[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 170 (Friday, September 2, 1994)] [Rules and Regulations] [Page 0] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 94-21713] [[Page Unknown]] [Federal Register: September 2, 1994] ======================================================================== Rules and Regulations Federal Register ________________________________________________________________________ This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510. The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each week. ======================================================================== Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 170 / Friday, September 2, 1994 / Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Parts 920 and 944 [Docket No. FV94-920-1FR] Kiwifruit Grown in California and Imported Kiwifruit; Increase in Minimum Size Requirements AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Final rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: This final rule increases the current minimum size requirements for kiwifruit grown in California and for kiwifruit imported into the United States that are shipped to the fresh market. The minimum size requirement is increasing from Size 49, which is defined as 60 pieces of fruit per 8-pound sample, to Size 45, which is defined as 55 pieces of fruit per 8-pound sample. This rule will prevent shipments of low-quality, undersized kiwifruit from having a negative effect on the market. EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule becomes effective September 6, 1994. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Hessel, Marketing Order Administration Branch, AMS, USDA, P.O. Box 96456, Room 2526-S, Washington, D.C. 20090-6456; telephone (202) 720-5127; or Rose Aguayo, California Marketing Field Office, AMS, USDA, 2202 Monterey Street, Suite 102 B, Fresno, California 93721; telephone (209) 487-5901. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final rule is issued under Marketing Order No. 920 [7 CFR Part 920], as amended, regulating the handling of kiwifruit grown in California, hereinafter referred to as the order. The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the Act. This final rule is also issued under section 8e of the Act, which provides that whenever certain specified commodities, including kiwifruit, 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, and maturity requirements as those in effect for the domestically produced commodities. The Department of Agriculture (Department) is issuing this final rule in conformance with Executive Order 12866. This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12778, Civil Justice Reform. This 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 in equity to review the Secretary's ruling on the petition, provided a bill in equity is filed not later than 20 days after 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 the requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Administrator of the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this final rule 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 approximately 65 handlers subject to regulation under the order and about 600 producers of California kiwifruit. There are approximately 75 importers of kiwifruit. Small agricultural service firms, which include kiwifruit handlers and importers, have been defined by the Small Business Administration [13 CFR 121.601] as those whose annual receipts are less than $5,000,000, and small agricultural producers are defined as those whose annual receipts are less than $500,000. A majority of these handlers, importers, and producers may be classified as small entities. Under the terms of the marketing order, fresh market shipments of California kiwifruit are required to be inspected and are subject to grade, size, maturity, pack, and container requirements. Current requirements include specifications that such shipments be at least Size 49, grade at least KAC No. 1 quality, and contain a minimum of 6.5 percent soluble solids. The production of California kiwifruit for the 1993 season was approximately 12.3 million tray equivalents, compared to the 1992 season production of 13.3 million tray equivalents. This represents an 8 percent decrease in California kiwifruit production from 1992 to 1993. The Kiwifruit Administrative Committee (committee), the agency responsible for local administration of the marketing order, met on February 10, 1994, and recommended increasing the minimum size requirement from Size 49, which is defined as 60 pieces of fruit per 8- pound sample, to Size 45, which is defined as 55 pieces of fruit per 8- pound sample. The marketing order authorizes under Sec. 920.52(a)(2) the establishment of minimum size requirements. Sec. 920.302(a)(2) of the rules and regulations outlines the minimum size requirements for fresh shipments of California kiwifruit. Section 920.302(a)(4)(ii) includes a table that specifies numerical size designations that are used to determine kiwifruit sizes. These size designations are defined by numerical counts, which establish the maximum number of fruit per 8- pound sample for each of the established sizes. The size designation table defines ten different sizes, beginning with Size 21 (the largest size) and ending with Size 49 (the smallest size). The committee recommended eliminating the Size 49 designation (60 pieces of fruit per 8-pound sample) and redefining the Size 45/46 designation (57 pieces of fruit per 8-pound sample) as a Size 45 designation (55 pieces of fruit per 8-pound sample). The committee recommended increasing the minimum size requirement because of the blending and packing of undersized fruit into containers using the Size 49 designation. Current pack requirements specify that kiwifruit designated as Size 45/46 or below must be packed within a \1/ 4\ inch size tolerance. Undersized fruit (Size 49 kiwifruit near or below the lower limit of the size tolerance) is often blended into the Size 49 designation. It is a common practice throughout the industry to blend and pack kiwifruit that could be designated as either undersized fruit, Size 49, or Size 45/46 into a Size 49 container. Blending occurs because adjoining size designations have size tolerances that partially overlap and kiwifruit within either size tolerance may be packed in either size designation. For example, the current Size 49 designation and the current Size 45/46 designation have only a 3-count difference per 8-pound sample. This amounts to only a 0.12 ounce difference per individual fruit. The equipment and time needed to detect such a difference when packing individual fruit would be cost prohibitive, so instead, handlers choose to blend sizes. Blending has become more prevalent in recent years because a greater percentage of kiwifruit is being packed in volume-fill or bulk containers in which the fruit is packed ``loosely'' instead of in containers with molded trays. Without the constraints of a molded tray, there is more freedom to blend sizes. The committee's intention in recommending this increase in the minimum size requirement is to eliminate shipments of undersized fruit that is blended into the Size 49 designation. This undersized kiwifruit tends to soften more rapidly during storage than larger fruit and becomes more susceptible to decay. This tendency for undersized fruit to soften more rapidly than larger fruit becomes more pronounced once it leaves a controlled environment and enters an uncontrolled one such as a retail shelf. The end result is that the consumer is more likely to encounter quality defects with undersized fruit then with larger fruit. Eliminating fresh shipments of undersized fruit by increasing the minimum size requirement improves overall quality and increases uniformity of pack size. The consumer benefits by being offered a higher quality kiwifruit that ripens properly without prematurely shriveling or softening. Also, grower returns are expected to increase due to less repack loss, better kiwifruit movement, and higher prices because of a better quality product. There is also ample evidence to show that the market is adverse to smaller sizes. The California Kiwifruit Commission (commission) funded an independent survey titled ``Fresh Kiwifruit: Views from the Trade,'' in 1993. This survey indicated that 30% of the trade rejects small sizes and that 86.1% of the trade prefers Size 42 (defined as 50 pieces of fruit per 8-pound sample) or larger. Also, 92.1% of the merchandisers and produce managers claim that their customers reject small sizes. An example of how consumers reject smaller sizes is when kiwifruit is sold at the retail level out of 125 pound bulk bins. Consumers initially pick out the largest and higher quality kiwifruit, and displays are left with undersized and low quality kiwifruit that is rejected by later consumers. The committee's recommendation that the minimum size requirement be set at Size 45 will not significantly lower the volume of kiwifruit available in the fresh market. Although the committee reports that 12.1% of the California kiwifruit packout for the 1993/94 season was designated as Size 49, most of this total could be blended into the Size 45 designation because of the small difference between the two size designations. The practice of blending sizes makes it difficult to predict how much fruit will be eliminated by this rule, however, the committee estimates that the total packout will be reduced by only 1%. In addition, growers could adjust pruning, thinning, fertilizing, and irrigation techniques so that a larger percentage of kiwifruit will meet the higher size requirement. There is general agreement in the industry for the need to eliminate the packing of undersize fruit. Other alternatives have been suggested to eliminate shipments of low quality, undersized fruit, but would not adequately address the problem. One suggestion was to eliminate the blending of sizes by eliminating the size tolerances. This is not a realistic alternative, because as mentioned earlier, it would be cost prohibitive and impossible to achieve using today's packing methods. Another suggestion was to measure size by passing a fruit through a template with an opening large enough for an undersized fruit to fall through, but too small for a kiwifruit that meets the minimum size requirement to fall through. This template would be used to determine whether a fruit was undersized. However, this alternative does not take into consideration that kiwifruit grows in different shapes so that a heavier fruit that is short and broad could fall through a template while a lighter fruit that is long and narrow would not. Weight is currently used to measure size and is the most accurate measure of a kiwifruit's size. Another alternative presented at the meeting was to tighten the maturity requirements rather than the size standards so that undersized, immature fruit would not be shipped. However, not all undersized fruit is immature, but undersized fruit does tend to be more susceptible to quality problems. Thus, this alternative would not fully address the problem of blending in undersized fruit of inferior quality. Finally, another alternative presented at the meeting was to establish Size 45 as the minimum size, but continue to define it as 57 pieces of fruit instead of 55 pieces of fruit per 8-pound sample as recommended by the committee. However, because of the approximately 0.12 ounce difference between a Size 45 kiwifruit defined as 57 pieces of fruit per 8-pound sample and a Size 49 kiwifruit defined as 60 pieces of fruit per 8-pound sample, this alternative would not go far enough to prevent the blending of undersized fruit. Section 8e of the Act provides that when certain domestically produced commodities, including kiwifruit, are regulated under a Federal marketing order, imports of that commodity must meet the same or comparable grade, size, quality, and maturity requirements. Since this rule increases the minimum size requirement under the domestic handling regulations, a corresponding change to the import regulations must also be implemented. Minimum grade, size, quality, and maturity requirements for kiwifruit imported into the United States are currently in effect under Sec. 944.550 (7 CFR 944.550). The minimum size requirement is specified in paragraph (a) of Sec. 944.550. This rule increases the minimum size requirement for imported kiwifruit from Size 49, which is defined as 60 pieces of fruit per 8-pound sample, to Size 45, which is defined as 55 pieces of fruit per 8-pound sample. The increase in the minimum size requirement for importers of kiwifruit will also have a beneficial impact. This rule eliminates quality problems associated with undersized imported kiwifruit as it will for undersized domestic kiwifruit. In addition, the domestic trade's preference for larger size kiwifruit applies to imported kiwifruit as well as domestic kiwifruit. Thus, importers will benefit by improving the overall quality of kiwifruit shipments and increasing sales. The proposed rule concerning this action was published in the June 29, 1994, Federal Register [59 FR 33451], with a 30-day comment period ending July 29, 1994. Two comments were received, one in favor and the other in opposition to the proposed rule. The comment in favor of implementing the change set forth in the proposed rule was submitted by the Kiwifruit Administrative Committee and reiterated the arguments made in the proposed rule. The second comment was submitted by a grower, Gregory W. Davis, who opposed the proposed rule. Mr Davis commented that in his view the rule is a volume control measure that forces growers to dump marketable kiwifruit. This rule is not a volume control measure. Its intention is to eliminate the blending of undersized fruit. In addition, growers retain the option of adjusting their cultural practices so that a larger percentage of kiwifruit will meet the new size requirement. Also, the order does not force growers or handlers to dump fruit. The following outlets are exempt from grade, size, maturity, quality, inspection, and container requirements including: (1) Shipments of less than 200 pounds per day; (2) roadside stands; (3) Certified Farmers Markets; (4) charitable institutions; (5) relief agencies; and (6) commercial processors. Mr. Davis also commented that growers in his district (District 7) are against increasing the minimum size requirement and that District 7, which includes Tulare and Inyo counties in Central California, represents almost one-third of California kiwifruit production. However, some District 7 committee members and alternates, who like all members of the committee were elected by growers from their District, voted in favor of increasing the minimum size requirement in the various subcommittee and committee meetings that took place this past year. A committee member from District 7 reported at the February 10, 1994, meeting that a majority of growers were against increasing the minimum size requirement, but almost all growers were in favor of eliminating the blending of undersize fruit. After a long, thorough, and publicized debate, the committee determined that increasing the minimum size to Size 45 from Size 49 is the best way to eliminate the blending of undersize fruit. Mr. Davis also commented that a redistricting scheduled for next year might change the vote on the minimum size requirement. The Department has yet to receive a formal recommendation from the committee on this issue. It is premature to assume that any redistricting will take place or that a newly seated committee would vote any differently on a minimum size requirement. The present committee was nominated by growers and appointed by the Secretary according to marketing order procedures. If a redistricting plan is recommended and approved, and if a new committee is selected, then that committee may recommend revisions to the minimum size requirement. Mr. Davis' comment further stated that since the recommendation was made on February 10, 1994, he and other growers did not have sufficient time to adjust their cultural practices so that a higher percentage of the 1994 crop will meet the higher size requirement. However, Mr. Davis indicates that he was present at the subcommittee meeting held in Modesto, California on December 8, 1993, in which the subcommittee initially recommended increasing the minimum size requirement. In addition, the January 1994 bulletin of California Kiwifruit, which is jointly produced by the commission and the committee, announced the December 8, 1993, subcommittee's preliminary recommendation to increase the minimum size requirement. This publication is mailed to all known kiwifruit growers. Finally, other kiwifruit growers indicate that cultural practices, such as thinning, are available during February or later to increase kiwifruit size so that a larger percentage of kiwifruit meet the new size requirement. Mr. Davis' comment went on to question the wisdom of preventing shipments of kiwifruit that he considers to be of good quality. However, quality is a term that is often defined by changing consumers preferences. The independent survey funded by the commission is an attempt to identify current consumer preferences and clearly shows that many consumers are adverse to smaller sizes. It is reasonable to require kiwifruit shipments to meet customer preferences for larger sizes. Otherwise, California kiwifruit will not be as marketable as kiwifruit from international competitors who meet customer preferences. Finally, Mr. Davis suggested that the committee lacked formal research that shows Size 49 or smaller kiwifruit is not of good quality. As mentioned earlier, the independent market survey does show an overwhelming trade preference for sizes 42 or larger. Although no formal research was specifically conducted on customer preference for Size 49 kiwifruit or smaller kiwifruit, there is a tremendous amount of knowledge and experience among growers about the marketing of kiwifruit. It is the view of a majority of committee members, which is made up of growers, that shipments of undersized kiwifruit have been poorly received by consumers. After thoroughly analyzing the comments received and other available information, the Department has concluded that this final rule is appropriate. In accordance with section 8e of the Act, the United States Trade Representative has concurred with the issuance of this final rule. Based on the above, the Administrator of 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 committee and other available information, it is hereby found that this rule, as hereinafter set forth, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act. It is further found that good cause exists for not postponing the effective date of this rule until 30 days after publication in the Federal Register (5 U.S.C. 553) because this rule should be implemented prior to the beginning of the shipping season in mid-September. Further, handlers are aware of this rule, which was recommended at public meetings. Also, a 30-day comment period was provided for in the proposed rule. List of Subjects 7 CFR Part 920 Kiwifruit, Marketing agreements. 7 CFR Part 944 Avocados, Food grades and standards, Grapefruit, Grapes, Imports, Kiwifruit, Limes, Olives, Oranges. For the reasons set forth above, 7 CFR Parts 920 and 944 are amended as follows: 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR Parts 920 and 944 continues to read as follows: Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601-674. PART 920--KIWIFRUIT GROWN IN CALIFORNIA 2. In Sec. 920.302, paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(4)(ii) are revised to read as follows: Sec. 920.302 Grade, size, pack, and container regulations. (a) * * * (2) Size requirements. Such kiwifruit shall be at least a minimum Size 45. * * * * * (4) * * * (ii)(A) Kiwifruit packed in bags, volume fill or bulk containers may not vary more than \1/2\-inch (12.7 mm) in diameter if Size 30 or larger; not more than \3/8\-inch (9.5 mm) in diameter if Size 33, 36, 39, or 42; and not more than \1/4\-inch in diameter (6.4 mm) if Size 45. Not more than 10 percent, by count, of the containers in any lot and not more than 5 percent, by count, of kiwifruit in any container may fail to meet the requirements of this paragraph. The following table specifies the numerical size designation to be used in packing such containers as shown in Column 1, and the maximum number of fruit per 8-pound sample as shown in Column 2. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Column 2, maximum number Column 1, numerical count size designation of fruit per 8- pound sample ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 21............................................................ 22 25............................................................ 27 27/28......................................................... 30 30............................................................ 32 33............................................................ 35 36............................................................ 40 39............................................................ 45 42............................................................ 50 45............................................................ 55 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ (B) The average weight of all sample units in a lot must weigh at least 8 pounds, but no sample unit may be more than 4 ounces less than 8 pounds. * * * * * PART 944--FRUITS; IMPORT REGULATIONS 3. In Sec. 944.550, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows: Sec. 944.550 Kiwifruit import regulation. (a) Pursuant to section 8e of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended, the importation into the United States of any kiwifruit is prohibited unless such kiwifruit meets all the requirements of a U.S. No. 1 grade as defined in the United States Standards for Grades of Kiwifruit (7 CFR 51.2335 through 51.2340), except that the kiwifruit shall be ``not badly misshapen,'' and an additional tolerance of 7 percent is provided for kiwifruit that is ``badly misshapen.'' Such fruit shall be at least Size 45, which means there shall be a maximum of 55 pieces of fruit and the average weight of all samples in a specific lot must weigh at least 8 pounds, provided that no individual sample may be less than 7 pounds 12 ounces. * * * * * Dated: August 29, 1994. Eric M. Forman, Acting Director, Fruit and Vegetable Division. [FR Doc. 94-21713 Filed 9-1-94; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P