Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 159 / Friday, August 16, 2013 / Notices 50023 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

questions related to the Asian 

Longhorned Beetle Eradication Program, 

contact Dr. Robyn Rose, National Asian 

Longhorned Beetle Eradication Program 

Manager, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road 

Unit 137, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 

851–2283. For questions related to the 

environmental impact statement, 

contact Dr. Jim Warren, Environmental 

Protection Specialist, Environmental 

and Risk Analysis Services, PPD, 

APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 149, 

Riverdale, MD 20737; (202) 316–3216. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Asian longhorned beetle 

(Anoplophora glabripennis) (ALB) is a 

foreign wood-boring beetle that 

threatens a wide variety of hardwood 

trees in North America. The native 

range of ALB includes China and Korea. 

ALB is believed to have been introduced 

into the United States from wood pallets 

and other wood packing material 

accompanying cargo shipments from 

Asia. ALB was first discovered in the 

United States in August 1996 in the 

Greenpoint neighborhood of Brooklyn, 

NY. Since then, ALB has been found in 

limited areas in New York and New 

Jersey, Illinois, Massachusetts, and most 

recently, in Clermont County, OH. 

Areas where ALB has been found are 

quarantined in accordance with the 

regulations in 7 CFR 301.51–1 through 

301.51–9. These regulations place 

restrictions on the movement of ALB 

host articles from the quarantined areas, 

thus helping to prevent the humanassisted spread of ALB. Within the 

quarantined areas, the Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service (APHIS) 

works to eradicate ALB, after which the 

quarantine can be removed. 

To date, ALB has been eradicated 

from Chicago, IL; Hudson, Middlesex, 

and Union Counties, NJ; Islip, NY; and 

the boroughs of Manhattan and Staten 

Island in New York. The infested areas 

in Massachusetts and Ohio are active 

eradication areas, and APHIS is still 

working to determine the extent of those 

infestations. 

Current efforts to eradicate 

infestations in the two locations listed 

above include cutting, chipping or 

burning, and disposing by mulching of 

infested trees and high-risk host trees 

(ALB host trees that are located within 

a half-mile radius of infested trees). 

High-risk host trees that are not cut are 

treated with either trunk injections or 

soil injections at the base of the tree 

using the insecticide imidacloprid. 

Under the provisions of the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 

seq.), Federal agencies must examine 

the potential environmental effects of 

proposed Federal actions and 

alternatives. We are planning to prepare 

an environmental impact statement 

(EIS) to analyze the effects of a program 

to eradicate the Asian longhorned beetle 

from wherever it might occur in the 

United States. The EIS will examine the 

environmental effects of control 

alternatives available to the Agency, 

including a no action alternative. It will 

be used for planning and 

decisionmaking and to inform the 

public about the environmental effects 

of APHIS’ ALB eradication activities. It 

will also provide an overview of APHIS 

activities to which we can tier sitespecific analyses and environmental 

assessments if new ALB infestations are 

discovered in the United States. 

We are requesting public comment to 

help us identify or confirm potential 

alternatives and environmental issues 

that should be examined in the EIS, as 

well as comments that identify other 

issues that should be examined in the 

EIS. 

The EIS will be prepared in 

accordance with: (1) NEPA, (2) 

regulations of the Council on 

Environmental Quality for 

implementing the procedural provisions 

of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500–1508), (3) 

USDA regulations implementing NEPA 

(7 CFR part 1b), and (4) APHIS’ NEPA 

Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 

372). 

We have identified five alternatives 

for further examination in the EIS: 

Take no action. Under the no action 

alternative, no eradication efforts would 

be undertaken by APHIS. However, 

APHIS would continue to implement 

quarantine restrictions. 

Removal of infested trees. Under this 

alternative, APHIS would implement 

quarantine restrictions and would only 

remove trees infested with ALB. Highrisk host trees would not be removed or 

treated. 

Full host removal. Under this 

alternative, APHIS would implement 

quarantine restrictions, remove infested 

host trees, and remove high-risk host 

trees up to a half mile from infested 

trees. 

Insecticide treatment. Under this 

alternative, APHIS would implement 

quarantine restrictions, remove infested 

host trees, and treat high-risk host trees 

with an insecticide up to a half mile 

from infested trees. 

