APHIS has determined that measures beyond standard port of entry inspection are required to mitigate the risk posed by these plant pests. The proposed phytosanitary measures include a requirement that the mangoes be treated with a minimum absorbed irradiation dose of 400 gray in accordance with Sec. 305.31 of the phytosanitary treatments regulations in 7 CFR part 305. This is the established generic dose for all insect pests except pupae and adults of the order Lepidoptera. There are no pests of the order Lepidoptera associated with mangoes from India, therefore this treatment would successfully mitigate the risk of all 14 insect pests associated with mangoes from India. Each shipment of fruit would have to be
[[Page 66882]]
accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the NPPO of India certifying that the fruit received the required irradiation treatment. In addition, this irradiation treatment would have to be administered outside of the United States in an APHIScertified facility and would have to be monitored by APHIS inspectors. At this time India has an irradiation facility, but it is not APHIScertified. However, the facility is such that it could be upgraded, retrofitted, and certified should India apply for certification.

In accordance with Sec. 305.31, APHIS and the Indian NPPO would have to jointly develop a preclearance work plan that details the activities APHIS and the NPPO will carry out in connection with each irradiation facility to verify the facility's compliance with 7 CFR part 305. Typical activities to be described in the work plan may include frequency of visits to the facility by APHIS and Indian inspectors, methods for reviewing facility records, and methods for verifying that facilities are in compliance with the requirements for separation of articles, packaging, and labeling. This facility preclearance work plan would have to be reviewed and renewed by APHIS and the NPPO of India on an annual basis. In addition, the NPPO of India would have to enter into a trust fund agreement with APHIS to provide for all expenses incurred by APHIS while performing preclearance activities, such as inspections for pests not targeted by the irradiation treatment, and treatment monitoring services. Those costs include administrative expenses and all salaries, travel expenses, and other incidental expenses incurred by APHIS in performing these services. The trust fund agreement would also describe the general nature and scope of APHIS services provided at irradiation facilities covered by the agreement, such as whether APHIS inspectors will monitor operations continuously or intermittently, and would generally describe the extent of inspections APHIS will perform on articles prior to and after irradiation.

The required irradiation treatment would not mitigate the risks posed by the fungi Actinodochium jenkinsii, Cytosphaera mangiferae, Hendersonia creberrima, Macrophoma mangiferae, or Phomopsis mangiferae or the bacterium Xanthomonas campestris pv. mangiferaeindicae. However we consider Actinodochium jenkinsii, Hendersonia creberrima, and Phomopsis mangiferae to be of low risk of introduction and dissemination within the continental United States. This is because these fungi occur only in tropical areas that roughly correspond to USDA Plant Hardiness Zone 11. In addition, the host range for these fungi appears to be limited to mango. Because the proposed distribution of mangoes from India would be limited to the continental United States, and the mangoproducing areas of Florida and California correspond to USDA Plant Hardiness Zone 10b, survival of these pathogens is unlikely.

In order to mitigate the risks posed by Cytosphaera mangiferae and Macrophoma mangiferae, which we consider to be of medium risk of introduction and dissemination within the continental United States, we are proposing three options: (1) The mangoes be treated with a broad spectrum postharvest fungicidal dip, (2) the orchard of origin be inspected at a time prior to the beginning of harvest as determined by the mutual agreement between APHIS and the NPPO of India and be found free of Cytosphaera mangiferae and Macrophoma mangiferae, or (3) the orchard of origin be treated with a broadspectrum fungicidal application during the growing season, be inspected at a time prior to the beginning of harvest as determined by the mutual agreement between APHIS and the NPPO of India, and the fruit found free of Cytosphaera mangiferae and Macrophoma mangiferae.

Symptoms of both fungal pathogens can be easily seen and detected in the field on mango leaves and fruit during preharvest inspection. Postharvest diseases do not occur without the presence of fungal symptoms on leaves in the field. In addition, standard phytosanitary procedures in place in India already require the application of fungicidal sprays twice during the mango growing season, once at bloom and again between bloom and harvest. Orchard application of broad spectrum fungicide sprays protects fruit from infection by aerial spores produced on leaves or stems.

In order to mitigate the risks posed by Xanthomonas campestris pv. mangiferaeindicae, which we also consider to be of medium risk of introduction and dissemination within the continental United States, we are proposing that the shipment be inspected during preclearance activities and found free of Xanthomonas campestris pv.

mangiferaeindicae.

