60390 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 189 / Thursday, September 29, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

classification. While not mandatory, this 

two-stage process has been deemed 

appropriate by the industry. Therefore, 

sections 27.61–27.67, 27.69 and 27.72, 

which address optional reviews of 

futures classifications, are irrelevant. 

Furthermore, reference to ‘‘initial 

classification and certification’’ fees in 

paragraph (a) of section 27.80 are 

removed to avoid confusion with SmithDoxey classifications and to reflect that 

initial classification fees are already 

specified in paragraph (b) of 7 CFR 

28.909. Likewise, reference to ‘‘review 

classification and certification’’ fees in 

paragraph (b) of section 27.80 are 

removed since fees for review 

classifications are already specified in 

7 CFR 28.911. 

The term ‘‘combination services’’ in 

paragraph (d) of section 27.80 reflects 

the current practice of performing an 

‘‘initial’’ futures classification and an 

immediate ‘‘review’’ futures 

classification. Since Smith-Doxey 

classification data will serve as the 

initial futures classification when 

verified by a ‘‘review’’ futures 

classification, these services will be 

simply defined as ‘‘futures classification 

services.’’ 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 27 

Commodity futures, Cotton. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble it is proposed that 7 CFR part 

27 be amended as follows: 

PART 27—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR 

part 27 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 15b, 7 U.S.C. 4736, 7 

U.S.C. 1622(g). 

2. In § 27.2, paragraph (h) is revised 

to read as follows: 

§ 27.2 Terms defined. 

* * * * * 

(h) Cotton Quality Assurance 

Division. The Cotton Quality Assurance 

Division at Memphis, Tennessee, shall 

provide supervision of futures cotton 

classification. 

* * * * * 

3. Section 27.9 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 27.9 Classing Offices; Cotton Quality 

Assurance Division. 

Classing Offices shall be maintained 

at points designated for the purpose by 

the Administrator. The Cotton Quality 

Assurance Division shall provide 

supervision of futures cotton 

classification and perform other duties 

as assigned by the Deputy 

Administrator. 

4. Section 27.14 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 27.14 Filing of classification requests. 

Requests for futures classification 

shall be filed with the Cotton Quality 

Assurance Division within 10 days after 

sampling and before classification of the 

samples. 

§ 27.21 [Removed and Reserved] 

5. Section 27.21 is removed and 

reserved. 

6. Section 27.36 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 27.36 Classification determinations 

based on official standards. 

All cotton shall be classified on the 

basis of the official cotton standards of 

the United States in effect at the time of 

such classification. 

7. Section 27.39 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 27.39 Issuance of classification records. 

Except as otherwise provided in this 

section, as soon as practicable after the 

classification of cotton has been 

completed by the Cotton and Tobacco 

Programs, the Cotton Quality Assurance 

Division shall issue an electronic cotton 

classification record showing the results 

of such classification. Each electronic 

record shall bear the date of its issuance. 

The electronic record shall show the 

identification of the cotton according to 

the information in the possession of the 

Cotton and Tobacco Programs, the 

classification of the cotton and such 

other facts as the Deputy Administrator 

may require. 

8. Section 27.47 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 27.47 Tender or delivery of cotton; 

conditions. 

Subject to the provisions of §§ 27.52 

through 27.55, no cotton shall be 

tendered or delivered on a basis grade 

contract unless on or prior to the date 

fixed for delivery under such contract, 

and in advance of final settlement of the 

contract, the person making the tender 

shall furnish to the person receiving the 

same a valid outstanding cotton 

classification record complying with the 

regulations in this subpart, showing 

such cotton to be tenderable on a basis 

grade contract. 

§ 27.61 [Removed and Reserved] 

9. The undesignated center heading 

preceding § 27.61 is removed and 

§ 27.61 is removed and reserved.— 

27.67, 27.69 and 27.72 are removed and 

reserved. 

§§ 27.62–27.67 [Removed and Reserved] 

10. Sections 27.62 through 27.67 are 

removed and reserved. 

§ 27.69 [Removed and Reserved] 

11. Section 27.69 is removed and 

reserved. 

§ 27.72 [Removed and Reserved] 

12. Section 27.72 is removed and 

reserved. 

13. Section 27.80 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 27.80 Fees; review classification, futures 

classification and supervision. 

For services rendered by the Cotton 

Division pursuant to this subpart, 

whether the cotton involved is 

tenderable or not, the person requesting 

the services shall pay fees as follows: 

(a) [Reserved] 

(b) [Reserved] 

(c) [Reserved] 

(d) Futures classification—$3.50 per 

bale. 

Dated: September 23, 2011. 

David R. Shipman, 

Acting Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–25078 Filed 9–28–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

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: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: We are proposing to amend 

the phytosanitary treatment regulations 

to provide generic criteria for new 

irradiation treatment facilities in the 

Southern States of the United States. 

This action would allow irradiation 

facilities to be located anywhere in 

these States, subject to approval, rather 

than only in the currently approved 

locations. We are also proposing to 

allow for the irradiation treatment of 

certain imported fruit from India and 

Thailand upon arrival in the United 

States. This action would 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: We will consider all comments 

that we receive on or before November 

28, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by either of the following methods: 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 189 / Thursday, September 29, 2011 / Proposed Rules 60391 

1The regulations define an inspector as ‘‘Any 

individual authorized by the Administrator of 

APHIS or the Commissioner of Customs and Border 

Protection, Department of Homeland Security, to 

enforce the regulations in this part.’’ 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov/ 

#!documentDetail;D=APHIS-2009-0100– 

0001. 

• Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: 

Send your comment to Docket No. 

APHIS–2009–0100, 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-2009-0100 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) 690–2817 

before coming. 

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) 734–0627. 

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 administers these 

regulations. 

Irradiation Treatment in Southern 

States 

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. Under § 305.9, all facilities 

used to provide irradiation treatment for 

these articles must operate under a 

compliance agreement with APHIS and 

be certified as capable of delivering 

required irradiation treatment dosages 

and handling articles to prevent 

reinfestation of treated articles. An 

inspector 1 monitors all treatments. The 

regulations require regulated articles to 

be transported to the facility and 

handled prior to treatment without 

significant risk that pests will escape. 

Safeguards to prevent the escape of 

pests during transportation to and while 

at the facility include inspections, 

physical separation of untreated and 

treated articles, packaging of regulated 

articles in sealed, insect-proof cartons, 

and shipping cartons in sealed 

containers. Seals must visually indicate 

if the cartons or containers have been 

opened. The facility must maintain 

records of all treatments and must 

periodically be recertified. These 

conditions have allowed for the safe, 

effective treatment of many different 

kinds of articles, as is demonstrated by 

the track record of irradiation treatment 

facilities currently operating in Hawaii 

and other countries. 

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. When 

the irradiation regulations were 

established, these Southern States were 

identified as having conditions 

favorable for the establishment of exotic 

fruit flies. The location restrictions 

served as an additional safeguard 

against the possibility that fruit flies 

could escape from imported articles 

prior to treatment and become 

established in the United States. 

The regulations do allow irradiation 

facilities to be located at the maritime 

ports of Gulfport, MS, Wilmington, NC, 

and the airport of Atlanta, GA, although 

no irradiation facilities have been 

established in these locations. APHIS 

conducted site-specific evaluations for 

these three locations and determined 

that regulated articles can be safely 

transported to irradiation facilities at 

these locations under special conditions 

to mitigate the possible escape of pests 

of concern. 

APHIS has received a petition to open 

an irradiation facility in McAllen, TX, to 

treat imported articles or articles moved 

interstate within the United States. In 

addition, the irradiation industry has 

shown considerable interest in locating 

irradiation facilities in the Southern 

United States, especially in proximity to 

the Mexican border. Currently, no 

irradiation facility is available near the 

Mexican border. Locating irradiation 

facilities in the Southern States would 

allow importers to treat a number of 

imported articles with irradiation for 

which no other treatment is available 

and which currently must be shipped 

long distances for treatment, such as 

guavas from Mexico. Locating 

irradiation facilities in the Southern 

States would also facilitate the export of 

certain commodities such as peaches 

and stone fruits to countries to the south 

of the United States. 

In response to this request and in 

anticipation of future requests to locate 

additional irradiation facilities in the 

Southern States of the United States, we 

are proposing to establish generic 

phytosanitary criteria to replace the 

current criteria for irradiation facilities 

at the maritime ports of Gulfport, MS, 

Wilmington, NC, and the airport of 

Atlanta, GA, and apply to 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, new irradiation facilities could 

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. These generic 

criteria would be supplemented as 

necessary by additional measures, 

which would be described in a 

compliance agreement (discussed 

below), based on pests of concern 

associated with specific regulated 

articles to be treated at the facility and 

the location of the specific facility. 

Using APHIS-approved irradiation 

facilities located in the United States to 

treat imported articles offers the 

advantage of greater ease of monitoring 

treatment. Using generic criteria for 

future irradiation facilities located in 

Southern States would make explicit 

our criteria for approving these facilities 

while eliminating the need to undertake 

rulemaking in order to approve new 

facilities. 

As part of this action, we have 

prepared a treatment evaluation 

document (TED) entitled ‘‘Generic 

Phytosanitary Criteria for Establishing 

Locations for Irradiation Facilities in the 

Southern United States.’’ Copies of the 

TED may be obtained from the person 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT and may be viewed on the 

Internet on the Regulations.gov Web site 

or in our reading room (see ADDRESSES

above for a link to Regulations.gov and 

information on the location and hours of 

the reading room). In the TED, we 

concluded that the pest risks from 

irradiation facilities in the Southern 

States can be adequately managed 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
60392 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 189 / Thursday, September 29, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

through the use of special conditions to 

mitigate the possible escape of pests of 

concern. 

We are therefore proposing to amend 

the regulations by replacing the current 

criteria for irradiation facilities at the 

maritime ports of Gulfport, MS, 

Wilmington, NC, and the airport of 

Atlanta, GA, in paragraph (a)(1) of 

§ 305.9 with generic phytosanitary 

criteria for any irradiation facility in a 

Southern State. The new criteria would 

have to be followed in addition to the 

current requirements that apply to all 

irradiation facilities. The proposed 

generic criteria for new facilities in the 

Southern States are based on the current 

conditions for allowing irradiation 

facilities at the maritime ports of 

Gulfport, MS, Wilmington, NC, and the 

airport of Atlanta, GA. As no irradiation 

facilities have been established in these 

three locations, the proposed generic 

criteria would not impact any existing 

irradiation facilities. 

In paragraph (a)(1)(i) of § 305.9, we 

are proposing that prospective facility 

operators in Southern States would have 

to submit a detailed layout of the facility 

site and its location to APHIS. APHIS 

would evaluate plant health risks based 

on the proposed location and layout of 

the facility site before a facility was 

approved. APHIS would only approve a 

proposed facility if the Administrator 

determines that regulated articles can be 

safely transported to the facility from 

the port of entry or points of origin in 

the United States. Proposed paragraph 

(a)(1)(ii) of § 305.9 provides that the 

government of the Southern State in 

which the facility would be located 

would also have to concur in writing 

with the establishment of the irradiation 

facility; if it does not concur, the State 

government 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 would need to agree on a 

strategy to resolve such risks before 

APHIS approved the facility. 

Under this proposal, paragraphs 

(a)(1)(iii) and (a)(1)(iv) of § 305.9 would 

require irradiation facilities in Southern 

States to meet certain conditions that 

are currently required for irradiation 

facilities at the maritime ports of 

Gulfport, MS, or Wilmington, NC, or the 

airport of Atlanta, GA. These paragraphs 

would provide, respectively, that 

untreated articles may not be removed 

from their packaging prior to treatment 

under any circumstances, and that 

facilities must have contingency plans, 

approved by APHIS, for safely 

destroying or disposing of regulated 

articles if the facility was unable to 

properly treat a shipment. 

Under this proposal, paragraph 

(a)(1)(v) of § 305.9 would only allow 

irradiation facilities in Southern States 

to treat articles that are approved by 

APHIS for treatment at that facility. If, 

during the approval process for 

regulated articles at irradiation facilities 

in Southern States, additional 

safeguards are deemed necessary during 

transport or while at the irradiation 

facilities for the pests of concern, the 

compliance agreement for the facility 

would be amended accordingly. 

Under proposed paragraph (a)(1)(vi) 

of § 305.9, arrangements for treatment 

would need to be made before the 

departure of a consignment from its port 

of entry or points of origin in the United 

States. This would mean that untreated 

shipments of regulated articles arriving 

at the facility would not have to wait for 

an extended period of time for 

irradiation treatment. The expeditious 

treatment of the articles would 

minimize the risk of pests of concern 

maturing in fruits, vegetables, and other 

articles. 

The current regulations for irradiation 

facilities at the maritime ports of 

Gulfport, MS, or Wilmington, NC, or the 

airport of Atlanta, GA, prohibit the 

movement of untreated fruits and 

vegetables through the Southern States 

and require that the irradiation facility 

and APHIS agree in advance on the 

route by which shipments are allowed 

to move to the irradiation facility. For 

irradiation facilities in Southern States, 

we are proposing in paragraph (a)(1)(vi) 

of § 305.9 that APHIS and the 

irradiation facility would have to agree 

in advance about all parameters, such as 

time, routing, and conveyance, by 

which every consignment would move 

from the port of entry or points of origin 

in the United States to the irradiation 

facility. In most instances, the route 

would be determined by establishing 

the shortest route between the port of 

entry or points of origin in the United 

States and the irradiation facility that 

does not include an area that contains 

host material for pests of concern during 

the time of year that the host material 

is most abundant in the region. This 

route would then be used regardless of 

the time of year, as an area free of host 

material during the time of year that it 

is most abundant would be unlikely to 

grow host material at another time of 

year. This predetermined route would 

reduce the amount of time that a 

shipment would have to wait before 

undergoing irradiation treatment and 

would reduce the risk that any pests of 

concern in the shipments would come 

into contact with host material en route 

to the irradiation facility. 

In addition to the current 

requirements to ensure the safe 

transport of regulated material to and 

from the irradiation facility, we are also 

proposing to require in paragraph 

(a)(1)(vii) that the conveyance 

transporting the regulated article to the 

irradiation facility would need to be 

either refrigerated, via motorized 

refrigeration equipment or other 

methods including ice or insulation, or 

air conditioned to a temperature that 

would minimize the mobility of the 

pests of concern for the article. Fruits 

and vegetables are typically transported 

in refrigerated or air conditioned 

conveyances in order to preserve 

freshness of the commodity and prevent 

development of toxins that may affect 

their flavor. 

The current regulations for irradiation 

facilities at the maritime ports of 

Gulfport, MS, or Wilmington, NC, or the 

airport of Atlanta, GA, require blacklight 

or sticky paper to be used within the 

irradiation facility and other trapping 

methods to be used within the 4 square 

miles surrounding the facility. To 

minimize the presence of host material 

for the pests of concern for irradiation 

facilities in Southern States generally, 

we are proposing in paragraph 

(a)(1)(viii) of § 305.9 that the facility 

maintain and provide APHIS an 

updated map identifying places where 

horticultural or other crops are grown 

within 4 square miles of the facility. 

APHIS will use this information to 

determine if any host material of 

concern is present. To help prevent 

establishment of pests in the unlikely 

event that they escape despite the 

required precautions, the location of any 

host material within 4 square miles of 

the facility would necessitate specific 

trapping or other pest monitoring 

activities to help prevent establishment 

of any escaped pests of concern, which 

would be funded by the facility and 

described in the compliance agreement. 

All trapping and pest monitoring 

activities would need to be approved by 

APHIS. Such activities would include 

the use of blacklight or sticky paper 

within the irradiation facility, as 

required in the current regulations for 

irradiation facilities at the maritime 

ports of Gulfport, MS, or Wilmington, 

NC, or the airport of Atlanta, GA. The 

irradiation facility would also need to 

have a pest management plan within the 

facility. 

Irradiation facilities would also be 

required to comply with any additional 

requirements that APHIS might require 

for a particular facility based on local 

conditions and any other risk factors of 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 189 / Thursday, September 29, 2011 / Proposed Rules 60393 

2The 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. 

3Commuting area would be determined by 

contacting the local APHIS Plant Protection and 

Quarantine office, State Plant Health Director, 

located in each State, Eastern Regional Office, or 

Western Regional Office. 

concern. This could include inspection 

for certain pests for which irradiation is 

not an approved treatment. Proposed 

paragraph (a)(1)(ix) of § 305.9 would 

require that facilities comply with any 

additional APHIS requirements. These 

requirements would be contained in a 

compliance agreement, which is 

currently required for all facilities in 

paragraph (c) of § 305.9. In that 

paragraph, we are proposing to add that 

compliance agreements for facilities in 

Southern States may contain additional 

provisions. 

Irradiation Facilities in All the United 

States 

Currently, as part of the approval 

process for irradiation facilities, APHIS 

considers whether a proposed 

irradiation facility is located within the 

local commuting area for APHIS 

employees so that they will be able to 

perform the oversight and monitoring 

activities required by § 305.9. When 

imported articles are to be treated at a 

facility, APHIS also considers whether 

the facility is located within an area 

over which the U.S. Department of 

Homeland Security 2 has customs 

authority for enforcement purposes. We 

are proposing to revise paragraph (e), 

which contains requirements for 

monitoring and interagency agreements 

for irradiation treatment facilities, to 

require all irradiation facilities to be 

located within the local commuting area 

for APHIS employees 3 for oversight and 

monitoring purposes. For facilities 

treating imported articles, we are also 

proposing to require in paragraph (e)(1) 

of § 305.9, which pertains to monitoring 

of such facilities, that the location of the 

facility would have to be within an area 

over which the U.S. Department of 

Homeland Security has customs 

authority for enforcement purposes. 

If regulatory oversight and 

requirements by other agencies also 

apply, we are also proposing to require 

in paragraph (b) of § 305.9, which 

describes requirements for approval of 

facilities, that they must concur in 

writing with the establishment of the 

facility prior to APHIS approval. For 

example, irradiation facilities that use a 

nuclear source would have to receive 

concurrence from the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, which has 

jurisdiction over nuclear facilities and 

materials. 

Irradiation of Fruits From India and 

Thailand 

Currently, the regulations in parts 318 

and 319 allow the importation of certain 

fruits from India (mangos), Mexico 

(guavas), 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 fruits and 

vegetables moving from Mexico, 

Vietnam, and Hawaii may receive 

irradiation at either the point of origin 

or upon arrival in the mainland United 

States, fruit from India and Thailand 

must be treated prior to arrival in the 

United States. The regulations in 

§ 305.9, however, allow for irradiation 

treatment of articles either prior to or 

after arrival in the United States, 

provided an APHIS-approved facility is 

available. The regulations require 

safeguards to ensure that regulated 

articles are safely transported to the 

irradiation facility from the port of 

arrival without escape of plant pests in 

transit or at the irradiation facility. 

These safeguards have successfully 

prevented the introduction or 

dissemination of plant pests into or 

through the United States via the 

importation or interstate movement of 

irradiated articles since 1996 when 

irradiation was first used as a 

phytosanitary treatment. 

We are proposing to amend § 319.56– 

46 to allow for irradiation treatment of 

mangos from India in either India or the 

United States and § 319.56–47 to allow 

for irradiation treatment of tropical 

fruits from Thailand in either Thailand 

or the United States. Fruit from India 

and Thailand would still be subject to 

requirements designed to ensure safe 

transportation of the articles, including 

insect-proof packaging, inspection, and 

issuance of a phytosanitary certificate 

by the national plant protection 

organization of the country of export. 

Based on our experience with India’s 

and Thailand’s compliance with these 

requirements for fruit currently 

irradiated in these countries, we are 

confident that these countries have the 

ability to comply with all APHIS 

requirements and fruit from these 

countries could be safely treated in the 

United States. 

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

This proposed rule has been 

determined to be significant for the 

purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, 

therefore, has been reviewed by the 

Office of Management and Budget. 

We have prepared an economic 

analysis for this rule. The economic 

analysis provides a cost-benefit analysis, 

as required by Executive Order 12866, 

and an analysis of the potential 

economic effects of this action on small 

entities, as required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. The economic analysis 

is summarized below. Copies of the full 

analysis are available by contacting the 

person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT or on the 

Regulations.gov Web site (see 

ADDRESSES above for instructions for 

accessing Regulations.gov). 

The proposed rule would allow for 

irradiation treatment of tropical fruits 

from India and Thailand in either the 

exporting country or the United States 

and for the establishment of irradiation 

facilities in the Southern United States. 

Using APHIS-approved irradiation 

facilities located in the United States to 

treat imported articles offers the 

advantage of greater ease of monitoring 

treatment. 

The proposed rule would benefit U.S. 

entities by clearly presenting the criteria 

that would 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 

this the proposed 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 the proposed rule would result in 

economic impacts or any significant 

costs for U.S. entities, large or small 

based on the available data. APHIS is, 

however, interested in receiving 

comments on the potential economic 

costs associated with the proposed 

criteria. These criteria include requiring 

facilities to be within the local 

commuting area for APHIS employees 

and within an area over which the U.S. 

Department of Homeland Security 

customs authority for enforcement 

purposes, obtaining written concurrence 

from the government of the Southern 

State in which the facility would be 

located, providing a detailed layout of 

the facility location, maintaining and 

providing an updated map identifying 

places where horticultural or other 

crops are grown within 4 square miles 

of the facility, trapping or other pest 

monitoring activities, agreeing in 

advance about all parameters by which 

the consignment will move from the 

point of entry or origin to the treatment 

facility, using refrigerated or air 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
60394 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 189 / Thursday, September 29, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

conditioned conveyance to transport 

articles to the facility, ensuring that 

cartons are off-loaded from conveyances 

in a safeguarded environment, 

maintaining physical separation of 

treated articles from untreated articles, 

and developing a contingency plan for 

safely destroying or disposing of 

untreated or improperly treated articles. 

The entities potentially affected by 

the proposed rule would be the eventual 

clients of irradiation facilities 

established in the southern United 

States. They can be largely classified 

within the following two industries: 

Post Harvest Crop Activities (except 

cotton ginning) (NAICS 115114), and 

Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Merchant 

Wholesalers (NAICS 424480). 

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 proposed rule has been reviewed 

under Executive Order 12988, Civil 

Justice Reform. If this proposed rule is 

adopted: (1) No retroactive effect will be 

given to this rule; and (2) administrative 

proceedings will not be required before 

parties may file suit in court challenging 

this rule. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

To provide the public with 

documentation of APHIS’ review and 

analysis of any potential environmental 

impacts associated with providing 

generic criteria for new irradiation 

treatment facilities in the Southern 

States of the United States, we have 

prepared an environmental assessment. 

The environmental assessment was 

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 may 

be viewed on the Regulations.gov Web 

site or in our reading room. (A link to 

Regulations.gov and information on the 

location and hours of the reading room 

are provided under the heading 

ADDRESSES at the beginning of this 

proposed rule.) In addition, copies may 

be obtained by calling or writing to the 

individual listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

In accordance with section 3507(d) of 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the information 

collection or recordkeeping 

requirements included in this proposed 

rule have been submitted for approval to 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB). Please send written comments 

to the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attention: 

Desk Officer for APHIS, Washington, DC 

20503. Please state that your comments 

refer to Docket No. APHIS–2009–0100. 

Please send a copy of your comments to: 

(1) Docket No. APHIS–2009–0100, 

Regulatory Analysis and Development, 

PPD, APHIS, Station 3A–03.8, 4700 

River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 

20737–1238, and (2) Clearance Officer, 

OCIO, USDA, room 404–W, 14th Street 

and Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20250. A comment to 

OMB is best assured of having its full 

effect if OMB receives it within 30 days 

of publication of this proposed rule. 

This proposed rule establishes criteria 

for irradiation facilities in the Southern 

States. Implementing this proposed rule 

will require respondents to provide 

APHIS with an updated map identifying 

horticultural/crop areas and 

contingency plans, approved by APHIS, 

for safely destroying or disposing of 

regulated articles. 

We are soliciting comments from the 

public (as well as affected agencies) 

concerning our proposed information 

collection and recordkeeping 

requirements. These comments will 

help us: 

(1) Evaluate whether the proposed 

information collection is necessary for 

the proper performance of our agency’s 

functions, including whether the 

information will have practical utility; 

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our 

estimate of the burden of the proposed 

information collection, including the 

validity of the methodology and 

assumptions used; 

(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and 

(4) Minimize the burden of the 

information collection on those who are 

to respond (such as through the use of 

appropriate automated, electronic, 

mechanical, or other technological 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology; e.g., permitting 

electronic submission of responses). 

Estimate of burden: Public reporting 

burden for this collection of information 

is estimated to average 2.3333 hours per 

response. 

Respondents: Irradiation facilities in 

Southern United States. 

Estimated annual number of 

respondents: 3. 

Estimated annual number of 

responses per respondent: 2. 

Estimated annual number of 

responses: 6. 

Estimated total annual burden on 

respondents: 14 hours. (Due to 

averaging, the total annual burden hours 

may not equal the product of the annual 

number of responses multiplied by the 

reporting burden per response.) 

Copies of this information collection 

can be obtained from Mrs. Celeste 

Sickles, APHIS’ Information Collection 

Coordinator, at (301) 851–2908. 

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 proposed 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, 

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 propose to amend 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. 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 189 / Thursday, September 29, 2011 / Proposed Rules 60395 

d. In paragraph (e) introductory text, 

by adding a sentence after the second 

sentence to read as set forth below. 

e. By adding a sentence after the 

paragraph (e)(1) introductory text 

heading 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. * * * 

* * * * * 

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 phytosanitry 

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 

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 22nd day of 

September 2011. 

Edward Avalos, 

Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory 

Programs. 

[FR Doc. 2011–25092 Filed 9–28–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Research Service 

7 CFR Part 505 

Modification of Interlibrary Loan Fee 

Schedule; Correction 

AGENCY: Agricultural Research Service, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; correction. 

SUMMARY: The proposed rule published 

in the Federal Register on September 

16, 2011 (76 FR 57681) announced 

Agricultural Research Service intent to 

seek comments on renewing the 

National Agricultural Library’s 

regulation to increase the interlibrary 

loan fees. This document corrects the 

RIN number. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kay 

Derr, 301–504–5879. 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS