61216 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

1To view the proposed rule, supporting 

documents, and the comments we received, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=

APHIS-2013-0045. 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

7 CFR Part 319 

[Docket No. APHIS–2013–0045] 

RIN 0579–AD82 

Importation of Fresh Bananas From 

the Philippines Into Hawaii and U.S. 

Territories 

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are amending the 

regulations concerning the importation 

of fruits and vegetables to allow the 

importation of fresh bananas from the 

Philippines into Guam, Hawaii, and the 

Northern Mariana Islands. As a 

condition of entry, the bananas will 

have to be produced in accordance with 

a systems approach that includes 

requirements for importation of 

commercial consignments, monitoring 

of fruit flies to establish low-prevalence 

places of production, harvesting only of 

hard green bananas, and inspection for 

quarantine pests by the national plant 

protection organization of the 

Philippines. The bananas will also have 

to be accompanied by a phytosanitary 

certificate with an additional 

declaration stating that they were 

grown, packed, and inspected and 

found to be free of quarantine pests in 

accordance with the proposed 

requirements. This action will allow the 

importation of bananas from the 

Philippines into Guam, Hawaii, and the 

Northern Mariana Islands while 

continuing to protect against the 

introduction of plant pests. 

DATES: Effective November 10, 2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

George Apgar Balady, Senior Regulatory 

Policy Specialist, Regulatory 

Coordination and Compliance, PPQ, 

APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 133, 

Riverdale, MD 20737–1236; (301) 851– 

2240. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The regulations in ‘‘Subpart—Fruits 

and Vegetables’’ (7 CFR 319.56–1 

through 319.56–71, referred to below as 

the regulations) prohibit or restrict the 

importation of fruits and vegetables into 

the United States from certain parts of 

the world to prevent the introduction 

and dissemination of plant pests within 

the United States. 

On January 28, 2014, we published in 

the Federal Register (79 FR 4410–4414, 

Docket No. APHIS–2013–0045) a 

proposal 1 to amend the regulations to 

allow the importation of bananas from 

the Philippines into Guam, Hawaii, and 

the Northern Mariana Islands. We also 

prepared a pest risk assessment (PRA) 

entitled ‘‘Importation of Banana, Musa 

spp., as Fresh, Hard Green Fruit from 

the Philippines to Guam, Hawaii, and 

the Northern Mariana Islands’’ (January 

2013). The PRA assesses the risks 

associated with the importation of fresh 

bananas from the Philippines into 

Guam, Hawaii, and the Northern 

Mariana Islands. Based on the 

information contained in the PRA, we 

prepared a risk management document 

(RMD) that recommends appropriate 

mitigation measures needed beyond the 

port-of-entry inspection requirements. 

Based on the recommendations of the 

RMD, we proposed to allow the 

importation of bananas from the 

Philippines into Hawaii and U.S. 

Territories only if they were produced 

in accordance with a systems approach. 

The systems approach we proposed 

included requirements for: 

• Registration, monitoring, and 

oversight of places of production; 

• Trapping for the fruit flies 

Bactrocera spp. to establish lowprevalence places of production; 

• Covering bananas with pesticide 

bags during the growing season; 

• Harvesting only of hard green 

bananas; 

• Requirements for culling, 

safeguarding, and identifying the fruit; 

and 

• Inspection by the national plant 

protection organization (NPPO) of the 

Philippines for quarantine pests. 

We also proposed to require bananas 

from the Philippines to be accompanied 

by a phytosanitary certificate with an 

additional declaration stating that the 

bananas were grown, packed, and 

inspected in accordance with the 

proposed requirements. These are the 

same conditions under which bananas 

from the Philippines were already 

authorized for importation into the 

continental United States. 

We solicited comments on the 

proposed rule for 60 days ending March 

31, 2014. We received 46 comments 

from private citizens by the close of the 

comment period. Three of the 

commenters supported the proposed 

rule. The issues raised by the other 

commenters are discussed below by 

topic. 

General Comments 

The majority of commenters stated 

that the Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service (APHIS) should 

prohibit the importation of bananas 

from other countries into Hawaii and 

U.S. territories, as locally grown 

bananas are plentiful or because 

importing commodities from other 

countries would conflict with local food 

initiatives. Many commenters expressed 

concerns that the importation of lowerpriced bananas from other countries 

would make it more difficult for local 

producers to compete within the 

market. Several commenters objected to 

using tax dollars to implement and 

enforce the proposed regulations rather 

than using them to support local 

growers. 

Such prohibitions would be beyond 

the scope of APHIS’ statutory authority 

under the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 

7701 et seq., referred to below as the 

PPA). Under the PPA, APHIS may 

prohibit the importation of a fruit or 

vegetable into the United States only if 

we determine that the prohibition is 

necessary in order to prevent the 

introduction or dissemination of a plant 

pest or noxious weed within the United 

States. APHIS does not have the 

authority to restrict imports solely on 

the grounds of potential economic 

effects on domestic entities that could 

result from increased imports. Current 

Hawaiian banana production provides 

considerable banana supply to the 

Hawaiian market, however it is 

apparently not enough to satisfy the 

demand for banana consumption in 

Hawaii. Any impact of the rule on U.S. 

banana producers in Hawaii and U.S. 

territories is likely to be small. To the 

extent that new imports of bananas from 

the Philippines arrive in Hawaii and 

U.S. territories, consumers will benefit 

from this additional source of fresh 

bananas. In addition, the importation of 

Philippine bananas is expected to add 

jobs in the produce shipping and 

marketing industry within Hawaii and 

the Territories, which would help offset 

any potential losses. Tax dollars would 

not be used to support the proposed 

regulations. The importation of 

Philippine bananas would require the 

NPPO of the Philippines to enter into a 

trust fund agreement with APHIS. 

Under the trust fund agreement, the 

NPPO of the Philippines would be 

required to pay in advance all estimated 

costs that APHIS expects to incur in 

providing inspection services in the 

exporting country. This includes 

administrative expenses such as 

inspector salaries and travel expenses. 

The cost of inspecting shipments at U.S. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 61217 

ports of entry is recovered through user 

fees. 

Additionally, as a signatory to the 

World Trade Organization Agreement 

on Sanitary and Phytosanitary 

Measures, the United States has agreed 

that any prohibitions it places on the 

importation of fruits and vegetables will 

be based on scientific evidence, and will 

not be maintained without sufficient 

scientific evidence. The blanket 

prohibitions requested by the 

commenters would not be in keeping 

with this agreement. 

One commenter suggested that we 

should allow bananas from the 

Philippines to be imported into Alaska, 

where there is no local production, 

rather than importing bananas into 

Hawaii and the U.S. territories. 

Under § 319.56–58, bananas from the 

Philippines are already allowed into the 

continental United States, including 

Alaska. 

One commenter expressed frustration 

that bananas grown in Hawaii could not 

be exported, while bananas grown in 

other countries could be imported into 

Hawaii. 

APHIS has an export staff to aid 

growers in exporting their agricultural 

commodities to other countries. Contact 

information for this staff is available on 

the APHIS Web site at http://

www.aphis.usda.gov/ under the Plant 

Health tab. 

Monitoring and Oversight 

Under paragraph (b)(3), the NPPO of 

the Philippines would be required to 

retain all forms and documents related 

to export program activities in groves 

and packinghouses for at least 1 year 

and, as requested, provide them to 

APHIS for review. Such forms and 

documents include, but are not limited 

to, fruit fly trapping and inspection 

records. One commenter pointed out 

that the International Plant Protection 

Convention (IPPC) requires that records 

be retained for at least the 2 previous 

years or as long as necessary to support 

the export program from areas of low 

pest prevalence. 

Requiring the NPPO of the 

Philippines to retain records for 1 year 

is consistent with our recordkeeping 

requirements for all offshore 

phytosanitary mitigation programs. 

From past experience, retaining records 

for longer than 1 year has provided little 

value in traceback efforts as any issues 

that may occur are generally related to 

the current growing season. While we 

do not require NPPO’s to retain records 

for longer than 1 year, this does not 

pertain to APHIS pest interception 

records. Those records are maintained 

for the life of the export program. 

One commenter stated that certain 

growers may import bananas from 

smaller growers to meet consumer 

demand and suggested that production 

areas be canvassed and shipments 

inspected to ensure that bananas not of 

approved varieties or stage of maturity 

are prohibited importation. 

Just one interception of a target pest 

would be enough to cause APHIS to 

suspend a commercial import program 

until APHIS and the Philippine NPPO 

agree that the pest eradication measures 

taken have been effective and that the 

pest risk has been eliminated. Because 

bananas from non-registered places of 

production present a greater pest risk 

than does fruit grown in registered 

places of production, we believe that it 

is unlikely that the growers and packers 

in a registered place of production 

would allow their entire export 

operation to be jeopardized by allowing 

potentially infested fruit from nonregistered places of production to be 

commingled with their export-quality 

fruit. In addition to that purely 

economic disincentive, APHIS and 

Philippine NPPO inspectors will also be 

present in the places of production and 

packinghouses during the shipping 

season to ensure that all requirements of 

the regulations are being observed. That 

includes ensuring that only green 

bananas are packed for export. There are 

no restrictions on the variety of bananas 

that can be imported from the 

Philippines under the regulations. 

The commenter also suggested that 

shipments from noncompliant 

production areas be restricted until the 

production areas are determined to be in 

compliance with the regulations per the 

NPPO and APHIS, and that records be 

kept regarding banana varieties and 

stage of maturity. 

The NPPO of the Philippines would 

be responsible for enforcing the 

requirements in the operational 

workplan, including maintaining 

records of growers and packers and 

periodically conducting inspections or 

audits to ensure that growers are 

producing bananas in accordance with 

the systems approach. If the NPPO of 

the Philippines finds that a place of 

production or packinghouse is not 

complying with the regulations, no fruit 

from the place of production or 

packinghouse is eligible for export to 

the United States until APHIS and the 

NPPO of the Philippines conduct an 

investigation and appropriate remedial 

actions have been implemented. 

Inspection 

The majority of commenters 

expressed concern regarding the 

potential for Philippine bananas to act 

as a pathway for the introduction of 

insect pests and diseases into Hawaii 

and the U.S. territories. 

Two commenters expressed concern 

about the ability to detect diseases in 

their incubation period and control 

them following establishment. 

APHIS has seldom intercepted pests 

on commercial bananas when produced 

under a systems approach including 

bagging bananas after flower drop with 

plastic bags impregnated with pesticides 

and harvest of green bananas. Therefore, 

based on this track record, we are 

confident the NPPO of the Philippines 

can effectively oversee the application 

of the proposed systems approach to 

importing Philippine bananas to Guam, 

Hawaii, and the Northern Mariana 

Islands. We evaluated the potential for 

diseases to follow the pathway of 

bananas from the Philippines into 

Hawaii and the U.S. territories in our 

PRA and determined that the only 

disease of concern that could follow that 

pathway is Ralstonia solanacearum. 

However, based on the requirements of 

the proposed systems approach, such as 

bagging the inflorescence at the bending 

stage, which prevents access to the fruit 

by disease vectors, and standard 

industry procedures such as disinfecting 

tools, we determined that bananas from 

the Philippines are not likely to present 

a risk of introducing R. solanacearum to 

Hawaii and the U.S. territories. In 

addition, APHIS has no record of any 

interceptions of R. solanacearum on 

banana imports from any country. 

Therefore, because diseases are not 

likely to follow the pathway of bananas, 

the potential latency of disease 

symptoms is not an issue. 

Several commenters expressed 

concern that Hawaii and the U.S. 

territories do not have the resources 

necessary to implement and enforce the 

proposed regulations, which would 

increase the risk of accidental or 

incidental introduction of quarantine 

pests and diseases. 

As stated previously, any required 

oversight by APHIS in the Philippines 

will be paid for using monetary support 

from the industry through establishment 

of a trust fund. Inspection at the port of 

arrival will be conducted by APHIS 

employees in conjunction with Customs 

and Border Protection, and will be 

funded by user fees. Hawaii and the 

U.S. territories will not have any 

implementation or enforcement 

responsibilities for the proposed 

regulations. 

Several commenters called for 

increased inspections of bananas from 

the Philippines to mitigate pest risk. 

One commenter stated that, because the 

PRA identified five times the number of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

61218 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

significant quarantine pests for Guam, 

Hawaii, and the Northern Mariana 

Islands than were identified in the PRA 

prepared for the mainland United 

States, the proposed systems approach 

should require a stricter inspection 

process. However, the commenter did 

not elaborate on what aspect of the 

inspection process could be improved. 

One commenter stated that large 

inspection fees should be charged for 

imports, including banana imports, in 

order to prevent the importation of pests 

and diseases. 

As stated previously, APHIS seldom 

intercepts pests on commercially 

produced bananas produced under the 

proposed systems approach. Therefore, 

APHIS considers the multiple layers of 

safeguards sufficient to mitigate the risk 

posed by the quarantine pests listed in 

the PRA. These mitigations are based on 

those currently used in Central and 

South America for export of bananas to 

the United States. User fees are charged 

commensurate with the cost of 

inspecting imports. We are unable to 

charge more for inspecting specific 

goods from certain countries. 

One commenter asked why we do not 

have a set sampling rate established in 

§ 319.56–58(h)(2). The commenter 

expressed concern that, in the absence 

of a current sampling rate, monitoring of 

the procedures required of the 

Philippine NPPO by APHIS will be 

insufficient. 

Rather than establishing a sampling 

rate within the regulations, APHIS has 

determined that setting a sampling rate 

within the operational workplan 

provides greater flexibility in the event 

that the sampling rate must be changed 

in the future. For most imported fruit, 

our sampling regime is designed to 

detect pest infestations if the pest is 

present in more than 1 or 2 percent of 

sampled fruit. This corresponds to 

sampling 150 to 300 fruit. 

PRA and RMD 

One commenter expressed concern 

that varieties of banana from the 

Philippines would be imported for 

which no risk analysis has been 

conducted or risk mitigations 

determined due to lack of published 

data. 

The PRA considered the risks 

associated with the importation of all 

banana varieties. 

Several commenters noted that the 

PRA does not assess the risk that 

quarantine pests may pose to 

endangered banana or other species 

found within Hawaii. 

The PRA found that no pests were 

likely to follow the pathway of mature 

green bananas because the stage of 

maturity at harvest and several other 

standard production and post-harvest 

practices, as detailed in the PRA, were 

determined to be adequate mitigations. 

Because no pests were likely to follow 

the pathway, no further analysis was 

conducted. 

Several commenters referenced pests 

that have become established in Hawaii 

or the U.S. territories as a result of the 

importation of commodities. In the 

RMD, we stated that between 3.8 and 4 

million metric tons of bananas were 

imported into the United States from 

Central and South America each year 

between 2003 and 2007, however, only 

1,400 actionable quarantine pests were 

intercepted on imported bananas in that 

time period. One commenter stated that 

citing the small number of pest 

interceptions on bananas from Central 

and South America versus the volume 

of shipments is misleading given that 

the number of pests that remained 

undetected would be correspondingly 

larger for larger shipments. 

Most pest interceptions, specifically 

fruit fly, occur in fruit seized in 

passenger baggage rather than in 

commercial imports. Fruit in passenger 

baggage will continue to be prohibited 

under this rule. While the commenter 

may be correct that larger shipments 

could potentially contain larger 

numbers of undetected quarantine pests, 

just one interception of a target pest in 

a commercial shipment would be 

enough to cause APHIS to suspend a 

commercial import program. This was 

the case for the suspension of the 

Spanish clementine import program 

when a very small number of live 

Mediterranean fruit fly (Ceratitis 

capitata) larvae were discovered in a 

shipment. Importations of clementine 

from Spain did not resume until a 

review was conducted and pest 

mitigations strengthened. Therefore, we 

consider the multiple layers of 

safeguards in the proposed rule 

sufficient to mitigate the risk posed by 

the quarantine pests listed in the PRA. 

One commenter stated that all 

bananas grown in production areas 

should be produced from tissue culture 

in order to deter disease and asked 

whether this is currently the case in the 

Philippines. The commenter further 

stated that, since tissue culture for 

specialty bananas may not be available, 

those banana varieties may need to be 

restricted from importation until tissue 

culture is viable. 

The Philippines has indicated that 

producing bananas using tissue culture 

is part of their standard industry 

practices. 

The PRA lists Imperata cylindrica L. 

as a Federal noxious weed present in 

the Philippines, but that is not likely to 

follow the pathway of Philippine 

bananas due to production procedures 

and post-harvest processing 

requirements, such as bagging of 

bananas during the growing season and 

the use of high-pressure water sprays. 

One commenter stated that these 

measures are insufficient to prevent 

introduction of the weed to Hawaii and 

suggested that bananas grown in fields 

near I. cylindrica L. be inspected and 

safeguarded from contamination with I. 

cylindrica L. seeds. 

Paragraph (b)(1) requires that the 

Philippine NPPO conduct inspections of 

places of production beginning 3 

months before harvest and throughout 

the shipping season to ensure 

compliance with the regulations. In 

addition, APHIS may also conduct 

inspections of production areas as 

necessary to ensure compliance. This 

inspection regimen coupled with the 

use of bagging and high-pressure water 

sprays makes it highly unlikely that 

seeds of I. cylindrical L. could 

contaminate shipments of Philippine 

bananas. Therefore, the PRA concluded 

the weed was highly unlikely to follow 

the pathway. 

One commenter raised concerns about 

the chemicals used in the Philippines to 

treat bananas in the field. The 

commenter stated that these chemicals 

are illegal in the United States and 

questioned whether the field inspectors 

in the Philippines would actually test 

the bananas for disease and pesticide 

residues prior to exportation. A second 

commenter raised concerns about the 

quality of life of Filipino field workers 

and suggested revisions to the proposed 

systems approach to ensure their safety 

and wellbeing, particularly when 

handling harmful pesticides. 

While the United States does not have 

direct control over pesticides that are 

used on food commodities such as 

bananas in other countries, there are 

regulations in the United States 

concerning the importation of food to 

ensure that commodities do not enter 

the United States containing illegal 

pesticide residues. Through section 408 

of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 

Act, the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) has the authority to 

establish, change, or cancel tolerances 

for food commodities. These EPA-set 

tolerances are the maximum levels of 

pesticide residues that have been 

determined, through comprehensive 

safety evaluations, to be safe for human 

consumption. Tolerances apply to both 

food commodities that are grown in the 

United States and food commodities 

that are grown in other countries and 

imported into the United States. The 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 61219 

EPA tolerance levels are enforced once 

the commodity enters the United States. 

Chemicals such as DDT that are banned 

in the United States do not have 

tolerances on food commodities. Federal 

Government food inspectors are 

responsible for monitoring food 

commodities that enter the United 

States to confirm that tolerance levels 

are not exceeded and that residues of 

pesticide chemicals that are banned in 

the United States are not present on the 

commodities. Tolerance levels for all 

chemicals that are acceptable for use on 

bananas may be found in EPA’s 

regulations in 40 CFR 180.101 through 

180.2020. Tolerance information can 

also be obtained at http://www.epa.gov/ 

pesticides/food/viewtols.htm. Pesticide 

use in the Philippines is regulated 

through the Fertilizer and Pesticide 

Authority (FPA). Under this authority, 

all pesticides are required to be 

registered and all pesticide handlers 

must be licensed. In addition, the FPA 

restricts or bans the use of any pesticide 

when evidence shows that the pesticide 

is an imminent hazard to crops, fish, 

livestock, the environment, or public 

health. 

One commenter stated that repeated 

use of pesticides and bait sprays may 

increase pest resistance and that the 

operational workplan must include a 

requirement to review the long-term 

efficacy of pesticides. 

APHIS uses information based on 

studies conducted by the EPA to 

determine the appropriate chemical and 

dosage requirements for use against 

quarantine pests. It is outside the scope 

of APHIS’ mission to review pesticide 

resistance. 

One commenter pointed out 

inconsistencies between the PRA and 

RMD and expressed concern regarding 

the omission of certain standard 

industry practices from the 

requirements in the RMD. The 

commenter stated that removing 

standard industry practices effectively 

dismantles the systems approach, 

making the following steps in the 

systems approach less effective. To 

address this concern, the commenter 

suggested we explain that the standard 

industry practices outlined in the PRA 

remain in place for bananas from the 

Philippines and that we edit the RMD to 

reflect this clarification. 

APHIS does not require industry 

standard practices that are not 

technically and scientifically justified as 

a way to prevent or remove pests. 

APHIS omitted certain standard 

industry practices from the 

requirements in the RMD because those 

practices are designed to produce 

marketable fruit rather than to remove 

plant pests. Although we are not 

requiring those practices, they are 

routinely conducted in the Philippines. 

One commenter pointed out that the 

references used for the PRA did not 

include more recent publications 

important for analyzing the potential for 

establishment of Bactrocera musae 

(banana fruit fly) in Hawaii. The 

commenter cited one publication in 

particular which indicated that banana 

fruit fly may oviposit in bananas earlier 

than the mature green stage, 

necessitating mitigations earlier than is 

common practice, and that they may 

demonstrate varietal host preferences. 

Although we recognize the 

commenter’s concern, our pest 

interception data does not indicate a 

higher risk of Bactrocera spp. fruit fly 

infestations in bananas than Anastrepha 

spp. fruit fly infestations. In addition, 

according to highly regarded scientific 

sources referenced in the PRA, the 

banana fruit fly is not present in the 

Philippines. However, as an additional 

precaution, the fruit is required to be 

bagged as soon as the blossom falls, 

while the fruit is still very small. The 

banana will remain in the pesticideimpregnated bag for months until 

harvest. Therefore, it is very unlikely 

that the banana will be subject to fruit 

fly infestation during the growing 

season. APHIS will also require 

sampling and fruit cutting to ensure the 

efficacy of the systems approach. 

One commenter referred to table 6 in 

the PRA and asked whether the column 

header ‘‘Quarantine pest’’ refers to 

whether or not Hawaii and the U.S. 

territories consider the listed pest a 

State quarantine pest. If so, the 

commenter stated that APHIS should 

check the responses with respect to 

Hawaii to ensure accuracy. 

The PRA was drafted with respect to 

pest status in Hawaii and the U.S. 

territories. Therefore, the quarantine 

pests referred to are those that are 

considered quarantine pests with 

respect to those States. 

Fruit Fly Mitigations 

One commenter opposed the 

importation of hard green bananas from 

the Philippines, testifying to the 

occurrence of fruit fly attacks on hard 

green bananas in the aftermath of a 

typhoon. Due to the frequency of 

typhoon activity in the Philippines, the 

commenter expressed concern that the 

risk of introducing fruit flies into 

Hawaii and the U.S. territories increases 

with the importation of bananas from 

the Philippines even when the bananas 

have been harvested at the hard green 

stage. 

Under paragraph (b) of § 319.56–3, all 

consignments of fruits and vegetables 

are subject to inspection at the port of 

entry. Inspectors will monitor for all 

pests listed in the PRA. Harvesting 

bananas at a hard green stage (i.e., 

bananas with no yellow or green color 

break) is a standard industry practice for 

banana production in Central and South 

America, the Philippines, Hawaii, and 

most of the world because ripe bananas 

are more likely to be infested by fruit 

flies. Bananas will be inspected at the 

port of entry to verify that they are at the 

proper stage of ripeness. APHIS 

interception records going back to 1983 

indicate that there have been no 

interceptions of fruit flies in 

commercially produced bananas from 

Central and South America. However, 

two additional mitigations (fruit fly 

trapping and population control) were 

added specifically for the Philippine 

bananas program to address fruit fly 

risk. If a typhoon were to occur during 

the growing season, the likelihood is 

that the bags required to be placed over 

the fruit would not stay in place. This 

would disqualify such fruit from 

importation into the United States as it 

would no longer have been produced in 

accordance with the systems approach. 

In addition, even if fruit flies were to 

infest the fruit and the fruit were not 

immediately culled, the NPPO would 

cull such fruit during inspection due to 

the visible damage done by fruit fly 

feeding. Finally, as mentioned 

previously, APHIS requires sampling 

and cutting of fruit to detect pests in 

shipments. These measures provide an 

added measure of protection against the 

introduction and establishment of fruit 

flies. 

Two commenters expressed concern 

that APHIS would stop requiring fruit 

fly trapping after 2 years of inspections 

with no interception of fruit fly larvae. 

One commenter asked how APHIS 

would monitor changes in the fruit fly 

population in the Philippines if we no 

longer required trapping. The second 

commenter stated that 2 years of 

trapping data are not representative of 

future fruit fly populations when 

pesticide applications are not 

standardized between production areas 

and when production areas and the 

varieties of bananas they grow may 

change as well. The commenter further 

suggested using the bait sprays as a way 

for areas that do not have low 

prevalence for fruit flies to attain low 

prevalence or requiring importation 

only from pest free areas. 

As stated in the proposed rule, we do 

not want to impose trapping 

requirements if they are not justified by 

the presence of fruit fly larvae in 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

61220 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

Philippine bananas. This is in 

accordance with IPPC standards, which 

require that phytosanitary measures 

represent the least restrictive measures 

available and result in the minimum 

impediment to the international 

movement of people, commodities, and 

conveyances. Bananas are poor hosts of 

fruit flies, especially when harvested 

green. In addition, we have never 

intercepted fruit flies in shipments of 

commercial bananas from Central or 

South America where the same systems 

approach is in place. Although 

Bactrocera spp. fruit flies have been 

intercepted in bananas found in 

passenger baggage, these interceptions 

were very rare and they did not 

originate from the Philippines. The only 

fruit fly known to infest green bananas 

is the banana fruit fly, which as stated 

previously, is not present in the 

Philippines. APHIS does not require 

fruit fly trapping for bananas from 

Central or South America and we are 

requiring trapping for 2 years within the 

Philippines only as an abundance of 

caution. The primary mitigation 

methods are the poor host status of 

green bananas and the pesticideimpregnated bagging. Therefore, we do 

not believe it is necessary to continue to 

require fruit fly trapping in the absence 

of fruit fly larvae after 2 years. If fruit 

flies are discovered during sampling of 

commercial fruit, the export program 

will be suspended and trapping or 

other, equivalent measures, may be 

reinstated. 

One commenter stated that, because 

of the prevalence of fruit fly species in 

Hawaii, the banana fruit fly could 

remain undetected there when it would 

likely be easily detected and eradicated 

in the continental United States. 

While it is the case that a number of 

fruit fly species are present in Hawaii, 

this is not a sound scientific and 

technical justification for requiring 

permanent fruit fly trapping in the 

Philippines. In the proposed rule, we 

proposed to require the NPPO of the 

Philippines to monitor the bananas for 

pests, and if we have any problems in 

the first 2 years of the program, we may 

consider extending the trapping 

requirement. 

Bagging Requirements 

In the proposed rule, we proposed 

that each place of production would 

have to follow a pest management 

program specified by the NPPO of the 

Philippines to reduce populations of 

quarantine pests. This management 

program would include applying 

pesticides to reduce pest populations 

and bagging bananas after flower drop 

with plastic bags impregnated with 

pesticides. One commenter stated that 

the time between flower removal and 

bagging may vary with different banana 

varieties, which may allow for longer 

exposure times to the banana fruit fly 

for varieties that may be preferred hosts 

of the banana fruit fly. The commenter 

also asked whether bagging is done for 

all banana varieties when the 

inflorescence is at the bending stage, 

which is included in the planned 

mitigations for Bugtok and Moko banana 

varieties per the PRA. 

