[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 209 (Tuesday, October 29, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 85935-85940]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-25085]


========================================================================
Notices
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

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.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 29, 2024 / 
Notices

[[Page 85935]]



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; <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1d707c6f7e336d75747171746d6e5d686e797c337a726b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="97faf6e5f4b9e7fffefbfbfee7e4d7e2e4f3f6b9f0f8e1">[email protected]</span></a>.

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ To view the notice, the supporting documents, and the 
comments received, go to www.regulations.gov. Enter APHIS-2019-0013 
in the Search field.
    \2\ Soursop is also commonly referred to as guanabana.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 85936]]

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 Spanish-speaking 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

[[Page 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 non-actionable 
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.

[[Page 85938]]

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 Sec.  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 port-of-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-of-entry 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

[[Page 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, family-
owned 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

[[Page 85940]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Customs 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).
    \4\ CIF 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 Sec.  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 
Sec.  319.56-3 that are applicable to the importation of all fruits and 
vegetables.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ On September 30, 2022, the APHIS Fruits and Vegetables 
Import Requirements (FAVIR) database was replaced by the ACIR 
database.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>