This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains regulatory documents having general

applicability and legal effect, most of which

are keyed to and codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations, which is published under

50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by

the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of

new books are listed in the first FEDERAL

REGISTER issue of each week.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

12437 

Vol. 77, No. 41 

Thursday, March 1, 2012 

1To view the proposed rule, supporting 

documents, and the comments we received, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov/ 

#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2007-0117. 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

7 CFR Part 319 

[Docket No. APHIS–2007–0117] 

RIN 0579–AC90 

Importation of Wooden Handicrafts 

From China 

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are amending the 

regulations to provide for the 

importation of wooden handicrafts from 

China under certain conditions. From 

2002 to 2005, the Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service (APHIS) 

issued more than 300 emergency action 

notices and conducted national recalls 

to remove infested Chinese-origin 

wooden handicrafts from the U.S. 

marketplace. In 2005, APHIS suspended 

the importation of certain wooden 

handicrafts until we could more fully 

analyze the pest risks associated with 

those articles. Based on evidence from 

a pest risk analysis, APHIS has 

determined that these articles can be 

safely imported from China, provided 

certain conditions are met. This action 

allows for trade in Chinese wooden 

handicrafts to resume while continuing 

to protect the United States against the 

introduction of plant pests. 

DATES: Effective Date: April 30, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

John Tyrone Jones, Trade Director 

(Forestry Products), Phytosanitary 

Issues Management, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 

River Road Unit 140, Riverdale, MD 

20737–1231; (301) 734–8860. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The regulations in ‘‘Subpart-Logs, 

Lumber, and Other Unmanufactured 

Wood Articles’’ (7 CFR 319.40–1 

through 319.40–11, referred to below as 

the regulations) govern the importation 

of various logs, lumber, and other 

unmanufactured wood products into the 

United States. Under § 319.40–9 of the 

regulations, all regulated articles must 

be inspected at the port of first arrival. 

If a regulated article shows any signs of 

pest infestation, the inspector may 

require treatment, if an approved 

treatment exists, or refuse entry of the 

consignment. 

Prior to 2005, wood decorative items 

and craft products (wooden handicrafts) 

from China had been entering the 

United States in increasing quantities. 

However, between 2002 and 2005, the 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service (APHIS) issued more than 300 

emergency action notices for wooden 

handicrafts from China. Moreover, in 

2004, the United States Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) intercepted live 

wood-boring beetles, Callidiellum 

villosulum (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae), 

on articles manufactured from wood 

components and imported from China. 

Subsequent to these interceptions, 

shipments of the articles were recalled 

from retail stores. Based on these pest 

interceptions, in 2005, we suspended 

the importation of most wooden 

handicrafts (i.e., all handicrafts made 

from wooden logs, limbs, branches, or 

twigs greater than 1 centimeter in 

diameter) from China until a more 

thorough evaluation of the pest risks 

associated with those articles could be 

conducted. 

APHIS prepared a pest risk 

assessment, titled ‘‘Pests and 

mitigations for manufactured wood 

de ́cor and craft products from China for 

importation into the United States,’’ to 

evaluate the risks associated with the 

importation of such wooden handicrafts 

into the United States from China. We 

also prepared a risk management 

document, titled ‘‘Pests and mitigations 

for manufactured wood de ́cor and craft 

products from China for importation 

into the United States,’’ to determine 

mitigations necessary to prevent pest 

entry, introduction, or establishment 

associated with imported wooden 

handicrafts from China. Based on the 

conclusions in the pest risk assessment 

and the accompanying risk management 

document, we determined that wooden 

handicrafts could be imported from 

China provided they met certain 

requirements for treatment, issuance of 

a phytosanitary certificate, inspection, 

and box identification. 

Accordingly, on April 9, 2009, we 

published in the Federal Register (74 

FR 16146–16151, Docket No. APHIS– 

2007–0117) a proposal 1 to authorize the 

importation of wooden handicrafts from 

China under those conditions. We 

solicited comments concerning the 

proposed rule for 60 days ending June 

8, 2009. We received eight comments by 

that date. They were from the national 

plant protection organization (NPPO) of 

China, a State department of agriculture, 

manufacturers of Chinese wooden 

handicrafts, a public advocacy 

organization, and private citizens. 

One of the commenters urged us to 

finalize the proposed rule without 

change. The remaining commenters 

provided comments on the rule in 

general, and requested modifications to 

certain of its provisions. 

Based on one of the comments 

received on the proposed rule, on 

September 23, 2010, we published in 

the Federal Register a supplemental 

proposal (75 FR 57864–57866, Docket 

No. APHIS–2007–0117) to modify the 

heat treatment requirements of the 

proposed rule. We solicited comments 

concerning the supplemental proposal 

for 60 days ending November 22, 2010. 

We received six comments by that date. 

They were from State Departments of 

Agriculture, a manufacturer of wooden 

picture frames, and two private citizens. 

The comments on both the proposed 

rule and the supplemental proposal are 

discussed below by topic. 

General Comments on the Proposed 

Rule 

One commenter stated that the 

measures that we proposed for Chinese 

wooden handicrafts were not the least 

restrictive necessary to mitigate the 

plant pest risk associated with such 

articles. As a result, the commenter 

stated that the proposed rule violated 

World Trade Organization principles. 

The provisions of the proposed rule 

reflect the substantive plant pest risk 

that wooden handicrafts from China 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
12438 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 41 / Thursday, March 1, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

have historically presented, our analysis 

of the quarantine pests currently known 

to exist in China, and our determination 

regarding the likelihood that the 

importation of wooden handicrafts from 

China will present a pathway for 

introducing or disseminating these pests 

within the United States. Accordingly, 

the provisions represent the least 

restrictive measures that we considered 

possible at the time that we initiated 

rulemaking for the proposed rule. 

That said, in response to comments 

received on the proposed rule, we 

issued the supplemental proposal 

mentioned above to propose to modify 

the heat treatment requirements of the 

proposed rule. We have also determined 

that one other provision of the proposed 

rule, which would have required the 

handicrafts to be accompanied by a 

phytosanitary certificate issued by the 

NPPO of China and containing an 

additional declaration stating that the 

handicrafts were treated in accordance 

with the regulations and found free from 

quarantine pests, is unnecessary. We 

discuss this change in greater detail 

later in this document, in the section 

titled ‘‘Comments Regarding 

Phytosanitary Certificates.’’ 

One commenter stated that it 

appeared that the greatest remedial 

measure APHIS would take in response 

to violations of the proposed rule would 

be to prohibit the importation of 

wooden handicrafts from certain 

manufacturers into the United States. 

The commenter expressed concern that 

this would not be a sufficient incentive 

for manufacturers to adhere to the 

provisions of the proposed rule, given 

that these manufacturers currently have 

little to no access to the U.S. market. 

Under the regulations, all wooden 

handicrafts from China would have to 

be accompanied by a permit stating the 

intended treatment for the articles, as 

well as an importer document or 

certificate stating that the intended 

treatment has in fact been applied to the 

articles. In response to inaccuracies on 

a permit, importer document, or 

certificate, APHIS may determine not to 

accept any further certificates from 

China, or may not allow the importation 

of any further wooden handicrafts or 

regulated articles from China until 

corrective action acceptable to APHIS 

establishes that certificates issued in 

China are accurate. We consider the 

possibility of such general prohibitions 

a sufficient incentive for Chinese 

manufacturers to adhere to the 

provisions of this rule. 

We discuss these possible remedial 

measures at greater length later in this 

document, in the section titled 

‘‘Comments Regarding Phytosanitary 

Certificates.’’ 

One commenter suggested that the 

scope of the final rule be expanded to 

include wooden handicrafts from other 

countries. The commenter asserted that 

many countries have plant pests that are 

identical or similar to those found in 

China. 

To date, only wooden handicrafts 

from China have been determined to be 

infested with quarantine pests as a 

result of an inspection at a port of first 

arrival. If, in the future, an inspector 

discovers quarantine pests in or on 

handicrafts from another country, he or 

she will prohibit their entry into the 

United States subject to remedial 

measures. As a result of such a 

detection, APHIS may prohibit further 

importation of all such handicrafts from 

that country, pending completion of a 

pest risk analysis. If this analysis 

concludes that subjecting the 

handicrafts to the same mitigation 

measures that we are requiring for 

wooden handicrafts from China will 

adequately mitigate the risk associated 

with their importation, we will initiate 

rulemaking to amend the regulations 

accordingly. 

One commenter stated that we should 

take into consideration the potential 

environmental impact associated with 

the importation of wooden handicrafts 

from China. 

We evaluated these possible impacts 

in the environmental assessment that 

accompanied the proposed rule. Based 

on the comments we received, we are 

issuing a finding of no significant 

impact along with this final rule. 

Finally, the NPPO of China requested 

that we delay the effective date of this 

rule for one year in order to give the 

NPPO sufficient time to establish 

internal policies and procedures to 

facilitate manufacturers’ compliance 

with the rule’s provisions. The NPPO 

also requested that, during this delay, 

we authorize the importation of wooden 

handicrafts from China under the 

conditions for importation that were in 

effect prior to 2005. 

Because of the significant plant pest 

risk associated with the importation of 

wooden handicrafts from China, as 

evidenced by the more than 300 

emergency action notices we issued for 

such handicrafts between 2002 and 

2005, we cannot authorize the 

importation of wooden handicrafts from 

China under conditions other than those 

of this final rule, and, accordingly, 

cannot grant such a delayed 

implementation date. 

Comments Regarding Proposed 

Definitions 

Section 319.40–1 contains definitions 

for certain terms used in the regulations 

pertaining to logs, lumber, and other 

wood articles. We proposed to add a 

new definition to this section for 

wooden handicraft. We proposed to 

define a wooden handicraft as a 

commodity class of regulated articles 

derived or made from natural 

components of wood, twigs, and vines, 

and including bamboo poles and garden 

stakes. The proposed definition 

provided that handicrafts included the 

following products where wood is 

present: Carvings, baskets, boxes, bird 

houses, garden and lawn/patio furniture 

(rustic), potpourri, artificial trees 

(typically artificial ficus trees), trellis 

towers, garden fencing and edging, and 

other items composed of wood. 

We also proposed to revise the 

definition of regulated article so that 

articles that contain parts that are either 

unprocessed or have received only 

primary processing and are not feasibly 

separable from the other parts of the 

articles would be considered regulated 

articles for the purposes of the 

regulations. We stated that wooden 

handicrafts, as we proposed to define 

them, would always contain such 

unprocessed or partially processed 

parts. 

It was within the framework of these 

definitions that we proposed to add a 

new paragraph (o) to § 319.40–5, which 

contains importation requirements for 

specified regulated articles, to authorize 

the importation of wooden handicrafts 

from China. 

One commenter stated that the 

definition of wooden handicraft was too 

broad, and would subject wooden 

handicrafts from China that are 

currently authorized for importation 

into the United States to the provisions 

of the proposed rule. The commenter 

suggested that we modify the proposed 

definition to include only those wooden 

handicrafts currently prohibited 

importation into the United States from 

China, that is, handicrafts more than 1 

centimeter in diameter. 

We agree with the commenter that the 

proposed rule would have regulated 

handicrafts 1 centimeter or less in 

diameter, and that such handicrafts are 

currently authorized for importation 

into the United States. 

However, we do not consider it 

necessary to revise our definition of 

wooden handicraft in the manner 

requested by the commenter. The 

definitions in § 319.40–1 are intended to 

have general applicability within the 

subpart, and it is possible that we will 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 41 / Thursday, March 1, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 12439 

2To view ISPM 15, go to: https://www.ippc.int/ 

index.php?id=13399&tx_publication_

pi1*showUid]=133703&frompage=13399&type=

publication&subtype=&L=0#item. 

initiate rulemaking at some future point 

to restrict the importation of wooden 

handicrafts from another country in 

which quarantine pests are determined 

to infest handicrafts less than 1 

centimeter in diameter. Moreover, if we 

revised the definition of wooden 

handicraft to state that it only includes 

items more than 1 centimeter in 

diameter, this could be construed to 

exempt handicrafts less than 1 

centimeter in diameter from the 

definition of regulated article. This is 

not the case; although such handicrafts 

are exempt from the requirements of 

§ 319.40–5(o), they are regulated 

articles, and thus are subject to all other 

applicable provisions of the subpart. 

Accordingly, we have instead decided 

to modify proposed § 319.40–5(o) to 

state that the provisions of that 

paragraph apply only to wooden 

handicrafts from China that are more 

than 1 centimeter in diameter, and that 

articles less than 1 centimeter in 

diameter, although exempt from the 

requirements of § 319.40–5(o), are still 

subject to all other applicable provisions 

of 7 CFR chapter III. 

Two commenters stated that they 

manufactured wooden handicrafts that 

fell within the definition of wooden 

handicrafts, but not the definition of 

regulated article. The commenters 

stated that these articles had wooden 

parts, but that the parts were fully, 

rather than partially, processed. Both 

commenters asked if their products 

would be regulated under the provisions 

of the proposed rule. 

Wooden handicrafts are a class of 

regulated articles. Accordingly, we will 

consider an article to be a wooden 

handicraft only if it also meets the 

definition of regulated article. Thus, the 

commenters’ products would be exempt 

from the provisions of this rule. 

The same commenters stated that they 

manufactured handicrafts that fell 

within the scope of both wooden 

handicraft and regulated article, but 

that these handicrafts presented a 

minimal pest risk and should therefore 

be exempt from the requirements of 

§ 319.40–5(o). 

As we pointed out in our proposed 

rule, Chinese wooden handicrafts have 

historically been a pathway for the 

introduction of quarantine pests into the 

United States. Based on this plant pest 

risk and the findings of our pest risk 

assessment, it would be not be 

appropriate to exempt certain wooden 

handicrafts from China from the 

provisions of the regulations. Indeed, 

one of these commenters implied that 

quarantine pests are occasionally 

discovered on wooden handicrafts at its 

production facility. 

Comments Regarding Heat Treatment 

In proposed § 319.40–5(o)(1)(i), we 

stated that wooden handicrafts would 

have to be treated with heat treatment 

in accordance with § 319.40–7(c) or heat 

treatment with moisture reduction in 

accordance with § 319.40–7(d). At the 

time the proposed rule was published, 

§ 319.40–7(c) provided that heat 

treatment may take place only at a 

facility where APHIS or an inspector 

authorized by the Administrator and the 

national government of the country in 

which the facility is located has 

inspected the facility and determined 

that its operation complies with the 

treatment specifications as follows: Heat 

treatment procedures may employ 

steam, hot water, kilns, exposure to 

microwave energy, or any other method 

(e.g., the hot water and steam 

techniques used in veneer production) 

that raises the temperature of the center 

of each treated regulated article to at 

least 71.1 °C (160 °F) and maintains the 

regulated article at that center 

temperature for at least 75 minutes. 

Similarly, at the time our proposed 

rule was published, § 319.40–7(d) 

provided that heat treatment with 

moisture reduction may include kiln 

drying conducted in accordance with 

the schedules prescribed for the 

regulated article in the Dry Kiln 

Operator’s Manual, Agriculture 

Handbook 188, which we have 

incorporated by reference at § 300.2, or 

dry heat, exposure to microwave energy, 

or any other method that raises the 

temperature of the center of each treated 

regulated article to at least 71.1 °C (160 

°F), maintains the regulated articles at 

that center temperature for at least 75 

minutes, and reduces the moisture 

content of the regulated article to 20 

percent or less as measured by an 

electrical conductivity meter. 

A commenter suggested that APHIS 

authorize the NPPO of China to approve 

heat treatment facilities. 

Under § 305.8, which contains general 

heat treatment requirements for 7 CFR 

chapter III, all heat treatment facilities 

must be certified by APHIS and 

facilities located outside the United 

States must operate in accordance with 

workplan signed by a representative of 

the heat treatment facilities located 

outside the United States, the NPPO of 

the country of origin, and APHIS. The 

workplan must contain requirements for 

equipment, temperature, water quality, 

circulation, and other measures to 

ensure that heat treatments are 

administered properly. Workplans for 

facilities outside the United States must 

include trust fund agreement 

information regarding payment of the 

salaries and expenses of APHIS 

employees on site. Workplans must also 

allow officials of the NPPO and APHIS 

to inspect the facility to monitor 

compliance with APHIS regulations. 

Given these requirements, the NPPO of 

China will play a significant role, along 

with APHIS, in the process of certifying 

heat treatment facilities. 

Two commenters stated that the 

moisture of a regulated article can be 

reduced to 20 percent or less by a 

number of means other than heat 

treatment with moisture reduction, such 

as drying the article for 24 hours. The 

commenters suggested that we modify 

the regulations to incorporate these 

alternate moisture reduction techniques. 

Moisture reduction, in and of itself, is 

not an adequate mitigation measure for 

wooden articles. It is efficacious only in 

conjunction with heat treatment. 

One commenter asked whether 

handicrafts made entirely from lumber 

that has been treated with heat 

treatment prior to processing would 

have to be treated a second time, while 

another stated that handicrafts that have 

been treated with heat treatment as part 

of their partial processing should not 

have to be treated a second time prior 

to exportation. 

Provided that the lumber or 

handicrafts have been treated in an 

approved facility according to an 

authorized treatment schedule and 

provided that they have been stored, 

handled, and safeguarded since 

treatment in a manner that excludes 

infestation of the lumber or handicrafts 

by plant pests, the handicrafts would 

not have to be treated a second time. 

Finally, a commenter pointed out that 

the proposed rule would require most 

wooden handicrafts to be treated at a 

significantly higher temperature and for 

a longer duration than the temperature 

and duration recommended by 

International Standard for Phytosanitary 

Measures (ISPM) 15, which 

recommends that wood packaging 

material (WPM) be treated according to 

a heat treatment schedule that raises the 

temperature at the center of the WPM to 

at least 56 °C and maintains the WPM 

at that center temperature for at least 30 

minutes.2 The commenter suggested 

that we should modify the proposed 

heat treatment requirement for Chinese 

wooden handicrafts to make it 

consistent with ISPM 15. 

In response to this comment, we 

reviewed the relevant scientific 

literature, and determined that 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
12440 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 41 / Thursday, March 1, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

3Myers, Scott, Ivich Fraser, and Victor Mastro, 

‘‘Evaluation of Heat Treatment Schedules for 

Emerald Ash Borer (Coloeptera: Buprestidae)’’, 

Journal of Economic Entomology, 102:6 (December 

2009), 2048–2055. Referred to below as ‘‘Myers et 

al.’’ 

4The Treatment Manual is available on the 

Internet, at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ 

import_export/plants/manuals/ports/downloads/ 

treatment.pdf. 

5 Goebel, P. Charles, Matthew Bumgardner, 

Daniel Herms, and Andrew Sabula, ‘‘Failure to 

Phytosanitize Ash Firewood Infested with Emerald 

Ash Borer in a Small Dry Kiln Using ISPM 15 

Standards,’’ Journal of Economic Entomology, 103:3 

(October 2010), 597–602. Available on the Internet 

at http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/jrnl/2010/nrs_

2010_goebel_001.pdf. Referred to below as ‘‘Goebel 

et al.’’ 

treatment consistent with ISPM 15, 

although effective in neutralizing most 

of the pests of greatest concern 

identified in the pest risk assessment as 

likely to follow the pathway on 

imported wooden handicrafts from 

China, would not be effective for 

emerald ash borer (EAB). Because EAB 

is an extremely destructive pest, we 

determined that treatment consistent 

with ISPM 15 would not adequately 

mitigate the pest risk. 

However, an article by Scott Myers et 

al. titled ‘‘Evaluation of Heat Treatment 

Schedules for Emerald Ash Borer 

(Coloeptera: Buprestidae)’’ in the 

December 2009 issue of Journal of 

Economic Entomology 3 led us to 

reevaluate the treatment schedule in the 

proposed rule. Myers et al. documented 

four independent experiments to 

determine the minimum core 

temperature and time duration 

necessary to neutralize EAB on firewood 

via heat treatment or heat treatment 

with moisture reduction. As part of the 

experiments, researchers obtained ash 

wood from trees showing visible signs 

of EAB infestation, split the wood, and 

stored it. They then heat-treated the 

articles in laboratory facilities (a drying 

oven and an environmental chamber) at 

temperatures and durations ranging 

from 45 to 65 °C and 15 to 60 minutes, 

respectively. Myers et al. found that the 

experiments suggested that ‘‘a minimum 

heat treatment of 60 °C for 60 minutes 

* * * would provide >99.9% control 

(for EAB) based on probit estimates.’’ 

Since firewood presents similar or 

greater plant pest risks than wooden 

handicrafts, we determined that the 

Myers et al. findings were applicable to 

wooden handicrafts from China. 

This determination led us to issue the 

September 2010 supplemental proposal. 

In it, we proposed to modify proposed 

§ 319.40–5(o)(1)(i) to state that wooden 

handicrafts would have to be treated as 

specified in the PPQ Treatment 

Manual 4 in accordance with 7 CFR part 

305, and to add heat treatment that 

raises the core temperature of 

handicrafts to 60 °C for a duration of 60 

minutes to the PPQ Treatment Manual 

as an approved treatment schedule for 

wooden handicrafts from China. 

One commenter agreed that Myers et 

al. did in fact provide a basis for such 

a modification. 

In contrast, another commenter raised 

numerous concerns regarding the 

appropriateness of our use of Myers et 

al. as the basis for modifying our 

proposed heat treatment requirements 

for wooden handicrafts from China. The 

commenter pointed out that Myers et al. 

only sought to determine the minimum 

heat treatment necessary to neutralize 

EAB. The commenter stated that, 

because of its morphology and 

burrowing patterns, EAB is more 

susceptible to heat treatment than other 

plant pests in the families Cerambycidae 

and Siricidae identified in the pest risk 

assessment as possibly following the 

pathway on wooden handicrafts from 

China. 

The commenter provided no 

information in support of this assertion. 

Moreover, as documented in the 

treatment evaluation document that 

accompanied the supplemental 

proposal, all scientific evidence 

available to APHIS suggests that heat 

treatment consistent with ISPM 15—that 

is, treatment at a lower temperature and 

duration than that specified in our 

supplemental proposal—will kill all 

other pests identified in the pest risk 

assessment as likely to follow the 

pathway on wooden handicrafts from 

China. 

The commenter pointed out that the 

kilns used by Myers et al. were 

relatively small, as was the volume of 

firewood heat-treated in the 

experiments. The commenter then 

referred to an article in the October 2010 

issue of the Journal of Economic 

Entomology by P. Charles Goebel et al.5

as providing evidence that larger 

volumes of wood products in larger 

kilns tend to heat more unevenly than 

smaller products in smaller kilns, and 

stated that Chinese wooden handicrafts 

would likely be treated en masse in 

large-scale kilns. For this reason, the 

commenter stated that the treatment 

methods and apparati employed by 

Myers et al. fundamentally differed 

from those that manufacturers of 

Chinese handicrafts are likely to 

employ, and that the results of Myers et 

al. could therefore not be considered a 

reliable indicator of the efficacy of heat 

treatment of Chinese handicrafts under 

the provisions of the supplemental 

proposal. 

Our supplemental proposal to modify 

the heat treatment requirements was 

based not on an assumption that 

Chinese manufacturers will reduplicate 

the methods of Myers et al. but on the 

conclusion of Myers et al. that heat 

treatment that ‘‘achieves a temperature 

of 60 °C for 60 minutes * * * would 

provide >99.9% control (for EAB),’’ and 

on our evaluation of the accuracy of the 

probit estimates that led to this 

conclusion. (A probit refers to a unit of 

measurement of statistical probability 

based on deviations from the normal 

distribution of results. Probit estimates 

are often used within statistics to assess 

the risk of an event occurring in 

comparison to the likelihood that it will 

not occur.) 

Moreover, as we mentioned above, the 

regulations require all heat treatments 

that occur in a foreign country to take 

place in a facility certified by APHIS, 

and specify that certification is, in part, 

predicated upon a facility’s having 

equipment able to meet treatment 

schedule parameters. This aspect of the 

certification process would include 

evaluating the suitability of any largescale kilns at the facility for conducting 

the requisite heat treatment. 

The same commenter pointed out that 

the conclusion of Myers et al. was based 

on probit estimates and mathematical 

regression, rather than on the actual 

results of a full range of experiments. 

The commenter pointed out that Myers 

et al. did not repeatedly treat firewood 

at 60 °C for 60 minutes in order to 

establish the efficacy of such a treatment 

and questioned the reliability of probit 

estimates. 

In evaluating heat treatment 

schedules, probit estimates are intended 

to provide, not the minimum 

temperature and time duration that may 

achieve 100 percent mortality of a 

quarantine pest, but the minimum 

temperature and time duration that will 

prove efficacious in doing so with a 

high degree of statistical reliability. In 

other words, treatment schedules 

established through probit estimates are, 

by design, more conservative, both in 

temperature and duration, than 

schedules established through simple 

reduplication of a particular experiment 

in order to achieve a minimal 

efficacious treatment schedule. 

The commenter stated that, based on 

their experiments, Goebel et al. 

determined that heat treatment at 56 °C 

for a duration of 82 minutes was not an 

effective treatment schedule for EAB. 

The commenter asserted that this 

determination called into question the 

efficacy of heat treatment at 60 °C for a 

duration of 60 minutes for EAB. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 41 / Thursday, March 1, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 12441 

The efficacy of heat treatment as a 

mitigation for a particular pest is 

dependent not only on the duration of 

the treatment, but also on the 

temperature it achieves in the treated 

article. Accordingly, Goebel et al.’s 

determination does not necessarily 

contradict the determination of Myers et 

al. Moreover, the commenter provided 

no scientific basis for considering the 

determinations contradictory. 

The same commenter stated that heat 

treatment at 60 °C for a duration of 60 

minutes would not be effective in 

killing certain types of phytopathogenic 

fungi. 

Phytopathogenic fungi were 

determined to be likely to follow the 

pathway on wooden handicrafts from 

China only if they were introduced by 

an arthropod vector. Arthropods that 

could serve as such vectors were 

considered in the pest risk assessment. 

Finally, the commenter stated that 

heat treatment consistent with ISPM 15 

would not be efficacious in treating 

wooden handicrafts from China for all 

quarantine pests likely to follow the 

pathway on the handicrafts. 

We agree with the commenter. That is 

why we proposed to require a more 

stringent treatment. 

As we mentioned in the supplemental 

proposal, we published a final rule in 

the Federal Register on January 26, 

2010 (75 FR 4228–4253, Docket No. 

APHIS–2008–0022), that was effective 

on February 25, 2010, and that, among 

other things, removed all treatment 

schedules found in 7 CFR chapter III, 

including those in § 319.40–7(c) and (d). 

It replaced all such schedules with a 

reference to 7 CFR part 305, which 

contains our regulations governing 

phytosanitary treatments. Last, it 

amended 7 CFR part 305 itself to state 

that all approved treatment schedules 

for regulated articles are found not in 

the regulations but in the PPQ 

Treatment Manual, and to establish a 

process for adding new treatment 

schedules for regulated articles to the 

Treatment Manual. 

In accordance with this process, we 

are modifying proposed § 319.40–5(o)(1) 

to state that wooden handicrafts from 

China must be treated as specified in the 

PPQ Treatment Manual in accordance 

with 7 CFR part 305. We have also 

added the relevant treatment schedules 

for the handicrafts to the Treatment 

Manual; the schedules for heat 

treatment and heat treatment with 

moisture reduction specify that the 

treatment must raise the core 

temperature of the handicrafts to 60 °C 

for a duration of 60 minutes. 

Comments Regarding Treatment With 

Methyl Bromide 

In proposed § 319.40–5(o)(1)(ii), we 

stated that wooden handicrafts that are 

less than 6 inches in diameter may be 

treated with methyl bromide fumigation 

in accordance with 7 CFR part 305, 

instead of with heat treatment or heat 

treatment with moisture reduction. 

Several commenters stated that 

methyl bromide is known to deplete the 

stratospheric ozone layer, and that 

authorizing its use for treating Chinese 

wooden handicrafts violates the 

Montreal Protocol, in which the United 

States agreed to gradually reduce and 

ultimately eliminate use of methyl 

bromide. Another commenter stated 

that, while the number of applications 

of methyl bromide that would initially 

occur under the provisions of the 

proposed rule would likely be minimal, 

as the U.S. market for Chinese wooden 

handicrafts became more established 

and trade in those commodities 

increased, the number of applications 

would also increase. The same 

commenter stated that such an increase 

in trade with China could lead other 

countries to request that APHIS 

authorize the use of methyl bromide for 

similar regulated articles. All these 

commenters asked APHIS not to 

authorize the use of methyl bromide for 

wooden handicrafts from China, and to 

pursue alternate treatment options. 

The United States Government 

encourages methods that do not use 

methyl bromide to meet phytosanitary 

standards where alternatives are 

deemed to be technically and 

economically feasible. As stated in the 

proposed rule, APHIS would allow 

fumigation only for a certain type of 

wooden handicrafts from China, those 

less than 6 inches in diameter. All other 

handicrafts would have to be treated 

with heat treatment or heat treatment 

with moisture reduction. In addition, in 

accordance with Montreal Protocol 

Decision XI/13 (paragraph 7), APHIS is 

committed to promoting and employing 

gas recapture technology and other 

methods whenever possible to minimize 

harm to the environment caused by 

methyl bromide emissions. 

However, paragraph 5 of Article 2H of 

the Montreal Protocol does allow for 

quarantine and preshipment uses of 

methyl bromide, and does not specify a 

maximum number of such applications. 

Therefore, the provisions of this rule are 

not in conflict with the protocol. 

Finally, in accordance with the 

overarching objectives of the protocol, 

APHIS is currently examining the 

efficacy of other treatment options for 

Chinese wooden handicrafts. If we 

determine that treatments exist that are 

equally efficacious and are available 

within China, we will amend the 

Treatment Manual. 

One commenter expressed concerns 

about the human health impacts 

associated with the use of methyl 

bromide. The commenter stated that 

methyl bromide is known to be a 

carcinogen, skin and lung irritant, and 

neurotoxin if persons are exposed to it 

for prolonged periods of time. In a 

similar manner, another commenter 

suggested that we modify the proposed 

rule so that methyl bromide fumigation 

may only take place in an approved 

facility that adheres to stringent human 

health standards. 

APHIS’ statutory authority extends 

only to establishing regulations to 

mitigate the plant pest risk associated 

with the importation of plants and plant 

products into the United States. 

Accordingly, it is the responsibility of 

the Chinese government to establish and 

enforce human health standards 

regarding the safe use of methyl 

bromide. 

Accordingly, based on our evaluation 

of the issue, we have decided to approve 

methyl bromide fumigation as a 

treatment for wooden handicrafts from 

China that are less than 6 inches in 

diameter, and have added this treatment 

to the Treatment Manual. However, 

because, as we mentioned above, we are 

currently examining the efficacy of 

other treatment options for Chinese 

wooden handicrafts, § 319.40–5(o)(1), as 

finalized, does not make explicit 

reference to any one treatment option 

for the handicrafts. Such a modification 

will allow us to use the approach 

established by the January 26, 2010, 

final rule to add any new treatment 

schedules that we determine to be 

efficacious for Chinese wooden 

handicrafts to the Treatment Manual 

through publishing notices in the 

Federal Register, rather than through 

rules. 

Comments Regarding Phytosanitary 

Certificates 

In proposed § 319.40–5(o)(2), we 

stated that all consignments of wooden 

handicrafts would have to be 

accompanied by a phytosanitary 

certificate issued by the NPPO of China, 

and that the certificate would have to 

contain an additional declaration stating 

that the handicrafts were treated in 

accordance with § 319.40–5 and 

inspected and found free from 

quarantine pests. 

Two commenters stated that the 

certificate would duplicate existing 

documentation required under the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
12442 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 41 / Thursday, March 1, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

regulations, and therefore should not be 

required. 

In response to these comments, we 

reexamined the proposed provision in 

light of existing regulations within the 

subpart. In § 319.40–2(a), we require a 

specific permit to be issued in 

accordance with § 319.40–4 prior to the 

importation of a regulated article, unless 

the article is imported for propagation 

or human consumption, or is authorized 

importation under a general permit. 

Section 319.40–4 sets forth the 

procedure for applying for a specific 

permit. As part of this procedure, we 

require that each application include a 

description of any treatment to be 

performed prior to importation, 

including the location where the 

treatment will be performed, as well as 

the name and address of the importer of 

record. 

Similarly, in § 319.40–2(b), we require 

an importer document or certificate to 

accompany all regulated articles, unless 

the article is imported for propagation 

or human consumption, or is authorized 

importation under a general permit. 

This importer document or certificate 

must state the treatment performed on 

the article prior to arrival at the point of 

first arrival. 

Wooden handicrafts from China are 

not imported for propagation or human 

consumption, and are not authorized 

importation under a general permit. 

Hence, each importation of wooden 

handicrafts from China must be 

authorized under a specific permit and 

accompanied by an importer document 

or certificate. 

Finally, § 319.40–7 sets forth 

treatment requirements for regulated 

articles. Paragraph (a) of that section 

provides that, in response to 

inaccuracies on a document 

accompanying a regulated article, 

APHIS may determine not to accept any 

further certificates for the importation of 

regulated articles from that country, or 

may not allow the importation of any or 

all regulated articles from the country 

until corrective action acceptable to 

APHIS establishes that certificates 

issued in the country are accurate. 

Collectively, these requirements 

provide APHIS with information 

regarding the treatment applied to 

wooden handicrafts from China, a 

responsible party in the event that any 

imported handicrafts are determined to 

be infested with quarantine pests, and 

sufficiently stringent remedial measures 

to deter parties from providing 

inaccurate information on documents 

associated with the importation. As a 

result, we do not consider a 

phytosanitary certificate necessary, and 

are not including that requirement in 

this final rule. 

Three commenters stated that China 

has repeatedly authorized the export of 

contaminated or infested commodities 

in recent years. One of these 

commenters stated that Chinese officials 

are not concerned with the veracity of 

information on documents pertaining to 

the importation of these commodities. 

All the commenters stated that APHIS 

should not allow the NPPO of China to 

issue phytosanitary certificates, but 

should instead station personnel in 

China to monitor all treatments of 

wooden handicrafts and inspect all 

consignments destined for export to the 

United States. 

As we stated above, we consider the 

regulations to provide sufficient 

remedial measures to deter parties from 

providing inaccurate information on any 

document pertaining to the importation 

of wooden handicrafts from China. 

Moreover, we note that, under § 319.40– 

9, all regulated articles must be 

inspected at the port of first arrival. If 

a regulated article shows any signs of 

pest infestation, the inspector may 

require treatment, if an approved 

treatment exists, or refuse entry of the 

consignment. 

Comment Regarding Identification Tags 

In proposed § 319.40–5(o)(3), we 

stated that all individual packages of 

wooden handicrafts would have be 

labeled with a merchandise tag 

containing the identity of the product 

manufacturer. We further stated that the 

tag would have to be applied to each 

package in China prior to exportation 

and remain attached to the package 

until it reaches the location at which the 

wooden handicraft would be sold in the 

United States. 

Two commenters stated that they 

manufacture wooden handicrafts that 

are packaged in a manner that prevents 

an identification tag from being applied 

to the package. One of these 

commenters requested that APHIS 

provide guidance regarding how 

manufacturers could apply the tag to 

packaging in a manner that would not 

deter consumers from purchasing their 

product. 

The tag must be applied to each 

shipping package containing wooden 

handicrafts, rather than to the packaging 

for any particular handicraft. For 

example, if a wooden train containing 

partially processed parts were sealed in 

a blister package in China, and a box 

containing several dozen of these trains 

were exported to the United States for 

sale at a toy store, the identification tag 

would have to be applied to the box that 

is shipped to the store, rather than to the 

individual blister packages. We have 

modified proposed § 319.40–5(o)(3) to 

clarify that it refers to shipping 

packages, rather than packaging. 

Therefore, for the reasons given in the 

proposed rule and in this document, we 

are adopting the proposed rule as a final 

rule, with the changes discussed in this 

document. 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

This final 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. 

We have prepared an economic 

analysis for this rule. The economic 

analysis provides a cost-benefit analysis, 

as required by 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 

economic analysis also examines the 

potential effects of this rule on small 

entities, as required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. The economic analysis 

is summarized below. Copies of the full 

analysis are available by contacting the 

person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT or on the 

Regulations.gov Web site (see footnote 1 

at the beginning of this document for a 

link to Regulations.gov). 

This rule will allow for the 

resumption of imports of wooden 

handicrafts from China, provided 

certain conditions are met. In 2005, 

APHIS suspended the importation of 

certain wooden handicrafts until we 

could more fully analyze the pest risks 

associated with those articles. We have 

determined that the heat, heat with 

moisture reduction, and methyl bromide 

fumigation treatment options prescribed 

in this 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 forests’ environmental 

and aesthetic benefits for the general 

public. The hundreds of millions of 

dollars that have been spent to control 

the spread of EAB and the Asian 

longhorned beetle exemplify the 

enormous cost to the United States 

when invasive pests become 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 41 / Thursday, March 1, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 12443 

6 Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#

!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2007-0117. The 

environmental assessment and finding of no 

significant impact will appear in the resulting list 

of documents. 

established. This rule will establish 

safeguards against further incursions of 

wood-boring pests such as these via the 

importation of infested handicrafts from 

China, while allowing the importation 

of such handicrafts to resume. 

U.S. entities are expected to be 

minimally affected by this rule. 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, 

representing 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. In addition, benefits 

are expected to exceed 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. 

Executive Order 12988 

This final rule has been reviewed 

under Executive Order 12988, Civil 

Justice Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts 

all State and local laws and regulations 

that are inconsistent with this rule; (2) 

has no retroactive effect; and (3) does 

not require administrative proceedings 

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 final rule. The 

environmental assessment provides a 

basis for the conclusion that the 

importation of wooden handicrafts from 

China under the conditions specified in 

the rule will 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), as amended (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). 

The environmental assessment and 

finding of no significant impact may be 

viewed on the Regulations.gov Web 

site.6 Copies of the environmental 

assessment and finding of no significant 

impact are also 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 

This final rule does not include an 

information collection requirement that 

had been included in the proposed rule. 

Specifically, for the reasons described 

earlier in this document, this final rule 

does not include a requirement for the 

completion of phytosanitary certificates. 

In accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 

et seq.), the information collection or 

recordkeeping requirements included in 

this rule have been approved by the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) under OMB control number 

0579–0357. 

E-Government Act Compliance 

The Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service is committed to 

compliance with the E-Government Act 

to promote the use of the Internet and 

other information technologies, to 

provide increased opportunities for 

citizen access to Government 

information and services, and for other 

purposes. For information pertinent to 

E-Government Act compliance related 

to this rule, please contact Mrs. Celeste 

Sickles, APHIS’ Information Collection 

Coordinator, at (301) 851–2908. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 319 

Coffee, Cotton, Fruits, Imports, Logs, 

Nursery stock, Plant diseases and pests, 

Quarantine, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Rice, 

Vegetables. 

Accordingly, we are amending 7 CFR 

part 319 as follows: 

PART 319—FOREIGN QUARANTINE 

NOTICES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 319 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 450, 7701–7772, and 

7781–7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR 

2.22, 2.80, and 371.3. 

■ 2. The subpart heading for ‘‘SubpartLogs, Lumber, and Other 

Unmanufactured Wood Articles’’ is 

amended by removing the word 

‘‘Unmanufactured’’. 

■ 3. Section 319.40–1 is amended by 

revising the definition of regulated 

article and adding, in alphabetical 

order, a definition for wooden 

handicraft to read as follows: 

§ 319.40–1 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Regulated article. The following 

articles, if they are unprocessed, have 

received only primary processing, or 

contain parts that are either 

unprocessed or have received only 

primary processing and are not feasibly 

separable from the other parts of the 

article: Logs; lumber; any whole tree; 

any cut tree or any portion of a tree, not 

solely consisting of leaves, flowers, 

fruits, buds, or seeds; bark; cork; laths; 

hog fuel; sawdust; painted raw wood 

products; excelsior (wood wool); wood 

chips; wood mulch; wood shavings; 

pickets; stakes; shingles; solid wood 

packing materials; humus; compost; 

litter; and wooden handicrafts. 

* * * * * 

Wooden handicraft. A commodity 

class of articles derived or made from 

natural components of wood, twigs, and 

vines, and including bamboo poles and 

garden stakes. Handicrafts include the 

following products where wood is 

present: Carvings, baskets, boxes, bird 

houses, garden and lawn/patio furniture 

(rustic), potpourri, artificial trees 

(typically artificial ficus trees), trellis 

towers, garden fencing and edging, and 

other items composed of wood. 

■ 4. Section 319.40–5 is amended by 

adding a new paragraph (o) and revising 

the OMB citation at the end of the 

section to read as follows: 

§ 319.40–5 Importation and entry 

requirements for specified articles. 

* * * * * 

(o) Wooden handicrafts from China. 

Wooden handicrafts more than 1 

centimeter in diameter may be imported 

into the United States from China only 

in accordance with this paragraph and 

all other applicable provisions of this 

title. Wooden handicrafts less than 1 

centimeter in diameter are exempt from 

the requirements of this paragraph, but 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
12444 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 41 / Thursday, March 1, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

are still subject to all other applicable 

provisions of this chapter. 

(1) Treatment. Wooden handicrafts 

must be treated in accordance with part 

305 of this chapter. 

(2) Identification tag. All packages in 

which wooden handicrafts are shipped 

must be labeled with a merchandise tag 

containing the identity of the product 

manufacturer. The identification tag 

must be applied to each shipping 

package in China prior to exportation 

and remain attached to the shipping 

package until it reaches the location at 

which the wooden handicraft will be 

sold in the United States. 

(Approved by the Office of Management and 

Budget under control numbers 0579–0049, 

0579–0257, 0579–0319, and 0579–0367) 

Done in Washington, DC, this 27th day of 

February 2012. 

Edward Avalos, 

Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory 

Programs. 

[FR Doc. 2012–4962 Filed 2–29–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2011–0982; Directorate 

Identifier 2011–NE–09–AD; Amendment 39– 

16954; AD 2012–03–12] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; General 

Electric Company (GE) Turbofan 

Engines 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for all GE 

CF6–80C2 model turbofan engines, 

including engines marked on the engine 

data plate as CF6–80C2B7F1. This AD 

was prompted by a report of a supplier 

shipping a batch of nonconforming No. 

3 bearing packings that had incorrect 

cooling holes and by subsequent reports 

of nonconforming No. 3 bearing 

packings being installed on engines in 

service. This AD requires a one-time 

inspection of the No. 3 bearing packing 

for an incorrect cooling hole size and, if 

it is found nonconforming, removing the 

packing and removing certain engine 

rotating life-limited parts (LLPs), if they 

were operated with unacceptable rotor 

bore cooling flow for a specified number 

of cycles. We are issuing this AD to 

prevent an uncontained failure of the 

high-pressure compressor (HPC) rotor or 

the low-pressure turbine (LPT) rotor, or 

both, which could cause damage to the 

airplane. 

DATES: This AD is effective April 5, 

2012. The Director of the Federal 

Register approved the incorporation by 

reference of certain publications listed 

in the AD as of April 5, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: For service information 

identified in this AD, contact GE 

Aviation, M/D Rm. 285, One Neumann 

Way, Cincinnati, OH 45215; phone: 

513–552–3272; email: geae.aoc@ge.com. 

You may review copies of the 

referenced service information at the 

FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 

New England Executive Park, 

Burlington, MA. For information on the 

availability of this material at the FAA, 

call 781–238–7125. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov; or in person at the 

Docket Management Facility between 

9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD 

docket contains this AD, the regulatory 

evaluation, any comments received, and 

other information. The address for the 

Docket Office (phone: 800–647–5527) is 

Document Management Facility, U.S. 

Department of Transportation, Docket 

Operations, M–30, West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, 

DC 20590. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Tomasz Rakowski, Aerospace Engineer, 

Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine 

& Propeller Directorate, 12 New England 

Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; 

phone: 781–238–7735; fax: 781–238– 

7199; email: tomasz.rakowski@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Discussion 

We issued a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR 

part 39 to include an AD that would 

apply to the specified products. That 

NPRM published in the Federal 

Register on October 18, 2011 (76 FR 

64291). That NPRM proposed to require 

a one-time inspection of the No. 3 

bearing packing for an incorrect cooling 

hole size and, if it is found 

nonconforming, removing the packing 

and removing certain engine rotating 

LLPs, if they were operated with the 

wrong packing for a specified number of 

cycles. 

Comments 

We gave the public the opportunity to 

participate in developing this AD. The 

following presents the comments 

received on the proposal and the FAA’s 

response to each comment. 

Support for the NPRM as Written 

Commenters the Boeing Company and 

Federal Express support the NPRM as 

written. 

Request To Correct Part Number 

Commenters GE and Delta Airlines 

(Delta) indicated that the part number 

noted in the Discussion section of the 

NPRM (76 FR 64291, October 18, 2011) 

was incorrect and should be 

‘‘1471M25P04’’ rather than 

‘‘1292M70P04’’ as listed in the NPRM. 

We agree. However, the Applicability 

section of the final rule is correct. We 

did not change the AD. 

Request To Clarify Incorrect Shipping 

Versus Installing Wrong Seal 

Commenter Lufthansa Technik AG 

(Lufthansa) asked that we state more 

clearly the difference between the issues 

of packings shipped in a batch of 

nonconforming parts and 

nonconforming packings installed in 

engines in service. 

We disagree. The AD sufficiently 

describes the difference between 

nonconforming packings shipped by the 

supplier and those in service. We did 

not change the AD. 

Request To Correct Cost 

Commenter Lufthansa suggested that 

the cost of compliance estimate in the 

NPRM covers only the cost of shipped 

nonconforming parts and does not 

include the cost of replacing 

nonconforming packings that are 

installed in engines in service. 

Lufthansa also noted that the installed 

parts are covered by a different service 

bulletin and are not covered by 

warranty. 

We disagree. Our cost estimate covers 

the inspection and installed parts and is 

independent of any possible warranty 

coverage. We did not change the AD. 

Request To Update GE Service Bulletin 

(SB) Reference 

Commenter Lufthansa requested that 

we provide full instructions for 

compliance for engine models CF6– 

80C2L1F and CF6–80C2K1F. Lufthansa 

noted that neither the NPRM (76 FR 

64291, October 18, 2011) nor GE SB 

CF6–80C2 S/B 72–1405 provide enough 

information for these engines to comply 

with the proposed rule. Lufthansa 

requested that we refer to Revision 01 of 

GE SB CF6–80C2 S/B 72–1405 rather 

than to the original version. 

We agree. We changed the AD by 

updating the GE service bulletin 

references in the AD to GE SB CF6– 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES