Decision To Authorize the Importation of Fresh Guava From Taiwan Into the Continental United States, 55544-55546 [2019-22648]
Download as PDF
55544
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 201 / Thursday, October 17, 2019 / Notices
must submit an application which
includes an application form, various
other forms, certifications, and
supplemental information. Rural Utility
Service will use the information
collected from applicants, borrowers,
and consultants to determine applicant
eligibility, project feasibility, and the
applicant’s ability to meet the grant and
regulatory requirements.
Failure to collect proper information
could result in improper determinations
of eligibility, improper use of funds, or
hindrances in making grants authorized
by the SEARCH program.
Description of Respondents: Not-forprofit Institutions and State, Local or
Tribal Government.
Number of Respondents: 111.
Frequency of Responses: Reporting:
On occasion.
Total Burden Hours: 3,380.
Kimble Brown,
Departmental Information Collection
Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 2019–22560 Filed 10–16–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–15–P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service
[Docket No. APHIS–2018–0073]
Decision To Authorize the Importation
of Fresh Guava From Taiwan Into the
Continental United States
Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
We are advising the public of
our decision to authorize the
importation of fresh guava fruit from
Taiwan into the continental United
States. Based on the findings of the pest
risk analysis, which we made available
to the public to review and comment
through a previous notice, we have
concluded that the application of one or
more designated phytosanitary
measures will be sufficient to mitigate
the risks of introducing or disseminating
plant pests or noxious weeds via the
importation of fresh guava fruit from
Taiwan.
SUMMARY:
The articles covered by this
notification may be authorized for
importation after October 17, 2019.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Tony Roma´n, Senior Regulatory Policy
Specialist, Regulatory Coordination and
Compliance, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River
Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737–
1231; (301) 851–2242.
DATES:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:26 Oct 16, 2019
Jkt 250001
Under the
regulations in ‘‘Subpart L—Fruits and
Vegetables’’ (7 CFR 319.56–1 through
319.56–12, referred to below as the
regulations), the Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service (APHIS)
prohibits or restricts the importation of
fruits and vegetables into the United
States from certain parts of the world to
prevent plant pests from being
introduced into and spread within the
United States.
Section 319.56–4 of the regulations
contains a notice-based process based
on established performance standards
for authorizing the importation of fruits
and vegetables. The performance
standards, known as designated
phytosanitary measures, are listed in
paragraph (b) of that section. Under the
process, APHIS proposes to authorize
the importation of a fruit or vegetable
into the United States if, based on the
findings of a pest risk analysis, we
determine that the measures can
mitigate the plant pest risk associated
with the importation of that fruit or
vegetable. APHIS then publishes a
notice in the Federal Register
announcing the availability of the pest
risk analysis that evaluates the risks
associated with the importation of that
fruit or vegetable.
In accordance with that process, we
published a notice 1 in the Federal
Register on December 14, 2018 (83 FR
64314–64315, Docket No. APHIS–2018–
0073), in which we announced the
availability, for review and comment, of
a pest risk assessment (PRA) that
evaluated the risks associated with the
importation into the continental United
States of fresh guava fruit from Taiwan
and a risk management document
(RMD) prepared to identify
phytosanitary measures that could be
applied to the commodity to mitigate
the pest risk.
We solicited comments on the PRA
and RMD for 60 days ending on
February 12, 2019. We received five
comments by that date. They were from
private citizens, the California
Department of Food and Agriculture
(CDFA), and the Florida Department of
Agriculture and Consumer Services
(FDACS).
One of the commenters expressed
general support for the importation of
guava from Taiwan into the United
States, while another expressed general
opposition to the importation of fruits
and vegetables into the United States.
The other three commenters provided
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
1 To view the notice, PRA, RMD, supporting
documents, and the comments that we received, go
to https://www.regulations.gov/
#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2018-0073.
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
comments regarding the notice and its
supporting documentation. Below, we
discuss these comments, by topic.
Comments on the Pest Risk Assessment
The PRA contained a pest list of pests
associated with guava and known to
occur in Taiwan. The PRA identified
23 2 pests as being of quarantine
significance and likely to follow the
pathway on guava from Taiwan, and
therefore possible candidates for risk
mitigation.
CDFA stated that, in addition to the
23 pests identified as being of
quarantine significance, there were
another 12 pests listed on the pest list
that were rated as either an ‘‘A’’ pest or
‘‘B’’ pest according to CDFA’s pest
rating system: Aleurodicus dispersus,
Ceroplastes floridensis, Coccus viridis,
Ferrisia virgata, Kilifia acuminata,
Milviscutulus mangiferae, Paracoccus
marginatus, Planococcus minor,
Pseudococcus jackbeardsleyi, Pulvinaria
psidii, Rusellapsis pustulanus, and
Selenothrips rubrocinctus. Under
CDFA’s rating system, a pest given an
‘‘A’’ rating is a plant pest of known
economic importance subject to a State
of California-enforced action that
involves eradication, quarantine
regulation, containment, rejection, or
other holding action. A pest given a ‘‘B’’
rating is a pest of known economic
importance subject to eradication,
containment, control, or other holding
action at the discretion of the individual
county agricultural commissioner
within the State of California.3 The
commenter stated that mitigations
should be developed for these pests as
well.
In § 319.56–4 of the regulations,
paragraph (c) provides that if a fruit or
vegetable is not authorized importation
into the United States, APHIS will not
authorize its importation until we
examine the pest risk associated with its
importation and determine that the risk
posed by each quarantine pest
associated with the importation of the
commodity can reasonably be mitigated
by the application of one or more
mitigation measures. Additionally,
consistent with international standards
to which the United States is a
signatory,4 the regulations define a
quarantine pest as: ‘‘A pest of potential
2 Due to a typographical error, the PRA
erroneously stated that 24 pests had been identified,
although only 23 were listed; the RMD correctly
stated that only 23 had been identified. This notice
will use the latter number.
3 For further information, see https://ucanr.edu/
sites/plantpest/Regualtory_Information/Pest_
Ratings/.
4 See https://www.ippc.int/largefiles/adopted_
ISPMs_previousversions/en/ISPM_05_2007_En_
2007-07-26.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM
17OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 201 / Thursday, October 17, 2019 / Notices
economic importance to the area
endangered thereby and not yet present
there, or present but not widely
distributed there and being officially
controlled.’’ For purposes of an APHIS
risk assessment, the ‘‘endangered area’’
is the geographical area of the United
States into which a foreign country has
requested that APHIS authorize
importation of the commodity; in the
case of the guava from Taiwan, this is
the continental United States.
With regard to 11 of the 12 pests cited
by CDFA (Aleurodicus dispersus,
Ceroplastes floridensis, Coccus viridis,
Ferrisia virgata, Kilifia acuminata,
Milviscutulus mangiferae, Planococcus
minor, Pseudococcus jackbeardsleyi,
Pulvinaria psidii, Rusellapsis
pustulanus, and Selenothrips
rubrocinctus), while these pests were
listed in the pest list of our PRA, they
are all present in the United States and
not under Federal official control, and
therefore do not meet our definition of
a quarantine pest. Therefore, we do not
consider it necessary to develop
mitigations for these pests, irrespective
of their rating within CDFA’s system.
However, APHIS has developed a
program, the Federally Recognized State
Managed Phytosanitary Program
(FRSMP), to afford protections to States
when commodities are determined at a
port of entry to harbor a plant pest that
is not a quarantine pest but is of concern
to a particular State. Information
regarding the petition process for
FRSMP is found here: https://
www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/
plant_pest_info/frsmp/downloads/
petition_guidelines.pdf.
With regard to the twelfth pest
mentioned by CDFA (Paracoccus
marginatus), this pest was, in fact, not
included in the pest list in our PRA. We
agree that P. marginatus is associated
with guava and known to occur on fruit,
but could find no evidence suggesting it
is present in Taiwan; this is why it was
not included in the pest list. CDFA did
not provide a reference regarding the
pest’s presence in Taiwan; therefore, we
cannot evaluate their assertion. We also
note that P. marginatus is present in the
United States and not under official
control, and thus not a quarantine pest.
Finally, CDFA stated that Phyllostica
psidiicola, a fungal pathogen, is present
in Taiwan, not present in the
continental United States, and known to
cause severe black rot in guavas. CDFA
requested that it be included in the
PRA.
We agree that Phyllostica psidiicola is
present in Taiwan and not present in
the continental United States, and have
determined that it is a quarantine pest
and could follow the pathway on
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:26 Oct 16, 2019
Jkt 250001
importation of guavas from Taiwan into
the continental United States. Therefore,
we have prepared an addendum to the
PRA that evaluates P. psidiicola, assigns
it a Medium risk rating, and determines
that it is a possible candidate for risk
mitigation. We also have revised our
RMD to include P. psidiicola as a
quarantine pest that could follow the
pathway on the importation of guavas
from Taiwan into the United States. The
addendum to the PRA and the revised
RMD are available on Regulations.gov,
or by contacting the individual listed in
this notice under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
The inclusion of P. psidiicola in the
RMD does not alter the mitigations of
the RMD from those we initially
proposed. P. psidiicola causes corky
lesions on the surface on infected fruit
that are easily detected during visual
inspections, and we proposed both preexport inspection by the national plant
protection organization of Taiwan and
port-of-entry inspections as components
of our systems approach for the
importation of guava from Taiwan.
That being said, the revised RMD does
include one additional mitigation
measure not included in the initial
RMD. We discuss this mitigation
measure and the basis for its inclusion
later in this document.
Comments on the Risk Management
Document
We proposed that a portion of a
biometric sample of all consignments of
guavas from Taiwan intended for export
to the United States would have to be
cut open by the NPPO of Taiwan and
inspected for internally feeding
quarantine pests.
FDACS questioned whether the fruit
cutting would be effective. They
requested data from the NPPO regarding
the efficacy of fruit cutting to detect
quarantine pests that feed internally.
The efficacy of fruit cutting as a
means of detecting quarantine pests is
long established,5 and the inspectors
who will conduct the cutting in Taiwan
have been trained by the NPPO in
proper fruit cutting to sample for pests.
While we acknowledge FDACS’
legitimate interest in ensuring that
infested guava are not imported from
Taiwan into the State of Florida, we
would only request fruit-cutting data
5 For example, see: Cavey, J.F. 2003. Mitigating
introduction of invasive plant pests in the United
States. Pages 350—361(Chapter 13). In Invasive
Species: Vectors and Management Strategies, G.M.
Ruiz and J.T. Carlton, editors. Island Press,
Washington DC. See also: Gould, W.P. 1995.
Probability of Detecting Caribbean Fruit Fly
(Diptera: Tephritidae) Infestations by Fruit
Dissection. Florida Entomologist 78(3): 502–507.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
55545
from an NPPO and consider sharing it
with external parties when there is
reason to believe that the NPPO is not
conducting fruit cutting or is doing so
in an ineffective manner. This is not the
case with Taiwan.
We also note that all guava imported
into the United States will be subject to
additional cutting by Customs and
Border Protection in accordance with 7
CFR part 305 at ports of entry into the
United States.
We proposed that the guava would
have to be treated with cold treatment
for Bactrocera spp. fruit flies, or
alternatively, irradiated.
FDACS expressed concern that the
cold treatment would not be effectively
applied. They stated that misapplication
of cold treatment is a recurring issue,
and cited two examples that they
considered evidence of failure of intransit cold treatment and indicative of
the liabilities of cold treatment as a
mitigation measure: The discovery of
live fruit flies on cold-treated
clementines from Spain, later,
clementines from Morocco. Because of
the possibility of cold treatment failure
and the high likelihood that fruit flies
may become established in Florida, if
introduced, FDACS requested that we
prohibit the importation of guava from
Taiwan into the State of Florida.
The detection of fruit flies on
clementines from Spain occurred in
2001 and was determined to be the
result of an inadequate cold treatment
schedule, rather than misapplication of
an effective treatment schedule.6 It
resulted in a holistic review and
revision of the manner in which APHIS
evaluates and approves phytosanitary
treatments, and should not be
considered indicative of current
practices.
Based on a site visit that APHIS
conducted, the detection of fruit flies on
clementines from Morocco was
determined to be the result of failure to
pre-cool the fruit adequately prior to
applying cold treatment. We also
determined that this pre-cooling failure
was, in turn, due to uniquely
inhospitable climatic conditions in the
area of Morocco surrounding the precooling facility, a desert where daytime
temperatures during the summer
months routinely exceed 90 °F. We
addressed this failure by revising the
operational workplan that Morocco had
entered into with APHIS to specify
additional pre-cooling and temperature
6 These findings are discussed at length in a 2002
interim rule (67 FR 63529–63539, Docket No. 02–
071–1) that revised our phytosanitary treatment
regulations based on the detection.
E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM
17OCN1
55546
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 201 / Thursday, October 17, 2019 / Notices
reading procedures at pre-cooling
facilities.7
Given Taiwan’s more temperate
climate, we do not consider a similar
pre-cooling failure likely to occur in
Taiwan.
Additionally, we note that cold
treatment is not the only mitigation
measure that we proposed in order to
address Bactrocera spp. fruit flies. We
proposed that places of production
would have to have a fruit fly trapping
system in place, as certified by the
NPPO of Taiwan; that fallen fruit would
have to be removed from places of
production to eliminate possible fruit
fly host material; that packinghouses
where the guava was processed for
consignment to the United States would
have to be registered with the NPPO of
Taiwan and determined to be pest
exclusionary; and that a portion of a
biometric sample of each consignment
of guava intended for export to the
United States would have to cut open by
the NPPO of Taiwan and inspected for
fruit fly larvae and other quarantine
pests.
For the above reasons, we do not
consider it necessary to prohibit the
importation of guava from Taiwan into
the State of Florida.
A commenter suggested that the guava
could be irradiated as a treatment for
fruit flies.
We agree, and included this treatment
option in the RMD.
Finally, following the close of the
comment period, the NPPO of Taiwan
informed us that, as a standard industry
practice, all guava intended for export
from Taiwan for commercial sale are
bagged. Accordingly, the NPPO
indicated that they would be amenable
to including bagging as an additional,
voluntarily imposed mitigation measure
to address the pest risk associated with
the importation of guava into the
continental United States, with the
specific logistics of this bagging
included in the operational workplan
that they will enter into with APHIS.
This additional bagging requirement is
included in the revised RMD.
Therefore, in accordance with
§ 319.56–4(c)(3)(iii), we are announcing
our decision to authorize the
importation of fresh guava fruit from
Taiwan into the continental United
States subject to the following
phytosanitary measures:
• Importation in commercial
consignments only;
• Development of an operational
workplan that the NPPO of Taiwan must
enter into with APHIS;
7 See https://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/
plants/plant_imports/federal_order/downloads/
2018/DA-2018-01.pdf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:26 Oct 16, 2019
Jkt 250001
• Registration of places of production
and packinghouses with the NPPO of
Taiwan;
• Regular inspections of places of
production by the NPPO;
• Grove sanitation and trapping for
fruit flies in places of production;
• Safeguarding and identification of
the lot throughout the growing, packing
and export process;
• Bagging of fruit intended for export;
• Phytosanitary treatment (cold
treatment or irradiation);
• Pre-export inspection by the NPPO,
including fruit cutting of a portion of a
biometric sample, and issuance of a
phytosanitary certificate with an
additional declaration that states that
the fruit have been produced in
accordance with the requirements of the
systems approach, inspected, and found
free of P. psidii and P. psidiicola; and
• Port of entry inspections.
These conditions will be listed in the
Fruits and Vegetables Import
Requirements database (available at
https://epermits.aphis.usda.gov/
manual). In addition to these specific
measures, fresh guava fruit from Taiwan
will be subject to the general
requirements listed in § 319.56–3 that
are applicable to the importation of all
fruits and vegetables.
Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.), the reporting and recordkeeping
requirements included in this notice are
covered under the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) control
number 0579–0049. The estimated
annual burden on respondents is 1,632
hours, which will be added to 0579–
0049 in the next quarterly update.
E-Government Act Compliance
The Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service is committed to
compliance with the EGovernment 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 notice, please contact Mr. Joseph
Moxey, APHIS’ Information Collection
Coordinator, at (301) 851–2483.
Congressional Review Act
Pursuant to the Congressional Review
Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs
designated this action as not a major
rule, as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1633, 7701–7772, and
7781–7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR
2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.
Done in Washington, DC, this 10th day of
October 2019.
Kevin Shea,
Administrator, Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 2019–22648 Filed 10–16–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–34–P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service
[Docket No. APHIS–2018–0030]
Notice of a Determination Regarding
the Fever Tick Status of the State of
Baja California, Mexico
Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
We are advising the public
that we have determined that the State
of Baja California, Mexico is free from
Rhipicephalus (formerly Boophilus)
spp. ticks, known as fever ticks. The
evaluation determined that this region is
free from fever ticks and that ruminants
imported from the area pose a low risk
of exposing ruminants within the
United States.
DATES: This change in fever tick status
will be recognized on November 18,
2019.
SUMMARY:
Dr.
Betzaida Lopez, Senior Staff
Veterinarian, Strategy and Policy, VS,
APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 39,
Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 851–3300.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
regulations in 9 CFR part 93 prohibit or
restrict the importation of certain
animals, birds, and poultry into the
United States to prevent the
introduction of communicable diseases
of livestock and poultry. Subpart D of
part 93 (§§ 93.400 through 93.436,
referred to below as the regulations)
governs the importation of ruminants;
within the regulations, §§ 93.424
through 93.429 specifically address the
importation of ruminants from Mexico
into the United States.
The regulations in paragraph (b)(1) of
§ 93.427 contain conditions for the
importation of ruminants from regions
of Mexico that we consider free from
Rhipicephalus (formerly Boophilus)
spp. ticks, known as fever ticks. Regions
of Mexico that we consider free from
fever ticks are listed at https://
www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/
animalhealth/animal-and-animalFOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
E:\FR\FM\17OCN1.SGM
17OCN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 201 (Thursday, October 17, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55544-55546]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-22648]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
[Docket No. APHIS-2018-0073]
Decision To Authorize the Importation of Fresh Guava From Taiwan
Into the Continental United States
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are advising the public of our decision to authorize the
importation of fresh guava fruit from Taiwan into the continental
United States. Based on the findings of the pest risk analysis, which
we made available to the public to review and comment through a
previous notice, we have concluded that the application of one or more
designated phytosanitary measures will be sufficient to mitigate the
risks of introducing or disseminating plant pests or noxious weeds via
the importation of fresh guava fruit from Taiwan.
DATES: The articles covered by this notification may be authorized for
importation after October 17, 2019.
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: Under the regulations in ``Subpart L--
Fruits and Vegetables'' (7 CFR 319.56-1 through 319.56-12, referred to
below as the regulations), the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service (APHIS) prohibits or restricts the importation of fruits and
vegetables into the United States from certain parts of the world to
prevent plant pests from being introduced into and spread within the
United States.
Section 319.56-4 of the regulations contains a notice-based process
based on established performance standards for authorizing the
importation of fruits and vegetables. The performance standards, known
as designated phytosanitary measures, are listed in paragraph (b) of
that section. Under the process, APHIS proposes to authorize the
importation of a fruit or vegetable into the United States if, based on
the findings of a pest risk analysis, we determine that the measures
can mitigate the plant pest risk associated with the importation of
that fruit or vegetable. APHIS then publishes a notice in the Federal
Register announcing the availability of the pest risk analysis that
evaluates the risks associated with the importation of that fruit or
vegetable.
In accordance with that process, we published a notice \1\ in the
Federal Register on December 14, 2018 (83 FR 64314-64315, Docket No.
APHIS-2018-0073), in which we announced the availability, for review
and comment, of a pest risk assessment (PRA) that evaluated the risks
associated with the importation into the continental United States of
fresh guava fruit from Taiwan and a risk management document (RMD)
prepared to identify phytosanitary measures that could be applied to
the commodity to mitigate the pest risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ To view the notice, PRA, RMD, supporting documents, and the
comments that we received, go to https://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2018-0073.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We solicited comments on the PRA and RMD for 60 days ending on
February 12, 2019. We received five comments by that date. They were
from private citizens, the California Department of Food and
Agriculture (CDFA), and the Florida Department of Agriculture and
Consumer Services (FDACS).
One of the commenters expressed general support for the importation
of guava from Taiwan into the United States, while another expressed
general opposition to the importation of fruits and vegetables into the
United States. The other three commenters provided comments regarding
the notice and its supporting documentation. Below, we discuss these
comments, by topic.
Comments on the Pest Risk Assessment
The PRA contained a pest list of pests associated with guava and
known to occur in Taiwan. The PRA identified 23 \2\ pests as being of
quarantine significance and likely to follow the pathway on guava from
Taiwan, and therefore possible candidates for risk mitigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Due to a typographical error, the PRA erroneously stated
that 24 pests had been identified, although only 23 were listed; the
RMD correctly stated that only 23 had been identified. This notice
will use the latter number.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CDFA stated that, in addition to the 23 pests identified as being
of quarantine significance, there were another 12 pests listed on the
pest list that were rated as either an ``A'' pest or ``B'' pest
according to CDFA's pest rating system: Aleurodicus dispersus,
Ceroplastes floridensis, Coccus viridis, Ferrisia virgata, Kilifia
acuminata, Milviscutulus mangiferae, Paracoccus marginatus, Planococcus
minor, Pseudococcus jackbeardsleyi, Pulvinaria psidii, Rusellapsis
pustulanus, and Selenothrips rubrocinctus. Under CDFA's rating system,
a pest given an ``A'' rating is a plant pest of known economic
importance subject to a State of California-enforced action that
involves eradication, quarantine regulation, containment, rejection, or
other holding action. A pest given a ``B'' rating is a pest of known
economic importance subject to eradication, containment, control, or
other holding action at the discretion of the individual county
agricultural commissioner within the State of California.\3\ The
commenter stated that mitigations should be developed for these pests
as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ For further information, see https://ucanr.edu/sites/plantpest/Regualtory_Information/Pest_Ratings/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Sec. 319.56-4 of the regulations, paragraph (c) provides that
if a fruit or vegetable is not authorized importation into the United
States, APHIS will not authorize its importation until we examine the
pest risk associated with its importation and determine that the risk
posed by each quarantine pest associated with the importation of the
commodity can reasonably be mitigated by the application of one or more
mitigation measures. Additionally, consistent with international
standards to which the United States is a signatory,\4\ the regulations
define a quarantine pest as: ``A pest of potential
[[Page 55545]]
economic importance to the area endangered thereby and not yet present
there, or present but not widely distributed there and being officially
controlled.'' For purposes of an APHIS risk assessment, the
``endangered area'' is the geographical area of the United States into
which a foreign country has requested that APHIS authorize importation
of the commodity; in the case of the guava from Taiwan, this is the
continental United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See https://www.ippc.int/largefiles/adopted_ISPMs_previousversions/en/ISPM_05_2007_En_2007-07-26.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regard to 11 of the 12 pests cited by CDFA (Aleurodicus
dispersus, Ceroplastes floridensis, Coccus viridis, Ferrisia virgata,
Kilifia acuminata, Milviscutulus mangiferae, Planococcus minor,
Pseudococcus jackbeardsleyi, Pulvinaria psidii, Rusellapsis pustulanus,
and Selenothrips rubrocinctus), while these pests were listed in the
pest list of our PRA, they are all present in the United States and not
under Federal official control, and therefore do not meet our
definition of a quarantine pest. Therefore, we do not consider it
necessary to develop mitigations for these pests, irrespective of their
rating within CDFA's system.
However, APHIS has developed a program, the Federally Recognized
State Managed Phytosanitary Program (FRSMP), to afford protections to
States when commodities are determined at a port of entry to harbor a
plant pest that is not a quarantine pest but is of concern to a
particular State. Information regarding the petition process for FRSMP
is found here: https://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/frsmp/downloads/petition_guidelines.pdf.
With regard to the twelfth pest mentioned by CDFA (Paracoccus
marginatus), this pest was, in fact, not included in the pest list in
our PRA. We agree that P. marginatus is associated with guava and known
to occur on fruit, but could find no evidence suggesting it is present
in Taiwan; this is why it was not included in the pest list. CDFA did
not provide a reference regarding the pest's presence in Taiwan;
therefore, we cannot evaluate their assertion. We also note that P.
marginatus is present in the United States and not under official
control, and thus not a quarantine pest.
Finally, CDFA stated that Phyllostica psidiicola, a fungal
pathogen, is present in Taiwan, not present in the continental United
States, and known to cause severe black rot in guavas. CDFA requested
that it be included in the PRA.
We agree that Phyllostica psidiicola is present in Taiwan and not
present in the continental United States, and have determined that it
is a quarantine pest and could follow the pathway on importation of
guavas from Taiwan into the continental United States. Therefore, we
have prepared an addendum to the PRA that evaluates P. psidiicola,
assigns it a Medium risk rating, and determines that it is a possible
candidate for risk mitigation. We also have revised our RMD to include
P. psidiicola as a quarantine pest that could follow the pathway on the
importation of guavas from Taiwan into the United States. The addendum
to the PRA and the revised RMD are available on Regulations.gov, or by
contacting the individual listed in this notice under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
The inclusion of P. psidiicola in the RMD does not alter the
mitigations of the RMD from those we initially proposed. P. psidiicola
causes corky lesions on the surface on infected fruit that are easily
detected during visual inspections, and we proposed both pre-export
inspection by the national plant protection organization of Taiwan and
port-of-entry inspections as components of our systems approach for the
importation of guava from Taiwan.
That being said, the revised RMD does include one additional
mitigation measure not included in the initial RMD. We discuss this
mitigation measure and the basis for its inclusion later in this
document.
Comments on the Risk Management Document
We proposed that a portion of a biometric sample of all
consignments of guavas from Taiwan intended for export to the United
States would have to be cut open by the NPPO of Taiwan and inspected
for internally feeding quarantine pests.
FDACS questioned whether the fruit cutting would be effective. They
requested data from the NPPO regarding the efficacy of fruit cutting to
detect quarantine pests that feed internally.
The efficacy of fruit cutting as a means of detecting quarantine
pests is long established,\5\ and the inspectors who will conduct the
cutting in Taiwan have been trained by the NPPO in proper fruit cutting
to sample for pests. While we acknowledge FDACS' legitimate interest in
ensuring that infested guava are not imported from Taiwan into the
State of Florida, we would only request fruit-cutting data from an NPPO
and consider sharing it with external parties when there is reason to
believe that the NPPO is not conducting fruit cutting or is doing so in
an ineffective manner. This is not the case with Taiwan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ For example, see: Cavey, J.F. 2003. Mitigating introduction
of invasive plant pests in the United States. Pages 350--361(Chapter
13). In Invasive Species: Vectors and Management Strategies, G.M.
Ruiz and J.T. Carlton, editors. Island Press, Washington DC. See
also: Gould, W.P. 1995. Probability of Detecting Caribbean Fruit Fly
(Diptera: Tephritidae) Infestations by Fruit Dissection. Florida
Entomologist 78(3): 502-507.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also note that all guava imported into the United States will be
subject to additional cutting by Customs and Border Protection in
accordance with 7 CFR part 305 at ports of entry into the United
States.
We proposed that the guava would have to be treated with cold
treatment for Bactrocera spp. fruit flies, or alternatively,
irradiated.
FDACS expressed concern that the cold treatment would not be
effectively applied. They stated that misapplication of cold treatment
is a recurring issue, and cited two examples that they considered
evidence of failure of in-transit cold treatment and indicative of the
liabilities of cold treatment as a mitigation measure: The discovery of
live fruit flies on cold-treated clementines from Spain, later,
clementines from Morocco. Because of the possibility of cold treatment
failure and the high likelihood that fruit flies may become established
in Florida, if introduced, FDACS requested that we prohibit the
importation of guava from Taiwan into the State of Florida.
The detection of fruit flies on clementines from Spain occurred in
2001 and was determined to be the result of an inadequate cold
treatment schedule, rather than misapplication of an effective
treatment schedule.\6\ It resulted in a holistic review and revision of
the manner in which APHIS evaluates and approves phytosanitary
treatments, and should not be considered indicative of current
practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ These findings are discussed at length in a 2002 interim
rule (67 FR 63529-63539, Docket No. 02-071-1) that revised our
phytosanitary treatment regulations based on the detection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on a site visit that APHIS conducted, the detection of fruit
flies on clementines from Morocco was determined to be the result of
failure to pre-cool the fruit adequately prior to applying cold
treatment. We also determined that this pre-cooling failure was, in
turn, due to uniquely inhospitable climatic conditions in the area of
Morocco surrounding the pre-cooling facility, a desert where daytime
temperatures during the summer months routinely exceed 90 [deg]F. We
addressed this failure by revising the operational workplan that
Morocco had entered into with APHIS to specify additional pre-cooling
and temperature
[[Page 55546]]
reading procedures at pre-cooling facilities.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See https://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/plants/plant_imports/federal_order/downloads/2018/DA-2018-01.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given Taiwan's more temperate climate, we do not consider a similar
pre-cooling failure likely to occur in Taiwan.
Additionally, we note that cold treatment is not the only
mitigation measure that we proposed in order to address Bactrocera spp.
fruit flies. We proposed that places of production would have to have a
fruit fly trapping system in place, as certified by the NPPO of Taiwan;
that fallen fruit would have to be removed from places of production to
eliminate possible fruit fly host material; that packinghouses where
the guava was processed for consignment to the United States would have
to be registered with the NPPO of Taiwan and determined to be pest
exclusionary; and that a portion of a biometric sample of each
consignment of guava intended for export to the United States would
have to cut open by the NPPO of Taiwan and inspected for fruit fly
larvae and other quarantine pests.
For the above reasons, we do not consider it necessary to prohibit
the importation of guava from Taiwan into the State of Florida.
A commenter suggested that the guava could be irradiated as a
treatment for fruit flies.
We agree, and included this treatment option in the RMD.
Finally, following the close of the comment period, the NPPO of
Taiwan informed us that, as a standard industry practice, all guava
intended for export from Taiwan for commercial sale are bagged.
Accordingly, the NPPO indicated that they would be amenable to
including bagging as an additional, voluntarily imposed mitigation
measure to address the pest risk associated with the importation of
guava into the continental United States, with the specific logistics
of this bagging included in the operational workplan that they will
enter into with APHIS. This additional bagging requirement is included
in the revised RMD.
Therefore, in accordance with Sec. 319.56-4(c)(3)(iii), we are
announcing our decision to authorize the importation of fresh guava
fruit from Taiwan into the continental United States subject to the
following phytosanitary measures:
Importation in commercial consignments only;
Development of an operational workplan that the NPPO of
Taiwan must enter into with APHIS;
Registration of places of production and packinghouses
with the NPPO of Taiwan;
Regular inspections of places of production by the NPPO;
Grove sanitation and trapping for fruit flies in places of
production;
Safeguarding and identification of the lot throughout the
growing, packing and export process;
Bagging of fruit intended for export;
Phytosanitary treatment (cold treatment or irradiation);
Pre-export inspection by the NPPO, including fruit cutting
of a portion of a biometric sample, and issuance of a phytosanitary
certificate with an additional declaration that states that the fruit
have been produced in accordance with the requirements of the systems
approach, inspected, and found free of P. psidii and P. psidiicola; and
Port of entry inspections.
These conditions will be listed in the Fruits and Vegetables Import
Requirements database (available at https://epermits.aphis.usda.gov/manual). In addition to these specific measures, fresh guava fruit from
Taiwan will be subject to the general requirements listed in Sec.
319.56-3 that are applicable to the importation of all fruits and
vegetables.
Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.), the reporting and recordkeeping requirements included in
this notice are covered under the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
control number 0579-0049. The estimated annual burden on respondents is
1,632 hours, which will be added to 0579-0049 in the next quarterly
update.
E-Government Act Compliance
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is committed to
compliance with the EGovernment 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 notice, please contact Mr. Joseph Moxey,
APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2483.
Congressional Review Act
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs designated this action
as not a major rule, as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1633, 7701-7772, and 7781-7786; 21 U.S.C.
136 and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.
Done in Washington, DC, this 10th day of October 2019.
Kevin Shea,
Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-22648 Filed 10-16-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P