Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 18003 

on either small or large Washington 

potato handlers. As with all Federal 

marketing order programs, reports and 

forms are periodically reviewed to 

reduce information requirements and 

duplication by industry and public 

sector agencies. 

AMS is committed to complying 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. 

USDA has not identified any relevant 

Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or 

conflict with this rule. 

A small business guide on complying 

with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop 

marketing agreements and orders may 

be viewed at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/ 

MarketingOrdersSmallBusinessGuide. 

Any questions about the compliance 

guide should be sent to Antoinette 

Carter at the previously mentioned 

address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section. 

After consideration of all relevant 

material presented, including the 

information and recommendation 

submitted by the Committee and other 

available information, it is hereby found 

that this rule, as hereinafter set forth, 

will tend to effectuate the declared 

policy of the Act. 

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it is also 

found and determined upon good cause 

that it is impracticable, unnecessary, 

and contrary to the public interest to 

give preliminary notice prior to putting 

this rule into effect, and that good cause 

exists for not postponing the effective 

date of this rule until 30 days after 

publication in the Federal Register 

because: (1) The 2011–2012 fiscal 

period begins on July 1, 2011, and the 

marketing order requires that the rate of 

assessment for each fiscal period apply 

to all assessable potatoes handled 

during such fiscal period; (2) this action 

decreases the assessment rate for 

assessable potatoes beginning with the 

2011–2012 fiscal period; (3) handlers 

are aware of this action which was 

unanimously recommended by the 

Committee at a public meeting and is 

similar to other assessment rate actions 

issued in past years; and (4) this interim 

rule provides a 60-day comment period, 

and all comments timely received will 

be considered prior to finalization of 

this rule. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 946 

Marketing agreements, Potatoes, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, 7 CFR part 946 is amended as 

follows: 

PART 946—IRISH POTATOES GROWN 

IN WASHINGTON 

■ 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR 

part 946 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674. 

■ 2. Section 946.248 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 946.248 Assessment rate. 

On and after July 1, 2011, an 

assessment rate of $0.003 per 

hundredweight is established for 

Washington potatoes. 

Dated: March 28, 2011. 

David R. Shipman, 

Associate Administrator, Agricultural 

Marketing Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–7753 Filed 3–31–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

7 CFR Part 989 

[Doc. No. AMS–FV–10–0090; FV10–989–3 

FR] 

Raisins Produced From Grapes Grown 

in California; Increased Assessment 

Rate 

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This rule increases the 

assessment rate established for the 

Raisin Administrative Committee 

(committee) for the 2010–11 and 

subsequent crop years from $7.50 to 

$14.00 per ton of free tonnage raisins 

acquired by handlers and reserve 

tonnage raisins released or sold to 

handlers for use in free tonnage outlets. 

The committee locally administers the 

marketing order which regulates the 

handling of California raisins produced 

from grapes grown in California. 

Assessments upon raisin handlers are 

used by the committee to fund 

reasonable and necessary expenses of 

the program. The 2010–11 crop year 

began August 1 and ends July 31. No 

volume regulation will be implemented 

for the 2010–11 crop year, and no 

reserve pool will be established for this 

crop. Some committee expenses usually 

covered by reserve pool revenues must 

therefore be covered by handler 

assessments, necessitating an increased 

assessment rate. The $14.00 per ton 

assessment would remain in effect 

indefinitely unless modified, 

suspended, or terminated. 

DATES: Effective Date: April 2, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Terry Vawter, Senior Marketing 

Specialist, or Kurt J. Kimmel, Regional 

Manager, California Marketing Field 

Office, Marketing Order Administration 

Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, 

AMS, USDA; Telephone: (559) 487– 

5901, Fax: (559) 487–5906; or E-mail: 

Terry.Vawter@ams.usda.gov or 

Kurt.Kimmel@ams.usda.gov. 

Small businesses may request 

information on complying with this 

regulation by contacting Antoinette 

Carter, Marketing Order Administration 

Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, 

AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence 

Avenue, SW., STOP 0237, Washington, 

DC 20250–0237; Telephone: (202) 720– 

2491, Fax: (202) 720–8938, or E-mail: 

Antoinette.Carter@ams.usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule 

is issued under Marketing Agreement 

and Order No. 989, both as amended (7 

CFR part 989), regulating the handling 

of raisins produced from grapes grown 

in California, hereinafter referred to as 

the ‘‘order.’’ The order is effective under 

the Agricultural Marketing Agreement 

Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601– 

674), hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘Act.’’ 

The Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) is issuing this rule in 

conformance with Executive Order 

12866. 

This rule has been reviewed under 

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 

Reform. Under the marketing order now 

in effect, California raisin handlers are 

subject to assessments. Funds to 

administer the order are derived from 

such assessments. It is intended that the 

assessment rate would be applicable to 

all assessable raisins beginning on 

August 1, 2010, and continue until 

amended, suspended, or terminated. 

The Act provides that administrative 

proceedings must be exhausted before 

parties may file suit in court. Under 

section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any 

handler subject to an order may file 

with USDA a petition stating that the 

order, any provision of the order, or any 

obligation imposed in connection with 

the order is not in accordance with law 

and request a modification of the order 

or to be exempted therefrom. Such 

handler is afforded the opportunity for 

a hearing on the petition. After the 

hearing, USDA would rule on the 

petition. The Act provides that the 

district court of the United States in any 

district in which the handler is an 

inhabitant, or has his or her principal 

place of business, has jurisdiction to 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
18004 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

review USDA’s ruling on the petition, 

provided an action is filed not later than 

20 days after the date of the entry of the 

ruling. 

This rule increases the assessment 

rate established by the committee for the 

2010–11 and subsequent crop years 

from $7.50 to $14.00 per ton of free 

tonnage California raisins acquired by 

handlers and reserve tonnage raisins 

released or sold to handlers for use in 

free tonnage outlets. 

Sections 989.79 and 989.80, 

respectively, of the order provide 

authority for the committee, with the 

approval of the USDA, to formulate an 

annual budget of expenses and collect 

assessments from handlers to administer 

the program. The members of the 

committee are producers and handlers 

of California raisins. They are familiar 

with the committee’s needs and with 

costs for goods and services in their 

local area, and are, thus, in a position 

to formulate an appropriate budget and 

assessment rate. The assessment rate is 

formulated and discussed in a public 

meeting. Thus, all directly affected 

persons have an opportunity to 

participate and provide input. 

Section 989.79 also provides authority 

for the committee to formulate an 

annual budget of expenses likely to be 

incurred during the crop year in 

connection with reserve raisins held for 

the account of the committee. A certain 

percentage of each year’s raisin crop 

may be held in a reserve pool during 

years when volume regulation is 

implemented to help stabilize raisin 

supplies and prices. The remaining 

‘‘free’’ percentage may be sold by 

handlers to any market. Reserve raisins 

are disposed of through various 

programs authorized under the order. 

Reserve pool expenses are deducted 

from proceeds obtained from the sale of 

reserve raisins, as are costs to cover the 

Export Replacement Offer (ERO) 

program, which supports handler 

exports in various foreign markets. Net 

proceeds are returned to the pool’s 

equity holders, primarily producers. 

The Committee Formulates Two 

Budgets Initially 

Prior to each crop year, the committee 

formulates two distinct budgets: One 

which envisions volume regulation 

during the upcoming season, and 

another which does not. This is a 

practical contingency plan, since the 

crop year begins prior to the 

committee’s consideration of a 

recommendation for volume regulation, 

which cannot be made before the crop’s 

size can be estimated. 

When volume regulation is 

recommended, the committee adopts an 

administrative budget funded by 

handler assessments, and a reserve pool 

budget funded by the current year’s 

reserve pool. Thus, some committee 

costs, some variable and some fixed, 

may be shared by the two revenue 

sources or allocated to one or the other. 

Variable costs solely attributed to the 

reserve budget include such expenses as 

insurance policies for committee-owned 

raisin bins and on stacks of reserve 

raisins, and reserve raisin hauling costs. 

Variable costs which are attributable 

solely to the administrative budget 

include such expenses as costs for 

committee and staff travel, or software 

and programming costs, etc. Because of 

the nature of these variable expenses, 

they can be changed or redirected 

without significant impact on either 

budget, if necessary. 

On the other hand, fixed costs are less 

flexible, and, thus, cannot be readily 

changed from one accounting period to 

another. Because these are ‘‘sunk’’ costs, 

like rent, salaries and other related 

personnel costs, utilities, etc., they may 

be attributable to both the reserve and 

the administrative budget, depending on 

the nature of the expense. In the short 

term of one crop year, these fixed costs 

generally remain fixed costs. 

When volume regulation is not 

implemented, the committee funds 

program operations with an 

administrative budget funded only from 

handler assessments. Some expenses 

associated with a reserve pool are 

eliminated or reduced from the 

combined administrative and reserve 

program budget. 

The Committee Recommended Two 

Budgets Initially 

The committee initially met on July 

22, 2010, and recommended two 2010– 

11 crop year budget scenarios to 

accommodate both situations, because it 

was not known at that time whether 

volume regulation would be 

implemented. 

The first budget scenario 

recommended was premised on the 

assumption that volume regulation 

would be implemented. Under this 

scenario, the committee recommended 

an administrative budget of expenses 

totaling $2,245,900, and a reserve pool 

budget of expenses totaling $2,530,700. 

The assessment rate would remain 

unchanged at $7.50 per ton. The 

assessment rate applied to the estimated 

acquisitions of raisins by handlers of 

330,640 tons would provide adequate 

revenue to fund the shared 

administrative and reserve budgets 

(salaries, administrative expenses, 

research, compliance activities, industry 

outreach), and those costs exclusively 

funded by the reserve budget, including 

bin repair and maintenance. Total 

expenses of this budget scenario equal 

$4,776,600, not including $233,900 set 

aside as a contingency for unforeseen 

obligations, bringing the total budget to 

$5,010,500. 

The second budget scenario 

recommended was based on the premise 

that volume regulation would not be 

implemented for the 2010–11 season. 

Under this scenario, various expenses 

typically split between the reserve pool 

budget and the administrative budget 

would be funded by the administrative 

budget because the activities continue, 

even in the absence of a reserve 

program. These expenses include 

salaries, bin maintenance costs, export 

consultants hired to assist the 

committee in administering USDA’s 

Market Access Program (MAP) funds, 

etc. However, it should be noted that 

even some fixed costs would be subject 

to reduction or elimination if no reserve 

program were in place after the 2010– 

2011 crop year. In the long term, even 

fixed costs become variable costs. 

In addition, some expense categories 

would be eliminated in the absence of 

a reserve program. These expenses 

include: Insurance for bins and reserve 

raisins, reserve raisin hauling, and the 

Industry Marketing Promotion Fund 

(IMPF). 

Other expenses which have been 

reduced include: travel for committee 

and staff members, software and 

programming costs, and generic 

marketing efforts in foreign countries. 

The administrative budget expenses 

total $4,423,500 not including a smaller 

contingency fund of $205,460, bringing 

the total administrative budget to 

$4,628,960; necessitating a higher 

assessment rate of $14.00 per ton to 

cover the estimated expenses, as 

unanimously recommended by the 

committee. 

Committee Consideration of Volume 

Regulation 

The committee met on October 5, 

2010, and determined that volume 

regulation is not warranted for the 

2010–11 crop year because the 

calculated volume regulation formula 

resulted in 100 percent free tonnage and 

zero percent reserve tonnage. Without 

volume regulation, the committee’s 

relevant recommendation is the July 22, 

2010, proposed administrative budget of 

$4,628,960, along with an increased 

assessment rate of $14.00 per ton. 

In developing this budget, the 

committee reviewed and identified 

those expenses that were considered 

reasonable and necessary to continue 

operation of the raisin marketing order 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 18005 

program. As noted previously, several 

costs normally associated with 

administering a reserve pool would be 

eliminated such as insurance coverage 

($98,700); raisin hauling costs ($65,000), 

and 2011–2012 export marketing 

promotion costs. These costs would be 

unnecessary in the absence of a reserve 

pool. 

Some expenses traditionally split 

between the administrative and reserve 

pool budgets would be reduced and 

funded through the administrative 

budget. For example, total office and 

field staff travel related to reserve and 

administrative activities, budgeted at 

$66,200 ($33,100 allocated to the 

reserve budget and an additional 

$33,100 allocated to the administrative 

budget), would be reduced to $48,000. 

Other reduced expenses include: 

Reduction in costs for outside counsel 

approved by USDA for personnel issues 

from $8,000 to $6,000; travel for foreign 

committee representatives from $65,000 

to $40,000; staff travel for generic 

foreign market relations from $70,000 to 

$40,000; and MAP trade activity from 

$440,000 to $400,000. In all, the 

committee has proposed eliminating or 

reducing expenses by a total of 

$353,100. 

Other costs usually split between the 

reserve pool and administrative budgets 

that would be funded by the 

administrative budget include: Salaries 

and related employment costs, 

administration, generic marketing 

efforts, research, compliance activities, 

and industry outreach. These costs 

remain the same regardless of whether 

there is a reserve pool, as they are 

necessary to continue administration of 

the program. 

The major expenditures 

recommended by the committee for the 

2010–11 crop year include salaries and 

employee-related costs, administration 

costs, compliance activities, research 

and studies, and costs for operation and 

maintenance of the generic marketing 

programs. 

The committee recommended 

$1,745,000 to cover salaries for all 18 

committee employees, vacation 

accruals, payroll taxes, unemployment 

compensation, retirement contributions, 

employee benefits, employment costs, 

staff training and travel; insurance, and 

health insurance. Administrative 

expenses of $925,700 include expenses 

for rent, utilities, postage, office 

supplies, repairs and maintenance, 

memberships and subscriptions, 

committee training, consultants, audits, 

equipment leases and depreciation, 

committee and staff travel, committee 

mileage reimbursements, meeting 

expenses, bank charges, software and 

programming, and empty raisin bin 

hauling and maintenance. Costs for 

order compliance activities, not 

including compliance staff salaries, are 

anticipated to be $90,000; and research 

and studies, especially the cost for the 

five-year review of its marketing 

programs mandated by the Federal 

Agricultural Improvement and Reform 

(FAIR) Act of 1996, are anticipated to be 

$140,000. Costs for industry outreach 

are estimated to be $15,000. Costs for 

outside counsel approved by USDA for 

personnel issues are estimated to be 

$6,000. Generic costs for market 

maintenance and travel costs total 

$1,676,000, and include costs for foreign 

administration of MAP funds, travel for 

industry representatives in foreign 

countries—not including Mexico or 

Canada, which are considered part of 

the domestic market—and export 

consulting costs associated with MAP 

fund administration. 

The $14.00 per ton assessment rate 

recommended by the committee was 

derived by dividing the $4,628,960 

recommended budget ($4,423,500 

anticipated expenses plus a contingency 

fund of $205,460) by an estimated 

330,640 tons of assessable raisins. 

Sufficient income should be generated 

at the higher assessment rate for the 

committee to meet its anticipated and 

unanimously-recommended expenses. 

Due to a relatively small crop over 

which to spread the assessment rate, the 

recommended rate of $14.00 per ton is 

higher than recent assessment rates, and 

is enough to meet the anticipated 

expenses and maintain a small 

contingency fund. Pursuant to 

§ 989.81(a) of the order, any 

unexpended assessment funds from the 

crop year must be credited or refunded 

to the handlers from whom collected. 

The $14.00 per ton assessment rate 

will continue in effect indefinitely 

unless modified, suspended, or 

terminated by USDA upon 

recommendation and information 

submitted by the committee or other 

available information. 

Although this assessment rate will be 

in effect for an indefinite period, the 

committee will continue to meet prior to 

or during each crop year to recommend 

a budget of expenses and consider 

recommendations for modification of 

the assessment rate. The dates and times 

of committee meetings are available 

from the committee or USDA. 

Committee meetings are open to the 

public and interested persons may 

express their views at these meetings. 

USDA would evaluate committee 

recommendations and other available 

information to determine whether 

modification of the assessment rate is 

needed. Further rulemaking would be 

undertaken as necessary. The 

committee’s 2010–11 budget and those 

for subsequent crop years would be 

reviewed and, as appropriate, approved 

by USDA, in accordance with USDA’s 

program oversight responsibilities. 

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Pursuant to requirements set forth in 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

(5 U.S.C. 601–612), the Agricultural 

Marketing Service (AMS) has 

considered the economic impact of this 

rule on small entities. Accordingly, 

AMS has prepared this final regulatory 

flexibility analysis. 

The purpose of the RFA is to fit 

regulatory actions to the scale of 

business subject to such actions in order 

that small businesses will not be unduly 

or disproportionately burdened. 

Marketing orders issued pursuant to the 

Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are 

unique in that they are brought about 

through group action of essentially 

small entities acting on their own 

behalf. 

There are approximately 3,000 

producers of California raisins and 

approximately 28 handlers subject to 

regulation under the marketing order. 

The Small Business Administration (13 

CFR 121.201) defines small agricultural 

producers as those having annual 

receipts less than $750,000, and defines 

small agricultural service firms as those 

whose annual receipts are less than 

$7,000,000. 

Based upon shipment data and other 

information provided by the committee, 

it may be concluded that a majority of 

producers and approximately 18 

handlers of California raisins may be 

classified as small entities. 

This rule increases the assessment 

rate established for the committee and 

collected from handlers for the 2010–11 

and subsequent crop years from $7.50 to 

$14.00 per ton of assessable raisins 

acquired by handlers. The committee 

determined that volume regulation was 

not warranted for the 2010–11 crop year 

because the trade demand calculated 

under the order is currently higher than 

the crop estimate. Thus, given the 

current balance between supply and 

demand, the committee unanimously 

determined that volume regulation was 

not warranted for the 2010–2011 crop 

year. 

When volume regulation is in effect, 

the committee establishes a budget 

allocated between administrative 

expenses funded by handler 

assessments, and expenses incurred in 

connection with a reserve pool, funded 

from the sale of reserve pool raisins for 

free tonnage use. As noted earlier, costs 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
18006 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

which can be associated directly with 

the reserve pool, such as insurance on 

bins and reserve raisins, can readily be 

allocated to the reserve pool portion of 

the budget. Other costs, such as salaries 

or administrative expenses, represent 

expenditures which have been jointly 

allocated between the two portions of 

the budget, because these expenses and 

staff’s time are shared between 

administrative and pool operations. 

When no volume regulation is in 

effect during a crop year, there is no 

reserve pool budget for that crop year. 

However, as noted previously, the 

committee continues to incur fixed costs 

associated with salaries and 

administering the marketing order 

program, including expenses for their 

part of the MAP grant. 

The committee reviewed and 

identified the expenses that would be 

reasonable and necessary to continue 

program operations without a reserve 

pool in effect during the 2010–11 crop 

year. As illustrated earlier, some 

expenses that are typically split between 

the administrative and reserve pool 

budgets have been allocated to the 

administrative budget, some expenses 

were reduced, and some expenses have 

been eliminated. 

Each reserve pool maintains a 

separate identity from any other pools 

which may be in existence. For 

example, currently the 2008–09 and 

2009–10 pools are still open, largely due 

to the lag time between the opening of 

the pool and the receipt of all 

documents applicable to that pool. 

Under the MIP/IMPF programs, for 

example, importers have two years in 

which to claim financial incentives from 

the pools. Thus, reserve pools cannot 

close until at least two years have 

elapsed. 

The resulting recommended 

administrative budget includes 

expenses of $4,423,500 and a 

contingency fund of $205,460, for a total 

budget of $4,628,960 for the 2010–11 

crop year. This represents an overall 

decrease from the 2009–10 combined 

administrative and reserve pool budgets, 

which totaled $5,463,975. The 

contingency fund provides a safety net 

to cover unexpected expenses and 

opportunities that present themselves 

during the 2010–2011 crop year. 

The quantity of assessable raisins for 

2010–11 crop year is estimated to be 

330,640 tons. The $14.00 per ton 

assessment rate unanimously 

recommended by the committee was 

derived by dividing the $4,628,960 

anticipated expenses, which includes a 

contingency fund of $205,460, by an 

estimated 330,640 tons of assessable 

raisins. Sufficient income should be 

generated at the higher assessment rate 

for the committee to meet its anticipated 

expenses. Pursuant to § 989.81(a) of the 

order, any unexpended assessment 

funds from the crop year must be 

credited or refunded to the handlers 

from whom collected. 

Prior to arriving at this budget, the 

committee considered information from 

various sources, such as the committee’s 

Executive, Audit, and Administrative 

Issues Subcommittees. Alternate 

spending levels were discussed by the 

Audit Subcommittee, which met on July 

22, 2010, to review the committee’s 

financial condition and consider 

preliminary budgets. The committee 

was aware that the current raisin supply 

and demand were relatively balanced, 

and that volume regulations might not 

be warranted for the 2010–11 crop. 

Therefore, the committee developed two 

alternative budget and assessment rate 

recommendations to accommodate a 

scenario with volume regulation and 

another scenario without volume 

regulation. If volume regulation were to 

be implemented, the assessment rate 

would remain at $7.50 per ton. If 

volume regulation were not to be 

implemented, some costs typically 

allocated to a reserve pool budget would 

be absorbed by the administrative 

budget, thus necessitating an increased 

assessment rate to $14.00 per ton. The 

committee unanimously approved these 

alternative budget and assessment 

recommendations on July 22, 2010. 

The committee met again on October 

5, 2010, and determined that volume 

regulation was not warranted for the 

2010–11 season. This triggered 

recommendation of the committee’s 

proposal for an administrative budget of 

$4,628,960 and an assessment rate of 

$14.00 per ton, since the current 

assessment rate of $7.50 would not 

provide enough funds to cover 

anticipated expenses of $4,423,500. 

A review of statistical data on the 

California raisin industry indicates that 

assessment revenue has consistently 

been less than one percent of grower 

revenue in recent years. A minimum 

grower price of $1,500 per ton of raisins 

for the 2010–11 crop year has been 

announced by the Raisin Bargaining 

Association. If this price is realized, 

assessment revenue would continue to 

represent less than one percent of 

grower revenue in the 2010–11 crop 

year, even with the increased 

assessment rate. 

Regarding the impact of this action on 

affected entities, this action increases 

the assessment obligation imposed on 

handlers. While increased assessments 

impose additional costs on handlers 

regulated under the order, the rates are 

uniform on all handlers, and 

proportional to the size of their 

businesses. However, these costs would 

be offset by the benefits derived by the 

operation of the marketing order. 

In addition, the Audit Subcommittee 

and the full committee’s meetings were 

widely publicized throughout the 

California raisin industry and all 

interested persons were invited to 

attend the meetings and encouraged to 

participate in committee deliberations 

on all issues. Like all subcommittee and 

committee meetings, the July 22 and 

October 5, 2010, meetings were public 

meetings, and all entities, both large and 

small, were able to express views on 

this issue, if they chose to do so. Based 

upon the discussions and the 

unanimous vote by the committee, the 

increased assessment is reasonable and 

necessary to maintain the program. 

This rule imposes no additional 

reporting or recordkeeping requirements 

on either small or large California raisin 

handlers. As with all Federal marketing 

order programs, reports and forms are 

periodically reviewed to reduce 

information requirements and 

duplication by industry and public 

sector agencies. As noted in the initial 

regulatory flexibility analysis, USDA 

has not identified any relevant Federal 

rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict 

with this final rule. 

AMS is committed to complying 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. 

A proposed rule concerning this 

action was published in the Federal 

Register on January 25, 2011 (76 FR 

4254). Copies of the proposed rule were 

provided to all raisin handlers by the 

committee. Finally, the proposed rule 

was made available through the Internet 

by USDA and the Office of the Federal 

Register. A 10-day comment period, 

ending February 4, 2011, was provided 

for interested persons to respond to the 

proposal. 

There were three comments on the 

proposed rule from raisin handlers and 

one from the general public. One 

handler commenter simply noted that 

he was opposed to the assessment rate 

increase. 

Another handler commenter noted 

that when the proposed budget was 

recommended, the committee believed 

there would be insufficient funds 

remaining in the existing reserve pool. 

This belief necessitated the increased 

assessment rate. However, as recently as 

January 6, 2011, estimates of funds in 

the reserve pool indicated that pool 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 63 / Friday, April 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 18007 

funds were more than adequate. For that 

reason, the requester suggested that the 

increased assessment rate has become 

unnecessary. 

The third handler commenter also 

suggested that the proposed assessment 

rate of $14.00 per ton was higher than 

necessary and offered a counter 

proposal of $8.25 per ton. 

At the time the committee made the 

recommendation for an increased 

assessment rate, they submitted a 

budget of expenses contingent upon the 

proposed assessment rate. If new 

information since that recommendation 

resulted in the need for a revised budget 

and accompanying assessment rate, the 

committee may recommend and submit 

a new budget and revised assessment 

rate for the Secretary’s review. In fact, 

the committee may provide a new 

budget and assessment recommendation 

any time conditions affecting the budget 

and assessment rate change enough to 

warrant a new recommendation. In the 

absence of an alternative 

recommendation from the committee 

regarding a revised budget and 

assessment rate proposal, the USDA has 

determined that issuing this final rule as 

recommended by the committee is 

appropriate. 

In addition, it should be noted that 

the marketing order provides a remedy 

in § 989.81(a) in the event the 

committee collects more assessment 

funds than are needed in a crop year: A 

handler may be credited his share of 

excess assessments collected against 

operations of the following crop year, or 

the handler may request a refund of 

such excess assessments. Moreover, the 

proposed budget and the accompanying 

increased assessment rate were 

unanimously approved at the July 22, 

2010, and October 5, 2010, committee 

meetings. Representatives of all three 

handler commenters attended at least 

one of the meetings and added their 

vote to the unanimous 

recommendations. 

The fourth comment was from a 

member of the public, who stated that 

assessment rates against raisin 

producers should be reduced rather 

than nearly doubled. First, the 

assessment is collected from handlers, 

rather than producers. Also, as noted 

previously, the members of the 

committee are producers and handlers 

of California raisins. They are familiar 

with the committee’s needs and with 

costs for goods and services in their 

local area, and are, thus, in a position 

to formulate an appropriate budget and 

assessment rate. The assessment rate is 

formulated and discussed in a public 

meeting in the production area, and 

therefore, all directly affected persons 

have an opportunity and are encouraged 

to participate and provide input. 

Finally, the producers and handlers 

who comprise the committee made their 

recommendation to increase the 

assessment rate by unanimous vote. 

A small business guide on complying 

with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop 

marketing agreements and orders may 

be viewed at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/ 

MarketingOrdersSmallBusinessGuide. 

Any questions about the compliance 

guide should be sent to Antoinette 

Carter at the previously mentioned 

address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section. 

After consideration of all relevant 

material presented, including the 

information and recommendation 

submitted by the committee and other 

available information, it is hereby found 

that this rule, as hereinafter set forth, 

will tend to effectuate the declared 

policy of the Act. 

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it is also 

found and determined that good cause 

exits for not postponing the effective 

date of this rule until 30 days after 

publication in the Federal Register 

because handlers are already receiving 

2010–11 crop year raisins and the 

assessment rate applies to all raisins 

received during the crop year and 

subsequent crop years. In addition, the 

committee needs the additional revenue 

generated by this assessment rate to 

meet its financial obligations for this 

crop year. Further, handlers are aware of 

this rule, which was unanimously 

recommended at a public meeting. Also, 

a 10-day comment period was provided 

for in the proposed rule. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 989 

Grapes, Marketing agreements, 

Raisins, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, 7 CFR part 989 is amended as 

follows: 

PART 989—RAISINS PRODUCED 

FROM GRAPES GROWN IN 

CALIFORNIA 

■ 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR 

part 989 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674. 

■ 2. Section 989.347 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 989.347 Assessment rate. 

On and after August 1, 2010, an 

assessment rate of $14.00 per ton is 

established for assessable raisins 

produced from grapes grown in 

California. 

Dated: March 28, 2011. 

Rayne Pegg, 

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–7759 Filed 3–31–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 

13 CFR Part 109 

[Docket No. SBA–2011–0002] 

RIN 3245–AG18 

Intermediary Lending Pilot Program 

AGENCY: Small Business Administration 

(SBA). 

ACTION: Interim final rule with request 

for comments. 

SUMMARY: This interim final rule 

implements section 1131 of the Small 

Business Jobs Act of 2010, which 

requires SBA to establish an 

Intermediary Lending Pilot (ILP) 

program. The ILP program is a threeyear pilot program in which SBA will 

make direct loans of up to $1 million at 

an interest rate of 1 percent to up to 20 

nonprofit lending intermediaries each 

year, subject to availability of funds. 

Intermediaries will then use the ILP 

loan funds to make loans of up to 

$200,000 to startup, newly established, 

or growing small business concerns. 

DATES: Effective date: April 1, 2011. 

Comment date: Comments must be 

received on or before May 31, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by docket number [SBA– 

2011–0002] by any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Grady Hedgespeth, Director of 

Financial Assistance, U.S. Small 

Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, 

SW., 8th floor, Washington, DC 20416. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: Grady 

Hedgespeth, Director of Financial 

Assistance, U.S. Small Business 

Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 8th 

floor, Washington, DC 20416. 

All comments will be posted on 

www.Regulations.gov. If you wish to 

include within your comment, 

confidential business information (CBI) 

as defined in the Privacy and Use 

Notice/User Notice at 

www.Regulations.gov and you do not 

want that information disclosed, you 

must submit the comment by either 

Mail or Hand Delivery and you must 

address the comment to the attention of 

Grady Hedgespeth, Director of Financial 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES