58154 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 184 / Monday, September 23, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

1To view the proposed rule and the comments 

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

#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2009-0084. 

restaurants,’’ and ‘‘Limited-service 

eating places’’ in the second column; 

and 

■ c. Add NAICS codes ‘‘443’’ and 

‘‘7225’’ in the first column in numerical 

order and ‘‘Electronics and appliance 

stores’’ and ‘‘Restaurants and other 

eating places’’ in the second column. 

§ 532.267 [Amended] 

■ 4. In § 532.267(c)(1), amend the table 

as follows: 

■ a. Revise the year ‘‘2007’’ to ‘‘2012’’ in 

the table headings in both columns; 

■ b. Add NAICS code ‘‘333316’’ in the 

first column in numerical order and 

‘‘Photographic and photocopying 

equipment manufacturing’’ in the 

second column; 

■ c. Revise the title of NAICS code 

334613 from ‘‘Magnetic and optical 

recording media manufacturing’’ to 

‘‘Blank magnetic and optical recording 

media manufacturing’’ in the second 

column; and 

■ d. Revise the title of NAICS code 4921 

from ‘‘Couriers’’ to ‘‘Couriers and 

express delivery services’’ in the second 

column. 

§ 532.285 [Amended] 

■ 5. In § 532.285(c)(1), amend the table 

headings in both columns by replacing 

the year ‘‘2007’’ with ‘‘2012.’’ 

§ 532.313 [Amended] 

■ 6. In § 532.313(a), amend the table as 

follows: 

■ a. Revise the year ‘‘2007’’ to ‘‘2012’’ in 

the table headings in both columns; 

■ b. Add NAICS code ‘‘333316’’ in the 

first column in numerical order and 

‘‘Photographic and photocopying 

equipment manufacturing’’ in the 

second column to the list of required 

NAICS codes for the Electronics 

Specialized Industry, Guided Missiles 

Specialized Industry, and Sighting and 

Fire Control Equipment Specialized 

Industry; 

■ c. Remove NAICS codes ‘‘332212,’’ 

‘‘332995,’’ ‘‘336312,’’ ‘‘336322,’’ and 

‘‘336399’’ in the first column and ‘‘Hand 

and edge tool manufacturing,’’ ‘‘Other 

ordnance and accessories 

manufacturing,’’ ‘‘Gasoline engine and 

engine parts manufacturing,’’ ‘‘Other 

motor vehicle electrical and electronic 

equipment manufacturing,’’ and ‘‘All 

other motor vehicle parts 

manufacturing’’ in the second column 

from the list of required NAICS codes 

for the Artillery and Combat Vehicle 

Specialized Industry; and 

■ d. Add NAICS codes ‘‘332216,’’ 

‘‘332994,’’ ‘‘33631,’’ ‘‘33632,’’ and 

‘‘33639’’ in the first column in 

numerical order and ‘‘Saw blade and 

hand tool manufacturing,’’ ‘‘Small arms, 

ordnance, and ordnance accessories 

manufacturing,’’ ‘‘Motor vehicle 

gasoline engine and engine parts 

manufacturing,’’ ‘‘Motor vehicle 

electrical and electronic equipment 

manufacturing,’’ and ‘‘Other motor 

vehicle parts manufacturing’’ in the 

second column to the list of required 

NAICS codes for the for the Artillery 

and Combat Vehicle Specialized 

Industry. 

[FR Doc. 2013–22498 Filed 9–20–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6325–39–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

7 CFR Part 319 

[Docket No. APHIS–2009–0084] 

RIN 0579–AD56 

Importation of Litchi Fruit From 

Australia 

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are amending the 

regulations in order to allow, under 

certain conditions, the importation of 

commercial shipments of litchi fruit 

from Australia into the continental 

United States, except Florida. As a 

condition of entry, the litchi fruit must 

be treated with irradiation and subject 

to inspection. If irradiation is applied 

outside the United States, the fruit must 

be inspected jointly by inspectors from 

the Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service and the national plant 

protection organization (NPPO) of 

Australia prior to departure and 

accompanied by a phytosanitary 

certificate issued by the NPPO of 

Australia certifying that the fruit 

received the required irradiation 

treatment. If irradiation is to be applied 

upon arrival in the United States, the 

fruit must be inspected by Australian 

inspectors prior to departure and 

accompanied by a phytosanitary 

certificate issued by the NPPO of 

Australia. Additionally, the litchi fruit 

may not be imported into or distributed 

within the State of Florida, due to the 

presence of litchi rust mite in Australia. 

