### 37928 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 128 / Thursday, July 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

information about SIGAR and about themselves maintained by SIGAR. The absence of well-defined exemptions to the Privacy Act regulations could impair the confidentiality and privacy rights of

those who submit sensitive information to SIGAR as well as the ability of SIGAR to use that information to carry out its statutory mission. SIGAR has

determined that this interim rule should be issued without a delayed effective date pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).

Finally, notice of proposed rulemaking is not required, because the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. Chapter 6) do not apply.

It has been determined that this rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action for the purposes of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, a regulatory impact analysis is not required.

Dated: June 6, 2014.
John F. Sopko,
Inspector General.

List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 9301

Administrative practice and procedure, Freedom of information, Privacy.

Authority and Issuance

For the reasons set forth above, SIGAR amends 5 CFR part 9301 as follows:

**PART 9301—[AMENDED]**

■ 1. The authority citation for part 9301

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552; Pub. L. 110–175, 121 Stat. 2524 (2007); 5 U.S.C. 301 and 552; Exec. Order 12600, 52 FR 23781, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 235; Exec. Order No. 13392, 70 FR 75373–75377, 3 CFR, 2006 Comp., pp. 216–

200.

■ 2. Section 9301.20 is added to read as

follows:

**§ 9301.20 Exemptions.**

Systems of records maintained by SIGAR are authorized to be exempted from certain provisions of the Privacy Act under the general and specific exemptions set forth in the Act. In utilizing these exemptions, SIGAR is exempting only those portions of systems that are necessary for the proper functioning of SIGAR and that are consistent with the Privacy Act. Where compliance would not appear to interfere with or adversely affect the law enforcement process, and/or where it may be appropriate to permit individuals to contest the accuracy of the information collected, e.g., public source materials, the applicable exemption may be waived, either partially or totally, by SIGAR, in the sole discretion of SIGAR, as appropriate. (a) General exemptions. (1) Individuals may not have access to records maintained by SIGAR that were provided by another agency that has determined by regulation that such information is subject to general exemption under 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(1). If such exempt records are the subject of an access request, SIGAR will advise the requester of their existence and of the name and address of the source agency, unless that information is itself exempt

from disclosure.

(2) The systems of records maintained by the Investigations Directorate (SIGAR–08), are subject to general exemption under 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2). All records contained in record system SIGAR–08, Investigations Records, are exempt from all provisions of the Privacy Act except sections (b), (c)(1) and (2), (e)(4)(A) through (F), (e)(6), (7), (9), (10), and (11), and (i) to the extent to which they meet the criteria of section (j)(2). These exemptions are necessary to ensure the effectiveness of the investigative, judicial, and protective processes. These exemptions are necessary to ensure the proper

functions of the law enforcement activity, to protect confidential sources of information, to fulfill promises of confidentiality, to prevent interference with the enforcement of criminal laws, to avoid the disclosure of investigative techniques, to avoid the endangering of the life and safety of any individual, to avoid premature disclosure of the knowledge of potential criminal activity and the evidentiary bases of possible enforcement actions, and to maintain the integrity of the law enforcement

process.

(3) The systems of records maintained by the Investigations Directorate (SIGAR–08) are exempted from 5 U.S.C. 552a (c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (H), and (I), and (f) pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1), (2), and (5). These exemptions are necessary to protect material required to be kept secret in the interest of national defense and foreign policy; to prevent individuals that are the subject of investigation from frustrating the investigatory process; to ensure the proper functioning and integrity of law enforcement activities; to prevent disclosure of investigative techniques; to maintain the confidence of foreign governments in the integrity of the procedures under which privileged or confidential information may be provided; to fulfill commitments made to sources to protect their identities and the confidentiality of information and to avoid endangering

these sources and law enforcement personnel; and to ensure the proper functioning of the investigatory process, to ensure effective determination of suitability, eligibility, and qualification for employment and to protect the confidentiality of sources of

information.

(b) [Reserved]

[FR Doc. 2014–14194 Filed 7–2–14; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE P**

**DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE**

**Agricultural Marketing Service**

**7 CFR Part 906**

**[Doc. No. AMS–FV–14–0015; FV14–906–2 FIR]** 

**Oranges and Grapefruit Grown in Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas;**  **Change in Size and Grade Requirements for Grapefruit** 

**AGENCY :**  Agricultural Marketing Service,

USDA.

**ACTION :**  Affirmation of interim rule as

final rule.

**SUMMARY :**  The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is adopting, as a final rule, without change, an interim

rule that relaxed the minimum size and grade requirements prescribed for grapefruit under the marketing order for oranges and grapefruit grown the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas (order). The

interim rule relaxed the minimum size requirement for grapefruit from 3–5/16

inches to 3 inches in diameter and reduced the minimum grade requirement for small-sized grapefruit. This rule provides additional grapefruit to meet market demand, helping to maximize fresh shipments.

**DATES :**  Effective July 7, 2014.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Doris Jamieson, Marketing Specialist, or Christian D. Nissen, Regional Director, Southeast Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (863) 324– 3375, Fax: (863) 325–8793, or Email: Doris.Jamieson@ams.usda.gov or Christian.Nissen@ams.usda.gov

.

Small businesses may obtain information on complying with this and other marketing order and agreement regulations by viewing a guide at the following Web site: http:// www.ams.usda.gov/ MarketingOrdersSmallBusinessGuide; or by contacting Jeffrey Smutny, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250–0237; Telephone: (202) 720–


### 37929 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 128 / Thursday, July 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

2491, Fax: (202) 720–8938, or Email: Jeffrey.Smutny@ams.usda.gov

. **SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  This rule is issued under Marketing Agreement and Order No. 906, as amended (7 CFR part 906), regulating the handling of oranges and grapefruit grown in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas,

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.’’

USDA is issuing this rule in

conformance with Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13175.

The handling of oranges and grapefruit grown in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas is regulated by 7 CFR part 906. Prior to this change, the minimum size requirement for grapefruit was 3–5/16 inches in diameter (size 56) and size 56 fruit had to meet a minimum grade of a U.S. No. 1. The Texas Valley Citrus Committee (Committee) believes there is a shortage of fruit available to supply the fresh fruit market, which the Texas citrus growers and handlers should fill. The Committee also recognized that consumers are now showing a preference for smaller-sized fruit. The Committee believes relaxing the requirements makes more fruit available to fill the market shortfall and provides

smaller-sized fruit to meet consumer demand. Therefore, this rule continues

in effect the rule that relaxed the minimum size requirement for grapefruit from 3–5/16 inches (size 56) to 3 inches (size 64) in diameter and relaxed the minimum grade for a size 56, establishing a minimum grade of

‘‘Texas Choice’’ for both size 56 and size 64 grapefruit.

In an interim rule published in the Federal Register on February 28, 2014, and effective March 1, 2014, (79 FR
11295, Doc. No. AMS–FV–14–0015, FV14–906–2 IR), § 906.356 was amended by changing the minimum size requirement for grapefruit from 3–5/16 inches (size 56) to 3 inches (size 64) in

diameter. Section 906.340 was also revised by adding size 64 to the available pack sizes for grapefruit listed under Table II, and by adding language concerning pack and sizing requirements as appropriate. In addition, this rule changed the minimum grade requirement for size 56

fruit from a U.S. No. 1 to a ‘‘Texas

Choice’’ and established the minimum grade for a size 64 as a ‘‘Texas Choice.’’

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 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 13 registered handlers of Texas citrus who are subject to regulation under the marketing order and approximately 150 producers of grapefruit in the regulated area. Small agricultural service firms, which include handlers, are defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) as those having annual receipts of less than $7,000,000, and small agricultural producers are defined as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000 (13 CFR 121.201).

According to National Agricultural Statistics Service data, the average f.o.b. price for Texas grapefruit during the 2012–13 season was $24.10 per box, and total fresh shipments were approximately 3 million boxes. Using the average f.o.b. price and shipment data, and considering a normal distribution, the majority of Texas grapefruit handlers could be considered

small businesses under SBA’s definition. In addition, based on production data, grower prices, and the total number of Texas citrus growers, the average annual grower revenue is below $750,000. Thus, the majority of handlers and producers of grapefruit may be classified as small entities.

This rule continues in effect the action that relaxed the size and grade requirements for grapefruit prescribed

under the order. This rule relaxes the minimum size requirement for grapefruit from 3 5 ⁄ 16 inches (size 56) to 3 inches (size 64). This action also relaxes the minimum grade requirement

for size 56 fruit from a U.S. No. 1 to a

‘‘Texas Choice’’ and establishes the minimum grade for size 64 as a ‘‘Texas Choice.’’ These changes make additional fruit available for shipment to the fresh market, maximize shipments, provide

additional returns to handlers and growers, and respond to consumer

demand for small-sized fruit. This rule amends the provisions in §§ 906.340 and 906.356. Authority for these changes is provided in § 906.40.

This action is not expected to increase

costs associated with the order’s requirements. Rather, it is anticipated

that this action will have a beneficial impact. Reducing size and grade requirements makes additional fruit available for shipment to the fresh

market. The Committee believes that this provides additional fruit to fill a shortage in the fresh market and provides the opportunity to fulfill a growing consumer demand for smaller sized fruit. This action also provides an outlet for fruit that may otherwise go unharvested, maximizing fresh shipments and increasing returns to handlers and growers. The benefits of this rule are expected to be equally available to all fresh grapefruit growers and handlers, regardless of their size.

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. 0581–0189, Generic Fruit Crops. 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 rule will not impose any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large

Texas citrus handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically

reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies. In addition, USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap or conflict with this rule.

Further, the Committee’s meeting was widely publicized throughout the Texas citrus industry and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Committee

deliberations. Like all Committee meetings, the December 11, 2013, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able to express their views on this issue.

Comments on the interim rule were required to be received on or before April 29, 2014. No comments were received. Therefore, for the reasons given in the interim rule, we are adopting the interim rule as a final rule, without change.

To view the interim rule, go to: http: //www.regulations.gov/ #!documentDetail;D=AMS-FV-14-0015-

0001

.

This action also affirms information contained in the interim rule concerning Executive Orders 12866, 12988, 13175, and 13563; the Paperwork ReductionAct (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35); and the EGov Act (44 U.S.C. 101).


### 37930 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 128 / Thursday, July 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

After consideration of all relevant material presented, it is found that finalizing the interim rule, without change, as published in the Federal Register (79 FR 11295, February 28, 2014) will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 906

Grapefruit, Marketing agreements, Oranges, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Accordingly, the interim rule that amended 7 CFR part 906 and was published at 79 FR 11295 on February 28, 2014, is adopted as a final rule, without change.

Dated: June 27, 2014.

Rex A. Barnes, Associate Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.

[FR Doc. 2014–15594 Filed 7–2–14; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 3410–02–P**

**DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE**

**Agricultural Marketing Service**

**7 CFR Part 983**

**[Doc. No. AMS–FV–12–0068; FV13–983–1 FR]** 

**Pistachios Grown in California, Arizona, and New Mexico; Modification**  **of Aflatoxin Regulations**

**AGENCY :**  Agricultural Marketing Service,

USDA.

**ACTION :**  Final rule.

**SUMMARY :**  This rule revises the aflatoxin sampling regulations currently prescribed under the California, Arizona, and New Mexico pistachio marketing order (order). The order regulates the handling of pistachios grown in California, Arizona, and New Mexico, and is administered locally by

the Administrative Committee for Pistachios (Committee). This rule allowsthe use of mechanical samplers (autosamplers) for in-line sampling as a method to obtain samples for aflatoxin analysis. The use of auto-samplers is expected to reduce handler costs byproviding a more efficient and costeffective process.

**DATES :**  Effective Date: August 4, 2014.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Andrea Ricci, Marketing Specialist, or Martin Engeler, Regional Director, California Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (559) 487– 5901, Fax: (559) 487–5906, or Email: Andrea.Ricci@ams.usda.gov or Martin.Engeler@ams.usda.gov. Small businesses may request information on complying with this regulation by contacting Jeffrey Smutny, 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: Jeffrey.Smutny@ams.usda.gov.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  This final rule is issued under Marketing Agreement and Order No. 983, both as amended (7 CFR part 983), regulating the handling of pistachios grown 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 Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this rule in

conformance with Executive Orders 12866, 13175, and 13563.

This final 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.

This final rule revises the aflatoxin sampling regulations currently prescribed under the order. This rule allows the use of mechanical samplers (auto-samplers) as an additional method to obtain lot samples for aflatoxin analysis. All auto-samplers will need to be approved by and be subject to procedures and requirements established by the USDA Federal-State Inspection Service prior to their use. This rule will be in effect indefinitely until amended, suspended, or terminated, and was unanimously recommended by the Committee at its meeting held on August 19, 2013.

Section 983.50 of the order provides authority for aflatoxin regulations that establish aflatoxin sampling, analysis, and inspection requirements applicable to pistachios to be shipped for human consumption in domestic and export markets. Aflatoxin regulations are currently in effect for pistachios shipped to domestic markets.

Section 983.150 of the order’s rules and regulations contains specific requirements regarding sampling and testing of pistachios for aflatoxin. Paragraph (d)(1) of that section provides that a sample shall be drawn from each lot of pistachios and such samples shall meet specific weight requirements according to the size of the lot.

The current method of collecting samples of pistachios to be tested requires hand sampling of static lots by, or under the supervision of, an inspector of the Federal-State Inspection Service (inspector). This process requires handler personnel to stage the lots to be sampled, which requires moving large containers around with a forklift. This process utilizes a

considerable amount of time and warehouse space. Inspectors are then required to manually conduct the sampling by drawing samples from the containers, which is very labor intensive. Once the lot sample is collected, the inspector prepares test samples for aflatoxin analysis.

Since the order’s promulgation in 2004, the volume of open inshell pistachios processed annually has increased significantly, from 165 million pounds to 385 million pounds in the 2012–13 production year. This change in volume has significantly

increased the amount of warehouse space and handler labor needed to stage lots for sampling. It has also driven up

the total labor costs associated with sampling, as the number of lots to be sampled has increased significantly.

With the implementation of this rule, handlers will have the option of using mechanized sampling instead of manual sampling. Automatic samplers in handlers’ processing facilities will mechanically draw samples of pistachios as they are being processed. This will make the sampling process more efficient by eliminating the extra warehouse space and handler labor needed for staging static lots for sampling. In addition, the labor costs of manual sampling will be eliminated, further reducing handler costs. A

discussion of the costs is included in the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

section of this document.

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601–612), the Agricultural