26654 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Secretary for Management is the lead 

Department of State official for overall 

operational implementation of the 

Executive Order. The retrospective team 

answers to that official, not to the rule 

writers. With respect to prospective 

rules, proposed drafts of such rules 

must be cleared by the Office of the 

Legal Adviser, the Bureau of Resource 

Management, and other offices relevant 

to the regulation’s subject matter, which 

are typically independent of the rule 

writers. For example, rules affecting visa 

policy and procedures require clearance 

by the Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS) while various additional 

circumstances may require clearance by 

the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) 

and the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB). These required clearance 

steps ensure objective channels of 

review for rule drafts. 

f. Describe Agency Actions, If Any, To 

Strengthen Internal Review Expertise. 

This Could Include Training Staff, 

Regrouping Staff, Hiring New Staff, or 

Other Methods 

A working group was created to 

enforce the Department’s efforts for 

making the most up-to-date information 

available online for the public and 

Department staff, for discussing 

information about the requirements of 

the E.O. and for planning the initial and 

on-going annual reviews. Looking 

forward, the Department’s bureaus will 

participate in the rule writing process 

by contributing staff to the retrospective 

team. This approach will provide a rich 

retrospective review exchange with the 

public and will ensure that all aspects 

of the Department’s broad expertise are 

reflected in the E.O.’s retrospective 

analysis of existing rules efforts. 

g. How will the agency plan for 

retrospective analysis over the next two 

years, and beyond? 

This plan has been developed 

collaboratively under the direction of 

the Under Secretary of Management. 

The team is composed of leading bureau 

representatives currently active in the 

rule writing and rule review process. 

Because the Department regulatory 

procedures are dynamic in nature, there 

are triggers that promote our on-going 

review and amendment to our rules and 

other guidance. 

h. How will the agency decide what to 

do with analysis? 

The Under Secretary for Management 

will decide, with input from the 

retrospective team and input from the 

public received in response to this 

notice. 

i. What are the agency’s plans for 

revising rules? How will agencies 

periodically revisit rules (e.g., though 

sunset provisions, during regular 

intervals)? 

The Department will review each rule 

and determine whether or not it should 

be revised. 

j. Describe How the Agency Will 

Coordinate With Other Federal Agencies 

That Have Jurisdiction or Similar 

Interests 

As administrators of the International 

Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) and 

rules dealing with passport/visa issues, 

the Department already coordinates 

with other Federal agencies when it 

promulgates rules, and will do the same 

if the retrospective analysis reveals 

existing rules that must be changed. 

k. Will the plan be peer reviewed? 

This plan was developed by a team 

led by the Department’s Under Secretary 

for Management, composed of 

employees throughout the Department. 

The public will be given an opportunity 

to comment on the plan, but it will not 

be peer-reviewed in the scientific sense. 

VI. Components of Retrospective CostBenefit Analysis 

a. What metrics will the agency use to 

evaluate regulations after they have 

been implemented? For example, will 

the agency use increases in net benefits, 

increases in cost effectiveness ratios, or 

something else? 

During the initial review process, 

each specific rule will be evaluated 

individually. The Department generally 

implements rules based on statutory 

requirements, recouping the cost of 

service, and increase in net benefits. 

b. What steps has the agency taken to 

ensure that it has the data available 

with which to conduct a robust 

retrospective analysis? 

A working group has been formed 

consisting of individuals with expertise 

in rule writing, which will ensure an 

effective retrospective analysis. 

c. How, if at all, will the agency 

incorporate experimental designs into 

retrospective analyses? 

This does not apply to the Department 

of State. 

VII. Publishing the Agency’s Plan 

Online 

a. Will the agency publish its 

retrospective review plan and available 

data on its Open Government Web site 

(http://www.agency.gov/open). 

Yes. The point of contact will be T. 

J. Furlong (FurlongTJ@state.gov) in the 

Department’s Bureau of Administration. 

Dated: April 27, 2011. 

Patrick F. Kennedy, 

Under Secretary for Management, 

Department of State. 

[FR Doc. 2011–11242 Filed 5–6–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710–24–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

7 CFR Parts 301 and 319 

[Docket No. APHIS–2010–0127] 

RIN 0579–AD34 

Movement of Hass Avocados From 

Areas Where Mediterranean Fruit Fly 

or South American Fruit Fly Exist 

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: We are reopening the 

comment period for our proposed rule 

that would relieve certain restrictions 

regarding the movement of fresh Hass 

variety avocados. This action will allow 

interested persons additional time to 

prepare and submit comments. 

DATES: We will consider all comments 

that we receive on or before May 18, 

2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by either of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/ 

component/ 

main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS2010-0127 to submit or view comments 

and to view supporting and related 

materials available electronically. 

• Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: 

Please send one copy of your comment 

to Docket No. APHIS–2010–0127, 

Regulatory Analysis and Development, 

PPD, APHIS, Station 3A–03.8, 4700 

River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 

20737–1238. Please state that your 

comment refers to Docket No. APHIS– 

2010–0127. 

Reading Room: You may read any 

comments that we receive on this 

docket in our reading room. The reading 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules 26655 

room 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) 690 2817 before 

coming. 

Other Information: Additional 

information about APHIS and its 

programs is available on the Internet at 

http://www.aphis.usda.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Tony Roma ́n, Import Specialist, 

Regulations, Permits, and Manuals, 

PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 133, 

Riverdale, MD 20737–1231; (301) 734– 

0627. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 

4, 2011, we published in the Federal 

Register (76 FR 18419–18421, Docket 

No. APHIS–2010–0127) a proposal to 

relieve certain restrictions regarding the 

movement of fresh Hass variety 

avocados. Specifically, we proposed to 

amend our domestic regulations to 

provide for the interstate movement of 

Hass avocados from Mediterranean fruit 

fly quarantined areas in the United 

States with a certificate if the fruit is 

safeguarded after harvest in accordance 

with specific measures. We also 

proposed to amend our foreign 

quarantine regulations to remove 

trapping requirements for 

Mediterranean fruit fly for Hass 

avocados imported from the State of 

Michoaca ́n, Mexico, requirements for 

treatment or origin from an area free of 

Mediterranean fruit fly for Hass 

avocados imported from Peru, and 

requirements for trapping or origin from 

an area free of South American fruit fly 

for Hass avocados imported from Peru. 

Comments on the proposed rule were 

required to be received on or before May 

4, 2011. We are reopening the comment 

period on Docket No. APHIS–2010– 

0127 for an additional 14 days, until 

May 18, 2011. This action will allow 

interested persons additional time to 

prepare and submit comments. We will 

also consider all comments received 

between May 5, 2011, and the date of 

this document. 

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. 

Done in Washington, DC, this 3rd day of 

May 2011. 

Gregory L. Parham, 

Administrator, Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–11173 Filed 5–6–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Food Safety and Inspection Service 

9 CFR Parts 300, 441, 530–534, 537, 

539, 540, 541, 544, 548, 550, 552, 555, 

557, and 559–561 

[Docket No. FSIS–2011–0010] 

Public Meetings on the Proposed Rule 

for Mandatory Inspection of Catfish 

and Catfish Products 

AGENCY: Food Safety and Inspection 

Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice of public meetings; 

request for comment. 

SUMMARY: The Food Safety and 

Inspection Service (FSIS) is announcing 

that it will hold two public meetings to 

receive comments on the proposed 

regulation to implement a program for 

mandatory inspection of catfish and 

catfish products (Docket No. FSIS– 

2008–0031), published February 24, 

2011 in the Federal Register. 

DATES: The first meeting will be held in 

Washington, DC, on May 24, 2011; 9 

a.m. to 12 p.m. EDT, in the USDA 

Jefferson Auditorium (South Building), 

1400 Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20250. Attendees must 

provide a photo ID to enter the building. 

The Jefferson Auditorium is located at 

Wing 6 in the South Building. Attendees 

should enter the building via Wing 5 or 

7 on 14th Street and Independence 

Avenue, SW. 

The second meeting will be held in 

Stoneville, Mississippi, on May 26, 9 

a.m. to 12 p.m., in the Charles Capp 

Center at the Delta Research and 

Extension Center of the Mississippi 

State University. The Charles Capp 

Center is located at 82 Stoneville Road, 

Stoneville, MS 38776. The telephone 

contact number is (662) 686–3442. 

Registration will begin at 8:30 a.m. 

local time at each location. 

Meeting times may be adjusted 

according to public participation and 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joan 

Lindenberger, Office of Public Affairs 

and Consumer Education, (202) 720– 

6755, or by e-mail at 

Joan.Lindenberger@fsis.usda.gov. 

Registration: Pre-registration for this 

meeting is recommended. To preregister, access the FSIS Web site, at 

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/News/

Meetings_&_Events/. Select the 

meeting(s) you wish to attend and 

complete the registration form as 

requested. Persons requiring a sign 

language interpreter or other special 

accommodations should notify Ms. 

Lindenberger 15 business days prior to 

the meeting. 

Public Comment: Anyone wishing to 

make a public comment must indicate 

that preference during the registration 

process. In addition to these meetings, 

interested persons may submit 

comments on the proposed rule (76 FR 

10434) on or before June 24, 2011, using 

either of the following methods: 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and follow 

the online instructions at that site for 

submitting comments. 

Mail, including CD–ROMs, and handor courier-delivered items: Send to 

Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection 

Service, Room 2–2127 George 

Washington Carver Center, 5601 

Sunnyside Avenue, Mailstop 5272, 

Beltsville, MD 20705–5272. 

Instructions: All items submitted by 

mail or electronic mail must include the 

Agency name and docket number 

FSIS—2008–0031. Comments received 

in response to this docket will be made 

available for public inspection and 

posted without change, including any 

personal information, to: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

Docket: For access to background 

documents or comments received, go to 

the FSIS Docket Room at the address 

listed above between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 

p.m., Monday through Friday. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

U.S. catfish processors, exporters, and 

importers are currently subject to the 

U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s 

(FDA’s) Hazard Analysis and Critical 

Control Point (HACCP) regulations for 

seafood (9 CFR part 123), including 

catfish, and to other requirements under 

the Food, Drug and Cosmetic (FD&C) 

Act (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.). The National 

Marine Fisheries Service conducts 

voluntary, fee-for-service inspection and 

certification programs for catfish under 

provisions of the Agricultural Marketing 

Act (7 U.S.C. 1622, 1624) and 

regulations implementing that Act (50 

CFR part 260). 

The Food, Conservation, and Energy 

Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110–246, 

§ 10016(b)), known as the 2008 Farm 

Bill, amended the Federal Meat 

Inspection Act (FMIA) to provide that 

‘‘catfish, as defined by the Secretary,’’ is 

a species amenable to the FMIA (21 

U.S.C. 601 (w)(2)) and amended the 

FMIA in other ways to provide for 

catfish inspection. FSIS, the Agency that 

administers the FMIA, has proposed 

regulations to implement the Farm Bill 

amendments of the FMIA that require 

inspection of catfish and catfish 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS