[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 222 (Friday, November 17, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 66881-66888]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-19452]


 ========================================================================
 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.
 
 ========================================================================
 

  Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 222 / Friday, November 17, 2006 / 
Proposed 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.fairchildgarden.org/horticulture/mangocurators.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.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.purdue.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