55292 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 175 / Friday, September 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

information could impede law enforcement 

by compromising the existence of a 

confidential investigation or reveal the 

identity of witnesses or confidential 

informants. 

(f) From subsections (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), 

and (e)(4)(I) (Agency Requirements) and (f) 

(Agency Rules), because portions of this 

system are exempt from the individual access 

provisions of subsection (d) for the reasons 

noted above, and therefore DHS is not 

required to establish requirements, rules, or 

procedures with respect to such access. 

Providing notice to individuals with respect 

to existence of records pertaining to them in 

the system of records or otherwise setting up 

procedures pursuant to which individuals 

may access and view records pertaining to 

themselves in the system would undermine 

investigative efforts and reveal the identities 

of witnesses, and potential witnesses, and 

confidential informants. 

(g) From subsection (e)(5) (Collection of 

Information) because with the collection of 

information for law enforcement purposes, it 

is impossible to determine in advance what 

information is accurate, relevant, timely, and 

complete. Compliance with subsection (e)(5) 

would preclude DHS agents from using their 

investigative training and exercise of good 

judgment to both conduct and report on 

investigations. 

(h) From subsection (e)(8) (Notice on 

Individuals) because compliance would 

interfere with DHS’s ability to obtain, serve, 

and issue subpoenas, warrants, and other law 

enforcement mechanisms that may be filed 

under seal and could result in disclosure of 

investigative techniques, procedures, and 

evidence. 

(i) From subsection (e)(12) (Computer 

Matching) if the agency is a recipient agency 

or a source agency in a matching program 

with a non-Federal agency, with respect to 

any establishment or revision of a matching 

program, at least 30 days prior to conducting 

such program, publish in the Federal Register 

notice of such establishment or revision. 

(j) From subsection (g)(1) (Civil Remedies) 

to the extent that the system is exempt from 

other specific subsections of the Privacy Act. 

(k) From subsection (h) (Legal Guardians) 

the parent of any minor, or the legal guardian 

of any individual who has been declared to 

be incompetent due to physical or mental 

incapacity or age by a court of competent 

jurisdiction, may act on behalf of the 

individual. 

Dated: September 7, 2010. 

Mary Ellen Callahan, 

Chief Privacy Officer, Department of 

Homeland Security. 

[FR Doc. 2010–22639 Filed 9–9–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–9B–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

7 CFR Part 1250 

[Doc. No. AMS–PY–08–0032] 

Amendment to Egg Research and 

Promotion Order and Regulations To 

Increase the Rate of Assessment and 

Referendum Order 

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Proposed rule and notice of 

referendum. 

SUMMARY: This proposed rule would 

amend the Egg Research and Promotion 

Order (Order) to increase the assessment 

rate on egg producers paying 

assessments to the American Egg Board 

(AEB) from 10 cents to 15 cents per 

30-dozen case of commercial eggs, 

provided the increase is approved by 

egg producers voting in a referendum. 

This proposal would also make a 

conforming amendment to the 

regulations. Notice also is hereby given 

that the Agricultural Marketing Service 

(AMS) will conduct a referendum to 

determine whether egg producers favor 

the increase in the assessment rate. 

DATES: For the purpose of determining 

voter eligibility, the representative 

production period is the period January 

1, 2009, through December 31, 2009. 

The referendum will be held during the 

period October 29 through November 

19, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Angela C. Snyder, Research and 

Promotion; Standards, Promotion & 

Technology Branch; Poultry Programs, 

AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence 

Avenue, SW., Room 3932–S, 

Washington, DC 20250–0256; telephone: 

(202) 720–4476; fax: (202) 720–2930; or 

e-mail: Angie.Snyder@ams.usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Order 12866 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has waived the review process 

required by Executive Order 12866 for 

this action. 

Executive Order 12988 

This proposed rule has been reviewed 

under Executive Order 12988, Civil 

Justice Reform. The rule is not intended 

to have a retroactive effect. 

The Egg Research and Consumer 

Information Act (Act) provides that 

administrative proceedings must be 

exhausted before parties may file suit in 

court. Section 14 of the Act allows those 

subject to the Order to file a written 

petition with the Secretary of 

Agriculture (Secretary) if they believe 

that the Order, any provision of the 

Order, or any obligation imposed in 

connection with the Order, is not in 

accordance with the law. In any 

petition, the person may request a 

modification of the Order or an 

exemption from the Order. The 

petitioner will have the opportunity for 

a hearing on the petition. Afterwards, an 

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) will 

issue a decision. If the petitioner 

disagrees with the ALJ’s ruling, the 

petitioner has 30 days to appeal to the 

Judicial Officer, who will issue a ruling 

on behalf of the Secretary. If the 

petitioner disagrees with the Secretary’s 

ruling, the petitioner may file, within 20 

days, an appeal in the U.S. District 

Court for the district where the 

petitioner resides or conducts business. 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Analysis and Paperwork Reduction Act 

In accordance with the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (RFA) [5 U.S.C. 601– 

612], AMS has considered the economic 

impact of this action on the small 

producers that would be affected by this 

rule. The purpose of the RFA is to fit 

regulatory action to scale on businesses 

subject to such action so that small 

businesses will not be 

disproportionately burdened. 

According to AEB, approximately 245 

producers are subject to the provisions 

of the Order, including paying 

assessments. Under the current Order, 

producers in the 48 contiguous United 

States and the District of Columbia who 

own more than 75,000 laying hens each 

currently pay a mandatory assessment 

of 10 cents per 30-dozen case of eggs. 

Handlers are responsible for collecting 

and remitting assessments to AEB. 

There are approximately 160 egg 

handlers who collect assessments. 

Assessments under the program are 

used by AEB to finance promotion, 

research, and consumer information 

programs designed to increase consumer 

demand for eggs in domestic and 

international markets. At the current 

rate of 10 cents per 30-dozen case, 

assessments generate about $20 million 

in annual revenues. The Order is 

administered by AEB under supervision 

of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

In 13 CFR part 121, the Small 

Business Administration (SBA) defines 

small agricultural producers as those 

having annual receipts of no more than 

$750,000 and small agricultural service 

firms as those having annual receipts of 

no more than $7 million. Under this 

definition, the vast majority of the egg 

producers that would be affected by this 

rule would not be considered small 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 175 / Friday, September 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 55293 

entities. Producers owning 75,000 or 

fewer laying hens are eligible to be 

exempt from this program. 

Given that a laying hen produces 

approximately 22 dozen eggs per year, 

production from 75,000 laying hens 

would result in 1.65 million dozen eggs. 

With a farm-gate price of $0.837 per 

dozen, total annual receipts would be 

$1.83 million, which is well above the 

definition used to describe a small farm. 

The wholesale price of eggs would have 

to be approximately $0.45 per dozen 

before a producer with 75,000 hens 

could be classified as a small farm 

under the SBA definition. 

The present 10-cent assessment is 

equivalent to approximately 0.28 

percent of the wholesale price of a 30- 

dozen case of large eggs. An assessment 

rate of 15 cents per 30-dozen case would 

be equivalent to approximately 0.42 

percent of the wholesale price of a 30- 

dozen case of large eggs. This wholesale 

price is based on the price per dozen 

Grade A large egg price reported in the 

‘‘Weekly Combined Regional Shell Eggs’’ 

report (WA_PY001) published by 

USDA’s Poultry Market News and 

Analysis Branch. 

According to AEB, additional revenue 

is required in order to sustain and 

expand its programs. This proposed 

increase is consistent with sections 8 

and 9 of the Act (7 U.S.C. 2701–2718) 

that permit AEB to recommend an 

increase in the assessment rate up to 20 

cents per case and request that a 

referendum be held if such an increase 

is supported by a scientific study, 

marketing analysis, or other similar 

competent evidence. 

AEB conducted a marketing analysis 

the results of which support a 5-cent 

increase in the assessment rate (to a 

total of 15 cents) to effectively 

strengthen AEB’s programs. The 

marketing analysis addressed the need 

for a funding increase due to the 

following factors: (1) Inflation, 

including the overall increases in all 

costs associated with doing business 

since the last increase in AEB’s 

assessment rate in 1995; (2) AEB’s 

advertising program, including the 

increased cost of advertising 

expenditures as well as new media 

outlets; (3) AEB’s nutrition program, 

including additional research needed to 

examine both the nutritional benefits of 

eggs and the relationship between eggs 

and increased serum cholesterol levels 

and heart disease risk; and (4) AEB’s 

food safety program, specifically 

expanding research to cover food safety 

as the public becomes more concerned 

about food safety issues. 

