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

1239

Vol. 62, No. 6

Thursday, January 9, 1997

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Marketing Service

7 CFR Parts 932 and 944

[Docket No. FV96–932–2 FR]

Olives Grown in California and

Imported Olives; Establishment of

Minimum Quality Requirements for

California and Imported Olives, and

Revision of Outgoing Inspection

Requirements and Procedures for

California Olives

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service,

USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This final rule establishes

minimum quality requirements for

California olives under Marketing Order

932 and imported olives by replacing

grade requirements which have been

based on the U.S. Standards for Grades

of Canned Ripe Olives (standards). This

final rule also revises outgoing

inspection requirements and procedures

for California olives. This action is

expected to result in reduced handling

costs, especially inspection costs, and

improved consumer satisfaction.

EFFECTIVE DATES: This final rule

becomes effective January 13, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Terry Vawter, Marketing Specialist,

California Marketing Field Office,

Marketing Order Administration

Branch, F&V, AMS, USDA, 2202

Monterey Street, suite 102B, Fresno,

California 93721; telephone (209) 487–

5901; Fax # (209) 487–5906; or Caroline

Thorpe, Marketing Specialist, Marketing

Order Administration Branch, F&V,

AMS, USDA, room 2522–S, P.O. Box

96456, Washington, DC. 20090–6456;

telephone (202) 720–8139; Fax # (202)

720–5698. Small businesses may request

information on compliance with this

regulation by contacting: Jay Guerber,

Marketing Order Administration

Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Division,

AMS, USDA, P.O. Box 96456, room

2525–S, Washington, DC 20090–6456;

telephone (202) 720–2491; Fax # (202)

720–5698.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule

is issued under Marketing Order No.

932 (7 CFR part 932), as amended,

regulating the handling of olives grown

in California, 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.’’

This final rule is also issued under

section 8e of the Act, which provides

that whenever certain specified

commodities, including olives, are

regulated under a Federal marketing

order, imports of these commodities

into the United States are prohibited

unless they meet the same or

comparable grade, size, quality, or

maturity requirements as those in effect

for the domestically-produced

commodities.

The Department of Agriculture

(Department) is issuing this final rule in

conformance with Executive Order

12866.

This final 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 the Secretary 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 the Secretary 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 Secretary’s ruling on the

petition, provided an action is filed not

later than 20 days after the date of the

entry of the ruling.

There are no administrative

procedures which must be exhausted

prior to any judicial challenge to the

provisions of import regulations issued

under section 8e of the Act.

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.

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 issued 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.

Import regulations issued under the Act

are based on those established under

Federal marketing orders.

There are 4 handlers of olives who are

subject to regulation under the order,

and approximately 1,350 producers of

olives in the regulated area. There are

approximately 25 importers of olives

subject to the olive import regulation.

Small agricultural service firms, which

includes handlers and importers, have

been defined by the Small Business

Administration (13 CFR 121.601) as

those having annual receipts of less than

$5,000,000, and small agricultural

producers are defined as those having

annual receipts of less than $500,000.

None of the handlers is considered a

small entity, but the majority of olive

producers and some of the importers

may be classified as small entities.

The California Olive Committee

(committee) met on March 27, 1996, and

unanimously recommended establishing

minimum quality requirements to be

incorporated within the rules and

regulations of the order and revising

outgoing inspection requirements and

procedures. At a meeting on July 10,

1996, the committee recommended a

change in their recommendations of

March 27, 1996, with regard to an

outgoing inspection requirement.

Incoming inspection requirements at

§ 932.51 require handlers to weigh and

size-grade olives prior to processing,

and dispose of non-canning size

(undersized) olives into appropriate

non-canning outlets. Such weighing and

size-grading is done under the
1240 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

supervision of the Federal or FederalState Inspection Service. These

requirements provide the basis for

handler payments to producers, and

ensure that olives are properly sized

into the various canning and noncanning size categories.

Once the olives have been sizegraded, they are stored in tanks,

ensuring that the various sizes of olives

remain segregated. Non-canning size

olives are disposed of into appropriate

outlets, such as in frozen or acidified

forms, or crushed for oil.

Outgoing inspection requirements at

§ 932.52 and § 932.149 specify the

minimum quality of canned ripe olives

as a modified U.S. Grade C as certified

by inspectors of the USDA, Processed

Products Branch (PPB). Certification as

to grade provides handlers and their

customers with a uniform level of

quality familiar to both parties. The

outgoing inspection requirements also

ensure that canned ripe olives meet

applicable size designations prior to

shipment. Two methods of outgoing

inspection are authorized: A Quality

Assurance Program (QAP) approved by

the PPB or in-line inspection.

This rule adds the option of lot

inspection to assist handlers in reducing

inspection costs. Currently, during inline inspection, an inspector is required

to be present any time olives are in the

final stage of processing prior to

packaging. The current cost for an

inspector ranges from $31.50 per hour

for handlers in California under the

marketing order to $42.00 per hour

depending on the contract. For an 8-

hour day, the cost of one inspector

ranges from $252.00 to $328.00. Because

of this, handlers may benefit from

economies of scale: the more canned

olives packaged, the lower the cost per

can of olives.

In 1994, QAPs were added as an

option to reduce inspection costs. Under

QAPs, savings are more likely to accrue

to larger-volume handlers, who are more

likely to have sufficient olives to operate

year-round and realize savings by

employing trained quality-control

personnel. When there is a large crop,

more handlers may benefit from QAPs

for similar reasons.

Adding lot inspection offers handlers

a less-costly inspection option. During

lot inspection, an inspector does not

need to be present during the final

processing, unlike in-line inspection.

However, an inspector will inspect a

statistical percentage of a lot of olives

whether the lot is large or small. Thus,

there is less benefit of economies of

scale because for large lots more olives

will be inspected and for small lots

fewer olives will be inspected.

The committee recommended changes

in some of the inspection requirements

to reduce handlers’ costs, especially the

costs of inspection, and to address the

concerns of consumers of canned ripe

olives. The changes simplify the

inspection process by eliminating steps

which have been made unnecessary by

modern olive processing and pitting

equipment. This can reduce handling

costs, including inspection costs,

thereby improving returns to California

producers and handlers.

The changes address consumer

concerns, as identified through a 1995

consumer survey which the committee

undertook. Surveyed consumers

indicated that flavor, color, and

character are quality criteria most

important to them. The term ‘‘character’’

is used to include olive firmness,

tenderness and texture. The changes

address consumer concerns by

evaluating quality based upon those

criteria. This will help ensure that

consumer satisfaction is met, benefitting

the California olive industry, importers,

and consumers.

Therefore, the AMS has determined

that this action would not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

Interested persons are invited to submit

information on the regulatory and

informational impacts of this action on

small businesses.

Establishment of Minimum Quality

Requirements

Currently, § 932.149 specifies that

canned olives meet a minimum grade

requirement of a modified U.S. Grade C.

Additional specific requirements are

established for the various styles of

canned ripe olives, including whole,

pitted, broken pitted, halved, segmented

(wedged), sliced, and chopped styles.

Section 932.149 references various

definitions from the standards.

In place of these grades and

definitions, the committee

recommended a set of minimum quality

requirements for four styles of canned

olives: (1) Whole and pitted style olives;

(2) sliced, segmented (wedged), and

halved style olives; (3) chopped style

olives; and (4) broken pitted olives.

These quality requirements include

criteria pertaining to flavor, saltiness,

color, character, uniformity of size and

freedom from defects. These factors are

similar to those currently specified in

the standards and handling regulations,

and have been determined to be of

importance to consumers through the

committee’s consumer survey.

Olives are currently graded based

upon five factors: flavor, saltiness, color,

character, and defects. Currently, Table

I in § 932.149 only sets limits for defects

of canned ripe olives. Limits for the

other four factors, flavor, saltiness,

color, and character, are defined in the

standards. In place of Table I, based

upon information from the 1995

consumer survey, the committee

recommended establishing four new

tables which would specify the limits

for defects for each of the canned ripe

olive styles (whole and pitted styles;

sliced, segmented (wedged), and halved

styles; chopped style; and broken pitted

style). The new tables also define the

limits of the four characteristics (flavor,

saltiness, color, and character) currently

defined in the standards. The four new

tables provide all the definitions and

tolerances necessary to establish

minimum quality requirements in place

of grade requirements.

To effectuate the establishment of

minimum quality requirements,

references to ‘‘grade’’ in § 932.149 will

be replaced with ‘‘quality’’, canned

broken pitted olives will be defined

separately in a new paragraph

designated as (a)(4), and four new tables

depicting minimum quality

requirements for (1) canned whole and

pitted olives; (2) canned sliced,

segmented (wedged), and halved olives;

(3) canned chopped style olives; and (4)

canned broken pitted style olives will be

added to § 932.149, replacing the

current Table 1.

In conforming changes, the word

‘‘grade’’ will be replaced with the words

‘‘minimum quality’’ or ‘‘minimum

quality requirements,’’ as necessary, in

§ 932.150,§ 932.152, § 932.153, and

§ 932.155.

Section 932.149(a)(2) currently sets

the tolerance for identifiable pieces of

pit caps, end slices, and slices at 5

percent, by weight, for canned chopped

style olives. The committee

recommended a relaxed tolerance of 10

percent, by weight, in an effort to

encourage handlers to cut olives of the

chopped style in larger pieces. The

committee was concerned that canned

chopped style olives are currently

chopped too finely, rendering the

product nearly an olive ‘‘flour’’ rather

than identifiable pieces of olives

consumers indicated they preferred.

This change will reduce the costs of

packing canned chopped style olives.

The committee recommended that the

definition of ‘‘broken pitted’’ olives be

modified from the definition provided

in the standards. To accomplish this,

the committee proposed a modified

definition in § 932.149 of the

regulations. The current definition is

considered too restrictive by the

committee. Under the current

definition, broken pitted olives are
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 1241

defined as ‘‘olives [which] consist

substantially of large pieces that may

have been broken in pitting but have not

been sliced or cut.’’ Currently, each

handler packing broken pitted olives is

prohibited from using olives which have

been improperly pitted but unbroken

because the olives have not been

‘‘broken’’ in the pitting process.

(Improperly pitted olives do not contain

pits or pit fragments.) Each such

handler, therefore, pays an employee to

‘‘break’’ the unbroken, improperly

pitted olives so that such olives meet

the requirement for broken pitted olives.

As recommended by the committee, the

definition for broken pitted olives

deletes the word ‘‘substantially,’’

thereby permitting a greater percentage

of unbroken, improperly pitted olives to

be included in the broken pitted style

category. Such change is intended to

reduce the costs of packing broken

pitted olives while maintaining the

quality of the product.

The committee further recommended

basing outgoing inspections on a passfail basis, eliminating the requirement

that the inspection service certify that

canned ripe olives are either Grade A,

Grade B, or Grade C. Under a pass-fail

outgoing inspection, canned ripe olives

either meet the minimum quality

requirements and pass inspection, or

fail to meet the minimum quality

requirements and not pass inspection.

There will be no need to calculate the

grade of each sample in order to assign

Grade A, Grade B, or Grade C.

Elimination of the requirement to certify

to a grade will simplify the inspection

of such olives, thereby reducing

inspection time and overall inspection

costs.

Authorized Methods of Outgoing

Inspection

Pursuant to § 932.52 of the order and

§ 932.152 of the current outgoing

regulations, handlers are required to

maintain continuous in-line outgoing

inspection or a certified QAP. Under

continuous in-line outgoing inspection,

at least one inspector must be present at

all times when a plant is in operation to

make in-process checks on the

preparation, processing, packing, and

warehousing of all products. The

current cost for an inspector ranges from

$31.50 for handlers under the marketing

order to $42.00 per hour depending on

the contract. For an 8-hour day the cost

of one inspector ranges from $252.00 to

$328.00.

By contrast, under a QAP, each

certified plant has trained qualitycontrol personnel who perform most of

the same functions as a PPB inspector.

The PPB inspectors continue to issue

certificates of inspection based upon the

outgoing inspection records maintained

by the certified quality-control

personnel. These records are verified

through spot-checks and samples taken

by PPB inspectors.

A QAP may decrease outgoing

inspection costs for a handler compared

to inspection costs under continuous inline outgoing inspection. However, cost

savings under a QAP accrue more to

larger-volume handlers, who are more

likely to have sufficient olives to operate

year-round and realize savings by

employing trained quality-control

personnel. When there is a large crop,

more handlers may benefit from a QAP

for similar reasons. However, olive crop

sizes may vary substantially from one

year to the next due to the alternatebearing characteristics. This variability

further reduces the efficiency of

operations at most of the olive

processing plants and the cost-savings

of QAP, since handlers’ fixed costs must

be paid independent of the size of the

crop.

To enable handlers to minimize their

inspection costs, the committee

recommended that handlers be allowed

to utilize any inspection method

permitted by PPB, so that each may

choose the method most economical for

their operations. Thus, in addition to a

QAP and in-line inspection, lot

inspection will also be authorized for

meeting outgoing inspection

requirements. Under lot inspection, a

specified number of containers of the

same size and type, containing olives of

the same type and style, at the same

location, are inspected. Lot inspection

occurs after processing, rather than

during processing. Inspecting by lot has

the potential to reduce costs for

handlers because lot inspection does not

require the presence of an inspector at

all times while olives are being

processed.

To effectuate this change, paragraphs

(a) and (b)(1) of § 932.152, Outgoing

regulations, are revised to add authority

for handlers to use either continuous inline outgoing inspection, QAP, or lot

inspection. Because lot inspection does

not require the presence of an inspector

at all times during the processing of

olives, paragraph (b)(1) is revised by

deleting the final sentence, thereby

removing the requirement that an

inspector be present when olives are

processed. This change is expected to

reduce overall inspection costs by

eliminating overtime hours which

accrue when an inspector is required to

remain in an olive processing plant at

all times while processing is underway.

Outgoing Inspection for Size of

Canning-Size Olives

The committee also recommended

revising the current requirements that

canning-size olives, which have been

sized and stored in tanks prior to

pitting, be inspected for size prior to

packaging. Currently, such olives are

required under incoming inspection

requirements to be weighed and sizegraded. Olives are then stored in tanks

prior to processing. The outgoing

requirements mandate that such olives

be submitted for size inspection prior to

packaging. However, handlers size

olives upon receipt and keep the sizes

separate throughout the packaging

process because doing so facilitates

more efficient operation of modern

processing and pitting equipment.

Eliminating the requirement for

inspection for size prior to packaging

will simplify the inspection process and

reduce overall inspection costs while

maintaining the integrity and quality of

canned ripe olives.

To effectuate this change, paragraph

(b)(2) of § 932.152 is deleted. This

deletion necessitates the redesignation

of paragraph (b)(1) as (b).

However, olives which are smaller

than authorized for use as canned ripe

olives (undersized olives) will still be

held under surveillance by the

inspection service, as required in the

incoming inspection requirements and

specified in paragraph (e)(2) of

§ 932.151, since handlers must dispose

of such olives into appropriate outlets,

such as in frozen or acidified forms, or

crushed for oil.

