<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
<meta name="cp:revision" content="2">
<meta name="extended-properties:AppVersion" content="12.0000">
<meta name="meta:paragraph-count" content="24">
<meta name="meta:word-count" content="1807">
<meta name="custom:ContentTypeId" content="0x0101000CB7AD05AE3FB4488C3FC17D21BAB60C080056131BF3826A9D4B9CDECBD2AAE341D0">
<meta name="extended-properties:Application" content="Microsoft Office Word">
<meta name="meta:last-author" content="Andrew Malone">
<meta name="dc:creator" content="pgadh">
<meta name="extended-properties:Company" content="USDA APHIS">
<meta name="meta:print-date" content="2010-06-09T15:43:00Z">
<meta name="xmpTPg:NPages" content="6">
<meta name="dcterms:created" content="2011-01-06T18:44:00Z">
<meta name="meta:line-count" content="86">
<meta name="dcterms:modified" content="2011-01-06T18:44:00Z">
<meta name="meta:character-count" content="10327">
<meta name="extended-properties:Template" content="Normal.dotm">
<meta name="meta:character-count-with-spaces" content="12110">
<meta name="X-TIKA:Parsed-By" content="org.apache.tika.parser.DefaultParser">
<meta name="X-TIKA:Parsed-By" content="org.apache.tika.parser.microsoft.ooxml.OOXMLParser">
<meta name="dc:title" content="SALitchiRMD20100608.docx">
<meta name="extended-properties:DocSecurityString" content="None">
<meta name="Content-Length" content="51211">
<meta name="meta:page-count" content="6">
<meta name="Content-Type" content="application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document">
<meta name="dc:publisher" content="USDA APHIS">
<title>SALitchiRMD20100608.docx</title>
</head>
<body><p></p>
<p><img src="embedded:image1.jpeg" alt="http://images.google.com/url?q=http://www.parrotfestival.org/links_files/aphislogo.jpg&usg=__Dux9IIMYiRxxTVKen7c7z5x1R0U="><img src="embedded:image2.gif" alt="http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/wa/news_release/Aug_2002/Image12.gif"></p>
<p><b>United States Department of Agriculture</b></p>
<p><b>Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service</b></p>
<p><b>Plant Protection and Quarantine</b></p>
<p>		</p>
<p></p>
<p>	</p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p><b>Importation of fresh litchi (<i>Litchi chinensis</i>) fruit from the Republic of South Africa into the continental United States</b></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p><b>Risk Management Document</b></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p><b>June 8, 2010</b></p>
<p><b>Ver. 005</b></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p><b>Plant Health Programs (PHP)</b></p>
<p><b>Commodity Imports Analysis and Operations (CIAO)</b></p>
<p><b>Contact Person: <i>Meredith.C.Jones@aphis.usda.gov</i></b></p>
<p>
<b>A. Introduction</b></p>
<p></p>
<p>The Government of the Republic of South Africa (RSA) requested permission to import <i>Litchi chinensis </i>Sonn. (litchi) fruit into the United States.  Litchis have not been imported from RSA before, so a pathway-initiated risk assessment (PRA) was conducted.  A list of litchi pests in RSA was prepared based on United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) records of intercepted pests, and scientific literature.  The pest risk assessment document, <i>“Importation of Fresh Litchi, </i>Litchi chinensis<i> Sonn., Fruit from the Republic of South Africa into the Continental United States: A Qualitative, Pathway-initiated Pest Risk Assessment”</i> (USDA, 2009), identified the following <b>eight</b> quarantine insect pests that could follow the pathway of commercial consignments of fresh litchi fruit.  </p>
<p></p>
<p><i>Ceratitis capitata</i> Wiedemann (Diptera: Tephritidae)</p>
<p><i>Ceratitis rosa</i> Karsch (Diptera: Tephritidae)</p>
<p><i>Ceroplastes rubens</i> Maskell (Homiptera: Coccidae)</p>
<p><i>Ceroplastes rusci</i> (Linnaeus) (Hemiptera: Coccidae)</p>
<p><i>Coccus viridis</i> (Green) (Hemiptera: Coccidae)</p>
<p><i>Cryptophlebia peltastica</i> (Meyrick) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae)</p>
<p><i>Nipaecoccus viridis </i>(Newstead) (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae)</p>
<p><i>Thaumatotibia leucotreta </i> (Meyrick)  (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae)</p>
<p></p>
<p>All pests were rated to have high risk potential.  The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) commodity Pest Risk Assessment (PRA) guidelines state that for pests rated as high risk, phytosanitary measures beyond port-of-entry inspections are strongly recommended (USDA, 2000).  </p>
<p></p>
<p>The proposed importation of litchi from RSA, if approved, would be regulated by an amendment to the APHIS’ Fruits and Vegetables Import Requirements (FAVIR) database available on-line.  This risk management document outlines the phytosanitary measures that APHIS will require if the proposed importation of this commodity from RSA is approved and documents the evidence used by APHIS to conclude that these measures will effectively prevent the introduction of quarantine pests. </p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p><b>B.  Risk Management Measures </b></p>
<p></p>
<p>APHIS proposes to allow the importation of the fresh fruit of litchi from RSA<i> </i>into the continental United States under the following conditions: </p>
<p></p>
<p>(a) The litchi fruit must be irradiated with a minimum absorbed dose of 400 Gy and follow the requirements of 7CFR parts 305 and 319.</p>
<p></p>
<p>(b) Prior to departure from RSA, each consignment must be inspected and found to be free from pupae of <i>Cryptophlebia peltastica</i>.  Using a biometric sampling procedure mutually agreed upon by APHIS and the National Plant Protection Organization (NPPO) of RSA, a representative sample of fruit must be drawn from each lot, cut open and inspected for the presence of any pupae of this pest. </p>
<p></p>
<p>(c) If irradiation is applied outside the United States, each consignment of fruit must be inspected jointly by inspectors from APHIS and the NPPO of RSA prior to departure and accompanied by a Phytosanitary Certificate (PC) issued by the NPPO of RSA certifying that the fruit received the required irradiation treatment, and with an Additional Declaration that the consignment was treated with 400 Gy as the minimum absorbed dose, inspected during preclearance  and found to be free from pupae of <i>Cryptophlebia</i> <i>peltastica</i>.  If irradiation is to be applied upon arrival in the United States, each consignment of fruit must be inspected by RSA inspectors prior to departure and accompanied by a PC issued by the NPPO of RSA with an Additional Declaration stating that the consignment was inspected by RSA inspectors and found to be free from pupae of <i>Cryptophlebia</i> <i>peltastica.</i></p>
<p></p>
<p>(d) Each consignment is subject to inspection at the United States ports-of-entry. </p>
<p></p>
<p>(e) The fruit must be commercially produced and be part of a commercial consignment as defined in Section 319.56-2.  </p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p><b>C.  Historical Performance of Importing Irradiated Fruits</b></p>
<p></p>
<p>Current regulations (7 CFR 305.9) allow the use of irradiation to treat fruit for importation into the United States.   In April 2007, India began shipping mangoes irradiated with 400 Gy to the United States and has continued shipping irradiated mangoes each year since.  This was followed by Thailand, which started shipping mangoes and five other fruits all treated with 400 Gy irradiation dose to the United States beginning November 1, 2007.  Thereafter commodities irradiated with 400 Gy have also been imported from Vietnam (dragon fruit) and Mexico (guava and mango).  No pests of quarantine significance have been reported from the irradiated fruit imported from all these countries (Pest ID, 2010).  </p>
<p></p>
<p>Current domestic regulations (7 CFR318.13-4f) allow the interstate movement of fifteen different fruit, including mango, from Hawaii, using a minimum absorbed dose of from 150 Gy to 400 Gy.  For example, the dose of 300 Gy is adequate to mitigate the risk from mango seed weevil in mango fruit, while all fruit flies require a dose of 150 Gy (USDA, 2006b).  No live pests of quarantine significance have been intercepted from fruits and vegetables treated with irradiation in Hawaii and moved to the mainland United States (Uyeda, 2005).  In Addition, there have been no records of pest interceptions on Australian mangoes irradiated with 150 Gy dose and imported into New Zealand since 2004 (Edwards, 2005).  </p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p><b>D.	Evidence for the Effective Removal of Pests of Concern from the Pathway</b></p>
<p></p>
<p>The measures described in Section <b>B </b>would effectively remove the pests of concern from the stated pathway. </p>
<p></p>
<p>All the pests of concern for the importation of litchi from RSA are insects.  Irradiation of fruits and vegetables with a minimum absorbed dose of 400 Gy is a treatment approved by APHIS for mitigating risks from all insect pests except for adults and pupae of the order Lepidoptera (USDA, 2006).  Two of the litchi quarantine pests belong to the order Lepidoptera: <i>Thaumatotibia leucotreta </i>(false codling moth) and <i>Cryptophlebia peltastica</i> (litchi moth).  The adult and pupal stages of <i>T. leucotreta </i>are external feeders; adults are mobile and, because of their size, are easily detectable during inspection. Treatment with a minimum absorbed dose of 400 Gy is also approved by APHIS to successfully neutralize eggs and larval stages of this pest[footnoteRef:1].   [1:  For irradiation treatment, neutralizing a pest generally refers to either sterilizing the pest or preventing it from achieving sexual maturity, although irradiation treatment can in some cases kill pests that may be present. 
] 
</p>
<p></p>
<p>In case of <i>Cryptophlebia peltasica, </i>there is evidence that the larvae may occasionally pupate inside the fruit (Grové, 1999; de Villiers, 2001). Although irradiation with a generic dose of 400 Gy dose is not an approved treatment for pupae of Lepidoptera, evidence suggests that the dose may be sufficient to neutralize the pupae of this pest and thereby mitigate the pathway risks.  Research by Follett and Lower (2000) has shown that a dose as low as 250 Gy was sufficient to cause a complete sterility among the pupae or the resulting progeny of a closely related species, <i>Cryptophlebia</i> <i>illepida, </i>which lead the authors to believe that the dose would likely have similar effects on other species of <i>Cryptophlebia</i> as well.  However, in the absence of a comparative study involving <i>C.</i> <i>peltastica </i>or large scale confirmatory tests performed on members of the genus<i> Cryptophlebia</i>, a measure of confidence could not be established.  Therefore additional measures are required to supplement the irradiation treatment.  <i>C.</i> <i>peltastica </i>produces visible holes on the fruit skin, leaving brown frass on the surface, which are easily detectable during inspection.  Biometric sampling, fruit cutting and inspection during the preclearance activities is considered adequate to detect the internal pupae.  This sampling regime may be adjusted to provide 95% of confidence for the detection of 3% or less infestation rate as may be agreed upon by APHIS and the NPPO.  Other life stages such as eggs and larvae are effectively managed by the irradiation dose of 400 Gy (USDA 2006).  </p>
<p></p>
<p>The requirement for a Phytosanitary Certificate provides quality control and rigor by requiring RSA officials to conduct phytosanitary inspections for the pests not targeted by the treatment. This along with port of entry inspection effectively doubles the inspections the fruit receives.  Furthermore, specifically listing the pest of concern on the Additional Declaration alerts U.S. inspectors to the specific pest. </p>
<p></p>