With the proposed increased 

assessment, the financial commitment 

of the U.S. egg industry for generic 

research and promotion activity could 

increase by 50 percent, from 

approximately $20 million to an 

estimated $30 million annually. 

AEB considered several alternatives, 

including keeping the current 10 cents 

per 30-dozen case, an increase to 20 

cents per 30-dozen case, and an increase 

to 15 cents per 30-dozen case. AEB 

ultimately concluded that not increasing 

the rate would not allow AEB even to 

sustain its programs effectively, and that 

an increase to 15 cents was sufficient to 

maintain and expand its promotion, 

research, and consumer information 

programs consistent with the purposes 

of the Act. 

This rule does not impose additional 

recordkeeping requirements on egg 

producers or collecting handlers. There 

are no Federal rules that duplicate, 

overlap, or conflict with this rule. 

In accordance with OMB regulation 5 

CFR part 1320 which implements the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 [44 

U.S.C. Chapter 35], the information 

collection and recordkeeping 

requirements that are imposed by the 

Order and Rules and Regulations have 

been approved previously under OMB 

control number 0581–0093. This rule 

does not result in a change to those 

information collection and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

We have performed this Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

regarding the impact of these proposed 

amendments to the Order and Rules and 

Regulations on small entities. We 

previously invited comments 

concerning potential effects of these 

amendments on small businesses (74 FR 

48568). Comments on the Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis are discussed below 

under Proposed Changes. 

Background 

The Egg Research and Consumer 

Information Act (7 U.S.C. 2701–2718) 

(hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘Act’’) 

established a national egg research and 

promotion program—administered by 

AEB—that is financed through industry 

assessments and subject to oversight by 

AMS. This program of promotion, 

research, and consumer information is 

designed to strengthen the position of 

eggs in the marketplace and to establish, 

maintain, and expand markets for eggs. 

This program is financed by 

assessments on egg producers owning 

more than 75,000 laying hens. The 

Order specifies that handlers are 

responsible for collecting and remitting 

the producer assessments to AEB, 

reporting their handling of eggs, and 

maintaining records necessary to verify 

their reports. 

This rule proposes to increase the 

assessment rate on egg producers from 

10 cents to 15 cents per case of 

commercial eggs. Only producers in the 

contiguous United States and the 

District of Columbia are subject to the 

program, and producers owning 75,000 

or fewer laying hens are eligible to 

obtain an exemption from paying 

assessments. 

In order to sustain and expand the 

promotion, research, and consumer 

information programs at present levels, 

AEB believes that additional revenue is 

required. The proposed increase is 

estimated to generate $10 million in 

new revenue, depending upon 

production levels. Currently, AEB 

collects approximately $20 million per 

year. A 5-cent increase in the 

assessment rate is expected to increase 

the total to about $30 million per year. 

Section 8 of the Act provides for an 

assessment rate up to 20 cents per case. 

Section 1250.347 currently provides for 

an assessment at a rate not to exceed 10 

cents per 30-dozen case of eggs, or 

equivalent thereof. Any increase from 

the current 10-cent rate established in 

the Order must be approved by egg 

producers voting in a referendum. 

Section 9 of the Act provides that if AEB 

determines, based on a scientific study, 

marketing analysis, or other similar 

competent evidence, that an increase in 

the assessment rate is necessary to 

effectuate the declared policy of the Act, 

AEB may recommend the increase to the 

Secretary and request that a referendum 

be held to vote on the assessment 

increase. 

Marketing Analysis and AEB 

Recommendation 

Consequently, AEB conducted a 

marketing analysis the results of which 

support a 5-cent increase in the 

assessment rate to a total of 15 cents to 

effectively strengthen AEB’s programs. 

Because of inflation, AEB estimates 

that an estimated $14.7 million would 

be required to duplicate the same media 

program in 2008 as was conducted for 

$7.9 million in 1995, when the 

assessment rate was last increased. 

Despite the success of the advertising 

program, AEB’s media budget has not 

kept pace with media inflation. Over the 

last 10 years, the budget has remained 

relatively flat, averaging roughly $7.9 

million annually. Meanwhile, the cost 

of media has steadily increased at the 

rate of 5 percent each year. If AEB’s 

advertising budget matched inflation, it 

would be more than 50 percent larger 

today than it is, and it would reach $22 

million in 2017. By not keeping up with 

inflation, each year AEB has been 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

55294 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 175 / Friday, September 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

reaching fewer consumers and less 

often. 

Ten years ago, AEB expanded its 

research to include studies on the 

nutritional benefits of eggs, including 

satiety and weight control; 

bioavailability of egg nutrients; egg 

protein and muscle retention in the 

elderly; egg lutein and eye health; egg 

choline and brain development, dietary 

choline requirements, and the 

relationship between choline and 

reduction of heart-disease risk; and eggs 

and school performance. 

The expansion of the research 

programs over the past decade has been 

an essential component of AEB’s 

mission. To continue to fund the best 

and most relevant research projects, 

AEB needs to increase its level of 

research funding to account for the 

rising cost of studies today compared to 

10 years ago, the increased number of 

research topics, and publicizing 

research findings. 

In addition to research into egg 

nutrients, AEB has also funded research 

and other programs related to food 

safety as the public’s food security 

concerns have increased. AEB has 

funded research on Salmonella, avian 

influenza, transportation systems, 

cooking methods, and statistical 

analyses. Not only do these studies deal 

with current food safety issues, but they 

also help the egg industry prepare for 

and address potential risks. 

At the March 27, 2008, board meeting, 

AEB members voted unanimously to 

recommend that the assessment rate be 

increased from 10 cents to 15 cents per 

30-dozen case of commercial eggs. 

Proposed Changes 

This rule would amend the Order as 

well as the implementing Rules and 

Regulations. Section 1250.347 of the 

Order states that the assessment rate is 

not to exceed 10 cents per 30-dozen case 

of eggs, provided that no more than 

such assessment shall be made on any 

case of eggs. Section 1250.514 provides 

for an assessment rate of 10 cents per 

case of commercial eggs handled for the 

account of each producer, with each 

case being subject to assessment only 

once. Accordingly, section 1250.347 of 

the Order and section 1250.514 of the 

Rules and Regulations would be revised 

to reflect an assessment rate of 15 cents 

per case. In order to better reflect the 

provisions of the Act, section 1250.347 

of the Order would be amended to 

reflect both the maximum assessment 

rate authorized under the Act as well as 

the assessment rate itself. 

A proposed rule to increase the 

assessment rate in the Order from 10 

cents to 15 cents per case was published 

in the Federal Register on September 

25, 2009 (74 FR 48568). Comments were 

solicited from interested parties through 

November 24, 2009. Four comments 

were received: Two from egg producer 

companies opposing the increase, one 

from a State egg association, and one 

from a member of the public. 

One commenter, a large egg producer 

company, stated that AEB should be 

required to show the effectiveness of 

current programs before seeking to 

expand those programs. AEB employs a 

number of mechanisms to gauge the 

effectiveness of its programs, its 

producer members monitor those 

programs, and this information is 

communicated to the entire industry. 

The commenter also stated that only 

one sentence in the proposal was 

dedicated to the marketing analysis 

conducted by AEB. Further, the 

commenter stated that a new notice 

should be published to include 

additional details of how the analysis 

was conducted. We disagree. AMS 

provided a reasonable and appropriate 

discussion of the key points of the 

marketing analysis. The marketing 

analysis was conducted by AEB under 

the supervision of AEB’s Executive 

Committee and is available from AEB. 

Further, AMS does not believe that a 

revised proposed rule is necessary or 

warranted. Additionally, any changes 

made as a result of amending the Order 

provision will not become effective 

unless favored by the egg industry in a 

referendum. 

The commenter further stated that the 

proposed rule failed to provide 

justification for what programs AEB 

conducts with its current budget. We 

disagree. AMS cited a number of AEB’s 

current programs that are included in 

the summary of the marketing analysis. 

AEB informs the industry of its 

activities through a variety of producer 

communications, industry meetings, 

and other methods. 

The commenter also challenged the 

figures used in the Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis. AMS reviewed this 

issue and used a farm-gate price per 

dozen in the analysis contained herein. 

Additionally, the commenter stated 

that the rule did not contain an analysis 

of how the proposed increase affects the 

long-term profit margins of producers. 

The Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act 

analysis discussed and compared the 

equivalency of the current 10-cent 

assessment and the proposed 15-cent 

assessment on wholesale prices. 

The commenter also stated that the 

proposal gave no mention of how AEB 

currently budgets and spends 

assessment funds and that this must be 

addressed in a proposed rule so that the 

public can make an informed decision. 

We disagree. The discussion of the 

marketing analysis and AEB’s 

recommendation in the proposed rule 

addresses this concern. Further, AEB 

regularly communicates with all egg 

producers about how funds are 

budgeted and expended. 

The same commenter stated that the 

proposed rule’s mention of food safety 

as partial justification for the assessment 

increase was misleading because AEB 

no longer maintained a food safety 

function. We disagree. While certain 

food safety work, primarily with the 

Safe Quality Foods program, is not 

conducted by AEB, there are still food 

safety programs under AEB. These 

programs include food safety research, 

risk assessment research, consumer 

education, and work with foodservice 

institutions and culinary schools, 

among others. 

Finally, the commenter expressed 

opposition to a referendum and an 

increase in the assessment rate. We 

disagree. A referendum will be 

conducted in accordance with the 

provisions of the Act. 

A second commenter, an egg producer 

company, requested that the assessment 

increase be denied because food safety 

was moved to another industry 

organization and because of the 

financial burden on the industry. We 

disagree. As previously discussed, food 

safety programs currently are conducted 

by AEB. Further, the proposed rule took 

into account the impact of the 

assessment increase on the industry and 

discussed the need for additional 

revenue to sustain and expand its 

programs to the benefit of the industry. 

A third commenter, a member of the 

public, posed a number of questions 

that concerned the effectiveness of the 

program in relation to egg consumption, 

egg prices, program costs and benefits, 

and research studies produced. In 

addition, the commenter suggested an 

option for the increased assessment, 

stating that it should be appropriated 

back to the States or an option to select 

which committee can use the funds. 

This rule would increase the assessment 

rate from 10 cents to 15 cents per 30- 

dozen case of commercial eggs. As 

previously discussed, AEB regularly 

communicates with all egg producers 

about how funds are budgeted and 

expended. Consistent with the Act, AEB 

conducted a marketing analysis the 

results of which support a 5-cent 

increase in the assessment rate to 

effectively strengthen AEB’s programs. 

With regard to the commenter’s 

suggested options, the AEB budget 

process would determine where such 

funds would be expended. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 175 / Friday, September 10, 2010 / Proposed Rules 55295 

A final comment was received from a 

State egg association. While the 

commenter declined to comment on 

whether the assessment should be 

increased, the commenter wrote in favor 

of AEB’s programs. The commenter also 

suggested increasing support funding at 

the State level for promotion activities. 

As previously discussed, this would be 

up to producer members of the AEB to 

determine. 

In addition, the commenter suggested 

changes concerning board membership 

that are outside the scope of the 

proposed rule. 

The Act provides that AEB may 

recommend an increased assessment 

rate to the Secretary. In accordance with 

the provisions of the Act, AEB has done 

so, and the assessment increase 

provided for herein will be subject to a 

referendum vote. 

The proposed rule published on 

September 25, 2009, stated that 

producers owning 75,000 or fewer 

laying hens were exempt and ineligible 

to vote, as producers owning 75,000 or 

fewer laying hens are eligible to receive 

an exemption. However, § 1250.530 of 

the regulations provide that, to obtain 

an exemption, producers must file an 

exemption statement with their 

collecting handler(s) and provide a copy 

to AEB. Producers who would qualify 

for an exemption but who are not 

certified for exemption and who pay 

assessments are not exempt and 

therefore eligible to vote in the 

referendum. The referendum order so 

states. 

Referendum Order 

It is hereby directed that a referendum 

be conducted among eligible egg 

producers to determine whether such 

producers favor the assessment increase. 

The procedure applicable to the 

referendum shall be the procedure for 

the conduct of referenda in connection 

with the Egg Research and Promotion 

Order (7 CFR 1250.200) as published in 

this issue of the Federal Register. The 

referendum period shall be from 

October 29 through November 19, 2010. 

For the purpose of determining voter 

eligibility, the representative period is 

the period January 1 through December 

31, 2009. Producers engaged in 

commercial egg production are eligible 

to vote in the referendum if they (a) 

owned more than 75,000 laying hens 

during that period, or (b) owned 75,000 

or fewer laying hens, are not certified as 

exempt producers, and paid 

assessments. 

For the increase to be approved, it 

must be approved or favored by at least 

two-thirds of the producers voting in the 

referendum, or a majority of such 

producers if they represent at least twothirds of the commercial eggs produced 

by those voting. 

The agents of the Secretary to conduct 

such referendum are hereby designated 

to be Angela C. Snyder and Sara D. 

Lutton, Research and Promotion; 

Standards, Promotion & Technology 

Branch; Poultry Programs, AMS, USDA; 

1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Room 

3932–S Stop 0256; Washington, DC 

20250–20549; telephone (202) 720– 

4476; fax (202) 720–2930, or e-mail at 

Angie.Snyder@ams.usda.gov. The agent 

may appoint subagents to assist in 

performing duties related to the 

referendum. 

Ballots, instructions, eligibility 

requirements, and other information 

pertinent to the referendum will be 

mailed to all known eligible egg 

producers. 

If any eligible voter does not receive 

a ballot by the beginning date of the 

referendum period, such individual may 

obtain a ballot from the address 

provided in the information contact 

section of this rule. Single copies of the 

complete text of the proposed 

amendments to the Egg Research and 

Promotion Order and Rules and 

Regulations may also be obtained from 

this address. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1250 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Advertising, Agricultural 

research, Eggs and egg products, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble 7 CFR part 1250 is proposed 

to be amended as follows: 

PART 1250—EGG RESEARCH AND 

PROMOTION 

1. The authority citation of 7 CFR part 

1250 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 2701–2718 and 7 

U.S.C. 7401. 

2. Section 1250.347 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 1250.347 Assessments. 

Each handler designated in § 1250.349 

and pursuant to regulations issued by 

the Board shall collect from each 

producer, except for those producers 

specifically exempted in § 1250.348, 

and shall pay to the Board at such times 

and in such manner as prescribed by 

regulations issued by the Board an 

assessment at a rate of 15 cents per 30- 

dozen case of eggs, or the equivalent 

thereof, for such expenses and 

expenditures, including provisions for a 

reasonable reserve and those 

administrative costs incurred by the 

Department of Agriculture after this 

subpart is effective, as the Secretary 

finds are reasonable and likely to be 

incurred by the Board and the Secretary 

under this subpart, except that no more 

than one such assessment shall be made 

on any case of eggs. The assessment rate 

shall not exceed 20 cents per case (or 

the equivalent of a case) of commercial 

eggs. 

3. In section 1250.514, the first 

sentence is revised to read as follows: 

§ 1250.514 Levy of assessments. 

An assessment rate of 15 cents per 

case of commercial eggs is levied on 

each case of commercial eggs handled 

for the account of each producer. * * * 

Dated: September 3, 2010. 

David R. Shipman, 

Acting Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–22643 Filed 9–9–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

17 CFR Chapter II 

[Release Nos. 33–9138, 34–62841, 39–2470, 

IA–3078, IC–29408; File No. S7–20–10] 

List of Rules To Be Reviewed Pursuant 

to the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange 

Commission. 

ACTION: Publication of list of rules 

scheduled for review. 

SUMMARY: The Securities and Exchange 

Commission is today publishing a list of 

rules to be reviewed pursuant to Section 

610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 

The list is published to provide the 

public with notice that these rules are 

scheduled for review by the agency and 

to invite public comment on them. 

DATES: Comments should be submitted 

by December 15, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Comments may be 

submitted by any of the following 

methods: 

Electronic Comments 

• Use the Commission’s Internet 

comment form (http://www.sec.gov/ 

rules/other.shtml); or 

• Send an e-mail to rulecomments@sec.gov. Please include File 

Number S7–20–10 on the subject line; 

or 

• Use the Federal eRulemaking Portal 

(http://www.regulations.gov). Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS