Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 104 / Tuesday, June 1, 2010 / Proposed Rules 30305 

Panama exported an average of about 

20 metric tons (MT) of peppers to the 

United States annually from 1998 to 

2001. The United States has not 

imported peppers from Panama since 

2001. We model three levels of pepper 

exports to the United States from 

Panama, of increasing magnitude: (i) 20 

MT; (ii) the maximum annual quantity 

exported by Panama to all countries in 

the most recent years it had export data 

(29 MT); and (iii) 10 times the 

maximum quantity exported (290 MT). 

The largest assumed level of U.S. 

imports is less than is 0.02 percent of 

average annual U.S. consumption. Even 

when assuming the largest import 

quantity and no displacement of 

imports from other countries, the 

welfare loss for U.S. small-entity 

producers would be equivalent to less 

than 0.05 percent of their average 

revenue. U.S. producers of peppers are 

predominantly small. Other small 

entities that could be affected by the 

rule include fresh pepper importers. 

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 would allow 

peppers to be imported into the United 

States from Panama. If this proposed 

rule is adopted, State and local laws and 

regulations regarding peppers imported 

under this rule would be preempted 

while the fruit is in foreign commerce. 

Fresh fruits and vegetables are generally 

imported for immediate distribution and 

sale to the consuming public and would 

remain in foreign commerce until sold 

to the ultimate consumer. The question 

of when foreign commerce ceases in 

other cases must be addressed on a caseby-case basis. If this proposed rule is 

adopted, no retroactive effect will be 

given to this rule, and this rule will not 

require administrative proceedings 

before parties may file suit in court 

challenging this rule. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This proposed rule contains no new 

information collection or recordkeeping 

requirements under the Paperwork 

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

et seq.). 

List of Subjects in 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 part 319 as follows: 

PART 319—FOREIGN QUARANTINE 

NOTICES 

■ 1. 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. 

■ 2. Section 319.56-40 is amended by 

revising the introductory text of the 

section and paragraphs (a)(2), (b)(3)(v), 

and (c)(3)(v) to read as follows. 

§ 319.56-40 Peppers from certain Central 

American countries. 

Fresh peppers (Capsicum spp.) may 

be imported into the United States from 

Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, 

Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama only 

under the following conditions and in 

accordance with all other applicable 

provisions of this subpart: 

(a) * * * 

(2) A pre-harvest inspection of the 

growing site must be conducted by the 

national plant protection organization 

(NPPO) of the exporting country for the 

weevil Faustinus ovatipennis, pea 

leafminer, tomato fruit borer, lantana 

mealybug, passionvine mealybug, melon 

thrips, bacterial wilt, the rust fungus 

Puccinia pampeana, Andean potato 

mottle virus, and tomato severe leaf curl 

virus, and if these pests are found to be 

generally infesting the growing site, the 

NPPO may not allow export from that 

production site until the NPPO has 

determined that risk mitigation has been 

achieved. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(v) The greenhouse must be inspected 

prior to harvest for the weevil Faustinus 

ovatipennis, pea leafminer, tomato fruit 

borer, lantana mealybug, passionvine 

mealybug, melon thrips, bacterial wilt, 

the rust fungus Puccinia pampeana, 

Andean potato mottle virus, and tomato 

severe leaf curl virus. If these pests, or 

other quarantine pests, are found to be 

generally infesting the greenhouse, 

export from that production site will be 

halted until the exporting country’s 

NPPO determines that the pest risk has 

been mitigated. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(v) The greenhouse must be inspected 

prior to harvest for the weevil Faustinus 

ovatipennis, pea leafminer, tomato fruit 

borer, lantana mealybug, passionvine 

mealybug, melon thrips bacterial wilt, 

the rust fungus Puccinia pampeana, 

Andean potato mottle virus, and tomato 

severe leaf curl virus. If these pests, or 

other quarantine pests, are found to be 

generally infesting the greenhouse, 

export from that production site will be 

halted until the exporting country’s 

NPPO determines that the pest risk has 

been mitigated. 

* * * * * 

Done in Washington, DC, this 24th day 

of May 2010. 

Kevin Shea 

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–13002 Filed 5–28–10: 12:33 pm] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–S 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 117 

[Docket No. USCG–2009–0073] 

RIN 1625–AA09 

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; 

Perquimans River, Hertford, NC 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; 

withdrawal. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is 

withdrawing its notice of proposed 

rulemaking concerning the proposed 

change to the regulations that governed 

the operation of the US17 Bridge, at 

mile 12.0, across Perquimans River at 

Hertford, NC. The requested change 

would have allowed the bridge to 

operate without a tender during specific 

times of the year on an advance notice 

basis. 

DATES: The notice of proposed 

rulemaking is withdrawn on June 1, 

2010. 

ADDRESSES: The docket for this 

withdrawn rulemaking is available for 

inspection or copying at the Docket 

Management Facility (M–30), U.S. 

Department of Transportation, West 

Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. You may also 

find this docket on the Internet by going 

to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting 

USCG–2009–0073 in the ‘‘Keyword’’ box 

and then clicking ‘‘Search’’. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions about this notice, 

call or e-mail Sandra S. Elliott, Fifth 

Coast Guard District; telephone (757) 

398–6557, e-mail 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
30306 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 104 / Tuesday, June 1, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Sandra.s.elliott@uscg.mil. If you have 

questions on viewing material in the 

docket call Renee V. Wright, Program 

Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 

202–366–9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On March 13, 2009, we published a 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 

entitled ‘‘Drawbridge Operation 

Regulations; Perquimans River, 

Hertford, NC’’ in the Federal Register (74 

FR 10850–10853). The rulemaking 

would have allowed the drawbridge to 

operate on an advance notice basis 

during specific times of the year. 

Officials from the Town of Hertford 

commented that not maintaining a 

tender during peak boating times would 

have an adverse impact on public safety. 

Withdrawal 

The North Carolina Department of 

Transportation (NCDOT), responsible 

for the operation of the US17 Bridge, 

had requested advance notification of 

vessel openings during specific times of 

the year due to the infrequency of 

requests for vessel openings of the 

drawbridge. 

The Coast Guard received several 

comments opposing changes to the 

proposed rulemaking. We conducted a 

lengthy and thorough investigation that 

included a site visit and a meeting with 

officials of the Town of Hertford. The 

Coast Guard met with the Mayor, Town 

Manager, Town Planner and a 

representative from NCDOT. We also 

met separately with a marina owner and 

the Chief of the Water Rescue team. 

Our investigation along with the 

majority of the comments revealed that 

the rulemaking could impose critical 

service delays to commercial and 

recreational boaters and impede the 

ability of rescue boats to arrive promptly 

on scene. The withdrawal is based on 

the reason that this change would not 

improve the schedule for roadway and 

waterway users. 

Authority 

This action is taken under the 

authority of 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05– 

1; Department of Homeland Security 

Delegation No. 0170.1. 

Dated: May 11, 2010. 

Wayne E. Justice, 

Real Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 

Fifth Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 2010–12980 Filed 5–28–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS 

38 CFR Part 17 

RIN 2900–AN45 

Responding To Disruptive Patients 

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This document proposes to 

amend the Department of Veterans 

Affairs (VA) regulation that authorizes 

appropriate action when a patient 

engages in disruptive behavior at a VA 

medical facility. VA needs to update its 

current regulation to reflect modern 

medical care and ethical practices. The 

proposed rule would authorize VA to 

modify the time, place, and/or manner 

in which VA provides treatment to a 

patient, in order to ensure the safety of 

others at VA medical facilities, and to 

prevent any interference with the 

provision of medical care. 

DATES: Comment Date: Comments on 

the proposed rule must be received by 

VA on or before August 2, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments may be 

submitted through http:// 

www.Regulations.gov; by mail or handdelivery to the Director, Regulations 

Management (02REG), Department of 

Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, 

NW., Room 1068, Washington, DC 

20420; or by fax to (202) 273–9026. 

Comments should indicate that they are 

submitted in response to ‘‘RIN 2900– 

AN45—Responding To Disruptive 

Patients.’’ Copies of comments received 

will be available for public inspection in 

the Office of Regulation Policy and 

Management, Room 1063B, between the 

hours of 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday 

through Friday (except holidays). Please 

call (202) 461–4902 for an appointment. 

This is not a toll free number. In 

addition, during the comment period, 

comments may be viewed online at 

http://www.Regulations.gov through the 

Federal Docket Management System 

(FDMS). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Roscoe Butler, Deputy Director, 

Business Policy, Chief Business Office 

(163), Veterans Health Administration, 

Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 

Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 

20420, (202) 461–1586. (This is not a 

toll free number.) 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under 38 

U.S.C. chapters 17 and 18, VA has 

authority to provide medical care to 

certain veterans and nonveterans. VA is 

required, per 38 U.S.C. 1721, to 

prescribe rules and regulations to 

promote good conduct on the part of VA 

patients. VA has implemented this 

authority in 38 CFR part 17. 

Regarding the rights of patients 

receiving VA care, 38 CFR 17.33(a) 

prescribes, in part, that patients have ‘‘a 

right to be treated with dignity in a 

humane environment that affords them 

both reasonable protection from harm 

and appropriate privacy with regard to 

their personal needs.’’ Patients also have 

‘‘a right to receive, to the extent of 

eligibility therefor under the law, 

prompt and appropriate treatment for 

any physical or emotional disability.’’ 

Section 17.33(b) also prescribes rights 

with respect to visitations and 

communications, clothing, personal 

possessions, money, social interaction, 

exercise, and worship for VA residents 

and inpatients. These rights may be 

restricted by the appropriate health care 

professional in certain circumstances. 

See 38 CFR 17.33(c). The restrictions 

authorized by § 17.33(c), however, do 

not apply to outpatients and only cover 

restrictions on the listed rights. In 

certain cases, VA must restrict the 

provision of medical care to a patient in 

order to prevent harm to other patients 

and VA staff and disruptions in VA’s 

provision of medical care due to the 

patient’s behavior. 

VA regulations also prescribe rules of 

conduct for patients and other 

individuals who have access to VA 

facilities. See 38 CFR 1.218. In 

particular, § 1.218(a)(5) prohibits 

persons on VA property from causing a 

wide variety of disturbances, including 

creating ‘‘loud or unusual noise,’’ 

obstructing public areas, and impeding 

or disrupting ‘‘the performance of 

official duties by Government 

employees.’’ The sole enforcement 

mechanism provided by paragraph (a)(5) 

is ‘‘arrest and removal from the 

premises.’’ 38 CFR 1.218(a)(5). VA has 

determined that arrest is generally not 

an appropriate remedy in a situation 

where the Department must balance the 

rights and needs of a disruptive patient 

against the need to protect other 

patients, guests, and staff. Some patients 

establish a pattern of disruptive 

behavior when interacting with VA 

personnel or when they are on VA 

property, and we believe that by 

understanding these patterns of 

behavior, planning for such behavior in 

advance, and setting safe conditions for 

care delivery, we can intervene in ways 

that can prevent subsequent episodes 

requiring removal and arrest. 

In addition to §§ 1.218 and 17.33, the 

behavior of patients is specifically 

governed by current 38 CFR 17.106. It 

requires, in part, that VA maintain the 

good conduct of patients through 

‘‘corrective and disciplinary procedure.’’ 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1