[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 106 (Friday, June 1, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 29735-29739]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-13758]


========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of 
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these 
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in 
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 2001 / Proposed 
Rules

[[Page 29735]]



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

7 CFR Part 319

[Docket No. 00-068-1]


Cold Treatment for Fresh Fruits; Port of Corpus Christi, TX

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are proposing to allow, under certain conditions, the cold 
treatment of imported fruit upon arrival at the port of Corpus Christi, 
TX. We have determined that there are biological barriers at this port 
that, along with certain safeguards, would prevent the introduction of 
fruit flies and other insect pests into the United States in the 
unlikely event that they escape from shipments of fruit before the 
fruit undergoes cold treatment. This action would facilitate the 
importation of fruit requiring cold treatment while continuing to 
provide protection against the introduction of fruit flies and other 
insect pests into the United States.

DATES: We invite you to comment on this docket. We will consider all 
comments that we receive by July 31, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Please send four copies of your comment (an original and 
three copies) to: Docket No. 00-068-1, Regulatory Analysis and 
Development, PPD, APHIS, Suite 3C03, 4700 River Road, Unit 118, 
Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state that your comment refers to 
Docket No. 00-068-1.
    You may read any comments that we receive on this docket in our 
reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 of the USDA 
South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, 
DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, 
please call (202) 690-2817 before coming.
    APHIS documents published in the Federal Register, and related 
information, including the names of organizations and individuals who 
have commented on APHIS dockets, are available on the Internet at 
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppd/rad/webrepor.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donna L. West, Import Specialist, PPQ, 
APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 140, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; (301) 734-
5007.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The fruits and vegetables regulations, contained in 7 CFR 319.56 
through 319.56-8 (referred to below as the regulations), prohibit or 
restrict the importation of fruits and vegetables to prevent the 
introduction or dissemination of injurious insects, including fruit 
flies, that are new to or not widely distributed in the United States. 
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture administers these regulations.
    Under the regulations, APHIS allows certain fruits to be imported 
into the United States if they undergo sustained refrigeration (cold 
treatment) sufficient to kill certain insect pests. Cold treatment 
temperatures and the duration of treatment vary according to the type 
of fruit and the pests involved. Detailed cold treatment procedures may 
be found in the Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) Treatment Manual, 
which is incorporated by reference into the regulations at 7 CFR 300.1.
    Most imported fruit that requires cold treatment undergoes cold 
treatment while in transit to the United States. However, APHIS also 
allows imported fruit to undergo cold treatment at an approved cold 
treatment facility in either the country of origin or after arrival in 
the United States at certain ports designated by APHIS in Sec. 319.56-
2d(b)(1) of the regulations.
    Currently, cold treatment in the United States is limited to the 
following ports: Atlantic ports north of, and including, Baltimore, MD; 
ports on the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway; Canadian border ports 
on the North Dakota border and east of North Dakota; the maritime ports 
of Wilmington, NC, Seattle, WA, and Gulfport, MS; Seattle-Tacoma 
International Airport, Seattle, WA; Hartsfield-Atlanta International 
Airport, Atlanta, GA; Baltimore-Washington International Airport, 
Baltimore, MD; and Dulles International Airport, Chantilly, VA.

Proposal of Additional Port

    Recently, we received a formal request from the Port of Corpus 
Christi Authority of Nueces County, TX, to designate the maritime port 
of Corpus Christi, TX, as an approved location for the cold treatment 
of imported fruit. In response to that request, we are proposing to add 
the maritime port of Corpus Christi, TX, to the list of ports that are 
designated as approved locations for cold treatment of imported fruit. 
This proposal is based on our determination that there are biological 
barriers in the area of this port that, along with certain safeguards, 
would prevent the introduction of fruit flies and other insect pests in 
the unlikely event that they escape from shipments of fruit before the 
fruit undergoes cold treatment.
    Our determination is based, in part, on a 1994 document prepared by 
APHIS assessing the pest risks associated with allowing cold treatment 
of tropical fruit fly host materials at certain U.S. ports. The 
applicable risk mitigation measures discussed in that risk assessment 
document are included in this proposal as requirements for the port of 
Corpus Christi, TX. (Copies of the risk assessment document may be 
obtained by writing to the individual listed under FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT.)

Risk Groups

    The risk assessment document establishes risk groups for many ports 
in the United States; these risk groups characterize the relative risk, 
without consideration for mitigating factors, associated with the 
movement of tropical fruit fly host material for cold treatment in the 
United States. The ports have been assigned to one of five risk groups 
based on a number of criteria, including the individual port's 
latitude, microclimate, immediate host availability, and past fruit fly 
infestations; the risk groups are assigned numbers I through V, with 
these numbers representing an ascending level of risk based on those 
criteria. The ports that were considered have been categorized as 
follows:

[[Page 29736]]

    <bullet> Group I ports-- Atlantic ports north of and including 
Baltimore, MD.
    <bullet> Group II ports-- Wilmington, NC; Seattle, WA; Portland, 
OR; Atlanta, GA; and Norfolk, VA.
    <bullet> Group III ports-- Charleston, SC; Savannah, GA; Port 
Arthur and Galveston/Houston, TX.
    <bullet> Group IV ports-- Gulfport, MS; Mobile, AL; New Orleans, 
LA; Corpus Christi, TX; and Pensacola, FL.
    <bullet> Group V ports-- San Diego, San Pedro/Long Beach, San 
Francisco, and Oakland, CA; Tampa, Miami, West Palm Beach/Fort 
Lauderdale, Cape Canaveral, Jacksonville, Fort Myers, and Fort Pierce, 
FL; Brownsville, TX; and all Hawaiian ports.
    The general requirements for cold treatment found in Sec. 319.56-2d 
are designed to mitigate the risk of infestation due to fruit fly 
escape from shipments arriving in Group I ports. These requirements, 
contained in Sec. 319.56-2d(b)(5)(i) through (b)(5)(iii), include 
delivering, under the supervision of a PPQ inspector, shipments of 
fruit that require cold treatment to an approved cold storage warehouse 
where the shipments will be cold treated; precooling and refrigerating 
the shipments of fruit intended for cold treatment promptly upon 
arrival at the cold treatment facility; allowing shipments of fruit 
that require cold treatment to leave U.S. Customs Service (Customs) 
custody only under a redelivery bond for cold treatment; and allowing 
final release by Customs of shipments of fruit that require cold 
treatment only after the Customs officer has received official 
notification that the required cold treatment has been completed.
    Those Group II and IV ports that are currently listed in the 
regulations as ports where cold treatment of imported fruit may occur 
must meet other requirements, in addition to the general requirements 
discussed in the previous paragraph, to prevent the introduction of 
fruit flies and other insect pests into the United States.
    The port of Corpus Christi, TX, which we are proposing as an 
approved location for cold treatment in this document, has been 
designated as a Group IV port; consequently, additional mitigating 
measures would need to be in place before cold treatment could occur at 
this port.
    The conditions that would be assigned to the port of Corpus 
Christi, TX, are, with one difference, the same as those currently 
found in Sec. 319.56-2d(b)(5)(vii) regarding cold treatment at the port 
of Gulfport, MS, which is also a Group IV port. These proposed 
conditions are listed and explained below.

Special Conditions for the Maritime Port of Corpus Christi, TX

    The maritime port of Corpus Christi, TX, is not in a commercial 
citrus-producing area. This reduces the likelihood that a fruit fly 
escaping from a shipment of fruit intended for cold treatment would 
find adequate host material for propagation. However, the port of 
Corpus Christi, TX, is less than 150 miles away from commercial citrus 
growing areas. Additionally, the port of Corpus Christi, TX, is located 
in a part of the country with a longer growing season and a wider 
variety and greater quantity of backyard hosts available compared to 
ports in Groups I through III. Therefore, in addition to the general 
requirements in Sec. 319.56-2d(b)(5)(i) through (b)(5)(iii) of the 
regulations concerning cold treatment, the following requirements would 
apply to cold treatment conducted at the maritime port of Corpus 
Christi, TX.
    1. All fruit entering the port for cold treatment must move in 
maritime containers. No bulk shipments (i.e., those shipments that are 
stowed and unloaded by the case or bin) are permitted.
    This condition would ensure that imported fruit arriving for cold 
treatment at the port of Corpus Christi, TX, would not be exposed to 
the outdoors. The shipping container would insulate the fruit, thereby 
helping to keep the fruit chilled during unloading, prevent leakage of 
the shipments, and serve as a barrier to fruit fly escape from 
shipments of untreated fruit.
    2. Within the container, the fruit intended for cold treatment must 
be enclosed in fruit fly-proof packaging that prevents the escape of 
adult, larval, or pupal fruit flies.
    This condition would ensure that shipments that arrive at the port 
of Corpus Christi, TX, would be packaged in such a manner as to prevent 
fruit flies or other insect pests from escaping from the shipment when 
the container is opened. Additionally, this condition would provide an 
extra barrier to fruit fly escape from a shipment of untreated fruit.
    3. Containerized shipments of fruit arriving at the port for cold 
treatment must be cold treated within the area over which Customs is 
assigned the authority to accept entries of merchandise, to collect 
duties, and to enforce the various provisions of the customs and 
navigation laws in force.
    This condition would restrict the movement from the immediate 
vicinity of the port of untreated shipments of fruit intended for cold 
treatment, further minimizing the risk that any fruit flies or other 
insect pests in the shipments would come into contact with host 
material that may be in the area.
    4. The cold treatment facility and PPQ must agree in advance on the 
route by which shipments are allowed to move between the vessel on 
which they arrived at the port and the cold treatment facility. The 
movement of shipments from vessel to cold treatment facility will not 
be allowed until an acceptable route has been agreed upon.
    In most instances, the route would be determined by establishing 
the shortest route between the vessel and the cold storage facility 
that does not include an area that contains host material for fruit 
flies during the time of year when the region experiences its most 
abundant amount of host material for fruit flies. Then, that route 
would be used throughout the year to convey shipments from vessel to 
cold treatment facility. This predetermined route would reduce the 
amount of time that a shipment would have to wait before undergoing 
cold treatment and would reduce the risk that any fruit flies in the 
shipments would come into contact with host material en route to cold 
storage.
    5. Advance reservations for cold treatment space at the port must 
be made prior to the departure of a shipment from its port of origin.
    This condition would ensure that untreated shipments of fruit 
arriving at the port would not have to wait for an extended period of 
time for cold treatment. Ensuring the expeditious cold treatment of the 
fruit would minimize the risk of fruit flies maturing in ripening 
fruit.
    6. Devanning, the unloading of fruit from containers into the cold 
treatment facility, must be conducted in accordance with the following 
requirements:
    (1) All containers must be unloaded within the cold treatment 
facility; and
    (2) Untreated fruit may not be exposed to the outdoors under any 
circumstances.
    Because of the southern location of the port of Corpus Christi, TX, 
we believe that this condition would be a necessary mitigating factor 
at this port. This condition would eliminate the possibility of 
untreated fruit being unloaded and waiting for cold treatment outside 
the cold treatment facility.
    If fruit intended for cold treatment was removed from its shipping 
container outside the cold treatment facility, there would be an 
increased risk of fruit fly escape due to untreated fruit warming up to 
temperatures that

[[Page 29737]]

would allow the insect pests that may be in the fruit to become more 
active and possibly to escape when the fly-proof packaging is removed 
from the shipment. Our proposal to require devanning inside the cold 
treatment facility would ensure that all fruit that requires cold 
treatment remains in a cool environment.
    7. The cold treatment facility must remain locked during nonworking 
hours.
    This condition would help ensure that unauthorized persons would 
not have access to untreated fruit and, therefore, could not remove 
untreated fruit from the cold treatment facility.
    8. Blacklights or sticky paper must be used within the cold 
treatment facility, and other trapping methods, including Jackson/
methyl eugenol and McPhail traps, must be used within the 5 square 
miles surrounding the cold treatment facility.
    This condition is intended to serve as an extra layer of defense by 
providing a means to detect fruit flies within the facility or within 
the facility's environs in the unlikely event that any fruit flies 
survive past the stage of pupation in the cold treatment facility. 
Although the regulations require a 4-square-mile trapping zone around 
the port of Gulfport, MS, APHIS has determined that a 5-square-mile 
trapping zone around the port of Corpus Christi, TX, is necessary to 
further mitigate the risks associated with the variety of fruit fly 
host material that is within 5 miles of the port.
    9. During cold treatment, a backup system must be available to cold 
treat the shipments of fruit should the primary system malfunction. The 
facility must also have one or more reefers (cold holding rooms) and 
methods of identifying lots of treated and untreated fruits.
    This condition would ensure that, in the event that the primary 
cold treatment system fails, additional equipment is on hand at the 
cold treatment facility to perform cold treatment. Cold holding rooms 
would be necessary to ensure that shipments of fruit remain cool during 
any waiting period that may ensue from a malfunction of the primary 
cold room. The identification of shipments to determine which lots have 
been treated and which lots need to be treated would eliminate the 
possibility of comingling treated and untreated fruit and further 
reduce the possibility of fruit flies or other insect pests escaping 
from the cold treatment facility.
    10. The cold treatment facility must have the ability to conduct 
methyl bromide fumigation on site. Therefore, the cold treatment 
facility must have fumigation equipment approved by the Deputy 
Administrator of PPQ and a site for conducting fumigation on the 
premises.
    This condition would act as an additional contingency measure to 
ensure that fruit entering the port of Corpus Christi, TX, receives the 
necessary treatments. As the risk of fruit fly infestation is greater 
at Corpus Christi, TX, than at ports included in Groups I through III, 
we have determined that extra protection should be provided by 
requiring methyl bromide fumigation capabilities as an alternative 
means of eliminating pests from shipments of fruit. The criteria for 
the approval of fumigation equipment are provided in the PPQ Treatment 
Manual.
    With respect to methyl bromide fumigation, the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) published a notice of final rulemaking in the 
Federal Register on December 10, 1993 (58 FR 65018-65082), that froze 
the production of methyl bromide in the United States at 1991 levels 
and required the phasing out of domestic use of methyl bromide by 2001. 
Subsequently, the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
Administration, and Related Agencies Act of 1999 (Act) amended the 
Clean Air Act (CAA) and directed the EPA to promulgate new rules to 
reduce and terminate the production, importation, and consumption of 
methyl bromide in accordance with the phaseout schedule of the Montreal 
Protocol. Consistent with the Protocol, the Act also amended the CAA by 
providing a quarantine-use exemption for the production, importation, 
and use of methyl bromide to fumigate commodities entering or leaving 
the United States to comply with APHIS regulations and for other 
legitimate quarantine uses.
    To ensure that the United States fulfills its obligations under the 
CAA and the Protocol, EPA is nearing completion on amendments to its 
regulations that would revise the accelerated phaseout regulations and 
conform the U.S. methyl bromide phasedown schedule with the Protocol's 
schedule for industrialized nations. EPA anticipates that a final rule 
on this issue will be published in the Federal Register in the near 
future. EPA has also indicated that it is preparing to publish a 
proposed rule regarding the process for handling and documenting 
exemptions for the production and importation of quantities of methyl 
bromide to be used for quarantine and preshipment purposes.
    Because the Montreal Protocol exempts quarantine uses of methyl 
bromide, our proposal assumes the continued availability of methyl 
bromide for use as a fumigant for the foreseeable future. Nevertheless, 
USDA takes very seriously its commitment to work toward the development 
of commodity treatment alternatives to methyl bromide. Accordingly, 
APHIS is actively assessing the effectiveness and environmental 
acceptability of other tools--such as hot water treatment, thermal 
treatments (hot air, vapor heat, and cold treatment), and irradiation--
that may economically manage the pests currently controlled with methyl 
bromide.
    11. The cold treatment facility must have contingency plans, 
approved by the Deputy Administrator of PPQ, for safely destroying or 
disposing of fruit.
    This condition would ensure that, in the event a shipment cannot be 
cold treated or fumigated promptly or properly, the contents of the 
shipment could be safely destroyed or disposed of so that fruit flies 
and other plant pests would not have the opportunity to escape. 
Examples of adequate contingency plans include the ability to 
incinerate fruit, to bury fruit, or to reexport fruit.
    We believe that the mitigation measures described above, which have 
proved successful in mitigating fruit fly risks associated with cold 
treatment at the port of Gulfport, MS, would prevent the introduction 
of fruit flies and other plant pests that may be in shipments of fruit 
arriving at the port of Corpus Christi, TX, for cold treatment.

Miscellaneous Changes

    The regulations in Sec. 319.56-2d contain outdated references to 
the Bureau of Customs, which is now the U.S. Customs Service. We are 
proposing to correct these references in this document. Also, another 
outdated term, ``Collector of Customs,'' appears in paragraph 
(b)(5)(iii) of Sec. 319.56-2d; we are also proposing to update that 
term.
    Our regulations also misidentify the locations of both Baltimore-
Washington International and Dulles International Airports as 
Washington, DC. Baltimore-Washington International Airport is located 
in Baltimore, MD, and Dulles International Airport is located in 
Chantilly, VA. We are proposing to correct these location descriptions 
for accuracy.

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act

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

[[Page 29738]]

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. In particular, we are interested 
in determining the number and kind of small entities that may incur 
benefits or costs from the implementation of this proposed rule.
    Under the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701-7772), the Secretary 
of Agriculture is authorized to regulate the importation of fruits and 
vegetables to prevent the introduction of plant pests.
    This proposed rule would amend the regulations governing the 
importation of fruits and vegetables by allowing, under certain 
conditions, the cold treatment of imported fruits at the port of Corpus 
Christi, TX. A new cold treatment facility has been constructed at this 
port.
    The port of Corpus Christi, located along the Texas coast on the 
Gulf of Mexico, is connected to both U.S. and Mexican markets through 
several State and interstate highways as well as by rail service from 
three rail carriers, which all have access to the docks. The facility 
at the port of Corpus Christi that would be used for cold treatment has 
295,500 square feet of covered dockside storage and a state-of-the-art 
refrigerated warehouse with a 100,000 square-foot capacity. This cold 
storage and treatment facility, completed in August 2000, includes 
three rooms with freezing and chilling capacities, and temperature-
controlled rail and truck docks. A study conducted by the port 
authority of Corpus Christi predicts that by the year 2010, national 
container traffic will top 2.75 million transit and exit units (TEU's) 
and that the port of Corpus Christi could capture a throughput of 
820,000 TEU's.
    The port authority expects that it would receive commodity imports 
from several countries throughout Central and South America in addition 
to New Zealand and South Africa. The annual collective estimated value 
of commodities expected to be cold treated at the facility is nearly 
$131.7 million.
    According to the Small Business Administration, a small entity 
involved in the wholesale trade of fresh fruits is one that employs no 
more than 100 people. While small entities would likely benefit from 
being able to cold treat commodities at the port of Corpus Christi, the 
number of these entities and the extent to which they might benefit is 
unknown. Additionally, import and transport companies in the region 
could be expected to handle increased traffic in fruits and vegetables, 
as indicated by the projected figures provided by exporters in Latin 
America and South Africa; consequently, local employment opportunities 
could be expected to increase.
    The alternative to this proposed rule was to make no changes to the 
regulations. After consideration, we rejected this alternative because 
it appears that, with the safeguards proposed, the cold treatment of 
fruit may be conducted at the port of Corpus Christi, TX, without 
significant risk of introducing fruit flies or other plant pests.

Executive Order 12988

    This proposed rule would allow fresh fruit to be imported into the 
United States for cold treatment at the maritime port of Corpus 
Christi, TX. If this proposed rule is adopted, State and local laws and 
regulations regarding fruit imported under this rule would be preempted 
while the fruit is in foreign commerce. Fresh fruit is generally 
imported for immediate distribution and sale to the consuming public 
and would remain in foreign commerce until sold to the ultimate 
consumer. The question of when foreign commerce ceases in other cases 
must be addressed on a case-by-case basis. If this proposed rule is 
adopted, no retroactive effect will be given to this rule, and this 
rule will not require administrative proceedings before parties may 
file suit in court challenging this rule.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed 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 in 7 CFR Part 319

    Bees, Coffee, Cotton, Fruits, Honey, Imports, Incorporation by 
reference, Nursery Stock, Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rice, Vegetables.

    Accordingly, we propose to amend 7 CFR part 319 as follows:

PART 319--FOREIGN QUARANTINE NOTICES

    1. The authority citation for part 319 would continue to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 166, 450, 7711-7714, 7718, 7731, 7732, and 
7751-7754; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.


    2. Section 319.56-2d would be amended as follows:
    a. In paragraph (b)(1), the words ``Corpus Christi, TX,'' would be 
added immediately before the words ``and Gulfport, MS;'' the words 
``Airport, Baltimore, MD,'' would be added after the words ``Baltimore-
Washington International''; and the words ``airports, Washington, DC'' 
would be removed and the words ``Airport, Chantilly, VA'' added in 
their place.
    b. In paragraph (b)(5)(iii), the words ``Collector of Customs'' 
would be removed and the words ``Customs Service'' added in their 
place.
    c. In paragraphs (b)(5)(iv)(B), (b)(5)(v)(B), and (b)(5)(vi)(B), 
the words ``Bureau of Customs'' would be removed each time they occur 
and the words ``U.S. Customs Service'' added in their place.
    d. The introductory text of paragraph (b)(5)(vii) would be revised.
    e. In paragraph (b)(5)(vii)(A), the words ``at the port of 
Gulfport, MS'' would be removed.
    f. In paragraph (b)(5)(vii)(C), the words ``Bureau of Customs'' 
would be removed and the words ``U.S. Customs Service'' added in their 
place.
    g. Paragraph (b)(5)(vii)(H) would be revised.


Sec. 319.56-2d  Administrative instructions for cold treatments of 
certain imported fruits.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (5) * * *
    (vii) Special requirements for the maritime ports of Gulfport, MS, 
and Corpus Christi, TX. Shipments of fruit arriving at the ports of 
Gulfport, MS, and Corpus Christi, TX, for cold treatment, in addition 
to meeting all of the requirements in paragraphs (b)(5)(i) through 
(b)(5)(iii) of this section, must meet the following special 
conditions:
* * * * *
    (H) Blacklights or sticky paper must be used within the cold 
treatment facility, and other trapping methods, including Jackson/
methyl eugenol and McPhail traps, must be used within the 4 square 
miles surrounding the cold treatment facility at the maritime port of 
Gulfport, MS, and within the 5 square miles surrounding the cold 
treatment facility at the maritime port of Corpus Christi, TX.
* * * * *


[[Page 29739]]


    Done in Washington, DC, this 25th day of May 2001.
Bobby R. Acord,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 01-13758 Filed 5-31-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P