56912 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 180 / Friday, September 17, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Department of 

Agriculture’s (USDA) Grain Inspection, 

Packers, and Stockyards Administration 

(GIPSA) is reviewing the United States 

Standards and grading procedures for 

Rough Rice, Brown Rice for Processing, 

and Milled Rice under the Agriculture 

Marketing Act of 1946 (AMA). Since the 

standards were last revised, numerous 

changes have occurred in the breeding 

and production practices of rice; the 

technology used to harvest, process, and 

test rice; and also rice marketing. To 

ensure that standards and official 

grading practices remain relevant, 

GIPSA invites interested parties to 

comment on whether the current rice 

standards and grading procedures need 

to be changed. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before December 16, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit your 

written or electronic comments on this 

notice to: 

• Mail: Tess Butler, GIPSA, USDA, 

1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Room 

1643–S, Washington, DC 20250–3604. 

• E-Mail: comments.gipsa@usda.gov. 

• Fax: (202) 690–2173 

• Internet: Go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov and follow the online instruction for submitting 

comments. 

All comments will become a matter of 

public record and should be identified 

as ‘‘United States Standards for Rough 

Rice, Brown Rice for Processing, and 

Milled Rice Notice Comments,’’ making 

reference to the date and page number 

of this issue of the Federal Register. 

Comments will be available for public 

inspection in the above office during 

regular business hours (7 CFR 1.27(b)). 

Please call the GIPSA Management 

Support Staff at (202) 720–7486 to make 

an appointment to read comments 

received. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Beverly A. Whalen at GIPSA, USDA, 

Beacon Facility, Stop 1404, P.O. Box 

419205, Kansas City, MO 64131–6205; 

Telephone: (816) 823–4648; Fax 

Number: (816) 823–4644; e-mail: 

Beverly.A.Whalen@usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Order 12866 

This rule has been determined to be 

exempt for the purposes of Executive 

Order 12866, and therefore has not been 

reviewed by the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB). 

Under the authority of the AMA (7 

U.S.C. 1621–1627), as amended, GIPSA 

establishes and maintains a variety of 

quality and grade standards for 

agricultural commodities that define 

commodity quality in the domestic and 

global marketplace. Standards 

developed by GIPSA under the AMA 

include rice, whole dry peas, split peas, 

feed peas, lentils, and beans. The AMA 

standards are voluntary and widely 

used in private contracts, government 

procurement, marketing 

communication, and, for some 

commodities, consumer information. 

The U.S. Standards for Rough Rice, 

Brown Rice for Processing, and Milled 

Rice standards were last revised in 1993 

(58 FR 68015) and appear in the 

regulations at 7 CFR 868.202–868.316. 

The standards facilitate the marketing of 

rice in foreign and domestic trade, and 

provide a uniform measure of quality by 

providing a common language to 

describe commodity attributes for U.S. 

producers, exporters and their 

customers. Official procedures for 

inspections are provided in GIPSA’s 

Rice Inspection Handbook for 

determining the various grading factors. 

To learn more about Rough Rice, Brown 

Rice for Processing, and Milled Rice 

standardization and quality, visit the 

GIPSA Web site at http:// 

www.gipsa.usda.gov. 

GIPSA inspects shipments of rice in 

accordance with AMA standards to 

establish the grade of the rice and issues 

inspection certificates for each 

shipment. GIPSA-issued certificates 

describing the quality and condition of 

graded rice are accepted as prima facie 

evidence in all Federal courts (7 U.S.C 

1622(h). U.S. rice standards and the 

affiliated grading and testing services 

offered by GIPSA verify that a seller’s 

rice meets specified requirements, and 

ensure that customers receive the 

quality of rice they purchased. In 

addition to Federal usage, the rice 

standards are applied by one State and 

one private cooperator. 

In order for U.S. standards and 

grading procedures for Rough Rice, 

Brown Rice for Processing, and Milled 

Rice to remain relevant, GIPSA is 

issuing this advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking to invite interested parties 

to submit comments, ideas, and 

suggestions on all aspects of the U.S. 

rice standards and grading procedures. 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1621–1627. 

J. Dudley Butler, 

Administrator, Grain Inspection, Packers and 

Stockyards Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–23188 Filed 9–16–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–KD–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

9 CFR Part 91 

[Docket No. APHIS-2009-0067] 

RIN 0579-AD18 

Live Goats and Swine for Export; 

Removal of Certain Testing 

Requirements 

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: We are proposing to amend 

the livestock exportation regulations to 

eliminate the requirement for pre-export 

tuberculosis and brucellosis testing of 

goats and breeding swine intended for 

export to countries that do not require 

such tests. This action would facilitate 

the exportation of goats and breeding 

swine by eliminating the need to 

conduct pre-export tuberculosis and 

brucellosis testing when the receiving 

country does not require such testing. 

DATES: We will consider all comments 

that we receive on or before November 

16, 2010. 

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=APHIS2009-0067) 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-2009-0067, 

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. APHIS2009-0067. 

Reading Room: You may read any 

comments that we receive on this 

docket in our reading room. The reading 

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: Dr. 

Antonio Ramirez, Senior Staff 


wwoods2 on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 180 / Friday, September 17, 2010 / Proposed Rules 56913 

Veterinarian, Technical Trade Services, 

National Center for Import and Export, 

VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 39, 

Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 734- 

8364. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The regulations in 9 CFR part 91, 

‘‘Inspection and Handling of Livestock 

for Exportation’’ (referred to below as 

the regulations), prescribe conditions for 

exporting animals from the United 

States. Section 91.6 requires that goats 

intended for exportation be tested for 

tuberculosis and, for some goats, 

brucellosis prior to export. Section 91.9 

requires that breeding swine intended 

for exportation be tested for brucellosis 

prior to export. 

The regulations provide certain 

exceptions to the testing requirements 

for goats. Specifically, the regulations in 

§ 91.6(a)(4) exempt goats being exported 

for immediate slaughter from complying 

with export requirements set forth in the 

section, including the testing 

requirements for tuberculosis and 

brucellosis. There are no exceptions to 

the brucellosis testing requirement for 

breeding swine in § 91.9. 

Some countries do not require that 

goats and breeding swine be tested for 

tuberculosis and brucellosis prior to 

export. Even in such cases, though, our 

regulations require that such testing be 

conducted. Thus, these requirements 

can create an unnecessary burden for 

producers when testing is not required 

to satisfy the import regulations of the 

country to which they are exporting 

goats and breeding swine. To relieve 

this unnecessary burden, we are 

proposing to amend the regulations to 

exempt goats and breeding swine from 

tuberculosis and brucellosis testing 

prior to export if such testing is not 

required by the receiving country. 

Specifically, we would amend 

paragraph (a)(4) of § 91.6 by adding 

provisions that would exempt all goats 

over 1 month of age being exported from 

the United States from that section’s 

tuberculosis testing requirements, if 

such testing is not required by the 

receiving country. We would also add 

provisions that would exempt dairy and 

breeding goats being exported from the 

United States from that section’s 

brucellosis testing requirements. 

For swine, we would add a new 

paragraph to § 91.9 to provide that 

breeding swine being exported from the 

United States do not have to be tested 

for brucellosis if such testing is not 

required by the receiving country. 

Currently, the provisions in § 91.9 are 

contained in a single paragraph (a); that 

paragraph addresses both the condition 

that swine being exported from the 

United States have not been fed garbage 

at any time and the condition that 

breeding swine being exported from the 

United States test negative for 

brucellosis. In order to make the 

provisions of § 91.9 clearer, and in order 

to accommodate the paragraph with the 

proposed testing exemption, we would 

split the current paragraph (a) into two 

paragraphs. The proposed new 

paragraph concerning testing 

requirements would be added as 

paragraph (c). 

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

This proposed 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. 

We have prepared an economic 

analysis for this action. The economic 

analysis is posted with this proposed 

rule on the Regulations.gov Web site 

(see ADDRESSES above for instructions 

for accessing Regulations.gov) and may 

be obtained from the person listed 

under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

The analysis identifies live goat and 

swine exporters as the small entities 

most likely to be affected by this action 

and considers the costs associated with 

the elimination of tuberculosis and 

brucellosis testing requirements for 

goats and swine being exported to 

countries that do require such tests. 

Based on the information presented in 

the analysis, we expect that the goat and 

swine wholesale trading industry would 

experience a reduction in compliance 

costs as a result of this action although 

the savings would be small in 

comparison to the value of the animals 

being exported. 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 

This proposed rule contains no 

information collection or recordkeeping 

requirements under the Paperwork 

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

seq.). 

List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 91 

Animal diseases, Animal welfare, 

Exports, Livestock, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

■ Accordingly, we propose to amend 9 

CFR part 91 as follows: 

PART 91—INSPECTION AND 

HANDLING OF LIVESTOCK FOR 

EXPORTATION 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 91 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 8301-8317; 19 U.S.C. 

1644a(c); 21 U.S.C. 136, 136a, and 618; 

46 U.S.C. 3901 and 3902; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, 

and 371.4. 

■ 2. In § 91.6, paragraph (a)(4) is revised 

to read as follows: 

§ 91.6 Goats. 

(a) * * * 

(4) Exemptions. (i) Goats exported for 

immediate slaughter need not comply 

with the requirements of paragraphs 

(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), and (a)(5) of this 

section. 

(ii) Tuberculosis testing is not 

required for goats over 1 month of age 

exported to a country that does not 

require goats from the United States to 

be tested for tuberculosis as described in 

paragraph (a)(1) of this section. 

(iii) Brucellosis testing is not required 

for dairy and breeding goats exported to 

a country that does not require goats 

from the United Stated to be tested for 

brucellosis as described in paragraph 

(a)(1) of this section. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Section 91.9 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 91.9 Swine. 

(a) No swine shall be exported if they 

were fed garbage at any time. The swine 

shall be accompanied by a certification 

from the owner stating that they were 

not fed garbage, and that any additions 

to the herd made within the 30 days 

immediately preceding the export 

shipment have been maintained isolated 

from the swine to be exported. 


wwoods2 on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with PROPOSALS-1
56914 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 180 / Friday, September 17, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

(b) Except as provided in paragraph 

(c) of this section, all breeding swine 

shall be tested for and show negative 

test results to brucellosis by a test 

prescribed in ‘‘Standard Agglutination 

Test Procedures for the Diagnosis of 

Brucellosis’’ or ‘‘Supplemental Test 

Procedures for the Diagnosis of 

Brucellosis.’’ The test results shall be 

classified negative in accordance with 

the provisions prescribed in the 

Recommended Brucellosis Eradication 

Uniform Methods and Rules, chapter 2, 

part II, G, 1, 2, and 3. 

(c) Breeding swine exported to a 

country that does not require breeding 

swine from the United States to be 

tested for brucellosis need not comply 

with the requirements of paragraph (b) 

of this section. 

(Approved by the Office of 

Management and Budget under control 

number 0579-0020) 

Done in Washington, DC, this 13th day 

of September 2010. 

Kevin Shea 

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–23235 Filed 9–16–10: 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–S 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

9 CFR Part 91 

[Docket No. APHIS-2009-0078] 

RIN 0579-AD25 

Removal of the List of Ports of 

Embarkation and Export Inspection 

Facilities from the Regulations 

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: We are proposing to amend 

the live animal export regulations by 

removing the list of designated ports of 

embarkation and their associated export 

inspection facilities. As a result of this 

rulemaking, those ports and facilities 

would henceforth be listed on the 

Internet rather than in the regulations, 

thus enabling us to amend the list, when 

necessary, in a timelier manner than we 

can now and allowing us greater 

flexibility in regulating animal exports. 

DATES: We will consider all comments 

that we receive on or before November 

16, 2010. 

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=APHIS2009-0078) 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-2009-0078, 

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. APHIS2009-0078. 

Reading Room: You may read any 

comments that we receive on this 

docket in our reading room. The reading 

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: Dr. 

Courtney Bronner Williams, Senior Staff 

Veterinarian, Technical Trade Services, 

National Center for Import and Export, 

VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 39, 

Riverdale, MD; 20737-1231; (301) 734- 

8364. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The regulations in 9 CFR part 91, 

‘‘Inspection and Handling of Livestock 

for Exportation’’ (referred to below as 

the regulations), prescribe conditions for 

exporting animals from the United 

States. The regulations state, among 

other things, that all animals, except 

animals exported by land to Canada or 

Mexico, must be exported through 

designated ports of embarkation, unless 

the exporter can show that the animals 

would suffer undue hardship if they 

were required to be moved to a 

designated port of embarkation. 

Paragraph (a) of § 91.14 lists ports that 

have been designated by the Animal and 

Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) 

as having met the requirements for use 

as ports of embarkation. To receive such 

a designation from APHIS, a port must 

have an export inspection facility 

available for the inspection, holding, 

feeding, and watering of animals prior 

to exportation. Approved export 

inspection facilities, along with their 

contact information, are also listed in 

§ 91.14(a). Under the regulations, export 

inspection facilities must meet the 

standards contained in § 91.14(c) 

concerning physical construction 

requirements, facility size, inspection 

implements (e.g., pens and animal 

restraining devices), cleaning and 

disinfection, feed and water, access by 

inspectors, animal handling 

arrangements, testing and treatment of 

animals, facility location, disposal of 

animal wastes, lighting, office and 

restroom facilities, and walkways. 

Because the designated ports of 

embarkation and associated export 

inspection facilities are now listed in 

the regulations, the list can only be 

amended to add or remove ports or 

export inspection facilities or to update 

contact information by means of 

rulemaking. In order to allow for more 

timely changes, we are proposing to 

remove this list from the regulations. In 

its place, we would add a new 

paragraph (a) stating that all ports that 

have export inspection facilities that an 

APHIS veterinarian has determined 

satisfy the requirements of § 91.14(c) 

would be designated as ports of 

embarkation. The proposed paragraph 

would further state that the list of 

designated ports and inspection 

facilities can be obtained from an APHIS 

Veterinary Services area office or 

viewed on the Internet on the APHIS 

Web site. Finally, proposed paragraph 

(a) would provide, as does the 

introductory text of the existing 

paragraph (a), that all animals, except 

animals being exported by land to 

Mexico or Canada, must be exported 

through the listed ports or through other 

ports designated in special cases by the 

Administrator, as provided in § 91.14(b). 

We are also proposing some changes 

to § 91.14(d), which pertains to approval 

and denial, revocation, or suspension of 

approval of export inspection facilities. 

Currently, the paragraph states that 

approval of an export inspection facility 

will be denied or revoked if the facility 

fails to meet the standards contained in 

§ 91.14(c). The operator of the facility is 

notified in writing if approval is denied 

or revoked, in the latter case, at least 60 

days prior to the date of the proposed 

revocation. The written notice details 

the deficiencies of the facility, and the 

operator is given an opportunity to 

respond. Pending a final determination, 

approval of any facility may be denied 

or suspended by the Administrator 

when he has reason to believe that the 

facility does not meet the standards set 

forth in the regulations. 

The paragraph, as currently written, is 

somewhat ambiguous regarding the 

circumstances that may trigger a 

revocation of approval. In order to 

clarify the regulations and ensure that 

standards are being maintained at ports 


wwoods2 on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with PROPOSALS-1