[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 165 (Thursday, August 27, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43643-43645]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-20708]
========================================================================
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. 74, No. 165 / Thursday, August 27, 2009 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 43643]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
7 CFR Part 301
[Docket No. APHIS-2009-0016]
RIN 0579-AD01
Wood Packaging Material Used in Domestic Commerce
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking and request for comments;
notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are soliciting public comment on regulatory options that
could be applied to wood packaging material (e.g., crates, dunnage,
wooden spools, pallets, packing blocks) used in domestic commerce to
decrease the risk of the artificial spread of plant pests such as the
emerald ash borer and the Asian longhorned beetle. These and other
plant pests that could be transported interstate by wood packaging
material pose a serious threat to U.S. agriculture and to natural,
cultivated, and urban forests. We are also announcing our intent to
prepare an environmental impact statement on various potential pest
mitigation measures and opening a public scoping period for this
document.
DATES: We will consider all comments that we receive on or before
October 26, 2009.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS-2009-0016 to submit or view comments and
to view supporting and related materials available electronically.
Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Please send two copies of
your comment to Docket No. APHIS-2009-0016, Regulatory Analysis and
Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118,
Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state that your comment refers to
Docket No. APHIS-2009-0016.
Reading Room: 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.
Other Information: Additional information about APHIS and its
programs is available on the Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Paul Chaloux, National Emerald Ash
Borer Program Manager, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 137, Riverdale,
MD 20737-1236; (301) 734-0917.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The regulations in Subpart--Logs, Lumber, and Other Unmanufactured
Wood Articles (7 CFR 319.40-1 though 319.40-11, referred to below as
the regulations) restrict the importation of many types of wood
articles, including items such as pallets, crates, boxes, and pieces of
wood used to support and brace cargo. These types of articles are known
as wood packaging materials (WPM). Introductions into the United States
of exotic plant pests such as the pine shoot beetle Tomicus piniperda
(Scolytidae) and the Asian longhorned beetle Anaplophora glabripennis
(Cerambycidae) among others have been linked to the importation of WPM.
Risk of the artificial spread of plant pests has also been linked to
the domestic movement of WPM in and around quarantined areas.
The variety of woods and lumber qualities used in the construction
of WPM make it susceptible to infestation by a wide range of wood pests
and diseases. WPM is frequently constructed from lower grade lumber
derived from an assortment of woods. Additionally, lumber used in WPM
construction may be fresh cut and may not have undergone sufficient
processing or treatment to kill pests. Furthermore, WPM is very often
reused, recycled, or remanufactured, and the true origin of any
specific piece of WPM is difficult to determine, which means that its
phytosanitary status cannot be fully ascertained. These facts, coupled
with the amount of WPM in circulation, create a high level of concern
that WPM may serve as a vehicle for human assisted long-distance
movement of various plant pests.
Currently, the regulations in 7 CFR part 301 contain domestic
quarantine notices for specific pests that identify regulated articles,
quarantined areas, and conditions governing the interstate movement of
regulated articles from quarantined areas. The domestic quarantines for
wood pests, such as emerald ash borer and Asian longhorned beetle,
regulate the movement of logs, lumber, and other unmanufactured wood
articles from quarantined areas to non-quarantined areas within the
United States. Quarantine requirements governing movement of WPM vary
for different pests. The variety of requirements creates a regulatory
framework that may create confusion and present challenges to industry
and stakeholder compliance. As a result, we are exploring the
development of uniform measures to govern interstate movement of all
WPM in order to provide greater ease of comprehension and compliance.
This action is supported by various WPM industry groups.
We are publishing this advance notice of proposed rulemaking in
order to seek information and develop regulatory options on the general
problem of plant pests in WPM moved interstate. WPM accompanies nearly
all types of domestically shipped commodities, from fruits and
vegetables to machinery and electrical equipment. National Wooden
Pallet and Container Association figures indicate that 1.2 billion
pallets are currently in circulation in the United States, with 93
percent of all goods moving on those pallets. We are seeking ways to
maximize our protection against the artificial spread of various plant
pests by WPM without placing unjustified strain on domestic commerce
and shipping requirements. We are requesting public comment on what
actions would be most effective and appropriate to reduce the risk of
this potential spread.
[[Page 43644]]
We are specifically seeking options for establishing uniform
requirements for the domestic handling of WPM, alternative treatments
to methyl bromide that could be used to reduce the risk of WPM
contributing to the artificial spread of various plant pests, as well
as alternative practices for handling WPM. These measures would be
independent of any specific movement restrictions and treatment
requirements contained in 7 CFR part 301 for particular plant pests.
Options for Managing the Pest Risks Associated With WPM
We are specifically requesting comment on options for strengthening
our response to the risks associated with the restrictions on
interstate movement of WPM, the potential impacts of increased use of
alternative packaging materials such as plastic pallets and/or
processed wood, and a number of technical questions.
At this time, we are considering the feasibility of implementing
International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) treatment standards as
requirements for the domestic movement of WPM. In a final rule
published in the Federal Register on September 16, 2004 (69 FR 55719-
55733; Docket No. 02-032-3), we amended the regulations in order to
update the requirements for importation of WPM to correspond with
standards established by the IPPC in International Standards for
Phytosanitary Measures (ISPM) 15, ``Guidelines for Regulating Wood
Packaging Material in International Trade.'' Paragraph (b) of Sec.
319.40-3 of the regulations lists the IPPC requirements, which include
either heat treatment or fumigation with methyl bromide and the proper
marking of all treated materials with the approved IPPC symbol and
specific control numbers.
Another option for strengthening regulations concerning the
domestic movement of WPM is a practice employed by a segment of the
pallet industry called pooling. Pooled pallet companies retain
ownership of individual pallets through a pallet's lifecycle through
rigorous inventory tracking and management, leasing these pallets to
companies engaged in interstate commodity movement. The pooled pallets
are constructed from a higher grade of wood than traditional pallets,
with strict specifications pertaining to such factors as species of
tree and source location. Some pallets are constructed out of plastics
or resin, which is typically recycled into new pallets at the end of
the first pallet's lifecycle. A third variety of pallet is constructed
of a combination of wood and plastics. Combining IPPC treatments with
pallet pooling may provide sufficient mitigation of the pest risk
associated with WPM moving domestically in the United States.
We are also seeking ways to respond to environmental concerns about
the use of methyl bromide fumigation on domestic wood products in the
long term. Most fumigations of wood products have historically involved
treatments with methyl bromide due to convenience, cost, availability,
ease of handling, timely completion of treatment, and good efficacy.
Any potential increase in the use of methyl bromide is of concern
because of the associated risk of increased ozone depletion, which
results in increased ultraviolet radiation at the Earth's surface. We
are intent on minimizing the use of methyl bromide in order to protect
the stratospheric ozone layer, and we are seeking options that will
accomplish this objective.
Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement
These scoping questions include inquiries relevant to the
preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS). The EIS will
examine the range of potential effects that the proposed applications
could pose to the human environment, taking into account those
alternatives and issues presented in response to this advance notice of
proposed rulemaking.
We are seeking public comment on the options discussed in this
document. There may also be additional information relevant to domestic
production and movement of WPM that should be considered during the
drafting of any potential regulation. In particular, APHIS would like
to improve its understanding of the scientific, economic, and
logistical aspects of the domestic production, use, and movement of WPM
and the potential protection that a domestic regulation might provide
for domestic forests and natural resources.
The environmental effects of any alternatives selected will be
analyzed in full compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act
in the EIS mentioned above. Our goal is to maximize protection of U.S.
agriculture and forests against plant pests associated with WPM without
unduly affecting domestic trade or the environment. We are interested
in information on any alternatives that would accomplish this goal. We
welcome comments that address the economic impacts that the various
options may have on domestic entities.
We are also seeking public comment addressing the following
questions, which will help us better consider the potential issues
surrounding the proposed EIS and any possible regulations governing
interstate movement of WPM that would mitigate the pest risks
associated with these articles:
1. Are there issues of concern if we were to establish domestic
regulations pertaining to the interstate movement of WPM that mirror
the IPPC treatment standards?
2. Other than ISPM 15 treatments as required for exportation of WPM
and treatments authorized under specific domestic pest quarantines,
what environmentally sound regulatory or nonregulatory actions would
maximize protection against the spread of invasive pests associated
with WPM in a cost-effective manner?
3. Are data available for treatments, other than those currently
authorized under the regulations, which might be used nationally to
reduce the risk of WPM introducing pests into new habitats?
4. Could the imposition of a requirement that WPM moving interstate
be bark-free reduce the need for other regulatory treatment
requirements?
5. What is the magnitude of the pest risks associated with WPM
moving interstate and to what extent would the options presented here,
or other options, reduce these risks?
6. APHIS would like to better understand the potential economic
effects of requiring treatment for interstate movement of WPM,
including the following specific issues:
a. What proportion of WPM currently used domestically is either
made with heat-treated (core temperature raised to a prescribed level
for a prescribed period of time) or methyl bromide fumigated raw wood
inputs, or treated using either of these methods following
construction?
b. If heat treatment or methyl bromide fumigation of all WPM were
required, what proportions of WPM producers would install new,
additional, or upgraded heat-treating or fumigating equipment at their
facilities?
c. How do the prices of treated wood inputs for WPM construction
and repair compare to the prices of untreated wood inputs?
d. What are the typical one-time costs associated with the purchase
and installation of heat treating or methyl bromide fumigation
equipment for raw wood inputs or finished WPM, and what are the time
periods involved in
[[Page 43645]]
the purchase and installation of the treatment equipment?
e. What are the typical ongoing operating costs associated with
heat treatment or methyl bromide fumigation of wood inputs or
constructed WPM (including labor, energy, and other variable expenses)?
f. Information provided by the American Lumber Standards Committee
indicates that there is significant unused heat treatment capacity
across the United States. Is this capacity appropriate for both
supplying treated inputs and treating finished products? And is this
capacity suitably distributed regionally to adequately serve the WPM
industry if treatment were required for all WPM moved interstate?
7. What would be the environmental effects of requiring treatment
of WPM moved interstate, including effects on global climate change and
the stratospheric ozone layer? What would be the environmental effects
of alternative packaging materials?
a. If the WPM industry is given the option of heat treatment or
methyl bromide fumigation, what, if any, change would occur in carbon
dioxide emissions relative to current global emissions, and what, if
any, changes would occur in atmospheric bromine concentrations relative
to current global concentrations?
b. What effect would changes in rates of use of the most likely
alternative packaging materials have on emissions?
8. How could APHIS best monitor compliance with treatment
requirements? How can WPM be identified as eligible for interstate
movement if treatment were to be required? Should we recognize ISPM 15
markings as one means of identifying WPM as eligible for interstate
movement?
9. Various parties are frequently involved in the construction and
interstate movement of WPM. Who should be responsible for ensuring that
WPM moving interstate meets any requirements that might be imposed?
10. Is it feasible and cost-effective for the shipping industry to
replace WPM with processed wood packaging material or other alternative
packaging material?
a. What are the most likely substitutes?
b. What portion of the packaging material market do alternative
materials currently comprise?
11. One advantage of wood dunnage is its biodegradable nature. What
would be the environmental effects, if any, of requiring that less
biodegradable materials be substituted for wood dunnage?
12. Concern has been expressed over the relative fire hazards
associated with certain packaging materials, specifically plastic. Is
there any specific information about the fire hazard of WPM relative to
other packaging materials that should be considered in our assessment
of environmental and other risks?
13. If treatment of some kind were to be required for all WPM moved
interstate, would the industry need a phase-in period to allow time to
adapt? If so, how long should this phase-in period last?
In addition to the questions listed above, we are asking that the
public identify any other issues that they consider to be appropriate
in connection with amending the regulations governing the interstate
movement of WPM.
This action has been determined to be not significant for the
purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed
by the Office of Management and Budget.
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7701-7772 and 7781-7786; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80,
and 371.3.
Done in Washington, DC, this 24th day of August 2009.
Kevin Shea,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. E9-20708 Filed 8-26-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P