High-Temperature Forced-Air Treatments for Citrus

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 RonaldCC[email protected].

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