10902 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 47 / Monday, March 12, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

1To view the proposed rule and the comments 

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

on the ‘‘Advanced Search’’ tab, and select ‘‘Docket 

Search.’’ In the Docket ID field, enter APHIS–2006–

0121, then click ‘‘Submit.’’ Clicking on the Docket 

ID link in the search results page will produce a list 

of all documents in the docket. 

those programs with which they wish to 

share information. 

(j) Agreements with programs/ 

individuals receiving children’s free and 

reduced price meal or free milk 

eligibility information. 

(1) An agreement with programs or 

individuals receiving free and reduced 

price meal or free milk eligibility 

information is recommended for 

programs other than Medicaid or SCHIP. 

The agreement or MOU should include 

information similar to that required for 

disclosures to Medicaid and SCHIP 

specified in paragraph (j)(2) of this 

section. 

(2) The State agency or school food 

authorities, as appropriate, must have a 

written agreement with the State or 

local agency or agencies administering 

Medicaid or SCHIP prior to disclosing 

children’s free and reduced price meal 

or free milk eligibility information. At a 

minimum, the agreement must: 

(i) Identify the health insurance 

program or health agency receiving 

children’s eligibility information; 

(ii) Describe the information that will 

be disclosed; 

(iii) Require that the Medicaid or 

SCHIP agency use the information 

obtained and specify that the 

information must be used to seek to 

enroll children in Medicaid or SCHIP; 

(iv) Require that the Medicaid or 

SCHIP agency describe how they will 

use the information obtained; 

(v) Describe how the information will 

be protected from unauthorized uses 

and disclosures; 

(vi) Describe the penalties for 

unauthorized disclosure; and 

(vii) Be signed by both the Medicaid 

or SCHIP program or agency and the 

State agency or child care institution, as 

appropriate. 

(k) Penalties for unauthorized 

disclosure or misuse of information. In 

accordance with section 9(b)(6)(C) of the 

Richard B. Russell National School 

Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1758(b)(6)(C)), any 

individual who publishes, divulges, 

discloses or makes known in any 

manner, or to any extent not authorized 

by statute or this section, any 

information obtained under this section 

will be fined not more than $1,000 or 

imprisoned for up to 1 year, or both. 

Dated: March 1, 2007. 

Nancy Montanez Johner, 

Under Secretary, Food, Nutrition and 

Consumer Services. 

[FR Doc. E7–4268 Filed 3–9–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–30–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

7 CFR Parts 305 and 319 

[Docket No. APHIS–2006–0121] 

RIN 0579–AC19 

Importation of Mangoes From India 

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are amending the fruits 

and vegetables regulations to allow the 

importation into the continental United 

States of mangoes from India under 

certain conditions. As a condition of 

entry, the mangoes must undergo 

irradiation treatment and be 

accompanied by a phytosanitary 

certificate with additional declarations 

providing specific information regarding 

the treatment and inspection of the 

mangoes and the orchards in which they 

were grown. In addition, the mangoes 

will be subject to inspection at the port 

of first arrival. This action allows for the 

importation of mangoes from India into 

the continental United States while 

continuing to provide protection against 

the introduction of quarantine pests. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 12, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Donna L. West, Senior Import 

Specialist, Commodity Import Analysis 

and Operations, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 

River Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 

20737–1231; (301) 734–8758. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The regulations in ‘‘Subpart-Fruits 

and Vegetables’’ (7 CFR 319.56 through 

319.56–8, 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 November 17, 2006, we published 

in the Federal Register (71 FR 66881–

66888, Docket No. APHIS–2006–0121) a 

proposal 1 to allow the importation into 

the continental United States of 

mangoes from India under certain 

conditions. As a condition of entry, we 

proposed that the mangoes would have 

to be treated with a minimum absorbed 

dose of 400 gray of irradiation and be 

accompanied by a phytosanitary 

certificate certifying that the fruit 

received the required irradiation 

treatment. In addition, because the 

required irradiation treatment would 

not mitigate the risks posed by the fungi 

Cytosphaera mangiferae and 

Macrophoma mangiferae or the 

bacterium Xanthomonas campestris pv. 

mangiferaeindicae, which we consider 

to be of medium risk of introduction 

and dissemination within the 

continental United States, we proposed 

additional safeguarding measures. For 

the two fungi; we proposed three 

options: (1) The mangoes be treated 

with a broad-spectrum post-harvest 

fungicidal dip, (2) the orchard of origin 

be inspected at a time prior to the 

beginning of harvest as determined by 

the mutual agreement between the 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service (APHIS) and the national plant 

protection organization (NPPO) of India 

and be found free of Cytosphaera 

mangiferae and Macrophoma 

mangiferae, or (3) the orchard of origin 

be treated with a broad-spectrum 

fungicidal application during the 

growing season, be inspected at a time 

prior to the beginning of harvest as 

determined by the mutual agreement 

between APHIS and the NPPO of India, 

and the fruit found free of Cytosphaera 

mangiferae and Macrophoma 

mangiferae. For the bacterium X. 

campestris pv. mangiferaeindicae, we 

proposed that the shipment be 

inspected during preclearance activities 

and found free of X. campestris pv. 

mangiferaeindicae. The required 

phytosanitary certificate would have to 

confirm that one of the three measures 

described above for the fungi and the 

inspection for the bacterium had been 

carried out. 

We solicited comments concerning 

our proposal for 60 days, ending January 

16, 2007. We received three comments 

by that date. The first comment was 

from a private citizen who requested 

that American businesses be allowed to 

import fruit from wherever they like 

without being subject to regulations. 

Such an approach would present an 

unacceptable level of risk. As The Plant 

Protection Act (PPA, 7 U.S.C. 7701 et 

seq.) states, the unregulated movement 

of plant pests, noxious weeds, plants, 

certain biological control organisms, 

plant products, and articles capable of 

harboring plant pests or noxious weeds 

could present an unacceptable risk of 

introducing or spreading plant pests or 

noxious weeds, which is contrary to 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 47 / Monday, March 12, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 10903 

APHIS’ mission to protect American 

agriculture. Therefore, the PPA 

authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture 

to prohibit or restrict the importation, 

entry, exportation, or movement in 

interstate commerce of any plant, plant 

product, biological control organism, 

noxious weed, article, or means of 

conveyance if the Secretary determines 

that the prohibition or restriction is 

necessary to prevent the introduction of 

a plant pest or noxious weed into the 

United States or the dissemination of a 

plant pest or noxious weed within the 

United States. The Secretary of 

Agriculture has delegated this authority 

to APHIS. 

The second comment was from an 

industry group that offered a correction 

to the statement in the proposed rule 

that India contains only one irradiation 

facility. The commenter stated that there 

are multiple food irradiation facilities in 

India, although the commenter did not 

know of the APHIS certification status 

of these additional facilities. To our 

knowledge, India is currently making 

the necessary adjustments to only one 

facility to meet the requirements 

outlined in 7 CFR part 305. Additional 

irradiation facilities can be evaluated for 

APHIS certification, if requested by the 

Government of India. 

The third comment was from a 

representative of the NPPO of India. The 

commenter asked that APHIS work with 

the NPPO of India to reduce the cost of 

the trust fund required by the 

regulations to pay for the cost of 

preclearance activities. APHIS 

acknowledges, and has considered, 

India’s concerns about the cost of the 

preclearance program and we will work 

with the NPPO to explore ways to 

minimize costs. 

The commenter also asked that APHIS 

recognize a secondary government 

agency, The Agricultural and Processed 

Food Products Export Development 

Authority, working on behalf of the 

NPPO of India to implement the 

requirement for the registration of 

packinghouses and orchards within 

India. This request is consistent with 

the terms of the operational workplan, 

which allows the NPPO of an importing 

country or its designee to conduct 

inspections, registration, etc. 

The commenter also requested that 

APHIS forward guidelines for the 

labeling of mango shipments from other 

countries to the NPPO of India in order 

to develop its own guidelines. Due to 

the irradiation requirement for mangoes 

from India, labeling requirements for 

shipments of Indian mangoes will be 

different than mangoes imported from 

other countries. The use of irradiation 

on Indian mangoes also means that, in 

addition to APHIS labeling 

requirements, Indian mangoes must also 

meet Food and Drug Administration 

labeling requirements. Requirements for 

the labeling of shipments of mangoes 

from India will be provided in the 

operational workplan. 

The commenter also suggested 

limiting the additional declarations on 

the phytosanitary certificate to a 

statement regarding the broad spectrum 

fungicidal dip and pest freedom of 

shipments. The commenter stated that 

the additional declarations in the 

proposed rule were needless due to 

preclearance activities already requiring 

pre-export inspection by APHIS. 

Additional declarations are common on 

phytosanitary certificates for fruit and 

vegetable imports and serve to alert 

APHIS inspectors at the port of entry to 

specific pests of concern or specific 

operational procedures that were 

required to be met before import. While 

we do not agree with the statement that 

the additional declarations are needless, 

we agree that the text of the requirement 

could be simplified. Therefore, in this 

final rule, paragraph (e) of § 319.56–2tt 

requires, with respect to the additional 

declaration, that the NPPO confirm that 

(1) The mangoes were subjected to one 

of the pre- or post-harvest mitigation 

options described in § 319.56–2tt(b) and 

(2) the mangoes were inspected during 

preclearance activities and found free of 

Cytosphaera mangiferae, Macrophoma 

mangiferae, and Xanthomonas 

campestris pv. mangiferaeindicae. 

The commenter indicated that 

producers in India may wish to export 

mango varieties other than, or in 

addition to, the three varieties 

mentioned in the proposed rule. We 

mentioned specific varieties in the 

proposed rule’s economic analysis, but 

the regulatory text of the proposed rule 

and this final rule contains no 

limitations on the varieties of mangoes 

that will be eligible for importation into 

the continental United States from 

India. 

The economic analysis in the 

proposed rule stated that the mango 

harvest season in India usually begins in 

April or May and lasts about 2 months. 

The commenter stated that the harvest 

season stretches from March to July. The 

economic analysis in this final rule has 

been updated to reflect the timeframe 

provided by the commenter. That 

change does not affect the conclusions 

of our analysis. 

Finally, the commenter stated that the 

wrapping of pallet-loads of cartons with 

polyethylene prior to leaving the 

treatment facility will not be practical 

for shipments to the United States 

because the final palletization of air 

shipments would be conducted at the 

airport. As an alternative, the 

commenter suggested the use of 

individual, pest-proof boxes with less 

than 1.6 mm netting to protect against 

pests entering the boxes through 

ventilation holes. The regulations in 

§ 305.31(g)(3)(i)(A) provide for the use 

of the individual pest-proof boxes 

suggested by the commenter as a means 

of protecting treated fruit from 

reinfestation. However, the wrapping or 

strapping of pallet-loads of cartons 

referred to by the commenter is required 

under regulations in § 305.31(g)(3)(ii) in 

order to preserve the identity of treated 

lots, which is something that the 

commenter’s suggestion does not 

address. We are willing to work with the 

Indian NPPO to explore alternative 

ways to preserve the identity of treated 

lots in accordance with the applicable 

regulations. 

Therefore, for the reasons given in the 

proposed rule and in this document, we 

are adopting the proposed rule as a final 

rule, with the changes discussed in this 

document. 

Effective Date 

This is a substantive rule that relieves 

restrictions and, pursuant to the 

provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553, may be made 

effective less than 30 days after 

publication in the Federal Register. 

Immediate implementation of this rule 

is necessary to provide relief to those 

persons who are adversely affected by 

restrictions we no longer find 

warranted. The harvest season for 

mangoes from India begins in March. 

Making this rule effective immediately 

will allow interested producers and 

others in the marketing chain to benefit 

during this year’s shipping season. 

Therefore, the Administrator of the 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service has determined that this rule 

should be effective upon publication in 

the Federal Register. 

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

This rule has been reviewed under 

Executive Order 12866. The 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. 

We are amending the fruits and 

vegetables regulations to allow the 

importation into the continental United 

States of mangoes from India under 

certain conditions. As a condition of 

entry, the mangoes must undergo 

irradiation treatment and be 

accompanied by a phytosanitary 

certificate with additional declarations 

providing specific information regarding 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES
10904 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 47 / Monday, March 12, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

2Table of Size Standards based on NAICS 2002 

[Other Noncitrus Fruit Farming: NAICS code 

111339]. Washington, DC: U.S. Small Business 

Administration, effective July 31, 2006. 

3USDA-NASS. 2002 Census of Agriculture, Table 

31. Fruits and Nuts: 2002 and 1997. Washington, 

DC: National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2002. 

4Richard J. Campbell, Ph.D. Senior Curator of 

Tropical Fruit, ‘‘International Mango Festival 2005 

Curator’s Choice Cultivars.’’ Coral Gables, FL: 

Fairchild Tropical Botanic Garden, page updated 

May 31, 2005. (http://www.fairchildgarden.org/ 

horticulture/mangocurators.html.) 

5USDA–NASS–FL. Tropical Fruit Acres and 

Trees. Orlando, FL: Florida Agricultural Statistics 

Service, December 11, 2002, and May 12, 2003. 

6The production acreage was withheld to avoid 

disclosing confidential business information for 

individual farms. 

7 ‘‘Organic Mangos Now Coming Out of 

California’’ by Tim Linden. Web site: http:// 

theproducenews.com/storydetail.cfm?ID=6216, 

August 18, 2006. 

8Note: According to a source describing the 

harvesting and packing of Florida mangoes, a carton 

can hold 8 to 20 mangoes depending on the size of 

the fruit, and have a capacity of 14 lbs (6.35 kg) of 

fruit (http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/ 

morton/mango_ars.html). 

9USDA–NASS–HI. Hawaii Tropical Specialty 

Fruits. Honolulu, Hawaii: National Agricultural 

Statistics Service USDA, Hawaii Field Office, 2004 

and 2005 edition. 

Note: Utilized production may include fresh and 

processed utilization. 

10USDA–ERS. Table F–8 Fresh Mangoes: Supply 

and Utilization, 1980 to date. Washington, DC: 

Economic Research Service, October 2006. 

the treatment and inspection of the 

mangoes and the orchards in which they 

were grown. In addition, the mangoes 

will be subject to inspection at the port 

of first arrival. This action allows for the 

importation of mangoes from India into 

the continental United States while 

continuing to provide protection against 

the introduction of quarantine pests. 

Production of mangoes in the United 

States is limited to three States: Florida, 

California, and Hawaii. Due to climatic 

conditions and expanding urbanization 

in areas of production, mangoproducing acreage is small and 

production minimal. We rely heavily on 

imports of fresh mangoes in order to 

meet consumer demand. The majority of 

mangoes produced in Florida, 

California, and Hawaii are destined for 

local markets, with very limited largerscale commercial production. The Small 

Business Administration’s (SBA) size 

standard for mango farming is $750,000 

or less in annual receipts.2 According to 

the 2002 Census of Agriculture, there 

were a total of 623 farms (400 in Florida, 

11 in California, and 212 in Hawaii) 

engaged in mango production. Census 

data did not include annual sale 

valuation statistics for mango-producing 

farms. The exact number of mango 

farms that would be considered small by 

SBA standards is unknown. However, 

based on the small bearing acreage, 

production principally for local 

markets, and our dependence on 

imports to meet domestic demand for 

mangoes, we would expect the majority 

of these operations to be classified as 

small. Below we examine recent 

production in the three mangoproducing States, followed by a 

discussion of foreign supply. 

Florida 

Over 80 percent of mango acreage in 

Florida is located in Miami-Dade 

County, and the remaining acreage is 

located in surrounding areas. Mango 

cultivars commonly grown in Florida, 

which also make up the majority of 

varieties currently exported to the 

United States, are ‘Tommy Atkins,’

‘Keitt,’ ‘Haden,’ and ‘Kent.’ The 2002 

Census of Agriculture states that Florida 

had 400 mango-producing farms with 

1,373 acres.3 By 2003, the most recent 

year for which statistics are available, 

the number of acres had dropped to 

1,300, a 24 percent decline in 3 years. 

Recent estimates indicate that the 

acreage has decreased still further, to a 

modest 1,000 acres in 2005.4 Only two 

new acres of mangoes have been planted 

in Florida since 2000. In a 1997 

production report, the last year these 

statistics were gathered, a mango crop of 

100,000 bushels (5.5 million pounds) 

was harvested, with a price of $14.50 

per bushel, yielding a total value of 

$1.45 million.5 Due to declining 

acreage, and consequently reduced 

harvest yield, production and value 

statistics are no longer maintained. The 

majority of mangoes produced in 

Florida are destined for local farmers’

and specialty markets, or sold as green 

fruit for processing. We are unaware of 

any larger-scale commercial shipments 

of fresh mangoes by Florida producers. 

California 

According to the 2002 Census of 

Agriculture, there were 11 mangoproducing farms in California, with an 

unknown amount of acreage.6 Until 

recently, mangoes produced in 

California were thought to be sold only 

in local markets. However, recent news 

reports indicate that there are two 

commercial mango operations in the 

Coachella Valley of California that sell 

their fruit through the Corona College 

Heights Orange & Lemon Association in 

Corona, CA.7 According to the article, 

the two operations have a combined 

total of 210 bearing acres, yielding about 

275,000 cartons of mangoes 

(approximately 3.8 million pounds), 

with a little less than half being certified 

organic.8 In addition, one of the growers 

expects to have an additional 48 acres 

bearing fruit in 2007. Commercial 

mango production in California is a 

relatively new venture, and is expected 

to grow only gradually. As the article 

points out, the availability of suitable 

land for mangoes is limited due to the 

fruits’ susceptibility to frost. For those 

areas that are not prone to frost, 

producers are reluctant to switch to 

mango production from profitable crops 

such as grapes and citrus because of the 

heavy initial investments and the long 

period between first investment and 

return. The time period between first 

planting and first production is 5 years 

for mango trees, so it is not surprising 

that producers are reluctant to enter into 

this industry. 

Hawaii 

In 2002, the Census of Agriculture 

recorded 212 mango-producing farms in 

Hawaii, but withheld production 

acreage to avoid disclosing information 

for individual operations. In 2004, the 

Hawaiian field office of the National 

Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) 

reported there were 140 farms, with a 

total of 275 acres of crops, of which 200 

acres yielded utilized production of 

380,000 pounds, with a sales value of 

$350,000. Preliminary reports for 2005 

indicate a decrease of 28.5 percent in 

the number of mango farms to 100, but 

an increase in total crop acreage to 295. 

The amount of harvested acres in 2005 

was 190, which represents a slight 

decrease. However, there was a 39.4 

percent increase in utilized production, 

which, combined with a higher farm 

price per pound, yielded a 40.2 percent 

increase in total sales value to 

$586,000.9 The amount of commercial 

production of mangoes in Hawaii is 

unknown at this time; however, we 

believe the majority of production is 

funneled into local markets. 

As is evident, U.S. mango production 

is limited, with most of the fruit sold 

locally. In fact, official supply and 

utilization data maintained by USDA’s 

Economic Research Service (ERS) have 

not recorded domestic production 

figures since 1998. U.S. consumers are 

almost entirely dependent on imports to 

meet domestic demand. Table 1 

presents ERS data on the supply and 

utilization of fresh mangoes, 2002–

2005.10


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 47 / Monday, March 12, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 10905 

11USDA–ERS. Fruit and Tree Nuts Outlook. May 

25, 2006. 

12USDA–ERS. Fruit and Tree Nuts Briefing 

Room. Updated: October 8, 2004. 

13This mango variety is also known as ‘Alfonso’. 

14Source: A Qualitative, Pathway-Initiated Pest 

Risk Assessment, prepared June 2006 (APHIS). 

Note: The average container used to ship mangoes 

from South America is a 44-foot container, having 

an average capacity of 22 pallets. Each pallet holds 

an average 200 boxes. The average weight of each 

box is 5.0 kilogram (kg). Thus, the total weight of 

each container is 200 boxes × 5.0 kg × 22 pallet = 

22,000 kg (48,501.70 lbs.). Source: Adly Ibrahim 

(APHIS). 

TABLE 1.—FRESH MANGOES SUPPLY AND UTILIZATION

Year 

Utilization 

Imports Total supply Exports 

Consumption 

Total Per capita 

Million pounds Pounds 

2002 ..................................................................................... 580.6 580.6 11.8 568.8 1.97 

2003 ..................................................................................... 613.8 613.8 14.5 599.4 2.06 

2004 ..................................................................................... 609.2 609.2 17.1 592.1 2.01 

2005 ..................................................................................... 575.1 575.1 18.3 556.7 1.88 

As is evident from the data, annual 

consumption of fresh mangoes in 2005 

was 1.88 pounds per person, down 

slightly from a historic high of a little 

over 2 pounds per person reached in 

2003. Industry experts correlate this 

decline with lower imports, and believe 

the downward trend in consumption 

will be reversed as preliminary data 

indicates imports were higher in 2006.11

In 2005, 575.1 million pounds of fresh 

mangoes were imported into the United 

States, which was a decline from the 

previous year when imports totaled 

609.2 million pounds. Table 2 

highlights the volume of fresh mango 

imports for the calendar year 2005 from 

the top five countries. 

TABLE 2.—FRESH MANGO IMPORTS, VOLUME AND VALUE, JANUARY–DECEMBER 2005 

Country Imports 

9/1–5/31 

Imports 

6/1–8/31 

Total yearly 

imports 

Value 

9/1–5/31 

Value 

6/1–8/31 

Total yearly 

value 

Million pounds 1,000 dollars 

Mexico ...................................................... 169.7 180.7 350.4 $51,707 $51,603 $103,310 

Peru .......................................................... 65.8 ........................ 65.8 21,522 ........................ 21,522 

Brazil ........................................................ 56.0 1.6 57.6 17,638 585 18,223 

Ecuador .................................................... 53.1 ........................ 53.1 13,476 ........................ 13,476 

Haiti .......................................................... 11.4 9.2 20.7 3,886 3,457 7,343 

World total ......................................... 382.9 192.1 575.0 113,309 55,808 169,117 

Data source: Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, Foreign Trade Statistics. 

Note: HS Codes used were 0804504040 (mangoes fresh, entered 9/1–5/31) and 0804506040 (mangoes fresh, entered 6/1–8/31). 

The 2005 trade statistics indicate 

fresh mangoes were imported from 13 

countries, with the overwhelming 

majority originating from countries in 

Central and South America. Although 

the United States imports mangoes from 

many countries, Mexico is the major 

supplier, with a market share of more 

than 60 percent of the annual import 

volume, and therefore, essentially 60 

percent of the U.S. supply of mangoes. 

Interestingly, though, Mexico is only the 

fourth leading producer of mangoes, 

trailing behind India, China, and 

Thailand. Its proximity to the United 

States and participation in the North 

American Free Trade Agreement 

(NAFTA) provide advantages over other 

exporting countries of lower transport 

costs and reduced or no tariffs.12

Although this final rule will allow 

imports of all mango varieties, 

according to comments received on the 

proposed rule, producers in India are 

currently interested in exporting six 

varieties of mangoes to the United 

States—‘Kesar,’ ‘Alfonse,’ 13

‘Banganpalli,’ ‘Lagra,’ ‘Dussehry,’ and 

‘Neelam’—from four States: Andhra 

Pradesh, Gujarat, Maharashtra, and 

Uttar Pradesh. Based on a site visit 

conducted by APHIS officials, we 

believe the majority of exports would 

originate from Gujarat and Maharashtra, 

where there are two and six production 

areas, respectively, producing ‘Kesar’

and ‘Alfonse’ varieties. Comments 

received on the proposed rule indicate 

that the harvest season in India stretches 

from March to July. According to the 

request from the Government of India, 

the quantity of mangoes exported to the 

United States would be about 100 sea 

containers per year.14 With India being 

the world leader in mango production, 

and a typical export packinghouse 

having a shipping capacity of 40–50 

metric tons (over 88,000 lbs.) per day for 

45–50 days of the harvest season, the 

amount imported into the United States 

would likely only be limited by U.S. 

market forces. Entry of Indian mangoes 

into the domestic market would provide 

increased variety and greater selection 

for consumers in the continental United 

States. 

The overwhelming majority of 

mangoes produced domestically are 

sold in local markets. Even though this 

final rule will result in an overall 

increase in fresh mango imports, and 

thus, an increase in domestic supply, 

we do not anticipate the price impacts 

on domestic mango producers to be 

large. Indian mangoes would primarily 

compete for market share against other 

imported mangoes. Based on the higher 

transportation costs alone, we would 

expect the price of Indian mangoes to be 

higher than mangoes coming from 

countries currently exporting to the 

United States. Statistics show that in 

2004, the export price of Indian 

mangoes ($595.95/metric tonne) was 16 

percent higher than the export price of 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES
10906 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 47 / Monday, March 12, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

15FAOSTAT–TradeSTAT. Food and Agriculture 

Organization of the United Nations Trade 

Databases. (http://faostat.fao.org.) 

16The Asian Population: 2000, Census 2000 Brief. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, 

Economics and Statistics Administration, U.S. 

Census Bureau, issued February 2002. 

17SBA size standards are as follows: NAICS code 

424480: 100 employees or less; NAICS code 445230: 

$6.5 million or less in annual receipts; NAICS code 

454113 (Note: includes those operations that engage 

in direct catalog sales): $23 million or less in annual 

receipts. 

18Establishment and Firm Size based on 2002 

Economic Census. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics 

Administration, U.S. Census Bureau, issued 

December 2005 (wholesale trade) and November 

2005 (retail trade). 

19 Go to http://www.regulations.gov, click on the 

‘‘Advanced Search’’ tab and select ‘‘Docket Search.’’

In the Docket ID field, enter APHIS–2006–0121, 

click on ‘‘Submit,’’ then click on the Docket ID link 

in the search results page. The environmental 

assessment and finding of no significant impact will 

appear in the resulting list of documents. 

mangoes from Mexico ($511.96/metric 

tonne), our primary supplier.15

In order to compete with other 

countries importing mangoes into the 

United States, India expects to first 

target niche and gourmet markets by 

promoting the mangoes as premium 

quality fruit. Producers indicated to the 

APHIS site visit team that initially, the 

mangoes are expected to be sold through 

premium catalog sales and/or in 

specialty and ethnic grocers, after which 

the mangoes would then be sold in the 

regular retail sector. Additionally, we 

expect that India would initially target 

those geographic areas and markets with 

high concentrations of Asian and SouthAsian persons. According to the United 

States Census in 2000, 11.9 million 

people, or 4.2 percent of the population, 

identified themselves as Asian. The 10 

states with the largest Asian 

demographic in 2000 were California, 

New York, Hawaii, Texas, New Jersey, 

Illinois, Washington, Florida, Virginia, 

and Massachusetts, which combined 

represent 75 percent of the Asian 

population in the United States. 

Regionally, the West and the Northeast 

have the largest concentrations of 

Asians. Asian Indians represented the 

third largest specified Asian group, with 

a total of 1.9 million people who 

reported Asian Indian alone or in 

combination with at least one other race 

or Asian group.16

Usually, economic theory dictates that 

an overall increase in supply of a 

particular commodity would trigger 

downward pressure on price and result 

in reduced market share for domestic 

producers of that commodity. However, 

we believe the effects on domestic 

producers of this final rule would be 

minimal, in light of the predominance 

of imports and the specialty markets 

that India is expected to target. Other 

industries that may be affected by this 

final rule, as categorized in the North 

American Industry Classification 

System (NAICS), are Fresh Fruit and 

Vegetable Merchant Wholesalers 

(NAICS 424480), Fruit and Vegetable 

Markets (NAICS 445230), and MailOrder Houses (NAICS 454113).17 All of 

these industries are primarily comprised 

of small entities. There were 4,644 fruit 

and vegetable merchant establishments 

that operated for the entire year, with 

4,436 of them, or 95.5 percent, operating 

with fewer than 100 employees. Of the 

2,257 fruit and vegetable market 

establishments that operated for the 

entire year, only 84 of them had sales 

of over $5 million, leaving over 96 

percent of these establishments with 

sales less than $5 million. Lastly, there 

were 8,224 establishments classified 

under the NAICS code for mail-order 

houses, of which 7,319 of them, or about 

89 percent, had annual sales of less than 

$10 million.18 All of the above 

industries may benefit from this final 

rule by having access to Indian 

mangoes, which could bolster sales 

volume and annual revenue. Based on 

the research we have conducted and the 

lack of comments on the proposed rule 

that would suggest otherwise, we expect 

the benefits of opening the market to 

Indian mangoes would outweigh any 

expected costs to domestic producers. 

The final rule will only allow the 

importation of commercial shipments of 

fresh mangoes from India provided they 

meet specific phytosanitary 

requirements. The requirements in this 

final rule include treatment in India of 

mango fruit with irradiation using a 

minimum absorbed dose of 400 gray, 

and preclearance inspection for those 

pests not targeted by the irradiation 

treatment. The NPPO of India will enter 

into a trust fund agreement with APHIS 

to provide for all expenses incurred by 

APHIS while performing preclearance 

activities, including salaries and 

administrative, travel, and other 

incidental expenses. Costs, if any, not 

covered by the trust fund will be 

minimal. In addition to irradiation and 

other preclearance activities, current 

regulations set out a course of action if, 

on inspection at the port of arrival, any 

actionable pest or pathogen is 

identified. We believe these riskmitigating phytosanitary measures are 

sufficient to protect against the 

introduction of quarantine plant pests 

into the continental United States 

associated with the importation of 

mangoes from India. 

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 mangoes to be 

imported into the United States from 

India. State and local laws and 

regulations regarding mangoes 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-bycase 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. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

An environmental assessment was 

prepared for, and made available for 

public comment through, the proposed 

rule for this rulemaking. No comments 

regarding the environmental assessment 

were received during the comment 

period for the proposed rule. The 

environmental assessment provides a 

basis for the conclusion that the 

importation of mangoes under the 

conditions specified in this rule will not 

have a significant impact on the quality 

of the human environment. Based on 

the finding of no significant impact, the 

Administrator of the Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service has 

determined that an environmental 

impact statement need not be prepared. 

The environmental assessment and 

finding of no significant impact were 

prepared in accordance with: (1) The 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 

4321 et seq.), (2) regulations of the 

Council on Environmental Quality for 

implementing the procedural provisions 

of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500–1508), (3) 

USDA regulations implementing NEPA 

(7 CFR part 1b), and (4) APHIS’ NEPA 

Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 

372). 

The environmental assessment and 

finding of no significant impact may be 

viewed on the Regulations.gov Web 

site.19 Copies of the environmental 

assessment and finding of no significant 

impact are also available for public 

inspection at USDA, room 1141, South 

Building, 14th Street and Independence 

Avenue SW., Washington, DC, between 

8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 47 / Monday, March 12, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 10907 

Friday, except holidays. Persons 

wishing to inspect copies are requested 

to call ahead on (202) 690–2817 to 

facilitate entry into the reading room. In 

addition, copies may be obtained by 

writing to the individual listed under 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

In accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 

et seq.), the information collection or 

recordkeeping requirements included in 

this rule have been approved by the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) under OMB control number 

0579–0312. 

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) 734–7477. 

List of Subjects 

7 CFR Part 305 

Irradiation, Phytosanitary treatment, 

Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

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 

parts 305 and 319 as follows: 

PART 305—PHYTOSANITARY 

TREATMENTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 305 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7701–7772 and 7781–

7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 

2.80, and 371.3. 

■ 2. In § 305.2, the table in paragraph 

(h)(2)(i) is amended by adding, under 

India, an entry for mango to read as 

follows: 

§ 305.2 Approved treatments. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(i) * * * 

Location Commodity Pest Treatment schedule 

* * * * * * * 

India 

* * * * * * * 

Mango ................................ Plant pests of the class Insecta except pupae and 

adults of the order Lepidoptera.

IR 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

PART 319—FOREIGN QUARANTINE 

NOTICES 

■ 3. 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. 

■ 4. A new § 319.56–2tt is added to read 

as follows: 

§ 319.56–2tt Conditions governing the 

entry of mangoes from India. 

Mangoes (Mangifera indica) may be 

imported into the continental United 

States from India only under the 

following conditions: 

(a) The mangoes must be treated in 

India with irradiation by receiving a 

minimum absorbed dose of 400 Gy in 

accordance with § 305.31 of this 

chapter. 

(b) The risks presented by 

Cytosphaera mangiferae and 

Macrophoma mangiferae must be 

addressed in one of the following ways: 

(1) The mangoes are treated with a 

broad-spectrum post-harvest fungicidal 

dip; or 

(2) The orchard of origin is inspected 

prior to the beginning of harvest as 

determined by the mutual agreement 

between APHIS and the national plant 

protection organization (NPPO) of India 

and the orchard is found free of 

Cytosphaera mangiferae and 

Macrophoma mangiferae; or 

(3) The orchard of origin is treated 

with a broad-spectrum fungicide during 

the growing season and is inspected 

prior to the beginning of harvest as 

determined by the mutual agreement 

between APHIS and the NPPO of India 

and the fruit found free of Cytosphaera 

mangiferae and Macrophoma 

mangiferae. 

(c) Each consignment of mangoes 

must be inspected jointly by APHIS and 

the NPPO of India as part of the 

required preclearance inspection 

activities at a time and in a manner 

determined by mutual agreement 

between APHIS and the NPPO of India. 

(d) The risks presented by 

Cytosphaera mangiferae, Macrophoma 

mangiferae, and Xanthomonas 

campestris pv. mangiferaeindicae must 

be addressed by inspection during 

preclearance activities. 

(e) Each consignment of fruit must be 

inspected jointly by APHIS and the 

NPPO of India and accompanied by a 

phytosanitary certificate issued by the 

NPPO of India certifying that the fruit 

received the required irradiation 

treatment. The phytosanitary certificate 

must also bear two additional 

declarations confirming that: 

(1) The mangoes were subjected to 

one of the pre- or post-harvest 

mitigation options described in 

§ 319.56–2tt(b) and 

(2) The mangoes were inspected 

during preclearance activities and found 

free of Cytosphaera mangiferae, 

Macrophoma mangiferae, and 

Xanthomonas campestris pv. 

mangiferaeindicae. 

(f) The mangoes may be imported in 

commercial consignments only. 

Approved by the Office of Management 

and Budget under control number 0579–

0312) 

Done in Washington, DC, this 7th day of 

March 2007. 

Kevin Shea, 

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. E7–4444 Filed 3–9–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with RULES