[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