Because the growing period of 

commercial bananas is longer than the 

life cycle of fruit flies within the 

Philippines, in the unlikely event that 

fruit are bagged after fruit fly infestation, 

larvae would have emerged prior to 

harvest. The presence of fruit flies in the 

bags along with larval emergence holes 

would disqualify such bananas from 

importation. 

Post-harvest Processing 

Citing pest interception data, one 

commenter stated that the cleaning 

process to remove surface pests has not 

been effective in bananas from Central 

and South America. The commenter 

indicated that this may be a particular 

problem with pests that are known 

disease vectors. The commenter 

suggested that utilizing standard 

industry practices within the 

Philippines, such as using aluminum 

sulfate, may be more effective as a 

mitigation. 

We disagree with the commenter that 

the cleaning process to prevent surface 

pests has been ineffective. The number 

of pests intercepted in shipments of 

bananas from Central and South 

America has been very low given the 

volume of imported bananas from those 

areas. If, however, we find that a 

significant number of surface pests are 

arriving on bananas from the 

Philippines, we will either suspend the 

import program or amend the required 

mitigation measures to address the 

issue. 

Phytosanitary Certificate 

One commenter stated that 

phytosanitary certificates from the 

Philippines are not effective in 

preventing the introduction of foreign 

pests and diseases because fake 

phytosanitary certificates can be easily 

purchased in Manila. 

The Philippines is a signatory to the 

IPPC, like the United States. As a 

signatory to the IPPC, one of the 

Philippines’ responsibilities is to issue 

phytosanitary certificates with accurate 

and complete information. We have no 

reason to doubt that the Philippines will 

do this. 

Economic Analysis 

Two commenters objected to the 

number of unknowns in the economic 

analysis of the proposed rule, including 

the volume of bananas to be imported. 

The commenters stated that, unlike the 

continental United States, Hawaii in 

particular is a large producer of 

bananas. Therefore, the proposed rule 

could have unforeseen economic 

impacts on Hawaiian growers. 

The information contained in the 

economic analysis was based on the best 

information available. As stated 

previously, APHIS does not have the 

authority to restrict imports solely on 

the grounds of potential economic 

effects on domestic entities that could 

result from increased imports. Current 

Hawaiian banana production provides 

considerable banana supply to the 

Hawaiian market, however it is 

apparently not enough to satisfy the 

demand for banana consumption in 

Hawaii. Any impact of the rule on U.S. 

banana producers in Hawaii and U.S. 

territories is likely to be small. To the 

extent that new imports of bananas from 

the Philippines arrive in Hawaii and 

U.S. territories, consumers will benefit 

from this additional source of fresh 

bananas. In addition, part of APHIS’ 

examination of the economic impact of 

a regulation is to determine the 

regulation’s net benefits and costs to 

U.S. consumers as well as U.S. 

producers. 

Therefore, for the reasons given in the 

proposed rule and in this document, we 

are adopting the proposed rule as a final 

rule, without change. 

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

This final rule has been determined to 

be not significant for the purposes of 

Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, 

has not been reviewed by the Office of 

Management and Budget. 

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 604, we 

have performed a final regulatory 

flexibility analysis, which is 

summarized below, regarding the 

economic effects of this rule on small 

entities. Copies of the full analysis are 

available on the Regulations.gov Web 

site (see footnote 1 in this document for 

a link to Regulations.gov) or by 

contacting the person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Commercial production of bananas in 

the United States takes place in Hawaii, 

where most if not all of the banana 

farms are small entities. Currently, 

about 4.1 million metric tons (MT) of 

bananas are imported into the United 

States (including the State of Hawaii) 

every year. In 2011, Hawaii’s banana 

harvest totaled about 7,900 MT. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 197 / Friday, October 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 61221 

We do not have information at this 

point on the quantity of bananas that the 

Philippines expects to ship to the State 

of Hawaii or to the U.S. territories, or 

the quantity and origin of bananas 

already imported into these 

destinations. However, Hawaii as well 

as the U.S. territories, already import 

bananas from other places since the 

volume of banana consumption is 

greater than their production. In general, 

the quantity of U.S. imports from the 

Philippines is expected to be relatively 

insignificant, equivalent to about 0.05 

percent of U.S. imports from other 

countries. What percent would go to 

Hawaii depends on the demand from 

the consumers in the State of Hawaii 

and in the other U.S. territories. 

Consumers in Hawaii and the U.S. 

territories would benefit from the 

additional source of fresh bananas, 

which are of similar quality as the 

domestic ones. 

Executive Order 12988 

This final rule allows bananas to be 

imported into Guam, Hawaii, and the 

Northern Mariana Islands from the 

Philippines. State and local laws and 

regulations regarding bananas imported 

under this rule will be preempted while 

the fruit is in foreign commerce. Fresh 

fruits are generally imported for 

immediate distribution and sale to the 

consuming public, and remain in 

foreign commerce until sold to the 

ultimate consumer. The question of 

when foreign commerce ceases in other 

cases must be addressed on a case-bycase basis. No retroactive effect will be 

given to this rule, and this rule will not 

require administrative proceedings 

before parties may file suit in court 

challenging this rule. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

An environmental assessment (EA) 

and finding of no significant impact 

were prepared in 2012 for a final rule 

for importation of bananas from the 

Philippines into the continental United 

States. The EA provided a basis for the 

conclusion that the importation of 

bananas from the Philippines into the 

continental United States, under the 

conditions specified in that rule, would 

not have a significant impact on the 

quality of the human environment. 

APHIS reviewed the proposal to import 

bananas from the Philippines into 

Guam, Hawaii, and the Northern 

Mariana Islands under the conditions 

specified in this rule, and determined 

that this will not have a significant 

impact on the quality of the human 

environment. APHIS prepared an 

amended finding of no significant 

impact, and the Administrator of the 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service has determined that an 

environmental impact statement need 

not be prepared. 

The 2012 EA and amended finding of 

no significant impact were prepared in 

accordance with: (1) The National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 

seq.); (2) regulations of the Council on 

Environmental Quality for 

implementing the procedural provisions 

of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500–1508); (3) 

USDA regulations implementing NEPA 

(7 CFR part 1b); and (4) APHIS’ NEPA 

Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 

372). 

The EA and amended finding of no 

significant impact may be viewed on the 

Regulations.gov Web site (see footnote 

1). Copies of the EA and amended 

finding of no significant impact are also 

available for public inspection at USDA, 

room 1141, South Building, 14th Street 

and Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC, between 8 a.m. and 

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except holidays. Persons wishing to 

inspect copies are requested to call 

ahead on (202) 799–7039 to facilitate 

entry into the reading room. In addition, 

copies may be obtained by writing to the 

individual listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

In accordance with section 3507(d) of 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the information 

collection or recordkeeping 

requirements included in this final rule, 

which were filed under 0579–0415, 

have been submitted for approval to the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB). When OMB notifies us of its 

decision, if approval is denied, we will 

publish a document in the Federal 

Register providing notice of what action 

we plan to take. 

E-Government Act Compliance 

The Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service is committed to 

compliance with the E-Government Act 

to promote the use of the Internet and 

other information technologies, to 

provide increased opportunities for 

citizen access to Government 

information and services, and for other 

purposes. For information pertinent to 

E-Government Act compliance related 

to this rule, please contact Ms. Kimberly 

Hardy, APHIS’ Information Collection 

Coordinator, at (301) 851–2727. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 319 

Coffee, Cotton, Fruits, Imports, Logs, 

Nursery stock, Plant diseases and pests, 

Quarantine, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Rice, 

Vegetables. 

Accordingly, we are amending 7 CFR 

part 319 as follows: 

PART 319—FOREIGN QUARANTINE 

NOTICES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 319 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 450, 7701–7772, and 

7781–7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR 

2.22, 2.80, and 371.3. 

■ 2. Section 319.56–58 is amended as 

follows: 

■ a. The introductory text is revised; 

■ b. In paragraph (c), the date ‘‘February 

9, 2015’’ is removed and the date 

‘‘November 10, 2016’’ is added in its 

place; 

■ c. In paragraph (h)(2), in the second 

sentence, the words ‘‘introductory text 

of this section’’ are removed and the 

words ‘‘operational workplan required 

by paragraph (a)(1) of this section’’ are 

added in their place; and 

■ d. In the OMB citation at the end of 

the section, the words ‘‘number 0579– 

0394’’ are removed and the words 

‘‘numbers 0579–0394 and 0579–0415’’ 

are added in their place. 

The revision reads as follows: 

§ 319.56–58 Bananas from the Philippines. 

Bananas (Musa spp., which include 

M. acuminate cultivars and M. 

acuminate x M. balbisiana hybrids) may 

be imported into the continental United 

States, Guam, Hawaii, and the Northern 

Mariana Islands from the Philippines 

only under the conditions described in 

this section. 

* * * * * 

Done in Washington, DC, this 6th day of 

October 2014. 

Kevin Shea, 

Administrator, Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 2014–24246 Filed 10–9–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 

20 CFR Part 404 

[Docket No. SSA–2009–0038] 

RIN 0960–AH03 

Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating 

Genitourinary Disorders 

AGENCY: Social Security Administration. 

ACTION: Final rules. 

SUMMARY: These final rules revise the 

criteria in the Listing of Impairments 

(listings) that we use to evaluate cases 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES