the greenhouses to be equipped with double self-closing doors
and that any vents or openings in the greenhouses (other than the
double closing doors) be covered with 0.6 mm screening in order to
prevent the entry of pests into the greenhouse. We are also requiring
that these greenhouses be examined periodically by MAF to ensure that
the screens are intact.
In order to verify that these conditions are being met in New
Zealand, we are requiring peppers from New Zealand to be accompanied by
a phytosanitary certificate of inspection stating that the peppers were
grown in greenhouses in accordance with the above conditions.
We believe that these conditions, as well as all other applicable
requirements in Sec. 319.56-6, will be adequate to prevent the
introduction of plant pests into the United States with peppers
imported from New Zealand.

Miscellaneous Comments

Comment: ``Cuke-asaurus''^TM horned fruit from Chile
should be added to the list of fruits that are eligible, under
specified conditions, for importation into the United States.
Response: As noted previously, any additions to the list of fruits
eligible for importation into the United States must be the subject of
notice and comment rulemaking. Persons or regions wishing to export
commodities to the United State may submit all available data on the
commodity, including pest risk assessments, to the person listed under
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Comment: The proposed rule contains a mistake: Mangoes should not
be included in the list of fruits eligible for importation without
treatment for fruit fly (if from fruit fly-free areas).
Response: In our proposed rule, we specifically proposed to add
mangoes to the list of fruits that may be imported from areas listed in
Sec. 319.56-2(h) without treatment for fruit flies, since no species of
fruit fly known to attack mango exists in any of the areas listed in
Sec. 319.56-2(h). Mangoes from the areas listed in Sec. 319.56-2(h) do
not present a risk of fruit fly introduction.
Therefore, for the reasons given in the proposed rule and in this
document, we are adopting the proposed rule as a final rule, with the
changes discussed in this document.

Effective Date

This is a substantive rule that relieves restrictions and, pursuant
to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553, may be made effective less than 30
days after publication in the Federal Register.
This rule relieves restrictions on the importation of certain
fruits and vegetables from certain countries while continuing to
protect against the introduction of plant pests into the United States.
Immediate implementation of this rule is necessary to provide relief to
those persons who are adversely affected by restrictions we no longer
find warranted. Making this rule effective immediately will allow
interested producers, importers, shippers, and others to benefit
immediately from the relieved restrictions. 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 the purposes of Executive
Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 604, we have performed a final
regulatory flexibility analysis, which is set out below, regarding the
economic effects of this rule on small entities.
This final rule amends the fruits and vegetables regulations to
list a number of fruits and vegetables from certain parts of the world
as eligible, under specified conditions, for importation into the
United States. All of the fruits and vegetables, as a condition of
entry, will be inspected and subject to such disinfection 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 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. This final
rule will also recognize the Department of Peten,

[[Page 45156]]

Guatemala, and all Districts in Belize as areas free of the
Mediterranean fruit fly.
We have used all available data to estimate the potential economic
effects of allowing these fruits and vegetables to be imported into the
United States. However, some of the data we believe would be helpful in
making this determination have not been available. Specifically, data
are not available on: (1) The quantity of specific fruits and
vegetables produced domestically; (2) the quantity of potential
imports; and (3) the degree to which imported fruits and vegetables
will displace existing imported or domestic products. In our proposed
rule, we invited commenters to provide such data. However, we did not
receive any comments providing the kinds of data we requested. We did,
however, receive one comment related to our analysis of the effects of
importing carambolas from Mexico. That comment is discussed earlier in
this document under the heading Carambola from Mexico. We have updated
our analysis related to carambola from Mexico (see below).

Effects on Small Entities

Data on the number and size of U.S. producers of the various
commodities that may be imported into the United States under this
final rule are not available. However, since most fruit and vegetable
farms are small by Small Business Administration (SBA) standards, it is
likely that the majority of U.S. farms producing the commodities
examined below are small entities. The potential economic effects of
this final rule are discussed below by commodity and country of origin.

Oregano and Marjoram From Argentina

There are no data available regarding production of oregano and
marjoram in the United States. Argentina claims to produce
approximately 800 tons of oregano per year, but only exports 20 to 60
tons of that amount. It is likely that some of those exports could be
diverted to the United States. However, it is unlikely that Argentina
will increase its production of oregano, so any exports to the United
States will likely be minimal and will not have any significant
economic effect on U.S. producers, whether small or large, or on
consumers. Data on production of marjoram by Argentina are not
available. We are, therefore, unable to determine the effect this final
rule will have on U.S. producers or consumers of marjoram.

Cole and Mustard Crops (Brassica species) From Costa Rica and Honduras

The United States produced 1.37 million tons of Brassica spp. in
1997 and exported 46,212 tons and imported 40,604 tons in 1999. Any
imports of Brassica spp. from Costa Rica that could result from this
final rule are likely to be only a small fraction of domestic
production and have a negligible economic effect on domestic producers
and consumers. Honduras produced 259 tons of cole crops in 1998 and
exported 171 tons to other Central American countries. Honduras could
potentially expand production and export up to 330 tons to the United
States if there is sufficient market demand. However, potential imports
from Honduras are equal to only 0.024 percent of domestic production
and represent 0.8 percent of current imports and thus will not have a
measurable effect on either U.S. consumers or producers.

Marjoram From Peru

There are no data available regarding production of marjoram in the
United States or Peru. We are, therefore, unable to determine the
effect this final rule will have on U.S. producers or consumers of
marjoram.

Eggplant From Spain

The United States produced 36,900 tons of eggplant in 1997 and, in
1999, exported over 12,000 tons and imported 35,669 tons. Imports of
eggplant from Spain resulting from this final rule could total 1,000
tons per year, equaling 2.7 percent of U.S. production in 1997 and
representing 2.8 percent of U.S. imports in 1999. Therefore, imports of
eggplant from Spain are unlikely to have a significant economic effect
on U.S. consumers or producers.

Lettuce From Spain

The United States produced 3.4 million tons of lettuce in 1997,
and, in 1999, exported over 196,000 tons and imported only 14,000 tons.
The peak lettuce growing season in Spain roughly corresponds to U.S.
production seasons. Imports of lettuce from Spain that could result
from implementation of this final rule could total 2,500 tons,
representing a 17 percent increase in imports (equal to 0.07 percent of
U.S. production in 1997). Therefore, imports of lettuce from Spain that
could result from this final rule are unlikely to have a significant
economic effect on U.S. consumers or producers.

Watermelon From Spain

The United States produced 2.03 million tons of watermelon in 1997
and imported 240,302 tons of watermelon in 1999. The amount projected
to be imported from Spain represents only 1.04 percent of U.S. imports
in 1999 and equals 0.12 percent of U.S. production in 1997. Therefore,
it is unlikely that imports of watermelon from Spain will have a
significant economic effect on domestic producers or consumers.

Kiwi From Argentina and Spain

The United States produced 39,400 tons of kiwi in 1997 and, in
1999, imported over 49,000 tons while exporting 14,792 tons. Data on
potential kiwi imports from Argentina are not available. Data on
potential kiwi imports from Spain are also not available, but the
amount is expected to be small and should not have a significant
economic effect on U.S. consumers or producers.

Passion Fruit From Chile

There are no data available regarding production of passion fruit
by the United States or Chile. We are, therefore, unable to determine
the effect this final rule will have on U.S. producers or consumers of
passion fruit.

Carambola From Mexico

Carambola is grown in both Florida and Hawaii. Florida has
approximately 10 producers, with a total of 250 acres of carambola. One
firm accounts for approximately half of the total acres. Most of the
other firms would meet SBA guidelines for small agricultural businesses
(less than $750,000 in yearly receipts).
September through February is the major picking time for carambola.
However, trees are productive throughout the year. April through June
is the slowest season for picking. Trees can start producing in as
little as 13 months under ideal conditions, and within 3 years under
normal circumstances. Trees must be sheltered from the wind, and
erecting and maintaining windbreaks is a major expense in carambola
production. Production costs range from $1,500 per acre to a more
typical cost of $2,700 per acre.
An acre of carambola trees can produce 30,000 to 40,000 pounds of
fruit. The average packout, or amount of fruit that is suitable for the
commercial market, is approximately 60 percent of the total production.
With proper handling, the fruit can be stored up to 30 days. Prices for
carambola have fluctuated from a low of 16 cents per pound up to $1.50
per pound. Forty-five cents per pound is a typical price. In 1995 to
1996, the estimated annual value of Florida carambola production was
$17 million.

[[Page 45157]]

Hawaii had 25 producers in 1999 with a total of 20 acres of
carambola. The total value of sales was $66,000. All of Hawaii's
producers would likely meet SBA guidelines for small agricultural
businesses. The table below provides details about Hawaii's carambola
production.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Planted Harvested Total Bearing Farm price Value of
Carambola (Starfruit) Farms acres acres trees trees (per pound) sales
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997......................................................... 35 25 20 2100 1900 $0.46 $41,400
1998......................................................... 25 25 25 1900 1900 0.97 36,000
1999......................................................... 25 20 15 1800 1700 $0.66 $63,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Any projections of possible imports from Mexico are merely
speculation at this point. It is not believed that there currently is
any commercial production of carambola in Mexico. However, because
carambola can come into production quickly, whether or not there is
current commercial production in Mexico does not alter the potential
economic effect of the rule. Carambola imports will directly compete
with domestic production and domestic producers may lose market share.
Domestic consumers will benefit if imports increase the availability of
fruit and if increased competition results in lower prices.
The costs associated with increased imports will be borne by a
small group of domestic producers, while the more diffuse group of
consumers will enjoy the benefits. Because the costs are concentrated
among a small group, they are more apparent. Benefits enjoyed by
consumers, while real, will likely be too small to be measured or even
noticed.

Papaya From Belize, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and
Panama

The United States produced 20,500 tons of papaya in 1997 and, in
1999, imported over 73,000 tons and exported 6,533 tons. The top
exporters of papaya to the United States were Mexico with 61,619 tons,
Belize with 4,188 tons, Jamaica with 2,094 tons, the Dominican Republic
with 1,212 tons, and Costa Rica with 771 tons.
We estimate papaya imports of 330 tons from El Salvador, 660 tons
from Guatemala, and up to 840 tons from Panama as a result of this
final rule. These volumes of imports are insignificant when compared to
domestic production and other papaya imports. Imports of papaya from El
Salvador will equal 1.6 percent of U.S. domestic production and less
than one-half of 1 percent of U.S. papaya imports. Imports of papaya
from Guatemala will equal 3.2 percent of U.S. domestic production and
less than 1 percent of U.S. papaya imports. Imports of papaya from
Panama will equal 4 percent of domestic production and 1.1 percent of
U.S. papaya imports. However, most papaya varieties now grown in Panama
are not suitable for export, since they are large, with soft skin. Only
four growers are currently planting Solo variety of papayas of
exportable quality, and of those, only one is prepared to export fruit
at this time.
Honduras currently produces 184 tons of papaya and exports 129
tons, but estimates that it could produce and export up to 2,200 tons
of papayas (75 percent fresh, 25 percent processed) to the United
States if a market for the papayas exists. To export such a volume of
papayas to the United States, Honduras will have to increase production
by almost 12 times the current level. It is unlikely that such export
levels will be realized in the foreseeable future, and even if Honduras
could export 2,200 tons of papayas to the United States, that amount
represents only 3 percent of current papaya imports.
Data on potential imports of papayas from Nicaragua are not
available.
Prior to this final rule, certain areas in Belize were already
recognized as free of Medfly. Producers in those areas have been able
to export papayas to the United States without treatment for Medfly.
This final rule adds the remainder of Belize, except Stann Creek, as
well as the Department of Peten, Guatemala, to the list of areas
recognized as free of Medfly, thereby eliminating treatment
requirements for papaya imported into the United States from those
Medfly-free areas in Belize and Guatemala. However, it is unlikely that
this final rule will have a significant effect on the volume of papayas
currently exported by Belize or the potential exports by Guatemala that
are described above.
U.S. consumers could benefit from potentially lower prices for
papayas that could result from adoption of this rule.

Mangoes From Mexico

Prior to the effective date of this rule, mangoes from all areas in
Mexico were required to be treated for fruit flies prior to importation
into the United States. This final rule provides for mangoes from
specified fruit fly-free areas in Mexico to be imported into the United
States without treatment for fruit flies.
Mexico exported 13,800 tons of mangoes to the United States in 1998
and 11,800 tons in 1999. These exports accounted for 78 and 44 percent
of U.S. mango imports for 1998 and 1999, respectively. It is unlikely
that removing treatment requirements for mangoes imported from areas
listed in Sec. 319.56-2(h) as fruit fly-free areas will measurably
reduce the costs of exporting mangoes to the United States or the cost
of mangoes in the United States.

Peppers From Israel

In 1999, Israel shipped 15.7 tons of peppers to the United States,
accounting for only 0.046 percent of peppers imported by the United
States in that year. Allowing peppers to be shipped through ports other
than Tel Aviv is not expected to result in an increase in the volume of
peppers exported by Israel and, therefore, should not have any
measurable economic effect on U.S. producers or consumers.

Ya Pears From China

The United States produced 970,000 and 1,021,000 tons of pears in
1998 and 1999, respectively. The United States is a net exporter of
pears, as shown in the following table.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999 2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Imports (tons)...................................... 89,785 93,631
Exports (tons)...................................... 142,738 165,641
------------------------------------------------------------------------

In 2000, most of the pears imported into the United States came
from Argentina (52 percent), Chile (26.5 percent), New Zealand (5.6
percent), and China (5.6 percent). The main importers of U.S. pears are
Mexico (50 percent) and Canada (28 percent), with the remaining
quantities distributed among approximately 50 other destinations.
According to the 1997 Census of Agriculture, there were approximately
4,897 farms producing pears in the United States in 1997, about 98
percent of which are considered small entities according to SBA
guidelines.

[[Page 45158]]

When this rule is adopted, China expects to export a total of 1,250
to 1,850 tons of Ya pears to the United States from Hebei and Shadong
Provinces. (Imports from Hebei province are already allowed under
Sec. 319.56-2ee.)
The proportion of China's exports of pears to the United States
that were Ya pears is unknown. However, since Ya pears are a unique
variety of pear produced only in China, Ya pears would not compete with
domestically grown pears.

Peppers From New Zealand

The United States produced 838,650 tons of peppers in 1997. New
Zealand exported 1,600 tons of peppers for the year ending June 1999--a
28 percent increase over the previous year. The United States is
potentially a major market for this commodity from New Zealand.
However, the volume of any imports of peppers from New Zealand will be
negligible in comparison to the amount of U.S. production and will have
an insignificant economic effect on domestic producers and consumers,
since New Zealand's exports of 1,600 tons represent less than 0.2
percent of U.S. production.
This rule contains various recordkeeping requirements, which were
described in our proposed rule, and which have been approved by the
Office of Management and Budget (see ``Paperwork Reduction Act''
below).

Executive Order 12988

This final rule allows 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
will be preempted while the fruit is in foreign commerce. Fresh fruits
and vegetables are generally imported for immediate distribution and
sale to the consuming public, and remain in foreign commerce until sold
to the ultimate consumer. The question of when foreign commerce ceases
in other cases must be addressed on a case-by-case basis. No
retroactive effect will be given to this rule, and this rule will not
require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in
court challenging this rule.

Paperwork Reduction Act

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 0579-0158.

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, Nursery Stock, Plant
diseases and pests, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Rice, Vegetables.

Accordingly, we are amending 7 CFR parts 300 and 319 as follows:

PART 300--INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE

1. The authority citation for part 300 continues to read as
follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7701-7772; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.

2. In Sec. 300.1, paragraph (a), the introductory text is revised
to read as follows:

Sec. 300.1 Materials incorporated by reference.

(a) Plant Protection and Quarantine Treatment Manual. In accordance
with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51, the Director of the Office of
the Federal Register has approved, for incorporation by reference in 7
CFR chapter III, the Plant Protection and Quarantine Treatment Manual,
which was reprinted November 30, 1992, and all revisions through May
2000; and Treatments T101-n-2 and T102-b, and Table 5-2-5, revised July
2001.
* * * * *

PART 319--FOREIGN QUARANTINE NOTICES

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

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 166, 450, 7711-7714, 7718, 7731, 7732, and
7751-7754; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.

4. In Sec. 319.56-2, paragraphs (h) and (j) are revised to read as
follows.

Sec. 319.56-2 Restrictions on entry of fruits and vegetables.

* * * * *
(h) The Administrator has determined that the following areas in
Mexico meet the criteria of paragraph (e) and (f) of this section with
regard to the plant pests Ceratitis capitata, Anastrepha ludens, A.
serpentina, A. obliqua, and A. fraterculus: Comondu, Loreto, and
Mulege; in the State of Baja California Sur; the municipalities of
Bachiniva, Casas Grandes, Cuahutemoc, Guerrero, Namiquipa, and Nuevo
Casas Grandes in the State of Chihuahua; and the municipalities of
Altar, Atil, Bacum, Benito Juarez, Caborca, Cajeme, Carbo, Empalme,
Etchojoa, Guaymas, Hermosillo, Huatabampo, Navojoa, Pitiquito, Plutarco
Elias Calles, Puerto Penasco, San Luis Rio Colorado, San Miguel, and
San Ignacio Rio Muerto in the State of Sonora. Fruits and vegetables
otherwise eligible for importation under this subpart may be imported
from these areas without treatment for the pests named in this
paragraph.
* * * * *
(j) The Administrator has determined that all Districts in Belize,
all Provinces in Chile, and the Department of Peten in Guatemala meet
the criteria of paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section with regard to
the insect pest Mediterranean fruit fly (Medfly) (Ceratitis capitata
[Wiedemann]). Fruits and vegetables otherwise eligible for importation
under this subpart may be imported from these areas without treatment
for Medfly.
* * * * *

5. In Sec. 319.56-2t, the table is amended as follows:
a. Under Argentina, by revising the entry for ``Artichoke, globe''.
b. Under Belize, by revising the entry for ``Papaya''.
c. Under Mexico, by placing the entry for ``Arugula'' in
alphabetical order.
d. By adding, in alphabetical order, entries for marjoram and
oregano from Argentina; cole and mustard crops from Costa Rica; papaya
from Guatemala; cole and mustard crops from Honduras; apple, apricot,
grapefruit, mango, orange, peach, persimmon, pomegranate, and tangerine
from Mexico; marjoram from Peru; and eggplant and watermelon from
Spain.

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.

[[Page 45159]]

* * * * * *
*
Marjoram............ Origanum spp....... Above ground parts.
Oregano............. Origanum spp....... Above ground parts.

* * * * * *
*
Belize

* * * * * *
*
Papaya.............. Carica papaya...... Fruit (from Medfly-free areas--see
Sec. 319.56-2(j). Fruit must be
accompanied by a phytosanitary
certificate issued by the
national plant protection
organization of Belize stating
that the fruit originated in a
Medfly-free area listed in Sec.
319.56-2(j).) Papayas are
prohibited entry into Hawaii due
to papaya fruit fly. Cartons in
which fruit is packed must be
stamped ``Not for importation
into or distribution within HI.''

* * * * * *
*
Costa Rica

* * * * * *
*
Cole and mustard Brassica spp....... Whole plant of edible varieties
crops, including only.
cabbages, broccoli,
cauliflower,
turnips, mustards,
and related
varieties.

* * * * * *
*
Guatemala

* * * * * *
*
Papaya.............. Carica papaya...... Fruit (from Medfly-free areas--see
Sec. 319.56-2(j). Fruit must be
accompanied by a phytosanitary
certificate issued by the
national plant protection
organization of Guatemala stating
that the fruit originated in a
Medfly-free area listed in Sec.
319.56-2(j).) Papayas are
prohibited entry into Hawaii due
to papaya fruit fly. Cartons in
which fruit is packed must be
stamped ``Not for importation
into or distribution within HI.''

* * * * * *
*
Honduras

* * * * * *
*
Cole and mustard Brassica spp....... Whole plant of edible varieties
crops, including only.
cabbages, broccoli,
cauliflower,
turnips, mustards,
and related
varieties.

* * * * * *
*
Mexico

* * * * * *
*
Apple............... Malus domestica.... Fruit (from fruit fly-free areas--
see Sec. 319.56-2(h). Fruit must
be accompanied by a phytosanitary
certificate issued by the
national plant protection
organization of Mexico stating:
``These regulated articles
originated in an area free from
pests as designated in 7 CFR
319.56-2(h).'')
Apricot............. Prunus armeniaca... Fruit (from fruit fly-free areas--
see Sec. 319.56-2(h). Fruit must
be accompanied by a phytosanitary
certificate issued by national
plant protection organization of
Mexico stating: ``These regulated
articles originated in an area
free from pests as designated in
7 CFR 319.56-2(h).'')

[[Page 45160]]

* * * * * *
*
Grapefruit.......... Citrus paradisi.... Fruit (from fruit fly-free areas--
see Sec. 319.56-2(h). Fruit must
be accompanied by a phytosanitary
certificate issued by the
national plant protection
organization of Mexico stating:
``These regulated articles
originated in an area free from
pests as designated in 7 CFR
319.56-2(h).'')

* * * * * *
*
Mango............... Mangifera indica... Fruit (from fruit fly-free areas--
see Sec. 319.56-2(h). Fruit must
be accompanied by a phytosanitary
certificate issued by the
national plant protection
organization of Mexico stating:
``These regulated articles
originated in an area free from
pests as designated in 7 CFR
319.56-2(h).'')
Orange.............. Citrus sinensis.... Fruit (from fruit fly-free areas--
see Sec. 319.56-2(h). Fruit must
be accompanied by a phytosanitary
certificate issued by the
national plant protection
organization of Mexico stating:
``These regulated articles
originated in an area free from
pests as designated in 7 CFR
319.56-2(h).'')
Peach............... Prunus persica..... Fruit (from fruit fly-free areas--
see Sec. 319.56-2(h). Fruit must
be accompanied by a phytosanitary
certificate issued by the
national plant protection
organization of Mexico stating:
``These regulated articles
originated in an area free from
pests as designated in 7 CFR
319.56-2(h).'')
Persimmon........... Diospyros spp...... Fruit (from fruit fly-free areas--
see Sec. 319.56-2(h). Fruit must
be accompanied by a phytosanitary
certificate issued by the
national plant protection
organization of Mexico stating:
``These regulated articles
originated in an area free from
pests as designated in 7 CFR
319.56-2(h).'')

* * * * * *
*
Pomegranate......... Punica granatum.... Fruit (from fruit fly-free areas--
see Sec. 319.56-2(h). Fruit must
be accompanied by a phytosanitary
certificate issued by the
national plant protection
organization of Mexico stating:
``These regulated articles
originated in an area free from
pests as designated in 7 CFR
319.56-2(h).'')

* * * * * *
*
Tangerine........... Citrus reticulata.. Fruit (from fruit fly-free areas--
see Sec. 319.56-2(h). Fruit must
be accompanied by a phytosanitary
certificate issued by the
national plant protection
organization of Mexico stating:
``These regulated articles
originated in an area free from
pests as designated in 7 CFR
319.56-2(h).'')

* * * * * *
*
Peru

* * * * * *
*
Marjoram............ Origanum spp....... Above ground parts.

* * * * * *
*
Spain............................ Eggplant............ Solanum melongena.. Fruit, commercial shipments only.

* * * * * *
*
Watermelon.......... Citrullus vulgaris. Fruit, commercial shipments only.

* * * * * *
*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. In Sec. 319.56-2u, paragraph (b)(7) is revised to read as
follows and paragraph (b)(8) is removed:

Sec. 319.56-2u Conditions governing the entry of lettuce and peppers
from Israel.

* * * * *
(b) * * *
(7) The peppers must be packed in insect-proof containers prior to
movement from approved insect-proof screenhouses in the Arava Valley.

7. Section 319.56-2w is amended by revising the heading, the
introductory text, and paragraph (a) to read as follows:

[[Page 45161]]

Sec. 319.56-2w Administrative instruction; conditions governing the
entry of 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 under the
following conditions:
(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.
(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 Suchitepequez.
(5) Honduras: Departments of Comayagua, Cortes, and Santa Barbara.
(6) Nicaragua: Departments of Carazo, Granada, Managua, Masaya, and
Rivas.
(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.
* * * * *

8. In Sec. 319.56-2x, paragraph (a), the table is amended as
follows:
a. By revising the entry for Belize.
b. By adding, in alphabetical order, entries for kiwi from
Argentina, passion fruit from Chile, and carambola from Mexico.
c. Under Mexico, by revising the entry for ``Mango''.
d. By adding a new entry for Spain.

Sec. 319.56-2x Administrative instructions; conditions governing the
entry of certain fruits and vegetables for which treatment is required.

* * * * *

* * * * * *
*
Kiwi................ Actinidia deliciosa Fruit.
Belize........................... Papaya.............. Carica papaya...... Fruit. (Treatment for
Mediterranean fruit fly (Medfly)
not required if fruit is grown in
a Medfly-free area (see Sec.
319.56-2(j)).)

* * * * * *
*
Chile

* * * * * *
*
Passion fruit....... Passiflora spp..... Fruit.

* * * * * *
*
Mexico

* * * * * *
*
Carambola........... Averrhoa carambola. Fruit.
Mango............... Mangifera indica... Fruit. (Must be accompanied by a
phytosanitary certificate issued
by the national plant protection
organization of Mexico stating:
``These mangoes were treated in
accordance with the Plant
Protection and Quarantine
Treatment Manual,'' unless fruit
was grown in a fruit fly-free
area listed in Sec. 319.56-
2(h).)

* * * * * *
*
Spain............................ Kiwi................ Actinidia deliciosa Fruit.
Lettuce............. Lactuca spp........ Above ground parts, commercial
shipments only.

* * * * * *
*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

Sec. 319.56-2ee [Amended]

9. In Sec. 319.56-2ee, paragraph (a)(1) is amended by removing the
words ``Hebei Province'' and inserting in their place the words ``the
Hebei or Shadong Provinces''.

10. A new Sec. 319.56-2hh is added to read as follows:

Sec. 319.56-2hh Conditions governing the entry of peppers from New
Zealand.

Peppers from New Zealand may be imported into the United States
only under the following conditions:
(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 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 shipment 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. 319.56-2hh.''

Done in Washington, DC, this 22nd day of August 2001.
Bobby R. Acord,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 01-21641 Filed 8-27-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-U