[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 12 (Wednesday, January 20, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3049-3052]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-1226]


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

  Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 20, 1999 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 3049]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

7 CFR Part 319

[Docket No. 98-057-1]
RIN 0579-AA99


Importation of Unmanufactured Wood Articles; Solid Wood Packing 
Material

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: We are soliciting public comment on how to amend the 
regulations on the importation of logs, lumber, and other 
unmanufactured wood articles to decrease the risk of solid wood packing 
material (e.g., crates, dunnage, wooden spools, pallets, packing 
blocks) introducing exotic plant pests into the United States. 
Introductions of exotic plant pests such as the pine shoot beetle and 
the Asian longhorned beetle have been linked to the importation of 
solid wood packing material. These and other plant pests that could be 
carried by imported solid wood packing material pose a serious threat 
to U.S. agriculture and to natural, cultivated, and urban forests.

DATES: Consideration will be given only to comments received on or 
before March 22, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Please send an original and three copies of your comments to 
Docket No. 98-057-1, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, 
suite 3C03, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please 
state that your comments refer to Docket No. 98-057-1. 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 requested to call ahead on (202) 690-2817 to 
facilitate entry into the comment reading room.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Richard L. Orr, Senior 
Entomologist, Risk Analysis Systems, PPD, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 
117, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238, (301) 734-8939; or e-mail: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Logs, lumber, and other unmanufactured wood articles imported into 
the United States could pose a significant threat of introducing plant 
pests detrimental to agriculture and to natural, cultivated, and urban 
forests. The regulations in 7 CFR 319.40-1 through 319.40-11 (referred 
to below as the regulations) are intended to mitigate the plant pest 
risk presented by the importation of logs, lumber, and other 
unmanufactured wood articles. Regulated articles include unprocessed 
logs, lumber, trees, bark, cork, raw wood products, wood chips, mulch, 
solid wood packing material, and other unmanufactured wood articles.
    Introductions into the United States of exotic plant pests such as 
the pine shoot beetle and the Asian longhorned beetle have been linked 
to the importation of solid wood packing material (SWPM). These and 
other plant pests that could be carried by imported SWPM pose a serious 
threat to U.S. agriculture and to natural, cultivated, and urban 
forests.
    On September 18, 1998, we published an interim rule in the Federal 
Register (63 FR 50100-50111, Docket No. 98-087-1) to require that SWPM 
from China be heat treated, fumigated, or treated with preservatives 
prior to arrival in the United States. (Under the September 18 interim 
rule, China means the People's Republic of China, including the Hong 
Kong Special Administrative Region.) We took this action because of a 
number of recent incidents, including the introduction of the Asian 
longhorned beetle, that demonstrate that China is the largest source of 
exotic plant pests in SWPM imported into the United States.
    We are publishing this advance notice of proposed rulemaking to 
seek information and develop regulatory options on the general problem 
of plant pests in SWPM imported from any country. SWPM accompanies 
nearly all types of imported commodities, from fruits and vegetables to 
machinery and electrical equipment. We are seeking ways to maximize our 
protection against the introduction of exotic plant pests by SWPM 
without unduly affecting international trade or the environment. We are 
requesting public comment on what actions would be most effective and 
appropriate to further reduce the risk of SWPM introducing exotic plant 
pests.
    We are specifically requesting public comment on options for 
strengthening restrictions on the importation of SWPM, alternative 
treatments to methyl bromide that could be used to reduce the risk of 
SWPM introducing exotic plant pests, and a number of specific 
questions. Following are descriptions of the current restrictions and 
treatment options for importing SWPM, the problem with importing SWPM, 
and several options we are considering for strengthening restrictions 
on importing SWPM. A list of specific questions for which we are 
seeking comments appears at the end of this document.

Current Restrictions on Importing SWPM

    The regulations concerning logs, lumber, and other unmanufactured 
wood articles imported into the United States were promulgated on May 
25, 1995 (60 FR 27674, Docket No. 91-074-6), to reduce the plant pest 
risks presented by the importation of these articles. The regulations 
were considered to be necessary because a changing national and world 
economy has increased importations of wood and related articles over 
the past several years. Trees produced in many foreign locations are 
attacked by a wide variety of exotic plant pests that do not occur in 
this country. Many of these plant pests pose a significant hazard to 
agriculture and to natural, cultivated, and urban forests and carry the 
potential of causing billions of dollars of damage to these resources.
    SWPM is one of the classes of wood articles that are subject to 
import restrictions under the regulations. The regulations define SWPM 
in Sec. 319.40-1 as ``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.'' Most of the wooden pallets, crates, 
dunnage, and similar articles used to assist the movement of

[[Page 3050]]

commodities in international commerce meet the definition of SWPM and 
are subject to the regulations. However, more synthetic or highly 
processed wood materials are being used as packing material, and these 
articles (e.g., plywood, oriented strand board, corrugated paperboard, 
plastic, resin composites) are not subject to the requirements for 
SWPM.
    (Loose wood packing material is not included within the scope of 
this advance notice of proposed rulemaking. Loose wood packing material 
is defined in the regulations as ``Excelsior (wood wool), sawdust, and 
wood shavings, produced as a result of sawing or shaving wood into 
small, slender, and curved pieces.'' No restrictions on importing loose 
wood packing material are being considered because the risk of exotic 
plant pests being carried in loose wood packing material is 
negligible.)
    The importation of SWPM is regulated because this material presents 
a number of plant pest risks. SWPM is often constructed from raw wood 
cut shortly before it is used, often includes bark on some surfaces, 
and is often made from wood that may be of low quality due to pest 
damage. These factors all mean that SWPM presents a high risk of 
spreading wood pests that exist in the areas where the SWPM was 
constructed. Additionally, the SWPM in transit is in close contact with 
the commodities (including wood products) it is used to pack, with an 
excellent opportunity for pests to move from SWPM to commodities. After 
commodities arrive in the United States, pests from the SWPM have many 
opportunities to escape and become established, especially since the 
SWPM associated with commodities often moves long distances throughout 
the United States, is reused frequently, and is often stored outdoors 
at ports and warehouses when not in use.
    To control these risks, Sec. 319.40-3 of the regulations imposes 
certain requirements on imported SWPM. The least restrictive 
requirement for importing SWPM occurs when the SWPM is used to move 
nonregulated articles (articles that are not wood, or that are highly 
processed wood excluded from the regulations). When SWPM is used to 
move nonregulated articles, the SWPM must be completely free of bark 
and apparently free from live plant pests. It need not be heat treated, 
fumigated, or treated with preservatives.
    If the SWPM is not completely free of bark, it must be heat 
treated, fumigated, or treated with preservatives in accordance with 
the regulations prior to arrival. Even if the SWPM is completely free 
of bark, the SWPM must be either heat treated, fumigated, or treated 
with preservatives in accordance with the regulations prior to arrival 
if it is used to pack regulated wood commodities in transit, or must 
meet all the importation and entry conditions required for the 
regulated wood commodities the SWPM is used to move. (As mentioned 
previously, on September 18, 1998, we published an interim rule that 
places additional restrictions on SWPM from China. The interim rule 
became effective on December 17, 1998.)

Importing SWPM Under Current Restrictions

    Most SWPM imported into the United States is imported under the 
requirement that it be completely free of bark and apparently free from 
live plant pests. When the regulations were promulgated in 1995, we 
believed that the plant pests of particular concern were those found on 
or under bark. Requiring SWPM to be completely free of bark 
significantly reduces the risk that exotic plant pests associated with 
bark will be introduced into the United States. However, since 
promulgation of the regulations in 1995, we have found that the 
complete removal of bark from SWPM has limitations in reducing the risk 
of plant pests being carried in SWPM imported into the United States. 
In particular, deep wood-boring plant pests can remain in wood even 
after the bark has been removed, and, therefore, can be difficult to 
detect. Other types of exotic plant pests that threaten agriculture and 
forests, such as pathogenic fungi, are also difficult to detect by mere 
visual inspection and may remain even after complete removal of bark. 
Such plant pests pose a serious threat to U.S. agriculture and to 
natural, cultivated, and urban forests.
    Interceptions of potentially destructive exotic plant pests by 
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) inspectors at U.S. 
ports clearly identify SWPM as the highest risk pathway into the United 
States for exotic plant pests of all types that threaten forests. 
Between August 1995 and March 1998, approximately 500 shipments were 
found by port inspectors to be infested with a variety of exotic plant 
pests that threaten forests; 97 percent of these findings were 
associated with SWPM. These findings were in shipments originating from 
all over the world, including countries of Europe, Africa, South 
America, and Asia.
    Recent introductions into the United States of exotic plant pests 
that threaten forests have been linked with the importation of SWPM. 
For example, an infestation of the Asian longhorned beetle was 
discovered in three areas in and around Chicago, IL, in July 1998, and 
has been linked to the importation of SWPM from China. A similar 
infestation was discovered in 1996 in Brooklyn, Queens, and Amityville, 
NY. Control of the pest in these locations has required the felling and 
burning of hundreds of trees on public and private land. Control 
efforts in both areas continue. These actions have been necessary 
because the spread of the Asian longhorned beetle into U.S. hardwood 
forests could result in severe economic losses to the nursery and 
forest products industries. Even though the Asian longhorned beetle was 
likely established in these areas prior to implementation of our 
current regulations governing SWPM, the Asian longhorned beetle 
continues to be intercepted on shipments associated with SWPM from 
China.
    In 1992, the pine shoot beetle was discovered in the United States 
on a Christmas tree farm in Ohio; since then, APHIS has quarantined 
portions of nine States to prevent the spread of the pine shoot beetle. 
The pine shoot beetle is a highly destructive pest of pine trees, and 
was probably introduced into the United States in ship dunnage from 
Europe--again, prior to implementation of our current regulations 
governing SWPM.

Options for Managing the Pest Risks Associated with SWPM

    As stated previously in this document, SWPM accompanies nearly all 
types of imported commodities, from fruits and vegetables to machinery 
and electrical equipment. Any further restrictions we place on its 
importation are likely to affect international trade. Likewise, other 
countries may adopt similar restrictions, which could significantly 
affect U.S. exports. We are seeking public comment on ways to maximize 
protection of U.S. agriculture and forests against exotic plant pests 
associated with SWPM without unjustifiably affecting international 
trade.
    We are also seeking ways to respond to environmental concerns about 
the use, both domestically and overseas, of methyl bromide fumigation 
for imported wood products in the long term. Most fumigations of wood 
products have historically involved treatments with methyl bromide due 
to convenience, cost, availability, ease of handling, timely completion 
of treatment, and good efficacy. It is anticipated that most treatments 
conducted under the September 18 interim rule concerning SWPM from 
China will employ methyl

[[Page 3051]]

bromide fumigation, for the same reasons. Any potential increase in the 
use of methyl bromide is of concern because of the associated risk of 
increased ozone depletion, which results in increased ultraviolet 
radiation at the Earth's surface. Under the Montreal Protocol, the 
United States and other signatories have agreed to a phaseout of the 
use of methyl bromide by developed countries by the year 2005, but 
there is an exemption for methyl bromide used for quarantine purposes. 
In the absence of any agreed upon international controls on the use of 
methyl bromide for quarantine purposes, use of methyl bromide for these 
purposes may not only continue, but could increase. This makes it all 
the more critical that we find a long-term solution to the problem of 
how best to manage the pest risk associated with imported SWPM. We are 
intent on minimizing the use of methyl bromide in order to protect the 
stratospheric ozone layer, and we are seeking options that will 
accomplish this objective.
    One option for addressing the pest risks associated with imported 
SWPM is imposing restrictions--either treatment requirements or a ban--
on a country-by-country basis, based on an assessment of the risk of 
exotic plant pests being carried on SWPM from a particular country. 
This is our current approach, demonstrated in the September 18 interim 
rule concerning importation of SWPM from China. This option may have 
the advantage of limiting trade effects to the highest risk sources. 
There may be several disadvantages to this option. As noted earlier, 
exotic plant pests in SWPM have been found in shipments originating 
from countries all over the world, including some in Europe, Africa, 
South America, and Asia. Further, SWPM is exchanged among shippers, 
importers, and exporters, making it difficult to determine the origin 
and history of most SWPM in use. Even if we could determine a method of 
certifying the origin of SWPM, such a requirement might put an 
unrealistic burden on inspectors at U.S. ports of entry to inspect the 
certifications.
    Another option for strengthening regulations on importing SWPM is 
requiring that all SWPM imported into the United States be heat treated 
(kiln dried), fumigated, or treated with a preservative. The September 
18 interim rule concerning SWPM from China requires that SWPM imported 
into the United States from China be heat treated, fumigated, or 
treated with preservatives prior to departure from China. One possible 
advantage to this option is that it would address the potential pest 
risk associated with SWPM from any region, including SWPM that may have 
been exchanged among shippers, importers, and exporters from multiple 
countries. This option might broadly affect trade from numerous 
sources, while still allowing use of SWPM. One disadvantage of this 
option may be that, although treated SWPM may be stored, handled, or 
safeguarded in a manner that excludes reinfestation by plant pests, the 
available treatments by themselves have different levels of residual 
effects in preventing reinfestation, with fumigation providing no 
residual protection against reinfestation with pests. Also, heat 
treated, kiln dried, or fumigated wood is visually indistinguishable 
from untreated wood. As SWPM deteriorates from use, shippers often 
replace single boards or portions of the SWPM, so that, for example, a 
pallet may contain some wood that has been kiln dried and some wood 
that has not. Another disadvantage of this option is that it could 
increase the use of methyl bromide or other fumigants that are harmful 
to the environment.
    A third option would be to prohibit the importation of SWPM in any 
form and from any country. This could include SWPM from Canada and the 
States of Mexico adjacent to the U.S. border. (Currently, the 
regulations allow SWPM from Canada and the States of Mexico adjacent to 
the U.S. border to be imported without restriction, provided they are 
derived from trees harvested in, and have never been moved outside, 
Canada or the States of Mexico adjacent to the United States.) 
Alternative packing material that could be allowed would include 
processed wood (e.g., particle board, plywood, press board) and nonwood 
materials (e.g., plastic). The advantages of this option are that it 
would provide the greatest protection against pest risk and could 
eventually result in decreased use of methyl bromide. A disadvantage of 
this option is that it could have an undesirable effect on 
international trade. This effect could be mitigated by a phase-in 
period to allow shippers to adjust to the prohibition, and, during this 
time, heat treatment, treatment with preservatives, fumigation, or 
other effective alternative treatments could be required before SWPM 
could be imported.
    We are seeking public comment on the options discussed in this 
document. We are also seeking alternative options for consideration. 
The environmental effects of any alternatives selected will be analyzed 
in full compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act. Our goal 
is to maximize protection of U.S. agriculture and forests against 
exotic plant pests associated with SWPM without unduly affecting 
international trade or the environment. We are interested in 
information on any alternatives that would accomplish this goal. We 
welcome comments that address the economic impacts that the various 
options would impose on entities in the United States and abroad.
    We are also seeking public comment addressing the following 
questions, which will help us better consider the issues surrounding 
the importation of SWPM:
     Are there treatments, other than those currently 
authorized under the regulations, that can be used to reduce the risk 
of SWPM introducing exotic plant pests?
     What would be the economic, environmental, or other 
effects of requiring treatment of SWPM, including the cost of 
treatment, disruption in trade and potential delays in shipping, 
effects on the ozone layer, etc.?
     What would be the economic, environmental, or other 
effects of prohibiting the importation of SWPM from any country, 
including disruption in trade and potential delays in shipping, effects 
of alternative materials on the environment, etc.?
     How could APHIS best monitor treatment requirements?
     Is it feasible and cost-effective for the shipping 
industry to replace SWPM with processed wood packing material (e.g., 
particle board) or nonwood packing material?
     One advantage of wood dunnage is that it is biodegradable. 
What would be the environmental effects, if any, of requiring that 
nonbiodegradable material be substituted for wood dunnage?
     If SWPM is allowed to be imported into the United States, 
with treatment, how should APHIS determine who is responsible for a 
regulatory violation, since SWPM is exchanged among shippers, 
importers, and exporters?
     If importation of SWPM into the United States were to be 
prohibited, or if treatment of some kind were to be required for all 
SWPM imported into the United States, would the shipping industry need 
a phase-in period to allow time to adapt? If yes, how long?
     What is the magnitude of the pest risk associated with 
SWPM and to what extent would the options discussed, or other options, 
reduce these pest risks?
     What other regulatory or nonregulatory actions would help 
us maximize protection in a cost-effective manner against exotic plant 
pests associated with SWPM without unduly

[[Page 3052]]

affecting international trade or the environment?
    We are also asking the public to address any other issues that they 
consider appropriate in connection with the importation of SWPM.

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 150dd, 150ee, 150ff, 151-167, 450, 2803, and 
2809; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.2(c).

    Done in Washington, DC, this 13th day of January 1999.
Joan M. Arnoldi,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 99-1226 Filed 1-19-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P