[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 73 (Wednesday, April 15, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20975-20983]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-08059]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

[Docket No. APHIS-2014-0005]


Decision To Authorize the Importation of Fresh Citrus From China 
Into the Continental United States

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: We are advising the public of our decision to authorize the 
importation of five species of commercially produced fresh citrus fruit 
(pummelo, Nanfeng honey mandarin, ponkan, sweet orange, and Satsuma 
mandarin) from China into the continental United States. Based on the 
findings of the pest risk analysis, which we made available to the 
public to review and comment through a previous notice, we have 
concluded that the application of one or more designated phytosanitary 
measures will be sufficient to mitigate the risks of introducing or 
disseminating plant pests or noxious weeds via the importation of these 
five species of citrus fruit from China.

DATES: The articles covered by this notification may be authorized for 
importation after April 15, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Claudia Ferguson, Senior 
Regulatory Policy Specialist, Regulatory Coordination and Compliance, 
PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; (301) 
851-2352.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the regulations in ``Subpart L--Fruits 
and Vegetables'' (7 CFR 319.56-1 through 319.56-12, referred to below 
as the regulations), the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 
(APHIS) prohibits or restricts the importation of fruits and vegetables 
into the United States from certain parts of the world to prevent plant 
pests from being introduced into and spread within the United States.
    Section 319.56-4 of the regulations contains a notice-based process 
based on established performance standards for authorizing the 
importation of fruits and vegetables. The performance standards, known 
as designated phytosanitary measures, are listed in paragraph (b) of 
that section. Under the process, APHIS proposes to authorize the 
importation of a fruit or vegetable into the United States if, based on 
the findings of a pest risk analysis, we determine that the measures 
can mitigate the plant pest risk associated with the importation of 
that fruit or vegetable. APHIS then publishes a notice in the Federal 
Register announcing the availability of the pest risk analysis that 
evaluates the risks associated with the importation of that fruit or 
vegetable.
    In accordance with that process, we published a notice \1\ in the 
Federal Register on May 1, 2019 (84 FR 18474-18475, Docket No. APHIS-
2014-0005), in which we announced the availability, for review and 
comment, of a pest risk assessment (PRA) that evaluated the risks 
associated with the importation into the continental United States of 
five species of commercially produced citrus fruit from China into the 
continental United States. These citrus fruits were: Citrus grandis 
(L.) Osbeck cv. Guanximiyou, referred to in this document as pummelo; 
Citrus kinokuni Hort. ex Tanaka, referred to in this document as 
Nanfeng honey mandarin; Citrus poonensis Hort. ex Tanaka, referred to 
in this document as ponkan; Citrus sinensis (L.) Osbeck, referred to in 
this document as sweet orange; and Citrus unshiu Marcov., referred to 
in this document as Satsuma mandarin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ To view the notice, PRA, RMD, supporting documents, and the 
comments that we received, go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2014-0005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the notice, PRA, and RMD published previously, we referred to 
Citrus grandis (L.) Osbeck cv. Guanximiyou, as pomelo; however, the 
preferred spelling of the common name for this fruit is pummelo. We 
have corrected the spelling in this document and in our revised RMD.
    The PRA identified the following 15 quarantine pests as potentially 
following the pathway on the importation of these citrus species from 
China into the continental United States: The mites Brevipalpus junicus 
and Tuckerella knorri; the fruit flies Bactrocera correcta, B. 
cucurbitae, B. dorsalis, B. minax, B. occipitalis, B. pedestris, B. 
tau, and B. tsuneonis; and the moths Carposina niponensis, C. sasakii, 
Ostrinia furnacalis, Cryptoblabes gnidiella, and Rosseliella 
citrifrugis.
    The PRA also identified Xanthomonas citri, the causal agent of 
citrus canker, and Phyllosticta citricarpa, the causal agent of citrus 
black spot, as existing in China. These pathogens, present in the 
United States, are considered quarantine pests since they have limited 
distribution and are under official control in the United States.
    Based on the conclusions of the PRA, APHIS prepared a risk 
management document (RMD) recommending mitigations for the 15 
quarantine pests and 2 pathogens the PRA had identified as potentially 
following the pathway on the importation of citrus from China into the 
continental United States.
    We solicited comments on the PRA and RMD for 60 days ending on July 
1, 2019. We received 11 comments by that date. They were from the 
national plant protection organization (NPPO) of China, the NPPO of 
Ghana, two State departments of agriculture, four organizations 
representing domestic citrus producers, a domestic citrus producer, and 
private citizens.
    The issues raised by the commenters are addressed below, by topic.

[[Page 20976]]

General Comments

    Several commenters requested that we retain our prohibition on the 
importation of citrus from China into the United States.
    As a signatory to the World Trade Organization's Agreement on 
Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement), the United States 
has agreed that any prohibitions it places on the importation of fruits 
and vegetables will be based on scientific evidence, and will not be 
maintained without sufficient scientific evidence. The PRA and RMD that 
accompanied the initial notice demonstrated scientific evidence in 
support of removing the prohibition in favor of our proposed systems 
approach.
    The NPPO of China requested that this notice authorize the 
importation of all species of citrus from China into the continental 
United States, rather than just pummelo, Nanfeng honey mandarin, 
ponkan, sweet orange, and Satsuma mandarin.
    If a fruit is not currently authorized for importation into the 
United States, the process for requesting its authorization, and the 
information required of such a request, are specified in 7 CFR 319.5. 
The NPPO only submitted information pursuant to this process for those 
five species. Accordingly, the PRA only identified quarantine pests of 
concern that could follow the pathway of importation for those five 
species, and the mitigations in the RMD were only developed for those 
five species. We note, in this regard, that the plant pest risk can 
increase or decrease from species to species within a genus, and the 
plant pest risk associated with one species should not necessarily be 
considered indicative of the plant pest risk associated with another 
species. For these reasons, we cannot grant the NPPO's request for 
importation of all citrus from China.
    Several commenters stated that the NPPO of China could not be 
trusted to abide by the systems approach. The commenters cited multiple 
instances where goods exported from China did not meet U.S. conditions 
for importation.
    Like APHIS, the NPPO of China is also a signatory to the SPS 
Agreement. As such, it has agreed to respect the phytosanitary measures 
the United States imposes on the importation of plants and plant 
products from China when the United States demonstrates the need to 
impose these measures in order to protect plant health within the 
United States. The PRA that accompanied the notice provided evidence of 
such a need. That being said, all consignments of citrus fruit from 
China will be inspected at ports of entry into the United States for 
quarantine pests. If consignments are determined to be infested, they 
will be subject to appropriate remedial measures to address this plant 
pest risk, and APHIS will evaluate whether remedial measures are 
warranted for the export program itself.
    A commenter stated that the only appropriate mitigation for the 
importation of pummelo, Nanfeng honey mandarin, ponkan, sweet orange, 
and Satsuma mandarin is fumigation with methyl bromide.
    For the reasons specified in the RMD and this final notice, we have 
determined that mitigations other than fumigation with methyl bromide 
address the insects of quarantine significance that could follow the 
pathway on the importation of citrus from China.
    A commenter stated that the wooden pallets on which citrus from 
China would be shipped could also be infested with plant pests. The 
commenter stated that pallets from China often are infested with plant 
pests.
    APHIS requires all wood packaging material imported into the United 
States from countries other than Canada to be treated in accordance 
with 7 CFR part 305, which contains APHIS' regulations governing 
phytosanitary treatments. All wood packing material accompanying 
consignments of plants or plant products that are imported into the 
United States is inspected at ports of entry for compliance with these 
regulations, as well as for evidence of quarantine pests.
    Finally, a commenter stated that the mitigations APHIS proposed for 
the importation of citrus from China were significantly less stringent 
than the import requirements for apples and sand pears from China, even 
though the number of quarantine plant pests that could potentially 
follow the pathway on the importation of citrus from China, and their 
severity, was greater than the pest complex associated with either of 
these two commodities.
    The commenter's stated assumption for this assertion was that 
bagging of fruit, which is required for both apples and sand pears, is 
a more stringent mitigation than production of fruit in an area of low 
pest prevalence (ALPP), as determined by APHIS. This is incorrect. The 
requirement for pest-free areas or pest-free places of production 
(PFPPs) that will be used for Bactrocera minax and B. tsuneonis are 
very restrictive requirements. Pest-free areas and PFPPs require 
adherence to appropriate trapping guidelines, having buffer areas, 
requirements for field treatments if flies are trapped, and 
restrictions on exports if flies are trapped. For a pest-free area and 
for PFPPs, China will have to follow the appropriate international 
standards for phytosanitary measures (ISPMs) including ISPM No. 4 
``Requirements for the establishment of pest-free areas,'' ISPM No. 8 
``Determination of pest status in an area,'' ISPM No. 10 ``Requirements 
for the establishment of pest-free places of production and pest free 
production sites,'' ISPM No. 22 ``Requirements for the establishment of 
areas of low pest prevalence,'' ISPM No. 26 ``Establishment of pest-
free areas for fruit flies (Tephritidae),'' and ISPM No. 29 
``Recognition of pest-free areas and areas of low pest prevalence.'' 
APHIS will require bagging for pummelos and appropriate commodity 
treatments for other citrus for Bactrocera dorsalis and several other 
Bactrocera species. APHIS points out that no fruit flies have ever been 
intercepted in commercial shipments of fruit from China, whether bagged 
(pears) or cold treated (litchi and longans). APHIS believes that the 
measures proposed for China citrus will provide equivalent measures of 
protection as the measures currently required for apples and pears from 
China.

Comments Regarding Pest Risk

    Several commenters stated that the plant pest risk associated with 
the importation of citrus from China into the continental United States 
was too great.
    For the reasons set forth in the RMD that accompanied our initial 
notice, the initial notice itself, and this final notice, we have 
determined that measures exist which can mitigate this plant pest risk.
    A commenter expressed concern that the importation of citrus from 
China could serve as a pathway for the introduction of Asian citrus 
psyllid, the primary vector of citrus greening, into the continental 
United States.
    In order for us to consider a consignment of citrus from China to 
be commercially produced, it must be, among other things, washed, 
brushed, and disinfected during packinghouse procedures. We consider 
washing and brushing sufficient to remove Asian citrus psyllid, a 
surface feeder, from citrus fruit intended for export to the United 
States.
    Two commenters expressed concern that the importation of citrus 
from China could serve as a pathway for the introduction of citrus 
greening into the continental United States.
    Citrus greening is primarily vectored by Asian citrus psyllid; 
fruit is not

[[Page 20977]]

considered by APHIS to be an epidemiologically significant pathway. As 
we explained above, we consider packinghouse procedures sufficient to 
remove Asian citrus psyllid from citrus fruit intended for export to 
the United States. Commercially produced and packed fruit itself is not 
an epidemiologically significant pathway for the transmission of citrus 
greening, and we do not regulate it domestically.
    Two commenters expressed concern that the importation of citrus 
from China could serve as a pathway for the introduction of citrus 
black spot into the continental United States.
    Commercially produced and packed fruit is not an epidemiologically 
significant pathway for the transmission of citrus black spot. 
Nonetheless, for the sake of consistency with APHIS' domestic 
regulations regarding citrus black spot, all citrus fruit intended for 
export to the continental United States from China must be surface 
disinfected and also fungicide treated. This will further reduce the 
citrus black spot risk.
    Several commenters expressed concern that the importation of citrus 
from China could serve as pathway for the introduction of two species 
of fruit fly, Bactrocera minax and B. tsuneonis, into the United 
States.
    APHIS believes that the systems approach proposed will prevent both 
B. minax and B. tsuneonis from following the pathway of China citrus to 
the continental United States. The systems approach requires that all 
places of production exporting to the United States must be from 
approved PFPPs for B. minax and B. tsuneonis. APHIS and the NPPO of 
China will jointly agree to the process for approval of PFPPs within 
the context of development of the operational workplan.

Comments on the Pest Risk Assessment

    As noted above, the PRA identified eight species of fruit fly, 
Bactrocera correcta, B. cucurbitae, B. dorsalis, B. minax, B. 
occipitalis, B. pedestris, B. tau, and B. tsuneonis, as quarantine 
pests that occur in China and that could follow the pathway of the 
importation of citrus from China into the continental United States.
    The NPPO of China stated that another fruit fly, B. orientalis, was 
included in the notice as a quarantine pest that exists in China and 
could follow the pathway of the importation of citrus from China into 
the continental United States. The commenter stated that they are not 
aware that such a species exists, and that this was likely a 
typographical error.
    The reference in the notice was such an error, and should have 
referred to B. occipitalis.
    The NPPO of China also stated that B. occipitalis does not exist in 
China.
    In compiling the PRA, APHIS found four references reporting the 
occurrence of this species of fruit fly in China. The NPPO did not 
provide any evidence that suggests the references were in error.
    The NPPO of China also stated that APHIS had overstated the 
economic consequences of the introduction of B. occipitalis into the 
United States, and cited an article in support of their position.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Doorenweerd, C. et al. 2018. A global checklist of the 932 
fruit fly species in the tribe. Accessible at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5799784/. Referred to in the 
body of this document as Doorenweerd et al.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Doorenweerd et al. states that the pest status of B. occipitalis is 
uncertain and ``may possibly have been overrated based on a few obscure 
rearing records cited in'' a 1994 article.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Drew RAI, Hancock DL. 1994. The Bactrocera dorsalis complex 
of fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae: Dacinae) in Asia. Bulletin of 
Entomological Research Supplement Series 2: 1-68. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1367426900000278. Referred to in the body of this document 
as Drew and Hancock.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While we agree that B. occipitalis is not as economically 
significant a pest as some other species in the B. dorsalis complex to 
which it belongs, we disagree with Doorenweerd et al. that its pest 
status is uncertain. As we mentioned in the PRA that accompanied the 
initial notice, fruit flies in B. dorsalis complex have proven to be 
major pests where introduced, and the United States has climates that 
are hospitable to their introduction. We note, moreover, that the PRA 
derived its rating for B. occipitalis from references other than Drew 
and Hancock; one of these references predates Drew and Hancock,\4\ 
while another is a technical document drafted by the NPPO of China 
itself.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Chen, C.C. and Y.H. Tseng. 1993. Monitoring and Survey of 
Insect Pests with the Potential to Invade the Republic of China. 
Plant Quarantine in Asia and the Pacific: Report of an APO Study 
Meeting 17th-26th March, 1992, Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China. 
Asian Productivity Organization (APO), Tokyo, pgs. 42-52.
    \5\ IQPRC. 2011. Risk Analysis Technical Information for Chinese 
Mangoes Exported to the U.S. General Administration of Quality 
Supervision (GAQS), Inspection and Quarantine of the People's 
Republic of China (IQPRC). 41 pp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these reasons, we are maintaining B. occipitalis as a 
quarantine pest that could follow the pathway on citrus from China 
imported into the continental United States.
    Finally, the NPPO of China suggested that, because the taxonomy of 
B. pedestris is uncertain, it should not be considered a quarantine 
pest that could follow the pathway on citrus imported into the 
continental United States.
    While the taxonomy of B. pedestris, like that of many species in 
the B. dorsalis complex, is somewhat uncertain, the complex is 
considered to be of quarantine significance. We also found multiple 
references indicating that it is a unique species within the complex 
that occurs in China, and the NPPO of China provided no trapping 
records or technical information contradicting these references.
    For these reasons, we are maintaining B. pedestris as a quarantine 
pest that could follow the pathway on citrus from China imported into 
the continental United States.
    One commenter suggested that the PRA had underestimated the risk 
associated with citrus greening, citrus canker, citrus yellowing, and 
Phyllosticta spp. The commenter stated climate change has created 
anomalies in temperature and rainfall within the United States that are 
more conducive to the establishment of these pathogens. The commenter 
was particularly concerned that we had mischaracterized the likelihood 
of establishment of the pathogens in the State of California.
    Changes in climate within the United States pertain to likelihood 
of establishment, if a pathogen is introduced, and are not germane to 
whether commercially produced and packed fruit is an epidemiologically 
significant pathway for the introduction of the pathogen. Commercially 
produced and packed fruit which has been surface disinfected and 
treated with fungicide, is an epidemiologically insignificant pathway 
for the introduction of citrus greening, citrus canker, and 
Phyllosticta spp.
    We found no evidence that citrus yellowing is a different disease 
than citrus greening; in our literature review, these names were used 
interchangeably to describe the disease.
    One commenter noted that, in the PRA, Phyllosticta citrichinaensis 
was not considered a quarantine pest that could follow the pathway on 
the importation of citrus from China into the continental United 
States. The commenter pointed out that the PRA's discussion of P. 
citrichinaensis cites two articles \6\ in support of this conclusion,

[[Page 20978]]

but stated that one of these articles appears to suggest that 
commercially produced and packaged fruit is a pathway for P. 
citrichinaensis, while the other article is silent on the matter. The 
commenter suggested that APHIS had disregarded the former article and 
given undue weight to that the latter article's silence. The commenter 
stated that APHIS should not allow the importation of citrus from China 
without further analysis of P. citrichinaensis transmissibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The former article is: Wang, X., G. Chen, F. Huang, J. 
Zhang, K. Hyde, and H. Li. 2012. Phyllosticta species associated 
with citrus diseases in China. Fungal Diversity 59(1): 209-224.
    The latter article is: Stammler, G., G.C. Schutte, J. Speakman, 
S. Miessner, and P.W. Crous. 2013. Phyllosticta species on citrus: 
risk estimation of resistance to QoI fungicides and identification 
of species with cytochrome b gene sequences. Crop Protection 48: 6-
12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Wang et al., the former article cited in the PRA, discusses finding 
spots associated with P. citrichinaensis on commercially produced and 
packaged fruit, without the presence of pycnidia, or asexual fungal 
fruiting bodies. Pycnidia do not play a significant role in the disease 
cycle for Phyllosticta spp.; ascospores, the sexual stage of the 
fungus, which are associated with plant parts other than fruit, are the 
primary means of transmission. Transmission via pycnidia to a new host 
would take a very unlikely confluence of events. Jointly, these two 
facts form the primary basis for why we consider commercially produced 
and packed fruit to be an epidemiologically insignificant pathway for 
the transmission of P. citricarpa, which can result in pycnidia, but 
not ascospores, on fruit. However, for asymptomatic fruits, the 
likelihood that it will serve as a pathway of transmission of a 
Phyllosticta species to new hosts is even lower. It follows that 
commercially produced and packaged fruit is an even less viable pathway 
for the transmission of P. citrichinaensis than it is for P. 
citricarpa.
    The same commenter stated that the PRA had overlooked a 2018 
doctoral thesis on the transmission of P. citrichinaensis.
    We were unable to find a 2018 thesis with the title cited by the 
commenter. We were able to find a 2017 thesis with such a title; 
however, this thesis primarily focuses on P. citricarpa, and its one 
reference to P. citrichinaensis cites Wang et al. As we mentioned in 
the above response, Wang et al. does not suggest that commercially 
produced and packaged fruit is an epidemiologically significant pathway 
for the transmission of P. citrichinaensis.
    The same commenter stated that elements of the risk rating in the 
PRA for Carposina niponensis and C. sasakii were in error. The 
commenter stated that, in the risk rating, APHIS had assigned a medium 
likelihood of the pests surviving post-harvest processing, and a medium 
likelihood of the pests surviving post-harvest transport and storage, 
but had cited no information in support of that assumption. The 
commenter stated that, in the absence of information, a high rating 
should be assigned to these elements.
    We agree and have revised the PRA accordingly.
    The same commenter stated that this revision should change the 
overall rating for C. niponensis and C. sasakii from Medium to High.
    APHIS' risk ratings are multiplicative, rather than additive. 
Because other elements of the risk rating for C. niponensis and C. 
sasakii remain Medium, the overall rating remains Medium.
    The same commenter stated that APHIS' overall risk ratings for 
pests should be additive, rather than multiplicative, and a single risk 
element that we rate High should make the overall rating High.
    Such an approach would result in ratings that distort the actual 
pest risk associated with a given pathway. For example, a pest that 
would have High likelihood of establishment, but a Low likelihood of 
entry would receive a Medium likelihood of introduction under our 
approach (it would receive a High rating under the commenter's 
approach). We have been using the multiplicative approach since 2012. 
This approach gives us a more accurate assessment of the risk 
associated with a particular pest and allows program managers to assign 
the appropriate risk mitigation measures that are technically and 
scientifically justified for the pests identified in the PRA. 
Therefore, we do not agree with the commenter's suggested change.
    A commenter stated that the PRA should be revised to reevaluate the 
likelihood that Brevipalpus junicus (B. junicus) could be introduced 
and become established in California.
    The PRA already identifies California as a State in which B. 
junicus could become established, if introduced. We are uncertain what 
further revisions are requested by the commenter.
    The same commenter stated that PRA should be revised to reevaluate 
the consequences of B. minax or B. tsuneonis establishment in 
California. The commenter stated that these pests are difficult to 
detect, and there are no effective control options once they become 
established.
    In the PRA, we determined that both B. minax and B. tsuneonis would 
have unacceptable consequences (the highest rating a pest can receive 
for the Consequences portion of a risk rating) if introduced into and 
established within the United States. Reevaluating this element 
relative to the consequences of establishment in California would not 
change the element's rating.

Comments Regarding the Risk Management Document

    In the RMD that accompanied the initial notice, we proposed a 
systems approach, or combination of mitigation measures, for addressing 
the risk associated with the importation of citrus from China into the 
continental United States. The proposed measures were:
     Importation in commercial consignments only.
     Registration of places of production and packinghouses 
with the NPPO of China.
     Certification by the NPPO of propagative material used at 
places of production as being free of quarantine pests.
     Periodic inspections of places of production throughout 
the shipping season.
     Grove sanitation.
     PFPPs for Bactrocera minax and B. tsuneonis.
     PFPPs for B. correcta, B. cucurbitae, B. dorsalis, B. 
occipitalis, B. pedestris, and B. tau; or determination that places of 
production are located in areas of low pest prevalence for these 
species of fruit fly based on trapping, and in-transit cold treatment 
as an additional phytosanitary safeguard; except for pummelo which 
requires bagging.
     Maintaining the identity and origin of the lot of fruit 
throughout the export process to the United States.
     Safeguarding of harvested fruit.
     Post-harvest visual inspection of fruit by the NPPO or 
officials authorized by the NPPO according to a biometric sample.
     Cutting a portion of the fruit in the sample to inspect 
for quarantine pests.
     Washing, brushing, and treatment with surface disinfectant 
and fungicide.
     Issuance of a phytosanitary certificate with an additional 
declaration.
     Port of entry inspections.
     Importation under a permit issued by APHIS.
     Possible remedial measures in the event of detection of 
quarantine pests at registered places of production or packinghouses, 
or in/on consignments of citrus fruit from China at ports of entry into 
the United States.
    A commenter stated that the systems approach was overly complex and 
dependent on many actions taken in China without APHIS oversight, and 
would be difficult to implement and maintain.
    We disagree with the commenter's assertion that the complexity of a 
systems approach is correlated with its ability to be implemented and 
maintained. For systems approaches,

[[Page 20979]]

APHIS has long relied on operational workplans, which sets forth in 
detail the day-to-day activities that the NPPO of the exporting region, 
and growers, packinghouses, and persons commercially involved in chain 
of production of the commodity must undertake in order to implement and 
maintain the systems approach. APHIS and NPPO of the exporting region 
must jointly approve all such workplans, and APHIS reserves the right 
to monitor implementation of the operational workplan as well as 
activities specified within the operational workplan. We have 
successfully relied on operational workplans in order to implement and 
monitor several complex systems approaches, such as that for Hass 
avocadoes from Mexico and lemons from Argentina.
    In requirement 2 of the RMD, we stated that we would be directly 
involved in monitoring and auditing the implementation of the 
operational workplan. A commenter interpreted this to mean that, 
following implementation, the NPPO of China would assume responsibility 
for monitoring ongoing adherence to the operational workplan by Chinese 
producers, packinghouses, and other persons commercially involved in 
the chain of production. The commenter expressed concern that the NPPO 
of China would continue to do so.
    Following initial implementation of operational workplan, the NPPO 
of China will assume primary responsibility for monitoring adherence to 
the workplan by parties within China. We consider this to be consistent 
with the International Plant Protection Convention's (IPPC) ISPM No. 
35, ``Systems approach for pest risk management of fruit flies 
(Tephritidae),'' which both the United States and China have adopted as 
members of the IPPC.\7\ The ISPM recommends that the NPPO of the 
exporting country assume responsibility for monitoring an operational 
workplan developed as part of a systems approach for fruit flies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ To view this ISPM, go to https://www.ippc.int/static/media/files/publication/en/2018/10/ISPM_35_2012_En_FF_Post-CPM-13_InkAm_2018-10-01.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    That being said, we will inspect all consignments of citrus from 
China for quarantine pests at ports of entry in the United States, as 
well as for adherence the provisions of the systems approach. As stated 
in the RMD, if we detect quarantine pests on consignments of citrus 
from China, we will conduct an investigation and may prohibit the 
further importation of citrus from the place of production or province 
where the citrus was produced until we and the NPPO of China jointly 
agree that appropriate remedial measures have been put in place. 
Deviations from the systems approach that are detected at a port of 
entry may also result in heightened APHIS oversight of the export 
program for citrus from China to the United States, or similar remedial 
actions to detection of a quarantine pest. This approach is consistent 
with general APHIS policy regarding systems approaches.
    A commenter stated that we had provided no indications that Chinese 
producers and packinghouses can follow a complex systems approach.
    As we mentioned above, one of the purposes of an operational 
workplan is to set forth the day-to-day activities that growers and 
packinghouses must undertake in order to implement and monitor the 
requirements of an APHIS systems approach. APHIS will not agree to an 
operational workplan until we consider these day-to-day activities to 
be sufficiently delineated for growers and packinghouses.
    The same commenter suggested that APHIS maintain direct oversight 
in China of the export program for citrus to the United States for the 
first 2 years of the program until it establishes a ``track record'' of 
clean shipments.
    This would be tantamount to mandating a preclearance program for 
the importation of citrus from China to the continental United States 
during that 2-year time period. To date, we have only required such 
preclearance when detections of quarantine pests on a commodity at 
ports of entry in the United States have been frequent enough to 
suggest that the exporting country may be experiencing a regulatory 
failure of the export program for the commodity.
    A commenter stated that China has historically done a poor job of 
monitoring export programs for commodities to the United States, and 
stated that this suggests the NPPO of China is unlikely to meaningfully 
monitor the export program for citrus to the United States.
    As a signatory to the SPS Agreement, China has agreed to respect 
the phytosanitary measures the United States imposes on the importation 
of plants and plant products from China when the United States 
demonstrates the need to impose these measures in order to protect 
plant health within the United States; as a country that has 
implemented ISPM No. 35, China has similarly agreed to monitor 
continual adherence to systems approaches for fruit flies that are 
associated with its export programs. We will, however, inspect all 
consignments of citrus from China at ports of entry in the continental 
United States for quarantine pests, and will conduct an investigation 
to determine appropriate remedial actions if any such quarantine pests 
are detected.
    In requirement 6 of the RMD, we specified that all propagative 
material introduced into registered places of production would have to 
be certified free of quarantine pests.
    The NPPO of Ghana stated that they are unaware of a certification 
protocol for freedom of fruit flies for propagative material.
    Within the context of the RMD, we believe it was clear that the 
certification would be for quarantine pathogens, particularly pathogens 
with latency periods, rather than fruit flies. Regardless of instar, 
fruit flies are easily detectable on propagative material; fruit is the 
primary host of such fruit flies.
    In requirement 8 of the RMD, we specified that all production sites 
exporting to the United States would have to be approved PFPPs for 
Bactrocera minax and B. tsuneonis.
    A commenter stated that B. minax is widely prevalent in China, and 
the PRA had provided no indication that producers have adopted 
practices to suppress the population density of B. minax in places of 
production. The commenter questioned how APHIS had therefore determined 
that PFPPs for B. minax exist in China.
    We disagree with the commenter's assertion that B. minax is widely 
prevalent in China such that PFPPs do not exist; in fact, about half of 
Chinese citrus production occurs outside of the current range of B. 
minax. Additionally, in areas where B. minax is known to occur, 
populations have been found primarily in hilly regions.
    The same commenter stated that the distribution of Bactrocera spp. 
in an affected area tends to be very dynamic, and asked how APHIS would 
stay continually abreast of the current distribution of B. minax and B. 
tsuneonis in China.
    APHIS will require continual surveillance for fruit flies through 
trapping protocols in order to determine the presence or absence of B. 
minax and B. tsuneonis in a place of production that wishes to 
participate in the export program for citrus to the United States.
    A commenter pointed out that, in one instance, the RMD referred to 
pest-free areas for
    B. minax and B. tsuneonis, and asked whether APHIS would require 
pest-free areas or PFPPs for these pests.
    The lone reference in the RMD to pest-free areas used the term 
broadly to

[[Page 20980]]

refer to any geographical area, including a place of production, that 
has been determined to be free of a plant pest, rather than the 
technical sense of that term. The requirement will be for PFPPs, rather 
than pest-free areas.
    Several commenters cited an article \8\ that, they stated, 
indicated that there is not an effective lure for B. minax. The 
commenters questioned how the NPPO would conduct surveillance for B. 
minax in the absence of such a lure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Xia, Y., Ma, X.L., Hou, B.H. and Ouyang, G.C. (2018). A 
Review of Bactrocera minax (Diptera: Tephritidae) in China for the 
Purpose of Safeguarding. Advances in Entomology, 6, 35-61. Referred 
to in the body of this document as Xia et al.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Xia et al. states that the most common kairomone lures for 
Bactrocera spp., cuelure and methyl eugenol, are not attractive for B. 
minax, and questions the efficacy of the most common homemade lures 
producers have employed: Hydrolyzed protein, sugar and vinegar mixture, 
and waste brewer's yeast. Xia et al. does not foreclose the possibility 
that hydrolyzed protein could be used as a lure for B. minax, noting 
that, even in homemade usage, it was ``the most effective lure.''
    APHIS and other countries have found that protein baits may be used 
reliably to trap for fruit flies in the absence of species-specific 
lure; the absence of the lure is accounted for by adjusting the 
trapping protocol itself, such as by increasing trap density and 
servicing. This approach is evidenced in the trapping protocols used 
extensively throughout Central and South America for Anastrepha spp., 
and in the trapping protocol used in Japan for B. tsuneonis.
    The same commenters stated that Xia et al. had indicated that there 
is no effective lure for early detection of and emergency response for 
B. minax.
    Contextually, Xia et al. refers to the absence of a long-range 
kairomone lure that could be used within the United States to detect a 
small population of B. minax that might have been introduced into the 
United States through a non-commercial means, such as smuggled fruit or 
passenger baggage. This is not germane to whether a protein-based trap 
could be used as part of an extensive trapping protocol to survey for 
B. minax in a geographical area.
    The same commenters stated that Xia et al. questions the efficacy 
of trapping in determining PFPPs and areas of low pest prevalence for 
B. minax within China.
    Xia et al. does state that ``determining B. minax pest-free areas 
in China can be especially challenging'' and also states that 
``trapping for this species is not very effective.'' However, Xia et 
al. reaches this conclusion by evaluating the lures currently in use 
within China. We agree that the lures currently used in China are of 
limited efficacy in trapping for B. minax. However, we disagree with 
Xia et al. that trapping for this species, regardless of how it is 
conducted, would prove to be ineffective. As we noted above, there is 
extensive evidence that protein baits may be used reliably to trap for 
fruit flies in the absence of species-specific lure. Finally, we note 
that Xia et al. recommends biometric sampling at packinghouses, 
including fruit cutting, as a means of verifying that a place of 
production is free of B. minax, and such biometric sampling and fruit 
cutting is part of the systems approach.
    Several commenters pointed out that Xia et al. recommends that 
APHIS follow international standards in recognizing pest-free areas and 
ALPPs for B. minax.
    We have followed international standards in recognizing pest-free 
areas and ALPPs, and will continue to do so.
    Several commenters stated that, in the absence of a species-
specific lure, trapping cannot be used to determine the prevalence of a 
Bactrocera species reliably enough to use it as a phytosanitary 
measure. One commenter compared trapping for a Bactrocera species 
without a male lure to trapping for Asian citrus psyllid (ACP) that is 
conducted within the United States using panel traps. The commenter 
stated that the detection of a single psyllid in the traps is usually 
an indicator of a much larger established population.
    We disagree that trapping cannot be used reliably to determine the 
prevalence of a Bactrocera species in the absence of species-specific 
lure. There is extensive evidence that protein baits may be used 
reliably to trap for fruit flies in the absence of species-specific 
lure, and Japan has used such protein baits effectively to trap for B. 
tsuneonis.
    We also disagree that the comparison made by the commenter is 
biologically appropriate. The traps used domestically for ACP rely on 
ACP's short distance attraction to color. In contrast, Bactrocera spp. 
rely on protein to produce eggs as part of the mating cycle and are 
attracted to the odor of protein for this reason.
    One commenter asked if one trap and lure will be used for all 
Bactrocera species that exist in China.
    The trap used will vary from species to species, depending on the 
existence of a species-specific lure for that species.
    The same commenter asked which traps and lures would be used.
    APHIS will use the traps and lures that we deem to be most 
appropriate based on our review of international standards, scientific 
literature, and our own operational experience; the traps and lures to 
be used for a particular species will be set forth in the operational 
workplan. That being said, operational workplans most commonly specify 
the use of Jackson traps, multilure traps, and/or sticky spheres.
    Several commenters stated that the trapping protocol needed to be 
set forth in the RMD or notice itself.
    APHIS provides specific trapping protocols in operational 
workplans, rather than RMDs and Federal Register documents, for several 
reasons. This practice allows us to adjust the protocols in an 
expeditious manner in response to changes in pest distribution and/or 
population density within a particular region of a foreign country. 
Similarly, it allows for regional variances in trapping protocols that 
may be necessary due to differing pest distribution or population 
density among regions of the country. Finally, it allows the protocols 
to keep pace with the development of more effective traps and species-
specific lures.
    We proposed that citrus fruit would have to be from approved PFPPs 
for B. correcta, B. cucurbitae, B. dorsalis, B. occipitalis, B. 
pedestris, and B. tau; or we would have to determine that places of 
production are located in ALPPs for these species of fruit fly based on 
trapping, and the citrus would have to receive in-transit cold 
treatment as an additional phytosanitary safeguard.
    A commenter stated that PFPPs differ significantly from pest-free 
areas in terms of how they are delineated and how they must be 
maintained. The commenter suggested that APHIS amend 7 CFR 319.56-5, 
which sets forth our process for recognizing pest-free areas in foreign 
regions, in order to set forth conditions for the establishment of 
PFPPs.
    Section 319.56-5 currently provides that APHIS' determination of 
pest-free areas relies on the criteria set forth in ISPM No. 4, 
``Requirements for the establishment of pest-free areas,'' as well as 
on our evaluation of the adequacy of the region's survey protocol for 
delineating the pest-free area. If APHIS determines that the area is 
indeed pest-free, we publish a notice or rule in the Federal Register 
announcing that the area in question meets the above criteria; this 
notice requests public comment. Following the comment period, APHIS 
announces its final decision in a subsequent Federal Register notice.

