Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 28, 2010 / Notices 22363 

30 days, an original of SF–270, ‘‘Request 

for Advance or Reimbursement,’’ may be 

submitted to Rural Development. 

Recipient’s request for advance shall not 

be made in excess of reasonable outlays 

for the month covered. 

Reporting Requirements: Grantees 

must provide Rural Development with 

an original or an electronic copy that 

includes all required signatures of the 

following reports. The reports should be 

submitted to the Agency contact listed 

on the Grant Agreement and Letter of 

Conditions. Failure to submit 

satisfactory reports on time may result 

in suspension or termination of the 

grant. Grantees will submit: 

1. Form SF–425. A ‘‘Federal Financial 

Report,’’ listing expenditures according 

to agreed upon budget categories, on a 

semi-annual basis. Reporting periods 

end each March 31 and September 30. 

Reports are due 30 days after the 

reporting period ends. 

2. Semi-annual performance reports 

comparing accomplishments to the 

objectives stated in the proposal, 

identifying all tasks completed to date 

and providing documentation 

supporting the reported results. If the 

original schedule provided in the work 

plan is not being met, the report should 

discuss the problems or delays that may 

affect completion of the Project. 

Objectives for the next reporting period 

should be listed. Compliance with any 

special condition on the use of award 

funds must be discussed. Reports are 

due as provided in paragraph (1) of this 

section. Supporting documentation 

must also be submitted for completed 

tasks. The supporting documentation for 

completed tasks includes, but is not 

limited to, feasibility studies, marketing 

plans, business plans, articles of 

incorporation, and bylaws as they relate 

to the assistance provided. 

3. Final Project performance reports 

comparing accomplishments to the 

objectives stated in the proposal, 

identifying all tasks completed, and 

providing documentation supporting 

the reported results. If the original 

schedule provided in the work plan was 

not met, the report must discuss the 

problems or delays that affected 

completion of the Project. Compliance 

with any special condition on the use of 

award funds must be discussed. 

Supporting documentation for 

completed tasks must also be submitted. 

The supporting documentation for 

completed tasks includes, but is not 

limited to, feasibility studies, marketing 

plans, business plans, articles of 

incorporation, and bylaws as they relate 

to the assistance provided. The final 

performance report is due within 90 

days of the completion of the Project. 

The report must also include a summary 

at the end of the report with the number 

of small socially disadvantaged 

producers assisted to assist in 

documenting the annual performance 

goals of the SSDPG program for 

Congress. 

VII. Agency Contacts 

For general questions about this 

announcement and for program 

technical assistance, please contact the 

appropriate State Office as indicated in 

the ADDRESSES section of this notice. 

VIII. Non-Discrimination Statement 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) prohibits discrimination in all 

its programs and activities on the basis 

of race, color, national origin, age, 

disability, and where applicable, sex, 

marital status, familial status, parental 

status, religion, sexual orientation, 

genetic information, political beliefs, 

reprisal, or because all or part of an 

individual’s income is derived from any 

public assistance program. (Not all 

prohibited bases apply to all programs.) 

Persons with disabilities who require 

alternative means for communication of 

program information (Braille, large 

print, audiotape, etc.) should contact 

USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720– 

2600 (voice and TDD). 

To file a complaint of discrimination, 

write to USDA, Director, Office of 

Adjudication and Compliance, 1400 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20250–9410, or call 

(800) 795–3272 (voice) or (202) 720– 

6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal 

opportunity provider and employer. 

Dated: April 21, 2010. 

Curtis Wiley, 

Acting Administrator, Rural Business— 

Cooperative Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–9820 Filed 4–27–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–XY–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

[Doc. No. AMS–FV–08–0073; FV–08–329] 

United States Standards for Grades of 

Olive Oil and Olive-Pomace Oil 

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Agricultural Marketing 

Service (AMS) of the Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) is revising the 

United States Standards for Grades of 

Olive Oil. This revision includes 

updated terms consistent with objective 

criteria for determining quality and 

purity among the grades of olive oil and 

olive-pomace oil commonly accepted in 

the United States and abroad. The 

revision will facilitate the marketing of 

olive oil and olive-pomace oil, employ 

terms consistent with the marketplace, 

provide definitions for olive oil and 

olive-pomace oil, promote truth in 

labeling, and provide a basis for 

enforcement by State and Federal 

agencies if these products are 

mislabeled. 

DATES: Effective Date: October 25, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Copies of the revised U.S. 

Standards for Grades of Olive Oil and 

Olive-pomace oil are available from 

Processed Products Branch, Fruit and 

Vegetable Programs, Agricultural 

Marketing Service, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, 1400 Independence 

Avenue, SW., Room 0709, South 

Building; STOP 0247, Washington, DC 

20250 or on the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov or http:// 

www.ams.usda.gov/ 

processedinspection. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Chere L. Shorter, Inspection and 

Standardization Section, Processed 

Products Branch, Fruit and Vegetable 

Programs, Agricultural Marketing 

Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

phone (202) 720–5021; or fax (202) 690– 

1527. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 

203(c) of the Agricultural Marketing Act 

of 1946, as amended, directs and 

authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture 

‘‘to develop and improve standards of 

quality, condition, quantity, grade, and 

packaging, and recommend and 

demonstrate such standards in order to 

encourage uniformity and consistency 

in commercial practices.’’ AMS is 

committed to carrying out this authority 

in a manner that facilitates the 

marketing of agricultural commodities 

and makes copies of official standards 

available upon request. Those United 

States Standards for Grades of Fruits 

and Vegetables that no longer appear in 

the Code of Federal Regulations are 

maintained by USDA/AMS/Fruit and 

Vegetable Programs at http:// 

www.ams.usda.gov/ 

processedinspection. 

AMS is revising the U.S. Standards 

for Grades of Olive Oil using the 

procedures that appear in part 36 of 

Title 7 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (7 CFR part 36). 

Background 

AMS received a petition from the 

California Olive Oil Council (COOC), an 

association of domestic olive oil 

producers, requesting the revision of the 

United States Standards for Grades of 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
22364 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 28, 2010 / Notices 

Olive Oil, to reflect current industry 

standards commonly accepted in the 

United States and abroad. 

The revision replaces the first edition 

of the U.S. grade standards, effective 

since March 22, 1948 that used grades 

of ‘‘U.S. Grade A’’ or ‘‘U.S. Fancy,’’ ‘‘U.S. 

Grade B’’ or ‘‘U.S. Choice,’’ ‘‘U.S. Grade 

C’’ or ‘‘U.S. Standard,’’ and ‘‘U.S. Grade 

D’’ or ‘‘Substandard,’’ to denote levels of 

quality. These terms are not consistent 

with today’s terminology for olive oil 

within the industry. The U.S. industry 

requested the revision because they 

wanted to create fairness in the 

marketplace. The COOC contend that 

because there is no definition for olive 

oil in the U.S., some unscrupulous 

blenders can produce low quality olive 

oil or olive-pomace oil and market it as 

extra virgin olive oil at a premium price. 

The petitioners requested that the 

U.S. grade standards be revised to make 

them consistent with the International 

Olive Council (IOC) trade standards for 

olive and olive-pomace oil. The IOC 

develops standards of quality used by 

major olive oil producing countries, 

including Spain, Italy, Greece, Portugal, 

and Turkey. The IOC is an 

intergovernmental organization created 

by the United Nations that is 

headquartered in Madrid, Spain 

representing the marketing of over 95 

percent of the world’s olive oil 

production. The IOC is responsible for 

administering the International 

Agreement on Olive Oil. The United 

States is not a member of the IOC but 

has observer status. The COOC adheres, 

for the most part, to these international 

standards. 

The petitioners originally requested 

that no value be provided for linolenic 

acid in the fatty acid profile pending the 

outcome of a review of the appropriate 

fatty acid limits for linolenic acid by the 

Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) 

but then agreed to set a limit for 

linolenic acid consistent with 

commercial practices in the domestic 

industry. The CAC is a United Nations 

organization through which member 

countries, including the United States, 

formulate and harmonize international 

food standards. To date, the CAC has 

not made a decision on the appropriate 

fatty acid limits for linolenic acid and 

leaves this limit to individual 

governments to decide. 

AMS published a Notice in the 

November 8, 2004, Federal Register (69 

FR 64713) with a thirty day comment 

period to determine the interest in 

revising the U.S. grade standards in 

response to the request by COOC. 

Thirty commenters responded to the 

Federal Register notice. All of the 

comments are available on the AMS 

Web site located at http:// 

www.ams.usda.gov/ 

processedinspection. In general, the 

commenters agreed that there should be 

clearly defined quality ratings. 

Additionally, several commenters 

requested that USDA create an 

organoleptic sensory panel to perform 

organoleptic analyses and establish a 

laboratory or accredit one or more labs 

that would perform the analyses 

following IOC trade standards. AMS 

concluded that there was positive 

interest in revised U.S. grade standards 

for olive oil. 

AMS then published a Notice in the 

June 2, 2008, Federal Register (73 FR 

31426) with a sixty-day comment period 

to garner comments on its proposed U.S. 

grade standards. Twenty-six 

commenters responded to the Federal 

Register notice including producers, 

consumers, trade associations, 

government agencies, and 

representatives. Comments were 

received from the United States, 

Australia, Argentina, New Zealand, 

Portugal, Spain, and Tunisia. All of the 

comments are available on http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

The proposed grade standards were 

largely based on the International Olive 

Oil (IOC) Standards. The IOC standards 

are recognized by the vast majority of 

the world’s olive oil producers and 

marketers including the COOC. The 

International standards list nine grades 

of olive oil in two primary categories— 

(1) Olive Oil and (2) Olive-pomace oil. 

The revised U.S. grade standards 

include the same requirements as the 

IOC standard except for the limits for 

linolenic acid and campesterol. These 

differences were requested by COOC 

and were listed in the proposed 

standards for comment. Also, the 

definition for ‘‘ordinary olive oil’’ was 

removed because of its limited 

recognition and unpalatability. For this 

reason, the revised U.S grade standards 

are limited to eight grades instead of 

nine. Linolenic acid is one of 13 fatty 

acids that are analyzed to determine the 

purity of the olive oil or olive-pomace 

oil. Campesterol is another component 

of olive oil and olive-pomace oil. The 

revised grade standards provide for 

slightly larger limits for both of these 

components to account for domestic 

variation from the IOC limits. The 

revised grade standards list 22 tests that 

are performed to assure that the olive oil 

meets the purity and quality 

requirements. The quality tests include 

organoleptic characteristics such as 

flavor, odor, color, free fatty acid 

content, peroxide value (denotes 

rancidity), and absorbance in ultraviolet (UV) light (denotes quality and 

degree of processing). The remaining 

tests are performed to ascertain if the 

product is of olive origin, to determine 

if the product was refined or 

unprocessed, or to meet other quality 

requirements. The virgin olive oil 

category, which includes extra virgin 

olive oil, is unprocessed. Olive oil and 

olive-pomace oil are processed and 

refined. The revised grade standards do 

not apply to olive oil blends, i.e., olive 

oil mixed with herbs, spices, fruits, 

vegetables, or other oils. 

The 22 tests include free fatty acid 

content, peroxide value, organoleptic 

criteria, absorbency in ultraviolet, fatty 

acid composition (including linolenic 

acid); trans fatty acid content; 

desmethylsterol composition, total 

sterol content (including campesterol); 

stigmastadiene content; saturated fatty 

acid content at the 2-position in 

triglycerides; sum of palmitic and 

stearic acids; percent fatty acids in the 

2 position; maximum difference 

between actual and theoretical 

Equivalent Carbon Number (ECN) 42 

triglyceride content; erythrodiol and 

uvaol content; wax content; food 

additive (alpha tocopherol); moisture 

and volatile matter; insoluble 

impurities; flash point; trace metals; 

unsaponifiable matter; heavy metal; 

pesticide residues; and halogenated 

solvents. The tests and their purpose are 

explained in more detail in the revised 

U.S. grade standards at http:// 

www.regulations.gov or http:// 

www.ams.usda.gov/ 

processedinspection. 

The comments can be summarized 

into one of the following categories: 

technical clarifications, testing limit 

tolerances, implementation of the grade 

standards, and editorial corrections 

(omissions, format, and spelling). With 

one exception, all of the comments were 

in support of the proposed U.S. grade 

standards and many recommendations 

were made. 

Technical Clarifications 

Several of the commenters noted that 

the IOC trade standard was revised in 

2006. That revision changed the limits 

for stigmastadiene in virgin olive oil 

from 0.15 parts per million (ppm) to 

0.10 ppm and 5.0 ppm in crude olivepomace oil. The revised trade standard 

also substituted a method of analysis 

and limits for the saturated fatty acid 

content at the two-position in 

triglycerides. This test is used to 

determine if the oil has been reesterified or if the oil was substituted 

with animal fat. This analysis was 

replaced by a more precise analysis, the 

content of 2-glyceryl monopalmitate and 

new limits for palmitic acid (a fatty 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 28, 2010 / Notices 22365 

acid). Several commenters also noted 

that the test, ‘‘aspect (degree of 

cloudiness) at 20 degrees after 24 

hours,’’ for virgin olive oils could result 

in either a cloudy or clear product. The 

proposed grade standards incorrectly 

provided for a cloudy result. Some 

noted that the ‘‘absorbency in ultraviolet’’ test at K232 is an optional test in 

the IOC trade standard. Several noted 

that the proposed standards should 

include more objective terms for flavor 

in virgin olive oil and refined olive oil 

other than ‘‘good’’ and ‘‘excellent.’’ One 

commenter wanted the grade standards 

to clearly state that olive-pomace oil 

must not be labeled as olive oil. The 

commenter also wanted the grade 

standards to clearly state that alphatocopherol, a naturally occurring 

component in olive oil removed during 

the refining process, is added back only 

to the refined oils. Several commenters 

noted that the peroxide value increases 

in the first stages of rancidity and drops 

off in later stages and suggested that a 

clarification be made in the definition 

section of the proposed grade standards. 

AMS recognizes the aforementioned 

recommendations as technically valid 

and revised the proposed grade 

standards accordingly. 

The specifics of these and related 

comments and AMS responses are 

summarized below: 

(1) Comment: Section 52.1531 (a) Define or 

leave out the term ‘‘sound’’ as in sound fruit 

in the product description since olive oil is 

often pressed with slightly damaged olives. 

AMS agrees. Utilizing only sound olives for 

pressing olive oil implies that all of the olives 

must meet a certain minimum quality. This 

is not necessarily the case since the use of 

cull fruit is often utilized in the production 

of olive oil and is perfectly acceptable. This 

may be self limiting in that the use of 

damaged fruit results in a poor quality olive 

oil that would not meet the virgin category 

(highest quality) but could meet the other 

categories. The text is revised to read, ‘‘Olive 

oil is the oil obtained solely from wholesome 

fruit of the olive tree (Olea europaea L.), to 

the exclusion of oils obtained using solvents 

or re-esterification processes and of any 

mixture with oils of other kinds.’’ 

(2) Comment: Section 52.1534. Olive oils 

are not graded solely on the basis of flavor 

and odor and free fatty acid content. 

AMS agrees. Olive oil is graded on a 

variety of characteristics which are listed in 

the revised grade standards. While this was 

provided for in the proposed grade 

standards, AMS has clarified the product 

descriptions for each category, referring to 

Tables I through III. 

(3) Comment: Section 52.1534 (a)–(d) and 

52.1535. Flavor descriptors such as excellent, 

good, reasonably good, and poor are too 

subjective and should be linked with median 

scores. 

AMS disagrees that the descriptors are too 

subjective. In fact, median scores were listed 

where appropriate (i.e., the virgin category) 

in both the proposed and in these revised 

grade standards. The descriptors apply to 

olive oil and olive-pomace oil and in 

addition, the virgin category provides for 

median scores that have been linked with the 

descriptor. However, ‘‘reasonably good’’ has 

been changed to ‘‘acceptable’’ in this revision. 

These terms are consistent with other 

standards. Accordingly, no other changes are 

made as a result of this comment. 

(4) Comment: Section 52.1535 Change 

‘‘may’’ to ‘‘must’’ to read, ‘‘Olive-pomace oil 

must or shall not be labeled as olive oil.’’ 

AMS agrees. Olive oil and olive-pomace 

oils are considered two separate products 

and shall be labeled accordingly. The revised 

text will read, ‘‘Olive-pomace oils shall not be 

labeled as olive oil’’ to indicate that the 

names are not used interchangeably. This is 

consistent with Food and Drug 

Administration (FDA) labeling practices that 

appear in the Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR) 21 CFR Section 101.3. 

(5) Comment: Section 52.1539, Aspect at 

20 degrees after 24 hours. Extra virgin and 

virgin olive oils can be filtered and therefore 

limpid (clear) or unfiltered and be cloudy. 

AMS agrees. It was originally thought that 

cloudy olive oil held at a certain temperature 

indicated that the product was virgin oil and 

that this test would easily indicate this fact. 

Since this is not the case, the aspect test 

being of secondary importance was moved to 

Table III, making it an optional test and 

revised the definition in Section 52.1538 

accordingly. 

(6) Comment: In section 52.1538, the term 

ECN always refers to ECN 42 and the 

definition must be ‘‘the triacylglycerols with 

equivalent carbon number 42.’’ The table 

should indicate that ECN 42 is an absolute 

number. 

AMS agrees that ECN 42 is an absolute 

number since it is the difference between the 

two numbers, the actual Equivalent Carbon 

Number 42 (ECN 42) triacylglycerol content 

and the theoretical amount. Evaluation of 

these components is used for the detection of 

seed oils and verifies authenticity and origin 

of oils. No change to the standards is 

necessary as a result of this comment. 

(7) Comment: Section 52.1538 the 

definition for erythrodiol and uvaol should 

read ‘‘ * * * two triterpenic dialcohols.’’ 

AMS agrees that the definition should have 

been more specific. The proposed grade 

standards described these as alcohols. The 

text is changed to read ‘‘Two triterpenic 

dialcohol components found in olive oil and 

olive-pomace oil.’’ The levels of these specific 

dialcohols differentiate oils that were pressed 

from oils that were produced by solvent 

extraction. 

(8) Comment: Section 52.1538, the term 

glyceridic structure definition describes only 

a monoglyceride. 

AMS agrees that the definition needs 

further clarification. Therefore, AMS is 

revising the text as follows: ‘‘The structure of 

esters (any class of organic compounds 

corresponding to an inorganic salt formed 

from an acid by replacement of the hydrogen 

by an alkyl radical) consisting of glycerol and 

fatty acids.’’ 

(9) Comment: Section 52.1538 the fusty 

and muddy-sediment attributes have been 

combined in the revised method for 

organoleptic assessment of virgin olive oils. 

Putrid relates to the muddy-sediment defect 

rather than rancid flavor defect. 

AMS believes that the two defects fusty and 

muddy-sediment should be separate because 

these defects have two distinct attributes. 

Sediment often forms at the bottom of 

containers of virgin olive oil. This vegetable 

water can ferment and cause a defect in 

flavor, i.e., muddy or putrid. The putrid 

description for the rancid definition was 

removed. Rancid was described as varnish, 

paint, or seed-like odors. Fusty is a flavor 

defect attributable to poor storage conditions 

of the olives, usually promoting the bacterial 

growth of the Clostridium and Pseudomonas 

genera and smelling of decay, mildew, or 

mustiness. Appropriate changes to the text 

have been made as a result of this comment. 

(10) Comment: In Section 52.1538, the 

organoleptic definition should include odor 

characteristics on a continuous scale. 

AMS agrees in part. The proposed 

definition referred to flavor and odor as the 

typical flavor and odor of olive oil or olivepomace oil produced from olives and the 

degree of positive attributes such as, but not 

limited to olive, apple, green, sweet, grass, 

nutty, tomato and some negative attributes, 

such as, but not limited to musty, fusty, 

winey-vinegary, muddy-sediment, and 

rancid. For virgin olive oil, these 

organoleptic characteristics are assessed on a 

continuous scale by a panel of tasters. 

However, rather than changing the definition 

of organoleptic as suggested by the 

commenter, AMS believes it is more 

appropriate to change the definition of flavor 

and odor. Such changes to the text have been 

made as appropriate. 

(11) Comment: In Section 52.1538, the 

definition for peroxide value needs to clarify 

that in the first stage of oxidation, peroxide 

values increase and in the second stage, 

peroxide values decrease even though the 

product is oxidized. 

AMS agrees that in the proposal, the 

definition did not explain the stages of 

oxidation. The revised definition makes this 

clarification to the text. 

(12) Comment: In Section 52.1538, the 

definition for 2-glyceryl monopalmitate 

content, add ‘‘re-esterified or animal fat has 

been added’’ as in the IOC trade standard. 

AMS agrees. The IOC and Codex trade 

standards were revised in 2006 and replaced 

the ‘‘saturated fatty acid content at the two 

position in the triglycerides’’ test with a more 

specific test called ‘‘2-glyceryl monopalmitate 

content determination.’’ Therefore, the 

definition in the revised text will read, ‘‘This 

test is used to determine if the oil has been 

re-esterified by synthetic means or by 

addition of animal fat.’’ Fats and oils are 

naturally occurring esters. An ester can be 

synthetically formed by the reaction between 

an acid and an alcohol. AMS also has made 

a corresponding change to Table II. 

(13) Comment: In Section 52.1538, trans 

fatty acids are produced not only during 

hydrogenation but also during refining if the 

temperature is high. The contents of transoleic, trans-linoleic, and trans-linolenic acid 

are related to the deodorization and decoloring steps. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
22366 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 28, 2010 / Notices 

1Rivera del A ́ lamo, R. M., Fregapane, G., Aranda, 

F., Go ́mez-Alonso, S., Salvador, M. D., Sterol And 

Alcohol Composition Of Cornicabra Virgin Olive 

Oil: The Campesterol Content Exceeds The Upper 

Limit Of 4% Established By EU Regulations, Food 

Chemistry, (Vol. 84) (No. 4), (Orlando, Florida: 

Elsevier, 2004) 533–537, http:// 

www.cababstractsplus.org/google/ 

abstract.asp?AcNo=20033202838. 

AMS agrees and has revised the definition 

for trans-fatty acids. The revised text now 

states, ‘‘When oil is partially hydrogenated or 

refined, trans conformation refers to which 

side of the fatty acid double bond the 

hydrogen is on. The trans conformation refers 

to hydrogen found on opposite sides of the 

double bond. Olive oil in its natural state is 

not a trans fatty acid because it has not been 

partially hydrogenated or refined. This test is 

used to determine if any processing has taken 

place such as, deodorization or de-coloring.’’ 

(14) Comment: In Section 52.1539 (Table I) 

Color. Color is not related to oil quality so 

what is the point of including this in the 

grading? An objective method for 

determining color such as the Association of 

Official Analytical Chemists method is 

suggested. 

AMS believes that even though color is not 

part of the grade, it provides information on 

the product and should remain in the grade 

standard. AMS added descriptions for the 

virgin olive oil category for consistency since 

the IOC trade standard provides color 

descriptions for olive oil and olive-pomace 

oil. The typical color of olive oil varies from 

light yellow to green. Olive-pomace oil may 

vary from light yellow to light green, 

brownish yellow, dark green, brown or black 

(for crude olive-pomace oil). The color will be 

evaluated as either normal or off color. 

Accordingly, AMS believes there is no need 

to make changes to this section. 

(15) Comment: The stigmastadiene current 

limit in the IOC trade standard revised in 

2006 is 0.10 mg/kg for extra virgin olive oils. 

The limit for crude olive oil should be 5.0 

mg/kg. The limits for refined olive oil, olive 

oil and olive-pomace oil are not necessary 

because this measurement determines the 

degree of refining. 

AMS agrees and has made corresponding 

changes in the Table because the 

stigmastadiene limits were revised in both 

the IOC and Codex standards in 2006. The 

stigmastadiene test was moved from Table II 

to Table I. This test will be a required test for 

all lots submitted to AMS because it aids in 

detecting whether the oil has been refined 

and or mixed with refined oil. 

(16) Comment: The limit for alphatocopherol of zero in extra virgin and virgin 

olive oils is not correct because these contain 

naturally occurring alpha-tocopherol which 

is removed during the refining process of 

producing olive-pomace oil. 

AMS agrees. Alpha-tocopherol is naturally 

occurring in olive oil but is removed during 

processing and added back to refined olive 

oil and olive-pomace oil at a limit of 200 mg/ 

kg. Accordingly, the table will be revised to 

note ‘‘Not applicable’’ for unrefined oils. This 

test is only necessary to assure that the limits 

have not been exceeded in refined oils. 

(17) Comment: List K232 as an optional 

item due to varying levels and lack of 

importance. 

AMS agrees and has addressed this 

suggestion in a footnote in Table I. This 

provision is not in the Codex standard but is 

mentioned in the IOC trade standard. The 

IOC trade standard indicates that this 

determination is solely for application by 

commercial partners on an optional basis. 

The new footnote indicates that this test is 

optional. 

Tolerances for Linolenic Acid and 

Campesterol 

Several commenters noted that 

campesterol (one of several sterols 

found in olive oil) and limits for 

linolenic acid needed to conform to the 

IOC trade standard. Sterol analysis is 

used to detect the presence of seed oils. 

Sterols are one of many minor 

constituents of oils that are 

characteristic indicators of impurity of 

the olive oil. While some supported this 

difference, others were not in 

agreement. The reasons for AMS not 

making changes to the revised text as a 

result of these comments are detailed 

below. 

(18) Comment: Section 52.1539 (Table I), 

the IOC limit for the linolenic acid value is 

1.0 percent. The IOC limit for campesterol is 

4.0 percent. A larger value can indicate the 

addition of seed oils or refined oils (like corn, 

soy, canola, or cottonseed). 

AMS believes that the values for linolenic 

and campesterol are based on historical data 

originating from the Mediterranean region. 

Australia, Argentina, Israel, New Zealand 

and other countries pointed out that their 

olive oil was not considered when these 

limits were established. It is important to 

note that the use of the U.S. grade standards 

is voluntary. Further, the proposed 

parameters for linolenic acid and 

campesterol are slightly more liberal than the 

IOC standard, i.e., a broader range of olive 

oil (including U.S. production) falls within 

the proposed standards. As a result, more 

products can be addressed under the 

proposed standards. For this reason, the 

maximum value for the parameter was set 

according to what the United States typically 

produces, which is up to 1.5 percent for 

linolenic acid. Under the revised U.S. grade 

standards, linolenic acid values between 1.0 

and 1.5 percent and campesterol values 

between 4.0 and 4.5 percent would be subject 

to further testing when the product is 

officially certified by AMS. These additional 

tests are outlined in Table II of the revised 

U.S. grade standards. Values higher than 1.5 

percent and 4.5 percent respectively would 

not meet the standards for olive oil or olivepomace oil. The California Olive Oil Council 

(COOC) supported this approach because it 

is compatible with domestic suppliers who 

occasionally produce olive oil with linolenic 

acid or campesterol values slightly higher 

than the IOC standards would allow. While 

the U.S. produces only extra virgin olive oil, 

it is estimated that only one percent of the 

olive oil produced in the U.S would fall 

above the IOC limits for linolenic acid. AMS 

believes that this approach is reasonable and 

appropriate. According to the COOC, these 

higher values are attributable to growing 

conditions. Higher values for linolenic acid 

are also found in olive oil made from olives 

grown in Australia, South America, North 

Africa, and parts of Europe. 

Also, variation in campesterol levels has 

been reported in literature.1 The sterol and 

alcohol composition of Cornicabra virgin 

olive oil during the crop seasons from 1997/ 

1998 to 2001/2002 were reported. The 

median value of campesterol was 4.0 percent 

and ranged from 3.4 to 4.5 percent in the five 

crop seasons studied; indicating that high 

natural content is a peculiar characteristic of 

the Cornicabra virgin olive oil. Cornicabra is 

a variety of olive. The limit for linolenic acid 

has not yet been established in the Codex 

standard to this date. In both cases olive oil 

or olive-pomace oil found to show limits 

between 1.0 and 1.5 percent (linolenic acid) 

and 4.0 and 4.5 percent (campesterol) will 

require the additional verification testing 

listed in Table II of the revised U.S. grade 

standards. Accordingly, no changes to the 

standards are made as a result of these 

comments. 

Implementation 

Several commenters noted that all of 

the tests were considered mandatory in 

the IOC standard and all should be 

included in Table I. While this may be 

appropriate for the IOC standard, AMS 

continues to believe that it is more 

appropriate for the U.S. standards that 

tests be divided into categories and that 

the number of mandatory tests be 

limited. The AMS grade standards 

traditionally emphasize organoleptic 

characteristics. AMS performs grading 

services on a lot by lot basis. A lot is 

defined as any number of containers of 

the same size, type, and style located in 

the same warehouse or conveyance. A 

lot can also be described as being 

produced during a period or shift lasting 

up to 24 hours. In both cases the lot 

must be available for inspection at one 

time. The fees to perform all 22 

analytical tests on every lot would be 

cost prohibitive (over $7,000 per lot). 

Unlike the IOC standards, more than 

one sample is tested per lot. However, 

this does not prevent an applicant from 

requesting that additional tests be done 

to meet an international standard or 

other specification. The grade standards 

represent a minimum requirement to 

meet U.S. grades so that an applicant 

can use USDA grade marks on its label. 

A certificate is a written report that 

shows the pertinent facts concerning the 

quality, grade, and condition of the 

product, and may include useful 

descriptive information about the 

product and the containers in which it 

is packed. 

The revised U.S. grade standards 

divide tests into three categories: 

Mandatory (Table I), Confirmatory 

(Table II), and Optional (Table III). The 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 28, 2010 / Notices 22367 

mandatory tests shall be performed on 

all lots of olive oil and olive-pomace oil. 

These are listed in Table I and include 

flavor and odor, color, free fatty acid 

expressed as oleic acid, peroxide value, 

absorbency in ultraviolet (UV), fatty 

acid composition, trans fatty acid 

content, desmethylsterol composition, 

total sterol, and stigmastadiene content. 

Table II lists the tests for purity: 

Maximum difference between actual 

and theoretical ECN 42 triacylglycerol 

content; erythrodiol and uvaol; waxes; 

and 2-glyceryl monopalmitate content. 

Table III lists tests to be used if one 

wants additional information on other 

characteristics of the oil. These include 

moisture and volatile matter, insoluble 

impurities, flash point, heavy metals, 

unsaponifiable matter, aspect at 20 

degrees Celsius after 24 hours, pesticide 

residues, and halogenated solvents. 

Some of these tests are monitored by 

FDA (i.e., heavy metals, pesticide 

residues and halogenated solvents.) 

In addition, one commenter did not 

agree with the ‘‘U.S.’’ term preceding the 

grade terms (e.g., ‘‘U.S. Extra Virgin 

Olive Oil’’). One commenter suggested 

that a traditional method using the 

pressing ratio (weight of the olives 

versus weight of the resultant oil) be 

used instead. One commenter wanted to 

specify the amount of virgin olive oil 

added to refined oil to produce olive oil. 

And finally, one commenter was not in 

support of the proposed grade standards 

because he felt that the IOC trade 

standard was unreliable and would have 

negative implications on ‘‘New World’’ 

olive oil producers. All of these 

comments are discussed below. 

(19) Comment: Sterol composition, 

maximum difference between actual and 

theoretical ECN42, erythrodiol, and waxes 

tests should be mandatory. 

AMS agrees in part and moved some of the 

corresponding analyses to Table I, making 

them mandatory. These include total sterols, 

stigmastadiene, and desmethylsterol 

composition because these tests detect 

specific properties of the oil that determines 

its purity and are not covered by other tests 

in Table I. 

The ECN42 analysis was not included in 

Table I because this test detects seed oils. 

Detection of seed oils is covered by other 

analyses already listed in Table I, namely 

desmethylsterol composition, fatty acid 

composition, and stigmastadiene content. 

Erythrodiol, uvaol, and wax content analyses 

detect the presence of pomace oil and oils 

produced from solvent extraction. These 

analyses are already covered by other tests 

that are listed in Table I, namely, 

stigmastadiene content and absorbance in 

ultraviolet. However, ECN42, erythrodiol and 

uvaol, waxes, content of 2-glyceryl 

monopalmitate are included in Table II. The 

tests listed in Table II will apply if analytical 

results do not comply with label declaration 

for the purity criteria listed in Table I, in the 

following cases: (1) If linolenic acid values 

are between 1.0 and 1.5 percent, (2) if the 

campesterol values are between 4.0 and 4.5 

percent, or (3) at the applicant’s request. 

(20) Comment: The names should comply 

with the IOC trade standards and Codex 

standards without the ‘‘U.S.’’ term preceding 

the name. 

The names of the grades are preceded by 

the term ‘‘U.S.’’ only if the product has been 

officially sampled and graded by AMS. 

Accordingly, use of the term ‘‘U.S.’’ is 

necessary and appropriate because it is used 

in conjunction with an official grade 

statement, or certificate, and can be used on 

labels, if an applicant desires to indicate that 

the product has been officially graded by 

USDA. Products would not be required to be 

labeled differently. No change was made as 

a result of this comment. 

Comment: The olive oil pressing ratio 

(weight of olives to weight of olive oil yielded) 

is the traditional method for judging the 

quality of the olive oil. Below 20 percent is 

considered olive-pomace oil. 

AMS disagrees that the pressing method is 

an appropriate method to include in the U.S. 

grade standards. The yield of olive oil 

depends on many complex factors besides 

the press ratio. These factors include the 

variety of olives, the pressing method used, 

ripeness, and moisture. The revised 

standards establish analytical and 

organoleptic methods for determining 

conformance with the various grade 

requirements regardless of the age, moisture, 

processing method, or variety of the in-going 

olives. 

(21) Comment: The IOC chemical markers 

represent a low minimum standard and that 

there would be negative implications on the 

burgeoning olive oil industries of California, 

Arizona, Texas, Australia, New Zealand, 

Chile, and Argentina. USDA should adopt a 

few chemical tests that are easily monitored 

in lieu of the proposed standard. 

AMS believes that the revised grade 

standards would allow applicants assurance 

of product quality through inspection and 

testing using objective chemical and 

organoleptic testing. Applicants of the AMS 

inspection services could demonstrate that 

their product has been officially graded by 

using the official USDA marks on their 

packaging or other materials. This would 

help consumers and buyers differentiate 

between the various grades and better reflect 

the value of their purchases. The U.S. grade 

standards establish terms that can objectively 

define product quality and help ensure that 

consumers receive what they expect when 

they purchase certain food products. 

There were additional comments or 

clarifications requested by some 

commenters on the implementation of 

the grade standards as discussed below. 

(22) Comment: Will the tests be performed 

in a timely manner? 

AMS will use the AMS Science and 

Technology Laboratory in Blakely, Georgia 

for both the analytical and organoleptic 

testing. Sample results will be available in a 

timely manner. 

(23) Comment: What assurances are there 

of the quality of the tasters? 

AMS will follow the procedures set forth in 

the COI/T.20/Doc. No. 15, ‘‘Organoleptic 

assessment of virgin olive oil,’’ as listed in the 

standards. A panel of AMS tasters will be 

trained by IOC qualified trainers. In addition 

to the flavor panel, sample results would be 

monitored regularly through a systematic 

review process where samples are sent to a 

designated AMS office for evaluation and 

concurrence with previous results. 

(24) Comment: AMS should consider 

providing median terms for refined olive oil. 

Under the IOC trade standards and the 

Codex standards, only the virgin olive oils 

are subject to organoleptic assessment 

through a flavor panel. Therefore, median 

scores are not applicable for refined olive oil 

products or for any of the olive-pomace oils. 

However, AMS will flavor these oils. The 

revised grade standards require that refined 

oils have at least acceptable flavor. 

(25) Comment: AMS should specify a 

minimum quantity of virgin olive oil added 

to refined olive oil for olive oil which is a 

blend of the two. 

Neither the IOC trade standard nor the 

Codex standard defines the amount of virgin 

olive oil blended with refined olive oil to 

produce olive oil. Such a proposal would 

require additional research and accordingly 

is not included in the revised standards. 

(26) Comment: The sample unit of 375 ml 

is too much; 250 ml should be sufficient to 

perform the tests. 

AMS disagrees. AMS believes that the 

flavor panel review alone requires 15–20 

milliliters (ml) per person or 240 ml for a 

twelve-person flavor panel. However, this 

does not include an additional amount 

required for analytical testing. Therefore, 

after further review 500 ml is determined to 

be needed to properly retest a sample for any 

reason. 

Editorial Comments 

AMS agreed with many of the 

following suggestions and comments as 

having merit. The following reflects 

such suggestions and comments. 

(27) Comment: Section 52.1538 Definition 

should read ‘‘Desmethylsterol’’ not 

‘‘Dimethylsterol’’. 

AMS agrees and corrected the 

typographical error. 

(28) Comment: ‘‘Ordinary olive’’ oil was 

removed from the standard but reference is 

made to it in Section 52.1542 and should be 

removed. 

AMS agrees and removed references to 

ordinary olive oil from the section because 

ordinary olive oil is not a part of the 

standard. This product was an olive oil of 

lower quality than virgin olive oil but of 

slightly better quality than lampante oil. 

AMS decided in the proposed grade 

standards that because this product is not 

often used in trade, is considered fairly 

unpalatable, that it would be considered as 

lampante oil and removed from the grade 

standards. 

(29) Comment: Moisture and insoluble 

impurities for lampante olive oil are not 

defined in the IOC trade standard or Codex 

standard because the product will be refined. 

AMS agrees that the IOC and Codex 

standards do not set limits for moisture or 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
22368 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 28, 2010 / Notices 

insoluble impurities for lampante oil. 

Because this was an oversight, Table III is 

revised to show that these analyses are ‘‘Not 

Applicable’’ for ‘‘moisture and volatile 

matter’’ and ‘‘insoluble impurities in light 

petroleum.’’ 

(30) Comment: A method of analysis for 

preparation of methyl esters should 

accompany the methods of analysis for fatty 

acid composition. 

AMS agrees and added the suggested 

method to the list of methods of analysis. 

AMS also found that pesticide residue tests 

were included in the revised 2006 IOC trade 

standards so this test was added to the U.S. 

grade standards. 

(31) Comment: For future consideration: 

i. Consider defining limits for premium 

extra virgin olive oil. 

ii. Set new limits for fatty acid 

composition, desmethylsterol, total sterol, 

saturated fatty acid in the two position in 

triglycerides and unsaponifiable matter. 

iii. Set stricter limits for free fatty acid as 

oleic, peroxide value, absorbency in UV. 

iv. Research future analysis for inclusion in 

the standard. 

AMS continually reviews its grade 

standards. AMS facilitates the fair and 

efficient marketing of agricultural products 

by promulgating voluntary official grade 

standards. AMS develops, revises, suspends, 

or terminates the official grade standards 

under procedures that allow for input by 

interested parties. As new science becomes 

available or the IOC and Codex standards are 

revised, AMS will consider updating the 

grade standards as appropriate. 

AMS believes that the revised grade 

standards would facilitate the marketing 

of olive oil and olive-pomace oil, better 

reflect terms that are currently in use in 

the marketplace, provide definitions for 

olive oil and olive-pomace oil, promote 

truth in labeling, and provide a basis for 

enforcement by State and Federal 

agencies if these products are 

mislabeled. 

The official grades of olive oil and 

olive-pomace oil in these standards are 

covered by the procedures set forth in 

the Regulations Governing the 

Inspection and Certification for 

Processed Fruits and Vegetables, 

Processed Products Thereof and Certain 

Other Processed Food Products (7 CFR 

52.1–52.83). 

The revised U.S. Standards for Grades 

of Olive Oil and Olive-Pomace Oil will 

become effective 180 days after 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register to allow sufficient time to 

implement the standards. 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1621–1627. 

Dated: April 22, 2010. 

David R. Shipman, 

Acting Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–9866 Filed 4–27–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

Proposed Information Collection; 

Comment Request; Management and 

Oversight of the National Estuarine 

Research Reserve System 

AGENCY: National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of 

Commerce, as part of its continuing 

effort to reduce paperwork and 

respondent burden, invites the general 

public and other Federal agencies to 

take this opportunity to comment on 

proposed and/or continuing information 

collections, as required by the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

submitted on or before June 28, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments 

to Diana Hynek, Departmental 

Paperwork Clearance Officer, 

Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 

14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230 (or via the 

Internet at dHynek@doc.gov). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Requests for additional information or 

copies of the information collection 

instrument and instructions should be 

directed to Erica Seiden, (301) 563–1172 

or Erica.Seiden@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Abstract 

The Coastal Zone Management Act of 

1972 (CZMA; 16 U.S.C. 1461 et seq.) 

provides for the designation of estuarine 

research reserves representative of 

various regions and estuarine types in 

the United States to provide 

opportunities for long-term research, 

education and interpretation. During the 

site selection and designation process, 

information is collected from states in 

order to prepare a management plan and 

environmental impact statement. 

Designated reserves apply annually for 

operations funds by submitting a work 

plan; subsequently progress reports are 

required every six months for the 

duration of the award. Each reserve 

compiles an ecological characterization 

or site profile to describe the biological 

and physical environment of the 

reserve, research to date and research 

gaps. A competitive research program 

provides an opportunity for two 

researchers to focus their work at each 

reserve. The reserves are evaluated 

every three years, per section 312 of the 

Act, and revise their management plans 

every five years. This information is 

required to ensure that reserves are 

adhering to regulations and that the 

purpose for which they were designated 

is maintained. 

II. Method of Collection 

Respondents have a choice of either 

electronic or paper submissions. 

Methods of submittal include e-mail of 

electronic forms, and mail or facsimile 

transmission of paper forms. 

III. Data 

OMB Control Number: 0648–0121. 

Form Number: None. 

Type of Review: Regular submission. 

Affected Public: Non-profit 

institutions; State, local, or tribal 

government. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

85. 

Estimated Time per Response: 

Management Plan, 1,800 hours; Site 

Profile, 1,800 hours; Award application, 

8 hours; Award reports, 5 hours; 

Designations, 2,000 hours; NEPA 

documentation, 40 hours. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: 14,370. 

Estimated Total Annual Cost to 

Public: $2,000 in recordkeeping/ 

reporting costs. 

IV. Request for Comments 

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether 

the proposed collection of information 

is necessary for the proper performance 

of the functions of the agency, including 

whether the information shall have 

practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden 

(including hours and cost) of the 

proposed collection of information; (c) 

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and (d) ways to minimize the 

burden of the collection of information 

on respondents, including through the 

use of automated collection techniques 

or other forms of information 

technology. 

Comments submitted in response to 

this notice will be summarized and/or 

included in the request for OMB 

approval of this information collection; 

they also will become a matter of public 

record. 

Dated: April 22, 2010. 

Gwellnar Banks, 

Management Analyst, Office of the Chief 

Information Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2010–9769 Filed 4–27–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–08–P 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS