[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 47 (Monday, March 12, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 10902-10907]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4444]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We are amending 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 
must 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 will be subject to inspection at the port of first arrival. 
This action allows for the importation of mangoes from India into the 
continental United States while continuing to provide protection 
against the introduction of quarantine pests.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 12, 2007.

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.
    On November 17, 2006, we published in the Federal Register (71 FR 
66881-66888, Docket No. APHIS-2006-0121) a proposal \1\ to allow the 
importation into the continental United States of mangoes from India 
under certain conditions. As a condition of entry, we proposed that the 
mangoes would have to be treated with a minimum absorbed dose of 400 
gray of irradiation and be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate 
certifying that the fruit received the required irradiation treatment. 
In addition, because the required irradiation treatment would not 
mitigate the risks posed by the fungi Cytosphaera mangiferae and 
Macrophoma mangiferae or the bacterium Xanthomonas campestris pv. 
mangiferaeindicae, which we consider to be of medium risk of 
introduction and dissemination within the continental United States, we 
proposed additional safeguarding measures. For the two fungi; we 
proposed 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 the Animal and Plant Health Inspection 
Service (APHIS) and the national plant protection organization (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. For the bacterium 
X. campestris pv. mangiferaeindicae, we proposed that the shipment be 
inspected during preclearance activities and found free of X. 
campestris pv. mangiferaeindicae. The required phytosanitary 
certificate would have to confirm that one of the three measures 
described above for the fungi and the inspection for the bacterium had 
been carried out.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ To view the proposed rule and the comments we received, go 
to http://www.regulations.gov, click on the ``Advanced Search'' tab, 
and select ``Docket Search.'' In the Docket ID field, enter APHIS-
2006-0121, then click ``Submit.'' Clicking on the Docket ID link in 
the search results page will produce a list of all documents in the 
docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We solicited comments concerning our proposal for 60 days, ending 
January 16, 2007. We received three comments by that date. The first 
comment was from a private citizen who requested that American 
businesses be allowed to import fruit from wherever they like without 
being subject to regulations. Such an approach would present an 
unacceptable level of risk. As The Plant Protection Act (PPA, 7 U.S.C. 
7701 et seq.) states, the unregulated movement of plant pests, noxious 
weeds, plants, certain biological control organisms, plant products, 
and articles capable of harboring plant pests or noxious weeds could 
present an unacceptable risk of introducing or spreading plant pests or 
noxious weeds, which is contrary to

[[Page 10903]]

APHIS' mission to protect American agriculture. Therefore, the PPA 
authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to prohibit or restrict the 
importation, entry, exportation, or movement in interstate commerce of 
any plant, plant product, biological control organism, noxious weed, 
article, or means of conveyance if the Secretary determines that the 
prohibition or restriction is necessary to prevent the introduction of 
a plant pest or noxious weed into the United States or the 
dissemination of a plant pest or noxious weed within the United States. 
The Secretary of Agriculture has delegated this authority to APHIS.
    The second comment was from an industry group that offered a 
correction to the statement in the proposed rule that India contains 
only one irradiation facility. The commenter stated that there are 
multiple food irradiation facilities in India, although the commenter 
did not know of the APHIS certification status of these additional 
facilities. To our knowledge, India is currently making the necessary 
adjustments to only one facility to meet the requirements outlined in 7 
CFR part 305. Additional irradiation facilities can be evaluated for 
APHIS certification, if requested by the Government of India.
    The third comment was from a representative of the NPPO of India. 
The commenter asked that APHIS work with the NPPO of India to reduce 
the cost of the trust fund required by the regulations to pay for the 
cost of preclearance activities. APHIS acknowledges, and has 
considered, India's concerns about the cost of the preclearance program 
and we will work with the NPPO to explore ways to minimize costs.
    The commenter also asked that APHIS recognize a secondary 
government agency, The Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export 
Development Authority, working on behalf of the NPPO of India to 
implement the requirement for the registration of packinghouses and 
orchards within India. This request is consistent with the terms of the 
operational workplan, which allows the NPPO of an importing country or 
its designee to conduct inspections, registration, etc.
    The commenter also requested that APHIS forward guidelines for the 
labeling of mango shipments from other countries to the NPPO of India 
in order to develop its own guidelines. Due to the irradiation 
requirement for mangoes from India, labeling requirements for shipments 
of Indian mangoes will be different than mangoes imported from other 
countries. The use of irradiation on Indian mangoes also means that, in 
addition to APHIS labeling requirements, Indian mangoes must also meet 
Food and Drug Administration labeling requirements. Requirements for 
the labeling of shipments of mangoes from India will be provided in the 
operational workplan.
    The commenter also suggested limiting the additional declarations 
on the phytosanitary certificate to a statement regarding the broad 
spectrum fungicidal dip and pest freedom of shipments. The commenter 
stated that the additional declarations in the proposed rule were 
needless due to preclearance activities already requiring pre-export 
inspection by APHIS. Additional declarations are common on 
phytosanitary certificates for fruit and vegetable imports and serve to 
alert APHIS inspectors at the port of entry to specific pests of 
concern or specific operational procedures that were required to be met 
before import. While we do not agree with the statement that the 
additional declarations are needless, we agree that the text of the 
requirement could be simplified. Therefore, in this final rule, 
paragraph (e) of Sec.  319.56-2tt requires, with respect to the 
additional declaration, that the NPPO confirm that (1) The mangoes were 
subjected to one of the pre- or post-harvest mitigation options 
described in Sec.  319.56-2tt(b) and (2) the mangoes were inspected 
during preclearance activities and found free of Cytosphaera 
mangiferae, Macrophoma mangiferae, and Xanthomonas campestris pv. 
mangiferaeindicae.
    The commenter indicated that producers in India may wish to export 
mango varieties other than, or in addition to, the three varieties 
mentioned in the proposed rule. We mentioned specific varieties in the 
proposed rule's economic analysis, but the regulatory text of the 
proposed rule and this final rule contains no limitations on the 
varieties of mangoes that will be eligible for importation into the 
continental United States from India.
    The economic analysis in the proposed rule stated that the mango 
harvest season in India usually begins in April or May and lasts about 
2 months. The commenter stated that the harvest season stretches from 
March to July. The economic analysis in this final rule has been 
updated to reflect the timeframe provided by the commenter. That change 
does not affect the conclusions of our analysis.
    Finally, the commenter stated that the wrapping of pallet-loads of 
cartons with polyethylene prior to leaving the treatment facility will 
not be practical for shipments to the United States because the final 
palletization of air shipments would be conducted at the airport. As an 
alternative, the commenter suggested the use of individual, pest-proof 
boxes with less than 1.6 mm netting to protect against pests entering 
the boxes through ventilation holes. The regulations in Sec.  
305.31(g)(3)(i)(A) provide for the use of the individual pest-proof 
boxes suggested by the commenter as a means of protecting treated fruit 
from reinfestation. However, the wrapping or strapping of pallet-loads 
of cartons referred to by the commenter is required under regulations 
in Sec.  305.31(g)(3)(ii) in order to preserve the identity of treated 
lots, which is something that the commenter's suggestion does not 
address. We are willing to work with the Indian NPPO to explore 
alternative ways to preserve the identity of treated lots in accordance 
with the applicable regulations.
    Therefore, for the reasons given in the proposed rule and in this 
document, we are adopting the proposed rule as a final rule, with the 
changes discussed in this document.

Effective Date

    This is a substantive rule that relieves restrictions and, pursuant 
to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553, may be made effective less than 30 
days after publication in the Federal Register. Immediate 
implementation of this rule is necessary to provide relief to those 
persons who are adversely affected by restrictions we no longer find 
warranted. The harvest season for mangoes from India begins in March. 
Making this rule effective immediately will allow interested producers 
and others in the marketing chain to benefit during this year's 
shipping season. Therefore, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant 
Health Inspection Service has determined that this rule should be 
effective upon publication in the Federal Register.

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This 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.
    We are amending 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 must 
undergo irradiation treatment and be accompanied by a phytosanitary 
certificate with additional declarations providing specific information 
regarding

[[Page 10904]]

the treatment and inspection of the mangoes and the orchards in which 
they were grown. In addition, the mangoes will be subject to inspection 
at the port of first arrival. This action allows for the importation of 
mangoes from India into the continental United States while continuing 
to provide protection against the introduction of quarantine pests.
    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. The 
Small Business Administration's (SBA) size standard for mango farming 
is $750,000 or less in annual receipts.\2\ 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. Below we 
examine recent production in the three mango-producing States, followed 
by a discussion of foreign supply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Table of Size Standards based on NAICS 2002 [Other Noncitrus 
Fruit Farming: NAICS code 111339]. Washington, DC: U.S. Small 
Business Administration, effective July 31, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.\3\ 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.\4\ Only two 
new 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.\5\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ USDA-NASS. 2002 Census of Agriculture, Table 31. Fruits and 
Nuts: 2002 and 1997. Washington, DC: National Agricultural 
Statistics Service, 2002.
    \4\ Richard J. Campbell, Ph.D. 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.)
    \5\ 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.\6\ 
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.\7\ 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.\8\ In addition, 
one of the growers expects to have an additional 48 acres bearing fruit 
in 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The production acreage was withheld to avoid disclosing 
confidential business information for individual farms.
    \7\ ``Organic Mangos Now Coming Out of California'' by Tim 
Linden. Web site: http://theproducenews.com/storydetail.cfm?ID=6216, 
August 18, 2006.
    \8\ 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 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.\9\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ USDA-NASS-HI. Hawaii Tropical Specialty Fruits. Honolulu, 
Hawaii: 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, 2002-2005.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ USDA-ERS. Table F-8 Fresh Mangoes: Supply and Utilization, 
1980 to date. Washington, DC: Economic Research Service, October 
2006.

[[Page 10905]]



                                 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
2005............................           575.1           575.1            18.3           556.7            1.88
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As is evident from the data, annual consumption of fresh mangoes in 
2005 was 1.88 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 as preliminary data indicates 
imports were higher in 2006.\11\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 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    Value  9/1-5/   Value  6/1-8/   Total yearly
                         Country                                31              31            imports           31              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.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ USDA-ERS. Fruit and Tree Nuts Briefing Room. Updated: 
October 8, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although this final rule will allow imports of all mango varieties, 
according to comments received on the proposed rule, producers in India 
are currently interested in exporting six varieties of mangoes to the 
United States--`Kesar,' `Alfonse,' \13\ `Banganpalli,' `Lagra,' 
`Dussehry,' and `Neelam'--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. 
Comments received on the proposed rule indicate that the harvest season 
in India stretches from March to July. 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.\14\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ This mango variety is also known as `Alfonso'.
    \14\ 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 200 boxes. The average weight of each box is 5.0 kilogram 
(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 this final rule will 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

[[Page 10906]]

mangoes from Mexico ($511.96/metric tonne), our primary supplier.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 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.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
this final rule would be minimal, in light of the predominance of 
imports and the specialty markets that India is expected to target. 
Other industries that may be affected by this final 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).\17\ 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.\18\ All of the 
above industries may benefit from this final rule by having access to 
Indian mangoes, which could bolster sales volume and annual revenue. 
Based on the research we have conducted and the lack of comments on the 
proposed rule that would suggest otherwise, we expect the benefits of 
opening the market to Indian mangoes would outweigh any expected costs 
to domestic producers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 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.
    \18\ Establishment and Firm Size based on 2002 Economic Census. 
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and 
Statistics Administration, U.S. Census Bureau, issued December 2005 
(wholesale trade) and November 2005 (retail trade).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The final rule will only allow the importation of commercial 
shipments of fresh mangoes from India provided they meet specific 
phytosanitary requirements. The requirements in this final 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 will 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 will 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.
    Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and 
Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action will 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.

Executive Order 12988

    This final rule allows mangoes to be imported into the United 
States from India. State and local laws and regulations regarding 
mangoes imported under this rule will be preempted while the fruit is 
in foreign commerce. Fresh fruits are generally imported for immediate 
distribution and sale to the consuming public, and remain in foreign 
commerce until sold to the ultimate consumer. The question of when 
foreign commerce ceases in other cases must be addressed on a case-by-
case basis. No retroactive effect will be given to this rule, and this 
rule will not require administrative proceedings before parties may 
file suit in court challenging this rule.

National Environmental Policy Act

    An environmental assessment was prepared for, and made available 
for public comment through, the proposed rule for this rulemaking. No 
comments regarding the environmental assessment were received during 
the comment period for the proposed rule. The environmental assessment 
provides a basis for the conclusion that the importation of mangoes 
under the conditions specified in this rule will not have a significant 
impact on the quality of the human environment. Based on the finding of 
no significant impact, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health 
Inspection Service has determined that an environmental impact 
statement need not be prepared.
    The environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact 
were 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 and finding of no significant impact 
may be viewed on the Regulations.gov Web site.\19\ Copies of the 
environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact are also 
available for public inspection at USDA, room 1141, South Building, 
14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC, between 8 a.m. 
and 4:30 p.m., Monday through

[[Page 10907]]

Friday, except holidays. Persons wishing to inspect copies are 
requested to call ahead on (202) 690-2817 to facilitate entry into the 
reading room. In addition, copies may be obtained by writing to the 
individual listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Go to http://www.regulations.gov, click on the ``Advanced 
Search'' tab and select ``Docket Search.'' In the Docket ID field, 
enter APHIS-2006-0121, click on ``Submit,'' then click on the Docket 
ID link in the search results page. The environmental assessment and 
finding of no significant impact will appear in the resulting list 
of documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paperwork Reduction Act

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 
3501 et seq.), the information collection or recordkeeping requirements 
included in this rule have been approved by the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) under OMB control number 0579-0312.

E-Government Act Compliance

    The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is committed to 
compliance with the E-Government Act to promote the use of the Internet 
and other information technologies, to provide increased opportunities 
for citizen access to Government information and services, and for 
other purposes. For information pertinent to E-Government Act 
compliance related to this rule, please contact Mrs. Celeste Sickles, 
APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 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.


0
Accordingly, we are amending 7 CFR parts 305 and 319 as follows:

PART 305--PHYTOSANITARY TREATMENTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 305 continues 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.

0
2. In Sec.  305.2, the table in paragraph (h)(2)(i) is 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

0
3. The authority citation for part 319 continues 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.


0
4. A new Sec.  319.56-2tt is 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 consignment 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 consignment 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 two additional declarations confirming that:
    (1) The mangoes were subjected to one of the pre- or post-harvest 
mitigation options described in Sec.  319.56-2tt(b) and
    (2) The mangoes were 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 consignments only. 
Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 
0579-0312)

    Done in Washington, DC, this 7th day of March 2007.
Kevin Shea,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
 [FR Doc. E7-4444 Filed 3-9-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P