pest risk was linked with the unregulated importation of raw Sibe- 

 rian larch logs. 



Soon after that, based on requests to allow shipments in from 

 Chile and New Zealand, APHIS asked the Forest Service to con- 

 duct two additional pest risk assessments. APHIS used the risk as- 

 sessment that had been developed and the mitigation measures to 

 minimize the potential for plant pest introductions into the U.S. 

 Since then, we have published interim rules that provide for the 

 safe importation of Monterey pine logs from Chile and Monterey 

 pine and Douglas fir logs from New Zealand. 



During the course of these actions, it became apparent that it 

 was necessary to develop comprehensive regulations to govern the 

 importation of timber and timber products on a worldwide basis. 

 Therefore, in January of this calendar year we published a pro- 

 posed rule in the Federal Register that would establish general 

 guidelines for the importation of logs, lumber, and other unmanu- 

 factured wood products. Under these guidelines, importers would 

 be able to import logs from any country under universal treatment 

 requirements that include debarking and heat treatment. 



If an importer finds meeting these universal requirements com- 

 mercially impractical, the importer can request that a risk assess- 

 ment be conducted for a specific product. In this case, other treat- 

 ment alternatives may be approved. The proposed rule would also 

 incorporate two previous interim rules that establish specific treat- 

 ment requirements for logs from New Zealand and Chile. 



In the proposed rule, we solicited public comments and have re- 

 ceived about 80 written comments. We are still in the midst of the 

 administrative rulemaking process, so I am not at liberty to discuss 

 the final action at this time. However, I assure you that every com- 

 ment that was received during the comment period and in response 

 to the proposed rule will be considered and addressed in the final 

 rule. 



In another attempt to gauge general public opinion on this issue, 

 we held two well-publicized public meetings, one in Portland, Or- 

 egon, and the other here in Washington. Attendance at the Port- 

 land meeting was very good. Public comment there indicated unan- 

 imous support for APHIS' attempt to establish regulations for the 

 importation of logs and lumber; but there were differences ex- 

 pressed as to the degree of restrictiveness that should be in the 

 regulations. We convened the second meeting here, as indicated, in 

 Washington. There were no oral comments presented. 



In addition to soliciting public comment on the proposed rule and 

 holding the public meetings, we have also developed a draft envi- 

 ronmental impact statement which was published two months ago. 

 The draft EIS examines six alternatives with varjdng degrees of re- 

 strictiveness, including a no action alternative. On this proposal we 

 received 34 written comments that express a variety of points of 

 view. We are in the process of preparing the final EIS now and ex- 

 pect that we will publish it sometime at the end of the summer. 



The principal rationale behind our proposal was to protect the 

 agricultural and natural resources of this country by preventing 

 the entry of foreign diseases and pests. We gathered the best infor- 

 mation available from industry, academia, environmental organiza- 

 tions, the Forest Service, and other governmental agencies and 



