This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains documents other than rules or

proposed rules that are applicable to the

public. Notices of hearings and investigations,

committee meetings, agency decisions and

rulings, delegations of authority, filing of

petitions and applications and agency

statements of organization and functions are

examples of documents appearing in this

section.

Notices Federal Register

85935 

Vol. 89, No. 209 

Tuesday, October 29, 2024 

1To view the notice, the supporting documents, 

and the comments received, go to 

www.regulations.gov. Enter APHIS–2019–0013 in 

the Search field. 

2Soursop is also commonly referred to as 

guanabana. 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

[Docket No. APHIS–2019–0013] 

Importation of Fresh Soursop Fruit 

(Annona muricata) From Mexico 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 soursop fruit 

(Annona muricata), also known as 

guanabana, from Mexico into the 

continental United States. Based on 

findings of a pest risk analysis, which 

we made available to the public for 

review and comment through a previous 

notice, we have determined 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 

fresh soursop fruit from Mexico. 

DATES: Imports may be authorized 

beginning October 29, 2024. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Marc Phillips, Senior Regulatory Policy 

Specialist, PPQ, APHIS, USDA, 4700 

River Road, Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 

20737; (301) 851–2114; marc.phillips@

usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Under the regulations in ‘‘Subpart L— 

Fruits and Vegetables’’ (7 CFR 319.56– 

1 through 319.56–12, referred to below 

as the regulations), the Animal and 

Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) 

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 or disseminated 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 

proposes to authorize the importation of 

a fruit or vegetable into the United 

States if, based on findings of a PRA, we 

determine that the measures can 

mitigate the plant pest risk associated 

with the importation of that fruit or 

vegetable. APHIS then 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 will issue 

a subsequent Federal Register notice 

announcing whether or not we will 

authorize the importation of the fruit or 

vegetable subject to the phytosanitary 

measures specified in the notice. 

In accordance with that process, we 

published a notice 1 in the Federal 

Register on May 2, 2019 (84 FR 18764– 

18765, Docket No. APHIS–2019–0013), 

in which we announced the availability, 

for review and comment, of a PRA that 

evaluated the risks associated with the 

importation of fresh soursop 2 (Annona 

muricata) fruit from Mexico into the 

continental United States. The PRA 

consisted of a pest list identifying pests 

of quarantine significance that could 

follow the pathway of the importation of 

fresh soursop fruit into the continental 

United States from Mexico and a risk 

management document (RMD) 

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 July 1, 2019. 

Based on a public request to extend the 

comment period, APHIS did so, and the 

extended comment period closed on 

August 2, 2019. We received 28 

comments by the close of the comment 

period. They were from the national 

plant protection organization (NPPO) of 

Mexico, an industry group representing 

Mexican fruit packers, State 

departments of agriculture within the 

United States, a county government, a 

committee representing domestic 

avocado producers, a trade association 

representing domestic citrus producers, 

an agricultural extension agent, 

domestic soursop producers, and 

private citizens. 

We have categorized the comments 

according to topic areas, summarizing 

and responding to each comment below. 

General Comments 

One commenter stated that Mexico’s 

NPPO and authorities lack the expertise 

necessary to implement the systems 

approach, particularly phytosanitary 

inspections. 

We consider the NPPO of Mexico to 

have sufficient training to conduct 

phytosanitary inspections, which are 

required for the importation of many 

commodities from Mexico, and which 

are conducted routinely. 

Several commenters stated that 

Mexico lacked sufficient personnel to 

conduct phytosanitary inspections. 

APHIS will require that a 

phytosanitary inspection is conducted 

by the NPPO of Mexico and a 

phytosanitary certificate is issued in 

order for the shipment of soursop to be 

allowed to enter the United States for 

irradiation treatment; shipments that 

lack this phytosanitary certificate will 

be refused entry. However, we have no 

reason to believe that Mexico lacks 

sufficient personnel to perform this task. 

As noted above, phytosanitary 

inspections are performed routinely 

within Mexico, and the NPPO of Mexico 

has not expressed concerns about 

insufficient resources to perform them. 

Several commenters stated that the 

NPPO lacked the integrity and 

incentives for adequate phytosanitary 

inspection; they alleged a history of 

lying and cheating within the NPPO. 

Mexico is a signatory to the World 

Trade Organization’s Sanitary and 

Phytosanitary Agreement. As such, it 

has agreed to respect the phytosanitary 

measures the United States imposes on 

the importation of plants and plant 

products from Mexico when the United 

States demonstrates the need to impose 

these measures in order to protect plant 

health within the United States. The 

pest list that accompanied the initial 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
85936 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 29, 2024 / Notices 

notice provided evidence of such a 

need. 

With that being said, all shipments of 

soursop are subject to inspection at 

ports of entry, and an inspector will 

monitor all irradiation treatments of 

soursop from Mexico and may inspect 

articles prior to irradiation for 

quarantine pests. 

Four comments cited concerns that 

market access to the United States of 

fresh produce from Mexico provides a 

vehicle for illegally transporting drugs, 

money, and/or people. 

The commenters provided no 

evidence to substantiate these concerns. 

However, as noted above, all shipments 

of soursop are subject to inspection at 

ports of entry. 

Several commenters expressed 

concern that APHIS did not describe the 

Mexican chemical control measures in 

its assessment of market access for 

soursop. One of the commenters asked 

whether APHIS has determined that the 

chemicals Mexican producers may use 

on soursop are harmonized with those 

that U.S. producers may use, while 

another asked who will monitor to 

ensure that only chemicals approved for 

use in the United States are applied. 

One of the commenters asked how 

APHIS will ensure that chemicals that 

are harmful to human health are not 

used. 

The United States does not have 

direct control over pesticides that are 

used on food commodities such as 

soursop in other countries, and it will 

fall to the NPPO of Mexico to monitor 

which chemicals are used at registered 

places of production. 

However, there are regulations in the 

United States concerning the 

importation of food to ensure that 

commodities do not enter the United 

States containing illegal pesticide 

residues. Through section 408 of the 

Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 

the Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) has the authority to establish, 

change, or cancel tolerances for food 

commodities. These EPA-set tolerances 

are the maximum levels of pesticide 

residues that have been determined, 

through comprehensive safety 

evaluations, to be safe for human 

consumption. Tolerances apply to both 

food commodities that are grown in the 

United States and food commodities 

that are grown in other countries and 

imported into the United States. The 

EPA tolerance levels are enforced once 

the commodity enters the United States. 

Chemicals such as DDT that are banned 

in the United States do not have 

tolerances on food commodities. Federal 

Government food inspectors are 

responsible for monitoring food 

commodities that enter the United 

States to confirm that tolerance levels 

are not exceeded and that residues of 

pesticide chemicals that are banned in 

the United States are not present on the 

commodities. 

Several commenters stated that, since 

the notice was issued, Mexico had 

experienced a significant and 

widespread outbreak of Mediterranean 

fruit fly (Ceratitis capitata, Medfly) in 

the State of Colima, indicating a 

breakdown of trapping and control 

measures at production sites. One other 

commenter stated that fruit fly 

outbreaks in the area of Mexico 

bordering Texas had become more 

frequent. 

Mexico worked with the United 

Nations Food and Agriculture 

Organization (FAO) and the 

International Atomic Energy Agency’s 

(IAEA’s) technical cooperation program 

and more than 200 technicians to 

employ sterile insect techniques (SIT) 

after a Medfly detection in Colima. 

Mexican authorities, who imposed a 

quarantine on the region during 

eradication efforts, declared the Medfly 

completely eradicated. APHIS 

determined that no fruit fly host 

material was exported to the United 

States from the incident. 

Sterile male medflies in the SIT 

initiative were produced at a facility in 

Mexico, with a design that benefited 

from IAEA expertise, inaugurated in 

2021. It is the second largest in the 

world with a production capacity of 

1,000 million sterile medflies every 

week. The new facility, located in the 

state of Chiapas, focuses on mass 

production of sterile insects. Together 

with the El Pino facility in Guatemala, 

it helps maintain the containment 

barrier that prevents the introduction 

and spread of the pest to northern 

Guatemala, Mexico, and the United 

States. 

Several commenters stated that 

irradiation, the primary mitigation, is 

not failsafe in the event of high 

infestation levels. Several other 

commenters echoed this last point and 

stated that other measures should be 

included in the systems approach to 

ensure that irradiation is effective at 

neutralizing quarantine pests. One 

commenter, the NPPO of Mexico, stated 

that in order to be eligible to export, 

soursop producers in Mexico must be 

registered with the NPPO, and that such 

registration is associated with integrated 

pest management at the place of 

production, including monitoring for 

and control of fruit flies. 

We agree with the commenters who 

stated that fruit fly trapping at places of 

production is warranted in order to 

reduce pest pressures and help ensure 

that the soursop fruit to be irradiated is 

not infested with fruit flies. We have 

added a requirement for pest 

management for fruit flies and other 

pests to the final RMD. We will also 

require places of production to be 

registered with the NPPO of Mexico so 

that the NPPO may monitor the 

placement and servicing of traps; as 

noted by the NPPO of Mexico, this is 

currently a requirement for all soursop 

producers in Mexico who wish to be 

eligible to export soursop. 

Several commenters stated that they 

believe that the introduction of 

quarantine pests from the importation of 

soursop from Mexico is likely because 

the climate in Florida and, especially, 

south Florida is especially suitable to 

the establishment and spread of 

quarantine pests. 

We have determined, for the reasons 

described in this final notice as well as 

the RMD that accompanies this final 

notice, that the measures specified in 

the RMD will effectively mitigate the 

risk associated with the importation of 

soursop from Mexico. 

One commenter asked that APHIS 

employ additional databases in Spanish 

and English to assess pest introduction 

risk. 

APHIS notes that sources in both 

Spanish and English were consulted in 

preparing the quarantine pest list for the 

soursop market access request. 

To facilitate comments from Spanishspeaking members of the public without 

internet access, two commenters 

requested that APHIS provide: Spanish 

translations of APHIS’ website, pest risk 

assessments, and economic documents, 

as well as a means of submitting an 

official comment that did not rely on 

internet access, email access, or access 

to an online portal. The commenters 

also asked that comments received in 

Spanish be translated and taken into 

consideration. 

APHIS affirms the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture’s (USDA’s) overarching 

commitment to environmental justice as 

regards its actions and activities, and, to 

the extent practicable, we do make our 

outreach materials available in 

languages other than English when we 

are aware of stakeholder groups who are 

not native English speakers and who are 

particularly impacted by or interested in 

our actions. We also note that there are 

a variety of free internet tools available 

that will translate documents and web 

pages from one language to another, 

often without charge. However, given 

the more than 7,000 languages currently 

in existence, it is not logistically feasible 

nor equitable to expect the Agency to 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 29, 2024 / Notices 85937 

translate all of its documents into any 

one language. 

Regarding submission of comments, 

consistent with the requirements of the 

eGovernment Act of 2022, APHIS allows 

comments on all of its Federal Register 

documents to be submitted through 

postal mail and considers such 

comments to be official comments, 

regardless of the language of the 

submission. APHIS already endeavors 

and will continue to try to translate 

comments received in languages other 

than English in its consideration of 

comments. However, in order to ensure 

the best or most accurate 

characterization and response to 

comments, APHIS suggests that all 

submissions be made in English. 

Pest List Comments 

As we mentioned previously in this 

document, the initial notice made 

available a pest list that identified pests 

of quarantine significance that could 

follow the pathway of the importation of 

fresh soursop fruit into the continental 

United States from Mexico. These were 

Optatus palmaris Pascoe, the 

Annonaceae fruits weevil, Neosilba 

glaberrima, a lance fly, Anastrepha 

fraterculus (Wiedemann), the South 

American fruit fly, Anastrepha striata 

Schiner, the guava fruit fly, Ceratitis 

capitata, Mediterranean fruit fly or 

Medfly, Nipaecoccus viridis, the 

spherical mealybug, Bephratelloides 

pomorum (Fabricius), the soursop wasp, 

Oenomaus ortygnus, the aquamarine 

hairstreak butterfly, Cerconota anonella, 

the Annona fruit borer, and Talponia 

batesi Heinrich, a moth. No 

introduction of a new quarantine pest 

has occurred in Mexico that would 

infest soursop fruit since APHIS’ 

analysis was completed. 

One commenter faulted the pest list 

for not including Frankliniella difficilis 

among pests it evaluated for the 

importation, noting that the insect is 

impervious to irradiation and has been 

reported as a persistent pest of mamey 

sapote and avocado in Morelos, Mexico. 

While Frankliniella difficilis is 

present in Mexico and while it is a 

quarantine pest for the continental 

United States, APHIS has found no 

evidence to suggest that it is a pest of 

soursop. For these reasons, APHIS did 

not include it in the pest list. 

Another commenter stated that the 

pest list did not include five pests of 

soursop that pose risks to California’s 

agriculture and environment, 

Aleurodicus dispersus, Paracoccus 

marginatus, Pseudococcus 

jackbeardsleyi, Russellaspis pustulans, 

and Bephratelloides cubensis. APHIS 

regards all five of these pests as 

nonactionable, meaning that they are 

none of the following: (1) Quarantine 

pests that are not present in the United 

States; (2) regulated non-quarantine 

pests that are not present in the United 

States; (3) pests that are in the United 

States in limited distribution and under 

official control or are candidates for 

official control; or (4) pests that require 

evaluation for regulatory action. 

Because they are non-actionable, they 

were not included in the pest list. 

A commenter also stated that 

numerous fruit flies attack soursop, 

specifically citing Neosilba glaberrima, 

N. pendula, Anastrepha fraterculus, A. 

ludens, A. obliqua, A. striata, and 

Ceratitis capitata. 

As noted above, Neosilba glaberrima, 

Anastrepha fraterculus, A. striata, and 

Ceratitis capitata were included in the 

pest list as quarantine pests that could 

follow the pathway of the importation of 

soursop from Mexico and thus require 

mitigation. This mitigation is first and 

foremost the irradiation treatment 

required under the systems approach. 

Neosilba pendula, Anastrepha ludens, 

and A. obliqua are listed in Section 1.1 

of the pest list as quarantine pests. 

However, the section indicates that 

there is inadequate evidence for a host 

association of these pests with soursop. 

Hence, we did not develop mitigations 

specific to these pests. Nonetheless, it 

should be noted that all fruit fly species 

are sterilized at 150 Gy, and the dose 

required for this importation will be 400 

Gy. 

The same commenter expressed 

concern that Optatus palmaris, the 

Annonaceae fruits weevil, is a 

significant pest of soursop. 

We included Optatus palmaris in the 

pest list as a quarantine pest that could 

follow the pathway of the importation of 

soursop from Mexico and thus requires 

mitigation. 

The same commenter specifically 

requested inclusion of Lance fly 

(Neosilba batesi); also, the fungal 

diseases black canker (Phomopsis spp.), 

purple blotch (Phytophthora 

palmivora), brown rot (Rhizopus 

stolonifera), burning string (Corticium 

koleroga), and zoned spot (Sclerotium 

coffeicolum), citing references specific 

to soursop in Mexico in support of this 

request. 

Neosilba batesi (Curran) is present in 

Florida and not under official control, 

and it is therefore non-actionable and 

not a quarantine pest for the continental 

United States. Hence, it was not 

included in the pest list. 

With regard to the fungi referenced by 

the commenter, these fungi have been 

reported on other Annona species such 

as A. cherimola, but APHIS found no 

evidence of them on A. muricata. These 

fungi are also ubiquitous in the United 

States, and they are thus both nonactionable and not quarantine pests. 

Another commenter asked APHIS to 

define the basis for its assertion that 

Parlatoria cinerea Hadden, armored 

scale, is not an actionable pest as 

regards soursop importation. The 

commenter asserted that the pest does 

occur on fruit and that no economic 

analysis has been made of its potential 

cost to U.S. producers if it is introduced 

here. 

APHIS acknowledges that Parlatoria 

cinerea Hadden is present in Mexico, 

and it has been reported as a pest of 

Annona muricata. Although it is a 

quarantine pest for the continental 

United States, APHIS has determined 

that fruit for consumption is an unlikely 

pathway for the introduction of 

diaspidid scales, such as Parlatoria 

cinerea, due to their very limited ability 

to disperse to new host plants. Hence, 

it is not an actionable pest at U.S. ports 

of entry. 

A commenter expressed concern that 

APHIS had not assessed the economic 

effect of non-actionable insects, such as 

several scales or mealy bugs that are in 

the United States but not present in 

Florida or south Florida. The 

commenter stated that detection 

probabilities prior to shipment have not 

been determined, also that inspection of 

all fruit loads upon arrival in a locale 

are impossible. The commenter stated 

that, in light of this, there is a possibility 

of introduction of non-actionable pests, 

and that non-actionable pests have 

impacts on farmers. 

As noted in a previous response, a 

pest must be considered actionable if it 

is a pest of quarantine significance that 

is not present in the United States or if 

it is a pest of quarantine significance 

that is in the United States in limited 

distribution and under official control 

or is a candidate for official control. 

Therefore, non-actionable pests do not 

meet either our or the International 

Plant Protection Convention’s definition 

of a quarantine pest, and we do not 

consider specific mitigation measures 

necessary for them. 

However, APHIS has developed a 

program, the Federally Recognized State 

Managed Phytosanitary Program 

(FRSMP), to afford protections to States 

when commodities are determined at a 

port of entry to harbor a plant pest that 

is not a quarantine pest but is of concern 

to a particular State. Information 

regarding the petition process for 

FRSMP is found here: https://

www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/ 

plant_pest_info/frsmp/downloads/ 

petition_guidelines.pdf. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
85938 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 29, 2024 / Notices 

Comments on the RMD 

In the RMD, we proposed that soursop 

from Mexico would have to be 

commercially produced and part of a 

commercial consignment. We further 

indicated that, in order to be considered 

commercially produced, culling of fruit 

prior to shipment would need to occur. 

One commenter questioned culling 

process effectiveness for Opatus 

palmaris, four fruit fly species, and 

three lepidoptera species. The 

commenter stated that, at various stages 

of the pests’ development, these pests 

are internal feeders and may not cause 

visible damage that would result in 

culling. 

The purpose of the irradiation 

treatment described in the RMD is to 

mitigate the risk of internally feeding 

pests, other than lepidoptera, that are 

not detected during a visual inspection. 

Moreover, APHIS disagrees with the 

commenter that these pests may not 

cause visible damage; damage from 

these internal feeders is visible and 

often conspicuous and would lead to 

culling of the fruit by the time it reaches 

a packinghouse. 

We proposed that the soursop would 

have to be irradiated with a minimum 

absorbed dose of 400 Gy and follow the 

requirements of 7 CFR part 305 with 

treatments approved as effective at 

neutralizing quarantine pests. 

One commenter stated that soursop 

should be allowed to be irradiated in the 

continental United States, citing a 

bilateral agreement with Mexico. The 

commenter interpreted the RMD to limit 

irradiation treatment to prior to the 

fruit’s arrival at a port of entry into the 

United States. 

The RMD stated that fruit must be 

irradiated with a minimum absorbed 

dose of 400 Gy and follow the 

requirements of part 305. That part 

contains APHIS’ regulations governing 

phytosanitary treatments. Section 305.9 

contains APHIS’ irradiation treatment 

regulations. The commenter appears to 

be referring to one of the requirements 

for irradiation of imported commodities 

within the United States, which is for 

the NPPO of a country from which 

articles are to be imported into the 

United States to sign a framework 

equivalency workplan with APHIS. 

The commenter is correct that the 

NPPO of Mexico has signed such a 

workplan and met other preconditions 

for domestic irradiation of part 305. The 

RMD therefore allows irradiation of 

soursop at approved facilities within the 

United States. 

Several commenters challenged the 

efficacy of APHIS’ irradiation dosage, 

stating that it may not kill the moth 

lepidoptera pupae and larvae inside the 

soursop fruit. They stated that this is 

acknowledged in the USDA treatment 

manual. The commenters also noted 

that several lepidopteran species, 

including Cerconota anonella, infest 

soursop in Mexico. 

While it is true that irradiation at a 

minimum absorbed dose of 400 Gy may 

not neutralize lepidoptera, irradiation 

was not intended within the RMD as a 

specific mitigation for lepidoptera. As 

noted in the RMD, the lepidoptera of 

quarantine significance listed in the pest 

list, while internal feeders, cause visible 

damage to the fruit that renders it 

unmarketable and would result in it 

being culled. Thus, it is expected that 

the visual inspection required in culling 

would detect the pupal and larval stages 

of the three lepidoptera pests in 

soursop. 

One commenter noted a discrepancy 

between this provision of the RMD and 

the economic effects abstract, or 

economic effects assessment (EEA), that 

accompanied the initial notice. In the 

EEA, we indicated that ‘‘most 

shipments’’ will be irradiated, which 

the commenter pointed out could be as 

little as 51 percent of total shipments. 

The commenter also asserted that the 

EEA did not provide any context about 

which shipments would be subject to 

irradiation and which would not, or 

who would adjudicate whether 

irradiation should be administered to 

the shipment. 

The initial EEA did not clearly state, 

but the initial RMD, our final RMD, and 

this notice all affirm, that all shipments 

will have to be irradiated. 

One commenter questioned Mexico’s 

ability to administer irradiation 

treatment and stated that this should be 

verified through test protocols before we 

allow it to occur for soursop intended 

for export to the United States. In 

contrast, the NPPO of Mexico pointed 

out that they have irradiation facilities 

that have been approved by APHIS and 

have used these facilities to irradiate 

commodities in accordance with part 

305 for more than a decade. Two other 

commenters stated that approval of the 

facilities occurred in November 2008, 

and that pests have not been identified 

on irradiated commodities following 

treatment. These latter commenters 

cited this as evidence that the 

irradiation program in Mexico is well 

established. 

For the reasons cited by the NPPO of 

Mexico and the latter commenters, we 

do not consider it necessary to conduct 

test protocols of irradiation treatment in 

Mexico. However, we must here 

underscore that § 305.9 (a) through (o) 

lays out in detail the provisions 

required for irradiation treatment of any 

imported regulated articles (i.e., fruits, 

vegetables, cut flowers, and foliage), as 

well as such regulated articles moved 

interstate from Hawaii and U.S. 

territories. Protocols and conditions for 

irradiation facilities and their 

certification; compliance, monitoring, 

and interagency agreements; treatment 

framework equivalency workplans; 

related packaging, container, dosage, 

records, inspection; and other 

requirements are all specified therein. 

We proposed that soursop from 

Mexico imported into the United States 

would be subject to inspection at ports 

of arrival into the United States. 

Several commenters stated that portof-entry inspections were insufficient in 

frequency and sampling size to detect 

quarantine pests, particularly fruit fly 

larvae, that may be present in soursop 

from Mexico. 

The RMD prescribes a systems 

approach for the mitigation of plant 

pests of soursop imported from Mexico 

into the United States. As noted 

previously, port-of-entry inspections are 

just one type of inspection of soursop 

within the systems approach and will be 

required for all shipments entering into 

the United States. Additionally, the 

NPPO of Mexico must inspect all 

shipments prior to issuing a 

phytosanitary certificate, and an 

inspector may inspect shipments prior 

to or after irradiation treatment. To that 

end, we reiterate that all shipments will 

have to be treated with irradiation 

treatment for fruit flies. 

Several commenters indicated that 

port-of-entry inspection had failed to 

detect oriental fruit fly (OFF)- 

infestations in imported products, 

leading to a significant outbreak in 

Florida. 

APHIS has no evidence that the OFF 

outbreak was due to insufficient port-ofentry inspections of imported fruit. 

One commenter requested that 

specific eradication and research 

programs, as well as commitments of 

resources, be in place to mitigate 

potential pest introduction impact. 

Another commenter stated that 

treatment of soursop for pests upon 

entry to the United States, as well as 

within Mexico, should be allowed. 

The comments presume a likelihood 

that APHIS’ prescribed systems 

approach will fail to mitigate pest 

introduction to the United States. 

APHIS would not entertain the market 

access for soursop if it lacked 

confidence that a systems approach 

would prevent quarantine pests from 

following the pathway of importation 

into the United States. APHIS does not 

find that the comments provided 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 29, 2024 / Notices 85939 

evidence that contravenes the efficacy of 

the systems approach or supports denial 

of the market access to soursop. 

Finally, a commenter asked APHIS to 

have laboratories test soursop fruit 

before it is taken for supply to the 

United States. Specifically, the 

commenter asked that the fruit be 

required to ripen and overripen in 

laboratories in Mexico before being 

allowed to be shipped to the United 

States, citing a protocol for durian from 

Mexico that the commenter asserted to 

be operational and effective as a 

precedent. 

We are uncertain what protocol the 

commenter is referring to. The import 

requirements for durian from Mexico 

are that it must be accompanied by a 

permit issued by APHIS and is subject 

to inspection at ports of entry into the 

United States. Nonetheless, we do not 

consider such testing necessary for 

soursop from Mexico to be warranted. 

For the reasons set forth in the initial 

RMD, the revised RMD, and this notice, 

we consider the mitigations of the 

revised RMD to be sufficient to address 

the plant pest risk associated with the 

importation of soursop from Mexico. 

Economic Comments 

Three commenters noted that the EEA 

that accompanied the initial notice had 

stated that there was no domestic 

production of soursop in the United 

States. The commenters stated that there 

were in fact domestic producers, and 

that APHIS has not conducted analysis 

of imported soursop impact on domestic 

grower wellbeing. The commenters 

provided information from local surveys 

and grower contacts, as well as the 

status of soursop production in Florida. 

APHIS has updated the EEA for the 

soursop market access based on 

information the public provided during 

the comment period. 

Public comments APHIS received in 

2019 suggested a presence of 11 acres of 

commercial soursop production area in 

Florida’s Miami-Dade County, the only 

region in the continental United States 

that has a tropical climate suitable for 

soursop production. Among other 

findings of the revised EEA, Florida’s 

soursop acreage is increasing within this 

limited production area in Miami-Dade 

County, in part because soursops are 

considered as a potential alternative 

cash crop to avocados, the production of 

which has been declining since the 

outbreak of Laurel Wilt disease in 2011. 

Assuming an average yield of 3.2 to 3.6 

tons per acre, APHIS estimates that 

approximately 35 to 40 tons of soursop 

were produced in Florida in 2018. 

The revised EEA, most recently 

updated in 2024, also examines the 

growth of Mexico’s soursop production, 

the relatively stable fresh soursop 

imports from Grenada to the United 

States (presently only Grenada is 

authorized to export fresh soursops to 

the United States), the total acreage 

available for all domestic tropical fruit 

tree production in southern Florida in 

2018, and available economic census 

data for U.S. tropical fruit production 

and commerce to indicate potential 

production areas of soursops in Florida. 

Several commenters stated that 

imports of soursop from Mexico will 

adversely impact the domestic market 

for soursop in Florida. Five commenters 

stated that domestic acreage is slowly 

growing, and the market is niche and 

sensitive to quantity and price 

fluctuations. These latter commenters 

stated that Mexico’s projected shipment 

quantity will disproportionally cut 

soursop prices and pressure the U.S. 

domestic producers to compete with 

one another. 

As noted above, APHIS has revised 

the EEA to take domestic production— 

as well as current import volume from 

Grenada, the only country currently 

authorized to ship fresh soursop to the 

United States—into consideration. 

However, the estimated domestic 

production is only 30 to 35 tons 

annually in southern Florida. In this 

regard, we note that this notice provides 

Mexico with market access to the entire 

continental United States, including 

major metropolitan areas where fresh 

soursop is currently not available. While 

it is possible soursop from Mexico will 

be imported for distribution to Florida, 

it is also possible that it will be 

imported for distribution to other areas 

of the continental United States. 

Additionally, given the currently 

limited scope of the market, allowing 

soursop importation may increase 

consumer awareness of soursop, 

spurring an increase in demand. 

One of the commenters characterized 

APHIS’ assessment as indifferent toward 

domestic soursop producers in that it 

views the market access as only harming 

small entities and merchants. 

Commenters also expressed concern 

that the import will have a negative 

impact on the domestic growers, whom 

the commenters stated are small, familyowned businesses, for a very modest 

and localized domestic demand for 

soursop, which, the commenters stated, 

domestic growers are presently meeting. 

They stated that even with time, 

education, and diversification, demand 

for soursop in the United States could 

not increase to levels justifying this 

imported volume. They stated that the 

domestic supply is seasonally met, and 

APHIS had not conducted an analysis of 

the impacts of additional import volume 

on seasonal or counter-seasonal 

demand. Similarly, one commenter 

characterized domestic production as in 

an ‘‘incubator stage,’’ in which demand 

increases very slowly and influxes of 

product could significantly adversely 

impact the domestic market. 

We cannot with certainty determine 

that consumers will favorably respond 

to fresh soursops with which they are 

not presently familiar. We have thus not 

been able to substantiate the 

commenters’ concerns that domestic 

demand throughout the continental 

United States is localized, seasonal, or 

modest, particularly given that it is not 

currently available in most major 

metropolitan areas in the United States. 

Two commenters stated that domestic 

grower costs are much greater than in 

Mexico for the same crops and that 

cheaply produced soursop imports in 

increased volume will be harmful to 

domestic growers. They believed that 

Mexico’s big scale production at lower 

production costs will overwhelm 

domestic production. 

A commodity’s production costs 

abroad, broadly construed, do not 

necessarily equate to costs of production 

for that commodity when it is required 

to meet stringent standards for 

importation to the United States. In this 

regard, we note that the NPPO of 

Mexico indicated that their export 

program for soursop imposes additional 

requirements on producers that are not 

required of soursop producers that sell 

domestically within Mexico. We also 

note that the other standards of the 

RMD, particularly irradiation, will 

impose other logistics costs to retain 

freshness for soursops’ short shelf-life, 

costs that domestic producers would not 

encounter. 

Ten commenters stated that in 

assessing economic impact of the 

market access request from Mexico, 

APHIS cannot ignore possible pest 

eradication costs, nor effects past 

introductions of pests and diseases have 

had on U.S. growers. They cited 

unintentional pest and disease 

introductions at great, documented 

quarantine expense. Among impacts 

they noted, domestic commercial citrus 

packinghouses have been cut from 88 to 

14. Five commenters in a related 

concern maintained that this 

importation is much more broadly 

economically significant because the 

listed quarantine-able pests pose 

potential risk to Florida’s $120 billion 

agricultural industry. These commenters 

feared a spill-over effect on large 

numbers of avocado growers and their 

$100 million related industry, as they 

are exposed to the same pest and 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
85940 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 29, 2024 / Notices 

3Customs value is generally defined as the price 

actually paid for merchandise when sold for 

exportation to the United States and excludes U.S. 

import duties, freight, insurance and other charges. 

(International Trade Definitions (census.gov). 

4CIF value represents the landed value of the 

product at the first port of arrival in the United 

States. It is computed by adding import charges to 

the Customs value and excludes U.S. import duties. 

(International Trade Definitions (census.gov). 

5On September 30, 2022, the APHIS Fruits and 

Vegetables Import Requirements (FAVIR) database 

was replaced by the ACIR database. 

disease risks as soursop growers in this 

importation. 

We have determined, for the reasons 

described in this final notice, as well as 

the RMD that accompanies this final 

notice, that the measures specified in 

the RMD will effectively mitigate the 

risks associated with the importation of 

soursop from Mexico. Thus, we do not 

believe that the economic losses due to 

pest or disease introduction that the 

commenters feared will materialize, and 

therefore do not need to be analyzed. 

One commenter stated that each time 

the Mediterranean fruit fly has been 

detected in Florida, fewer control 

methods have been available, as the pest 

has been increasingly resistant to aerial 

pesticide spraying. The commenter 

cited one recent eradication cost 

estimate ranging widely from $24 to $56 

million. 

APHIS acknowledges the severity of 

past fruit fly outbreaks in its revised 

EEA, but APHIS reiterates that the 

provisions of the revised RMD will 

address the plant pest risk associated 

with the importation of soursop from 

Mexico, for the reasons set forth in the 

initial RMD, the revised RMD, and this 

document. If we considered those 

mitigations insufficient, we would not 

approve such importation. 

Another commenter asserted that 

meeting soursop demand with domestic 

production is safer and returns dollars 

to the local economy, rather than 

draining the local economy. 

As indicated above, APHIS has no 

information indicating that domestic 

demand for fresh soursop throughout 

the continental United States is met by 

domestic production and distribution, 

which is currently limited and 

localized. Notwithstanding this, under 

the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701 

et seq.), APHIS cannot base its 

determinations on economic cost 

competitiveness considerations or 

economic impacts. 

Another commenter asked APHIS to 

conduct an income impact study of 

domestic grower prices in the event of 

soursop importation, especially if the 

importation is at volumes stated in the 

proposed market access. 

APHIS does not have, nor did 

commenters provide, data that would 

allow us to complete such an analysis. 

However, such an analysis is not 

warranted. The commenter’s stated 

assumption was that imports of soursop 

would directly compete with domestic 

production in areas of current domestic 

distribution. As noted above, we have 

no data suggesting this will occur, 

particularly given the scope of the 

market access and the absence of fresh 

soursop in most major metropolitan 

areas. 

As stated in the revised EEA, we 

evaluated whether it would have an 

impact high enough to trigger a Major 

designation under the Congressional 

Review Act and concluded that it would 

not. In this particular case, the entire 

domestic industry has a market value of 

far less than $100 million. Thus, even a 

complete collapse in the domestic 

soursop price would not be sufficient to 

trigger such a designation. APHIS finds 

no evidence such a collapse will occur, 

and it is possible that soursop imports 

could expand access to other 

metropolitan areas (e.g., cities in 

Arizona, California, and Texas), leading 

to more market access rather than 

additional competition for domestic 

growers. 

In addition to considering the total 

value of the market effects, the revised 

EEA also noted that many of the soursop 

producers are small entities. Precise 

income effects on these growers would 

be difficult for APHIS to determine 

exactly due to the absence of detailed 

data. 

Mexico is a major producer of 

soursops. The production of soursops 

increased rapidly in Mexico up to 2021, 

when Mexican producers grew 39,905 

tons of soursops on 10,012 planted 

acres. That reflected a 380 percent 

increase in production and a 260 

percent increase in planted acreage from 

2000, when 8,321 tons of soursops were 

produced on 2,792 planted acres. In 

2023, this moderated as Mexican 

producers grew 30,121 tons of soursops 

on 8,080 planted acres. That still 

reflected a 262 percent increase in 

production and a 190 percent increase 

in planted acres from 2000. Mexico’s 

NPPO estimates that 200 metric tons of 

fresh soursops would initially be 

exported to the continental United 

States each year if exports were 

authorized. From 2017 to 2023, the 

United States imported an average of 

256 tons of fresh soursops per year from 

Grenada, with an average value of $1.2 

million in Customs value 3 and $1.6 

million in Cost, Insurance, Freight 

import (CIF) value,4 respectively. 

Due to fresh soursop’s short shelf-life, 

all soursops are air-shipped to the 

United States, mainly to Miami. 

However, as already noted, as more 

soursops are imported into the United 

States, the market may expand outside 

the Maimi area to other metropolitan 

regions. In the event of such an 

expansion, domestic soursop producers 

might even be at a slight competitive 

harvest and timely shipping advantage 

for the delicate fruit within the United 

States, over longer imported distances. 

Therefore, in accordance with 

§ 319.56–4(c)(3)(iii), we are announcing 

our decision to authorize the 

importation into the continental United 

States of fresh soursop fruit from 

Mexico subject to the phytosanitary 

measures identified in the RMD that 

accompanies this final notice. 

These conditions will be listed in the 

USDA, APHIS Agricultural Commodity 

Import Requirements (ACIR) database 

(https://acir.aphis.usda.gov/s/).5 In 

addition to these specific measures, 

each shipment must be subject to the 

general requirements listed in § 319.56– 

3 that are applicable to the importation 

of all fruits and vegetables. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

In accordance with the Paperwork 

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

et seq.), the recordkeeping and burden 

requirements associated with this action 

are included under the Office of 

Management and Budget control 

number 0579–0049. 

E-Government Act Compliance 

The Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service is committed to 

compliance with the E- Government Act 

to promote the use of the internet and 

other information technologies, to 

provide increased opportunities for 

citizen access to Government 

information and services, and for other 

purposes. For information pertinent to 

E-Government Act compliance related 

to this notice, please contact Mr. Joseph 

Moxey, APHIS’ Paperwork Reduction 

Act Coordinator, at (301) 851–2533. 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1633, 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 23rd day of 

October 2024. 

Donna Lalli, 

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 2024–25085 Filed 10–28–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES