Importation of Mangoes From Australia Into the Continental United States, 57467-57470 [2013-22786]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
57467
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
Vol. 78, No. 182
Thursday, September 19, 2013
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains regulatory documents having general
applicability and legal effect, most of which
are keyed to and codified in the Code of
Federal Regulations, which is published under
50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by
the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of
new books are listed in the first FEDERAL
REGISTER issue of each week.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service
7 CFR Part 319
[Docket No. APHIS–2011–0040]
RIN 0579–AD52
Importation of Mangoes From Australia
Into the Continental United States
Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
We are amending the
regulations concerning the importation
of fruits and vegetables to allow the
importation of fresh mangoes from
Australia into the continental United
States. As a condition of entry, the
mangoes would have to be produced in
accordance with a systems approach
employing a combination of mitigation
measures for the fungus Cytosphaera
mangiferae and would have to be
inspected prior to exportation from
Australia and found free of this disease.
The mangoes would have to be
imported in commercial consignments
only and would have to be treated by
irradiation to mitigate the risk of the
mango seed weevil and fruit flies. The
mangoes would also have to be
accompanied by a phytosanitary
certificate with an additional
declaration that the conditions for
importation have been met. This action
would allow the importation of mangoes
from Australia while continuing to
protect against the introduction of plant
pests into the United States.
DATES: Effective Date: October 21, 2013.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.
Inder P. S. Gadh, Senior Risk Manager–
Treatments, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River
Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737–
1236; (301) 851–2018.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:29 Sep 18, 2013
Jkt 229001
Background
The regulations in ‘‘Subpart—Fruits
and Vegetables’’ (7 CFR 319.56–1
through 319.56–59, referred to below as
the regulations) prohibit or restrict the
importation of fruits and vegetables into
the United States from certain parts of
the world to prevent the introduction
and dissemination of plant pests that are
new to or not widely distributed within
the United States.
The national plant protection
organization (NPPO) of Australia has
requested that the Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service (APHIS)
amend the regulations to allow fresh
mangoes from Australia to be imported
into the continental United States under
a combination of mitigations to reduce
the risk of introducing plant pests.
On October 25, 2011, we published in
the Federal Register (76 FR 65988–
65991, Docket No. APHIS–2011–0040) a
proposal 1 to amend the regulations
concerning the importation of fruits and
vegetables to allow the importation of
fresh mangoes from Australia into the
continental United States. We prepared
a pest risk assessment (PRA), titled
‘‘Importation of Fresh Fruit of Mango,
Mangifera indica L., from Australia into
the Continental United States: A
Pathway-initiated Risk Analysis’’ (June
2011). The PRA evaluated the risks
associated with the importation of
mangoes into the continental United
States from Australia. Based on the
information contained in the PRA,
APHIS determined that measures
beyond standard port-of-entry
inspection are required to mitigate the
risks posed by these quarantine pests.
To recommend specific measures to
mitigate those risks, we prepared a risk
management document (RMD).
Based on the RMD, we proposed
requirements for mangoes to be
produced in accordance with a systems
approach employing a combination of
mitigation measures for the fungus
Cytosphaera mangiferae and to be
inspected prior to exportation from
Australia and found free of this disease.
We proposed to require the mangoes to
be imported in commercial
consignments only and to be treated by
irradiation to mitigate the risk of the
mango seed weevil and fruit flies. We
1 To view the proposed rule, PRA, RMD, and the
comments we received, go to https://
www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS2011-0040.
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
also proposed to require the mangoes to
be accompanied by a phytosanitary
certificate with an additional
declaration that the conditions for
importation have been met.
We solicited comments concerning
the PRA and RMD for 60 days ending
December 27, 2011. We received three
comments by that date. They were from
a State department of agriculture, a
group of State departments of
agriculture, and the Government of
Australia. The comments are discussed
below.
In order to mitigate the risks posed by
C. mangiferae, which we consider to be
of medium risk of introduction and
dissemination within the continental
United States, we proposed three
options: (1) The mangoes be treated
with a broad-spectrum post-harvest
fungicidal dip, (2) the mangoes originate
from an orchard that was inspected
prior to the beginning of harvest during
the growing season and the orchard was
found free of C. mangiferae, or (3) the
mangoes originate from an orchard that
was treated with a broad-spectrum
fungicide during the growing season
and was inspected prior to harvest and
the fruit was found free of C.
mangiferae.
One commenter was in support of
these three mitigation options for C.
mangiferae; however, the commenter
stated that requiring packinghouse
inspection to determine freedom from
symptoms is unnecessary if one of the
fungicide treatment options is
administered.
We consider the inspection at the
packinghouse to be necessary to ensure
that the fungicide treatments were
effective. Conducting a final
phytosanitary inspection to ensure
freedom from pests is standard
procedure for all import commodities.
Overlapping mitigation measures such
as treatment and inspection are
characteristic of system approaches.
APHIS requires the same mitigation
options for C. mangiferae for mangoes
imported from India and Pakistan, a
policy that has resulted in no
interceptions of the disease at U.S. ports
of entry.
One commenter suggested that the
systems approach include both the use
of a pre-harvest broad spectrum
fungicide and the use of a broadspectrum post-harvest fungicidal dip to
prevent the introduction of C.
E:\FR\FM\19SER1.SGM
19SER1
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
57468
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
mangiferae, in addition to packinghouse
and port of entry inspections.
We have determined that requiring
both treatments is unnecessary since C.
mangiferae has not been found during
inspections of mangoes imported from
India and Pakistan under the same
mitigation measures, which indicates
that those measures are effective.
One commenter requested the
removal of all mitigation measures for
Fusarium spp. associated with mango
malformation disease (MMD). The
commenter stated that MMD is not
considered a quarantine pest by the
United States with respect to mangoes
imported from other countries. In
addition, the commenter presented
evidence that MMD has been
successfully eradicated from Australia
and that the sole pathogen associated
with MMD in Australia is Fusarium
mangiferae, which is already present in
the United States. Furthermore, the
commenter stated that studies indicate
that commercially produced mangoes
are not a pathway for the introduction
of MMD.
We consider MMD to be a quarantine
pest for all countries; when susceptible
commodities have been authorized for
importation without MMD mitigations,
we have administratively added
requirements for MMD. However, based
on the information provided by the
commenter, we have determined that F.
mangiferae is the sole causal agent
associated with MMD in Australia and
that it is absent from Australia due to
Australia’s successful official control
efforts for MMD. In response, we have
revised the PRA and the RMD to reflect
Australia’s freedom from causal agents
associated with MMD, and this final
rule omits the proposed mitigations for
Fusarium spp. complex associated with
MMD.
The PRA identified Lasiodiplodia
pseudotheobromae, Neoscytalidium
novaehollandiae, Neofusicoccum
mangiferae, and Pseudofusicoccum
adansoniae as pathogens associated
with mangoes. One commenter stated
that there is no evidence that these
pathogens are associated with mango
fruit in natural environments; all work
cited in the PRA as establishing these
pathogens as pests of mangoes was
under artificial conditions. The
commenter noted the conditions
proposed for Australian mangoes
require that mangoes be imported to the
continental United States in commercial
consignments only, which would
remove these pathogens from the
pathway. In addition, the commenter
stated that the PRA only mentions N.
mangiferae in the introduction and
presents no evidence that this species is
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:29 Sep 18, 2013
Jkt 229001
associated with mango fruit. Therefore,
the commenter requested that
requirements related to these pathogens
be removed from the rule.
The PRA addressed N. mangiferae
and included additional references that
document the stem end rot (SER) of
mango fruit caused by N. mangiferae
known to occur in Australia. The
pathogen also has been documented
under many synonyms (Dothiorella
mangiferae, Nattrassia mangiferae, and
Fusicoccum mangiferum), which may
account for the confusion about this
species associated with mango fruit rot
in Australia.
The remaining species, L.
pseudotheobromae, N. novaehollandiae,
and P. adansoniae, are recently reported
and appear to have limited distribution
in Australia. These pathogens were
isolated from stems and twigs of mango
trees showing dieback and canker
symptoms in orchards, were shown to
infect fruit in artificial inoculations, and
were not isolated from naturally
infected mango fruit. However, a range
of other related fungal species cause
SER of mango, including
Neofusicoccum parvum, Neofusicoccum
mangiferae, Botryosphaeria dothidea,
and Lasiodiplodia theobromae. These
pathogens may become established in
mango plants without expressing
symptoms, but stress or ripening trigger
disease development, expressed as SER,
cankers, and mango decline. These
newly reported pathogens of mango
likely occupy a similar niche associated
with mango in which the pathogens
switch from quiescent to pathogenic in
the plant tissue, and may affect a range
of plant parts of their hosts. For this
reason, these pathogens are considered
to follow the pathway with mango fruit
in trade. All of these details and
corresponding references are included
in the PRA. Therefore, we stand by our
determination that the conditions we
proposed to mitigate those pathogens
are necessary.
One commenter requested that we
add two mitigation options for the
mango seed weevil (Sternochetus
mangiferae) for mangoes from specific
areas of Australia. The commenter
suggests that we accept area freedom
from the mango seed weevil for Western
Australia and pest free places of
production for the mango seed weevil
for the Katherine production area of the
Northern Territory.
With regard to the proposal for area
freedom from the mango seed weevil
from Western Australia, we appreciate
the information that those areas are
historically free of the mango seed
weevil and that the States maintain
controls on the import of mango fruit
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
from areas of Australia that are not free
of this pest. We will request additional
information from the commenter,
specifically references from scientific
literature, information from Australian
scientists, and/or State records, to
establish that the States are historically
free of the mango seed weevil. This
additional information would allow us
to determine whether to recognize
Western Australia as free of the mango
seed weevil through the process for
recognition of pest-free areas described
in § 319.56–5.
With regard to the commenter’s
request to allow mangoes from pest-free
places of production from the Katherine
production area of the Northern
Territory to be imported into the
continental United States, we will
evaluate Australia’s program for
establishing pest-free places of
production. If we determine that the
program is effective, we will publish our
evaluation in the Federal Register and
request public comment.
One commenter presented evidence
that visual inspection to detect scales on
the smooth surface of mangoes is
sufficient in detecting Ceroplastes
rubens.
The PRA published with the proposal
gave C. rubens a High risk rating, which
means that mitigation measures beyond
visual inspection are strongly
recommended. However, we have
recently changed the rating criteria in
our PRA guidelines for Climate-Host
Interaction. Specifically, we no longer
count C. rubens’ survival in USDA Plant
Hardiness Zone 11 towards the ClimateHost Interaction risk element rating
because that zone comprises
approximately 0.1 percent of the United
States. Making this change in the PRA
for Australian mangoes lowered the
overall risk rating for C. rubens by one
point, from High (27 points) to Medium
(26 points). A Medium risk rating
indicates that specific phytosanitary
measures may be necessary for the pest
unless inspection can serve as an
effective mitigation.
The soft scale C. rubens is a surface
pest which is readily visible upon
inspection, so no measures other than
culling practices in Australia and
inspection are necessary to remove this
pest from the pathway. Therefore, we
will not require irradiation treatment to
mitigate C. rubens.
We proposed to require mangoes to be
treated by irradiation for plant pests of
the class Insecta, except pupae and
adults of the order Lepidoptera, in
accordance with 7 CFR part 305. The
prescribed 400-gray approved dose for
this class of pests was necessary to
neutralize C. rubens. Because we no
E:\FR\FM\19SER1.SGM
19SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
longer consider irradiation for C. rubens
to be necessary, however, we are instead
requiring mangoes to be treated by
irradiation for the mango seed weevil
and for fruit flies of the family
Tephritidae in accordance with 7 CFR
part 305. The approved dose for the
mango seed weevil, as indicated in the
Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ)
Treatment Manual,2 is 300 gray.
However, if we recognize pest-free areas
or pest-free places of production for the
mango seed weevil, we would reduce
the required dose to 150 gray, which is
the approved dose indicated in the PPQ
Treatment Manual for fruit flies of the
family Tephritidae.
One commenter supported the
irradiation of mangoes for inspected
pests; however, the commenter
requested that irradiation of these
commodities be conducted prior to
importation into the United States to
eliminate the possible risk of pest
escape prior to treatment.
As described in the proposed rule, we
are requiring mangoes from Australia to
be treated with irradiation to neutralize
all plant pests of the class Insecta,
except pupae and adults of the order
Lepidoptera. In part 305, § 305.9
specifies the requirements for the
irradiation of imported commodities.
These requirements provide effective
safeguards for articles irradiated either
prior to or after arrival in the United
States.
Therefore, for the reasons given in the
proposed rule and in this document, we
are adopting the proposed rule as a final
rule, with the changes discussed in this
document.
Note: In our October 2011 proposed rule,
we proposed to add the conditions governing
the importation of mangoes from Australia as
§ 319.56–54. In this final rule, those
conditions are added as § 319.56–60.
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory
Flexibility Act
This final rule has been determined to
be not significant for the purposes of
Executive Order 12866 and, therefore,
has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget.
In accordance with the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, we have analyzed the
potential economic effects of this action
on small entities. The analysis is
summarized below. Copies of the full
analysis are available on the
Regulations.gov Web site (see footnote 1
in this document for a link to
Regulations.gov) or by contacting the
2 The PPQ Treatment Manual may be viewed at
https://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/plants/
manuals/ports/downloads/treatment.pdf.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:29 Sep 18, 2013
Jkt 229001
person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
The United States produces
approximately 3,000 metric tons per
year, about one-hundredth of 1 percent
of world production. U.S. mango
production is concentrated in the States
of Florida, Hawaii, California, and Texas
and produced primarily for local
markets. While U.S. mango production
is limited, the United States is the
world’s leading importer of fresh
mangoes, receiving 33 percent of
imports worldwide.
Mango imports from Australia are
expected to total about 1,200 metric tons
per year. This represents approximately
0.5 percent of total U.S. mango imports.
The imports from Australia will likely
help meet growing demand in all States.
While most if not all U.S. mango farms
and mango importers are small entities,
it is unlikely that additional mango
imports of 1,200 metric tons will cause
a noteworthy decrease in mango prices
or otherwise substantially affect the
market, especially given the expanding
U.S. demand for this fruit. Moreover,
the Australian mango season, midSeptember to mid-April, is the opposite
of that in the United States; the fresh
mangoes imported from Australia will
not compete directly with those
produced domestically.
Under these circumstances, the
Administrator of the Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service has
determined that this action will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
Executive Order 12988
This final rule allows mangoes to be
imported into the continental United
States from Australia. State and local
laws and regulations regarding mangoes
imported under this rule will be
preempted while the fruit is in foreign
commerce. Fresh fruits are generally
imported for immediate distribution and
sale to the consuming public, and
remain in foreign commerce until sold
to the ultimate consumer. The question
of when foreign commerce ceases in
other cases must be addressed on a caseby-case basis. No retroactive effect will
be given to this rule, and this rule will
not require administrative proceedings
before parties may file suit in court
challenging this rule.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection burden
associated with the proposed rule was
preapproved by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under
OMB control number 0579–0391. As
required by the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, APHIS will submit (or has
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
57469
submitted) an Information Collection
Request for extension of this approval.
Any new information collection
requirements are not effective until
approval by OMB.
E-Government Act Compliance
The Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service is committed to
compliance with the E-Government Act
to promote the use of the Internet and
other information technologies, to
provide increased opportunities for
citizen access to Government
information and services, and for other
purposes. For information pertinent to
E-Government Act compliance related
to this rule, please contact Mrs. Celeste
Sickles, APHIS’ Information Collection
Coordinator, at (301) 851–2908.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 319
Coffee, Cotton, Fruits, Imports, Logs,
Nursery stock, Plant diseases and pests,
Quarantine, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Rice,
Vegetables.
Accordingly, we are amending 7 CFR
part 319 as follows:
PART 319—FOREIGN QUARANTINE
NOTICES
1. The authority citation for part 319
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 450, 7701–7772, and
7781–7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR
2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.
2. A new § 319.56–60 is added to read
as follows:
■
§ 319.56–60
Mangoes from Australia.
Mangoes (Mangifera indica) may be
imported into the continental United
States from Australia only under the
following conditions:
(a) The mangoes may be imported in
commercial consignments only.
(b) The mangoes must be treated by
irradiation for the mango seed weevil
(Sternochetus mangiferae) and fruit flies
of the family Tephritidae in accordance
with part 305 of this chapter.
(c) The risks presented by
Cytosphaera mangiferae must be
addressed in one of the following ways:
(1) The mangoes are treated with a
broad-spectrum post-harvest fungicidal
dip;
(2) The mangoes originate from an
orchard that was inspected prior to the
beginning of harvest during the growing
season and the orchard was found free
of C. mangiferae; or
(3) The mangoes originate from an
orchard that was treated with a broadspectrum fungicide during the growing
season and was inspected prior to
E:\FR\FM\19SER1.SGM
19SER1
57470
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
harvest and the mangoes are found free
of C. mangiferae.
(d) Prior to export from Australia, the
mangoes must be inspected by the
national plant protection organization
(NPPO) of Australia and found free of
Cytosphaera mangiferae, Lasiodiplodia
pseudotheobromae, Neofusicoccum
mangiferae, Neoscytalidium
novaehollandiae, Pseudofusicoccum
adansoniae, Phomopsis mangiferae, and
Xanthomomas campestris pv.
mangiferaeindicae.
(e)(1) Each consignment of fruit must
be accompanied by a phytosanitary
certificate issued by the NPPO of
Australia with additional declarations
that:
(i) The mangoes were subjected to one
of the pre- or post-harvest mitigation
options described in paragraph (c) of
this section, and
(ii) The mangoes were inspected prior
to export from Australia and found free
of C. mangiferae, L. pseudotheobromae,
N. mangiferae, N. novaehollandiae, P.
adansoniae, P. mangiferae, and X.
campestris pv. mangiferaeindicae.
(2) If the fruit is treated with
irradiation outside the United States,
each consignment of fruit must be
inspected jointly by APHIS and the
NPPO of Australia, and be accompanied
by the phytosanitary certificate
certifying that the fruit was treated with
irradiation in accordance with part 305
of this chapter.
(Approved by the Office of Management and
Budget under control number 0579–0391)
Done in Washington, DC, this 13th day of
September 2013.
Kevin Shea,
Administrator, Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 2013–22786 Filed 9–18–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–34–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 23
[Docket No. FAA–2013–0650; Notice No. 23–
13–01–SC]
Special Conditions: Eclipse, EA500,
Certification of Autothrottle Functions
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final special conditions.
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with RULES
AGENCY:
These special conditions are
issued for the Eclipse EA500 airplane.
This airplane as modified by Innovative
Solutions and Support (IS&S) will have
a novel or unusual design feature(s)
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:29 Sep 18, 2013
Jkt 229001
associated with the autothrottle system
(ATS). The applicable airworthiness
regulations do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for this
design feature. These special conditions
contain the additional safety standards
that the Administrator considers
necessary to establish a level of safety
equivalent to that established by the
existing airworthiness standards.
The effective date of these
special conditions is September 11,
2013.
DATES:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mark S. Orr, FAA, Programs and
Procedures Branch, ACE–114, Small
Airplane Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service, 901 Locust;
Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone
(816) 329–4151; facsimile (816) 329–
4090.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On April 15, 2011, Innovative
Solutions and Support (IS&S) applied
for a supplemental type certificate for an
update to the aircraft software to
activate the previously installed
autothrottle provisions in the EA500.
The EA500 is a pressurized monoplane
with provisions for up to six persons
(standard seating five people) and may
be operated as a single or two pilot
aircraft (reference Minimum Flight Crew
Limitation, AFM 06–122204 Rev 4
section 2–4). The airplane is operated
under 14 CFR part 91 with standard
systems installed and under 14 CFR part
135 with additional equipment
installed. The Eclipse Model EA500 was
certificated under part 23 by the FAA on
September 30, 2006 (Type Certificate
A00002AC) with autothrottle provisions
(i.e., motors and controls) installed yet
rendered inactive through ‘‘collaring’’ of
the ATS motor Electronic Circuit
Breaker (ECB). Under the original Type
Certification program, no certification
credit was received nor the regulatory
basis established for the autothrottle
functions of the Eclipse Model EA500
aircraft.
Current part 23 airworthiness
regulations do not contain appropriate
safety standards for autothrottle system
(ATS) installations, so special
conditions are required to establish an
acceptable level of safety. Part 25
regulations contain appropriate safety
standards for these systems, so the
intent for this project is to apply the
language in § 25.1329 for the
autothrottle, substituting § 23.1309 and
§ 23.143 in place of the similar part 25
regulations referenced in § 25.1329.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Type Certification Basis
Under the provisions of § 21.101,
IS&S must show that the EA500, as
changed, continues to meet the
applicable provisions of the regulations
incorporated by reference in A00002AC
or the applicable regulations in effect on
the date of application for the change.
The regulations incorporated by
reference in the type certificate are
commonly referred to as the ‘‘original
type certification basis.’’ The regulations
incorporated by reference in A00002AC
are as follows:
14 CFR Part 23 through Amendment 55
(except 14 CFR 23.1303 Amendment 23–62),
Part 34 through Amendment 34–3, and Part
36 through Amendment 36–26.
Special Conditions:
23–128–SC for Engine Fire Extinguishing
System
23–121–SC for Electronic Engine Control
System
23–112A–SC for High Intensity Radiated
Fields (HIRF) Protection
Equivalent Levels of Safety Findings:
ACE–02–19: 14 CFR 23.777(d) and 23.781
Fuel Cutoff Control
ACE–05–32: 14 CFR 23.1545(a) and
23.1581(d) for Indicated Airspeeds
ACE–05–34: 14 CFR 23.181(b), Dynamic
Stability
ACE–05–35: 14 CFR 23.1353(h), Storage
Battery Design and Installation
ACE–05–36: 14 CFR 23.1323(c), Airspeed
Indicating System
ACE–06–01: 14 CFR 23.1545(b)(4), Airspeed
Indicator
ACE–06–05: 14 CFR part 23, Appendix H,
§ H23.5, Installation of an Automatic
Power Reserve System
ACE–07–04: 14 CFR 23.1545(b)(4), Airspeed
Indicator
ACE–08–12, 14 CFR 23.201(b)(2) Wings Level
Stall, and 23.203(a), Turning Flight and
Accelerated Turning Stalls for flight into
known icing (FIKI)
If the Administrator finds that the
applicable airworthiness regulations
(i.e., part 23) do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for the
EA500 because of a novel or unusual
design feature, special conditions are
prescribed under the provisions of
§ 21.16.
Special conditions are initially
applicable to the model for which they
are issued. Should the applicant apply
for a supplemental type certificate to
modify any other model included on the
same type certificate to incorporate the
same or similar novel or unusual design
feature, the special conditions would
also apply to the other model under
§ 21.101.
In addition to the applicable
airworthiness regulations and special
conditions, the EA500 must comply
with the fuel vent and exhaust emission
requirements of part 34 and the noise
certification requirements of part 36.
E:\FR\FM\19SER1.SGM
19SER1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 182 (Thursday, September 19, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57467-57470]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-22786]
========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2013 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 57467]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
7 CFR Part 319
[Docket No. APHIS-2011-0040]
RIN 0579-AD52
Importation of Mangoes From Australia Into the Continental United
States
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are amending the regulations concerning the importation of
fruits and vegetables to allow the importation of fresh mangoes from
Australia into the continental United States. As a condition of entry,
the mangoes would have to be produced in accordance with a systems
approach employing a combination of mitigation measures for the fungus
Cytosphaera mangiferae and would have to be inspected prior to
exportation from Australia and found free of this disease. The mangoes
would have to be imported in commercial consignments only and would
have to be treated by irradiation to mitigate the risk of the mango
seed weevil and fruit flies. The mangoes would also have to be
accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate with an additional
declaration that the conditions for importation have been met. This
action would allow the importation of mangoes from Australia while
continuing to protect against the introduction of plant pests into the
United States.
DATES: Effective Date: October 21, 2013.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Inder P. S. Gadh, Senior Risk
Manager-Treatments, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD
20737-1236; (301) 851-2018.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The regulations in ``Subpart--Fruits and Vegetables'' (7 CFR
319.56-1 through 319.56-59, referred to below as the regulations)
prohibit or restrict the importation of fruits and vegetables into the
United States from certain parts of the world to prevent the
introduction and dissemination of plant pests that are new to or not
widely distributed within the United States.
The national plant protection organization (NPPO) of Australia has
requested that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)
amend the regulations to allow fresh mangoes from Australia to be
imported into the continental United States under a combination of
mitigations to reduce the risk of introducing plant pests.
On October 25, 2011, we published in the Federal Register (76 FR
65988-65991, Docket No. APHIS-2011-0040) a proposal \1\ to amend the
regulations concerning the importation of fruits and vegetables to
allow the importation of fresh mangoes from Australia into the
continental United States. We prepared a pest risk assessment (PRA),
titled ``Importation of Fresh Fruit of Mango, Mangifera indica L., from
Australia into the Continental United States: A Pathway-initiated Risk
Analysis'' (June 2011). The PRA evaluated the risks associated with the
importation of mangoes into the continental United States from
Australia. Based on the information contained in the PRA, APHIS
determined that measures beyond standard port-of-entry inspection are
required to mitigate the risks posed by these quarantine pests. To
recommend specific measures to mitigate those risks, we prepared a risk
management document (RMD).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ To view the proposed rule, PRA, RMD, and the comments we
received, go to https://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-
2011-0040.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the RMD, we proposed requirements for mangoes to be
produced in accordance with a systems approach employing a combination
of mitigation measures for the fungus Cytosphaera mangiferae and to be
inspected prior to exportation from Australia and found free of this
disease. We proposed to require the mangoes to be imported in
commercial consignments only and to be treated by irradiation to
mitigate the risk of the mango seed weevil and fruit flies. We also
proposed to require the mangoes to be accompanied by a phytosanitary
certificate with an additional declaration that the conditions for
importation have been met.
We solicited comments concerning the PRA and RMD for 60 days ending
December 27, 2011. We received three comments by that date. They were
from a State department of agriculture, a group of State departments of
agriculture, and the Government of Australia. The comments are
discussed below.
In order to mitigate the risks posed by C. mangiferae, which we
consider to be of medium risk of introduction and dissemination within
the continental United States, we proposed three options: (1) The
mangoes be treated with a broad-spectrum post-harvest fungicidal dip,
(2) the mangoes originate from an orchard that was inspected prior to
the beginning of harvest during the growing season and the orchard was
found free of C. mangiferae, or (3) the mangoes originate from an
orchard that was treated with a broad-spectrum fungicide during the
growing season and was inspected prior to harvest and the fruit was
found free of C. mangiferae.
One commenter was in support of these three mitigation options for
C. mangiferae; however, the commenter stated that requiring
packinghouse inspection to determine freedom from symptoms is
unnecessary if one of the fungicide treatment options is administered.
We consider the inspection at the packinghouse to be necessary to
ensure that the fungicide treatments were effective. Conducting a final
phytosanitary inspection to ensure freedom from pests is standard
procedure for all import commodities. Overlapping mitigation measures
such as treatment and inspection are characteristic of system
approaches. APHIS requires the same mitigation options for C.
mangiferae for mangoes imported from India and Pakistan, a policy that
has resulted in no interceptions of the disease at U.S. ports of entry.
One commenter suggested that the systems approach include both the
use of a pre-harvest broad spectrum fungicide and the use of a broad-
spectrum post-harvest fungicidal dip to prevent the introduction of C.
[[Page 57468]]
mangiferae, in addition to packinghouse and port of entry inspections.
We have determined that requiring both treatments is unnecessary
since C. mangiferae has not been found during inspections of mangoes
imported from India and Pakistan under the same mitigation measures,
which indicates that those measures are effective.
One commenter requested the removal of all mitigation measures for
Fusarium spp. associated with mango malformation disease (MMD). The
commenter stated that MMD is not considered a quarantine pest by the
United States with respect to mangoes imported from other countries. In
addition, the commenter presented evidence that MMD has been
successfully eradicated from Australia and that the sole pathogen
associated with MMD in Australia is Fusarium mangiferae, which is
already present in the United States. Furthermore, the commenter stated
that studies indicate that commercially produced mangoes are not a
pathway for the introduction of MMD.
We consider MMD to be a quarantine pest for all countries; when
susceptible commodities have been authorized for importation without
MMD mitigations, we have administratively added requirements for MMD.
However, based on the information provided by the commenter, we have
determined that F. mangiferae is the sole causal agent associated with
MMD in Australia and that it is absent from Australia due to
Australia's successful official control efforts for MMD. In response,
we have revised the PRA and the RMD to reflect Australia's freedom from
causal agents associated with MMD, and this final rule omits the
proposed mitigations for Fusarium spp. complex associated with MMD.
The PRA identified Lasiodiplodia pseudotheobromae, Neoscytalidium
novaehollandiae, Neofusicoccum mangiferae, and Pseudofusicoccum
adansoniae as pathogens associated with mangoes. One commenter stated
that there is no evidence that these pathogens are associated with
mango fruit in natural environments; all work cited in the PRA as
establishing these pathogens as pests of mangoes was under artificial
conditions. The commenter noted the conditions proposed for Australian
mangoes require that mangoes be imported to the continental United
States in commercial consignments only, which would remove these
pathogens from the pathway. In addition, the commenter stated that the
PRA only mentions N. mangiferae in the introduction and presents no
evidence that this species is associated with mango fruit. Therefore,
the commenter requested that requirements related to these pathogens be
removed from the rule.
The PRA addressed N. mangiferae and included additional references
that document the stem end rot (SER) of mango fruit caused by N.
mangiferae known to occur in Australia. The pathogen also has been
documented under many synonyms (Dothiorella mangiferae, Nattrassia
mangiferae, and Fusicoccum mangiferum), which may account for the
confusion about this species associated with mango fruit rot in
Australia.
The remaining species, L. pseudotheobromae, N. novaehollandiae, and
P. adansoniae, are recently reported and appear to have limited
distribution in Australia. These pathogens were isolated from stems and
twigs of mango trees showing dieback and canker symptoms in orchards,
were shown to infect fruit in artificial inoculations, and were not
isolated from naturally infected mango fruit. However, a range of other
related fungal species cause SER of mango, including Neofusicoccum
parvum, Neofusicoccum mangiferae, Botryosphaeria dothidea, and
Lasiodiplodia theobromae. These pathogens may become established in
mango plants without expressing symptoms, but stress or ripening
trigger disease development, expressed as SER, cankers, and mango
decline. These newly reported pathogens of mango likely occupy a
similar niche associated with mango in which the pathogens switch from
quiescent to pathogenic in the plant tissue, and may affect a range of
plant parts of their hosts. For this reason, these pathogens are
considered to follow the pathway with mango fruit in trade. All of
these details and corresponding references are included in the PRA.
Therefore, we stand by our determination that the conditions we
proposed to mitigate those pathogens are necessary.
One commenter requested that we add two mitigation options for the
mango seed weevil (Sternochetus mangiferae) for mangoes from specific
areas of Australia. The commenter suggests that we accept area freedom
from the mango seed weevil for Western Australia and pest free places
of production for the mango seed weevil for the Katherine production
area of the Northern Territory.
With regard to the proposal for area freedom from the mango seed
weevil from Western Australia, we appreciate the information that those
areas are historically free of the mango seed weevil and that the
States maintain controls on the import of mango fruit from areas of
Australia that are not free of this pest. We will request additional
information from the commenter, specifically references from scientific
literature, information from Australian scientists, and/or State
records, to establish that the States are historically free of the
mango seed weevil. This additional information would allow us to
determine whether to recognize Western Australia as free of the mango
seed weevil through the process for recognition of pest-free areas
described in Sec. 319.56-5.
With regard to the commenter's request to allow mangoes from pest-
free places of production from the Katherine production area of the
Northern Territory to be imported into the continental United States,
we will evaluate Australia's program for establishing pest-free places
of production. If we determine that the program is effective, we will
publish our evaluation in the Federal Register and request public
comment.
One commenter presented evidence that visual inspection to detect
scales on the smooth surface of mangoes is sufficient in detecting
Ceroplastes rubens.
The PRA published with the proposal gave C. rubens a High risk
rating, which means that mitigation measures beyond visual inspection
are strongly recommended. However, we have recently changed the rating
criteria in our PRA guidelines for Climate-Host Interaction.
Specifically, we no longer count C. rubens' survival in USDA Plant
Hardiness Zone 11 towards the Climate-Host Interaction risk element
rating because that zone comprises approximately 0.1 percent of the
United States. Making this change in the PRA for Australian mangoes
lowered the overall risk rating for C. rubens by one point, from High
(27 points) to Medium (26 points). A Medium risk rating indicates that
specific phytosanitary measures may be necessary for the pest unless
inspection can serve as an effective mitigation.
The soft scale C. rubens is a surface pest which is readily visible
upon inspection, so no measures other than culling practices in
Australia and inspection are necessary to remove this pest from the
pathway. Therefore, we will not require irradiation treatment to
mitigate C. rubens.
We proposed to require mangoes to be treated by irradiation for
plant pests of the class Insecta, except pupae and adults of the order
Lepidoptera, in accordance with 7 CFR part 305. The prescribed 400-gray
approved dose for this class of pests was necessary to neutralize C.
rubens. Because we no
[[Page 57469]]
longer consider irradiation for C. rubens to be necessary, however, we
are instead requiring mangoes to be treated by irradiation for the
mango seed weevil and for fruit flies of the family Tephritidae in
accordance with 7 CFR part 305. The approved dose for the mango seed
weevil, as indicated in the Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ)
Treatment Manual,\2\ is 300 gray. However, if we recognize pest-free
areas or pest-free places of production for the mango seed weevil, we
would reduce the required dose to 150 gray, which is the approved dose
indicated in the PPQ Treatment Manual for fruit flies of the family
Tephritidae.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The PPQ Treatment Manual may be viewed at https://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/plants/manuals/ports/downloads/treatment.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One commenter supported the irradiation of mangoes for inspected
pests; however, the commenter requested that irradiation of these
commodities be conducted prior to importation into the United States to
eliminate the possible risk of pest escape prior to treatment.
As described in the proposed rule, we are requiring mangoes from
Australia to be treated with irradiation to neutralize all plant pests
of the class Insecta, except pupae and adults of the order Lepidoptera.
In part 305, Sec. 305.9 specifies the requirements for the irradiation
of imported commodities. These requirements provide effective
safeguards for articles irradiated either prior to or after arrival in
the United States.
Therefore, for the reasons given in the proposed rule and in this
document, we are adopting the proposed rule as a final rule, with the
changes discussed in this document.
Note: In our October 2011 proposed rule, we proposed to add the
conditions governing the importation of mangoes from Australia as
Sec. 319.56-54. In this final rule, those conditions are added as
Sec. 319.56-60.
Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for the
purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed
by the Office of Management and Budget.
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, we have analyzed
the potential economic effects of this action on small entities. The
analysis is summarized below. Copies of the full analysis are available
on the Regulations.gov Web site (see footnote 1 in this document for a
link to Regulations.gov) or by contacting the person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
The United States produces approximately 3,000 metric tons per
year, about one-hundredth of 1 percent of world production. U.S. mango
production is concentrated in the States of Florida, Hawaii,
California, and Texas and produced primarily for local markets. While
U.S. mango production is limited, the United States is the world's
leading importer of fresh mangoes, receiving 33 percent of imports
worldwide.
Mango imports from Australia are expected to total about 1,200
metric tons per year. This represents approximately 0.5 percent of
total U.S. mango imports. The imports from Australia will likely help
meet growing demand in all States. While most if not all U.S. mango
farms and mango importers are small entities, it is unlikely that
additional mango imports of 1,200 metric tons will cause a noteworthy
decrease in mango prices or otherwise substantially affect the market,
especially given the expanding U.S. demand for this fruit. Moreover,
the Australian mango season, mid-September to mid-April, is the
opposite of that in the United States; the fresh mangoes imported from
Australia will not compete directly with those produced domestically.
Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
Executive Order 12988
This final rule allows mangoes to be imported into the continental
United States from Australia. State and local laws and regulations
regarding mangoes imported under this rule will be preempted while the
fruit is in foreign commerce. Fresh fruits are generally imported for
immediate distribution and sale to the consuming public, and remain in
foreign commerce until sold to the ultimate consumer. The question of
when foreign commerce ceases in other cases must be addressed on a
case-by-case basis. No retroactive effect will be given to this rule,
and this rule will not require administrative proceedings before
parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection burden associated with the proposed rule
was preapproved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under OMB
control number 0579-0391. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995, APHIS will submit (or has submitted) an Information Collection
Request for extension of this approval. Any new information collection
requirements are not effective until approval by OMB.
E-Government Act Compliance
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is committed to
compliance with the E-Government Act to promote the use of the Internet
and other information technologies, to provide increased opportunities
for citizen access to Government information and services, and for
other purposes. For information pertinent to E-Government Act
compliance related to this rule, please contact Mrs. Celeste Sickles,
APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2908.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 319
Coffee, Cotton, Fruits, Imports, Logs, Nursery stock, Plant
diseases and pests, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Rice, Vegetables.
Accordingly, we are amending 7 CFR part 319 as follows:
PART 319--FOREIGN QUARANTINE NOTICES
0
1. The authority citation for part 319 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 450, 7701-7772, and 7781-7786; 21 U.S.C. 136
and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.
0
2. A new Sec. 319.56-60 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 319.56-60 Mangoes from Australia.
Mangoes (Mangifera indica) may be imported into the continental
United States from Australia only under the following conditions:
(a) The mangoes may be imported in commercial consignments only.
(b) The mangoes must be treated by irradiation for the mango seed
weevil (Sternochetus mangiferae) and fruit flies of the family
Tephritidae in accordance with part 305 of this chapter.
(c) The risks presented by Cytosphaera mangiferae must be addressed
in one of the following ways:
(1) The mangoes are treated with a broad-spectrum post-harvest
fungicidal dip;
(2) The mangoes originate from an orchard that was inspected prior
to the beginning of harvest during the growing season and the orchard
was found free of C. mangiferae; or
(3) The mangoes originate from an orchard that was treated with a
broad-spectrum fungicide during the growing season and was inspected
prior to
[[Page 57470]]
harvest and the mangoes are found free of C. mangiferae.
(d) Prior to export from Australia, the mangoes must be inspected
by the national plant protection organization (NPPO) of Australia and
found free of Cytosphaera mangiferae, Lasiodiplodia pseudotheobromae,
Neofusicoccum mangiferae, Neoscytalidium novaehollandiae,
Pseudofusicoccum adansoniae, Phomopsis mangiferae, and Xanthomomas
campestris pv. mangiferaeindicae.
(e)(1) Each consignment of fruit must be accompanied by a
phytosanitary certificate issued by the NPPO of Australia with
additional declarations that:
(i) The mangoes were subjected to one of the pre- or post-harvest
mitigation options described in paragraph (c) of this section, and
(ii) The mangoes were inspected prior to export from Australia and
found free of C. mangiferae, L. pseudotheobromae, N. mangiferae, N.
novaehollandiae, P. adansoniae, P. mangiferae, and X. campestris pv.
mangiferaeindicae.
(2) If the fruit is treated with irradiation outside the United
States, each consignment of fruit must be inspected jointly by APHIS
and the NPPO of Australia, and be accompanied by the phytosanitary
certificate certifying that the fruit was treated with irradiation in
accordance with part 305 of this chapter.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 0579-0391)
Done in Washington, DC, this 13th day of September 2013.
Kevin Shea,
Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-22786 Filed 9-18-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
