Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 190 / Wednesday, October 1, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 59089 

1To view the rule, supporting analyses, and 

comments we received, go to http://

www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS2012-0038. 

U.S. mango production (about 6.6 

million pounds per year) is equivalent 

to 0.2 percent of total imports. Most if 

not all mango farms are small entities in 

Florida, California, Texas, and Hawaii, 

where the fruit is primarily marketed 

locally. Any effect for these farms and 

for mango importers of additional fresh 

mango imports from the Philippines 

will be inconsequential, given the very 

small change expected to total imports. 

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 allows mangoes to be 

imported into the United States from the 

Philippines. State and local laws and 

regulations regarding mangoes imported 

under this rule will be preempted while 

the fruit is in foreign commerce. Fresh 

fruits are generally imported for 

immediate distribution and sale to the 

consuming public, and remain in 

foreign commerce until sold to the 

ultimate consumer. The question of 

when foreign commerce ceases in other 

cases must be addressed on a case-bycase basis. No retroactive effect will be 

given to this rule, and this rule will not 

require administrative proceedings 

before parties may file suit in court 

challenging this rule. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This final 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 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. Section 319.56–33 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a), (b), (d), and (e) 

to read as follows: 

§ 319.56–33 Mangoes from the Philippines. 

* * * * * 

(a) Limitation of origin. The mangoes 

must have been grown in an area that 

the Administrator has determined to be 

free of mango seed weevil (Sternochetus 

mangiferae) and mango pulp weevil 

(Sternochetus frigidus) in accordance 

with § 319.56–5 or be treated for mango 

seed weevil and mango pulp weevil in 

accordance with the requirements in 

paragraph (b) of this section. Mangoes 

from areas of the Philippines that are 

not free of mango seed weevil or that are 

not treated for mango seed weevil are 

eligible for importation into Hawaii and 

Guam only. 

(b) Treatment. The mangoes must be 

treated for fruit flies of the genus 

Bactrocera in accordance with part 305 

of this chapter. Mangoes from areas that 

are not considered to be free of mango 

pulp weevil in accordance with 

§ 319.56–5 must be treated for that pest 

in accordance with part 305 of this 

chapter. Mangoes from areas that are not 

considered to be free of mango seed 

weevil in accordance with § 319.56–5 

must be treated for that pest in 

accordance with part 305 of this chapter 

or they are eligible for importation into 

Hawaii and Guam only. 

* * * * * 

(d) Labeling. Each box of mangoes 

must be clearly labeled in accordance 

with § 319.56–5(e)(1). Consignments 

originating from areas that do not meet 

the requirements in paragraph (a) of this 

section for freedom from or treatment 

for mango seed weevil must be labeled 

‘‘For distribution in Guam and Hawaii 

only.’’ 

(e) Phytosanitary certificate. Mangoes 

originating from all approved areas must 

be accompanied by a phytosanitary 

certificate issued by the Republic of the 

Philippines Department of Agriculture 

that contains an additional declaration 

stating that the mangoes have been 

treated for fruit flies of the genus 

Bactrocera in accordance with 

paragraph (b) of this section either in 

the Philippines or at the port of first 

arrival within the United States. 

Phytosanitary certificates accompanying 

consignments of mangoes originating 

from pest-free mango growing areas 

within the Philippines must also 

contain an additional declaration stating 

that the mangoes were grown in an area 

that the Administrator has determined 

to be free of mango seed weevil and 

mango pulp weevil or have been treated 

in accordance with paragraph (b) of this 

section. 

* * * * * 

Done in Washington, DC, this 26th day of 

September 2014. 

Kevin Shea, 

Administrator, Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 2014–23406 Filed 9–30–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

7 CFR Part 319 

[Docket No. APHIS–2012–0038] 

RIN 0579–AD79 

Importation of Cape Gooseberry From 

Colombia Into the United States; 

Technical Amendment 

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Final rule; technical 

amendment. 

SUMMARY: In a final rule published in 

the Federal Register on May 2, 2014, 

and effective on June 2, 2014, we 

amended the fruits and vegetables 

regulations to allow the importation of 

cape gooseberry from Colombia into the 

United States under a systems approach. 

The final rule stated that capture of a 

Mediterranean fruit fly in a registered 

place of production would result in 

immediate cancellation of exports from 

farms within 5 square kilometers of the 

detection site. Our intent, however, was 

to specify that a Medfly detection would 

result in immediate cancellation of 

exports from farms within a 5 kilometer 

radius, rather than an area of 5 square 

kilometers. This document amends the 

regulations to reflect our intent. 

DATES: Effective Date: October 1, 2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Claudia Ferguson, Senior Regulatory 

Policy Specialist, Regulatory 

Coordination and Compliance, PPQ, 

APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 133, 

Riverdale, MD 20737–1236; (301) 851– 

2352. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a final 

rule 1 that was published in the Federal 

Register on May 2, 2014 (79 FR 24995– 

24997, Docket No. APHIS–2012–0038), 

and effective on June 2, 2014, we 

amended the fruits and vegetables 

regulations to add a section, § 319.56– 

67, that allows the importation of cape 

gooseberry (Physalis peruviana) from 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
59090 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 190 / Wednesday, October 1, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

Colombia into the United States under 

a systems approach. 

One of the provisions of the systems 

approach, found in paragraph (b)(1) of 

§ 319.56–67, required the cape 

gooseberry to be produced in places of 

production that are registered with the 

national plant protection organization 

(NPPO) of Colombia. Another, found in 

paragraph (c)(1) of § 319.56–67, required 

trapping for Mediterranean fruit fly 

(Medfly, Ceratitis capitata) at registered 

places of production. Finally, paragraph 

(c)(2) of § 319.56–67 specified that 

capture of Medfly at a registered place 

of production would result in 

immediate cancellation of exports from 

farms within 5 square kilometers of the 

detection site, and required an 

additional 50 traps to be placed in the 

5 square kilometer area surrounding the 

detection site. 

Our intent was to prohibit exports 

from farms within a 5 kilometer radius 

(78.54 square kilometers) of a detection 

site, rather than 5 square kilometers. 

Cancelling exports from within 5 square 

kilometers of the detection site, 

however, would prohibit exports only 

from within a 1.26 kilometer radius of 

the detection site. 

The additional trapping would have 

to occur in this 5 square kilometers area 

surrounding the detection site. In other 

words, our intent was to specify that 

additional trapping would have to occur 

in an area circumscribed by a larger area 

from which exports would be 

prohibited. Due to drafting errors, 

however, neither the rule nor its 

supporting documents reflected this 

intent. 

Accordingly, we are amending 

paragraph (c)(2) of § 319.56–67 to 

specify that capture of Medfly at a 

registered place of production will 

result in immediate cancellation of 

exports from farms within a 5 kilometer 

radius (78.54 square kilometers) of the 

detection site, and to specify that an 

additional 50 traps must be placed 

within an area with a 1.26 kilometer 

radius (5 square kilometers) 

surrounding the detection site. 

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. In § 319.56–67, paragraph (c)(2) is 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 319.56–67 Cape gooseberry from 

Colombia. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(2) All fruit flies trapped must be 

reported to APHIS immediately. Capture 

of C. capitata will result in immediate 

cancellation of exports from farms 

within a 5 kilometer radius (78.54 

square kilometers) of the detection site. 

An additional 50 traps must be placed 

within an area with a 1.26 kilometer 

radius (5 square kilometers) 

surrounding the detection site. If a 

second detection is made within 30 

days of a previous capture, eradication 

using a bait spray agreed upon by 

APHIS and the NPPO of Colombia must 

be initiated in the detection area. 

Treatment must continue for at least 2 

months. Exports may resume from the 

detection area when APHIS and the 

NPPO of Colombia agree the risk has 

been mitigated. 

* * * * * 

Done in Washington, DC, this 26th day of 

September 2014. 

Kevin Shea, 

Administrator, Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 2014–23402 Filed 9–30–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 431 

[Docket Number EERE–2014–BT–PET–0041] 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Certain Commercial and Industrial 

Equipment: Energy Conservation 

Standards for Walk-in Coolers and 

Freezers; Air-Conditioning, Heating, & 

Refrigeration Institute Petition for 

Reconsideration 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Petition for reconsideration; 

agency response. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy 

(DOE) received a petition from the AirConditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration 

Institute (AHRI), requesting that DOE 

reconsider its June 3, 2014 final rule 

setting energy conservation standards 

for walk-in coolers and freezers. AHRI 

sought reconsideration of the final rule 

based on its view that errors 

purportedly committed by DOE led to 

the adoption of standards that were 

neither technologically feasible nor 

economically justified. DOE is denying 

the petition. 

DATES: This denial is effective on 

October 1, 2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: 

John Cymbalsky, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, EE–5B, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121, (202) 

287–1692, or email: john.cymbalsky@

ee.doe.gov. 

Michael Kido, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of General Counsel, 

GC–71, 1000 Independence Avenue 

SW., Washington, DC 20585, (202) 

586–8145, email: Michael.Kido@

hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S. 

Department of Energy (DOE) received a 

petition from the Air-Conditioning, 

Heating, and Refrigeration Institute 

(AHRI) dated July 30, 2014, requesting 

that DOE reconsider its final rule setting 

energy conservation standards for walkin coolers and freezers (‘‘WICFs’’ or 

‘‘walk-ins’’). Energy Conservation 

Standards for Walk-In Coolers and 

Freezers, Docket No. EERE–2008–BT– 

STD–0015, RIN 1904–AB86, 79 FR 

32050 (June 3, 2014) (‘‘WICF Final 

Rule’’ or, in context, ‘‘the Rule’’). 

DOE adopted the WICF Final Rule in 

accordance with the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act of 1975, as amended 

(‘‘EPCA’’). EPCA, as amended, governs 

the manner in which DOE will 

implement its rulemaking process for 

prescribing energy conservation 

standards for various consumer 

products and certain commercial and 

industrial equipment. At issue in 

AHRI’s petition is the stringency of the 

energy conservation standards DOE 

adopted for refrigeration systems of 

WICFs. Those standards relied in part 

on certain modifications made to the 

walk-in test procedure that DOE 

adopted to ease the testing burden on 

refrigeration system manufacturers. See 

79 FR 27387 (May 14, 2014). DOE 

determined these standards would 

result in the significant conservation of 

energy and are technologically feasible 

and economically justified, thereby 

meeting the statutorily required 

elements for an energy conservation 

standard. 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A). AHRI 

asserted that the standards adopted by 

DOE for walk-in refrigeration systems 

were based on what AHRI characterizes 

as ‘‘errors’’ that resulted in standards 

that were neither technologically 

feasible nor economically justified. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES