[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 157 (Wednesday, August 18, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46174-46177]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-17709]


========================================================================
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. 86, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 18, 2021 / 
Notices

[[Page 46174]]



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

[Docket No. APHIS-2018-0078]


Decision To Revise the Requirements for the Importation of Fresh 
Citrus Fruit From Australia 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 revise the 
requirements for the importation of citrus from Australia in order to 
authorize the importation into the continental United States of citrus 
from additional areas of production. Based on the 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 citrus from these 
additional authorized areas of production in Australia.

DATES: The articles covered by this notification may be authorized for 
importation under the revised requirements beginning August 18, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Tony Rom[aacute]n, Senior 
Regulatory Policy Specialist, Regulatory Coordination and Compliance, 
PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 
851-2242.

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) of the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture (USDA) 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 and spread 
within the United States.
    Section 319.56-4 of the regulations provides the requirements for 
authorizing the importation of fruits and vegetables into the United 
States, and it revises existing requirements for the importation of 
fruits and vegetables. Paragraph (c) of that section provides that the 
name and origin of all fruits and vegetables authorized importation 
into the United States, as well as their importation requirements, are 
listed on the internet in APHIS' Fruits and Vegetables Import 
Requirements database, or FAVIR (https://epermits.aphis.usda.gov/manual). It also provides that, if the Administrator of APHIS 
determines that any of the phytosanitary measures required for the 
importation of a particular fruit or vegetable are no longer necessary 
to reasonably mitigate the plant risk posed by the fruit or vegetable, 
APHIS will publish a notice in the Federal Register making its pest 
risk documentation and determination available for public comment.
    In accordance with that process, we published a notice \1\ in the 
Federal Register on December 17, 2020 (85 FR 81869-81871, Docket No. 
APHIS-2018-0078), in which we announced the availability, for review 
and comment, of a pest risk analysis that evaluated the risks 
associated with the importation into the United States of citrus from 
three additional areas of Australia: The inland region of Queensland, 
the regions that compose Western Australia, and the shires of Bourke 
and Narromine within New South Wales District. The pest risk analysis 
consisted of a pest risk assessment (PRA) identifying pests of 
quarantine significance that could follow the pathway of importation of 
citrus from these regions of Australia into the United States and a 
commodity import evaluation document (CIED), a type of risk management 
document, that identified phytosanitary measures to be applied to that 
commodity to mitigate the pest risk. The national plant protection 
organization (NPPO) of Australia also asked us to reevaluate whether 
Epiphyas postvittana (light brown apple moth, also known as LBAM) could 
follow the pathway of citrus fruit from Australia into the United 
States. Currently, consignments of citrus fruit imported from Australia 
must be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate with an additional 
declaration stating that the fruit in the consignment was subject to 
phytosanitary measures to ensure the consignment is free of LBAM. As a 
result of this reevaluation, we found that LBAM does not follow the 
pathway of citrus fruit from Australia into the United States, and we 
announced our intention to remove the additional declaration 
requirement. This change would affect both the currently authorized 
importations of citrus fruit from Australia and the importations from 
the additional production areas authorized by this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ To view the notice, the PRA, CIED, and the comments we 
received, go to www.regulations.gov. Enter APHIS-2018-0078 in the 
Search field.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We solicited comments on the notice for 60 days ending February 16, 
2021. We received seven comments by that date. They were from 
producers, exporters, researchers, and representatives of State and 
foreign governments. Three of the commenters supported authorizing 
citrus imports from the additional regions of Australia as described in 
the notice and supporting documents. One commenter supported 
authorizing these imports with some revisions to the PRA. Two 
commenters opposed authorizing these imports. The commenters also 
raised a number of questions and concerns about the pest risk 
assessment and the conditions under which citrus could be imported from 
these additional regions in Australia.

Pest Risk Assessment

    The PRA and CIED that we prepared in response to the Government of 
Australia's request evaluated the pest risk associated with the 
importation of citrus fruit from the inland region of Queensland, the 
regions that compose Western Australia, and the shires of Bourke and 
Narromine within New South Wales District into the continental United 
States. However, in our previous notice we mistakenly did not specify 
that the PRA and CIED only evaluated the risk to the continental United 
States. In this notice we are clarifying that permits for importation 
of

[[Page 46175]]

citrus fruit from the inland region of Queensland, the regions that 
compose Western Australia, and the shires of Bourke and Narromine 
within New South Wales District will be issued only for ports in the 
continental United States.
    Currently, citrus fruit from the Riverina, Riverland, and Sunraysia 
areas of Australia is allowed importation into all ports of the United 
States. This action will allow importation from three additional 
production areas of Australia to the continental United States, but 
will not affect currently authorized imports of citrus fruit from 
Australia except that the phytosanitary certificate will no longer 
require an additional declaration stating that the consignment is free 
of light brown apple moth (Epiphyas postvittana, also known as LBAM).
    The scope of the initial request was for specific additional 
production areas of the inland region of Queensland, the regions that 
compose Western Australia, and the shires of Bourke and Narromine 
within New South Wales; however, the Government of Australia stated 
that they consider that these production areas were intended to 
represent production and pest status across the broader jurisdictions 
and that the risk profiles associated with access granted at the 
broader whole-state levels of Queensland, Western Australia and New 
South Wales would not be appreciably greater than those associated with 
the specifically identified areas. As explained in greater detail 
below, this notice is limited to the scope of the initial request.
    The regulations in 7 CFR 319.5 provide the process for submitting a 
request for a revision to importation requirements for plants or plant 
products. Based on the scope of the request submitted by the NPPO of 
Australia in accordance with this process, APHIS prepared the PRA that 
we made available with the initial notice. The areas covered by the PRA 
were not considered to be illustrative or representative of a broader 
jurisdiction but were rather the specific areas requested by the NPPO 
itself. Moreover, we disagree that adjacent areas within a region can 
be presumed to have an equivalent pest profile to the regions evaluated 
by the PRA; in our experience, risk profiles can vary considerably 
within a geographical area. For these reasons, APHIS cannot expand the 
scope of the areas of Australia allowed to export citrus to the United 
States without first revising the PRA to include the expanded area 
Australia proposes, and publishing a new notice with the revised PRA in 
the Federal Register for public comment.
    One commenter stated that the PRA did not assess the risk of the 
pink hibiscus mealybug (Maconellicoccus hirsutus (Green)). The 
commenter noted this pest is present in parts of the United States but 
is currently not found in Arizona. The commenter further stated that 
pink hibiscus mealybug is found in Australia and may be found in the 
regions where additional citrus imports into the United States may be 
approved. The commenter stated that the PRA should indicate whether the 
pink hibiscus mealybug is a pest of concern in the Australian regions 
under consideration for export and its risk of introduction evaluated.
    APHIS agrees with the commenter that pink hibiscus mealybug should 
be included in the pest list for citrus from Australia and has revised 
the PRA accordingly.\2\ The pink hibiscus mealybug has already been 
introduced into the United States, however, and there is no eradication 
or control program for it in areas of the United States in which it is 
established. We have determined the overall likelihood of pink hibiscus 
mealybug following citrus fruit imports into the continental United 
States to be negligible. These changes do not affect the overall 
conclusions of the analysis and the Administrator's determination of 
risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See footnote 1 for directions on how to view the updated 
PRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Phytosanitary Measures

    Two commenters expressed concern that the phytosanitary measures 
discussed in the CIED may not adequately prevent the introduction of 
Oriental red mite (Eutetranychus orientalis), brown citrus rust mite 
(Tegolophus australis), Lebbeck mealybug (Nipaecoccus viridis), and 
Kelly's citrus thrips (Pezothrips kellyanus) and stated that the risk 
of introducing these pests is not negligible.
    As we concluded in the PRA, the overall likelihood of introduction 
of brown citrus rust mite, Oriental red mite, Lebbeck mealybug, and 
Kelly's citrus thrips is negligible. Occurrence of these pests is 
infrequent in the export area. Furthermore, as outlined in the PRA, 
growers in Australia employ integrated pest management and cultural 
practices that further reduce the prevalence of these pests on the 
harvested commodity. This is also supported by the absence or low 
numbers of interceptions of these four pests of concern on citrus fruit 
from Australia at ports of entry. The control of mites is achieved by 
close monitoring during spring and autumn, encouragement of natural 
enemies, and the use of selective miticides. Mealybug and thrips 
populations are closely monitored from early spring and may be 
controlled through the release and promotion of natural enemies. The 
well-timed use of oil sprays is also highly effective.
    We also note that Lebbeck mealybug was added to the list of pests 
no longer regulated at U.S. ports of entry for the continental United 
States and Hawaii on September 8, 2020. To re-categorize pests so they 
no longer require action at ports of entry, APHIS submits a proposal to 
the National Plant Board (NPB), an organization composed of plant 
regulatory officials for State departments of agriculture. In this 
proposal to NPB, we propose to change the regulatory status of certain 
insects and plant diseases and provide our rationale for why they 
should no longer be considered of quarantine significance. The NPB 
reviews each proposal and must concur with the recommendation to change 
the pest's regulatory status. The NPB concurred with our proposal to 
deregulate Lebbeck mealybug and accordingly we added it to the list of 
pests no longer regulated. The list of pests no longer regulated can be 
viewed on the APHIS website at https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/planthealth/plant-pest-and-disease-programs/frsmp/frsmp-non-reg-pests. We have revised the PRA to remove this pest from the list of 
pests associated with citrus from Australia.
    One commenter noted that APHIS proposed removing the additional 
declaration requirement that ensures the consignment is free of LBAM. 
The commenter stated that the PRA notes that LBAM population pressure 
is sometimes high in Australia, however, and larvae suspected to be 
LBAM have been intercepted from Australia on permit cargo of citrus. 
Despite removal of this declaration making import requirements 
consistent with APHIS domestic requirements for LBAM, the commenter 
expressed concern that removal of this declaration requirement at the 
international level may lead to the pest escaping detection during 
routine production, post-harvest, and packing practices.
    As we explained in the CIED, the current host list for APHIS 
domestic pest management for LBAM exempts conventionally produced 
citrus from LBAM quarantined areas from any

[[Page 46176]]

specific mitigations.\3\ The host list states that this is because LBAM 
survival on citrus is low compared with non-citrus hosts. The PRA also 
found that there was low larval survival on oranges, that oranges are a 
suboptimal host, that fruit fall prematurely if infested, and that 
damage symptoms are easily seen and culled. For these reasons we 
concluded that under normal population conditions and strict adherence 
to good harvest and packing procedures, LBAM is unlikely to follow the 
pathway of commercial fruit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The host list can be viewed on the APHIS website at https://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/lba_moth/downloads/exempted_host_list.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The combination of low field prevalence and packing procedures make 
it highly unlikely that a foundation LBAM population could be moved out 
of the registered place of production after conventional production and 
harvesting practices. The CIED determined that these considerations are 
also applicable to citrus fruit from Australia, and thus merit removal 
of the additional declaration requirement for LBAM. Furthermore, 
interception data from 1984 to 2018 shows only one interception of LBAM 
in citrus fruit from Australia, and 90 interceptions of Tortricidae 
(the next highest taxa) in citrus fruit from Australia. The most recent 
interceptions were in 2005. In the event of Tortricidae interceptions 
in citrus fruit from Australia, APHIS can require additional 
mitigations for LBAM. We are making no changes in response to this 
comment.

Pest Free Areas

    One commenter stated that the option of allowing citrus fruit to 
originate from an area that is free of Queensland fruit fly (Bactrocera 
tryoni), Mediterranean fruit fly (Ceratitis capitata, also known as 
Medfly), and/or Lesser Queensland fruit fly (Bactrocera neohumeralis) 
may be problematic. The commenter expressed concern that this could 
allow fruit to enter an area evaluated in the PRA which may have been 
deemed a pest free area (PFA) for only one of the listed fruit flies. 
The commenter further stated that the approved production area should 
certify that all three fruit flies are not present at time of export or 
be subject to the most appropriate cold treatment schedule.
    We agree that if an area is not a pest free area for all three 
species of fruit flies, citrus must be subject to phytosanitary 
treatment for the relevant species of fruit fly, and this is the 
mitigation structure that we proposed in the CIED with regard to pest 
free areas.

Treatments

    Two commenters noted that the treatment evaluation document 
assessed the effectiveness of schedules T107-d-2 and T107-d-3 on Lesser 
Queensland fruit fly and concluded that they would provide sufficient 
control. One of the commenters stated that this conclusion was based on 
a small-scale, comparative study of the relative cold tolerances of 
eggs and early instar larvae of Queensland fruit fly, Lesser Queensland 
fruit fly, and Jarvis' fruit fly (Bactrocera jarvisi) in mandarin. The 
commenter stated that additional larger-scale studies on alternative 
citrus hosts should be conducted to provide more significant findings 
which could further (or diminish) support of the addition of Lesser 
Queensland fruit fly to T107-d-2 and T107-d-3.
    The other commenter raised the same point but added that without 
scientific evidence confirming the referred efficacy, T107-d-2 and 
T107-d-3 must not be accepted as a phytosanitary treatment for Lesser 
Queensland fruit fly.
    Jarvis' fruit fly and Lesser Queensland fruit fly both have narrow 
coastal distributions in Northeastern Australia. Jarvis' fruit fly is 
also found in the tropical area of Northern Australia. Both species 
only inhabit areas that are subtropical and tropical in climate. This 
supports the Australian research that these species are not more cold-
tolerant than Queensland fruit fly. Citrus is also not the preferred 
host of either fruit fly.
    In contrast, the mandarin fruit that the Australian scientists used 
to test cold tolerance for Lesser Queensland fruit fly is an optimal 
host and would be the preferred host to test cold tolerance of this 
species. The small-scale comparative study conducted by the Australian 
Department of Agriculture and Water Resources to determine the relative 
cold tolerance of Queensland fruit fly, Lesser Queensland fruit fly, 
and Jarvis' fruit fly supplemented the large scale studies that 
supported our recommendations to approve the T107-d-2 and T107-d-3 
treatment schedules. We note that small-scale comparative studies of 
this kind compare two points or a small number of points to see if they 
are significantly different. In the case of the fruit fly study, they 
were not. We are making no changes in response to these comments.
    The Government of Australia requested the addition of several 
treatment options for fruit flies. These treatments are already in the 
USDA Treatment Manual. Specifically, they requested adding T107-a-1, 
T107-a-2, and T107-a-3, which are approved for use as stand-alone cold 
disinfestation against Medfly for citrus fruit. They also requested 
adding schedule T105 at a dose of 100Gy for fruit flies, as listed in 
table 5-2-2 in the USDA Treatment Manual.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The USDA Treatment Manual can be viewed on the APHIS website 
at https://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/plants/manuals/ports/downloads/treatment.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These additional treatments, which appear in the USDA Treatment 
Manual, may be used for citrus fruit that originates in an area where 
the only fruit flies present are those for which these treatments are 
approved. We note that the schedule T105 treatment is approved at a 
dose of 100Gy for Jarvis fruit fly, Lesser Queensland fruit fly, and 
Medfly. There is an option for a dose of 150Gy for all other fruit 
flies in the family Tephritidae not listed in table 5-2-2. Guidelines 
for the approval of additional treatments can be found in 7 CFR 305.3.
    The Government of Australia further stated that standard commercial 
production practices implemented by the Australian citrus industry, 
such as disease management strategies used to control citrus black spot 
disease (CBS) in the field and packinghouses in Australia and 
complemented by phytosanitary inspection, would appropriately manage 
the risks posed by the fungus. The Government of Australia noted that 
over the history of inspection of citrus exports from these production 
areas, CBS has not been a problem, and stated that Australia considers 
that any additional import requirements would exceed reasonable 
requirements to manage the risk.
    The phytosanitary measures we proposed to address the risk of CBS 
in citrus fruit from Australia are the same measures we require of 
domestic producers to ship citrus interstate within the United States. 
We are making no changes in response to this comment.
    Therefore, in accordance with the regulations in Sec.  319.56-
4(c)(2)(ii), we are announcing our decision to authorize the 
importation into the continental United States of Citrus sinensis (L.) 
Osbeck (orange), C. limonia Osbeck (Rangpur), C. meyeri Yu. Tanaka 
(lemon), C. aurantiifolia (Christm.) Swingle (Key lime), C. latifolia 
(Yu. Tanaka) Tanaka (lime), C. paradisi Macfad. (grapefruit), C. 
reticulata Blanco (mandarin), and their hybrids from three additional 
areas of Australia (the inland region of Queensland, the regions that 
compose Western Australia, and the shires of Bourke and Narromine

[[Page 46177]]

within New South Wales District), subject to the following 
phytosanitary measures:
    <bullet> The citrus must either originate from an area within these 
approved production areas that is free of the fruit flies Queensland 
fruit fly, Medfly, and/or Bactrocera neohumeralis (Lesser Queensland 
fruit fly), or be treated with cold treatment or other approved 
treatment for the relevant fruit flies.
    <bullet> If the area has Queensland fruit fly or Lesser Queensland 
fruit fly, cold treatment schedules T107-d-2 or T107-d-3 must be used.
    <bullet> The citrus fruit must be accompanied by a phytosanitary 
certificate issued by the NPPO of Australia that attests that citrus 
fruit were produced in a fruit fly pest-free area or that indicates 
that cold treatment was applied to the consignment during transit to 
the continental United States, or a combination of PFAs and quarantine 
treatments; were inspected by the NPPO of Australia and found free of 
pests of concern. We are not requiring an additional declaration for 
light brown apple moth because the PRA considers this pest unlikely to 
follow the pathway on citrus fruit from these areas.
    <bullet> The citrus fruit is subject to inspection at the port of 
entry into the United States.
    <bullet> Only commercial consignments of Australian citrus fruit 
may be imported into the United States.
    <bullet> Fruit must be washed, brushed, surface disinfected in 
accordance with 7 CFR part 305 and according to treatment schedules 
listed in the USDA Treatment Manual, treated with fungicide at labeled 
rates, and waxed at packinghouses.
    <bullet> An operational work plan that details the requirements 
under which citrus will be safely imported is in place.
    <bullet> The citrus fruit must be imported under permit.
    These revised conditions will be listed in the FAVIR database 
(available at https://epermits.aphis.usda.gov/manual). In addition to 
these specific measures, citrus from Australia will be subject to the 
general requirements listed in Sec.  319.56-3 that are applicable to 
the importation of all fruits and vegetables.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 
3501 et seq.), the 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) 851-2483.

Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), 
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs designated this action 
as not a major rule, as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
    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 12th day of August 2021.
Mark Davidson,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-17709 Filed 8-17-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P