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

27864 

Vol. 78, No. 92 

Monday, May 13, 2013 

1The PPQ Treatment Manual is available at 

(http://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/plants/ 

manuals/ports/downloads/treatment.pdf). 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

7 CFR Part 305 

[Docket No. APHIS–2012–0089] 

Cold Treatment for Fresh Fruits and 

Vegetables; MidAmerica St. Louis 

Airport, Mascoutah, IL 

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: We are proposing to allow, 

under certain conditions, the cold 

treatment of imported fruits and 

vegetables upon arrival at the 

MidAmerica St. Louis Airport, 

Mascoutah, IL. We have determined that 

there are biological barriers at this port 

that, along with certain safeguards, 

would prevent the introduction of fruit 

flies and other insect pests into the 

United States in the unlikely event that 

they escape from shipments of fruits or 

vegetables before the fruits or vegetables 

undergo cold treatment. This action 

would facilitate the importation of fruit 

requiring cold treatment while 

continuing to provide protection against 

the introduction of fruit flies and other 

insect pests into the United States. 

DATES: We will consider all comments 

that we receive on or before July 12, 

2013. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by either of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov/ 

#!documentDetail;D=APHIS-2012-0089- 

0001. 

• Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: 

Send your comment to Docket No. 

APHIS–2012–0089, 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-2012-0089 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 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: Dr. 

Inder P. S. Gadh, Senior Risk Manager— 

Treatments, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River 

Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737– 

1236; (301) 851–2018. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The phytosanitary treatments 

regulations in 7 CFR part 305 set out 

general requirements for certifying or 

approving treatment facilities and for 

performing treatments listed in the Plant 

Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) 

Treatment Manual 1 for fruits, 

vegetables, and other articles to prevent 

the introduction or dissemination of 

plant pests or noxious weeds into or 

through the United States. Within part 

305, § 305.6 (referred to below as the 

regulations) sets out requirements for 

treatment procedures, monitoring, 

facilities, and enclosures needed for 

performing sustained refrigeration (cold 

treatment) sufficient to kill certain 

insect pests associated with imported 

fruits and vegetables and with regulated 

articles moved interstate from 

quarantined areas within the United 

States. 

Most imported fruits or vegetables 

that require cold treatment undergo that 

treatment while in transit to the United 

States. However, the Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service (APHIS) also 

allows imported fruits or vegetables to 

undergo cold treatment at an approved 

cold treatment facility in either the 

country of origin or after arrival in the 

United States at a cold storage 

warehouse approved by the APHIS 

Administrator. 

In § 305.6, paragraph (b) limits cold 

treatment facilities to those cold storage 

warehouses approved by the 

Administrator and located in the area 

north of 39° latitude and east of 104° 

longitude, or under special conditions at 

one of the following ports, which are 

outside the geographic area stipulated in 

the regulations: The maritime ports of 

Wilmington, NC; Seattle, WA; Corpus 

Christi, TX; and Gulfport, MS; SeattleTacoma International Airport, Seattle, 

WA; and Hartsfield-Atlanta 

International Airport, Atlanta, GA. The 

location restrictions serve as an 

additional safeguard against the 

possibility that fruit flies or other pests 

could escape from imported articles 

prior to treatment and become 

established in the United States. 

As stated previously, the regulations 

do allow cold treatment facilities to be 

located outside the geographical area 

stipulated by the regulations. In order to 

approve those locations, APHIS 

conducts site-specific evaluations and 

determines whether regulated articles 

can be safely transported to cold 

treatment facilities under special 

conditions to mitigate the possible 

escape of pests of concern. 

Proposed Additional Port 

APHIS has received a petition from 

North Bay Produce, Inc., to designate 

the MidAmerica St. Louis Airport, 

Mascoutah, IL, as an approved location 

for the cold treatment of imported fruits 

or vegetables. In addition, some 

importers of fruits and vegetables have 

shown considerable interest in locating 

cold treatment facilities in places that 

are not currently allowed under the 

regulations. Currently, no cold 

treatment facilities are available near the 

proposed location. An APHIS-approved 

cold treatment facility in this location 

would allow importers to treat fruits 

and vegetables arriving from foreign 

locations and requiring a treatment to 

meet U.S. entry requirements. 

In response to this request, we are 

proposing to add the MidAmerica St. 

Louis Airport, Mascoutah, IL, to the list 

of ports that are designated as approved 

locations for cold treatment of imported 

fruits or vegetables. This proposal is 

based on our determination that there 

are biological barriers in the area of this 

port that, along with certain safeguards, 

would prevent the introduction of fruit 

flies and other insect pests in the 

unlikely event that they escape from 

shipments of fruits or vegetables before 

the fruits or vegetables undergo cold 

treatment. 

To support this action, we have 

prepared a treatment evaluation 

document (TED) entitled ‘‘Allowing a 

new cold treatment facility at 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 92 / Monday, May 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules 27865 

Mascoutah, Illinois, located outside the 

area currently authorized.’’ Copies of 

the TED may be obtained from the 

person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT and may be 

viewed on the Internet on the 

Regulations.gov Web site or in our 

reading room (see ADDRESSES above for 

instructions for accessing 

Regulations.gov and the location and 

hours of the reading room). In the TED, 

we concluded that the pest risks posed 

by the establishment of a cold treatment 

facility at the MidAmerica St. Louis 

Airport, Mascoutah, IL, outside of the 

area north of 39° latitude and east of 

104° longitude, can be adequately 

managed through use of special 

conditions to mitigate the possible 

escape of pests of concern. 

Special Conditions for the MidAmerica 

St. Louis Airport, Mascoutah, IL 

In addition to the general 

requirements in § 305.6(a) through (g) of 

the regulations concerning cold 

treatment, we are proposing to apply the 

following requirements to cold 

treatment conducted at the MidAmerica 

St. Louis Airport, Mascoutah, IL. These 

requirements would be added to the 

regulations as a new paragraph (h)(5) of 

§ 305.6. 

In paragraph (h)(5)(i) of § 305.6, we 

are proposing that bulk and 

containerized consignments of fruits or 

vegetables arriving for cold treatment 

would have to be cold treated within the 

area over which the U.S. Department of 

Homeland Security is assigned the 

authority to accept entries of 

merchandise, to collect duties, and to 

enforce the various provisions of the 

customs and navigation laws in force. 

Under this proposal, paragraph 

(h)(5)(ii) would lay out a number of 

conditions that any proposed facility 

would have to meet, which would be 

agreed upon by the involved parties and 

included in the facility compliance 

agreement required under paragraph (f) 

of § 305.6. These conditions, which are 

described below, would be listed in 

paragraphs (h)(5)(ii)(A) through 

(h)(5)(ii)(F). 

• The facility would only be certified 

if APHIS determines that regulated 

articles would be safely transported to 

the facility from the port of arrival 

without significant risk that plant pests 

will escape in transit or while the 

regulated articles are at the facility. 

• Bulk consignments (those 

consignments which are stowed and 

unloaded by the case or bin) of fruit 

would have to arrive in pest-proof 

packaging that prevents the escape of 

the pests of concern. 

• The facility would have to ensure 

that the pest-proof cartons are off-loaded 

from containers in a safeguarded 

environment and at no time would the 

articles be removed from the cartons 

prior to treatment. 

• Arrangements for treatment would 

have to be made before the departure of 

a consignment from its port of entry or 

points of origin in the United States. 

The cold treatment facility and APHIS 

must agree in advance on the route by 

which consignments are allowed to 

move between the aircraft on which 

they arrived at the airport and the cold 

treatment facility. The movement of 

consignments from aircraft to a cold 

treatment facility will not be allowed 

until an acceptable route has been 

agreed upon. 

• The facility would have to have 

contingency plans, approved by the 

APHIS Administrator, for safely 

destroying or disposing of fruit. 

• The facility would have to maintain 

physical separation of treated articles 

from untreated articles and apply all 

required safeguards (e.g., larger 

consignments are broken up into 

smaller boxes following treatment and 

those treated articles are required to be 

packaged in pest-proof containers per an 

agreement between the treatment 

facility and the importer) before 

releasing to local markets or for 

movement to other States. 

We believe that the mitigation 

measures described above, which are 

based on safeguards in place for other 

cold treatment facilities, would prevent 

the introduction of fruit flies and other 

plant pests that may be in shipments of 

fruits or vegetables arriving at the 

MidAmerica St. Louis Airport, 

Mascoutah, IL, for cold treatment. 

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

This proposed rule is subject to 

Executive Order 12866. However, for 

this action, the Office of Management 

and Budget has waived its review under 

Executive Order 12866. 

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 603, we 

have performed an initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis, which is 

summarized below, regarding the 

economic effects of this proposed rule 

on small entities. 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 

ADDRESSES above for instructions for 

accessing Regulations.gov). 

Based on the information we have, 

there is no reason to conclude that 

adoption of this proposed rule would 

result in any significant economic effect 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. However, we do not currently 

have all of the data necessary for a 

comprehensive analysis of the effects of 

this proposed rule on small entities. 

Therefore, we are inviting comments on 

potential effects. In particular, we are 

interested in determining the number 

and kind of small entities that may 

incur benefits or costs from the 

implementation of this proposed rule. 

This proposed rule would amend the 

regulations to allow a new cold 

treatment facility to be located at 

MidAmerica St. Louis Airport, 

Mascoutah, Illinois. The facility is 

expected to be used mainly to treat 

imported blueberries. While most, if not 

all, blueberry farms in the United States 

are small entities, we do not expect the 

rule to significantly affect the market for 

blueberries because the proposed 

facility is not projected to result in a 

significant increase in the quantity of 

blueberries imported into the United 

States. The United States is the world’s 

largest producer of blueberries and U.S. 

blueberry exports exceed imports fourfold. 

The proposed cold treatment facility 

is expected to benefit the MidAmerica 

St. Louis Airport and the local economy. 

The facility is expected to result in at 

least 800 flights of produce requiring 

cold treatment per year, raising at least 

$8 million in direct income for the 

airport. MidAmerica St. Louis Airport is 

classified as a small entity within the 

NAICS category of Other Airport 

Operations (NAICS 488119), for which 

the small-entity standard is annual 

revenue of not more than $30 million. 

Our initial regulatory flexibility analysis 

discusses the expected positive 

economic effects of the rule for the 

MidAmerica St. Louis Airport and 

related local businesses. 

Executive Order 12372 

This program/activity is listed in the 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

under No. 10.025 and is subject to 

Executive Order 12372, which requires 

intergovernmental consultation with 

State and local officials. (See 7 CFR part 

3015, subpart V.) 

Executive Order 12988 

This proposed rule has been reviewed 

under Executive Order 12988, Civil 

Justice Reform. If this proposed rule is 

adopted: (1) All State and local laws and 

regulations that are inconsistent with 

this rule will be preempted; (2) no 

retroactive effect will be given to this 

rule; and (3) administrative proceedings 

will not be required before parties may 

file suit in court challenging this rule. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
27866 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 92 / Monday, May 13, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This proposed rule contains no 

information collection or recordkeeping 

requirements under the Paperwork 

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

et seq.). 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 305 

Irradiation, Phytosanitary treatment, 

Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Accordingly, we propose to amend 7 

CFR part 305 as follows: 

PART 305—PHYTOSANITARY 

TREATMENTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 305 

continues to read as follows: 

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

7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 

2.80, and 371.3. 

■ 2. Section 305.6 is amended as 

follows: 

■ a. In paragraph (b), by adding the 

words ‘‘MidAmerica St. Louis Airport, 

Mascoutah, IL;’’ after the words 

‘‘Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, 

Seattle, WA;’’ and 

■ b. By adding a new paragraph (h)(5) to 

read as set forth below. 

§ 305.6 Cold treatment requirements. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

(5) Airport of Mascoutah, IL. 

Consignments of fruits or vegetables 

arriving at the MidAmerica St. Louis 

Airport, Mascoutah, IL, for cold 

treatment, in addition to meeting all 

other applicable requirements of this 

section, must meet the following special 

conditions: 

(i) Bulk and containerized 

consignments of fruits or vegetables 

arriving for cold treatment must be cold 

treated within the area over which the 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

is assigned the authority to accept 

entries of merchandise, to collect duties, 

and to enforce the various provisions of 

the customs and navigation laws in 

force. 

(ii) APHIS will evaluate facility 

safeguards in light of the plant health 

risks involved and approve the 

operation of a facility in that location 

subject to the following conditions to be 

agreed upon by the involved parties and 

included in the compliance agreement 

required in § 305.6(f): 

(A) The facility will only be certified 

if the Administrator determines that the 

regulated articles could be safely 

transported to the facility from the point 

of entry or origin without significant 

risk that plant pests will escape in 

transit to the facility or while the 

regulated articles are at the facility. 

(B) Bulk consignments (those 

consignments which are stowed and 

unloaded by the case or bin) of fruit 

must arrive in pest-proof packaging that 

prevents the escape of the pests of 

concern. 

(C) The facility must ensure that the 

pest-proof cartons are off-loaded from 

containers in a safeguarded 

environment and at no time are the 

articles to be removed from the cartons 

prior to treatment. 

(D) Arrangements for treatment must 

be made before the departure of a 

consignment from its port of entry or 

points of origin in the United States. 

The cold treatment facility and APHIS 

must agree in advance on the route by 

which consignments are allowed to 

move between the aircraft on which 

they arrived at the airport and the cold 

treatment facility. The movement of 

consignments from aircraft to a cold 

treatment facility will not be allowed 

until an acceptable route has been 

agreed upon. 

(E) The facility must have 

contingency plans, approved by the 

Administrator, for safely destroying or 

disposing of fruits or vegetables. 

(F) The facility must maintain 

physical separation of treated articles 

from untreated articles and apply all 

required safeguards (e.g., larger 

consignments are broken up into 

smaller boxes following treatment and 

those treated articles are required to be 

packaged in pest-proof containers per an 

agreement between the treatment 

facility and the importer) before 

releasing to local markets or for 

movement to other States. 

Done in Washington, DC, this May 8, 2013. 

Kevin Shea, 

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 2013–11322 Filed 5–10–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 429 

[EERE–2013–BT–NOC–0023] 

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking 

Federal Advisory Committee: Notice of 

Open Meeting for the Commercial 

HVAC, WH, and Refrigeration 

Certification Working Group 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of open meeting. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces an 

open meeting of the Commercial 

Heating, Ventilation, and Airconditioning (HVAC), Water Heating 

(WH), and Refrigeration Certification 

Working Group (Commercial 

Certification Group). The purpose of the 

Commercial Certification Group is to 

undertake a negotiated rulemaking to 

discuss and, if possible, reach 

consensus on proposed certification and 

compliance requirements for 

commercial HVAC, WH, and 

refrigeration equipment, as authorized 

by the Energy Policy and Conservation 

Act of 1975, as amended. 

DATES: A two-day, open meeting will be 

held on: 

Tuesday, May 14, 2013, 10 a.m.–6 p.m. 

(EDT) and 

Wednesday, May 15, 2013, 8 a.m.–3 

p.m. (EDT). 

ADDRESSES: U.S. Department of Energy, 

Forrestal Building, Room 8E–089, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585. Individuals will 

also have the opportunity to participate 

by webinar. To register for the webinar 

and receive call-in information, please 

register for Tuesday at https://www1.go

tomeeting.com/register/877431528 and 

for Wednesday at https://www1.goto

meeting.com/register/300061736. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Cymbalsky, ASRAC Designated Federal 

Officer, Supervisory Operations 

Research Analyst, U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE), Office of Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 950 

L’Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC, 

20024. Email: asrac@ee.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Purpose of Meeting: To provide 

advice and recommendations to the U.S. 

Department of Energy on certification 

and compliance requirements of 

commercial HVAC, WH, and 

refrigeration equipment under the 

authority of the Negotiated Rulemaking 

Act (5 U.S.C. 561–570, Pub. L. 104–320). 

Tentative Agenda: (Subject to 

change): 

• Finalize and vote on Working 

Group’s ground rules; 

• Finalize and vote on Working 

Group’s scope; 

• Discuss Alternative Efficiency 

Determination Methods (AEDM) for 

commercial HVAC, WH, and 

refrigeration equipment; and 

• Discuss model groupings for 

determination of ratings. 

Public Participation: Members of the 

public are welcome to observe the 

business of the meeting and, if time 

allows, may make oral statements 

during the specified period for public 

comment. To attend the meeting and/or 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS