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

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

[Federal Register: January 15, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 10)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 2289-2295]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr15ja04-1]

Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.

[[Page 2289]]

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

7 CFR Part 319

[Docket No. 02-097-2]

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

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 15, 2004.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Logs, lumber, and other unmanufactured wood articles imported into
the United States could pose a significant hazard of introducing plant
pests and pathogens detrimental to agriculture and to natural,
cultivated, and urban forest resources. The Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS) has implemented regulations to prohibit or
restrict the importation of logs, lumber, and other unmanufactured wood
articles into the United States from certain parts of the world. These
regulations, which are found in ``Subpart-Logs, Lumber, and Other
Unmanufactured Wood Articles'' (7 CFR 319.40-1 through 319.40-11,
referred to below as the regulations), are designed to prevent the
dissemination of plant pests that are new to or not widely distributed
within the United States.
An increased interest in the importation of unmanufactured wood
articles into the United States from other countries has led to an
increased demand for fast-growing trees, such as those of the genus
Eucalyptus. The fast growth rate, environmental adaptability, and high
quality for pulp production of this genus make it one of the most
widely propagated genera of trees in the world. South American
governments, including those of Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Peru, and
Uruguay, have encouraged the planting of these fast-growing trees.
Brazil has the largest area of Eucalyptus plantations in the world,
with approximately 3 million hectares planted with various species.
Wood chips of tropical species of Eucalyptus are currently being
imported, under certain conditions specified in compliance agreements,
by some wood products companies into the United States from South
America. Recently, wood products companies in the United States have
expressed interest in importing large volumes of temperate Eucalyptus
wood chips from South America.
Since these articles have not been widely imported into the United
States, APHIS requested that the U.S. Forest Service prepare a pest
risk assessment to help determine whether the current regulations would
continue to provide an adequate level of protection against the
introduction of plant pests potentially associated with Eucalyptus
species if the wood products industry in the United States began
importing wood chips of species of Eucalyptus in greater volumes. The
evidence in the risk assessment, which can be viewed on the Internet at
http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/General.htm , suggested that

additional mitigation measures might be necessary.
On September 15, 2003, we published in the Federal Register (68 FR
53910-53915, Docket No. 02-097-1) a proposed rule to amend the
regulations to require that logs and lumber of tropical species of
Eucalyptus from South America be fumigated with methyl bromide or heat
treated prior to importation and that wood chips of tropical species of
Eucalyptus from South America be fumigated with methyl bromide, heat
treated, or heat treated with moisture reduction prior to importation.
We also proposed to allow wood chips derived from both temperate and
tropical species of Eucalyptus from South America to be treated with a
surface pesticide.
We solicited comments concerning our proposal for 60 days ending on
November 14, 2003, and received 11 comments by that date. The comments
were submitted by State departments of agriculture, an agricultural
quarantine inspector, a university professor, foreign forestry
societies, domestic wood products companies, foreign national plant
protection organizations, and a member of the public. Seven commenters
supported the proposed rule with some changes, and four commenters
opposed the proposed rule.
Although the pest risk assessment indicated that additional
mitigation measures might be necessary in order to safely import logs,
lumber, and wood chips of Eucalyptus from South America, at this time,
we have only received requests that indicate interest in importing
large volumes of wood chips of temperate species of Eucalyptus from
South America. Because the

[[Page 2290]]

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

Inspection

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

Efficacy of Treatment

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

[[Page 2291]]

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

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

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

Safety of Importation

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

Comment: The environmental assessment does not include an option
for a single component pesticide spray treatment. A fungicide-only
treatment would decrease the introduction of chemicals into the
environment.
Response: As noted previously, based on the available research
(Morrell, Freitag, and Silva) and on the findings of CPHST, we believe
that a formula with both the insecticide and fungicide components is
effective and necessary.

Practicality of Additional Conditions

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

[[Page 2292]]

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

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

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

[[Page 2293]]

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

Pest Risk Assessment

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

Economic Analysis

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

[[Page 2294]]

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

General Comment

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

Research and Development

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

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act

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

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

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

[[Page 2295]]

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

Executive Order 12988

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

National Environmental Policy Act

An environmental assessment and a finding of no significant impact
(FONSI) have been prepared for this final rule. The assessment provides
a basis for the conclusion that the alternate treatment for wood chips
of species of eucalyptus from South America under the conditions
specified in this final rule do not present a risk of introducing or
disseminating plant pests and will not have a significant impact on the
quality of the human environment.
The environmental assessment and FONSI were prepared in accordance
with: (1) The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as
amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), (2) Regulations of the Council on
Environmental Quality for implementing the procedural provisions of
NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), (3) USDA regulations implementing NEPA
(7 CFR part 1b), and (4) APHIS' NEPA Implementing Procedures (7 CFR
part 372).
The environmental assessment and FONSI are available for viewing on
the Internet at
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppd/es/ppqdocs.html . Copies of the
environmental assessment and FONSI are also available for public
inspection in our reading room. The reading room is located in room
1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue
SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to
help you, please call (202) 690-2817 before coming. In addition, copies
may be obtained by calling or writing to the individual listed under
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Paperwork Reduction Act

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

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 319

Bees, Coffee, Cotton, Fruits, Honey, Imports, Logs, Nursery stock,
Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Rice, Vegetables.

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

PART 319--FOREIGN QUARANTINE NOTICES

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

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

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

Sec. 319.40-6 Universal importation options.

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

Sec. 319.40-7 [Amended]

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

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

BILLING CODE 3410-34-P

Notices For
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994

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

Local Navigation