Symptoms of Xanthomonas campestris pv. mangiferaeindicae are also easily discernible with the naked eye and would most likely be detected during visual inspection of the fruit at the packinghouse. The bacterium is not generally considered a postharvest disease. Infection occurs most often through wounds which would cause the fruit to be culled during harvest or processing.

We further propose that each shipment of fruit be inspected jointly by APHIS and NPPO of India inspectors and that the accompanying phytosanitary certificate issued by the NPPO of India certifying that the fruit received the required irradiation treatment include two additional declarations. The first additional declaration would depend on which of the three options described above was chosen, i.e., ``the fruit in this shipment was subjected to a postharvest broad spectrum fungicidal dip,'' or ``the orchard where the fruit in this shipment was grown was inspected prior to harvest and found free of Cytosphaera mangiferae and Macrophoma mangiferae,'' or ``the orchard where the fruit in this shipment was grown was treated with a broad spectrum fungicide during the growing season, was inspected prior to harvest, and the fruit was found free of Cytosphaera mangiferae and Macrophoma mangiferae.'' The second additional declaration would have to state: ``The fruit in this shipment was inspected during preclearance activities and found free of Cytosphaera mangiferae, Macrophoma mangiferae, and Xanthomonas campestris pv. mangiferaeindicae.'' Specifically listing the pests on the additional declaration would also serve to alert APHIS inspectors at the point of entry to the specific pests of concern.

The commodity imports would be restricted to commercial shipments only. Produce grown commercially is less likely to be infested with plant pests than noncommercial shipments. Noncommercial shipments are more prone to infestations because the commodity is often ripe to overripe, could be of a variety with unknown susceptibility to pests, and is often grown with little or no pest control. Commercial shipments, as defined in Sec. 319.561, are shipments of fruits and vegetables that an inspector identifies as having been produced for sale and distribution in mass markets. Identification of a particular shipment as commercial is based on a variety of indicators, including, but not limited to, the quantity of produce, the type of packaging, identification of a grower or packinghouse on the packaging, and documents consigning the shipment to a wholesaler or retailer. Commercially produced fruit in India are already subjected to standard commercial cultural and postharvest practices that reduce the risk associated with plant
[[Page 66883]]
pests. While not specifically required by this proposal, standard cultural practices other than the twice yearly application of broad spectrum fungicides (e.g., the regular use of sanitation measures, irrigation, fertilization, and pest control) help to further ensure that the pests of concern do not follow the pathway. All export orchards are registered production sites with traceback capability. Harvested fruit is moved to the packinghouses in a manner that would preclude reinfestation by pests. Culling of blemished and damaged fruit occurs in the field and during the postharvest commercial processing of the fruit.

The regulations in Sec. 319.566 provide that all imported fruits and vegetables shall be inspected, and shall be subject to such disinfection at the port of first arrival as may be required by an inspector. The preexport inspection conducted by APHIS personnel as part of preclearance activities in the country of export typically serves to satisfy the inspection requirement. Section 319.566 also provides that any shipment of fruits and vegetables may be refused entry if the shipment is so infested with plant pests that an inspector determines that it cannot be cleaned or treated. We believe that the proposed conditions described above, as well as all other applicable requirements in Sec. 319.566, would be adequate to prevent the introduction of plant pests into the continental United States with mangoes imported from India.

The proposed conditions described above for the importation of mangoes from India into the continental United States would be added to the fruits and vegetables regulations as a new Sec. 319.562tt. In addition, we would also amend the table in Sec. 305.2(h)(2)(i) of the phytosanitary treatments regulations by amending the entry for India to include mangoes and designate irradiation (IR) as an approved treatment for the specific pests named in this document.

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act

This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. The rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 603, we have performed an initial regulatory flexibility analysis, which is set out below, regarding the effects of this proposed rule on small entities. We do not currently have all the data necessary for a comprehensive analysis of the effects of this proposed rule on small entities. Therefore, we are inviting comments concerning potential effects.

Production of mangoes in the United States is limited to three States: Florida, California, and Hawaii. Due to climatic conditions and expanding urbanization in areas of production, mangoproducing 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 largerscale commercial production. Below we examine recent production in the three mangoproducing States, followed by a discussion of foreign supply.

Florida

Over 80 percent of mango acreage in Florida is located in Miami Dade County, and the remaining acreage is located in surrounding areas. Mango cultivars commonly grown in Florida, which also make up the majority of varieties currently exported to the United States, are `Tommy Atkins,' `Keitt,' `Haden,' and `Kent.' The 2002 Census of Agriculture states that Florida had 400 mangoproducing farms with 1,373 acres.\1\ By 2003, the most recent year for which statistics are available, the number of acres had dropped to 1,300, a 24 percent decline in 3 years. Recent estimates indicate that the acreage has decreased still further, to a modest 1,000 acres in 2005.\2\ Only two acres of mangoes have been planted in Florida since 2000. In a 1997 production report, the last year these statistics were gathered, a mango crop of 100,000 bushels (5.5 million pounds) was harvested, with a price of $14.50 per bushel, yielding a total value of $1.45 million.\3\ Due to declining acreage, and consequently reduced harvest yield, production and value statistics are no longer maintained. The majority of mangoes produced in Florida are destined for local farmers' and specialty markets, or sold as green fruit for processing. We are unaware of any largerscale commercial shipments of fresh mangoes by Florida producers.
\1\ USDANASS. 2002 Census of Agriculture, Table 31. Fruits and Nuts: 2002 and 1997. Washington, DC: National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2002.
\2\ Richard J. Campbell, PhD, Senior Curator of Tropical Fruit, ``International Mango Festival 2005 Curator's Choice Cultivars.'' Coral Gables, FL: Fairchild Tropical Botanic Garden, page updated May 31, 2005. (http://www.[fxsp0]fairchildgarden.[fxsp0]org/ horticulture/mangocurators.[fxsp0]html.)
\3\ USDANASSFL. Tropical Fruit Acres and Trees. Orlando, FL: Florida Agricultural Statistics Service, December 11, 2002 and May 12, 2003.

California

According to the 2002 Census of Agriculture, there were 11 mango producing farms in California, with an unknown amount of acreage.\4\ Until recently, mangoes produced in California were thought to be sold only in local markets. However, recent news reports indicate that there are two commercial mango operations in the Coachella Valley of California that sell their fruit through the Corona College Heights Orange & Lemon Association in Corona, CA.\5\ According to the article, the two operations have a combined total of 210 bearing acres, yielding about 275,000 cartons of mangoes (approximately 3.8 million pounds), with a little less than half being certified organic.\6\ In addition, one of the growers expects to have an additional 48 acres bearing fruit by 2007. Commercial mango production in California is a relatively new venture, and is expected to grow only gradually. As the article points out, the availability of suitable land for mangoes is limited due to the fruits' susceptibility to frost. For those areas that are not prone to frost, producers are reluctant to switch to mango production from profitable crops such as grapes and citrus because of the heavy initial investments and the long period between first investment and return. The time period between first planting and first production is 5 years for mango trees, so it is not surprising that producers are reluctant to enter into this industry.
\4\ The production acreage was withheld to avoid disclosing confidential business information for individual farms.
\5\ ``Organic Mangos Now Coming Out of California'' by Tim Linden. Web site: http://theproducenews.[fxsp0]com/ storydetail.cfm?ID=6216, August 18, 2006.
\6\ Note: According to a source describing the harvesting and packing of Florida mangoes, a carton can hold 8 to 20 mangoes depending on the size of the fruit, and have a capacity of 14 lbs (6.35 kg) of fruit (http://www.hort.[fxsp0]purdue.[fxsp0]edu/ newcrop/morton/mangoars.html).

Hawaii

In 2002, the Census of Agriculture recorded 212 mangoproducing farms in Hawaii, but withheld production acreage to avoid disclosing information for individual operations. In 2004, the Hawaiian field office of the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) reported there were 140 farms, with a total of 275 acres of crops, of which 200 acres yielded utilized production of 380,000 pounds, with a sales value of $350,000. Preliminary reports for 2005 indicate a decrease of 28.5 percent in the number of mango farms to 100, but an increase in total crop acreage to 295. The amount of harvested acres in 2005
[[Page 66884]]
was 190, which represents a slight decrease. However, there was a 39.4 percent increase in utilized production, which, combined with a higher farm price per pound, yielded a 40.2 percent increase in total sales value to $586,000.\7\ The amount of commercial production of mangoes in Hawaii is unknown at this time; however, we believe the majority of production is funneled into local markets. We welcome public comment regarding the amount of commercial production of mangoes in Hawaii other than for local markets.
\7\ USDANASSHI. Hawaii Tropical Specialty Fruits. Honolulu,

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 207371231; (301) 7348758.