Importation of Fruit From Thailand, 42319-42326 [E6-11941]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
• Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 143 (Wednesday, July 26, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 42319-42326]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-11941]


========================================================================
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. 71, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 26, 2006 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 42319]]



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

7 CFR Parts 305 and 319

[Docket No. APHIS-2006-0040]


Importation of Fruit From Thailand

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 into the United States of litchi, 
longan, mango, mangosteen, pineapple, and rambutan from Thailand. As a 
condition of entry, these fruits would have to be grown in production 
areas that are registered with and monitored by the national plant 
protection organization of Thailand, treated with irradiation in 
Thailand at a dose of 400 gray for plant pests of the class Insecta, 
except pupae and adults of the order Leipdoptera, and subject to 
inspection. The fruits would also have to be accompanied by a 
phytosanitary certificate with an additional declaration stating that 
the fruit had been treated with irradiation in Thailand. In the case of 
litchi, the additional declaration would also state that the fruit had 
been inspected and found to be free of Peronophythora litchii, a fungal 
pest of litchi. This action would allow for the importation of litchi, 
longan, mango, mangosteen, pineapple, and rambutan from Thailand into 
the United States while continuing to provide protection against the 
introduction of quarantine pests into the United States.

DATES: We will consider all comments that we receive on or before 
September 25, 2006.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://
www.regulations.gov and, in the lower ``Search Regulations and Federal 
Actions'' box, select ``Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service'' 
from the agency drop-down menu, then click on ``Submit.'' In the Docket 
ID column, select APHIS-2006-0040 to submit or view public comments and 
to view supporting and related materials available electronically. 
Information on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for 
accessing documents, submitting comments, and viewing the docket after 
the close of the comment period, is available through the site's ``User 
Tips'' link.
     Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Please send four copies 
of your comment (an original and three copies) to Docket No. APHIS-
2006-0040, 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-2006-0040.
    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 https://www.aphis.usda.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Alex Belano, Import Specialist, 
Commodity Import Analysis and Operations, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road 
Unit 140, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 734-8758.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The regulations in ``Subpart--Fruits and Vegetables'' (7 CFR 319.56 
through 319.56-8, 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 Thailand has 
requested that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) 
amend the regulations to allow litchi, longan, mango, mangosteen, 
pineapple, and rambutan from Thailand to be imported into the United 
States. As part of our evaluation of that request, we have prepared 
pest lists for each of the six fruits and a risk management document 
that recommends risk mitigation measures to prevent the plant pests 
associated with each fruit from being introduced into the United 
States. Copies of the risk management document can 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).
    Based on the risk management document, APHIS has determined that 
measures beyond port-of-entry inspection are required to mitigate the 
plant pest risks associated with these six fruits. The primary measure 
that we are proposing to require to mitigate those risks is that these 
six fruits be imported into the United States after being treated in 
Thailand with irradiation in accordance with the irradiation treatment 
requirements located in Sec.  305.31 of our regulations in 7 CFR part 
305, ``Phytosanitary Treatments.'' These six fruits would be irradiated 
with an irradiation dose of 400 gray, a dose that is approved under 
Sec.  305.31(a) to treat all plant pests of the class Insecta, except 
pupae and adults of the order Lepidoptera.
    The regulations in Sec.  305.31 contain extensive requirements for 
performing irradiation treatment at a facility in a foreign country. 
These requirements include:
     The operator of the irradiation facility must sign a 
compliance agreement with the Administrator of APHIS and the NPPO of 
the exporting country.
     The facility must be certified by APHIS as capable of 
administering the treatment and separating treated and untreated 
articles.
     Treatments must be monitored by an inspector.
     A preclearance workplan must be entered into by APHIS and 
the NPPO of the exporting country. In the case of fruits imported from 
Thailand, this workplan would include provisions for inspection of 
articles, which APHIS would perform before or after the treatment.

[[Page 42320]]

     The operator of the irradiation facility must enter into a 
trust fund agreement with APHIS to pay for the costs of monitoring and 
preclearance.
    All six fruits would also have to be accompanied by a phytosanitary 
certificate containing an additional declaration that the required 
irradiation treatment had been performed in Thailand.
    We have not prepared a comprehensive pest risk analysis for this 
proposed rule, as we normally do when determining whether to allow the 
importation of fruits or vegetables under the regulations. When we 
prepare a comprehensive pest risk analysis for a commodity, one part of 
the analysis examines in detail the likelihood that the plant pests for 
which the commodity could serve as a host would be introduced into the 
United States via the importation of that commodity, the likelihood 
that those pests would become established if they were introduced, and 
the damage that could result from their introduction or establishment. 
This helps us to determine which plant pests pose a risk that makes 
mitigation measures beyond port-of-entry inspection necessary. However, 
since irradiation at the 400 gray dose is approved to neutralize all 
plant pests of the order Insecta, except pupae and adults of the family 
Lepidoptera, we did not consider it necessary to undertake a detailed 
analysis of the risks posed by any plant pests that fall into the 
category, since the risks for all these pests would be mitigated 
through the irradiation treatment. For the plant pests that we 
identified that are not approved for treatment with the 400 gray dose, 
we have analyzed what specific mitigations may be necessary given the 
risks they pose and the likelihood that these risks would be 
effectively mitigated by inspection.
    The other general requirement we would place on the importation of 
these six fruits is that the imported fruits would have to be grown in 
a production area that is registered with and monitored by the NPPO of 
Thailand. Growing under controlled agricultural practices results in 
fruit with fewer pests and thus would maximize the effectiveness of the 
irradiation treatment. In addition, while the irradiation regulations 
provide for inspections to occur before or after treatment, all fruit 
imported into the United States is subject to inspection at the port of 
entry; therefore, fruit imported from Thailand could be inspected at 
the port of entry if an inspector determines that such inspection is 
necessary.
    The effectiveness of the irradiation treatment with regard to 
mitigating the risk associated with the importation of each of the six 
fruits proposed for importation is discussed in detail below, along 
with mitigations for the risks posed by pests not approved for 
treatment with irradiation.

Litchi

    APHIS has identified 11 potential quarantine pests that could be 
introduced into the United States via the importation of litchi from 
Thailand, including 10 insect pests and 1 fungal pest. The pests are 
listed below, with order and family name following their scientific 
names in parentheses.

Insect pests:
    Bactrocera cucurbitae (Diptera: Tephritidae).
    Bactrocera dorsalis (Diptera: Tephritidae).
    Ceroplastes rubens (Hemiptera/Homoptera: Coccidae).
    Coccus viridis (Hemiptera/Homoptera: Coccidae).
    Dysmicoccus neobrevipes (Hemiptera/Homoptera: Pseudococcidae).
    Planococcus lilacinus (Hemiptera/Homoptera: Pseudococcidae).
    Planococcus minor (Hemiptera/Homoptera: Pseudococcidae).
    Conopomorpha sinensis (Lepidoptera: Gracillariidae).
    Cryptophlebia ombrodelta (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae).
    Deudorix epijarbas (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae).
Fungus:
    Peronophythora litchii (Pythiales: Pythiaceae).

    Three of the insect pests of concern, Conopomorpha sinensis, 
Cryptophlebia ombrodelta, and Deudorix epijarbas, belong to the order 
Lepidoptera, and the 400 gray dose is not approved to treat pupae and 
adults of the order Lepidoptera. However, the life stages of concern 
for these pests are the eggs and the larvae, because the eggs and 
larvae of these species are internal feeders and thus difficult to 
detect through inspection; the 400 gray dose is approved to treat those 
stages of the life cycle for Lepidoptera pests. The pupae and adults of 
these species are external feeders, and we are confident that 
inspection can detect them.
    The 400 gray dose is also approved to treat all the other insect 
pests in the list. However, the 400 gray dose is not approved to treat 
the fungal pest, Peronophythora litchii. This pest can cause litchi 
fruit to drop prematurely from their trees; fungicidal field treatments 
are typically applied to reduce premature fruit drop in commercial 
litchi production areas where Peronophythora litchii is present. To 
address the risk posed by this pest, we are proposing to require that 
litchi from Thailand be inspected and found to be free of 
Peronophythora litchii. We would also require that the phytosanitary 
certificate accompanying litchi from Thailand include an additional 
declaration to that effect.
    We believe that most litchi fruit that are infected with 
Peronophythora litchii would be culled prior to importation into the 
United States; trained harvesters, packinghouse personnel, and plant 
quarantine inspectors can easily detect the distinctive symptoms of the 
disease on fruit. Litchi that are infected with Peronophythora litchii 
but are not symptomatic may not be culled, but the likelihood that 
Peronophythora litchii would then be introduced into the United States 
via the few fruit that may escape detection is very low, because the 
spores are transmitted by water. This means that for Peronophythora 
litchii to be introduced into the United States via an infected litchi 
fruit, the fruit would have to be incompletely consumed and discarded 
in a place where the pest could be transmitted to a litchi production 
area through moving water. Additionally, there is no record of 
interception of this disease on litchi imported into the United States 
from other countries in regions where this pathogen is present. 
Therefore, we believe that the requirement that litchi from Thailand be 
inspected for Peronophythora litchii, along with the additional 
declaration that would be required on the phytosanitary certificate 
accompanying the fruit, would adequately mitigate the risk posed by 
this pest.

Longan

    APHIS has identified 11 potential quarantine pests that could be 
introduced into the United States via the importation of longan from 
Thailand, all of which are insect pests. The pests are listed below, 
with order and family name following their scientific names in 
parentheses.

    Bactrocera correcta (Diptera: Tephritidae).
    Bactrocera dorsalis (Diptera: Tephritidae).
    Ceroplastes rubens (Hemiptera/Homoptera: Coccidae).
    Drepanococcus chiton (Hemiptera/Homoptera: Coccidae).
    Dysmicoccus neobrevipes (Hemiptera/Homoptera: Pseudococcidae).
    Maconellicoccus hirsutus (Hemiptera/Homoptera: Pseudococcidae).
    Planococcus lilacinus (Hemiptera/Homoptera: Pseudococcidae).

[[Page 42321]]

    Planococcus minor (Hemiptera/Homoptera: Pseudococcidae).
    Conopomorpha sinensis (Lepidoptera: Gracillariidae).
    Cryptophlebia ombrodelta (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae).
    Deudorix epijarbas (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae).

    Three of the insect pests of concern, Conopomorpha sinensis, 
Cryptophlebia ombrodelta, and Deudorix epijarbas, belong to the order 
Lepidoptera, and irradiation with a 400 gray dose is not approved to 
treat pupae and adults of the order Lepidoptera. However, as discussed 
earlier in this document with respect to litchi, the life stages of 
concern for these pests are the eggs and the larvae, and the 400 gray 
dose is approved to treat those stages of the life cycle for 
Lepidoptera pests.
    The 400 gray dose is also approved to treat all the other insect 
pests in the list.

Mango

    APHIS has identified 21 potential quarantine pests that could be 
introduced into the United States via the importation of mango from 
Thailand, including 20 insect pests and one fungal pest. The pests are 
listed below, with order and family name following their scientific 
names in parentheses.

Insect pests:
    Sternochetus frigidus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae).
    Sternochetus mangiferae (Coleoptera: Curculionidae).
    Sternochetus olivieri (Coleoptera: Curculionidae).
    Bactrocera carambolae (Diptera: Tephritidae).
    Bactrocera correcta (Diptera: Tephritidae).
    Bactrocera cucurbitae (Diptera: Tephritidae).
    Bactrocera dorsalis (Diptera: Tephritidae).
    Bactrocera papayae (Diptera: Tephritidae).
    Bactrocera tuberculata (Diptera: Tephritidae).
    Bactrocera zonata (Diptera: Tephritidae).
    Cereoplastes rubens (Hemiptera/Homoptera: Coccidae).
    Coccus viridis (Hemiptera/Homoptera: Coccidae).
    Aulacaspis tubercularis (Hemiptera/Homoptera: Diaspididae).
    Pseudaonidia trilobitiformis (Hemiptera/Homoptera: Diaspididae).
    Dysmicoccus neobrevipes (Hemiptera/Homoptera: Pseudococcidae).
    Maconellicoccus hirsutus (Hemiptera/Homoptera: Pseudococcidae).
    Nipaecoccus viridis (Hemiptera/Homoptera: Pseudococcidae).
    Planococcus lilacinus (Hemiptera/Homoptera: Pseudococcidae).
    Planacoccus minor (Hemiptera/Homoptera: Pseudococcidae).
    Rastrococcus spinosus (Hemiptera/Homoptera: Pseudococcidae).
Fungus:
    Phomopsis mangiferae.

    Irradiation with a 400 gray dose is approved to treat all of the 
insect pests, but not the fungal plant pest Phomopsis mangiferae. We 
are not proposing to require any mitigation other than inspection for 
Phomopsis mangiferae. The symptoms of Phomopsis mangiferae on mangoes 
are likely to be detected at harvest and during packing and inspection; 
mangoes showing these symptoms would be culled as part of normal 
production practices. In some cases, latent infections may evade 
detection, and storing the fruit after the harvest in dark, cool, dry 
areas, which slows the expression of symptoms, may lead to increased 
numbers of infected fruit not being detected.
    However, we believe that Phomopsis mangiferae is unlikely to be 
introduced into the United States via the importation of mangoes for 
consumption. The pest is specific to mangoes and is spread only via the 
seed of the mango. For the pest to spread, fungal spores from the seed 
must be dispersed at a time when susceptible tissue is available; thus, 
dispersal only occurs when infected seed is used in mango production. 
If infected fruit is consumed and the seed is discarded as waste, the 
infected fruit does not serve as a pathway for introduction. Discarded 
fruit could create a possible source of inoculum that could provide the 
means for introduction, but the likelihood that infected mangoes will 
reach these habitats is low because (1) the host range is limited to 
mango; (2) the portion of the total number of mango shipments from 
Thailand that is expected to be transported to mango-producing areas in 
California, Florida, Hawaii, or Texas is small; and (3) the likelihood 
of fruit being discarded in mango orchards at an appropriate time is 
likewise very low. For these reasons, we are not proposing any measures 
beyond inspection to mitigate the risk associated with this plant pest. 
This decision is consistent with the recommendations contained in pest 
risk analyses examining the importation of mangoes from Australia, 
India, and Pakistan, countries where Phomopsis mangiferae is also 
present.

Mangosteen

    APHIS has identified 11 potential quarantine pests that could be 
introduced into the United States via the importation of mangosteen 
from Thailand, all of which are insect pests. The pests are listed 
below, with order and family name following their scientific names in 
parentheses.

    Bactrocera carambola (Diptera: Tephritidae).
    Bactrocera dorsalis (Diptera: Tephritidae).
    Bactrocera papayae (Diptera: Tephritidae).
    Coccus viridis (Hemiptera/Homoptera: Coccidae).
    Pseudaonidia trilobitiformis (Hemiptera/Homoptera: Diaspididae).
    Cataenococcus hispidus (Hemiptera/Homoptera: Pseudococcidae).
    Dysmicoccus neobrevipes (Hemiptera/Homoptera: Pseudococcidae).
    Paracoccus interceptus (Hemiptera/Homoptera: Pseudococcidae).
    Planococcus lilacinus (Hemiptera/Homoptera: Pseudococcidae).
    Planococcus minor (Hemiptera/Homoptera: Pseudococcidae).
    Pseudococcus cryptus (Hemiptera/Homoptera: Pseudococcidae).

    Irradiation with a 400 gray dose is approved as a treatment for all 
of these pests.

Pineapple

    APHIS has identified four potential quarantine pests that could be 
introduced into the United States via the importation of pineapple from 
Thailand, all of which are insect pests. The pests are listed below, 
with order and family name following their scientific names in 
parentheses.

    Coccus viridis (Hemiptera/Homoptera: Coccidae).
    Dysmicoccus neobrevipes (Hemiptera/Homoptera: Pseudococcidae).
    Planococcus minor (Hemiptera/Homoptera: Pseudococcidae).
    Frankliniella schultzei (Thysanoptera: Thripidae).

    Irradiation with a 400 gray dose is approved as a treatment for all 
of these pests.

Rambutan

    APHIS has identified 10 potential quarantine pests that could be 
introduced into the United States via the importation of rambutan from 
Thailand, all of which are insect pests. The pests are listed below, 
with order and family name following their scientific names in 
parentheses.

    Bactrocera dorsalis (Diptera:

[[Page 42322]]

Tephritidae).
    Bactrocera papayae (Diptera: Tephritidae).
    Ceroplastes rubens (Hemiptera/Homoptera: Coccidae).
    Cataenococcus hispidus (Hemiptera/Homoptera: Pseudococcidae).
    Dysmicoccus neobrevipes (Hemiptera/Homoptera: Pseudococcidae).
    Maconellicoccus hirsutus (Hemiptera/Homoptera: Pseudococcidae).
    Paracoccus interceptus (Hemiptera/Homoptera: Pseudococcidae).
    Planococcus lilacinus (Hemiptera/Homoptera: Pseudococcidae).
    Planococcus minor (Hemiptera/Homoptera: Pseudococcidae).
    Conopomorpha cramerella (Lepidoptera: Gracillariidae).

    One of the insect pests of concern, Conopomorpha cramerella, 
belongs to the order Lepidoptera, and the 400 gray dose is not approved 
to treat pupae and adults of the order Lepidoptera. However, the life 
stages of concern for this pest are the eggs and the larvae, because 
the eggs and larvae of this species are internal feeders and thus 
difficult to detect through inspection; the 400 gray dose is approved 
to treat those stages of the life cycle for Lepidoptera pests. The 
pupae and adults of this species are external feeders, and we are 
confident that inspection can detect them.
    The 400 gray dose is also approved to treat all the other insect 
pests in the list.
    We are proposing to add a new Sec.  319.56-2ss governing the 
conditions of entry of litchi, longan, mango, mangosteen, pineapple, 
and rambutan from Thailand into the United States that would contain 
the growing, treatment, and phytosanitary certification requirements 
discussed in this proposal. We would also add an entry to the chart of 
commodities enterable from foreign localities in Sec.  305.2(h)(2)(i) 
for each of the six fruits. These entries would indicate that 
irradiation for plant pests of the class Insecta, other than pupae and 
adults of the order Lepidoptera, is an approved treatment for each of 
the six fruits.

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. 
The rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of 
Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the 
Office of Management and Budget.
    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 603, we have performed an initial 
regulatory flexibility analysis, which is set out below, regarding the 
effects of this proposed rule on small entities. We do not currently 
have all the data necessary for a comprehensive analysis of the effects 
of this proposed rule on small entities. Therefore, we are inviting 
comments concerning potential effects. In particular, we are interested 
in determining the degree to which imported fruits from Thailand would 
be expected to displace fruits imported from other countries or fruits 
produced domestically.
    Under the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.), the 
Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to prohibit or restrict the 
importation of plants, plant products, and other articles if the 
Secretary determines that the prohibition or restriction is necessary 
to prevent the introduction of plant pests and noxious weeds into the 
United States.
    The proposed rule would amend the fruits and vegetables regulations 
to allow the importation into the United States of litchi, longan, 
mango, mangosteen, pineapple, and rambutan from Thailand. As a 
condition of entry, these fruits would have to be grown in production 
areas that are registered with and monitored by the NPPO of Thailand, 
treated with irradiation in Thailand at a dose of 400 gray for plant 
pests of the class Insecta, except pupae and adults of the order 
Leipdoptera, and subject to inspection. The fruits would also have to 
be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate with an additional 
declaration stating that the fruit had been treated with irradiation in 
Thailand and, in the case of litchi, that the fruit had been inspected 
and found to be free of Peronophythora litchii, a fungal pest of 
litchi. This action would allow for the importation of litchi, longan, 
mango, mangosteen, pineapple, and rambutan from Thailand into the 
United States while continuing to provide protection against the 
introduction of quarantine pests.
    Although this is the first request APHIS has received concerning 
the importation of irradiated fruit, this change is not expected to 
have any significant effect on APHIS program operations since the 
relevant commodities are currently allowed to be imported into the 
United States from various other regions subject to different 
treatments. Additionally, current regulations already allow inspectors 
to order the treatment, destruction, or re-exportation of a consignment 
of fruit if, on inspection at the port of arrival, any actionable pest 
or pathogen is found and identified. The use of irradiation as a pest 
mitigation measure will provide an alternative to other mitigations 
such as methyl bromide fumigation.

U.S. Production and Imports

    Historically, the continental United States has not produced the 
fruits covered in this proposed rule in any quantity, with the 
exception of mangoes and pineapples. Mangoes were produced in some 
quantity in Florida, but production has not been recorded since 1997. 
Mangoes are still produced in non-commercial quantities in South 
Florida along with approximately two dozen other minor tropical fruits. 
However, these fruits, including litchi, longan, and mango, are 
primarily destined for the local fresh market.
    A record of the Hawaiian production of most of these fruits is kept 
by the Hawaii Field Office of the National Agricultural Statistics 
Service. The ``Hawaii Tropical Specialty Fruits'' report published by 
this office shows that Hawaii produces all of the fruits covered by the 
proposed rule; however, mangosteen production is included in the 
category ``Other'' to avoid disclosure of individual operations.\1\ 
Production and price data for the Hawaiian fruit may be found in table 
1. This table shows only production destined for the fresh market. 
Although Hawaii's production of pineapples for the fresh market has 
remained relatively stable over the last two decades, production 
intended for the processed market is merely 19 percent of what it was 
20 years ago. Production of longan, litchi, mango, and rambutan is a 
fraction of pineapple production in Hawaii and is directed to local 
markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This report can be accessed on the Internet at https://
www.nass.usda.gov/hi/fruit/tropfrt.pdf.

[[Page 42323]]



                      Table 1.--Production and Farm Prices of Tropical Fruit Produced in Hawaii for the Fresh Market, 2000-2004 \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Longan                  Litchi                   Mango                 Rambutan                Pineapple
                                 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Year                Production  Farm price  Production  Farm price  Production  Farm price  Production  Farm price  Production  Farm price
                                  (1,000 lb)  ($ per 1b)  (1,000 lb)  ($ per lb)  (1,000 lb)  ($ per lb)  (1,000 lb)  ($ per lb)  (1,000 lb)  ($ per lb)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000............................          24        4.02       (\2\)       (\2\)         207        0.93         220        2.98     244,000        0.29
2001............................          37        3.05       (\2\)       (\2\)         242        0.86         205        3.01     220,000        0.31
2002............................          46        3.20          77        2.64         377        0.92         257        3.01     234,000        0.31
2003............................         114        3.33          88        2.84         481        0.86         306        2.73     260,000        0.30
2004............................         125        3.40          94        2.45         380        0.92         275        2.57     198,000        0.32
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Mangosteen production is included in a residual category to avoid disclosure of individual operations.
\2\ Data not shown separately to avoid disclosure of individual operations.
Source: USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), Hawaii Field Office, ``Hawaii Tropical Specialty Fruits,'' October 19, 2005.

    Based on available data, imports of mangoes and pineapples far 
exceed domestic production (table 2). Furthermore, it appears that 
imports do not compete with domestic production. In the case of 
litchis, longans, mangoes, mangosteens, and rambutans, it appears that 
domestic production is sold mainly in the local fresh market. However, 
it is difficult to draw conclusions regarding competition from litchi, 
longan, and rambutan imports due to lack of available data. Pineapples, 
on the other hand, seem more widely distributed, but their production 
has remained fairly consistent over the years despite increased imports 
from abroad. This information would indicate a lack of competition 
between domestic production and foreign imports.

  Table 2.--U.S. Imports of Mango, Mangosteen, and Pineapple, 2000-2004
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Mangosteen
                                      Mango         \1\       Pineapple
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  1,000 lb
                                  --------------------------------------
2000.............................      528,868           40          \2\
                                                                 711,292
2001.............................      541,329          226          \2\
                                                                 715,651
2002.............................          \3\          137      894,446
                                       587,048
2003.............................      613,816          136    1,050,855
2004.............................      609,237          104   1,126,672
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Statistics include guavas and mangosteens. Source: Global Trade
  Atlas.
\2\ Includes fresh and frozen. Source: ERS Fruit and Tree Nut Yearbook.
\3\ Statistics include guavas and mangos. Source: Economic Research
  Service (ERS) Fruit and Tree Nut Yearbook.

Thai Production and Exports

    Thailand is the leading producer of pineapple in the world. Much of 
its production is geared toward international markets, although the 
majority of this is not fresh production. Over the 5-year period 2000-
2004, only 0.27 percent of the country's fresh production was exported, 
as seen in table 3. Similarly, during that same period, Thailand 
produced a significant amount of mangoes, but only 0.82 percent of that 
mango production was exported for the fresh market.

                     Table 3.--Thai Production and Exports of Mango and Pineapple, 2000-2004
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Mango                                Pineapple
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Exports as                             Exports as
                                                               percentage                             percentage
                                     Production    Exports         of       Production    Exports         of
                                                               production                             production
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          (metric tons)                          (metric tons)
                                   --------------------------             --------------------------
2000..............................    1,633,479        8,755         0.54    2,248,375        4,995         0.22
2001..............................    1,700,000       10,829         0.64    2,078,286        6,471         0.31
2002..............................    1,700,000        8,736         0.51    1,738,833        4,561         0.26
2003..............................    1,700,000        8,098         0.48    1,899,424        4,874         0.26
2004..............................    1,700,000       33,097         1.95    1,997,000        5,736         0.29
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: FAOSTAT data, 2006.

    Thailand also produces longan, litchi, mangosteen, and rambutan. 
Production data for each of these come from Thailand's Office of 
Agriculture Economics (OAE). Table 4 shows that production of rambutan 
far exceeded that of longan and mangosteen. Farm prices, on the other 
hand, were much higher for longan and mangosteen. In economic terms, 
this result is not surprising since higher levels of supply foster 
lower prices. Production and price data on litchis were not available.

[[Page 42324]]



               Table 4.--Thai Production and Price of Longan, Mangosteen, and Rambutan, 2000-2004
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Longan                  Mangosteen                 Rambutan
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Production                Production                Production
                                      (metric     Farm price    (metric     Farm price    (metric     Farm price
                                       tons)      ($ per kg)     tons)      ($ per kg)     tons)      ($ per kg)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999..............................       63,900         0.76      160,800         0.66      601,000         0.41
2000..............................      417,300         0.65      168,200         0.60      618,000         0.33
2001..............................      250,100         0.63      197,200         0.51      617,000         0.25
2002..............................      420,300         0.28      244,900         0.44      619,000         0.15
2003..............................      396,700         0.38      203,800         0.65      651,000        0.19
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: OAE, 2006.

    According to a press release of the Thai Minister of Agriculture 
and Cooperatives posted on the Web site of the National Bureau of 
Agricultural Commodity and Food Standards in Thailand, that country is 
capable of producing approximately 5 million metric tons (MT) of the 
fruits that this proposed rule would allow to be imported into the 
United States. This production may be divided as follows: 80,000 MT of 
litchi, 200,000 MT of mangosteen, 500,000 MT of rambutan, 500,000 to 
700,000 MT of longan, 1.8 million MT of mango, and 2 million MT of 
pineapple. Given the production data reported by the OAE, these 
production values seem reasonable. However, only a fraction of this is 
likely to be exported to the United States, given historical export 
data as well as the fact that the existing irradiation facility would 
not be able to accommodate these estimated volumes of fruit. Since a 
new facility would not be constructed until regulations were in place, 
it is not likely that Thailand would be able to treat and ship volumes 
of this magnitude over the next few years.

Effects on Small Entities

    The proposed rule may affect domestic producers of the six tropical 
fruits, as well as firms that import these commodities. It is likely 
that the entities affected would be small according to Small Business 
Administration (SBA) guidelines. A discussion of these impacts follows.
    Affected U.S. tropical fruit producers are expected to be small 
based on 2002 Census of Agriculture data and SBA guidelines for 
entities in the farm category ``Other Noncitrus Fruit Farming'' (North 
American Industry Classification System [NAICS] code 111339). The SBA 
classifies producers in this farm category with total annual sales of 
not more than $750,000 as small entities. APHIS does not have 
information on the size distribution of the relevant producers, but 
according to 2002 Census data, there were a total of 2,128,892 farms in 
the United States in 2002.\2\ Of this number, approximately 97 percent 
had annual sales in 2002 of less than $500,000, which is well below the 
SBA's small entity threshold of $750,000 for commodity farms.\3\ This 
indicates that the majority of farms are considered small by SBA 
standards, and it is reasonable to assume that most of the 623 mango 
and 34 pineapple farms \4\ that may be affected by this rule would also 
qualify as small. In the case of fresh fruit and vegetable wholesalers, 
establishments in the category ``Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Merchant 
Wholesalers'' (NAICS 424480) with not more than 100 employees are 
considered small by SBA standards. In 2002, there were a total of 5,397 
fresh fruit and vegetable wholesale trade firms in the United 
States.\5\ Of these firms, 4,644 firms operated for the entire year. Of 
those firms that were in operation the entire year, 4,436 or 95.5 
percent employed fewer than 100 employees and were, therefore, 
considered small by SBA standards. Thus, domestic producers and 
importers that may be affected by the proposed rule are predominantly 
small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ This number represents the total number of farms in the 
United States, including farms producing litchi, longan, mango, 
mangosteen, pineapple, and rambutan.
    \3\ Source: SBA and 2002 Census of Agriculture.
    \4\ There are no data available on the number of litchi, longan, 
mangosteen, or rambutan farms in operation.
    \5\ Source: SBA and 2002 Economic Census.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the data available to APHIS, it does not appear that 
domestic production of litchi, longan, mango, mangosteen, pineapple, 
and rambutan competes with imports of these fruits. Domestic production 
is generally destined for the local fresh market. Thus, the imports 
from Thailand are unlikely to substantially affect these markets. 
Additionally, imports from Thailand are not likely to increase the 
overall level of imports. It is more reasonable to assume that they 
would substitute for imports from other countries, given that demand 
for these specialty fruits is likely satiated at current levels. APHIS 
welcomes public comment on these potential effects.
    Domestic import firms may benefit from more open trade with 
Thailand, with more import opportunities available to them because of 
the additional source of these tropical specialty fruit. In any case, 
it is not likely that the effects of importing litchi, longan, mango, 
mangosteen, pineapple, and rambutan from Thailand would have large 
repercussions for either domestic producers or importers of these 
tropical fruit.

Significant Alternatives to Rule

    In June 2005, officials from Thailand and the United States met in 
Bangkok to consider mitigations on the six Thai commodities. Several 
options were considered at that meeting. Cold treatment was recognized 
as a potential treatment for litchi and longan, but additional research 
would have to be conducted to ensure this treatment would be effective 
in killing all Lepidoptera of concern. Vapor heat treatment was also 
considered. This could be used for treating mangosteen, pineapple, and 
rambutan. However, this treatment affects the quality of commodities 
and was thus dismissed as a viable alternative. The use of a systems 
approach was also mentioned. This may be a potential alternative for 
mangosteen and pineapple. However, the Thai Department of Agriculture 
did not have a formal proposal on the use of a systems approach. 
Irradiation was the fourth alternative considered. A generic dose of 
400 gray would work for all six commodities. Additionally, irradiation 
was the only option identified to be effective for mango due to the 
presence of mango seed and flesh weevils. Thus, irradiation was chosen 
as the most effective option.
    This proposed rule contains certain reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements (see ``Paperwork Reduction Act'' below).

Executive Order 12988

    This proposed rule would allow litchi, longan, mango, mangosteen,

[[Page 42325]]

pineapple, and rambutan to be imported into the United States from 
Thailand. If this proposed rule is adopted, State and local laws and 
regulations regarding litchi, longan, mango, mangosteen, pineapple, and 
rambutan 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.

National Environmental Policy Act

    To provide the public with documentation of APHIS' review and 
analysis of any potential environmental impacts associated with the 
importation of litchi, longan, mango, mangosteen, pineapple, and 
rambutan from Thailand, we have prepared an environmental assessment. 
The environmental assessment was prepared in accordance with: (1) The 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 
4321 et seq.), (2) regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality 
for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-
1508), (3) USDA regulations implementing NEPA (7 CFR part 1b), and (4) 
APHIS' NEPA Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 372).
    The environmental assessment may be viewed on the Regulations.gov 
Web site or in our reading room. (Instructions for accessing 
Regulations.gov and information on the location and hours of the 
reading room are provided under the heading ADDRESSES at the beginning 
of this proposed rule.) In addition, copies may be obtained by calling 
or writing to the individual listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT.

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-
2006-0040. Please send a copy of your comments to: (1) Docket No. 
APHIS-2006-0040, 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.
    The proposed rule would allow the importation of litchi, longan, 
mango, mangosteen, pineapple, and rambutan from Thailand. This change 
would necessitate the use of certain information collection activities, 
including the completion of phytosanitary certificates.
    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 0.159375 hours per response.
    Respondents: Importers of Thai fruit and national plant protection 
organizations.
    Estimated annual number of respondents: 10.
    Estimated annual number of responses per respondent: 32.
    Estimated annual number of responses: 320.
    Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 51 hours. (Due to 
averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of 
the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per 
response.)
    Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Mrs. 
Celeste Sickles, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 
734-7477.

Government Paperwork Elimination Act Compliance

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

List of Subjects

7 CFR Part 305

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

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 parts 305 and 319 as 
follows:

PART 305--PHYTOSANITARY TREATMENTS

    1. The authority citation for part 305 would continue to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7701-7772 and 7781-7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 
136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.

    2. In Sec.  305.2, the table in paragraph (h)(2)(i) would be 
amended by adding, under Thailand, new entries for litchi, longan, 
mango, mangosteen, pineapple, and rambutan to read as follows:


Sec.  305.2  Approved treatments.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) * * *

[[Page 42326]]



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Location                       Commodity                     Pest              Treatment  schedule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Thailand
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
                                      Litchi.................  Plant pests of the class     IR
                                                                Insecta except pupae and
                                                                adults of the order
                                                                Lepidoptera.
                                      Longan.................  Plant pests of the class     IR
                                                                Insecta except pupae and
                                                                adults of the order
                                                                Lepidoptera.
                                      Mango..................  Plant pests of the class     IR
                                                                Insecta except pupae and
                                                                adults of the order
                                                                Lepidoptera.
                                      Mangosteen.............  Plant pests of the class     IR
                                                                Insecta except pupae and
                                                                adults of the order
                                                                Lepidoptera.
                                      Pineapple..............  Plant pests of the class     IR
                                                                Insecta except pupae and
                                                                adults of the order
                                                                Lepidoptera.
                                      Rambutan...............  Plant pests of the class     IR
                                                                Insecta except pupae and
                                                                adults of the order
                                                                Lepidoptera.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

PART 319--OREIGN QUARANTINE NOTICES

    3. The authority citation for part 319 would continue 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.

    4. A new Sec.  319.56-2ss would be added as follows:


Sec.  319.56-2ss  Administrative instructions: Conditions governing the 
entry of certain fruits from Thailand.

    Litchi (Litchi chinensis), longan (Dimocarpus longan), mango 
(Mangifera indica), mangosteen (Garcinia mangoestana L.), pineapple 
(Ananas comosus) and rambutan (Nephelium lappaceum L.) may be imported 
into the United States from Thailand only under the following 
conditions:
    (a) Growing conditions. Litchi, longan, mango, mangosteen, 
pineapple, and rambutan must be grown in a production area that is 
registered with and monitored by the national plant protection 
organization of Thailand.
    (b) Treatment. Litchi, longan, mango, mangosteen, pineapple, and 
rambutan must be treated for plant pests of the class Insecta, except 
pupae and adults of the order Lepidoptera, with irradiation in 
accordance with Sec.  305.31 of this chapter. Treatment must be 
conducted in Thailand prior to importation of the fruits into the 
United States.
    (c) Phytosanitary certificates. (1) Litchi must be accompanied by a 
phytosanitary certificate with an additional declaration stating that 
the litchi were treated with irradiation as described in paragraph (b) 
of this section and that the litchi have been inspected and found to be 
free of Peronophythora litchi.
    (2) Longan, mango, mangosteen, pineapple, and rambutan must be 
accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate with an additional 
declaration stating that the longan, mango, mangosteen, pineapple, or 
rambutan were treated with irradiation as described in paragraph (b) of 
this section.

    Done in Washington, DC, this 20th day of July 2006.
Kevin Shea,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. E6-11941 Filed 7-25-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P