This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains regulatory documents having general

applicability and legal effect, most of which

are keyed to and codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations, which is published under

50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by

the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of

new books are listed in the first FEDERAL

REGISTER issue of each week.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

42621 

Vol. 77, No. 140 

Friday, July 20, 2012 

1To view the proposed rule, supporting and 

related documents, and the comments received, go 

to http://www.regulations.gov/ 

#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2009-0100. 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

7 CFR Parts 305 and 319 

[Docket No. APHIS–2009–0100] 

RIN 0579–AD35 

Irradiation Treatment; Location of 

Facilities in the Southern United States 

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are amending the 

phytosanitary treatment regulations to 

provide generic criteria for new 

irradiation treatment facilities in the 

Southern States of the United States. 

This action will allow irradiation 

facilities to be located anywhere in 

these States, subject to approval, rather 

than only in the currently approved 

locations. We are also amending the 

regulations to allow for the irradiation 

treatment of certain imported fruit from 

India and Thailand upon arrival in the 

United States. This action will facilitate 

the importation of fruit requiring 

irradiation treatment while continuing 

to provide protection against the 

introduction of pests of concern into the 

United States. 

DATES: Effective Date: August 20, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Inder P. S. Gadh, Senior Risk Manager— 

Treatments, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River 

Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737– 

1236; (301) 851–2018. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The phytosanitary treatment 

regulations contained in 7 CFR part 305 

(referred to below as the regulations) set 

out the general requirements for 

performing treatments and certifying or 

approving treatment facilities for fruits, 

vegetables, and other articles to prevent 

the introduction or dissemination of 

plant pests or noxious weeds into or 

through the United States. The Animal 

and Plant Health Inspection Service 

(APHIS) of the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) administers these 

regulations. 

The regulations in § 305.9 set out 

irradiation treatment requirements for 

imported regulated articles; regulated 

articles moved interstate from Hawaii, 

Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands; 

and regulated articles moved interstate 

from areas quarantined for certain pests 

of concern. In § 305.9, paragraph (a)(1) 

allows irradiation treatment facilities to 

be located in any State of the United 

States, except for the Southern States of 

Alabama, Arizona, California, Florida, 

Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, 

Mississippi, Nevada, New Mexico, 

North Carolina, South Carolina, 

Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia. The 

regulations do allow irradiation 

facilities to be located at the maritime 

ports of Gulfport, MS, and Wilmington, 

NC, and the airport of Atlanta, GA. 

The regulations in § 305.9 also allow 

for irradiation treatment of articles 

either prior to or after arrival in the 

United States, provided an APHISapproved facility is available. The 

regulations in parts 318 and 319 allow 

the importation of certain fruits from 

India (mangoes), Mexico (guavas), 

Pakistan (mangoes), Thailand (litchis, 

longans, mangoes, mangosteens, 

pineapples, and rambutans), and 

Vietnam (dragon fruits), and the 

interstate movement of several fruits 

and vegetables from Hawaii, after they 

have received irradiation treatment. 

While the regulations in parts 318 and 

319 provide that fruits and vegetables 

moving from Mexico, Pakistan, 

Vietnam, and Hawaii may receive 

irradiation at either the point of origin 

or upon arrival in the mainland United 

States, the regulations in part 319 

require fruit from India and Thailand to 

be treated prior to arrival in the United 

States. 

On September 29, 2011, we published 

in the Federal Register a proposal 1 (76 

FR 60390–60395, Docket No. APHIS– 

2009–0100) to amend § 305.9 by 

establishing generic phytosanitary 

criteria to replace the current criteria for 

irradiation facilities at the maritime 

ports of Gulfport, MS, and Wilmington, 

NC, and the airport of Atlanta, GA, and 

to apply the proposed generic criteria to 

any new irradiation treatment facilities 

in the Southern States of the United 

States. Under these criteria, in 

conjunction with the current criteria for 

irradiation facilities not located in the 

Southern States, we proposed to allow 

new irradiation facilities to be 

established in all the Southern States for 

the treatment of regulated articles that 

are imported, moved interstate from 

Hawaii or U.S. territories, or moved 

interstate from areas quarantined for 

certain pests of concern. We also 

proposed to amend § 319.56–46 to allow 

for irradiation treatment of mangoes 

from India either prior to or after arrival 

in the United States and § 319.56–47 to 

allow for irradiation treatment of 

tropical fruits from Thailand either prior 

to or after arrival in the United States. 

We solicited comments concerning 

our proposal for 60 days ending 

November 28, 2011. We received seven 

comments by that date. One comment 

consisted of 3,529 identical or nearly 

identical letters. The comments were 

from an advocacy group, a State 

department of agriculture, and private 

citizens. Two commenters expressed 

support for the proposed rule. The 

remaining comments are discussed 

below by topic. 

Some commenters stated that 

irradiation is an inappropriate way to 

deal with the risk of plant pests in 

imported foods. One commenter 

generally opposed the use of irradiation 

as a phytosanitary measure. One 

commenter opposed the rule as no 

irradiation facilities have been built in 

the currently approved locations in 

Southern States. 

Under the Plant Protection Act (7 

U.S.C. 7701 et seq.), regulated articles 

may be subject to remedial measures 

necessary to prevent the spread of plant 

pests. APHIS has determined that 

irradiation is an effective form of 

treatment against certain plant pests, 

and the regulations in 7 CFR part 305 

provide for irradiation as a 

phytosanitary treatment for 

commodities or articles that require 

treatment prior to interstate movement 

or importation. Before approving 

irradiation as a treatment alternative for 

a specific pest, APHIS performs an 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
42622 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 140 / Friday, July 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

evaluation to determine its 

effectiveness. As irradiation has been 

determined to be effective, there is no 

reason to deny importers the use of this 

treatment option. 

Several commenters expressed 

concern about importing commodities 

into the United States prior to 

irradiation treatment, with one 

commenter indicating that Florida is a 

high-risk area for fruit flies and other 

invasive exotic pests. Another 

commenter stated that allowing 

irradiation facilities in Southern States 

would make it easier for pests to infest 

key agricultural States and expressed 

concern about the cost of containing and 

eradicating exotic pests. One commenter 

questioned why pest mitigation is not 

occurring prior to export and did not 

understand why the United States 

would perform this task for exporters. 

As we indicated in the proposed rule, 

the regulations in § 305.9 allow for 

irradiation treatment of articles either 

prior to or after arrival in the United 

States, provided that an APHISapproved facility is available. Articles 

may be treated in the United States 

instead of the exporting country for 

several reasons, including when the 

exporting country lacks the resources, 

technical expertise, or infrastructure to 

treat articles prior to export. The 

regulations require safeguards that have 

successfully prevented the introduction 

or dissemination of plant pests into or 

within the United States via the 

importation or interstate movement of 

irradiated articles since 1996, when 

irradiation was first used as a 

phytosanitary treatment. Based on our 

experience, we are confident that 

exporting countries have the ability to 

comply with all APHIS requirements 

and commodities from exporting 

countries can be safely treated in the 

United States. 

APHIS recognizes that the Southern 

States have conditions favorable for the 

establishment of exotic fruit flies, and 

that is why we proposed additional 

safeguards for irradiation facilities in 

these States that go beyond the current 

requirements that apply to all 

irradiation facilities. These safeguards 

include the requirements that untreated 

articles may not be removed from their 

packaging prior to treatment under any 

circumstances, that refrigerated or airconditioned conveyances must be used 

to transport regulated articles to the 

treatment facility, and that facilities 

have contingency plans for safely 

destroying or disposing of regulated 

articles if the facility was unable to 

properly treat a shipment. To help 

prevent establishment of pests in the 

unlikely event that they escape despite 

the required precautions, we will 

require trapping and other pest 

monitoring activities within 4 square 

miles of the facility to help prevent 

establishment of any escaped pests of 

concern. Those activities will be paid 

for by the facility. In addition, while 

APHIS monitors the treatment, the costs 

of treatment are the responsibility of the 

exporter or the importer, not APHIS. 

APHIS will only approve a proposed 

facility if the Administrator determines 

that regulated articles can be safely 

transported to the facility from a port of 

entry or points of origin in the United 

States. We believe that the mitigations 

included in this final rule have proven 

effective in mitigating the risk 

associated with the importation of 

commodities into the United States, and 

thus will provide protection against the 

introduction or dissemination of pests 

of concern into the United States. In the 

environmental assessment (EA) that we 

prepared for the proposed rule, we 

evaluated the potential environmental 

effects from allowing untreated 

commodities to be transported into the 

Southern United States. In the EA, we 

determined that the mitigation measures 

included in this final rule are adequate 

to manage pest risks associated with 

amending the irradiation regulations 

and are expected to provide an effective 

level of phytosanitary protection. 

Several commenters were concerned 

that the increased importation of 

commodities into the United States 

would have adverse economic effects on 

domestic producers. One commenter 

expressed concern that irradiation 

facilities are expensive and would 

increase the cost of food. 

This rule does not authorize the 

importation of any additional fruits or 

vegetables, so it will not in and of itself 

lead to the increased importation of 

commodities. Any new imports would 

have to be authorized through our 

existing provisions in 7 CFR part 319. 

While the availability of additional 

treatment capacity in new areas might 

spur businesses to explore new or 

additional imports of articles, the PPA 

authorizes APHIS to consider plant pest 

risks when determining whether to 

allow new articles to be imported, rather 

than potential economic competition. 

With respect to the costs of irradiation 

increasing the costs of food, the final 

rule does not add irradiation 

requirements for any commodity and 

therefore will not add any costs. We also 

note that in most cases a variety of 

phytosanitary treatments for a particular 

article will be available, so importers 

and marketers will choose the treatment 

option that makes the most sense to 

them from an economic and competitive 

standpoint. Products are unlikely to be 

imported unless their importation is 

economically feasible. 

Many comments raised several issues 

that concern matters under the 

regulatory authority of other Federal 

agencies, not APHIS. We do not intend 

to reopen debate over matters that have 

been resolved through rulemaking by 

other agencies that have primary 

authority in these areas. 

For example, one commenter 

suggested that irradiation facilities are 

unsafe and that workers may be exposed 

to dangerous levels of radiation. Many 

other commenters stated that USDA 

should not put consumers, U.S. farmers, 

and communities at risk by expanding 

the use of irradiation. 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

the Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration, and the U.S. 

Department of Transportation have the 

primary regulatory responsibility for 

issues including irradiation facility 

construction, operation, employee and 

public safety, and transportation of 

radioisotopes. Their requirements in 

these areas were established through 

public rulemaking by the respective 

agencies. In § 305.9(b) of the final rule, 

we are requiring other agencies that 

have regulatory oversight and 

requirements regarding irradiation 

facilities to concur in writing with the 

establishment of the facility prior to 

APHIS approval. In our EA, we 

evaluated the potential environmental 

effects from irradiation facilities and 

found that, provided required safety 

standards and control procedures are 

adhered to, no impacts to the human 

environment are expected. 

Many commenters expressed concern 

that irradiation will make foods unsafe 

to eat. Commenters also stated that 

irradiation would reduce the nutritional 

value of fruits and vegetables, 

particularly through vitamin depletion. 

One commenter stated that ‘‘many of the 

exporting countries will not have 

regulatory frameworks comparable to 

what U.S. producers are subjected to 

and irradiation will be used as a 

panacea to address those shortcomings.’’ 

One commenter stated that irradiation 

can be a cover-up for poor food 

handling practices and could also mask 

the effects of spoilage. 

The Food and Drug Administration 

(FDA) has primary regulatory 

responsibility for ensuring that 

approved irradiation doses do not 

render foods unsafe to eat. In our EA, 

we discuss the safety of food that has 

been irradiated, finding that irradiation 

does not harm the nutritional value of 

food, nor does it make the food unsafe 

to eat or adversely affect the balance 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 140 / Friday, July 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 42623 

2 Go to http://www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2009-0100. The 

environmental assessment and finding of no 

significant impact will appear in the resulting list 

of documents. 

between microbial spoilage organisms 

and pathogenic organisms. Regulation of 

these matters, however, is outside the 

scope of the current rulemaking and 

outside the statutory authority of 

APHIS. We do note for the record the 

following information from the August 

2000 report by the U.S. General 

Accounting Office (now known as the 

U.S. Government Accountability Office), 

‘‘Food Irradiation: Available Research 

Indicates That Benefits Outweigh Risks’’ 

(GAO/RCED–00–217): 

There is also some vitamin loss associated 

with irradiation—with certain vitamins, such 

as thiamin (B1), ascorbic acid (C), and alphatocopherol (E)—more affected by irradiation 

than others. However, according to the 

Institute of Food Technologists, it is highly 

doubtful that there would ever be any 

vitamin deficiency resulting from eating 

irradiated food. For example, thiamin is the 

most radiation-sensitive, water-soluble 

vitamin. With regard to this vitamin, the 

American Dietetic Association’s position 

statement on food irradiation notes that FDA 

evaluated an extreme case in which all meat, 

poultry, and fish were irradiated at the 

maximum permissible dose under conditions 

resulting in the maximum destruction of 

thiamin. Even in these circumstances, the 

average thiamin intake was above the 

Recommended Dietary Allowance, leading 

FDA to conclude that there was no 

deleterious effect on the total dietary intake 

of thiamin as a result of irradiating foods. In 

its 1980 evaluation of food irradiation, the 

Joint Expert Committee convened by FAO, 

WHO, and IAEA concluded that irradiation 

caused no special nutritional problems in 

food. Another meeting of experts in 1997— 

organized by the same three international 

organizations—concluded that even high 

doses of irradiation (i.e., over 10 kGy) would 

not result in nutrient losses that could 

adversely affect a food’s nutritional value. 

Irradiation cannot reverse the spoilage 

process—the bad appearance, taste, and/or 

smell will remain the same after irradiation. 

In addition, current regulations do not allow 

food processors to use doses of irradiation on 

meat, poultry, fruits, and vegetables that 

would be high enough to sterilize extremely 

contaminated food. If a processor attempted 

to use a sterilization dose on many of these 

products, the odor, flavor, taste, and texture 

would be seriously impaired and the 

consumer would reject such products. 

One commenter stated that the FDA 

has not been able to keep up with the 

volume of imports to ensure that they 

are safe for human consumption. 

This matter is outside the scope of the 

current rulemaking and outside the 

statutory authority of APHIS. However, 

on this point we do note that the Food 

Safety Modernization Act was enacted 

on January 4, 2011, to enable FDA to 

better protect public health by 

strengthening the food safety system. 

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. 

The final rule will benefit U.S. 

entities by clearly and transparently 

presenting the criteria that will govern 

the approval of additional irradiation 

facilities in the Southern United States, 

thereby facilitating their establishment. 

APHIS has not identified any costs 

associated with establishing the generic 

criteria for irradiation facility approval 

described in the rule. 

Beyond helping to make the approval 

of future irradiation facilities in the 

Southern United States an efficient 

process, we do not anticipate that the 

criteria set forth in this rule will result 

in economic impacts on U.S. entities, 

large or small. 

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 final rule has been reviewed 

under Executive Order 12988, Civil 

Justice Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts 

all State and local laws and regulations 

that are inconsistent with this rule; (2) 

has no retroactive effect; and (3) does 

not require administrative proceedings 

before parties may file suit in court 

challenging this rule. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

An environmental assessment and 

finding of no significant impact have 

been prepared for this final rule. The 

environmental assessment provides a 

basis for the conclusion that providing 

generic criteria for new irradiation 

treatment facilities in the Southern 

States of the United States will not have 

a significant impact on the quality of the 

human environment. Based on the 

finding of no significant impact, the 

Administrator of the Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service has 

determined that an environmental 

impact statement need not be prepared. 

The environmental assessment and 

finding of no significant impact were 

prepared in accordance with: (1) The 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 

4321 et seq.), (2) regulations of the 

Council on Environmental Quality for 

implementing the procedural provisions 

of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500–1508), (3) 

USDA regulations implementing NEPA 

(7 CFR part 1b), and (4) APHIS’ NEPA 

Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 

372). 

The environmental assessment and 

finding of no significant impact may be 

viewed on the Regulations.gov Web 

site.2 Copies of the environmental 

assessment and finding of no significant 

impact are also available for public 

inspection at USDA, Room 1141, South 

Building, 14th Street and Independence 

Avenue SW., Washington, DC, between 

8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except holidays. Persons 

wishing to inspect copies are requested 

to call ahead on (202) 690–2817 to 

facilitate entry into the reading room. In 

addition, copies may be obtained by 

writing to the individual listed under 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

In accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 

et seq.), the information collection or 

recordkeeping requirements included in 

this rule have been approved by the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) under OMB control number 

0579–0383. 

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 Mrs. Celeste 

Sickles, APHIS’ Information Collection 

Coordinator, at (301) 851–2908. 

List of Subjects 

7 CFR Part 305 

Irradiation, Phytosanitary treatment, 

Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
42624 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 140 / Friday, July 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

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 

parts 305 and 319 as follows: 

PART 305—PHYTOSANITARY 

TREATMENTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 305 

continues to read as follows: 

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. 

■ 2. Section 305.9 is amended as 

follows: 

■ a. By revising paragraph (a)(1) to read 

as set forth below. 

■ b. In paragraph (b), by adding a 

sentence after the first sentence to read 

as set forth below. 

■ c. By adding a sentence after the 

paragraph (c) introductory text heading 

to read as set forth below. 

■ d. In paragraph (e) introductory text, 

by adding a sentence after the second 

sentence to read as set forth below. 

■ e. In paragraph (e)(1) introductory 

text, by adding a new first sentence after 

the paragraph heading to read as set 

forth below. 

■ f. By revising the OMB control 

number at the end of the section to read 

as set forth below. 

§ 305.9 Irradiation treatment requirements. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(1) Where certified irradiation 

facilities are available, an approved 

irradiation treatment may be conducted 

for any imported regulated article either 

prior to shipment to the United States 

or in the United States. For any 

regulated article moved interstate from 

Hawaii or U.S. territories, irradiation 

treatment may be conducted either prior 

to movement to the mainland United 

States or in the mainland United States. 

Irradiation facilities may be located in 

any State on the mainland United 

States. For irradiation facilities located 

in the States of Alabama, Arizona, 

California, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, 

Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada, New 

Mexico, North Carolina, South Carolina, 

Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia, the 

following additional conditions must be 

met: 

(i) Prospective facility operators must 

submit a detailed layout of the facility 

site and its location to APHIS. APHIS 

will evaluate plant health risks based on 

the proposed location and layout of the 

facility site. APHIS will only approve a 

proposed facility if the Administrator 

determines that regulated articles can be 

safely transported to the facility from 

port of entry or points of origin in the 

United States. 

(ii) The government of the State in 

which the facility is to be located must 

concur in writing with the 

establishment of the facility or, if it does 

not concur, must provide a written 

explanation of concern based on pest 

risks. In instances where the State 

government does not concur with the 

proposed facility location, APHIS and 

the State will agree on a strategy to 

resolve the pest risk concerns prior to 

APHIS approval. 

(iii) Untreated articles may not be 

removed from their packaging prior to 

treatment under any circumstances. 

(iv) The facility must have 

contingency plans, approved by APHIS, 

for safely destroying or disposing of 

regulated articles if the facility is unable 

to properly treat a shipment. 

(v) The facility may only treat articles 

approved by APHIS for treatment at the 

facility. Approved articles will be listed 

in the compliance agreement required in 

paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section. 

(vi) Arrangements for treatment must 

be made before the departure of a 

consignment from its port of entry or 

points of origin in the United States. 

APHIS and the facility must agree on all 

parameters, such as time, routing, and 

conveyance, by which the consignment 

will move from the port of entry or 

points of origin in the United States to 

the treatment facility. 

(vii) Regulated articles must be 

conveyed to the facility in a refrigerated 

(via motorized refrigeration equipment 

or other methods including ice or 

insulation) or air-conditioned 

conveyance at a temperature that 

minimizes the mobility of the pests of 

concern for the article. 

(viii) The facility must maintain and 

provide APHIS with an updated map 

identifying places where horticultural or 

other crops are grown within 4 square 

miles of the facility. Proximity of host 

material to the facility will necessitate 

trapping or other pest monitoring 

activities to help prevent establishment 

of any escaped pests of concern, as 

approved by APHIS; these activities will 

be listed in the compliance agreement 

required in paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this 

section. The treatment facility must 

have a pest management plan within the 

facility. 

(ix) The facility must comply with 

any additional requirements that APHIS 

may require to prevent the escape of 

plant pests during transport to and from 

the irradiation facility itself, for a 

particular facility based on local 

conditions, and for any other risk factors 

of concern. These activities will be 

listed in the compliance agreement 

required in paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this 

section. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * Other agencies that have 

regulatory oversight and requirements 

must concur in writing with the 

establishment of the facility prior to 

APHIS approval. * * * 

(c) * * * Compliance agreements for 

facilities located in States listed in 

paragraph (a)(1) of this section may also 

contain additional provisions as 

described in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through 

(a)(1)(ix) of this section. * * * 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * Facilities must be located 

within the local commuting area for 

APHIS employees for inspection 

purposes. 

(1) * * * Facilities shall be located 

within an area over which the U.S. 

Department of Homeland Security is 

assigned authority to accept entries of 

merchandise, to collect duties, and to 

enforce the provisions of the customs 

and navigation laws in force. * * * 

* * * * * 

(Approved by the Office of Management and 

Budget under control numbers 0579–0155, 

0579–0215, and 0579–0198, 0579– 0383) 

PART 319—FOREIGN QUARANTINE 

NOTICES 

■ 3. 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. 

§ 319.56–46 [Amended] 

■ 4. Section § 319.56–46 is amended as 

follows: 

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

words ‘‘in India’’. 

■ b. In paragraph (e) introductory text, 

by removing the words ‘‘certifying that 

the fruit received the required 

irradiation treatment. The phytosanitary 

certificate must also bear’’ and adding 

the word ‘‘with’’ in their place. 

§ 319.56–47 [Amended] 

■ 5. Section 319.56–47 is amended as 

follows: 

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

second sentence. 

■ b. In paragraph (c)(1), by removing the 

words ‘‘that the litchi were treated with 

irradiation as described in paragraph (b) 

of this section and’’. 

■ c. In paragraph (c)(2), by removing the 

words ‘‘with an additional declaration 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 140 / Friday, July 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 42625 

stating that the longan, mango, 

mangosteen, pineapple, or rambutan 

were treated with irradiation as 

described in paragraph (b) of this 

section’’. 

Done in Washington, DC, this 16th day of 

July 2012. 

Kevin Shea, 

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 2012–17725 Filed 7–19–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

9 CFR Parts 55 and 81 

[Docket No. 00–108–9] 

Chronic Wasting Disease Herd 

Certification Program and Interstate 

Movement of Farmed or Captive Deer, 

Elk, and Moose 

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Interim final rule; reopening of 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: We are reopening the 

comment period for our interim final 

rule that will establish a herd 

certification program to control chronic 

wasting disease (CWD) in farmed or 

captive cervids in the United States. The 

interim final rule requested comment on 

our decision that our regulations will set 

minimum requirements for the 

interstate movement of farmed or 

captive cervids but not preempt State or 

local laws or regulations that are more 

restrictive than our regulations, except 

any such laws or regulations that 

prohibit or further restrict the transit 

through a State of deer, elk, and moose 

that are otherwise eligible for interstate 

movement. This action will allow 

interested persons additional time to 

prepare and submit comments on our 

preemption policy with respect to CWD. 

This document also indicates that we 

will consider comments on issues other 

than our preemption policy for future 

rulemaking. 

DATES: We will consider all comments 

that we receive on or before August 13, 

2012. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by either of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov/ 

#!documentDetail;D=APHIS-2006-0118- 

0199. 

• Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: 

Send your comment to Docket No. 00– 

108–8, 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-2006-0118 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: Dr. 

Patrice Klein, Senior Staff Veterinarian, 

National Center for Animal Health 

Programs, Veterinary Services, APHIS, 

4700 River Road Unit 43, Riverdale, MD 

20737–1231; (301) 851–3435. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 

13, 2012, we published in the Federal 

Register (77 FR 35542–35571, Docket 

No. 00–108–8) an interim final rule that 

will establish a herd certification 

program to control chronic wasting 

disease (CWD) in farmed or captive 

cervids in the United States. The 

interim final rule will be effective on 

August 13, 2012. 

In the interim final rule, we requested 

comments specifically on our decision 

not to preempt State and local laws and 

regulations that are more restrictive than 

our regulations with respect to CWD, 

except any such laws or regulations that 

prohibit or further restrict the transit 

through a State of deer, elk, and moose 

that are otherwise eligible for interstate 

movement. That decision was discussed 

in section III of the Background section 

of the interim final rule, under the 

heading ‘‘APHIS’ Decision Not to 

Preempt More Restrictive State 

Requirements on Farmed or Captive 

Cervids With Respect to CWD,’’ 

beginning on 77 FR 35545. 

Comments on our decisions regarding 

preemption of State and local laws and 

regulations were required to be received 

on or before July 13, 2012. We are 

reopening the comment period on 

Docket No. 00–108–8 until August 13, 

2012. This action will allow interested 

persons additional time to prepare and 

submit comments. We will also consider 

all comments received between July 14, 

2012, and the date of this notice. 

The interim final rule indicated that 

we will publish another document in 

the Federal Register after the comment 

period closes that will include a 

discussion of any comments we receive 

on our preemption policy and any 

amendments we are making to the rule. 

We still plan to do this. However, we 

have received comments on aspects of 

the interim final rule other than our 

preemption policy. While we will not 

address these comments in our 

document discussing our preemption 

policy, we will consider these 

comments to determine whether future 

rulemaking may be necessary, and we 

encourage commenters to address any 

aspect of the interim final rule that they 

wish to. 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 8301–8317; 7 CFR 2.22, 

2.80, and 371.4. 

Done in Washington, DC, this 16th day of 

July 2012. 

Kevin Shea, 

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 2012–17726 Filed 7–19–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2011–1412; Directorate 

Identifier 2011–NM–158–AD; Amendment 

39–17088; AD 2012–12–08] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing 

Company Airplanes 

Correction 

In rule document 2012–14544 

appearing on pages 37781–37783 in the 

issue of Monday, June 25, 2012 make 

the following correction: 

§ 39.13 [Corrected] 

On page 37783, in the first column, in 

the tenth full paragraph, under the 

heading ‘‘(c) Applicability’’, the second 

line should read ‘‘Model 777–200 and 

–300 series airplanes;’’. 

[FR Doc. C1–2012–14544 Filed 7–19–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1505–01–D 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 71 

[Docket No. FAA–2012–0055; Airspace 

Docket No. 11–ACE–12] 

RIN 2120–AA66 

Modification of VOR Federal Airways 

V–10, V–12, and V–508 in the Vicinity 

of Olathe, KS 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES