Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Perquimans River, Hertford, NC, 30305-30306 [2010-12980]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 104 / Tuesday, June 1, 2010 / Proposed Rules
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.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:00 May 28, 2010
Jkt 220001
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.
30305
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.
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.
Kevin Shea
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service.
§ 319.56-40 Peppers from certain Central
American countries.
BILLING CODE 3410–34–S
■
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
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
[FR Doc. 2010–13002 Filed 5–28–10: 12:33 pm]
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
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking;
withdrawal.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
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 https://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
E:\FR\FM\01JNP1.SGM
01JNP1
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:
RIN 2900–AN45
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
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
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
38 CFR Part 17
Responding To Disruptive Patients
Background
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS
15:12 May 28, 2010
Jkt 220001
ACTION:
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 https://
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
https://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
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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.’’
E:\FR\FM\01JNP1.SGM
01JNP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 104 (Tuesday, June 1, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30305-30306]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-12980]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 https://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
[[Page 30306]]
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
