Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 67317 

teleconferences, to periodically host 

collaborative conversations with Tribal 

leaders and their representatives 

concerning ways to improve this rule in 

Indian country. 

The policies contained in this rule 

would not have Tribal implications that 

preempt Tribal law since State welfare 

agencies will be the most affected to the 

extent that they administer the SNAP. 

Federalism Summary Impact Statement 

Executive Order 13132 requires 

Federal agencies to consider the impact 

of their regulatory actions on State and 

local governments. Where such actions 

have federalism implications, agencies 

are directed to provide a statement for 

inclusion in the preamble to the 

regulations describing the agency’s 

considerations in terms of the three 

categories called for under Section 

(6)(b)(2)(B) of Executive Order 13121. 

FNS has considered this rule’s impact 

on State and local agencies and has 

determined that it does not have 

Federalism implications under E.O. 

13132. 

Executive Order 12988 

This rule has been reviewed under 

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 

Reform. This rule is not intended to 

have preemptive effect with respect to 

any State or local laws, regulations or 

policies which conflict with its 

provisions or which would otherwise 

impede its full and timely 

implementation. State agencies are 

required to apply the raised threshold in 

this rule to all cases reviewed as part of 

the FY 2012. Prior to any judicial 

challenge to the provisions of the final 

rule, all applicable administrative 

procedures must be exhausted. 

Civil Rights Impact Analysis 

FNS has reviewed this rule in 

accordance with the Department 

Regulation 4300–4, ‘‘Civil Rights Impact 

Analysis,’’ to identify and address any 

major civil rights impacts the rule might 

have on minorities, women, and persons 

with disabilities. After a careful review 

of the rule’s intent and provisions, FNS 

has determined that this rule will not in 

any way limit or reduce the ability of 

protected classes of individuals to 

participate in SNAP. This regulation 

does not apply to the certification 

determinations made on the intended 

beneficiaries of the SNAP. Quality 

Control procedures are designed to 

evaluate the accuracy of the application 

of SNAP certification policy and 

therefore, the evaluation procedures do 

not impact protected classes or 

individuals. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

Information collections associated 

with this rule have been approved 

under following OMB control numbers: 

0584–0074, Worksheet for SNAP 

Quality Control Reviews (expiration 

date April 30, 2013), and 0584–0299 

Form FNS–380–1, Quality Control 

Review Schedule, Form FNS–380–1 

(March 31, 2013). 

E-Government Act Compliance 

FNS is committed to complying with 

the E-Government Act, 2002, 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. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 275 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Supplemental Nutrition 

Assistance Program, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, 7 CFR part 275 is amended as 

follows: 

PART 275—PERFORMANCE 

REPORTING SYSTEM 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 275 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 2011–2036. 

■ 2. In § 275.12, paragraph (f)(2) is 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 275.12 Review of active cases. 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(2) Basis of issuance of errors. If the 

reviewer determines that SNAP 

allotments were either overissued or 

underissued to eligible households in 

the sample month, the State agency 

shall code and report any variances that 

directly contributed to the error 

determination that were discovered and 

verified during the course of the review. 

Only variances that exceed $50.00 (the 

threshold) shall be included in the 

calculation of the underissuance error 

rate, overissuance error rate, and 

payment error. If the State agency has 

chosen to report information on all 

variances in elements of eligibility and 

basis of issuance, the reviewer shall 

code and report any other such 

variances that were discovered and 

verified during the course of the review. 

* * * * * 

Dated: October 25, 2011. 

Jeffrey J. Tribiano, 

Acting Administrator, Food and Nutrition 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–28230 Filed 10–31–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–30–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

7 CFR Part 958 

[Doc. No. AMS–FV–11–0025; FV11–958–1 

FR] 

Onions Grown in Certain Designated 

Counties in Idaho, and Malheur 

County, OR; Modification of Handling 

Regulations 

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This rule revises the handling 

regulation for onions handled under the 

Idaho-Eastern Oregon onion marketing 

order. The marketing order regulates the 

handling of onions grown in designated 

counties in Idaho, and Malheur County, 

Oregon, and is administered locally by 

the Idaho-Eastern Oregon Onion 

Committee (Committee). This rule 

revises the marketing order’s handling 

regulation to allow special purpose 

shipments of onions for 

experimentation. The revision will 

allow the Idaho-Eastern Oregon onion 

industry to identify and develop new 

market niches and is expected to benefit 

producers, handlers, and consumers of 

onions. 

DATES: Effective Date: November 2, 

2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Barry Broadbent or Gary D. Olson, 

Northwest Marketing Field Office, 

Marketing Order Administration 

Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, 

AMS, USDA, 805 SW. Broadway, suite 

930, Portland, OR 97205; Telephone: 

(503) 326–2724, Fax: (503) 326–7440, or 

Email: Barry.Broadbent@ams.usda.gov 

or GaryD.Olson@ams.usda.gov. 

Small businesses may request 

information on complying with this 

regulation by contacting Laurel May, 

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 Email: 

Laurel.May@ams.usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final 

rule is issued under Marketing 

Agreement No. 130 and Marketing 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

67318 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

Order No. 958, both as amended (7 CFR 

part 958), regulating the handling of 

onions grown in certain designated 

counties in Idaho, and Malheur County, 

Oregon, 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 final rule has been reviewed 

under Executive Order 12988, Civil 

Justice Reform. This rule is not intended 

to have retroactive effect. 

The Act provides that administrative 

proceedings must be exhausted before 

parties may file suit in court. Under 

§ 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. A 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 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 final rule revises the handling 

regulation for onions handled under the 

order. Specifically, this rule revises the 

handling regulation to allow special 

purpose shipments of onions for the 

purpose of experimentation without 

regard to the minimum grade, size, 

maturity, pack, and inspection 

requirements of the order. The revision 

will give the Idaho-Eastern Oregon 

onion industry the opportunity to 

identify and develop new markets. The 

changes are expected to benefit 

producers, handlers, and consumers of 

onions. This rule was unanimously 

recommended by the Committee at a 

meeting on January 20, 2011. 

Sections 958.42, 958.51, 958.52, and 

958.60 of the order provide authority for 

assessment, mandatory inspection, and 

establishment of grade, size, quality, 

maturity, and pack regulations 

applicable to the handling of onions. 

Section 958.53 of the order provides 

authority for the issuance of special 

regulations, or the modification, 

suspension, or termination of 

requirements in effect pursuant to 

§§ 958.42, 958.52, 958.60, or any 

combination thereof, in order to 

facilitate the handling of onions for 

certain specified purposes. 

Section 958.328 establishes minimum 

requirements for onions handled subject 

to the order. Currently, no person shall 

handle any lot of onions unless such 

onions are inspected, are at least 

‘‘moderately cured’’, and meet the 

grade, size, maturity, and pack 

requirements of paragraphs (a), (b), and 

(c). Paragraph (e) delineates specific 

types of special purpose shipments that 

are exempt from the requirements of the 

order. Paragraph (f) outlines the 

safeguards for such special purpose 

shipments. 

The Committee recommended this 

revision to the handling regulations to 

respond to the industry’s desire to have 

greater flexibility in indentifying and 

pursuing unique marketing 

opportunities for onions that do not 

conform to the requirements of the 

order. The concern from the onion 

industry is that onion producers and 

handlers within the order’s production 

area are at a competitive disadvantage, 

relative to other onion producing 

regions, with respect to their ability to 

identify and develop new markets for 

non-standard onions. Adding authority 

to allow experimental onion shipments 

under the order provides handlers 

access to markets not previously 

available to them. 

An example that demonstrates how 

the industry benefits from this final rule 

would be a scenario in which a handler 

wants to produce and ship a unique, 

irregularly shaped small onion (e.g. a 

heart or a square shape) in order to 

target a newly developed niche market. 

Since irregular shape is a physical 

characteristic that does not conform to 

the order’s grade requirements, 

previously such onions could not have 

been handled under the marketing 

order. However, with this exemption for 

experimentation the Committee can 

now allow the shipment of those 

specific type onions while still 

maintaining the integrity of the order. If 

the market for such onions increases 

significantly, the Committee could then 

incorporate changes into the handling 

regulations to accommodate their 

handling without the continued need 

for an exemption. 

The potential for marketing 

opportunities like the example 

described above motivated the 

Committee to recommend modifying the 

handling regulation to add 

‘‘experimentation’’ to the already 

established list of special purpose 

shipments allowed under the order. 

Onion shipments for experimental 

purposes will thus be exempt from the 

grade, size, maturity, pack, and 

inspection requirements of the handling 

regulation. Shipments made under the 

experimental exemption continue to be 

subject to the assessment requirement of 

the order, however. With this special 

purpose shipment provision for 

experimentation, handlers have greater 

flexibility in pursuing various types of 

unique marketing opportunities that 

were previously not available under the 

handling regulation. 

The Committee will require handlers 

to request pre-approval for such 

experimental exemptions. Through the 

approval process, the Committee will be 

able to regulate the quantity and timing 

of such shipments. It is the goal of the 

Committee that any experimental 

shipments of onions will be temporary 

in nature. At the point that emerging 

experimental markets reach a sufficient 

volume or continue for such a length of 

time as to be deemed sustainable by the 

Committee, the Committee could then 

recommend changes to the handling 

regulation requirements to 

accommodate the marketing of such 

onions on a permanent basis. 

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Pursuant to the 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 

action 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 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 35 handlers 

of Idaho-Eastern Oregon onions who are 

subject to regulation under the order 

and approximately 250 onion producers 

in the regulated area. Small agricultural 

service firms, which include onion 

handlers and receivers, are defined by 

the Small Business Administration 

(SBA) (13 CFR 121.201) as those having 

annual receipts of less than $7,000,000, 

and small agricultural producers are 

defined as those having annual receipts 

of less than $750,000. 

The National Agricultural Statistics 

Service (NASS) reported in the 

‘‘Vegetables 2010 Summary’’, published 

in January 2011, that the total F.O.B. 

value of onions in the regulated 

production area for 2010 was 

$133,041,000. Based on an industry 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 67319 

estimate of 35 handlers, the average 

value of onions handled per handler is 

$3,801,000, well below the SBA 

threshold for defining small agricultural 

service firms. In addition, based on an 

industry estimate of 250 producers, the 

average F.O.B. value of onions produced 

in the industry is $532,164 per 

producer. Since the F.O.B. value is 

usually significantly higher than the 

farm gate value that the producers 

actually receive, most onion producers 

within the order’s production area could 

be considered small agricultural 

producers under the SBA definition. 

Therefore, it can be concluded that the 

majority of handlers and producers of 

Idaho-Eastern Oregon onions may be 

classified as small entities as defined by 

the SBA. 

This final rule revises § 958.328(e) of 

the order’s handling regulation to allow 

special purpose shipments of onions for 

the purpose of experimentation without 

regard to the minimum grade, size, 

maturity, pack, and inspection 

requirements currently prescribed under 

paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of § 958.328. 

The revision will allow the IdahoEastern Oregon onion industry to 

identify and develop new markets for 

non-standard onions that have not been 

previously available. The changes are 

expected to benefit producers, handlers, 

and consumers of onions. 

At a meeting on January 20, 2011, the 

Committee discussed the impact of the 

recommended changes on handlers and 

producers in terms of increased costs. 

The Committee believes that, since this 

change exempts certain shipments of 

onions from regulation, this action will 

not add any additional requirements or 

costs relative to the existing regulation. 

Since the utilization of the special 

purpose shipment provision is 

voluntary in nature, any additional 

regulatory burden placed on a handler 

as a result of this final rule will be by 

their choice. The changes may, 

however, create opportunities for 

producers and handlers to develop new 

markets and to enhance revenues. The 

Committee believes that the potential 

benefit associated with this action 

outweighs any potential increase in 

administrative cost or regulatory burden 

incurred by the handler. 

The Committee discussed various 

alternatives to adding experimental 

shipments to the list of special purpose 

shipment exemptions contained in the 

order’s handling regulation. Some 

members suggested that the provision 

was too broad in scope and needed 

greater restrictions. After deliberation, 

the Committee concluded that it would 

be impossible to anticipate what might 

be ‘‘experimental’’ in the future and that 

affording the greatest latitude to the 

provision, while maintaining strict 

Committee oversight, was in the best 

interest of the industry. The Committee 

also considered taking no action with 

regard to adding an experimental 

shipment provision, citing the potential 

for abuse. After deliberation, the 

Committee agreed that the experimental 

shipment provision is needed to 

respond to changes in the industry and 

that there would be sufficient safeguards 

to protect the integrity of the order. 

This final rule imposes additional 

reporting burdens on handlers who 

make special purpose shipments of 

experimental onions. This action 

requires the modification of two existing 

Committee forms and an increase in 

burden hours for three existing forms. 

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. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

In accordance with the Paperwork 

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

Chapter 35), the order’s information 

collection requirements have been 

previously approved by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) and 

assigned OMB No. 0581–0241, ‘‘Onions 

Grown in Certain Designated Counties 

in Idaho, and Malheur County, Oregon, 

M.O. No. 958.’’ However, as a result of 

this action changes in those 

requirements are necessary and have 

been submitted to OMB for review. 

As noted in the initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis, USDA has not 

identified any relevant Federal rules 

that duplicate, overlap or conflict with 

this 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. 

In addition, the Committee’s meeting 

was widely publicized throughout the 

onion industry, and all interested 

persons were invited to attend the 

meeting and participate in Committee 

deliberations on all issues. Like all 

Committee meetings, the January 20, 

2011, meeting was a public meeting and 

all entities, both large and small, were 

able to express their views on this issue. 

A proposed rule concerning this 

action was published in the Federal 

Register on June 21, 2011 (76 FR 35997). 

Copies of the rule were made available 

to all Committee members and onion 

handlers. Finally, the rule was made 

available through the Internet by USDA 

and the Office of the Federal Register. A 

60-day comment period ending August 

22, 2011, was provided to allow 

interested persons to respond to the 

proposal. No comments were received. 

Accordingly, no changes will be made 

to the rule as proposed. 

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 Laurel May at 

the previously mentioned address in the 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section. 

After consideration of all relevant 

matter 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. 

It is further found that good cause 

exists for not postponing the effective 

date of this rule until 30 days after 

publication in the Federal Register (5 

U.S.C. 553) because handlers are already 

shipping onions from the 2011–2012 

crop and handlers want to take 

advantage of the revision as soon as 

possible. Further, handlers are aware of 

this rule, which was unanimously 

recommended by the committee at a 

public meeting. Also, a 60-day comment 

period was provided for in the proposed 

rule. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 958 

Marketing agreements, Onions, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, 7 CFR part 958 is amended as 

follows: 

PART 958—ONIONS GROWN IN 

CERTAIN DESIGNATED COUNTIES IN 

IDAHO, AND MALHEUR COUNTY, 

OREGON 

■ 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR 

part 958 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674. 

■ 2. In § 958.328, revise paragraph (e) 

and the introductory sentence of 

paragraph (f) to read as follows: 

§ 958.328 Handling regulation. 

* * * * * 

(e) Special purpose shipments. (1) 

The minimum grade, size, maturity, 

pack, assessment, and inspection 

requirements of this section shall not be 

applicable to shipments of onions for 

any of the following purposes: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

67320 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 1, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

(i) Planting, 

(ii) Livestock feed, 

(iii) Charity, 

(iv) Dehydration, 

(v) Canning, 

(vi) Freezing, 

(vii) Extraction, 

(viii) Pickling, and 

(ix) Disposal. 

(2) Shipments of onions for the 

purpose of experimentation, as 

approved by the Committee, may be 

made without regard to the minimum 

grade, size, maturity, pack, and 

inspection requirements of this section. 

Assessment requirements shall be 

applicable to such shipments. 

(3) The minimum grade, size, and 

maturity requirements set forth in 

paragraph (a) of this section shall not be 

applicable to shipments of pearl onions, 

but the maximum size requirement in 

paragraph (h) of this section and the 

assessment and inspection requirements 

shall be applicable to shipments of pearl 

onions. 

(f) Safeguards. Each handler making 

shipments of onions outside the 

production area for dehydration, 

canning, freezing, extraction, pickling, 

or experimentation pursuant to 

paragraph (e) of this section shall: 

* * * * * 

Dated: October 26, 2011. 

Ellen King, 

Acting Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–28197 Filed 10–31–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

7 CFR Part 984 

[Doc. No. AMS–FV–11–0062; FV11–984–1 

FR] 

Walnuts Grown in California; Increased 

Assessment Rate 

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This rule increases the 

assessment rate established for the 

California Walnut Board (Board) for the 

2011–12 and subsequent marketing 

years from $0.0174 to $0.0175 per 

kernelweight pound of assessable 

walnuts. The Board locally administers 

the marketing order which regulates the 

handling of walnuts grown in 

California. Assessments upon walnut 

handlers are used by the Board to fund 

reasonable and necessary expenses of 

the program. The marketing year began 

September 1 and ends August 31. The 

assessment rate will remain in effect 

indefinitely unless modified, 

suspended, or terminated. 

DATES: Effective Date: November 2, 

2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff 

Smutny, Marketing Specialist, or Kurt J. 

Kimmel, Regional Manager, California 

Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order 

and Agreement Division, Fruit and 

Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA; 

Telephone: (559) 487–5901, Fax: (559) 

487–5906, or E-mail: 

Jeffrey.Smutny@ams.usda.gov or 

Kurt.Kimmel@ams.usda.gov. 

Small businesses may request 

information on complying with this 

regulation by contacting Laurel May, 

Marketing Order and Agreement 

Division, 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: 

Laurel.May@ams.usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule 

is issued under Marketing Order No. 

984, as amended (7 CFR part 984), 

regulating the handling of walnuts 

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 final rule has been reviewed 

under Executive Order 12988, Civil 

Justice Reform. Under the marketing 

order now in effect, California walnut 

handlers are subject to assessments. 

Funds to administer the order are 

derived from such assessments. It is 

intended that the assessment rate as 

issued herein will be applicable to all 

assessable walnuts beginning on 

September 1, 2011, 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 

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 for the Board for the 

2011–12 and subsequent marketing 

years from $0.0174 to $0.0175 per 

kernelweight pound of assessable 

walnuts. 

The California walnut marketing 

order provides authority for the Board, 

with the approval of USDA, to formulate 

an annual budget of expenses and 

collect assessments from handlers to 

administer the program. The members 

of the Board are growers and handlers 

of California walnuts. They are familiar 

with the Board’s needs and with the 

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. 

For the 2010–11 and subsequent 

marketing years, the Board 

recommended, and USDA approved, an 

assessment rate of $0.0174 per 

kernelweight pound of assessable 

walnuts that would continue in effect 

from year to year unless modified, 

suspended, or terminated by USDA 

upon recommendation and information 

submitted by the Board or other 

information available to USDA. 

The Board met on June 9, 2011, and 

unanimously recommended 2011–12 

expenditures of $7,402,450 and an 

assessment rate of $0.0175 per 

kernelweight pound of assessable 

walnuts. In comparison, last year’s 

budgeted expenditures were $6,812,000. 

The assessment rate of $0.0175 is 

$0.0001 per pound higher than the rate 

currently in effect. The quantity of 

assessable walnuts for the 2011–12 

marketing year is estimated at 470,000 

tons (inshell), which is 35,000 tons 

more than the 435,000 during the 2010– 

11 marketing year. At the recommended 

higher assessment rate of $0.0175 per 

kernelweight pound, the Board should 

collect approximately $7,402,500 in 

assessment income, which would be 

adequate to cover its 2011–12 budgeted 

expenses of $7,402,450. 

The following table compares major 

budget expenditures recommended by 

the Board for the 2010–11 and 2011–12 

marketing years: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES