[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 32 (Friday, February 15, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8848-8850]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-2908]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

[Docket No. APHIS-2006-0152]


Importation of Solid Wood Packing Material; Record of Decision

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice advises the public of the Animal and Plant Health 
Inspection Service's record of decision for the supplement to the 
Importation of Solid Wood Packing Material Final Environmental Impact 
Statement.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the record of decision and the supplement to the 
final environmental impact statement on which the record of decision is 
based are available for public inspection at USDA, room 1141, South 
Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, 
between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. 
To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 690-2817 
before coming.
    The record of decision may also be viewed on the APHIS Web site at 
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/ea/swpm.shtml. Supporting and 
related materials, including the final and supplemental environmental 
impact statements, may also be viewed on the Internet by visiting 
http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS-2006-0152.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. David A. Bergsten, APHIS 
Interagency NEPA Contact, Environmental Services, PPD, APHIS, 4700 
River Road, Unit 149, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238; (301) 734-6103.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice advises the public that the 
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has prepared a 
record of decision based on its supplemental environmental impact 
statement (SEIS) for the Importation of Solid Wood Packing Material 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, August 2003 (FEIS).
    The SEIS and FEIS address Federal actions described in a final rule 
APHIS published in the Federal Register on September 16, 2004 (69 FR 
55719-55733, Docket No. 02-032-3). The final rule amended the 
regulations for the importation of unmanufactured wood articles to 
adopt an international standard entitled ``Guidelines for Regulating 
Wood Packaging Material in International Trade.'' The FEIS was prepared 
with regard to that final rule in compliance with the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 
seq.), and its implementing regulations.
    On October 24, 2006, APHIS published in the Federal Register (71 FR 
62240, Docket No. APHIS-2006-0152) a notice of its intent to prepare 
the SEIS for the purpose of reevaluating and refining the estimates of 
methyl bromide usage associated with the alternatives considered in the 
FEIS. On March 9, 2007, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
published in the Federal Register (72 FR 10749) a notice of the 
availability of the draft SEIS. Comments were accepted on the draft 
SEIS until June 25, 2007.
    In October 2007, APHIS published and distributed the final SEIS, 
which included discussion of the three comments received on the draft 
SEIS. On November 23, 2007, EPA published in the Federal Register (72 
FR 65732) a notice of the availability of the final SEIS. The NEPA 
implementing regulations at 40 CFR 1506.10 require a 30-day waiting 
period between the time a final EIS is published and the time an agency 
makes a decision on an action covered by the EIS. APHIS did not receive 
any comments on the final SEIS by the time this waiting period ended on 
December 24, 2007.
    APHIS has reviewed the final SEIS and has concluded that it has 
fully analyzed the issues covered by the draft SEIS and the comments 
and suggestions submitted by commenters. APHIS has now prepared a 
record of decision on the adopted SEIS and is making that record 
available to the public.
    The Record of Decision for the Importation of Solid Wood Packing 
Material Supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Statement, 
prepared pursuant to the Council on Environmental Quality's NEPA 
implementing regulations at 40 CFR 1505.2, is set out below in its 
entirety.

Record of Decision for the Importation of Solid Wood Packing Material 
Supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Statement

    This Record of Decision (ROD) has been developed in compliance 
with the agency decision-making requirements of NEPA. The purpose of 
this ROD is to document APHIS' decision to adopt the September 16, 
2004, final rule. Alternatives have been fully described and 
evaluated in the Supplement to the Final Environmental Impact 
Statement (SEIS) and in the Final Environmental Impact Statement 
(FEIS).
    This ROD is intended to: (a) State the APHIS decision, present 
the rationale for its selection, and describe its implementation; 
(b) identify the alternatives considered in reaching the decision; 
and (c) state whether all means to avoid or minimize environmental 
harm from implementation of the selected alternative have been 
adopted (40 CFR 1505.2).

National Environmental Policy Act

    On November 23, 2007, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA) published in the Federal Register [72 FR 65732] a notice of 
availability of the final supplement to the environmental impact 
statement titled ``Importation of Solid Wood Packing Material.'' The 
FEIS considered the environmental impacts from importation of wood 
packaging materials that could result from our adoption of the 
proposed rule. The SEIS reevaluates and refines the estimates of 
methyl bromide usage associated with the alternatives considered in 
the FEIS.
    Pursuant to the implementing regulations for NEPA in cases 
requiring an EIS, APHIS must prepare a record of decision to express 
the agency determination from review of the EIS documentation. The 
NEPA implementing regulations require that a record of decision 
state what decision is being made; identify alternatives considered 
in the environmental impact statement process; specify the 
environmentally preferred alternative; discuss preferences based on 
relevant factors--economic and technical considerations, as well as 
national policy considerations, where applicable; and state how all 
of the factors discussed entered into the decision. In addition, the 
record of decision must indicate whether the ultimate decision has 
been designed to avoid or minimize environmental harm and, if not, 
why not.

The Decision

    This decision described in the ROD addresses impacts from the 
final rule published by APHIS in the Federal Register on September 
16, 2004 (69 FR 55719-55733, Docket No. 02-032-3). After a thorough 
reevaluation and refinement of the estimates of methyl bromide usage 
associated with the alternatives considered in the FEIS and in the 
SEIS, APHIS has decided to continue to enforce the 2004 regulations 
that establish requirements stipulated in the International Plant 
Protection Convention (IPPC) guidelines for importation of wood 
packaging material into the United States from other countries. This 
includes specific treatment requirements for either heat treatment 
or fumigation with methyl bromide of the wood

[[Page 8849]]

packaging material. The quantitative range determined in the SEIS 
(822-2,351 MT) for the refined methyl bromide estimate is narrower 
than the range determined in the FEIS (384-4,630 MT), but that range 
is encompassed within the broader range presented in the FEIS. The 
limited changes in methyl bromide usage projected in the SEIS do not 
justify changes to the previous findings in the Record of Decision 
for the FEIS.

Alternatives Considered in the Impact Statement Process

    The SEIS considers the same range of alternatives as the FEIS, 
but focuses on the potential impacts from treatments with methyl 
bromide. The range of alternatives includes (1) No action, 
essentially maintaining the exemption from treatment requirements 
for importation of wood packaging material from foreign countries 
except as regulated under the September 18, 1998, interim rule that 
required treatment of wood packaging material from China (China 
interim rule, 63 FR 50099-50111, Docket No. 98-087-1), (2) extension 
to all countries of the treatments in the China interim rule, (3) 
adoption of the IPPC Guidelines, (4) establishment of a 
comprehensive risk reduction program, and (5) use of substitute 
(non-solid wood) packaging material only.

Environmentally Preferable Alternative

    The environmentally preferable alternative would be to prohibit 
importation of wood packaging material, which would virtually 
eliminate all associated pest risks, as well as the need for 
quarantine treatments. This regulatory approach (alternative 5 
above) would require all commodities that are to be imported to the 
United States to be transported with only substitute packaging 
material. Restriction to only substitute packaging materials is, 
however, more trade-restrictive than necessary to achieve an 
adequate level of phytosanitary protection. For the foreseeable 
future, switching to substitute packaging materials would be costly 
or technically infeasible for many exporters, especially in 
developing countries. In addition, depending upon the type of 
substitute packing material, the environmental impacts from the 
manufacturing process for substitute packing material may increase 
overall impacts and other associated risks that are not major 
concerns with the present regulations.

Preferences Among Alternatives

    The preference among the alternatives for the final rule was and 
remains to adopt the IPPC Guidelines (alternative 3 above). The 
preference for this alternative is based principally on the 
determination that it meets the Agency's obligations under the Plant 
Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.) (PPA), and other legislation 
such as NEPA and the Clean Air Act.
    The no action alternative (alternative 1 above) was rejected 
because, if left unchecked, pests introduced by imported wood 
packaging material have the potential to cause significant economic 
damage to the agricultural and forest resources of the United 
States.
    The alternative of extending the China interim rule to all wood 
packaging material worldwide (alternative 2 above) would not ensure 
long-term exclusion of some wood pests of quarantine concern, such 
as certain deep wood-borers, fungi, rots, and wilts. Additionally, 
adoption of the China interim rule requirements would result in the 
greatest additional use of methyl bromide of all the alternatives.
    The preferred alternative (alternative 3 above), adoption of the 
IPPC treatment standards for all importing countries, addresses the 
pest threats already covered by the China interim rule for beetle 
families such as Cerambycidae. In addition, it protects against nine 
other families of wood boring pests.
    The comprehensive risk reduction program (alternative 4 above) 
would consist of an array of mitigation methods (e.g., inspection, 
various heat treatments, various fumigants and other chemical 
treatments, irradiation, etc.) more extensive than that contained in 
either the China Interim Rule or the IPPC Guidelines. Many of the 
methods are in various phases of research and development and, 
therefore, do not provide an adequate basis for any final decisions 
about program implementation.
    Mandating the use of substitute packing material (alternative 5 
above) requires use of materials that likely cost more than wood 
packaging material that is either heat treated or fumigated with 
methyl bromide. The availability of these substitute packing 
materials is also an issue of concern for exporters in some 
developing countries.
    Please see the FEIS and SEIS for a full discussion of the 
reasons why adopting the IPPC standard was considered the preferred 
alternative.

Factors in the Decision

    APHIS' mission is guided by the PPA, under which the detection, 
control, eradication, suppression, prevention, and retardation of 
the spread of plant pests or noxious weeds have been determined by 
Congress to be necessary and appropriate for the protection of the 
agriculture, environment, and economy of the United States. The PPA 
also has been designed to facilitate exports, imports, and 
interstate commerce in agricultural products and other commodities. 
In order to achieve these objectives, use of pesticides, including 
methyl bromide, has often been prescribed.
    Methyl bromide is an ozone depleting substance that is strictly 
regulated under the Montreal Protocol and the Clean Air Act. While 
the goal of these authorities and agreements is to limit and 
ultimately phase out all ozone depleting substances, certain 
exemptions and exclusions are recognized, including an exemption for 
methyl bromide use for plant quarantine and preshipment purposes, 
including those purposes provided for in the final wood packaging 
material rule. The exemption is not unconditional, however. The 
United States, like other signatories to the Montreal Protocol, must 
review its national plant health regulations with a view to removing 
the requirement for the use of methyl bromide for quarantine and 
preshipment applications where technically and economically feasible 
alternatives exist.
    This rule authorizes the use of heat treatment and methyl 
bromide fumigation to treat wood packaging material from other 
countries in order to meet the mandates of the PPA. In addition, the 
agency is working to promote environmental quality with ongoing work 
to identify and add to our regulations valid technically and 
economically feasible alternatives to methyl bromide.

Avoid or Minimize Environmental Harm

    The environment can be harmed by the use of methyl bromide which 
can delay the recovery of the stratospheric ozone layer. However, 
any lack of quarantine application of methyl bromide or heat 
treatment to wood packaging material poses potential adverse effects 
to agriculture and forested ecosystems among environmental 
components that could be devastating. Adequate enforcement of 
effective quarantine measures is required to protect the 
environment. By ensuring that quarantine use of methyl bromide 
remains limited, the Agency strikes a proper balance in its efforts 
to minimize environmental harm. APHIS is committed to monitoring 
these efforts through the NEPA process, and otherwise. Furthermore, 
where appropriate, measures such as gas recapture technology are 
encouraged by APHIS to minimize methyl bromide emissions and 
preclude harm to environmental quality. The prudent use of heat 
treatment and substitute packaging material by developed countries 
is expected to promote this regulatory approach in developing 
countries as their trade opportunities expand.

Other

    Methyl bromide used in quarantine applications prescribed by the 
United States contributes just a small fraction of the total 
anthropogenic bromine released into the atmosphere. Nevertheless, 
the Montreal Protocol is action-forcing in the sense that 
signatories must review their national plant health regulations with 
a view to finding alternatives to exempted uses of methyl bromide. 
The EPA has also cautioned that, regardless of the incremental 
contribution, it is important to recognize that any additional 
methyl bromide releases delay recovery of the stratospheric ozone 
layer.
    A considerable amount of research and development of methyl 
bromide alternatives has been conducted within the USDA and 
continues today. Under the Clean Air Act, EPA has also established a 
program to identify alternatives to ozone depleting substances, 
including methyl bromide, but EPA's listing of an acceptable 
alternative does not always adequately address its suitability for a 
particular use. We must not put agriculture and ecosystems at risk 
based upon unproven technology.
    APHIS is firmly committed to the objectives of the Montreal 
Protocol to reduce and ultimately eliminate reliance on methyl 
bromide for quarantine uses, consistent with its responsibilities to 
safeguard this country's agriculture and ecosystems. Achieving the 
objectives of both reducing (and ultimately eliminating) methyl 
bromide emissions as well as safeguarding agriculture and ecosystems 
in the most expeditious, cost-

[[Page 8850]]

effective way possible, requires close coordination within the 
Federal Government of research, development, and testing efforts. 
APHIS is determined to cooperate actively with the Agricultural 
Research Service, EPA, the Office of Management and Budget, and 
others involved in this effort to find effective alternatives to 
methyl bromide quarantine uses.
    The most recent effort by APHIS to reduce quarantine use of 
methyl bromide is through cooperative work with the IPPC on a draft 
International Standard for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPM). This ISPM 
titled ``Developing a Strategy to Reduce or Replace the Use of 
Methyl Bromide for Phytosanitary Purposes'' has been under review 
since June 2007 by contracting parties to the IPPC.
    In a notice summarizing EPA comments on recent environmental 
impact statements and proposed regulations that was published in the 
Federal Register on July 20, 2007 (72 FR 39807-39808), EPA expressed 
a lack of objections to the draft SEIS and APHIS' adoption of the 
IPPC Guidelines.

    The record of decision has been prepared in accordance with: (1) 
NEPA, (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 1), and 
(4) APHIS' NEPA Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 372).

    Done in Washington, DC, this 11th day of February 2008.
Kevin Shea,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
 [FR Doc. E8-2908 Filed 2-14-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P