This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains regulatory documents having general

applicability and legal effect, most of which

are keyed to and codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations, which is published under

50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by

the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of

new books are listed in the first FEDERAL

REGISTER issue of each week.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

55087 

Vol. 71, No. 183 

Thursday, September 21, 2006 

1To view the proposed rule and the comments 

we received, go to http://www.regulations.gov, click 

on the ‘‘Advanced Search’’ tab, and select ‘‘Docket 

Search.’’ In the Docket ID field, enter APHIS–2006– 

0025, then click on ‘‘Submit.’’ Clicking on the 

Docket ID link in the search results page will 

produce a list of all documents in the docket. 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

7 CFR Part 305 and 319 

[Docket No. APHIS–2006–0025] 

Importation of Table Grapes From 

Namibia 

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are amending the fruits 

and vegetables regulations to allow the 

importation into the United States of 

fresh table grapes from Namibia under 

certain conditions. As a condition of 

entry, the grapes must undergo cold 

treatment and fumigation with methyl 

bromide and must be accompanied by a 

phytosanitary certificate with an 

additional declaration stating that the 

commodity has been inspected and 

found free of the specified pests. In 

addition, the grapes will also be subject 

to inspection at the port of first arrival. 

This action allows for the importation of 

grapes from Namibia into the United 

States while continuing to provide 

protection against the introduction of 

quarantine pests. 

DATES: Effective Date: October 23, 2006. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Sharon Porsche, Import Specialist, 

Commodity Import Analysis and 

Operations, Plant Health Programs, 

PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 133, 

Riverdale, MD 20737–1231; (301) 734– 

8758. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The regulations in ‘‘Subpart—Fruits 

and Vegetables’’ (7 CFR 319.56 through 

319.56–8, referred to below as the 

regulations) prohibit or restrict the 

importation of fruits and vegetables into 

the United States from certain parts of 

the world to prevent the introduction 

and dissemination of plant pests that are 

new to or not widely distributed within 

the United States. 

On June 26, 2006, we published in the 

Federal Register (71 FR 36221–36225, 

Docket No. APHIS–2006–0025) a 

proposal 1 to amend the fruits and 

vegetables regulations to allow the 

importation of fresh table grapes, in 

commercial shipments only, from 

Namibia into the United States under 

certain conditions. As a condition of 

entry, we proposed that the grapes 

would be subject to a combined 

treatment of cold treatment in 

accordance with schedule T107–e and 

methyl bromide fumigation in 

accordance with schedule T104–a–1. In 

addition, because the cold and methyl 

bromide treatments would not 

effectively mitigate the pest risk posed 

by the mealybugs Maconellicoccus 

hirsutus, Nipaecoccus vastator, and 

Rastrococcus iceryoides or the mollusks 

Cochlicella ventricosa and Theba 

pisana, we proposed that the National 

Plant Protection Organization of 

Namibia would be required to conduct 

phytosanitary inspections for those 

pests and that each shipment of grapes 

would have to be accompanied by a 

phytosanitary certificate bearing the 

additional declaration: ‘‘The grapes in 

this shipment have been inspected and 

found free of Maconellicoccus hirsutus, 

Nipaecoccus vastator, Rastrococcus 

iceryoides, Cochlicella ventricosa and 

Theba pisana.’’ 

We solicited comments concerning 

our proposal for 60 days ending August 

25, 2006. We received two comments by 

that date. The first comment was from 

a producer who was in favor of the 

importation of table grapes from 

Namibia. The second comment was 

from an industry group that expressed 

concern that the pest Scirtothrips 

dorsalis was not included in the 

preamble of the proposed rule on the 

list of pests that can be addressed by 

methyl bromide treatment. This was an 

inadvertent omission; the risks 

associated with Scirtothrips dorsalis 

were addressed within the pest risk 

assessment and risk mitigation 

documents associated with the 

proposed rule and the pest was cited 

specifically in the regulatory text of 

proposed § 319.56–2ss(b) as a pest for 

which treatment is required. 

The commenter also expressed 

concern that Namibian table grapes 

would be shipped into the United States 

during a time period when they would 

be in direct competition with domestic 

table grapes (October and November) 

and that the economic analysis provided 

in the proposed rule focused too much 

on grapes intended for processed 

utilization (i.e., wine, juice, or raisins) 

rather than on grapes grown for the 

fresh market. Therefore, the commenter 

disagreed that the competitive impact of 

Namibian table grapes on domestic 

producers would be minimal. As stated 

in the proposed rule, grapes in Namibia 

mature in November, however, given 

that the grapes will be transported to the 

United States by cargo ship with a 

transit time of approximately 4 weeks, 

most grape shipments from Namibia 

would arrive from mid to late December 

until the end of January, well after peak 

harvest for domestic table grapes. The 

economic analysis in this final rule has 

been updated to reflect the additional 

information provided by the commenter 

regarding domestic grape production; 

however, that information did not affect 

the conclusions of our analysis. The 

impact of this rule on domestic table 

grape producers is still expected to be 

minimal. 

Therefore, for the reasons given in the 

proposed rule and in this document, we 

are adopting the proposed rule as a final 

rule, without change. 

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

This rule has been reviewed under 

Executive Order 12866. The rule has 

been determined to be not significant for 

the purposes of Executive Order 12866 

and, therefore, has not been reviewed by 

the Office of Management and Budget. 

We are amending the fruits and 

vegetables regulations to allow the 

importation into the United States of 

fresh table grapes from Namibia under 

certain conditions. As a condition of 

entry, the grapes will be subject to both 

cold treatment and fumigation with 

methyl bromide and will have to be 

accompanied by a phytosanitary 

certificate with an additional 

declaration stating that the commodity 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES1
55088 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 183 / Thursday, September 21, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

2USDA ERS Briefing Room, Fruit and Tree Nut 

Yearbook, 2005. 

3 Gross revenue of fresh table grape utilization is 

derived assuming a grower price of $0.45 per pound 

(ERS). 

4Based upon 2002 Census of Agriculture—State 

Data and the ‘‘Small Business Size Standards by 

NAICS Industry,’’ Code of Federal Regulations, 

Title 13, Chapter 1. 

5The number of grape farms in the United States, 

as reported by the 2002 Census of Agriculture, is 

the total number of grape-producing operations, 

which also include grapes produced for processed 

utilization. 

6Source: Global Trade Atlas. 

7Source: USDA FAS, PS&D Online. ‘‘Table 

Grapes: Production, Supply and Distribution in 

Selected Countries,’’ http://www.fas.usda.gov/psd/ 

complete_tables/HTP-table6-104.htm. 

8USDA ERS Briefing Room, Fruit and Tree Nut 

Yearbook, 2005. 

has been inspected and found free of the 

specified pests. In addition, the grapes 

will also be subject to inspection at the 

port of first arrival. This action will 

allow for the importation of grapes from 

Namibia into the United States while 

continuing to provide protection against 

the introduction of quarantine pests. 

According to the Trade Law Center for 

Southern Africa, 7 grape companies in 

Namibia are currently cultivating 1,300 

hectares, irrigated by water from the 

Orange River, and another 2,000 

hectares are expected to be put to 

cultivation soon. Because of the climate 

in Namibia, grapes mature in November, 

which gives producers there a 

competitive advantage over producers 

in other southern hemisphere countries 

where the grape harvest begins in 

December. Imports of Namibian table 

grapes into the United States in the first 

year are expected to reach 22.5 40-foot 

containers (approximately 744,000 

pounds), which would account for less 

than one-tenth of 1 percent of fresh table 

grape imports into the United States and 

less than one-tenth of 1 percent of total 

domestic utilized production of fresh 

table grapes. Total domestic utilized 

production accounted for approximately 

50 percent of the total domestic 

consumption of fresh table grapes in 

2004.2 Gross revenue of utilized 

production of fresh table grapes 

produced in the United States was 

approximately $794 million.3 Any 

displacement resulting from imports of 

Namibian fresh table grapes is likely to 

result in a reduction of less than onetenth of 1 percent in gross revenue for 

producers, with at least part of the loss 

borne by foreign suppliers that share the 

same shipping season as Namibia, such 

as Chile. 

The small business size standard for 

grape farming without making wine, as 

identified by the Small Business 

Administration (SBA) based upon North 

American Industry Classification 

System code 111332, is $750,000 or less 

in annual receipts.4 While the available 

data do not provide the number of U.S. 

grape-producing entities according to 

size distribution as it relates to annual 

receipts, it is reasonable to assume that 

the majority of the operations are 

considered small businesses by SBA 

standards. According to the 2002 

Census of Agriculture data, there were 

23,856 grape farms in the United States 

in 2002.5 It is estimated that 

approximately 93 percent of these grape 

farms had annual sales in 2002 of 

$500,000 or less, and are considered to 

be small entities by SBA standards. 

The United States is a net importer of 

fresh table grapes. In 2004, the United 

States imported 1,322.8 million pounds 

of fresh table grapes with approximately 

79 and 19 percent arriving from Chile 

and Mexico, respectively. In that same 

year, the United States exported 

approximately 606.3 million pounds of 

table grapes. Canada is the largest 

importer of U.S. fresh grapes, 

accounting for 44 percent of U.S. 

exports. The second and third largest 

importers of U.S. fresh grapes are 

Malaysia and Mexico, accounting for 

approximately 9 and 7 percent of U.S. 

grape exports, respectively.6 U.S. 

imports of table grapes experienced an 

average increase of 6.6 percent annually 

over the last decade while exports have 

increased an average of 3.4 percent.7

Fresh utilization of U.S. grape 

production only accounts, on average, 

for 13 percent of total utilized U.S. 

grape production annually. U.S. wine 

production and raisin production 

account for an average of 60 percent and 

25 percent, respectively, of U.S. grape 

utilization annually.8

Domestic consumers would benefit 

because Namibian table grapes mature a 

month earlier than table grapes from 

other countries in the southern 

hemisphere, providing access to an 

increased supply of fresh table grapes 

for a longer period of time. The negative 

impact of imports from Namibia is 

expected to be minimal for domestic 

producers. Utilized production of fresh 

table grapes accounted for 

approximately 50 percent of total 

domestic consumption in 2004. Total 

gross revenue associated with the 

estimated quantity of Namibian imports 

is equivalent to less than one-tenth of 1 

percent of the total gross revenue 

generated by U.S. fresh table grapes in 

2004. In addition, any displacement of 

existing U.S. table grape supplies by 

Namibian imports is likely to be borne 

at least in part by foreign suppliers such 

as Chile, which shares the same 

shipping season as Namibia. 

Under these circumstances, the 

Administrator of the Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service has 

determined that this action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Executive Order 12988 

This final rule allows fresh table 

grapes to be imported into the United 

States from Namibia. State and local 

laws and regulations regarding table 

grapes imported under this rule will be 

preempted while the fruit is in foreign 

commerce. Fresh table grapes are 

generally imported for immediate 

distribution and sale to the consuming 

public, and remain in foreign commerce 

until sold to the ultimate consumer. The 

question of when foreign commerce 

ceases in other cases must be addressed 

on a case-by-case basis. No retroactive 

effect will be given to this rule, and this 

rule will not require administrative 

proceedings before parties may file suit 

in court challenging this rule. 

Use of Methyl Bromide 

Under this rule, table grapes imported 

into the United States from Namibia 

must be fumigated with methyl bromide 

in accordance with schedule T104–a–1 

to kill external feeder insects. We 

estimate that between 1 and 22.5 40-foot 

containers of fresh table grapes will be 

imported from Namibia during the first 

shipping season. Importations may 

increase in future years. Fumigation 

using schedule T104–a–1 would require 

no more than 10 pounds of methyl 

bromide per container. No alternative 

treatment is currently available for these 

pests. 

The United States is fully committed 

to the objectives of the Montreal 

Protocol, including the reduction and 

ultimately the elimination of reliance on 

methyl bromide for quarantine and 

preshipment uses in a manner that is 

consistent with the safeguarding of U.S. 

agriculture and ecosystems. APHIS 

reviews its methyl bromide policies and 

their effect on the environment in 

accordance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as 

amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and 

Decision XI/13 (paragraph 5) of the 11th 

Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal 

Protocol, which calls on the Parties to 

review their ‘‘national plant, animal, 

environmental, health, and stored 

product regulations with a view to 

removing the requirement for the use of 

methyl bromide for quarantine and 

preshipment where technically and 

economically feasible alternatives 

exist.’’

The United States Government 

encourages methods that do not use 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 183 / Thursday, September 21, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 55089 

9 Go to http://www.regulations.gov, click on the 

‘‘Advanced Search’’ tab and select ‘‘Docket Search.’’

In the Docket ID field, enter APHIS–2006–0025, 

click on ‘‘Submit,’’ then click on the Docket ID link 

in the search results page. The environmental 

assessment and finding of no significant impact will 

appear in the resulting list of documents. 

methyl bromide to meet phytosanitary 

standards where alternatives are 

deemed to be technically and 

economically feasible. In some 

circumstances, however, methyl 

bromide continues to be the only 

technically and economically feasible 

treatment against specific quarantine 

pests. In addition, in accordance with 

Montreal Protocol Decision XI/13 

(paragraph 7), APHIS is committed to 

promoting and employing gas recapture 

technology and other methods 

whenever possible to minimize harm to 

the environment caused by methyl 

bromide emissions. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

An environmental assessment was 

prepared for, and made available for 

public comment through, the proposed 

rule for this rulemaking. No comments 

regarding the environmental assessment 

were received during the comment 

period for the proposed rule. The 

environmental assessment provides a 

basis for the conclusion that the 

importation of fresh table grapes under 

the conditions specified in this rule will 

not have a significant impact on the 

quality of the human environment. 

Based on the finding of no significant 

impact, the Administrator of the Animal 

and Plant Health Inspection Service has 

determined that an environmental 

impact statement need not be prepared. 

The environmental assessment and 

finding of no significant impact were 

prepared in accordance with: (1) The 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 

4321 et seq.), (2) regulations of the 

Council on Environmental Quality for 

implementing the procedural provisions 

of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500–1508), (3) 

USDA regulations implementing NEPA 

(7 CFR part 1b), and (4) APHIS’ NEPA 

Implementing Procedures (7 CFR part 

372). 

The environmental assessment and 

finding of no significant impact may be 

viewed on the Regulations.gov Web 

site.9 Copies of the environmental 

assessment and finding of no significant 

impact are also available for public 

inspection at USDA, room 1141, South 

Building, 14th Street and Independence 

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, between 

8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except holidays. Persons 

wishing to inspect copies are requested 

to call ahead on (202) 690–2817 to 

facilitate entry into the reading room. In 

addition, copies may be obtained by 

writing to the individual listed under 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

In accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 

et seq.), the information collection or 

recordkeeping requirements included in 

this rule have been approved by the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) under OMB control number 

0579–0300. 

E-Government Act Compliance 

The Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service is committed to 

compliance 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. For information pertinent to 

E-Government Act compliance related 

to this rule, please contact Mrs. Celeste 

Sickles, APHIS’ Information Collection 

Coordinator, at (301) 734–7477. 

List of Subjects 

7 CFR Part 305 

Irradiation, Phytosanitary treatment, 

Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

7 CFR Part 319 

Coffee, Cotton, Fruits, Imports, Logs, 

Nursery stock, Plant diseases and pests, 

Quarantine, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Rice, 

Vegetables. 

■ Accordingly, we are amending 7 CFR 

parts 305 and 319 as follows: 

PART 305—PHYTOSANITARY 

TREATMENTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 305 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7701–7772 and 7781–

7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 

2.80, and 371.3. 

■ 2. In § 305.2, paragraph (h)(2)(i), the 

table is amended by adding, in 

alphabetical order, an entry for Namibia 

to read as follows: 

§ 305.2 Approved treatments. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(i) * * * 

Location Commodity Pest Treatment 

schedule 

* * * * * * * 

Namibia .............................. Grape ................................. External feeders ............................................................. MB T104–a–1. 

Cryptophlebia leucotreta, Ceratitis capitata, Ceratitis 

rosa, Epichoristodes acerbella.

CT T107–e. 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

PART 319—FOREIGN QUARANTINE 

NOTICES 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 319 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 450, 7701–7772, and 

7781–7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR 

2.22, 2.80, and 371.3. 

■ 4. A new § 319.56–2ss is added to read 

as follows: 

§ 319.56–2ss Conditions governing the 

entry of grapes from Namibia. 

Grapes (Vitis vinifera) may be 

imported into the United States from 

Namibia only under the following 

conditions: 

(a) The grapes must be cold treated for 

Cryptophlebia leucotreta, Ceratitis 

capitata, Ceratitis rosa, and 

Epichoristodes acerbella in accordance 

with part 305 of this chapter. 

(b) The grapes must be fumigated for 

Aleurocanthus spiniferus, Apate 

monachus, Bustomus setulosus, 

Ceroplastes rusci, Cryptoblabes 

gnidiella, Dischista cincta, Empoasca 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES1
55090 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 183 / Thursday, September 21, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

lybica, Eremnus atratus, Eremnus 

cerealis, Eremnus setulosus, 

Eutetranychus orientalis, Helicoverpa 

armigera, Icerya seychellarum, 

Macchiademus diplopterus, Oxycarenus 

hyalinipennis, Pachnoda sinuata, 

Phlyctinus callosus, Scirtothrips 

aurantii, Scirtothrips dorsalis, 

Spodoptera littoralis, and 

Tanyrhynchus carinatus in accordance 

with part 305 of this chapter. 

(c) Each shipment of grapes must be 

accompanied by a phytosanitary 

certificate of inspection issued by the 

national plant protection organization of 

Namibia bearing the following 

additional declaration: ‘‘The grapes in 

this shipment have been inspected and 

found free of Maconellicoccus hirsutus, 

Nipaecoccus vastator, Rastrococcus 

iceryoides, Cochlicella ventricosa, and 

Theba pisana.’’

(d) The grapes may be imported in 

commercial shipments only. 

(Approved by the Office of Management and 

Budget under control number 0579–0300) 

Done in Washington, DC, this 18th day of 

September 2006. 

W. Ron DeHaven, 

Administrator, Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 06–7891 Filed 9–20–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

7 CFR Parts 916 and 917 

[Docket No. FV06–916/917–1 FIR] 

Nectarines and Peaches Grown in 

California; Revision of Handling 

Requirements for Fresh Nectarines 

and Peaches 

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Department of 

Agriculture is adopting, as a final rule, 

with a change, an interim final rule 

revising the handling requirements for 

California nectarines and peaches by 

modifying the grade, size, maturity, and 

pack requirements for fresh shipments 

of these fruits, beginning with 2006 

season shipments. This rule also 

continues in effect the authorization for 

continued shipments of ‘‘CA Utility’’

quality nectarines and peaches, the 

establishment of weight-count standards 

for Peento type nectarines in volumefilled containers, and the elimination of 

the varietal container marking 

requirements. The marketing orders 

regulate the handling of nectarines and 

peaches grown in California and are 

administered locally by the Nectarine 

Administrative and Peach Commodity 

Committees (committees). This rule 

enables handlers to continue to ship 

fresh nectarines and peaches in a 

manner that meets consumer needs, 

increases returns to producers and 

handlers, and reflects current industry 

practices. 

DATES: Effective Date: October 23, 2006. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Laurel May, Marketing Specialist, or 

Kurt Kimmel, Regional Manager, 

California Marketing Field Office, 

Marketing Order Administration 

Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, 

AMS, USDA, 2202 Monterey Street, 

Suite 102B, Fresno, California, 93721; 

Telephone (559) 487–5901, Fax: (559) 

487–5906, or e-mail: 

Laurel.May@usda.gov or 

Kurt.Kimmel@usda.gov. 

Small businesses may request 

information on complying with this 

regulation by contacting Jay Guerber, 

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: 

Jay.Guerber@usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule 

is issued under Marketing Order Nos. 

916 and 917 (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 rule has been reviewed under 

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 

Reform. This rule is not intended to 

have retroactive effect. This rule will 

not preempt any State or local laws, 

regulations, or policies, unless they 

present an irreconcilable conflict with 

this rule. 

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 continues in effect: (1) 

Revisions to the nectarine and peach 

grade, size, maturity, and pack 

requirements to better reflect current 

industry operating and marketing 

practices; (2) authorization for 

continued shipments of ‘‘CA Utility’’

quality nectarines and peaches during 

the 2006 and subsequent seasons to 

meet buyer needs; (3) establishment of 

weight-count standards for Peento type 

nectarines packed in volume-filled 

containers to assure pack uniformity; 

and (4) elimination of the varietal 

container marking requirements for 

nectarines and peaches to provide 

handlers more marketing flexibility. 

Sections 916.52 and 917.41 of the 

orders provide authority for regulating 

the handling of fresh California 

nectarines and peaches. The regulations 

include grade, size, maturity, quality, 

pack, and container marking 

requirements. Such regulations are in 

effect on a continuing basis. The 

Nectarine Administrative Committee 

(NAC) and the Peach Commodity 

Committee (PCC), which are responsible 

for local administration of the orders, 

meet prior to and during each season to 

review the regulations. Committee 

meetings are open to the public and 

interested persons are encouraged to 

express their views at these meetings. 

USDA reviews committee 

recommendations and information, as 

well as information from other sources, 

and determines whether modification, 

suspension, or termination of the rules 

and regulations would tend to effectuate 

the declared policy of the Act. 

The committees held such meetings 

on February 3, 2006, and unanimously 

recommended that the handling 

requirements be revised for the 2006 

season, which was expected to begin at 

the end of March. No official crop 

estimates were available at the time of 

the committees’ February meetings 

because the nectarine and peach trees 

were dormant. The committees 

subsequently met on April 27, 2006, and 

recommended 2006 crop estimates of 

17,824,000 containers of nectarines and 

20,242,000 containers of peaches. The 

2006 nectarine crop is expected to be 

slightly smaller than the 2005 crop, 

which totaled approximately 18,618,000 

containers. The 2006 peach crop is 


rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES1