[Federal Register: November 17, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 222)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 66881-66888]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr17no06-17]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
[[Page 66881]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
7 CFR Parts 305 and 319
[Docket No. APHIS-2006-0121]
RIN 0579-AC19
Importation of Mangoes From India
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are proposing to amend the fruits and vegetables
regulations to allow the importation into the continental United States
of mangoes from India under certain conditions. As a condition of
entry, the mangoes would have to undergo irradiation treatment and be
accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate with additional declarations
providing specific information regarding the treatment and inspection
of the mangoes and the orchards in which they were grown. In addition,
the mangoes would be subject to inspection at the port of first
arrival. This action would allow for the importation of mangoes from
India into the continental United States while continuing to provide
protection against the introduction of quarantine pests.
DATES: We will consider all comments that we receive on or before
January 16, 2007.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov
, select ``Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service'' from the agency drop-down menu, then click ``Submit.'' In the
Docket ID column, select APHIS-2006-0121 to submit or view public
comments and to view supporting and related materials available
electronically. Information on using Regulations.gov, including
instructions for accessing documents, submitting comments, and viewing
the docket after the close of the comment period, is available through
the site's ``User Tips'' link.
Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Please send four copies
of your comment (an original and three copies) to Docket No. APHIS-
2006-0121, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-
03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state
that your comment refers to Docket No. APHIS-2006-0121.
Reading Room: You may read any comments that we receive on this
docket in our reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 of
the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to
help you, please call (202) 690-2817 before coming.
Other Information: Additional information about APHIS and its
programs is available on the Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Donna L. West, Senior Import
Specialist, Commodity Import Analysis and Operations, PPQ, APHIS, 4700
River Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 734-8758.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The regulations in ``Subpart--Fruits and Vegetables'' (7 CFR 319.56
through 319.56-8, 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 that are new to or not widely distributed
within the United States.
The national plant protection organization (NPPO) of India has
requested that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)
amend the regulations to allow mangoes from India to be imported into
the continental United States (the lower 48 States and Alaska). As part
of our evaluation of India's request, we prepared a pest risk
assessment (PRA) and a risk management document. Copies of the PRA and
risk management document may be obtained from the person listed under
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or viewed on the Regulations.gov Web
site (see ADDRESSES above for instruction for accessing
Regulations.gov).
The PRA, titled ``Importation of Fresh Mango Fruit (Mangifera
indica L.) From India into the Continental United States; A
Qualitative, Pathway-Initiated Pest Risk Assessment'' (June 2006),
evaluates the risks associated with the importation of mangoes into the
continental United States from India. The PRA and supporting documents
identified 20 pests of quarantine significance present in India that
could be introduced into the continental United States via mangoes:
The fruit flies Bactrocera caryeae (Kapoor), Bactrocera
correcta (Bezzi), Bactrocera cucurbitae (Coquillett), Bactrocera
diversa (Coquillett), Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel), Bactrocera tau
(Walker), and Bactrocera zonata (Saunders);
The scale insects Aulacaspis tubercularis (Newstead),
Ceroplastes rubens (Maskell), Coccus viridis (Green), Parlatoria crypta
(Mckenzie), and Pseudaonidia trilobitiformis (Green);
The mango flesh weevil Sternochetus frigidus (F.) and the
mango seed weevil Sternochetus mangiferae (F.);
The fungi Actinodochium jenkinsii Uppal, Patel & Kamat,
Cytosphaera mangiferae Died., Hendersonia creberrima Syd., Syd. &
Butler, Macrophoma mangiferae Hing. & Sharma, and Phomopsis mangiferae
S. Ahmad; and
The bacterium Xanthomonas campestris pv. mangiferaeindicae
(Patel et al.) Robbs et al.
APHIS has determined that measures beyond standard port of entry
inspection are required to mitigate the risk posed by these plant
pests. The proposed phytosanitary measures include a requirement that
the mangoes be treated with a minimum absorbed irradiation dose of 400
gray in accordance with Sec. 305.31 of the phytosanitary treatments
regulations in 7 CFR part 305. This is the established generic dose for
all insect pests except pupae and adults of the order Lepidoptera.
There are no pests of the order Lepidoptera associated with mangoes
from India, therefore this treatment would successfully mitigate the
risk of all 14 insect pests associated with mangoes from India. Each
shipment of fruit would have to be
[[Page 66882]]
accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the NPPO of India
certifying that the fruit received the required irradiation treatment.
In addition, this irradiation treatment would have to be administered
outside of the United States in an APHIS-certified facility and would
have to be monitored by APHIS inspectors. At this time India has an
irradiation facility, but it is not APHIS-certified. However, the
facility is such that it could be upgraded, retrofitted, and certified
should India apply for certification.
In accordance with Sec. 305.31, APHIS and the Indian NPPO would
have to jointly develop a preclearance work plan that details the
activities APHIS and the NPPO will carry out in connection with each
irradiation facility to verify the facility's compliance with 7 CFR
part 305. Typical activities to be described in the work plan may
include frequency of visits to the facility by APHIS and Indian
inspectors, methods for reviewing facility records, and methods for
verifying that facilities are in compliance with the requirements for
separation of articles, packaging, and labeling. This facility
preclearance work plan would have to be reviewed and renewed by APHIS
and the NPPO of India on an annual basis. In addition, the NPPO of
India would have to enter into a trust fund agreement with APHIS to
provide for all expenses incurred by APHIS while performing
preclearance activities, such as inspections for pests not targeted by
the irradiation treatment, and treatment monitoring services. Those
costs include administrative expenses and all salaries, travel
expenses, and other incidental expenses incurred by APHIS in performing
these services. The trust fund agreement would also describe the
general nature and scope of APHIS services provided at irradiation
facilities covered by the agreement, such as whether APHIS inspectors
will monitor operations continuously or intermittently, and would
generally describe the extent of inspections APHIS will perform on
articles prior to and after irradiation.
The required irradiation treatment would not mitigate the risks
posed by the fungi Actinodochium jenkinsii, Cytosphaera mangiferae,
Hendersonia creberrima, Macrophoma mangiferae, or Phomopsis mangiferae
or the bacterium Xanthomonas campestris pv. mangiferaeindicae. However
we consider Actinodochium jenkinsii, Hendersonia creberrima, and
Phomopsis mangiferae to be of low risk of introduction and
dissemination within the continental United States. This is because
these fungi occur only in tropical areas that roughly correspond to
USDA Plant Hardiness Zone 11. In addition, the host range for these
fungi appears to be limited to mango. Because the proposed distribution
of mangoes from India would be limited to the continental United
States, and the mango-producing areas of Florida and California
correspond to USDA Plant Hardiness Zone 10b, survival of these
pathogens is unlikely.
In order to mitigate the risks posed by Cytosphaera mangiferae and
Macrophoma mangiferae, which we consider to be of medium risk of
introduction and dissemination within the continental United States, we
are proposing three options: (1) The mangoes be treated with a broad-
spectrum post-harvest fungicidal dip, (2) the orchard of origin be
inspected at a time prior to the beginning of harvest as determined by
the mutual agreement between APHIS and the NPPO of India and be found
free of Cytosphaera mangiferae and Macrophoma mangiferae, or (3) the
orchard of origin be treated with a broad-spectrum fungicidal
application during the growing season, be inspected at a time prior to
the beginning of harvest as determined by the mutual agreement between
APHIS and the NPPO of India, and the fruit found free of Cytosphaera
mangiferae and Macrophoma mangiferae.
Symptoms of both fungal pathogens can be easily seen and detected
in the field on mango leaves and fruit during pre-harvest inspection.
Post-harvest diseases do not occur without the presence of fungal
symptoms on leaves in the field. In addition, standard phytosanitary
procedures in place in India already require the application of
fungicidal sprays twice during the mango growing season, once at bloom
and again between bloom and harvest. Orchard application of broad
spectrum fungicide sprays protects fruit from infection by aerial
spores produced on leaves or stems.
In order to mitigate the risks posed by Xanthomonas campestris pv.
mangiferaeindicae, which we also consider to be of medium risk of
introduction and dissemination within the continental United States, we
are proposing that the shipment be inspected during preclearance
activities and found free of Xanthomonas campestris pv.
mangiferaeindicae.
Symptoms of Xanthomonas campestris pv. mangiferaeindicae are also
easily discernible with the naked eye and would most likely be detected
during visual inspection of the fruit at the packinghouse. The
bacterium is not generally considered a post-harvest disease. Infection
occurs most often through wounds which would cause the fruit to be
culled during harvest or processing.