Integrated approach. Under this 

alternative, APHIS would implement 

quarantine restrictions, remove infested 

trees, and use a combination of removal 

and insecticide treatments of high-risk 

host trees. 

We have identified the following 

potential environmental impacts or 

issues for further examination in the 

EIS: 

• Effects on wildlife, including 

consideration of migratory bird species 

and changes in native wildlife habitat 

and populations. 

Æ Effects on federally listed 

threatened and endangered species. 

• Effects on soil, air, and water 

quality. 

• Effects on forests and trees in 

residential areas. 

• Effects on the wood product 

industry and other economic impacts, 

including impacts on the firewood 

industry and on property values. 

• Effects on human health and safety. 

• Effects on cultural and historic 

resources. 

We welcome comments on the 

proposed action, and on other 

alternatives and environmental impacts 

or issues that should be considered for 

further examination in the EIS. 

All comments on this notice will be 

carefully considered in developing the 

final scope of the EIS. Upon completion 

of the draft EIS, a notice announcing its 

availability and an invitation to 

comment on it will be published in the 

Federal Register. 

Done in Washington, DC, this 12th day of 

August 2013. 

Kevin Shea, 

Administrator, Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 2013–19957 Filed 8–15–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

[Docket No. APHIS–2012–0053] 

Importation of Fresh Oranges and 

Tangerines From Egypt Into the United 

States 

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: We are advising the public of 

our decision to allow the importation of 

oranges and tangerines from Egypt. 

Based on the findings of a pest list and 

commodity import evaluation 

document, which we made available to 

the public for review and comment 

through a previous notice, we have 

concluded that the application of one or 

more designated phytosanitary 

measures will be sufficient to mitigate 

the pest risk associated with the 

importation of oranges and tangerines 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES
50024 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 159 / Friday, August 16, 2013 / Notices 

1To view the notice, pest list, commodity import 

evaluation document, treatment evaluation 

document, and the comment we received, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=

APHIS-2012-0053. 

2The Treatment Manual is available on the 

Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_

export/plants/manuals/index.shtml or by 

contacting the Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine, Manuals 

Unit, 92 Thomas Johnson Drive, Suite 200, 

Frederick, MD 21702. 

from Egypt. In addition, based on the 

findings of a treatment evaluation 

document, we are advising the public 

that we are adding a new treatment 

schedule in the Plant Protection and 

Quarantine Treatment Manual that can 

be used to neutralize peach fruit fly 

(Bactrocera zonata) and Mediterranean 

fruit fly (Ceratitis capitata) in oranges 

and tangerines. 

DATES: Effective Date: August 16, 2013. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Tony Roma ́n, Regulatory Policy 

Specialist, APHIS, PPQ, 4700 River 

Road Unit 156, Riverdale, MD 20737; 

(301) 851–2242. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Under the regulations in ‘‘Subpart— 

Fruits and Vegetables’’ (7 CFR 319.56– 

1 through 319.56–59), 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 the introduction and 

dissemination of plant pests. 

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, can be safely 

imported subject to one or more of the 

designated phytosanitary measures 

listed in paragraph (b) of that section. 

In accordance with that process, we 

published a notice in the Federal 

Register on April 18, 2013 (78 FR 

23208–23209, Docket No. APHIS–2012– 

0053),1 in which we announced the 

availability, for review and comment, of 

a list of pests associated with oranges 

and tangerines from Egypt and a 

commodity import evaluation document 

(CIED) that evaluates the risks 

associated with importation of fruit 

from Egypt into the United States. 

Because of the time that had passed 

since importation of oranges from Egypt 

was suspended, APHIS prepared a pest 

list to identify pests of quarantine 

significance that could follow the 

pathway of importation of oranges and 

tangerines from Egypt. Based on the pest 

list, we then completed a CIED to 

identify phytosanitary measures that 

could be applied to mitigate the risks of 

introducing or disseminating the 

identified pests via the importation of 

oranges and tangerines from Egypt. We 

concluded that fresh oranges and 

tangerines can safely be imported into 

the United States from Egypt using one 

or more of the five designated 

phytosanitary measures listed in 

§ 319.56–4(b). These measures are: 

• The oranges and tangerines must be 

treated in accordance with 7 CFR part 

305 for C. capitata and B. zonata; and 

• The oranges and tangerines must be 

accompanied by a phytosanitary 

certificate issued by the national plant 

protection organization of Egypt stating 

that the consignment has begun or has 

undergone treatment for C. capitata and 

B. zonata in accordance with 7 CFR part 

305, with an additional declaration 

stating that the fruit in the consignment 

was inspected and found free of B. 

zonata. 

The phytosanitary treatments 

regulations contained in part 305 of 7 

CFR chapter III set out standards for 

treatments required in parts 301, 318, 

and 319 of 7 CFR chapter III for fruits, 

vegetables, and other articles. 

In § 305.2, paragraph (b) states that 

approved treatment schedules are set 

out in the Plant Protection and 

Quarantine (PPQ) Treatment Manual.2

Section 305.3 sets out a process for 

adding, revising, or removing treatment 

schedules in the PPQ Treatment 

Manual. In that section, paragraph (a) 

sets out the process for adding, revising, 

or removing treatment schedules when 

there is no immediate need to make a 

change. 

The PPQ Treatment Manual does not 

currently provide a treatment schedule 

for B. zonata in oranges and tangerines. 

Therefore, in accordance with 

§ 305.3(a)(1), the notice we published in 

the Federal Register on April 18, 2013, 

announced the availability of a new 

cold treatment schedule T107–l, 

described further in the treatment 

evaluation document (TED), that we 

determined to be effective against B. 

zonata in oranges and tangerines. 

In addition to B. zonata, Ceratitis 

capitata (Medfly) is the other pest of 

concern in oranges originating from 

Egypt. The new cold treatment schedule 

T107–l is more stringent than the 

treatment schedule approved for C. 

capitata in oranges and tangerines, 

T107–a, and therefore we have 

determined that the new cold treatment 

schedule is adequate to neutralize C. 

capitata as well as B. zonata. 

We solicited comments on the notice, 

pest list, CIED, and TED for 60 days 

ending June 17, 2013. We received one 

comment by that date from a private 

citizen. The commenter agreed that cold 

treatment is an effective mitigation 

measure for peach fruit fly; however, the 

commenter expressed concern that 

administering treatment at the port of 

entry could be too late in the shipping 

process to avoid the spread of peach 

fruit flies to other fruits, further stating 

that any larvae in the fruit at the time 

of exportation could fully develop into 

an adult and migrate to other fruits 

while en route to the United States. The 

commenter recommended that all cold 

treatments be conducted prior to 

exportation from Egypt to prevent the 

spread of fruit flies during shipment. 

We understand the commenter’s 

concerns; however, the fruit is shipped 

in refrigerated containers, which keeps 

the larvae from developing further. In 

addition, proper containment methods 

described in the general cold treatment 

requirements in § 305.6 are also 

required to prevent fruit flies from 

spreading during shipment. 

Specifically, paragraphs (d)(3) and (d)(6) 

of that section require fruit that may be 

cold treated to be safeguarded to prevent 

cross-contamination or mixing with 

other infested fruit. Furthermore, only 

the same type of fruit in the same type 

of packaging may be treated together in 

a container and a numbered seal must 

be placed on the doors of the loaded 

container which can only be removed at 

the port of destination by an official 

authorized by APHIS. These safeguards 

have been used for many years during 

the treatment of a wide variety of 

commodities for fruit flies, and we have 

found them to be effective. 

Therefore, in accordance with § 305.3, 

we are announcing the Administrator’s 

decision to add the treatment described 

in the TED as it is an effective measure 

for neutralizing peach fruit fly and 

Medfly in oranges and tangerines. 

Furthermore, oranges and tangerines 

from Egypt may be imported into the 

United States subject to the 

requirements specified in the CIED. 

The new treatment will be listed in 

the PPQ Treatment Manual, which is 

available at the Web address and 

mailing address in footnote 2 of this 

document. 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 450, 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 12th day of 

August 2013. 

Kevin Shea, 

Administrator, Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 2013–19958 Filed 8–15–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES