[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 32 (Wednesday, February 18, 2004)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 7607-7611]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-3429]


 ========================================================================
 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. 69, No. 32 / Wednesday, February 18, 2004 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 7607]]



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

7 CFR Part 301

[Docket No. 03-059-1]


Mexican Fruit Fly; Interstate Movement of Regulated Articles

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are proposing to amend the Mexican fruit fly regulations by 
removing a provision that allows regulated articles to be moved 
interstate from a regulated area without a certificate or limited 
permit if they are moved into States other than commercial citrus-
producing States. Additionally, we are proposing to amend the 
regulations to remove references to quarantined States and to refer to 
regulated areas as quarantined areas. We are also proposing to make 
other changes to the regulations, including clarifying that an entity 
requiring the services of an inspector is responsible for the costs of 
services performed outside of normal business hours. These actions 
appear necessary to prevent the interstate spread of Mexican fruit fly 
and would make the Mexican fruit fly regulations more consistent with 
our other domestic fruit fly regulations.

DATES: We will consider all comments that we receive on or before April 
19, 2004.

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. 03-059-1, 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. 03-059-1. 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. 
03-059-1'' 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: Mr. Stephen A. Knight, Senior Staff 
Officer, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 134, Riverdale, MD 20737-
1236; (301) 734-8247.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Mexican fruit fly (Anastrepha ludens) is a destructive pest of 
citrus and many other types of fruit. The short life cycle of the 
Mexican fruit fly allows rapid development of serious outbreaks that 
can cause severe economic losses in commercial citrus-producing areas.
    The Mexican fruit fly regulations, contained in 7 CFR 301.64 
through 301.64-10 (referred to below as the regulations), were 
established to prevent the spread of the Mexican fruit fly to 
noninfested areas of the United States. The regulations impose 
restrictions on the interstate movement of regulated articles from 
regulated areas.

Applicability of Restrictions

    Under our other fruit fly regulations in part 301 (e.g., 
Mediterranean fruit fly [Sec.Sec. 301.78-301.78-10], Oriental fruit fly 
[Sec.Sec. 301.93-301.93-10], etc.), regulated articles must meet 
certain conditions in order to be eligible for interstate movement from 
quarantined areas, regardless of their destination. Under those 
regulations, a certificate or limited permit is required in most cases 
for the interstate movement of regulated articles; the certificate or 
limited permit serves to document that the regulated articles have been 
inspected, treated, or meet other conditions necessary to prevent the 
interstate spread of the particular fruit fly.
    However, under the Mexican fruit fly regulations, the destination 
of the regulated articles is significant. Specifically, a certificate 
or limited permit is required only when the regulated articles are to 
be moved interstate into or through one of the States listed in Sec. 
301.64(b), which are States recognized by the Animal and Plant Health 
Inspection Service (APHIS) as commercial citrus-producing areas. (The 
States listed in Sec. 301.64(b) are American Samoa, Arizona, 
California, Florida, Guam, Hawaii, Louisiana, the Northern Mariana 
Islands, Puerto Rico, Texas, and the Virgin Islands of the United 
States.) These provisions allow regulated articles to be moved 
interstate without restriction under the regulations as long as those 
articles are not moved into or through any of the commercial citrus-
producing States listed in Sec. 301.64(b).
    While citrus is an important host of Mexican fruit fly, other 
potential host material for Mexican fruit fly (e.g., apples, mangoes, 
and peaches) is present in States that are not commercial citrus-
producing States. Thus, the unrestricted movement of regulated articles 
into those States may allow for the spread of Mexican fruit fly into 
noninfested areas of the United States.
    Therefore, we propose to remove those provisions that make it 
possible for regulated articles from regulated areas to be moved 
interstate to States other than commercial citrus-producing States 
without restriction. In addition to addressing the ongoing risks 
associated with unrestricted movement, this change would make the 
Mexican fruit fly regulations consistent with our other fruit fly 
regulations in part 301.
    As a result of this change, all regulated articles that originate 
within a quarantined area would, when moving interstate from a 
quarantined area, have to be accompanied by a certificate or limited 
permit. The regulations in Sec. 301.64-5(a) provide that a certificate 
will be issued by an inspector for the movement of a regulated article 
if the inspector determines that certain specified conditions have been 
met. A

[[Page 7608]]

limited permit may be issued by an inspector for interstate movement of 
a regulated article in lieu of a certificate when, among other things, 
the inspector determines that the regulated article is to be moved to a 
specified destination for specified handling, utilization, processing, 
or treatment that will destroy life stages of the pest. Certificates 
and limited permits may also be issued by any person who has entered 
into and is operating under a compliance agreement after an inspector 
has determined that the article is eligible for a certificate or 
limited permit under Sec. 301.64-5(a) or (b).

Regulated Areas

    In addition to the differences in interstate movement requirements 
described above, the Mexican fruit fly regulations also differ from the 
other fruit fly regulations in part 301 in their two-step approach to 
the designation of regulated areas. In Sec. 301.64(a), States affected 
by Mexican fruit fly are designated as quarantined States, then, in 
Sec. 301.64-3, specific areas within those quarantined States are 
designated as regulated areas. Our other fruit fly regulations in part 
301 simply list regulated areas without designating quarantined States, 
and refer to those regulated areas as ``quarantined areas.'' To make 
the Mexican fruit fly regulations consistent with our other fruit fly 
regulations, we propose to amend the regulations in part 301 to remove 
references to quarantined States and to refer to regulated areas as 
quarantined areas.

Interstate Movement of Regulated Articles From Quarantined Areas

    The regulations in Sec. 301.64-4 provide that regulated articles 
may be moved interstate from regulated areas if they are accompanied by 
a certificate or limited permit issued and attached in accordance with 
Sec.Sec. 301.64-5 and 301.64-8. Regulated articles that are moved from 
outside regulated areas and that are accompanied by a waybill that 
indicates the point of origin may be moved interstate through a 
regulated area without a certificate or limited permit provided that 
they are moved directly through the regulated area without stopping 
except for refueling, rest stops, emergency repairs, and for traffic 
conditions, such as traffic lights or stop signs.
    We propose to amend Sec. 301.64-4 to provide that regulated 
articles may also be moved interstate from regulated areas by the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture for experimental or scientific purposes. Such 
articles would be moved in accordance with a departmental permit issued 
by the Administrator, under conditions specified on the permit to 
prevent the spread of the Mexican fruit fly. These provisions for 
interstate movement with a departmental permit are present in our other 
fruit fly regulations in part 301, so we are proposing to add them to 
our Mexican fruit fly regulations to make those regulations consistent 
with our other fruit fly regulations.

Costs and Charges

    Section 301.64-9 provides that the services of an inspector shall 
be furnished without cost. However, inspectors are available without 
cost only during normal business hours (8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 
through Friday, except holidays). At all other times, the user is 
responsible for all costs and charges arising from the inspection 
process. This is stated explicitly in other fruit fly regulations in 
part 301, but not in Sec. 301.64-9. Therefore, we propose to amend Sec. 
301.64-9 to clarify this fact.

Miscellaneous

    In several places in the regulations, we provide addresses to which 
persons may write to obtain forms or information regarding compliance 
agreements, inspection services, or approvals related to the use of 
irradiation as a treatment for regulated articles. The addresses 
currently provided in the regulations are no longer accurate, so we are 
proposing to amend the regulations to bring those addresses up to date.
    We propose to add a definition for departmental permit to the list 
of definitions in Sec. 301.64-1 in order to make the Mexican fruit fly 
regulations consistent with our other fruit fly regulations.
    Finally, in Sec. 301.64-10(g)(9), we incorrectly identify the 
Mexican fruit fly as the Mediterranean fruit fly. We propose to correct 
that error.

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.
    The proposed rule would amend the Mexican fruit fly regulations by 
removing a provision that allows regulated articles to be moved 
interstate from a regulated area without a certificate or limited 
permit if they are moved into States other than commercial citrus-
producing States. Currently, only Cameron, Hidalgo, and Willacy 
Counties in Texas are designated as regulated areas in the regulations.
    The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires that agencies specifically 
consider the economic effects of their rules on small entities. We 
expect that the entities most likely to be affected by the proposed 
changes would be citrus growers and packinghouses located within 
quarantined areas. In 1997, the latest census year, citrus fruit was 
produced on 531 farms in Texas. Approximately 98 percent of citrus 
farms had gross sales of less than $750,000 and thus are considered 
small entities according to the size standards set by the Small 
Business Administration (SBA).

Impact on Affected Industries in Texas

    As noted previously, three counties in the Lower Rio Grande Valley 
of Texas--Cameron, Hidalgo, and Willacy--are designated as regulated 
areas. The Mexican fruit fly protocol for Texas calls for a trapping 
program to monitor those areas; under the protocol, the detection of 
one wild Mexican fruit fly triggers the application of bait sprays or 
the aerial release of sterile flies around the fly capture. Fruit 
destined for shipment to commercial citrus-producing States must be 
certified as free of the Mexican fruit fly, either through inspection 
or following the application of an authorized post-harvest treatment.
    Within the regulated area of Texas there are approximately 540 
citrus growers operating on 30,000 acres producing $31 million worth of 
citrus annually, and 5 packinghouses.\1\ Seventy five percent of the 
citrus growers produce grapefruit while the remaining 25 percent 
produce oranges. Approximately 80 percent of all citrus growers use one 
of the 5 packinghouses, while the remaining 20 percent sell their 
citrus locally. The 5 packinghouses currently ship approximately 35 
percent of the citrus to California and 65 percent to States that are 
not commercial citrus-producing States.\2\ Currently only 5 to 10 
percent of all citrus shipped annually to citrus-producing regions 
(mainly California) are treated for Mexican fruit flies using methyl 
bromide fumigation. The cost of treatment generally comprises less than 
4 percent of the citrus wholesale value.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Texas Crop Production Summary with Values 2001-2002. NASS 
USDA report, Jerry Ramirez.
    \2\ John McClung, Texas Citrus Growers Association. Personal 
communications, June 28, 2003.
    \3\ It is estimated that it costs $0.25 to treat a 40 pound 
carton of citrus with a worth of approximately $7.50 to $9.00. 
Source: Robert Martin, Texas Citrus packing facility owner. Personal 
communications, June 28, 2003.

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

[[Page 7609]]

    The proposed rule would require that all citrus and other host 
crops moved interstate to States that are not commercial citrus-
producing States be accompanied by a limited permit or certificate 
issued by an APHIS inspector, just as is currently required for host 
crops moved to commercial citrus-producing States. The provisions of 
this proposed rule would primarily affect the packinghouses in the 
regulated area in that any overtime cost that is incurred by APHIS 
inspectors for supervising post-harvest treatments at the packinghouses 
would now have to be paid for by owners of the facilities. Currently, 
as a result of the small number of inspectors working overtime, this 
cost is borne by APHIS. It is estimated that one APHIS inspector will 
be required at each of the five Texas packinghouses for approximately 
16 weeks during the citrus harvest period. APHIS has estimated that 
each of these inspectors will work approximately 53 hours in overtime 
supervision during this 16-week period. At $28.11 per hour, each citrus 
packinghouse will be responsible for, on average, $1,500 in overtime 
charges for the inspectors. Assuming these charges stay constant with 
more stringent interstate movement requirements, we estimate that the 
five Texas packinghouses would incur approximately $7,500 per year in 
total overtime charges for citrus fruits moving to commercial citrus-
producing States.
    Similarly, additional charges may also be incurred by producers or 
packinghouses for the services of an APHIS inspector in monitoring the 
post-harvest treatment of citrus for shipment to States other than 
commercial citrus-producing States if services are provided beyond the 
normal working hours. If, as estimated above, the overtime costs 
associated with the interstate movement of the 35 percent of fruit 
moving to commercial citrus-producing States would be $7,500, then a 
rough estimate of the overtime charges that may be incurred in 
connection with the interstate movement of the remaining 65 percent of 
fruit would be $14,000. The total overtime cost to the producers or 
packinghouses for APHIS supervision would be approximately $21,500 per 
year.
    Producers of host crops may also incur additional costs for post-
harvest treatment if they wish to send their fruit to States other than 
commercial citrus-producing States and their fruit is found to be 
infested. Under the proposed rule, host crops moving interstate to such 
States, like fruit moved to commercial citrus-producing States, would 
be subject to treatment if found to be infested with Mexican fruit 
flies. The current fumigation facilities in place can treat 
approximately 5 to 20 percent of the citrus moving interstate. The 
amount of fruit that may require treatment as a condition of movement 
to States other than commercial citrus-producing States is not known 
and would vary with the infestation levels. However, assuming that (1) 
65 percent of the $31 million worth of citrus is shipped to these 
States, (2) that the proportion of these fruits that would require 
treatment would be the same percentage as that of fruits currently 
shipped to commercial citrus-producing States (about 5-10 percent), and 
(3) that treatment costs comprise less than 4 percent of the wholesale 
value of citrus, the additional cost of treatment to producers is 
estimated to be $40,000 to $80,000. In sum, based on past infestation 
rates, the impact of this proposed rule on the Texas citrus industry 
could range between $61,500 and $101,500 in additional yearly treatment 
costs and APHIS overtime costs for pre- and post-harvest monitoring 
(table 1).

          Table 1.--Possible Texas Overtime and Treatment Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Yearly costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current pre- and post-harvest APHIS monitoring (for               $7,500
 movement to commercial citrus-producing States)....
Future pre- and post-harvest APHIS monitoring (for                14,000
 movement of citrus to non-citrus States)...........
Treatment (methyl bromide)..........................       40,000-80,000
                                                     -------------------
    Total cost......................................      61,500-101,500
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Summary

    This proposed rule could potentially have a negative impact on the 
Texas citrus industry, as producers who wish to move regulated 
articles, including citrus fruit, to any State--not just commercial 
citrus-producing States--would now have to obtain a certificate or 
limited permit before moving the articles interstate. Producers and/or 
packinghouses would have to incur the cost of fumigation treatment 
along with overtime costs incurred by APHIS in monitoring treatments. 
The extent of the impact would depend on the level of pest infestation. 
It is expected that the percentage (5-10 percent) of citrus fruits 
requiring treatment for movement to States that are not commercial 
citrus-producing States would be the same as that of fruits currently 
shipped to commercial citrus-producing States. The impact on the 
industry is expected to be small ($40,000 to $80,000 annual treatment 
costs), as the treatment costs comprise less than 4 percent of the 
wholesale value of the citrus and only 5 to 10 percent of the citrus 
require treatment.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ It is estimated that 65 percent of the $31 million worth of 
Texas citrus produced is transported to States that are not 
commercial citrus producing States. Approximately 5 to 10 percent of 
the $20.15 million worth of fruit may require treatment based on 
past infestation levels. The total treatment cost is about 4 percent 
of the $1 to 2 million, or $40,000 to $81,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Texas citrus industry would also have to incur the estimated 
$7,500 per year in overtime costs associated with PPQ treatment 
supervision at the 5 packinghouses for fruit moved to commercial 
citrus-producing States. These costs will either be absorbed by the 
industry or passed on to consumers of the fruit. Additionally, it is 
estimated that producers of citrus fruit moving to States other than 
commercial citrus-producing States could also incur overtime costs of 
$14,000. In sum, based on past infestation rates, the impact of this 
proposed rule on the Texas citrus industry could range between $61,500 
and $101,500 in additional treatment costs and overtime charges for 
APHIS pre- and post-harvest monitoring.
    The forgone costs or benefits of averting a Mexican fruit fly 
outbreak are substantial. The establishment of the Mexican fruit fly in 
the United States could cost producers and exporters about $900 million 
in losses annually.\5\

[[Page 7610]]

This amount is comprised of (1) field control costs, (2) field losses 
after Malathion use, (3) cost of quarantine compliance treatments, and 
(4) losses due to quarantine treatment damage. The costs associated 
with the proposed additional restrictions on the interstate movement of 
regulated articles are surpassed by the benefits of averting a large 
scale Mexican fruit fly outbreak.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Lottie Erikson (2000). ``Economic Analysis of Options for 
Eradicating Mexican Fruit Fly (Anastrepha ludens) from the Lower Rio 
Grande Valley of Texas.'' Policy and Program Development, Animal and 
Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 12372

    This program/activity is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic 
Assistance under No. 10.025 and is subject to Executive Order 12372, 
which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local 
officials. (See 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V.)

Executive Order 12988

    This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, 
Civil Justice Reform. If this proposed rule is adopted: (1) All State 
and local laws and regulations that are inconsistent with this rule 
will be preempted; (2) no retroactive effect will be given to this 
rule; and (3) administrative proceedings will not be required before 
parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.

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. 03-059-1. 
Please send a copy of your comments to: (1) Docket No. 03-059-1, 
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 amend the Mexican fruit fly regulations by 
removing a provision that allows regulated articles to be moved 
interstate from a regulated area without a certificate or limited 
permit if they are moved into States other than commercial citrus-
producing States. We are also proposing to make other changes to the 
regulations, including clarifying that an entity requiring the services 
of an inspector is responsible for the costs of services performed 
outside of normal business hours. Implementation of this proposed rule 
will require us to engage in certain information collection activities, 
in that certain articles may not be moved interstate from the 
quarantined area unless they are accompanied by a certificate or 
limited permit. A certificate or limited permit may be issued by an 
inspector (i.e., an APHIS employee or other person authorized by the 
APHIS Administrator to enforce the regulations) or by a person who has 
entered into a written compliance agreement with APHIS.
    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 0.64 hours per response.
    Respondents: Texas citrus growers and State plant health officials.
    Estimated annual number of respondents: 825.
    Estimated annual number of responses per respondent: 1.
    Estimated annual number of responses: 825.
    Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 528 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.

Government Paperwork Elimination Act Compliance

    The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is committed to 
compliance with the Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA), which 
requires Government agencies in general to provide the public the 
option of submitting information or transacting business electronically 
to the maximum extent possible. For information pertinent to GPEA 
compliance related to this proposed rule, please contact Mrs. Celeste 
Sickles, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 734-7477.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 301

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

    Accordingly, we propose to amend 7 CFR part 301 as follows:

PART 301--DOMESTIC QUARANTINE NOTICES

    1. The authority citation for part 301 would continue to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7701-7772; 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).

    2. Section 301.64 would be revised to read as follows:


Sec. 301.64  Restrictions on interstate movement of regulated articles.

    No person shall move any regulated article interstate from any 
quarantined area except in accordance with this subpart.1 2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Any properly identified inspector is authorized to stop and 
inspect persons and means of conveyance, and to seize, quarantine, 
treat, apply other remedial measures to, destroy, or otherwise 
dispose of regulated articles as provided in sections 414, 421, and 
434 of the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7714, 7731, and 7754).
    \2\ Regulations concerning the movement of plant pests, 
including live Mexican fruit flies, in interstate commerce are 
contained in part 330 of this chapter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Section 301.64-1 would be amended by removing the definition of 
regulated area and by adding, in alphabetical order, definitions for 
departmental permit and quarantined area, to read as follows:

[[Page 7611]]

Sec. 301.64-1  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Departmental permit. A document issued by the Administrator in 
which he or she affirms that the interstate movement of the regulated 
article identified on the document is for scientific or experimental 
purposes and that the regulated article is eligible for interstate 
movement in accordance with Sec. 301.64-4(b) of this subpart.
* * * * *
    Quarantined area. Any State, or any portion of a State, listed in 
Sec. 301.64-3(c) or otherwise designated as a quarantined area in 
accordance with Sec. 301.64-3(b).
* * * * *


Sec. 301.64-3  [Amended]

    4. Section 301.64-3 would be amended as follows:
    a. In the section heading, by removing the word ``Regulated'' and 
adding the word ``Quarantined'' in its place.
    b. In paragraph (a), introductory text, by removing the word 
``quarantined'' each time it appears, and by removing the word 
``regulated'' each time it appears and adding the word ``quarantined'' 
in its place.
    c. In paragraph (a)(2), by removing the word ``regulated'' and 
adding the word ``quarantined'' in its place.
    d. In paragraph (b), by removing the word ``quarantined'', by 
removing the word ``nonregulated'' both times it appears and adding the 
word ``nonquarantined'' in its place, and by removing the words 
``regulated area'' and adding the words ``quarantined area'' in their 
place.
    e. In paragraph (c), introductory text, by removing the word 
``regulated'' and adding the word ``quarantined'' in its place.
    5. In Sec. 301.64-4, the section heading, the introductory text of 
the section, and paragraph (b) would be revised and a new paragraph (c) 
would be added to read as follows:


Sec. 301.64-4  Conditions governing the interstate movement of 
regulated articles from quarantined areas.

    Any regulated article may be moved interstate from a quarantined 
area only if moved under the following conditions: \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Requirements under all other applicable Federal domestic 
plant quarantines and regulations must also be met.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (b) Without a certificate or limited permit, if:
    (1) The regulated article originated outside the quarantined area 
and is either moved in an enclosed vehicle or is completely enclosed by 
a covering adequate to prevent access by Mexican fruit flies (such as 
canvas, plastic, or closely woven cloth) while moving through the 
quarantined area; and
    (2) The point of origin of the regulated article is clearly 
indicated on the waybill, and the enclosed vehicle or the enclosure 
that contains the regulated article is not opened, unpacked, or 
unloaded in the quarantined area; and
    (3) The regulated article is moved through the quarantined area 
without stopping except for refueling or for normal traffic conditions, 
such as traffic lights or stop signs; or
    (c) Without a certificate or limited permit, if the regulated 
article is moved:
    (1) By the United States Department of Agriculture for experimental 
or scientific purposes;
    (2) Pursuant to a departmental permit issued by the Administrator 
for the regulated article;
    (3) Under conditions specified on the departmental permit and found 
by the Administrator to be adequate to prevent the spread of Mexican 
fruit fly; and
    (4) With a tag or label bearing the number of the departmental 
permit issued for the regulated article attached to the outside of the 
container of the regulated article or attached to the regulated article 
itself if not in the container.
    6. In Sec. 301.64-6(a), footnote 6 would be revised to read as 
follows:


Sec. 301.64-6  Compliance agreement and cancellation thereof.

    (a) * * * 6


------------
    6 Compliance agreement forms are available without 
charge from local offices of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection 
Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine. Local offices are listed 
in telephone directories, or on the Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/.

    7. In Sec. 301.64-7(a), footnote 7 would be revised to read as 
follows:


Sec. 301.64-7  Assembly and inspection of regulated articles.

    (a) * * * 7

------------
    7 Inspectors are assigned to local offices of Plant 
Protection and Quarantine, which are listed in telephone 
directories. Information concerning such local offices may also be 
obtained on the Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/.

* * * * *
    8. Section 301.64-9 would be revised to read as follows:


Sec. 301.64-9  Costs and charges.

    The services of an inspector during normal business hours (8 a.m. 
to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays) will be furnished 
without cost. The user will be responsible for all costs and charges 
arising from inspection and other services provided outside normal 
business hours.
    9. Section 301.64-10 would be amended as follows:
    a. In paragraph (g)(3)(i), by revising footnote 10 to read as set 
forth below.
    b. By revising paragraph (g)(7) to read as set forth below.
    c. In paragraph (g)(9), by removing the word ``Mediterranean'' and 
adding the word ``Mexican'' in its place.


Sec. 301.64-10  Treatments.

* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (i) * * * 10

------------
    10 If there is a question as to the adequacy of a 
carton, send a request for approval of the carton, together with a 
sample carton, to a local office of the Animal and Plant Health 
Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine. Local offices 
are listed in telephone directories, or on the Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/.

* * * * *
    (7) Request for approval and inspection of facility. Persons 
requesting approval of an irradiation treatment facility and treatment 
protocol must submit the request for approval in writing to a local 
office of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant 
Protection and Quarantine. Local offices are listed in telephone 
directories, or on the Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/. 
Before the Administrator determines whether an irradiation facility is 
eligible for approval, an inspector will make a personal inspection of 
the facility to determine whether it complies with the standards of 
paragraph (g)(1) of this section.
* * * * *

    Done in Washington, DC, this 11th day of February 2004.
Kevin Shea,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 04-3429 Filed 2-17-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P