We further propose that each shipment of fruit be inspected jointly
by APHIS and NPPO of India inspectors and that the accompanying
phytosanitary certificate issued by the NPPO of India certifying that
the fruit received the required irradiation treatment include two
additional declarations. The first additional declaration would depend
on which of the three options described above was chosen, i.e., ``the
fruit in this shipment was subjected to a post-harvest broad spectrum
fungicidal dip,'' or ``the orchard where the fruit in this shipment was
grown was inspected prior to harvest and found free of Cytosphaera
mangiferae and Macrophoma mangiferae,'' or ``the orchard where the
fruit in this shipment was grown was treated with a broad spectrum
fungicide during the growing season, was inspected prior to harvest,
and the fruit was found free of Cytosphaera mangiferae and Macrophoma
mangiferae.'' The second additional declaration would have to state:
``The fruit in this shipment was inspected during pre-clearance
activities and found free of Cytosphaera mangiferae, Macrophoma
mangiferae, and Xanthomonas campestris pv. mangiferaeindicae.''
Specifically listing the pests on the additional declaration would also
serve to alert APHIS inspectors at the point of entry to the specific
pests of concern.
The commodity imports would be restricted to commercial shipments
only. Produce grown commercially is less likely to be infested with
plant pests than noncommercial shipments. Noncommercial shipments are
more prone to infestations because the commodity is often ripe to
overripe, could be of a variety with unknown susceptibility to pests,
and is often grown with little or no pest control. Commercial
shipments, as defined in Sec. 319.56-1, are shipments of fruits and
vegetables that an inspector identifies as having been produced for
sale and distribution in mass markets. Identification of a particular
shipment as commercial is based on a variety of indicators, including,
but not limited to, the quantity of produce, the type of packaging,
identification of a grower or packinghouse on the packaging, and
documents consigning the shipment to a wholesaler or retailer.
Commercially produced fruit in India are already subjected to standard
commercial cultural and post-harvest practices that reduce the risk
associated with plant
[[Page 66883]]
pests. While not specifically required by this proposal, standard
cultural practices other than the twice yearly application of broad
spectrum fungicides (e.g., the regular use of sanitation measures,
irrigation, fertilization, and pest control) help to further ensure
that the pests of concern do not follow the pathway. All export
orchards are registered production sites with traceback capability.
Harvested fruit is moved to the packinghouses in a manner that would
preclude reinfestation by pests. Culling of blemished and damaged fruit
occurs in the field and during the post-harvest commercial processing
of the fruit.
The regulations in Sec. 319.56-6 provide that all imported fruits
and vegetables shall be inspected, and shall be subject to such
disinfection at the port of first arrival as may be required by an
inspector. The pre-export inspection conducted by APHIS personnel as
part of preclearance activities in the country of export typically
serves to satisfy the inspection requirement. Section 319.56-6 also
provides that any shipment of fruits and vegetables may be refused
entry if the shipment is so infested with plant pests that an inspector
determines that it cannot be cleaned or treated. We believe that the
proposed conditions described above, as well as all other applicable
requirements in Sec. 319.56-6, would be adequate to prevent the
introduction of plant pests into the continental United States with
mangoes imported from India.
The proposed conditions described above for the importation of
mangoes from India into the continental United States would be added to
the fruits and vegetables regulations as a new Sec. 319.56-2tt. In
addition, we would also amend the table in Sec. 305.2(h)(2)(i) of the
phytosanitary treatments regulations by amending the entry for India to
include mangoes and designate irradiation (IR) as an approved treatment
for the specific pests named in this document.
Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866.
The 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 5 U.S.C. 603, we have performed an initial
regulatory flexibility analysis, which is set out below, regarding the
effects of this proposed rule on small entities. We do not currently
have all the data necessary for a comprehensive analysis of the effects
of this proposed rule on small entities. Therefore, we are inviting
comments concerning potential effects.
Production of mangoes in the United States is limited to three
States: Florida, California, and Hawaii. Due to climatic conditions and
expanding urbanization in areas of production, mango-producing acreage
is small and production minimal. We rely heavily on imports of fresh
mangoes in order to meet consumer demand. The majority of mangoes
produced in Florida, California, and Hawaii are destined for local
markets, with very limited larger-scale commercial production. Below we
examine recent production in the three mango-producing States, followed
by a discussion of foreign supply.
Florida
Over 80 percent of mango acreage in Florida is located in Miami-
Dade County, and the remaining acreage is located in surrounding areas.
Mango cultivars commonly grown in Florida, which also make up the
majority of varieties currently exported to the United States, are
`Tommy Atkins,' `Keitt,' `Haden,' and `Kent.' The 2002 Census of
Agriculture states that Florida had 400 mango-producing farms with
1,373 acres.\1\ By 2003, the most recent year for which statistics are
available, the number of acres had dropped to 1,300, a 24 percent
decline in 3 years. Recent estimates indicate that the acreage has
decreased still further, to a modest 1,000 acres in 2005.\2\ Only two
acres of mangoes have been planted in Florida since 2000. In a 1997
production report, the last year these statistics were gathered, a
mango crop of 100,000 bushels (5.5 million pounds) was harvested, with
a price of $14.50 per bushel, yielding a total value of $1.45
million.\3\ Due to declining acreage, and consequently reduced harvest
yield, production and value statistics are no longer maintained. The
majority of mangoes produced in Florida are destined for local farmers'
and specialty markets, or sold as green fruit for processing. We are
unaware of any larger-scale commercial shipments of fresh mangoes by
Florida producers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ USDA-NASS. 2002 Census of Agriculture, Table 31. Fruits and
Nuts: 2002 and 1997. Washington, DC: National Agricultural
Statistics Service, 2002.
\2\ Richard J. Campbell, PhD, Senior Curator of Tropical Fruit,
``International Mango Festival 2005 Curator's Choice Cultivars.''
Coral Gables, FL: Fairchild Tropical Botanic Garden, page updated
May 31, 2005. (http://www.[fxsp0]fairchildgarden.[fxsp0]org/
horticulture/mangocurators.[fxsp0]html.)
\3\ USDA-NASS-FL. Tropical Fruit Acres and Trees. Orlando, FL:
Florida Agricultural Statistics Service, December 11, 2002 and May
12, 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
California
According to the 2002 Census of Agriculture, there were 11 mango-
producing farms in California, with an unknown amount of acreage.\4\
Until recently, mangoes produced in California were thought to be sold
only in local markets. However, recent news reports indicate that there
are two commercial mango operations in the Coachella Valley of
California that sell their fruit through the Corona College Heights
Orange & Lemon Association in Corona, CA.\5\ According to the article,
the two operations have a combined total of 210 bearing acres, yielding
about 275,000 cartons of mangoes (approximately 3.8 million pounds),
with a little less than half being certified organic.\6\ In addition,
one of the growers expects to have an additional 48 acres bearing fruit
by 2007. Commercial mango production in California is a relatively new
venture, and is expected to grow only gradually. As the article points
out, the availability of suitable land for mangoes is limited due to
the fruits' susceptibility to frost. For those areas that are not prone
to frost, producers are reluctant to switch to mango production from
profitable crops such as grapes and citrus because of the heavy initial
investments and the long period between first investment and return.
The time period between first planting and first production is 5 years
for mango trees, so it is not surprising that producers are reluctant
to enter into this industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The production acreage was withheld to avoid disclosing
confidential business information for individual farms.
\5\ ``Organic Mangos Now Coming Out of California'' by Tim
Linden. Web site: http://theproducenews.[fxsp0]com/
storydetail.cfm?ID=6216, August 18, 2006.
\6\ Note: According to a source describing the harvesting and
packing of Florida mangoes, a carton can hold 8 to 20 mangoes
depending on the size of the fruit, and have a capacity of 14 lbs
(6.35 kg) of fruit (http://www.hort.[fxsp0]purdue.[fxsp0]edu/
newcrop/morton/mango--ars.html).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hawaii
In 2002, the Census of Agriculture recorded 212 mango-producing
farms in Hawaii, but withheld production acreage to avoid disclosing
information for individual operations. In 2004, the Hawaiian field
office of the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) reported
there were 140 farms, with a total of 275 acres of crops, of which 200
acres yielded utilized production of 380,000 pounds, with a sales value
of $350,000. Preliminary reports for 2005 indicate a decrease of 28.5
percent in the number of mango farms to 100, but an increase in total
crop acreage to 295. The amount of harvested acres in 2005
[[Page 66884]]
was 190, which represents a slight decrease. However, there was a 39.4
percent increase in utilized production, which, combined with a higher
farm price per pound, yielded a 40.2 percent increase in total sales
value to $586,000.\7\ The amount of commercial production of mangoes in
Hawaii is unknown at this time; however, we believe the majority of
production is funneled into local markets. We welcome public comment
regarding the amount of commercial production of mangoes in Hawaii
other than for local markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ USDA-NASS-HI. Hawaii Tropical Specialty Fruits. Honolulu,
HI: National Agricultural Statistics Service USDA, Hawaii Field
Office, 2004 and 2005 edition. Note: Utilized production may include
fresh and processed utilization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As is evident, U.S. mango production is limited, with most of the
fruit sold locally. In fact, official supply and utilization data
maintained by USDA's Economic Research Service (ERS) have not recorded
domestic production figures since 1998. U.S. consumers are almost
entirely dependent on imports to meet domestic demand. Table 1 presents
ERS data on the supply and utilization of fresh mangoes, 2002-2004.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ USDA-ERS. Table F-6, Fresh Mangoes: Supply and Utilization,
1980 to date. Washington, DC: Economic Research Service, December
21, 2005.
Table 1.--Fresh Mangoes Supply and Utilization
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Utilization
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Consumption
Imports Total supply Exports ---------------------------------
Total Per capita
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Million pounds Pounds
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002............................................................... 580.6 580.6 11.8 568.8 1.97
2003............................................................... 613.8 613.8 14.5 599.4 2.06
2004............................................................... 609.2 609.2 17.1 592.1 2.01
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Preliminary estimates for 2005 indicate annual consumption was 1.9
pounds per person, down slightly from a historic high of a little over
2 pounds per person reached in 2003. Industry experts correlate this
decline with lower imports, and believe the downward trend in
consumption will be reversed should imports continue higher throughout
the rest of 2006.\9\ In 2005, 575.1 million pounds of fresh mangoes
were imported into the United States, which was a decline from the
previous year when imports totaled 609.2 million pounds. Table 2
highlights the volume of fresh mango imports for the calendar year 2005
from the top five countries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ USDA-ERS. Fruit and Tree Nuts Outlook. May 25, 2006.
Table 2.--Fresh Mango Imports, Volume and Value, January-December 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Imports 9/1-5/ Imports 6/1-8/ Total yearly Total yearly
Country 31 31 imports Value 9/1-5/31 Value 6/1-8/31 value
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Million pounds
1,000 dollars
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mexico.................................................. 169.7 180.7 350.4 $51,707 $51,603 $103,310
Peru.................................................... 65.8 .............. 65.8 21,522 .............. 21,522
Brazil.................................................. 56.0 1.6 57.6 17,638 585 18,223
Ecuador................................................. 53.1 .............. 53.1 13,476 .............. 13,476
Haiti................................................... 11.4 9.2 20.7 3,886 3,457 7,343
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
World total......................................... 382.9 192.1 575.0 113,309 55,808 169,117
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data Source: Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, Foreign Trade Statistics.
Note: HS Codes used were 0804504040 (mangoes fresh, entered 9/1-5/31) and 0804506040 (mangoes fresh, entered 6/1-8/31).
The 2005 trade statistics indicate fresh mangoes were imported from
13 countries, with the overwhelming majority originating from countries
in Central and South America. Although the United States imports
mangoes from many countries, Mexico is the major supplier, with a
market share of more than 60 percent of the annual import volume, and
therefore, essentially 60 percent of the U.S. supply of mangoes.
Interestingly, though, Mexico is only the fourth leading producer of
mangoes, trailing behind India, China, and Thailand. Its proximity to
the United States and participation in the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA) provide advantages over other exporting countries of
lower transport costs and reduced or no tariffs.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ USDA-ERS. Fruit and Tree Nuts Briefing Room. Updated:
October 8, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 66885]]
Although the proposed rule would allow imports of all mango
varieties, India is currently interested in exporting three varieties
of mangoes to the United States--`Kesar,' `Alfonse,' \11\ and
`Banganpalli'--from four States: Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Maharashtra,
and Uttar Pradesh. Based on a site visit conducted by APHIS officials,
we believe the majority of exports would originate from Gujarat and
Maharashtra, where there are two and six production areas,
respectively, producing `Kesar' and `Alfonse' varieties. The harvest
season in India starts in late spring, usually April or May, and lasts
about 2\\1/2\\ months. According to the request from the Government of
India, the quantity of mangoes exported to the United States would be
about 100 sea containers per year.\12\ With India being the world
leader in mango production, and a typical export packinghouse having a
shipping capacity of 40-50 metric tons (over 88,000 lbs.) per day for
45-50 days of the harvest season, the amount imported into the United
States would likely only be limited by U.S. market forces. Entry of
Indian mangoes into the domestic market would provide increased variety
and greater selection for consumers in the continental United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ This mango variety is also known as `Alfonso'.
\12\ Source: A Qualitative, Pathway-Initiated Pest Risk
Assessment, prepared June 2006 (APHIS). Note: The average container
used to ship mangoes from South America is a 44-foot container,
having an average capacity of 22 pallets. Each pallet holds an
average of 200 boxes. The average weight of each box is 5.0
kilograms (kg). Thus, the total weight of each container is 200
boxes x 5.0 kg x 22 pallet = 22,000 kg (48,501.70 lbs.). Source:
Adly Ibrahim (APHIS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The overwhelming majority of mangoes produced domestically are sold
in local markets. Even though the proposed rule could result in an
overall increase in fresh mango imports, and thus, an increase in
domestic supply, we do not anticipate the price impacts on domestic
mango producers to be large. Indian mangoes would primarily compete for
market share against other imported mangoes. Based on the higher
transportation costs alone, we would expect the price of Indian mangoes
to be higher than mangoes coming from countries currently exporting to
the United States. Statistics show that in 2004, the export price of
Indian mangoes ($595.95/metric tonne) was 16 percent higher than the
export price of mangoes from Mexico ($511.96/metric tonne), our primary
supplier.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ FAOSTAT-TradeSTAT. Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations Trade Databases. (http://faostat.fao.org).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to compete with other countries importing mangoes into the
United States, India expects to first target niche and gourmet markets
by promoting the mangoes as premium quality fruit. Producers indicated
to the APHIS site visit team that initially, the mangoes are expected
to be sold through premium catalog sales and/or in specialty and ethnic
grocers, after which the mangoes would then be sold in the regular
retail sector. Additionally, we expect that India would initially
target those geographic areas and markets with high concentrations of
Asian and South-Asian persons. According to the United States Census in
2000, 11.9 million people, or 4.2 percent of the population, identified
themselves as Asian. The 10 states with the largest Asian demographic
in 2000 were California, New York, Hawaii, Texas, New Jersey, Illinois,
Washington, Florida, Virginia, and Massachusetts, which combined
represent 75 percent of the Asian population in the United States.
Regionally, the West and the Northeast have the largest concentrations
of Asians. Asian Indians represented the third largest specified Asian
group, with a total of 1.9 million people who reported Asian Indian
alone or in combination with at least one other race or Asian
group.\14\ Usually, economic theory dictates that an overall increase
in supply of a particular commodity would trigger downward pressure on
price and result in reduced market share for domestic producers of that
commodity. However, we believe the effects on domestic producers of the
proposed rule would be minimal, in light of the predominance of imports
and the specialty markets that India is expected to target. Based on
the information we have at this time, we expect the benefits of opening
the market to Indian mangoes would outweigh any expected costs to
domestic producers. However, we welcome public comment on possible
impacts on domestic entities as a result of the proposed regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ The Asian Population: 2000, Census 2000 Brief. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics
Administration, U.S. Census Bureau, Issued February 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed rule would only allow the importation of commercial
shipments of fresh mangoes from India provided they have undergone
specific phytosanitary requirements. The requirements outlined in the
proposed rule include treatment in India of mango fruit with
irradiation using a minimum absorbed dose of 400 gray, and preclearance
inspection for those pests not targeted by the irradiation treatment.
The NPPO of India would enter into a trust fund agreement with APHIS to
provide for all expenses incurred by APHIS while performing
preclearance activities, including salaries and administrative, travel,
and other incidental expenses. Costs, if any, not covered by the trust
fund would be minimal. In addition to irradiation and other
preclearance activities, current regulations set out a course of action
if, on inspection at the port of arrival, any actionable pest or
pathogen is identified. We believe these risk-mitigating phytosanitary
measures are sufficient to protect against the introduction of
quarantine plant pests into the continental United States associated
with the importation of mangoes from India.
The proposed rule may affect domestic producers of mangoes, as well
as firms that import mangoes, which are likely to be classified as
small entities according to U.S. Small Business Administration's (SBA)
guidelines.
As described above, there is very little larger-scale commercial
production of mangoes within the United States. The overwhelming
majority of domestically produced mangoes are sold in local markets. In
fact, official supply and utilization data maintained by USDA's
Economic Research Service (ERS) have not recorded domestic production
figures since 1998. The SBA's size standard for mango farming is
$750,000 or less in annual receipts.\15\ According to the 2002 Census
of Agriculture, there were a total of 623 farms (400 in Florida, 11 in
California, and 212 in Hawaii) engaged in mango production. Census data
did not include annual sale valuation statistics for mango-producing
farms. The exact number of mango farms that would be considered small
by SBA standards is unknown. However, based on the small bearing
acreage, production principally for local markets, and our dependence
on imports to meet domestic demand for mangoes, we would expect the
majority of these operations to be classified as small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Table of Size Standards based on NAICS 2002 [Other
Noncitrus Fruit Farming: NAICS code 111339]. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Small Business Administration, effective July 31, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 66886]]
Other industries that may be affected by the proposed rule, as
categorized in the North American Industry Classification System
(NAICS), are Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Merchant Wholesalers (NAICS
424480), Fruit and Vegetable Markets (NAICS 445230), and Mail-Order
Houses (NAICS 454113).\16\ All of these industries are primarily
comprised of small entities. There were 4,644 fruit and vegetable
merchant establishments that operated for the entire year, with 4,436
of them, or 95.5 percent, operating with fewer than 100 employees. Of
the 2,257 fruit and vegetable market establishments that operated for
the entire year, only 84 of them had sales of over $5 million, leaving
over 96 percent of these establishments with sales less than $5
million. Lastly, there were 8,224 establishments classified under the
NAICS code for mail-order houses, of which 7,319 of them, or about 89
percent, had annual sales of less than $10 million.\17\ All of the
above industries may benefit from the proposed rule by having access to
Indian mangoes, which could bolster sales volume and annual revenue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ SBA size standards are as follows: NAICS code 424480: 100
employees or less; NAICS code 445230: $6.5 million or less in annual
receipts; NAICS code 454113 (note: includes those operations that
engage in direct catalog sales): $23 million or less in annual
receipts.
\17\ Establishment and Firm Size based on 2002 Economic Census.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and
Statistics Administration, U.S. Census Bureau, Issued December 2005
(wholesale trade) and November 2005 (retail trade).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are no significant alternatives to the proposed rule that
would accomplish the stated objectives. The only alternative to the
proposed rule would be to continue to prohibit imports from this
region, thereby ignoring evidence that the pest risks associated with
mango importation are minimal if we follow specified phytosanitary
protocols. This alternative is not a viable option, as it would be
inconsistent with international agreements to which the United States
is a party that state that regulatory restrictions should be based on
scientific evidence and applied only to the extent necessary to protect
plant, human, and animal health.
This proposed rule contains various recordkeeping and reporting
requirements. These requirements are described in this document under
the heading ``Paperwork Reduction Act.''
Executive Order 12988
This proposed rule would allow mangoes to be imported into the
United States from India. If this proposed rule is adopted, State and
local laws and regulations regarding mangoes imported under this rule
would be preempted while the fruit is in foreign commerce. Fresh fruits
are generally imported for immediate distribution and sale to the
consuming public and would 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. If this proposed
rule is adopted, 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.
National Environmental Policy Act
To provide the public with documentation of APHIS' review and
analysis of any potential environmental impacts associated with the
proposed importation of mangoes from India into the continental United
States, we have prepared an environmental assessment. The environmental
assessment was prepared in accordance with: (1) The National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.), (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).
The environmental assessment may be viewed on the Regulations.gov
Web site or in our reading room. (Instructions for accessing
Regulations.gov and information on the location and hours of the
reading room are provided under the heading ADDRESSES at the beginning
of this proposed rule.) In addition, copies may be obtained by calling
or writing to the individual listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
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 proposed rule have been
submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Please send written comments to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for APHIS, Washington,
DC 20503. Please state that your comments refer to Docket No. APHIS-
2006-0121. Please send a copy of your comments to: (1) Docket No.
APHIS-2006-0121, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS,
Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238,
and (2) Clearance Officer, OCIO, USDA, room 404-W, 14th Street and
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250. A comment to OMB is
best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30
days of publication of this proposed rule.
APHIS is proposing to amend the fruits and vegetables regulations
to allow the importation into the continental United States of mangoes
from India under certain conditions. As a condition of entry, the
mangoes would have to undergo irradiation treatment and be accompanied
by a phytosanitary certificate with additional declaration providing
specific information regarding the treatment and inspection of the
mangoes and the orchards in which they are grown. In addition, the
mangoes would be subject to inspection at the port of first arrival.
This action would allow for the importation of mangoes from India, into
the continental United States while continuing to provide protection
against the introduction of quarantine pests.
This proposed rule will require the use of phytosanitary
certificates (foreign), additional declarations, compliance agreements
(foreign), preclearance workplans, trust fund agreements, and
recordkeeping.
We are soliciting comments from the public (as well as affected
agencies) concerning our proposed information collection and
recordkeeping requirements. These comments will help us:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is
necessary for the proper performance of our agency's functions,
including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the
proposed information collection, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the information collection on those who
are to respond (such as through the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology; e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses).
Estimate of burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of
information is estimated to average 0.5260 hours per response.
Respondents: NPPOs and importers of mangoes.
Estimated annual number of respondents: 154.
[[Page 66887]]
Estimated annual number of responses per respondent: 33.1428.
Estimated annual number of responses: 5,104.
Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 2,685 hours. (Due to
averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of
the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per
response.)
Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Mrs.
Celeste Sickles, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301)
734-7477.
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 proposed rule, please contact Mrs. Celeste
Sickles, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 734-7477.
List of Subjects
7 CFR Part 305
Irradiation, Phytosanitary treatment, Plant diseases and pests,
Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
7 CFR Part 319
Coffee, Cotton, Fruits, Imports, Logs, Nursery stock, Plant
diseases and pests, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Rice, Vegetables.
Accordingly, we propose to amend 7 CFR parts 305 and 319 as
follows:
PART 305--PHYTOSANITARY TREATMENTS
1. The authority citation for part 305 would continue to read as
follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7701-7772 and 7781-7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 and
136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.
2. In Sec. 305.2, the table in paragraph (h)(2)(i) would be
amended by adding, under India, an entry for mango to read as follows:
Sec. 305.2 Approved treatments.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Location Commodity Pest Treatment schedule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
India
* * * * * * *
Mango................. Plant pests of the class IR
Insecta except pupae and
adults of the order
Lepidoptera.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
PART 319--FOREIGN QUARANTINE NOTICES
3. The authority citation for part 319 would continue to read as
follows:
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.
4. A new Sec. 319.56-2tt would be added to read as follows:
Sec. 319.56-2tt Conditions governing the entry of mangoes from India.
Mangoes (Mangifera indica) may be imported into the continental
United States from India only under the following conditions:
(a) The mangoes must be treated in India with irradiation by
receiving a minimum absorbed dose of 400 Gy in accordance with Sec.
305.31 of this chapter.
(b) The risks presented by Cytosphaera mangiferae and Macrophoma
mangiferae must be addressed in one of the following ways:
(1) The mangoes are treated with a broad-spectrum post-harvest
fungicidal dip; or
(2) The orchard of origin is inspected prior to the beginning of
harvest as determined by the mutual agreement between APHIS and the
national plant protection organization (NPPO ) of India and the orchard
is found free of Cytosphaera mangiferae and Macrophoma mangiferae; or
(3) The orchard of origin is treated with a broad-spectrum
fungicide during the growing season and is inspected prior to the
beginning of harvest as determined by the mutual agreement between
APHIS and the NPPO of India and the fruit found free of Cytosphaera
mangiferae and Macrophoma mangiferae.
(c) Each shipment of mangoes must be inspected jointly by APHIS and
the NPPO of India as part of the required preclearance inspection
activities at a time and in a manner determined by mutual agreement
between APHIS and the NPPO of India.
(d) The risks presented by Cytosphaera mangiferae, Macrophoma
mangiferae, and Xanthomonas campestris pv. mangiferaeindicae must be
addressed by inspection during preclearance activities.
(e) Each shipment of fruit must be inspected jointly by APHIS and
the NPPO of India and accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued
by the NPPO of India certifying that the fruit received the required
irradiation treatment. The phytosanitary certificate must also bear the
following two additional declarations:
(1) A declaration identifying which of the mitigations provided
under paragraph (b) of this section was used, i.e.:
(i) ``The fruit in this shipment was subjected to a post-harvest
broad spectrum fungicidal dip,'' or
(ii) ``The orchard where the fruit in this shipment was grown was
inspected prior to harvest and the orchard was found free of
Cytosphaera mangiferae and Macrophoma mangiferae,'' or
(iii) ``The orchard where the fruit in this shipment was grown was
treated with a broad spectrum fungicide during the growing season, was
inspected prior to harvest, and the fruit was found free of Cytosphaera
mangiferae and Macrophoma mangiferae.''
(2) A declaration stating: ``The fruit in this shipment was
inspected during preclearance activities and found free of Cytosphaera
mangiferae, Macrophoma mangiferae, and Xanthomonas campestris pv.
mangiferaeindicae.''
(f) The mangoes may be imported in commercial shipments only.
[[Page 66888]]
Done in Washington, DC, this 14th day of November 2006.
Kevin Shea,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. E6-19452 Filed 11-16-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P