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

38171

Vol. 65, No. 119

Tuesday, June 20, 2000

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service

7 CFR Part 319

[Docket No. 98–110–2]

RIN 0579–AB11

Importation of Gypsy Moth Host

Material From Canada

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: We are adopting as a final

rule, with minor changes discussed in

this document, an interim rule that

established regulations for the

importation into the United States of

gypsy moth host materials from Canada

due to infestations of gypsy moth in the

Provinces of British Columbia, New

Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario, and

Quebec. The rule requires trees without

roots (e.g., Christmas trees), trees with

roots, shrubs with roots and persistent

woody stems, logs and pulpwood with

bark attached, outdoor household

articles, and mobile homes and their

associated equipment to meet specified

certification or destination requirements

if they are intended to be moved into or

through areas of the United States that

are not infested with gypsy moth. This

action is necessary to prevent the

introduction of gypsy moth into

noninfested areas of the United States.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 20, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Coanne O’Hern, Operations Officer,

Invasive Species and Pest Management,

PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 134,

Riverdale, MD 20737–1236; (301) 734–

8247.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The gypsy moth, Lymantria dispar

(Linnaeus), is a destructive pest of forest

and shade trees. The Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has

regulated the interstate movement of

gypsy moth host materials from areas of

the United States that are generally

infested with gypsy moth through its

domestic quarantine notices (see 7 CFR

301.45 through 301.45–12), but had not,

until the publication of an August 23,

1999, interim rule, established specific

regulations in our foreign quarantine

notices regarding the importation into

the United States of gypsy moth host

materials from foreign countries.

In an interim rule effective and

published in the Federal Register on

August 23, 1999 (64 FR 45860–45868,

Docket No. 98–110–1), we established a

new ‘‘Subpart—Gypsy Moth Host

Material from Canada’’ (§§ 319.77–1

through 319.77–5) in 7 CFR part 319 to

restrict the importation of gypsy moth

host materials from Canada. This action

was necessary to prevent the

introduction of gypsy moth into

noninfested areas of the United States.

We solicited comments concerning

the interim rule for 60 days ending

October 22, 1999. We received two

comments by that date. They were from

a State government and a foreign

government. We have carefully

considered these comments. They are

discussed below, by topic.

Self-Certification of Outdoor Household

Articles

One commenter expressed concern

over the provision for self-certification

of outdoor household articles (OHA’s)

moving from infested areas in Canada

into the United States. The commenter

asserted that self-certification will not

provide an adequate level of protection

against the introduction of gypsy moth

into the United States because the

average person will not know what a

gypsy moth egg mass or other life stage

looks like and, therefore, cannot be

expected to certify an OHA as pest free.

APHIS has published a pamphlet

called ‘‘Don’t Move Gypsy Moth,’’

which is updated regularly and is given

to mover associations and national

moving companies for distribution to

households and individuals moving

from gypsy moth infested areas to

noninfested areas. The pamphlet

contains color photographs of all gypsy

moth lifestages and provides detailed

information on gypsy moth and the

damage it causes. Included in the

pamphlet is a checklist of OHA’s to

inspect for possible gypsy moth

infestation.

APHIS realizes that there are

additional needs for the gypsy moth

awareness campaign and is in the

process of determining what types of

information should be made available to

the public. In the meantime, we are

distributing the ‘‘Don’t Move Gypsy

Moth’’ pamphlet to persons crossing the

U.S.-Canada border, and are inspecting

OHA’s that have not been self-certified

and spot-checking self-certifications.

Another commenter requested a

phase-in period for the self-certification

of OHA’s. The commenter stated that a

phase-in period would allow for the

notification of moving companies,

brokers, the business sector, and others

and would, therefore, facilitate

compliance with the regulations.

APHIS recognized the need to allow

time for notifying moving companies,

brokers, the business sector, and others

of the self-certification requirements of

our rule. Between the effective date of

the interim rule (August 23, 1999) and

January 1, 2000, persons arriving at the

U.S.-Canada border with OHA’s that

were not self-certified were not turned

away or penalized in any way. Instead,

we used the opportunity to educate

movers and individual travelers on the

new self-certification requirements in

order to facilitate future compliance. In

addition, as noted above, we conduct

spot checks to ensure self-certifications

are accurate.

Logs and Pulpwood From Infested Areas

One commenter suggested that APHIS

should impose stricter requirements on

the importation of logs or pulpwood

without bark if they are from a Canadian

infested area and have been stored

outside for any length of time,

especially during egg laying season.

Gypsy moth typically seek the shelter

of the secluded recesses of the outer

bark of logs, pulpwood, and trees to lay

their eggs. Freshly debarked logs and

pulpwood are smooth and are not likely

to be used by gypsy moth as sites to lay

their egg masses because they do not

provide the degree of protection for egg

masses that bark does.

The interim rule did not create any

new restrictions on the movement of

logs and pulpwood without bark

38172 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 20, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

because logs and pulpwood are not

typically debarked until just before they

are to be processed or milled, thereby

almost completely eliminating the

possibility that logs and pulpwood

without bark will become suitable host

material for gypsy moth. Further, in

most cases, logs that are debarked for

processing are typically stored in water

baths between removal of the bark and

processing to ensure that they do not

dry out and become less suitable for

milling and processing. As stated in our

interim rule, we believe the existing

restrictions on the movement of logs

and pulpwood with bark are adequate to

ensure that logs and pulpwood from

Canadian infested areas will not

disseminate gypsy moth into

noninfested areas of the United States.

Movement of Regulated Articles

Through Certain Noninfested Areas

One commenter stated that, in our

domestic gypsy moth regulations, a

small portion of the State of Maine is

identified as free from gypsy moth. The

commenter further stated that, for many

years, the U.S. Department of

Agriculture (USDA) has allowed

Christmas trees, logs, and pulpwood

from Canadian infested areas to move

through this region to infested areas of

the United States without certificates.

The commenter stated that this

arrangement allowed the uninterrupted

movement of these articles from infested

areas of Canada to infested areas of the

United States and requested that we

continue to allow for the uncertified

movement of Christmas trees, logs, and

pulpwood through this area of Maine

into infested areas of the United States.

Currently, there is an area comprising

the northern third of Maine that is not

infested with gypsy moth. This area

spans parts of the counties of Aroostock,

Franklin, Oxford, Piscataquis,

Penobscot, and Somerset. The

commenter is correct in stating that, for

many years, we have allowed Christmas

trees, logs, and pulpwood to move

through this area from infested areas of

Canada to infested areas of the United

States. APHIS conducts regular gypsy

moth trapping surveys in the gypsy

moth-free area, and surveys over the last

several years have shown little

expansion of the infested area.

We believe that shipments of

Christmas trees, logs, and pulpwood

from infested areas in Canada that

transit noninfested areas in Maine en

route to infested areas in the United

States present a minimal risk of

introducing gypsy moth into

noninfested areas of the United States

because transit distances are typically

short and follow routes with low

prevalence of gypsy moth host material.

Also, gypsy moth egg masses that may

be present in such shipments are not

likely to be dislodged in transit because

gypsy moths typically lay their eggs in

sheltered areas of the bark of trees.

We are, therefore, adding an

exception to the regulations to provide

that Christmas trees, logs, and

pulpwood from gypsy moth infested

areas in Canada may transit the gypsy

moth free area that makes up the

northern part of Maine en route to a

gypsy moth infested area in the United

States without a phytosanitary

certificate. We are taking this action

because we have determined that

allowing shipments of Christmas trees,

logs, and pulpwood to pass through that

noninfested area in Maine without a

certificate does not present a significant

risk of introducing gypsy moth into that

noninfested area of Maine.

Listing of Infested Areas

One commenter also noted that the

description of areas in Canada identified

as infested by gypsy moth in the interim

rule differs from descriptions

maintained by the Government of

Canada. The commenter asked that we

amend the description of areas

published in the interim rule to conform

with Canada’s descriptions.

We have reviewed the descriptions of

infested areas maintained by Canada

and agree that our descriptions should

be changed to bring them into

conformity with Canada’s descriptions,

which provide more detail. By taking

this action, we are relieving restrictions

on the movement of regulated articles

from parts of counties in Canada that are

not infested with gypsy moth that we

had incorrectly identified as infested

areas in our interim rule. The revised

list of Canadian infested areas is set out

fully in § 319.77–3 of the rule portion of

this document.

Certificates of Origin

One commenter asked if the

‘‘certificate of origin’’ required by the

interim rule for each shipment of

commercial wood products from

noninfested areas of Canada moving to

noninfested areas of the United States is

a separate document or if it may be

information written on shipping

documents.

‘‘Certificate of origin’’ is defined in

the regulations as a document issued by

an official authorized by the national

government of Canada that states the

area in which a regulated article was

produced or grown and includes any

other required additional declarations.

In developing the interim rule, we chose

to require a ‘‘certificate of origin’’ to

ensure that APHIS inspectors could

clearly and confidently determine the

origin of commercial wood products

entering the United States from Canada.

Upon further consideration, we believe

that shipments of commercial wood

products from noninfested areas of

Canada need only be accompanied by

an accurate certification statement

providing where regulated articles were

produced or grown. This final rule will

allow such a statement to be attached to,

or included on, the shipping documents

accompanying commercial wood

products from Canada.

Nonsubstantive Changes

We also have made a minor,

nonsubstantive change by correcting the

numbering of two paragraphs in

§ 319.77–4.

Therefore, for the reasons given in the

interim rule and in this document, we

are adopting the interim rule as a final

rule, with the changes discussed in this

document.

Effective Date

Pursuant to the administrative

procedure provisions in 5 U.S.C. 553,

we find good cause for making this rule

effective less than 30 days after

publication in the Federal Register. The

interim rule that we are adopting in this

document as a final rule, with minor

changes, was effective on August 23,

1999. This final rule: (1) Makes minor

changes to the description of the

Canadian infested areas described in the

interim rule, resulting in a decrease in

their size; (2) provides that certain

regulated articles may be moved from

Canadian infested areas through an area

in Maine that is not infested with gypsy

moth to infested areas of the United

States without a certificate; and (3)

provides that a certification statement

attached to, or included on, shipping

documents may be used instead of a

‘‘certificate of origin’’ for commercial

wood products. These changes will

relieve restrictions that we no longer

find necessary and, therefore, should be

made effective immediately. Therefore,

the Administrator of the Animal and

Plant Health Inspection Service has

determined that this rule should be

effective upon publication in the

Federal Register.

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory

Flexibility Act

This final rule has been reviewed

under Executive Order 12866. The rule

has been determined to be not

significant for the purposes of Executive

Order 12866 and, therefore, has not

been reviewed by the Office of

Management and Budget.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 20, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 38173

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

have prepared a final regulatory

flexibility analysis, which is set out

below, regarding the effects of this rule

on small entities. The discussion also

serves as a cost-benefit analysis. Based

on the information we have, there is no

basis to conclude that this rule will

result in any significant economic

effects on a substantial number of small

entities.

This rule regulates the importation of

gypsy moth host materials into the

United States from Canada due to

infestations of gypsy moth in the

Provinces of British Columbia, New

Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario, and

Quebec. This rule requires regulated

articles—trees without roots (e.g.,

Christmas trees), trees with roots, shrubs

with roots and persistent woody stems,

logs and pulpwood with bark attached,

outdoor household articles, and mobile

homes and their associated equipment—

to meet certain certification or

destination requirements if they are to

be moved from Canada into or through

areas of the United States that are not

infested with gypsy moth.

In our interim rule, we solicited

comments on the potential effects of this

action on small entities. In particular,

we sought data and other information to

determine the number and kinds of

small entities that may incur benefits or

costs from the implementation of the

interim rule. We received no comments

on the interim rule’s initial regulatory

flexibility analysis.

The United States engages in a great

deal of trade in live trees, live plants,

and rough wood. In 1998, the United

States imported approximately $231

million worth of the type of nursery

products covered by this rule and

exported approximately $160 million

worth of those products. In that same

year, U.S. imports of rough wood,

including logs, pulpwood, and wood

chips, were worth approximately $141

million, while exports were worth

approximately $1.8 billion.

Canada is the major source of U.S.

imports of live trees, live plants, and

rough wood. In 1998, Canada accounted

for more than 80 percent of U.S. imports

of live trees and plants and for nearly 90

percent of U.S. imports of rough wood.

The Canadian provinces affected by this

rule account for the vast majority of

Canadian exports of live trees, live

plants, and rough wood to the United

States, as shown in the table below. All

figures in the table are rounded to the

first decimal place. Therefore, ‘‘0.0’’

represents imports valued at $50,000 or

less. Also, for certain commodities,

slight discrepancies exist between the

sum of the individual province columns

and the ‘‘Total for Canada’’ column

because of differences in the data

published by Statistics Canada and the

U.S. Department of Commerce. It is also

important to note that these values

represent imports from each province,

whereas the infested areas are smaller

areas contained within the provinces.

Thus, the values listed are

conservatively high estimates provided

to put into perspective the volume of

potential host materials moving across

the border.

1998 U.S. IMPORTS OF LIVE TREES, LIVE PLANTS, AND ROUGH WOOD

[In millions of U.S. dollars]

Export good

Canadian provinces with infested areas Canadian noninfested areas Total U.S. imports

British

Columbia

New

Brunswick

Nova

Scotia Ontario Quebec Alberta Manitoba Newfoundland

Northwest

Territories

Prince

Edward

Island

Saskatchewan Yukon Total for

Canada

Total for

World

60220 .................... 0.3 ................ 2.3 7.1 1.7 0.0 ................ ................ ................ 0.3 ................ ................ 11.5 12.2

60230 .................... 0.2 0.0 ................ 2.2 ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ 2.4 2.4

60290 .................... 22.5 10.4 0.8 97.4 4.7 0.2 0.4 ................ ................ 0.3 0.0 ................ 132.9 162.2

60491 .................... 2.5 14.0 7.6 1.4 16.6 0.8 ................ 0.0 ................ 0.0 0.0 ................ 40.6 54.6

440110 .................. 1.4 ................ ................ 1.9 0.3 0.0 ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ 3.5 3.9

440121 .................. 20.6 0.0 ................ 0.8 0.4 ................ 0.0 ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ 21.8 24.2

440122 .................. 3.0 ................ ................ 2.0 0.1 ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ 5.0 5.5

440320 .................. 44.7 8.9 1.7 5.6 1.6 5.5 0.0 ................ 0.1 0.1 0.6 ................ 66.8 73.9

440341 .................. ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ 0.0

440349 .................. ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ 0.6

440391 .................. ................ 0.0 ................ 0.7 0.0 ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ 0.7 1.6

440392 .................. ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ 0.0 0.2

440399 .................. 1.0 3.2 0.7 23.3 1.6 0.0 0.4 ................ ................ ................ 0.1 ................ 29.0 31.0

Notes: The six digit numbers in the ‘‘Export Good’’ column denote the harmonized system for classifying commodities in trade. These digits represent classes of live trees, live plants, and

rough wood. The commodities included under each number are as follows:

60220, edible fruit or nut trees, shrubs, and bushes

60230, rhododendrons and azaleas, grafted or not

60290, live plants, cuttings, and slips that are not elsewhere specified

60491, foliage, branches, etc., and Christmas trees

440110, fuel wood (in logs, billets, twigs, etc.)

440121, wood in chips or particles, coniferous

440122, wood in chips or particles, nonconiferous

440320, coniferous wood in the rough, not treated

440341, light/dark meranti and meranti bakau in the rough

440349, other tropical wood in the rough, with or without bark (or roughly squared) and not treated

440391, oak wood in the rough, not treated

440392, beech wood in the rough, not treated

440399, nonconiferous wood in the rough, not treated, that is not elsewhere specified

The symbol ‘‘—’’ means that no imports occurred.

Given the destructive potential of

gypsy moth, as well as the vast forest

resources in the United States, it is

likely that the further spread of that pest

in the United States as a result of the

unrestricted movement of gypsy moth

host material from infested areas in

Canada would negatively affect the

United States. The likely negative

effects would include growth loss in

timber; fewer visitors and loss of

revenues in recreation areas; costs of

increased Federal, State, and local

government control activities against

gypsy moth; and costs to landowners.

Over the 5 years preceding the interim

rule, APHIS alone spent more than $30

million on gypsy moth control,

eradication, regulatory, and survey

activities. In fiscal year 1998, State and

local government agencies in Oregon,

Utah, and Washington, which are

noninfested States, spent more than $1

million to eradicate gypsy moth

infestations to prevent this pest from

becoming established in those States.

Entities Affected

As a result of this rule, trees without

roots (e.g., Christmas trees), trees with

roots, and shrubs with roots and

persistent woody stems (unless

greenhouse-grown throughout the year)

that are being moved from Canadian

infested areas into or through U.S.

38174 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 20, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

1Except articles being moved through gypsy moth

free areas in the counties of Aroostock, Franklin,

Oxford, Piscataquis, Penobscot, and Somerset in

Maine. Regulated articles are allowed to transit

these areas en route to infested areas in the United

States without phytosanitary certificates.

2Logs and pulpwood with bark attached may

transit noninfested areas in the counties of

Aroostock, Franklin, Oxford, Piscataquis,

Penobscot, and Somerset in the State of Miane en

route to infested areas in the United States without

phytosanitary certficiates.

noninfested areas 1 must be

accompanied by a Canadian

phytosanitary certificate that includes

an additional declaration confirming

that the trees or shrubs have been

inspected and found free of gypsy moth

or treated in accordance with the

regulations. If the trees or shrubs are

being moved from a Canadian

noninfested area into or through a U.S.

noninfested area, they must be

accompanied by a certification of origin

stating where the trees were produced

or grown in Canada. This rule also

requires logs and pulpwood with bark

attached that are being moved from

Canadian infested areas into or through

U.S. noninfested areas to be: (1)

Accompanied by a Canadian

phytosanitary certificate that includes

an additional declaration confirming

that the logs and pulpwood have been

inspected and found free of gypsy moth

or have been treated; 2 or (2) destined for

a specified U.S. processing plant or mill

that is operating under a compliance

agreement with APHIS for specified

handling or processing.

Therefore, this rule will affect entities

engaged in the international movement

of regulated articles from Canada into

the United States. The restrictions

primarily affect those entities that move

trees without roots (e.g., Christmas

trees), trees with roots, shrubs with

roots and persistent woody stems, logs

and pulpwood with bark attached,

outdoor household articles, and mobile

homes and their associated equipment

from Canadian infested areas into or

through U.S. noninfested areas.

However, because of this rule’s

certification of origin requirement,

entities moving regulated articles into or

through U.S. noninfested areas from

noninfested areas of Canada are also

affected to a limited extent.

This rule requires the issuance of

some new phytosanitary certificates, but

we expect that it will be a relatively

small number. This is because all trees

with roots and shrubs with roots and

persistent woody stems imported from

Canada into the United States are

already required to obtain a Canadian

phytosanitary certificate under the

regulations at 7 CFR 319.37. This rule

simply requires an additional

declaration to that certificate, not a new

certificate, for those products moving

from a Canadian infested area to a U.S.

noninfested area. Likewise, trees

without roots (e.g., Christmas trees), logs

with bark attached, and pulpwood with

bark attached that are imported from

Canada do not need a phytosanitary

certificate if they are either: (1) Moved

from a Canadian noninfested area to a

U.S. noninfested area; (2) moved from a

Canadian noninfested area to a U.S.

infested area; (3) moved from a

Canadian infested area to a U.S. infested

area; or (4) moved from any area of

Canada to a specified U.S. processing

plant or mill operating under a

compliance agreement with APHIS for

specified handling or processing. The

only commodities that will need a

Canadian phytosanitary certificate

under this rule are trees without roots,

logs with bark attached, and pulpwood

with bark attached that are moving from

a Canadian infested area to a U.S.

noninfested area and that are not

destined for a specified U.S. processing

plant or mill under compliance

agreement with APHIS for specified

handling or processing.

The information we have concerning

the costs of Canadian phytosanitary

certificates is for greenhouse products.

Canadian phytosanitary certificates for

greenhouse products require processing

time, in addition to an inspection cost

of $15 to $30, and a $5 fee per shipment

(shown in Canadian dollars; these

amounts are equivalent to $10, $20, and

$3.26, respectively, in U.S. dollars). We

expect phytosanitary certificates issued

for the products affected by this rule to

have similar costs. We estimate that, as

a result of this rule, 100 shipments per

year will require Canadian

phytosanitary certificates, resulting in

total inspection costs averaging

approximately $2,326 (U.S. dollars) per

year. However, we do not have

information on the number and size of

entities in Canada and the United States

that will be affected by this rule.

This rule also requires the issuance of

certifications of origin. The certification

of origin is a new requirement for

regulated articles moving from Canadian

noninfested areas to U.S. noninfested

areas. The certification of origin must

state where the articles were produced

or grown. Since the certifications can be

made by exporters themselves, this

requirement will not result in any

additional costs.

This rule also requires individual and

commercial movers of outdoor

household articles, including

recreational vehicles and mobile homes

and their associated equipment moving

from infested areas of Canada into

noninfested areas of the United States to

provide a statement signed by the owner

that the articles have been inspected

and found free of gypsy moth. The use

of self-inspections should minimize the

costs associated with the importation of

these items. Most individual

homeowners who reside in areas of the

United States quarantined because of

gypsy moth and who move their own

articles currently choose to self-inspect

and issue the signed statement for the

movement of their outdoor household

articles. This process takes a few

minutes for each item and involves no

monetary cost unless treatment is

necessary. For commercial movers, selfissuing documents could help avoid the

costs of delays, but could still result in

costs associated with time, salary, and

recordkeeping for the self-inspections.

When inspection reveals the presence

of gypsy moth, the individual in

possession of the infested articles must

either return the articles to their place

of origin, treat them, or destroy them.

Loads of trees without roots (e.g.,

Christmas trees), trees with roots, shrubs

with roots and persistent woody stems,

or logs would be an expensive loss if

destroyed, which would occur if the

shipper decided against the alternatives

(i.e., return to Canada or treatment).

Fumigation is one treatment alternative,

but another—manually spraying

caterpillars and scraping egg masses—is

a less costly treatment alternative. Either

treatment is usually done by qualified,

certified applicators. In applications in

the United States, fumigation costs

average between $100 to $150 per

shipment. Manual treatment would be

considerably less expensive. We do not

know at the current time how many

entities will be affected by these

treatment requirements.

Other costs of implementing this rule

involve border crossings. This rule will

add time to border crossings because it

will be necessary to ascertain whether a

recreational vehicle or mobile home is

coming from an area of Canada known

to be infested with gypsy moth or an

area free of gypsy moth. There are no

data on the number of recreational

vehicles and mobile homes crossing the

border from Victoria, British Columbia,

or from other infested areas of Canada.

When primary U.S. Customs Service

and Immigration and Naturalization

Service inspectors question the origin of

all recreational vehicles and mobile

homes crossing into the United States

and distribute information on gypsy

moth to their owners, only a few

seconds will be added to each border

crossing. However, with potentially

several thousand daily crossings of

recreational vehicles from all areas of

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 20, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 38175

Canada at peak times, this added time

could result in some delays. Some of the

recreational vehicles and mobile homes

originating in Canadian infested areas,

as well as those owners who are unsure

of origin and others at the discretion of

the primary inspectors, will be sent to

secondary inspection, where APHIS

inspectors will ensure that owners

understand the need to inspect their

recreational vehicles and mobile homes

for the presence of gypsy moth.

Depending on the number of

recreational vehicles and mobile homes

sent to secondary inspections, there may

be a need for additional staff at border

crossings.

The inspection and certification

requirements of this rule are expected to

cause a slight increase in the costs of

business for a limited number of

affected entities, but the overall effect

on price and competitiveness is

expected to be relatively insignificant.

Additionally, we believe that any

increase in costs experienced by entities

as a result of this rule will be very small

when compared to the benefits. The

benefits of this rule include the

avoidance of Federal, State, and local

government costs and damages to forest

resources resulting from a widespread

gypsy moth outbreak in noninfested

areas of the United States.

Alternatives Considered

The alternative to the interim rule (as

amended by this final rule) that we

considered was to make no changes in

the regulations, instead relying on

border inspections and the Canadian

gypsy moth program to prevent the

entry of gypsy moth into noninfested

areas of the United States from infested

areas of Canada. We rejected this

alternative after determining that these

measures would likely prove to be an

inadequate response to the risk posed by

gypsy moth host material entering the

United States from Canada.

This rule contains information

collection requirements, which have

been approved by the Office of

Management and Budget (see

‘‘Paperwork Reduction Act’’ below).

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

0579–0142.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 319

Bees, Coffee, Cotton, Fruits, Honey,

Imports, Nursery stock, Plant diseases

and pests, Quarantine, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Rice,

Vegetables.

Accordingly, the interim rule

amending 7 CFR part 319 which was

published at 64 FR 45860–45868 on

August 23, 1999, is adopted as a final

rule with the following changes:

PART 319—FOREIGN QUARANTINE

NOTICES

1. The authority citation for part 319

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 150dd, 150ee, 150ff,

151–167, 450, 2803, and 2809; 21 U.S.C. 136

and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.2(c).

2. In § 319.77–1, the definition for

‘‘Certificate of origin’’ is removed, and

a definition for ‘‘Certification of origin’’

is added to read as follows.

§ 319.77–1 Definitions

* * * * *

Certification of origin. A signed,

accurate statement certifying the area in

which a regulated article was produced

or grown. The statement may be

provided directly on the shipping

documents accompanying shipments of

commercial wood products from

Canada, or may be provided on a

separate certificate.

* * * * *

3. Section 319.77–3 is revised to read

as follows:

§ 319.77–3 Gypsy moth infested areas in

Canada.

The following areas in Canada are

known to be infested with gypsy moth:

(a) Province of British Columbia. (1)

That portion of the Highlands Land

District within 1 kilometer of the

intersection of Willis Point Road and

Mark Lane; and

(2) That portion of the Highlands

Land District within 1 kilometer of the

intersection of Burkin Drive and Munns

Road; and

(3) That portion of Quamichaan Land

District within 1 kilometer of the

intersection of Sherman Road and

Grieve Road; and

(4) That portion of Lake Land District

within 1 kilometer of the intersection of

West Burnside Road and Helmeken

Road.

(b) Province of New Brunswick. (1)

Charlotte County. That portion of

Charlotte County that includes the

following parishes: Campobello Island,

Dumbarton, Dufferin, Grand Manan

Island, St. Andrews, St. Croix, St. David,

St. George, St. James, St. Patrick, and St.

Stephen.

(2) Kings County. That portion of

Kings County that includes the

following parishes: Greenwich, Kars,

and Springfield.

(3) Queens County. (i) That portion of

Queens County that includes the

following parishes: Canning, Cambridge,

Gagetown, Johnston, and Wickham; and

(ii) That portion of Chipman Parish

south or west of highway 10; and

(iii) That portion of Waterborough

Parish west of highway 10 and south of

highway 2.

(4) Sunbury County. That portion of

Sunbury County that includes the

following parishes: Blissville, Burton,

Gladstone, Lincoln, and Sheffield.

(5) York County. (i) That portion of

York County that includes the City of

Fredericton and the following parishes:

North Lake and McAdam; and

(ii) That portion of Queensbury parish

south and east of the Scotch Lake Road

beginning in the west at Bear Island on

the St. John River and ending at the

Parish border on the east.

(c) Province of Nova Scotia. (1)

Annapolis County. The entire county.

(2) Digby County. The entire county.

(3) Halifax County. The area of the

county bounded by a line beginning at

the intersection of the Halifax/

Lunenburg County border and the

Atlantic Ocean; then north along the

Halifax/Lunenburg County border to the

Halifax/Hants County border; then east

along the Halifax/Hants County border

to route 354; then south along route 354

to route 568 (Beaverbank-Windsor

Junction Road); then east along route

568 (Beaverbank-Windsor Junction

Road) to route 416 (Fall River Road);

then east and north along route 416 (Fall

River Road) to route 2; then south along

route 2 to route 102/118; then south

along route 118 to route 107; then south

along route 107 to route 7; then east

along route 7 to route 328; then south

along route 328 to the shoreline of Cole

Harbour; then west along the seashore

from Cole Harbour to the point of

beginning.

(4) Hants County. The area of the

county bounded by a line beginning at

the intersection of the Hants/Kings

County border and the shoreline of the

Minas Basin; then southwest along the

Hants/Kings County border to the

Hants/Lunenburg County border; then

southeast along the Hants/Lunenburg

County border to the Hants/Halifax

County border; then east along the

Hants/Halifax County border to route

354; then north along route 354 to the

Minas Basin; then west along the

shoreline of the Minas Basin to the

point of beginning.

(5) Kings County. The entire county.

(6) Lunenberg County. The entire

county.

(7) Queens County. The entire county.

38176 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 20, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

1Trees and shrubs from Canada that are capable

of propagation may be subject to additional

restrictions under ‘‘Subpart—Nursery Stock, Plants,

Roots, Seeds, and Other Plant Products’’ (§§ 319.37

through 319.37–14 of this part).

(8) Shelburne County. The entire

county.

(9) Yarmouth County. The entire

county.

(d) Province of Ontario. (1) That

portion of the Province of Ontario that

includes the following counties and

regional municipalities: Brant, Bruce,

Dufferin, Durham, Elgin, Essex,

Frontenac, Grey, Haldimand-Norfolk,

Haliburton, Halton, HamiltonWentworth, Hastings, Huron, Kent,

Lambton, Lanark, Leeds-Granville,

Lennox-Addington, Middlesex,

Muskoka, Niagara, Northumberland,

Ottawa-Carleton, Oxford, Parry Sound,

Peel, Perth, Peterborough, PrescottRussell, Prince Edward, Renfrew,

Simcoe, Stormont-Dundas-Glengarry,

Victoria, Waterloo, Wellington, and

York; and

(2) That portion of Algoma District

that includes the City of Sault Ste. Marie

and the following townships: Bright,

Bright Additional, Cobden, Denis,

Garden River First Nation, Indian

Reserve #7, Johnson, Korah, Laird,

Lefroy, Lewis, Long, MacDonald, Parke,

Plummer Additional, Prince, Tarbutt,

Tarbutt Additional, Tarentorus,

Thessalon, Thompson, Shedden,

Spragge, and Striker; and

(3) That portion of Algoma District

south of Highway 17 and east of the City

of Sault Ste. Marie; and

(4) That portion of Manitoulin District

that includes: Cockburn Island, Great

Cloche Island, Manitoulin Island, St.

Joseph Island, and all Indian Reserves;

and

(5) That portion of Nipissing District

that includes the City of North Bay; and

(6) That portion of Nipissing District

south of the Ottawa and Mattawa rivers;

and

(7) That portion of Nipissing District

south of highway 17 and west of the

City of North Bay; and

(8) That portion of Sudbury District

that includes the City of Sudbury and

the townships of Baldwin, Dryden,

Dunlop, Graham, Hallam, Hymen,

Indian Reserves #4, #5, and #6, Lorne,

Louise; May, McKim, Nairn, Neelon,

Porter, Salter, Shakespeare, Victoria,

and Waters; and

(9) That portion of the Sudbury

District south of Highway 17.

(e) Province of Quebec. (1) That

portion of the Province of Quebec that

includes the following regional county

municipalities: Acton, Arthabaska,

Asbestos, Beauce-Sartigan, BeauharnoisSalaberry, Be ́

cancour, Bellechasse,

Brome-Missisquoi, Champlain,

Coaticook, Communaute ́ Urbaine de

Montre ́al, Communaute ́ Urbaine de

L’Outaouais, D’Autray, Desjardins,

Deux-Montagnes, Drummond,

Francheville, Joliette, L’Amiante,

L’Assomption, L’E ́rable, L’ıˆle-d’Orle ́ans,

Lajemmerais, Laval, La NouvelleBeauce, La Rivie`

re-du-Nord, La Valle ́edu-Richelieu, Le Bas-Richelieu, Le

Granit, Le Haut-Richelieu, Le HautSaint-Francois, Le Haut-Saint-Laurent,

Le Haute-Yamaska, Le Val-SaintFrancois, Les Chutes-de-la-Chaudire,

Les Collines-de-L’Outaouais, Les

Etchemins, Les Jardins-de-Napierville,

Les Maskoutains, Les Moulins,

Lotbinie`re, Memphre ́magog, Mirabel,

Montcalm, Montmagny, NicoletYamaska, Robert-Cliche, Roussillon,

Rouville, Sherbrooke, Therese-de

Blainville, and Vaudreuil-Soulanges;

and

(2) That portion of the regional county

municipality of Antoine-Llabelle that

includes the following municipalities:

Notre-Dame-du-Laus, Notre-Dame-dePontmain, and Saint-Aime ́

-du-Lac-desIles; and

(3) That portion of the regional county

municipality of Argenteuil that includes

the following municipalities:

Brownsburg, Calumet, Carillon,

Chatham, Grenville, Lachute, SaintAndre ́

-d’Argenteuil, and Saint-Andre ́-

Est; and

(4) That portion of the regional county

municipality of Communaute ́ Urbaine

De Que ́bec that includes the following

municipalities: Cap-Rouge, L’AncienneLorette, Que ́

bec, Saint-Augustin-deDesmaures, Sainte-Foy, Sillery, and

Vanier; and

(5) That portion of the regional county

municipality of La Valle ́e-de-laGatineau that includes the following

municipalities: Denholm, Gracefield,

Kazabazua, Lac-Sainte-Marie, Low,

Northfield, and Wright; and

(6) That portion of the regional county

municipality of Le Centre-de-laMauricie that includes the following

municipalities: Charette, Notre-Damedu-Mont-Carmel, Sainte-Elie,

Shawinigan, and Shawinigan (Sud); and

(7) That portion of the regional county

municipality of Les Laurentides that

includes the following municipality: La

Conception; and

(8) That portion of the regional county

municipality of Les Pays-d’en-Haut that

includes the following municipality:

Mont-Rolland; and

(9) That portion of the regional county

municipality of Maskinonge ́ that

includes the following municipalities:

Louiseville, Maskinonge ́, Saint-Josephde-Maskinonge ́

, Saint-Barnabe ́, SaintSe ́

ve`re, Saint-Le ́on-le-Grand, SaintPaulin, Sainte-Ursule, Saint-Justin,

Saint-E ́douard-de-Maskinonge ́, SainteAnge`

le-de-Pre ́mont, and Yamachiche;

and

(10) That portion of the regional

county municipality of Matawinie that

includes the following municipalities:

Saint-Fe ́lix-de-Valois, Saint-Jean-deMatha, Rawdon, and Chertsey; and

(11) That portion of the regional

county municipality of Papineau that

includes the following municipalities:

Fassett, Lochaber, Lochaber-PartieOuest, Mayo, Montebello, Montpellier,

Mulgrave-et-Derry, Notre-Dame-de-BonSecours-Partie-Nord, Papineauville,

Plaisance, Ripon (Village et Canton),

Saint-Andre ́-Avellin (Village et Paroise),

Sainte-Ange ́lique, Saint-Sixte, and

Thurso; and

(12) That portion of the regional

county municipality of Pontiac that

includes the following municipalities:

Bristol, Shawville, Clarendon, Portagedu-Fort, Bryson, Campbell’s Bay, GrandCalumet, Litchfield, Thorne, Alleyn-etCawood, Leslie-Clapham-etHuddersfield, Fort-Coulonge, Mansfieldet-Pontefract, Waltham-et-Bryson, L’Isleaux-Allumettes-Partie-Est, Chapeau,

L’Isle-aux-Allumettes, Chichester,

Sheen-Esher-Aberdeen-et-Malakoff, and

Rapides-des-Joachims; and

(13) That portion of the regional

county municipality of Portneuf that

includes the following municipalities:

Cap-Sante ́, Deschambault, Donnacona,

Grondines, Neuville, and Pointe-auxTrembles.

4. Section 319.77–4 is amended as

follows:

a. By revising the introductory text of

paragraph (a) and paragraph (a)(1).

b. In paragraph (a)(2)(ii), by removing

the word ‘‘certificate’’ and adding the

word ‘‘certification’’ in its place.

c. By revising the heading for

paragraph (b), paragraph (b)(1), and

footnote 2.

d. In paragraph (b)(2)(ii), by removing

the word ‘‘certificate’’ and adding the

word ‘‘certification’’ in its place.

§ 319.77–4 Conditions for the importation

of regulated articles.

(a) Trees and shrubs.1 (1) Trees

without roots (e.g., Christmas trees),

trees with roots, and shrubs with roots

and persistent woody stems may be

imported into the United States from

any area of Canada without restriction

under this subpart if they:

(i) Were greenhouse-grown

throughout the year;

(ii) Are destined for a U.S. infested

area and will not be moved through any

U.S. noninfested areas; or

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 119 / Tuesday, June 20, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 38177

2Logs from Canada are also subject to restrictions

under ‘‘Subpart—Logs, Lumber, and Other

Unmanufactured Wood Articles’’ (§§ 319.40

through 319.40–11 of this part).

(iii) Are Christmas trees destined for

a U.S. infested area and will not be

moved through any U.S. noninfested

areas other than noninfested areas in the

counties of Aroostock, Franklin, Oxford,

Piscataquis, Penobscot, and Somerset,

ME (i.e., areas in those counties that are

not listed in 7 CFR 301.45–3).

* * * * *

(b) Logs and pulpwood with bark

attached.2 (1) Logs or pulpwood with

bark attached that are destined for a U.S.

infested area and that will not be moved

through any U.S. noninfested area other

than noninfested areas in the counties of

Aroostock, Franklin, Oxford,

Piscataquis, Penobscot, and Somerset,

ME (i.e., areas in those counties that are

not listed in 7 CFR 301.45–3) may be

imported from any area of Canada

without restriction under this subpart.

* * * * *

Done in Washington, DC, this 14th day of

June 2000.

Richard L. Dunkle,

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service.

[FR Doc. 00–15470 Filed 6–19–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–34–U

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service

9 CFR Parts 93, 98, and 130

[Docket No. 98–013–2]

Hawaii Animal Import Center

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: We are amending the

regulations by removing Honolulu, HI,

from the lists of animal import centers

and ports of entry that provide U.S.

Department of Agriculture quarantine

facilities for animals, birds, and poultry

imported into the United States. We are

also amending the regulations by adding

Honolulu, HI, as a limited port for the

importation of animals, birds, poultry,

poultry products, and animal germ

plasm that do not require U.S.

Department of Agriculture quarantine

facilities. These actions will update the

regulations to reflect the June 1997

closure of the Hawaii Animal Import

Center.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 20, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

Gary Colgrove, Chief Staff Veterinarian,

Import/Export Animals, National Center

for Import and Export, VS, APHIS, 4700

River Road Unit 39, Riverdale, MD

20737–1231; (301) 734–3276.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The regulations in 9 CFR parts 93 and

98 restrict the importation of specified

animals and animal products into the

United States to prevent the

introduction of communicable diseases

of livestock and poultry. The regulations

designate animal import centers and

ports of entry for the importation of

certain animals, birds, poultry, poultry

products, and animal germ plasm that

require inspection or quarantine

services.

The regulations in 9 CFR part 130 set

forth the user fees that are assessed to

reimburse the Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service for the cost of

import-and export-related services

provided at animal import centers and

ports of entry.

On March 9, 2000, we published in

the Federal Register (65 FR 12486–

12488, Docket No. 98–013–1) a proposal

to amend the regulations by removing

Honolulu, HI, from the lists of animal

import centers and ports of entry that

provide quarantine services. In addition,

we proposed to amend part 130 by

removing all references to the animal

import center in Honolulu, HI. We also

proposed to amend the regulations in

part 93 by adding Honolulu, HI, as a

limited port for the importation of

animals, birds, poultry, and poultry

products that do not require U.S.

Department of Agriculture (USDA)

quarantine facilities. We further

proposed to amend the regulations in

part 98 by adding Honolulu, HI, as a

limited port for the importation of

animal semen. (Section 98.6 provides

that embryos may be imported only at

a port of entry listed in § 93.303 for

horses, § 93.403 for ruminants, and

§ 93.503 for swine. Under the proposal,

embryos could be imported through

Honolulu, HI, because it would be listed

in those sections as a limited port.) We

also proposed minor, nonsubstantive

changes to part 93.

We solicited comments concerning

our proposal for 60 days ending May 8,

2000. We did not receive any comments.

Therefore, for the reasons given in the

proposed rule, we are adopting the

proposed rule as a final rule, without

change.

Miscellaneous

In § 93.308, paragraph (a)(2) lists the

regions that we consider affected with

African horse sickness as: All the

regions on the continent of Africa,

except Morocco; Oman; Saudi Arabia;

and the Yemen Arab Republic. For

clarity, we are rewording the list to read:

Oman, Saudi Arabia, the Yemen Arab

Republic, and all the regions on the

continent of Africa except Morocco.

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory

Flexibility Act

This rule has been reviewed under

Executive Order 12866. For this action,

the Office of Management and Budget

has waived its review process required

by Executive Order 12866.

This rule will amend the regulations

in 9 CFR parts 93, 98, and 130 by

removing Honolulu, HI, from the lists of

animal import centers and ports of entry

that provide USDA quarantine facilities

for animals, birds, and poultry imported

into the United States. These changes

are necessary to reflect the closure of the

facility known as the Hawaii Animal

Import Center (HAIC). However, we will

add Honolulu, HI, as a limited port for

the importation of animals, birds,

poultry, poultry products, and animal

germ plasm that do not require USDA

quarantine facilities.

The removal of Honolulu, HI, from

the lists of animal import centers is

primarily an editorial change following

the previously announced closure of the

HAIC. That closure primarily affected

U.S. importers of animals, birds, and

poultry that required quarantine

services. After HAIC closed, those

importers could no longer import these

items into the United States through

Honolulu, HI. However, prior to the

closure of the HAIC, the number of

animals, birds, and poultry imported

through and quarantined at the port of

Honolulu, HI, was low compared to the

number imported through other animal

import centers located in Miami, FL,

and Newburgh, NY. For instance, in

fiscal year 1997, the HAIC provided

inspection and quarantine services for

40 animals and birds. However, in fiscal

year 1997, the animal import center in

Miami, FL, provided inspection and

quarantine services for over 1,500

animals and birds; and the animal

import center located in Newburgh, NY,

provided services for over 4,000 animals

from January 1, 1997, to December 31,

1997.

Based on the availability of the

remaining animal import centers and

ports of entry and the low level of use

prior to closure of the HAIC, we believe

that removing Honolulu, HI, from the

lists of animal import centers and ports

of entry that provide USDA quarantine

facilities for animals, birds, and poultry

imported into the United States will not