27848 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 93 / Friday, May 13, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

by-case basis to be determined at the time a 

request is made, for the following reasons: 

(a) From subsection (c)(3) and (c)(4) 

(Accounting for Disclosures) because release 

of the accounting of disclosures could alert 

the subject of an investigation of an actual or 

potential criminal, civil, or regulatory 

violation to the existence of the investigation, 

and reveal investigative interest on the part 

of DHS as well as the recipient agency. 

Disclosure of the accounting would therefore 

present a serious impediment to law 

enforcement efforts and/or efforts to preserve 

national security. Disclosure of the 

accounting would also permit the individual 

who is the subject of a record to impede the 

investigation, to tamper with witnesses or 

evidence, and to avoid detection or 

apprehension, which would undermine the 

entire investigative process. 

(b) From subsection (d) (Access to Records) 

because access to the records contained in 

this system of records could inform the 

subject of an investigation of an actual or 

potential criminal, civil, or regulatory 

violation, to the existence of the 

investigation, and reveal investigative 

interest on the part of DHS or another agency. 

Access to the records could permit the 

individual who is the subject of a record to 

impede the investigation, to tamper with 

witnesses or evidence, and to avoid detection 

or apprehension. Amendment of the records 

could interfere with ongoing investigations 

and law enforcement activities and would 

impose an impossible administrative burden 

by requiring investigations to be 

continuously reinvestigated. In addition, 

permitting access and amendment to such 

information could disclose security-sensitive 

information that could be detrimental to 

homeland security. 

(c) From subsection (e)(1) (Relevancy and 

Necessity of Information) because in the 

course of investigations into potential 

violations of federal law, the accuracy of 

information obtained or introduced 

occasionally may be unclear or the 

information may not be strictly relevant or 

necessary to a specific investigation. In the 

interests of effective law enforcement, it is 

appropriate to retain all information that may 

aid in establishing patterns of unlawful 

activity. 

(d) From subsection (e)(2) (Collection of 

Information from Individuals) because 

requiring that information be collected from 

the subject of an investigation would alert the 

subject to the nature or existence of an 

investigation, thereby interfering with the 

related investigation and law enforcement 

activities. 

(e) From subsection (e)(3) (Notice to 

Subjects) because providing such detailed 

information would impede law enforcement 

in that it could compromise investigations by 

revealing the existence of an otherwise 

confidential investigation and thereby 

provide an opportunity for the subject of an 

investigation to conceal evidence, alter 

patterns of behavior, or take other actions 

that could thwart investigative efforts; reveal 

the identity of witnesses in investigations, 

thereby providing an opportunity for the 

subjects of the investigations or others to 

harass, intimidate, or otherwise interfere 

with the collection of evidence or other 

information from such witnesses; or reveal 

the identity of confidential informants, 

which would negatively affect the 

informant’s usefulness in any ongoing or 

future investigations and discourage 

members of the public from cooperating as 

confidential informants in any future 

investigations. 

(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 in 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 (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’ 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 (g) to the extent that 

the system is exempt from other specific 

subsections of the Privacy Act relating to 

individuals’ rights to access and amend their 

records contained in the system. Therefore 

DHS is not required to establish rules or 

procedures pursuant to which individuals 

may seek a civil remedy for the agency’s: 

refusal to amend a record; refusal to comply 

with a request for access to records; failure 

to maintain accurate, relevant, timely and 

complete records; or failure to otherwise 

comply with an individual’s right to access 

or amend records. 

Dated: April 19, 2011. 

Mary Ellen Callahan, 

Chief Privacy Officer, Department of 

Homeland Security. 

[FR Doc. 2011–11689 Filed 5–12–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

7 CFR Part 927 

[Doc. No. AMS–FV–10–0072; FV10–927–1 

FIR] 

Pears Grown in Oregon and 

Washington; Amendment To Allow 

Additional Exemptions 

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Adoption of interim rule as 

final. 

SUMMARY: The Department of 

Agriculture is adopting, as a final rule, 

without change, an interim rule that 

added an exemption to the marketing 

order for Oregon-Washington pears that 

provides for the sale of fresh pears 

directly to consumers without regard to 

regulation. For each customer, the 

interim rule provided an exemption for 

consumer-direct sales of up to 220 

pounds of fresh pears per transaction, 

for home use only, made directly at 

orchards, packing facilities, roadside 

stands, or farmers’ markets without 

regard to the marketing order’s 

assessment, reporting, handling, and 

inspection requirements. This action is 

intended to provide increased marketing 

flexibility to small pear handlers, while 

facilitating the sale of fresh, local pears 

directly to consumers. 

DATES: Effective May 16, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Teresa Hutchinson or Gary Olson, 

Northwest Marketing Field Office, 

Marketing Order Administration 

Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, 

AMS, USDA, Portland, Oregon; 

Telephone: (503) 326–2724, Fax: (503) 

326–7440, or E-mail: 

Teresa.Hutchinson@ams.usda.gov or 

Gary D.Olson@ams.usda.gov. 

Small businesses may obtain 

information on complying with this and 

other marketing order regulations by 

viewing a guide at the following Web 

site: http://www.ams.usda.gov/ 

Marketing Orders Small Business Guide; 

or by contacting Laurel May, 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: 

Laurel.May@ams.usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule 

is issued under Marketing Order No. 

927, as amended (7 CFR part 927), 

regulating the handling of pears grown 

in Oregon and Washington, hereinafter 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 93 / Friday, May 13, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 27849 

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. 

The handling of pears grown in 

Oregon and Washington is regulated by 

7 CFR part 927. This rule continues in 

effect the interim rule that added an 

exemption for consumer-direct sales of 

up to 220 pounds of fresh pears per 

customer and transaction, for home use 

only, and made directly at orchards, 

packing facilities, roadside stands, or 

farmers’ markets. These consumer-direct 

sales are exempt from the marketing 

order’s assessment, reporting, handling, 

and inspection requirements. The 

Committee believes that the volume 

represented by these pear sales is 

insignificant and will not adversely 

affect the domestic and international 

marketing of commercial quantities of 

fresh pears. The majority of promotional 

funds collected by the Committee are 

utilized for large-scale promotional 

efforts that do not have a direct 

relationship or benefit to these 

consumer-direct sales. This exemption 

provides regulatory flexibility to small 

pear handlers, while facilitating the sale 

of fresh, local pears directly to 

consumers. 

In an interim rule published in the 

Federal Register on January 25, 2011, 

and effective on January 26, 2011, (76 

FR 4202, Doc. No. AMS–FV–10–0072, 

FV10–927–1 IR), a new § 927.122 was 

added to the order’s rules and 

regulations providing for the consumerdirect exemption. 

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 approximately 1,537 

growers of fresh pears in the regulated 

production area and approximately 38 

handlers subject to regulation under the 

order. Small agricultural growers are 

defined by the Small Business 

Administration (SBA)(13 CFR 121.201) 

as those having annual receipts of less 

than $750,000, and small agricultural 

service firms are defined as those whose 

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

According to the Noncitrus Fruits and 

Nuts 2010 Preliminary Summary issued 

in January 2010 by the National 

Agricultural Statistics Service, the 

average 2009 fresh pear price of $456 

per ton places the farm-gate value of 

fresh pears grown in Oregon and 

Washington at $202,053,810. Based on 

the number of fresh pear growers in the 

Oregon-Washington production area, 

the average gross revenue for each 

grower can be estimated at 

approximately $131,460. Furthermore, 

based on Committee records, the 

Committee has estimated that 56 

percent of Northwest pear handlers 

currently ship less than $7,000,000 

worth of fresh pears on an annual basis. 

From this information, it is concluded 

that the majority of growers and 

handlers of Oregon and Washington 

pears may be classified as small entities. 

This rule continues in effect the 

action that exempts from regulation 

fresh pears that are sold directly to 

consumers—in quantities of 220 pounds 

or less per customer and transaction— 

at orchards, packing houses, roadside 

stands, and farmers’ markets. This 

change provides small pear handlers 

with increased marketing flexibility 

while facilitating the sale of pears in 

local markets. Section § 927.65(b) of the 

order authorizes the establishment of 

regulations that exempt specified 

quantities of pears, or types of pear 

shipments from the order. 

This action is expected to have a 

beneficial impact on the Northwest pear 

industry, especially on small growers 

and handlers. The Committee’s goal is 

that this exemption will reduce overall 

costs to the pear industry, relax the 

burden on small businesses, and 

facilitate the distribution of fruit at the 

local level. The Committee believes that 

this action will be especially beneficial 

to small independent businesses 

because such agricultural operations 

tend to utilize roadside stands and 

farmers’ markets more than do large, 

vertically integrated entities. The 

Committee has stated that the majority 

of pear handlers are small businesses 

under the SBA definition. Although this 

rule was recommended by the 

Committee with the goal of helping 

small pear grower handlers and 

handlers, it does not prevent large 

businesses from realizing the same 

benefits. 

This rule will not impose any 

additional reporting or recordkeeping 

requirements on either small or large 

pear 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. In addition, USDA has 

not identified any relevant Federal rules 

that duplicate, overlap or conflict with 

this rule. 

Further, the Committee’s meeting was 

widely publicized throughout the 

Oregon-Washington pear industry and 

all interested persons were invited to 

participate in Committee deliberations. 

Like all Committee meetings, the April 

22, 2010, meeting was a public meeting 

and all entities, both large and small, 

were able to express views on this issue. 

Comments on the interim rule were 

required to be received on or before 

March 28, 2011. No comments were 

received. Therefore, for the reasons 

given in the interim rule, USDA is 

adopting the interim rule as a final rule, 

without change. 

To view the interim rule, go to: 

http://www.regulations.gov/ 

#!documentDetail;D=AMS-FV-10-0072– 

0001. 

This action also affirms information 

contained in the interim rule concerning 

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 (76 FR 4202, January 25, 2011) 

will tend to effectuate the declared 

policy of the Act. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 927 

Marketing agreements, Pears, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

PART 927—PEARS GROWN IN 

OREGON AND WASHINGTON 

Accordingly, the interim rule that 

amended 7 CFR part 927 and that was 

published at 76 FR 4202 on January 25, 

2011, is adopted as a final rule, without 

change. 

Dated: May, 9, 2011. 

Ellen King, 

Acting Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–11714 Filed 5–12–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES