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). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

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

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES