Interstate Movement of Fruit From Hawaii

Tag: frozen mixed vegetables

We are amending the Hawaiian fruits and vegetables regulations to allow mangosteen, dragon fruit, melon, pods of cowpea and its relatives, breadfruit, jackfruit, and fresh moringa pods to be moved interstate from Hawaii under certain conditions. This action will allow the movement of these tropical fruits from Hawaii to the continental United States while continuing to provide protection against the spread of plant pests from Hawaii to the continental United States.

UPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Hawaiian fruits and vegetables regulations, contained in 7 CFR 318.13 through 318.13-17 (referred to below as the regulations), govern, among other things, the interstate movement of fruits and vegetables from Hawaii to the continental United States. The regulations are necessary to prevent the spread of plant diseases and pests that occur in Hawaii but not in the continental United States. The regulations in SEC 318.13-4f identify specific fruits and vegetables that are allowed to be moved interstate from Hawaii if, among other things, they are treated with irradiation in accordance with our phytosanitary treatments regulations in 7 CFR part 305.

n November 15, 2007, we published in the Federal Register (72 FR 64163-64170, Docket No. APHIS-2007-0050) a proposal /1/ to amend the regulations to allow mangosteen, dragon fruit, melon, pods of cowpea and its relatives, breadfruit, jackfruit, and fresh moringa pods to be moved interstate from Hawaii under certain conditions. We also proposed to amend SEC 305.31(a) to add irradiation doses for three plant pests: Coconut scale (Aspidiotus destructor), white peach scale (Pseudaulacaspis pentagona), and Copitarsia decolora (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae).

solicited comments concerning our proposal for 60 days ending January 14, 2008. We received nine comments by that date, from private citizens, members of Congress, Hawaiian fruit growers, a farm bureau organization, scientists, a consumer group, and a foreign agricultural agency. The commenters were generally supportive of the proposed rule, but some did raise issues about the proposal. Those issues are discussed below.

commenter stated that the irradiation standards for Hawaiian produce are less flexible than those for international shipments. Specifically, the commenter drew attention to the provisions regarding the design of a facility's dosimetry system and procedures. The regulations in 7 CFR 305.31, which apply to imported produce, provide that the facility operator must address guidance and principles from the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standards, or equivalent standards recognized by the Administrator. However, the regulations in 7 CFR 305.34, which apply to Hawaiian produce, specify the use of ASTM standards only, and do not allow for the use of equivalent standards. The commenter stated that this discrepancy gives greater flexibility to foreign imports and allows foreign produce to gain access to markets in the continental United States ahead of Hawaiian produce.

e note that the standards for irradiation treatment for Hawaiian produce were established before those for imports. When the standards for imports were proposed, they were identical to those already established for Hawaiian produce. However, a comment we received on that proposal rightly pointed out that the ASTM standards for dosimetry describe basic principles, effective techniques, and best practices, but do not provide absolute or mandatory standards for dosimetry systems. The same comment pointed out that other organizations, such as the National Institute of Standards and Technology, also have prepared standards regarding dosimetry that could also be used. In response to that comment, we amended the text of SEC 305.31 to change the manner in which we characterized the ASTM standards and to allow for the use of equivalent standards recognized by the Administrator. While it would have been appropriate to have made the same changes regarding standards to SEC 305.34 in the final rule that established SEC 305.31, it did not occur to us to do so at that time. As a result of this more recent comment bringing the discrepancy between the two sections to our attention, we are amending SEC 305.34(b)(6)(iii) in this final rule so that it is consistent with the corresponding provisions in SEC 305.31. We are also amending the regulations in SEC 305.32, which provide for irradiation treatment of produce from areas quarantined for Mexican fruit fly, so that its provisions regarding dosimetry standards are consistent as well.

 commenter noted that the handling, marking, and shipping requirements for irradiated produce are more stringent than for any other treatment schedules.

his may be the case; however, irradiation technology has some unique challenges that are not common with other treatments. Since irradiation treatment may render pests sterile rather than killing them outright, and therefore live pests may accompany shipments, there is no easy way to validate the irradiation treatment as may be done with other treatments. As a result, greater emphasis is placed on treatment monitoring, documentation, and system integrity when irradiation is used than when other treatments are used. This is to remove any chance for commodity commingling or reinfestation by pests.

everal commenters requested that we implement a streamlined process for approving Hawaiian produce for movement to the continental United States similar to the one now used for approving imported fruits and vegetables.

e agree that a streamlined approach would be appropriate for approving Hawaiian fruits and vegetables and intend to address the issue in a separate rulemaking currently under development.

commenter requested clarification of why the Mediterranean fruit fly (Medfly) was included on the list of pests associated with melon from Hawaii. The commenter noted that Medfly has not been reported in interceptions from Hawaii, and that scientific literature does not include references to field infestations of melon by Medfly.

he Medfly was included in the pest risk assessment (PRA) for melon from Hawaii for several reasons. The Medfly is a serious agricultural pest and is established in Hawaii. Melon has been found to be a host of the Medfly under experimental conditions. Furthermore, the host fruit conditions determining the suitability or unsuitability of melon for Medfly are unknown. For these reasons melon as a host of Medfly in Hawaii remains in the PRA. We also note that some Bactrocera species fruit flies occurring in Hawaii attack melon. Because the mitigation of choice for Hawaii is irradiation treatment, which has a generic dose for all fruit flies occurring in Hawaii, Medfly as a pest on the pathway in the PRA is not an issue.
commenter raised issues that involve matters that are not within the regulatory authority of APHIS. Specifically, the commenter expressed concern that irradiation will lead to nutrient destruction and make foods unsafe to eat. The commenter also stated that APHIS should not approve or promote irradiation treatments because irradiation facilities will pose serious risks to the communities where they are built.

e are not making any changes in response to this comment. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has primary regulatory responsibility for ensuring that approved irradiation doses do not render foods unsafe to eat. FDA regulations (21 CFR 179.26) establish a limit of 1 kilogray for disinfestation of arthropod pests in fresh fruits and vegetables. All of the irradiation doses contained in this rule are significantly less than this approved safe dose limit.

he safety of operations of irradiation facilities is regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). NRC ensures that such facilities are built and operated according to Federal regulations. To be licensed, the facility must have been designed with multiple fail-safe measures, and must establish extensive and well-documented safety procedures and worker training. With proper design and operating procedures, commercial irradiation facilities can be operated safely and without posing any significant radiation risk to workers or the public.

herefore, 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

his 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. Making this rule effective immediately will allow Hawaii growers and others in the marketing chain to benefit from access to new markets in the continental United States as soon as possible. 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 .