Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 60 / Thursday, March 29, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 14651 

10See 7 U.S.C. 7714; 7 CFR 340.0(b). 

11The specific criteria for GE crops planted under 

notification are found at 7 CFR 340.3. 

including remedial and enforcement 

actions, are required. 

If APHIS determines that action is not 

necessary to mitigate low-level presence 

of a regulated material in commerce to 

protect plant health or the environment, 

this determination does not preclude 

enforcement action against a company 

or individual for violation of APHIS 

regulations. APHIS will investigate and 

take appropriate enforcement action 

whenever regulated materials are 

detected in commerce. 

APHIS coordinates closely with EPA 

and FDA on investigations, risk 

evaluations, and the determination of 

what remediation measures, if any, will 

be necessary. This cooperation is crucial 

and helps to ensure that there are no 

unresolved safety issues. Any regulatory 

action taken by APHIS will not preclude 

FDA or EPA from pursuing action under 

their own authorities, as necessary, to 

ensure the safety of food as well as to 

protect human health and the 

environment from the sale, distribution, 

or use of any pesticide. 

APHIS has authority under the PPA to 

take or order remedial measures which 

include the authority to hold, seize, 

quarantine, treat, apply other remedial 

measures to, destroy, or otherwise 

dispose of regulated materials if it is 

determined that such measures are 

necessary to prevent the dissemination 

of a plant pest within or throughout the 

United States.10 Any remedial action 

taken would be determined on a caseby-case basis. Key considerations 

include the extent of the occurrence, the 

nature of the regulated material, as well 

as any potential risks to plant health or 

the environment. In any case where 

APHIS determines that an incident 

involving a GE plant would result in the 

introduction or dissemination of 

material that could pose a threat to plant 

health or the environment, remediation 

measures will be required. It is 

important to note that, due to the strict 

requirements that APHIS has developed 

in recent years for GE plants that pose 

elevated risks, such occurrences would 

be unlikely. 

There are two principal situations in 

which APHIS may determine that action 

under the PPA was not necessary. Even 

though remedial measures would not 

generally be applied in these two 

situations, applicants field testing these 

types of plants must be authorized 

through either notifications or permits 

and must follow all APHIS 

requirements. 

The first situation would be when the 

regulated material is derived from 

plants that meet all of the criteria to 

qualify for APHIS’ notification process. 

The six eligibility requirements are: 11

• The plant must not be listed on the 

Federal Noxious Weed list or be 

considered a weed in the area of 

proposed release. 

• The introduced genetic material 

must be stably integrated, which means 

the introduced DNA must remain inside 

the living cell and replicate only with 

the plant DNA. 

• The function of the introduced 

genetic material is known, and its 

presence in the regulated article does 

not result in a plant disease. 

• The introduced genetic material 

does not cause the production of an 

infectious entity, produce substances 

that are known to be, or are likely to be, 

toxic to nontarget organisms, or produce 

products intended for pharmaceutical or 

industrial use. 

• The introduced genetic sequences 

derived from plant viruses do not pose 

a significant risk of creating a new plant 

virus. 

• The plant has not been modified to 

contain certain genetic material derived 

from animal or human pathogens. In 

addition, plants containing coding 

sequences whose products are known 

agents of diseases in humans or 

nontarget animals are not eligible. 

The majority of GE plants field tested 

under APHIS regulations qualify for the 

notification process because they 

present minimal risk to plant health and 

the environment. Many of the plants 

that have been engineered for common 

traits such as pest resistance, herbicide 

tolerance, male sterility, and improved 

product quality such as delayed fruit 

ripening meet the criteria for 

notification. APHIS has extensive 

experience with these types of plants 

and has overseen thousands of field 

tests involving them. 

The second situation in which APHIS 

may not take remedial action is if the GE 

plant is similar to another GE plant that 

has already been deregulated by APHIS 

with respect to both plant genotype and 

any novel protein(s) expressed. APHIS 

will carefully assess the GE plant 

material, including the plant genotype, 

the introduced genes, and any proteins 

produced. When these are sufficiently 

similar to those of a previously 

deregulated plant, APHIS is able to 

conclude confidently that, like the 

previously deregulated plant, the new 

GE plant poses no significant safety risk 

to plant health or the environment, and 

thus, remedial action may not be 

necessary. 

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

7786; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 

371.3. 

Done in Washington, DC, this 26th day of 

March 2007. 

Bruce Knight, 

Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory 

Programs. 

[FR Doc. 07–1536 Filed 3–27–07; 2:00 pm] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

7 CFR Part 929 

[Docket No. AMS–FV–06–0174; FV06–929–

1 FR] 

Cranberries Grown in the States of 

Massachusetts, et al.; Increased 

Assessment Rate 

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This rule increases the 

assessment rate established for the 

Cranberry Marketing Committee 

(Committee) for the 2006–2007 fiscal 

year and subsequent fiscal years from 

$0.18 to $0.28 per barrel. Authorization 

to assess cranberry handlers enables the 

Committee to incur expenses that are 

reasonable and necessary to administer 

the program. The Committee locally 

administers the marketing order which 

regulates the handling of cranberries 

grown in the States of Massachusetts, 

Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, 

Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, 

Oregon, Washington, and Long Island in 

the State of New York. The fiscal year 

began September 1, 2006, and ends 

August 31, 2007. The assessment rate 

will remain in effect indefinitely unless 

modified, suspended, or terminated. 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule becomes 

effective March 30, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Patricia A. Petrella or Kenneth G. 

Johnson, DC Marketing Field Office, 

Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, 

USDA, Unit 155, 4700 River Road, 

Riverdale, Maryland 20737; telephone: 

(301) 734–5243, Fax: (301) 734–5275, or 

E-mail at Patricia.Petrella@usda.gov or 

Kenneth.Johnson@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–


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC61 with RULES
14652 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 60 / Thursday, March 29, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

2491, Fax: (202) 720–8938, or e-mail: 

Jay.Guerber@usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final 

rule is issued under Marketing 

Agreement and Order No. 929, as 

amended (7 CFR part 929), regulating 

the handling of cranberries produced in 

the States of Massachusetts, Rhode 

Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, 

Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, 

Oregon, Washington, and Long Island in 

the State of New York, 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 Order 

12866. 

This final rule has been reviewed 

under Executive Order 12988, Civil 

Justice Reform. Under the marketing 

order now in effect, cranberries are 

subject to assessments. Funds to 

administer the order are derived from 

such assessments. It is intended that the 

assessment rate as issued herein will be 

applicable to all assessable cranberries 

beginning September 1, 2006, and 

continue until amended, suspended, or 

terminated. 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 the 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. Such 

handler is afforded the opportunity for 

a hearing on the petition. After the 

hearing the 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 the 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 increases the 

assessment rate established for the 

2006–2007 and subsequent fiscal years 

from $0.18 to $0.28 per barrel of 

cranberries. 

The proposed rule inadvertently 

referred to the proposed increase as a 

‘‘per pound’’ increase rather than a ‘‘per 

barrel’’ increase two times in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. 

The proposed regulatory text was 

correct in the proposed rule. The 

inadvertent errors are corrected in this 

document. 

The cranberry marketing order 

provides authority for the Committee, 

with approval of USDA, to formulate an 

annual budget of expenses and collect 

assessments from handlers to administer 

the program. The members of the 

Committee are producers and handlers 

of cranberries. They are familiar with 

the Committee’s needs and with the 

costs for goods and services in their 

local area and are thus in a position to 

formulate an appropriate budget and 

assessment rate. The assessment rate is 

formulated and discussed in a public 

meeting. Thus, all directly affected 

persons have an opportunity to 

participate and provide input. 

Authority to fix the rate of assessment 

to be paid by each handler and to collect 

such assessment appears in § 929.41 of 

the order. In addition, § 929.45 of the 

order provides that the Committee, with 

the approval of the USDA, may establish 

or provide for the establishment of 

production research, marketing 

research, and market development 

projects designed to assist, improve, or 

promote the marketing, distribution, 

consumption, or efficient production of 

cranberries. The expense of such 

projects is paid from funds collected 

pursuant to § 929.41 (Assessments), or 

from such other funds as approved by 

the USDA. 

For the 2001–2002 fiscal year, the 

Committee recommended, and USDA 

approved, an assessment rate of $0.18 

per barrel of cranberries handled that 

would continue in effect from fiscal 

period to fiscal period unless modified, 

suspended, or terminated by USDA 

upon recommendation and information 

submitted by the Committee or other 

information available to USDA. 

The Committee met on August 28, 

2006, and recommended 2006–2007 

expenditures of $3,522,062 and an 

assessment rate of $0.28 per barrel of 

cranberries. The Committee passed the 

assessment rate increase by a vote of 12 

to 2. Those not supporting the 

recommendation wanted a lesser 

increase. In comparison, last year’s 

budgeted expenses were $2,612,265. 

The assessment rate of $0.28 is $0.10 

higher than the rate currently in effect. 

The Committee recommended the 

$0.10 per barrel increase to cover 

increased costs. The Committee has 

expanded its contributions to the export 

market development program from 

$50,000 in 1999 to $480,000 in 2006. 

The Committee has increased funding of 

the export market development program 

as target markets have expanded from 

two in 1999 (Japan and Germany), to 

five in 2006 (Japan, Germany, Mexico, 

France and Australia) with contingency 

plans to expand activities regionally 

within Europe and in South Korea. 

According to the Committee, cranberries 

and cranberry products going into 

export markets have steadily increased 

from 10 percent of the annual cranberry 

production during the 1999–2000 fiscal 

period to approximately 24 percent of 

the annual production in the 2005–2006 

fiscal period. 

In order to expand and maintain 

activities within the target markets, the 

Committee has used funds from its 

reserve account to meet the costs of 

educating consumers and the trade 

industry. 

Since the last increase published in 

the Federal Register on February 14, 

2002, at 67 FR 6843, the assessment rate 

has not been increased to compensate 

for increases in the costs of goods and 

services, costs contributable to 

increasing the Committee membership 

and to pay back funds taken from the 

reserve for the expanding export market 

development program. As a result, the 

reserve has continued to decrease until 

it is at a point where the Committee is 

unable to meet the order’s reserve 

funding requirements or balance its 

budget without an increase in 

assessments and/or cutback in program 

activities. The Committee recommended 

the assessment rate increase to continue 

to expand the generic export market 

development program and have 

sufficient funding to meet its 

operational expenses. Without this 

increase, the Committee would have to 

curtail expansion of the export market 

development and promotion program. 

All cranberry handlers regulated 

under the marketing order will pay the 

proposed assessment rate. However, 

certain organic handlers may be exempt 

from paying assessments for market 

promotion activities pursuant to 7 CFR 

900.700. 

The major expenditures 

recommended by the Committee for the 

2006–2007 fiscal year include $500,000 

for domestic promotion, $480,000 for 

export promotion, $154,116 for 

personnel, $103,500 for meetings, and 

$107,527 for administrative expenses. 

Budgeted expenses for major items in 

2005–2006 were $488,225 for domestic 

promotion, $147,420 for personnel, 

$105,500 for meetings, and $116,542 for 

administrative expenses. The 

Committee recommended an increased 

assessment rate to generate larger 

revenue to meet its operational and 

export promotion expenses and keep its 

reserves at an acceptable level. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC61 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 60 / Thursday, March 29, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 14653 

In deriving the recommended 

assessment rate, the Committee 

determined assessable cranberry 

production for the upcoming fiscal 

period at 6,506,000 barrels. Therefore, 

total assessment income for the 2006–

2007 fiscal year is estimated at 

$1,821,680 (6,506,000 barrels x $0.28). 

This amount plus $1,767,600 from 

USDA’s Foreign Agricultural Service’s 

Market Access Program (MAP) and 

adequate funds in the reserve and 

interest income will be adequate to 

cover budgeted expenses. Funds in the 

reserve (approximately $541,122) will 

be kept within the approximately one 

fiscal period’s expenses as 

recommended by the Committee 

consistent with § 929.42(a) of the order. 

The assessment rate established in 

this rule will continue in effect 

indefinitely unless modified, 

suspended, or terminated by USDA 

upon recommendation and other 

information submitted by the 

Committee or other available 

information. 

Although the assessment rate will be 

effective for an indefinite period, the 

Committee will continue to meet prior 

to or during each fiscal period to 

recommend a budget of expenses and 

consider recommendations for 

modification of the assessment rate. The 

dates and times of Committee meetings 

are available from the Committee or the 

USDA. Committee meetings are open to 

the public and interested persons may 

express their views at these meetings. 

USDA will evaluate Committee 

recommendations and other available 

information to determine whether 

modification of the assessment rate is 

needed. Further rulemaking will be 

undertaken as necessary. The 

Committee’s 2006–2007 budget and 

those for subsequent fiscal periods will 

be reviewed and, as appropriate, 

approved by the USDA. 

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Pursuant to requirements set forth in 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the 

Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) 

has considered the economic impact of 

this action on small entities. 

Accordingly, AMS has prepared this 

final regulatory flexibility analysis. 

The purpose of the RFA is to fit 

regulatory actions to the scale of 

business subject to such actions in order 

that small businesses will not be unduly 

or disproportionately burdened. 

Marketing orders issued pursuant to the 

Act, and rules thereunder, are unique in 

that they are brought about through 

group action of essentially small entities 

acting on their own behalf. Thus, both 

statutes have small entity orientation 

and compatibility. 

There are approximately 50 handlers 

of cranberries who are subject to 

regulation under the cranberry 

marketing order and approximately 

1250 producers of cranberries in the 

regulated area. Small agricultural 

service firms, which includes handlers, 

are defined by the Small Business 

Administration (13 CFR 121.201) as 

those having annual receipts of less than 

$6,500,000, and small agricultural 

producers are defined as those having 

annual receipts of less than $750,000. 

The majority of producers and handlers 

of cranberries under the order are 

considered small entities under SBA’s 

standards. 

The principal demand for cranberries 

is in the form of processed products. 

Cranberries are dried, frozen, canned, 

and juiced. During the 2001–2002 fiscal 

year through the 2005–2006 fiscal year, 

approximately 91 percent of the U.S. 

cranberry crop, or 5.4 million barrels, 

was processed annually. 

Based on National Agricultural 

Statistics Service data, acreage in the 

United States devoted to cranberry 

production has leveled off over the last 

several crop years. Bearing acres have 

declined slightly from a high of 39,600 

acres in the 2003–2004 fiscal year to 

39,100 in the 2005–2006 fiscal year. 

Wisconsin and Massachusetts lead the 

nation in cranberry acreage, with 

approximately 81 percent of the total, 

and production also at approximately 81 

percent of the total U.S. cranberry crop 

each year. 

This rule increases the assessment 

rate established for the Committee and 

collected from handlers for the 2006–

2007 fiscal period and subsequent 

periods from $0.18 to $0.28 per barrel of 

cranberries. 

The Committee discussed continuing 

the existing assessment rate, but 

concluded that it needed the additional 

funds to devote to its export market 

development and promotion program 

and replenish its financial reserve 

which would be funded through 

assessments. 

This action increases the assessment 

obligation imposed on handlers. While 

assessments impose some additional 

costs on handlers, the costs are uniform 

on all handlers. Some of the additional 

costs may be passed on to producers. 

However, these costs will be offset by 

the benefits derived by the operation of 

the marketing order. In addition, the 

Committee’s meeting was widely 

publicized throughout the cranberry 

industry and all interested persons were 

invited to attend the meeting and 

participate in Committee deliberations 

on all issues. Like all Committee 

meetings, all entities, both large and 

small, were able to express views on 

this issue. Finally, interested persons 

are invited to submit information on the 

regulatory and informational impacts of 

this action on small businesses. 

This rule will impose no additional 

reporting or recordkeeping requirements 

on either small or large cranberry 

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. 

The 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. 

USDA has not identified any relevant 

Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or 

conflict with this rule. 

As mentioned previously, a proposed 

rule was published in the Federal 

Register on January 16, 2007 (72 FR 

1678). Copies of the proposed rule were 

mailed or sent via facsimile to all 

Committee members and handlers. 

Finally, the proposed rule was made 

available through the Internet, USDA 

and the Office of the Federal Register. A 

30-day comment period ending 

February 15, 2007, was provided to 

allow interested persons to respond to 

the proposal. Four comments were 

received. One supported and three 

opposed the proposal. 

The commenter in support for the 

assessment rate increase stated that the 

increase is needed to help fund the 

Committee’s operations and to help 

increase consumer awareness of 

cranberries. 

Three comments were received (two 

from growers and one from a growerhandler) in opposition to the proposed 

assessment rate increase. One of the 

commenters opposed the proposal 

because he did not believe a $.10 per 

barrel increase in the assessment rate 

will have a meaningful increase on the 

demand for cranberries. The commenter 

also stated that it is inequitable to force 

U.S. growers to spend another $.10 per 

barrel while growers in Canada and 

Chile pay nothing. Finally, this 

commenter stated that it is impossible to 

justify an increase in the assessment rate 

for advertising when cranberry supply 

and demand are projected to be in 

balance. Another commenter opposed 

the proposal based on his contention 

that he already spends a sum of money 

on branded advertising with a major 

cranberry cooperative. The last 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC61 with RULES
14654 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 60 / Thursday, March 29, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

commenter felt that the assessment rate 

increase was an excessive and 

unjustified expense. 

In response to these comments, the 

$.10 per barrel increase is not 

specifically for export promotional 

activities but to provide the Committee 

with funds for its operational expenses. 

As previously stated, the assessment 

rate has not been increased since 2002. 

Since that time, there have been 

increases in the costs of goods and 

services, costs contributable to 

increasing Committee membership and 

to pay back funds taken from the reserve 

for the export market development 

program. The increase in the assessment 

rate is needed to generate larger revenue 

for the Committee to meet its expenses 

and keep its reserves at an acceptable 

level. Without the increase, the 

Committee will have to curtail its 

operational expenses including the 

export market development and 

promotion program that has[K1] been 

funded by assessments and MAP funds 

for the past several years. 

With regard to the equitability of 

some handlers paying the increased 

assessment rate while others pay no 

assessments, all cranberry handlers 

regulated under the marketing order 

will have to pay the increased 

assessment rate. Certain organic 

handlers are exempt from paying 

assessments on market promotion 

activities. However, handlers not 

regulated under the marketing order 

(such as those handlers in Canada or 

Chile) are not subject to its provisions 

and thus, do not have to pay 

assessments. 

Lastly, in regards to the commenter 

who already pays for branded 

advertising, we note that those 

advertisements promote a specific brand 

of cranberries and cranberry products. 

The Committee’s domestic and export 

promotion programs are generic and 

were developed to promote the qualities 

of cranberries and cranberry products 

for the entire cranberry industry. Both 

the generic and branded promotion of 

cranberries and cranberry products 

reach new markets/customers and 

increase demand for cranberries. Under 

the marketing order, the assessment 

obligation is imposed on handlers. 

While assessments impose some 

additional costs on handlers, the costs 

are uniform on all handlers. Some of the 

additional costs may be passed on to 

producers. However, we believe that 

these costs are offset by the benefits 

derived by the operation of the 

marketing order. 

Accordingly, no changes will be made 

to this rule based on the comments 

received. 

A small business guide on complying 

with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop 

marketing agreements and orders may 

be viewed at the following Web site: 

http://www.ams.usda.gov/fv/moab.html. 

Any questions about the compliance 

guide should be sent to Jay Guerber at 

the previously mentioned address in the 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section. 

After consideration of all relevant 

material presented, including the 

information and recommendation 

submitted by the Committee and other 

available information, it is hereby found 

that this rule, as hereinafter set forth, 

will tend to effectuate the declared 

policy of the Act. 

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it is also 

found and determined that good cause 

exists for not postponing the effective 

date of this rule until 30 days after 

publication in the Federal Register 

because the 2006–2007 fiscal period 

began September 1, 2006, and the 

marketing order requires that the rate of 

assessment for each fiscal period apply 

to all assessable cranberries handled 

during such fiscal period. Further, 

handlers are aware of this action which 

was recommended by the Committee at 

a public meeting. Also, a 30-day 

comment period was provided for in the 

proposed rule. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 929 

Cranberries, Marketing agreements, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

■ For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, 7 CFR part 929 is amended as 

follows: 

PART 929—CRANBERRIES GROWN IN 

THE STATES OF MASSACHUSETTS, 

RHODE ISLAND, CONNECTICUT, NEW 

JERSEY, WISCONSIN, MICHIGAN, 

MINNESOTA, OREGON, 

WASHINGTON, AND LONG ISLAND IN 

THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

■ 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR 

part 929 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674. 

■ 2. Section 929.236 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 929.236 Assessment rate. 

On and after September 1, 2006, an 

assessment rate of $.28 per barrel is 

established for cranberries. 

Dated: March 23, 2007. 

Lloyd C. Day, 

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service. 

[FR Doc. E7–5791 Filed 3–28–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

7 CFR Part 948 

[Docket No. AMS–FV–06–0181; FV06–948–

2 FIR] 

Irish Potatoes Grown in Colorado; 

Modification of the Handling 

Regulation for Area No. 2 

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) is adopting, as a 

final rule, without change, an interim 

final rule modifying the grade and 

maturity requirements for potatoes 

handled under the Colorado potato 

marketing order, Area No. 2. The 

marketing order regulates the handling 

of Irish potatoes grown in Colorado and 

is administered locally by the Colorado 

Potato Administrative Committee, Area 

No. 2 (Committee). This rule continues 

in effect the action that relaxed the 

minimum grade requirement from U.S. 

No. 1 grade to U.S. Commercial grade 

for all Area No. 2 potato varieties, other 

than round, red-skinned varieties, 

measuring from 11⁄2-inch minimum 

diameter to 21⁄4-inch maximum 

diameter (size B), and 1-inch minimum 

diameter to 13⁄4-inch maximum 

diameter. This rule also continues in 

effect the action that changed the date 

minimum maturity requirements are 

implemented from August 25 to August 

1 of each year. These changes are 

intended to facilitate the handling and 

marketing of Colorado Area No. 2 

potatoes. 

DATES: Effective Date: April 30, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Teresa Hutchinson or Gary Olson, 

Northwest Marketing Field Office, 

Marketing Order Administration 

Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, 

AMS, USDA; Telephone: (503) 326– 

2724, Fax: (503) 326–7440, or E-mail: 

Teresa.Hutchinson@usda.gov or 

GaryD.Olson@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 Agreement 

No. 97 and Marketing Order No. 948, 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC61 with RULES