[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 85 (Wednesday, May 1, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19160-19164]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10758]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Parts 916 and 917
[Docket No. FV95-916-5FR]
Nectarines and Peaches Grown in California; Relaxation of Quality
Requirements for Fresh Nectarines and Peaches
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule relaxes, for the 1996 season only, the quality
requirements for California nectarines and peaches. This rule
establishes a ``CA Utility'' quality requirement, based on minimum
quality standards established under the California Agricultural Code,
with a limitation on the amount of fruit meeting U.S. No. 1 or higher
grade requirements that may be contained in the utility pack. This
final rule also requires that containers of nectarines and peaches
meeting the ``CA Utility'' quality requirement be clearly marked ``CA
Utility.'' This final rule will allow more nectarines and peaches into
fresh market channels, and is designed to benefit growers and
consumers.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule becomes effective May 2, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth Johnson, Marketing Specialist,
Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Division,
AMS, USDA, P.O. Box 96456, Room 2523-S, Washington, DC 20090-6456;
telephone: (202) 720-2861; or Terry Vawter, Marketing Specialist,
California Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order Administration
Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Division, AMS, USDA, 2202 Monterey Street,
Suite 102B, Fresno, California, 93721; telephone: (209) 487-5901.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final rule is issued under Marketing
Agreement and Marketing Order Nos. 916 and 917 [7 CFR Parts 916 and
917] regulating the handling of nectarines and peaches grown in
California, respectively, hereinafter referred to as the orders. The
orders are effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of
1937, as amended [7 U.S.C. 601-674], hereinafter referred to as the
Act.
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 12778,
Civil Justice Reform. This final rule is not intended to have
retroactive effect. This final 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.
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.
There are about 300 California nectarine and peach handlers subject
to regulation under the orders covering nectarines and peaches grown in
California, and about 1,800 producers of these fruits in California.
Small agricultural producers have been defined by the Small Business
Administration [13 CFR 121.601] as those having annual receipts of less
than $500,000, and small agricultural service firms are defined as
those whose annual
[[Page 19161]]
receipts are less than $5,000,000. A majority of these handlers and
producers may be classified as small entities.
This final rule establishes, for the 1996 season only, a ``CA
Utility'' quality requirement and a container marking requirement for
shipments of ``CA Utility'' fruit.
Minimum grade requirements for fresh nectarines and peaches grown
in California are in effect under Sec. 916.356 and Sec. 917.459,
respectively. This rule amends Secs. 916.356 and 917.459 by revising
paragraph (a)(1) under each section to permit shipments of fruit
meeting ``CA Utility'' quality requirements. ``CA Utility'' quality
requirements are the same as the requirements set forth in the
California Agricultural Code for nectarines and peaches with the
exception that not more than 30 percent of the fruit in a container may
meet or exceed the requirements of the U.S. No. 1 Grade Standard. ``CA
Utility'' fruit must be inspected by the Federal or Federal-State
Inspection Service and certified as meeting the ``CA Utility'' quality
requirements. ``CA Utility'' fruit are subject to assessment, maturity,
size and all other requirements of the orders.
This rule also amends Secs. 916.350 and 917.442 by adding a
paragraph to each section to specify that each package or container of
nectarines and peaches shipped, meeting the requirements of the newly
established ``CA Utility'' quality, must be conspicuously marked with
the words ``CA Utility'' on a visible display panel.
Shipments of California nectarines and peaches are subject to
minimum grade, size, and maturity requirements under the provisions of
Marketing Orders 916 (section 916.356) during the period April 1
through October 31 each year and 917 (section 917.459) during the
period April 1 through November 23 each year. Currently, nectarine
shipments are required to meet the requirements of U.S. No. 1 Grade,
except less scarring is permitted than under the U.S. No. 1 Grade, and
the tolerance for fruit that is not well formed is greater than the
U.S. No. 1 Grade. Different minimum size requirements are in effect for
different groupings of nectarine varieties.
Peach shipments are currently required to meet the requirements of
U.S. No. 1 Grade, except there is an additional tolerance for fruit
damage caused by open sutures. Also, different minimum size
requirements are in effect for different groupings of peach varieties.
Both the nectarine and peach regulations allow the shipment of
fruit one size smaller than the specified minimum if the fruit meets
higher maturity requirements. Both nectarine and peach shipments are
also subject to container, pack, and container marking requirements.
Prior to the 1995 shipping season, the Nectarine Administrative and
Peach Commodity Committees (Committees), the agencies responsible for
local administration of the orders, considered recommending a change in
the nectarine and peach regulations to allow a utility grade for these
fruits. (Utility grade is a lower quality fruit than U.S. No. 1.)
During the 1995 season, changes were made to allow the shipment of a
utility grade for California plums, which are regulated under a State
program. The plum utility grade was based on California Agricultural
Code requirements. The Committees voted not to recommend a utility
grade for nectarines and peaches for the 1995 season. The Committees
did, however, hire Dr. Dennis Nef, California State University, Fresno,
to conduct a research project to study the potential impact of a
utility grade for nectarines and peaches. The Committees also believed
that industry experience with the plum utility grade would be helpful
in making future recommendations for appropriate quality requirements
for nectarines and peaches. The report prepared by Dr. Nef was
presented to the Nectarine and Peach Grade and Size Subcommittees in
October 1995. The report found that about 22 percent of the peaches
sampled in packinghouse cull bins in 1995 would have met California
Agricultural Code requirements. Of the nectarines sampled from
packinghouse culls in that year, about 6 percent would have met
California Agricultural Code requirements, and an additional 14 percent
failed marketing order quality requirements but met U.S. No. 1 Grade
requirements (as indicated previously, the nectarine requirements under
the order permit less fruit scarring than allowed under the U.S. No. 1
Grade). The report pointed out that these findings were based on a
season which was marked by unusual crop and weather conditions. After
reviewing the report, the nectarine and peach subcommittees voted not
to recommend to the full Committees that a utility grade be implemented
in 1996 for nectarines and peaches, citing the unusual weather
conditions that resulted in below normal crop production. They believed
that Dr. Nef's research project should be continued for another year to
allow for the collection of data based on a more typical season.
On November 29, 1995, the Department wrote to the Committees,
recommending that a utility grade be adopted for nectarines and peaches
for the 1996 season beginning April 1, 1996. The Committees met on
December 6-7, 1995, to discuss possible implementation of a utility
grade for nectarines and peaches for the 1996 season. Committee members
and others in attendance at the meetings expressed views in opposition
to and in support of implementing a utility grade.
Commentors in opposition to a utility grade for nectarines and
peaches stated that the 1995 season was not a normal season for plums,
nectarines, or peaches and should not be used as a basis for
recommending a utility grade. They also said that the tree fruit
industry is facing competition in both domestic and in foreign markets.
One commentor stated that utility grade fruit would damage the
reputation of California-produced tree fruit and another stated that
poor quality California plums had been shipped to Hong Kong during the
1995 season, and that these plums had damaged the overall reputation of
California plums. One commentor stated that allowing a utility grade
would result in inspections of fruit which would only serve to verify
that the fruit in the container is poor quality. Others stated that
lower quality fruit is not wasted and may be used for cattle feed.
Another stated that the results of the recent grower referendum
indicated support for the continuation of the program and the
continuation of current quality standards.
One commentor in support of a utility grade for nectarines stated
that the implementation of a utility grade for plums in 1995 resulted
in a $10 million increase in plum grower revenue. Commentors noted that
less than 10 percent of the plum pack was utility grade. One commentor
stated that while less than one percent of his organization's plum pack
was utility grade, this lower grade should be available for use by
nectarine and peach handlers if a market exists. Others commented that
the Department had recommended a utility grade for nectarines and
peaches for one year only--1996.
Committee members and others who commented at the December 1995
Committee meetings indicated that a niche market may exist for utility
grade fruit and that the opportunity should be made available to market
lower quality fruit to meet demand. Reducing quality requirements would
allow more fruit to be marketed. The lower quality fruit would be made
available at lower prices, which would especially benefit lower income
consumers.
[[Page 19162]]
Data on recent production of California nectarines and peaches in
relation to season average producer prices appear to indicate that
lesser quality fruit could be marketed successfully without interfering
with sales of higher quality fruit. The limited additional quantity
expected to be made available would be expected to have a minimal
effect on consumer purchases and season average producer prices for
California nectarines and peaches. Sales of lesser quality fruit to a
niche market could increase producer revenue and promote consumer
satisfaction.
The implementation of utility quality requirements for the 1996
season would authorize fruit meeting these requirements to be shipped
to market and would provide information on consumer and retailer
acceptance of such fruit. This information could then be used to
supplement information collected by Dr. Nef and assist the Committees
in developing appropriate quality requirements for the 1997 season.
Based on the foregoing, the Department proposed that a utility
grade for nectarines and peaches be implemented on a temporary basis
for the 1996 season. The Department proposed, for purposes of this
regulation, to define ``CTFA Utility'' to mean fruit which meets the
requirements of the U.S. No. 2 Grade defined in the United States
Standards for Grades of Nectarines (7 CFR 51.3145 through 51.3160) and
the United States Standards for Grades of Peaches (7 CFR 51.1210
through 51.1223), except that misshapened fruit and fruit with serious
damage due to scarring would be permitted.
In order to prevent confusion in the marketplace and to clearly
differentiate shipments of ``CTFA Utility'' fruit from better quality
fruit, the Department proposed requiring containers of ``CTFA Utility''
fruit to be conspicuously marked with the words ``CTFA Utility''. In
addition, it was proposed that shipments of such fruit continue to be
required to meet the same container, pack, and container marking
requirements in effect for shipments of higher quality fruit.
A proposed rule concerning this action was published in the March
4, 1996, Federal Register (61 FR 8225), with a 30-day comment period
ending on April 3, 1996. Nine comments were received. Jonathan Field,
Manager of the California Tree Fruit Agreement, and John Tos, Chairman
of the Peach Commodity Committee, submitted comments on behalf of the
Committees, recommending modifications to the proposed rule as
published. Six other commentors supported the establishment of a
utility quality requirement, but did not fully agree with the
Committees' comments: Harry Snyder, Consumers Union of U.S., Inc; Joe
Caram, nectarine grower, Reedley, California; Steven Booz, Reedley,
California; Richard Mittry, tree fruit grower, Sultana, California; Dan
Gerawan, tree fruit grower-shipper, Reedley, California; and Craig
Rasmussen, a grower and packer of California tree fruit, Reedley,
California.
One comment received from Leroy Giannini, a grower-handler of
California tree fruit, Dinuba, California, opposes the establishment of
utility quality requirements. Mr. Giannini states that California
nectarines and peaches have grown in production over the last 30 years
from 1 million cartons annually to almost 20 million cartons. He
attributed this growth to the industry's quality assurance program. Mr.
Giannini states further that during the 1995 season, ``Utility'' grade
plums were marked up at retail, but neither grower nor consumer
interests were well served. Mr. Giannini believes that the goal of
providing lower cost plums to consumers through implementation of the
``Utility'' grade failed to materialize.
Comments supporting modification of the proposed rule addressed
revisions in four areas: Whether the utility quality requirements
should be based on the U.S. Standards for Grades; whether there should
be a limit on the amount of U.S. No. 1 grade fruit in the utility pack;
where utility quality fruit should be permitted to be marketed; and how
utility quality fruit should be labeled.
The Basis for Utility Quality Requirements
As previously indicated, the Department proposed defining utility
quality in terms of a modified U.S. No. 2 grade. In Messrs. Field and
Tos's comments, they state that the Committees support basing nectarine
and peach utility quality requirements on the minimum quality standards
established in the California Agricultural Code. The Committees believe
the quality requirements for California nectarines and peaches should
be consistent with the minimum requirements in place for the California
plum utility grade, which are based on the California Agricultural
Code.
In addition to providing consistency within the California tree
fruit industry, the Committees believe that basing the utility quality
requirements on the California Agricultural Code will result in lower
inspection costs. Mr. Field provided a letter from Mr. John Wiley,
Branch Chief, Shipping Point Inspection, California Department of Food
and Agriculture, which stated that requiring inspectors to review
product for a quality requirement which is not a part of their normal
procedures would increase the cost of inspection, thereby increasing
program costs, particularly to small growers. Mr. Wiley stated further
that, having a proposed quality requirement of U.S. No. 2 with
different tolerances for peaches and nectarines, would increase the
time required for training and supervision as well as increase the
potential for confusion by inspectors and the difficulty of
differentiating between the various grades.
Mr. Gerawan supported using the California Agricultural Code as a
basis for utility quality requirements. The remaining commentors did
not state specifically whether they supported this proposed
modification or not. The Department believes that the Committees' and
Mr. Gerawan's arguments have merit. Also, defining the utility quality
requirements in terms of the California Agricultural Code should not
result in any less fruit being made available to fresh markets. For
these reasons, the Committees' and Mr. Gerawan's proposed revision is
adopted.
Limitation of U.S. No. 1 Grade Fruit in Utility Packs
The Committees support limiting the amount of U.S. No. 1 grade
fruit that can be included in a utility pack. Specifically, they
support a limit of 15 percent in any container. Mr. Field, in his
comment, states that a utility quality requirement must be clearly
distinct from a U.S. No. 1 grade. Failure to provide a clear
distinction could cause confusion in the marketplace and would not meet
the goal of providing low-cost fruit to low-income consumers. Mr. Field
contends that the Department failed to address this issue in its
proposal which to allow for a U.S. No. 2 grade, with a 100 percent
tolerance for misshapen and seriously scarred fruit; and that such
action would, in effect, do away with regulatory grades in place for
California nectarines and peaches. Mr. Field states that containers
could be marked as utility without regard to the amount of U.S. No. 1
therein. Fruit could be packed at 80-85 percent U.S. No. 1 and fail
marketing order requirements, but rather than be repacked, it could be
marked utility and marketed. This would cause confusion in the
marketplace since the fruit would not be adequately distinguished from
U.S. No. 1 grade fruit. By the same token, a container of nectarines or
peaches could have 0 percent U.S. No. 1 or 100 percent U.S. No. 1
product
[[Page 19163]]
inside, but could be marked utility for whatever reason the shipper
determined appropriate. According to Mr. Field, this clearly
demonstrates why the Committees believe it is necessary to establish a
maximum tolerance of 15 percent for U.S. No. 1 grade fruit in
containers marketed as utility grade fruit.
In the comments received in support of the proposed rule, five
commentors stated that the Department should not set a 15 percent
tolerance on U.S. No. 1 grade fruit in containers marked utility. These
commentors contend that it would be too difficult and costly for
packers to meet a 15 percent tolerance because some containers would
not meet the utility quality requirements because they would have too
much ``good fruit'' in the box. These commentors could see no
reasonable justification for limiting the amount of good quality fruit
in a utility pack.
Mr. Rasmussen offered a compromise. He believes that there should
be a limit on the amount of U.S. No. 1 grade fruit in the utility pack
to ensure a distinct difference between the packs, but states the 15
percent limit supported by the Committees was overly restrictive. He
supports a limit of 30 percent. This limit has proved workable for the
California plum industry's use of a utility grade standard.
The Department finds that Mr. Rasmussen's suggested revision is
reasonable. Thus, this rule provides that the amount of fruit in a
container of utility quality fruit that meets or exceeds the
requirements of a U.S. No. 1 grade cannot exceed 30 percent.
Where Utility Quality Fruit May Be Shipped
The Committees, through Mr. Field, also comment that on an
experimental basis, utility quality fruit should be limited to the
domestic markets. Mr. Field opines that under sections 916.54 and
917.43 of the orders, special purpose shipments can be made for
research purposes for special markets. Mr. Field believes that this
authority allows restricting utility grade shipments, which would
enable the nectarine and peach industries to continue studying the
utility quality requirements, the availability of lower quality fruit
to lower income consumers, and the benefits of making the lower quality
product available. Mr. Field believes limiting shipments of utility
quality fruit to the domestic market would allow for these studies to
progress and would allay the fears of the industries that low quality
fruit in export markets is to the long term detriment of the
industries.
Five commentors state that there is no rationale for restricting
the sale of utility quality California nectarines and peaches to
Mexico, where there is believed to be strong market demand for the
product. One commentor--Mr. Rasmussen--did not state a position on this
subject.
The Committees did not provide sufficient evidence that the
adoption of the CA Utility requirement for the 1996 season only would
result in any damage to export markets. Thus, the Committees' proposal
is denied.
Labeling Requirements for Utility Quality Fruit
The Committees, through Mr. Field, comment that the name of the
proposed quality requirement, ``CTFA Utility'' should be known instead
as ``USDA Utility''. The Committees believe that since the Department
initially proposed the utility quality requirements, such quality
requirements should be called ``USDA Utility.'' It is the consensus of
the Committees that the California quality image could be diluted by
using ``California'' or ``CTFA'' to describe the lower quality product.
Mr. Field also states that containers of utility quality California
nectarines and peaches should meet all size, marking, and standard
container requirements, with the additional requirement that the
marking of ``USDA Utility'' should be a minimum height of \3/4\ inches
and on the visible display panel of the box. (The proposed rule did not
specify where such marking should appear.) As provided in the proposed
rule, consumer bags or packages are also required to be to be marked.
Requiring the marking to be on a visible display panel and on consumer
packages will enable consumers and retailers to identify the fruit as
utility quality when it is palletized or on display at the retail
level.
Mr. Rasmussen is the only other commentor who expresses an opinion
on this issue. He states that the utility quality peaches and
nectarines should be known as ``CA Utility.'' This is comparable to the
designation used for California plums, and having the same nomenclature
for peaches and nectarines would be advantageous from the standpoint of
maintaining uniformity among the three commodities and creating less
confusion in the marketplace.
The Department finds that Mr. Rasmussen's position has merit and is
therefore adopted. Further, the Committees' proposal to require the
marking on a visible display panel also has merit and is incorporated
in this final rule.
The intent of this rule is to establish a minimum quality
requirement for California nectarines and peaches to allow more fruit
into fresh market channels, ensure customer satisfaction and improve
returns to producers. Moreover, as previously stated, information
gathered as a result of allowing shipments of ``CA Utility'' quality
fruit, for the 1996 season, can be used to help determine appropriate
quality requirements for California nectarines and peaches for the 1997
season.
This rule reflects the Department's appraisal of the need to revise
the quality and container marking requirements for California
nectarines and peaches. The Department believes that this rule will
have a beneficial impact on producers, handlers, and consumers of
California nectarines and peaches.
Based on available information, the AMS has determined that this
action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
After consideration of all relevant matter presented, including the
information and recommendations submitted by the Committees, the
comments received, 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 apply to as
many shipments of California nectarines and peaches as possible. The
shipping seasons for both California nectarines and peaches began on
April 1, 1996. Further, handlers are aware of this rule, which was
recommended in a proposed rule in early March and discussed in public
meetings of the Committees. Also, this rule provides an additional
alternative for handlers of California nectarines and peaches, and no
additional time is needed for those handlers to comply with the relaxed
quality requirements. Finally, a 30-day comment period was provided for
in the proposed rule, and all comments have been considered in
developing this final rule.
List of Subjects
7 CFR Part 916
Marketing agreements, Nectarines, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
[[Page 19164]]
7 CFR Part 917
Marketing agreements, Peaches, Pears, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR Parts 916 and 917
are amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR Parts 916 and 917 continues to
read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601-674.
PART 916--NECTARINES GROWN IN CALIFORNIA
2. Section 916.350 is amended by adding a new paragraph (d) to read
as follows:
Sec. 916.350 California Nectarine Container and Pack Regulation.
* * * * *
(d) During the period April 1 through October 31, 1996, each
container or package when packed with nectarines meeting CA Utility
requirements, shall bear the words ``CA Utility'', along with all other
required container markings, in letters of \3/4\ inch minimum height on
the visible display panel. Consumer bags or packages must also be
clearly marked on the bag or package as ``CA Utility'' along with other
required markings.
3. Section 916.356 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(1) to read
as follows:
Sec. 916.356 California Nectarine Grade and Size Regulation.
(a) * * *
(1) Any lot or package or container of any variety of nectarines
unless such nectarines meet the requirements of U.S. No. 1 grade:
Provided, that nectarines 2 inches in diameter or smaller, shall not
have fairly light colored, fairly smooth scars which exceed an
aggregate area of a circle \3/8\ inch in diameter, and nectarines
larger than 2 inches in diameter shall not have fairly light colored,
fairly smooth scars which exceed an aggregate area of a circle \1/2\
inch in diameter: Provided further, That an additional tolerance of 25
percent shall be permitted for fruit that is not well formed but not
badly misshapen. Provided further, That during the period April 1
through October 31, 1996, any handler may handle nectarines if such
nectarines meet ``CA Utility'' quality requirements. The term ``CA
Utility'' means that not more than 30 percent of the nectarines in any
container meet or exceed the requirements of the U.S. No. 1 grade and
that such nectarines are mature and are:
(i) Free from insect injury which has penetrated or damaged the
flesh; split pits which cause an unhealed crack or one or more well
healed cracks which, either singly or in the aggregate, are more than
\3/8\ inch in length; mold, brown rot, and decay which has affected the
edible portion; and
(ii) Free from serious damage due to skin breaks, cuts, growth
cracks, bruises, or other causes.
(iii) Tolerances. Not more than 10 percent, by count, of the
nectarines in any one container may be below the requirements which are
prescribed by this subparagraph, including not more than 5 percent, by
count, for any one defect, except split pits. An additional tolerance
of 10 percent, by count, of the nectarines in any one container or bulk
lot may contain nectarines affected with split pits. This means a total
tolerance of 20 percent is allowed for all defects, including split
pits, but not to exceed 15 percent for split pits alone.
* * * * *
PART 917--FRESH PEARS AND PEACHES GROWN IN CALIFORNIA
3. Section 917.442 is amended by adding a new paragraph (d) to read
as follows:
Sec. 917.442 California Peach Container and Pack Regulation.
* * * * *
(d) During the period April 1 through November 23, 1996, each
container or package when packed with peaches meeting CA Utility
requirements, shall bear the words ``CA Utility'', along with all other
required container markings, in letters of \3/4\ inch minimum height on
the visible display panel. Consumer bags or packages must also be
clearly marked on the bag or package as ``CA Utility'' along with other
required markings.
4. Section 917.459 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(1) to read
as follows:
Sec. 917.459 California Peach Grade and Size Regulation.
(a) * * *
(1) Any lot or package or container of any variety of peaches
unless such peaches meet the requirements of U.S. No. 1 grade:
Provided, that an additional 25 percent tolerance shall be permitted
for fruit with open sutures which are damaged, but not seriously
damaged. Provided, That during the period April 1 through November 23,
1996, any handler may handle peaches if such peaches meet ``CA
Utility'' quality requirements. The term ``CA Utility'' means that not
more than 30 percent of the peaches in any container meet or exceed the
requirements of the U.S. No. 1 grade and that such peaches are mature
and are:
(i) Free from insect injury which has penetrated or damaged the
flesh; split pits which cause an unhealed crack or one or more healed
cracks which, either singly or in the aggregate, are more than \1/2\
inch in length; and mold, brown rot, and decay; and
(ii) Free from serious damage due to cuts, skin breaks, growth
cracks, bruises, scab, rust, blight, disease, hail or other causes.
Damage to any peach is serious when it causes a waste of 10 percent or
more, by volume, of the individual peach.
(iii) Tolerances. Not more than 10 percent, by count, of the
peaches in any container may be below the requirements prescribed by
this subparagraph. Not more than one-half of this tolerance shall be
allowed for any one cause. Individual containers in any lot may contain
not more than 1 \1/2\ times the tolerances specified if the percentage
of defects of the entire lot averages within the tolerances.
* * * * *
Dated: April 25, 1996.
Robert C. Keeney,
Director, Fruit and Vegetable Division.
[FR Doc. 96-10758 Filed 4-30-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
