Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Notices 7639 

markets for U.S. products that might 

otherwise be closed due to the presence 

of LBAM in the United States. We agree 

that the introduction of LBAM has led 

to increased costs for U.S. producers. 

However, implementation of the 

regulatory framework has maintained 

domestic and international markets 

with, for example, Canada and Mexico, 

for California agricultural exports. It is 

likely that some noninfested States 

would enact restrictions on the 

movement of host material to safeguard 

against LBAM spread if there were no 

Federal program. California producers 

would then need to meet potentially 

varying requirements for shipments to 

each State, which could lead to both 

increased pesticide use and increased 

operational costs. 

The LBAM program requires that 

shipments containing LBAM host 

materials only be free of LBAM prior to 

movement from the quarantined area; 

this requirement is parallel to the 

requirements for foreign shipments. 

There are several ways for producers to 

meet this requirement, including 

applying organic treatments, such as 

Spinosad and horticultural oils; 

applying chemical treatments; or 

implementing best management 

practices. Such practices include 

training of staff, scouting and 

monitoring of property to determine the 

need for treatments, and maintaining 

management records. 

Many commenters stated that APHIS 

has overstated the damage done by 

LBAM and the potential for damage by 

LBAM; that the LBAM program is 

expensive and wasteful; and that plants 

listed as potential LBAM host plants 

were not hosts of LBAM. Many 

commenters stated that the only 

evidence of LBAM damage came from 

two organic berry fields in 2009, and 

that it was not conclusively determined 

that the pest that attacked those fields 

was LBAM. 

APHIS’ cost-benefit analysis indicates 

that if LBAM were to be reclassified as 

a non-actionable pest and APHIS’ 

regulatory program for LBAM to be 

terminated, annual sales losses from 

LBAM damages of at least 

approximately $694 million would 

occur (Fowler et al., 2009). Because of 

the APHIS regulatory program, the 

amount of avoided losses in annual 

sales, in comparison with the Federal 

funding available in the LBAM 

emergency response effort of almost 

$100 million, indicates a potential 

positive benefit-to-cost ratio of at least 

6.9 to 1. This does not include potential 

environmental losses due to factors such 

as increased pesticide use and other 

costs associated with widespread 

establishment of the pest. Additionally, 

deregulation of LBAM domestically is 

likely to trigger increased restrictions for 

LBAM-host commodities by trading 

partners, which are expected to have a 

much greater impact on American farms 

if LBAM were allowed to spread beyond 

the current quarantined area. The costbenefit analysis supports our conclusion 

that LBAM is an economically 

important invasive pest that meets the 

criteria for Federal regulation, including 

phytosanitary regulations and 

mandatory procedures with the 

objective of containment and 

suppression as an actionable quarantine 

pest. 

Miscellaneous 

One commenter stated that APHIS 

was legally required to submit its 

response to the petitions to reclassify 

LBAM to NAS for review. 

There are no requirements for petition 

responses to be reviewed by third 

parties. APHIS elected to submit the 

revised petition response to NAS. 

One commenter supported the 

continued LBAM quarantine, but stated 

that the current LBAM program is in 

need of review because it does not take 

into account the additional regulatory 

response that will be needed when 

LBAM populations expand into other 

areas of California and the United 

States. The commenter further stated 

that the regulations for the movement of 

cut plant material and nursery stock 

need to be strengthened. One 

commenter also supported the 

continued LBAM quarantine, but stated 

that APHIS should continually review 

the quarantine and lift it if the pest is 

found outside of the quarantined areas 

and the quarantine becomes 

uneconomical. 

We continually review the LBAM 

program, as well as other pest programs, 

to ensure that the program’s goals are 

being met. In the event that LBAM is 

found within the continental United 

States outside of California, APHIS and 

the affected State(s) will take 

appropriate action, which may include 

additional detection activities and 

regulatory protocols, to control its 

spread. 

Therefore, for the reasons discussed 

in our draft responses to petitions and 

in this document, we are retaining our 

classification of LBAM as an actionable 

quarantine pest to prevent its further 

spread into noninfested areas of United 

States and to maintain trade markets for 

U.S. agricultural products. 

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

7786; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3. 

Done in Washington, DC, this 3rd day of 

February 2014. 

Kevin Shea, 

Administrator, Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 2014–02764 Filed 2–7–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

[Docket No. APHIS–2013–0094] 

Notice of Availability of a Treatment 

Evaluation Document for Heat 

Treatment for Asian Longhorned 

Beetle 

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice of availability and 

request for comments. 

SUMMARY: We are advising the public 

that we have determined that it is 

necessary to add a treatment schedule 

for Asian longhorned beetle in the Plant 

Protection and Quarantine Treatment 

Manual. Thus, we have prepared a 

treatment evaluation document that 

discusses the existing treatment 

schedule and explains why this change 

is necessary. We are making this 

treatment evaluation document 

available to the public for review and 

comment. 

DATES: We will consider all comments 

that we receive on or before April 11, 

2014. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by either of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov/

#!documentDetail;D=APHIS-2013-0094- 

0001. 

• Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: 

Send your comment to Docket No. 

APHIS–2013–0094, 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-2013-0094 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, M.S., Regulatory 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

7640 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Notices 

1The PPQ 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. 

Policy Specialist, Regulations, Permits 

and Manuals, Regulatory Coordination 

and Compliance, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 

River Road Unit 135, Riverdale, MD 

20737–1236; (301) 851–2352. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

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 the 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 contained in part 305 of 7 

CFR chapter III (referred to below as the 

regulations) 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 (a) 

sets out the process for adding, revising, 

or removing treatment schedules when 

there is no immediate need to make a 

change. The circumstances in which an 

immediate need exists are described in 

§ 305.3(b)(1). 

Currently, heat treatment schedule 

T314–c, which is used as a general 

treatment for various wood pests, is 

designated as a treatment for regulated 

articles moved from an Asian 

longhorned beetle (ALB) quarantined 

area. Although effective, we have 

determined that the treatment 

temperature and duration prescribed by 

T314–c are greater than what is 

necessary to eliminate ALB. In 

accordance with § 305.3(a)(1), we are 

providing notice that we have 

determined that treatment schedule 

T314–a, which provides a heat 

treatment schedule for ash logs, 

including firewood, and all hardwood 

firewood that are moved from emerald 

ash borer quarantined areas, is also an 

effective treatment against ALB. 

Therefore, we have determined that it is 

necessary to add ALB to heat treatment 

schedule T314–a. 

The reasons for this change are 

described in a treatment evaluation 

document (TED) we have prepared to 

support this action. The TED may be 

viewed on the Regulations.gov Web site 

or in our reading room (see ADDRESSES

above for a link to Regulations.gov and 

information on the location and hours of 

the reading room). You may also request 

paper copies of the TED by calling or 

writing to the person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

After reviewing the comments we 

receive, we will announce our decision 

regarding the changes to the PPQ 

Treatment Manual that are described in 

the TED in a subsequent notice. 

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 3rd day of 

February 2014. 

Kevin Shea, 

Administrator, Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 2014–02758 Filed 2–7–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Forest Service 

White River National Forest; Summit 

County, CO; Breckenridge Ski Resort 

Multi-Season Recreation Projects EIS 

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an 

environmental impact statement. 

SUMMARY: Breckenridge Ski Resort (BSR) 

has submitted a proposal to the White 

River National Forest (WRNF) to pursue 

approval of proposed projects included 

in its 2013 Master Development Plan 

(MDP) Addendum. The WRNF has 

accepted this proposal, and is preparing 

an Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) to analyze and disclose the 

potential environmental effects of 

implementing the projects. The 

Proposed Action is a range of projects 

designed to improve year-round 

recreation opportunities and better meet 

the changing needs and expectations of 

visitors to Breckenridge and the WRNF. 

The proposal hopes to better support a 

year-round economy in Breckenridge 

and Summit County by providing a 

diversity of attractions and outdoor 

activities that would attract visitors to 

the area. By providing a greater variety 

of activities and a longer season to visit 

BSR, the proposed educational and 

recreational opportunities would 

connect a more diverse group of visitors 

to our National Forest and the outdoors. 

DATES: Comments concerning the scope 

of the analysis must be received by 

March 12, 2014 The Draft EIS is 

expected to be available for public 

review in the Fall/Winter of 2014 and 

the Final EIS is expected in the Spring/ 

Summer of 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to: 

Scott Fitzwilliams, Forest Supervisor, 

c/o Roger Poirier, Project Leader, 120 

Midland Ave, Suite 140, Glenwood 

Springs, CO 81601; FAX (970) 945–9029 

or electronically to: https://

cara.ecosystem-management.org/

Public//CommentInput?Project=43291. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Additional information related to the 

proposed project can be obtained from: 

Roger Poirier, Project Leader, 120 

Midland Ave, Suite 140, Glenwood 

Springs, CO 81601. Mr. Poirier can be 

reached by email at rogierpoirier@

fs.fed.us. 

Individuals who use 

telecommunication devices for the deaf 

(TDD) may call the Federal Information 

Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339 

between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern 

Time, Monday through Friday. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Purpose and Need for Action: 

Summer recreational opportunities have 

been offered at BSR since the 1970s. 

These opportunities are, and continue to 

be, important to BSR and its guests, in 

providing outdoor recreation activities 

in the National Forest in a comfortable 

setting. The current summer guest 

experience at BSR is primarily defined 

by more developed activities on private 

lands and dispersed activities on 

National Forest System (NFS) lands. 

Specific to the activities on NFS lands 

within the BSR SUP area, guests 

primarily participate in lift-served and 

non-lift-served hiking and mountain 

biking via the Colorado SuperChair and 

trails dispersed across Peaks 7, 8 and 9. 

Through ongoing, year-round tourism 

growth, BSR is becoming a summer 

destination for guests primarily from the 

United States, and from Colorado in 

particular. In both winter and summer, 

BSR caters to a broad spectrum of guests 

of all ages, abilities, and experience 

with the outdoors. Since 2010 the Peak 

8 Fun Park (located on private lands), 

which includes an alpine slide, a 

coaster, mini-golf, and other activities, 

has experienced approximately 18 

percent annual growth in its summer 

activity usage. The proposed projects 

would complement these current 

activities by offering an even broader 

range of passive and active recreation 

opportunities in the Forest to engage 

visitors. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES