[Federal Register: September 30, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 189)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 57206-57213]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr30se05-50]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
[[Page 57206]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
7 CFR Part 319
[Docket No. 03-113-2]
Citrus From Peru
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are proposing to amend the fruits and vegetables
regulations to allow the importation, under certain conditions, of
fresh commercial citrus fruit (grapefruit, limes, mandarin oranges or
tangerines, sweet oranges, and tangelos) from approved areas of Peru
into the United States. Based on the evidence in a recent pest risk
analysis, we believe these articles can be safely imported from Peru,
provided certain conditions are met. This action would provide for the
importation of citrus from Peru into the United States while continuing
to protect the United States against the introduction of plant pests.
DATES: We will consider all comments that we receive on or before
November 29, 2005.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
EDOCKET: Go to http://www.epa.gov/feddocket to submit or
view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the
official public docket, and to access those documents in the public
docket that are available electronically. Once you have entered
EDOCKET, click on the ``View Open APHIS Dockets'' link to locate this
document.
Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Please send four copies
of your comment (an original and three copies) to Docket No. 03-113-2,
Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3C71, 4700
River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state that your
comment refers to Docket No. 03-113-2.
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov
and follow the instructions for locating this
docket and submitting comments.
Reading Room: You may read any comments that we receive on this
docket in our reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 of
the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to
help you, please call (202) 690-2817 before coming.
Other Information: You may view APHIS documents published in the
Federal Register and related information on the Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppd/rad/webrepor.html
.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Tony Roman, Import Specialist,
Commodity Import Analysis and Operation Staff, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River
Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 734-8758.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The regulations in ``Subpart--Fruits and Vegetables'' (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 plant pests. The Government of Peru has requested that
the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) amend the
regulations to allow the importation into the United States of
grapefruit, limes, mandarin oranges or tangerines, sweet oranges, and
tangelos.
To evaluate the risks associated with the importation of citrus
from Peru, we prepared a draft pest risk analysis entitled
``Importation of Fresh Commercial Citrus Fruit: Grapefruit (Citrus x
paradisi Macfad.); Lime (C. aurantiifolia [Christm.] Swingle); Mandarin
Orange or Tangerine (C. reticulata Blanco); Sweet Orange (C. sinensis
[L.] Osbeck); Tangelo (C. x tangelo J.W. Ingram & H.E. Moore) from Peru
into the United States'' (October 2003).
On January 12, 2004, we published a notice in the Federal Register
(69 FR 1694-1695, Docket No. 03-113-1) in which we advised the public
of the availability of the draft pest risk analysis. We solicited
comments concerning those documents for 60 days ending March 12, 2004,
and received 14 comments by that date. The comments were from Members
of Congress, foreign importers, foreign citrus producers, foreign and
domestic exporters and distributors, State departments of agriculture,
and an agricultural trade service. The majority of the commenters
agreed with the conclusions in the risk analysis and supported amending
the regulations to allow commercial imports of citrus from Peru into
the United States. Two of these commenters requested clarification on
specific issues, while two other commenters opposed allowing commercial
citrus imports from Peru into the United States. These comments are
discussed below by topic.
Fruit Fly Trapping and Surveys
Two commenters stated that our proposed rule should specify
acceptable fruit fly population limits (flies/trap/day) in the
registered citrus groves and how producers would respond if fruit fly
populations exceed this limit. One of the commenters asked that we also
include the levels of pest interceptions which would trigger rejection
of fruit in packing facilities and noted that the pest risk analysis
states only that these levels are determined by agreement. The
commenter argued that we maintain these types of standards for other
countries that export fruit to the United States.
Under Peru's national fruit fly program, production sites are
required to maintain prevalence levels of less than 0.01 flies per trap
per day for all citrus species, except key limes. Production sites that
exceed this level are removed from the program for the season and have
to undergo immediate actions to control pests, which may include the
use of bait sprays and the imposition of quarantines on production
places and buffer areas. With regard to key limes, if just one larva is
found in fruit in the production site, Peru prohibits shipments from
the site for the remainder of the season and executes immediate pest
control measures. Fruit is only allowed in packinghouses from
[[Page 57207]]
production places that are participating in the program. If fruit fly
larvae are detected in a packinghouse, appropriate quarantine measures
are immediately applied. We are confident that Peru's national fruit
fly control program will continue to apply and enforce measures that
ensure production sites maintain low prevalence levels. Because the
Peruvian national fruit fly program is well established and operating
in accordance with clearly defined criteria that APHIS considers to be
effective, we believe it would be appropriate to simply require
producer participation in the program without including in the
regulations the specific information suggested by the commenters. The
proposed regulations would provide that Peru's fruit fly program must
be approved by APHIS, which would allow for APHIS to discontinue
imports of Peruvian citrus if we determine that the program is no
longer effective at mitigating the risk of introducing pests of concern
into the United States.
One commenter noted that the risk analysis makes no mention of
safeguards to ensure that potentially infected materials are kept out
of approved growing areas in Peru. The commenter stated that it was
unclear as to whether surveys to verify freedom from targeted diseases
would be ongoing in approved growing areas and requested that this be
specifically stated in the proposed risk mitigation measures.
As stated in our pest risk analysis, Peru was declared free of
citrus canker (Xanthomonas aconopodis), sweet orange scab (Elsino
australis), and citrus black spot (Guignardia citricarpa), diseases of
quarantine significance to the United States, after 3 years of negative
survey results from 1996-2000. After 2000, the focus of the disease
surveys shifted from establishing the absence of citrus canker, sweet
orange scab, and citrus black spot to monitoring Peru's freedom from
the diseases. The pest risk analysis states that disease surveys are
conducted year-round and monthly reports are provided to APHIS. The
results of the surveys from 1996 to 2002 are summarized in the pest
risk analysis. We consider all of Peru, not just the approved growing
areas, to be free of citrus canker, sweet orange scab, and citrus black
spot. To prevent the introduction of the citrus canker, sweet orange
scab, and citrus black spot, Peru restricts citrus imports from
countries where those diseases are known to occur.
Port of Entry Inspection
One commenter took issue with the following statement in the pest
risk analysis: ``Standard port of entry inspection to which all
commodities are subjected can be expected to assure that sufficient
phytosanitary security has been provided regarding this pest [i.e.,
Ecdytolopha aurantiana].'' The commenter stated that the standard
inspection we refer to no longer exists with the assimilation of
agricultural inspection into the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
The commenter stated that there was a need to develop a better means to
characterize and assess the ability of port of entry inspection to
provide effective risk management. A second commenter also stated that
inspection at the port of entry was inadequate because many shipments
are not inspected thoroughly or inspected at all, due to the level of
funding for this program.
We disagree with the commenters' contention that the quality of
port inspections has suffered because they are now carried out by DHS.
While DHS conducts a majority of inspections of agricultural
commodities at the ports of first arrival, inspectors follow
established and effective APHIS protocols regarding inspection rates
and procedures. APHIS continues to work with DHS to ensure that the
United States is protected against pests of concern that may be
associated with agricultural imports.
One commenter stated that larvae in citrus are difficult to detect,
therefore, larvae would most likely not be found until the fruit had
already entered into commerce. The commenter added that disease
symptoms are not expressed until a plant or fruit nears maturity and
that some diseases may not be detected in visual surveys.
Under this proposed rule, citrus fruit from Peru would have to
originate in production sites participating in Peru's national fruit
fly program, be inspected prior to export, cold treated for fruit flies
while en route to the United States, and inspected at the port of
entry. Inspection at the port of entry would include fruit cutting,
which is required by the regulations in Sec. 319.56-2d(b)(8) for each
shipment of fruit cold treated for Medfly in order to monitor treatment
effectiveness. Our experience with fruit cutting for clementines from
Spain, as well as other cold treated fruit, has shown fruit cutting to
be a very effective means of monitoring the effectiveness of cold
treatment. As stated previously, Peru is considered to be free of the
diseases of concern that were considered in the risk analysis-citrus
canker, citrus black spot, and sweet orange scab. Peru's disease
surveillance program, which monitors the country's growing areas for
these diseases, has been in effect since 1996 and will be ongoing. With
this program in place, we are confident that the detection of a disease
outbreak would occur early, thus, precluding the introduction of
diseases of concern into the United States.
General Comments
One commenter stated that registering groves was an inadequate
mitigation measure because it was too difficult to monitor and enforce
and because commingling of fruit from neighboring groves or adjacent
areas was commonplace.
If grove registration was to be the only mitigating measure
employed, we could understand the commenter's misgivings. However,
grove registration is only one of the mitigating measures that would be
in place. Requiring groves to register with Peru's national plant
protection organization (NPPO), the Servicio Nacional de Sanidad
Agraria (SENASA), and participate in the national fruit fly program
would allow SENASA and APHIS to monitor the pest situation in
production sites which intend to ship to the United States and allow
for an easy way to trace problems with a particular shipment. It would
also ensure that citrus packers understand and follow specific
safeguards when growing, harvesting, and packing fruit. We have no
evidence to suggest that the commingling of fruit described by the
commenter occurs in registered production sites.
Another commenter stated that we should not rely on cold treatment
alone, citing the interception of the Mediterranean fruit fly (Medfly,
Ceratitis capitata) in Spanish clementines in 2002/2003 as an example.
The commenter took issue with the section of the pest risk analysis
which examined historical performances of existing programs, stating
that the analysis ignores the circumstances by which it became
necessary to suspend the Spanish clementine program in the first place.
The efficacy of cold treatment is scientifically based and would
mitigate the risk of pest introduction. As a general rule, APHIS has
required treatments for fruit flies to provide probit 9 mortality in
cases where treatment is the only mitigation measure applied against
the pest of concern. Probit 9 refers to a level or percentage of
mortality of target pests (i.e., 99.9968 percent mortality or 32
survivors out of a million) caused by a control measure. This is
because the level of mortality represented by this benchmark is
considered extremely high and
[[Page 57208]]
stringent, especially when the field infestation rates are low.\1\
Under this proposed rule, we would require a treatment schedule that we
are confident will provide a level of quarantine security that is
equivalent to probit 9, but we would also require that fruit be
consistently at low rates of infestation by fruit flies in order to
ensure that there is a very low probability that fruit flies could
survive cold treatment and become established in the United States.
Maintaining fruit fly traps and trapping records is a component of
Peru's fruit fly program and would ensure that fruit fly prevalence
levels remain low at participating groves.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A detailed consideration of the shortcomings associated with
any measure that uses a fixed expression of proportion of mortality
(such as probit 9) may be found in: Landolt, P., D. Chambers, and V.
Chew. 1984. ``Alternative to the use of prohit 9 mortality as a
criterion for quarantine treatments of fruit fly infested fruit.''
J. Econ. Entomol. 77(2): 285-287.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One commenter stated that the pest risk analysis does not address
all pests or all possible negative consequences that may occur as a
result of introducing Peruvian citrus to moderate climates where pests
may become established. The commenter stated that because we
geographically isolate areas in Peru where citrus may be exported, then
we should also prohibit Peruvian citrus from entering areas in
California where pests are more likely to become established.
We identified all pests known to be associated with Peruvian
citrus. Using available literature and pest interception records, we
established which pests would most likely follow the pathway. Our risk
analysis examined the likelihood of each pest becoming established in
various parts of the United States based on the number and availability
of suitable hosts and climates. This information was one component used
to determine the overall pest risk potential and necessary mitigation
measures. We believe that our proposed measures would effectively
mitigate the risk of pest introduction into all areas of the United
States. Further, we would only allow citrus exports from certain areas
in Peru because those areas are part of the country's ongoing fruit fly
and disease surveillance programs.
One commenter stated that growers in Peru use spray treatments for
citrus pests extensively, indicating a heavy reliance on chemicals. The
commenter contended that this could in turn lead to the development of
strains of pests that are resistant to certain chemicals.
The risk analysis examined the use of pesticides for commercial
citrus in Peru and concluded that the materials used are consistent
with citrus pest control recommendations in the United States. With the
exception of Medfly, none of the pests targeted in the typical spray
schedule (see table 3 in the pest risk analysis) are pests of
quarantine significance likely to follow the pathway of imported fruit.
One commenter stated that having the rule apply only to commercial
shipments appears to assume that there are fewer risks associated with
these types of shipments. The commenter stated that commercial
shipments actually increase the risk of pest introduction due to the
large volumes of material being imported and the subsequent rapid
distribution of the product throughout the United States and cited
several examples including Medfly larvae in clementines from Spain
(2002-2003) and Anastrepha spp. larvae in tangerines from Mexico
(October 2003).
Our experience indicates that there is actually a lower risk of
pest introduction associated with commercial shipments of fruit.
Commercial shipments are produced under more controlled conditions and
are subject to some form of treatment and/or other mitigation measures
as a condition of entry. Fruit that undergoes such measures is less
likely to be a vehicle for plant pests than fruit carried into the
United States by passengers, which is not subject to such mitigation
procedures.
Risk Analysis
We have not made any changes to the pest risk analysis in response
to these comments. The pest risk analysis may be viewed on the EDOCKET
Web site or in our reading room (Instructions for accessing EDOCKET and
information on the location and hours of the reading room are provided
under the heading ADDRESSES at the beginning of this document). You may
also request copies of those documents from the person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Based on the evidence in the pest risk analysis, we believe that
grapefruit, limes, mandarin oranges or tangerines, sweet oranges, and
tangelos can be safely imported from certain geographic locations in
Peru, provided certain conditions are met. Therefore, we are proposing
to add a new Sec. 319.56-2nn to the regulations to provide for the
importation of commercial shipments of citrus from Peru. This proposed
new section is explained in detail below.
Permit
Under paragraph (a) of the proposed regulations, a specific written
permit issued in accordance with Sec. 319.56-3 would be required to
import grapefruit, limes, mandarin oranges or tangerines, sweet
oranges, and tangelos from Peru. Importers would be required to apply
to the Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) program for a permit in
advance of the proposed shipments, stating in the application the
country or locality of origin of the fruits, the port of first arrival,
and the name and address of the importer in the United States to whom
the permit should be sent. Upon receipt of the application and upon
approval by an inspector, a permit would be issued specifying the
conditions of entry, which will be discussed in the following
paragraphs, and the port of entry. In accordance with Sec. 319.56-4, a
permit, once issued, could be amended or withdrawn by the Administrator
at any time if it is determined that the importation of the fruit
presents an unacceptable risk of introducing quarantine pests into the
United States.
Commercial Shipments
Under paragraph (b) of the proposed regulations, we would specify
that only commercial shipments of citrus would be eligible for
importation into the United States. Commercial shipments of citrus
fruit exported from Peru already follow specific post-harvest
procedures which include dipping in a chlorine bath, running through
roller brushes, treating with a fungicide, waxing, drying with hot air,
visually inspecting 100 percent of the fruit to determine which are
export quality, and packing by hand. We believe that with such
practices in place, in addition to the following phytosanitary
measures, the risk of pest introduction into the United States would be
mitigated.
Approved Growing Areas
Under paragraph (c) of the proposed regulations, we would require
that imported fruit originate in one of the following approved citrus-
producing zones: Zone I, Piura; Zone II, Lambayeque; Zone III, Lima;
Zone IV, Ica; and Zone V, Junin. Zones I through IV currently produce
citrus and Peru has identified Zone V as a potential location for
citrus production. This proposed limitation on the origin of the fruit
would ensure that the fruit was produced in areas where citrus disease
surveys and fruit fly monitoring occur.
Approved Production Sites
Under paragraph (d) of the proposed regulations, all citrus
production sites would have to be approved by and
[[Page 57209]]
registered with SENASA. Registered sites would be required to
participate in Peru's national program for fruit fly control, which
includes trapping, sampling, and other integrated pest management
activities.
Fruit Fly Monitoring
Paragraph (e) of the proposed regulations would provide that Peru's
fruit fly management program must be approved by APHIS and must require
that citrus producers allow APHIS inspectors access to all production
areas in order to monitor compliance with the program. All areas where
citrus is produced for export to the United States would have to be
monitored for fruit flies beginning 6 weeks prior to the harvest season
at a rate mutually agreed upon by APHIS and the NPPO of Peru. If fruit
fly trapping levels exceed the thresholds established by APHIS and the
NPPO of Peru, we would suspend exports from that production site until
APHIS and the NPPO of Peru conclude that fruit fly populations have
been reduced to an acceptable level. Fruit fly traps are monitored and
serviced weekly, thus reinstatement to the program would be evaluated
on a weekly basis. We would require that the NPPO of Peru or its
designated representative keep records that document the fruit fly
trapping and control activities in areas that produce citrus for export
to the United States. We would also require that the NPPO of Peru
maintain records of fruit fly trapping and control and make these
records available to APHIS upon request. In addition, fruit fly
trapping records are available on SENASA's Web site, which can be
accessed by APHIS at any time.
Treatment
To address the risk presented by the fruit flies Anastrepha
fraterculus, A. obliqua, A. serpentina, and Medfly, paragraph (f) of
the proposed regulations would require that all fruit be cold treated
in accordance with the following schedule, which is listed in the
regulations in 7 CFR part 305 as T107-a-1, or irradiated in accordance
with part 305. The following treatment schedule is approved for
Anastrepha spp. and Medfly.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exposure
Temperature period
------------------------------------------------------------------------
34 [deg]F (1.11 [deg]C) or below............................ 15
35 [deg]F (1.67 [deg]C) or below............................ 17
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phytosanitary Inspection
The remaining pest of concern is Ecdytolopha aurantiana, a pest
more commonly known as the citrus fruit borer. To address the risk
presented by this pest, paragraph (g) of the proposed regulations would
require that consignments be inspected prior to export and accompanied
by a phytosanitary certificate with an additional declaration stating
that the consignment has been inspected and found free of E.
aurantiana.
We believe that inspection and a phytosanitary certificate would
effectively mitigate the risk of introducing E. aurantiana because
evidence suggests that the adults do not travel long distances,
decreasing the likelihood of their coming into contact with suitable
hosts. In addition, E. aurantiana is easy to detect in visual
inspections.
Fruit Cutting
As noted previously, Sec. 319.56-2d(b)(8) of the regulations
provides that at the port of first arrival, an inspector will sample
and cut fruit from each shipment that has been cold treated for Medfly
to monitor treatment effectiveness. Because citrus from Peru would be
cold treated for Medfly as a condition of entry, the port of entry
inspection would include fruit cutting. Therefore, under paragraph (h)
of the proposed regulations, we would require that fruit be inspected,
sampled, and cut to monitor for treatment effectiveness at the port of
first arrival in accordance with Sec. 319.56-2d(b)(8). If a single
live fruit fly in any stage of development or a single E. aurantiana is
found, the shipment would be held until an investigation is completed
and appropriate remedial actions have been implemented. If APHIS
determines at any time that the prescribed cold treatment does not
appear to be effective against fruit flies, APHIS may suspend the
importation of fruit from the originating country and conduct an
investigation into the cause of the deficiency.
Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act
This proposed 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.
We are proposing to amend the fruits and vegetables regulations to
allow the importation, under certain conditions, of fresh commercial
citrus fruit (grapefruit, limes, mandarin oranges or tangerines, sweet
oranges, and tangelos) from approved areas of Peru into the United
States. Based on the evidence in a recent pest risk analysis, we
believe these articles can be safely imported from Peru, provided
certain conditions are met. This action would provide for the
importation of citrus from Peru into the United States while continuing
to protect the United States against the introduction of plant pests.
Peru is not yet considered a major world producer of citrus, and
its citrus industry is relatively small compared to neighboring
countries like Brazil, Uruguay, and Argentina. Oranges account for the
greatest proportion of citrus production in Peru (271 million kg),
followed by lemons and limes (238 million kg), tangerines, clementines,
mandarins, and satsumas (132 million kg), and grapefruit and pomelos
(30.5 million kg) (see table 1). Peru exported 11.3 million kg of
citrus to more than 11 countries in 2003. Five exporters in four
packinghouses account for 98 percent of the total exports.
Table 1.--Citrus production in Peru (2000)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area harvested Production
Crop (hectares) (metric tons)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oranges............................. 23,353 270,673
Lemons and limes.................... 23,363 238,179
Tangerine, clementine, mandarin, and 7,375 131,787
satsuma............................
Grapefruit and pomelos.............. 1,750 30,500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: World Resources Institute (2002), cited in the pest risk
analysis.
The United States produced 16.4 million tons of citrus fruit in
2003-04, valued at $2.35 billion. Citrus is produced in Florida,
California, Arizona, and Texas. Florida accounts for 79 percent of U.S.
citrus production and
[[Page 57210]]
58 percent of the value of production. California accounts for 18
percent of production and 39 percent of the value of production, while
Arizona and Texas together contribute 3 percent of production and 3
percent of the value of production.
Oranges represented 79 percent of the volume of individual citrus
crops and 70 percent of the dollar value of domestic production in
2003-04 (table 2). Grapefruit represented 13 percent, lemons 11
percent, tangerines 5 percent, and tangelos and temples less than 1
percent of the value of production. Tangerines are produced in Florida
only. Estimates for K-early citrus and limes have been discontinued
since 2002-03, and are therefore not available for 2003-04. However, in
2001-02, these crops represented less than 0.1 percent of the dollar
value of total citrus production in the United States. Clementines and
mandarins are not produced in the United States in commercially
significant quantities.
Table 2.--Citrus Production in the United States: Acreage, Production, Utilization, and Value by Crop (2003-04)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Utilization of production
Bearing Production (1,000 tons) Value of
Crop acreage (1,000 tons) -------------------------------- production
(acres) Fresh Processed ($1,000) 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oranges......................... 761,400 12,930 2,179 10,751 1,645,856
Grapefruit...................... 114,800 2,152 1,006 1,146 296,777
Lemons.......................... 59,800 798 540 258 269,753
Tangelos........................ 8,000 45 25 20 9,871
Tangerines 2.................... 36,200 435 317 118 125,301
Temples......................... 3,400 63 15 48 4,806
K-Early Citrus (2001-02) 3...... 200 1 N/A 1 113
Limes (2001-02) 3............... 800 7 6 1 1,732
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA (September 2004) (http://www.usda.gov/nass).
\1\ Packinghouse-door equivalents.
\2\ Published estimates include Florida only. Estimates for 2003-04 include Fallglo, Sunburst, and Honey
varieties only.
\3\ Estimates for K-early citrus and limes have been discontinued since 2001-02 and are therefore not available
for 2003-04.
U.S. domestic shipments peak between October and January, gradually
decrease from February to June, and are at the lowest between July and
September. In contrast, the shipping season for the Peruvian citrus
crops proposed for import into the United States are expected to extend
from February to September, which is outside the peak shipment season
for domestically produced oranges. For Peruvian oranges specifically,
imports into the United States are mainly expected from June to
September, when domestic orange shipments are at their lowest. Thus,
the importation of Peruvian citrus fruits is not expected to compete
with the production and shipment of U.S. domestically produced oranges
intended for fresh utilization. Instead, imports of Peruvian citrus
would provide U.S. consumers and importers with access to citrus fruit
during periods when supply from domestic production is low, thus,
increasing the availability of fresh citrus fruit throughout the year.
U.S. imports of citrus fruits from northern hemisphere countries
are also lower during this period. For example, Spain accounts for 25.5
percent of U.S. imports of citrus fruits (table 3). Citrus fruits from
Spain are primarily imported into the United States from mid-September
to mid-March. Thus, Peruvian shipments between February and September
would increase the availability of citrus fruits during the season when
supply from both domestic production and imports from northern
hemisphere countries such as Spain, and other countries listed in table
3, are low. Therefore, U.S. consumers and importers would benefit and
potential negative impacts on U.S. citrus producers are expected to be
minimal.
In 2004, the United States imported 478.4 million kg of citrus
valued at $307.2 million. The major countries from which citrus fruit
were imported included Mexico, Spain, South Africa, Australia, and
Chile. Lemons and limes, mandarins, and oranges were the major products
imported, and accounted for 48 percent, 32 percent, and 19 percent of
the value of imports, respectively.
Table 3.--U.S. Imports of Citrus Fruits (2004)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Value (U.S. Major countries from which citrus
Commodity dollars in Quantity is imported, and percent share of
millions) (million kg) import value \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lemons and limes........................... 146.5 321.1 Mexico (88%), Chile (7.6%), Spain
(2%).
Mandarins.................................. 99.0 77.3 Spain (76.2%), South Africa
(12.6%), Australia (6.4%), Mexico
(2.2%), Morocco (1.4%).
Oranges.................................... 58.8 65.7 South Africa (45.2%), Australia
(42.8%), Mexico (9.1%), Dominican
Republic (1.2%).
Grapefruit................................. 1.6 13.8 Bahamas (68.6%), Mexico (26.0%),
Canada (2.9%), Israel (2.4%).
Other citrus fruit \2\..................... 1.3 0.6 Jamaica (68.0%), Israel (25.1%),
Italy (3.7%), Vietnam (1.2%),
Morocco (1.2%).
--------------------------------
Total citrus fruits.................... 307.2 478.4 Mexico (44.5%), Spain (25.5%),
South Africa (12.9%), Australia
(10.3%), and Chile (3.6%).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: World Trade Atlas (2005) (http://www.gtis.com).
\1\ Only countries accounting for more than 1 percent of the value of imports are included in table 3.
[[Page 57211]]
\2\ Includes various fresh and dried citrus fruits, such as kumquats, citrons, bergamots, and Tahitian, Persian,
and other limes of the Citrus latifolia variety.
Peruvian exporters estimated that exports of citrus to the United
States would total 5,100 metric tons (5.1 million kg) a year.
Tangerines/mandarins and tangelos are expected to comprise 69 percent
of these exports (table 4). The estimated volume of 5.1 million kg of
U.S. citrus imports from Peru would comprise a relatively minimal
amount, compared to current U.S. citrus imports of 478.4 million kg,
and U.S. domestic citrus production of 16.42 billion kg.
Table 4.--Estimated Annual Volume of Peruvian Citrus Exports to the
United States \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of 40-foot
Commodity Metric tons shipping
containers 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tangerine/mandarin.............. 2,000 100
Tangelo......................... 1,500 75
Key Lime........................ 600 30
Clementine...................... 500 25
Washington navel orange......... 300 15
Grapefruit...................... 200 10
---------------------
Total....................... 5,100 255
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources: Carbonell Torres, 2003, and Cargo Systems, 2001, cited in the
pest risk analysis.
\1\ Volumes were estimated for the year 2004.
\2\ A conversion factor of 20 metric tons per 40-foot shipping container
is used.
Impact on Small Entities
According to the 2002 Census of Agriculture, there were 17,727
citrus farms in the United States in 2002. The U.S. Small Business
Administration defines a small citrus producer as one with annual gross
revenues no greater than $ 750,000. The USDA's National Agricultural
Statistics Service reported that 3.8 percent of U.S. fruit and tree nut
producers accounted for 95.1 percent of sales in 1982, 4.2 percent of
fruit and tree nut producers accounted for 96.2 percent of sales in
1987, and 4.6 percent of fruit and tree nut producers accounted for
96.7 percent of sales in 1992. These data indicate that the majority of
U.S. citrus producers are small entities.
The economic analysis suggests that Peruvian imports would not
significantly compete with domestic citrus production because the
imports would be shipped largely during the off-season for U.S.
production of these fruits. Although the Peruvian imports are expected
to overlap with some domestic orange shipments such as Valencia
oranges, the volume to be imported would be expected to be a small
percentage of the total U.S. orange shipments during the importing
months. Thus, given the difference in marketing seasons and the
relatively small volume of citrus imports from Peru, the proposed rule
would not likely adversely impact domestic citrus producers, large or
small.
The proposed rule would likely benefit importers of citrus fruits.
The number of importers that can be classified as small is not known.
However, the rule would likely benefit, rather than adversely impact,
small entities in these industries, which include: Fresh fruit and
vegetable wholesalers with no more than 100 employees, NAICS 422480;
wholesalers and other grocery stores with annual gross revenues no
greater than $23 million, NAICS 445110; warehouse clubs and superstores
with annual gross revenues no greater than $23 million, NAICS 452910;
and fruit and vegetable markets with gross revenues no greater than $6
million, NAICS 445230.
Consumers would also likely benefit through the increased
availability of fresh citrus fruit during the months when shipments
from domestic sources, and imports from Northern Hemisphere countries
such as Spain, and other countries listed in table 3, are low.
Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action would
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
Executive Order 12988
This proposed rule would allow grapefruit, limes, mandarin oranges
or tangerines, sweet oranges, and tangelos to be imported into the
United States from Peru. If this proposed rule is adopted, State and
local laws and regulations regarding grapefruit, limes, mandarin
oranges or tangerines, sweet oranges, and tangelos imported under this
rule would be preempted while the fruit is in foreign commerce. Fresh
fruits are generally imported for immediate distribution and sale to
the consuming public and would remain in foreign commerce until sold to
the ultimate consumer. The question of when foreign commerce ceases in
other cases must be addressed on a case-by-case basis. If this proposed
rule is adopted, no retroactive effect will be given to this rule, and
this rule will not require administrative proceedings before parties
may file suit in court challenging this rule.
National Environmental Policy Act
To provide the public with documentation of APHIS' review and
analysis of any potential environmental impacts associated with the
importation of commercial citrus from Peru, we have prepared an
environmental assessment. The environmental assessment was prepared in
accordance with: (1) The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA), as amended (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' NEPA Implementing
Procedures (7 CFR part 372).
The environmental assessment may be viewed on the EDOCKET Web site
or in our reading room. (Instructions for accessing EDOCKET and
information on the location and hours of the reading room are provided
under the heading ADDRESSES at the beginning of this proposed rule). In
addition, copies may be obtained by calling or writing to the
individual listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
[[Page 57212]]
Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the information collection or
recordkeeping requirements included in this proposed rule have been
submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Please send written comments to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for APHIS, Washington,
DC 20503. Please state that your comments refer to Docket No. 03-113-2.
Please send a copy of your comments to: (1) Docket No. 03-113-2,
Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3C71, 4700
River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238, and (2) Clearance
Officer, OCIO, USDA, room 404-W, 14th Street and Independence Avenue
SW., Washington, DC 20250. A comment to OMB is best assured of having
its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication of
this proposed rule.
Under this proposed rule, we would add provisions for the
importation of citrus from Peru. The proposed measures would require
the production site where the fruit is grown to be registered for
export with the NPPO of Peru and the producer to have signed an
agreement with the NPPO of Peru whereby the producer agrees to
participate in and follow the fruit fly management program established
by the NPPO of Peru.
The NPPO of Peru or its designated representative would also have
to keep records that document the fruit fly trapping and control
activities in areas that produce citrus for export to the United
States. All trapping and control records kept by the NPPO of Peru or
its designated representative would have to be made available to APHIS
upon request.
In addition, the proposed rule would require each shipment of fruit
to be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the NPPO of
Peru stating that the fruit has been inspected and found free of
Ecdytolopha aurantiana.
We are soliciting comments from the public (as well as affected
agencies) concerning our proposed information collection and
recordkeeping requirements. These comments will help us:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is
necessary for the proper performance of our agency's functions,
including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the
proposed information collection, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the information collection on those who
are to respond (such as through the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology; e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses).
Estimate of burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of
information is estimated to average 27.7727 hours per response.
Respondents: Citrus growers/grove registrants, Peru's NPPO.
Estimated annual number of respondents: 20.
Estimated annual number of responses per respondent: 5.5.
Estimated annual number of responses: 110.
Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 3,055 hours. (Due to
averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of
the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per
response.)
Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Mrs.
Celeste Sickles, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301)
734-7477.
Government Paperwork Elimination Act Compliance
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is committed to
compliance with the Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA), which
requires Government agencies in general to provide the public the
option of submitting information or transacting business electronically
to the maximum extent possible. For information pertinent to GPEA
compliance related to this proposed rule, please contact Mrs. Celeste
Sickles, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 734-7477.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 319
Coffee, Cotton, Fruits, Imports, Logs, Nursery stock, Plant
diseases and pests, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Rice, Vegetables.
Accordingly, 7 CFR part 319 would be amended as follows:
PART 319--FOREIGN QUARANTINE NOTICES
1. The authority citation for part 319 would continue to read as
follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 450 and 7701-7772; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7
CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.
2. A new Sec. 319.56-2nn would be added to read as follows:
Sec. 319.56-2nn Conditions governing the importation of citrus from
Peru.
Grapefruit (Citrus paradisi), limes (C. aurantiifolia), mandarins
or tangerines (C. reticulata), sweet oranges (C. sinensis), and
tangelos (Citrus tangelo) may be imported into the United States from
Peru under the following conditions:
(a) The fruit must be accompanied by a specific written permit
issued in accordance with Sec. 319.56-3.
(b) The fruit may be imported in commercial shipments only.
(c) Approved growing areas. The fruit must be grown in one of the
following approved citrus-producing zones: Zone I, Piura; Zone II,
Lambayeque; Zone III, Lima; Zone IV, Ica; and Zone V, Junin.
(d) Grower registration and agreement. The production site where
the fruit is grown must be registered for export with the national
plant protection organization (NPPO) of Peru, and the producer must
have signed an agreement with the NPPO of Peru whereby the producer
agrees to participate in and follow the fruit fly management program
established by the NPPO of Peru.
(e) Management program for fruit flies; monitoring. The NPPO of
Peru's fruit fly management program must be approved by APHIS, and must
require that participating citrus producers allow APHIS inspectors
access to production areas in order to monitor compliance with the
fruit fly management program. The fruit fly management program must
also provide for the following:
(1) Trapping and control. In areas where citrus is produced for
export to the United States, traps must be placed in fruit fly host
plants at least 6 weeks prior to harvest at a rate mutually agreed upon
by APHIS and the NPPO of Peru. If fruit fly trapping levels at a
production site exceed the thresholds established by APHIS and the NPPO
of Peru, exports from that production site will be suspended until
APHIS and the NPPO of Peru conclude that fruit fly population levels
have been reduced to an acceptable limit. Fruit fly traps are monitored
weekly; therefore, reinstatements of production sites will be evaluated
on a weekly basis.
(2) Records. The NPPO of Peru or its designated representative must
keep records that document the fruit fly trapping and control
activities in areas that produce citrus for export to the United
States. All trapping and control
[[Page 57213]]
records kept by the NPPO of Peru or its designated representative must
be made available to APHIS upon request.
(f) Cold treatment. The fruit must be cold treated for Anastrepha
fraterculus, A. obliqua, A. serpentina, and Ceratitis capitata
(Mediterranean fruit fly) in accordance with part 305 of this chapter.
(g) Phytosanitary inspection. Each consignment of fruit must be
accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the NPPO of Peru
stating that the fruit has been inspected and found free of Ecdytolopha
aurantiana.
(h) Port of first arrival sampling. Citrus fruits imported from
Peru are subject to inspection by an inspector at the port of first
arrival into the United States in accordance with Sec. 319.56-
2d(b)(8). At the port of first arrival, an inspector will sample and
cut citrus fruits from each shipment to detect pest infestation. If a
single live fruit fly in any stage of development or a single E.
aurantiana is found, the shipment will be held until an investigation
is completed and appropriate remedial actions have been implemented.
Done in Washington, DC, this 27th day of September 2005.
W. Ron DeHaven,
Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 05-19574 Filed 9-29-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-U