Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 166 / Monday, August 27, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 51693 

the costs of certifying the disposal of 

such lot paid by the importer. 

(1) Inshell rework procedure for 

aflatoxin. If inshell rework is selected as 

a remedy to meet the aflatoxin 

requirements of this part, then 100 

percent of the product within that lot 

shall be removed from the bulk and/or 

retail packaging containers and 

reworked to remove the portion of the 

lot that caused the failure. Reworking 

shall consist of mechanical, electronic, 

or manual procedures normally used in 

the handling of pistachios. After the 

rework procedure has been completed, 

the total weight of the accepted product 

and the total weight of the rejected 

product shall be reported by the 

importer to Customs and USDA on an 

Imported Pistachios—Rework and 

Failed Lot Disposition report (Form FV– 

251) as described in paragraph (h)(2) of 

this section. The reworked lot shall be 

sampled and tested for aflatoxin as 

specified in paragraphs (d) and (e) of 

this section, except that the lot sample 

size and the test sample size shall be 

doubled. If, after the lot has been 

reworked and tested, it fails the 

aflatoxin test for a second time, the lot 

may be shelled and the kernels 

reworked, sampled, and tested in the 

manner specified for an original lot of 

kernels, or the failed lot may be 

exported, used for non-human 

consumption, or otherwise disposed of. 

(2) Kernel rework procedure for 

aflatoxin. If pistachio kernel rework is 

selected as a remedy to meet the 

aflatoxin requirements of this part, then 

100 percent of the product within that 

lot shall be removed from the bulk and/ 

or retail packaging containers and 

reworked to remove the portion of the 

lot that caused the failure. Reworking 

shall consist of mechanical, electronic, 

or manual procedures normally used in 

the handling of pistachios. After the 

rework procedure has been completed 

the total weight of the accepted product 

and the total weight of the rejected 

product shall be reported to Customs 

and USDA on an Imported Pistachios— 

Rework and Failed Lot Disposition 

report (Form FV–251). The reworked lot 

shall be sampled and tested for aflatoxin 

as specified in paragraphs (d) and (e) of 

this section. 

(3) Failed lot reporting. If a lot fails to 

meet the aflatoxin requirements of this 

part, the testing laboratory shall 

complete an Imported Pistachios— 

Failed Lot Notification report (Form FV– 

249) as described in paragraph (h)(1) of 

this section, and shall submit it to 

Customs, the importer, and USDA 

within 10 working days of the test 

failure. This form must be completed 

and submitted each time a lot fails 

aflatoxin testing. 

(h) Reports and Recordkeeping. 

(1) Form FV–249 Imported 

Pistachios—Failed Lot Notification. 

Each USDA or USDA-accredited 

laboratory shall notify the importer; 

Customs; and the Marketing Order and 

Agreement Division, Fruit and 

Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA; of all 

lots that fail to meet the maximum 

aflatoxin requirements by completing 

this form and submitting it within 10 

days of failed aflatoxin testing. 

(2) Form FV–251 Imported 

Pistachios—Rework and Failed Lot 

Disposition. Each importer who reworks 

a failing lot of pistachios shall complete 

this report and shall forward it to 

Customs and the Marketing Order and 

Agreement Division, Fruit and 

Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, no 

later than 10 days after the rework is 

completed. If rework is not selected as 

a remedy, the importer shall complete 

and submit this form within 10 days of 

alternate disposition of the lot. 

(i) Exemptions. Any importer may 

import pistachios free of the 

requirements of this section if such 

importer imports a quantity not 

exceeding a total of 5,000 dried pounds 

between September 1 and August 31 of 

each year. Substandard pistachios 

imported for use in non-human 

consumption outlets shall be subject to 

the safeguard provisions contained in 

§ 999.500. 

(j) Reconditioning prior to 

importation. Nothing contained in this 

section shall be deemed to preclude 

reconditioning pistachios prior to 

importation, in order that such 

pistachios may be made eligible to meet 

the applicable aflatoxin regulations 

prescribed in paragraphs (c) through (f) 

of this section. 

(k) Comingling. Certified lots of 

pistachios may be comingled with other 

certified lots, but the comingling of 

certified lots and uncertified lots shall 

cause the loss of certification for the 

comingled lots. 

(l) Retesting. Whenever USDA has 

reason to believe that imported 

pistachios may have been damaged or 

deteriorated while in storage, USDA 

may reject the then effective inspection 

certificate and may require the owner of 

the pistachios to have them retested to 

establish whether or not such pistachios 

may be shipped for human 

consumption. 

(m) Compliance. Any person who 

violates any provision of this section 

shall be subject to a forfeiture in the 

amount prescribed in section 8a(5) of 

the Agricultural Marketing Agreement 

Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601– 

674), or, upon conviction, a penalty in 

the amount prescribed in section 8c(14) 

of the said Act, or to both such forfeiture 

and penalty. False representation to any 

agency of the United States on any 

matter within its jurisdiction, knowing 

it to be false, is a violation of 18 U.S.C. 

1001, which provides for a fine or 

imprisonments or both. 

(n) Other import requirements. The 

provisions of this section do not 

supersede any restrictions or 

prohibitions on pistachios under the 

Federal Plant Quarantine Act of 1912, or 

any other applicable laws or regulations 

of city, county, State, or Federal 

Agencies including the Federal Food, 

Drug and Cosmetic Act. 

Dated: August 21, 2012. 

David R. Shipman, 

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2012–20974 Filed 8–24–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

7 CFR Part 1033 

[Doc. No. AO–11–0333; AMS–DA–11–0067; 

DA–11–04] 

Milk in the Mideast Marketing Area; 

Order Amending the Order 

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule amends the 

Pool Plant provisions of the Mideast 

Federal milk marketing order regulating 

distributing plants physically located 

within the marketing area, with a Class 

I utilization of at least 30 percent and 

with combined route disposition and 

transfers of at least 50 percent 

distributed into Federal milk marketing 

areas, as Pool Distributing Plants under 

the terms of the order. More than the 

required number of producers for the 

Mideast marketing area approved the 

issuance of the final order as amended. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erin 

C. Taylor, Order Formulation and 

Enforcement Division, USDA/AMS/ 

Dairy Programs, STOP 0231–Room 

2963, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., 

Washington, DC 20250–0231, (202) 720– 

7183, email address: erin.taylor@ams.

usda.gov. 

DATES: Effective Date: October 1, 2012. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final 

rule more adequately defines the plants, 

and the producer milk associated with 

those plants, that serve the fluid needs 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
51694 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 166 / Monday, August 27, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

of the Mideast market and therefore 

which producers should share in the 

additional revenue arising from fluid 

milk sales. 

Accordingly, this final rule adopts 

proposed amendments detailed in the 

final decision (77 FR 38536). 

This administrative action is governed 

by the provisions of sections 556 and 

557 of Title 5 of the United States Code 

and, therefore, is excluded from the 

requirements of Executive Order 12866. 

The amendment proposed herein has 

been reviewed under Executive Order 

12988, Civil Justice Reform. They are 

not intended to have a retroactive effect. 

The Agricultural Marketing 

Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 

U.S.C. 601–674) (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 

request modification or exemption from 

such order by filing with USDA 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 the law. A 

handler is afforded the opportunity for 

a hearing on the petition. After a 

hearing, the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture (USDA or Department) 

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 its 

principal place of business, has 

jurisdiction in equity to review USDA’s 

ruling on the petition, provided a bill in 

equity is filed not later than 20 days 

after the date of the entry of the ruling. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act and 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

In accordance with the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601–612), the 

Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) 

has considered the economic impact of 

this action on small entities and has 

certified that this proposed rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

For the purpose of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, a dairy farm is 

considered a ‘‘small business’’ if it has 

an annual gross revenue of less than 

$750,000, and a dairy products 

manufacturer is a ‘‘small business’’ if it 

has fewer than 500 employees. For the 

purposes of determining which dairy 

farms are ‘‘small businesses,’’ the 

$750,000 per year criterion was used to 

establish a production guideline of 

500,000 pounds per month. Although 

this guideline does not factor in 

additional monies that may be received 

by dairy producers, it should be an 

inclusive standard for most ‘‘small’’ 

dairy farms. For purposes of 

determining a handler’s size, if the plant 

is part of a larger company operating 

multiple plants that collectively exceed 

the 500-employee limit, the plant will 

be considered a large business even if 

the local plant has fewer than 500 

employees. 

During October 2011, the time of the 

hearing, there were 6,651 dairy farms 

pooled on the Mideast order. Of these, 

approximately 6,169 dairy farms (or 

92.8 percent) were considered small 

businesses. During the same month, 

there were 51 handler operations 

associated with the Mideast order (25 

fully regulated handlers, 8 partially 

regulated handlers, 2 producerhandlers, and 16 exempt handlers). Of 

these, approximately 38 handlers (or 

74.5 percent) were considered small 

businesses. 

The Pool Plant provisions of the 

Mideast order define which plants have 

an association with serving the fluid 

milk market demand of the Mideast 

marketing area, and therefore determine 

the producers and the producer milk 

that can participate in the marketwide 

pool as well as share in the Class I 

market revenues. The proposed 

amendment adopted in this final rule 

will fully regulate some handlers that 

currently fall under partial regulation. 

As a result, these handlers will be 

required to account to the Mideast order 

marketwide pool. Consequently, all 

producers whose milk is pooled and 

priced under the terms of the Mideast 

order will benefit from the additional 

revenue contributed to the marketwide 

pool by the newly-regulated distributing 

plant. The Department anticipates that 

while these additional monies will be 

shared with all producers serving the 

market, the amendment will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

AMS is committed to complying with 

the E-Government Act, to promote the 

use of the Internet and other 

information technologies to provide 

increased opportunities for citizen 

access to Government information and 

services, and for other purposes. 

A review of reporting requirements 

was completed under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 

chapter 35). It was determined that the 

amendment will have no impact on 

reporting, recordkeeping, or other 

compliance requirements because it will 

remain identical to the current 

requirements. No new forms are 

proposed and no additional reporting 

requirements are necessary. 

This notice does not require 

additional information collection that 

will necessitate clearance by the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) 

beyond currently approved information 

collection. The primary sources of data 

used to complete the approved forms 

are routinely used in most business 

transactions. The forms require only a 

minimal amount of information which 

can be supplied without data processing 

equipment or a trained statistical staff. 

Thus, the information collection and 

reporting burden is relatively small. 

Requiring the same reports for all 

handlers does not significantly 

disadvantage any handler that is smaller 

than the industry average. 

Prior Documents in This Proceeding 

Notice of Hearing: Issued September 

2, 2011; published September 8, 2011 

(76 FR 55608). 

Recommended Decision: Issued 

February 24, 2012; published February 

29, 2012 (77 FR 12216). 

Final Decision: Issued June 22, 2012; 

published June 28, 2012 (77 FR 38536). 

Findings and Determinations 

The findings and determinations 

hereinafter set forth supplement those 

that were made when the order was first 

issued and when it was amended. The 

previous findings and determinations 

are hereby ratified and confirmed, 

except where they may conflict with 

those set forth herein. 

(a) Findings Upon the Basis of the 

Hearing Record 

A public hearing was held upon 

certain proposed amendments to the 

tentative marketing agreement and to 

the order regulating the handling of 

milk in the Mideast marketing area. The 

hearing was held pursuant to the 

provisions of the Agricultural Marketing 

Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 

U.S.C. 601–674), and the applicable 

rules of practice and procedure (7 CFR 

part 900). 

Upon the basis of the evidence 

introduced at such hearing and the 

record thereof, it is found that: 

(1) The said order as hereby amended, 

and all of the terms and conditions 

thereof, will tend to effectuate the 

declared policy of the Act; 

(2) The parity prices of milk, as 

determined pursuant to section 2 of the 

Act, are not reasonable in view of the 

price of feeds, available supplies of 

feeds, and other economic conditions 

which affect market supply and demand 

for milk in the aforesaid marketing area. 

The minimum prices specified in the 

order as hereby amended are such 

prices as will reflect the aforesaid 

factors, insure a sufficient quantity of 

pure and wholesome milk, and be in the 

public interest; and 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 166 / Monday, August 27, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 51695 

(3) The said order as hereby amended 

regulates the handling of milk in the 

same manner as, and is applicable only 

to persons in the respective classes of 

industrial or commercial activity 

specified in, a marketing agreement 

upon which a hearing has been held. 

(b) Additional Findings 

The amendment to this order is 

known to handlers. The final decision 

containing the proposed amendment to 

this order was issued on June 22, 2012, 

and published in the Federal Register 

on June 28, 2012 (77 FR 38536). 

The changes that result from this 

amendment will not require extensive 

preparation or substantial alteration in 

the method of operation for handlers. In 

view of the foregoing, it is hereby found 

and determined that good cause exists 

for making this amendment effective 

following October 1, 2012. (Section 

553(d), Administrative Procedures Act, 

5 U.S.C. 551–559.) 

(c) Determinations 

It is hereby determined that: 

(1) The refusal or failure of handlers 

(excluding cooperative associations 

specified in section 8c(9) of the AMAA) 

of more than 50 percent of the milk, 

which is marketed within the specified 

marketing areas, to sign a proposed 

marketing agreement, tends to prevent 

the effectuation of the declared policy of 

the AMAA; 

(2) The issuance of this order 

amending the Mideast order is the only 

practical means pursuant to the 

declared policy of the AMAA of 

advancing the interests of producers as 

defined in the orders as hereby 

amended; and 

(3) The issuance of this order 

amending the Mideast order is favored 

by at least two-thirds of the producers 

who were engaged in the production of 

milk for sale in the respective marketing 

areas. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1033 

Milk marketing orders. 

Order Relative to Handling 

It is therefore ordered, that on and 

after the effective date hereof, the 

handling of milk in the Mideast 

marketing area shall be in conformity to 

and in compliance with the terms and 

conditions of the order, as amended, 

and as hereby amended, as follows: 

For reasons set forth in the preamble, 

7 CFR part 1033 is amended as follows: 

PART 1033—MILK IN THE MIDEAST 

MARKETING AREA 

■ 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR 

part 1033 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674, and 7253. 

■ 2. Amend § 1033.7 by revising 

paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 1033.7 Pool Plant. 

* * * * * 

(a) A distributing plant, other than a 

plant qualified as a pool plant pursuant 

to paragraph (b) of this section or 

§ __.7(b) of any other Federal milk order, 

from which during the month 30 

percent or more of the total quantity of 

fluid milk products physically received 

at the plant (excluding concentrated 

milk received from another plant by 

agreement for other than class I use) are 

disposed of as route disposition or are 

transferred in the form of packaged fluid 

milk products to other distributing 

plants. At least 25 percent of such route 

disposition and transfers must be to 

outlets in the marketing area. Plants 

located within the marketing area that 

meet the 30 percent route disposition 

standard contained above, and have 

combined route disposition and 

transfers of at least 50 percent into 

Federal order marketing areas will be 

regulated as a distributing plant in this 

order. 

* * * * * 

Dated: August 21, 2012. 

David R. Shipman, 

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2012–20973 Filed 8–24–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2011–0945; Directorate 

Identifier 2011–NE–18–AD; Amendment 39– 

17161; AD 2012–16–14] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Honeywell 

International Inc. Turbofan Engines 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for all 

Honeywell International Inc. TFE731– 

20R, –20AR, –20BR, –40, –40AR, –40R, 

–50R, and –60 turbofan engines. This 

AD was prompted by a report of a 

quality escape of about 8,000 2nd stage 

low-pressure turbine (LPT2) rotor 

blades, manufactured by Honeywell 

Chihuahua Manufacturing Operation 

since 2009. This AD requires removing 

and inspecting certain LPT2 rotor 

blades. We are issuing this AD to correct 

an unsafe condition caused by these 

blades installed on these engines. 

DATES: This AD is effective October 1, 

2012. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

of a certain publication listed in the AD 

as of October 1, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: For service information 

identified in this AD, contact Honeywell 

International Inc., 111 S. 34th Street, 

Phoenix, AZ 85034–2802; Web site: 

http://portal.honeywell.com; or call 

Honeywell toll free at phone: 800–601– 

3099 (U.S./Canada) or 602–365–3099 

(International Direct). 

You may view this service 

information at the FAA, Engine & 

Propeller Directorate, 12 New England 

Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803. 

For information on the availability of 

this material at the FAA, call 781–238– 

7125. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov; or in person at the 

Docket Management Facility between 9 

a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD 

docket contains this AD, the regulatory 

evaluation, any comments received, and 

other information. The address for the 

Docket Office (phone: 800–647–5527) is 

Document Management Facility, U.S. 

Department of Transportation, Docket 

Operations, M–30, West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, 

DC 20590. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Joseph Costa, Aerospace Engineer, Los 

Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, CA 

90712–4137; phone: 562–627–5246; fax: 

562–627–5210; email: 

joseph.costa@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Discussion 

We issued a Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR 

part 39 to include an AD that would 

apply to the specified products. That 

NPRM published in the Federal 

Register on January 9, 2012 (77 FR 

1043). That NPRM proposed to require 

removing and inspecting certain LPT2 

rotor blades. 

Comments 

We gave the public the opportunity to 

participate in developing this AD. We 

received no comments on the NPRM. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES