[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 13 (Thursday, January 20, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-1230]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: January 20, 1994]


                                                    VOL. 59, NO. 13

                                         Thursday, January 20, 1994
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

7 CFR Part 319

[Docket No. 91-074-3]
RIN 0579-AA47

 

Importation of Logs, Lumber, and Other Unmanufactured Wood 
Articles

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: We propose to amend our foreign quarantine regulations by 
adding a new ``Subpart--Logs, Lumber, and Other Unmanufactured Wood 
Articles'' to establish prohibitions and restrictions concerning 
imported unmanufactured wood articles. The new subpart would affect 
persons importing logs, lumber, bark chips, wood chips, certain wood 
packing materials, and other unmanufactured wood articles. The new 
subpart would not affect imports of manufactured wood products such as 
furniture. We also propose to change several existing foreign 
quarantine regulations that currently restrict importation of certain 
wood articles, to state that such articles would instead be regulated 
under the proposed new subpart. These changes appear necessary because 
there is increased interest in importing large volumes of 
unmanufactured wood articles into the United States, and prohibitions 
and restrictions appear necessary to eliminate any significant plant 
pest risk associated with importing these articles.

DATES: Consideration will be given only to comments received on or 
before April 20, 1994. We also will consider comments made at public 
hearings to be held on February 10, 1994, in Portland, Oregon, and on 
February 23, 1994, in Washington, DC.

ADDRESSES: A public hearing in Portland, Oregon, will be held at 
Cheatham Hall, World Forestry Center, 4033 S.W. Canyon Road, Portland, 
Oregon 97221. A Washington, DC, public hearing will be held at the 
Jefferson Auditorium, United States Department of Agriculture, South 
Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC.
    To submit comments by mail, please send an original and three 
copies of your comments to Chief, Regulatory Analysis and Development, 
PPD, APHIS, USDA, room 804, Federal Building, 6505 Belcrest Road, 
Hyattsville, MD 20782. Please state that your comments refer to Docket 
No. 91-074-3. Comments received may be inspected at USDA, room 1141, 
South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, 
DC, between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except 
holidays. Persons wishing to inspect comments are encouraged to call 
ahead (202-690-2817) to facilitate entry into the comment reading room.
    You may also submit comments to an electronic bulletin board APHIS 
has established for this purpose, and review online comments posted to 
this bulletin board by other commenters. Printed copies of comments 
posted to this bulletin board will also be available in our comment 
reading room. To access the bulletin board via modem at 1200 through 
14,400 baud, dial (703) 243-9696. Set your modem parity, data bits, and 
stop bits to N,8,1. You can also access the bulletin board via INTERNET 
with the command TELNET tmn.com. To log in to the bulletin board, use 
the userid ``woodrule'' and the password ``aphis23'' (type both in 
lower case, not capital letters).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Richard L. Orr, Senior 
Entomologist, Planning and Risk Analysis Systems, PPD, APHIS, USDA, 
room 810, Federal Building, 6505 Belcrest Road, Hyattsville, MD 20782, 
301-436-8939.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Hearings

    The public hearings will be held on February 10, 1994, in Portland, 
Oregon, and on February 23, 1994, in Washington, DC. The Portland, 
Oregon, public hearing will begin at 10 a.m. at Cheatham Hall, World 
Forestry Center, 4033 S.W. Canyon Road, Portland, Oregon 97221. The 
Washington, DC, public hearing will begin at 10 a.m. at the Jefferson 
Auditorium, United States Department of Agriculture, South Building, 
14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC.
    Persons wishing to speak at a public hearing are requested to 
contact Mr. Richard Kelly no later than ten days prior to the hearing 
date, at (301) 436-5455, or by writing to him at APHIS, PPD, RAD, room 
804, Federal Building, 6505 Belcrest Road, Hyattsville, MD 20782 (FAX 
number 301-436-8934).
    A representative of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 
(APHIS) will preside at each public hearing. Any interested person may 
appear and be heard in person, by attorney, or by other representative.
    Each public hearing will begin each day at 10 a.m. local time and 
is scheduled to end at 5 p.m. local time. However, the hearing may be 
terminated at any time after it begins if all persons desiring to speak 
have been heard. We request that all persons who wish to speak at the 
public hearing contact us as requested above, and provide their name, 
organization, the hearing they plan to attend, and the approximate 
length of their presentation. This will allow us to determine whether 
we need to schedule additional time for a hearing. Speakers who 
register in advance will be informed prior to the hearing of the time 
they are scheduled to speak. Attendees who do not register in advance 
will be allowed to speak after all scheduled speakers have been heard. 
We ask that anyone who reads a statement provide two copies to the 
presiding officer at the hearing.
    If the number of speakers at a hearing warrants it, the presiding 
officer may limit the time for each presentation so that everyone 
wishing to speak has the opportunity.
    The purpose of the hearings is to give interested persons an 
opportunity for oral presentations of data, views, and arguments. 
Questions about the content of the proposed rule may be part of the 
commenters' oral presentations. However, neither the presiding officer 
nor any other representative of APHIS will respond to comments at a 
hearing, except to clarify or explain provisions of the proposed rule.

Background

    The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is proposing 
to establish comprehensive regulations to eliminate any significant 
pest risks presented by the importation1 of logs, lumber, and 
other unmanufactured wood articles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\Throughout this document, the words ``import'' and 
``importation'' are used to mean moving or bringing articles into 
the territorial limits of the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although serious plant pests have been introduced into the United 
States in association with wood imports in the past, little wood has 
been imported recently in forms, or from places, that pose significant 
risks of introducing plant pests that could harm United States forests 
or agriculture. A changing national and world economy has recently 
increased the incentives to import wood that may present a significant 
increase in plant pest risk. An example of this change is the interest 
of sawmills and other wood processors in utilizing foreign sources of 
wood to offset expected harvest reductions in the United States, or to 
provide raw materials for their facilities at prices competitive with 
or better than domestic prices.
    Trees produced in many foreign locations are attacked by a wide 
variety of exotic plant pests and pathogens which do not occur in this 
country. Logs and other unmanufactured wood articles imported into the 
United States could pose a significant hazard of introducing plant 
pests and pathogens detrimental to agriculture and to natural, 
cultivated, and urban forest resources. Plant pests and pathogens 
introduced into the United States in the past, such as the gypsy moth 
and the agents of Dutch elm disease and chestnut blight, have caused 
billions of dollars of damage to United States forest and plant 
resources.
    Until recently the quantity and variety of unmanufactured wood 
imported were very limited, and consequently no regulations were 
developed specifically to address such imports. APHIS has been dealing 
with such imports only by detaining shipments at ports of first arrival 
for inspection, and ordering further action if warranted pursuant to 
the Federal Plant Pest Act and regulations issued under the Federal 
Plant Pest Act (7 CFR part 330). In addition, APHIS has prohibited the 
entry into the United States of logs from the Soviet Far East and 
Siberia, because a detailed pest risk assessment found that dangerous 
plant pests could occur in such logs and may be introduced with them. 
APHIS has also published interim regulations allowing importation of 
certain logs from Chile and New Zealand, discussed below.
    However, when large volumes of wood imports are involved, 
inspection at the port of first arrival without other conditions 
relating to the wood imports may not be practical or adequate for 
preventing the introduction of plant pests associated with imported 
wood in all cases. Interest in importing logs and other unmanufactured 
wood articles from various countries is increasing rapidly toward a 
point where inspection and control activities solely at the port of 
first arrival will not be feasible. There is currently an intense 
commercial interest in developing a long-term industry in the Pacific 
Northwest for importing and processing logs from foreign countries. 
There is also potential for increased log and other unmanufactured wood 
article imports into other areas of the United States.
    Representatives of domestic timber industries, State governments, 
academia, and environmental organizations have requested that we 
propose to add regulations to 7 CFR part 319 to establish an organized 
system for importing unmanufactured wood articles under conditions 
adequate to prevent the introduction into the United States of plant 
pests and pathogens. These groups have suggested that the current 
practice of allowing unmanufactured wood articles to enter the United 
States based solely on inspection and other actions at the port of 
first arrival (or prohibiting imports in the case of logs from Siberia 
and nearby areas) is not sufficient for dealing with large-volume 
imports of unmanufactured wood articles from many sources.
    We believe that establishing a more comprehensive procedure for 
importing logs and other unmanufactured wood articles would result in a 
greater level of pest protection, and would also allow importers to 
plan their transactions in an orderly way, to meet known regulatory 
requirements.
    In developing this proposal, APHIS worked with Federal and State 
regulatory and forestry officials from many States, and representatives 
from Agriculture Canada, the Foreign Agricultural Service and the 
Forest Service of the United States Department of Agriculture, and key 
industries with an immediate interest or involvement in present or 
potential importations. We also solicited public comment on approaches 
to regulating wood imports in an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
published in the Federal Register on September 22, 1992 (57 FR 43628-
43631, Docket No. 91-074-2). We received 66 comments on the Advance 
Notice prior to the closing date of November 23, 1992. Almost all the 
comments favored establishing regulations on the importation of wood 
products, and many provided useful technical information which was 
considered in developing this proposed rule.
    As part of the development of this proposed rule, the Forest 
Service of the United States Department of Agriculture completed pest 
risk assessments for the importation of certain types of wood from 
Siberia2, New Zealand3, and Chile4. APHIS employed a 
great deal of the information generated by these assessments in 
developing this proposed rule. These studies helped us expand and adapt 
methodologies for addressing plant pest risks associated with importing 
unmanufactured wood articles on a worldwide basis, by providing 
valuable case studies in how to identify, evaluate, and control plant 
pest risks associated with particular unmanufactured wood articles from 
particular areas. We wish to stress that these proposed regulations do 
not simply extrapolate the requirements found appropriate for Siberia, 
New Zealand, and Chile to apply them on a world-wide basis. That 
approach would have reduced validity due to the immense variety of 
forest types, plant pests, and risk situations in other countries. 
However, experience from the Siberian, New Zealand and Chile 
assessments did give us insight into better ways to identify plant pest 
risks and develop controls for other situations world-wide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\``Pest Risk Assessment of the Importation of Larch from 
Siberia and the Soviet Far East,'' USDA, Forest Service, 
Miscellaneous Publication No. 1495, September, 1991; ``An Efficacy 
Review of Control Measures for Potential Pests of Imported Soviet 
Timber,'' USDA, APHIS, Miscellaneous Publication No. 1496, September 
1991.
    \3\``Pest Risk Assessment of the Importation of Pinus radiata 
and Douglas-fir Logs from New Zealand,'' USDA, Forest Service, 
Miscellaneous Publication No. 1508, October 1992.
    \4\``Pest Risk Assessment of the Importation of Pinus radiata, 
Nothofagus dombeyi and Laurelia philippiana Logs from Chile,'' USDA, 
Forest Service, Miscellaneous Publication, May 1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interim Rules Affecting Certain Logs From Chile and New Zealand

    An interim rule published in the Federal Register on February 16, 
1993, and effective upon signature on January 19, 1993 (58 FR 8524-
8533, Docket No. 91-074-4), established importation requirements for 
Monterey pine and Douglas-fir logs from New Zealand. Plant pest risks 
associated with importing these articles, and import requirements that 
would reduce these risks to insignificant levels, were identified early 
in the course of developing comprehensive wood import regulations. 
Therefore, to reduce these plant pest risks as soon as possible, we 
established regulatory requirements in 7 CFR 319.40-1 through 319.40-8 
for certain logs from New Zealand.
    A second interim rule published in the Federal Register on November 
9, 1993, (58 FR 59348-59353, Docket No. 91-074-5), and effective 
November 2, 1993, established importation requirements for Monterey 
pine logs from Chile. This interim rule applied the same requirements 
to Monterey pine logs from Chile that the first interim rule applied to 
Monterey pine and Douglas-fir logs from New Zealand.
    This proposed rule would replace the regulations established by the 
interim rules with comprehensive wood import regulations affecting 
importation of unmanufactured wood articles from all places, including 
Chile and New Zealand. The provisions contained in this proposed rule 
for Monterey pine logs from Chile, and for Monterey pine and Douglas-
fir logs from New Zealand are essentially the same as the requirements 
imposed by the interim rule, except that the interim rule used slightly 
different definitions due to its limited scope.

Policy of the Proposed Regulations

    These proposed regulations attempt to establish a comprehensive, 
user-friendly framework for the importation of unmanufactured wood 
articles into the United States. A primary goal of the regulations is 
to protect the nation's forests and other plant resources against the 
introduction of plant pests. The scientific literature contains a very 
large inventory of known plant pests associated with trees and wood 
articles in various parts of the world. Ample scientific evidence 
indicates that there is an equal or larger number of unknown plant 
pests associated with wood in foreign countries that could be harmful 
if introduced into the United States. The history of inadvertent 
introductions of plant pests supports this concern about currently 
unknown plant pests. For example, two plant pests that have caused 
immense damage in the United States, the Dutch elm disease fungus and 
the dogwood anthracnose fungus, were not identified as significant 
plant pests prior to their introduction into the United States, and 
their place of origin and exact method of introduction into the United 
States are still disputed.
    Therefore, our proposed regulations use a dual approach that 
addresses both known and unknown plant pests. The regulations would 
establish sufficient controls to deter the introduction of known plant 
pests. The regulations also would establish procedures for identifying 
and assessing risks associated with currently unknown plant pests, and 
maintain a threshold level of deterrence for all imported 
unmanufactured wood articles that will prevent the introduction of 
currently unknown plant pests. Any lessening of the threshold 
requirements for importation of unmanufactured wood articles must be 
based on adequate knowledge about the plant pest risks associated with 
importing the regulated articles involved.

Approach of the Proposed Regulations

    We have attempted to accomplish the following objectives in this 
proposed rule:
     Identify the types of articles proposed to be regulated;
     Propose requirements that can reduce plant pest risks 
associated with the importation of unmanufactured wood articles to an 
insignificant level (e.g., permits issued by APHIS; documentation by 
the importer of the nature and quantity of the articles; harvesting, 
storage, and shipping practices; chemical and physical treatments; 
restriction of destinations or uses for the imported articles);
     Propose universal importation requirements for certain 
types of regulated articles. Using this alternative, an importer would 
know that a given regulated article may be imported and entered from 
anywhere if the proposed requirements are met;
     Propose specific importation and entry requirements for 
particular article-origin combinations. These proposed requirements 
would allow some articles from some locations to be imported under less 
restrictive conditions than the proposed universal importation 
requirements;
     Propose a procedure for making case-by-case evaluations of 
whether unmanufactured wood articles could be imported without 
significant risk under conditions less stringent than the proposed 
universal importation requirements. Under this procedure, APHIS would 
first identify plant pest risks associated with importation of a 
regulated article. We would then apply risk assessment standards 
contained in the regulations to analyze the entry potential, 
colonization potential, spread potential, and damage potential of the 
plant pests. APHIS would then evaluate the effectiveness of available 
mitigation measures to prevent introduction of the plant pests. If safe 
importation of the regulated article is feasible with no plant pest 
mitigation measures, APHIS would issue a permit authorizing the 
regulated article to be imported. However, if the plant pest risk 
assessment shows that the regulated article may be safely imported if 
it is subjected to requirements not currently in the regulations, APHIS 
would propose regulations containing requirements for its importation. 
After the regulations are adopted as a final rule, the regulated 
article could be imported in accordance with them.
    These objectives should establish a useful framework to eliminate 
significant plant pest risks associated with importing unmanufactured 
wood articles. This proposed rule addresses these objectives through a 
variety of regulatory requirements contained in the proposed 7 CFR 
319.40-1 through 319.40-11, ``Subpart--Logs, Lumber, and Other 
Unmanufactured Wood Articles'' (referred to below as the regulations).

Permits, Certificates, and Other Documents Employed by the Proposed 
Regulations

    Importing wood articles under the proposed regulations would 
involve a certain amount of paperwork. We would require several forms 
and other documents to record and transmit information that would be 
necessary for effective implementation of our wood importation 
regulations. This section explains how these documents would be used 
and why they appear to be necessary.
    This proposed rule attempts to limit paperwork to documents that 
actively support the pest exclusion goals of the regulations, and to 
require a document only if the information contained in it is not 
readily available through other means. To reduce the paperwork burden, 
the proposed regulations would require certificates only for the 
importation of a few specified articles. The proposed regulations would 
also provide for the use of multi-product, multi-shipment permits, and 
informal documents written by the importer. Another important feature 
of the proposed regulations is that some types of articles may be 
imported under a general permit (an authorization contained in the text 
of the proposed regulations) instead of an individual specific permit 
issued by APHIS to an importer.

1. Permits (Required by Proposed Sec. 319.40-2(a))

    A permit is written authorization issued or promulgated by APHIS 
that allows an importer to bring specified articles into the United 
States. The specific permit specifies, or refers to regulations that 
specify, the type of articles allowed import and the requirements the 
articles must meet to be eligible for importation. A general permit is 
a permit that is contained in the text of the regulations.
    We refer to the document that authorizes an importer to bring 
articles into the United States in accordance with our regulations as a 
``permit,'' because ``permit'' is the term used in the Federal Plant 
Pest Act and the Plant Quarantine Act, two statutes that constitute the 
statutory basis for this proposal. Our permit serves the same function 
as documents that other national governments call authorizations, 
affidavits, licenses, or various other names; all refer to a document 
that a government gives to importers to notify them that they may 
import certain articles.
    There are both legal and practical reasons for using permits in the 
proposed regulations. The primary legal reason is that the Federal 
Plant Pest Act, in 7 U.S.C. 150bb, requires that, except for plant 
pests from Canada, a person may move a plant pest into the United 
States only ``under general or specific permit from the Secretary [of 
Agriculture],'' and the Plant Quarantine Act, in 7 U.S.C. 154, requires 
that certain articles may not be imported ``unless and until a permit 
shall have been issued therefor by the Secretary of Agriculture, 
provided however that the Secretary of Agriculture may waive this 
permit requirement for nursery stock imported or offered for entry from 
Canada.'' Articles requiring a permit include nursery stock and other 
plant products whose unrestricted importation may result in the entry 
into the United States of injurious plant diseases or insect pests (7 
U.S.C. 159). We have determined that unmanufactured wood is such an 
article, due to the wide range of pests associated with unmanufactured 
wood and discussed elsewhere in this document. Therefore, a permit 
would be required to import wood articles that will be regulated if 
this proposed rule is adopted.
    There are also practical reasons for using permits in connection 
with importing wood. These are:
     A permit shows that risks associated with a shipment were 
evaluated, and the necessary mitigation measures were prescribed, prior 
to import. The proposed regulations are designed to ensure that 
articles with unacceptably high pest risks do not even get to U.S. 
ports of arrival. Regulations referenced by specific permits inform 
importers of our entry requirements before they ship articles, rather 
than at the port of arrival. Permits give importers pre-arrival notice 
of our requirements. By requiring permits, APHIS also discourages the 
arrival of unexpected shipments of articles that present unknown pest 
risks.
     A permit expedites processing at the port of arrival. The 
application for a permit provides crucial information about shipments, 
which is provided to our inspectors at ports. Without a permit, 
inspectors would have to obtain this information from a variety of 
sources--shipping documents, physical inspection and inventory, even 
phone calls--which would delay inspection and release of arriving 
shipments.
     A permit preserves data needed for future pest risk 
assessments and program operations. Without permit application data, it 
would be difficult for APHIS to collect the data it needs to continue 
to operate and improve its regulations for importing unmanufactured 
wood articles. Permit information allows us to track the type and 
quantity of wood articles arriving at U.S. ports, and the conditions 
and treatments employed for their importation. We need to accumulate 
this data to continually evaluate whether our regulatory restrictions 
are effectively preventing the introduction of pests associated with 
wood, and whether any of our regulatory restrictions are unnecessarily 
severe.
     APHIS permits tend to be broad rather than narrow. Most of 
our import permits are issued to allow importation of multiple articles 
through multiple shipments, over extended time periods. Under such a 
permit, it is not necessary to obtain a new permit each time articles 
are imported by the same permittee. Once our wood importation program 
is well established, we intend to use permits for multiple articles 
through multiple shipments wherever possible. However, many of the 
permits issued during the first year of implementing the program may be 
limited to cover one or a few shipments, or a period of only a few 
months, to allow us to confirm that the program is operating 
effectively before we issue permits that are effective for long periods 
of time.
     Obtaining an APHIS permit is usually not a long and 
frustrating process. Whatever delays an importer encounters in 
obtaining authorization to import new articles into the United States 
are usually the result of a pest risk assessment or rulemaking that 
often must precede new import requirements, not the result of actually 
issuing the permit. Our Plant Protection and Quarantine Port Operations 
staff issues thousands of permits each year. Most of these permits are 
for articles that are already being imported, by some other importer. 
Some permits are for articles specifically allowed to be imported by 
our regulations, but that no one happens to be importing currently. We 
can usually issue a permit in these cases within about 10 days after 
the request is received. For new articles whose risks have not been 
evaluated, we must conduct risk assessments before we allow such 
articles to be imported. If any risk assessment identifies plant pest 
risks, we would need to conduct rulemaking to establish requirements to 
control these risks. In such cases a permit may not be issued until 
several to many months after the request is made. However, this delay 
does not result from the requirement for a permit; it reflects risk 
assessment and rulemaking activities we would perform even if our 
regulations did not employ permits.
     In some cases importers will not need a specific permit. 
In some cases a general authorization to import is provided in the text 
of the regulations covering certain classes of articles, so that 
importers of these articles need not obtain a specific written permit 
to import these articles. (Under 7 U.S.C. 150bb, articles must be 
imported ``under general or specific permit''; this is an example of a 
``general'' permit.)\5\ See our discussion below of proposed 
Sec. 319.40-3, ``General permits; articles that may be imported without 
a specific permit or importer document.'' In that section, we would 
exempt certain articles from the requirement for a specific permit, 
because we already know a great deal about the plant pest risks 
associated with these articles. Our inspectors at the ports already 
have substantial experience dealing with such articles. Therefore, most 
of the reasons discussed above for using specific permits do not apply 
to these articles, and we do not intend to require specific permits for 
them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\The general permits discussed in this document should not be 
confused with the ``general permits'' utilized in 7 CFR part 355, 
which are written permits issued to particular persons authorizing 
them to engage in business as importers, exporters, or reexporters 
of any terrestrial plants protected under the Endangered Species Act 
of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and listed in 50 CFR 
17.12 or 23.23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We will probably establish ``general permits'' in the regulations 
for more classes of articles over time, as we gain enough experience 
with the importation of additional classes of articles. Over time, we 
would expect to see fewer and fewer specific permit requirements for 
importation of wood articles.

2. Application for a Permit (Required by Proposed Sec. 319.40-4(a))

    We propose to require that in order to obtain a specific permit a 
person must complete a written application. This application would 
require the submission of information we would need to consider in 
deciding whether the regulations allowed a person to import the 
articles requested in the application. We would also use this 
information to determine what conditions, restrictions, and treatments 
in the regulations would apply to a request.
    The completed application would provide information about the place 
of harvest of the tree from which the regulated article was derived; 
the type and quantity of articles the applicant wishes to import; any 
processing or treatments the applicant plans to apply to the articles 
either before or after they are imported; the port of arrival and final 
destination in the United States for the articles; the identity and 
address of the applicant, and other matters.
    You could use the permit application to your advantage by providing 
as much information as possible in your answers. For example, if you 
wished to import logs and you answered the question about their place 
of origin with the name of a country, we would have no way of knowing 
where in that country the logs originated. Some localities in that 
country may present lower pest risks than other localities. If we knew 
the logs came from a low pest risk locality, we might be able to impose 
less stringent requirements. But if we only knew the country of origin, 
we would have to impose requirements that protect against pest risk 
from all localities in that country.
    Similarly, it could help an applicant to be forthcoming about 
processing and treatments, the final destination and use of the 
articles, and other information we request. To the extent the 
regulations allow, we would use all this information to impose the 
minimum requirements necessary to protect against introduction of plant 
pests.
    The permit application is discussed in more detail below in 
Sec. 319.40-4, ``Application for a permit to import regulated articles; 
issuance and withdrawal of permits.''

3. Certificates (Required for a few Articles by Proposed Sec. 319.40-
5(b))

    In many of its plant import regulations, APHIS requires that the 
articles be accompanied by certificates of inspection issued by foreign 
governments. These certificates indicate that an article has been 
inspected, and may make additional certifications concerning the 
origin, treatment, or handling of the article.
    Certificates issued by foreign governments would only be required 
in these proposed regulations in a few cases, discussed below. Instead, 
we propose in most cases to require articles to be accompanied by 
written declarations signed by the importer of the article (``importer 
documents''), or, at the option of the importer, a certificate issued 
by a government.
    Certificates would be required in certain cases where there is no 
adequate substitute for involvement of a foreign government's plant 
protection or forestry officials in the inspection or treatment of 
articles. There are two situations in the proposed rule where 
certificates are required: the importation of logs from both Chile and 
New Zealand (see proposed Sec. 319.40-5(b)). In both these situations, 
industry and government in the exporting country worked together to 
develop programs where government officials monitor the harvest, 
treatment, and movement of unmanufactured wood articles, and issue 
certificates documenting that these activities followed our 
regulations. The request presented to APHIS by these groups for 
importation of logs specified use of certificates, and we agree that 
certificates are a useful tool in these cases. The certificate would 
officially record a determination by officials authorized by the 
government of Chile or New Zealand that the logs meet the requirement 
of proposed Sec. 319.40-5(b)(1)(i)(A), which requires the logs must be 
from live healthy trees which are apparently free of plant pests, plant 
pest damage, and decay organisms. It would be difficult to enforce this 
requirement without employing certification.

4. Importer Documents (Required by Proposed Sec. 319.40-2(b))

    Instead of requiring certificates for most importations, we propose 
to require a document written by the importer to provide certain 
information we will need at the port of arrival. We believe that an 
importer could compose a document far more easily that he or she could 
obtain a certificate from a foreign government, and that this 
requirement would minimize the paperwork burden on importers. We 
believe importer documents would provide APHIS with information we need 
regarding regulated articles to be imported. An importer document (or 
at the importer's option, a certificate containing the information 
required by an importer document) must accompany every shipment of 
regulated articles imported into the United States, with a few 
exceptions discussed below under proposed Sec. 319.40-3, ``General 
permits; articles that may be imported without a specific permit; 
articles that may be imported without either a specific permit or an 
importer document.''
    We are not concerned about the form the importer document takes as 
long as it is an accurate written declaration by the importer. All that 
we would require for an importer document is that it be signed by the 
importer, and that it contain the required information. The information 
that would be required is described in detail in proposed Sec. 319.40-
2(b). The importer document would be required to include the following 
information: (1) The genus and species of the tree from which the 
regulated article was derived; (2) the country and locality, if known, 
where the tree from which the regulated article was derived was 
harvested; (3) the quantity of the regulated article to be imported; 
(4) the use for which the regulated article is imported; and (5) any 
treatment or handling of the regulated article performed prior to 
arrival at the port of first arrival.

5. Compliance Agreements, Notice of Arrival, Withdrawal and Appeal 
Letters

    Compliance agreements would be developed on a case-by-case basis 
between APHIS and U.S. processing facilities that would subject 
regulated articles to processing necessary to eliminate pest risk 
associated with the articles. Proposed Sec. 319.40-8 would allow 
persons who operate facilities in which imported regulated articles are 
processed to enter into compliance agreements to facilitate 
importation. We expect to develop only a few compliance agreements each 
year. These agreements would provide a clear standard for both APHIS 
and the persons operating these processing facilities as to what 
procedures and safeguards must be employed during processing to ensure 
the elimination of plant pests.
    Proposed Sec. 319.40-9(b) would require that persons to whom 
permits have been issued or their agents give APHIS notice of the 
impending arrival of a shipment in the United States at least 7 days 
prior to the expected date of arrival. We do not believe this notice 
would be particularly burdensome to persons who have been issued 
permits or their agents, and we believe it is needed to allow our 
inspectors to prepare for a shipment.
    Proposed Secs. 319.40-4(d) and 319.40-8(b) would allow APHIS to 
withdraw permits and cancel compliance agreements with a written 
notice, and allow the holders of withdrawn documents to appeal the 
withdrawal or cancellation in writing to the Administrator of APHIS. 
Based upon past experience with other similar programs, we believe that 
withdrawal of permits and cancellation of compliance agreements will 
occur infrequently. Therefore, the paperwork burden of appealing 
withdrawal of permits and cancellation of compliance agreements should 
not impose a significant paperwork burden. Further, the written appeal 
would only be required to include the facts and reasons upon which a 
person relies to show that the permit was wrongfully withdrawn or the 
compliance agreement was wrongfully canceled.

Section-by-Section Description of Proposed Rule

    The proposed rule consists of the following sections:

Section 319.40-1  Definitions

    This section would establish definitions of terms used throughout 
the regulations. The definitions of Administrator, APHIS, Certificate, 
Compliance agreement, Departmental permit, Import, Inspector, Permit, 
Plant pest, Port of first arrival, Treatment Manual, and United States 
are consistent with our use of these terms in other foreign quarantine 
regulations in part 319, and describe the framework in which we propose 
to conduct operations to enforce our regulations.
    A key definition, Regulated article, identifies the articles to 
which the requirements of the proposed rule would apply. Our intent is 
to make any imported wood article a regulated article if it has not 
been sufficiently processed and manufactured to remove, and prevent 
reinfestation by, any pests that might be associated with the tree from 
which the article was derived.
    The definition of regulated article would include a great variety 
of materials derived from trees. Regulated articles would include logs; 
lumber; solid wood packing materials; any whole tree; any cut tree or 
any portion of a tree, not solely consisting of leaves, flowers, 
fruits, buds or seeds; bark; cork; laths; hog fuel (small wood 
fragments used as fuel to fire a furnace, kiln, or boiler); sawdust; 
painted raw wood products; excelsior (wood wool); wood chips; wood 
mulch; wood shavings; pickets; stakes; shingles; humus; compost; and 
litter. Regulated articles are the types of wood and wood products that 
often have pests associated with them. Sometimes the pests are from the 
tree from which the article was derived, and sometimes pests that 
attack wood can become associated with regulated articles later in the 
production and shipping process.
    The definition of regulated article would also include any article 
designated as a regulated article in accordance with Sec. 319.40-2(f). 
This provision would allow an inspector to designate articles other 
than the articles identified in the definition of the term regulated 
article in proposed Sec. 319.40-1 as regulated articles. An inspector 
may designate any article as a regulated article by giving written 
notice of the designation to the owner or person in possession or 
control of the article. Inspectors may designate an article as a 
regulated article after determining that: (1) The article was imported 
in the same container or hold as a regulated article; (2) other 
articles of the same type imported from the same country have been 
found to carry plant pests; or (3) the article appears to be 
contaminated with regulated articles or soil. This provision would give 
APHIS inspectors authority to regulate articles that are not defined in 
proposed Sec. 319.40-1 as regulated articles in situations where the 
articles appear to present a risk of introducing plant pests. The 
Administrator will implement rulemaking to add articles temporarily 
designated as regulated articles to the definition of regulated article 
in proposed Sec. 319.40-1 if importation of the article appears to 
present a recurring risk of introducing plant pests.
    Manufactured wood articles such as furniture made of kiln dried 
lumber and wooden artwork or ornaments (without bark) would not be 
regulated articles. No article is entirely free from the risk of 
introducing plant pests, and there have been occasional reports of 
plant pests found in or associated with imported furniture and similar 
articles; for example, wood borers emerging from imported furniture 
months after importation. However, addressing all risks would require 
practically unlimited resources, and the proposed regulations must 
focus available resources on those articles which pose the greatest 
plant pest risk. Therefore, the definition of regulated articles 
includes only articles that are unprocessed or have received only 
primary processing. Primary processing is defined to include cleaning 
(removal of soil, limbs, and foliage), debarking, rough sawing (bucking 
or squaring), rough shaping, spraying with fungicide or insecticide 
sprays, and fumigation.
    Articles that have received more than primary processing present 
less of a risk because their manufacturing processes destroy many plant 
pests associated with the articles, and, therefore, they would not be 
included in the proposed definition of the term ``regulated article.'' 
The provision discussed above to allow inspectors to designate 
additional articles as regulated articles would address plant pest 
risks associated with occasional situations where manufactured articles 
present a significant plant pest risk. In addition, APHIS will continue 
to evaluate plant pest risks associated with importation of articles 
not included in the proposed definition of regulated articles, and may 
propose further regulations in the future to address these risks.
    Solid wood packing materials (dunnage, crating, pallets, etc.) 
which are unprocessed or subjected only to primary processing would be 
regulated. Solid wood packing materials are commonly used in 
association with the movement of a very large volume of goods imported 
into the United States. Currently, the only requirement applied to 
imported solid wood packing materials is that they are subject to 
inspection at the port of first arrival, followed by mandatory 
treatment, destruction, or re-export if certain plant pests are found. 
Under the proposed regulations, certain solid wood packing materials 
would have to meet additional requirements to be eligible for entry.
    We also propose to define the term ``Sealed (sealable) container'' 
as follows. ``A completely enclosed container designed for the storage 
or transportation of cargo and constructed of metal or fiberglass, or 
other rigid material, providing an enclosure which prevents the 
entrance or exit of plant pests and is accessed through doors that can 
be closed and secured with a lock or seal. Sealed (sealable) containers 
are distinct and separable from the means of conveyance carrying 
them.''
    This definition of sealed container is important because the 
proposed regulations require that various regulated articles be 
enclosed in such containers at various times, to prevent the movement 
of plant pests to or from the regulated articles in the containers.
    The word ``lot'' is defined as all the regulated articles on a 
single means of conveyance that are derived from the same species of 
tree and were subjected to the same treatments prior to importation, 
and that are consigned to the same person. This definition is necessary 
to prevent manipulation of articles because some of the proposed 
requirements apply to each ``lot'' of regulated articles. For example, 
proposed Sec. 319.40-5(c)(3) imposes certain requirements on tropical 
hardwood logs imported in lots of 15 or fewer logs; the definition of 
``lot'' would prevent an importer from importing a shipment of 60 such 
logs on a single means of conveyance as four ``separate'' lots.
    The proposed regulations require that to be eligible for 
importation, certain regulated articles must be free from rot, because 
rot is sometimes caused by plant pests, and rot also renders wood more 
susceptible to some other plant pests. We propose to define ``free from 
rot'' to mean ``[n]o more than two percent by weight of the regulated 
articles in a lot show visual evidence of fructification of fungi or 
growth of other microorganisms that cause decay and the breakdown of 
cell walls in the regulated articles.'' We believe this standard is 
consistent with common industrial standards for rot in wood chips and 
other regulated articles, and is also an effective standard for 
minimizing plant pests associated with rot. Our inspectors can readily 
enforce this standard for wood chips by examining samples taken from 
wood chip shipments, and calculating the percentage of rot by comparing 
the quantity of chips afflicted by rot in a sample to the total 
quantity of chips in the sample. The presence of rot in other types of 
regulated articles is also detectable through inspection.
    Other proposed definitions establish certain subgroups of regulated 
articles so that requirements can be targeted to the subgroups based on 
the plant pest risks presented by each and the commercial practices and 
treatments available for each subgroup. The following subgroups of 
regulated articles would be separately defined.
    Bark chips. Defined as bark fragments broken or shredded from log 
or branch surfaces. Bark chips would be regulated because many plant 
pests are associated with bark on trees, and some plant pests may 
remain with the bark even after it is chipped from the underlying wood.
    Humus, compost, and litter. Defined as partially or wholly decayed 
plant matter. Humus, compost, and litter is often derived from forest 
products and byproducts. This material would be regulated because, if 
untreated, it is a good medium for plant pests, and it is often used as 
a soil amendment, where it could easily spread plant pests into the 
environment.
    Log. Defined as the bole of a tree; trimmed timber that has not 
been further sawn. Logs are regulated because they provide ecological 
niches for a wide variety of plant pests. Logs and lumber (defined 
below) are the two most commercially important regulated articles, and 
constitute the major volume of wood imports.
    Loose wood packing material. Defined as excelsior (wood wool), 
sawdust, and wood shavings, produced as a result of sawing or shaving 
wood into small, slender, and curved pieces. While the processes that 
produce these materials generally remove or destroy plant pests 
associated with these articles, they are regulated because they may 
become contaminated with plant pests after manufacture if the loose 
wood packing materials become wet or come in contact with other 
materials bearing plant pests.
    Lumber. Defined as logs that have been sawn into boards, planks, or 
structural members such as beams. Lumber would be regulated because it 
can harbor deep-wood plant pests.
    Solid wood packing material. Defined as wood packing materials 
other than loose wood packing materials, including but not limited to 
dunnage, crating, pallets, packing blocks, drums, cases, and skids, 
that are used or for use with cargo to prevent damage. Solid wood 
packing materials are used for packing and blocking in connection with 
both regulated and unregulated articles. Solid wood packing materials 
would be regulated because they present a plant pest risk in themselves 
(especially if they are not free from bark or treated), and because 
when used in connection with the movement of regulated articles, they 
may either spread plant pests to the regulated articles or be 
contaminated with plant pests from the regulated articles.
    Tropical hardwoods. Defined as hardwood timber species which grow 
only in tropical climates. We particularly seek comments on how to 
improve this definition, since it is virtually impossible to list all 
hardwood species that grow only in tropical climates.
    Wood chips. Defined as wood fragments broken or shredded from any 
wood. Wood chips are usually generated from raw wood, but occasionally 
from manufactured articles made of wood. All wood chips would be 
regulated because some plant pests survive the process that produces 
wood chips or may contaminate the wood chips at a later time.
    Wood mulch. Defined as bark chips, wood chips, wood shavings, or 
sawdust intended for use as a protective or decorative ground cover. 
Like humus, compost, and litter, the use of wood mulch would tend to 
spread any plant pests that are associated with it.

Section 319.40-2  General Prohibitions and Restrictions; Relation to 
Other Regulations

    This section would establish general requirements for importation 
that apply to regulated articles. These requirements would include a 
permit issued by APHIS, and a document signed by the importer that 
contains information about the genus of tree from which the regulated 
article was derived, quantity, and the treatment and handling of the 
regulated articles prior to arrival at the port of first arrival.
    The proposed permit requirement would ensure that for each request 
to allow importation of a regulated article, APHIS has determined the 
regulated article is eligible for importation in accordance with the 
regulations and has given permission for importation of the regulated 
article into the United States.
    The requirement for a document signed by the importer (an 
``importer document'') is designed to provide APHIS with a declaration 
of certain information we need to determine the eligibility of a 
shipment for importation. We would require that the importer provide us 
with the following information in this document: The genus and species 
of the tree from which the regulated article was derived; the country 
and, if known, the locality where the tree from which the regulated 
article was derived was harvested; the quantity of the regulated 
article to be imported; any treatment or handling of the regulated 
article required by the proposed regulations which was performed prior 
to arrival at the port of first arrival in the United States; and the 
use for which the regulated article is imported.
    This section would also state that articles that meet the 
definition of regulated article, but are allowed importation for 
propagation or human consumption under other regulations in 7 CFR part 
319, will not be regulated under proposed Sec. 319.40, but rather under 
the other appropriate regulations in part 319.
    Finally, this section would establish a separate procedure for 
importing regulated articles by the United States Department of 
Agriculture under a Departmental permit for experimental, scientific, 
or educational purposes.

Section 319.40-3  General Permits; Articles That May Be Imported 
Without a Specific Permit; Articles That May Be Imported Without Either 
a Specific Permit or an Importer Document

    General Permits. This section would establish a number of general 
permits issued by APHIS for the importation of articles listed in this 
section. To import these articles, importers would have to comply with 
the general permit conditions specified in this section, but they would 
not have to obtain a specific permit issued to them by APHIS.
    Exemption from Specific Permits. This section would exempt most 
regulated articles that originate in Canada and states in Mexico 
bordering the United States from the specific permit requirements of 
proposed Sec. 319.40-2, and from most of the other proposed 
requirements of the regulations. Most regulated articles from Canada 
and from Mexican border states do not present a risk of introducing 
exotic plant pests if imported into the United States. The climatic 
conditions in areas on both sides of these borders are similar, and 
there has been much trade across these borders for generations, with 
the result that the same plant pests generally exist on both sides of 
the borders. Therefore, we propose to allow most regulated articles 
from Canada and Mexican border states to be imported without 
restriction under the regulations, except that they must be accompanied 
by documents verifying their origin (to prevent transshipment of 
regulated articles from other places), and would be subject to 
inspection and other requirements in proposed Sec. 318.40-9 (discussed 
below). To prevent the possibility that regulated articles from Canada 
or Mexican border states may have originated in or been moved through 
other areas where they may have been exposed to plant pests, regulated 
articles imported from Canada or Mexican border states must be 
accompanied by a document signed by the importer stating that the 
regulated articles are derived from trees harvested in, and never 
before moved outside, Canada or states in Mexico adjacent to the United 
States border.
    However, certain regulated articles from Canada and Mexico present 
a risk of spreading citrus diseases, and would not be covered by this 
general exemption for regulated articles from Canada and Mexican border 
states. Regulated articles not covered by this exemption would include 
articles of the subfamilies Aurantioideae, Rutoideae, and Toddalioideae 
of the botanical family Rutaceae. Both Canada and Mexico are under 
quarantine for citrus diseases in accordance with 7 CFR 319.19, which 
prohibits importation into the United States of plants or plant parts, 
except fruit or seeds, of these subfamilies from Canada and Mexico. To 
address the citrus disease risk, the proposed regulations would allow 
regulated articles from these subfamilies to be imported from Canada 
and Mexico, but only if they are imported in accordance with the 
proposed regulations.
    This section would also exempt solid wood packing materials used as 
packing for regulated articles from the specific permit requirements 
that would otherwise apply to imported solid wood packing materials. 
The exemption for solid wood packing materials would provide as 
follows:
     If the solid wood packing material is being used as 
packing for a regulated article, there is a risk that plant pests 
associated with the packing material could attack the regulated article 
in transit, and there is a risk that plant pests associated with the 
regulated article could attack the solid wood packing material. 
Therefore, we propose to require that solid wood packing materials used 
as packing for regulated articles be treated to destroy plant pests 
prior to importation, using a heat, fumigation, or preservative 
treatment described below in Sec. 319.40-7. Alternatively, solid wood 
packing material which is free of bark and poses less of a risk of 
introducing plant pests would be eligible for importation if it meets 
all the importation and entry conditions specified in the permit issued 
for the regulated article the solid wood packing material is used to 
move. (It would generally be possible for solid wood packing materials 
to meet the same requirements imposed on the regulated articles moved 
with them only when the requirements are a specific treatment, e.g., 
heat, fumigation, or preservative. Regulated articles would often be 
subject to requirements packing materials cannot readily meet, e.g., a 
maximum time limit between harvest and shipment.)
    While treatment of solid wood packing materials is necessary, we do 
not believe a separate permit for the solid wood packing material is 
needed, since in most cases the regulated article the solid wood 
packing materials accompany will have a permit and an importer 
document. Therefore, we propose that if the solid wood packing material 
was treated prior to importation, that fact could be recorded in a 
document signed by the importer and accompanying the shipment.
    We do not propose to require that solid wood packing materials must 
be treated immediately before they are used to move regulated articles 
or within any maximum time preceding their use. Once solid wood packing 
materials are treated, the plant pest risk associated with the solid 
wood packing materials is reduced to a level similar to manufactured 
wood articles that are not regulated. We do not believe there is a 
significant enough risk of reinfestation after treatment of solid wood 
packing materials to require that they be treated within a fixed time 
prior to their use to move regulated articles. Also, in view of the 
vast volume of solid wood packing materials used and reused in 
shipping, we believe requiring that such materials be treated within a 
fixed time prior to their use, or retreated if they were treated 
earlier, would impose a substantial economic burden without 
significantly reducing plant pest risk.
     If the solid wood packing material is being used as 
packing for an article that is not a regulated article, there is less 
risk that plant pests from the solid wood packing material will attack 
the article being moved. Still, it is important to prevent such solid 
wood packing materials from introducing plant pests. The plant pests of 
particular concern are the type found on or under bark attached to 
solid wood packing materials. Such plant pests could spread to wood 
articles in the United States after the solid wood packing materials 
are unloaded and discarded or reused. Therefore, we propose that solid 
wood packing materials used as packing for articles that are not 
regulated articles must be either: (1) Totally free from bark, and 
apparently free from live plant pests, or (2) treated prior to 
importation, using a heat, fumigation, or preservative treatment 
described below in Sec. 319.40-7. Again, we do not believe a specific 
permit is necessary to enforce this requirement. We propose that solid 
wood packing materials be accompanied by a document signed by the 
importer and accompanying the solid wood packing material. This 
document would affirm that the solid wood packing material either: (1) 
Is totally free from bark, and apparently free from live plant pests, 
or (2) was treated prior to importation, using a heat, fumigation, or 
preservative treatment described below in Sec. 319.40-7.
    Solid wood packing materials imported as cargo, i.e., not in actual 
use as packing, would not be exempted from the specific permit and 
importer document requirements and would have to be imported in 
accordance with requirements for lumber in proposed Sec. 319.40-5 or 
Sec. 319.40-6, discussed below.

Exemption From Both Specific Permit and Importer Document Requirements

    This section would also exempt dry loose wood packing materials 
(excelsior, sawdust, and wood shavings) from the specific permit 
requirement and the importer document requirement, whether they are 
imported in use as packing material or not in use (i.e., as cargo). The 
processes by which loose wood packing materials are produced generally 
remove any significant pest risk that may be associated with them, and 
we propose to admit them only if they are dry (to control rot), and are 
inspected at the port of first arrival.
    Bamboo timber that is free of leaves and seeds and that has been 
sawn or split lengthwise and dried presents only a minimal plant pest 
risk and therefore would not require either a specific permit or an 
importer document. Such bamboo timber would be subject only to 
inspection and other requirements in proposed Sec. 319.40-9.

Section 319.40-4  Application for a Permit to Import Regulated 
Articles; Issuance and Withdrawal of Permits

    This proposed section describes the requirements for applying for a 
permit, how APHIS would evaluate the application and issue a permit, 
and how APHIS could withdraw a permit if the person to whom the permit 
is issued does not comply with importation requirements.
    A person who wishes to obtain a permit must submit a written 
application that provides detailed information about the regulated 
articles proposed for importation. APHIS would evaluate this 
information to determine whether to issue a permit. The permit 
application would have to include the following information:
    1. The specific type of regulated article to be imported, including 
the genus and species name of the tree from which the regulated article 
was derived;
    2. Country, and locality if known, where the tree from which the 
regulated article was derived was harvested;
    3. The quantity of the regulated article to be imported;
    4. A description of any processing, treatment or handling of the 
regulated article performed prior to importation, including the 
location where any processing or treatment was or will be performed and 
the names of any chemicals employed in treatments;
    5. A description of any processing, treatment, or handling of the 
regulated article intended to be performed following importation, 
including the location where any processing or treatment will be 
performed and the names of any chemicals employed in treatments;
    6. Whether the regulated article will or will not be imported in a 
sealable container or in a hold;
    7. The means of conveyance to be used to import the regulated 
article into the United States;
    8. The intended port of first arrival in the United States of the 
regulated article, and any subsequent ports in the United States at 
which regulated articles may be unloaded;
    9. The destination and general intended use of the regulated 
article. (General intended use means, for example, if the article is 
logs, will they be sawn into lumber, used for veneer, sold whole, or 
used otherwise; for wood chips, will they be pulped, burned, or 
composted; or similar information about the article's intended use that 
may affect pest dissemination risk);
    10. The name and address of the applicant and, if the applicant's 
address is not within the United States, the name and address of an 
agent in the United States whom the applicant names for acceptance of 
service of process; and,
    11. A statement certifying the applicant as the importer of record.
    This information is needed to determine whether the regulated 
article covered by the application is eligible for importation and to 
coordinate APHIS activities for enforcing the regulations at ports of 
first arrival and elsewhere (e.g., at processing facilities operating 
under compliance agreements; see Sec. 319.40-8 below).
    Proposed Sec. 319.40-4(b) states that when APHIS reviews a permit 
application, it would first determine whether the regulated article 
covered by the application is eligible for importation under either 
Sec. 319.40-5, ``Importation requirements for specified articles from 
specified countries,'' or Sec. 319.40-6, ``Universal importation 
options,'' discussed below. If the regulated article is eligible for 
importation under either of these sections, APHIS would issue a permit 
for the importation of the regulated article identified in the 
application. However, APHIS would not issue a permit to any applicant 
who has had a permit withdrawn due to noncompliance with the 
regulations within the past 12 months, unless the permit has been 
reinstated upon appeal.
    If the regulated article is not eligible for importation under 
either proposed Sec. 319.40-5 or proposed Sec. 319.40-6, APHIS would 
review the application by applying the plant pest risk assessment 
standards contained in proposed Sec. 319.40-11. This process is 
designed to deal with (1) regulated articles whose importation is not 
specifically provided for in the regulations, and (2) regulated 
articles that are named in the regulations, but that are proposed for 
importation without treatments or safeguards, or under a combination of 
treatments and safeguards not provided for in the regulations. Under 
this process, APHIS would assess the plant pest risk presented by the 
proposed importation and determine whether, and under what conditions, 
importation of the regulated article should be allowed.
    If this pest risk assessment reveals that the nature of the 
regulated article presents a negligible risk of introducing plant pests 
into the United States, and, therefore, no importation conditions are 
needed, APHIS would issue a permit for importation of the regulated 
article. The permit may only be issued in unique and unforeseen 
circumstances when the importation is not expected to reoccur. We do 
not expect that many regulated articles would be found to qualify on 
this basis, because most regulated articles present greater than a 
negligible plant pest risk that justifies treatment, handling, or other 
importation conditions. However, we do expect that occasionally 
regulated articles may be found to present negligible plant pest risk. 
Under this provision we would allow the importation of such regulated 
articles with a minimum of regulatory burden, i.e., with only a permit 
to document that APHIS has determined that the regulated article may be 
imported subject to inspection and other requirements in proposed 
Sec. 319.40-9.
    Some applicants may wish to import regulated articles under 
conditions or treatments that are not currently prescribed by the 
regulations. If the pest risk assessment reveals that importation of 
the regulated articles under the conditions proposed in the 
application, or under other conditions acceptable to the applicant, 
would not result in a significant risk of introducing plant pests into 
the United States, APHIS would implement rulemaking containing the 
applicable conditions for importation. If the regulations are amended 
to include the new conditions, APHIS would issue a permit for 
importation of the regulated articles.
    We propose that no permit will be issued to an applicant who has 
had a permit withdrawn during the 12 months prior to receipt of the 
permit application by APHIS, unless the withdrawn permit has been 
reinstated upon appeal. This provision appears necessary to ensure that 
applicants who have had a permit withdrawn under the procedures in 
proposed Sec. 319.40-4(d) are not able to immediately reapply for a new 
permit. We believe this provision is necessary to discourage violation 
of the regulations, and to support the effectiveness of the permit 
system as a tool to help exclude plant pests from the United States.
    Proposed Sec. 319.40-4(c) states that even if a permit has been 
issued for the importation of a regulated article, the regulated 
article may be imported only if all applicable requirements of the 
subpart are met and only if an inspector at the port of arrival 
determines that no measures pursuant to the Federal Plant Pest Act or 
the Plant Quarantine Act are necessary with respect to the regulated 
article. We included this proposed provision to ensure that those who 
are issued a permit understand that the issuance of a permit does not 
guarantee that the regulated articles that are the subject of the 
permit can be imported.
    Proposed Sec. 319.40-4 would also authorize us to withdraw a permit 
if an inspector or the Administrator determines that the person to whom 
a permit is issued has violated any provision of subpart 319.40. This 
section also allows a permit holder to appeal the denial or withdrawal 
of a permit, and to obtain a hearing on the denial or withdrawal.

Section 319.40-5  Importation and Entry Requirements for Specified 
Articles

    This section proposes requirements for the importation of specific 
regulated articles.
    Bamboo timber. Bamboo imported for propagation would not be 
regulated under proposed Sec. 319.40, but would continue to be 
regulated in accordance with Sec. 319.34, our regulations that 
currently apply to bamboo nursery stock.
    Bamboo timber consisting of whole culms or canes would be allowed 
to be imported into Guam or the Northern Mariana Islands subject to 
inspection and other requirements in Sec. 319.40-9. Any bamboo timber 
consisting of whole culms or canes would be allowed into Guam and the 
Northern Mariana Islands because the plant pests of concern associated 
with bamboo culms or canes are already present in these islands and not 
in other parts of the United States.
    Bamboo timber consisting of whole culms or canes that are 
completely dry as evidenced by lack of moisture in node tissue may be 
imported into any part of the United States subject to inspection and 
other requirements in proposed Sec. 319.40-9. Absence of moisture in 
the node tissue indicates that the bamboo is not capable of 
propagation, which would be the major avenue for spread of plant pests 
from bamboo timber.
    Monterey pine logs and lumber from Chile and New Zealand; Douglas-
fir logs and lumber from New Zealand. The importation requirements 
established for logs and lumber from these species are designed to 
control the plant pest risks identified in ``Pest Risk Assessment of 
the Importation of Pinus radiata and Douglas-fir Logs from New 
Zealand'' (the New Zealand assessment; see footnote 3) and the ``Pest 
Risk Assessment of the Importation of Pinus radiata Logs from Chile'' 
(the Chile assessment; see footnote 4).
    The New Zealand assessment screened over 300 plant pests that have 
been recorded on Monterey pine and Douglas-fir in New Zealand, and 
included detailed studies of the plant pest risks associated with four 
insects and two pathogenic fungi that were identified as representative 
of the groups of organisms posing the greatest potential plant pest 
problem. The insects, which are all deep wood borers that would not be 
removed from logs by surface treatments, are Kalotermes brouni (New 
Zealand brownwood termite), Platypus apicalis (Platypus gracilis) 
(native pinhole borer), Prionoplus reticularis (huhu beetle), and Sirex 
noctilio (a woodwasp). The pathogenic fungi are Leptographium truncatum 
and Amylostereum areolatum.
    The Chile assessment screened insect pests from eight orders 
associated with Monterey pine in Chile (Coleoptera, Hemiptera, 
Homoptera, Hymenoptera, Isoptera, Lepidoptera, Orthoptera, 
Thysanoptera). Ten insects with the greatest risk potential were chosen 
as subjects of individual pest risk assessments: introduced pine bark 
beetles (Hylurgus ligniperda, Hylastes ater, and Orthotomicus erosus); 
bark weevils of the genus Rhyephenes; a pine bark anobiid (Ernobius 
mollis); a siricid (Urocerus gigas gigas); wood-boring beetles 
(Buprestis novemmaculata, Colobura alboplagiata, Callideriphus laetus); 
termites (Cryptotermes brevis, Neotermes chilensis, Porotermes 
quadricollis); the spiny pine caterpillar (Ormiscodes cinnamonea); a 
bagworm (Thanatopsyche chilensis); white grubs (Hylamorpha spp., 
Brachysternus sp., Sericoides sp.); and the European pine shoot moth 
(Rhyacionia buoliana).
    Four types of diseases of radiata pine in Chile were evaluated in 
detail for plant pest risk: Diplodia shoot blight (Sphaeropsis 
sapinea), needle diseases (Dothistroma pini, among others), stain fungi 
(Ophiostoma spp.), and root/stem rots (Armillaria spp., Phellinus 
spp.).
    The plant pest risk assessment process was used to evaluate these 
plant pests of potentially high risk. Of the insect pests of Monterey 
pine in Chile, only the bark beetle Hylurgus ligniperda was found to 
have a high plant pest risk potential. Among the pathogens, the stain 
fungi (Ophiostoma spp.) present a moderate to high risk. Other plant 
pests found to present significant but lesser risks were bark weevils 
of the genus Rhyephenes, the siricid Urocerus gigas gigas, the termites 
Neotermes chilensis and Porotermes quadricollis, and the wood-boring 
beetles Buprestis novemmaculata and Colobura alboplagiata.
    We are proposing that Monterey pine from Chile, and Monterey pine 
and Douglas-fir from New Zealand, may be imported only under conditions 
that will prevent the introduction of the plant pests discussed above. 
The importation requirements and treatments needed to control the risk 
of introducing these plant pests into the United States would also 
serve to prevent the introduction of other plant pests that were 
identified in the Chile and New Zealand assessments. For example, we 
propose to require methyl bromide fumigation of the logs prior to 
importation to help reduce the risk associated with the four insects 
named above. The required methyl bromide fumigation would also destroy 
other plant pests identified in the Chile and New Zealand assessments 
(such as insects of the families Cerambycidae, Curculionidae, 
Termopsidae, and Scolytidae), eliminating the need to develop separate 
requirements to address the risks presented by the other plant pests. 
Similarly, we propose to require that both logs and lumber imported 
from Chile and New Zealand be sent to facilities in the United States 
that will heat treat products generated from the logs and lumber. This 
requirement primarily addresses the pathogenic fungi Leptographium 
truncatum, Ophiostoma, and Amylostereum areolatum, but the heat 
treatment will also destroy any other plant pests associated with the 
logs and lumber, in the unlikely event that such plant pests survived 
the methyl bromide fumigation or became associated with the regulated 
article following methyl bromide fumigation.
    We propose the following requirements for importation of Monterey 
pine logs from Chile and New Zealand, and for Douglas-fir logs from New 
Zealand. Some of the handling and treatment requirements apply prior to 
importation, some at the port of first arrival, and some after movement 
of the logs to a facility for processing in the United States.
    The requirements that would apply to these logs prior to 
importation include a requirement that the logs be from live healthy 
trees which are apparently free of plant pests, plant pest damage, and 
decay organisms. This requirement would eliminate logs that present a 
high risk of introducing plant pests into the United States. Another 
pre-importation requirement is that the logs be debarked and fumigated 
with methyl bromide within 45 days of the date the trees are felled, in 
accordance with Sec. 319.40-7 of the proposed regulations. Debarking 
would remove plant pests associated with the bark and would enable 
inspection to reveal holes made by wood-boring plant pests. Methyl 
bromide fumigation would be required because it effectively controls 
plant pests that may be associated with the surface and subsurface of 
these logs and that might otherwise spread from the logs during 
movement to a processing facility in the United States. We would 
require this fumigation be performed within 45 days following the date 
the trees are felled because logs are more vulnerable to plant pest 
attack the longer they are stored untreated, and delaying fumigation 
for a longer period could result in plant pests multiplying in the logs 
to an extent that might not be effectively controlled by fumigation. 
The fumigation must be conducted in the same sealable container or hold 
in which the logs and solid wood packing materials are exported to the 
United States.
    We propose that the logs must be kept segregated from other 
regulated articles during transit and after arrival in the United 
States (unless the other regulated articles were also fumigated, or 
were heat treated with moisture reduction), to control possible 
movement of plant pests to or from other regulated articles. After 
importation, the logs would be moved in as direct a route as reasonably 
possible from the port of first arrival to a sawmill or other 
processing facility that operates under a compliance agreement in 
accordance with proposed Sec. 319.40-8. At the facility, any lumber 
sawn from the logs would have to be heat treated, or heat treated with 
moisture reduction. (We define what is meant by ``heat treatment'' and 
``heat treatment with moisture reduction'' below in Sec. 319.40-7, 
where we discuss treatments. We are using the term ``heat treatment 
with moisture reduction'' rather than the term ``kiln dried'' to avoid 
confusion caused by the wide variety of meanings assigned to the term 
``kiln dried'' in the wood industry. However, we believe almost all 
articles that are considered ``kiln dried'' by common industry 
understanding would meet or exceed the standard we propose for ``heat 
treated with moisture reduction'').
    If the facility generates products other than lumber from the logs, 
these products would also have to be heat treated, either with or 
without moisture reduction. Moisture reduction is not feasible for some 
non-lumber wood products such as veneer. We have determined that the 
proposed heat treatment (without moisture reduction) proposed in 
Sec. 319.40-7(c) would provide sufficient protection against pests that 
might be associated with these non-lumber products.
    Logs which are not cut or processed at the facility into lumber or 
other products would have to be heat treated, either with or without 
moisture reduction.
    The facility must heat treat the logs, lumber, or other products 
within certain time limits, to minimize risks of plant pests spreading 
from the articles. For wood imported as logs, including sawdust, wood 
chips, or other products generated from the logs, this time limit is 60 
days from the date the logs arrive at the port of first arrival. For 
imported raw lumber, the limit is 30 days. The time limit is longer for 
logs because it takes facilities longer to schedule and perform cutting 
operations to convert logs into lumber or other products, than it takes 
to heat treat articles that arrive at the facility as already cut 
lumber.
    Sawdust, wood chips and waste generated from the logs at the 
processing facility would have to be burned, heat treated in accordance 
with proposed Sec. 319.40-7(c) or proposed Sec. 319.40-7(d), or 
otherwise processed in a manner that will destroy plant pests 
associated with the sawdust, wood chips, or waste.
    These time limits would reduce opportunities for the logs and 
lumber to be processed other than in accordance with the regulations, 
and would reduce the time during which our inspectors monitor 
compliance to a manageable span of time for each shipment. The time 
limits also reduce the time during which any plant pests that may be 
associated with the regulated articles could escape to surrounding 
areas or contaminate other articles.
    Composting or use as mulch of the sawdust, wood chips, and waste 
generated by sawing or processing the logs would be prohibited unless 
the composting or use as mulch was preceded by fumigation in accordance 
with proposed Sec. 319.40-7(f)(3) or heat treatment in accordance with 
proposed Sec. 319.40-7(c) or Sec. 319.40-7(d). This would reduce the 
risk of the spread of plant pests. We also propose to allow wood chips, 
sawdust, and waste generated from processing the logs to be moved for 
processing to another facility operating under a compliance agreement 
for processing, if they are moved in enclosed trucks to control plant 
pest risk in transit.
    The importation requirements we propose for raw lumber of Monterey 
pine species from Chile or New Zealand and Douglas-fir species from New 
Zealand are similar to the requirements for logs of the same species in 
proposed Sec. 319.40-5(b)(1). The primary difference is that we do not 
propose to require fumigation with methyl bromide for the lumber6. 
Fumigation would not be required because in general, lumber is more 
easily inspected and therefore represents less plant pest risk than 
logs with regard to deep wood boring insects. For lumber cut in Chile 
or New Zealand, the waste material stays in Chile or New Zealand, 
reducing plant pest risk. Also, the process of cutting the lumber 
frequently exposes any deep wood boring insects that are present, and 
affected lumber would not be shipped. The remaining requirements, 
including heat treatment with moisture reduction at the destination in 
the United States, would provide protection against the introduction of 
plant pests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\However, raw lumber would have to be fumigated if it is moved 
in the same hold or container as logs. See proposed Sec. 319.40-
5(b)(1)(i)(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Tropical hardwood logs and lumber. The importation of tropical 
hardwoods into the United States tends to involve relatively small 
shipments (compared to softwoods) of high-quality, high-value products 
such as teak and mahogany. In general, tropical hardwoods present less 
plant pest risk for the United States because the great majority of 
plant pests associated with them cannot successfully become established 
in most areas of the United States due to climatic conditions.
    We anticipate, based on previous importations of tropical 
hardwoods, that most importers will wish to import debarked tropical 
hardwoods. We propose to allow debarked tropical hardwood logs and 
lumber to be imported subject to inspection and other requirements of 
proposed Sec. 319.40-9. Inspection would allow us to confirm the nature 
of the shipment and check for pests on the logs.
    Some importers may wish to import tropical hardwood logs that have 
not been debarked. We propose to require methyl bromide fumigation as a 
requirement for these logs, to control plant pests that may be 
associated with the bark. However, we also propose to allow small lots 
of logs with bark (15 logs or fewer) to be imported subject to 
inspection and other requirements in proposed Sec. 319.40-9, rather 
than fumigation. Although effective inspection of logs with bark is 
time-consuming for our inspectors, some importers wish to import 
tropical hardwoods with bark, but are concerned that fumigation will 
damage their market value. We believe we can accommodate this desire by 
allowing inspection instead of fumigation for small lots (15 logs or 
fewer). Our operational experience inspecting hardwood log shipments at 
ports leads us to believe we can readily inspect lots of 15 or fewer 
hardwood logs. However, because Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin 
Islands of the United States have climates that are conducive to the 
establishment of tropical hardwood pests, we would not allow this 
provision to be used to import tropical hardwoods into these places.
    Temperate hardwoods. Temperate hardwood logs and lumber from any 
place could be imported in accordance with the universal importation 
options described in Sec. 319.40-6. Otherwise, we propose to establish 
lesser requirements for the importation of temperate hardwood logs and 
lumber (with or without bark) from all places except countries in Asia 
that are wholly or in part east of 60 deg. East Longitude and north of 
the Tropic of Cancer. We would prohibit importing temperate hardwoods 
from this area (unless they are imported in accordance with the 
universal importation options in Sec. 319.40-6) because the ``Pest Risk 
Assessment of the Importation of Larch from Siberia and the Soviet Far 
East'' (the Siberian assessment; see Footnote 2) identified a large 
variety of plant pests associated with larch and hardwoods in this 
area. Many of these plant pests have the potential to infest extensive 
areas of one or more forest types in the United States, where they 
could cause massive defoliation and other damage. At this time, we do 
not know of treatments or requirements, short of the universal 
importation options, that have been demonstrated to effectively destroy 
the plant pests of concern identified in countries in Asia that are 
wholly or in part east of 60 deg. East Longitude and north of the 
Tropic of Cancer.
    We propose that temperate hardwood logs (with or without bark) and 
lumber from all other places may be imported if fumigated in accordance 
with proposed Sec. 319.40-7(f) prior to arrival in the United States 
and if subject to inspection and other requirements in proposed 
Sec. 319.40-9. Although we do not have detailed plant pest risk 
assessment information of the type collected by the Siberian assessment 
for temperate hardwoods from all other areas of the world, both our 
operational experience and available plant pest distribution data 
suggest that requiring fumigation of such hardwood imports would 
effectively destroy plant pests of the type likely to be associated 
with temperate hardwood logs and lumber and is a reasonable measure to 
guard against possible unknown plant pests that could be associated 
with their importation. We have many years of experience inspecting 
small volumes of temperate hardwood logs imported each year from 
various parts of the world (not including the area covered by the 
Siberian assessment). Temperate hardwood articles imported to date tend 
to be high quality logs that were selected, harvested and handled with 
care, resulting in a low degree of plant pest risk. Our experience 
inspecting such shipments has not revealed them to be infested with 
plant pests, and consequently we propose to allow importation of 
temperate hardwood logs and lumber subject to fumigation and inspection 
and other requirements in proposed Sec. 319.40-9. However, if future 
plant pest risk assessments or interceptions of plant pests associated 
with temperate hardwood shipments indicate a greater plant pest risk 
than is currently apparent, we would increase the restrictions on 
importation of temperate hardwoods.
    Regulated Articles Associated With Exclusively Tropical Pests. 
There are some plant pests that would not be of concern unless they are 
introduced into areas of the United States with a tropical climate 
because they cannot survive outside of tropical areas. Regulated 
articles that have been identified by a pest risk assessment as 
possibly being infested solely with pests that can successfully become 
established only in tropical climates would therefore be subject to the 
following conditions:
    (1) The regulated article may be imported only to a destination in 
the continental United States; and
    (2) The regulated article may be prohibited entry into tropical or 
subtropical areas of the United States specified in the permit.
    This provision would allow us to issue permits for the importation 
of regulated articles into nontropical areas of the United States, if 
the only pests associated with the articles need tropical conditions to 
survive.

Section 319.40-6  Universal Importation Options

    This section would establish importation requirements for several 
classes of regulated articles. These standards are designed to allow 
importation of regulated articles from any source under conditions that 
will not present a significant risk of entry of known plant pests and 
unknown plant pests that may be associated with them. These standards 
may be used for importation of regulated articles not specifically 
addressed in Sec. 319.40-5. For example, logs from Siberia could be 
imported in accordance with proposed Sec. 319.40-6(a) of this section.
    The efficacy of treatments and the standards for performing the 
treatments required by proposed Sec. 319.40-6 are discussed below in 
proposed Sec. 319.40-7. The requirements use a variety of approaches to 
destroy plant pests prior to importation, or to contain and segregate 
regulated articles so that plant pests cannot spread from them, until 
the regulated articles are processed in the United States in a manner 
that would destroy the plant pests. We propose universal importation 
options for the following regulated articles: logs; lumber; wood chips 
and bark chips; wood mulch, humus, compost, and litter; and cork and 
bark.
    All regulated articles that would be allowed importation under 
proposed Sec. 319.40-6 would require a permit in accordance with 
proposed Sec. 319.40-4, and would be subject to inspection and other 
requirements of proposed Sec. 319.40-9.
    Logs. We propose that logs from any place may be imported if prior 
to importation the logs have been debarked in accordance with proposed 
Sec. 319.40-7(b) and heat treated in accordance with proposed 
Sec. 319.40-7(c). During the entire interval between treatment and 
export the logs must be stored and handled in a manner which excludes 
any access to the logs by plant pests.
    Lumber. We propose that lumber from any place may be imported if 
prior to importation the lumber has been heat treated in accordance 
with proposed Sec. 319.40-7(c), or heat treated with moisture reduction 
in accordance with proposed Sec. 319.40-7(d), and if the lumber is 
imported under the following conditions:
     During shipment to the United States, no other regulated 
article (other than solid wood packing materials) is permitted on the 
means of conveyance with the lumber, unless the lumber and the other 
regulated articles are in separate holds or separate sealed containers, 
or, if the lumber and other regulated articles are mixed in a hold or 
sealed container, all the regulated articles have been heat treated in 
accordance with proposed Sec. 319.40-7(c), or heat treated with 
moisture reduction in accordance with proposed Sec. 319.40-7(d). Lumber 
on the vessel's deck must be in a sealed container, unless the lumber 
has been heat treated with moisture reduction in accordance with 
proposed Sec. 319.40-7(d). These requirements would control possible 
movement of plant pests to or from other regulated articles.
     If lumber has been heat treated in accordance with 
proposed Sec. 319.40-7(c), that fact must be recorded on the importer 
document accompanying the lumber, or by a permanent marking on each 
piece of lumber in the form of the letters ``HT'' or the words ``Heat 
Treated.'' If lumber has been heat treated with moisture reduction in 
accordance with proposed Sec. 319.40-7(d), that fact must be recorded 
on the importer document accompanying the lumber, or by a permanent 
marking, on each piece of lumber or on the cover of bundles of lumber, 
in the form of the letters ``KD'' or the words ``Kiln Dried.''
    We also propose that raw lumber (in contrast to lumber that has 
been heat treated or heat treated with moisture reduction, discussed 
above) may be imported from any place except countries in Asia that are 
wholly or in part east of 60 deg. East Longitude and north of the 
Tropic of Cancer. (We exclude raw lumber from this area because the 
plant pests discussed above in reference to logs from this area may 
also be associated with raw lumber from this area.) Raw lumber must 
meet the following requirements.
     During shipment to the United States, no other regulated 
articles (other than solid wood packing materials) are permitted on the 
means of conveyance with the raw lumber, unless the raw lumber and the 
other regulated articles are in separate holds or separate sealed 
containers. Raw lumber on the vessel's deck must be in a sealed 
container. These requirements would control possible movement of plant 
pests to or from the regulated articles.
     After importation, the raw lumber must be consigned to a 
sawmill or other processing facility that operates under a compliance 
agreement in accordance with proposed Sec. 319.40-8. At the facility, 
the raw lumber must be heat treated in accordance with proposed 
Sec. 319.40-7 (c) or (d), no more than 30 days after the lumber is 
released from the port of arrival. If the raw lumber is to be cut, 
planed, or sawed, the heat treatment must be conducted prior to any 
cutting, planing, or sawing of the lumber, to prevent spread of any 
plant pests that might be associated with the raw lumber.
    Wood chips and bark chips. We propose that wood chips and bark 
chips from any place except countries in Asia that are wholly or in 
part east of 60 deg. East Longitude and north of the Tropic of Cancer 
may be imported under the following conditions:
     The wood chips must be accompanied by an importer document 
that states that the wood chips were either (1) derived from live, 
healthy, plantation-grown trees in tropical areas; or (2) fumigated in 
accordance with proposed Sec. 319.40-7(f)(3) or heat treated in 
accordance with proposed Sec. 319.40-7(c) or proposed Sec. 319.40-7(d).
     During shipment to the United States, no other regulated 
articles (other than solid wood packing materials) are permitted in the 
holds or sealed containers carrying the wood chips or bark chips. Wood 
chips or bark chips on the vessel's deck must be in a sealed container. 
These requirements would control possible movement of plant pests to or 
from other regulated articles.
     Imported wood chips or bark chips must be consigned to a 
facility operating under a compliance agreement in accordance with 
Sec. 319.40-8. The wood chips or bark chips must be burned, heat 
treated in accordance with proposed Sec. 319.40-7(c) or Sec. 319.40-
7(d), or otherwise processed in a manner that will destroy any plant 
pests associated with the wood chips or bark chips within 30 days of 
arrival at the facility. We do not want to allow imported chips to be 
stored for long periods of time because this increases the 
opportunities for movement of plant pests from the chips. Mulching and 
composting of the wood chips or bark chips are prohibited unless, prior 
to use, the wood chips or bark chips that are to be mulched or 
composted are fumigated in accordance with proposed Sec. 319.40-7(f)(3) 
or heat treated in accordance with proposed Sec. 319.40-7(c) or 
proposed Sec. 319.40-7(d). Mulching or composting of unfumigated chips 
would distribute the chips in soil and enhance opportunities for plant 
pest movement.
     The wood chips or bark chips must be free from rot at the 
time of importation, unless accompanied by an importer document stating 
that the entire lot was fumigated with methyl bromide in accordance 
with proposed Sec. 319.40-7(f)(3) or heat treated in accordance with 
proposed Sec. 319.40-7 (c) or (d). Wood chips or bark chips which have 
not been fumigated with methyl bromide in accordance with proposed 
Sec. 319.40-7(f)(3) or heat treated in accordance with proposed 
Sec. 319.40-7 (c) or (d) and which an inspector finds not to be free 
from rot will be refused entry into the United States.
    Wood mulch, humus, compost, and litter. We propose that wood mulch, 
humus, compost, and litter from any place may be imported if 
accompanied by an importer document stating that the wood mulch, humus, 
compost, or litter was fumigated in accordance with proposed 
Sec. 319.40-7(f)(3) or heat treated in accordance with proposed 
Sec. 319.40-7 (c) or (d). These treatments effectively destroy all 
plant pests commonly found in wood mulch, humus, compost, and litter.
    Cork and bark. Large amounts of cork are imported each year, and in 
general only hitchhiking and opportunistic plant pests have been 
associated with its importation. Varying amounts of other barks are 
imported for food or spices (particularly cinnamon), or for the 
manufacture of chemicals or medicines (e.g., yew bark for taxol 
production).
    Based on APHIS inspections of imported bark at ports of entry, we 
do not believe that importations of cork and cork bark, cinnamon bark, 
and other bark intended for food or manufacture of medicine, or 
chemicals extraction represent a significant plant pest risk if the 
bark is free from rot when imported.
    Therefore, we propose that cork and cork bark, cinnamon bark, and 
other bark to be used for food, manufacture of medicine, or chemical 
extraction may be imported if free from rot at the time of importation, 
and if subject to inspection and other requirements of proposed 
Sec. 319.40-9.

Section 319.40-7  Treatments and Safeguards

    This proposed section describes the methods for conducting several 
treatments that are required in other parts of the regulations in 
connection with importing regulated articles. The descriptions of the 
treatments generally establish minimum acceptable standards and attempt 
to allow persons employing the treatments a degree of latitude as to 
exactly how to meet the treatment standards.
    APHIS has studied these treatments and determined that they are 
effective means for eliminating any significant plant pest risk in 
regulated articles for which their use is required. No one treatment is 
a panacea for all plant pests; the treatments assigned for various 
regulated articles reflect the plant pest risks associated with the 
regulated articles. We continue to evaluate the effectiveness of other 
treatments, and it is likely that this section of the regulations will 
be revised from time to time as new information on treatments becomes 
available.
    Many regulated articles may only be imported if accompanied by an 
importer document that certifies that the regulated articles have been 
subjected to treatments which we propose to be required prior to 
importation of regulated articles. Proposed Sec. 319.40-7(a) concerns 
APHIS actions in the event that importer documents or other documents 
accompanying regulated articles prove to be inaccurate. Under this 
proposed provision, if APHIS determined that a document required for 
the importation of regulated articles is inaccurate, the regulated 
articles which are the subject of the document would be refused entry 
into the United States. In addition, if the inaccurate document was a 
certificate issued by the government of a foreign country, APHIS could 
determine not to accept any further certificates for the importation of 
regulated articles in accordance with this subpart from a country in 
which an inaccurate certificate is issued, and APHIS could determine 
not to allow the importation of any or all regulated articles from any 
such country, until corrective action acceptable to APHIS establishes 
that certificates issued in that country in the future will be 
accurate.
    There is no general requirement in the proposed regulations that 
treatments performed outside the United States must be performed under 
the supervision of an APHIS inspector. To ensure the proper application 
of treatments and safeguards that do not occur under direct APHIS 
supervision, APHIS will conduct monitoring inspections of treatments 
and safeguards applied in foreign countries in accordance with this 
section.
    Proposed paragraphs (b) through (g) of Sec. 319.40-7 contain the 
minimum requirements for the following treatments: Debarking; heat 
treatment; heat treatment with moisture reduction; surface pesticide 
treatments; methyl bromide fumigation; and preservative treatments. 
Various combinations of these treatments are required for the 
importation of regulated articles in accordance with proposed 
Sec. 319.40-5 and Sec. 319.40-6. The requirements for performing each 
treatment are discussed below.
    Debarking. The proposed standard is that for regulated articles 
except raw lumber, no more than 2 percent of the surface of all 
regulated articles in a lot may retain bark, with no single regulated 
article retaining bark on more than 5 percent of its surface. For raw 
lumber, debarking must remove 100 percent of the bark. (Heat treated 
lumber may retain up to 2 percent of bark because the heat treatment 
substantially reduces the plant pest risk.)
    Debarking would be effective in eliminating plant pests and 
pathogens on the surface of the logs, as well as those found within and 
immediately beneath the bark. Debarking would facilitate inspection for 
the presence of boring insects at the port of first arrival. Inspecting 
bark on large quantities of logs is a difficult, time-consuming process 
and would not be practical.
    To be effective, bark removal must be thorough. From a practical 
viewpoint, APHIS recognizes that complete removal of every scrap of 
bark is probably impossible, except for lumber. A tolerance level of 2 
percent, with no single regulated article, except raw lumber, retaining 
bark on more than 5 percent of its surface, appears reasonable to us 
based on our experience inspecting regulated articles at ports and 
observing commercial debarking operations. We believe that the plant 
pest risk associated with the remaining 2 percent of bark on an 
imported regulated article would not be significant because of the 
other regulatory measures applied to importation of the regulated 
article, which may include (depending on the type of regulated article) 
treatments such as surface pesticide sprays and fumigation.
    Heat treatment. We propose that heat treatment procedures may 
employ steam, hot water, kilns, exposure to microwave energy, or any 
other method that raises the temperature of the center of each treated 
regulated article to at least 56  deg.C and maintains the regulated 
article at that center temperature for at least 30 minutes. For 
regulated articles heat treated prior to arrival in the United States, 
during the entire interval between treatment and export the regulated 
article must be stored, handled, or safeguarded in a manner which 
excludes any reinfestation of the regulated article by plant pests.
    Heat in various forms has long been used as a nonchemical treatment 
for wood. The efficacy of heat treatments depends on heating the 
treated article throughout to a temperature that will kill plant pests. 
Based on the available scientific literature7 and inspection of 
heat-treated materials, we have determined that heating any article 
until the center of the article reaches at least 56  deg.C and 
maintaining that temperature for at least 30 minutes will destroy plant 
pests. To reduce the risk that heat-treated regulated articles could 
become recontaminated with plant pests, between heat treatment and 
export the regulated article must be stored, handled, or safeguarded in 
a manner which excludes any reinfestation of the regulated article by 
plant pests. This protection could be accomplished using a wide variety 
of methods, such as shrink-wrap plastic covers or storage in pest-free 
warehouses. Another safeguard available is treatment with surface 
pesticide sprays every 30 days prior to departure, in accordance with 
proposed Secs. 319.40-6(a) and 319.40-7(e), and we believe these spray 
treatments would control risks of reinfestation of heat treated 
articles prior to shipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\Citations are contained in the rulemaking record, and are 
available upon request to the office identified in FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We do not believe we can currently develop a useful list of 
effective safeguarding methods without leaving out many possibilities 
that businesses may wish to employ. We intend to review importer 
proposals for safeguard techniques during our permit approval process, 
and we will inform importers at that time whether the safeguards they 
propose to use are adequate.
    Heat treatment must be performed only at a facility where APHIS or 
an inspector authorized by the national government of the country in 
which the facility is located has inspected the facility and determined 
that its operation complies with the standards of the regulations for 
performing heat treatment. We believe such inspection is necessary to 
ensure that heat treatment facilities attain the necessary time-
temperature combinations needed to destroy pests. However, inspection 
of facilities performing heat treatment with moisture reduction is not 
necessary, because the effectiveness of heat treatment with moisture 
reduction can be measured by testing the moisture content of treated 
articles at the port of arrival, as discussed below.
    Heat treatment with moisture reduction. This is a form of heat 
treatment that is also designed to reduce the moisture content of the 
treated regulated article, eliminating deep wood plant pests and making 
the regulated article less vulnerable to reinfestation by some plant 
pests. We propose that heat treatment with moisture reduction may 
employ dry heat, exposure to microwave energy, or any other method that 
raises the temperature of the center of each treated regulated article 
to at least 56  deg.C, maintains the regulated articles at that center 
temperature for at least 30 minutes, and reduces the moisture content 
of the regulated article to 20 percent or less, as measured by an 
electrical conductivity meter. Electrical conductivity meters are 
devices in common use in wood industries that calculate the moisture 
content of wood by measuring the electrical conductivity of the wood, 
which varies with its moisture content and density. As necessary, our 
inspectors will use electrical conductivity meters to confirm the 
moisture content of regulated articles.
    Regulated articles heat treated with moisture reduction prior to 
arrival in the United States would also have to be stored, handled, or 
safeguarded in a manner which excludes any reinfestation of the 
regulated article by plant pests during the time the articles are 
stored between heat treatment and export.
    Surface pesticide treatments. In general, the proposed regulations 
do not employ surface pesticide sprays or dips as a primary treatment 
to eliminate plant pests; instead, these treatments are used to provide 
prophylactic protection during the period when treated regulated 
articles are awaiting shipment to the United States. Their purpose is 
to control reinfestation of treated regulated articles, and to control 
incidental or ``hitchhiking'' attachment of plant pests to regulated 
articles. We propose to authorize use of all United States 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) registered surface pesticide 
treatments for regulated articles. Surface pesticide treatments must be 
conducted in accordance with EPA-approved label directions. Surface 
pesticides must be applied within 48 hours following treatment to 
prevent reinfestation of the articles. Because many surface pesticide 
treatments lose some or all of their effectiveness after 30 days, the 
treatment must be repeated at least every 30 days during storage of the 
regulated article, with the final treatment occurring no more than 30 
days prior to the departure of the means of conveyance that carries the 
regulated article to the United States.
    Methyl bromide fumigation. Methyl bromide is very effective against 
plant pests, including all stages of insects, mites, snails, slugs, and 
nematodes, as well as most fungi. Its effectiveness as a fumigant was 
discovered in 1932. Since then, it has become the fumigant of choice in 
quarantine treatments.
    Methyl bromide is currently in widespread use as a fumigant. 
However, the environmental effects of this use have undergone close 
review by international, Federal, and State agencies. The United States 
Environmental Protection Agency has recently evaluated data concerning 
the ozone depletion potential of methyl bromide and, as a result, has 
published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking indicating their intent to 
reclassify methyl bromide as a Class I substance under the Clean Air 
Act as amended (58 FR 15014-15049, March 18, 1993). Should this 
proposal be finalized, methyl bromide production would be frozen at 
1991 levels and the domestic use of methyl bromide would be phased out 
by the year 2000. APHIS is studying the effectiveness and environmental 
acceptability of alternative treatments to prepare for the 
unavailability of methyl bromide fumigation. For the interim, this 
proposed rule attempts to provide alternatives to the use of methyl 
bromide in as many circumstances as possible. For example, all 
regulated articles could be imported in accordance with one of the 
universal importation options in proposed Sec. 319.40-6, without the 
use of methyl bromide fumigation.
    However, our regulations assume continued use of methyl bromide 
fumigation for at least the next few years. The characteristics of 
methyl bromide treatments are discussed below.
    Methyl bromide diffuses laterally and downward readily, and upward 
slowly. These characteristics make blower or fan circulation essential, 
at least during the first 15-60 minutes, to ensure thorough gas 
distribution. In addition, circulation enhances penetration. A 
volatilizer is necessary when introducing methyl bromide.
    Studies have shown that methyl bromide fumigation effectively kills 
plant pests if conducted in a way that ensures exposure of the entire 
article to the necessary gas concentration for the necessary time. 
However, circumstances during treatment can reduce the effectiveness of 
the fumigation. In particular, because the diffusion of methyl bromide 
through frozen wood is sharply reduced, it is necessary that regulated 
articles be maintained at a temperature above freezing throughout 
fumigation.
    The following minimum standards for methyl bromide fumigation 
treatment are proposed for the listed regulated articles. We are 
providing two options for applying each treatment. The person applying 
the treatment can follow a schedule in the Plant Protection and 
Quarantine Treatment Manual (the Treatment Manual), which is 
incorporated by reference at 7 CFR 300.1 in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 
552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. The treatment schedules specify the exact 
length of the treatment, the initial methyl bromide concentration, and 
subsequent points during the treatment when the concentration must be 
checked. Under an alternative option provided by our proposal, the 
Treatment Manual methyl bromide concentration is not used, although all 
other Treatment Manual requirements for fumigation must be followed. 
Instead, the treatment must produce a specified concentration-time 
product, which represents the concentration of methyl bromide 
multiplied by the hours of fumigation. The concentration-time product 
specified for each treatment was calculated to ensure that the 
treatment would effectively destroy plant pests at the temperature 
range allowed for the treatment.
    For example, one treatment requirement for logs states that 
schedule T-312 from the Treatment Manual may be used, or else the 
treatment can be conducted at a temperature of over 5 deg.C, by 
introducing methyl bromide at a concentration of at least 240 g/m3 
and maintaining it long enough to achieve a concentration-time product 
of 17,280 gram-hours. Simple arithmetic allows calculation of the 
necessary duration of the treatment depending on the concentration of 
methyl bromide employed. If the concentration used is 240 g/m3, 
the logs must be fumigated for 72 hours (240 x 72 = 17,280). If a 
concentration of 300 g/m3 is used the logs must be fumigated for 
57.6 hours, and so on.
    Any method of fumigation that meets or exceeds the specified 
temperature/time/concentration products is acceptable. Information 
documenting the effectiveness of methyl bromide fumigation for various 
articles when used in accordance with the specified concentration-time 
products is available through the office identified in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document. The methyl bromide 
fumigation treatments proposed by this document are as follows:
    Logs. We propose two fumigation requirements for logs, based on 
treatment schedules T-312 and T-404 in the Plant Protection and 
Quarantine Treatment Manual. In general T-312 has been used in the past 
for logs, and T-404 for other wood products. Persons employing these 
fumigation treatments can either follow the specific T-312 or T-404 
treatment schedules, or employ other fumigation techniques that result 
in the same methyl bromide exposure and concentration levels.
    For the T-312 alternative, the logs and the ambient air must be at 
a temperature of 5 deg.C or above throughout fumigation. The fumigation 
must be conducted using schedule T-312 contained in the Treatment 
Manual. In lieu of the schedule T-312 methyl bromide concentration, 
fumigation may be conducted with an initial methyl bromide 
concentration of at least 240 g/m3 with exposure and concentration 
levels adequate to provide a concentration-time product of at least 
17,280 gram-hours calculated on the initial methyl bromide 
concentration.
    For the T-404 alternative, the logs and the ambient air must be at 
a temperature of 5 deg.C or above throughout fumigation. The fumigation 
must be conducted using schedule T-404 contained in the Treatment 
Manual. In lieu of the schedule T-404 methyl bromide concentration, 
fumigation may be conducted with an initial methyl bromide 
concentration of at least 120 g/m3 with exposure and concentration 
levels adequate to provide a concentration-time product of at least 
1920 gram-hours calculated on the initial methyl bromide concentration.
    Lumber. For fumigation of lumber, we propose that the lumber and 
the ambient air must be at a temperature of 5 deg.C or above throughout 
fumigation. The fumigation must be conducted using schedule T-404 
contained in the Treatment Manual. In lieu of the schedule T-404 methyl 
bromide concentration, fumigation may be conducted with an initial 
methyl bromide concentration of at least 120 g/m3 with exposure 
and concentration levels adequate to provide a concentration-time 
product of at least 1920 gram-hours calculated on the initial methyl 
bromide concentration.
    Regulated articles other than logs or lumber. We propose that if 
regulated articles other than logs and lumber and the ambient air are 
at a temperature of 21 deg.C or above throughout fumigation, the 
fumigation must be conducted using schedule T-404 contained in the 
Treatment Manual (i.e., the subschedule applicable to articles at a 
temperature of 21 deg.C or above). In lieu of the schedule T-404 methyl 
bromide concentration, fumigation may be conducted with an initial 
methyl bromide concentration of at least 48 g/m3 with exposure and 
concentration levels adequate to provide a concentration-time product 
of at least 760 gram-hours calculated on the initial methyl bromide 
concentration.
    We propose that if the ambient air and the regulated articles other 
than logs or lumber are at a temperature of 4.5-20.5 deg.C throughout 
fumigation, the fumigation must be conducted using schedule T-404 
contained in the Treatment Manual (i.e., the schedule applicable to 
articles at a temperature of 4.5-20.5 deg.C), or, using any fumigation 
method with an initial methyl bromide concentration of at least 120 g/
m3 with exposure and concentration levels adequate to provide a 
concentration-time product of at least 1920 gram-hours calculated on 
the initial dosage.
    Preservatives. Numerous chemicals are in commercial use as 
preservative treatments for wood, and application of some of these 
chemicals protects wood from insects and fungi for long periods of 
time, often years. However, some insects or pathogens already present 
deep in the wood may not be killed by topical applications.
    Methods of application for preservatives include dipping, pressure 
treating, and injection into drill holes (either directly or in gelatin 
capsules). Target organisms are mainly wood-decay fungi. The most 
common purpose of application is to lengthen the useful life of rough 
timber used for fence posts, marine pilings, bridge timbers, railroad 
ties, and utility poles.
    We propose to authorize any preservative treatment that uses a 
preservative product that is registered by the EPA. Preservative 
treatments would have to be performed in accordance with EPA-approved 
label directions.

Section 319.40-8  Processing at Facilities Operating Under Compliance 
Agreements

    We propose to allow the importation of some regulated articles that 
may continue to present a low level risk of introducing plant pests 
into the United States until the time the regulated articles are 
processed. To prevent the introduction of plant pests from these 
regulated articles into the environment, we propose to require that 
such articles be moved from the port of first arrival to a processing 
facility and processed there, under conditions contained in the 
compliance agreement that are based on the nature of the regulated 
articles and the nature of the destination facility, that would prevent 
the introduction of plant pests.
    To ensure that such facilities operate in a manner that will 
prevent introduction of plant pests, we propose to require that such 
facilities operate under a compliance agreement signed with APHIS. Each 
compliance agreement would be developed and signed in conjunction with 
issuance of a permit to import regulated articles. The compliance 
agreement would specify safeguards necessary to prevent spread of plant 
pests from the facility, such as disinfestation practices, covering or 
container requirements, requirements for disposal of waste wood or 
byproducts, requirements to ensure the processing method effectively 
destroys plant pests, and application of chemical materials in 
accordance with the Treatment Manual. Each compliance agreement would 
also state that APHIS inspectors must be allowed access to the facility 
to monitor compliance with the requirements of the compliance agreement 
and the regulations.
    This section also proposes that an inspector supervising 
enforcement of a compliance agreement may cancel the agreement, orally 
or in writing, if the person who entered into the compliance agreement 
fails to meet its conditions. We also propose provisions to appeal 
cancellation of a compliance agreement and to obtain a hearing on the 
cancellation if there is a conflict as to any material fact. These 
requirements would aid enforcement of compliance agreement provisions 
and protect the rights of persons who enter into compliance agreements.
    During initial implementation of the proposed regulations, the 
requirements of each compliance agreement would be set as we collect 
information about the regulated articles imported in accordance with 
this provision and the physical layout and operating procedures of the 
facilities. Over time, we may be able to develop standardized 
compliance agreements for different types of facilities. If this 
occurs, we will publish a proposed rule in the Federal Register 
describing standard compliance agreements.

Section 319.40-9  Inspection and Other Requirements at Port of First 
Arrival

    This section proposes standards for enforcement of the proposed 
regulations at the ports where imported regulated articles arrive in 
the United States. This section states that an inspector may order 
imported regulated articles assembled for inspection at the port of 
first arrival, or at any other place prescribed by an inspector, at a 
place and time and in a manner designated by an inspector; that an 
inspector may order a regulated article to be treated or re-exported if 
the shipper or importer does not comply with regulatory requirements or 
the shipment is contaminated with plant pests or prohibited 
contaminants; and requires that regulated articles meet certain marking 
and identity requirements designed to assist inspection and processing 
of regulated articles at the port. This section also allows inspectors 
to take samples from regulated articles for the purpose of determining 
whether the regulated articles contain plant pests.
    Proposed Sec. 319.40-9 contains the following specific 
requirements:
     Procedures for all regulated articles. We propose that all 
regulated articles imported would be inspected. If the inspector finds 
signs of plant pests on or in the regulated article, or finds that the 
regulated article may have been associated with other articles infested 
with plant pests, the regulated article must be cleaned or treated as 
required by an inspector, and the regulated articles and any products 
of the regulated articles shall be subject to reinspection, cleaning, 
and treatment at the option of an inspector at any time and place 
before all applicable requirements of this subpart have been 
accomplished.
    Regulated articles would be assembled for inspection at the port of 
first arrival at a place and time and in a manner designated by an 
inspector. If an inspector finds that a shipment of regulated articles 
imported into the United States is so infested with a plant pest that, 
in the judgment of the inspector, the regulated article cannot be 
cleaned or treated, or contains soil or other prohibited contaminants, 
the entire shipment may be refused entry into the United States.
    No person could move any regulated article imported into the United 
States from the port of first arrival unless and until an inspector 
notifies the person, in writing or through an electronic database that 
preserves a record of the notice, that the regulated article has been 
inspected and found to be apparently free of plant pests, and is in 
compliance with all applicable regulations, or has been inspected and 
the inspector requires reinspection, cleaning, or treatment of the 
regulated articles at a place other than the port of first arrival.
     Visual examination of regulated articles at port of first 
arrival. We propose that regulated articles imported into the United 
States which have been debarked in accordance with Sec. 319.40-7(b) and 
can be safely and practically inspected would be visually examined for 
plant pests at the port of first arrival. Treatment appropriate to the 
regulated article and contained in the Treatment Manual would be 
required if plant pests are found or if the regulated article cannot be 
safely and practically inspected.
     Marking and identity of regulated articles. We propose 
that any regulated article, at the time of importation, would be 
required to bear on the outer container (if in a container), on the 
regulated article (if not in a container), or on a document 
accompanying the regulated article, the following information:
    1. General nature and quantity of the regulated articles;
    2. Country and locality, if known, where the tree from which the 
regulated article was derived was grown;
    3. Name and address of the person importing the regulated article;
    4. Name and address of consignee of the regulated article;
    5. Identifying shipper's mark and number; and
    6. Number of the permit (if one was issued) authorizing the 
importation of the regulated article into the United States.
     Sampling for plant pests at port of first arrival. We 
propose that any imported regulated article may be sampled for plant 
pests at the port of first arrival. If an inspector finds it necessary 
to order treatment of a regulated article at the port of first arrival, 
any sampling would be done prior to treatment.
     Notice of arrival by importers. Proposed Sec. 319.40-9(b) 
would require that importers give APHIS notice of arrival of a shipment 
7 days prior to the expected date of arrival. The notice of arrival 
could be done by telephone, or by an informal letter containing the 
necessary arrival information. We do not believe this notice would be 
particularly burdensome to importers, and we believe it is needed to 
allow our inspectors to prepare for a shipment, and to allow them to 
ensure that incompatible shipments (i.e., situations where articles 
from one shipment could spread pests to another shipment) are not 
accidentally mingled on docks.

Section 319.40-10  Costs and Charges

    This proposed section, which is consistent with similar language in 
our other regulations in part 319, addresses the availability of 
inspector services and the distribution of costs associated with 
importation of regulated articles. The services of an inspector during 
regularly assigned hours of duty and at the usual places of duty would 
be furnished without cost to the importer. The inspector may require 
the importer to furnish any labor, chemicals, packing materials, or 
other supplies required in handling regulated articles under the 
regulations. APHIS would not be responsible for any costs or charges, 
other than those identified in this section.

Section 319.40-11  Pest Risk Assessment Standards.

    As discussed above, proposed Sec. 319.40-4(b)(2) states that if 
APHIS reviews an application to import regulated articles and finds 
that the proposed importation is not allowed under the existing 
regulations, a pest risk assessment would be performed to determine 
whether the importation could be accomplished under conditions not in 
the current regulations. If such conditions (e.g., treatment or 
handling requirements, limits on the source, type, or quantity of the 
regulated articles, etc.) are identified through a plant pest risk 
assessment, APHIS would implement rulemaking to add the newly 
identified conditions. After the regulations are amended, APHIS could 
issue an import permit for the request that initiated the plant pest 
risk assessment process.
    Proposed Sec. 319.40-11 contains the plant pest risk assessment 
standards we would apply in making such decisions. This section is 
based on a model of plant pest risk assessment developed by USDA and 
utilized extensively in the Chile, New Zealand, and Siberian 
assessments. This proposed section does not attempt to provide a 
complete foundation in the discipline of risk assessment, or to 
describe every factor that APHIS may find relevant to decisions on 
whether or not to propose new conditions for importation of regulated 
articles. Instead, these standards describe the type of plant pest risk 
information that must be collected and evaluated in the course of our 
plant pest risk assessments, and some factors used to distinguish risk 
categories and to evaluate the effectiveness of various mitigation 
measures. This proposed section does not provide an exact formula for 
how we would determine whether or not to admit a particular regulated 
article, because it is impossible to develop an exact formula for such 
decisionmaking. Although the proposed new section would not provide the 
public with an exact formula for determining whether particular 
regulated articles should be imported, it would provide a substantial 
amount of information about APHIS decisionmaking in this area.
    For each pest risk assessment for a regulated article considered 
for importation, we need to collect and assess information regarding 
the probability that plant pests will accompany the regulated article, 
and the probability that any plant pests that may accompany the 
regulated article could become established in the United States, as 
plant pests of either the type of article imported or of other types of 
plants in the United States. We also need to consider information about 
the biological characteristics of such plant pests, their distribution 
in the area of origin of the imported regulated article and in the 
United States, and the type of damage the plant pests cause. We also 
need to consider information about the potential range of such plant 
pests in the United States, and the availability and effectiveness of 
mitigation methods to prevent the introduction, establishment, and 
spread of such pests.
    Our plant pest risk assessment process involves:
     Collecting commodity information. This includes evaluating 
the application for information describing the regulated article and 
the origin, processing, treatment, and handling of the regulated 
article; and evaluating the history of past plant pest interceptions or 
introductions (including data from foreign countries) associated with 
the regulated article.
     Cataloging quarantine pests. This includes determining 
what plant pests or potential plant pests are associated with the type 
of tree from which the regulated article was derived, in the country 
and locality from which the regulated article is to be exported. A 
plant pest will be further evaluated if it is a:
     Non-indigenous plant pest not present in the United 
States;
     Non-indigenous plant pest, present in the United States 
and capable of further dissemination in the United States;
     Non-indigenous plant pest that is present in the United 
States and has reached probable limits of its ecological range, but 
differs genetically from the plant pest in the United States in a way 
that demonstrates a potential for greater damage potential in the 
United States;
     Native species of the United States that has reached 
probable limits of its ecological range, but differs genetically from 
the plant pest in the United States in a way that demonstrates a 
potential for greater damage potential in the United States; or
     Non-indigenous or native plant pest that may be able to 
vector another plant pest of the types described above.
     Determining which quarantine pests to assess. This 
involves dividing the group of plant pests identified above into three 
groups, each of which generally presents a different level of risk. The 
three groups are plant pests found on or in the bark, under the bark, 
and in the wood. Within each group, the plant pests would then be 
ranked according to plant pest risk, from highest to lowest plant pest 
risk, based on the available information, and demonstrated plant pest 
importance.
    The next step would be to conduct individual plant pest risk 
assessments for the highest ranked plant pest(s) in each group. In some 
cases, plant pests may have been previously subjected to a plant pest 
risk assessment in accordance with this section; such assessments may 
be used if they are still current and accurate.
    The number of plant pests in each group to be evaluated through 
individual plant pest risk assessments would be based on biological 
similarities of members of the group as they relate to mitigation 
measures. For example, if the plant pest risk assessment for the 
highest ranked plant pest indicates a need for a mitigation measure 
that would result in the same reduction of risk for other plant pests 
ranked in the group, the other members need not be subjected to 
individual plant pest risk assessment.
     Conducting individual pest risk assessments. The 
individual pest risk assessments would estimate:
     The probability of the plant pest being on, with, or in 
the regulated article at the time of importation;
     The probability of the plant pest surviving in transit on 
the regulated article and entering the United States undetected;
     The probability of the plant pest colonizing once it has 
entered into the United States;
     The probability of the plant pest spreading beyond the 
colonized area;
     The damage that could be expected upon introduction and 
dissemination within the United States of the plant pest; and
     The overall plant pest risk associated with importing the 
regulated article, based on compilation of the individual plant pest 
risk assessments.
     Evaluating available mitigation measures to determine 
whether they would allow safe importation of the regulated article. 
Mitigation measures currently in use as requirements of this subpart, 
and any other mitigation measures relevant to the regulated article and 
plant pests involved, would be compared with the individual plant pest 
risk assessments in order to determine whether requiring particular 
mitigation measures in connection with importation of the regulated 
article would reduce the plant pest risk to an insignificant level. If 
APHIS determines that use of particular mitigation measures could 
reduce the plant pest risk to an insignificant level, and determines 
that sufficient APHIS resources are available to implement or ensure 
implementation of the appropriate mitigation measures, APHIS would 
implement rulemaking to allow importation of the requested regulated 
article under the appropriate requirements identified by the plant pest 
risk assessment process.

Changes to Other Regulations To Make Them Consistent With the 
Proposed Regulations

    There is a degree of overlap between the subject matter of the 
proposed regulations and other regulations in 7 CFR part 319. We are 
proposing to make changes in several places in part 319, to clarify 
which regulations apply to which articles.
Subpart--Citrus Canker and Other Citrus Diseases
    In the citrus canker regulations in Sec. 319.19, we propose to add 
a statement that articles of the subfamilies Aurantioideae, Rutoideae, 
and Toddalioideae of the botanical family Rutaceae which are regulated 
articles under proposed Sec. 319.40 may be imported in accordance with 
Sec. 319.40, and without restriction by Sec. 319.19. We also propose to 
edit this section to clarify it and remove surplus language.

Subpart--Bamboo

    In the bamboo regulations in Sec. 319.34, we propose to add 
language stating that this section applies to bamboo capable of 
propagation, and to add a footnote stating that bamboo not capable of 
propagation is regulated under Sec. 319.40. We also propose to edit 
this section to clarify it and remove surplus language.

Subpart--Nursery Stock, Plants, Roots, Bulbs, Seeds, and Other 
Plant Products

    In the nursery stock regulations in Sec. 319.37, we propose to 
amend the definition of ``prohibited article'' to exclude articles 
regulated under Sec. 319.40. We also propose to edit this section to 
clarify it and remove surplus language.

Subpart--Packing Materials

    In the packing materials regulations in Sec. 319.69, we propose to 
remove paragraph (b)(3), which regulates imported willow twigs, since 
willow twigs would be regulated under subpart 319.40.

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act

    We are issuing this proposed rule in conformance with Executive 
Order 12866.
    We have prepared a preliminary economic analysis concerning this 
proposed rule. This analysis indicates that this proposed rule would 
have an effect on the economy of less than $100 million. The economic 
analysis addresses the impacts of establishing the proposed 
regulations, and will be revised in response to comments received on 
this proposed rule. Copies of the economic analysis may be obtained by 
sending a written request to the Chief, Regulatory Analysis and 
Development, PPD, APHIS, USDA, room 804, Federal Building, 6505 
Belcrest Road, Hyattsville, MD 20782. Copies of the economic analysis 
are also available for inspection at USDA, room 1141, South Building, 
14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC, between 8 a.m. 
and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays.
    The United States has become the world's leading importer of wood 
and wood products. In 1990, the U.S. imported the equivalent of 34.4 
million cubic meters (CBM) of logs, lumber, and other wood products 
valued at about $5.1 billion. Total imports nearly tripled between 1950 
and 1990, with most of this increase occurring after 1970. 
Historically, virtually all wood product imports have been from Canada.
    Domestic production of logs, lumber, and other wood products has 
increased steadily since 1950. In roundwood equivalents, production in 
1990 was 1.6 times greater than in 1950. Most timber production occurs 
in southern and western States. In 1990, Oregon and Washington 
accounted for about 16 percent of the total U.S. tree harvest.
    Domestic logging companies are facing increasing challenges from 
conservation groups. Conservationists are opposed to many tree 
harvesting practices, especially clear cutting. In addition, concern 
over habitats for wildlife has raised questions about replacement of 
old growth/diversified forests with monoculture. Conservation issues 
are likely to limit future tree harvests in several northwestern 
States.
    Nationally, commercial forest lands are projected to decrease by 
about 4 percent over the next 50 years. Production is likely to decline 
in the Pacific Northwest and increase in the South and Rocky Mountain 
States.8 A slightly limited domestic harvest combined with higher 
consumer demand would likely result in an increased demand for imported 
wood and wood products. Alternative supplies of logs and other wood 
products have been located in the former Soviet Union, New Zealand, 
Chile, Brazil, and other countries. Wood imports from alternative 
sources have the potential to introduce and disseminate exotic plant 
pests and diseases throughout the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\Over the next 50 years, new technologies may allow wood 
products companies to remove larger amounts of wood products from 
each tree.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed regulations would regulate the importation of logs and 
other unmanufactured wood products from all areas. There are exemptions 
from some proposed requirements for imports from Canada and Mexican 
border states because most insects and other wood pests in these areas 
are also indigenous to the United States. Therefore, wood imports from 
Canada and Mexican border States do not pose a significant biological 
risk of exotic plant pest introduction.
    The proposed regulations would reduce to an insignificant level the 
risk of entry and dissemination of plant pests associated with wood 
imports. Prohibition of a regulated wood product would be based on 
plant pest risk assessments that reveal more than an insignificant risk 
of the introduction of plant pests. Unrestricted trade in wood products 
would likely result in losses to domestic agriculture from plant pest 
damages. Without governmental regulation, private entities might engage 
in trading activities that would result in the introduction of plant 
pests into the United States.
    The following items would be subject to the regulations: (1) Logs; 
(2) wood chips; (3) lumber; (4) whole trees; (5) portions of trees not 
consisting solely of leaves, flowers, fruits, buds, or seeds; (6) bark; 
(7) cork; (8) laths; (9) hog fuel; (10) sawdust; (11) painted raw wood 
products; (12) excelsior; (13) wood mulch; (14) wood shavings; (15) 
pickets; (16) stakes; (17) shingles; (18) solid wood packing materials; 
(19) humus; (20) compost; and (21) litter. Manufactured wood products 
would not be regulated by the proposed rule. The proposed regulations 
would require that certain specified imported unmanufactured wood 
products be treated prior to arrival in the United States.
    In 1990 the United States imported about 600,000 CBM of wood 
products that would require treatment under the proposed regulations. 
These wood imports accounted for less than one percent of total 1990 
domestic supplies. Imported shipments of kiln dried lumber would not 
require treatment.
    About 4.1 million newly manufactured units of wood dunnage were 
imported as cargo from proposed regulated areas in 1990. Dunnage 
imported as cargo can be manufactured from rough untreated lumber that 
has not been stripped of all tree bark.9 Imports comprised about 
27 percent of the newly manufactured dunnage products available in the 
United States during 1990.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\For the purpose of this economic analysis, dunnage imported 
as cargo includes dunnage produced for first time use, and does not 
include dunnage manufactured from used or scrap lumber.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Imports of regulated articles that would require treatment totaled 
about $80.2 million in 1990. Total domestic supplies of these articles 
exceeded $80 billion during the same year. Therefore, the value of 
imports that would require treatment under the proposed regulations 
represented less than one percent of total domestic supplies in 1990.
    Our economic analysis estimates that domestic producers of 
regulated articles would benefit from a welfare gain of about $60.2 
million, while domestic consumers of regulated articles would incur a 
welfare loss of about $64.3 million for U.S. society during the first 
year. A similar net loss could be expected for the next several years. 
This net loss occurs because the additional regulatory restrictions 
would raise prices and decrease the availability of imported 
unmanufactured wood articles. Therefore, the price and demand for less 
costly domestic wood would likely rise as higher import prices 
encourage U.S. consumers to change their purchasing practices.
    The estimated $4.1 million loss in welfare to U.S. society 
represents the cost of plant pest exclusion. If the United States does 
not expend resources to exclude plant pests through the proposed 
regulations or through other means, such pests could become established 
and cause significant damage to domestic agriculture. For example, in 
the past few years plant pests including the Asian gypsy moth and the 
pine shoot beetle have been introduced into this country, and several 
million dollars have already been spent on efforts to control them. The 
Siberian assessment discussed above evaluated potential costs of 
various plant pest introduction scenarios, and that introduction of a 
single pest, larch canker, could cause direct timber losses of $129 
million. The same study estimated that a worst-case scenario involving 
heavy establishment of exotic defoliators in the United States could 
cost $58 billion.
    The initial net welfare loss will be offset over time as businesses 
adapt to new international wood marketing channels. If resource 
constraints remain constant, implementation of the proposed rule would 
result in domestic consumers buying a slightly higher volume of 
domestic production at slightly higher prices than currently prevail in 
the U.S. market. However, domestic consumers will continue to 
supplement their wood purchases with imports whenever the imported 
price is cheaper than the domestic price.
    Foreign firms that import unmanufactured wood articles into the 
United States would incur a share of the estimated net reduction in 
importer welfare, since both foreign and domestic firms that import 
unmanufactured wood articles into the United States would face 
increased costs associated with entering those articles. However, APHIS 
cannot quantify the proportional loss between domestic and foreign 
importers of regulated articles.
    APHIS does not expect the economic impact on U.S. producers of 
regulated articles to be uniform across the country. Producers in 
southern and Rocky Mountain States would likely gain more than 
producers in the Pacific Northwest. Conservation issues and resource 
constraints would likely limit the amount of welfare gain acquired by 
loggers and sawmills in Oregon and Washington.
    Each year about 6 to 7.5 million non-bulk shipments of various 
commodities are imported into the United States. APHIS estimates that 
between 3.6 and 4.5 million (60 percent) of annual imported non-bulk 
shipments arrive in the United States packed in dunnage made of rough 
untreated wood with bark. The proposed regulations would prohibit 
untreated dunnage with bark from entering the United States.
    Initially, APHIS estimates that U.S. shipping lines would incur 
additional dunnage treatment and disposal costs of between $2.4 to $3.0 
million dollars per year.10 However, if the proposed regulations 
become effective, APHIS anticipates that shipping companies would take 
steps that ensure that wood dunnage is bark free.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\0United States shipping companies transport about two percent 
of annual imported shipments. APHIS estimates that the total cost of 
dunnage treatment and disposal would cost the shipping industry 
(foreign and domestic) between $119.5 and $149.4 million during the 
initial year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires that APHIS specifically 
consider the economic impact of proposed regulations on small entities. 
Small Business Administration (SBA) data indicates that about 25,998 
domestic entities could be impacted by the proposed restrictions on 
regulated articles. About 25,769 (99 percent) of these entities are 
classified as small according to SBA criteria. These consist of 
approximately 14,662 small logging companies or sawmills that produce 
domestic wood articles, and approximately 15,642 entities that could 
import foreign wood for processing or resale. (These two figures total 
more than 25,769 because some may process or resell both domestic and 
imported wood.) These small entities would experience most of the 
anticipated $64.3 million increase in domestic welfare. This increase 
would be a small average economic benefit for affected small entities, 
as it represents less than one percent of combined average annual sales 
for impacted small entities. A few small entities would undoubtedly 
accrue a disproportionate share of the domestic welfare increase due to 
their individual positions in their markets and variations in business 
strategies for dealing with new opportunities.
    The estimated $4.1 million net welfare loss to the U.S. economy 
would be distributed among millions of ultimate consumers of wood 
products in the form of price increases, without significant impacts on 
small business entities. Therefore, the impact of the proposed 
regulations on small businesses is expected to derive from part of the 
$64.3 million gross increase in domestic welfare, and should be 
positive but minor for a large number of small entities.
    Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and 
Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action would 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.
Executive Order 12778
    This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12778, 
Civil Justice Reform. If this proposed rule is adopted: (1) All State 
and local laws and regulations that are inconsistent with this rule 
will be preempted; (2) no retroactive effect will be given to this 
rule; and (3) administrative proceedings will not be required before 
parties may file suit in court challenging this rule, except for the 
withdrawal or denial of a permit or cancellation of a compliance 
agreement.
National Environmental Policy Act
    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), APHIS is preparing an environmental 
impact statement addressing the importation of logs, lumber, and other 
unmanufactured wood in accordance with this proposed rule. On July 26, 
1993, a notice was published in the Federal Register (58 FR 39726-
39727, Docket No. 92-195-1) informing the public of our intent to 
prepare an environmental impact statement and inviting comments.
Paperwork Reduction Act
    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 
3501 et seq.), the information collection or recordkeeping requirements 
included in this proposed rule will be submitted for approval to the 
Office of Management and Budget. Please send written comments to the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attention: Desk 
Officer for APHIS, Washington, DC 20503. Please send a copy of your 
comments to: (1) Chief, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, 
APHIS, USDA, room 804, Federal Building, 6505 Belcrest Road, 
Hyattsville, MD 20782, and (2) Clearance Officer, OIRM, USDA, room 404-
W, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250.

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.

PART 319--FOREIGN QUARANTINE NOTICES

    Accordingly, 7 CFR part 319 would be amended as follows:
    1. The authority citation for part 319 would be revised to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 150dd, 150ee, 150ff, 151-167, 450, 2803, and 
2809; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR 2.17, 2.51, and 371.2(c).

Subpart--Citrus Canker and Other Citrus Diseases

    2. In Sec. 319.19, paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (d) would be 
revised to read as follows:


Sec. 319.19  Notice of quarantine.

    (a) In order to prevent the introduction into the United States of 
the citrus canker disease (Xanthomonas citri (Hasse) Dowson) and other 
citrus diseases, the importation into the United States of plants or 
any plant part, except fruit and seeds, of all genera, species, and 
varieties of the subfamilies Aurantioideae, Rutoideae, and 
Toddalioideae of the botanical family Rutaceae is prohibited, except as 
provided in paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this section.
    (b) Plants or plant parts of all genera, species, and varieties of 
the subfamilies Aurantioideae, Rutoideae, and Toddalioideae of the 
botanical family Rutaceae may be imported into the United States for 
experimental or scientific purposes in accordance with conditions 
prescribed by the Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection 
Service, United States Department of Agriculture.
    (c) Plants or plant parts of all genera, species, and varieties of 
the subfamilies Aurantioideae, Rutoideae, and Toddalioideae of the 
botanical family Rutaceae may be imported into Guam in accordance with 
Sec. 319.37-6.
    (d) Plants or plant parts of all genera, species, and varieties of 
the subfamilies Aurantioideae, Rutoideae, and Toddalioideae of the 
botanical family Rutaceae which are regulated articles under subpart 
319.40 may be imported into the United States in accordance with 
subpart 319.40 and without restriction by this subpart.
* * * * *

Subpart--Bamboo


Sec. 319.34  [Amended]

    3. The title of subpart 319.34, ``Subpart--Bamboo'', would be 
revised to read ``Subpart--Bamboo Capable of Propagation''.
    4. In Sec. 319.34, paragraphs (a) and (c) would be removed; 
paragraphs (b) and (d) would be redesignated as paragraphs (a) and (b); 
and newly designated paragraph (a) would be revised to read as follows:


Sec. 319.34  Notice of quarantine.

    (a) In order to prevent the introduction into the United States of 
dangerous plant diseases, including bamboo smut (Ustilago shiraiana), 
the importation into the United States of any variety of bamboo seed, 
bamboo plants, or bamboo cuttings capable of propagation,\1\ including 
all genera and species of Bambuseae, is prohibited unless imported:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\Regulations concerning the importation into the United States 
of bamboo not capable of propagation are set forth in Sec. 319.40.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) For experimental or scientific purposes by the United States 
Department of Agriculture;
    (2) For export, or for transportation and exportation in bond, in 
accordance with Secs. 352.2 through 352.15 of this chapter; or,
    (3) Into Guam in accordance with Sec. 319.37-4(b).
* * * * *

Subpart--Nursery Stock, Plants, Roots, Bulbs, Seeds, and Other 
Plant Products\1\,\2\

    5. In Sec. 319.37-1, the definition of ``Prohibited article'' would 
be revised to read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\The Plant Protection and Quarantine Programs also enforces 
regulations promulgated under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 
(Public Law 93-205, as amended) which contain additional 
prohibitions and restrictions on importation into the United States 
of articles subject to this subpart (See 50 CFR Parts 17 and 23).
    \2\One or more common names of articles are given in parentheses 
after most scientific names (when common names are known) for the 
purpose of helping to identify the articles represented by such 
scientific names; however, unless otherwise specified, a reference 
to a scientific name includes all articles within the category 
represented by the scientific name regardless of whether the common 
name or names are as comprehensive in scope as the scientific name.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


Sec. 319.37-1  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Prohibited article. Any nursery stock, plant, root, bulb, seed, or 
other plant product designated in Sec. 319.37-2(a) or (b), except wood 
articles regulated under Sec. 319.40.
* * * * *
    6. ``Subpart--Logs from New Zealand,'' Secs. 319.40-1 through 
319.40-8, would be revised to read as follows:

Subpart--Logs, Lumber, and Other Unmanufactured Wood Articles

Sec.
319.40-1  Definitions.
319.40-2  General prohibitions and restrictions; relation to other 
regulations.
319.40-3  General permits; articles that may be imported without a 
specific permit; articles that may be imported without either a 
specific permit or an importer document.
319.40-4  Application for a permit to import regulated articles; 
issuance and withdrawal of permits.
319.40-6  Universal importation options.
319.40-7  Treatments and safeguards.
319.40-8  Processing at facilities operating under compliance 
agreements.
319.40-9  Inspection and other requirements at port of first 
arrival.
319.40-10  Costs and charges.
319.40-11  Plant pest risk assessment standards.

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 150dd, 150ee, 150ff, 151-167, 450, 2803, and 
2809; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR 2.17, 2.51, and 371.2(c).


Sec. 319.40-1  Definitions.

    Wherever in this subpart the following terms are used they shall be 
construed to mean:
    Administrator. The Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health 
Inspection Service, United States Department of Agriculture, or any 
employee of the United States Department of Agriculture to whom 
authority to act in his or her stead is delegated.
    APHIS. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, United 
States Department of Agriculture.
    Bark chips. Bark fragments broken or shredded from log or branch 
surfaces.
    Certificate. A certificate of inspection relating to a regulated 
article, which is issued by an official authorized by the national 
government of the country in which the regulated article was produced 
or grown, which contains a description of the regulated article, which 
certifies that the regulated article has been inspected, is believed to 
be free of plant pests, and is believed to be eligible for importation 
pursuant to the laws and regulations of the United States, and which 
may contain any specific additional declarations required under this 
subpart.
    Compliance agreement. A written agreement between APHIS and a 
person engaged in processing, handling, or moving regulated articles, 
in which the person agrees to comply with requirements contained in the 
agreement.
    Departmental permit. A document issued by the Administrator 
authorizing the importation of a regulated article for experimental, 
scientific, or educational purposes.
    Free from rot. No more than two percent by weight of the regulated 
articles in a lot show visual evidence of fructification of fungi or 
growth of other microorganisms that cause decay and the breakdown of 
cell walls in the regulated articles.
    General permit. A written authorization contained in Sec. 319.40-3 
for any person to import the articles named by the general permit, in 
accordance with the requirements specified by the general permit, 
without being issued a specific permit.
    Humus, compost, and litter. Partially or wholly decayed plant 
matter.
    Import (imported, importation). To bring or move into the 
territorial limits of the United States.
    Importer document. A written declaration signed by the importer of 
regulated articles, which must accompany the regulated articles at the 
time of importation, in which the importer accurately declares 
information about the regulated articles required to be disclosed by 
Sec. 319.40-2(b).
    Inspector. Any individual authorized by the Administrator to 
enforce this subpart.
    Log. The bole of a tree; trimmed timber that has not been further 
sawn.
    Loose wood packing material. Excelsior (wood wool), sawdust, and 
wood shavings, produced as a result of sawing or shaving wood into 
small, slender, and curved pieces.
    Lot. All the regulated articles on a single means of conveyance 
that are derived from the same species of tree and were subjected to 
the same treatments prior to importation, and that are consigned to the 
same person.
    Lumber. Logs that have been sawn into boards, planks, or structural 
members such as beams.
    Permit. A specific permit to import a regulated article issued in 
accordance with Sec. 319.40-4, or a general permit promulgated in 
Sec. 319.40-3.
    Plant pest. Any living stage of any insects, mites, nematodes, 
slugs, snails, protozoa, or other invertebrate animals, bacteria, 
fungi, other parasitic plants or reproductive parts of parasitic 
plants, noxious weeds, viruses, or any organism similar to or allied 
with any of the foregoing, or any infectious substances, which can 
injure or cause disease or damage in any plants, parts of plants, or 
any products of plants.
    Port of first arrival. The area (such as a seaport, airport, or 
land border station) where a person or a means of conveyance first 
arrives in the United States, and where inspection of regulated 
articles is carried out by inspectors.
    Primary processing. Any of the following processes: cleaning 
(removal of soil, limbs, and foliage), debarking, rough sawing (bucking 
or squaring), rough shaping, spraying with fungicide or insecticide 
sprays, and fumigation.
    Regulated article. The following articles, if they are unprocessed 
or have received only primary processing: logs; lumber; any whole tree; 
any cut tree or any portion of a tree, not solely consisting of leaves, 
flowers, fruits, buds, or seeds; bark; cork; laths; hog fuel; sawdust; 
painted raw wood products; excelsior (wood wool); wood chips; wood 
mulch; wood shavings; pickets; stakes; shingles; solid wood packing 
materials; humus; compost; and litter.
    Sealed container; sealable container. A completely enclosed 
container designed for the storage or transportation of cargo, and 
constructed of metal or fiberglass, or other rigid material, providing 
an enclosure which prevents the entrance or exit of plant pests and is 
accessed through doors that can be closed and secured with a lock or 
seal. Sealed (sealable) containers are distinct and separable from the 
means of conveyance carrying them.
    Solid wood packing material. Wood packing materials other than 
loose wood packing materials, used or for use with cargo to prevent 
damage, including, but not limited to, dunnage, crating, pallets, 
packing blocks, drums, cases, and skids.
    Specific permit. A written document issued by APHIS to the 
applicant in accordance with Sec. 319.40-4 that authorizes importation 
of articles in accordance with this subpart and specifies or refers to 
the regulations applicable to the particular importation.
    Treatment Manual. The Plant Protection and Quarantine Treatment 
Manual, which is incorporated by reference at Sec. 300.1 of this 
chapter in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    Tropical hardwoods. Hardwood timber species which grow only in 
tropical climates.
    United States. All of the States of the United States, the District 
of Columbia, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, the 
Virgin Islands of the United States, and all other territories and 
possessions of the United States.
    Wood chips. Wood fragments broken or shredded from any wood.
    Wood mulch. Bark chips, wood chips, wood shavings, or sawdust 
intended for use as a protective or decorative ground cover.


Sec. 319.40-2  General prohibitions and restrictions; relation to other 
regulations.

    (a) Permit required. Except for regulated articles exempted from 
this requirement by paragraph (c) of this section or Sec. 319.40-3, no 
regulated article may be imported unless a specific permit has been 
issued for importation of the regulated article in accordance with 
Sec. 319.40-4, and unless the regulated article meets all other 
applicable requirements of this subpart and any requirements specified 
by APHIS in the specific permit.
    (b) Importer document; documentation of type, quantity, and origin 
of regulated articles. Except for regulated articles exempted from this 
requirement by paragraph (c) of this section or Sec. 319.40-3, no 
regulated article may be imported unless it is accompanied by an 
importer document stating the following information. A certificate that 
contains this information may be used in lieu of an importer document 
at the option of the importer:
    (1) The genus and species of the tree from which the regulated 
article was derived;
    (2) The country, and locality if known, where the tree from which 
the regulated article was derived was harvested;
    (3) The quantity of the regulated article to be imported;
    (4) The use for which the regulated article is imported; and
    (5) Any treatments or handling of the regulated article required by 
this subpart that were performed prior to arrival at the port of first 
arrival.
    (c) Regulation of articles imported for propagation or human 
consumption. The requirements of this subpart do not apply to regulated 
articles that are allowed importation in accordance with Sec. 319.19, 
``Subpart--Citrus Canker and Other Citrus Diseases,'' Sec. 319.34, 
``Subpart--Bamboo Capable of Propagation,'' or Sec. 319.37, ``Subpart--
Nursery Stock, Plants, Roots, Bulbs, Seeds, and Other Plant Products,'' 
or to regulated articles imported for human consumption that are 
allowed importation in accordance with Sec. 319.56, ``Subpart--Fruits 
and Vegetables.''
    (d) Regulated articles imported for experimental, scientific or 
educational purposes. Any regulated article may be imported without 
further restriction under this subpart if:
    (1) Imported by the United States Department of Agriculture for 
experimental, scientific, or educational purposes;
    (2) Imported pursuant to a Departmental permit issued for the 
regulated article prior to its importation and kept on file at the port 
of first arrival; and
    (3) Imported under conditions specified on the Departmental permit 
and found by the Administrator to be adequate to prevent the 
introduction into the United States of plant pests.
    (e) Designation of additional regulated articles. An inspector may 
designate any article as a regulated article by giving written notice 
of the designation to the owner or person in possession or control of 
the article. APHIS will implement rulemaking to add articles designated 
as regulated articles to the definition of regulated article in 
Sec. 319.40-1 if importation of the article appears to present a 
recurring significant risk of introducing plant pests. Inspectors may 
designate an article as a regulated article after determining that:
    (1) The article was imported in the same container or hold as a 
regulated article;
    (2) Other articles of the same type imported from the same country 
have been found to carry plant pests; or
    (3) The article appears to be contaminated with regulated articles 
or soil.


Sec. 319.40-3  General permits; articles that may be imported without a 
specific permit; articles that may be imported without either a 
specific permit or an importer document.

    (a) Canada and Mexico. APHIS hereby issues a general permit to 
import articles authorized by this paragraph. Regulated articles from 
Canada and from states in Mexico adjacent to the United States border, 
other than regulated articles of the subfamilies Aurantioideae, 
Rutoideae, and Toddalioideae of the botanical family Rutaceae, may be 
imported without restriction under this subpart, except that they must 
be accompanied by an importer document stating that the regulated 
articles are derived from trees harvested in, and have never been moved 
outside, Canada or states in Mexico adjacent to the United States 
border, and except that they are subject to the inspection and other 
requirements in Sec. 319.40-9.
    (b) Solid wood packing materials.
    (1) Free of bark; used with non-regulated articles. APHIS hereby 
issues a general permit to import regulated articles authorized by this 
paragraph. Solid wood packing materials that are completely free of 
bark and are in actual use at the time of importation as packing 
materials for articles which are not regulated articles may be imported 
without restriction under this subpart, except that:
    (i) The solid wood packing materials are subject to the inspection 
and other requirements in Sec. 319.40-9; and
    (ii) The solid wood packing materials must be accompanied at the 
time of importation by an importer document, stating that the solid 
wood packing materials are totally free from bark, and apparently free 
from live plant pests.
    (2) Free of bark; used with regulated articles. APHIS hereby issues 
a general permit to import regulated articles authorized by this 
paragraph. Solid wood packing materials that are completely free of 
bark and are in actual use at the time of importation as packing 
materials for regulated articles may be imported subject to the 
inspection and other requirements in Sec. 319.40-9 and without other 
restriction under this subpart, if accompanied by an importer document 
stating that the solid wood packing materials:
    (i) Are totally free from bark, and apparently free from live plant 
pests; and
    (ii) Have been heat treated, fumigated, or treated with 
preservatives in accordance with Sec. 319.40-7, or meet all the 
importation and entry conditions required for the regulated article the 
solid wood packing material is used to move.
    (3) Not free of bark; used with regulated or nonregulated articles. 
APHIS hereby issues a general permit to import regulated articles 
authorized by this paragraph. Solid wood packing materials that are not 
completely free of bark and are in actual use as packing at the time of 
importation may be imported subject to the inspection and other 
requirements in Sec. 319.40-9, and without other restriction under this 
subpart, if accompanied by an importer document stating that the solid 
wood packing materials have been heat treated, fumigated, or treated 
with preservatives in accordance with Sec. 319.40-7.
    (c) Loose wood packing materials. APHIS hereby issues a general 
permit to import regulated articles authorized by this paragraph. Loose 
wood packing materials (whether in use as packing or imported as cargo) 
that are dry may be imported subject to the inspection and other 
requirements in Sec. 319.40-9 and without restriction under this 
subpart.
    (d) Bamboo timber. APHIS hereby issues a general permit to import 
regulated articles authorized by this paragraph. Bamboo timber which is 
free of leaves and seeds and has been sawn or split lengthwise and 
dried may be imported subject to the inspection and other requirements 
in Sec. 319.40-9 and without further restriction under this subpart.
    (e) Regulated articles the permit process has determined to present 
no pest risk. Regulated articles for which a specific permit has been 
issued in accordance with Sec. 319.40-4(b)(2)(i) may be imported 
without other restriction under this subpart, except that they are 
subject to the inspection and other requirements in Sec. 319.40-9.


Sec. 319.40-4  Application for a permit to import regulated articles; 
issuance and withdrawal of permits.

    (a) Application procedure. A written application for a permit1 
must be submitted to the Permit Unit, Plant Protection and Quarantine, 
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S. Department of 
Agriculture, Federal Building, 6505 Belcrest Road, Hyattsville, MD 
20782. The completed application must include the following 
information:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\Application forms for permits are available without charge 
from the Permit Unit, Plant Protection and Quarantine, Animal and 
Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 
Federal Building, 6505 Belcrest Road, Hyattsville, MD 20782, or 
local offices of Plant Protection and Quarantine which are listed in 
telephone directories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) The specific type of regulated article to be imported, 
including the genus and species name of the tree from which the 
regulated article was derived;
    (2) Country, and locality if known, where the tree from which the 
regulated article was derived was harvested;
    (3) The quantity of the regulated article to be imported;
    (4) A description of any processing, treatment or handling of the 
regulated article to be performed prior to importation, including the 
location where any processing or treatment was or will be performed and 
the names of any chemicals employed in treatments;
    (5) A description of any processing, treatment, or handling of the 
regulated article intended to be performed following importation, 
including the location where any processing or treatment will be 
performed and the names of any chemicals employed in treatments;
    (6) Whether the regulated article will or will not be imported in a 
sealed container or in a hold;
    (7) The means of conveyance to be used to import the regulated 
article;
    (8) The intended port of first arrival in the United States of the 
regulated article, and any subsequent ports in the United States at 
which regulated articles may be unloaded;
    (9) The destination and general intended use of the regulated 
article;
    (10) The name and address of the applicant and, if the applicant's 
address is not within the United States, the name and address of an 
agent in the United States whom the applicant names for acceptance of 
service of process; and
    (11) A statement certifying the applicant as the importer of 
record.
    (b) Review of application and issuance of permit. After receipt and 
review of the application, APHIS shall determine whether it appears 
that the regulated article at the time of importation will meet either 
the specific importation requirements in Sec. 319.40-5 or the universal 
importation requirements in Sec. 319.40-6.
    (1) If it appears that the regulated article proposed for 
importation will meet the requirements of either Sec. 319.40-5 or 
Sec. 319.40-6, a permit stating the applicable conditions for 
importation under this subpart shall be issued for the importation of 
the regulated article identified in the application.
    (2) If it appears that the regulated article proposed for 
importation will not meet the requirements of either Sec. 319.40-5 or 
Sec. 319.40-6 because these sections do not address the particular 
regulated article identified in the application, APHIS shall review the 
application by applying the plant pest risk assessment standards 
specified in Sec. 319.40-11.
    (i) If this review reveals that importation of the regulated 
article under a permit and subject to the inspection and other 
requirements in Sec. 319.40-9, but without any further conditions, will 
not result in the introduction of plant pests into the United States, a 
permit for importation of the regulated article shall be issued. The 
permit may only be issued in unique and unforeseen circumstances when 
the importation of the regulated article is not expected to reoccur.
    (ii) If this review reveals that the regulated article may be 
imported under conditions that would reduce the plant pest risk to an 
insignificant level, APHIS may implement rulemaking to add the 
additional conditions to this subpart, and after the regulations are 
effective, may issue a permit for importation of the regulated article.
    (3) No permit will be issued to an applicant who has had a permit 
withdrawn under paragraph (d) of this section during the 12 months 
prior to receipt of the permit application by APHIS, unless the 
withdrawn permit has been reinstated upon appeal.
    (c) Permit does not guarantee eligibility for import. Even if a 
permit has been issued for the importation of a regulated article, the 
regulated article may be imported only if all applicable requirements 
of this subpart are met and only if an inspector at the port of first 
arrival determines that no emergency measures pursuant to the Federal 
Plant Pest Act or other measures pursuant to the Plant Quarantine Act 
are necessary with respect to the regulated article.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\Section 105(a) of the Federal Plant Pest Act (7 U.S.C. 
150dd(a)) provides, among other things, that the Secretary of 
Agriculture may, whenever he deems it necessary as an emergency 
measure in order to prevent the dissemination of any plant pest new 
to or not theretofore known to be widely prevalent or distributed 
within and throughout the United States, seize, quarantine, treat, 
apply other remedial measures to, destroy, or dispose of, in such 
manner as he deems appropriate, subject to section 105(d) of the 
Federal Plant Pest Act (7 U.S.C. 150dd(d)), any product or article, 
including any article subject to this subpart, which is moving into 
or through the United States, and which he has reason to believe is 
infested with any such plant pest at the time of the movement, or 
which has moved into the United States, and which he has reason to 
believe was infested with any such plant pest at the time of the 
movement. Section 10 of the Plant Quarantine Act (7 U.S.C. 164a) and 
section 107 of the Federal Plant Pest Act (7 U.S.C. 150ff) also 
authorize measures against regulated articles which are not in 
compliance with this subpart.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (d) Denial and withdrawal of permits. Any permit which has been 
issued may be withdrawn by an inspector or the Administrator if he or 
she determines that the person to whom the permit was issued has 
violated any requirement of this subpart. If the withdrawal is oral, 
the decision to withdraw the permit and the reasons for the withdrawal 
of the permit shall be confirmed in writing as promptly as 
circumstances permit. Any person whose permit has been denied or 
withdrawn may appeal the decision in writing to the Administrator 
within 10 days after receiving the written notification of the 
withdrawal. The appeal shall state all of the facts and reasons upon 
which the person relies to show that the permit was wrongfully denied 
or withdrawn. The Administrator shall grant or deny the appeal, in 
writing, stating the reasons for granting or denying the appeal as 
promptly as circumstances permit. If there is a conflict as to any 
material fact and the person from whom the permit is withdrawn requests 
a hearing, a hearing shall be held to resolve the conflict. Rules of 
practice concerning the hearing shall be adopted by the Administrator.


Sec. 319.40-5  Importation and entry requirements for specified 
articles.

    (a) Bamboo timber. Bamboo timber consisting of whole culms or canes 
may be imported into Guam or the Northern Mariana Islands subject to 
inspection and other requirements of Sec. 319.40-9. Bamboo timber 
consisting of whole culms or canes that are completely dry as evidenced 
by lack of moisture in node tissue may be imported into any part of the 
United States subject to inspection and other requirements of 
Sec. 319.40-9.
    (b) Monterey pine logs and lumber from Chile and New Zealand; 
Douglas-fir logs and lumber from New Zealand.
    (1) Logs. (i) Requirements prior to importation. Monterey or 
Radiata pine (Pinus radiata) logs from Chile or New Zealand and 
Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) logs from New Zealand that are 
accompanied by a certificate stating that the logs meet the 
requirements of paragraph (b)(1)(i)(A) through (D) of this section, and 
that are consigned to a facility in the United States that operates in 
accordance with Sec. 319.40-8, may be imported in accordance with 
paragraphs (b)(1)(i)(A) through (b)(1)(iii) of this section.
    (A) The logs must be from live healthy trees which are apparently 
free of plant pests, plant pest damage, and decay organisms.
    (B) The logs must be debarked in accordance with Sec. 319.40-7(b) 
prior to fumigation.
    (C) The logs and any solid wood packing materials to be used with 
the logs during shipment to the United States must be fumigated in 
accordance with Sec. 319.40-7(f)(1), within 45 days following the date 
the trees are felled and prior to arrival of the logs in the United 
States, in the holds or in sealable containers. Fumigation must be 
conducted in the same sealable container or hold in which the logs and 
solid wood packing materials are exported to the United States.
    (D) During shipment to the United States, no other regulated 
article is permitted on the means of conveyance with the logs, unless 
the logs and the other regulated articles are in separate holds or 
separate sealed containers, or, if the logs and other regulated 
articles are mixed in a hold or sealed container, the other regulated 
articles either have been heat treated with moisture reduction in 
accordance with Sec. 319.40-7(d), or have been fumigated in the hold or 
sealable container in accordance with paragraph (b)(1)(i)(C) of this 
section.
    (ii) Requirements upon arrival in the United States. The following 
requirements apply upon arrival of the logs in the United States.
    (A) The logs must be kept segregated from other regulated articles 
from the time of discharge from the means of conveyance until the logs 
are completely processed at a facility in the United States that 
operates under a compliance agreement in accordance with Sec. 319.40-8.
    (B) The logs must be moved from the port of first arrival to the 
facility that operates under a compliance agreement in accordance with 
Sec. 319.40-8 in as direct a route as reasonably possible.
    (iii) Requirements at the processing facility. The logs must be 
consigned to a facility operating under a compliance agreement in 
accordance with Sec. 319.40-8 that includes the following requirements:
    (A) Logs or any products generated from logs, including lumber, 
must be heat treated in accordance with Sec. 319.40-7(c), or heat 
treated with moisture reduction in accordance with Sec. 319.40-7(d).
    (B) The logs, including sawdust, wood chips, or other products 
generated from the logs in the United States, must be processed in 
accordance with paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section within 60 days 
from the time the logs are released from the port of first arrival.
    (C) Sawdust, wood chips, and waste generated by sawing or 
processing the logs must be disposed of by burning, heat treatment in 
accordance with Sec. 319.40-7(c) or Sec. 319.40-7(d), or other 
processing that will destroy any plant pests associated with the 
sawdust, wood chips, and waste. Composting and use of the sawdust, wood 
chips, and waste as mulch are prohibited unless composting and use as 
mulch are preceded by fumigation in accordance with Sec. 319.40-7(f)(3) 
or heat treatment in accordance with Sec. 319.40-7(c) or Sec. 319.40-
7(d). Wood chips, sawdust, and waste may be moved in enclosed trucks 
for processing at another facility operating under a compliance 
agreement in accordance with Sec. 319.40-8.
    (2) Raw lumber. Raw lumber, including solid wood packing materials 
imported as cargo, from Chile or New Zealand derived from Monterey or 
Radiata pine (Pinus radiata) logs and raw lumber from New Zealand 
derived from Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) logs may be imported 
in accordance with paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section.
    (i) During shipment to the United States, no other regulated 
article (other than solid wood packing materials) is permitted on the 
means of conveyance with the raw lumber, unless the raw lumber and the 
other regulated articles are in separate holds or separate sealed 
containers; Except for mixed shipments of logs and raw lumber fumigated 
in accordance with Sec. 319.40-7(f)(2) and moved in accordance with 
paragraph (b)(1)(i)(D) of this section. Raw lumber on the vessel's deck 
must be in a sealed container.
    (ii) The raw lumber must be consigned to a facility operating under 
a compliance agreement in accordance with Sec. 319.40-8 that requires 
the raw lumber to be heat treated in accordance with Sec. 319.40-7(c) 
or heat treated with moisture reduction in accordance with Sec. 319.40-
7(d) before any cutting, planing, or sawing of the raw lumber, and 
within 30 days from the time the lumber is released from the port of 
first arrival.
    (c) Tropical hardwoods. (1) Debarked. Tropical hardwood logs and 
lumber that have been debarked in accordance with Sec. 319.40-7(b) may 
be imported subject to the inspection and other requirements of 
Sec. 319.40-9.
    (2) Not debarked. Tropical hardwood logs that have not been 
debarked may be imported if fumigated in accordance with Sec. 319.40-
7(f)(1) prior to arrival in the United States.
    (3) Not debarked; small lots. Tropical hardwood logs that have not 
been debarked may be imported into the United States, other than into 
Hawaii, Puerto Rico, or the Virgin Islands of the United States, if 
imported in a lot of 15 or fewer logs and subject to the inspection and 
other requirements of Sec. 319.40-9.
    (d) Temperate hardwoods. Temperate hardwood logs and lumber (with 
or without bark) from all places except countries in Asia that are 
wholly or in part east of 60 deg. East Longitude and north of the 
Tropic of Cancer may be imported if fumigated in accordance with 
Sec. 319.40-7(f) prior to arrival in the United States and subject to 
the inspection and other requirements of Sec. 319.40-9.
    (e) Regulated articles associated with exclusively tropical climate 
pests. Regulated articles that have been identified by a plant pest 
risk assessment as associated solely with plant pests that can 
successfully become established only in tropical or subtropical 
climates may be imported if:
    (1) The regulated article is imported only to a destination in the 
continental United States; and,
    (2) the regulated article is not imported into any tropical or 
subtropical areas of the United States specified in the permit.


Sec. 319.40-6  Universal importation options.

    (a) Logs. Logs may be imported if prior to importation the logs 
have been debarked in accordance with Sec. 319.40-7(b) and heat treated 
in accordance with Sec. 319.40-7(c). During the entire interval between 
treatment and export the logs must be stored and handled in a manner 
which excludes any access to the logs by plant pests.
    (b) Lumber--(1) Heat treated or heat treated with moisture 
reduction lumber. Lumber that prior to importation has been heat 
treated in accordance with Sec. 319.40-7(c), or heat treated with 
moisture reduction in accordance with Sec. 319.40-7(d), may be imported 
in accordance with paragraphs (b)(1) (i) and (ii) of this section.
    (i) During shipment to the United States, no other regulated 
article (other than solid wood packing materials) is permitted on the 
means of conveyance with the lumber, unless the lumber and the other 
regulated articles are in separate holds or separate sealed containers, 
or, if the lumber and other regulated articles are mixed in a hold or 
sealed container, all the regulated articles have been heat treated in 
accordance with Sec. 319.40-7(c), or heat treated with moisture 
reduction in accordance with Sec. 319.40-7(d). Lumber on the vessel's 
deck must be in a sealed container, unless it has been heat treated 
with moisture reduction in accordance with Sec. 319.40-7(d).
    (ii) If lumber has been heat treated in accordance with 
Sec. 319.40-7(c), that fact must be stated on the importer document, or 
by a permanent marking on each piece of lumber in the form of the 
letters ``HT'' or the words ``Heat Treated.'' If lumber has been heat 
treated with moisture reduction in accordance with Sec. 319.40-7(d), 
that fact must be stated on the importer document, or by a permanent 
marking, on each piece of lumber or on the cover of bundles of lumber, 
in the form of the letters ``KD'' or the words ``Kiln Dried.''
    (2) Raw lumber. Raw lumber, including solid wood packing materials 
imported as cargo, from all places except countries in Asia that are 
wholly or in part east of 60 deg. East Longitude and north of the 
Tropic of Cancer may be imported in accordance with paragraphs (b)(2) 
(i) and (ii) of this section.
    (i) During shipment to the United States, no other regulated 
article (other than solid wood packing materials) is permitted on the 
means of conveyance with the raw lumber, unless the raw lumber and the 
other regulated articles are in separate holds or separate sealed 
containers. Raw lumber on the vessel's deck must be in a sealed 
container.
    (ii) The raw lumber must be consigned to a facility operating under 
a compliance agreement in accordance with Sec. 319.40-8 that requires 
the raw lumber to be heat treated in accordance with Sec. 319.40-7(c) 
or Sec. 319.40-7(d), within 30 days from the time the lumber is 
released from the port of first arrival. If the raw lumber is to be 
cut, planed, or sawed, the heat treatment must be completed before any 
cutting, planing, or sawing of the raw lumber.
    (c) Wood chips and bark chips. Wood chips and bark chips from any 
place except countries in Asia that are wholly or in part east of 
60 deg. East Longitude and north of the Tropic of Cancer may be 
imported in accordance with this paragraph.
    (1) The wood chips or bark chips must be accompanied by an importer 
document that states that the wood chips or bark chips were either:
    (i) Derived from live, healthy, plantation-grown trees in tropical 
areas; or
    (ii) Fumigated with methyl bromide in accordance with Sec. 319.40-
7(f)(3) or heat treated in accordance with Sec. 319.40-7(c) or 
Sec. 319.40-7(d).
    (2) During shipment to the United States, no other regulated 
articles (other than solid wood packing materials) are permitted in the 
holds or sealed containers carrying the wood chips or bark chips. Wood 
chips or bark chips on the vessel's deck must be in a sealed container.
    (3) The wood chips or bark chips must be free from rot at the time 
of importation, unless accompanied by an importer document stating that 
the entire lot was fumigated with methyl bromide in accordance with 
Sec. 319.40-7(f)(3) or heat treated in accordance with Sec. 319.40-7(c) 
or Sec. 319.40-7(d).
    (4) Wood chips or bark chips imported in accordance with this 
paragraph must be consigned to a facility operating under a compliance 
agreement in accordance with Sec. 319.40-8. The wood chips or bark 
chips must be burned, heat treated in accordance with Sec. 319.40-7(c) 
or Sec. 319.40-7(d), or otherwise processed in a manner that will 
destroy any plant pests associated with the wood chips or bark chips, 
within 30 days of arrival at the facility. If the wood chips or bark 
chips are to be used for mulching or composting, they must first be 
fumigated in accordance with Sec. 319.40-7(f)(3) or heat treated in 
accordance with Sec. 319.40-7(c) or Sec. 319.40-7(d).
    (d) Wood mulch, humus, compost, and litter. Wood mulch, humus, 
compost, and litter may be imported if accompanied by an importer 
document stating that the wood mulch, humus, compost, or litter was 
fumigated in accordance with Sec. 319.40-7(f)(3) or heat treated in 
accordance with Sec. 319.40-7(c) or Sec. 319.40-7(d).
    (e) Cork and bark. Cork and cork bark, cinnamon bark, and other 
bark to be used for food, manufacture of medicine, or chemical 
extraction may be imported if free from rot at the time of importation 
and subject to the inspection and other requirements of Sec. 319.40-9.


Sec. 319.40-7  Treatments and safeguards.

    (a) Certification of treatments or safeguards. If APHIS determines 
that a document required for the importation of regulated articles is 
inaccurate, the regulated articles which are the subject of the 
certificate or other document shall be refused entry into the United 
States. In addition, APHIS may determine not to accept any further 
certificates for the importation of regulated articles in accordance 
with this subpart from a country in which an inaccurate certificate is 
issued, and APHIS may determine not to allow the importation of any or 
all regulated articles from any such country, until corrective action 
acceptable to APHIS establishes that certificates issued in that 
country will be accurate.
    (b) Debarking. Except for raw lumber, no more than 2 percent of the 
surface of all regulated articles in a lot may retain bark, with no 
single regulated article retaining bark on more than 5 percent of its 
surface. For raw lumber, debarking must remove 100 percent of the bark.
    (c) Heat treatment. Heat treatment must be performed only at a 
facility where APHIS or an inspector authorized by the national 
government of the country in which the facility is located has 
inspected the facility and determined that its operation complies with 
the standards of this paragraph. Heat treatment procedures may employ 
steam, hot water, kilns, exposure to microwave energy, or any other 
method (e.g., the hot water and steam techniques used in veneer 
production) that raises the temperature of the center of each treated 
regulated article to at least 56  deg.C and maintains the regulated 
article at that center temperature for at least 30 minutes. For 
regulated articles heat treated prior to arrival in the United States, 
during the entire interval between treatment and export the regulated 
article must be stored, handled, or safeguarded in a manner which 
excludes any reinfestation of the regulated article by plant pests.
    (d) Heat treatment with moisture reduction. Heat treatment with 
moisture reduction may employ dry heat, exposure to microwave energy, 
or any other method that raises the temperature of the center of each 
treated regulated article to at least 56  deg.C, maintains the 
regulated articles at that center temperature for at least 30 minutes, 
and reduces the moisture content of the regulated article to 20 percent 
or less as measured by an electrical conductivity meter. For regulated 
articles heat treated with moisture reduction prior to arrival in the 
United States, during the entire interval between treatment and export 
the regulated article must be stored, handled, or safeguarded in a 
manner which excludes any reinfestation of the regulated article by 
plant pests.
    (e) Surface pesticide treatments. All United States Environmental 
Protection Agency registered surface pesticide treatments are 
authorized for regulated articles imported in accordance with this 
subpart. Surface pesticide treatments must be conducted in accordance 
with label directions approved by the United States Environmental 
Protection Agency. When used on heat treated logs, a surface pesticide 
treatment must be first applied within 48 hours following heat 
treatment. The surface pesticide treatment must be repeated at least 
every 30 days during storage of the regulated article, with the final 
treatment occurring no more than 30 days prior to departure of the 
means of conveyance that carries the regulated articles to the United 
States.
    (f) Methyl bromide fumigation. The following minimum standards for 
methyl bromide fumigation treatment are authorized for the regulated 
articles listed in paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(3) of this section. 
Any method of fumigation that meets or exceeds the specified 
temperature/time/concentration products is acceptable.
    (1) Logs--(i) T-312 Alternative. The entire log and the ambient air 
must be at a temperature of 5  deg.C or above throughout fumigation. 
The fumigation must be conducted using schedule T-312 contained in the 
Treatment Manual. In lieu of the schedule T-312 methyl bromide 
concentration, fumigation may be conducted with an initial methyl 
bromide concentration of at least 240 g/m3 with exposure and 
concentration levels adequate to provide a concentration-time product 
of at least 17,280 gram-hours calculated on the initial methyl bromide 
concentration.
    (ii) T-404 Alternative. The entire log and the ambient air must be 
at a temperature of 5  deg.C or above throughout fumigation. The 
fumigation must be conducted using schedule T-404 contained in the 
Treatment Manual. In lieu of the schedule T-404 methyl bromide 
concentration, fumigation may be conducted with an initial methyl 
bromide concentration of at least 120 g/m3 with exposure and 
concentration levels adequate to provide a concentration-time product 
of at least 1920 gram-hours calculated on the initial methyl bromide 
concentration.
    (2) Lumber. The lumber and the ambient air must be at a temperature 
of 5  deg.C or above throughout fumigation. The fumigation must be 
conducted using schedule T-404 contained in the Treatment Manual. In 
lieu of the schedule T-404 methyl bromide concentration, fumigation may 
be conducted with an initial methyl bromide concentration of at least 
120 g/m3 with exposure and concentration levels adequate to 
provide a concentration-time product of at least 1920 gram-hours 
calculated on the initial methyl bromide concentration.
    (3) Regulated articles other than logs or lumber. (i) If the 
ambient air and the regulated articles other than logs or lumber are at 
a temperature of 21  deg.C or above throughout fumigation, the 
fumigation must be conducted using schedule T-404 contained in the 
Treatment Manual. In lieu of the schedule T-404 methyl bromide 
concentration, fumigation may be conducted with an initial methyl 
bromide concentration of at least 48 g/m3 with exposure and 
concentration levels adequate to provide a concentration-time product 
of at least 760 gram-hours calculated on the initial methyl bromide 
concentration.
    (ii) If the ambient air and the regulated articles other than logs 
or lumber are at a temperature of 4.5-20.5  deg.C throughout 
fumigation, the fumigation must be conducted using schedule T-404 
contained in the Treatment Manual. In lieu of the schedule T-404 methyl 
bromide concentration, fumigation may be conducted with an initial 
methyl bromide concentration of at least 120 g/m3 with exposure 
and concentration levels adequate to provide a concentration-time 
product of at least 1920 gram-hours calculated on the initial methyl 
bromide concentration.
    (g) Preservatives. All preservative treatments that use a 
preservative product that is registered by the United States 
Environmental Protection Agency are authorized for treatment of 
regulated articles imported in accordance with this subpart. 
Preservative treatments must be performed in accordance with label 
directions approved by the United States Environmental Protection 
Agency.


Sec. 319.40-8  Processing at facilities operating under compliance 
agreements.

    (a) Any person who operates a facility in which imported regulated 
articles are processed may enter into a compliance agreement to 
facilitate the importation of regulated articles under this subpart. 
The compliance agreement shall specify the requirements necessary to 
prevent spread of plant pests from the facility, requirements to ensure 
the processing method effectively destroys plant pests, and the 
requirements for the application of chemical materials in accordance 
with the Treatment Manual. The compliance agreement shall also state 
that inspectors must be allowed access to the facility to monitor 
compliance with the requirements of the compliance agreement and of 
this subpart. Compliance agreement forms may be obtained from the 
Administrator or an inspector.
    (b) Any compliance agreement may be canceled by the inspector who 
is supervising its enforcement, orally or in writing, whenever the 
inspector finds that the person who entered into the compliance 
agreement has failed to comply with the conditions of the compliance 
agreement. If the cancellation is oral, the decision to cancel the 
compliance agreement and the reasons for cancellation of the compliance 
agreement shall be confirmed in writing, as promptly as circumstances 
permit. Any person whose compliance agreement has been canceled may 
appeal the decision in writing to the Administrator within 10 days 
after receiving written notification of the cancellation. The appeal 
shall state all of the facts and reasons upon which the person relies 
to show that the compliance agreement was wrongfully canceled. The 
Administrator shall grant or deny the appeal, in writing, stating the 
reasons for granting or denying the appeal, as promptly as 
circumstances permit. If there is a conflict as to any material fact 
and the person whose compliance agreement has been canceled requests a 
hearing, a hearing shall be held to resolve the conflict. Rules of 
practice concerning the hearing will be adopted by the Administrator.


Sec. 319.40-9  Inspection and other requirements at port of first 
arrival.

    (a) Procedures for all regulated articles. (1) All imported 
regulated articles shall be inspected at the port of first arrival. If 
the inspector finds signs of plant pests on or in the regulated 
article, or finds that the regulated article may have been associated 
with other articles infested with plant pests, the regulated article 
shall be cleaned or treated as required by an inspector, and the 
regulated article and any products of the regulated article shall also 
be subject to reinspection, cleaning, and treatment at the option of an 
inspector at any time and place before all applicable requirements of 
this subpart have been accomplished.
    (2) Regulated articles shall be assembled for inspection at the 
port of first arrival, or at any other place prescribed by an 
inspector, at a place and time and in a manner designated by an 
inspector.
    (3) If an inspector finds that an imported regulated article is so 
infested with a plant pest that, in the judgment of the inspector, the 
regulated article cannot be cleaned or treated, or contains soil or 
other prohibited contaminants, the entire lot may be refused entry into 
the United States.
    (4) No person shall move any imported regulated article from the 
port of first arrival unless and until an inspector notifies the 
person, in writing or through an electronic database, that the 
regulated article:
    (i) Is in compliance with all applicable regulations and has been 
inspected and found to be apparently free of plant pests;\3\ or,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\Certain regulated articles may also be subject to 
Sec. 319.56, or to Noxious Weed Act regulations under part 360 of 
this chapter, or to Endangered Species Act regulations under parts 
355 and 356 of this chapter and 50 CFR parts 17 and 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (ii) Has been inspected and the inspector requires reinspection, 
cleaning, or treatment of the regulated article at a place other than 
the port of first arrival.
    (b) Notice of arrival; visual examination of regulated articles at 
port of first arrival.
    (1) At least 7 days prior to the expected date of arrival in the 
United States of a shipment of regulated articles imported in 
accordance with this subpart, the permittee or his or her agent must 
notify the APHIS Officer in Charge at the port of arrival of the date 
of expected arrival. The address and telephone number of the APHIS 
Officer in Charge will be specified in any specific permit issued by 
APHIS.\4\ This notice may be in writing or by telephone. The notice 
must include the number of any specific permit issued for the regulated 
articles; the name, if any, of the means of conveyance carrying the 
regulated articles; the type and quantity of the regulated articles; 
the expected date of arrival; the country of origin of the regulated 
articles; the name and the number, if any, of the dock where the 
regulated articles are to be unloaded; and the name of the importer or 
broker at the port of arrival.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\A list of APHIS Officers in Charge may be obtained from the 
Administrator, APHIS, c/o PPQ, Port Operations, room 635, Federal 
Building, 6505 Belcrest Road, Hyattsville, MD 20782.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) Imported regulated articles which have been debarked in 
accordance with Sec. 319.40-7(b) and can be safely and practically 
inspected will be visually examined for plant pests by an inspector at 
the port of first arrival. If plant pests are found on or in the 
regulated articles or if the regulated article cannot be safely and 
practically inspected, the regulated articles must be treated in 
accordance with the Treatment Manual.
    (c) Marking and identity of regulated articles. Any regulated 
article, at the time of importation shall bear on the outer container 
(if in a container), on the regulated article (if not in a container), 
or on a document accompanying the regulated article the following 
information:
    (1) General nature and quantity of the regulated articles;
    (2) Country and locality, if known, where the tree from which the 
regulated article was derived was grown;
    (3) Name and address of the person importing the regulated article;
    (4) Name and address of consignee of the regulated article;
    (5) Identifying shipper's mark and number; and
    (6) Number of the permit (if one was issued) authorizing the 
importation of the regulated article into the United States.
    (d) Sampling for plant pests at port of first arrival. Any imported 
regulated article may be sampled for plant pests at the port of first 
arrival. If an inspector finds it necessary to order treatment of a 
regulated article at the port of first arrival, any sampling will be 
done prior to treatment.


Sec. 319.40-10  Costs and charges.

    The services of an inspector during regularly assigned hours of 
duty and at the usual places of duty shall be furnished without cost to 
the importer.\5\ The inspector may require the importer to furnish any 
labor, chemicals, packing materials, or other supplies required in 
handling regulated articles under this subpart. APHIS will not be 
responsible for any costs or charges, other than those identified in 
this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\Provisions relating to costs for other services of an 
inspector are contained in part 354 of this chapter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


Sec. 319.40-11  Plant pest risk assessment standards.

    When evaluating a request to import a regulated article not allowed 
importation under this subpart, or a request to import a regulated 
article under conditions other than those prescribed by this subpart, 
APHIS will conduct the following analysis to determine the plant pest 
risks associated with each requested importation in order to determine 
whether or not to issue a permit under this subpart or to propose 
regulations establishing conditions for the importation into the United 
States of the regulated article.
    (a) Collecting commodity information.
    (1) APHIS will evaluate the application for information describing 
the regulated article and the origin, processing, treatment, and 
handling of the regulated article; and
    (2) APHIS will evaluate history of past plant pest interceptions or 
introductions (including data from foreign countries) associated with 
the regulated article.
    (b) Cataloging quarantine pests. For the regulated article 
specified in an application, APHIS will determine what plant pests or 
potential plant pests are associated with the type of tree from which 
the regulated article was derived, in the country and locality from 
which the regulated article is to be exported. A plant pest that meets 
one of the following criteria is a quarantine pest and will be further 
evaluated in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section:
    (1) Non-indigenous plant pest not present in the United States;
    (2) Non-indigenous plant pest, present in the United States and 
capable of further dissemination in the United States;
    (3) Non-indigenous plant pest that is present in the United States 
and has reached probable limits of its ecological range, but differs 
genetically from the plant pest in the United States in a way that 
demonstrates a potential for greater damage potential in the United 
States;
    (4) Native species of the United States that has reached probable 
limits of its ecological range, but differs genetically from the plant 
pest in the United States in a way that demonstrates a potential for 
greater damage potential in the United States; or
    (5) Non-indigenous or native plant pest that may be able to vector 
another plant pest that meets one of the criteria in paragraphs (b) (1) 
through (4) of this section.
    (c) Determining which quarantine pests to assess.
    (1) APHIS will divide quarantine pests identified in paragraph (b) 
of this section into groups depending upon where the plant pest is most 
likely to be found. The plant pests would be grouped as follows:
    (i) Plant pests found on the bark;
    (ii) Plant pests found under the bark; and
    (iii) Plant pests found in the wood.
    (2) APHIS will subdivide each of the groups in paragraph (c)(1) of 
this section into associated taxa.
    (3) APHIS will rank the plant pests in each group in paragraph 
(c)(2) of this section according to plant pest risk, based on the 
available biological information and demonstrated plant pest 
importance.
    (4) APHIS will identify any plant pests ranked in paragraph (c)(3) 
of this section for which plant pest risk assessments have previously 
been performed in accordance with this section. APHIS will conduct 
individual plant pest risk assessments for the remaining plant pests, 
starting with the highest ranked plant pest(s) in each group.
    (5) The number of plant pests in each group to be evaluated through 
individual plant pest risk assessment will be based on biological 
similarities of members of the group as they relate to measures taken 
in connection with the importation of the regulated article to mitigate 
the plant pest risk associated with the regulated article. For example, 
if the plant pest risk assessment for the highest ranked plant pest 
indicates a need for a mitigation measure that would result in the same 
reduction of risk for other plant pests ranked in the group, the other 
members need not be subjected to individual plant pest risk assessment.
    (d) Conducting individual plant pest risk assessments. APHIS will 
evaluate each of the plant pests identified in paragraph (c)(4) of this 
section by:
    (1) Estimation of the probability of the plant pest being on, with, 
or in the regulated article at the time of importation;
    (2) Estimation of the probability of the plant pest surviving in 
transit on the regulated article and entering the United States 
undetected;
    (3) Estimation of the probability of the plant pest colonizing once 
it has entered into the United States;
    (4) Estimation of the probability of the plant pest spreading 
beyond any colonized area; and
    (5) Estimation of the damage to plants that could be expected upon 
introduction and dissemination within the United States of the plant 
pest.
    (e) Estimating unmitigated overall plant pest risk. APHIS will 
develop an estimation of the overall plant pest risk associated with 
importing the regulated article based on compilation of individual 
plant pest risk assessments performed in accordance with paragraph (d) 
of this section.
    (f) Evaluating available requirements to determine whether they 
would allow safe importation of the regulated article. The requirements 
of this subpart, and any other requirements relevant to the regulated 
article and plant pests involved, will be compared with the individual 
plant pest risk assessments in order to determine whether particular 
conditions on the importation of the regulated article would reduce the 
plant pest risk to an insignificant level. If APHIS determines that the 
imposition of particular conditions on the importation of the regulated 
article could reduce the plant pest risk to an insignificant level, and 
determines that sufficient APHIS resources are available to implement 
or ensure implementation of the conditions, APHIS will implement 
rulemaking to allow importation of the requested regulated article 
under the conditions identified by the plant pest risk assessment 
process.

Subpart--Packing Materials


Sec. 319.69  [Amended]

    9. The introductory language to Sec. 319.69 would be removed.
    10. In Sec. 319.69, paragraph (a), the phrase ``On and after July 
1, 1933, the'' would be removed and the word ``The'' would be added in 
its place.
    11. In Sec. 319.69, paragraph (b), the phrase ``On and after June 
8, 1953, the'' would be removed and the word ``The'' would be added in 
its place.
    12. In Sec. 319.69, paragraph (b)(3) would be removed, and 
paragraphs (b)(4) and (b)(5) would be redesignated as paragraphs (b)(3) 
and (b)(4) respectively.
    13. In Sec. 319.69a, paragraph (a) would be amended by removing the 
phrase ``(b)(1), (3), and (4)'' and adding the phrase ``(b)(1) and 
(3)'' in its place.

    Done in Washington, DC, this 13th day of January 1994.
Patricia Jensen,
Acting Assistant Secretary, Marketing and Inspection Services.
[FR Doc. 94-1230 Filed 1-19-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P