This action allows for the importation of 

litchi fruit from Australia into the 

continental United States, except 

Florida, while continuing to provide 

protection against the introduction of 

quarantine pests. 

DATES: Effective Date: October 23, 2013. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Dorothy C. Wayson, Regulatory 

Coordination Specialist, PPQ, APHIS, 

4700 River Road Unit 141, Riverdale, 

MD 20737–1231; (301) 851–2036. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The regulations in ‘‘Subpart—Fruits 

and Vegetables’’ (7 CFR 319.56–1 

through 319.56–60, referred to below as 

the regulations) 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. 

On December 28, 2011, we published 

in the Federal Register (76 FR 81401– 

81404, Docket No. APHIS–2009–0084) a 

proposal 1 to amend the regulations to 

allow fresh litchi fruit (Litchi chinensis 

Sonn.) from Australia to be imported 

into the continental United States, 

except Florida. We proposed that, as a 

condition of entry, the litchi fruit would 

have to be produced in accordance with 

a systems approach that includes 

requirements for monitoring and 

oversight, irradiation treatment of the 

fruit, limited distribution, and shipping. 

We solicited comments concerning 

our proposal for 60 days ending 

February 27, 2012. We received four 

comments by that date. They were from 

two students, a representative of a 

foreign government, and an organization 

of State plant regulatory officials. The 

comments are discussed below by topic. 

Pest List 

We prepared a pest risk assessment 

(PRA) and a risk management document 

for the importation of fresh litchi fruit 

from Australia. That PRA evaluated the 

risks associated with the importation of 

litchi fruit with up to 5 millimeters of 

stem into the continental United States 

from Australia. The threshold allowing 

for a maximum of 5 millimeters of stem 

on the imported litchi fruit was 

included in Australia’s market access 

request and therefore established as the 

allowable limit in the PRA. 

One commenter stated that neither the 

proposed rule nor the PRA provided 

phytosanitary justification for the 

inclusion of this 5 millimeter limit. The 

commenter further stated that, while the 

5 millimeter stem length was included 

in Australia’s market access request, it 

had been intended only as part of a 

general description of Australia’s 

standard litchi fruit production 

practices. The commenter asked that the 

limit be removed in light of the fact that 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 184 / Monday, September 23, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 58155 

2This list can be viewed at http://

www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/

frsmp/non-reg-pests.shtml. 

those pests associated with stems and 

twigs would either be mitigated by the 

treatments described in the systems 

approach regardless of stem length or 

were not listed as following the pathway 

of importation. 

We agree with the commenter and 

have removed the requirement. 

The PRA identified 15 pests of 

quarantine significance present in 

Australia that could be introduced into 

the United States through the 

importation of litchi fruit, including 3 

fruit flies, 7 lepidopteran pests, 2 scales, 

2 other insect pests, and 1 mite. 

Green scale (Coccus viridis) and 

passionvine mealybug (Planococcus 

minor) were included in the proposed 

rule and PRA as being two of the 

quarantine pests of litchi subject to 

mitigation. Subsequent to publication of 

the proposed rule, we established that 

Coccus viridis and Planococcus minor 

no longer meet our definition of a 

quarantine pest and have added them to 

our list 2 of pests that we no longer 

regulate. Therefore, we will not be 

including Coccus viridis and 

Planococcus minor among the pests to 

be listed in the additional declaration 

on the phytosanitary certificate. This 

change has the effect of addressing one 

commenter’s recommendation that 

Planococcus minor not be regarded as a 

pest following the pathway of 

commercial shipments. 

One commenter requested that we 

intensively monitor litchi fruit from 

Australia at the port of entry for the 

litchi hairy mite (Aceria litchii), which 

is not eliminated by irradiation. 

Port of entry inspection is among the 

required phytosanitary measures that 

apply to the importation of litchi fruit 

from Australia. These measures, which 

also include requirements concerning 

irradiation, commercial shipments, and 

limited distribution, have been 

successfully applied to shipments of 

litchis imported from Thailand, where 

the litchi hairy mite is also present. 

Based on our experience, we are 

confident in the efficacy of the standard 

level of inspection in detecting 

quarantine pests and preventing their 

entry into the United States. 

Proposed Systems Approach 

Based on the risk management 

document, we determined that measures 

beyond the standard port of arrival 

inspection are required to mitigate the 

risks posed by the plant pests associated 

with the importation of litchi fruit from 

Australia. We proposed to allow the 

importation of litchi fruit from Australia 

into the United States only if they are 

produced in accordance with a systems 

approach to mitigate pest risk. 

One commenter objected to our use of 

the term ‘‘systems approach.’’ The 

commenter stated that since all pests 

identified as likely to follow the 

importation pathway are mitigated by 

the proposed irradiation treatment and 

because no specific in-field management 

measures were stipulated, the 

combination of measures would not 

qualify as a systems approach. The 

commenter asked that we remove all 

references to the systems approach from 

the regulation. 

We are making no change as a result 

of this comment. We proposed a number 

of requirements that shipments of litchi 

fruit from Australia would have to meet 

prior to importation. These 

requirements concerned place of 

production, treatment with irradiation, 

certificates of inspection issued by the 

national plant protection organization 

(NPPO) of Australia, limited 

distribution, and limitation to 

commercial consignments only. For the 

reasons discussed below, we have 

decided to remove the requirement 

relating to place of production. Contrary 

to the commenter’s assertion, the litchi 

hairy mite is not mitigated by the 

irradiation treatment and therefore 

necessitates specific inspection. In 

addition, the limited distribution 

requirement is an additional measure 

beyond the standard port of arrival 

inspection which is required to mitigate 

the risks posed by the plant pests 

associated with litchis from Australia. 

Furthermore, the proposed measures 

meet the definition of systems approach 

as found in International Standards for 

Phytosanitary Measures (ISPM) No. 5: 

The integration of different risk 

management measures, at least two of 

which act independently, and which 

cumulatively achieve the appropriate 

level of protection against regulated 

pests. 

One element of the proposed systems 

approach was a requirement that the 

litchi fruit be grown in approved places 

of production that are registered with 

and monitored by the NPPO of 

Australia. 

One commenter argued that the 

monitoring requirement should be 

removed, as the proposed systems 

approach did not include any 

requirements for in-field control 

measures of the sort that would require 

NPPO oversight. The commenter stated 

that the other methods of control listed 

as part of the proposed systems 

approach would be sufficient to mitigate 

risks posed by those pests discussed in 

the PRA and the risk management 

document. 

We agree with the commenter. 

Regulatory requirements concerning the 

monitoring of approved places of 

production are associated the 

application of in-field measures needed 

to address a specific pest risk, which is 

not the case with the mitigation 

measures assigned for litchi fruit from 

Australia as detailed in the PRA. Rather, 

the framework equivalency workplan 

required for irradiated fruits and 

vegetables as described in 

§ 305.9(e)(1)(B) of our phytosanitary 

treatments regulations, stipulates that 

the U.S. and the exporting country’s 

NPPO must establish the type and 

amount of inspection, monitoring, or 

other activities that will be required in 

connection with allowing the 

importation of irradiated fruits and 

vegetables. Such workplans include 

requirements for NPPO-approved places 

of production for the purpose of specific 

traceability in the event of an 

unforeseen pest situation. This allows 

for the Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service (APHIS) and the 

NPPO to work collaboratively to address 

the situation in-country without 

applying unnecessary importation 

restrictions. 

Another element of the proposed 

systems approach was a requirement 

that the litchi fruit be imported in 

commercial consignments only. This is 

because commercially produced fruit 

are already subject to standard 

commercial cultural and post-harvest 

practices that reduce the risk associated 

with plant pests. Export orchards that 

are registered production sites with 

traceback capability was cited as one of 

those practices that helps ensure the 

phytosanitary security of exported 

litchis. 

One commenter requested that we 

exclude the requirement regarding 

registered production sites with 

traceback capability. The commenter 

argued that such a stipulation is 

inconsistent with the requirements of 

previous rules regarding the importation 

of fruits and vegetables from Australia 

as well as rules regarding the 

importation of litchi fruit from countries 

other than Australia. The commenter 

concluded that, from a regulatory 

flexibility standpoint, it would be 

preferable to include any requirement 

regarding traceability in the framework 

equivalency workplan given that these 

workplans may be amended more easily 

to reflect any changing conditions 

within the country that would 

necessitate such tracking. 

We agree with the commenter’s point 

and have removed references to the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

58156 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 184 / Monday, September 23, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

requirement that orchards be registered 

with and monitored by the NPPO of 

Australia in this final rule. We also 

agree that any such requirements are 

more appropriately located in the 

framework equivalency workplan 

where, as with the conditions 

concerning monitoring requirements 

discussed previously, they would 

provide for specific traceability in the 

event of an unforeseen pest situation. 

Another element of the proposed 

systems approach was a requirement 

that litchi fruit be treated with a 

minimum absorbed irradiation dose of 

400 gray in accordance with the 

provisions of § 305.9 and the Plant 

Protection and Quarantine Treatment 

Manual. This is the established generic 

dose for all insect pests, except pupae 

and adults of the order Lepidoptera. 

While the preamble text in the proposed 

rule specified that such treatment could 

be conducted at an approved facility in 

Australia or in the United States, the 

proposed regulatory text stated that 

treatment would have to be conducted 

prior to importation of the fruits into the 

United States. 

The commenter asked that the 

requirement for the fruit to be treated 

prior to importation into the United 

States be removed. 

We agree with the commenter and 

have changed the requirement 

accordingly. If irradiation is applied 

outside the United States, the fruits 

must be inspected jointly by inspectors 

from APHIS and the NPPO of Australia 

prior to departure and accompanied by 

a phytosanitary certificate issued by the 

NPPO of Australia certifying that the 

fruit received the required irradiation 

treatment. If irradiation is to be applied 

upon arrival in the United States, the 

fruits must be inspected by Australian 

inspectors prior to departure and 

accompanied by a phytosanitary 

certificate issued by the NPPO of 

Australia. 

In addition to altering the requirement 

associated with the location of the 

irradiation treatment, we are also 

removing the stipulation that this 

information be contained in an 

additional declaration, as an additional 

declaration is not used for certifying 

application of a treatment or details of 

a treatment. Instead, if irradiation is 

applied outside the United States, the 

fruits must be inspected jointly by 

inspectors from APHIS and the NPPO of 

Australia prior to departure and 

accompanied by a phytosanitary 

certificate issued by the NPPO of 

Australia certifying that the fruit 

received the required irradiation 

treatment. We included the requirement 

concerning the additional declaration 

regarding treatment information in error 

in the proposed rule. Certification of 

irradiation treatment will provide 

sufficient phytosanitary protection. 

Because the litchi hairy mite is not 

present in Florida and because we have 

consistently prohibited host movement 

into Florida from areas where that pest 

is present, another aspect of the 

proposed systems approach was to 

prohibit the importation and 

distribution of litchi from Australia into 

the State of Florida by requiring that all 

cartons of litchi be stamped ‘‘Not for 

distribution in FL.’’ 

One commenter stated that we should 

also restrict importation of litchi fruit 

into the State of California given that 

Florida and California have similar 

climates that allow for the establishment 

and survival of the litchi hairy mite. 

Another commenter stated that 

commercial litchi production is an 

emerging field in California and those 

small- and medium-scale agricultural 

producers and family farms in particular 

would be helped by the exclusion of 

Australian litchi fruit from California. 

We are making no change as a result 

of these comments. Unlike the more 

humid climate found in Florida, the dry 

Mediterranean climate in California is 

not conducive for the survival of the 

litchi hairy mite. Additionally, the 

occurrence of seasonal cold snaps and 

high winds in California causes flower 

loss and, consequently, poor fruit set. 

The litchi tree needs a truly tropical 

climate to produce much fruit. Further, 

production levels of litchi in California 

are low. We therefore believe that the 

improbability of mite survival and the 

small number of hosts available in 

California are sufficient to mitigate the 

risk posed by litchi hairy mite. Finally, 

regarding the second commenter’s 

point, APHIS does not have the 

authority to prohibit commodities for 

importation solely based on potential 

economic impact. The determining 

factor must be scientifically established 

pest risk. 

Pest Risk Analysis 

The Asian ambrosia beetle 

(Euwallacea fornicatus) was listed in 

the PRA as being a pest of litchi present 

in Australia that is also present in 

Hawaii. We determined that Euwallacea 

fornicatus was not likely to follow the 

importation pathway and therefore did 

not address it further via mitigations. 

One commenter stated that we should 

remove Euwallacea fornicatus from the 

list of quarantine pests in the PRA 

because the pest is also present in 

Florida and California in addition to 

Hawaii. 

The commenter is correct regarding 

the distribution of Euwallacea 

fornicatus within California, Florida, 

and Hawaii. However, while the beetle 

is present in California and Florida 

based on more recent references than 

those cited in the PRA, it is also 

currently listed as reportable in a 

domestic context and is currently being 

assessed by the United States 

Department of Agriculture’s New Pest 

Advisory Group. Euwallacea fornicatus, 

therefore, meets our standards regarding 

quarantine pests. For that reason, we are 

making no changes as a result of this 

comment. 

Economic Analysis 

We analyzed the potential economic 

effects of the importation of litchi fruit 

from Australia on small entities and 

concluded that any litchi price declines 

that might result from this rule would 

be insignificant, especially if, as is 

likely, at least some litchi fruit imports 

from Australia were to displace imports 

from other countries. Additionally, we 

stated that, given that the agricultural 

seasons in the Southern Hemisphere are 

generally the opposite of those in the 

Northern Hemisphere, the proposed 

imports from Australia likely would not 

directly compete with U.S. litchi fruit 

production. As a result, we determined 

that the importation of litchi fruit from 

Australia would not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

One commenter stated other agencies 

such as the United Nations Food and 

Agriculture Organization do not 

distinguish between fresh and processed 

fruit, while the U.S. Harmonized Tariff 

System group litchi fruit with other 

exotic fruits into a single category. The 

commenter further stated that the 

analysis performed by APHIS to 

determine the economic effects of the 

proposed rule on small entities uses 

data from 2004 and earlier in order to 

reach its conclusions. The commenter 

concluded that it is important to base 

any economic analysis on current data 

that is segregated specifically by fruit 

type in order to best inform the 

decisionmaking process. 

We are making no changes as a result 

of this comment. The commenter rightly 

observes that the United Nations Food 

and Agriculture Organization and the 

U.S. Harmonized Tariff System do not 

separate shipment data concerning fresh 

litchis in particular, however we did not 

use data from either of these sources in 

order to conduct our economic analysis. 

The most recent sources of information 

specifically regarding fresh litchis are 

from the Proceedings of the Florida 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 184 / Monday, September 23, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 58157 

3Copies of the proceedings are available from the 

person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

State Horticultural Society, 118,3 and a 

paper entitled ‘‘Is It Still Profitable to 

Grow Lychee in Florida?,’’ which was 

released by the Food and Resource 

Economics Department, Florida 

Cooperative Extension Service, Institute 

of Food and Agricultural Sciences, 

University of Florida, and may be found 

on the Internet at http://

edis.ifas.ufl.edu/fe496. These papers are 

dated 2005 and 2004, respectively. They 

represent the most recent, targeted 

economic information available on the 

subject of the importation of litchi fruit 

and the domestic market. 

The commenter also said that the two 

main factors that affect the profitability 

of litchi farmers in the United States are 

product yield and market price. The 

commenter referenced an analysis 

conducted by the University of Florida, 

Department of Food and Resource 

Economics, which concluded that net 

returns are very sensitive to even small 

market price fluctuations, even more 

than a similar increase or decrease in 

yield. 

We are making no changes as a result 

of this comment. The quantity of litchi 

fruit that Australia proposes to export to 

the United States (400 metric tons) 

represents 2.7 percent of total U.S. 

imports. This relatively small quantity 

is unlikely to cause market fluctuations. 

The commenter agreed that the 

importation of litchi fruit from Australia 

alone is not likely to have a major effect 

on the price of litchi sold in the United 

States due to the small quantity and the 

differing harvest periods in the Northern 

and Southern Hemispheres. However, 

the commenter also stated that litchi 

fruit imported from Australia, when 

considered in conjunction with litchi 

fruit imported from countries such as 

Thailand, Vietnam, and South Africa, 

may contribute to the declining price of 

litchi fruit overall. The commenter 

stated that APHIS should take into 

account projected import levels of litchi 

fruit from all countries, rather than 

considering such importations on 

country-by-country basis. 

We are making no changes as a result 

of this comment. APHIS evaluates 

commodity import requests on a caseby-case basis. Accordingly, the 

economic analysis considers total 

imports levels from those countries that 

currently export to the United States in 

conjunction with the projected level of 

imports from the requesting country. 

Prior to the publication of this rule, we 

allowed for the importation of litchi 

fruit from China, India, Taiwan, and 

Thailand, and therefore based our 

assessment of the potential economic 

impact of the rule on imports from those 

countries. In the event that other 

countries, such as Vietnam or South 

Africa, submit requests for market 

access for litchi fruit, we will evaluate 

the economic impacts of imports from 

those countries. We do not consider the 

potential economic impact of exports of 

commodities from countries that have 

not submitted market access requests to 

us. 

Therefore, for the reasons given in the 

proposed rule and in this document, we 

are adopting the proposed rule as a final 

rule, with the changes discussed in this 

document. 

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

This final rule has been determined to 

be not significant for the purposes of 

Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, 

has not been reviewed by the Office of 

Management and Budget. 

In accordance with the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, we have analyzed the 

potential economic effects of this action 

on small entities. The analysis is 

summarized below. Copies of the full 

analysis are available on the 

Regulations.gov Web site (see footnote 1 

in this document for a link to 

Regulations.gov) or by contacting the 

person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

World production of litchi is 

estimated to be 2.2 million metric tons 

(MT), with China accounting for over 50 

percent (1.2 million MT), and one-third 

produced by India (0.7 million MT). The 

United States produces approximately 

500 MT per year, which represents less 

than 0.03 percent of world production. 

U.S. litchi production is concentrated in 

the States of Florida, Hawaii, and 

California. Florida has the largest area 

under production (1,200 acres), 

followed by Hawaii (300 acres) and 

California (60 acres). Currently, 

Australia produces 3,500 MT of litchis. 

Australia expects to export 

approximately 20 forty-foot containers 

of litchis per year to the United States, 

which is equivalent to about 400 MT. 

In 2004, the United States imported a 

total of 14,854 MT of litchis, mainly 

from China, Taiwan, and Mexico. 

Australia’s proposed export quantity 

represents about 2.7 percent of U.S. 

imports in 2004. 

Under these circumstances, the 

Administrator of the Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service has 

determined that this action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Executive Order 12988 

This final rule allows litchi fruit to be 

imported into the continental United 

States from Australia. State and local 

laws and regulations regarding litchi 

fruit imported under this rule will be 

preempted while the fruit is in foreign 

commerce. Fresh fruits and vegetables 

are generally imported for immediate 

distribution and sale to the consuming 

public, and remain in foreign commerce 

until sold to the ultimate consumer. The 

question of when foreign commerce 

ceases in other cases must be addressed 

on a case-by-case basis. No retroactive 

effect will be given to this rule, and this 

rule will not require administrative 

proceedings before parties may file suit 

in court challenging this rule. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

In accordance with section 3507(d) of 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the information 

collection or recordkeeping 

requirements included in this final rule, 

which were filed under 0579–0386, 

have been submitted for approval to the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB). When OMB notifies us of its 

decision, if approval is denied, we will 

publish a document in the Federal 

Register providing notice of what action 

we plan to take. 

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 rule, please contact Mrs. Celeste 

Sickles, APHIS’ Information Collection 

Coordinator, at (301) 851–2908. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 319 

Coffee, Cotton, Fruits, Imports, Logs, 

Nursery stock, Plant diseases and pests, 

Quarantine, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Rice, 

Vegetables. 

Accordingly, we are amending 7 CFR 

part 319 as follows: 

PART 319—FOREIGN QUARANTINE 

NOTICES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 319 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 450 and 7701–7772, 

and 7781–7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 

CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

58158 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 184 / Monday, September 23, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

■ 2. A new § 319.56–61 is added to read 

as follows: 

§ 319.56–61 Litchi from Australia. 

Litchi (Litchi chinensis) may be 

imported into the continental United 

States from Australia only under the 

following conditions and in accordance 

with all other applicable provisions of 

this subpart: 

(a) The litchi must be treated for plant 

pests of the class Insecta, except pupae 

and adults of the order Lepidoptera, 

with irradiation in accordance with 

§ 305.9 of this chapter. Treatment may 

be conducted either prior to or upon 

arrival of the fruits into the United 

States. 

(b) Each shipment of litchi must be 

accompanied by a phytosanitary 

certificate of inspection issued by the 

NPPO of Australia. For those shipments 

of litchi treated in Australia, the 

phytosanitary certificate must certify 

that the fruit received the required 

irradiation treatment prior to shipment. 

For those shipments of litchi treated 

upon arrival in the United States, the 

fruits must be inspected by Australian 

inspectors prior to departure and 

accompanied by a phytosanitary 

certificate. 

(c) In addition to meeting the labeling 

requirements in part 305 of this chapter, 

cartons in which litchi are packed must 

be stamped ‘‘Not for importation into or 

distribution in FL.’’ 

(d) The litchi may be imported in 

commercial consignments only. 

(Approved by the Office of Management and 

Budget under control number 0579–0386) 

Done in Washington, DC, this 17th day of 

September 2013. 

Kevin Shea, 

Administrator, Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 2013–23044 Filed 9–20–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 71 

[Docket FAA No. FAA–2012–0433; Airspace 

Docket No. 12–AAL–5] 

Establishment of Class D Airspace; 

Bryant AAF, Anchorage, AK 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule; correction. 

SUMMARY: This action corrects a final 

rule published in the Federal Register 

August 8, 2013 that establishes Class D 

airspace at Bryant Army Airfield (AAF), 

Anchorage, AK. In that rule, an error 

was made in the legal description for 

Bryant AAF, in that the language 

indicating Class D airspace as part time 

was left out. 

DATES: Effective date, 0901 UTC, 

October 17, 2013. The Director of the 

Federal Register approves this 

incorporation by reference action under 

1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual 

revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and 

publication of conforming amendments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Richard Roberts, Federal Aviation 

Administration, Operations Support 

Group, Western Service Center, 1601 

Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; 

telephone (425) 203–4517. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

History 

The FAA published a final rule in the 

Federal Register establishing Class D 

airspace at Bryant AAF, Anchorage, AK 

(78 FR 48299, August 8, 2013). In the 

regulatory text, language indicating the 

Class D airspace area is part time 

established in advance with a Notice to 

Airmen was omitted and is now 

included. 

Class D airspace designations are 

published in paragraph 5000 of FAA 

Order 7400.9X, dated August 7, 2013, 

and effective September 15, 2013, which 

is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 

71.1. The Class D airspace designations 

listed in this document will be 

published subsequently in that Order. 

Correction to Final Rule 

Accordingly, pursuant to the 

authority delegated to me, amendatory 

instruction 2 and the legal description 

for Bryant Army Airfield, Anchorage, 

AK, as published in the Federal 

Register on August 8, 2013 (78 FR 

48299), FR Doc. 2013–18866, are 

corrected as follows: 

§ 71.1 [Amended] 

■ 1. On page 48300, column 1, revise 

amendatory instruction 2 to read: The 

incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 

71.1 of the Federal Aviation 

Administration Order 7400.9X, Airspace 

Designations and Reporting Points, 

dated August 7, 2013, and effective 

September 15, 2013, is amended as 

follows: 

AAL AK D Bryant Army Airfield, 

Anchorage, AK [Corrected] 

■ 2. On page 48300, column 1, line 56, 

the following is added to the regulatory 

text: This Class D airspace area is 

effective during the specific dates and 

times established in advance by a Notice 

to Airmen. The effective date and time 

will thereafter be continuously 

published in the Airport/Facility 

Directory. 

Issued in Seattle, Washington, on 

September 11, 2013. 

Christopher Ramirez, 

Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, 

Western Service Center. 

[FR Doc. 2013–23016 Filed 9–20–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 71 

Docket No. FAA–2013–0528; Airspace 

Docket No. 13–ANM–16 

Establishment of Class E Airspace; 

Wasatch, UT 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This action establishes Class 

E airspace at the Wasatch VHF OmniDirectional Radio Range Tactical Air 

Navigational Aid (VORTAC) navigation 

aid, Wasatch, UT, to facilitate vectoring 

of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) aircraft 

under control of Salt Lake City Air 

Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC). 

This improves the safety and 

management of IFR operations within 

the National Airspace System. This 

action also makes a minor adjustment to 

the geographic coordinates of the 

Wasatch VORTAC navigation aid. 

DATES: Effective date, 0901 UTC, 

December 12, 2013. The Director of the 

Federal Register approves this 

incorporation by reference action under 

1 CFR Part 51, subject to the annual 

revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and 

publication of conforming amendments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Eldon Taylor, Federal Aviation 

Administration, Operations Support 

Group, Western Service Center, 1601 

Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; 

telephone (425) 203–4537. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

History 

On July 10, 2013, the FAA published 

in the Federal Register a notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 

controlled airspace at Wasatch, UT (78 

FR 41336). Interested parties were 

invited to participate in this rulemaking 

effort by submitting written comments 

on the proposal to the FAA. No 

comments were received. Subsequent to 

publication, the FAA’s Aeronautical 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES