Importation of Litchi Fruit From Australia, 58154-58158 [2013-23044]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
58154
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 184 / Monday, September 23, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
restaurants,’’ and ‘‘Limited-service
eating places’’ in the second column;
and
■ c. Add NAICS codes ‘‘443’’ and
‘‘7225’’ in the first column in numerical
order and ‘‘Electronics and appliance
stores’’ and ‘‘Restaurants and other
eating places’’ in the second column.
§ 532.267
[Amended]
4. In § 532.267(c)(1), amend the table
as follows:
■ a. Revise the year ‘‘2007’’ to ‘‘2012’’ in
the table headings in both columns;
■ b. Add NAICS code ‘‘333316’’ in the
first column in numerical order and
‘‘Photographic and photocopying
equipment manufacturing’’ in the
second column;
■ c. Revise the title of NAICS code
334613 from ‘‘Magnetic and optical
recording media manufacturing’’ to
‘‘Blank magnetic and optical recording
media manufacturing’’ in the second
column; and
■ d. Revise the title of NAICS code 4921
from ‘‘Couriers’’ to ‘‘Couriers and
express delivery services’’ in the second
column.
■
§ 532.285
[Amended]
5. In § 532.285(c)(1), amend the table
headings in both columns by replacing
the year ‘‘2007’’ with ‘‘2012.’’
■
§ 532.313
[Amended]
6. In § 532.313(a), amend the table as
follows:
■ a. Revise the year ‘‘2007’’ to ‘‘2012’’ in
the table headings in both columns;
■ b. Add NAICS code ‘‘333316’’ in the
first column in numerical order and
‘‘Photographic and photocopying
equipment manufacturing’’ in the
second column to the list of required
NAICS codes for the Electronics
Specialized Industry, Guided Missiles
Specialized Industry, and Sighting and
Fire Control Equipment Specialized
Industry;
■ c. Remove NAICS codes ‘‘332212,’’
‘‘332995,’’ ‘‘336312,’’ ‘‘336322,’’ and
‘‘336399’’ in the first column and ‘‘Hand
and edge tool manufacturing,’’ ‘‘Other
ordnance and accessories
manufacturing,’’ ‘‘Gasoline engine and
engine parts manufacturing,’’ ‘‘Other
motor vehicle electrical and electronic
equipment manufacturing,’’ and ‘‘All
other motor vehicle parts
manufacturing’’ in the second column
from the list of required NAICS codes
for the Artillery and Combat Vehicle
Specialized Industry; and
■ d. Add NAICS codes ‘‘332216,’’
‘‘332994,’’ ‘‘33631,’’ ‘‘33632,’’ and
‘‘33639’’ in the first column in
numerical order and ‘‘Saw blade and
hand tool manufacturing,’’ ‘‘Small arms,
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
■
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:25 Sep 20, 2013
Jkt 229001
ordnance, and ordnance accessories
manufacturing,’’ ‘‘Motor vehicle
gasoline engine and engine parts
manufacturing,’’ ‘‘Motor vehicle
electrical and electronic equipment
manufacturing,’’ and ‘‘Other motor
vehicle parts manufacturing’’ in the
second column to the list of required
NAICS codes for the for the Artillery
and Combat Vehicle Specialized
Industry.
[FR Doc. 2013–22498 Filed 9–20–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325–39–P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service
7 CFR Part 319
[Docket No. APHIS–2009–0084]
RIN 0579–AD56
Importation of Litchi Fruit From
Australia
Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
We are amending the
regulations in order to allow, under
certain conditions, the importation of
commercial shipments of litchi fruit
from Australia into the continental
United States, except Florida. As a
condition of entry, the litchi fruit must
be treated with irradiation and subject
to inspection. If irradiation is applied
outside the United States, the fruit must
be inspected jointly by inspectors from
the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service and the national plant
protection organization (NPPO) of
Australia prior to departure and
accompanied by a phytosanitary
certificate issued by the NPPO of
Australia certifying that the fruit
received the required irradiation
treatment. If irradiation is to be applied
upon arrival in the United States, the
fruit must be inspected by Australian
inspectors prior to departure and
accompanied by a phytosanitary
certificate issued by the NPPO of
Australia. Additionally, the litchi fruit
may not be imported into or distributed
within the State of Florida, due to the
presence of litchi rust mite in Australia.
This action allows for the importation of
litchi fruit from Australia into the
continental United States, except
Florida, while continuing to provide
protection against the introduction of
quarantine pests.
DATES: Effective Date: October 23, 2013.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Ms.
Dorothy C. Wayson, Regulatory
Coordination Specialist, PPQ, APHIS,
4700 River Road Unit 141, Riverdale,
MD 20737–1231; (301) 851–2036.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Background
The regulations in ‘‘Subpart—Fruits
and Vegetables’’ (7 CFR 319.56–1
through 319.56–60, 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.
On December 28, 2011, we published
in the Federal Register (76 FR 81401–
81404, Docket No. APHIS–2009–0084) a
proposal 1 to amend the regulations to
allow fresh litchi fruit (Litchi chinensis
Sonn.) from Australia to be imported
into the continental United States,
except Florida. We proposed that, as a
condition of entry, the litchi fruit would
have to be produced in accordance with
a systems approach that includes
requirements for monitoring and
oversight, irradiation treatment of the
fruit, limited distribution, and shipping.
We solicited comments concerning
our proposal for 60 days ending
February 27, 2012. We received four
comments by that date. They were from
two students, a representative of a
foreign government, and an organization
of State plant regulatory officials. The
comments are discussed below by topic.
Pest List
We prepared a pest risk assessment
(PRA) and a risk management document
for the importation of fresh litchi fruit
from Australia. That PRA evaluated the
risks associated with the importation of
litchi fruit with up to 5 millimeters of
stem into the continental United States
from Australia. The threshold allowing
for a maximum of 5 millimeters of stem
on the imported litchi fruit was
included in Australia’s market access
request and therefore established as the
allowable limit in the PRA.
One commenter stated that neither the
proposed rule nor the PRA provided
phytosanitary justification for the
inclusion of this 5 millimeter limit. The
commenter further stated that, while the
5 millimeter stem length was included
in Australia’s market access request, it
had been intended only as part of a
general description of Australia’s
standard litchi fruit production
practices. The commenter asked that the
limit be removed in light of the fact that
1 To view the proposed rule and the comments
we received, go to https://www.regulations.gov/
#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2009-0084.
E:\FR\FM\23SER1.SGM
23SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 184 / Monday, September 23, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
those pests associated with stems and
twigs would either be mitigated by the
treatments described in the systems
approach regardless of stem length or
were not listed as following the pathway
of importation.
We agree with the commenter and
have removed the requirement.
The PRA identified 15 pests of
quarantine significance present in
Australia that could be introduced into
the United States through the
importation of litchi fruit, including 3
fruit flies, 7 lepidopteran pests, 2 scales,
2 other insect pests, and 1 mite.
Green scale (Coccus viridis) and
passionvine mealybug (Planococcus
minor) were included in the proposed
rule and PRA as being two of the
quarantine pests of litchi subject to
mitigation. Subsequent to publication of
the proposed rule, we established that
Coccus viridis and Planococcus minor
no longer meet our definition of a
quarantine pest and have added them to
our list 2 of pests that we no longer
regulate. Therefore, we will not be
including Coccus viridis and
Planococcus minor among the pests to
be listed in the additional declaration
on the phytosanitary certificate. This
change has the effect of addressing one
commenter’s recommendation that
Planococcus minor not be regarded as a
pest following the pathway of
commercial shipments.
One commenter requested that we
intensively monitor litchi fruit from
Australia at the port of entry for the
litchi hairy mite (Aceria litchii), which
is not eliminated by irradiation.
Port of entry inspection is among the
required phytosanitary measures that
apply to the importation of litchi fruit
from Australia. These measures, which
also include requirements concerning
irradiation, commercial shipments, and
limited distribution, have been
successfully applied to shipments of
litchis imported from Thailand, where
the litchi hairy mite is also present.
Based on our experience, we are
confident in the efficacy of the standard
level of inspection in detecting
quarantine pests and preventing their
entry into the United States.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Proposed Systems Approach
Based on the risk management
document, we determined that measures
beyond the standard port of arrival
inspection are required to mitigate the
risks posed by the plant pests associated
with the importation of litchi fruit from
Australia. We proposed to allow the
2 This list can be viewed at https://
www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/
frsmp/non-reg-pests.shtml.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:25 Sep 20, 2013
Jkt 229001
importation of litchi fruit from Australia
into the United States only if they are
produced in accordance with a systems
approach to mitigate pest risk.
One commenter objected to our use of
the term ‘‘systems approach.’’ The
commenter stated that since all pests
identified as likely to follow the
importation pathway are mitigated by
the proposed irradiation treatment and
because no specific in-field management
measures were stipulated, the
combination of measures would not
qualify as a systems approach. The
commenter asked that we remove all
references to the systems approach from
the regulation.
We are making no change as a result
of this comment. We proposed a number
of requirements that shipments of litchi
fruit from Australia would have to meet
prior to importation. These
requirements concerned place of
production, treatment with irradiation,
certificates of inspection issued by the
national plant protection organization
(NPPO) of Australia, limited
distribution, and limitation to
commercial consignments only. For the
reasons discussed below, we have
decided to remove the requirement
relating to place of production. Contrary
to the commenter’s assertion, the litchi
hairy mite is not mitigated by the
irradiation treatment and therefore
necessitates specific inspection. In
addition, the limited distribution
requirement is an additional measure
beyond the standard port of arrival
inspection which is required to mitigate
the risks posed by the plant pests
associated with litchis from Australia.
Furthermore, the proposed measures
meet the definition of systems approach
as found in International Standards for
Phytosanitary Measures (ISPM) No. 5:
The integration of different risk
management measures, at least two of
which act independently, and which
cumulatively achieve the appropriate
level of protection against regulated
pests.
One element of the proposed systems
approach was a requirement that the
litchi fruit be grown in approved places
of production that are registered with
and monitored by the NPPO of
Australia.
One commenter argued that the
monitoring requirement should be
removed, as the proposed systems
approach did not include any
requirements for in-field control
measures of the sort that would require
NPPO oversight. The commenter stated
that the other methods of control listed
as part of the proposed systems
approach would be sufficient to mitigate
risks posed by those pests discussed in
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
58155
the PRA and the risk management
document.
We agree with the commenter.
Regulatory requirements concerning the
monitoring of approved places of
production are associated the
application of in-field measures needed
to address a specific pest risk, which is
not the case with the mitigation
measures assigned for litchi fruit from
Australia as detailed in the PRA. Rather,
the framework equivalency workplan
required for irradiated fruits and
vegetables as described in
§ 305.9(e)(1)(B) of our phytosanitary
treatments regulations, stipulates that
the U.S. and the exporting country’s
NPPO must establish the type and
amount of inspection, monitoring, or
other activities that will be required in
connection with allowing the
importation of irradiated fruits and
vegetables. Such workplans include
requirements for NPPO-approved places
of production for the purpose of specific
traceability in the event of an
unforeseen pest situation. This allows
for the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS) and the
NPPO to work collaboratively to address
the situation in-country without
applying unnecessary importation
restrictions.
Another element of the proposed
systems approach was a requirement
that the litchi fruit be imported in
commercial consignments only. This is
because commercially produced fruit
are already subject to standard
commercial cultural and post-harvest
practices that reduce the risk associated
with plant pests. Export orchards that
are registered production sites with
traceback capability was cited as one of
those practices that helps ensure the
phytosanitary security of exported
litchis.
One commenter requested that we
exclude the requirement regarding
registered production sites with
traceback capability. The commenter
argued that such a stipulation is
inconsistent with the requirements of
previous rules regarding the importation
of fruits and vegetables from Australia
as well as rules regarding the
importation of litchi fruit from countries
other than Australia. The commenter
concluded that, from a regulatory
flexibility standpoint, it would be
preferable to include any requirement
regarding traceability in the framework
equivalency workplan given that these
workplans may be amended more easily
to reflect any changing conditions
within the country that would
necessitate such tracking.
We agree with the commenter’s point
and have removed references to the
E:\FR\FM\23SER1.SGM
23SER1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
58156
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 184 / Monday, September 23, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
requirement that orchards be registered
with and monitored by the NPPO of
Australia in this final rule. We also
agree that any such requirements are
more appropriately located in the
framework equivalency workplan
where, as with the conditions
concerning monitoring requirements
discussed previously, they would
provide for specific traceability in the
event of an unforeseen pest situation.
Another element of the proposed
systems approach was a requirement
that litchi fruit be treated with a
minimum absorbed irradiation dose of
400 gray in accordance with the
provisions of § 305.9 and the Plant
Protection and Quarantine Treatment
Manual. This is the established generic
dose for all insect pests, except pupae
and adults of the order Lepidoptera.
While the preamble text in the proposed
rule specified that such treatment could
be conducted at an approved facility in
Australia or in the United States, the
proposed regulatory text stated that
treatment would have to be conducted
prior to importation of the fruits into the
United States.
The commenter asked that the
requirement for the fruit to be treated
prior to importation into the United
States be removed.
We agree with the commenter and
have changed the requirement
accordingly. If irradiation is applied
outside the United States, the fruits
must be inspected jointly by inspectors
from APHIS and the NPPO of Australia
prior to departure and accompanied by
a phytosanitary certificate issued by the
NPPO of Australia certifying that the
fruit received the required irradiation
treatment. If irradiation is to be applied
upon arrival in the United States, the
fruits must be inspected by Australian
inspectors prior to departure and
accompanied by a phytosanitary
certificate issued by the NPPO of
Australia.
In addition to altering the requirement
associated with the location of the
irradiation treatment, we are also
removing the stipulation that this
information be contained in an
additional declaration, as an additional
declaration is not used for certifying
application of a treatment or details of
a treatment. Instead, if irradiation is
applied outside the United States, the
fruits must be inspected jointly by
inspectors from APHIS and the NPPO of
Australia prior to departure and
accompanied by a phytosanitary
certificate issued by the NPPO of
Australia certifying that the fruit
received the required irradiation
treatment. We included the requirement
concerning the additional declaration
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:25 Sep 20, 2013
Jkt 229001
regarding treatment information in error
in the proposed rule. Certification of
irradiation treatment will provide
sufficient phytosanitary protection.
Because the litchi hairy mite is not
present in Florida and because we have
consistently prohibited host movement
into Florida from areas where that pest
is present, another aspect of the
proposed systems approach was to
prohibit the importation and
distribution of litchi from Australia into
the State of Florida by requiring that all
cartons of litchi be stamped ‘‘Not for
distribution in FL.’’
One commenter stated that we should
also restrict importation of litchi fruit
into the State of California given that
Florida and California have similar
climates that allow for the establishment
and survival of the litchi hairy mite.
Another commenter stated that
commercial litchi production is an
emerging field in California and those
small- and medium-scale agricultural
producers and family farms in particular
would be helped by the exclusion of
Australian litchi fruit from California.
We are making no change as a result
of these comments. Unlike the more
humid climate found in Florida, the dry
Mediterranean climate in California is
not conducive for the survival of the
litchi hairy mite. Additionally, the
occurrence of seasonal cold snaps and
high winds in California causes flower
loss and, consequently, poor fruit set.
The litchi tree needs a truly tropical
climate to produce much fruit. Further,
production levels of litchi in California
are low. We therefore believe that the
improbability of mite survival and the
small number of hosts available in
California are sufficient to mitigate the
risk posed by litchi hairy mite. Finally,
regarding the second commenter’s
point, APHIS does not have the
authority to prohibit commodities for
importation solely based on potential
economic impact. The determining
factor must be scientifically established
pest risk.
Pest Risk Analysis
The Asian ambrosia beetle
(Euwallacea fornicatus) was listed in
the PRA as being a pest of litchi present
in Australia that is also present in
Hawaii. We determined that Euwallacea
fornicatus was not likely to follow the
importation pathway and therefore did
not address it further via mitigations.
One commenter stated that we should
remove Euwallacea fornicatus from the
list of quarantine pests in the PRA
because the pest is also present in
Florida and California in addition to
Hawaii.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
The commenter is correct regarding
the distribution of Euwallacea
fornicatus within California, Florida,
and Hawaii. However, while the beetle
is present in California and Florida
based on more recent references than
those cited in the PRA, it is also
currently listed as reportable in a
domestic context and is currently being
assessed by the United States
Department of Agriculture’s New Pest
Advisory Group. Euwallacea fornicatus,
therefore, meets our standards regarding
quarantine pests. For that reason, we are
making no changes as a result of this
comment.
Economic Analysis
We analyzed the potential economic
effects of the importation of litchi fruit
from Australia on small entities and
concluded that any litchi price declines
that might result from this rule would
be insignificant, especially if, as is
likely, at least some litchi fruit imports
from Australia were to displace imports
from other countries. Additionally, we
stated that, given that the agricultural
seasons in the Southern Hemisphere are
generally the opposite of those in the
Northern Hemisphere, the proposed
imports from Australia likely would not
directly compete with U.S. litchi fruit
production. As a result, we determined
that the importation of litchi fruit from
Australia would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
One commenter stated other agencies
such as the United Nations Food and
Agriculture Organization do not
distinguish between fresh and processed
fruit, while the U.S. Harmonized Tariff
System group litchi fruit with other
exotic fruits into a single category. The
commenter further stated that the
analysis performed by APHIS to
determine the economic effects of the
proposed rule on small entities uses
data from 2004 and earlier in order to
reach its conclusions. The commenter
concluded that it is important to base
any economic analysis on current data
that is segregated specifically by fruit
type in order to best inform the
decisionmaking process.
We are making no changes as a result
of this comment. The commenter rightly
observes that the United Nations Food
and Agriculture Organization and the
U.S. Harmonized Tariff System do not
separate shipment data concerning fresh
litchis in particular, however we did not
use data from either of these sources in
order to conduct our economic analysis.
The most recent sources of information
specifically regarding fresh litchis are
from the Proceedings of the Florida
E:\FR\FM\23SER1.SGM
23SER1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 184 / Monday, September 23, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
State Horticultural Society, 118,3 and a
paper entitled ‘‘Is It Still Profitable to
Grow Lychee in Florida?,’’ which was
released by the Food and Resource
Economics Department, Florida
Cooperative Extension Service, Institute
of Food and Agricultural Sciences,
University of Florida, and may be found
on the Internet at https://
edis.ifas.ufl.edu/fe496. These papers are
dated 2005 and 2004, respectively. They
represent the most recent, targeted
economic information available on the
subject of the importation of litchi fruit
and the domestic market.
The commenter also said that the two
main factors that affect the profitability
of litchi farmers in the United States are
product yield and market price. The
commenter referenced an analysis
conducted by the University of Florida,
Department of Food and Resource
Economics, which concluded that net
returns are very sensitive to even small
market price fluctuations, even more
than a similar increase or decrease in
yield.
We are making no changes as a result
of this comment. The quantity of litchi
fruit that Australia proposes to export to
the United States (400 metric tons)
represents 2.7 percent of total U.S.
imports. This relatively small quantity
is unlikely to cause market fluctuations.
The commenter agreed that the
importation of litchi fruit from Australia
alone is not likely to have a major effect
on the price of litchi sold in the United
States due to the small quantity and the
differing harvest periods in the Northern
and Southern Hemispheres. However,
the commenter also stated that litchi
fruit imported from Australia, when
considered in conjunction with litchi
fruit imported from countries such as
Thailand, Vietnam, and South Africa,
may contribute to the declining price of
litchi fruit overall. The commenter
stated that APHIS should take into
account projected import levels of litchi
fruit from all countries, rather than
considering such importations on
country-by-country basis.
We are making no changes as a result
of this comment. APHIS evaluates
commodity import requests on a caseby-case basis. Accordingly, the
economic analysis considers total
imports levels from those countries that
currently export to the United States in
conjunction with the projected level of
imports from the requesting country.
Prior to the publication of this rule, we
allowed for the importation of litchi
fruit from China, India, Taiwan, and
3 Copies of the proceedings are available from the
person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:25 Sep 20, 2013
Jkt 229001
Thailand, and therefore based our
assessment of the potential economic
impact of the rule on imports from those
countries. In the event that other
countries, such as Vietnam or South
Africa, submit requests for market
access for litchi fruit, we will evaluate
the economic impacts of imports from
those countries. We do not consider the
potential economic impact of exports of
commodities from countries that have
not submitted market access requests to
us.
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.
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.
World production of litchi is
estimated to be 2.2 million metric tons
(MT), with China accounting for over 50
percent (1.2 million MT), and one-third
produced by India (0.7 million MT). The
United States produces approximately
500 MT per year, which represents less
than 0.03 percent of world production.
U.S. litchi production is concentrated in
the States of Florida, Hawaii, and
California. Florida has the largest area
under production (1,200 acres),
followed by Hawaii (300 acres) and
California (60 acres). Currently,
Australia produces 3,500 MT of litchis.
Australia expects to export
approximately 20 forty-foot containers
of litchis per year to the United States,
which is equivalent to about 400 MT.
In 2004, the United States imported a
total of 14,854 MT of litchis, mainly
from China, Taiwan, and Mexico.
Australia’s proposed export quantity
represents about 2.7 percent of U.S.
imports in 2004.
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
58157
Executive Order 12988
This final rule allows litchi fruit to be
imported into the continental United
States from Australia. State and local
laws and regulations regarding litchi
fruit imported under this rule will be
preempted while the fruit is in foreign
commerce. Fresh fruits and vegetables
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
In accordance with section 3507(d) of
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the information
collection or recordkeeping
requirements included in this final rule,
which were filed under 0579–0386,
have been submitted for approval to the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB). When OMB notifies us of its
decision, if approval is denied, we will
publish a document in the Federal
Register providing notice of what action
we plan to take.
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 and 7701–7772,
and 7781–7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7
CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.
E:\FR\FM\23SER1.SGM
23SER1
58158
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 184 / Monday, September 23, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
2. A new § 319.56–61 is added to read
as follows:
■
§ 319.56–61
Litchi from Australia.
airspace at Bryant Army Airfield (AAF),
Anchorage, AK. In that rule, an error
was made in the legal description for
Bryant AAF, in that the language
indicating Class D airspace as part time
was left out.
DATES: Effective date, 0901 UTC,
October 17, 2013. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this
incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and
publication of conforming amendments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Richard Roberts, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support
Group, Western Service Center, 1601
Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057;
telephone (425) 203–4517.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Litchi (Litchi chinensis) may be
imported into the continental United
States from Australia only under the
following conditions and in accordance
with all other applicable provisions of
this subpart:
(a) The litchi must be treated for plant
pests of the class Insecta, except pupae
and adults of the order Lepidoptera,
with irradiation in accordance with
§ 305.9 of this chapter. Treatment may
be conducted either prior to or upon
arrival of the fruits into the United
States.
(b) Each shipment of litchi must be
accompanied by a phytosanitary
certificate of inspection issued by the
NPPO of Australia. For those shipments
of litchi treated in Australia, the
phytosanitary certificate must certify
that the fruit received the required
irradiation treatment prior to shipment.
For those shipments of litchi treated
upon arrival in the United States, the
fruits must be inspected by Australian
inspectors prior to departure and
accompanied by a phytosanitary
certificate.
(c) In addition to meeting the labeling
requirements in part 305 of this chapter,
cartons in which litchi are packed must
be stamped ‘‘Not for importation into or
distribution in FL.’’
(d) The litchi may be imported in
commercial consignments only.
History
(Approved by the Office of Management and
Budget under control number 0579–0386)
Correction to Final Rule
Done in Washington, DC, this 17th day of
September 2013.
Kevin Shea,
Administrator, Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 2013–23044 Filed 9–20–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–34–P
The FAA published a final rule in the
Federal Register establishing Class D
airspace at Bryant AAF, Anchorage, AK
(78 FR 48299, August 8, 2013). In the
regulatory text, language indicating the
Class D airspace area is part time
established in advance with a Notice to
Airmen was omitted and is now
included.
Class D airspace designations are
published in paragraph 5000 of FAA
Order 7400.9X, dated August 7, 2013,
and effective September 15, 2013, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR
71.1. The Class D airspace designations
listed in this document will be
published subsequently in that Order.
Accordingly, pursuant to the
authority delegated to me, amendatory
instruction 2 and the legal description
for Bryant Army Airfield, Anchorage,
AK, as published in the Federal
Register on August 8, 2013 (78 FR
48299), FR Doc. 2013–18866, are
corrected as follows:
§ 71.1
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 71
[Docket FAA No. FAA–2012–0433; Airspace
Docket No. 12–AAL–5]
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Establishment of Class D Airspace;
Bryant AAF, Anchorage, AK
AAL AK D Bryant Army Airfield,
Anchorage, AK [Corrected]
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule; correction.
AGENCY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:25 Sep 20, 2013
Jkt 229001
2. On page 48300, column 1, line 56,
the following is added to the regulatory
text: This Class D airspace area is
effective during the specific dates and
times established in advance by a Notice
■
This action corrects a final
rule published in the Federal Register
August 8, 2013 that establishes Class D
SUMMARY:
[Amended]
1. On page 48300, column 1, revise
amendatory instruction 2 to read: The
incorporation by reference in 14 CFR
71.1 of the Federal Aviation
Administration Order 7400.9X, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points,
dated August 7, 2013, and effective
September 15, 2013, is amended as
follows:
■
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
to Airmen. The effective date and time
will thereafter be continuously
published in the Airport/Facility
Directory.
Issued in Seattle, Washington, on
September 11, 2013.
Christopher Ramirez,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group,
Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2013–23016 Filed 9–20–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 71
Docket No. FAA–2013–0528; Airspace
Docket No. 13–ANM–16
Establishment of Class E Airspace;
Wasatch, UT
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This action establishes Class
E airspace at the Wasatch VHF OmniDirectional Radio Range Tactical Air
Navigational Aid (VORTAC) navigation
aid, Wasatch, UT, to facilitate vectoring
of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) aircraft
under control of Salt Lake City Air
Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC).
This improves the safety and
management of IFR operations within
the National Airspace System. This
action also makes a minor adjustment to
the geographic coordinates of the
Wasatch VORTAC navigation aid.
DATES: Effective date, 0901 UTC,
December 12, 2013. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this
incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR Part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and
publication of conforming amendments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Eldon Taylor, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support
Group, Western Service Center, 1601
Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057;
telephone (425) 203–4537.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
History
On July 10, 2013, the FAA published
in the Federal Register a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend
controlled airspace at Wasatch, UT (78
FR 41336). Interested parties were
invited to participate in this rulemaking
effort by submitting written comments
on the proposal to the FAA. No
comments were received. Subsequent to
publication, the FAA’s Aeronautical
E:\FR\FM\23SER1.SGM
23SER1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 184 (Monday, September 23, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 58154-58158]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-23044]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
7 CFR Part 319
[Docket No. APHIS-2009-0084]
RIN 0579-AD56
Importation of Litchi Fruit From Australia
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are amending the regulations in order to allow, under
certain conditions, the importation of commercial shipments of litchi
fruit from Australia into the continental United States, except
Florida. As a condition of entry, the litchi fruit must be treated with
irradiation and subject to inspection. If irradiation is applied
outside the United States, the fruit must be inspected jointly by
inspectors from the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service and the
national plant protection organization (NPPO) of Australia prior to
departure and accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the
NPPO of Australia certifying that the fruit received the required
irradiation treatment. If irradiation is to be applied upon arrival in
the United States, the fruit must be inspected by Australian inspectors
prior to departure and accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate
issued by the NPPO of Australia. Additionally, the litchi fruit may not
be imported into or distributed within the State of Florida, due to the
presence of litchi rust mite in Australia. This action allows for the
importation of litchi fruit from Australia into the continental United
States, except Florida, while continuing to provide protection against
the introduction of quarantine pests.
DATES: Effective Date: October 23, 2013.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Dorothy C. Wayson, Regulatory
Coordination Specialist, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 141,
Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 851-2036.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The regulations in ``Subpart--Fruits and Vegetables'' (7 CFR
319.56-1 through 319.56-60, 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.
On December 28, 2011, we published in the Federal Register (76 FR
81401-81404, Docket No. APHIS-2009-0084) a proposal \1\ to amend the
regulations to allow fresh litchi fruit (Litchi chinensis Sonn.) from
Australia to be imported into the continental United States, except
Florida. We proposed that, as a condition of entry, the litchi fruit
would have to be produced in accordance with a systems approach that
includes requirements for monitoring and oversight, irradiation
treatment of the fruit, limited distribution, and shipping.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ To view the proposed rule and the comments we received, go
to https://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2009-0084.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We solicited comments concerning our proposal for 60 days ending
February 27, 2012. We received four comments by that date. They were
from two students, a representative of a foreign government, and an
organization of State plant regulatory officials. The comments are
discussed below by topic.
Pest List
We prepared a pest risk assessment (PRA) and a risk management
document for the importation of fresh litchi fruit from Australia. That
PRA evaluated the risks associated with the importation of litchi fruit
with up to 5 millimeters of stem into the continental United States
from Australia. The threshold allowing for a maximum of 5 millimeters
of stem on the imported litchi fruit was included in Australia's market
access request and therefore established as the allowable limit in the
PRA.
One commenter stated that neither the proposed rule nor the PRA
provided phytosanitary justification for the inclusion of this 5
millimeter limit. The commenter further stated that, while the 5
millimeter stem length was included in Australia's market access
request, it had been intended only as part of a general description of
Australia's standard litchi fruit production practices. The commenter
asked that the limit be removed in light of the fact that
[[Page 58155]]
those pests associated with stems and twigs would either be mitigated
by the treatments described in the systems approach regardless of stem
length or were not listed as following the pathway of importation.
We agree with the commenter and have removed the requirement.
The PRA identified 15 pests of quarantine significance present in
Australia that could be introduced into the United States through the
importation of litchi fruit, including 3 fruit flies, 7 lepidopteran
pests, 2 scales, 2 other insect pests, and 1 mite.
Green scale (Coccus viridis) and passionvine mealybug (Planococcus
minor) were included in the proposed rule and PRA as being two of the
quarantine pests of litchi subject to mitigation. Subsequent to
publication of the proposed rule, we established that Coccus viridis
and Planococcus minor no longer meet our definition of a quarantine
pest and have added them to our list \2\ of pests that we no longer
regulate. Therefore, we will not be including Coccus viridis and
Planococcus minor among the pests to be listed in the additional
declaration on the phytosanitary certificate. This change has the
effect of addressing one commenter's recommendation that Planococcus
minor not be regarded as a pest following the pathway of commercial
shipments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ This list can be viewed at https://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/frsmp/non-reg-pests.shtml.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One commenter requested that we intensively monitor litchi fruit
from Australia at the port of entry for the litchi hairy mite (Aceria
litchii), which is not eliminated by irradiation.
Port of entry inspection is among the required phytosanitary
measures that apply to the importation of litchi fruit from Australia.
These measures, which also include requirements concerning irradiation,
commercial shipments, and limited distribution, have been successfully
applied to shipments of litchis imported from Thailand, where the
litchi hairy mite is also present. Based on our experience, we are
confident in the efficacy of the standard level of inspection in
detecting quarantine pests and preventing their entry into the United
States.
Proposed Systems Approach
Based on the risk management document, we determined that measures
beyond the standard port of arrival inspection are required to mitigate
the risks posed by the plant pests associated with the importation of
litchi fruit from Australia. We proposed to allow the importation of
litchi fruit from Australia into the United States only if they are
produced in accordance with a systems approach to mitigate pest risk.
One commenter objected to our use of the term ``systems approach.''
The commenter stated that since all pests identified as likely to
follow the importation pathway are mitigated by the proposed
irradiation treatment and because no specific in-field management
measures were stipulated, the combination of measures would not qualify
as a systems approach. The commenter asked that we remove all
references to the systems approach from the regulation.
We are making no change as a result of this comment. We proposed a
number of requirements that shipments of litchi fruit from Australia
would have to meet prior to importation. These requirements concerned
place of production, treatment with irradiation, certificates of
inspection issued by the national plant protection organization (NPPO)
of Australia, limited distribution, and limitation to commercial
consignments only. For the reasons discussed below, we have decided to
remove the requirement relating to place of production. Contrary to the
commenter's assertion, the litchi hairy mite is not mitigated by the
irradiation treatment and therefore necessitates specific inspection.
In addition, the limited distribution requirement is an additional
measure beyond the standard port of arrival inspection which is
required to mitigate the risks posed by the plant pests associated with
litchis from Australia. Furthermore, the proposed measures meet the
definition of systems approach as found in International Standards for
Phytosanitary Measures (ISPM) No. 5: The integration of different risk
management measures, at least two of which act independently, and which
cumulatively achieve the appropriate level of protection against
regulated pests.
One element of the proposed systems approach was a requirement that
the litchi fruit be grown in approved places of production that are
registered with and monitored by the NPPO of Australia.
One commenter argued that the monitoring requirement should be
removed, as the proposed systems approach did not include any
requirements for in-field control measures of the sort that would
require NPPO oversight. The commenter stated that the other methods of
control listed as part of the proposed systems approach would be
sufficient to mitigate risks posed by those pests discussed in the PRA
and the risk management document.
We agree with the commenter. Regulatory requirements concerning the
monitoring of approved places of production are associated the
application of in-field measures needed to address a specific pest
risk, which is not the case with the mitigation measures assigned for
litchi fruit from Australia as detailed in the PRA. Rather, the
framework equivalency workplan required for irradiated fruits and
vegetables as described in Sec. 305.9(e)(1)(B) of our phytosanitary
treatments regulations, stipulates that the U.S. and the exporting
country's NPPO must establish the type and amount of inspection,
monitoring, or other activities that will be required in connection
with allowing the importation of irradiated fruits and vegetables. Such
workplans include requirements for NPPO-approved places of production
for the purpose of specific traceability in the event of an unforeseen
pest situation. This allows for the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service (APHIS) and the NPPO to work collaboratively to address the
situation in-country without applying unnecessary importation
restrictions.
Another element of the proposed systems approach was a requirement
that the litchi fruit be imported in commercial consignments only. This
is because commercially produced fruit are already subject to standard
commercial cultural and post-harvest practices that reduce the risk
associated with plant pests. Export orchards that are registered
production sites with traceback capability was cited as one of those
practices that helps ensure the phytosanitary security of exported
litchis.
One commenter requested that we exclude the requirement regarding
registered production sites with traceback capability. The commenter
argued that such a stipulation is inconsistent with the requirements of
previous rules regarding the importation of fruits and vegetables from
Australia as well as rules regarding the importation of litchi fruit
from countries other than Australia. The commenter concluded that, from
a regulatory flexibility standpoint, it would be preferable to include
any requirement regarding traceability in the framework equivalency
workplan given that these workplans may be amended more easily to
reflect any changing conditions within the country that would
necessitate such tracking.
We agree with the commenter's point and have removed references to
the
[[Page 58156]]
requirement that orchards be registered with and monitored by the NPPO
of Australia in this final rule. We also agree that any such
requirements are more appropriately located in the framework
equivalency workplan where, as with the conditions concerning
monitoring requirements discussed previously, they would provide for
specific traceability in the event of an unforeseen pest situation.
Another element of the proposed systems approach was a requirement
that litchi fruit be treated with a minimum absorbed irradiation dose
of 400 gray in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 305.9 and the
Plant Protection and Quarantine Treatment Manual. This is the
established generic dose for all insect pests, except pupae and adults
of the order Lepidoptera. While the preamble text in the proposed rule
specified that such treatment could be conducted at an approved
facility in Australia or in the United States, the proposed regulatory
text stated that treatment would have to be conducted prior to
importation of the fruits into the United States.
The commenter asked that the requirement for the fruit to be
treated prior to importation into the United States be removed.
We agree with the commenter and have changed the requirement
accordingly. If irradiation is applied outside the United States, the
fruits must be inspected jointly by inspectors from APHIS and the NPPO
of Australia prior to departure and accompanied by a phytosanitary
certificate issued by the NPPO of Australia certifying that the fruit
received the required irradiation treatment. If irradiation is to be
applied upon arrival in the United States, the fruits must be inspected
by Australian inspectors prior to departure and accompanied by a
phytosanitary certificate issued by the NPPO of Australia.
In addition to altering the requirement associated with the
location of the irradiation treatment, we are also removing the
stipulation that this information be contained in an additional
declaration, as an additional declaration is not used for certifying
application of a treatment or details of a treatment. Instead, if
irradiation is applied outside the United States, the fruits must be
inspected jointly by inspectors from APHIS and the NPPO of Australia
prior to departure and accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate
issued by the NPPO of Australia certifying that the fruit received the
required irradiation treatment. We included the requirement concerning
the additional declaration regarding treatment information in error in
the proposed rule. Certification of irradiation treatment will provide
sufficient phytosanitary protection.
Because the litchi hairy mite is not present in Florida and because
we have consistently prohibited host movement into Florida from areas
where that pest is present, another aspect of the proposed systems
approach was to prohibit the importation and distribution of litchi
from Australia into the State of Florida by requiring that all cartons
of litchi be stamped ``Not for distribution in FL.''
One commenter stated that we should also restrict importation of
litchi fruit into the State of California given that Florida and
California have similar climates that allow for the establishment and
survival of the litchi hairy mite. Another commenter stated that
commercial litchi production is an emerging field in California and
those small- and medium-scale agricultural producers and family farms
in particular would be helped by the exclusion of Australian litchi
fruit from California.
We are making no change as a result of these comments. Unlike the
more humid climate found in Florida, the dry Mediterranean climate in
California is not conducive for the survival of the litchi hairy mite.
Additionally, the occurrence of seasonal cold snaps and high winds in
California causes flower loss and, consequently, poor fruit set. The
litchi tree needs a truly tropical climate to produce much fruit.
Further, production levels of litchi in California are low. We
therefore believe that the improbability of mite survival and the small
number of hosts available in California are sufficient to mitigate the
risk posed by litchi hairy mite. Finally, regarding the second
commenter's point, APHIS does not have the authority to prohibit
commodities for importation solely based on potential economic impact.
The determining factor must be scientifically established pest risk.
Pest Risk Analysis
The Asian ambrosia beetle (Euwallacea fornicatus) was listed in the
PRA as being a pest of litchi present in Australia that is also present
in Hawaii. We determined that Euwallacea fornicatus was not likely to
follow the importation pathway and therefore did not address it further
via mitigations. One commenter stated that we should remove Euwallacea
fornicatus from the list of quarantine pests in the PRA because the
pest is also present in Florida and California in addition to Hawaii.
The commenter is correct regarding the distribution of Euwallacea
fornicatus within California, Florida, and Hawaii. However, while the
beetle is present in California and Florida based on more recent
references than those cited in the PRA, it is also currently listed as
reportable in a domestic context and is currently being assessed by the
United States Department of Agriculture's New Pest Advisory Group.
Euwallacea fornicatus, therefore, meets our standards regarding
quarantine pests. For that reason, we are making no changes as a result
of this comment.
Economic Analysis
We analyzed the potential economic effects of the importation of
litchi fruit from Australia on small entities and concluded that any
litchi price declines that might result from this rule would be
insignificant, especially if, as is likely, at least some litchi fruit
imports from Australia were to displace imports from other countries.
Additionally, we stated that, given that the agricultural seasons in
the Southern Hemisphere are generally the opposite of those in the
Northern Hemisphere, the proposed imports from Australia likely would
not directly compete with U.S. litchi fruit production. As a result, we
determined that the importation of litchi fruit from Australia would
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
One commenter stated other agencies such as the United Nations Food
and Agriculture Organization do not distinguish between fresh and
processed fruit, while the U.S. Harmonized Tariff System group litchi
fruit with other exotic fruits into a single category. The commenter
further stated that the analysis performed by APHIS to determine the
economic effects of the proposed rule on small entities uses data from
2004 and earlier in order to reach its conclusions. The commenter
concluded that it is important to base any economic analysis on current
data that is segregated specifically by fruit type in order to best
inform the decisionmaking process.
We are making no changes as a result of this comment. The commenter
rightly observes that the United Nations Food and Agriculture
Organization and the U.S. Harmonized Tariff System do not separate
shipment data concerning fresh litchis in particular, however we did
not use data from either of these sources in order to conduct our
economic analysis. The most recent sources of information specifically
regarding fresh litchis are from the Proceedings of the Florida
[[Page 58157]]
State Horticultural Society, 118,\3\ and a paper entitled ``Is It Still
Profitable to Grow Lychee in Florida?,'' which was released by the Food
and Resource Economics Department, Florida Cooperative Extension
Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of
Florida, and may be found on the Internet at https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/fe496. These papers are dated 2005 and 2004, respectively. They
represent the most recent, targeted economic information available on
the subject of the importation of litchi fruit and the domestic market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Copies of the proceedings are available from the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The commenter also said that the two main factors that affect the
profitability of litchi farmers in the United States are product yield
and market price. The commenter referenced an analysis conducted by the
University of Florida, Department of Food and Resource Economics, which
concluded that net returns are very sensitive to even small market
price fluctuations, even more than a similar increase or decrease in
yield.
We are making no changes as a result of this comment. The quantity
of litchi fruit that Australia proposes to export to the United States
(400 metric tons) represents 2.7 percent of total U.S. imports. This
relatively small quantity is unlikely to cause market fluctuations.
The commenter agreed that the importation of litchi fruit from
Australia alone is not likely to have a major effect on the price of
litchi sold in the United States due to the small quantity and the
differing harvest periods in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres.
However, the commenter also stated that litchi fruit imported from
Australia, when considered in conjunction with litchi fruit imported
from countries such as Thailand, Vietnam, and South Africa, may
contribute to the declining price of litchi fruit overall. The
commenter stated that APHIS should take into account projected import
levels of litchi fruit from all countries, rather than considering such
importations on country-by-country basis.
We are making no changes as a result of this comment. APHIS
evaluates commodity import requests on a case-by-case basis.
Accordingly, the economic analysis considers total imports levels from
those countries that currently export to the United States in
conjunction with the projected level of imports from the requesting
country. Prior to the publication of this rule, we allowed for the
importation of litchi fruit from China, India, Taiwan, and Thailand,
and therefore based our assessment of the potential economic impact of
the rule on imports from those countries. In the event that other
countries, such as Vietnam or South Africa, submit requests for market
access for litchi fruit, we will evaluate the economic impacts of
imports from those countries. We do not consider the potential economic
impact of exports of commodities from countries that have not submitted
market access requests to us.
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.
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.
World production of litchi is estimated to be 2.2 million metric
tons (MT), with China accounting for over 50 percent (1.2 million MT),
and one-third produced by India (0.7 million MT). The United States
produces approximately 500 MT per year, which represents less than 0.03
percent of world production. U.S. litchi production is concentrated in
the States of Florida, Hawaii, and California. Florida has the largest
area under production (1,200 acres), followed by Hawaii (300 acres) and
California (60 acres). Currently, Australia produces 3,500 MT of
litchis. Australia expects to export approximately 20 forty-foot
containers of litchis per year to the United States, which is
equivalent to about 400 MT.
In 2004, the United States imported a total of 14,854 MT of
litchis, mainly from China, Taiwan, and Mexico. Australia's proposed
export quantity represents about 2.7 percent of U.S. imports in 2004.
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 litchi fruit to be imported into the
continental United States from Australia. State and local laws and
regulations regarding litchi fruit imported under this rule will be
preempted while the fruit is in foreign commerce. Fresh fruits and
vegetables 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
In accordance with section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the information collection or
recordkeeping requirements included in this final rule, which were
filed under 0579-0386, have been submitted for approval to the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB). When OMB notifies us of its decision,
if approval is denied, we will publish a document in the Federal
Register providing notice of what action we plan to take.
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 and 7701-7772, and 7781-7786; 21 U.S.C.
136 and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.
[[Page 58158]]
0
2. A new Sec. 319.56-61 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 319.56-61 Litchi from Australia.
Litchi (Litchi chinensis) may be imported into the continental
United States from Australia only under the following conditions and in
accordance with all other applicable provisions of this subpart:
(a) The litchi must be treated for plant pests of the class
Insecta, except pupae and adults of the order Lepidoptera, with
irradiation in accordance with Sec. 305.9 of this chapter. Treatment
may be conducted either prior to or upon arrival of the fruits into the
United States.
(b) Each shipment of litchi must be accompanied by a phytosanitary
certificate of inspection issued by the NPPO of Australia. For those
shipments of litchi treated in Australia, the phytosanitary certificate
must certify that the fruit received the required irradiation treatment
prior to shipment. For those shipments of litchi treated upon arrival
in the United States, the fruits must be inspected by Australian
inspectors prior to departure and accompanied by a phytosanitary
certificate.
(c) In addition to meeting the labeling requirements in part 305 of
this chapter, cartons in which litchi are packed must be stamped ``Not
for importation into or distribution in FL.''
(d) The litchi may be imported in commercial consignments only.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 0579-0386)
Done in Washington, DC, this 17th day of September 2013.
Kevin Shea,
Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-23044 Filed 9-20-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
