```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 249 (Wednesday, December 28, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 81469-81471]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-33203]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

[Docket No. APHIS-2010-0112]

Notice of Decision to Authorize Importation of Fresh Litchi From 
the Republic of South Africa 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 of fresh litchi from the Republic of South Africa into the 
continental United States. Based on the findings in 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 litchi from the Republic of South Africa.

DATES: Effective Date: December 28, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Marc Phillips, Import Specialist,

[[Page 81470]]

Regulatory Coordination and Compliance, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road 
Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 734-4394.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    Under the regulations in ``Subpart--Fruits and Vegetables'' (7 CFR 
319.56-1 through 319.56-54, 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 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 notice \1\ in the 
Federal Register on February 2, 2011 (76 FR 5779-5780, Docket No. 
APHIS-2010-0112), in which we announced the availability, for review 
and comment, of a PRA that evaluates the risks associated with the 
importation into the continental United States of fresh litchi (Litchi 
chinensis) from the Republic of South Africa. We solicited comments on 
the notice for 60 days ending on April 4, 2011. We received six 
comments by that date, from a State agriculture agency, produce 
importers, a foreign agricultural research institute, and foreign 
produce growers. Three commenters supported the importation of litchi 
from South Africa into the United States. The remaining comments are 
discussed below by topic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ To view the notice, the PRA, and the comments we received, 
go to http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS-2010-0112.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some comments concerned the pests identified as being associated 
with litchi from South Africa in the PRA. One commenter stated that the 
pest Cryptophlebia peltastica is seldom found in consignments of fresh 
litchi and the mitigation measures recommended for this pest in the 
risk management document (RMD) are unnecessarily strict. Another 
commenter stated that, although C. peltastica may develop in fruit, 
there are indications that the pupae only develop in fruit stored for a 
long period after harvest. This commenter described the results of 
surveys showing no interception of C. peltastica and Thaumatotibia 
leucotreta pupae in samples of litchi taken over the course of two 
growing seasons.
    Because C. peltastica and T. leucotreta are present in South Africa 
and are known pests of litchi, APHIS must verify that the litchi 
imported into the United States is free of these pests, particularly as 
the irradiation treatment we proposed to require is not approved to 
neutralize pupae and adults of these pests. Inspection is a sufficient 
mitigation for T. leucotreta pupae and adults. However, we have 
determined, based on published reports cited in the RMD, that, standard 
commercial culling alone (e.g. culling, packing, and sanitation) would 
not be sufficient to mitigate the risk of C. peltastica because the 
larvae may pupate inside the fruit. C. peltastica larvae produce 
visible holes on the fruit skin, leaving brown frass on the surface, 
which are easily detectable during inspection. Accordingly, the 
mitigation for pupae of this internal pest is the sampling, cutting, 
and inspection of the litchi by the national plant protection 
organization (NPPO) of South Africa.
    However, we appreciate being made aware of the survey activities 
that discount the notion that under natural conditions this fruit 
serves as a pathway for C. peltastica pupae. After we have additional 
evidence from inspections and have had the opportunity to review the 
data concerning the interception of C. peltastica on litchi from South 
Africa, we will adjust the inspection requirements if we determine such 
an action to be warranted.
    Some comments concerned the proposed treatment of litchi fruit from 
South Africa. One commenter stated that more research is needed on the 
irradiation doses required to mitigate the risk associated with C. 
peltastica, and that the circumstantial evidence, as noted in the RMD, 
suggests that doses well below 400 Gy are likely to be sufficient to 
control all stages of this pest.
    Although some circumstantial evidence suggests doses below 400 Gy 
are likely to be sufficient to control all life stages of the pest C. 
peltastica, the dose sufficient to mitigate the risk associated with 
any pupae, and specifically C. peltastica pupae, has not been 
established. The lowest effective dose must be determined by scientific 
evidence before that dose can be used as a mitigation. We will continue 
to review the scientific research in this field and will update our 
approved doses if warranted.
    One commenter stated that, because litchi fruit infested with C. 
peltastica is removed during processing in South Africa, irradiation 
treatment with additional inspection for C. peltastica pupae by APHIS 
inspectors is redundant. The commenter recommended that the 
preclearance inspection be conducted by the NPPO of South Africa or be 
removed from the requirements.
    When a commodity is irradiated in a foreign country, APHIS 
inspectors are required to perform certain tasks in the exporting 
country as specified in the irradiation facility preclearance workplan. 
APHIS involvement in the exporting country includes monitoring the 
treatment and verifying the facility's compliance with the standard 
operating procedures required under the irradiation operational 
workplan. Meanwhile, the NPPO of the exporting country is responsible 
for monitoring, safeguarding, and conducting phytosanitary and pre-
export inspection to certify the shipment is free of pests of concern, 
including pests that are not mitigated by the irradiation.
    To avoid the treatment of products that would ultimately be 
rejected due to the presence of pests not mitigated by irradiation, 
APHIS performs its preclearance inspection prior to the commodity being 
irradiated and rejects lots containing pests not mitigated by 
irradiation before any treatment is applied. Because the inspections 
performed in South Africa by APHIS and the NPPO of South Africa have 
different purposes, both are necessary to mitigate the risks of 
introducing or disseminating plant pests or noxious weeds via the 
importation of litchi from South Africa.
    One commenter recommended adoption of an alternative treatment 
efficacy approach for pest risk management. Another commenter described 
a potential method for researching the feasibility of cold treatment of 
litchi infested with C. peltastica and T. leucotreta. While these

[[Page 81471]]

proposals are interesting, they are outside the scope of this action.
    One commenter stated that the risk of introducing C. peltastica 
into the United States and the consequences of this introduction were 
overestimated in the PRA. This commenter also noted some typographical 
errors in the PRA.
    Although specific information on the reproductive capacity of C. 
peltastica was not available, we reviewed reproductive information 
about similar species C. illepida and C. ombrodelta. The discussion of 
the dispersal potential for and economic impact of C. peltastica in the 
PRA was revised to include this additional information, which did not 
result in a change to the risk rating for C. peltastica.
    We have also amended the RMD published with the previous notice to 
clarify the phytosanitary certificate and additional declaration 
requirements for litchi from South Africa. The revised PRA is available 
from the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or from 
the Regulations.gov Web site (see footnote 1).
    Therefore, in accordance with the regulations in Sec.  319.56-
4(c)(2)(ii), we are announcing our decision to authorize the 
importation into the continental United States of fresh litchi from the 
Republic of South Africa subject to the following phytosanitary 
measures:
     The litchi may be imported into the continental United 
States in commercial consignments only.
     Each consignment must be inspected by the NPPO of the 
Republic of South Africa using a sampling procedure mutually agreed 
upon by APHIS and the NPPO. A representative sample of fruit must be 
drawn from each lot, cut open, inspected, and found free from any pupae 
of C. peltastica.
     The litchi must be irradiated in accordance with 7 CFR 
part 305 with a minimum absorbed dose of 400 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 the Republic of South Africa and accompanied by a 
phytosanitary certificate certifying that the fruit received the 
required irradiation treatment with an additional declaration stating 
that the consignment was inspected and found free of C. peltastica.
     If the irradiation treatment is to be applied upon arrival 
in the United States, each consignment of fruit must be inspected by 
the NPPO of the Republic of South Africa prior to departure and 
accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate with an additional 
declaration stating that the consignment was inspected and found free 
of C. peltastica.
    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, litchi from the Republic of 
South Africa will be subject to the general requirements listed in 
Sec.  319.56-3 that are applicable to the importation of all fruits and 
vegetables. Further, for fruits and vegetables requiring treatment as a 
condition of entry, the phytosanitary treatments regulations in 7 CFR 
part 305 contain administrative and procedural requirements that must 
be observed in connection with the application and certification of 
specific treatments.

    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 19th day of December 2011.
Kevin Shea,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-33203 Filed 12-27-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
```