31888 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 106 / Thursday, June 2, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Lastly, AFFI suggested that with the 

criteria for ‘‘Cap Ends’’ above and the 

tolerances given for ‘‘Tough Fiber’’, the 

‘‘Inedible Stems’’ category was no longer 

needed. 

Subsequent to their submission of 

comments, and upon further discussion 

with AFFI through several discussion 

drafts between September 2008 and 

February 2011, the following changes 

also were proposed. From the definition 

of ‘‘Appearance’’, the reference to ‘‘for 

regular process’’ would be deleted. This 

terminology does not apply to the 

concept of the term, ‘‘Appearance’’ and 

its elimination from the proposed 

standards would have no impact on the 

grade of the product. 

Also, in the definition of the term, 

Appearance, under Good Appearance, 

‘‘reasonably free’’ would be changed to 

‘‘practically free’’, and under 

‘‘Reasonably Good Appearance,’’ ‘‘fairly 

free’’ would be changed to ‘‘reasonably 

free’’. Under the term, ‘‘Flavor and odor,’’ 

in the reference to ‘‘Normal flavor and 

odor,’’ ‘‘Normal’’ would be changed to 

‘‘Reasonably Good’’. 

These changes would provide a 

uniform format consistent with recent 

revisions of other U.S. grade standards. 

The term, ‘‘Hard, woody okra material’’ 

would be added to the standards. These 

terms and allowances currently are in 

the USDA grading manual for frozen 

okra effective January 1996, and as such, 

the standards should be updated. 

This proposed revision of the frozen 

okra standard would revise the text of 

the standard to provide a common 

language for trade and better reflect the 

current marketing of frozen okra. The 

official grade of a lot of frozen okra 

covered by these standards is 

determined by the procedures set forth 

in the ‘‘Regulations Governing 

Inspection and Certification of 

Processed Products Thereof, and Certain 

Other Processed Food Products (§ 52.1 

to 52.83).’’ 

AMS is publishing this notice with a 

sixty day comment period that will 

provide a sufficient amount of time for 

interested persons to comment on the 

proposed revision to the standards. 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1621–1627. 

Dated: May 9, 2011. 

Ellen King, 

Acting Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–11718 Filed 6–1–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

7 CFR Parts 916 and 917 

[Doc. No. AMS–FV–11–0018; FV11–916/917– 

4 PR] 

Nectarines and Fresh Peaches Grown 

in California; Termination of Marketing 

Order 916 and the Peach Provisions of 

Marketing Order 917 

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This rule invites comments 

on the proposed termination of the 

Federal marketing orders regulating the 

handling of nectarines and fresh 

peaches grown in California (orders) 

and the rules and regulations issued 

thereunder. This action is based upon a 

decision by the Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) following referenda 

conducted among industry growers. As 

provided under the orders, USDA 

considers order termination if fewer 

than two-thirds of growers participating 

in regularly scheduled continuance 

referenda, by number and production 

volume, support continuance. In 2011 

referenda, growers failed to support 

continuance of the orders and their 

programs in sufficient numbers and 

USDA now proposes to terminate the 

orders. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

June 17, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

invited to submit written comments 

concerning this proposal. Comments 

must be sent to the Docket Clerk, 

Marketing Order Administration 

Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, 

AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence 

Avenue, SW., STOP 0237, Washington, 

DC 20250–0237; Fax: (202) 720–8938; or 

Internet: http://www.regulations.gov. All 

comments should reference the 

document number and the date and 

page number of this issue of the Federal 

Register and will be made available for 

public inspection in the Office of the 

Docket Clerk during regular business 

hours, or can be viewed at: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. All comments 

submitted in response to this rule will 

be included in the record and will be 

made available to the public. Please be 

advised that the identity of the 

individuals or entities submitting the 

comments will be made public on the 

Internet at the address provided above. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerry 

L. Simmons, Marketing Specialist, or 

Kurt J. Kimmel, Regional Manager, 

California Marketing Field Office, 

Marketing Order Administration 

Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, 

AMS, USDA; Telephone: (559) 487– 

5901; Fax: (559) 487–5906; or E-mail: 

Jerry.Simmons@ams.usda.gov or 

Kurt.Kimmel@ams.usda.gov. 

Small businesses may request 

information on complying with this 

regulation 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 

proposed rule is issued under Marketing 

Order Nos. 916 and 917, both as 

amended (7 CFR parts 916 and 917), 

regulating the handling of nectarines 

and peaches grown in California, 

respectively, hereinafter referred to as 

the ‘‘orders.’’ The orders are effective 

under the Agricultural Marketing 

Agreement Act of 1937, as amended 

(7 U.S.C. 601–674), hereinafter referred 

to as the ‘‘Act.’’ 

USDA is issuing this rule in 

conformance with Executive Order 

12866. 

This proposal to terminate the orders 

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. 

This rule proposes to terminate 

Marketing Order 916—the nectarine 

order—and the peach provisions of 

Marketing Order 917—the fresh pear 

and peach order—as well as the 

pertinent rules and regulations issued 

thereunder. USDA believes that 

termination of these programs would be 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 106 / Thursday, June 2, 2011 / Proposed Rules 31889 

appropriate because the programs are no 

longer favored by industry growers. 

The orders authorize regulation of the 

handling of nectarines and fresh pears 

and peaches grown in California. 

Sections 916.64 and 917.61 of the orders 

require USDA to conduct continuance 

referenda among growers of these fruits 

every four years to ascertain continuing 

support for the orders and their 

programs. These sections further require 

USDA to terminate the orders if it finds 

that the provisions of the orders no 

longer tend to effectuate the declared 

policy of the Act. Section 608c(16)(A) of 

the Act requires USDA to terminate or 

suspend the operation of any order 

whenever the order or any provision 

thereof obstructs or does not tend to 

effectuate the declared policy of the Act. 

Finally, USDA is required to notify 

Congress of the intended terminations 

not later than 60 days before the date 

the orders would be terminated. 

Continuance referenda were 

conducted among growers of California 

nectarines and fresh pears and peaches 

in January and February 2011. Fewer 

than two-thirds of participating growers, 

by number and production volume, 

voted in favor of continuing the 

nectarine and peach orders. By contrast, 

more than 94 percent of pear growers 

voted to continue the pear order 

provisions. 

Grower support for the programs was 

similar in the last referenda, which were 

conducted in 2003. USDA conducted 

public listening sessions following the 

referenda and found that the nectarine 

and peach orders might continue to 

benefit the industries if modifications 

were made to the programs. 

Subsequently, several revisions were 

made to the orders and the handling 

regulations over the last several years. 

Continuance referendum requirements 

were suspended for 2007 because the 

orders had just been amended, and the 

industries wanted to operate the 

amended orders for a period of time 

before voting again on continuance. 

Nevertheless, the results of the most 

recent referenda, as well as feedback 

from the industries over the last few 

years, suggest that the nectarine and 

peach programs no longer meet industry 

needs and that the benefits of such 

programs no longer outweigh costs to 

handlers and growers. USDA believes 

that the referendum results and industry 

feedback support termination of the 

programs. 

As stated earlier, pear growers in the 

most recent referendum, as well as in 

previous referenda, supported 

continuance of the pear order 

provisions, which have been suspended 

since 1994 (59 FR 10055; March 3, 

1994). USDA does not intend to 

terminate the pear order provisions at 

this time. The remainder of this 

document pertains to the termination of 

the nectarine and peach order 

provisions only. 

The nectarine order has been in effect 

since 1958, and the peach order since 

1939. Operating under the management 

umbrella of the California Tree Fruit 

Agreement (CTFA), the orders have 

provided the California fresh tree fruit 

industries with authority for grade, size, 

quality, maturity, pack, and container 

regulations, as well as the authority for 

mandatory inspection. The orders also 

authorize production research and 

marketing research and development 

projects, as well as the necessary 

reporting, recordkeeping, and 

assessment functions required for 

operation. 

Based on the referendum results and 

other pertinent factors, USDA 

suspended the orders’ handling 

regulations on April 19, 2011 (76 FR 

21615). The suspended handling 

regulations consist of minimum quality 

and inspection requirements for 

nectarines and peaches marked with the 

‘‘California Well Matured’’ label, which 

is available for use only by handlers 

complying with prescribed quality and 

maturity requirements under the orders. 

As well, all reporting and assessment 

requirements were suspended. 

Originally established to maintain the 

orderly marketing of California tree 

fruit, the quality regulations under the 

order evolved over the years to reflect 

industry trends. The ‘‘California Well 

Matured’’ label was developed to define 

standards for premium quality fruit 

harvested and packed at its peak to 

satisfy customer demands. Working 

with the Federal and Federal-State 

Inspection Programs, the Nectarine 

Administrative Committee and Peach 

Commodity Committee (committees), 

which administer the day-to-day 

operations of the programs, 

recommended variety-specific size and 

maturity standards that were 

incorporated into the regulations. These 

standards helped ensure that the 

industry marketed and shipped the 

highest quality fruit, which in turn 

supported increased returns to growers 

and handlers. A ‘‘utility grade’’ was 

defined to allow for the movement of a 

certain percentage of lesser quality fruit 

to markets where it could be sold 

without undermining the industry’s 

overall marketing goals. 

Funded through assessments paid by 

handlers, the committees sponsored 

production research programs to 

address grower needs such as pesticide 

use and development of new fruit 

varieties. As well, post-harvest handling 

concerns, such as container and pack 

configuration, were addressed through 

committee-funded research. Assessment 

funds were also used to fund market 

research and development projects, 

promoting California tree fruit in both 

domestic and international markets. 

In recent years, changes in the 

industry led the committees to reduce 

the number of programs they supported 

through the orders. Because many 

customers now establish their own 

quality standards, the committees felt it 

was no longer essential to mandate 

inspection and certification of packed 

fruit to marketing order standards. 

During the last few years, only those 

handlers wishing to use the ‘‘California 

Well Matured’’ label were required to 

obtain inspection and certification. With 

the consolidation of many smaller 

farms, larger companies have 

undertaken their own research and 

promotion programs, thus minimizing 

the desirability of committee-funded 

generic programs. 

The industries proposed several 

amendments to the orders, which were 

effectuated in 2006 and 2007 (71 FR 

41345; July 21, 2006). The amendments 

modernized the orders to streamline 

administration of the programs. The 

district boundaries within the regulated 

production areas were redefined, and 

the committee structures and 

nomination procedures were modified 

to provide greater opportunities for 

participation in committee activities by 

industry members. 

Despite USDA efforts to help refine 

the programs over the past several years, 

growers have continued to express their 

belief that the programs no longer meet 

their needs. These referendum results 

demonstrate a lack of grower support 

needed to carry out the objectives of the 

Act. Thus, it has been determined that 

the provisions of the orders no longer 

tend to effectuate the declared policy of 

the Act and should be terminated. 

Specifically, part 916, regulating the 

handling of nectarines grown in 

California would be removed from the 

Code of Federal Regulations. In part 

917, which regulates the handling of 

both pears and peaches, §§ 916.8, 

917.22, 917.150, 917.258, 917.259, 

917.442, and 917.459, which relate 

solely to peaches, would be removed. 

§§ 917.4, 917.5, 917.6, 917.15, 917.20, 

917.24, 917.25, 917.26, 917.28, 917.29, 

917.34, 917.35, 917.37, 917.100, 

917.119, and 917.143 would be revised 

to remove references to peaches and to 

conform to removal of other sections. In 

some sections of part 917, language 

relating to the regulation of pears is 

currently suspended. Such suspensions 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
31890 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 106 / Thursday, June 2, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

would be lifted to facilitate revision of 

these sections. Finally, the remaining 

provisions and administrative rules and 

regulations under part 917 would be 

suspended indefinitely. 

This proposed rule is intended to 

solicit input and any additional 

information available from interested 

parties regarding whether the nectarine 

and peach order provisions should be 

terminated. USDA will evaluate all 

available information prior to making a 

final determination on this matter. 

Termination of the orders would 

become effective only after a 60-day 

notification to Congress, as required by 

law. 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Pursuant to the 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 

rule on small entities. Accordingly, 

AMS has prepared this initial 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 the 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 97 California 

nectarine and peach handlers subject to 

regulation under the orders covering 

nectarines and peaches grown in 

California, and about 447 growers of 

these fruits in California. Small 

agricultural service firms, which 

include handlers, are defined by the 

Small Business Administration (SBA) 

(13 CFR 121.201) as those having annual 

receipts of less than $7,000,000, and 

small agricultural growers are defined as 

those having annual receipts of less than 

$750,000. A majority of these handlers 

and growers may be classified as small 

entities. 

For the 2010 marketing season, the 

committees’ staff estimated that the 

average handler price received was 

$10.50 per container or container 

equivalent of nectarines or peaches. A 

handler would have to ship at least 

666,667 containers to have annual 

receipts of $7,000,000. Given data on 

shipments maintained by the 

committees’ staff and the average 

handler price received during the 2010 

season, the committees’ staff estimates 

that approximately 46 percent of 

handlers in the industry would be 

considered small entities. 

For the 2010 marketing season, the 

committees’ staff estimated the average 

grower price received was $5.50 per 

container or container equivalent for 

nectarines and peaches. A grower would 

have to produce at least 136,364 

containers of nectarines and peaches to 

have annual receipts of $750,000. Given 

data maintained by the committees’ staff 

and the average grower price received 

during the 2010 season, the committees’ 

staff estimates that more than 80 percent 

of the growers within the industry 

would be considered small entities. 

This rule proposes to terminate the 

Federal marketing orders for nectarines 

and peaches grown in California, and 

the rules and regulations issued 

thereunder. USDA believes that the 

orders no longer meet the needs of 

growers and handlers. The results of 

recent grower referenda and experience 

with the industries support order 

terminations. 

Sections 916.64 and 917.61 of the 

orders provide that USDA shall 

terminate or suspend any or all 

provisions of the orders when a finding 

is made that the orders do not tend to 

effectuate the declared policy of the Act. 

Furthermore, section 608c(16)(A) of the 

Act provides that USDA shall terminate 

or suspend the operation of any order 

whenever the order or provision thereof 

obstructs or does not tend to effectuate 

the declared policy of the Act. An 

additional provision requires that 

Congress be notified not later than 60 

days before the date the orders would be 

terminated. 

Although marketing order 

requirements are applied to handlers, 

the costs of such requirements are often 

passed on to growers. Termination of 

the orders, and the resulting regulatory 

relaxation, would therefore be expected 

to reduce costs for both handlers and 

growers. 

As an alternative to this rule, AMS 

considered not terminating the 

nectarine and peach order provisions. In 

that case, the industries could have 

recommended further refinements to the 

orders and the handling regulations in 

order to meet current marketing needs. 

However, such changes made to the 

programs over the last several years 

have failed to improve the programs 

enough to warrant continuing grower 

support. Therefore, this alternative was 

rejected, and AMS recommended that 

the programs be terminated. 

This proposed rule is intended to 

solicit input and other available 

information from interested parties on 

whether the orders should be 

terminated. USDA will evaluate all 

available information prior to making a 

final determination on this matter. 

In accordance with the Paperwork 

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

chapter 35), the information collection 

requirements being terminated were 

approved previously by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) and 

assigned OMB No. 0581–0189, Generic 

Fruit Crops. Termination of the 

reporting requirements under the orders 

would reduce the reporting and 

recordkeeping burden on California 

nectarine and peach handlers by 339.45 

hours, and should further reduce 

industry expenses. Since handlers 

would no longer be required to file 

forms with the Committee, this 

proposed rule would thus not impose 

any additional reporting or 

recordkeeping requirements on either 

small or large entities. 

On February 25, 2011, AMS 

published a notice and request for 

comments regarding the request for 

OMB approval of a new information 

collection for nectarine and peach 

handlers (76 FR 10555). Five new forms 

were proposed for the collection of 

industry information that would have 

facilitated administration of the orders. 

Such information collection would have 

increased the annual reporting burden 

for industry handlers by 2,878.70 hours. 

The request for OMB approval of the 

new information collection has been 

withdrawn. 

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 grower referendum was well 

publicized in the production area, and 

referendum ballots were mailed to all 

known growers of nectarines and 

peaches in California. As well, all 

interested persons have been invited to 

attend the committees’ meetings over 

the years and participate in discussions 

regarding the programs developed under 

the orders. Finally, interested persons 

are invited to submit comments on this 

proposed rule, including the regulatory 

and informational impacts of this action 

on small businesses. 

A small business guide on complying 

with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop 

marketing agreements and orders may 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 106 / Thursday, June 2, 2011 / Proposed Rules 31891 

be viewed at: http://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. 

Based on the foregoing, and pursuant 

to section 608c(16)(A) of the Act and 

§§ 916.64 and 917.61 of the orders, 

USDA is proposing termination of the 

orders. Upon termination of the orders, 

trustees would be appointed to 

conclude and liquidate the affairs of the 

committees, and would continue in that 

capacity until discharged by USDA. In 

addition, USDA would notify Congress 

60 days in advance of termination 

pursuant to section 608c(16)(A) of the 

Act. 

A 15-day comment period is provided 

to allow interested persons to respond 

to this proposal. Fifteen days is deemed 

appropriate because (1) growers did not 

support continuance of the order in the 

recent referenda, (2) USDA announced 

its intent to terminate the orders 

through a press release issued March 25, 

2011, and (3) all nectarine and peach 

handling regulations have been 

suspended. All written comments 

timely received will be considered 

before a final determination is made on 

this matter. 

List of Subjects 

7 CFR Part 916 

Marketing agreements, Nectarines, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

7 CFR Part 917 

Marketing agreements, Peaches, Pears, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, 7 CFR chapter IX is proposed 

to be amended as follows: 

PART 916—[REMOVED] 

1. Under the authority of 7 U.S.C. 

601–674, 7 CFR part 916 is removed. 

PART 917—FRESH PEARS AND 

PEACHES GROWN IN CALIFORNIA 

2. The authority citation for 7 CFR 

part 917 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674. 

§§ 917.1 through 917.3 [Suspended] 

3. Sections 917.1 through 917.3 are 

suspended indefinitely. 

§ 917.4 [Amended] 

4. In § 917.4, lift the suspension of 

January 1, 2007 (71 FR 41351); remove 

paragraphs (a) and (b); redesignate 

paragraph (c) as paragraph (a); and 

suspend the section indefinitely. 

§ 917.5 [Amended] 

5. In § 917.5, remove the second 

sentence and suspend the section 

indefinitely. 

§ 917.6 [Amended] 

6. In § 917.6, remove the words ‘‘That 

for peaches, packing or causing the fruit 

to be packed also constitutes handling; 

Provided further,’’ and suspend the 

section indefinitely. 

§ 917.7 [Suspended] 

7. Section 917.7 is suspended 

indefinitely. 

§ 917.8 [Removed] 

8. Remove § 917.8. 

§ 917.9 [Suspended] 

9. Section 917.9 is suspended 

indefinitely. 

§§ 917.11 through 917.14 [Suspended] 

10. Sections 917.11 through 917.14 

are suspended indefinitely. 

§ 917.15 [Amended] 

11. In § 917.15, lift the suspension of 

April 4, 1994 (59 FR 10055), remove the 

words ‘‘§§ 917.21 through 917.22,’’ and 

add in their place the words ‘‘§ 917.21,’’ 

and suspend the section indefinitely. 

§§ 917.16 through 917.19 [Suspended] 

12. Sections 917.16 through 917.19 

are suspended indefinitely. 

13. In § 917.20, lift the suspension of 

April 4, 1994 (59 FR 10055), and revise 

the section to read as follows, and 

suspend the section indefinitely: 

§ 917.20 Designation of members of 

commodity committees. 

There is hereby established a Pear 

Commodity Committee consisting of 13 

members. Each commodity committee 

may be increased by one public member 

nominated by the respective commodity 

committee and selected by the 

Secretary. The members of each said 

committee shall be selected biennially 

for a term ending on the last day of 

February of odd numbered years, and 

such members shall serve until their 

respective successors are selected and 

have qualified. The members of each 

commodity committee shall be selected 

in accordance with the provisions of 

§ 917.25. 

§ 917.22 [Removed] 

14. Remove § 917.22. 

15. In § 917.24, lift the suspensions of 

April 4, 1994 (59 FR 10055), and 

February 21, 2007 (72 FR 7821), revise 

the section, and suspend the section 

indefinitely. The revision reads as 

follows: 

§ 917.24 Procedure for nominating 

members of various commodity 

committees. 

(a) The Control Committee shall hold 

or cause to be held not later than 

February 15 for pears of each odd 

numbered year a meeting or meetings of 

the growers of the fruits in each 

representation area set forth in § 917.21. 

These meetings shall be supervised by 

the Control Committee, which shall 

prescribe such procedures as shall be 

reasonable and fair to all persons 

concerned. 

(b) With respect to each commodity 

committee, only growers of the 

particular fruit who are present at such 

nomination meetings or represented at 

such meetings by duly authorized 

employees may participate in the 

nomination and election of nominees 

for commodity committee members and 

alternates. Each such grower, including 

employees of such grower, shall be 

entitled to cast but one vote for each 

position to be filled for the 

representation area in which he 

produces such fruit. 

(c) A particular grower, including 

employees of such growers, shall be 

eligible for membership as principle or 

alternate to fill only one position on a 

commodity committee. A grower 

nominated for membership on the Pear 

Commodity Committee must have 

produced at least 51 percent of the pears 

shipped by him during the previous 

fiscal period, or he must represent an 

organization which produced at least 51 

percent of the pears shipped by it 

during such period. 

§ 917.25 [Amended] 

16. In § 917.25, lift the suspension of 

January 1, 2007 (71 FR 41352), remove 

the paragraph (a) designation and 

remove paragraph (b), and suspend the 

section indefinitely. 

§ 917.26 [Amended] 

17. In § 917.26, lift the suspension of 

April 4, 1994 (59 FR 10055), remove the 

references ‘‘§§ 917.21 and 917.22’’ and 

add in their place the reference 

‘‘§ 917.21,’’ and suspend the section 

indefinitely. 

§ 917.27 [Suspended] 

18. Section 917.27 is suspended 

indefinitely. 

§ 917.28 [Amended] 

19. In § 917.28, lift the suspension of 

April 4, 1994 (59 FR 10055), remove the 

references ‘‘§§ 917.16, 917.21, and 

917.22’’ and add in their place the 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
31892 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 106 / Thursday, June 2, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

references ‘‘§§ 917.16 and 917.21,’’ and 

suspend the section indefinitely. 

§ 917.29 [Amended] 

20. In § 917.29, lift the suspension of 

April 4, 1994 (59 FR 10055), remove the 

words ‘‘and of the Peach Commodity 

Committee’’ and ‘‘each’’ from paragraph 

(b), remove the final sentence of 

paragraph (d), and suspend the section 

indefinitely. 

§§ 917.30 through 917.33 [Suspended] 

21. Sections 917.30 through 917.33 

are suspended indefinitely. 

§ 917.36 [Suspended] 

22. Section 917.36 is suspended 

indefinitely. 

§ 917.34 [Amended] 

23. In § 917.34, lift the suspension of 

April 4, 1994 (59 FR 10055), remove the 

references ‘‘§§ 917.21 and 917.22’’ in 

paragraph (k) and add in their place the 

references ‘‘§ 917.21,’’ and suspend the 

section indefinitely. 

§ 917.35 [Amended] 

24. In § 917.35, lift the suspension of 

April 4, 1994 (59 FR 10055), remove the 

words ‘‘Peach and’’ and ‘‘each’’ wherever 

they appear in paragraph (a), remove the 

final sentence of paragraph (d), and 

suspend the section indefinitely. 

§ 917.37 [Amended] 

25. In § 917.37, remove the final three 

sentences of paragraph (b) and suspend 

the section indefinitely. 

§§ 917.38 through 917.43 [Suspended] 

26. Sections 917.38 through 917.43 

are suspended indefinitely. 

§ 917.45 [Suspended] 

27. Section 917.45 is suspended 

indefinitely. 

§ 917.50 [Suspended] 

28. Section 917.50 is suspended 

indefinitely. 

§§ 917.60 through 917.69 [Suspended] 

29. Sections 917.60 through 917.69 

are suspended indefinitely. 

§ 917.100 [Amended] 

30. In § 917.100, lift the suspension of 

April 4, 1994 (59 FR 10055), remove the 

words ‘‘and peaches,’’ and suspend the 

section indefinitely. 

§§ 917.101 through 917.115 [Suspended] 

31. Sections 917.101 through 917.115 

are suspended indefinitely. 

§ 917.119 [Amended] 

32. In § 917.119, remove paragraph 

(a), redesignate paragraphs (b) through 

(e) as paragraphs (a) through (d), and 

suspend the section indefinitely. 

§ 917.122 [Suspended] 

33. Section 917.122 is suspended 

indefinitely. 

§ 917.143 [Amended] 

34. In § 917.143, lift the suspension of 

April 4, 1994 (59 FR 10055); remove the 

words ‘‘and peaches’’ from paragraph (b) 

introductory text and from paragraphs 

(b)(1), (b)(2), and (b)(4); remove the 

words ‘‘and 200 pounds of peaches’’ 

from paragraph (b)(3); and suspend the 

section indefinitely. 

§ 917.150 [Removed] 

35. Remove § 917.150. 

§ 917.258 [Removed] 

36. Remove § 917.258. 

§ 917.259 [Removed] 

37. Remove § 917.259. 

§ 917.442 [Removed] 

38. Remove § 917.442. 

§ 917.459 [Removed] 

39. Remove § 917.459. 

Dated: May 24, 2011. 

Rayne Pegg, 

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–13498 Filed 6–1–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 

20 CFR Chapter III 

[Docket No. SSA–2011–0042] 

Retrospective Review Under E.O. 

13563 

AGENCY: Social Security Administration. 

ACTION: Request for information. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with Executive 

Order (E.O.) 13563, ‘‘Improving 

Regulation and Regulatory Review,’’ we 

are announcing that our preliminary 

plan for retrospective review is available 

for public comment. We are now 

requesting comments on the plan. 

DATES: To be sure that we consider your 

comments, we must receive them by 

June 27, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Please send your comments 

to RegsReview@ssa.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Martin Sussman, Senior Advisor for 

Regulations, Social Security 

Administration, 6401 Security 

Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235–6401, 

(410) 965–1767. For information on 

eligibility or filing for benefits, call our 

national toll-free number, 1–800–772– 

1213 or TTY 1–800–325–0778, or visit 

our Internet site, Social Security Online, 

at http://www.socialsecurity.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

January 18, 2011, the President issued 

E.O. 13563, ‘‘Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review,’’ which requires 

Federal agencies to develop a 

preliminary plan to ‘‘periodically review 

its existing significant regulations’’ 

(section 6(b)). On January 25, 2011, we 

issued a press release and posted 

information on our Open Government 

Web site requesting public comment 

about which of our regulations we 

should review to ensure they are not 

outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or 

excessively burdensome. 

We developed a preliminary plan for 

retrospective review and submitted it to 

the Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs in the Office of Management and 

Budget. The plan focuses on our process 

for updating the Listing of Impairments 

(Listings) that we use to evaluate 

disability claims under titles II and XVI 

of the Social Security Act (Act). The 

listings are examples of impairments 

that we consider severe enough to 

prevent an adult from doing any gainful 

activity or that we consider severe 

enough to result in marked and severe 

functional limitations for a child 

seeking SSI payments. The plan also 

includes two initiatives to reduce 

paperwork burdens on the public 

imposed by certain agency regulations. 

We have posted the preliminary plan 

on our Open Government Web site, 

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/open/ 

regsreview, and are now requesting 

public comments on the plan. Please 

note that in this notice, we are not 

requesting comments on the content of 

the Listings, but rather on the plan 

itself, which describes our process for 

updating the Listings. We will carefully 

review all comments, but we will not to 

respond to them individually. 

Dated: May 25, 2011. 

Dean Landis, 

Deputy Chief of Staff, Social Security 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2011–13620 Filed 6–1–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4191–02–P 

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY 

COMMISSION 

29 CFR Part 1602 

RIN 3046–AA89 

Recordkeeping and Reporting 

Requirements Under Title VII, the ADA, 

and GINA 

AGENCY: Equal Employment 

Opportunity Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS