Notice of Decision to Authorize Importation of Fresh Litchi From the Republic of South Africa Into the Continental United States, 81469-81471 [2011-33203]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2011 / Notices
measures listed in paragraph (b) of that
section. Under that process, APHIS
publishes a notice in the Federal
Register announcing the availability of
the PRA that evaluates the risks
associated with the importation of a
particular fruit or vegetable. Following
the close of the 60-day comment period,
APHIS may begin issuing permits for
importation of the fruit or vegetable
subject to the identified designated
measures if: (1) No comments were
received on the PRA; (2) the comments
on the PRA revealed that no changes to
the PRA were necessary; or (3) changes
to the PRA were made in response to
public comments, but the changes did
not affect the overall conclusions of the
analysis and the Administrator’s
determination of risk.
In accordance with that process, we
published a notice 1 in the Federal
Register on August 17, 2011 (76 FR
50992–50993, Docket No. APHIS–2011–
0078), in which we announced the
availability, for review and comment, of
a PRA that evaluated the risks
associated with the importation into the
continental United States of fresh
shredded lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.)
from Egypt. The PRA consisted of a risk
assessment identifying pests of
quarantine significance that could
follow the pathway of importation of
fresh shredded lettuce from Egypt into
the United States and a risk
management document identifying
phytosanitary measures to be applied to
that commodity to mitigate the pest risk.
We solicited comments on the notice for
60 days ending on October 17, 2011. We
received two comments by that date.
One comment from a private citizen
who opposed the importation of
shredded lettuce from Egypt into the
United States did not address any
specific aspect of the PRA.
The other comment, submitted by an
agricultural official representing the
State of Florida, questioned the efficacy
of the post-harvest phytosanitary
measures we included in the PRA. The
commenter agreed with the PRA that
lettuce from Egypt is potentially a host
for several species of destructive leaf
miners but stated that the phytosanitary
measure of shredding lettuce does not
remove the risk of their introduction
into the United States. The commenter
requested that shipments of shredded
lettuce from Egypt not be permitted
entry into Florida until the shipping
protocol has had time to demonstrate
the effectiveness of the mitigation
measures listed in the PRA.
1 To view the notice, the PRA, and the comments
we received, go to https://www.regulations.gov/
#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2011-0078.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:22 Dec 27, 2011
Jkt 226001
Only commercial consignments of
shredded lettuce will be allowed to be
imported from Egypt. Commercial
consignments, as defined in § 319.56–2,
are consignments that an inspector
identifies as having been imported for
sale and distribution. Produce grown
commercially is less likely to be infested
with plant pests than noncommercial
consignments. Noncommercial
consignments are more prone to
infestations because the commodity is
often ripe to overripe, could be of a
variety with unknown susceptibility to
pests, and is often grown with little or
no pest control.
We identified in the PRA 12 pests of
quarantine significance for lettuce from
Egypt that are highly unlikely to follow
the pathway due to the standard postharvest processing practices applied to
commercial consignments of shredded
lettuce from Egypt. Although these 11
arthropods and 1 mollusk affect lettuce
leaves, we took into account the
standard commercial post-harvest
procedures of: (1) Removing outer
leaves; (2) visual inspection and culling,
with cutting; (3) shredding; and (4)
washing and centrifuging. We
concluded that these procedures
sufficiently mitigate the risk of
introducing leaf miners or other plant
pests through the importation of
shredded lettuce from Egypt. The
commenter provided no evidence to
indicate that these measures would not
effectively mitigate the pest risk.
Consignments of shredded lettuce
from Egypt will also be required to be
accompanied by a phytosanitary
certificate of inspection and pest
freedom issued by the national plant
protection organization (NPPO) of
Egypt, with an additional declaration
stating that the shredded lettuce in the
consignment had been inspected and
found free from quarantine pests. This
condition provides additional
assurances that the commercial
production process has removed
quarantine pests from the commodity.
For these reasons, APHIS has
concluded that the mitigations
described will effectively mitigate the
pest risk associated with shredded
lettuce imported from Egypt.
Accordingly, we have determined that
no changes to the PRA are necessary
based on the comment.
Therefore, in accordance with the
regulations in § 319.56–4(c)(2)(ii), we
are announcing our decision to
authorize the importation into the
continental United States of fresh
shredded lettuce from Egypt subject to
the following phytosanitary measures:
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
81469
• The shredded lettuce must be
imported in commercial consignments
only.
• Each consignment of shredded
lettuce leaves must be accompanied by
a phytosanitary certificate issued by the
national plant protection organization of
Egypt with an additional declaration
stating the following: ‘‘Shredded lettuce
leaves in this consignment were
inspected and found free from
quarantine pests.’’
These conditions will be listed in the
Fruits and Vegetables Import
Requirements database (available at
https://www.aphis.usda.gov/favir). In
addition to these specific measures,
shredded lettuce from Egypt will be
subject to the general requirements
listed in § 319.56–3 that are applicable
to the importation of all fruits and
vegetables.
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.
Done in Washington, DC, this 19th day of
December 2011.
Kevin Shea,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 2011–33207 Filed 12–27–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–34–P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service
[Docket No. APHIS–2010–0112]
Notice of Decision to Authorize
Importation of Fresh Litchi From the
Republic of South Africa Into the
Continental United States
Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
We are advising the public of
our decision to authorize the
importation of fresh litchi from the
Republic of South Africa into the
continental United States. Based on the
findings in a pest risk analysis, which
we made available to the public for
review and comment through a previous
notice, we believe that the application
of one or more designated phytosanitary
measures will be sufficient to mitigate
the risks of introducing or disseminating
plant pests or noxious weeds via the
importation of litchi from the Republic
of South Africa.
DATES: Effective Date: December 28,
2011.
SUMMARY:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Marc Phillips, Import Specialist,
E:\FR\FM\28DEN1.SGM
28DEN1
Mr.
81470
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2011 / Notices
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Regulatory Coordination and
Compliance, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River
Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737;
(301) 734–4394.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Under the regulations in ‘‘Subpart—
Fruits and Vegetables’’ (7 CFR 319.56–
1 through 319.56–54, referred to below
as the regulations), the Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)
of the U.S. Department of Agriculture
prohibits or restricts the importation of
fruits and vegetables into the United
States from certain parts of the world to
prevent plant pests from being
introduced into and spread within the
United States.
Section 319.56–4 contains a
performance-based process for
approving the importation of
commodities that, based on the findings
of a pest risk analysis (PRA), can be
safely imported subject to one or more
of the designated phytosanitary
measures listed in paragraph (b) of that
section. Under that process, APHIS
publishes a notice in the Federal
Register announcing the availability of
the PRA that evaluates the risks
associated with the importation of a
particular fruit or vegetable. Following
the close of the 60-day comment period,
APHIS may authorize the importation of
the fruit or vegetable subject to the
identified designated measures if: (1) No
comments were received on the PRA; (2)
the comments on the PRA revealed that
no changes to the PRA were necessary;
or (3) changes to the PRA were made in
response to public comments, but the
changes did not affect the overall
conclusions of the analysis and the
Administrator’s determination of risk.
In accordance with that process, we
published a notice 1 in the Federal
Register on February 2, 2011 (76 FR
5779–5780, Docket No. APHIS–2010–
0112), in which we announced the
availability, for review and comment, of
a PRA that evaluates the risks associated
with the importation into the
continental United States of fresh litchi
(Litchi chinensis) from the Republic of
South Africa. We solicited comments on
the notice for 60 days ending on April
4, 2011. We received six comments by
that date, from a State agriculture
agency, produce importers, a foreign
agricultural research institute, and
foreign produce growers. Three
commenters supported the importation
of litchi from South Africa into the
1 To view the notice, the PRA, and the comments
we received, go to https://www.regulations.gov/
fdmspublic/component/
main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS-2010-0112.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:22 Dec 27, 2011
Jkt 226001
United States. The remaining comments
are discussed below by topic.
Some comments concerned the pests
identified as being associated with litchi
from South Africa in the PRA. One
commenter stated that the pest
Cryptophlebia peltastica is seldom
found in consignments of fresh litchi
and the mitigation measures
recommended for this pest in the risk
management document (RMD) are
unnecessarily strict. Another
commenter stated that, although C.
peltastica may develop in fruit, there are
indications that the pupae only develop
in fruit stored for a long period after
harvest. This commenter described the
results of surveys showing no
interception of C. peltastica and
Thaumatotibia leucotreta pupae in
samples of litchi taken over the course
of two growing seasons.
Because C. peltastica and T.
leucotreta are present in South Africa
and are known pests of litchi, APHIS
must verify that the litchi imported into
the United States is free of these pests,
particularly as the irradiation treatment
we proposed to require is not approved
to neutralize pupae and adults of these
pests. Inspection is a sufficient
mitigation for T. leucotreta pupae and
adults. However, we have determined,
based on published reports cited in the
RMD, that, standard commercial culling
alone (e.g. culling, packing, and
sanitation) would not be sufficient to
mitigate the risk of C. peltastica because
the larvae may pupate inside the fruit.
C. peltastica larvae produce visible
holes on the fruit skin, leaving brown
frass on the surface, which are easily
detectable during inspection.
Accordingly, the mitigation for pupae of
this internal pest is the sampling,
cutting, and inspection of the litchi by
the national plant protection
organization (NPPO) of South Africa.
However, we appreciate being made
aware of the survey activities that
discount the notion that under natural
conditions this fruit serves as a pathway
for C. peltastica pupae. After we have
additional evidence from inspections
and have had the opportunity to review
the data concerning the interception of
C. peltastica on litchi from South Africa,
we will adjust the inspection
requirements if we determine such an
action to be warranted.
Some comments concerned the
proposed treatment of litchi fruit from
South Africa. One commenter stated
that more research is needed on the
irradiation doses required to mitigate
the risk associated with C. peltastica,
and that the circumstantial evidence, as
noted in the RMD, suggests that doses
well below 400 Gy are likely to be
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
sufficient to control all stages of this
pest.
Although some circumstantial
evidence suggests doses below 400 Gy
are likely to be sufficient to control all
life stages of the pest C. peltastica, the
dose sufficient to mitigate the risk
associated with any pupae, and
specifically C. peltastica pupae, has not
been established. The lowest effective
dose must be determined by scientific
evidence before that dose can be used as
a mitigation. We will continue to review
the scientific research in this field and
will update our approved doses if
warranted.
One commenter stated that, because
litchi fruit infested with C. peltastica is
removed during processing in South
Africa, irradiation treatment with
additional inspection for C. peltastica
pupae by APHIS inspectors is
redundant. The commenter
recommended that the preclearance
inspection be conducted by the NPPO of
South Africa or be removed from the
requirements.
When a commodity is irradiated in a
foreign country, APHIS inspectors are
required to perform certain tasks in the
exporting country as specified in the
irradiation facility preclearance
workplan. APHIS involvement in the
exporting country includes monitoring
the treatment and verifying the facility’s
compliance with the standard operating
procedures required under the
irradiation operational workplan.
Meanwhile, the NPPO of the exporting
country is responsible for monitoring,
safeguarding, and conducting
phytosanitary and pre-export inspection
to certify the shipment is free of pests
of concern, including pests that are not
mitigated by the irradiation.
To avoid the treatment of products
that would ultimately be rejected due to
the presence of pests not mitigated by
irradiation, APHIS performs its
preclearance inspection prior to the
commodity being irradiated and rejects
lots containing pests not mitigated by
irradiation before any treatment is
applied. Because the inspections
performed in South Africa by APHIS
and the NPPO of South Africa have
different purposes, both are necessary to
mitigate the risks of introducing or
disseminating plant pests or noxious
weeds via the importation of litchi from
South Africa.
One commenter recommended
adoption of an alternative treatment
efficacy approach for pest risk
management. Another commenter
described a potential method for
researching the feasibility of cold
treatment of litchi infested with C.
peltastica and T. leucotreta. While these
E:\FR\FM\28DEN1.SGM
28DEN1
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2011 / Notices
proposals are interesting, they are
outside the scope of this action.
One commenter stated that the risk of
introducing C. peltastica into the United
States and the consequences of this
introduction were overestimated in the
PRA. This commenter also noted some
typographical errors in the PRA.
Although specific information on the
reproductive capacity of C. peltastica
was not available, we reviewed
reproductive information about similar
species C. illepida and C. ombrodelta.
The discussion of the dispersal potential
for and economic impact of C. peltastica
in the PRA was revised to include this
additional information, which did not
result in a change to the risk rating for
C. peltastica.
We have also amended the RMD
published with the previous notice to
clarify the phytosanitary certificate and
additional declaration requirements for
litchi from South Africa. The revised
PRA is available from the person listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT or from the Regulations.gov
Web site (see footnote 1).
Therefore, in accordance with the
regulations in § 319.56–4(c)(2)(ii), we
are announcing our decision to
authorize the importation into the
continental United States of fresh litchi
from the Republic of South Africa
subject to the following phytosanitary
measures:
• The litchi may be imported into the
continental United States in commercial
consignments only.
• Each consignment must be
inspected by the NPPO of the Republic
of South Africa using a sampling
procedure mutually agreed upon by
APHIS and the NPPO. A representative
sample of fruit must be drawn from each
lot, cut open, inspected, and found free
from any pupae of C. peltastica.
• The litchi must be irradiated in
accordance with 7 CFR part 305 with a
minimum absorbed dose of 400 Gy.
• If the irradiation treatment is
applied outside the United States, each
consignment of fruit must be jointly
inspected by APHIS and the NPPO of
the Republic of South Africa and
accompanied by a phytosanitary
certificate certifying that the fruit
received the required irradiation
treatment with an additional declaration
stating that the consignment was
inspected and found free of C.
peltastica.
• If the irradiation treatment is to be
applied upon arrival in the United
States, each consignment of fruit must
be inspected by the NPPO of the
Republic of South Africa prior to
departure and accompanied by a
phytosanitary certificate with an
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:22 Dec 27, 2011
Jkt 226001
additional declaration stating that the
consignment was inspected and found
free of C. peltastica.
These conditions will be listed in the
Fruits and Vegetables Import
Requirements database (available at
https://www.aphis.usda.gov/favir). In
addition to these specific measures,
litchi from the Republic of South Africa
will be subject to the general
requirements listed in § 319.56–3 that
are applicable to the importation of all
fruits and vegetables. Further, for fruits
and vegetables requiring treatment as a
condition of entry, the phytosanitary
treatments regulations in 7 CFR part 305
contain administrative and procedural
requirements that must be observed in
connection with the application and
certification of specific treatments.
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.
Done in Washington, DC, this 19th day of
December 2011.
Kevin Shea,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 2011–33203 Filed 12–27–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–34–P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Food and Nutrition Service
Agency Information Collection
Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comment Request—Special
Supplemental Nutrition Program for
Women, Infants and Children (WIC)
Forms: FNS–698, FNS–699, and FNS–
700; The Integrity Profile (TIP)
Food and Nutrition Service,
USDA.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
In accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this
notice invites the general public and
other public agencies to comment on
proposed information collections.
DATES: Written comments on this notice
must be received on or before February
27, 2012.
ADDRESSES: Comments are invited on:
(a) Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the
agency, including whether the
information will have practical utility;
(b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate
of the burden of the proposed collection
of information, including the validity of
the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) ways to enhance the quality, utility
and clarity of the information to be
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
81471
burden of the collection of information
on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate
automated, electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection
techniques or other forms of information
technology.
Comments may be sent to: Debra
Whitford, Director, Supplemental Food
Programs Division, Food and Nutrition
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
3101 Park Center Drive, Room 520,
Alexandria, VA 22302. Comments will
also be accepted through the Federal
eRulemaking Portal. Go to https://
www.regulations.gov, and follow the
online instructions for submitting
comments electronically.
All responses to this notice will be
summarized and included in the request
for OMB approval, and will become a
matter of public record.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Requests for additional information or
copies of the information collection
form and instructions should be
directed to Joan Carroll, (703) 305–2746.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Title: WIC Financial Management and
Participation Report with Addendum.
OMB Number: 0584–0401.
Expiration Date: 02–29–2012.
Type of Request: Extension, without
change, of a Currently Approved
Collection.
Abstract: Each year, WIC State
agencies administering the Special
Supplemental Nutrition Program for
Women, Infants and Children (WIC) are
required by 7 CFR 246.12(j)(5) to submit
to FNS an annual summary of the
results of their vendor monitoring
efforts in order to provide Congress,
senior FNS officials, as well as the
general public, assurance that every
reasonable effort is being made to
ensure integrity in the WIC Program.
State agencies use the TIP web-based
system to report the information. The
number of State agencies reporting
remains at 90, which includes 50
geographic State agencies, 34 Indian
Tribal Organizations, the District of
Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, American
Samoa, the Commonwealth of the
Northern Marianas, and the Virgin
Islands. The reporting burden consists
of three automated forms, the FNS–698,
FNS–699 and FNS–700. The FNS–698
and FNS–699 are used to report State
agency summary data, whereas the
FNS–700 is used to capture information
on each authorized WIC vendor. The
number of vendors authorized by each
WIC State agency varies from State to
State. There are no changes in the
burden hours associated with collection.
Estimate of Burden: Public reporting
burden for this collection of information
E:\FR\FM\28DEN1.SGM
28DEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 249 (Wednesday, December 28, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 81469-81471]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-33203]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
[Docket No. APHIS-2010-0112]
Notice of Decision to Authorize Importation of Fresh Litchi From
the Republic of South Africa Into the Continental United States
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are advising the public of our decision to authorize the
importation of fresh litchi from the Republic of South Africa into the
continental United States. Based on the findings in a pest risk
analysis, which we made available to the public for review and comment
through a previous notice, we believe that the application of one or
more designated phytosanitary measures will be sufficient to mitigate
the risks of introducing or disseminating plant pests or noxious weeds
via the importation of litchi from the Republic of South Africa.
DATES: Effective Date: December 28, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Marc Phillips, Import Specialist,
[[Page 81470]]
Regulatory Coordination and Compliance, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road
Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 734-4394.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Under the regulations in ``Subpart--Fruits and Vegetables'' (7 CFR
319.56-1 through 319.56-54, referred to below as the regulations), the
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture prohibits or restricts the importation of
fruits and vegetables into the United States from certain parts of the
world to prevent plant pests from being introduced into and spread
within the United States.
Section 319.56-4 contains a performance-based process for approving
the importation of commodities that, based on the findings of a pest
risk analysis (PRA), can be safely imported subject to one or more of
the designated phytosanitary measures listed in paragraph (b) of that
section. Under that process, APHIS publishes a notice in the Federal
Register announcing the availability of the PRA that evaluates the
risks associated with the importation of a particular fruit or
vegetable. Following the close of the 60-day comment period, APHIS may
authorize the importation of the fruit or vegetable subject to the
identified designated measures if: (1) No comments were received on the
PRA; (2) the comments on the PRA revealed that no changes to the PRA
were necessary; or (3) changes to the PRA were made in response to
public comments, but the changes did not affect the overall conclusions
of the analysis and the Administrator's determination of risk.
In accordance with that process, we published a notice \1\ in the
Federal Register on February 2, 2011 (76 FR 5779-5780, Docket No.
APHIS-2010-0112), in which we announced the availability, for review
and comment, of a PRA that evaluates the risks associated with the
importation into the continental United States of fresh litchi (Litchi
chinensis) from the Republic of South Africa. We solicited comments on
the notice for 60 days ending on April 4, 2011. We received six
comments by that date, from a State agriculture agency, produce
importers, a foreign agricultural research institute, and foreign
produce growers. Three commenters supported the importation of litchi
from South Africa into the United States. The remaining comments are
discussed below by topic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ To view the notice, the PRA, and the comments we received,
go to https://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS-2010-0112.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some comments concerned the pests identified as being associated
with litchi from South Africa in the PRA. One commenter stated that the
pest Cryptophlebia peltastica is seldom found in consignments of fresh
litchi and the mitigation measures recommended for this pest in the
risk management document (RMD) are unnecessarily strict. Another
commenter stated that, although C. peltastica may develop in fruit,
there are indications that the pupae only develop in fruit stored for a
long period after harvest. This commenter described the results of
surveys showing no interception of C. peltastica and Thaumatotibia
leucotreta pupae in samples of litchi taken over the course of two
growing seasons.
Because C. peltastica and T. leucotreta are present in South Africa
and are known pests of litchi, APHIS must verify that the litchi
imported into the United States is free of these pests, particularly as
the irradiation treatment we proposed to require is not approved to
neutralize pupae and adults of these pests. Inspection is a sufficient
mitigation for T. leucotreta pupae and adults. However, we have
determined, based on published reports cited in the RMD, that, standard
commercial culling alone (e.g. culling, packing, and sanitation) would
not be sufficient to mitigate the risk of C. peltastica because the
larvae may pupate inside the fruit. C. peltastica larvae produce
visible holes on the fruit skin, leaving brown frass on the surface,
which are easily detectable during inspection. Accordingly, the
mitigation for pupae of this internal pest is the sampling, cutting,
and inspection of the litchi by the national plant protection
organization (NPPO) of South Africa.
However, we appreciate being made aware of the survey activities
that discount the notion that under natural conditions this fruit
serves as a pathway for C. peltastica pupae. After we have additional
evidence from inspections and have had the opportunity to review the
data concerning the interception of C. peltastica on litchi from South
Africa, we will adjust the inspection requirements if we determine such
an action to be warranted.
Some comments concerned the proposed treatment of litchi fruit from
South Africa. One commenter stated that more research is needed on the
irradiation doses required to mitigate the risk associated with C.
peltastica, and that the circumstantial evidence, as noted in the RMD,
suggests that doses well below 400 Gy are likely to be sufficient to
control all stages of this pest.
Although some circumstantial evidence suggests doses below 400 Gy
are likely to be sufficient to control all life stages of the pest C.
peltastica, the dose sufficient to mitigate the risk associated with
any pupae, and specifically C. peltastica pupae, has not been
established. The lowest effective dose must be determined by scientific
evidence before that dose can be used as a mitigation. We will continue
to review the scientific research in this field and will update our
approved doses if warranted.
One commenter stated that, because litchi fruit infested with C.
peltastica is removed during processing in South Africa, irradiation
treatment with additional inspection for C. peltastica pupae by APHIS
inspectors is redundant. The commenter recommended that the
preclearance inspection be conducted by the NPPO of South Africa or be
removed from the requirements.
When a commodity is irradiated in a foreign country, APHIS
inspectors are required to perform certain tasks in the exporting
country as specified in the irradiation facility preclearance workplan.
APHIS involvement in the exporting country includes monitoring the
treatment and verifying the facility's compliance with the standard
operating procedures required under the irradiation operational
workplan. Meanwhile, the NPPO of the exporting country is responsible
for monitoring, safeguarding, and conducting phytosanitary and pre-
export inspection to certify the shipment is free of pests of concern,
including pests that are not mitigated by the irradiation.
To avoid the treatment of products that would ultimately be
rejected due to the presence of pests not mitigated by irradiation,
APHIS performs its preclearance inspection prior to the commodity being
irradiated and rejects lots containing pests not mitigated by
irradiation before any treatment is applied. Because the inspections
performed in South Africa by APHIS and the NPPO of South Africa have
different purposes, both are necessary to mitigate the risks of
introducing or disseminating plant pests or noxious weeds via the
importation of litchi from South Africa.
One commenter recommended adoption of an alternative treatment
efficacy approach for pest risk management. Another commenter described
a potential method for researching the feasibility of cold treatment of
litchi infested with C. peltastica and T. leucotreta. While these
[[Page 81471]]
proposals are interesting, they are outside the scope of this action.
One commenter stated that the risk of introducing C. peltastica
into the United States and the consequences of this introduction were
overestimated in the PRA. This commenter also noted some typographical
errors in the PRA.
Although specific information on the reproductive capacity of C.
peltastica was not available, we reviewed reproductive information
about similar species C. illepida and C. ombrodelta. The discussion of
the dispersal potential for and economic impact of C. peltastica in the
PRA was revised to include this additional information, which did not
result in a change to the risk rating for C. peltastica.
We have also amended the RMD published with the previous notice to
clarify the phytosanitary certificate and additional declaration
requirements for litchi from South Africa. The revised PRA is available
from the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or from
the Regulations.gov Web site (see footnote 1).
Therefore, in accordance with the regulations in Sec. 319.56-
4(c)(2)(ii), we are announcing our decision to authorize the
importation into the continental United States of fresh litchi from the
Republic of South Africa subject to the following phytosanitary
measures:
The litchi may be imported into the continental United
States in commercial consignments only.
Each consignment must be inspected by the NPPO of the
Republic of South Africa using a sampling procedure mutually agreed
upon by APHIS and the NPPO. A representative sample of fruit must be
drawn from each lot, cut open, inspected, and found free from any pupae
of C. peltastica.
The litchi must be irradiated in accordance with 7 CFR
part 305 with a minimum absorbed dose of 400 Gy.
If the irradiation treatment is applied outside the United
States, each consignment of fruit must be jointly inspected by APHIS
and the NPPO of the Republic of South Africa and accompanied by a
phytosanitary certificate certifying that the fruit received the
required irradiation treatment with an additional declaration stating
that the consignment was inspected and found free of C. peltastica.
If the irradiation treatment is to be applied upon arrival
in the United States, each consignment of fruit must be inspected by
the NPPO of the Republic of South Africa prior to departure and
accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate with an additional
declaration stating that the consignment was inspected and found free
of C. peltastica.
These conditions will be listed in the Fruits and Vegetables Import
Requirements database (available at https://www.aphis.usda.gov/favir).
In addition to these specific measures, litchi from the Republic of
South Africa will be subject to the general requirements listed in
Sec. 319.56-3 that are applicable to the importation of all fruits and
vegetables. Further, for fruits and vegetables requiring treatment as a
condition of entry, the phytosanitary treatments regulations in 7 CFR
part 305 contain administrative and procedural requirements that must
be observed in connection with the application and certification of
specific treatments.
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.
Done in Washington, DC, this 19th day of December 2011.
Kevin Shea,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-33203 Filed 12-27-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
