### 62339 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 195 / Friday, October 7, 2011 / Notices

1 To view the notice and the pest risk analysis, go to http://www.regulations.gov/ #!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2011-0037. comments in writing. Written submissions may contain information other than that presented at the oral presentation. Anyone may submit written comments at the meeting. Persons submitting written comments at the meeting are asked to provide sixteen copies.

Interested persons may visit http:// www.ams.usda.gov to view NOSB recommendations, meeting agenda, and submit and/or view public comments.

Dated: September 29, 2011. David Shipman, Acting Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 2011–25551 Filed 10–6–11; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 3410–02–P**

**DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE**

**Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service** 

**[Docket No. APHIS–2011–0037]**

**Notice of Decision To Allow Interstate Movement of Rambutan From Puerto**  **Rico into the Continental United States**

**AGENCY :**  Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

**ACTION :**  Notice.

**SUMMARY :**  We are advising the public of our decision to begin allowing the interstate movement into the continental United States of fresh rambutan fruit from Puerto Rico. Based on the findings of a pest risk analysis, which we made available to the public for review and comment through a previous notice, we believe that the application of one or more designated phytosanitary measures will be sufficient to mitigate the risks of introducing or disseminating plant pests or noxious weeds via the interstate movement of rambutan from Puerto Rico.

**DATES :**  Effective Date: October 7, 2011.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Mr. Philip Grove, Regulatory Coordinator, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 156, Riverdale, MD 20737–1231; (301) 734–
6280.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  Background

Under the regulations in ‘‘Subpart— Regulated Articles From Hawaii and the Territories’’ (7 CFR 318.13–1 through 318.13–26, referred to below as the regulations), the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture prohibits or restricts the interstate movement of fruits and vegetables into the United States from Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands to prevent plant pests and noxious weeds from being introduced into and spread within the continental United States. (The continental United States is defined in 318.13–2 of the regulations as the 48 contiguous States, Alaska, and the District of Columbia.)

Section 318.13–4 contains a performance-based process for approving the interstate movement of commodities that, based on the findings of a pest risk analysis, can be safely imported subject to one or more of the designated phytosanitary measures listed in paragraph (b) of that section. Under that process, APHIS publishes a notice in the Federal Register announcing the availability of the pest risk analysis that evaluates the risks associated with the interstate movement of a particular fruit or vegetable. Following the close of the 60-day comment period, APHIS may begin allowing the interstate movement of the fruit or vegetable subject to the identified designated measures if: (1) No comments were received on the pest risk analysis; (2) the comments on the pest risk analysis revealed that no changes to the pest risk analysis were necessary; or (3) changes to the pest risk analysis were made in response to public comments, but the changes did not affect the overall conclusions of the analysis and the Administrator’s determination of risk.

In accordance with that process, we published a notice 1 in the Federal Register on June 16, 2011 (76 FR 35186– 35187, Docket No. APHIS–2011–0037), in which we announced the availability, for review and comment, of a pest risk analysis that evaluates the risks associated with the interstate movement of rambutan fruit (Nephilium lappaceum L. ) from Puerto Rico into the continental United States. We solicited comments on the notice for 60 days ending on August 15, 2011. We received no comments by that date.

Therefore, in accordance with the regulations in 318.13–4, we are announcing our decision to begin allowing the interstate movement of rambutan from Puerto Rico into the continental United States subject to the following phytosanitary measures:

• Inspection and certification by an inspector in Puerto Rico that the rambutan are free of all quarantine pests likely to follow the pathway of interstate movement of the rambutan;

• Movement of the rambutan as commercial consignments only; and

• Distribution of the rambutan only within a defined area (a prohibition on movement to Hawaii, the Virgin Islands, or Guam) and marking of the boxes or containers in which the rambutan is distributed to indicate those distribution restrictions.

These conditions will be listed in the Puerto Rico Manual, found on the Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ import

_export/plants/manuals/ports/ downloads/puerto

_rico.pdf. In addition to those specific measures, rambutan from Puerto Rico will be subject to the general requirements listed in 318.13–3 that are applicable to the interstate movement of all fruits and vegetables from Puerto Rico.

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7701–7772 and 7781– 7786; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.

Dated: Done in Washington, DC, this 3rd day of October 2011. Kevin Shea, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 2011–26050 Filed 10–6–11; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 3410–34–P**

**DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE**

**Commodity Credit Corporation**

**Domestic Sugar Program—2011-Crop Cane Sugar and Beet Sugar Marketing**  **Allotments and Company Allocations**

**AGENCY :**  Commodity Credit Corporation, USDA.

**ACTION :**  Notice.

**SUMMARY :**  The Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) is issuing this notice to publish the fiscal year (FY) 2012 State sugar marketing allotments and company allocations to sugarcane and sugar beet processors, which apply to all domestic sugar marketed for human consumption in the United States from October 1, 2011, through September 30, 2012. Although CCC already has announced most of the information in this notice through a United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) news release, CCC is required to publish the determinations establishing, adjusting, or suspending sugar marketing allotments in the Federal Register

. **FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Barbara Fecso, Dairy and Sweeteners Analysis Group, Economic and Policy Analysis Staff, Farm Service Agency, USDA, 1400 Independence Ave, SW., Mail Stop 0516, Washington, DC 20250– 0516; telephone (202) 720–4146; FAX


### 62340 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 195 / Friday, October 7, 2011 / Notices

(202) 690–1480; e-mail: barbara.fecso@wdc.usda.gov.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  On August 18, 2011, CCC announced the initial FY 2012 overall sugar marketing allotment quantity (OAQ) of 9,456,250 short tons, raw value (STRV). The OAQ is equal to 85 percent of the sugar for human consumption estimate for the crop year of 11,125,000 STRV as forecast in the July 2011 World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE) report. The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended, requires that the OAQ be set at not less than 85 percent of the estimated quantity of sugar for domestic human consumption for the crop year, and that a fixed portion of the OAQ be assigned to the beet sector and the cane sector. CCC distributed the FY 2012 beet sugar allotment of 5,139,472 STRV (54.35 percent of the OAQ) among the sugar beet processors and the cane sugar allotment of 4,316,778 STRV (45.65 percent of the OAQ) among the
sugarcane processors.

CCC determined that it was not necessary to establish farm level proportionate shares in Louisiana, the only State eligible for proportionate shares, in FY 2012. The cane sugar sector was not expected to fill its allotment and therefore, there was no need to limit sugarcane acreage in that State through proportionate shares. Additionally, CCC determined that the Feedstock Flexibility Program (FFP) will not be implemented in FY 2012 based on the forecast of limited sugar supplies and prices significantly above the support level. The probability of forfeitures of sugar loan collateral under CCC price support loans in FY 2012, which triggers FFP, was determined to be very low.

The initial FY 2012 sugar marketing State allotments and processor allocations are listed in the following table:



### FY 2012 OVERALL 

### B EET AND 

### CANE 

### ALLOTMENTS AND 

### ALLOCATIONS

Distribution Initial FY 2012 allocations

STRV

Beet Sugar ..................................................................................................................... .............................................................. 5,139,472 Cane Sugar ..................................................................................................................... ............................................................. 4,316,778

Total OAQ ...................................................................................................................... ....................................................... 9,456,250

Beet Processors’ Marketing Allocations: Amalgamated Sugar Co. .......................................................................................................... ............................................ 1,100,400 American Crystal Sugar Co. ..................................................................................................... ............................................ 1,889,666 Michigan Sugar Co. ............................................................................................................. ................................................. 530,782 Minn-Dak Farmers Co-op ......................................................................................................... ............................................ 356,931 So. Minn Beet Sugar Co-op. ..................................................................................................... ........................................... 693,665 Western Sugar Co. .............................................................................................................. ................................................. 524,994 Wyoming Sugar Growers, LLC ..................................................................................................... ....................................... 43,034

Total Beet Sugar ............................................................................................................... ............................................ 5,139,472

State Cane Sugar Allotments: Florida ................................................................................................................................................................................... 2,148,906 Louisiana .............................................................................................................................................................................. 1,662,420 Texas .................................................................................................................................................................................... 186,808 Hawaii ................................................................................................................................................................................... 318,664

Total Cane Sugar ............................................................................................................... ........................................... 4,316,778

Cane Processors’ Marketing Allocations: Florida: Florida Crystals ............................................................................................................... ...................................................... 884,761 Growers Co-op of Florida ....................................................................................................... .............................................. 386,557 U.S. Sugar Corp ................................................................................................................ ................................................... 877,588

Total Florida .................................................................................................................. ................................................ 2,148,906

Louisiana: Louisiana Sugar Cane Products, Inc. ............................................................................................ ...................................... 1,154,105 M.A. Patout & Sons ............................................................................................................. ................................................. 508,315

Total Louisiana ................................................................................................................ .............................................. 1,662,420

Texas: Rio Grande Valley .............................................................................................................. .................................................. 186,808 Hawaii: Gay &Robinson, Inc. ............................................................................................................ ................................................ 73,145 Hawaiian Commercial & Sugar Company ............................................................................................ ................................ 245,499

Total Hawaii ................................................................................................................... ................................................ 318,644
* The sums of individual entries may not match totals due to rounding.


### 62341 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 195 / Friday, October 7, 2011 / Notices

Signed on September 30, 2011. Bruce Nelson, Executive Vice President, Commodity Credit Corporation.
[FR Doc. 2011–25945 Filed 10–6–11; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 3410–05–P**

**DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE**

**Food and Nutrition Service**

**Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection;**  **Comment Request—School Foodservice Indirect Cost Study** 

**AGENCY :**  Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).

**ACTION :**  Notice and request for
comments.

**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 new information collection for the School Foodservice Indirect Cost Study.

**DATES :**  Written comments on this notice must be received by December 6, 2011.

**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: John Endahl, Senior Program Analyst, Office of Research and Analysis, Food and Nutrition Service, USDA, 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 1004, Alexandria, VA 22302. Comments may also be submitted via fax to the attention ofJohn Endahl at 703–305–2576 or via email to john.endahl@fns.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 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 :**  To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans, contact John Endahl, Senior Program Analyst, Office of Research and Analysis, Food and Nutrition Service/USDA, 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 1004, Alexandria, VA 22302; Fax: 703–305–2576; E-mail: john.endahl@fns.usda.gov.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :** 

Title: School Foodservice Indirect Cost Study.

OMB Number: 0584–NEW. Expiration Date of Approval: Not yet determined.

Type of Information Collection Request: New information collection.

Abstract: The Healthy Hunger Free Kids Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111–296) requires USDA to conduct this study to assess the extent to which school food authorities (SFAs) participating in the National School Lunch and Breakfast Programs pay indirect costs. The objective of the School Foodservice Indirect Cost Study is to collect and analyze up-to-date data on school districts’ policies and procedures for reporting and recovering indirect costs attributable to their foodservice operations.

The ultimate goal of this study is to provide USDA and Congress the necessary information to assess the extent to which school districts indentify, treat, and charge indirect costs attributable to their foodservice operations. Some focus will be placed on whether school districts treat indirect costs attributable to their food service operations the same way that they treat indirect costs attributable to other grant programs. The School Lunch and Breakfast Cost Studies conducted in the early 1990s and again in the mid 2000s provide some evidence that as school district budgets have become increasingly tight, school districts have been increasingly likely to assess and recover indirect costs attributable to their food service operations. While this is permissible under USDA regulations, the regulations also stipulate that school districts must treat foodservice indirect costs in the same manner as their other grant programs. Previous research suggests that this is often not the case. This study will help FNS understand the extent to which current regulations are being followed and if there is a need for additional regulations and/or legislation to ensure that school districts treat indirect costs in the same manner across all of their grant programs. Specifically, this study will address the following questions:

b What is the role of the State departments of education in establishing or approving school districts’ indirect cost rates?

b Are the indirect costs charged or recovered by school districts from foodservice consistent with Federal and State allocation requirements?

b What are the types and amounts of indirect costs charged and recovered by school districts from the foodservice account?

b What are the types and amounts of indirect costs that school districts could, but do not, charge and recover from the foodservice account?

b What is the impact of school districts charging and recovering indirect costs from the foodservice account on the ability of SFAs to operate on a break-even basis?

The activities to be undertaken subject to this notice include:

b Conducting a multi-modal ( e.g. paper, Web, and telephone) survey of approximately 1,897 SFA Directors who will complete the survey out of 2,373 recruited.

b Conducting a multi-modal ( e.g. paper, Web, and telephone) survey of approximately 1,897 School District Business Managers who will complete the survey out of 2,373 recruited.

b Conducting a telephone survey of all 56 State Agency Child Nutrition Directors.

b Conducting a telephone survey of all 56 State Agency Financial Officers.

Affected Public: State and Local Governments.

Type of Respondents: 2,373 SFA Directors, 2,373 School District Business Managers, 56 State Child Nutrition Directors, and 56 State Agency Financial Officers.

Estimated Total Number of Respondents: 4,858.

Frequency of Response: Once annually.

Estimated Annual Responses: 4,858. Estimate of Time per Respondent and Annual Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average thirty (30) minutes per completed Self Administered Survey for the SFA Directors and sixty (60) minutes for the completed School District Business Managers. Reporting burden is estimated at thirty (30) minutes per completed telephone interview for the State Agency Child Nutrition Directors and sixty (60) minutes for the completed State Agency Financial Officer (this includes 30 minutes for data gathering and 30 minutes to respond to the interview). The initial sample in the School