Outgoing Inspection for Size of LimitedUse Olives

Section 932.152, paragraphs (g)(1) and

(g)(2), of the current outgoing

regulations specify that olives used in

the production of limited-use styles are

not required to be submitted for an

outgoing inspection for size prior to

packaging if they were size-graded by

the inspection service during the

incoming inspection process. Limiteduse styles include halved, segmented

(wedged), sliced, or chopped styles.

Typically, smaller olives may be used

for limited-use styles rather than for

whole styles.

According to the requirements of

§ 932.51(a)(ii) of the order, canning size

olives are sized by the inspection

service during the incoming inspection

process. The olives are then either

placed in storage tanks or sent

immediately to processing.

Olives process more efficiently when

all the olives in the processing tank are

uniform in size. Modern, high-speed
1242 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

pitting equipment produces higher

yields and inflicts less damage to olives

when the sizes being pitted are uniform.

This is especially true for the smaller

canning sizes. Currently, over 95

percent of all olives are pitted prior to

packaging.

Olive handlers have an additional

incentive to maintain strict control over

various sizes of olives—retail customers’

demands for uniform size and quality.

For those reasons, the committee

recommended changes in § 932.152,

paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) to eliminate

the requirement for inspection for size

prior to packaging.

To effectuate the change, the words

‘‘without an outgoing inspection for size

designation’’ are deleted from § 932.152,

paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2).

These changes establish minimum

quality requirements of flavor, saltiness,

color, character, and defects for whole

and pitted style olives; sliced,

segmented (wedged), and halved style

olives; chopped style olives; and broken

pitted style olives. They also revise

outgoing inspection requirements and

procedures under the marketing order

by eliminating requirements that sized

and stored olives be submitted for sizing

prior to packaging, and permitting lot

inspection. These revisions eliminate

requirements no longer deemed

necessary, thereby reducing handling

costs, while maintaining quality and

size requirements needed to ensure

customer satisfaction.

This rule also changes § 932.153 (as

amended in the Federal Register on

August 5, 1996, 61 FR 40507), which

specifies current minimum grade and

size requirements for limited use olives.

All references to ‘‘grade’’ in that section

are replaced by the words ‘‘minimum

quality’’ or ‘‘minimum quality

requirements,’’ as necessary.

Olive Import Requirements

Section 8e of the Act requires that

whenever grade, size, quality, or

maturity requirements are in effect for

olives under a domestic marketing

order, imported olives must meet the

same or comparable requirements. This

rule establishes minimum quality

requirements to replace current

minimum grade requirements for

California olives under the marketing

order. Therefore, a corresponding

change is made in the olive import

regulation.

This rule modifies paragraphs (a)(8),

(b)(1), (g), and (j) of § 944.401 by

deleting certain references to the

standards and adding specific quality

criteria for imported olives which are

the same as those for California olives.

The proposed rule concerning this

action was published in the November

8, 1996, Federal Register (61 FR 57782),

with a 15-day comment period ending

November 25, 1996. No comments were

received.

Although no comments were

received, the Department is making

several changes in the regulatory text

that appeared in the proposed rule for

purposes of clarification.

In tables 1 through 4 of sections

932.149 and 944.401, with respect to

color criteria, the proposed rule stated,

in part, that olives must have ‘‘a color

equal or darker than the comparator.’’

This rule replaces the word

‘‘comparator’’ with the term ‘‘USDA

Composite Color Standard.’’ This is a

more precise term for the standard used

to determine the appropriate color of

olives, and does not materially affect the

color requirement. In table 1 of those

same two sections, with respect to pits

and pit fragments, the allowance of ‘‘Not

more than 1.3 average by count’’ is

changed to read ‘‘Not more than 1.3%

by count.’’ This is a clarifying change.

In section 932.152(c)(2)(xi), the word

‘‘standard’’ is replaced by the word

‘‘quality.’’ This is a more accurate word.

Finally, a paragraph (5) is added to

section 932.149(a) and a paragraph (v) is

added to section 944.401(b) to provide

a tolerance for olives that do not meet

the quality criteria set forth in those

sections. Absent such tolerances, one

failed unit would result in an entire lot

failing to meet the specified quality

requirements. The tolerances specified

are those that appear in the standards

and that are currently used by the olive

industry. The proposed rule did not

contain such tolerances. Adding these

provisions to the final rule corrects this

oversight.

In accordance with section 8e of the

Act, the U.S. Trade Representative has

concurred with the issuance of this

proposed rule.

After consideration of all relevant

matter presented, including the

information and recommendations

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.

It is further found that good cause

exists for not postponing the effective

date of this rule until 30 days after

publication in the Federal Register (5

U.S.C. 553) because this rule should be

implemented as soon as possible since

the crop year for olives grown in

California began on August 1, 1996, and

olives from the 1996 crop are already

being processed and shipped. Further,

handlers are aware of this rule, which

was recommended at two public

meetings. Additionally, interested

parties had the opportunity to comment

on the proposed rule, and no comments

were received.

List of Subjects

7 CFR Part 932

Marketing agreements, Olives,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

7 CFR Part 944

Avocados, Food grades and standards,

Grapefruit, Grapes, Imports, Kiwifruit,

Limes, Olives, Oranges.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, 7 CFR parts 932 and 944 are

amended as follows:

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR

parts 932 and 944 continues to read as

follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674.

PART 932—OLIVES GROWN IN

CALIFORNIA

2. Section 932.149 is revised to read

as follows:

§ 932.149 Modified minimum quality

requirements for specified styles of canned

olives of the ripe type.

(a) Except as otherwise provided in

this section, the minimum quality

requirements prescribed in §932.52(a)(1)

are modified as follows, for specified

styles of canned olives of the ripe type:

(1) Canned whole and pitted olives of

the ripe type shall meet the minimum

quality requirements as prescribed in

Table 1 of this section;

(2) Canned sliced, segmented

(wedged), and halved olives of the ripe

type shall meet the minimum quality

requirements as prescribed in Table 2 of

this section;

(3) Canned chopped olives of the ripe

type shall meet the minimum quality

requirements as prescribed in Table 3 of

this section; and shall be practically free

from identifiable units of pit caps, end

slices, and slices (‘‘practically free from

identifiable units’’ means that not more

than 10 percent, by weight, of the unit

of chopped style olives may be

identifiable pit caps, end slices, or

slices); and,

(4) Canned broken pitted olives of the

ripe type shall meet the minimum

quality requirements as prescribed in

Table 4 of this section;

(5) A lot of canned ripe olives is

considered to meet the requirements of

this section if all or most of the sample

units meet the requirements specified in

Tables 1 through 4 of this section:

Provided, That the number of sample

units which do not meet the
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 1243

requirements specified in Tables 1

through 4 of this section does not

exceed the acceptance number

prescribed for in the sample size

provided in Table I of 7 CFR 52.38:

Provided further, That there is no off

flavor in any sample unit.

TABLE 1.—WHOLE AND PITTED STYLE

[Defects by count per 50 olives]

FLAVOR .............................................................. Reasonably good; no ‘‘off’’ flavor.

FLAVOR (Green Ripe Type) Free from objectionable flavors of any kind.

SALOMETER ...................................................... Acceptable Range in degrees: 3.0 to 14.0.

COLOR ............................................................... Reasonably uniform with not less than 60% having a color equal or darker than the USDA

Composite Color Standard for Ripe Type.

CHARACTER ...................................................... Not more than 5 soft units or 2 excessively soft units.

UNIFORMITY OF SIZE 60%, by visual inspection, of the most uniform in size. The diameter of the largest does not

exceed the smallest by more than 4mm.

DEFECTS:

Pitter Damage (Pitted Style Only) ............... 15.

Major Blemishes .......................................... 5.

Major Wrinkles ............................................. 5.

Pits and Pit Fragments (Pitted Style Only) Not more than 1.3 % average by count.

Major Stems ................................................. Not more than 3.

HEVM ........................................................... Not more than 1 unit per sample.

Mutilated ...................................................... Not more than 3.

Mechanical Damage .................................... Not more than 5.

Split Pits or Misshapen ................................ Not more than 5.

TABLE 2.—SLICED, SEGMENTED (WEDGED), AND HALVED STYLES

[Defects by count per 255 grams]

FLAVOR .............................................................. Reasonably good; no ‘‘off’’ flavor.

SALOMETER ...................................................... Acceptable Range in degrees: 3.0 to 14.0.

COLOR ............................................................... Reasonably uniform with no units lighter than the USDA Composite Color Standard for Ripe

Type.

CHARACTER ...................................................... Not more than 13 grams excessively soft.

DEFECTS:

Pits and Pit Fragments ................................ Average of not more than 1 by count per 300 grams.

Major Stems ................................................. Not more than 3.

HEVM ........................................................... Not more than 2 units per sample.

Broken Pieces and End Caps ..................... Not more than 125 grams by weight.

TABLE 3.—CHOPPED STYLE

[Defects by count per 255 grams]

FLAVOR .............................................................. Reasonably good; no ‘‘off’’ flavor.

SALOMETER ...................................................... Acceptable Range in degrees: 3.0 to 14.0.

COLOR ............................................................... Reasonably uniform with no units lighter than the USDA Composite Color Standard for Ripe

Type.

DEFECTS:

Pits and Pit Fragments ................................ Average of not more than 1 by count per 300 grams.

Major Stems ................................................. Not more than 3.

HEVM ........................................................... Not more than 2 units per sample.

TABLE 4.—BROKEN PITTED STYLE

[Defects by count per 255 grams]

FLAVOR .............................................................. Reasonably good; no ‘‘off’’ flavor.

SALOMETER ...................................................... Acceptable Range in degrees: 3.0 to 14.0.

COLOR ............................................................... Reasonably uniform with no units lighter than the USDA Composite Color Standard for Ripe

Type.

CHARACTER ...................................................... Not more than 13 grams excessively soft.

DEFECTS:

Pits and Pit Fragments ................................ Average of not more than 1 by count per 300 grams.

Major Stems ................................................. Not more than 3.

HEVM ........................................................... Not more than 2 units per sample.

(b) Terms used in this section shall

have the same meaning as are given to

the respective terms in the current U.S.

Standards for Grades of Canned Ripe

Olives (7 CFR part 52): Provided, That

the definition of ‘‘broken pitted olives’’

is as follows: ‘‘Broken pitted olives’’

consist of large pieces that may have
1244 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

been broken in pitting but have not been

sliced or cut.

3. Section 932.150 is revised to read

as follows:

§ 932.150 Modified minimum quality

requirements for canned green ripe olives.

The minimum quality requirements

prescribed in § 932.52 (a)(1) of this part

are hereby modified with respect to

canned green ripe olives so that no

requirements shall be applicable with

respect to color and blemishes of such

olives.

4. In section 932.152, paragraphs (a),

(b), (c)(2), the heading of paragraph (d),

(d)(1), (g)(1) introductory text (table

remains unchanged), and (g)(2)

introductory text (table remains

unchanged) are revised to read as

follows:

§ 932.152 Outgoing regulations.

(a) Inspection stations. Processed

olives shall be sampled and inspected

only at an inspection station which

shall be any olive processing plant

having facilities for in-line or lot

inspection which are satisfactory to the

Inspection Service and the Committee;

or an olive processing plant which has

an approved Quality Assurance Program

in effect.

(b) Inspection—General. Inspection of

packaged olives for conformance with

§ 932.52 shall be by a Quality Assurance

Program approved by the Processed

Products Branch (PPB), USDA; or by inline or lot inspection. A PPB approved

Quality Assurance Program shall be

pursuant to a Quality Assurance

contract as referred to in § 52.2.

(c) * * *

(2) The Inspection Service shall issue

for each day’s pack a signed certificate

covering the quantities of such packaged

olives which meet all applicable

minimum quality and size

requirements. Each such certificate shall

contain at least the following:

(i) Date;

(ii) Place of inspection;

(iii) Name and address of handler;

(iv) Can code;

(v) Variety;

(vi) Fruit size;

(vii) Can size;

(viii) Style;

(ix) Total number of cases;

(x) Number of cans per case;

(xi) And statement that packaged

olives meet the effective minimum

quality requirements for canned ripe

olives as warranted by the facts.

(d) Olives which fail to meet

minimum quality and size requirements.

(1) Whenever any portion of a handler’s

daily pack of packaged olives fails to

meet all applicable minimum quality

and size requirements, the Inspection

Service shall issue a signed report

covering such olives. Each such report

shall contain at least the following:

(i) Date;

(ii) Place of inspection;

(iii) Name and address of handler;

(iv) Can code;

(v) Variety;

(vi) Fruit size;

(vii) Can size;

(viii) Style;

(ix) Total number of cases;

(x) Number of cans per case; and

(xi) Reason why the applicable

requirements were not met.

* * * * *

(g) Size Certification. (1) When

limited-use size olives for limited-use

styles are authorized during a crop year

and a handler elects to have olives sized

pursuant to § 932.51(a)(2)(i), any lot of

limited-use size olives may be used in

the production of packaged olives for

limited-use styles if such olives are

within the average count range in Table

II contained herein for that variety

group, and meet such further mid-point

or acceptable count requirements for the

average count range in each size as

approved by the committee.

* * * * *

(2) When limited-use size olives are

not authorized for limited-use styles

during a crop year and a handler elects

to have olives sized pursuant to

§ 932.51(a)(2)(ii), any lot of canningsized olives may be used in the

production of packaged olives for

whole, pitted, or limited-use styles if

such olives are within the average count

range in Table III contained herein for

that variety group, and meet such

further mid-point or acceptable count

requirements for the average count

range in each size as approved by the

committee.

* * * * *

5. In § 932.153, the section heading

and paragraph (a) are revised to read as

follows:

§ 932.153 Establishment of minimum

quality and size requirements for processed

olives for limited uses.

(a) Minimum quality requirements.

On or after August 1, 1996, any handler

may use processed olives of the

respective variety group in the

production of limited use styles of

canned ripe olives if such olives were

processed after July 31, 1996, and meet

the minimum quality requirements

specified in § 932.52(a)(1) as modified

by § 932.149.

* * * * *

6. In § 932.155, paragraph (c) is

revised to read as follows:

§ 932.155 Special purpose shipments.

* * * * *

(c) In accordance with the provisions

of §932.55(b), any handler may use

processed olives in the production of

packaged olives for repackaging, and

ship packaged olives for repackaging, if

the packaged olives meet the minimum

quality requirements, except for the

requirement that the packaged olives

possess a reasonably good flavor:

Provided, That the failure to possess a

reasonably good flavor is due only to

excessive sodium chloride.

PART 944—FRUITS; IMPORT

REGULATIONS

7. In § 944.401, paragraphs (a)(8),

(b)(1), (g), and (j) are revised to read as

follows:

§ 944.401 Olive Regulation 1.

(a) * * *

(8) Terms used in this section shall

have the same meaning as are given to

the respective terms in the current U.S.

Standards for Grades of Canned Ripe

Olives (7 CFR part 52) including the

terms ‘‘size’’, ‘‘character’’, ‘‘defects’’ and

‘‘ripe type’’: Provided, That the

definition of ‘‘broken pitted olives’’ is as

follows: ‘‘Broken pitted olives’’ consist

of large pieces that may have been

broken in pitting but have not been

sliced or cut.

(b) * * *

(1) Minimum quality requirements.

Canned ripe olives shall meet the

following quality requirements, except

that no requirements shall be applicable

with respect to color and blemishes for

canned green ripe olives:

(i) Canned whole and pitted olives of

the ripe type shall meet the minimum

quality requirements prescribed in

Table 1 of this section;

(ii) Canned sliced, segmented

(wedged), and halved olives of the ripe

type shall meet the minimum quality

requirements prescribed in Table 2 of

this section;

(iii) Canned chopped olives of the

ripe type shall meet the minimum

quality requirements prescribed in

Table 3 of this section and shall be

practically free from identifiable units of

pit caps, end slices, and slices

(‘‘practically free from identifiable

units’’ means that not more than 10

percent, by weight, of the unit of

chopped style olives may be identifiable

pit caps, end slices, or slices); and

(iv) Canned broken pitted olives of the

ripe type shall meet the minimum

quality requirements prescribed in

Table 4 of this section, Provided, That

broken pitted olives consist of large
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 1245

pieces that may have been broken in

pitting but have not been sliced or cut.

(v) A lot of canned ripe olives is

considered to meet the requirements of

this section if all or most of the sample

units meet the requirements specified in

Tables 1 through 4 of this section:

Provided, That the number of sample

units which do not meet the

requirements specified in Tables 1

through 4 of this section does not

exceed the acceptance number

prescribed for in the sample size

provided in Table I of 7 CFR 52.38:

Provided further, That there is no off

flavor in any sample unit.

TABLE 1.—WHOLE AND PITTED STYLE

[Defects by count per 50 olives]

FLAVOR .............................................................. Reasonably good; no ‘‘off’’ flavor.

FLAVOR (Green Ripe Type) .............................. Free from objectionable flavors of any kind.

SALOMETER ...................................................... Acceptable range in degrees: 3.0 to 14.0.

COLOR ............................................................... Reasonably uniform with not less than 60% having a color equal or darker than the USDA

Composite Color Standard for Ripe Type.

CHARACTER ...................................................... Not more than 5 soft units or 2 excessively soft units.

UNIFORMITY OF SIZE ...................................... 60%, by visual inspection, of the most uniform in size. The diameter of the largest does not

exceed the smallest by more than 4mm.

DEFECTS:.

Pitter Damage (Pitted Style Only) ............... 15.

Major Blemishes .......................................... 5.

Major Wrinkles ............................................. 5.

Pits and Pit Fragments (Pitted Style Only) Not more than 1.3% average by count.

Major Stems ................................................. Not more than 3.

HEVM ........................................................... Not more than 1 unit per sample.

Mutilated ...................................................... Not more than 3.

Mechanical Damage .................................... Not more than 5.

Split Pits or Misshapen ................................ Not more than 5.

TABLE 2.—SLICED, SEGMENTED (WEDGED), AND HALVED STYLES

[Defects by count per 255]

FLAVOR .............................................................. Reasonably good; no ‘‘off’’ flavor.

SALOMETER ...................................................... Acceptable range in degrees: 3.0 to 14.0.

COLOR ............................................................... Reasonably uniform with no units lighter than the USDA Composite Color Standard for Ripe

Type.

CHARACTER ...................................................... Not more than 13 grams excessively soft.

DEFECTS:

Pits and Pit Fragments ................................ Average of not more than 1 by count per 300 grams.

Major Stems ................................................. Not more than 3.

HEVM ........................................................... Not more than 2 units per sample.

Broken Pieces and End Caps ..................... Not more than 125 grams by weight.

TABLE 3.—CHOPPED STYLE

[Defects by count per 255 grams]

FLAVOR .............................................................. Reasonably good; no ‘‘off’’ flavor.

SALOMETER ...................................................... Acceptable range in degrees: 3.0 to 14.0.

COLOR ............................................................... Reasonably uniform with no units lighter than the USDA Composite Color Standard for Ripe

Type.

DEFECTS:

Pits and Pit Fragments ................................ Average of not more than 1 by count per 300 grams.

Major Stems ................................................. Not more than 3.

HEVM ........................................................... Not more than 2 units per sample.

TABLE 4.—BROKEN PITTED STYLE

[Defects by count per 255 grams]

FLAVOR .............................................................. Reasonably good; no ‘‘off’’ flavor.

SALOMETER ...................................................... Acceptable range in degrees: 3.0 to 14.0.

COLOR ............................................................... Reasonably uniform with no units lighter than the USDA Composite Color Standard for Ripe

Type.

CHARACTER ...................................................... Not more than 13 grams excessively soft.

DEFECTS:

Pits and Pit Fragments ................................ Average of not more than 1 by count per 300 grams.

Major Stems ................................................. Not more than 3.

HEVM ........................................................... Not more than 2 units per sample.
1246 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

* * * * *

(g) It is hereby determined, on the

basis of the information currently

available, that the minimum quality

requirements and size requirements set

forth in this part are comparable to

those applicable to California canned

ripe olives.

* * * * *

(j) The minimum quality, size, and

maturity requirements of this section

shall not be applicable to olives

imported for charitable organizations or

processing for oil, but shall be subject to

the safeguard provisions contained in

§ 944.350.

Dated: December 31, 1996.

Robert C. Keeney,

Director, Fruit and Vegetable Division.

[FR Doc. 97–449 Filed 1–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

7 CFR Part 985

[FV96–985–3 IFR]

Spearmint Oil Produced in the Far

West; Revision of the Salable Quantity

and Allotment Percentage for Class 3

(Native) Spearmint Oil for the 1996–97

Marketing Year

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service,

USDA.

ACTION: Interim final rule with request

for comments.

SUMMARY: This interim final rule

increases the quantity of Class 3 (Native)

spearmint oil produced in the Far West

that handlers may purchase from, or

handle for, producers during the 1996–

97 marketing year. This rule was

recommended by the Spearmint Oil

Administrative Committee (Committee),

the agency responsible for local

administration of the marketing order

for spearmint oil produced in the Far

West. The Committee recommended

this rule to avoid extreme fluctuations

in supplies and prices and thus help to

maintain stability in the Far West

spearmint oil market.

DATES: Effective on January 9, 1997

through May 31, 1997; comments

received by February 10, 1997 will be

considered prior to issuance of a final

rule.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are

invited to submit written comments

concerning this rule. Comments must be

sent in triplicate to the Docket Clerk,

Fruit and Vegetable Division, AMS,

USDA, room 2525, South Building, P.O.

Box 96456, Washington, DC 20090–

6456; Fax: (202) 720–5698. All

comments should reference the docket

number and the date and page number

of this issue of the Federal Register and

will be made available for public

inspection in the Office of the Docket

Clerk during regular business hours.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert J. Curry, Northwest Marketing

Field Office, Marketing Order

Administration Branch, Fruit and

Vegetable Division, AMS, USDA, 1220

SW Third Avenue, room 369, Portland,

Oregon 97204–2807; telephone: (503)

326–2043; Fax: (503) 326–7440; or

Caroline C. Thorpe, Marketing Order

Administration Branch, Fruit and

Vegetable Division, AMS, USDA, room

2525, South Building, P.O. Box 96456,

Washington, DC 20090–6456; telephone:

(202) 720–8139; Fax: (202) 720–5698.

Small businesses may request

information on compliance with this

regulation by contacting: Jay Guerber,

Marketing Order Administration

Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Division,

AMS, USDA, P.O. Box 96456, room

2525–S, Washington, DC 20090–6456;

telephone (202) 720–2491; Fax: (202)

720–5698.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule

is issued under Marketing Order No.

985 (7 CFR part 985), regulating the

handling of spearmint oil produced in

the Far West (Washington, Idaho,

Oregon, and designated parts of Nevada,

and Utah), hereinafter referred to as the

‘‘order.’’ This 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

(Department) is issuing this rule in

conformance with Executive Order

12866.

This rule has been reviewed under

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice

Reform. Under the provisions of the

marketing order now in effect, salable

quantities and allotment percentages

may be established for classes of

spearmint oil produced in the Far West.

This rule increases the quantity of

Native spearmint oil produced in the

Far West that may be purchased from or

handled for producers by handlers

during the 1996–97 marketing year,

which ends on May 31, 1997. 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 Secretary 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 the Secretary 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 Secretary’s ruling on the

petition, provided an action is filed not

later than 20 days after date of the entry

of the ruling.

The Far West spearmint oil industry

is characterized by producers whose

farming operations generally involve

more than one commodity and whose

income from farming operations is not

exclusively dependent on the

production of spearmint oil. The U.S.

production of spearmint oil is

concentrated in the Far West, primarily

Washington, Idaho, and Oregon (part of

the area covered by the order).

Spearmint oil is also produced in the

Midwest. The production area covered

by the order normally accounts for

approximately 75 percent of the annual

U.S. production of spearmint oil.

This rule increases the quantity of

Native spearmint oil that handlers may

purchase from, or handle for, producers

during the 1996–97 marketing year,

which ends on May 31, 1997. This rule

increases the salable quantity from

1,074,902 pounds to 1,213,692 pounds

and the allotment percentage from 54

percent to 61 percent for Native

spearmint oil for the 1996–97 marketing

year.

The salable quantity is the total

quantity of each class of oil that

handlers may purchase from, or handle

for, producers during a marketing year.

The salable quantity calculated by the

Committee is based on the estimated

trade demand. The total salable quantity

is divided by the total industry

allotment base to determine an

allotment percentage. Each producer is

allotted a share of the salable quantity

by applying the allotment percentage to

the producer’s individual allotment base

for the applicable class of spearmint oil.

The initial salable quantity and

allotment percentages for Scotch and

Native spearmint oils for the 1996–97

marketing year were recommended by

the Committee at its September 26,

1995, meeting. The Committee

recommended salable quantities of

989,303 pounds and 1,074,902 pounds,

and allotment percentages of 55 percent

and 54 percent, respectively, for Scotch

and Native spearmint oils. A proposed

rule was published in the January 24,

1996, issue of the Federal Register (61