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

43643 

Vol. 74, No. 165 

Thursday, August 27, 2009 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

7 CFR Part 301 

[Docket No. APHIS–2009–0016] 

RIN 0579–AD01 

Wood Packaging Material Used in 

Domestic Commerce 

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking and request for comments; 

notice of intent to prepare an 

environmental impact statement. 

SUMMARY: We are soliciting public 

comment on regulatory options that 

could be applied to wood packaging 

material (e.g., crates, dunnage, wooden 

spools, pallets, packing blocks) used in 

domestic commerce to decrease the risk 

of the artificial spread of plant pests 

such as the emerald ash borer and the 

Asian longhorned beetle. These and 

other plant pests that could be 

transported interstate by wood 

packaging material pose a serious threat 

to U.S. agriculture and to natural, 

cultivated, and urban forests. We are 

also announcing our intent to prepare 

an environmental impact statement on 

various potential pest mitigation 

measures and opening a public scoping 

period for this document. 

DATES: We will consider all comments 

that we receive on or before October 26, 

2009. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by either of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/ 

component/ 

main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS2009-0016 to submit or view comments 

and to view supporting and related 

materials available electronically. 

• Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: 

Please send two copies of your comment 

to Docket No. APHIS–2009–0016, 

Regulatory Analysis and Development, 

PPD, APHIS, Station 3A–03.8, 4700 

River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 

20737–1238. Please state that your 

comment refers to Docket No. APHIS– 

2009–0016. 

Reading Room: You may read any 

comments that we receive on this 

docket in our reading room. The reading 

room is located in room 1141 of the 

USDA South Building, 14th Street and 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC. Normal reading room 

hours are 8 a.m. to 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. 

Other Information: Additional 

information about APHIS and its 

programs is available on the Internet at 

http://www.aphis.usda.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Paul Chaloux, National Emerald Ash 

Borer Program Manager, PPQ, APHIS, 

4700 River Road Unit 137, Riverdale, 

MD 20737–1236; (301) 734–0917. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The regulations in Subpart—Logs, 

Lumber, and Other Unmanufactured 

Wood Articles (7 CFR 319.40–1 though 

319.40–11, referred to below as the 

regulations) restrict the importation of 

many types of wood articles, including 

items such as pallets, crates, boxes, and 

pieces of wood used to support and 

brace cargo. These types of articles are 

known as wood packaging materials 

(WPM). Introductions into the United 

States of exotic plant pests such as the 

pine shoot beetle Tomicus piniperda 

(Scolytidae) and the Asian longhorned 

beetle Anaplophora glabripennis 

(Cerambycidae) among others have been 

linked to the importation of WPM. Risk 

of the artificial spread of plant pests has 

also been linked to the domestic 

movement of WPM in and around 

quarantined areas. 

The variety of woods and lumber 

qualities used in the construction of 

WPM make it susceptible to infestation 

by a wide range of wood pests and 

diseases. WPM is frequently constructed 

from lower grade lumber derived from 

an assortment of woods. Additionally, 

lumber used in WPM construction may 

be fresh cut and may not have 

undergone sufficient processing or 

treatment to kill pests. Furthermore, 

WPM is very often reused, recycled, or 

remanufactured, and the true origin of 

any specific piece of WPM is difficult to 

determine, which means that its 

phytosanitary status cannot be fully 

ascertained. These facts, coupled with 

the amount of WPM in circulation, 

create a high level of concern that WPM 

may serve as a vehicle for human 

assisted long-distance movement of 

various plant pests. 

Currently, the regulations in 7 CFR 

part 301 contain domestic quarantine 

notices for specific pests that identify 

regulated articles, quarantined areas, 

and conditions governing the interstate 

movement of regulated articles from 

quarantined areas. The domestic 

quarantines for wood pests, such as 

emerald ash borer and Asian 

longhorned beetle, regulate the 

movement of logs, lumber, and other 

unmanufactured wood articles from 

quarantined areas to non-quarantined 

areas within the United States. 

Quarantine requirements governing 

movement of WPM vary for different 

pests. The variety of requirements 

creates a regulatory framework that may 

create confusion and present challenges 

to industry and stakeholder compliance. 

As a result, we are exploring the 

development of uniform measures to 

govern interstate movement of all WPM 

in order to provide greater ease of 

comprehension and compliance. This 

action is supported by various WPM 

industry groups. 

We are publishing this advance notice 

of proposed rulemaking in order to seek 

information and develop regulatory 

options on the general problem of plant 

pests in WPM moved interstate. WPM 

accompanies nearly all types of 

domestically shipped commodities, 

from fruits and vegetables to machinery 

and electrical equipment. National 

Wooden Pallet and Container 

Association figures indicate that 1.2 

billion pallets are currently in 

circulation in the United States, with 93 

percent of all goods moving on those 

pallets. We are seeking ways to 

maximize our protection against the 

artificial spread of various plant pests 

by WPM without placing unjustified 

strain on domestic commerce and 

shipping requirements. We are 

requesting public comment on what 

actions would be most effective and 

appropriate to reduce the risk of this 

potential spread. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
43644 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 165 / Thursday, August 27, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

We are specifically seeking options 

for establishing uniform requirements 

for the domestic handling of WPM, 

alternative treatments to methyl 

bromide that could be used to reduce 

the risk of WPM contributing to the 

artificial spread of various plant pests, 

as well as alternative practices for 

handling WPM. These measures would 

be independent of any specific 

movement restrictions and treatment 

requirements contained in 7 CFR part 

301 for particular plant pests. 

Options for Managing the Pest Risks 

Associated With WPM 

We are specifically requesting 

comment on options for strengthening 

our response to the risks associated with 

the restrictions on interstate movement 

of WPM, the potential impacts of 

increased use of alternative packaging 

materials such as plastic pallets and/or 

processed wood, and a number of 

technical questions. 

At this time, we are considering the 

feasibility of implementing International 

Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) 

treatment standards as requirements for 

the domestic movement of WPM. In a 

final rule published in the Federal 

Register on September 16, 2004 (69 FR 

55719–55733; Docket No. 02–032–3), we 

amended the regulations in order to 

update the requirements for importation 

of WPM to correspond with standards 

established by the IPPC in International 

Standards for Phytosanitary Measures 

(ISPM) 15, ‘‘Guidelines for Regulating 

Wood Packaging Material in 

International Trade.’’ Paragraph (b) of 

§ 319.40–3 of the regulations lists the 

IPPC requirements, which include 

either heat treatment or fumigation with 

methyl bromide and the proper marking 

of all treated materials with the 

approved IPPC symbol and specific 

control numbers. 

Another option for strengthening 

regulations concerning the domestic 

movement of WPM is a practice 

employed by a segment of the pallet 

industry called pooling. Pooled pallet 

companies retain ownership of 

individual pallets through a pallet’s 

lifecycle through rigorous inventory 

tracking and management, leasing these 

pallets to companies engaged in 

interstate commodity movement. The 

pooled pallets are constructed from a 

higher grade of wood than traditional 

pallets, with strict specifications 

pertaining to such factors as species of 

tree and source location. Some pallets 

are constructed out of plastics or resin, 

which is typically recycled into new 

pallets at the end of the first pallet’s 

lifecycle. A third variety of pallet is 

constructed of a combination of wood 

and plastics. Combining IPPC 

treatments with pallet pooling may 

provide sufficient mitigation of the pest 

risk associated with WPM moving 

domestically in the United States. 

We are also seeking ways to respond 

to environmental concerns about the use 

of methyl bromide fumigation on 

domestic wood products in the long 

term. Most fumigations of wood 

products have historically involved 

treatments with methyl bromide due to 

convenience, cost, availability, ease of 

handling, timely completion of 

treatment, and good efficacy. Any 

potential increase in the use of methyl 

bromide is of concern because of the 

associated risk of increased ozone 

depletion, which results in increased 

ultraviolet radiation at the Earth’s 

surface. We are intent on minimizing 

the use of methyl bromide in order to 

protect the stratospheric ozone layer, 

and we are seeking options that will 

accomplish this objective. 

Notice of Intent To Prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement 

These scoping questions include 

inquiries relevant to the preparation of 

an environmental impact statement 

(EIS). The EIS will examine the range of 

potential effects that the proposed 

applications could pose to the human 

environment, taking into account those 

alternatives and issues presented in 

response to this advance notice of 

proposed rulemaking. 

We are seeking public comment on 

the options discussed in this document. 

There may also be additional 

information relevant to domestic 

production and movement of WPM that 

should be considered during the 

drafting of any potential regulation. In 

particular, APHIS would like to improve 

its understanding of the scientific, 

economic, and logistical aspects of the 

domestic production, use, and 

movement of WPM and the potential 

protection that a domestic regulation 

might provide for domestic forests and 

natural resources. 

The environmental effects of any 

alternatives selected will be analyzed in 

full compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act in the EIS 

mentioned above. Our goal is to 

maximize protection of U.S. agriculture 

and forests against plant pests 

associated with WPM without unduly 

affecting domestic trade or the 

environment. We are interested in 

information on any alternatives that 

would accomplish this goal. We 

welcome comments that address the 

economic impacts that the various 

options may have on domestic entities. 

We are also seeking public comment 

addressing the following questions, 

which will help us better consider the 

potential issues surrounding the 

proposed EIS and any possible 

regulations governing interstate 

movement of WPM that would mitigate 

the pest risks associated with these 

articles: 

1. Are there issues of concern if we 

were to establish domestic regulations 

pertaining to the interstate movement of 

WPM that mirror the IPPC treatment 

standards? 

2. Other than ISPM 15 treatments as 

required for exportation of WPM and 

treatments authorized under specific 

domestic pest quarantines, what 

environmentally sound regulatory or 

nonregulatory actions would maximize 

protection against the spread of invasive 

pests associated with WPM in a costeffective manner? 

3. Are data available for treatments, 

other than those currently authorized 

under the regulations, which might be 

used nationally to reduce the risk of 

WPM introducing pests into new 

habitats? 

4. Could the imposition of a 

requirement that WPM moving 

interstate be bark-free reduce the need 

for other regulatory treatment 

requirements? 

5. What is the magnitude of the pest 

risks associated with WPM moving 

interstate and to what extent would the 

options presented here, or other options, 

reduce these risks? 

6. APHIS would like to better 

understand the potential economic 

effects of requiring treatment for 

interstate movement of WPM, including 

the following specific issues: 

a. What proportion of WPM currently 

used domestically is either made with 

heat-treated (core temperature raised to 

a prescribed level for a prescribed 

period of time) or methyl bromide 

fumigated raw wood inputs, or treated 

using either of these methods following 

construction? 

b. If heat treatment or methyl bromide 

fumigation of all WPM were required, 

what proportions of WPM producers 

would install new, additional, or 

upgraded heat-treating or fumigating 

equipment at their facilities? 

c. How do the prices of treated wood 

inputs for WPM construction and repair 

compare to the prices of untreated wood 

inputs? 

d. What are the typical one-time costs 

associated with the purchase and 

installation of heat treating or methyl 

bromide fumigation equipment for raw 

wood inputs or finished WPM, and 

what are the time periods involved in 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 165 / Thursday, August 27, 2009 / Proposed Rules 43645 

the purchase and installation of the 

treatment equipment? 

e. What are the typical ongoing 

operating costs associated with heat 

treatment or methyl bromide fumigation 

of wood inputs or constructed WPM 

(including labor, energy, and other 

variable expenses)? 

f. Information provided by the 

American Lumber Standards Committee 

indicates that there is significant unused 

heat treatment capacity across the 

United States. Is this capacity 

appropriate for both supplying treated 

inputs and treating finished products? 

And is this capacity suitably distributed 

regionally to adequately serve the WPM 

industry if treatment were required for 

all WPM moved interstate? 

7. What would be the environmental 

effects of requiring treatment of WPM 

moved interstate, including effects on 

global climate change and the 

stratospheric ozone layer? What would 

be the environmental effects of 

alternative packaging materials? 

a. If the WPM industry is given the 

option of heat treatment or methyl 

bromide fumigation, what, if any, 

change would occur in carbon dioxide 

emissions relative to current global 

emissions, and what, if any, changes 

would occur in atmospheric bromine 

concentrations relative to current global 

concentrations? 

b. What effect would changes in rates 

of use of the most likely alternative 

packaging materials have on emissions? 

8. How could APHIS best monitor 

compliance with treatment 

requirements? How can WPM be 

identified as eligible for interstate 

movement if treatment were to be 

required? Should we recognize ISPM 15 

markings as one means of identifying 

WPM as eligible for interstate 

movement? 

9. Various parties are frequently 

involved in the construction and 

interstate movement of WPM. Who 

should be responsible for ensuring that 

WPM moving interstate meets any 

requirements that might be imposed? 

10. Is it feasible and cost-effective for 

the shipping industry to replace WPM 

with processed wood packaging 

material or other alternative packaging 

material? 

a. What are the most likely 

substitutes? 

b. What portion of the packaging 

material market do alternative materials 

currently comprise? 

11. One advantage of wood dunnage 

is its biodegradable nature. What would 

be the environmental effects, if any, of 

requiring that less biodegradable 

materials be substituted for wood 

dunnage? 

12. Concern has been expressed over 

the relative fire hazards associated with 

certain packaging materials, specifically 

plastic. Is there any specific information 

about the fire hazard of WPM relative to 

other packaging materials that should be 

considered in our assessment of 

environmental and other risks? 

13. If treatment of some kind were to 

be required for all WPM moved 

interstate, would the industry need a 

phase-in period to allow time to adapt? 

If so, how long should this phase-in 

period last? 

In addition to the questions listed 

above, we are asking that the public 

identify any other issues that they 

consider to be appropriate in connection 

with amending the regulations 

governing the interstate movement of 

WPM. 

This action has been determined to be 

not significant for the purposes of 

Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, 

has not been reviewed by the Office of 

Management and Budget. 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7701–7772 and 7781– 

7786; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3. 

Done in Washington, DC, this 24th day of 

August 2009. 

Kevin Shea, 

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–20708 Filed 8–26–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2009–0719; Directorate 

Identifier 2009–NM–078–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Learjet 

Model 45 Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for certain 

Learjet Model 45 airplanes. This 

proposed AD would require inspecting 

the baggage bay door fire barrier seal for 

inconel mesh in the fire barrier seal 

material; for certain airplanes, 

inspecting the fiberglass doublers for 

presence of red Room Temperature 

Vulcanizing (RTV) sealant; and doing 

related investigative and corrective 

actions if necessary. This proposed AD 

results from reports of incorrect external 

baggage door seal material and door seal 

sealant as well as incorrect sealant on 

interior baggage panels used during 

manufacture of the airplane. We are 

proposing this AD to prevent the use of 

door seals and sealant that do not meet 

flammability requirements, which could 

result in an uncontrollable and 

undetected fire within the baggage 

compartment. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by October 13, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

For service information identified in 

this proposed AD, contact Learjet, Inc., 

One Learjet Way, Wichita, Kansas 

67209–2942; telephone 316–946–2000; 

fax 316–946–2220; e-mail 

ac.ict@aero.bombardier.com; Internet 

http://www.bombardier.com. You may 

review copies of the referenced service 

information at the FAA, Transport 

Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind 

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington. For 

information on the availability of this 

material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221 

or 425–227–1152. 

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 proposed AD, the 

regulatory evaluation, any comments 

received, and other information. The 

street address for the Docket Office 

(telephone 800–647–5527) is in the 

ADDRESSES section. Comments will be 

available in the AD docket shortly after 

receipt. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

William Griffith, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe Branch, ACE–118W, FAA, 

Wichita Aircraft Certification Office, 

1801 Airport Road, Room 100, MidContinent Airport, Wichita, Kansas 

67209; telephone (316) 946–4116; fax 

(316) 946–4107. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS