Importation of Fresh Mango Fruit From Vietnam Into the Continental United States, 56531-56536 [2017-25764]
Download as PDF
56531
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
Vol. 82, No. 228
Wednesday, November 29, 2017
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.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service
7 CFR Part 319
[Docket No. APHIS–2016–0026]
RIN 0579–AE25
Importation of Fresh Mango Fruit From
Vietnam Into the Continental United
States
Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
We are amending the
regulations to allow the importation of
fresh mango fruit from Vietnam into the
continental United States. As a
condition of entry, fresh mango fruit
from Vietnam will be subject to a
systems approach that includes orchard
or packinghouse requirements,
irradiation treatment, and port of entry
inspection. The fruit will also be
required to be imported in commercial
consignments and accompanied by a
phytosanitary certificate issued by the
national plant protection organization of
Vietnam with an additional declaration
stating that the consignment was
inspected and found free of
Macrophoma mangiferae and
Xanthomonas campestris pv.
mangiferaeindicae. This action will
allow for the importation of fresh mango
fruit from Vietnam while continuing to
provide protection against the
introduction of plant pests into the
continental United States.
DATES: Effective December 29, 2017.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
´
Tony Roman, Senior Regulatory Policy
Specialist, Regulatory Coordination and
Compliance, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River
Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737–
1231; (301) 851–2242.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:16 Nov 28, 2017
Jkt 244001
Background
Under the regulations in ‘‘Subpart—
Fruits and Vegetables’’ (7 CFR 319.56–
1 through 319.56–80, referred to below
as the regulations or the fruits and
vegetables regulations), the Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)
of the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) prohibits or
restricts the importation of fruits and
vegetables into the United States from
certain parts of the world to prevent
plant pests from being introduced into
and spread within the United States.
On August 4, 2016, we published in
the Federal Register (81 FR 51381–
51383, Docket No. APHIS–2016–0026) a
proposal 1 to amend the regulations by
allowing for the importation of
commercially produced fresh mango
(Mangifera indica L.) fruit from Vietnam
into the continental United States.
We solicited comments concerning
our proposal for 60 days ending October
3, 2016. We received 21 comments by
that date. They were from producers,
exporters, and representatives of State
and foreign governments. Of these, four
were fully supportive of the proposed
action. The remaining 17 are discussed
below by topic.
General Comments
One commenter asked why APHIS
focused on the importation of fresh
mango fruit instead of other fruits that
cannot be grown in the United States.
APHIS’s phytosanitary evaluation
process only begins once a country has
submitted a formal request for market
access for a particular commodity.
APHIS does not solicit such requests,
nor do we control which countries
submit requests.
Two commenters argued that there is
already an adequate fresh mango supply
in the domestic market to meet existing
demand. The commenters stated that
importation of fresh mango fruit carries
a risk of diminished market share for
local producers and suggested that the
importation of fresh mango fruit from
Vietnam not be allowed.
Such prohibitions would be beyond
the scope of APHIS’ statutory authority
under the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C.
7701 et seq., referred to below as the
PPA). Under the PPA, APHIS may
1 To view the proposed rule, supporting
documents, and the comments we received, go to
https://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=
APHIS-2016-0026.
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
prohibit the importation of a fruit or
vegetable into the United States only if
we determine that the prohibition is
necessary in order to prevent the
introduction or dissemination of a plant
pest or noxious weed within the United
States.
Additionally, as a signatory to the
World Trade Organization’s Agreement
on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures
(SPS Agreement), the United States has
agreed that any prohibitions it places on
the importation of fruits and vegetables
will be based on scientific evidence
related to phytosanitary measures and
issues, and will not be maintained
without sufficient scientific evidence.
The blanket prohibitions requested by
the commenters would not be in
keeping with this agreement.
Another commenter suggested that,
given the transit time from Vietnam to
the continental United States, the fresh
mango fruit would have to be harvested
in a very under ripe state in order to
survive transit and would therefore
prove unsuitable for the domestic
market.
While the quality of the fresh mango
fruit and the timing of harvest are
important factors in its marketability,
we are solely concerned with plant
health and phytosanitary risk. The
timing of harvest solely for
marketability reasons is outside the
scope of this regulation.
Another commenter suggested that
APHIS consider the effect of imported
pests, bacteria, and fungi on domestic
producers.
We considered these potential effects
in the pest risk assessment (PRA) and
laid out mitigations against
phytosanitary impact in the risk
management document (RMD) that
accompanied the proposed rule.
Comments on the Impetus for the
Proposal
One commenter stated that there is no
reason to risk the accidental importation
of pests associated with fresh mango
fruit from Vietnam except for political
gain.
This action was predicated on several
risk assessment documents that provide
a scientific basis for potential
importation of fresh mango fruit from
Vietnam. Without these risk assessment
documents, which have withstood
several reviews and public comment
periods, APHIS would not have
proposed this action. Political and
E:\FR\FM\29NOR1.SGM
29NOR1
56532
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 29, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
economic interests may stimulate
consideration of the expansion of trade
of agricultural commodities between
countries, but all decision making
concerning phytosanitary restrictions on
trade must be science-based. APHIS
stands behind the risk assessment
documents that support this rule, and
believes they are based on sound
science.
Two other commenters wanted to
know why Vietnam would choose to
export fresh mangos to the United States
given that those fresh mangos would
represent only 1 percent of the overall
domestic supply. The commenters
inquired about the benefits of adding
another source of fresh mango fruit to
the existing stock.
APHIS’ phytosanitary evaluation
process only begins once a country has
submitted a formal request for market
access for a particular commodity.
APHIS does not solicit such requests,
nor do we control which countries
submit requests. APHIS does not solicit
information regarding the motivations
for such requests, we merely subject
them to science-based evaluation.
pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
Comments on the Pest List
The PRA identified 18 quarantine
pests that could be introduced into the
continental United States in
consignments of fresh mango fruit from
Vietnam. A quarantine pest is defined in
§ 319.56–2 as ‘‘a pest of potential
economic importance to the area
endangered thereby and not yet present
there, or present but not widely
distributed and being officially
controlled.’’ The pests listed in the PRA
are:
• Carambola fruit fly, Bactrocera
carambolae Drew & Hancock
• Guava fruit fly, Bactrocera correcta
(Bezzi)
• Melon fly, Bactrocera cucurbitae
Coquillett
• Oriental fruit fly, Bactrocera dorsalis
Hendel
• Pumpkin fruit fly, Bactrocera tau
Walker
• Peach fruit fly, Bactrocera zonata
(Saunders)
• Yellow peach moth, Conogethes
punctiferalis
• Mango seed borer, Deanolis
albizonalis
• Old World bollworm, Helicoverpa
armigera
• Pink hibiscus mealybug,
Maconellicoccus hirsutus
• The fungus Macrophoma mangiferae
• Spherical mealybug, Nipaecoccus
viridis
• Coffee mealybug, Planococcus
lilacinus
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:16 Nov 28, 2017
Jkt 244001
• Citriculus mealybug, Pseudococcus
cryptus
• Fruit tree mealybug, Rastrococcus
invadens
• Chili thrips, Scirtothrips dorsalis
• Mango pulp weevil, Sternochetus
frigidus
• Mango black spot, Xanthomonas
campestris pv. mangiferaeindicae
One commenter said that the chance
of a mutation occurring that allows for
one or multiple species to become
resistant to the chemical treatments
applied to fresh mango fruit from
Vietnam was of potential concern. The
commenter argued that, given the size of
the pest list, such a mutation might be
overlooked, resulting in an introduction
of that mutated pest into the United
States.
We believe that the standard
suggested by the commenter would call
for APHIS to postulate based on wholly
unknowable risk factors. The PRA that
accompanied the proposed rule
provided a list of all pests of fresh
mango fruit known to exist in Vietnam.
This list was prepared using multiple
data sources to ensure its completeness.
For this same reason, we are confident
it is accurate. If, however, a mutation of
a pest is detected in Vietnam, APHIS
will conduct further risk analysis in
order to evaluate that pest to determine
whether it is a quarantine pest, and
whether it is likely to follow the
importation pathway. If we determine
that the pest is a quarantine pest and is
likely to follow the pathway, we will
work with the national plant protection
organization (NPPO) of Vietnam to
adjust the pest list and related
phytosanitary measures to prevent its
introduction into the United States.
Another commenter stated that
Florida and Texas, two mango
producing States, are already dealing
with an emerging population of chili
thrips. The commenter argued against
the importation of fresh mango fruit
from Vietnam given the prevalence of
the pest in that country.
Given the findings of the PRA, we are
confident that the systems approach
required for fresh mango fruit from
Vietnam will mitigate the risk posed by
such fresh mango fruit to introduce
these pests.
A commenter suggested that chili
thrips be removed from the pest list,
because the pest does not have any
developing stages associated with fresh
mango fruit.
As cited in the PRA, chili thrips only
attacks immature fruit of its hosts,
including fresh mango fruit.2 The
2 Yamaguchi, T. 2007. Seasonal prevalence of
Scirtothrips dorsalis Hood and Selenothrips
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
commenter provided no evidence to
support the claim that the pest does not
have any developing stages associated
with fresh mango fruit.
Comments on the Systems Approach
Based on the findings of the PRA, we
determined that measures beyond
standard port-of-entry inspection will be
needed to mitigate the risks posed by
the pests listed above. These measures
were identified in the RMD and were
used as the basis for the requirements of
the systems approach.
One commenter asked if there is a
fund to compensate domestic producers
for crop loss were the systems approach
to fail. The commenter proposed that
fresh mango fruit from Vietnam be
subject to a hot water treatment as has
been required for fresh mango fruit from
other countries.
The mitigations listed are proven
effective in preventing the introduction
of foreign pests into the United States
and are the same or equivalent to those
measures required for the importation of
fresh mango fruit from other countries
(e.g., India, Pakistan, and Australia).
There is currently no fund to
compensate farmers as a result of pest
introduction.
The same commenter stated that
exporting countries may lie in their
certifications of pest freedom.
For the reasons explained in the
proposed rule, the RMD, and this final
rule, we consider the provisions of this
final rule adequate to mitigate the risk
associated with the importation of fresh
mango fruit from Vietnam. The
commenter did not provide any
evidence suggesting that the mitigations
are individually or collectively
ineffective.
Another commenter requested that
fresh mango fruit from Vietnam not be
allowed into the State of Florida given
that the climate in that State is
conducive to the establishment of the
listed pests.
We have determined, for the reasons
described in the RMD that accompanied
the proposed rule, that the measures
specified in the RMD will effectively
mitigate the risk associated with the
importation of fresh mango fruit from
Vietnam. The commenter did not
provide any evidence suggesting that
the mitigations are not effective.
Therefore, we are not taking the action
requested by the commenter.
Fresh mango fruit from Vietnam will
be required to be imported into the
rubrocinctus (Giard) on the flower buds,
inflorescences, and fruits of mango (Mangifera
indica) plants cultivated in greenhouses on AmamiOshima Island, Japan [Abstract]. Kyushu byogaichu
kenkyukaiho 53:103–106.
E:\FR\FM\29NOR1.SGM
29NOR1
pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 29, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
continental United States in commercial
consignments only. One commenter
asked how APHIS will determine
whether a given operation is
commercial. The commenter wanted to
know if a list of approved producers
will be made available.
An inspector will identify commercial
consignments using such factors as:
Quantity of produce, type of packaging,
identification of grower or packinghouse
on the packaging, and documents
consigning the fruits or vegetables to a
wholesaler or retailer. The NPPO of the
exporting country verifies and approves
commercial growing areas and
maintains the list of all approved
growers in that country. Anyone
wishing to request this list should
contact the NPPO of Vietnam for access.
Another commenter asked how we
will ensure that non-commercial
producers are not selling their fruit to
commercial producers in order to skirt
the requirements of the regulations.
APHIS and the NPPO of Vietnam will
jointly develop an operational
workplan. The workplan will
incorporate details of traceability,
treatment, and preclearance activities,
including any inspection of articles that
APHIS may perform before or after
treatment. Traceability and verification
that the fresh mango fruit was grown
commercially will serve to prevent the
scenario envisioned by the commenter.
Fresh mango fruit from Vietnam will
be required to be treated with a
minimum absorbed irradiation dose of
400 gray in accordance with § 305.9 of
the phytosanitary treatment regulations
in 7 CFR part 305. This is the
established generic dose for all insect
pests except pupae and adults of the
order Lepidoptera and mango fruit
pathogens. Consignments of fresh
mango fruit from Vietnam will also have
to meet all other relevant requirements
in part 305, including monitoring of
treatment by APHIS inspectors.
A commenter stated that irradiation is
designed for certain insect species and
may not be an effective treatment for the
many other tropical fruit and citrus
pests such as mites, as well as various
pathogens, found in Vietnam.
We agree with the commenter, which
is why the systems approach includes
other phytosanitary procedures
designed to provide protection from
pests against which irradiation is not
effective.
Another commenter was particularly
concerned about peach fruit fly and
pumpkin fruit fly and the potential for
those pests to damage and infest
domestic crops if they were to be
accidentally introduced. The
commenter inquired whether the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:16 Nov 28, 2017
Jkt 244001
required irradiation dose would kill all
peach and pumpkin fruit flies.
While no treatment can be guaranteed
to be 100 percent effective, the absorbed
dose of 400 gray has been shown to be
effective in preventing insects from
reproducing. Irradiation treatment does
not kill insects but instead renders them
sterile or incapable of completing
development.
One commenter stated that we should
provide scientific evidence of how
irradiation affects all the plant pests
associated with fresh mango fruit from
Vietnam.
We would not include data on the
ways in which a given phytosanitary
treatment affects plant pests for which
it is not an approved treatment. All the
pests associated with fresh mango fruit
from Vietnam are not meant to be
mitigated by the listed irradiation
treatment; instead the required
treatment works in concert with the
other aspects of the systems approach in
order to provide phytosanitary security.
For a complete discussion of the
efficacy of irradiation on those plant
pests for which it is an approved
treatment, please refer to the proposed
and final rules entitled ‘‘Treatments for
Fruits and Vegetables’’ (70 FR 33857–
33873, Docket No. 03–077–1 and 71 FR
4451–4464, Docket No. 03–077–2).
In order to mitigate the risks posed by
Macrophoma mangiferae, we proposed
three options: (1) The mangoes be
treated with a broad-spectrum postharvest fungicidal dip, (2) the orchard of
origin be inspected at a time prior to the
beginning of harvest and be found free
of Macrophoma mangiferae, or (3) fruit
must originate from an orchard that was
treated with a broad-spectrum fungicide
during the growing season.
One commenter wanted to know who
will conduct orchard inspections.
Inspections are performed by the
NPPO of Vietnam or its designee. If
necessary, based on noncompliance
events or program audits conducted in
accordance with APHIS’ policy, APHIS
will provide qualified personnel to work
cooperatively with the NPPO of
Vietnam and all other program
participants to review and evaluate
operations in the field and
packinghouses, quarantine pest
management and control activities, and
other safeguarding measures.
Another commenter asked when the
broad-spectrum fungicide will be
required to be applied during the
growing season. The commenter also
wanted to know whether the fungicide
or fungicides are safe to use in
conjunction with fresh mango fruit.
Fungicides are applied at the
recommended rate deemed effective
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
56533
against the target pest, and, as stated in
the proposed rule, may be applied at
any time during the growing season but
prior to harvest. Fungicide safety in
relation to the growing environment is
subject to oversight by Vietnam’s
environmental authorities. The U.S.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
regulates and monitors the level of
fungicide residues present on imported
fruits and vegetables intended for
human consumption.
A commenter wanted to know how
we will ensure that all necessary
treatments are being applied prior to
harvest and export.
Our standard practice is to conduct
site visits prior to the initiation of any
import program. This is to ensure that
all required mitigations are in place and
the agreed upon operational workplan is
being enforced. Subject matter experts
inspect production sites and
packinghouses and report their findings
to APHIS. Furthermore, the operational
workplan authorizes the regional APHIS
International Services Director to
conduct periodic audit visits of
production sites.
Another commenter inquired about
the authorization process for inspectors
in Vietnam, stating that we need to
ensure that authorized inspectors have
the relevant experience and a strong
background in agriculture and food
safety.
All inspections will be performed by
APHIS and the NPPO of Vietnam as part
of the established preclearance program
in Vietnam. The NPPO of Vietnam is
responsible for recruiting, vetting, and
training inspectors so that they possess
the necessary skills to successfully
perform their duties. Preclearance
programs, including the program in
Vietnam, are an important piece in our
safeguarding strategy.
Each consignment of fruit will have to
be accompanied by a phytosanitary
certificate issued by the NPPO of
Vietnam that contains an additional
declaration stating that the fruit in the
consignment was inspected and found
free of Macrophoma mangiferae and
Xanthomonas campestris pv.
mangiferaeindicae. A commenter
argued that APHIS’s claim that
inspection would mitigate the risks
posed by Xanthomonas campestris pv.
mangiferaeindicae since symptoms of
Xanthomonas campestris pv.
mangiferaeindicae are easily discernible
to the naked eye was insufficient as
some fruit might be asymptomatic. The
commenter stated that testing may need
to be done. Another commenter said
that many of the listed pests are known
to feed inside the fruit and have the
potential to escape detection. The
E:\FR\FM\29NOR1.SGM
29NOR1
pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
56534
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 29, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
commenter argued that these pests
would be difficult to routinely detect by
inspection alone either due to their
feeding habits or life stages. A third
commenter stated that, while the risks
would be minimized, they would not be
eliminated.
We are confident that field inspection
or treatment or packinghouse treatment
and culling, in concert with the other
requirements of the systems approach
will be effective in mitigating
phytosanitary risk. Any fruit that
appeared asymptomatic, as posited by
the commenters, would likely be in the
early stages of infection. Given the
transit time required to ship mangoes
from Vietnam to the United States as
well as mandatory port of entry
inspections, it is likely that latent
infection would be detected at this point
in the importation process.
Consignments of fresh mango fruit
from Vietnam will be subject to
inspection at the port of entry. One
commenter wanted to know if there is
a defined set of requirements for halting
the importation of fresh mango fruit
from Vietnam based on the results of
these inspections.
Consignments of fresh mango fruit
from Vietnam will be seized at the port
of entry in the United States if they fail
to meet the entry requirements set out
in the regulations or if quarantine pests
are found.
Another commenter wanted to know
the rate at which consignments will be
inspected.
All shipments are inspected at the
first port of entry into the United States.
Fruit sampling will be conducted either
as part of the pre-clearance program in
Vietnam or, for those shipments of fresh
mango fruit that were not subject to the
pre-clearance program, by U.S. Customs
and Border Protection (CBP). Actual
sampling rates vary. In a pre-clearance
program, fruits must be sampled at a
rate that produces a 95 percent
confidence of detecting a 2 percent or
greater pest population for external
pests and a 95 percent confidence of
detecting a 10 percent or greater pest
population for internal feeders. In the
case of fresh mango fruit that were not
subject to the pre-clearance program in
Vietnam the sampling rate will be set by
CBP inspectors. Generally speaking the
CBP sampling rate is 2 percent of fruit
in each consignment but may vary
depending on various factors such as
surface abnormalities noted during
visual inspection.
A commenter questioned whether we
should raise the costs and workload of
inspectors at the ports by increasing
their inspection duties.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:16 Nov 28, 2017
Jkt 244001
APHIS has reviewed its resources and
consulted with CBP and believes there
is adequate coverage across the United
States to ensure compliance with APHIS
regulations, including the Vietnamese
mango import program, as established
by this rule.
Comments on Irradiation Treatment
Two commenters expressed concern
regarding the use of irradiation as a
phytosanitary treatment, saying that the
potential effects of irradiation on those
who consume irradiated foods should
be considered. One of the commenters
was particularly worried about the effect
of irradiation on the enzymes found in
raw foods, arguing that the long-term
effects of irradiated food consumption
have yet to be studied. The commenter
argued that irradiated foods should be
labeled accordingly.
While the impact of food on human
health is regulated and monitored by the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
and, as such, these concerns are outside
the scope of our authority, irradiated
foods are wholesome and nutritious.
Nutrient losses caused by irradiation are
less than or about the same as losses
caused by cooking and freezing.
Public health agencies worldwide
have evaluated the safety of food
irradiation over the last 50 years and
found it to be safe. In 37 countries, more
than 40 food products are irradiated. In
some European countries, irradiation
has been in use for decades. In the
United States, the FDA regulates food
irradiation. In addition, food irradiation
has received official endorsement from
the American Medical Association, the
World Health Organization, and the
International Atomic Energy Agency.
Comments on Additional Phytosanitary
Measures
One commenter suggested that all preharvest orchard inspections and all
treatments be performed by APHIS
inspectors in addition to the NPPO of
Vietnam.
APHIS will monitor and audit
Vietnam’s implementation of the
systems approach for the importation of
fresh mango fruit into the continental
United States.
The same commenter said we should
add a methyl bromide treatment
requirement for an additional layer of
phytosanitary protection against
Macrophoma mangiferae, mango black
spot, and lepidopteran pests. Another
commenter suggested that we include
vapor heat as a treatment option.
Methyl bromide fumigation is not
necessary. Neither methyl bromide nor
vapor heat are approved treatments for
fresh mango fruit. For the reasons
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
explained in the proposed rule, the
PRA, the RMD, and this final rule, we
consider the current provisions
adequate to mitigate the risk associated
with the importation of fresh mango
fruit from Vietnam.
A commenter asked if it would be
possible to observe inspectors at the
port of entry to monitor implementation
of the requirements.
The inspectors referenced by the
commenter are trained agricultural
specialists and we trust their knowledge
and experience in phytosanitary
inspections. Allowing outside parties to
observe or participate in inspection
work would potentially impede the
inspectors’ ability to perform their
duties in a thorough and efficient
manner. Inspections are performed in
restricted areas and no civilians are
allowed entry.
Comments on Vietnamese Oversight
Some commenters expressed concerns
that the NPPO of Vietnam would not be
able to adequately implement the
required systems approach. One
commenter asked how APHIS would
enforce production standards in order to
provide phytosanitary protection.
Another commenter stated that the
integrated pest management program in
Vietnam is in its early stages and most
farmers overdose their crops due to
inexperience. The commenter said that
this practice demonstrates a lack of
concern for water and soil quality and
suggests that the NPPO will not hold
Vietnamese produce to a sufficiently
high standard. A third commenter
requested further information on how
we will ensure that our standards for a
pest free consignment are made clear.
APHIS personnel in Vietnam will take
part in the preclearance program we
have established and ensure that our
required mitigation measures are
enforced, including those relating to the
application of fungicides in the field. In
addition, as previously stated, APHIS
will monitor and audit Vietnam’s
implementation of the systems approach
for the importation of fresh mango fruit
into the continental United States. If we
determine that the systems approach
has not been fully implemented or
maintained, we will take appropriate
remedial action to ensure that the
importation of fresh mango fruit from
Vietnam does not result in the
dissemination of plant pests within the
United States.
One commenter voiced concern
regarding potential transshipment of
fresh mango fruit from neighboring
countries. The commenter wanted to
know how we will prevent fresh mango
fruit from being shipped into Vietnam
E:\FR\FM\29NOR1.SGM
29NOR1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 29, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
and subsequently repackaged as a
Vietnamese consignment.
It is the responsibility of the NPPO of
Vietnam to verify that production sites
that grow articles for export and
packinghouses that handle such articles
are registered with the NPPO. Fresh
mango fruit received and packed for
export to the United States must be from
approved orchards only and APHIS
reserves the right to inspect
packinghouses participating in the
export program. Failure to adhere to
program standards, including packaging
transshipped fruits, may result in
removal from the export program.
pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
Comments on Economic Factors
One commenter asked if the
importation of fresh mango fruit from
Vietnam would create economic
benefits for special interests in either
the United States or Vietnam. The
commenter asked for assurance that the
rule represents a good business deal for
the United States.
APHIS bases its decisionmaking
process on evaluation and mitigation of
phytosanitary risk and not on the
economic and trade factors referenced
by the commenter.
Another commenter speculated that
the work and resources required to
allow for the importation of fresh mango
fruit from Vietnam would be better
expended on a higher value commodity.
Contrary to the commenter’s
assertion, the mechanisms, systems, and
personnel for importing fruits and
vegetables already exist. The addition of
another commodity to the list of
allowable imports, particularly as
import levels are expected to be low,
will not unduly tax the existing system.
A commenter observed that the
economic analysis that accompanied the
proposed rule stated that the expected
importation level (3,000 metric tons
[MT] annually) for fresh mango fruit
from Vietnam was equal to the amount
of fresh mango fruit produced
domestically. The commenter
questioned how the importation of an
equal amount of fresh mango fruit to
what is domestically grown represents a
non-significant impact on U.S. mango
producers.
U.S. fresh mango fruit production
levels are indeed low and are estimated
at 3,000 MT annually. However, from
1997 to 2015, fresh mango fruit imports
increased from 187,000 MT to 391,000
MT. While the quantity that is imported
from Vietnam is equivalent to the
quantity produced in the United States,
these imports will simply help meet the
growing demand for mangoes. Fresh
mango fruit imports from Vietnam
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:16 Nov 28, 2017
Jkt 244001
represent less than one percent of total
fresh mango fruit imports.
Therefore, for the reasons given in the
proposed rule and in this document, we
are adopting the proposed rule as a final
rule, without change.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13771 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. This rule is
not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory
action because this rule is not
significant under Executive Order
12866.
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.
This rule is in response to a request
from Vietnam to be allowed to export
fresh mango fruit to the continental
United States. The annual quantity that
Vietnam expects to export to the United
States, 3,000 MT, represents less than 1
percent of U.S. fresh mango fruit
imports, which grew from 187,000 MT
in 1997 to 391,000 MT in 2015. Primary
sources are Mexico, Peru, Ecuador,
Brazil, and Guatemala. While mangoes
are grown in Florida and Hawaii, with
smaller quantities produced in
California and Texas, U.S. annual
production totals only about 3,000 MT.
Most if not all U.S. mango farms and
wholesalers are small entities. However,
given the small quantity expected to be
imported from Vietnam relative to
current import levels, the rule will not
have a significant impact on U.S. mango
producers. While Vietnam’s mango
season runs from February to
September, encompassing that of the
United States (Florida’s season is from
May to September), U.S. importers may
benefit marginally in having Vietnam as
another source of fresh mangoes that
will help meet the growing demand.
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 fresh mango
fruit to be imported into the continental
United States from Vietnam. State and
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
56535
local laws and regulations regarding
fresh mango fruit 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
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 0579–0452,
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 Ms. Kimberly
Hardy, APHIS’ Information Collection
Coordinator, at (301) 851–2483.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 319
Coffee, Cotton, Fruits, Honey,
Imports, Nursery stock, Plant diseases
and pests, Plants, Quarantine, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Rice,
Sugar, 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.
■
2. Add § 319.56–81 to read as follows:
§ 319.56–81
Fresh mango from Vietnam.
Fresh mango (Mangifera indica L.)
fruit may be imported into the
E:\FR\FM\29NOR1.SGM
29NOR1
56536
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 29, 2017 / Rules and Regulations
continental United States under the
following conditions:
(a) The fresh mango fruit may be
imported in commercial consignments
only.
(b) The fresh mango fruit must be
treated for plant pests of the class
Insecta, except pupae and adults of the
order Lepidoptera, with irradiation in
accordance with part 305 of this
chapter.
(c) The risks presented by
Macrophoma mangiferae must be
addressed in one of the following ways:
(1) The fresh mango fruit are treated
with a broad-spectrum post-harvest
fungicidal dip; or
(2) The orchard of origin is inspected
prior to the beginning of harvest and
found free of Macrophoma mangiferae;
or
(3) The fresh mango fruit must
originate from an orchard that was
treated with a broad-spectrum fungicide
during the growing season.
(d) Each consignment of fresh mango
fruit must be accompanied by a
phytosanitary certificate issued by the
NPPO of Vietnam that contains an
additional declaration stating that the
fruit in the consignment was inspected
and found free of Macrophoma
mangiferae and Xanthomonas
campestris pv. mangiferaeindicae and
has been produced in accordance with
the requirements of the systems
approach in this section.
(e) The fruit is subject to inspection at
the port of entry for all quarantine pests
of concern.
(Approved by the Office of Management and
Budget under control number 0579–0452)
Done in Washington, DC, this 22nd day of
November 2017.
Kevin Shea,
Administrator, Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 2017–25764 Filed 11–28–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–34–P
Federal Register document on October
14, 2016, except for a minor technical
update to the policy statement on Equal
Employment Opportunity and Diversity,
and an update and modification to the
policy statement on Farm Credit System
Building Association Management
Operations Policies and Practices.
DATES: November 29, 2017.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dale L. Aultman, Secretary to Board,
(703) 883–4009, TTY (703) 883–4056,
aultmand@fca.gov; or
Mary Alice Donner, Senior Counsel,
Office of General Counsel, (703) 883–
4020, TTY (703) 883–4020, donnerm@
fca.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A list of
the 18 FCA Board policy statements is
set forth below. FCA Board policy
statements may be viewed online at
www.fca.gov/handbook.nsf.
On August 24, 2017, the FCA Board
updated FCA–PS–62 on, ‘‘Equal
Employment Opportunity and
Diversity.’’ The policy was published in
the Federal Register on August 30, 2017
(82 FR 41258). The policy had no
changes other than a citation
clarification.
On July 27, 2017, the FCA Board
updated FCA–PS–68 on, ‘‘Farm Credit
System Building Association
Management Operations Policies and
Practices.’’ The updated policy
increases the dollar amount on contracts
the Farm Credit System Building
Association is required to competitively
bid, to reflect current economic
conditions. It clarifies requirements for
FCA Board approval of Farm Credit
System Building Association contracts
to reflect current FCA practices. The
complete policy statement is published
below.
The FCA will continue to publish
new or revised policy statements in
their full text.
FCA Board Policy Statements
FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION
12 CFR Chapter VI
Farm Credit Administration Board
Policy Statements
Farm Credit Administration.
Notification of policy statements
and index.
AGENCY:
pmangrum on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
ACTION:
The Farm Credit
Administration (FCA), as part of its
annual public notification process, is
publishing for notice an index of the 18
Board policy statements currently in
existence. Most of the policy statements
remain unchanged since our last
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:16 Nov 28, 2017
Jkt 244001
FCA–PS–34 Disclosure of the Issuance
and Termination of Enforcement
Documents
FCA–PS–37 Communications During
Rulemaking
FCA–PS–41 Alternative Means of
Dispute Resolution
FCA–PS–44 Travel
FCA–PS–53 Examination Philosophy
FCA–PS–59 Regulatory Philosophy
FCA–PS–62 Equal Employment
Opportunity and Diversity
FCA–PS–64 Rules for the Transaction
of Business of the Farm Credit
Administration Board
FCA–PS–65 Release of Consolidated
Reporting System Information
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
FCA–PS–67 Nondiscrimination on the
Basis of Disability in Agency
Programs and Activities
FCA–PS–68 FCS Building Association
Management Operations Policies and
Practices
FCA–PS–71 Disaster Relief Efforts by
Farm Credit Institutions
FCA–PS–72 Financial Institution
Rating System (FIRS)
FCA–PS–77 Borrower Privacy
FCA–PS–78 Official Names of Farm
Credit Institutions
FCA–PS–79 Consideration and
Referral of Supervisory Strategies and
Enforcement Actions
FCA–PS–80 Cooperative Operating
Philosophy—Serving the Members of
Farm Credit System Institutions
FCA–PS–81 Ethics, Independence,
Arm’s-Length Role, Ex Parte
Communications and Open
Government
Farm Credit System Building
Association Management Operations
Policies and Practices
FCA–PS–68
Effective Date: 27–JUL–17.
Effect on Previous Action: Amends
NV–95–40, FCA–PS–68–7–JUL–95;
amended by NV–11–15 (08–JUL–11),
NV–17–19 (27–JUL–17).
Source of Authority: Farm Credit Act
of 1971, as amended (Act), and the FCS
Building Association (FCSBA) Articles
of Association and Bylaws.
The Farm Credit Administration
(FCA) Board Hereby Adopts the
Following Policy Statement:
The FCSBA was established to
provide the facilities and related
services for the FCA and its field offices.
The FCSBA is owned by the banks of
the Farm Credit System (banks) and is
funded by assessments, rental income
from commercial tenants, and other
income. The original ownership interest
of each bank was based on the bank’s
assets as a percentage of total Farm
Credit System (FCS) assets on June 30,
1981. The FCSBA owns and operates
the FCA headquarters in McLean,
Virginia, and holds the leases and
provides certain services and
furnishings for FCA field offices. The
FCA Board has sole discretionary
authority under section (1)5.16 of the
Act to approve the plans and decisions
for such building and facilities. In order
to carry out this authority and to
preserve the FCA’s arms-length
relationship with the banks, the Articles
of Association and Bylaws of the FCSBA
grant the FCA Board the responsibility
to oversee the affairs of the FCSBA.
The purpose of this policy statement
is to outline general parameters and
E:\FR\FM\29NOR1.SGM
29NOR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 228 (Wednesday, November 29, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 56531-56536]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-25764]
========================================================================
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.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 228 / Wednesday, November 29, 2017 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 56531]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
7 CFR Part 319
[Docket No. APHIS-2016-0026]
RIN 0579-AE25
Importation of Fresh Mango Fruit From Vietnam Into the
Continental United States
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are amending the regulations to allow the importation of
fresh mango fruit from Vietnam into the continental United States. As a
condition of entry, fresh mango fruit from Vietnam will be subject to a
systems approach that includes orchard or packinghouse requirements,
irradiation treatment, and port of entry inspection. The fruit will
also be required to be imported in commercial consignments and
accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the national plant
protection organization of Vietnam with an additional declaration
stating that the consignment was inspected and found free of Macrophoma
mangiferae and Xanthomonas campestris pv. mangiferaeindicae. This
action will allow for the importation of fresh mango fruit from Vietnam
while continuing to provide protection against the introduction of
plant pests into the continental United States.
DATES: Effective December 29, 2017.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Tony Rom[aacute]n, Senior
Regulatory Policy Specialist, Regulatory Coordination and Compliance,
PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301)
851-2242.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Under the regulations in ``Subpart--Fruits and Vegetables'' (7 CFR
319.56-1 through 319.56-80, referred to below as the regulations or the
fruits and vegetables regulations), the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS) of the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) prohibits or restricts the importation of fruits and
vegetables into the United States from certain parts of the world to
prevent plant pests from being introduced into and spread within the
United States.
On August 4, 2016, we published in the Federal Register (81 FR
51381-51383, Docket No. APHIS-2016-0026) a proposal \1\ to amend the
regulations by allowing for the importation of commercially produced
fresh mango (Mangifera indica L.) fruit from Vietnam into the
continental United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ To view the proposed rule, supporting documents, and the
comments we received, go to https://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2016-0026.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We solicited comments concerning our proposal for 60 days ending
October 3, 2016. We received 21 comments by that date. They were from
producers, exporters, and representatives of State and foreign
governments. Of these, four were fully supportive of the proposed
action. The remaining 17 are discussed below by topic.
General Comments
One commenter asked why APHIS focused on the importation of fresh
mango fruit instead of other fruits that cannot be grown in the United
States.
APHIS's phytosanitary evaluation process only begins once a country
has submitted a formal request for market access for a particular
commodity. APHIS does not solicit such requests, nor do we control
which countries submit requests.
Two commenters argued that there is already an adequate fresh mango
supply in the domestic market to meet existing demand. The commenters
stated that importation of fresh mango fruit carries a risk of
diminished market share for local producers and suggested that the
importation of fresh mango fruit from Vietnam not be allowed.
Such prohibitions would be beyond the scope of APHIS' statutory
authority under the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.,
referred to below as the PPA). Under the PPA, APHIS may prohibit the
importation of a fruit or vegetable into the United States only if we
determine that the prohibition is necessary in order to prevent the
introduction or dissemination of a plant pest or noxious weed within
the United States.
Additionally, as a signatory to the World Trade Organization's
Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement), the
United States has agreed that any prohibitions it places on the
importation of fruits and vegetables will be based on scientific
evidence related to phytosanitary measures and issues, and will not be
maintained without sufficient scientific evidence. The blanket
prohibitions requested by the commenters would not be in keeping with
this agreement.
Another commenter suggested that, given the transit time from
Vietnam to the continental United States, the fresh mango fruit would
have to be harvested in a very under ripe state in order to survive
transit and would therefore prove unsuitable for the domestic market.
While the quality of the fresh mango fruit and the timing of
harvest are important factors in its marketability, we are solely
concerned with plant health and phytosanitary risk. The timing of
harvest solely for marketability reasons is outside the scope of this
regulation.
Another commenter suggested that APHIS consider the effect of
imported pests, bacteria, and fungi on domestic producers.
We considered these potential effects in the pest risk assessment
(PRA) and laid out mitigations against phytosanitary impact in the risk
management document (RMD) that accompanied the proposed rule.
Comments on the Impetus for the Proposal
One commenter stated that there is no reason to risk the accidental
importation of pests associated with fresh mango fruit from Vietnam
except for political gain.
This action was predicated on several risk assessment documents
that provide a scientific basis for potential importation of fresh
mango fruit from Vietnam. Without these risk assessment documents,
which have withstood several reviews and public comment periods, APHIS
would not have proposed this action. Political and
[[Page 56532]]
economic interests may stimulate consideration of the expansion of
trade of agricultural commodities between countries, but all decision
making concerning phytosanitary restrictions on trade must be science-
based. APHIS stands behind the risk assessment documents that support
this rule, and believes they are based on sound science.
Two other commenters wanted to know why Vietnam would choose to
export fresh mangos to the United States given that those fresh mangos
would represent only 1 percent of the overall domestic supply. The
commenters inquired about the benefits of adding another source of
fresh mango fruit to the existing stock.
APHIS' phytosanitary evaluation process only begins once a country
has submitted a formal request for market access for a particular
commodity. APHIS does not solicit such requests, nor do we control
which countries submit requests. APHIS does not solicit information
regarding the motivations for such requests, we merely subject them to
science-based evaluation.
Comments on the Pest List
The PRA identified 18 quarantine pests that could be introduced
into the continental United States in consignments of fresh mango fruit
from Vietnam. A quarantine pest is defined in Sec. 319.56-2 as ``a
pest of potential economic importance to the area endangered thereby
and not yet present there, or present but not widely distributed and
being officially controlled.'' The pests listed in the PRA are:
Carambola fruit fly, Bactrocera carambolae Drew & Hancock
Guava fruit fly, Bactrocera correcta (Bezzi)
Melon fly, Bactrocera cucurbitae Coquillett
Oriental fruit fly, Bactrocera dorsalis Hendel
Pumpkin fruit fly, Bactrocera tau Walker
Peach fruit fly, Bactrocera zonata (Saunders)
Yellow peach moth, Conogethes punctiferalis
Mango seed borer, Deanolis albizonalis
Old World bollworm, Helicoverpa armigera
Pink hibiscus mealybug, Maconellicoccus hirsutus
The fungus Macrophoma mangiferae
Spherical mealybug, Nipaecoccus viridis
Coffee mealybug, Planococcus lilacinus
Citriculus mealybug, Pseudococcus cryptus
Fruit tree mealybug, Rastrococcus invadens
Chili thrips, Scirtothrips dorsalis
Mango pulp weevil, Sternochetus frigidus
Mango black spot, Xanthomonas campestris pv. mangiferaeindicae
One commenter said that the chance of a mutation occurring that
allows for one or multiple species to become resistant to the chemical
treatments applied to fresh mango fruit from Vietnam was of potential
concern. The commenter argued that, given the size of the pest list,
such a mutation might be overlooked, resulting in an introduction of
that mutated pest into the United States.
We believe that the standard suggested by the commenter would call
for APHIS to postulate based on wholly unknowable risk factors. The PRA
that accompanied the proposed rule provided a list of all pests of
fresh mango fruit known to exist in Vietnam. This list was prepared
using multiple data sources to ensure its completeness. For this same
reason, we are confident it is accurate. If, however, a mutation of a
pest is detected in Vietnam, APHIS will conduct further risk analysis
in order to evaluate that pest to determine whether it is a quarantine
pest, and whether it is likely to follow the importation pathway. If we
determine that the pest is a quarantine pest and is likely to follow
the pathway, we will work with the national plant protection
organization (NPPO) of Vietnam to adjust the pest list and related
phytosanitary measures to prevent its introduction into the United
States.
Another commenter stated that Florida and Texas, two mango
producing States, are already dealing with an emerging population of
chili thrips. The commenter argued against the importation of fresh
mango fruit from Vietnam given the prevalence of the pest in that
country.
Given the findings of the PRA, we are confident that the systems
approach required for fresh mango fruit from Vietnam will mitigate the
risk posed by such fresh mango fruit to introduce these pests.
A commenter suggested that chili thrips be removed from the pest
list, because the pest does not have any developing stages associated
with fresh mango fruit.
As cited in the PRA, chili thrips only attacks immature fruit of
its hosts, including fresh mango fruit.\2\ The commenter provided no
evidence to support the claim that the pest does not have any
developing stages associated with fresh mango fruit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Yamaguchi, T. 2007. Seasonal prevalence of Scirtothrips
dorsalis Hood and Selenothrips rubrocinctus (Giard) on the flower
buds, inflorescences, and fruits of mango (Mangifera indica) plants
cultivated in greenhouses on Amami-Oshima Island, Japan [Abstract].
Kyushu byogaichu kenkyukaiho 53:103-106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments on the Systems Approach
Based on the findings of the PRA, we determined that measures
beyond standard port-of-entry inspection will be needed to mitigate the
risks posed by the pests listed above. These measures were identified
in the RMD and were used as the basis for the requirements of the
systems approach.
One commenter asked if there is a fund to compensate domestic
producers for crop loss were the systems approach to fail. The
commenter proposed that fresh mango fruit from Vietnam be subject to a
hot water treatment as has been required for fresh mango fruit from
other countries.
The mitigations listed are proven effective in preventing the
introduction of foreign pests into the United States and are the same
or equivalent to those measures required for the importation of fresh
mango fruit from other countries (e.g., India, Pakistan, and
Australia). There is currently no fund to compensate farmers as a
result of pest introduction.
The same commenter stated that exporting countries may lie in their
certifications of pest freedom.
For the reasons explained in the proposed rule, the RMD, and this
final rule, we consider the provisions of this final rule adequate to
mitigate the risk associated with the importation of fresh mango fruit
from Vietnam. The commenter did not provide any evidence suggesting
that the mitigations are individually or collectively ineffective.
Another commenter requested that fresh mango fruit from Vietnam not
be allowed into the State of Florida given that the climate in that
State is conducive to the establishment of the listed pests.
We have determined, for the reasons described in the RMD that
accompanied the proposed rule, that the measures specified in the RMD
will effectively mitigate the risk associated with the importation of
fresh mango fruit from Vietnam. The commenter did not provide any
evidence suggesting that the mitigations are not effective. Therefore,
we are not taking the action requested by the commenter.
Fresh mango fruit from Vietnam will be required to be imported into
the
[[Page 56533]]
continental United States in commercial consignments only. One
commenter asked how APHIS will determine whether a given operation is
commercial. The commenter wanted to know if a list of approved
producers will be made available.
An inspector will identify commercial consignments using such
factors as: Quantity of produce, type of packaging, identification of
grower or packinghouse on the packaging, and documents consigning the
fruits or vegetables to a wholesaler or retailer. The NPPO of the
exporting country verifies and approves commercial growing areas and
maintains the list of all approved growers in that country. Anyone
wishing to request this list should contact the NPPO of Vietnam for
access.
Another commenter asked how we will ensure that non-commercial
producers are not selling their fruit to commercial producers in order
to skirt the requirements of the regulations.
APHIS and the NPPO of Vietnam will jointly develop an operational
workplan. The workplan will incorporate details of traceability,
treatment, and preclearance activities, including any inspection of
articles that APHIS may perform before or after treatment. Traceability
and verification that the fresh mango fruit was grown commercially will
serve to prevent the scenario envisioned by the commenter.
Fresh mango fruit from Vietnam will be required to be treated with
a minimum absorbed irradiation dose of 400 gray in accordance with
Sec. 305.9 of the phytosanitary treatment regulations in 7 CFR part
305. This is the established generic dose for all insect pests except
pupae and adults of the order Lepidoptera and mango fruit pathogens.
Consignments of fresh mango fruit from Vietnam will also have to meet
all other relevant requirements in part 305, including monitoring of
treatment by APHIS inspectors.
A commenter stated that irradiation is designed for certain insect
species and may not be an effective treatment for the many other
tropical fruit and citrus pests such as mites, as well as various
pathogens, found in Vietnam.
We agree with the commenter, which is why the systems approach
includes other phytosanitary procedures designed to provide protection
from pests against which irradiation is not effective.
Another commenter was particularly concerned about peach fruit fly
and pumpkin fruit fly and the potential for those pests to damage and
infest domestic crops if they were to be accidentally introduced. The
commenter inquired whether the required irradiation dose would kill all
peach and pumpkin fruit flies.
While no treatment can be guaranteed to be 100 percent effective,
the absorbed dose of 400 gray has been shown to be effective in
preventing insects from reproducing. Irradiation treatment does not
kill insects but instead renders them sterile or incapable of
completing development.
One commenter stated that we should provide scientific evidence of
how irradiation affects all the plant pests associated with fresh mango
fruit from Vietnam.
We would not include data on the ways in which a given
phytosanitary treatment affects plant pests for which it is not an
approved treatment. All the pests associated with fresh mango fruit
from Vietnam are not meant to be mitigated by the listed irradiation
treatment; instead the required treatment works in concert with the
other aspects of the systems approach in order to provide phytosanitary
security. For a complete discussion of the efficacy of irradiation on
those plant pests for which it is an approved treatment, please refer
to the proposed and final rules entitled ``Treatments for Fruits and
Vegetables'' (70 FR 33857-33873, Docket No. 03-077-1 and 71 FR 4451-
4464, Docket No. 03-077-2).
In order to mitigate the risks posed by Macrophoma mangiferae, we
proposed three options: (1) The mangoes be treated with a broad-
spectrum post-harvest fungicidal dip, (2) the orchard of origin be
inspected at a time prior to the beginning of harvest and be found free
of Macrophoma mangiferae, or (3) fruit must originate from an orchard
that was treated with a broad-spectrum fungicide during the growing
season.
One commenter wanted to know who will conduct orchard inspections.
Inspections are performed by the NPPO of Vietnam or its designee.
If necessary, based on noncompliance events or program audits conducted
in accordance with APHIS' policy, APHIS will provide qualified
personnel to work cooperatively with the NPPO of Vietnam and all other
program participants to review and evaluate operations in the field and
packinghouses, quarantine pest management and control activities, and
other safeguarding measures.
Another commenter asked when the broad-spectrum fungicide will be
required to be applied during the growing season. The commenter also
wanted to know whether the fungicide or fungicides are safe to use in
conjunction with fresh mango fruit.
Fungicides are applied at the recommended rate deemed effective
against the target pest, and, as stated in the proposed rule, may be
applied at any time during the growing season but prior to harvest.
Fungicide safety in relation to the growing environment is subject to
oversight by Vietnam's environmental authorities. The U.S. Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) regulates and monitors the level of fungicide
residues present on imported fruits and vegetables intended for human
consumption.
A commenter wanted to know how we will ensure that all necessary
treatments are being applied prior to harvest and export.
Our standard practice is to conduct site visits prior to the
initiation of any import program. This is to ensure that all required
mitigations are in place and the agreed upon operational workplan is
being enforced. Subject matter experts inspect production sites and
packinghouses and report their findings to APHIS. Furthermore, the
operational workplan authorizes the regional APHIS International
Services Director to conduct periodic audit visits of production sites.
Another commenter inquired about the authorization process for
inspectors in Vietnam, stating that we need to ensure that authorized
inspectors have the relevant experience and a strong background in
agriculture and food safety.
All inspections will be performed by APHIS and the NPPO of Vietnam
as part of the established preclearance program in Vietnam. The NPPO of
Vietnam is responsible for recruiting, vetting, and training inspectors
so that they possess the necessary skills to successfully perform their
duties. Preclearance programs, including the program in Vietnam, are an
important piece in our safeguarding strategy.
Each consignment of fruit will have to be accompanied by a
phytosanitary certificate issued by the NPPO of Vietnam that contains
an additional declaration stating that the fruit in the consignment was
inspected and found free of Macrophoma mangiferae and Xanthomonas
campestris pv. mangiferaeindicae. A commenter argued that APHIS's claim
that inspection would mitigate the risks posed by Xanthomonas
campestris pv. mangiferaeindicae since symptoms of Xanthomonas
campestris pv. mangiferaeindicae are easily discernible to the naked
eye was insufficient as some fruit might be asymptomatic. The commenter
stated that testing may need to be done. Another commenter said that
many of the listed pests are known to feed inside the fruit and have
the potential to escape detection. The
[[Page 56534]]
commenter argued that these pests would be difficult to routinely
detect by inspection alone either due to their feeding habits or life
stages. A third commenter stated that, while the risks would be
minimized, they would not be eliminated.
We are confident that field inspection or treatment or packinghouse
treatment and culling, in concert with the other requirements of the
systems approach will be effective in mitigating phytosanitary risk.
Any fruit that appeared asymptomatic, as posited by the commenters,
would likely be in the early stages of infection. Given the transit
time required to ship mangoes from Vietnam to the United States as well
as mandatory port of entry inspections, it is likely that latent
infection would be detected at this point in the importation process.
Consignments of fresh mango fruit from Vietnam will be subject to
inspection at the port of entry. One commenter wanted to know if there
is a defined set of requirements for halting the importation of fresh
mango fruit from Vietnam based on the results of these inspections.
Consignments of fresh mango fruit from Vietnam will be seized at
the port of entry in the United States if they fail to meet the entry
requirements set out in the regulations or if quarantine pests are
found.
Another commenter wanted to know the rate at which consignments
will be inspected.
All shipments are inspected at the first port of entry into the
United States. Fruit sampling will be conducted either as part of the
pre-clearance program in Vietnam or, for those shipments of fresh mango
fruit that were not subject to the pre-clearance program, by U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Actual sampling rates vary. In a
pre-clearance program, fruits must be sampled at a rate that produces a
95 percent confidence of detecting a 2 percent or greater pest
population for external pests and a 95 percent confidence of detecting
a 10 percent or greater pest population for internal feeders. In the
case of fresh mango fruit that were not subject to the pre-clearance
program in Vietnam the sampling rate will be set by CBP inspectors.
Generally speaking the CBP sampling rate is 2 percent of fruit in each
consignment but may vary depending on various factors such as surface
abnormalities noted during visual inspection.
A commenter questioned whether we should raise the costs and
workload of inspectors at the ports by increasing their inspection
duties.
APHIS has reviewed its resources and consulted with CBP and
believes there is adequate coverage across the United States to ensure
compliance with APHIS regulations, including the Vietnamese mango
import program, as established by this rule.
Comments on Irradiation Treatment
Two commenters expressed concern regarding the use of irradiation
as a phytosanitary treatment, saying that the potential effects of
irradiation on those who consume irradiated foods should be considered.
One of the commenters was particularly worried about the effect of
irradiation on the enzymes found in raw foods, arguing that the long-
term effects of irradiated food consumption have yet to be studied. The
commenter argued that irradiated foods should be labeled accordingly.
While the impact of food on human health is regulated and monitored
by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and, as such, these concerns
are outside the scope of our authority, irradiated foods are wholesome
and nutritious. Nutrient losses caused by irradiation are less than or
about the same as losses caused by cooking and freezing.
Public health agencies worldwide have evaluated the safety of food
irradiation over the last 50 years and found it to be safe. In 37
countries, more than 40 food products are irradiated. In some European
countries, irradiation has been in use for decades. In the United
States, the FDA regulates food irradiation. In addition, food
irradiation has received official endorsement from the American Medical
Association, the World Health Organization, and the International
Atomic Energy Agency.
Comments on Additional Phytosanitary Measures
One commenter suggested that all pre-harvest orchard inspections
and all treatments be performed by APHIS inspectors in addition to the
NPPO of Vietnam.
APHIS will monitor and audit Vietnam's implementation of the
systems approach for the importation of fresh mango fruit into the
continental United States.
The same commenter said we should add a methyl bromide treatment
requirement for an additional layer of phytosanitary protection against
Macrophoma mangiferae, mango black spot, and lepidopteran pests.
Another commenter suggested that we include vapor heat as a treatment
option.
Methyl bromide fumigation is not necessary. Neither methyl bromide
nor vapor heat are approved treatments for fresh mango fruit. For the
reasons explained in the proposed rule, the PRA, the RMD, and this
final rule, we consider the current provisions adequate to mitigate the
risk associated with the importation of fresh mango fruit from Vietnam.
A commenter asked if it would be possible to observe inspectors at
the port of entry to monitor implementation of the requirements.
The inspectors referenced by the commenter are trained agricultural
specialists and we trust their knowledge and experience in
phytosanitary inspections. Allowing outside parties to observe or
participate in inspection work would potentially impede the inspectors'
ability to perform their duties in a thorough and efficient manner.
Inspections are performed in restricted areas and no civilians are
allowed entry.
Comments on Vietnamese Oversight
Some commenters expressed concerns that the NPPO of Vietnam would
not be able to adequately implement the required systems approach. One
commenter asked how APHIS would enforce production standards in order
to provide phytosanitary protection. Another commenter stated that the
integrated pest management program in Vietnam is in its early stages
and most farmers overdose their crops due to inexperience. The
commenter said that this practice demonstrates a lack of concern for
water and soil quality and suggests that the NPPO will not hold
Vietnamese produce to a sufficiently high standard. A third commenter
requested further information on how we will ensure that our standards
for a pest free consignment are made clear.
APHIS personnel in Vietnam will take part in the preclearance
program we have established and ensure that our required mitigation
measures are enforced, including those relating to the application of
fungicides in the field. In addition, as previously stated, APHIS will
monitor and audit Vietnam's implementation of the systems approach for
the importation of fresh mango fruit into the continental United
States. If we determine that the systems approach has not been fully
implemented or maintained, we will take appropriate remedial action to
ensure that the importation of fresh mango fruit from Vietnam does not
result in the dissemination of plant pests within the United States.
One commenter voiced concern regarding potential transshipment of
fresh mango fruit from neighboring countries. The commenter wanted to
know how we will prevent fresh mango fruit from being shipped into
Vietnam
[[Page 56535]]
and subsequently repackaged as a Vietnamese consignment.
It is the responsibility of the NPPO of Vietnam to verify that
production sites that grow articles for export and packinghouses that
handle such articles are registered with the NPPO. Fresh mango fruit
received and packed for export to the United States must be from
approved orchards only and APHIS reserves the right to inspect
packinghouses participating in the export program. Failure to adhere to
program standards, including packaging transshipped fruits, may result
in removal from the export program.
Comments on Economic Factors
One commenter asked if the importation of fresh mango fruit from
Vietnam would create economic benefits for special interests in either
the United States or Vietnam. The commenter asked for assurance that
the rule represents a good business deal for the United States.
APHIS bases its decisionmaking process on evaluation and mitigation
of phytosanitary risk and not on the economic and trade factors
referenced by the commenter.
Another commenter speculated that the work and resources required
to allow for the importation of fresh mango fruit from Vietnam would be
better expended on a higher value commodity.
Contrary to the commenter's assertion, the mechanisms, systems, and
personnel for importing fruits and vegetables already exist. The
addition of another commodity to the list of allowable imports,
particularly as import levels are expected to be low, will not unduly
tax the existing system.
A commenter observed that the economic analysis that accompanied
the proposed rule stated that the expected importation level (3,000
metric tons [MT] annually) for fresh mango fruit from Vietnam was equal
to the amount of fresh mango fruit produced domestically. The commenter
questioned how the importation of an equal amount of fresh mango fruit
to what is domestically grown represents a non-significant impact on
U.S. mango producers.
U.S. fresh mango fruit production levels are indeed low and are
estimated at 3,000 MT annually. However, from 1997 to 2015, fresh mango
fruit imports increased from 187,000 MT to 391,000 MT. While the
quantity that is imported from Vietnam is equivalent to the quantity
produced in the United States, these imports will simply help meet the
growing demand for mangoes. Fresh mango fruit imports from Vietnam
represent less than one percent of total fresh mango fruit imports.
Therefore, for the reasons given in the proposed rule and in this
document, we are adopting the proposed rule as a final rule, without
change.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13771 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. This rule is not an Executive
Order 13771 regulatory action because this rule is not significant
under Executive Order 12866.
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.
This rule is in response to a request from Vietnam to be allowed to
export fresh mango fruit to the continental United States. The annual
quantity that Vietnam expects to export to the United States, 3,000 MT,
represents less than 1 percent of U.S. fresh mango fruit imports, which
grew from 187,000 MT in 1997 to 391,000 MT in 2015. Primary sources are
Mexico, Peru, Ecuador, Brazil, and Guatemala. While mangoes are grown
in Florida and Hawaii, with smaller quantities produced in California
and Texas, U.S. annual production totals only about 3,000 MT.
Most if not all U.S. mango farms and wholesalers are small
entities. However, given the small quantity expected to be imported
from Vietnam relative to current import levels, the rule will not have
a significant impact on U.S. mango producers. While Vietnam's mango
season runs from February to September, encompassing that of the United
States (Florida's season is from May to September), U.S. importers may
benefit marginally in having Vietnam as another source of fresh mangoes
that will help meet the growing demand.
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 fresh mango fruit to be imported into the
continental United States from Vietnam. State and local laws and
regulations regarding fresh mango fruit 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
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 0579-0452, 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 Ms. Kimberly Hardy,
APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2483.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 319
Coffee, Cotton, Fruits, Honey, Imports, Nursery stock, Plant
diseases and pests, Plants, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Rice, Sugar, 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.
0
2. Add Sec. 319.56-81 to read as follows:
Sec. 319.56-81 Fresh mango from Vietnam.
Fresh mango (Mangifera indica L.) fruit may be imported into the
[[Page 56536]]
continental United States under the following conditions:
(a) The fresh mango fruit may be imported in commercial
consignments only.
(b) The fresh mango fruit must be treated for plant pests of the
class Insecta, except pupae and adults of the order Lepidoptera, with
irradiation in accordance with part 305 of this chapter.
(c) The risks presented by Macrophoma mangiferae must be addressed
in one of the following ways:
(1) The fresh mango fruit are treated with a broad-spectrum post-
harvest fungicidal dip; or
(2) The orchard of origin is inspected prior to the beginning of
harvest and found free of Macrophoma mangiferae; or
(3) The fresh mango fruit must originate from an orchard that was
treated with a broad-spectrum fungicide during the growing season.
(d) Each consignment of fresh mango fruit must be accompanied by a
phytosanitary certificate issued by the NPPO of Vietnam that contains
an additional declaration stating that the fruit in the consignment was
inspected and found free of Macrophoma mangiferae and Xanthomonas
campestris pv. mangiferaeindicae and has been produced in accordance
with the requirements of the systems approach in this section.
(e) The fruit is subject to inspection at the port of entry for all
quarantine pests of concern.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 0579-0452)
Done in Washington, DC, this 22nd day of November 2017.
Kevin Shea,
Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-25764 Filed 11-28-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P