[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 237 (Thursday, December 10, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 68161-68165]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-32589]
========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 237 / Thursday, December 10, 1998 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 68161]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
7 CFR Parts 300 and 301
[Docket No. 96-069-2]
High-Temperature Forced-Air Treatments for Citrus
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are adding new treatments to the Plant Protection and
Quarantine Treatment Manual, which is incorporated by reference into
the Code of Federal Regulations, for certain citrus. We are adding
treatments involving high-temperature forced air for tangerines,
oranges (except navel oranges), and grapefruit from Mexico and areas of
the United States that are infested with plant pests in the genus
Anastrepha, which includes A. ludens, the Mexican fruit fly. This
action provides an additional option for treating these fruits.
DATES: This regulation is effective December 10, 1998. The
incorporation by reference of the material described in the rule is
approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of December 10,
1998.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Ron Campbell, Operations Officer,
Port Operations, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 136, Riverdale, MD
20737-1236, (301) 734-6799; or e-mail RonaldCCampbell@usda.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
To prevent the spread of plant pests into or within the United
States, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) restricts the
importation and interstate movement of many articles, including fruits.
As a condition of movement, some fruits are required to be treated for
plant pests in accordance with title 7 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR). The Plant Protection and Quarantine Treatment Manual
(PPQ Treatment Manual) of the USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service (APHIS) contains approved treatment schedules and is
incorporated by reference into the CFR at 7 CFR 300.1.
Pursuant to 7 CFR 319.56-2x, USDA allows tangerines, oranges, and
grapefruit from Mexico to be imported into the United States if treated
in accordance with the PPQ Treatment Manual. In addition, because the
Mexican fruit fly infests parts of the United States (currently, parts
of Texas and California), USDA regulates the interstate movement of
certain articles from those areas under the Mexican Fruit Fly
Quarantine and Regulations, found at 7 CFR 301.64 through 301.64-10.
Acceptable treatments for the regulated articles are listed in
Sec. 301.64-10. Treatments for the regulated articles themselves
include a cold treatment, fumigation with methyl bromide, and a high-
temperature forced-air treatment for grapefruit of a certain size;
treatments for the fields or groves in which the regulated articles are
grown include a soil drench with diazinon and a malathion bait spray.
On December 30, 1997, we published in the Federal Register (62 FR
67761-67763, Docket No. 96-069-1) a proposed rule to amend Sec. 301.64-
10 and the PPQ Treatment Manual to include the high-temperature forced-
air treatments described below for tangerines, oranges (except navel
oranges), and grapefruit from Mexico and areas of the United States
affected with pests in the genus Anastrepha, which includes A. ludens,
the Mexican fruit fly. We proposed to amend 7 CFR 300.1 to show that
the PPQ Treatment Manual had been so changed and to amend Sec. 301.64-
10(e) of the Mexican fruit fly regulations to indicate that treatments
for movement of domestic grapefruit, oranges (except navel oranges),
and tangerines from areas of the United States infested with the
Mexican fruit fly are included in the PPQ Treatment Manual. We also
proposed to remove from Sec. 301.64-10 paragraphs (a), (d), and (e) the
specific requirements for the cold treatment, the methyl bromide
treatment, and the high-temperature forced-air treatment. Because all
of these treatments are listed in the PPQ Treatment Manual, there
appeared to be no reason for them also to be listed in the CFR.
Finally, we proposed to amend 301.64-10(b) to make some minor
grammatical and punctuation changes.
The high-temperature forced-air treatments we proposed were
developed by the USDA's Agricultural Research Service (ARS) in
conjunction with APHIS-PPQ Methods Development. As proposed, the
treatments must be administered in sealed, insulated chambers; the air
may be heated in the chambers, or hot air may be introduced into the
chambers.
Proposed Treatment for Tangerines
The tangerines must be commercial size 125 or smaller. (Commercial
size is an index based on the approximate number of fruit that fit into
a commercial shipping box [40 lb or 18.14 kg].) Each tangerine must
weigh no more than 8.6 oz (245 g).
Place the tangerines in the chamber and seal it. Raise the air
temperature in the chamber to 113 deg.F (45 deg.C) or higher for 210
minutes. (Treatment time begins when the coldest air temperature sensor
reaches 113 deg.F.) Record the temperature of each sensor at least
once every 2 minutes throughout the treatment. Any temperature reading
below 113 deg.F will invalidate the entire treatment. If any low
temperature readings occur, repeat (do not simply extend) the
treatment.
Proposed Treatment for Oranges (Except Navel Oranges)
The oranges must be commercial size 100 or smaller. Each orange
must weigh no more than 16.5 oz (468 g).
Place the oranges in the chamber and seal it. Raise the air
temperature in the chamber to 114.8 deg.F (46 deg.C) or higher for
250 minutes. (Treatment time begins when the coldest air temperature
sensor reaches 114.8 deg.F.) Record the temperature of each sensor at
least once every 2 minutes throughout the treatment. Any temperature
reading below 114.8 deg.F will invalidate the entire treatment. If any
low temperature readings occur, repeat (do not simply extend) the
treatment.
Proposed Treatment for Grapefruit
The grapefruit must be commercial size 70 or smaller. Each
grapefruit must weigh no more than 18.8 oz (532 g).
[[Page 68162]]
Place the grapefruit in the chamber and seal it. Raise the air
temperature in the chamber to 114.8 deg.F (46 deg.C) or higher for
300 minutes. (Treatment time begins when the coldest air temperature
sensor reaches 114.8 deg.F.) Record the temperature of each sensor at
least once every 2 minutes throughout the treatment. Any temperature
reading below 114.8 deg.F will invalidate the entire treatment. If any
low temperature readings occur, repeat (do not simply extend) the
treatment.
Comments
We solicited comments concerning our proposal for 60 days ending
March 2, 1998. We received 28 comments by that date. They were from
Mexican citrus producers, USDA employees, a State government, and a
citrus industry association. The commenters generally supported the
adoption of the proposed high-temperature forced-air treatments;
several commenters stated that the proposed treatments were an
environmentally sound and feasible alternative to methyl bromide
treatments. However, some of the commenters suggested changes or
clarifications to the proposed treatments. These comments are discussed
below.
One commenter had several questions regarding administration of the
proposed treatments: (1) Would the location of the temperature probes
make any difference to the efficacy of the treatments (i.e., does it
matter if the probes are in the air in the open space in the chamber or
if they are attached to a fruit in the fruit container)? (2) Fruits
cooled at room temperature have an extended treatment effect, whereas
fruits that are hydrocooled or cooled in some other manner following
treatment do not. Will there be a requirement addressing the cool-down
of the fruits following treatment? (3) Would climatic conditions at the
packing plant make any difference in the prescribed length of the
proposed treatments? (In the commenter's experience, it takes longer
during cold and damp conditions for the internal temperature of fruits
treated in high-temperature forced-air or vapor-heat chambers to reach
the required final treatment temperature than during hot and dry
conditions.) (4) Would it make any difference if the fruits were
treated in lugs (fruits arranged in single layers stacked one on top of
another) or in bulk bins (fruits compiled in containers that measure
about 2'h x 4'l x 4'w)? (5) Would the ratio of air space and fruit
volume in a chamber affect the prescribed length and efficacy of the
treatment? (6) Would not the monitoring of the treatments be more
precise and safer if the protocol prescribed the measurement of the
internal temperature of the citrus fruits and duration needed at that
temperature to ensure larvae mortality rather than the temperature and
time of the air in the chamber?
A comment provided by the ARS researchers who did the research upon
which the proposed high-temperature forced-air treatments were based
suggested the inclusion of a high-temperature forced-air treatment for
navel oranges. The commenters stated that research proving the
quarantine security of the treatment for navel oranges was performed
shortly after the completion of the research on the treatments for
oranges other than navel oranges, tangerines, and grapefruit. The
researchers also suggested changes to clarify the prescribed fruit
sizes. Finally, the researchers suggested adding information to the
proposed treatments about fruit tolerance, i.e., the maximum
temperatures to which the fruit could be subjected and still maintain
market quality.
After carefully considering the six procedural questions and the
suggestions for clarifying and expanding the proposed treatments, we
have decided to change the proposed treatment procedures to a single
treatment procedure for tangerines, oranges (except navel oranges), and
grapefruit. We believe that this procedure will be an effective
treatment for these fruits and will better ensure efficacy and
consistency in administration of the high-temperature forced-air
treatment. We have reviewed the completed data concerning the inclusion
of a high-temperature forced-air treatment for navel oranges provided
by ARS and have determined that the treatment would be effective for
navel oranges as well. Accordingly, in the near future we will publish
a direct final rule to allow its use on navel oranges. We are amending
the PPQ Treatment Manual to include the treatment spelled out below. We
are also amending 7 CFR 300.1 to show that there has been a revision to
the PPQ Treatment Manual. We are also amending Sec. 301.64-10(e) to
indicate that grapefruit, oranges (except navel oranges), and
tangerines may be treated with high-temperature forced air as specified
in the PPQ Treatment Manual.
New Treatment Procedure
The treatment must be administered in sealed, insulated chambers;
the air may be heated in the chambers, or hot air may be introduced
into the chambers. The number of temperature probes must be approved in
advance during the chamber certification procedure.
Place the temperature probes into the centers of the largest fruit
in the load. Place the fruit inside the chamber, seal it, and begin the
treatment.
The target temperature is 44 deg.C (111.2 deg.F). Throughout the
treatment, record the fruit center temperatures at least once every 2
minutes. If it takes less than 90 minutes for the fruit to reach the
target temperature, the fruit must remain at the target temperature for
any additional time needed to reach 90 minutes, plus another 100
minutes. If the fruit takes 90 minutes or more to reach the target
temperature, the fruit must remain at the target temperature for an
additional 100 minutes only.
Hydrocooling after treatment is optional.
The treatment is for fruit of the following sizes:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard
Fruit Variety Pack Count Container Maximum Weight Maximum Diameter (in)
\1\ Size (bu) (g)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tangerines...................................... 120 \4/5\ 245 (8.6 oz) Not specified.
Oranges (except navel oranges................... 100 1\2/5\ 468 (16.4 oz) 3\13/16\
Grapefruit...................................... 70 1\2/5\ 536 (18.8 oz) 4\5/16\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Standard pack count is an index based on the approximate number of fruit of uniform diameter that fit into a
bushel container of the size indicated.
[[Page 68163]]
Examples of Treatment Administration
1. If the center temperature of fruit located in the coolest
location inside a forced-air chamber required 112 minutes to reach 44
deg.C, then the total treatment time for the fruit load would be 212
minutes (112 minutes approach time to target temperature +100 minutes
treatment time at target temperature).
2. If the center temperature of fruit located in the coolest
location inside a forced-air chamber required 80 minutes to reach 44
deg.C, then the total treatment time for the fruit load would be 190
minutes (80 minutes approach time to target temperature + 10 additional
minutes so that approach time is the required 90 minutes in duration +
100 minutes treatment time at target temperature).
Note: Tolerance data may be obtained from the USDA-ARS
Subtropical Research Center, Crop Quality & Fruit Insects, 2301 S.
International Blvd., Weslaco, TX 78596, or the USDA-APHIS-PPQ Oxford
Plant Protection Center, 901 Hillsboro Street, Oxford, NC 27565.
We developed the changes in treatment procedure in consultation
with the ARS researchers who performed the research upon which the
proposed procedures were based. The new procedure is based upon the
same research. As discussed below, we and ARS believe the modifications
address the comments concerning placement of the temperature probes,
measurement of internal fruit temperature, fruit cool-down following
treatment, variable climatic conditions at the treatment facilities,
arrangement of the fruit during treatment, and ratio of air space and
fruit volume in the treatment chamber.
We agree that placing the temperature probes in the centers of the
largest fruit in the load to measure the internal temperatures of the
fruit instead of placing the temperature probes in the open space of
the chamber to measure the air temperature in the chamber is a better
method of monitoring the treatment to ensure larvae mortality. Variable
climatic conditions at the treatment facilities (which could cause
differences in the amount of time needed for fruit centers to reach the
target temperature) are of no consequence now because the new procedure
allows for a variable approach time to the target temperature but
requires a minimum approach time of 90 minutes. Fruit cool-down is
irrelevant under the new procedure because treating the fruit at the
temperature and for the time prescribed ensures larvae mortality, so
any extended treatment effect resulting from cooling the fruit at room
temperature would be unnecessary. Fruit placement in the treatment
chamber and the ratio of air space and fruit volume does not matter
because, by measuring the center temperatures of the largest fruit in
the load as required in the new procedure, treatment administrators
will know that the fruit in the load has been raised to the target
temperature. (Using the procedure specified in the proposed rule,
treatment administrators might not know whether fruit in the center of
a bulk bin had reached the required temperature because the proposed
treatments called for measuring the temperature of the air in the
chamber.)
The new procedure better describes the required sizes of the fruit
undergoing treatment, as requested by the ARS researchers who did the
research on the high-temperature forced-air treatments. We are not
including the fruit tolerance information suggested by the researchers
because the data submitted was for fruit of different sizes than those
specified in this rule. However, we have provided two sources that
treatment administrators may consult for information on fruit
tolerance. We are also not allowing the treatment to be used for navel
oranges at this time. However, as stated previously, we have reviewed
the data provided by the ARS researchers and have determined that the
treatment would be effective for use on navel oranges. In the near
future, we will publish a direct final rule to allow the treatment to
be used on navel oranges.
One commenter expressed concern that, by removing from the CFR
certain treatments that are also listed in the PPQ Treatment Manual, we
might gain flexibility by eliminating the need to publish treatment
changes in the Federal Register, but the result would be less industry
input.
This commenter has misunderstood the effect of incorporation by
reference. Because the PPQ Treatment Manual is incorporated by
reference into the CFR, any changes made to the Manual must be made in
accordance with the procedures for making changes to the CFR.
Therefore, before we make any changes to the treatments listed in
either the PPQ Treatment Manual or in title 7 of the CFR, we must
publish the changes as a proposed rule in the Federal Register for
public comment.
We are making the proposed nonsubstantive changes to paragraphs (a)
and (e) of Sec. 301.64-10 to avoid redundancies with the PPQ Treatment
Manual. We are also making some nonsubstantive changes to paragraphs
(b) and (c) of Sec. 301.64-10 to correct some punctuation and
formatting errors.
Therefore, for the reasons given in the proposed rule and in this
document, we are adopting the proposed rule as a final rule, with the
changes discussed in this document.
Effective Date
This is a substantive rule that relieves restrictions and, pursuant
to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553, may be made effective less than 30
days after publication in the Federal Register. Immediate
implementation of this rule is necessary to provide relief to those
persons who are adversely affected by restrictions we no longer find
warranted. The shipping season for citrus from Mexico, Texas, and
California is under way. Making this rule effective immediately will
allow interested producers and others in the marketing chain to benefit
during this year's shipping season. Therefore, the Administrator of the
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this
rule should be effective upon publication in the Federal Register.
Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. For this
action, the Office of Management and Budget has waived its review
process required by Executive Order 12866.
