# Importation of

**Fresh Citrus**  **Fruit from**  **Uruguay, I ncluding**  **Citrus Hybrids and Fortunella**  **spp. into the**  **Continental United**  **States Environmental Assessment,**  **December 20**  **1 2**  **United States Department of**  **Agriculture M**  **arketing and Regulatory**  **Programs Animal and**  **Plant Health Inspection**  **Service**

# Importation of Fresh Citrus

**Fruit from Uruguay**  **, including Citrus Hy**  **brids and Fortunella**  **spp. into the**  **Continental United States**  **Env ironmental**  **As sessment**  **December 20**  **1 2** 

**Ag ency** **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 1 56 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 pro gram 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, W hitten Building, 1400 Indepen dence 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 publicat ion reports research involving pesticides. All uses of pesticides mu st 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 (APHI S) has authorit y 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 widel y 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 s weet o range ( C. sinensis (L .) Osbeck), l emon ( C. limon (L .) Burm. f.), Mandarin ( C. reticulata Blanco, C. clementina Hort. ex. Tanaka, C. deliciosa Ten., C. unshiu Marcow.), citrus h ybrids, and the citrus

- r elated g enus Fortunella (

F. japonica (Thunb.) Swingle, F. margarita (L our.) Swingle) (hereafter referred to as “ citrus f ruit ” ) t o be imported into the continental United States

. To determine the potential pest risks inherent in allowing th e fresh citrus import ation , and to determine mitigations which might be effective in combat ing the pest risk, APHI S reviewe d the proposa l and pest risk assessment from Uruguay and revise d the pest risk assessment (USDA

–APHI S , 20 1 2 a) and , consequently , prepared a risk management anal ys is ( USDA

–APHI S , 20 1 2 b). The pest risk anal ys is (USDA

–APHI S , 20 1 2 a) identifies 6 pests of quarantine sign ificance present in Uruguay which could be introduced into the United States through the importation of fresh c itru s fruit :

 Two f ruit flies

— South American fruit fly , Anastrepha fraterculus (Wied emann), and the Mediterranean fruit fly (Medfly) , Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann) ;

 Two moths

—

honeydew moth, Cryptoblabes gnidiella (Millière) and the citrus borer, Gymnandrosoma aurantianum (L ima) ;

 One f ungus
—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 ( sy n.: X. axonopodis pv. citri (Vauterin , et al. ))

.**2** Based on the pest risk analy sis and the risk management anal ys is , 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 sy stems approach designed to mitigate the potential risks associated with the importation. Such an approach is considered t o effectivel y 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 b y the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR §§ 1500─1508), and APHIS’ NEPA implementing procedures (7 CFR 372). 

## II. **Al ternati**  **ve s**  T his analy sis evaluates the potential environmental impacts of two alternatives considered to be effective methods of pest mitigation against the six pests of concern : (1 ) the n o a ction a lternative , 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 o f fresh citrus fruit from Uruguay (the preferred alternative)

. A lternatives are discussed in detail below. 

### A. **No Ac**  **tion** Under the n o a ction 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 ph yt osanitary methods approved for comparable co mmodities. APHI S 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

–APHI S , 2012 a ; USDA , APHI S, 2012 b). The n o a ction alternative, therefore, will not satisfy the need for the proposed rule. 

### B. Preferred A **lternative** The preferred alternative would allow importation into the continental United States of fresh citrus fruit from Uruguay , subject to specifi c mitigation measures. The preferred alternative is based upon an integrated sy stems approach of incorporat ing current production standards and practices in Uruguay , as well as specific pest

- mitigation measures designed b y APHI S to prevent the introductio n of the identified pest s .**3** APHI S 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 frui t under a verifiable sy stems approach which includes the following requirements summarized below and described in detail in the risk management document (USDA

–APHI S, 2012 b):

 Only commerciall y 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;  C leaning, c ulling , 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 col d treatment, with the exception of lemons harvested green between May 15 and August 31;  M onthly inspections , starting at least 30 day s before harvest and continuing until the end of the shipping season, at the packinghouse and port

- of

- export by

the DGSA ;  D GSA will certify

that places of production from exporting orchards have effective fruit fl y trapping programs and follow pest control guidelines, when necessary , to reduce regulated pest populations;  Beginning at least 1 ye ar before harvest begins and cont inuing throughout the ye ar, trapping in the orchards for fruit fly monitoring must be at a density

of at least 2 traps per km 2 in 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 fl y is trapped, pesticide bait treatments must be applied in the affected place of production in order for the place of prod uction to remain eligible to export fruit ;  DGSA must keep records of fruit fl y detections for each trap and make the records available to APHI S upon request. The records must be maintained for at least 1 year.  Fruit must be packed within 24 hours of harv est in a pest

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

- exclusionary packinghouse. Fruit must be safeguarded b y the following until the fruit arrive in the United States : o a pest
- proof screen or plastic tarpaulin while in transi t to the packinghouse and while awaiting packing ,**4** o a ll openings to the outside of the packinghouse must be covered b y s creening with openings of not more than 1.6 mm or by

some other barrier that prevents pests from entering, o the packinghouse must have dou ble doors at the entrance to the facility

and at the interior entrance to the area where citrus fruit are packed , and o f ruit must be packed in insect

- proof cartons or containers, or covered with insect

- proof mesh or a plastic tarpaulin for transport to the Un ited States

.  Inspection by U.S. port

- of

- entry authorities ;  Traceback capability ( i dentification of the fruit throughout production, packing , and export); and  C ertification 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 inspection s at different stages of commercial production and export , which would be required b y the sy stems approach , are designed to be redundant, thereb y helping to ensure that the exported fruit is free of the pe sts of concern (USDA

–APHIS, 2012 b)

. The p referred a lternative would allow for the importation of citrus fruit from Uruguay into the United States under certain conditions that m itigate the risk of introduc ing plant pests and disease

. The proposed condi tions of entry are designed solel y 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 f

ruit exported for consumption would pose a risk to potential U

. S

. hosts because the likelihood that the quarantine pest s are present in commercial shipments is low (USDA

–APHI S , 2012 b)

. 

## III **. Env**  **ironment al**  **Effect s**  **A. No**  **Ac tion**  Under the no action alternative, fresh c itrus 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 becau se 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 A **lternative** APHI S 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 , 2012 a and 2012 b). The Uruguay citrus industry

currentl y uses chemicals to treat groves for citrus diseases and pests. Ty

pical pesticide treatment s are copper - based products. Copper spray s target both bacteria and fungi. Chemical treatments commonl y used in citrus groves include man c ozeb (fungicide) , a bamectin (used to control mites and citrus leafminer), c hlorp yr ifos ( a broad spectrum insecticide and miticide ) , and oil spray s (which target scales and mites ) ( USDA

–APHI S , 2012 a ). Under the p referred a lternative , importation of commercially produced citrus fruit from Uruguay would be allowed into the United States under certain mitigations. The pes t 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 (Wied emann), and the Mediterranean fruit fly (Medfly) , Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann) ;

 Two moths

—

honeydew moth, Cryptoblabes gnidiella (Millière) and the citrus borer, Gymnandrosoma aurantianum (L ima) ;

 One fungus

—causal agent of sweet orange scab disease (SOS), Elsinoë australis (Bitan c. & Jenkins) ; and

 One bacterium

—causal agent of Citrus canker disease (Xcc) , Xanthomonas citri subsp. citri (ex Hasse 1915) Gabriel et al. , 1989 ( sy n.: X. axonopodis pv. citri (Vauterin , et al.)). The risk management analy sis outline s the sy stems approa ch to mitigate the pests of concern , and details how the sy stems approach is designed to prevent an y of the identified quarantine pests and pathogens from entering the United States with the importation of fresh citrus fruit from Uruguay (USDA

–APHIS , 2012 b ). Inaddition to operational procedures that do not manifest environmental impacts, this sy stems approach also requires some chemical treatments. C old treatment, irradiation , or methyl bromide followed b y cold treatment are treatments available to mitig ate fruit flies

. Environmental concerns associated with these mitigations are discussed below in greater detail.**6** The proposed s ys tems approach mandates application of copper

- based treatments. Toxicity

and risk to nontarget terrestrial plants and animal s 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 qua lity 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. I f sy mptoms 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 o ther ty pes of fungicides may

be used to treat the pe sts of concern

—

 D ithiocarbamate s
—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 invertebrate s and fish , depending on the test species and fungicide (EPA, 2008).

 S trobilurin s
—include s products such as azox ys trobin, py raclostrobin , and triflox ys trobin (Crop Protection Handbook , 2007). These products also have low toxicity

and risk to terrestria l nontarget organisms , however, are highl y toxic to aquatic organisms, particularl y aquatic invertebrates. Nevertheless, the parent material for most of the strobilurin fungicides breaks down rapidl y to a less toxic acid metabolite which greatly

reduces the risk to aquatic fauna (EPA, 2008).

 C arboxamide s
—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).

 B enzimidazole s
—includes products such as thiophanate

- methyl. Thiophanate

- methyl has low toxicity to nontarget ter

restrial organisms , such as mammals, birds, and pollinators. Thiophanate

- methyl does exhibit moderate toxicity to aquatic organisms , however, is comparativel y less toxic than the fungicides mentioned above ( dithiocarbamate s, carboxamide s , and the strobilu rin s) (EPA, 2008). **1. Copper -**  **based Treatments** 

**2. A dditional**  **Pesticide Treatments** **7**  B iopesticide phosphorous acid

— similar to the other fungicides regarding effects and risk to nontarget terrestrial organisms. The acid is moderatel y toxic to fish and aquatic invertebrates (EPA, 2000). The se 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 t o reduce drift and runoff will reduce exposure and subsequent risk to nontarget species and the human environment

. Bait spray s will be used in places of production when Medflies are detected at a level greater than 0. 7 flies per trap per day

. T he active ingredient commonly used in bait spray s for treatment of Medfl y 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 moderat e to xicity to birds and mammals, and is of low phy

totoxicity 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 highl y toxic to the aquatic life stages of amphibians, while its toxicity to aquatic invertebrates ranges from moderat el y toxic to very highly toxic. Risk to nontarget organisms varies according to the size of the area treated and whether it is applied aeriall y or b y ground

. Targeted and ground applications of bait spray generall y present lower risk to birds, mammals , and aquatic species (USDA

–APHI S , 2001 )

. Spinosad has low toxicity and risk to nontarget birds and mammals , however, is considered highl y toxic to honey bees. Toxicity to other nontarget terrestrial invertebrates is varied , and the toxicity to honey bees d ecreases 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 sever al times more sensitive than aquatic crustaceans , such as cladocerans (EPA, 1997 ; Thompson et al., 2000; Bond et al. , 2004). Under the proposed s ys tems approach, fruit i n the packinghouse must be treated with at least one of the following treatments: s odium hy poclorite (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 c oming into the packinghouse (USDA

–APHIS , **4. Packinghouse Treatments**  **3. Bait Spray s** **8** 2012 b)

. While the concentrated forms of these disinfectant compounds are toxic to many

living organisms, their ty pical 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

–APHI S , 1999). PAA leaves no residue when properl y used as it quickly degrades into water, carbon dioxide, oxygen, and acetic acid (USDA

–APHI S , 1999). No adverse environmental impacts are associated with its ty pical use (EPA, 1993). The effectiveness of sodium hy poch lorite (bleach) can be compromised after time and b y organic compounds on fruit surfaces (EPA, 2007; Brown and Schubert, 1987; FDACS, 2007). The phy sical 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 B rown 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 th e 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 frui t flies with irradiation, meth ylbromide fumigation, cold treatment, methyl bromide fumig ation followed b y 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 Medfl y traps is not expected to cause adverse environmental impacts when used according to label instructions. Itis unlikely that Uruguay would use cold treatment because cold treatment adversel y affects the appearance and quality of citrus , caus ing 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 it s potential to injure the fruit, thus, negativel y 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 unl ikely to be used because Uruguay does not currently have a **5. Treatments**  **for Fruit Flies 9**  phy tosanitary irradiation sy stem available . Although unlikel y 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 day s to ensure that the pest s of concern do not remain viable

. C old treatment is initiated once the fr uit 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 .**  **Methy l Bromide Fumigation and Cold Treatment**  Methyl b romide 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. F umigation is immediately followed by

cold treatment which allows the citrus to remain at a minimum tempe rature for a number of day s ; as such , pest s 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 envi ronment
. Methyl bromide is acutely toxic to humans , however, with adequate worker personal protective equipment, impacts to worker health and safety are not likel y. There are no significant environmental impacts associated with this treatment.
**c .**  **Irrad iation**  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 Gray s (Gy). For treatment of fruit flies a minimum absorbed d ose of 150 Gy is needed for neutraliz ation , 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 regulatio ns, 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 p art 179) which states that absorption rates below 1 , 000 Gy

will not make food radioactive, affect the safety of the fo od, alter the nutritional value of the food, or adversel y 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 correctl y operated commercial irradiators have been routinel y shown to function without significant radiation risk to workers or the public (CH2M Hill, 1987). A written certificati on 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 tre atment for movement from Hawaii into the continental United States at a minimum absorbed dose of 150 o r 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 continent al United States. Under the p referred a lternative , minimal impact is expected in Uruguay based on the amount and ty pe s 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 i n 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 Ur

uguay utilize s 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 f or export to **6. Summary 11**  the Uni ted States until APHI S and the Uruguayan government conduct s an investigation and appropriate remedial actions have been implemented. Cumulative effects to the environment are not expected as n o new chemical treatments are anticipate d to occur as a result of this proposal. 

## IV **. Other**  **Env ironment** **al Considerations** This analy sis is being prepared in compliance with NEPA. The APHIS NEPA implementing procedures require, to the fullest extent possible, the integration of all Federal env ironmental laws and E xecutive orders with the anal ys is o f environmental impacts (7 CFR § 372.7). Of the numerous environmental review laws , E xecutive orders, and departmental or agency directives, this section focuses on two that have possible relevance c oncerning potential plant, animal, or human health impacts under the p referred a lternative

. 

### A. **Endangered Species A ct**  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 likel y 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 commerciall y produced fresh citrus fruit s , including sweet orange, lemon, mandarin, citrus hy

brids, and Fortunella species from Uruguay into the continental United States. Based upon the ph yt osanitary protection provided b y the risk management measures requi red by the proposed rule (USDA

–APHIS, 2012 b ), APHI S has determined that the importation of commerciall y produce d 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 Fed eral Actions ,” was reviewed in evaluat ing the potential environmental impact to Uruguay of adopting the p referred a lternative. This E O furthers the purpose of NEPA with respect to the environment outside the United States, its territories , and its possess ions. 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 b y implementation of the p referred a lternative and to the global environment are to be considered. Implementation of the p referred a lternative 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 adver se impact s on the human environment.**13** 

## V. **Listing of Ag**  **encies and Persons Consulted**  U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Policy and Program Development Environmental and Risk Analy sis Services, Unit 149 Riverdale, MD 20737 U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Policy and Program Development Regulatory

Anal ys is and Development , Unit 118 Riverdale, MD 20737 U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Ser vice Plant Protection and Quarantine Planning, Anal ys is & Regulatory Coordination, Unit 141 Riverdale, MD 20737**14** 

## VI **. References**  Bond, J.G., Marina , C.F., and Williams , T., 2004. The naturall y derived insecticide spinosad is highl y toxic to Aedes an d 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 Dis ease 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 c rop p rotection h andbook. 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 Administrat ion, 1982. Proposed regulation for the use of irradiation for the treatment of food. Environmental Assessment, September 1982. Riverdale, M D
. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 2007. Schedule 17: Treatment of Fresh Fruit: citrus from quarantined areas [ O nline]. 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. Packingli ne m achinery

for Florida c itrus p ackinghouses. Bulletin 239

. [ O nline]. Available : http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/AE/AE18400.pdf Thompson, G.D., Dutton , R., and Sparks , T.C., 2000. Sp inosad

–– 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 Servic e, Plant Pathology Department, 2004 revision. P P
. 182: Citrus Canker. ( In cluded in SP

–43:2005 Florida Citrus Pest Management Guide. ) [ O nline]. Available: http://www.doacs.state.fl.us/p i/canker/pdf/treat.pdf [ 2007 , August 13 ]

. USDA , APHI S

— 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, 2012 a. Qu alitative pathway

initiated pest risk a ssessment for the i mportation of f resh c itrus f

ruit, including s weet o range ( C. sinensis (L .) Osbeck), l emon ( C. limon (L .) Burm. f.), m andarin ( C. reticulata Blanco, C. clementina Hort. ex. Tanaka, C. deliciosa Ten., C. unshiu Marcow.), c itrus h yb rids, and the c itrus

r elated Genus Fortunella ( F. japonica (Thunb.) Swingle, F. margarita (L our.) Swingle) from Uruguay into the Continental United States

. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection S ervice, Plant Protection and Quarantine, 2012 b. Risk m anagement document for the i mportation of f resh c itrus f

ruit, including s weet o range ( C. sinensis (L .) Osbeck), l emon ( C. limon (L .) Burm. f.), m andarin ( C. reticulata Blanco, C. clementina Hort. ex. T anaka, C. deliciosa Ten., C. unshiu Marcow.), c itrus hybrids, and the c itrus

- r elated Genus Fortunella ( F. japonica (Thunb.) Swingle, F. margarita (L our.) Swingle) from Uruguay into the Continental United States. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 2007 a . Revised evaluation of as ymptomatic 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 Analy sis Laboratory , Raleigh, NC. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 2007b. Risk m anagement d ocument: m ovement of the f resh Fruit of Garcinia mangostan a L. (mangosteen), s pecies of Hylocereus, Selenicereus ( dragonfruit), Cucumis melo L. (m elon), Vigna unguiculata (L .) Walp, ( c owpea and its relatives), Artocarpus altilis (b readfruit), Artocarpus heterophyllus ( j ackfruit), and Moringa oleifera Pods, from H awaii into the c ontinental United States. March 8, 2007. Riverdale, MD.**16** U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 2001

. Fruit f

ly c ooperative c ontrol p rogram, f inal e nvironmental i mpact s tatement

—2001. [ O nline]. Avai lable: 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 c anker e radication p rogram: 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 e cotoxicity d atabase. [ O nline]. Available: http://www.ipmcenters.org/pesticides.cfm [2008 , March ]. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency , 2007. United States Environmental Protection Agency : Pesticide p roduct l abel s ys tem. Product information for 1677

– 52, 1677

– 164, 1677

– 186, 27 92

– 62, 8764

– 53, 63838

–2, 65402

– 3, 65402

- 6, 72160

- 1 [ O nline]. Available: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/pestlabels/ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency , 2006
. Office of Pesticide Programs. Rereg istration e ligibility d ecision (RED) for c oppers. 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 phospho rous acid f act s heet. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency , 1997
. Office of Pesticide Programs. Spinosad: f

act sheet for use on cotton. 10 pp. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency , 1993. Reregistration e ligibility d ecision f acts: p eroxy c ompounds

. [ O nline]. Available: http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/factsheets/4072fact.pdf