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

26651 

Vol. 76, No. 89 

Monday, May 9, 2011 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

2 CFR Chapter VI 

22 CFR Chapter I 

28 CFR Chapter XI 

48 CFR Chapter 6 

[Public Notice: 7447] 

Reducing Regulatory Burden; 

Retrospective Review Under 

E.O. 13563 

AGENCY: United States Department of 

State. 

ACTION: Request for information. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with Executive 

Order 13563 and guidance from the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB), the Department of State (‘‘the 

Department’’) has submitted its 

preliminary plan to the OMB, and is 

simultaneously providing it to the 

public for review. 

DATES: Comments on the Department’s 

preliminary plan will be accepted until 

June 30, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Interested parties may 

submit comments within 60 days of the 

publication of this notice. To submit 

comments: 

• By e-mail to 

RegulatoryReview@state.gov, with the 

subject line: ‘‘Response to the Plan’’ 

• Through the Federal regulatory 

portal at Regulations.gov; search for 

Docket Number DOS–2011–0079. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Department’s ‘‘Preliminary Plan for 

Retrospective Analysis of Existing 

Rules,’’ dated April 25, 2011, follows: 

I. Executive Summary of Preliminary 

Plan and Compliance With Executive 

Order 13563 

Executive Order 13563 recognizes the 

importance of maintaining a consistent 

culture of retrospective review and 

analysis throughout the executive 

branch. Before a rule has been tested, it 

is difficult to be certain of its 

consequences, including its costs and 

benefits. The Department of State’s plan 

is designed to create a defined 

mechanism for identifying certain 

significant rules that are obsolete, 

unnecessary, unjustified, excessively 

burdensome, or counterproductive. Its 

review processes are also intended to 

facilitate the strengthening, 

complementing, or modernizing rules 

where necessary or appropriate. 

II. Scope of Plan 

a. There are no sub-agencies within 

the Department of State for including in 

this plan. 

b. Check all the types of documents 

covered under this plan: 

_X_Existing regulations 

_X_Significant guidance documents 

_X_Existing information collections 

_X_ Unfinished proposed rules 

____ Other (Specify________) 

III. Public Access and Participation 

a. The Department of State is 

responsible for carrying out the nation’s 

foreign policy and representing the 

United States abroad. It is essential that 

we take every opportunity to engage the 

public as we do this vital work on their 

behalf. Our era is one in which news 

from around the world is accessible to 

everyone on a moment-by-moment 

basis. Reflecting this new era, the 

Department has invested heavily in the 

use of social media tools, such as 

Facebook®, Twitter®, blogs, and wikis 

for internal collaboration and external 

engagement. We must continually be 

prepared to engage the public in our 

work, which is why the Department’s 

Web site presents up-to-date 

information on the issues of the day in 

foreign affairs and development 

assistance. Our Open Government Web 

site (http://www.state.gov/open) 

provides a central location where one 

can follow the Department’s efforts on 

key initiatives including the release of 

datasets at http://www.data.gov. In 

addition, the latest information on our 

Preliminary Plan, along with links to 

various government and other sites, is 

hosted at http://www.state.gov/. 

The Department of State published a 

notice in the Federal Register on March 

15, 2011 seeking public comment on 

developing our Preliminary Plan. You 

may find the notice located at http:// 

www.state.gov, in the About State tab, 

Rules and Information Collection link. 

b. Brief summary of public comments 

to notice seeking input: 

We received two comments from the 

public in response to our initial Federal 

Register notice. 

IV. Current Agency Efforts Already 

Underway Independent of E.O. 13563 

a. Summary of Pre-Existing Agency 

Efforts (Independent of E.O. 13563) 

Already Underway To Conduct 

Retrospective Analysis of Existing Rules 

The Department is responsible for 

implementing the President’s foreign 

policy. The fundamental activities of 

diplomacy are based on generation of 

trust, and the establishment of common 

dialogue. Most of these activities 

involve nuance of language in creating 

a shared understanding. Today, offices 

in the Department focus on a wide 

spectrum of issues, including 

counterterrorism, nuclear arms 

proliferation, climate change, human 

rights, institution building, and 

international trade and finance. The 

complexity of these issues requires 

extensive collaboration with other U.S. 

Government agencies at overseas posts 

and in Washington, as well as with 

foreign governments, non-governmental 

organizations, and other partners. 

The Department recognizes that a key 

part of its mission is to engage the 

American public on the nation’s foreign 

policy. The explosive growth in the 

Internet and social media tools has 

enabled greater citizen participation 

than was possible. As a result, the 

Department receives ongoing feedback 

on our regulations, Foreign Affairs 

Manual, public notices and information 

collections from the public at-large, 

DHS and other government agencies and 

other interested stakeholders. Our 

Exchange Visitor Program holds public 

meetings with private sector, academic 

and governmental program sponsors for 

providing oversight and compliance 

feedback. 

b. What specific rules, if any, were 

already under consideration for 

retrospective analysis? 

See the latest publication of the 

Department’s submission to the Unified 

Agenda of Federal Regulatory and 

Deregulatory Actions by going to 

Reginfo.gov at http://www.reginfo.gov/ 

public/do/eAgendaMain. In addition, 

see Section V(c) below, for rules in the 

Bureau of Political-Military Affairs that 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

26652 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

were already under consideration for 

retrospective analysis. Revisions to the 

U.S. Munitions List were already in 

progress. 

V. Elements of Preliminary Plan/ 

Compliance With E.O. 13563 

a. How does the agency plan to develop 

a strong, ongoing culture of 

retrospective analysis? 

The Department’s leadership, 

beginning with Secretary Clinton, is 

looking forward to the opportunities 

presented in the E.O. initiative. We all 

recognize the importance of 

collaboration, engagement, partnerships, 

and accountability. The principal focus 

of this plan is to build on the work 

currently underway and expand our 

engagement with all of our stakeholders. 

We have created a Rules and 

Information Collection Web site, linked 

to the Department’s home page. The 

Web site provides access to available 

information and represents an effort to 

engage the public more dynamically, 

solicit input, and increase collaboration 

for an on-going retrospective analysis. 

The URL for the site is: http:// 

www.state.gov/m/a/dir/rulemaking/ 

index.htm. 

State’s mission also includes making 

international information available to 

the public. The Bureau of Consular 

Affairs provides detailed travel 

information for all countries via the 

Internet on http://www.travel.state.gov. 

The first quantitative assessment of 

online open government efforts recently 

found this site to be one of the highest 

ranking in online transparency. 

State.gov also scored high in this 

transparency project, which surveyed 

more than 36,000 citizens who visited 

14 Federal sites during the fourth 

quarter of 2009. 

Through our Web site, we will 

encourage the public to review and to 

provide us with their comments on the 

best way to conduct our analysis on an 

ongoing basis. We will also actively seek 

views from the public on specific rules 

or Department-imposed obligations that 

might be modified or repealed. Within 

the Department an executive committee 

was created with responsibility for 

developing a preliminary plan and for 

subsequent periodic reviews. All offices 

responsible for writing rules were 

requested to nominate a representative 

who will be an active and responsible 

regulatory review member. Although 

our regulatory procedures are dynamic 

and have constant triggers that promote 

review and amendment to our rules and 

other guidance, we will conduct annual 

reviews, with the first one commencing 

on the anniversary after the completion 

of the initial review. In addition, each 

proposed rule and final rule will be 

reviewed for meeting the requirements 

of the E.O. 

b. Prioritization. What factors and 

processes will the agency use in setting 

priorities? 

The Department of State is the agency 

with lead responsibility for formulating 

and carrying out the nation’s foreign 

policy. The Department operates in 

Washington, DC and in nearly 200 

countries, with over 285 locations 

world-wide. State’s major program areas 

include diplomacy, border security, U.S. 

citizen’s services, and foreign 

assistance. The Department’s Mission 

Statement is to Advance freedom for the 

benefit of the American people and the 

international community by helping to 

build and sustain a more democratic, 

secure, and prosperous world composed 

of well-governed states that respond to 

the needs of their people, reduce 

widespread poverty, and act responsibly 

within the international system. The 

Department, being the diplomatic arm of 

the U.S. government, generates many 

narrative documents, treaties, and intergovernmental agreements. 

The fundamental activities of 

diplomacy are based on human contact 

and the establishment of common 

dialogue to both further ties, as well as 

resolve conflict in a peaceful manner 

between nations. This function is not 

the subject of rulemaking; for this 

reason, the Department does not publish 

many rules on a year-to-year basis. 

c. Initial List of Candidate Rules for 

Review Over the Next Two Years 

• In the Bureau of Political-Military 

Affairs 

PM/DDTC—Regulations Under 

Review 

(1) Revision of United States 

Munitions List, International Traffic in 

Arms Regulations (ITAR) part 121 

Each category will be the subject of a 

separate rule. 

Æ Category I—Firearms, Close Assault 

Weapons and Combat Shotguns 

Æ Category II—Guns and Armament 

Æ Category III—Ammunition/ 

Ordnance 

Æ Category IV—Launch Vehicles, 

Guided Missiles, Ballistic Missiles, 

Rockets, Torpedoes, Bombs and Mines 

Æ Category V—Explosives and 

Energetic Materials, Propellants, 

Incendiary Agents and Their 

Constituents 

Æ Category VI—Vessels of War and 

Special Naval Equipment. 

Æ Category VII—Tanks and Military 

Vehicles 

Æ Category VIII—Aircraft and 

Associated Equipment 

Æ Category IX—Military Training 

Equipment and Training 

Æ Category X—Protective Personnel 

Equipment and Shelters 

Æ Category XI—Military Electronics 

Æ Category XII—Fire Control, Range 

Finder, Optical and Guidance and 

Control Equipment 

Æ Category XIII—Auxiliary Military 

Equipment 

Æ Category XIV—Toxicological 

Agents, Including Chemical Agents, 

Biological Agents, and Associated 

Equipment 

Æ Category XV—Spacecraft Systems 

and Associated Equipment 

Æ Category XVI—Nuclear Weapons, 

Design and Testing Related Items 

Æ Category XVII—Classified Articles, 

Technical Data and Defense Services 

Not Otherwise Enumerated 

Æ Category XVIII—Directed Energy 

Weapons 

Æ Category XIX—Gas Turbine Engines 

Æ Category XX—Submersible Vessels, 

Oceanographic and Associated 

Equipment 

(2) New licensing exemption for 

certain replacement parts and 

incorporated articles (ITAR sections 

123.28 and 126.19). 

(3) New licensing exemption for 

transfer of defense articles to dual 

national and third-country national 

employees (ITAR section 126.18). 

(4) New licensing exemption for the 

temporary export for personal use of 

chemical agent protective gear (ITAR 

section 123.17). 

(5) New electronic submission of 

registration payments (ITAR parts 120, 

122, and 129). 

(6) Clarification of records 

maintenance requirement (ITAR section 

122.5) 

(7) Discontinue submissions of form 

DSP–53 (ITAR section 123.4). 

(8) Change in requirements for the 

return of licenses (ITAR section 123.22). 

(9) Revision of agreements procedures 

(ITAR part 124). 

(10) Update information on 

sanctioned countries (ITAR section 

126.1). 

(11) Clarify and reflect new policy for 

exports made by or for the U.S. 

Government (ITAR section 126.4). 

(12) Revise brokering regulations 

(ITAR part 129). 

(13) Revise definition of ‘‘defense 

service’’ (ITAR sections 120.9, 120.38, 

124.1, and 124.2). 

(14) New regulations implementing 

the Australia and UK defense 

cooperation treaties (ITAR parts 120, 

123, 124, 126, 127, and 129). 

(15) Establishment of a general 

program license, which would allow 

multiple exporters to collaborate with 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 89 / Monday, May 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules 26653 

foreign partners on U.S. government 

programs (ITAR part 123). 

(16) Revise/establish definitions of/for 

‘‘technology,’’ ‘‘specially designed,’’ and 

‘‘public domain’’ (ITAR part 120). 

(17) Revision of Missile Technology 

Control Regime annex (ITAR part 121). 

• In the Bureau of Resource 

Management 

Repeal part 8 of 22 CFR, Federal 

Advisory Committee Act (FACA) 

regulation for the Department of State. 

Part 8 is 35 years old and out of date. 

Since it was initially published, GSA 

published its FACA regulation in 41 

CFR part 102–3. There is no reason for 

the Department to have a separate 

regulation in the CFR. The Department 

will repeal its regulation and publish a 

Foreign Affairs Manual provision that 

identifies which offices have 

responsibility for certain FACA 

functions, and any internal procedures 

to be used. 

Æ In the Bureau of Consular Affairs 

Certain provisions will be reviewed 

pursuant to a request from the American 

Immigration Lawyers Association. The 

quotes that follow reflect comments 

from that organization: 

Æ Part 41 of 22 CFR: Section 111(b), 

Issuance of Nonimmigrant Visas in the 

United States 

‘‘As of July 16, 2004, DOS ceased visa 

reissuance (visa revalidation) for the C, 

E, H, I, L, O, and P nonimmigrant visa 

(NIV) categories due to the requirement 

of biometrics capture for these 

categories as a result of the Enhanced 

Border Security and Visa Entry Reform 

Act (Pub. L. No. 107–173). See 69 Fed. 

Reg. 35121 (June 23, 2004). Visa 

revalidation greatly enhanced and 

facilitated international business travel 

and should be reinstated for the abovereferenced visa categories. Biometrics 

for visa revalidations could be captured 

by USCIS Application Support Centers.’’ 

Æ Part 41 of 22 CFR: Section 111(d), 

Automatic Extension of Validity at Ports 

of Entry. 

‘‘This provision permits a 

nonimmigrant with an unexpired I–94 

Arrival/Departure Record, who is 

returning to the United States from a 

contiguous territory after an absence of 

not more than 30 days, to be readmitted 

notwithstanding the fact that the 

underlying nonimmigrant visa has 

expired, unless the individual has 

applied for (and presumably been 

denied) a nonimmigrant visa while 

abroad. This provision should be 

amended to permit such individuals to 

reenter the United States for the period 

of admission remaining on his or her I– 

94 card.’’ 

Æ Part 41 of 22 CFR: Section 81, 

Fiance ́(e) or Spouse of a U.S. Citizen 

and Derivative Children. 

‘‘DOS announced that effective 

February 1, 2010, it would no longer 

allow a K–3 applicant to choose 

whether to proceed with K–3 processing 

at an NIV consulate or the I–130/ 

immigrant visa (IV) processing at an IV 

consulate where the National Visa 

Center (NVC) has received approval 

notices for both the K–3 and the I–130 

petitions. Given the difference in 

processing times for K–3 NIVs versus 

IVs at certain consular posts, and the 

resulting delay in family reunification 

caused by this recent change, this 

regulation should be amended to permit 

the applicant to choose between 

proceeding with the K–3 or IV 

application under these circumstances.’’ 

Æ Part 41 of 22 CFR: Section 

103(b)(3), Filing an Electronic NIV 

Application—Electronic Signature. 

‘‘On April 29, 2008, DOS amended the 

regulations relating to NIVapplications 

to offer an electronic application 

procedure on Form DS–160. See 73 Fed. 

Reg. 23067. The supplementary 

information to the final rule states that 

while a third party may assist the 

applicant in preparing the DS–160, the 

applicant must electronically sign the 

application him- or herself. This 

requires the applicant to physically 

click the ‘‘submit’’ button and does not 

permit an authorized attorney or 

representative to do so on the 

applicant’s behalf. This is extremely 

burdensome for applicants who may not 

have a computer, access to a computer, 

or cannot sufficiently complete the 

electronic form. This provision should 

be amended to permit a third party to 

sign the electronic DS–160 with the 

express consent of the applicant.’’ 

Æ Part 41 of 22 CFR: Section 105(a), 

NIV Supporting Documents, and 

§ 41.121(b): Refusal Procedure. 

‘‘22 CFR § 41.105(a) states that ‘‘[a]ll 

documents and other evidence 

presented by the alien, including briefs 

submitted by attorneys and other 

representatives, shall be considered by 

the consular officer.’’ Though 22 CFR 

§ 41.121(b) requires a consular officer to 

‘‘inform the alien of the ground(s) of 

ineligibility’’ when a visa is refused, the 

information provided in the denial letter 

is often of a very general nature. The 

regulations should be amended to 

require consular officers to provide a 

detailed statement of ineligibility to 

demonstrate that all submitted 

documents were reviewed and 

considered in accordance with 

§ 41.105(a).’’ 

Æ Part 42 of 22 CFR: Section 65, IV 

Supporting Documents. 

‘‘Immigrant visa applicants are 

required to submit originals of essential 

documents such as birth certificates, 

marriage certificates, and police 

certificates to the NVC. The physical 

case file, including the original 

documents, is forwarded to the 

consulate, but documents can get lost in 

the file transfer process. This practice 

should be amended to permit IV 

applicants to submit good, clear copies 

of original documents to the NVC and 

to permit the applicant to bring original 

documents to the interview for 

inspection by the consular officer. 

Æ Part 42 of 22 CFR: Section 21(b), 

Immigrant Visas for Surviving 

Beneficiaries/Spouses of Deceased U.S. 

Citizens. 

‘‘USCIS regulations promulgated in 

2006, 8 CFR § 204.2(i)(1)(iv), allow for 

the automatic conversion of an I–130 

petition to an I–360 petition upon the 

petitioner’s death in the case of a spouse 

(widow) of a U.S. citizen. Section 568(c) 

of the FY2010 Appropriations Act, Pub. 

L. No. 111–83, included provisions 

permitting widows married less than 

two years to similarly self-petition, as 

well as provisions for benefits for other 

surviving relatives. Under INA § 204(l), 

such individuals are eligible for 

survivor benefits if they can show a U.S. 

residence at the time of the petitioner’s 

death, even where they have proceeded 

abroad for the sole purpose of consular 

processing. However, it appears that 

DOS has yet to issue guidance or 

regulations on the treatment of 

surviving beneficiaries, and may in fact 

be treating widow petitions as 

automatically revoked under 8 CFR 

§ 205.1(a)(3), in cases where the 

petitioner dies before the beneficiary 

has immigrated to the United States. We 

ask that regulations and/or guidance be 

implemented in this regard.’’ 

Æ A proposal for the right to counsel 

at U.S. Embassies and consulates. 

d. Structure and Staffing. High-Level 

Agency Official Responsible for 

Retrospective Review 

Name/Position Title: Patrick F. 

Kennedy, Under Secretary for 

Management. 

E-mail address: 

RegulatoryReview@state.gov. 

e. How does the agency plan to ensure 

that agency’s retrospective team and 

process maintains sufficient 

independence from the offices 

responsible for writing and 

implementing regulations? 

The Department recognizes the 

importance of independence from the 

offices responsible for writing and 

implementing regulations. The Under 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

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