Importation of 

Fresh Citrus Fruit from 

Uruguay, Including 

Citrus Hybrids and 

Fortunella spp. into the 

Continental 

United States

Environmental Assessment,

December 2012

United States 

Department of 

Agriculture

Marketing and 

Regulatory

Programs

Animal and 

Plant Health 

Inspection 

Service
Importation of Fresh Citrus 

Fruit from Uruguay, including 

Citrus Hybrids and

Fortunella spp. into the 

Continental United States

Environmental Assessment

December 2012

Agency Contact:

Meredith Jones

Import Coordination Specialist

Regulations, Permits, and Manuals

Regulatory Coordination and Compliance 

Plant Protection and Quarantine

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

U.S. Department of Agriculture

4700 River Road, Unit 156

Riverdale, MD 20737

__________________________________________________________

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its 

programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, 

religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family 

status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with 

disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program 

information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s 

TARGET Center at (202) 720–2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 

Room 326–W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, 

DC 20250–9410 or call (202) 720–5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal 

opportunity provider and employer.

__________________________________________________________

Mention of companies or commercial products in this report does not imply 

recommendation or endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture over 

others not mentioned. USDA neither guarantees nor warrants the standard of 

any product mentioned. Product names are mentioned solely to report 

factually on available data and to provide specific information.

__________________________________________________________

This publication reports research involving pesticides. All uses of pesticides 

must be registered by appropriate State and/or Federal agencies before they 

can be recommended. 

__________________________________________________________

CAUTION: Pesticides can be injurious to humans, domestic animals, 

desirable plants, and fish or other wildlife—if they are not handled or applied 

properly. Use all pesticides selectively and carefully. Follow recommended 

practices for the disposal of surplus pesticides and pesticide containers.
Table of Contents

I. Need for the Proposed Action ...................................................... 1

II. Alternatives................................................................................... 2

A. No Action ................................................................................ 2

B. Preferred Alternative ............................................................... 2

III. Environmental Effects................................................................... 4

A. No Action ................................................................................ 4

B. Preferred Alternative ............................................................... 5

IV. Other Environmental Considerations.......................................... 11

A. Endangered Species Act....................................................... 11

B. Executive Order 12114 ......................................................... 11

V. Listing of Agencies and Persons Consulted ............................... 13

VI. References ................................................................................. 14
1

I. Need for the Proposed Action

Under the Plant Protection Act, the United States Department of 

Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

(APHIS) has authority to prohibit or restrict the importation and interstate 

movement of organisms, plant pests, or noxious weeds that may injure or 

cause disease in plants. The regulations in "Subpart—Fruits and 

Vegetables" (7 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) § 319.56–1 through 

319.56–57) 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. 

The Plant Protection Division of the Dirección General de Servicios 

Agrícolas (DGSA), Ministerio de Ganadería, Agricultura y Pesca (MGAP) 

of Uruguay has requested that the United States amend its regulations to 

allow sweet orange (C. sinensis (L.) Osbeck), lemon (C. limon (L.) Burm. 

f.), Mandarin (C. reticulata Blanco, C. clementina Hort. ex. Tanaka, C. 

deliciosa Ten., C. unshiu Marcow.), citrus hybrids, and the citrus-related 

genus Fortunella (F. japonica (Thunb.) Swingle, F. margarita (Lour.) 

Swingle) (hereafter referred to as “citrus fruit”) to be imported into the 

continental United States. To determine the potential pest risks inherent in 

allowing the fresh citrus importation, and to determine mitigations which 

might be effective in combating the pest risk, APHIS reviewed the

proposal and pest risk assessment from Uruguay and revised the pest risk 

assessment (USDA–APHIS, 2012a) and, consequently, prepared a risk 

management analysis (USDA–APHIS, 2012b). 

The pest risk analysis (USDA–APHIS, 2012a) identifies 6 pests of 

quarantine significance present in Uruguay which could be introduced into 

the United States through the importation of fresh citrus fruit:

 Two fruit flies—South American fruit fly, Anastrepha fraterculus 

(Wiedemann), and the Mediterranean fruit fly (Medfly), Ceratitis 

capitata (Wiedemann); 

 Two moths—honeydew moth, Cryptoblabes gnidiella (Millière) 

and the citrus borer, Gymnandrosoma aurantianum (Lima);

 One fungus—causal agent of sweet orange scab disease (SOS), 

Elsinoë australis (Bitanc. & Jenkins); and

 One bacterium—causal agent of Citrus canker disease (Xcc), 

Xanthomonas citri subsp. citri (ex Hasse 1915) Gabriel et al., 1989

(syn.: X. axonopodis pv. citri (Vauterin, et al.)).
2

Based on the pest risk analysis and the risk management analysis, APHIS 

is proposing that, as a condition of entry, fresh citrus fruit from Uruguay

would have to be produced, packed, and transported in accordance with a 

systems approach designed to mitigate the potential risks associated with 

the importation. Such an approach is considered to effectively mitigate 

the risk of introducing plant pests or disease into the United States as a 

result of importing citrus fruit from Uruguay.

This environmental assessment (EA) is designed to satisfy the provisions 

of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 United 

States Code (U.S.C.) 4321, et. seq.) as prescribed in implementing 

regulations adopted by the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR §§ 

1500─1508), and APHIS’ NEPA implementing procedures (7 CFR 372).

II. Alternatives

This analysis evaluates the potential environmental impacts of two

alternatives considered to be effective methods of pest mitigation against

the six pests of concern: (1) the no action alternative, in which the current 

regulations will remain unchanged thus prohibiting the importation of 

fresh citrus fruit from Uruguay, and (2) amending the regulations to allow 

importation of fresh citrus fruit from Uruguay (the preferred alternative). 

Alternatives are discussed in detail below. 

A. No Action

Under the no action alternative, the United States would continue to 

prohibit the importation of fresh citrus fruit from Uruguay. However, in 

compliance with international trade regulations and agreements, the 

United States is required to consider the import request of Uruguay to

determine whether such imports can be made safely using phytosanitary

methods approved for comparable commodities. APHIS has determined 

that the United States may import fresh citrus fruit from Uruguay, under 

certain conditions that are considered to effectively mitigate the risk of 

introducing plant pests or disease (USDA–APHIS, 2012a; USDA, APHIS, 

2012b). The no action alternative, therefore, will not satisfy the need for 

the proposed rule.

B. Preferred Alternative

The preferred alternative would allow importation into the continental 

United States of fresh citrus fruit from Uruguay, subject to specific 

mitigation measures. The preferred alternative is based upon an integrated 

systems approach of incorporating current production standards and 

practices in Uruguay, as well as specific pest-mitigation measures 

designed by APHIS to prevent the introduction of the identified pests. 
3

APHIS proposes to amend the regulations under Subpart – Fruits and 

Vegetables (7 CFR § 319.56-1 through 319.56-57) to allow the 

importation of fresh citrus fruit under a verifiable systems approach which 

includes the following requirements summarized below and described in 

detail in the risk management document (USDA–APHIS, 2012b):

 Only commercially produced citrus fruit registered with DGSA will be 

eligible for export to the United States;

 Importation of citrus fruit only in commercial consignments;

 Registration and monitoring by DGSA of growers and packinghouses 

involved in the export program;

 Grove monitoring and pest control;

 Orchard sanitation;

 Safeguards to prevent pest introduction during packing and transport;

 Cleaning, culling, brushing, and treatment of the packinghouse with a 

surface disinfectant, antifungal treatment, and waxing; 

 All citrus fruit must be treated with the use of irradiation, methyl 

bromide, cold treatment, or methyl bromide fumigation followed by

cold treatment, with the exception of lemons harvested green between 

May 15 and August 31;

 Monthly inspections, starting at least 30 days before harvest and 

continuing until the end of the shipping season, at the packinghouse 

and port-of-export by the DGSA;

 DGSA will certify that places of production from exporting orchards 

have effective fruit fly trapping programs and follow pest control 

guidelines, when necessary, to reduce regulated pest populations;

 Beginning at least 1 year before harvest begins and continuing 

throughout the year, trapping in the orchards for fruit fly monitoring 

must be at a density of at least 2 traps per km2in commercial 

production areas, with at least 2 traps placed in each place of 

production. Traps should be baited with APHIS-approved baits and 

serviced at least once every 2 weeks;

 If more than 0.7 FTD (number of fruit flies per trap per day) of either 

fruit fly is trapped, pesticide bait treatments must be applied in the 

affected place of production in order for the place of production to 

remain eligible to export fruit;

 DGSA must keep records of fruit fly detections for each trap and make 

the records available to APHIS upon request. The records must be 

maintained for at least 1 year.

 Fruit must be packed within 24 hours of harvest in a pest-exclusionary

packinghouse or stored in a degreening chamber in a pest-exclusionary

packinghouse. Fruit must be safeguarded by the following until the 

fruit arrive in the United States:

o a pest-proof screen or plastic tarpaulin while in transit to 

the packinghouse and while awaiting packing,
4

o all openings to the outside of the packinghouse must be 

covered by screening with openings of not more than 

1.6 mm or by some other barrier that prevents pests from 

entering,

o the packinghouse must have double doors at the entrance to 

the facility and at the interior entrance to the area where 

citrus fruit are packed, and 

o fruit must be packed in insect-proof cartons or containers, 

or covered with insect-proof mesh or a plastic tarpaulin for 

transport to the United States.

 Inspection by U.S. port-of-entry authorities;

 Traceback capability (identification of the fruit throughout production, 

packing, and export); and

 Certification that the subject fruits were grown and packed in 

accordance with the proposed requirements, and are free from 

quarantine pests.

Lemon fruit would be eligible for importation without treatment only if 

harvested green and accompanied by an additional declaration stating that 

the lemons were harvested green between May 15 and August 31. The 

general surveillance and multiple inspections at different stages of 

commercial production and export, which would be required by the 

systems approach, are designed to be redundant, thereby helping to ensure 

that the exported fruit is free of the pests of concern (USDA–APHIS, 

2012b). 

The preferred alternative would allow for the importation of citrus fruit

from Uruguay into the United States under certain conditions that mitigate 

the risk of introducing plant pests and disease. The proposed conditions of 

entry are designed solely to protect the United States from quarantine 

pests and diseases, or their vectors, which might follow the pathway of 

imported fresh citrus fruit from Uruguay. Under the preferred alternative, 

it is unlikely that citrus fruit exported for consumption would pose a risk 

to potential U.S. hosts because the likelihood that the quarantine pests are 

present in commercial shipments is low (USDA–APHIS, 2012b). 

 

III. Environmental Effects

A. No Action

Under the no action alternative, fresh citrus fruit from Uruguay would not 

be allowed entry into the United States. There would be no environmental 

consequences, including cumulative impacts, in prohibiting the entry of

citrus fruit from Uruguay into the United States because there would be no 

requirements for treating the fruit, and pests associated with fresh citrus

fruit could not be introduced via this pathway. 
5

B. Preferred Alternative

APHIS has evaluated the plant pest risk and has outlined mitigations to 

allow for the safe importation of fresh citrus fruit from Uruguay into the 

continental United States (USDA–APHIS, 2012a and 2012b). The 

Uruguay citrus industry currently uses chemicals to treat groves for citrus 

diseases and pests. Typical pesticide treatments are copper-based 

products. Copper sprays target both bacteria and fungi. Chemical 

treatments commonly used in citrus groves include mancozeb (fungicide), 

abamectin (used to control mites and citrus leafminer), chlorpyrifos (a 

broad spectrum insecticide and miticide), and oil sprays (which target 

scales and mites) (USDA–APHIS, 2012a).

Under the preferred alternative, importation of commercially produced 

citrus fruit from Uruguay would be allowed into the United States under 

certain mitigations. The pest risk assessment identified the following six

pests of quarantine significance associated with the importation of fresh 

citrus fruit imported from Uruguay:

 Two fruit flies—South American fruit fly, Anastrepha fraterculus 

(Wiedemann), and the Mediterranean fruit fly (Medfly), Ceratitis 

capitata (Wiedemann); 

 Two moths—honeydew moth, Cryptoblabes gnidiella (Millière) 

and the citrus borer, Gymnandrosoma aurantianum (Lima);

 One fungus—causal agent of sweet orange scab disease (SOS), 

Elsinoë australis (Bitanc. & Jenkins); and

 One bacterium—causal agent of Citrus canker disease (Xcc), 

Xanthomonas citri subsp. citri (ex Hasse 1915) Gabriel et al., 1989

(syn.: X. axonopodis pv. citri (Vauterin, et al.)).

The risk management analysis outlines the systems approach to mitigate 

the pests of concern, and details how the systems approach is designed to 

prevent any of the identified quarantine pests and pathogens from entering 

the United States with the importation of fresh citrus fruit from Uruguay

(USDA–APHIS, 2012b). In addition to operational procedures that do not 

manifest environmental impacts, this systems approach also requires some 

chemical treatments. Cold treatment, irradiation, or methyl bromide

followed by cold treatment are treatments available to mitigate fruit flies. 

Environmental concerns associated with these mitigations are discussed 

below in greater detail.
6

The proposed systems approach mandates application of copper-based

treatments. Toxicity and risk to nontarget terrestrial plants and animals is 

expected to be low to moderate based on the available toxicity data, the 

form of copper used, and the likely exposure. Toxicity and risk to 

nontarget aquatic organisms is dependent upon the complex of copper that 

exists in aquatic systems. Water quality parameters, such as pH and 

oxidation/reduction potential, can greatly influence the toxicity and 

bioavailability of copper to aquatic organisms (EPA, 2006). Copper-based 

treatments should be applied according to label usage instructions in order 

to avoid exposure to aquatic life. 

If symptoms of a disease of concern are found within a production site, 

additional pesticides may be required. In addition to the copper 

treatments, the following are other types of fungicides may be used to treat 

the pests of concern— 

 Dithiocarbamates—includes products such as ferbam and mancozeb 

(Crop Protection Handbook, 2007). These products tend to have low 

toxicity and risk to terrestrial nontarget organisms, and high to 

moderate toxicity to aquatic invertebrates and fish, depending on the 

test species and fungicide (EPA, 2008). 

 Strobilurins—includes products such as azoxystrobin, pyraclostrobin,

and trifloxystrobin (Crop Protection Handbook, 2007). These products 

also have low toxicity and risk to terrestrial nontarget organisms, 

however, are highly toxic to aquatic organisms, particularly aquatic 

invertebrates. Nevertheless, the parent material for most of the 

strobilurin fungicides breaks down rapidly to a less toxic acid 

metabolite which greatly reduces the risk to aquatic fauna (EPA, 

2008). 

 Carboxamides—includes iprodione (Crop Protection Handbook, 

2007). Products such as iprodione have favorable mammalian and 

avian toxicity profiles; when considering potential exposure, risk is 

expected to be below levels of concern. Iprodione does have some 

toxicity to aquatic organisms similar to the dithiocarbamate class of 

fungicides (EPA, 2008). 

 Benzimidazoles—includes products such as thiophanate-methyl. 

Thiophanate-methyl has low toxicity to nontarget terrestrial organisms,

such as mammals, birds, and pollinators. Thiophanate-methyl does 

exhibit moderate toxicity to aquatic organisms, however, is 

comparatively less toxic than the fungicides mentioned above 

(dithiocarbamates, carboxamides, and the strobilurins) (EPA, 2008). 

1. Copper-based 

Treatments

2. Additional 

Pesticide 

Treatments
7

 Biopesticide phosphorous acid—similar to the other fungicides 

regarding effects and risk to nontarget terrestrial organisms. The acid 

is moderately toxic to fish and aquatic invertebrates (EPA, 2000). 

These fungicides all have low risk to terrestrial nontarget organisms. 

Toxicity to aquatic organisms is higher when compared to the terrestrial 

effects profile, and vary depending on the class of fungicides; however,

adherence to label language and any additional mitigation measures to 

reduce drift and runoff will reduce exposure and subsequent risk to 

nontarget species and the human environment.

Bait sprays will be used in places of production when Medflies are 

detected at a level greater than 0.7 flies per trap per day. The active

ingredient commonly used in bait sprays for treatment of Medfly is either 

malathion or spinosad, although other ingredients may be used. 

Malathion, used in aerial and ground bait spray applications to control 

fruit flies, has very slight to moderate toxicity to birds and mammals, and 

is of low phytotoxicity to most plants. Terrestrial and aquatic 

invertebrates are at risk throughout the treatment area because of high 

exposures and toxicity. Toxicity to terrestrial invertebrates varies from 

moderate to severe. The toxicity of malathion bait spray on honey bees is 

high. Malathion is considered slightly to very highly toxic to fish, and 

highly toxic to the aquatic life stages of amphibians, while its toxicity to 

aquatic invertebrates ranges from moderately toxic to very highly toxic. 

Risk to nontarget organisms varies according to the size of the area treated

and whether it is applied aerially or by ground. Targeted and ground 

applications of bait spray generally present lower risk to birds, mammals,

and aquatic species (USDA–APHIS, 2001).

Spinosad has low toxicity and risk to nontarget birds and mammals, 

however, is considered highly toxic to honey bees. Toxicity to other 

nontarget terrestrial invertebrates is varied, and the toxicity to honey bees 

decreases once application residues have dried. Toxicity to fish is 

considered moderate, while toxicity to aquatic invertebrates ranges from 

slightly toxic to highly toxic, depending on the test species. Aquatic 

insects, such as mosquito larvae, are several times more sensitive than 

aquatic crustaceans, such as cladocerans (EPA, 1997; Thompson et al.,

2000; Bond et al., 2004). 

Under the proposed systems approach, fruit in the packinghouse must be 

treated with at least one of the following treatments: sodium hypoclorite 

(bleach), sodium o-phenylphenate (SOPP), or peroxyacetic acid (PAA).

Bleach, SOPP, and PAA solutions will be used to reduce the risk of 

spreading two diseases of quarantine significance (Xcc and SOS) that may

be on the surface of fruit coming into the packinghouse (USDA–APHIS, 

4. Packinghouse

 Treatments 

3. Bait Sprays
8

2012b). While the concentrated forms of these disinfectant compounds 

are toxic to many living organisms, their typical dilutions are considered 

safe for human use and no adverse environmental impacts associated with 

their use or disposal are anticipated. 

PAA is an oxidizing agent used as a surface disinfectant on citrus fruit. 

PAA is effective against a broad range of micro-organisms and their 

spores, including the citrus canker bacterium (USDA–APHIS, 1999). 

PAA leaves no residue when properly used as it quickly degrades into 

water, carbon dioxide, oxygen, and acetic acid (USDA–APHIS, 1999). 

No adverse environmental impacts are associated with its typical use 

(EPA, 1993). 

The effectiveness of sodium hypochlorite (bleach) can be compromised 

after time and by organic compounds on fruit surfaces (EPA, 2007; Brown 

and Schubert, 1987; FDACS, 2007). The physical action of packinghouse 

brushes on the fruit surface during processing removes organic matter and 

improves the exposure of two pests of quarantine significance (Xcc and 

SOS) to the disinfectant. This removal of organic matter is vital, in 

particular, for the application of bleach to be effective (USDA–APHIS, 

2007a; University of FL, 2004).

According to Brown and Schubert (1987), SOPP is much more effective 

against Xcc than bleach, although, in general, both disinfectant treatments 

do nothing more than disinfect fruit surfaces. SOPP has surfactant 

qualities and is capable of penetrating minor wounds on the surface of 

fruit. SOPP is usually applied at the wash stage, and is followed by a 

water rinse (Miller et al., 2001). 

Under the preferred alternative, all citrus fruit imported to the United 

States from Uruguay would be required to be treated for fruit flies with 

irradiation, methyl bromide fumigation, cold treatment, methyl bromide 

fumigation followed by cold treatment, or bait traps. Lemons are exempt 

from treatment if they are harvested green between May 15 and August 

31. The pheromone attractant used in Medfly traps is not expected to 

cause adverse environmental impacts when used according to label 

instructions. It is unlikely that Uruguay would use cold treatment because 

cold treatment adversely affects the appearance and quality of citrus, 

causing brown spotting on the peel, thus reducing marketability of the fruit 

to consumers in the United States. Similarly, it is not likely that methyl 

bromide fumigation alone would be used to treat citrus because of its 

potential to injure the fruit, thus, negatively impacting marketability. 

However, under combined methyl bromide fumigation and cold treatment, 

methyl bromide concentration and periods of fruit exposure to the gas are 

reduced, potentially lowering the risk of fruit damage. Irradiation is 

unlikely to be used because Uruguay does not currently have a 

5. Treatments 

for Fruit Flies
9

phytosanitary irradiation system available. Although unlikely to be 

adopted in Uruguay under present circumstances, such treatments could 

become feasible in the future. The effects of these treatments are 

discussed in detail below.

a. Cold Treatment

Cold treatment ensures that the fruit is kept at a minimum temperature for 

a minimum number of days to ensure that the pests of concern do not 

remain viable. Cold treatment is initiated once the fruit is packed for 

shipment and generally continues as the fruit is being transported to the 

United States. There will be no effects to humans or to the environment 

with the use of cold treatment.

b. Methyl Bromide Fumigation and Cold Treatment

Methyl bromide fumigation followed by cold treatment will expose the 

fruit to methyl bromide for a limited amount of time such that the fruit is 

not damaged. Fumigation is immediately followed by cold treatment 

which allows the citrus to remain at a minimum temperature for a number 

of days; as such, pests are no longer viable. Adverse impacts to air, soil, 

and water quality are not anticipated because of the limited amount of

methyl bromide used under this treatment and short half-life of this 

chemical in the environment. Methyl bromide is acutely toxic to humans, 

however, with adequate worker personal protective equipment, impacts to 

worker health and safety are not likely. There are no significant 

environmental impacts associated with this treatment.

c. Irradiation

Irradiation treatment involves exposure of the commodity, under 

controlled conditions, either to gamma rays or to electron beams. The 

amount of energy absorbed is expressed in units of Grays (Gy). For 

treatment of fruit flies a minimum absorbed dose of 150 Gy is needed for

neutralization, and a minimum absorbed dose of 400 Gy for neutralization 

of other insect pests, excluding adults and pupae of the order Lepidoptera. 

Neutralization signifies that the insect has been killed, rendered sterile, or

prevented from further development into an adult (USDA–APHIS, 

2007b).

Specific requirements for irradiation treatment facilities used to treat 

commodities imported into the United States are provided in 7 CFR 

§ 305.9. In compliance with these regulations, specific operational 

requirements for each irradiation facility must be provided in an 

operational workplan between the country and the United States.
10

Consumption of irradiated fruits and vegetables poses no significant risk 

to consumers. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Food 

and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a final rule regarding food 

irradiation in 1986 (21 CFR part 179) which states that absorption rates 

below 1,000 Gy will not make food radioactive, affect the safety of the 

food, alter the nutritional value of the food, or adversely affect the balance 

between microbial spoilage organisms and pathogenic organisms.

FDA also determined that no adverse environmental effects are anticipated 

at food processing plants which are designed to irradiate fruits and 

vegetables (FDA, 1982). Properly designed and correctly operated 

commercial irradiators have been routinely shown to function without 

significant radiation risk to workers or the public (CH2M Hill, 1987). A 

written certification by a licensed engineering and safety inspector will be 

issued stating that the facility meets all safety and health requirements for 

safe operation in compliance with 7 CFR § 305.9. Since 2002, 15 

different fruits have been approved for irradiation treatment for movement 

from Hawaii into the continental United States at a minimum absorbed 

dose of 150 or 400 Gy without any observed adverse effects to human 

health or pest risk incident. 

Under the preferred alternative, there would be no environmental impacts

to the United States because the mitigation measures are designed to 

prevent the introduction and dissemination of plant pests into or through 

the continental United States as a result of the movement of citrus fruit

from Uruguay into the continental United States. 

Under the preferred alternative, minimal impact is expected in Uruguay

based on the amount and types of chemicals that would be used to treat for 

citrus pests or diseases. Toxicity and risk to nontarget terrestrial plants 

and animals from these treatments are expected to be low to moderate 

based on the form of copper used and the user’s adherence to label 

instructions. Any additional use of pesticides or bait sprays will depend

upon whether a pest or disease is found. Use of detergent and 

disinfectants during the packing process is expected to result in minimal 

environmental consequences because they are contained within the 

premises of the packinghouse. All chemical applications should be made 

in accordance with label instructions in order to avoid exposure to 

applicators and the environment. No measurable environmental effects 

are anticipated with the use of cold treatment, irradiation, or the 

combination of methyl bromide fumigation and cold treatment in the 

unlikely event that Uruguay utilizes these treatments for fruit flies. 

If it is found that a place of production or packinghouse is not in 

compliance with the requirements specific to the proposed rule, no fruit 

from the place of production or packinghouse will be eligible for export to 

6. Summary
11

the United States until APHIS and the Uruguayan government conducts an 

investigation and appropriate remedial actions have been implemented. 

Cumulative effects to the environment are not expected as no new 

chemical treatments are anticipated to occur as a result of this proposal. 

IV. Other Environmental Considerations

This analysis is being prepared in compliance with NEPA. The APHIS

NEPA implementing procedures require, to the fullest extent possible, the 

integration of all Federal environmental laws and Executive orders with 

the analysis of environmental impacts (7 CFR § 372.7). Of the numerous 

environmental review laws, Executive orders, and departmental or agency 

directives, this section focuses on two that have possible relevance 

concerning potential plant, animal, or human health impacts under the 

preferred alternative.

A. Endangered Species Act

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and its implementing regulations 

require Federal agencies to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(FWS) and/or the National Marine Fisheries Service to ensure their actions 

are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or 

threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat. APHIS has considered the potential effects on threatened 

and endangered species and their habitats from the importation of 

commercially produced fresh citrus fruits, including sweet orange, lemon, 

mandarin, citrus hybrids, and Fortunella species from Uruguay into the 

continental United States. Based upon the phytosanitary protection 

provided by the risk management measures required by the proposed rule 

(USDA–APHIS, 2012b), APHIS has determined that the importation of 

commercially produced fresh citrus fruit from Uruguay into the 

continental United States would have no effect on any endangered or 

threatened species or their critical habitats.

B. Executive Order 12114

Executive Order (EO) 12114, “Environmental Effects Abroad of Major 

Federal Actions,” was reviewed in evaluating the potential environmental 

impact to Uruguay of adopting the preferred alternative. This EO furthers 

the purpose of NEPA with respect to the environment outside the United 

States, its territories, and its possessions. One objective of this EO is to 

“provide information for use by decisionmakers, to heighten awareness of 

and interest in environmental concerns and, as appropriate, to facilitate 

environmental cooperation with foreign nations.” Potential effects to 
12

nations affected by implementation of the preferred alternative and to the 

global environment are to be considered. 

Implementation of the preferred alternative is not expected to have a 

significant effect on the environment outside the United States. No

circumstances that will trigger the need for special environmental review 

are involved in implementing the proposed action. No significant adverse 

effects are anticipated to plants, animals, humans, or the environment in 

Uruguay. The required chemical treatments will take place in Uruguay

before export, and will be monitored for proper usage by authorities in 

Uruguay. Provided that appropriate safety procedures and protocols for

the treatment programs are developed and followed, there should be no 

adverse impacts on the human environment.
13

V. Listing of Agencies and Persons 

Consulted

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

Policy and Program Development 

Environmental and Risk Analysis Services, Unit 149 

Riverdale, MD 20737 

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

Policy and Program Development

Regulatory Analysis and Development, Unit 118

Riverdale, MD 20737

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

Plant Protection and Quarantine 

Planning, Analysis & Regulatory Coordination, Unit 141 

Riverdale, MD 20737 
14

VI. References

Bond, J.G., Marina, C.F., and Williams, T., 2004. The naturally derived 

insecticide spinosad is highly toxic to Aedes and Anopheles mosquito 

larvae. Medical and Veterinary Entomology. 18:50–56.

Brown, G.E., and Schubert, T.S., 1987. Use of Xanthomonas campestris 

pv. vesicatoria to evaluate surface disinfectants for canker quarantine 

treatment of citrus fruit. Plant Disease 71(4):319–323.

CH2M Hill, 1987. Feasibility study for a commodities irradiation facility

in the State of Hawaii (final report and attachments). State of Hawaii.

Crop Protection Handbook, 2007. MeisterPro crop protection handbook. 

EPA—See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

FDA—See U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and 

Drug Administration.

FDACS—See Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug 

Administration, 1982. Proposed regulation for the use of irradiation for 

the treatment of food. Environmental Assessment, September 1982. 

Riverdale, MD.

Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 2007. 

Schedule 17: Treatment of Fresh Fruit: citrus from quarantined areas 

[Online]. Available: http://www.doacs.state.fl.us/pi/canker/pdf/treat.pdf

[2007, January 23].

Miller, W.M., Wardowski, W.F., and Grierson, W., 2001. Packingline 

machinery for Florida citrus packinghouses. Bulletin 239. [Online]. 

Available: http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/AE/AE18400.pdf

Thompson, G.D., Dutton, R., and Sparks, T.C., 2000. Spinosad––a case 

study: an example from a natural products discovery programme. Pest 

Mgt. Sci. 56: 696–702.

University of FL—See University of Florida
15

University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Florida 

Cooperative Extension Service, Plant Pathology Department, 2004 

revision. PP.182: Citrus Canker. (Included in SP–43:2005 Florida Citrus 

Pest Management Guide.) [Online]. Available: 

http://www.doacs.state.fl.us/pi/canker/pdf/treat.pdf [2007, August 13].

USDA, APHIS—See U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine, 2012a. Qualitative pathwayinitiated pest risk assessment for the importation of fresh citrus fruit, 

including sweet orange (C. sinensis (L.) Osbeck), lemon (C. limon (L.) 

Burm. f.), mandarin (C. reticulata Blanco, C. clementina Hort. ex. Tanaka, 

C. deliciosa Ten., C. unshiu Marcow.), citrus hybrids, and the citrusrelated Genus Fortunella (F. japonica (Thunb.) Swingle, F. margarita

(Lour.) Swingle) from Uruguay into the Continental United States.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine, 2012b. Risk management 

document for the importation of fresh citrus fruit, including sweet orange 

(C. sinensis (L.) Osbeck), lemon (C. limon (L.) Burm. f.), mandarin (C. 

reticulata Blanco, C. clementina Hort. ex. Tanaka, C. deliciosa Ten., C. 

unshiu Marcow.), citrus hybrids, and the citrus-related Genus Fortunella

(F. japonica (Thunb.) Swingle, F. margarita (Lour.) Swingle) from 

Uruguay into the Continental United States.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service, 2007a. Revised evaluation of asymptomatic citrus fruit (Citrus

spp.) as a pathway for the introduction of citrus canker disease 

(Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. citri)—February, 2007. U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant 

Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory, Raleigh, NC.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 2007b. Risk management document: movement of the fresh Fruit 

of Garcinia mangostana L. (mangosteen), species of Hylocereus, 

Selenicereus (dragonfruit), Cucumis melo L. (melon), Vigna unguiculata

(L.) Walp, (cowpea and its relatives), Artocarpus altilis (breadfruit), 

Artocarpus heterophyllus (jackfruit), and Moringa oleifera Pods, from 

Hawaii into the continental United States. March 8, 2007. Riverdale, 

MD.
16

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service, 2001. Fruit fly cooperative control program, final environmental 

impact statement—2001. [Online]. Available: 

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/ea/downloads/fffeis.pdf [2008, 

April 14].

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service, 1999. Citrus canker eradication program: environmental 

assessment, April 1999. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and 

Plant Health Inspection Service, Riverdale, MD.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2008. Office of Pesticide 

Programs. Pesticide ecotoxicity database. [Online]. Available:

http://www.ipmcenters.org/pesticides.cfm [2008, March].

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2007. United States 

Environmental Protection Agency: Pesticide product label system. 

Product information for 1677–52, 1677–164, 1677–186, 2792–62, 8764–

53, 63838–2, 65402–3, 65402-6, 72160-1 [Online]. Available: 

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/pestlabels/

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2006. Office of Pesticide 

Programs. Reregistration eligibility decision (RED) for coppers. EPA 

738–R–06–020. 96 pp. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000. Office of Pesticide 

Programs. Phosphorous acid and its ammonium, sodium, and potassium 

salts Mono- and di-potassium salts of phosphorous acid fact sheet.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1997. Office of Pesticide 

Programs. Spinosad: fact sheet for use on cotton. 10 pp.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1993. Reregistration eligibility

decision facts: peroxy compounds. [Online]. Available: 

http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/factsheets/4072fact.pdf