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

8987 

Vol. 78, No. 26 

Thursday, February 7, 2013 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

6 CFR Part 115 

[ICEB–2012–0003] 

RIN 1653–AA65 

Standards To Prevent, Detect, and 

Respond to Sexual Abuse and Assault 

in Confinement Facilities; Extension of 

Comment Period 

AGENCY: Department of Homeland 

Security. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM); Extension of comment period. 

SUMMARY: This action extends the 

comment period for an NPRM that DHS 

published on December 19, 2012. In that 

document, DHS proposed to issue 

regulations setting standards to prevent, 

detect, and respond to sexual abuse and 

assault in DHS confinement facilities. 

DHS is extending the comment period 

for one week due to projected outages at 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal, http:// 

www.regulations.gov, and the Federal 

Document Management System. This 

extension is to ensure that all interested 

parties have an opportunity to present 

their views on the proposed rulemaking. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before 11:59 p.m. on February 26, 

2013, or reach the Mail or Hand 

Delivery/Courier address listed below in 

ADDRESSES on or before that date and 

time. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by DHS Docket No. ICEB– 

2012–0003, by one of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Office of Policy; U.S. 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 

Department of Homeland Security; 

Potomac Center North, 500 12th Street 

SW., Washington, DC 20536; Contact 

Telephone Number (202) 732–4292. To 

ensure proper handling, please 

reference DHS Docket No. ICEB–2012– 

0003 on your correspondence. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: Office of 

Policy; U.S. Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement, Department of Homeland 

Security; Potomac Center North, 500 

12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20536; 

Telephone: (202) 732–4292 between 9 

a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

To avoid duplication, please use only 

one of these three methods. See the 

‘‘Public Participation’’ portion of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

below for instructions on submitting 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Alexander Y. Hartman, Office of Policy; 

U.S. Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement, Department of Homeland 

Security; Potomac Center North, 500 

12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20536; 

Telephone: (202) 732–4292 (not a tollfree number). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Submitting Comments 

See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section in the NPRM (77 FR 75300) for 

further information on how to comment 

on the proposals in the NPRM and how 

DHS will handle comments received. 

The ‘‘Additional Information’’ section 

also contains related information about 

the docket, privacy, and the handling of 

proprietary or confidential business 

information. In addition, there is 

information on obtaining copies of 

related rulemaking documents. 

II. Background 

On December 19, 2012, DHS issued an 

NPRM entitled, ‘‘Standards to Prevent, 

Detect, and Respond to Sexual Abuse 

and Assault in Confinement Facilities.’’ 

77 FR 75300. The NPRM required 

commenters to submit their comments 

for receipt by February 19, 2013. DHS 

recently learned of upcoming 

maintenance to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal, http:// 

www.regulations.gov, and the Federal 

Document Management System (FDMS), 

currently scheduled for February 16–18, 

2013. These systems will not be 

available during that time. To avoid 

confusion during the end of the 

comment period and to ensure that all 

interested parties have an opportunity 

to comment on the NPRM, DHS is 

extending the comment period by one 

week. 

Absent unforeseen circumstances, 

DHS does not anticipate any further 

extension of the comment period for 

this rulemaking. 

Extension of Comment Period 

DHS has determined that a one-week 

extension of the comment period is 

sufficient to provide the public adequate 

time to submit comments, 

notwithstanding the projected outages 

to the Federal eRulemaking Portal and 

FDMS. Accordingly, the public 

comment period for the NPRM is 

extended through February 26, 2013. 

Christina E. McDonald, 

Associate General Counsel for Regulatory 

Affairs, Department of Homeland Security. 

[FR Doc. 2013–02757 Filed 2–6–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–9B–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

7 CFR Part 318 

[Docket No. APHIS–2012–0008] 

RIN 0579–AD70 

Interstate Movement of Sharwil 

Avocados From Hawaii 

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: We are proposing to amend 

the Hawaii quarantine regulations to 

allow the interstate movement of 

untreated Sharwil avocados from 

Hawaii into the continental United 

States. As a condition of movement, 

Sharwil avocados from Hawaii would 

have to be produced in accordance with 

a systems approach that would include 

requirements for registration and 

monitoring of places of production and 

packinghouses, an orchard trapping 

program, grove sanitation, limits on 

harvest periods and distribution areas, 

and harvesting and packing 

requirements to ensure that only intact 

fruit that have been protected against 

infestation are shipped. This action 

would allow for the interstate 

movement of Sharwil avocados from 

Hawaii into other States while 

continuing to provide protection against 

the introduction of quarantine pests. 

DATES: We will consider all comments 

that we receive on or before April 8, 

2013. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

8988 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 26 / Thursday, February 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

1 ‘‘Qualitative Pathway-Initiated Risk Assessment 

for the Movement of Mature Green Sharwil 

Avocado, Persea Americana Mill., from Hawaii into 

Continental United States.’’ Available at http://

www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS2012-0008. 

2 ‘‘Interstate Movement of Mature Green ‘Sharwil’ 

Avocado, Persea americana Mill. from Hawaii into 

the Continental United States.’’ September, 2011. 

Available at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docket

Detail;D=APHIS-2012-0008. 

3Liquido, N.J., H.T. Chan Jr., and G.T. McQuate. 

1995. Hawaiian tephritid fruit flies (Diptera): 

Integrity of the infestation-free quarantine 

procedure for ‘Sharwil’ avocado. J. Econ. Entomol. 

88(1): 85–96. 

4Follett, P.A. 2009. Puncture resistance in 

‘Sharwil’ avocados to oriental fruit fly and 

Mediterranean fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae) 

oviposition. Journal of Economic Entomology. 102: 

921–926. 

5Follett, P.A., Vargas, R.I., Jang, E.B. 2010. A 

Systems Approach to Mitigate Oriental Fruit Fly 

Risk in ‘Sharwil’ Avocados Exported From Hawaii. 

Acta Horticulturae. Acta Horticulturae. 880: 439– 

445. 

6 Klungness, L.M., Vargas, R.I., Jang, E.B., Mau, 

R.F., Kinney, K. 2009. Susceptibility of ripe 

Avocado to Invasive Alien Fruit Flies (Tephritidae) 

on the Island of Hawaii. Hawaiian Entomological 

Society Proceedings. 41:1–13 2009. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by either of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

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

Detail;D=APHIS-2012-0008-0001. 

• Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: 

Send your comment to Docket No. 

APHIS-2012-0008, 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-2012-0008 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: Mr. 

David Lamb, Regulatory Policy 

Specialist, Regulatory Coordination and 

Compliance, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River 

Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737– 

1231; (301) 851–2103. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Under the regulations in 7 CFR part 

318, ‘‘State of Hawaii and Territories 

Quarantine Notices’’ (referred to below 

as the regulations), the Animal and 

Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) 

of the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA or the Department) prohibits or 

restricts the interstate movement of 

fruits, vegetables, and other products 

from Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the U.S. 

Virgin Islands, and Guam to the 

continental United States to prevent the 

spread of plant pests that occur in 

Hawaii and the territories. 

Among other things, the regulations 

allow interstate movement of Sharwil 

avocados from Hawaii to the continental 

United States only if the avocados 

undergo fumigation, or combined 

fumigation and cold treatment for fruit 

flies. The regulations also allow 

untreated Sharwil avocados to move to 

Alaska, which has a climate where fruit 

flies cannot become established. APHIS 

has received a request from the Hawaii 

Department of Agriculture to allow 

interstate movement of untreated 

mature green Sharwil avocado fruit into 

the lower 48 continental United States. 

The treatments currently required for 

the movement of Sharwil avocados can 

have unacceptable adverse effects on the 

quality of the fruit. 

We have evaluated the plant pest risks 

associated with this request and have 

prepared a pest risk assessment1 (PRA) 

and a risk management document2

(RMD). The PRA identified relevant 

pests of Sharwil avocado in Hawaii and 

examined the risks associated with the 

movement of Sharwil avocados into the 

continental United States. The RMD 

concludes that a systems approach 

could effectively mitigate the pest risk 

associated with such movement. 

System approaches have been used 

successfully to authorize the 

importation of a variety of fruits and 

vegetables under the regulations in 7 

CFR part 319, such as tomatoes from 

Spain, France, Morocco, Chile, and 

Central America (§ 319.56–28), citrus 

from Chile (§ 319.56–38), and peppers 

and pitaya from Central America 

(§§ 319.56–40 and 319.56–55). We have 

also successfully applied such an 

approach to import Hass avocados from 

Mexico under a systems approach for 

Stenoma catenifer, seed and stem 

weevils, and fruit flies for over 8 years 

with no interceptions of quarantine 

pests. This proposed rule describes the 

systems approach APHIS has developed 

for movement of fresh Sharwil avocados 

from Hawaii into the continental United 

States. 

APHIS previously allowed Hawaiian 

Sharwil avocados to move interstate to 

the lower 48 continental United States. 

This decision was based on research in 

the 1980s that showed that mature green 

Hawaiian Sharwil avocados are an 

extremely poor host for the Oriental 

fruit fly (Bactrocera dorsalis) and are 

not naturally infested with 

Mediterranean fruit (Ceratitis capitata 

(Wiedemann)) or melon fly (Bactrocera 

cucurbitae). However, in February 1992, 

Oriental fruit fly larvae were found in 

fruit that was qualified for interstate 

shipment from Hawaii under the 

previous systems approach, and APHIS 

ended the program based on these larval 

finds in an interim rule published and 

effective on July 15, 1992 (57 FR 31306– 

31307, Docket No. 92–081–1). 

More recent research on Sharwil 

avocado host status to fruit flies has 

identified the weaknesses of the earlier 

program and suggests how a new 

systems approach can be made effective. 

Liquido et al. (1995) 3 surveyed for field 

infestation of fruit flies in mature green 

Sharwil avocados on Kona in 1992 and 

1993. Surveys were done in March– 

August 1992 and in September 1992– 

May 1993, with 5,004 samples, 4,888 of 

which were mature green fruits with 

pedicel firmly attached on the tree at the 

time of sampling. Out of 1,047 fruit 

samples collected in March 1992, 4 

mature green fruits with pedicel firmly 

attached to the tree during sampling 

were infested with Oriental fruit flies; 

only 1 of these infested fruit had no 

morphological aberration. During this 

field survey, the area was experiencing 

a severe drought, and the only infested 

samples were found in what were 

considered late-season fruits. All fruit 

samples during the September 1992– 

May 1993 census had no fruit fly 

infestation. No other species of fruit 

flies were found. Liquido et al. (1995) 

concluded that drought was the primary 

cause of the breakdown of resistance 

mechanisms in Sharwil avocados. 

Follett (2009) 4 investigated puncture 

resistance of ‘Sharwil’ avocados, and 

Follett and Vargas (2010) 5 proposed a 

modified version of the original systems 

approach which included measures 

adapted to this proposed rule. 

Klungness et al. (2009) 6 found that fruit 

fly populations were consistently low in 

Sharwil avocado orchards in Hawaii, 

and found only 4 larvae in 2 fruit from 

489 fruit collected from the ground, 

both fruit from the same farm. 

This research suggests conditions that 

foster infestation by fruit flies may be 

very localized and specific to certain 

areas and certain times. The natural 

resistance of Sharwil avocados to fruit 

fly infestation appears to break down 

with increase in fruit maturity or degree 

of ripeness and after harvest. Based on 

the research by Liquido et al. (1995), 

Sharwil avocados are not hosts of 

Oriental fruit flies under normal 

conditions but may become poor hosts 

of Oriental fruit fly under certain field 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 26 / Thursday, February 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules 8989 

7This list can be viewed at http://www.aphis.

usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/frsmp/nonreg-pests.shtml. 

conditions that may include water stress 

and nutritional deficiencies. 

Specifically, the failure in the Sharwil 

avocado program in 1991 involved 

unusual conditions that included soft 

fruit and uncontrolled fruit fly 

populations, conditions the new 

proposed systems approach is designed 

to avoid. 

The PRA identified one quarantine 

pest with a high unmitigated risk 

potential, the Oriental fruit fly (B. 

dorsalis (Hendel)). It also identified 

eight quarantine pests with medium 

unmitigated risk potential. These 

include the scale insects, mealybugs, 

and moths Ceroplastes rubens Maskell, 

Dysmicoccus neobrevipes Beardsley, 

Maconellicoccus hirsutus (Green), 

Nipaecoccus viridis (Newstead), 

Paracoccus marginatus Williams and 

Granara de Willink, Pseudococcus 

cryptus Hempel, Epiphyas postvittana 

(Walker), and Cryptoblabes gnidiella 

Millie`re. The PRA also identified the 

scale insect Coccus viridis (Green) and 

Planococcus minor (Maskell) as 

quarantine pests of concern, but we 

recently established that these pests no 

longer meets our definition of a 

quarantine pest and added them to our 

list 7 of pests that we no longer regulate. 

The pests with medium unmitigated 

risk potential can be readily discerned 

during inspection of avocados, where 

inspectors can see either the pests 

themselves or evidence of their 

presence. We believe that spread of 

these pests can be prevented by 

inspection of a biometric sample of fruit 

for quarantine pests of concern at the 

packinghouse facility. However, APHIS 

has determined that measures beyond 

standard predeparture inspection are 

required to mitigate the risks posed by 

B. dorsalis. 

Based on the recommendations of the 

RMD, the systems approach we are 

proposing would require: 

• Registration, monitoring, and 

oversight of places of production to 

ensure that the fruit is produced in 

compliance with requirements of the 

systems approach; 

• An orchard sanitation program 

under which fallen fruit and culls must 

be removed from the harvest area; 

• Trapping and orchard control for B. 

dorsalis at the place of production; 

• A limited harvest period and 

harvesting requirements to ensure that 

the fruit are harvested only at the 

mature green stage with stems attached; 

• Post-harvest inspection of a 

biometric sample of the fruit; 

• Packing only at a registered, 

screened packinghouse that maintains 

fruit identity and safeguards against 

infestation; 

• Box marking to maintain fruit 

identity; 

• Limited distribution areas for the 

fruit in the continental United States; 

and 

• A compliance agreement executed 

in accordance with § 318.13–3(d) in 

which the grower agrees to comply with 

all the requirements of the systems 

approach. 

Growers of Sharwil avocados who 

wish to ship to the continental United 

States would have to register their 

orchards and packinghouses with 

APHIS so that we can ensure that they 

meet the requirements of the systems 

approach with regard to their orchards, 

packinghouses, and operations, as 

described below. Registration also gives 

APHIS the opportunity to visit and 

inspect the premises as necessary to 

monitor compliance and to ensure that 

only Sharwil avocado trees are 

harvested for shipment under this 

program. During registration, growers 

also should usually be able to sign the 

compliance agreement discussed below. 

We would require a place of 

production sanitation program mainly 

to ensure that fallen and damaged fruit 

and debris do not facilitate high pest 

populations, and to ensure that fallen 

fruit are not inadvertently collected 

during harvest and packed with intact 

mature fruit picked from the trees. This 

is needed because, while B. dorsalis 

infestations in mature green Sharwil 

with intact stems is very unlikely under 

natural field conditions, the nature of 

resistance Sharwil possesses does not 

ensure that infestation could not occur 

in overripe, soft, or damaged fruit. For 

the same reason, we would require that 

the fruit be harvested only at the mature 

hard green stage with stems attached. 

Beginning at least 1 month before 

harvest begins and continuing through 

the completion of harvest, fruit fly traps 

would have to be maintained in the 

place of production where the avocados 

were grown. Specific trapping 

requirements would be included in the 

compliance agreement and would be 

adjusted as necessary to ensure that 

trapping is effective. APHIS-approved 

traps baited with APHIS-approved lures 

would have to be used. The producer 

would have to keep records of the trap 

locations and fruit fly finds for each trap 

and make the records available to 

APHIS upon request. The records would 

have to be maintained for at least 1 year. 

This condition would ensure the earliest 

possible detection of increasing 

populations of fruit flies in and around 

fields where avocados are grown. 

Additional specific trapping 

requirements and actions required if B. 

dorsalis is found in traps would be 

included in the compliance agreement 

and would be adjusted as necessary to 

ensure that trapping is effective. If B. 

dorsalis is detected by the trapping at an 

actionable rate as specified in the 

compliance agreement, control actions 

required by the compliance agreement 

or ordered by an inspector must be 

taken. Consistent with the 

recommendations of the RMD, the 

compliance agreement would initially 

require bait sprays approved by APHIS 

to be used to control fruit flies in the 

orchard if B. dorsalis is detected by the 

trapping at a rate above 0.4 flies per trap 

per day. 

The harvest period would be limited 

to November 1 through March 31. 

Limiting the harvest season will prevent 

overripe fruit that are more susceptible 

to pests from entering the pathway. Late 

in the harvest season, overripe fruit are 

more likely to be found in the orchard 

and might be picked by accident. 

Packing could be performed only at a 

registered, screened packinghouse that 

maintains fruit identity and safeguards 

against infestation. The fruit would be 

packed in boxes marked ‘‘Distribution 

limited to the following States: CO, CT, 

DE, DC, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, ME, MD, 

MA, MI, MN, MO, MT, NE., NH, NJ, NY, 

ND, OH, PA, RI, SD, UT, VT, VA, WA, 

WV, WI, and WY.’’ The consignment 

also would be identified in accordance 

with the requirements of § 318.13–3(g). 

Distribution of Sharwil avocados in 

the continental United States would be 

limited to 32 northern-tier States and 

the District of Columbia. The limited 

distribution would ensure that if any 

fruit with fruit flies are shipped, the 

hosts and climate conditions at their 

destination will not allow them to 

reproduce. 

The allowed destinations would be 

Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, 

District of Columbia, Idaho, Illinois, 

Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, 

Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, 

Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, 

Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, 

New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, 

Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, 

South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, 

Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, 

and Wyoming. 

We would also require that persons 

who move avocados in accordance with 

the regulations would have to sign a 

compliance agreement agreeing to 

comply with such conditions as may be 

required by an inspector in each specific 

case to prevent infestation of the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

8990 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 26 / Thursday, February 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

8One indicator of distinct markets is sizable price 

differences. For the four production years 2006–07 

through 2009–10, California avocados had an 

average wholesale price of 96 cents per pound, 

compared to 70 cents per pound for Hawaii 

avocados and 30 cents per pound for Florida 

avocados. (2011 Agricultural Statistics Annual, 

Table 5–16. http://www.nass.usda.gov/ 

Publications/Ag_Statistics/2011/Chapter05.pdf). 

avocados and spread of B. dorsalis. This 

compliance agreement is needed both to 

aid enforcement and to adapt 

implementation of the regulations to 

each distinct situation. Individual 

compliance agreements would help to 

ensure that growers are not burdened by 

requirements if they are not necessary 

due to the situation or operations at 

their particular premises. Compliance 

agreements can also provide detailed 

guidance on how to comply with 

regulatory requirements in a grower’s 

particular situation. The nature and 

operations of compliance agreements 

are described in the current regulations 

in § 318.13–3(d). Each compliance 

agreement will specify safeguards 

necessary for the particular situation. 

Following harvest, a biometric sample 

of the fruit would be inspected by 

APHIS following any post-harvest 

processing. A biometric sample of a size 

determined by APHIS would be visually 

inspected for quarantine pests, and a 

portion of the fruit will be cut open to 

detect internal pests, including B. 

dorsalis. If any B. dorsalis are found, the 

entire consignment of avocados would 

be prohibited from movement to the 

destination States allowed by this rule, 

and the place of production producing 

that fruit will be suspended from the 

interstate shipment program until 

APHIS conducts an investigation and 

appropriate remedial actions have been 

implemented. If any other quarantine 

pests, but not B. dorsalis, are found, the 

entire consignment of avocados will be 

prohibited from interstate movement 

unless it is treated with an approved 

quarantine treatment monitored by 

APHIS. 

Sharwil avocados produced under 

this systems approach will be inspected 

by APHIS as part of predeparture 

clearance inspections in Hawaii. 

Infested consignments will be rejected, 

and APHIS will conduct traceback to 

identify and correct problems. When 

necessary, corrective action will include 

removal of the packinghouse and 

orchard from the interstate movement 

program. 

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

This proposed rule has been 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. 

This proposed rule would allow the 

interstate movement of untreated 

Sharwil avocados from Hawaii into the 

continental United States if the 

avocados are produced in accordance 

with a systems approach to prevent the 

spread of B. dorsalis and other pests. 

The 2007 Census of Agriculture 

reported that there were a total of 8,245 

avocado farms in the United States, with 

about 76 percent in California, 13 

percent in Hawaii, and 11 percent in 

Florida. Average gross receipts for 

California avocado producers for the 

2007–08 season was about $52,700, 

compared to average receipts of about 

$12,700 for Florida’s growers and about 

$750 for Hawaii’s growers. The Small 

Business Administration’s small-entity 

standard for avocado farms is annual 

receipts of not more than $750,000. 

While nearly all U.S. avocado 

operations are small entities, it is 

evident that there is significant variation 

among the three States in average farm 

size. 

We anticipate that Sharwil avocado 

consignments from Hawaii to the 

mainland would total about 180 metric 

tons per year, equivalent to about onehalf of 1 percent of the U.S. supply of 

non-Hass avocados and to less than onetwentieth of 1 percent of the U.S. supply 

of all avocado varieties. They would be 

shipped between November and March, 

supplementing winter supplies. 

Hawaii avocado production is 

estimated at 1.0 million pounds for the 

2008–09 season, and 660,000 pounds for 

the 2009–10 season. The decline 

appears to be associated with adverse 

weather conditions. 

Avocado production in the United 

States largely takes place in California, 

where nearly all of the fruit grown is of 

the small, dark-colored, rough-skinned 

Hass variety. In Florida and Hawaii, 

varieties like the Sharwil, which is 

much larger and bright green in color, 

are predominant. Most avocado imports 

and exports by the United States are 

Hass. Given our limited understanding 

of the strength of consumers’ 

preferences for the various avocado 

varieties (that is, their degree of 

substitutability), we consider potential 

effects of the proposed rule for 

producers of non-Hass varieties as well 

as for all U.S. avocado farmers.8

While the proposed rule would 

benefit Hawaiian avocado producers by 

allowing them to use a systems 

approach to mitigate pest risk, making 

the sale of Sharwil avocados to the 

continental United States more 

economically feasible, the quantity that 

is expected to be shipped would not 

significantly affect the mainland 

avocado market overall or the more 

limited market for non-Hass varieties. 

With imports providing one-third of the 

U.S. supply of non-Hass avocados and 

two-thirds of the U.S. supply of all 

avocados, any effects of the proposed 

rule for U.S. mainland producers would 

be further muted. Moreover, the Sharwil 

avocados from Hawaii would be 

shipped between November and March, 

when there is increased reliance on 

foreign suppliers. Any market effects of 

the proposed rule could be expected to 

be borne proportionately by avocados 

supplied from abroad during the winter 

months. 

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 12372 

This program/activity is listed in the 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

under No. 10.025 and is subject to 

Executive Order 12372, which requires 

intergovernmental consultation with 

State and local officials. (See 7 CFR part 

3015, subpart V.) 

Executive Order 12988 

This proposed rule has been reviewed 

under Executive Order 12988, Civil 

Justice Reform. If this proposed rule is 

adopted: (1) All State and local laws and 

regulations that are inconsistent with 

this rule will be preempted; (2) no 

retroactive effect will be given to this 

rule; and (3) administrative proceedings 

will not be required 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–2012–0008. 

Please send a copy of your comments to: 

(1) Docket No. APHIS–2012–0008, 

Regulatory Analysis and Development, 

PPD, APHIS, Station 3A–03.8, 4700 

River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 

20737–1238, and (2) Clearance Officer, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 26 / Thursday, February 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules 8991 

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. 

Allowing the interstate movement of 

Sharwil avocados from Hawaii into the 

continental United States would require 

production and packinghouse site 

registrations, box markings, and 

compliance agreements. 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 0.037540 hours 

per response. 

Respondents: Producers and 

importers of avocados. 

Estimated annual number of 

respondents: 30. 

Estimated annual number of 

responses per respondent: 51.5. 

Estimated annual number of 

responses: 1,545. 

Estimated total annual burden on 

respondents: 58 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 E-Government 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. 

Lists of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 318 

Cotton, Cottonseeds, Fruits, Guam, 

Hawaii, Plant diseases and pests, Puerto 

Rico, Quarantine, Transportation, 

Vegetables, Virgin Islands. 

Accordingly, we propose to amend 7 

CFR part 318 as follows: 

PART 318—STATE OF HAWAII AND 

TERRITORIES QUARANTINE NOTICES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 318 

continues to read as follows: 

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

7786; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3. 

■ 2. A new § 318.13–20 is added to read 

as follows: 

§ 318.13–20 Sharwil avocados from Hawaii 

to continental United States. 

Commercial shipments of Sharwil 

avocados may be moved interstate from 

Hawaii to the continental United States 

without treatment under the following 

conditions: 

(a) Registration. Persons wishing to 

move Sharwil avocados in accordance 

with this section must register the 

avocados’ place of production and the 

packinghouse that packs the avocados. 

A registration form may be obtained 

from local APHIS offices in Hawaii. 

Persons registering places of production 

or packinghouses must agree to allow 

inspectors access to the places of 

production and packinghouses as 

necessary to monitor compliance with 

this section. 

(b) Grove sanitation. Avocado fruit 

that has fallen from the trees must be 

removed from each place of production 

at least once every 7 days and in 

compliance with any schedule specified 

in the compliance agreement required in 

paragraph (h) of this section. Fallen 

avocado fruit may not be included in 

field containers of fruit brought to the 

packinghouse to be packed for interstate 

movement. 

(c) Trapping and orchard control. (1) 

Beginning at least 1 month before 

harvest, the place of production of the 

avocados must have a trapping system 

in place for B. dorsalis that complies 

with all conditions specified in the 

compliance agreement required in 

paragraph (h) of this section. APHISapproved traps and APHIS-approved 

lures must be used, and the place of 

production or the packinghouse must 

retain for at least 1 year data regarding 

the number and location of the traps, as 

well as any fruit flies that have been 

caught, and make this information 

available to APHIS upon request. 

(2) If B. dorsalis is detected by the 

trapping at an actionable rate as 

specified in the compliance agreement, 

control actions required by the 

compliance agreement or ordered by an 

inspector must be taken. 

(d) Harvesting requirements. 

Avocados may only be harvested 

between November 1 and March 31. 

Avocados must be hard ripe fruit at the 

mature green stage with stems attached. 

Fruit must not indent with moderate 

finger pressure and no part of the fruit 

shall be soft. The fruit must be moved 

to a registered packinghouse within 12 

hours of harvest or must be protected 

from fruit fly infestation until moved. 

The fruit must be safeguarded by an 

insect-proof screen or plastic tarpaulin 

while in transit to the packinghouse and 

while awaiting packing. 

(e) Packinghouse requirements. 

During the time registered 

packinghouses are in use for packing 

avocados for movement to the 

continental United States, the 

packinghouses may only accept 

avocados that are from registered places 

of production and that are produced in 

accordance with the requirements of 

this section and of the compliance 

agreement required in paragraph (h) of 

this section. 

(1) Avocados must be packed within 

24 hours of harvest in an insectexclusionary packinghouse. All 

openings to the outside of the 

packinghouse must be covered by 

screening with openings of not more 

than 1.6 mm or by some other barrier 

that prevents pests from entering. 

(2) Fruit must be packed in insectproof packaging, or covered with insectproof mesh or a plastic tarpaulin, for 

transport to the continental United 

States. These safeguards must remain 

intact until arrival in the continental 

United States. 

(3) Fruit boxes must be clearly marked 

‘‘Distribution limited to the following 

States: CO, CT, DE, DC, ID, IL, IN, IA, 

KS, KY, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MO, 

MT, NE., NH, NJ, NY, ND, OH, PA, RI, 

SD, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, and WY’’ 

and each consignment must be 

identified in accordance with the 

requirements of § 318.13–3(g). 

(f) Inspection. A biometric sample of 

a size determined by APHIS will be 

visually inspected for quarantine pests 

by an inspector, and a portion of the 

fruit will be cut open to detect internal 

pests, including B. dorsalis. If any 

quarantine pests are found, the entire 

consignment of avocados will be 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

8992 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 26 / Thursday, February 7, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

prohibited from interstate movement 

unless it is treated with an approved 

quarantine treatment monitored by 

APHIS. If any B. dorsalis are found, the 

entire consignment of avocados will be 

prohibited from interstate movement, 

and the place of production producing 

that fruit will be suspended from the 

interstate shipment program until 

APHIS conducts an investigation and 

appropriate remedial actions have been 

implemented. 

(g) Limited distribution. No Sharwil 

avocados moved under this program 

may be shipped to locations in the 

continental United States other than 

Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, 

District of Columbia, Idaho, Illinois, 

Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, 

Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, 

Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, 

Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, 

New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, 

Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, 

South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, 

Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, 

and Wyoming. 

(h) Compliance agreement. Persons 

wishing to move avocados in 

accordance with this section must sign 

a compliance agreement in accordance 

with § 318.13–3(d) of this part in which 

he or she agrees to comply with such 

conditions as may be required by the 

inspector in each specific case to 

prevent infestation. 

Done in Washington, DC, this 4th day of 

February 2013. 

Kevin Shea, 

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 2013–02781 Filed 2–6–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 430 

[Docket No. EERE–2011–BT–TP–0054] 

RIN 1904–AC63 

Energy Conservation Program: Test 

Procedures for Residential Clothes 

Dryers 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) proposes to amend its test 

procedures for residential clothes dryers 

established under the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act. The proposed 

amendments would clarify the 

installation conditions for console 

lights, the method for measuring the 

drum capacity, the maximum allowable 

scale range, and the allowable use of a 

relative humidity meter. 

DATES: DOE will accept comments, data, 

and information regarding this 

supplemental notice of proposed 

rulemaking (SNOPR) no later than 

March 18, 2013. See section IV, ‘‘Public 

Participation,’’ for details. 

ADDRESSES: Any comments submitted 

must identify the SNOPR on Test 

Procedures for Residential Clothes 

Dryers, and provide docket number 

EERE–2011–BT–TP–0054 and/or 

regulatory information number (RIN) 

1904–AC63. Comments may be 

submitted using any of the following 

methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

2. Email: RCDAT–2011–TP–0054@ee.

doe.gov. Include docket number EERE– 

2011–BT–TP–0054 and/or RIN 1904– 

AC63 in the subject line of the message. 

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

Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, Mailstop EE–2J, 

1000 Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. If 

possible, please submit all items on a 

compact disc (CD), in which case it is 

not necessary to include printed copies. 

4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda 

Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Building Technologies Program, 6th 

Floor, 950 L’Enfant Plaza SW., 

Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: 

(202) 586–2945. If possible, please 

submit all items on a CD, in which case 

it is not necessary to include printed 

copies. 

For detailed instructions on 

submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see section IV of this document (Public 

Participation). 

Docket: The docket is available for 

review at www.regulations.gov, 

including Federal Register notices, 

framework documents, public meeting 

attendee lists and transcripts, 

comments, and other supporting 

documents/materials. All documents in 

the docket are listed in the www.

regulations.gov index. However, not all 

documents listed in the index may be 

publicly available, such as information 

that is exempt from public disclosure. 

A link to the docket web page can be 

found at: http://www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;dct=FR%252BPR%252

BN%252BO%252BSR;rpp=10;po=0;D=

EERE-2011-BT-TP-0054. This web page 

will contain a link to the docket for this 

notice on the www.regulations.gov site. 

The www.regulations.gov web page 

contains instructions on how to access 

all documents, including public 

comments, in the docket. See section IV 

for information on how to submit 

comments through 

www.regulations.gov. 

For further information on how to 

submit a comment or review other 

public comments and the docket, 

contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 

586-2945 or email: Brenda.Edwards@ee.

doe.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mr. Stephen Witkowski, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 

Building Technologies Program, EE– 

2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. Tel.: 

(202) 586–7463. Email: Stephen.

Witkowski@ee.doe.gov. 

Ms. Elizabeth Kohl, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

1000 Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC, 20585–0121. Tel.: 

(202) 586–7796, Email: Elizabeth.

Kohl@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Authority and Background 

A. General Test Procedure Rulemaking 

Process 

B. DOE Clothes Dryer Test Procedure 

II. Discussion 

A. Proposals 

B. Compliance With Other EPCA 

Requirements 

III. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act 

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 

H. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 1999 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

J. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal 

Energy Administration Act of 1974 

IV. Public Participation 

A. Submission of Comments 

B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 

1. Console Lights 

2. Drum Capacity Measurement 

V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Authority and Background 

Title III of the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6291, et 

seq.; ‘‘EPCA’’ or ‘‘the Act’’) sets forth a 

variety of provisions designed to 

improve energy efficiency. (All 

references to EPCA refer to the statute 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS