79636 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 251 / Tuesday, December 31, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our 

estimate of the burden of the proposed 

information collection, including the 

validity of the methodology and 

assumptions used; 

(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and 

(4) Minimize the burden of the 

information collection on those who are 

to respond (such as through the use of 

appropriate automated, electronic, 

mechanical, or other technological 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology; e.g., permitting 

electronic submission of responses). 

Estimate of burden: Public reporting 

burden for this collection of information 

is estimated to average .55 hours per 

response. 

Respondents: NPPO of Morocco, 

blueberry producers in Morocco, and 

U.S. importers. 

Estimated annual number of 

respondents: 8. 

Estimated annual number of 

responses per respondent: 3. 

Estimated annual number of 

responses: 20. 

Estimated total annual burden on 

respondents: 11 hours. (Due to 

averaging, the total annual burden hours 

may not equal the product of the annual 

number of responses multiplied by the 

reporting burden per response.) 

Copies of this information collection 

can be obtained from Mrs. Celeste 

Sickles, APHIS’ Information Collection 

Coordinator, at (301) 851–2908. 

E-Government Act Compliance 

The Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service is committed to 

compliance with the EGovernment 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 proposed rule, please contact 

Mrs. Celeste Sickles, APHIS’ 

Information Collection Coordinator, at 

(301) 851–2908. 

Lists 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 proposing to 

amend 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. Section 319.56–63 is added to read 

as follows: 

§ 319.56–63 Fresh blueberries from 

Morocco. 

Fresh fruit of highbush blueberry 

(Vaccinimum corymbosum L.) and its 

hybrid varieties southern highbush 

blueberry [V. corymbosum x 

angustifolium (V. x atlanticum) and V. 

corymbosum x virgatum] may be 

imported into the continental United 

States from Morocco only under the 

conditions described in this section. 

These conditions are designed to 

prevent the introduction of the 

following quarantine pests: Ceratitis 

capitata, the Mediterranean fruit fly, 

and the fungus Monilinia fructigena 

Honey ex Whetzel. 

(a) The blueberries may be imported 

in commercial consignments only. 

(b) The blueberries must be grown at 

places of production that are registered 

with the national plant protection 

organization (NPPO) of Morocco. 

(c) During the growing season, 

blueberries must be inspected in the 

field for signs of M. fructigena 

infestation 30 days prior to harvest. If 

the fungal disease is detected, the NPPO 

of Morocco must notify APHIS. APHIS 

will prohibit the importation of 

blueberries from Morocco into the 

continental United States from the place 

of production for the remainder of the 

growing season. The exportation of 

blueberries from the rejected place of 

production may resume in the next 

growing season if an investigation is 

conducted and APHIS and the NPPO of 

Morocco agree that appropriate remedial 

actions have been taken. 

(d) Each consignment of blueberries 

must be treated in accordance with 7 

CFR part 305 for C. capitata. 

(e) Each consignment of blueberries 

must be accompanied by a 

phytosanitary certificate issued by the 

NPPO of Morocco with an additional 

declaration stating that the conditions of 

this section have been met, and that the 

consignment has been inspected prior to 

export from Morocco and found free of 

M. fructigena. 

Done in Washington, DC, this 20th day of 

December 2013. 

Kevin Shea, 

Administrator, Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 2013–31144 Filed 12–30–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

7 CFR Parts 319 and 340 

[Docket No. APHIS–2008–0011] 

RIN 0579–AD75 

Restructuring of Regulations on the 

Importation of Plants for Planting 

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: We are reopening the 

comment period for our proposed rule 

that would restructure the regulations 

governing the importation of plants for 

planting. We are requesting comments 

on our proposed framework for 

integrated pest risk management 

measures for plants for planting. We are 

especially interested in: The differences 

commenters perceive between 

International Standard for Phytosanitary 

Measures No. 36 and the North 

American Plant Protection 

Organization’s Regional Standard for 

Phytosanitary Measures No. 24, and 

reasons to prefer one over the other as 

a basis for such measures; and how to 

address the risk posed when plant 

brokers purchase and move plants for 

planting after they leave their place of 

production and before they are exported 

to the United States. This action will 

allow interested persons additional time 

to prepare and submit comments on 

these topics. 

DATES: The comment period for the 

proposed rule published April 25, 2013 

(78 FR 24634) is reopened. We will 

consider all comments that we receive 

on or before January 30, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by either of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov/

#!documentDetail;D=APHIS-2008-0011- 

0001. 

• Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: 

Send your comment to Docket No. 

APHIS–2008–0011, Regulatory Analysis 

and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 

3A–03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, 

Riverdale, MD 20737–1238. 

Supporting documents and any 

comments we receive on this docket 

may be viewed at http://

www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2008-0011 or 

in our reading room, which is located in 

Room 1141 of the USDA South 

Building, 14th Street and Independence 

Avenue SW., Washington, DC. Normal 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 251 / Tuesday, December 31, 2013 / Proposed Rules 79637 

1For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 

U.S. code, Part B was re-designated Part A. 

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) 799–7039 

before coming. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Heather Coady, Regulatory Policy 

Specialist, Plants for Planting Policy, 

PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 133, 

Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 851–2076. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

On April 25, 2013, we published in 

the Federal Register (78 FR 24634– 

24663, Docket No. APHIS–2008–0011) a 

proposal that would restructure the 

regulations governing the importation of 

plants for planting in 7 CFR part 319. 

Comments on the proposed rule were 

required to be received on or before June 

24, 2013. We reopened and extended 

the deadline for comments until 

September 10, 2013, in a document 

published in the Federal Register on 

July 12, 2013 (78 FR 41866–41867, 

Docket No. APHIS–2008–0011). 

Among other changes, we proposed to 

establish a framework for the 

development of integrated pest risk 

management measures in the 

regulations. We did not propose to 

require any specific pest risk 

management measures; rather, we 

intended the proposed regulatory text to 

serve as a framework for their eventual 

development. We based the provisions 

for the integrated pest risk management 

measures on the North American Plant 

Protection Organization’s Regional 

Standard for Phytosanitary Measures 

(RSPM) No. 24, which addresses trade 

in plants for planting. As we stated in 

the proposed rule, our framework for 

integrated pest risk management 

measures is also consistent with the 

International Plant Protection 

Convention’s International Standard for 

Phytosanitary Measures (ISPM) No. 36, 

which addresses the same topic. 

One element of RSPM No. 24 that we 

included in the proposed framework 

was a requirement that persons trading 

in plants for planting intended for 

export without growing the plants 

(whom we referred to in the proposal as 

plant brokers) be approved by the 

national plant protection organization of 

the exporting country. In addition, we 

proposed to require plant brokers to 

ensure the traceability of export 

consignments to an approved place of 

production or production site, and to 

maintain the phytosanitary status of the 

plants in a manner equivalent to an 

approved place of production from 

purchase, storage, and transportation to 

the export destination. (The 

‘‘phytosanitary status’’ refers to their 

freedom from exposure to the 

quarantine pests addressed by the 

integrated pest risk management 

measures.) 

We received several comments on our 

decision to base the proposed 

framework for integrated pest risk 

management measures on RSPM No. 24, 

rather than ISPM No. 36. Most of the 

commenters preferred that we base our 

measures on ISPM No. 36. Some 

commenters on the proposed rule stated 

that the two standards differed 

significantly and that the framework we 

proposed was not consistent with ISPM 

No. 36. We also received several 

comments on our proposed requirement 

for approval of plant brokers, with some 

commenters indicating that such a 

requirement would be unworkable and 

that there could be other means for 

ensuring that plants for planting that are 

intended for export retain their 

phytosanitary status after leaving the 

place of production. We are considering 

whether to revise the proposed 

framework to base it on ISPM No. 36 

and what other means might be 

available to ensure that the 

phytosanitary status of plants for 

planting is maintained after they leave 

an approved place of production. 

We are reopening the comment period 

on Docket No. APHIS–2008–0011 for an 

additional 30 days. This action will 

allow interested persons additional time 

to prepare and submit comments. We 

are particularly interested in detailed 

comments on the issues discussed 

above; specific comments will help us 

to evaluate potential changes to the 

proposed rule. We will also consider all 

comments received between September 

10, 2013, and the date of this notice. 

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. 

Done in Washington, DC, this 20th day of 

December 2013. 

Kevin Shea, 

Administrator, Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 2013–31146 Filed 12–30–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Parts 429 and 430 

[Docket No. EERE–2012–BT–TP–0046] 

RIN 1904–AC52 

Energy Conservation Program: Test 

Procedure for Set-Top Boxes 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) withdraws a proposed 

rule published January 23, 2013 to 

establish a test procedure to measure the 

energy consumption of set-top boxes 

(STBs). DOE is taking this action in light 

of a consensus agreement entered by a 

broadly representative group that DOE 

believes has the potential to achieve 

significant energy savings in STBs. 

DATES: The proposed rule is withdrawn 

December 31, 2013. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mr. Jeremy Dommu, U.S. Department 

of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, EE–2J, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–9870. Email: 

Jeremy.Dommu@ee.doe.gov. 

Ms. Celia Sher, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

GC–71, 1000 Independence Avenue 

SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 287–6122. Email: 

Celia.Sher@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Authority 

Title III of the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6291, et 

seq.; ‘‘EPCA’’) sets forth a variety of 

provisions designed to improve energy 

efficiency. (All references to EPCA refer 

to the statute as amended through the 

American Energy Manufacturing 

Technical Corrections Act (AEMTCA), 

Pub. L. 112–210 (Dec. 18, 2012)). Part A 

of Title III of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6291– 

6309) established the ‘‘Energy 

Conservation Program for Consumer 

Products Other Than Automobiles,’’ 

which covers consumer products and 

certain commercial products (hereafter 

referred to as ‘‘covered products’’).1 In 

addition to specifying a list of covered 

residential and commercial products, 

EPCA contains provisions that enable 

the Secretary of Energy to classify 

additional types of consumer products 

as covered products. (42 U.S.C. 

6292(a)(20)) DOE may prescribe test 

procedures for any product it classifies 

as a ‘‘covered product.’’ (42 U.S.C. 

6293(b)) 

II. Background 

On June 15, 2011, DOE published a 

notice of proposed determination that 

tentatively determined that STBs and 

network equipment qualify as a covered 

product. 76 FR at 34914. Subsequently, 

DOE initiated the rulemaking process to 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS