[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 150 (Friday, August 3, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 40573-40574]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-19515]



 ========================================================================
 Rules and Regulations
                                                 Federal Register
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents 
 having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed 
 to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published 
 under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
 
 The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents. 
 Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each 
 week.
 
 ========================================================================
 

  Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 150 / Friday, August 3, 2001 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 40573]]



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

7 CFR Part 301

[Docket No. 99-075-5]


Mexican Fruit Fly Regulations; Regulated Areas, Regulated 
Articles, and Treatments

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Affirmation of interim rules as final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting as a final rule, without change, a series of 
interim rules published in the Federal Register between September 1999 
and June 2000 that amended the Mexican fruit fly regulations by adding 
and subsequently removing regulated areas in the State of California. 
One of the interim rules also added an alternative chemical treatment 
for premises; added a cold treatment for citrons, litchis, longans, 
persimmons, and white zapotes, which are regulated articles; and 
removed kumquats from the list of regulated articles. These actions 
were necessary on an emergency basis to prevent the spread of the 
Mexican fruit fly into noninfested areas of the continental United 
States, to provide additional treatment options for regulated articles, 
and to relieve unnecessary restrictions on the movement of kumquats 
from regulated areas.

EFFECTIVE DATES: The interim rules became effective September 22, 1999, 
December 14, 1999, April 12, 2000, and June 7, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Stephen A. Knight, Operations 
Officer, Invasive Species and Pest Management, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River 
Road Unit 134, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; (301) 734-8039.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    In an interim rule effective September 22, 1999, and published in 
the Federal Register on September 28, 1999 (64 FR 52211-52212, Docket 
No. 99-075-1), we amended the regulations by designating portions of 
San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, CA, as regulated areas because 
of an infestation of Mexican fruit fly. In a second interim rule 
effective December 14, 1999, and published in the Federal Register on 
December 21, 1999 (64 FR 71267-71270, Docket No. 99-075-2), we added a 
portion of San Diego and Riverside Counties, CA, to the list of 
regulated areas. In addition, the December 1999 interim rule provided 
for the use of a new alternative chemical treatment for premises; 
provided for the use of a cold treatment for citrons, litchis, longans, 
persimmons, and white zapotes; and removed kumquats from the list of 
regulated articles. In a third interim rule effective April 12, 2000, 
and published in the Federal Register on April 18, 2000 (65 FR 20705-
20706, Docket No. 99-075-3), we removed the regulated portion of San 
Bernardino and Riverside Counties, CA, from the list of regulated areas 
based on our determination that the Mexican fruit fly had been 
eradicated from that area. Finally, in a fourth interim rule effective 
on June 7, 2000, and published in the Federal Register on June 13, 2000 
(65 FR 37005-37006, Docket No. 99-075-4), we removed the regulated 
portion of San Diego and Riverside Counties, CA, from the list of 
regulated areas based on our determination that the Mexican fruit fly 
had been eradicated from those areas. Upon the effective date of our 
June 2000 interim rule, there were no longer any areas in California 
designated as regulated areas because of the Mexican fruit fly.
    Comments on each interim rule were required to be received on or 
before 60 days after the date of its publication in the Federal 
Register. We did not receive any comments on any of the interim rules. 
Therefore, for the reasons given in the interim rules, we are adopting 
the interim rules as a final rule.
    This action affirms the information contained in the interim rules 
concerning Executive Orders 12866, 12372, 12988, the Paperwork 
Reduction Act, and the information contained in the September 1999 and 
April 2000 interim rules concerning the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    Further, for this action, the Office of Management and Budget has 
waived the review process required by Executive Order 12866.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The following analysis addresses the economic effects and data 
available to us regarding the actions taken in our December 1999 and 
June 2000 interim rules.

Regulated Area

    In our December 1999 interim rule, we added a portion of San Diego 
and Riverside Counties, CA, to the list of areas regulated because of 
the Mexican fruit fly. Within this regulated area, there are 
approximately 2,090 small entities that may have been affected by the 
interim rule. These include 2,000 growers operating on 11,400 acres (72 
square miles), 38 packing houses, 50 fruit sellers, and 2 farmers 
markets. The 2,090 entities, most of which we expect are small entities 
under Small Business Administration criteria, comprise less than 1 
percent of the total number of similar entities operating in the State 
of California.
    Those small entities sell regulated articles primarily for local 
intrastate, not interstate, movement; therefore, the distribution of 
regulated articles by those entities was not affected by the interstate 
movement restrictions contained in the regulations. Many of those 
entities also handle other items in addition to regulated articles. The 
effect on those few entities that do move regulated articles interstate 
was minimized by the availability of various treatments that, in most 
cases, allowed these small entities to move regulated articles 
interstate with very little additional cost. Therefore, the economic 
effect, if any, of the December 1999 interim rule on these entities 
appears to be minimal. In our June 2000 interim rule, we removed that 
portion of San Diego and Riverside Counties, CA, from the list of areas 
regulated because of the Mexican fruit fly and removed California from 
the list of States regulated because of the Mexican fruit fly. The June 
2000 interim rule removed restrictions on the interstate movement of 
regulated articles from that portion of San Diego and Riverside 
Counties, CA.

[[Page 40574]]

    In our December 1999 interim rule, we specifically invited comments 
concerning the potential economic effects of that interim rule on small 
entities. In particular, we requested information that would enable us 
to determine the number and kind of small entities that might incur 
benefits or costs from the implementation of the interim rule, 
including the new treatments for premises and regulated articles 
contained in that interim rule. We did not receive any comments. Based 
on the available information, the economic effect of the actions taken 
in our December 1999 and June 2000 interim appears to be minimal.
    Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and 
Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action will 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 301

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

PART 301--DOMESTIC QUARANTINE NOTICES

    Accordingly, we are adopting as a final rule, without change, the 
interim rules that amended 7 CFR part 301 and that were published at 64 
FR 52211-52212 on September 28, 1999; 64 FR 71267-71270 on December 21, 
1999; 65 FR 20705-20706 on April 18, 2000; and 65 FR 37005-37006 on 
June 13, 2000.

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 166, 7711, 7712, 7714, 7731, 7735, 7751, 
7752, 7753, and 7754; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.

    Section 301.75-15 also issued under Sec. 204, Title II, Pub. L. 
106-113, 113 Stat. 1501A-293; sections 301.75-15 and 301.75-16 also 
issued under Sec. 203, Title II, Pub. L. 106-224, 114 Stat. 400 (7 
U.S.C. 1421 note).

    Done in Washington, DC, this 27th day of July 2001.
Bobby R. Acord,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 01-19515 Filed 8-2-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-U