[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 135 (Friday, July 13, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36892-36905]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-17444]



[[Page 36891]]

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

Part IV





Department of Agriculture





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



Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service



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



7 CFR Part 319



Mexican Hass Avocado Import Program; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 135 / Friday, July 13, 2001 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 36892]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

7 CFR Part 319

[Docket No. 00-003-2]
RIN 0579-AB27


Mexican Hass Avocado Import Program

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are proposing to amend the regulations governing the 
importation of fruits and vegetables to expand the number of States in 
which fresh avocado fruit grown in approved orchards in approved 
municipalities in Michoacan, Mexico, may be distributed. We are also 
proposing to increase the length of the shipping season during which 
the Mexican Hass avocados may be imported into the United States. We 
are proposing this action in response to a request from the Government 
of Mexico and after determining that expanding the current Mexican 
avocado import program would present a negligible risk of introducing 
plant pests into the United States.

DATES: We invite you to comment on this docket. We will consider all 
comments that we receive by September 11, 2001. We will also consider 
comments made at public hearings in Escondido, CA; Austin, TX; Denver, 
CO; and Homestead, FL. The exact dates and times for the hearings and 
the specific locations of all four hearings will be announced in a 
notice to be published in a future issue of the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Please send four copies of your comment (an original and 
three copies) to: Docket No. 00-003-2, Regulatory Analysis and 
Development, PPD, APHIS, Suite 3C03, 4700 River Road, Unit 118, 
Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state that your comment refers to 
Docket No. 00-003-2.
    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.
    APHIS documents published in the Federal Register, and related 
information, including the names of organizations and individuals who 
have commented on APHIS dockets, are available on the Internet at 
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppd/rad/webrepor.html.
    Public hearings regarding this proposed rule will be held at the 
following locations: (1) Escondido, CA; (2) Austin, TX; (3) Denver, CO; 
and (4) Homestead, FL.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Wayne D. Burnett, Senior Import 
Specialist, Phytosanitary Issues Management Team, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 
River Road Unit 140, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; (301) 734-6799.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Hearings

    Hearings on this proposed rule will be held in Escondido, CA; 
Austin, TX; Denver, CO; and Homestead, FL. The exact dates and times 
for the hearings and the specific locations of all four hearings will 
be announced in a notice published in a future issue of the Federal 
Register.

Background

    The regulations in ``Subpart--Fruits and Vegetables'' (7 CFR 319.56 
through 319.56-8) 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.
    Under the regulations in 7 CFR 319.56-2ff (referred to below as the 
regulations), fresh Hass avocado fruit grown in approved orchards in 
approved municipalities in Michoacan, Mexico, may be imported into 
specified 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 limit the distribution of the avocados to 19 
northeastern States (Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, 
Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New 
Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, 
West Virginia, and Wisconsin) 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.
    In January 2000, we amended the regulations to require handlers and 
distributors of Mexican Hass avocados to enter into compliance 
agreements with APHIS. We also added requirements regarding the 
repackaging of avocados after their entry into the United States. These 
amendments were 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.
    In September 1999, the Government of Mexico requested that APHIS 
amend the regulations to (1) increase the number of States into which 
the avocados may be imported and (2) to allow the shipping season to 
begin 1 month earlier (October rather than November) and end 1 month 
later (March rather than February).
    On May 11, 2000, we published a notice in the Federal Register (65 
FR 30365-30366, Docket No. 00-003-1) in which we solicited comments on 
Mexico's request. In particular, we asked the public for comments and 
recommendations regarding the scope of our review of Mexico's request 
and requested interested persons to submit any data or information that 
may have a bearing on our review of the Mexican Government's request. 
We requested that comments focus on scientific, technical, or other 
issues that commenters believed should be considered during our review 
of the Mexican Government's request.
    We solicited comments on our request for 90 days, ending August 9, 
2000. By that date, we received 265 comments. The comments were 
submitted by avocado growers, processors, packers and importers, 
grocers, Members of Congress, Mexican Government officials, 
researchers, and State and local departments of agriculture. In 
general, the majority of commenters supported expanding the area of 
distribution of Hass avocados and increasing by the length of the 
shipping season during which Hass avocados may be imported into the 
United States. Two commenters provided data that were considered in the 
development of a study titled ``Identification of Susceptible Areas for 
the Establishment of Anastrepha spp. Fruit Flies in the United States 
and Analysis of Selected Pathways'' (Sequeira, et al., 2001). This 
study, along with several previous risk documents, provides the basis 
for this proposed rule. Several commenters had specific concerns about 
Mexico's

[[Page 36893]]

request and the current Hass avocado import program. These comments are 
discussed later in this document.
    We have completed our review of the Mexican Government's request 
and have evaluated the information submitted by commenters in response 
to our request for comments. Based on our review of the public comments 
(discussed later in this document) and the findings of various risk 
analysis documents prepared by APHIS, which are discussed in detail 
below beginning with the section titled Risk Assessment Documentation 
Supporting the Proposed Rule, we are proposing to amend Sec. 319.56-
2ff(a)(2) of the regulations to extend by 2 months the shipping season 
during which Hass avocados from approved orchards in approved 
municipalities in Michoacan, Mexico, may be imported into approved 
areas of the United States. With this proposed change, the shipping 
season would run from November through April.
    We are also proposing to expand the area to which the Mexican Hass 
avocados may be distributed by adding Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, 
Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, 
Utah, and Wyoming to the list of approved States in Sec. 319.56-
2ff(a)(3). These 12 additional States, like the currently approved 
States, do not contain host material for any of the avocado-specific 
pests of concern and have phenological conditions that do not support 
the establishment of fruit flies, especially during the proposed 
shipping season.

    Note: Since the publication of the May 2000 request for comments 
on this subject, the Government of Mexico has requested that APHIS 
amend the regulations to allow Hass avocados to be imported year 
round into all 50 States. We are not proposing to allow avocados to 
be imported year round to all U.S. States per Mexico's request 
because we do not currently have documentation available to support 
Mexico's position that such importations would not present a risk of 
introducing plant pests into certain States.

    In addition to the proposed changes to Sec. 319.56-2ff(a)(2) and 
(a)(3) discussed above, our proposed expansion of the shipping season 
and the number of States in which Mexican Hass avocados may be 
distributed would necessitate several other changes in the regulations. 
First, we would amend the limited distribution statement required by 
Sec. 319.56-2ff(c)(3)(vii) to reflect the addition of the 12 new 
States. Specifically, the statement that must be placed on boxes used 
to ship imported Hass avocados from Mexico would be changed to read 
``Distribution limited to the following States: CT, CO, DC, DE, ID, IL, 
IA, IN, KS, KY, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MO, MT, NE, NH, NJ, NY, ND, OH, PA, 
RI, SD, UT, VA, VT, WV, WI, and WY.''
    Paragraphs (e)(2) and (e)(3) of Sec. 319.56-2ff each refer to the 
``entire shipping season of November through February.'' We are 
proposing to amend those paragraphs so that they refer to the shipping 
season as running from November through April.
    We would also amend the existing regulations to allow the imported 
avocados to transit additional States. Currently, the regulations in 
Sec. 319.56-2ff(g) do not allow avocados to be moved west of a line 
extending from El Paso, TX, to Denver, CO, and due north from Denver. 
Given that, under our proposal, avocados would be eligible for 
importation into several States west of this line, we are proposing to 
revise the description of the area through which Mexican Hass avocados 
may be moved by truck or rail car. Under our proposal, avocados would 
not be allowed to transit the area to the west of the following line: 
Following Interstate 10 north from El Paso, TX, to Las Cruces, NM, and 
then north following Interstate 25 to the Colorado border. Once in 
Colorado, trucks and rail cars carrying avocados would be free to move 
to any State located within the approved distribution area described in 
Sec. 319.56-2ff(a)(3). The current eastern shipping boundary would not 
change.
    Finally, we would amend several paragraphs in the regulations to 
remove references to ``northeastern States,'' as that geographic 
limitation would no longer apply.

Risk Assessment Documentation Supporting the Proposed Rule

    The final rule that established the current Mexican Hass avocado 
import program was published in the Federal Register on February 5, 
1997, and became effective on March 7, 1997 (62 FR 5293-5315, Docket 
No. 94-116-6). In the final rule, we stated, in response to a comment 
about expanding the approved avocado distribution area to include 
additional States, that new States could be added to the list of 
approved States in the future if APHIS received a request to do so and 
the Agency determined that avocados could be imported into other States 
without presenting a significant pest risk.
    After considering the comments received in response to our May 2000 
request for information and reviewing our existing data, we have 
determined that there is sufficient information to support the Mexican 
Government's request to expand the list of approved States and the 
avocado shipping season. The information on which this determination is 
based is primarily derived from the following documents:
     A risk management analysis, ``A Systems Approach for 
Mexican Avocado'' (USDA, May 1995), prepared for the July 1995 proposed 
rule.
     A supplemental pest risk assessment, ``Importation of 
Avocado Fruit (Persea americana) from Mexico'' (USDA, May 1995) and an 
addendum to it, ``Estimates for the Likelihood of Pest Outbreaks Based 
on the Draft Final Rule'' (USDA, July 1996).
     A document, ``Identification of Susceptible Areas for the 
Establishment of Anastrepha spp. Fruit Flies in the United States and 
Analysis of Selected Pathways'' (Sequeira, et al., 2001), which was 
completed in 2001 as the U.S. portion of a project by a subcommittee of 
the Pest Risk Assessment Panel of the North American Plant Protection 
Organization (NAPPO).
     Four shipping seasons (1997-2001) worth of shipping and 
inspection data collected either by APHIS or jointly by APHIS and its 
Mexican counterpart, the Secretariat of Agriculture, Livestock and 
Rural Development, Fisheries and Food (SAGARPA).
     Two avocado program review reports, prepared in June 1999 
and May 2001, which include evaluations of the program based on site 
visits to production areas in Mexico.
     Four years worth of fruit fly trapping data for the 
approved orchards in approved municipalities in Mexico.
    The content of these documents, and our analysis of their 
applicability to this proposed rule, are summarized below. This summary 
is an excerpt from an APHIS document entitled ``Information Memo for 
the Record'' (April 30, 2001). Copies of all of the documents 
referenced above, including the information memo, are available by 
contacting the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, or 
via the Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/avocados/.

1995 Risk Management Analysis

    The risk management analysis describes the degree to which the 
various elements of the systems approach employed for the importation 
of Mexican Hass avocados are expected to mitigate the pest risk 
associated with such importations. The risk management analysis 
evaluates the following pests:
     Small avocado seed weevils (Conotrachelus perseae and C. 
aguacatae),

[[Page 36894]]

     Large avocado seed weevil (Heilipus lauri),
     Avocado stem weevil (Copturus aguacatae),
     Avocado seed moth (Stenoma catenifer),
     Fruit flies (Anastrepha ludens, A. striata and A. 
serpentina),\1\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In Attachment 1 of the risk management analysis, APHIS 
discusses its consideration of Anastrepha fraterculus as a pest of 
avocados. A. fraterculus is not considered in the body of the risk 
management analysis because no research suggests the population of 
A. fraterculus found in Mexico is a pest of avocados.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Hitchhikers and miscellaneous other pests.
    The risk mitigation elements of the systems approach evaluated in 
the document include the following measures:
     Field surveys,
     Trapping and field treatments,
     Field sanitation,
     Host resistance,
     Post harvest safeguards,
     Winter shipping only (November through February),
     Packinghouse inspection and fruit cutting,
     Port-of-arrival inspection, and
     Limited U.S. distribution (northeastern States only).
    The risk management analysis concluded that the cumulative effects 
of the systems approach lower the risk of all target pests to an 
insignificant level and that even if one of the mitigation measures 
should completely fail, the risk reduction effect of the other measures 
would maintain risk at a low level. The risk management analysis 
further concluded that the risk from hitchhikers and other pests would 
be lower than the comparative risk posed by hundreds of other products 
that are imported into the United States with port-of-entry inspection 
as the primary clearance requirement.

1995 Supplemental Pest Risk Assessment and 1996 Addendum

    The primary components of the supplemental pest risk assessment 
are:
     A listing of avocado pests known to occur in Mexico;
     A qualitative assessment of the consequences of 
introducing specific quarantine pests expected to follow the pathway of 
avocado fruit imported in accordance with the systems approach;
     Biological information on those quarantine pests;
     A scenario analysis considering the likelihood that 
infested fruit transported to suitable habitat would result in the 
establishment of those quarantine pests in the United States;
     Quantitative estimates of the likelihood that infested 
fruit transported to suitable habitat would result in the establishment 
of those quarantine pests in the United States; and
     Brief recommendations regarding measures to manage plant 
pest risk.
    The document estimates the probability of pest establishment by 
comparing two scenarios for imported Mexican Hass avocados: (1) That 
there were no specific risk mitigation measures in place (i.e., the 
baseline scenario), and (2) that the mitigation measures described in 
the July 3, 1995, proposed rule were in place (the mitigated scenario).
    The supplementary pest risk assessment identifies 91 pests of 
avocado in Mexico (26 pathogens and 65 arthropods). Of the 91 pests 
identified, 32 (2 pathogens and 30 arthropods) satisfy the geographic 
and regulatory criteria for designation as a quarantine pest. Of these 
32 quarantine pests, only 9 arthropods are expected, based on their 
biology, to follow the pathway of imported Mexican Hass avocado fruit. 
Those nine arthropods (which were identified for consideration in the 
risk management analysis) are:
     Anastrepha fraterculus--fruit fly.
     Anastrepha ludens--fruit fly.
     Anastrepha serpentina--fruit fly.
     Anastrepha striata--fruit fly.
     Conotrachelus aguacatae--seed weevil.
     Conotrachelus perseae--seed weevil.
     Heilipus lauri--seed weevil.
     Copturus aguacatae--stem weevil.
     Stenoma catenifer--seed moth.
    The nine pests are categorized for the purposes of the extended 
assessment as follows:
     Fruit flies: Anastrepha fraterculus, A. ludens, A. 
serpentina, and A. striata.
     Seed weevils: Conotrachelus aguacatae, C. perseae, 
Heilipus lauri.
     Stem weevil: Copturus aguacatae.
     Seed moth: Stenoma catenifer.
    The supplemental pest risk assessment then rates pest groups 
qualitatively for their ``Pest Risk Potential'' (PRP). The ratings are 
based on a series of risk elements that are used to estimate the 
consequences of a pest's introduction. The PRP is considered to be a 
biological indicator of the potential destructiveness of the pest. The 
seed weevils, stem weevil, and seed moth have PRP values considered to 
be medium. The supplemental pest risk assessment's ratings are based on 
our findings that, although these pests could potentially have a 
significant economic impact on domestic avocado production, their host 
range is extremely narrow (the weevils are only known to attack 
avocado, and the seed moth attacks only avocado and one other plant 
species), they have a narrow climatic tolerance, and their dispersal 
potential is limited. The fruit flies' PRP is considered high. The 
difference in the ratings for the fruit flies as compared to the 
weevils and the seed moth can be attributed to the broader range of 
hosts attacked by the fruit flies, their greater motility, and higher 
potential economic impact.
    The supplemental pest risk assessment estimates the likelihood that 
particular pests would be introduced into the United States as a result 
of importation of Mexican Hass avocado fruit. First, the events that 
would have to occur before pest outbreaks could occur were 
conceptualized using the method of scenario analysis. The results of 
the scenario analysis were then used to run a series of Monte Carlo 
simulations to estimate the frequency of pest outbreaks. The chosen 
endpoint for the simulations was the frequency of pest outbreaks. Two 
scenarios (i.e., program alternatives) were considered:
     Importation of Mexican avocado fruit with no specific 
measures to mitigate plant pest risks, and
     Importation of only Hass avocado fruit and only under the 
systems approach proposed in the July 3, 1995, proposed rule.
    A single risk model was employed for both the unmitigated 
(baseline) scenario and the mitigated (program) scenario. It is a 
linear, multiplicative model comprised of seven ``nodes'' with the 
endpoint of frequency of outbreaks (establishment) per year based on an 
estimated number of shipments. It is assumed that all of the events 
(nodes) in the model are independent and all must occur before a pest 
establishment can take place. The risk model is as follows:

F1: Frequency of shipments (number of boxes imported per year)  x 
P1: Probability pest infests fruit: pre-or postharvest  x 
P2: Probability pest not detected during harvest or packing  x 
P3: Probability pest survives shipment  x 
P4: Probability pest not detected at port of entry inspection  x 
P5: Probability fruit is transported to area with suitable hosts and 
climate  x 
P6: Probability infested fruit in suitable habitat leads to outbreak =
F2: Frequency of pest outbreaks in the United States

    Because the actual probabilities of the independent events 
comprising the risk model were not known, they were estimated. Although 
the probabilities were estimated, pertinent data were available for 
each independent event. The estimates were based to a large extent on 
expert judgment. A core team

[[Page 36895]]

of four entomologists estimated probabilities, and numerous technical 
specialists (e.g., scientists specializing in particular taxonomic 
groups, port inspectors, specialists in international trade, etc.) were 
consulted throughout the process. The estimates were specified as 
probability distribution functions that described a range of values 
between specified maximums and minimums. The frequency of pest 
outbreaks was calculated using Monte Carlo simulation.
    The results of quantitative estimates of the ``Likelihood of 
Introduction'' section of the 1995 supplemental pest risk assessment 
are summarized in the following table:

   Table 1.--Pest Outbreak Frequency: Mexican Avocado Pests, by Program Alternative, as Calculated in the 1995
                                        Supplemental Pest Risk Assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Outbreak frequency (per year)
        Program alternative                       Pest             ---------------------------------------------
                                                                             Mode                   Mean
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A--No specific mitigation program..  Fruit flies..................  0.0139 or 1 chance in  0.0518 or 1 chance in
                                                                     72.                    19
                                     Seed weevils.................  0.0105 or 1 chance in  0.0419 or 1 chance in
                                                                     95.                    24
                                     Stem weevil..................  1.389 or 1 chance in   5.183 or 1 chance in
                                                                     0.7.                   0.2
                                     Seed moth....................  0.00282 or 1 chance    0.0120 or 1 chance in
                                                                     in 355.                83
B--Systems approach for risk         Fruit flies..................  8.64  x  10-8 or 1     3.57  x  10-7 or 1
 mitigation.                                                         chance in 12 million.  chance in 3 million
                                     Seed weevils.................  6.66  x  10-7 or 1     3.13  x  10-6 or 1
                                                                     chance in 1.5          chance in 320,000
                                                                     million.
                                     Stem weevil..................  8.77  x  10-5 or 1     0.000387 or 1 chance
                                                                     chance in 11,042.      in 2600
                                     Seed moth....................  1.87  x  10-7 or one   8.98  x  10-7 or one
                                                                     chance in 5 million.   chance in 1.1
                                                                                            million
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following our review of the comments received from the public 
regarding the July 3, 1995, proposed rule, APHIS made modifications to 
the systems approach that had not been considered in the 1995 
supplemental pest risk assessment. The changes that appeared in the 
February 5, 1997, final rule are:
    1. Fallen fruit must be removed from the orchard no less frequently 
than every 7 days during harvest.
    This change affected the estimates for node P1 (Probability pest 
infests fruit: pre- or postharvest).
    2. The number of fruit inspected from each lot was increased from 
250 to 300.
    This change affected estimates for node P2 (Probability pest not 
detected during harvest or packing).
    3. A sticker identifying the packinghouse must be placed on each 
individual fruit imported under the program.
    This change affected both the probability that the pests would 
evade detection at the ports of entry (P4) and the probability that 
fruit will be transported to a habitat with suitable hosts and climate 
(P5).
    As a consequence of these changes, APHIS revised the calculations 
presented in the 1995 supplemental pest risk assessment for the 
likelihood of introduction under the mitigation program. The revised 
calculations were reported in the 1996 addendum to the supplemental 
pest risk assessment. The revised calculations were intended to 
estimate how much further risk reduction would be achieved by the 
additional measures. Since the risk, prior to these modifications, was 
already deemed insignificant, the revised calculations of the addendum 
(shown in the table below) were not considered necessary for 
publication of the final rule.

Table 2.--Pest Outbreak Frequency: Mexican Avocado Pests, by Program Alternative--Input Values Based on the 1997
                                                Draft Final Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Outbreak frequency (per year)
        Program alternative                       Pest             ---------------------------------------------
                                                                             Mode                   Mean
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B--Systems approach for risk         Fruit flies..................  8.89  x  10 -\11\ or   4.85  x  10 -\8\ or 1
 mitigation.                                                         1 chance in 11         chance in 21 million
                                                                     billion.
                                     Seed weevils.................  5.76  x  10 -\9\ or 1  4.01  x  10 -\7\ or 1
                                                                     chance in 173          chance in 2.5
                                                                     million.               million
                                     Stem weevil..................  3.08  x  10 -\6\ or 1  1.03  x  10 -\4\ or 1
                                                                     chance in 325,000.     change in 9708
                                     Seed moth....................  3.60  x  10 -\9\ or 1  1.19  x  10 -\7\ or 1
                                                                     chance in 278,000.     chance in 8 million
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Identification of Susceptible Areas for the Establishment of 
Anastrepha spp. Fruit Flies in the United States and Analysis of 
Selected Pathways

    This document reviews the risk associated with Anastrepha spp., 
especially in relation to these pests as they occur in U.S. fruit 
imports from Mexico. It focuses on the likelihood that Anastrepha 
ludens (Mexfly), A. serpentina, A. striata and A. fraterculus could 
become established in the United States via the Mexican avocado 
pathway. The study described in the document was motivated by U.S. 
grower concerns that existing and proposed changes in import patterns 
will pose increased risks to American agricultural productivity and 
profitability. This document represents the U.S. portion of a project 
by a subcommittee of the NAPPO Pest Risk Assessment Panel, and is 
intended to be published as part of a larger NAPPO document when Mexico 
and Canada's portions of the document are complete.
    Paraphrasing from the document, the approach used was to first 
examine the resource at risk (commercial fruit production), then 
characterize host susceptibility (timing and location of susceptible 
fruit) and characterize climatology so as to study pest reproduction 
potential as a function of the previous factors. This approach can be 
characterized as an epidemiological analysis. The avocado pathway was 
used as a case study for the risks associated with fruit imports. The 
study used fruit cutting, pest survey, and

[[Page 36896]]

trapping data that have been recorded since the initiation of the 
avocado import program to determine the probability that fruit flies 
are passing undetected along this pathway.
    Epidemiologically, the study concludes that a combination of 
factors, primarily the Hass avocado's status as a poor to inadequate 
fruit fly host and the marginal conditions for fruit fly development in 
the growing areas, leads to low fruit fly densities in production 
areas. They note that Anastrepha spp. favor peaches, citrus, and other 
species of fruit over avocados. Statistically, the study demonstrates 
that the probability is near zero that fruit fly infestations (even 
very low-level infestations) are going undetected in inspections under 
the current avocado import program. That is, the statistical evidence 
suggests that if infestations were even as low as 1 Anastrepha spp. 
larva per 100,000 fruit, they would be detected with likelihood greater 
than 95 percent. The study concludes that the existing Anastrepha 
populations in Mexico, given the cropping and pest management practices 
currently in use there, are too low to be a threat to agriculture in 
the States currently approved to receive imported Mexican avocados or 
in the States that we are proposing to allow to receive imported 
Mexican avocados.
    The study concludes that the highest likelihood for the potential 
spread of Mexfly in the United States is concentrated in portions of 
the States of Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, South 
Carolina, and Texas. The State of Hawaii showed the highest risk for 
the establishment of Anastrepha spp. A combination of limited host 
availability, a short period of climate conducive to Anastrepha spp. 
development, and lethal low temperatures for prolonged periods causes 
most of the continental United States outside of those States to be at 
low risk from these fruit fly species.

Program Reviews, Shipping and Inspection Data, and Trapping Data

    In May 2001, APHIS completed a review of the Mexican Hass avocado 
import program. The review was triggered by a request from a 
representative of the California Avocado Commission. As part of the 
review, a team of several APHIS officials conducted a site visit to 
avocado production areas in Michoacan, Mexico, in September 2000. The 
site visit team observed trapping and orchard sanitation practices in 
Michoacan and concluded that the program was being operated in 
compliance with the regulations.
    The current regulations in Sec. 319.56-2ff require that Mexican 
avocado-producing municipalities and orchards that wish to participate 
in the U.S. import program must fulfill certain obligations regarding 
pest surveys. The municipality must be surveyed at least annually and 
found to be free of the large avocado seed weevil (Heilipus lauri), the 
avocado seed moth (Stenoma catenifer), and the small avocado seed 
weevils (Conotrachelus aguacatae and C. perseae). Trapping must be 
conducted in the municipality for Mediterranean fruit fly (Medfly) 
(Ceratitis capitata) at the rate of 1 trap per 1 to 4 square miles. The 
orchard and all contiguous orchards and properties must be surveyed 
annually and found to be free from the avocado stem weevil (Copturus 
aguacatae). Trapping must be conducted in the orchard for the fruit 
flies Anastrepha ludens, A. serpentina, and A. striata at the rate of 1 
trap for each 10 hectares.
    Data from these various trapping and survey programs, as well data 
on the number of fruit shipped, the number of fruit intercepted outside 
of the approved States, and the number of fruit cut and inspected are 
now available for the four shipping seasons that the import program has 
been in place (1997-1998 through 2000-2001). These data are summarized 
in the tables below.

                    Table 3.--Number of Mexican Hass Avocado Fruit Entering the United States
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Season                                  Shipments         Boxes           Fruit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997-1998.......................................................             347         537,850      25,816,800
1998-1999.......................................................             560         868,000      41,664,000
1999-2000.......................................................             669       1,036,950      49,773,600
2000-2001.......................................................             576         895,900      42,854,400
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................           2,152       3,338,700     160,108,800
    Average.....................................................             538         834,675      40,027,200
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


   Table 4.--Number of Mexican Hass Avocado Fruit Intercepted Outside
                             Approved States
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Season                       Boxes           Fruit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
1997-1998.............................             668          32,064
1998-1999.............................           3,114         149,472
1999-2000.............................              45           2,160
2000-2001.............................              54           2,592
                                       ---------------------------------
    Total.............................           3,881         186,288
    Average...........................             970          46,572
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                        Table 5.--Number of Mexican Hass Avocado Fruit Cut and Inspected
  [All fruit cut and inspected were negative for target pests. Orchard and packinghouse inspections were joint
  Mexican (SAGARPA) / United States (APHIS) inspections. Border inspections were conducted by U.S. inspectors.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Orchard      Packinghouse
                     Season                          (SAGARPA/      (SAGARPA /       At Border         Total
                                                      APHIS)          APHIS)          (APHIS)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997-1998.......................................       1,155,305         417,900          10,410       1,583,615
1998-1999.......................................       1,121,471         203,250          16,800       1,341,521

[[Page 36897]]

 
1999-2000.......................................         952,423         166,650          20,070       1,139,143
2000-2001.......................................       1,209,814         172,800          17,280       1,399,894
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................       4,439,013         960,600          64,560       5,464,173
    Average.....................................       1,109,753         240,150          16,140       1,366,043
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                    Table 6.--Mexican Fruit Fly Trapping Data
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Number of fruit flies trapped during current and proposed shipping
                                                                    seasons by municipality
                    Year                     -------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Salvador
                                                  Periban         Escalante        Tancitaro         Uruapan
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997........................................               0                0                0                0
1998........................................               0                0          3 (Nov)                0
999.........................................               0                0                0                0
2000........................................               0          4 (Jan)                0                0
                                                                      4 (Feb)
                                                                      3 (Mar)
                                                                      2 (Apr)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The May 2001 program review document, as well as complete import, 
inspection, fruit cutting, and survey data sets are available by 
contacting the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT and 
via the Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/avocados/.

Evaluation of the Applicability of Existing Risk Analyses to Proposed 
Changes to the Mexican Hass Avocado Import Program

    The changes proposed in this document would directly affect the 
estimates of risk in the 1995 risk management analysis, the 1995 
supplemental pest risk assessment, and the 1996 addendum that relate to 
``limited distribution'' of Hass avocados in the United States (19 
Northeastern States and District of Columbia) and ``winter shipping 
only'' (November through February).
    The 1995 risk management analysis concluded that ``winter shipping 
only'' reduces the pest risk presented by fruit flies. In the risk 
management analysis, we estimated a risk reduction between 60 and 90 
percent for fruit flies, given the ``winter shipping only'' 
restriction. According to the risk management analysis, the majority of 
reduction in pest risk from this mitigation measure can be attributed 
to limited adult fruit fly activity under colder temperatures in the 
growing areas in Mexico. Given this assumption, the question arises: 
Would extending the shipping season for 2 additional months to include 
March and April result in fruit being shipped from orchards with high 
rates of adult fruit fly activity? Trapping data collected as required 
by the current program would indicate this is not the case. In 4 years 
of trapping, only five fruit flies have been captured during the months 
of March and April. All five of those captures (three in March and two 
in April) occurred in a single season (2000) and in a single 
municipality (Salvador Escalante.) Climatological data presented in the 
document entitled ``Identification of Susceptible Areas for the 
Establishment of Anastrepha spp. Fruit Flies in the United States and 
Analysis of Selected Pathways'' (referred to below as Sequeira, et al.) 
indicate that even in the very unlikely event fruit flies were shipped 
with Mexican Hass avocados, escaped detection, and arrived during the 
months of March or April, temperatures in the approved and proposed 
States would still fall below the optima for fruit fly activity.
    Furthermore, Sequeira, et al., concluded that sampling evidence and 
statistical analysis showed that the likelihood of introducing a mating 
pair in shipments of up to a million avocados is low.
    The risk management analysis estimated that limiting U.S. 
distribution would significantly reduce the risk of all nine analyzed 
pests. The reduction was estimated to range from 95 to 99 percent for 
all of the pests except the avocado stem weevil (90 to 99 percent) and 
hitchhikers (75 to 95 percent). The authors attributed this reduction 
to the low prevalence of host material and the reduced likelihood of 
survival of these generally tropical or subtropical pests in northern 
U.S. States. The same is true for the 12 States proposed for addition 
to the list of approved States. According to Sequeira, et al., none of 
the additional States supports the growth of avocado, the sole host of 
avocado seed and stem weevils and the preferred host of the seed moth. 
Although the weather conditions appropriate for Anastrepha spp. include 
a wider range of temperatures, prolonged low winter temperatures 
inhibit fruit fly establishment. According to Sequeira, et al., winter 
temperatures are low enough to prevent establishment in all of the 
States that we are proposing to add to the list of approved States.
    The pest risk assessment qualitatively estimated the PRP for the 
avocado seed weevils, stem weevil, seed moth, and fruit flies based on 
the pests' climatic needs, host range, dispersal potential, economic 
impact, and environmental impact. The addition of the 12 proposed 
States to the list of approved States and the extension of the shipping 
season do not alter host availability, nor would they be expected to 
appreciably impact the other risk elements that comprise the PRP. 
Consequently, the PRP ratings would be expected to remain at medium for 
seed weevils, stem weevil, and seed moth and high for fruit flies.

[[Page 36898]]

    The 1995 supplemental pest risk assessment used scenario analysis 
and Monte Carlo simulation to probabilistically estimate the likelihood 
of introducing the above-named pests into the United States via imports 
of Mexican Hass avocados. The risk model for the analysis was comprised 
of seven nodes corresponding to specific independent events that must 
occur in order for a pest to be introduced. The impact of the proposed 
changes in the avocado program and the body of data collected under the 
current program are summarized below.
F1: Frequency of Shipments (Number of Boxes Imported Per Year)
    The 1995 supplemental pest risk assessment (as well as the 1996 
addendum) estimated that between 1 and 2 million boxes of fruit would 
be imported under the systems approach program. The actual number of 
boxes imported fell short of the minimum in all but 1 of the 4 years 
the program has been in place. As indicated in Table 3 above, the 
program averaged only 834,675 boxes per year. Because of this, we 
believe that the 1995-1996 assessments actually overestimated the risk. 
It also means that even if the addition of 12 States to the program 
doubled the number of imported Hass avocados, the actual number of 
imported boxes would still fall within the range of values in the 1995-
1996 estimate, and the existing results would remain valid. Given that, 
as a whole, the population of the 12 additional States is less than the 
19 States currently approved, it seems likely that the number of 
imported boxes would not actually double, and the number of boxes would 
continue to fall within the range predicted by the existing estimate 
for F1.
P1: Probability Pest Infests Fruit: Pre- or Postharvest
    The 1996 addendum to the supplemental pest risk assessment 
estimated that the value for P1 would range between 5  x  
10-8 and 5  x  10-6 for the fruit flies, between 
5  x  10-6 and 5  x  10-5 for the seed weevils, 
between 1  x  10-3 and 1  x  10-2 for the stem 
weevil, and between 5  x  10-6 and 5  x  10-5 for 
the seed moth. One might suspect that the risk of Mexican Hass avocados 
being infested with fruit flies (if one accepts that Hass avocado is a 
host for fruit flies) would increase as the shipping season was 
extended into March and April based on the assumption that as 
temperatures warmed, fruit flies would become more active. However, as 
described above, fruit fly trapping data do not support the assumption 
that there is significant adult fruit fly activity in Michoacan avocado 
orchards in March and April. Likewise, fruit cutting in the orchards 
has produced no finds of any of the pests of concern, even after 
sampling nearly 4.5 million fruit over the course of 4 growing seasons. 
Similarly, no pest detections have been made after cutting nearly 1 
million fruit in packinghouse inspections. To date, nearly 3.4 million 
boxes of Mexican Hass avocados have been shipped to the United States 
under the import program with no target pest finds. These data suggest 
that, even with an increase in the volume of imports, the original risk 
assessment numbers still represent a reasonable estimate and may even 
overestimate the likelihood that pests will infest program fruit.
P2: Probability Pest Not Detected During Harvest or Packing
    The proposed changes to the import program would not impact the 
estimates for this node. It is worth noting, however, that in the four 
shipping seasons under the current program, no target pests have been 
detected after nearly 1 million fruit have been inspected by cutting at 
the packinghouse (see Table 5).
P3: Probability Pest Survives Shipment
    The proposed changes to the import program would not impact the 
estimates for this node.
P4: Probability Pest Not Detected at Port of Entry Inspection
    The proposed changes to the import program would not impact the 
estimates for this node. It is worth noting, however, that in the four 
shipping seasons under the current program, no target pests have been 
detected after nearly 65,000 fruit have been inspected by cutting at 
the port of entry (see Table 5).
P5: Probability Fruit Is Transported to Area With Suitable Hosts and 
Climate
    As stated above, according to Sequeira, et al., none of the States 
proposed for addition to the list of approved States supports the 
growth of avocado, the sole host of avocado seed and stem weevils and 
the preferred host of the seed moth. Likewise, all of the States we are 
proposing to add to the list of approved distribution areas pose a low 
risk for the establishment of Anastrepha spp. fruit flies even in the 
very unlikely event any would be imported on Mexican Hass avocados. For 
similar reasons, the proposed change in the western transit boundary 
for Mexican Hass avocados would not affect any existing risk estimates.
    The 1995 supplemental pest risk assessment estimated that between 
0.5 percent and 5.0 percent of the imported Hass avocado would be 
transported to an area with suitable hosts and habitat. This was 
assumed to be the result of either inadvertent or intentional 
(smuggling) movement to nonapproved avocado-growing or fruit fly-
supporting States. The 1996 addendum to the supplemental pest risk 
assessment reduced these estimates to between 0.05 percent and 2.0 
percent as a consequence of the requirement for stickering that was 
included in the February 1997 final rule.
    Actual data for seizures of fruit outside the approved States (see 
Table 4) indicate that in the 1997-1998 and 1998-1999 shipping seasons, 
0.12 percent and 0.36 percent of boxes of imported Mexican Hass 
avocados were intercepted outside of the approved States. Assuming, for 
the purposes of this discussion, that all of these intercepted boxes 
ended up in areas with suitable hosts and climates, the actual values 
fall well within the range of predicted values. Beginning midway 
through the third year of the program (1999-2000), a more stringent 
compliance requirement became effective. Consequently, in the 1999-2000 
and 2000-2001 shipping seasons, 0.004 and 0.006 percent of the imported 
boxes of Mexican Hass avocados were intercepted outside of approved 
States (see Table 4). Given the reduced levels of fruit leaving the 
approved States under the stronger compliance requirement, even if one 
assumes not all diverted fruit is intercepted, the estimates in the 
1995 and 1996 risk assessments are, at the very least, accurate and 
more likely overestimate the likelihood that fruit will be transported 
to an area with suitable hosts and climate.
P6: Probability Infested Fruit in Suitable Habitat Leads to Outbreak
    The proposed changes to the import program would not impact the 
estimates for this node.

Conclusion

    We have reviewed the documents summarized above and find that the 
evidence, assumptions, and conclusions of the 1995 risk management 
analysis and the 1995 supplemental pest risk assessment and its 1996 
addendum would remain valid even if the proposed changes are made to 
the Mexican Hass avocado program. Therefore, we have determined that 
the importation of Hass avocados from Mexico in accordance with the 
existing regulations as modified by this

[[Page 36899]]

proposed rule would present a negligible risk of introducing plant 
pests into the United States.

Discussion of Comments Received in Response to the May 2000 Notice

    Some commenters expressed concern over the number of violations 
that occurred during the first 2 years of the avocado import program. 
The commenters requested that the program be terminated because 
imported Hass avocados have not been completely contained within the 
limited distribution area. The comments expressed concerns over the 
number of shipments of Mexican avocados that were moved illegally to 
States where temperatures are higher, there is more suitable host 
material available, and the risk of introduction of a plant pest of 
concern is greater.
    During the first 2 years of the Hass avocado import program, boxes 
of avocados were diverted to States that were not listed as approved 
for distribution. APHIS conducted investigations and prosecuted several 
distributors for violations of the regulations. However, the pest risk 
analysis prepared for the rulemaking that established the current 
program to import Hass avocados from Mexico takes into account the 
expected diversion of some avocados to States not approved to receive 
them. The amount of avocados that were diverted during the first 2 
years of the Hass avocado import program did not exceed the estimate 
used in the calculations of risk.
    To help reduce the number of boxes of avocados diverted to 
nonapproved areas, we amended the regulations (see 64 FR 68001-68005) 
during the third (1999-2000) shipping season to require that all 
distributors of Hass avocados enter into a compliance agreement with 
APHIS that fully explains the distribution restrictions and the 
distributor's obligations. Before the 1999-2000 shipping season, we 
conducted an information campaign to inform the public and industry 
about Mexican avocados and published press releases regarding penalties 
for violations during previous seasons. The 1999-2000 season had a 20 
percent increase in number of boxes of avocados shipped from Mexico to 
the United States, but only 45 boxes were intercepted in States not 
approved to receive them (see Table 4 under the heading Risk Assessment 
Documentation Supporting the Proposed Rule). This is 1.5 percent of the 
number of boxes diverted in the previous (1998-1999) season.
    Some commenters stated that fruit flies and stem weevils do exist 
in the areas of production in Michoacan, Mexico, and expressed concern 
about the constant danger of infestation or reinfestation of avocado 
orchards from neighboring orchards and from untreated backyard grown 
host plants in the production areas.
    The risk assessment documents used as the basis for the existing 
program take into account that fruit flies and stem weevils exist in 
avocado production areas in Mexico. The regulations in Sec. 319.56-2ff 
require that trapping must be conducted in the orchard for the fruit 
flies Anastrepha ludens, A. serpentina, and A. striata at the rate of 
one trap per 10 hectares. If one of those fruit flies is trapped, at 
least 10 additional traps must be deployed in a 50-hectare area 
immediately surrounding the trap in which the fruit fly was found. If 
within 30 days of the first finding any additional fruit flies are 
trapped within the 260-hectare area surrounding the first finding, 
malathion bait treatments must be applied in the affected orchard in 
order for the orchard to remain eligible to export avocados.
    In addition, the regulations require that the orchards where 
avocados are grown and all contiguous orchards and properties be 
surveyed annually and found to be free from the avocado stem weevil 
Copturus aguacatae. The survey must be conducted during the growing 
season and completed prior to the harvest of the avocados. If Sanidad 
Vegetal (Mexico's plant protection organization) discovers the stem 
weevil in an orchard during an orchard survey or other monitoring or 
inspection activity in the orchard, Sanidad Vegetal must provide APHIS 
with information regarding the circumstances of the infestation and the 
pest risk mitigation measures taken and the orchard in which the pest 
was found will lose its export certification immediately and will be 
denied export certification for the entire shipping season. Further, if 
Sanidad Vegetal discovers the stem weevil in fruit at a packinghouse, 
Sanidad Vegetal must investigate the origin of the infested fruit and 
provide APHIS with information regarding the circumstances of the 
infestation and the pest risk mitigation measures taken. The orchard 
where the infested fruit originated will lose its export certification 
immediately and will be denied export certification for the entire 
shipping season.
    Survey information from trapping in avocado orchards, and fruit 
cutting in avocado orchards, packinghouses in the production areas in 
Mexico, and at the border when shipments enter the United States, show 
that avocados imported under the Mexican Hass avocado import program 
are not infested by any pest of concern (see Table 5 under the heading 
Risk Assessment Documentation Supporting the Proposed Rule). Based on 
these surveys, we believe the elements of the systems approach 
regulations described above protect against infestation or 
reinfestation of avocado orchards from neighboring orchards and from 
untreated, backyard-grown host plants in the production areas.
    Some commenters stated that there are other hosts for fruit flies 
that APHIS has not considered that grow or are being cultivated in 
States where expanded avocado distribution is proposed. The commenters 
suggest that we need information from extension services in States 
where distribution is proposed in order to identify what alternate 
hosts are present and available for infestation. One comment stated 
that all but five States in the United States have plants that are 
suitable hosts for fruit flies, and that seven States (AL, AZ, CA, GA, 
FL, LA, and TX) grow suitable host plants that are valued at $3 
billion.
    As stated earlier in this document, APHIS recently completed the 
U.S. portion of a NAPPO project, entitled ``Identification of 
Susceptible Areas for the Establishment of Anastrepha spp. Fruit Flies 
in the United States and Analysis of Selected Pathways'' (Sequeira, et 
al., 2001), that identifies areas in the United States that are 
susceptible to the establishment of fruit flies. In conducting this 
study, we did contact extension services in States where expansion of 
the distribution area is proposed. The information that we received 
from extension services on alternate hosts cultivated in those States 
and on wild host material common in those States was used in the 
development of the Sequeira, et al., study.
    The Sequeira, et al., study identifies U.S. States that have 
suitable host material for fruit flies. Based on the findings of the 
Sequeira, et al., study and the other risk documents discussed in this 
document, we are not proposing to allow avocados to be imported into 
any of the seven States listed above by the commenter (AL, AZ, CA, GA, 
FL, LA, and TX).
    Some commenters asserted that our determinations on when and where 
to allow importations of Hass avocados from Mexico depend too much on 
temperature data alone. Commenters suggested that we should consider 
other climactic factors that also play a role in the establishment of 
fruit flies.
    We agree with the commenters that any determination regarding when 
and

[[Page 36900]]

where avocados may be distributed in the United States should be based 
on a study of all relevant climate-related factors. For the 1995 and 
1996 risk documents, we used only temperature data in considering the 
risk posed by imported Mexican Hass avocados. However, the Sequeira, et 
al., study, which is described above, considers and evaluates the 
effects of the following climate-related variables on potential fruit 
fly establishment:
     The presence of fruit fly hosts and their seasonal and 
geographical availability.
     Reproduction potential of fruit flies at various 
temperatures.
     Selection of areas where temperatures are warm enough for 
a long enough period of time to support reproducing fruit fly 
populations.
    Some commenters suggested that we use several verifiable and 
reliable sources of temperature data in determining monthly and daily 
mean, minimum, and maximum temperatures in Mexico.
    We believe that additional temperature data for production areas is 
not necessary for the purposes of this proposed rule. As stated 
elsewhere in this document, trapping, survey, and fruit cutting data 
for production areas in Mexico show that imported avocados are not 
infested with any pests of concern. We believe that such data provide a 
more accurate estimate of pest presence in avocado production areas 
than the consideration of additional temperature data would.
    Some commenters requested that we wait until the NAPPO Fruit Fly 
Panel completes its investigation into the susceptibility of areas for 
the establishment of fruit flies until we move forward with this 
proposed rule. The NAPPO Fruit Fly Panel requested the NAPPO Pest Risk 
Assessment Panel to conduct a study using modeling, climatology, and 
phenology to determine where fruit flies could become established in 
North America.
    Again, the Sequeira, et al., study described above represents the 
U.S. portion of the NAPPO project. The study provides part of the basis 
for our decision to expand the Mexican Hass avocado import program to 
include 12 more States and to lengthen the shipping season by 2 months. 
We are not basing our proposal to allow the expanded importation of 
Mexican Hass avocados on the findings of the other portions of the 
NAPPO project and see no reason to wait for their completion.
    Some commenters criticized as inadequate the survey techniques used 
in the areas of production in Michoacan, Mexico, to determine 
population levels of pests of concern, stating that McPhail traps are 
ineffective, avocado stem weevils are surveyed in the wrong season, and 
reliable surveys for avocado seed moths are not conducted.
    We believe that the required trap density of 1 trap per 10 hectares 
will be sufficient to indicate the presence of fruit fly populations in 
the orchards. In the United States, the national detection protocol for 
Anastrepha ranges from 1 trap per 10 square miles to 5 traps per square 
mile; the Rio Grande Valley and Florida citrus protocol for Anastrepha 
ranges from 5 to 15 traps per square mile. The density required in the 
Mexican orchards--1 trap per 10 hectares--works out to approximately 25 
traps per square mile, which is the same density required to maintain 
the fruit fly-free zone in the Mexican State of Sonora. With regard to 
the type of traps used, we believe that some of the other traps 
currently available may be comparable to the McPhail trap, but none are 
better for monitoring for Anastrepha fruit flies. Further, the surveys 
for avocado stem weevils and seed moths are conducted twice a year and 
include a survey in the spring when pest numbers are the highest. These 
surveys use the most effective available methods for detecting the 
pests.
    One commenter stated that APHIS should assess the potential for 
introduction of other Mexican insect pests that could infest crops 
grown in the United States. The commenter cited introductions of the 
Persea mite (Oligonychus perseae) and avocado thrip (Scirtothrips 
perseae) into California as cause for concern.
    As stated earlier in this document, in our 1995 supplemental pest 
risk assessment, APHIS identified a list of 91 pests of avocado in 
Mexico (26 pathogens and 65 arthropods). Of the 91 pests identified, 32 
(2 pathogens and 30 arthropods) satisfy the geographic and regulatory 
criteria for designation as a quarantine pest. Of these 32 quarantine 
pests, only 9 arthropods are expected, based on their biology, to 
follow the pathway of imported Mexican Hass avocado fruit.
    The persea mite (Oligonychus perseae) and avocado thrip 
(Scirtothrips perseae) are currently established in the United States, 
and are not under official control, and therefore, do not meet the 
definition of a quarantine pest. Pests that do not satisfy 
internationally accepted criteria for designation as quarantine pests 
are not analyzed in detail in risk assessments because nonquarantine 
pests are not candidates for risk mitigation. Although O. persea and S. 
perseae should have been listed on the pest list, their inclusion would 
not have changed the supplemental pest risk assessment beyond the pests 
listed in table 3. Listing of O. persea and S. perseae in table 3 would 
not have changed the findings of the risk assessment and would not have 
altered the proposed mitigation program, which focuses on quarantine 
pests.
    One commenter questioned if surveys have been conducted in 
Michoacan within the context of limited pesticide use, since pesticides 
can mask the presence of pest species during surveys but do not 
eliminate pests possibly present in or on fruit eligible for export.
    APHIS pest surveys include areas with backyard and feral avocado 
trees and groves. We believe that surveying such areas provides a 
context to examine the presence of pests in a limited pesticide use 
context.
    One commenter suggested that the States bordering avocado-producing 
States should be considered buffer States. Buffer States should not be 
eligible to receive Mexican Hass avocados due to their proximity to 
avocado producing areas.
    We have not proposed to allow Mexican Hass avocados to be 
distributed in any State that borders California, Florida, and Texas, 
the only U.S. States that produce avocados.
    One commenter asked that the Government of Mexico be required to 
submit detailed workplans to APHIS and to growers in the United States, 
with survey protocols, orchard management practices, and inspection 
reports from site visits to observe the program in Mexico.
    The Government of Mexico and APHIS already agree upon such an 
operational workplan, which is reviewed and updated annually and shared 
with the California Avocado Commission. Since the avocado import 
program began, APHIS has conducted two comprehensive reviews, which are 
available to the public as described earlier in this document.
    Some commenters argued that we should conduct a new pest risk 
analysis and include new data and new developments in risk assessment 
methodology made available since the original assessment was completed 
in 1995.
    We believe that the 1995 and 1996 risk documents, in conjunction 
with the Sequeira, et al., study and 4 years of trapping and shipping 
data, provide a sound scientific basis for this proposed rule. APHIS' 
review and consideration of the existing pest risk analysis for the 
avocado program is described in the information memo for the record 
mentioned earlier in this document. The information memo for the record

[[Page 36901]]

explains our proposal to expand the area of distribution to include 12 
more States and lengthen the shipping season by the months of March and 
April and is supported by the documents described above under the 
heading Risk Assessment Documentation Supporting the Proposed Rule. We 
acknowledge that there have been developments in risk methodology since 
1995, but there are no new methodologies that would substantively alter 
the findings of the pest risk analysis used for the 1997 final rule.
    Further, APHIS does not intend to conduct a new risk assessment for 
this proposed rule because the relevant information that would be 
needed to complete a new risk assessment is already available in the 
risk documents that we used as a basis for this proposed rule. We 
believe that the ``Information Memo for the Record'' (April 30, 2001) 
described earlier in this document synthesizes the findings of the 
various risk documents and provides a clear statement that this 
proposed rule presents a negligible risk of introducing plant pests 
into the United States.
    One commenter suggested that we use a mean monthly temperature of 
50 degrees in destination States to determine their eligibility to 
receive Mexican Hass avocados, because fruit flies can successfully 
reproduce at 55 degrees. The comment also suggested that Mexican Hass 
avocados should not be approved for destination States where alternate 
host material is available up to 3 months after the shipping season 
ends, because a partially mature fruit fly can live as long as 3 months 
after shipping.
    While it is possible that fruit flies could survive and reproduce 
in an area with a mean monthly temperature of 55 degrees, other factors 
play a role in determining whether fruit flies could survive in a given 
environment. The Sequeira, et al., study described above considers 
temperature and the presence of suitable host material, as well as 
other factors, to identify the areas in the United States that are not 
at risk for the introduction of fruit flies. We believe this type of 
study provides a more accurate identification of areas in which fruit 
flies can survive than an analysis based on mean monthly temperatures 
alone.
    One commenter suggested that APHIS approve the month of April for 
the lengthened shipping season, rather than October, because October is 
warmer than April.
    In our May 2000 request for comments, we stated that Mexico had 
requested that APHIS allow the Hass avocado shipping season to begin 1 
month earlier (October rather than November) and end 1 month later 
(March rather than February). As stated earlier in this document, since 
the request for comments was published, Mexico has requested that 
avocados be allowed to be shipped year round. After a review of 
temperature and fruit fly survey data for Mexico and a review of 
phenological data for the United States, we are proposing to lengthen 
the shipping season of Hass avocados by 2 months, from November to 
April. Fruit fly trapping data for the approved municipalities in 
Michoacan show that in recent years, fewer fruit flies have been 
trapped in April than October. Based on the available trapping data, 
and the findings of the Sequeira, et al., study, we believe the pest 
risk posed by allowing Hass avocados to be imported in March and April 
would be no greater than it is for the current shipping season.
    One commenter suggested that we develop temperature data for all 
species of the pests of concern, not just for fruit flies.
    The other species of pests found on avocados are host-specific, and 
therefore are only able to live with avocados as their food source, 
whereas fruit flies can attack other crops than avocados. Since the 
proposed rule would allow distribution of Mexican Hass avocados only in 
areas where avocados are not grown, we see no reason to consider 
temperature and other climatic data for avocado pests other than fruit 
flies at this time.
    Some commenters critiqued the pest risk analysis used to establish 
the present importation program for Hass avocados from Mexico. They 
asserted that we should not have used median temperatures in our 
calculations, but rather we should have used mean daily maximum 
temperatures, which are more scientifically sound.
    The 1995 supplemental pest risk assessment that provided the basis 
for the proposed and final rules that established the current avocado 
import program did, as noted by the commenters, use monthly median 
temperatures in determining what areas in the United States and Mexico 
are susceptible to fruit fly infestations. While we continue to believe 
that the conclusions of the 1995 supplemental pest risk assessment are 
valid, we do agree with the commenters that using daily temperature 
data provides a more accurate estimate in determining what areas are 
susceptible to fruit fly infestations. The Sequeira, et al., study, 
which provides the primary basis for the proposed expansion of the 
current program, does use daily maximum and minimum temperatures to 
determine the susceptibility of areas of the United States to the 
establishment of fruit flies, as suggested by the commenters. We 
believe that the Sequeira, et al., study, in conjunction with the other 
risk documents discussed in this document, provide a sound scientific 
basis for this proposed rule.
    Another commenter stated that fruit flies are hardier and more 
long-lived than we estimated in the calculations for our 1995 and 1996 
risk assessment documents.
    In node P3 of the risk model used in the 1995 supplemental pest 
risk assessment, we estimated that in the highly unlikely event that 
imported Mexican Hass avocados were infested with fruit flies, there is 
a 70 to 90 percent chance that the fruit flies could survive shipment 
to the United States. Once in the United States, the fruit flies would 
have to escape detection at the port of entry (considered in node P4) 
and be transported to areas with suitable hosts and climate (node P5). 
Consistent with the findings of the 1995 supplemental pest risk 
assessment and the 1996 addendum to it, the Sequeira, et al., study 
shows that during the proposed shipping season of November to April, 
the current and proposed avocado distribution areas would not provide 
the host material and climatic conditions necessary for the survival of 
fruit flies. For these reasons, we concluded, and continue to believe, 
that the likelihood that fruit flies could become established in the 
United States via imported Mexican Hass avocados is extremely low.
    Some commenters submitted temperature and other data in response to 
our request for data regarding Mexico's request that APHIS expand the 
area of distribution and the length of shipping season for Mexican Hass 
avocados. All such information was considered in the development of the 
Sequeira, et al., study.

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. 
The 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.
    For this proposed rule, we have prepared a regulatory impact 
analysis. The regulatory impact analysis also contains an initial 
regulatory flexibility analysis, which considers the potential economic 
effects of this proposed rule on small entities, as required under 5 
U.S.C. 603. The regulatory impact

[[Page 36902]]

analysis and regulatory flexibility analysis are summarized below. 
Copies of the full analysis are available by contacting the person 
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, or on the Internet at 
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/avocados/. We do not currently have all 
of the data necessary for a comprehensive analysis of the effects of 
this proposed rule on small entities. Therefore, we are inviting 
comments on potential effects. In particular, we are interested in 
determining the number and kind of small entities that may incur 
benefits or costs from the implementation of this proposed rule.
    Under the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701-7772), the Secretary 
of Agriculture is authorized to regulate the importation of plants, 
plant products, and other articles to prevent the introduction of 
injurious plant pests.

Summary of Regulatory Impact Analysis

    Our analysis considers economic impacts on U.S. producers and 
consumers/ merchandisers of Hass avocados that could result from 
allowing fresh Hass avocados from Michoacan, Mexico, to be imported 
into additional areas of the United States and over a longer period 
each year than is currently allowed. Since the 1997/98 season, imports 
of avocados from approved orchards in Michoacan, Mexico, have been 
allowed to be imported into the United States and distributed in 
Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Indiana, 
Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New 
Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, 
West Virginia, and Wisconsin during the months of November through 
January. Under this proposed rule, distribution would be expanded to 
include the States of Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, 
Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and 
Wyoming. The shipping season would also be expanded to include March 
and April.
    We are proposing this action in response to a request from the 
government of Mexico, and after determining that this action would 
present a negligible risk of introducing plant pests into the United 
States.
    Impacts on U.S. producers and consumers/merchandisers would derive 
from the increased supply of Hass avocados from Mexico and concomitant 
price declines. Essentially all domestically produced Hass avocados are 
grown in California. U.S. producers and California producers are 
therefore used interchangeably in the analysis. The 1997 rule that 
first allowed for the importation of Mexican Hass avocados to 19 states 
and the District of Columbia resulted in a redistribution of 
California-grown Hass avocados from markets in the approved States 
during the months that imports are allowed from Mexico. This proposed 
rule, if adopted, is expected to have a similar effect. Anecdotal 
experience suggests that benefits resulting from the existing rule have 
been largely realized at the wholesale level, and discussion of 
consumer gains therefore includes explicit reference to merchandisers 
as well.
    In our analysis, we use two models are used to estimate impacts. 
The first is a nationwide model that does not distinguish between the 
approved and nonapproved States. The rationale underlying this model is 
that given sufficient time, a single price for avocados would obtain in 
the two regions. Although Mexico's supply is restricted to the approved 
States for specified months of the year, California and other foreign 
suppliers can move in and out of the two markets, and would do so in 
search of profits until prices in the approved and nonapproved States 
essentially equalize.
    The second model explicitly recognizes the approved and nonapproved 
States as two regions. Estimated economic losses include direct market 
loss for California producers in approved States, and losses related to 
increased supply in nonapproved States, as the diversion of California 
Hass avocados from approved to nonapproved States depresses prices. 
Consumers/merchandisers would be expected to gain in both approved and 
nonapproved States from the lower prices. A theoretical limitation of 
the regional model, in contrast to the national model, is the assumed 
maintenance of a price differential between the approved and 
nonapproved States.
    Both models use a partial equilibrium economic surplus framework to 
consider benefits and costs of the proposed rule. Potential producer 
losses and consumer/merchandiser gains are quantified in terms of 
changes in producer and consumer surplus resulting from the increased 
imports expected from Mexico. To simplify the analysis, the demand 
curve is assumed to be of constant elasticity while U.S. supply is 
assumed to be fixed. The supply curve is assumed to be vertical at 
least in the short run, that is, supply is perfectly inelastic and does 
not respond to changes in price.
    In the national model, additional Hass avocado imports from Mexico 
totaling 16.87 million pounds are estimated to result in a 12 percent 
drop in the wholesale price, from $1.34 per pound to $1.18 per pound. 
Consumers/merchandisers would gain by $27.65 million per year and 
California Hass avocado producers would lose by $17.93 million per 
year, for a net benefit of $9.72 million per year.
    In the regional model, the same level of additional Mexican Hass 
avocado imports is assumed (16.87 million pounds), an amount equivalent 
to the maximum quantity assumed could be wholly diverted from approved 
to nonapproved States. Impacts are examined using three scenarios. In 
the first scenario, 70 percent of California Hass avocados that would 
otherwise be sold in the approved States are diverted to nonapproved 
States; in the second scenario, 85 percent are diverted; and in the 
third scenario, 100 percent are diverted. The 85 percent diversion 
scenario is considered representative of what is most likely to occur, 
given historic changes in quantities of California Hass avocados 
shipped to the existing approved States due to Mexican imports.
    The first scenario of the regional model (70 percent diversion) 
would mean 6.07 million pounds of California Hass avocados remain in 
the approved States, and 11.81 million pounds are diverted to the 
nonapproved States. The additional supply of Mexican Hass avocados 
results in a price decline that benefits consumers/merchandisers in the 
approved States by about $10.12 million per year. California producers 
whose Hass avocados are sold in the approved States face a revenue loss 
of $17.15 million per year. The net loss in the approved States is 
$7.03 million per year.
    In the nonapproved States, the 11.81 million pounds of California 
Hass avocados diverted from the approved States result in a price 
decline that causes a revenue loss of $0.35 million per year for 
California producers. Consumers/merchandisers in the nonapproved States 
benefit by $19.31 million per year, for a net benefit of $18.96 million 
per year.
    Net losses in the approved States ($7.03 million per year) and net 
gains in the nonapproved States ($18.96 million per year) yield an 
overall net gain of $11.94 million per year in the first scenario.
    The second scenario (85 percent diversion) yields producers losses 
and consumer/ merchandiser gains comparable to the first one. Net 
losses in the approved States ($13.93 million

[[Page 36903]]

per year) and net benefits in the nonapproved States ($22.79 million 
per year) combine for an overall net gain estimated at $8.87 million 
per year.
    In the third scenario (100 percent diversion), 16.87 million pounds 
of California Hass avocados are diverted to the nonapproved States. 
Consumers/merchandisers in the approved States gain by $1.59 million 
per year, and California's producers lose by $22.64 million per year, 
for a net loss of $21.05 million per year. Consumers/merchandisers in 
the nonapproved States gain by $28.14 million per year, and 
California's producers lose by $1.60 million per year, for a net gain 
of $26.54 million per year. With 100 percent diversion, net losses in 
the approved States ($21.05 million per year) and net gains in the 
nonapproved States ($26.54 million per year) yield a combined net 
benefit of $5.50 million per year in the third scenario.
    In sum, impacts of the proposed rule for U.S. producers and 
consumers/merchandisers range from net benefits of $11.94 million per 
year for the 70 percent diversion scenario and $8.87 million per year 
for the 85 percent diversion scenario, to $5.50 million per year for 
the 100 percent diversion scenario. The net benefit estimated using the 
national model, $9.72 million per year, is contained within this range. 
The overall impact in all cases is minor. In the event the price 
elasticity of demand is larger than that used in this analysis (-0.86), 
losses to California producers will be less than those calculated. 
APHIS requests comments on the appropriate choice of elasticity for the 
analysis. Another factor that could reduce losses to California 
producers would be activities to increase the demand for Hass avocados, 
that is, activities would increase sales at any given price.

Summary of Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires that impacts on small 
entities be taken into consideration in rulemaking, to ensure that such 
businesses are not disproportionately burdened. There are about 6,000 
producers and 100 handlers of Hass avocados in southwestern California 
that could be affected by this rule, as well as about 200 importers. 
APHIS has been unable to obtain information on the size distribution of 
affected avocado producers, and invites public comment that would help 
in determining the number of producers that can be considered small. 
For the purposes of our analysis, we assume that the size distribution 
of the 6,000 producers is the same as the size distribution of avocado 
farms reported in the 1997 Census of Agriculture; that is, 98 percent 
are small entities ($750,000 or less in annual receipts). Most avocado 
importers are reportedly also small entities (100 or fewer employees, 
respectively), while most Hass avocado handlers are large (more than $5 
million in annual receipts). Given the declines in revenue that are 
described in the three scenarios of the regional model, average annual 
losses for small-entity California Hass avocado producers could range 
between $1,870 and $2,593. This impact could prove significant if 
producers rely upon Hass avocado production as their principal source 
of income.
    Two variations of the regional model are presented as examples of 
rule modifications that would mitigate adverse impacts on small-entity 
California Hass avocado producers. Alternative A would extend the four-
month period of import by two months, March and April, but would not 
expand the region of approved States. Alternative B would maintain the 
current four-month period of import, but would expand the approved 
region by the same States as in the proposed rule. For both 
alternatives, losses to California's Hass avocado producers would be 
less than have been calculated for the proposed rule. Under the 85 
percent diversion scenario, California producer losses would be $12.46 
million per year and $2.50 million per year for alternatives A and B, 
respectively, compared to an annual producer loss of $20.55 million 
under the proposed rule. However, consumer/merchandiser gains would 
also be reduced in both cases. Annual net benefits are estimated to be 
$6.52 million per year for alternative A and $3.67 million per year for 
alternative B, compared to $8.87 per year for the proposed rule.
    There are no other rules that would overlap, duplicate, or conflict 
with this proposed rule.
    This proposed rule contains information collection requirements, 
which have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and 
Budget (see ``Paperwork Reduction Act'' below).

Executive Order 12988

    This proposed rule would allow fresh Hass avocado fruit to be 
imported into the United States from the Mexican State of Michoacan. If 
this proposed rule is adopted, State and local laws and regulations 
regarding fresh Hass avocado fruit imported under this rule would be 
preempted while the fruit is in foreign commerce. Fresh avocados are 
generally imported for immediate distribution and sale to the consuming 
public and would remain in foreign commerce until sold to the ultimate 
consumer. The question of when foreign commerce ceases in other cases 
must be addressed on a case-by-case basis. If this proposed rule is 
adopted, no retroactive effect will be given to this rule, and this 
rule will not require administrative proceedings before parties may 
file suit in court challenging this rule.

National Environmental Policy Act

    An environmental assessment has been prepared for this proposed 
rule. The environmental assessment documents our review of the 
environmental impacts associated with this proposed rule. We are making 
the environmental assessment available to the public for review and 
comment.
    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).
    Copies of the environmental assessment are available for public 
inspection at USDA, room 1141, South Building, 14th Street and 
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC, between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., 
Monday through Friday, except holidays. Persons wishing to inspect 
copies are requested to call ahead on (202) 690-2817 to facilitate 
entry into the reading room. In addition, copies may be obtained by 
writing to the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. The 
environmental assessment is also available on the Internet at: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/avocados/.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    In accordance with section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act 
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the information collection or 
recordkeeping requirements included in this proposed rule have been 
submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). 
Please send written comments to the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for APHIS, Washington, 
DC 20503. Please state that your comments refer to Docket No. 00-003-2. 
Please send a copy of your comments to: (1) Docket No. 00-003-2, 
Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, suite 3C03, 4700 River 
Road

[[Page 36904]]

Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238, and (2) Clearance Officer, OCIO, 
USDA, room 404-W, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, 
DC 20250. A comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if 
OMB receives it within 30 days of publication of this proposed rule.
    In this document, we are proposing to amend the regulations 
governing the importation of fruits and vegetables to expand the number 
of States in which fresh avocado fruit grown in approved orchards in 
approved municipalities in Michoacan, Mexico, may be distributed. We 
are also proposing to increase the length of the shipping season during 
which the Mexican Hass avocados may be imported into the United States. 
This action would require that importers, shippers, distributors, and 
handlers of Mexican Hass avocados in the United States enter into 
compliance agreements with APHIS. We are asking OMB to approve our use 
of this information collections in connection with our efforts to 
ensure that fresh Hass avocados from Mexico pose a negligible risk of 
introducing exotic insect pests into the United States.
    We are soliciting comments from the public (as well as affected 
agencies) concerning our proposed information collection and 
recordkeeping requirements. These comments will help us:
    (1) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is 
necessary for the proper performance of our agency's functions, 
including whether the information will have practical utility;
    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the 
proposed information collection, including the validity of the 
methodology and assumptions used;
    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to 
be collected; and
    (4) Minimize the burden of the information collection on those who 
are to respond (such as through the use of appropriate automated, 
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or 
other forms of information technology; e.g., permitting electronic 
submission of responses).
    Estimate of burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of 
information is estimated to average 1.2 hours per response.
    Respondents: Importers, shippers, distributors, and handlers of 
fresh Hass avocados imported into the United States.
    Estimated annual number of respondents: 250.
    Estimated annual number of responses per respondent: 1.
    Estimated annual number of responses: 250.
    Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 300 hours.
    Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Mrs. 
Celeste Sickles, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 
734-7477.

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 propose to amend 7 CFR part 319 as follows:

PART 319--FOREIGN QUARANTINE NOTICES

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

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

    2. Section 319.56-2ff would be amended as follows:
    a. By revising the section heading, the introductory text, and 
paragraphs (a)(2), (a)(3), and (c)(3)(vii).
    b. In paragraphs (e)(2) and (e)(3), by removing the word 
``February'' each time it appears and adding the word ``April'' in its 
place.
    c. By revising paragraphs (f)(1), (g), and (i).


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

    Fresh Hass variety avocados (Persea americana) may be imported from 
Mexico into the United States for distribution in approved States only 
under a permit issued in accordance with Sec. 319.56-4, and only under 
the following conditions:
* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (2) The avocados may be imported only during the months of 
November, December, January, February, March, and April; and
    (3) The avocados may be distributed only in the following States: 
Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Idaho, 
Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, 
Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New 
Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, 
Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, 
Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (vii) The avocados must be packed in clean, new boxes. The boxes 
must be clearly marked with the identity of the grower, packinghouse, 
and exporter, and the statement ``Distribution limited to the following 
States: CO, CT, DC, DE, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MO, 
MT, NE, NH, NJ, NY, ND, OH, PA, RI, SD, UT, VA, VT, WV, WI, and WY.''
* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (1) Any port located in a State specified in paragraph (a)(3) of 
this section;
* * * * *
    (g) Shipping areas. (1) Except as explained in paragraph (g)(3) of 
this section for avocados that enter the United States at Nogales, AZ, 
avocados moved by truck or rail car may transit only that area of the 
United States bounded as follows:
    (i) On the east and south by a line extending from Brownsville, TX, 
to Galveston, TX, to Kinder, LA, to Memphis, TN, to Knoxville, TN, 
following Interstate 40 to Raleigh, NC, and due east from Raleigh, and
    (ii) On the west by following Interstate 10 North from El Paso, TX, 
to Las Cruces, NM, and north following Interstate 25 to the Colorado 
border, then west along Colorado and Utah's southern borders, then 
north along Utah's western border, then west along Idaho's southern 
border and north along Idaho's western border to the border with 
Canada.
    (2) All cities on the boundary lines described in paragraph (g)(1) 
of this section are included in this shipping area. If the avocados are 
moved by air, the aircraft may not land outside this shipping area.

[[Page 36905]]

    (3) Avocados that enter the United States at Nogales, AZ, must be 
moved to Las Cruces, NM, by the route specified on the permit, and then 
must remain within the shipping area described in paragraph (g)(1) of 
this section.
* * * * *
    (i) Inspection. The avocados are subject to inspection by an 
inspector at the port of first arrival, at any stops in the United 
States en route to an approved State, and upon arrival at the terminal 
market in the approved States. At the port of first arrival, an 
inspector will sample and cut avocados from each shipment to detect 
pest infestation.
* * * * *

    Done in Washington, DC, this 9th day of July 2001.
Bill Hawks,
Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs, USDA.
[FR Doc. 01-17444 Filed 7-10-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P