Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 64 / Monday, April 4, 2011 / Notices 18511 

1To view the February 2010 notice and the 

comments we received, and the May 2010 notice, 

go to http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/ 

component/main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS2009-0097. 

2See footnote 1. 

We are asking the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) to 

approve our use of this information 

collection activity for an additional 3 

years. 

The purpose of this notice is to solicit 

comments from the public (as well as 

affected agencies) concerning our 

information collection. These comments 

will help us: 

(1) Evaluate whether the collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

Agency, including whether the 

information will have practical utility; 

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our 

estimate of the burden of the collection 

of information, including the validity of 

the methodology and assumptions used; 

(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and 

(4) Minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on those who 

are to respond, through use, as 

appropriate, of automated, electronic, 

mechanical, and other collection 

technologies; e.g., permitting electronic 

submission of responses. 

Estimate of burden: The public 

reporting burden for this collection of 

information is estimated to average 

0.1708333 hours per response. 

Respondents: State cooperators. 

Estimated annual number of 

respondents: 120. 

Estimated annual number of 

responses per respondent: 2. 

Estimated annual number of 

responses: 240. 

Estimated total annual burden on 

respondents: 41 hours. (Due to 

averaging, the total annual burden hours 

may not equal the product of the annual 

number of responses multiplied by the 

reporting burden per response.) 

All responses to this notice will be 

summarized and included in the request 

for OMB approval. All comments will 

also become a matter of public record. 

Done in Washington, DC, this 29th day of 

March 2011. 

Kevin Shea, 

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–7895 Filed 4–1–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

[Docket No. APHIS–2009–0097] 

Notice of Decision To Issue Permits for 

the Importation of Fresh Figs From 

Chile 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 begin issuing permits for 

the importation into the continental 

United States of fresh figs from Chile. 

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 believe 

that the application of one or more 

designated phytosanitary measures will 

be sufficient to mitigate the risks of 

introducing or disseminating plant pests 

or noxious weeds via the importation of 

fresh figs from Chile. 

DATES: Effective Date: April 4, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Claudia Ferguson, Regulatory Policy 

Specialist, Regulatory Coordination and 

Compliance, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River 

Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737– 

1231; (301) 734–0754. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Under the regulations in ‘‘Subpart— 

Fruits and Vegetables’’ (7 CFR 319.56–1 

through 319.56–50, referred to below as 

the regulations), the Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

prohibits or restricts the importation of 

fruits and vegetables into the United 

States from certain parts of the world to 

prevent plant pests from being 

introduced into and spread within the 

United States. 

Section 319.56–4 of the regulations 

contains a performance-based process 

for approving the importation of 

commodities that, based on the findings 

of a pest risk analysis, can be safely 

imported subject to one or more of the 

designated phytosanitary measures 

listed in paragraph (b) of that section. 

Under that process, APHIS publishes a 

notice in the Federal Register 

announcing the availability of the pest 

risk analysis that evaluates the risks 

associated with the importation of a 

particular fruit or vegetable. Following 

the close of the 60-day comment period, 

APHIS may begin issuing permits for 

importation of the fruit or vegetable 

subject to the identified designated 

measures if: (1) No comments were 

received on the pest risk analysis; (2) 

the comments on the pest risk analysis 

revealed that no changes to the pest risk 

analysis were necessary; or (3) changes 

to the pest risk analysis were made in 

response to public comments, but the 

changes did not affect the overall 

conclusions of the analysis and the 

Administrator’s determination of risk. 

In accordance with that process, we 

published a notice 1 in the Federal 

Register on February 9, 2010 (75 FR 

6344–6345, Docket No. APHIS–2009– 

0097), in which we announced the 

availability, for review and comment, of 

two pest risk analyses that evaluate the 

risks associated with the importation 

into the continental United States of 

fresh figs, pomegranates, and baby kiwi 

fruit from Chile. We solicited comments 

on the notice for 60 days ending on 

April 12, 2010. We received 25 

comments by that date, from port 

terminal operators, growers’ 

associations, trade associations, a 

fumigation service, a State agriculture 

department, a foreign government 

agency, a foreign trade association, and 

several produce importers, exporters, 

and wholesalers. Most of the 

commenters agreed that the mitigation 

measures described in the pest risk 

analysis would be adequate. However, 

three commenters raised concerns about 

the pest risk analyses or proposed 

mitigation measures. The issues raised 

by two of those commenters were 

addressed in a notice of decision to 

issue permits for the importation of 

fresh pomegranates and baby kiwi from 

Chile into the United States,2 published 

in the Federal Register on May 12, 2010 

(75 FR 26707–26708). 

The third commenter raised several 

concerns regarding the risks associated 

with the importation of fresh figs from 

Chile. In order to give ourselves 

adequate time to explore the issues 

raised by the commenter, we delayed 

our decision on figs and addressed only 

pomegranates and baby kiwi from Chile 

in our May 2010 notice. 

The commenter stated that fumigation 

of fresh figs in the recommended 

treatment may not kill eggs of the 

insects of concern because eggs would 

most likely be deposited in the tissues 

of the fruit through the ostiole of the fig. 

The commenter was concerned that the 

treatment would not penetrate the fruit 

and kill the pest. 

While the commenter did not specify 

a particular insect of concern, the pest 


Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
18512 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 64 / Monday, April 4, 2011 / Notices 

risk assessment identified 

Mediterranean fruit fly (Ceratitis 

capitata) and the Chilean red mite 

(Brevipalpis chilensis) as pests having a 

high risk potential. Since the pest risk 

assessment was prepared, all of Chile 

has been recognized as a pest-free area 

for Mediterranean fruit fly. The 

treatment schedule that would be 

required for figs has been found to be 

highly effective for all stages of Chilean 

red mite on grapes, and the efficacy can 

be extrapolated to include figs. Methyl 

bromide is a gas and can penetrate the 

ostiole of the fig. Furthermore, the 

Chilean red mite is a surface feeder that 

lays its eggs in cracks and crevices that 

are exposed to the air and, thus, to 

methyl bromide when fumigated. 

The commenter stated that the 

diseases of fresh figs in Chile should be 

compared to the diseases in the United 

States to determine whether or not they 

are the same strain. The commenter was 

concerned that the taxa of microbial and 

fungal pathogens identified as present 

in Chile might, if incompletely 

identified, be different from taxa already 

present in the United States, and that 

the pest risk assessment would not, 

therefore, have taken the risk associated 

with those specific pathogens into 

account. 

We agree that different strains of 

pathogens that are epidemiologically 

significant may exist; however, we 

found no information indicating that 

this was the case for any of the 

pathogens known to be present in both 

Chile and the United States. When 

assessing risk, we may consider 

incompletely identified taxa at a higher 

taxonomic level if the higher taxon (i.e., 

the entire genus or family) is not present 

in the United States, or if specific 

evidence indicates that the unidentified 

taxon is different from the ones in the 

United States. In this case, because we 

found no evidence that these 

incompletely identified taxa are 

different from the taxa present in the 

United States, we did not analyze them 

further. If pests identified to more 

specific taxa are intercepted in the 

future, we may reevaluate their risk. 

The commenter expressed concern 

that the proposed methyl bromide 

treatment schedule could produce an 

unpalatable fruit, which might result in 

a reduced market price for all figs, 

imported and domestic. The commenter 

also expressed concern that if a lower 

dose was used to treat fresh figs to 

improve their shelf life, there is still a 

risk that the mites could survive. 

APHIS does not alter treatment doses 

due to phytotoxicity to the commodity. 

Treatments for the pests are based on 

research on the individual pests and are 

not changed unless the change is 

supported by data showing the efficacy 

of the new dose. 

The commenter expressed concern 

that the generic surface pest treatment 

schedules, including the one proposed 

for fresh figs from Chile, might not be 

adequate to kill the Chilean red mite. 

The commenter stated that the 

California cherry and strawberry 

industries both had to use higher doses 

of methyl bromide to solve mite 

problems in their export programs. 

The Chilean red mite, which belongs 

to the family Tenuipalpidae, is not 

present in California; the mites in 

California produce are likely to be 

spider mites of the family 

Tetranychidae, and would require 

different treatment. The treatment 

schedule proposed for figs from Chile 

has been shown to be effective for 

Chilean red mite. As with other fruit 

imports, we will monitor the pest levels 

and if we determine that risks are such 

as would require adjusting the treatment 

dose or duration, we will take the 

appropriate action. 

The commenter stated that a 

treatment schedule specific to figs 

should be established for the treatment 

of Mediterranean fruit fly, for purposes 

of phytotoxicity and the tolerance of 

Mediterranean fruit fly relative to other 

target insects, including mites. 

As we explained above, since the 

publication of the pest risk assessment, 

all of Chile has been recognized as a 

pest-free area for Mediterranean fruit 

fly. There is no need to develop a 

specific treatment schedule for use on 

figs from that country. 

Therefore, in accordance with the 

regulations in § 319.56–4(c)(2)(ii), we 

are announcing our decision to begin 

issuing permits for the importation into 

the continental United States of fresh 

figs from Chile subject to the following 

phytosanitary measures: 

• Each shipment of figs must be 

accompanied by a phytosanitary 

certificate. The phytosanitary certificate 

must be issued by the national plant 

protection organization of Chile. 

• The shipment must be fumigated 

with methyl bromide using treatment 

schedule T–101–i–2–1 in accordance 

with 7 CFR part 305. 

• The figs must be a commercial 

consignment as defined in 7 CFR 

319.56–2. 

These conditions will be listed in the 

Fruits and Vegetables Import 

Requirements database (available at 

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/favir). In 

addition to those specific measures, the 

fresh figs will be subject to the general 

requirements listed in § 319.56–3 that 

are applicable to the importation of all 

fruits and vegetables. 

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. 

Done in Washington, DC, this 29th day of 

March 2011. 

Kevin Shea, 

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–7896 Filed 4–1–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Forest Service 

Shasta County Resource Advisory 

Committee 

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice of meeting. 

SUMMARY: The Shasta County Resource 

Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet at 

the USDA Service Center in Redding, 

California, on April 27, 2011, from 8:30 

a.m. to 12 noon. The purpose of this 

meeting is to discuss project updates 

and proposals, and information on 

monitoring efforts for the upcoming 

year. 

DATES: Wednesday, April 27 at 8:30 a.m. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 

the USDA Service Center, 3644 Avtech 

Parkway, Redding, California 96002. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Designated Federal Official, Donna 

Harmon at (530) 226–2595 or 

dharmon@fs.fed.us. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

meeting is open to the public. Public 

input sessions will be provided and 

individuals will have the opportunity to 

address the Shasta County Resource 

Advisory Committee. 

Dated: March 28, 2011. 

Arlen P. Cravens, 

Acting Forest Supervisor, Shasta-Trinity 

National Forest. 

[FR Doc. 2011–7864 Filed 4–1–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Forest Service 

Ouachita-Ozark Resource Advisory 

Committee 

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice of meeting. 

SUMMARY: The Ouachita-Ozark Resource 

Advisory Committee will meet in 

Barling, Arkansas. The committee is 


Emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES