[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 10 (Thursday, January 15, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 2289-2295]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-875]



 ========================================================================
 Rules and Regulations
                                                 Federal Register
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents 
 having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed 
 to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published 
 under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
 
 The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents. 
 Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each 
 week.
 
 ========================================================================
 

  Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 10 / Thursday, January 15, 2004 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 2289]]



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

7 CFR Part 319

[Docket No. 02-097-2]


Importation of Eucalyptus Logs, Lumber, and Wood Chips From South 
America

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are amending the regulations that govern the importation of 
logs, lumber, and other unmanufactured wood articles into the United 
States to allow wood chips derived from temperate species of Eucalyptus 
from South America to be treated with a surface pesticide prior to 
importation as an alternative to the existing treatments. This final 
rule follows a proposed rule that proposed to amend the regulations to 
require that logs, lumber, and wood chips of tropical species of 
Eucalyptus from South America be subject to more restrictive entry 
requirements, including treatment with fumigation with methyl bromide 
or heat treatment, than those currently in the regulations. In that 
proposed rule, we also proposed to allow wood chips derived from both 
tropical and temperate species of Eucalyptus from South America to be 
treated with a surface pesticide prior to importation. Although the 
more restrictive entry requirements for logs, lumber, and wood chips of 
tropical species of Eucalyptus are still under consideration, this 
action to allow wood chips of temperate species of Eucalyptus to be 
treated with a surface pesticide is necessary to provide an effective 
alternative treatment to the domestic wood pulp industry, which is 
interested in importing temperate wood chips of Eucalyptus from South 
America, while continuing to protect the United States against the 
introduction of plant pests.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 15, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Hesham Abuelnaga, Import 
Specialist, Phytosanitary Issues Management Team, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 
River Road Unit 140, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; (301) 734-5334.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Logs, lumber, and other unmanufactured wood articles imported into 
the United States could pose a significant hazard of introducing plant 
pests and pathogens detrimental to agriculture and to natural, 
cultivated, and urban forest resources. The Animal and Plant Health 
Inspection Service (APHIS) has implemented regulations to prohibit or 
restrict the importation of logs, lumber, and other unmanufactured wood 
articles into the United States from certain parts of the world. These 
regulations, which are found in ``Subpart-Logs, Lumber, and Other 
Unmanufactured Wood Articles'' (7 CFR 319.40-1 through 319.40-11, 
referred to below as the regulations), are designed to prevent the 
dissemination of plant pests that are new to or not widely distributed 
within the United States.
    An increased interest in the importation of unmanufactured wood 
articles into the United States from other countries has led to an 
increased demand for fast-growing trees, such as those of the genus 
Eucalyptus. The fast growth rate, environmental adaptability, and high 
quality for pulp production of this genus make it one of the most 
widely propagated genera of trees in the world. South American 
governments, including those of Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Peru, and 
Uruguay, have encouraged the planting of these fast-growing trees. 
Brazil has the largest area of Eucalyptus plantations in the world, 
with approximately 3 million hectares planted with various species. 
Wood chips of tropical species of Eucalyptus are currently being 
imported, under certain conditions specified in compliance agreements, 
by some wood products companies into the United States from South 
America. Recently, wood products companies in the United States have 
expressed interest in importing large volumes of temperate Eucalyptus 
wood chips from South America.
    Since these articles have not been widely imported into the United 
States, APHIS requested that the U.S. Forest Service prepare a pest 
risk assessment to help determine whether the current regulations would 
continue to provide an adequate level of protection against the 
introduction of plant pests potentially associated with Eucalyptus 
species if the wood products industry in the United States began 
importing wood chips of species of Eucalyptus in greater volumes. The 
evidence in the risk assessment, which can be viewed on the Internet at 
http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/General.htm, suggested that 
additional mitigation measures might be necessary.
    On September 15, 2003, we published in the Federal Register (68 FR 
53910-53915, Docket No. 02-097-1) a proposed rule to amend the 
regulations to require that logs and lumber of tropical species of 
Eucalyptus from South America be fumigated with methyl bromide or heat 
treated prior to importation and that wood chips of tropical species of 
Eucalyptus from South America be fumigated with methyl bromide, heat 
treated, or heat treated with moisture reduction prior to importation. 
We also proposed to allow wood chips derived from both temperate and 
tropical species of Eucalyptus from South America to be treated with a 
surface pesticide.
    We solicited comments concerning our proposal for 60 days ending on 
November 14, 2003, and received 11 comments by that date. The comments 
were submitted by State departments of agriculture, an agricultural 
quarantine inspector, a university professor, foreign forestry 
societies, domestic wood products companies, foreign national plant 
protection organizations, and a member of the public. Seven commenters 
supported the proposed rule with some changes, and four commenters 
opposed the proposed rule.
    Although the pest risk assessment indicated that additional 
mitigation measures might be necessary in order to safely import logs, 
lumber, and wood chips of Eucalyptus from South America, at this time, 
we have only received requests that indicate interest in importing 
large volumes of wood chips of temperate species of Eucalyptus from 
South America. Because the

[[Page 2290]]

current treatments for temperate wood chips, which include fumigation 
with methyl bromide, heat treatment, and heat treatment with moisture 
reduction, can be impractical to effectively apply to large volumes of 
wood chips, we believe that it is necessary to provide an effective, 
alternative treatment option for those wishing to import larger 
shipments of wood chips to produce wood pulp for paper.
    In the proposed rule, we proposed to allow the use of a surface 
pesticide treatment as an effective, alternative treatment option for 
wood chips of both tropical and temperate species of Eucalyptus. 
Currently, tropical wood chips from healthy, plantation-grown trees may 
be imported without treatment, but must be consigned to a facility 
operating under a compliance agreement. We are continuing to consider 
more restrictive entry requirements for wood chips of tropical species 
of Eucalyptus. Until we make a final determination regarding the 
necessity of additional treatment requirements, however, we will not 
require that logs, lumber, or wood chips of tropical species of 
Eucalyptus be treated with any of the treatment options discussed in 
the proposed rule, which included heat treatment, heat treatment with 
moisture reduction, fumigation with methyl bromide, and surface 
pesticide treatment. We are allowing the surface pesticide treatment to 
be used only for wood chips of temperate species of Eucalyptus at this 
time.
    The more restrictive entry requirements for logs, lumber, and wood 
chips of tropical species of Eucalyptus from South America are 
currently still under consideration. All comments that we received 
regarding the necessity of more restrictive entry requirements for 
these articles, on the pest risk assessment, on the efficacy of 
treatments, and all other general comments on the proposed rule will be 
reviewed and evaluated before any further action is taken related to 
the importation of these articles.
    Since this final rule relates only to the addition of the surface 
pesticide treatment as an alternative treatment for wood chips of 
temperate species of Eucalyptus from South America, only those comments 
and portions of comments that pertain specifically to the importation 
of temperate wood chips and to the surface pesticide treatment as it 
relates to temperate wood chips will be discussed below. The remaining 
comments will be discussed in a future rulemaking document.

Inspection

    Comment: Treatment of wood chips should not preclude an additional 
inspection at the port of entry. Inspection at the port of entry is 
necessary to ensure that the wood chips are free of nematode pathogens 
associated with Eucalyptus.
    Response: The regulations in Sec.  319.40-9 require all imported 
regulated articles, which would include wood chips of Eucalyptus from 
South America, to be inspected either at the port of first arrival in 
the United States or at any other place prescribed by an inspector.

Efficacy of Treatment

    Comment: The current treatment options can be impractical for large 
volumes of wood chips. It is difficult to take concentration readings 
during the fumigation of wood chips with methyl bromide, heat treatment 
is difficult because of the bulk nature of the commodity, and heat 
treatment facilities are usually built for lumber, not wood chips. An 
effective alternative treatment for wood chips would be fumigation with 
phosphine.
    Response: We agree with the commenter's assessment of the current 
treatment options, however, phosphine treatment is no longer an 
approved treatment for wood products in the Plant Protection and 
Quarantine (PPQ) treatment manual. If the commenter wishes to provide 
research and evidence to demonstrate that this treatment would be an 
effective alternative option, we would take that research into 
consideration at that time.
    Comment: A surface pesticide treatment would be a more desirable 
mitigation measure for wood chips than heat treatment or fumigation; 
however, the proposed surface pesticide treatment should be tested on a 
commercial load of Eucalyptus in the southern United States, since the 
warmer climate there would be similar to the tropical environment in 
which the potential pests originate. Further, the spray should be 
tested specifically for pests associated with Eucalyptus.
    Response: Based on the findings of PPQ's Center for Plant Health 
Science and Technology (CPHST), we believe that the prescribed 
pesticide spray will be an effective pest mitigation measure for wood 
chips of temperate species of Eucalyptus. Although the potential pests 
identified in the pest risk assessment differ slightly from those 
identified for Pinus radiata wood chips for which the spray was 
originally tested, the potential pests associated with Pinus radiata 
are a subset of those associated with Eucalyptus and are of the same 
family and order. The surface pesticide has proven effective for Pinus 
radiata wood chips, and we believe that it will be effective on 
temperate Eucalyptus wood chips. In addition, as noted previously, all 
shipments of wood chips will be inspected in accordance with Sec.  
319.40-9 to ensure that the wood chips are free of any quarantine 
pests.
    Comment: Procedures should be put in place to confirm the proper 
application of the surface pesticide treatment.
    Response: Each shipment of wood chips that is treated with the 
surface pesticide must be accompanied by a certificate stating that the 
wood chips have been treated in accordance with the regulations in 
Sec.  319.40-6. In addition to the certificate of treatment, the 
inspection required under the regulations in Sec.  319.40-9 will ensure 
that the shipments are free of any quarantine pests. If, at any time, 
quarantine pests or pathogens are detected, the efficacy and proper 
application of the treatment will be reevaluated.
    Comment: The proposed pesticide treatment is too specific and the 
requirement should include language that allows for alternate, equally 
effective chemicals or new products. The current rulemaking process can 
take years to implement change, even if a new treatment, chemical, or 
product is more effective than the one currently in use.
    Response: The active ingredients of the fungicide and insecticide 
components of the surface pesticide treatment are composed of common 
chemicals combined in a particular formula that has proven highly 
effective in the treatment of wood chips. If the commenter can provide 
research and evidence that another chemical or product is equivalent to 
any of the active ingredients used in the surface pesticide spray, we 
will consider that evidence. Until further research is done and 
evaluated, however, we will continue to use the chemicals and the 
specific formula that have already proven effective. Our policy is to 
approve specific treatments through rulemaking in order to ensure that 
all treatments are effective and equivalent.
    Comment: No justification is given for the use of two 
disinfectants, didecyl dimethyl ammonium chloride (DDAC) and 3-iodo-2-
propynyl butylcarbamate. Treatment with DDAC would be enough.
    Response: The commenter did not offer any scientific evidence or 
research to support this comment. Our research indicates that the 
specific formula given

[[Page 2291]]

in the proposed rule is effective and practical for the treatment of 
wood chips.
    Comment: The insecticide component of the pesticide is not 
necessary because insects have a low probability of association with 
wood chips. The insecticide could have a negative effect on the 
efficacy of the fungicide component of the pesticide.
    Response: The pest risk assessment identified all wood products of 
Eucalyptus as presenting a risk for the introduction or dissemination 
of plant pests. No distinction was made between logs and lumber and 
wood chips. We will reevaluate the available research and evidence, and 
any evidence the commenter could provide, to determine whether or not 
wood chips present a low risk for infestation by arthropod pests. Based 
on the research that specifically tested this pesticide spray, we agree 
that the insecticide might have a negative effect on the efficacy of 
the fungicide, but only after 30 days.\1\ In order to ensure the 
maximum efficacy of both the insecticide and the fungicide, we require 
retreatment if the wood chips are not exported within 30 days of the 
initial treatment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Morrell, Freitag, and Silva, ``Protection of Freshly Cut 
Radiata Pine Chips from Fungal Attack,'' Forest Products Journal, 
48(2):57-59.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Will the very specific concentrations of active 
ingredients for each of the fungicides limit the product selection to a 
specific brand? Are products containing the exact proportions 
prescribed registered or commercially available at economically 
feasible prices in potential exporting countries where they would 
likely be purchased and used? The amounts of chemicals needed to treat 
a given volume of wood chips is unclear in the specifications in the 
proposed rule and it might be difficult and cost prohibitive to obtain 
registrations for these specific formulations of chemicals in foreign 
countries. The surface pesticide recommendations should be given on the 
basis of the amount of each of the active ingredients per a specified 
volume of wood chips in order to allow for some flexibility in the 
selection of products and to make it possible to more accurately 
determine the amounts of chemicals needed and the potential 
environmental impacts of those chemicals.
    Response: The formula given for the pesticide in the proposed rule 
lists the ratios of the active ingredients DDAC, 3-iodo-2-propynyl 
butylcarbamate, and chlorpyrifos that must be present for the pesticide 
to qualify as an approved treatment according to the regulations in 
Sec.  319.40-7(e). We list the active ingredients because the efficacy 
of any treatment is dependent on the active ingredients and the formula 
by which they are combined. Generally, it is not our policy to require 
specific brands in the regulations because several different brands 
could have the correct ratio of active ingredients and could be equally 
effective. We note that this particular pesticide formula has been in 
use for wood chips from Chile, and exporters have found the ingredients 
to be readily available and cost effective. The commenter's suggestion 
that surface pesticide recommendations be given on the basis of the 
amount of each of the active ingredients needed per a specified volume 
of wood chips is not practical. The efficacy of this treatment, unlike 
chemical treatments that involve dipping or fumigating, is based solely 
on the correct ratio and combination of the active ingredients. As long 
as the ratios of the chemicals are correct, the dosage can be adjusted 
to accommodate any volume of wood chips. According to the label 
instructions on the pesticide, the treatment must be applied to all 
sides of the wood chips in order to ensure the maximum efficacy. Since 
the pesticide is sprayed onto the wood chips, it would be extremely 
difficult, and unnecessary, to require a specific dosage per volume of 
wood chips.

Safety of Importation

    Comment: The risks of nonnative pest infestation and the toxicity 
of the chemicals used in the surface pesticide treatment make the 
importation of wood chips unsafe. The environmental assessment does not 
adequately consider the potential environmental impact of the chemical 
treatment on either the country of origin or the United States. The 
chemicals recommended for use have a long history of safe use in a wide 
variety of applications, however, these chemicals continue to be 
described as having moderate to severe toxicity to some. Runoff from 
the chemicals at the treatment and storage sites and pesticide residue 
in the ship's holds needs to be addressed. There is a potential for 
human exposure to chemical residues at the treatment site, on conveyor 
systems, around storage sites, and transport vehicles, which need to be 
considered.
    Response: The commenter did not provide any evidence or scientific 
studies to support the comment. Based on the evidence presented in the 
pest risk assessment and the environmental assessment, we believe that 
the importation of these articles does not present a risk for the 
introduction or dissemination of plant pests or a risk to the health of 
any individuals. The treatments currently in the regulations, and the 
surface pesticide treatment alternative now being offered, mitigate 
against nonnative pest infestation. As noted in the environmental 
assessment, all chemicals to be used in the pesticide treatment are 
registered with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which 
evaluates all pesticides for their impact on the environment as part of 
the registration process. Their evaluations of the pesticides to be 
used in this treatment indicated that the potential for these 
pesticides to have a negative impact on the environment is minimal when 
used according to the label instructions. The environmental assessment, 
which can be viewed on the Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppd/es/ppqdocs.html, has been amended to address the comments.
    Comment: The environmental assessment does not include an option 
for a single component pesticide spray treatment. A fungicide-only 
treatment would decrease the introduction of chemicals into the 
environment.
    Response: As noted previously, based on the available research 
(Morrell, Freitag, and Silva) and on the findings of CPHST, we believe 
that a formula with both the insecticide and fungicide components is 
effective and necessary.

Practicality of Additional Conditions

    Comment: The additional condition to cover the conveyor belt when 
unloading the chips is not practical because wood chips are unloaded 
from an ocean vessel using a bucket that drops the wood chips into a 
hopper that sorts the chips onto a conveyor belt. The hopper cannot be 
covered due to the fact that the wood chips are dropped into the 
hopper.
    Response: This additional safeguarding measure is currently in 
practice for the importation of Pinus radiata wood chips, and there 
have been no reported problems. The regulations state that the conveyor 
belt, not the hopper, must be covered to prevent the chips from being 
blown by the wind and from accidental spillage. We do not believe that 
this additional condition is impractical.
    Comment: The time allotted for compliance-45 days after the wood 
chips arrive at the facility to process the wood chips and to dispose 
of any fines or unusable wood chips by burning--does not take into 
account the differing capabilities of different facilities. The 
allotted amount of time should be specified in each individual 
compliance agreement. This additional condition is not justified.
    Response: The commenters did not offer any specific examples or 
evidence

[[Page 2292]]

to support their comments. This additional safeguarding measure is 
currently in use for Pinus radiata wood chips and has proven effective, 
practical, and reasonable. The safeguard regarding the destruction of 
fines or unusable chips is in place to further protect against the 
possibility of the spread of any plant pests associated with the wood 
chips. If the commenters provide evidence that an extension of time is 
necessary and that such an extension would not increase the risk of the 
dissemination of plant pests, we would consider the evidence at that 
time. However, we believe that this additional safeguarding measure is 
necessary and justified in order to further protect against the spread 
of plant pests. In addition, in accordance with the regulations in 
Sec.  319.40-6(c)(1)(iii), the wood chips must be consigned to a 
facility in the United States that operates under a compliance 
agreement in accordance with the regulations in Sec.  319.40-8. The 
process of entering into a compliance agreement includes site visits by 
authorized representatives of PPQ to evaluate the capacities of the 
individual facilities and to determine specific requirements that will 
prevent the spread of plant pests from that facility. The differing 
capacities of different facilities are taken into account during the 
site visits, and authorized representatives work with the individual 
facilities to ensure compliance with all additional conditions in the 
regulations.
    Comment: The wood chips should be treated within 24 hours of the 
logs being chipped, as required by the regulations, however the 
statement in the environmental assessment that the pesticide is applied 
to the wood chips as they are loaded for shipment is not consistent 
with this requirement. In addition, the requirement to reapply the 
treatment if more than 30 days elapse between the date of the first 
application and export is not necessary because the residue of the 
treatment continues to be effective after 30 days. This requirement may 
be difficult to comply with at times because of unpredictable delays in 
harvesting, chipping, or shipping schedules.
    Response: We agree with the commenter that the statement in the 
environmental assessment regarding the application of the pesticide to 
the wood chips as they are loaded for shipment might not always be 
consistent with the requirement that the wood chips be treated within 
24 hours of the logs being chipped, since not all wood chips would be 
ready for shipment within 24 hours of the logs being chipped. Although 
this method is used by some companies that import Pinus radiata wood 
chips from Chile, we do not require all companies to follow this same 
procedure. The environmental assessment has been amended to correspond 
with the language in the regulations. Available research indicates that 
the efficacy of the pesticide spray declines 4 weeks after the initial 
application.\2\ Since the 30-day time limit is necessary to ensure that 
the spray remains effective, we do not believe that it would be 
justified to extend this time period. Importers should be aware of this 
requirement and plan accordingly to the best of their ability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Morrell, Freitag, and Silva, ``Protection of Freshly Cut 
Radiata Pine Chips from Fungal Attack,'' Forest Products Journal, 
48(2):57-59.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: The designated 45-day period between the time the trees 
are felled and the time the wood chips are exported should be extended 
to allow 90 days for the trees to be felled and chipped and an 
additional 60 days for the chips to be exported. The shorter interval 
of time results in the processing and movement of the wood while it is 
still green; piles of green wood chips rapidly achieve high 
temperatures and humidity conditions, which lead to the development of 
fungi and bacteria. In addition, once the wood chips are stored in 
piles, they retain water, thus increasing the weight of the articles 
and the subsequent transportation costs. Since this additional 
condition is based on the post-harvest management practices of Chile, 
it does not take into account the differences in the post-harvest 
management practices, climate, and logging conditions in other 
countries or of the pests specific to Eucalyptus.
    Response: Our requirement that no more than 45 days elapse between 
the time the trees are felled to the time the wood chips are exported 
reduces the opportunity for the wood chips to be exposed to plant 
pests. In addition, as noted previously, available research indicates 
that the efficacy of the surface pesticide treatment declines 4 weeks 
after application, so any extension of this time requirement would 
increase the likelihood that the surface pesticide treatment would have 
to be reapplied, which could be economically burdensome. This time 
requirement has proven practical and effective for the importation of 
other wood chips. The Wood Import Pest Risk Assessment and Mitigation 
Evaluation Team that conducted the pest risk assessment visited several 
countries in South America, including Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and 
Uruguay where most of the Eucalyptus plantations are located. These 
site visits provided information about the various post-harvest 
management practices, logging, and climate conditions that APHIS took 
into consideration when developing the proposed rule. We believe that 
the designated 45-day period between the time the trees are felled and 
the time the wood chips are exported is practical and effective for 
wood chips.
    Comment: The additional condition that no other regulated articles 
will be permitted in the holds or sealed containers carrying the wood 
chips during shipment is unnecessary.
    Response: The requirement that no other regulated articles be 
allowed in the holds or sealed containers carrying the wood chips 
during shipment helps control the possible movement of plant pests from 
other regulated articles to the wood chips. Given that, we believe this 
additional safeguarding measure is necessary.
    Comment: The additional conditions related to the unloading, 
transporting, and storing of the wood chips in the United States are 
not justified, given the minimal pest risk posed by wood chips and the 
security of the mitigation measures in place from harvesting to 
shipping.
    Response: These additional measures have proved effective and 
practical in the importation of other wood chips and are designed to 
reduce the exposure of the chips to plant pests or pathogens, which 
might result in infestation. According to the evidence in the pest risk 
assessment, the potential mechanisms for wood chip infestation by 
nonindigenous pests are complex and suggest that additional mitigation 
measures might be necessary for the importation of these articles. We 
agree with the commenter that Eucalyptus wood chips destined for export 
from South America may be relatively free of most damaging organisms. 
However, some of the pest organisms of concern are pests that are 
native to South America but that have been capable of attacking 
Eucalyptus even though it is an introduced species that is native only 
to Australia, the Philippines, Papua New Guinea, and Indonesia. This 
adaptability suggests the potential for these pests to develop a wider 
host range. Although the mitigation measures in place from harvesting 
to shipping are effective, we believe that additional conditions are 
necessary to ensure that no plant pests are disseminated into the 
United States as a result of the importation of these wood chips once 
they have been treated with the surface pesticide spray.

[[Page 2293]]

    Comment: The additional condition that the wood chips be stored, 
handled, and safeguarded in a manner that would prevent any infestation 
of the wood chips by plant pests during the entire interval between 
treatment and export is not practical, and compliance with this 
condition is impossible because wood chips are typically stored outside 
in 40,000-ton piles that are 50 feet high in an area of about 90,000 
square feet.
    Response: This additional condition has been required for the 
importation of Pinus radiata wood chips from Chile for several years 
and no problems have been reported.
    Comment: Most pulp mills are generally located in the vicinity of 
forested areas, thus complying with the additional condition that the 
storage area for the wood chips not be adjacent to wooded areas would 
be impossible for most mills. APHIS should define ``adjacent'' and 
``wooded areas'' more clearly. Since Eucalyptus is a nonnative species 
in the United States, and is not similar to conifers or any North 
American hardwood species, this additional requirement is not 
necessary.
    Response: We believe that this additional condition is a necessary 
and effective safeguard to protect against the potential for pest 
infestation and dissemination of pests as a result of the wood chips 
being stored near an unprotected and untreated wooded environment. It 
would be difficult to add a specific definition of ``adjacent'' and 
``wooded areas'' to the regulations that would adequately address the 
pest risk in each individual case. We will therefore define these terms 
in the language of each individual compliance agreement. As noted 
previously, the process of entering into a compliance agreement 
includes site visits by authorized representatives to evaluate the 
capacities of each different facility and to determine if additional, 
specific requirements are necessary in order to prevent the spread of 
plant pests from that facility. At the time of the site visit, the 
authorized representatives will be able to ensure that each individual 
facility meets the additional condition that the wood chip storage not 
be adjacent to a wooded area in accordance with the regulations. 
Although Eucalyptus is a nonnative species in the United States, as 
noted previously, some of the pests of concern are native to South 
America but have exhibited an ability to adapt to a broader host range 
and to new hosts.

Pest Risk Assessment

    Comment: The pest risk assessment team did not request information 
from the national plant protection organization of Uruguay and the 
phytosanitary measures should be adjusted to the risk of introduction 
of the pests present in Uruguay that would affect wood chips. The pests 
considered to have a high risk and a moderate risk potential for 
introduction into the United States are not present in Uruguay.
    Response: The Wood Import Pest Risk Assessment and Mitigation 
Evaluation Team that conducted the pest risk assessment included 
representatives from APHIS, the United States Department of Agriculture 
Forest Service, Forest Service retirees, and the governments of 
Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Uruguay. A site visit was made to Uruguay 
in April of 1998, and members of Uruguay's Department of Agriculture 
accompanied and assisted the team during the site visits. Although it 
is true that some of the pests listed as having a high risk potential 
for introduction into the United States are not present in Uruguay, 
three pests considered to have a high risk potential are present in 
Uruguay. These pests are: Chydarteres striatus, Phoracantha 
semipuncata, and Retrachyderes thoracicus. If the commenter provides 
research and evidence that these three pests are not present in 
Uruguay, we will consider the evidence at that time. The pests listed 
as having a moderate risk are not present in Uruguay, but our 
mitigation measures specifically target pests with a high risk 
potential.
    Comment: Certain pests that are already present in the United 
States are still considered to have a high risk potential for 
introduction into the United States according to the pest risk 
assessment. The pests in question are: Botryosphaeria dothidea, B. 
obtusa, B. ribis, Ceratocystis fimbriata, Erytricium salmonicolor, 
Steirastoma breve, and Phoracanta semipunctata.
    Response: While we agree with the commenter that some of the pests 
in question are present in the United States--B. dothidea, B. obtusa, 
B. ribis, Ceratocystis fimbriata, Phoracanta semipunctata, and 
Erytricium salmonicolor--we are mitigating specifically for the pests 
that were rated as having a high risk potential that are not present in 
the United States. These pests include: Sarsina violescens, Scolytopsis 
brasiliensis, Xyleborus retusus, Xyleborus biconicus, Xyleborus spp., 
Chilecomadia valdiviana, Chydarteres striatus, Retrachyderes 
thoracicus, Trachyderes spp., Steirastoma breve, and Stenodontes 
spinibarbis.
    The pests mentioned by the commenter are listed in the pest risk 
assessment for several different reasons. Four of the pests in 
question--B. dothidea, B. obtusa, B. ribis, and Ceratocystis 
fimbriata--are all pest organisms native to the United States, however, 
genetic variation exhibited by the species results in differing 
capacities for causing damage. Because these species are present in 
South America in a genetic variation from the species already present 
in the United States, it is impossible to predict the potential extent 
of damage or range if these genetic variations were introduced into the 
United States with Eucalyptus as a host. Although Erytricium 
salmonicolor is present in the United States, it is nonindigenous and 
not widely distributed. Currently, it is found only in Florida, 
Louisiana, and Mississippi. Wider distribution of this pathogen would 
have unknown adverse effects on the United States. Steirastoma breve is 
not present in the United States. Phoracanta semipunctata is a 
nonindigenous pest and is found only in California. Wider distribution 
of this pest would have unknown adverse effects on the United States.

Economic Analysis

    Comment: While the cost of the surface pesticide treatment is 
unknown, it will likely be closer to 3-5 percent of the value of the 
wood chips rather than less than 1 percent as stated in the economic 
analysis in the proposed rule. The overall costs associated with the 
requirements would make it cost prohibitive for a company to bring in 
occasional shipments of Eucalyptus wood chips to supplement its 
domestic supply of hardwood chips.
    Response: The commenter did not provide any information to support 
the statement that the costs would be closer to 3-5 percent of the 
value of the wood chips. Although the actual overall costs associated 
with compliance with the requirements are difficult to estimate without 
additional information, we note that the domestic wood industry has 
been complying with these requirements when importing Pinus radiata 
wood chips from Chile and has not found compliance with the 
requirements to be cost prohibitive. Costs for the importer would 
depend on the market price for wood chips in the United States and 
overseas as well as the costs of purchasing the equipment required to 
spray the wood chips with the pesticide. Additional costs could make 
this treatment option cost prohibitive for smaller shipments of wood 
chips, but we note that we are allowing treatment with the surface 
pesticide treatment only as an alternative. Importers could still 
choose the current treatment options for wood

[[Page 2294]]

chips, which include heat treatment and fumigation, in order to bring 
in shipments of wood chips of temperate species of Eucalyptus. Although 
these treatment options are not as practical for large volumes of wood 
chips, they are viable options for small shipments.
    Comment: The proposed rule failed to recognize the costs associated 
with the environmental controls required to manage the application and 
containment of the suggested chemicals. An effective and safe 
technology would have to be developed and special facilities would have 
to be built to contain the chemicals both offshore and in the United 
States.
    Response: The chemicals used in the pesticide treatment are common 
chemicals that are registered with the EPA and are federally regulated 
and safe for application. The pesticide is similar to pesticides used 
by the domestic agricultural industry. We do not believe that costs 
associated with managing the application of the treatment or of storing 
the chemicals will be cost prohibitive. This pesticide treatment is 
currently in use for importing certain wood chips, and there have been 
no reported problems about the economic feasibility of the treatment.

General Comment

    Comment: Because debarking is regularly practiced in Uruguay and 
because the Eucalyptus plantations are well-managed, have effective 
systems of pest detection, and are protected against pest infestation, 
wood chips should be considered a low phytosanitary risk commodity.
    Response: According to research cited previously (Morrell, Freitag, 
and Silva) debarking does not mitigate for decay, mold, and fungus that 
can begin affecting the wood chips within 24 hours of chipping. 
Additional mitigation measures, such as treatment with a fungicide, 
which is a component of the surface pesticide treatment being offered, 
are necessary to ensure that the wood chips are free of decay, mold, 
and fungus.

Research and Development

    Comment: The chemicals in the surface pesticide spray, especially 
the fungicide, are relatively specific in terms of the pests and 
pathogens that they target. If treatment with surface pesticides is 
going to continue to be a pest mitigation measure for wood chips, 
further research should be done to identify pesticides that will be 
effective against a wider range of pests. Further research should be 
done to test the efficacy of a variety of insecticide and fungicide 
mixtures applied to wood chips as surface sprays for insects and 
diseases associated specifically with Eucalyptus and other hardwood 
chips. Further research should be done to develop spray containment 
technology to reduce the potential negative environmental impact of 
chemical treatments.
    Response: As noted previously, according to the findings of CPHST, 
we believe that the pesticide will be effective for mitigating 
potential pests associated with Eucalyptus, however, we would evaluate 
and consider any evidence that the commenter might provide regarding 
the efficacy of a variety of insecticide and fungicide mixtures applied 
to wood chips as a treatment for insects and diseases specifically 
associated with Eucalyptus and other hardwood chips. The environmental 
assessment addresses the potential negative environmental impact of the 
chemicals and provides evidence that the negative environmental impacts 
will be minimal, if the chemicals are used according to the label 
instructions. We welcome any scientific studies, research, and evidence 
related to any of the topics suggested in the comments for future 
research and development. We will evaluate all studies and research 
that we receive.
    Therefore, for the reasons given in the proposed rule and in this 
document, we are amending Sec.  319.40-7(e) to allow the same surface 
pesticide treatment used on Pinus radiata wood chips from Chile to be 
used on wood chips of temperate species of Eucalyptus. We are also 
amending Sec.  319.40-6(c)(1) to require the same import conditions for 
temperate Eucalyptus wood chips from South America as those required 
for Pinus radiata wood chips from Chile.

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. For this 
action, the Office of Management and Budget has waived its review under 
Executive Order 12866.
    This rule amends the regulations that govern the importation of 
logs, lumber, and other unmanufactured wood articles into the United 
States to allow wood chips of temperate species of Eucalyptus from 
South America to be treated with a surface pesticide as an alternative 
to the current treatments. This action is necessary in order to provide 
an effective alternative treatment to those who wish to import wood 
chips of temperate species of Eucalyptus from South America and to 
prevent the introduction of plant pests into the United States through 
the importation of these articles.
    The surface pesticide treatment for wood chips of temperate species 
of Eucalyptus from South America provides an alternative to the 
currently approved treatments, which include fumigation with methyl 
bromide, heat treatment, and heat treatment with moisture reduction. 
The cost of the surface pesticide treatment is comparable to that of 
the existing treatment of methyl bromide fumigation (see table 1), and 
is already being used to treat Pinus radiata wood chips from Chile, so 
we do not expect it to have a significant economic impact on the wood 
products industries. This rule benefits the U.S. wood products 
industries by making available an alternative treatment that is more 
cost effective for treating large volumes of temperate wood chips. The 
availability of this alternative treatment benefits the U.S. wood 
products industry by facilitating access to these wood chips, which are 
readily available and produce high-quality pulp.

                               Table 1.--Treatment Costs for Eucalyptus Wood Chips
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Heat with
                                       Heat         Methyl bromide       moisture          Surface pesticide
                                                                         reduction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wood chips (1 ton)............  $50 to $100......  $0.50 to $3.....  $20 to $30......  $1.50 to $3.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Dec. 1996, ``Heat Treatments to Control Pests on Imported
  Timber.''

    Although there are no entities, large or small, currently importing 
wood chips of temperate species of Eucalyptus from South America into 
the United States, we expect that this rule will have positive economic 
effects for any entities that choose to import those articles by making 
available an alternative treatment that is more cost effective for 
treating large volumes of temperate wood chips.

[[Page 2295]]

    Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and 
Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action will 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.

Executive Order 12988

    This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, 
Civil Justice Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts all State and local laws 
and regulations that are inconsistent with this rule; (2) has no 
retroactive effect; and (3) does not require administrative proceedings 
before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.

National Environmental Policy Act

    An environmental assessment and a finding of no significant impact 
(FONSI) have been prepared for this final rule. The assessment provides 
a basis for the conclusion that the alternate treatment for wood chips 
of species of eucalyptus from South America under the conditions 
specified in this final rule do not present a risk of introducing or 
disseminating plant pests and will not have a significant impact on the 
quality of the human environment.
    The environmental assessment and FONSI were prepared 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).
    The environmental assessment and FONSI are available for viewing on 
the Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppd/es/ppqdocs.html. Copies 
of the environmental assessment and FONSI are also available for public 
inspection 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. In addition, copies 
may be obtained by calling or writing to the individual listed under 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This final rule contains no new information collection or 
recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

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.

0
Accordingly, 7 CFR part 319 is amended as follows:

PART 319--FOREIGN QUARANTINE NOTICES

0
1. The authority citation for part 319 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 450 and 7701-7772; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 
CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.


0
2. In Sec.  319.40-6, the introductory text of paragraph (c)(1) is 
revised to read as follows:


Sec.  319.40-6  Universal importation options.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) From Chile (pine) and South America (eucalyptus). Wood chips 
from Chile that are derived from Monterey or Radiata pine (Pinus 
radiata) logs and wood chips from South America that are derived from 
temperate species of Eucalyptus may be imported in accordance with 
paragraph (c)(2) of this section or in accordance with the following 
requirements:
* * * * *


Sec.  319.40-7  [Amended]

0
3. In Sec.  319.40-7, paragraph (e) is amended as follows:
0
a. In the introductory text of the paragraph, by adding the words ``and 
wood chips from South America derived from temperate species of 
Eucalyptus'' after the word ``Chile''.
0
b. In paragraph (e)(2), in the paragraph heading, by adding the words 
``and Eucalyptus (temperate species) wood chips from South America'' 
after the word ``Chile'' and, in the first sentence following the 
paragraph heading, by adding the words ``or on wood chips from South 
America derived from temperate species of Eucalyptus'' after the word 
``Chile''.

    Done in Washington, DC, this 12th day of January 2004.
Bobby R. Acord,
Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 04-875 Filed 1-14-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P