[[Page 20981]]

    As a procedural matter, we cannot amend Sec.  319.56-5 in this 
notice; a notice may not be used to amend regulations. We are also 
uncertain how the commenter suggests that this section be amended. If 
the commenter is suggesting that we apply the notice-based process for 
recognizing pest-free areas to PFPPs, we consider this to be 
impracticable. A pest-free area is usually a geopolitical entity or 
large geographical area within a country; no country currently has more 
than 50 such areas recognized by APHIS, and most have less than 20. In 
contrast, a single country may have hundreds of PFPPs. Using Federal 
Register notices to recognize or decertify each such place of 
production cannot feasibly be done. If the commenter is suggesting that 
we amend Sec.  319.56-5 to specify the criteria that APHIS relies on to 
make a determination that an area is a PFPP, we will take this into 
consideration for future rulemaking.
    The same commenter pointed out that two ISPMs exist which pertain 
to the establishment and maintenance of pest-free areas, Nos. 10 and 
35. Since the RMD had made no reference to these ISPMs, the commenter 
inferred that APHIS would not follow these standards for purposes of 
the systems approach.
    The United States has agreed to both of these ISPMs, and we will 
adhere to them within the context of the systems approach.
    The same commenter pointed out that both of these ISPMs recommend 
the use of buffer areas around pest-free places of production, but saw 
no reference to such zones within the RMD.
    Consistent with these ISPMs, we will require such zones be 
established in order to recognize a place of production as pest-free. 
The specific parameters for such zones will be set forth in the 
operational workplan.
    One commenter stated that citrus fruit should only be allowed from 
pest-free areas, as outlined in Sec.  319.56-6, as a risk management 
measure for Bactrocera spp. The commenter stated that PFPPs are not an 
appropriate risk mitigation measure for Bactrocera spp.
    APHIS disagrees with the commenter that only pest-free areas 
provide an appropriate level of protection against Bactrocera spp. 
APHIS has used systems approaches with PFPPs for a number of 
commodities with high risk pests. A systems approach can provide an 
alternative to single measures to meet the appropriate level of 
phytosanitary protection, or can be developed to provide phytosanitary 
protection in situations, in which no single measure is available 
(IPPC, 2002). As part of this systems approach, PFPPs satisfy 
requirements for the appropriate level of protection (IPPC, 1996, 1999; 
NAPPO, 2003).
    The NPPO of Ghana stated that they are not aware that China has 
submitted information to the IPPC on ALPPs for fruit flies since 2009.
    APHIS will work with China to develop an operational workplan which 
will include all of the requirements for development of PFPPs and 
ALPPs. APHIS will require appropriate trapping and survey data before 
allowing exports from pest-free places of production or before 
recognizing ALPPs in China.
    Three commenters stated that ALPP thresholds are not indicated in 
the RMD.
    Requirement 12 of the risk management document specifies that if 
more than 0.7 FTD (number of fruit flies captured per trap per day) of 
any species of fruit fly is trapped, APHIS-approved pesticide bait 
treatments must be applied in the affected place of production in order 
for the place of production to remain eligible to export fruit. 
Pesticide treatments must be applied weekly until fruit fly numbers 
drop below 0.7 FTD.
    One commenter stated that the ALPP FTD thresholds are too high and 
that if a trap finds adult flies, the likelihood of finding immature 
flies inside the fruit is much higher.
    If APHIS finds that this threshold is too high, we can lower the 
threshold in the operational workplan. This is a systems approach with 
additional measures for fruit flies including bagging and cold 
treatment. This threshold will not apply to the flies B. minax and B. 
tsuneonis, which will require pest-free places of production.
    Four commenters stated that monitoring procedures that will be used 
to establish ALPP are not indicated in the RMD.
    Requirements 12 through 14 in the RMD specify the monitoring 
procedures for fruit fly populations.
    Requirement 14 in the RMD specified that citrus fruit to be 
imported into the United States would have to be treated with an APHIS-
approved treatment. One commenter stated that requirement 9 in the RMD 
is inconsistent with requirement 14 as to when a treatment is required 
to export fruit from China.
    APHIS recognizes that those two requirements may be confusing. As 
we explained in the notice, if the place of production is a PFPP for 
the species of fruit fly, then treatment for that species is not 
required. If the commodity is bagged pummelos, treatment is not 
required as long as the area is an ALPP for B. correcta, B. cucurbitae, 
B. dorsalis, B. occipitalis, B. pedestris, and B. tau and a PFA for B. 
minax and B. tsuneonis.
    Two commenters expressed concern that cold treatment efficacy data 
is lacking. One of the commenters stated that research should be 
carried out to validate the efficacy of cold treatment on fruit flies 
found in Chinese production areas before any imports from China are 
approved. These commenters and several others stated that cold 
treatment is not effective for B. minax and B. tsuneonis.
    APHIS agrees that cold is not effective for B. minax and B. 
tsuneonis, but we are not proposing stand-alone cold treatments for 
these two species. APHIS does expect, that while cold treatments are 
not 100 percent effective for B. minax and B. tsuneonis, there will be 
some mortality which will help the effectiveness of the systems 
approach.
    APHIS notes that we are using a systems approach to mitigate risk 
from China citrus pests. APHIS has used systems approaches for a number 
of commodities with high risk pests. A systems approach can provide an 
alternative to single measures to meet the appropriate level of 
phytosanitary protection, or can be developed to provide phytosanitary 
protection in situations, in which no single measure is available.\9\ 
As part of this systems approach, pest-free places of production 
satisfy requirements for the appropriate level of protection (IPPC, 
1996, 1999; NAPPO, 2003).\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ IPPC. 2002. The use of integrated measures in a systems 
approach for pest risk management. International Standards for 
Phytosanitary Measures No. 14. Rome: Secretariat of the 
International Plant Protection Convention, United Nations Food and 
Agriculture Organization.
    \10\ IPPC. 1996. Requirements for the establishment of pest free 
areas. International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures No. 4. 
Rome: Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention, 
United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization.
    IPPC. 1999. Requirements for the establishment of pest free 
places of production and pest free places of production. 
International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures No. 10. Rome: 
Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention, United 
Nations Food and Agriculture Organization.
    NAPPO. 2003. Guidelines for the establishment, maintenance and 
verification of areas of low pest prevalence for insects. NAPPO 
Regional Standards for Phytosanitary Measures No. 20. Ottawa: 
Secretariat of the North American Plant Protection Organization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter expressed concern that even if cold treatment 
schedules are approved, China may not apply them correctly.
    China has more than 10 years' experience in applying cold 
treatments in transit to various types of fruits. The operational 
workplan and APHIS treatment manuals will spell out the requirements to 
apply the treatment.

[[Page 20982]]

APHIS gives other NPPOs including China training in applying cold 
treatments. Cold treatment temperatures are monitored at ports of entry 
so if they are improperly applied the shipments may be rejected. APHIS 
has never intercepted fruit flies in any cold treated commercial 
shipments of fruit from China
    One commenter stated that China should be allowed to cold treat in 
China rather than in transit.
    Under 7 CFR part 305, an approved cold treatment may be conducted 
for any imported regulated article prior to shipment to the United 
States if certified facilities are available. At this time there are no 
APHIS-certified cold treatment facilities in China.
    One commenter stated that irradiation is the only phytosanitary 
treatment approved for all of the listed species. The commenter asked 
if that is what is meant by APHIS-approved treatment.
    APHIS agrees that irradiation is an effective treatment against the 
listed species, but a phytosanitary treatment is not the only approach. 
As we explained above, APHIS is using a systems approach to mitigate 
risk from China citrus pests and the initial notice, the PRA and RMD 
that accompanied it, and this final notice provide evidence in support 
of the efficacy of the systems approach.
    One commenter stated that APHIS should require irradiation for 
citrus from China.
    APHIS is not requiring irradiation because a systems approach; 
including pest-free places of production, fruit bagging, and cold 
treatment in addition to other measures, will provide an appropriate 
level of phytosanitary protection.
    The same commenter cited the example of fresh bananas from Ghana, 
which must be irradiated as a condition of entry into the United States 
to mitigate the risk of Bactrocera dorsalis. The commenters stated that 
to not require irradiation for citrus from China would be a violation 
of the SPS Agreement which requires members to ensure that sanitary and 
phytosanitary measures do not arbitrarily or unjustifiably discriminate 
between members where identical or similar conditions prevail. The 
commenter also stated that bananas are regarded as unusual host for 
Bactrocera spp. as they do not infest when unripe, and cited an article 
in support of their position.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Jayanthi, K.P.D. & Verghese, A. 2002. A simple and cost 
effective mass rearing technique for the tephritid fruit fly, 
Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel). Current Science 82(3): 266-268
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As we explained above, APHIS believes that a systems approach for 
citrus from China will provide an appropriate level of phytosanitary 
protection. We also disagree with the commenter that not requiring 
irradiation for citrus from China violates the SPS Agreement; the SPS 
Agreement also allows exporting countries to request equivalent 
mitigation strategies to that proposed by an importing country; thus a 
commodity from one country may have very different import requirements 
from those for a commodity from another country, even if the pest 
complexes for the commodities are identical or similar.
    With regard to the article cited by the commenter, we note that at 
least one author has reported green bananas as a host of B. dorsalis 
(invadens) in Africa. Rwomushana et al. reported rearing B. invadens 
from banana (Musaceae), and stated that banana is known to be a major 
host of Bactrocera species. Rwomushana et al. also reported that B. 
invadens can infest green banana both in the laboratory and field.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Rwomushana, I., S. Ekesi, I. Gordon, and C. K.P.O. Ogol. 
2008. Host Plants and Host Plant Preference Studies for Bactrocera 
invadens (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Kenya, a New Invasive Fruit Fly 
Species in Africa. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 101(2): 331-340. 
Accessible at https://academic.oup.com/aesa/article/101/2/331/8452. 
Referred to in the body of this document as Rwomushana et al.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, while making changes to the requirements for the 
importation of bananas from Ghana is outside the scope of this action, 
the NPPO of Ghana may request such a revision pursuant to 7 CFR 319.5.
    Requirement 15 in the RMD specified that fruit would have to be 
washed, brushed, surface disinfected in accordance with 7 CFR part 305 
and according to treatment schedules listed in the PPQ Treatment 
Manual, and treated with fungicide at labeled rates. The RMD stated 
that these mitigations would minimize the likelihood of Lepidoptera, 
Acari, other Diptera, and other pests being present on the fruit. One 
commenter stated that Lepidoptera and Diptera are internal feeders and 
will not be mitigated by these measures. The commenter stated that 
Bactrocera minax and B. tsuneonis in particular will not be mitigated 
by these measures.
    We agree that washing and brushing will remove some Lepidoptera, 
but may not remove Diptera. We have removed the references to Diptera 
from requirement 15; the revised RMD is available on the 
Regulations.gov website (see footnote 1 in this document for a link to 
Regulations.gov). We do note, however, that Lepidoptera and Diptera are 
mitigated by other aspects of the systems approach, as well. These 
include PFPPs, ALPPs, and inspections of fruit, including fruit cutting 
to detect internally feeding fruit fly larvae.
    Requirement 16 in the RMD specified that if pummelo fruit are 
bagged on trees with double-layered paper bags no more than 2 months 
prior to harvest, no further treatment would be required. One commenter 
stated that instead of ``no more than 2 months prior to harvest,'' the 
requirement should be ``at least 2 months prior to harvest.''
    We agree with the commenter and have made this change to the RMD.
    One commenter stated that a requirement for a hypergeometric 
sample, similar to that which applies to the importation of Chinese and 
Japanese pears, should be included in the RMD.
    The sampling plan for fruit in China will be spelled out in the 
operational workplan. APHIS often uses the hypergeometric distribution 
to develop sampling plans.
    The RMD stated that Lepidoptera pests leave obvious feeding damage 
and are readily detected by inspection and standard industry 
packinghouse procedures including culling. One commenter asked if there 
is evidence Carposina spp. are easily inspected for and can be culled.
    Lepidoptera pests leave obvious feeding damage. Inspection in the 
packing house, culling fruit, and inspection at port of entry are 
standard measures for Lepidoptera larvae in citrus. If pests are 
frequently intercepted other measures can be added. Citrus is not a 
primary host for Carposina spp. moths which mainly attack and infest 
stone fruit.
    One commenter stated that Chinese citrus imports should be limited 
to cold weather climates and ports of entry for a minimum three-year 
trial period in which APHIS can monitor compliance with the fruit fly 
trapping protocol, evaluate pest-free areas, packinghouse disease 
mitigation compliance, cold treatment performance, and interceptions at 
points of entry.
    This request is predicated on the assumption that the NPPO of China 
lacks the ability and intent to abide by systems approach requirements. 
For reasons discussed above, we disagree with those assumptions. We 
have determined, for the reasons described in the RMD that accompanied 
the notice, that the measures specified in the RMD will effectively 
mitigate the risk associated with the importation of citrus from China. 
The commenter did not provide any evidence suggesting that the 
mitigations are not effective. Therefore, we are not taking the action 
requested by the commenter.

[[Page 20983]]

    For the reasons specified in the initial notice, the PRA and RMD 
that accompanied it, and this final notice, we do not consider such 
restrictions to be necessary.

Economic Effects

    One commenter stated that Chinese production figures are low 
because of recent citrus greening outbreaks but are likely to swell 
following identification of citrus greening management tools.
    Citrus greening management tools of that magnitude are still very 
much in the methods development stage, or we would be using them 
domestically.
    One commenter expressed concern that imports will adversely impact 
the domestic pummelo industry.
    China produced 4.9 million metric tons of pummelos and exported 
200,000 during the 2018/19 season. Major export destinations for 
Chinese pummelos include Netherlands, Russia, Hong Kong, and other 
European countries.\13\ It is unlikely that China would divert a 
significant portion of the pummelo exports to the U.S. markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ USDA, Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS), Citrus: ``World 
Markets and Trade,'' June 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Two commenters stated that China cannot be trusted to engage in 
fair trade.
    China is a signatory to the IPPC and, as such, has pledged to abide 
by the import requirements of other member countries.
    Two commenters expressed concern that China will manipulate prices.
    We acknowledge that China is a Northern-Hemisphere producer and 
there is some overlap with China's shipping season with the marketing 
season in the United States. However, the citrus imports from China are 
likely to be small. Overall, Southeast Asia, Europe, and Russia remain 
the largest export markets for citrus from China.

Miscellaneous

    In the initial RMD, we specified that in those areas with low 
prevalence for Bactrocera species that are not cold-tolerant, cold 
treatment according to treatment schedule T107-b would be required. 
That treatment schedule is designed as a stand-alone treatment, not as 
part of a systems approach. We have therefore approved a new cold 
treatment schedule, T107-o, to be used as part of a systems approach 
for Nanfeng honey mandarin, ponkan, sweet orange, and Satsuma mandarin 
from China and have updated the RMD accordingly. This new schedule has 
the same time and temperature requirements as T107-b, but specifies 
that it must be administered as part of a systems approach.
    Some citrus classification systems differ in how certain 
commodities are recognized. APHIS has consulted with USDA taxonomists 
and have clarified the classifications of the commodities. The results 
of the consultation is as follows:
     Citrus grandis = C. maxima) cv. guanximiyou (pomelo) is 
recognized and accepted by USDA as the pummelo under the name C. maxima 
cv. `Guanxi Miyou,' also named Citrus cv. `Guanxi Miyou.'
     Citrus poonensis (ponkan) is recognized and accepted by 
USDA as the mandarin Ponkan Citrus x poonensis hort. ex Tanaka, also 
named Citrus cv. `Poonensis.'
     Citrus kinokuni (Nanfeng honey mandarin) is recognized and 
accepted by USDA as the mandarin Nanfeng honey mandarin Citrus x 
aurantium cv. `Kinokuni', also named Citrus cv. `Kinokuni.'
     Citrus sinensis is recognized and accepted by USDA as the 
sweet orange Citrus x aurantium var. sinensis, also named Citrus x 
aurantium var. sinensis.
     Citrus unshiu is recognized and accepted by USDA as the 
Satsuma Citrus x aurantium cv. `Unshiu,' also named Citrus cv. 
`Unshiu.'
    Therefore, in accordance with Sec.  [thinsp]319.56-4(c)(3)(iii), we 
are announcing our decision to authorize the importation of fresh 
pummelo, Nanfeng honey mandarin, ponkan, sweet orange, and Satsuma 
mandarin fruit from China into the continental United States subject to 
the following phytosanitary measures:
     Importation in commercial consignments only.
     Registration of places of production and packinghouses 
with the NPPO of China.
     Certification by the NPPO of propagative material used at 
places of production as being free of quarantine pests.
     Periodic inspections of places of production throughout 
the shipping season.
     Grove sanitation.
     PFPPs for Bactrocera minax and B. tsuneonis.
     PFPPs for B. correcta, B. cucurbitae, B. dorsalis, B. 
occipitalis, B. pedestris, and B. tau; or determination that places of 
production are located in areas of low pest prevalence for these 
species of fruit fly based on trapping, and in-transit cold treatment 
as an additional phytosanitary safeguard, except for pummelo which 
requires bagging.
     Maintaining the identity and origin of the lot of fruit 
throughout the export process to the United States.
     Safeguarding of harvested fruit.
     Post-harvest visual inspection of fruit by the NPPO or 
officials authorized by the NPPO according to a biometric sample.
     Cutting a portion of the fruit in the sample to inspect 
for quarantine pests.
     Washing, brushing, and treatment with surface disinfectant 
and fungicide.
     Issuance of a phytosanitary certificate with an additional 
declaration.
     Port of entry inspections.
     Importation under a permit issued by APHIS.
     Possible remedial measures in the event of detection of 
quarantine pests at registered places of production or packinghouses, 
or in/on consignments of citrus fruit from China at ports of entry into 
the United States.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 
3501 et seq.), the reporting and recordkeeping requirements included in 
this notice are covered under the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
control number 0579-0049. The estimated annual burden on respondents is 
5,420 hours, which will be added to OMB control number 0579-0049 in the 
next quarterly update.

E-Government Act Compliance

    The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is committed to 
compliance with the E-Government Act to promote the use of the internet 
and other information technologies, to provide increased opportunities 
for citizen access to Government information and services, and for 
other purposes. For information pertinent to E-Government Act 
compliance related to this notice, please contact Mr. Joseph Moxey, 
APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2483.

Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), 
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs designated this action 
as not a major rule, as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1633, 7701-7772, and 7781-7786; 21 U.S.C. 
136 and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.

    Done in Washington, DC, this 13th day of April 2020.
Michael Watson,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-08059 Filed 4-14-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P