i

United States 

Department of 

Agriculture

Animal and 

Plant Health 

Inspection 

Service

February 2012

Regulatory Impact Analysis and Analysis in 

Support of Certification that the Rule will not 

have a Significant Economic Impact on a 

Substantial Number of Small Entities

Final Rule

APHIS-2007-0117 

RIN 0579-AC90

Importation of Chinese wooden handicrafts

Policy & Program Development

Policy Analysis & Development
i

Summary

This rule will allow for the resumption of imports of wooden handicrafts from China, as 

long as treatment requirements are met. Importation of these products from China was 

discontinued in April 2005 because of the risk of introduction of invasive wood-boring insects. 

The prescribed heat, heat with moisture reduction, and methyl bromide fumigation treatment 

options contained in the rule will sufficiently mitigate these pest risks.

Protection of U.S. forests against the introduction and spread of invasive pests is vital to 

the economic well-being of the forestry industries as well as to maintaining the environmental 

and aesthetic benefits that the forests provide to the general public. The hundreds of millions of 

dollars that have been spent to control the spread of the emerald ash borer and the Asian 

longhorned beetle exemplify the enormous cost to the United States when invasive pests become 

established. This rule will help maintain APHIS safeguards against further incursions of woodboring pests such as these, while allowing the importation of wooden handicrafts from China to 

resume.

Wooden handicrafts comprised a very small fraction of wood products imported from 

China prior to April 2005, and similar levels of importation are expected following promulgation 

of this rule. Nonetheless, U.S. consumers of wooden handicrafts will benefit from reestablished 

access to these products from China. Treatment costs, expected to represent on average less than 

2 percent of the value of the products shipped, will be borne by firms in China, and any fraction 

of those costs that may be passed on to U.S. buyers will be negligible. Benefits of the rule are 

expected to justify the costs. Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and 

Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
ii

Table of Contents

Summary.............................................................................................................................. i

Introduction......................................................................................................................... 1

Benefits of the Rule ............................................................................................................ 2

Costs of the Rule................................................................................................................. 5

Impacts................................................................................................................................ 8

Potential Impact on Small Entities...................................................................................... 9

References......................................................................................................................... 11
1

Introduction

This analysis examines the economic impacts of a rule that will allow resumption of

imports of Chinese wooden handicrafts into the United States. The rule will amend the subpart 

found at 7 CFR 319.40. Between 2002 and 2005, APHIS issued more than 300 Emergency

Action Notifications for these products. A national recall of wooden handicrafts imported from 

China found articles infested with such high-risk pests as Callidiellum villosulum (brown fir 

longhorn beetle) and Callidiellum rufipenne (Japanese cedar longhorn beetle). Effective April 1, 

2005, APHIS responded to this increased pest risk by suspending importation of Chinese-origin 

handicraft items made from wooden logs, limbs, branches or twigs greater than 1 centimeter in 

diameter and with intact bark, pending further analysis of the risks they pose. In September 

2005, the Agency began requiring mandatory treatment of bamboo poles and garden stakes from 

China as a precautionary measure due to interceptions of multiple quarantine pests, including 

Chlorophorus annularis (tiger longhorned beetle) and Niphoma spp.

Following these actions, APHIS conducted risk management analyses to identify the 

phytosanitary measures necessary to mitigate both internal and external arthropod pests of 

concern for all categories of wooden handicrafts from China. Based on evidence from the pest 

risk assessment, the Agency has determined that these articles can be safely imported from 

China, provided certain conditions are met. This rule will amend the regulations to allow the 

importation of wooden handicrafts from China when they have met prescribed phytosanitary

conditions.1 Phytosanitary treatment options will differ depending on the diameter of the 

regulated article.

 

1 These items include carvings, baskets, boxes, bird houses, garden and lawn/patio furniture [rustic], potpourri, 

artificial trees [typically Ficus spp.], trellis towers, garden fencing and edging, and other items composed of wood.
2

Benefits and costs of the rule are examined in accordance with Executive Orders 12866

and 13563, which direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory

alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net 

benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, and 

equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and 

benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. The benefits of 

the rule are expected to justify the costs overall. Possible impacts on small entities are 

considered in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Benefits of the Rule

This rule will remove the prohibition on Chinese wooden handicrafts and allow 

importation of these products to resume with pest-risk mitigations in place. The benefits of this 

rule for US consumers derive from the resumption of wooden handicrafts imports from China. 

The mitigations contained in this rule will allow the importation of these products while still 

providing protection against the introduction of invasive pests. .

Because of the danger of invasive pests, U.S. consumers cannot currently import wooden 

handicrafts from China. This rule will allow for the resumption of that trade. While APHIS 

cannot precisely estimate the volume of trade that occurred in this category before the ban was in 

place, Customs and Borders Protection (CBP) data implies that it was very small (see discussion 

in the Impacts section below). Nevertheless, the adoption of this rule will allow this international 

trade to resume. There is currently no invasive-species danger to U.S. forests from these products 

because their importation is banned. The rule would allow for the safe resumption of trade in 

these products. While the mitigations will have associated costs, the economic damage from the 

spread of these pests could be extensive. U.S. forest products industries are among the Nation’s 
3

leading manufacturers.2 They include loggers, sawmills, and manufacturers of wood products 

including furniture, pulp, paper and paperboard. The industries are estimated to have annual 

direct economic impacts of about $293 billion,3and directly employ more than 1.2 million 

people. Many other jobs depend on forest-related activities, such as hunting, hiking, fishing, and 

the production and sale of alternative forest products. Forests also play an important role by

providing scenic beauty and wildlife habitat. Protection of U.S. forests against the introduction 

and spread of invasive pests is vital to the economic well-being of the forestry industries as well 

as to maintaining the environmental and aesthetic benefits that the forests provide to the general 

public.

The potential destructiveness and economic impact of invasive wood-boring insects are 

exemplified by the Agency’s experience with the Asian longhorned beetle (ALB) and the 

emerald ash borer (EAB). ALB attacks trees with significant commercial value, killing the host 

or predisposing it to destruction by other organisms. Infected areas lose aesthetic and property

values, as large infested trees are replaced by young and less desirable ALB-resistant trees. 

Eradication efforts in New York and Illinois have resulted in the destruction and removal of 

thousands of trees. The Agency has spent more than $300 million on eradication efforts and tree 

replacement. A 2002 study by Nowak et al., based on the New York and Illinois experiences, 

 

2

Forest product industries are classified in the North American Industry Classification System under the forestry 

and logging (NAICS subsector 113), wood product manufacturing (NAICS subsector 321), paper manufacturing 

(NAICS subsector 322), and furniture and related product manufacturing (NAICS subsector 337). 

3

Susana Laaksoman-Craig, George E. Goldman, and William McKillop, Forestry, Forest Industry, and Forest 

Products Consumption in California, publication 8070, University of California Division of Agriculture and Natural 

Resources, 2003 (http://ucanr.org/freepubs/docs/8070.pdf). The total is extrapolated by dividing the California 

impact by California’s proportion of the Nation’s forest land use (=$15.2 billion/0.0519; California share is from 

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/MajorLandUses/). The estimate would be much larger if the indirect impacts of all 

support industries were included; for California, the total impacts (direct and indirect) were estimated to be $28.5 

billion.
4

estimated that the potential national urban impact of ALB could reach a loss of 34.9 percent of 

total canopy cover, with 30.3 percent tree mortality and a value loss of $669 billion.4

Similarly, the emerald ash borer is a destructive wood-boring insect that attacks ash trees 

(Fraxinus spp., including green ash, white ash, black ash, and several horticultural varieties of 

ash). This destructive pest has already killed more than 20 million ash trees since it was 

discovered in Michigan in the summer of 2002.

5

The mortality rate for infested trees is 100 

percent. If EAB spreads from infested areas to the surrounding forests of the northeastern United 

States, where nursery, landscaping, and timber industries and forest-based recreation and tourism 

industries play vital economic roles, its impact would be severe. The pest has the potential to 

destroy entire stands of ash, and any incursion of the pest can result in substantial losses to forest 

ecosystems, urban trees, and the timber industry. Sydnor et al. estimate total potential losses

from this pest in one State (Ohio) during one year (2006), including ash landscape losses, tree 

removal and replacements, to be between $1.8 billion and $7.6 billion.6

The United States is susceptible to establishment of numerous other pests found in China 

because the climatic zones of the two countries are similar. The brown fir longhorned beetle, 

Callidiellum villosulum, and the Japanese cedar longhorned beetle, Callidiellum rufipenne,

which are both related to ALB, are destructive of many tree species found in U.S. forests. Their 

hosts include cedar, cypress, pine, redwood, and other conifers.

Risks extend beyond the forestry sector. For example, the host range of the tiger 

longhorned beetle, Chlorophorus annularis, includes apple, citrus, pear, and plum, commodities 

 

4 David J. Nowak, Daniel E. Crane and John F. Dwyer, “Compensatory Value of Urban Trees in the United 

States.” Journal of Arboriculture, Vol. 28, (July 2002): 194-199. 

5www.ca.uky.edu/AGC/NEWS/2006/Dec/ashborer.htm

6 T. Davis Sydnor, Mathew Bumgardner, and Andrew Todd, “The potential economic impacts of emerald ash borer 

(Agrilus planipennis) on Ohio, U.S., communities.” Arboriculture and Urban Forestry, Vol. 33 (January 2007):48-

54.
5

that earned U.S. producers combined cash receipts of over $6 billion in 2009. This type of pest 

causes reduced yields, reduced commodity value, and the potential loss of both domestic and 

international markets.

The U.S. wood and wood products manufacturing industries yield more than $285 billion 

in shipments annually. Direct and indirect economic contributions of the industries are

substantial in many States. For some States, forestry is the largest agricultural industry in terms 

of jobs and wages and a major source of local economic activity. Forest product industries in 

five States, California,7 Georgia,8Florida,9 North Carolina,10 and Wisconsin,11 earned over $86

billion and employed more than 410,000 workers between the years 2003 and 2007. These five 

States have about 16 percent of the Nation’s forest lands. In addition to products that are made 

from wood, a wide variety of non-timber products such as maple syrup come from U.S. forests. 

Forest-related recreation and tourism also make significant contributions to the economy. This 

rule will help protect U.S. forests and forest-dependent industries from invasive wood-boring 

pests, while allowing the resumption of imports of wooden handicrafts from China. 

Costs of the Rule

The cost of meeting the regulatory requirements of this rule will be borne by Chinese 

manufacturers and exporters before the products are exported to the United States. The 

treatment options include heat treatment; heat treatment with moisture reduction; or, for articles 

 

7

Susana Laaksonan-Craig, George E. Goldman, and William McKillop, Forestry, Forest Industry, and Forest 

Products Consumption in California, Publication 8070, University of California Division of agriculture and Natural 

resources, 2003 (gttp://ucanr.org/freepubs/docs/8070.pdf).

8 Georgia Forestry Commission, State of the Forest: A Report on Georgia Forests 2007 

(http://www.gfagrow.org/PDF/07%20state%20of%20forest.pdf)

9 Alan W. Hodges, W David Mulkey, Janaki R. Alvalapti, and Douglas R. Carter, Economic Impacts of the Forest 

Industry in Florida, 2003, Publication #FE538 (http://edis.ifas.edu/FE538)

10 North Carolina Forest Association, Economic Slowdown Impacts Forest Landowners 

(http://www.ncforestry.org/WEBPAGES/PRODUCTS/1FORESTPRODUCTS1.pdf)

11 Center for technology Transfer, Inc,, Wisconsin’s Forest products Industry: Business Climate Status Report 2004. 

(http://www.cleantechpartners.org/uploads/images/pdf/BusinessClimateStatusRptRevised.pdf).
6

with a diameter of less than 6 inches, fumigation with methyl bromide (treatment schedule T404-

d). 

Reportedly, heat treatment with moisture reduction tends to be somewhat more expensive

than other treatment options. The cost of methyl bromide fumigation may be as high per 

treatment, but fumigation does not have the considerable capital expenditure associated with 

installing a heat treatment system. The cost for fumigation services depends on a number of 

factors including distance from the nearest service center, volume, frequency and services 

requested. Heating costs also vary by type of wood. Heat treatment procedures may employ

steam, hot water, kilns, exposure to microwave energy, or any other method that raises the 

temperature of the center of each treated regulated article to at least 60o C (140o F) for at least 60

minutes.

Cost estimates are given for methyl bromide fumigation, heat treatment, and heat 

treatment with moisture reduction in table 1. Because the temperature and the duration of 

treatment required by this rule are greater than the International Standard for Phytosanitary

Measures (ISPM 15) requirements, the heat treatment costs could be slightly higher than those 

reported below.
7

Table 1. Comparison of Treatment Costs

Treatment Method

Documented Costs

(Dollars per 1,000 board 

feet)

Documented Costs 

Adjusted to 2010 Dollars

(Dollars per 1,000 board 

feet)

Adjusted Costs per 40-

foot Container Unit

(Dollars per Container)

Softwood Hardwood Softwood Hardwood Softwood Hardwood

Heat Treatment 

(HT)

85-155 100-200 118-215 139-280

299-544

(422)

352-708

(530)

Steam treatment 

(ST) 35-60 41-77 49-83 57-107

124-210

(167)

144-271

(208)

HT with moisture

reduction

- - - - - - - - 423-755

(589)

496-979

(738)

Methyl Bromide 177-506 218-623 218-623 (421)

Note: The first two columns for HT and ST are lumber treatment costs in 1996; methyl bromide treatment costs are 

for fumigating a 40-foot equivalent unit in 2001. Inflation adjustments to 2010 are made using the consumer price 

index. The numbers in parentheses are the corresponding averages.

Source: Chaille Brindley, Fumigation 101: The Other Treatment Alternative 

(http://www.palletenterprise.com/pests/fumigation101.asp); U.S. EPA, Heat treatments to Control Pests on Imported 

Timber, Methyl Bromide Alternative Case Study, Part of EPA 430-R-96-021, 10 Case Studies, Volume 2 December 

1996 (http://mbao.org/heatlog2.html); CPI index. (http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpid1105.pdf); conversion of the cost per 

1,000 bd ft to 40-foot equivalent unit (FEU) assumes 8 tons or 7.26 MT per 1,000 board feet

(http://www.arnatural.org/News/Timber_Report/Converting_Weight_Board_Feet.pdf). FEU maximum capacity 

ranges between 20.4 MT and 26.7 MT. However, actual loads are far lower than the maximum weights, either 

because of limits enforced by governments to protect roads and bridges and/or to allow space for equipment 

handling products in and out of the container. In general, the actual load is 85 and 90 percent of the maximum 

capacity. We use 18.4 MT (=0.9*20.4 MT). http://www.alken-murry.com/OceanContainer.pdf; 

http://www.fas.usda.gov/ffpd/export_Guidebook/appndix9.pdf.

In round figures (and 2010 dollars), we estimate that the cost of fumigation services 

ranges between $220 and $620 per 40-foot equivalent unit.12 The cost of steam heat treatment 

per 40-foot container ranges between $120 and $210 for softwood treatment and between $140

and $270 for hardwood treatment. Heat treatment costs range between $300 and $540 for 

heating soft wood and between $350 and $710 for heating hardwoods. Finally, heat treatment 

with moisture reduction costs range between $420 and $760 for softwood treatment and between 

$500 and $980 for hardwood treatment.13 

 

12 Chaille Brindley, Fumigation 101: The Other Treatment Alternative 

(http://www.palletenterprise.com/pests/fumigation101.asp). According to another report the cost of fumigating wood 

packaging material ranges between $300-$450 per 40-foot equivalent container unit 

(http://www.wmma.org/cuttingedge/July09/index.html)

13 U.S. EPA, Heat treatments to Control Pests on Imported Timber, Methyl Bromide Alternative Case Study, Part of 

EPA 430-R-96-021, 10 Case Studies, Volume 2 December 1996 (http://mbao.org/heatlog2.html). These values are 
8

Impacts

Because of many interceptions of wood-boring beetles, importation of most wooden 

handicrafts from China was suspended in April 2005, until a thorough evaluation of the pest risks 

associated with those articles could be conducted. The impact of the suspension has been minor 

in terms of the total value of wood product imports from China. 

The vast majority of wooden handicrafts are thought to be contained within the 

Harmonized System (HS) commodity categories that include the subcategories HS 6404 (foliage, 

branches, grasses, mosses, etc.), HS 1401 (vegetable materials used primarily for plaiting), HS 

4404 (hoopwood; split poles, piles, pickets and stakes of wood), HS 4419 (tableware and 

kitchenware of wood), HS 4420 (wood marquetry and inlaid wood; cases, etc.), HS 4421 

(articles of wood, not elsewhere specified or indicated), HS 4602 (basketwork, wickerwork, and 

other articles made from plaiting), HS 6702 (artificial flowers, foliage and fruit), and HS 9505 

(festive, carnival, and other entertainment articles, including Christmas ornaments). In 2004, the 

last year that wooden handicrafts from China could be imported into the United States, imports

of the relevant HS commodity categories were valued at a total of $2.95 billion. In particular, 

imports in the categories covering Christmas and other festive articles were valued at $1.758

billion. However, the suspended Chinese wooden handicrafts comprise only a very small portion 

of even these narrow import categories. In the years following establishment of the ban, the 

values of these import categories were virtually unchanged. From 2005 through 2010, imports in 

the relevant HS categories had an average annual value of $2.99 billion, or about $40 million (1

 

obtained using the following steps. First we adjust for inflation between 1996 and 2010 using the CPI index. 

(http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpid1105.pdf). Then to convert the cost per 1,000 bd ft to 40-foot equivalent unit, we use 

the 1,000 board feet to tons value of 8 tons or 7.26 MT 

(http://www.arnatural.org/News/Timber_Report/Converting_Weight_Board_Feet.pdf). We assume that each fortyfoot container can carry 18.4 MT of wooden handicrafts. Multiplying the adjusted cost of heating 1,000 board feet 

by the ratio of 18.4/7.26 we obtain the cost of heating 18.4 MT. 
9

percent) more than their value in 2004. Imports in the categories covering Christmas and other 

festive articles had an average annual import value of $1.756 billion from 2005 through 2010, a 

value that was less than $2 million smaller than the 2004 aggregate level. (See appendix table 

1.)

The cost of heat treatment or fumigation of these articles is expected to be small in 

comparison to the value of the wooden handicrafts shipped, and should therefore have little 

effect on the volume of imports once the ban is lifted. In 2010, Chinese imports arriving by ship

had an average value of about $62,000 per 40-foot container equivalent.14 Treatment costs 

ranging from $120 to $980 per 40-foot container would represent between 0.2 percent and 1.6 

percent of that value. The scale of resumed imports will also depend on the ability of the 

Chinese to certify that treatment has occurred. China already has in place the heat treatment and 

fumigation facilities that will be needed, due to the required treatment of wooden packing 

material shipped internationally.

Potential Impact on Small Entities

The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires that agencies consider the economic impact of 

rule changes on small businesses, organizations, and government jurisdictions. This analysis 

provides a factual basis for certification by the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. There were no significant issues raised during the comment period in 

response to the initial regulatory flexibility analysis.

The Small Business Administration has established guidelines for determining the 

number of firms considered small under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Entities engaged in 

 

14 U.S. Waterborne Foreign Trade by Trading Partners, and U.S. Waterborne Foreign Container Trade by Trading 

Partners. U.S. Department of Commerce, Maritime Administration. 
10

logging, wood product manufacturing, wooden furniture manufacturing, and importing of the 

regulated articles are considered small if they employ 500 or fewer workers, and the small-entity

standard for pulp, paper, and paperboard mills is 750 employees (see table 4).15,16 In 2007, there 

were 45,366 establishments engaged in wood and wood product manufacturing, of which only 

233 establishments (about 5 percent) could be considered to be large.17 The 233 large 

establishments had average annual receipts of $626 million, while the 45,133 small 

establishments had average annual receipts of $3 million.

It is unlikely that these establishments, large or small, will be significantly affected by 

this rule. As stated above, the treatment costs range on average between $120 and $980. This 

range of treatment costs should represent less than 2 percent of the value of cargo transported on 

average. Treatment costs will be directly borne by the manufacturer or exporter in China. Even 

if a portion of this cost is passed on to the U.S. importer, any effects will be very minor. 

Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service has determined that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

 

15 U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 economic census, Manufacturing-Subject Series

16 U.S. Small Business Administration, Table of Small Business Size Standards 

(http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/Size_Standards_Table.pdf).

17 Code 321 is made up of: Sawmills (321113); Wood Preservation (321114); Hardwood Veneer and Plywood 

Manufacturing (321211); Softwood Veneer and Plywood Manufacturing (321212); Engineered Wood Member 

(except Truss) Manufacturing (321213); Truss Manufacturing (321214); Reconstituted Wood Product 

Manufacturing (321219); Wood Window and Door Manufacturing (321911); Cut Stock, Resawing Lumber, and 

Planing (321912); Other Millwork (including Flooring) (321918); Wood Container and Pallet Manufacturing 

(321920); Manufactured Home (Mobile Home) Manufacturing (321991); Prefabricated Wood Building 

Manufacturing (321992); All Other Miscellaneous Wood Product Manufacturing (321999).
11

References

Brindley, Chaille, Fumigation 101: The Other Treatment Alternative 

(http://www.palletenterprise.com/pests/fumigation101.asp) 

Center for technology Transfer, Inc, Wisconsin’s Forest products Industry: Business Climate Status Report 2004. 

(http://www.cleantechpartners.org/uploads/images/pdf/BusinessClimateStatusRptRevised.pdf).

CPI index. (http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpid1012.pdf). 

Georgia Forestry Commission, State of the Forest: A Report on Georgia Forests 2007 

(http://www.gfagrow.org/PDF/07%20state%20of%20forest.pdf)

Hodges, Alan W., W David Mulkey, Janaki R. Alvalapti, and Douglas R. Carter, Economic Impacts of the Forest 

Industry in Florida, 2003, Publication #FE538 (http://edis.ifas.edu/FE538)

North Carolina Forest Association, Economic Slowdown Impacts Forest Landowners 

(http://www.ncforestry.org/WEBPAGES/PRODUCTS/1FORESTPRODUCTS1.pdf)

Jabara, Cathy, Mary Burfisher, and David Ingersoll, “Wood Packaging SPS Regulation: Effects on U.S. Imports 

and Containerized Trade,” 2007, pp.1-23. (http://aede.osu.edu/programs/anderson/trade/59Jabara.pdf)

Laaksoman-Craig, Susana, George E. Goldman, and William McKillop, Forestry, Forest Industry, and Forest 

Products Consumption in California, publication 8070, University of California Division of Agriculture and Natural 

Resources, 2003 (http://ucanr.org/freepubs/docs/8070.pdf). 

Novak, David J., Daniel E. Crane and John F. Dwyer, “Compensatory Value of Urban Trees in the United States.” 

Journal of Arboriculture, Vol. 28, (July 2002): 194-199. 

www.ca.uky.edu/AGC/NEWS/2006/Dec/ashborer.htm

Sydnor, T. Davis, Mathew Bumgardner, and Andrew Todd, “The potential economic impacts of emerald ash borer 

(Agrilus planipennis) on Ohio, U.S., communities.” Arboriculture and Urban Forestry, Vol. 33 (January 2007):48-

54.

UN/FAO, Yearbook of Forest Products, Rome, 2010 (http://www.fao.org/docrep/012/i1521m/i1521m00.htm)

U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census, Statistics of U.S. Businesses 

(http://www.census.gov/econ/susb/index.html)

U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census, Sector 31: EC0731SG3: Manufacturing: Summary Series: General 

Summary: Industry Statistics for Subsectors and Industries by Employment Size: 2007, released 11/16/2010. 

U.S. EPA, Heat treatments to Control Pests on Imported Timber, Methyl Bromide Alternative Case Study, Part of 

EPA 430-R-96-021, 10 Case Studies, Volume 2 December 1996 (http://mbao.org/heatlog2.html)

U.S. Small Business Administration, Table of Small Business Size Standards 

(http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/Size_Standards_Table.pdf).

World Trade Atlas, 2000-2010 Global Trade Information Services, Inc., January 2011. 

http://www.gtis.com/gta/secure/gateway.cfm

WTO, International Trade Statistics 2010, 

http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/statis_e/its2010_e/its10_world_trade_dev_e.htm