[Federal Register: February 15, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 32)]
[Notices]
[Page 8848-8850]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr15fe08-27]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
[Docket No. APHIS-2006-0152]
Importation of Solid Wood Packing Material; Record of Decision
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice advises the public of the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service's record of decision for the supplement to the
Importation of Solid Wood Packing Material Final Environmental Impact
Statement.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the record of decision and the supplement to the
final environmental impact statement on which the record of decision is
based 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.
To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 690-2817
before coming.
The record of decision may also be viewed on the APHIS Web site at
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/ea/swpm.shtml. Supporting and
related materials, including the final and supplemental environmental
impact statements, may also be viewed on the Internet by visiting
http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS-2006-0152
.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. David A. Bergsten, APHIS
Interagency NEPA Contact, Environmental Services, PPD, APHIS, 4700
River Road, Unit 149, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238; (301) 734-6103.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice advises the public that the
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has prepared a
record of decision based on its supplemental environmental impact
statement (SEIS) for the Importation of Solid Wood Packing Material
Final Environmental Impact Statement, August 2003 (FEIS).
The SEIS and FEIS address Federal actions described in a final rule
APHIS published in the Federal Register on September 16, 2004 (69 FR
55719-55733, Docket No. 02-032-3). The final rule amended the
regulations for the importation of unmanufactured wood articles to
adopt an international standard entitled ``Guidelines for Regulating
Wood Packaging Material in International Trade.'' The FEIS was prepared
with regard to that final rule in compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.), and its implementing regulations.
On October 24, 2006, APHIS published in the Federal Register (71 FR
62240, Docket No. APHIS-2006-0152) a notice of its intent to prepare
the SEIS for the purpose of reevaluating and refining the estimates of
methyl bromide usage associated with the alternatives considered in the
FEIS. On March 9, 2007, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
published in the Federal Register (72 FR 10749) a notice of the
availability of the draft SEIS. Comments were accepted on the draft
SEIS until June 25, 2007.
In October 2007, APHIS published and distributed the final SEIS,
which included discussion of the three comments received on the draft
SEIS. On November 23, 2007, EPA published in the Federal Register (72
FR 65732) a notice of the availability of the final SEIS. The NEPA
implementing regulations at 40 CFR 1506.10 require a 30-day waiting
period between the time a final EIS is published and the time an agency
makes a decision on an action covered by the EIS. APHIS did not receive
any comments on the final SEIS by the time this waiting period ended on
December 24, 2007.
APHIS has reviewed the final SEIS and has concluded that it has
fully analyzed the issues covered by the draft SEIS and the comments
and suggestions submitted by commenters. APHIS has now prepared a
record of decision on the adopted SEIS and is making that record
available to the public.
The Record of Decision for the Importation of Solid Wood Packing
Material Supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Statement,
prepared pursuant to the Council on Environmental Quality's NEPA
implementing regulations at 40 CFR 1505.2, is set out below in its
entirety.
Record of Decision for the Importation of Solid Wood Packing Material
Supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Statement
This Record of Decision (ROD) has been developed in compliance
with the agency decision-making requirements of NEPA. The purpose of
this ROD is to document APHIS' decision to adopt the September 16,
2004, final rule. Alternatives have been fully described and
evaluated in the Supplement to the Final Environmental Impact
Statement (SEIS) and in the Final Environmental Impact Statement
(FEIS).
This ROD is intended to: (a) State the APHIS decision, present
the rationale for its selection, and describe its implementation;
(b) identify the alternatives considered in reaching the decision;
and (c) state whether all means to avoid or minimize environmental
harm from implementation of the selected alternative have been
adopted (40 CFR 1505.2).
National Environmental Policy Act
On November 23, 2007, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) published in the Federal Register [72 FR 65732] a notice of
availability of the final supplement to the environmental impact
statement titled ``Importation of Solid Wood Packing Material.'' The
FEIS considered the environmental impacts from importation of wood
packaging materials that could result from our adoption of the
proposed rule. The SEIS reevaluates and refines the estimates of
methyl bromide usage associated with the alternatives considered in
the FEIS.
Pursuant to the implementing regulations for NEPA in cases
requiring an EIS, APHIS must prepare a record of decision to express
the agency determination from review of the EIS documentation. The
NEPA implementing regulations require that a record of decision
state what decision is being made; identify alternatives considered
in the environmental impact statement process; specify the
environmentally preferred alternative; discuss preferences based on
relevant factors--economic and technical considerations, as well as
national policy considerations, where applicable; and state how all
of the factors discussed entered into the decision. In addition, the
record of decision must indicate whether the ultimate decision has
been designed to avoid or minimize environmental harm and, if not,
why not.
The Decision
This decision described in the ROD addresses impacts from the
final rule published by APHIS in the Federal Register on September
16, 2004 (69 FR 55719-55733, Docket No. 02-032-3). After a thorough
reevaluation and refinement of the estimates of methyl bromide usage
associated with the alternatives considered in the FEIS and in the
SEIS, APHIS has decided to continue to enforce the 2004 regulations
that establish requirements stipulated in the International Plant
Protection Convention (IPPC) guidelines for importation of wood
packaging material into the United States from other countries. This
includes specific treatment requirements for either heat treatment
or fumigation with methyl bromide of the wood
[[Page 8849]]
packaging material. The quantitative range determined in the SEIS
(822-2,351 MT) for the refined methyl bromide estimate is narrower
than the range determined in the FEIS (384-4,630 MT), but that range
is encompassed within the broader range presented in the FEIS. The
limited changes in methyl bromide usage projected in the SEIS do not
justify changes to the previous findings in the Record of Decision
for the FEIS.
Alternatives Considered in the Impact Statement Process
The SEIS considers the same range of alternatives as the FEIS,
but focuses on the potential impacts from treatments with methyl
bromide. The range of alternatives includes (1) No action,
essentially maintaining the exemption from treatment requirements
for importation of wood packaging material from foreign countries
except as regulated under the September 18, 1998, interim rule that
required treatment of wood packaging material from China (China
interim rule, 63 FR 50099-50111, Docket No. 98-087-1), (2) extension
to all countries of the treatments in the China interim rule, (3)
adoption of the IPPC Guidelines, (4) establishment of a
comprehensive risk reduction program, and (5) use of substitute
(non-solid wood) packaging material only.
Environmentally Preferable Alternative
The environmentally preferable alternative would be to prohibit
importation of wood packaging material, which would virtually
eliminate all associated pest risks, as well as the need for
quarantine treatments. This regulatory approach (alternative 5
above) would require all commodities that are to be imported to the
United States to be transported with only substitute packaging
material. Restriction to only substitute packaging materials is,
however, more trade-restrictive than necessary to achieve an
adequate level of phytosanitary protection. For the foreseeable
future, switching to substitute packaging materials would be costly
or technically infeasible for many exporters, especially in
developing countries. In addition, depending upon the type of
substitute packing material, the environmental impacts from the
manufacturing process for substitute packing material may increase
overall impacts and other associated risks that are not major
concerns with the present regulations.
Preferences Among Alternatives
The preference among the alternatives for the final rule was and
remains to adopt the IPPC Guidelines (alternative 3 above). The
preference for this alternative is based principally on the
determination that it meets the Agency's obligations under the Plant
Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.) (PPA), and other legislation
such as NEPA and the Clean Air Act.
The no action alternative (alternative 1 above) was rejected
because, if left unchecked, pests introduced by imported wood
packaging material have the potential to cause significant economic
damage to the agricultural and forest resources of the United
States.
The alternative of extending the China interim rule to all wood
packaging material worldwide (alternative 2 above) would not ensure
long-term exclusion of some wood pests of quarantine concern, such
as certain deep wood-borers, fungi, rots, and wilts. Additionally,
adoption of the China interim rule requirements would result in the
greatest additional use of methyl bromide of all the alternatives.
The preferred alternative (alternative 3 above), adoption of the
IPPC treatment standards for all importing countries, addresses the
pest threats already covered by the China interim rule for beetle
families such as Cerambycidae. In addition, it protects against nine
other families of wood boring pests.
The comprehensive risk reduction program (alternative 4 above)
would consist of an array of mitigation methods (e.g., inspection,
various heat treatments, various fumigants and other chemical
treatments, irradiation, etc.) more extensive than that contained in
either the China Interim Rule or the IPPC Guidelines. Many of the
methods are in various phases of research and development and,
therefore, do not provide an adequate basis for any final decisions
about program implementation.
Mandating the use of substitute packing material (alternative 5
above) requires use of materials that likely cost more than wood
packaging material that is either heat treated or fumigated with
methyl bromide. The availability of these substitute packing
materials is also an issue of concern for exporters in some
developing countries.
Please see the FEIS and SEIS for a full discussion of the
reasons why adopting the IPPC standard was considered the preferred
alternative.
Factors in the Decision
APHIS' mission is guided by the PPA, under which the detection,
control, eradication, suppression, prevention, and retardation of
the spread of plant pests or noxious weeds have been determined by
Congress to be necessary and appropriate for the protection of the
agriculture, environment, and economy of the United States. The PPA
also has been designed to facilitate exports, imports, and
interstate commerce in agricultural products and other commodities.
In order to achieve these objectives, use of pesticides, including
methyl bromide, has often been prescribed.
Methyl bromide is an ozone depleting substance that is strictly
regulated under the Montreal Protocol and the Clean Air Act. While
the goal of these authorities and agreements is to limit and
ultimately phase out all ozone depleting substances, certain
exemptions and exclusions are recognized, including an exemption for
methyl bromide use for plant quarantine and preshipment purposes,
including those purposes provided for in the final wood packaging
material rule. The exemption is not unconditional, however. The
United States, like other signatories to the Montreal Protocol, must
review its national plant health regulations with a view to removing
the requirement for the use of methyl bromide for quarantine and
preshipment applications where technically and economically feasible
alternatives exist.
This rule authorizes the use of heat treatment and methyl
bromide fumigation to treat wood packaging material from other
countries in order to meet the mandates of the PPA. In addition, the
agency is working to promote environmental quality with ongoing work
to identify and add to our regulations valid technically and
economically feasible alternatives to methyl bromide.
Avoid or Minimize Environmental Harm
The environment can be harmed by the use of methyl bromide which
can delay the recovery of the stratospheric ozone layer. However,
any lack of quarantine application of methyl bromide or heat
treatment to wood packaging material poses potential adverse effects
to agriculture and forested ecosystems among environmental
components that could be devastating. Adequate enforcement of
effective quarantine measures is required to protect the
environment. By ensuring that quarantine use of methyl bromide
remains limited, the Agency strikes a proper balance in its efforts
to minimize environmental harm. APHIS is committed to monitoring
these efforts through the NEPA process, and otherwise. Furthermore,
where appropriate, measures such as gas recapture technology are
encouraged by APHIS to minimize methyl bromide emissions and
preclude harm to environmental quality. The prudent use of heat
treatment and substitute packaging material by developed countries
is expected to promote this regulatory approach in developing
countries as their trade opportunities expand.
Other
Methyl bromide used in quarantine applications prescribed by the
United States contributes just a small fraction of the total
anthropogenic bromine released into the atmosphere. Nevertheless,
the Montreal Protocol is action-forcing in the sense that
signatories must review their national plant health regulations with
a view to finding alternatives to exempted uses of methyl bromide.
The EPA has also cautioned that, regardless of the incremental
contribution, it is important to recognize that any additional
methyl bromide releases delay recovery of the stratospheric ozone
layer.
A considerable amount of research and development of methyl
bromide alternatives has been conducted within the USDA and
continues today. Under the Clean Air Act, EPA has also established a
program to identify alternatives to ozone depleting substances,
including methyl bromide, but EPA's listing of an acceptable
alternative does not always adequately address its suitability for a
particular use. We must not put agriculture and ecosystems at risk
based upon unproven technology.
APHIS is firmly committed to the objectives of the Montreal
Protocol to reduce and ultimately eliminate reliance on methyl
bromide for quarantine uses, consistent with its responsibilities to
safeguard this country's agriculture and ecosystems. Achieving the
objectives of both reducing (and ultimately eliminating) methyl
bromide emissions as well as safeguarding agriculture and ecosystems
in the most expeditious, cost-
[[Page 8850]]
effective way possible, requires close coordination within the
Federal Government of research, development, and testing efforts.
APHIS is determined to cooperate actively with the Agricultural
Research Service, EPA, the Office of Management and Budget, and
others involved in this effort to find effective alternatives to
methyl bromide quarantine uses.
The most recent effort by APHIS to reduce quarantine use of
methyl bromide is through cooperative work with the IPPC on a draft
International Standard for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPM). This ISPM
titled ``Developing a Strategy to Reduce or Replace the Use of
Methyl Bromide for Phytosanitary Purposes'' has been under review
since June 2007 by contracting parties to the IPPC.
In a notice summarizing EPA comments on recent environmental
impact statements and proposed regulations that was published in the
Federal Register on July 20, 2007 (72 FR 39807-39808), EPA expressed
a lack of objections to the draft SEIS and APHIS' adoption of the
IPPC Guidelines.
The record of decision has been prepared in accordance with: (1)
NEPA, (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 1), and
(4) APHIS' NEPA Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 372).
Done in Washington, DC, this 11th day of February 2008.
Kevin Shea,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. E8-2908 Filed 2-14-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P