[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 77 (Thursday, April 20, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 21120-21128]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-9937]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
7 CFR Part 319
[Docket No. 96-031-2]
RIN 0579-AA82
Importation of Wood Chips From Chile
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are adopting as a final rule, with changes, a proposed rule
to allow the importation of Pinus radiata wood chips from Chile if the
surfaces of the wood chips are treated with a specified pesticide
mixture. This change to the regulations for importing logs, lumber, and
other unmanufactured wood articles will provide another alternative for
persons interested in importing wood chips from Chile while continuing
to protect against the introduction of dangerous plant pests.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 22, 2000.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donna L. West, Import Specialist,
Phytosanitary Issues Management Team, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit
140, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; (301) 734-6799.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Logs, lumber, 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. The regulations in 7 CFR
319.40-1 through 319.40-11 (referred to below as the regulations)
contain provisions to eliminate any significant plant pest risk
presented by the importation of logs, lumber, and other unmanufactured
wood articles.
On July 28, 1998, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
(APHIS) published in the Federal Register (63 FR 40193-40200, Docket
No. 96-031-1) a proposed rule to amend the regulations to allow the
importation of Pinus radiata wood chips from Chile if the surfaces of
the wood chips are treated with a specified pesticide mixture.
We solicited comments concerning our proposed rule for 60 days
ending September 28, 1998. We received 10 comments by that date. The
comments were from four environmental groups (with overlapping
management), three State governments, two corporations, and the
Government of Chile. Seven of the commenters supported the proposed
rule, although several stated that there were deficiencies in the rule
that should be corrected before the rule could win their full support.
The remaining commenters disagreed with the proposed rule or suggested
alternatives to it. All of the issues raised by the commenters are
discussed below.
Comment--Control of Stain Fungi: Several commenters questioned
whether the surface pesticide treatment or other requirements of the
rule would prevent the introduction of stain fungi, particularly of the
genus Ophiostoma, that may be associated with wood chips from Chile.
Response: The surface pesticide treatment contained in the rule has
been proven effective against stain fungi, including stain fungi of the
genus Ophiostoma. Research demonstrating this effectiveness has been
published (see, for example, Morrell, Freitag, and Silva, ``Protection
of Freshly Cut Radiata Pine Chips From Fungal Attack,'' Forest Prod. J.
48(2):57-59).
Comment--Heat Treatment Should Be Required: Several commenters
stated that the position of most experts, State regulators, and members
of the public is that heat treatment of imported wood articles capable
of bearing pests is the only safe and acceptable method of importation.
They stated that fumigation or surface pesticide treatment are not
economically feasible or effective alternatives.
Response: ``Safe'' and ``acceptable'' are terms whose meanings vary
greatly depending on individual values. We are assuming that the
comments refer to safety and acceptability in terms of the
effectiveness of systems in preventing the introduction and
dissemination in the United States of dangerous plant pests. No
commenter submitted data proving that a heat treatment system is
``safer'' than the proposed surface pesticide treatment system. The new
surface pesticide treatment would reduce the risk associated with any
plant pest introduction to a negligible level.
Regarding the practicality of heat treating wood chips, heat
treated wood chips are less useful than wood chips that have undergone
less destructive treatments. Heat treatment decreases the quality of
wood chips and renders them useless for many specific manufacturing
purposes. Regarding the economic feasibility of the proposed surface
pesticide treatment and fumigation, wood product companies have
requested that they be able to utilize the surface pesticide
alternative and, therefore, presumably find it economically feasible.
Under normal business practices, it is not economically feasible for
methyl bromide to effectively penetrate wood chips to more than 120
cubic feet. When penetration is inadequate, the requirements of the
regulations are not met, and the wood chips cannot be imported under
the fumigation treatment option. In theory, it is possible to
effectively penetrate large piles of wood chips by using a specialized
technique to distribute the fumigant (e.g., a vacuum chamber or
submerged gas tubes); however, the cost of utilizing such a technique
is so exorbitant that it becomes economically infeasible. Consequently,
no one has imported large shipments of wood chips, fumigated as a
whole, under the fumigation treatment option. Fumigation remains in the
regulations as a treatment option for wood chips because it is used for
small shipments. One reason for developing the surface pesticide
treatment in the proposal was to compensate for the unavailability of
fumigation as a treatment method for large shipments of wood chips.
Comment--Pesticide Application Protocol and Quality Control: One
commenter cited research by Dr. Jeffrey J. Morell of Oregon State
University that was used to support the treatment in the proposed rule.
The commenter noted that the only pathogens tracked for efficacy in the
research were Trichoderma species and that there was no efficacy
evaluation for insects. The commenter stated that Morell concluded the
following modifications of the surface pesticide treatment system may
be needed: An increase in biocide concentration; improved uniformity of
the spray system; routine assessment of chip treatment quality; and a
system for regular microbiological assessment of organisms present in
imported wood chips.
[[Page 21121]]
Response: Trichoderma species were not the only pathogens tracked
in the research. Treated and untreated wood chips were placed in
plastic bags and incubated for 16 weeks. The bag interiors were sprayed
with suspensions of spores and hyphal fragments of Alternaria
alternata, Ophiostoma piceae, Phialophora spp., and Aspergillus niger.
The wood chips were then regularly visually assessed for growth of the
inoculum or other species. Various Trichoderma species caused the
highest degree of wood chip discoloration in the tests, but they were
not the sole organisms tracked.
The research cited did not evaluate efficacy against insects
because it was not practical to do so in an experimental protocol
addressing fungicidal efficacy. The report did note that while insect
infestation of wood is always a risk, it is sharply reduced in wood
chip shipments due to the fragmented nature of the wood and the near
absence of bark. The report also noted that the presence of low levels
of an insecticide such as chlorpyrifos should provide added insurance
against incidental oviposition. The proposed treatment included, along
with fungicides, an insecticide containing 44.9 percent of the active
ingredient chlorpyrifos phosphorothioate. This, along with the
regulatory requirement that the wood chips be produced from debarked,
plantation-grown trees, should reduce the risk of introduction of
dangerous insects with wood chips imported under the regulations to a
negligible level.
The highest concentration of the proposed fungicide tested in the
research was a 400:1 dilution. The research found that while this
dilution achieved acceptable results in preventing fungal growth for 4
weeks after treatment, the growth levels increased during the period
from 4 weeks to 16 weeks after treatment. The research suggested that
for long-term protection, dilution levels around 200:1 would be more
appropriate. When diluted in accordance with the label instructions, as
proposed, the treatment solution would in fact be stronger than a 200:1
dilution. Since this standard exceeds that recommended by the
researcher, we are making no change based on this comment.
Regarding the comment that the researcher recommended improvement
to the uniformity of the spray system, the researcher specifically
recommended improvement of the current spray system to increase the
uniformity of treatment to at least 70 to 80 percent average coverage
of the wood chips. The proposed rule actually required that the wood
chips be sprayed so that all the chips are exposed to the chemical on
all sides. This standard exceeds that recommended by the researcher;
therefore, we are making no change based on this comment. We do not
believe it is necessary to specify detailed engineering standards for
how chip producers must achieve this degree of coverage (placement and
number of spray nozzles, conveyer belt speed and configuration, etc.)
because this would limit the producers' options for developing their
own cost-effective solutions to the problem.
As noted by the commenter, the researcher also recommended
establishment of two quality control and monitoring systems to check
whether chips are being properly treated and to check whether dangerous
fungi are present on wood chips imported under this system.
Specifically, the researcher recommended routine assessment of chip
treatment quality through dye tests and image analysis of chip samples
and regular microbiological assessment of organisms present on wood
chip shipments entering the United States. These activities fall under
the category of monitoring and enforcement activities that APHIS may
employ to ensure that regulated parties are complying with the
regulations. Since these are internal agency activities that do not
impose any requirement for action by an outside party, it is not
necessary to include standards for these activities in the regulations.
However, APHIS will monitor treatments to ensure that wood chips
imported under the regulations have been properly treated and do not
present a risk of introducing dangerous plant pests.
Comment--Time Periods Allowed Between Harvesting of Trees and
Treatment of Wood Chips; Time Period Allowed Between Arrival in United
States and Processing of Wood Chips: One commenter objected that the
proposal would allow wood chips that were treated immediately after a
tree was felled and chipped to sit for 45 days before export from Chile
to the United States, and that the research on the treatment showed its
efficacy declined after 4 weeks. Two commenters objected to allowing
storage of wood chips from Chile for up to 60 days after arrival at a
facility operating under a compliance agreement and prior to
processing. They noted that even the 30-day limit in the current
regulations allows too much time for potential pests to escape from
stored wood chips.
Response: We are making two changes in response to these comments.
The rule still will require that no more than 45 days may elapse
between the time the trees used to make the wood chips were felled and
the time the wood chips are exported; however, the wood chips must be
treated with the surface pesticide treatment within 24 hours after the
log is chipped, and they must be retreated with the surface pesticide
treatment if more than 30 days elapses between the date of the first
treatment and the date of export. We are also changing the requirement
for when wood chips imported from Chile under the regulations must be
processed by reducing the time from 60 days after arrival at the
processing facility to 45 days. We believe this is a safe time frame,
given the requirements of the regulations for safeguards during
movement and storage of the wood chips in the United States.
Comment--Adequacy of Environmental Assessment: Several commenters
questioned whether the environmental assessment adequately dealt with
human health and ecological risks that may be posed by pesticide
residues on wood chips imported under the regulations. Specific
concerns were raised about ammonium chloride, carbamate, and
chloropyrifos residues, including carcinogenic effects and these
substances' propensity for leaching into groundwater.
Response: The environmental assessment (EA) was revised in May
1999, and a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) has been signed.
The revised EA provides information on the toxicity of the pesticides
and the protective measures that reduce the potential for human and
nontarget wildlife exposure to those pesticides. Copies of the EA and
FONSI are available from the person identified under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT, and will also be available at the following
Internet address until at least March 1, 2000: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppd/eachips.pdf.
The main pesticides planned for treating wood chips are a fungicide
with the active ingredients 64.8 percent didecyl dimethyl ammonium
chloride (DDAC) and 7.6 percent 3-iodo-2-propynyl butylcarbamate (IPBC)
and an insecticide with the active ingredient 44.9 percent chlorpyrifos
phosphorothioate. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
approved these pesticides for specific uses on wood articles. The
current label instructions call for these pesticides, when used as a
spray treatment, to be diluted before use in the ratios of one gallon
fungicide to 25-50 gallons of water for the fungicide, and one gallon
of the insecticide to 50 gallons of water. When mixed together, the
amounts of fungicide, insecticide, and water must be calculated so that
each of the
[[Page 21122]]
fungicide and insecticide achieve a dilution within the range specified
on its respective label. When diluted to a 1:50 ratio, the fungicide-
insecticide mixture contains no more than 1.3 percent DDAC, 0.15
percent IPBC, and 0.9 percent chlorpyrifos phosphorothioate. The label
for each pesticide carries exact information with detailed directions,
including any restrictions for use or special precautions, and
specifies any special equipment that must be used when applying these
chemicals. The label also gives special disposal instructions for
pesticide waste and containers. All pesticides used to treat wood chips
for export from Chile to the United States are required to be applied
according to the EPA-approved pesticide label.
The pesticides do leave residues, which would maintain the pest-
free status of the wood chips while they are in transit to the United
States. Although the degradation of IPBC and its primary degradation
products is rapid (half lives of less than a week) (Troy Corporation,
1999), the caustic nature of the ammonium chloride on the wood chips
prevents any potential for fungal reinfestation. The ammonium chloride
in the pesticide is relatively volatile, and residues would mostly
dissipate before arrival in the United States. The chlorpyrifos
residues are more persistent and would continue to eliminate insect
pest risks during transit.
The physical and toxicological properties of the pesticides
determine the potential for nontarget hazards. The caustic nature of
ammonium chloride can be highly irritating to eyes, skin, and the
respiratory system. Unlike most carbamates, IPBC has not been shown to
inhibit plasma and red blood cell acetylcholinesterase in vitro at
concentrations as high as 1 x 10-4 molar (Troy Corporation,
1999). As a result, the acute toxicity of IPBC is low by all routes of
exposure. However, IPBC can be an eye and skin irritant. Chronic
dietary studies of IPBC have not found any evidence of carcinogenicity
in either rats or mice (Troy Corporation, 1999) and have found adverse
effects only at high exposures (40 milligram IPBC per kilogram body
weight per day or greater). IPBC is of slight acute toxicity to birds
but is highly to very highly toxic to fish and other aquatic organisms.
Chlorpyrifos phosphorothioate is an organophosphate insecticide that is
moderately toxic to mammals (Smith, 1987). The toxicity occurs
primarily through inhibition of acetylcholinesterase activity (Klaassen
et al., 1986). The studies of chlorpyrifos phosphorothioate have not
found any evidence of carcinogenic effects. Chlorpyrifos
phosphorothioate is moderately to severely toxic to birds and very
highly toxic to fish and other aquatic invertebrates (Smith, 1987;
Mayer and Ellersieck, 1986).
The potential for human exposure to pesticides used in treatment of
the wood chips is minimized by adherence to label requirements for
proper application and to provisions in the rule regarding handling of
the wood chips. The required adherence to the pesticide label prevents
excessive exposure to applicators. The EPA has determined that the
potential for adverse effects on human health is minimal when
pesticides are applied according to label instructions. The rapid
degradation of the pesticides results in steadily decreasing residues
during transit. A covered conveyor belt moves the wood chips during
unloading to expedite the process and minimize potential human
exposure. Workers associated with the unloading activity are required
to wear protective clothing and safety glasses. The covered conveyor
belt is designed to prevent wood chips from spilling, falling, or being
blown from the means of conveyance.
Although the wood chips may still have some residual pesticide
residues before processing, the heat treatment and bleaching associated
with the pulp and paper process would eliminate any remaining residues.
Therefore, the potential for exposure to pesticide residues is limited
to the personnel involved in treating the wood chips in Chile and to
the personnel involved in moving the treated wood chips. The required
safety precautions, protective clothing, and safety glasses preclude
unacceptable pesticide exposures.
Exposure of nontarget species to residues from treated wood chips
is minimal. The treatment and transport procedures preclude the
presence of nontarget wildlife. Although wood chips that have been
unloaded may be stored on a paved surface for up to 45 days, the
remaining residues would be low. Birds and other terrestrial nontarget
wildlife are unlikely to bother the wood chips with the frequent human
activity on the property. The remaining residues (primarily
chlorpyrifos) strongly adsorb to the organic matter in the wood chips,
and this adsorption minimizes movement of residues in runoff following
precipitation. In addition, water runoff is collected from the paved
pads where the wood chips would be stored and is treated to prevent any
environmental contamination of surrounding water bodies. This prevents
any potential exposure to aquatic organisms.
Comment--Fumigated Wood Chips From Brazil Allowed Importation Into
Louisiana. One commenter stated that wood chips from Brazil are
currently being imported through Mobile, AL, into Louisiana subject
only to fumigation in the ship's hold. The commenter asked whether such
importation is safe without the surface pesticide treatment in the
proposed rule and, if so, why the surface pesticide treatment, instead
of fumigation, would be needed for wood chips from Chile.
Response: Based on the permit issued for this importation and
records obtained from the State Plant Health Director in Louisiana, we
have determined that two shipments of Caribbean pine chips from Brazil
were imported into Mobile, AL, in 1997, and were then trucked to a
paper mill in Bogaloosa, LA, where the chips were processed. The wood
chips were derived from live, healthy, tropical species of plantation-
grown trees grown in tropical areas, and, therefore, were not required
by APHIS to be fumigated, in accordance with Sec. 319.40-6(c)(1)(i) of
the regulations. The shipments also met all of the other requirements
of Sec. 319.40-6(c) (e.g., no other regulated articles in the holds;
movement to the paper mill under a compliance agreement designed to
prevent spread of plant pests during and after movement to the mill;
processed within 30 days after arrival at the mill). The wood chips
moved in sealed trucks from the port of entry to the destination paper
mill where they were processed into manufactured goods. This
importation was therefore in compliance with the regulations. As
discussed in the proposed rule, the surface pesticide treatment was
proposed as another alternative for importing wood chips from Chile,
not a replacement for the current requirements contained in
Sec. 319.40-6(c) for importing wood chips from all sources. Therefore,
this importation does not affect the basis for the proposed rule for
importing wood chips from Chile subject to a surface pesticide spray
and other requirements.
Therefore, for the reasons given in the proposed rule and in this
document, we are adopting the proposed rule as a final rule with the
changes discussed in this document.
Executive Order 12866
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. The rule
has been determined to be significant for the purposes of Executive
Order 12866 and, therefore, has been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget.
[[Page 21123]]
Set forth below are the economic analysis and cost-benefit analysis
prepared for this rule in accordance with Executive Order 12866, as
well as the final regulatory flexibility analysis regarding the
economic effects of this rule on small entities, prepared in accordance
with 5 U.S.C. 604.
Discussion
Under the Federal Plant Pest Act (7 U.S.C. 150aa-150jj), the
Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to promulgate regulations
requiring inspection of products and articles as a condition of their
movement into or through the United States and imposing other
conditions upon such movement, in order to prevent the dissemination of
plant pests into the United States.
This rule amends the regulations for importing wood chips to allow
the importation of Pinus radiata wood chips from Chile if the surfaces
of the wood chips are treated with a pesticide approved by the
Administrator for use on wood chips from Chile. Allowing the use of a
surface pesticide treatment will make it possible to effectively treat
large shipments of wood chips. Wood chips are used for making pulp used
in the production of paper. U.S. pulp producers want to import Pinus
radiata wood chips from Chile because these wood chips produce a high
quality pulp. However, there is no treatment in the regulations that is
both practical and effective in treating large shipments of these wood
chips.
APHIS regulations in place until now have called for, along with
other requirements, heat treatment or fumigation of imported wood
materials. While these safeguards are appropriate for most wood
materials, they are less useful for wood chips. Heating of wood chips
is time consuming and decreases the quality of the chips. Fumigation of
large shipments of wood chips is not economically practicable.
Therefore, importation of Pinus radiata wood chips from Chile will be
allowed following their surface treatment with a specified pesticide
mixture. As discussed below, the efficacy of this treatment is
demonstrated by 16 trial shipments of surface-treated Pinus radiata
wood chips from Chile that have arrived without pests since February
1995.
Approximately $40 million worth of wood chips is imported into the
United States each year for use in making pulp for paper production.
Coniferous wood chip imports by the United States comprise less than
one percent of domestic production.\1\ About 30 percent of U.S. wood
chip production takes place in the Pacific Northwest.\2\ Wood chip
imports to the United States have been mainly to the Pacific Northwest,
although there have been recent shipments of Caribbean pine from Brazil
that have entered through the port at Mobile, AL.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Robert Flynn, private wood industry consultant, personal
communication, drawing in part on information from ``Southern
Pulpwood Production, 1996,'' by Tony Johnson, USDA Forest Service,
Southern Research Station, Resource Bulletin SRS-21.
\2\ Richard Haynes, USDA Forest Service, personal communication.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wood chips are used mainly in the manufacture of pulp that is then
used to make paper and panel products.\3\ Test shipments of Pinus
radiata wood chips from Chile during the last 3 years have been so
utilized, and it is expected that future shipments facilitated by the
surface pesticide treatment in this rule will also be used to make
pulp.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Chris Twarok, Department of Commerce, personal
communication. Landscaping is a secondary use.
\4\ J.S. Morrell, Department of Forest Products, Oregon State
University, personal communication.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The demand for wood chips used by pulp mills is a derived demand,
depending on the market for pulp. \5\ While the long-term demand for
pulp in the United States and internationally is expected to continue
to expand (with increasing reliance on wood from plantation forests),
pulp and wood chip prices can be volatile in the short term, causing
relatively abrupt market changes. The variable demand for wood chips
during the few years the Chilean test shipments have taken place
illustrates how rapidly market conditions can change. Coniferous wood
chip imports in 1995 by the United States nearly tripled those of 1994,
with imports from Canada rising more than threefold, and test shipments
from Chile doubling and displacing 1994 imports from Mexico.\6\ The
increase in demand was reflected in a 60 percent increase in the price
paid in the United States for Chilean wood chips, from $42 per ton in
1994, to $67 per ton in 1995.\7\ Comparable U.S. prices for
domestically produced wood chips in these 2 years were $56 per ton in
1994 and $72 per ton in 1995.\8\ Since then, prices have receded due to
the current abundant supply of wood chips.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The pulp fiber industry has traditionally been a softwood
chip market, but this has been changing in recent years in the
eastern United States. Pulp mills in the southeastern United States
are relying increasingly on hardwood chips, where only softwood
chips were once used. Long-term rising demand for wood chips is also
reflected in an increasing number of ``chipping'' mills producing
only wood chips; at least 100 of more than 140 wood chip mills in
the southeastern United States have been constructed within the past
decade. (Dennis Haldeman and Doug Sloane, personal communications).
\6\ U.S. wood chip import and export statistics from Department
of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.
\7\ FAS Global Agricultural Trade System, using data from the
United Nations Statistical Office.
\8\ Richard Haynes, USDA Forest Service, personal communication.
Domestic prices based on export prices for the Columbia-Snake
Customs District, adjusted to ``green'' metric tons. Without
consideration of transportation costs, these quoted prices may
overestimate the price realized at a Pacific Northwest pulp mill for
U.S. chips and underestimate the price realized for Chilean chips.
Moreover, average yearly prices conceal seasonal variations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chile's coniferous wood chip exports to the United States, 1994-
1996, and Chile's share of coniferous wood chip imports by the United
States are as follows: \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ GAS Global Agricultural Trade System, using data from the
United Nations Statistical Office.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of
Metric tons imports
------------------------------------------------------------------------
168........................................... 1994 00.05
339,665....................................... 1995 48.29
329,387....................................... 1996 44.06
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1994, 57 percent of coniferous wood chip imports by the United
States were from Mexico and 43 percent were from Canada. In 1995, pulp
prices reached record levels, with U.S. coniferous wood chip imports
more than doubling from the year before, to 703,000 metric tons from
331,000 metric tons. That year, no coniferous wood chips were imported
from Mexico, 48 percent of imports came from Chile, 49 percent came
from Canada, and 3 percent came from Brazil. In 1996, Canada's share of
U.S. coniferous wood chip imports increased to 56 percent, 44 percent
came from Chile, and none was received from Brazil.
Production of Pinus radiata wood chips in the United States is
essentially nil, due to the relatively small region in which it grows
well, about 6 miles inland along the coastal fog belt of central
California (hence its common name, the Monterey pine). There may be
some production from sawmill residues, but the quantity, if any, is
negligible. No pulp mills are currently using domestically produced
Pinus radiata wood chips.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Robert Rummel, American Pulpwood Association, Robert Flynn,
Robert Flynn and Associates, personal communications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Economic effects on the U.S. wood chip industry of potential
Chilean imports, therefore, depend on the substitutability of Pinus
radiata wood chips for other softwood or for hardwood chips. Instances
in which Pinus radiata and hardwood chips
[[Page 21124]]
might substitute for each other are relatively few. However, Pinus
radiata wood chips can generally be used in place of other coniferous
chips such as lodgepole pine and ponderosa pine, although milling
adjustments may be required--and costs incurred--due to differences in
resin content.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Chris Twarok, Department of Commerce, personal
communication.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The test shipments of Chilean wood chips were received by pulp
mills in the Pacific Northwest. This region is expected to continue to
be the destination of future shipments, given the additional
transportation costs that would be incurred by pulp mills in the
eastern and southeastern United States. With sales regionally
concentrated, little economic effect from this rule is expected outside
the Pacific Northwest.
In sum, the test shipments from Chile have shown the value to
Pacific Northwest pulp mills of Chilean wood chips in supplementing
domestic and Canadian wood chip supplies when the price of pulp makes
such shipments economically feasible. Pulp mills able to adjust milling
processes to utilize Pinus radiata wood chips can benefit by making
profitable use of Chilean imports when other sources are insufficient
or more costly. As now described, Chile has the production capacity to
be a reliable source of Pinus radiata wood chips to the United States.
Chile's wood chip industry grew significantly during the 1980s,
with production increasing more than tenfold, from 0.44 million tons in
1984, to 5.03 million tons in 1990.\12\ Chile's wood chip exports
during this period rose from none in 1984, to 2.23 million tons (44
percent of production) in 1990. During the first half of the 1990s,
both production and export levels fluctuated, but without the dramatic
increases of the 1980s. Annual production between 1990 and 1995
averaged about 5.80 million tons, and exports averaged about 3.05
million tons (about 53 percent of production).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Information on Chile's wood chip production and exports
taken from Wood Products: International Trade and Foreign Markets,
FAS Circular Series WP 3-97, August 1997, Table 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pinus radiata wood chips comprise a minor share of Chile's wood
chip exports.\13\ Of the approximately 3 million tons of wood chips
exported annually between 1990 and 1996, Pinus radiata's share averaged
12 percent. Between January and August, 1997, 10 percent of Chile's
wood chip exports were Pinus radiata.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Information on Chile's Pinus radiata wood chip exports from
APHIS, IS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Japan was, by far, the principal importer of Chilean wood chips
from 1990 to 1996. (Country destinations by species are not known for
these years.) From 1990 to 1994, an average of 96 percent of Chile's
wood chip exports were received by Japan. With the test shipments of
Pinus radiata to the United States in 1995 and 1996, Japan's share of
Chile's wood chip exports fell to 87 percent and 83 percent,
respectively; and the U.S. share for these 2 years was 9 percent and 11
percent.
From January to August, 1997, Japan's share of Chile's wood chip
exports was 89 percent. The United States and Japan each received about
one-half of Chile's Pinus radiata wood chip exports during this 8-month
period.
Chile's development of its forest products sector rests to a large
degree on the success of Pinus radiata; its share of Chile's wood chip
exports is expected to increase. By 1996 there were approximately
1,387,000 hectares planted in Pinus radiata, representing 75 percent of
plantation plantings and 15 percent of Chile's forest resources
including native forest.\14\ This pine species matures at 20 to 24
years in Chile (thinnings are available for use after 15 years),
compared to 30 years in New Zealand and Australia, and 40 to 60 years
in North America and Europe. Production and exports are expected to
peak during the coming decade, when trees on most of the Pinus radiata
plantations will be ready to be harvested.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ ``Forest Products, Annual Report,'' Office of Agricultural
Affairs, American Embassy, Santiago, AGR Number CI7033, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One set of projections describing the volume of Pinus radiata wood
chips that could be exported to the United States over the coming 4
years, assuming favorable prices, is as follows: \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Fernando Hartwig, Inversiones Forestales C.C.A., personal
communication.
Potential Pinus radiata Wood Chip Exports
[in million tons]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year From Chile to the United States
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999............................. 0.60 to 1.00.
2000............................. 1.00 to 1.20.
2001............................. 0.90 to 1.00.
2002............................. 0.85 to 0.90.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Realization of these export levels will depend on the demand for
Pinus radiata wood chips by U.S. pulp mills. As has been described,
international short-term demand for pulp fibers can be volatile. When
prices fell between 1995 and 1996, Chile's forestry sector exports
declined by 24 percent, mainly because of reduced sales to Japan.
Chile's stock of Pinus radiata available for harvest will enable
Pacific Northwest importers to take advantage of a ready source as wood
chip prices rebound. In 1996, all coniferous wood chip imports by the
United States totaled about 0.75 million tons, of which 0.33 million
tons were imported from Chile.\16\ Projected export levels shown above
would increase U.S. wood chip imports above current levels and
establish Chile as a major foreign supplier. Wood chip prices in the
United States will determine whether these projections are overly
optimistic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ The United States is a net exporter of coniferous and
nonconiferous wood chips. Compared to coniferous wood chip imports
of 0.75 million tons in 1996, the United States exporter 1.78
million tons. Nonconiferous wood chip imports and exports by the
United States exhibit an even larger difference, with 1996 imports
totaling about 55,000 tons and exports at 4.29 million tons.
(Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary
Benefits from allowing Pinus radiata wood chips to be imported from
Chile include lower priced wood chips for pulp mills in the Pacific
Northwest and lower priced products to consumers if lower input prices
are reflected in lower retail prices. Greater choice among species for
wood chip raw material is another benefit. Costs associated with risks
of introducing pests are negligible because the procedures required to
import Chilean wood chips under this rule are designed to keep the risk
of importing pests to a negligible level. Since imports will be
concentrated in the Pacific Northwest, economic effects will be felt
mainly by wood chip producers and purchasers in the region. Wood chip
producers may bear revenue losses if they are unable to compete with
lower cost imports or adjust their product mix.
Test shipments of Pinus radiata wood chips from Chile to the
Pacific Northwest during recent years have demonstrated the
effectiveness of phytosanitary safeguards in this rule, as well as the
economic feasibility of chip imports from Chile for the region's pulp
mills. Chile's large and expanding forestry plantations are expected to
provide a reliable source for future wood chip imports when there is
sufficient demand. At present, the abundant supply of wood chips in the
Pacific Northwest precludes imports, a market situation that differs
dramatically from that of 4 years ago when wood chip prices reached an
all-time high. Pacific Northwest pulp mills depend primarily on
domestic wood
[[Page 21125]]
chip suppliers but turn to overseas sources when domestic wood chip
prices are high. Chilean imports can be expected to be competitively
marketed when the domestic wood chip supply is low, since Pinus radiata
wood chips can substitute for most other softwood chips. Some domestic
wood chip producers may be adversely affected by Chilean imports, but
the effect is not likely to be widespread; most domestic wood chip
producers who cannot compete may adjust their product mix away from
wood chips to other mill products.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 603, we performed an initial regulatory
flexibility analysis, which was included in the proposed rule and which
invited submission of comments and data to assist in a comprehensive
analysis of the effects of this rule on small entities. We received one
comment addressing the initial regulatory flexibility analysis. This
comment stressed that the economics of domestic industries that might
import wood chips are dynamic and change almost monthly; and,
therefore, any prediction of import volume would be solely a guess. The
comment also stated that if Chilean wood chips cost more than domestic
supplies, they will be sought only if domestic supplies diminish below
the amount required, and that at that point the owners of pulp mills
(the major user of wood chips) will make a financial decision whether
to pay higher prices for imported supplies or close mills. The comment
also suggested that only a few wood chip consuming businesses located
near seaports will be likely to import wood chips from Chile, but that
some of these businesses do require the option of importing Chilean
wood chips to stay in business.
We largely agree that these points correctly describe the current
economic situation regarding importation of Chilean wood chips, and
have taken the comment into account in the final regulatory flexibility
analysis set out below. However, we note that if for any reason there
is a significant decrease in domestic wood chip production, or a
significant increase in their price, many more wood chip consumers,
regardless of whether they are located near seaports, may decide to
import wood chips from Chile.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires consideration of the
potential economic effects of rules on small businesses, organizations,
and governmental jurisdictions. In this instance, small entities
directly affected will be U.S. wood chip producers and pulp mills in
the Pacific Northwest.
Wood chip production is included in the SIC category for firms
operating sawmills and planing mills. In most cases, wood chips are a
byproduct of lumber production. A mill will vary its level of wood chip
production (compared to other products) based on whether wood chip
prices are high or low at a particular point in time. In the Pacific
Northwest, about 150 mills produce wood chips (90 in Oregon and 60 in
Washington), but more than one may be owned by the same firm.\17\ Data
on the exact number of firms is not available. Sawmills and planing
mills that employ 500 people or fewer are designated by the Small
Business Administration as ``small.'' In 1994, there were 5,241 firms
operating sawmills and planing mills in the United States, of which
5,149 (more than 98 percent) were small.\18\ Estimated annual receipts
of these 5,149 ``small'' firms totaled about $14.88 billion, which was
62 percent of total annual receipts of about $23.93 billion earned by
all sawmills and planing mills. In the absence of information on mill
firm sizes specific to Oregon and Washington, it is assumed that most
sawmills in the Pacific Northwest are also small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Richard Haynes, USDA Forest Service, personal
communication.
\18\ This is the latest year for which data is available from
the ``SBA Office of Advocacy, Statistics on Small Business'' Web
home page.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adverse economic effects on most ``small'' U.S. wood chip producers
due to this rule will be minor. The Chilean imports are expected to be
sold in the Pacific Northwest, thereby affecting a geographical subset
of all wood chip producers. Adverse economic effects on Pacific
Northwest wood chip producers will depend on the ability of such
producers to find lower priced raw materials to produce wood chips or
otherwise reduce cost, and the extent of their reliance on wood chips
for their net revenues. Producers of those wood chips that are
substitutes for Pinus radiata chips will find their net returns reduced
when import prices are low. As raw materials used for wood chip
production grow increasingly scarce and expensive in the Pacific
Northwest, those wood chip producers that compete with lower priced
imports will face adjustment pressures. However, U.S. wood chip
producers already feel competition from other international sources.
It is estimated that less than 5 percent of wood chip producers in
the Pacific Northwest are ``chipping'' mills devoted solely to wood
chip production.\19\ However, during periods of high wood chip demand,
such as 4 years ago, many sawmills may be converted largely to wood
chip production.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Richard Haynes, USDA Forest Service, personal
communication.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Turning to the pulp mills, themselves, there were 37 firms
operating pulp mills in the United States in 1994. Often more than one
pulp mill is owned by a single firm. Pulp mill firms employing 750
people or fewer are designated by the Small Business Administration as
``small.'' In 1994, between 20 and 25 of the 37 firms were small, that
is, between 54 and 68 percent of the total number of firms. Estimated
annual receipts of these 20 to 25 ``small'' firms totaled between about
$383 million and about $1.12 billion, which represented between 7
percent and 21 percent of total annual receipts by all pulp mills of
about $5.30 billion. About 10 percent of U.S. pulp mills are in the
Pacific Northwest.
Due to resin-content differences, pulp mills cannot use various
species of wood chips indiscriminately. Pulp mills designed to process
wood chips of Pinus radiata or similar species should, therefore, be
the only ones directly affected by this rule. It is estimated that less
than one-half of U.S. pulp mills could use Pinus radiata wood
chips.\20\ Assuming an equal distribution of these pulp mills among all
pulp mills, size-wise, ``small'' pulp mill firms directly affected
would then number between 10 and 13, based on 1994 data. These numbers
are likely to be an overestimation, since not all of the ``small''
firms that could utilize Pinus radiata wood chips are necessarily
located in the Pacific Northwest. Regardless of the number of affected
``small'' pulp mill firms, having Chile as a source of Pinus radiata
wood chips should be beneficial to pulp mills and their customers, to
the extent lower chip prices are reflected in lower product prices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Byron Lundi, Georgia-Pacific, personal communication.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Test shipments of Pinus radiata wood chips from Chile have been
successfully imported by pulp mills in the Pacific Northwest. This rule
will enable such shipments, using a surface pesticide treatment, to
continue to take place when economically feasible. Although Pinus
radiata wood chip production in the United States is negligible, this
species can substitute for other species as a pulp fiber, given certain
milling adjustments. Off-shore wood chip sources to supplement domestic
supply are advantageous to pulp mills, given
[[Page 21126]]
the volatility of pulp prices. Chile's wood products industry has a
large export component and is expected to be a reliable source when
pulp prices prompt wood chip exports to the United States. Adverse
economic effects for wood chip producers in the Pacific Northwest will
be felt by those producers who are unable to reduce costs to meet
import competition and who rely heavily on revenues from wood chips.
No figures are available concerning potential costs of pest
introductions through importation of Pinus radiata wood chips from
Chile. A pest risk assessment for the importation of Pinus radiata logs
from Chile (``Pest Risk Assessment of the Importation of Pinus radiata,
Nothofagus dombeyi, and Laurelia philippiana Logs from Chile,'' USDA
Forest Service, Miscellaneous Publication No. 1517, September 1993)
provides the phytosanitary basis for allowing the wood chips to be
imported if they are treated as prescribed. The pest risk assessment
supports our determination that Pinus radiata wood chips may be
imported from Chile with negligible risk.
The pest risk assessment reported that in sharp contrast to native
forests in Chile, that country's Pinus radiata plantations are
relatively free of major insect and disease problems. Exceptions
include the recently introduced European pine shoot moth (Rhyaccionia
buoliana), Hylurgus ligniperda and two other species of European bark
beetles, several needle disease fungi (Dothistroma pini and
Lophodermium spp., among others), diplodia shoot blight (Sphaeropsis
sapinea), and two species of blue stain fungi (Ophiostoma picea and O.
piliferum). The wood wasp Sirex noctilio (considered to be the most
important pest on Pinus radiata logs exported from New Zealand) and
pine wood nematodes (Bursaphelenchus spp.) have yet to be found in
Chile.
Among the insect pests of Pinus radiata analyzed in detail in the
pest risk assessment, only the bark beetle Hylurgus ligniperda was
considered to have a high pest risk potential. Moderate pest risk
potentials were assigned to Rhyephenes spp., Ernobius mollis, Urocerus
gigas gigas, Neotermes chilensis, Porotermes quadricollis, Colobura
alboplagiata, and Buprestis novemmaculata. Among the pathogens, the
stain fungi (Ophiostoma spp.) were found to merit a moderate to high
pest risk potential, whereas the complex of needle diseases
(Dothistroma pini and other species) and diplodia shoot blight
(Sphaeropsis sapinea) were rated as moderate risks. Other pathogens
were considered to be of low risk. One weed of concern (Imperata
condensata, considered a variety of I. cylindrica or cogongrass) was
identified.
Pests potentially affecting untreated Pinus radiata wood chips are
a subset of those identified in the pest risk assessment, since wood
chip production will physically remove or destroy most pests that could
be present in the logs. Treatment with the surface pesticide required
by this rule should prevent entry into the United States of any harmful
insects or fungi that might remain.
The Pacific Northwest's coastal ranges and Cascade Mountains have
some of the highest quality natural and planted conifer forests in the
world, producing commodities ranging from pulp and paper, to lumber for
construction, to ornamentals and Christmas trees. Introduced pests such
as those described could affect forestry industries directly by causing
damage or indirectly by curtailing commerce through quarantines.
Some potential costs of foreign timber pests have been estimated in
other instances. For example, a pest risk assessment concerning
Siberian timber imports estimated that the introduction of a single
pest, larch canker, could cause direct timber losses of $129 million
annually. The same study estimated that a worst-case scenario involving
heavy establishment of exotic defoliators in the United States could
cost $58 billion.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ ``Importation of Logs, Lumber, and Other Unmanufactured
Wood Articles: Final Supplemental to the Environmental Impact
Statement, May 1988,'' USDA APHIS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Concerning consumer and producer effects of allowing Pinus radiata
wood chips to be imported from Chile, data are insufficient to permit
confident estimation of welfare changes. Time-series data for the
estimation of elasticities of supply and demand are not available.
Circumstantial evidence, however, suggests that pulp producers and pulp
product consumers benefit from Pinus radiata wood chip imports from
Chile, when their relative price is low compared to that of other wood
chip species or sources. The test shipments from Chile resulted in U.S.
wood chip imports worth $22.8 million and $19.3 million in 1995 and
1996, respectively. These shipments represented over 48 and 44 percent
of all U.S. coniferous wood chip imports in those 2 years.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ FAS Global Agricultural Trade System, using data from the
United Nations Statistical Office.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The continuing reduction in timber sources in the Pacific Northwest
will encourage more wood imports in the future, and Chile's expanded
commercial forestry plantings promise a prominent role for that country
as a wood products exporter. Effects on prices, if any, from imports
for U.S. wood chip producers should be very small, since coniferous
wood chip imports are less than one percent of U.S. production.
Moreover, trade statistics indicate that U.S. coniferous wood chip
producers are finding overseas markets as profitable as their Chilean
counterparts. U.S. coniferous wood chip exports in 1995 were valued at
more than $222 million, and in 1996, at more than $181 million. As is
true for Chile, the principal overseas coniferous wood chip market for
the United States is Japan.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ FAS Global Trade System, using data from the United Nations
Statistical Office.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This rule includes a reporting and recordkeeping requirement that
wood chips imported from Chile must be accompanied by a certificate
issued by the Government of Chile, stating that all the applicable
requirements of the regulations have been met.
We considered taking no action as an alternative to this rule. The
no action alternative was rejected because we believe that the
provisions of this rule will provide more supply alternatives for wood
chip consumers, and make compliance easier for regulated individuals,
without increasing the risk of introducing a plant pest into the United
States.
Executive Order 12988
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil
Justice Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts all State and local laws and
regulations that are inconsistent with this rule; (2) has no
retroactive effect; and (3) does not require administrative proceedings
before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.
National Environmental Policy Act
An environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact
have been prepared for this rule. The assessment provides a basis for
the conclusion that the importation of Pinus radiata wood chips from
Chile under the conditions specified in this rule will not present a
risk of introducing or disseminating plant pests and will not have a
significant impact on the quality of the human environment. Based on
the finding of no significant impact, the Administrator of the Animal
and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that an
environmental impact statement need not be prepared.
The environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact
were
[[Page 21127]]
prepared in accordance with: (1) The National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969, as amended (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), (2) regulations of
the Council on Environmental Quality for implementing the procedural
provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), (3) USDA regulations
implementing NEPA (7 CFR part 1b), and (4) APHIS' NEPA Implementing
Procedures (7 CFR part 372).
Copies of the environmental assessment and finding of no
significant impact are available for public 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. Persons wishing to inspect copies are requested to
call ahead on (202) 690-2817 to facilitate entry into the reading room.
In addition, copies may be obtained by writing to the individual listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the information collection or
recordkeeping requirements included in this final rule have been
approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The assigned OMB
control number is 0579-0135.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 319
Bees, Coffee, Cotton, Fruits, Honey, Imports, Logs, Nursery stock,
Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Rice, Vegetables.
Accordingly, we are amending 7 CFR part 319 as follows:
PART 319--FOREIGN QUARANTINE NOTICES
1. The authority citation for part 319 continues 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 2.22, 2.80, and 371.2(c).
2. In Sec. 319.40-1, a definition of the word fines is added in
alphabetical order to read as follows:
Sec. 319.40-1 Definitions.
* * * * *
Fines. Small particles or fragments of wood, slightly larger than
sawdust, that result from chipping, sawing, or processing wood.
* * * * *
3. In Sec. 319.40-6, paragraph (c) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 319.40-6 Universal importation options.
* * * * *
(c) Wood chips and bark chips. (1) From Chile. Wood chips from
Chile that are derived from Monterey or Radiata pine (Pinus radiata)
logs may be imported in accordance with Sec. 319.40-6(c)(2) or in
accordance with the following requirements:
(i) The wood chips must be accompanied by a certificate stating
that the wood chips meet the requirements in paragraphs (c)(1)(i)(A)
through (c)(1)(i)(C) of this section.
(A) The wood chips were treated with a surface pesticide treatment
in accordance with Sec. 319.40-7(e) within 24 hours after the log was
chipped and were retreated with a surface pesticide treatment in
accordance with Sec. 319.40-7(e) if more than 30 days elapsed between
the date of the first treatment and the date of export to the United
States.
(B) The wood chips were derived from logs from live, healthy,
plantation-grown trees that were apparently free of plant pests, plant
pest damage, and decay organisms, and the logs used to make the wood
chips were debarked in accordance with Sec. 319.40-7(b) before being
chipped.
(C) No more than 45 days elapsed from the time the trees used to
make the wood chips were felled to the time the wood chips were
exported.
(ii) 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. Wood chips on the
vessel's deck must be in a sealed container.
(iii) The wood chips must be consigned to a facility in the United
States that operates under a compliance agreement in accordance with
Sec. 319.40-8. The following requirements apply upon arrival of the
wood chips in the United States:
(A) Upon arrival in the United States, the wood chips must be
unloaded by a conveyor that is covered to prevent the chips from being
blown by the wind and from accidental spillage. The facility receiving
the wood chips must have a procedure in place to retrieve any chips
that fall during unloading.
(B) If the wood chips must be transported after arrival, the chips
must be covered or safeguarded in a manner that prevents the chips from
spilling or falling off the means of conveyance or from being blown off
the means of conveyance by wind.
(C) The wood chips must be stored at the facility on a paved
surface and must be kept segregated from other regulated articles from
the time of discharge from the means of conveyance until the chips are
processed. The storage area must not be adjacent to wooded areas.
(D) The wood chips must be processed within 45 days of arrival at
the facility. Any fines or unusable wood chips must be disposed of by
burning within 45 days of arrival at the facility.
(2) From locations other than certain places in Asia. Wood chips
and bark chips from any place except places in Asia that are east of
60 deg. east longitude and north of the Tropic of Cancer may be
imported in accordance with this paragraph.
(i) The wood chips or bark chips must be accompanied by an importer
document stating that the wood chips or bark chips were either:
(A) Derived from live, healthy, tropical species of plantation-
grown trees grown in tropical areas; or
(B) Fumigated with methyl bromide in accordance with Sec. 319.40-
7(f)(3), heat treated in accordance with Sec. 319.40-7(c), or heat
treated with moisture reduction in accordance with Sec. 319.40-7(d).
(ii) 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;
Except that: If the wood chips or bark chips are derived from live,
healthy, plantation-grown trees in tropical areas, they may be shipped
on deck if no other regulated articles are present on the vessel and
the wood chips or bark chips are completely covered by a tarpaulin
during the entire journey directly to the United States.
(iii) 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), heat treated in accordance with Sec. 319.40-
7(c), or heat treated with moisture reduction in accordance with
Sec. 319.40-7(d).
(iv) 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),
heat treated with moisture reduction in accordance with 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
[[Page 21128]]
composting, they must first be fumigated in accordance with
Sec. 319.40-7(f)(3), heat treated in accordance with Sec. 319.40-7(c),
or heat treated with moisture reduction in accordance with Sec. 319.40-
7(d).
* * * * *
4. In Sec. 319.40-7, paragraph (e) is revised to read as follows.
Sec. 319.40-7 Treatments and safeguards.
* * * * *
(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, except that Pinus radiata wood chips from Chile must be
treated in accordance with Sec. 319.40-7(e)(2). Surface pesticide
treatments must be conducted in accordance with label directions
approved by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Under
the following circumstances, surface pesticide treatments must also be
conducted as follows:
(1) Heat treated logs. 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.
(2) Pinus radiata wood chips from Chile. When used on Pinus radiata
wood chips from Chile, a surface pesticide consisting of the following
must be used: A mixture of a fungicide containing 64.8percent of the
active ingredient didecyl dimethyl ammonium chloride and 7.6 percent of
the active ingredient 3-iodo-2-propynl butylcarbamate and an
insecticide containing 44.9percent of the active ingredient
chlorpyrifos phosphorothioate. The wood chips must be sprayed with the
pesticide so that all the chips are exposed to the chemical on all
sides. During the entire interval between treatment and export, the
wood chips must be stored, handled, or safeguarded in a manner that
prevents any infestation of the wood chips by plant pests.
* * * * *
Done in Washington, DC, this 17th day of April 2000.
Bobby R. Acord,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 00-9937 Filed 4-19-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P