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

49972 

Vol. 78, No. 159 

Friday, August 16, 2013 

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 

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: We are proposing to amend 

the fruits and vegetables regulations to 

allow the importation of cape 

gooseberry from Colombia into the 

United States. As a condition of entry, 

cape gooseberry from Colombia would 

be subject to a systems approach that 

would include requirements for 

establishment of pest-free places of 

production and the labeling of boxes 

prior to shipping. The cape gooseberry 

would also have to be imported in 

commercial consignments and 

accompanied by a phytosanitary 

certificate issued by the national plant 

protection organization of Colombia 

certifying that the fruit has been 

produced in accordance with the 

systems approach. This action would 

allow for the importation of cape 

gooseberry from Colombia into the 

United States while continuing to 

provide protection against the 

introduction of plant pests. 

DATES: We will consider all comments 

that we receive on or before October 15, 

2013. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by either of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov/#!document

Detail;D=APHIS-2012-0038-0001. 

• Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: 

Send your comment to Docket No. 

APHIS–2012–0038, 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-2012-0038 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: Ms. 

Claudia Ferguson, Regulatory Policy 

Specialist, Regulatory Coordination and 

Compliance, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River 

Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737– 

1236; (301) 851–2352. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background 

The regulations in ‘‘Subpart—Fruits 

and Vegetables’’ (7 CFR 319.56–1 

through 319.56–59, referred to below as 

the regulations) prohibit or restrict the 

importation of fruits and vegetables into 

the United States from certain parts of 

the world to prevent the introduction 

and dissemination of plant pests that are 

new to or not widely distributed within 

the United States. 

Cape gooseberry (Physalis peruviana) 

from Colombia is authorized for 

importation into the United States if the 

commodity is treated with a cold 

treatment for Mediterranean fruit fly 

(Ceratitis capitata or Medfly). The 

national plant protection organization 

(NPPO) of Colombia has requested that 

the Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service (APHIS) amend the regulations 

to allow commercial consignments of 

cape gooseberry fruit from production 

sites recognized as free of Medfly in the 

Bogota Savannah and the neighboring 

municipalities above 2,200 meters of 

elevation in the Departments of Boyaca ́

and Cundinamarca without cold 

treatment. 

In response to the request of the 

NPPO of Colombia, we prepared a 

commodity import evaluation document 

(CIED) titled ‘‘Recognition of cape 

gooseberry production sites that are free 

of Mediterranean fruit fly within a low 

prevalence area in Colombia Bogota 

Savannah and the neighboring 

municipalities above 2,200 meters in the 

Departments of Boyaca ́ and 

Cundinamarca.’’ The CIED may be 

viewed on the Regulations.gov Web site 

or in our reading room (see ADDRESSES

above for instructions for accessing 

Regulations.gov and information on the 

location and hours of the reading room). 

You may request paper copies of the 

CIED by calling or writing to the person 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

Based on the evidence presented in 

the CIED, we have determined that cape 

gooseberry can be safely imported from 

Colombia into the United States without 

cold treatment if they are produced in 

accordance with a systems approach. 

We are proposing to add the systems 

approach outlined below to the 

regulations in a new § 319.56–60 

governing the importation of cape 

gooseberry from Colombia. 

Proposed Systems Approach 

General Requirements 

Paragraph (a) of proposed § 319.56–60 

would require the NPPO of Colombia to 

provide a bilateral workplan to APHIS 

that details the activities the NPPO will 

carry out to meet the requirements of 

the systems approach, subject to APHIS’ 

approval of the workplan. APHIS would 

be directly involved with the NPPO in 

monitoring and auditing 

implementation of the systems 

approach. A bilateral workplan is an 

agreement between APHIS’ Plant 

Protection and Quarantine program, 

officials of the NPPO of a foreign 

government, and, when necessary, 

foreign commercial entities that 

specifies in detail the phytosanitary 

measures that will be carried out to 

comply with our regulations regarding a 

specific commodity. Bilateral workplans 

apply only to the signatory parties and 

establish detailed procedures and 

guidance for the day-to-day operations 

of specific import/export programs. 

Bilateral workplans also establish how 

specific phytosanitary issues are dealt 

with in the exporting country and make 

clear who is responsible for dealing 

with those issues. The implementation 

of a systems approach typically requires 

a bilateral workplan to be developed. 

Places of Production Requirements 

Paragraph (b)(1) of proposed § 319.56– 

60 would specify that all places of 

production be registered with the NPPO 

of Colombia. Under paragraph (b)(2) of 

proposed § 319.56–60, all places of 

production would have to be located 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 159 / Friday, August 16, 2013 / Proposed Rules 49973 

within the C. capitata low prevalence 

area of the Bogota Savannah and the 

neighboring municipalities above 2,200 

meters in the Departments of Boyaca ́

and Cundinamarca. APHIS has 

reviewed and approved the methods 

used by the NPPO of Colombia to survey 

for low pest prevalence and to recognize 

specific places of production as free of 

Medfly in the specified areas. Pest-free 

places of production within certified 

low pest prevalence areas have been 

effectively used in the past as an 

element of a systems approach to allow 

fruits to be safely imported into the 

United States, and we believe this 

measure can be successfully applied to 

the importation of cape gooseberry from 

Colombia. 

Mitigation Measures for Medfly 

Only one fruit fly has been trapped in 

the low prevalence area in Bogota 

Savannah and the neighboring 

municipalities above 2,200 meters since 

1993. Therefore, we propose using 

trapping to monitor the places of 

production within the low prevalence 

area described above as an element of 

the systems approach to mitigate the 

risk posed by Medfly. 

In paragraph (c)(1) of proposed 

§ 319.56–60, we would require the 

NPPO of Colombia to place fruit fly 

traps at intervals specified in the 

bilateral work plan to demonstrate place 

of production freedom from Medfly. The 

NPPO of Colombia would have to keep 

records of fruit fly detections for each 

trap and make the records available to 

APHIS upon request. 

Paragraph (c)(2) would specify that 

the trapping of any Medfly would have 

to be reported to APHIS immediately. 

Capture of C. capitata would result in 

immediate cancellation of exports from 

farms within 5 square kilometers (km2) 

of the detection site. An additional 50 

traps would have to be placed in the 5 

km2 area surrounding the detection site. 

If a second detection is made within 

that 5 km2 area within 30 days of the 

first, eradication using a bait spray 

agreed upon by APHIS and the NPPO of 

Colombia would have to be initiated in 

the detection area and treatment would 

have to continue for at least 2 months. 

Exports could resume from the 

detection area when APHIS and the 

NPPO of Colombia agree the risk has 

been mitigated. These requirements 

would ensure that production sites are 

monitored, that no fruit is shipped from 

sites where Medfly has been detected, 

and that the presence of Medfly is 

addressed quickly and definitively. 

Post-Harvest Procedures 

Under paragraph (d) of proposed 

§ 319.56–60, the cape gooseberries 

would have to be packed in boxes 

marked with the identity of the 

originating farm. This measure would 

allow shipments of the fruit to be traced 

back to the farm in the event of the 

discovery of a pest. The boxes 

containing cape gooseberries would 

have to be packed in sealed and closed 

containers before being shipped in order 

to prevent harvested fruit from being 

infested by quarantine pests. 

Phytosanitary Inspection 

Paragraph (e) would state that, after 

the commodity is packed, the NPPO of 

Colombia must visually inspect a 

biometric sample of cape gooseberry at 

a rate jointly approved by APHIS and 

the NPPO of Colombia and cut open the 

fruit to detect C. capitata. External and 

internal inspection of a sample would 

ensure that pests at various life stages 

are detected. 

Commercial Consignments 

Paragraph (f) would state that only 

commercial consignments of cape 

gooseberry would be allowed to be 

imported. Commercial consignments, as 

defined in § 319.56–2, are consignments 

that an inspector identifies as having 

been imported for sale and distribution. 

Such identification is based on a variety 

of indicators, including, but not limited 

to: Quantity of produce, type of 

packaging, identification of grower or 

packinghouse on the packaging, and 

documents consigning the fruits or 

vegetables to a wholesaler or retailer. 

Produce grown commercially is less 

likely to be infested with plant pests 

than noncommercial consignments. 

Noncommercial consignments are more 

prone to infestations because the 

commodity is often ripe to overripe, 

could be of a variety with unknown 

susceptibility to pests, and is often 

grown with little or no pest control. 

Phytosanitary Certificate 

Paragraph (g) would set out the 

requirement for a phytosanitary 

certificate. Each consignment of fruit 

would have to be accompanied by a 

phytosanitary certificate issued by the 

NPPO of Colombia, providing an 

additional declaration stating that the 

fruit in the consignment was produced 

in accordance with the requirements in 

proposed § 319.56–60. This requirement 

would provide for the Colombian 

NPPO’s confirmation that the provisions 

of the regulations have been met. 

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

This proposed rule has been 

determined to be not significant for the 

purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, 

therefore, has not been reviewed by the 

Office of Management and Budget. 

In accordance with the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, we have analyzed the 

potential economic effects of this action 

on small entities. The analysis is 

summarized below. 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). 

APHIS is proposing to amend the 

current regulations to allow the entry of 

fresh cape gooseberry from Colombia 

under a systems approach. Since 2003, 

Colombia has been allowed to export 

fresh cape gooseberry to the United 

States under a cold treatment protocol 

to prevent the entry of Medfly. The 

systems approach would permit cape 

gooseberry imports without cold 

treatment from production sites 

recognized as free of Medfly. In 2011, 

only about 0.2 percent (14 metric tons) 

of Colombia’s fresh cape gooseberry 

exports were shipped to the United 

States, valued at about $90,300. 

The United States does not produce 

cape gooseberry commercially. Small 

entities that may benefit from increased 

imports of fresh cape gooseberry from 

Colombia would be importers, 

wholesalers, and other merchants who 

sell this fruit. While these industries are 

primarily comprised of small entities, 

APHIS expects any impacts of the 

proposed rule for these businesses to be 

minor. 

Under these circumstances, the 

Administrator of the Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service has 

determined that this action would not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Executive Order 12988 

This proposed rule would allow cape 

gooseberry to be imported into the 

United States from Colombia. If this 

proposed rule is adopted, State and 

local laws and regulations regarding 

cape gooseberry imported under this 

rule would be preempted while the fruit 

is in foreign commerce. Fresh fruits are 

generally imported for immediate 

distribution and sale to the consuming 

public and would 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-by-case basis. If this 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

49974 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 159 / Friday, August 16, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

proposed rule is adopted, 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 

In accordance with section 3507(d) of 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the information 

collection or recordkeeping 

requirements included in this proposed 

rule have been submitted for approval to 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB). Please send written comments 

to the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attention: 

Desk Officer for APHIS, Washington, DC 

20503. Please state that your comments 

refer to Docket No. APHIS–2012–0038. 

Please send a copy of your comments to: 

(1) Docket No. APHIS–2012–0038, 

Regulatory Analysis and Development, 

PPD, APHIS, Station 3A–03.8, 4700 

River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 

20737–1238, and (2) Clearance Officer, 

OCIO, USDA, room 404–W, 14th Street 

and Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20250. A comment to 

OMB is best assured of having its full 

effect if OMB receives it within 30 days 

of publication of this proposed rule. 

APHIS is proposing to amend the 

fruits and vegetables regulations to 

allow the importation of cape 

gooseberry from Colombia into the 

United States. As a condition of entry, 

cape gooseberry from Colombia would 

be subject to a systems approach that 

will require information collection 

activities including a bilateral workplan, 

registration of places of production, box 

marking, trapping and records, and a 

phytosanitary certificate. 

We are soliciting comments from the 

public (as well as affected agencies) 

concerning our proposed information 

collection and recordkeeping 

requirements. These comments will 

help us: 

(1) Evaluate whether the proposed 

information collection is necessary for 

the proper performance of our agency’s 

functions, including whether the 

information will have practical utility; 

(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 0.1651 hours per 

response. 

Respondents: NPPO of Colombia, 

producers, and exporters. 

Estimated annual number of 

respondents: 427. 

Estimated annual number of 

responses per respondent: 11. 

Estimated annual number of 

responses: 4,626. 

Estimated total annual burden on 

respondents: 767 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. 

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 propose 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. A new § 319.56–60 is added to read 

as follows: 

§ 319.56–60 Cape gooseberry from 

Colombia. 

Cape gooseberry (Physalis peruviana) 

may be imported into the United States 

from Colombia in accordance with the 

conditions described in this section. 

These conditions are designed to 

prevent the introduction of Ceratitis 

capitata. 

(a) General requirements. The 

national plant protection organization 

(NPPO) of Colombia must provide a 

bilateral workplan to APHIS that details 

the activities that the NPPO will, subject 

to APHIS’ approval, carry out to meet 

the requirements of this section. APHIS 

will be directly involved with the NPPO 

in the monitoring and auditing 

implementation of the systems 

approach. 

(b) Place of production requirements. 

(1) All places of production must be 

registered with the NPPO of Colombia. 

(2) All places of production must be 

located within the C. capitata low 

prevalence area of the Bogota Savannah 

and the neighboring municipalities 

above 2,200 meters in the Departments 

of Boyaca ́ and Cundinamarca. 

(c) Mitigation measures for C. 

capitata. (1) Trapping for C. capitata 

must be conducted in the places of 

production in accordance with the 

bilateral workplan to demonstrate that 

those places are free of C. capitata. 

Specific trapping requirements must be 

included in the bilateral workplan. The 

NPPO of Colombia must keep records of 

fruit fly detections for each trap and 

make the records available to APHIS 

upon request. 

(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 5 square kilometers of the 

detection site. An additional 50 traps 

must be placed in the 5 square kilometer 

area surrounding the detection site. If a 

second detection is made within the 

detection areas 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. 

(d) Post-harvest procedures. The cape 

gooseberry must be packed in boxes 

marked with the identity of the 

originating farm. The boxes must be 

packed in sealed and closed containers 

before being shipped. 

(e) Phytosanitary inspection. After 

packing, the NPPO of Colombia must 

visually inspect a biometric sample of 

cape gooseberry at a rate jointly 

approved by APHIS and the NPPO of 

Colombia, and cut open the sampled 

fruit to detect C. capitata. 

(f) Commercial consignments. The 

cape gooseberry must be imported in 

commercial consignments only. 

(g) Phytosanitary certificate. Each 

consignment of cape gooseberry must be 

accompanied by a phytosanitary 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 159 / Friday, August 16, 2013 / Proposed Rules 49975 

certificate issued by the NPPO of 

Colombia containing an additional 

declaration stating that the fruit 

originated from a place of production 

free of C. capitata within the low 

prevalence area of Bogota Savannah and 

the neighboring municipalities above 

2,200 meters of elevation in the 

Departments of Boyaca ́ and 

Cundinamarca and was produced in 

accordance with the requirements of 

§ 319.56–60. 

Done in Washington, DC, this 12th day of 

August 2013. 

Kevin Shea, 

Administrator, Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 2013–19959 Filed 8–15–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 430 

[Docket No. EERE–BT–PET–0043] 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products: Landmark Legal 

Foundation; Petition for 

Reconsideration 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Petition for Reconsideration; 

Request for Comments. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy 

(DOE) received a petition from the 

Landmark Legal Foundation (LLF), 

requesting that DOE reconsider its final 

rule of Energy Conservation Standards 

for Standby Mode and Off Mode for 

Microwave Ovens, Docket No. EERE– 

2011–BT–STD–0048, RIN 1904–AC07, 

78 FR 36316 (June 17, 2013) 

(‘‘Microwave Final Rule’’ or ‘‘the Rule’’). 

Specifically, LLF requests that DOE 

reconsider the Rule because the final 

rule used a different Social Cost of 

Carbon (SCC) than the figure used in the 

supplemental notice of proposed 

rulemaking (SNOPR). DOE seeks 

comment on whether to undertake the 

reconsideration suggested in the 

petition. 

DATES: Any comments must be received 

by DOE not later than September 16, 

2013. 

ADDRESSES: Comments must be 

submitted, identified by docket number 

EERE–BT–PET–0043, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

2. Email: 

LLFPetition2013PET0043@ee.doe.gov. 

Include either the docket number EERE– 

BT–PET–0043, and/or ‘‘LLF Petition’’ in 

the subject line of the message. 

3. Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, Mailstop EE–2J, 

Room 1J–018, 1000 Independence 

Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585– 

0121. Please submit one signed original 

paper copy. 

4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda 

Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Building Technologies Program, Room 

1J–018, 1000 Independence Avenue 

SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

5. Instructions: All submissions 

received must include the agency name 

and docket number for this proceeding. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents, or 

comments received, go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at 

www.regulations.gov. In addition, 

electronic copies of the Petition are 

available online at DOE’s Web site at the 

following URL address: http:// 

www.regulations.gov/ 

#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2013-BT-PET0043. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ashley Armstrong, 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, (202) 586– 

6590, or email: 

Ashley.Armstrong@ee.doe.gov. Ari 

Altman, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Office of General Counsel, GC–71, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586–4224, 

email: Ari.Altman@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 

U.S.C. 551 et seq., provides among other 

things that, ‘‘[e]ach agency shall give an 

interested person the right to petition 

for the issuance, amendment, or repeal 

of a rule.’’ 5 U.S.C. 553(e). DOE received 

a petition from the Landmark Legal 

Foundation (LLF) on July 2, 2013, 

requesting that DOE reconsider its final 

rule of Energy Conservation Standards 

for Standby Mode and Off Mode for 

Microwave Ovens, Docket No. EERE 

2011 BT STD 0048, RIN 1904 AC07, 78 

FR 36316 (June 17, 2013) (‘‘Microwave 

Final Rule’’ or ‘‘the Rule’’). 

The Rule was adopted by DOE in 

accordance with the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA). (78 

FR 36316) EPCA, as amended, 

prescribes energy conservation 

standards for various consumer 

products and certain commercial and 

industrial equipment. On June 17, 2013, 

DOE published a final rule adopting 

standby mode and off mode standards, 

which it determined would result in 

significant conservation of energy and 

were technologically feasible and 

economically justified. 

In developing the Rule, DOE issued a 

Supplemental Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (SNOPR) on February 14, 

2012. (77 FR 8555) In this SNOPR, as 

part of its economic analysis of the 

proposed rule, DOE sought to monetize 

the cost savings associated with the 

reduced carbon missions that would 

result from the expected energy savings 

of the proposed rule. To do this, DOE 

used ‘‘the most recent values [of SCC] 

identified by the interagency process,’’ 

which, at the time, was the SCC 

calculation developed by the 

‘‘Interagency Working Group on Social 

Cost of Carbon 2010.’’ Id. This 2010 

figure was developed through an 

interagency process in accordance with 

Executive Order 12866. 

In May 2013, subsequent to the 

SNOPR but prior to DOE’s issuance of 

the Rule, the Interagency Working 

Group on Social Cost of Carbon released 

revised SCC values. (Technical Update 

of the Social Cost of Carbon for 

Regulatory Impact Analysis Under 

Executive Order 12866, Interagency 

Working Group on Social Cost of 

Carbon, United States Government, 

2013) As these were ‘‘the most recent 

(2013) SCC values from the interagency 

group,’’ DOE included these revised 

SCC values in the Rule. (78 FR 36316) 

Landmark petitions DOE to reconsider 

the Rule on the grounds that this change 

in the values used in estimating the 

economic benefits of the Rule should 

have been subject to a prior opportunity 

for public comment because the 2013 

SCC values were not the ‘‘logical 

outgrowth’’ of the 2010 SCC values. 

Further, Landmark asserts that without 

reconsideration of the Rule, DOE might 

now rely on its prior use of the 2013 

SCC values in the Rule when it 

endeavors to enact new energy 

conservation standards in the future. 

In promulgating this petition for 

public comment, DOE seeks public 

comment on whether to undertake the 

reconsideration suggested in the 

petition. DOE takes no position at this 

time on the merits of the suggested 

reconsideration. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on August 12, 

2013. 

Kathleen B. Hogan, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy. 

Set forth below is the full text of the 

Landmark Legal Foundation. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS