[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 100 (Tuesday, May 24, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30036-30040]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-12755]


 ========================================================================
 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. 76, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 24, 2011 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 30036]]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

7 CFR Part 319

[Docket No. APHIS-2010-0113]
RIN 0579-AD40


Importation of Fresh Pitaya Fruit From Central America Into the 
Continental United States

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are proposing to amend the fruits and vegetables 
regulations to allow the importation of fresh pitaya fruit from Central 
America into the continental United States. As a condition of entry, 
pitaya fruit from Central America would be subject to a systems 
approach that would include requirements for monitoring and oversight, 
establishment of pest-free places of production, and procedures for 
packing the pitaya fruit. This action would allow for the importation 
of pitaya fruit from Central America into the continental United States 
while continuing to provide protection against the introduction of 
plant pests.

DATES: We will consider all comments that we receive on or before July 
25, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS-2010-0113 to submit or view comments and 
to view supporting and related materials available electronically.
     Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Please send one copy of 
your comment to Docket No. APHIS-2010-0113, Regulatory Analysis and 
Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road, Unit 118, 
Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state that your comment refers to 
Docket No. APHIS-2010-0113.
    Reading Room: 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.
    Other Information: Additional information about APHIS and its 
programs is available on the Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. David B. Lamb, Import Specialist, 
Regulatory Coordination and Compliance, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road 
Unit, 133, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; (301) 734-0627.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The regulations in ``Subpart--Fruits and Vegetables'' (7 CFR 
319.56-1 through 319.56-50, referred to below as the regulations) 
prohibit or restrict the importation of fruits and vegetables into the 
United States from certain parts of the world to prevent the 
introduction and dissemination of plant pests within the United States.
    The national plant protection organizations (NPPOs) of the 
countries of Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, 
Nicaragua, and Panama have requested that the Animal and Plant Health 
Inspection Service (APHIS) amend the regulations to allow pitaya fruit 
(Hylocereus spp.) to be imported from these countries into the 
continental United States. This document will refer to these countries 
collectively as Central America.
    As part of our evaluation of this request, we prepared a pest risk 
assessment (PRA) and a risk management document (RMD). Copies of the 
PRA and the RMD may be obtained from the person listed under FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or viewed on the Regulations.gov Web site 
(see ADDRESSES above for instructions for accessing Regulations.gov). 
The PRA, titled ``Importation of Fresh Pitaya Fruit, Hylocereus spp. 
and several other genera and species, from Central America into the 
Continental United States'' (October 2009), evaluates the risks 
associated with the importation of pitaya fruit into the continental 
United States from Central America. The PRA identified four pests of 
quarantine significance present in Central America that could be 
introduced into the United States through the importation of pitaya 
fruit. These are the Mexican fruit fly or Mexfly (Anastrepha ludens), 
Mediterranean fruit fly or Medfly (Ceratitis capitata), the gray 
pineapple mealybug (Dysmicoccus neobrevipes), and the passionvine 
mealybug (Planococcus minor). All four of these pests were determined 
to pose a high pest risk potential.
    APHIS has determined that measures beyond standard port-of-entry 
inspection are required to mitigate the risks posed by these plant 
pests. Therefore, we are proposing to allow the importation of pitaya 
fruit from Central America into the continental United States only if 
they are produced in accordance with a systems approach to mitigate 
pest risk as outlined below. We are proposing to add the systems 
approach to the regulations in a new Sec.  319.56-51 governing the 
importation of pitaya fruit from Central America.

Proposed Systems Approach

Monitoring and Oversight

    Paragraph (a) of proposed Sec.  319.56-51 would set out monitoring 
and oversight requirements for the NPPOs of the countries exporting 
pitaya fruit to the United States. Paragraph (a)(1) would require the 
NPPO of the exporting country to provide a workplan to APHIS that 
details the activities the NPPO will carry out to meet the requirements 
of the systems approach, subject to APHIS's approval of the workplan. 
APHIS would be directly involved with the NPPO in monitoring and 
auditing implementation of the systems approach. A bilateral workplan 
is an agreement between APHIS' Plant Protection and Quarantine program, 
officials of the NPPO of a foreign government, and, when necessary, 
foreign commercial entities that specifies in detail the phytosanitary 
measures that will comply with our regulations governing the import or 
export of a specific commodity. Bilateral workplans apply only to the 
signatory parties and establish detailed procedures and guidance for 
the day-to-day operations of specific import/export

[[Page 30037]]

programs. Bilateral workplans also establish how specific phytosanitary 
issues are dealt with in the exporting country and make clear who is 
responsible for dealing with those issues. The implementation of a 
systems approach typically requires a bilateral workplan to be 
developed.
    Paragraph (a)(2) would require the NPPO of the exporting country to 
conduct inspections at the packinghouses and monitor packinghouse 
operations to verify that the packinghouses comply with the systems 
approach requirements. The NPPO of the exporting country would also 
have to visit and inspect the places of production monthly, starting 2 
months (60 days) before harvest and continuing until the end of the 
shipping season, to verify that the growers are complying with the 
systems approach requirements. If the NPPO finds that a place of 
production or packinghouse is not complying with the requirements of 
the systems approach, no fruit from the place of production or 
packinghouse would be eligible for export to the United States until 
APHIS and the NPPO conduct an investigation and appropriate remedial 
actions have been implemented.
    Paragraph (a)(3) would require the NPPO of the exporting country to 
review and maintain all forms and documents related to export program 
activities in places of production and packinghouses for at least 1 
year and, as requested, provide them to APHIS for review.
    The monitoring and oversight described above would ensure that the 
required phytosanitary measures are properly implemented throughout the 
process of growing and packing pitaya fruit for export to the United 
States.

Place of Production Requirements

    Paragraph (b)(1) of proposed Sec.  319.56-51 would require the 
personnel conducting the trapping for Mexfly and Medfly described later 
in this document to be hired, trained, and supervised by the NPPO of 
the exporting country. The exporting country's NPPO must certify that 
each place of production has effective fruit fly trapping programs, and 
follows control guidelines, when necessary, to reduce quarantine pest 
populations. APHIS would be able to monitor the places of production. 
This condition would ensure that pitaya fruit intended for export to 
the continental United States are grown and packed in production and 
packing areas of Central America where fruit fly traps are maintained 
and where the other elements of the systems approach described below 
are in place.
    Under proposed paragraph (b)(2), pitaya fruit would have to be 
grown in approved places of production that are registered with the 
NPPO of the exporting country.
    Paragraph (b)(3) would specify that trees and other structures, 
other than the crop itself, may not shade the crop during the day and 
no other host plants of Medfly or Mexfly may be grown within 100 meters 
of the edge of the production site. During hot, sunny weather, pests 
congregate in shaded areas for survival. These requirements would 
reduce the pest pressure of Medfly and Mexfly outside the production 
site.
    Paragraph (b)(4) would require that pitaya fruit that has fallen on 
the ground be removed from the place of production at least once every 
7 days. Although pitaya fruit are a potential host for the identified 
pests, the pests typically prefer fallen fruit. Therefore, requiring 
that fallen fruit be removed from the place of production would reduce 
populations of pests in the fields where pitaya fruit intended for 
importation into the continental United States are grown. In addition, 
fallen fruit would not be allowed to be included in field containers of 
fruit to be packed for export because fruit that has fallen from trees 
may be damaged and thus more susceptible to infestation.
    Under paragraph (b)(5), harvested pitaya fruit would have to be 
placed in field cartons or containers that are marked to show the place 
of production. This requirement would ensure that APHIS and the NPPO of 
the exporting country could identify the place of production for the 
pitaya fruit if inspectors were to find quarantine pests in the fruit 
either before export or at the port of entry.

Mitigation Measures for Medfly and Mexfly

    APHIS has on rare instances intercepted fruit flies in pitaya 
fruit. Records of pitaya fruit being a host for either Medfly or Mexfly 
are either unverified references in old literature or based on cage 
infestations. As a result, pitaya fruit are considered to be poor hosts 
to fruit flies. Based on this, we would use trapping to demonstrate 
that places of production are free of fruit flies in conjunction with a 
systems approach to mitigate the risk posed by these fruit flies.
    Paragraph (c)(1)(i) of proposed Sec.  319.56-51 would specify the 
trapping requirements to demonstrate place of production freedom from 
Medfly and Mexfly. Beginning at least 1 year before the start of 
harvest and continuing through the end of the shipping season, trapping 
for Mexfly and Medfly would have to be conducted in the places of 
pitaya fruit production with at least 1 trap per hectare of APHIS-
approved traps and traps must be serviced every 7 days.
    Under proposed paragraph (c)(1)(ii), we would begin requiring 
places of production to meet standards for cumulative levels of flies 
per trap per day starting at 2 months prior to harvest through the end 
of the shipping season. The interval between the start of trapping and 
the enforcement of standards for flies per trap per day would allow the 
NPPO time to establish a baseline for compliance. Beginning 2 months 
prior to harvest, when traps are serviced, if either Medfly or Mexfly 
are trapped at a particular place of production at cumulative levels 
above 0.07 flies per trap per day, pesticide bait treatments would have 
to be applied in the affected place of production in order for the 
place of production to remain eligible to export pitaya fruit to the 
continental United States. If the average Medfly or Mexfly catch is 
greater than 0.07 flies per trap per day for more than 2 consecutive 
weeks, the place of production would be ineligible for export until the 
rate of capture drops to an average of less than 0.07 flies per trap 
per day.
    Paragraph (c)(1)(iii) would state that the NPPO would have to keep 
records of fruit fly detections for each trap, update the records each 
time the traps are checked, and make the records available to APHIS 
inspectors upon request. The records would have to be maintained for at 
least 1 year.
    Paragraph (c)(2) would provide pest-free areas as another option 
for mitigating the risk associated with Medfly. If pitaya fruit were 
produced in an area designated by APHIS as free of Medfly in accordance 
with Sec.  319.56-5, no further mitigation for those fruit flies would 
be necessary for fruit produced in that area. For instance, Belize 
conducts a national fruit fly program, including Jackson traps, to 
maintain its pest-free status for Medfly, and APHIS currently 
recognizes all of Belize as free of Medfly. We are not proposing to 
provide for the use of pest-free areas for Mexfly because local 
conditions in these countries are not likely to allow the establishment 
of such areas.
    Section 319.56-5 sets out specific requirements for determination 
that an area is a pest-free area. Paragraph (a) of Sec.  319.56-5 
states that determinations of pest-free areas be made in accordance 
with International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPM) No. 4, 
which is incorporated by reference in Sec.  300.5. ISPM No. 4 sets out 
three main

[[Page 30038]]

criteria for recognition of a pest-free area:
     Systems to establish freedom;
     Phytosanitary measures to maintain freedom; and
     Checks to verify freedom has been maintained.

Packinghouse Requirements

    Paragraph (d) of proposed Sec.  319.56-51 would set out 
requirements for the packinghouses where the pitaya fruit would be 
processed. The packinghouse would have to be registered with the NPPO 
of the exporting country. All openings to the outside of the 
packinghouse would have to be covered by screening with openings of not 
more than 1.6 mm or by some other barrier that prevents pests from 
entering. Screening with openings of not more than 1.6 mm excludes 
fruit flies. The packinghouse would be required to have double doors at 
the entrance to the facility and at the interior entrance to the area 
where the pitaya fruit would be packed. Such entrances are designed to 
exclude fruit flies from the packinghouse. In addition, the 
packinghouse could only accept fruit from registered places of 
production while the packinghouse is in use for exporting pitaya fruit 
to the United States. These procedures would reduce the risk that 
quarantine pests are present on pitaya fruit exported to the United 
States.

Post-Harvest Procedures

    Paragraph (e) would require that the fruit be safeguarded by a 
pest-proof screen or plastic tarpaulin while in transit to a pest-
exclusionary packinghouse and while awaiting packing. Pitaya fruit 
would have to be packed within 24 hours of harvest in insect-proof 
cartons or containers that can be sealed at the packinghouse against 
the entry of pests, or covered with insect-proof mesh or a plastic 
tarpaulin for transport to the United States. These safeguards would 
have to remain intact until arrival in the United States. These 
measures would prevent harvested fruit from being infested by 
quarantine pests.

Phytosanitary Inspection

    Paragraph (f)(1) would require a biometric sample of pitaya fruit 
jointly agreed upon by APHIS and the NPPO to be inspected in the 
exporting country by the NPPO of that country following any post-
harvest processing. The biometric sample would be visually inspected 
for gray pineapple mealybug and passionvine mealybug, which are 
external pests. A portion of the fruit would also be cut open to detect 
Mexfly and Medfly, which are internal pests. If the fruit is from a 
pest-free area for Medfly, then the fruit would only be inspected for 
Mexfly. External and internal inspection of a sample would ensure that 
pests at various life stages are detected.
    Under proposed paragraph (f)(2), the pitaya fruit would be subject 
to inspection for all quarantine pests of concern at the port of entry. 
In addition, shipping documents identifying the place(s) of production 
in which the fruit had been produced and the packing shed(s) in which 
the fruit had been processed would have to accompany each lot of fruit 
presented for inspection at the port of entry to the United States and 
would have to be maintained until the fruit is released for entry.
    Under paragraph (f)(3), if a gray pineapple mealybug and 
passionvine mealybug were to be found, the entire consignment of fruit 
would be prohibited from import into the United States unless it were 
treated in accordance with 7 CFR part 305. If a single larva of either 
fruit fly were to be found in a shipment (either by the NPPO in the 
exporting country or by inspectors at the U.S. port of entry), the 
entire consignment of fruit would be prohibited from export, and the 
place of production producing that fruit would be suspended from the 
export program until appropriate measures, as agreed upon by the NPPO 
of the exporting country and APHIS, had been taken.

Commercial Consignments

    Paragraph (g) would state that only commercial consignments of 
pitaya fruit would be allowed to be imported. Commercial consignments, 
as defined in Sec.  319.56-2, are consignments that an inspector 
identifies as having been imported for sale and distribution. Such 
identification is based on a variety of indicators, including, but not 
limited to: Quantity of produce, type of packaging, identification of 
grower or packinghouse on the packaging, and documents consigning the 
fruits or vegetables to a wholesaler or retailer. Produce grown 
commercially is less likely to be infested with plant pests than 
noncommercial consignments. Noncommercial consignments are more prone 
to infestations because the commodity is often ripe to overripe, could 
be of a variety with unknown susceptibility to pests, and is often 
grown with little or no pest control.

Phytosanitary Certificate

    Paragraph (h) sets out the requirement for a phytosanitary 
certificate. Each consignment of fruit would have to be accompanied by 
a phytosanitary certificate issued by the NPPO of the exporting 
country, providing an additional declaration stating that the fruit in 
the consignment was produced in accordance with the requirements in 
proposed Sec.  319.56-51. This requirement would certify that the 
provisions of the regulations have been met.

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This proposed 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.
    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 603, we have performed an initial 
regulatory flexibility analysis, which is summarized below, regarding 
the economic effects of this proposed rule on small entities. Copies of 
the full analysis are available by contacting the person listed under 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or on the Regulations.gov Web site (see 
ADDRESSES above for instructions for accessing Regulations.gov).
    Based on the information we have, there is no reason to conclude 
that adoption of this proposed rule would result in any significant 
economic effect on a substantial number of small entities. However, we 
do not currently have all of the data necessary for a comprehensive 
analysis of the effects of this proposed rule on small entities. 
Therefore, we are inviting comments on potential effects. In 
particular, we are interested in determining the number and kind of 
small entities that may incur benefits or costs from the implementation 
of this proposed rule.
    This proposed rule would allow the importation of fresh pitaya 
fruit from Central America into the continental United States. Pitaya 
fruit is produced in Hawaii, California, and Florida, but the 
quantities domestically produced, numbers of U.S. producers, quantities 
imported, and other factors needed to assess the likely economic 
effects of this rule are not known. The quantity of pitaya fruit that 
would be imported from Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, 
Honduras, and Panama is also unknown. Nicaragua estimates exporting 
1,200 metric tons (60 40-foot containers) of pitaya fruit to the 
continental U.S. annually, and it is thought that the other countries 
may ship similar or smaller amounts.
    Lack of information about the quantity of pitaya fruit that would 
be imported from these countries, and about the quantities produced and 
already imported by the United States, prevents a clear understanding 
of what the economic effects of the proposed

[[Page 30039]]

rule may be. We welcome information that the public may offer regarding 
the possible economic effects of this rule for U.S. small entities.

Executive Order 12988

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

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. APHIS-
2010-0113. Please send a copy of your comments to: (1) Docket No. 
APHIS-2010-0113, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, 
Station 3A-03.8, 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 fruits and vegetables regulations to 
allow the importation of fresh pitaya fruit from Central America into 
the continental United States. As condition of entry, pitaya fruit from 
Central America would be subject to a systems approach that would 
include requirements for monitoring and oversight, establishment of 
pest-free places of production, and procedures for packing the pitaya. 
This action would allow for the importation of pitaya fruit from 
Central America into the continental United States while continuing to 
provide protection against the introduction of quarantine pests.
    Implementing this rule requires the exporting country's NPPO to 
certify production sites, provide a workplan, maintain records of fruit 
fly detections and shipping documents, register packinghouses, and 
complete a phytosanitary certificate.
    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 0.8652 hours per response.
    Respondents: Shippers and producers of fresh pitaya, NPPOs of 
Central America.
    Estimated annual number of respondents: 27.
    Estimated annual number of responses per respondent: 5.2222.
    Estimated annual number of responses: 141.
    Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 122 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) 
851-2908.

E-Government Act Compliance

    The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is committed to 
compliance with the E-Government Act to promote the use of the Internet 
and other information technologies, to provide increased opportunities 
for citizen access to Government information and services, and for 
other purposes. For information pertinent to E-Government Act 
compliance related to this proposed rule, please contact Mrs. Celeste 
Sickles, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2908.

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.

    Accordingly, we propose to amend 7 CFR part 319 as follows:

PART 319--FOREIGN QUARANTINE NOTICES

    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.

    2. Section 319.56-51 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  319.56-51  Fresh pitaya from certain Central American countries.

    Fresh pitaya fruit (Hylocereus spp.) may be imported into the 
United States from Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, 
Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama in accordance with the conditions 
described in this section. These conditions are designed to prevent the 
introduction of the following quarantine pests: Anastrepha ludens, 
Ceratitis capitata, Dysmicoccus neobrevipes, and Planococcus minor.
    (a) Monitoring and oversight. (1) The national plant protection 
organization (NPPO) of the exporting country must provide a workplan to 
APHIS that details the activities that the NPPO will, subject to 
APHIS's approval, carry out to meet the requirements of this section. 
APHIS will be directly involved with the NPPO in the monitoring and 
auditing implementation of the systems approach.
    (2) The NPPO of the exporting country must conduct inspections at 
the packinghouses and monitor packinghouse operations. Starting 2 
months before harvest and continuing until the end of the shipping 
season, the NPPO of the exporting country must visit and inspect the 
places of production monthly to verify compliance with the requirements 
of this section. If the NPPO finds that a packinghouse or place of 
production is not complying with the requirements of this section, no 
fruit from the place of production or packinghouse will be eligible for 
export to the United States until APHIS and the NPPO have conducted an 
investigation and appropriate remedial actions have been implemented.

[[Page 30040]]

    (3) The NPPO must review and maintain all forms and documents 
related to export program activities in places of production and 
packinghouses for at least 1 year and, as requested, provide them to 
APHIS for review.
    (b) Place of production requirements. (1) The personnel conducting 
the trapping required in paragraph (c) of this section must be hired, 
trained, and supervised by the NPPO of the exporting country. The 
exporting country's NPPO must certify that each place of production has 
effective fruit fly trapping programs, and follows control guidelines, 
when necessary, to reduce quarantine pest populations. APHIS may 
monitor the places of production.
    (2) The places of production producing pitaya for export to the 
United States must be registered with the NPPO of the exporting 
country.
    (3) Trees and other structures, other than the crop itself, must 
not shade the crop during the day. No C. capitata or A. ludens host 
plants may be grown within 100 meters of the edge of the production 
site.
    (4) Pitaya fruit that has fallen on the ground must be removed from 
the place of production at least once every 7 days and may not be 
included in field containers of fruit to be packed for export.
    (5) Harvested pitaya fruit must be placed in field cartons or 
containers that are marked to show the place of production.
    (c) Mitigation measures for C. capitata and A. ludens. (1) Pest-
free places of production. (i) Beginning at least 1 year before harvest 
begins and continuing through the end of the shipping season, trapping 
for A. ludens and C. capitata must be conducted in the places of pitaya 
fruit production with at least 1 trap per hectare of APHIS-approved 
traps, serviced every 7 days.
    (ii) From 2 months prior to harvest through the end of the shipping 
season, when traps are serviced, if either A. ludens or C. capitata are 
trapped at a particular place of production at cumulative levels above 
0.07 flies per trap per day, pesticide bait treatments must be applied 
in the affected place of production in order for the place of 
production to remain eligible to export pitaya fruit to the continental 
United States. If the average A. ludens or C. capitata catch is greater 
than 0.07 flies per trap per day for more than 2 consecutive weeks, the 
place of production is ineligible for export until the rate of capture 
drops to an average of less than 0.07 flies per trap per day.
    (iii) The NPPO must maintain records of fruit fly detections for 
each trap, update the records each time the traps are checked, and make 
the records available to APHIS upon request. The records must be 
maintained for at least 1 year for APHIS review.
    (2) Pest-free area for C. capitata. If the pitaya fruit are 
produced in a place of production located in an area that is designated 
as free of C. capitata in accordance with Sec.  319.56-5, the trapping 
in paragraph (c)(1) of this section is not required for C. capitata.
    (d) Packinghouse requirements. (1) The packinghouses must be 
registered with the NPPO of the exporting country.
    (2) All openings to the outside must be covered by screening with 
openings of not more than 1.6 mm or by some other barrier that prevents 
pests from entering the packinghouses.
    (3) The packinghouses must have double doors at the entrance to the 
facilities and at the interior entrance to the area where the pitaya 
fruit are packed.
    (4) While in use for packing pitaya fruit for export to the United 
States, the packinghouses may only accept pitaya fruit that are from 
registered places of production and that are produced in accordance 
with the requirements of this section.
    (e) Post-harvest procedures. The pitaya fruit must be packed within 
24 hours of harvest in a pest-exclusionary packinghouse. Pitaya fruit 
must be packed in insect-proof cartons or containers that can be sealed 
at the packinghouse, or covered with insect-proof mesh or a plastic 
tarpaulin for transport to the United States. These safeguards must be 
intact upon arrival in the United States.
    (f) Phytosanitary inspection. (1) The NPPO of the exporting country 
must visually inspect a biometric sample of pitaya fruit, jointly 
approved by APHIS and the NPPO of the exporting country, for D. 
neobrevipes and P. minor, and cut open a portion of the fruit to detect 
A. ludens and C. capitata. If the fruit is from a pest-free area for C. 
capitata, then the fruit will only be inspected for A. ludens.
    (2) The fruit are subject to inspection at the port of entry for 
all quarantine pests of concern. Shipping documents identifying the 
place(s) of production in which the fruit was produced and the packing 
shed(s) in which the fruit was processed must accompany each lot of 
fruit presented for inspection at the port of entry to the United 
States. This identification must be maintained until the fruit is 
released for entry into the United States.
    (3) If D. neobrevipes or P. minor is found, the entire consignment 
of fruit will be prohibited from import into the United States unless 
the shipment is treated with an approved treatment monitored by APHIS. 
If inspectors (either from the exporting country's NPPO or at the U.S. 
port of entry) find a single fruit fly larva in a shipment, they will 
reject the entire consignment for shipment to the United States, and 
the place of production for that shipment will be suspended from the 
export program until appropriate measures, agreed upon by the NPPO of 
the exporting country and APHIS, have been taken.
    (g) Commercial consignments. The pitaya fruit may be imported in 
commercial consignments only.
    (h) Phytosanitary certificate. Each consignment of pitaya fruit 
must be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the NPPO 
of the exporting country, containing an additional declaration stating 
that the fruit in the consignment was produced in accordance with 
requirements in 7 CFR 319.56-51.

    Done in Washington, DC, this 18th day of May 2011.
Kevin Shea,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-12755 Filed 5-23-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P