Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2013 / Notices 68021 

goods at ports of entry into the United 

States. We have determined that it is no 

longer appropriate or necessary to take 

such action on some plant pests on 

which we had been taking action at 

ports of entry because we are not taking 

any regulatory action on those same 

pests when we find them in interstate 

movement, due to our scientific 

determination that we do not need to 

mitigate their pest risk. This process 

relieves restrictions that are no longer 

needed and ensures that actions taken 

on plant pests found in imported goods 

are consistent with the actions we take 

on those same pests when they appear 

in interstate commerce. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

David B. Lamb, Regulatory Policy 

Specialist, RPM, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 

River Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 

20737–1231; (301) 851–2018; or Ms. 

Diane L. Schuble, National Coordinator 

for Official Control, Pest Detection and 

Emergency Programs, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 

River Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 

20737–1237; (301) 851–2334. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the 

Plant Protection Act, as amended (PPA, 

7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.), the Secretary of 

Agriculture is authorized to take such 

actions as may be necessary to prevent 

the introduction and spread of plant 

pests within the United States. The 

Secretary has delegated this 

responsibility to the Administrator of 

the Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service (APHIS). 

Pursuant to the PPA, when the 

Secretary considers it necessary to 

prevent the dissemination of a plant 

pest that is new to or not known to be 

widely prevalent or distributed within 

and throughout the United States, the 

Secretary may hold, seize, quarantine, 

treat, apply other remedial measures to, 

destroy, or otherwise dispose of any 

plant, plant pest, noxious weed, 

biological control organism, plant 

product, article, or means of conveyance 

that, among other things, is moving into 

the United States and that the Secretary 

has reason to believe is infested with a 

plant pest at the time of the movement. 

Under this PPA authority, consignments 

of imported articles are inspected at the 

port of entry to determine whether plant 

pests are associated with them and, if 

so, prescribe remedial measures as 

described in the Act. APHIS typically 

refers to prescribing measures to address 

the pest risk as ‘‘taking action’’ at the 

port of entry to prevent a plant pest 

from being introduced into or further 

disseminated within the United States. 

Pests that are subject to such actions are 

referred to as ‘‘actionable pests.’’ 

APHIS determines whether a pest is 

actionable based on its novelty and 

known prevalence or distribution 

within and throughout the United 

States, its potential harm to U.S. 

agricultural, environmental, or other 

resources, and the need to mitigate its 

pest risk, if any. However, after APHIS 

determines that a pest is actionable, 

circumstances may change, and it may 

no longer be necessary or be an effective 

use of resources to take action on the 

pest at ports of entry. For example, a 

bacterium could cause disease in a 

plant, but also could have become 

widespread in the United States, making 

any future control efforts ineffective and 

a waste of limited resources. We may 

lack effective control methods for an 

insect pest that is present in the United 

States, which would result in taking 

action that will likely not prevent the 

pest from causing damage but will 

continue to expend limited resources. 

Or, for example, a mealybug could 

damage certain plants, but additional 

experience with the pest may reveal that 

the damage is not of sufficient plant pest 

risk or economic importance to merit 

action at the port of entry. These 

circumstances often mean that no 

restrictions are placed on the interstate 

movement of articles infested with these 

pests when the articles are moved 

interstate. It is important to make the 

actions we take at the port of entry 

consistent with the actions taken in 

interstate movement, to maintain a 

uniform and consistent pest risk 

safeguarding and trade policy. 

To ensure that we are taking action at 

the ports of entry only when such action 

is warranted, APHIS has started to 

assess currently actionable plant pests 

that are present in the United States to 

determine which specific pests we 

should continue to take action on at the 

port of entry. The assessment is based 

on a number of factors, including: 

• The extent of the pest’s distribution 

in the United States; 

• The pest’s impacts on the economy 

(including its potential impacts on 

export markets), agricultural 

production, and the environment; 

• The scientific knowledge we have 

about the pest and the risk it poses; and 

• The availability and effectiveness of 

control or eradication tools for the pest. 

After we have completed our 

assessment, we share the information 

with the National Plant Board, a group 

of State plant health agencies. The 

States conduct their own reviews and 

provide additional information to help 

inform APHIS’ decisionmaking. For 

example, States may have additional 

information on the presence or 

distribution of a pest in their States, on 

the damage that pest causes, or potential 

control tools. 

After reviewing the information 

provided by the States, APHIS makes a 

decision on whether to continue taking 

action at ports of entry to mitigate the 

risk associated with a specific plant 

pest. Data leading to the decisions are 

documented in letters that are available 

on the Web at http://

www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/

plant_pest_info/frsmp/non-regpests.shtml. As of September 2013, 

APHIS has determined that 71 pests on 

which we had been taking action at 

ports of entry to address their risk no 

longer qualify under the PPA as 

requiring such action. 

Done in Washington, DC, this 6th day of 

November 2013. 

Kevin Shea, 

Administrator, Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 2013–27132 Filed 11–12–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

[Docket No. APHIS–2013–0007] 

Notice of Affirmation of Addition of a 

Treatment Schedule for Methyl 

Bromide Fumigation of Blueberries 

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: We are affirming our earlier 

determination that it was necessary to 

immediately add to the Plant Protection 

and Quarantine Treatment Manual a 

treatment schedule for methyl bromide 

fumigation of blueberries for 

Mediterranean fruit fly and South 

American fruit fly. In a previous notice, 

we made available to the public for 

review and comment a treatment 

evaluation document that described the 

new treatment schedule and explained 

why we have determined that it is 

effective at neutralizing these fruit flies. 

DATES: Effective Date: Effective on 

November 13, 2013, we are affirming the 

addition to the Plant Protection and 

Quarantine Treatment Manual of the 

treatment described in the notice 

published at 78 FR 36507–36508 on 

June 18, 2013. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Inder P.S. Gadh, Senior Risk Manager– 

Treatments, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River 

Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737; 

(301) 851–2018. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
68022 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 219 / Wednesday, November 13, 2013 / Notices 

1The Treatment Manual is available on the 

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

import_export/plants/manuals/index.shtml or by 

contacting the Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine, Manuals 

Unit, 92 Thomas Johnson Drive, Suite 200, 

Frederick, MD 21702. 

2To view the notice and the treatment evaluation 

document, go to http://www.regulations.gov/ 

#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2013-0007. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

regulations in 7 CFR chapter III are 

intended, among other things, to 

prevent the introduction or 

dissemination of plant pests and 

noxious weeds into or within the United 

States. Under those regulations, certain 

plants, fruits, vegetables, and other 

articles must be treated before they may 

be moved into the United States or 

interstate. The phytosanitary treatments 

regulations in part 305 of 7 CFR chapter 

III set out standards for treatments 

required in parts 301, 318, and 319 of 

7 CFR chapter III for fruits, vegetables, 

and other articles. 

In § 305.2, paragraph (b) states that 

approved treatment schedules are set 

out in the Plant Protection and 

Quarantine (PPQ) Treatment Manual.1

Section 305.3 sets out a process for 

adding, revising, or removing treatment 

schedules in the PPQ Treatment 

Manual. In that section, paragraph (b) 

sets out the process for adding, revising, 

or removing treatment schedules when 

there is an immediate need to make a 

change. The circumstances in which an 

immediate need exists are described in 

§ 305.3(b)(1). They are: 

• PPQ has determined that an 

approved treatment schedule is 

ineffective at neutralizing the targeted 

plant pest(s). 

• PPQ has determined that, in order 

to neutralize the targeted plant pest(s), 

the treatment schedule must be 

administered using a different process 

than was previously used. 

• PPQ has determined that a new 

treatment schedule is effective, based on 

efficacy data, and that ongoing trade in 

a commodity or commodities may be 

adversely impacted unless the new 

treatment schedule is approved for use. 

• The use of a treatment schedule is 

no longer authorized by the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency or by 

any other Federal entity. 

In accordance with § 305.3(b), we 

published a notice 2 in the Federal 

Register on June 18, 2013 (78 FR 36507– 

36508, Docket No. APHIS–2013–0007), 

announcing our determination that a 

new methyl bromide treatment schedule 

to mitigate risk from two fruit fly 

species, Ceratitis capitata 

(Mediterranean fruit fly) and 

Anastrepha fraterculus (South 

American fruit fly) is effective, based on 

evidence presented in a treatment 

evaluation document (TED) we made 

available with the notice. We also 

determined that the ongoing trade of 

blueberries would be adversely 

impacted unless the new treatment 

schedule is approved for use. The 

treatment was added to the PPQ 

Treatment Manual, but was subject to 

change or removal based on public 

comment. 

We solicited comments on the notice 

for 60 days ending August 19, 2013. We 

received no comments by that date. 

Therefore, in accordance with the 

regulations in § 305.3(b)(3), we are 

affirming our addition of a methyl 

bromide treatment schedule to mitigate 

risk from C. capitata and A. fraterculus, 

as described in the TED made available 

with the previous notice. The treatment 

schedule is numbered T101-i-1–2. The 

treatment schedule will be listed in the 

PPQ Treatment Manual, which is 

available as described in footnote 1 of 

this document. 

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. 

Done in Washington, DC, this 6th day of 

November 2013. 

Kevin Shea, 

Administrator, Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 2013–27134 Filed 11–12–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Rural Business-Cooperative Service 

Notice of Request for Extension of a 

Currently Approved Information 

Collection 

AGENCY: Rural Business-Cooperative 

Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Proposed collection; comments 

requested. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this 

notice announces the Rural BusinessCooperative Service’s intention to 

request an extension for a currently 

approved information collection in 

support of the program for 7 CFR part 

4284, subpart G, Rural Business 

Opportunity Grant Program. 

DATES: Comments on this notice must be 

received by January 13, 2014 to be 

considered. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Chad Parker, Deputy Administrator, 

Rural Business-Cooperative Service, 

USDA, Room 4016-South, MS 3252, 

1400 Independence Ave. SW., 

Washington, DC 20250. Telephone: 

(202) 720–7558, Email chad.parker@

wdc.usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Title: Rural Business Opportunity 

Grants. 

OMB Number: 0570–0024. 

Expiration Date of Approval: March 

31, 2014. 

Type of Request: Extension of a 

currently approved information 

collection. 

Abstract: The objective of the Rural 

Business Opportunity Grant (RBOG) 

program is to promote sustainable 

economic development in rural areas. 

This purpose is achieved through grants 

made by the Rural Business-Cooperative 

Service (RBS) to public bodies, nonprofit corporations, Indian Tribes on 

Federal or State reservations and other 

Federally-recognized tribal groups, and 

cooperatives whose members are 

primarily rural residents to pay costs of 

economic development planning and 

technical assistance for rural businesses. 

The regulations contain various 

requirements for information from grant 

applicants and recipients. The 

information requested is necessary for 

RBS to be able to process applications 

in a responsible manner, make prudent 

program decisions, and effectively 

monitor the grantees’ activities to ensure 

that funds obtained from the 

Government are used appropriately. 

Objectives include gathering 

information to determine the eligibility 

and financial capability of the applicant, 

to determine the eligibility of the 

proposed use of funds, to assess the 

quality of the project for evaluation and 

grant selection, and to monitor grantees 

to ensure funds are used in accordance 

with approved scopes of work and 

applicable laws and regulations. 

Estimate of Burden: Public reporting 

burden for this collection of information 

is estimated to average 7.4 hours per 

response. 

Respondents: Public bodies, nonprofit corporations, Indian Tribes on 

Federal and State reservations and other 

Federally-recognized tribal groups, and 

cooperatives whose members are 

primarily rural residents. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

267. 

Estimated Number of Responses per 

Respondent: 9. 

Estimated Number of Responses: 

1971. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden on 

Respondents: 17,842.25. 

Copies of this information collection 

can be obtained from Jeanne Jacobs, 

Regulations and Paperwork 

Management Branch, (202) 692–0040. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES