FR Doc 06-746

[Federal Register: January 27, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 18)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 4451-4464]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr27ja06-1]

========================================================================
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.

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

[[Page 4451]]

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

7 CFR Parts 301, 305, 318, and 319

[Docket No. 03-077-2]

Treatments for Fruits and Vegetables

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are amending the regulations by revising the approved doses
for irradiation treatment of imported fruits and vegetables. This rule
will establish a new minimum generic dose of irradiation for most plant
pests of the class Insecta, establish a new minimum generic dose for
the fruit fly family, reduce the minimum dose of irradiation for some
specific fruit fly species, add 10 pests to the list of pests for which
irradiation is an approved treatment at less than the generic dose, and
provide for the use of irradiation as a treatment for cut flowers and
foliage. These actions will allow the use of irradiation to neutralize
more pests and to neutralize some pests at lower doses. Furthermore, we
are providing for the irradiation of fruits and vegetables moved
interstate from Hawaii at the pest-specific irradiation doses that are
now approved for imported fruits and vegetables. We are also providing
for the use of irradiation to treat fruits and vegetables moved
interstate from Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. These actions
will allow irradiation to serve as an alternative to other approved
treatments for additional commodities moved interstate from Hawaii,
Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Finally, we are adding
irradiation as a treatment for bananas from Hawaii and adding vapor-
heat treatment as an optional treatment for sweetpotatoes from Hawaii.
These actions will provide an alternative to the currently approved
treatments for those commodities while continuing to provide protection
against the spread of plant pests from Hawaii into the continental
United States.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 27, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Inder P.S. Gadh, Senior Risk
Manager, Commodity Import Analysis & Operations, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River
Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; (301) 734-8758.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The phytosanitary treatments regulations contained in 7 CFR part
305 set out standards and schedules for treatments required in 7 CFR
parts 301, 318, and 319 for fruits, vegetables, and other articles to
prevent the introduction or dissemination of plant pests or noxious
weeds into or through the United States. Within 7 CFR part 305, the
irradiation treatments subpart (Sec. Sec. 305.31 through 305.34,
referred to below as the regulations) sets out standards and minimum
doses for irradiation treatment for imported fruits and vegetables and
for regulated articles moved interstate from quarantined areas within
the United States, along with other requirements for performing
irradiation treatments.
On June 10, 2005, we published in the Federal Register (70 FR
33857-33873, Docket No. 03-077-1) a proposal to amend the regulations
by making several amendments to the irradiation treatment regulations
for imported fruits and vegetables, for fruits and vegetables moved
interstate from Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, and
for regulated articles moved interstate from areas quarantined for
Mexican fruit fly or Mediterranean fruit fly. We also proposed to
provide for the use of irradiation treatment for bananas moved
interstate from Hawaii and to provide for the use of a vapor heat
treatment for sweetpotatoes moved interstate from Hawaii.
On June 20, 2005, the Federal Register published a correction (70
FR 35500) to the table in Sec. 305.31(a) of our proposal in which the
generic dose for all pests of the phylum Arthropoda, excluding adults
and pupae of the order Lepidoptera, was corrected to read 400 gray.
We solicited comments concerning our proposal for 60 days ending
August 9, 2005. We received 13 comments by that date. They were from
producers, researchers, representatives of State and foreign
agricultural departments, an international industry organization, a
public interest organization, and a private citizen. The comments are
discussed below by topic.

Issue Outside the Scope of APHIS' Authority

One commenter raised an issue that concerns a matter under the
regulatory authority of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), not the
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). Specifically, the
commenter expressed concern that irradiation will make foods unsafe to
eat. The commenter stated that irradiation produced 2-
alkylcyclobutanones, which she contended is a dangerous residue
chemical present in irradiated fruits and vegetables.
The FDA has primary regulatory responsibility for ensuring that
approved irradiation doses do not render foods unsafe to eat. FDA
regulations (21 CFR 179.26) establish a limit of 1.0 kilogray for
disinfestation of arthropod pests in fresh fruits and vegetables. All
of the irradiation doses contained in this rule are significantly less
than this approved safe dose limit.

Use of Irradiation to Treat Cut Flowers and Foliage

One commenter requested that we also provide for the use of
irradiation to treat cut flowers and foliage that are subject to
treatment requirements in the regulations.
We agree that cut flowers and foliage that are hosts of pests for
which irradiation is an approved treatment can be treated at the pest-
specific doses provided in this final rule. Therefore, in this final
rule we have amended the phytosanitary treatment regulations as well as
the Hawaiian and territorial quarantine regulations to provide for the
use of irradiation to treat cut flowers and foliage. Specifically, we
have amended paragraph (a) of Sec. 305.31 to provide that irradiation
at the pest-specific doses may be used to treat cut flowers and
foliage. We have also amended Sec. 305.31 by replacing the words
``fruits and vegetables'' with the word ``article'' each time they
occur. Sections 305.34, 318.13-4f, and 318.58-4b provide administrative
instructions for irradiation treatment of certain fruits

[[Page 4452]]

and vegetables from Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands,
respectively. We have amended these sections by replacing the words
``fruits and vegetables'' with the word ``article'' each time they
occur. Finally, we have amended the cut flowers regulations in Sec.
319.74-2 by adding a new paragraph (d) to indicate that cut flowers may
be treated at the pest-specific irradiation doses listed in Sec.
305.31(a). Cut flowers and foliage are also subject to the packaging
requirements provided in Sec. Sec. 305.31 and 305.34 of the
regulations.
Irradiation may have negative effects on the quality of cut
flowers, and the shipper and facility operator are responsible for
determining tolerance of cut flowers to treatment. APHIS assumes no
responsibility for any loss or damage that may result in the use of
irradiation.

Use of Irradiation To Control Pests

Two commenters objected to the use of irradiation to treat imported
fruits and vegetables. One commenter stated that food in the United
States has been altered so much that it has become inferior to food in
Europe. A second commenter stated that APHIS should not employ
irradiation as a treatment but should instead use other treatments and
procedures to prevent the introduction of dangerous plant pests
associated with imported fruits and vegetables. This second commenter
added that irradiation has not been shown to be a safe, effective, or
viable means to eradicate invasive pests and that the U.S. Department
of Agriculture should cease pursuing irradiation as a treatment for
plant pests.
We have not made any changes to the rule in response to these
comments. Importers are free to choose other treatments authorized by
the regulations in lieu of irradiation. The reason that irradiation may
be attractive to certain importers, particularly those importing fresh
tropical fruits from fruit fly-infested regions, is that irradiation
allows fruits of higher quality to be imported. Alternative heat, cold,
and fumigation treatments can cause unacceptable phytotoxicity (damage
to the fruits). Also, these alternative treatments often must be used
on fruit harvested before it is fully ripe. The irradiation alternative
allows importers to sell riper, more valuable fruit, with less damage.
In authorizing irradiation treatments, we have considered both the
efficacy and the environmental effects of irradiation compared to other
treatments already authorized by our regulations. The irradiation
treatments in the final rule are effective against the listed plant
pests. It is true that several technologies under development may also
provide effective treatments for various plant pests (e.g., pressure
treatments, controlled atmosphere, and laser ultraviolet light pulses).
To date, we have not seen conclusive scientific documentation that
establishes standard methodologies for these treatments, or that
demonstrates that these treatments effectively control pests of concern
in fruits and vegetables subject to APHIS regulations. APHIS is always
willing to evaluate petitions to add new treatments to our import
regulations. Petitioners should submit a detailed description of the
methodology and standards of the treatment to be evaluated, and should
include any scientific studies that document the effectiveness of the
treatment and related issues (e.g., quality effects on treated
articles).
One commenter stated that the proposed rule could stimulate the
construction of more irradiation facilities, some of which could use
radioactive cobalt-60 or cesium-137, which Federal regulations permit.
The commenter stated that these facilities will pose serious risks to
the communities where they are built.
We are not making any changes in response to this comment. The
safety of operations of irradiation facilities is regulated by the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). NRC ensures that such facilities
are built and operated according to Federal regulations. To be
licensed, the facility must have been designed with multiple fail-safe
measures, and must establish extensive and well-documented safety
procedures and worker training. With proper design and operating
procedures, commercial irradiation facilities can be operated safely
and without posing any significant radiation risk to workers or the
public.

Recommended Doses

One commenter presented two studies \1\ which demonstrated that
Mexican fruit fly (Mexfly) is more radiotolerant than West Indian fruit
fly, but noted that we proposed an irradiation dose of 100 Gy for West
Indian fruit fly and only 70 Gy for Mexfly. The commenter recommended
lowering the dose for West Indian fruit fly to 70 Gy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ Bustos, M.E., Enkerlin, W., Reyes, J., and Toledo, J. 2004.
Irradiation of mangoes as a postharvest quarantine treatment for
fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 97: 286-292.
Hallman, G.J. and Worley, J.W. 1999. Gamma radiation doses to
prevent adult emergence from immatures of Mexican and West Indian
fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 92: 967-973.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We have reviewed the research submitted by the commenter and agree
that the dose for West Indian fruit fly (Anastrepha obliqua) should be
lowered to 70 Gy and have done so in this final rule.
Two commenters stated that it was unnecessary to list green scale
in the pest table in Sec. 305.31 because it requires the generic dose
(400 Gy). One commenter noted that this implied that 400 Gy was the
lowest possible dose that can control green scale. The second commenter
added that there has been no large-scale research done on this dose,
but that preliminary research at the University of Hawaii suggested 250
Gy would control green scale.
We agree with these commenters and have amended the table in Sec.
305.31(a) by removing the entry for Coccus viridis, green scale.
One commenter recommended adding a statement in the final rule that
lower irradiation doses might be sufficient for the plant pests being
added in this rule in order to encourage more research on minimum
irradiation levels.
We are not making any changes as a result of this comment. As
stated previously in this document, APHIS is always willing to evaluate
research that supports new treatments or changes to existing treatments
such as lowering the required doses for irradiation. Petitioners should
submit any scientific studies that document the effectiveness of the
dose, and APHIS will consider each request as it is presented.
One commenter recommended rounding irradiation doses to the nearest
10 Gy increment because dosimeters can vary by 1 to 2 percent in their
accuracy. The commenter added that it is difficult during research to
accurately apply doses in less than 10 Gy increments due to variability
in the density and consistency of the infested fruit or vegetable.
We are not making any changes in response to this comment. We
believe that the measures we have in place to monitor and administer
irradiation treatment will ensure that at least the appropriate minimum
dose is administered. When applying irradiation treatment, several
factors are taken into account, including geometry of the source, the
dimensions of the irradiation container, as well as the bulk-density of
the load and its distribution. Recording of process parameters and
dosimetry is required to ensure that the treatments applied are within
the limits established by APHIS. Further, the available data indicate
that the doses we proposed are the lowest

[[Page 4453]]

effective doses necessary to achieve phytosanitary security; thus,
rounding a dose up to the nearest 10 Gy increment would have the effect
of requiring more than the minimum dose and would be contrary to our
World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements.

Safeguards on Commodity Movement

Two commenters noted that we should put in place safeguards, such
as sealed containers, against plant pest spread for untreated
commodities that are moved to the mainland United States for treatment.
One of the commenters suggested prohibiting movement of untreated
commodities with pretreated commodities and adding protocols for
transport and containment upon arrival.
Section 305.34 of the regulations sets forth instructions for
fruits and vegetables shipped from Hawaii to the mainland United
States, including safeguards for untreated commodities being shipped to
the mainland United States for treatment. For imported fruits and
vegetables, Sec. 305.31, paragraph (g)(1) prohibits packaging
irradiated fruits and vegetables with nonirradiated fruits and
vegetables and paragraph (g)(2) provides packaging provisions for
fruits and vegetables irradiated prior to entering the United States to
prevent the entry of fruit flies. However, Sec. 305.31 does not
contain packaging provisions for imported fruits and vegetables to be
irradiated upon arrival in the United States. Therefore, we are
amending Sec. 305.31(g) in this final rule by adding a new paragraph
that requires cartons of untreated regulated articles being imported
into the United States for treatment to be shipped in shipping
containers sealed prior to importation with seals that will visually
indicate if the shipping containers have been opened. These provisions
we have added regarding imported articles mirror those in Sec. 305.34
for untreated articles moved from Hawaii to the mainland United States
for treatment.

Bananas from Hawaii

One commenter stated that the configuration of bananas on the stalk
make visual inspections an ineffective detection method. The commenter
added that the lethal dose for banana moth should be determined before
including this commodity in the regulations.
We have determined that the generic dose of 400 Gy would be
sufficient for banana moth larvae; however inspection is necessary for
pupae and adults of this pest. Bananas may also undergo irradiation
treatment at a dose of 150 Gy for fruit flies, which would require
inspection for banana moth and green scale as an additional mitigation
measure. We agree with this commenter that the configuration of bananas
on the stalk makes visual inspection more difficult. Therefore, we have
amended Sec. 318.13-4i, paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2), in this final
rule to specify that bananas must be removed from the stalk during
inspection.
One commenter suggested that we allow green bananas from Hawaii
grown under the systems approach to be irradiated at 400 Gy if found to
be infested with green scale or to have certain defects that would
otherwise trigger rejection upon inspection.
We agree with this commenter and have amended Sec. 318.13-4i in
this final rule by revising paragraph (b), introductory text, to state
that ``Bananas of any cultivar or ripeness that do not meet the
conditions of paragraph (a) of this section may also be moved
interstate from Hawaii with irradiation in accordance with the
following conditions.''

Sweetpotatoes

One commenter questioned whether early stages of Kona coffee root-
knot nematode could be found by visual inspection.
We have found inspection to be very effective at detecting
nematodes of all stages.
One commenter suggested that the regulations should provide that
the required probes be placed in the largest roots when applying heat
treatment to sweetpotatoes.
We agree that inspectors should locate temperature probes in the
largest potatoes when applying heat treatment. Therefore, we have
amended Sec. 305.24(k)(1) in this final rule to provide that
temperature probes must be placed in the approximate center of the
``largest individual sweetpotato roots.''
One commenter stated that recent research \2\ indicates that
sweetpotato weevil, West Indian sweetpotato weevil, and sweetpotato
vine borer can all be neutralized with a dose of 150 Gy. The commenter
asked that we add West Indian sweetpotato weevil and sweetpotato vine
borer with a dose of 150 Gy and that we change the dose for sweetpotato
weevil to 150 Gy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ Follett, Peter A. Irradiation for postharvest control of
Omphisa anastomosalis (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae), Euscepes
postfaciatus and Cylas formicarius elegantulus (Coleoptera:
Curculionidae) in sweetpotatoes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

After reviewing the research provided by the commenter, we have
amended the table in Sec. 305.31(a) in this final rule by adding
entries for West Indian sweetpotato weevil and sweetpotato vine borer
and specifying a minimum irradiation dose of 150 Gy for both pests. We
have also reduced the minimum irradiation dose for sweetpotato weevil
from 165 Gy to 150 Gy.
With these changes, all but one of the pests of concern for
sweetpotatoes from Hawaii for which irradiation is an authorized
treatment may be treated with a minimum irradiation dose of 150 Gy. The
exception is the ginger weevil (Elytrotreinus subtruncatus), which
requires a minimum irradiation dose of 400 Gy. (The regulations also
require inspection for two other pests for which irradiation is not an
authorized treatment, i.e., the gray pineapple mealybug [Dysmicoccus
neobrevipes] and the Kona coffee-root knot nematode [Meloidogyne
konaensis]). In the proposed rule, we proposed to add a vapor heat
treatment option for sweetpotato from Hawaii that included provisions
for the sampling, cutting, and inspection of sweetpotatoes for the
ginger weevil, and we are adopting those proposed provisions in this
final rule (see Sec. 318.13-4d in the regulatory text at the end of
this document). To harmonize the irradiation treatment provisions for
sweetpotatoes from Hawaii with those new vapor heat provisions, we have
amended the regulations in Sec. 305.34 in this final rule to offer two
irradiation treatment options: The existing 400 Gy dose or a 150 Gy
dose supplemented by sampling, cutting, and inspection for the ginger
weevil, with the sampling, cutting, and inspection requirements being
the same as those found in the vapor heat provisions in Sec. 318.13-
4d. The inspection requirements for the gray pineapple mealybug and the
Kona root-knot nematode will continue to apply to sweetpotatoes treated
at both the 400 Gy and 150 Gy dose. To effect this change, we have
amended Sec. 305.34(b)(7)(i) and (ii) in this final rule to reflect
the new inspection requirement for ginger weevil if sweetpotatoes are
to be irradiated at 150 Gy; a new footnote in the entry for sweetpotato
in the table in paragraph (a)(1) of that section directs the reader to
Sec. 305.34(b)(7)(i) and (ii). Because litchi from Hawaii is also
subject to additional inspection requirements in Sec. 305.34(b)(7),
the entry for litchi in the table has also been annotated with a
reference to that footnote.

Pineapples From Hawaii

One commenter asked that we delete the reference to ``other than
smooth Cayenne'' in the entry for pineapples in Sec. 305.34, paragraph
(a)(1). The commenter noted that this would allow

[[Page 4454]]

all varieties of pineapple to be treated by irradiation for plant pests
in accordance with Sec. 305.31(a) and Sec. 305.34(a)(2).
The commenter is correct. We mistakenly included the reference to
``other than smooth Cayenne'' when in fact, all varieties of pineapple
are eligible for irradiation. We have amended the entries for pineapple
in Sec. 305.34(a)(1) and Sec. 318.13-4f by removing the words
``(other than smooth Cayenne).''

General Comments

In the supplementary information of our proposed rule, we stated
that mites are not arthropod plant pests. Two commenters noted that
mites are arthropod plant pests and that we should not use the term
``arthropod.''
We agree with the commenters have amended the last row in the table
in Sec. 305.31 by changing the words ``phylum Arthropoda'' to ``class
Insecta.''
One commenter suggested that we should explain to inspectors what
they can expect to find with properly irradiated commodities (e.g.,
live fruit flies and perhaps eggs, but no further development from
either).
Customs and Border Protection and APHIS inspectors are trained as
to what they might specifically find in commodities treated by
irradiation and have been inspecting irradiated fruit moved interstate
for more than a decade. Therefore, it is unnecessary to include such
information in this final rule.
One commenter suggested that we include a provision to prohibit
irradiation of low-oxygen-stored produce until research on the
effectiveness of irradiation on such produce can be completed. The
commenter stated that a recent study showed that four pests showed an
increase in radiotolerance when stored in such conditions.
We have no evidence to either support or refute the commenter's
concern with the response of pests in low-oxygen-stored produce to
irradiation, but agree that irradiation should be only applied to
articles that have been stored under certain conditions. Because these
conditions may vary based on the specific commodity, pest of concern,
or country of origin, we will address specific storage conditions in
the operational work plan or the compliance agreement with plant health
officials in the areas where commodities are produced, packed, and
treated.
One commenter stated that we incorrectly classified the dose ranges
for plant pests in the International Plant Protection Convention
Guidelines for the Use of Irradiation as a Phytosanitary Measure (ISPM
Publication No. 18) as recommended minimum dose ranges. The commenter
stated that these doses are only estimates.
We acknowledge that we incorrectly characterized the estimates as
recommended minimum doses. That statement appeared in the supplementary
information of the proposed rule, however, so there is no need to make
any changes to the regulations in this document.
Two commenters stated that research did not demonstrate that all
fruit flies of the family Tephritidae would be neutralized by a dose of
150 gray.
The commenters are correct in that, technically, all fruit flies of
the family Tephritidae were not tested, but all of the fruit flies that
were tested in this family were neutralized by this dose. Therefore, we
consider the results from the fruit flies we tested to be applicable to
the entire Tephritidae family. However, we agree that it would have
been clearer to state that ``we consider all fruit flies of the family
Tephritidae to be neutralized by a dose of 150 gray.''
In the supplementary information of the proposed rule, we stated
that required irradiation doses were specific to plant pests rather
than to the commodities with which they are associated, which reflects
the fact that the effectiveness of irradiation treatment is dependent
on the dose that is absorbed by the commodity. One commenter considered
this statement misleading, noting that it suggests that the radiation
is absorbed by the commodity thereby killing the insect. The commenter
added that the doses are specific to the pest rather than commodity
because the commodity provides limited shielding for the insect from
the ionizing radiation.
We agree with this commenter, but because this statement appeared
in the supplementary information of the proposed rule, there is no need
to make any changes to the regulations in this document.
In the proposed rule, we referred to minimum doses as ``pest-
specific.'' One commenter suggested that we use either ``pest species-
specific'' or ``individual pest-specific.''
We are not making changes in response to this comment. We prefer
the general term ``pest-specific'' which can apply to both individual
pests or a pest group (e.g., all fruit flies).
In the proposed rule, we stated that fruit quality problems
associated with high irradiation doses prompted us to examine lowering
doses. One commenter noted that we made no mention of any financial
considerations taken into account.
While economic benefits result from our lowering of irradiation
doses, they are not the reason for our doing so. Under WTO agreements,
we are obliged to base our regulations on sound science; to ignore
research that showed lower irradiation doses to be effective would be
contrary to these agreements.
One commenter stated that the proposed rule would open up large
parts of the United States to increased risks of infestation. The
commenter stated that our reasoning that fruit flies would not survive
irradiation treatment or weather conditions in many areas of the United
States was faulty. The commenter added that while the rule only applies
to 12 species of fruit flies, there are numerous hosts in the United
States that would be susceptible to those fruit flies.
We agree that preventing the introduction of exotic fruit flies
into the United States is of the utmost importance. According to ARS,
150 Gy will be sufficient to neutralize all fruit flies and that doses
lower than 150 gray are sufficient to neutralize certain species of
fruit flies. We believe that treatment of fruits, vegetables, cut
flowers, and foliage at these doses, when properly administered, will
be sufficient to prevent the introduction of fruit flies via
commodities treated by irradiation.

Economic Analysis

One commenter suggested that our economic analysis should take note
of some advantages to irradiation, such as the fact that fruit that is
to be irradiated can be allowed to ripen longer on the tree, resulting
in higher-quality fruit.
We have added a paragraph highlighting additional advantages of
irradiation over some other treatments to the economic analysis in this
final rule.
One commenter stated that it is naive to assume that there are
markets for irradiated fruits and vegetables in the United States. The
commenter noted that since the FDA legalized the irradiation of fruits
and vegetables in 1986, very few types of irradiated produce have been
sold in U.S. grocery stores. The commenter also cited the financial
troubles of a company that stood to benefit from irradiation as an
example of the lack of a market for irradiated fruit in the United
States.
The proposed rule and this final rule are concerned with the
phytosanitary security of fruits and vegetables and not their
marketing. Our regulations offer various treatment options; whether or

[[Page 4455]]

not producers or distributors choose to use irradiation when it is
available is up to them.

Miscellaneous

Two commenters pointed out several nonsubstantive editorial errors
in the proposed rule. We appreciate the commenters bringing these
errors to our attention and wherever appropriate, have made the
corrections in this document.

Other Comments

One commenter suggested that in light of the availability of the
generic irradiation dose, we reconsider our current pest risk analysis
process and require evidence only that the few target pests that could
not be treated effectively with irradiation are not present in a
particular country or are not pests of concern for a particular
commodity, rather than requiring that a list all possible pests be
considered in the pest risk analysis.
We agree with this commenter that the availability of the generic
irradiation dose may simplify the pest risk analysis process for
commodities from countries where pests that can be targeted with the
generic dose exist. We expect that a pest list would still have to
assembled in most cases, but the risk management aspect of the risk
analysis process could be abbreviated if the risks associated with all
identified quarantine pests could be addressed through the application
of the generic irradiation dose. If quarantine pests that could not be
addressed using the generic dose were identified in the pest list, then
the risk management analysis could be limited to examining mitigation
measures for those pests alone.
The commenter also requested that we reconsider the requirement
that every new commodity must be added to the regulations through
rulemaking before being eligible for entry into the United States.
While we are unable to make any changes in this document in
response to this comment, we are currently developing a proposed rule
that would redesign the fruits and vegetables regulations to provide
for the evaluation and approval or denial of new import requests in a
more expeditious and effective manner.
One commenter asked that we postpone the comment period for the
proposed rule because a request submitted by her organization under the
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) regarding another rulemaking related
to irradiation had not yet been fulfilled.
We do not believe it is necessary or appropriate to delay this
final rule pending the resolution of commenter's FOIA request
concerning an entirely separate rulemaking. The APHIS FOIA staff is
working to address the request referred to by the commenter.
Therefore, for the reasons given in the proposed rule and in this
document, we are adopting the proposed rule as a final rule, with the
changes discussed in this document.

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. For this
action, the Office of Management and Budget has waived its review under
Executive Order 12866.
This rule makes several amendments to the current provisions for
the use of irradiation as a treatment for various plant pests, allows
the use of irradiation and inspection as a treatment for bananas moved
interstate from Hawaii as an alternative to the systems approach
currently described in the regulations, and allows the use of a vapor
heat treatment for sweetpotatoes moved interstate from Hawaii as an
alternative to fumigation with methyl bromide and irradiation. The
potential economic impacts of the changes are discussed below.

Irradiation Treatment for Fruits, Vegetables, Cut Flowers, and Foliage

The regulations in Sec. 305.31 set out standards, minimum doses,
and other requirements for performing irradiation treatments on
imported fruits, vegetables, cut flowers, and foliage and set out
minimum doses necessary to neutralize 11 fruit flies and the mango seed
weevil. This rule adds minimum doses for more pests and lowers the
minimum doses for others. Specifically, this rule establishes:
A minimum generic dose of 400 Gy for all plant pests of
the class Insecta other than pupae and adults of the order Lepidoptera;
A minimum generic dose of 150 Gy for all fruit flies of
the family Tephritidae;
Lower minimum doses for certain fruit flies; and
New approved minimum doses for 10 plant pests.
This rule also allows irradiation to serve as an alternative to
other approved treatments for additional articles moved interstate from
Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Articles from Hawaii,
Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands that are required to be
treated by other means for pests listed in Sec. 305.31(a) prior to
interstate movement will be allowed to be moved interstate if they are
treated with irradiation at the doses listed in Sec. 305.31(a) and in
accordance with the other conditions specified in Sec. 305.34.
Section 305.34 has only provided for irradiation treatment of
fruits and vegetables from Hawaii; however, we have determined that
irradiation treatment can be used effectively for commodities from
Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands if the safeguards in Sec.
305.34 are implemented. Currently, no irradiation facilities exist in
Puerto Rico or the U.S. Virgin Islands, and no requests have been
received to approve the construction of such facilities. However, this
rule provides for the option of moving the commodities under limited
permit to an irradiation facility on the U.S. mainland for treatment
prior to entering interstate commerce.

Economic Effects on Small Entities of Changes in Irradiation Treatment
Provisions

The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires that agencies specifically
consider the economic impact of their regulations on small entities.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) has established size criteria
using the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) to
determine which economic entities meet the definition of a small firm.
Irradiation facilities affected by this rule will belong to one of
the following two NAICS categories: (1) Firms providing irradiation
services for the treatment of fruits and vegetables, which would fall
within NAICS category 115114, ``Postharvest Crop Activities (except
Cotton Ginning)''; or (2) firms providing irradiation services for
decontamination or sterilization purposes, which would fall within
NAICS category 811219, ``Medical and surgical equipment repair and
maintenance services.''
Most treatments of Hawaiian produce are likely to occur at an
existing irradiation facility on the island of Hawaii. This facility is
used to treat other fruits and vegetables for which irradiation is an
approved treatment and can be classified under NAICS category 115114.
The SBA criteria classify this facility as a small entity, since its
annual sales are less than $6 million.
Another firm on the U.S. mainland operates two facilities in
Illinois and one facility in New Jersey. Its primary service is to
provide irradiation treatment for the sanitation of medical devices on
contract. This firm is classified within NAICS category 811219.
However, since it is part of a larger corporation for which annual
receipts may exceed $6 million, this

[[Page 4456]]

firm is not classified as a small entity under the SBA criteria. Thus,
at least one firm that could be affected by this rule is a small
entity.
Irradiation facilities, whether large or small, will benefit from
this rule. The range of commodities imported and moved interstate for
which irradiation will be an approved treatment will increase. At the
same time, dosage levels, and therefore operating costs, will decrease
for many commodities. The changes to irradiation doses and provisions
allowing the use of pest-specific doses to treat commodities for
interstate movement will facilitate the importation of fruits,
vegetables, cut flowers, and foliage and their interstate movement from
Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. For certain pests for
which irradiation is already an approved treatment, required
irradiation dosages will be lowered to the minimum level necessary. In
other instances, irradiation will be newly allowed as an alternative
phytosanitary treatment.
This rule will result in lower costs and increased flexibility for
importers, gains that could be expected to be at least partly realized
by U.S. consumers through lower prices, assuming competitive markets.
For some commodities, irradiation may also provide quality advantages
over other treatment methods in terms of increased shelf life.
Irradiation allows fruits and vegetables of higher quality to be
imported. Alternative heat, cold, and fumigation treatments can cause
unacceptable damage to fruits, vegetables, cut flowers, and foliage. At
this time, we are unsure as to the extent of damage the use of
irradiation may cause to certain cut flowers and it is entirely the
importer's or owner's responsibility to assess which treatment should
be used with each variety of cut flowers. Also, these alternative
treatments often must be used on fruit harvested before it is fully
ripe. Irradiation allows importers to sell riper, more valuable fruit,
with less damage. Choice of irradiation as a treatment alternative
would rest upon its expected net returns relative to other treatment
methods.
Because these changes will have the potential to affect the
importation or interstate movement of a wide range of commodities, it
is difficult to predict exactly what economic effects these changes
will have. However, while affected irradiation firms, large and small,
are expected to benefit, we do not expect the impacts to be
significant.

Irradiation and Inspection for Bananas Moved Interstate from Hawaii

The regulations in Sec. 318.13-4i have provided that green bananas
(Musa spp.) of the cultivars ``Williams,'' ``Valery,'' ``Grand Nain,''
and standard dwarf ``Brazilian'' may be moved interstate from Hawaii
under a systems approach. At this time, only green bananas of these
specified cultivars have been eligible for interstate movement under
those provisions.
We are adding two combinations of irradiation and inspection as
treatments for bananas from Hawaii. Specifically, bananas, regardless
of cultivar or ripeness, from Hawaii will be eligible for interstate
movement if they have been inspected in Hawaii for adults and pupal
stages of the banana moth Opogona sacchari (Bojen), and have undergone
irradiation treatment with a minimum dose of 400 gray at an approved
facility. Bananas from Hawaii will also be eligible for interstate
movement if they have been inspected in Hawaii for the banana moth and
the green scale, Coccus viridis (Green), and have undergone irradiation
treatment with a minimum dose of 150 gray at an approved facility.

Cost of Irradiation Treatment

The cost of irradiation is estimated at 15 cents per pound.\3\ We
expect that most bananas moved interstate from Hawaii under this
approach will be treated at the existing commercial irradiation
facility on the island of Hawaii. However, the treatment could be
performed at the irradiation facilities on the mainland United States
as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ Source: Hawaii Department of Agriculture.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cost of APHIS Inspection

Monitoring of quarantine treatments conducted during standard
business hours (weekdays between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m.) on the island of
Hawaii comes at no cost to the facility. APHIS charges for the
monitoring of treatments conducted before 8 a.m. and after 4:30 p.m.
and on weekends at a time-and-a-half rate.

Benefits

The combination of irradiation treatment and inspection will offer
an alternative to the systems approach for green fruit of the specified
four banana cultivars, and will allow fruit of any ripeness or cultivar
to be moved interstate from Hawaii. The approach described in this rule
can be used to mitigate the pest risk associated with all Hawaiian
bananas, regardless of cultivar or ripeness. This will allow banana
producers and parties moving bananas interstate greater flexibility in
operations, more choices with regard to the types of bananas moved
interstate, a greater volume of bananas to ship, and less risk of
facing rejections during inspection under the systems approach and
Banana Compliance Agreement.
Growers have been reluctant to ship bananas to U.S. mainland
markets under the systems approach because Sec. 318.13-4i(c) of the
regulations has required that bananas to be moved interstate be
inspected by an inspector and found free of the following defects:
Prematurely ripe fingers, fused fingers, or exposed flesh (not
including fresh cuts made during the packing process). Bananas moved
interstate from Hawaii under this systems approach are required to be
free of these defects because they are conducive to fruit fly
infestation. However, growers are concerned about the risk of having
whole shipments of fruit prohibited from interstate movement as a
result of a single fault detected when bananas in a random selection of
boxes are inspected. No commercial container shipments of bananas have
been made to U.S. mainland markets under the regulations in effect
prior to this rule. Since the irradiation treatment options provided by
this rule are sufficient to neutralize fruit flies and other pests of
concern, irradiation will provide the Hawaiian banana industry with an
alternative treatment for interstate movement and could open new
marketing opportunities.
U.S. consumers will benefit from an increased supply of bananas.
Growers in Hawaii believe that the U.S. mainland demand for bananas
from Hawaii may be equivalent to (if not higher than) the existing
demand for Hawaiian papaya. Hawaiian growers moved approximately 12
million pounds of papayas to U.S. mainland markets in 2003.\4\ Demand
may be especially high for the apple banana variety, which has a higher
sugar content and more aromatic flavor than the standard commercial
banana varieties currently available in U.S. mainland markets.
Consumers will benefit from the availability of this specialty product.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ Source: Hawaii Department of Agriculture.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hawaii accounts for almost all U.S. banana production.\5\ In 2002,
there were 677 banana farms in Hawaii,\6\ and the value of sales
amounted to $ 8.6

[[Page 4457]]

million.\7\ Table 1 summarizes production information for bananas and
papayas in Hawaii. The utilized production of bananas amounted to 19.5
million pounds in 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ The Census of Agriculture (2002) reports minimal acreage in
California, Florida, and Texas, which together account for only 131
acres.
\6\ National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2002 Census of
Agriculture.
\7\ From http://www.nass.usda.gov/hi/fruit/annban.htm. Sales of

Hawaiian bananas in 2003 were valued at $9.225 million.

Table 1.--Production Statistics for Bananas and Papayas in Hawaii (2002)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Item Bananas Papayas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bearing acreage (acres)......... 1,300............. 1,720.
Utilized production (1,000 19,500............ 45,900.
pounds).
Price (per pound)............... $0.430............ $0.260.
Value of utilized production.... $8.385 million.... $11.924 million.
Movement to mainland U.S. None.............. 12,000.
markets (1,000 pounds).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources: Hawaii Department of Agriculture (movement statistics) and
National Agricultural Statistics Service.

The United States imported 7,883 million pounds (3,576 million kg)
of fresh bananas in 2003, valued at $959 million.\8\ Ecuador, Costa
Rica, Guatemala, Colombia, and Honduras accounted for 97 percent of the
quantity of imports (table 2). Compared to the 7,883 million pounds of
bananas currently imported, Hawaii's total production of 20 million
pounds is extremely small, and it is not likely that 100 percent of the
State's production will be moved to the mainland United States. Thus,
as long as phytosanitary mitigation by means of the approved treatments
is maintained, the interstate movement of bananas from Hawaii is
unlikely to significantly affect current U.S. trade in fresh bananas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ World Trade Atlas, 2003.

Table 2.--Quantity and Value of Fresh Bananas Imported Into the United
States From the Five Major Exporting Countries (2003)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Value
Quantity (million
Country (million U.S.
kg) dollars)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ecuador....................................... 902 237.8
Costa Rica.................................... 901 247.5
Guatemala..................................... 868 229.1
Colombia...................................... 429 117.7
Honduras...................................... 388 100.4
--------------
Total imports............................. 3,576 959.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: World Trade Atlas (2003).

Economic Effects on Small Entities of Irradiation and Inspection
Provisions for Bananas

Most treatments of Hawaiian bananas are likely to occur at the
existing irradiation facility on the island of Hawaii, which, as noted
previously, is considered a small entity.
Banana farming is classified under NAICS category 111339 as ``Other
Noncitrus Fruit Farming.'' The SBA considers entities in this category
to be small if their average annual receipts are less than $750,000.
The 677 banana farms in Hawaii accounted for annual sales of $8.6
million in total in 2002. Therefore, it is likely that most Hawaiian
banana farms will be classified as small entities under the SBA
criteria. The treatment monitoring program will be mainly operated by
APHIS personnel, and no impact is anticipated on other small entities
or government agencies.

Vapor Heat Treatment for Sweetpotatoes Moved Interstate From Hawaii

We are allowing vapor heat treatment, combined with tuber cutting
and visual inspection, to be used as a treatment for sweetpotatoes
moved interstate from Hawaii. We believe this treatment will be an
effective alternative to the methyl bromide and irradiation treatments
currently prescribed by the regulations to control pests of concern.

Cost of Vapor Heat Treatment

Hawaii has three packing plants on the Island of Hawaii that
provide vapor heat treatment services. No other vapor heat treatment
plants are currently in operation elsewhere in the State. Since APHIS
has yet to certify a facility for the treatment of sweetpotato by vapor
heat, the costs of treating this crop specifically cannot be determined
with certainty at this time. However, one of the packinghouses
estimated that vapor heat treatment costs could amount to 2 to 3 cents
per pound for the required treatment protocol. This estimate considered
the costs of labor, electricity, water, and sewer service. APHIS has
traditionally certified vapor heat treatment chambers (for example, for
papaya) in the ``fully loaded configuration.'' The costs of treating
sweetpotato in smaller batch loads still have to be determined. This
estimate of treatment cost also does not include a markup for the
facility. The markup will be determined by the number of plants
providing service and the demand for service.

Cost of APHIS Inspection for Vapor Heat Treatment or Irradiation

Comparison of Vapor Heat Treatment, Irradiation, and Methyl Bromide

Vapor heat treatment will provide the Hawaiian sweetpotato industry
with an alternative treatment to irradiation or methyl bromide
fumigation. If vapor heat treatment can be performed at 2 to 3 cents
per pound, it will constitute the most cost-effective treatment,
compared to irradiation at 15 cents per pound and fumigation costs
ranging from 40.6 cents per pound for 1 pallet to 6.7 cents per pound
for 12 pallets (table 3). (These are treatment costs only and do not
include the costs of APHIS monitoring or inspection activities or
inter-island transportation costs necessary to perform treatments.)

Table 3.--Estimated Per-Unit Cost of Vapor Heat Treatment, Irradiation,
and Methyl Bromide Fumigation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Per unit
cost
Treatment (cents per
pound)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vapor heat treatment........................................ 2-3
Irradiation................................................. 15
-------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 4458]]

Methyl bromide fumigation: \1\
One pallet................................................ 40.6
Two pallets............................................... 20.3
Three pallets............................................. 13.5
Four pallets.............................................. 10.1
Five pallets.............................................. 8.1
Six pallets............................................... 6.7
Nine pallets.............................................. 7.6
Twelve pallets............................................ 6.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ One pallet contains 1,500 pounds of sweetpotatoes.
Sources: Packinghouse estimate (vapor heat treatment); Hawaii Department
of Agriculture (irradiation and methyl bromide fumigation).

The availability of vapor heat treatment thus provides the Hawaiian
sweetpotato industry with an alternative treatment option at a
competitive cost. Furthermore, the vapor heat treatment plants in
Hawaii will benefit if sweetpotatoes are included in the list of
agricultural products to be treated. The availability of vapor heat
treatment as an alternative to fumigation might become increasingly
important in view of the global phaseout of methyl bromide under the
Montreal Protocol. Irradiation may have positive effects on the quality
and shelf life of the tubers, and allows flexibility since both small
and large product lots can be staged for treatment to meet specific
market demands. Vapor heat treatment is not known to offer quality or
shelf-life benefits to the product, but some consumers may prefer this
option above irradiation, especially in Japan, Canada, and Europe.

Impact on U.S. Sweetpotato Production

Commercial sweetpotato production in Hawaii occurs on the islands
of Hawaii, Kauai, Maui, and Oahu. In 2002, there were 59 sweetpotato
farms,\9\ and the value of sales was $989,000.\10\ The utilized
production of sweetpotatoes in Hawaii was 1.8 million pounds in 2001
(table 4). The crop is in year-round production in Hawaii.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\9\ National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2002 Census of
Agriculture.
\10\ From http://www.nass.usda.gov/hi/vegetble/annveg.htm.

Table 4.--Production Statistics for Hawaiian Sweetpotatoes (2001)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Item Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harvested acres............................................ 220
Yield per acre (1,000 pounds).............................. 8.2
Production (1,000 pounds).................................. 1,800
Farm price (cents per pound) \1\........................... 50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 2001 farm price for sweetpotato was 47.3 cents per pound in
Hawaii, Honolulu, and the Kauai Counties, and 60 cents per pound in
the Maui County (Hawaiian Department of Agriculture).
Source: Hawaii Agricultural Statistics Service.

In the mainland United States, sweetpotato is grown commercially in
Alabama, California, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Jersey, North
Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia. North Carolina,
Louisiana, Mississippi, and California account for the major proportion
of production area by State (table 5). In total, the United States
produced 1,355 million pounds of sweetpotatoes from 93,500 acres in
2003 (table 6). The Hawaiian sweetpotato production of 1.8 million
pounds thus comprises a minor proportion of the total production of
1,355 million pounds in the United States.

Table 5.--Acres of Sweetpotatoes Planted in the United States (2003)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acres
State planted
------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Carolina............................................. 42,000
Louisiana.................................................. 18,000
Mississippi................................................ 14,000
California................................................. 10,100
Texas...................................................... 3,400
Alabama.................................................... 2,900
Others \1\................................................. 3,100
------------
Total.................................................. 93,500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Including Hawaii.
Source: Economic Research Service, USDA.

Table 6.--Production and Utilization Statistics for Sweetpotatoes in the
United States (2003) \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Item Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acres planted............................................. 93,500
Three-year average yield (cwt/acre)....................... 150
Production (million pounds)............................... 1,355
Imports (million pounds).................................. 17.0
Exports (million pounds).................................. 53.0
Total utilization (million pounds) \2\.................... 1,148.3
Per capita use (pounds)................................... 3.9
Three-year average per capita use (pounds)................ 4.0
Current dollars ($/cwt)................................... 15.75
Constant 1996 dollars ($/cwt)............................. 13.91
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Estimates are for the total United States, and therefore include
Hawaii. Forecasted estimates are shown.
\2\ Total utilization includes 103 million pounds used for seed and 67.8
million pounds accruing to feed use, shrink, and loss.
Source: Economic Research Service, United States Department of
Agriculture. Acres were obtained from Lucier, G. ``Sweet potatoes--
getting to the root of demand.'' Economic Research Service, USDA,
2002.

The Hawaiian sweetpotatoes intended for the U.S. mainland markets
are of a special purple flesh variety, and they are therefore shipped
to the mainland as a specialty product intended for niche markets. U.S.
mainland consumers could, therefore, benefit from an increased supply
of these specialty sweetpotatoes.
Interstate movement provides Hawaiian growers and shippers with
increased marketing opportunities. Sweetpotatoes are in year-round
production in Hawaii, but some seasonal variation in volume is
expected. Out-shipment to U.S. mainland markets is estimated at 50,000
to 60,000 pounds per week. New plantings of the crop have increased on
the island of Hawaii since irradiation was approved as an alternative
to methyl bromide fumigation in June 2003. However, plantings are
likely to increase each year if the market demand increases for
Hawaiian sweetpotatoes regardless of whether the product is treated by
methyl bromide fumigation, irradiation, or vapor heat treatment.
Nevertheless, even if sweetpotato production increases in Hawaii, the
relative volume of production (1.8 million pounds) remains extremely
small in comparison to the volume of U.S. mainland sweetpotato
production (1.36 billion pounds).
Thus, since Hawaiian production is so small in comparison to U.S.
mainland production, and as long as phytosanitary mitigation by the
approved treatments is maintained, sweetpotato shipments from Hawaii
are unlikely to affect mainland producers. Consumers will benefit from
the availability of the purple-fleshed specialty sweetpotato product,
and the Hawaiian sweetpotato industry will gain opportunities to expand
its mainland U.S. markets.

[[Page 4459]]

Vapor Heat Treatment of Sweetpotatoes Moved Interstate From Hawaii

The availability of vapor heat treatment at a competitive cost
could divert some sweetpotatoes moved interstate from Hawaii from the
existing irradiation facility in Hawaii to a vapor heat treatment
facility. This will affect the existing irradiation facility in Hawaii,
which is a small entity. However, it is not known at this time what
proportion of Hawaiian sweetpotatoes moved interstate will be treated
with vapor heat instead of irradiation.
On the other hand, vapor heat treatment facilities could benefit by
the addition of vapor heat as an approved treatment for sweetpotatoes
moved interstate from Hawaii. However, since facilities for the vapor
heat treatment of Hawaiian sweetpotatoes have not been certified yet,
the businesses cannot be conclusively categorized into small or large
entities at this time.
Sweetpotato farming is classified under NAICS category 111219,
``Other Vegetables (except Potato) and Melon Farming.'' According to
the SBA's criteria, an entity involved in crop production is considered
small if it has average annual receipts of less than $750,000. The 59
sweetpotato farms in Hawaii accounted for annual sales of $989,000 in
total in 2002. Therefore, it is likely that most of these farms would
be considered small entities according to the SBA criteria. The
monitoring and inspection program will be mainly operated by APHIS
personnel, and no impact is anticipated on other small entities and
government agencies.
Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.

Executive Order 12372

This program/activity is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance under No. 10.025 and is subject to Executive Order 12372,
which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local
officials. (See 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V.)

Executive Order 12988

This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988,
Civil Justice Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts all State and local laws
and regulations that are inconsistent with this rule; (2) has no
retroactive effect; and (3) does not require administrative proceedings
before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.

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 0579-0281.

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 rule, please contact Mrs. Celeste Sickles,
APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 734-7477.

List of Subjects

7 CFR Part 301

Agricultural commodities, Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

7 CFR Part 305

Irradiation, Phytosanitary treatment, Plant diseases and pests,
Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

7 CFR Part 318

Cotton, Cottonseeds, Fruits, Guam, Hawaii, Plant diseases and
pests, Puerto Rico, Quarantine, Transportation, Vegetables, Virgin
Islands.

7 CFR Part 319

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

0
Accordingly, we are amending 7 CFR parts 301, 305, 318, and 319 as
follows:

PART 301--DOMESTIC QUARANTINE NOTICES

0
1. The authority citation for part 301 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7701-7772 and 7781-7786; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80,
and 371.3.
Section 301.75-15 also issued under Sec. 204, Title II, Pub. L.
106-113, 113 Stat. 1501A-293; sections 301.75-15 and 301.75-16 also
issued under Sec. 203, Title II, Pub. L. 106-224, 114 Stat. 400 (7
U.S.C. 1421 note).

0
2. In Sec. 301.64-10, paragraph (g) introductory text and the OMB
control number citation at the end of the section are revised to read
as follows:

Sec. 301.64-10 Treatments.

* * * * *
(g) Approved irradiation treatment. Irradiation, carried out in
accordance with the provisions of part 305 of this chapter, is approved
as a treatment for any fruit listed as a regulated article in Sec.
301.64-2(a).
* * * * *
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 0579-0088)

0
3. In Sec. 301.78-10, paragraph (c) introductory text is revised to
read as follows:

Sec. 301.78-10 Treatments.

* * * * *
(c) Approved irradiation treatment. Irradiation, carried out in
accordance with the provisions of part 305 of this chapter, is approved
as a treatment for any berry, fruit, nut, or vegetable listed as a
regulated article in Sec. 301.78-2(a) of this subpart.
* * * * *

PART 305--PHYTOSANITARY TREATMENTS

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

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

0
5. Section 305.2 is amended as follows:
0
a. By revising paragraph (h)(1) to read as set forth below.
0
b. In the table in paragraph (h)(2)(ii), under Hawaii, by adding a new
entry, in alphabetical order, for ``Banana'' to read as set forth
below.
0
c. In the table in paragraph (h)(2)(ii), under Hawaii, by removing the
entry for ``Sweet potato'' and adding in its place a new entry for
``Sweetpotato'' to read as set forth below.

Sec. 305.2 Approved treatments.

* * * * *
(h) Fruits and vegetables. (1) Treatment of fruits and vegetables
from foreign localities by irradiation in accordance with Sec. 305.31
may be substituted for other approved treatments for any of the pests
listed in Sec. 305.31(a). Treatment of fruits and vegetables from
Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands by irradiation at the
minimum doses listed in Sec. 305.31(a) and in accordance with Sec.
305.34 may be substituted for other approved treatments for any of the
pests listed in Sec. 305.31(a).
(2) * * *

[[Page 4460]]

(ii) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Location Commodity Pest Treatment schedule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * * * *
Hawaii

* * * * * * *
Banana................ Bactrocera curcurbitae, IR.
Bactrocera dorsalis,
Ceratitis capitata, Coccus
viridis.

* * * * * * *
Sweetpotato........... Euscepes postfasciatus, MB T101-b-3-1 or Sec.
Omphisa anastomosalis, 305.24(k) or IR.
Elytrotreinus or
subtruncatus.

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

* * * * *

0
6. In Sec. 305.24, a new paragraph (k) is added to read as follows:

Sec. 305.24 Vapor heat treatment schedules.

* * * * *
(k) Vapor heat treatment for sweetpotatoes moved interstate from
Hawaii. (1) Temperature probes must be placed in the approximate center
of the largest individual sweetpotato roots.
(2) The air surrounding the sweetpotato roots must be heated. After
the temperature of the air surrounding the sweetpotato roots reaches
87.8 [deg]F (31 [deg]C), its temperature must be incrementally raised
from 87.8 [deg]F (31 [deg]C) to 111.2 [deg]F (44 [deg]C) over a period
of 240 minutes.
(3) Using saturated water vapor at 118.4 [deg]F (48 [deg]C), the
core temperature of the individual sweetpotato roots must be raised to
116.6 [deg]F (47 [deg]C).
(4) After the core temperature of the sweetpotato roots reaches
116.6 [deg]F (47 [deg]C), the core temperature must then be held at
116.6 [deg]F (47 [deg]C) or higher for 190 minutes.

0
7. Section 305.31 is amended as follows:
0
a. By revising the section heading to read as set forth below.
0
b. By revising paragraph (a), including the table, to read as set forth
below.
0
c. By redesignating paragraph (g)(2) as paragraph (g)(3) and adding a
new paragraph (g)(2) to read as set forth below.
0
d. In paragraphs (b), (e)(1), (e)(2), (f)(1)(i), (f)(1)(ii),
(f)(1)(iii), (g) introductory text, (g)(1), and (n), and in newly
redesignated paragraphs (g)(3) introductory text, (g)(3)(i)
introductory text, and (g)(3)(ii) introductory text, by removing the
words ``fruits and vegetables'' each time they appear and adding the
word ``articles'' in their place.
0
e. In newly designated paragraph (g)(3)(i)(A), footnote 3, and in
paragraph (l), by removing the words ``Inspection and'' and adding the
words ``Science and'' in their place and by removing the words ``1017
Main Campus Drive, suite 2500'' and adding the words ``1730 Varsity
Drive, Suite 400'' in their place.
The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec. 305.31 Irradiation treatment of imported regulated articles for
certain plant pests.

(a) Approved doses. Irradiation at the following doses for the
specified plant pests, carried out in accordance with the provisions of
this section, is approved as a treatment for all regulated articles
(i.e., fruits, vegetables, cut flowers, and foliage):

Irradiation for Certain Plant Pests in Imported Regulated Articles\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scientific name Common name Dose (gray)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anastrepha ludens................ Mexican fruit fly....... 70
Anastrepha obliqua............... West Indian fruit fly... 70
Anastrepha serpentina............ Sapote fruit fly........ 100
Anastrepha suspensa.............. Caribbean fruit fly..... 70
Bactrocera jarvisi............... Jarvis fruit fly........ 100
Bactrocera tryoni................ Queensland fruit fly.... 100
Brevipalpus chilensis............ False red spider mite... 300
Conotrachelus nenuphar........... Plum curculio........... 92
Croptophlebia ombrodelta......... Litchi fruit moth....... 250
Cryptophlebia illepida........... Koa seedworm............ 250
Cylas formicarius elegantulus.... Sweetpotato weevil...... 150
Cydia pomonella.................. Codling moth............ 200
Euscepes postfasciatus........... West Indian sweetpotato 150
weevil.
Grapholita molesta............... Oriental fruit moth..... 200
Omphisa anastomosalis............ Sweetpotato vine borer.. 150
Rhagoletis pomonella............. Apple maggot............ 60
Sternochetus mangiferae Mango seed weevil....... 300
(Fabricus).
Fruit flies of the family Tephritidae not listed above..... 150
Plant pests of the class Insecta not listed above, except 400
pupae and adults of the order Lepidoptera.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There is a possibility that some cut flowers could be damaged by
such irradiation. See paragraph (n) of this section.

* * * * *
(g) * * *
(2) For all articles to be irradiated upon arrival in the United
States, the articles must be packed in cartons that have no openings
that will allow the entry of fruit flies and that are sealed with seals
that will visually indicate if

[[Page 4461]]

the cartons have been opened. They may be constructed of any material
that prevents the entry of fruit flies and prevents oviposition by
fruit flies into the fruit in the carton.
* * * * *

Sec. 305.32 [Amended]

0
8. Section 305.32 is amended as follows:
0
a. In paragraphs (a)(1) and (d), by removing the words ``a minimum
absorbed ionizing radiation dose of 150 Gray (15 krad)'' and adding the
words ``the approved dose for Mexican fruit fly listed in Sec.
305.31(a)'' in their place.
0
b. In paragraph (e)(2), by removing the words ``150 Gray (15 krad)''
and adding the words ``the approved dose for Mexican fruit fly listed
in Sec. 305.31(a)'' in their place.
0
c. In paragraph (g), by removing the words ``Oxford Plant Protection
Center, 901 Hillsboro St., Oxford, NC 27565'' and adding the words
``Center for Plant Health Science and Technology, 1730 Varsity Drive,
Suite 400, Raleigh, NC 27606'' in their place.

Sec. 305.33 [Amended]

0
9. Section 305.33 is amended as follows:
0
a. In paragraphs (a)(1) and (d), by removing the words ``a minimum
absorbed ionizing radiation dose of 225 Gray (22.5 krad)'' and adding
the words ``the approved dose for Mediterranean fruit fly listed in
Sec. 305.31(a)'' in their place.
0
b. In paragraph (e)(2), by removing the words ``225 gray (22.5 krad)''
and adding the words ``the approved dose for Mediterranean fruit fly
listed in Sec. 305.31(a)'' in their place.
0
c. In paragraph (g), by removing the words ``Oxford Plant Protection
Center, 901 Hillsboro St., Oxford, NC 27565'' and adding the words
``Center for Plant Health Science and Technology, 1730 Varsity Drive,
Suite 400, Raleigh, NC 27606'' in their place.

0
10. Section 305.34 is amended as follows:
0
a. By revising the section heading to read as set forth below.
0
b. By revising paragraph (a), including the table, to read as set forth
below.
0
c. In paragraphs (b) introductory text, (b)(1), (b)(2)(ii), and (b)(4),
by adding the words ``, Puerto Rico, or the U.S. Virgin Islands'' after
the word ``Hawaii'' each time it occurs.
0
d. In paragraphs (b) introductory text, (b)(1), (b)(2)(i), (b)(2)(ii),
(b)(4)(i), (b)(4)(ii), (b)(5), (b)(7)(i), (b)(7)(ii), and (e), by
removing the words ``fruits and vegetables'' each time they appear and
by adding the word ``articles'' in their place.
0
e. In paragraph (b)(7)(i), by adding two new sentences after the last
sentence to read as set forth below.
0
f. In paragraph (b)(7)(ii), by adding two new sentences after the last
sentence to read as set forth below.
0
g. In paragraph (c), by removing the words ``1017 Main Campus Drive,
suite 2500'' and adding the words ``1730 Varsity Drive, Suite 400'' in
their place.
0
h. By revising the OMB control number citation at the end of the
section to read as set forth below.
The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec. 305.34 Irradiation treatment of certain regulated articles from
Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

(a) Approved irradiation treatment. (1) Commodity-specific doses.
Irradiation, carried out in accordance with the provisions of this
section, is approved as a treatment for the following fruits and
vegetables from Hawaii at the specified dose levels:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ Litchi and sweetpotato are also subject to the additional
inspection requirements in paragraph (b)(7) of this section.

Irradiation for Plant Pests in Hawaiian Fruits and Vegetables
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commodity Dose (gray)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abiu....................................................... 150
Atemoya.................................................... 150
Bell pepper................................................ 150
Carambola.................................................. 150
Eggplant................................................... 150
Litchi\1\.................................................. 150
Longan..................................................... 150
Mango...................................................... 300
Papaya..................................................... 150
Pineapple.................................................. 150
Rambutan................................................... 150
Sapodilla.................................................. 150
Italian squash............................................. 150
Sweetpotato\1\............................................. 400 or 150
Tomato..................................................... 150
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(2) Pest-specific doses. Any articles from Puerto Rico or the U.S.
Virgin Islands, as well as any articles from Hawaii not listed in
paragraph (a)(1) of this section, that are required by part 318 of this
chapter to be treated or subjected to inspection to control one or more
of the plant pests listed in Sec. 305.31(a) may instead be treated
with irradiation. Articles treated with irradiation for plant pests
listed in Sec. 305.31(a) must be irradiated at the doses listed in
Sec. 305.31(a), and the irradiation treatment must be conducted in
accordance with the other requirements of this section.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(7) * * *
(i) * * * In addition, sweetpotato from Hawaii to be treated with
irradiation at a dose of 150 Gy must be sampled, cut, and inspected in
Hawaii and found to be free of the ginger weevil (Elytrotreinus
subtruncatus) by an inspector before undergoing irradiation treatment
in Hawaii. Sampling, cutting, and inspection must be performed under
conditions that will prevent any pests that may emerge from the sampled
sweetpotatoes from infesting any other sweetpotatoes intended for
interstate movement in accordance with this section.
(ii) * * * In addition, sweetpotato from Hawaii to be treated with
irradiation at a dose of 150 Gy must be sampled, cut, and inspected in
Hawaii and found to be free of the ginger weevil (Elytrotreinus
subtruncatus) by an inspector. Sampling, cutting, and inspection must
be performed under conditions that will prevent any pests that may
emerge from the sampled sweetpotatoes from infesting any other
sweetpotatoes intended for interstate movement in accordance with this
section.
* * * * *
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
numbers 0579-0198 and 0579-0281)

PART 318--HAWAIIAN AND TERRITORIAL QUARANTINE NOTICES

0
11. The authority citation for part 318 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec. 318.13 [Amended]

0
12. In Sec. 318.13, paragraph (c) is amended by removing the words
``leaves in full force and effect Sec. 318.30 which restricts the
movement from Hawaii, Puerto Rico, or the Virgin Islands of the United
States into or through any other State or certain Territories or
Districts of the United States of all varieties of sweetpotatoes
(Ipomoea batatas Poir.). It also''.

0
13. Section 318.13-1 is amended as follows:
0
a. In the definition of compliance agreement, by removing the words
``Sec. 318.13-3(b), Sec. 318.13-4(b), or Sec. 318.13-4f of this
subpart'' and adding the words ``Sec. 318.13(b) or Sec. 318.13-4(b)
of this subpart or Sec. 305.34 of this chapter'' in their place.
0
b. By revising the definition of inspector to read as set forth below.

Sec. 318.13-1 Definitions.

* * * * *
Inspector. Any individual authorized by the Administrator of APHIS
or the

[[Page 4462]]

Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland
Security, to enforce the regulations in this part.
* * * * *

Sec. 318.13-2 [Amended]

0
14. In Sec. 318.13-2, in paragraph (b), the list of articles is
amended by adding, in alphabetical order, a new entry for ``Sweetpotato
(Ipomoea batatas Poir.).''

0
15. Section 318.13-3 is amended as follows:
0
a. By revising paragraph (b)(3) to read as set forth below.
0
b. By adding a new paragraph (b)(4) to read as set forth below.

Sec. 318.13-3 Conditions of movement.

* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) Untreated regulated articles from Hawaii may be moved
interstate for irradiation treatment on the mainland United States if
the provisions of Sec. 305.34 of this chapter are met and if the
articles are accompanied by a limited permit issued by an inspector in
accordance with Sec. 318.13-4(c). Untreated bananas from Hawaii may be
moved interstate for irradiation treatment on the mainland United
States if the provisions of Sec. 318.13-4i(b) are met and if the
bananas are accompanied by a limited permit issued by an inspector in
accordance with Sec. 318.13-4(c). The limited permit will be issued
only if the inspector examines the shipment and determines that the
shipment has been prepared in compliance with the provisions of this
subpart.
(4) Untreated sweetpotatoes from Hawaii may be moved interstate for
vapor heat treatment on the mainland United States if the provisions of
Sec. 318.13-4d are met and if the sweetpotatoes are accompanied by a
limited permit issued by an inspector in accordance with Sec. 318.13-
4(c). The limited permit will be issued only if the inspector examines
the shipment and determines that the shipment has been prepared in
compliance with the provisions of this subpart.
* * * * *

Sec. 318.13-4b [Amended]

0
16. Section 318.13-4b is amended as follows:
0
a. By adding the words ``or vegetables'' after the word ``fruits'' in
the following places:
i. The section heading.
ii. Paragraph (a).
iii. Paragraph (b), in the paragraph heading and the first
sentence.
iv. Paragraph (c).
v. Paragraph (e).
vi. Paragraph (f).
0
b. In paragraph (b), by removing the words ``fruit flies'' and adding
the words ``plant pests'' in their place.
0
c. In paragraph (b), by adding the word ``sweetpotatoes,'' after the
word ``rambutan,''.

0
17. A new Sec. 318.13-4d is added to read as follows:

Sec. 318.13-4d Vapor heat treatment of sweetpotatoes from Hawaii.

(a) Vapor heat treatment, carried out in accordance with the
provisions of this section, is approved as a treatment for sweetpotato
from Hawaii.
(b) Sweetpotatoes may be moved interstate from Hawaii in accordance
with this section only if the following conditions are met: \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ Sweetpotatoes may also be moved interstate from Hawaii in
accordance with Sec. 305.34 of this chapter or after fumigation
with methyl bromide according to treatment schedule T-101-b-3-1, as
provided for in Sec. 305.6(a) of this chapter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) The sweetpotatoes must be treated in accordance with the vapor
heat treatment schedule specified in Sec. 305.24.
(2) The sweetpotatoes must be sampled, cut, and inspected and found
to be free of the ginger weevil (Elytrotreinus subtruncatus). Sampling,
cutting, and inspection must be performed under conditions that will
prevent any pests that may emerge from the sampled sweetpotatoes from
infesting any other sweetpotatoes intended for interstate movement in
accordance with this section.
(3) The sweetpotatoes must be inspected and found to be free of the
gray pineapple mealybug (Dysmicoccus neobrevipes) and the Kona coffee-
root knot nematode (Meloidogyne konaensis).
(4)(i) Sweetpotatoes that are treated in Hawaii must be packaged in
the following manner:
(A) The cartons must have no openings that will allow the entry of
fruit flies and must be sealed with seals that will visually indicate
if the cartons have been opened. They may be constructed of any
material that prevents the entry of fruit flies and prevents
oviposition by fruit flies into the fruit in the carton.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ If there is a question as to the adequacy of a carton, send
a request for approval of the carton, together with a sample carton,
to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection
and Quarantine, Center for Plant Health Science and Technology, 1730
Varsity Drive, Suite 400, Raleigh, NC 27606.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) The pallet-load of cartons must be wrapped before it leaves the
treatment facility in one of the following ways:
(1) With polyethylene sheet wrap;
(2) With net wrapping; or
(3) With strapping so that each carton on an outside row of the
pallet load is constrained by a metal or plastic strap.
(C) Packaging must be labeled with treatment lot numbers, packing
and treatment facility identification and location, and dates of
packing and treatment.
(ii) Cartons of untreated sweetpotatoes that are moving to the
mainland United States for treatment must be shipped in shipping
containers sealed prior to interstate movement with seals that will
visually indicate if the shipping containers have been opened.
(5)(i) Certification on basis of treatment. A certificate shall be
issued by an inspector for the movement of sweetpotatoes from Hawaii
that have been treated and handled in Hawaii in accordance with this
section. To be certified for interstate movement under this section,
sweetpotato from Hawaii must be sampled, cut, and inspected by an
inspector and found by an inspector to be free of the ginger weevil
(Elytrotreinus subtruncatus) and inspected and found by an inspector to
be free of the gray pineapple mealybug (Dysmicoccus neobrevipes), and
the Kona coffee-root knot nematode (Meloidogyne konaensis) before
undergoing vapor heat treatment in Hawaii.
(ii) Limited permit. A limited permit shall be issued by an
inspector for the interstate movement of untreated sweetpotato from
Hawaii for treatment on the mainland United States in accordance with
this section. To be eligible for a limited permit under this section,
untreated sweetpotato from Hawaii must be sampled, cut, and inspected
in Hawaii by an inspector and found by an inspector to be free of the
ginger weevil (Elytrotreinus subtruncatus) and inspected and found by
an inspector to be free of the gray pineapple mealybug (Dysmicoccus
neobrevipes), and the Kona coffee-root knot nematode (Meloidogyne
konaensis).

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 0579-0281)

0
18. Section 318.13-4f is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 318.13-4f Irradiation treatment of certain regulated articles
from Hawaii.

Irradiation, carried out in accordance with the provisions in Sec.
305.34 of this chapter, is approved as a treatment for the following
fruits and vegetables: Abiu, atemoya, bell pepper, carambola, eggplant,
litchi, longan, mango, papaya, pineapple, rambutan, sapodilla, Italian
squash, sweetpotato, and tomato. Any

[[Page 4463]]

other commodities that are required by this subpart to be treated or
subjected to inspection to control one or more of the plant pests
listed in Sec. 305.31(a) of this chapter may instead be treated with
irradiation. Commodities treated with irradiation for plant pests
listed in Sec. 305.31(a) must be irradiated at the doses listed in
Sec. 305.31(a), and the irradiation treatment must be conducted in
accordance with the other requirements of Sec. 305.34.

0
19. Section 318.13-4i is amended as follows:
0
a. By revising the section heading to read as set forth below.
0
b. By redesignating paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (d) as paragraphs
(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), and (a)(4), respectively, and by designating
the introductory text of the section as paragraph (a), introductory
text.
0
c. By adding a new paragraph (b) to read as set forth below.

Sec. 318.13-4i Conditions governing the movement of bananas from
Hawaii.

* * * * *
(b) Bananas of any cultivar or ripeness that do not meet the
conditions of paragraph (a) of this section may also be moved
interstate from Hawaii in accordance with the following conditions:
(1) The bananas are irradiated at the minimum dose listed in Sec.
305.31(a) of this chapter and in accordance with the other requirements
in Sec. 305.34 of this chapter for the Mediterranean fruit fly
(Ceratitis capitata), the melon fruit fly (Bactrocera curcurbitae), the
Oriental fruit fly (Bactrocera dorsalis), and the green scale (Coccus
viridis) and are inspected, after removal from the stalk, in Hawaii and
found to be free of the banana moth (Opogona sacchari (Bojen)) by an
inspector before or after undergoing irradiation treatment; or
(2) The bananas are irradiated at the minimum dose listed in
Sec. A305.31(a) of this chapter and in accordance with the other
requirements in Sec. 305.34 of this chapter for the Mediterranean
fruit fly (Ceratitis capitata), the melon fruit fly (Bactrocera
curcurbitae), and the Oriental fruit fly (Bactrocera dorsalis) and are
inspected, after removal from the stalk, in Hawaii and found to be free
of the green scale (Coccus viridis) and the banana moth (Opogona
sacchari (Bojen)) before or after undergoing irradiation treatment.
(3)(i) A certificate shall be issued by an inspector for the
movement of bananas from Hawaii that have been treated and inspected in
Hawaii in accordance with this paragraph Sec. 318.13-4i(b). To be
certified for interstate movement under this paragraph, bananas from
Hawaii must be treated, inspected, and, if necessary, culled in
accordance with the requirements of this paragraph prior to interstate
movement from Hawaii.
(ii) A limited permit shall be issued by an inspector for the
interstate movement of untreated bananas from Hawaii for treatment on
the mainland United States in accordance with this section. To be
eligible for a limited permit under this paragraph Sec. 318.13-4i(b),
bananas from Hawaii must be inspected in accordance with the
requirements of this paragraph prior to interstate movement from
Hawaii.

Sec. 318.13-5 [Amended]

0
20. In Sec. 318.13-5, footnote 6 is redesignated as footnote 4.

Sec. 318.13-12 [Amended]

0
21. In Sec. 318.13-12, footnotes 7 and 8 are redesignated as footnotes
5 and 6, respectively.

Sec. 318.13-17 [Amended]

0
22. In Sec. 318.13-17, footnotes 9 and 10 are redesignated as
footnotes 7 and 8, respectively.

Subpart--Sweetpotatoes [Removed]

0
23. Subpart--Sweetpotatoes, consisting of Sec. Sec. 318.30 and
318.30a, is removed.

Sec. 318.58 [Amended]

0
24. In Sec. 318.58, paragraph (d) is amended by removing the words
``leaves in full force and effect Sec. 318.30 which restricts the
movement from Hawaii, Puerto Rico, or the Virgin Islands of the United
States into or through any other State or certain Territories or
Districts of the United States of all varieties of sweetpotatoes
(Ipomoea batatas Poir.). It also''.

0
25. In Sec. 318.58-1, the definition of inspector is revised to read
as follows:

Sec. 318.58-1 Definitions.

* * * * *
Inspector. Any individual authorized by the Administrator of APHIS
or the Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection, Department of
Homeland Security, to enforce the regulations in this part.
* * * * *

Sec. 318.58-2 [Amended]

0
26. In Sec. 318.58-2, in paragraph (b)(2), the list of articles is
amended by adding, in alphabetical order, a new entry for ``Sweetpotato
(Ipomoea batatas Poir.).''

0
27. A new section Sec. 318.58-4b is added to read as follows:

Sec. 318.58-4b Irradiation treatment of regulated articles from
Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

Any regulated articles from Puerto Rico or the U.S. Virgin Islands
that are required by this subpart to be treated or subjected to
inspection to control one or more of the plant pests listed in Sec.
305.31(a) of this chapter may instead be treated with irradiation.
Commodities treated with irradiation for plant pests listed in Sec.
305.31(a) must be irradiated at the doses listed in Sec. 305.31(a),
and the irradiation treatment must be conducted in accordance with the
other requirements of Sec. 305.34.

0
28. A new section Sec. 318.58-4c is added to read as follows.

Sec. 318.58-4c Movement of sweetpotatoes from Puerto Rico to certain
ports.

Sweetpotatoes from Puerto Rico may be moved interstate to Atlantic
Coast ports north of and including Baltimore, MD, if the following
conditions are met:
(a) The sweetpotatoes must be certified by an inspector of the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico as having been grown under the following
conditions:
(1) Fields in which the sweetpotatoes have been grown must have
been given a preplanting treatment with an approved soil insecticide.
(2) Before planting in such treated fields, the sweetpotato draws
and vine cuttings must have been dipped in an approved insecticidal
solution.
(3) During the growing season an approved insecticide must have
been applied to the vines at prescribed intervals.
(b) An inspector of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico must certify
that the sweetpotatoes have been washed.
(c) The sweetpotatoes must be graded by inspectors of the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico in accordance with Puerto Rican standards
which do not provide a tolerance for insect infestation or evidence of
insect injury and found by such inspectors to comply with such
standards prior to movement from Puerto Rico.
(d) The sweetpotatoes must be inspected by an inspector and found
to be free of the sweetpotato scarabee (Euscepes postfasciatus Fairm.).

PART 319--FOREIGN QUARANTINE NOTICES

0
29. The authority citation for part 319 continues to read as follows:

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

[[Page 4464]]

Sec. 319.56-2 [Amended]

0
30. In Sec. 319.56-2, paragraph (k) is amended by removing the words
``11 species of fruit flies and one species of seed weevil'' and adding
the words ``plant pests'' in their place.

0
31. Section 319.74-2 is amended as follows by redesignating paragraph
(d) as paragraph (e) and by adding a new paragraph (d) to read as
follows:

Sec. 319.74-2 Conditions governing the entry of cut flowers.

* * * * *
(d) Irradiation. Cut flowers and foliage that are required under
this part to be treated or subjected to inspection to control one or
more of the plant pests listed in Sec. 305.31(a) of this chapter may
instead be treated with irradiation. Commodities treated with
irradiation for plant pests listed in Sec. 305.31(a) must be
irradiated at the doses listed in Sec. 305.31(a), and the irradiation
treatment must be conducted in accordance with the other requirements
of Sec. 305.34 of this chapter. There is a possibility that some cut
flowers could be damaged by such irradiation.
* * * * *

Done in Washington, DC, this 20th day of January 2006.
Kevin Shea,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 06-746 Filed 1-26-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-34-P