Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 79 / Friday, April 24, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 22885 

1To view the proposed rule and the comment we 

received, go to http://www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2012-0014. 

§ 12.31 [Amended] 

■ 11. Amend § 12.31(b)(1), as follows: 

■ a. Remove the words ‘‘in the National 

List of Plant Species that Occur in 

Wetlands’’ and add the words ‘‘in the 

National Wetland Plant List, or (as 

determined by NRCS) successor 

publication’’ in their place; and 

■ b. Remove the words ‘‘may be 

obtained upon request from the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service at National 

Wetland Inventory, Monroe Bldg. Suite 

101, 9720 Executive Center Drive, St. 

Petersburg, Florida 33702’’ and add the 

words ‘‘may be accessed at: http://

rsgisias.crrel.usace.army.mil/NWPL/’’ in 

their place. 

§ 12.34 [Removed] 

■ 12. Remove § 12.34. 

Signed on April 20, 2015. 

Thomas J. Vilsack, 

Secretary of Agriculture. 

[FR Doc. 2015–09599 Filed 4–23–15; 08:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–05–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

7 CFR Part 319 

[Docket No. APHIS–2012–0014] 

RIN 0579–AD68 

Importation of Papayas From Peru 

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are amending the 

regulations to allow, under certain 

conditions, the importation of 

commercial consignments of fresh 

papayas from Peru into the continental 

United States. The conditions for the 

importation of papayas from Peru will 

include requirements for approved 

production locations; field sanitation; 

hot water treatment; procedures for 

packing and shipping the papayas; and 

fruit fly trapping in papaya production 

areas. This action will allow for the 

importation of papayas from Peru while 

continuing to provide protection against 

the introduction of quarantine pests into 

the continental United States. 

DATES: Effective May 26, 2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Dorothy Wayson, Senior Regulatory 

Coordination Specialist, Regulatory 

Coordination and Compliance, PPQ, 

APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 133, 

Riverdale, MD 20737–1231; (301) 851– 

2036. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The regulations in ‘‘Subpart–Fruits 

and Vegetables’’ (7 CFR 319.56–1 

through 319.56–71, 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. The national plant 

protection organization (NPPO) of Peru 

has requested that the Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service (APHIS) 

amend the regulations to allow fresh 

papayas (Carica papaya) to be imported 

from Peru into the continental United 

States. 

On August 9, 2013, we published in 

the Federal Register (78 FR 48628– 

48631, Docket No. APHIS–2012–0014) a 

proposal 1 to amend the regulations to 

allow, under certain conditions, the 

importation of commercial 

consignments of fresh papayas from 

Peru into the continental United States. 

Consistent with the risk management 

document that accompanied the 

proposed rule, we proposed to require 

that the papayas be subjected to a 

systems approach to pest mitigation. 

This proposed systems approach 

included requirements to produce the 

papayas at places of production 

registered with the NPPO of Peru, 

required packing procedures designed 

to exclude quarantine pests, and 

required fruit fly trapping, field 

sanitation, and hot water treatment to 

remove pests of concern from the 

pathway. We proposed to allow only 

commercial consignments of papayas to 

be imported from Peru and to require 

that consignments of papayas from Peru 

be accompanied by a phytosanitary 

certificate issued by the NPPO of Peru 

stating that the papayas were grown, 

packed, and shipped in accordance with 

the proposed requirements. 

We solicited comments concerning 

our proposal for 60 days ending October 

8, 2013. We received one comment by 

that date, from a private citizen. The 

commenter supported the risk 

mitigation approach in the proposed 

rule, but suggested that an integrated 

pest management approach might also 

be effective at managing the risk 

associated with Ceratitis capitata, the 

Mediterranean fruit fly. 

We based the proposed risk 

mitigations on those in § 319.56–25, 

which have allowed the pest-free 

importation of papaya from certain areas 

of Brazil, Central America, Colombia, 

and Ecuador. We are open to alternative 

approaches of mitigating C. capitata, 

although we would need a request from 

the NPPO of Peru to be submitted in 

accordance with § 319.5 to begin 

considering such approaches. 

Therefore, for the reasons given in the 

proposed rule and in this document, we 

are adopting the proposed rule as a final 

rule, without change. 

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

This final 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 on the 

Regulations.gov Web site (see footnote 1 

in this document for a link to 

Regulations.gov) or by contacting the 

person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

This final rule will allow the 

importation of fresh papaya fruit from 

Peru into the continental United States. 

Papaya is a relatively minor crop in the 

United States that is primarily grown in 

Hawaii and, to a lesser extent, in 

Florida. Very small acreages of papaya 

are found in Texas and California. 

Peru is expected to ship up to 36 

metric tons of fresh papaya to the 

United States per year. This amount will 

be equivalent to less than 0.03 percent 

of net imports of fresh papaya by the 

United States in 2012. With U.S. net 

imports estimated to be at least eight 

times as large as U.S. fresh papaya 

production, any market effects of such 

a relatively negligible change in papaya 

imports are as likely to impact foreign 

suppliers as they are U.S. producers. In 

addition, effects for the majority of U.S. 

papaya producers, who are located in 

Hawaii, will be further muted by the 

prohibition on entry of fresh papaya 

from Peru into that State. While most, 

if not all, U.S. papaya farms are small 

entities, we expect this final rule to have 

a very minor impact regardless of the 

size of operation. 

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. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
22886 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 79 / Friday, April 24, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

Executive Order 12988 

This final rule allows papayas to be 

imported into the continental United 

States from Peru. State and local laws 

and regulations regarding papayas 

imported under this rule will be 

preempted while the fruit is in foreign 

commerce. Fresh fruits are generally 

imported for immediate distribution and 

sale to the consuming public, and 

remain in foreign commerce until sold 

to the ultimate consumer. The question 

of when foreign commerce ceases in 

other cases must be addressed on a caseby-case 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 

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 final rule, 

which were filed under 0579–0410, 

have been submitted for approval to the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB). When OMB notifies us of its 

decision, if approval is denied, we will 

publish a document in the Federal 

Register providing notice of what action 

we plan to take. 

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 rule, please contact Ms. Kimberly 

Hardy, APHIS’ Information Collection 

Coordinator, at (301) 851–2727. 

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 and 7701–7772 

and 7781–7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 

CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3. 

§ 319.56–25 [Amended] 

■ 2. Section 319.56–25 is amended as 

follows: 

■ a. In paragraph (b), by removing the 

words ‘‘or Ecuador’’ and adding the 

words ‘‘, Ecuador, or Peru’’ in their 

place. 

■ b. In paragraph (g)(2), by adding the 

word ‘‘Peru,’’ after the word ‘‘Ecuador,’’. 

■ c. In paragraph (h), by removing the 

citation ‘‘(h)’’ and adding the citation 

‘‘(g)’’ in its place. 

■ d. In the OMB citation at the end of 

the section, by removing the words 

‘‘0579–0128 and 0579–0358’’ and 

adding the words ‘‘0579–0128, 0579– 

0358, and 0579–0410’’ in their place. 

Done in Washington, DC, this 20th day of 

April 2015. 

Kevin Shea, 

Administrator, Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 2015–09576 Filed 4–23–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE 

CORPORATION 

12 CFR Part 340 

RIN 3064–AE26 

Restrictions on Sale of Assets of a 

Failed Institution by the Federal 

Deposit Insurance Corporation 

AGENCY: Federal Deposit Insurance 

Corporation. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: With this final rule, the 

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 

(FDIC) is revising its rule concerning 

restrictions on the sale of assets of a 

failed institution under the Federal 

Deposit Insurance Act in order to clarify 

the purpose, scope and applicability of 

that rule and to make that rule more 

consistent with the FDIC’s rule 

concerning restrictions on the sale of 

assets of a covered financial company 

under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street 

Reform and Consumer Protection Act. 

DATES: This final rule is effective July 1, 

2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

James D. Sigler, Senior Franchise and 

Asset Marketing Specialist, 571–858– 

8284; Elizabeth Falloon, Supervisory 

Counsel, Legal Division, 703–562–6148; 

Shane Kiernan, Counsel, Legal Division, 

703–562–2632; Federal Deposit 

Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street 

NW., Washington, DC 20429. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

The FDIC promulgated part 340 in 

2000 to implement section 11(p) of the 

Federal Deposit Insurance Act, (12 

U.S.C. 1821(p) (section 11(p)). Under 

section 11(p), individuals or entities 

whose acts or omissions have, or may 

have, contributed to the failure of an 

insured depository institution (failed 

institution) cannot buy the assets of that 

failed institution from the FDIC. The 

FDIC expanded the purchaser eligibility 

restriction as permitted by statute when 

it promulgated part 340 by precluding 

such individuals or entities from 

purchasing the assets of any failed 

institution, not only the particular 

institution affected by the actions of the 

respective individuals or entities. As 

provided in section 11(p), part 340 also 

prohibits the sale of assets involving 

FDIC financing to certain persons who 

have defaulted on obligations of $1 

million or more, in aggregate, owed to 

a failed insured depository institution or 

the FDIC and who have made fraudulent 

misrepresentations in connection with 

any of those obligations. Compliance 

with part 340 is established through a 

self-certification process in which a 

prospective purchaser certifies that it is 

eligible to purchase an asset from the 

FDIC and that the FDIC’s sale of an asset 

to such prospective purchaser would 

not be restricted under section 11(p) or 

part 340. 

In March of 2014, the FDIC 

promulgated § 380.13 to implement 

section 210(r) of the Dodd-Frank Wall 

Street Reform and Consumer Protection 

Act, (12 U.S.C. 5390(r) (section 210(r)). 

Section 210(r) prohibits certain sales of 

assets held by the FDIC in the course of 

liquidating a covered financial 

company. Because section 210(r) and 

section 11(p) share substantially similar 

statutory language, part 340 served as a 

model for the development of § 380.13. 

While many aspects of part 340 were 

included in § 380.13, FDIC staff 

identified new or different concepts to 

include in § 380.13 that were not 

already in part 340. The addition of 

these concepts into part 340 will 

improve part 340 and make it more 

consistent with § 380.13. 

II. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

On October 21, 2014, the Board of 

Directors approved a notice of proposed 

rulemaking entitled ‘‘Restrictions on 

Sale of Assets by the Federal Deposit 

Insurance Corporation’’ (the proposed 

rule), which was published in the 

Federal Register on October 24, 2014 

with a 60-day comment period that 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES