[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 124 (Tuesday, June 30, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31201-31209]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-15508]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 30, 2009 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 31201]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
7 CFR Part 301
[Docket No. APHIS-2009-0023]
RIN 0579-AC96
Citrus Canker; Movement of Fruit From Quarantined Areas
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are proposing to amend the citrus canker regulations to
modify the conditions under which fruit may be moved interstate from a
quarantined area. Under this proposed rule, we would eliminate the
requirement that each lot of finished fruit be inspected at the
packinghouse and found to be free of visible symptoms of citrus canker,
and we would remove the current prohibition on the movement of fruit
from a quarantined area to commercial citrus-producing States. We would
continue to require fruit moved interstate from a quarantined area to
be treated with an approved disinfectant and to be packed in a
commercial packinghouse that operates under a compliance agreement.
These proposed changes would relieve some restrictions on the
interstate movement of fresh citrus fruit from quarantined areas while
maintaining conditions that would prevent the artificial spread of
citrus canker.
DATES: We will consider all comments that we receive on or before
August 31, 2009.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS-2009-0023 to submit or view comments and
to view supporting and related materials available electronically.
Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Please send two copies of
your comment to Docket No. APHIS-2009-0023, Regulatory Analysis and
Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118,
Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state that your comment refers to
Docket No. APHIS-2009-0023.
Reading Room: You may read any comments that we receive on this
docket in our reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 of
the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to
help you, please call (202) 690-2817 before coming.
Other Information: Additional information about APHIS and its
programs is available on the Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Stephen Poe, Senior Operations
Officer, Emergency and Domestic Programs, Plant Protection and
Quarantine, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 137, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231;
(301) 734-4387.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Citrus canker is a plant disease caused by the bacterium
Xanthomonas citri subsp. citri (referred to below as Xcc) that affects
plants and plant parts, including fresh fruit, of citrus and citrus
relatives (Family Rutaceae). Citrus canker can cause defoliation and
other serious damage to the leaves and twigs of susceptible plants. It
can also cause lesions on the fruit of infected plants, which render
the fruit unmarketable, and cause infected fruit to drop from the trees
before reaching maturity. The A (Asiatic) strain of citrus canker can
infect susceptible plants rapidly and lead to extensive economic losses
in commercial citrus-producing areas. Citrus canker is only known to be
present in the United States in the State of Florida.
The regulations to prevent the interstate spread of citrus canker
are contained in ``Subpart--Citrus Canker'' (7 CFR 301.75-1 through
301.75-14, referred to below as the regulations). The regulations
restrict the interstate movement of regulated articles from and through
areas quarantined because of citrus canker and provide, among other
things, conditions under which regulated fruit may be moved into,
through, and from quarantined areas for packing.
The conditions for the interstate movement of regulated fruit
produced in a quarantined area in Sec. 301.75-7(a) are currently as
follows:
Every lot of fruit to be moved interstate must be
inspected by an Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)
employee at a commercial packinghouse for symptoms of citrus canker.
Any lot found to contain fruit with visible symptoms of citrus canker
will be ineligible for interstate movement from the quarantined area.
The number of fruit to be inspected will be the quantity that is
sufficient to detect, with a 95 percent level of confidence, any lot of
fruit containing 0.38 percent or more fruit with visible canker
lesions. A lot of fruit that is inspected and found to be ineligible
for interstate movement may not be reconditioned and submitted for
reinspection.
The owner or operator of any commercial packinghouse that
wishes to move citrus fruit interstate from the quarantined area must
enter into a compliance agreement with APHIS in accordance with Sec.
301.75-13.
The regulated fruit was treated with an approved
disinfectant in accordance with Sec. 301.75-11(a).
The regulated fruit is free of leaves, twigs, and other
plant parts, except for stems that are less than 1 inch long and
attached to the fruit.
Each lot of regulated fruit found to be eligible for
interstate movement must be accompanied by a limited permit issued in
accordance with Sec. 301.75-12. Regulated fruit to be moved interstate
must be packaged in boxes or other containers that are approved by
APHIS and that are used exclusively for regulated fruit that is
eligible for interstate movement. The boxes or other containers in
which the fruit is packaged, and any shipping documents accompanying
the boxes or other containers, must be clearly marked with a statement
indicating that they may not be distributed in American Samoa, Arizona,
California, Guam, Hawaii, Louisiana, Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, Texas, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
[[Page 31202]]
(These are the commercial citrus-producing areas listed in Sec.
301.75-5; we refer to them in this document as commercial citrus-
producing States.)
In a final rule \1\ effective and published in the Federal Register
on November 19, 2007 (72 FR 65172-65204, Docket No. APHIS-2007-0022),
we amended the regulations governing the interstate movement of
regulated fruit from a quarantined area to establish these conditions.
That final rule eliminated a requirement that the groves in which fruit
to be moved interstate is produced be inspected and found free of
citrus canker. Instead, we added the packinghouse inspection
requirement mentioned earlier. We retained the other requirements that
had been in the regulations, including the requirement that the fruit
be treated with a surface disinfectant and the prohibition on the
movement of fruit from a quarantined area into commercial citrus-
producing States listed in Sec. 301.75-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ To view the final rule, go to http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS-2007-0022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We established those conditions based on the conclusions of a pest
risk assessment (PRA) and risk management analysis (RMA) prepared for
that rulemaking. The PRA concluded that asymptomatic, commercially
produced citrus fruit, treated with a disinfectant and subject to other
mitigations, is not epidemiologically significant as a pathway for the
introduction and spread of citrus canker.
The RMA examined the risks associated with both symptomatic and
asymptomatic fruit and concluded that the introduction and spread of
Xcc into other States through the movement of commercially packed fresh
citrus fruit from quarantined areas is unlikely. In addition, the RMA
concluded that a phytosanitary inspection would ensure, with high
confidence, that few shipped fruit would have symptoms of citrus canker
disease. However, the RMA also concluded that the evidence available at
that time was not sufficient to support a determination that fresh
citrus fruit produced in an Xcc-infested grove cannot serve as a
pathway for the introduction of Xcc into new areas, thus necessitating
the prohibition on movement of fruit into commercial citrus-producing
States.
In our responses to public comments in the Background section of
the November 2007 final rule, we stated: ``If, in the future, evidence
is developed to support a determination that commercially packed citrus
fruit (both symptomatic and asymptomatic) is not an epidemiologically
significant \2\ pathway for the introduction and spread of citrus
canker, we would undertake rulemaking to amend our regulations
accordingly.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The term ``epidemiologically significant'' refers to the
minimum conditions required for introduction of a disease into an
unaffected area. Our judgment of whether fruit is an
epidemiologically significant pathway for disease transmission is
based on the likelihood that the fruit itself will be infected with
the disease, that the infection will occur in a way or at a level
sufficient for transmission of the disease, and that such an
infected fruit will encounter the biological conditions required for
transmission of the disease.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Evidence Regarding the Potential of the Movement of Fruit to Spread
Citrus Canker
Since the publication of the final rule, two publications have
provided additional evidence regarding the potential of fruit to serve
as a pathway for the introduction and spread of citrus canker. This new
evidence addresses key uncertainties and caused us to revisit our
previous findings. The first article, by Gottwald et al. (2009),\3\
documents research on the survival of Xcc on commercially produced and
packed citrus fruit and the likelihood that such fruit could serve as a
mechanism to spread the disease. The second article, by Shiotani et al.
(2009),\4\ documents research on the survival of Xcc on commercially
produced mandarin fruits and the likelihood of spread of Xcc to trees
from harvested mandarins.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Gottwald, T., Graham, J., Bock, C., Bonn, G., Civerolo, E.,
Irey, M., Leite, R., L[oacute]pez, M. M., McCollum, G., Parker, P.,
Ramallo, J., Riley, T., Schubert, T., Stein, B., and Taylor, E.
(2009). The epidemiological significance of post-packinghouse
survival of Xanthomonas citri subsp. citri for dissemination of
Asiatic citrus canker via infected fruit. Crop Protection 28, 508-
524.
\4\ Shiotani, H., Uematsu, H., Tsukamoto, T., Shimizu, Y., Ueda,
K., Mizuno, A. & Sato, S. (2009). Survival and dispersal of
Xanthomonas citri pv. citri from infected Satsuma mandarin fruit.
Crop Protection 28, 19-23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, we have prepared updates to the PRA and RMA that
accompanied the November 2007 final rule. These documents, and the
November 2007 PRA and RMA that they update, are available on the
Regulations.gov Web site and in our reading room (see ADDRESSES above)
and may be obtained from the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
The updated PRA, titled ``An Updated Evaluation of Citrus Fruit
(Citrus spp.) as a Pathway for the Introduction of Citrus Canker
Disease (Xanthomonas citri subsp. citri)'' (March 2009), examines the
information presented in Gottwald et al. (2009) and Shiotani et al.
(2009) in the context of the earlier PRA. Based on the evidence
presented in both the November 2007 PRA and the two new publications,
the updated PRA concludes that asymptomatic fruit (treated or
untreated) is not epidemiologically significant as a pathway for
introducing citrus canker. It further concludes that symptomatic fruit
subjected to a packinghouse process that includes washing with
disinfectants is also not epidemiologically significant as a pathway
for introducing citrus canker.
These conclusions led us to prepare a supplemental RMA, titled
``Movement of Commercially Packed Citrus Fruit from Citrus Canker
Disease Quarantine Area; Supplemental Risk Management Analysis'' (May
2009). The supplemental RMA takes into account the conclusions of the
updated PRA as well as the evidence and discussion presented in the
November 2007 RMA. Like the November 2007 RMA, the supplemental RMA was
submitted for peer review, in accordance with the Office of Management
and Budget's bulletin on peer review. All the materials associated with
the peer review on the supplemental RMA, including the peer reviewers'
comments and our responses, are available at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/peer_review/peer_review_agenda.shtml. The peer reviewers' comments
were considered in developing the supplemental RMA.
The supplemental RMA examines key findings from the publications
mentioned earlier. These include:
Post-harvest treatments reduce the viability of bacteria
on fruit;
The viability of bacteria on fruit diminishes after it is
harvested;
The low potential for spread from fruit to suitable hosts
has now been reported by several sources;
Rinds of infected fruit are unlikely to provide inoculum
for disease if they have been discarded in the field at least 8 days;
and
Fruit parts, even those that are in direct contact with
susceptible trees, are unlikely to spread the disease.
The supplemental RMA concludes that multiple lines of evidence,
including, but not limited to, evidence from the two recent studies and
the November 2007 RMA, indicate that commercially packed and
disinfected fresh citrus fruit is not an epidemiologically significant
pathway for the introduction and spread of Xcc, i.e.:
Disease management practices in the grove reduce, but do
not eliminate, Xcc populations.
Commercially produced fruit harvested in areas where Xcc
exists may be visibly infected or the fruit may carry
[[Page 31203]]
the pathogen either on its surface or in wounds.
Citrus canker disease development between harvest and
packinghouse, via wounding for example, is not likely.
Procedures for cleaning and disinfecting fruit are
routinely applied by packinghouses.
The individual efficacy of these procedures for removing
or destroying Xcc may not be known in detail, but the effect of
packinghouse treatments reduces the prevalence of viable Xcc and
therefore the level of inoculum associated with commercially packed
fresh citrus fruit.
Packinghouse processing that includes a disinfectant
treatment further reduces amounts of Xcc inoculum on infected or
contaminated fruit.
The viability of bacteria on fruit and in lesions and
wounds diminishes after the fruit is harvested.
The viability of Xcc bacteria that survive the packing
process will further diminish during shipping.
Epiphytic populations of Xcc may aid in pathogen
dispersal, but substantial evidence indicates that bacterial
populations do not infect intact mature fruit.
Evidence indicates that wounds on harvested fruit
containing Xcc inoculum do not lead to citrus canker lesion
development, and Xcc populations generally decline rapidly, although
wounds might occasionally retain Xcc populations that decline more
slowly.
The cool temperatures at which citrus fruit are stored and
shipped and the duration of storage reduce the ability of Xcc to
reproduce and cause infection.
As a condition for successful establishment, Xcc, in
amounts sufficient to cause infection, must encounter not only an
environment with a conducive temperature, relative humidity, moisture,
and wind events for infection, but also must encounter host plant
tissue that is either at a susceptible growth stage or is wounded and
then must successfully enter this tissue.
Despite substantial international trade between Xcc-
infected and noninfected countries, there is no authenticated record of
movement of diseased fruit or seeds resulting in the introduction of
Xcc to new areas.
Evaluation of Risk Management Options
In light of this evidence, the supplemental RMA considers five risk
management options for the interstate movement of commercially packed
citrus fruit from areas quarantined for citrus canker:
Option 1: Allow distribution of all types and varieties of
commercially packed citrus fruit to all U.S. States, without
packinghouse treatment with a disinfectant.
Option 2: Allow distribution of all types and varieties of
commercially packed citrus fruit to all U.S. States, subject to
packinghouse treatment with an APHIS-approved disinfectant, but without
the current inspection requirement.
Option 3: Allow distribution of all types and varieties of
commercially packed citrus fruit to all U.S. States except commercial
citrus-producing States, subject to packinghouse treatment of citrus
fruit with an APHIS-approved disinfectant treatment; and, allow
distribution of all types and varieties of commercially packed citrus
fruit to all U.S. States, including commercial citrus-producing States,
subject to packinghouse treatment with an APHIS-approved disinfectant
treatment and APHIS inspection for symptoms of citrus canker.
Option 4: Allow distribution of all types and varieties of
commercially packed citrus fruit to all U.S. States other than
commercial citrus-producing States, subject to packinghouse treatment
with an APHIS-approved disinfectant.
Option 5: Leave the current regulations for the interstate
movement of citrus fruit from areas quarantined for citrus canker
unchanged.
Each option was considered within the context of available
scientific evidence. Option 1 would allow unrestricted distribution of
all types and varieties of commercially packed citrus fruit to all U.S.
States, without packinghouse treatment with a disinfectant. However,
the updated PRA and the supplemental RMA limit their conclusion that
fresh citrus fruit is not an epidemiologically significant pathway for
the introduction and spread of Xcc to fruit that has been treated with
a disinfectant. This conclusion is consistent with the Gottwald et al.
(2009) article, which concludes that packinghouse-disinfested, citrus
fruit with canker lesions are an unlikely pathway through which Xcc
inoculum might lead to infection and Xcc establishment in new areas.
In addition, both of the recent articles examined in the updated
PRA and the supplemental RMA included research on the issue of
transmission of Xcc from infected fruit to nearby citrus plants. All
but one of the situations reported in these articles found no
transmission of Xcc to citrus plants in circumstances designed to allow
for such transmission. Gottwald et al. (2009) reported one transmission
of citrus canker from untreated, highly infected fruit to susceptible
plants in what the paper characterized as ``a highly contrived
situation designed to provide every possible opportunity for dispersal
of Xcc.'' The situation included fruit selected specifically for their
high level of canker infection, subjected to no post-harvest treatment
or processing, placed next to grapefruit seedlings (considered highly
susceptible to Xcc infection), and subjected to artificial wind and
rain conditions. An injured grapefruit seedling immediately adjacent to
the infested fruit was infected under these conditions. It is highly
improbable that the conditions under which Xcc was transmitted from the
untreated fruit would occur in any area; however, the experiment
demonstrates that the transmission of canker from untreated fruit is
possible. Therefore, we determined that movement of fruit from
quarantined areas without disinfectant treatment and with no other
phytosanitary mitigations was not justified by the available scientific
evidence. We welcome public comment on this determination.
Option 5 is the most restrictive option that we considered. It
would leave the current regulations in place and unchanged, including
both the requirement for packinghouse inspection for symptoms of citrus
canker and the prohibition on the movement of fruit to commercial
citrus-producing States. This option would not take into account the
evidence in the recent articles cited in the updated PRA and the
supplemental RMA. This evidence establishes with a greater degree of
certainty than was previously indicated that commercially packed fruit
that is treated with an APHIS-approved disinfectant is not an
epidemiologically significant pathway for the transmission of citrus
canker, meaning that some phytosanitary mitigations currently included
in the regulations are no longer necessary to prevent the spread of
citrus canker from quarantined areas via the movement of fruit.
Consequently, Options 2, 3, and 4 were evaluated and Options 1 and 5
were no longer considered.
Option 2 would allow commercially packed fruit treated with an
APHIS-approved disinfectant to move from a quarantined area to any
State, including commercial citrus-producing States, but would not
include the current inspection requirement.
Options 3 and 4 require disinfectant treatment and include
additional phytosanitary measures to address any remaining uncertainty
regarding the epidemiological significance of commercially packed fruit
as a pathway for the transmission of citrus canker.
[[Page 31204]]
Option 3 would prohibit the distribution of fruit to commercial citrus-
producing States unless it is inspected for symptoms of citrus canker,
using the same inspection process currently described in paragraph
(a)(1) of Sec. 301.75-7. Option 4 would not include the inspection
requirement but would continue to prohibit the distribution of all
fruit to commercial citrus-producing States.
After considering the evidence presented in the updated PRA and the
supplemental RMA and the conclusions of those documents, we have
determined that currently available scientific evidence provides
additional certainty that commercially packed, treated fruit is not an
epidemiologically significant pathway for the spread of citrus canker.
Therefore, no mitigations beyond treatment with an APHIS-approved
disinfectant are necessary. Accordingly, in this document, we are
proposing to implement Option 2.
Pretreatment Detergent Wash
We also considered whether to change our current fruit disinfection
treatments in Sec. 301.75-11 in light of findings in Gottwald et al.
(2009). Paragraph (a) of Sec. 301.75-11 currently requires fruit moved
interstate from a quarantined area to be treated, in a commercial
packinghouse operating under a compliance agreement, in at least one of
the following ways:
The regulated fruit must be thoroughly wetted for at least
2 minutes with a solution containing 200 parts per million sodium
hypochlorite, with the solution maintained at a pH of 6.0 to 7.5.
The regulated fruit must be thoroughly wetted with a
solution containing sodium o-phenyl phenate (SOPP) at a concentration
of 1.86 to 2.0 percent of the total solution, for 45 seconds if the
solution has sufficient soap or detergent to cause a visible foaming
action or for 1 minute if the solution does not contain sufficient soap
to cause a visible foaming action.
The regulated fruit must be thoroughly wetted for at least
1 minute with a solution containing 85 parts per million peroxyacetic
acid.
Gottwald et al. (2009) presents evidence that ``suggest[s] that
effectiveness of packing line decontamination can be increased by using
prewashing treatment that includes detergent, (such as SOPP) to remove
dirt and debris that reduce the effectiveness of the disinfestants.''
(Shiotani et al. (2009) did not address this issue.) The supplemental
RMA concludes, as noted earlier, that packinghouse processing that
includes prewashing fruit with detergent over brushes followed by a
disinfectant treatment further reduces already epidemiologically
insignificant amounts of Xcc inoculum on infected or contaminated
fruit. Accordingly, we considered whether to change our treatment
requirements to incorporate a pretreatment detergent wash requirement
in addition to the approved disinfectant treatments listed earlier.
Various studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of the
currently approved disinfectants in reducing numbers of Xcc cells or
similar bacteria to low or undetectable levels, as discussed in the
November 2007 RMA. The overall results of the pretreatment detergent
wash experiments in Gottwald et al. (2009) were inconclusive. In the
experiment in which the pretreatment detergent wash increased the
effectiveness of the chlorine treatment, the treatment used was not
equivalent to any of the APHIS-approved treatments listed earlier. In
the other experiment, the treatment was equivalent, but the
pretreatment detergent wash did not significantly increase the
effectiveness of the treatment.
In addition, the updated PRA and supplemental RMA conclude that the
viability of Xcc bacteria on fruit and in lesions and wounds diminishes
after the fruit is harvested; the viability of Xcc bacteria that
survive the packing process will further diminish during shipping; and
evidence indicates that wounds on harvested fruit containing Xcc
inoculum do not lead to citrus canker lesion development, and Xcc
populations generally decline rapidly, although wounds might
occasionally retain Xcc populations that decline more slowly. The risk
associated with bacteria that survive treatment is additionally
mitigated by other steps in the commercial packing and distribution
process.
Taking all the relevant evidence into account, we have determined
that it is not necessary to amend the regulations to require a
pretreatment detergent wash in addition to the disinfectant treatment.
The current disinfectant treatments are an adequate mitigation to
ensure that fruit is not an epidemiologically significant pathway for
Xcc, especially when considering other aspects of the epidemiological
significance of Xcc that are better characterized by the new evidence.
Proposed Changes to the Regulations Governing the Interstate Movement
of Fruit
As noted earlier, the regulations governing the interstate movement
of regulated fruit produced in a quarantined area are set out in
paragraph (a) of Sec. 301.75-7. Reflecting our choice of Option 2, we
are proposing to remove the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) and
(a)(6), which respectively describe the current fruit inspection
process and state that a lot of fruit that is determined to be
ineligible for interstate movement through the inspection process may
not be reconditioned and submitted for reinspection.
We are also proposing to remove the requirements in paragraph
(a)(5), which requires a limited permit and marking of the fruit's
packaging to prevent its movement to commercial citrus-producing
States. The current introductory text of paragraph (a) in Sec. 301.75-
7 refers to movement of fruit into any area of the United States except
commercial citrus-producing areas. We would amend this introductory
text to indicate that regulated fruit may move interstate with a
certificate issued and attached in accordance with Sec. 301.75-12.
Because we would remove the current distribution restrictions, a
certificate, which allows unrestricted movement, would be the
appropriate document to accompany regulated fruit moved interstate from
the quarantined area under the proposed regulations.
Paragraph (a)(2) requires the owner or operator of any commercial
packinghouse that wishes to move citrus fruit interstate from the
quarantined area to enter into a compliance agreement with APHIS in
accordance with Sec. 301.75-13. We are proposing to move this
requirement to paragraph (a)(1) and to restate it slightly to emphasize
that the fruit must be packed in a commercial packinghouse. The
emphasis on packing in a commercial packinghouse would ensure that the
regulations are consistent with the conclusions of the updated PRA and
the supplemental RMA, which evaluate the risk of spread of citrus
canker via commercially packed fruit specifically. Under this proposal,
paragraph (a)(1) of Sec. 301.75-7 would state that regulated fruit
must be packed in a commercial packinghouse whose owner or operator has
entered into a compliance agreement with APHIS in accordance with Sec.
301.75-13.
The term ``commercial packinghouse'' is defined in Sec. 301.75-1
as an establishment in which space and equipment are maintained for the
primary purpose of packing citrus fruit for commercial sale. The
conclusions of the supplemental RMA refer specifically to disinfected
fruit; accordingly, we are proposing to amend this definition to refer
to equipment maintained for the
[[Page 31205]]
primary purpose of disinfecting and packing fruit.
In addition, under the current definition of commercial
packinghouse, a commercial packinghouse must be registered as a
packinghouse with the State in which it operates or hold a business
license for treating and packing fruit. However, part of this
definition is in error; there is no business license available for
treating and packing fruit in the citrus canker quarantined area.
Rather, there are State licensing, registration, and certification
provisions for commercial packinghouses, and each of these provisions
includes requirements that the packinghouse must fulfill in order to be
licensed, certified, or registered as a commercial packinghouse.
Therefore, we are proposing to amend the commercial packinghouse
definition to require that a commercial packinghouse be licensed,
registered, or certified with the State in which it operates and meet
all the requirements for the license, registration, or certification
that it holds.
Proposed paragraph (a)(2) of Sec. 301.75-7 would require the
regulated fruit to be treated in accordance with Sec. 301.75-11(a).
This requirement is currently contained in paragraph (a)(3).
Proposed paragraph (a)(3) would require the regulated fruit to be
free of leaves, twigs, and other plant parts, except for stems that are
less than 1 inch long and attached to the fruit. This requirement is
currently contained in paragraph (a)(4). We are proposing to retain
this requirement, which is necessary because other plant parts pose
different risks than fruit does; canker lesions on leaves, for example,
typically have much higher bacterial populations than canker lesions on
fruit.
Under this proposed rule, APHIS inspectors would no longer be on
site at packinghouses to enforce the requirements for treatment and
removal of leaves, twigs, and other plant parts. We would require that
these activities be conducted in accordance with the regulations in our
compliance agreements with commercial packinghouses, and spot checks
would be conducted to ensure that treatment is being performed properly
and that no leaves, twigs, or other plant parts are being included in
containers of fruit moved interstate.
As noted earlier, we are proposing to remove the requirements
related to packaging fruit moved interstate, under which only fruit
that met the requirements of the regulations could be packaged in boxes
or other containers bearing a statement prohibiting their distribution
to commercial citrus-producing States, because we are proposing to
remove the distribution restrictions that made those packaging
requirements necessary. It is a common business practice in Florida for
businesses to buy commercially packed and treated fruit and repackage
it for interstate movement before the fruit is ultimately moved
interstate from Florida. Under this proposed rule, the repackaged fruit
would not be moved with its original certificate, which would have been
attached to the container in which the fruit was originally packed or
to the waybill originally accompanying the fruit in accordance with
Sec. 301.75-12. However, fruit moved interstate would need to be moved
with a certificate to allow us to verify that it was moved in
accordance with the proposed regulations.
To address this issue, we are proposing to include a new paragraph
(a)(4). This paragraph would state that, if fruit is repackaged after
being packed in a commercial packinghouse and before it is moved
interstate from the quarantined area, the person that repackages the
fruit must enter into a compliance agreement with APHIS in accordance
with Sec. 301.75-13 and issue and attach a certificate for the
interstate movement of the fruit in accordance with Sec. 301.75-12.
In current Sec. 301.75-7, paragraph (c) contains requirements for
the interstate movement of fruit from a quarantined area when that
fruit was not produced in the quarantined area but was moved there for
packing. Under paragraph (c)(1), such fruit may be moved to States
other than commercial citrus-producing States, under conditions similar
to those in current paragraph (a), or the fruit may be moved to any
State (including commercial citrus-producing States) under the
conditions specified in under paragraph (c)(2). These conditions
include covering the fruit while it is in transit, keeping it separate
from fruit that is produced in the quarantined area and packed in the
packinghouse, and otherwise preventing its exposure to citrus canker.
The fruit must also be treated in accordance with Sec. 301.75-11(a).
We evaluated these conditions in light of the updated PRA and the
supplemental RMA and the changes we are proposing. The supplemental RMA
indicates that it is not necessary to separate fruit produced in a
quarantined area from fruit not produced in a quarantined area, as
substantial evidence indicates that bacterial populations of Xcc on
harvested fruit do not infect intact mature fruit. Although paragraph
(c)(2) does not require fruit moved to a quarantined area for packing
and intended to be moved to commercial citrus-producing States to be
packed in a commercial packinghouse, as would be required under
proposed paragraph (a)(1) of Sec. 301.75-7, the provisions for
separation of fruit, disinfection of equipment, and disposal of litter
in paragraph (c)(2) effectively limit its applicability to fruit packed
in commercial packinghouses. Paragraph (c)(2) currently contains a
requirement for treating fruit moved interstate, as would be required
under proposed paragraph (a)(2). In addition, removing leaves, twigs,
and other plant material from packed fruit, as would be required in
proposed paragraph (a)(3), is a typical packing practice in commercial
packinghouses.
Given these considerations, we believe that it is no longer
necessary to provide separate conditions for the interstate movement of
fruit produced in a quarantined area and fruit that is not produced in
a quarantined area but is moved into a quarantined area for packing.
Therefore, this proposal would remove paragraph (c) and amend the
introductory text of paragraph (a) to indicate that paragraph (a)
provides conditions for the interstate movement of all regulated fruit
from citrus canker quarantined areas.
Paragraph (b) in Sec. 301.75-7 states that regulated fruit
produced in a quarantined area that is not eligible for movement under
paragraph (a) may be moved interstate only for immediate export. We are
proposing to amend this paragraph to indicate that any regulated fruit
in a quarantined area, whether produced in the area or moved to the
area for packing, that is not eligible for interstate movement could
only be moved for immediate export.
Section 301.75-4 of the regulations sets out the quarantined areas
for citrus canker. Within Sec. 301.75-4, paragraph (d) sets out
conditions for designating an area less than an entire State as a
quarantined area. Some of these conditions concern the movement of
fruit. We are proposing to retain most of the conditions for the
intrastate movement of fruit in paragraphs (d)(2)(i) and (ii), as they
contain requirements intended to prevent intrastate transmission of
citrus canker via plant parts other than fruit and via equipment. The
first sentence of paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(D), though, requires regulated
fruit moved intrastate for packing to be stored separately from and
have no contact with fruit eligible for movement to commercial citrus-
producing States. As discussed earlier, this provision is no longer
necessary, and we are therefore proposing to remove it.
[[Page 31206]]
We are also proposing to remove paragraph (d)(6), which requires
that, in addition to meeting the conditions in Sec. 301.75-7(a), fruit
moved interstate from a quarantined area less than an entire State
originate from a grove in which no plant parts infected with citrus
canker were found in the 2 years before interstate movement and in
which any exposed plants in the grove at high risk for developing
citrus canker have been destroyed. This provision is intended to reduce
the prevalence of citrus canker in fruit to be moved interstate.
Because we have determined that fruit that meets the requirements of
proposed Sec. 301.75-7(a) is not an epidemiologically significant
pathway for the transmission of citrus canker, this additional
requirement is not necessary. Accordingly, we are proposing to remove
paragraph (d)(6).
Under Sec. 412(a) of the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7712), the
Secretary of Agriculture may prohibit or restrict the interstate
movement of any plant or plant product if the Secretary determines that
the prohibition or restriction is necessary to prevent the
dissemination within the United States of a plant pest or noxious weed.
Based on our supplemental RMA, APHIS has concluded that commercially
packed citrus fruit treated with an APHIS-approved disinfectant is not
an epidemiologically significant pathway for the dissemination of
citrus canker within the United States. Accordingly, APHIS has
determined that it is not necessary to prohibit the interstate movement
of fruit from citrus canker quarantined areas that is commercially
packed and treated with an APHIS-approved disinfectant in order to
prevent the dissemination within the United States of a plant pest or
noxious weed. This determination is based on the findings of the
updated PRA and the supplemental RMA referred to earlier in this
document and our judgment that the application of the measures that
would be required under proposed Sec. 301.75-7(a) would prevent the
dissemination of plant pests within the United States.
Although this proposed rule would amend only the domestic citrus
canker quarantine regulations, we would in the future consider the risk
management strategy proposed here to be suitable to mitigate against
citrus canker in fruit imported from foreign countries affected with
citrus canker. However, the national plant protection organization of
such a country would need to submit a request that we do so. A country
requesting to be able to use this framework to export citrus to us
would have to demonstrate the ability to perform the required
treatments; it would also be required to have a bilateral workplan in
place with APHIS. In addition, there may be other citrus pests in
foreign citrus production areas whose risk would need to be mitigated
separately from the risk posed by citrus canker; a request to export
citrus from a canker-affected country would need to incorporate the
risk management strategy for citrus canker that we propose here into a
risk management approach that addresses the total citrus pest complex
present in that country. For that reason, we would complete a separate
pest risk analysis for such an action.
Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866.
The proposed rule has been determined to be significant for the
purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has been reviewed by
the Office of Management and Budget.
We have prepared an economic analysis for this rule. The economic
analysis provides a cost-benefit analysis, as required by Executive
Order 12866, and an initial regulatory flexibility analysis that
examines the potential economic effects of this interim rule on small
entities, as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The economic
analysis is summarized below. Copies of the full analysis are available
by contacting the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
or on the Regulations.gov Web site (see ADDRESSES above for
instructions for accessing Regulations.gov).
We are proposing to amend the citrus canker regulations to modify
the conditions under which fruit may be moved interstate from a
quarantined area. Under this proposed rule, we would eliminate the
requirement that each lot of finished fruit be inspected at the
packinghouse and found to be free of visible symptoms of citrus canker,
and we would remove the current prohibition on the movement of fruit
from a quarantined area to commercial citrus-producing States. We would
continue to require fruit moved interstate from a quarantined area to
be treated with an approved disinfectant and to be packed in a
commercial packinghouse that operates under a compliance agreement.
These proposed changes would relieve some restrictions on the
interstate movement of fresh citrus fruit from quarantined areas while
maintaining conditions that would prevent the artificial spread of
citrus canker.
In the November 2007 final rule, we amended the regulations
governing the interstate movement of regulated fruit from a quarantined
area. That final rule removed the grove inspection requirement whereby
fresh citrus fruit to be moved interstate was to be inspected by APHIS
and found to be free of citrus canker. Instead, we added a requirement
for packinghouse inspection of fresh citrus for symptoms of citrus
canker. We retained the other requirements that had been in the
regulations, including the requirement that the fruit be treated with a
surface disinfectant and the prohibition on the movement of fruit from
a quarantined area into commercial citrus-producing States listed in
Sec. 301.75-5. All components associated with the changes in
regulations were based on scientific findings as outlined in the PRA
and RMA prepared for that rulemaking.
New scientific evidence has led APHIS to prepare an updated PRA and
a supplemental RMA. These documents indicate that less stringent
regulations would offer the same level of protection against the spread
of citrus canker while lessening some of the economic burden associated
with compliance under the current regulations. By removing the
requirement that fruit to be moved interstate be inspected and found to
be free of citrus canker symptoms, the proposed rule would allow for
the long-term preservation of fresh citrus movement to the domestic
market by Florida's commercial packinghouses and growers. (We use the
term ``domestic market'' to mean all States except Florida.)
Under the current regulations, approximately 4.7 percent of the
lots of fresh grapefruit, 1.2 percent of the lots of fresh oranges and
temples, and 0.2 percent of the lots of fresh tangerines and tangelos
intended for the domestic market were rejected during the 2008-09
season due to the presence of citrus canker, as found during APHIS
inspection at the packinghouses. If APHIS inspectors find citrus canker
on one piece of citrus fruit during their inspection, the entire lot is
prohibited from interstate movement. Furthermore, it is also highly
likely that some producers, after assessing whether the prevalence of
citrus canker in their groves is low enough for their fruit to pass
inspection after packinghouse grading and culling, may consider
alternative markets for their citrus rather than risk costly packing
charges associated with the rejected lots.
While the rejected lots of the 2008-09 season were successfully
diverted for processing or to fresh fruit markets within Florida or
outside the United
[[Page 31207]]
States, affected citrus producers and commercial packinghouses do incur
revenue losses due to the product diversion. The cost of producing
citrus fruit intended for the fresh market is greater than the cost of
production for the processed market, where the physical appearance of
the fruit is not important; the value of citrus on the processed market
is relatively low compared to the value of citrus sold on the fresh
market.
As citrus canker continues to spread throughout Florida, the
proportion of fruit diverted to other markets because of rejected lots
will increase. Citrus growers will only maintain self-surveys and best
management field practices for citrus canker that are necessary to
produce fruit for the domestic fresh citrus market as long as the
expected net return from the fresh fruit sales is greater than the
expected net return from sales for processing or from sales of fresh
fruit within Florida or in foreign markets. The greater the likelihood
that a lot may be rejected because of fruit found to have citrus canker
symptoms, thereby resulting in elimination charges and price discounts,
the less likely producers will choose to bear the higher costs of self-
surveys and best management practices.
In an interim rule effective and published on August 1, 2006 (71 FR
43345-43352, Docket No. APHIS-2006-0114), we amended the regulations to
designate the entire State of Florida as a quarantined area for citrus
canker. This action resulted in restrictions on the movement of all
citrus fruit from the State of Florida, including a prohibition on
distributing such fruit to commercial citrus-producing States. This
proposed rule would also allow for the renewal of fresh citrus market
access to other commercial citrus-producing States. Prior to
implementation of the August 2006 interim rule, Florida shipped an
average of 106,000 4/5-bushel cartons of fresh grapefruit, 209,000 4/5-
bushel cartons of fresh oranges and temples, and 1 million 4/5-bushel
cartons of fresh tangerines and tangelos to other commercial citrus-
producing States.\5\ Approximately 5.7 percent of Florida domestic
fresh fruit shipments (nearly 4 percent of all shipments, including
exports) were transported to other commercial citrus-producing States
during the 2004-05 season, the final season in which Florida fresh
citrus was permitted movement into these States. California received
about 3 percent of Florida's domestic fresh citrus shipments during the
2004-05 season. While fresh citrus shipments to other commercial
citrus-producing States generally accounted for less than 6 percent of
Florida's domestic market supply, that State's producers and citrus
packers of fresh tangerines and tangelos found lucrative markets for
their products in California, Texas, and Louisiana, shipping between 12
and 15 percent of total domestic fresh shipments to these States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Based on 5-year averages of shipments during the 2003-04
through 2007-08 seasons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. consumers other than those in Florida would benefit from an
increased supply of fresh citrus because of this rule, especially fresh
grapefruit. Florida is the largest supplier of fresh grapefruit, with
an average domestic fresh market supply of more than 6 million 4/5-
bushel cartons. As grapefruit are more likely to face rejection than
other, less susceptible citrus, domestic consumers will have
increasingly limited access to fresh grapefruit under the current
regulations, particularly if Florida's bearing acreage continues to
decline on average by 11 percent annually.
According to APHIS estimates, Federal expenditures on commercial
packinghouse inspections of fresh fruit intended for domestic markets
range from $8.95 million to $9.85 million per season. Under the
proposed rule, commercial citrus packinghouse inspections by APHIS of
fresh citrus intended for the domestic market for symptoms of citrus
canker would no longer be required, resulting in significant Federal
savings.
The proposed rule would also likely result in a lower supply of
fresh citrus for Florida consumers. APHIS data indicate that nearly 30
percent of rejected fresh citrus shipments originally intended for the
domestic market were redirected to markets within Florida. However,
this same fresh citrus fruit diverted to markets within Florida
represented only about 2 percent of all fresh citrus shipped within the
State. The benefits of long-term preservation of the domestic market
for Florida fresh citrus, less restrictive market access, costs savings
of foregone inspections of fresh fruit for symptoms of citrus canker,
and savings on packinghouse charges are expected to outweigh the
additional costs imposed by the proposed changes to the regulations.
The science-based revisions to the regulations would continue to
prevent the spread of citrus canker to other States, including
commercial citrus-producing States.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires that agencies consider the
economic impact of their rules on small businesses, organizations, and
governmental jurisdictions. Section 603 of the Act requires agencies to
prepare and make available for public comment an initial regulatory
flexibility analysis (IRFA) describing the expected impact of proposed
rules on small entities. Sections 603(b) and 603(c) of the Act specify
the content of an IRFA. In this section, we address these IRFA
requirements for this proposed rule.
Reasons for Action
APHIS is taking these actions based on the determination that
citrus fruit that has citrus canker symptoms and that has been treated
using an APHIS-approved disinfectant is not an epidemiologically
significant pathway for transmission of the disease. Citrus canker in
Florida is pervasive, and eradication and quarantine zones within the
State have not succeeded in controlling the spread of the disease
within Florida. This action is being taken to relieve restrictions on
the Florida citrus industry that we believe are no longer warranted
while continuing to prevent the spread of citrus canker to other U.S.
commercial citrus-producing States and territories.
The current citrus canker regulations place several restrictions on
the interstate movement of citrus fruit from areas quarantined due to
citrus canker, including APHIS inspection of fresh citrus intended for
the domestic market, treatments, and interstate movement only under
limited permit to States that do not produce citrus commercially. APHIS
is proposing to implement a new protocol under which specified
treatments would be required for Florida citrus shippers to move
regulated fresh fruit to all States without the currently required
APHIS inspection. This action would apply less restrictive measures for
movement of fresh citrus from Florida while continuing to prevent the
spread of citrus canker to areas free from the pest.
Objectives and Legal Basis for Proposed Rule
The objective of the proposed rule is to modify the current
protocol contained in Sec. 301.75-7 that stipulates the conditions
under which fresh citrus fruit may be moved interstate from quarantined
areas. Under the provisions of this proposed rule, a new mitigation
strategy would eliminate the required APHIS inspection of each lot of
finished fruit.
Under section 412(a) of the Plant Protection Act, the Secretary of
Agriculture may prohibit or restrict the movement in interstate
commerce of any plant or plant product if the Secretary determines that
the
[[Page 31208]]
prohibition or restriction is necessary to prevent the dissemination of
a plant pest or noxious weed within the United States. APHIS has
determined that it is not necessary to prohibit the interstate movement
of fruit from citrus canker quarantined areas that is commercially
packed and treated with an APHIS-approved disinfectant in order to
prevent the dissemination within the United States of a plant pest or
noxious weed. This determination is based on the findings of the
updated PRA and the supplemental RMA referred to earlier in this
document and our judgment that the application of the measures that
would be required under proposed Sec. 301.75-7(a) would prevent the
dissemination of plant pests within the United States.
Description and Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated
Florida's citrus commercial packinghouses and fresh citrus
producers comprise the industries that we expect to be directly
affected by this proposed rule. The small business size standards for
citrus fruit packing, as identified by the Small Business
Administration (SBA) based upon the North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS) code 115114 (Postharvest Crop Activities)
is $6.5 million or less in annual receipts. There are currently 174
commercial packinghouses in Florida under an APHIS packinghouse
compliance agreement, 56 of which are registered with the Florida
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services' Division of Fruit and
Vegetables. While the classification of all of these establishments by
sales volume is not available, it is estimated that approximately 40 of
the 56 registered commercial packinghouses are the top-grossing citrus
commercial packinghouses. The remaining packinghouses are small
establishments known primarily as gift packers. At least 95 percent of
Florida fresh citrus shipments are packed by the top 40 (23 percent)
commercial packinghouses in the State.\6\ The Fresh Shippers Report, as
reported by the Citrus Administrative Committee, details quantities of
fresh citrus shipped by the top 40 shippers each season.\7\ During the
2007-08 season, annual sales for 14 of the top 40 shippers (35 percent)
were below the SBA size standard of $6.5 million. It is estimated that
at least 82 percent of Florida's citrus packers, including the small
gift packers, would be considered small according to the SBA size
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ ``Fresh Shippers Report: 2007-08 Season Through July 31,
2008,'' Citrus Administrative Committee, August 8, 2008. http://www.citrusadministrativecommittee.org/
\7\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed rule is also expected to positively affect producers
of fresh citrus in Florida currently facing an increasing number of
lots rejected at the packinghouse level each season. Packing and
elimination charges for growers are higher for fruit diverted to the
intrastate or export markets, or processing plants. In addition, fruit
diverted to processing yields lower revenues for growers who have
already borne the higher costs of producing fruit intended for the
fresh market.
A majority of the Florida citrus producers that would be affected
by the proposed rule are small, based on 2007 Census of Agriculture
data and SBA guidelines for entities classified within the farm
categories Orange Groves (NAICS 111310) and Citrus (except Orange)
Groves (NAICS 111320). SBA classifies producers in these categories
with total annual sales of not more than $750,000 as small entities.
According to 2007 Census data, there were a total of 6,061 citrus farms
in Florida in 2007. Of this number, 90 percent had annual sales in 2007
of less than $500,000, which is well below the SBA's small entity
threshold of $750,000.\8\ Any costs associated with the proposed rule
are expected to be minimal, especially given the producers' gains from
fewer rejections of fresh citrus lots destined for the domestic market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Source: SBA and 2007 Census of Agriculture.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Producers of fresh fruit in other commercial citrus-producing
States may also be impacted by the rule to the extent that the
reintroduction of Florida fresh citrus changes the supply in these
States. However, APHIS does not anticipate significant increases in
fresh citrus supplies into these markets as a result of this proposed
rule, as indicated by historic data on Florida fresh citrus shipments.
According to 2007 Census data, there were a total of 15,658 citrus
farms in the United States in 2007. Of this total, 329 were located in
Arizona, 7,358 in California, 884 in Hawaii, 210 in Louisiana, and 750
in Texas. In each State, at least 91 percent of all farms had annual
sales in 2007 of less than $500,000 and would be classified as small
entities according to SBA guidelines.
Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements
In general, this rule would not entail new reporting,
recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements beyond those already
required for shipment of Florida fresh citrus destined for domestic and
export markets. The costs to packinghouses associated with certifying
fruit for interstate movement are expected to be less than the costs
associated with the current requirement that limited permits accompany
shipments of fresh citrus from Florida that are moved interstate. In
addition, under the current regulations, fresh citrus fruit from
Florida destined for the domestic market must be packed in boxes with
markings that indicate that fruit is prohibited from movement into
other commercial citrus-producing States in order to obtain a limited
permit. The proposed rule would eliminate the required limited permits
and packaging requirements at a cost savings to packinghouses.
The annual cost of obtaining a Citrus Fruit Dealer License is less
than $25. There is no cost to register as a commercial packinghouse,
but the Florida Department of Agriculture does charge inspection fees
and box taxes where applicable. Of the 174 packinghouses currently
operating under an APHIS compliance agreement, we estimate that fewer
than 10 would need to obtain a license or registration in order to
obtain a compliance agreement with APHIS and meet the requirements of
the proposed regulations.
Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With Existing Rules and Regulations
APHIS has not identified any duplication, overlap, or conflict of
the proposed rule with other Federal rules.
Regulatory Alternatives
An in depth discussion of the alternatives we considered in
preparing this proposed rule may be found earlier in this document
under the heading ``Evaluation of Risk Management Options'' as well as
in the accompanying full economic analysis.
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 proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988,
Civil Justice Reform. If this proposed rule is adopted: (1) All State
and local laws and regulations that are inconsistent with this rule
will be preempted; (2) no retroactive effect will be given to this
rule; and (3) administrative proceedings
[[Page 31209]]
will not be required 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
proposed amendments to the regulations providing for the interstate
movement of regulated fruit from areas quarantined for citrus canker,
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 Regulations.gov
Web site or in our reading room. (A link to Regulations.gov 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.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed rule contains no new information collection or
recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 301
Agricultural commodities, Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Accordingly, we propose to amend 7 CFR part 301 as follows:
PART 301--DOMESTIC QUARANTINE NOTICES
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 issued under Sec. 204, Title II, Public Law
106-113, 113 Stat. 1501A-293; sections 301.75-15 and 301.75-16
issued under Sec. 203, Title II, Public Law 106-224, 114 Stat. 400
(7 U.S.C. 1421 note).
2. In Sec. 301.75-1, the definition of commercial packinghouse is
revised to read as follows:
Sec. 301.75-1 Definitions.
* * * * *
Commercial packinghouse. An establishment in which space and
equipment are maintained for the primary purpose of disinfecting and
packing citrus fruit for commercial sale. A commercial packinghouse
must also be licensed, registered, or certified with the State in which
it operates and meet all the requirements for the license,
registration, or certification that it holds.
* * * * *
Sec. 301.75-4 [Amended]
3. Section 301.75-4 is amended as follows:
a. In paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(D), by removing the first sentence.
b. By removing paragraph (d)(6).
4. Section 301.75-7 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 301.75-7 Interstate movement of regulated fruit from a
quarantined area.
(a) Regulated fruit produced in a quarantined area or moved into a
quarantined area for packing may be moved interstate with a certificate
issued and attached in accordance with Sec. 301.75-12 if all of the
following conditions are met:
(1) The regulated fruit was packed in a commercial packinghouse
whose owner or operator has entered into a compliance agreement with
APHIS in accordance with Sec. 301.75-13.
(2) The regulated fruit was treated in accordance with Sec.
301.75-11(a).
(3) The regulated fruit is free of leaves, twigs, and other plant
parts, except for stems that are less than 1 inch long and attached to
the fruit.
(4) If the fruit is repackaged after being packed in a commercial
packinghouse and before it is moved interstate from the quarantined
area, the person that repackages the fruit must enter into a compliance
agreement with APHIS in accordance with Sec. 301.75-13 and issue and
attach a certificate for the interstate movement of the fruit in
accordance with Sec. 301.75-12.
(b) Regulated fruit that is not eligible for movement under
paragraph (a) of this section may be moved interstate only for
immediate export. The regulated fruit must be accompanied by a limited
permit issued in accordance with Sec. 301.75-12 and must be moved in a
container sealed by APHIS directly to the port of export in accordance
with the conditions of the limited permit.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 0579-0325)
Done in Washington, DC, this 26th day of June 2009.
Cindy Smith,
Acting Deputy Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs.
[FR Doc. E9-15508 Filed 6-29-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P