Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 13, 2013 / Notices 49251 

1To view the notice, the PRA, and the comments 

we received, go to http://www.regulations.gov/#

!docketDetail;D=APHIS–2011–0031. 

and is only available directly from those 

entities required to report under the Act. 

Description of Respondents: Business 

or other for-profit; 

Number of Respondents: 422 

Frequency of Responses: Reporting; 

Weekly; Other (Daily) 

Total Burden Hours: 23,766 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

Title: Federal-State Marketing 

Improvement Program (FSMIP) 

OMB Control Number: 0581–0240 

Summary of Collection: The FederalState Marketing Improvement Program 

(FSMIP) operates pursuant to the 

authority of the Agricultural Act of 1946 

(7 U.S.C. 1621, et.seq.). Section 204(b) 

authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture 

to make available funds to State 

Departments of Agriculture, State 

bureaus and departments of markets, 

State agricultural experiment stations, 

and other appropriate State agencies for 

cooperative projects in marketing 

service and in marketing research to 

effectuate the purposes of title II of the 

Agricultural Act of 1946. FSMIP 

provides matching grants on a 

competitive basis to enable States to 

explore new market opportunities for 

U.S. food and agricultural products and 

to encourage research and innovation 

aimed at improving the efficiency and 

performance of the U.S. marketing 

system. 

Need and Use of the Information: The 

information collection requirements in 

this request are needed to implement 

the Federal-State Marketing 

Improvement Program (FSMIP). The 

information will be used by the 

Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) to 

establish the entity’s eligibility for 

participation, the suitability of the 

budget for the proposed project, and 

compliance with applicable Federal 

regulations. 

Description of Respondents: State, 

Local or Tribal Government 

Number of Respondents: 80 

Frequency of Responses: Reporting: 

Annually; Semi-annually 

Total Burden Hours: 5,363 

Charlene Parker, 

Departmental Information Collection 

Clearance Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2013–19504 Filed 8–12–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

[Docket No. APHIS–2011–0031] 

Notice of Decision To Authorize the 

Importation of Fresh Pitayas and 

Pomegranates From Mexico 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 authorize the 

importation into the continental United 

States of fresh pitayas and pomegranates 

from Mexico. Based on the findings of 

pest risk analyses, 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 pitayas and 

pomegranates from Mexico. 

DATES: As of August 13, 2013. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Marc Phillips, Senior Regulatory Policy 

Specialist, Regulations, Permits, and 

Import Manuals, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 

River Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 

20737–1231; (301) 851–2114. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Under the regulations in ‘‘Subpart— 

Fruits and Vegetables’’ (7 CFR 319.56– 

1 through 319.56–58, 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 (PRA), 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 PRA 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 authorize the importation of 

the fruit or vegetable subject to the 

identified designated measures if: (1) No 

comments were received on the PRA; (2) 

the comments on the PRA revealed that 

no changes to the PRA were necessary; 

or (3) changes to the PRA 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 notice1 in the Federal 

Register on August 2, 2011 (76 FR 

46268–46269, Docket No. APHIS–2011– 

0031), in which we announced the 

availability, for review and comment, of 

PRAs that evaluate the risks associated 

with the importation into the 

continental United States of fresh 

pitayas and pomegranates from Mexico. 

We solicited comments on the notice 

for 60 days ending on October 3, 2011. 

We received three comments by that 

date. They were from a State 

agricultural agency, a foreign trade 

association, and a foreign governmental 

organization. The comments are 

discussed below by topic. 

One commenter who opposed the 

action stated that pitayas and 

pomegranates from Mexico are hosts for 

several species of economically 

important fruit flies, specifically 

Anastrepha species and Mediterranean 

fruit fly, as well as other surface-feeding 

arthropods that could be an economic 

threat to agriculture in the commenter’s 

State. In particular, the commenter 

stated that irradiation at the proposed 

absorbed dose of 150 Gy does not fully 

remove the possible risk of introduction 

of exotic fruit flies. 

Prior to approving the proposed 150 

Gy dose, APHIS reviewed scientific 

evidence on the effectiveness of this 

dose. The importation of other 

commodities treated with this dose 

without the introduction or 

dissemination of plant pests 

demonstrates the effectiveness of the 

proposed 150 Gy dose as a mitigation. 

The commenter also stated that the 

required proposed irradiation does not 

mitigate the risk of the surface-feeding 

species of arthropods. The commenter 

asked that shipments not be permitted 

entry into his State until the shipping 

protocol has had sufficient time to 

demonstrate the effectiveness of the 

cited mitigation measures. 

As noted in the risk management 

documents (RMDs) for both pitayas and 

pomegranates, the proposed mitigation 

for surface feeders on these 

commodities is not irradiation, but 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
49252 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 13, 2013 / Notices 

2This list can be viewed at http://www.aphis.

usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/frsmp/nonreg-pests.shtml. 

3This list can be viewed at http:// 

www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/ 

frsmp/non-reg-pests.shtml. 

inspection of the commodity by the 

national plant protection organization 

(NPPO) of Mexico, with certification 

that the commodity is free from 

quarantine pests of concern. 

Pomegranates and pitayas have been 

authorized for importation from fruit 

fly-free areas of Mexico since 1985, and 

inspectors at U.S. ports of entry have 

not intercepted these surface-feeding 

pests on pomegranates or pitayas during 

their inspections of the fruit. We expect 

that standard quality control of 

commercial shipments including culling 

will remove most of these pests from the 

commodity. 

Some comments were specific to 

pitayas. Two commenters stated that 

Anastrepha fraterculus, Dysmicoccus 

neobrevipes, and Planococcus minor 

should be removed from the pest list for 

pitayas because of insufficient evidence 

that they are pests of pitayas. 

Subsequent to publication of the 

proposed rule, we established that P. 

minor no longer meets our definition of 

a quarantine pest and have added it to 

our list 2 of pests that we no longer 

regulate. The RMD for pitayas was 

revised to reflect this. 

APHIS has sufficient evidence that A. 

fraterculus has the ability to attack 

pitayas. Similarly, two separate 

resources note that D. neobrevipes, is 

present in Mexico and there is evidence 

that this pest attacks pitayas. Therefore, 

Anastrepha fraterculus and 

Dysmicoccus neobrevipes will remain 

on the pest list for pitayas from Mexico. 

Two commenters noted that 

Euschistus servus is a pest of economic 

significance in several crops in the 

United States. The commenters stated 

that the lack of evidence that this pest 

is under official control in the United 

States suggests that E. servus does not 

qualify as a quarantine pest and should 

be removed from the pitayas pest list. 

We agree. E. servus is prevalent in at 

least 14 States in the United States and 

is not regarded as a quarantine pest. We 

have removed E. servus from the list in 

the PRA of quarantine pests likely to 

follow the pathway of pitayas from 

Mexico. The RMD for pitayas has also 

been revised to reflect this change. 

The commenters also stated that 

inspection by APHIS at the port of entry 

should be sufficient mitigation for 

Maracayia chlorisalis because the pest 

is present in Mexico and APHIS 

documentation indicates U.S. inspectors 

have not intercepted this pest over 26 

years of imports from various countries. 

APHIS agrees that inspection at the 

port of entry will be sufficient 

mitigation for M. chlorisalis. As noted in 

our previous notice, shipments of either 

pitayas or pomegranates from Mexico 

are subject to inspection at the U.S. 

ports of entry. The proposed irradiation 

treatment is a mitigation for the fruit 

flies associated with pitayas, not M. 

chlorisalis. 

The commenters also said that the 

likelihood of Milax species following 

the pathway of pitayas is low due to the 

management of the orchards, the postharvest management of the fruit, and the 

sensitivity of Milax species to the 

environment. 

APHIS agrees that inspection at port 

of entry is sufficient to mitigate the risk 

of Milax species. 

The commenters also noted that, 

according to International Plant 

Protection Convention (IPPC) standards, 

quarantine pests should be identified at 

the species level. 

The commenters are correct. IPPC 

guidelines state that quarantine pests 

should be identified at the species level 

on additional declarations. We have 

revised the RMDs for both pitayas and 

pomegranates from Mexico to state that 

the additional declaration should 

include a general statement indicating 

that the consignment was inspected and 

found free from quarantine pests. 

The remaining comments concerned 

pomegranates. Two commenters said 

that the following pests should not be 

considered actionable pests because 

they are not established in Mexico and 

are regarded as pests of quarantine 

significance by Mexico’s NPPO: 

Aleurodicus disperses, Ceroplastes 

rubens, Coccus viridis, Maconellicoccus 

hirsutus, and Dysmicoccus neobrevipes. 

Subsequent to publication of the 

proposed rule, we established that C. 

viridis no longer meets our definition of 

a quarantine pest and have added it to 

our list 3 of pests that we no longer 

regulate. The RMD for pomegranates 

was revised to reflect this. 

The pests A. disperses, C. rubens, M. 

hirsutus, and D. neobrevipes are on the 

regulated pest list for Mexico on the 

International Plant Protection 

Convention’s Web site. Several 

resources report the presence of these 

pests in Mexico, although the specific 

locations within the country are not 

indicated. Without survey data, it is 

impossible to specify the exact areas of 

distribution for these pests, although 

APHIS does assume that these pests 

have a limited distribution in Mexico. 

Finally, we note these pests occur in a 

limited portion of the continental 

United States and are considered 

quarantine-significant, actionable 

organisms. We believe it is appropriate 

that A. disperses, C. rubens, M. hirsutus, 

and D. neobrevipes remain on the pest 

list for pomegranates from Mexico. 

The commenters also said that 

Siphoninus phillyreae and M. hirsutus 

do not qualify as quarantine pests 

because they are present in United 

States and there is no evidence they are 

under official control. 

S. phillyreae and M. hirsutus have 

limited distribution in the United States 

and are currently considered by our 

Agency to be quarantine-significant, 

actionable pests. We continue to 

consider them likely to follow the 

pathway and, therefore, will retain them 

on the pest list for pomegranates. 

Therefore, in accordance with the 

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

are announcing our decision to 

authorize the importation into the 

continental United States of fresh 

pitayas and pomegranates from Mexico 

subject to the following phytosanitary 

measures: 

• Fresh pitayas and pomegranates 

may be imported into the continental 

United States in commercial 

consignments only. 

• The pitayas and pomegranates must 

be irradiated in accordance with 7 CFR 

part 305 with a minimum absorbed dose 

of 150 Gy. 

• If the irradiation treatment is 

applied outside the United States, each 

consignment of fruit must be jointly 

inspected by APHIS and the NPPO of 

Mexico and accompanied by a 

phytosanitary certificate (PC) attesting 

that the fruit received the required 

irradiation treatment. 

• If the irradiation treatment is 

applied upon arrival in the United 

States, each consignment of fruit must 

be inspected by the NPPO of Mexico 

prior to departure. For consignments of 

pitayas, the inspection must include a 

sampling procedure mutually agreed 

upon by APHIS and the NPPO of 

Mexico. 

• The PC for consignments of pitayas 

or pomegranates must also include an 

additional declaration stating that the 

consignment was inspected and found 

free from quarantine pests. 

• The commodity is subject to 

inspection at the U.S. ports of entry. 

These conditions will be listed in the 

Fruits and Vegetables Import 

Requirements database (available at 

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

addition to these specific measures, 

pitayas and pomegranates from Mexico 

will be subject to the general 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 13, 2013 / Notices 49253 

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 7th day of 

August 2013. 

Kevin Shea, 

Administrator, Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 2013–19551 Filed 8–12–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Forest Service 

Pacific Southwest Recreation 

Resource Advisory Committee 

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice of meeting. 

SUMMARY: The Pacific Southwest 

Recreation Resource Advisory Committe 

will meet in Sacramento, California. The 

Committee is authorized under the 

Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement 

Act (REA) (Pub. L. 108–447) and 

operates in compliance with the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (5 

U.S.C. App. II). The purpose of the 

Committee is to provide advice and 

recommendations to the Secretary 

regarding recreation fees on lands and 

waters managed by the Forest Service 

and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

in California. The meeting is open to the 

public. The purpose of the meeting is 

review and make recommendations on 

fee proposals from the Forest Service 

and BLM. 

DATES: The meeting will be held 

Thursday, August 29, 2013 from 10:00 

a.m. to 1:00 p.m. (PST). 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 

the Federal Building, Room W2620, 

2800 Cottage Way, Sacramento, CA. All 

attendees will need to pass through 

security and are not allowed to enter 

building with a phone that has a 

camera. 

Written comments may be submitted 

as described under Supplementary 

Information. All comments, including 

names and addresses when provided, 

are placed in the record and are 

available for public inspection and 

copying. The public may inspect 

comments received at the Pacific 

Southwest Regional Office (Region 5), 

1323 Club Drive, Vallejo, CA. Please call 

ahead to Frances Enkoji, at 707–562– 

8846 to facilitate entry into the building 

to view comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ramiro Villalvazo, Designated Federal 

Official, Region 5 Pacific Southwest 

Regional Office, 707–562–8856, 

rvillalvazo@fs.fed.us. Individuals who 

use telecommunication devices for the 

deaf (TDD) may call the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1– 

800–877–8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 

8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, 

Monday through Friday. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

following business will be conducted: 

Fee proposal for the Arcata Field office 

of BLM for a Wilderness permit fee and 

expanded amenity fees within the King 

Range National Conservation Area. The 

Committee will also review and make 

recommendations on the fee proposal to 

reduce the size of the Lake Isabella 

recreation fee area and split it into three 

fee sites, at Auxilary Dam, Old Isabella, 

and South Fork on the Sequoia National 

Forest. The agenda and further 

information can be found at http:// 

www.fs.usda.gov/main/r5/recreation/ 

racs. 

Anyone who would like to bring 

related matters to the attention of the 

Committee may file written statements 

with the Committee staff before the 

meeting. The agenda will include time 

for people to make oral statements of 3 

minutes or less. 

Individuals wishing to make oral 

statements should request in writing by 

Friday, August 23, 2013, to be 

scheduled on the agenda. Written 

comments and requests for time for oral 

comments must be sent to Ramiro 

Villalvazo, 1323 Club Drive, Vallejo, CA 

94592, or by email to 

rvillalvazo@fs.fed.us, or via facsimile to 

707–562–9047. A summary of the 

meeting will be posted at the 

Committee’s Web site listed above 

within 21 days of the meeting. If you 

require sign language interpreting, 

assistive listening devices or other 

reasonable accommodation, please 

request this in advance of the meeting 

by contacting the person listed in the 

section titled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. All reasonable 

accommodation requests are managed 

on a case by case basis. 

Dated: August 7, 2013. 

Ramiro Villalvazo, 

Designated Federal Official, Recreation 

RRAC. 

[FR Doc. 2013–19536 Filed 8–12–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Submission for OMB Review; 

Comment Request 

The Department of Commerce will 

submit to the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) for clearance the 

following proposal for collection of 

information under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 

Chapter 35). 

Agency: National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 

Title: Processed Products Family of 

Forms. 

OMB Control Number: 0648–0018. 

Form Number(s): 88–13, 88–13c. 

Type of Request: Regular submission 

(extension of a current information 

collection). 

Number of Respondents: 855. 

Average Hours per Response: Annual 

survey, 30 minutes; monthly report, 15 

minutes. 

Burden Hours: 455. 

Needs and Uses: This request is for 

extension of a current information 

collection. 

NOAA annually collects information 

from seafood and industrial fishing 

processing plants on the volume and 

value of their processed fishery 

products and their monthly 

employment figures. NOAA also 

collects monthly information on the 

production of fish meal and oil. The 

information gathered is used by NOAA 

in the economic and social analyses 

developed when proposing and 

evaluating fishery management actions. 

Affected Public: Business or other forprofit organizations. 

Frequency: Annually and monthly. 

Respondent’s Obligation: Mandatory. 

OMB Desk Officer: 

OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov. 

Copies of the above information 

collection proposal can be obtained by 

calling or writing Jennifer Jessup, 

Departmental Paperwork Clearance 

Officer, (202) 482–0336, Department of 

Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and 

Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC 20230 (or via the Internet at 

JJessup@doc.gov). 

Written comments and 

recommendations for the proposed 

information collection should be sent 

within 30 days of publication of this 

notice to 

OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov. 

Dated: August 8, 2013. 

Gwellnar Banks, 

Management Analyst, Office of the Chief 

Information Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2013–19570 Filed 8–12–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES