[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 51 (Friday, March 15, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11610-11614]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-6267]


 ========================================================================
 Proposed Rules
                                                 Federal Register
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of 
 the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these 
 notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in 
 the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
 
 ========================================================================
 

  Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 51 / Friday, March 15, 2002 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 11610]]



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

7 CFR Part 305

[Docket No. 98-030-3]
RIN 0579-AA97


Irradiation Phytosanitary Treatment of Imported Fruits and 
Vegetables

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Proposed rule; supplemental.

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

SUMMARY: We are proposing additional changes related to an earlier 
proposed rule to establish regulations providing for use of irradiation 
as a phytosanitary treatment for fruits and vegetables imported into 
the United States. The irradiation treatment provides protection 
against fruit flies and the mango seed weevil. This supplemental 
proposed rule concerns the use of radiation indicators on packaging of 
irradiated articles and additional provisions for monitoring foreign 
irradiation facilities.

DATES: We will consider all comments we receive that are postmarked, 
delivered, or e-mailed by April 15, 2002.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by postal mail/commercial delivery 
or by e-mail. If you use postal mail/commercial delivery, please send 
four copies of your comment (an original and three copies) to: Docket 
No. 98-030-3, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 
3C71, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state 
that your comment refers to Docket No. 98-030-3. If you use e-mail, 
address your comment to [email protected]. Your comment must 
be contained in the body of your message; do not send attached files. 
Please include your name and address in your message and ``Docket No. 
98-030-3'' on the subject line.
    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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information on program and 
phytosanitary issues, contact Donna L. West, Import Specialist, 
Phytosanitary Issues Management, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 140, 
Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; (301) 734-6799. For information on technical 
irradiation issues, contact Dr. Arnold Foudin, Assistant Director, 
Scientific Services, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 147, Riverdale, 
MD 20737-1237; (301) 734-7710.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    In a proposed rule published in the Federal Register on May 26, 
2000 (65 FR 34113-34125, Docket No. 98-030-1), we proposed a framework 
for the use of irradiation as a phytosanitary treatment for imported 
fruits and vegetables, and proposed specific standards for an 
irradiation treatment for fruit flies and the mango seed weevil in 
imported fruits and vegetables. We solicited comments concerning our 
proposed rule for a period of 60 days, ending July 25, 2000. On August 
4, 2000, we published a Federal Register notice that reopened and 
extended the comment period until August 21, 2000 (65 FR 47908, Docket 
No. 98-030-2). We received 2,212 comments by the end of the comment 
period, including many form letters and form postcards.
    Several of those comments suggested that the proposed rule 
establish certain requirements not included in the proposal. We are 
publishing this supplemental proposed rule to allow an opportunity for 
public comment on these issues that were not included in the earlier 
proposed rule. After evaluating any comments received on this 
supplemental proposal, we will publish a final rule addressing comments 
received on both the earlier proposed rule and this supplemental 
proposed rule.

Monitoring of Foreign Irradiation Facilities by Foreign Plant 
Protection Organizations and by APHIS

    Several commenters suggested that effective monitoring of 
operations at foreign facilities where treatments are conducted is 
crucial to ensure that treatments are safe and effective. These 
commenters pointed out that in some countries the national plant 
protection organization could provide most of this monitoring, while in 
others APHIS would have to provide most of the monitoring, depending on 
different situations in different countries. They suggested that the 
section of the rule dealing with monitoring should be flexible enough 
to let APHIS vary its level of monitoring as needed, based on the 
infrastructure and capabilities of plant protection organizations in 
different countries. They also suggested that the activities that 
foreign plant protection services would conduct to enforce the 
regulations and monitor compliance should be recorded in an agreement 
between the foreign plant protection service and APHIS.
    Furthermore, commenters suggested that APHIS should develop 
documentation to demonstrate that the requirements APHIS imposes for 
importation of irradiated articles are consistent from country to 
country, and are consistent with the requirements other countries apply 
to imported irradiated articles, in accordance with the equivalence 
principle of the World Trade Organization Agreement on the Application 
of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures. They suggested that, in 
addition to establishing the level of monitoring required at individual 
foreign irradiation facilities, APHIS should sign work plans with 
foreign plant protection services to clearly state what regulatory 
requirements and levels of inspection, monitoring, and other activities 
apply to importation of irradiated articles into the United States and 
into the signatory foreign country.
    We agree with these comments, and have decided that the monitoring 
section of the rule should allow APHIS to target its monitoring as 
needed and provide the appropriate level of monitoring, ranging from 
intermittent

[[Page 11611]]

monitoring of operations and inspection of records to a continual APHIS 
presence at facilities and regular inspection of untreated and treated 
articles for target and nontarget pests. We also believe that providing 
this level of monitoring may require APHIS to arrange for foreign plant 
protection services to deposit monies into a trust fund to reimburse 
APHIS for services, as is common practice under many other APHIS import 
regulations (e.g., importing Fuji apples from Japan and the Republic of 
Korea under Sec. 319.56-2cc, or importing Hass avocados from Mexico 
under Sec. 319.56-2ff).
    We also agree that the activities of foreign plant protection 
services with regard to irradiation facilities in their countries in 
support of the regulations should be recorded in a work plan that the 
foreign plant protection service submits to APHIS. We further agree 
that, in support of the equivalence principle, APHIS and each foreign 
plant protection service should sign an irradiation treatment framework 
equivalency work plan that clearly states what legislative, regulatory, 
and other requirements must be met, and what monitoring and other 
activities must occur, for irradiated articles to be imported into the 
United States, or into the foreign country.
    We propose to revise the monitoring section of the proposed rule, 
Sec. 305.2(f), published on May 26, 2000, at 65 FR 49770, to allow 
APHIS to provide an appropriate level of monitoring at irradiation 
facilities, depending on the situations in different countries, to 
require that APHIS and foreign plant protection services sign work 
plans, and to establish trust fund agreements with national plant 
protection organizations to reimburse APHIS expenses. The new proposed 
paragraph (f) would read as follows:

    (f) Monitoring and interagency agreements. Treatment must be 
monitored by an inspector. This monitoring must include inspection 
of treatment records and unannounced inspections of the facility by 
an inspector, and may include inspection of articles prior to or 
after irradiation. Facilities that carry out irradiation treatment 
operations must notify the Director of Preclearance, PPQ, APHIS, 
4700 River Road Unit 140, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236, of scheduled 
operations at least 30 days before operations commence, except where 
otherwise provided in the facility preclearance work plan. To ensure 
the appropriate level of monitoring, before articles may be imported 
in accordance with this section, the following agreements must be 
signed:
    (1) Irradiation treatment framework equivalency work plan. The 
plant protection service of a country from which articles are to be 
imported into the United States in accordance with this section must 
sign a framework equivalency work plan with APHIS. In this plan, 
both the foreign plant protection service and APHIS will specify the 
following items for their respective countries:
    (i) Citations for any requirements that apply to the importation 
of irradiated fruits and vegetables into that country;
    (ii) The type and amount of inspection, monitoring, or other 
activities that will be required in connection with allowing the 
importation of irradiated fruits and vegetables into that country; 
and
    (iii) Any other conditions that must be met to allow the 
importation of irradiated fruits and vegetables into that country.
    (2) Facility preclearance work plan. Prior to commencing 
importation into the United States of articles treated at a foreign 
irradiation facility, APHIS and the plant protection service of the 
country from which articles are to be imported must jointly develop 
a preclearance work plan that details the activities that APHIS and 
the foreign plant protection service will carry out in connection 
with each irradiation facility to verify the facility's compliance 
with the requirements of this section. Typical activities to be 
described in this work plan may include frequency of visits to the 
facility by APHIS and foreign plant protection inspectors, methods 
for reviewing facility records, and methods for verifying that 
facilities are in compliance with the separation of articles, 
packaging, labeling, and other requirements of this section. This 
facility preclearance work plan will be reviewed and renewed by 
APHIS and the foreign plant protection service on an annual basis.
    (3) Trust fund agreement. Irradiated articles may be imported 
into the United States in accordance with this section only if the 
plant protection service of the country in which the irradiation 
facility is located has entered into a trust fund agreement with 
APHIS. That agreement requires the plant protection service to pay, 
in advance of each shipping season, all costs that APHIS estimates 
it will incur in providing inspection and treatment monitoring 
services at the irradiation facility during that shipping season. 
Those costs include administrative expenses and all salaries 
(including overtime and the Federal share of employee benefits), 
travel expenses (including per diem expenses), and other incidental 
expenses incurred by APHIS in performing these services. The 
agreement will describe the general nature and scope of APHIS 
services provided at irradiation facilities covered by the 
agreement, such as whether APHIS inspectors will monitor operations 
continuously or intermittently, and will generally describe the 
extent of inspections APHIS will perform on articles prior to and 
after irradiation. The agreement requires the plant protection 
service to deposit a certified or cashier's check with APHIS for the 
amount of those costs, as estimated by APHIS. If the deposit is not 
sufficient to meet all costs incurred by APHIS, the agreement 
further requires the plant protection service to deposit with APHIS 
a certified or cashier's check for the amount of the remaining 
costs, as determined by APHIS, before any more articles irradiated 
in that country may be imported into the United States. After a 
final audit at the conclusion of each shipping season, any 
overpayment of funds would be returned to the plant protection 
service or held on account until needed, at the option of the plant 
protection service.

    Much of this language is similar to the language already contained 
in APHIS regulations for programs where it has been necessary to 
establish trust fund agreements with foreign plant protection services 
to reimburse APHIS for inspection and monitoring activities necessary 
to allow importation of fruits and vegetables into the United States.

Indicators and Tests To Identify Irradiated Fruit

    Several commenters suggested that we should require that, prior to 
treatment, irradiation indicators be attached to cartons of articles. 
These indicators would change color, or undergo some other obvious 
change, when exposed to irradiation in the required dose range for 
regulated articles. The commenters stated that these indicators would 
be a very useful safeguard, and could be used by enforcement personnel 
and others as a quick check to confirm that a particular carton had in 
fact been exposed to the required level of radiation. Commenters 
identified several inexpensive devices and dye-impregnated labels that 
react to radiation at various doses in the 100-250 gray range. Such 
tools could aid Federal and State inspectors who may find live larvae 
in shipments where the accompanying paperwork claims the shipment was 
irradiated.
    We agree that carton indicators could be a useful enforcement tool. 
They could not serve as primary documentation that articles have been 
irradiated in accordance with the regulations, because such indicators 
are not as sensitive or accurate as the dosimetry systems required by 
the regulations, and because it would be relatively easy to produce 
fraudulent indicators (e.g., by subjecting a large number of indicators 
to irradiation and then attaching them to cartons that have not been 
irradiated). However, we believe that such indicators can be useful 
when used in conjunction with the other documentation and system 
controls required by the regulations. In particular, they can be a 
useful ``cross check'' when personnel at irradiation facilities are 
distinguishing irradiated cartons from non-irradiated cartons, and when 
inspectors at ports of entry are correlating the required import 
documents with the cartons referred to in the documents.
    Therefore, we propose to add additional language to 
Sec. 305.2(g)(1) of

[[Page 11612]]

the proposed rule published on May 26, 2000, at 65 FR 49770, to state 
that ``each carton must bear an indicator device, securely attached 
prior to irradiation, that changes color or provides another clear 
visual change when it is exposed to radiation in the dose range 
required by this section for the pests for which the articles are being 
treated.''
Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act
    This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. 
The rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of 
Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the 
Office of Management and Budget.
    This action supplements a proposed rule published in the Federal 
Register on May 26, 2000, that proposed to establish regulations 
providing for use of irradiation as a phytosanitary treatment for 
fruits and vegetables imported into the United States. The economic 
analysis for the earlier proposed rule was set forth in that proposed 
rule. It included a cost-benefit analysis as required by Executive 
Order 12866 and an analysis of the potential economic effects on small 
entities as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The economic effects of this supplemental proposed rule lie in two 
areas: The establishment of trust fund agreements to reimburse APHIS 
for its activities monitoring irradiation facilities in foreign 
countries and the requirement for radiation indicators to be attached 
to cartons holding irradiated articles.

Trust Fund Agreements

    APHIS proposes that the inspection and monitoring activities 
performed by a foreign plant protection service at irradiation 
facilities located overseas be recorded in an agreement signed by the 
foreign service and APHIS. The purpose of the agreement would be to 
ensure appropriate levels of inspection and monitoring at the 
facilities, thereby reducing any pest risk due to misunderstandings or 
shortcomings in the oversight of irradiation and related processes at 
facilities.
    When a foreign plant protection service establishes a trust fund 
agreement to reimburse APHIS for expenses, that service may or may not 
pass along the cost of depositing those funds to producers in that 
country, depending on the service's funding mechanisms. If it passes 
along that cost to foreign producers, those producers will likely raise 
the price of fruits and vegetables exported to the United States to 
cover the costs. In this sense, the trust fund requirement would have 
an adverse differential effect on foreign producers relative to 
domestic producers. However, the cost of the trust fund agreement for 
APHIS services could be distributed among many foreign producers 
treating a large volume of products, and would probably result in a 
price increase for imported articles of only a few cents per pound. 
Therefore, trust fund agreement costs are expected to have a negligible 
effect on the prices paid by U.S. merchants and consumers for the 
imported produce.

Irradiated Carton Indicators

    APHIS proposes that indicators be put on cartons to show that 
irradiation has taken place. Prototypes that have already been 
developed are based on dosimeter technology, but are much less 
expensive to manufacture than dosimeters because no precise measurement 
is involved, only an indication that irradiation has occurred.
    A phosphor-based technology for irradiation indication produces an 
invisible fluorescence that can be easily detected by an inexpensive 
hand-held ``light-pen'' reader. According to the manufacturer, a 
``light-pen'' reader can be thought of as a hand-held product similar 
to a common barcode reader. When the indicator has received a dose 
above 100 Gy, the hand held ``light-pen'' reader will activate a 
signal, such as an audible beep or a light. The indicator is able to be 
read easily and inexpensively.
    Indicators could also be incorporated into a white-on-white bar 
code that would only become apparent (darkened background) after 
irradiation. Bar code information could record lot number or other 
marketing information that could prove useful in tracing a carton back 
to its source. As a safeguard against repeated use of the same 
indicator, they could be applied with one-time-only adhesive. Or, as an 
alternative, an indicator might not provide any visual indication at 
all that the carton has been irradiated, thereby reducing any chance of 
counterfeited indicators.
    The manufacturer expects to be able to produce indicators in large 
quantities at a low unit cost--pennies per indicator--with a reader 
cost comparable to that of hand-held barcode readers. The cost of the 
indicators, once they are produced in volume, would be negligible 
compared to the value of the produce shipped, and would add at most a 
few cents per pound to the retail price of the irradiated fruits and 
vegetables.

Costs and Benefits

    As discussed above, the proposed trust fund and carton indicator 
requirements contained in this supplemental proposed rule involve 
moderate costs distributed among many importers, with an end result of 
an increase of a few cents per pound in the retail price of irradiated 
articles. The benefits of the proposed changes accrue because the 
proposed changes would increase the reliability of irradiation as a 
phytosanitary treatment. Thus, benefits are evaluated in terms of 
preventing potential economic losses in U.S. fruit and vegetable 
markets that could occur if pests should enter the United States with 
articles that were not properly irradiated, either because trust fund 
agreements to monitor treatments were not in effect, or because carton 
indicators were not employed as a monitoring tool. These benefits 
cannot be readily quantified. As an example, however, averting the 
costs associated with a single fruit fly outbreak in the United States 
would save more than the total costs for trust fund agreements and 
indicators over several years.
    The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires that agencies consider the 
economic effects of their rules on small businesses, organizations, and 
governmental jurisdictions. In this case, entities that would be most 
affected by the proposed rule are the operators of foreign irradiation 
facilities. Under the Small Business Administration's Standard Industry 
Classification (SIC) category 0723 (Crop Preparation Services, except 
Cotton Ginning), a firm would qualify as a small entity if it had 
annual revenues of $5 million or less. None of the foreign irradiation 
companies that have submitted comments on previous irradiation proposed 
rules, or that have expressed interest in the current rulemaking, are 
small by this standard.
    Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and 
Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action would 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.
Executive Order 12988
    This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, 
Civil Justice Reform. If this proposed rule is adopted: (1) All State 
and local laws and regulations that are inconsistent with this rule 
would be preempted; (2) no retroactive effect would be given to this 
rule; and (3) administrative proceedings would not be required before 
parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.

[[Page 11613]]

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. 98-030-3. 
Please send a copy of your comments to: (1) Docket No. 98-030-3, 
Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3C71, 4700 
River Road 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.
    We are proposing to require that the national plant protection 
service of each country from which irradiated articles are imported 
into the United States must sign a trust fund agreement with APHIS, and 
must submit an annual work plan to APHIS describing the activities the 
plant protection service will carry out to meet the requirements of the 
regulations. These documents would be drafted jointly by the foreign 
plant protection service and APHIS. We estimate that developing and 
approving each document would require about 20 hours of development and 
review time by the submitting foreign plant protection service.
    These information collection requirements would be in addition to 
information collection activities that we described in the original 
proposal published August 21, 2000 (65 FR 47908, Docket No. 98-030-1), 
including a compliance agreement, labeling requirements, 24-hour 
notification, dosimetry recordings, requests for dosimetry device 
approval, recordkeeping requirements, and requests for facility 
approval.
    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 0.08411 hours per response.
    Respondents: Foreign plant protection services, irradiation 
facility personnel.
    Estimated annual number of respondents: 124.77.
    Estimated annual number of responses per respondent: 1001.
    Estimated annual number of responses: 124,895.
    Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 10,505 hours. (Due to 
averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of 
the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per 
response.)
    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 305

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

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, we propose to amend part 
305 as set out in the proposed rule published on May 26, 2000 (65 FR 
34113-34125), as follows:
    1. The authority citation for part 305 would be revised 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. In Sec. 305.2, paragraphs (f) and (g)(1) are revised to read as 
follows:


Sec. 305.2  Irradiation treatment of imported fruits and vegetables for 
certain fruit flies and mango seed weevils.

* * * * *
    (f) Monitoring and interagency agreements. Treatment must be 
monitored by an inspector. This monitoring must include inspection of 
treatment records and unannounced inspections of the facility by an 
inspector, and may include inspection of articles prior to or after 
irradiation. Facilities that carry out irradiation operations must 
notify the Director of Preclearance, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 
140, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236, of scheduled operations at least 30 days 
before operations commence, except where otherwise provided in the 
facility preclearance work plan. To ensure the appropriate level of 
monitoring, before articles may be imported in accordance with this 
section, the following agreements must be signed:
    (1) Irradiation treatment framework equivalency work plan. The 
plant protection service of a country from which articles are to be 
imported into the United States in accordance with this section must 
sign a framework equivalency work plan with APHIS. In this plan, both 
the foreign plant protection service and APHIS will specify the 
following items for their respective countries:
    (i) Citations for any requirements that apply to the importation of 
irradiated fruits and vegetables;
    (ii) The type and amount of inspection, monitoring, or other 
activities that will be required in connection with allowing the 
importation of irradiated fruits and vegetables into that country; and
    (iii) Any other conditions that must be met to allow the 
importation of irradiated fruits and vegetables into that country.
    (2) Facility preclearance work plan. Prior to commencing 
importation into the United States of articles treated at a foreign 
irradiation facility, APHIS and the plant protection service of the 
country from which articles are to be imported must jointly develop a 
preclearance work plan that details the activities that APHIS and the 
foreign plant protection service will carry out in connection with each 
irradiation facility to verify the facility's compliance with the 
requirements of this section. Typical activities to be described in 
this work plan may include frequency of visits to the facility by APHIS 
and foreign plant protection inspectors, methods for reviewing facility 
records, and methods for verifying that facilities are in compliance 
with the separation of articles, packaging, labeling, and other 
requirements of this section. This facility preclearance work plan will 
be reviewed and renewed by APHIS and the foreign plant protection 
service on an annual basis.
    (3) Trust fund agreement. Irradiated articles may be imported into 
the United States in accordance with this section only if the plant 
protection service of the country in which the irradiation facility is 
located has entered into a trust fund agreement with APHIS. That

[[Page 11614]]

agreement requires the plant protection service to pay, in advance of 
each shipping season, all costs that APHIS estimates it will incur in 
providing inspection and treatment monitoring services at the 
irradiation facility during that shipping season. Those costs include 
administrative expenses and all salaries (including overtime and the 
Federal share of employee benefits), travel expenses (including per 
diem expenses), and other incidental expenses incurred by APHIS in 
performing these services. The agreement will describe the general 
nature and scope of APHIS services provided at irradiation facilities 
covered by the agreement, such as whether APHIS inspectors will monitor 
operations continuously or intermittently, and will generally describe 
the extent of inspections APHIS will perform on articles prior to and 
after irradiation. The agreement requires the plant protection service 
to deposit a certified or cashier's check with APHIS for the amount of 
those costs, as estimated by APHIS. If the deposit is not sufficient to 
meet all costs incurred by APHIS, the agreement further requires the 
plant protection service to deposit with APHIS a certified or cashier's 
check for the amount of the remaining costs, as determined by APHIS, 
before any more articles irradiated in that country may be imported 
into the United States. After a final audit at the conclusion of each 
shipping season, any overpayment of funds would be returned to the 
plant protection service or held on account until needed, at the option 
of the plant protection service.
    (g) * * *
    (1) All fruits and vegetables treated with irradiation must be 
shipped in the same cartons in which they are treated. Irradiated 
fruits and vegetables may not be packaged for shipment in a carton with 
nonirradiated fruits and vegetables. Each carton must bear an indicator 
device, securely attached prior to irradiation, that changes color or 
provides another clear visual change when it is exposed to radiation in 
the dose range required by this section for the pests for which the 
articles are being treated.
* * * * *

    Done in Washington, DC, this 11th day of March 2002.
W. Ron DeHaven,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 02-6267 Filed 3-14-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P