[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 97 (Tuesday, May 20, 2003)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27480-27491]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-12503]


 ========================================================================
 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. 68, No. 97 / Tuesday, May 20, 2003 / Proposed 
Rules  

[[Page 27480]]



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

7 CFR Part 319

[Docket No. 02-032-2]
RIN 0579-AB48


Importation of Solid Wood Packing Material

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Proposed rule and notice of public hearings.

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

SUMMARY: We are proposing to amend the regulations for the importation 
of unmanufactured wood articles to adopt an international standard 
entitled ``Guidelines for Regulating Wood Packaging Material in 
International Trade'' that was approved by the Interim Commission on 
Phytosanitary Measures of the International Plant Protection Convention 
on March 15, 2002. The standard calls for wood packaging material to be 
either heat treated or fumigated with methyl bromide, in accordance 
with the Guidelines, and marked with an approved international mark 
certifying treatment. We propose to adopt the IPPC Guidelines because 
they represent the current international standard determined to be 
necessary and effective for controlling pests in wood packaging 
material used in global trade, and because current United States 
requirements for wood packaging material are not fully effective, as 
shown by analyses of pest interceptions at ports that show an increase 
in pests associated with wood packaging material. This increase in 
pests was found in wood packaging material that does not meet the IPPC 
Guidelines (e.g., wood packaging material from everywhere except China, 
which must already be treated due to past pest interceptions). There 
has been a decrease in pests associated with wood packaging material 
from China since we began requiring that material be treated prior to 
importation. This change would affect all persons using wood packaging 
material in connection with importing goods into the United States.

DATES: We will consider all comments that we receive on or before July 
21, 2003. We will also consider comments made at public hearings to be 
held in Seattle, WA, on June 23, 2003; Long Beach, CA, on June 25, 
2003; and Washington, DC, on June 27, 2003.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by postal mail/commercial delivery 
or by e-mail. If you use postal mail/commercial delivery, please send 
four copies of your comment (an original and three copies) to: Docket 
No. 02-032-2, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 
3C71, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state 
that your comment refers to Docket No. 02-032-2. If you use e-mail, 
address your comment to [email protected]. Your comment must 
be contained in the body of your message; do not send attached files. 
Please include your name and address in your message and ``Docket No. 
02-032-2'' on the subject line.
    You may read any comments that we receive on this docket in our 
reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 of the USDA 
South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, 
DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, 
please call (202) 690-2817 before coming.
    APHIS documents published in the Federal Register, and related 
information, including the names of organizations and individuals who 
have commented on APHIS dockets, are available on the Internet at 
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppd/rad/webrepor.html.
    Public hearings regarding this rule will be held at the following 
locations:
    1. Seattle, WA: Renaissance Madison Hotel, 515 Madison Street, 
Seattle, WA.
    2. Long Beach, CA: Hilton Long Beach, 701 W. Ocean Blvd., Long 
Beach, CA.
    3. Washington, DC: United States Department of Agriculture, 
Jefferson Auditorium, South Building Wing 4, 1400 Independence Avenue 
SW., Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Ray Nosbaum, Senior Regulatory 
Coordinator, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 131, Riverdale, MD 20737-
1231; (301) 734-6280.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Hearings

    We are advising the public that we are hosting three public 
hearings on this proposed rule. The first public hearing will be held 
in Seattle, WA, on Monday, June 23, 2003. The second public hearing 
will be held in Long Beach, CA, on Wednesday, June 25, 2003. The third 
public hearing will be held in Washington, DC, on Friday, June 27, 
2003.
    A representative of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 
(APHIS), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), will preside at the 
public hearings. Any interested person may appear and be heard in 
person, by attorney, or by other representative. Written statements may 
be submitted and will be made part of the hearing record. A transcript 
of the public hearings will be placed in the rulemaking record and will 
be available for public inspection.
    The purpose of the hearings is to give interested persons an 
opportunity for presentation 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 the hearings, 
except to clarify or explain provisions of the proposed rule.
    The public hearings will begin at 9 a.m. and are scheduled to end 
at 5 p.m., local time. The presiding officer may limit the time for 
each presentation so that all interested persons appearing at each 
hearing have an opportunity to participate. Each hearing may be 
terminated at any time if all persons desiring to speak have been 
heard.
    Registration for the hearings may be accomplished by registering 
with the presiding officer between 8:30 a.m. and 9 a.m. on the day of 
the hearing. Persons who wish to speak at a hearing will be asked to 
sign in with their name and organization to establish a record for the 
hearing. We ask that anyone who reads a statement provide two copies to 
the presiding officer at the hearing. Those who wish to form a panel to 
present

[[Page 27481]]

their views will be asked to provide the name of each member of the 
panel and the organizations the panel members represent.
    Persons or panels wishing to speak at one or more of the public 
hearings may register in advance by phone or e-mail. Persons wishing to 
register by phone should call the Regulatory Analysis and Development 
voice mail at (301) 734-8138. Callers must leave a message clearly 
stating (1) the location of the hearing the registrant wishes to speak 
at, (2) the registrant's name and organization, and, if registering for 
a panel, (3) the name of each member of the panel and the organization 
each panel member represents. Persons wishing to register by e-mail 
must send an e-mail with the same information described above to 
[email protected]. Please write ``Public Hearing Registration'' 
in the subject line of your e-mail. Advance registration for any 
hearing must be received by 3 p.m. on Thursday, June 19, 2003.
    If you require special accommodations, such as a sign language 
interpreter, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT.

Background

    Logs, lumber, and other unmanufactured wood articles imported into 
the United States pose a significant hazard of introducing plant pests, 
including 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 mitigate plant pest risks presented by the 
importation of logs, lumber, and other unmanufactured wood articles.
    The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is proposing 
to amend the regulations to decrease the risk of solid wood packing 
material (SWPM) introducing plant pests into the United States. SWPM is 
defined in the regulations as ``[w]ood 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.'' 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 
SWPM. These and other plant pests that are carried by some imported 
SWPM pose a serious threat to U.S. agriculture and to natural, 
cultivated, and urban forests.
    The introduction of pests associated with SWPM is a worldwide 
problem.\1\ Because SWPM is very often re-used, recycled or re-
manufactured, the true origin of any piece of SWPM is difficult to 
determine and thus its phytosanitary status cannot be ascertained. This 
often precludes national plant protection organizations from conducting 
useful specific risk analyses focused on the pests associated with SWPM 
of a particular type or place of origin, and imposing particular 
mitigation measures based on the results of such analysis. For this 
reason, there is a need to develop globally accepted measures that may 
be applied to SWPM by all countries to practically eliminate the risk 
for most quarantine pests and significantly reduce the risk from other 
pests that may be associated with the SWPM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Problems with pests associated with SWPM have also been 
addressed on a regional level, e.g., when the North American Plant 
Protection Organization, acting on behalf of the United States, 
Canada, and Mexico, approved the document ``NAPPO Standards for 
Phytosanitary Measures: Import Requirements for Wood Dunnage and 
Other Wood Packing Materials into a NAPPO Member Country,'' The 
Secretariat of the North American Plant Protection Organization, 
Ottawa, August 12, 2001. Also, the three NAPPO countries have agreed 
to a target date of June 1, 2003, to implement the IPPC Guidelines 
among them; this announcement is on the NAPPO Web site at http://www.nappo.org/Standards/Desicions-e.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Such issues are generally addressed under the World Trade 
Organization's Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and 
Phytosanitary Measures (1994, World Trade Organization, Geneva) (the 
Agreement). The Agreement fosters the use of harmonized sanitary and 
phytosanitary measures developed by international standards 
organizations. In the case of phytosanitary standards, the authorized 
standard-setting organization is the International Plant Protection 
Convention (IPPC). Article 3 of the Agreement states, ``To harmonize 
sanitary and phytosanitary measures on as wide a basis as possible, 
Members shall base their sanitary or phytosanitary measures on 
international standards, guidelines or recommendations, where they 
exist,'' except when Members opt to impose a higher level of sanitary 
or phytosanitary protection than the international standards provide. 
The same Article also states, ``Sanitary or phytosanitary measures 
which conform to international standards, guidelines or recommendations 
shall be deemed to be necessary to protect human, animal or plant life 
or health, and presumed to be consistent with the relevant provisions 
of this Agreement and of GATT 1994.''
    We propose to adopt the international standard \2\ approved by the 
IPPC on March 15, 2002 (referred to below as the IPPC Guidelines).\3\ 
The IPPC Guidelines were developed after the IPPC determined that 
worldwide, the movement of SWPM made of unprocessed raw wood is a 
pathway for the introduction and spread of a variety of pests (IPPC 
Guidelines, p. 5). The IPPC Guidelines list the major categories of 
these pests, and establish a heat treatment and a fumigation treatment 
determined to be effective against them (IPPC Guidelines, p. 10). As 
many of these pests have been associated with SWPM inspected at U.S. 
ports, we propose to adopt the IPPC Guidelines because they represent 
the current international standard determined to be necessary and 
effective for controlling pests in SWPM. The need to adopt the IPPC 
Guidelines is further supported by analysis of pest interceptions at 
ports that show an increase in dangerous pests associated with certain 
SWPM. This increase in pests was found in SWPM that does not meet the 
IPPC Guidelines (e.g., SWPM from everywhere except China). There has 
been a decrease in pests associated with SWPM material from China since 
we began requiring that material be treated prior to importation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures: 
Guidelines for Regulating Wood Packaging Material in International 
Trade,'' Secretariat of the International Plant Protection 
Convention, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 
Rome: 2002.
    \3\ Regarding ``guidelines'' vs. ``standards'': While the IPPC 
document refers to itself as ``Guidelines'' in the title, it refers 
to itself as a ``standard'' throughout its body. The distinction 
does not appear to be meaningful; cf. IPPC Convention, Art. 3, 
``Members shall base their sanitary or phytosanitary measures on 
international standards, guidelines or recommendations, where they 
exist * * * .''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another reason to adopt the IPPC Guidelines at this time is that 
adopting them would simplify and standardize trade requirements. China, 
Canada, the European Union, and many other countries are preparing to 
implement the IPPC Guidelines requirements. Given the difficulty of 
identifying the source of SWPM and the recycling of SWPM in trade, 
successful reduction of the pest risk posed by SWPM requires all 
trading partners to take action on a similar timeline. Furthermore, if 
the United States does not do so, U.S. companies will need to comply 
with one set of SWPM requirements for goods exported from the United 
States and another set of requirements for goods imported into the 
United States. Companies engaged in both import and export would have 
particular difficulties

[[Page 27482]]

in ensuring that their SWPM supply chain is sorted and routed for use 
for appropriate destinations. If the United States adopts the IPPC 
Guidelines, these companies would be able to use SWPM that complies 
with the Guidelines for both import and export purposes, leveling the 
trade playing field with regard to SWPM.

Basis of the IPPC Guidelines

    The IPPC is a multilateral convention adopted in 1952 for the 
purpose of securing common and effective action to prevent the spread 
and introduction of pests of plants and plant products and to promote 
appropriate measures for their control. The IPPC is placed under the 
authority of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United 
Nations, and the members of the Secretariat of the IPPC are appointed 
by the FAO. The IPPC is implemented by national plant protection 
organizations, including APHIS, in cooperation with regional plant 
protection organizations, the Interim Commission on Phytosanitary 
Measures (ICPM), and the Secretariat of the IPPC. The United States 
plays a major role in all standard-setting activities under the IPPC 
and has representation on FAO's highest governing body, the FAO 
Conference.
    The United States became a contracting party to the IPPC in 1972 
and has been actively involved in furthering the work of the IPPC ever 
since. The IPPC was amended in 1997 to update phytosanitary concepts 
and formalize the standard-setting structure within the IPPC. The U.S. 
Senate gave its advice and consent to acceptance of the newly revised 
IPPC on October 18, 2000. The President submitted the official letter 
of acceptance to the FAO Director General on October 4, 2001.
    The eight-step process by which the IPPC develops new phytosanitary 
standards is described in detail in a notice APHIS published in the 
Federal Register on August 23, 2002 (Docket No. 02-051-1, 67 FR 54615-
54621). APHIS technical experts were deeply involved throughout the 
process used to develop the IPPC Guidelines for wood packaging 
materials. A team of international experts studied all published data 
available at the time and recommended the treatment schedules that are 
in the IPPC Guidelines. Scientific studies evaluated during this 
process documented the risks associated with SWPM, the need to treat 
it, and the efficacy of the treatments included in the IPPC Guidelines 
(see, e.g., http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/swp/heat_treatment.pdf).

Terms Used in the IPPC Guidelines and in APHIS Regulations

    The IPPC Guidelines employ the term ``wood packaging material,'' 
which the Guidelines define as ``wood or wood products (excluding paper 
products) used in supporting, protecting or carrying a commodity 
(includes dunnage).'' Later, in a discussion of issues, the IPPC 
Guidelines state that wood packaging material includes ``coniferous and 
non-coniferous raw wood packaging material that may serve as a pathway 
for plant pests posing a threat mainly to living trees. They cover wood 
packaging material such as pallets, dunnage, crating, packing blocks, 
drums, cases, load boards, pallet collars, and skids * * * Wood 
packaging made wholly of wood-based products such as plywood, particle 
board, oriented strand board or veneer that have been created using 
glue, heat and pressure or a combination thereof should be considered 
sufficiently processed to have eliminated the risk associated with the 
raw wood. It is unlikely to be infested by raw wood pests during its 
use and therefore should not be regulated for these pests. Wood 
packaging material such as veneer peeler cores, sawdust, wood wool, and 
shavings, and raw wood cut into thin pieces may not be pathways for 
introduction of quarantine pests and should not be regulated unless 
technically justified.'' APHIS uses the term ``solid wood packing 
material'' in its regulations to cover the same class of materials.
    In this document, and in our regulations, we have elected to 
continue using the term solid wood packing material (SWPM) rather than 
the IPPC term wood packaging material. We do so for reasons of 
enforcement and history. Unlike the IPPC Guidelines, our regulations 
must be enforced daily in a wide variety of situations, dealing with 
many regulated parties. To enforce our regulations, we need to 
precisely define terms in a manner consistent with the entire body of 
our regulations. Our definition of SWPM meets these needs. Also, for 
over 10 years, APHIS has published a large number of informational 
guides, agreements, certificates, and other documents employing the 
SWPM term, and we believe it would be confusing rather than helpful to 
change to another term.

The IPPC Guidelines Compared to Current APHIS Requirements

    The IPPC Guidelines require SWPM to be heat treated or fumigated 
with methyl bromide. These two treatments are efficacious in treating 
the target pests named in the IPPC Guidelines, i.e., bark beetles, wood 
borers, and certain nematodes. These pests represent over 95 percent of 
all of the pests that APHIS intercepted in association with imported 
SWPM in 2000 and 2001.
Target Pest Groups of the IPPC Guidelines
Insects

    Anobiidae
    Bostrichidae
    Buprestidae
    Cerambycidae
    Curculionidae
    Isoptera
    Lyctidae (with some exceptions for HT)
    Oedemeridae
    Scolytidae
    Siricidae
    Nematodes

    Bursaphelenchus xylophilus
    Currently, the regulations allow, subject to certain restrictions, 
SWPM to be imported into the United States from any country. In Sec.  
319.40-3, paragraph (b)(1) provides that bark-free SWPM used with 
nonregulated wood articles is subject to inspection upon arrival, but 
treatment is not required. Paragraph (b)(4) of Sec.  319.40-3 provides 
that bark-free pallets moved as cargo are subject to inspection upon 
arrival, but, in general, treatment is not required. Paragraphs (b)(2) 
and (b)(3) of Sec.  319.40-3 require, in general, that bark-free SWPM 
used with regulated wood articles or SWPM not free of bark be heat 
treated, fumigated, or treated with preservatives. Likewise, as of the 
end of 1998, SWPM from China, including Hong Kong, is subject to 
stricter regulation in that it also must be heat treated, fumigated, or 
treated with preservatives, in accordance with Sec.  319.40-5, 
paragraphs (g) and (i). The treatment schedules for SWPM in the current 
regulations have an effectiveness against target pests for SWPM that is 
very similar to that provided by the treatments in the IPPC Guidelines. 
We are proposing to adopt the IPPC Guidelines in lieu of all the 
current requirements for SWPM described in this paragraph.
    The treatments authorized by the IPPC Guidelines include a heat 
treatment schedule and a methyl bromide fumigation schedule. The IPPC 
Guidelines also acknowledge that other treatments currently under 
laboratory evaluation for their effectiveness may be added to the IPPC 
Guidelines in the future. These possible additional treatments include 
fumigation with chemicals other than methyl bromide, chemical pressure 
impregnation,

[[Page 27483]]

irradiation, and treatment in controlled atmosphere.
    The IPPC Guidelines state, with respect to heat treatment, that 
SWPM should be heated in accordance with a specific time-temperature 
schedule that achieves a minimum wood core temperature of 56 [deg]C for 
a minimum of 30 minutes. It notes that kiln-drying, chemical pressure 
impregnation (CPI), or other treatments may be considered heat 
treatments to the extent that these meet the heat treatment 
specifications. For example, CPI may meet the specification through the 
use of steam, hot water, or dry heat.
    The IPPC Guidelines state, with respect to methyl bromide 
fumigation, that the SWPM should be fumigated in an enclosed area for 
at least 16 hours at the following dosage, stated in terms of grams of 
methyl bromide per cubic meter of the enclosure being fumigated:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Minimum required concentration (g/m\3\)
                                                            Initial                     after:
                       Temperature                          dose (g/ -------------------------------------------
                                                             m\3\)     0.5 hrs.    2 hrs.     4 hrs.    16 hrs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
21 [deg]C or above.......................................         48         36         24         17         14
16 [deg]C or above.......................................         56         42         28         20         17
11 [deg]C or above.......................................         64         48         32         22         19
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The methyl bromide fumigation schedule in the IPPC Guidelines 
parallels, though it is not identical to, the schedules APHIS requires 
for fumigation of SWPM (e.g., for shipments from China). The heat 
treatment schedule in the IPPC Guidelines has a lesser time-temperature 
requirement than the existing APHIS heat treatment schedule in Sec.  
319.40-7(c), which requires maintaining a core temperature of at least 
71.1 [deg]C for a minimum of 75 minutes. However, it is generally 
acknowledged, and supported by research discussed below, that the APHIS 
heat treatment schedule in Sec.  319.40-7(c) exceeds the treatment 
level necessary to control the IPPC target pests in SWPM. The time-
temperature combination in Sec.  319.40-7(c) was set to ensure 
destruction of a wide variety of pests and pathogens, some of which are 
not target pests for SWPM, in wood articles of a variety of sizes and 
shapes, some of which, being thicker and larger, require more stringent 
treatments than does SWPM. It is not certain whether the heat and 
methyl bromide treatments we are proposing may provide less mitigation 
of all possible pest risks than the more stringent treatments currently 
required for SWPM from China. The proposed treatments should be just as 
effective with regard to the target pests identified in this rule and 
in the IPPC Guidelines. Approximately 95 percent of pests our 
inspectors intercept on shipments worldwide are pests on the IPPC 
target pest list, and research demonstrates the IPPC standard 
treatments are effective against these pests. For the remaining 5 
percent of pests we intercept--primarily defoliators and rarely 
sapsucking insects, pathogens, or nematodes--limited data supports a 
conclusion that most are likely to be effectively mitigated by the 
treatments in the IPPC standard. If there are any remaining pests not 
effectively mitigated by the IPPC standard treatments, we do not have 
conclusive scientific evidence that the treatments currently required 
for SWPM from China would be more effective against them than the IPPC 
standard treatments. Such a conclusion would be conjectural, that the 
additional heat treatment or fumigation would be enough to destroy the 
pest. Instead of retaining the China treatments merely because they 
require higher doses that might be effective against pests with unknown 
tolerances, APHIS intends to develop more information about such pests 
and address them when we can verify effective treatment. As stated in 
the IPPC Guidelines, APHIS or other nations' plant protection agencies 
may promulgate additional rules as needed to address additional pest 
risks on a case-by-case basis.
    In addition to describing heat and methyl bromide treatment 
schedules and an approved international mark for SWPM, the IPPC 
Guidelines require that a country's national plant protection 
organization develop procedures to ensure that SWPM treated and marked 
in that country for export complies with the IPPC Guidelines. Countries 
must monitor the SWPM certification and marking systems that verify 
compliance and must establish procedures to inspect, register or 
accredit, and audit commercial companies that apply the SWPM 
treatments.

Risks to U.S. Resources, Recent Pest Interceptions, and Other Data 
Supporting Adoption of the IPPC Guidelines

    There is worldwide consensus among national plant protection 
organizations that pest interceptions associated with SWPM indicate a 
serious problem in which the movement of certain dangerous pests is not 
sufficiently controlled by current restrictions on SWPM. There is ample 
data indicating that the United States is at particular risk with 
regard to this problem. For many years, pests associated with SWPM, 
including highly destructive wood borers and beetles, have been 
intercepted at U.S. ports. Pests of these types are often well-
concealed inside SWPM, in larval forms or dormant stages that increase 
their survival potential. These pests may easily survive movement to 
the final destination or to cargo redistribution sites, many of which 
are vulnerable, heavily forested regions. About one-third of the land 
area of the United States is forest land, and there are millions of 
acres of urban, suburban, and ornamental trees as well. There are many 
areas where the climate, tree species, and lack of natural predators 
would allow introduced pests to flourish and become established.
    One confirmation of the SWPM pest problem can be seen using an 
APHIS database, the Port Information Network (PIN-309), which records 
interceptions of quarantine pests \4\ found in cargo arriving at United 
States ports. These reports of interceptions are based on sampling 
inspections conducted by APHIS inspectors at U.S. ports. For many years 
the PIN-309 reports have recorded interceptions in imported SWPM of the 
types of pests the IPPC Guidelines were developed to control. In recent 
years PIN-309 data has shown increasing levels of pests of concern, in 
addition to recording evidence that the treatments contained in the 
IPPC Guidelines are effective when they are applied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ ``Quarantine pest'': A pest of potential economic importance 
to the area endangered thereby and not yet present there, or present 
but not widely distributed and being officially controlled. (FAO, 
1990; revised FAO, 1995; IPPC, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    From 1996 through 1998, PIN-309 reported \5\ an average of 402 live 
pests

[[Page 27484]]

per year associated with SWPM were intercepted at U.S. ports of entry; 
of these, 156, or 39 percent, were from China. Starting at the end of 
1998, APHIS began requiring that SWPM from China be heat treated, 
fumigated, or pressure treated. This caused a marked decline in pest 
interceptions associated with SWPM from China, but interceptions from 
other countries have increased. For 2000-2001, an average of 355 pests 
per year associated with SWPM were intercepted at U.S. ports of entry; 
of these, 24, or 7 percent, were from China.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The scope and limits of PIN-309 data suggest that many more 
pests associated with SWPM went unreported. First, PIN-309 reports 
are made by inspectors, who inspect less than 1 percent of the more 
than 4 million wood pallets and other SWPM articles imported each 
year. Second, usually when inspectors find the first actionable pest 
in a shipment, they order treatment or re-export; they do not 
inspect the remainder of the shipment for more pests, which 
therefore are not recorded in PIN-309.
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP20MY03.003

    If we subtract the China data from the PIN-309 reports, there was 
an average of 246 interceptions associated with SWPM from the rest of 
the world (ROW) each year from 1996-1998; this has risen to an average 
of 331 for each year from 2000-2001. APHIS believes that the increase 
in pest interceptions associated with ROW shipments is due to a real 
increase in pests associated with them, probably due to increased 
volume of trade that required increased sources of SWPM, causing 
shippers to use SWPM of lesser quality that is more likely to have 
pests associated with it. In discussions with APHIS, other countries 
have also indicated concern that increased trade has lead to use of 
riskier SWPM, and have endorsed the IPPC Guidelines as a means to 
address this phenomenon.

[[Page 27485]]

[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP20MY03.004

    The types of pests intercepted include many that could cause 
significant damage if established. They included Coleoptera: Scolytidae 
(bark beetles); Hemiptera: Heteroptera, Coleoptera: Buprestidae, and 
Cerambycidae, (wood borers). Some pests had already moved beyond ports 
of entry when found; Hylurgops palliatus, a Palearctic bark beetle, was 
found beyond the port in Erie, PA, in May and June 2001, and Hylurgus 
ligniperda Fabricus, a red haired pine bark beetle, was found on a 
Christmas tree plantation in Rochester, NY, in November 2000. These two 
bark beetles were likely introduced into the United States with SWPM 
from Europe.
    Many of these pests have the potential to cause damage comparable 
to that demonstrated by other recent introductions, e.g., the Asian 
longhorned beetle (ALB) and the pine shoot beetle (PSB). The ALB was 
discovered in New York in 1996 and in Illinois in 1998, and since then 
APHIS has spent over $50 million on surveys, destruction and 
replacement of infested trees, treatment of surrounding trees, and 
other control activities. The State and local governments of Illinois 
and New York together have spent approximately $9 million. While 
containment efforts are expected to succeed, if they fail, ALB could 
devastate forests covering more than 100 million acres--the maple-
dominated forests stretching from New England to the Midwest, with 
additional range in Canada; and the aspens of the Great Lakes region, 
central Canada, and the Rocky Mountains. APHIS has also spent millions 
of dollars to control the PSB since its discovery near Cleveland, OH, 
in 1992, after which it spread to nine Midwestern and Eastern States, 
as well as Ontario. It is continuing to spread to new areas within some 
affected States, and may spread to additional States. One recent study 
\6\ estimated the value of urban trees at risk from ALB in nine cities. 
The resources at risk ranged from $72 million for Jersey City, NJ to 
$2.3 billion for New York City.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Nowak, David, J., Judith E. Pasek, Ronald A. Sequeira, 
Daniel E. Crane, and Victor C. Mastro, 2001. ``Potential Effect of 
Anaplophora glabripennis (Coleoptera:Cerambycidae) on Urban Trees in 
the U.S.'' Journal of Economic Entomology 94(1): 116-122 (2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another recent example of a pest apparently introduced through SWPM 
movement is the emerald ash borer. This Buprestid beetle was recently 
discovered feeding on ash (Fraxinus sp.) trees in southeastern 
Michigan; it was positively identified in July 2002 as Agrilus 
planipennis Fairmaire, an insect that is indigenous to Asia, with large 
populations in ash forests in China and eastern Russia. Evidence 
suggests that A. planipennis has been established in

[[Page 27486]]

Michigan for at least 5 years. The State of Michigan has imposed a 
quarantine to restrict movement of ash trees, firewood, nursery stock, 
and other articles that could spread the pest to new areas. Surveys to 
determine the extent of the infested area are underway.
    The emerald ash borer attacks green, black and white ash trees, 
which are widely planted shade trees in the Midwest. It frequently 
kills nearly all the ash trees in areas where it lacks natural 
predators. The insect's larvae tunnel under the bark in late summer and 
fall, disrupting the phloem layer and often causing death within 2 to 3 
years.
    To control these substantial, recently analyzed pest risks, we 
propose to adopt the IPPC Guidelines. Taking this action would promptly 
address a weakness in our current regulations and improve protection of 
our natural and agricultural wood resources. It would also make U.S. 
SWPM requirements consistent with those of our major trading partners, 
who intend to adopt the IPPC Guidelines soon.

Efficacy of the IPPC Guidelines Treatments

    The IPPC standard-setting process, discussed earlier, established 
the efficacy of the treatment standards recommended by the IPPC 
Guidelines. A great deal of research also supports the effectiveness of 
the treatments in the IPPC Guidelines for controlling risks associated 
with target pests than can move with SWPM.

Evidence of Effectiveness of the Heat Treatment in the IPPC Guidelines

    The Asian longhorned beetle (Anoplophora glabripennis) or ALB is 
often used as a representative species for detailed assessment of the 
effectiveness of heat treatment. Recently completed and ongoing studies 
on both ALB and Monochamus species (a species of similar size and life 
cycle used as a surrogate for ALB) have confirmed that heat treatment 
to a 56 [deg]C core temperature for 30 minutes is 100 percent effective 
against ALB larvae in wood.
    Early experiments on heat treatment to a 56 [deg]C core temperature 
for 30 minutes focused on eradication of pinewood nematode (Dwinell 
1995, 1997). Dwinell (1997) cites a trilateral study involving Canada, 
the United States, and the European Union (EOLAS, 1991), which 
concluded that heat treating unseasoned lumber to a core temperature of 
56 [deg]C for 30 minutes eradicates the pinewood nematode and pine 
sawyer beetles.
    Heating lumber from many species of wood at a core temperature of 
56 [deg]C for 30 minutes eradicated the pinewood nematode and pine 
sawyer beetles (Family Cerambycidae: Monochamus) (USDA, 1994). The 
genus Monochamus is a host of the pinewood nematode.
    Pine sawyer beetle, Monochamus spp., belongs to the Family 
Cerambycidae, the same family that contains the ALB. Dwinell (1997) 
also indicated that heating infested Virginia pine logs to a core 
temperature of 53 [deg]C for 30 minutes killed all pine sawyer beetles 
and all pine wood nematodes.

Evidence of Effectiveness of the Methyl Bromide Fumigation Treatment in 
the IPPC Guidelines

    There are differences between the methyl bromide dosages over time 
required by the IPPC Guidelines and those currently required by the 
APHIS Plant Protection and Quarantine Treatment Manual. The dosage the 
Treatment Manual requires to be maintained over a 16-hour period is 
consistently higher than that required in the IPPC Guidelines. However, 
both treatment schedules effectively destroy the target pests for SWPM.
    The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), in collaboration with 
China, performed studies of methyl bromide fumigation of the Asian 
longhorned beetle that demonstrated 100 percent mortality of ALB larvae 
and pupae (Mack, 2002 per. comm). These studies used 10 cm square by 
1.15 meter long wood timbers of Populus spp. exposed to methyl bromide 
for 24 hours at four concentration-temperature combinations: 80 mg/l @ 
4.4 [deg]C; 64 mg/l @ 10.0 [deg]C; 56 mg/l @ 15.6 [deg]C; and 48 mg/l @ 
21.1 [deg]C. In all cases, 100 percent mortality of ALB larvae and 
pupae was observed. The methyl bromide dose in these studies was 
greater than the one in the IPPC Guidelines. However, a prediction of 
the level of mortality of ALB using a Polo Probit 9 computer routine 
(Robertson 1997) indicated that 99.714 percent of ALB larvae would be 
killed after 16 hours at 15.6 [deg]C with a cumulative CT 
(concentration x time) of 347. This is very close to the IPPC standard 
of a cumulative CT of 388 at 16 [deg]C and 16 hours exposure; it is 
considered biologically equivalent. At 21.1 [deg]C at 16 hours exposure 
and a cumulative CT of 293 (i.e., the IPPC Standard), the predicted 
mortality level using the Polo Probit 9 computer routine (Robertson 
1997) was 99.984 percent. Experiments by USDA at lower temperatures 
(e.g., at 11 [deg]C) confirm the effectiveness of the full range of 
optional IPPC temperature levels.
    Also, although the above studies employed a methyl bromide dose 
greater than the IPPC Guidelines, the experiments were performed using 
a ``most risk scenario.'' For example, the wood was in larger pieces 
than is typical of SWPM, and was green wood, with a much higher 
moisture content than typical SWPM. Increased moisture and size both 
cause significant resistance to fumigant penetration. Also, in these 
studies, only wood was fumigated in the chamber, while most SWPM 
fumigations consist of about 35 percent SWPM and 65 percent cargo. The 
cargo is usually non-sorbtive materials, which increases the exposure 
of the SWPM to methyl bromide and increases the effectiveness of the 
treatment. These experiments provide evidence that fumigation with 
methyl bromide over the IPPC temperature and dosage ranges is effective 
against ALB in wood (Barak, 2002 per. comm). Other experimental 
evidence includes McMullen (1952), Michelsen (1964), Hanula and 
Berisford (1982), and Yu et al. (1984), among others.

Proposed Changes to the Regulations to Adopt the IPPC Guidelines

    In order to incorporate the IPPC Guidelines into our regulations, 
we propose to amend ``Subpart--Logs, Lumber, and Other Unmanufactured 
Wood Articles'' (7 CFR 319.40-1 through 319.40-11), as follows.
    We do not propose to make any changes in the definitions in Sec.  
319.40-1. The definition of solid wood packing material would remain 
unchanged, and SWPM would continue to be included in the definition of 
regulated article. This means that SWPM, except for types that have 
received more than primary processing (e.g., plywood, particle board, 
oriented strand board, veneer, or other processed types of SWPM), would 
continue to be subject to the regulations.
    We do not propose to make any changes to Sec.  319.40-3(a), which 
exempts SWPM (and other regulated articles) from Canada and border 
States in Mexico adjacent to the United States from most of the 
requirements of the regulations.\7\ The Canadian exemption

[[Page 27487]]

exists because there are no significant pests associated with Canadian-
origin SWPM. There has been some concern that SWPM from other countries 
imported into Canada could harbor pests, and could then be moved to the 
United States, spreading pests. However, Canada has signed an agreement 
to implement regulations in the near future requiring that all SWPM 
imported into Canada meet the conditions of the IPPC Guidelines. Also, 
heat treatment of pallets is rapidly becoming a standard throughout 
North America, and we expect that even before Canada formally complies 
with the IPPC Guidelines, a substantial portion of the wood pallets and 
wood crating imported from Canada will meet the provisions of the IPPC 
Guidelines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ On June 11, 1999, APHIS published a proposed rule in the 
Federal Register (Docket No. 98-054-1, 64 FR 31512-31518) to 
eliminate this exemption for many types of regulated articles, 
including SWPM, from Mexican border States. This proposal was based 
on a recent pest risk assessment that challenged the premise that, 
because forests in the United States share a common forested 
boundary with adjacent States in Mexico, the two countries' forests 
share, to a reasonable degree, the same forest pests. The pest risk 
assessment concluded that a significant pest risk exists in the 
movement of raw wood material into the United States from the 
adjacent States of Mexico, because certain forests in these Mexican 
States should be viewed as biological islands containing their own 
unique combination of forest pests, not as an extension of the U.S. 
forest ecosystem. APHIS has not yet taken final action on this 
proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We propose to make substantial changes to Sec.  319.40-3(b), which 
sets forth the conditions under which SWPM may be imported under 
general permit. Currently, Sec.  319.40-3(b) imposes varying 
restrictions on imported SWPM based on whether it is free of bark or 
not; whether it is used to pack regulated or nonregulated articles; and 
whether it is in actual use as packing or is moved as cargo. It appears 
that these distinctions would be unnecessary under the IPPC Guidelines, 
where all SWPM would be heat treated or fumigated with methyl bromide, 
and marked with an official mark to document the treatment. Therefore, 
we propose to replace Sec.  319.40-3(b) with the following 
requirements.
    SWPM, whether in actual use as packing for regulated or 
nonregulated articles or imported as cargo, may be imported into the 
United States under a general permit in accordance with the following 
conditions:
    (1) The SWPM must have been:
    [sbull] Heat treated to achieve a minimum wood core temperature of 
56 [deg]C for a minimum of 30 minutes. Such treatment may employ kiln-
drying, chemical pressure impregnation, or other treatments that 
achieve this specification through the use of steam, hot water, or dry 
heat; or
    [sbull] Fumigated with methyl bromide in an enclosed area for at 
least 16 hours at the following dosage, stated in terms of grams of 
methyl bromide per cubic meter of the enclosure being fumigated:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Minimum required concentration (g/m\3\)
                                                            Initial                     after:
                       Temperature                          dose (g/ -------------------------------------------
                                                             m\3\)     0.5 hrs.    2 hrs.     4 hrs.    16 hrs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
21 [deg]C or above.......................................         48         36         24         17         14
16 [deg]C or above.......................................         56         42         28         20         17
11 [deg]C or above.......................................         64         48         32         22         19
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [sbull] Following fumigation, fumigated products must be aerated to 
reduce the concentration of fumigant below hazardous levels, in 
accordance with label instructions approved by the U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency. As noted in other APHIS regulations (e.g., those for 
importing SWPM from China), when articles are fumigated, the articles 
must be aerated afterward to ensure that the articles are safe for 
handling, storage, and transportation. Aeration is required by the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in EPA-approved label 
instructions for all fumigants utilized pursuant to the regulations. 
Also, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations 
contained in title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations require 
employers of cargo handlers to determine that the concentration of 
fumigants is below the level specified as hazardous before the cargo is 
loaded or discharged.
    (2) The SWPM must be marked in a visible location on each article, 
preferably on at least two opposite sides of the article, with a 
legible and permanent mark that indicates that the article has been 
treated as required. The mark must be approved by the International 
Plant Protection Convention in its International Standards for 
Phytosanitary Measures to certify that wood packaging material has been 
subjected to an approved measure, and must include a unique graphic 
symbol, the ISO two-letter country code for the country that produced 
the SWPM, a unique number assigned by the national plant protection 
agency of that country to the producer of the SWPM, and an abbreviation 
disclosing the type of treatment (e.g., HT for heat treatment or MB for 
methyl bromide fumigation).
    Importation under a general permit means that no paperwork, 
certificate, or importer document needs to accompany the SWPM. The mark 
required by the regulations would be applied by treatment facilities 
treating SWPM, and the contents of the mark (i.e., the country and 
producer codes) would allow APHIS to trace SWPM back to its producer if 
necessary--for example, if APHIS finds that SWPM is not treated 
properly. We propose that the mark should be applied ``preferably on at 
least two opposite sides of the article'' because multiple marks would 
make inspection and enforcement easier and reduce the need to shift 
cargo in order to see marks. While a single mark would meet the minimum 
legal requirement, shippers may want to use SWPM with multiple marks to 
speed the inspection and clearance of their cargo.
    The ``unique graphic symbol'' portion of this mark is not available 
at this time, but the IPPC should have approved such a symbol by the 
time this action reaches the final rule stage. The IPPC Guidelines 
contain such a symbol, but its use has been suspended because the Food 
and Agriculture Organization has not been able to legally protect the 
symbol for use according to the IPPC Guidelines. Legal registration of 
a substitute symbol is underway.
    We are proposing that APHIS inspectors at the port of first arrival 
could order the immediate reexport of SWPM articles that arrive without 
the mark required by Sec.  319.40-3(b)(2) that indicates required 
treatment. In most cases involving SWPM that is not properly marked, 
APHIS would order such shipments to be immediately reexported, because 
it is not practical to treat large volumes of SWPM after arrival. Not 
only are the facilities for such treatment lacking, but the untreated 
SWPM would represent an unacceptable pest risk while it is in storage 
at a port awaiting treatment. Therefore, we propose to specifically 
authorize inspectors to order the immediate reexport of unmarked SWPM. 
In some cases it would also be necessary to order the reexport of the 
cargo associated with the SWPM, although in most cases the cargo could 
be separated from the SWPM at the port and moved to its destination 
under safeguards--with the importer charged for the costs of these 
services. It would

[[Page 27488]]

be necessary to order the reexport of the cargo as well as the SWPM 
associated in cases where it is impossible to safely separate cargo 
from SWPM without substantial risk that pests would be spread during 
the process, or when pests would likely move with the cargo even after 
it is separated from the SWPM. This authority would be in addition to 
the authority inspectors already have in accordance with Sec.  319.40-9 
to inspect regulated articles, order their cleaning or treatment, and 
refuse them entry under certain conditions.
    We are proposing special conditions for SWPM used by the Department 
of Defense (DOD) to move material from foreign locations into the 
United States. DOD often moves material in SWPM fashioned by its own 
woodworkers, rather than SWPM produced at the type of facilities that 
produce and treat SWPM for general commercial use. Also, DOD must often 
produce unusual or unique SWPM to safely pack its material. For reasons 
of security, practicality, and timeliness, it would be inappropriate to 
require DOD to use only SWPM that was produced and treated commercially 
and marked as meeting the IPPC Guidelines. Instead, we propose that 
SWPM used by DOD must meet the heat treatment or fumigation 
requirements of the IPPC Guidelines, but need not bear the proposed 
mark. We believe that this requirement will be as effective as the IPPC 
Guidelines with regard to SWPM used by DOD. While we do not propose to 
require a marking on such DOD SWPM, we would employ APHIS inspectors 
who already work in concert with DOD to monitor their use of SWPM and 
ensure that it is properly heat treated or fumigated.
    In Sec.  319.40-5, ``Importation and entry requirements for 
specified articles,'' we propose to remove paragraphs (g) through (k). 
This would remove all of the requirements established in 1998 and 1999 
for importation of SWPM from the People's Republic of China, including 
Hong Kong, since the new requirements for complying with the IPPC 
Guidelines would apply to the People's Republic of China, including 
Hong Kong, as well as the rest of the world.
    Finally, current Sec.  319.40-9 describes inspection and other 
requirements at the port of first arrival. This proposal would not 
change this section, but it should be noted that this section has 
implications for anyone who imports SWPM that has not been properly 
treated and marked in accordance with Sec.  319.40-3(b) of this 
proposed rule. APHIS inspectors at ports would examine SWPM for the 
IPPC-approved international mark required by the regulations. In 
accordance with the IPPC Guidelines, each national plant protection 
organization is expected to develop procedures to ensure that SWPM 
treated and marked in each country complies with the IPPC Guidelines. 
Therefore, the international mark is, in effect, a certificate 
verifying proper treatment. Persons who forge, alter, or fraudulently 
use the mark would be subject to administrative or criminal penalties.

References

Barak, Al 2002. Personal communication. USDA, APHIS, PPQ, CPHST, 
Otis Laboratory, Otis MA.
Dwinell, L.D. 1995. Colonization of heat-treated pine logs by 
Bursaphelenchus xylophilus and its Monochamus vectors. Journal of 
Nematology 27(4):98.
Dwinell, L.D. 1996. Methyl bromide alternatives for decontaminating 
softwood chips, lumber, and logs. Proceedings of the Annual 
International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and 
Emissions Reductions, November 4-6, 1996, Orlando, Florida. p. 64-1 
to 64-3.
Dwinell, L.D. 1997. The pinewood nematode: Regulation and 
mitigation. Annual Review of Phytopathology 35: 153-166.
Dwinell, L.D. 2001a. Potential use of elevated temperatures to 
manage pests in transported wood. Exotic Forest Pests Online 
Symposium, April 16-29, 2001.
Dwinell, L.D. 200lb. Potential use of fumigation to manage the risks 
of pests in transported wood. Exotic Forest Pests Online Symposium, 
April 16-29, 2001.
Hanula, J.L., and C.W. Berisford 1982. Methyl bromide fumigation 
destroys broods of the smaller European elm bark beetle (Coleoptera: 
Scolytidae) in elm logs. Journal of Economic Entomology 75(4): 688-
690.
Latta, R. and C.H. Gaddis 1941. The destruction of dormant egg 
clusters of the gypsy moth by methyl bromide fumigation. Unpublished 
report. USDA Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine, Washington 
DC. 13p.
Mack, Ron 2002. Personal communication. USDA, APHIS, PPQ, CPHST, 
Otis Laboratory, Otis MA.
McMullen, M.J. 1952. The sterilization of timber by fumigation. 
Tech. Notes, Forest Commission, Division of Wood Technology, NSW, 
Australia 6(3/4): 20-24.
Michelsen, A. 1964. Diffusion of methyl bromide into pine wood 
during fumigation against Hylotrupes bajulus. Holzforschung und 
Holzverwertung 16: 66-71.
Robertson, J. 1997. Polo Probit PC Software. LeOra Software, Inc., 
Berkeley, CA.
USDA 1991. An Efficacy Review of Control Measures for Potential 
Pests of Imported Soviet Timber. Miscellaneous Publication No. 1495, 
USDA/APHIS, Riverdale, MD.
USDA, 1994. Importation of Logs, Lumber, and Other Unmanufactured 
Wood Articles, Environmental Impact Statement, July 1994. USDA/
APHIS, Hyattsville, MD 86p.
Yu, K.Y., Y.W. Chung, H.H. Lee, and J.W. Jae 1984. Study on 
shipboard fumigation of the imported logs. Korea Journal of Plant 
Protection 23(1): 37-41.

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This proposed 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.
    Below is a summary of the economic analysis for the changes in SWPM 
import requirements proposed in this document. The economic analysis 
provides a cost-benefit analysis as required by Executive Order 12866 
and an analysis of the potential economic effects on small entities as 
required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the full economic 
analysis is available for review at the location listed in the 
ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this document, or on the Internet 
at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/swp/.
    We do not have enough data for a comprehensive analysis of the 
economic effects of this proposed rule on small entities. Therefore, in 
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 603, we have performed an initial regulatory 
flexibility analysis for this proposed rule. We are inviting comments 
about this proposed rule as it relates to small entities. In 
particular, we are interested in determining the number and kind of 
small entities who may incur benefits or costs from implementation of 
this proposed rule and the economic impact of those benefits or costs.
    Under the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701-7772), the Secretary 
of Agriculture is authorized to regulate the importation of plants, 
plant products, and other articles to prevent the introduction of 
injurious plant pests.
    This analysis evaluates a proposed rule that would adopt the 
International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) standards on wood 
packaging materials, which are guidelines on globally accepted measures 
that may be applied to solid wood packing material (SWPM) to reduce the 
entry of pests via this pathway. The IPPC guidelines require SWPM to be 
heat treated at 56 [deg]C for 30 minutes, or fumigated with methyl 
bromide.
    We believe it is appropriate and necessary to adopt the IPPC 
Guidelines because they were developed as an international standard to 
control pests associated with SWPM. The types of

[[Page 27489]]

pests the IPPC Guidelines were developed to control have been 
intercepted at U.S. ports for many years, and pose significant risks to 
U.S. resources. Recent interceptions of pests at ports of entry show a 
steady increase in serious pests associated with SWPM from everywhere 
except China, whose SWPM must already be treated due to past pest 
interceptions. If left unchecked, pests imported with SWPM have the 
potential to cause significant economic damage to the agricultural and 
forest resources of the United States. The damage they cause could be 
similar in magnitude to the recent introduction of the Asian long-
horned beetle (ALB) Anaplophora glabripennis (Coleoptera: 
Cerambycidae). Our regulations have already been changed to prevent 
further introductions of ALB from China, but adopting the IPPC 
guidelines could prevent the introduction of ALB or similar wood borers 
from other parts of the world, as well as prevent the introduction of 
other types of pests such as woodwasps and bark beetles. Imposing the 
IPPC guidelines' treatment and other requirements to prevent these 
introductions would yield net benefits. The benefits (avoided losses) 
that can be gained by preventing introduction of these pest types are 
discussed below. The actual magnitude of the benefits cannot be 
definitively ascertained, but they are likely to be much larger than 
the associated costs.
    As an indicator of the damage ALB or similar wood borers could 
cause if introduced again in the future, consider the costs of the ALB 
introduction from China. The ALB, first discovered in New York City in 
1996 and in Chicago, Illinois in 1998, was most likely introduced on 
wood packing material from China. The present value of urban trees at 
risk in the two affected cities is estimated at $59 million over some 
50 years. About $6 million of urban trees have been destroyed due to 
pest infestation and eradication efforts since the introduction of ALB. 
So far, APHIS and State and local governments have spent over $59 
million in eradicating the pest in the two localities. If only New York 
City and Chicago were considered, it would appear that the current 
eradication program has yielded a net loss of about $6 million 
(spending $59 million in control activities to save $53 million in 
resources). However, the eradication and quarantine activities are also 
the reason the pest has been confined to the two cities where it was 
initially detected. The potential damages from ALB spread to other 
areas can be gleaned from the Nowak et al. study that estimated losses 
to seven other cities. The present value of damage to urban trees in 
Baltimore City alone, not allowing for intervention, was estimated to 
be $399 million. Additionally, without governmental intervention, 
forest resources would also be at risk.
    Wood borers such as ALB could cause the most damage of all types of 
pests associated with SWPM, but we have also projected that other types 
of pests could cause substantial damage. These include the Sirex 
woodwasp (Family: Siricidae) and the Eurasian spruce bark beetle 
(Family: Scolytidae). Projections of physical damages that can be 
caused by these types of pests range up to $48--$607 million and $208 
million, respectively. Perhaps the greatest devastation posed by these 
pests that cannot be fully captured monetarily is their potential to 
cause irreversible loss to native tree species and consequential 
alterations to the environment and ecosystem.
    The recent introduction of the emerald ash borer (EAB), Agrilus 
planipennis (Coleoptera: Buprestidae) a pest of ash trees, in Michigan 
and parts of Canada in June 2002 is a reminder of this threat. It is 
not known how the pest arrived in North America but, as with other 
exotic beetles, infested SWPM from Asia is suspected. The pest may have 
arrived some five years ago, before the interim rule on China was 
implemented. Ironically, many of the large ash trees favored by the 
pest were originally planted to replace elm trees killed by Dutch elm 
disease caused by yet another exotic pathogen. A preliminary assessment 
of the potential impact of the EAB on urban and timberland ash trees in 
the six quarantined counties in Michigan comes to about $11 billion in 
replacement costs alone. The nursery stock industry in the affected 
counties reported a loss in sales so far of $2 million. These estimates 
serve to highlight the potential magnitude of damage that could be 
caused by one outbreak alone of a pest on the targeted list.
    The adoption of the IPPC treatment standards for all importing 
countries would address pest threats posed not only by Cerambycidae, 
which was the primary target of the China rule, but nine other pest 
families as well. Approximately 95 percent of pests intercepted by 
APHIS inspectors in shipments worldwide are pests on the IPPC target 
pest list.
    The treatment requirements proposed in this rule are not expected 
to completely eliminate all pest interceptions related to SWPM. As 
evident from data reported between 2000 and 2001, two years following 
the implementation of the China rule, 7 percent of pest interceptions 
was still associated with China imports. To the extent that pest 
interceptions would be reduced, the risk of an outbreak would also be 
lower than in the absence of the rule. However, because pests continue 
to be intercepted albeit at a lower rate, benefits need to be 
correspondingly adjusted to reflect the risk.
    In discussing the costs that might result from adopting this 
proposed rule, it is essential to recognize that to some degree these 
costs will accrue when other countries adopt the IPPC Guidelines, 
whether or not the United States also adopts them. As other countries 
impose IPPC treatment requirements on imports containing SWPM the 
global SWPM market will be greatly affected, likely causing a broader 
impact on the domestic wood packaging industry than the provisions of 
this proposed rule.
    The impact of this rule would fall largely on foreign manufacturers 
of pallets. The increased treatment cost may add to the cost of 
packaging and transporting of goods which, in turn, would affect 
importers of commodities transported on pallets and final consumers of 
those goods are potentially impacted by this rule. The required 
treatments would add to the cost of packaging and transport of goods. 
Due to the very large number of pallets that are used to assist 
imported cargo, the overall cost may be substantial. The extent of the 
impact on U.S. consumers would depend on the ability of importers to 
pass on the additional costs to respective buyers. It is expected that 
most of the cost of treating pallets will be borne by foreign pallet 
manufacturers. Furthermore, given the small value of pallets as 
compared to the value of trade, increases in pallet prices are not 
expected to have a measurable effect on domestic consumers or on trade.
    We also expect this proposed rule to affect U.S. purchasers of 
imported pallets, crates and boxes. Between 1999 and 2001, an average 
of 38 million pallets was imported into the United States, over 80 
percent of which came from Canada. Imported SWPM was valued at $150 
million during this time period. At approximately $3.95 per piece, 
imported pallets are less expensive than domestic pallets where the 
average price ranges between $8 and $12 per pallet. Canadian pallets 
are primarily used by industries close to the U.S. and Canadian border. 
The wood pallet market is highly competitive and the demand for 
imported pallets can be

[[Page 27490]]

characterized as elastic. While pallets made of alternative materials 
such as plastic, corrugated fiberboard, or processed wood are imperfect 
substitutes for wood, one wood pallet can easily substitute for another 
wood pallet.
    Assuming a perfectly elastic supply and perfectly inelastic demand 
for imported pallets, and assuming a treatment cost that adds about $2 
on average to a pallet, U.S. purchasers of imported pallets could lose 
an estimated $76 million in higher costs. The true extent of the impact 
however would be lower than this amount because demand is likely to be 
elastic and foreign importers are expected to share a greater burden of 
the cost increase. We do not know treatment costs for foreign pallet 
producers, but given the availability of substitutable domestic wood 
pallets, we do not expect U.S. purchasers of imported pallets to be 
significantly impacted.
    The adoption of this rule would indirectly affect manufacturers who 
sell pallets, crates and boxes to foreign buyers. There are an 
estimated 3,000 manufacturers of pallets and containers in the United 
States. The primary importers of these items are Canada and Mexico. As 
these two countries prepare to implement the IPPC standard in 2003, 
only treated wood packing materials would likely be in demand for 
export. The extent of the impact on pallet and container manufacturers 
would depend on the ability of individual firms to put in place the 
necessary infrastructure for conducting treatments as required by the 
international standard. The number of firms that engage in export and 
would therefore be impacted is unknown. Regardless, the impact on the 
overall SWPM industry is expected to be small as the quantity of total 
pallets exported, estimated at about 10 million units, comprises only 
2.5 percent of the 400 to 500 million pallets in production in the U.S. 
each year.
    Domestic manufacturers of wood pallets may be indirectly affected 
in one other way. Because of the increasing trend in recycling of 
pallets for cost-cutting purposes, manufacturers may be faced with new 
demands for treated SWPM from domestic exporters who reuse pallets and 
wood containers to ship goods back from foreign countries. The number 
of firms affected in this way is unknown and may be large.
    In sum, this rule would impact foreign manufacturers of pallets 
which may, in turn, affect importers and final consumers of goods 
transported on pallets. Because the cost of a pallet is a very small 
share of the bundle of goods transported on pallets, cost increases due 
to the treatment requirements are not expected to significantly affect 
domestic consumers and thus would not have a measurable impact on the 
flow of trade. This rule is not expected to reduce the amount of goods 
shipped internationally as is evident from observing trends in imports 
from China since implementation of the interim rule in 1999.
    This rule would also affect U.S. consumers of imported pallets. 
Given the substitutability of wood pallets, the impact on consumers is 
expected to be small due to the availability of wood pallets. Foreign 
importers are likely to absorb a greater share of the cost increase.
    The simultaneous adoption of the treatment standards by IPPC member 
countries that is directed at U.S. exports would likely create a 
broader impact on the domestic wood packaging industry than the 
provisions of this proposed rule. The adoption of the standard globally 
would ensure that U.S. producers and exporters are not placed at a 
competitive disadvantage by this rule as compared to their trading 
partners.

Executive Order 12988

    This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, 
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.

National Environmental Policy Act

    An environmental impact statement (EIS) has been prepared for this 
proposed rule in accordance with: (1) The National Environmental Policy 
Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (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 EIS are available for public inspection in our 
reading room (information on the location and hours of the reading room 
is provided at the beginning of this proposed rule under the heading 
ADDRESSES). In addition, copies may be obtained by calling or writing 
to the individual listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    A notice of intent to prepare the EIS was published in the Federal 
Register on August 14, 2002 (67 FR 52893; Docket No. 02-032-1) and a 
notice availability of the draft EIS was published in the Federal 
Register on November 15, 2002 (67 FR 69216-69217, Docket No. ER-FRL-
6634-9).

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 proposed rule have been 
submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). 
Please send written comments to the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for APHIS, Washington, 
DC 20503. Please state that your comments refer to Docket No. 02-032-2. 
Please send a copy of your comments to: (1) Docket No. 02-032-2, 
Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3C71, 4700 
River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238, and (2) Clearance 
Officer, OCIO, USDA, room 404-W, 14th Street and Independence Avenue 
SW., Washington, DC 20250. A comment to OMB is best assured of having 
its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication of 
this proposed rule.
    This rule would require persons treating SWPM in accordance with 
the regulations to apply an internationally recognized mark, and would 
require the plant protection services of countries where the SWPM is 
treated to develop procedures to monitor and audit the treatments. The 
information we propose to collect is the minimum needed to protect the 
United States from incursion by destructive insect pests and plant 
diseases. Failing to collect this information would cripple our ability 
to ensure that SWPM does not harbor destructive plant pests. APHIS 
inspectors at ports would examine SWPM for the IPPC-approved 
international mark required by the regulations. Therefore, the 
international mark is, in effect, a certificate verifying proper 
treatment. Persons who forge, alter, or fraudulently use the mark would 
be subject to administrative or criminal penalties.
    We are soliciting comments from the public (as well as affected 
agencies) concerning our proposed information collection and 
recordkeeping requirements. These comments will help us:
    (1) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is 
necessary for the proper performance of our agency's functions, 
including whether the information will have practical utility;
    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the 
proposed

[[Page 27491]]

information collection, including the validity of the methodology and 
assumptions used;
    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to 
be collected; and
    (4) Minimize the burden of the information collection on those who 
are to respond (such as through the use of appropriate automated, 
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or 
other forms of information technology; e.g., permitting electronic 
submission of responses).
    Estimate of burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of 
information is estimated to average 0.0041 hours per response.
    Respondents: Importers/exporters of goods sent to the United States 
and foreign plant health protection authorities.
    Estimated annual number of respondents: 3,000.
    Estimated annual number of responses per respondent: 3,300.
    Estimated annual number of responses: 9,900,000.
    Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 40,590 hours. (Due to 
averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of 
the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per 
response.)
    Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Mrs. 
Celeste Sickles, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 
734-7477.

Government Paperwork Elimination Act Compliance

    The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is committed to 
compliance with the Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA), which 
requires Government agencies in general to provide the public the 
option of submitting information or transacting business electronically 
to the maximum extent possible. For information pertinent to GPEA 
compliance related to this proposed rule, please contact Mrs. Celeste 
Sickles, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 734-7477.

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 propose to amend 7 CFR part 319 as follows:

PART 319--FOREIGN QUARANTINE NOTICES

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

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 450, 7711-7714, 7718, 7731, 7732, 7751-7754, 
and 7760; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.

    2. In Sec.  319.40-3, paragraph (b) would be revised to read as 
follows:


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.

* * * * *
    (b) Solid wood packing material. Solid wood packing material, 
whether in actual use as packing for regulated or nonregulated articles 
or imported as cargo, may be imported into the United States under a 
general permit in accordance with the following conditions:
    (1) Treatment. The solid wood packing materials must have been:
    (i) Heat treated to achieve a minimum wood core temperature of 
56[deg]C for a minimum of 30 minutes. Such treatment may employ kiln-
drying, chemical pressure impregnation, or other treatments that 
achieve this specification through the use of steam, hot water, or dry 
heat; or,
    (ii) Fumigated with methyl bromide in an enclosed area for at least 
16 hours at the following dosage, stated in terms of grams of methyl 
bromide per cubic meter of the enclosure being fumigated. Following 
fumigation, fumigated products must be aerated to reduce the 
concentration of fumigant below hazardous levels, in accordance with 
label instructions approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Minimum required concentration (g/m\3\)
                                                            Initial                     after:
                       Temperature                          dose (g/ -------------------------------------------
                                                             m\3\)     0.5 hrs.    2 hrs.     4 hrs.    16 hrs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
21 [deg]C or above.......................................         48         36         24         17         14
16 [deg]C or above.......................................         56         42         28         20         17
11 [deg]C or above.......................................         64         48         32         22         19
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) Marking. The solid wood packing material must be marked in a 
visible location on each article, preferably on at least two opposite 
sides of the article, with a legible and permanent mark that indicates 
that the article meets the requirements of this paragraph. The mark 
must be approved by the International Plant Protection Convention in 
its International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures to certify that 
wood packaging material has been subjected to an approved measure, and 
must include a unique graphic symbol, the ISO two-letter country code 
for the country that produced the solid wood packing material, a unique 
number assigned by the national plant protection agency of that country 
to the producer of the solid wood packing material, and an abbreviation 
disclosing the type of treatment (e.g., HT for heat treatment or MB for 
methyl bromide fumigation).
    (3) Immediate reexport of SWPM without required mark. An inspector 
at the port of first arrival may order the immediate reexport of SWPM 
that is imported without the mark required by paragraph (b)(2) of this 
section, in addition to or in lieu of any port of first arrival 
procedures required by Sec.  319.40-9 of this part.
    (4) Exception for Department of Defense. Solid wood packing 
material used by the Department of Defense (DOD) of the U.S. Government 
to package nonregulated articles, including commercial shipments 
pursuant to a DOD contract, may be imported into the United States 
without the mark required by paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
* * * * *


Sec.  319.40-5  [Amended]

    3. In Sec.  319.40-5, paragraphs (g) through (k) would be removed.

    Done in Washington, DC, this 14th day of May 2003.
Bill Hawks,
Under Secretary, Marketing and Regulatory Programs.
[FR Doc. 03-12503 Filed 5-19-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P