Source: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2009/11/02/E9-26149/pistachios-grown-in-california-order-amending-marketing-order-no-983
Timestamp: 2018-07-17 18:23:44
Document Index: 737942212

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 900', '§\u2009983', '§\u2009983', '§\u2009983', '§\u2009983', '§\u2009983', '§\u2009983', '§\u2009983', '§\u2009983', '§\u2009983', '§\u2009983', '§\u2009983', '§\u2009983', '§\u2009983', '§\u2009983', '§\u2009983', '§\u2009983', '§\u2009983', '§\u2009983', '§\u2009983', '§\u2009983', '§\u2009983', '§\u2009983', '§\u2009983', '§\u2009983', '§\u2009983', '§\u2009983', '§\u2009983', '§\u2009983', '§\u2009983', '§\u2009983', '§\u2009983', '§\u2009983', '§\u2009983', '§\u2009983', '§\u2009983', '§\u2009983', '§\u2009983', '§\u2009983', '§\u2009983', '§\u2009983', 'art 983', 'art 900', 'art 983', 'art 983', '§\u2009983', '§\u2009983', '§\u2009983', '§\u2009983', '§\u2009983', '§\u2009983', '§\u2009983', '§\u2009983', '§\u2009983', '§\u2009983', '§\u2009983', '§\u2009983', '§\u2009983', '§\u2009983', '§\u2009983', '§\u2009983', '§\u2009983', '§\u2009983', '§\u2009983', '§\u2009983', '§\u2009983', '§\u2009983', '§\u2009983', '§\u2009983', '§\u2009983', '§\u2009983', '§\u2009983', '§\u2009983', '§\u2009983', '§\u2009983', '§\u2009983', '§\u2009983', '§\u2009983', '§\u2009983', '§\u2009983', '§\u2009983', '§\u2009983', '§\u2009983', '§\u2009983', '§\u2009983', '§\u2009983', '§\u2009983', '§\u2009983', '§\u2009983', '§\u2009983', '§\u2009983', '§\u2009983', '§\u2009983', '§\u2009983', '§\u2009983', '§\u2009983', '§\u2009983', '§\u2009983', '§\u2009983', '§\u2009983']

Federal Register :: Pistachios Grown in California; Order Amending Marketing Order No. 983
A Rule by the Agricultural Marketing Service on 11/02/2009
This rule is effective November 3, 2009.
56532-56542 (11 pages)
Evaluation of the Potential Economic Impacts of the Amendments
Order Amending the Order Regulating the Handling of Pistachios Grown in California, Arizona, and New Mexico
Order Relative to Handling of Pistachios Grown in California, Arizona, and New Mexico
https://www.federalregister.gov/d/E9-26149 https://www.federalregister.gov/d/E9-26149
Prior documents in this proceeding: Notice of Hearing issued on July 15, 2008, and published in the July 18, 2008, issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 41298); a Recommended Decision issued on April 29 and published in the May 5, 2009, issue of the Federal Register (74 FR 20630); and a Secretary's Decision and Referendum Order issued on July 29, 2009, and published in the August 6, 2009, issue of the Federal Register (74 FR 39230).
This final rule was formulated on the record of a public hearing held on July 29 and 30, 2008, in Fresno, California. Notice of this hearing was issued on July 15, 2008, and published in the July 18, 2008, issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 41298). The hearing was held to consider proposed amendments to the order.
The hearing was held pursuant to the provisions of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act”, and the applicable rules of practice and procedure governing the formulation of marketing agreements and orders (7 CFR part 900).
The Notice of Hearing contained several amendment proposals submitted by the Committee. Upon the basis of evidence introduced at the hearing and the record thereof, the Administrator of AMS on April 29, 2009, filed with the Hearing Clerk, U.S. Department of Agriculture, a Recommended Decision and Opportunity to File Written Exceptions thereto. This Recommended Decision was published in the May 5, 2009, issue of the Federal Register (74 FR 39230). No exceptions were filed.
A Secretary's Decision and Referendum Order was issued on July 29, 2009, and published in the August 6, 2009, issue of the Federal Register (74 FR 39230). This document directed that a referendum among pistachio growers be conducted during the period August 10 through August 22, 2009 to determine whether they favor the proposed amendments to the order. To become effective, the amendments had to be approved by at least two-thirds of the volume of pistachios represented by voters in the referendum. All of the proposed amendments were favored by at least 94 percent of those voting in the referendum and by at least 96 percent of the volume represented in the referendum.
The amendments included in this final order will:
1. Expand the production area to include the States of Arizona and New Mexico. The production area covered under the order was previously limited to the State of California. This amendment will revise existing § 983.26, Production area, and redesignate it as § 983.25. It will also result in corresponding changes being made to existing § 983.11, Districts; § 983.21, Part and subpart; and existing § 983.32, Establishment and membership. Existing sections 983.21 and 983.32 will also be redesignated as § 983.20 and § 983.41, respectively.
2. Authorize the Committee to reimburse handlers for travel and shipping costs related to aflatoxin inspection, under certain circumstances. This amendment will revise existing § 983.44, Inspection, certification and identification, and redesignate it as § 983.56.
3. Add a new § 983.46, Research, that will authorize the Committee to engage in research projects with the approval of USDA. This amendment will also require corresponding changes to existing § 983.34, Procedure, to establish voting requirements for Committee recommendations concerning research. It will also require corresponding changes to existing § 983.46, Modification or suspension of regulations, and § 983.54, Contributions. The existing § 983.34, § 983.46, and § 983.54 will also be redesignated as § 983.43, § 983.59, and § 983.72, respectively.
4. Provide broad authority for aflatoxin regulations by revising existing § 983.38, Aflatoxin levels, and redesignating it as § 983.50. This amendment also requires corresponding changes to existing § 983.40, and redesignating that section as § 983.52. It also requires corresponding changes to § 983.1, Accredited laboratory.
5. Provide broad authority for quality regulations by revising existing § 983.39, Minimum quality levels, and redesignating it as § 983.51. It also Start Printed Page 56533removes provisions from that section concerning specific quality regulations that are currently suspended. This amendment will also require corresponding changes by removing currently suspended language in § 983.6, Assessed weight; revising § 983.7, Certified pistachios; removing existing § 983.19, Minimum quality requirements and § 983.20, Minimum quality certificate; revising existing § 983.31, Shelled pistachios; revising existing § 983.41, Testing of minimal quantities, and removing currently suspended language in that section; revising existing § 983.42, Commingling; and revising existing § 983.45, Substandard pistachios. Sections 983.31, 983.41, 983.42, and 983.45 will be redesignated as sections 983.30, 983.53, 983.54, and 983.57, respectively.
6. Add a new § 983.58, Interhandler Transfers. This proposal will modify existing authority under the order by expanding the range of marketing order obligations that may be transferred between handlers when pistachios are transferred between handlers. This proposal will require a corresponding change to existing § 983.53, Assessments, and will redesignate § 983.53 as § 983.71.
7. As a result of the proposed amendments and corresponding changes to the order summarized above, numerous administrative changes to the order will also be required. Such changes include numerical redesignations to several sections of the order, changes to cross references of section numbers in regulatory text as a result of the numerical redesignations, and removal of obsolete provisions. The title of order will be revised to include the States of Arizona and New Mexico. In addition, a change will be made to amend existing § 983.70 and redesignate it as § 983.92.
In addition to these amendments to the order, AMS proposed to make any such additional changes as may be necessary to the order to conform to any amendment that may be adopted. To the extent necessary, conforming changes have been made to the amendments. These conforming changes have been identified in the above list of amendments.
An amended marketing agreement was subsequently provided to all pistachio handlers in the production area for their approval. The marketing agreement was approved by handlers representing more than 50 percent of the volume of pistachios handled by all handlers during the representative period of September 1, 2008 through August 31, 2009.
The amendments approved by producers in referendum will: Expand the production area to include the States of Arizona and New Mexico; authorize the Committee to reimburse handlers for certain inspection costs; authorize research activities under the order; provide broad authority for aflatoxin Start Printed Page 56534regulation under the order, provide broad authority for quality regulation under the order; provide authority for interhandler transfer of marketing order obligations; and make corresponding administrative changes to the order as a result of the aforementioned proposed changes.
The amendments are intended to improve the operation and functioning of the marketing order program. Record evidence indicates that they are intended to benefit all producers and handlers under the order, regardless of size. All grower and handler witnesses at the hearing supported the amendments and while acknowledging the additional cost implications, they stated that they expected the benefits to outweigh the costs.
The key economic issues to examine in considering the amendments to the marketing order are the benefits and costs to growers and handlers of the expansion of the production area and the consequences of that expansion. The most significant change in terms of its potentially significant and immediate impact is the fact that expanding the production area to include Arizona and New Mexico will result in pistachio handlers in those two States being regulated under the order which will require them to meet the same aflatoxin certification requirements that apply to California handlers.
Pistachio handlers under the order must have all pistachio lots destined for the domestic market tested and certified that they do not exceed a maximum aflatoxin tolerance. To comply with the standard, handlers arrange for a sample to be taken from each lot that is to be shipped domestically and to have that sample tested for aflatoxin. Lots that meet the standard receive written certifications that allow shipment to the domestic market. Lots that exceed the aflatoxin tolerance cannot be shipped domestically. Handlers may rework the lots to remove contaminated nuts and then can begin the certification process again. There are costs associated with each of these steps, which were previously borne only by California handlers and will be borne by handlers in the other two States as a result of the amendment.
One witness noted that, depending on compliance cost and aflatoxin event assumptions under alternative scenarios in the study, the expected benefit cost ratio from implementation of mandatory aflatoxin standards under the California marketing order ranged between 5:1 and 17:1. Several grower and handler witnesses suggested that these significant benefit cost ratios for the California marketing order will also likely apply if the order is expanded to include Arizona and New Mexico.
Aflatoxin inspection and certification costs can be divided into the costs of: (1) Inspector travel time to pistachio handlers' premises; (2) time required for the inspector to draw samples from lots designated for domestic shipment; (3) cost of shipping samples to the testing laboratory; (4) aflatoxin analysis (testing cost); and (5) value of the destroyed pistachios used in the sampling and analysis.
Table 1 is a representation of the aflatoxin certification cost situation in California. It serves as a benchmark with which to compare the costs in the other two States, Arizona and New Mexico. Witnesses from the pistachio industry in each of the three States submitted as evidence the data used in the three tables, and stated that the data was representative of the situation that exists or would be faced by handlers in those States.
Witnesses pointed out that inspector travel costs and sample shipment costs were the most variable costs across the States. Inspector travel costs consist of the mileage reimbursement that inspectors need to be paid by the handlers, plus the time spent traveling to the handler's location. In California, inspectors are regularly in the plants, and there is no additional travel time associated with aflatoxin sampling. Witnesses testified that New Mexico inspector travel costs could be as high as $485 per lot due to the large distances involved, but that the figure of $432.50 was the most representative. Data presented at the hearing indicated that Arizona inspector travel cost could be as high as $100 per lot, but that a lower figure of $32.70 was more likely due to the closer proximity of Arizona Plant Start Printed Page 56535Services inspectors, who may be certified to take the sample.
Value of Pistachio Sample 44.00 0.0009 [10 kg (22-lb.) weight of sample from 100 sub-samples]; [22 lbs. @ $2.00 per pound = 44].
Aflatoxin Testing Cost 2 90.00 0.0018 $90 lab fee to determine aflatoxin level of sample.
Total Cost 204.00 0.0041
Pct. of price received by handler 0.2% Industry estimate of CA handler sale price per pound=2.00.
2 Aflatoxin analysis done in onsite laboratory; imputed cost of $90 is based on cost in outside laboratory.
Source: Testimony at pistachio federal marketing order hearing, July 29-30, 2008, in Fresno, CA.
Inspector Travel Time to Plant $32.70 $0.0007 [24 miles1 @ 0.40 per mile = $9.60]; [Cost of sampler time: 40 min. (0.66 hours) @ $35/hour = $23.10].
Inspector Sampling Time 70.00 0.0014 [Cost of sampler time: 2 hours @ $35/hour = $70]; 2 hours to draw 100 samples for one lot 2].
Value of Pistachio Sample 60.50 0.0012 [(10 kg (22-lb.) weight of sample from 100 sub-samples]; [22 lbs. @ 2.75 per pound = 60.50].
Shipping Cost to Laboratory 3 200.00 0.0040 Shipping cost per 10 kg sample.
Aflatoxin Testing Cost 90.00 0.0018 90 lab fee to determine aflatoxin level of sample.
