[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 233 (Monday, December 6, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 68001-68005]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-31513]



[[Page 68001]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

7 CFR Part 319

[Docket No. 99-020-2]


Mexican Hass Avocado Import Program

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are amending our regulations governing the importation of 
Hass avocados from Mexico to require handlers and distributors to enter 
into compliance agreements with the Animal and Plant Health Inspection 
Service. We are also adding requirements regarding the repackaging of 
the avocados after their entry into the United States. These amendments 
are necessary to ensure that distributors and handlers are familiar 
with the distribution restrictions and other requirements of the 
regulations and to ensure that any boxes used to repackage the avocados 
in the United States bear the same information that is required to be 
displayed on the original boxes in which the fruit was packed in 
Mexico. These amendments will serve to reinforce the existing 
safeguards of the avocado import program.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 5, 2000.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The regulations in ``Subpart--Fruits and Vegetables'' (7 CFR 319.56 
through 319.56-8, referred to below as the regulations) prohibit or 
restrict the importation of fruits and vegetables into the United 
States from certain parts of the world to prevent the introduction and 
dissemination of plant pests, including fruit flies, that are new to or 
not widely distributed within the United States.
    The regulations in Sec. 319.56-2ff allow fresh Hass avocado fruit 
grown in approved orchards in approved municipalities in Michoacan, 
Mexico, to be imported into certain areas of the United States subject 
to certain conditions. Those conditions, which include pest surveys and 
pest risk-reducing cultural practices, packinghouse procedures, 
inspection and shipping procedures, and restrictions on the time of 
year (November through February) that shipments may enter the United 
States, are designed to reduce the risk of pest introduction to a 
negligible level. Further, the regulations in Sec. 319.56-2ff limit the 
distribution of the avocados to 19 northeastern States and the District 
of Colombia, where climatic conditions preclude the establishment in 
the United States of any of the exotic plant pests that may attack 
avocados in Michoacan, Mexico.
    On June 25, 1999, we published in the Federal Register (64 FR 
34141-34144, Docket No. 99-020-1) a proposal to amend the regulations 
to require handlers and distributors of Mexican Hass avocados to enter 
into compliance agreements with the Animal and Plant Health Inspection 
Service (APHIS). In that same document, we also proposed to amend the 
stickering requirement for the avocados and add provisions regarding 
the repackaging of the avocados after their entry into the United 
States.
    We solicited comments concerning our proposal rule for 60 days 
ending on August 24, 1999. We received 10 comments by that date. They 
were from two Mexican government officials, two State agricultural 
agencies, a domestic avocado growers group, an agricultural trade 
organization, three avocado distributors, and a Mexican avocado grower. 
Four of the commenters supported the proposed rule, although two of 
those commenters suggested some changes. The remaining commenters 
opposed one or more aspects of the proposed rule. The comments are 
discussed below.
    Comment: Unless properly monitored and enforced, the new 
requirements will not be effective at reducing the incidence of illegal 
transshipment of Mexican avocados. The Department should provide 
additional information in the final rule concerning the steps it 
intends to take to monitor whether the appropriate compliance 
agreements are in place and describe the communications outreach 
efforts it will take to ensure that produce handlers and distributors 
are made aware of the new regulations.
    Response: Our efforts to ensure that affected persons are made 
aware of the requirements of the regulations and to monitor whether the 
appropriate compliance agreements are in place will be closely related. 
To ensure that all the requirements of the regulations are known, 
including those requirements added by this final rule, we have created 
an industry newsletter in both English and Spanish and will forward 
press releases to trade newspapers and provide information to market 
owners during regular market surveys outside of the approved States. We 
will visit distributors and markets, send out mailings, establish an 
avocado program information website, and create a toll-free regulatory 
incident hotline prior to the beginning of the shipping season. We will 
contact all of the distributors and handlers we are aware of who handle 
Mexican avocados to arrange compliance agreements and will have the 
opportunity to contact and arrange compliance agreements with 
additional handlers or distributors during market visits. Finally, this 
rule's requirement that permittees and handlers confirm that subsequent 
handlers have entered into a compliance agreement with APHIS will serve 
as an additional mechanism to ensure that the necessary compliance 
agreements are in place.
    Comment: The final rule must clarify whether the persons involved 
in the in-transit movement of Mexican avocados to Canada are required 
to enter into compliance agreements. Additionally, the final rule must 
specifically state the conditions that must be observed in order for 
Mexican avocados shipped in-transit to Canada to be eligible to be 
reshipped into the United States. Such guidance is needed to remove any 
question regarding whether the Mexican avocado program requirements 
extend to such fruit.
    Response: This rule's compliance agreement requirement applies to 
persons involved in the handling and distribution of Mexican Hass 
avocados imported into the United States in accordance with 
Sec. 319.56-2ff; the in-transit movement of avocados to Canada is a 
separate matter that is addressed in Sec. 352.29 of the plant 
quarantine safeguard regulations (7 CFR part 352). Mexican avocados 
shipped in-transit to Canada are not eligible for reshipment into the 
United States, even if they were produced in accordance with the 
requirements of the Mexican avocado import program in Sec. 319.56-2ff.
    Comment: We endorse the aspect of the proposed rule that would deny 
an import permit or compliance agreement to any person who has 
repeatedly disregarded or violated the terms of an import permit or 
compliance agreement. However, we believe that the Department should 
expand this proposed provision to any person who has been found by a 
court--either an administrative court or a Federal court--to have 
violated the requirements of other regulatory programs administered by 
the Department. Inasmuch as such persons have demonstrated their 
disregard for the Department's regulations, they

[[Page 68002]]

cannot be relied upon or expected to fulfill the requirements of the 
Mexican avocado import program.
    Response: It is the exception, rather than the rule, for our 
enforcement actions against a regulatory violator to reach the level of 
an administrative hearing or a Federal court; most often, a person 
cited for a violation will settle by agreeing to pay a civil or 
criminal penalty. Given that, it does not appear that the commenter's 
recommendation would be as useful a mechanism for ensuring compliance 
as it might seem. Further, expanding the denial provisions described in 
the proposal to include violations of any of the Department's 
regulatory programs would have ramifications for those programs as well 
as for the Mexican avocado import program.
    Comment: We do not believe that it is proper for the Animal and 
Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) to use regulatory procedures 
(i.e., the proposed compliance agreement requirement) as an educational 
tool, particularly when penalties and restraints on trade may be 
imposed on parties who are in lawful compliance with the substance of 
the regulations pertaining to handling and distribution of Mexican Hass 
avocados.
    Response: APHIS would have no reason to impose any kind of penalty 
on any person who is ``in lawful compliance with the substance of the 
regulations.'' Further, we believe that it is completely appropriate to 
use compliance agreements as an educational tool, as they are furnished 
free of charge, take a minimal amount of time to execute, and provide 
an excellent opportunity for the APHIS personnel who will be meeting 
with those persons entering into compliance agreements to provide 
information and answer questions.
    Comment: It is neither proper nor necessary for APHIS to require 
handlers and distributors to enter into compliance agreements in order 
to educate them as to the requirements of the regulations and to ensure 
that they receive copies of the regulations. There are a limited number 
of persons engaged in the handling and distribution of Mexican Hass 
avocados, and there are many venues (e.g., industry publications, 
direct mail, and trade show presentations) available through which 
APHIS could provide full notice of the import program's requirements. 
APHIS should not be using the proposed compliance agreement requirement 
as a substitute for discharging its own responsibilities for making its 
regulations known to the public and enforcing those regulations.
    Response: We have pursued the venues suggested by the commenter in 
disseminating information about the regulations; press releases 
explaining the import program were distributed at the time the 
regulations were established, stories were printed in the popular press 
and in industry publications, and APHIS personnel have visited large 
markets and individual firms in an effort to inform avocado handlers 
about the requirements of the regulations, especially the distribution 
limitations. Further, those distribution limitations are printed on 
every box of Mexican Hass avocados. Even with those measures, some 
distributors and handlers still claim to be unaware that the 
distribution and sale of Mexican Hass avocados is limited to the 
approved 19 States and the District of Colombia. The compliance 
agreement is one more way to spread the word, an attempt to reach each 
and every one of the ``limited number of persons engaged in the 
handling and distribution of Mexican Hass avocados'' in order to ensure 
that they are aware of the requirements of the regulations. Beyond its 
value as an educational tool, the compliance agreement will make it 
that much easier to take action against those persons who choose to 
violate the regulations.
    Comment: Private firms are neither empowered nor authorized to 
``ensure'' compliance with Federal laws and regulations. That is the 
duty and responsibility of the Government. The proposed regulations are 
not enforceable by private firms against another firm, but the 
penalties would be imposed on the first party for the possible wrongful 
acts of a second or third party. This is not appropriate.
    Response: We are not asking private firms to enforce the 
regulations; we are simply calling on those firms to themselves observe 
the regulations, i.e., to not transfer avocados to another party for 
movement or distribution unless that party possesses a compliance 
agreement. If you confirm that the person to whom you are transferring 
avocados for movement or distribution possesses a compliance agreement, 
you have met your obligations under Sec. 319.56-2ff(k)(2) or (3). What 
that person subsequently does with the avocados is beyond your control 
and certainly not your responsibility. In such a situation, it is 
simply not the case that ``penalties would be imposed on the first 
party for the possible wrongful acts of a second or third party.''
    Comment: It is not proper for APHIS to impose penalties (i.e., the 
denial of import permits or compliance agreements to repeat violators) 
on one party for the wrongful acts of secondary and subsequent parties. 
Each permittee, distributor, or handler should be accountable for its 
actions directly to the Government. Such regulatory and compliance 
relations between a regulated firm and APHIS are properly the business 
of those parties only, and not other parties. It is simply not 
practicable for a permittee, distributor, or handler to ``ensure that 
any person to whom he or she released the avocados for movement or 
distribution . . . has entered into a compliance agreement.''
    Response: As discussed in the response to the previous comment, a 
permittee or subsequent handler who observes the requirements of the 
regulations is in no danger of having a request for an import permit or 
compliance agreement denied. We disagree with the commenter's assertion 
that ensuring that a person has a compliance agreement is ``simply not 
practicable.'' Meeting that requirement can be accomplished quickly and 
would add only a relatively small amount of time to a typical 
transaction between buyer and seller.
    Comment: The proposed changes to the Mexican Hass avocado import 
program are unnecessary. The current regulations contain sufficient 
safeguards, as is evidenced by the fact that APHIS was able to detect 
the presence of Mexican Hass avocados that were shipped outside the 
approved States.
    Response: The fact that we were able to detect the presence of 
Mexican Hass avocados in markets outside the approved States highlights 
the value of market surveys and the requirement that individual 
avocados be marked with a sticker, but does not mean that there is no 
need to amend the existing regulations. For example, some of the 
Mexican Hass avocados found in markets outside the approved States 
appear to have been shipped by distributors who were simply unaware of 
the movement restrictions of the regulations. The compliance agreement 
requirement will ensure that all distributors are aware of those 
restrictions, which means that this measure alone will reduce the 
number of violations. We believe that the other measures included in 
this rule will prove similarly useful in reinforcing the existing 
safeguards of the regulations.
    Comment: As written, the registration of handlers will negatively 
impact the marketing of Mexican avocados by creating a barrier that 
will eliminate many sales from wholesale marketers in the northeastern 
United States to customers who buy avocados in less

[[Page 68003]]

than truckload lots. For example, the operator of a small neighborhood 
store in New York City may wish to purchase four cartons of avocados on 
a particular day at the Hunts Point Terminal Market, but will be unable 
to do so because he is not registered with APHIS. It is not practical 
to expect purchasers such as the store operator or the owner of an 
independent restaurant to have to register with APHIS and deliver a 
copy of the compliance agreement to all potential suppliers in order to 
have the right to buy Mexican avocados.
    Response: The store operator and the restauranteur described by the 
commenter would not be required to enter into a compliance agreement in 
order to buy avocados for their store or restaurant, as they will be 
offering the avocados for sale to consumers. The focus of this rule is 
on making the requirements of the regulations clear to the operators of 
businesses that normally buy and sell, move, or distribute commercial 
lots of avocados, such as grocery chains, wholesalers, and 
distributors. For example, a grocery chain or a chain's regional 
distribution centers would have to enter into a compliance agreement 
with APHIS, while the chain's individual retail store managers would 
not. To make this clear, we have added a new sentence to Sec. 319.56-
2ff(k)(1) in this final rule that states that a compliance agreement 
will not be required for an individual place of business that only 
offers the avocados for sale directly to consumers.
    Comment: The proposed requirement for the marking of the boxes in 
which fruit is repackaged in the United States would create additional 
liabilities for the growers, packers, and exporters of avocados, even 
though these parties have no control over the fruit during the 
repacking stage. Additional problems such as microbial contamination 
from improper handling or commingling with other product may arise even 
though the listed parties bear no true responsibility for the problem.
    Response: The commenter did not elaborate as to what types of 
``microbial contamination'' might occur during repackaging, nor did he 
elaborate as to what sorts of liability might attach to a Mexican 
grower, packer, or exporter in the event of such contamination. If a 
repackaged box of fruit was found to be somehow contaminated, it would 
be obvious from the new box that the fruit had been handled by someone 
other than the original packer/exporter. Clearly, the assignment of 
liability in such a situation--if indeed there was a need to assign 
liability--would be a tenuous proposition. Importers and distributors 
have little choice when it comes to damaged boxes of fruit. They can 
repack the fruit in new boxes, or they can leave the fruit in the 
damaged box; the latter option is not likely to be chosen given the 
risk of further damage to the fruit, plus the fact that most of their 
customers would not care to receive damaged produce. Since it is quite 
likely that an importer or distributor is going to repackage the fruit 
anyway, this rule's provisions regarding the marking of repackaged 
fruit are a matter of ensuring that the identifying measures required 
for the original boxes are maintained, thus preserving the important 
information regarding the origin and identity of the avocados that 
those measures provide.
    Comment: The proposed compliance agreement requirement is an 
additional burden that may discourage avocado distributors in the 
United States from conducting business with Mexican growers altogether, 
leading them to opt instead for fruit from California or from other 
countries. If that is the case, the compliance agreement requirement 
will be acting as a nontariff trade barrier.
    Response: The time required on the part of a handler or distributor 
to enter into a compliance agreement will be minimal. That person will 
need to write down the name, mailing address, and location of the 
person or firm entering into the agreement; review the movement and 
other restrictions that apply; and sign and date the document. We 
expect that an APHIS inspector would spend about 30 minutes with each 
handler or distributor explaining the requirements of the regulations 
and filling out the compliance agreement; the mail or a fax machine may 
be used when an inspector is unable to make a personal visit. There is 
no charge or user fee associated with the compliance agreement. In 
addition, Mexican Hass avocados are typically available to wholesalers 
at attractive prices that make the minimal effort of entering into a 
compliance worthwhile. (In one of the comments we received, a 
wholesaler reported that at the end of the 1998/1999 shipping season, 
his fill-in supplier quoted a price of $50 to $52 for California Hass 
avocados and $20 for Mexican Hass avocados.) Thus, we do not believe 
that the minimal burden of entering into a compliance agreement will be 
likely to discourage persons in the United States from handling or 
distributing Mexican Hass avocados.
    Comment: The proposed rule would increase the restrictions that 
apply to the Mexican Hass avocado import program; APHIS' phytosanitary 
justification for these restrictions has been that Hass avocados from 
Mexico present a risk of introducing fruit flies into the United 
States. Because avocados from California and Florida are not subject to 
such restrictions despite the presence of fruit flies in those States, 
the restrictions on Mexican Hass avocados constitute discriminatory 
treatment under article 712.4 of the North American Free Trade 
Agreement (NAFTA), which states, in part, that ``Each Party shall 
ensure that a sanitary or phytosanitary measure that it adopts, 
maintains or applies does not arbitrarily or unjustifiably discriminate 
between its goods and like goods of another Party . . . where identical 
or similar conditions prevail.''
    Response: Fruit flies are not the only pests of concern addressed 
by the regulations; there are seed and stem pests as well. However, 
even if fruit flies were the only pest of concern, we do not believe 
that our restrictions on the movement of Mexican Hass avocados is in 
any way discriminatory, as avocados are specifically listed as 
regulated articles in all three of our domestic fruit fly quarantines 
in 7 CFR part 301, i.e., Mexican fruit fly (Secs. 301.64 through 
301.64-10), Mediterranean fruit fly (Secs. 301.78 through 301.78-10), 
and Oriental fruit fly (Secs. 301.93 through 301.93-10).
    Comment: The proposed rule, which would increase the restrictions 
that apply to the Mexican Hass avocado import program, is at odds with 
Mexico's request that APHIS consider expanding both the number of 
States to which Mexican Hass avocados could be shipped and the length 
of the shipping season. It has been scientifically and practically 
demonstrated that the Hass avocado is not a fruit fly host, so APHIS 
does not have the scientific basis to adopt additional restrictions or 
even maintain some of its current restrictions (NAFTA article 712.1). 
In the absence of a scientific basis for their application, those 
restrictions could be viewed as disguised restrictions on trade (NAFTA 
articles 712.5 and 713.3).
    Response: Although we do consider commercially grown Hass avocados 
to be a nonpreferred host for fruit flies, and thus a low risk for 
introducing fruit flies, we do not yet possess conclusive, published 
evidence that they are a nonhost as asserted by the commenter. We 
understand that Mexico is working on research in that area, and we 
would certainly consider conclusive evidence proving the nonhost status 
of Hass avocados as the grounds for changes to the Mexican avocado 
import program, as well as to our domestic fruit fly regulations. That 
being said, however, it is important to remember that fruit flies are 
not the only pests of concern addressed by the requirements of the

[[Page 68004]]

Mexican Hass avocado import regulations. Those regulations also address 
the risks presented by the avocado seed pests Heilipus lauri, 
Conotrachelus aquacatae, C. perseae, and Stenoma catenifer, as well as 
the stem weevil Copturus aguacatae.

Proposed Amendments to Stickering Requirement

    In our proposed rule, we had proposed to amend the current fruit-
stickering requirement of Sec. 319.56-2ff(c)(3)(vi) of the regulations 
to require that the stickers not only bear the Sanidad Vegetal 
registration number of the packinghouse, but that they also bear the 
letters ``M/US'' after that number, and that those stickers be used 
only for fruit produced in accordance with Sec. 319.56-2ff for export 
to the United States. The Mexican Government officials who responded to 
the proposed rule objected to the proposed limitations on the use of 
the stickers on the grounds that such limitations are an intrusion on 
Mexico's sovereignty. Those officials stated that APHIS does not have 
the authority to restrict Mexican producers from using any particular 
label on fruit that is distributed within Mexico, arguing that only 
Mexico can issue regulations affecting its domestic market.
    Our intent in proposing those amendments to the stickering 
requirement was to ensure that the stickers would serve their intended 
purpose of making it easier to identify Mexican-origin avocados and 
would further allow us to differentiate between program fruit and 
nonprogram fruit that may have been smuggled into the United States. We 
acknowledge, however, that the proposed limitation on the use of the 
stickers would also have the effect of placing restrictions on domestic 
commerce within Mexico. Therefore, in deference to the concerns raised 
by the Mexican Government, we have omitted from this final rule the 
proposed requirement that the stickers required by Sec. 319.56-
2ff(c)(3)(vi) be used only for fruit produced in accordance with 
Sec. 319.56-2ff for export to the United States. Further, because the 
inclusion of the letters ``M/US'' on the required sticker would serve 
no practical purpose in the absence of the proposed limitations on the 
use of the stickers, we have also omitted that aspect of the proposed 
rule from this final rule.
    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. The rule 
has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive 
Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of 
Management and Budget.
    This rule amends our regulations governing the importation of Hass 
avocados from Mexico to require handlers and distributors to enter into 
compliance agreements with APHIS and adds requirements regarding the 
repackaging of the avocados after their entry into the United States. 
These amendments will ensure that distributors and handlers are 
familiar with the distribution restrictions and other requirements of 
the regulations and will ensure that any boxes used to repackage the 
avocados in the United States bear the same information that is 
required to be displayed on the original boxes in which the fruit was 
packed in Mexico.
    During the first shipping season for Mexican Hass avocados 
(November 1997 through February 1998), Mexico exported 13.296 million 
pounds of fresh avocados to the northeastern United States (U.S. 
Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service, GAIN Report 
No. MX8140, November 24, 1998). During the second shipping season 
(November 1998 through February 1999), Mexico exported approximately 22 
million pounds of fresh avocados to the northeastern United States.
    Although it was anticipated that the importation of fresh Hass 
avocados from Mexico into the northeastern United States would result 
in lower prices for consumers and losses for domestic avocado 
producers, there has, to date, been little or no price change. The 
average wholesale price for avocados in the approved 19 northeastern 
States and the District of Columbia before the first shipping season 
began in November 1997 was $1.47 per pound, while after the shipping 
season began, the average wholesale price was $1.60 per pound. For the 
nonapproved States, the average wholesale prices were $1.46 before 
November 1997 and $1.57 after the first shipping season began. (The 
wholesale prices in the approved States are based on averages in 
Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Detroit, New York, and Philadelphia; the 
wholesale prices for the nonapproved States are based on averages in 
Atlanta, Dallas, Los Angeles, Miami, San Francisco, and Seattle.) There 
was no statistically significant difference between the wholesale 
prices in the approved States and the nonapproved States before or 
after Mexican Hass avocados entered the domestic market. It should be 
noted that the average wholesale prices for fresh avocados in Mexico 
were only about $0.33 and $0.32 per pound in 1997 and 1998, 
respectively.
    Because compliance agreements are available from APHIS free of 
charge, the only aspect of this rule that may result in additional 
costs for any U.S. entities, large or small, is the requirement for the 
marking of new boxes in cases where the avocados are repackaged after 
their entry into the United States. According to industry sources, the 
cost of the current identification requirements of the regulations, 
which includes both box marking and fruit stickering, is approximately 
$0.06 per pound. This cost is borne at the Mexican production/export 
end of the Hass avocado export program. If 20 percent of all shipments 
had to be repackaged following their arrival in the United States due 
to damage to original shipping boxes or for other reasons, this rule's 
requirement for the marking of new boxes could result in additional 
costs to U.S. importers or distributors of approximately $160,000 to 
$264,000. This estimate was arrived at using 20 percent of the total 
volume of Mexican Hass avocados shipped to the northeastern United 
States during the two export seasons of 1997-1998 (13.296 million 
pounds  x  $0.06  x  0.2 = $159,552) and 1998-1999 (22 million pounds 
x  $0.06  x  0.2 = $264,000). However, because the $0.06 figure used 
includes the costs of the required stickering as well as box marking, 
it is likely that the costs to U.S. importers or distributors of 
marking new boxes in the United States will actually be less than that 
estimate. Since, as noted above, the price spread between domestic and 
Mexican wholesale prices is so large, U.S. importers and distributors 
may be able to absorb any additional costs resulting from the 
requirement for marking new boxes without passing those costs on to 
consumers.
    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 12988

    This 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.

[[Page 68005]]

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 0579-0129.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 319

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

    Accordingly, we are amending 7 CFR part 319 as follows:

PART 319--FOREIGN QUARANTINE NOTICES

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

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 150dd, 150ee, 150ff, 151-167, 450, 2803, and 
2809; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.2(c).

    2. In Sec. 319.56-2ff, new paragraphs (j) and (k) are added to read 
as follows:


Sec. 319.56-2ff  Administrative instructions governing movement of Hass 
avocados from Mexico to the Northeastern United States.

* * * * *
    (j) Repackaging. If any avocados are removed from their original 
shipping boxes and repackaged, the stickers required by paragraph 
(c)(3)(vi) of this section may not be removed or obscured and the new 
boxes must be clearly marked with all the information required by 
paragraph (c)(3)(vii) of this section.
    (k) Compliance agreements. (1) Any person, other than the 
permittee, who moves or distributes the avocados following their 
importation into the United States (i.e., a second-party or subsequent 
handler) must enter into a compliance agreement with APHIS. In the 
compliance agreement, the person must acknowledge, and agree to 
observe, the requirements of paragraph (a) and paragraphs (f) through 
(k) of this section. Compliance agreement forms are available, free of 
charge, from local offices of Plant Protection and Quarantine, which 
are listed in local telephone directories. A compliance agreement will 
not be required for an individual place of business that only offers 
the avocados for sale directly to consumers.
    (2) Before transferring the avocados to any person (i.e., a second-
party handler) for movement or distribution, the permittee must confirm 
that the second-party handler has entered into a compliance agreement 
with APHIS as required by paragraph (k)(1) of this section. If the 
permittee transfers the avocados to a second-party handler who has not 
entered into a compliance agreement, APHIS may revoke the permittee's 
import permit for the remainder of the current shipping season.
    (3) Any second-party or subsequent handler who transfers the 
avocados to another person for movement or distribution must confirm 
that the person receiving the avocados has entered into a compliance 
agreement with APHIS as required by paragraph (k)(1) of this section. 
If the second-party or subsequent handler transfers the avocados to a 
person who has not entered into a compliance agreement, APHIS may 
revoke the handler's compliance agreement for the remainder of the 
current shipping season.
    (4) Action on repeat violators. APHIS may deny an application for 
an import permit from, or refuse to enter into a compliance agreement 
with, any person who has had his or her import permit or compliance 
agreement revoked under paragraph (k)(2) or (k)(3) of this section 
twice within any 5-year period.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control 
number 0579-0129.)

    Done in Washington, DC, this 30th day of November 1999.
Craig A. Reed,
Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 99-31513 Filed 12-3-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-U