7096 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 27 / Wednesday, February 9, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

The major expenditures 

recommended by the Committee for the 

2010–11 year include $110,000 for 

research, $98,732 for salaries, $48,000 

for employee benefits, and $25,300 for 

insurance and bonds. Budgeted 

expenses for these items in 2009–10 

were $25,000, $94,030, $48,000, and 

$25,300, respectively. 

The increase in assessment rate is 

needed to fund research to find an 

insecticide that will kill or control the 

Red Bay Ambrosia beetle. The beetle 

carries the Laurel Wilt fungus which 

can infect and kill avocado trees. 

Research into the beetle and fungus had 

been funded by the University of 

Florida. However, the Committee was 

informed that funding ceased on August 

1, 2010. Without funding, researchers 

would have been unable to continue 

testing to determine which insecticides 

work best to kill/control the beetle and 

at what application rate. The Committee 

believes it is essential for the industry 

that the research continues. Therefore, 

they voted to increase the assessment 

rate to provide the additional research 

money. 

Prior to arriving at this budget, 

alternative expenditure levels were 

discussed based upon the relative value 

of various research projects to the 

Florida avocado industry. The 

assessment rate of $0.37 per 55-pound 

bushel container of assessable Florida 

avocados was then determined by 

dividing the total recommended budget 

by the quantity of assessable avocados, 

estimated at 1,000,000 55-pound bushel 

containers for the 2010–11 season. 

Considering income from assessments 

and interest, total income will be 

approximately $18,400 above the 

anticipated expenses, which the 

Committee determined to be acceptable. 

A review of historical information and 

preliminary information pertaining to 

the upcoming crop year indicates that 

the grower price for the 2010–11 season 

could range between $9.00 and $66.00 

per 55-pound bushel container of 

avocados. Therefore, the estimated 

assessment revenue for the 2010–11 

season as a percentage of total grower 

revenue could range between .6 and 

4 percent. 

This rule continues in effect the 

action that increased the assessment 

obligation imposed on handlers. While 

assessments impose some additional 

costs on handlers, the costs are minimal 

and uniform on all handlers. Some of 

the additional costs may be passed on 

to producers. However, these costs are 

offset by the benefits derived by the 

operation of the marketing order. In 

addition, the Committee’s meeting was 

widely publicized throughout the 

Florida avocado industry and all 

interested persons were invited to 

attend the meeting and participate in 

Committee deliberations on all issues. 

Like all Committee meetings, the July 

22, 2010, meeting was a public meeting 

and all entities, both large and small, 

were able to express views on this issue. 

This action imposes no additional 

reporting or recordkeeping requirements 

on either small or large Florida avocado 

handlers. As with all Federal marketing 

order programs, reports and forms are 

periodically reviewed to reduce 

information requirements and 

duplication by industry and public 

sector agencies. 

USDA has not identified any relevant 

Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or 

conflict with this rule. 

Comments on the interim rule were 

required to be received on or before 

November 15, 2010. No comments were 

received. Therefore, for the reasons 

given in the interim rule, we are 

adopting the interim rule as a final rule, 

without change. To view the interim 

rule, go to http://www.regulations.gov/

search/Regs/home.html#

documentDetail?R=0900006480b4f5ec. 

This action also affirms information 

contained in the interim rule concerning 

the Executive Orders 12866 and 12988, 

the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 

chapter 35), and the E-Gov Act (44 

U.S.C. 101). 

After consideration of all relevant 

material presented, it is found that 

finalizing the interim rule, without 

change, as published in the Federal 

Register (75 FR 55942, September 15, 

2010) will tend to effectuate the 

declared policy of the Act. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 915 

Avocados, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

PART 915—AVOCADOS GROWN IN 

SOUTH FLORIDA 

■ Accordingly, the interim rule 

amending 7 CFR part 915, which was 

published at 75 FR 55942 on September 

15, 2010, is adopted as a final rule, 

without change. 

Dated: February 3, 2011. 

David R. Shipman, 

Associate Administrator, Agricultural 

Marketing Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–2888 Filed 2–8–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

7 CFR Part 996 

[Doc. No. AMS–FV–10–0030; FV10–996–610 

Review] 

Minimum Quality and Handling 

Standards for Domestic and Imported 

Peanuts Marketed in the United States; 

Section 610 Review 

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Confirmation of regulations. 

SUMMARY: This action summarizes the 

results under the criteria contained in 

section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (RFA), of an Agricultural Marketing 

Service (AMS) review of the Minimum 

Quality and Handling Standards for 

Domestic and Imported Peanuts 

Marketed in the United States contained 

in 7 CFR part 996 (Standards). AMS has 

determined that the Standards should 

be continued. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons may 

obtain a copy of the review. Requests for 

copies should be sent to the Docket 

Clerk, Marketing Order Administration 

Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, 

AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence 

Avenue, SW., STOP 0237, Washington, 

DC 20250–0237; Fax: (202) 720–8938; or 

E-mail: moab.docketclerk@usda.gov. A 

copy of the review may also be obtained 

via the Internet at: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kenneth G. Johnson, DC Marketing 

Field Office, Marketing Order 

Administration Branch, Fruit and 

Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, Unit 

155, 4700 River Road, Riverdale, MD 

20737; Telephone: (301) 734–5243; Fax: 

(301) 734–5275; or E-mail: 

Kenneth.Johnson@usda.gov; or Martin 

Engeler, Marketing Order 

Administration Branch, Fruit and 

Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 2202 

Monterey St., Fresno, California 93721; 

Telephone: (559) 487–5110; Fax: (559) 

487–5906; or E-mail: 

Martin.Engeler@ams.usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Minimum Quality and Handling 

Standards for Domestic and Imported 

Peanuts Marketed in the United States 

(Standards), as amended (7 CFR part 

996), were established at 7 U.S.C. 7958 

pursuant to Public Law 107–171, the 

Farm Security and Rural Investment Act 

of 2002 (Act). The Standards regulate 

the quality and handling of domestic 

and imported peanuts marketed in the 

United States. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 27 / Wednesday, February 9, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 7097 

The Act also provided for 

establishment of the Peanut Standards 

Board (Board) to advise the Secretary of 

Agriculture (Secretary) in establishing 

the Standards. The Board is comprised 

of 18 members. Nine of the members are 

peanut producers representing three 

producing regions, and nine are peanut 

industry representatives that also 

represent the three producing regions. 

Board members are nominated by the 

industry and selected by the Department 

of Agriculture (USDA). The Board is 

responsible for advising the USDA 

regarding the quality and handling 

requirements under the Standards. 

USDA is required by the Act to consult 

with the Board prior to making any 

change to the Standards. 

Currently, it is estimated that there 

are 8,500 peanut producers in the U.S. 

There are approximately 70 shelling 

plants operated by approximately 55 

shelling entities in the industry, and an 

estimated 25 importers of peanuts. The 

Small Business Administration (SBA) 

defines small farms as those having 

annual receipts of less than $750,000. 

Small agricultural service firms are 

defined by the SBA as those whose 

annual receipts are less than $7,000,000. 

It is estimated that approximately 90 

percent of the peanut producers in the 

U.S. can be considered small businesses 

under this definition. It is also estimated 

that approximately two-thirds of U.S. 

peanut handlers can be considered 

small businesses, and nearly all of the 

importers. The regulations implemented 

under the Standards are applied 

uniformly to small and large entities, 

and are not intended to have differential 

impacts based on size. 

AMS published in the Federal 

Register on February 18, 1999 (64 FR 

8014), a plan to review certain 

regulations under criteria contained in 

section 610 of the RFA (5 U.S.C. 601– 

612). Updated plans were published in 

the Federal Register on January 4, 2002 

(67 FR 525), August 14, 2003 (68 FR 

48574), and again on March 24, 2006 (71 

FR 14827). Accordingly, AMS published 

a notice of review and request for 

written comments on the Standards in 

the April 28, 2010, issue of the Federal 

Register (75 FR 22213). The deadline for 

comments ended June 28, 2010. Several 

comments were received in response to 

the notice, and are discussed later in 

this document. 

The review was undertaken to 

determine whether the Standards 

should be continued without being 

changed, amended, or rescinded to 

minimize the impacts on small entities. 

In conducting this review, AMS 

considered the following factors: (1) The 

continued need for the Standards; (2) 

the nature of complaints or comments 

received from the public concerning the 

Standards; (3) the complexity of the 

Standards; (4) the extent to which the 

Standards overlap, duplicate, or conflict 

with other Federal rules, and, to the 

extent feasible, with State and local 

governmental rules; and (5) the length of 

time since the Standards have been 

evaluated or the degree to which 

technology, economic conditions, or 

other factors have changed in the area 

affected by the Standards. 

The Standards establish minimum 

incoming and outgoing quality 

requirements for domestic and imported 

peanuts marketed in the U.S. Mandatory 

inspection is required to ensure the 

quality regulations are met. The 

Standards also require positive lot 

identification (PLI) of peanuts so they 

can be identified and tracked during 

processing and disposition. Finally, the 

Standards require reporting and 

recordkeeping by handlers and 

importers. 

The quality and inspection 

requirements have helped ensure that 

domestic and imported peanuts meet an 

acceptable quality level before being 

shipped for human consumption. 

Ensuring a good quality product 

contributes to consumer confidence. 

The PLI requirements help to maintain 

the identity of peanuts throughout the 

handling process, thus maintaining the 

integrity of lots being shipped to human 

consumption outlets, lots that are 

subjected to the reconditioning process, 

and lots that are disposed of to nonhuman consumption outlets. This helps 

to ensure that nuts certified for human 

consumption are not commingled with 

lower quality nuts. In addition, the PLI 

requirements are a useful tool in 

product traceability. The reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements substantiate 

handler and importer compliance with 

the Standards. 

Regarding complaints or comments 

received from the public concerning the 

order, AMS received five comments in 

response to the notice of review 

published in the Federal Register on 

April 28, 2010 (75 FR 22213). In 

addition, nine letters were received 

from congressional representatives after 

the comment period was closed. All of 

the comments expressed support for 

outgoing quality requirements shipped 

to human consumption outlets. Three 

comments received from peanut shellers 

and sheller associations stated that 

while they support the quality 

requirements, they do not support the 

PLI and recordkeeping requirements 

associated with reconditioned peanuts. 

They expressed the belief that these 

requirements result in inefficiencies and 

unnecessary costs to shellers, and that 

the goal of ensuring peanuts meet 

minimum quality requirements can be 

achieved without these requirements. 

They further contend that foreign 

peanut shellers are not subject to the 

same requirements. At least one of the 

comments pointed out that the Board, 

which is responsible for advising USDA 

in regard to the Standards, has not met 

in at least two years. 

Two comments from grower 

associations support the program as it 

currently exists. They support not only 

the quality standards in place, but also 

the PLI procedures and recordkeeping 

requirements. These comments stated 

that it is important to track lots of 

peanuts that fail to meet the quality 

standards to ensure those nuts are 

disposed of properly to protect 

consumers from poor quality product 

and to prevent potential related 

problems or issues for the peanut 

industry. The comments cite recent 

adverse events in the peanut industry as 

an example of the importance of an 

effective quality control program. 

The nine congressional letters 

essentially reiterate the comments 

submitted by the peanut shellers and 

sheller associations. They support food 

quality and safety, but do not support 

the PLI requirements for the same 

reasons cited above. 

However, as previously discussed, the 

PLI requirements help to maintain the 

identity of peanuts throughout the 

handling process and are a useful tool 

in product traceability, and the 

reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements substantiate compliance 

with the Standards. 

In considering the complexity of the 

Standards, AMS has determined that 

they are not unduly complex. 

During the review, the Standards were 

checked for duplication and overlap 

with other regulations. AMS did not 

identify any relevant Federal rules, or 

State and local regulations that 

duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the 

Standards. 

The Standards were established in 

2002 and have been revised two times, 

with the last revision occurring in 2005. 

Since the Standards have been in effect, 

AMS and the U.S. peanut industry have 

monitored their implementation and 

operation. Changes in regulations have 

been implemented to reflect current 

industry operating practices, and to 

solve problems as they occur. The goal 

of periodic evaluations is to ensure that 

the Standards continue to fit the needs 

of the industry and are consistent with 

the Act. 

The Board meets periodically to 

discuss issues and to determine if, or 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
7098 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 27 / Wednesday, February 9, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

what, changes may be necessary to 

reflect current industry practices. As a 

result, regulatory changes have been 

made to the Standards to reflect current 

industry operations and procedures, and 

continue to meet the industry’s needs. 

Based upon our review, AMS has 

determined that the Minimum Quality 

and Handling Standards for Domestic 

and Imported Peanuts Marketed in the 

United States should be continued. 

However, USDA believes that a meeting 

with the Board would be beneficial to 

discuss any potential improvements to 

the program. As required by the Act, 

The Secretary of Agriculture must 

consult with the Board prior to making 

any changes to the Standards. Any 

changes to the Standards would then be 

made by notice and comment 

rulemaking by USDA. All comments 

would be considered in the decision 

making process by the Board and USDA 

before recommendations are 

implemented. 

AMS will continue to work with the 

peanut industry to maintain useful and 

effective quality and handling 

standards, and in accordance with the 

Act will consult with the Board, as 

appropriate. 

Dated: February 3, 2011. 

Rayne Pegg, 

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–2879 Filed 2–8–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 

13 CFR Parts 120 and 121 

[Docket No. SBA–2010–0015] 

Dealer Floor Plan Pilot Program 

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business 

Administration (SBA). 

ACTION: Program implementation with 

request for comments. 

SUMMARY: SBA is introducing a new 

Dealer Floor Plan Pilot Program to make 

available 7(a) loan guaranties for lines of 

credit that provide floor plan financing. 

This new Dealer Floor Plan Pilot 

Program was created in the Small 

Business Jobs Act of 2010. Under the 

new Dealer Floor Plan Pilot Program, 

which will be available through 

September 30, 2013, SBA will guarantee 

75 percent of a floor plan line of credit 

between $500,000 and $5,000,000 to 

eligible dealers of new and used 

titleable inventory, including but not 

limited to automobiles, motorcycles, 

boats (including boat trailers), 

recreational vehicles and manufactured 

housing (mobile homes). 

DATES: Effective Date: The Dealer Floor 

Plan Pilot Program will be effective on 

February 9, 2011, and will remain in 

effect through September 30, 2013. 

Comment Date: Comments must be 

received on or before March 11, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by SBA docket number SBA– 

2010–0015 by any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Dealer Floor Plan Pilot 

Program Comments—Office of Financial 

Assistance, U.S. Small Business 

Administration, 409 Third Street, SW., 

Suite 8300, Washington, DC 20416. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: Patrick 

Kelley, Senior Advisor to the Associate 

Administrator, Office of Capital Access, 

U.S. Small Business Administration, 

409 Third Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20416. 

SBA will post all comments on 

http://www.regulations.gov. If you wish 

to submit confidential business 

information (CBI) as defined in the User 

Notice at http://www.regulations.gov, 

please submit the information to Patrick 

Kelley, Senior Advisor to the Associate 

Administrator, Office of Capital Access, 

U.S. Small Business Administration, 

409 Third Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20416, or send an e-mail to 

dealerfloorplancomments@sba.gov. 

Highlight the information that you 

consider to be CBI and explain why you 

believe SBA should hold this 

information as confidential. SBA will 

review the information and make the 

final determination whether it will 

publish the information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Patrick Kelley, Senior Advisor to the 

Associate Administrator, Office of 

Capital Access, U.S. Small Business 

Administration, 409 Third Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20416; (202) 205–0067; 

patrick.kelley@sba.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

September 27, 2010, President Obama 

signed the Small Business Jobs Act of 

2010 (‘‘Small Business Jobs Act’’) 

(Pub. L. 111–240). Section 1133(a) of the 

Small Business Jobs Act authorized a 

new, expanded Dealer Floor Plan (DFP) 

Pilot Program, which will remain 

available until September 30, 2013. 

1. Comments 

Although the new DFP Pilot will be 

effective February 9, 2011, comments 

are solicited from interested members of 

the public on all aspects of the new DFP 

Pilot. These comments must be 

submitted on or before the deadline for 

comments listed in the DATES section. 

The SBA will consider these comments 

and the need for making any revisions 

as a result of these comments. 

2. Dealer Floor Plan Pilot Program 

Overview 

Under the DFP Pilot, SBA is 

implementing a 7(a) loan guaranty 

product targeted to retail dealers of new 

and used titleable inventory, including 

but not limited to automobiles, 

motorcycles, boats (including boat 

trailers), recreational vehicles and 

manufactured housing (mobile homes). 

Key features of the new DFP Pilot are set 

forth below. More detailed guidance on 

the new DFP Pilot will be provided in 

a procedural guide (‘‘DFP Procedural 

Guide’’) that will be available on SBA’s 

Web site. 

Eligibility 

In addition to standard 7(a) eligibility 

requirements set forth in 13 CFR part 

120 and SBA’s Standard Operating 

Procedure (SOP) 50 10 5(C), Subpart B, 

Chapter 2, the eligibility of applicants 

for a floor plan line of credit guaranteed 

under the DFP Pilot will be limited to 

retail dealers of titleable inventory (both 

new and used) that is required to be 

licensed and/or registered in at least one 

State after acquisition. The inventory 

does not need to be licensed and/or 

registered in the State where it is sold, 

but it does need to be a type of 

inventory that could be licensed and/or 

registered in at least one State of the 

United States, as ‘‘State’’ is defined in 

the Small Business Act. 

SBA sets size standards that establish 

which businesses are considered small 

for certain government programs. Size 

standards have been established for 

types of economic activity or industry 

and, depending on the type of industry, 

are based on number of employees or 

revenues. In addition, SBA has 

established an alternative size standard 

based on the applicant’s tangible net 

worth and net income. The Small 

Business Jobs Act established a 

temporary alternative size standard of a 

maximum tangible net worth of the 

applicant of not more than $15,000,000 

and an average net income after Federal 

income taxes (excluding any carry-over 

losses) of the applicant for the 2 full 

fiscal years before the date of the 

application that is not more than 

$5,000,000. SBA’s size regulations, 

including those pertaining to affiliation, 

are set out in 13 CFR part 121 and apply 

to the DFP Pilot. The applicant can 

qualify for a DFP line of credit using 

either the industry-based size standards 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES