Changes to Treatments for Sweet Cherries from Australia and Irradiation Dose for Mediterranean Fruit Fly, 46901-46902 [2010-19135]
Download as PDF
46901
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 4, 2010 / Notices
31.5 hours; local office SNAP staff, 231
hours; vendor staff, 21 hours;
community partner staff, 90 hours;
SNAP participants, 200 hours; eligible
non-participants, 200 hours. In addition,
respondents who elect not to participate
Affected public
State, Local and Tribal
Agencies.
in the focus groups (refusers), the
estimated total burden is 60.1 hours.
The number of refusers is based on the
assumption that in order to have 240
respondents ultimately attend the focus
groups, 480 persons will need to be
Estimated
number
respondents
Respondent type
Responses
annually per
respondent
recruited. And in order for 480 persons
to be recruited, twice as many persons,
or 960, will need to be contacted
initially.
Total annual
responses
Estimated avg.
number of
hours per
response
Estimated total
hours
State SNAP staff ...............
33
1
33
1.5
49.5
District/County SNAP staff
Call Center staff or centralized operation unit staff.
Local office SNAP staff .....
84
21
1
1
84
21
1.5
1.5
126.0
31.5
154
1
154
1.5
231.0
Business (for and not-forprofit).
Vendor staff .......................
Community partner staff ....
14
60
1
1
14
60
1.5
1.5
21.0
90.0
Individuals & Households ..
SNAP participants* ............
SNAP eligible
nonparticipants*.
Non-Responders (Focus
group).
120
120
1
1
120
120
1.667
1.667
200.0
200.0
720
1
720
0.0835
60.1
1,326
........................
1,326
..........................
1,009.1
Total ............................
............................................
* Focus Group members will participate in a brief screening call or interview, participate in the focus group, and receive a reminder call and letter prior to the focus group.
** Focus Group refusers will participate in a brief screening call or interview.
Dated: July 23, 2010.
Julia Paradis,
Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service.
Treatments, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River
Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 207371231; (301) 734-0627.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
[FR Doc. 2010–19074 Filed 8–3–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–30–P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service
[Docket No. APHIS-2008-0140]
Changes to Treatments for Sweet
Cherries from Australia and Irradiation
Dose for Mediterranean Fruit Fly
Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice of changes to
phytosanitary treatments.
AGENCY:
We are advising the public
that we are adding new approved
phytosanitary treatment schedules to
the Plant Protection and Quarantine
Treatment Manual for sweet cherries
imported from Australia into the United
States. We are also adding to the
treatment manual a new approved
irradiation dose for Mediterranean fruit
fly of 100 gray. These new treatments
will continue to prevent the
introduction or interstate movement of
quarantine pests in the United States.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.
Inder P.S. Gadh, Senior Risk Manager–
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:20 Aug 03, 2010
Jkt 220001
Background
The phytosanitary treatments
regulations contained in 7 CFR part 305
(referred to below as the regulations) set
out general requirements for conducting
treatments indicated in the Plant
Protection and Quarantine (PPQ)
Treatment Manual1 for fruits,
vegetables, and articles to prevent the
introduction or dissemination of plant
pests or noxious weeds into or through
the United States.
On October 19, 2009, we published in
the Federal Register (74 FR 5342453430, Docket No. APHIS-2008-0140) a
proposal2 to amend the regulations by
adding new treatment schedules for
sweet cherries and for certain species of
citrus fruit imported from Australia into
the United States.3 We also proposed to
1 The PPQ Treatment Manual can be viewed on
the Internet at (https://www.aphis.usda.gov/
import_export/plants/manuals/ports/
treatment.shtml).
2 To view the proposed rule, the comments we
received, and the treatment evaluation document,
go to (https://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/
component/main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS2008-0140).
3 The treatment schedules for citrus fruit from
Australia that we had proposed will be published
in the PPQ Treatment Manual at a later date. When
these schedules are published, we will publish a
notice of these changes in the Federal Register.
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
establish an approved irradiation dose
for Mediterranean fruit fly (Medfly) of
100 gray. Our analysis of the efficacy of
the proposed treatments was presented
in a treatment evaluation document that
was made available with the proposed
rule.
We solicited comments concerning
our proposal for 60 days ending
December 18, 2009, and received five
comments by that date. They were from
a State plant protection official, a
research entomologist, a foreign national
plant protection organization
representative, and two students. We
have carefully considered the comments
we received. One commenter simply
pointed out a misspelling in a footnote.
The issues raised by the remaining
commenters are discussed below.
One commenter, while agreeing with
the changes we proposed, expressed
concern that the proposal mentioned no
requirement for field monitoring of fruit
flies or subsequent field treatment when
fruit fly populations exceed a defined
limit. The commenter added that even
if the treatments we propose achieve a
probit-9 level of efficacy, the possibility
remains that heavy infestations of fruit
flies could overwhelm the treatments.
The national plant protection
organization (NPPO) of Australia is a
signatory to the International Plant
Protection Convention (IPPC) and
therefore observes IPPC guidelines for
pest surveillance, monitoring, and
E:\FR\FM\04AUN1.SGM
04AUN1
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
46902
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 4, 2010 / Notices
information collection in its production
areas. Should fruit fly populations
increase in these areas, the Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)
would have the information and
resources readily at hand to respond
effectively.
Another commenter who agreed with
our proposed treatment changes asked
whether the reduced irradiation dose of
100 gray we proposed as a treatment for
Medfly would result in improved fruit
quality and longer shelf life for sweet
cherries.
We have no evidence to suggest that
a 100 gray dose would result in
improved fruit quality or shelf life. In
fact, our experience indicates that an
irradiation dose of 150 gray has no
discernible positive or negative effect on
fruit quality, making it less likely that a
dose of 100 gray will have any such
effect.
The same commenter also wanted to
know if the reduced irradiation dose we
proposed for Medfly would be effective
for other types of fruit flies.
We have established that the 100 gray
dose is effective against certain species
of Anastrepha and Bactrocera fruit flies
and the approved irradiation doses
listed for these species in the PPQ
Treatment Manual are already 100 gray
or lower. For all other fruit flies of the
family Tephritidae, the approved dose is
150 gray. Additional testing would be
necessary to confirm whether a 100 gray
dose would serve as an efficacious
treatment for other species of fruit fly.
One commenter stated that the
proposed treatment changes would
allow the Australian cherry industry to
benefit unfairly from lower treatment
costs, thereby putting emerging cherryproducing countries in the Middle East
such as Turkey and Iran at an economic
disadvantage in the world cherry
market.
The treatments discussed in the
proposed rule with respect to Australia
are specific to the pests present there,
Medfly and Queensland fruit fly, and
were evaluated with respect to their
efficacy, not their costs. Cherries from
another region with the same pest
complex could be treated in the same
manner, so we disagree that Australian
cherry producers are receiving any sort
of unfair benefit.
Another commenter, a representative
of the Australian NPPO, observed that
the State of Tasmania is not included in
the areas of Australia listed by APHIS as
free of fruit flies. The commenter noted
that the APHIS Fruits and Vegetables
Import Requirements database
specifically lists cherries, apples, and
pears from Tasmania as being permitted
access to the United States without the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:43 Aug 03, 2010
Jkt 220001
requirement for a phytosanitary
treatment for fruit flies. The commenter
asked that Tasmania be added to APHIS’
list of approved pest-free areas.
For a given plant pest, APHIS makes
a distinction between pest-free areas
and areas that have never been known
to support that pest in sufficient
numbers to be a threat to agriculture;
Tasmania is an example of the latter
with regard to fruit flies. If a particular
quarantine pest has never been known
to be associated with the regulated
article in the country or region of origin,
we do not usually include that country
or region on the list of pest-free areas for
that pest. Because the cooler climate
and geographical isolation of Tasmania
inhibit a resident fruit fly population
from establishing itself there, we do not
consider it necessary to include
Tasmania on the list of approved pestfree areas.
Revision of Treatments Regulations
Following the publication of our
October 2009 proposed rule, we
published a final rule that amended the
regulations by removing all
phytosanitary treatments and treatment
schedules from 7 CFR part 305, while
retaining general treatment
requirements.4 The sections in part 305
we had proposed to amend no longer
exist, so the modified treatments will
instead be added to the appropriate
sections of the PPQ Treatment Manual.
The regulations now indicate that all
approved treatments and treatment
schedules are contained in the PPQ
Treatment Manual.
Accordingly, the PPQ Treatment
Manual has been amended to include
the new treatments for sweet cherries
from Australia and a specific irradiation
dose of 100 gray for Medfly.
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.
ACTION:
Notice of meeting.
The Ketchikan Resource
Advisory Committee will meet in
Ketchikan, Alaska, August 18, 2010. The
purpose of this meeting is to discuss
potential projects under the Secure
Rural Schools and Community SelfDetermination Act of 2008.
DATES: The meeting will be held August
18, 2010 at 6 p.m.
ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at
the Ketchikan-Misty Fjords Ranger
District, 3031 Tongass Avenue,
Ketchikan, Alaska. Send written
comments to Ketchikan Resource
Advisory Committee, c/o District
Ranger, USDA Forest Service, 3031
Tongass Ave., Ketchikan, AK 99901, or
electronically to Diane Daniels, RAC
Coordinator at ddaniels@fs.fed.us.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Diane Daniels, RAC Coordinator
Ketchikan-Misty Fjords Ranger District,
Tongass National Forest, (907) 228–
4105.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
meeting is open to the public.
Committee discussion is limited to
Forest Service staff and Committee
members. However, public input
opportunity will be provided and
individuals will have the opportunity to
address the Committee at that time.
SUMMARY:
Dated: July 26, 2010.
Jeff DeFreest,
District Ranger.
[FR Doc. 2010–19042 Filed 8–3–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–11–M
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
West Virginia Resource Advisory
Committee
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
Done in Washington, DC, this 29th day
of July 2010.
AGENCY:
Kevin Shea
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service.
SUMMARY:
[FR Doc. 2010–19135 Filed 8–3–10; 10:12 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–34–S
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Ketchikan Resource Advisory
Committee
AGENCY:
Forest Service, USDA.
4 75 FR 4228-4253, Docket No. APHIS-2008-0022,
published January 26, 2010, and effective February
25, 2010.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
ACTION:
The West Virginia Resource
Advisory Committee will meet in
Elkins, West Virginia. The committee is
meeting as authorized under the Secure
Rural Schools and Community SelfDetermination Act (Pub. L. 110–343)
and in compliance with the Federal
Advisory Committee Act. The purpose
is to hold the first meeting of the newly
formed committee.
DATES: The meeting will be held on
August 27, 2010, and will begin at 10
a.m.
ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at
the Monongahela National Forest
Supervisor’s Office, 200 Sycamore
Street, Elkins, WV 26241. Written
E:\FR\FM\04AUN1.SGM
04AUN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 149 (Wednesday, August 4, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46901-46902]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-19135]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
[Docket No. APHIS-2008-0140]
Changes to Treatments for Sweet Cherries from Australia and
Irradiation Dose for Mediterranean Fruit Fly
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice of changes to phytosanitary treatments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are advising the public that we are adding new approved
phytosanitary treatment schedules to the Plant Protection and
Quarantine Treatment Manual for sweet cherries imported from Australia
into the United States. We are also adding to the treatment manual a
new approved irradiation dose for Mediterranean fruit fly of 100 gray.
These new treatments will continue to prevent the introduction or
interstate movement of quarantine pests in the United States.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Inder P.S. Gadh, Senior Risk
Manager-Treatments, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD
20737-1231; (301) 734-0627.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The phytosanitary treatments regulations contained in 7 CFR part
305 (referred to below as the regulations) set out general requirements
for conducting treatments indicated in the Plant Protection and
Quarantine (PPQ) Treatment Manual\1\ for fruits, vegetables, and
articles to prevent the introduction or dissemination of plant pests or
noxious weeds into or through the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The PPQ Treatment Manual can be viewed on the Internet at
(https://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/plants/manuals/ports/treatment.shtml).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 19, 2009, we published in the Federal Register (74 FR
53424-53430, Docket No. APHIS-2008-0140) a proposal\2\ to amend the
regulations by adding new treatment schedules for sweet cherries and
for certain species of citrus fruit imported from Australia into the
United States.\3\ We also proposed to establish an approved irradiation
dose for Mediterranean fruit fly (Medfly) of 100 gray. Our analysis of
the efficacy of the proposed treatments was presented in a treatment
evaluation document that was made available with the proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ To view the proposed rule, the comments we received, and the
treatment evaluation document, go to (https://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS-2008-0140).
\3\ The treatment schedules for citrus fruit from Australia that
we had proposed will be published in the PPQ Treatment Manual at a
later date. When these schedules are published, we will publish a
notice of these changes in the Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We solicited comments concerning our proposal for 60 days ending
December 18, 2009, and received five comments by that date. They were
from a State plant protection official, a research entomologist, a
foreign national plant protection organization representative, and two
students. We have carefully considered the comments we received. One
commenter simply pointed out a misspelling in a footnote. The issues
raised by the remaining commenters are discussed below.
One commenter, while agreeing with the changes we proposed,
expressed concern that the proposal mentioned no requirement for field
monitoring of fruit flies or subsequent field treatment when fruit fly
populations exceed a defined limit. The commenter added that even if
the treatments we propose achieve a probit-9 level of efficacy, the
possibility remains that heavy infestations of fruit flies could
overwhelm the treatments.
The national plant protection organization (NPPO) of Australia is a
signatory to the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) and
therefore observes IPPC guidelines for pest surveillance, monitoring,
and
[[Page 46902]]
information collection in its production areas. Should fruit fly
populations increase in these areas, the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS) would have the information and resources
readily at hand to respond effectively.
Another commenter who agreed with our proposed treatment changes
asked whether the reduced irradiation dose of 100 gray we proposed as a
treatment for Medfly would result in improved fruit quality and longer
shelf life for sweet cherries.
We have no evidence to suggest that a 100 gray dose would result in
improved fruit quality or shelf life. In fact, our experience indicates
that an irradiation dose of 150 gray has no discernible positive or
negative effect on fruit quality, making it less likely that a dose of
100 gray will have any such effect.
The same commenter also wanted to know if the reduced irradiation
dose we proposed for Medfly would be effective for other types of fruit
flies.
We have established that the 100 gray dose is effective against
certain species of Anastrepha and Bactrocera fruit flies and the
approved irradiation doses listed for these species in the PPQ
Treatment Manual are already 100 gray or lower. For all other fruit
flies of the family Tephritidae, the approved dose is 150 gray.
Additional testing would be necessary to confirm whether a 100 gray
dose would serve as an efficacious treatment for other species of fruit
fly.
One commenter stated that the proposed treatment changes would
allow the Australian cherry industry to benefit unfairly from lower
treatment costs, thereby putting emerging cherry-producing countries in
the Middle East such as Turkey and Iran at an economic disadvantage in
the world cherry market.
The treatments discussed in the proposed rule with respect to
Australia are specific to the pests present there, Medfly and
Queensland fruit fly, and were evaluated with respect to their
efficacy, not their costs. Cherries from another region with the same
pest complex could be treated in the same manner, so we disagree that
Australian cherry producers are receiving any sort of unfair benefit.
Another commenter, a representative of the Australian NPPO,
observed that the State of Tasmania is not included in the areas of
Australia listed by APHIS as free of fruit flies. The commenter noted
that the APHIS Fruits and Vegetables Import Requirements database
specifically lists cherries, apples, and pears from Tasmania as being
permitted access to the United States without the requirement for a
phytosanitary treatment for fruit flies. The commenter asked that
Tasmania be added to APHIS' list of approved pest-free areas.
For a given plant pest, APHIS makes a distinction between pest-free
areas and areas that have never been known to support that pest in
sufficient numbers to be a threat to agriculture; Tasmania is an
example of the latter with regard to fruit flies. If a particular
quarantine pest has never been known to be associated with the
regulated article in the country or region of origin, we do not usually
include that country or region on the list of pest-free areas for that
pest. Because the cooler climate and geographical isolation of Tasmania
inhibit a resident fruit fly population from establishing itself there,
we do not consider it necessary to include Tasmania on the list of
approved pest-free areas.
Revision of Treatments Regulations
Following the publication of our October 2009 proposed rule, we
published a final rule that amended the regulations by removing all
phytosanitary treatments and treatment schedules from 7 CFR part 305,
while retaining general treatment requirements.\4\ The sections in part
305 we had proposed to amend no longer exist, so the modified
treatments will instead be added to the appropriate sections of the PPQ
Treatment Manual. The regulations now indicate that all approved
treatments and treatment schedules are contained in the PPQ Treatment
Manual.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 75 FR 4228-4253, Docket No. APHIS-2008-0022, published
January 26, 2010, and effective February 25, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, the PPQ Treatment Manual has been amended to include
the new treatments for sweet cherries from Australia and a specific
irradiation dose of 100 gray for Medfly.
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.
Done in Washington, DC, this 29\th\ day of July 2010.
Kevin Shea
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-19135 Filed 8-3-10; 10:12 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-S