Notice2021-17709
Decision To Revise the Requirements for the Importation of Fresh Citrus Fruit From Australia Into the Continental United States
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
August 18, 2021
Issuing agencies
Agriculture DepartmentAnimal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Abstract
We are advising the public of our decision to revise the requirements for the importation of citrus from Australia in order to authorize the importation into the continental United States of citrus from additional areas of production. Based on the findings of a pest risk analysis, which we made available to the public for review and comment through a previous notice, we have determined 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 citrus from these additional authorized areas of production in Australia.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 86 Issue 157 (Wednesday, August 18, 2021)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 157 (Wednesday, August 18, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46174-46177]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2021-17709]
========================================================================
Notices
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules
or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings
and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings,
delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency
statements of organization and functions are examples of documents
appearing in this section.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 /
Notices
[[Page 46174]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
[Docket No. APHIS-2018-0078]
Decision To Revise the Requirements for the Importation of Fresh
Citrus Fruit From Australia 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 revise the
requirements for the importation of citrus from Australia in order to
authorize the importation into the continental United States of citrus
from additional areas of production. Based on the findings of a pest
risk analysis, which we made available to the public for review and
comment through a previous notice, we have determined 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 citrus from these
additional authorized areas of production in Australia.
DATES: The articles covered by this notification may be authorized for
importation under the revised requirements beginning August 18, 2021.
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 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) of the U.S.
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.
Section 319.56-4 of the regulations provides the requirements for
authorizing the importation of fruits and vegetables into the United
States, and it revises existing requirements for the importation of
fruits and vegetables. Paragraph (c) of that section provides that the
name and origin of all fruits and vegetables authorized importation
into the United States, as well as their importation requirements, are
listed on the internet in APHIS' Fruits and Vegetables Import
Requirements database, or FAVIR (<a href="https://epermits.aphis.usda.gov/manual">https://epermits.aphis.usda.gov/manual</a>). It also provides that, if the Administrator of APHIS
determines that any of the phytosanitary measures required for the
importation of a particular fruit or vegetable are no longer necessary
to reasonably mitigate the plant risk posed by the fruit or vegetable,
APHIS will publish a notice in the Federal Register making its pest
risk documentation and determination available for public comment.
In accordance with that process, we published a notice \1\ in the
Federal Register on December 17, 2020 (85 FR 81869-81871, Docket No.
APHIS-2018-0078), in which we announced the availability, for review
and comment, of a pest risk analysis that evaluated the risks
associated with the importation into the United States of citrus from
three additional areas of Australia: The inland region of Queensland,
the regions that compose Western Australia, and the shires of Bourke
and Narromine within New South Wales District. The pest risk analysis
consisted of a pest risk assessment (PRA) identifying pests of
quarantine significance that could follow the pathway of importation of
citrus from these regions of Australia into the United States and a
commodity import evaluation document (CIED), a type of risk management
document, that identified phytosanitary measures to be applied to that
commodity to mitigate the pest risk. The national plant protection
organization (NPPO) of Australia also asked us to reevaluate whether
Epiphyas postvittana (light brown apple moth, also known as LBAM) could
follow the pathway of citrus fruit from Australia into the United
States. Currently, consignments of citrus fruit imported from Australia
must be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate with an additional
declaration stating that the fruit in the consignment was subject to
phytosanitary measures to ensure the consignment is free of LBAM. As a
result of this reevaluation, we found that LBAM does not follow the
pathway of citrus fruit from Australia into the United States, and we
announced our intention to remove the additional declaration
requirement. This change would affect both the currently authorized
importations of citrus fruit from Australia and the importations from
the additional production areas authorized by this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ To view the notice, the PRA, CIED, and the comments we
received, go to <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>. Enter APHIS-2018-0078 in the
Search field.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We solicited comments on the notice for 60 days ending February 16,
2021. We received seven comments by that date. They were from
producers, exporters, researchers, and representatives of State and
foreign governments. Three of the commenters supported authorizing
citrus imports from the additional regions of Australia as described in
the notice and supporting documents. One commenter supported
authorizing these imports with some revisions to the PRA. Two
commenters opposed authorizing these imports. The commenters also
raised a number of questions and concerns about the pest risk
assessment and the conditions under which citrus could be imported from
these additional regions in Australia.
Pest Risk Assessment
The PRA and CIED that we prepared in response to the Government of
Australia's request evaluated the pest risk associated with the
importation of citrus fruit from the inland region of Queensland, the
regions that compose Western Australia, and the shires of Bourke and
Narromine within New South Wales District into the continental United
States. However, in our previous notice we mistakenly did not specify
that the PRA and CIED only evaluated the risk to the continental United
States. In this notice we are clarifying that permits for importation
of
[[Page 46175]]
citrus fruit from the inland region of Queensland, the regions that
compose Western Australia, and the shires of Bourke and Narromine
within New South Wales District will be issued only for ports in the
continental United States.
Currently, citrus fruit from the Riverina, Riverland, and Sunraysia
areas of Australia is allowed importation into all ports of the United
States. This action will allow importation from three additional
production areas of Australia to the continental United States, but
will not affect currently authorized imports of citrus fruit from
Australia except that the phytosanitary certificate will no longer
require an additional declaration stating that the consignment is free
of light brown apple moth (Epiphyas postvittana, also known as LBAM).
The scope of the initial request was for specific additional
production areas of the inland region of Queensland, the regions that
compose Western Australia, and the shires of Bourke and Narromine
within New South Wales; however, the Government of Australia stated
that they consider that these production areas were intended to
represent production and pest status across the broader jurisdictions
and that the risk profiles associated with access granted at the
broader whole-state levels of Queensland, Western Australia and New
South Wales would not be appreciably greater than those associated with
the specifically identified areas. As explained in greater detail
below, this notice is limited to the scope of the initial request.
The regulations in 7 CFR 319.5 provide the process for submitting a
request for a revision to importation requirements for plants or plant
products. Based on the scope of the request submitted by the NPPO of
Australia in accordance with this process, APHIS prepared the PRA that
we made available with the initial notice. The areas covered by the PRA
were not considered to be illustrative or representative of a broader
jurisdiction but were rather the specific areas requested by the NPPO
itself. Moreover, we disagree that adjacent areas within a region can
be presumed to have an equivalent pest profile to the regions evaluated
by the PRA; in our experience, risk profiles can vary considerably
within a geographical area. For these reasons, APHIS cannot expand the
scope of the areas of Australia allowed to export citrus to the United
States without first revising the PRA to include the expanded area
Australia proposes, and publishing a new notice with the revised PRA in
the Federal Register for public comment.
One commenter stated that the PRA did not assess the risk of the
pink hibiscus mealybug (Maconellicoccus hirsutus (Green)). The
commenter noted this pest is present in parts of the United States but
is currently not found in Arizona. The commenter further stated that
pink hibiscus mealybug is found in Australia and may be found in the
regions where additional citrus imports into the United States may be
approved. The commenter stated that the PRA should indicate whether the
pink hibiscus mealybug is a pest of concern in the Australian regions
under consideration for export and its risk of introduction evaluated.
APHIS agrees with the commenter that pink hibiscus mealybug should
be included in the pest list for citrus from Australia and has revised
the PRA accordingly.\2\ The pink hibiscus mealybug has already been
introduced into the United States, however, and there is no eradication
or control program for it in areas of the United States in which it is
established. We have determined the overall likelihood of pink hibiscus
mealybug following citrus fruit imports into the continental United
States to be negligible. These changes do not affect the overall
conclusions of the analysis and the Administrator's determination of
risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See footnote 1 for directions on how to view the updated
PRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phytosanitary Measures
Two commenters expressed concern that the phytosanitary measures
discussed in the CIED may not adequately prevent the introduction of
Oriental red mite (Eutetranychus orientalis), brown citrus rust mite
(Tegolophus australis), Lebbeck mealybug (Nipaecoccus viridis), and
Kelly's citrus thrips (Pezothrips kellyanus) and stated that the risk
of introducing these pests is not negligible.
As we concluded in the PRA, the overall likelihood of introduction
of brown citrus rust mite, Oriental red mite, Lebbeck mealybug, and
Kelly's citrus thrips is negligible. Occurrence of these pests is
infrequent in the export area. Furthermore, as outlined in the PRA,
growers in Australia employ integrated pest management and cultural
practices that further reduce the prevalence of these pests on the
harvested commodity. This is also supported by the absence or low
numbers of interceptions of these four pests of concern on citrus fruit
from Australia at ports of entry. The control of mites is achieved by
close monitoring during spring and autumn, encouragement of natural
enemies, and the use of selective miticides. Mealybug and thrips
populations are closely monitored from early spring and may be
controlled through the release and promotion of natural enemies. The
well-timed use of oil sprays is also highly effective.
We also note that Lebbeck mealybug was added to the list of pests
no longer regulated at U.S. ports of entry for the continental United
States and Hawaii on September 8, 2020. To re-categorize pests so they
no longer require action at ports of entry, APHIS submits a proposal to
the National Plant Board (NPB), an organization composed of plant
regulatory officials for State departments of agriculture. In this
proposal to NPB, we propose to change the regulatory status of certain
insects and plant diseases and provide our rationale for why they
should no longer be considered of quarantine significance. The NPB
reviews each proposal and must concur with the recommendation to change
the pest's regulatory status. The NPB concurred with our proposal to
deregulate Lebbeck mealybug and accordingly we added it to the list of
pests no longer regulated. The list of pests no longer regulated can be
viewed on the APHIS website at <a href="https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/planthealth/plant-pest-and-disease-programs/frsmp/frsmp-non-reg-pests">https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/planthealth/plant-pest-and-disease-programs/frsmp/frsmp-non-reg-pests</a>. We have revised the PRA to remove this pest from the list of
pests associated with citrus from Australia.
One commenter noted that APHIS proposed removing the additional
declaration requirement that ensures the consignment is free of LBAM.
The commenter stated that the PRA notes that LBAM population pressure
is sometimes high in Australia, however, and larvae suspected to be
LBAM have been intercepted from Australia on permit cargo of citrus.
Despite removal of this declaration making import requirements
consistent with APHIS domestic requirements for LBAM, the commenter
expressed concern that removal of this declaration requirement at the
international level may lead to the pest escaping detection during
routine production, post-harvest, and packing practices.
As we explained in the CIED, the current host list for APHIS
domestic pest management for LBAM exempts conventionally produced
citrus from LBAM quarantined areas from any
[[Page 46176]]
specific mitigations.\3\ The host list states that this is because LBAM
survival on citrus is low compared with non-citrus hosts. The PRA also
found that there was low larval survival on oranges, that oranges are a
suboptimal host, that fruit fall prematurely if infested, and that
damage symptoms are easily seen and culled. For these reasons we
concluded that under normal population conditions and strict adherence
to good harvest and packing procedures, LBAM is unlikely to follow the
pathway of commercial fruit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The host list can be viewed on the APHIS website at <a href="https://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/lba_moth/downloads/exempted_host_list.pdf">https://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/lba_moth/downloads/exempted_host_list.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The combination of low field prevalence and packing procedures make
it highly unlikely that a foundation LBAM population could be moved out
of the registered place of production after conventional production and
harvesting practices. The CIED determined that these considerations are
also applicable to citrus fruit from Australia, and thus merit removal
of the additional declaration requirement for LBAM. Furthermore,
interception data from 1984 to 2018 shows only one interception of LBAM
in citrus fruit from Australia, and 90 interceptions of Tortricidae
(the next highest taxa) in citrus fruit from Australia. The most recent
interceptions were in 2005. In the event of Tortricidae interceptions
in citrus fruit from Australia, APHIS can require additional
mitigations for LBAM. We are making no changes in response to this
comment.
Pest Free Areas
One commenter stated that the option of allowing citrus fruit to
originate from an area that is free of Queensland fruit fly (Bactrocera
tryoni), Mediterranean fruit fly (Ceratitis capitata, also known as
Medfly), and/or Lesser Queensland fruit fly (Bactrocera neohumeralis)
may be problematic. The commenter expressed concern that this could
allow fruit to enter an area evaluated in the PRA which may have been
deemed a pest free area (PFA) for only one of the listed fruit flies.
The commenter further stated that the approved production area should
certify that all three fruit flies are not present at time of export or
be subject to the most appropriate cold treatment schedule.
We agree that if an area is not a pest free area for all three
species of fruit flies, citrus must be subject to phytosanitary
treatment for the relevant species of fruit fly, and this is the
mitigation structure that we proposed in the CIED with regard to pest
free areas.
Treatments
Two commenters noted that the treatment evaluation document
assessed the effectiveness of schedules T107-d-2 and T107-d-3 on Lesser
Queensland fruit fly and concluded that they would provide sufficient
control. One of the commenters stated that this conclusion was based on
a small-scale, comparative study of the relative cold tolerances of
eggs and early instar larvae of Queensland fruit fly, Lesser Queensland
fruit fly, and Jarvis' fruit fly (Bactrocera jarvisi) in mandarin. The
commenter stated that additional larger-scale studies on alternative
citrus hosts should be conducted to provide more significant findings
which could further (or diminish) support of the addition of Lesser
Queensland fruit fly to T107-d-2 and T107-d-3.
The other commenter raised the same point but added that without
scientific evidence confirming the referred efficacy, T107-d-2 and
T107-d-3 must not be accepted as a phytosanitary treatment for Lesser
Queensland fruit fly.
Jarvis' fruit fly and Lesser Queensland fruit fly both have narrow
coastal distributions in Northeastern Australia. Jarvis' fruit fly is
also found in the tropical area of Northern Australia. Both species
only inhabit areas that are subtropical and tropical in climate. This
supports the Australian research that these species are not more cold-
tolerant than Queensland fruit fly. Citrus is also not the preferred
host of either fruit fly.
In contrast, the mandarin fruit that the Australian scientists used
to test cold tolerance for Lesser Queensland fruit fly is an optimal
host and would be the preferred host to test cold tolerance of this
species. The small-scale comparative study conducted by the Australian
Department of Agriculture and Water Resources to determine the relative
cold tolerance of Queensland fruit fly, Lesser Queensland fruit fly,
and Jarvis' fruit fly supplemented the large scale studies that
supported our recommendations to approve the T107-d-2 and T107-d-3
treatment schedules. We note that small-scale comparative studies of
this kind compare two points or a small number of points to see if they
are significantly different. In the case of the fruit fly study, they
were not. We are making no changes in response to these comments.
The Government of Australia requested the addition of several
treatment options for fruit flies. These treatments are already in the
USDA Treatment Manual. Specifically, they requested adding T107-a-1,
T107-a-2, and T107-a-3, which are approved for use as stand-alone cold
disinfestation against Medfly for citrus fruit. They also requested
adding schedule T105 at a dose of 100Gy for fruit flies, as listed in
table 5-2-2 in the USDA Treatment Manual.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The USDA Treatment Manual can be viewed on the APHIS website
at <a href="https://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/plants/manuals/ports/downloads/treatment.pdf">https://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/plants/manuals/ports/downloads/treatment.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These additional treatments, which appear in the USDA Treatment
Manual, may be used for citrus fruit that originates in an area where
the only fruit flies present are those for which these treatments are
approved. We note that the schedule T105 treatment is approved at a
dose of 100Gy for Jarvis fruit fly, Lesser Queensland fruit fly, and
Medfly. There is an option for a dose of 150Gy for all other fruit
flies in the family Tephritidae not listed in table 5-2-2. Guidelines
for the approval of additional treatments can be found in 7 CFR 305.3.
The Government of Australia further stated that standard commercial
production practices implemented by the Australian citrus industry,
such as disease management strategies used to control citrus black spot
disease (CBS) in the field and packinghouses in Australia and
complemented by phytosanitary inspection, would appropriately manage
the risks posed by the fungus. The Government of Australia noted that
over the history of inspection of citrus exports from these production
areas, CBS has not been a problem, and stated that Australia considers
that any additional import requirements would exceed reasonable
requirements to manage the risk.
The phytosanitary measures we proposed to address the risk of CBS
in citrus fruit from Australia are the same measures we require of
domestic producers to ship citrus interstate within the United States.
We are making no changes in response to this comment.
Therefore, in accordance with the regulations in Sec. 319.56-
4(c)(2)(ii), we are announcing our decision to authorize the
importation into the continental United States of Citrus sinensis (L.)
Osbeck (orange), C. limonia Osbeck (Rangpur), C. meyeri Yu. Tanaka
(lemon), C. aurantiifolia (Christm.) Swingle (Key lime), C. latifolia
(Yu. Tanaka) Tanaka (lime), C. paradisi Macfad. (grapefruit), C.
reticulata Blanco (mandarin), and their hybrids from three additional
areas of Australia (the inland region of Queensland, the regions that
compose Western Australia, and the shires of Bourke and Narromine
[[Page 46177]]
within New South Wales District), subject to the following
phytosanitary measures:
<bullet> The citrus must either originate from an area within these
approved production areas that is free of the fruit flies Queensland
fruit fly, Medfly, and/or Bactrocera neohumeralis (Lesser Queensland
fruit fly), or be treated with cold treatment or other approved
treatment for the relevant fruit flies.
<bullet> If the area has Queensland fruit fly or Lesser Queensland
fruit fly, cold treatment schedules T107-d-2 or T107-d-3 must be used.
<bullet> The citrus fruit must be accompanied by a phytosanitary
certificate issued by the NPPO of Australia that attests that citrus
fruit were produced in a fruit fly pest-free area or that indicates
that cold treatment was applied to the consignment during transit to
the continental United States, or a combination of PFAs and quarantine
treatments; were inspected by the NPPO of Australia and found free of
pests of concern. We are not requiring an additional declaration for
light brown apple moth because the PRA considers this pest unlikely to
follow the pathway on citrus fruit from these areas.
<bullet> The citrus fruit is subject to inspection at the port of
entry into the United States.
<bullet> Only commercial consignments of Australian citrus fruit
may be imported into the United States.
<bullet> Fruit must be washed, brushed, surface disinfected in
accordance with 7 CFR part 305 and according to treatment schedules
listed in the USDA Treatment Manual, treated with fungicide at labeled
rates, and waxed at packinghouses.
<bullet> An operational work plan that details the requirements
under which citrus will be safely imported is in place.
<bullet> The citrus fruit must be imported under permit.
These revised conditions will be listed in the FAVIR database
(available at <a href="https://epermits.aphis.usda.gov/manual">https://epermits.aphis.usda.gov/manual</a>). In addition to
these specific measures, citrus from Australia 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 burden requirements associated with this action are
included under the Office of Management and Budget control number 0579-
0049.
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 notice, please contact Mr. Joseph Moxey,
APHIS' Paperwork Reduction Act 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 12th day of August 2021.
Mark Davidson,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-17709 Filed 8-17-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
</pre></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on August 18, 2021.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.