This rule, which allows the use of a process involving high-
temperature forced air for treating tangerines, oranges (except navel
oranges), and grapefruit from areas of Mexico and the United States
infested with plant pests of the genus Anastrepha (which includes A.
ludens, the Mexican fruit fly), could affect producers and treatment
administrators in areas in Texas and California regulated for the
Mexican fruit fly and U.S. citrus imports from Mexico.
Regulated areas in Texas comprise a major citrus-growing region of
the United States. Four of the five regulated production areas in Texas
were infested in fiscal year (FY) 1996 and FY 1997. Methyl bromide
fumigation is the method used to treat fruit for export and for
shipment to other U.S. citrus-growing areas, although other treatments
(including an existing high-temperature forced-air alternative for
grapefruit) and a bait-spray program are options available to
producers. More than 90 percent of the fruit treated are grapefruit;
the rest are oranges. In FY 1996, 5.4 million pounds of citrus from
regulated areas of Texas were fumigated, and this amount increased to
19.2 million pounds in FY 1997. Ninety
[[Page 68164]]
percent of the treated fruit is shipped to California, and 10 percent,
to Mexico.
Eight fumigation companies treat citrus shipped from the regulated
areas of Texas. The fumigation facilities are located in the packing
sheds of major packing houses. Some are private companies; others
operate as cooperatives. All of the fumigation companies can be
considered small entities by Small Business Administration standards
(annual revenue less than $5 million, averaged over 3 years).
The use of high-temperature forced air as an alternative treatment
could lead to a reduction in revenue for the fumigation companies, if
the new treatment is found by the growers to be financially preferable.
At growers' meetings in the area, the possibility of building and
operating one or two high-temperature forced-air treatment facilities
as cooperative ventures has been discussed. However, the consensus has
been that more information is needed before the sizable expenditures
such facilities would require are made. Major doubts remain in the
minds of producers concerning the speed with which the fruit could be
treated and the risk of fruit being damaged by the high temperatures.
Producers are unlikely to replace fumigation with the proposed high-
temperature forced-air process until these issues are resolved to their
satisfaction.
The area in California currently infested with the Mexican fruit
fly is in San Diego County. Avocados are the major crop in the
regulated area. Because this outbreak occurred recently, there is
little history of treatment for movement of restricted articles from
the area.
Mexico is a major supplier of oranges to the United States,
providing one-third or more of all oranges imported. Tangerine imports
from Mexico are less significant, while grapefruit shipments from
Mexico have been minor or nonexistent. In 1996, Mexico exported 7,633
metric tons of oranges (worth about $3.7 million), 2,596 metric tons of
tangerines ($1.2 million), and 109 metric tons of grapefruit ($88,000)
to the United States; the combined import value of the three fruits was
about $5 million. In 1997, Mexico exported 10,461 metric tons of
oranges ($4.9 million), 4,198 metric tons of tangerines ($1.6 million),
and no grapefruit to the United States; the combined import value was
about $6.5 million. This pattern has continued in the 1998 export
season, with about 9,100 metric tons of oranges and about 3,100 metric
tons of tangerines entering the United States from Mexico.
Citrus imports from Mexico that originate in certain areas of the
State of Sonora considered to be free of the Mexican fruit fly require
only certification. Citrus imports from the rest of Mexico are treated
for Anastrepha species using methyl bromide fumigation. Outside the
designated areas in Sonora, tangerines are the most commonly exported
fruit to the United States because they are not as susceptible to
damage from methyl bromide fumigation as are oranges. Conversely, only
oranges are exported to the United States from the designated areas of
Sonora.
The use of high-temperature forced air as an alternative treatment
will provide an incentive for citrus producers outside of Sonora to
broaden their citrus exports to the United States to include oranges
because the phytotoxicity of oranges to methyl bromide will no longer
be an issue. A facility capable of treating citrus with high-
temperature forced air has been built in Mexico. Its use is expected to
widen the citrus export season for producers outside of Sonora: The
export season for tangerines from Mexico is from November to February;
the export season for all citrus from Mexico is from October to May or
June.
Citrus producers in the regulated areas in Texas are expected to
monitor the experiences of Mexican producers with the new treatment and
reassess its future adoption. Effects of this rule on fumigation
companies in the regulated areas of Texas (and on any fumigation
companies that may serve producers in the newly regulated area in
California) are expected to be negligible to nonexistent. The proposed
treatment will provide another alternative for producers and fumigation
companies.
Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
Executive Order 12372
This program/activity is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance under No. 10.025 and is subject to Executive Order 12372,
which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local
officials. (See 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V.)
Executive Order 12988
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil
Justice Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts all State and local laws and
regulations that are inconsistent with this rule; (2) has no
retroactive effect; and (3) does not require administrative proceedings
before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule contains no information collection or recordkeeping
requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.).
List of Subjects
7 CFR Part 300
Incorporation by reference, Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine.
7 CFR Part 301
Agricultural commodities, Incorporation by reference, Plant
diseases and pests, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Transportation.
Accordingly, we are amending 7 CFR parts 300 and 301 as follows:
PART 300--INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
1. The authority citation for part 300 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 150ee, 154, 161, 162, and 167; 7 CFR 2.22,
2.80, and 371.2(c).
2. In Sec. 300.1, the section heading and paragraph (a)
introductory text are revised to read as follow:
Sec. 300.1 Materials incorporated by reference.
(a) Plant Protection and Quarantine Treatment Manual. The Plant
Protection and Quarantine Treatment Manual, which was reprinted
November 30, 1992, and includes all revisions through January 1, 1999
has been approved for incorporation by reference in 7 CFR chapter III
by the Director of the Office of the Federal Register in accordance
with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
* * * * *
PART 301--DOMESTIC QUARANTINE NOTICES
3. The authority citation for part 301 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 147a, 150bb, 150dd, 150ee, 150ff, 161, 162,
and 164-167; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.2(c).
4. Section 301.64-10 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 301.64-10 Treatments.
Treatments for regulated articles must be one of the following:
(a) Apple, grapefruit, orange, pear, plum, pomegranate, quince, and
tangerine. Cold treatment in accordance with the PPQ Treatment Manual.
For the full identification of this standard,
[[Page 68165]]
see Sec. 300.1 of this chapter, ``Materials incorporated by
reference''.
(b) Soil within the dripline of plants that are producing or that
have produced fruits listed in Sec. 301.64-2(a). Remove host fruits
from host plants prior to treatment. Using ground equipment, drench the
soil under the host plants with 5 lb a.i. diazinon per acre (0.12 lb or
2 oz avdp per 1,000 ft \2\) mixed with 130 gal of water per acre (3 gal
per 1,000 ft \2\). Apply at 14- to 16-day intervals as needed. Repeat
applications if infestations become established. In addition to the
above, follow all label directions for diazinon.
(c) Premises. A field, grove, or area that is located within the
quarantined area but outside the infested core area, and that produces
regulated articles, must receive regular treatments with malathion bait
spray. These treatments must take place at 6- to 10-day intervals,
starting a sufficient time before harvest (but not less than 30 days
before harvest) to allow for completion of egg and larvae development
of the Mexican fruit fly. Determination of the time period must be
based on the day degrees model for Mexican fruit fly. Once treatment
has begun, it must continue through the harvest period. The malathion
bait spray treatment must be applied by aircraft or ground equipment at
a rate of 2.4 oz of technical grade malathion and 9.6 oz of protein
hydrolysate per acre.
(d) Grapefruit and oranges. Methyl bromide in accordance with the
PPQ Treatment Manual.
(e) Grapefruit, oranges (except navel oranges), and tangerines.
High-temperature forced air in accordance with the PPQ Treatment
Manual.
Done in Washington, DC, this 2nd day of December 1998.
Joan M. Arnoldi,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 98-32589 Filed 12-9-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