Total Cost 453.20 0.0091
Inspector Travel Time to Plant $432.50 $0.0087 600 miles 1 @ $0.40 per mile = $240]; [Cost of sampler time: 5.5 hours 2 @ $35/hour = $192.50].
Inspector Sampling Time 70.00 0.0014 [Cost of sampler time: 2 hours) @ $35/hour = $70]; [2 hours to draw 100 samples for one lot].
Value of Pistachio Sample 44.00 0.0009 [10 kg (22-lb).weight of sample from 100 sub-samples]; [22 lbs. @ $2.00 per pound = $44].
Shipping Cost to Laboratory 3 105.00 0.0021 Shipping cost per 10 kg sample.4
Aflatoxin Testing Cost 90.00 0.0018 $90 lab fee to determine aflatoxin level of sample.
Total Cost 741.50 0.0148
2 Average of driving time estimates to two inspector locations: (4 + 7)/2 = 5.5 hours.
4 Average of estimated range of shipping costs = ($90 + $120)/2 = $105.
The significant cost differences highlighted above is the reason that pistachio industry witnesses from all three States supported a proposed amendment to authorize the Committee to reimburse handlers in more remote locations within the production area for the excess costs due to lack of access to inspection and certification services. Reimbursing handlers for the excess costs would eliminate any differential impact and would equalize the aflatoxin certification costs across the proposed expanded production area.
Although the precise details of reimbursement would be established through the informal rulemaking process upon recommendation of the Committee, the following example illustrates one way to estimate the amount of reimbursement that may occur. With a 50,000 pound lot size, Table 3 shows the cost per lot for a New Start Printed Page 56537Mexico handler is about $742. The New Mexico handler would be expected to pay only the portion of the costs that are the same across the three States ($70 for inspector sampling, plus $90 testing cost, plus $44 in revenue foregone from destroyed pistachios, for a total cost per lot of $204). The handler represented by Table 3 would receive a reimbursement per lot of $538 ($742 minus $204).
The addition of production, post harvest, and nutrition research authority to the order would have no immediate cost impact on the industry. This amendment would allow the Committee to recommend research activities to USDA. If approved, the projects would be funded through handler assessments. It is likely that program assessments would increase in order to fund any projects recommended, which would increase costs to handlers. However, the order limits the total assessment that can be implemented under the order so that the entire assessment cannot exceed one half of one percent of the average price received by producers in the preceding crop year. To the extent that funds for research would only represent a portion of the assessment funds, the cost of any research that may be conducted would necessarily be less than one half of one percent of the average price received by producers. In addition, since assessments are collected from handlers based on the volume of pistachios handled, any cost associated with research projects would be proportionate to the size of the handlers.
Handler and grower witnesses made positive comments in support of other order amendments, including the granting of broad authority for aflatoxin standards and for other quality regulations. Witnesses stated that there would be no immediate impact from the granting of these authorities, because there are no industry plans for changes in regulations. However, handler and grower witnesses stated that having such authority would be quite helpful to the future of the pistachio industry, and that if the authorities were exercised in the future, they expected that it would be done in a way that assured that benefits would outweigh costs. Since unanimity of the Committee would generally be required to make such changes, they expressed confidence that only regulations would be established that had very broad industry consensus. They expected additional improvements in product quality and improved returns to growers and handlers from the use of any such future regulations.
One other amendment, relating to interhandler transfers, merits discussion in the context of economic impact on handlers and growers, particularly small ones. When the marketing order was promulgated in 2004, authority was given for interhandler transfers of noncertified pistachios. Evidence presented at the hearing indicates that the amendment formalizes that authority and expands it to include other marketing order requirements, including the payment of assessments on hulled and dried pistachios, when that processing is done by the producer. Under the marketing order, the entity which hulls and dries pistachios is responsible for assessments and inspections. This provision was included because in California producers normally deliver pistachios to a handler (processor) for hulling and drying as well as the subsequent handling functions.
According to evidence presented at the hearing, this amendment will allow a small number of producers who hull and dry their own production, but perform no additional handling functions (estimated at less than ten), to limit their responsibility to filing a form at the time of pistachio delivery. This amendment will more clearly delineate the responsibilities of handlers and the small number of affected producers. Both will continue their current practices in virtually all cases, and the amendment neither increases or decreases returns. This amendment has the effect of assisting small business operations by removing them from paperwork and other burdens.
Under the marketing order, handlers pay assessments to the Committee for costs associated with administering the program. Following is an evaluation of the impact these costs will have on handlers in Arizona and New Mexico.
The assessment rate authorized under the order is limited to one-half of one percent (.005) of the average grower price received in the preceding crop year. The current assessment rate under the order is $.0007 per pound, or .07 cents per pound. This compares to an estimated average grower price for the 2007 crop year of $1.35 per pound. The assessment rate for the 2007 crop year was .05 percent (5/100ths of one percent) of the grower price.Start Printed Page 56538
Interested persons were invited to present evidence at the hearing on the probable regulatory and informational impact of the proposed amendments to the order on small entities. The record evidence indicates that the amendments are intended to benefit all producers and handlers under the order, regardless of size. Further, the record shows that the costs associated with implementing regulations would be outweighed by the benefits expected to accrue to the pistachio industry.
USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap or conflict with this rule. These amendments are designed to enhance the administration and functioning of the order to the benefit the pistachio industry.
Information collection requirements for Part 983 are currently approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under OMB No. 0581-0215, “Pistachios Grown in California.” The information requirements generated by the amendments result in an increase in burden, which has been submitted to OMB for approval under OMB No. 0581-NEW. We have requested that this collection be merged into OMB No. 0581-0215 when approved.
Producers and handlers of pistachios located in the States of Arizona and New Mexico will be required to complete forms relating to committee nominations, background questionnaires, referendum and nomination ballots, and handler reports. The estimated number of respondents is 85. This will result in a burden of 29 hours. Additionally, handlers will have to maintain related records and documentation for three full years following the end of the crop year.
The amendments to Marketing Agreement and Order 983 proposed herein have been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. They are not intended to have retroactive effect.
The findings and determinations set forth hereinafter are supplementary and in addition to the findings and determinations previously made in connection with the issuance of the agreement and order; and all of said previous findings and determinations are hereby ratified and affirmed, except insofar as such findings and determinations may be in conflict with the findings and determinations set forth herein.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 (7 U.S.C. 601-674) and the applicable rules of practice and procedure effective thereunder (7 CFR part 900), a public hearing was held upon the proposed amendments to Marketing Order No. 983 (7 CFR part 983), regulating the handling of pistachios grown in California.
(1) The marketing agreement and order, as amended, and all of the terms and conditions thereof, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act;
(2) The marketing agreement and order, as amended, regulate the handling of pistachios grown in the production area in the same manner as, and are applicable only to, persons in the respective classes of commercial and industrial activity specified in the marketing agreement and order upon which a hearing has been held;
(3) The marketing agreement and order, as amended, are limited in their application to the smallest regional production area which is practicable, consistent with carrying out the declared policy of the Act, and the issuance of several orders applicable to subdivisions of the production area would not effectively carry out the declared policy of the Act;
(4) The marketing agreement and order, as amended, prescribe, insofar as practicable, such different terms applicable to different parts of the production area as are necessary to give due recognition to the differences in the production and marketing of pistachios grown in the production area; and
(5) All handling of pistachios grown in the production area as defined in the marketing agreement and order, is in the current interstate or foreign commerce or directly burdens, obstructs, or affects such commerce.
It is necessary and in the public interest to make these amendments effective not later than one day after publication in the Federal Register. A later effective date would unnecessarily delay implementation of the amendments. These amendments should be in place as soon as possible as the new production year began on September 1.
In view of the foregoing, it is hereby found and determined that good cause exists for making these amendments effective one day after publication in the Start Printed Page 56539 Federal Register, and that it would be contrary to the public interest to delay the effective date for 30 days after publication in the Federal Register (Sec. 553(d), Administrative Procedure Act; 5 U.S.C. 551-559).
(1) The “Marketing Agreement Regulating the Handling of Pistachios Grown in California, Arizona, and New Mexico,” upon which the aforesaid public hearing was held, has been signed by handlers (excluding cooperative associations of producers who are not engaged in processing, distributing, or shipping pistachios covered by the order) who during the period September 1, 2008, through August 31, 2009, handled not less than 50 percent of the volume of such pistachios covered by the order; and
(2) The issuance of this amendatory order, amending the aforesaid order, is favored or approved by at least two-thirds of the producers who participated in a referendum on the question of approval and who, during the period of September 1, 2008, through July 31, 2009, (which has been determined to be a representative period), have been engaged within the production area in the production of such pistachios, such producers having also produced for market at least two-thirds of the volume of such commodity represented in the referendum.
It is therefore ordered, That on and after the effective date hereof, all handling of pistachios grown in California, Arizona, and New Mexico shall be in conformity to, and in compliance with the terms and conditions of the said order as hereby amended as follows:
The provisions of the proposed marketing agreement and order amending the order contained in the Secretary's Decision issued on July 29, 2009, and published in the Federal Register on August 6, 2009, (74 FR 39230) shall be and are the terms and provisions of this order amending the order and are set forth in full herein.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, Title 7 of Chapter XI of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended by amending part 983 to read as follows:
4. Lift suspension of § 983.6, published on December 7, 2007 (
5. Lift suspension of § 983.7, published on December 7, 2007 (
8. Lift suspension of § 983.19, published on December 7, 2007 (
9. Lift suspension of § 983.20, published on December 7, 2007 (
10. Redesignate § 983.21 as § 983.20, and revise the section to read as follows:
12. Redesignate § 983.23 as § 983.22, and revise the section to read as follows:
15. Redesignate § 983.26 as § 983.25, and revise the section to read as follows:
17. Lift suspension of § 983.31, published on December 7, 2007 (
22. Redesignate § 983.57 as § 983.75, and revise the section to read as follows:
23. Redesignate §§ 983.58 through 983.64 and their corresponding undesignated heading as §§ 983.80 through 983.86, respectively.
24. Redesignate § 983.65 as § 983.87, and revise the section to read as follows:
25. Redesignate §§ 983.66 through 983.69 as §§ 983.88 through 983.91, respectively.
26. Redesignate § 983.70 as § 983.92, and revise the section to read as follows:
27. Lift suspension of § 983.41, published on December 7, 2007 (
28. Lift suspension of § 983.42, published on December 7, 2007 (
29. Redesignate § 983.43 as § 983.55.
30. Redesignate § 983.44 as § 983.56, and revise it to read as follows:
31. Lift suspension of § 983.45, published on December 7, 2007 (
Start Printed Page 56541
32. Redesignate § 983.46 as § 983.59, and revise the section to read as follows:
(c) The Secretary, upon recommendation of committee, may issue rules and regulations implementing §§ 983.50 through 983.58.
33. Redesignate §§ 983.47 through 983.51 and their corresponding undesignated center heading as §§ 983.64 through 983.68, respectively.
34. Redesignate § 983.52 and its corresponding undesignated center heading as § 983.70.
35. Add a new § 983.58 to read as follows:
36. Redesignate § 983.32 as § 983.41
37. Amend newly designated § 983.41 by removing the words “eleven (11)” from the introductory paragraph and adding in their place the words “twelve (12),” and by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
38. Redesignate § 983.33 as § 983.42.
39. Amend newly designated § 983.42 by removing the word “grower” and adding in its place the word “producer” in paragraph (a), removing the reference to “§ 983.32” and adding in its place “§ 983.41” in paragraph (j), and by removing the reference to “§§ 983.32, 983.33, and 983.34” and adding in its place “§§ 983.41, 983.42, and 983.43” in paragraph (n).
40. Redesignate § 983.34 as § 983.43
41. Amend newly designated § 983.43 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
44. Redesignate § 983.37 and its corresponding undesignated center heading as § 983.47.
45. Lift suspension of § 983.38, published on December 7, 2007 (
46. Lift suspension of § 983.39, published on December 7, 2007 (
For any production year, the committee may establish, with the approval of the Secretary, such quality and inspection requirements applicable to pistachios to be shipped for domestic human consumption as will contribute to orderly marketing or be in the public interest. In such production year, no handler shall ship pistachios for Start Printed Page 56542domestic human consumption unless they meet the applicable requirements as evidenced by certification acceptable to the committee.
47. Lift suspension of § 983.40, published on December 7, 2007 (
48. Add a new § 983.46, preceded by an undesignated center heading, to read as follows:
[FR Doc. E9-26149 Filed 10-30-09; 8:45 am]