Importation of Solid 

Wood Packing Material 

United States 

Department of 

Agriculture 

Marketing and 

Regulatory 

Programs 

Animal and 

Plant Health 

Inspection 

Service 

Draft Supplement to the Final 

Environmental Impact 

Statement—February 2007 

Importation of Solid 

Wood Packing Material 

Draft Supplement to the Final 

Environmental Impact Statement—

February 2007 

Agency Contact: 

Michael Simon 

Senior Staff Officer 

Quarantine Policy, Analysis and Support 

Plant Protection and Quarantine 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

4700 River Road, Unit 60 

Riverdale, MD 20737 

__________________________________________________________ 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its 

programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, 

religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family 

status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with 

disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program 

information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’S 

TARGET Center at (202) 720–2600 (voice and TDD). 

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 

Room 326–W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, 

DC 20250–9410 or call (202) 720–5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal 

opportunity provider and employer. 

__________________________________________________________ 

Mention of companies or commercial products in this report does not imply 

recommendation or endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture over 

others not mentioned. USDA neither guarantees nor warrants the standard of 

any product mentioned. Product names are mentioned solely to report 

factually on available data and to provide specific information. 

__________________________________________________________ 

This publication reports research involving pesticides. All uses of pesticides 

must be registered by appropriate State and/or Federal agencies before they 

can be recommended. 

__________________________________________________________ 

CAUTION: Pesticides can be injurious to humans, domestic animals, 

desirable plants, and fish or other wildlife—if they are not handled or applied 

properly. Use all pesticides selectively and carefully. Follow recommended 

practices for the disposal of surplus pesticides and pesticide containers.

Table of Contents i. 

Table of Contents 

Executive Summary.................................................................................iii

I. Introduction.....................................................................................1 

A. Background ................................................................................1 

B. Historical Perspective .................................................................1 

C. Relationship to the Rulemaking Process....................................3 

D. Summary of the Final Environmental Impact Statement ............6 

II. Purpose and Need ..........................................................................9

III. Environmental Impact Analysis ..................................................11 

A. Early Methyl Bromide Estimates for Wood and the China 

 Interim Rule...............................................................................12 

B. Application of Early Estimates to Assess Cumulative 

Impacts .....................................................................................13 

C. Estimates from the Final Environmental Impact Statement......14 

D. Refined Methyl Bromide Estimation Based Upon 

 Compliance Data ......................................................................15 

E. Impact Assessment of Refined Methyl Bromide Estimates ......24 

Appendices 

A. Preparers................................................................................A–1 

B. Cooperation, Review, and Consultation..................................B–1 

C. Final Rule on Importation of Wood Packaging Material......... C–1 

D. Calculations of Methyl Bromide Released From 

 Fumigations of Wood Packing Material ................................. D–1 

E. Distribution List .......................................................................E–1 

F. References..............................................................................F–1 

G. Acronyms and Glossary......................................................... G–1 

H. Index ...................................................................................... H–1 

Tables 

3–1. Summary of Estimated Methyl Bromide Released by 

 Country/Region From Fumigations in Compliance 

 With U.S. Wood Packaging Regulations Related to 

 ISPM 15.................................................................................25 

 

 3–2. Summary of Estimated Cumulative Methyl Bromide 

 Released by Country/Region From Fumigations in 

 Compliance With Wood Packaging Regulations 

 Related to ISPM 15................................................................28 
ii. Table of Contents 
Executive Summary iii. 

Executive Summary 

The United States has faced an ongoing and increasing threat from 

harmful invasive alien species (pests and pathogens) found in the solid 

wood packaging material (WPM) that accompanies shipments in 

international trade. Coping with the risks posed by these pest and disease 

organisms has become an increasingly important issue for most countries 

as international trade expands. The dynamic nature of international trade 

and our increasing knowledge of the pest and pathogen risks associated 

with WPM make it important for the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) to continue 

to review and consider additional changes to the regulations, as needed. 

The final environmental impact statement (FEIS) was prepared in August 

2003 for the present WPM regulations. This supplement to the WPM 

FEIS refines APHIS’ previous quantitative analysis of the expected 

environmental impact associated with international compliance with 

APHIS’ current WPM regulations. 

The final rule for importation of wood packaging material (September 16, 

2004, 69 Federal Register (FR) 55719, Docket No. 02–032–3) was 

promulgated to provide APHIS with a means to lower the pest risk 

associated with WPM worldwide in a timely manner. The rule was 

developed within the framework of international agreements to which the 

United States is a party. Although interceptions of invasive species in 

WPM from China and Hong Kong decreased subsequent to the 

promulgation of the China Interim Rule (September 18, 1998, 63 FR 

50099, Docket No. 98–087–1; amended December 17, 1998, 63 FR 

69539, Docket No. 98–087–4), interceptions from other parts of the world 

continued to rise. Serious environmental and economic threats posed from 

untreated WPM imparted a degree of urgency to the rulemaking process. 

The mitigation strategy provided by the International Plant Protection 

Convention’s (IPPC) “Guidelines for Regulating Wood Packaging 

Material in International Trade” (International Standards for Phytosanitary 

Measures Number 15 (ISPM 15)) set an effective standard that was 

uniform and equitable to all nations. 

The draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) and FEIS for WPM 

were published in October 2002 and August 2003, respectively. One 

concern voiced during the comment process was over environmental risks 

associated with the usage of the fumigant, methyl bromide, as a treatment 

to mitigate pest risks. Of particular concern was the potential of methyl 

bromide to deplete the atmosphere’s ozone layer. Since no countries were 

yet obligated to comply with ISPM 15 guidelines at the time of 
iv. Executive Summary 

preparation of the WPM FEIS, APHIS lacked quantitative data about 

actual worldwide usage of methyl bromide for this purpose. 

Regulations promulgated by the Council on Environmental Quality 

pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) 

provide that agencies may prepare supplements to a final EIS whenever 

“the agency determines that the purposes of the Act will be furthered by 

doing so.” This supplement to the WPM FEIS focuses on preparing a 

more accurate methyl bromide estimate to ensure that the NEPA 

documentation adequately informs the public about the anticipated 

environmental impact of the WPM regulation. Since the promulgation of 

WPM regulations by many countries to meet the ISPM 15 guidelines, 

actual information is now available about how exporters in many countries 

comply with these regulations. The specific information now available 

regarding how exporters in different countries actually comply with ISPM 

15 is new information that is relevant to environmental concerns and bears 

upon the analysis of potential impacts of the actions associated with 

APHIS’ wood packaging rule. Therefore, this specific information is used 

in this supplement to the WPM FEIS to refine the methyl bromide use 

estimates provided in the FEIS. This supplementation will allow our 

analysis to more completely and accurately reflect the compliance that is 

occurring and the potential environmental impacts associated with that 

compliance. 

The quantitative range for the refined methyl bromide use estimate (744 to 

2,110 metric tons (MT) per year) is more narrow than the range 

determined in the WPM FEIS (384 to 4,630 MT per year), but it is 

encompassed within the range of the WPM FEIS. Although the refined 

estimates determined for this supplement more accurately portray the 

range of methyl bromide used for ISPM 15 compliance, the dynamic 

nature of trade and compliance with trade-related regulations result in the 

ongoing need for review because this information reflects only the most 

recent information received. The availability of information about 

compliance by exporters in some countries is still lacking, and for these 

countries, this supplement applies conservative assumptions designed to 

err in favor of overestimating their methyl bromide usage. Through 

agreement with the provisions of the 1987 Montreal Protocol on 

Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, many countries are gradually 

phasing out uses of methyl bromide for which alternatives exist, including 

those uses for WPM. However, methyl bromide for quarantine and 

preshipment (QPS) and critical uses is expected to be needed for an 

extended period of time, such that review of the use of WPM is anticipated 

to continue at APHIS to ensure that future allotments do not exceed 

present projections. 
Executive Summary v. 

Any future selection of alternatives, other than those presently enforced by 

APHIS, will depend upon changes in world trade and those international 

agreements related to world trade within which the agency must work. 

The scientific, economic, and logistical data are not yet adequate to 

support a comprehensive risk reduction program or a phaseout of WPM to 

substitute packaging material, but the dynamic nature of trade and 

phytosanitary regulations may influence further development of the riskreducing strategies involved in these alternatives. It is conceivable that 

future phytosanitary guidelines negotiated under the IPPC could provide 

the framework for mitigating some pest or pathogen risk through 

packaging materials. In the meantime, APHIS must continue to address 

the phytosanitary risks by reducing the threat of invasive species in a 

manner that promotes the harmonization of international regulatory efforts 

and the facilitation of trade. 
vi. Executive Summary 

(This page is intentionally left blank.)
I. Introduction 1 

I. Introduction 

A. Background 

With the continual increase of worldwide trade, there has been a concern 

for an increasing threat from harmful invasive alien species (pests and 

pathogens) detected on materials used for trade. Specifically, these 

harmful invasive alien species have been detected on solid wood 

packaging material (WPM) that accompanies shipments in international 

trade. Wooden pallets, crating, and dunnage can harbor environmentally 

and economically harmful species that use the wood as host material, feed 

upon it, or hitch a ride on it. It is the role of the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) 

to protect against harmful invasive alien species and to safely facilitate 

trade. The regulations in 7 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 319.40–1 

through 319.40–11 contain provisions to mitigate plant pest risks 

presented by the importation of logs, lumber, or other unmanufactured 

wood articles. 

The regulations restrict the importation of many types of wood articles 

including wood packaging material such as pallets, crates, boxes, and 

pieces of wood used to support or brace cargo. On September 16, 2005, a 

rule was implemented to enforce the USDA–APHIS import regulation for 

WPM (see appendix C). The 2004 final rulemaking requires WPM, such 

as pallets, crates, and boxes, used in international trade to support or brace 

cargo, to be treated to prevent the introduction of harmful insects to U.S. 

agriculture and to natural, cultivated, and urban forest resources. 

WPM is often reused, recycled, or remanufactured. The implementation 

of the final rule published on September 16, 2004, enabled companies to 

use WPM that complies with ISPM 15 guidelines promulgated by the 

International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) for import and export 

purposes. Using WPM that has been treated and marked, in accordance 

with the International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures Number 15 

(ISPM 15) guidelines, assures the receiving country that the WPM present 

within a shipment has been treated. 

B. Historical Perspective 

Forest ecosystem diversity, function, and productivity have been 

dramatically altered by the introduction of exotic insects and pathogens. 

Historically, outbreaks of the Asian longhorned beetle, (Anoplophora 

glabripennis (Motschulsky)), pine shoot beetle, (Tomicus piniperda (L.)), 

and the emerald ash borer, (Agrilus planipennis (Fairmaire)) have been 
2 I. Introduction 

traced to importations of WPM. The brief history of introduction into the 

United States for Asian longhorned beetle, pine shoot beetle, and emerald 

ash borer follows below. 

• Asian longhorned beetle (ALB) is a native of China and was first 

found in the United States 1996 in New York City and Amityville, 

NY (on Long Island). Since then it has been found in Chicago, 

Summit, and Addison, Illinois. Scientists believe that the beetle 

entered the United States via wooden crates and pallets used in 

shipping cargo from China. The only way to get rid of ALB is to 

cut down, chip, and burn the infested trees. Since 1996, more than 

3,000 trees have been destroyed to eradicate this pest in New York 

and Illinois (USDA, APHIS, 2006a). 

• Pine shoot beetle (PSB) was discovered at a Christmas tree farm 

near Cleveland, Ohio, in July 1992. The only previous U.S. 

infestation of PSB occurred in New Jersey in 1913. It is believed 

that PSB was probably introduced into the United States in 1992 

by foreign ships carrying PSB-infested wood as dunnage (USDA, 

APHIS, 2002c). Since the 1992 introduction, PSB has been 

detected in 16 States. Quarantines have been established in those 

States to restrict the movement of regulated articles in order to 

prevent the artificial spread of PSB. 

• Emerald ash borer (EAB) was identified as the causative agent in 

ash tree mortality and decline in Detroit, Michigan. EAB was 

unknown in North America until June 2002. Since 2002, EAB has 

established infestations in Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and 

Maryland. Quarantines have been established in those States 

which have become infested with EAB. Under the quarantine, ash 

trees, branches, logs, and firewood are prohibited from movement 

from affected counties (USDA, APHIS, 2006b). 

Following APHIS’ confirmation of these and other pest risks associated 

with WPM, mitigating measures, risk analyses, and environmental 

analyses were developed to assist decisionmakers about how best to 

protect U.S. forests from such pest risks. Environmental analyses for 

those rulemakings were necessary to address the potential environmental 

impacts associated with the implementation of each rulemaking. The 

treatment of WPM, specifically, the options of heat treatment and methyl 

bromide fumigation, were assessed to consider potential impacts to the 

human environment, including public health. Of importance in regard to 

methyl bromide fumigations is its capacity to damage the atmosphere’s 

ozone layer. 
I. Introduction 3 

The WPM FEIS assessed the methyl bromide treatments for WPM and the 

potential environmental impacts of such compliance. In addition, the 

FEIS and supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) entitled 

“Importation of Logs, Lumber, and Other Unmanufactured Wood 

Articles,” (USDA, APHIS, 1998a), the environmental assessment (EA) for 

the China Interim Rule (USDA, APHIS, 1998b), and the FEIS entitled, 

“Rule for the Importation of Unmanufactured Wood Articles From 

Mexico, With Consideration for Cumulative Impact of Methyl Bromide 

Use” (USDA, APHIS, 2002a), also thoroughly analyzed methyl bromide 

usage and its impact to the environment. 

C. Relationship to the Rulemaking Process 

This supplement to the WPM FEIS provides additional information to the 

decisionmaker to determine whether the previous decision to amend the 

regulations regarding importation of WPM should remain in force as is or 

whether further changes should be promulgated through the rulemaking 

process. This determination will be published in a Record of Decision 

(ROD) in the Federal Register after completion of the final SEIS. APHIS 

will seek public comments on the draft SEIS and address those substantive 

comments in the final SEIS. Any substantive comments on the final SEIS 

received by APHIS up to 30 days after publication by the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of the notice of availability in 

the Federal Register will be considered before publication of the ROD (40 

CFR 1506.10(b)(2)). 

Although there have been treatments for wood pests for many years, there 

was no programmatic effort to mitigate the associated pest risks until the 

China Interim Rule in 1998. This rule consisted of two separate notices 

(September 18, 1998, 63 FR 50099, Docket No. 98–087–1 and an 

amendment on December 17, 1998, 63 FR 69539, Docket No. 98–087–4). 

The rule was promulgated to readily respond to the rapidly increasing pest 

risks to wood traced to importations of WPM from China and Hong Kong. 

The interim rule provided very little phase-in time due to the serious 

nature of the pest risks and the immediate need for mitigation of those 

risks. The EA for the China Interim Rule (USDA, APHIS, 1998b) was 

published in September 1998. The lack of a phase-in period was 

recognized in this EA prepared for the rule by applying the presumption 

that all imported WPM from China and Hong Kong would be fumigated 

after loading. Although this approach for estimation of methyl bromide 

usage was known to be conservatively high, initially it was not considered 

to be outside the possible range of application. It was recognized that 

some heat treatment and more conservative usage of methyl bromide 

(treatment of WPM before loading) were anticipated in, at least, the longterm, but the lack of historical data about actual compliance prevented 

1. History of 

Rulemaking 

and NEPA 

Documentation for 

SWPM 
4 I. Introduction 

calculation of a refined estimate of methyl bromide usage in the treatment 

of WPM to be imported from China and Hong Kong to the United States. 

Although the interceptions of invasive species in WPM from China and 

Hong Kong decreased subsequent to promulgation of the China Interim 

Rule, interceptions on WPM from other parts of the world continued to 

rise. It was clear that the pest risk from these locations would also need to 

be mitigated. Concurrent with APHIS’ deliberations on potential 

regulatory options to address the pest risk from WPM from other 

countries, the international community, through the IPPC, became aware 

of the pests associated with WPM and began to consider comparable 

approaches to alleviate pest risks associated with international trade. This 

international effort to address pest risks ultimately resulted in the 

guidelines negotiated for regulating WPM in international trade that were 

published by the IPPC Secretariat (2002) in ISPM 15. The international 

negotiations and revisions of these guidelines are expected to continue. 

APHIS recognized that the ISPM 15 guidelines provided a firm basis for 

amendments to our regulations and, consequently, APHIS promulgated a 

final rule that established regulations for importation of WPM that were 

consistent with those guidelines negotiated in ISPM 15. APHIS’ final rule 

on Importation of Wood Packaging Material was published on September 

16, 2004 (69 FR 55719, Docket No. 02–032–3), and was designed to 

provide mitigations for the potential pest risks from importation of WPM 

worldwide. The regulations established by this final rule replaced those 

regulations promulgated under the China Interim Rule. 

Unlike the regulations imposed by the China Interim Rule, those countries 

whose WPM was subject to importation requirements under the final 

WPM rule were aware of the pending change in regulations and were 

provided a phase-in period for compliance with those changes. This 

phase-in period ensured that importers had time to prepare for the 

regulatory treatments of WPM. Concurrent to this phase-in period, there 

were decreases in methyl bromide (phaseout) for many usages that were 

regulated under the Montreal Protocol. Although quarantine treatments 

(including those for WPM) were not directly subject to phaseout under 

this international agreement, many countries began to work on alternate 

treatments for fumigation with methyl bromide (such as heat treatment of 

WPM) and some were permitting only heat treatment for WPM. Although 

there were many factors that contributed to the estimates of methyl 

bromide usage in the FEIS, the presumption that methyl bromide 

treatments of WPM would always be applied after the WPM was loaded 

with cargo did not realistically reflect actual usage. The estimates of 

methyl bromide usage for alternatives presented in the FEIS for 

Importation of Solid Wood Packing Material (USDA, APHIS, 2003) 
I. Introduction 5 

sought to make allowance for methods such as heat treatment and 

fumigation of methyl bromide prior to loading with cargo. The 

characterization of compliance was, however, incomplete in that most 

countries, at that time, had not yet established their requirements for 

compliance with regulations of transported WPM. Much of this 

supplement to the FEIS examines how countries have actually complied 

with WPM regulations since and, based on that examination, seeks to 

refine APHIS’ early estimates of methyl bromide usage to more accurately 

reflect actual release from fumigation treatments of WPM. 

The overall worldwide usage of methyl bromide continues to decline as 

the phaseout requirements of the Montreal Protocol are met by those 

countries that are signatories to this international agreement. It is known 

that some countries (most notably China) have increased their overall 

usage of methyl bromide, but the increases by individual countries have 

not changed the overall trends towards reduction in usage of methyl 

bromide. Even China has committed to reduce emissions of methyl 

bromide from fumigations (United Nations Environment Programme 

(UNEP), 2003; Beijing Times, 2003; Mercado, 1999). The impetus for 

permitting fumigation of WPM with methyl bromide in the final WPM 

rule was to provide an economical means of compliance for those 

developing countries with limited resources to ensure their ability to 

export products loaded on WPM to the United States. This approach also 

ensured that other countries would accept product shipments from the 

United States that meet the ISPM 15 guidelines. 

In accordance with applicable international agreements, APHIS does 

consider changes in its regulations governing phytosanitary issues in trade 

if those measures are transparent, technically justified, and no more 

restrictive of trade than necessary to achieve an appropriate level of 

phytosanitary protection. This ensures that any changes in our regulations 

adhere to principles of the IPPC. Should it become evident that the usage 

of methyl bromide fumigation in the treatment of WPM is no longer 

needed by developing countries in order to meet phytosanitary 

requirements (due to increased availability of other treatment measures), 

and that the elimination of methyl bromide fumigation is “not more trade 

restrictive than required to achieve [an] appropriate level of sanitary or 

phytosanitary protection,” as is specified by provisions of the Sanitary and 

Phytosanitary Agreements of the World Trade Organization, then APHIS 

will consider further rulemaking for WPM. Presently, the usage of heat 

treatment of WPM is the only equivalent to fumigation with methyl 

bromide for shippers who depend upon WPM. The continuing phaseout 

of methyl bromide favors expanded heat treatment of WPM. It is also 

possible over time that market forces may favor expanded use of substitute 

packaging materials such that methyl bromide fumigation of WPM may 

2. Changes in 

Methyl 

Bromide 

Usage 

Relative to 

APHIS 

Rulemaking 
6 I. Introduction 

not be needed to ensure the unrestricted flow of trade. However, present 

trade heavily depends upon WPM, and fumigation with methyl bromide 

remains important enough for the shipping industry of some countries that 

circumstances do not justify immediate elimination of this treatment 

measure. Therefore, APHIS will continue to monitor and review trade 

conditions to determine if there is any need for further rulemaking. 

International guidelines, such as ISPM 15, are subject to ongoing review 

and negotiation among the countries that are party to the IPPC. Changes 

to those guidelines do not necessarily require APHIS to promulgate rule 

changes, but any changes in phytosanitary requirements that APHIS 

intends to enforce on the shipping industry would require revisions to the 

present regulations. Various negotiations to amend certain aspects of the 

ISPM 15 guidelines are in the process of review by IPPC contracting 

parties. APHIS monitors these negotiations for potential substantive 

changes that could result in the need for further rulemaking. Changes to 

the IPPC guidelines could also require environmental documentation to 

address NEPA issues associated with those anticipated rule changes. In 

particular, there has been some concern by IPPC contracting parties that 

the initial methyl bromide treatment schedule for WPM did not achieve 

the desired reduction in pest risk. Any changes in application rate would 

certainly require supplemental environmental documentation. Other 

potential treatment changes would need to be reviewed to determine 

whether they would result in any changes in environmental effects. 

Since the initial methyl bromide fumigation treatment schedule of Annex I 

of ISPM 15 (IPPC, 2006), there has been one revision approved by the 

IPPC (FAO, 2006). This revision does not propose any changes in the 

dosage for specific temperatures, but the proposed minimum 

concentrations of methyl bromide within the fumigation enclosure need to 

remain elevated for longer durations of time. The lack of change in 

dosage or rate indicates that methyl bromide usage would not increase. 

The revised treatment schedules are designed to eliminate pest risk 

without the need for additional usage of methyl bromide. Although the 

revised schedule does not require more usage and adjustments to our 

methyl bromide usage estimates, APHIS will continue to keep track of 

such revisions to ISPM 15 and review their potential environmental 

impact. 

D. Summary of the Final Environmental Impact 

Statement 

The WPM FEIS (USDA, APHIS, 2003) was prepared in order to consider 

the potential environmental impacts of the proposal and alternatives, in 
I. Introduction 7 

accordance with NEPA and the Council on Environmental Quality’s 

(CEQ) Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the 

National Environmental Policy Act. The findings of that document are 

incorporated by reference in this SEIS and are summarized below. 

Alternatives considered within the FEIS included (1) No Action (no 

change in the current regulation), (2) extend the treatments in the China 

Interim Rule to all countries, (3) adoption of the IPPC “Guidelines for 

Regulating Wood Packaging Material in International Trade” (the 

proposed alternative), (4) a comprehensive risk reduction program, and 

(5) substitute packaging materials only. Each alternative contains an array 

of component control methods. 

Although each alternative (excluding No Action) was determined to have 

the potential to lower pest risk associated with WPM, each alternative 

(including No Action) has the potential for adverse environmental 

consequences. Under NEPA, those consequences are the aggregate of 

their individual effectivenesses (efficacies) and the direct and indirect 

impacts (including cumulative impacts) of their component control 

methods. The No Action alternative would result in the greatest degree of 

risk from invasive species, with impacts from component control methods 

that would be expected to increase as international trade increases. 

Extension of the treatments in the China Interim Rule to all countries 

would substantially reduce the pest risk from invasive species, but would 

have the greatest potential for adverse environmental impact from its 

component control methods. Adoption of the IPPC guidelines also would 

provide substantial reduction of pest risk, with substantial environmental 

impact from its component control methods. 

A comprehensive risk reduction program could provide substantial 

reduction of pest risk, with variable impact from its component control 

methods, depending upon which methods were selected. It is not feasible 

to design different combinations of methods for compliance of various 

countries at present. Further, based upon the prevalence of pests within 

those countries, a determinative process to support such a practice would 

not be scientifically or economically practical. For the comprehensive risk 

reduction program alternative to be practical and worthy of detailed 

consideration by APHIS, the array of approved treatments for this 

alternative would have to be universally applicable and available equally 

to all countries. 

Substitute packaging materials only (prohibition of WPM), as suggested in 

the FEIS, would achieve the greatest reduction of pest risk with the least 

environmental impact from its component control methods, but would 

generate some impacts from the manufacturing process. The capability of 
8 I. Introduction 

industry to tool up to manufacture and switch to substitute packaging 

materials for such a shipping volume would limit the feasibility or 

implementation of a switch over. Further, the increased cost of substitute 

packaging materials relative to WPM and limited application of substitute 

packaging materials to niche markets do not provide the flexibility needed 

to fulfill the global trade needs at present. 

The potentially affected environment for the proposed action, as discussed 

in the FEIS, includes the United States (confronted with threats to its 

agricultural and environmental ecosystems), the other nations (which 

would sustain environmental impacts because of measures required by 

United States import requirements), and the Global Commons (which also 

could sustain environmental impacts because of measures required by 

United States import requirements). Of particular concern is the potential 

effect of increased use of the fumigant methyl bromide, a chemical that 

has the capacity to damage the atmosphere’s ozone layer. The 

stratospheric ozone layer shields life on our planet from the harmful 

effects of ultraviolet radiation. The potential impact from increased usage 

of methyl bromide is mitigated by the availability of other treatments for 

WPM and the phaseout of other ozone-depleting chemicals, as well as the 

phaseout of some uses of methyl bromide other than those critical uses and 

quarantine and preshipment (QPS) uses that are presently exempted. 

The rationale to adopt the IPPC guidelines, rather than selecting one of the 

other alternatives, involved a number of factors. First, the serious 

environmental and economic threats imparted a degree of urgency to the 

WPM rulemaking process. Although APHIS continues to work on a longterm resolution to the pest-risk problems associated with WPM, the 

agency needed an effective mitigation strategy capable of being 

implemented over the short term. Data were available to support the 

effectiveness of the treatments approved under the IPPC guidelines against 

many pests of concern to APHIS, but efficacy data for other treatment 

options were lacking. There were substantial logistical and operational 

barriers associated with some of the alternatives, even though they may 

present lesser environmental impact. 

APHIS remains committed to developing regulations that reduce the threat 

of invasive species, yet which promote the harmonization of international 

mitigation efforts and the facilitation of trade. The development of new 

regulations, therefore, depends upon technological progress and 

international negotiations to provide an efficient mechanism for 

addressing phytosanitary risks associated with WPM. Thus, the FEIS 

considered environmental, economic, scientific, and social factors in an 

effort to derive an appropriate and effective strategy for the regulation of 

imported WPM. 
II. Purpose and Need 9 

II. Purpose and Need 

The purpose of this SEIS is to reevaluate and refine estimates of methyl 

bromide usage in the treatment of WPM. This document is consistent 

with APHIS’ intent to further review WPM issues as more data and 

information are now available. At the time that the methyl bromide 

estimate in the WPM FEIS was prepared, there was uncertainty due to the 

limited information available about compliance (see FEIS on pages A–7 to 

A–9). Regulations promulgated by CEQ pursuant to NEPA provide that 

agencies may prepare supplements to a final EIS whenever “the agency 

determines that the purposes of the Act will be furthered by doing so.” 

This SEIS has been prepared to refine the information provided in the 

FEIS in light of new information available and intended to provide the 

decisionmaker and the public with the most current information associated 

with APHIS’ WPM rulemaking. The refined methyl bromide estimates 

presented in this SEIS will be provided to the decisionmaker. The 

decisionmaker has the authority and responsibility of assessing the refined 

information and determining if and how this information will impact the 

current rule. The refined information may have any number of impacts to 

the current WPM rule including further deliberation, amendments to the 

current rule, or no changes to the current rule. 
10 II. Purpose and Need 

(This page is intentionally left blank.)
III. Environmental Impact Analysis 11 

III. Environmental Impact Analysis 

The focus of this SEIS is the refinement of methyl bromide estimates from 

compliance with APHIS WPM regulations. The limited available data 

provided a rough predictive estimate in the FEIS. More reliable 

information and more data on actual compliance have since been sought to 

improve the previous estimates to more accurately reflect actual methyl 

bromide usage in the treatment of WPM. Although information continues 

to be collected about the treatment methods used by different countries to 

comply with ISPM 15, some data gaps continue to exist and some 

uncertainty remains. Quality information does exist for the compliance 

treatments in some countries, but reporting in other countries is often 

limited, lacking, or compiled for overall consumption purposes (not solely 

for WPM treatment). There are a number of different ways that one can 

quantitatively calculate the release of methyl bromide to the atmosphere 

from compliance with ISPM 15. These calculations can continue to be 

refined as more accurate and more complete information is received. 

Reporting of overall methyl bromide usage by many countries is sparse. 

The annual reporting requirements of the UNEP Secretariat for methyl 

bromide have increased the overall reporting and those requirements 

include a followup for data quality assurance. Such reporting was 

reviewed for relative consistency with our findings, but it was not relied 

upon for actual calculations. All international reporting requirements 

relate to total methyl bromide production or consumption including both 

usage for QPS and usage for non-QPS purposes. There is no formal 

reporting for more specific applications such as treatment of WPM. 

An attempt was made in this SEIS to gather the best available information 

for the majority of WPM treatments. This involved looking primarily at 

compliance of those countries that are most heavily involved in world 

trade. For those countries with reliable compliance data, quantitative 

analysis was the most direct. For those countries lacking compliance data, 

methyl bromide estimates were based upon projections of the highest 

likely usage. For many of the larger trading countries, their compliance 

data was available in a form that permitted accurate estimations. Most of 

these countries provided a percentage of the number of units of WPM that 

were fumigated. The annual estimates in this SEIS assess only a given 

point in time. Trying to account for increases in world trade and other 

external factors would be speculative, and no attempt has been made to 

factor this into this analysis. In addition, there are a wide range of 

chamber and tarpaulin enclosures that are used in methyl bromide 

fumigations. Limited data are available about the relative frequency of 

use of each type of fumigation enclosure, so representative fumigation 
12 III. Environmental Impact Analysis 

methods were applied to each treatment scenario based upon the 

compliance data provided by the phytosanitary authorities contacted in 

each country. 

Cumulative methyl bromide usage data includes those WPM treatments 

associated with ISPM 15 compliance by the United States and other WPM 

treatments in world trade not directly related to the WPM rule. This issue 

is considered separately from other methyl bromide usage for QPS and 

non-QPS purposes. 

A. Early Methyl Bromide Estimates for Wood and the 

China Interim Rule 

Estimates of the quantities of methyl bromide released from fumigation of 

wood products were first made for the EIS for the Importation of Logs, 

Lumber, and other Unmanufactured Wood Articles (USDA, APHIS, 

1998a). The methods developed for that EIS were adjusted for use in 

estimation of methyl bromide usage in the EA for China Interim Rule. A 

large part of the quantitative analysis in the China Interim Rule EA 

(USDA, APHIS, 1998b) was tied to the presumption that the lack of 

phase-in time for Chinese exporters to prepare for compliance with the 

rule would result in most, if not all, WPM being fumigated with methyl 

bromide and all fumigations being conducted to WPM that was already 

loaded with cargo. The capability of shippers to apply heat treatment, 

wood preservative treatments, or to treat WPM by fumigation with methyl 

bromide prior to cargo loading on such short notice was unknown. Thus, 

the quantitative estimate for methyl bromide used in fumigation resulting 

from this rule was an intentionally high projection that presumed only 

fumigation of already loaded WPM. 

Although it was recognized that the shipping industry in China would 

gradually use other available methods, the rough estimate for methyl 

bromide usage calculated for the China Interim Rule was considered 

appropriate as an initial estimate with the recognition that the projected 

usage per unit of WPM would diminish as the industry compliance 

strategies developed. Those early estimates disregarded issues such as 

treatment availability, reuse of WPM, lack of tolerances for methyl 

bromide of some agricultural commodities, lack of compatibility of some 

commodities (e.g., leather goods and electronic parts) with methyl 

bromide, and unique fumigation practices; the estimates also did not 

consider the rapidly increasing trade with China in any projections. The 

result was an estimate that was higher than initial actual usage by China, 

but not necessarily unreasonable given the increasing trade (eightfold 

increase from 1997 to 2005) that has occurred since that time. The 
III. Environmental Impact Analysis 13 

potential quantity of methyl bromide determined in the EA for the China 

Interim Rule was estimated to range from 1,040 to 12,565 MT annually. 

However, the total methyl bromide produced in China in 2002 for all uses, 

including not only use on WPM but all QPS and non-QPS usage, 

amounted only to 3,175 MT (BeijingTimes, 2003; UNEP, 2003), so the 

upper tail of this early estimate is clearly higher than the actual 

consumption that occurred in China. 

Another assumption in the EA was that the fumigations would occur 

primarily within containers covered by tarps, as is normally done for 

treatments of loaded cargo, to comply with APHIS regulations. However, 

rather than tarping containers, many of those Chinese shippers who were 

fumigating containers with already loaded cargo were generally testing 

those containers for airtightness, releasing methyl bromide directly into 

the closed containers, and often sealing those containers for shipment prior 

to complete aeration. There were some initial human health concerns 

expressed by inspectors and workers about the lingering residues of 

methyl bromide in these containers from this practice. The aeration of 

such containers has increased since that time to ensure the safety of those 

working with such containers. This direct treatment of sealed containers 

did result in less use of methyl bromide than had been projected for 

fumigation of containers covered by tarps. 

The actual application rates analyzed for the China Interim Rule were 

based upon those in the APHIS treatment manual (USDA, APHIS, 1998d) 

at that time. The application rates ranged from 3 to 5 pounds per 

1,000 cubic feet of space for a 16-hour period of time. Subsequent 

analyses were based upon the application rates cited in ISPM 15, that is, 

3 to 4 pounds per 1,000 cubic feet of space for a 16-hour period of time. 

Although this usage rate of 5 pounds per 1,000 cubic feet contributed to a 

conservatively high methyl bromide estimate in the analysis of the EA for 

the China Interim Rule, the changes in trade and compliance by China and 

Hong Kong since that time are encompassed within that projected methyl 

bromide estimate. 

B. Application of Early Estimates to Assess 

Cumulative Impacts 

Shortly after completion of the EA for the China Interim Rule, a draft EA 

was completed for the Proposed Rule for the Importation of Wood 

Articles from Mexico (USDA, APHIS, 1998c). EPA, in its comments on 

this document, suggested the agency analyze potential cumulative impacts 

of methyl bromide for the quarantine uses required by APHIS. This 

cumulative issue was then addressed through the preparation of an FEIS 

entitled “Rule for the Importation of Unmanufactured Wood Articles 
14 III. Environmental Impact Analysis 

From Mexico, With Consideration for Cumulative Impact of Methyl 

Bromide Use” (USDA, APHIS, 2002a). Most anticipated pending 

quarantine uses of methyl bromide, when added to the present usage, were 

considered to pose negligible cumulative risk; however, the pending 

worldwide regulation of WPM was considered to require closer review. 

This FEIS applied the conservative, quantitative methodology used in the 

China Interim Rule EA to project methyl bromide estimates for a global 

wood packaging rule that was first being analyzed in the DEIS for 

importation of unmanufactured wood articles from Mexico. The 

quantitative methyl bromide estimate using that methodology gave a 

potential range of 8,536 to 102,893 MT per year. However, the same 

paragraph discussed the conservative nature of this estimate and indicated 

that the actual increase of methyl bromide usage would be closer to onetwentieth of those projected quantities. This was the first recognition of 

the need to refine WPM methyl bromide estimates for methyl bromide 

usage to provide more realistic data for pending agency decisions. 

The Mexican Unmanufactured Wood DEIS also acknowledged the limited 

information about compliance with WPM treatment. The DEIS 

recognized that fumigations are generally directed at the pest risks in the 

cargo being treated and there was no particular reason for treating cargo 

when the target organism was in the WPM. However, the lack of 

available compliance data for WPM treatments made it difficult to project 

actual methyl bromide usage, and the decision was made to consider this 

issue more closely in the EIS for importation of WPM that was being 

worked on during and after completion of this Mexican Unmanufactured 

Wood EIS. 

 

C. Estimates From the Final Environmental Impact 

Statement 

The methyl bromide estimates prepared for the draft and final EIS for 

Importation of Solid Wood Packing Material (USDA, APHIS, 2002b; 

USDA, APHIS, 2003) involved a systematic review of potential usage to 

provide more realistic data for program decisions. The limited data 

available did not provide a clear methodology that could be readily 

applied to worldwide compliance with WPM regulations. The analysis 

did consider the influence of certain factors on likely compliance. The 

factors included the size of a U.S. Customs entry, the presence of WPM 

within a U.S. Customs entry, the likely method of treatment (methyl 

bromide fumigation vs. heat treatment), the manner of methyl bromide 

application, the application rate, the amount of methyl bromide vented 

from the treatment stack by fumigation, the compatibility of methyl 

bromide with associated cargo, logistics and cost factors for shippers from 
III. Environmental Impact Analysis 15 

other countries, the potential reuse of treated WPM, and implications of 

compliance method on international agreements. 

D. Refined Methyl Bromide Estimation Based Upon 

Compliance Data 

We now have information about how many IPPC countries actually 

comply with ISPM 15 and the APHIS WPM rule, so previous model 

assumptions are refined in this analysis to more accurately and completely 

assess potential methyl bromide release from compliance with the rule. 

This analysis reflects information regarding compliance for calendar year 

2005 which includes more than twice as many U.S. Customs entries as in 

the previous analysis (based on 1997 data) due to recent increases in world 

trade. This increase in world trade would normally be expected to result 

in at least a doubling in the estimated usage of methyl bromide to comply 

with ISPM 15 if compliance were consistent with earlier methyl bromide 

usage model assumptions. However, the information about actual 

compliance indicates greater usage of heat treatment than methyl bromide 

fumigation by most major trading countries. In addition, regular treatment 

of WPM after cargo loading, which requires more extensive methyl 

bromide usage, has been verified to occur only for some U.S. Customs 

entries originating in China (USDA, APHIS, 1999). 

This treatment of WPM after cargo loading involves fumigation of up to 

20-fold more space than for treatment of WPM before cargo loading, so 

the usage of methyl bromide is commensurately greater for fumigations of 

WPM after cargo loading. Although such methyl bromide fumigation of 

loaded cargo from China does increase the overall release of methyl 

bromide and associated concerns about potential impacts to stratospheric 

ozone, this usage is considerably less than the worldwide reductions of 

methyl bromide already made in compliance with the phaseout of methyl 

bromide required under the Montreal Protocol, and the impact of this 

usage of methyl bromide on ozone depletion is dwarfed by the effects of 

chlorofluorocarbons and other compounds with ozone-depleting potentials 

that exceed methyl bromide. When one considers that all anthropogenic 

usage of methyl bromide prior to enforcement of the phaseout provisions 

under the Montreal Protocol (in 1996) contributed to no more than a total 

of 1 percent depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer each year (UNEP, 

1998; NOAA et al., 1998), the potential amount of ozone depletion from 

the decreased anthropogenic usage of methyl bromide, at present, is 

considerably less and would not be the primary factor limiting the 

recovery of the ozone layer (unlike the chlorofluorocarbons). This 

potential impact on stratospheric ozone from anthropogenic usage of 

methyl bromide, however, does justify continuing efforts to seek 
16 III. Environmental Impact Analysis 

economical and efficacious alternatives to methyl bromide for 

phytosanitary treatment purposes, including those related to packaging 

material regulations. 

The refinements to the methyl bromide calculations in this supplement 

include a closer analysis of the manner in which individual countries 

actually comply with wood packaging regulations. This involves more 

comprehensive analyses of information on how exporters in individual 

countries select their method of treatment (methyl bromide fumigation vs. 

heat treatment), the manner of methyl bromide application, the amount of 

methyl bromide vented from the fumigation, the potential reuse of treated 

WPM, and any implications of compliance method on international 

agreements. The mathematical equation and calculations are described in 

detail in appendix D. Each of these issues influence the amount of methyl 

bromide fumigation of WPM used in compliance with ISPM 15 and are 

used in the SEIS to refine the methyl bromide estimates to the extent 

possible. 

Most calculations used to determine the estimates of methyl bromide 

usage resulting from compliance with APHIS’ WPM regulations in this 

SEIS rely upon U.S. Customs data related to import entries. None of the 

phytosanitary authorities in the various countries provided any data about 

the actual quantity of WPM relative to other packaging materials for their 

exports, so the previous estimate (30 percent) used to determine the 

number of U.S Customs entries with WPM in the FEIS was applied to the 

present calculations when information about actual numbers of treated 

units or the total amount of methyl bromide were unavailable. There is 

some variability in the types of packaging material used worldwide, but 

the earlier review of U.S. Customs entries investigated the packaging 

materials over a broad range of commodity import groups to ensure that 

the percentage accurately reflected the proportion of U.S. Customs import 

entries that use WPM. 

The descriptions of treatment methods of exporters in a given country 

were determined primarily from the information provided by the 

phytosanitary authorities of various countries about how they comply with 

ISPM 15. The effort to seek compliance data focused on those countries 

with larger trade to the United States, but information was sought for all 

major trading markets. The questions posed to these authorities were 

designed to ascertain the amount of methyl bromide fumigation in 

compliance with ISPM 15. Information was sought from the responding 

authorities regarding their usage of methyl bromide relative to their usage 

of heat treatment for compliance with ISPM 15, the manner in which such 

treatments are conducted, total methyl bromide usage where available, and 
III. Environmental Impact Analysis 17 

any information about the quantity of WPM relative to other packaging 

materials. The phytosanitary authorities contacted by APHIS responded 

as part of their ongoing cooperation with APHIS to facilitate common 

trade interests. Previous information about phytosanitary trade issues 

from these sources has been reliable. Although some phytosanitary 

authorities were unable to provide the desired information for their 

respective country, the responses were sufficient for a thorough refinement 

of the earlier methyl bromide estimates. 

Certain countries have specific requirements that limit their exporters to 

heat treatment or substitute packaging materials. This includes a number 

of countries in the European Union and closely associated countries. The 

European Union has indicated their intent to eliminate all methyl bromide 

fumigation where other alternatives or substitutes are available and 

acceptable from the standpoint of environment and health (Regulation of 

the European Parliament and Council, 2000). Some other countries treat 

WPM for export solely by heat treatment, most notably Thailand 

(Unahawutti, 2006). In recent years, the United States and Canada have 

been routinely treating WPM by heat treatment to eliminate pine wood 

nematode risk to meet phytosanitary requirements of the European Union 

and China. This practice of heat treatment of softwoods used in packaging 

materials has continued and has expanded to cover most WPM for foreign 

destinations. There is still, however, some fumigation of hardwoods with 

methyl bromide in the United States for use as WPM, but it is a relatively 

limited practice. 

Specific country authorities provided information about their use of heat 

treatment in compliance with ISPM 15. The phytosanitary authority in 

Japan indicates that 90 to 95 percent of their WPM for export is heat 

treated (Kani, 2006). Although most WPM for export from Korea is heat 

treated, exports to Norway and Russia are usually fumigated with methyl 

bromide according to the phytosanitary authorities in those countries 

(Kim, 2006). The phytosanitary authority in Chile, Marcos Beeche, states 

that 80 to 85 percent of their WPM for export is heat treated (Cohen, 

2006). The phytosanitary authority in Taiwan indicates that almost all of 

their WPM for export is heat treated and use of methyl bromide, for this 

purpose, is expected to be totally phased out in 2010 or 2015 (Chen, 

2006). Canada has no certification system for methyl bromide for exports 

of WPM, however, they do provide exporters with a phytosanitary 

certificate if fumigation with methyl bromide is the only alternative in 

specific situations (Thomas, 2006). Thus, Canada complies with ISPM 15 

primarily through the use of heat treatment with limited fumigation 

allowed, as needed. The authority from the Mexican Forestry Health 

Office indicates that 92 percent of the WPM for export from Mexico is 

heat treated (Ramos, 2006). 

1. Usage of Heat 

 Treatment 

 for WPM 
18 III. Environmental Impact Analysis 

As is evident from the responses received, those countries whose 

phytosanitary authorities responded to our recent request for information 

about compliance with ISPM 15 overwhelmingly indicated that heat 

treatment is the predominant treatment method used. There were several 

countries that lacked adequate data to respond to our questions about 

ISPM 15 compliance. In particular, Brazil only has data about overall 

methyl bromide usage, but not specific data for ISPM 15 compliance 

(Franz, 2006). China lacks data about overall compliance with ISPM 15 

(Chou, 2006). The refinement of methyl bromide estimates for China in 

this SEIS relies upon data from a previous agency trip report (USDA, 

APHIS, 1999) that included visits to specific port and other treatment 

facilities of WPM in China. There is an ongoing agency effort to continue 

to get accurate information about the compliance of other countries with 

ISPM 15, however, meaningful responses from the official phytosanitary 

authorities of those countries for documentation have not yet been 

received. Nonetheless, relevant information has been received for 

compliance from our most important trading partners. As other authorities 

respond to our request for information, the quantitative value of the methyl 

bromide estimates can be refined accordingly. 

Although most calculations used to determine the estimates of methyl 

bromide usage resulting from compliance with APHIS’ WPM regulations 

in this SEIS are based upon U.S. Customs data related to import entries, 

one country (Nicaragua) provided information specific to WPM. The 

response from the phytosanitary authority for the country of Nicaragua 

provided actual data that showed annual usage of 1,010.5 pounds for the 

first year of compliance with ISPM 15 regulations (Hernandez, 2006). 

Thus, the estimate for Nicaragua is based upon actual usage data. 

The data for methyl bromide treatment of WPM for export from the 

United States is maintained by the National Wooden Pallet and Container 

Association (NWPACA). NWPACA tracks the number of WPM units 

that are fumigated each year. In calendar year 2005, the United States 

fumigated 855,047 WPM units for this purpose (Deomano, 2006a). This 

NWPACA information is used in the determination of the cumulative 

methyl bromide estimates for the United States’ compliance with ISPM 

15. Unlike the available export data from MWPACA, comparable data 

about the number of WPM units fumigated with methyl bromide annually 

are not available for import entries to the United States so estimates for all 

countries other than Nicaragua are calculated using U.S. Customs entry 

data. 

Although China has committed to eventually reduce their usage of methyl 

bromide (UNEP, 2003; Beijing Times, 2003, Mercado, 1999), the rate of 

2. Usage of 

Methyl 

 Bromide 

 Fumigation 
III. Environmental Impact Analysis 19 

reduction of this usage for treatment of WPM over time is likely to be tied 

to their propensity to continue to promote export trade. The original 

estimate for the China Interim Rule was based upon analysis of already 

loaded WPM and projected an estimate ranging from 1,040 to 12,565 MT 

per year. The comparable estimate for China from the FEIS was based 

upon analysis of WPM not already loaded and projected a range of 52 to 

628 MT per year. Subsequent review of the information from a trip report 

(USDA, APHIS, 1999) to China suggests that some ports are complying 

exactly as the FEIS suggests and other ports are continuing to treat 

containers of WPM with already loaded cargo as had been projected in the 

analysis for the China Interim Rule. For example, the port at Tianjin 

requires the exporter to heat treat or fumigate WPM prior to loading of 

cargo. On the other hand, Shanghai permits fumigation either before or 

after cargo loading. At the ports of Guangzhou and Shenzhen, most of the 

WPM is fumigated prior to cargo loading, however, occasional fumigation 

of containers with loaded cargo occurs due to vessel departure constraints. 

Most fumigations in Shenzhen are conducted at company sites rather than 

at port facilities. There was no survey conducted at these company sites to 

determine the method of compliance with WPM regulations, so no 

information is available about how they fumigate packing material. 

While data on overall production and consumption of methyl bromide 

have been reported, it is unclear how much is applied to fumigation of 

WPM. The total methyl bromide production capacity of China=s three 

producers was 7,620 MT in 2002, but only 3,175 MT were produced that 

year (BeijingTimes, 2003; UNEP, 2003). Recent response from 

phytosanitary authorities in China indicates their lack of any recent data 

compiled for the ongoing compliance with ISPM 15 (Chou, 2006). Based 

upon the information obtained from the 1999 trip report and more recent 

contacts, this supplement conservatively refines the methyl bromide 

estimates based upon treatment directly into already loaded containers. 

The methyl bromide resulting from China compliance with APHIS’ WPM 

rule using this conservative approach in this SEIS ranges from 2,027 to 

6,188 MT per year. Relative to the 3,175 MT of methyl bromide produced 

by China in 2002 for all uses (Beijing Times, 2003; UNEP, 2003), this 

projected range for the methyl bromide estimate is clearly elevated. In the 

absence of more definitive information from phytosanitary authorities in 

China, the methyl bromide estimates in our documentation for China will 

remain uncertain and conservatively high. 

Information about the manner in which methyl bromide fumigation 

treatments are conducted in given countries was received from responses 

by most of the phytosanitary authorities in those countries contacted by 

APHIS. The majority of fumigation of WPM in Japan is applied to 

lumber before actual assembly of the wood packaging unit (Kani, 2006). 

3. Methyl Bromide 

 Fumigation 

 Methods 
20 III. Environmental Impact Analysis 

The majority of the countries that responded and permit fumigation of 

methyl bromide in compliance with ISPM 15 report that those fumigations 

occur to the WPM prior to cargo loading. This includes responses from 

Canada, Chile, the Dominican Republic, Korea, Mexico, and Taiwan 

(Kim, 2006; Morales, 2006; Cohen, 2006; Chen, 2006; Thomas, 2006; 

Ramos, 2006). China is the only country where methyl bromide 

fumigation of loaded cargo is known to occur regularly. The predominant 

manner of methyl bromide fumigation for other countries that permit its 

usage occurs prior to loading of cargo. This is to be expected based upon 

the multiple factors discussed in the FEIS. However, for calculation 

purposes, in this SEIS, the application of analysis based upon fumigation 

of WPM prior to cargo loading is restricted to only those countries for 

which adequate compliance information are available. For conservative 

purposes, calculations for those other countries from which compliance 

data are lacking are subject to analysis based upon fumigation of already 

loaded cargo. In that our inquiries to phytosanitary authorities of other 

countries focused on those countries with the greatest trade with the 

United States (those countries with the most U.S. Customs entries), a 

considerable proportion (greater than 71 percent) of those entries from 

countries who permit methyl bromide fumigation are subject to analysis 

under the scenario for treatment of unloaded cargo. 

In addition to the issue of treatment of WPM before or after cargo loading, 

the manner of fumigation does influence the quantity of methyl bromide 

needed for treatment. Although both chamber and tarp fumigations are 

used in the treatment of WPM, the decision was made to apply only tarp 

fumigations to the methyl bromide estimate calculations in the FEIS in the 

absence of complete data about the relative frequency of each type of 

fumigation. This does result in more conservatively high projections, but 

it was considered to provide a reasonable approximation for the variability 

in methods. Since that time, we have learned that many Chinese exporters 

are using a unique and specific fumigation procedure that differs from the 

chamber and tarp fumigations used elsewhere. This procedure was 

discussed in section III.A. regarding the estimates for the China Interim 

Rule. Rather than tarping containers, many of those Chinese shippers who 

were fumigating containers with already loaded cargo were conducting 

tests of those containers for airtightness, releasing methyl bromide directly 

into the closed containers, and sealing the entrance to those containers for 

fumigations. 

The practice of fumigating containers with already loaded cargo results in 

considerably less usage of methyl bromide than occurs if those containers 

are tarped for fumigation. For example. the amount of methyl bromide 

required for fumigation of a sealed 40 foot container in China amounts to 
III. Environmental Impact Analysis 21 

only 9.6 to 12.8 pounds as compared to 16.2 to 21.6 pounds for the 

standard tarp fumigation of the same container. Likewise, the amount of 

methyl bromide required for fumigation of a sealed 20-foot container in 

China amounts to only 4.8 to 6.4 pounds as compared to 9 to 12 pounds 

for the standard tarp fumigation of the same container. Although previous 

methyl bromide estimate calculations had not considered this factor, the 

refined assessment, in this SEIS, of the cumulative methyl bromide 

estimate for China applies their unique manner of fumigation for all 

methyl bromide projections. 

The methyl bromide estimates for countries where data are lacking use 

those values for the standard tarp fumigation with already loaded cargo for 

20 to 40 foot containers, as cited above. The amount of methyl bromide 

used to treat WPM prior to loading varies with the amount of WPM. The 

previous estimate in the FEIS considered that the quantity of methyl 

bromide required for treatment of a given WPM unit before cargo loading 

would amount to about one-twentieth of that for loaded cargo. This 

amounts to a range of 0.45 to 1.08 pounds of methyl bromide per WPM 

unit for standard tarp fumigations of unloaded WPM. This approach is 

used to project methyl bromide estimates for those countries who indicate 

treatment of WPM occurs prior to cargo loading. Likewise, some 

exporters from China and Hong Kong have been fumigating unloaded 

WPM in chambers or containers. This amounts to a range of 0.24 to 

0.64 pounds of methyl bromide per WPM unit for container fumigations 

of unloaded WPM. 

Although we know that China does fumigate unloaded WPM at certain 

ports, such as Tianjin (USDA, APHIS, 1999), our estimates for China are 

based upon fumigation of already loaded cargo, as previously mentioned. 

On the other hand, the estimates for Hong Kong are based upon 

fumigation of unloaded WPM using the above method. Based upon 

records of U.S. Customs import entries, much of the cargo shipped from 

Hong Kong comes from southern parts of China, such as Guangzhou. 

These locations often move products by truck and WPM treatment at 

Guangzhou occurs prior to loading for most shipments (USDA, APHIS, 

1999). This manner of fumigation is more representative of the treatments 

applied to WPM from Hong Kong and more accurately estimates actual 

usage. 

In addition to the above approaches to methyl bromide fumigation of 

WPM, some WPM is constructed from wood that is fumigated prior to 

assembly. This is the manner of treatment that occurs in Japan (Kani, 

2006). Although it is known that this approach uses less methyl bromide, 

the quantity used in construction of the WPM varies. Based upon review 

of methyl bromide treatments of other unmanufactured wood products, it 
22 III. Environmental Impact Analysis 

is estimated that the methyl bromide usage for one container-sized 

treatment would cover 50 WPM units. This amounts to a range of 0.18 to 

0.43 pounds of methyl bromide per WPM unit. 

The total quantity of methyl bromide emitted from a given fumigation is 

dependent upon the commodity being treated. In the absence of good 

studies on sorption, the calculations in the draft and final WPM EIS 

applied an estimated 80 to 100 percent release of methyl bromide from the 

fumigation enclosure during venting after a treatment was completed. An 

actual study has been done by UNEP to analyze the amount of methyl 

bromide sorbed to various commodities (UNEP, MBTOC, 1998). This 

study found that durable commodities, like WPM, adsorb greater 

quantities of fumigant than some other commodities. This study 

determined that the actual methyl bromide emitted from WPM and related 

commodities in fumigations amounts to a range of 69 to 79 percent of the 

total amount applied. This information was used in refining the methyl 

bromide estimates to more closely determine potential impact to ozone 

from fumigations of WPM. 

The potential reuse of treated WPM is known to influence the amount of 

treatment of WPM for trade. There are no hard figures for how much 

WPM is reused worldwide after cargo has been unloaded. We know from 

life-cycle studies that some WPM can be reused for 8 to 10 separate 

shipments before the wood is no longer durable enough to handle the 

loaded cargo (Deomano, 2006b). The United States does reuse treated 

pallets that meet ISPM 15 criteria and data are collected on how much 

WPM is reused. Review of the present rate of reuse in the United States 

indicates that one of every two WPM units is recycled and reused for 

shipping another load of cargo (Deomano, 2006b). Some countries are 

known to recycle more WPM than the United States. However, 

information about the actual rates of reuse by other countries is not readily 

available. Accordingly, we did not apply this information to any 

refinements of the methyl bromide release model. By disregarding this 

issue in the quantitative analysis, our calculated figures overestimate the 

number of WPM units treated by 50 percent or more. The lower usage of 

methyl bromide associated with less frequent need to treat WPM is, 

therefore, not reflected in the present estimates of methyl bromide released 

or in any previous estimates in the FEIS or earlier documents. As 

information related to this topic becomes available, continuing 

refinements of the methyl bromide estimates may be made in the future to 

more closely reflect actual usage. 

Implications of the compliance methods required by individual countries 

on international agreements and changes to international agreements affect 

4. Other 

 Fumigation 

 Issues 
III. Environmental Impact Analysis 23 

the pest risks and the usage of methyl bromide. Australia and New 

Zealand require all WPM to be debarked. This requirement increases 

the effective control of pests from methyl bromide and heat treatments 

(Biosecurity Australia, 2006), and lowers pest risk from WPM that is not 

completely debarked. The more rapid penetration of debarked 

wood, as compared to wood with bark, has not yet been suggested to 

justify changes to lower methyl bromide application rates, however, this 

topic may influence future regulations of WPM and other countries may 

require debarking of WPM to lower associated pest risks. It is also 

unclear how debarking affects emissions of methyl bromide upon venting. 

Although U.S. trade with Australia and New Zealand is relatively limited, 

as compared to the global trade, this issue could be important if other 

countries choose to require debarking of WPM from foreign origins to 

meet their phytosanitary needs as well. ISPM guidelines are subject to 

ongoing changes as various countries negotiate to ensure phytosanitary 

regulations meet their need to protect plant resources. The present 

treatment schedule for methyl bromide fumigation, under ISPM 15, ranges 

from 3 to 4 lbs per 1000 cubic feet for 24 hours (FAO, 2006; IPPC 

Secretariat, 2005). Future changes to the treatment schedule may not 

increase the application rate or necessitate the need for more usage of 

methyl bromide; however, APHIS continues to track proposed revisions to 

ensure that the potential impacts of all revisions to the international 

guidelines are considered. 

Some commodities are not marketable if fumigated with methyl bromide; 

some agricultural commodities lack a tolerance for bromine residues; 

some commodities, such as leather, react with methyl bromide such that 

strong odors are imparted to the product; and, some commodities, such as 

electronics, may be damaged by reaction with methyl bromide and, 

therefore, methyl bromide fumigation of such commodities is not 

permitted due to the loss of product. This restriction on methyl bromide 

treatment limits fumigation of already loaded cargo to those commodities 

that can tolerate the chemical and residual effects of the treatment. 

When the assumption is made that treatment of loaded cargo is the 

predominant method of fumigation in China, it is expected that the 

calculations from this assumption will overstate the methyl bromide 

estimate. This was clearly true for the early estimates made for the China 

Interim Rule, and is true for the present analysis where this assumption 

was applied to China and to other countries lacking information regarding 

the manner of their treatment methodology for ISPM 15 compliance. 

Although there is no detailed data available to support a precise estimate 

of methyl bromide usage in our model, this approach does ensure that 
24 III. Environmental Impact Analysis 

underestimation of potential release of methyl bromide from fumigations 

for China and these other countries does not occur for these estimates. 

World trade strongly influenced how various countries comply with 

ISPM 15 guidelines. China continues to use methyl bromide fumigation 

of loaded cargo to help facilitate more rapid export of their cargo for 

trading purposes. The eightfold increase in U.S. Customs cargo entries 

from China from 1998 to 2005 shows their commitment to the promotion 

of trade with the United States. Although other countries are also 

increasing their world trade, the overall increase in U.S. Customs entries is 

2.45-fold over the same time period. As is clear from those responses 

received by APHIS from phytosanitary authorities of these other large 

trading partners, their countries are relying on heat treatment rather than 

methyl bromide fumigation for compliance with ISPM 15, and their 

changes in trade are not dramatically affecting their usage of methyl 

bromide. Most countries have indicated that they plan to continue to 

decrease their usage of methyl bromide, particularly when there are 

effective alternate treatments available. 

E. Impact Assessment of Refined Methyl Bromide 

Estimates 

Refined methyl bromide estimates have been calculated using the methods 

described in appendix D and section III.D of this SEIS to more accurately 

reflect actual compliance with ISPM 15 and APHIS’ Wood Packaging 

Rule. The findings presented in table 3–1 show the estimated methyl 

bromide associated with direct compliance with APHIS’ rule to range 

from 744 to 2,110 MT annually. This estimate excludes the ongoing 

compliance by China and Hong Kong with the China Interim Rule, which 

is included in the comparison of aggregate consequences in part 3 of this 

section. Since the implementation of this alternative on September 16, 

2005, data for the compliance, under the IPPC alternative, have been 

collected and reviewed. These values are comparable to those presented 

on pages 67–68 of the FEIS (384 to 4,630 MT annually); however, as 

would be expected with better data, the range for the estimate is projected 

to be narrower. The broad range presented in the FEIS encompasses the 

more refined estimate in this supplement. That indicates that the initial 

projections in the FEIS were representative of the potential methyl 

bromide usage that has actually occurred for those countries in compliance 

with APHIS’ wood packaging rule. 

The effect on the stratospheric ozone of the estimated 744 to 2,100 MT of 

methyl bromide released annually from fumigations of WPM can be 

estimated by using the same methodology applied in previous documents. 

1. Adoption of 

the IPPC 

Guidelines 

(Proposed 

Alternative) 
III. Environmental Impact Analysis 25 

This is based upon the finding that there was a 1-percent effect on 

stratospheric ozone from overall global methyl bromide usage in 1996 

(NOAA et al., 1998). The annual global consumption of methyl bromide 

in 1996 was 63,960 MT (UNEP, 1998). 

Table 3–1. Summary of Estimated Methyl Bromide Released by 

Country/Region From Fumigations in Compliance With U.S. 

Wood Packaging Regulations Related to ISPM 15 

Country Total WPM Entries/Year Estimated Methyl 

Bromide/Year 

 (metric tons released) 

Australia/New Zealand 67,656 0.95–5.2 

Japan 742,134 2.1–12 

Korea 219,699 1.5–8.5 

Latin American Countries 

(excluding Nicaragua and 

Mercosur nations) 

195,479 11–38 

Mercosur Countries of South 

America 

193,122 2.7–13.8 

Nicaragua 9,369 0.32–0.36 

Taiwan 377,858 5.3–29 

Other SE Asian Countries 591,456 8.3–46 

Other Countries* 3,399,539 712–1,958 

Total 5,796,312 744–2,110 

* Includes those countries for which compliance data are lacking and those countries strictly 

complying by heat treatment of wood packaging material. 

Based upon this finding, the effect of methyl bromide usage in compliance 

with APHIS’ wood packaging rule is projected to pose a potential increase 

of 0.012 to 0.033 percent in annual depletion of stratospheric ozone. The 

implementation of this alternative, as demonstrated in this risk analysis, is 

causing depletion of the ozone layer commensurate to that anticipated in 

the FEIS. Therefore, no substantial changes to impacts on human health 

or to the environment are anticipated as a result of continuing 

implementation of this alternative. With the ongoing phaseout of most 

usage of methyl bromide (that has contributed up to only a 1-percent effect 

on stratospheric ozone), the continuing usage from compliance with 

APHIS’s WPM rule (which is less than one-thirtieth of total methyl 

bromide usage) is more than compensated by the dramatic overall 

reductions in usage that are continuing to occur. 
26 III. Environmental Impact Analysis 

Alternatives considered in the EIS include (1) No Action (no change in the 

current regulation), (2) extend the treatments in the China Interim Rule to 

all countries, (3) adoption of the International Plant Protection 

Convention’s (IPPC) “Guidelines for Regulating Wood Packaging 

Material in International Trade,” (the preferred alternative), (4) a 

comprehensive risk reduction program, and (5) substitute packing 

materials only. This section compares these alternatives based on the 

refined methyl bromide estimates generated from quantitative analyses in 

this WPM SEIS. 

There would be no new mandatory methyl bromide usage under the No 

Action alternative for WPM so this alternative involves no direct effects 

on methyl bromide usage per se. Therefore, the direct effects of the No 

Action alternative involve no immediate increase in effects on 

stratospheric ozone. However, those treatments associated with the China 

Interim Rule would continue. This continuing usage is part of the 

aggregate impacts of all methyl bromide usage. Under the No Action 

alternative, and based on the refined methyl bromide estimates, it is 

estimated that the potential usage of methyl bromide in China and Hong 

Kong would continue to range from 2,257 to 6,891 MT annually. This 

estimate poses a continuing potential annual depletion of 0.035 to 

0.108 percent of stratospheric ozone. This issue is discussed further in the 

comparison of aggregate impacts in part 3 of this section. 

Refined estimates were made for the alternative to extend those treatments 

used in the China Interim Rule worldwide. The estimated methyl bromide 

associated with compliance with this alternative ranges from 826 to 

2,345 MT annually. This refined estimate is encompassed by the broader 

range determined in the FEIS (see page 62 of the FEIS) for the methyl 

bromide estimate (427 to 5,145 MT annually). The effect on stratospheric 

ozone from the estimated 826 to 2,345 MT of methyl bromide released 

annually from fumigations using rates applicable to the China Interim 

Rule is projected to pose a potential increase of 0.013 to 0.037 percent in 

annual depletion of stratospheric ozone. This represents a slightly greater 

effect on the stratospheric ozone layer than was projected for the preferred 

alternative using APHIS’ wood packaging rule, however, not a 

substantially greater impact. It is, nonetheless, best to select effective 

treatments that pose the least adverse environmental impacts and APHIS’ 

wood packaging rule poses less damage to ozone than worldwide 

application of the China Interim Rule. 

The comprehensive risk reduction program provides the maximum 

flexibility to select methods and treatments that are the most effective at 

eliminating all potential pest risks. Since a comprehensive risk reduction 

2. Comparison 

of Methyl 

Bromide 

Estimates 

Among 

Alternatives 
III. Environmental Impact Analysis 27 

program uses a combination of methods, and it is unclear exactly how 

frequently specific methods will be selected, the potential environmental 

consequences vary considerably with the frequency of methods employed. 

It is not reasonable to speculate on the methyl bromide estimate with such 

potential variability. The potential human health and environmental 

consequences from this alternative are expected to be comparable to those 

described in the WPM FEIS. 

Substitute packaging material that poses no potential risk of ozone 

depletion was considered in the FEIS as a possible alternative to WPM. 

This alternative would not require the use of heat treatment or fumigation 

with methyl bromide; therefore, any potential human health and 

environmental consequences as a result of heat treatments or treatment 

with methyl bromide are not associated with this alternative. The 

worldwide implementation of this alternative would lower the release of 

methyl bromide from packaging material used in international trade. 

The WPM FEIS did a qualitative review of aggregate consequences of 

each alternative. The aggregate consequences of methyl bromide usage in 

compliance with ISPM 15 relate to the cumulative impact of all usage 

associated with the guidelines. Cumulative impact, as defined in NEPA 

(40 CFR 1508.7), is the “impact on the environment which results from 

the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions.” Most of the potential cumulative 

impacts associated with ongoing methyl bromide usage for quarantine and 

other purposes were discussed in detail in the FEIS for the Importation of 

Mexican Unmanufactured Wood (USDA, APHIS, 2002a). That document 

determined that most anticipated future quarantine treatments are not 

expected to pose significant effects to the stratospheric ozone layer, but it 

did analyze the more substantial usage of methyl bromide from the 

pending regulations being contemplated for the regulation of WPM 

worldwide. The Mexican Unmanufactured Wood FEIS roughly analyzed 

this issue based upon the set manner of compliance as was initially 

anticipated for the China Interim Rule. The lack of compliance data 

resulted in a projected estimate that was intentionally conservatively high. 

We now have data about how countries are complying with ISPM 15, and 

a more refined aggregate assessment of methyl bromide estimates and 

impacts associated with global WPM regulations is presented here. 

The cumulative usage of methyl bromide associated with regulations 

designed to meet the guidelines in ISPM 15 consists of methyl bromide 

usage from countries in compliance with APHIS’ wood packaging rule, 

countries’ compliance with the comparable regulations of other countries, 

and compliance of the United States with the regulations of these other 

countries. The previous section compares methyl bromide estimates for 

3. Comparison of 

Aggregate 

Consequences 

of the 

Alternatives 
28 III. Environmental Impact Analysis 

alternatives in regard to the direct compliance of other countries with 

APHIS’ wood packaging rule. Comparable estimates have been prepared 

for those countries that were already subject to APHIS regulations under 

the China Interim Rule (China and Hong Kong), and methyl bromide 

estimates are made for those countries (including the United States) that 

are not subject to APHIS’ regulations but must comply with the wood 

packaging regulations of other countries. These estimates for compliance 

with ISPM 15 guidelines are provided below in table 3–2. 

Table 3–2. Summary of Estimated Methyl Bromide Released by 

Country/Region From Fumigations in Compliance With Wood 

Packaging Regulations Related to ISPM 15 that are Part of the 

Aggregate Usage 

Country Total WPM Entries/Year Estimated Methyl 

Bromide/Year 

(metric tons released) 

Canada 3,526,952 25–68 

China 2,698,237 2,027–6,188 

Hong Kong 115,640 4.3–13.3 

Mexico 1,942,521 13.7–37.6 

U.S.A. 855,047 units fumigated in 2005 120–331 

Total 9,138,397 2,190–6,638 

The only country with considerable usage of methyl bromide is China. 

The original China estimate for the China Interim Rule projected a methyl 

bromide estimate ranging from 1,040 to 12,565 MT annually (USDA, 

APHIS, 1998b). The reported 2002 total methyl bromide production 

capacity of China=s three producers was 7,620 MT, however, their actual 

production was only 3,175 MT for all uses (Beijing Times, 2003; UNEP, 

2003). Although fumigation of WPM uses substantial amounts of methyl 

bromide, much of the usage reported in 2002 was for other uses, including 

pre-shipment and other quarantine treatments. Although some increased 

consumption has probably occurred between 2002 and 2005, the methyl 

bromide estimates (2,027 to 6,188 MT per year) determined in this SEIS 

for China are within the range of possible usage, but the upper tail of the 

distribution is probably high. This projected estimate poses a potential 

increase of 0.032 to 0.097 percent in annual depletion of stratospheric 

ozone. The methyl bromide estimates for compliance of other countries 

with ISPM 15 are associated with considerably lower effects to 

stratospheric ozone than results from the compliance of China. 
III. Environmental Impact Analysis 29 

In assessing the overall cumulative impact, it is important to add all 

contributing sources of methyl bromide to those determined as direct 

impacts from the imposed regulations. The data for the United States 

estimate are based upon actual units fumigated with methyl bromide in 

2005 and, thereby, provide a relatively accurate cumulative estimate. 

Estimates for the other countries are determined by using U.S. Customs 

entries. The data regarding methyl bromide estimates for Canada and 

Mexico pertain to their usage for export to other countries based upon 

information about their manner of compliance with ISPM 15. 

The methyl bromide estimates presented in the previous section 

comparing alternatives (section III.D.2.) provide numerical estimates for 

compliance with APHIS’ regulations and the China Interim Rule 

alternative. However, all these countries must comply with ISPM 

regulations of countries other than the United States as well as APHIS’ 

WPM rule. The lack of reliable data about the amount of world trade 

among countries other than the United States and associated WPM with 

that trade makes any cumulative analysis speculative and therefore, the 

aggregate methyl bromide estimates and effects for each alternatives in 

this SEIS are limited to the relative effects of imports to and exports from 

the United States. 

The aggregate methyl bromide usage associated with the No Action 

alternative is equal to that of China and Hong Kong in compliance with 

the China Interim Rule. There would be no other methyl bromide usage in 

compliance with this alternative. The potential cumulative estimate for 

WPM treatment associated with the No Action alternative ranges from 

2,257 to 6,891 MT annually. This estimate poses a potential increase of 

0.035 to 0.108 percent in annual depletion of stratospheric ozone. The 

elevated estimate is the result of the manner of treatment applied to China 

compliance (fumigation of sealed containers after cargo loading) and the 

higher application rate of methyl bromide for the China Interim Rule. 

The upper end of the projections for all cumulative estimates are not 

realistic based upon reported production and consumption data from 

China. It is clear that the upper end of range is conservatively high. The 

potential aggregate impact of this alternative is lower because it includes 

only methyl bromide fumigations in China and Hong Kong. 

Consequently, cumulative human health and environmental consequences 

from methyl bromide usage under this alternative are slightly lower. 

The aggregate projection of all methyl bromide estimates for compliance 

with ISPM 15 (preferred alternative), based upon the above described 

analytical reasoning (overall compliance with APHIS’ WPM rule and 

reciprocal compliance by the United States), ranges from 2,895 to 

8,642 MT per year. This estimate poses a potential increase of 0.045 to 
30 III. Environmental Impact Analysis 

0.135 percent in annual depletion of stratospheric ozone. The 

implementation of this alternative, as demonstrated in this risk analysis, 

shows potential depletion of the ozone layer commensurate to that 

anticipated in the FEIS. Therefore, no substantial changes to impacts on 

human health or to the environment are anticipated as a result of 

continuing implementation of this alternative. With the ongoing phaseout 

of most usage of methyl bromide (that has contributed up to only a 1-

percent effect on stratospheric ozone), the continuing usage from 

compliance with APHIS’ WPM rule (which is about one-tenth of total 

methyl bromide usage) is more than compensated by the dramatic overall 

reductions in usage that are continuing to occur. 

The comparable aggregate projection for methyl bromide estimates in 

compliance with worldwide extension of the China Interim Rule, based 

upon this same analytical reasoning, provides a range of 3,216 to 

9,604 MT per year. Similar issues of uncertainty to those expressed about 

the cumulative China compliance are also applicable here. This estimate 

poses a potential increase of 0.050 to 0.150 percent in the annual depletion 

of stratospheric ozone. Although the aggregate impact from methyl 

bromide usage associated with this alternative is greater than for the 

preferred alternative, any potential impacts of this alternative would be 

compensated in similar manner to that of the preferred alternative by the 

reductions in usage due to the continuing phaseout of other uses. 

Aggregate methyl bromide estimates are not prepared for the remaining 

two alternatives. As discussed in the comparison of alternatives section of 

this document, it is not reasonable to attempt to project an aggregate 

methyl bromide estimate for usage under the comprehensive risk reduction 

program alternative with the wide variability of methods. Further, the 

alternative use of substitute packaging materials involves no fumigation 

with methyl bromide. 
Appendix A. Preparers A–1 

Appendix A. Preparers 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

Policy and Program Development, Environmental Services 

4700 River Road 

Riverdale, MD 20737 

David A. Bergsten

Biological Scientist 

 B.S. Environmental Science 

 M.S. Entomology 

 M.P.H. Disease Control 

 Ph.D. Toxicology 

Background: Biological Scientist in ES with expertise in environmental 

toxicology, chemical fate, and pesticide research. More than 20 years 

experience with APHIS including environmental protection, field, and 

port inspection experience. Experience in preparing environmental 

documentation for other major APHIS programs, in compliance with 

Federal statutes. 

EIS Responsibility: Project manager for the draft SEIS—wrote parts of 

the Executive Summary, chapter 1, and chapter 3. Reviewed and 

contributed to other chapters and to the appendices. Responsible for 

coordination and team management on final documentation 

Elizabeth E. Nelson 

Environment Protection Specialist

B.S. Biology 

 M.S. Healthcare Administration

Background: Environmental Protection Specialist in ES. Six years of 

service with APHIS. Experience in environmental compliance, 

especially those associated with the Endangered Species Act, in the 

context of trade agreements, pest management, and pesticide regulations. 

Provides assistance on environmental documentation teams and 

participates in preparing and reviewing written analyses. 

EIS Responsibility: EIS Analyst—contributed to the preparation of the 

draft SEIS. Wrote parts of the three chapters and reviewed other parts of 

other chapters and the appendices. 
A–2 Appendix A. Preparers

 

Betsey L. Coakley

Writer/Editor 

 B.A. Sociology 

Background: Over 16 years of service with APHIS, with administrative 

and clerical experience with Plant Protection and Quarantine, and Policy 

and Program Development. Currently serving as Writer/Editor with ES. 

EIS Responsibility: EIS Editor—desktop publishing of the EIS 

(including editing, format, and document security). 
Appendix B. Cooperation, B–1 

Review, and Consultation

Appendix B. Cooperation, Review, and Consultation 

The following individuals have cooperated in the development of this draft 

supplement to the final environmental impact statement (FEIS), were 

consulted on critical issues that have been addressed in this draft supplement 

to the FEIS, or reviewed draft sections of this supplement to the FEIS. The 

expertise and concerns of these individuals were considered during the 

development of this draft supplement to the FEIS. There may be some 

aspects of the draft supplement to the FEIS or its incorporated analyses 

which are not endorsed by all of the cooperators and consultants. 

Michael Simon Senior Staff Officer

Quarantine Policy, Analysis and Support 

Plant Protection and Quarantine 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

4700 River Road, Unit 60 

Riverdale, MD 20737 

Hesham A. Abuelnaga Import Specialist 

Plant Protection and Quarantine 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

United States Department of Agriculture 

4700 River Road, Unit 133 

Riverdale, MD 20737 

John H. Payne Acting Director 

Plant Health Programs 

Plant Protection and Quarantine 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

United States Department of Agriculture 

4700 River Road, Unit 131 

Riverdale, MD 20737 
B–2 Appendix B. Cooperation, 

Review, and Consultation 

(This page is intentionally left blank.)
Appendix C. Final Rule on Importation C–1 

of Solid Wood Packing Material

Appendix C. Final Rule on Importation of Wood 

Packaging Material 
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.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

55719

Vol. 69, No. 179

Thursday, September 16, 2004

1 ‘‘International Standards for Phytosanitary 

Measures: Guidelines for Regulating Wood 

Packaging Material in International Trade,’’ 

Secretariat of the International Plant Protection 

Convention, Food and Agriculture Organization of 

the United Nations, Rome: 2002.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

7 CFR Part 319 

[Docket No. 02–032–3] 

RIN 0579–AB48 

Importation of Wood Packaging 

Material

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: We are amending the 

regulations for the importation of 

unmanufactured wood articles to adopt 

an international standard entitled 

‘‘Guidelines for Regulating Wood 

Packaging Material in International 

Trade’’ that was approved by the 

Interim Commission on Phytosanitary 

Measures of the International Plant 

Protection Convention on March 15, 

2002. The standard calls for wood 

packaging material to be either heat 

treated or fumigated with methyl 

bromide, in accordance with the 

Guidelines, and marked with an 

approved international mark certifying 

treatment. This change will affect all 

persons using wood packaging material 

in connection with importing goods into 

the United States.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 16, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

William Aley, Senior Import Specialist, 

Phytosanitary Issues Management Team, 

PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 140, 

Riverdale, MD 20737–1236; (301) 734–

5057.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Logs, lumber, and other 

unmanufactured wood articles imported 

into the United States pose a significant 

hazard of introducing plant pests, 

including pathogens, detrimental to 

agriculture and to natural, cultivated, 

and urban forest resources. The 

regulations in 7 CFR 319.40–1 through 

319.40–11 (referred to below as the 

regulations) contain provisions to 

mitigate plant pest risk presented by the 

importation of logs, lumber, or other 

unmanufactured wood articles. 

The regulations restrict the 

importation of many types of wood 

articles, including wooden packaging 

material such as pallets, crates, boxes, 

and pieces of wood used to support or 

brace cargo. The regulations currently 

refer to these types of wood packaging 

material as solid wood packing material 

(SWPM), defined as ‘‘[w]ood packing 

materials other than loose wood packing 

materials, used or for use with cargo to 

prevent damage, including, but not 

limited to, dunnage, crating, pallets, 

packing blocks, drums, cases, and 

skids.’’ Introductions into the United 

States of exotic plant pests such as the 

pine shoot beetle Tomicus piniperda

(Scolytidae) and the Asian longhorned 

beetle Anaplophora glabripennis

(Cerambycidae) have been linked to the 

importation of SWPM. These and other 

plant pests that are carried by some 

imported SWPM pose a serious threat to 

U.S. agriculture and to natural, 

cultivated, and urban forests. 

Beyond the threat to the United 

States, the introduction of pests 

associated with SWPM is a worldwide 

problem. Because SWPM is very often 

reused, recycled or remanufactured, the 

true origin of any piece of SWPM is 

difficult to determine and thus its 

phytosanitary status cannot be 

ascertained. This often precludes 

national plant protection organizations 

from conducting useful specific risk 

analyses focused on the pests associated 

with SWPM of a particular type or place 

of origin, and imposing particular 

mitigation measures based on the results 

of such analysis. For this reason, there 

is a need to develop globally accepted 

measures that may be applied to SWPM 

by all countries to practically eliminate 

the risk for most quarantine pests and 

significantly reduce the risk from other 

pests that may be associated with the 

SWPM. In the case of phytosanitary 

standards, the international standardsetting organization is the International 

Plant Protection Convention (IPPC). 

In a proposed rule published in the 

Federal Register on May 20, 2003 (68 

FR 27480–27491; Docket No. 02–032–2), 

the Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service (APHIS) proposed to amend the 

regulations to decrease the risk of 

SWPM introducing plant pests into the 

United States by adopting the 

international phytosanitary standard 1

for wood packaging material (referred to 

below as the IPPC Guidelines) that was 

approved by the IPPC on March 15, 

2002. We proposed to apply the 

standard to wood packaging material 

from all places, including China, and to 

remove the special provisions for wood 

packaging material from China in 7 CFR 

319.40–5(g) through (k).

The IPPC Guidelines were developed 

after the IPPC determined that 

worldwide, the movement of SWPM 

made of unprocessed raw wood is a 

pathway for the introduction and spread 

of a variety of pests (IPPC Guidelines, p. 

5). The IPPC Guidelines list the major 

categories of these pests, and establish 

a heat treatment and a fumigation 

treatment determined to be effective 

against them (IPPC Guidelines, p. 10). 

We proposed to adopt the IPPC 

Guidelines because they represent the 

current international standard 

determined in 2002 to be necessary and 

effective for controlling pests in SWPM. 

The need to adopt the IPPC Guidelines 

is further supported by analysis of pest 

interceptions at U.S. ports that show an 

increase in dangerous pests associated 

with certain SWPM. This increase in 

pests was found in SWPM that does not 

meet the IPPC Guidelines (e.g., SWPM 

from everywhere except China). There 

has been a decrease in pests associated 

with SWPM material from China since 

we began requiring that material be 

treated prior to importation. 

Another reason to adopt the IPPC 

Guidelines at this time is that adopting 

them would simplify and standardize 

trade requirements. China, Canada, the 

European Union, and many other 

countries are preparing to implement 

the IPPC Guidelines requirements. 

Given the difficulty of identifying the 

source of SWPM and the recycling of 

SWPM in trade, successful reduction of 

the pest risk posed by SWPM requires 

55720 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 179 / Thursday, September 16, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

all trading partners to take action on a 

similar timeline. 

Furthermore, adopting a uniform 

international standard means that U.S. 

companies will not need to comply with 

one set of SWPM requirements for goods 

exported from the United States and 

another set of requirements for goods 

imported into the United States. 

Companies engaged in both import and 

export would have particular difficulties 

in ensuring that their SWPM supply 

chain is sorted and routed to comply 

with differing requirements for different 

destinations. After this final rule takes 

effect, these companies will be able to 

use SWPM that complies with the 

Guidelines for both import and export 

purposes, leveling the trade playing 

field with regard to SWPM. Using 

SWPM that has been treated and marked 

in accordance with the Guidelines will 

also reduce the practice, common in 

trade today, of re-treating SWPM 

immediately prior to its reuse to assure 

the receiving country that treated 

SWPM is used with a shipment. This 

reduction in re-treatment will reduce 

costs to importers and procedural 

burdens for national plant protection 

agencies, and will also reduce 

unnecessary emissions of methyl 

bromide associated with such 

unnecessary re-treatment. 

We accepted comments on the 

proposed rule for 60 days, ending July 

21, 2003. We also accepted comments at 

three public hearings held in Seattle, 

WA, on June 23, 2003; in Long Beach, 

CA, on June 25, 2003; and in 

Washington, DC, on June 27, 2003. 

During the comment period we received 

approximately 970 comments on the 

proposal, including approximately 905 

slight variants of a single e-mail form 

letter. The issues raised in these 

comments are discussed below. 

As a result of our review of 

comments, we have decided to make the 

following changes from the proposal in 

this final rule: 

• We are changing the term ‘‘solid 

wood packing material’’ to ‘‘wood 

packaging material’’ throughout the 

regulations; and 

• We are excluding from the 

definition of wood packaging material, 

and thereby excluding from treatment 

requirements, pieces of wood that are 

less than 6 mm (0.24 in) in any 

dimension, because pieces of wood of 

this size are too thin to present any 

significant pest risk. 

Comments have also led APHIS to 

make some changes in our plans and 

schedule for implementing the final 

rule. No changes to the text of the rule 

were necessary in response to these 

comments. Changes we made to the rule 

and to our implementation plans are 

discussed below in detail.

Summary and Analysis of Comments 

More than 95 percent of the 

comments applauded the intent of 

APHIS to protect United States forest 

and agricultural resources against the 

danger represented by pests associated 

with wood packaging material. 

However, the same commenters were 

concerned that the proposed rule would 

not adequately protect our forests from 

plant pests like the Asian longhorned 

beetle and were concerned that the 

proposal would cause other harm to the 

environment, namely increased 

depletion of the ozone layer due to use 

of methyl bromide as a fumigant. These 

commenters urged APHIS not to adopt 

the proposed rule, but to look for 

alternatives that will fully protect the 

United States from wood-borne invasive 

species while not sacrificing the ozone 

layer. These commenters suggested that 

one option would be to phase out the 

use of wood packaging material and 

replace it with manufactured wood and 

plastic crates and pallets, which the 

commenters suggested would be free of 

pest dangers and could be reused for a 

long time. 

A number of commenters supported 

adoption of the IPPC Guidelines, but 

suggested a variety of exemptions for 

particular articles, or modifications of 

import clearance procedures, in order to 

minimize adverse effects of 

implementing the IPPC Guidelines. 

Several commenters also suggested that 

the regulation should be implemented 

on a delayed basis, or on a scheduled 

phase-in with several incremental 

levels, in order to give importers and 

other businesses time to adjust to the 

new requirements. 

Several commenters made comments 

about the effectiveness or availability of 

the fumigation and heat treatments 

contained in the IPPC Guidelines, or 

suggested alternative treatments. 

Several commenters addressed the 

international standard mark that we 

proposed should be placed on every 

piece of wood packaging material that 

has been treated in accordance with the 

regulations. Some of these commenters 

suggested that it was not practical to 

apply the mark to all packaging 

materials, especially materials such as 

dunnage that are specially cut to 

support cargo. 

APHIS has carefully considered all 

the comments, suggestions, requests for 

clarification, and concerns raised by 

commenters. Several modifications have 

been made in this final rule in response 

to the comments. In the next section we 

provide detailed responses to the issues 

raised by commenters, and explain the 

modifications made in response to these 

comments. 

Terminology 

Comment: APHIS regulations refer to 

the materials being regulated as solid 

wood packing materials (SWPM), but 

the IPPC Guidelines uses the term wood 

packaging material (WPM). It would be 

less confusing if APHIS used the term 

wood packaging material, since this is 

the preferred term in international 

commerce and in the IPPC Guidelines 

that many other countries are adopting. 

Response: We agree, and throughout 

our regulations we are changing the 

term solid wood packing materials 

(SWPM) to wood packaging material 

(WPM). 

In the proposal, APHIS did not use 

the term ‘‘wood packaging material’’ for 

two reasons. Our existing regulations 

have used the alternate term ‘‘solid 

wood packing materials’’ for more than 

8 years, and persons applying our 

regulations are familiar with the term. 

Also, in the IPPC Guidelines the term 

wood packaging material is defined as 

‘‘Wood or wood products (excluding 

paper products) used in supporting, 

protecting or carrying a commodity 

(includes dunnage).’’ This definition is 

broader than the APHIS term solid 

wood packing material. WPM as defined 

by the IPPC includes manufactured 

wood such as plywood, veneer, and 

fiberboard, as well as loose wood 

materials such as shavings and 

excelsior. The IPPC Guidelines then 

distinguish between types of WPM that 

should be regulated because they 

present a risk (e.g., raw wood pallets 

and dunnage), and types that should not 

be regulated because they present little 

risk (e.g., manufactured wood and 

shavings). 

We thought this approach was 

ungainly when used in regulations, and 

that it would be better to use a different 

term (SWPM) that applied only to the 

types of wooden materials used in 

packing that we wanted to regulate. 

Upon further consideration, we agree 

that the benefits of using the term WPM 

outweigh the advantages of using the 

term SWPM. However, while the 

definition of WPM in our regulations 

will match the definition used in the 

IPPC Guidelines, we will also add a 

definition of regulated wood packaging 

material. The definition of this new 

term includes only the types of WPM 

we consider to be regulated articles. The 

new definition of regulated WPM 

closely resembles our current definition 

of SWPM, and reads as follows: ‘‘Wood 

packing materials other than 

manufactured wood materials, loose 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 179 / Thursday, September 16, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 55721

wood packing materials, and wood 

pieces less than 6 mm (0.24 in) thick in 

any dimension, that are used or that are 

for use with cargo to prevent damage, 

including, but not limited to, dunnage, 

crating, pallets, packing blocks, drums, 

cases, and skids.’’ Therefore, in our 

regulations WPM refers to the type of 

articles covered by the IPPC Guidelines 

definition of WPM, and regulated WPM 

refers to the type of articles that the 

IPPC Guidelines refer to in their section 

on ‘‘Regulated Wood Packaging 

Material.’’

This definition of regulated WPM 

differs from the existing definition of 

SWPM in that it explicitly excludes 

manufactured wood materials, such as 

fiber board, plywood, whisky and wine 

barrels, and veneer. APHIS has never 

regulated such materials, but the 

definition of SWPM did not make that 

clear. The definition of regulated WPM 

also excludes pieces of wood that are 

less than 6 mm in any dimension. 

Pieces of wood of this size are excluded 

because they are too thin to present any 

significant pest risk, and because the 

IPPC Guidelines suggest the 6 mm 

threshold for excluding wood pieces 

from regulation. This exclusion will 

exempt from regulation many types of 

small boxes used to ship fruit or other 

articles. 

Phasing Out WPM in Favor of 

Manufactured Materials 

Comment: APHIS should look for 

alternatives that will fully protect the 

United States from wood-borne invasive 

species while not sacrificing the ozone 

layer by encouraging methyl bromide 

fumigation. One such option would be 

to phase out the use of WPM and 

replace it with manufactured wood and 

plastic crates and pallets, which would 

be free of pest dangers and could be reused for a long time. 

Response: APHIS has considered 

many alternatives to diminish pest risk 

from WPM. Many commenters have 

suggested that APHIS reduce worldwide 

methyl bromide emissions by relying 

instead on one of two pest reduction 

alternatives, either requiring heat 

treatment of WPM, or banning use of 

unmanufactured WPM and requiring 

use of manufactured wood, plastic, 

metal, or other alternative packing 

materials. 

In keeping with our commitments to 

the objectives of the Montreal Protocol, 

APHIS actively cooperates with other 

agencies and institutions to identify and 

validate technically and economically 

feasible alternatives to methyl bromide. 

Also, as the agency responsible for 

representing the United States to the 

International Plant Protection 

Convention with respect to the 

international phytosanitary standards 

established by the IPPC, APHIS will 

work closely with current initiatives 

within the IPPC to develop alternative 

treatments to methyl bromide and will 

strive to have any validated treatments 

incorporated into future revisions of the 

IPPC Guidelines. APHIS will also be 

working independently to evaluate and 

consider treatment alternatives to 

methyl bromide, and communicate this 

information through the proper 

channels in IPPC for technical review 

and approval. Whenever either APHIS 

independent evaluations or revisions to 

IPPC Guidelines make such validated 

alternatives available, APHIS will make 

the necessary changes to its quarantine 

regulations and procedures to provide 

for their use. 

A comprehensive review of the IPPC 

Guidelines is due to be initiated under 

the IPPC by 2007. The United States 

intends to participate in, and bring to 

bear our technical and research 

expertise on, this review within the 

IPPC to ensure alternatives are 

continually examined and given due 

consideration. The IPPC Guidelines 

itself recognizes that phosphine and CPI 

methods are particularly worth 

revisiting with respect to the availability 

of data related to the efficacy of these 

methods in treating target pests for 

wood packaging material. 

Methyl bromide as a class I ozonedepleting substance has been found to 

cause or contribute significantly to 

harmful effects on the stratospheric 

ozone layer and has adverse 

atmospheric effects substantially greater 

than those associated with the 

alternatives of heat treatment of WPM or 

use of alternative packing materials. 

Whenever APHIS advises on treatment 

alternatives, we encourage use of heat 

treatment or alternative packing 

materials in preference to methyl 

bromide fumigation. At present, it 

appears that manufacturers in many 

countries, including the European 

Union and the United States, prefer to 

use only heat treatment for the WPM 

they produce. Trends suggest 

substitution of heat treatment for methyl 

bromide will continue to grow. 

However, during development of the 

IPPC Guidelines some developing 

nations advised against allowing only 

heat treatment and not methyl bromide 

as an allowed treatment on the grounds 

that the higher cost of heat treatment 

makes it economically unfeasible for 

these countries at this time.

Regarding alternative packing 

materials, the final environmental 

impact statement (FEIS) concluded (pp. 

79–80) that these would achieve the 

greatest possible reduction in risk from 

the introduction of pests and pathogens 

associated with WPM. While heat 

treating or fumigating WPM are also 

both highly efficacious in controlling 

risk, use of alternative packing materials 

reduces risk even more. The 

manufacture and use of alternative 

packing materials also generates only 

minimal amounts of ozone-depleting 

chemicals. However, fumigation of 

WPM with methyl bromide and heat 

treatment of WPM are currently the 

most economical means of producing 

safe packing materials. Alternative 

packing materials cost much more. In 

addition to a cost that is currently 

beyond the reach of exporters in many 

developing countries, recovery and 

reuse of alternative packing materials 

requires a more complex infrastructure 

than is required by reuse of WPM. 

Finally, there are some costs associated 

with the durability of alternative 

materials. While many metal, plastic, 

and manufactured wood alternatives are 

very durable and can be used for more 

shipments than typical WPM, some 

alternative packing materials, such as 

particle board, are limited in their 

ability to withstand the conditions that 

routinely occur during transport. 

It is difficult to quantitatively 

compare the costs of requiring 

alternative packing materials to the 

benefits that would accrue from their 

use. The FEIS and the economic 

analysis for this rule do estimate costs 

to exporters of using substitute packing 

materials and compare these to the cost 

of heat treatment or methyl bromide 

fumigation. However, we are unable to 

realistically estimate the benefits that 

could result using substitute materials. 

None of the commenters suggested 

methods or provided data to do such 

analysis. 

APHIS will continue to encourage use 

of alternative packing materials by 

exporters for whom they are 

economically feasible. There is 

incentive for the shipping industry to 

contain costs of packing material, and 

by requiring treatment of WPM, this rule 

will slightly increase the average cost of 

WPM. This increase in the cost of WPM 

may actually provide incentive to some 

exporters to seek cost-effective 

alternatives such as corrugated board, 

veneer, oriented strand board, and 

plywood. 

In choosing among alternatives, 

APHIS looks for choices that are both 

technically and economically feasible. 

Since treated WPM does provide an 

acceptable level of protection against 

pests, we believe that it is not necessary 

to exclude unmanufactured wood from 

use as packaging material for imported 

55722 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 179 / Thursday, September 16, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

cargo. Properly treated WPM is a safe 

packaging material that can be reused 

many times and that causes minimal 

environmental impacts when disposed 

of or recycled. 

On the other hand, prohibiting the use 

of unmanufactured wood as a packaging 

material would have significant negative 

consequences in economic and 

environmental arenas. Wood is often the 

only packaging material readily and 

cheaply available (either through 

domestic production or importation) in 

developing countries that export basic 

products without elaborate packaging. 

The major alternative materials for 

packaging are processed wood, plastic, 

and metal. Pallets or crates made from 

these materials cost from two to four 

times more than WPM. 

Comment: The APHIS proposal is of 

uncertain effectiveness and will result 

in damage to the stratospheric ozone 

layer, and APHIS therefore should adopt 

a regulation that specifies a deadline by 

which all incoming packaging must be 

made from materials other than solid 

wood or boards. These commenters 

stated that this strategy would achieve 

all three national goals at stake in this 

rule: Accommodating rising trade 

volumes, protecting forests from exotic 

pests, and protecting the stratospheric 

ozone layer. 

Several commenters also stated that 

APHIS should require use of 

manufactured alternatives to WPM 

because the cost of these alternative 

materials is easily offset by the 

reduction of inspection costs and 

speeding the movement of cargo 

through our ports. They stated this 

would also reduce the necessity for 

expensive government programs to 

control invasive species that come in as 

hitchhikers in solid wood built crates 

and containers. 

A commenter who disagreed with 

those advocating that APHIS require 

manufactured alternatives stated that a 

preference for using these alternate 

materials is based on flawed and 

inaccurate arguments that assume that 

the IPPC Guidelines will result in an 

increased demand for wood products 

and thus translate into negative 

environmental effects. This commenter 

stated that overall life-cycle impacts 

show far greater negative environmental 

impacts from using nonwood substitute 

materials. Also, the commenter stated 

that an outright ban on the use of WPM, 

in favor of substitute materials, without 

credible and proven scientific 

justification would be inconsistent with 

the World Trade Organization 

agreements. 

Response: Please also see the above 

response. This rule allows, but does not 

require, methyl bromide use, and also 

allows use of untreated alternative 

(manufactured) packing materials, and 

also offers heat treatment as an 

alternative to fumigation with methyl 

bromide. Heat treatment does not 

generate gases that could cause damage 

to the stratospheric ozone layer. 

The commenters who suggested that 

the cost of using alternative materials 

would be offset by the reduction of 

inspection costs and speeding the 

movement of cargo did not offer data to 

support that theory. While inspectors do 

spend somewhat less time clearing 

manufactured packing materials 

compared to clearing WPM, APHIS 

doubts that the savings would come 

close to offsetting the costs, because 

many articles besides WPM must be 

inspected at ports (such as the regulated 

articles often packed in WPM). While 

faster cargo clearance would benefit 

importers, the value of this benefit is 

uncertain, and in any event, importers 

are free to use alternative packing 

materials if they perceive a benefit in 

doing so. We also note that importers 

can also achieve faster cargo clearance 

and fewer inspections by establishing a 

history of compliance for their 

shipments; if their WPM is consistently 

properly treated and marked, and free 

from pests of concern, their shipments 

may be cleared faster.

Regarding the commenter who stated 

that the rule will not result in an 

increase in the use of WPM versus 

alternative materials, we agree. As 

discussed above, the rule may actually 

act to increase the number of exporters 

choosing alternative materials, since the 

additional cost of treating WPM will 

bring its total cost closer to the cost of 

some alternative materials. We also 

agree with the commenter that overall 

life-cycle impacts show negative 

environmental impacts from using 

nonwood substitute materials, but we 

do not agree that these would be ‘‘far 

greater’’ than the environmental impacts 

from using treated WPM. We have not 

seen any quantitative data that supports 

the position that the environmental 

costs of using nonwood substitutes 

would likely be greater than those for 

using WPM. We agree that mandating 

use of alternative materials would not 

represent the least restrictive necessary 

action, and would have adverse effects 

throughout the international trade 

economy. 

Comment: An adequate assessment of 

any adverse environmental impacts 

associated with use of WPM must 

include a comparison of substitute 

materials that would take the place of 

wood-based packaging material. On 

those terms, the results are crystal clear. 

By any water quality, air pollution, or 

energy use environmental measure, 

wood products are clearly 

environmental performance leaders. It 

takes between 33 and 47 percent less 

energy to produce a wood product than 

to produce a similar product made from 

competing materials such as concrete 

and steel, and producing WPM results 

in less carbon dioxide emissions. 

Response: Alternative packaging 

materials do have higher production 

costs than WPM, including greater 

energy costs. When harvested under 

careful management, trees can be a 

replenishable resource, unlike 

petroleum or metal ores. When WPM 

has exhausted its useful life, it can be 

recycled into products like particle 

board at a lower fiscal and 

environmental cost than plastic or metal 

can be recycled. However, the need to 

treat WPM must be taken into account 

when assessing the environmental 

impacts associated with it. While we 

believe authorizing use of treated WPM 

is a reasonable balance among pest risk, 

economic, and environmental concerns, 

we do not conclude that WPM is the 

‘‘clear environmental performance 

leader.’’ For further discussion of this 

issue, see the section of this document 

titled ‘‘National Environmental Policy 

Act,’’ and section IV(A)(5) of the FEIS, 

which states ‘‘Wood has certain 

advantages from the environmental 

perspective. Renewability gives wood a 

large advantage over other materials. 

The manufacture of wood products 

requires substantially less energy than 

the production of substitute products. 

Wood product manufacture results in 

less greenhouse gas and other air 

pollutant emissions.’’

Comment: If WPM were banned in 

favor of alternative materials, it would 

not only destroy an industry, it would 

significantly increase costs to shippers, 

which would be passed on to 

consumers. Metal pallets are too 

expensive and heavy. Plastic pallets, 

unlike WPM, are not biodegradable, and 

are a major and toxic fire hazard. More 

goods are coming into this country than 

are going out. Most of them are on 

pallets. Wooden pallets can be 

disassembled and recycled, if not as 

pallets then as landscape mulch or 

wood stove pellets. Pallets made of 

plastic or metal will begin to pile up in 

landfills across America. Landfills could 

expect to realize exponential growth of 

nonbiodegradable pallets. 

Response: We partly agree with this 

comment, as discussed above. However, 

a minority of shippers already choose to 

use alternative pallet materials, which 

shows that the choice must be 

economically viable in some 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 179 / Thursday, September 16, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 55723

circumstances. We also note that 

because this rule applies only to articles 

imported into the United States, neither 

the rule nor the alternative of requiring 

alternative materials would destroy the 

market for WPM produced in the United 

States. Untreated WPM could still be 

used in domestic commerce, or in 

exports to any country that has not 

implemented the IPPC Guidelines or a 

similar treatment requirements. 

In addition, selection of the available 

alternate packaging materials does 

include the continuing use of processed 

wood. This includes plywood, 

corrugated packaging materials, etc. 

These are products of the wood industry 

that pose comparable disposal and 

recycling capability to that of WPM. 

Some are cost-competitive with WPM, 

and required treatment costs under 

adoption of the IPPC Guidelines could 

make the selection of some of these 

alternate packing materials more 

favorable to the shipping industry. 

Treatment Effectiveness 

Comment: The proposed treatment 

measures, especially methyl bromide 

fumigation, have not been proven 

effective against pathogens. While 

APHIS says that few pathogens are 

detected on wood packaging, the agency 

concedes in its draft environmental 

impact statement (DEIS) and other 

publications that inspectors have great 

difficulty detecting pathogens; therefore, 

it has not been proved that pathogens 

represent as minor a threat as APHIS 

now implies. Furthermore, the DEIS 

associated with this rulemaking states 

that some deep wood-borers also might 

not be killed by the proposed 

treatments. Our concerns about efficacy 

are heightened by the fact that the IPPC 

standard does not require debarking the 

wood before further treatment. 

Debarking is key to improving the 

already questionable ability of methyl 

bromide to penetrate the wood to kill 

deep wood pests. 

Response: The basis for international 

acceptance of the efficacy provided by 

the IPPC Guidelines is the review by 

IPPC member countries of certain 

reference documents that are now 

posted in a link from the APHIS Web 

page at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/

swp/approved_guideline.html. 

Historically, the pest risks of WPM were 

manageable by inspection when 

international trade was more limited. 

All commenters have acknowledged the 

need for increased protection of wood 

resources, but there are differences of 

opinion about the level of protection 

needed to mitigate pest risks. 

Although some may contend that the 

regulations are overly protective, others 

are not satisfied with this level of 

protection. The approach taken by 

APHIS is to regulate according to 

demonstrated risk level. The adoption of 

the IPPC Guidelines would dramatically 

decrease the pest risk of concern to 

APHIS posed by importation of WPM. 

Selection of this regulatory approach 

does not prevent APHIS from further 

deliberation on more intensive 

regulation if the protection measures are 

determined to be inadequate for specific 

risks from pests of concern. 

Enforcement of the IPPC Guidelines 

could provide a baseline for 

determining any need for further 

protective measures. 

Comment: The two treatment options 

allowed under the rule—heat treatment 

and methyl bromide fumigation—have 

an unacceptably high rate of failure to 

stop invasive pests traveling in solid 

wood packaging. In the DEIS, APHIS 

itself has questioned the efficacy of heat 

and methyl bromide treatments. 

Response: There are differences of 

opinion among commenters regarding 

the effectiveness of treatments in the 

IPPC Guidelines to eliminate invasive 

pests in WPM. The DEIS does not 

question the efficacy of these treatment 

methods per se, but it does indicate the 

advantages and limitations of each 

treatment method to eliminate pest 

risks. The DEIS does not take a position 

as to whether the treatments in the IPPC 

Guidelines will be the ultimate solution 

or part of the ultimate solution, but the 

development of additional data about 

efficacy and pest exclusion for all 

potential pests and pathogens may lead 

to further consideration of these 

phytosanitary regulations by APHIS.

Comment: Instead of the proposed 

treatments, APHIS should require WPM 

to be subject to the documented 

effective treatment for wood products, 

heat treatment with or without moisture 

reduction as specified under the APHIS 

universal treatment option: 71 °C at the 

center of the material for 75 minutes. 

This treatment would substantially 

minimize the threat of introduction of 

injurious organisms. Until other 

efficacious wood treatments are 

sufficiently documented, this heat 

treatment provides the broadest and 

safest approach to the wood importation 

issue. 

Response: The proposed treatment 

requirements for WPM would provide 

much more protection against pest risk 

than the current requirement of 

debarking and apparent freedom from 

pests. The 71.1 °C treatment was not 

established with SWPM in mind, but 

rather as a universal treatment option 

that would be certain to eliminate pests 

in all wood materials regardless of their 

risk level. As the 1995 final rule (60 FR 

27666, May 25, 1995) that first 

established the regulations said, ‘‘These 

universal options employ heat treatment 

and other conditions for importing logs 

and lumber not otherwise enterable. 

These universal options are relatively 

stringent, because they must eliminate 

the spectrum of potential plant pests 

and address risks that have not been 

characterized. The universal options are 

designed to give importers a way to 

import articles that would otherwise be 

prohibited until detailed plant pest risk 

assessments are completed. Whenever 

feasible, importers may choose to 

employ universal options while plant 

pest risk assessments and rulemaking 

are underway to establish less stringent 

requirements for the articles they wish 

to import.’’

Also, as stated in the August 2000, 

‘‘Pest Risk Assessment for Importation 

of Solid Wood Packing Materials into 

the United States,’’ APHIS is preparing 

a pest risk reduction analysis that will 

evaluate the effectiveness of various 

available treatments and potential 

mitigation alternatives for WPM. If 

information gathered during 

development of the pest risk reduction 

analysis suggests that the stringency of 

existing WPM treatment requirements 

should be either strengthened or 

lessened, APHIS will undertake 

rulemaking to do so. 

Comment: Methyl bromide is 

ineffective against many deep-wood 

pathogens and pests because it does not 

penetrate to the center of thick boards 

or timbers. Its use cannot be verified at 

a later date, and it does not prevent 

reinfestation. 

Response: While methyl bromide is 

ineffective against some deep wood 

pathogens, and a few deep wood pests, 

these pathogens and pests usually are 

not significant pests associated with the 

WPM pathway. Many treatments cannot 

be verified at a later date by physical 

analysis or examination at ports. That is 

one reason this rule requires marking of 

treated materials. The marking system, 

coupled with registration and 

monitoring/auditing of treatment 

facilities by national governments, is the 

means for ensuring treatment has 

occurred. Finally, while reinfestation of 

fumigated WPM is possible, the risk is 

low (beyond the level of hitchhiking 

pests that might attach to any kind of 

packaging). 

Canada and Mexico 

Comment: The current exemptions 

from the regulations for wood articles 

from Canada and from Mexican border 

states should be extended to include 

WPM that is imported into the United 

55724 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 179 / Thursday, September 16, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

States from the balance of Mexico. This 

action would be consistent with the 

North American Free Trade Agreement 

(NAFTA) and the North America Plant 

Protection Organization announcement 

dated April 25, 2003. It would avoid 

administrative complexities and the cost 

of a partial exemption from border 

States only, as well as avoid the 

production of additional export pallets 

from Mexico to the United States. 

Response: APHIS took final action on 

this issue in a final rule titled 

‘‘Importation of Unmanufactured Wood 

Articles From Mexico’’ that was 

published in the Federal Register on 

August 26, 2004 (69 FR 52409–52419, 

Docket No. 98–054–3). In that final rule, 

APHIS amended the regulations to 

remove the exemption for most 

unmanufactured wood, including WPM, 

imported into the United States from 

Mexican States adjacent to the United 

States/Mexico border. The only 

exemption that continues for Mexican 

border States covers firewood, mesquite 

wood for cooking, and small, 

noncommercial packages of 

unmanufactured wood for personal 

cooking or personal medicinal purposes. 

The effect of that change was that all 

WPM from Mexico will be subject to the 

same requirements in § 319.40–3(b) that 

apply to WPM from any place except 

Canada. 

Comment: The United States and 

Canada must work together to curtail 

the disproportionate numbers of 

introductions of forest pests that are 

occurring in the Great Lakes region. 

They are far out of proportion to the 

volume of foreign shipping in that 

region or to the volume of interceptions 

by Federal inspectors. It is equally 

important that APHIS quickly complete 

the separate rulemaking to close the 

loophole that allows untreated WPM to 

enter the country from northern 

Mexican states. 

Response: Please see the response 

above. APHIS is actively working with 

the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to 

curtail pest introductions. Most of these 

introductions are pests not of Canadian 

origin that arrive via transshipped 

materials. We expect their level to 

decrease as Canada implements its own 

regulations requiring WPM imported 

into Canada to be treated in accordance 

with the IPPC Guidelines. Also, APHIS 

is currently developing a pest risk 

assessment for wood from Canada, and 

if we identify any significant risks that 

have not been addressed by current 

regulations, we will take appropriate 

rulemaking action. 

Methyl Bromide—Montreal Protocol 

Comment: The proposed use of 

methyl bromide would violate the spirit 

and intent of the Montreal Protocol. It 

would exceed the intent of the 

quarantine exemption. It is inconsistent 

with Protocol Decisions that were 

adopted by the Montreal Protocol 

parties with the consent of the United 

States. Decision VI/11 of the Meeting of 

the Parties to the Montreal Protocol, for 

instance, states that developed country 

parties ‘‘are urged to refrain from use of 

methyl bromide and to use non-ozone 

depleting technologies wherever 

possible.’’ The U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) wrote in its 

comment on the proposed rule 

regarding wood imports from Mexico 

(June 11, 1999, 64 FR 31512–31518) that 

because of the need to honor the 

Montreal Protocol and protect the ozone 

layer, ‘‘allowing the use of methyl 

bromide in quarantine treatment of 

Mexican wood articles where other 

effective treatments exist would be 

inconsistent’’ with Protocol Decisions. 

Response: APHIS is committed to 

finding environmentally acceptable 

alternative treatments to methyl 

bromide fumigation. At the current 

time, methyl bromide is an efficacious 

and economically feasible quarantine 

treatment to control pests in WPM, and 

we have determined that allowing it as 

an alternative treatment for WPM in the 

context of this rule will provide the 

necessary level of pest protection while 

minimizing impact on the environment 

given the absence, in many cases, of 

technically and economically feasible 

alternatives. This determination is 

supported by the FEIS, as discussed 

below in the section titled ‘‘National 

Environmental Policy Act.’’

As discussed above, APHIS actively 

cooperates with other agencies and to 

identify and validate technically and 

economically feasible alternatives to 

methyl bromide. APHIS will continue to 

work cooperatively with the IPPC as 

APHIS explores alternative treatments 

to methyl bromide and incorporates 

validated, economically feasible 

alternatives into our quarantine 

regulations. 

Comment: The U.S. Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) estimate that 

methyl bromide emissions will increase 

by 5,145 metric tons, increasing total 

world usage by more than 10 percent, is 

a vast underestimate because it was 

based on the assumption that WPM 

would be fumigated before use. From 

experience in China, fumigation occurs 

at port facilities, after goods are packed 

in raw wood materials. USDA even 

states in the proposal that most wood 

packaging fumigation consist of about 

35 percent WPM and 65 percent cargo. 

The USDA FEIS on wood from Mexico 

predicts a massive increase in methyl 

bromide use of more than 102,000 tons 

per year. That would increase current 

world use for quarantine purposes by 10 

times. It would triple total world use of 

methyl bromide for all purposes. Under 

these circumstances, USDA has not 

complied with its obligations to present 

a rational basis for its proposed action 

under the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA), the Plant Protection 

Act, or the Administrative Procedure 

Act. 

Response: The draft and final EIS 

projections are based upon ongoing 

review of actual usage data and 

observations of activities at Chinese 

ports by APHIS personnel. The initial 

usage analyses were based upon the 

limited available time for exporters and 

shippers to prepare to treat WPM as 

required by APHIS in an interim rule 

published on September 18, 1998 (63 FR 

50099–50111, Docket No. 98–087–1). 

These analyses considered the 

fumigation of WPM with already loaded 

cargo rather than fumigation of WPM 

before loading. Although there was 

primarily fumigation of WPM with 

loaded cargo by the exporters and 

shippers in China initially, this 

approach to WPM treatments did not 

continue. Many shippers and exporters 

from China began fumigating WPM 

prior to loading, for at least three 

reasons. The cost savings to the shippers 

and exporters from less use of methyl 

bromide in fumigations of WPM prior to 

loading were substantial. Also, many 

agricultural commodities lack a 

tolerance for the bromine residues 

imparted by fumigation with methyl 

bromide. Finally, fumigation after 

loading could make food commodities 

illegal for human consumption in the 

United States and could damage certain 

other commodities (e.g., leather goods 

and some electronic parts). 

Unlike the limited time exporters and 

shippers in China had to prepare for the 

September 18, 1998, interim rule, 

shippers and exporters throughout the 

world are aware of the IPPC Guidelines 

and have had time to prepare for these 

regulations. In addition, the IPPC 

Guidelines require marking the wood 

used in WPM, and it is easier and less 

expensive to treat and mark prior to 

loading than to unload after treatment to 

place markings on the treated WPM and 

then reload. Based upon this, it is 

reasonable to expect most exporters and 

shippers to fumigate WPM before 

loading. The fact that the projection in 

the FEIS assumes fumigation as the 

method of treatment for all WPM 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 179 / Thursday, September 16, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 55725

indicates that it is actually a high 

estimate because we know that many 

developed nations will actually use heat 

treatment rather than fumigation for 

compliance with IPPC Guidelines. 

We expect fumigation of WPM to 

decline over time as shippers build a 

stockpile of treated pallets, which 

normally can be used for up to 3 years. 

We also expect heat treatment to 

substitute for fumigation in some 

additional locations as more facilities 

are built. 

Comment: The final rule should 

explain more about the EPA’s plans to 

phase out methyl bromide, particularly 

its intent to publish a plan and timeline 

in the Federal Register about December 

2003. 

Response: Since the EPA is 

continuing to develop its plans and 

timeline for this issue, APHIS cannot 

provide conclusive information about 

them. We suggest that readers interested 

in the EPA’s actions concerning methyl 

bromide follow EPA publications in the 

Federal Register. 

Methyl Bromide—Other Issues 

Comment: Methyl bromide fumigation 

and heat treatment facilities are 

generally unavailable in many parts of 

Africa and Indonesia. Rubber exports 

from these areas have been shipped 

without risk using WPM treated with 

Borax as per the Rubber Research 

Institute of Malaysia No. 122 method, or 

with a fungicide and insecticide called 

Xylolit B4. 

Response: Neither of these are 

approved treatments for WPM under 

APHIS regulations, and neither has been 

documented to be as effective as methyl 

bromide and heat treatment against 

target pests. APHIS is willing to review 

any scientific data regarding other 

treatments, and to consider adding 

treatments that are proven effective. 

However, when this rule goes into effect 

we will only accept WPM treated 

according to the new regulations, which 

do not authorize borax or insecticide/

fungicide treatments. We recognize that 

some importers may have to make 

substantial adjustments to their business 

practices and packing material suppliers 

to comply with the regulations, but we 

believe the pest risk associated with 

WPM justifies the new requirements. 

Exempt Certain Articles From 

Regulation 

Comment: The treatment 

requirements of the proposal should not 

apply to the WPM containers of 

imported fresh fruits and vegetables. 

Specifically, APHIS should exempt 

typical small fruit and vegetable crates 

in common use. These crates are made 

of mixed plywood and natural wood, 

and are about 12′′ × 7′′ × 4′′ high, with 

1.1′′ × 1.1′′ × 4′′ high natural wood 

corner supports. WPM used in the 

international trade of regulated goods, 

such as fresh fruits and vegetables that 

are documented by an official 

phytosanitary certificate of the country 

of origin, presents a phytosanitary risk 

significantly lower than WPM in 

general. Phytosanitary certificates apply 

to both the commodity being exported 

and the WPM used in their 

transportation. 

Response: APHIS interceptions 

records from 1996–2001 show an 

increasing number of pests associated 

with WPM, including in containers for 

fresh fruits and vegetables. Based on 

interceptions at ports, WPM used for the 

shipment of fruits and vegetables can 

pose a significant risk. Importers of 

these products may be able to avoid 

having their containers considered to be 

regulated articles by redesigning them to 

eliminate the thicker pieces of raw 

wood often used as corner supports. 

Containers that use pieces of raw wood 

less than 6 mm (0.24 in) thick and 

containers made wholly of 

manufactured wood would be exempt 

from regulation. For the specific crates 

to be exempted, the corner supports 

would have to be replaced with exempt 

materials (plywood, particle board, 

veneer, etc.) or with bundled pieces of 

raw wood each of which is no more 

than 6 mm (0.24 in) thick. 

Comment: We request that APHIS 

address compliance requirements for 

WPM originating in the United States, 

shipped to a foreign location and then 

exported back to this country. It seems 

unlikely that WPM exported from the 

United States will be marked according 

to the IPPC Guidelines until all other 

countries have adopted those 

Guidelines. Consequently WPM 

originating in the United States that is 

exported and then returned would not 

satisfy the IPPC Guidelines unless an 

interim marking mechanism is 

established and used. Will APHIS allow 

U.S.-origin WPM that is exported and 

reimported into the United States to be 

marked according to requirements 

established by relevant foreign 

jurisdictions on an interim basis until 

all other countries adopt the IPPC 

Guidelines?

Response: We are not adopting the 

suggested approach because using 

additional markings to indicate that 

WPM originated in the United States 

would require a major regulatory 

program to ensure the validity of such 

markings. It would be expensive, 

inconvenient, and a drain on APHIS 

resources that can be employed more 

usefully elsewhere. It would also be 

confusing to foreign governments that 

are just getting used to the markings in 

the IPPC Guidelines. There are already 

many sources of treated WPM in the 

United States, and APHIS, as the 

national plant protection organization of 

the United States, is currently 

developing procedures to meet its 

responsibilities under the IPPC 

Guidelines to inspect, monitor, accredit, 

and audit commercial companies that 

treat WPM and apply the official mark 

to it that indicates treatment. There are 

also many foreign sources of WPM 

treated in accordance with the 

regulations, and many U.S. shippers 

doing business with Canada already 

obtain their WPM from foreign sources. 

Dunnage and Small Wood Pieces 

Comment: Does the proposed marking 

requirement mean that every piece of 

the 40 to 80 tons of dunnage that may 

be carried on board a steel transport 

ship could be subject to inspection prior 

to discharge? This is a serious problem 

because dunnage is used under the steel 

since it is intended to prevent 

movement of the cargo during the 

voyage. Long steel products are carried 

stowed in a fore-and-aft direction in 

ships’ holds. Dunnage is used 

athwartship. In such a correctly stowed 

hold there should be little or no 

dunnage showing on completion of 

loading, so that marking may not make 

a difference as far as inspection prior to 

discharge is concerned. Also, sometimes 

ships meet with such bad weather 

during their sea voyage that part of the 

dunnage is crushed or broken. As a 

result, there will then be pieces of 

dunnage unmarked. What measures are 

then intended? 

Response: We recognize the difficulty 

in ensuring that required treatment 

marks are present on some dunnage that 

is custom cut to brace or fill gaps in a 

particular load. However, dunnage is 

frequently made from the type of low 

quality wood that poses the greatest pest 

risk, and it is therefore necessary that 

dunnage be treated and marked the 

same way as any other regulated WPM. 

The fact that the nature of some cargoes 

makes it impossible to inspect the 

associated dunnage aboard ship is not 

particularly relevant because dunnage 

inspection is normally done following 

cargo discharge. 

Alternatives to Marking WPM 

Comment: To speed port clearance 

and aid enforcement, we support using 

very simple self-declarations of 

compliance to accompany any and all 

international shipments, even those 

totally free of solid wood packaging. 

55726 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 179 / Thursday, September 16, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

The self-declaration would affirm that 

all packaging in the shipment complies 

with the provisions of the IPPC 

Guidelines. This is vital information 

and therefore should be repeated in key 

shipping documents such as bills of 

lading, invoices, and so on. 

Response: We welcome the use of 

electronic records for many port 

operations purposes, and we are 

working with the U.S. Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS) on projects in 

that area. However, APHIS has decided 

that the system of authorized WPM 

markings applied by facilities operating 

under the supervision of national 

governments is more reliable than a 

system where individual invoices and 

shipping documents affirm compliance. 

Affirmations in shipping documents 

about whether or not cargoes contain 

WPM, and whether or not the WPM has 

been treated, are frequently unreliable. 

Our experience clearing shipments from 

China showed frequent incidents where 

shipping documents contained an 

affirmation that no WPM was in the 

cargo, despite its presence. Under this 

final rule, inspectors can tell directly 

from observation of the WPM whether 

or not it is in compliance (barring 

fraudulent misuse of the mark, which 

will be addressed by auditing and 

monitoring). This process does not need 

to be significantly slower than using 

shipping documents. Importers that 

establish a record of compliance over a 

number of shipments generally will be 

subject to less inspection. Clearance 

time will also decrease as importers and 

exporting countries gain experience 

with the new requirements and acquire 

a history of moving shipments without 

inspectors finding pests of concern 

associated with them. 

Comment: Clearing WPM at ports 

based on physical inspection to see if it 

is marked will cause significant delays 

in the clearance of imports without 

commensurate benefits. Containers and 

air cargo will have to be unloaded 

individually and each pallet, crate, or 

other regulated item inspected. This is 

highly burdensome and costly for both 

importers and the government, and will 

cause major disruptions to importers’

supply chains, many of which are part 

of just-in-time inventory management 

systems. For the government these 

inspections will divert inspectors of the 

U.S. Bureau of Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP), DHS, from their 

primary cargo security mission. 

We urge APHIS to offer an alternative 

that would be consistent with the best 

practices being implemented throughout 

the regulatory realm, which allow for 

electronic filing of compliance 

information. In an electronic system, 

importers would be allowed to transmit 

a compliance code to the CBP, by which 

code they would certify that the WPM 

is compliant or that there is no WPM 

contained in the shipment. This is how 

compliance certifications are presented 

to other government agencies such as 

the Federal Communications 

Commission and the Food and Drug 

Administration. A paper alternative, 

such as a stamped statement on a bill of 

lading or invoice, should be available 

for situations in which electronic 

certification is not practical. 

Additionally, we recommend that 

APHIS consider providing for a blanket 

certification for importers who can 

assure to the satisfaction of APHIS that 

their WPM is routinely compliant. In 

the electronic environment, this would 

consist of importer information 

established as part of its CBP account 

profile. CBP is developing these profiles 

as part of its Automated Commercial 

Environment architecture. We urge 

APHIS to work closely with CBP to 

implement the necessary interfaces 

between CBP’s system and APHIS. In 

the interim, we request that APHIS 

accept blanket paper certificates of 

compliance by which importers certify 

that for a designated period of time all 

imports of WPM into the United States 

are compliant. 

Response: See the response to the 

previous comment. 

Inspection Procedures 

Comment: Because not all WPM poses 

equal risks, APHIS should use risk 

management to avoid unnecessary 

shipment delays caused by ineffective 

random inspections. Take advantage of 

data from existing importers quality 

control procedures and compliance 

programs. Highly compliant importers, 

as verified by valid statistical sampling 

of imports, should be subject to a lower 

rate of physical inspections than 

unknown or noncompliant importers. 

Response: APHIS intends to use risk 

management techniques and data from a 

variety of sources to target its inspection 

activities and its monitoring and 

auditing activities for facilities 

conducting treatments. 

Delayed Effective Date and 

Noncompliant Shipments 

Comment: Instead of immediately 

starting to order the reexport of 

unmarked WPM, we request a 2-year 

transitional period to phase out old 

WPM with previously acceptable 

marking (for example, ‘‘HT’’ without the 

IPPC symbol) provided the treatment 

requirements prescribed by the 

proposed rule are satisfied.

Response: APHIS received a number 

of comments stating that exporting 

countries and shippers would need time 

to adapt to the new requirements of the 

rule and to change some of their 

business practices and WPM sources. 

We agree, and in response we have set 

the effective date for this final rule at a 

date 1 year after its publication date. We 

believe affected parties will be able to 

prepare for the new requirements during 

this period. APHIS will also conduct a 

very active information campaign 

during this period to ensure that 

affected parties are aware of the new 

regulatory requirements. Consistent 

with parties’ commitments under the 

Montreal Protocol, this campaign will 

also stress to affected parties that use of 

alternate packing materials or heat 

treatment of WPM are environmentally 

preferable alternatives for meeting the 

requirements, as documented by the 

FEIS. As part of this campaign, APHIS 

inspectors at ports will focus on 

imported WPM shipments that do not 

meet the new requirements, and will 

give the importers official notice 

explaining what they must do for future 

shipments (i.e., those arriving after the 

effective date of this final rule) to 

comply with the new requirements. 

Comment: In case of noncompliance, 

the proposal would require reexport 

after separating the cargo, if possible. 

Why not allow the other measures 

explained in item 6.1 of the IPPC 

Guidelines, such as incineration, 

processing or treatment, etc.? 

Response: Reexportation is necessary 

because we need to achieve compliance 

(treatment and marking of WPM before 

arrival) in order to fully protect against 

the introduction of plant pests. In recent 

years, several destructive plant pests, 

including the Asian longhorned beetle 

and the emerald ash borer, have been 

introduced into the United States. We 

believe that these pests have entered the 

United States in WPM at ports of entry. 

Therefore, we believe that proper 

treatment of WPM, prior to importation 

into the United States, is essential to 

safeguard our agricultural resources 

from further pest introductions. We 

believe requiring the reexportation of 

noncompliant WPM is the only option 

that will ensure that WPM is properly 

treated prior to its arrival in the United 

States. Also, allowing post-entry 

treatment is not feasible because space 

and services at ports are limited and 

ports cannot be burdened with vast 

quantities of noncompliant materials 

awaiting treatment or incineration. 

Further, allowing post-entry treatment 

would place an additional burden on 

already scarce port resources since it 

would be necessary to track shipments 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 179 / Thursday, September 16, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 55727

to ensure proper treatment. Finally, the 

reexportation requirement is consistent 

with the approach adopted by other 

IPPC member countries, such as Canada. 

Comment: The requirement to 

reexport noncompliant imports is too 

stringent. Some WPM might not be 

stamped due to simple error. In cases 

where marking is absent but no pests 

have been intercepted, the cargo should 

be accepted. Even if pests are found 

WPM could be fumigated or treated 

appropriately at the expense of the 

importer in the routine manner for other 

noncompliant goods. Equivalent 

measures should be explored. The 

national plant protection organization 

(NPPO) of the exporting country could 

then be informed about the noncompliance with the details of the 

exporter so that the NPPO could 

monitor that exporter. 

Response: Please see the above 

responses about the 1-year delay in the 

effective date of this rule, which will 

give affected parties time to comply 

with the new requirements. We intend 

to inform the NPPO’s of exporting 

countries about noncompliance in 

shipments from their countries, but this 

is in addition to, not a substitute for, 

enforcement action by APHIS. 

Comment: When imported WPM is 

not in compliance, APHIS should 

require both the WPM and cargo to be 

treated at the port of entry. Separating 

the cargo from the WPM without 

treatment could result in the 

introduction of wood borers into the 

environment. Similarly, any properly 

marked WPM that proves infested 

should be required to be treated at the 

port of arrival. Fumigators at the ports 

of entries have years of experience 

treating cargo upon arrival and have the 

expertise to ensure that any destructive 

pests are destroyed and that the free 

flow of trade is not impeded. Requiring 

the reexport of WPM and associated 

cargo will impede international trade 

and hurt the U.S. economy. 

Response: As discussed above, the 

reexport option will be necessary to 

achieve compliance (treatment and 

marking of WPM before arrival), and 

also because space and services at ports 

are limited. In some cases, APHIS 

inspectors at a port of entry may 

discover signs of pests in a shipment 

that is apparently in compliance and 

order treatment in accordance with 

§ 319.40–9. APHIS is committed to 

protecting U.S. agricultural resources 

and will ensure that any treatment after 

arrival is done under safeguards 

adequate to prevent the spread of pests. 

Sometimes this will involve treating 

cargo along with WPM, and sometimes 

it will not, based on the type of cargo 

and the nature of any pests that are 

identified. 

Economic Impacts on WPM Producers 

Comment: Forty percent of all 

hardwood lumber manufactured in the 

United States, and a goodly portion of 

the softwood as well, go into the 

manufacture of WPM like dunnage, 

crating, pallets, packing blocks, drums, 

cases, and skids. It is absolutely 

essential for the hardwood industry and 

very important to the softwood industry 

to preserve this huge market for their 

lowest quality lumber. Also, unloading 

containers in transit to verify whether 

the packing material has really been 

treated would greatly endanger certain 

products being transported (e.g., fragile 

wood veneers), in addition to adding 

more time to the transportation. 

Response: The problem is that the use 

of low grade, untreated wood in 

international WPM is exactly the 

practice that must be ended to protect 

U.S. resources against foreign plant 

pests. We do not see any alternative that 

would allow continued use of untreated 

WPM and also protect against these 

risks. With regard to unloading cargoes 

for inspection purposes, CBP inspectors 

at ports are experienced and well 

trained and deal professionally with any 

shipments. APHIS is developing new 

operational procedures to minimize 

delays caused by WPM inspections at 

ports. We also expect that the need for 

substantial unloading and inspection 

will decline over time as shippers and 

exporting countries become familiar 

with the new requirements and develop 

a history in which no pests of concern 

are found associated with their 

shipments. 

Comment: Nearly 7,000 U.S. facilities 

produce pallets nationwide and are a 

vital utilizer for low grade wood which 

would otherwise have to be burned at 

high temperature for lack of other use. 

This, in turn, would considerably 

increase the cost of marketing high 

quality wood products like veneer, 

lumber, flooring, plywood, and particle 

board as well as other engineered wood 

products. 

Response: We recognize that this rule 

will have some adverse economic 

effects, as discussed below in the 

section ‘‘Executive Order 12866 and 

Regulatory Flexibility Act.’’ Such effects 

are sometimes unavoidable when 

APHIS takes steps to protect agricultural 

resources against plant pest risk. There 

will still be a market for domestically 

produced pallets because untreated 

WPM could still be used in domestic 

commerce or in exports to any country 

that has not implemented the IPPC 

Guidelines or similar treatment 

requirements. 

Economic Impacts on U.S. Fumigators 

at Ports 

Comment: The rule would reduce 

fumigation at ports of arrival, financially 

hurting quarantine fumigators that often 

are small family-owned businesses. 

These economic losses would be on top 

of significant revenue losses that 

fumigators incurred when APHIS 

implemented its interim rule on WPM 

from China.

Response: APHIS’ main goal is 

protecting against any possible 

infestation that might be associated with 

imported WPM. There is a general trend 

throughout the world to reduce methyl 

bromide usage. While this final rule 

may result in reduced fumigation of 

wood products at U.S. ports of arrival, 

the 1-year delay in the effective date 

should give fumigation businesses time 

to adjust business plans. Also, as 

discussed above, APHIS may discover 

signs of pests in a shipment that is 

properly marked and may order 

treatment of either the WPM, the cargo, 

or both, as appropriate. 

Implementation Schedule 

Comment: The effective date of the 

final rule should be at least 1 year after 

publication, to allow developing 

countries to implement the necessary 

means and conditions, including 

national systems of treatment, 

inspection, registration or accreditation, 

and auditing of WPM to be shipped to 

the United States, thus avoiding an 

obstacle to international trade. 

Response: We agree, as discussed 

above, and have delayed the effective 

date for 1 year. In general, APHIS has 

communicated very well with its 

trading partners, which should allow 

them to implement the needed systems 

within 1 year. After the effective date, 

we will enforce compliance with the 

new requirements. 

Comment: We seriously doubt that 

any country outside of North America 

will be prepared to fully implement the 

standard by January 2004. We encourage 

the USDA to adopt the standard but also 

apply a generous grace period to allow 

importing countries to get up to speed 

on the marking systems and underlying 

audit programs. Otherwise, we will end 

up seeing a lot of ‘‘IPPC symbols’’ on 

pallets which may not have been treated 

to the same degree of quality and 

control as we would expect in the 

United States, thereby casting doubt on 

the efficacy of the whole program. 

Response: Please see the responses 

above about the 1-year delay in the 

effective date. CBP will audit all 

55728 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 179 / Thursday, September 16, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

material shipped, as well as records for 

facilities treating WPM and applying the 

mark. Shipments from countries with 

high levels of noncompliance will face 

higher levels of inspection. 

Miscellaneous Comments 

Comment: The IPPC Guidelines do 

not specifically require that WPM be 

free of bark. Does APHIS intend to 

specify a bark-free requirement for WPM 

in the final rule? 

Response: No, APHIS will not require 

the wood to be bark free, as long as it 

has been properly treated. Currently 

available data shows that treatment 

alone will adequately kill the pests of 

concern. 

Comment: There is no provision in 

the proposed rule describing what mark 

should be used by non-IPPC member 

countries. There will be trademark 

registration on the IPPC mark so nonIPPC member countries may not be 

entitled to use this marking. 

Response: APHIS is not responsible 

for any country’s decision on whether or 

not to join the IPPC, or for how any 

country addresses trademark issues. We 

do note that the IPPC is in the process 

of registering the mark in many 

countries at this time for use on 

materials treated in accordance with the 

IPPC Guidelines. We also note that, 

even if a country cannot establish 

treatment facilities authorized to apply 

the mark in their own country, they can 

readily obtain treated and marked WPM 

from other countries, or they can use 

alternative materials to WPM. 

Miscellaneous Editorial Changes 

In addition to the changes discussed 

above, we are making some minor 

changes for clarity and consistency. We 

are removing the definitions of exporter 

statement, importer statement, and solid 

wood packing material because these 

terms are no longer used in the 

regulations. We are slightly editing the 

table in § 319.40–3(b)(1)(ii) that 

provides the methyl bromide treatment 

schedule so that it provides 

concentrations in lbs./1,000 c.f., as well 

as in g/m3. We are also adding a graphic 

and description of the approved IPPC 

mark to § 319.40–3(b)(2). 

Therefore, for the reasons given in the 

proposed rule and in this document, we 

are adopting the proposed rule as a final 

rule, with the changes discussed. 

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

This rule has been reviewed under 

Executive Order 12866. The rule has 

been determined to be significant for the 

purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, 

therefore, has been reviewed by the 

Office of Management and Budget. 

Below is a summary of the economic 

analysis for the changes in WPM import 

requirements in this document. The 

economic analysis provides a costbenefit analysis as required by 

Executive Order 12866 and an analysis 

of the potential economic effects on 

small entities as required by the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the 

full economic analysis is available for 

review at the location listed in the 

ADDRESSES section at the beginning of 

this document, or on the Internet at 

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/swp/. 

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 604, we 

have performed a final regulatory 

flexibility analysis, which is set out 

below, regarding the effects of this rule 

on small entities. The initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis in our proposed rule 

stated that we did not have all the data 

necessary for a comprehensive analysis 

of the potential effects of this rule on 

small entities. Therefore, we invited 

comments concerning potential 

economic effects, particularly the 

number and kind of small entities that 

might incur benefits or costs. We did 

not receive any comments providing the 

specific data we requested, but we did 

receive several comments stating that 

some small business will be adversely 

affected by the rule, including importers 

with substantial inventories of WPM on 

hand in foreign countries, which they 

would no longer be able to use for 

shipments to the United States, and 

fumigators at U.S. ports that currently 

treat large volumes of WPM upon arrival 

and expect to lose much of this business 

after the rule is implemented. Several 

commenters also suggested that 

domestic WPM manufacturers faced 

indirect effects that could result when 

other countries adopt the IPPC 

Guidelines, reducing the demand for 

untreated WPM. 

Under the Plant Protection Act (7 

U.S.C. 7701–7772), the Secretary of 

Agriculture is authorized to regulate the 

importation of plants, plant products, 

and other articles to prevent the 

introduction of injurious plant pests. 

This analysis evaluates a final rule 

adopting the IPPC standards on wood 

packaging material, the International 

Standard for Phytosanitary Measures 

No. 15. This standard contains globally 

accepted measures that may be applied 

to WPM to reduce the entry of pests via 

this pathway. The IPPC Guidelines 

require WPM to be heat treated at 56 °C 

for 30 minutes, or fumigated with 

methyl bromide.

Alternatives considered and rejected 

included the alternative of taking no 

action. This alternative was rejected 

because recent interceptions of pests at 

ports of entry show a steady increase in 

serious pests associated with WPM from 

everywhere except China, whose WPM 

must already be treated due to past pest 

interceptions. If left unchecked, pests 

introduced by imported WPM have the 

potential to cause significant economic 

damage to the agricultural and forest 

resources of the United States. 

We also rejected the alternative of 

extending the China interim rule to all 

WPM worldwide, because that would 

not ensure long-term exclusion of some 

wood pests of quarantine concern, such 

as certain deep wood-borers, fungi, rots, 

and wilts. The adoption of the IPPC 

treatment standards for all importing 

countries will address pest threats 

posed not only by Cerambycidae, which 

was the primary target of the China 

interim rule, but nine other pest families 

as well. Additionally, adoption of the 

China interim rule requirements would 

result in the greatest additional use of 

methyl bromide of all the alternatives. 

Another alternative not adopted was a 

comprehensive risk reduction program 

allowing differing, circumstancedependent risk mitigation strategies that 

include various options for complying 

with United States import requirements. 

A comprehensive risk reduction 

program would consist of an array of 

mitigation methods (e.g., inspection, 

various heat treatments, various 

fumigants and other chemical 

treatments, irradiation, etc.) that is more 

extensive than that contained in either 

the China Interim Rule or the IPPC 

Guidelines. Many of the treatment 

methods being considered as 

components of a comprehensive risk 

reduction program require more 

research and development to 

demonstrate that they could be used 

effectively and economically to treat the 

required range of WPM products. Some 

of the remaining issues include 

inadequate control, incomplete efficacy 

data, safety issues, and lack of adequate 

facilities or supplies. Therefore, while 

comprehensive risk reduction is still 

considered a possible future approach 

for WPM import requirements, it is not 

practical to adopt it at this time. 

Another alternative, substitution of 

other packing materials, was rejected 

because it requires use of materials the 

cost of which exceed the likely costs of 

SWPM that is either heat treated or 

fumigated with methyl bromide. 

We believe it is appropriate and 

necessary to adopt the IPPC Guidelines 

because they were developed as an 

international standard to control pests 

associated with WPM. The types of 

pests the IPPC Guidelines were 

developed to control have been 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 179 / Thursday, September 16, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 55729

intercepted at U.S. ports for many years 

and pose significant risks to U.S. 

resources. The damage they cause could 

be similar in magnitude to the recent 

introduction of the Asian longhorned 

beetle (ALB) Anaplophora glabripennis

(Coleoptera: Cerambycidae). Our 

regulations have already been changed 

to prevent further introductions of ALB 

from China, but adopting the IPPC 

guidelines could prevent the 

introduction of ALB or similar wood 

borers from other parts of the world, as 

well as prevent the introduction of other 

types of pests such as woodwasps and 

bark beetles. Imposing the IPPC 

Guidelines’ treatment and other 

requirements to prevent these 

introductions will yield net benefits. 

The benefits (avoided losses) that can be 

gained by preventing introduction of 

these pest types are discussed below. 

The actual magnitude of the benefits 

cannot be definitively ascertained, but 

they are likely to be much larger than 

the associated costs. 

As an indicator of the damage ALB or 

similar wood borers could cause if 

introduced again in the future, consider 

the costs of the ALB introduction from 

China. The ALB, first discovered in New 

York, NY, in 1996 and in Chicago, IL, 

in 1998, was most likely introduced on 

wood packing material from China. The 

present value of urban trees at risk in 

the two affected cities is estimated at 

$59 million over some 50 years. About 

$6 million of urban trees have been 

destroyed due to pest infestation and 

eradication efforts since the 

introduction of ALB. So far, APHIS and 

State and local governments have spent 

over $59 million in eradicating the pest 

in the two localities. If only New York 

City and Chicago were considered, it 

would appear that the current 

eradication program has spent an 

amount equal to the value of the 

resource being protected. However, the 

eradication and quarantine activities 

have slowed the spread within New 

York and Chicago. Without these 

activities, the faster spread in these 

cities would increase the net present 

value because the resources would be 

lost in a much shorter amount of time. 

The eradication and quarantine 

activities are also the reason the pest has 

been confined to the two cities where it 

was initially detected. The potential 

damages from ALB spread to other areas 

can be gleaned from the Nowak et al.

study that estimated losses to seven 

other cities. The present value of 

damage to urban trees in Baltimore, MD, 

alone, not allowing for intervention, was 

estimated to be $399 million. 

Additionally, without governmental 

intervention, forest resources would 

also be at risk. 

Wood borers such as ALB could cause 

the most damage of all types of pests 

associated with WPM, but we have also 

projected that other types of pests could 

cause substantial damage. These include 

the Sirex woodwasp (Family: Siricidae) 

and the Eurasian spruce bark beetle Ips 

typographus (Family: Scolytidae). 

Projections of physical damages that can 

be caused by these types of pests range 

up to $48–$607 million and $208 

million, respectively. Perhaps the 

greatest devastation posed by these 

pests that cannot be fully captured 

monetarily is their potential to cause 

irreversible loss to native tree species 

and consequential alterations to the 

environment and ecosystem. 

The recent introduction of the 

emerald ash borer (EAB), Agrilus 

planipennis (Coleoptera: Buprestidae), a 

pest of ash trees, in Michigan and parts 

of Canada in June 2002 is a reminder of 

this threat. It is not known how the pest 

arrived in North America but, as with 

other exotic beetles, infested WPM from 

Asia is suspected. The pest may have 

arrived some 6 years ago, before the 

interim rule on China was implemented 

in September 1998 (63 FR 50099–50111, 

Docket No. 98–087–1). Ironically, many 

of the large ash trees favored by the pest 

were originally planted to replace elm 

trees killed by Dutch elm disease caused 

by yet another exotic pathogen. A 

preliminary assessment of the potential 

impact of the EAB on urban and 

timberland ash trees in the six counties 

originally quarantined by Michigan 

comes to about $11 billion in 

replacement costs alone. The nursery 

stock industry in the affected counties 

reported a loss in sales so far of $2 

million. These estimates serve to 

highlight the potential magnitude of 

damage that could be caused by one 

outbreak alone of a pest on the targeted 

list. 

The adoption of the IPPC treatment 

standards for all importing countries 

will address pest threats posed not only 

by Cerambycidae, which was the 

primary target of the China interim rule, 

but nine other pest families as well. 

Approximately 95 percent of pests 

intercepted by APHIS inspectors in 

shipments worldwide are pests on the 

IPPC target pest list. 

The treatment requirements in this 

rule are not expected to completely 

eliminate all pest interceptions related 

to WPM. As evident from data reported 

between 2000 and 2001, 2 years 

following the implementation of the 

China rule, 7 percent of pest 

interceptions was still associated with 

China imports. To the extent that pest 

interceptions will be reduced, the risk of 

an outbreak will also be lower than in 

the absence of the rule. However, 

because pests continue to be intercepted 

albeit at a lower rate, benefits need to be 

correspondingly adjusted to reflect the 

risk. 

In discussing the costs that might 

result from adopting this rule, it is 

essential to recognize that to some 

degree these costs will accrue when 

other countries adopt the IPPC 

Guidelines, whether or not the United 

States also adopts them. As other 

countries impose IPPC treatment 

requirements on imports containing 

WPM the global WPM market will be 

greatly affected, likely causing a broader 

impact on the domestic wood packaging 

industry than the provisions of this rule. 

Adopting this rule may also cause 

general societal costs due to human 

health issues (increases in skin cancer, 

cataracts, and other conditions) and 

reduction in crop yields that may result 

if increased use of methyl bromide as a 

result of this rule delays recovery of the 

ozone layer. It is impossible to confirm 

or estimate such costs at the present 

time.

The effects of this rule will fall largely 

on foreign manufacturers of pallets. The 

increased treatment cost may add to the 

cost of packaging and transporting of 

goods which, in turn, will affect 

importers of commodities transported 

on pallets and final consumers of those 

goods are potentially affected by this 

rule. The required treatments will add 

to the cost of packaging and transport of 

goods. Due to the very large number of 

pallets that are used to assist imported 

cargo, the overall cost may be 

substantial. The extent of the impact on 

U.S. consumers will depend on the 

ability of importers to pass on the 

additional costs to respective buyers. It 

is expected that most of the cost of 

treating pallets will be borne by foreign 

pallet manufacturers. Furthermore, 

given the small value of pallets as 

compared to the value of trade, 

increases in pallet prices are not 

expected to have a measurable effect on 

domestic consumers or on trade. 

We also expect this rule to affect U.S. 

purchasers of imported pallets, crates 

and boxes. Between 1999 and 2001, an 

average of 38 million pallets was 

imported into the United States, over 80 

percent of which came from Canada. 

Imported WPM was valued at $150 

million during this time period. At 

approximately $3.95 per piece, 

imported pallets are less expensive than 

domestic pallets where the average price 

ranges between $8 and $12 per pallet. 

Canadian pallets are primarily used by 

industries close to the U.S. and 

55730 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 179 / Thursday, September 16, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

Canadian border. The wood pallet 

market is highly competitive, and the 

demand for imported pallets can be 

characterized as elastic. While pallets 

made of alternative materials such as 

plastic, corrugated fiberboard, or 

processed wood are imperfect 

substitutes for wood, one wood pallet 

can easily substitute for another wood 

pallet. 

Assuming a perfectly elastic supply 

and perfectly inelastic demand for 

imported pallets, and assuming a 

treatment cost that adds about $2 on 

average to a pallet, U.S. purchasers of 

imported pallets could lose an estimated 

$76 million in higher costs. The true 

extent of the impact, however, will be 

lower than this amount because demand 

is likely to be elastic and foreign 

importers are expected to share a greater 

burden of the cost increase. We do not 

know treatment costs for foreign pallet 

producers, but given the availability of 

substitutable domestic wood pallets, we 

do not expect U.S. purchasers of 

imported pallets to be significantly 

affected. 

Recent and forthcoming decisions by 

other countries to adopt the IPPC 

standard, while not an effect of this rule, 

represent an associated issue that will 

indirectly affect manufacturers who sell 

pallets, crates, and boxes to foreign 

buyers. There are an estimated 3,000 

manufacturers of pallets and containers 

in the United States. The primary 

importers of these items are Canada and 

Mexico. As these two countries prepare 

to implement the IPPC standard, only 

treated wood packaging material will 

likely be in demand for export. The 

extent of the impact on pallet and 

container manufacturers will depend on 

the ability of individual firms to put in 

place the necessary infrastructure for 

conducting treatments as required by 

the international standard. The number 

of U.S. firms that export WPM and will 

therefore be affected is unknown. 

Regardless, the impact on the overall 

WPM industry is expected to be small 

as the quantity of total pallets exported, 

estimated at about 10 million units, 

comprises only 2.5 percent of the 400 to 

500 million pallets in production in the 

United States each year. 

Domestic manufacturers of wood 

pallets may be indirectly affected in one 

other way. Because of the increasing 

trend in recycling of pallets for costcutting purposes, manufacturers may be 

faced with new demands for treated 

WPM from domestic exporters who 

reuse pallets and wood containers to 

ship goods back from foreign countries. 

Effects on Small Businesses 

The provisions of this rule are not 

expected to directly affect U.S. 

manufacturers of wood packaging 

material. There may be some decrease in 

the demand for pallets if some exporters 

decide to use alternate packing 

materials rather than WPM due to 

treatment costs for WPM. However, this 

should be more than balanced by new 

purchases of treated pallets by exporter/

importers, who must now use treated 

pallets when they reuse pallets used to 

ship goods overseas to subsequently 

ship goods back to the United States. 

This may create an increased demand 

by exporters for treated pallets. Also, 

some U.S. pallet makers also make 

alternative packing materials (plywood, 

particle board) and could maintain their 

business levels even if there is a small 

demand shift from one category to the 

other. 

The pallet industry in the United 

States is characterized by many small 

firms and a few larger firms. No one 

firm is able to dominate the market. U.S. 

Census data show that there are 

approximately 3,000 firms in the wood 

pallet and container industry. Other 

estimates of the number of firms in the 

industry range up to 3,500 pallet 

manufacturers in the United States. 

Most firms sell their products within a 

350 mile radius. The average number of 

employees in 1997 was 17. Thirty two 

percent of the firms had fewer than five 

employees. The average sales were $1.5 

million. 

The Small Business Administration 

(SBA) classifies wood container and 

pallet manufacturers as small businesses 

if they have 500 or fewer employees. 

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 

1997 Economic Census, all pallet 

manufacturers are considered small 

businesses. 

Fumigation services are currently 

available at several dozen ports of entry 

on a permanent or ad hoc basis. In most 

cases these fumigation services are 

provided by large businesses that serve 

a number of ports. Two commenters on 

the proposed rule stated that several 

fumigators at ports were small 

businesses that could be adversely 

affected if the demand for fumigation 

upon arrival decreases, but these 

commenters did not provide any 

specific data on the number or location 

of these businesses or the scope of the 

potential impacts. 

While decisions by other countries to 

adopt the IPPC standard are 

independent actions not directly 

resulting from adoption of this rule, 

those decisions do raise the associated 

issue that the international WPM market 

will adjust as Canada, Mexico, and other 

countries adopt the IPPC standard. 

Small businesses such as pallet 

manufacturers and fumigators at ports 

may be adversely affected by those 

countries’ decisions if they are unable to 

adapt to the increased demand for 

treated pallets. The number of small 

businesses potentially affected by other 

countries’ decisions to adopt the IPPC 

standard is unknown. However, the 

adoption of the treatment standards by 

IPPC member countries that will then 

apply to U.S. exports will likely create 

a broader impact on the domestic wood 

packaging industry (small and large 

businesses alike) than the provisions of 

this rule. 

Conclusion 

This rule will affect foreign 

manufacturers of pallets which may, in 

turn, affect importers and final 

consumers of goods transported on 

pallets. Because the cost of a pallet is a 

very small share of the bundle of goods 

transported on pallets, cost increases 

due to the treatment requirements are 

not expected to significantly affect 

domestic consumers and thus will not 

have a measurable impact on the flow 

of trade. This rule is not expected to 

reduce the amount of goods shipped 

internationally as is evident from 

observing trends in imports from China 

since implementation of the interim rule 

in 1999. 

This rule will also affect U.S. 

consumers of imported pallets. Given 

the substitutability of wood pallets, the 

impact on consumers is expected to be 

small due to the availability of wood 

pallets. Foreign importers are likely to 

absorb a greater share of the cost 

increase.

The simultaneous adoption of the 

treatment standards by IPPC member 

countries that is directed at U.S. exports 

will likely create a broader impact on 

the domestic wood packaging industry 

than the provisions of this rule. 

This rule contains information 

collection requirements, which have 

been approved by the Office of 

Management and Budget (see 

‘‘Paperwork Reduction Act’’ below.) 

Executive Order 12988 

This rule has been reviewed under 

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 

Reform. Under this rule: (1) All State 

and local laws and regulations that are 

inconsistent with this rule will be 

preempted; (2) no retroactive effect will 

be given to this rule; and (3) 

administrative proceedings will not be 

required before parties may file suit in 

court challenging this rule. 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 179 / Thursday, September 16, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 55731

2Copies of the FEIS are available for public 

inspection at USDA, room 1141, South Building, 

14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC, between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except holidays. Persons 

wishing to inspect copies are requested to call 

ahead on (202) 690–2817 to facilitate entry into the 

reading room. In addition, the FEIS may be viewed 

from the APHIS Internet site at http://

www.aphis.usda.gov/ppd/es/swpm.html, and copies 

may be obtained by writing to the individual listed 

under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

National Environmental Policy Act 

On September 19, 2003, the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

published in the Federal Register (68 

FR 54900–54901) a notice of availability 

of the final environmental impact 

statement titled ‘‘Importation of Solid 

Wood Packing Material.’’ The FEIS 

considers the environmental impacts 

from importation of wood packaging 

material that could result from our 

adoption of the proposed rule as a final 

rule.2 The FEIS was 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).

Pursuant to the implementing 

regulations for NEPA, in cases requiring 

an EIS, APHIS must prepare a record of 

decision at the time of its decision. This 

final rule constitutes the required record 

of decision for the FEIS. 

The NEPA implementing regulations 

require that a record of decision state 

what decision is being made; identify 

alternatives considered in the 

environmental impact statement 

process; specify the environmentally 

preferable alternative; discuss 

preferences based on relevant factors—

economic and technical considerations, 

as well as national policy 

considerations, where applicable; and 

state how all of the factors discussed 

entered into the decision. In addition, 

the record of decision must indicate 

whether the ultimate decision has been 

designed to avoid or minimize 

environmental harm and, if not, why 

not. 

The Decision 

APHIS has decided, in this final rule, 

to amend its regulations to provide that 

wood packaging material imported into 

the United States from other countries 

will be subject to the requirements 

stipulated in the IPPC Guidelines. This 

includes specific treatment 

requirements for either heat treatment or 

fumigation with methyl bromide of the 

wood packaging material. 

Alternatives Considered in the Impact 

Statement Process 

The FEIS focuses mainly on pest risk 

issues from the use of wood packaging 

material, potential impacts from 

treatments with methyl bromide, and 

potential impacts from use of substitute 

packaging made from materials other 

than unmanufactured solid wood. The 

FEIS considers a reasonable range of 

alternatives, including: (1) No action, 

essentially maintaining the exemption 

from treatment requirements for 

importation of wood packaging material 

from foreign countries except as 

regulated under the September 18, 1998, 

interim rule that required treatment of 

WPM from China (China interim rule, 

63 FR 50099–50111, Docket No. 98–

087–1), (2) extension to all countries of 

the treatments in the China interim rule, 

(3) adoption of the IPPC Guidelines, (4) 

establishment of a comprehensive risk 

reduction program, and (5) use of 

substitute (non-solid wood) packaging 

material only. 

Environmentally Preferable Alternative 

The environmentally preferable 

alternative would be to prohibit 

importation of wood packaging material, 

which would virtually eliminate all 

associated pest risks, as well as the need 

for quarantine treatments. This 

regulatory approach (alternative 5 

above) would require all commodities 

that are to be imported to the United 

States to be transported with only 

substitute packaging material, which at 

the current time would be technically 

and economically infeasible for many 

exporters, especially in developing 

countries. 

Preferences Among Alternatives 

There is a preference for the approach 

taken in this final rule, which we adopt 

herein (alternative (3), above). The 

preference for this alternative is based 

principally on the determination that it 

meets the Agency’s obligations under 

the Plant Protection Act (PPA), and 

other legislation such as NEPA and the 

Clean Air Act. 

The no action alterative (alternative 1 

above) was rejected because recent 

interceptions of pests at ports of entry 

show a steady increase in serious pests 

associated with WPM from everywhere 

except China, whose WPM must already 

be treated due to past pest interceptions. 

If left unchecked, pests introduced by 

imported WPM have the potential to 

cause significant economic damage to 

the agricultural and forest resources of 

the United States.

The alternative of extending the China 

interim rule to all WPM worldwide 

(alternative 2 above) would not ensure 

long-term exclusion of some wood pests 

of quarantine concern, such as certain 

deep wood-borers, fungi, rots, and wilts. 

The adoption of the IPPC treatment 

standards for all importing countries 

will address pest threats posed not only 

by Cerambycidae, which was the 

primary target of the China interim rule, 

but nine other pest families as well. 

Additionally, adoption of the China 

interim rule requirements would result 

in the greatest additional use of methyl 

bromide of all the alternatives. 

The comprehensive risk reduction 

program (alternative 4 above) would 

consist of an array of mitigation 

methods (e.g., inspection, various heat 

treatments, various fumigants and other 

chemical treatments, irradiation, etc.) 

that is more extensive than that 

contained in either the China Interim 

Rule or the IPPC Guidelines. Many of 

the methods are in various phases of 

research and development that do not 

provide adequate basis for any final 

decisions about program usage. 

Substitution of other packing 

materials (alternative 5 above) requires 

use of materials the cost of which 

exceed the likely costs of SWPM that is 

either heat treated or fumigated with 

methyl bromide. 

Please see the FEIS for a full 

discussion of the reasons why adopting 

the IPPC standard was considered the 

preferred alternative. 

Factors in the Decision 

APHIS’ mission is guided by the PPA, 

under which the detection, control, 

eradication, suppression, prevention, 

and retardation of the spread of plant 

pests or noxious weeds have been 

determined by Congress to be necessary 

and appropriate for the protection of the 

agriculture, environment, and economy 

of the United States. The PPA also has 

been designed to facilitate exports, 

imports, and interstate commerce in 

agricultural products and other 

commodities. In order to achieve these 

objectives, use of pesticides, including 

methyl bromide, has often been 

prescribed. 

Methyl bromide is an ozone depleting 

substance that is strictly regulated under 

the Montreal Protocol and the Clean Air 

Act. While the goal of these authorities 

and agreements is to limit and 

ultimately phase out all ozone depleting 

substances, certain exemptions and 

exclusions are recognized, including an 

exemption for methyl bromide use for 

plant quarantine and preshipment 

purposes, including the purposes 

provided for in this final rule. The 

55732 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 179 / Thursday, September 16, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

exemption is not unconditional, 

however. The United States, like other 

signatories to the Montreal Protocol, 

must review its national plant health 

regulations with a view to removing the 

requirement for the use of methyl 

bromide for quarantine and 

preshipment applications where 

technically and economically feasible 

alternatives exist. 

This rule authorizes the use of methyl 

bromide, as well as heat treatment, to 

treat WPM imported from other 

countries in order to meet the mandates 

of the PPA. In addition, the Agency is 

working to promote environmental 

quality with ongoing work to identify 

and add to our regulations valid 

technically and economically feasible 

alternatives to methyl bromide. 

Avoid or Minimize Environmental 

Harm 

The environment can be harmed by 

using methyl bromide, in which case 

recovery of the ozone layer may be 

delayed, or by not using methyl 

bromide, in which case agriculture and 

forested ecosystems, among other 

aspects of environmental quality, could 

be devastated unless other equally or 

more effective alternatives were strictly 

enforced (i.e., heat treatment or use of 

substitute packing materials). By 

assuring that use of methyl bromide is 

limited, the Agency strikes a proper 

balance in its efforts to minimize 

environmental harm. APHIS is 

committed to monitoring these efforts 

through the NEPA process, and 

otherwise. Furthermore, where 

appropriate, measures—gas recapture 

technology, for example—to minimize 

harm to environmental quality caused 

by methyl bromide emissions have 

been, and will continue to be, 

encouraged by APHIS. The prudent use 

of heat treatment and substitute 

packaging materials by developed 

nations is expected to promote this 

regulatory approach in developing 

countries as their trade opportunities 

expand. 

Other 

Methyl bromide used in quarantine 

applications prescribed by the United 

States contributes just a small fraction of 

total anthropogenic bromine released 

into the atmosphere. Nevertheless, the 

Montreal Protocol is action-forcing in 

the sense that signatories must review 

their national plant health regulations 

with a view to finding alternatives to 

exempted uses of methyl bromide. The 

EPA has also cautioned that, regardless 

of the incremental contribution, it is 

important to recognize that any 

additional methyl bromide releases 

would delay recovery of the ozone layer. 

A considerable amount of research 

and development on methyl bromide 

alternatives has been conducted within 

the USDA and continues today. Under 

the Clean Air Act, EPA has also 

established a program to identify 

alternatives to ozone depleting 

substances, including methyl bromide, 

but EPA’s listing of an acceptable 

alternative does not always adequately 

address its suitability for a particular 

use. We must not put agriculture and 

ecosystems at risk based on unproven 

technology. 

APHIS is firmly committed to the 

objectives of the Montreal Protocol to 

reduce and ultimately eliminate reliance 

on methyl bromide for quarantine uses, 

consistent with its responsibilities to 

safeguard this country’s agriculture and 

ecosystems. Achieving the objectives of 

both reducing (and ultimately 

eliminating) methyl bromide emissions 

as well as safeguarding agriculture and 

ecosystems in the most expeditious, 

cost-effective way possible, requires 

close coordination within the Federal 

Government of research, development, 

and testing efforts. APHIS is determined 

to cooperate actively with the 

Agricultural Research Service, EPA, the 

Office of Management and Budget, and 

others involved in this effort to find 

effective alternatives to quarantine 

methyl bromide uses. 

In a notice summarizing EPA 

comments on recent environmental 

impact statements and proposed 

regulations that was published in the 

Federal Register on January 17, 2003 

(68 FR 2539), EPA expressed no 

objection to the draft EIS and the APHIS 

proposed rule. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

In accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 

et seq.), the information collection or 

recordkeeping requirements included in 

this rule have been approved by the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) under OMB control number 

0579–0225. 

Government Paperwork Elimination 

Act Compliance 

The Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service is committed to 

compliance with the Government 

Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA), 

which requires Government agencies in 

general to provide the public the option 

of submitting information or transacting 

business electronically to the maximum 

extent possible. For information 

pertinent to GPEA compliance related to 

this rule, please contact Mrs. Celeste 

Sickles, APHIS’ Information Collection 

Coordinator, at (301) 734–7477.

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.

■ Accordingly, 7 CFR part 319 is 

amended as follows:

PART 319—FOREIGN QUARANTINE 

NOTICES

■ 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.

■ 2. In § 319.40–1, the definitions for 

Exporter statement, Importer statement, 

and Solid wood packing material are 

removed, and two definitions are added 

in alphabetical order to read as follows:

§ 319.40–1 Definitions.

* * * * *

Regulated wood packaging material.

Wood packaging material other than 

manufactured wood materials, loose 

wood packing materials, and wood 

pieces less than 6 mm thick in any 

dimension, that are used or for use with 

cargo to prevent damage, including, but 

not limited to, dunnage, crating, pallets, 

packing blocks, drums, cases, and skids.

* * * * *

Wood packaging material. Wood or 

wood products (excluding paper 

products) used in supporting, protecting 

or carrying a commodity (includes 

dunnage).

■ 3. In § 319.40–3, paragraph (b) is 

revised to read as follows:

§ 319.40–3 General permits; articles that 

may be imported without a specific permit; 

articles that may be imported without either 

a specific permit or an importer document.

* * * * *

(b) Regulated wood packaging 

material. Regulated wood packaging 

material, whether in actual use as 

packing for regulated or nonregulated 

articles or imported as cargo, may be 

imported into the United States under a 

general permit in accordance with the 

following conditions: 

(1) Treatment. The wood packaging 

material must have been: 

(i) Heat treated to achieve a minimum 

wood core temperature of 56 °C for a 

minimum of 30 minutes. Such treatment 

may employ kiln-drying, chemical 

pressure impregnation, or other 

treatments that achieve this 

specification through the use of steam, 

hot water, or dry heat; or, 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 179 / Thursday, September 16, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 55733

(ii) Fumigated with methyl bromide 

in an enclosed area for at least 16 hours 

at the following dosage, stated in terms 

of grams of methyl bromide per cubic 

meter or pounds per 1,000 cubic feet of 

the enclosure being fumigated. 

Following fumigation, fumigated 

products must be aerated to reduce the 

concentration of fumigant below 

hazardous levels, in accordance with 

label instructions approved by the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency:

Temperature (°C/°F) 

Initial dose

g/m3 and lbs./

1,000 c.f) 

Minimum required concentration

g/m3 and lbs./1,000 c.f.) after: 

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 

material must be marked in a visible 

location on each article, preferably on at 

least two opposite sides of the article, 

with a legible and permanent mark that 

indicates that the article meets the 

requirements of this paragraph. The 

mark must be approved by the 

International Plant Protection 

Convention in its International 

Standards for Phytosanitary Measures to 

certify that wood packaging material has 

been subjected to an approved measure, 

and must include a unique graphic 

symbol, the ISO two-letter country code 

for the country that produced the wood 

packaging material, a unique number 

assigned by the national plant 

protection agency of that country to the 

producer of the wood packaging 

material, and an abbreviation disclosing 

the type of treatment (e.g., HT for heat 

treatment or MB for methyl bromide 

fumigation). The currently approved 

format for the mark is as follows, where 

XX would be replaced by the country 

code, 000 by the producer number, and 

YY by the treatment type (HT or MB):

(3) Immediate reexport of regulated 

wood packaging material without 

required mark. An inspector at the port 

of first arrival may order the immediate 

reexport of regulated wood packaging 

material that is imported without the 

mark required by paragraph (b)(2) of this 

section, in addition to or in lieu of any 

port of first arrival procedures required 

by § 319.40–9 of this part. 

(4) Exception for Department of 

Defense. Regulated wood packaging 

material used by the Department of 

Defense (DOD) of the U.S. Government 

to package nonregulated articles, 

including commercial shipments 

pursuant to a DOD contract, may be 

imported into the United States without 

the mark required by paragraph (b)(2) of 

this section.

* * * * *

(Approved by the Office of Management 

and Budget under control numbers 

0579–0049 and 0579–0225.)

§ 319.40–5 [Amended]

■ 3. In § 319.40–5, paragraphs 

(b)(1)(i)(C), (b)(2), and (b)(2)(i), the words 

‘‘solid wood packing materials’’ are 

removed each time they occur and the 

words ‘‘regulated wood packaging 

material’’ are added in their place, and 

paragraphs (g) through (k) are removed.

§ 319.40–10 [Amended]

■ 4. In § 319.40–10, footnote 6, the words 

‘‘without a complete certificate or 

exporter statement’’ are removed and the 

words ‘‘without meeting the 

requirements of this subpart’’ are added 

in their place.

Done in Washington, DC, this 9th day of 

September 2004. 

Bill Hawks, 

Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory 

Programs.

[FR Doc. 04–20763 Filed 9–15–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Marketing Service 

7 CFR Part 920 

[Docket No. FV04–920–2 IFR] 

Kiwifruit Grown in California; 

Decreased Assessment Rate

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 

USDA.

ACTION: Interim final rule with request 

for comments. 

SUMMARY: This rule decreases the 

assessment rate and changes the 

assessable unit from $0.045 per 22-

pound, volume-fill container or 

container equivalent to $0.002 per 

pound of kiwifruit established for the 

Kiwifruit Administrative Committee 

(committee) for the 2004–05 and 

subsequent fiscal periods. The 

assessment rate of $0.002 per pound of 

kiwifruit is $0.000045 per pound less 

than the assessment rate currently in 


ER16SE04.000</GPH>
Appendix D. Calculations D–1

Appendix D. Calculations of Methyl Bromide Released 

From Fumigation of Wood Packing 

Material 
D–2 Appendix D. Calculations 

 

Description of Calculations Used in the Supplemental Environmental 

Impact Statement for Estimation of Methyl Bromide Released From 

Fumigation of Wood Packing Material

The quantitative assessment of methyl bromide usage in the treatment of wood packing material 

(WPM) involves consideration of many factors with variable levels of definition and uncertainty. 

This appendix is prepared to assist the reader in better understanding the basis for the 

calculations and those factors that were considered in the development of the equation used to 

make methyl bromide estimates. 

 

The majority of phytosanitary authorities in the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) 

countries do not compile records for usage of methyl bromide specifically for treatment of WPM 

in compliance with International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures Number 15 (ISPM 15) 

guidelines. The most recent year with complete data on U.S. Customs entries of imported 

articles is 2005, and therefore, all calculations use information for 2005 as the basis for 

quantification of methyl bromide associated with ISPM 15 compliance. Other than the actual 

pounds of methyl bromide provided by the phytosanitary authority for the country of Nicaragua 

(Hernandez, 2006), determinations of methyl bromide quantities in this supplemental 

environmental impact statement (SEIS) were calculated relative to the number of WPM units 

treated in 2005. Data on the actual number of WPM units fumigated with methyl bromide in 

2005 in the United States for export purposes have been tracked (Deomano, 2006a); however, 

the phytosanitary authorities of other countries lack data on the exact numbers of WPM units 

fumigated. As part of the analyses for the China Interim Rule Environmental Assessment (EA), 

a comprehensive review of all U.S. Customs entries was conducted to ascertain the number of 

entries containing WPM. The combined effort of reviewing entries by U.S. Customs and APHIS 

conservatively estimated that 30% of all entries were packed with WPM. Use of this estimated 

percentage of entries containing WPM has been applied to calculations of the number of WPM 

units in all documentation since the China Interim Rule EA. It was also recognized that 

individual U.S. Customs entries may pertain to a single pallet, a single container, or multiple 

containers. In the absence of detailed information, the average U.S. Customs entry is viewed to 

pertain to one cargo container, and calculations are based upon fumigation of WPM for that unit 

size. 

The general equation used in this SEIS for calculation of the metric tons (MT) of methyl bromide 

released from WPM fumigations in 2005 is as follows: 

MT of methyl bromide = (# of U.S. Customs entries with WPM) x (fraction of WPM entries 

fumigated with methyl bromide) x (lbs methyl bromide per entry) x (0.45359237 kg/lb) x 

(1 MT/1,000 kg) x (fraction of total methyl bromide applied that is vented from fumigation 

chamber) 
Appendix D. Calculations D–3

The equation consists of two constants used for converting pounds to MT and of four variables: 

The derivation of the first variable, # of U.S. Customs Entries with WPM, was described above. 

The second variable, fraction of WPM entries fumigated with methyl bromide, is based upon 

information provided by the phytosanitary authorities of the country/countries being analyzed. 

The third variable, pounds of methyl bromide per entry, is dependent upon the manner in which 

the fumigations are conducted. It is derived partly from information about the conduct of 

fumigations provided by the phytosanitary authorities of the country/countries being analyzed 

and from the quantity of methyl bromide required to fumigate WPM in that manner. The 

mathematical derivation of this variable for different fumigation processes is provided in the next 

paragraph. 

The fourth variable, fraction of the total methyl bromide applied that is vented from the 

fumigation chamber, relates to the sorption of methyl bromide by WPM. This sorption of methyl 

bromide precludes its release to the atmosphere and, therefore, poses no risk of damage to the 

ozone layer. The percentage of methyl bromide vented from fumigations of durable goods, such 

as WPM, was determined to range from 69 to 79% of the total methyl bromide applied (UNEP, 

MBTOC, 1998); therefore, the lower estimates apply a fraction of 0.69 and the higher estimates 

apply a fraction of 0.79. 

 

The mathematical derivation of the third variable, pounds of methyl bromide per entry, is 

dependent upon how the fumigation of WPM with methyl bromide is conducted. Although all 

treatments of WPM are conducted with from 3 to 4 pounds of methyl bromide per 1,000 cubic 

feet of space, the relative methyl bromide usage per unit treated may be increased by fumigating 

WPM that is already loaded with other cargo, as occurs at some locations in China, or decreased 

by fumigating the wood pieces prior to assembling the WPM, unit as occurs in Japan. Most 

shippers neither fumigate the wood pieces prior to assembling WPM units nor load WPM with 

cargo prior to fumigation, but the methyl bromide estimates in this SEIS consider 

comprehensively the manner in which the WPM units are fumigated. 

There are five different methods of fumigation of WPM that have been commonly used and are 

considered in this SEIS. If there is no information available about the manner in which WPM is 

being fumigated in a given country, the fumigation is presumed to occur in tarped containers 

after cargo is already loaded on the WPM. This provides a conservatively high estimate for 

those countries where data are lacking. Other methods are applied to countries where reliable 

information about compliance has been received. The fumigation methods, quantities of methyl 

bromide associated with each method, and a representative example of calculations used in this 

SEIS for each method are as follows: 
D–4 Appendix D. Calculations 

 

Method 1: Treatment of Assembled WPM in Tarped Containers After Loading of Cargo 

For 40-foot Container Tarp Fumigation: 

40 ft long x 9 ft wide x 15 ft tall = 5,400 cu ft treated 

Range of lbs of methyl bromide/entry = 16.2–21.6 lbs 

For 20-foot Container Tarp Fumigation: 

20 ft long x 9 ft wide x 15 ft tall = 2,700 cu ft, rounded up to 3,000 cu ft. treated 

Range of lbs of methyl bromide/entry = 9–12 lbs 

Example of Method 1—Countries lacking information about fumigation of WPM where 

fumigation is assessed to occur after loading for 50% of WPM that is fumigated. 

Variables specific to this calculation: 

# of U.S. Customs entries with WPM = 505,838 entries 

Fraction of WPM entries fumigated with methyl bromide = 0.5 

lbs methyl bromide per entry = 9 pounds (low) to 21.6 pounds (high) 

Lower estimate = 505,838 x 0.5 x 9 lbs x 0.45359237 kg/lb x 1 MT/1,000 kg x 0.69 = 712 MT 

Upper estimate = 505,838 x 0.5 x 21.6 lbs x 0.45359237 kg/lb x 1 MT/1,000 kg x 0.79 = 1,958 MT 

Method 2: Treatment of Assembled WPM in Sealed Containers After Loading of Cargo

For 40-foot Container Interior Fumigation:

40 ft long x 8 ft wide x 10 ft tall = 3200 cu ft treated 

Range of lbs of methyl bromide/entry = 9.6–12.8 lbs 

For 20-foot Container Interior Fumigation:

20 ft long x 8 ft wide x 10 ft tall = 1600 cu ft treated 

Range of lbs of methyl bromide/entry = 4.8–6.4 lbs 

Example of Method 2—China where fumigation occurs after loading for the assessed 50% of 

WPM that is fumigated (part of aggregate usage calculations). 

Variables specific to this calculation: 

# of U.S. Customs entries with WPM = 2,698,237 entries 

Fraction of WPM entries fumigated with methyl bromide = 0.5 

lbs methyl bromide per entry = 4.8 pounds (low) to 12.8 pounds (high) 

Lower estimate = 2,698,237 x 0.5 x 4.8 lbs x 0.45359237 kg/lb x 1 MT/1,000 kg x 0.69 = 2,027 MT 

Upper estimate = 2,698,237 x 0.5 x 12.8 lbs x 0.45359237 kg/lb x 1MT/1,000 kg x 0.79 = 6,188 MT 
Appendix D. Calculations D–5

Method 3: Treatment of Assembled WPM in Tarped Containers Before Loading of Cargo

Packing material for 20 U.S. Customs entries all tarp fumigated in same container (95% less usage 

of methyl bromide) resulting in range one-twentieth of those values determined in method 1. 

Range of lbs of methyl bromide/entry = 0.45–1.08 lbs 

Example of Method 3—Australia and New Zealand where fumigation occurs prior to loading 

for the 10 to 20% of WPM that is fumigated. 

Variables specific to this calculation: 

# of U.S. Customs Entries with WPM = 67,656 entries 

Fraction of WPM entries fumigated with methyl bromide = 0.1 (low) to 0.2 (high) 

lbs methyl bromide per entry = 0.45 pounds (low) to 1.08 pounds (high) 

Lower estimate = 67,656 x 0.1 x 0.45 lbs x 0.45359237 kg/lb x 1 MT/1,000 kg x 0.69 = 0.95 MT 

Upper estimate = 67,656 x 0.2 x 1.08 lbs x 0.45359237 kg/lb x 1 MT/1,000 kg x 0.79 = 5.2 MT 

Method 4: Treatment of Assembled WPM in Sealed Containers Before Loading of Cargo 

Packing material for 20 U.S. Customs entries all fumigated in same sealed container (95% less 

usage of methyl bromide) resulting in range one-twentieth of those values determined in 

method 2. 

Range of lbs of methyl bromide/entry = 0.24–0.64 lbs 

Example of Method 4—Hong Kong where fumigation occurs prior to loading for the assessed 

50% of WPM that is fumigated (part of aggregate usage calculations). 

Variables specific to this calculation: 

# of U.S. Customs Entries with WPM = 115,640 entries 

Fraction of WPM entries fumigated with methyl bromide = 0.5 

lbs methyl bromide per entry = 0.24 pounds (low) to 0.64 pounds (high) 

Lower estimate = 115,640 x 0.5 x 0.24 lbs x 0.45359237 kg/lb x 1 MT/1,000 kg x 0.69 = 4.3 MT 

Upper estimate = 115,640 x 0.5 x 0.64 lbs x 0.45359237 kg/lb x 1 MT/1,000 kg x 0.79 = 13.3 MT 
D–6 Appendix D. Calculations 

 

Method 5: Treatment of Unassembled WPM in Tarped Containers Before Loading of 

Cargo

Packing material for 50 U.S. Customs entries all tarped fumigated in same container (98% less 

usage of methyl bromide) resulting in range one-fiftieth of those values determined in method 1. 

Range of lbs of methyl bromide/entry = 0.18–0.432 lbs 

Example of Method 5 (Treatment of Unassembled WPM in Tarped Containers Before Loading 

of Cargo) Japan where fumigation occurs prior to loading for the 5 to 10% of WPM that is 

fumigated. 

Variables specific to this calculation: 

# of U.S. Customs Entries with WPM = 742,134 entries 

Fraction of WPM entries fumigated with methyl bromide = 0.05 (low) to 0.1 (high) 

lbs methyl bromide per entry = 0.18 pounds (low) to 0.432 pounds (high) 

Lower estimate = 742,134 x 0.05 x 0.18 lbs x 0.45359237 kg/lb x 1 MT/1,000 kg x 0.69 = 2.1 MT 

Upper estimate = 742,134 x 0.1 x 0.432 lbs x 0.45359237 kg/lb x 1 MT/1,000 kg x 0.79 = 12 MT 

Other Factors Considered But Not Applied to Refine the Methyl 

Bromide Equation 

There are no hard figures for how much WPM is reused worldwide after cargo has been 

unloaded. We know from life cycle studies that some WPM can be reused for 8 to10 separate 

shipments before the wood is no longer durable enough to handle the loaded cargo (Deomano, 

2006b). The United States does reuse treated pallets that meet ISPM 15 criteria and data are 

collected about how much WPM is reused. Review of the present rate of reuse in the 

United States indicates that one of every two WPM units is recycled and reused for shipping 

another load of cargo (Deomano 2006b). Some countries are known to recycle more WPM than 

the United States; however, information about the actual rates of reuse by other countries is not 

readily available. Accordingly, we did not apply this information to any refinements of the 

methyl bromide release model. By disregarding this issue in the quantitative analysis, our 

calculated figures overestimate the number of WPM units treated by 50% or more. The lower 

usage of methyl bromide associated with less frequent need to treat WPM is, therefore, not 

reflected in the present estimates of methyl bromide released or in previous estimates from the 

final environmental impact statement. As information related to this topic becomes available, 

continuing refinements of the methyl bromide estimates may be made in the future to more 

closely reflect actual usage. 
Appendix D. Calculations D–7

Some commodities are not marketable if fumigated with methyl bromide; some agricultural 

commodities lack a tolerance for bromine residues; some commodities, such as leather, react 

with methyl bromide such that strong odors are imparted to the product; and some commodities, 

such as electronics, may be damaged by reaction with methyl bromide. Treatment of such 

commodities is precluded from methods, such as methyl bromide fumigation, after loading due 

to the loss of product. When the assumption is made that this is the predominant method of 

fumigation in China occurs to WPM with cargo already loaded, it is expected that the 

calculations from this assumption will overstate the release of methyl bromide. This is clearly 

true for the early estimates made for the China Interim Rule and for the present analysis in this 

SEIS where this assumption was applied to China and other countries lacking information 

regarding their treatment methodology for ISPM 15 compliance. Although there is no detailed 

data available to support a precise estimate of methyl bromide usage in our model, this approach 

does ensure that underestimation of potential release of methyl bromide from fumigations for 

China and these other countries does not occur in this model. 
D–8 Appendix D. Calculations 

 

(This page is intentionally left blank.)
Appendix E. Distribution List E–1

Appendix E. Distribution List

Ken Alex 

Supervising Deputy Attorney General 

California Attorney General’s Office 

1515 Clay St., P.O. Box 70550 

Oakland, CA 94612–0550 

Ann Alexander 

Assistant Attorney General and 

 Environmental Counsel 

Illinois Attorney General’s Office 

188 West Randolph Street, Suite 2001 

Chicago, IL 60601 

Dr. Douglas Allen 

One Forestry Dr. 

College of Environmental Science 

& Forestry 

State University of New York 

Syracuse, NY 13210–2778 

Dr. Eric Allen 

Natural Resources Canada 

Canadian Forest Service 

Pacific Forestry Centre 

506 West Burnside Rd. 

Victoria, BC V8Z 1M5 

CANADA 

American Nursery and Landscape Assn. 

1000 Vermont Ave., NW. Suite 300 

Washington, DC 20005 

Allan Auclair 

USDA, APHIS, PPQ, CPHST 

4700 River Rd. Unit 133 

Riverdale, MD 20737 

Wendy Baer, Executive Vice President 

The International Wood Products Assn. 

4214 King St., West 

Alexandria, VA 22302 

Al Barak 

USDA, APHIS, PPQ 

Pest Survey Detection & Exclusion Lab 

Building 1398 

Otis ANGB, MA 02542 

Dr. Edward L. Barnard 

Florida Division of Forestry 

1911 SW 34th St. 

Gainesville, FL 32614–7100 

Peter Barnes 

Ministry of Forestry 

23 Quay St. CPO Box 39 

Auckland, New Zealand 

Ann M. Bartuska, Ph.D. 

Executive Dir., Invasive Species Initiative 

The Nature Conservancy 

International Headquarters 

4245 North Fairfax Dr. Suite 100 

Arlington, VA 22203–1606 

Philip Batchelder, Program Coordinator 

San Bruno Mountain Watch 

P.O. Box 53 

Brisbane, CA 94005 

Dinah Bear 

General Counsel 

Council on Environmental Quality 

722 Jackson Pl., NW. 

Washington, DC 20503 

Dr. Dale R. Bergdahl 

School of Natural Resources 

Department of Forestry 

George D. Aiken Center 

University of Vermont 

Burlington, VT 05405–0088 
E–2 Appendix E. Distribution List 

 

Dr. Alan Berryman 

Washington State University 

Department of Entomology 

Pullman, WA 99164 

Dr. Ronald F. Billings 

Forest Pest Management 

Texas Forest Service 

P.O. Box 310 

2127 South First 

Lufkin, TX 75902–0310 

Dr. Brent Blackwelder, President 

Friends of the Earth 

1025 Vermont Ave., NW. 

Washington, DC 20005 

Dr. George M. Blakeslee 

School of Forest Resources & Conservation 

P.O. Box 110410 

212 Newins–Ziegler Hall 

University of Florida 

Gainesville, FL 32611–0410 

Dr. Robert I. Bolla, Dean 

College of Arts and Sciences 

Youngstown State University 

One University Plaza 

Youngstown, OH 44555 

The Honorable Barbara Boxer 

U.S. Senate 

Washington, DC 20520 

Peter Bradfield 

McMillan Bloedel (Australia) Pvt., Inc. 

Level 2, 91 Philip St. 

Parramatta, New South Wales 

George Y. Bramwell, Esq., President 

Serpentine Art & Nature Commons, Inc. 

P.O. Box 040252 Stapleton Station 

Staten Island, NY 10304–0005 

Suzanne Bratis 

OAR, OAP, GPD 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW. 

MC: 6205J 

Washington, DC 20460 

Chaille Brindley 

Pallet Enterprise 

Industrial Reporting, Inc. 

10244 Timber Ridge Dr. 

Ashland, VA 23005 

Bob Brister 

1102 South 800 East #A 

Salt Lake City, UT 84105 

Susan Jane Brown, Executive Director 

Gifford Pinchot Task Force 

P.O. Box 61647 

Vancouver, WA 98666 

Robert Scott Brundage 

Toledo Urban Orchards 

2612 Maplewood Ave. 

Toledo, OH 43610 

Kimberly Ann Buckley 

3705 Fieldstone Blvd. Apt. 403 

Naples, FL 34109 

Dr. Harold Burdsall, Jr. 

USDA, Forest Service 

Forest Products Laboratory 

1 Gifford Pinchot Dr. 

Madison, WI 53705–2398 

Stanley W. Burgiel, Ph.D. 

International Policy Analyst 

Defenders of Wildlife, Natl. Headquarters 

1101 14th St., NW. Suite 1400 

Washington, DC 20005 
Appendix E. Distribution List E–3

Wayne Burnett 

Senior Import Specialist 

USDA, APHIS, EDP 

4700 River Rd. Unit 137 

Riverdale, MD 20737–1236 

Beth Burrows, President/Director 

The Edmonds Institute 

20319 92nd Ave. West 

Edmonds, WA 98020 

Bill Callison, Assistant Director 

Plant Health & Pest Prevention Services 

California Dept. of Food & Agriculture 

1220 N St. 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Dr. E. Alan Cameron 

Professor Emeritus of Entomology 

541 McCormick Ave. 

State College, PA 16801–6616 

Scott Cameron 

CHEP Equipment Pooling Systems 

2121 K St., NW. Suite 800 

Washington, DC 20037 

Faith Thompson Campbell 

The Nature Conservancy 

4245 North Fairfax Drive 

Arlington, VA 22203 

Hugh M. Carola, Land Trust Director 

The Fyke Nature Association 

P.O. Box 141 

Ramsey, NJ 07446 

Joe Cavey 

USDA, APHIS, PPQ, PSPI 

4700 River Rd. Unit 52 

Riverdale, MD 20737 

Colby Chester 

117 East Louisa St. #400 

Seattle, WA 98102 

Teung Chin 

USDA, OPMP 

4700 River Rd. Unit 152 

Riverdale, MD 20737 

Donald B. Clark 

United Church of Christ 

Network for Environmental and Economic 

Responsibility 

P.O. Box 220 

Pleasant Hill, TN 38578 

The Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton 

U.S. Senate 

Washington, DC 20520 

Dr. Fields W. Cobb, Jr. 

Prof. Emeritus of Forest Pathology 

4429 Lakeshore Dr. 

Sagle, ID 83860–8721 

Bruce E. Coblentz 

Department of Fisheries and Wildlife 

Nash 104 

Oregon State University 

Corvallis, OR 97331–3803 

Jeff Cohen 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Ariel Rios Bldg. 6205J 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW. 

Washington, DC 20460 

Michael Cole 

Australian Quarantine & Inspection Service 

Edmund Barton Bldg., GPO Box 858 

Canberra ACT 2601, Australia 

Timothy J. Coleman, Executive Director 

Kettle Range Conservation Group 

P.O. Box 150 

Republic, WA 99166 
E–4 Appendix E. Distribution List 

 

Nick Collett 

Center for Forest Tree Technology 

123 Brown St. P.O. Box 137 

Heidelberg, Victoria 3084 

Australia 

Robert C. Conger 

8 Stuart Circle 

Weldon, NC 27890 

Lesley A. Cree 

Plant Health Risk Assessment Unit 

Animal and Plant Health Directorate 

3851 Fallowfield Rd. 

Nepean, ON K2H 8P9 

CANADA 

Gene Cross 

Plant Industry Division 

North Carolina Department of Agriculture 

216 West Jones St. 

Raleigh, NC 27603 

David T. Crow 

Quarantine Fumigation Alliance of America 

209 Pennsylvania Ave., SE. 

Washington, DC 20003 

Marie A. Curtis, Executive Director 

New Jersey Environmental Lobby 

204 West State St. 

Trenton, NJ 08608 

Dr. Donald L. Dahlsten 

Center for Biological Control 

University of California–Berkeley 

201 Wellman Hall 

Berkeley, CA 94720–3112 

Dr. Julian E. Davies, Professor Emeritus 

President, American Society for 

Microbiology 

Department of Microbiology & Immunology 

University of British Columbia 

Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4 

CANADA 

Mary Byrd Davis, Director 

Eastern Old-Growth Clearinghouse 

P.O. Box 131 

Georgetown, KY 40324 

Marcel Dawson 

Chair, NAPPO Forestry Panel 

Plant Health & Production Division 

Canadian Food Inspection Agency 

59 Camelot Dr. 

Nepean, ON K1A 0Y9 

CANADA 

Dr. Gregg DeNitto 

USDA, Forest Service 

Missoula Field Office, FHP 

Pattee and Pine 

Missoula, MT 59807 

Edgar Deomano 

National Wooden Pallet & Container Assoc. 

329 South Patrick St. 

Alexandria, VA 22314 

Bill Dickerson, Director 

Plant Industry Division 

North Carolina Dept. of Agriculture 

216 West Jones St. 

Raleigh, NC 27603 

Willard Dickerson 

North Carolina Department of Agriculture & 

Consumer Services 

P.O. Box 27647 

Raleigh, NC 27611 
Appendix E. Distribution List E–5

Anne Divjak 

Manager, International Trade 

Wood Products International 

American Forest & Paper Association 

1111 19th St., NW. Suite 800 

Washington, DC 20036 

David D. Doniger 

Policy Director, Climate Center 

Natural Resources Defense Council 

1200 New York Ave., NW. Suite 400 

Washington, DC 20005 

William E. Dornbos 

Assistant Attorney General 

Environmental Protection Bureau 

New York Attorney General’s Office 

120 Broadway, 26th Floor 

New York, NY 10271 

Jason Van Driesche 

2104 Oakridge Ave. 

Madison, WI 53704 

Richard L. Dunkle, Deputy Administrator 

USDA, APHIS, PPQ 

Jamie Whitten Bldg., Room 302–E 

14th & Independence Ave., SW. 

Washington, DC 20250 

Dr. L. David Dwinell 

USDA, Forest Service 

Forestry Sciences Lab 

320 Green St. 

Athens, GA 30602–2044 

Frederick W. Ebel 

President, Society of American Foresters 

CF Consulting Forester 

Ebel & Associates, Inc. 

2810 East Oxbow Rd. 

Colbert, WA 99005 

Dr. Andris Eglitis 

USDA, Forest Service 

Central Oregon Insect & Disease Area Ofc. 

1645 Highway 20 East 

Bend, OR 97701 

Edward G. Elias 

Director, International Marketing Division 

APA–The Engineered Wood Association 

7011 South 19th St. 

P.O. Box 11700 

Tacoma, WA 98411–0700 

Hilarie Engle 

Conservation Associate 

Committee for Idaho’s High Desert 

P.O. Box 2863 

Bosie, ID 83701 

Hugh Evans 

The Forestry Authority 

Alice Holt Lodge 

Wrecclesham, Farnham, Surrey 

GU10 4LH 

United Kingdom 

Charles Croswaithe Eyre 

Eyre Associates 

The Old Malthouse 

Upper Clatford, Andover 

Hampshire SP11 7QL 

United Kingdom 

Bob Faller 

Packaging Unlimited 

1729 McCloskey Ave. 

Louisville, KY 40210 

Carol Feinberg-McBrian 

1875 West 15th Ave. 

Eugene, OR 97402 

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein 

U.S. Senate 

Washington, DC 20520 
E–6 Appendix E. Distribution List 

 

Robert Fener 

1011 Swapping Camp Rd. 

Amherst, VA 24521 

Dr. Gregory M. Filip 

Department of Forest Science 

Oregon State University 

Forestry Sciences Lab 020 

Corvallis, OR 97331–7501 

Laurie-Ann Flanagan 

Quarantine Fumigation Alliance of America 

209 Pennsylvania Ave., SE. 

Washington, DC 20003 

Robert Floyd 

CSIRO Australia 

Division of Entomology 

GPO Box 1700 

Canberra ACT 2601, Australia 

Kim Fortin 

401 9th St., SE. #305 

Minneapolis, MN 55414 

Ruth Frampton 

Ministry of Agriculture & Forestry 

ASB Bank House 

101–103 The Terr. 

P.O. Box 2526 

Wellington, New Zealand 

Dr. Jerry F. Franklin 

Professor of Ecosystem Science 

University of Washington 

2120 Squak Mountain Loop, SW. 

Issaquah, WA 98027 

Dr. Stewart H. Gage 

Department of Entomology 

Michigan State University 

East Lansing, MI 48824 

Dr. Robert I. Gara 

University of Washington 

College of Forest Resources 

AR–10 

Seattle, WA 98195 

Dr. Donald E. Gardner 

Department of Botany 

University of Hawaii 

3190 Maile Way 

Honolulu, HI 96822 

Cusi Gibbons-Ballew 

12667 North Peach Ridge Rd. 

Athens, OH 45701 

Christopher Gillis, Deputy Editor 

Howard Publications, Inc. 

National Press Building Room 1269 

Washington, DC 20045 

Dr. Ken Glassey 

Ministry of Agriculture & Forestry 

Regulatory Authority 

ASB Bank House 

101–103 The Terrace 

P.O. Box 2526 

Wellington, New Zealand 

Sue Golabek 

USDA, Office of General Counsel 

Regulatory Division Room 2319 

1400 Independence Ave., SW. 

Washington, DC 20250 

Gordon Gordh, Director 

USDA, APHIS, PPQ, CPHST 

1017 Main Campus Dr. Suite 2500 

Raleigh, NC 27606 
Appendix E. Distribution List E–7

Dr. Kenneth Grace 

Department of Entomology 

University of Hawaii 

3050 Maile Way Room 310 

Honolulu, HI 96822–2271 

Gerald Gray, Chair 

Virginia Forest Watch 

P.O. Box 929 

Clintwood, VA 24228 

John Greifer 

USDA, APHIS, Trade Support Team 

Room 1132, South Bldg. 

12th & Independence Ave., SW. 

Washington, DC 20250 

Dr. John Griesbach 

Oregon Department of Agriculture 

Plant Division 

635 Capitol St., NE. 

Salem, OR 97310 

Katherine Groves, Staff Ecologist 

Georgia Forestwatch 

125 Wilcox St. #1 

Athens, GA 30605 

Dr. Robert Haack 

USDA, Forest Service 

North Central Research Station 

1407 South Harrison Rd. 

Room 220 Nisbet 

Michigan State University 

East Lansing, MI 48823 

Dr. Everett M. Hansen 

Department of Botany and Plant Pathology 

Oregon State University 

2082 Cordley Hall 

Corvallis, OR 97331–2902 

Paul W. Hansen, Executive Director 

Izaak Walton League of America 

707 Conservation Lane 

Gaithersburg, MD 20878 

Bruce Harpham, Conservation Chair 

Rainier Audubon Society 

4325 South 343rd St. 

Auburn, WA 98001–9533 

Dr. Thomas C. Harrington 

Plant Pathology Department 

Iowa State University 

Ames, IA 50011 

Brad Hash 

G.E. Tree Campaign 

Action for Social & Ecological Justice 

P.O. Box 57 

Burlington, VT 05402 

Dr. Dennis Haugen 

USDA, Forest Service 

Forest Health Protection 

1992 Folwell Ave. 

St. Paul, MN 55108 

Dr. Michael Haverty 

USDA, Forest Service 

Pacific Southwest Research Station 

800 Buchanan St., West Building 

Albany, CA 94710–0011 

Ken Havran 

Ofc. of Environmental Policy & Compliance 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

1849 C Street., NW. MS–2342 

Washington, DC 20240 

Headwaters 

Derek Volkart 

P.O. Box 729 

Ashland, OR 97520 
E–8 Appendix E. Distribution List 

 

John Healy 

360 Solutions Group 

2931 Ordway St., NW. 

Washington, DC 20008 

Doug Heiken 

Oregon Natural Resources Council 

P.O. Box 11648 

Eugene, OR 97440 

John Heissenbuttel 

Vice President, Forestry and Wood Products 

American Forest & Paper Association 

1111 19th St., NW. Suite 800 

Washington, DC 20036 

Dhol Herzi 

Room 3871, South Bldg. Mail Stop 0315 

1400 Independence Ave., SW. 

Washington, DC 20250–0315 

Michael Hicks 

Coordinator, Trade Policy 

Forest and Fishery Products Division 

Foreign Agricultural Service 

1400 Independence Ave. 

Washington, DC 20250–1047 

Kenneth R. Hobson, Ph. D. 

2114 Wilkinson Court 

Norman, OK 73069 

Dr. Charles Hodges 

2012 Nancy Ann Dr. 

Raleigh, NC 27607 

Tom Hofacker 

USDA, Forest Service 

FHP, YB–2S 

14th & Independence Ave., SW. 

Washington, DC 20250 

Jane Hogan 

Ontario Hardwood Company, Inc. 

190 West Ontario Rd. 

Keysville, VA 23947 

Paul Houghland, Jr., CAE 

Executive Manager 

National Hardwood Lumber Association 

P.O. Box 34518 

Memphis, TN 38184–0518 

Cindy Howard 

USDA, APHIS, PPD, RAD 

4700 River Rd. Unit 118 

Riverdale, MD 20737 

Martin Hugh-Jones 

Dept. of Pathobiological Sciences 

School of Veterinary Medicine 

Louisiana State University 

Baton Rouge, LA 70803–8404 

Robert M. Hughes 

Regional Aquatic Ecologist 

2895 SE. Glenn 

Corvallis, OR 97333 

Dr. Lee M. Humble 

Forestry Canada 

Pacific Forestry Centre 

506 West Burnside Rd. 

Victoria, BC V8Z 1M5 

CANADA 

Dr. Richard S. Hunt 

Pacific Forestry Centre 

506 West Burnside Rd. 

Victoria, BC V8Z1M5 

CANADA 
Appendix E. Distribution List E–9

Lee Soo Hura 

Korean Embassy 

2450 Massachusetts Ave., NW. 

Washington, DC 20008 

Barbara L. Illman, Research Project Leader 

Biodeterioration of Wood 

USDA, Forest Service, Forest Products Lab 

One Gifford Pinchot Dr. 

Madison, WI 53705 

Dr. William Jacobi 

Dept. of Bioagricultural Sci. & Pest Mgmt. 

Colorado State University 

Fort Collins, CO 80523 

The Honorable James Jeffords 

U.S. Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

Peter T. Jenkins, Attorney/Policy Analyst 

Center for Food Safety 

International Center for Tech. Assessment 

660 Pennsylvania Ave., SE. Suite 302 

Washington, DC 20003 

Dr. Allen L. Jennings, Director 

Room 3871, South Bldg. Mail Stop 0315 

1400 Independence Ave., SW. 

Washington, DC 20250–0315 

Dr. Kathleen J.R. Johnson 

Oregon Department of Agriculture 

635 Capitol St., NE. 

Salem, OR 97310–0110 

William Jones 

USDA, Forest Service 

180 Canfield St. 

Morgantown, WV 26505 

Richard Kelly 

USDA, APHIS, PPD, 2W92 

2150 Centre Ave., Building B 

Fort Collins, CO 80526–8117 

Narcy Klag 

USDA, APHIS, PPQ, PIM 

4700 River Rd. Unit 140 

Riverdale, MD 20737 

Dr. John Kliejunas 

USDA, Forest Service 

1323 Club Dr. 

Vallejo, CA 94592 

Chris Klocek 

USDA, APHIS, PPD, PAD 

4700 River Rd. Unit 119 

Riverdale, MD 20737 

Dr. Linda Kohn 

President, Mycological Society of America 

Department of Botany 

University of Toronto 

Erindale Campus 

Mississauga, ON L5L 1C6 

CANADA 

Dr. Daniel Kucera 

337 Staghorn Way 

West Chester, PA 19380 

Dr. George Kuhlman 

145 Orchard Circle 

Athens, GA 30605 

Gamini de Silva Kulasuriya 

Manager, Buying and Shipping 

MLM Timber Products 

Bennelong Rd. 

Homebush Bay, New South Wales 

James LaBonte 

Oregon Department of Agriculture 

635 Capitol St., NE. 

Salem, OR 97301–4550 
E–10 Appendix E. Distribution List 

 

Dorothy Laidlaw 

Canadian Food Inspection Agency 

59 Camelot Drive 

Nepean, ON K1A 0Y9 

CANADA 

Thomas Land 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW. 6205–J 

Washington, DC 20460 

Dr. John D. Lattin 

Department of Entomology 

Oregon State University 

Corvallis, OR 97331–2907 

Jack Leishman 

Southern Oregon Nature Excursions 

2320 Talent Ave. 

Talent, OR 97540 

The Honorable Patrick Leahy 

U.S. Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dr. Michael Lenz 

Division of Entomology, CSIRO 

GPO Box 1700 

Canberra ACT 2601, Australia 

The Honorable Carl Levin 

U.S. Senate 

Washington, DC 20520 

Matthew Levine 

Assistant Attorney General 

Connecticut Attorney General’s Office 

P.O. Box 120 

55 Elm Street 

Hartford, CT 06141-0120 

Jane Levy 

USDA, APHIS, PPQ, PHP 

4700 River Rd. Unit 131 

Riverdale, MD 20737 

Roy R. “Robin” Lewis III, President 

Lewis Environmental Services, Inc. 

P.O. Box 400 

Ruskin, FL 33570–0400 

Mike Lidsky 

USDA, APHIS, PPQ, PHP 

4700 River Rd. Unit 141 

Riverdale, MD 20737 

Dr. Marc J. Linit 

Department of Entomology 

1–87 Agriculture Bldg. 

University of Missouri–Columbia 

Columbia, MO 65211 

Dr. Willis Littke 

Weyerhaeuser Research Station 

505 North Pearl St. 

Centralia, WA 98531 

Kelly Lobdell 

Package Research Lab 

41 Pine St. 

Rockaway, NJ 07843 

Rev. Charles Lord 

Obed Watershed Association 

P.O. Box 464 

Pleasant Hill, TN 38578 

Dr. Ann M. Lynch, Chair 

SAF Forest Entomol and Pathol 

Working Group 

Southwest Forest Science Complex 

USDA, Forest Service 

2500 South Pine Knoll Dr. 

Flagstaff, AZ 86001–6381 
Appendix E. Distribution List E–11

Magic 

381 Oxford Ave. 

Palo Alto, CA 94306 

Michelle Marcotte 

31 Shadetree Crescent 

Ottawa, ON K2E 7R3 

CANADA 

Vic Mastro, Laboratory Director 

USDA, APHIS, PPQ 

Pest Survey Detection & Exclusion Lab 

Building 1398 

Otis ANGB, MA 02542 

Dr. William Mattson 

USDA, Forest Service 

North Central Research Station 

5985 Highway K 

Rhinelander, WI 54501 

Dr. Glynn Maynard 

Australian Quarantine & Inspection Service 

Plant Quarantine Policy Branch 

Edmund Barton Bldg., Barton ACT 

GPO Box 858 

Canberra ACT 2601, Australia 

Bill McDonald 

401 Brooks Hall 

P.O. Box 6057 

West Virginia University 

Morgantown, WV 26506–6057 

Ian McDonell 

Executive Director, NAPPO 

Observatory Crescent, Bldg. 3 

Central Experiment Farm 

Ottawa, ON K1A 0C6 

CANADA 

Vince Meleski 

Program Director, Wild Alabama 

P.O. Box 117 

Moulton, AL 35650 

Dr. Leigh Miller 

Division of Entomology, CSIRO 

GPO Box 1700 

Canberra ACT 2601, Australia 

Craig Minowa, Technical Director 

Environmental Assoc. for Great Lakes Educ. 

394 Lake Ave. South, Suite 222 

Duluth, MN 55802 

Emmanuel Mireku 

Australian Quarantine & Inspection Service 

Plant Quarantine Policy Branch 

Edmund Barton Bldg., Barton ACT 

GPO Box 858 

Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia 

Grace Muscarella 

AWARE, Montgomery County, PA 

501 Hancock Rd. 

North Wales, PA 19454 

Dan Naatz 

Director, Government & Regulatory Affairs 

CHEP 

2121 K St., NW. Suite 800 

Washington, DC 20037 

Frank Neff 

14035 West 91st Terr. #3 

Lenexa, KS 66215–3293 

Mark Newcombe 

Natural Resources Canada 

Canadian Forest Service 

580 Booth St. 

Ottawa, ON K1A 0E4 

CANADA 

John Neylan 

1220 Pennsylvania Ave., NW. 2225–A 

Washington, DC 20460 
E–12 Appendix E. Distribution List 

 

Jim Northup, Executive Director 

Forest Watch 

10 Langdon St. Suite 1 

Montpelier, VT 05602 

Dr. David Nowak 

USDA, Forest Service 

Northeastern Research Station 

5 Moon Library, SUNY–CESF 

Syracuse, NY 13210 

Dr. Joseph O’Brien 

USDA, Forest Service 

Forest Health Protection 

1992 Folwell Ave. 

St. Paul, MN 55108 

Andrei Orlinski 

European & Mediterranean Plant 

Protection Organization 

1, rue Le Nôtre 

75016 Paris, France 

Nancy K. Osterbauer, Ph. D. 

Oregon Department of Agriculture 

635 Capitol St., NE. 

Salem, OR 97301–4550 

Nils Osterberg 

30 Chatterton Ave. 

White Plains, NY 10606 

William J. Otrosina 

Chair, APS Forest Pathology Committee 

USDA, Forest Service 

320 Green St. 

Athens, GA 30602–2044 

David L. Overhaulser 

Forest Health Management 

Oregon Department of Forestry 

2600 State St. 

Salem, OR 97310 

Dr. Don Owen 

California Department of Forestry 

6105 Airport Rd. 

Redding, CA 96002 

Richard Owen 

Smurfit-Stone Container Corporation 

2940 Reach Rd. P.O. Box 3097 

Williamsport, PA 17701 

Judy Pasek 

APHIS, PPQ, Western Region 

1629 Blue Spruce Suite 204 

Ft. Collins, CO 80524 

Parul R. Patel 

USDA, APHIS, PPQ, EDP 

4700 River Rd. Unit 137 

Riverdale, MD 20737 

John H. Payne 

USDA, APHIS, PPQ, ODA 

Jamie Whitten Bldg., Room 302–E 

14th & Independence Ave., SW. 

Washington, DC 20250 

Dr. Thomas Payne 

OSU/OARDC 

Director's Office 

1680 Madison Ave. 

Wooster, OH 44691 

Paul Pheloung 

Manager, Weeds & Forestry Team 

Australian Quarantine & Inspection Service 

Edmund Barton Bldg., GPO 858 

Canberra ACT 2601, Australia 
Appendix E. Distribution List E–13

David Porter 

Councilor, Ecology/Pathology 

Mycological Society of America 

Botany Department 

University of Georgia 

Athens, GA 30602 

Mark Powell 

USDA, ORACBA 

1400 Independence Ave., SW. 

Rm. 5248 S, Stop 3811 

Washington, DC 20250–3811 

Scot Quaranda, Organizing Director 

Dogwood Alliance 

P.O. Box 7645 

Asheville, NC 28802 

Dr. Sharron Quisenberry 

Office of the Dean & Director 

Montana State University 

202 Linfield 

P.O. Box 172860 

Bozeman, MT 58717–2860 

Jonathan B. Ratner 

Bradford Environmental Research Institute 

P.O. Box 1277 

Pinedale, WY 82941 

Brian Read 

Senior Manager, Scientific Services 

Australian Quarantine & Inspection Service 

Edmund Baron Bldg., GPO 858 

Canberra ACT 2601, Australia 

Craig Regelbrugge 

Dir. of Regulatory Affairs & Grower Svcs. 

American Nursery & Landscape Assoc. 

1250 I St., NW. Suite 500 

Washington, DC 20005 

Lisa Rehms 

Oregon Department of Agriculture 

635 Capitol St., NE. 

Salem, OR 97301–4550 

Sarah Reichard, Ph.D. 

Center for Urban Horticulture 

3501 NE. 41st Street 

Seattle, WA 98195–4115 

Jim Reynolds, Regional Director 

USDA, APHIS, PPQ 

Western Regional Office 

1629 Blue Spruce Dr. Suite 204 

Ft. Collins, CO 80524 

Ann F. Rhoads, Ph.D. 

Senior Botanist, Pennsylvania Flora Project 

Morris Arboretum of the University of PA 

9414 Meadowbrook Ave. 

Philadelphia, PA 19118 

Dana L. Richter, Ph.D. 

Research Scientist II 

Pathology/Mycology 

Forest Resources & Environmental Science 

Michigan Technological University 

1400 Townsend Dr. 

Houghton, MI 49931–1295 

Lucinda Riley 

USDA, APHIS, PPQ 

Jamie Whitten Bldg., Room 302–E 

14th & Independence Ave., SW. 

Washington, DC 20250 

Dr. David M. Rizzo 

Department of Plant Pathology 

University of California–Davis 

Davis, CA 95616 

William Roberts 

Asst. Director, Plant Quarantine Branch 

Australian Quarantine & Inspection Service 

Edmund Barton Bldg., GPO 858 

Canberra ACT 2601, Australia 

Dave Robinson 

Concerned Friends of Ferry County 

P.O. Box 151 

Curlew, WA 99118–0151 
E–14 Appendix E. Distribution List 

 

Dr. Matt Royer 

USDA, APHIS, PPQ, EDP 

4700 River Rd. Unit 26 

Riverdale, MD 20737–1236 

Fernando Pena Royo 

Servicio Agricola y Ganadero 

Departmento Proteccion Agricola 

Avenida Bulnes 140 

Santiago, Chile 

Leslie G. Rubin 

USDA, APHIS, PPQ, PARC 

4700 River Rd. Unit 141 

Riverdale, MD 20737 

Sr. Gustavo Hernandez Sanchez 

Subdireccion de Sanidad Forestal 

SEMARNAP 

Av. Progreso No.5 Col. del Carmen 

Coyoacan, 04110 MEXICO, D.F. 

Robert T. Sanders, Chairman 

EIPS Task Group & IBM Corporate 

Packaging Program Manager 

3039 Cornwallis Rd. Mail Stop GQB/205 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709–2195 

Dr. Rob Schaeffer 

SAFE: Save Our Ancient Forest Ecology 

225 West Granger Ave. 

Modesto, CA 95350 

Jim Schaub, Acting Director 

USDA, ORACBA 

Room 5248, Mail Stop 3811 

1400 Independence Ave., SW. 

Washington, DC 20520 

Dr. Rudolf Scheffrahn 

Ft. Lauderdale Res. & Education Ctr. 

3205 College Ave. 

Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33314–7799 

Professor Scott E. Schlarbaum 

Dept. of Forestry, Wildlife & Fisheries 

University of Tennessee 

Knoxville, TN 37996 

Bruce Scholnick 

National Wooden Pallet & Container Assoc. 

329 South Patrick St. 

Alexandria, VA 22314–3501 

Dr. A. Alan Schreiber 

Chair, ESA Section E 

Washington State University 

100 Sprout Rd. 

Richland, WA 99352 

The Honorable Charles Schumer 

U.S. Senate 

Washington, DC 20520 

Tom Searle 

ACSC 

P.O. Box 210 

Germantown, MD 20875 

Shane Sela 

Natural Resources Canada 

Canadian Forest Service 

Pacific Forestry Centre 

506 West Burnside Rd. 

Victoria, BC V8Z 1M5 

CANADA 

Ron A. Sequeira 

USDA, APHIS, PPQ, CPHST 

1017 Main Campus Dr., Suite 2500 

Raleigh, NC 27602–5202 
Appendix E. Distribution List E–15

Dr. Stephen J. Seybold 

Department of Entomology 

University of Minnesota 

219 Hodson Hall 

1980 Folwell Ave. 

St. Paul, MN 55108 

Dr. Charles G. Shaw III 

USDA, Forest Service 

Juneau Forestry Sciences Lab 

2770 Sherwood Lane, Suite 2A 

Juneau, AK 99801–8445 

Garth Sherman 

3M Package Engineering 

International Regulatory Center 

Building 216–2N–08 

St. Paul, MN 55144–1000 

Dave Shriner 

USDA, Forest Service 

North Central Research Station 

1992 Folwell Ave. 

St. Paul, MN 55108 

Harith Siddik 

Dedutaan Besar Malaysia 

Embassy of Malaysia 

3516 International Ct., NW. 

Washington, DC 20008 

Yudi Singh, A/Director 

Plant Health & Production Division 

Forestry Section 

Canadian Food Inspection Agency 

59 Camelot Dr. 

Ottawa, ON K1A 0Y9 

CANADA 

Dr. Steve Slack, President 

American Phytopathological Society 

Ohio State University 

OARDC 

1680 Madison Ave. 

Wooster, OH 44691 

Stephen Slater 

1414 East 25th Ave. 

Eugene, OR 97403 

Francis D. and Barbara A. Slider 

Rt. 1 Box 163-A2 

Middlebourne, WV 26149 

Burleson Smith 

USDA, NRCS 

1400 Independence Ave., SW. 

5118 South Building 

Washington, DC 20250 

Dennis Souto 

USDA, Forest Service 

271 Mast Rd., P.O. Box 640 

Durham, NH 03824 

John Stahura 

Board Member, PWRP 

Senior Associate Professor, Biology 

Manor College 

700 Fox Chase Rd. 

Jenkintown, PA 19046 

Prof. Glen R. Stanosz 

Department of Plant Pathology 

University of Wisconsin–Madison 

1630 Linden Dr. 

Madison, WI 53706 

Rev. Walter Stark 

Cumberland Countians for Peace & Justice 

P.O. Box 154 

Pleasant Hill, TN 38578 

Kent Stromsmoe 

Forestry Monitoring Project 

2215 Pine St. 

Martinez, CA 94553–2727 
E–16 Appendix E. Distribution List 

 

Prof. Jeffery Stone 

Oregon State University 

Department of Botany & Plant Pathology 

Cordley 2082 

Corvallis, OR 97331–2902 

Dr. Nan–Yao Su 

Ft. Lauderdale Res. & Education Ctr. 

3205 College Ave. 

Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33314 

Dr. Franklin H. Tainter 

Department of Forest Resources 

Clemson University 

Clemson, SC 29634–1003 

Theresa Sinicrope Talley 

Doctoral Candidate in Ecology 

1313 Wake Forest Dr. #116 

Davis, CA 95616 

Ofc. of Environmental Policy & Compliance 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

1849 C Street, NW. 

Washington, DC 20240 

Dr. Borys Tkacz 

USDA, Forest Service 

FHP, YB–2S 

201 14TH St., SW. 

Washington, DC 20250 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Federal Activities 

Ariel Rios Bldg. Room 7213 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW. 

Washington, DC 20460 

Barbara Ullian, Conservation Director 

Siskiyou Project 

P.O. Box 1976 

Grants Pass, OR 97528 

Joseph Vaile, Campaign Coordinator 

Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center 

P.O. Box 102 

Ashland, OR 97520 

Jason Van Driesche 

2104 Oakridge Ave. 

Madison, WI 53704 

Dr. Ken Vick 

National Program Staff 

USDA, ARS 

5601 Sunnyside Ave. 

Beltsville, MD 20705–5139 

Joanne Vinton 

805 Berntzen Rd. 

Eugene, OR 97402 

Trang Vo 

USDA, APHIS, PPD, ODA 

4700 River Rd. Unit 20 

Riverdale, MD 20737 

Jim and Virginia Wagner 

4897 East Walnut St. 

Westerville, OH 43081 

Dr. William Wallner 

184 Falcon Rd. 

Guilford, CT 06437 

Dr. Robert Waltz 

Div. of Entomology & Plant Pathology 

402 W. Washington St., Rm. 290 

Indianapolis, IN 46204 

Karen Wanamaker 

National Wooden Pallet & Container Assoc. 

329 South Patrick St. 

Alexandria, VA 22314 
Appendix E. Distribution List E–17

James A. Ward 

111 Twp. Rd. 615 

South Point, OH 45680 

Dr. Doreen E. Watler 

Plant Health Risk Assessment Unit 

Animal and Plant Health Director 

3851 Fallowfield Rd. 

Nepean, ON K2H 8P9 

CANADA 

Dr. Susan E. Webb 

Chair, ESA Section C 

Dept. of Entomology & Nematology 

P.O. Box 110620 

Gainesville, FL 32611–0620 

Seward Weber 

402 Butterfield Rd. 

Plainfield, VT 05667 

Alan Weiner 

7102 Gracely Dr. #1 

Cincinnati, OH 45233 

Dr. Boyd Wickman 

USDA, Forest Service 

Deschutes National Forest 

1645 Highway 20 East 

Bend, OR 97701 

Dean Wiegert 

3002 South Delaware Ave. 

Milwaukee, WI 53207 

Chuck Willer, Director 

Coast Range Association 

P.O. Box 2250 

Corvallis, OR 97339 

Phyllis Windle, Ph.D. 

Union of Concerned Scientists 

1707 H Street, NW. Suite 600 

Washington, DC 20006–3919 

Dr. Michael Wingfield 

Faculty of Biological & Agricultural Sci. 

University of Pretoria 

Pretoria 0002 

Republic of South Africa 

Pete Witherell 

USDA, APHIS, CPHST 

901 Hillsboro St. 

Oxford, NC 27565 

Lyn M. Withey 

Vice President Public Affairs 

International Paper 

1101 Pennsylvania Ave., NW. Suite 200 

Washington, DC 20004 

Dr. David L. Wood 

Professor Emeritus of Entomology 

University of California–Berkeley 

201 Wellman Hall 

Berkeley, CA 94720 

Dr. Stephen L. Wood 

Life Science Museum 

290 MLBM 

Brigham Young University 

Provo, UT 84602–0200 

James Woods 

10938 Badger Ct. 

Penn Valley, CA 95946 
E–18 Appendix E. Distribution List 

 

(This page is intentionally left blank.)
Appendix F. References F–1 

Appendix F. References 

Beijing Times, 2003. China to ban ozone-harming chemical. Available online at: 

http://english.people.com.cn/200309/18/eng20030918_124501.shtml. 

Biosecurity Australia, 2006. Technical justification for Australia’s requirement for wood 

packaging material to be bark free. Biosecurity Australia, Canberra, Australia. May 2006. 

Chen,Y.-C., 2006. Email response to questions regarding Taiwan’s implementation of wood 

packaging material regulations to Jennifer Lemly of APHIS. June 16, 2006. 

Cohen, C.T., 2006. Email response to questions regarding Chile’s implementation of wood 

packaging material regulations to Wilmer Snell of APHIS. August 8, 2006. 

Deomano, E., 2006a. Personal communication via phone call by David Bergsten with Edgar 

Deomano, Technical Director, National Wooden Pallet and Container Association regarding 

fumigation of wood packaging materials for compliance with ISPM 15, June 6, 2006 at 4 P.M. 

Deomano, E., 2006b. Personal communication via phone call by David Bergsten with Edgar 

Deomano, Technical Director, National Wooden Pallet and Container Association regarding 

amount of re-use of wood packaging materials, June 6, 2006 at 4 P.M. 

FAO—See Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2006. Report of the First Session of 

the Commission on Phytosanitary Measures. Available online at 

https://www.ippc.int/id/133571. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 

Rome, Italy. April 3-7, 2006. 

Franz, C., 2006. Email response to questions regarding Brazil’s implementation of wood 

packaging material regulations to Thereza Barros of APHIS. July 13, 2006. 

Hernandez, J., 2006. Email response to questions regarding Nicaragua’s implementation of 

wood packaging material regulations to Marco Gonzalez of APHIS. October 3, 2006. 

International Plant Protection Convention, 2006. Proposed revision to Methyl Bromide (MB) 

fumigation schedule of Annex I of ISPM No. 15 (Guidelines for regulating wood packaging 

material in international trade.). Available online at: 

http://www.ippc.int/cds_upload/1118752635162_Proposed_revision_to_MBr_schedule_Annex_

I_English.doc. 
F–2 Appendix F. References

 

IPPC Secretariat Plant Protection Convention, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United 

Nations, 2005. Proposed revision to methyl bromide (MB) fumigation schedule of Annex I of 

ISPM No. 15 (Guidelines for regulating wood packaging material in international trade). 

Available online at 

https://www.ippc.int/cds_upload/1118752635162_Proposed_revision_to_MBr_schedule_Annex

_I_English.doc. IPPC Secretariat, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 

Rome, Italy. April 29, 2005. 

IPPC Secretariat Plant Protection Convention, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United 

Nations, 2002. International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures. Guidelines for Regulating 

Wood Packaging Material in International Trade. Publication No. 15, March 2002. Secretariat of 

the IPPC, FAO of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. 

Kani, H., 2006. Email response to questions regarding Japan’s implementation of wood 

packaging material regulations to Wilmer Snell of APHIS. June 19, 2006. 

Kim, Y., 2006. Email response to questions regarding Korea’s implementation of wood 

packaging material regulations to Jennifer Lemly of APHIS. June 15, 2006. 

Mercado, C.C.T., 1999. Phasing out methyl bromide in China: a developing country initiative. 

Poster presentation by the United Nations Environment Program available online at: 

http://www.epa.gov/Ozone/mbr/airc/1999/110merca.pdf. 

Morales, P., 2006. Email response to questions regarding the Dominican Republic’s 

implementation of wood packaging material regulations to Eloisa Jones of APHIS. August 8, 

2006. 

National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration, United Nations Environment Programme, World Meteorological Organization, 

and European Commission, 1998. Scientific assessment of ozone depletion: 1998 executive 

summary. World Meteorological Organization Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project 

Report No. 44, Vienna, Austria. 

NOAA—See National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. 

Ramos,A., 2006. Email response to questions regarding Mexico’s implementation of wood 

packaging material regulations to Fan-Li Chou of APHIS. June 15, 2006. 

Regulation of the European Parliament and Council—See Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 of the 

European Parliament and of the Council 
Appendix F. References F–3 

Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council, 2000. Official 

Journal of the European Communities. June 29, 2000. Available at 

http://www.dti.gov.uk/files/file29106.pdf

Thomas,F.A., 2006. Email response to questions regarding Canada’s implementation of wood 

packaging material regulations to Gretchen Rector of APHIS. June 19, 2006. 

Unahawutti, U., 2006. Email response to questions regarding Thailand’s implementation of 

wood packaging material regulations to Wilhelmina Santos of APHIS. July 10, 2006. 

UNEP—See United Nations Environment Programme. 

UNEP, MBTOC—See United Nations Environment Programme, Methyl Bromnide Technical 

Options Committee. 

United Nations Environment Programme, 1998. Environmental effects of ozone depletion: 1998 

assessment. Nov. 1998. 

United Nations Environment Programme, Methyl Bromnide Technical Options Committee, 

1998. Assessment of alternatives to methyl bromide. 354 pp. 

United Nations Environment Program, 2003. Agreement between China and the Executive 

Committee for the national methyl bromide phase-out plan. Available online at: 

http://www.unmfs.org/policy/doc/Policy47p757.htm

USDA, APHIS—See U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 2006a. Not all 

alien invaders are from outer space: Asian Longhorned Beetle, Anoplophora glabripennis. 

Available at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/lpa/pubs/invasive/14albeet.html

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 2006b. 

Emergency and Domestic Programs: Emerald Ash Borer - Background. Available at 

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/ep/eab/background.html

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 2003. Importation 

of solid wood packing material. Final environmental impact statement—August 2003. 

Riverdale, MD. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 2002a. Rule for 

the importation of unmanufactured wood articles from Mexico, with consideration for 

cumulative impact of methyl bromide use. Final environmental impact statement—September 

2002. Riverdale, MD. 
F–4 Appendix F. References

 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 2002b. 

Importation of solid wood packing material. Draft environmental impact statement—October 

2002. Riverdale, MD. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 2002c. Pine Shoot 

Beetle, June 2002. Available at 

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/lpa/pubs/fsheet_faq_notice/fs_phpsb.html

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 1999. Summary 

trip report, SWPM China/Hong Kong. October 6, 1999. Riverdale, MD. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 1998a. 

Importation of logs, lumber, and other unmanufactured wood articles. Final supplement to the 

environmental impact statement, May 1998. Riverdale, MD. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 1998b. Proposed 

interim rule on solid wood packing material from China. Environmental assessment, September 

1998. Riverdale, MD. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 1998c. Proposed 

rule for the importation of wood articles from Mexico. Environmental assessment, December 

1998. Riverdale, MD. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 1998d. Plant 

protection and quarantine treatment manual, Interim Edition. PPQ 04/98–01. July 1998. 

Frederick, MD. 
Appendix G. Acronyms and Glossary G–1 

Appendix G. Acronyms and Glossary 

A 

ACGIH American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists

APHIS Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, United States Department of 

Agriculture

ARS Agricultural Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture 

B

Biodiversity

Genetic variability of species and variability of environmental processes 

within a given geographical area or ecological community. 

C

CEC Commission for Environmental Cooperation

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

Chlorofluorocarbons 

Organic chemical substances containing chlorine and fluorine.

cm Centimeters

Controlled 

atmosphere

Treatment of commodity to asphyxiate (suffocate) parts by displacement 

of oxygen.

Cumulative 

impact or effects

“. . . the impact on the environment which results from the incremental 

impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or nonFederal) or person undertakes such other actions.” (40 CFR 1508.7).
G–2 Appendix G. Acronyms and Glossary

 

D

Debarking 

DEIS

The process of removing bark from logs and other regulated wood 

articles, including dunnage. 

Draft environmental impact statement

 E

EA Environmental assessment

Ecosystem A functioning natural unit including the biological species present, the 

physical environment (soil, water, air), and relationships among the 

components present.

EEC European Economic Community

EIS Environmental impact statement

Electron beam 

irradiation

A form of radiation that has experimentally been used to treat wood; the 

radiation is generated by machine rather than from a radioactive isotope.

Entry The physical arrival of a pest organism at a particular port or location.

EO Executive Order 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

Established A permanent infestation of a pest organism in a given area.

Establishment Perpetuation, for the foreseeable future, of a pest within an area after 

introduction.

EU European Union

F

FAO 

FEIS

Food and Agriculture Organization, United Nations 

Final environmental impact statement 
Appendix G. Acronyms and Glossary G–3 

Frass Excretory products from insects.

FS USDA, Forest Service

Fumigant The gaseous state of a toxic chemical which, when released and 

dispersed to a commodity, is designed to kill any pests found on or 

within the commodity.

Fumigation The act of releasing or dispersing a gaseous or aerosol compound 

(fumigant) to eliminate pest risk.

Fumigation 

chamber 

Enclosed structure where commodities are treated with gaseous or 

aerosol compound to eliminate pest risk. 

G

Gamma 

irradiation

A nonchemical treatment method that has been used to sterilize or kill 

certain pest species by exposure to specific wavelengths of light rays and 

is a method that is most often used to treat commodities other than wood.

GATT General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs; an international agreement 

designed to reduce and eliminate barriers to trade, investment, and 

services among its signatory countries.

Global 

warming/global 

climate change

The process by which energy distribution within the atmosphere affects 

temperature and climate worldwide.

Grams per cubic 

meter (g/m3

)

 Measurement of fumigant concentration in air.

Gray In irradiation treatments, an amount of energy (1 joule or 1,000 ergs) 

absorbed from a radiation-producing source per kilogram of matter; 1 

Gray equals 100 rads.

Greenhouse 

gases/effect

Any one of several chemicals present in air that store and retain heat and 

may cause warming of air temperatures (effect).

H

Harmonization Process of making Federal regulations consistent and compatible with 

other Federal regulations, International treaties and agreements, and 

related trade initiatives. 
G–4 Appendix G. Acronyms and Glossary

 

Heat treatment Regulatory quarantine action of applying high temperature to a 

commodity to eliminate pest risk.

Hectare Unit of area measure equal to 2.471 acres.

I

Introduction The intentional or unintentional escape, release, dissemination, or 

placement of a species into an ecosystem as a result of human activity.

IPM Integrated Pest Management; an approach to pest control that involves 

consideration to all practical chemical and nonchemical methods.

IPPC International Plant Protection Convention

Irradiation 

ISPM

Regulatory treatment which exposes a commodity to light rays resulting 

in elimination of pest risk. 

International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures 

ITO International Trade Organization 

K

Kiln drying A process for heating and drying wood in an enclosed facility. The 

specific procedures are described in the Dry Kiln Operators Manual. 

M

m3 Cubic meters

MBTOC Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee

Microwave 

treatment

Exposing wood to ultra-high frequency magnetic fields that elevate the 

temperature of any material containing moisture.

Mitigation Measures taken to avoid or reduce adverse impacts on the environment; 

or measures taken to avoid or reduce the likelihood of pest presence or 

survival in a commodity.

MT Metric tons 
Appendix G. Acronyms and Glossary G–5 

NAFTA

N 

North American Free Trade Agreement

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NOEL No Observed Effect Level; the highest dose level at which there are no 

observable differences between the test and control populations.

Nonquarantine 

pest

An undesirable organism not officially controlled but of potential 

economic importance to the area endangered thereby and not yet present 

there, or present but not widely distributed. 

O

ODP Ozone depleting potential (under stratospheric ozone layer).

ODS Ozone depleting substance; literally, a substance which acts to reduce the 

amount of ozone in the atmosphere.

Ozone A compound consisting of three connected oxygen atoms found in two 

layers of the atmosphere, the stratosphere and the troposphere. 

P

Phytosanitary 

measures

Any legislation, regulation, or official procedure having the purpose to 

prevent the introduction and/or spread of pests.

Phytotoxicity The ability of a chemical to adversely affect plant growth or survival.

Plant pest “Any living stage of any insects, mites, nematodes, slugs, snails, 

protozoa, or other invertebrate animals, bacteria, fungi, other parasitic 

plants or reproductive parts of parasitic plants, noxious weeds, viruses, or 

any organism similar to or allied with any of the foregoing, or any 

infectious substances, which can injure or cause disease or damage in any 

plants, parts of plants, or any products of plants.” (7 CFR 319.40–1).

PPM Parts per million 

PPQ Plant Protection and Quarantine, Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service, United States Department of Agriculture 
G–6 Appendix G. Acronyms and Glossary

 

QPS

Q 

Quarantine and preshipment

Quarantine pest An undesirable organism, officially controlled and of potential economic 

importance to the area endangered thereby and not yet present there, or 

present but not widely distributed.

R

Rad In irradiation treatments, an amount of energy absorbed from a radiation 

producing source per kilogram of matter; one rad equals 1/100 Gray.

Recapture 

system

The part of fumigation equipment designed to remove methyl bromide 

when treatment is completed. Equipment consists of an intake from 

fumigation chamber, an extraction unit, and an outflow for the purified 

air. 

Regeneration 

facility

An industrial plant designed to remove bromine residues from carbon 

absorption modules to allow future use in recapture systems of methyl 

bromide.

Regulated 

article

“The following articles, if they are unprocessed or have received only 

primary processing: logs; lumber; any whole tree; any cut tree or any 

portion of a tree, not solely consisting of leaves, flowers, fruits, buds, or 

seeds; bark; cork; laths; hog fuel; sawdust; painted raw wood products; 

excelsior (wood wool); wood chips; wood mulch; wood shavings; 

pickets; stakes; shingles; solid wood packing materials; humus; compost; 

and litter.” (7 CFR 319.40–1).

Regulated nonquarantine pest

A nonquarantine pest whose presence in plants for planting affects the 

intended use of those plants with an economically unacceptable impact 

and which is therefore regulated within the territory of the importing 

contracting party.

Regulated pest A quarantine pest and/or a regulated nonquarantine pest

RfC Reference concentration 
Appendix G. Acronyms and Glossary G–7 

S

SEIS Supplemental environmental impact statement

Sessile Animals that are slow moving or sedentary 

Solid wood 

packing material

(WPM)

Wood packaging materials other than loose wood packing materials, used 

or for use with cargo to prevent damage, including, but not limited to, 

dunnage, crating, pallets, packing blocks, drums, crating, and skids.

SPS Sanitary and phytosanitary regulations/standards

Stratosphere The upper portion of the atmosphere, in which temperature varies very 

little with changing altitude and clouds are rare.

Substitute 

packing 

materials 

Cargo packing materials other than SWPM, including, but not limited to 

plywood, oriented strand board, particle board, corrugated paperboard, 

plastic and resin composites, plastic, and metal.

SWPM Solid wood packing materials

T

TEIA Transboundary environmental impact assessments 

Trace gas An aerosol present at low concentration that is barely detectable. 

U

UN United Nations 

UNEP United Nations Environment Programme

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

UV Ultraviolet radiation

 V

Volatilizer Heating unit to convert methyl bromide liquid to a gaseous form. 
G–8 Appendix G. Acronyms and Glossary

 

W

WHO World Health Organization

WMO World Meteorological Organization

Wood 

preservative 

treatment

Application of liquid chemicals by surface coating, dipping, or pressure 

treatment of wood to prevent or eliminate pest infestation. 

 

Wood packaging 

material 

IPPC term that is interchangeable with APHIS’ solid wood packing 

material (SWPM).

WTO World Trade Organization 
Appendix H. Index H–1 

Appendix H. Index 

A 

Adoption of IPPC guidelines (alternative), 7, 8 

ALTERNATIVES, 

Adoption of the IPPC Guidelines, 7, 8 

Comprehensive Risk Reduction Program, v, 7, 26, 

30 

Extension of the Treatments in the China Interim 

Rule, 7, 26 

 No Action, 7, 26, 29 

Substitute Packing Materials Only, 7, 26 

C

Comprehensive risk reduction program (alternative), 

v, 7, 26, 30 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), 4, 7, 9 

Cumulative impacts, 7, 14, 27 

E

Environmental consequences, 7, 27, 29 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS, 11 

EPA—See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, iii

Extend treatments in China interim rule to all 

 countries (alternative), 7, 26 

F

Fumigation, 5–6, 11–13, 14, 15–17, 18–24, 26, 27, 

28, 29, 30 

 Effects on human health, 2, 17, 25, 27, 29, 30 

 Effects on physical environment, 2, 17, 25, 27, 

 29, 30 

H

Harmonization of international regulatory efforts, v 

Harmonization of international mitigation efforts, 8 

Human health, 13, 25, 27, 29, 30 

I

INTRODUCTION, 1 

M 

Methyl bromide, iii–iv, 3, 5–6, 8, 9, 12–13, 15–16, 

 18–22, 25, 28 

Mitigation strategy, iii, 8 

Montreal Protocol, iv, 4, 5, 15 

N 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 

 iv, 6, 7, 9, 27 

NEPA—See National Environmental Policy Act 

 of 1969 

No Action (alternative), 7, 26, 29 

 Environmental consequences, 7 

O

Ozone depletion, 15, 27 

P

Proposed action, 8 

PURPOSE AND NEED, 9 

Q

QPS—See Quarantine and preshipment uses, 

Quarantine and preshipment uses, iv, 8, 11, 12, 13 

Quarantine treatments, 4, 27, 28 

S

Substitute packing materials only (alternative), 7, 26 

U

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 3, 13