This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains regulatory documents having general

applicability and legal effect, most of which

are keyed to and codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations, which is published under

50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by

the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of

new books are listed in the first FEDERAL

REGISTER issue of each week.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

77749 

Vol. 75, No. 239 

Tuesday, December 14, 2010 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

7 CFR Part 946 

[Doc. No. AMS–FV–10–0052; FV10–946–1 

FIR] 

Irish Potatoes Grown in Washington; 

Temporary Change to the Handling 

Regulations and Reporting 

Requirements 

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) is adopting, as a 

final rule, with changes, the provisions 

of an interim rule that suspended, for 

the 2010–2011 season only, the 

minimum quality, maturity, pack, 

marking, and inspection requirements 

currently prescribed for russet potato 

varieties under the Washington potato 

marketing order. The marketing order 

regulates the handling of Irish potatoes 

grown in Washington, and is 

administered locally by the State of 

Washington Potato Committee 

(Committee). This rule continues in 

effect the action that suspended 

regulation for russet potatoes for the 

2010–2011 season and established 

temporary reporting requirements for 

russet potato handlers during the 

suspension. These changes are needed 

to reduce overall industry expenses and 

increase net returns to producers and 

handlers while allowing the industry to 

explore alternative marketing strategies. 

Changes to the interim rule clarify that 

assessment reports are required for 

russet potatoes handled beginning on 

July 24, 2010, and restore regulatory text 

that was inadvertently deleted from the 

regulation when the interim rule was 

published. 

DATES: Effective Date: Effective January 

13, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Teresa Hutchinson or Gary Olson, 

Northwest Marketing Field Office, 

Marketing Order Administration 

Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, 

AMS, USDA, Telephone: (503) 326– 

2724, Fax: (503) 326–7440, or E-mail: 

Teresa.Hutchinson@ams.usda.gov or 

GaryD.Olson@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 Order No. 

946, as amended (7 CFR part 946), 

regulating the handling of Irish potatoes 

grown in Washington, 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. 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 

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 there from. 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. 

In an interim rule published in the 

Federal Register on July 23, 2010 (75 FR 

43042), the order’s handling regulations 

for russet potato varieties were 

suspended for the 2010–2011 season. 

This rule continues in effect that action. 

This change allows the Washington 

potato industry to market russet 

potatoes for one year without regard to 

the minimum quality, maturity, pack, 

marking, and inspection requirements 

prescribed under the Washington potato 

marketing order. The suspension was 

effective July 24, 2010, and will 

continue through June 30, 2011. After 

June 30, 2011, regulation will again be 

in effect for the 2011–2012 season and 

will continue indefinitely unless 

modified, suspended, or terminated. 

This rule also continues in effect the 

action that established reporting 

requirements for russet potato handlers 

during the same 12-month suspension 

period. The Committee will continue to 

collect assessments on all fresh russet 

potatoes handled during the suspension 

period. The reporting requirements 

allow the Committee to obtain 

information necessary to facilitate 

assessment collection. 

Section 946.52 of the order authorizes 

the establishment of grade, size, quality, 

or maturity regulations for any variety 

or varieties of potatoes grown in the 

production area. Section 946.52 also 

authorizes regulation of the size, 

capacity, weight, dimensions, pack, and 

marking or labeling of the container, or 

containers, which may be used in the 

packing or handling of potatoes, or both. 

Section 946.51 further authorizes the 

modification, suspension, or 

termination of regulations issued under 

§ 946.52. Section 946.60 provides that 

whenever potatoes are regulated 

pursuant to § 946.52 such potatoes must 

be inspected by the Federal State 

Inspection Program (FSIP) and certified 

as meeting the applicable requirements 

of such regulations. 

Section 946.70 authorizes the 

Committee, with the approval of USDA, 

to require information from handlers 

that will enable the Committee to fulfill 

its duties under the order. 

Section 946.336 of the order’s 

administrative rules and regulations 

prescribes the grade, size, quality, 

cleanness, maturity, pack, marking, and 

inspection requirements for fresh 

market Washington potatoes. 

The Committee meets regularly to 

consider recommendations for 

modification, suspension, or 

termination of the regulatory 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

77750 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 14, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

requirements for Washington potatoes, 

which have been issued on a continuing 

basis. Committee meetings are open to 

the public, and interested persons may 

express their views at these meetings. 

USDA reviews Committee 

recommendations, information 

submitted by the Committee, and other 

available information, and determines 

whether modification, suspension, or 

termination of the regulatory 

requirements would tend to effectuate 

the declared policy of the Act. 

At its January 26, 2010, meeting, the 

Committee was asked to evaluate the 

benefits of handling regulations and 

mandatory inspection for Washington 

potatoes. As a consequence, the 

Committee formed a subcommittee that 

met on May 11, 2010, to consider the 

implications of regulatory and 

inspection requirement suspension. 

Subsequently, at its June 1, 2010, 

meeting, the Committee unanimously 

recommended suspending the handling 

regulation for russet potatoes for the 

2010–2011 fiscal period, which ends on 

June 30, 2011. The Committee also 

recommended establishing a 

requirement that handlers report their 

russet potato shipments during this 

period to the Committee on a specially 

developed form. 

Historically, an objective of the 

order’s handling regulations has been to 

ensure that only quality Washington 

potatoes enter the fresh market, thereby 

ensuring consumer satisfaction, 

increased sales, and improved returns to 

producers. While the industry continues 

to support quality as an important factor 

in maintaining sales, the Committee 

believes the cost of inspection 

(mandated when the handling 

regulations are in effect) may exceed the 

benefits currently derived from the 

russet potato quality regulations. 

With russet potato prices reportedly at 

low levels in recent years, the 

Committee, as noted earlier, has been 

studying the possibility of reducing 

costs through the elimination of 

mandatory inspection. In evaluating the 

relative benefits of quality control 

versus a regulation-free market, some 

concern was expressed at the meeting 

that elimination of the quality 

requirements could result in low quality 

potatoes being shipped to the fresh 

market, thereby negatively affecting 

consumer demand. Also, there was 

some concern that overall quality of the 

product may decline, and that the 

Washington potato industry could lose 

russet potato sales to production areas 

that are covered by quality and 

inspection requirements. Furthermore, 

because russet potatoes comprise about 

76 percent of the fresh market 

Washington potato crop, the Committee 

is concerned about future availability of 

inspection services if the FSIP reduced 

staff as a result of the decrease in the 

demand for their services. With these 

concerns in mind, and having the desire 

to explore the benefits of nonregulation, the Committee 

recommended temporarily suspending 

the russet potato handling regulation for 

one season only. This would enable the 

Committee to study the impacts of the 

suspension and consider appropriate 

actions for ensuing seasons. 

This rule continues in effect the 

action that permits handlers to ship 

russet potatoes without regard to 

minimum quality, maturity, pack, 

marking, and inspection requirements 

for 2010–2011 fiscal period, which ends 

June 30, 2011. Although russet potato 

handlers may temporarily decrease their 

total costs by choosing not to have their 

potatoes inspected during the 

suspension period, handlers may 

continue to seek inspection on a 

voluntary basis. The Committee will 

evaluate the effects of the temporary 

regulatory suspension at its next 

meeting. 

Suspension of mandatory inspections 

resulted in the suspension of the 

monthly FSIP inspection report for 

russet potatoes. The Committee 

typically uses these monthly reports, 

which are compiled by the FSIP from 

inspection certificates, as a basis for 

assessment collection. During the 

suspension of the regulations for russet 

potatoes, the Committee will instead 

require handlers to file the newly 

established report specific to russet 

potato shipments so that the Committee 

may calculate assessments and compile 

statistics. 

For that purpose, a new § 946.143— 

Assessment reports, was added to the 

administrative rules and regulations 

requiring each person handling russet 

type potatoes to submit a monthly 

report to the Committee containing the 

following information: (a) The name and 

address of the handler; (b) the date and 

quantity of russet potatoes shipped; (c) 

the assessment payment due; and (d) 

other information as may be requested 

by the Committee. Each handler’s first 

assessment report shall include all the 

required information pertaining to 

shipments from the beginning of the 

regulatory suspension period through 

the end of December 2010. 

Authorization to assess handlers 

enables the Committee to incur 

expenses that are reasonable and 

necessary to administer the program. 

This reporting requirement enables the 

Committee to continue collecting the 

funds needed to cover necessary 

program costs. 

The beginning date of the additional 

reporting requirements should have 

been the same date as the beginning 

date of the regulatory suspension, which 

is July 24, 2010. However, the interim 

rule erroneously provided that the new 

reporting requirements would cover 

handling starting on July 26, 2010. This 

rule makes a change to the interim rule 

by establishing July 24, 2010, as the 

beginning date for the new reporting 

requirements. 

In addition to adding a new § 946.143 

containing the additional reporting 

requirements, the interim rule revised 

§ 946.336 by adding a provision that 

russet type potatoes are exempt from the 

handling requirements of that section 

during the 2010–2011 fiscal period. 

However, several paragraphs of 

§ 946.336 were inadvertently deleted 

when the interim rule was published. 

Therefore, this rule makes a change to 

the interim rule by revising only the 

introductory paragraph of § 946.336 and 

by adding paragraphs (a) through (h), 

which were inadvertently deleted when 

the interim rule was published, back 

into the section. 

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 

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 45 handlers of Washington 

potatoes subject to regulation under the 

order (inclusive of the 33 russet potato 

handlers) and approximately 267 

producers in the regulated production 

area. Small agricultural service firms are 

defined by the Small Business 

Administration (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. 

During the 2008–2009 marketing year, 

the Committee reported that 10,279,734 

hundredweight of Washington potatoes 

were shipped into the fresh market. 

Based on the USDA Economic Research 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 14, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 77751 

Service estimate that the 2008 average 

f.o.b. price for fresh domestic potatoes 

was $8.42 per hundredweight, the 

average gross returns for each of the 45 

handlers was less than $2,000,000. 

In addition, based on information 

provided by the National Agricultural 

Statistics Service, the average producer 

price for Washington potatoes for 2009 

was $7.10 per hundredweight. The 

average gross annual revenue for each of 

the 267 Washington potato producers is 

therefore calculated to be approximately 

$273,356. In view of the foregoing, the 

majority of Washington potato handlers 

and producers may be classified as 

small entities. 

This rule continues in effect the 

action that suspended the handling 

regulation and established reporting 

requirements for handlers of russet type 

potatoes for the 2010–2011 fiscal period, 

which ends June 30, 2011. These 

changes are expected to reduce overall 

industry expenses while providing the 

industry with the opportunity to explore 

alternative marketing strategies. 

The authority for regulation is 

provided in § 946.52 of the order, while 

authority for reports and records is 

provided in § 946.70. The handling 

regulation is specified under § 946.336 

of the order’s administrative rules and 

regulations. The new reporting 

requirement is specified in § 946.143. 

The Committee anticipates that this 

rule will not negatively impact small 

businesses. This rule continues to 

suspend minimum quality, maturity, 

pack, marking, and inspection 

requirements. Though inspections will 

not be mandated for russet potatoes 

handled under the order during the 

2010–2011 season, handlers may at their 

discretion choose to have their potatoes 

inspected. Handlers are thus able to 

control costs—which are generally 

passed on to producers—based on the 

demands of their customers. The 

Committee reports that during the 2008– 

2009 season, the total cost of 

inspection—at $0.07 per hundredweight 

for the approximately 7,800,000 

hundredweight of Washington russet 

potatoes shipped—was about $546,000. 

This represents approximately $12,133 

per handler. 

The Committee discussed alternatives 

to this recommendation. In addition to 

making no changes to the regulations, 

the Committee considered temporarily 

suspending the handling regulation for 

all types of potatoes, not just russet type 

potatoes. However, the Committee 

believes that it is beneficial to the 

industry to maintain the handling 

regulation and inspection requirements 

for round type potatoes. The Committee 

reports that round type potatoes 

generally command premium prices. 

The Washington potato industry 

believes that the order’s round potato 

quality regulations, in conjunction with 

mandatory inspections, are valuable 

marketing tools. Therefore, the 

Committee recommended suspending 

the handling regulation for russet 

potatoes only. 

An alternative to establishing the 

alternative reporting requirements 

would have been relieving handlers 

from paying assessments on shipments 

of russet potatoes. However, 

approximately 76 percent of the fresh 

potato shipments in Washington are 

comprised of russet varieties (as 

opposed to round white and round red 

or long white type potatoes), which 

generates a substantial portion of the 

Committee’s revenue. The Committee 

determined that it would not be able to 

cover the cost of its operation if 

shipments of russet potatoes were not 

assessed. 

This rule continues in effect the 

action that established a monthly 

reporting requirement for russet potato 

handlers. The report will provide the 

Committee with information necessary 

to track shipments and collect 

assessments. While this rule establishes 

new reporting requirements for russet 

potato shipments, the suspension of the 

handling regulation for russet potatoes 

also temporarily suspends the more 

frequent reporting requirements that are 

specified under the safeguard 

requirements for russet potatoes 

shipped under the order’s special 

purpose shipment exemptions 

(§ 946.336(d) and (e)). Under these 

paragraphs, handlers are required to 

provide detailed reports whenever they 

divert regulated potatoes for livestock 

feed, charity, seed, prepeeling, 

processing, grading and storing in 

specified counties in Oregon, and for 

experimentation. 

The burden of additional reporting or 

recordkeeping requirements on either 

small or large russet potato handlers is 

expected to be offset by the temporary 

suspension of other reporting 

requirements normally in effect. Also, 

the suspension of the handling 

regulation and inspection requirements 

for russet potatoes is expected to further 

reduce industry expenses. 

USDA has not identified any relevant 

Federal rules that duplicate, overlap or 

conflict with this rule. 

The Committee’s meetings were 

widely publicized throughout the 

Washington potato industry and all 

interested persons were invited to 

participate in Committee deliberations. 

Like all committee meetings, the 

January 26, May 11, and June 1, 2010, 

meetings were public meetings, and all 

entities, both large and small, were able 

to express views on this issue. 

An interim rule concerning this action 

was published in the Federal Register 

on July 23, 2010 (75 FR 43042). Copies 

of the rule were provided to handlers by 

the Committee’s staff. In addition, the 

rule was made available through the 

Internet by the Office of the Federal 

Register. That rule provided for a 60-day 

comment period, which ended 

September 21, 2010. No comments were 

received on the regulatory or 

information collection aspects of 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. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

In accordance with the Paperwork 

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

chapter 35), the additional information 

collection burden and form associated 

with the new reporting requirements 

have been approved by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) and 

merged into OMB No. 0581–0178, 

Generic OMB Vegetable and Specialty 

Crops. 

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. 

After consideration of all relevant 

material presented, including the 

Committee’s recommendation, and 

other information, it is found that 

finalizing the interim rule, with the 

following changes, will tend to 

effectuate the declared policy of the Act. 

The interim rule added § 946.143 to 

the order’s administrative rules and 

regulations and specified that handlers 

would be required to report russet 

potato shipments beginning on July 26, 

2010. This final interim rule revises 

§ 946.143 to specify that the first 

assessment report from handlers shall 

contain the required information for 

russet potatoes handled beginning on 

July 24, 2010. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

77752 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 14, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

In addition, when the interim rule 

was published, several paragraphs of the 

regulatory text of § 946.336 were 

inadvertently deleted. This rule corrects 

§ 946.336 by adding the deleted 

paragraphs back into the regulation. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 946 

Marketing agreements, Potatoes, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

■ Accordingly, the interim rule 

amending 7 CFR part 946, which was 

published at 75 FR 43042 on July 23, 

2010, is adopted as a final rule with the 

following changes: 

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. 

§ 946.143 [Amended] 

■ 2. Amend the introductory text of 

§ 946.143 by removing the words ‘‘July 

26, 2010’’ and adding in their place the 

words ‘‘July 24, 2010.’’ 

■ 3. Section 946.336 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 946.336 Handling regulation. 

No person shall handle any lot of 

potatoes unless such potatoes meet the 

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

and (g) of this section or unless such 

potatoes are handled in accordance with 

paragraphs (d) and (e), or (f) of this 

section, except that shipments of the 

blue or purple flesh varieties of potatoes 

shall be exempt from both this handling 

regulation and the assessment 

requirements specified in § 946.41: 

Provided, That from July 24, 2010, 

through June 30, 2011, russet type 

potatoes shall be exempt from the 

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

(d), (e), and (g) of this section. 

(a) Minimum quality requirements— 

(1) Grade: All varieties—U.S. No. 2 or 

better grade. 

(2) Size: (i) At least 17⁄8 inches in 

diameter, except that all red, yellow 

fleshed, and white types may be 3⁄4 inch 

(19.1 mm) minimum diameter, if they 

otherwise meet the requirements of U.S. 

No. 1. 

(ii) All Russet types, 2 inches (54.0 

mm) minimum diameter, or 4 ounces 

minimum weight. 

(iii) Any type of any size may be 

packed in a 3-pound or less container if 

the potatoes otherwise meet the 

requirements of U.S. No. 1 grade or 

better at the time of packing. 

(iv) Tolerances—The tolerance for 

size contained in the U.S. Standards for 

Grades of Potatoes shall apply. 

(3) Cleanness: All varieties and 

grades—as required in the United States 

Standards for Grades of Potatoes. For 

example: U.S. No. 2—‘‘not seriously 

damaged by dirt,’’ and U.S. No. 1— 

‘‘fairly clean.’’ 

(b) Minimum maturity requirements— 

(1) Red, yellow fleshed and white types: 

Not more than ‘‘moderately skinned.’’ 

(2) Russet types: Not more than 

‘‘slightly skinned.’’ 

(c) Pack and marking: 

(1) Domestic: Potatoes packed in 

cartons shall be either: 

(i) U.S. No. 1 grade or better, except 

that potatoes which fail to meet the U.S. 

No. 1 grade only because of internal 

defects may be shipped without regard 

to this requirement provided the lot 

contains no more than 10 percent 

damage by any internal defect or 

combination of internal defects but not 

more than 5 percent serious damage by 

any internal defect or combination of 

internal defects. 

(ii) U.S. No. 2 grade, provided the 

cartons are permanently and 

conspicuously marked as to grade. This 

marking requirement does not apply to 

cartons containing potatoes meeting the 

requirements of (c)(1)(i). 

(2) Export: Potatoes packed in cartons 

shall be U.S. No. 1 grade or better. 

(d) Special purpose shipments. (1) 

The minimum grade, size, cleanness, 

maturity, and pack requirements set 

forth in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of 

this section shall not apply to shipments 

of potatoes for any of the following 

purposes: 

(i) Livestock feed; 

(ii) Charity; 

(iii) Seed; 

(iv) Prepeeling; 

(v) Canning, freezing, and ‘‘other 

processing’’ as hereinafter defined; 

(vi) Grading or storing at any specified 

location in Morrow or Umatilla 

Counties in the State of Oregon; 

(vii) Experimentation. 

(2) Shipments of potatoes for the 

purposes specified in paragraphs 

(d)(1)(i) through (vii) of this section 

shall be exempt from the inspection 

requirements specified in paragraph (g) 

of this section, except that shipments 

pursuant to paragraph (d)(1)(vi) of this 

section shall comply with the 

inspection requirements of paragraph 

(e)(2) of this section. Shipments 

specified in paragraphs (d)(1)(i), (ii), 

(iii), (v) and (vii) of this section shall be 

exempt from assessment requirements 

as specified in § 946.248 and established 

pursuant to § 946.41. 

(e) Safeguards. (1) Handlers desiring 

to make shipments of potatoes for 

prepeeling shall: 

(i) Notify the committee of intent to 

ship potatoes by applying on forms 

furnished by the committee for a 

certificate applicable to such special 

purpose shipments; 

(ii) Prepare on forms furnished by the 

committee a special purpose shipment 

report on each such shipment, a copy of 

which must also accompany each 

shipment. The handler shall forward 

copies of each such special purpose 

shipment report to the committee office 

and to the receiver with instructions to 

the receiver to sign and return a copy to 

the committee office. Failure of the 

handler or receiver to report such 

shipments by promptly signing and 

returning the applicable special purpose 

shipment report to the committee office 

shall be cause for cancellation of such 

handler’s certificate applicable to such 

special purpose shipments and/or the 

receiver’s eligibility to receive further 

shipments pursuant to such certificate. 

Upon cancellation of such certificate, 

the handler may appeal to the 

committee for reconsideration; such 

appeal shall be in writing; 

(iii) Before diverting any such special 

purpose shipment from the receiver of 

record as previously furnished to the 

committee by the handler such handler 

shall submit to the committee a revised 

special purpose shipment report. 

(2) Handlers desiring to ship potatoes 

for grading or storing to any specified 

location in Morrow or Umatilla 

Counties in the State of Oregon shall: 

(i) Notify the committee of intent to 

ship potatoes by applying on forms 

furnished by the committee for a 

certificate applicable to such special 

purpose shipment. Upon receiving such 

application, the committee shall supply 

to the handler the appropriate certificate 

after it has determined that adequate 

facilities exist to accommodate such 

shipments and that such potatoes will 

be used only for authorized purposes; 

(ii) If reshipment is for any purpose 

other than as specified in paragraph (d) 

of this section, each handler desiring to 

make reshipment of potatoes which 

have been graded or stored shall, prior 

to reshipment, cause each such 

shipment to be inspected by an 

authorized representative of the FederalState Inspection Service. Such 

shipments must comply with the 

minimum grade, size, cleanness, 

maturity, and pack requirements 

specified in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) 

of this section; 

(iii) If reshipment is for any of the 

purposes specified in paragraph (d) of 

this section, each handler making 

reshipment of potatoes which have been 

graded or stored shall do so in 

accordance with the applicable 

safeguard requirements specified in 

paragraph (e) of this section. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 14, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 77753 

(3) Each handler making shipments of 

potatoes for canning, freezing, or ‘‘other 

processing’’ pursuant to paragraph (d) of 

this section shall: 

(i) First apply to the committee for 

and obtain a Special Purpose Certificate 

to make shipments for processing; 

(ii) Make shipments only to those 

firms whose names appear on the 

committee’s list of canners, freezers, or 

other processors of potato products 

maintained by the committee, or to 

persons not on the list provided the 

handler furnishes the committee, prior 

to such shipment, evidence that the 

receiver may reasonably be expected to 

use the potatoes only for canning, 

freezing, or other processing; 

(iii) Upon request by the committee, 

furnish reports, or cause reports to be 

furnished, for each shipment pursuant 

to the applicable Special Purpose 

Certificate; 

(iv) Mail to the office of the committee 

a copy of the bill of lading for each 

Special Purpose Certificate shipment 

promptly after the date of shipment 

unless other arrangements are made; 

(v) Bill each shipment directly to the 

applicable processor. 

(4) Each receiver of potatoes for 

processing pursuant to paragraph (d) of 

this section shall: 

(i) Complete and return an application 

form for consideration of approval as a 

canner, freezer, or other processor of 

potato products; 

(ii) Certify to the committee and to the 

Secretary that potatoes received from 

the production area for processing will 

be used for such purpose and will not 

be placed in fresh market channels; 

(iii) Report on shipments received as 

the committee may require and the 

Secretary approve. 

(5) Each handler desiring to make 

shipments of potatoes for 

experimentation shall: 

(i) First apply to the committee for 

and obtain a Special Purpose Certificate 

to make shipments for experimentation; 

(ii) Upon request by the committee, 

furnish reports of each shipment 

pursuant to the applicable Special 

Purpose Certificate. 

(6) Handlers diverting potatoes to 

livestock feed are not required to apply 

for a Special Purpose Certificate nor 

report such shipments to the committee. 

(7) Each handler desiring to make 

shipments of potatoes for charity shall: 

(i) First apply to the committee for, 

and obtain, a Special Purpose Certificate 

for the purpose of making shipments for 

charity: Provided, That shipments for 

charity of 1,000 pounds or less are 

exempt from the application and 

reporting requirements: And provided 

further, That potatoes previously 

graded, assessed, and inspected in 

preparation for shipment to the fresh 

market are exempt from the application 

and reporting requirements. 

(ii) Each handler shipping potatoes to 

charity must inform the recipient that 

the potatoes cannot be resold or 

otherwise placed in commercial market 

channels. 

(8) Each handler making shipments of 

seed potatoes shall furnish, at the 

request of the committee, reports on the 

total volume of seed potatoes handled. 

(f) Minimum quantity exemption. 

Each handler may ship up to, but not to 

exceed 5 hundredweight of potatoes per 

day without regard to the inspection 

and assessment requirements of this 

part, but this exception shall not apply 

to any shipment over 5 hundredweight 

of potatoes. 

(g) Inspection. (1) Except when 

relieved by paragraphs (d) or (f) of this 

section, no person may handle any 

potatoes unless a Federal-State 

Inspection Notesheet or certificate 

covering them has been issued by an 

authorized representative of the FederalState Inspection Service and the 

document is valid at the time of 

shipment. 

(2) U.S. No. 1 grade or better potatoes 

in the State of Washington which are 

resorted or repacked within 72 hours of 

being inspected and certified are exempt 

from reinspection. 

(h) Definitions. The terms U.S. No. 1, 

U.S. No. 2, not seriously damaged by 

dirt, fairly clean, slightly skinned, and 

moderately skinned shall have the same 

meaning as when used in the United 

States Standards for Grades of Potatoes 

(7 CFR 51.1540–51.1566), including the 

tolerances set forth in it. The term 

prepeeling means the commercial 

preparation in the prepeeling plant of 

clean, sound, fresh tubers by washing, 

peeling or otherwise removing the outer 

skin, trimming, sorting, and properly 

treating to prevent discoloration 

preparatory to sale in one or more of the 

styles of peeled potatoes described in 

§ 52.2422 United States Standards for 

Grades of Peeled Potatoes (7 CFR 

52.2421–52.2433). The term other 

processing has the same meaning as the 

term appearing in the Act and includes, 

but is not restricted to, potatoes for 

dehydration, chips, shoestrings, starch, 

and flour. It includes the application of 

heat or cold to such an extent that the 

natural form or stability of the 

commodity undergoes a substantial 

change. The act of peeling, cooling, 

slicing, dicing, or applying material to 

prevent oxidation does not constitute 

‘‘other processing.’’ Other terms used in 

this section have the same meaning as 

when used in the marketing agreement, 

as amended, and this part. 

Dated: December 7, 2010. 

David R. Shipman, 

Acting Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2010–31202 Filed 12–13–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

[Docket ID: DoD–2010–OS–0141; RIN 0790– 

AI66] 

32 CFR Part 241 

Pilot Program for the Temporary 

Exchange of Information Technology 

Personnel 

AGENCY: Department of Defense (DoD), 

Assistant Secretary of Defense 

(Networks and Information Integration)/ 

DoD Chief Information Officer 

(ASD(NII)/DoD CIO). 

ACTION: Interim final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense 

(DoD) is issuing regulations to 

implement provisions contained in 

section 1110 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal 

Year (FY) 2010, October 28, 2009, which 

authorizes DoD to establish a Pilot 

Program for the Temporary Exchange of 

Information Technology (IT) Personnel. 

This statute authorizes the temporary 

assignments of DoD IT employees to 

private sector organizations. This statute 

also gives DoD the authority to accept IT 

employees for temporary assignments 

from private sector organizations. This 

Pilot is envisioned to promote the 

interchange of DoD and private sector IT 

professionals to enhance skills and 

competencies. The prompt 

implementation of an interim final rule 

is crucial in assisting DoD to pilot a 

program to enhance its position and 

expertise in the IT field, particularly in 

cybersecurity. 

The Administration has expressed 

considerable interest in the IT area, and 

stressed its importance in a recent 

Cyberspace Review Report. Given the 

changing workforce dynamics in the IT 

field, DoD needs to take advantage of 

these types of professional development 

programs to proactively position itself to 

keep pace with the changes in 

technology. 

The immediate implementation of an 

Interim Final Rule is viable to enhance 

IT professional skills, particularly in the 

area of cybersecurity. Several 

Components including Defense 

Information Systems Agency, Defense 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES