This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

40193

Vol. 63, No. 144

Tuesday, July 28, 1998

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service

7 CFR Part 319

[Docket No. 96–031–1]

RIN 0579–AA82

Importation of Wood Chips From Chile

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: We are proposing to amend

the regulations for importing logs,

lumber, and other unmanufactured

wood articles. We believe that a surface

pesticide treatment is effective in

rendering large shipments of Pinus

radiata wood chips from Chile free of

plant pests. Therefore, we are proposing

to allow the importation of Pinus

radiata wood chips from Chile if the

surfaces of the wood chips are treated

with a specified pesticide mixture for

use on wood chips from Chile. This

change would provide more alternatives

for persons interested in importing

wood chips from Chile while continuing

to protect against the introduction of

dangerous plant pests.

DATES: Consideration will be given only

to comments received on or before

September 28, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Please send an original and

three copies of your comments to

Docket No. 96–031–1, Regulatory

Analysis and Development, PPD,

APHIS, suite 3C03, 4700 River Road

Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737–1238.

Please state that your comments refer to

Docket No. 96–031–1. Comments

received may be inspected at USDA,

room 1141, South Building, 14th Street

and Independence Avenue SW.,

Washington, DC, between 8 a.m. and

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except holidays. Persons wishing to

inspect comments are requested to call

ahead on (202) 690–2817 to facilitate

entry into the comment reading room.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Ronald Campbell, Operations Officer,

Program Support Staff, PPQ, APHIS,

4700 River Road Unit 60, Riverdale, MD

20737–1236, (301) 734–8295; or e-mail:

rcampbell@aphis.usda.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Analyses.

Background

Logs, lumber, and other

unmanufactured wood articles imported

into the United States could pose a

significant hazard of introducing plant

pests and pathogens detrimental to

agriculture and to natural, cultivated,

and urban forest resources. The

regulations in 7 CFR 319.40–1 through

319.40–11 (referred to below as the

regulations) contain provisions to

eliminate any significant plant pest risk

presented by the importation of logs,

lumber, and other unmanufactured

wood articles.

Wood Chips and Proposed Treatment

Approximately $40 million worth of

wood chips is imported into the United

States each year for use in making pulp

for paper production. Section 319.40–

6(c) of the regulations requires that

wood chips from any place except

certain places in Asia may be imported

if, among other things, they were (1)

derived from live, healthy, tropical

species of plantation-grown trees grown

in tropical areas; or, (2) fumigated with

methyl bromide, heat treated, or heat

treated with moisture reduction, in

accordance with the regulations in

§ 319.40–7. (Section 319.40–7 of the

regulations, ‘‘Treatments and

safeguards,’’ sets forth the methods by

which certain treatments and safeguards

required by the regulations must be

conducted.)

We propose to establish a new set of

requirements for importing Monterey

pine wood chips from Chile. Pinus

radiata (also known as Monterey pine)

wood chips from Chile are in demand

in the United States for use in making

high quality paper pulp. Several

commercial processors of wood chips in

the United States have requested that

the Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service (APHIS) consider allowing the

importation of Pinus radiata wood chips

from Chile if they are treated with a

surface pesticide. Since February 1995,

APHIS has supervised approximately 16

trial shipments to the United States of

Pinus radiata wood chips from Chile

that were treated with a surface

pesticide. The surface pesticide

consisted of a mixture of a fungicide

containing 64.8 percent of the active

ingredient didecyl dimethyl ammonium

chloride and 7.6 percent of the active

ingredient 3-Iodo-2-propynl

butylcarbamate, and an insecticide

containing 44.9 percent of the active

ingredient chlorphrifos

phosphorothioate. At a facility located

at a port in Chile, the wood chips were

sent through a chute as they were

loaded onto the ship. As the chips were

passing through the chute, they were

sprayed with the pesticide from all

sides, so that each chip was coated with

the pesticide. All of the shipments

arrived in the United States apparently

free from any live plant pests.

Based on the success of the trial

shipments, we have determined that

wood chips from Chile can be imported

with negligible risk into the United

States after treatment in the manner

described above with any pesticide

mixture consisting of a fungicide

containing 64.8 percent of the active

ingredient didecyl dimethyl ammonium

chloride and 7.6 percent of the active

ingredient 3-Iodo-2-propynl

butylcarbamate, and an insecticide

containing 44.9 percent of the active

ingredient chlorphrifos

phosphorothioate.

Section 319.40–6 of the regulations

contains universal importation

provisions for the importation of

specified articles, including wood chips.

We are proposing to revise § 319.40–6(c)

to allow Pinus radiata wood chips from

Chile to be imported after receiving the

surface pesticide treatment described

above.

At this time, we would add provisions

for surface pesticide treatment only for

Pinus radiata wood chips from Chile.

There have been no requests for

allowing the use of a surface pesticide

treatment on any wood chips other than

Pinus radiata wood chips from Chile.

Further, we cannot conclude that the

method of treatment used in the trial

shipments from Chile would be effective

on any species other than Pinus radiata.

APHIS conducted a pest risk assessment

for Pinus radiata in Chile in September

1993. New Zealand is the only other

country for which a pest risk assessment

has been conducted concerning Pinus

radiata. The pests determined by the

pest risk assessment to attack Pinus
40194 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 144 /Tuesday, July 28, 1998 / Proposed Rules

radiata in New Zealand are not the same

as the pests of concern in Chile.

Therefore, even though the species

would be the same, we cannot conclude

that the method of treatment used for

Pinus radiata wood chips from Chile

would be effective on the pests that

attack Pinus radiata in New Zealand. In

addition, New Zealand does not have

the facilities necessary to treat large

amounts of wood chips with a surface

pesticide. If, in the future, there appears

to be a demand for wood chips other

than Pinus radiata or from a country

other than Chile to be imported using a

surface pesticide treatment, APHIS

would determine at that time what kind

of research would be necessary to assess

whether or not such treatment would be

effective on that particular commodity.

However, the pest risk assessment

conducted in 1993 for Pinus radiata in

Chile is still valid as the basis for the

following regulatory controls designed

to mitigate to a negligible level the risks

of importing Pinus radiata wood chips

from Chile.

To help ensure the Pinus radiata

wood chips from Chile are free from

pests, we are proposing that several

conditions be met in addition to the

surface pesticide treatment. We would

require that the wood chips be

accompanied by a certificate stating that

the wood chips were derived from logs

from live, healthy, plantation-grown

trees that were apparently free of plant

pests, plant pest damage, and decay

organisms, and that the logs were

debarked in accordance with § 319.40–

7(b) before being chipped. (Section

319.40–7(b) sets forth tolerance levels

for amounts of bark that may be retained

on a regulated article after debarking.)

These conditions are the same as

current requirements for the importation

of Pinus radiata logs from Chile, with

the exception of the stipulation that the

chips be from ‘‘plantation-grown’’ trees.

We would require that the wood chips

be from plantation-grown trees because

the pest risk in a managed forest area is

lower than in an unmanaged forest.

We would also require that the

certificate state that no more than 45

days elapsed from the time the trees

used to make the chips were felled to

the time the wood chips were exported.

This requirement would reduce the

opportunities for exposure of the logs to

plant pests.

Additionally, we would require that

the wood chips be consigned to a

facility in the United States operating

under a compliance agreement with

APHIS, in accordance with § 319.40–8

of the regulations. (Section 319.40–8

concerns facilities that operate under

compliance agreements.) The

compliance agreement would further

ensure the safe importation of the

treated wood chips from Chile by

specifying safeguards and requirements

to ensure that the processing method

would effectively destroy any plant

pests, and by stating that APHIS

inspectors must be allowed access to the

facility to monitor compliance with the

requirements of the compliance

agreement and the regulations.

We would require that, during

shipment to the United States, no other

regulated articles (other than solid wood

packing materials) would be permitted

in the holds or sealed containers

carrying the wood chips, and that wood

chips on the vessel’s deck would have

to be in a sealed container. These

requirements would control possible

movement of plant pests from other

regulated articles.

We would also require that certain

safeguards be applied upon arrival of

the wood chips in the United States.

First, the wood chips would have to be

unloaded upon arrival by a conveyor

which is covered, to prevent the chips

from being blown by the wind and from

accidental spillage. The facility

receiving the wood chips would have to

have a procedure in place to retrieve

any chips that fall during unloading. If

the chips must be transported after

arrival, we would require that they must

be covered or safeguarded in a manner

that prevents the chips from spilling or

falling off the means of conveyance, or

from being blown off the means of

conveyance by wind. Once at the

facility, the wood chips would have to

be stored on a paved surface and be kept

segregated from other regulated articles

from the time of discharge from the

means of conveyance until the chips are

processed. The storage area could not be

adjacent to wooded areas. Finally, the

wood chips would have to be processed,

and any fines or unusable wood chips

would have to be disposed of by

burning, within 60 days of arrival at the

facility. ‘‘Fines’’ are small particles or

fragments of wood, slightly larger than

sawdust, that result from chipping,

sawing, or processing wood. These

safeguards would help remove any

opportunities for movement of plant

pests from the wood chips, should there

be any plant pests present on the chips.

We also are proposing to revise

§ 319.40–7(e), concerning surface

pesticide treatments, to allow for the use

of any surface pesticide treatment to

qualify Pinus radiata wood chips from

Chile for importation that is a mixture

of a fungicide containing 64.8 percent of

the active ingredient didecyl dimethyl

ammonium chloride and 7.6 percent of

the active ingredient 3-Iodo-2-propynl

butylcarbamate and an insecticide

containing 44.9 percent of the active

ingredient chlorphrifos

phosphorothioate. We would require

that the fungicide and insecticide be

mixed using the proportions called for

on the label requirements.

We would further stipulate in

§ 319.40–7(e) that the wood chips must

be sprayed with the surface pesticide

treatment so that all the chips are

exposed to the chemical on all sides.

The treatment method used on the trial

shipments from Chile would be

acceptable under this provision. Any

other treatment method that

accomplishes the goal of spraying the

chips so that they are exposed to the

pesticide on all sides would also be

acceptable. Finally, we would require

that, during the interval between

treatment and export, the wood chips

would have to be stored, handled, or

safeguarded in a manner that prevents

any infestation of the wood chips by

plant pests.

In the future, if we determine the

pesticide mixture described in this

document, or any other pesticide

treatment, is effective on plant pests that

could be carried on wood chips, we will

propose amendments to the regulations

to allow for the importation of wood

chips from that country after receiving

the surface pesticide treatment.

Executive Order 12866

This proposed rule has been reviewed

under Executive Order 12866. The rule

has been determined to be significant

for the purposes of Executive Order

12866 and, therefore, has been reviewed

by the Office of Management and

Budget.

Benefits from allowing Pinus radiata

wood chips to be imported from Chile

include lower priced wood chips for

pulp mills in the Pacific Northwest, and

lower priced products to consumers if

lower input prices are reflected in lower

retail prices. Greater choice among

species for wood chip raw material is

another benefit. Costs associated with

risks of introducing pests are negligible

because the procedures required to

import Chilean wood chips under this

rule are designed to keep the risk of

importing pests to a negligible level.

Since imports will be concentrated in

the Pacific Northwest, impacts will be

felt mainly by wood chip producers and

purchasers in the region. Wood chip

producers may bear revenue losses if

they are unable to compete with lower

cost imports or adjust their product mix.

Test shipments of Pinus radiata wood

chips from Chile to the Pacific

Northwest during recent years have

demonstrated the effectiveness of
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 144 /Tuesday, July 28, 1998 / Proposed Rules 40195

1Robert Flynn, private wood industry consultant,

personal communication, drawing in part on

information from ‘‘Southern Pulpwood Production,

1996,’’ by Tony Johnson, USDA Forest Service,

Southern Research Station, Resource Bulletin SRS–

21.

2Richard Haynes, USDA Forest Service, personal

communication.

3Chris Twarok, Department of Commerce,

personal communication. Landscaping is a

secondary use.

4 J.J. Morrell, Department of Forest Products,

Oregon State University, personal communication.

5The pulp fiber industry has traditionally been a

softwood chip market, but this has been changing

in recent years in the eastern United States. Pulp

mills in the southeastern United States are relying

increasingly on hardwood chips, where only

softwood chips were once used. Long-term rising

demand for wood chips is also reflected in an

increasing number of ‘‘chipping’’ mills producing

only wood chips; at least 100 of more than 140

wood chip mills in the southeastern United States

have been constructed within the past decade.

(Dennis Haldeman and Doug Sloane, personal

communications)

6U.S. wood chip import and export statistics from

Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.

7FAS Global Agricultural Trade System, using

data from the United Nations Statistical Office.

8Richard Haynes, USDA Forest Service, personal

communication. Domestic prices based on export

prices for the Columbia-Snake Customs District,

adjusted to ‘‘green’’ metric tons. Without

consideration of transportation costs, these quoted

prices may overestimate the price realized at a

Pacific Northwest pulp mill for U.S. chips and

underestimate the price realized for Chilean chips.

Moreover, average yearly prices conceal seasonal

variations.

9FAS Global Agricultural Trade System, using

data from the United Nations Statistical Office

phytosanitary safeguards proposed in

this rule, as well as the economic

feasibility of chip imports from Chile for

the region’s pulp mills. Chile’s large and

expanding forestry plantations are

expected to provide a reliable source for

future wood chip imports when there is

sufficient demand. At present, the

abundant supply of wood chips in the

Pacific Northwest precludes imports, a

market situation that differs

dramatically from that of three years ago

when wood chip prices reached an alltime high. Pacific Northwest pulp mills

depend primarily on domestic wood

chip suppliers, but turn to overseas

sources when domestic wood chip

prices are high. Chilean imports can be

expected to be competitively marketed

when the domestic wood chip supply is

low, since Pinus radiata wood chips can

substitute for most other softwood

chips. Some domestic wood chip

producers may be adversely affected by

Chilean imports, but the impact is not

likely to be widespread; most domestic

wood chip producers that cannot

compete may adjust their product mix

away from wood chips to other mill

products.

Discussion

Under the Federal Plant Pest Act (7

U.S.C. 150aa–150jj), the Secretary of

Agriculture is authorized to promulgate

regulations requiring inspection of

products and articles as a condition of

their movement into or through the

United States, and imposing other

conditions upon such movement, in

order to prevent the dissemination into

the United States of plant pests.

This proposed rule would amend the

regulations for importing wood chips to

allow the importation of Pinus radiata

wood chips from Chile if the surfaces of

the wood chips are treated with a

pesticide approved by the Administrator

for use on wood chips from Chile.

Allowing the use of a surface pesticide

treatment would make it possible to

effectively treat large shipments of wood

chips. Wood chips are used for making

pulp used in the production of paper.

U.S. pulp producers want to import

Pinus radiata wood chips from Chile

because these wood chips produce a

high quality pulp. However, there is no

treatment in the regulations that is both

practical and effective in treating large

shipments of these wood chips.

Current APHIS regulations call for,

along with other requirements, heat

treatment or fumigation of imported

wood materials. While these safeguards

are appropriate for solid wood products,

they are less useful for wood chips.

Heating of wood chips is time

consuming, and fumigation of wood

chips in ship holds can result in

insufficient treatment. Therefore, it is

being proposed that importation of

Pinus radiata wood chips from Chile be

allowed following their surface

treatment with a specified pesticide

mixture. As discussed above, the

efficacy of this treatment is

demonstrated by 16 trial shipments of

surface-treated Pinus radiata wood

chips from Chile that have arrived

without pests since February 1995.

Approximately $40 million worth of

wood chips is imported into the United

States each year for use in making pulp

for paper production. Coniferous wood

chip imports by the U.S. comprise less

than one percent of domestic

production.1 About 30 percent of U.S.

wood chip production takes place in the

Pacific Northwest.2 Wood chip imports

to the United States have been mainly

to the Pacific Northwest, although there

have been recent shipments of

Caribbean pine from Brazil that have

entered through the port at Mobile, AL.

Wood chips are used mainly in the

manufacture of pulp, that is then used

to make paper and panel products.3 Test

shipments of Pinus radiata wood chips

from Chile during the last three years

have been so utilized, and it is expected

that future shipments facilitated by the

surface pesticide treatment proposed in

this rule change would also be used to

make pulp.4

The demand for wood chips used by

pulp mills is a derived demand,

depending on the market for pulp.5

While the long-term demand for pulp in

the United States and internationally is

expected to continue to expand (with

increasing reliance on wood from

plantation forests), pulp and wood chip

prices can be volatile in the short term,

causing relatively abrupt market

changes. The variable demand for wood

chips during the few years the Chilean

test shipments have taken place

illustrates how rapidly market

conditions can change. Coniferous wood

chip imports in 1995 by the United

States nearly tripled those of 1994, with

imports from Canada rising more than

threefold, and test shipments from Chile

doubling and displacing 1994 imports

from Mexico.6 The increase in demand

was reflected in a 60 percent increase in

the price paid in the United States for

Chilean wood chips, from $42 per ton

in 1994, to $67 per ton in 1995.7

Comparable U.S. prices for domestically

produced wood chips in these two years

were $56 per ton in 1994 and $72 per

ton in 1995.8 Since then, prices have

receded due to the current abundant

supply of wood chips.

Chile’s coniferous wood chip exports

to the United States, 1994–1996, and

Chile’s share of coniferous wood chip

imports by the United States, are as

follows: 9

1994 ................................................... 168 metric tons ............................................................................................ 00.05 percent of imports.

1995 ................................................... 339,665 metric tons ..................................................................................... 48.29 percent of imports.

1996 ................................................... 329,387 metric tons ..................................................................................... 44.06 percent of imports.

In 1994, 57 percent of coniferous

wood chip imports by the United States

were from Mexico and 43 percent were

from Canada. In 1995, pulp prices

reached record levels, with U.S.

coniferous wood chip imports more

than doubling from the year before, to

703,000 metric tons from 331,000 metric

tons. That year, no coniferous wood
40196 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 144 /Tuesday, July 28, 1998 / Proposed Rules

10Robert Rummel, American Pulpwood

Association; Robert Flynn, Robert Flynn and

Associates, personal communications.

11Chris Twarok, Department of Commerce,

personal communication.

12 Information on Chile’s wood chip production

and exports taken from Wood Products:

International Trade and Foreign Markets, FAS

Circular Series WP 3–97, August 1997, Table 15.

13 Information on Chile’s Pinus radiata wood chip

exports compiled from data provided by APHISInternational Services.

14 ‘‘Forest Products, Annual Report,’’ Office of

Agricultural Affairs, American Embassy, Santiago,

AGR Number CI7033, 1997.

15Fernando Hartwig, Inversiones Forestales

C.C.A., personal communication.

16The United States is a net exporter of

coniferous and nonconiferous wood chips.

Compared to coniferous wood chip imports of 0.75

million tons in 1996, the United States exported

1.78 million tons. Nonconiferous wood chip

imports and exports by the United States exhibit an

even larger difference, with 1996 imports totaling

about 55,000 tons and exports at 4.29 million tons.

(Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census)

chips were imported from Mexico, 48

percent of imports came from Chile, 49

percent came from Canada, and 3

percent came from Brazil. In 1996,

Canada’s share of U.S. coniferous wood

chip imports increased to 56 percent, 44

percent came from Chile, and none was

received from Brazil.

Production of Pinus radiata wood

chips in the United States is essentially

nil, due to the relatively small region in

which it grows well, about six miles

inland along the coastal fog belt of

central California (hence its common

name, the Monterey pine). There may be

some production from sawmill residues,

but the quantity, if any, is negligible. No

pulp mills are currently using

domestically produced Pinus radiata

wood chips.10

Impacts on the U.S. wood chip

industry of potential Chilean imports,

therefore, depend on the substitutability

of Pinus radiata wood chips for other

softwood or for hardwood chips.

Instances in which Pinus radiata and

hardwood chips might substitute for

each other are relatively few. However,

Pinus radiata wood chips can generally

be used in place of other coniferous

chips such as lodgepole pine and

ponderosa pine, although milling

adjustments may be required—and costs

incurred—due to differences in resin

content 11. We invite public comments

on the magnitude of adjustment costs

which would be required to substitute

Pinus radiata chips for those of species

commercially grown in the Pacific

Northwest. We also invite comments on

the extent to which such costs would

inhibit substitution, and the economic

consequences of such substitution.

The test shipments of Chilean wood

chips were received by pulp mills in the

Pacific Northwest. This region is

expected to continue to be the

destination of future shipments, given

the additional transportation costs that

would be incurred by pulp mills in the

eastern and southeastern United States.

With sales regionally concentrated, little

impact from this rule is expected

outside the Pacific Northwest.

In sum, the test shipments from Chile

have shown the value to Pacific

Northwest pulp mills of Chilean wood

chips in supplementing domestic and

Canadian wood chip supplies when the

price of pulp makes such shipments

economically feasible. Pulp mills able to

adjust milling processes to utilize Pinus

radiata wood chips can benefit by

making profitable use of Chilean

imports when other sources are

insufficient or more costly. As now

described, Chile has the production

capacity to be a reliable source of Pinus

radiata wood chips to the United States.

Chile’s wood chip industry grew

significantly during the 1980s, with

production increasing more than

tenfold, from 0.44 million tons in 1984,

to 5.03 million tons in 1990.12 Chile’s

wood chip exports during this period

rose from none in 1984, to 2.23 million

tons (44 percent of production) in 1990.

During the first half of the 1990s, both

production and export levels fluctuated,

but without the dramatic increases of

the 1980s. Annual production between

1990 and 1995 averaged about 5.80

million tons, and exports averaged

about 3.05 million tons (about 53

percent of production).

Pinus radiata wood chips comprise a

minor share of Chile’s wood chip

exports.13 Of the approximately 3

million tons of wood chips exported

annually between 1990 and 1996, Pinus

radiata’s share averaged 12 percent.

Between January and August, 1997, 10

percent of Chile’s wood chip exports

were Pinus radiata.

Japan was, by far, the principal

importer of Chilean wood chips from

1990 to 1996. (Country destinations by

species are not known for these years.)

From 1990 to 1994, an average of 96

percent of Chile’s wood chip exports

were received by Japan. With the test

shipments of Pinus radiata to the

United States in 1995 and 1996, Japan’s

share of Chile’s wood chip exports fell

to 87 percent and 83 percent,

respectively, and the United States’

share for these two years was 9 percent

and 11 percent.

From January to August, 1997, Japan’s

share of Chile’s wood chip exports was

89 percent. The United States and Japan

each received about one-half of Chile’s

Pinus radiata wood chip exports during

this eight-month period.

Chile’s development of its forest

products sector rests to a large degree on

the success of Pinus radiata; its share of

Chile’s wood chip exports is expected to

increase. By 1996 there were

approximately 1,387,000 hectares

planted in Pinus radiata, representing

75 percent of plantation plantings, and

15 percent of Chile’s forest resources

including native forest.14 This pine

species matures at 20 to 24 years in

Chile (thinnings are available for use

after 15 years), compared to 30 years in

New Zealand and Australia, and 40 to

60 years in North America and Europe.

Production and exports are expected to

peak during the coming decade, when

trees on most of the Pinus radiata

plantations will be ready to be

harvested.

One set of projections describing the

volume of Pinus radiata wood chips

that could be exported to the United

States over the coming five years,

assuming favorable prices, is as

follows: 15

Year

Potential Pinus

radiata wood

chip exports

from Chile to the

United States

(million tons)

1998 ................................... 0.56 to 0.70.

1999 ................................... 0.60 to 1.00.

2000 ................................... 1.00 to 1.20.

2001 ................................... 0.90 to 1.00.

2002 ................................... 0.85 to 0.90.

Realization of these export levels will

depend on the demand for Pinus radiata

wood chips by U.S. pulp mills. As has

been described, international short-term

demand for pulp fibers can be volatile.

When prices fell between 1995 and

1996, Chile’s forestry sector exports

declined by 24 percent, mainly because

of reduced sales to Japan.

Chile’s stock of Pinus radiata

available for harvest will enable Pacific

Northwest importers to take advantage

of a ready source as wood chip prices

rebound. In 1996, all coniferous wood

chip imports by the United States

totaled about 0.75 million tons, of

which 0.33 million tons were imported

from Chile.16 Projected export levels

shown above would increase U.S. wood

chip imports above current levels, and

establish Chile as a major foreign

supplier. Wood chip prices in the

United States will determine whether

these projections are overly optimistic.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 144 /Tuesday, July 28, 1998 / Proposed Rules 40197

17Richard Haynes, USDA Forest Service, personal

communication.

18This is the latest year for which data is

available from the ‘‘SBA Office of Advocacy,

Statistics on Small Business’’ Web home page.

19Richard Haynes, USDA Forest Service, personal

communication.

20Byron Lundi, Georgia-Pacific, personal

communication.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 603, we

have performed an Initial Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis, which is set out

below, regarding the impact of this rule

on small entities. However, we do not

currently have all the data necessary for

a comprehensive analysis of the effects

of this rule on small entities. Therefore,

we are inviting comments concerning

potential effects. In particular, we are

interested in determining the number of

small entities that would be impacted

by this proposed rule, positively or

negatively, in regards to the provisions

for allowing the importation of Pinus

radiata wood chips from Chile. We are

also interested in information

concerning the volume of wood chips

that may be imported from Chile under

this proposed rule, and whether or not

the wood chips from Chile would be in

competition with wood chips produced

in the United States.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act

requires consideration of potential

impacts of rule changes on small

businesses, organizations, and

governmental jurisdictions. In this

instance, small entities directly affected

would be U.S. wood chip producers and

pulp mills in the Pacific Northwest.

Wood chip production is included in

the SIC category for firms operating

sawmills and planing mills. In most

cases, wood chips are a by-product of

lumber production. A mill will vary its

level of wood chip production

(compared to other products) based on

whether wood chip prices are high or

low at a particular point in time. In the

Pacific Northwest, about 150 mills

produce wood chips (90 in Oregon and

60 in Washington), but more than one

may be owned by the same firm.17 Data

on the exact number of firms is not

available. Sawmills and planing mills

that employ 500 people or fewer are

designated by the Small Business

Administration as ‘‘small.’’ In 1994,

there were 5,241 firms operating

sawmills and planing mills in the

United States, of which 5,149 (more

than 98 percent) were small.18 Estimated

annual receipts of these 5,149 ‘‘small’’

firms totaled about $14.88 billion,

which was 62 percent of total annual

receipts of about $23.93 billion earned

by all sawmills and planing mills. In the

absence of information on mill firm

sizes specific to Oregon and

Washington, it is assumed that most

sawmills in the Pacific Northwest are

also small entities.

Adverse impacts on most ‘‘small’’

U.S. wood chip producers due to this

rule change will be minor. The Chilean

imports are expected to be sold in the

Pacific Northwest, thereby affecting a

geographical subset of all wood chip

producers. Adverse impacts on Pacific

Northwest wood chip producers will

depend on the ability of such producers

to find lower priced raw materials to

produce wood chips or otherwise

reduce cost, and the extent of their

reliance on wood chips for their net

revenues. Producers of those wood

chips that are substitutes for Pinus

radiata chips will find their net returns

reduced when import prices are low. As

raw materials used for wood chip

production grow increasingly scarce and

expensive in the Pacific Northwest,

those wood chip producers that

compete with lower priced imports will

face adjustment pressures. However,

U.S. wood chip producers already feel

competition from other international

sources.

It is estimated that less than 5 percent

of wood chip producers in the Pacific

Northwest are ‘‘chipping’’ mills devoted

solely to wood chip production.19

However, during periods of high wood

chip demand such as three years ago,

many sawmills may be converted

largely to wood chip production.

Turning to the pulp mills, themselves,

there were 37 firms operating pulp mills

in the United States in 1994. Often more

than one pulp mill is owned by a single

firm. Pulp mill firms employing 750

people or fewer are designated by the

Small Business Administration as

‘‘small.’’ In 1994, between 20 and 25 of

the 37 firms were small, that is, between

54 and 68 percent of the total number

of firms. Estimated annual receipts of

these 20 to 25 ‘‘small’’ firms totaled

between about $383 million and about

$1.12 billion, which represented

between 7 percent and 21 percent of

total annual receipts by all pulp mills of

about $5.30 billion. About 10 percent of

U.S. pulp mills are in the Pacific

Northwest.

Due to resin-content differences, pulp

mills cannot use various species of

wood chips indiscriminately. Pulp mills

designed to process wood chips of Pinus

radiata or similar species would

therefore be the only ones directly

affected by this rule. It is estimated that

less than one-half of U.S. pulp mills

could use Pinus radiata wood chips.20

Assuming an equal distribution of these

pulp mills among all pulp mills, sizewise, ‘‘small’’ pulp mill firms directly

affected would then number between 10

and 13, based on 1994 data. These

numbers are likely to be an

overestimation, since not all of the

‘‘small’’ firms that could utilize Pinus

radiata wood chips are necessarily

located in the Pacific Northwest.

Regardless of the number of affected

‘‘small’’ pulp mill firms, having Chile as

a source of Pinus radiata wood chips

would be beneficial to pulp mills and

their customers, to the extent lower chip

prices would be reflected in lower

product prices.

Test shipments of Pinus radiata wood

chips from Chile have been successfully

imported by pulp mills in the Pacific

Northwest. This rule change will enable

such shipments, using a surface

pesticide treatment, to continue to take

place when economically feasible.

Although Pinus radiata wood chip

production in the United States is

negligible, this species can substitute for

other species as a pulp fiber, given

certain milling adjustments. Off-shore

wood chip sources to supplement

domestic supply are advantageous to

pulp mills, given the volatility of pulp

prices. Chile’s wood products industry

has a large export component, and is

expected to be a reliable source when

pulp prices prompt wood chip exports

to the United States. Adverse effects for

wood chip producers in the Pacific

Northwest will be felt by those

producers who are unable to reduce

costs to meet import competition and

who rely heavily on revenues from

wood chips.

No figures are available concerning

potential costs of pest introductions

through importation of Pinus radiata

wood chips from Chile. A pest risk

assessment for the importation of Pinus

radiata logs from Chile (‘‘Pest Risk

Assessment of the Importation of Pinus

radiata, Nothofagus dombeyi, and

Laurelia philippiana Logs from Chile,’’

USDA Forest Service, Miscellaneous

Publication No. 1517, September 1993)

provides the phytosanitary basis for

allowing the wood chips to be imported

if they are treated as prescribed. The

pest risk assessment supports our

determination that Pinus radiata wood

chips may be imported from Chile with

negligible risk.

The pest risk assessment reported that

in sharp contrast to native forests in

Chile, that country’s Pinus radiata

plantations are relatively free of major

insect and disease problems. Exceptions

include the recently introduced

European pine shoot moth (Rhyaccionia

buoliana), Hylurgus ligniperda and two
40198 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 144 /Tuesday, July 28, 1998 / Proposed Rules

21 ‘‘Importation of Logs, Lumber, and Other

Unmanufactured Wood Articles: Final Supplement

to the Environmental Impact Statement, May 1998,’’

USDA, APHIS.

22FAS Global Agricultural Trade System, using

data from the United Nations Statistical Office.

23FAS Global Agricultural Trade System, using

data from the United Nations Statistical Office.

other species of European bark beetles,

several needle disease fungi

(Dothistroma pini and Lophodermium

spp., among others), diplodia shoot

blight (Sphaeropsis sapinea), and two

species of blue stain fungi (Ophiostoma

picea and O. piliferum). The wood wasp

Sirex noctilio (considered to be the most

important pest on Pinus radiata logs

exported from New Zealand) and pine

wood nematodes (Bursaphelenchus

spp.) have yet to be found in Chile.

Among the insect pests of Pinus

radiata analyzed in detail in the pest

risk assessment, only the bark beetle

Hylurgus ligniperda was considered to

have a high pest risk potential.

Moderate pest risk potentials were

assigned to Rhyephenes spp., Ernobius

mollis, Urocerus gigas gigas, Neotermes

chilensis, Porotermes quadricollis,

Colobura alboplagiata, and Buprestis

novemmaculata. Among the pathogens,

the stain fungi (Ophiostoma spp.) were

found to merit a moderate to high pest

risk potential, whereas the complex of

needle diseases (Dothistroma pini and

other species) and diplodia shoot blight

(Sphaeropsis sapinea) were rated as

moderate risks. Other pathogens were

considered to be of low risk. One weed

of concern (Imperata condensata,

considered a variety of I. cylindrica or

cogongrass) was identified.

Pests potentially affecting untreated

Pinus radiata wood chips are a subset

of those identified in the pest risk

assessment, since wood chip production

would physically remove or destroy

most pests that could be present in the

logs. Treatment with the surface

pesticide proposed by this rule change

would prevent entry into the United

States of any harmful insects or fungi

that might remain.

The Pacific Northwest’s coastal ranges

and Cascade Mountains have some of

the highest quality natural and planted

conifer forests in the world, producing

commodities ranging from pulp and

paper, to lumber for construction, to

ornamentals and Christmas trees.

Introduced pests such as those

described could affect forestry

industries directly by causing damage,

or indirectly by curtailing commerce

through quarantines.

Some potential costs of foreign timber

pests have been estimated in other

instances. For example, a pest risk

assessment concerning Siberian timber

imports estimated that the introduction

of a single pest, larch canker, could

cause direct timber losses of $129

million annually. The same study

estimated that a worst-case scenario

involving heavy establishment of exotic

defoliators in the United States could

cost $58 billion.21

Concerning consumer and producer

impacts of allowing Pinus radiata wood

chips to be imported from Chile, data is

insufficient to permit confident

estimation of welfare changes. Timeseries data for the estimation of

elasticities of supply and demand are

not available. Circumstantial evidence,

however, would suggest that pulp

producers and pulp product consumers

benefit from Pinus radiata wood chip

imports from Chile, when their relative

price is low compared to that of other

wood chip species or sources. The test

shipments from Chile resulted in U.S.

wood chip imports worth $22.8 million

and $19.3 million in 1995 and 1996,

respectively. These shipments

represented over 48 and 44 percent of

all U.S. coniferous wood chip imports

in those two years.22

The continuing reduction in timber

sources in the Pacific Northwest will

encourage more wood imports in the

future, and Chile’s expanded

commercial forestry plantings promise a

prominent role for that country as a

wood products exporter. Price impacts,

if any, from imports for U.S. wood chip

producers should be very small, since

coniferous wood chip imports are less

than one percent of U.S. production.

Moreover, trade statistics indicate that

U.S. coniferous wood chip producers

are finding overseas markets as

profitable as their Chilean counterparts.

U.S. coniferous wood chip exports in

1995 were valued at more than $222

million, and in 1996, at more than $181

million. As is true for Chile, the

principal overseas coniferous wood chip

market for the United States is Japan.23

This proposed rule includes the

following reporting and recordkeeping

requirement: We would require that

wood chips imported from Chile be

accompanied by a certificate issued by

the Government of Chile, and stating

that all the applicable requirements of

the regulations have been met.

An alternative to this proposed rule

would be to take no action. This

proposed rule provides an alternative

treatment for pulp manufacturers who

cannot import wood chips from Chile

using currently allowed treatments, and

relieves restrictions concerning other

requirements of the regulations. The no

action alternative was rejected because

we believe that the provisions of this

proposed rule will make compliance

easier for regulated individuals without

increasing the risk of introducing a

plant pest into the United States.

Executive Order 12988

This proposed rule has been reviewed

under Executive Order 12988, Civil

Justice Reform. If this proposed rule is

adopted: (1) All State and local laws and

regulations that are inconsistent with

this rule will be preempted; (2) no

retroactive effect will be given to this

rule; and (3) administrative proceedings

will not be required before parties may

file suit in court challenging this rule.

National Environmental Policy Act

An environmental assessment and

finding of no significant impact have

been prepared for this proposed rule.

The assessment provides a basis for the

conclusion that the importation of Pinus

radiata wood chips from Chile under

the conditions specified in this

proposed rule would not present a risk

of introducing or disseminating plant

pests and would not have a significant

impact on the quality of the human

environment. Based on the finding of no

significant impact, the Administrator of

the Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service has determined that an

environmental impact statement need

not be prepared.

The environmental assessment and

finding of no significant impact were

prepared in accordance with: (1) The

National Environmental Policy Act of

1969 (NEPA) (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).

Copies of the environmental

assessment and finding of no significant

impact are available for public

inspection at USDA, room 1141, South

Building, 14th Street and Independence

Avenue SW., Washington, DC, between

8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through

Friday, except holidays. Persons

wishing to inspect copies are requested

to call ahead on (202) 690–2817 to

facilitate entry into the reading room. In

addition, copies may be obtained by

writing to the individual listed under

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Paperwork Reduction Act

In accordance with section 3507(d) of

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the information

collection or recordkeeping
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 144 /Tuesday, July 28, 1998 / Proposed Rules 40199

requirements included in this proposed

rule have been submitted for approval to

the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB). Please send written comments

to the Office of Information and

Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attention:

Desk Officer for APHIS, Washington, DC

20503. Please state that your comments

refer to Docket No. 96–031–1. Please

send a copy of your comments to: (1)

Docket No. 96–031–1, Regulatory

Analysis and Development, PPD,

APHIS, suite 3C03, 4700 River Road

Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737–1238,

and (2) Clearance Officer, OCIO, USDA,

room 404–W, 14th Street and

Independence Avenue SW.,

Washington, DC 20250. A comment to

OMB is best assured of having its full

effect if OMB receives it within 30 days

of publication of this proposed rule.

This rule would require that wood

chips entering the United States from

Chile be accompanied by a certificate,

issued by an official authorized by the

national government of Chile, stating

that the wood chips meet the proposed

requirements for importation. This rule

would also require that wood chips

entering the United States from Chile

must be consigned to a facility in the

United States that operates under a

compliance agreement with APHIS.

This agreement would help ensure the

safe importation of wood chips from

Chile by specifying various safeguards

necessary to prevent the spread of plant

pests from the facility, specifying

requirements to ensure that the

processing method would affectively

destroy any plant pests, and specifying

that APHIS inspectors must be allowed

access to the facility to monitor

compliance with the regulations. It

should be noted that the certificate and

compliance agreement described above

are information-containing documents

that need not be completed by

participating personnel, but they must

be signed by them to attest that various

requirements outlined in the documents

are being satisfied.

We are soliciting comments from the

public (as well as affected agencies)

concerning our proposed information

collection and recordkeeping

requirements. We need this outside

input to help us:

(1) Evaluate whether the proposed

information collection is necessary for

the proper performance of our agency’s

functions, including whether the

information will have practical utility;

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our

estimate of the burden of the proposed

information collection, including the

validity of the methodology and

assumptions used;

(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and

clarity of the information to be

collected;

(4) Minimize the burden of the

information collection on those who are

to respond (such as through the use of

appropriate automated, electronic,

mechanical, or other technological

collection techniques or other forms of

information technology, e.g., permitting

electronic submission of responses).

Estimate of burden: Public reporting

burden for this collection of information

is estimated to average .28 hours per

response.

Respondents: Plant protection

authorities in Chile and designated

personnel at wood chip processing

facilities in the United States.

Estimated number of respondents: 4.

Estimated number of responses per

respondent: 10.

Estimated total annual number of

responses: 40.

Estimated total annual burden on

respondents: 11.2.

Copies of this information collection

can be obtained from: Clearance Officer,

OCIO, USDA, room 404–W, 14th Street

and Independence Avenue SW.,

Washington, DC 20250.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 319

Bees, Coffee, Cotton, Fruits, Honey,

Imports, Incorporation by reference,

Nursery Stock, Plant diseases and pests,

Quarantine, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Rice,

Vegetables.

Accordingly, 7 CFR part 319 would be

amended as follows:

PART 319—FOREIGN QUARANTINE

NOTICES

1. The authority citation for part 319

would continue 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).

§ 319.40–1 [Amended]

2. In § 319.40–1, a definition of the

word fines would be added in

alphabetical order to read as follows:

* * * * *

Fines. Small particles or fragments of

wood, slightly larger than sawdust, that

result from chipping, sawing, or

processing wood.

* * * * *

3. In § 319.40–6, paragraph (c) would

be revised to read as follows:

§ 319.40–6 Universal importation options.

* * * * *

(c) Wood chips and bark chips. (1)

From Chile. Wood chips from Chile that

are derived from Monterey or Radiata

pine (Pinus radiata) logs may be

imported in accordance with § 319.40–

6(c)(2) or in accordance with the

following requirements:

(i) The wood chips must be

accompanied by a certificate stating that

the wood chips meet the requirements

in paragraphs (c)(1)(i)(A) through

(c)(1)(i)(C) of this section.

(A) The wood chips were treated with

a surface pesticide treatment in

accordance with § 319.40–7(e) prior to

arrival in the United States.

(B) The wood chips were derived

from logs from live, healthy, plantationgrown trees that were apparently free of

plant pests, plant pest damage, and

decay organisms, and the logs used to

make the wood chips were debarked in

accordance with § 319.40–7(b) before

being chipped.

(C) No more than 45 days elapsed

from the time the trees used to make the

wood chips were felled to the time the

wood chips were exported.

(ii) During shipment to the United

States, no other regulated articles (other

than solid wood packing materials) are

permitted in the holds or sealed

containers carrying the wood chips.

Wood chips on the vessel’s deck must

be in a sealed container.

(iii) The wood chips must be

consigned to a facility in the United

States that operates under a compliance

agreement in accordance with § 319.40–

8. The following requirements apply

upon arrival of the wood chips in the

United States:

(A) Upon arrival in the United States,

the wood chips must be unloaded by a

conveyor that is covered to prevent the

chips from being blown by the wind and

from accidental spillage. The facility

receiving the wood chips must have a

procedure in place to retrieve any chips

that fall during unloading.

(B) If the wood chips must be

transported after arrival, the chips must

be covered or safeguarded in a manner

that prevents the chips from spilling or

falling off the means of conveyance, or

from being blown off the means of

conveyance by wind.

(C) The wood chips must be stored at

the facility on a paved surface and must

be kept segregated from other regulated

articles from the time of discharge from

the means of conveyance until the chips

are processed. The storage area must not

be adjacent to wooded areas.

(D) The wood chips must be

processed within 60 days of arrival at

the facility. Any fines or unusable wood

chips must be disposed of by burning

within 60 days of arrival at the facility.

(2) From places other than certain

places in Asia. Wood chips and bark

chips from any place except places in
40200 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 144 /Tuesday, July 28, 1998 / Proposed Rules

Asia that are east of 60° East Longitude

and north of the Tropic of Cancer may

be imported in accordance with this

paragraph.

(i) The wood chips or bark chips must

be accompanied by an importer

document stating that the wood chips or

bark chips were either:

(A) Derived from live, healthy,

tropical species of plantation-grown

trees grown in tropical areas; or

(B) Fumigated with methyl bromide

in accordance with § 319.40–7(f)(3), heat

treated in accordance with § 319.40–

7(c), or heat treated with moisture

reduction in accordance with § 319.40–

7(d).

(ii) During shipment to the United

States, no other regulated articles (other

than solid wood packing materials) are

permitted in the holds or sealed

containers carrying the wood chips or

bark chips. Wood chips or bark chips on

the vessel’s deck must be in a sealed

container; Except that: If the wood chips

or bark chips are derived from live,

healthy, plantation-grown trees in

tropical areas, they may be shipped on

deck if no other regulated articles are

present on the vessel, and the wood

chips or bark chips are completely

covered by a tarpaulin during the entire

journey directly to the United States.

(iii) The wood chips or bark chips

must be free from rot at the time of

importation, unless accompanied by an

importer document stating that the

entire lot was fumigated with methyl

bromide in accordance with § 319.40–

7(f)(3), heat treated in accordance with

§ 319.40–7(c), or heat treated with

moisture reduction in accordance with

§ 319.40–7(d).

(iv) Wood chips or bark chips

imported in accordance with this

paragraph must be consigned to a

facility operating under a compliance

agreement in accordance with § 319.40–

8. The wood chips or bark chips must

be burned, heat treated in accordance

with § 319.40–7(c), heat treated with

moisture reduction in accordance with

§ 319.40–7(d), or otherwise processed in

a manner that will destroy any plant

pests associated with the wood chips or

bark chips, within 30 days of arrival at

the facility. If the wood chips or bark

chips are to be used for mulching or

composting, they must first be

fumigated in accordance with § 319.40–

7(f)(3), heat treated in accordance with

§ 319.40–7(c), or heat treated with

moisture reduction in accordance with

§ 319.40–7(d).

4. In § 319.40–7, paragraph (e) would

be revised to read as follows.

§ 319.40–7 Treatments and safeguards.

* * * * *

(e) Surface pesticide treatments. All

United States Environmental Protection

Agency registered surface pesticide

treatments are authorized for regulated

articles imported in accordance with

this subpart, except that Pinus radiata

wood chips from Chile must be treated

in accordance with § 319.40–7(e)(2).

Surface pesticide treatments must be

conducted in accordance with label

directions approved by the United

States Environmental Protection

Agency. Under the following

circumstances, surface pesticide

treatments must also be conducted as

follows:

(1) Heat treated logs. When used on

heat treated logs, a surface pesticide

treatment must be first applied within

48 hours following heat treatment. The

surface pesticide treatment must be

repeated at least every 30 days during

storage of the regulated article, with the

final treatment occurring no more than

30 days prior to departure of the means

of conveyance that carries the regulated

articles to the United States.

(2) Pinus radiata wood chips from

Chile. When used on Pinus radiata

wood chips from Chile, a surface

pesticide consisting of the following

must be used: A mixture of a fungicide

containing 64.8 percent of the active

ingredient didecyl dimethyl ammonium

chloride and 7.6 percent of the active

ingredient 3-Iodo-2-propynl

butylcarbamate, and an insecticide

containing 44.9 percent of the active

ingredient chlorphrifos

phosphorothioate. The fungicide and

insecticide must be mixed using the

proportions called for in the label

requirements. The wood chips must be

sprayed with the pesticide so that all the

chips are exposed to the chemical on all

sides. During the entire interval between

treatment and export, the wood chips

must be stored, handled, or safeguarded

in a manner that excludes any

infestation of the wood chips by plant

pests.

* * * * *

Done in Washington, DC, this 22nd day of

July 1998.

Charles P. Schwalbe,

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service.

[FR Doc. 98–20156 Filed 7–27–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service

9 CFR Part 130

[Docket No. 98–005–1]

Veterinary Services User Fees; Embryo

Collection Center Approval Fee

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: We are proposing to amend

existing user fees for the inspection and

approval of embryo collection centers.

Existing user fees require embryo

collection centers to pay user fees based

on hourly rates for inspections and

approval. We are proposing to replace

the hourly rates for this specific service

with a flat rate annual user fee that

would cover the cost of approval and all

required inspections of the facility for

that year. We are taking this action in

order to make the collection of user fees

simpler and to allow centers to better

predict the costs of APHIS’ inspection

and approval.

DATES: Consideration will be given only

to comments received on or before

September 28, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Please send an original and

three copies of your comments to

Docket No. 98–005–1, Regulatory

Analysis and Development, PPD,

APHIS, suite 3C03, 4700 River Road

Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737–1238.

Please state that your comments refer to

Docket No. 98–005–1. Comments

received may be inspected at USDA,

room 1141, South Building, 14th Street

and Independence Avenue SW.,

Washington, DC, between 8 a.m. and

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except holidays. Persons wishing to

inspect comments are requested to call

ahead on (202) 690–2817 to facilitate

entry into the comment reading room.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Donna Ford, Section Head, Financial

Systems and Services Branch, Budget

and Accounting Division, ABS, APHIS,

4700 River Road Unit 54, Riverdale, MD

20737–1232; (301) 734–8351.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

User fees to reimburse the Animal and

Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)

for the costs of providing veterinary

diagnostic services and import-related

and export-related services for live

animals and birds and animal products

are contained in 9 CFR part 130. Section

130.21 lists the user fees charged for