55719

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

Vol. 69, No. 179

Thursday, September 16, 2004

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER including pathogens, detrimental to FR 27480–27491; Docket No. 02–032–2),
contains regulatory documents having general agriculture and to natural, cultivated, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
applicability and legal effect, most of which and urban forest resources. The Service (APHIS) proposed to amend the
are keyed to and codified in the Code of regulations in 7 CFR 319.40–1 through regulations to decrease the risk of
Federal Regulations, which is published under 319.40–11 (referred to below as the SWPM introducing plant pests into the
50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
regulations) contain provisions to United States by adopting the
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by mitigate plant pest risk presented by the international phytosanitary standard 1
the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of importation of logs, lumber, or other for wood packaging material (referred to
new books are listed in the first FEDERAL unmanufactured wood articles. below as the IPPC Guidelines) that was
REGISTER issue of each week. The regulations restrict the approved by the IPPC on March 15,
importation of many types of wood 2002. We proposed to apply the
articles, including wooden packaging standard to wood packaging material
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE material such as pallets, crates, boxes, from all places, including China, and to
and pieces of wood used to support or remove the special provisions for wood
Animal and Plant Health Inspection brace cargo. The regulations currently packaging material from China in 7 CFR
Service refer to these types of wood packaging 319.40–5(g) through (k).
material as solid wood packing material
7 CFR Part 319 The IPPC Guidelines were developed
(SWPM), defined as ‘‘[w]ood packing
after the IPPC determined that
[Docket No. 02–032–3] materials other than loose wood packing
worldwide, the movement of SWPM
materials, used or for use with cargo to
RIN 0579–AB48 made of unprocessed raw wood is a
prevent damage, including, but not
pathway for the introduction and spread
Importation of Wood Packaging limited to, dunnage, crating, pallets,
of a variety of pests (IPPC Guidelines, p.
Material packing blocks, drums, cases, and
5). The IPPC Guidelines list the major
skids.’’ Introductions into the United
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health categories of these pests, and establish
States of exotic plant pests such as the
Inspection Service, USDA. a heat treatment and a fumigation
pine shoot beetle Tomicus piniperda
ACTION: Final rule. (Scolytidae) and the Asian longhorned treatment determined to be effective
beetle Anaplophora glabripennis against them (IPPC Guidelines, p. 10).
SUMMARY: We are amending the (Cerambycidae) have been linked to the We proposed to adopt the IPPC
regulations for the importation of importation of SWPM. These and other Guidelines because they represent the
unmanufactured wood articles to adopt plant pests that are carried by some current international standard
an international standard entitled imported SWPM pose a serious threat to determined in 2002 to be necessary and
‘‘Guidelines for Regulating Wood U.S. agriculture and to natural, effective for controlling pests in SWPM.
Packaging Material in International cultivated, and urban forests. The need to adopt the IPPC Guidelines
Trade’’ that was approved by the Beyond the threat to the United is further supported by analysis of pest
Interim Commission on Phytosanitary States, the introduction of pests interceptions at U.S. ports that show an
Measures of the International Plant associated with SWPM is a worldwide increase in dangerous pests associated
Protection Convention on March 15, problem. Because SWPM is very often with certain SWPM. This increase in
2002. The standard calls for wood reused, recycled or remanufactured, the pests was found in SWPM that does not
packaging material to be either heat true origin of any piece of SWPM is meet the IPPC Guidelines (e.g., SWPM
treated or fumigated with methyl difficult to determine and thus its from everywhere except China). There
bromide, in accordance with the phytosanitary status cannot be has been a decrease in pests associated
Guidelines, and marked with an ascertained. This often precludes with SWPM material from China since
approved international mark certifying national plant protection organizations we began requiring that material be
treatment. This change will affect all from conducting useful specific risk treated prior to importation.
persons using wood packaging material analyses focused on the pests associated Another reason to adopt the IPPC
in connection with importing goods into with SWPM of a particular type or place Guidelines at this time is that adopting
the United States. of origin, and imposing particular them would simplify and standardize
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 16, 2005. mitigation measures based on the results trade requirements. China, Canada, the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. of such analysis. For this reason, there European Union, and many other
William Aley, Senior Import Specialist, is a need to develop globally accepted countries are preparing to implement
Phytosanitary Issues Management Team, measures that may be applied to SWPM the IPPC Guidelines requirements.
PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 140, by all countries to practically eliminate Given the difficulty of identifying the
Riverdale, MD 20737–1236; (301) 734– the risk for most quarantine pests and source of SWPM and the recycling of
5057. significantly reduce the risk from other SWPM in trade, successful reduction of
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: pests that may be associated with the the pest risk posed by SWPM requires
SWPM. In the case of phytosanitary
Background standards, the international standard- 1 ‘‘International Standards for Phytosanitary

Logs, lumber, and other setting organization is the International Measures: Guidelines for Regulating Wood
Packaging Material in International Trade,’’
unmanufactured wood articles imported Plant Protection Convention (IPPC). Secretariat of the International Plant Protection
into the United States pose a significant In a proposed rule published in the Convention, Food and Agriculture Organization of
hazard of introducing plant pests, Federal Register on May 20, 2003 (68 the United Nations, Rome: 2002.

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:50 Sep 15, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16SER1.SGM 16SER1
 55720 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 179 / Thursday, September 16, 2004 / Rules and Regulations

all trading partners to take action on a and to our implementation plans are raised by commenters, and explain the
similar timeline. discussed below in detail. modifications made in response to these
Furthermore, adopting a uniform comments.
international standard means that U.S. Summary and Analysis of Comments
companies will not need to comply with More than 95 percent of the Terminology
one set of SWPM requirements for goods comments applauded the intent of Comment: APHIS regulations refer to
exported from the United States and APHIS to protect United States forest the materials being regulated as solid
another set of requirements for goods and agricultural resources against the wood packing materials (SWPM), but
imported into the United States. danger represented by pests associated the IPPC Guidelines uses the term wood
Companies engaged in both import and with wood packaging material. packaging material (WPM). It would be
export would have particular difficulties However, the same commenters were less confusing if APHIS used the term
in ensuring that their SWPM supply concerned that the proposed rule would wood packaging material, since this is
chain is sorted and routed to comply not adequately protect our forests from the preferred term in international
with differing requirements for different plant pests like the Asian longhorned commerce and in the IPPC Guidelines
destinations. After this final rule takes beetle and were concerned that the that many other countries are adopting.
effect, these companies will be able to proposal would cause other harm to the Response: We agree, and throughout
use SWPM that complies with the environment, namely increased our regulations we are changing the
Guidelines for both import and export depletion of the ozone layer due to use term solid wood packing materials
purposes, leveling the trade playing of methyl bromide as a fumigant. These (SWPM) to wood packaging material
field with regard to SWPM. Using commenters urged APHIS not to adopt (WPM).
SWPM that has been treated and marked the proposed rule, but to look for In the proposal, APHIS did not use
in accordance with the Guidelines will alternatives that will fully protect the the term ‘‘wood packaging material’’ for
also reduce the practice, common in United States from wood-borne invasive two reasons. Our existing regulations
trade today, of re-treating SWPM species while not sacrificing the ozone have used the alternate term ‘‘solid
immediately prior to its reuse to assure layer. These commenters suggested that wood packing materials’’ for more than
the receiving country that treated one option would be to phase out the 8 years, and persons applying our
SWPM is used with a shipment. This use of wood packaging material and regulations are familiar with the term.
reduction in re-treatment will reduce replace it with manufactured wood and Also, in the IPPC Guidelines the term
costs to importers and procedural plastic crates and pallets, which the wood packaging material is defined as
burdens for national plant protection commenters suggested would be free of ‘‘Wood or wood products (excluding
agencies, and will also reduce pest dangers and could be reused for a paper products) used in supporting,
unnecessary emissions of methyl long time. protecting or carrying a commodity
bromide associated with such A number of commenters supported (includes dunnage).’’ This definition is
unnecessary re-treatment. adoption of the IPPC Guidelines, but broader than the APHIS term solid
We accepted comments on the suggested a variety of exemptions for wood packing material. WPM as defined
proposed rule for 60 days, ending July particular articles, or modifications of by the IPPC includes manufactured
21, 2003. We also accepted comments at import clearance procedures, in order to wood such as plywood, veneer, and
three public hearings held in Seattle, minimize adverse effects of fiberboard, as well as loose wood
WA, on June 23, 2003; in Long Beach, implementing the IPPC Guidelines. materials such as shavings and
CA, on June 25, 2003; and in Several commenters also suggested that excelsior. The IPPC Guidelines then
Washington, DC, on June 27, 2003. the regulation should be implemented distinguish between types of WPM that
During the comment period we received on a delayed basis, or on a scheduled should be regulated because they
approximately 970 comments on the phase-in with several incremental present a risk (e.g., raw wood pallets
proposal, including approximately 905 levels, in order to give importers and and dunnage), and types that should not
slight variants of a single e-mail form other businesses time to adjust to the be regulated because they present little
letter. The issues raised in these new requirements. risk (e.g., manufactured wood and
comments are discussed below. Several commenters made comments shavings).
As a result of our review of about the effectiveness or availability of We thought this approach was
comments, we have decided to make the the fumigation and heat treatments ungainly when used in regulations, and
following changes from the proposal in contained in the IPPC Guidelines, or that it would be better to use a different
this final rule: suggested alternative treatments. term (SWPM) that applied only to the
• We are changing the term ‘‘solid Several commenters addressed the types of wooden materials used in
wood packing material’’ to ‘‘wood international standard mark that we packing that we wanted to regulate.
packaging material’’ throughout the proposed should be placed on every Upon further consideration, we agree
regulations; and piece of wood packaging material that that the benefits of using the term WPM
• We are excluding from the has been treated in accordance with the outweigh the advantages of using the
definition of wood packaging material, regulations. Some of these commenters term SWPM. However, while the
and thereby excluding from treatment suggested that it was not practical to definition of WPM in our regulations
requirements, pieces of wood that are apply the mark to all packaging will match the definition used in the
less than 6 mm (0.24 in) in any materials, especially materials such as IPPC Guidelines, we will also add a
dimension, because pieces of wood of dunnage that are specially cut to definition of regulated wood packaging
this size are too thin to present any support cargo. material. The definition of this new
significant pest risk. APHIS has carefully considered all term includes only the types of WPM
Comments have also led APHIS to the comments, suggestions, requests for we consider to be regulated articles. The
make some changes in our plans and clarification, and concerns raised by new definition of regulated WPM
schedule for implementing the final commenters. Several modifications have closely resembles our current definition
rule. No changes to the text of the rule been made in this final rule in response of SWPM, and reads as follows: ‘‘Wood
were necessary in response to these to the comments. In the next section we packing materials other than
comments. Changes we made to the rule provide detailed responses to the issues manufactured wood materials, loose

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:50 Sep 15, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16SER1.SGM 16SER1
 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 179 / Thursday, September 16, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 55721

wood packing materials, and wood Convention with respect to the greatest possible reduction in risk from
pieces less than 6 mm (0.24 in) thick in international phytosanitary standards the introduction of pests and pathogens
any dimension, that are used or that are established by the IPPC, APHIS will associated with WPM. While heat
for use with cargo to prevent damage, work closely with current initiatives treating or fumigating WPM are also
including, but not limited to, dunnage, within the IPPC to develop alternative both highly efficacious in controlling
crating, pallets, packing blocks, drums, treatments to methyl bromide and will risk, use of alternative packing materials
cases, and skids.’’ Therefore, in our strive to have any validated treatments reduces risk even more. The
regulations WPM refers to the type of incorporated into future revisions of the manufacture and use of alternative
articles covered by the IPPC Guidelines IPPC Guidelines. APHIS will also be packing materials also generates only
definition of WPM, and regulated WPM working independently to evaluate and minimal amounts of ozone-depleting
refers to the type of articles that the consider treatment alternatives to chemicals. However, fumigation of
IPPC Guidelines refer to in their section methyl bromide, and communicate this WPM with methyl bromide and heat
on ‘‘Regulated Wood Packaging information through the proper treatment of WPM are currently the
Material.’’ channels in IPPC for technical review most economical means of producing
This definition of regulated WPM and approval. Whenever either APHIS safe packing materials. Alternative
differs from the existing definition of independent evaluations or revisions to packing materials cost much more. In
SWPM in that it explicitly excludes IPPC Guidelines make such validated addition to a cost that is currently
manufactured wood materials, such as alternatives available, APHIS will make beyond the reach of exporters in many
fiber board, plywood, whisky and wine the necessary changes to its quarantine developing countries, recovery and
barrels, and veneer. APHIS has never regulations and procedures to provide reuse of alternative packing materials
regulated such materials, but the for their use. requires a more complex infrastructure
definition of SWPM did not make that A comprehensive review of the IPPC than is required by reuse of WPM.
clear. The definition of regulated WPM Guidelines is due to be initiated under Finally, there are some costs associated
also excludes pieces of wood that are the IPPC by 2007. The United States with the durability of alternative
less than 6 mm in any dimension. intends to participate in, and bring to materials. While many metal, plastic,
Pieces of wood of this size are excluded bear our technical and research and manufactured wood alternatives are
because they are too thin to present any expertise on, this review within the very durable and can be used for more
significant pest risk, and because the IPPC to ensure alternatives are shipments than typical WPM, some
IPPC Guidelines suggest the 6 mm continually examined and given due alternative packing materials, such as
threshold for excluding wood pieces consideration. The IPPC Guidelines particle board, are limited in their
from regulation. This exclusion will itself recognizes that phosphine and CPI ability to withstand the conditions that
exempt from regulation many types of methods are particularly worth routinely occur during transport.
small boxes used to ship fruit or other revisiting with respect to the availability It is difficult to quantitatively
articles. of data related to the efficacy of these compare the costs of requiring
methods in treating target pests for alternative packing materials to the
Phasing Out WPM in Favor of
wood packaging material. benefits that would accrue from their
Manufactured Materials Methyl bromide as a class I ozone- use. The FEIS and the economic
Comment: APHIS should look for depleting substance has been found to analysis for this rule do estimate costs
alternatives that will fully protect the cause or contribute significantly to to exporters of using substitute packing
United States from wood-borne invasive harmful effects on the stratospheric materials and compare these to the cost
species while not sacrificing the ozone ozone layer and has adverse of heat treatment or methyl bromide
layer by encouraging methyl bromide atmospheric effects substantially greater fumigation. However, we are unable to
fumigation. One such option would be than those associated with the realistically estimate the benefits that
to phase out the use of WPM and alternatives of heat treatment of WPM or could result using substitute materials.
replace it with manufactured wood and use of alternative packing materials. None of the commenters suggested
plastic crates and pallets, which would Whenever APHIS advises on treatment methods or provided data to do such
be free of pest dangers and could be re- alternatives, we encourage use of heat analysis.
used for a long time. treatment or alternative packing APHIS will continue to encourage use
Response: APHIS has considered materials in preference to methyl of alternative packing materials by
many alternatives to diminish pest risk bromide fumigation. At present, it exporters for whom they are
from WPM. Many commenters have appears that manufacturers in many economically feasible. There is
suggested that APHIS reduce worldwide countries, including the European incentive for the shipping industry to
methyl bromide emissions by relying Union and the United States, prefer to contain costs of packing material, and
instead on one of two pest reduction use only heat treatment for the WPM by requiring treatment of WPM, this rule
alternatives, either requiring heat they produce. Trends suggest will slightly increase the average cost of
treatment of WPM, or banning use of substitution of heat treatment for methyl WPM. This increase in the cost of WPM
unmanufactured WPM and requiring bromide will continue to grow. may actually provide incentive to some
use of manufactured wood, plastic, However, during development of the exporters to seek cost-effective
metal, or other alternative packing IPPC Guidelines some developing alternatives such as corrugated board,
materials. nations advised against allowing only veneer, oriented strand board, and
In keeping with our commitments to heat treatment and not methyl bromide plywood.
the objectives of the Montreal Protocol, as an allowed treatment on the grounds In choosing among alternatives,
APHIS actively cooperates with other that the higher cost of heat treatment APHIS looks for choices that are both
agencies and institutions to identify and makes it economically unfeasible for technically and economically feasible.
validate technically and economically these countries at this time. Since treated WPM does provide an
feasible alternatives to methyl bromide. Regarding alternative packing acceptable level of protection against
Also, as the agency responsible for materials, the final environmental pests, we believe that it is not necessary
representing the United States to the impact statement (FEIS) concluded (pp. to exclude unmanufactured wood from
International Plant Protection 79–80) that these would achieve the use as packaging material for imported

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:50 Sep 15, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16SER1.SGM 16SER1
 55722 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 179 / Thursday, September 16, 2004 / Rules and Regulations

cargo. Properly treated WPM is a safe require, methyl bromide use, and also By any water quality, air pollution, or
packaging material that can be reused allows use of untreated alternative energy use environmental measure,
many times and that causes minimal (manufactured) packing materials, and wood products are clearly
environmental impacts when disposed also offers heat treatment as an environmental performance leaders. It
of or recycled. alternative to fumigation with methyl takes between 33 and 47 percent less
On the other hand, prohibiting the use bromide. Heat treatment does not energy to produce a wood product than
of unmanufactured wood as a packaging generate gases that could cause damage to produce a similar product made from
material would have significant negative to the stratospheric ozone layer. competing materials such as concrete
consequences in economic and The commenters who suggested that and steel, and producing WPM results
environmental arenas. Wood is often the the cost of using alternative materials in less carbon dioxide emissions.
only packaging material readily and would be offset by the reduction of Response: Alternative packaging
cheaply available (either through inspection costs and speeding the materials do have higher production
domestic production or importation) in movement of cargo did not offer data to costs than WPM, including greater
developing countries that export basic support that theory. While inspectors do energy costs. When harvested under
products without elaborate packaging. spend somewhat less time clearing careful management, trees can be a
The major alternative materials for manufactured packing materials replenishable resource, unlike
packaging are processed wood, plastic, compared to clearing WPM, APHIS petroleum or metal ores. When WPM
and metal. Pallets or crates made from doubts that the savings would come has exhausted its useful life, it can be
these materials cost from two to four close to offsetting the costs, because recycled into products like particle
times more than WPM. many articles besides WPM must be board at a lower fiscal and
Comment: The APHIS proposal is of inspected at ports (such as the regulated environmental cost than plastic or metal
uncertain effectiveness and will result articles often packed in WPM). While can be recycled. However, the need to
in damage to the stratospheric ozone faster cargo clearance would benefit treat WPM must be taken into account
layer, and APHIS therefore should adopt importers, the value of this benefit is when assessing the environmental
a regulation that specifies a deadline by uncertain, and in any event, importers impacts associated with it. While we
which all incoming packaging must be are free to use alternative packing believe authorizing use of treated WPM
made from materials other than solid materials if they perceive a benefit in is a reasonable balance among pest risk,
wood or boards. These commenters doing so. We also note that importers economic, and environmental concerns,
stated that this strategy would achieve can also achieve faster cargo clearance we do not conclude that WPM is the
all three national goals at stake in this and fewer inspections by establishing a ‘‘clear environmental performance
rule: Accommodating rising trade history of compliance for their leader.’’ For further discussion of this
volumes, protecting forests from exotic shipments; if their WPM is consistently issue, see the section of this document
pests, and protecting the stratospheric properly treated and marked, and free titled ‘‘National Environmental Policy
ozone layer. from pests of concern, their shipments Act,’’ and section IV(A)(5) of the FEIS,
Several commenters also stated that may be cleared faster. which states ‘‘Wood has certain
APHIS should require use of Regarding the commenter who stated advantages from the environmental
manufactured alternatives to WPM that the rule will not result in an perspective. Renewability gives wood a
because the cost of these alternative increase in the use of WPM versus large advantage over other materials.
materials is easily offset by the alternative materials, we agree. As The manufacture of wood products
reduction of inspection costs and discussed above, the rule may actually requires substantially less energy than
speeding the movement of cargo act to increase the number of exporters the production of substitute products.
through our ports. They stated this choosing alternative materials, since the Wood product manufacture results in
would also reduce the necessity for additional cost of treating WPM will less greenhouse gas and other air
expensive government programs to bring its total cost closer to the cost of pollutant emissions.’’
control invasive species that come in as some alternative materials. We also Comment: If WPM were banned in
hitchhikers in solid wood built crates agree with the commenter that overall favor of alternative materials, it would
and containers. life-cycle impacts show negative not only destroy an industry, it would
A commenter who disagreed with environmental impacts from using significantly increase costs to shippers,
those advocating that APHIS require nonwood substitute materials, but we which would be passed on to
manufactured alternatives stated that a do not agree that these would be ‘‘far consumers. Metal pallets are too
preference for using these alternate greater’’ than the environmental impacts expensive and heavy. Plastic pallets,
materials is based on flawed and from using treated WPM. We have not unlike WPM, are not biodegradable, and
inaccurate arguments that assume that seen any quantitative data that supports are a major and toxic fire hazard. More
the IPPC Guidelines will result in an the position that the environmental goods are coming into this country than
increased demand for wood products costs of using nonwood substitutes are going out. Most of them are on
and thus translate into negative would likely be greater than those for pallets. Wooden pallets can be
environmental effects. This commenter using WPM. We agree that mandating disassembled and recycled, if not as
stated that overall life-cycle impacts use of alternative materials would not pallets then as landscape mulch or
show far greater negative environmental represent the least restrictive necessary wood stove pellets. Pallets made of
impacts from using nonwood substitute action, and would have adverse effects plastic or metal will begin to pile up in
materials. Also, the commenter stated throughout the international trade landfills across America. Landfills could
that an outright ban on the use of WPM, economy. expect to realize exponential growth of
in favor of substitute materials, without Comment: An adequate assessment of nonbiodegradable pallets.
credible and proven scientific any adverse environmental impacts Response: We partly agree with this
justification would be inconsistent with associated with use of WPM must comment, as discussed above. However,
the World Trade Organization include a comparison of substitute a minority of shippers already choose to
agreements. materials that would take the place of use alternative pallet materials, which
Response: Please also see the above wood-based packaging material. On shows that the choice must be
response. This rule allows, but does not those terms, the results are crystal clear. economically viable in some

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:50 Sep 15, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16SER1.SGM 16SER1
 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 179 / Thursday, September 16, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 55723

circumstances. We also note that are not satisfied with this level of risk level. As the 1995 final rule (60 FR
because this rule applies only to articles protection. The approach taken by 27666, May 25, 1995) that first
imported into the United States, neither APHIS is to regulate according to established the regulations said, ‘‘These
the rule nor the alternative of requiring demonstrated risk level. The adoption of universal options employ heat treatment
alternative materials would destroy the the IPPC Guidelines would dramatically and other conditions for importing logs
market for WPM produced in the United decrease the pest risk of concern to and lumber not otherwise enterable.
States. Untreated WPM could still be APHIS posed by importation of WPM. These universal options are relatively
used in domestic commerce, or in Selection of this regulatory approach stringent, because they must eliminate
exports to any country that has not does not prevent APHIS from further the spectrum of potential plant pests
implemented the IPPC Guidelines or a deliberation on more intensive and address risks that have not been
similar treatment requirements. regulation if the protection measures are characterized. The universal options are
In addition, selection of the available determined to be inadequate for specific designed to give importers a way to
alternate packaging materials does risks from pests of concern. import articles that would otherwise be
include the continuing use of processed Enforcement of the IPPC Guidelines prohibited until detailed plant pest risk
wood. This includes plywood, could provide a baseline for assessments are completed. Whenever
corrugated packaging materials, etc. determining any need for further feasible, importers may choose to
These are products of the wood industry protective measures. employ universal options while plant
that pose comparable disposal and Comment: The two treatment options pest risk assessments and rulemaking
recycling capability to that of WPM. allowed under the rule—heat treatment are underway to establish less stringent
Some are cost-competitive with WPM, and methyl bromide fumigation—have requirements for the articles they wish
and required treatment costs under an unacceptably high rate of failure to to import.’’
adoption of the IPPC Guidelines could stop invasive pests traveling in solid Also, as stated in the August 2000,
make the selection of some of these wood packaging. In the DEIS, APHIS ‘‘Pest Risk Assessment for Importation
alternate packing materials more itself has questioned the efficacy of heat of Solid Wood Packing Materials into
favorable to the shipping industry. and methyl bromide treatments. the United States,’’ APHIS is preparing
Response: There are differences of a pest risk reduction analysis that will
Treatment Effectiveness opinion among commenters regarding evaluate the effectiveness of various
Comment: The proposed treatment the effectiveness of treatments in the available treatments and potential
measures, especially methyl bromide IPPC Guidelines to eliminate invasive mitigation alternatives for WPM. If
fumigation, have not been proven pests in WPM. The DEIS does not information gathered during
effective against pathogens. While question the efficacy of these treatment development of the pest risk reduction
APHIS says that few pathogens are methods per se, but it does indicate the analysis suggests that the stringency of
detected on wood packaging, the agency advantages and limitations of each existing WPM treatment requirements
concedes in its draft environmental treatment method to eliminate pest should be either strengthened or
impact statement (DEIS) and other risks. The DEIS does not take a position lessened, APHIS will undertake
publications that inspectors have great as to whether the treatments in the IPPC rulemaking to do so.
difficulty detecting pathogens; therefore, Guidelines will be the ultimate solution Comment: Methyl bromide is
it has not been proved that pathogens or part of the ultimate solution, but the ineffective against many deep-wood
represent as minor a threat as APHIS development of additional data about pathogens and pests because it does not
now implies. Furthermore, the DEIS efficacy and pest exclusion for all penetrate to the center of thick boards
associated with this rulemaking states potential pests and pathogens may lead or timbers. Its use cannot be verified at
that some deep wood-borers also might to further consideration of these a later date, and it does not prevent
not be killed by the proposed phytosanitary regulations by APHIS. reinfestation.
treatments. Our concerns about efficacy Comment: Instead of the proposed Response: While methyl bromide is
are heightened by the fact that the IPPC treatments, APHIS should require WPM ineffective against some deep wood
standard does not require debarking the to be subject to the documented pathogens, and a few deep wood pests,
wood before further treatment. effective treatment for wood products, these pathogens and pests usually are
Debarking is key to improving the heat treatment with or without moisture not significant pests associated with the
already questionable ability of methyl reduction as specified under the APHIS WPM pathway. Many treatments cannot
bromide to penetrate the wood to kill universal treatment option: 71 °C at the be verified at a later date by physical
deep wood pests. center of the material for 75 minutes. analysis or examination at ports. That is
Response: The basis for international This treatment would substantially one reason this rule requires marking of
acceptance of the efficacy provided by minimize the threat of introduction of treated materials. The marking system,
the IPPC Guidelines is the review by injurious organisms. Until other coupled with registration and
IPPC member countries of certain efficacious wood treatments are monitoring/auditing of treatment
reference documents that are now sufficiently documented, this heat facilities by national governments, is the
posted in a link from the APHIS Web treatment provides the broadest and means for ensuring treatment has
page at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/ safest approach to the wood importation occurred. Finally, while reinfestation of
swp/approved_guideline.html. issue. fumigated WPM is possible, the risk is
Historically, the pest risks of WPM were Response: The proposed treatment low (beyond the level of hitchhiking
manageable by inspection when requirements for WPM would provide pests that might attach to any kind of
international trade was more limited. much more protection against pest risk packaging).
All commenters have acknowledged the than the current requirement of
need for increased protection of wood debarking and apparent freedom from Canada and Mexico
resources, but there are differences of pests. The 71.1 °C treatment was not Comment: The current exemptions
opinion about the level of protection established with SWPM in mind, but from the regulations for wood articles
needed to mitigate pest risks. rather as a universal treatment option from Canada and from Mexican border
Although some may contend that the that would be certain to eliminate pests states should be extended to include
regulations are overly protective, others in all wood materials regardless of their WPM that is imported into the United

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:50 Sep 15, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16SER1.SGM 16SER1
 55724 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 179 / Thursday, September 16, 2004 / Rules and Regulations

States from the balance of Mexico. This Methyl Bromide—Montreal Protocol packaging fumigation consist of about
action would be consistent with the Comment: The proposed use of 35 percent WPM and 65 percent cargo.
North American Free Trade Agreement methyl bromide would violate the spirit The USDA FEIS on wood from Mexico
(NAFTA) and the North America Plant and intent of the Montreal Protocol. It predicts a massive increase in methyl
Protection Organization announcement would exceed the intent of the bromide use of more than 102,000 tons
dated April 25, 2003. It would avoid quarantine exemption. It is inconsistent per year. That would increase current
administrative complexities and the cost with Protocol Decisions that were world use for quarantine purposes by 10
of a partial exemption from border adopted by the Montreal Protocol times. It would triple total world use of
States only, as well as avoid the parties with the consent of the United methyl bromide for all purposes. Under
production of additional export pallets States. Decision VI/11 of the Meeting of these circumstances, USDA has not
from Mexico to the United States. complied with its obligations to present
the Parties to the Montreal Protocol, for
a rational basis for its proposed action
Response: APHIS took final action on instance, states that developed country
under the National Environmental
this issue in a final rule titled parties ‘‘are urged to refrain from use of
Policy Act (NEPA), the Plant Protection
‘‘Importation of Unmanufactured Wood methyl bromide and to use non-ozone
Act, or the Administrative Procedure
Articles From Mexico’’ that was depleting technologies wherever
Act.
published in the Federal Register on possible.’’ The U.S. Environmental Response: The draft and final EIS
August 26, 2004 (69 FR 52409–52419, Protection Agency (EPA) wrote in its projections are based upon ongoing
Docket No. 98–054–3). In that final rule, comment on the proposed rule review of actual usage data and
APHIS amended the regulations to regarding wood imports from Mexico observations of activities at Chinese
remove the exemption for most (June 11, 1999, 64 FR 31512–31518) that ports by APHIS personnel. The initial
unmanufactured wood, including WPM, because of the need to honor the usage analyses were based upon the
imported into the United States from Montreal Protocol and protect the ozone limited available time for exporters and
Mexican States adjacent to the United layer, ‘‘allowing the use of methyl shippers to prepare to treat WPM as
States/Mexico border. The only bromide in quarantine treatment of required by APHIS in an interim rule
exemption that continues for Mexican Mexican wood articles where other published on September 18, 1998 (63 FR
effective treatments exist would be 50099–50111, Docket No. 98–087–1).
border States covers firewood, mesquite
inconsistent’’ with Protocol Decisions. These analyses considered the
wood for cooking, and small,
Response: APHIS is committed to fumigation of WPM with already loaded
noncommercial packages of
finding environmentally acceptable cargo rather than fumigation of WPM
unmanufactured wood for personal alternative treatments to methyl
cooking or personal medicinal purposes. before loading. Although there was
bromide fumigation. At the current primarily fumigation of WPM with
The effect of that change was that all time, methyl bromide is an efficacious
WPM from Mexico will be subject to the loaded cargo by the exporters and
and economically feasible quarantine shippers in China initially, this
same requirements in § 319.40–3(b) that treatment to control pests in WPM, and
apply to WPM from any place except approach to WPM treatments did not
we have determined that allowing it as continue. Many shippers and exporters
Canada. an alternative treatment for WPM in the from China began fumigating WPM
Comment: The United States and context of this rule will provide the prior to loading, for at least three
Canada must work together to curtail necessary level of pest protection while reasons. The cost savings to the shippers
the disproportionate numbers of minimizing impact on the environment and exporters from less use of methyl
introductions of forest pests that are given the absence, in many cases, of bromide in fumigations of WPM prior to
occurring in the Great Lakes region. technically and economically feasible loading were substantial. Also, many
They are far out of proportion to the alternatives. This determination is agricultural commodities lack a
volume of foreign shipping in that supported by the FEIS, as discussed tolerance for the bromine residues
region or to the volume of interceptions below in the section titled ‘‘National imparted by fumigation with methyl
by Federal inspectors. It is equally Environmental Policy Act.’’ bromide. Finally, fumigation after
important that APHIS quickly complete As discussed above, APHIS actively loading could make food commodities
the separate rulemaking to close the cooperates with other agencies and to illegal for human consumption in the
loophole that allows untreated WPM to identify and validate technically and United States and could damage certain
enter the country from northern economically feasible alternatives to other commodities (e.g., leather goods
Mexican states. methyl bromide. APHIS will continue to and some electronic parts).
work cooperatively with the IPPC as Unlike the limited time exporters and
Response: Please see the response APHIS explores alternative treatments shippers in China had to prepare for the
above. APHIS is actively working with to methyl bromide and incorporates September 18, 1998, interim rule,
the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to validated, economically feasible shippers and exporters throughout the
curtail pest introductions. Most of these alternatives into our quarantine world are aware of the IPPC Guidelines
introductions are pests not of Canadian regulations. and have had time to prepare for these
origin that arrive via transshipped Comment: The U.S. Department of regulations. In addition, the IPPC
materials. We expect their level to Agriculture (USDA) estimate that Guidelines require marking the wood
decrease as Canada implements its own methyl bromide emissions will increase used in WPM, and it is easier and less
regulations requiring WPM imported by 5,145 metric tons, increasing total expensive to treat and mark prior to
into Canada to be treated in accordance world usage by more than 10 percent, is loading than to unload after treatment to
with the IPPC Guidelines. Also, APHIS a vast underestimate because it was place markings on the treated WPM and
is currently developing a pest risk based on the assumption that WPM then reload. Based upon this, it is
assessment for wood from Canada, and would be fumigated before use. From reasonable to expect most exporters and
if we identify any significant risks that experience in China, fumigation occurs shippers to fumigate WPM before
have not been addressed by current at port facilities, after goods are packed loading. The fact that the projection in
regulations, we will take appropriate in raw wood materials. USDA even the FEIS assumes fumigation as the
rulemaking action. states in the proposal that most wood method of treatment for all WPM

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:50 Sep 15, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16SER1.SGM 16SER1
 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 179 / Thursday, September 16, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 55725

indicates that it is actually a high of mixed plywood and natural wood, usefully elsewhere. It would also be
estimate because we know that many and are about 12″ × 7″ × 4″ high, with confusing to foreign governments that
developed nations will actually use heat 1.1″ × 1.1″ × 4″ high natural wood are just getting used to the markings in
treatment rather than fumigation for corner supports. WPM used in the the IPPC Guidelines. There are already
compliance with IPPC Guidelines. international trade of regulated goods, many sources of treated WPM in the
We expect fumigation of WPM to such as fresh fruits and vegetables that United States, and APHIS, as the
decline over time as shippers build a are documented by an official national plant protection organization of
stockpile of treated pallets, which phytosanitary certificate of the country the United States, is currently
normally can be used for up to 3 years. of origin, presents a phytosanitary risk developing procedures to meet its
We also expect heat treatment to significantly lower than WPM in responsibilities under the IPPC
substitute for fumigation in some general. Phytosanitary certificates apply Guidelines to inspect, monitor, accredit,
additional locations as more facilities to both the commodity being exported and audit commercial companies that
are built. and the WPM used in their treat WPM and apply the official mark
Comment: The final rule should transportation. to it that indicates treatment. There are
explain more about the EPA’s plans to Response: APHIS interceptions also many foreign sources of WPM
phase out methyl bromide, particularly records from 1996–2001 show an treated in accordance with the
its intent to publish a plan and timeline increasing number of pests associated regulations, and many U.S. shippers
in the Federal Register about December with WPM, including in containers for doing business with Canada already
2003. fresh fruits and vegetables. Based on obtain their WPM from foreign sources.
Response: Since the EPA is interceptions at ports, WPM used for the
continuing to develop its plans and shipment of fruits and vegetables can Dunnage and Small Wood Pieces
timeline for this issue, APHIS cannot pose a significant risk. Importers of Comment: Does the proposed marking
provide conclusive information about these products may be able to avoid requirement mean that every piece of
them. We suggest that readers interested having their containers considered to be the 40 to 80 tons of dunnage that may
in the EPA’s actions concerning methyl regulated articles by redesigning them to be carried on board a steel transport
bromide follow EPA publications in the eliminate the thicker pieces of raw ship could be subject to inspection prior
Federal Register. wood often used as corner supports. to discharge? This is a serious problem
Containers that use pieces of raw wood because dunnage is used under the steel
Methyl Bromide—Other Issues since it is intended to prevent
less than 6 mm (0.24 in) thick and
Comment: Methyl bromide fumigation containers made wholly of movement of the cargo during the
and heat treatment facilities are manufactured wood would be exempt voyage. Long steel products are carried
generally unavailable in many parts of from regulation. For the specific crates stowed in a fore-and-aft direction in
Africa and Indonesia. Rubber exports to be exempted, the corner supports ships’ holds. Dunnage is used
from these areas have been shipped would have to be replaced with exempt athwartship. In such a correctly stowed
without risk using WPM treated with materials (plywood, particle board, hold there should be little or no
Borax as per the Rubber Research veneer, etc.) or with bundled pieces of dunnage showing on completion of
Institute of Malaysia No. 122 method, or raw wood each of which is no more loading, so that marking may not make
with a fungicide and insecticide called than 6 mm (0.24 in) thick. a difference as far as inspection prior to
Xylolit B4. Comment: We request that APHIS discharge is concerned. Also, sometimes
Response: Neither of these are address compliance requirements for ships meet with such bad weather
approved treatments for WPM under WPM originating in the United States, during their sea voyage that part of the
APHIS regulations, and neither has been shipped to a foreign location and then dunnage is crushed or broken. As a
documented to be as effective as methyl exported back to this country. It seems result, there will then be pieces of
bromide and heat treatment against unlikely that WPM exported from the dunnage unmarked. What measures are
target pests. APHIS is willing to review United States will be marked according then intended?
any scientific data regarding other to the IPPC Guidelines until all other Response: We recognize the difficulty
treatments, and to consider adding countries have adopted those in ensuring that required treatment
treatments that are proven effective. Guidelines. Consequently WPM marks are present on some dunnage that
However, when this rule goes into effect originating in the United States that is is custom cut to brace or fill gaps in a
we will only accept WPM treated exported and then returned would not particular load. However, dunnage is
according to the new regulations, which satisfy the IPPC Guidelines unless an frequently made from the type of low
do not authorize borax or insecticide/ interim marking mechanism is quality wood that poses the greatest pest
fungicide treatments. We recognize that established and used. Will APHIS allow risk, and it is therefore necessary that
some importers may have to make U.S.-origin WPM that is exported and dunnage be treated and marked the
substantial adjustments to their business reimported into the United States to be same way as any other regulated WPM.
practices and packing material suppliers marked according to requirements The fact that the nature of some cargoes
to comply with the regulations, but we established by relevant foreign makes it impossible to inspect the
believe the pest risk associated with jurisdictions on an interim basis until associated dunnage aboard ship is not
WPM justifies the new requirements. all other countries adopt the IPPC particularly relevant because dunnage
Guidelines? inspection is normally done following
Exempt Certain Articles From Response: We are not adopting the cargo discharge.
Regulation suggested approach because using
Comment: The treatment additional markings to indicate that Alternatives to Marking WPM
requirements of the proposal should not WPM originated in the United States Comment: To speed port clearance
apply to the WPM containers of would require a major regulatory and aid enforcement, we support using
imported fresh fruits and vegetables. program to ensure the validity of such very simple self-declarations of
Specifically, APHIS should exempt markings. It would be expensive, compliance to accompany any and all
typical small fruit and vegetable crates inconvenient, and a drain on APHIS international shipments, even those
in common use. These crates are made resources that can be employed more totally free of solid wood packaging.

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:50 Sep 15, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16SER1.SGM 16SER1
 55726 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 179 / Thursday, September 16, 2004 / Rules and Regulations

The self-declaration would affirm that importers would be allowed to transmit Response: APHIS received a number
all packaging in the shipment complies a compliance code to the CBP, by which of comments stating that exporting
with the provisions of the IPPC code they would certify that the WPM countries and shippers would need time
Guidelines. This is vital information is compliant or that there is no WPM to adapt to the new requirements of the
and therefore should be repeated in key contained in the shipment. This is how rule and to change some of their
shipping documents such as bills of compliance certifications are presented business practices and WPM sources.
lading, invoices, and so on. to other government agencies such as We agree, and in response we have set
Response: We welcome the use of the Federal Communications the effective date for this final rule at a
electronic records for many port Commission and the Food and Drug date 1 year after its publication date. We
operations purposes, and we are Administration. A paper alternative, believe affected parties will be able to
working with the U.S. Department of such as a stamped statement on a bill of prepare for the new requirements during
Homeland Security (DHS) on projects in lading or invoice, should be available this period. APHIS will also conduct a
that area. However, APHIS has decided for situations in which electronic very active information campaign
that the system of authorized WPM certification is not practical. during this period to ensure that
markings applied by facilities operating Additionally, we recommend that affected parties are aware of the new
under the supervision of national APHIS consider providing for a blanket regulatory requirements. Consistent
governments is more reliable than a certification for importers who can with parties’ commitments under the
system where individual invoices and assure to the satisfaction of APHIS that Montreal Protocol, this campaign will
shipping documents affirm compliance. their WPM is routinely compliant. In also stress to affected parties that use of
Affirmations in shipping documents the electronic environment, this would alternate packing materials or heat
about whether or not cargoes contain consist of importer information treatment of WPM are environmentally
WPM, and whether or not the WPM has established as part of its CBP account preferable alternatives for meeting the
been treated, are frequently unreliable. profile. CBP is developing these profiles requirements, as documented by the
Our experience clearing shipments from as part of its Automated Commercial FEIS. As part of this campaign, APHIS
China showed frequent incidents where Environment architecture. We urge inspectors at ports will focus on
shipping documents contained an APHIS to work closely with CBP to imported WPM shipments that do not
affirmation that no WPM was in the implement the necessary interfaces meet the new requirements, and will
cargo, despite its presence. Under this between CBP’s system and APHIS. In give the importers official notice
final rule, inspectors can tell directly the interim, we request that APHIS explaining what they must do for future
from observation of the WPM whether accept blanket paper certificates of shipments (i.e., those arriving after the
or not it is in compliance (barring compliance by which importers certify effective date of this final rule) to
fraudulent misuse of the mark, which comply with the new requirements.
that for a designated period of time all
will be addressed by auditing and Comment: In case of noncompliance,
imports of WPM into the United States
monitoring). This process does not need the proposal would require reexport
are compliant.
to be significantly slower than using after separating the cargo, if possible.
shipping documents. Importers that Response: See the response to the Why not allow the other measures
establish a record of compliance over a previous comment. explained in item 6.1 of the IPPC
number of shipments generally will be Inspection Procedures Guidelines, such as incineration,
subject to less inspection. Clearance processing or treatment, etc.?
time will also decrease as importers and Comment: Because not all WPM poses Response: Reexportation is necessary
exporting countries gain experience equal risks, APHIS should use risk because we need to achieve compliance
with the new requirements and acquire management to avoid unnecessary (treatment and marking of WPM before
a history of moving shipments without shipment delays caused by ineffective arrival) in order to fully protect against
inspectors finding pests of concern random inspections. Take advantage of the introduction of plant pests. In recent
associated with them. data from existing importers quality years, several destructive plant pests,
Comment: Clearing WPM at ports control procedures and compliance including the Asian longhorned beetle
based on physical inspection to see if it programs. Highly compliant importers, and the emerald ash borer, have been
is marked will cause significant delays as verified by valid statistical sampling introduced into the United States. We
in the clearance of imports without of imports, should be subject to a lower believe that these pests have entered the
commensurate benefits. Containers and rate of physical inspections than United States in WPM at ports of entry.
air cargo will have to be unloaded unknown or noncompliant importers. Therefore, we believe that proper
individually and each pallet, crate, or Response: APHIS intends to use risk treatment of WPM, prior to importation
other regulated item inspected. This is management techniques and data from a into the United States, is essential to
highly burdensome and costly for both variety of sources to target its inspection safeguard our agricultural resources
importers and the government, and will activities and its monitoring and from further pest introductions. We
cause major disruptions to importers’ auditing activities for facilities believe requiring the reexportation of
supply chains, many of which are part conducting treatments. noncompliant WPM is the only option
of just-in-time inventory management Delayed Effective Date and that will ensure that WPM is properly
systems. For the government these Noncompliant Shipments treated prior to its arrival in the United
inspections will divert inspectors of the States. Also, allowing post-entry
U.S. Bureau of Customs and Border Comment: Instead of immediately treatment is not feasible because space
Protection (CBP), DHS, from their starting to order the reexport of and services at ports are limited and
primary cargo security mission. unmarked WPM, we request a 2-year ports cannot be burdened with vast
We urge APHIS to offer an alternative transitional period to phase out old quantities of noncompliant materials
that would be consistent with the best WPM with previously acceptable awaiting treatment or incineration.
practices being implemented throughout marking (for example, ‘‘HT’’ without the Further, allowing post-entry treatment
the regulatory realm, which allow for IPPC symbol) provided the treatment would place an additional burden on
electronic filing of compliance requirements prescribed by the already scarce port resources since it
information. In an electronic system, proposed rule are satisfied. would be necessary to track shipments

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:50 Sep 15, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16SER1.SGM 16SER1
 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 179 / Thursday, September 16, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 55727

to ensure proper treatment. Finally, the and the nature of any pests that are Guidelines or similar treatment
reexportation requirement is consistent identified. requirements.
with the approach adopted by other
Economic Impacts on WPM Producers Economic Impacts on U.S. Fumigators
IPPC member countries, such as Canada.
Comment: The requirement to at Ports
Comment: Forty percent of all
reexport noncompliant imports is too hardwood lumber manufactured in the Comment: The rule would reduce
stringent. Some WPM might not be United States, and a goodly portion of fumigation at ports of arrival, financially
stamped due to simple error. In cases the softwood as well, go into the hurting quarantine fumigators that often
where marking is absent but no pests manufacture of WPM like dunnage, are small family-owned businesses.
have been intercepted, the cargo should crating, pallets, packing blocks, drums, These economic losses would be on top
be accepted. Even if pests are found cases, and skids. It is absolutely of significant revenue losses that
WPM could be fumigated or treated essential for the hardwood industry and fumigators incurred when APHIS
appropriately at the expense of the very important to the softwood industry implemented its interim rule on WPM
importer in the routine manner for other to preserve this huge market for their from China.
noncompliant goods. Equivalent lowest quality lumber. Also, unloading Response: APHIS’ main goal is
measures should be explored. The containers in transit to verify whether protecting against any possible
national plant protection organization the packing material has really been infestation that might be associated with
(NPPO) of the exporting country could treated would greatly endanger certain imported WPM. There is a general trend
then be informed about the non- products being transported (e.g., fragile throughout the world to reduce methyl
compliance with the details of the wood veneers), in addition to adding bromide usage. While this final rule
exporter so that the NPPO could more time to the transportation. may result in reduced fumigation of
monitor that exporter. Response: The problem is that the use wood products at U.S. ports of arrival,
Response: Please see the above of low grade, untreated wood in the 1-year delay in the effective date
responses about the 1-year delay in the international WPM is exactly the should give fumigation businesses time
effective date of this rule, which will practice that must be ended to protect to adjust business plans. Also, as
give affected parties time to comply U.S. resources against foreign plant discussed above, APHIS may discover
with the new requirements. We intend signs of pests in a shipment that is
pests. We do not see any alternative that
to inform the NPPO’s of exporting properly marked and may order
would allow continued use of untreated
countries about noncompliance in treatment of either the WPM, the cargo,
WPM and also protect against these
shipments from their countries, but this or both, as appropriate.
risks. With regard to unloading cargoes
is in addition to, not a substitute for,
for inspection purposes, CBP inspectors Implementation Schedule
enforcement action by APHIS.
Comment: When imported WPM is at ports are experienced and well Comment: The effective date of the
not in compliance, APHIS should trained and deal professionally with any final rule should be at least 1 year after
require both the WPM and cargo to be shipments. APHIS is developing new publication, to allow developing
treated at the port of entry. Separating operational procedures to minimize countries to implement the necessary
the cargo from the WPM without delays caused by WPM inspections at means and conditions, including
treatment could result in the ports. We also expect that the need for national systems of treatment,
introduction of wood borers into the substantial unloading and inspection inspection, registration or accreditation,
environment. Similarly, any properly will decline over time as shippers and and auditing of WPM to be shipped to
marked WPM that proves infested exporting countries become familiar the United States, thus avoiding an
should be required to be treated at the with the new requirements and develop obstacle to international trade.
port of arrival. Fumigators at the ports a history in which no pests of concern Response: We agree, as discussed
of entries have years of experience are found associated with their above, and have delayed the effective
treating cargo upon arrival and have the shipments. date for 1 year. In general, APHIS has
expertise to ensure that any destructive Comment: Nearly 7,000 U.S. facilities communicated very well with its
pests are destroyed and that the free produce pallets nationwide and are a trading partners, which should allow
flow of trade is not impeded. Requiring vital utilizer for low grade wood which them to implement the needed systems
the reexport of WPM and associated would otherwise have to be burned at within 1 year. After the effective date,
cargo will impede international trade high temperature for lack of other use. we will enforce compliance with the
and hurt the U.S. economy. This, in turn, would considerably new requirements.
Response: As discussed above, the increase the cost of marketing high Comment: We seriously doubt that
reexport option will be necessary to quality wood products like veneer, any country outside of North America
achieve compliance (treatment and lumber, flooring, plywood, and particle will be prepared to fully implement the
marking of WPM before arrival), and board as well as other engineered wood standard by January 2004. We encourage
also because space and services at ports products. the USDA to adopt the standard but also
are limited. In some cases, APHIS Response: We recognize that this rule apply a generous grace period to allow
inspectors at a port of entry may will have some adverse economic importing countries to get up to speed
discover signs of pests in a shipment effects, as discussed below in the on the marking systems and underlying
that is apparently in compliance and section ‘‘Executive Order 12866 and audit programs. Otherwise, we will end
order treatment in accordance with Regulatory Flexibility Act.’’ Such effects up seeing a lot of ‘‘IPPC symbols’’ on
§ 319.40–9. APHIS is committed to are sometimes unavoidable when pallets which may not have been treated
protecting U.S. agricultural resources APHIS takes steps to protect agricultural to the same degree of quality and
and will ensure that any treatment after resources against plant pest risk. There control as we would expect in the
arrival is done under safeguards will still be a market for domestically United States, thereby casting doubt on
adequate to prevent the spread of pests. produced pallets because untreated the efficacy of the whole program.
Sometimes this will involve treating WPM could still be used in domestic Response: Please see the responses
cargo along with WPM, and sometimes commerce or in exports to any country above about the 1-year delay in the
it will not, based on the type of cargo that has not implemented the IPPC effective date. CBP will audit all

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:50 Sep 15, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16SER1.SGM 16SER1
 55728 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 179 / Thursday, September 16, 2004 / Rules and Regulations

material shipped, as well as records for therefore, has been reviewed by the because recent interceptions of pests at
facilities treating WPM and applying the Office of Management and Budget. ports of entry show a steady increase in
mark. Shipments from countries with Below is a summary of the economic serious pests associated with WPM from
high levels of noncompliance will face analysis for the changes in WPM import everywhere except China, whose WPM
higher levels of inspection. requirements in this document. The must already be treated due to past pest
economic analysis provides a cost- interceptions. If left unchecked, pests
Miscellaneous Comments benefit analysis as required by introduced by imported WPM have the
Comment: The IPPC Guidelines do Executive Order 12866 and an analysis potential to cause significant economic
not specifically require that WPM be of the potential economic effects on damage to the agricultural and forest
free of bark. Does APHIS intend to small entities as required by the resources of the United States.
specify a bark-free requirement for WPM Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the We also rejected the alternative of
in the final rule? full economic analysis is available for extending the China interim rule to all
Response: No, APHIS will not require review at the location listed in the WPM worldwide, because that would
the wood to be bark free, as long as it ADDRESSES section at the beginning of not ensure long-term exclusion of some
has been properly treated. Currently this document, or on the Internet at wood pests of quarantine concern, such
available data shows that treatment http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/swp/. as certain deep wood-borers, fungi, rots,
alone will adequately kill the pests of In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 604, we and wilts. The adoption of the IPPC
concern. have performed a final regulatory treatment standards for all importing
Comment: There is no provision in flexibility analysis, which is set out countries will address pest threats
the proposed rule describing what mark below, regarding the effects of this rule posed not only by Cerambycidae, which
on small entities. The initial regulatory was the primary target of the China
should be used by non-IPPC member
flexibility analysis in our proposed rule interim rule, but nine other pest families
countries. There will be trademark
stated that we did not have all the data as well. Additionally, adoption of the
registration on the IPPC mark so non-
necessary for a comprehensive analysis China interim rule requirements would
IPPC member countries may not be
of the potential effects of this rule on result in the greatest additional use of
entitled to use this marking.
small entities. Therefore, we invited methyl bromide of all the alternatives.
Response: APHIS is not responsible comments concerning potential Another alternative not adopted was a
for any country’s decision on whether or economic effects, particularly the comprehensive risk reduction program
not to join the IPPC, or for how any number and kind of small entities that allowing differing, circumstance-
country addresses trademark issues. We might incur benefits or costs. We did dependent risk mitigation strategies that
do note that the IPPC is in the process not receive any comments providing the include various options for complying
of registering the mark in many specific data we requested, but we did with United States import requirements.
countries at this time for use on receive several comments stating that A comprehensive risk reduction
materials treated in accordance with the some small business will be adversely program would consist of an array of
IPPC Guidelines. We also note that, affected by the rule, including importers mitigation methods (e.g., inspection,
even if a country cannot establish with substantial inventories of WPM on various heat treatments, various
treatment facilities authorized to apply hand in foreign countries, which they fumigants and other chemical
the mark in their own country, they can would no longer be able to use for treatments, irradiation, etc.) that is more
readily obtain treated and marked WPM shipments to the United States, and extensive than that contained in either
from other countries, or they can use fumigators at U.S. ports that currently the China Interim Rule or the IPPC
alternative materials to WPM. treat large volumes of WPM upon arrival Guidelines. Many of the treatment
Miscellaneous Editorial Changes and expect to lose much of this business methods being considered as
after the rule is implemented. Several components of a comprehensive risk
In addition to the changes discussed commenters also suggested that reduction program require more
above, we are making some minor domestic WPM manufacturers faced research and development to
changes for clarity and consistency. We indirect effects that could result when demonstrate that they could be used
are removing the definitions of exporter other countries adopt the IPPC effectively and economically to treat the
statement, importer statement, and solid Guidelines, reducing the demand for required range of WPM products. Some
wood packing material because these untreated WPM. of the remaining issues include
terms are no longer used in the Under the Plant Protection Act (7 inadequate control, incomplete efficacy
regulations. We are slightly editing the U.S.C. 7701–7772), the Secretary of data, safety issues, and lack of adequate
table in § 319.40–3(b)(1)(ii) that Agriculture is authorized to regulate the facilities or supplies. Therefore, while
provides the methyl bromide treatment importation of plants, plant products, comprehensive risk reduction is still
schedule so that it provides and other articles to prevent the considered a possible future approach
concentrations in lbs./1,000 c.f., as well introduction of injurious plant pests. for WPM import requirements, it is not
as in g/m3. We are also adding a graphic This analysis evaluates a final rule practical to adopt it at this time.
and description of the approved IPPC adopting the IPPC standards on wood Another alternative, substitution of
mark to § 319.40–3(b)(2). packaging material, the International other packing materials, was rejected
Therefore, for the reasons given in the Standard for Phytosanitary Measures because it requires use of materials the
proposed rule and in this document, we No. 15. This standard contains globally cost of which exceed the likely costs of
are adopting the proposed rule as a final accepted measures that may be applied SWPM that is either heat treated or
rule, with the changes discussed. to WPM to reduce the entry of pests via fumigated with methyl bromide.
this pathway. The IPPC Guidelines We believe it is appropriate and
Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory
require WPM to be heat treated at 56 °C necessary to adopt the IPPC Guidelines
Flexibility Act
for 30 minutes, or fumigated with because they were developed as an
This rule has been reviewed under methyl bromide. international standard to control pests
Executive Order 12866. The rule has Alternatives considered and rejected associated with WPM. The types of
been determined to be significant for the included the alternative of taking no pests the IPPC Guidelines were
purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, action. This alternative was rejected developed to control have been

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:50 Sep 15, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16SER1.SGM 16SER1
 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 179 / Thursday, September 16, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 55729

intercepted at U.S. ports for many years intervention, forest resources would interceptions will be reduced, the risk of
and pose significant risks to U.S. also be at risk. an outbreak will also be lower than in
resources. The damage they cause could Wood borers such as ALB could cause the absence of the rule. However,
be similar in magnitude to the recent the most damage of all types of pests because pests continue to be intercepted
introduction of the Asian longhorned associated with WPM, but we have also albeit at a lower rate, benefits need to be
beetle (ALB) Anaplophora glabripennis projected that other types of pests could correspondingly adjusted to reflect the
(Coleoptera: Cerambycidae). Our cause substantial damage. These include risk.
regulations have already been changed the Sirex woodwasp (Family: Siricidae) In discussing the costs that might
to prevent further introductions of ALB and the Eurasian spruce bark beetle Ips result from adopting this rule, it is
from China, but adopting the IPPC typographus (Family: Scolytidae). essential to recognize that to some
guidelines could prevent the Projections of physical damages that can degree these costs will accrue when
introduction of ALB or similar wood be caused by these types of pests range other countries adopt the IPPC
borers from other parts of the world, as up to $48–$607 million and $208 Guidelines, whether or not the United
well as prevent the introduction of other million, respectively. Perhaps the States also adopts them. As other
types of pests such as woodwasps and greatest devastation posed by these countries impose IPPC treatment
bark beetles. Imposing the IPPC pests that cannot be fully captured requirements on imports containing
Guidelines’ treatment and other monetarily is their potential to cause WPM the global WPM market will be
requirements to prevent these irreversible loss to native tree species greatly affected, likely causing a broader
introductions will yield net benefits. and consequential alterations to the impact on the domestic wood packaging
The benefits (avoided losses) that can be environment and ecosystem. industry than the provisions of this rule.
gained by preventing introduction of The recent introduction of the Adopting this rule may also cause
these pest types are discussed below. emerald ash borer (EAB), Agrilus general societal costs due to human
The actual magnitude of the benefits planipennis (Coleoptera: Buprestidae), a health issues (increases in skin cancer,
cannot be definitively ascertained, but pest of ash trees, in Michigan and parts cataracts, and other conditions) and
they are likely to be much larger than of Canada in June 2002 is a reminder of reduction in crop yields that may result
the associated costs. this threat. It is not known how the pest if increased use of methyl bromide as a
arrived in North America but, as with result of this rule delays recovery of the
As an indicator of the damage ALB or other exotic beetles, infested WPM from ozone layer. It is impossible to confirm
similar wood borers could cause if Asia is suspected. The pest may have or estimate such costs at the present
introduced again in the future, consider arrived some 6 years ago, before the time.
the costs of the ALB introduction from interim rule on China was implemented The effects of this rule will fall largely
China. The ALB, first discovered in New in September 1998 (63 FR 50099–50111, on foreign manufacturers of pallets. The
York, NY, in 1996 and in Chicago, IL, Docket No. 98–087–1). Ironically, many increased treatment cost may add to the
in 1998, was most likely introduced on of the large ash trees favored by the pest cost of packaging and transporting of
wood packing material from China. The were originally planted to replace elm goods which, in turn, will affect
present value of urban trees at risk in trees killed by Dutch elm disease caused importers of commodities transported
the two affected cities is estimated at by yet another exotic pathogen. A on pallets and final consumers of those
$59 million over some 50 years. About preliminary assessment of the potential goods are potentially affected by this
$6 million of urban trees have been impact of the EAB on urban and rule. The required treatments will add
destroyed due to pest infestation and timberland ash trees in the six counties to the cost of packaging and transport of
eradication efforts since the originally quarantined by Michigan goods. Due to the very large number of
introduction of ALB. So far, APHIS and comes to about $11 billion in pallets that are used to assist imported
State and local governments have spent replacement costs alone. The nursery cargo, the overall cost may be
over $59 million in eradicating the pest stock industry in the affected counties substantial. The extent of the impact on
in the two localities. If only New York reported a loss in sales so far of $2 U.S. consumers will depend on the
City and Chicago were considered, it million. These estimates serve to ability of importers to pass on the
would appear that the current highlight the potential magnitude of additional costs to respective buyers. It
eradication program has spent an damage that could be caused by one is expected that most of the cost of
amount equal to the value of the outbreak alone of a pest on the targeted treating pallets will be borne by foreign
resource being protected. However, the list. pallet manufacturers. Furthermore,
eradication and quarantine activities The adoption of the IPPC treatment given the small value of pallets as
have slowed the spread within New standards for all importing countries compared to the value of trade,
York and Chicago. Without these will address pest threats posed not only increases in pallet prices are not
activities, the faster spread in these by Cerambycidae, which was the expected to have a measurable effect on
cities would increase the net present primary target of the China interim rule, domestic consumers or on trade.
value because the resources would be but nine other pest families as well. We also expect this rule to affect U.S.
lost in a much shorter amount of time. Approximately 95 percent of pests purchasers of imported pallets, crates
The eradication and quarantine intercepted by APHIS inspectors in and boxes. Between 1999 and 2001, an
activities are also the reason the pest has shipments worldwide are pests on the average of 38 million pallets was
been confined to the two cities where it IPPC target pest list. imported into the United States, over 80
was initially detected. The potential The treatment requirements in this percent of which came from Canada.
damages from ALB spread to other areas rule are not expected to completely Imported WPM was valued at $150
can be gleaned from the Nowak et al. eliminate all pest interceptions related million during this time period. At
study that estimated losses to seven to WPM. As evident from data reported approximately $3.95 per piece,
other cities. The present value of between 2000 and 2001, 2 years imported pallets are less expensive than
damage to urban trees in Baltimore, MD, following the implementation of the domestic pallets where the average price
alone, not allowing for intervention, was China rule, 7 percent of pest ranges between $8 and $12 per pallet.
estimated to be $399 million. interceptions was still associated with Canadian pallets are primarily used by
Additionally, without governmental China imports. To the extent that pest industries close to the U.S. and

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:50 Sep 15, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16SER1.SGM 16SER1
 55730 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 179 / Thursday, September 16, 2004 / Rules and Regulations

Canadian border. The wood pallet Effects on Small Businesses will adjust as Canada, Mexico, and other
market is highly competitive, and the The provisions of this rule are not countries adopt the IPPC standard.
demand for imported pallets can be expected to directly affect U.S. Small businesses such as pallet
characterized as elastic. While pallets manufacturers of wood packaging manufacturers and fumigators at ports
made of alternative materials such as material. There may be some decrease in may be adversely affected by those
plastic, corrugated fiberboard, or the demand for pallets if some exporters countries’ decisions if they are unable to
processed wood are imperfect decide to use alternate packing adapt to the increased demand for
substitutes for wood, one wood pallet materials rather than WPM due to treated pallets. The number of small
can easily substitute for another wood treatment costs for WPM. However, this businesses potentially affected by other
pallet. should be more than balanced by new countries’ decisions to adopt the IPPC
purchases of treated pallets by exporter/ standard is unknown. However, the
Assuming a perfectly elastic supply
importers, who must now use treated adoption of the treatment standards by
and perfectly inelastic demand for
pallets when they reuse pallets used to IPPC member countries that will then
imported pallets, and assuming a
ship goods overseas to subsequently apply to U.S. exports will likely create
treatment cost that adds about $2 on a broader impact on the domestic wood
average to a pallet, U.S. purchasers of ship goods back to the United States.
This may create an increased demand packaging industry (small and large
imported pallets could lose an estimated businesses alike) than the provisions of
$76 million in higher costs. The true by exporters for treated pallets. Also,
some U.S. pallet makers also make this rule.
extent of the impact, however, will be
lower than this amount because demand alternative packing materials (plywood, Conclusion
is likely to be elastic and foreign particle board) and could maintain their
business levels even if there is a small This rule will affect foreign
importers are expected to share a greater manufacturers of pallets which may, in
burden of the cost increase. We do not demand shift from one category to the
other. turn, affect importers and final
know treatment costs for foreign pallet consumers of goods transported on
producers, but given the availability of The pallet industry in the United
States is characterized by many small pallets. Because the cost of a pallet is a
substitutable domestic wood pallets, we very small share of the bundle of goods
firms and a few larger firms. No one
do not expect U.S. purchasers of transported on pallets, cost increases
firm is able to dominate the market. U.S.
imported pallets to be significantly due to the treatment requirements are
Census data show that there are
affected. not expected to significantly affect
approximately 3,000 firms in the wood
Recent and forthcoming decisions by pallet and container industry. Other domestic consumers and thus will not
other countries to adopt the IPPC estimates of the number of firms in the have a measurable impact on the flow
standard, while not an effect of this rule, industry range up to 3,500 pallet of trade. This rule is not expected to
represent an associated issue that will manufacturers in the United States. reduce the amount of goods shipped
indirectly affect manufacturers who sell Most firms sell their products within a internationally as is evident from
pallets, crates, and boxes to foreign 350 mile radius. The average number of observing trends in imports from China
buyers. There are an estimated 3,000 employees in 1997 was 17. Thirty two since implementation of the interim rule
manufacturers of pallets and containers percent of the firms had fewer than five in 1999.
in the United States. The primary employees. The average sales were $1.5 This rule will also affect U.S.
importers of these items are Canada and million. consumers of imported pallets. Given
Mexico. As these two countries prepare The Small Business Administration the substitutability of wood pallets, the
to implement the IPPC standard, only (SBA) classifies wood container and impact on consumers is expected to be
treated wood packaging material will pallet manufacturers as small businesses small due to the availability of wood
likely be in demand for export. The if they have 500 or fewer employees. pallets. Foreign importers are likely to
extent of the impact on pallet and According to the U.S. Census Bureau, absorb a greater share of the cost
container manufacturers will depend on 1997 Economic Census, all pallet increase.
the ability of individual firms to put in manufacturers are considered small The simultaneous adoption of the
place the necessary infrastructure for businesses. treatment standards by IPPC member
conducting treatments as required by Fumigation services are currently countries that is directed at U.S. exports
the international standard. The number available at several dozen ports of entry will likely create a broader impact on
of U.S. firms that export WPM and will on a permanent or ad hoc basis. In most the domestic wood packaging industry
therefore be affected is unknown. cases these fumigation services are than the provisions of this rule.
Regardless, the impact on the overall provided by large businesses that serve This rule contains information
WPM industry is expected to be small a number of ports. Two commenters on collection requirements, which have
as the quantity of total pallets exported, the proposed rule stated that several been approved by the Office of
estimated at about 10 million units, fumigators at ports were small Management and Budget (see
businesses that could be adversely ‘‘Paperwork Reduction Act’’ below.)
comprises only 2.5 percent of the 400 to
affected if the demand for fumigation
500 million pallets in production in the Executive Order 12988
upon arrival decreases, but these
United States each year.
commenters did not provide any This rule has been reviewed under
Domestic manufacturers of wood specific data on the number or location Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice
pallets may be indirectly affected in one of these businesses or the scope of the Reform. Under this rule: (1) All State
other way. Because of the increasing potential impacts. and local laws and regulations that are
trend in recycling of pallets for cost- While decisions by other countries to inconsistent with this rule will be
cutting purposes, manufacturers may be adopt the IPPC standard are preempted; (2) no retroactive effect will
faced with new demands for treated independent actions not directly be given to this rule; and (3)
WPM from domestic exporters who resulting from adoption of this rule, administrative proceedings will not be
reuse pallets and wood containers to those decisions do raise the associated required before parties may file suit in
ship goods back from foreign countries. issue that the international WPM market court challenging this rule.

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:50 Sep 15, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16SER1.SGM 16SER1
 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 179 / Thursday, September 16, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 55731

National Environmental Policy Act fumigation with methyl bromide of the The alternative of extending the China
On September 19, 2003, the U.S. wood packaging material. interim rule to all WPM worldwide
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (alternative 2 above) would not ensure
Alternatives Considered in the Impact
published in the Federal Register (68 long-term exclusion of some wood pests
Statement Process
FR 54900–54901) a notice of availability of quarantine concern, such as certain
The FEIS focuses mainly on pest risk deep wood-borers, fungi, rots, and wilts.
of the final environmental impact
issues from the use of wood packaging The adoption of the IPPC treatment
statement titled ‘‘Importation of Solid
material, potential impacts from standards for all importing countries
Wood Packing Material.’’ The FEIS
treatments with methyl bromide, and will address pest threats posed not only
considers the environmental impacts
potential impacts from use of substitute by Cerambycidae, which was the
from importation of wood packaging
packaging made from materials other primary target of the China interim rule,
material that could result from our
than unmanufactured solid wood. The but nine other pest families as well.
adoption of the proposed rule as a final
FEIS considers a reasonable range of Additionally, adoption of the China
rule.2 The FEIS was prepared in
alternatives, including: (1) No action, interim rule requirements would result
accordance with: (1) The National
essentially maintaining the exemption in the greatest additional use of methyl
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
from treatment requirements for bromide of all the alternatives.
(NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
importation of wood packaging material The comprehensive risk reduction
seq.), (2) regulations of the Council on
from foreign countries except as program (alternative 4 above) would
Environmental Quality for
regulated under the September 18, 1998, consist of an array of mitigation
implementing the procedural provisions
interim rule that required treatment of methods (e.g., inspection, various heat
of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500–1508), (3)
WPM from China (China interim rule, treatments, various fumigants and other
USDA regulations implementing NEPA
(7 CFR part 1b), and (4) APHIS’ NEPA 63 FR 50099–50111, Docket No. 98– chemical treatments, irradiation, etc.)
Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 087–1), (2) extension to all countries of that is more extensive than that
372). the treatments in the China interim rule, contained in either the China Interim
Pursuant to the implementing (3) adoption of the IPPC Guidelines, (4) Rule or the IPPC Guidelines. Many of
regulations for NEPA, in cases requiring establishment of a comprehensive risk the methods are in various phases of
an EIS, APHIS must prepare a record of reduction program, and (5) use of research and development that do not
decision at the time of its decision. This substitute (non-solid wood) packaging provide adequate basis for any final
final rule constitutes the required record material only. decisions about program usage.
of decision for the FEIS. Substitution of other packing
Environmentally Preferable Alternative materials (alternative 5 above) requires
The NEPA implementing regulations
require that a record of decision state The environmentally preferable use of materials the cost of which
what decision is being made; identify alternative would be to prohibit exceed the likely costs of SWPM that is
alternatives considered in the importation of wood packaging material, either heat treated or fumigated with
environmental impact statement which would virtually eliminate all methyl bromide.
process; specify the environmentally associated pest risks, as well as the need Please see the FEIS for a full
preferable alternative; discuss for quarantine treatments. This discussion of the reasons why adopting
preferences based on relevant factors— regulatory approach (alternative 5 the IPPC standard was considered the
economic and technical considerations, above) would require all commodities preferred alternative.
as well as national policy that are to be imported to the United
Factors in the Decision
considerations, where applicable; and States to be transported with only
substitute packaging material, which at APHIS’ mission is guided by the PPA,
state how all of the factors discussed
the current time would be technically under which the detection, control,
entered into the decision. In addition,
and economically infeasible for many eradication, suppression, prevention,
the record of decision must indicate
exporters, especially in developing and retardation of the spread of plant
whether the ultimate decision has been
countries. pests or noxious weeds have been
designed to avoid or minimize
determined by Congress to be necessary
environmental harm and, if not, why Preferences Among Alternatives
not. and appropriate for the protection of the
There is a preference for the approach agriculture, environment, and economy
The Decision taken in this final rule, which we adopt of the United States. The PPA also has
APHIS has decided, in this final rule, herein (alternative (3), above). The been designed to facilitate exports,
to amend its regulations to provide that preference for this alternative is based imports, and interstate commerce in
wood packaging material imported into principally on the determination that it agricultural products and other
the United States from other countries meets the Agency’s obligations under commodities. In order to achieve these
will be subject to the requirements the Plant Protection Act (PPA), and objectives, use of pesticides, including
stipulated in the IPPC Guidelines. This other legislation such as NEPA and the methyl bromide, has often been
includes specific treatment Clean Air Act. prescribed.
requirements for either heat treatment or The no action alterative (alternative 1 Methyl bromide is an ozone depleting
above) was rejected because recent substance that is strictly regulated under
2 Copies of the FEIS are available for public interceptions of pests at ports of entry the Montreal Protocol and the Clean Air
inspection at USDA, room 1141, South Building, show a steady increase in serious pests Act. While the goal of these authorities
14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW., associated with WPM from everywhere and agreements is to limit and
Washington, DC, between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except holidays. Persons
except China, whose WPM must already ultimately phase out all ozone depleting
wishing to inspect copies are requested to call be treated due to past pest interceptions. substances, certain exemptions and
ahead on (202) 690–2817 to facilitate entry into the If left unchecked, pests introduced by exclusions are recognized, including an
reading room. In addition, the FEIS may be viewed imported WPM have the potential to exemption for methyl bromide use for
from the APHIS Internet site at http://
www.aphis.usda.gov/ppd/es/swpm.html, and copies
cause significant economic damage to plant quarantine and preshipment
may be obtained by writing to the individual listed the agricultural and forest resources of purposes, including the purposes
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. the United States. provided for in this final rule. The

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:50 Sep 15, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16SER1.SGM 16SER1
 55732 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 179 / Thursday, September 16, 2004 / Rules and Regulations

exemption is not unconditional, additional methyl bromide releases Sickles, APHIS’ Information Collection
however. The United States, like other would delay recovery of the ozone layer. Coordinator, at (301) 734–7477.
signatories to the Montreal Protocol, A considerable amount of research
and development on methyl bromide List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 319
must review its national plant health
regulations with a view to removing the alternatives has been conducted within Bees, Coffee, Cotton, Fruits, Honey,
requirement for the use of methyl the USDA and continues today. Under Imports, Logs, Nursery stock, Plant
bromide for quarantine and the Clean Air Act, EPA has also diseases and pests, Quarantine,
preshipment applications where established a program to identify Reporting and recordkeeping
technically and economically feasible alternatives to ozone depleting requirements, Rice, Vegetables.
alternatives exist. substances, including methyl bromide, ■ Accordingly, 7 CFR part 319 is
This rule authorizes the use of methyl but EPA’s listing of an acceptable amended as follows:
bromide, as well as heat treatment, to alternative does not always adequately
treat WPM imported from other address its suitability for a particular PART 319—FOREIGN QUARANTINE
countries in order to meet the mandates use. We must not put agriculture and NOTICES
of the PPA. In addition, the Agency is ecosystems at risk based on unproven
■ 1. The authority citation for part 319
working to promote environmental technology.
APHIS is firmly committed to the continues to read as follows:
quality with ongoing work to identify
objectives of the Montreal Protocol to Authority: 7 U.S.C. 450 and 7701–7772; 21
and add to our regulations valid U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and
reduce and ultimately eliminate reliance
technically and economically feasible 371.3.
on methyl bromide for quarantine uses,
alternatives to methyl bromide.
consistent with its responsibilities to ■ 2. In § 319.40–1, the definitions for
Avoid or Minimize Environmental safeguard this country’s agriculture and Exporter statement, Importer statement,
Harm ecosystems. Achieving the objectives of and Solid wood packing material are
both reducing (and ultimately removed, and two definitions are added
The environment can be harmed by
eliminating) methyl bromide emissions in alphabetical order to read as follows:
using methyl bromide, in which case
as well as safeguarding agriculture and
recovery of the ozone layer may be § 319.40–1 Definitions.
ecosystems in the most expeditious,
delayed, or by not using methyl
cost-effective way possible, requires * * * * *
bromide, in which case agriculture and
close coordination within the Federal Regulated wood packaging material.
forested ecosystems, among other
Government of research, development, Wood packaging material other than
aspects of environmental quality, could
and testing efforts. APHIS is determined manufactured wood materials, loose
be devastated unless other equally or
to cooperate actively with the wood packing materials, and wood
more effective alternatives were strictly
Agricultural Research Service, EPA, the pieces less than 6 mm thick in any
enforced (i.e., heat treatment or use of
Office of Management and Budget, and dimension, that are used or for use with
substitute packing materials). By
others involved in this effort to find cargo to prevent damage, including, but
assuring that use of methyl bromide is
effective alternatives to quarantine not limited to, dunnage, crating, pallets,
limited, the Agency strikes a proper
methyl bromide uses. packing blocks, drums, cases, and skids.
balance in its efforts to minimize In a notice summarizing EPA
environmental harm. APHIS is * * * * *
comments on recent environmental Wood packaging material. Wood or
committed to monitoring these efforts impact statements and proposed
through the NEPA process, and wood products (excluding paper
regulations that was published in the products) used in supporting, protecting
otherwise. Furthermore, where Federal Register on January 17, 2003
appropriate, measures—gas recapture or carrying a commodity (includes
(68 FR 2539), EPA expressed no dunnage).
technology, for example—to minimize objection to the draft EIS and the APHIS
harm to environmental quality caused ■ 3. In § 319.40–3, paragraph (b) is
proposed rule. revised to read as follows:
by methyl bromide emissions have
been, and will continue to be, Paperwork Reduction Act § 319.40–3 General permits; articles that
encouraged by APHIS. The prudent use In accordance with the Paperwork may be imported without a specific permit;
of heat treatment and substitute Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 articles that may be imported without either
packaging materials by developed et seq.), the information collection or a specific permit or an importer document.
nations is expected to promote this recordkeeping requirements included in * * * * *
regulatory approach in developing this rule have been approved by the (b) Regulated wood packaging
countries as their trade opportunities Office of Management and Budget material. Regulated wood packaging
expand. (OMB) under OMB control number material, whether in actual use as
Other 0579–0225. packing for regulated or nonregulated
articles or imported as cargo, may be
Methyl bromide used in quarantine Government Paperwork Elimination
imported into the United States under a
applications prescribed by the United Act Compliance
general permit in accordance with the
States contributes just a small fraction of The Animal and Plant Health following conditions:
total anthropogenic bromine released Inspection Service is committed to (1) Treatment. The wood packaging
into the atmosphere. Nevertheless, the compliance with the Government material must have been:
Montreal Protocol is action-forcing in Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA), (i) Heat treated to achieve a minimum
the sense that signatories must review which requires Government agencies in wood core temperature of 56 °C for a
their national plant health regulations general to provide the public the option minimum of 30 minutes. Such treatment
with a view to finding alternatives to of submitting information or transacting may employ kiln-drying, chemical
exempted uses of methyl bromide. The business electronically to the maximum pressure impregnation, or other
EPA has also cautioned that, regardless extent possible. For information treatments that achieve this
of the incremental contribution, it is pertinent to GPEA compliance related to specification through the use of steam,
important to recognize that any this rule, please contact Mrs. Celeste hot water, or dry heat; or,

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:50 Sep 15, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16SER1.SGM 16SER1
 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 179 / Thursday, September 16, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 55733

(ii) Fumigated with methyl bromide meter or pounds per 1,000 cubic feet of concentration of fumigant below
in an enclosed area for at least 16 hours the enclosure being fumigated. hazardous levels, in accordance with
at the following dosage, stated in terms Following fumigation, fumigated label instructions approved by the U.S.
of grams of methyl bromide per cubic products must be aerated to reduce the Environmental Protection Agency:

Minimum required concentration

Initial dose g/m3 and lbs./1,000 c.f.) after:
Temperature (°C/°F) g/m3 and lbs./
1,000 c.f) 0.5 hrs 2 hrs. 4 hrs. 16 hrs.

21/70 or above ..................................................................................................... 48/3.0 36/2.25 24/1.5 17/1.06 14/0.875

16/61 or above ..................................................................................................... 56/3.5 42/2.63 28/1.75 20/1.25 17/1.06
11/52 or above ..................................................................................................... 64/4.0 48/3.0 32/2.0 22/1.38 19/1.19

(2) Marking. The wood packaging Standards for Phytosanitary Measures to material, and an abbreviation disclosing
material must be marked in a visible certify that wood packaging material has the type of treatment (e.g., HT for heat
location on each article, preferably on at been subjected to an approved measure, treatment or MB for methyl bromide
least two opposite sides of the article, and must include a unique graphic fumigation). The currently approved
with a legible and permanent mark that symbol, the ISO two-letter country code format for the mark is as follows, where
indicates that the article meets the for the country that produced the wood XX would be replaced by the country
requirements of this paragraph. The packaging material, a unique number code, 000 by the producer number, and
mark must be approved by the assigned by the national plant YY by the treatment type (HT or MB):
International Plant Protection protection agency of that country to the
Convention in its International producer of the wood packaging

(3) Immediate reexport of regulated § 319.40–5 [Amended] DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

wood packaging material without
■ 3. In § 319.40–5, paragraphs Agricultural Marketing Service
required mark. An inspector at the port
(b)(1)(i)(C), (b)(2), and (b)(2)(i), the words
of first arrival may order the immediate
‘‘solid wood packing materials’’ are 7 CFR Part 920
reexport of regulated wood packaging
removed each time they occur and the
material that is imported without the [Docket No. FV04–920–2 IFR]
words ‘‘regulated wood packaging
mark required by paragraph (b)(2) of this
material’’ are added in their place, and Kiwifruit Grown in California;
section, in addition to or in lieu of any
paragraphs (g) through (k) are removed. Decreased Assessment Rate
port of first arrival procedures required
by § 319.40–9 of this part. § 319.40–10 [Amended] AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service,
(4) Exception for Department of USDA.
■ 4. In § 319.40–10, footnote 6, the words
Defense. Regulated wood packaging ACTION: Interim final rule with request
‘‘without a complete certificate or for comments.
material used by the Department of
exporter statement’’ are removed and the
Defense (DOD) of the U.S. Government
words ‘‘without meeting the SUMMARY: This rule decreases the
to package nonregulated articles,
requirements of this subpart’’ are added assessment rate and changes the
including commercial shipments
in their place. assessable unit from $0.045 per 22-
pursuant to a DOD contract, may be
pound, volume-fill container or
imported into the United States without Done in Washington, DC, this 9th day of
September 2004.
container equivalent to $0.002 per
the mark required by paragraph (b)(2) of pound of kiwifruit established for the
this section. Bill Hawks, Kiwifruit Administrative Committee
* * * * * Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory (committee) for the 2004–05 and
Programs. subsequent fiscal periods. The
(Approved by the Office of Management [FR Doc. 04–20763 Filed 9–15–04; 8:45 am] assessment rate of $0.002 per pound of
and Budget under control numbers BILLING CODE 3410–34–P kiwifruit is $0.000045 per pound less
0579–0049 and 0579–0225.)
ER16SE04.000</GPH>

than the assessment rate currently in

VerDate jul<14>2003 15:50 Sep 15, 2004 Jkt 203001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16SER1.SGM 16SER1