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

1 To 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 othercases 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


### 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 settingenergy 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.