Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2011 / Notices 81469 

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

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

#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2011-0078. 

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 begin issuing permits for 

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 August 17, 2011 (76 FR 

50992–50993, Docket No. APHIS–2011– 

0078), in which we announced the 

availability, for review and comment, of 

a PRA that evaluated the risks 

associated with the importation into the 

continental United States of fresh 

shredded lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) 

from Egypt. The PRA consisted of a risk 

assessment identifying pests of 

quarantine significance that could 

follow the pathway of importation of 

fresh shredded lettuce from Egypt into 

the United States and a risk 

management document identifying 

phytosanitary measures to be applied to 

that commodity to mitigate the pest risk. 

We solicited comments on the notice for 

60 days ending on October 17, 2011. We 

received two comments by that date. 

One comment from a private citizen 

who opposed the importation of 

shredded lettuce from Egypt into the 

United States did not address any 

specific aspect of the PRA. 

The other comment, submitted by an 

agricultural official representing the 

State of Florida, questioned the efficacy 

of the post-harvest phytosanitary 

measures we included in the PRA. The 

commenter agreed with the PRA that 

lettuce from Egypt is potentially a host 

for several species of destructive leaf 

miners but stated that the phytosanitary 

measure of shredding lettuce does not 

remove the risk of their introduction 

into the United States. The commenter 

requested that shipments of shredded 

lettuce from Egypt not be permitted 

entry into Florida until the shipping 

protocol has had time to demonstrate 

the effectiveness of the mitigation 

measures listed in the PRA. 

Only commercial consignments of 

shredded lettuce will be allowed to be 

imported from Egypt. Commercial 

consignments, as defined in § 319.56–2, 

are consignments that an inspector 

identifies as having been imported for 

sale and distribution. Produce grown 

commercially is less likely to be infested 

with plant pests than noncommercial 

consignments. Noncommercial 

consignments are more prone to 

infestations because the commodity is 

often ripe to overripe, could be of a 

variety with unknown susceptibility to 

pests, and is often grown with little or 

no pest control. 

We identified in the PRA 12 pests of 

quarantine significance for lettuce from 

Egypt that are highly unlikely to follow 

the pathway due to the standard postharvest processing practices applied to 

commercial consignments of shredded 

lettuce from Egypt. Although these 11 

arthropods and 1 mollusk affect lettuce 

leaves, we took into account the 

standard commercial post-harvest 

procedures of: (1) Removing outer 

leaves; (2) visual inspection and culling, 

with cutting; (3) shredding; and (4) 

washing and centrifuging. We 

concluded that these procedures 

sufficiently mitigate the risk of 

introducing leaf miners or other plant 

pests through the importation of 

shredded lettuce from Egypt. The 

commenter provided no evidence to 

indicate that these measures would not 

effectively mitigate the pest risk. 

Consignments of shredded lettuce 

from Egypt will also be required to be 

accompanied by a phytosanitary 

certificate of inspection and pest 

freedom issued by the national plant 

protection organization (NPPO) of 

Egypt, with an additional declaration 

stating that the shredded lettuce in the 

consignment had been inspected and 

found free from quarantine pests. This 

condition provides additional 

assurances that the commercial 

production process has removed 

quarantine pests from the commodity. 

For these reasons, APHIS has 

concluded that the mitigations 

described will effectively mitigate the 

pest risk associated with shredded 

lettuce imported from Egypt. 

Accordingly, we have determined that 

no changes to the PRA are necessary 

based on the comment. 

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 

shredded lettuce from Egypt subject to 

the following phytosanitary measures: 

• The shredded lettuce must be 

imported in commercial consignments 

only. 

• Each consignment of shredded 

lettuce leaves must be accompanied by 

a phytosanitary certificate issued by the 

national plant protection organization of 

Egypt with an additional declaration 

stating the following: ‘‘Shredded lettuce 

leaves in this consignment were 

inspected and found free from 

quarantine pests.’’ 

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, 

shredded lettuce from Egypt will be 

subject to the general 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 19th day of 

December 2011. 

Kevin Shea, 

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–33207 Filed 12–27–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

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, 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
81470 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2011 / Notices 

1To 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. 

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. 

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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 28, 2011 / Notices 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 § 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 § 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 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Food and Nutrition Service 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Proposed Collection; 

Comment Request—Special 

Supplemental Nutrition Program for 

Women, Infants and Children (WIC) 

Forms: FNS–698, FNS–699, and FNS– 

700; The Integrity Profile (TIP) 

AGENCY: Food and Nutrition Service, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this 

notice invites the general public and 

other public agencies to comment on 

proposed information collections. 

DATES: Written comments on this notice 

must be received on or before February 

27, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Comments are invited on: 

(a) Whether the proposed collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

agency, including whether the 

information will have practical utility; 

(b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate 

of the burden of the proposed collection 

of information, including the validity of 

the methodology and assumptions used; 

(c) ways to enhance the quality, utility 

and clarity of the information to be 

collected; and (d) ways to minimize the 

burden of the collection of information 

on those who are to respond, including 

through the use of appropriate 

automated, electronic, mechanical, or 

other technological collection 

techniques or other forms of information 

technology. 

Comments may be sent to: Debra 

Whitford, Director, Supplemental Food 

Programs Division, Food and Nutrition 

Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

3101 Park Center Drive, Room 520, 

Alexandria, VA 22302. Comments will 

also be accepted through the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal. Go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, and follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments electronically. 

All responses to this notice will be 

summarized and included in the request 

for OMB approval, and will become a 

matter of public record. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Requests for additional information or 

copies of the information collection 

form and instructions should be 

directed to Joan Carroll, (703) 305–2746. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Title: WIC Financial Management and 

Participation Report with Addendum. 

OMB Number: 0584–0401. 

Expiration Date: 02–29–2012. 

Type of Request: Extension, without 

change, of a Currently Approved 

Collection. 

Abstract: Each year, WIC State 

agencies administering the Special 

Supplemental Nutrition Program for 

Women, Infants and Children (WIC) are 

required by 7 CFR 246.12(j)(5) to submit 

to FNS an annual summary of the 

results of their vendor monitoring 

efforts in order to provide Congress, 

senior FNS officials, as well as the 

general public, assurance that every 

reasonable effort is being made to 

ensure integrity in the WIC Program. 

State agencies use the TIP web-based 

system to report the information. The 

number of State agencies reporting 

remains at 90, which includes 50 

geographic State agencies, 34 Indian 

Tribal Organizations, the District of 

Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, American 

Samoa, the Commonwealth of the 

Northern Marianas, and the Virgin 

Islands. The reporting burden consists 

of three automated forms, the FNS–698, 

FNS–699 and FNS–700. The FNS–698 

and FNS–699 are used to report State 

agency summary data, whereas the 

FNS–700 is used to capture information 

on each authorized WIC vendor. The 

number of vendors authorized by each 

WIC State agency varies from State to 

State. There are no changes in the 

burden hours associated with collection. 

Estimate of Burden: Public reporting 

burden for this collection of information 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES