[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 218 (Friday, November 8, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57782-57788]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-28609]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 218 / Friday, November 8, 1996 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 57782]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Parts 932 and 944
[Docket No. FV-96-932-2-PR]
Olives Grown in California and Imported Olives; Establishment of
Minimum Quality Requirements for California and Imported Olives, and
Revision of Outgoing Inspection Requirements and Procedures for
California Olives
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This proposal invites comments on the establishment of minimum
quality requirements for California olives under Marketing Order 932
and imported olives to replace grade requirements currently in effect
which are based on the U.S. Standards for Grades of Canned Ripe Olives
(standards). This proposal would also revise outgoing inspection
requirements and procedures for California olives. This action is
expected to result in reduced handling costs, especially inspection
costs, and improved consumer satisfaction.
DATES: Comments must be received by November 25, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments
concerning this proposal. Comments must be sent in triplicate to the
Docket Clerk, Fruit and Vegetable Division, AMS, USDA, room 2525-S,
P.O. Box 96456, Washington, DC 20090-6456, Fax # (202) 720-5698. All
comments should reference the docket number and the date and page
number of this issue of the Federal Register and will be made available
for public inspection in the Office of the Docket Clerk during regular
business hours.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Terry Vawter, Marketing Specialist,
California Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order Administration
Branch, F&V, AMS, USDA, 2202 Monterey Street, suite 102B, Fresno,
California 93721; telephone (209) 487-5901; Fax # (209) 487-5906; or
Caroline Thorpe, Marketing Specialist, Marketing Order Administration
Branch, F&V, AMS, USDA, room 2522-S, P.O. Box 96456, Washington, D.C.
20090-6456; telephone (202) 720-8139; Fax # (202) 720-5698. Small
businesses may request information on compliance with this regulation
by contacting: Jay Guerber, Marketing Order Administration Branch,
Fruit and Vegetable Division, AMS, P.O. Box 96456, room 2523-S,
Washington, D.C. 20090-6456; telephone (202) 720-2491; Fax # (202) 720-
5698.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This proposal is issued under Marketing
Order No. 932 (7 CFR Part 932), as amended, regulating the handling of
olives grown in California, hereinafter referred to as the ``order.''
The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act
of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the
``Act.''
This proposed rule is also issued under section 8e of the Act,
which provides that whenever certain specified commodities, including
olives, are regulated under a Federal marketing order, imports of these
commodities into the United States are prohibited unless they meet the
same or comparable grade, size, quality, or maturity requirements as
those in effect for the domestically produced commodities.
The Department of Agriculture (Department) is issuing this rule in
conformance with Executive Order 12866.
This proposal has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil
Justice Reform. This rule is not intended to have retroactive effect.
This proposal will not preempt any State or local laws, regulations, or
policies, unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this
rule.
The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted
before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the
Act, any handler subject to an order may file with the Secretary a
petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any
obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance
with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted
therefrom. A handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the
petition. After the hearing the Secretary would rule on the petition.
The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any
district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her
principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review the Secretary's
ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20
days after the date of the entry of the ruling.
There are no administrative procedures which must be exhausted
prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of import regulations
issued under section 8e of the Act.
Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (RFA), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the
economic impact of this action on small entities.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of
business subject to such actions in order that small businesses will
not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued
pursuant to the Act, and rules issued thereunder, are unique in that
they are brought about through group action of essentially small
entities acting on their own behalf. Thus, both statutes have small
entity orientation and compatibility. Import regulations issued under
the Act are based on those established under Federal marketing orders.
There are 5 handlers of olives who are subject to regulation under
the order, and approximately 1,350 producers of olives in the regulated
area. There are approximately 25 importers of olives subject to the
olive import regulation. Small agricultural service firms, which
includes handlers and importers, have been defined by the Small
Business Administration (13 CFR 121.601) as those having annual
receipts of less than $5,000,000, and small agricultural producers are
defined as those having annual receipts of less than $500,000. None of
the handlers is considered a small entity, but the majority of olive
producers and importers may be classified as small entities.
The California Olive Committee (committee) met on March 27, 1996,
and unanimously recommended establishing minimum quality requirements
to be incorporated within the rules and regulations of the order and
revising
[[Page 57783]]
outgoing inspection requirements and procedures. At a meeting on July
10, 1996, the committee recommended a change in their recommendations
of March 27, 1996, with regard to an outgoing inspection requirement.
Currently under the marketing order, incoming inspection
requirements at Sec. 932.51 require handlers to weigh and size-grade
olives prior to processing, and dispose of non-canning size
(undersized) olives into appropriate non-canning outlets. Such weighing
and size-grading is done under the supervision of the Federal or
Federal-State Inspection Service. These requirements provide the basis
for handler payments to producers, and ensure that olives are properly
sized into the various canning and non-canning size categories.
Once the olives have been size-graded, they are stored in tanks,
ensuring that the various sizes of olives remain segregated. Non-
canning size olives are disposed of into appropriate outlets, such as
in frozen or acidified forms, or crushed for oil.
Outgoing inspection requirements at Sec. 932.52 and Sec. 932.149
specify the minimum quality of canned ripe olives as a modified U.S.
Grade C as certified by inspectors of the USDA, Processed Products
Branch (PPB). Certification as to grade provides handlers and their
customers with a uniform level of quality familiar to both parties. The
outgoing inspection requirements also ensure that canned ripe olives
meet applicable size designations prior to shipment. Two methods of
outgoing inspection are authorized: a Quality Assurance Program (QAP)
approved by the PPB or in-line inspection.
This rule adds the option of lot inspection to assist handlers in
reducing inspection costs. Currently, during in-line inspection, an
inspector is required to be present any time olives are in the final
stage of processing prior to packaging. The current cost for an
inspector ranges from $34.00 to $42.00 per hour. For an 8-hour day the
cost of one inspector ranges from $272.00 to $328.00. Because of this,
handlers may benefit from economies of scale: the more olives produced,
the less cost per can of olives.
In 1994, QAPs were added as an option to reduce inspection costs.
Under QAPs, savings are more likely to accrue to larger-volume
handlers, who are more likely to have sufficient olives to operate
year-round and realize savings by employing trained quality-control
personnel. When there is a large crop, more handlers may benefit from
QAPs for similar reasons.
Adding lot inspection will offer handlers a less-costly inspection
option. During lot inspection, an inspector does not need to be present
during the final processing, unlike in-line inspection. However, an
inspector will inspect a statistical percentage of a lot of olives
whether the lot is large or small. Thus, there is less benefit of
economies of scale because for large lots more olives will be inspected
and for small lots fewer olives will be inspected.
The committee recommended changes in some of the inspection
requirements to reduce handlers' costs, especially the costs of
inspection, and to address the concerns of consumers of canned ripe
olives. The changes would simplify the inspection process by
eliminating steps which have been made unnecessary by modern olive
processing and pitting equipment. This would reduce handling costs,
including inspection costs, thereby improving returns to California
producers and handlers. Similar cost savings should accrue to importers
because of simplified inspection procedures.
The changes would also address consumer concerns, as identified
through a 1995 consumer survey which the committee undertook. Surveyed
consumers indicated that flavor, color, and character (softness) are
quality criteria most important to them. The changes would address
consumer concerns by evaluating quality based upon those criteria. This
would ensure that consumer satisfaction is met, benefitting the
California olive industry, importers, and consumers.
Therefore, the AMS has determined that this action would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Interested persons are invited to submit information on the regulatory
and informational impacts of this action on small businesses.
Establishment of Minimum Quality Requirements
Currently, Sec. 932.149 specifies that canned olives meet a minimum
grade requirement of a modified U.S. Grade C. Additional specific
requirements are established for the various styles of canned ripe
olives, including whole, pitted, broken pitted, halved, segmented
(wedged), sliced, and chopped styles. Section 932.149 references
various definitions from the standards.
In place of these grades and definitions, the committee has
proposed a set of minimum quality requirements for four styles of
canned olives: (1) Whole and pitted style olives; (2) sliced, segmented
(wedged), and halved style olives; (3) chopped style olives; and (4)
broken pitted olives. These quality requirements include criteria
pertaining to flavor, saltiness, color, character (softness),
uniformity of size and freedom from defects. These factors are similar
to those currently specified in the standards and handling regulations,
and have been determined to be of importance to consumers through the
committee's consumer survey.
Olives are currently graded based upon five factors: flavor,
saltiness, color, character (softness), and defects. Currently, Table I
in Sec. 932.149 only sets limits for defects of canned ripe olives.
Limits for the other four factors, flavor, saltiness, color, and
character, are defined in the standards. In place of Table I, based
upon information from the 1995 consumer survey, the committee has
proposed establishing four new tables which would specify the limits
for defects for each of the canned ripe olive styles (whole and pitted
styles; sliced, segmented (wedged), and halved styles; chopped style;
and broken pitted style). The new tables would also define the limits
of the four characteristics (flavor, saltiness, color, and character)
currently defined in the standards. The four new tables would provide
all the definitions and tolerances necessary to establish minimum
quality requirements in place of grade requirements.
To effectuate the proposed establishment of minimum quality
requirements, references to ``grade'' in Sec. 932.149 would be replaced
with ``quality'', canned broken pitted olives would be defined
separately in a new paragraph designated as (a)(4), and four new tables
depicting minimum quality requirements for (1) canned whole and pitted
olives; (2) canned sliced, segmented (wedged), and halved olives; (3)
canned chopped style olives; and (4) canned broken pitted style olives
would be added to Sec. 932.149, replacing the current Table 1.
In conforming changes, the word ``grade'' would be replaced with
the words ``minimum quality'' or ``minimum quality requirements,'' as
necessary, in Sec. 932.150, Sec. 932.153, and Sec. 932.155.
Section 932.149(a)(2) currently sets the tolerance for identifiable
pieces of pit caps, end slices, and slices at 5 percent, by weight, for
canned chopped style olives. The committee recommended a relaxed
tolerance of 10 percent, by weight, in an effort to encourage handlers
to cut olives of the chopped style in larger pieces. The committee was
concerned that canned chopped style olives are currently chopped too
finely, rendering the product nearly an olive ``flour'' rather
[[Page 57784]]
than identifiable pieces of olives consumers indicated they preferred.
This change would reduce the costs of packing canned chopped style
olives.
The committee recommended that the definition of ``broken pitted''
olives be modified from the definition provided in the standards. To
accomplish this, the committee proposed a modified definition in
Sec. 932.149 of the regulations. The current definition is considered
too restrictive by the committee. Under the current definition, broken
pitted olives are defined as ``olives [which] consist substantially of
large pieces that may have been broken in pitting but have not been
sliced or cut.'' Currently, each handler packing broken pitted olives
is prohibited from using olives which have been improperly pitted but
unbroken because the olives have not been ``broken'' in the pitting
process. (Improperly pitted olives do not contain pits or pit
fragments.) Each such handler, therefore, pays an employee to ``break''
the unbroken, improperly pitted olives so that such olives meet the
requirement for broken pitted olives. As recommended by the committee,
the proposed definition for broken pitted olives would delete the word
``substantially,'' thereby permitting a greater percentage of unbroken,
improperly pitted olives to be included in the broken pitted style
category. Such change is intended to reduce the costs of packing broken
pitted olives while maintaining the quality of the product.
The committee further recommended basing outgoing inspections on a
pass-fail basis, eliminating the requirement that the inspection
service certify that canned ripe olives are either Grade A, Grade B, or
Grade C. Under a pass-fail outgoing inspection, canned ripe olives
would either meet the minimum quality requirements and pass inspection,
or fail to meet the minimum quality requirements and not pass
inspection. There would be no need to calculate the grade of each
sample in order to assign Grade A, Grade B, or Grade C. Elimination of
the requirement to certify to a grade would simplify the inspection of
such olives, thereby reducing inspection time and overall inspection
costs.
Authorized Methods of Outgoing Inspection
Pursuant to Sec. 932.52 of the order and Sec. 932.152 of the
current outgoing regulations, handlers are required to maintain
continuous in-line outgoing inspection or a certified QAP. Under
continuous in-line outgoing inspection, at least one inspector must be
present at all times when a plant is in operation to make in-process
checks on the preparation, processing, packing, and warehousing of all
products. The current cost for an inspector ranges from $34.00 to
$42.00 per hour. For an 8-hour day the cost of one inspector ranges
from $272.00 to $328.00.
By contrast, under a QAP, each certified plant has trained quality-
control personnel who perform most of the same functions as a PPB
inspector. The PPB inspectors continue to issue certificates of
inspection based upon the outgoing inspection records maintained by the
certified quality-control personnel. These records are verified through
spot-checks and samples taken by PPB inspectors.
A QAP may decrease outgoing inspection costs for a handler compared
to inspection costs under continuous in-line outgoing inspection.
However, cost savings under a QAP accrue more to larger-volume
handlers, who are more likely to have sufficient olives to operate
year-round and realize savings by employing trained quality-control
personnel. When there is a large crop, more handlers may benefit from a
QAP for similar reasons. However, olive crop sizes may vary
substantially from one year to the next due to the alternate-bearing
characteristics. This variability further reduces the efficiency of
operations at most of the olive processing plants and the cost-savings
of QAP, since handlers' fixed costs must be paid independent of the
size of the crop.
To enable handlers to minimize their inspection costs, the
committee recommended that handlers be allowed to utilize any
inspection method permitted by PPB, so that each may choose the method
most economical for their operations. Thus, in addition to a QAP and
in-line inspection, lot inspection would also be authorized for meeting
outgoing inspection requirements. Under lot inspection, a specified
number of containers of the same size and type, containing olives of
the same type and style, at the same location, are inspected. Lot
inspection occurs after processing, rather than during processing.
Inspecting by lot has the potential to reduce costs for handlers
because lot inspection does not require the presence of an inspector at
all times while olives are being processed.
To effectuate this change, paragraphs (a) and (b)(1) of
Sec. 932.152, Outgoing regulations, would be revised to add authority
for handlers to use either continuous in-line outgoing inspection, QAP,
or lot inspection. Because lot inspection does not require the presence
of an inspector at all times during the processing of olives, paragraph
(b)(1) would also be revised by deleting the final sentence, thereby
removing the requirement that an inspector be present when olives are
processed. This change is expected to reduce overall inspection costs
by eliminating overtime hours which accrue when an inspector is
required to remain in an olive processing plant at all times while
processing is underway. Under this proposal, for example, an inspector
could work a fixed shift, first providing lot inspection on olives
processed during the previous night, then converting to in-line
outgoing inspection for the remainder of the shift.
Outgoing Inspection for Size of Canning-Size Olives
The committee also recommended revising the current requirements
that canning-size olives, which have been sized and stored in tanks
prior to pitting, be inspected for size prior to packaging. Currently,
such olives are required under incoming inspection requirements to be
weighed and size-graded. Olives are then stored in tanks prior to
processing. The outgoing requirements mandate that such olives be
submitted for size inspection prior to packaging. However, handlers
size olives upon receipt and keep the sizes separate throughout the
packaging process because doing so facilitates more efficient operation
of modern processing and pitting equipment. Eliminating the requirement
for inspection for size prior to packaging would simplify the
inspection process and reduce overall inspection costs while
maintaining the integrity and quality of canned ripe olives.
To effectuate this change, paragraph (b)(2) of Sec. 932.152 would
be deleted. This deletion would necessitate the redesignation of
paragraph (b)(1) as (b).
However, olives which are smaller than authorized for use as canned
ripe olives (undersized olives) would still be held under surveillance
by the inspection service, as required in the incoming inspection
requirements and specified in paragraph (e)(2) of Sec. 932.151, since
handlers must dispose of such olives into appropriate outlets, such as
in frozen or acidified forms, or crushed for oil.
Outgoing Inspection for Size of Limited-Use Olives
Section 932.152, paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2), of the current
outgoing regulations specify that olives used in the production of
limited-use styles are not required to be submitted for an outgoing
inspection for size prior to packaging if they were size-graded by
[[Page 57785]]
the inspection service during the incoming inspection process. Limited-
use styles include halved, segmented (wedged), sliced, or chopped
styles. Typically, smaller olives may be used for limited-use styles
than for whole styles.
According to the requirements of Sec. 932.51(a)(ii) of the order,
canning size olives are sized by the inspection service during the
incoming inspection process. The olives are then either placed in
storage tanks or sent immediately to processing.
Olives process more efficiently when all the olives in the
processing tank are uniform in size. Modern, high-speed pitting
equipment produces higher yields and inflicts less damage to olives
when the sizes being pitted are uniform. This is especially true for
the smaller canning sizes. Currently, over 95 percent of all olives are
pitted prior to packaging.
Olive handlers have an additional incentive to maintain strict
control over various sizes of olives--retail customers' demands for
uniform size and quality.
For those reasons, the committee recommended changes in
Sec. 932.152, paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) to eliminate the requirement
for inspection for size prior to packaging.
To effectuate the change, the words ``without an outgoing
inspection for size designation'' would be deleted from Sec. 932.152,
paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2).
These changes would establish minimum quality requirements of
flavor, saltiness, color, character, and defects for whole and pitted
style olives; sliced, segmented (wedged), and halved style olives;
chopped style olives; and broken pitted style olives. They would also
revise outgoing inspection requirements and procedures under the
marketing order by eliminating requirements that sized and stored
olives be submitted for sizing prior to packaging, and permitting lot
inspection. These revisions would eliminate requirements no longer
deemed necessary, thereby reducing handling costs, while maintaining
quality and size requirements needed to ensure customer satisfaction.
This rule also would make changes to Sec. 932.153 (as amended in
the Federal Register on August 5, 1996, 61 FR 40507), which specifies
current minimum grade and size requirements for limited use olives. All
references to ``grade'' in that section would be replaced by the words
``minimum quality'' or ``minimum quality requirements,'' as necessary.
Olive Import Requirements
Section 8e of the Act requires that whenever grade, size, quality,
or maturity requirements are in effect for olives under a domestic
marketing order, imported olives must meet the same or comparable
requirements. This rule proposes establishing minimum quality
requirements to replace current minimum grade requirements for
California olives under the marketing order. Therefore, a corresponding
change is needed in the olive import regulation.
This rule proposes modifying paragraphs (a)(8), (b)(1), (g), and
(j) of Sec. 944.401 to delete certain references to the standards and
add specific quality criteria for imported olives which are the same as
those being proposed for California olives.
In accordance with section 8e of the Act, the U.S. Trade
Representative has concurred with the issuance of this proposed rule.
This rule provides a 15-day comment period to allow interested
persons to respond to this proposal. This period is deemed appropriate
because the crop year began August 1, 1996, and this proposal needs to
become effective as soon as possible. The proposal was recommended by
the committee at a public meeting and all interested persons were
invited to provide input. This proposal will also reduce handler costs
and help ensure consumer satisfaction. All written comments timely
received will be considered prior to finalization of this rule.
List of Subjects
7 CFR Part 932
Marketing agreements, Olives, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
7 CFR Part 944
Avocados, Food grades and standards, Grapefruit, Grapes, Imports,
Kiwifruit, Limes, Olives, Oranges.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR parts 932 and 944
are proposed to be amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR parts 932 and 944 continues to
read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601-674.
PART 932--OLIVES GROWN IN CALIFORNIA
2. Section 932.149 is revised to read as follows: Sec. 932.149
Modified minimum quality requirements for specified styles of canned
olives of the ripe type.
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, the minimum
quality requirements prescribed in Sec. 932.52(a)(1) are modified as
follows, for specified styles of canned olives of the ripe type:
(1) Canned whole and pitted olives of the ripe type shall meet the
minimum quality requirements as prescribed in Table 1 of this section;
(2) Canned sliced, segmented (wedged), and halved olives of the
ripe type shall meet the minimum quality requirements as prescribed in
Table 2 of this section;
(3) Canned chopped olives of the ripe type shall meet the minimum
quality requirements as prescribed in Table 3 of this section; and
shall be practically free from identifiable units of pit caps, end
slices, and slices (``practically free from identifiable units'' means
that not more than 10 percent, by weight, of the unit of chopped style
olives may be identifiable pit caps, end slices, or slices); and
(4) Canned broken pitted olives of the ripe type shall meet the
minimum quality requirements as prescribed in Table 4 of this section.
Table 1.--Whole and Pitted Style
[Defects by count per 50 olives]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLAVOR............................................................. Reasonably good; no ``off'' flavor.
FLAVOR (Green Ripe Type)........................................... Free from objectionable flavors of any
kind.
SALOMETER.......................................................... Acceptable Range in degrees: 3.0 to 14.0.
COLOR.............................................................. Reasonably uniform with not less than 60%
having a color equal or darker than
comparator for Ripe Type.
CHARACTER.......................................................... Not more than 5 soft units or 2 excessively
soft units.
UNIFORMITY OF SIZE................................................. 60%, by visual inspection, of the most
uniform in size. The diameter of the
largest does not exceed the smallest by
more than 4mm.
[[Page 57786]]
DEFECTS:
Pitter Damage (Pitted Style Only).............................. 15.
Major Blemishes................................................ 5.
Major Wrinkles................................................. 5.
Pits and Pit Fragments (Pitted Style Only)..................... Not more than 1.3 average by count.
Major Stems.................................................... Not more than 3.
HEVM........................................................... Not more than 1 unit per sample.
Mutilated...................................................... Not more than 3.
Mechanical Damage.............................................. Not more than 5.
Split Pits or Misshapen........................................ Not more than 5.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2.--Sliced, Segmented (Wedged), and Halved Styles
[Defects by count per 255 grams]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLAVOR........................................................... Reasonably good; no ``off'' flavor.
SALOMETER........................................................ Acceptable Range in degrees: 3.0 to 14.0.
COLOR............................................................ Reasonably uniform with no units lighter than
the comparator for Ripe Type.
CHARACTER........................................................ Not more than 13 grams excessively soft.
DEFECTS:
Pits and Pit Fragments....................................... Average of not more than 1 by count per 300
grams.
Major Stems.................................................. Not more than 3.
HEVM......................................................... Not more than 2 units per sample.
Broken Pieces and End Caps................................... Not more than 125 grams by weight.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3.--Chopped Style
[Defects by count per 255 grams]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLAVOR........................................................... Reasonably good; no ``off'' flavor.
SALOMETER........................................................ Acceptable Range in degrees: 3.0 to 14.0.
COLOR............................................................ Reasonably uniform with no units lighter than
the comparator for Ripe Type.
DEFECTS:
Pits and Pit Fragments....................................... Average of not more than 1 by count per 300
grams.
Major Stems.................................................. Not more than 3.
HEVM......................................................... Not more than 2 units per sample.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4.--Broken Pitted Style
[Defects by count per 255 grams]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLAVOR........................................................... Reasonably good; no ``off'' flavor.
SALOMETER........................................................ Acceptable Range in degrees: 3.0 to 14.0.
COLOR............................................................ Reasonably uniform with no units lighter than
the comparator for Ripe Type.
CHARACTER........................................................ Not more than 13 grams excessively soft.
DEFECTS:
Pits and Pit Fragments....................................... Average of not more than 1 by count per 300
grams.
Major Stems.................................................. Not more than 3.
HEVM......................................................... Not more than 2 units per sample.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Terms used in this section shall have the same meaning as are
given to the respective terms in the current U.S. Standards for Grades
of Canned Ripe Olives (7 CFR part 52): Provided, That the definition of
``broken pitted olives'' is as follows: ``Broken pitted olives''
consist of large pieces that may have been broken in pitting but have
not been sliced or cut.
3. Section 932.150 is revised to read as follows: Sec. 932.150
Modified minimum quality requirements for canned green ripe olives.
The minimum quality requirements prescribed in Sec. 932.52 (a)(1)
are hereby modified with respect to canned green ripe olives so that no
requirements shall be applicable with respect to color and blemishes of
such olives.
4. In Sec. 932.152, paragraphs (a), (b), (c)(2), the heading of
(d), (d)(1), (g)(1) introductory text, and (g)(2) introductory text are
revised to read as follows:
Sec. 932.152 Outgoing regulations.
(a) Inspection stations. Processed olives shall be sampled and
graded only at an inspection station which shall be any olive
processing plant having facilities for in-line or lot inspection which
are satisfactory to the Inspection Service and the Committee; or an
olive processing plant which has an approved Quality Assurance Program
in effect.
(b) Inspection--General. Inspection of packaged olives for
conformance with Sec. 932.52 shall be by a Quality Assurance Program
approved by the Processed Products Branch (PPB), USDA; or by in-line or
lot inspection. A PPB approved Quality Assurance Program shall be
pursuant to a Quality Assurance contract as referred to in Sec. 52.2.
(c) * * *
(2) The Inspection Service shall issue for each day's pack a signed
certificate covering the quantities of such packaged olives which meet
all applicable minimum quality and size
[[Page 57787]]
requirements. Each such certificate shall contain at least the
following:
(i) Date;
(ii) Place of inspection;
(iii) Name and address of handler;
(iv) Can code;
(v) Variety;
(vi) Fruit size;
(vii) Can size;
(viii) Style;
(ix) Total number of cases;
(x) Number of cans per case; and
(xi) Statement that packaged olives meet the effective minimum
standards for canned ripe olives as warranted by the facts.
(d) Olives which fail to meet minimum quality and size
requirements. (1) Whenever any portion of a handler's daily pack of
packaged olives fails to meet all applicable minimum quality and size
requirements, the Inspection Service shall issue a signed report
covering such olives. Each such report shall contain at least the
following:
(i) Date;
(ii) Place of inspection;
(iii) Name and address of handler;
(iv) Can code;
(v) Variety;
(vi) Fruit size;
(vii) Can size;
(viii) Style;
(ix) Total number of cases;
(x) Number of cans per case; and
(xi) Reason why the applicable requirements were not met.
* * * * *
(g) Size certification. (1) When limited-use size olives for
limited-use styles are authorized during a crop year and a handler
elects to have olives sized pursuant to Sec. 932.51(a)(2)(i), any lot
of limited-use size olives may be used in the production of packaged
olives for limited-use styles if such olives are within the average
count range in Table II contained herein for that variety group, and
meet such further mid-point or acceptable count requirements for the
average count range in each size as approved by the committee.
* * * * *
(2) When limited-use size olives are not authorized for limited-use
styles during a crop year and a handler elects to have olives sized
pursuant to Sec. 932.51(a)(2)(ii), any lot of canning-sized olives may
be used in the production of packaged olives for whole, pitted, or
limited-use styles if such olives are within the average count range in
Table III contained herein for that variety group, and meet such
further mid-point or acceptable count requirements for the average
count range in each size as approved by the committee.
* * * * *
5. In Sec. 932.153, the section heading and paragraph (a) are
revised to read as follows:
Sec. 932.153 Establishment of minimum quality and size requirements
for processed olives for limited uses.
(a) Minimum Quality Requirements. On or after August 1, 1996, any
handler may use processed olives of the respective variety group in the
production of limited use styles of canned ripe olives if such olives
were processed after July 31, 1996, and meet the minimum quality
requirements specified in Sec. 932.52(a)(1) as modified by
Sec. 932.149.
* * * * *
6. In Sec. 932.155, paragraph (c) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 932.155 Special purpose shipments.
* * * * *
(c) In accordance with the provisions of Sec. 932.55(b), any
handler may use processed olives in the production of packaged olives
for repackaging, and ship packaged olives for repackaging, if the
packaged olives meet the minimum quality requirements, except for the
requirement that the packaged olives possess a normal flavor: Provided,
That the failure to possess a normal flavor is due only to excessive
sodium chloride.
PART 944--FRUITS; IMPORT REGULATIONS
7. In Sec. 944.401, paragraphs (a)(8), (b)(1), (g), and (j) are
revised to read as follows:
Sec. 944.401 Olive Regulation 1.
(a) * * *
(8) Terms used in this section shall have the same meaning as are
given to the respective terms in the current U.S. Standards for Grades
of Canned Ripe Olives (7 CFR part 52) including the terms ``size'',
``character'', ``defects'' and ``ripe type'': Provided, That the
definition of ``broken pitted olives'' is as follows: ``Broken pitted
olives'' consist of large pieces that may have been broken in pitting
but have not been sliced or cut.
(b) * * *
(1) Minimum quality requirements. Canned ripe olives shall meet the
following quality requirements, except that no requirements shall be
applicable with respect to color and blemishes for canned green ripe
olives:
(i) Canned whole and pitted olives of the ripe type shall meet the
minimum quality requirements prescribed in Table 1 of this section;
(ii) Canned sliced, segmented (wedged), and halved olives of the
ripe type shall meet the minimum quality requirements prescribed in
Table 2 of this section;
(iii) Canned chopped olives of the ripe type shall meet the minimum
quality requirements prescribed in Table 3 of this section and shall be
practically free from identifiable units of pit caps, end slices, and
slices (``practically free from identifiable units'' means that not
more than 10 percent, by weight, of the unit of chopped style olives
may be identifiable pit caps, end slices, or slices); and
(iv) Canned broken pitted olives of the ripe type shall meet the
minimum quality requirements prescribed in Table 4 of this section,
Provided, That broken pitted olives consist of large pieces that may
have been broken in pitting but have not been sliced or cut.
Table 1.--Whole and Pitted Style
[Defects by count per 50 olives]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLAVOR........................................................... Reasonably good; no ``off'' flavor.
FLAVOR (GREEN RIPE TYPE)......................................... Free from objectionable flavors of any kind.
SALOMETER........................................................ Acceptable Range in degrees: 3.0 to 14.0.
COLOR............................................................ Reasonably uniform with not less than 60%
having a color equal or darker than
comparator for Ripe Type.
CHARACTER........................................................ Not more than 5 soft units or 2 excessively
soft units.
UNIFORMITY OF SIZE............................................... 60%, by visual inspection, of the most
uniform in size. The diameter of the largest
does not exceed the smallest by more than
4mm.
DEFECTS:
Pitter Damage (Pitted Style Only)............................ 15.
Major Blemishes.............................................. 5.
[[Page 57788]]
Major Wrinkles............................................... 5.
Pits and Pit Fragments (Pitted Style Only)................... Not more than 1.3 average by count.
Major Stems.................................................. Not more than 2.
HEVM......................................................... Not more than 1 unit per sample.
Mutilated.................................................... Not more than 3.
Mechanical Damage............................................ Not more than 5.
Split Pits or Misshapen...................................... Not more than 5.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2.--Sliced, Segmented (Wedged), and Halved Styles
[Defects by count per 255]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLAVOR........................................................... Reasonably good; no ``off'' flavor.
SALOMETER........................................................ Acceptable Range in degrees: 3.0 to 14.0.
COLOR............................................................ Reasonably uniform with no units lighter than
the comparator for Ripe Type.
CHARACTER........................................................ Not more than 13 grams excessively soft.
DEFECTS:
Pits and Pit Fragments....................................... Average of not more than 1 by count per 300
grams.
Major Stems.................................................. Not more than 3.
HEVM......................................................... Not more than 2 units per sample.
Broken Pieces and End Caps................................... Not more than 125 grams by weight.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3.--Chopped Style
[Defects by count per 255 grams]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLAVOR........................................................... Reasonably good; no ``off'' flavor.
SALOMETER........................................................ Acceptable Range in degrees: 3.0 to 14.0.
COLOR............................................................ Reasonably uniform with no units lighter than
the comparator for Ripe Type.
DEFECTS:
Pits and Pit Fragments....................................... Average of not more than 1 by count per 300
grams.
Major Stems.................................................. Not more than 3.
HEVM......................................................... Not more than 2 units per sample.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4.--Broken Pitted Style
[Defects by count per 255 grams]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLAVOR........................................................... Reasonably good; no ``off'' flavor.
SALOMETER........................................................ Acceptable Range in degrees: 3.0 to 14.0.
COLOR............................................................ Reasonably uniform with no units lighter than
the comparator for Ripe Type.
CHARACTER........................................................ Not more than 13 grams excessively soft.
DEFECTS:
Pits and Pit Fragments....................................... Average of not more than 1 by count per 300
grams.
Major Stems.................................................. Not more than 3.
HEVM......................................................... Not more than 2 units per sample.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
(g) It is hereby determined, on the basis of the information
currently available, that the minimum quality requirements and size
requirements set forth in this regulation are comparable to those
applicable to California canned ripe olives.
* * * * *
(j) The minimum quality, size, and maturity requirements of this
section shall not be applicable to olives imported for charitable
organizations or processing for oil, but shall be subject to the
safeguard provisions contained in Sec. 944.350.
Dated: November 1, 1996.
Robert C. Keeney,
Director, Fruit and Vegetable Division.
[FR Doc. 96-28609 Filed 11-7-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P