United States Standards for Grades of Oranges (California and Arizona), United States Standards for Grades of Grapefruit (California and Arizona), United States Standards for Grades of Tangerines and the United States Standards for Grades of Lemons

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Marketing Service

[FV-98-305]

United States Standards for Grades of Oranges (California and

Arizona), United States Standards for Grades of Grapefruit (California

and Arizona), United States Standards for Grades of Tangerines and the

United States Standards for Grades of Lemons

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document gives notice of the availability of revisions to

the United States Standards for Grades of Oranges, Grapefruit,

Tangerines and Lemons. The changes will provide a minimum 25-count

sample to be applied to tolerances for defects, revise the grades to

make them uniform and consistent with each other and other recently

revised U.S. grade standards, and, delete references to outdated

industry practices and terminology.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This notice is effective December 27, 1999.

ADDRESSES: The revised standards are available from Kenneth R. Mizelle,

Fresh Products Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, Agricultural

Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Room 2065, South

Building, STOP 0240, P.O. Box 96456, Washington, DC 20090-6456; or at

www.ams.gov/standards/frutmrkt.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth R. Mizelle (202) 720-2185.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 203(c) of the Agricultural Marketing

Act of 1946, as amended, directs and authorizes the Secretary of

Agriculture ``to develop and improve standards of quality, condition,

quantity, grade, and packaging and recommend and demonstrate such

standards in order to encourage uniformity and consistency in

commercial practices * * *.'' AMS is committed to carrying out this

authority in a manner that facilitates the marketing of agricultural

commodities and to making copies of official standards available upon

request. The United States Standards for Grades of Oranges (California

and Arizona), United States Standards for Grades of Grapefruit

(California and Arizona), United States Standards for Grades of

Tangerines and the United States Standards for Grades of Lemons no

longer appear in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR); however, they

are maintained by USDA.

AMS is revising the United States Standards for Grades of Oranges

(California and Arizona), United States Standards for Grades of

Grapefruit (California and Arizona), United States Standards for Grades

of Tangerines and the United States Standards for Grades of Lemons

using the procedures it published in the August 13, 1997, Federal

Register and that appear in Part 36 of Title 7 of the CFR.

The notice, with a request for comments on the proposed changes,

was published in the Federal Register on June 17, 1999 (64 FR 32666-

32703).

The petitioner (Sunkist Growers), which represents the majority of

citrus growers and packers in California, requested that the standards

be revised to provide a minimum 25-count sample applied to tolerances

for defects. In addition, AMS proposed several other changes to promote

greater uniformity and consistency in application of the standard.

These standards have not been changed within the last 34 to 50 years,

depending on the commodity. These changes are needed to bring the

standards into conformity with current cultural and marketing practices

and to promote more uniform application of the U.S. grade standards.

AMS published the notice in the Federal Register with an outline of

the specific proposed changes and provided for a comment period of 60

days, which ended August 16, 1999. No comments were received on the

notice during that time. However, a request from industry to reopen and

extend the comment period was received on August 16, 1999. The request

was granted, and the comment period was extended through September 20,

1999. A total of 2

[[Page 66163]]

comments were received, one from an organization of agricultural

product receivers and one from the petitioner.

The receivers comments stated, in summary, that they ``strongly

oppose the proposed changes.'' They suggested that ``The Department

shall define the terms `Injury, Damage, Serious Damage and Very Serious

Damage' but shall not interfere with the actual areas prescribed for

each defect as it is in the current definitions. The Department shall

also restrain from changing the terms, `FREE FROM' to `FREE FROM INJURY

BY BRUISES' in the proposed U.S. Standard for U.S. Fancy Grade of

Oranges, (California and Arizona).'' It is the receivers' contention

that the changes will allow 100 percent bruising plus 12 percent damage

by bruising in lots of U.S. Fancy oranges. AMS disagrees with this

assertion and feels that there has been some misunderstanding with

regard to the proposed changes. This portion of the proposal was not

made at the request of the petitioner, but rather was initiated by AMS

as part of its efforts to promote greater uniformity and consistency in

application of the standard. The definitions that were included in the

proposed standards are the same definitions that are currently used in

the instructional manuals to provide inspectors with guidelines as to

what constitutes a bruise. Additionally, these definitions are used in

other citrus grades. The definitions prevent inspectors from scoring

fruit with slight skin indentations as bruises when, in fact, there is

no injury to the skin or flesh of the fruit. Accordingly, AMS believes

that the proposal should be adopted. The revision also provides

language that is consistent with other citrus grades.

The receivers comments stated: ``When one thinks of a `FANCY

FRUIT,' the mind creates a picture of a perfect fruit, without

blemishes, free from any injury of any kind and of perfect

characteristic color an idea of the ultimate description of excellence

and perfection. This is the FANCY GRADE OF CITRUS that we know and we

want to keep it that way. Therefore these changes are unnecessary,

preposterous, not warranted and bias [sic] against the receiving sector

of the produce industry, and the consumer.'' AMS disagrees with the

commenter's assertion that Fancy fruit is perfect, without blemishes

and free from injury of any kind. Every AMS fruit and vegetable grade

standard provides for degrees of defects, as well as defect tolerances,

thus allowing for ``less than perfect'' fruit, up to a certain point.

The purpose of these standards, established by USDA in cooperation with

the citrus industry in 1948, 1950, 1957 and 1964, is to provide

attainable grading classifications that can be utilized by the entire

fruit and vegetable community, not to regulate difficult, if not

impossible, parameters of perfection.

The receivers are also ``vigorously opposed to the change for the

DECAY TOLERANCES at shipping point for each grade listed in the

notice.'' They note that ``this change would give an extra advantage to

the packers and growers.'' AMS disagrees with the receivers. The

proposed change would increase the decay tolerance to a total of 1

percent at shipping point, from a previous \1/2\ of 1 percent. The 1

percent shipping point decay tolerance is already widely used in citrus

and other fruit and vegetable standards. AMS can foresee no impact on

the receivers or the consumers in this regard because the decay

tolerance of 3 percent at destination remains unchanged.

Regarding the grapefruit standard, the receivers recommended that

allowable skin thickness remain at not more than \3/8\ of an inch to

meet the ``fairly thin skinned'' requirement and more than \7/16\ inch

to meet the requirement of ``excessively thick skinned.'' AMS

recommended a slight increase for skin thickness (\1/2\ inch and \5/8\

inch respectively), based on a fruit diameter of 4\1/8\ inch. Smaller

or larger areas would be allowed, proportionately, for smaller or

larger fruit. This new scoring guide is consistent with the recently-

revised U.S. standards for Florida grapefruit standard and will remain

as proposed.

The receivers stated they did not understand a phrase contained in

the grapefruit standard on ``Injury, (k),'' pertaining to green spots,

which reads, ``Green spots * * * which are green and more that \1/4\ in

number.'' This was a typographical error in the notice and will be

changed to read, ``Green spots * * * which are green and more than 4 in

number.''

The receivers contend that the proposed scoring guidelines for

creasing of tangerines, in all but the U.S. No. 1 grade, are too

lenient. AMS, however, believes that there is a distinction between the

severity of creasing allowed in each grade in addition to the amount of

area affected by creasing of any degree. In the proposed tangerine

grade, for each lower grade, a more severe degree of creasing is

allowed. This is the standard method of scoring for any defect,

regardless of commodity. Additionally, the proposed scoring criteria

for creasing also provides that no more than a specified area of any

visible creasing be allowed. This scoring guide is consistent with the

U.S. standards for Florida tangerines and provides an objective basis

for scoring this defect.

Also concerning the tangerine standard, the receivers contended

that scoring guidelines in the U.S. No. 3 grade (very serious damage)

are too lenient for the following defects: skin breakdown, scale,

sprayburn, buckskin, scab and green spots. The receivers recommended an

affected area of 20 percent of the surface before scoring. In the

proposal, AMS considered an affected area of over 25 percent of the

fruit surface for these defects to be scorable. The original standard

contained a scoring guide for these defects defined as ``when it very

seriously detracts from the appearance.'' However, AMS believes that

the receivers recommendation of 20 percent is too restrictive. Further,

the new scoring guide, which is consistent with the U.S. standards for

Florida tangerines with regard to virtually all defects, provides an

objective method for scoring, as opposed to the subjective method

contained in the old U.S. standard. Accordingly, AMS is making this

change as proposed.

The receivers consider the proposed skin breakdown scoring guide in

the lemon standard of allowing \1/4\ inch as being ``excessive.'' They

stated that \1/4\ inch ``represents 12\1/2\% on a fruit 2 inches in

diameter.'' They suggested an area not exceeding \3/16\ inch for damage

and not exceeding \1/2\ inch for serious damage. Their recommendation

was mathematically based on their belief that these averages

represented 10% and 25%, respectively, of the area of the fruit. These

percentages appear to have been based on an ``area'' 2 inches in

diameter as opposed to a ``sphere'' of 2 inches in diameter which has a

much larger surface area. AMS, when determining areas allowed for

defects, considers both the mathematical area and the appearance of the

defect for the commodity in question. AMS has concluded that the

scoring guideline of \1/4\ inch for damage, based on a lemon 2 inches

in diameter, does not allow an excessive amount of the defect on the

fruit, before it is scored as a defect. However, in light of the

receivers' concern with the serious damage skin breakdown scoring guide

of not exceeding \5/8\ inch, AMS has concluded that this could be

considered an excessive amount for this defect. Consequently, AMS

agrees with the receivers' suggestion of not exceeding \1/2\ inch in

diameter for serious damage by skin breakdown.

The receivers agree to the proposed change to create separate

shipping point

[[Page 66164]]

and en route or at destination tolerances for the commodities appearing

in the notice.

The petitioner submitted the only other comment received by AMS.

They stated, ``We strongly support proposed changes in the procedures

for sampling fruit to measure against defect tolerances. The new

standard calling for a minimum 25 count sample promotes greater

uniformity and consistency within the standards and affords a fairer

and more realistic evaluation of the arrival quality of fruit

shipments. Additionally, we view favorably the proposed change in

tolerance standard for a grapefruit rind thickness; elimination of the

juice content requirement for lemons; and a change of measurement of

surface blemishes on fruit as a percentage of the surface area instead

of a specific size definition of the blemish, allowing for a more

consistent means of measurement relative to the actual size of the

fruit. In general, the proposed modifications eliminate many obsolete

standards and criteria that are not reflective of modern production

conditions and the realities of the modern marketplace.''

AMS also discovered several typographical omissions in the lemon

standard. The section pertaining to standard sizing and fill (a) was

inadvertently omitted. Also, the letter designations for the defect

definition sub-paragraphs relating to bruising and skin breakdown under

damage and serious damage (h, i, j and k respectively) were

inadvertently omitted. Although the definitions remain unchanged from

the original notice, to eliminate any confusion, the letter

designations (h, i, and j) will be included in the final U.S. standard.

With regard to what should have been designated paragraph ``k''

(serious damage by skin breakdown), the definition is being changed

slightly based on the comments received.

Accordingly, further changes to the notice revising the United

States Standards for Grades of Oranges (California and Arizona), United

States Standards for Grades of Grapefruit (California and Arizona),

United States Standards for Grades of Tangerines and the United States

Standards for Grades of Lemons as published in the Federal Register at

64 FR 32666-32703 on June 17, 1999, are made as described above.

The revised standards are available either through the above

address or by accessing AMS's Home Page on the Internet at

www.ams.usda.gov/standards/frutmrkt.htm.

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1621-1627.

Dated: November 16, 1999.

Robert C. Keeney,

Deputy Administrator, Fruit and Vegetable Programs.

[FR Doc. 99-30420 Filed 11-23-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-02-P