### 6774 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 27 / Thursday, February 9, 2012 / Notices

The grade standards, effective since September 12, 1983, provided that grapefruit juice from concentrate, grapefruit juice, and frozen concentrated grapefruit juice establish limits for maximum free and suspended pulp as follows: ‘‘Grade A’’—10 percent by volume, ‘‘Grade B’’—15 percent by volume. Concentrated grapefruit juice for manufacturing requirements for maximum free and suspended pulp are as follows: ‘‘Grade A’’—10 percent by volume, and ‘‘Grade B’’—12 percent by

volume.

The petitioners believe that, with respect to maximum values for ‘‘free and suspended pulp’’, the existing U.S. Standards for Grades of Grapefruit Juice

do not take into account modern extraction and finishing technologies, nor are they supported by evidence of

a correlation between these criteria and acceptable flavor. The petitioners also believe that removing the ‘‘free and suspended pulp’’ values from the grade standards would allow processors to process the entire grapefruit crop without resorting to expensive technologies that increase the cost of juice with no concomitant benefit. More mature grapefruit tends to be sweeter, but when juiced tends to cause the product to exceed maximum free and suspended pulp values.

Processing technologies used in the early 1940’s were considerably different than the technologies in place today. In the developmental stages of the citrus industry, the amount of sinking pulp was an indication of excessive pressures used in extraction and finishing of citrus juice, resulting in bitter flavor. It was noted that sinking pulp levels could

be correlated to bitter flavor. The bitter flavors are due to the naturally occurring naringin and limonin components found in grapefruit juice. Although bitterness is an inherent

contributor to what we know as ‘‘grapefruit flavor,’’ an excessive amount of bitterness can be objectionable to

some consumers.

Current industry practices have shown us that sinking pulp levels can be greatly influenced by modern processing techniques, which eliminate the correlation between sinking pulp

and excessive bitterness.

The petitioners submitted research data covering a six season period which illustrates levels of sinking pulp vs. naringin, and levels of sinking pulp vs. limonin using variations in extractor settings. The petitioners also submitted data on a sensory evaluation performed by the University of Florida on consumer acceptability of grapefruit juice with two free and suspended pulp levels. The petitioner’s research data supports the premise that modern extraction and finishing technologies produce a product where there is no correlation between grapefruit juice flavor components associated with bitter and off flavor, i.e., naringin and limonin, and free and suspended pulp

levels.

Prior to undertaking research and other work associated with revising the grade standards, AMS sought public comments on the petition (see 76 FR 51343).

Two comments were received regarding this petition. One comment

was from a trade association with international membership; and one

comment was from a trade association in the U.S. representing over 8,000 citrus growers. Both comments were in support of the petition to remove the maximum limit for ‘‘free and suspended pulp’’ from the U.S. Standards for Grades of Grapefruit Juice.

AMS is soliciting comments on the proposed revision of the U.S. Standards for Grades of Grapefruit Juice. Further details are provided in the petition and

are available from Brian E. Griffin at the previously mentioned address in the

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT** section or can be found on the Internet

at http://www.regulations.gov. This notice provides for a 60-day comment period for interested parties to comment on the proposed revision of the U.S. Standards for Grades of Grapefruit Juice.

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1621–1627.

Dated: February 3, 2012.
Robert C. Keeney,
Acting Administrator, Agricultural Marketing

Service.

[FR Doc. 2012–2970 Filed 2–8–12; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 3410–02–P**

**DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE**

**Agricultural Marketing Service**

**[Doc. # AMS–FV–11–0052]**

**United States Standards for Grades of Eggplant** 

**AGENCY :**  Agricultural Marketing Service,

USDA.

**ACTION :**  Notice.

**SUMMARY :**  The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), of the Department of Agriculture (USDA), is soliciting comments on the proposed revision to

the United States Standards for Grades of Eggplant. AMS is reviewing the fresh fruit and vegetable grade standards for usefulness in serving the industry. As a result, AMS has noted the current grade standards do not have provisions for mixed or specialty packs. Therefore, AMS is proposing to amend the similar varietal characteristic requirement in the U.S. Fancy and No. 1 grades to allow mixed colors and/or types of eggplant when designated as a mixed or specialty pack. In addition, AMS proposes to

remove the unclassified section.

**DATES :**  Comments must be received by April 9, 2012.

**ADDRESSES :**  Interested persons are

invited to submit written comments to the Standardization and Training Branch, Fresh Products Division, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Training and Development Center, Riverside Business Park, 100 Riverside Parkway, Suite 101, Fredericksburg, VA 22406: Fax (540) 361–1199, or on the Web at: www.regulations.gov. Comments should make reference to the dates and page

number of this issue of the Federal Register and will be made available for public inspection in the above office during regular business hours.

Comments can also be viewed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. The

current United States Standards for Grades of Eggplant will be available either through the address cited above or by accessing the AMS, Fresh

Products Division Web site at www.ams.usda.gov/freshinspection.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Dr. Carl Newell, at the above address or call (540) 361–1120.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  Section 203(c) of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621–1627), as amended, directs and authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture ‘‘to develop and improve standards of quality, condition, quantity, grade and packaging and

recommend and demonstrate such standards in order to encourage uniformity and consistency in commercial practices.’’ AMS is committed to carrying out this authority

in a manner that facilitates the marketing of agricultural commodities and makes copies of official standards available upon request. The United

States Standards for Grades of Fruits and Vegetables not connected with Federal Marketing Orders or U.S. Import Requirements, no longer appear in the Code of Federal Regulations, but are maintained by USDA, AMS, Fruit and Vegetable Programs.

AMS is proposing to revise the voluntary United States Standards for Grades of Eggplant using procedures that appear in Part 36, Title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations (7 CFR part 36).


### 6775 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 27 / Thursday, February 9, 2012 / Notices

Background and Proposed Notice

AMS is reviewing all fresh fruit and vegetable grade standards for usefulness in serving the industry. As a result,

AMS has identified the U.S. Standards for Grades of Eggplant similar varietal characteristic requirement for possible updating. AMS has observed that mixing colors and/or types of eggplant in a specialty pack is a current marketing practice. The U.S. grade standards presently require eggplant to be packed with eggplant of similar type, color and character of growth; there are no provisions for mixed or specialty packs. AMS proposes to revise the

similar varietal characteristic requirement for the U.S. Fancy and No. 1 grades to allow mixed colors and/or types of eggplant when designated as a mixed or specialty pack. The following language would be added to these two grades: ‘‘* * * consists of eggplants of similar varietal characteristics, except when specified as a mixed or specialty pack * * *.’’ AMS believes that permitting mixed colors and/or type packs will facilitate the marketing of eggplant by providing the industry with more flexibility that reflects current marketing practices and consumer

demand.

AMS also proposes to eliminate the ‘‘Unclassified’’ category from the

standards. The unclassified section is being removed from all standards when they are revised. This category is not a grade and only serves to show that no grade has been applied to the lot. It is no longer considered necessary.

This notice provides for a 60 day comment period for interested parties to comment on the proposed revisions to

the standards.

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1621–1627.

Dated: February 3, 2012.
Robert C. Keeney,
Acting Administrator, Agricultural Marketing

Service.

[FR Doc. 2012–3013 Filed 2–8–12; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 3410–02–P**

**DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE**

**Food and Nutrition Service**

**Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;**  **Comment Request: Commodity Supplemental Food Program, the Food**  **Distribution Program on Indian Reservations, and the Supplemental**  **Nutrition Assistance Program; Title VI Civil Rights Collection Reports** 

**AGENCY :**  Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA. **ACTION :**  Notice.

**SUMMARY :**  In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice invites the general public and other public agencies to comment on this proposed information collection.

This collection is a revision of a currently approved collection under OMB No.0584–0025, Civil Rights Title VI Collection Reports—Forms FNS–191 and FNS–101, for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program, the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

**DATES :**  Written comments must be received on or before April 9, 2012.

**ADDRESSES :**  Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions that were used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the

collection of information on those who are to respond, including use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Comments may be sent to: Jane Duffield, Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 818, Alexandria, VA 22302. Comments may

also be submitted via fax to the attention of Jane Duffield at 703–605–4385 or via

email to Jane.Duffield@fne.usda.gov. Comments will also be accepted through the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to http://www.regulations.gov, and follow the online instructions for submitting comments electronically.

All written comments will be open for public inspection at the office of the Food and Nutrition Service during regular business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday) at 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 818, Alexandria, Virginia 22302.

All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval. All comments will be a matter of public record.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Requests for additional information or copies of this information collection should be directed to Jane Duffield at

703–605–4385. **SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  Title: Civil Rights Title VI Collection Reports.

Form Number: FNS–191 and FNS–

101.

OMB Number: 0584–0025. Expiration Date: May 30, 2012. Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Abstract: Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000d to 2000d–7, prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin in programs receiving Federal financial assistance. Department of Justice (DOJ) regulations, 28 CFR 42.406, require all Federal agencies to provide for the collection of racial/

ethnic data and information from applicants for and recipients of Federal assistance sufficient to permit effective enforcement of Title VI. For purposes of the Information Collection Notice only, the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) employs program terminology in place of the standard Title VI terminology adopted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and codified at 7 CFR 15.2. Thus, ‘‘State agencies,’’ ‘‘local agencies,’’ and/or ‘‘operators’’ are the program entities responsible for fulfilling the data collection requirements associated with ‘‘primary recipients’’ and/or ‘‘recipients’’ as defined by Title VI. Moreover, the program terms ‘‘respondents,’’ ‘‘applicants,’’ and/or ‘‘participants’’ refer to the ‘‘potential beneficiaries,’’ ‘‘applicant beneficiaries,’’ and/or

‘‘actual beneficiaries’’ of Federal financial assistance as defined by Title

VI. In order to conform with the statutory mandates of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, DOJ regulations, and USDA regulations on nondiscrimination in Federally assisted programs, the USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) requires State agencies to submit data on the racial/ ethnic categories of persons receiving

benefits from FNS food assistance

programs.

In all three programs, State and local agencies collect racial/ethnic information on the benefits application form that applicants may complete and file manually or electronically. The application form must clearly indicate that the information is voluntary and

that the race and ethnic information will not affect an applicant’s eligibility or

level of benefits. It must also state that

the reason for the collection of the information is to assure that program benefits are distributed without regard to race, color or national origin. All three programs allow the individual to self-identify his or her racial/ethnic status on the application. Visual