This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains regulatory documents having general

applicability and legal effect, most of which

are keyed to and codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations, which is published under

50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by

the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of

new books are listed in the first FEDERAL

REGISTER issue of each week.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

41259 

Vol. 78, No. 132 

Wednesday, July 10, 2013 

1To view the proposed rule, supporting and 

related documents, including the economic 

analysis, and comments we received, go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS2011-0060-0001. 

2 Included are sweet oranges (Citrus sinensis (L.) 

Osbeck), lemons (C. limon (L.) Burm. f.), four 

species of mandarins (C. reticulata Blanco, C. 

clementina Hort. ex Tanaka, C. deliciosa Ten., and 

C. unshiu Marcow, Citrus hybrids), and two species 

of the Citrus-related genus Fortunella (F. japonica 

Thunb. Swingle and F. margarita (Lour.) Swingle). 

3 ‘‘Importation of Fresh Citrus Fruit, including 

Sweet Orange (Citrus sinensis (L.) Osbeck), lemons 

(C. limon (L.) Burm. f.), four species of mandarins 

(C. reticulata Blanco, C. clementina Hort. ex 

Tanaka, C. deliciosa Ten., and C. unshiu Marcow, 

Citrus hybrids, and two species of the Citrus-related 

genus Fortunella (F. japonica Thunb. Swingle and 

F. margarita (Lour.) Swingle), concerning the 

importation of fresh citrus from Uruguay into the 

Continental United States’’ (Dec. 16, 2012). To view 

this document, see footnote 1. 

4http://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/ 

plants/manuals/ports/downloads/treatment.pdf. 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

7 CFR Part 319 

[Docket No. APHIS–2011–0060] 

RIN 0579–AD59 

Importation of Fresh Citrus Fruit From 

Uruguay, Including Citrus Hybrids and 

Fortunella spp., Into the Continental 

United States 

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are amending the fruits 

and vegetables regulations to allow the 

importation of several varieties of fresh 

citrus fruit, as well as Citrus hybrids and 

the Citrus-related genus Fortunella, 

from Uruguay into the continental 

United States. As a condition of entry, 

the fruit will have to be produced in 

accordance with a systems approach 

that includes requirements for 

importation in commercial 

consignments, pest monitoring and pest 

control practices, grove sanitation and 

packinghouse procedures designed to 

exclude the quarantine pests, and 

treatment. The fruit also will have to be 

accompanied by a phytosanitary 

certificate issued by the national plant 

protection organization of Uruguay with 

an additional declaration confirming 

that the fruit is free from all pests of 

quarantine concern and has been 

produced in accordance with the 

systems approach. These actions will 

allow for the importation of fresh citrus 

fruit, including Citrus hybrids and the 

Citrus-related genus Fortunella, from 

Uruguay while continuing to protect the 

United States against the introduction of 

plant pests. 

DATES: Effective Date: August 9, 2013. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Meredith C. Jones, Senior Regulatory 

Coordination Specialist, Regulatory 

Coordination and Compliance, PPQ, 

APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 133, 

Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 851–2289. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The regulations in ‘‘Subpart–Fruits 

and Vegetables’’ (7 CFR 319.56–1 

through 319.56–58, 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 that are 

new to or not widely distributed within 

the United States. 

On February 6, 2013, we published in 

the Federal Register (78 FR 8435–8441, 

Docket No. APHIS–2011–0060) a 

proposal 1 to amend the regulations 

concerning the importation of fruits and 

vegetables to allow the importation of 

several species of fresh Citrus and 

Fortunella fruit 2 (‘‘citrus fruit’’) from 

Uruguay into the continental United 

States. We also prepared a pest risk 

assessment (PRA) 3 that evaluated the 

risks associated with the importation of 

these species of fresh citrus fruit from 

Uruguay into the continental United 

States and identified six pests of 

quarantine significance in Uruguay that 

could be introduced into the United 

States through the importation of citrus 

fruit. These included two fruit flies, 

Anastrepha fraterculus (South 

American fruit fly) and Ceratitis 

capitata (Mediterranean fruit fly, or 

Medfly); two moths, Cryptoblabes 

gnidiella (the honeydew moth) and 

Gymnandrosoma aurantianum (citrus 

fruit borer); one fungus (Elsinoe ̈

australis, causal agent of sweet orange 

scab, or SOS); and a pathogen 

(Xanthomonas citri subsp. citri, or Xcc, 

causal agent of citrus canker). 

In order to provide an appropriate 

level of phytosanitary protection against 

the pests of quarantine concern 

associated with the importation of fresh 

citrus fruit from Uruguay into the 

continental United States, we proposed 

requirements in a risk management 

document (RMD) for fresh citrus fruit 

from Uruguay to be produced in 

accordance with a systems approach 

that included the following 

requirements: Fruit must be imported 

only in commercial consignments; the 

Uruguayan national plant protection 

organization (NPPO) must provide a 

workplan to the Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service (APHIS) that 

details the activities that the Uruguayan 

NPPO will, subject to APHIS’ approval 

of the workplan, carry out to meet the 

proposed requirements; pest monitoring 

and control practices must be 

conducted; grove sanitation and 

packinghouse procedures must be 

designed to exclude quarantine pests; 

and the fruit must be treated in 

accordance with 7 CFR part 305 and the 

Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) 

Treatment Manual.4 We also proposed 

to require consignments of citrus fruit 

from Uruguay to be accompanied by a 

phytosanitary certificate with an 

additional declaration stating that the 

fruit in the consignment is free of all 

pests of quarantine concern and has 

been produced in accordance with the 

requirements of the systems approach. 

We solicited comments on our 

proposal for 60 days ending April 8, 

2013. We received 55 comments by that 

date. They were from U.S. and 

Uruguayan fruit growers, packers, 

shippers, and importers/exporters; 

scientific, trade, and economic 

development organizations; two U.S. 

Senators; a State department of 

agriculture; an association of State 

departments of agriculture; a Uruguayan 

school of agronomy; U.S. port storage, 

drayage, and general logistics providers; 

municipal governments, and members 

of the public. Forty-three commenters 

supported the action we proposed. The 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
41260 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 10, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

5Risk assessment of Citrus spp. fruit as a pathway 

for the introduction of Guignardia citricarpa Kiely, 

the organism that causes Citrus Black Spot disease. 

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

(APHIS), Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ), 

Center for Plant Health Science and Technology 

(CPHST), December 2010. 

remaining comments are discussed 

below by topic. 

General Comments 

Two commenters asked why APHIS is 

assuming the risk of introducing plant 

pests from Uruguay when sufficient 

fresh citrus fruit is already available in 

the United States. 

Under the Plant Protection Act (7 

U.S.C. 7701 et seq.), we have the 

authority to prohibit or restrict the 

importation of plants and plant 

products only when necessary to 

prevent the introduction into or 

dissemination of plant pests or noxious 

weeds within the United States. We 

have determined that fresh citrus fruit 

from Uruguay may be safely imported 

into the continental United States under 

the conditions we are adding to the 

regulations. 

One commenter stated that the rule 

provided no specific information about 

how the proposed systems approach 

would be implemented and therefore 

opposed importation of fresh citrus fruit 

from Uruguay until its effectiveness 

could be validated. The commenter 

recommended that, in the future, APHIS 

engage key stakeholders in similar 

rulemakings much earlier in the process 

and provide them with more 

information. 

We are making no changes based on 

the comment. The systems approach 

requirements we proposed include 

practices that have effectively mitigated 

the risk of identical and similar citrus 

pests in other countries. We provided 

several occasions for stakeholders to 

provide input into this rulemaking, 

including sharing the draft pest risk 

assessment and holding teleconference 

meetings with key industry stakeholders 

in September 2010 and November 2011. 

Several commenters stated that 

shipments of fresh citrus fruit from 

Uruguay could pose a pest risk to 

Hawaii if imported into the continental 

United States and subsequently shipped 

from the mainland into Hawaii. 

We are making no changes in 

response to this comment. We proposed 

that fresh citrus fruit from Uruguay 

would only be eligible for importation 

into the continental United States, 

which excludes Hawaii. Our permitting 

process will allow us to effectively 

implement the distribution limitation, 

as it currently does for many other 

commodities that are not allowed to be 

imported into Hawaii. 

Comments on the PRA 

One commenter stated that the PRA 

prepared for this rule dismisses 

Guignardia citricarpa, the causal agent 

of citrus black spot (CBS), as a disease 

of concern. The commenter also stated 

that a 2010 risk analysis, in which 

APHIS assessed citrus fruit as a pathway 

for the introduction of CBS,5 provides 

incomplete knowledge of how the 

disease develops and spreads. As 

support, the commenter cited detections 

of CBS in Florida beyond the original 

2010 occurrence and the apparent 

ineffectiveness of mitigation efforts to 

prevent the disease’s spread. The 

commenter stated that the latency of 

lesions on fruit moving from CBScontaminated areas in Florida to 

processing facilities could be one reason 

for its continued spread, and concluded 

from this that applying the mitigations 

for fresh citrus fruit from Florida to 

fresh citrus fruit imported from Uruguay 

may not be adequate. 

We noted in the proposed rule that a 

previous version of the PRA listed CBS 

as a quarantine pathogen present in 

Uruguay and likely to follow the 

pathway, but that we subsequently 

removed this pathogen from the list 

because, as we determined in the 2010 

peer-reviewed risk analysis, fresh citrus 

fruit is not epidemiologically significant 

as a pathway for the introduction of 

CBS. Since the publication of the 2010 

risk analysis, we have found no research 

that challenges that conclusion. 

The risk analysis identified the 

importation and movement of 

propagative material and shipments 

containing leaves and plant debris from 

infected areas as the most likely means 

by which CBS is transmitted. However, 

because APHIS regulations restrict the 

importation and domestic movement of 

propagative material and leaves, it is 

unlikely that CBS would enter the 

United States via these articles in 

commercial shipments. 

The risk analysis also identified fruit 

as a possible means by which CBS could 

be spread, although for successful 

transmission of CBS from fruit with 

lesions to susceptible hosts, several 

events must occur: Infected fruit must 

arrive in an area with hosts available 

and conducive for infection and disease 

development; the host needs to be in a 

susceptible physiological stage for 

infection to occur; spores of the causal 

organism must be produced on the fruit; 

fruit with lesions containing the causal 

organism must be released from the 

lesions in a stage that can cause 

infection leading to disease; water 

contaminated with pycnidiospores must 

be brought into contact with susceptible 

host tissue in a susceptible stage for 

infection; and finally, specific weather 

conditions conducive for infection to 

occur must coincide with these events 

and persist for a sufficient period of 

time. The risk assessment determined 

the overall likelihood to be low that the 

pathogen would find a suitable host 

with susceptible tissue and incite 

disease even if infected fruit were to 

arrive in an area with available hosts 

and climatic conditions were favorable 

for disease development. 

With regard to the commenter’s 

concern over detections of CBS beyond 

where it originally occurred in Florida, 

we have not determined the cause of 

these occurrences. They could be the 

result of the fungus spreading via wind 

or plant debris from the original 

infection site. They could also have 

escaped detection while delimiting the 

first infection, or from new infections 

arising independently of the first 

infection. Regardless of the cause of 

these infections, results from targeted 

CBS surveys and multi-pest surveys 

conducted by APHIS and the State of 

Florida as part of the Citrus Health 

Response Program indicate that current 

mitigations have slowed the spread of 

CBS in the affected areas. We maintain 

that the evidence and conclusions of the 

2010 risk analysis with respect to 

transmission of CBS via the movement 

of fruit from infected areas are not 

invalidated by the occurrence of CBS in 

Florida, nor does its occurrence there 

change our understanding or 

management of CBS development or 

spread. For these reasons, we believe 

that it is extremely unlikely that the 

cause of CBS spread in Florida could be 

fruit moving from CBS-affected areas in 

that State to processing facilities. 

The same commenter also challenged 

our finding in the 2010 risk analysis that 

conditions required for conidia to 

survive on post-harvest fruit and 

introduce CBS into domestic growing 

areas do not normally exist in 

California. The commenter stated that 

several coastal production areas in 

California maintain viable climates for 

the introduction and spread of CBS and 

noted that the North Carolina State 

University-APHIS Plant Pest Forecast 

System (NAPPFAST) indicates that, 

over a 10-year period, enough days had 

appropriate climatic conditions to allow 

CBS to be introduced. The commenter 

specifically questioned the statement in 

the CBS risk analysis that low rainfall in 

the western United States is not 

conducive to CBS development, noting 

that summer thunderstorms in southern 

California can provide an ideal 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 10, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 41261 

6NAPPO Regional Standards for Phytosanitary 

Measures, RSPM 17: Guidelines for the 

Establishment, Maintenance and Verification of 

Fruit Fly Pest Free Areas in North America (October 

18, 2010): http://www.nappo.org/en/data/files/ 

download/PDF/RSPM17-Rev05-10-10-e.pdf. 

7http://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/ 

plants/manuals/domestic/downloads/ 

medfly_action_plan.pdf. 

8Trapping Guidelines for Area-Wide Fruit Fly 

Programmes (IAEA, Vienna, 2003): http://wwwpub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/TGFFP_web.pdf. 

9 Issued August 9, 2012: http:// 

nationalplantboard.org/docs/spro/ 

spro_citrus_greening_2012_08_09.pdf. 

environment for a short period of time 

for CBS to occur and become 

established there. The commenter added 

that if CBS were to be introduced into 

citrus production areas in the United 

States, it could not be effectively 

managed because the Environmental 

Protection Agency prohibits use of the 

necessary fungicides. 

Based on our analysis of data from 

NAPPFAST, we concluded in the CBS 

risk analysis that, unlike Florida, 

California has a climate generally 

unsuitable for CBS disease 

development. Moreover, ideal climatic 

conditions are only one of many factors 

necessary for CBS to be transmitted via 

the movement or importation of 

commercial shipments of fresh fruit. As 

we have noted above, several specific 

biological, environmental, and 

physiological conditions have to occur 

in conjunction with infected fruit 

coming into direct proximity to a 

susceptible host, a confluence of events 

unlikely to occur simultaneously, 

particularly in California. 

Finally, the same commenter stated 

that the role of conidia in survival and 

spread of CBS is poorly understood and 

that if asexual propagules such as 

conidia are being produced at high 

numbers, different environmental 

conditions may play a critical role in the 

survival of the organism. The 

commenter stated that these propagules 

should not be ignored as part of the 

disease cycle and that the CBS risk 

analysis did not consider the unknown. 

We disagree with the commenter. The 

disease lifecycle of CBS is well studied, 

and the literature informs our 

understanding of both the sexual and 

asexual forms of this fungus and the 

roles they play in disease spread, as 

described in the 2010 risk analysis. The 

number of conidia or asexual spores 

produced is mediated by the 

environment and host tissue, and the 

amount of inoculum associated with the 

fruit does not change our understanding 

of how the inoculum spreads from fruit 

imported for consumption to the natural 

environment and establishes itself. As 

we have noted above, disease 

occurrence requires several biological, 

environmental, and physiological 

conditions to occur at the precise time 

that an infected citrus fruit is placed in 

direct proximity to a susceptible host. 

We conclude that the combination of 

conditions necessary for introduction 

and spread of G. citricarpa via the 

regulated pathway of commercially 

produced fruit imported from Uruguay 

is unlikely to occur. For this reason, we 

conclude that citrus fruit is not 

epidemiologically significant as a 

pathway for the introduction of G. 

citricarpa. 

Grove Monitoring and Pest Control 

One commenter stated that the 

proposed systems approach requirement 

to monitor traps at 2-week intervals for 

A. fraterculus and C. capitata is 

inadequate. The commenter added that 

this interval is inconsistent with other 

systems approach methodologies 

required for these or similar pests. 

We disagree with the commenter that 

the trap monitoring intervals indicated 

in the proposed systems approach are 

inadequate or inconsistent with those 

used in other systems approaches to 

mitigate A. fraterculus, C. capitata, and 

similar pests. In accordance with North 

American Plant Protection Organization 

(NAPPO) standards,6 trap servicing and 

monitoring intervals are either 1 week 

or 2 weeks depending on the bait and 

type of trap used. Traps baited for C. 

capitata are normally monitored at 2- 

week intervals. Accordingly, we noted 

in the proposed rule that APHISapproved fruit fly traps baited with 

APHIS-approved plugs would have to 

be used and serviced at least once every 

2 weeks. If circumstances changed and 

more frequent monitoring were 

necessary, revised monitoring 

arrangements could be agreed to 

between APHIS and the NPPO of 

Uruguay and added to the bilateral 

workplan. 

Two commenters stated that the use 

of a minimum of two traps per square 

mile within citrus production areas in 

Uruguay is inadequate for detecting 

localized fruit fly infestations. Another 

commenter stated that two traps per 

square kilometer is inadequate and 

jeopardizes the integrity of the systems 

approach. 

We consider the trap density specified 

in the proposed systems approach to be 

adequate for pest detection. In the 

proposed rule, we stated that the 

systems approach would actually 

require at least two traps per square 

kilometer, not per square mile as stated 

by two commenters. We note that one 

square mile is equivalent to 

approximately 2.5 square kilometers, so 

five traps per square mile would be 

roughly equivalent to two traps per 

square kilometer. This arrangement in 

the systems approach is consistent with 

the trap density of five Jackson traps per 

square mile recommended in the APHIS 

Mediterranean Fruit Fly Action Plan.7

Moreover, the International Atomic 

Energy Agency fruit fly trapping 

manual,8 a widely used international 

reference, specifies two to four traps per 

square kilometer, and the NAPPO 

standard on fruit fly trapping indicates 

that three traps per square mile 

(equivalent to fewer than two traps per 

kilometer) is adequate in commercial 

fruit production areas. If circumstances 

changed so that adjustments to trap 

density were necessary, such 

adjustments could be agreed to between 

APHIS and the NPPO of Uruguay and 

added to the bilateral workplan. 

Orchard Sanitation 

A commenter stated that the proposed 

requirements for disposal of plant debris 

and fallen fruit in Uruguayan groves are 

not as stringent as our domestic 

requirements. To support this statement, 

the commenter referred to requirements 

in Federal Order No. DA–2012–30 that 

include specific requirements for 

disposal of bagged plant debris from an 

area in Texas quarantined for citrus 

greening.9

The requirements in the Federal 

Order cited by the commenter pertain to 

a domestic quarantine intended to 

control an outbreak of citrus greening. 

Disposal of plant debris in an area 

where citrus greening is present can 

spread the disease if not done properly. 

The systems approach we proposed for 

importation of fresh citrus fruit from 

groves in Uruguay does not require 

identical sanitation measures for plant 

debris as those indicated in the Federal 

Order because citrus greening does not 

occur in Uruguay. 

The systems approach for citrus fruit 

from Uruguay does require that places 

of production in Uruguay be kept free of 

fallen fruit and plant debris, in order to 

reduce potential pest pressure in the 

orchards. 

Packinghouse Procedures 

A commenter stated that the fruit 

handling requirements regarding crop 

diseases in the proposed systems 

approach are not as stringent as our 

domestic requirements. As an example, 

the commenter stated that safeguarding 

during transportation to the 

packinghouse in Uruguay only requires 

the fruit to be packed in insect-proof 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
41262 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 10, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

cartons or containers, or covered with 

insect proof mesh or a plastic tarpaulin, 

while some States have developed 

detailed standards for cargo areas within 

transport vehicles. 

We are making no changes based on 

this comment. While the safeguarding 

requirements noted in the comment are 

actually intended to protect citrus fruit 

against fruit flies and not crop diseases, 

the safeguarding requirements proposed 

for citrus fruit grown in Uruguay are 

equivalent to those in the regulations for 

interstate movement of citrus from 

quarantined areas in the United States. 

They also include requirements that the 

fruit will have to be safeguarded by an 

insect-proof mesh, screen, or plastic 

tarpaulin while in transit from the 

production site to the packinghouse and 

while awaiting packing. Our domestic 

citrus disease quarantine programs do 

not require any post-harvest 

safeguarding enroute to the 

packinghouse. 

One commenter stated that, with 

regard to the proposed packinghouse 

requirement for washing, brushing, and 

surface disinfection of the citrus fruit in 

accordance with 7 CFR part 305, we 

provide no indication of whether these 

mitigations will rid fruit of citrus 

greening. 

We noted above that citrus greening 

does not occur in Uruguay; additionally, 

commercially shipped fruit free of 

leaves and other plant parts is not a 

pathway for the introduction of citrus 

greening. 

Port-of-Entry Inspection 

Three commenters stated that APHIS 

port-of-entry inspections are insufficient 

to detect infestations of fruit flies in 

fruits and vegetables from countries 

with inadequate detection protocols and 

recommended that citrus fruit from 

Uruguay not be granted entry until the 

proposed systems approach can be 

validated or adjusted to address the 

accidental or incidental introduction of 

fruit flies. 

APHIS maintains adequate port-ofentry inspection capabilities as one of 

several mitigation measures to reduce 

the risk of introducing fruit flies and 

other plant pests into the United States. 

The mitigation measures in the systems 

approach for A. fraterculus and C. 

capitata, which include grove trapping, 

safeguarding of fruit while in transit and 

during packing, and treatment in 

accordance with 7 CFR part 305, have 

been shown to effectively reduce the 

risks presented by these pests on citrus 

fruit and other commodities from other 

countries. 

With respect to detection protocols, 

beyond the measures required in the 

systems approach, the NPPO of Uruguay 

continually surveys for quarantine pests 

of concern for importing countries 

through pre-harvest inspection of export 

fruit. These pre-harvest surveys are 

conducted on 100 percent of plants in 

all the places of production registered 

for export. We therefore consider the 

NPPO of Uruguay to have sufficient 

detection protocols, and we are 

confident that it will perform them in 

accordance with the systems approach 

produced by Uruguay and agreed to by 

APHIS. 

Economic Considerations 

One commenter asked how much it 

will cost to implement the systems 

approach measures and who will pay 

for them. 

The costs for implementing the 

systems approach will be borne by 

citrus producers in Uruguay and the 

NPPO of Uruguay. Section 319.56–6 of 

the regulations sets forth provisions for 

establishing trust fund agreements with 

NPPOs to cover costs incurred by 

APHIS when APHIS personnel must be 

physically present in an exporting 

country or region to facilitate exports. 

Costs will depend on the services 

required. The systems approach may 

require APHIS personnel to monitor 

treatments if they are conducted in 

Uruguay. Port-of-entry inspections 

conducted by APHIS or U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection staff are typically 

supported by user fees. 

Another commenter stated that APHIS 

has argued in previous import proposals 

that domestic production would be 

unaffected because the majority of 

domestic tonnage is harvested in the 

fall, winter, and spring months and 

would be unaffected by so-called 

‘‘counter-seasonal’’ imports. The 

commenter stated that this argument is 

invalid due to the year-round marketing 

of citrus harvested domestically. 

We made no mention of counterseasonal effects in the initial economic 

analysis for this rule, or in the final 

economic analysis. 

Uruguay did not provide APHIS with 

projections of the quantities of fresh 

citrus varieties it expects to export to 

the United States under this rule. Our 

basis for estimating quantities that may 

be exported is Uruguay’s recent history 

of exports to other countries, assuming 

that some percentage of those exports 

will be diverted to the newly opened 

U.S. market. In the longer term, there 

may also be an overall increase in 

Uruguay’s fresh citrus exports to all 

countries, including the United States, 

depending on costs and profitability. 

Uruguay’s citrus exports are 

equivalent to a small fraction of U.S. 

citrus production. Imports from 

Uruguay will compete against U.S. 

imports from other countries as well as 

domestic production. Most likely, there 

will be some relatively small net 

increase in the U.S. supply of fresh 

citrus varieties, as well as some 

displacement of the quantity of citrus 

imported from other countries and 

produced domestically. The economic 

analysis does consider possible changes 

in net supply; the potential impact of 

the rule on U.S. producers is described 

in greater detail in the economic 

analysis supporting the rule. 

The same commenter disagreed with 

our statement in the economic analysis 

that ‘‘any product displacement that 

may occur because of the proposed rule 

would be largely borne by other foreign 

suppliers of fresh citrus.’’ The 

commenter stated that because foreign 

suppliers will not abandon their market 

share when Uruguayan citrus fruit is 

imported into the United States, citrus 

supply will exceed demand, prices will 

fall, and domestic producers will suffer 

greater economic losses due to higher 

production cost requirements. 

We acknowledge that the statement in 

the economic analysis for the proposed 

rule may have overstated possible 

reductions in market share (product 

displacement) for current foreign 

suppliers of fresh citrus to the United 

States. U.S. producers may also lose 

some portion of their market shares. 

However, product displacement that 

may occur as a result of fresh citrus 

imports from Uruguay can be expected 

to be borne in proportion to domestic 

and foreign suppliers’ existing market 

shares because all suppliers, foreign and 

domestic, are price-takers. In addition, 

non-price factors may ultimately 

determine a consumer’s preference for 

foreign or domestically grown fresh 

citrus. We do not have information to 

determine whether foreign or domestic 

fruit is more likely to be displaced by 

imports from Uruguay, so we take the 

position that product displacement 

would be proportional to market share. 

Product displacement, if any, will 

vary by citrus variety and will be 

moderated by expanding U.S. demand. 

During the same period, per capita 

consumption of fresh orange, mandarin, 

and lemon varieties increased by an 

average of 0.21 percent, 3.42 percent, 

and 5.25 percent, respectively. The 

entry of fresh citrus from a new source 

may displace citrus production in the 

United States, as well as fresh citrus 

imports from foreign sources like 

Mexico, Chile, Spain, and others. 

However, a sizeable displacement of 

fresh citrus from any source with an 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 10, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 41263 

existing market share is unlikely given 

the increase in domestic consumption. 

The same commenter disagreed with 

our determination that adoption of the 

rule would not result in any significant 

economic effect on a substantial number 

of small entities. 

We find it unlikely that the rule will 

have a significant economic impact on 

U.S. fresh citrus markets, given 

Uruguay’s recent history of citrus 

production and exports. While Uruguay 

ranks in the top 20 to 25 of the world’s 

exporters of fresh citrus, Uruguay 

accounted for 1 percent or less of fresh 

citrus exports by variety. Total citrus 

production in Uruguay in 2011 was 

270,367 metric tons, which is less than 

3 percent of U.S. production. Uruguay’s 

total fresh orange and lemon exports in 

2011 were 66,007 and 13,885 metric 

tons, respectively, which is less than 3.2 

percent of U.S. production and 1 

percent of total world exports of those 

same fresh varieties. Uruguay exported 

37,542 metric tons of fresh mandarin 

varieties in 2011, which is 

approximately 8 percent of U.S. 

production and less than 1 percent of 

total world exports of fresh tangerine 

varieties. Only a fraction of Uruguay’s 

fresh citrus exports are likely to be 

diverted from established markets to the 

United States, particularly in the near 

term, given the advantages of 

maintaining and expanding its existing 

market linkages. Given these 

considerations, we do not anticipate a 

significant economic impact associated 

with fresh citrus from Uruguay. 

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. 

Note: In our February 2013 proposed rule, 

we proposed to add the conditions governing 

the importation of citrus from Uruguay as 

§ 319.56–58. In this final rule, those 

conditions are added as § 319.56–59. 

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 the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, we have analyzed the 

potential economic effects of this action 

on small entities. The analysis is 

summarized below. 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. 

APHIS responded to a request from 

the NPPO of Uruguay for USDA 

authorization to allow the importation 

of specified fresh citrus varieties into 

the continental United States. U.S. 

entities that may be impacted by 

imports of fresh citrus from Uruguay are 

producers and packers of fresh oranges, 

lemons, tangerines, and mandarin 

varieties. Fresh oranges (including 

Navel, Valencia, Temple and other 

varieties) are produced in California (87 

percent), Florida (11 percent), and Texas 

(2 percent). Lemons are produced in 

California (97 percent) and Arizona (3 

percent). Tangerines and mandarins 

(including tangelos and tangors) are 

produced in California (76 percent), 

Florida (23 percent), and Arizona (less 

than 1 percent). Louisiana commercially 

produces a variety of Satsuma that is 

mostly sold locally. 

Impacts of this rule on U.S. entities 

will be dependent upon the quantity of 

fresh citrus imported from Uruguay and 

the substitutability of these fresh citrus 

varieties for U.S.-grown citrus varieties. 

Historically, Uruguay has produced less 

than 3 percent of total U.S. citrus 

production, including processed citrus. 

Uruguay’s total fresh orange and lemon 

exports in 2011 were 66,007 and 13,885 

metric tons, respectively, which is less 

than 3.2 percent of U.S. production of 

those same fresh varieties. Uruguay 

exported 37,542 metric tons of fresh 

mandarin varieties in 2011, which is 

approximately 8 percent of U.S. 

production of fresh tangerine varieties. 

We anticipate that exports directed to 

the U.S. domestic market would be a 

small fraction of Uruguay’s total exports 

of these fresh citrus fruits based on 

availability and currently established 

export markets in Europe and Russia. 

Given the small quantity expected to be 

imported from Uruguay, it is very 

unlikely that there will be a significant 

impact on the U.S. markets for fresh 

oranges, lemons, tangerines and 

mandarin varieties. Given the sizable 

amounts of fresh lemons and 

mandarins, for example, imported by 

the United States and the fact that the 

time of year that citrus is produced in 

Uruguay is the same as that for current 

South American sources, we expect that 

any product displacement that may 

occur because of this rule will be largely 

borne by other foreign suppliers of fresh 

citrus. 

Under these circumstances, the 

Administrator of the Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service has 

determined that this action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Executive Order 12988 

This final rule allows fresh citrus fruit 

to be imported into the continental 

United States from Uruguay. State and 

local laws and regulations regarding 

fresh citrus 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-by-case 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. 

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 0579–0401, 

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 Mrs. Celeste 

Sickles, APHIS’ Information Collection 

Coordinator, at (301) 851–2908. 

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. 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
41264 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 10, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

Subpart—Citrus Fruit [Amended] 

■ 2. In Subpart—Citrus Fruit, in the note 

below the subpart heading, remove the 

words ‘‘fruit and vegetable quarantine 

No. 56 (§§ 319.56 to 319.56–8)’’ and add 

the words ‘‘Subpart—Fruits and 

Vegetables of this part’’ in their place. 

■ 3. Section 319.28 is amended as 

follows: 

■ a. By redesignating paragraphs (d) 

through (j) as paragraphs (e) through (k), 

respectively, and adding a new 

paragraph (d). 

■ b. By revising newly redesignated 

paragraph (g). 

The addition and revision read as 

follows: 

§ 319.28 Notice of quarantine. 

* * * * * 

(d) The prohibition does not apply to 

sweet oranges (Citrus sinensis (L.) 

Osbeck), lemons (C. limon (L.) Burm. f.), 

mandarins (C. reticulata Blanco, C. 

clementina Hort. ex Tanaka, C. deliciosa 

Ten., and C. unshiu Marcow), Citrus 

hybrids, Fortunella japonica (Thunb.) 

Swingle, and F. margarita (Lour.) 

Swingle, from Uruguay that meet the 

requirements of 7 CFR 319.56–59. 

* * * * * 

(g) Importations allowed under 

paragraphs (b) through (e) of this section 

shall be subject to the permit and other 

requirements under the regulations in 

Subpart—Fruits and Vegetables of this 

part. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. A new § 319.56–59 is added to read 

as follows: 

§ 319.56–59 Fresh citrus fruit from 

Uruguay. 

Sweet oranges (Citrus sinensis (L.) 

Osbeck), lemons (C. limon (L.) Burm. f.), 

mandarins (C. reticulata Blanco, C. 

clementina Hort. ex Tanaka, C. deliciosa 

Ten., and C. unshiu Marcow), Citrus 

hybrids, Fortunella japonica (Thunb.) 

Swingle, and F. margarita (Lour.) 

Swingle may be imported into the 

continental United States from Uruguay 

only under the conditions described in 

this section. These species are referred 

to collectively in this section as ‘‘citrus 

fruit.’’ These conditions are designed to 

prevent the introduction of the 

following quarantine pests: Anastrepha 

fraterculus, Ceratitis capitata, 

Cryptoblabes gnidiella, Elsinoe ̈

australis, Gymnandrosoma 

aurantianum, and Xanthomonas citri 

subsp. citri. 

(a) Commercial consignments. Citrus 

fruit from Uruguay may be imported in 

commercial consignments only. 

(b) General requirements. (1) The 

national plant protection organization 

(NPPO) of Uruguay must provide a 

bilateral workplan to APHIS that details 

the activities that the Uruguayan NPPO 

will, subject to APHIS’ approval of the 

workplan, carry out to meet the 

requirements of this section. APHIS will 

be directly involved with the Uruguayan 

NPPO in monitoring and auditing 

implementation of the systems 

approach. 

(2) All places of production and 

packinghouses that participate in the 

export program must be registered with 

the Uruguayan NPPO. 

(3) The fruit must be grown at places 

of production that meet the 

requirements of paragraphs (d) and (e) 

of this section. 

(4) The fruit must be packed for 

export to the United States in a 

packinghouse that meets the 

requirements of paragraph (f) of this 

section. The place of production where 

the fruit was grown must remain 

identifiable when the fruit leaves the 

grove, at the packinghouse, and 

throughout the export process. Boxes 

containing fruit must be marked with 

the identity and origin of the fruit. 

Safeguarding in accordance with 

paragraph (f)(3) of this section must be 

maintained at all times during the 

movement of the fruit to the United 

States and must be intact upon arrival 

of the fruit in the United States. 

(c) Monitoring and oversight. (1) The 

Uruguayan NPPO must visit and inspect 

registered places of production monthly, 

starting at least 30 days before harvest 

and continuing until the end of the 

shipping season, to verify that the 

growers are complying with the 

requirements of paragraphs (d) and (e) 

of this section. 

(2) In addition to conducting fruit 

inspections at the packinghouses, the 

Uruguayan NPPO must monitor 

packinghouse operations to verify that 

the packinghouses are complying with 

the requirements of paragraph (f) of this 

section. 

(3) If the Uruguayan NPPO finds that 

a place of production or packinghouse 

is not complying with the relevant 

requirements of this section, no fruit 

from the place of production or 

packinghouse will be eligible for export 

to the United States until APHIS and the 

Uruguayan NPPO conduct an 

investigation and appropriate remedial 

actions have been implemented. 

(d) Grove monitoring and pest control. 

Trapping must be conducted in the 

places of production to demonstrate that 

the places of production have a low 

prevalence of A. fraterculus and C. 

capitata. If the prevalence rises above 

levels specified in the bilateral 

workplan, remedial measures must be 

implemented. The Uruguayan NPPO 

must keep records of fruit fly detections 

for each trap and make the records 

available to APHIS upon request. The 

records must be maintained for at least 

1 year. 

(e) Orchard sanitation. Places of 

production must be maintained free of 

fallen fruit and plant debris. Fallen fruit 

may not be included in field containers 

of fruit brought to the packinghouse to 

be packed for export. 

(f) Packinghouse procedures. (1) The 

packinghouse must be equipped with 

double self-closing doors at the entrance 

to the packinghouse and at the interior 

entrance to the area where fruit is 

packed. 

(2) Any vents or openings (other than 

the double self-closing doors) must be 

covered with 1.6 mm or smaller 

screening in order to prevent the entry 

of pests into the packinghouse. 

(3) Fruit must be packed within 24 

hours of harvest in a pest-exclusionary 

packinghouse or stored in a degreening 

chamber in a pest-exclusionary 

packinghouse. The fruit must be 

safeguarded by an insect-proof screen or 

plastic tarpaulin while in transit to the 

packinghouse and while awaiting 

packing. Fruit must be packed in insectproof cartons or containers, or covered 

with insect-proof mesh or a plastic 

tarpaulin, for transport to the United 

States. These safeguards must remain 

intact until the arrival of the fruit in the 

continental United States or the 

consignment will not be allowed to 

enter the United States. 

(4) During the time the packinghouse 

is in use for exporting citrus fruit to the 

continental United States, the 

packinghouse may only accept fruit 

from registered places of production. 

(5) Culling must be performed in the 

packinghouse to remove any 

symptomatic or damaged fruit. Fruit 

must be practically free of leaves, twigs, 

and other plant parts, except for stems 

that are less than 1 inch long and 

attached to the fruit. 

(6) Fruit must be washed, brushed, 

surface disinfected in accordance with 

part 305 of this chapter, treated with an 

APHIS-approved fungicide in 

accordance with labeled instructions, 

and waxed. 

(g) Treatment. (1) Citrus fruit other 

than lemons may be imported into the 

continental United States only if it is 

treated in accordance with part 305 of 

this chapter for A. fraterculus and C. 

capitata. 

(2)(i) Lemons may be shipped without 

a treatment if harvested green and if the 

phytosanitary certificate accompanying 

the lemons contains an additional 

declaration stating that the lemons were 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 10, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 41265 

1For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 

U.S. Code, Part B was redesignated Part A. 

2All references to EPCA in this document refer 

to the statute as amended through the American 

Energy Manufacturing Technical Corrections Act 

(AEMTCA), Public Law 112–210 (Dec. 18, 2012). 

3Under 42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(5), the statute 

establishes ‘‘furnaces’’ as covered products. 

Originally, boilers were considered a class of 

furnaces. However, amendments to EPCA in the 

Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 

(EISA 2007), Public Law 110–140 (Dec. 19, 2007), 

distinguished between furnaces and boilers in 42 

U.S.C. 6295(f) by adding the text ‘‘and boilers’’ to 

the title of that section and by prescribing standards 

for boiler products. Although EISA 2007 did not 

similarly update 42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(5), it is implicit 

that this coverage continues to include boilers. 

harvested green between May 15 and 

August 31. 

(ii) If the lemons are harvested 

between September 1 and May 14, or if 

the fruit is harvested yellow, the lemons 

must be treated in accordance with part 

305 of this chapter for C. capitata. 

(h) Phytosanitary certificate. Each 

consignment of citrus fruit must be 

accompanied by a phytosanitary 

certificate of inspection issued by the 

Uruguayan NPPO stating that the fruit 

in the consignment is free of all pests of 

quarantine concern and has been 

produced in accordance with the 

requirements of the systems approach in 

7 CFR 319.56–59. 

(Approved by the Office of Management and 

Budget under control number 0579–0401) 

Done in Washington, DC, this 28th day of 

June, 2013. 

Kevin Shea, 

Administrator, Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 2013–16548 Filed 7–9–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 430 

[Docket No. EERE–2013–BT–TP–0008] 

RIN 1904–AC96 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products: Test Procedures 

for Residential Furnaces and Boilers 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: On February 4, 2013, the U.S. 

Department of Energy (DOE) issued a 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) 

to amend its test procedure for 

residential furnaces and boilers, which 

serves as the basis for today’s action. 

This final rule amends that test 

procedure by adopting new equations to 

facilitate calculation of the annual fuel 

utilization efficiency (AFUE) for certain 

classes of products when omitting 

specified heat-up and cool-down tests, 

as allowed under the test procedure if 

applicable criteria are met. The relevant 

industry test procedure, which is 

incorporated by reference in the current 

DOE test procedure, lacks equations 

necessary for the calculation of the 

heating seasonal efficiency (which 

contributes to the ultimate calculation 

of AFUE) of two-stage and modulating 

condensing furnaces or boilers when the 

option to omit the heat-up and cooldown tests is employed. This final rule 

revises the DOE test procedure to rectify 

this omission by adopting additional 

equations for the calculation of the partload efficiencies at the maximum input 

rate and reduced input rates for twostage and modulating condensing 

furnaces and boilers when the 

manufacturer chooses to omit the heatup and cool-down tests under the test 

procedure. 

DATES: The effective date of this rule is 

August 9, 2013. The compliance date for 

use of the amended test procedure for 

purposes of compliance with energy 

conservation standards, as well as 

representations of energy efficiency or 

energy use, is January 6, 2014. 

Voluntary early compliance is 

permitted. 

ADDRESSES: The docket for this 

rulemaking is available for review at 

www.regulations.gov, including Federal 

Register notices, public meeting 

attendee lists and transcripts, 

comments, and other supporting 

documents/materials. All documents in 

the docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. However, 

not all documents listed in the index 

may be publicly available, such as 

information that is exempt from public 

disclosure. 

A link to the docket Web page can be 

found at: http://www.regulations.gov/ 

#docketDetail;D=EERE-2013-BT-TP0008. This Web page contains a link to 

the docket for this final rule on the 

www.regulations.gov site. The 

www.regulations.gov Web page contains 

simple instructions on how to access all 

documents, including public comments, 

in the docket. 

For further information on how to 

review the docket, contact Ms. Brenda 

Edwards at (202) 586–2945 or by email: 

Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Ashley Armstrong, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, EE–2J, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC, 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–6590. Email: 

residential_furnaces_and_boilers

@ee.doe.gov. 

Mr. Eric Stas, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

GC–71, 1000 Independence Avenue 

SW., Washington, DC, 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–9507. Email: 

Eric.Stas@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Authority and Background 

II. Summary of the Final Rule 

III. Discussion 

A. Statement of the Issue and the NOPR’s 

Proposed Corrective Action 

B. Discussion of Comments 

C. Final Corrective Action 

D. Effective and Compliance Dates 

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

B. Review under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act 

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 

H. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 1999 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

J. Review Under Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal 

Energy Administration Act of 1974 

M. Congressional Notification 

V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Authority and Background 

Title III, Part B1 of the Energy Policy 

and Conservation Act of 1975 (‘‘EPCA’’ 

or ‘‘the Act’’), Public Law 94–163 (42 

U.S.C. 6291–6309, as codified) set forth 

a variety of provisions designed to 

improve energy efficiency and 

established the Energy Conservation 

Program for Consumer Products Other 

Than Automobiles.2 These include 

residential furnaces and boilers, the 

subject of today’srulemaking. (42 U.S.C. 

6292(a)(5))3

Under EPCA, the energy conservation 

program consists essentially of four 

parts: (1) Testing; (2) labeling; (3) 

Federal energy conservation standards; 

and (4) certification and enforcement 

procedures. The testing requirements 

consist of test procedures that 

manufacturers of covered products must 

use as the basis for: (1) certifying to DOE 

that their products comply with the 

applicable energy conservation 

standards adopted pursuant to EPCA, 

and (2) making representations about 

the efficiency of those products. (42 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES