[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 182 (Thursday, September 19, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57467-57470]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-22786]
========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2013 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 57467]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
7 CFR Part 319
[Docket No. APHIS-2011-0040]
RIN 0579-AD52
Importation of Mangoes From Australia Into the Continental United
States
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are amending the regulations concerning the importation of
fruits and vegetables to allow the importation of fresh mangoes from
Australia into the continental United States. As a condition of entry,
the mangoes would have to be produced in accordance with a systems
approach employing a combination of mitigation measures for the fungus
Cytosphaera mangiferae and would have to be inspected prior to
exportation from Australia and found free of this disease. The mangoes
would have to be imported in commercial consignments only and would
have to be treated by irradiation to mitigate the risk of the mango
seed weevil and fruit flies. The mangoes would also have to be
accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate with an additional
declaration that the conditions for importation have been met. This
action would allow the importation of mangoes from Australia while
continuing to protect against the introduction of plant pests into the
United States.
DATES: Effective Date: October 21, 2013.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Inder P. S. Gadh, Senior Risk
Manager-Treatments, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD
20737-1236; (301) 851-2018.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The regulations in ``Subpart--Fruits and Vegetables'' (7 CFR
319.56-1 through 319.56-59, 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 that are new to or not
widely distributed within the United States.
The national plant protection organization (NPPO) of Australia has
requested that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)
amend the regulations to allow fresh mangoes from Australia to be
imported into the continental United States under a combination of
mitigations to reduce the risk of introducing plant pests.
On October 25, 2011, we published in the Federal Register (76 FR
65988-65991, Docket No. APHIS-2011-0040) a proposal \1\ to amend the
regulations concerning the importation of fruits and vegetables to
allow the importation of fresh mangoes from Australia into the
continental United States. We prepared a pest risk assessment (PRA),
titled ``Importation of Fresh Fruit of Mango, Mangifera indica L., from
Australia into the Continental United States: A Pathway-initiated Risk
Analysis'' (June 2011). The PRA evaluated the risks associated with the
importation of mangoes into the continental United States from
Australia. Based on the information contained in the PRA, APHIS
determined that measures beyond standard port-of-entry inspection are
required to mitigate the risks posed by these quarantine pests. To
recommend specific measures to mitigate those risks, we prepared a risk
management document (RMD).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ To view the proposed rule, PRA, RMD, and the comments we
received, go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-
2011-0040.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the RMD, we proposed requirements for mangoes to be
produced in accordance with a systems approach employing a combination
of mitigation measures for the fungus Cytosphaera mangiferae and to be
inspected prior to exportation from Australia and found free of this
disease. We proposed to require the mangoes to be imported in
commercial consignments only and to be treated by irradiation to
mitigate the risk of the mango seed weevil and fruit flies. We also
proposed to require the mangoes to be accompanied by a phytosanitary
certificate with an additional declaration that the conditions for
importation have been met.
We solicited comments concerning the PRA and RMD for 60 days ending
December 27, 2011. We received three comments by that date. They were
from a State department of agriculture, a group of State departments of
agriculture, and the Government of Australia. The comments are
discussed below.
In order to mitigate the risks posed by C. mangiferae, which we
consider to be of medium risk of introduction and dissemination within
the continental United States, we proposed three options: (1) The
mangoes be treated with a broad-spectrum post-harvest fungicidal dip,
(2) the mangoes originate from an orchard that was inspected prior to
the beginning of harvest during the growing season and the orchard was
found free of C. mangiferae, or (3) the mangoes originate from an
orchard that was treated with a broad-spectrum fungicide during the
growing season and was inspected prior to harvest and the fruit was
found free of C. mangiferae.
One commenter was in support of these three mitigation options for
C. mangiferae; however, the commenter stated that requiring
packinghouse inspection to determine freedom from symptoms is
unnecessary if one of the fungicide treatment options is administered.
We consider the inspection at the packinghouse to be necessary to
ensure that the fungicide treatments were effective. Conducting a final
phytosanitary inspection to ensure freedom from pests is standard
procedure for all import commodities. Overlapping mitigation measures
such as treatment and inspection are characteristic of system
approaches. APHIS requires the same mitigation options for C.
mangiferae for mangoes imported from India and Pakistan, a policy that
has resulted in no interceptions of the disease at U.S. ports of entry.
One commenter suggested that the systems approach include both the
use of a pre-harvest broad spectrum fungicide and the use of a broad-
spectrum post-harvest fungicidal dip to prevent the introduction of C.
[[Page 57468]]
mangiferae, in addition to packinghouse and port of entry inspections.
We have determined that requiring both treatments is unnecessary
since C. mangiferae has not been found during inspections of mangoes
imported from India and Pakistan under the same mitigation measures,
which indicates that those measures are effective.
One commenter requested the removal of all mitigation measures for
Fusarium spp. associated with mango malformation disease (MMD). The
commenter stated that MMD is not considered a quarantine pest by the
United States with respect to mangoes imported from other countries. In
addition, the commenter presented evidence that MMD has been
successfully eradicated from Australia and that the sole pathogen
associated with MMD in Australia is Fusarium mangiferae, which is
already present in the United States. Furthermore, the commenter stated
that studies indicate that commercially produced mangoes are not a
pathway for the introduction of MMD.
We consider MMD to be a quarantine pest for all countries; when
susceptible commodities have been authorized for importation without
MMD mitigations, we have administratively added requirements for MMD.
However, based on the information provided by the commenter, we have
determined that F. mangiferae is the sole causal agent associated with
MMD in Australia and that it is absent from Australia due to
Australia's successful official control efforts for MMD. In response,
we have revised the PRA and the RMD to reflect Australia's freedom from
causal agents associated with MMD, and this final rule omits the
proposed mitigations for Fusarium spp. complex associated with MMD.
The PRA identified Lasiodiplodia pseudotheobromae, Neoscytalidium
novaehollandiae, Neofusicoccum mangiferae, and Pseudofusicoccum
adansoniae as pathogens associated with mangoes. One commenter stated
that there is no evidence that these pathogens are associated with
mango fruit in natural environments; all work cited in the PRA as
establishing these pathogens as pests of mangoes was under artificial
conditions. The commenter noted the conditions proposed for Australian
mangoes require that mangoes be imported to the continental United
States in commercial consignments only, which would remove these
pathogens from the pathway. In addition, the commenter stated that the
PRA only mentions N. mangiferae in the introduction and presents no
evidence that this species is associated with mango fruit. Therefore,
the commenter requested that requirements related to these pathogens be
removed from the rule.
The PRA addressed N. mangiferae and included additional references
that document the stem end rot (SER) of mango fruit caused by N.
mangiferae known to occur in Australia. The pathogen also has been
documented under many synonyms (Dothiorella mangiferae, Nattrassia
mangiferae, and Fusicoccum mangiferum), which may account for the
confusion about this species associated with mango fruit rot in
Australia.
The remaining species, L. pseudotheobromae, N. novaehollandiae, and
P. adansoniae, are recently reported and appear to have limited
distribution in Australia. These pathogens were isolated from stems and
twigs of mango trees showing dieback and canker symptoms in orchards,
were shown to infect fruit in artificial inoculations, and were not
isolated from naturally infected mango fruit. However, a range of other
related fungal species cause SER of mango, including Neofusicoccum
parvum, Neofusicoccum mangiferae, Botryosphaeria dothidea, and
Lasiodiplodia theobromae. These pathogens may become established in
mango plants without expressing symptoms, but stress or ripening
trigger disease development, expressed as SER, cankers, and mango
decline. These newly reported pathogens of mango likely occupy a
similar niche associated with mango in which the pathogens switch from
quiescent to pathogenic in the plant tissue, and may affect a range of
plant parts of their hosts. For this reason, these pathogens are
considered to follow the pathway with mango fruit in trade. All of
these details and corresponding references are included in the PRA.
Therefore, we stand by our determination that the conditions we
proposed to mitigate those pathogens are necessary.
One commenter requested that we add two mitigation options for the
mango seed weevil (Sternochetus mangiferae) for mangoes from specific
areas of Australia. The commenter suggests that we accept area freedom
from the mango seed weevil for Western Australia and pest free places
of production for the mango seed weevil for the Katherine production
area of the Northern Territory.
With regard to the proposal for area freedom from the mango seed
weevil from Western Australia, we appreciate the information that those
areas are historically free of the mango seed weevil and that the
States maintain controls on the import of mango fruit from areas of
Australia that are not free of this pest. We will request additional
information from the commenter, specifically references from scientific
literature, information from Australian scientists, and/or State
records, to establish that the States are historically free of the
mango seed weevil. This additional information would allow us to
determine whether to recognize Western Australia as free of the mango
seed weevil through the process for recognition of pest-free areas
described in Sec. 319.56-5.
With regard to the commenter's request to allow mangoes from pest-
free places of production from the Katherine production area of the
Northern Territory to be imported into the continental United States,
we will evaluate Australia's program for establishing pest-free places
of production. If we determine that the program is effective, we will
publish our evaluation in the Federal Register and request public
comment.
One commenter presented evidence that visual inspection to detect
scales on the smooth surface of mangoes is sufficient in detecting
Ceroplastes rubens.
The PRA published with the proposal gave C. rubens a High risk
rating, which means that mitigation measures beyond visual inspection
are strongly recommended. However, we have recently changed the rating
criteria in our PRA guidelines for Climate-Host Interaction.
Specifically, we no longer count C. rubens' survival in USDA Plant
Hardiness Zone 11 towards the Climate-Host Interaction risk element
rating because that zone comprises approximately 0.1 percent of the
United States. Making this change in the PRA for Australian mangoes
lowered the overall risk rating for C. rubens by one point, from High
(27 points) to Medium (26 points). A Medium risk rating indicates that
specific phytosanitary measures may be necessary for the pest unless
inspection can serve as an effective mitigation.
The soft scale C. rubens is a surface pest which is readily visible
upon inspection, so no measures other than culling practices in
Australia and inspection are necessary to remove this pest from the
pathway. Therefore, we will not require irradiation treatment to
mitigate C. rubens.
We proposed to require mangoes to be treated by irradiation for
plant pests of the class Insecta, except pupae and adults of the order
Lepidoptera, in accordance with 7 CFR part 305. The prescribed 400-gray
approved dose for this class of pests was necessary to neutralize C.
rubens. Because we no
[[Page 57469]]
longer consider irradiation for C. rubens to be necessary, however, we
are instead requiring mangoes to be treated by irradiation for the
mango seed weevil and for fruit flies of the family Tephritidae in
accordance with 7 CFR part 305. The approved dose for the mango seed
weevil, as indicated in the Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ)
Treatment Manual,\2\ is 300 gray. However, if we recognize pest-free
areas or pest-free places of production for the mango seed weevil, we
would reduce the required dose to 150 gray, which is the approved dose
indicated in the PPQ Treatment Manual for fruit flies of the family
Tephritidae.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The PPQ Treatment Manual may be viewed at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/plants/manuals/ports/downloads/treatment.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One commenter supported the irradiation of mangoes for inspected
pests; however, the commenter requested that irradiation of these
commodities be conducted prior to importation into the United States to
eliminate the possible risk of pest escape prior to treatment.
As described in the proposed rule, we are requiring mangoes from
Australia to be treated with irradiation to neutralize all plant pests
of the class Insecta, except pupae and adults of the order Lepidoptera.
In part 305, Sec. 305.9 specifies the requirements for the irradiation
of imported commodities. These requirements provide effective
safeguards for articles irradiated either prior to or after arrival in
the United States.
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.
Note: In our October 2011 proposed rule, we proposed to add the
conditions governing the importation of mangoes from Australia as
Sec. 319.56-54. In this final rule, those conditions are added as
Sec. 319.56-60.
Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act
This final 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 the Regulatory Flexibility Act, we have analyzed
the potential economic effects of this action on small entities. The
analysis is summarized below. Copies of the full analysis are available
on the Regulations.gov Web site (see footnote 1 in this document for a
link to Regulations.gov) or by contacting the person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
The United States produces approximately 3,000 metric tons per
year, about one-hundredth of 1 percent of world production. U.S. mango
production is concentrated in the States of Florida, Hawaii,
California, and Texas and produced primarily for local markets. While
U.S. mango production is limited, the United States is the world's
leading importer of fresh mangoes, receiving 33 percent of imports
worldwide.
Mango imports from Australia are expected to total about 1,200
metric tons per year. This represents approximately 0.5 percent of
total U.S. mango imports. The imports from Australia will likely help
meet growing demand in all States. While most if not all U.S. mango
farms and mango importers are small entities, it is unlikely that
additional mango imports of 1,200 metric tons will cause a noteworthy
decrease in mango prices or otherwise substantially affect the market,
especially given the expanding U.S. demand for this fruit. Moreover,
the Australian mango season, mid-September to mid-April, is the
opposite of that in the United States; the fresh mangoes imported from
Australia will not compete directly with those produced domestically.
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 allows mangoes to be imported into the continental
United States from Australia. State and local laws and regulations
regarding mangoes imported under this rule will be preempted while the
fruit is in foreign commerce. Fresh fruits are generally imported for
immediate distribution and sale to the consuming public, and 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. 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
The information collection burden associated with the proposed rule
was preapproved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under OMB
control number 0579-0391. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995, APHIS will submit (or has submitted) an Information Collection
Request for extension of this approval. Any new information collection
requirements are not effective until approval by OMB.
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 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 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 Sec. 319.56-60 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 319.56-60 Mangoes from Australia.
Mangoes (Mangifera indica) may be imported into the continental
United States from Australia only under the following conditions:
(a) The mangoes may be imported in commercial consignments only.
(b) The mangoes must be treated by irradiation for the mango seed
weevil (Sternochetus mangiferae) and fruit flies of the family
Tephritidae in accordance with part 305 of this chapter.
(c) The risks presented by Cytosphaera mangiferae must be addressed
in one of the following ways:
(1) The mangoes are treated with a broad-spectrum post-harvest
fungicidal dip;
(2) The mangoes originate from an orchard that was inspected prior
to the beginning of harvest during the growing season and the orchard
was found free of C. mangiferae; or
(3) The mangoes originate from an orchard that was treated with a
broad-spectrum fungicide during the growing season and was inspected
prior to
[[Page 57470]]
harvest and the mangoes are found free of C. mangiferae.
(d) Prior to export from Australia, the mangoes must be inspected
by the national plant protection organization (NPPO) of Australia and
found free of Cytosphaera mangiferae, Lasiodiplodia pseudotheobromae,
Neofusicoccum mangiferae, Neoscytalidium novaehollandiae,
Pseudofusicoccum adansoniae, Phomopsis mangiferae, and Xanthomomas
campestris pv. mangiferaeindicae.
(e)(1) Each consignment of fruit must be accompanied by a
phytosanitary certificate issued by the NPPO of Australia with
additional declarations that:
(i) The mangoes were subjected to one of the pre- or post-harvest
mitigation options described in paragraph (c) of this section, and
(ii) The mangoes were inspected prior to export from Australia and
found free of C. mangiferae, L. pseudotheobromae, N. mangiferae, N.
novaehollandiae, P. adansoniae, P. mangiferae, and X. campestris pv.
mangiferaeindicae.
(2) If the fruit is treated with irradiation outside the United
States, each consignment of fruit must be inspected jointly by APHIS
and the NPPO of Australia, and be accompanied by the phytosanitary
certificate certifying that the fruit was treated with irradiation in
accordance with part 305 of this chapter.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 0579-0391)
Done in Washington, DC, this 13th day of September 2013.
Kevin Shea,
Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-22786 Filed 9-18-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P