<p>APHIS regulations on irradiation require that the treatment be monitored where applied and the consignment examined for pests of concern not targeted by the treatment.  Although the 400 Gy dose is effective for all pests except the adults and pupae of Lepidoptera, fruit cutting and inspections by the United States and RSA NPPOs should ensure that the consignments are free of the two Lepidopteran stages of concern that irradiation is not considered effective against.</p>
<p></p>
<p>By allowing only commercial consignments of litchis into the United States, it is assumed that the fruits would undergo standard post harvest commercial handling (e.g. culling, packing, and sanitation).  By requiring that irradiation must follow requirements of 305.9 and that packages containing irradiated fruit be labeled as per 305.9(g)(3)(iii) ensures the integrity of the shipment and the capability to trace back to origin.</p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p><b>E.  Conclusion</b></p>
<p></p>
<p>The phytosanitary requirements described above include irradiation treatment for quarantine pests of litchi from RSA using a minimum absorbed dose of 400 Gy, and inspections for the pests or pest stages not targeted by the irradiation treatment.  </p>
<p></p>
<p>APHIS concludes that based on the evaluation of effectiveness of these mitigation measures directed against the pests of concern, the safeguards of 7 CFR § 319.56 and the Phytosanitary Certificate with an Additional Declaration described in this Risk Management Document, these measures will result in the effective removal from the pathway of the pests of concern identified by the PRA for the importation of fresh litchi fruit from RSA into the continental United States.</p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p><b>F.  Authors:</b></p>
<p></p>
<p>Marina Zlotina</p>
<p>Risk Manager - TDY</p>
<p></p>
<p>Inder Paul S. Gadh</p>
<p>Senior Risk Manager</p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p>
<b>G. Literature Cited:</b></p>
<p></p>
<p>de Villiers, E.A. 2001.  <i>Cryptophlebia peltastica</i> (Meyrick). Litchi moth.  In: A. van den Berg, E.A. de Villiers and P.H. Joubert (Eds.) <i>Pests and Beneficial Arthropods of Tropical and Non-Citrus Subtropical Crops in South Africa</i>, pp. 325– 328. Institute for Tropical and Subtropical Crops, South Africa, Nelspruit. </p>
<p></p>
<p>Edwards, G. 2005. Personal Communication from G. Edwards of NZ Department of Agriculture & Fisheries to Karen Ackerman of USDA, APHIS, PPQ, Phytosanitary Issues Management, Riverdale, MD.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Follett, P.A. and R. A. Lower. 2000.  Irradiation to Ensure Quarantine Security for <i>Cryptophlebia</i> spp. (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in Sapindaceous Fruits from Hawaii. J. Econn. Entomol. 93(6): 1848-1854.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Grové, T.  1999. The litchi moth – a literature review. <i>Cryptophlebia peltastica</i> (Meyrick) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae).  Neltropika Bull. 305: 30-31.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Pest ID. 2010.  USDA, APHIS, Plant Protection and Quarantine, Pest Interception Dadabase.  Last checked May 2010.</p>
<p></p>
<p class="body_Text_3">USDA. 2000. Guidelines for Pathway-Initiated Pest Risk Assessments.  Version 5.02. October 17, 2000.</p>
<p></p>
<p>USDA. 2006. Treatments for Fruits and Vegetables. January 27, 2006 issue of Federal Register 71(18): 4451-4464</p>
<p></p>
<p>USDA. 2009. Importation of Fresh Litchi,  <i>Litchi chinensis</i> Sonn., Fruit from the Republic of South Africa into the Continental United States: A Qualitative, Pathway-initiated Pest Risk Assessment.  USDA, APHIS, Plant Protection and Quarantine, Center for Plant Health Science and Technology, Raleigh, North Carolina. 2009. pp 40.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Uyeda, E. 2005.  Personal communication from E. Uyeda, Port Director, US Department of Agriculture, USDA, APHIS, PPQ, Hilo, HI.</p>
<p class="footer"></p>
<p class="footer"></p>
<p class="footer">1</p>
<p class="footer"></p>
<div class="package-entry"><h1>image2.gif</h1>
</div>
<div class="package-entry"><h1>image1.jpeg</h1>
</div>
</body></html>