Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 117 / Monday, June 18, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 36119 

inventories, a decrease in grower prices 

of $0.0037 per pound occurs. 

Retail demand is assumed to be 

highly inelastic which indicates that 

changes in price do not result in 

significant changes in the quantity 

demanded. Consumer prices largely do 

not reflect fluctuations in cherry 

supplies. Therefore, this action should 

have little or no effect on consumer 

prices and should not result in a 

reduction in retail sales. 

The free and restricted percentages 

established by this rule provide the 

market with optimum supply and apply 

uniformly to all regulated handlers in 

the industry, regardless of size. As the 

restriction represents a percentage of a 

handler’s volume, the costs, when 

applicable, are proportionate and 

should not place an extra burden on 

small entities as compared to large 

entities. 

The stabilizing effects of this action 

benefits all handlers by helping them 

maintain and expand markets, despite 

seasonal supply fluctuations. Likewise, 

price stability positively impacts all 

growers and handlers by allowing them 

to better anticipate the revenues their 

tart cherries will generate. Growers and 

handlers, regardless of size, should 

benefit from the stabilizing effects of 

this restriction. 

One alternative to this action 

considered was to not regulate the 

volume of the 2011–12 crop. However, 

Board members believed that although 

sales have been strong, there is enough 

of a surplus to necessitate restricting a 

portion of the crop to keep prices stable. 

Another alternative considered was 

setting the carry-out value at 10 or 20 

million pounds in the OSF. Board 

members indicated that such a change 

would require further consideration by 

the Board, and did not receive sufficient 

support. 

The Board also considered differing 

levels of adjustments under the OSF 

when considering supply. The 

alternative adjustments were deemed to 

be either too small to address industry 

needs, or so large that members were 

concerned with creating an oversupply. 

Therefore, these alternatives were 

rejected. 

In accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, (44 U.S.C. 

chapter 35), the order’s information 

collection requirements have been 

previously approved by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) and 

assigned OMB No. 0581–0177, Tart 

cherries Grown in the States of MI, NY, 

PA, OR, UT, WA, and WI. No changes 

in those requirements as a result of this 

action are necessary. Should any 

changes become necessary, they would 

be submitted to OMB for approval. 

This action will not impose any 

additional reporting or recordkeeping 

requirements on either small or large 

tart cherry 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. 

As noted in the initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis, USDA has not 

identified any relevant Federal rules 

that duplicate, overlap or conflict with 

this rule. 

AMS is committed to complying with 

the E-Government Act, to promote the 

use of the Internet and other 

information technologies to provide 

increased opportunities for citizen 

access to Government information and 

services, and for other purposes. 

In addition, the Board’s meeting was 

widely publicized throughout the tart 

cherry industry and all interested 

persons were invited to attend the 

meeting and participate in Board 

deliberations on all issues. Like all 

Board meetings, the September 15, 

2011, meeting was a public meeting and 

all entities, both large and small, were 

able to express views on this issue. 

A proposed rule concerning this 

action was published in the Federal 

Register on March 2, 2012 (77 FR 

12748). Copies of the rule were mailed 

or sent via facsimile to all Board 

members and tart cherry handlers. 

Finally, the rule was made available 

through the Internet by USDA and the 

Office of the Federal Register. A 30-day 

comment period ending April 2, 2012, 

was provided to allow interested 

persons to respond to the proposal. No 

comments were received. 

A small business guide on complying 

with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop 

marketing agreements and orders may 

be viewed at: www.ams.usda.gov/ 

MarketingOrdersSmallBusinessGuide. 

Any questions about the compliance 

guide should be sent to Laurel May at 

the previously mentioned address in the 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section. 

After consideration of all relevant 

matter presented, including the 

information and recommendation 

submitted by the Board and other 

available information, it is hereby found 

that this rule, as hereinafter set forth, 

will tend to effectuate the declared 

policy of the Act. 

It is further found that good cause 

exists for not postponing the effective 

date of this rule until 30 days after 

publication in the Federal Register (5 

U.S.C. 553) because handlers are already 

shipping tart cherries from the 2011– 

2012 crop. Further, handlers are aware 

of this rule, which was recommended at 

a public meeting. Also, a 30-day 

comment period was provided for in the 

proposed rule. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 930 

Marketing agreements, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Tart 

cherries. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, 7 CFR part 930 is amended as 

follows: 

PART 930—TART CHERRIES GROWN 

IN THE STATES OF MICHIGAN, NEW 

YORK, PENNSYLVANIA, OREGON, 

UTAH, WASHINGTON, AND 

WISCONSIN 

■ 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR 

part 930 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674. 

■ 2. Section 930.256 is added to read as 

follows: 

Note: This section will not appear in the 

annual Code of Federal Regulations. 

§ 930.256 Final free and restricted 

percentages for the 2011–12 crop year. 

The final percentages for tart cherries 

handled by handlers during the crop 

year beginning on July 1, 2011, which 

shall be free and restricted, respectively, 

are designated as follows: Free 

percentage, 88 percent and restricted 

percentage, 12 percent. 

Dated: June 13, 2012. 

David R. Shipman, 

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2012–14810 Filed 6–15–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

7 CFR Part 983 

[Doc. No. AMS–FV–10–0099; FV11–983–1 

FR] 

Pistachios Grown in California, 

Arizona, and New Mexico; Order 

Amending Marketing Order No. 983 

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule amends 

Marketing Agreement and Order No. 

983 (order), which regulates the 

handling of pistachios grown in 

California, Arizona, and New Mexico. 

The amendments were proposed by the 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES
36120 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 117 / Monday, June 18, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

Administrative Committee for 

Pistachios (Committee), which is 

responsible for local administration of 

the order. The amendments will provide 

authority to establish aflatoxin and 

quality regulations for pistachios 

shipped to export markets, including 

authority to establish different 

regulations for different markets; change 

a related section of the order concerning 

substandard pistachios to conform to 

the proposed addition of export 

authority; and correct an erroneous 

cross-reference to another section of the 

order. These amendments are intended 

to provide authority to ensure uniform 

and consistent aflatoxin and quality 

regulations in the domestic and various 

export markets. 

DATES: This rule is effective June 19, 

2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Martin Engeler, Marketing Order and 

Agreement Division, Fruit and 

Vegetable Program, AMS, USDA, 2202 

Monterey Street, Fresno, California, 

93721; Telephone: (559) 487–5110, Fax: 

(559) 487–5906; or Kathleen M. Finn, 

Marketing Order and Agreement 

Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, 

AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence 

Avenue SW., Stop 0237, Washington, 

DC 20250–0237; Telephone: (202) 720– 

2491, Fax: (202) 720–8938, or Email: 

Martin.Engeler@ams.usda.gov or 

Kathy.Finn@ams.usda.gov. 

Small businesses may request 

information on complying with this 

regulation by contacting Laurel May, 

Marketing Order and Agreement 

Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, 

AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence 

Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, 

DC 20250–0237; Telephone: (202) 720– 

2491, Fax: (202) 720–8938, or Email: 

Laurel.May@ams.usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule 

is issued under Marketing Agreement 

and Order No. 983, both as amended (7 

CFR part 983), regulating the handling 

of pistachios produced in California, 

Arizona, and New Mexico, hereinafter 

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 applicable 

rules of practice and procedure 

governing the formulation of marketing 

agreements and orders (7 CFR part 900) 

authorize amendment of the order 

through this informal rulemaking 

action. 

The Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) is issuing this rule in 

conformance with Executive Order 

12866. 

This rule has been reviewed under 

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 

Reform. This rule is not intended to 

have retroactive effect. 

The Act provides that administrative 

proceedings must be exhausted before 

parties may file suit in court. Under 

section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any 

handler subject to an order may file 

with USDA a petition stating that the 

order, any provision of the order, or any 

obligation imposed in connection with 

the order is not in accordance with law 

and request a modification of the order 

or to be exempted therefrom. A handler 

is afforded the opportunity for a hearing 

on the petition. After the hearing, USDA 

would rule on the petition. The Act 

provides that the district court of the 

United States in any district in which 

the handler is an inhabitant, or has his 

or her principal place of business, has 

jurisdiction to review USDA’s ruling on 

the petition, provided an action is filed 

not later than 20 days after the date of 

the entry of the ruling. 

Section 1504 of the Food, 

Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 

(2008 Farm Bill) (Pub. L. 110–246) made 

changes to section 18c(17) of the Act, 

which in turn required the addition of 

supplemental rules of practice to 7 CFR 

part 900 (73 FR 49307; August, 21, 

2008). The changes to section 18c(17) of 

the Act and additional supplemental 

rules of practice authorize the use of 

informal rulemaking (5 U.S.C. 553) to 

amend federal fruit, vegetable, and nut 

marketing agreements and orders if 

certain criteria are met. 

AMS considered the nature and 

complexity of the proposed 

amendments, the potential regulatory 

and economic impacts on affected 

entities, and other relevant matters, and 

determined that amending the order as 

proposed by the Committee could 

appropriately be accomplished through 

informal rulemaking. 

The proposed amendments were 

unanimously recommended by the 

Committee following deliberations at a 

public meeting on July 9, 2010. A 

proposed rule soliciting comments on 

the proposed amendments was issued 

on June 5, 2011, and published in the 

Federal Register on June 13, 2011 (76 

FR 34181). One comment was received 

in support of the proposed amendments. 

A proposed rule and referendum order 

was issued on September 12, 2011, and 

published in the Federal Register on 

September 15, 2011 (76 FR 57001). This 

document directed that a referendum 

among pistachio producers be 

conducted during the period October 3 

through October 14, 2011, to determine 

whether they favor the proposed 

amendments to the order. To become 

effective, the amendments had to be 

approved by at least two-thirds of the 

producers voting, or two-thirds of the 

volume of pistachios represented by 

voters in the referendum. All of the 

proposed amendments were favored by 

at least 97 percent of those voting in the 

referendum and by at least 98 percent of 

the volume represented in the 

referendum. 

The amendments included in this 

final rule will: 

(1) Provide authority to establish 

aflatoxin sampling, analysis, and 

inspection requirements for shipments 

of pistachios to export markets, 

including authority to establish different 

regulations for different markets; 

(2) Provide authority to establish 

quality and inspection requirements for 

shipments of pistachios to export 

markets, including authority to establish 

different regulations for different 

markets; 

(3) Change a related section of the 

order concerning substandard pistachios 

to conform to the proposed addition of 

export authority; and 

(4) Correct an erroneous crossreference to another section of the order. 

An amended marketing agreement 

was subsequently provided to all 

pistachio handlers in the production 

area for their approval. The marketing 

agreement was approved by handlers 

representing more than 50 percent of the 

volume of pistachios handled by all 

handlers covered under the order. 

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 900 

producers and 25 handlers of pistachios 

in the production area encompassing 

California, Arizona, and New Mexico. 

The Small Business Administration 

(SBA) (13 CFR 121.201) defines small 

agricultural producers as those having 

annual receipts of less than $750,000, 

and small agricultural service firms are 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 117 / Monday, June 18, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 36121 

defined as those having annual receipts 

of less than $7,000,000. 

Based on Committee data, it is 

estimated that over 70 percent of the 

handlers ship less than $7,000,000 

worth of pistachios and would thus be 

considered small business under the 

SBA definition. It is also estimated that 

over 80 percent of the growers in the 

production area produce less than 

$750,000 worth of pistachios and would 

thus be considered small businesses 

under the SBA definition. 

The amendments will provide 

authority to establish aflatoxin 

sampling, analysis, and inspection 

requirements for shipments of 

pistachios to export markets, including 

authority to establish different 

regulations for different markets; 

provide authority to establish quality 

and inspection requirements for 

shipments of pistachios to export 

markets, including authority to establish 

different regulations for different 

markets; change a related section of the 

order concerning substandard pistachios 

to conform to the proposed addition of 

export authority; and correct an 

erroneous cross-reference to another 

section of the order. 

These amendments were 

unanimously recommended at a public 

meeting of the Committee held on July 

10, 2010. None of the amendments will 

have an immediate impact on handlers 

or producers because they will not 

establish any requirements or 

regulations on handlers. However, the 

amendments that will add authority to 

the order to regulate exports could 

impact growers and handlers in the 

industry if the authority is 

implemented. Therefore, the potential 

costs that may be associated with future 

regulation of exports is discussed below. 

In the event implementing regulations 

are subsequently recommended by the 

Committee, additional analysis of the 

potential costs and benefits will be 

conducted as part of the informal 

rulemaking process. 

Under section 983.50 of the order and 

section 983.150 of the administrative 

rules and regulations, sampling, 

analysis, and inspection of pistachios 

for aflatoxin is required prior to 

shipment to domestic markets. Specific 

procedures and requirements for 

handlers to follow are prescribed. It is 

anticipated that any requirements 

recommended for export shipments 

would be similar to those in effect for 

domestic shipments. Thus, the 

associated costs would be similar. 

The costs of complying with aflatoxin 

regulations can be broken into three 

basic elements: sampling of the product, 

the market value of the product samples 

that are used in testing, and the cost of 

the aflatoxin analysis performed by 

laboratories. These costs can vary 

among handlers depending on their 

particular operations. In recognition of 

this, the Committee provided estimates 

of the various cost elements for 

purposes of this discussion. 

The cost of drawing samples from lots 

is estimated to range from $50.00 to 

$75.00 per lot. The variation in this cost 

can be attributed to factors such as the 

type of inspection program utilized by 

handlers. For purposes of this 

evaluation a cost factor of $70.00 per lot 

is utilized. The cost of the product used 

in sampling and testing varies 

depending upon the market price for 

pistachios. For purposes of this 

evaluation a value of $3.00 per pound 

as estimated by the Committee is 

utilized. At $3.00 per pound and a 44- 

pound sample, the cost of product used 

in sampling is $132.00 per lot. 

Laboratory costs for analyzing aflatoxin 

content are estimated to be $100.00 per 

test; with two tests per lot, the cost is 

$200.00 per lot. 

Pistachio lots tested for aflatoxin can 

vary in size, but for purposes of this 

evaluation, a lot size of 50,000 pounds 

is used as that is a reasonable 

representative size for a typical handler 

operation. Applying the above cost 

estimates to a lot size of 50,000 pounds 

results in the following cost estimates 

on a per pound basis: 

1. Sampling cost: $0.0014 per pound 

($70.00 per lot divided by 50,000 

pounds). 

2. Value of product used in sampling: 

$0.0026 per pound ($132.00 per lot 

divided by 50,000 pounds). 

3. Analytical cost of aflatoxin testing: 

$0.0040 per pound ($200 per sample 

divided by 50,000 pounds). 

This results in a total estimated per 

pound cost of $0.0080 ($0.0014 + 

$0.0026 + $0.0040), or 0.8 cents per 

pound. 

When compared to the market price 

for pistachios, the direct costs 

associated with an aflatoxin program are 

proportionately small. Utilizing a 

market price of $3.00 per pound as used 

in the above cost estimates, the costs of 

aflatoxin sampling and testing represent 

0.27 percent of the market price. Even 

if the market price for pistachios was 

$1.00 per pound, the aflatoxin sampling 

and testing costs would be well below 

one percent of the price. 

Most handlers who shipped 

pistachios to export markets in the past 

were signatories to a state marketing 

agreement that required aflatoxin 

sampling and analysis. That program 

was terminated in 2010. Since then, 

most handlers reportedly conduct 

aflatoxin testing and certification on 

export shipments to satisfy the 

requirements of the various markets. 

Therefore, the costs discussed above are 

already being borne by handlers. 

While difficult to quantify, one of the 

primary benefits of an aflatoxin program 

is the reduced risk of a potential food 

incident. For example, in the late 

1990’s, high aflatoxin levels were 

detected in pistachios in European 

markets. This led to a 60 percent 

decrease in pistachio imports in Europe, 

and it took several years for the market 

to return to more normal levels. The U.S 

was not dominant in the European 

market at that time, but in recent years, 

Europe has become an increasingly 

significant market for U.S. pistachios. 

Regardless of the location of the market, 

this example demonstrates the 

devastating effect a food quality or food 

safety issue can have on the marketing 

of a product. 

Another benefit of an aflatoxin testing 

program is the resulting reduction in the 

incidence of rejected shipments at their 

destination. Many countries test product 

prior to allowing its importation. 

Product that does not meet the 

importing country’s standards can be 

rejected and returned to the shipper. It 

is estimated that the cost of handling or 

returning a rejected lot is between 

$12,000 and $15,000 per lot. Product 

that has been tested prior to shipment 

based on the requirements of its market 

destination is less likely to be rejected 

and would not incur the associated 

costs. 

Avoiding a disruption in the 

marketing of pistachios in export 

markets is important in maintaining the 

viability of the industry. Shipments of 

open inshell pistachios increased 

dramatically in recent years; from 

95,761,666 pounds in the 2004–05 

shipping season to 192,436,136 pounds 

in the 2009–10 season, according to 

Committee data. Exports represented 

approximately 63 percent of total U.S. 

pistachio shipments during the 2009–10 

season. According to statistics reported 

by the Committee, total acreage in 

California increased from 117,773 acres 

in 2004 to 215,336 acres in 2010, 

representing an 83 percent increase. 

Much of this newer acreage is nonbearing and will come into production 

in the near future. These statistics 

demonstrate that domestic production 

of pistachios will continue to increase 

in the future, and export markets must 

be maintained to accommodate the 

increased supplies. 

Expanding order authority to include 

establishing aflatoxin requirements 

applicable to export shipments will 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES
36122 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 117 / Monday, June 18, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

provide an additional tool to aid in the 

marketing of pistachios covered under 

the order. In the event the authority is 

implemented, the potential costs 

associated with a mandatory aflatoxin 

program for exports are expected to be 

more than offset by the potential 

benefits discussed above. 

An analysis of the potential costs of 

adding authority to the order to 

establish quality regulations is not 

possible because no quality regulations 

are currently in effect under the order, 

and none are being contemplated. 

Quality regulations were in effect for 

domestic shipments from 2004 through 

2007, but were suspended because they 

were no longer meeting the industry’s 

needs. However, the order still contains 

broad authority for domestic quality 

regulations and the industry may desire 

to reinstate them if circumstances 

warrant. As a result of the increasing 

importance of the export market as 

demonstrated above, the Committee 

recommended adding authority to the 

order for quality regulation for export 

shipments in the event circumstances in 

the future warrant their implementation. 

A unanimous action of the Committee 

will be required to recommend the 

establishment of any export quality 

regulations. In addition, informal 

rulemaking will be required for 

implementation, and an analysis of the 

potential costs and benefits will need to 

be conducted during that process. 

The remaining amendments are 

administrative in nature and will have 

no economic impact on growers or 

handlers. One of the proposed 

amendments adds conforming language 

to another section of the order as a 

result of approval of other amendments, 

and another proposed amendment will 

correct an incorrect section reference in 

the order. 

Alternatives to these proposals 

include making no changes at this time. 

However, the Committee believes it will 

be beneficial to have the means 

necessary to apply regulations to the 

export markets if circumstances 

warrant. 

In accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 

chapter 35), the order’s information 

collection requirements have been 

previously approved by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) and 

assigned OMB No. 0581–0215, 

‘‘Pistachios Grown in California’’. No 

changes in those requirements as a 

result of this proceeding are anticipated. 

Should any changes become necessary, 

they will be submitted to OMB for 

approval. 

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. 

AMS is committed to complying with 

the E-Government Act, to promote the 

use of the Internet and other 

information technologies to provide 

increased opportunities for citizen 

access to Government information and 

services, and for other purposes. 

The Committee’s meeting, at which 

these proposals were discussed, was 

widely publicized throughout the 

pistachio industry. All interested 

persons were invited to attend the 

meeting and encouraged to participate 

in Committee deliberations on all 

issues. Like all Committee meetings, the 

meeting was public, and all entities, 

both large and small, were encouraged 

to express their views on these 

proposals. 

A proposed rule concerning this 

action was issued on June 5, 2011, and 

published in the Federal Register on 

June 13, 2011 (76 FR 34181). Copies of 

the rule were mailed or sent via 

facsimile to all Committee members and 

pistachio handlers. Finally, the rule was 

made available through the Internet by 

USDA and the Office of the Federal 

Register. A 30-day comment period 

ending July 13, 2011, was provided to 

allow interested persons to respond to 

the proposal. One comment was 

received in response to the proposal. 

The comment, submitted on behalf of a 

pistachio trade association, was 

supportive of the proposed 

amendments. No changes were made to 

the proposed amendments, based on the 

comment received. 

A proposed rule and referendum 

order was then issued on September 12, 

2011, and published in the Federal 

Register on September 15, 2011 (74 FR 

57001). This document directed that a 

referendum among pistachio producers 

be conducted during the period October 

3 through October 14, 2011, to 

determine whether they favor the 

proposed amendments to the order. To 

become effective, the amendments had 

to be approved by at least two-thirds of 

the producers voting, or two-thirds of 

the volume of pistachios represented by 

voters in the referendum. All of the 

proposed amendments were favored by 

at least 97 percent of those voting in the 

referendum and by at least 98 percent of 

the volume represented in the 

referendum. 

An amended marketing agreement 

was subsequently provided to all 

pistachio handlers in the production 

area for their approval. The marketing 

agreement was approved by handlers 

representing more than 50 percent of the 

volume of pistachios handled by all 

handlers covered under the order. 

A small business guide on complying 

with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop 

marketing agreements and orders may 

be viewed at: www.ams.usda.gov/ 

MarketingOrdersSmallBusinessGuide. 

Any questions about the compliance 

guide should be sent to Laurel May at 

the previously mentioned address in the 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section. 

Order Amending the Order Regulating 

the Handling of Pistachios Grown in 

California, Arizona, and New Mexico 

Findings and Determinations 

(a) Findings and Determinations Upon 

the Basis of the Rulemaking Record 

The findings hereinafter set forth are 

supplementary to the findings and 

determinations which were previously 

made in connection with the issuance of 

the marketing agreement and order; and 

all said previous findings and 

determinations are hereby ratified and 

affirmed, except insofar as such findings 

and determinations may be in conflict 

with the findings and determinations set 

forth herein. 

1. The marketing agreement and 

order, as amended, and all of the terms 

and conditions thereof, will tend to 

effectuate the declared policy of the Act; 

2. The marketing agreement and 

order, as amended, regulate the 

handling of pistachios grown in 

California, Arizona, and New Mexico in 

the same manner as, and are applicable 

only to, persons in the respective classes 

of commercial and industrial activity 

specified in the marketing agreement 

and order; 

3. The marketing agreement and 

order, as amended, are limited in 

application to the smallest regional 

production area which is practicable, 

consistent with carrying out the 

declared policy of the Act, and the 

issuance of several orders applicable to 

subdivisions of the production area 

would not effectively carry out the 

declared policy of the Act; 

4. The marketing agreement and 

order, as amended, prescribe, insofar as 

practicable, such different terms 

applicable to different parts of the 

production area as are necessary to give 

due recognition to the differences in the 

production and marketing of pistachios 

produced or packed in the production 

area; and 

5. All handling of pistachios 

produced in the production area as 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 117 / Monday, June 18, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 36123 

defined in the marketing agreement and 

order is in the current of interstate or 

foreign commerce or directly burdens, 

obstructs, or affects such commerce. 

(b) Additional Findings 

It is necessary and in the public 

interest to make these amendments 

effective not later than one day after 

publication in the Federal Register. A 

later effective date would unnecessarily 

delay implementation of the 

amendments. These amendments 

should be in place as soon as possible 

so that any regulations recommended as 

a result of these amendments can be in 

place prior to the next production year, 

which begins on September 1. In view 

of the foregoing, it is hereby found and 

determined that good cause exists for 

making these amendments effective one 

day after publication in the Federal 

Register, and that it would be contrary 

to the public interest to delay the 

effective date for 30 days after 

publication in the Federal Register. 

(Sec. 553(d), Administrative Procedure 

Act; 5 U.S.C. 551–559.) 

(c) Determinations 

It is hereby determined that: 

1. The ‘‘Marketing Agreement 

Regulating the Handling of Pistachios 

Grown in California, Arizona, and New 

Mexico,’’ has been signed by handlers 

(excluding cooperative associations of 

producers who are not engaged in 

processing, distributing, or shipping 

pistachios covered under the order) who 

during the period September 1, 2010, 

through August 31, 2011, handled not 

less than 50 percent of the volume of 

such pistachios covered under the 

order; and 

2. The issuance of this amendatory 

order, amending the aforesaid order, is 

favored or approved by at least twothirds of the producers who participated 

in a referendum on the question of 

approval and who, during the period of 

September 1, 2010, through August 31, 

2011, have been engaged within the 

production area in the production of 

such pistachios, such producers having 

also produced for market at least twothirds of the volume of such commodity 

represented in the referendum. 

Order Relative to Handling 

It is therefore ordered, That on and 

after the effective date hereof, all 

handling of pistachios grown in 

California, Arizona, and New Mexico 

shall be in conformity to, and in 

compliance with, the terms and 

conditions of the said order as hereby 

amended as follows: 

The provisions of the proposed 

marketing order amending the order 

contained in the proposed rule issued 

by the Administrator on September 12, 

2011, and published in the Federal 

Register on September 15, 2011 (76 FR 

57001), shall be and are the terms and 

provisions of this order amending the 

order and are set forth in full herein. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 983 

Pistachios, Marketing agreements and 

orders, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, 7 CFR Part 983 is amended as 

follows: 

PART 983—PISTACHIOS GROWN IN 

CALIFORNIA, ARIZONA, AND NEW 

MEXICO 

■ 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR 

part 983 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674. 

■ 2. Revise § 983.50 to read as follows: 

§ 983.50 Aflatoxin regulations. 

The committee shall establish, with 

the approval of the Secretary, such 

aflatoxin sampling, analysis, and 

inspection requirements applicable to 

pistachios to be shipped for domestic 

human consumption as will contribute 

to orderly marketing or be in the public 

interest. The committee may also 

establish, with the approval of the 

Secretary, such requirements for 

pistachios to be shipped for human 

consumption in export markets. No 

handler shall ship, for human 

consumption in domestic, or if 

applicable, export markets, pistachios 

that exceed an aflatoxin level 

established by the committee and 

approved by the Secretary. All 

shipments to markets for which 

requirements have been established 

must be covered by an aflatoxin 

inspection certificate. The committee 

may, with the approval of the Secretary, 

establish different sampling, analysis, 

and inspection requirements, and 

different aflatoxin level requirements, 

for different markets. 

■ 3. Revise § 983.51 to read as follows: 

§ 983.51 Quality regulations. 

For any production year, the 

committee may establish, with the 

approval of the Secretary, such quality 

and inspection requirements applicable 

to pistachios shipped for human 

consumption in domestic or export 

markets as will contribute to orderly 

marketing or be in the public interest. In 

such production year, no handler shall 

ship pistachios for human consumption 

in domestic, or if applicable, export 

markets unless they meet the applicable 

requirements as evidenced by 

certification acceptable to the 

committee. The committee may, with 

the approval of the Secretary, establish 

different quality and inspection 

requirements for different markets. 

■ 4. Amend § 983.53 by removing the 

reference to ‘‘§ 983.50’’ an adding in its 

place ‘‘§ 983.52’’ in paragraph (a)(2). 

■ 5. Revise § 983.57 to read as follows: 

§ 983.57 Substandard pistachios. 

The committee shall, with the 

approval of the Secretary, establish such 

reporting and disposition procedures as 

it deems necessary to ensure that 

pistachios which do not meet aflatoxin 

and quality requirements are not 

shipped for human consumption in 

those markets for which such 

requirements exist pursuant to § 983.50 

and § 983.51. 

Dated: June 13, 2012. 

David R. Shipman, 

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2012–14813 Filed 6–15–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 25 

[Docket No. FAA–2012–0625; Special 

Conditions No. 25–465–SC] 

Special Conditions: Gulfstream 

Aerospace LP (GALP), Model 

Gulfstream G280 Airplane; Aircraft 

Electronic System Security Protection 

From Unauthorized External Access 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final special conditions; request 

for comments. 

SUMMARY: These special conditions are 

issued for the Gulfstream Aerospace LP, 

Model Gulfstream G280 airplane. This 

airplane will have novel or unusual 

design features associated with the 

architecture and connectivity 

capabilities of the airplane’s computer 

systems and networks, which may allow 

access to or by external computer 

systems and networks. Connectivity to, 

or access by, external systems and 

networks may result in security 

vulnerabilities to the airplane’s systems. 

The applicable airworthiness 

regulations do not contain adequate or 

appropriate safety standards for these 

design features. These special 

conditions contain the additional safety 

standards that the Administrator 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES