Minimum Quality and Handling Standards for Domestic and Imported Peanuts Marketed in the United States; Section 610 Review, 7096-7098 [2011-2879]
Download as PDF
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
7096
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 27 / Wednesday, February 9, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
The major expenditures
recommended by the Committee for the
2010–11 year include $110,000 for
research, $98,732 for salaries, $48,000
for employee benefits, and $25,300 for
insurance and bonds. Budgeted
expenses for these items in 2009–10
were $25,000, $94,030, $48,000, and
$25,300, respectively.
The increase in assessment rate is
needed to fund research to find an
insecticide that will kill or control the
Red Bay Ambrosia beetle. The beetle
carries the Laurel Wilt fungus which
can infect and kill avocado trees.
Research into the beetle and fungus had
been funded by the University of
Florida. However, the Committee was
informed that funding ceased on August
1, 2010. Without funding, researchers
would have been unable to continue
testing to determine which insecticides
work best to kill/control the beetle and
at what application rate. The Committee
believes it is essential for the industry
that the research continues. Therefore,
they voted to increase the assessment
rate to provide the additional research
money.
Prior to arriving at this budget,
alternative expenditure levels were
discussed based upon the relative value
of various research projects to the
Florida avocado industry. The
assessment rate of $0.37 per 55-pound
bushel container of assessable Florida
avocados was then determined by
dividing the total recommended budget
by the quantity of assessable avocados,
estimated at 1,000,000 55-pound bushel
containers for the 2010–11 season.
Considering income from assessments
and interest, total income will be
approximately $18,400 above the
anticipated expenses, which the
Committee determined to be acceptable.
A review of historical information and
preliminary information pertaining to
the upcoming crop year indicates that
the grower price for the 2010–11 season
could range between $9.00 and $66.00
per 55-pound bushel container of
avocados. Therefore, the estimated
assessment revenue for the 2010–11
season as a percentage of total grower
revenue could range between .6 and
4 percent.
This rule continues in effect the
action that increased the assessment
obligation imposed on handlers. While
assessments impose some additional
costs on handlers, the costs are minimal
and uniform on all handlers. Some of
the additional costs may be passed on
to producers. However, these costs are
offset by the benefits derived by the
operation of the marketing order. In
addition, the Committee’s meeting was
widely publicized throughout the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:20 Feb 08, 2011
Jkt 223001
Florida avocado industry and all
interested persons were invited to
attend the meeting and participate in
Committee deliberations on all issues.
Like all Committee meetings, the July
22, 2010, meeting was a public meeting
and all entities, both large and small,
were able to express views on this issue.
This action imposes no additional
reporting or recordkeeping requirements
on either small or large Florida avocado
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.
USDA has not identified any relevant
Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or
conflict with this rule.
Comments on the interim rule were
required to be received on or before
November 15, 2010. 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 https://www.regulations.gov/
search/Regs/home.html#
documentDetail?R=0900006480b4f5ec.
This action also affirms information
contained in the interim rule concerning
the Executive Orders 12866 and 12988,
the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
chapter 35), and the E-Gov Act (44
U.S.C. 101).
After consideration of all relevant
material presented, it is found that
finalizing the interim rule, without
change, as published in the Federal
Register (75 FR 55942, September 15,
2010) will tend to effectuate the
declared policy of the Act.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 915
Avocados, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
PART 915—AVOCADOS GROWN IN
SOUTH FLORIDA
Accordingly, the interim rule
amending 7 CFR part 915, which was
published at 75 FR 55942 on September
15, 2010, is adopted as a final rule,
without change.
■
Dated: February 3, 2011.
David R. Shipman,
Associate Administrator, Agricultural
Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 2011–2888 Filed 2–8–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–02–P
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Part 996
[Doc. No. AMS–FV–10–0030; FV10–996–610
Review]
Minimum Quality and Handling
Standards for Domestic and Imported
Peanuts Marketed in the United States;
Section 610 Review
Agricultural Marketing Service,
USDA.
ACTION: Confirmation of regulations.
AGENCY:
This action summarizes the
results under the criteria contained in
section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (RFA), of an Agricultural Marketing
Service (AMS) review of the Minimum
Quality and Handling Standards for
Domestic and Imported Peanuts
Marketed in the United States contained
in 7 CFR part 996 (Standards). AMS has
determined that the Standards should
be continued.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons may
obtain a copy of the review. Requests for
copies should 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
E-mail: moab.docketclerk@usda.gov. A
copy of the review may also be obtained
via the Internet at: https://
www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kenneth G. Johnson, DC Marketing
Field Office, Marketing Order
Administration Branch, Fruit and
Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, Unit
155, 4700 River Road, Riverdale, MD
20737; Telephone: (301) 734–5243; Fax:
(301) 734–5275; or E-mail:
Kenneth.Johnson@usda.gov; or Martin
Engeler, Marketing Order
Administration Branch, Fruit and
Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 2202
Monterey St., Fresno, California 93721;
Telephone: (559) 487–5110; Fax: (559)
487–5906; or E-mail:
Martin.Engeler@ams.usda.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Minimum Quality and Handling
Standards for Domestic and Imported
Peanuts Marketed in the United States
(Standards), as amended (7 CFR part
996), were established at 7 U.S.C. 7958
pursuant to Public Law 107–171, the
Farm Security and Rural Investment Act
of 2002 (Act). The Standards regulate
the quality and handling of domestic
and imported peanuts marketed in the
United States.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\09FER1.SGM
09FER1
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 27 / Wednesday, February 9, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
The Act also provided for
establishment of the Peanut Standards
Board (Board) to advise the Secretary of
Agriculture (Secretary) in establishing
the Standards. The Board is comprised
of 18 members. Nine of the members are
peanut producers representing three
producing regions, and nine are peanut
industry representatives that also
represent the three producing regions.
Board members are nominated by the
industry and selected by the Department
of Agriculture (USDA). The Board is
responsible for advising the USDA
regarding the quality and handling
requirements under the Standards.
USDA is required by the Act to consult
with the Board prior to making any
change to the Standards.
Currently, it is estimated that there
are 8,500 peanut producers in the U.S.
There are approximately 70 shelling
plants operated by approximately 55
shelling entities in the industry, and an
estimated 25 importers of peanuts. The
Small Business Administration (SBA)
defines small farms as those having
annual receipts of less than $750,000.
Small agricultural service firms are
defined by the SBA as those whose
annual receipts are less than $7,000,000.
It is estimated that approximately 90
percent of the peanut producers in the
U.S. can be considered small businesses
under this definition. It is also estimated
that approximately two-thirds of U.S.
peanut handlers can be considered
small businesses, and nearly all of the
importers. The regulations implemented
under the Standards are applied
uniformly to small and large entities,
and are not intended to have differential
impacts based on size.
AMS published in the Federal
Register on February 18, 1999 (64 FR
8014), a plan to review certain
regulations under criteria contained in
section 610 of the RFA (5 U.S.C. 601–
612). Updated plans were published in
the Federal Register on January 4, 2002
(67 FR 525), August 14, 2003 (68 FR
48574), and again on March 24, 2006 (71
FR 14827). Accordingly, AMS published
a notice of review and request for
written comments on the Standards in
the April 28, 2010, issue of the Federal
Register (75 FR 22213). The deadline for
comments ended June 28, 2010. Several
comments were received in response to
the notice, and are discussed later in
this document.
The review was undertaken to
determine whether the Standards
should be continued without being
changed, amended, or rescinded to
minimize the impacts on small entities.
In conducting this review, AMS
considered the following factors: (1) The
continued need for the Standards; (2)
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:20 Feb 08, 2011
Jkt 223001
the nature of complaints or comments
received from the public concerning the
Standards; (3) the complexity of the
Standards; (4) the extent to which the
Standards overlap, duplicate, or conflict
with other Federal rules, and, to the
extent feasible, with State and local
governmental rules; and (5) the length of
time since the Standards have been
evaluated or the degree to which
technology, economic conditions, or
other factors have changed in the area
affected by the Standards.
The Standards establish minimum
incoming and outgoing quality
requirements for domestic and imported
peanuts marketed in the U.S. Mandatory
inspection is required to ensure the
quality regulations are met. The
Standards also require positive lot
identification (PLI) of peanuts so they
can be identified and tracked during
processing and disposition. Finally, the
Standards require reporting and
recordkeeping by handlers and
importers.
The quality and inspection
requirements have helped ensure that
domestic and imported peanuts meet an
acceptable quality level before being
shipped for human consumption.
Ensuring a good quality product
contributes to consumer confidence.
The PLI requirements help to maintain
the identity of peanuts throughout the
handling process, thus maintaining the
integrity of lots being shipped to human
consumption outlets, lots that are
subjected to the reconditioning process,
and lots that are disposed of to nonhuman consumption outlets. This helps
to ensure that nuts certified for human
consumption are not commingled with
lower quality nuts. In addition, the PLI
requirements are a useful tool in
product traceability. The reporting and
recordkeeping requirements substantiate
handler and importer compliance with
the Standards.
Regarding complaints or comments
received from the public concerning the
order, AMS received five comments in
response to the notice of review
published in the Federal Register on
April 28, 2010 (75 FR 22213). In
addition, nine letters were received
from congressional representatives after
the comment period was closed. All of
the comments expressed support for
outgoing quality requirements shipped
to human consumption outlets. Three
comments received from peanut shellers
and sheller associations stated that
while they support the quality
requirements, they do not support the
PLI and recordkeeping requirements
associated with reconditioned peanuts.
They expressed the belief that these
requirements result in inefficiencies and
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
7097
unnecessary costs to shellers, and that
the goal of ensuring peanuts meet
minimum quality requirements can be
achieved without these requirements.
They further contend that foreign
peanut shellers are not subject to the
same requirements. At least one of the
comments pointed out that the Board,
which is responsible for advising USDA
in regard to the Standards, has not met
in at least two years.
Two comments from grower
associations support the program as it
currently exists. They support not only
the quality standards in place, but also
the PLI procedures and recordkeeping
requirements. These comments stated
that it is important to track lots of
peanuts that fail to meet the quality
standards to ensure those nuts are
disposed of properly to protect
consumers from poor quality product
and to prevent potential related
problems or issues for the peanut
industry. The comments cite recent
adverse events in the peanut industry as
an example of the importance of an
effective quality control program.
The nine congressional letters
essentially reiterate the comments
submitted by the peanut shellers and
sheller associations. They support food
quality and safety, but do not support
the PLI requirements for the same
reasons cited above.
However, as previously discussed, the
PLI requirements help to maintain the
identity of peanuts throughout the
handling process and are a useful tool
in product traceability, and the
reporting and recordkeeping
requirements substantiate compliance
with the Standards.
In considering the complexity of the
Standards, AMS has determined that
they are not unduly complex.
During the review, the Standards were
checked for duplication and overlap
with other regulations. AMS did not
identify any relevant Federal rules, or
State and local regulations that
duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the
Standards.
The Standards were established in
2002 and have been revised two times,
with the last revision occurring in 2005.
Since the Standards have been in effect,
AMS and the U.S. peanut industry have
monitored their implementation and
operation. Changes in regulations have
been implemented to reflect current
industry operating practices, and to
solve problems as they occur. The goal
of periodic evaluations is to ensure that
the Standards continue to fit the needs
of the industry and are consistent with
the Act.
The Board meets periodically to
discuss issues and to determine if, or
E:\FR\FM\09FER1.SGM
09FER1
7098
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 27 / Wednesday, February 9, 2011 / Rules and Regulations
what, changes may be necessary to
reflect current industry practices. As a
result, regulatory changes have been
made to the Standards to reflect current
industry operations and procedures, and
continue to meet the industry’s needs.
Based upon our review, AMS has
determined that the Minimum Quality
and Handling Standards for Domestic
and Imported Peanuts Marketed in the
United States should be continued.
However, USDA believes that a meeting
with the Board would be beneficial to
discuss any potential improvements to
the program. As required by the Act,
The Secretary of Agriculture must
consult with the Board prior to making
any changes to the Standards. Any
changes to the Standards would then be
made by notice and comment
rulemaking by USDA. All comments
would be considered in the decision
making process by the Board and USDA
before recommendations are
implemented.
AMS will continue to work with the
peanut industry to maintain useful and
effective quality and handling
standards, and in accordance with the
Act will consult with the Board, as
appropriate.
Dated: February 3, 2011.
Rayne Pegg,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing
Service.
[FR Doc. 2011–2879 Filed 2–8–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–02–P
SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
13 CFR Parts 120 and 121
[Docket No. SBA–2010–0015]
Dealer Floor Plan Pilot Program
U.S. Small Business
Administration (SBA).
ACTION: Program implementation with
request for comments.
AGENCY:
SBA is introducing a new
Dealer Floor Plan Pilot Program to make
available 7(a) loan guaranties for lines of
credit that provide floor plan financing.
This new Dealer Floor Plan Pilot
Program was created in the Small
Business Jobs Act of 2010. Under the
new Dealer Floor Plan Pilot Program,
which will be available through
September 30, 2013, SBA will guarantee
75 percent of a floor plan line of credit
between $500,000 and $5,000,000 to
eligible dealers of new and used
titleable inventory, including but not
limited to automobiles, motorcycles,
boats (including boat trailers),
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:20 Feb 08, 2011
Jkt 223001
recreational vehicles and manufactured
housing (mobile homes).
DATES: Effective Date: The Dealer Floor
Plan Pilot Program will be effective on
February 9, 2011, and will remain in
effect through September 30, 2013.
Comment Date: Comments must be
received on or before March 11, 2011.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by SBA docket number SBA–
2010–0015 by any of the following
methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Mail: Dealer Floor Plan Pilot
Program Comments—Office of Financial
Assistance, U.S. Small Business
Administration, 409 Third Street, SW.,
Suite 8300, Washington, DC 20416.
• Hand Delivery/Courier: Patrick
Kelley, Senior Advisor to the Associate
Administrator, Office of Capital Access,
U.S. Small Business Administration,
409 Third Street, SW., Washington, DC
20416.
SBA will post all comments on
https://www.regulations.gov. If you wish
to submit confidential business
information (CBI) as defined in the User
Notice at https://www.regulations.gov,
please submit the information to Patrick
Kelley, Senior Advisor to the Associate
Administrator, Office of Capital Access,
U.S. Small Business Administration,
409 Third Street, SW., Washington, DC
20416, or send an e-mail to
dealerfloorplancomments@sba.gov.
Highlight the information that you
consider to be CBI and explain why you
believe SBA should hold this
information as confidential. SBA will
review the information and make the
final determination whether it will
publish the information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Patrick Kelley, Senior Advisor to the
Associate Administrator, Office of
Capital Access, U.S. Small Business
Administration, 409 Third Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20416; (202) 205–0067;
patrick.kelley@sba.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
September 27, 2010, President Obama
signed the Small Business Jobs Act of
2010 (‘‘Small Business Jobs Act’’)
(Pub. L. 111–240). Section 1133(a) of the
Small Business Jobs Act authorized a
new, expanded Dealer Floor Plan (DFP)
Pilot Program, which will remain
available until September 30, 2013.
1. Comments
Although the new DFP Pilot will be
effective February 9, 2011, comments
are solicited from interested members of
the public on all aspects of the new DFP
Pilot. These comments must be
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
submitted on or before the deadline for
comments listed in the DATES section.
The SBA will consider these comments
and the need for making any revisions
as a result of these comments.
2. Dealer Floor Plan Pilot Program
Overview
Under the DFP Pilot, SBA is
implementing a 7(a) loan guaranty
product targeted to retail dealers of new
and used titleable inventory, including
but not limited to automobiles,
motorcycles, boats (including boat
trailers), recreational vehicles and
manufactured housing (mobile homes).
Key features of the new DFP Pilot are set
forth below. More detailed guidance on
the new DFP Pilot will be provided in
a procedural guide (‘‘DFP Procedural
Guide’’) that will be available on SBA’s
Web site.
Eligibility
In addition to standard 7(a) eligibility
requirements set forth in 13 CFR part
120 and SBA’s Standard Operating
Procedure (SOP) 50 10 5(C), Subpart B,
Chapter 2, the eligibility of applicants
for a floor plan line of credit guaranteed
under the DFP Pilot will be limited to
retail dealers of titleable inventory (both
new and used) that is required to be
licensed and/or registered in at least one
State after acquisition. The inventory
does not need to be licensed and/or
registered in the State where it is sold,
but it does need to be a type of
inventory that could be licensed and/or
registered in at least one State of the
United States, as ‘‘State’’ is defined in
the Small Business Act.
SBA sets size standards that establish
which businesses are considered small
for certain government programs. Size
standards have been established for
types of economic activity or industry
and, depending on the type of industry,
are based on number of employees or
revenues. In addition, SBA has
established an alternative size standard
based on the applicant’s tangible net
worth and net income. The Small
Business Jobs Act established a
temporary alternative size standard of a
maximum tangible net worth of the
applicant of not more than $15,000,000
and an average net income after Federal
income taxes (excluding any carry-over
losses) of the applicant for the 2 full
fiscal years before the date of the
application that is not more than
$5,000,000. SBA’s size regulations,
including those pertaining to affiliation,
are set out in 13 CFR part 121 and apply
to the DFP Pilot. The applicant can
qualify for a DFP line of credit using
either the industry-based size standards
E:\FR\FM\09FER1.SGM
09FER1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 27 (Wednesday, February 9, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7096-7098]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-2879]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Part 996
[Doc. No. AMS-FV-10-0030; FV10-996-610 Review]
Minimum Quality and Handling Standards for Domestic and Imported
Peanuts Marketed in the United States; Section 610 Review
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Confirmation of regulations.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action summarizes the results under the criteria
contained in section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), of an
Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) review of the Minimum Quality and
Handling Standards for Domestic and Imported Peanuts Marketed in the
United States contained in 7 CFR part 996 (Standards). AMS has
determined that the Standards should be continued.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons may obtain a copy of the review. Requests
for copies should 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 E-mail: moab.docketclerk@usda.gov. A copy of the
review may also be obtained via the Internet at: https://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth G. Johnson, DC Marketing Field
Office, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable
Programs, AMS, USDA, Unit 155, 4700 River Road, Riverdale, MD 20737;
Telephone: (301) 734-5243; Fax: (301) 734-5275; or E-mail:
Kenneth.Johnson@usda.gov; or Martin Engeler, Marketing Order
Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 2202
Monterey St., Fresno, California 93721; Telephone: (559) 487-5110; Fax:
(559) 487-5906; or E-mail: Martin.Engeler@ams.usda.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Minimum Quality and Handling Standards
for Domestic and Imported Peanuts Marketed in the United States
(Standards), as amended (7 CFR part 996), were established at 7 U.S.C.
7958 pursuant to Public Law 107-171, the Farm Security and Rural
Investment Act of 2002 (Act). The Standards regulate the quality and
handling of domestic and imported peanuts marketed in the United
States.
[[Page 7097]]
The Act also provided for establishment of the Peanut Standards
Board (Board) to advise the Secretary of Agriculture (Secretary) in
establishing the Standards. The Board is comprised of 18 members. Nine
of the members are peanut producers representing three producing
regions, and nine are peanut industry representatives that also
represent the three producing regions. Board members are nominated by
the industry and selected by the Department of Agriculture (USDA). The
Board is responsible for advising the USDA regarding the quality and
handling requirements under the Standards. USDA is required by the Act
to consult with the Board prior to making any change to the Standards.
Currently, it is estimated that there are 8,500 peanut producers in
the U.S. There are approximately 70 shelling plants operated by
approximately 55 shelling entities in the industry, and an estimated 25
importers of peanuts. The Small Business Administration (SBA) defines
small farms as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000.
Small agricultural service firms are defined by the SBA as those whose
annual receipts are less than $7,000,000. It is estimated that
approximately 90 percent of the peanut producers in the U.S. can be
considered small businesses under this definition. It is also estimated
that approximately two-thirds of U.S. peanut handlers can be considered
small businesses, and nearly all of the importers. The regulations
implemented under the Standards are applied uniformly to small and
large entities, and are not intended to have differential impacts based
on size.
AMS published in the Federal Register on February 18, 1999 (64 FR
8014), a plan to review certain regulations under criteria contained in
section 610 of the RFA (5 U.S.C. 601-612). Updated plans were published
in the Federal Register on January 4, 2002 (67 FR 525), August 14, 2003
(68 FR 48574), and again on March 24, 2006 (71 FR 14827). Accordingly,
AMS published a notice of review and request for written comments on
the Standards in the April 28, 2010, issue of the Federal Register (75
FR 22213). The deadline for comments ended June 28, 2010. Several
comments were received in response to the notice, and are discussed
later in this document.
The review was undertaken to determine whether the Standards should
be continued without being changed, amended, or rescinded to minimize
the impacts on small entities. In conducting this review, AMS
considered the following factors: (1) The continued need for the
Standards; (2) the nature of complaints or comments received from the
public concerning the Standards; (3) the complexity of the Standards;
(4) the extent to which the Standards overlap, duplicate, or conflict
with other Federal rules, and, to the extent feasible, with State and
local governmental rules; and (5) the length of time since the
Standards have been evaluated or the degree to which technology,
economic conditions, or other factors have changed in the area affected
by the Standards.
The Standards establish minimum incoming and outgoing quality
requirements for domestic and imported peanuts marketed in the U.S.
Mandatory inspection is required to ensure the quality regulations are
met. The Standards also require positive lot identification (PLI) of
peanuts so they can be identified and tracked during processing and
disposition. Finally, the Standards require reporting and recordkeeping
by handlers and importers.
The quality and inspection requirements have helped ensure that
domestic and imported peanuts meet an acceptable quality level before
being shipped for human consumption. Ensuring a good quality product
contributes to consumer confidence. The PLI requirements help to
maintain the identity of peanuts throughout the handling process, thus
maintaining the integrity of lots being shipped to human consumption
outlets, lots that are subjected to the reconditioning process, and
lots that are disposed of to non-human consumption outlets. This helps
to ensure that nuts certified for human consumption are not commingled
with lower quality nuts. In addition, the PLI requirements are a useful
tool in product traceability. The reporting and recordkeeping
requirements substantiate handler and importer compliance with the
Standards.
Regarding complaints or comments received from the public
concerning the order, AMS received five comments in response to the
notice of review published in the Federal Register on April 28, 2010
(75 FR 22213). In addition, nine letters were received from
congressional representatives after the comment period was closed. All
of the comments expressed support for outgoing quality requirements
shipped to human consumption outlets. Three comments received from
peanut shellers and sheller associations stated that while they support
the quality requirements, they do not support the PLI and recordkeeping
requirements associated with reconditioned peanuts. They expressed the
belief that these requirements result in inefficiencies and unnecessary
costs to shellers, and that the goal of ensuring peanuts meet minimum
quality requirements can be achieved without these requirements. They
further contend that foreign peanut shellers are not subject to the
same requirements. At least one of the comments pointed out that the
Board, which is responsible for advising USDA in regard to the
Standards, has not met in at least two years.
Two comments from grower associations support the program as it
currently exists. They support not only the quality standards in place,
but also the PLI procedures and recordkeeping requirements. These
comments stated that it is important to track lots of peanuts that fail
to meet the quality standards to ensure those nuts are disposed of
properly to protect consumers from poor quality product and to prevent
potential related problems or issues for the peanut industry. The
comments cite recent adverse events in the peanut industry as an
example of the importance of an effective quality control program.
The nine congressional letters essentially reiterate the comments
submitted by the peanut shellers and sheller associations. They support
food quality and safety, but do not support the PLI requirements for
the same reasons cited above.
However, as previously discussed, the PLI requirements help to
maintain the identity of peanuts throughout the handling process and
are a useful tool in product traceability, and the reporting and
recordkeeping requirements substantiate compliance with the Standards.
In considering the complexity of the Standards, AMS has determined
that they are not unduly complex.
During the review, the Standards were checked for duplication and
overlap with other regulations. AMS did not identify any relevant
Federal rules, or State and local regulations that duplicate, overlap,
or conflict with the Standards.
The Standards were established in 2002 and have been revised two
times, with the last revision occurring in 2005. Since the Standards
have been in effect, AMS and the U.S. peanut industry have monitored
their implementation and operation. Changes in regulations have been
implemented to reflect current industry operating practices, and to
solve problems as they occur. The goal of periodic evaluations is to
ensure that the Standards continue to fit the needs of the industry and
are consistent with the Act.
The Board meets periodically to discuss issues and to determine if,
or
[[Page 7098]]
what, changes may be necessary to reflect current industry practices.
As a result, regulatory changes have been made to the Standards to
reflect current industry operations and procedures, and continue to
meet the industry's needs.
Based upon our review, AMS has determined that the Minimum Quality
and Handling Standards for Domestic and Imported Peanuts Marketed in
the United States should be continued. However, USDA believes that a
meeting with the Board would be beneficial to discuss any potential
improvements to the program. As required by the Act, The Secretary of
Agriculture must consult with the Board prior to making any changes to
the Standards. Any changes to the Standards would then be made by
notice and comment rulemaking by USDA. All comments would be considered
in the decision making process by the Board and USDA before
recommendations are implemented.
AMS will continue to work with the peanut industry to maintain
useful and effective quality and handling standards, and in accordance
with the Act will consult with the Board, as appropriate.
Dated: February 3, 2011.
Rayne Pegg,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-2879 Filed 2-8-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P