Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Notices 3077 

1The Treatment Manual is available on the 

Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ 

import_export/plants/manuals/index.shtml or by 

contacting the Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine, Manuals 

Unit, 92 Thomas Johnson Drive, Suite 200, 

Frederick, MD 21702. 

DATES: We will consider all comments 

that we receive on or before February 

18, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by either of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/

component/main?main=DocketDetail&

d=APHIS-2010-0115 to submit or view 

comments and to view supporting and 

related materials available 

electronically. 

• Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: 

Please send one copy of your comment 

to Docket No. APHIS–2010–0115, 

Regulatory Analysis and Development, 

PPD, APHIS, Station 3A–03.8, 4700 

River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 

20737–1238. Please state that your 

comment refers to Docket No. APHIS– 

2010–0115. 

Reading Room: You may read any 

comments that we receive on the 

environmental assessment in our 

reading room. The reading room is 

located in Room 1141 of the USDA 

South Building, 14th Street and 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC. Normal reading room 

hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except holidays. To be 

sure someone is there to help you, 

please call (202) 690–2817 before 

coming. 

Other Information: Additional 

information about APHIS and its 

programs is available on the Internet at 

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Shirley Wager-Page, Chief, Pest 

Permitting Branch, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 

River Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 

20737–1237; (301) 734–8453. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service (APHIS) is proposing 

to issue permits for the release of an 

insect, Lilioceris cheni, into the 

continental United States for use as a 

biological control agent to reduce the 

severity of air potato (Dioscorea 

bulbifera) infestations. 

Air potato is a twining vine that can 

grow 65 feet long or greater, capable of 

climbing and out-competing native 

vegetation. Air potato was introduced in 

Florida in 1905 and has since become 

one of the most aggressive weeds in that 

State. In 1999, the Florida Department 

of Agricultural and Consumer Services 

added air potato to its list of noxious 

weeds in an attempt to protect the 

State’s native plant species from being 

displaced or hybridized. Presently, the 

air potato is well established in Florida 

and probably throughout the Gulf States 

where it has the potential to severely 

disrupt entire ecosystems. 

Existing air potato management 

options, which include chemical and 

mechanical control methods, are 

ineffective, expensive, temporary, or 

have non-target impacts. Thus, a permit 

application has been submitted to 

APHIS for the purpose of releasing an 

insect, L. cheni, into the continental 

United States for use as a biological 

control agent to reduce the severity of 

air potato infestations. 

APHIS’ review and analysis of the 

proposed action are documented in 

detail in an environmental assessment 

(EA) titled ‘‘Field Release of Lilioceris 

cheni Gressit & Kimoto (Coleoptera: 

Chrysomelidae) for Biological Control of 

Air Potato, Dioscorea bulbifera 

(Dioscoreaceae), in the Continental 

United States’’ (September 2010). We are 

making the EA available to the public 

for review and comment. We will 

consider all comments that we receive 

on or before the date listed under the 

heading DATES at the beginning of this 

notice. 

The EA may be viewed on the 

Regulations.gov Web site or in our 

reading room (see ADDRESSES above for 

instructions for accessing 

Regulations.gov and information on the 

location and hours of the reading room). 

You may request paper copies of the EA 

by calling or writing to the person listed 

under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. Please refer to the title of the 

EA when requesting copies. 

The EA has been 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). 

Done in Washington, DC, this 12th day of 

January 2011. 

Kevin Shea, 

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–981 Filed 1–18–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

[Docket No. APHIS–2010–0059] 

Notice of Decision To Revise a Heat 

Treatment Schedule for Emerald Ash 

Borer 

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: We are advising the public of 

our decision to revise a heat treatment 

schedule for the emerald ash borer in 

the Plant Protection and Quarantine 

Treatment Manual and to retain the 

current treatment schedule with a 

different treatment number. Based on 

the findings of a treatment evaluation 

document, which we made available to 

the public for review and comment 

through a previous notice, we believe 

that the revised treatment schedule will 

be sufficient to treat emerald ash borer. 

DATES: Effective Date: January 19, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Inder P. S. Gadh, Senior Risk Manager– 

Treatments, Regulations, Permits, and 

Manuals, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road 

Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737–1236; 

(301) 734–8758. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The regulations in 7 CFR chapter III 

are intended, among other things, to 

prevent the introduction or 

dissemination of plant pests and 

noxious weeds into or within the United 

States. Under the regulations, certain 

plants, fruits, vegetables, and other 

articles must be treated before they may 

be moved into the United States or 

interstate. The phytosanitary treatments 

regulations contained in part 305 of 7 

CFR chapter III (referred to below as the 

regulations) set out standards for 

treatments required in parts 301, 318, 

and 319 of 7 CFR chapter III for fruits, 

vegetables, and other articles. 

In § 305.2, paragraph (b) states that 

approved treatment schedules are set 

out in the Plant Protection and 

Quarantine (PPQ) Treatment Manual.1

Section 305.3 sets out a process for 

adding, revising, or removing treatment 

schedules in the PPQ Treatment 

Manual. In that section, paragraph (a) 

sets out the process for adding, revising, 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

3078 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Notices 

2To view the notice, the treatment evaluation 

document, and the comments we received, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/ 

main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS-2010-0059. 

3Myers, S. W., I. Fraser, and V. C. Mastro. 2009. 

Evaluation of heat treatment schedules for emerald 

ash borer (Coleoptera: Buprestidae). J. Econ. 

Entomol. 102: 2048–2055. 

4McCullough, D.G., T.M. Poland, D. Cappaert, E. 

L. Clark, I. Fraser, V. Mastro, S. Smith, and C. Pell. 

2007. Effects of chipping, grinding and heat on 

survival of emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis 

Fairmaire) (Coleoptera: Buprestidae) in chips. J. 

Econ. Entomol. 100: 1304–1315. 

5Nzokou, P., S. Tourtellot, and D. P. Kamden. 

2008. Kiln and microwave heat treatment of logs 

infested by the emerald ash borer (Agrilus 

planipennis (Fairmaire) C Coleoptera: Buprestidae). 

For. Prod J. 58: 68–72. 

or removing treatment schedules when 

there is no immediate need to make a 

change. The circumstances in which an 

immediate need exists are described in 

§ 305.3(b)(1). 

In accordance with § 305.3(a)(1), we 

published a notice 2 in the Federal 

Register on August 25, 2010 (75 FR 

52305–52306, Docket No. APHIS–2010– 

0059), in which we announced the 

availability of a treatment evaluation 

document (TED). The TED 

recommended revising treatment 

schedule T314–a, which provides a heat 

treatment schedule for ash logs, 

including firewood, and all hardwood 

firewood that are moved from emerald 

ash borer (EAB, Agrilus planipennis) 

quarantined areas. The TED also 

recommended retaining the current 

T314–a as a general treatment for 

various wood pests (rather than just 

EAB); we stated that we planned to 

redesignate this treatment schedule as 

T314–c in the Treatment Manual. 

We solicited comments on the notice 

for 60 days ending October 25, 2010. We 

received four comments by that date, 

from State governments. The comments 

are discussed below. 

The previous T314–a had indicated 

that ash logs, including firewood, and 

all hardwood firewood must be heat 

treated at 71.1 °C (160 °F) for 75 minutes 

in order to kill any EAB that may have 

infested those products. The TED 

concluded that this treatment could be 

changed to heat treatment of those 

products at 60 °C (140 °F) for 60 

minutes. The TED cited three 

publications in support of this 

conclusion. The commenters addressed 

each of these publications. 

Myers et al. (2009) 3 evaluated a 

number of possible time-andtemperature combinations for heat 

treatment of logs and firewood and 

found that a minimum heat treatment of 

60 °C for 60 minutes was an effective 

quarantine treatment of ash firewood 

against EAB. 

One commenter stated that the 

experiment in Myers et al. (2009) that 

most closely approximated the 

treatment described in the TED (i.e., 60 

°C for 60 minutes) used a wet bulb 

depression method of heating (moist 

heat), which greatly increased the rate of 

heating. This commenter stated that, 

because the recommended revision to 

T314–a does not include the rate or 

method of heating, it may or may not 

replicate the treatments used in Myers 

et al. (2009). The commenter stated that 

given the potential differences in 

heating methods, it is safer to go with 

one of the higher temperatures 

evaluated in Myers et al. (2009), 65 °C 

for 30 minutes, which also produced no 

EAB emergence. 

The commenter is incorrect; while 

other experiments in Myers et al. (2009) 

were evaluated with wet bulb 

depression, the experiment with heat 

treatment at 60 °C for 60 minutes was 

conducted in ambient humidity. 

Another commenter stated that, in 

experiment 2 in Myers et al. (2009), 

because of the use of the wet bulb 

depression, the heating rate of the wood 

was 30 percent faster than in any of the 

other experiments. 

The heating rates in all of the Myers 

et al. (2009) experiments are higher than 

what would be found in most 

commercial kilns, though there are some 

exceptions. In any case, we have not 

found generally that heating rates affect 

treatment efficacy; APHIS does not have 

any heat treatments that specify heating 

rates. Rather, the key to effective heat 

treatment is maintaining the treated 

articles at the stated minimum 

temperature for the stated time. 

One commenter stated that the 

firewood used in experiment 2 was not 

handled in a similar fashion to that used 

in the other experiments. The pieces 

used in this experiment were cut 

approximately 30 days prior to testing, 

and stored at 4 °C. The commenter 

stated that the authors mention this 

inconsistency and state, ‘‘ * * * this 

would have resulted in some additional 

drying of the firewood before the 

treatment. Although the extra storage 

did not impact emergence from the 

control groups, it may have increased 

the insects’ susceptibility to the heat 

treatments as the wood moisture content 

would have decreased over this period.’’ 

Holding firewood for 30 days prior to 

treatment is not unrealistic for a 

commercial operation. In addition, the 

control group used in that experiment 

clearly indicates the presence of viable 

EAB in the wood at the time of 

treatment. Finally, the experiment 

involving treating the firewood at 60 °C 

for 60 minutes used firewood held for 

fewer than 10 days. 

Myers et al. (2009) states: ‘‘In 

experiment 3, adult emergence was 

observed in firewood in 45, 50, and 55 

°C treatments for both 30- and 60-min 

time intervals, whereas no emergence 

occurred in any of the 60 or 65 °C 

treatments.’’ One commenter expressed 

concern about the analysis of the data 

that led to this conclusion. This 

commenter stated that, in the treatment 

that is referred to as 60 °C, that 

temperature was in fact the ‘‘target 

temperature’’ in the experiment (60 °C 

for 60 minutes). The firewood in that 

experiment had a mean treatment 

temperature of 62.2 °C±0.2 and a 

maximum treatment temperature of 63.8 

°C±0.4. The treatment with a target 

temperature of 55 °C for 60 minutes 

actually produced a mean and 

maximum treatment temperature that 

was closer to 60.0 °C. In that 

experiment, the commenter noted, some 

EAB did survive. 

The experiments in Myers et al. 

(2009) were conducted consistent with 

how APHIS heat treatment schedules 

are administered. APHIS heat treatment 

schedules do not indicate a mean 

temperature to be held during the 

treatment period; rather, they specify a 

minimum temperature that must be 

maintained throughout the treatment 

period. Thus, the experiment in which 

firewood was held at 60 °C for 60 

minutes corresponds to how treatment 

schedule T314–a will be administered. 

One commenter stated that the results 

of the Myers et al. (2009) experiments 

on EAB prepupae that were removed 

from logs and subjected to various timetemperature combinations should not be 

considered applicable to the discussion 

of a heat treatment standard for 

firewood, except to note that the 

treatment time and temperature were 

sufficient to kill EAB. Since these 

treatments occurred in petri dishes, the 

commenter stated, the raw data from 

this experiment cannot be compared to 

the raw data from the experiments that 

used real pieces of firewood. 

We agree with this commenter. We 

interpreted the experiments on EAB 

prepupae as providing useful 

information corroborating the results of 

the other experiments in Myers et al. 

(2009). 

The TED cited two other publications, 

by McCullough et al. (2007) 4 and 

Nzokou et al. (2008),5 as consistent with 

the results of Myers et al. (2009). One 

commenter noted that McCullough et al. 

(2007) states: ‘‘No A. planipennis 

survived when chips were exposed to 

60 °C for ≥ 2 h in either of our studies, 

but 50% of the prepupae did survive 1 

h of exposure to 60 °C.’’ The commenter 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2011 / Notices 3079 

stated that this statement would not 

support the recommendation to change 

T314–a. 

That specific statement in 

McCullough et al. (2007) appears to be 

in error; the rest of the publication 

describes experiments in which wood 

chips were held at 60 °C for 20 minutes 

and 2 hours, with no experiment 

involving treatment at 60 °C for 60 

minutes. As noted in the TED, 

McCullough et al. (2007) reported that 

EAB prepupae were killed at 60°C for 

120 minutes, but not when held at the 

same temperature for 20 minutes. 

Another commenter noted that 

McCullough et al. (2007) did not test 

treatment at 60 °C for 60 minutes and 

stated that the publication thus did not 

provide any data to support the current 

30-minute treatment recommendation 

for firewood. 

The treatment revision recommended 

in the TED was for treatment at 60 °C 

for 60 minutes, not 30 minutes. The 

McCullough et al. (2007) data is thus 

consistent with the TED’s 

recommendation. We also note that 

McCullough et al. (2007) does not 

evaluate the treatment schedule 

described in the TED; McCullough et al. 

(2007) used small chips, which are more 

prone to drying during treatment than a 

piece of firewood, and monitored air 

temperature, not wood temperature, 

which would be lower. The TED cited 

the McCullough et al. (2007) results as 

being consistent with the recommended 

revision of T314–a, not as supporting it 

directly. 

One commenter stated that Nzokou et 

al. (2008) did not test logs treated at 60 

°C for 60 minutes. Another commenter 

noted that Nzokou et al. (2008) 

concludes with the suggestion that ‘‘kiln 

heat treatment at a level of 65 °C or 

greater could be an effective sanitization 

process for EAB-infested logs and wood 

materials.’’ These commenters stated 

that Nzokou et al. (2008) does not 

support lowering the current treatment 

requirement to 60 °C for 60 minutes. 

As with McCullough et al. (2007), the 

TED cited Nzokou et al. (2008) as 

consistent with the recommended 

revision to T314–a, not as supporting it. 

Nzokou et al. (2008) observed the 

emergence of emerald ash borer from 

logs heated to 60°C for 30 minutes, but 

there was no emergence at 65°C for 30 

minutes. 

While Nzokou et al. (2008) conclude 

that 65 °C is an effective treatment, the 

authors did not test treatment times 

longer than 30 minutes. For kiln heat 

treatments of firewood, we prefer to 

extend treatment times rather than 

increase treatment temperature. A 

typical firewood kiln will operate 12 to 

36 hours (or longer) during a heat 

treatment run, so it is not difficult to 

extend a treatment by 30 minutes. In 

addition, many of the existing kilns in 

the United States use hot water to 

produce heat. That design limits the 

internal temperature of the kiln to 

approximately 70 °C and makes it 

difficult to produce internal wood 

temperatures greater than 60 °C. Thus, 

requiring heat treatment at 65 °C for 30 

minutes treatment would be as effective 

as the revised T314–a but may not be as 

practical to administer. 

One commenter stated that, in the 

commenter’s experience with heat 

treatment of firewood, the current heat 

treatment requirements require a core 

temperature reading to be at least 160 °F 

for 75 minutes on the largest pieces of 

firewood being treated. In practice, of 

course, actual air temperatures inside 

the heat treatment chamber can vary 

greatly, along with the time required to 

heat the chamber and its contents to this 

minimum standard. Both the time and 

temperature can be greatly influenced 

by the way the chamber is heated, 

moisture content of the wood when it is 

placed into the chamber, outside air 

temperature, size of the largest firewood 

pieces, arrangement of the firewood 

inside the chamber, and management of 

the air flow inside the chamber. This 

variability is made up for by the current 

treatment, the commenter stated, but 

could be detrimental if a borderline or 

unproven schedule is implemented, 

such as the proposed schedule. 

APHIS heat treatment schedules 

identify the time for which a specific 

minimum temperature must be 

achieved; they do not set that minimum 

temperature to take into account 

variability at a facility. Rather, heat 

treatment facilities are certified in 

accordance with the requirements in 

§ 305.8 of the regulations as capable of 

properly administering treatments. The 

certification process allows us to 

determine if and where any cold spots 

may exist. In addition, each facility is 

required to record temperatures of the 

firewood during the heat treatment 

process and maintain records of each 

run. We recertify kilns annually to 

assure that heat treatment facilities 

continue to comply with the compliance 

agreement under which treatments are 

conducted. Thus, the concerns the 

commenter cites are addressed through 

the treatment facility certification 

process. The previous T314–a heat 

treatment schedule that the commenter 

refers to was not developed to address 

variability but based on the scientific 

evidence available to us at the time. 

One commenter expressed concern 

that the proposed T314–a for hardwood 

firewood moved from EAB quarantined 

areas is not sufficient to address the 

risks presented by other quarantine 

pests that may be present in those areas. 

We recognized the commenter’s 

concern in the TED, which 

recommended retaining the current 

treatment schedule of treatment at 71.1 

°C for 75 minutes for other quarantine 

pests in wood articles as described in 

§§ 319.40–5 and 319.40–6 of our 

regulations governing the importation of 

logs, lumber, and other unmanufactured 

wood articles. If other pests for which 

treatment at 71.1 °C for 75 minutes is 

required are present in an area, ash logs 

and hardwood firewood moved 

interstate from that area will be required 

to be treated in accordance with T314– 

c, which contains the schedule of heat 

treatment at 71.1 °C for 75 minutes. 

Three commenters raised operational 

concerns with regard to having two 

treatments, T314–a and T314–c, for 

hardwood firewood moved interstate. 

APHIS policy is to revise treatments 

to make them less stringent when 

scientific evidence supports doing so. 

Any operational issues that may arise 

from revising T314–a and adding T314– 

c as described in the TED are outside 

the scope of this action. We plan to 

work with State and local cooperating 

agencies, as well as the firewood 

industry and other private cooperating 

entities, to implement the new 

treatment schedules and resolve any 

confusion that may result. 

Therefore, in accordance with the 

regulations in § 305.9(a)(2), we are 

announcing our decision to revise 

treatment schedule T314–a as described 

in the TED. We have also decided to 

retain the current T314–a as a general 

treatment for various wood pests (rather 

than just EAB) and to redesignate this 

treatment schedule as T314–c in the 

Treatment Manual. 

The new treatments will be listed in 

the PPQ Treatment Manual, which is 

available at the Web address and 

mailing address in footnote 1 of this 

document. 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7701–7772 and 7781– 

7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 

2.80, and 371.3. 

Done in Washington, DC, this 12th day of 

January 2011. 

Kevin Shea, 

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–984 Filed 1–18–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES