[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 103 (Tuesday, May 30, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 30563-30568]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-8238]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
7 CFR Part 319
[Docket No. 02-132-2]
RIN 0579-AB83
Requirements for Requests To Amend Import Regulations
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are establishing regulations governing the submission of
requests for changes in our regulations that restrict the importation
of plants, plant parts, and plant products. We are taking this action
because, despite existing non-regulatory guidance on the submission of
requests, few applicants provide the basic information we require to
properly consider their requests. The new regulations will help ensure
that we are provided with the information we need to prepare a risk
analysis and/or other analyses that evaluate the risks and other
effects associated with a proposed change to the regulations. This
information is needed for us to effectively consider the request, and
submission of the information at the time the request is made allows us
to proceed with our consideration of the request in a timely manner.
DATES: Effective Date: June 29, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Robert L. Griffin, Director, Plant
Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory, Center for Plant Health,
Science, and Technology, PPQ, APHIS, 1730 Varsity Drive, Suite 300,
Raleigh, NC 27606; (919) 855-7400.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The regulations contained in 7 CFR part 319 (referred to below as
the regulations) prohibit or restrict the importation of plants, plant
parts, and plant products into the United States in accordance with the
authority conferred on the Secretary of Agriculture by the Plant
Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.). The Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS) is the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) agency responsible for (1) enforcing the part 319
regulations and (2) considering requests to amend the part 319
regulations to allow the importation of plants, plant parts, or plant
products that are not currently
[[Page 30564]]
allowed importation under the regulations.
On October 28, 2004, we published in the Federal Register (69 FR
62823-62829, Docket No. 02-132-1) a proposal to amend the regulations
by establishing regulations governing the submission of requests to
change the part 319 import regulations. We proposed this action
because, despite our publication on June 19, 2001, of a notice in the
Federal Register (66 FR 32923-32928, Docket No. 00-082-1) containing
guidance on the submission of information in support of commodity
import requests, and despite other existing guidance on this subject,
few applicants provide the basic information we require to properly
consider their requests. The proposed regulations were designed to help
ensure that we are provided with the information we need to prepare a
risk analysis and/or other analyses that evaluate the risks and other
effects associated with a proposed change to the regulations. This
information is needed for us to effectively consider the request, and
the submission of the information at the time the request is made
allows us to proceed with our consideration of the request in a timely
manner. Without the information, we are unable to effectively consider
such requests.
We solicited comments concerning our proposal for 60 days ending
December 27, 2004. We received nine comments by that date. The comments
came from private citizens, nursery owners and growers in the United
States, a State agriculture department, and foreign agriculture
agencies. The comments were generally supportive of the proposed
changes but did raise several concerns related to the proposed rule.
These issues are discussed below.
Issue: The information required when import requests are submitted
should include the proposed destination of the commodities (e.g.,
specific States) to facilitate a more objective analysis of risk.
Response: Exporters most often request access to the entire United
States or just the continental United States, and the scope of our pest
risk analysis (PRA) may reflect that request. We often decide to expand
or reduce the scope based on several factors, including in particular
the existence of other similar requests or our past experience with
trade of the commodity in question. In some cases, an outcome of the
PRA process might be a recommendation for limited distribution within
the United States as a mitigation measure, but in those cases it is
APHIS, not the exporter, that designates the area into which the
particular article may be distributed. On rare occasions, an exporter
may request access to only a portion of the United States (e.g., to
areas that cannot support fruit fly populations); in such cases,
limited distribution is an important element of the import request and
is highlighted accordingly in the request. Even in such cases, however,
it is likely that APHIS would assess the risks associated with the
article in relation to the entire United States or the continental
United States to ensure that limited distribution can be expected to
serve as an adequate mitigation measure.
Issue: If a commodity is already allowed entry into the United
States, but is only allowed to be distributed in certain areas of the
United States or may only be exported from certain areas in the
exporting country, a list of all pests and diseases associated with the
commodity proposed for exportation to the United States should not be
required.
Response: We agree that in the case of a commodity already allowed
entry under one set of mitigations, it may not be necessary for us to
prepare a new or updated PRA in order to consider a request to allow
entry of the same commodity under a different set of mitigations. In
such a case, an update to or confirmation of previously submitted pest
and disease information, rather than an entirely new submission, may be
appropriate. APHIS will decide on a case-by-case basis whether a
complete, formal risk analysis may be required, or whether our
understanding of the pests in the exporting country is sufficient to
allow us to proceed with our consideration of the request without a new
or updated risk assessment. For example, in the case of a request to
expand distribution of a commodity to a new region (e.g., to allow an
article to be imported into the whole United States when imports are
currently limited to the continental United States), we might need to
conduct additional pest risk analysis and would need more information.
We have added a footnote to Sec. 319.5(d)(4) in this final rule to
point out that an update may be appropriate and that a determination as
to whether or not that is the case may be obtained by contacting APHIS.
Contacting APHIS will allow us to identify the specific information
that would aid in our consideration of the request. It is not possible
for us to anticipate and specify in advance all of the possible
information that may be helpful to evaluating a particular change in
the status of a specific commodity. For instance, a change associated
with a pest free area will require data regarding pest freedom. The
exact nature (quantity and quality) of data required for this purpose
will vary with pests, commodities, and origins.
Issue: The information requested under ``Additional Information''
should be made optional for the exporting country, as some of the
information requested is very specific and there may not be research
available to provide the necessary details.
Response: The information designated by this rule as ``required
information'' will be needed at minimum for all commodities. The
information designated as ``additional information'' will vary for
specific requests and may be critical for determining whether certain
commodities should or should not be allowed to enter the United States.
APHIS does not intend for all the additional information to be provided
for every commodity, but some of it may be required for certain
commodities, and it is normally in the exporter's interest to provide
such information because it provides details essential to a proper
analysis. For example, the susceptibility of particular varieties of
fruit to pests can be an important factor in determining host status.
In most cases, the variety is not important, but it is a critical issue
when the variety is a factor in determining host status. Papayas and
avocados in general may represent a risk of introducing fruit flies,
but Solo papayas and Hass avocados are poor hosts for fruit flies.
Similarly, the unique characteristics of a production area, such as its
physical and climatological description, may be important. Altitude and
physical barriers such as mountains are likely to play a role in
understanding why the pests of concern are not a concern in a
particular area. This is important information for the recognition of
pest free (or low prevalence) areas.
Rather than make the additional information optional, as suggested
by the commenter, we are clarifying in this final rule that such
information is not required to be submitted with the initial request,
as does the required information, but that APHIS may request any of the
additional information if it determines it is necessary for completion
of a PRA in accordance with international standards, and because the
information is not available from other sources. In such cases, APHIS
will notify the plant protection organization of the exporting country
in writing as to what specific additional information is required. This
additional information applies to those requests where APHIS needs to
understand additional details in order to assess the specific situation
accurately in the PRA. For example, details such as
[[Page 30565]]
whether a fruit is washed with soap, waxed, and culled or only rinsed
may be important for determining if certain pests remain associated
with fruit or not. In the proposed rule, the additional information
items were presented in the Supplementary Information section and not
in the proposed regulatory text at the end of the document. In this
final rule, we include the additional information items, along with the
above explanation as to when and how APHIS may request additional
information, in the text of Sec. 319.5 as paragraph (e). The
information regarding the availability of additional guidance that had
been paragraph (e) in the proposed rule is in a new paragraph (f) in
this final rule.
Issue: The required information would be impossible for the
discoverer of new species or the small seed importer to provide and
would therefore close down research, plant exploration, and new variety
introduction. This would injure the small operations in the ornamental
horticulture business as well as government crop researchers, botanical
gardens, and pharmaceutical companies.
Response: This final rule applies only to applications to change
the existing regulations and would primarily affect the importation of
fruits and vegetables; it would not affect imported nursery stock
unless it was planted in a growing medium. Bareroot plants, seeds,
cuttings, and other propagative materials could still be imported
without a risk assessment provided these materials are not listed among
the items specifically prohibited in the regulations in ``Subpart--
Nursery Stock, Plants, Roots, Bulbs, Seeds, and Other Plant Products''
(Sec. Sec. 319.37 through 319.37-14).
While the rule is not intended to restrict small imports, it may
limit the ability of individuals without resources who wish to export
unique fruits and vegetables to the United States to pursue a request
to do so on their own. However, every country that enters into the
World Trade Organization (WTO) must have the infrastructure in place to
support their exporters. The exporting country is obliged to certify
its exports and will need to (1) be able to provide essentially the
same information for export certification purposes, and (2) understand
the pest situation associated with the commodities it is certifying for
export. The rule serves to ensure that the NPPO of the exporting
country is officially involved and able to meet its export obligations.
New species for which there is little information available may
indeed be adversely affected simply because the uncertainty amplifies
the risk. We do not agree that this rule closes down research or
injures small operations since it is incumbent on both the importing
and exporting countries to ensure that trade in new commodities does
not pose an unacceptable phytosanitary risk.
Issue: Because an extensive commodity-initiated PRA needs to be
completed by U.S. authorities before a particular commodity can be
imported, and that commodity is prohibited importation until then, the
United States is effectively taking phytosanitary measures which are
not technically justified and are therefore not in alignment with
Article 5, section 1 of the WTO's Agreement on the Application of
Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement). As part of
international standards, prohibition of commodities is regarded as a
last resort, to be used only when no other satisfactory measure to
reduce risk to an acceptable level can be found. USDA should therefore
adapt its procedures in accordance with international agreements and
standards, such as by granting provisional permission to import new
commodities subject to temporary measures such as the requirement for a
phytosanitary certificate. Final measures could be imposed following
the completion of a PRA.
Response: In this case we make a distinction between commodities
that are ``prohibited'' and disciplined by Article 5 of the SPS
Agreement, and commodities that are ``not yet approved'' or ``pending
evaluation'' and disciplined by Annex C of the SPS Agreement. Articles
that are prohibited have been evaluated and prohibition is the measure
that has been determined to be appropriate. This status may be changed
based on new information and a reevaluation using a PRA. Likewise, pest
risk analysis is used to evaluate the risk associated with a request
for a new commodity not previously evaluated.
Many commodities are excluded from importation by APHIS in our
regulations, and our regulations do not make the distinction between
(1) commodities that have been evaluated and prohibited, (2)
commodities that are not currently allowed importation but that are
undergoing risk evaluation, and (3) commodities that are not allowed
importation and for which no request for risk evaluation exists. We
recognize that our regulatory terminology is not the same as that used
in the SPS Agreement; however, regardless of the semantics, APHIS only
allows new imports of fruits and vegetables pending completion of some
form of risk analysis that enables us to determine that the pest risks
posed by the commodity are known, and that the risks can and will be
mitigated. We believe that this policy is consistent with the
provisions of the SPS Agreement.
Issue: APHIS should provide a target timeline for the processing of
an import request at the time the request is made.
Response: It is not possible for APHIS to provide timelines, as
there are far too many variables that can affect the amount of time it
takes to approve a new import. Some data take longer to get or generate
than others, and limitations on resources may affect how quickly APHIS
is able to generate documents. If asked, APHIS will inform an exporter
about the status of a particular risk assessment.
Issue: The requirement that the national plant protection
organization (NPPO) of the exporting country provide the requested
information is not in line with international agreements and may delay
the obtaining of the information. Furthermore, the required information
may be better provided by other sources, such as research institutions
or growers associations based in the country of origin.
Response: The information does not have to originate with the NPPO,
but it should be provided through the NPPO to ensure its official
status and to be sure that both APHIS and the exporting country's NPPO
have the same information. It is essential for the exporting country's
NPPO to be actively involved because it will be responsible for
implementation of export certification. We note that Article IV of the
International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) lists the
responsibilities of an NPPO, and that these include surveillance of
cultivated and wild plants ``with the object of reporting the
occurrence, outbreak, and spread of pests'' and the conduct of pest
risk analyses. Articles VII.2i and j of the IPPC also refer to an
NPPO's responsibility to maintain pest lists, conduct surveillance, and
make the results of surveillance available to other contracting
parties.
Therefore, for the reasons given in the proposed rule and in this
document, we are adopting the proposed rule as a final rule, with the
changes discussed in this document.
Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. The rule
has been determined to be significant for the purposes of Executive
Order 12866 and, therefore, has been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget.
[[Page 30566]]
We have prepared an economic analysis for this rule. The economic
analysis provides a cost-benefit analysis as required by Executive
Order 12866 and an analysis of the potential economic effects of this
final rule on small entities as required by the Regulatory Flexibility
Act. The economic analysis is set out below.
Under the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.), 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 and noxious weeds.
This rule will require that requests to amend the regulations
regarding imported plants, plant parts, or plant products be
accompanied by the basic information necessary for APHIS to properly
consider such requests. Receipt of necessary information at the time a
request to import a currently prohibited commodity is made will help to
shorten our process for considering and responding to such requests by
minimizing delays in the preparation of risk assessments and other
required analyses. Reducing delays in our consideration of import
requests will help enhance the standing of the United States as a
responsive trading partner.
Commodities in 7 CFR Part 319 Potentially Affected by the Regulations
Fruits and Vegetables.
Cotton.
Logs, lumber.
Nursery Stock (planted in media).
Sugarcane.
Corn, Rice, Wheat, Coffee.
Packing Material.
Cut Flowers.
Alternatives Considered
Two alternatives to this rule were considered. The first
alternative was to do nothing. This alternative was rejected because
the increased volume of import requests and the corresponding increase
in the number of risk assessments to be prepared necessitate a
mechanism for facilitating the import request process. The second
alternative considered was to limit the rule to fresh fruits and
vegetables only. Excluding other plants and plant products from this
rule was not seen as the most effective regulatory approach, given the
growing volume and value of trade in commodities such as grains,
cotton, nursery stock, and cut flowers.
Benefits of the Rule
Trade Benefits
Establishing a more efficient process for the consideration of
import requests will benefit trading partners seeking to sell their
products in U.S. markets by allowing them to bring products to market
in the United States in a more timely fashion in those cases where our
analyses support a change in existing prohibitions or restrictions.
This rule will have a positive effect on U.S. consumers who benefit
from increased variety of imported products available in domestic
markets and from increased competition and lower prices in affected
markets. Enhancing the standing of the United States as a responsive
trading partner will help to foster a favorable trade climate with
other countries, which can be expected to generally benefit U.S.
exporters of fruits, vegetables, and other commodities.
Efficiency Gains
A related benefit of this rule for U.S. interests is internal APHIS
efficiency and consistency gains related to processing import requests.
Collecting data necessary for risk assessments requires time, which
delays processing of import requests.
For the past several years, APHIS has conducted approximately 100
risk assessments associated with import requests per year. Of those
risk assessments, 90 percent are routine and 10 percent are complex.
Examples of recent complex assessments relate to the importation of
citrus from Argentina, clementines from Spain, and citrus from Uruguay.
Once initiated, complex risk assessments typically require 2 to 3
months for data collection by APHIS, plus trips to the country of
origin; data collection for routine risk assessments usually requires
30 days or less.
Submission of basic information with the import request will
substantially decrease the amount of time required for data collection
for both routine and complex risk assessments and the need for
international travel to collect information. Providing information at
the time an import request is made will require some expenditure of
time and effort by the applicant. However, assembling data is expected
to require substantially less time for the applicant than for APHIS
employees, especially if the applicant is in the country of origin.
Applicants in the country of origin should have knowledge of the
commodity they wish to export and access to the required data.
Even when the risk analysis is not complex, or in cases where a
risk analysis may not be required, the information we will require can
be used to complete other analyses or documentation required by certain
U.S. statutes, such as the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the National
Environmental Policy Act, and the Endangered Species Act, to support
changes in our regulations. Delays or problems with any of these
analyses can affect the timely processing of import requests.
Costs of the Regulations
The regulations will require that the NPPOs of foreign countries
provide specific information in support of import requests. This will
require an additional expenditure of time and effort on the part of
potential exporters and the exporting country's NPPO, but APHIS does
not expect major adjustment problems for those entities. Required
information about commodities should be known to applicants and readily
available.
APHIS believes that the benefits of this rule (streamlining the
process for evaluating import requests and reducing costs to APHIS)
outweigh the costs to applicants associated with gathering the basic
information required by this rule.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
As a part of the rulemaking process, APHIS evaluates whether its
regulations are likely to have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. It is unclear whether or to what
extent the costs associated with meeting the data requirements of the
regulations will be passed on to U.S. brokers/shippers of plants and
plant products. More than 11,406 brokers/shippers of plants and plant
products would be considered small entities under the Small Business
Administration's (SBA) criteria, but we do not expect that the data
requirements will have a significant impact on them.
Under the SBA's criteria, an import/export merchant is classified
as a small entity if it has 100 or fewer employees.\1\ In all cases,
these entities can be expected to be affected only to the extent that
foreign producers or exporters pass on their additional costs
associated with assembling the data required for the original import
request, which are expected to be minimal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industrial Classification System code 424480,
Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Merchant Wholesalers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the most recent information available from the SBA's
Office of Advocacy, a total of 5,403 firms comprised the ``Fresh Fruit
and Vegetable Merchant Wholesalers'' category in 1999.\2\ Seventy-eight
percent of these firms (4,227) employed 20 or fewer individuals, and 99
percent of the firms had 500 or fewer employees. Clearly, the majority
of fruit and
[[Page 30567]]
vegetable wholesalers are small entities, having 100 or fewer
employees. Other types of wholesalers potentially affected by the
regulations (wholesalers of cut flowers and nursery stock, grain and
beans, and other farm product raw materials) demonstrate similar
demographic profiles, with the majority of firms in each industry
considered small under SBA's criteria. Even though the majority of
potentially affected wholesalers have 100 or fewer employees, and will
thus be classified as small entities, the regulations are not expected
to have a significant economic impact on them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See http://www.sba.gov/advo/stats/us99_n6.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
Executive Order 12988
This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988,
Civil Justice Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts all State and local laws
and regulations that are inconsistent with this rule; (2) has no
retroactive effect; and (3) does not require administrative proceedings
before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.
Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.), the information collection or recordkeeping requirements
included in this rule have been approved by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) under OMB control number 0579-0261.
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 rule, please contact Mrs. Celeste Sickles,
APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 734-7477.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 319
Coffee, Cotton, Fruits, Imports, Logs, Nursery stock, Plant
diseases and pests, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Rice, Vegetables.
0
Accordingly, we are amending 7 CFR part 319 as follows:
PART 319--FOREIGN QUARANTINE NOTICES
0
1. The authority citation for part 319 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 450, 7701-7772, and 7781-7786; 21 U.S.C. 136
and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.
0
2. A new ``Subpart-Requests To Amend The Regulations'' (Sec. 319.5) is
added to read as follows:
Subpart--Requests To Amend The Regulations
Sec. 319.5 Requirements for submitting requests to change the
regulations in 7 CFR part 319.
(a) Definitions.
Commodity. A plant, plant product, or other agricultural product
being moved for trade or other purpose.
(b) Procedures for submitting requests and supporting information.
Persons who request changes to the import regulations contained in this
part and who wish to import plants, plant parts, or plant products that
are not allowed importation under the conditions of this part must file
a request with the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)
in order for APHIS to consider whether the new commodity can be safely
imported into the United States. The initial request can be formal
(e.g., a letter) or informal (e.g., made during a bilateral discussion
between the United States and another country), and can be made by any
person. Upon APHIS confirmation that granting a person's request would
require amendments to the regulations in this part, the national plant
protection organization of the country from which the commodity would
be exported must provide APHIS with the information listed in paragraph
(d) of this section before APHIS can proceed with its consideration of
the request; requests that are not supported with this information in a
timely manner will be considered incomplete and APHIS may not take
further action on such requests until all required information is
submitted.
(c) Addresses. The national plant protection organization of the
country from which commodities would be exported must submit the
information listed in paragraph (d) of this section to: Commodity
Import Analysis and Operations, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 140,
Riverdale, MD 20737.
(d) Information. The following information must be provided to
APHIS in order for APHIS to consider a request to change the
regulations in part 319:
(1) Information about the party submitting the request. The
address, telephone and fax numbers, and e-mail addresses of the
national plant protection organization of the country from which
commodities would be exported; or, for requests that address a multi-
country region, the address, telephone and fax numbers, and e-mail
addresses of the exporting countries' national and regional plant
protection plant protection organizations.
(2) Information about the commodity proposed for importation into
the United States. (i) A description and/or map of the specific
location(s) of the areas in the exporting country where the plants,
plant parts, or plant products are produced;
(ii) The scientific name (including genus, species, and author
names), synonyms, and taxonomic classification of the commodity;
(iii) Identification of the particular plant or plant part (i.e.,
fruit, leaf, root, entire plant, etc.) and any associated plant part
proposed for importation into the United States;
(iv) The proposed end use of the imported commodity (e.g.,
propagation, consumption, milling, decorative, processing, etc.); and
(v) The months of the year when the commodity would be produced,
harvested, and exported.
(3) Shipping information: (i) Detailed information as to the
projected quantity and weight/Volume of the proposed importation,
broken down according to varieties, where applicable, and;
(ii) Method of shipping in international commerce and under what
conditions, including type of conveyance, and type, size, and capacity
of packing boxes and/or shipping containers.
(4) Description of pests and diseases associated with the commodity
\1\ (i) Scientific name (including genus, species, and author names)
and taxonomic classification of arthropods, fungi, bacteria, nematodes,
virus, viroids, mollusks, phytoplasmas, spiroplasmas, etc., attacking
the crop;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ When a change is being sought to the conditions governing
the importation of a commodity that is already authorized for
importation into the United States, an update to or confirmation of
previously submitted pest and disease information, rather than a
new, complete submission of that information, may be appropriate.
Persons seeking such a change may contact APHIS for a determination
as to whether an update will be appropriate in a particular case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(ii) Plant part attacked by each pest, pest life stages associated
with each plant part attacked, and location of pest (in, on, or with
commodity); and
(iii) References.
(5) Current strategies for risk mitigation or management. (i)
Overview of agronomic or horticultural
[[Page 30568]]
management practices used in production of the commodity, including
methods of pest risk mitigation or control programs; and
(ii) Identification of parties responsible for pest management and
control.
(e) Additional information. None of the additional information
listed in this paragraph need be provided at the same time as
information required under paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section;
it is required only upon request by APHIS. If APHIS determines that
additional information is required in order to complete a pest risk
analysis in accordance with international standards for pest risk
analysis, we will notify the party submitting the request in writing
what specific additional information is required. If this information
is not provided, and is not available to APHIS from other sources, a
request may be considered incomplete and APHIS may be unable to take
further action on the request until the necessary additional
information is submitted. The additional information may include one or
more of the following types of information:
(1) Contact information: Address, phone and fax numbers, and/or e-
mail address for local experts (e.g., academicians, researchers,
extension agents) most familiar with crop production, entomology, plant
pathology, and other relevant characteristics of the commodity proposed
for importation.
(2) Additional information about the commodity: (i) Common name(s)
in English and the language(s) of the exporting country;
(ii) Cultivar, variety, or group description of the commodity;
(iii) Stage of maturity at which the crop is harvested and the
method of harvest;
(iv) Indication of whether the crop is grown from certified seed or
nursery stock, if applicable;
(v) If grown from certified seed or stock, indication of the origin
of the stock or seed (country, State); and
(vi) Color photographs of plant, plant part, or plant product
itself.
(3) Information about the area where the commodity is grown: (i)
Unique characteristics of the production area in terms of pests or
diseases;
(ii) Maps of the production regions, pest-free areas, etc.;
(iii) Length of time the commodity has been grown in the production
area;
(iv) Status of growth of production area (i.e., acreage expanding
or stable); and
(v) Physical and climatological description of the growing area.
(4) Information about post-harvest transit and processing: (i)
Complete description of the post-harvest processing methods used; and
(ii) Description of the movement of the commodity from the field to
processing to exporting port (e.g., method of conveyance, shipping
containers, transit routes, especially through different pest risk
areas).
(5) Shipping methods: (i) Photographs of the boxes and containers
used to transport the commodity; and
(ii) Identification of port(s) of export and import and expected
months (seasons) of shipment, including intermediate ports-of-call and
time at intermediate ports-of-call, if applicable.
(6) Additional description of all pests and diseases associated
with the commodity to be imported: (i) Common name(s) of the pest in
English and local language(s);
(ii) Geographic distribution of the pest in the country, if it is a
quarantine pest and it follows the pathway;
(iii) Period of attack (e.g., attacks young fruit beginning
immediately after blooming) and records of pest incidence (e.g.,
percentage of infested plants or infested fruit) over time (e.g.,
during the different phenological stages of the crops and/or times of
the year);
(iv) Economic losses associated with pests of concern in the
country;
(v) Pest biology or disease etiology or epidemiology; and
(vi) Photocopies of literature cited in support of the information
above.
(7) Current strategies for risk mitigation or management: (i)
Description of pre-harvest pest management practices (including target
pests, treatments [e.g., pesticides], or other control methods) as well
as evidence of efficacy of pest management treatments and other control
methods;
(ii) Efficacy of post-harvest processing treatments in pest
control;
(iii) Culling percentage and efficacy of culling in removing pests
from the commodity; and
(iv) Description of quality assurance activities, efficacy, and
efficiency of monitoring implementation.
(8) Existing documentation: Relevant pest risk analyses,
environmental assessment(s), biological assessment(s), and economic
information and analyses.
(f) Availability of additional guidance. Information related to the
processing of requests to change the import regulations contained in
this part may be found on the APHIS Web site at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/pra/.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 0579-0261)
Done in Washington, DC, this 23rd day of May 2006.
Charles D. Lambert,
Acting Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs.
[FR Doc. E6-8238 Filed 5-26-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P