Decision To Revise Import Requirements for the Importation of Fresh Citrus From South Africa Into the United States
| Citation | 85 FR 70576 |
| Record Number | 2020-24402 |
| Published date | 05 November 2020 |
| Section | Notices |
| Court | Animal And Plant Health Inspection Service |
Federal Register, Volume 85 Issue 215 (Thursday, November 5, 2020)
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 215 (Thursday, November 5, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70576-70580]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-24402]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
[Docket No. APHIS-2018-0091]
Decision To Revise Import Requirements for the Importation of
Fresh Citrus From South Africa Into the United States
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are advising the public of our decision to revise the
import requirements for citrus (grapefruit, lemon, mandarin orange,
sweet orange, tangelo, and Satsuma mandarin) fruit from South Africa
into the United States. Based on the findings of a commodity import
evaluation document (CIED), which we made available to the public for
review and comment through a previous notice, we are removing
restrictions on the ports of entry into which such citrus may be
imported. This action will allow these citrus species to be imported
into more ports in the United States without presenting a risk of
introduction or dissemination of plant pests or noxious weeds.
DATES: The articles covered by this notification may be authorized for
importation under the revised requirements after November 5, 2020.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Tony Roman, Senior Regulatory
Policy Specialist, Regulatory Coordination and Compliance, IRM, PHP,
PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; (301)
851-2242; [email protected].
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 spreading 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.
[[Page 70577]]
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
(https://epermits.aphis.usda.gov/manual).
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.
Citrus (grapefruit, lemon, mandarin orange, sweet orange, tangelo,
and Satsuma mandarin) fruit from South Africa are currently listed in
FAVIR as commodities authorized importation into the United States,
subject to certain phytosanitary measures.
One of these phytosanitary measures requires citrus to be cold
treated according to treatment schedule T107-e. This treatment schedule
is listed in the Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) Treatment Manual
as an effective mitigation for Thaumatotibia leucotreta (false codling
moth, or FCM).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ To view the manual, go to https://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/plants/manuals/ports/downloads/treatment.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We implemented the current treatment schedule for FCM on South
African citrus in 2013 on a provisional basis, provided that the citrus
was only imported into the ports of Newark, NJ, Philadelphia, PA, and
Wilmington, DE. We included these port restrictions because the
national plant protection organization (NPPO) of South Africa requested
T107-e as a less stringent alternative to the treatment schedule at the
time, T107-k, and because the ports in question had cold treatment
facilities should the revised treatment schedule have proven to be
ineffective.
In 2014, we also added Houston, TX, as an authorized port. These
port restrictions were also currently found in FAVIR.
Over the following 2 years, we conducted enhanced inspections for
FCM on citrus from South Africa at the four authorized ports. During
that time, South Africa imported more than 2,000 shipments of citrus
into the United States with no detections of live FCM.
Based on these results, the NPPO of South Africa asked that we
remove the port restrictions and authorize the importation of citrus
from South Africa into all ports of entry within the United States.
In response to this request, we prepared a commodity import
evaluation document (CIED) that recommends removing the port
restrictions. Based on the recommendations of the CIED we published a
notice \2\ in the Federal Register on April 1, 2020 (85 FR 18185-18186,
Docket No. APHIS-2018-0091), announcing the availability of our CIED
for public review and comment and proposing to remove these port
restrictions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ To view the notice, the CIED, a description of the economic
considerations associated with removing port restrictions, and the
comments we received, go to https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=APHIS-2018-0091.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We solicited comments on the CIED for 60 days, ending June 1, 2020.
We received 19 comments by that date. They were from domestic citrus
producers, other domestic producers, importers, wholesalers, a
representative for South African citrus producers, port authorities,
organizations representing citrus production in the States of Georgia
and Florida, and the Georgia and Florida Departments of Agriculture. Of
the 19 comments, 12 opposed the notice, 6 were supportive, and 1 took a
neutral position.
Most comments favoring expanded port-of-entry importation were
based on the following considerations: Cold treatment effectively kills
pests, making infestation risk low; expanding ports of entry beyond
present importation would get cold-treated South African citrus to U.S.
customers near other ports faster, fresher; this change would also curb
land freight traffic, congestion, and emissions, and address driver
shortages; cargo economic activity and jobs would increase in other
ports; shipping and distribution supply chains would increase
efficiencies; and increased competition and service levels would
benefit consumers.
Commenters against removing restricted ports of entry to South
African citrus raised concerns and/or requested specific changes in
mitigation measures regarding the importation of citrus from South
Africa. We address first the issues commenters raised under topic
headings that characterize the issues. We then address commenters'
specific requested changes to the pest mitigation measures for the
importation of citrus fruit from South Africa.
Comments Regarding the Scope of the Pilot Project
Four commenters objected to APHIS using a pilot project limited to
four ports of entry over 2 years as a basis for allowing importation
now to all other U.S. ports. The commenters said this expansion, which
they believed was based on limited and inadequate inspection results,
increases cold treatment failure risk exponentially for multiple pests.
We understand the commenters' concerns but disagree that the pilot
project was not sufficiently robust. The volume of South African citrus
that entered the United States during the pilot period, 119,128 metric
tons in 2,116 shipments, is not a small shipment volume. Indeed,
because the total volume of South Africa citrus shipments is not
expected to increase significantly as a result of the removal of port
restrictions, the pilot project likely evaluated a similar volume of
citrus to that which is expected to be imported into the United States
as a result of this notice. Moreover, the commenters provided no
scientific evidence to support concerns that South African citrus entry
to multiple ports or reducing the cold treatment from 24 to 22 days
increases cold treatment failure risk.
Finally, the commenters failed to take into consideration that the
other existing conditions for importation of citrus fruit from South
Africa would remain. Other existing requirements that will remain
unchanged as a result of this notice include surveillance and
monitoring at South African production sites for quarantine pests,
inspection in South Africa of shipments intended for export to the
United States and issuance of a phytosanitary certificate by the NPPO
of South Africa or APHIS preclearance inspection in South Africa, and
inspection at all U.S. ports of entry.
Comments Regarding Possible Introduction of Other Moth Species
Four commenters expressed concerns that other moth species could
also follow the pathway on the importation of citrus from South Africa
and have no known traps, no lures for surveillance, and no post-harvest
treatments to mitigate shipping risks. They also said some traps for
these moths are not available in the United States and stated that the
pests feed on or inside fruit while on the tree.
The commenters failed to take into consideration the lengthy
history of safe importation of citrus from South Africa. In 1997, APHIS
established the current regulatory framework for the importation of
citrus from South Africa, apart from the port restrictions mentioned
earlier in this document (62 FR 593-597, Docket No. 95-098-3). In the
past 23 years of citrus importation from South Africa into the United
States
[[Page 70578]]
(well before the 2-year pilot project), APHIS has not intercepted any
moth species in commercial shipments of South African citrus other than
FCM. As with the previous commenters, these commenters also failed to
consider other requirements for the importation of citrus from South
Africa that would remain unchanged as a result of this notice and that
have a mitigative effect on the likelihood of other quarantine species
of moth being introduced into the United States. These include place-
of-production monitoring and surveillance for quarantine pests,
issuance of a phytosanitary certificate by the NPPO of South Africa or
APHIS preclearance inspection, and the cold treatment itself.
Comments Regarding FCM Detections in South African Citrus at European
Union Ports
One commenter stated that European Union (EU) ports intercepted FCM
12 times and other pests and diseases 5 times in South African citrus
shipments in 2019, and that these detections came after the 2-year U.S.
pilot project.
The EU does not require South African citrus to be cold-treated for
FCM. The disease that the EU intercepted was citrus black spot (CBS).
While the EU takes action against CBS interceptions, APHIS has
determined that fresh fruit is not an epidemiologically significant
pathway for the introduction and establishment of CBS.
Comments Regarding Other Fruit Fly Risks
Five commenters cited fruit fly risks as of even greater concern
than FCM in expanded South African citrus port access. Commenters were
concerned that the Natal fruit fly (Ceratitis rosa) showed less
susceptibility to cold treatment, that both the Natal fruit fly and
Marula fruit fly (Ceratitis cosyra) had been detected in South African
citrus crops and intercepted in shipments destined for Europe, and that
an Oriental fruit fly (Bactrocera dorsalis) outbreak had occurred in
South Africa at the time APHIS prepared its CIED. Commenters from
Florida also stated that the Oriental fruit fly necessitated Florida's
two largest eradication efforts (2015, 2018).
As indicated in the PPQ Treatment Manual, schedule T107-e mitigates
risks that Natal and Oriental fruit flies pose. Marula fruit fly is
admittedly not mitigated by this treatment schedule. However, while a
major pest of mangoes, it does not attack citrus (except for sour
orange), according to the Crop Pest Compendium (CABI, 2020). Sour
orange is not a citrus variety authorized importation into the United
States from South Africa.
Moreover, the Oriental fruit fly is not widespread in South Africa,
and it is only present in the Northeastern region of that nation, which
is outside of areas where South Africa grows citrus for export.
Finally, no live fruit flies have ever been intercepted in the past
23 years of commercial citrus shipments from South Africa to the United
States. This is indicative of the efficacy of the mitigation structure
for citrus fruit from South Africa.
Comments Regarding Mite Risk With Expanded Citrus Imports
Three commenters raised concerns that mite and disease introduction
and transmission could become even greater than FCM with South African
citrus port restrictions lifted. The commenters stated that oriental
red mite and mite-vectored citrus leprosis virus, both found in South
Africa and detected in 17 orchards in 2018, could spread rapidly on
introduction to Florida. They noted both can survive cold treatment and
that they exploit calices and stems in shipment. The commenters stated
that they believe sieves for mite washes that inspectors use at ports
of entry are the wrong sizes to detect immature mite species.
Oriental red mite (Eutetranychus orientalis) is indeed present in
South Africa. However, port restrictions based on the use of cold
treatment schedule T107-e are not the mitigation APHIS employs for
Oriental red mite. Instead, we require washing, brushing, and waxing of
fruit at the packinghouse processing stage of production. Consignments
that are not washed, brushed, and waxed in such a manner are not
considered commercial consignments. This remains part of the systems
approach for South African citrus imports to the United States. These
measures are efficacious in removing Oriental red mite from the pathway
prior to shipment throughout all the pests' life stages. Finally,
Oriental red mite does not vector citrus leprosis virus.
Two other mite species, Brevipalpus californicus and B. phoenicis,
are present in South Africa and have been reported as vectors of citrus
leprosis virus. However, only B. phoenicis has been proven to be a
vector. Moreover, as with E. orientalis, cold treatment is not used as
a mitigation for the mites. The primary mitigation for these two
species of mites on citrus is packinghouse processing with washing,
brushing, and waxing, which are efficacious at removing all life stages
of the mites from citrus.
Finally, no mites have ever been intercepted in commercial
shipments of South African citrus, and citrus fruit itself is not an
epidemiologically significant pathway for the transmission of citrus
leprosis virus, in the absence of mite vectors.
Comments Regarding Surveillance for and Eradication of Fruit Flies
Six commenters maintained that the fruit fly species found in South
Africa are polyphagous and attack nearly all dooryard fruits and some
vegetables. The commenters stated that South African fruit fly species
do not respond to any lures used domestically in the States of Florida
or California.
These commenters' concerns pertain to perceived difficulties in
surveillance, control, and eradication in the event fruit fly species
ever were to be introduced into the United States through the
importation of citrus from South Africa. However, live fruit flies have
never been detected in South African commercial citrus shipments at
U.S. ports of entry under the current regulatory framework, which, as
noted above, was in place in 1997. The absence of detections of live
fruit flies at ports of entry over a 23-year period is a reliable
indicator of the efficacy of the current systems approach.
APHIS also respectfully disagrees with the commenters'
characterization of traps and lures for the species in question. All of
the fruit fly species in South Africa respond to lures commonly used by
APHIS and the State departments of agriculture. The Mediterranean fruit
fly and Natal fruit fly respond to tri-medlure, and the Oriental fruit
fly responds to methyl eugenol-based lures.\3\ As noted earlier in this
document, Marula fruit fly does not attack commercial citrus apart from
sour orange (CABI, 2020). However, it can be trapped with standard
protein baits in multi-lure traps commonly used in Florida and
California.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See IAEA Trapping Manual for Area-Wide Fruit Fly Programmes,
http://www-naweb.iaea.org/nafa/ipc/public/FruitFlyTrapping.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments Regarding Perceived Pest Identification Weaknesses
One commenter stated that U.S. port-of-entry identification
technology is poor and that species identification of most intercepted
larvae is not known.
We disagree. In recent years, APHIS has invested significant
resources in molecular diagnostic technology, which allows APHIS to
identify almost any interception in commercial fruit
[[Page 70579]]
commodities to the species level. In instances in which this is not
possible, and only a genus level identification can occur, if one of
the species in the genus is of quarantine significance, the shipment is
nonetheless refused entry and must be treated, re-exported, or
destroyed.
Comments Regarding Cold Treatment Efficacy
Six commenters stated that cold treatment is not an inerrant
mitigation measure for moths, fruit flies, mites, and viruses. As
evidence of the limitations of cold treatment, they stated that
Mediterranean fruit flies or larvae have been found in cold-treated
Moroccan and Peruvian fruit imports.
These commenters erroneously assumed that cold treatment was the
only mitigation we were proposing for South African citrus fruit. This
is not the case. As discussed previously in this document, there are
many mitigations in place, including surveillance and monitoring at
places of production; washing, brushing, and waxing of fruit during
packinghouse processing; phytosanitary inspection by the NPPO of South
Africa or APHIS preclearance inspection; and port-of-entry inspection
in the United States.
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 reading procedures at pre-cooling
facilities.
The fruit fly larvae intercepted on citrus from Peru were moribund
based on the morphological characteristics of the larvae found. As a
precaution, APHIS rejected the shipment, investigated the interception,
and sent warning letters to the exporting country. This is not
indicative of a larger failure in APHIS' cold treatment procedures that
would be applicable to the importation of citrus fruit from South
Africa.
Comments Regarding Perceived Inspection Deficiencies
Two commenters stated that external inspection and fruit cutting
for detection at ports of entry are unreliable measures for screening
fruit fly larvae; mites, they stated, also readily escape detection
during inspection. Growers also said that they have little confidence
inspection at a greatly expanded number of ports will prevent pest
introduction.
External inspection and fruit cutting procedures at ports of entry
are based on sampling algorithms intended to detect a 2 percent or
greater infestation rate in the shipment with 95 percent confidence.
This longstanding inspection protocol, when coupled with other pest-
specific provisions of a systems approach, is very reliable in
detecting quarantine pests on imported shipments of fruits and
vegetables.
Mites, as noted previously in this document, are removed from the
pathway by the required packinghouse procedures of washing, brushing,
and waxing the citrus fruit prior to export.
Comments Regarding Consistency With the APHIS Mission and Strategic
Plan
One commenter stated that multiple pests that show resistance to
cold treatment could evade mitigation measures and inspection and harm
U.S. fruit and vegetable production in temperate climate States. The
commenter opined that this contradicts both APHIS' mission to safeguard
domestic agriculture from exotic pests and diseases and its Strategic
Plan to protect the health and value of U.S. agriculture, natural, and
other resources.
The commenter is correct that some of the quarantine pests of
citrus that exist in South Africa are not mitigated by cold treatment;
however, we did not say they were. As noted previously in this
document, APHIS employs multiple mitigation measures to address the
plant pest risk associated with the importation of citrus from South
Africa.
We disagree that this is inconsistent with APHIS' mission under its
statutory authorities. Under the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701 et
seq.), restrictions or prohibitions that APHIS places on the
importation of a fruit or vegetable must have the intent of preventing
the introduction or dissemination of a plant pest or noxious weed
within the United States, which the requirements for the importation of
citrus from South Africa do. Moreover, as noted previously, the only
quarantine pests intercepted on citrus from South Africa at ports of
entry within the United States have been the two detections of FCM,
both of which occurred more than 15 years ago. For this reason, we also
consider the requirements to be consistent with APHIS' stated goals in
our Strategic Plan.
Comments Requesting Changes to the Mitigation Structure for the
Importation of Citrus Fruit From South Africa
Restrict Ports of Entry
Eight commenters asked that APHIS limit South African citrus
importation to northern climate ports of entry, and/or those ports
above the 39th parallel and away from the southeast commodity-growing
region.
Additionally, one of these commenters asked that port of entry
restrictions especially exclude ports where pest introductions threaten
tomato production, specifically Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina
ports of entry. Another commenter asked exclusion of ports affecting
peach production in Georgia, especially excluding the Port of Savannah,
and a third asked exclusion of the citrus imports from Florida ports of
entry.
For the reasons already stated in initial notice of this action,
the CIED, and this final notice, APHIS does not consider these
additional mitigations to be warranted. As noted previously, there are
already in place multiple, other requirements for the importation of
citrus from South Africa into the United States, and APHIS has no
indication that these other requirements are ineffective.
Existing conditions for South African citrus imports at all ports
of entry will remain unchanged as a result of this notice. These
include surveillance and monitoring at South African production sites
for quarantine pests, inspection in South Africa of shipments intended
for export to the United States, issuance of a phytosanitary
certificate by the NPPO of South Africa or APHIS preclearance
inspection in South Africa, and inspection at all U.S. ports of entry.
Couple Cold Treatment With Additional Requirements
Three commenters asked that cold treatment be employed to eliminate
pests with ``multiple'' (unspecified) additional mitigation methods.
As noted previously, additional mitigations are currently in place
and will remain unchanged as a result of this notice, which merely
lifts one of these mitigations, that is port restrictions.
Make Technological Improvements and Stronger Knowledge Base
Prerequisites
Three commenters asked for more effective technology that
identifies fruit fly larvae and species in infested fruit, also better
knowledge of introduction pressure from South African imported fruits
and vegetables, before expanded
[[Page 70580]]
port permissions are granted, especially citrus importation to Florida
ports of entry.
This request is unwarranted since South African citrus has been
imported into the United States with almost no interceptions, and no
detections of fruit fly larvae in 23 years. Moreover, as noted
previously in this document, diagnostic technologies the commenters
requested already exist and are being deployed. Molecular technology
already allows APHIS to identify almost any fruit fly larval
interception in commercial fruit commodities. Finally, APHIS'
preclearance personnel are stationed in South Africa and routinely
monitor pest populations and pest pressures.
Adjust Sieve Size for Mite Wash Detection
One commenter suggested that inspection at U.S. ports of entry must
adjust the size of sieves for mite washes to detect immature mite
species before South African citrus importation is allowed to expand to
all U.S. ports of entry.
As noted above, washing, brushing, and waxing of citrus fruit at
packinghouses is demonstrated to remove mites from the pathway on the
importation of citrus to the United States. Accordingly, additional
inspection tools for mites at ports of entry are not warranted.
Comments Regarding Economic Cost Considerations
We received multiple comments on the economic effects assessment
(EEA) that accompanied the initial notice. We address these in a
revised EEA that accompanies this document (See footnote 2).
Therefore, in accordance with Sec. 319.56-4(c)(4)(ii) of the
regulations, we are announcing our decision to remove restrictions on
the ports of entry into which South African citrus (grapefruit, lemon,
mandarin orange, sweet orange, tangelo, and Satsuma mandarin) fruit may
be imported into the United States.
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.
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' 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 30th day of October 2020.
Michael Watson,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-24402 Filed 11-4-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
